LE/Military marked mags

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joined
Mar 3, 2010
Messages
1,532
Likes
184
Location
Central MA
Feedback: 24 / 0 / 0
Does anyone know the law, or case history, for the legality of a person in possession of LE/Military marked Glock 22 hi-cap magazines that was formerly in law enforcement when they bought the magazines, but no longer works in the field. They were legally purchased at the time, but he now works in a differant (other than law enforcement) capacity.

I searched old threads for this topic, but didn't find a question specifically about this
 
i do believe they'd be a no-go. they were clearly produced during the ban and not kosher for the subjects of MA to possess.
 
It's a felony for a MA resident to privately own any mag of > 10 round capacity that was manufactured after Sept '94. There are no exceptions and that includes current or former police officers.

(IANAL)
 
It's a felony for a MA resident to privately own any mag of > 10 round capacity that was manufactured after Sept '94. There are no exceptions and that includes current or former police officers.

(IANAL)
*******
I guess that makes me an Enemy of the State.
 
Does anyone know the law, or case history, for the legality of a person in possession of LE/Military marked Glock 22 hi-cap magazines that was formerly in law enforcement when they bought the magazines, but no longer works in the field. They were legally purchased at the time, but he now works in a differant (other than law enforcement) capacity.

I searched old threads for this topic, but didn't find a question specifically about this

Thought might have read something about being retired from the force can also carry on the badge. I'd have to ask around for you. I know a supervisor who's spot on with the glock mag stuff. You mentioned military/LE marked? Are you referring to where the G is located? That tells you when the mag was made. Are there some other marking that your referring to? I ask because my hi cap mags don't have any other markings then the G logo.
 
Thought might have read something about being retired from the force can also carry on the badge. I'd have to ask around for you. I know a supervisor who's spot on with the glock mag stuff. You mentioned military/LE marked? Are you referring to where the G is located? That tells you when the mag was made. Are there some other marking that your referring to? I ask because my hi cap mags don't have any other markings then the G logo.

No. What he's referring to is mags that were made between the start of the '94 Federal AW ban and the 2004 sunset, which by law had to be marked "For LE/gov't use only" if they were above 10 rounds capacity. Since the sunset of the federal ban they generally do not mark mags like this anymore (which is why there are pre-ban, ban, and post-ban categories of magazines to be aware of).

The current interpretation from EOPS is that these are legal only for LE/gov't employees in their active government duties - that is, the LEO can carry a high-cap on patrol, but can't posses them at home for their personal defense. That hasn't necessarily been the interpretation in the past, and I don't know of any LEO actually charged with post-ban high cap possession.
 
The current interpretation from EOPS is that these are legal only for LE/gov't employees in their active government duties - that is, the LEO can carry a high-cap on patrol, but can't posses them at home for their personal defense. That hasn't necessarily been the interpretation in the past, and I don't know of any LEO actually charged with post-ban high cap possession.

It just seems wrong for someone to have to get rid of property that they legally purchased at the time (The department allowed use of private firearms for work so long as they qualified with them). Being this state though it should be expected!
 
Thought might have read something about being retired from the force can also carry on the badge. I'd have to ask around for you. I know a supervisor who's spot on with the glock mag stuff. You mentioned military/LE marked? Are you referring to where the G is located? That tells you when the mag was made. Are there some other marking that your referring to? I ask because my hi cap mags don't have any other markings then the G logo.

no it doesn't. not even glock will identify when a mag was manufactured, because they don't play this bullshit. neg repping you for BS info.

as it currently stands the easiest way to determine an "old-ass" mag is the U-notch, and a new-ass mag will be the ambi mag catch release which is for sure a new production magazine. everything in the middle is "whatever" status. if the mag is not marked LE/gov this is how you can "kinda" tell.
 
No. What he's referring to is mags that were made between the start of the '94 Federal AW ban and the 2004 sunset, which by law had to be marked "For LE/gov't use only" if they were above 10 rounds capacity. Since the sunset of the federal ban they generally do not mark mags like this anymore (which is why there are pre-ban, ban, and post-ban categories of magazines to be aware of).

The current interpretation from EOPS is that these are legal only for LE/gov't employees in their active government duties - that is, the LEO can carry a high-cap on patrol, but can't posses them at home for their personal defense. That hasn't necessarily been the interpretation in the past, and I don't know of any LEO actually charged with post-ban high cap possession.

Thank you for the clarification. That's why i was asking what exactly he was referring to. Like I said, I know depending on the year the G symbol is stamped in a different location or not at all on the mags.
 
Thank you for the clarification. That's why i was asking what exactly he was referring to. Like I said, I know depending on the year the G symbol is stamped in a different location or not at all on the mags.

[video=youtube_share;WrjwaqZfjIY]http://youtu.be/WrjwaqZfjIY[/video]

negged AGAIN. goddamn dude, stop spreading bullshit, we're not trying to fertilize a field here.
 

This ninja is in a mall.

MallNinja.jpg
 
[video=youtube_share;WrjwaqZfjIY]http://youtu.be/WrjwaqZfjIY[/video]

negged AGAIN. goddamn dude, stop spreading bullshit, we're not trying to fertilize a field here.


Damn dude you ****ed him up. That is the first red block I have seen on the forum. What is your rep power? How many points are you taking w/ each neg rep?
Love the Dr Cox by BTW he is hands down the funniest person on that show...
 
It's a felony for a MA resident to privately own any mag of > 10 round capacity that was manufactured after Sept '94. There are no exceptions and that includes current or former police officers.

(IANAL)

This misses the mark on a couple of points:

Prohibition is not limited to Massachusetts residents.

