MA: Identifying Pre-Ban Glock Mags

MarkM

MarkM

Joined
Feb 2, 2006
Messages
1,787
Likes
50
Location
NH
Feedback: 1 / 0 / 0
preban.jpg


(credit for image: massnee)

For comparison, here is a pic of one of my Ban "le/govt only" mags:

leonlyglock.jpg


wherewolf kindly provided the following 2 pics of different generations of pre-ban glock mags:

wherewolfglock.jpg


wherewolfglock2.jpg




(Feel free to PM any additional info or corrections to help people identify preban mags and I will add to this post or you can always add below, please try to keep this on the facts and ask questions in seperate threads, thanks)
 
re: preban glock mags

Of course... problem I have with this is... wheres the
proof? I see generations of glock mags here... but where is the supporting
documentation (from someone in the know, say at Glock) that says "x was
made during Y" etc. Is there a released statement from glock, or say, a
publication from the AFTE (association of firearm and tool mark examiners) or
somesuch that would be able to conclusively verify which is which. I'm
guessing at one point glock had changed the way they fabricated magazines.
Depending on where you go for the info, things change. (eg, Glockmeister
has a pic which clearly shows prebans as being the "jail bait" mags).

There are obvious ones... like we all know anything that says .357 on it
is generally made during the ban or after it was passed. But everything
else is considerably more muddy.

Reason I ask is that this stuff is always muddy. A perfect example
is the HK USP .45 mag controversy. There are a group of people who
claim that there are prebans, because at least one individual had imported
prebans which were manufactured by HK germany, before the ban took
effect, even though the gun didn't exist here at that time. Of course
HK-USA swears up and down they're not prebans, but they don't know about
this one vendors end around on their supply chain. (And he obstensibly got
BATF approval to import the things, too... if they were illegal, he would have
been denied an import permit.).

-Mike
 
Do a search on prior posts regarding Glock Mags and the fact that Glock-USA doesn't even know which mags are pre-ban but look like banned mags in MA!

I posted a long explanation before but I guess it was on another forum. If I find it, I'll re-post it here on NES.

Pick up Pat Sweeney's book on Glock and look at the chapter about Mags, you'll get the idea.
 
All of this discussion helps demonstrate why, in another thread, I recommended that one of GOAL's priorities should be to change the law regarding the prohibition of AWB-era and post-ban magazines. Toomuch confusion, not to mention that it really makes no sense in supposedly fighting "crime".
 
FPrice said:
All of this discussion helps demonstrate why, in another thread, I recommended that one of GOAL's priorities should be to change the law regarding the prohibition of AWB-era and post-ban magazines. Toomuch confusion, not to mention that it really makes no sense in supposedly fighting "crime".
Click to expand...

I agree, the magazine thing needs to go... as the regs are presently
written, it's basically unenforceable anyways.... with a few exceptions... eg
LEO marked mags, or having hicaps for a gun that didn't exist before the ban
was passed into law- Those would be trivially easy for a prosecutor to
use to put some hurt on you. But what are they going to do about the
other magazines.... are they going to subpeona a glock factory worker from
austria to come in and testify as to when he thinks the magazine was
made? This is why I mentioned the AFTE. If I was a member, I could
get into their database to see if forensics/evidence people have any reliable
way of determining when a magazine was actually made.

At least on the federal side, the burden of proof was placed on the
goverment to say that you had magazines which weren't exempt from
the ban. And I believe the requirement was that it has the LEO markings
or a serial number of some sort. Since the MA AWB is virtually a copy
of the old federal one, wouldn't the burden of proof requirement
be the same?

I think it would do GOAL well to even suggest to the legislative types that
they change the regulation to one of "unlawful possesion" like that with the
body armor. EG, if a high capacity magazine is used in commision of a
crime, it's some kind of tack on charge, but lawful use (eg lawful self
defense, sport/target use) is permitted. This way the idea is more
saleable to the cronies that want to act "tough on crime" but it still
allows law abiding citizens to posess/use normal magazines.

-Mike
 
drgrant said:
I think it would do GOAL well to even suggest to the legislative types that
they change the regulation to one of "unlawful possesion" like that with the
body armor. EG, if a high capacity magazine is used in commision of a
crime, it's some kind of tack on charge, but lawful use (eg lawful self
defense, sport/target use) is permitted. This way the idea is more
saleable to the cronies that want to act "tough on crime" but it still
allows law abiding citizens to posess/use normal magazines.

-Mike
Click to expand...

This idea makes a lot of sense. I'm just worried that the spirit of the idea would get twisted around by overzealous AG's. Imagine having to defend your use of a high cap during a home invasion:
"Sir, why was it necessary for you to have in your possession this 15 round 'assault' magazine to defend against an single burgular?"
It also recognizes or implies the perception of a high cap as something inherently more dangerous or evil. This would have to be very carefully worded...

Regards,
Chris
 
LenS said:
Do a search on prior posts regarding Glock Mags and the fact that Glock-USA doesn't even know which mags are pre-ban but look like banned mags in MA!

I posted a long explanation before but I guess it was on another forum. If I find it, I'll re-post it here on NES.

Pick up Pat Sweeney's book on Glock and look at the chapter about Mags, you'll get the idea.
Click to expand...

Late last year I had a long telephone conversation with an armorer in Smyrna, GA, who stated the same. He claimed that there is a large 'bin full of mags' in the shop, and that some armorers will pull parts from these assembled mags to jury-rig new mags. He also stated that Glock does not use the "Generation" terminology, and that it is essentially meaningless because Glock makes small modifications to its magazines constantly.
 
if your telling me that i can go to jail for the type of magazine i carry in my gun then thats just crazy...not to blast any LEO's on here but most LEO's ive encountered barely know what kind of gun THEY carry...let alone what a preban vs postban mag is...at the last gun show i went to when i had to check my gun at the door the cop that was there said to me, after examaning my gun..."hey nice gun...what kind is it? what caliber is it?" my ccw is a glock 23...i dont know about you but i can spot a glock a mile away...and the caliber is a dead give away if you look at the slide and or chamber...if you put 100 cops in a room and asked them identify a preban vs a postban mag i guarantee 99 wouldnt know the difference...this stuff drives me nuts!!!!!!!!!!
 
Most likely it won't be the cop who cares about the mag. If you had to use you gun in self defense or another situation it will become evidence. You can bet your ass that the other parties representatives are going to check that gun and or components for any possible flaw they can.
 
On a LE forum that I recently dropped off of, someone (LE) claimed that "many LEOs in Middlesex County know 'exactly what to look for' and are looking to jam people up with Glock mags." Both a troubling and interesting statement, especially when the folks at Glock-US can't absolutely ID pre-ban from banned mags!!
 
LenS said:
On a LE forum that I recently dropped off of, someone (LE) claimed that "many LEOs in Middlesex County know 'exactly what to look for'
Click to expand...

Can you ask the LEO to grace us with this wisdom. Inquiring minds want to know.[laugh]
 
LenS said:
On a LE forum that I recently dropped off of, someone (LE) claimed that "many LEOs in Middlesex County know 'exactly what to look for' and are looking to jam people up with Glock mags." Both a troubling and interesting statement, especially when the folks at Glock-US can't absolutely ID pre-ban from banned mags!!
Click to expand...
Len I just went over "there" and searched for something on this. I couldn't find it. Post the link so we can see what they're talking about.
 
BJ, we do NOT want these folks here, trust me!! They spend their life trash-talking other LEOs. I'm sure that they have even more disdain for mere peasants!

Jon, I did not leave that forum "quietly" . . . I sent Email to the owner and most visible Mod about the threats and trash-talking of one group of LEOs towards ALL other types of LEOs. I won't have my IP address show up on their logs again. I made it clear that I was leaving for good (all this was done privately, nothing was stated by me publicly there). I did not save links to their threads, sorry.

I suggest a search for multiple keywords of middlesex, glock, ban, etc. It should be findable, but I do not remember who posted it except that it was probably ~4 months ago now. The particular LEO claimed that he and others were "trained what to look for in Glock mags specifically".
 
ChristosX said:
This idea makes a lot of sense. I'm just worried that the spirit of the idea would get twisted around by overzealous AG's. Imagine having to defend your use of a high cap during a home invasion:
"Sir, why was it necessary for you to have in your possession this 15 round 'assault' magazine to defend against an single burgular?"
It also recognizes or implies the perception of a high cap as something inherently more dangerous or evil. This would have to be very carefully worded...

Regards,
Chris
Click to expand...

IMO, anything to clarify this in this state would be an improvement. The
AG or prosecutors twisting stuff around is nothing new. The idea is
that it would only apply if say, a person is convicted of manslaughter, murder,
etc, etc. I don't see how things could possibly be any worse in
MA. Basically CCWing in this state, we balance death vs possible jail
time. This isnt a free state where "If it looks like self defense, it
probably is" is spoken by DAs, etc, very much.

-Mike
 
Welcome to Northeast Shooters KidGlock!

I guess that you miss this part of the country more than we imagined (remember this thread on TheHighRoad.org ? http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=180030 ).

Yeah, there are problems back here but we are working on them rather than run away, even if it is to a place as beautiful as Wyoming. Remember, you can run but you can't hide.

But it's good to have you here, I hope that you will participate.

Oh, by the way, if any politicians back there need any Hunter Safety classes, we can help. We have our share of hunting accidents but they don't seem to make the national news.

Except maybe for John (s)Kerry. But in his case it was more an accident that he went hunting in the first place.

[laugh2