Prohibition is not ownership, but rather "sell, offer for sale, transfer or possess".

There is a limited exception for police officers.

Full text of relevant statute:



Section 131M. No person shall sell, offer for sale, transfer or possess an assault weapon or a large capacity feeding device that was not otherwise lawfully possessed on September 13, 1994. Whoever not being licensed under the provisions of section 122 violates the provisions of this section shall be punished, for a first offense, by a fine of not less than $1,000 nor more than $10,000 or by imprisonment for not less than one year nor more than ten years, or by both such fine and imprisonment, and for a second offense, by a fine of not less than $5,000 nor more than $15,000 or by imprisonment for not less than five years nor more than 15 years, or by both such fine and imprisonment.

The provisions of this section shall not apply to: (i) the possession by a law enforcement officer for purposes of law enforcement; or (ii) the possession by an individual who is retired from service with a law enforcement agency and is not otherwise prohibited from receiving such a weapon or feeding device from such agency upon retirement.
 
This misses the mark on a couple of points:

Prohibition is not limited to Massachusetts residents.

Prohibition is not ownership, but rather "sell, offer for sale, transfer or possess".

There is a limited exception for police officers.

Full text of relevant statute:



Section 131M. No person shall sell, offer for sale, transfer or possess an assault weapon or a large capacity feeding device that was not otherwise lawfully possessed on September 13, 1994. Whoever not being licensed under the provisions of section 122 violates the provisions of this section shall be punished, for a first offense, by a fine of not less than $1,000 nor more than $10,000 or by imprisonment for not less than one year nor more than ten years, or by both such fine and imprisonment, and for a second offense, by a fine of not less than $5,000 nor more than $15,000 or by imprisonment for not less than five years nor more than 15 years, or by both such fine and imprisonment.

The provisions of this section shall not apply to: (i) the possession by a law enforcement officer for purposes of law enforcement; or (ii) the possession by an individual who is retired from service with a law enforcement agency and is not otherwise prohibited from receiving such a weapon or feeding device from such agency upon retirement.

Ummm you proved yourself wrong with your own post. read the first line of the law again. Pay special attention to the word POSSESS! Possession IS ownership. Here I made it bold for you....
 
Damn dude you ****ed him up. That is the first red block I have seen on the forum. What is your rep power? How many points are you taking w/ each neg rep?
Love the Dr Cox by BTW he is hands down the funniest person on that show...

Rep power is disabled here. It's only one point up or down each time. It got "out of hand" shall we say a while back.

He's definitely not the first person to go red, though I'll say that being in the red usually means you don't hang out for very long historically speaking.
 
Rep power is disabled here. It's only one point up or down each time. It got "out of hand" shall we say a while back.

He's definitely not the first person to go red, though I'll say that being in the red usually means you don't hang out for very long historically speaking.

Yeah, and Primus has been getting negged quite a bit in the.... week? Two weeks? He's been on here. Quite a few of those were me [rolleyes]
 
Sorry to jump in on this thread. Have a question. The LE/GOV label issue, do you mean that before 1994 magazines did not reference LE/GOV Use Only?

Sent from my mini iPad, because it's way cooler than my laptop, using Forum Runner
 
To the OP:

Current "interpretation" by EOPS is that ALL post-9/13/1994 large-cap mags MUST be owned by the department. None can be personally owned at any time by current LEOs. The law says upon retirement the PD/department can gift the mags to the retiring officer but there is no mention of how you prove that.

There isn't much respect in LE for that interpretation, but it is the current attitude in MA!
 
Sorry to jump in on this thread. Have a question. The LE/GOV label issue, do you mean that before 1994 magazines did not reference LE/GOV Use Only?

Sent from my mini iPad, because it's way cooler than my laptop, using Forum Runner

Right. The "Restricted Law Enforcement / Gov't Use Only" label was etched into magazine bodies and/or magazine floor plates during the 1994-2004 Federal AWB period.

Slaves in Massachusetts are still prohibited from owning them.
 
Sorry to jump in on this thread. Have a question. The LE/GOV label issue, do you mean that before 1994 magazines did not reference LE/GOV Use Only?

Sent from my mini iPad, because it's way cooler than my laptop, using Forum Runner

Correct. That marking was mandated by BATFE for all mags made between 9/13/1994 thru 9/12/2004.
 
Ummm you proved yourself wrong with your own post. read the first line of the law again. Pay special attention to the word POSSESS! Possession IS ownership. Here I made it bold for you....

No. For example, a drug mule could possess a brick of cocaine, but he doesn't own it. Ownership and possession aren't the same.
 
Right. The "Restricted Law Enforcement / Gov't Use Only" label was etched into magazine bodies and/or magazine floor plates during the 1994-2004 Federal AWB period.

Slaves in Massachusetts are still prohibited from owning them.

Thank you
From a slave......:)

Sent from my mini iPad, because it's way cooler than my laptop, using Forum Runner
 
[video=youtube_share;WrjwaqZfjIY]http://youtu.be/WrjwaqZfjIY[/video]

negged AGAIN. goddamn dude, stop spreading bullshit, we're not trying to fertilize a field here.

Hahaha .... oh crap that made my night [rofl]
 
To the OP:

Current "interpretation" by EOPS is that ALL post-9/13/1994 large-cap mags MUST be owned by the department. None can be personally owned at any time by current LEOs. The law says upon retirement the PD/department can gift the mags to the retiring officer but there is no mention of how you prove that.

There isn't much respect in LE for that interpretation, but it is the current attitude in MA!
Len, is this a "new" interpretation with current people in that position? Did it change from a prior ruling? Is there any known case law regarding this?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom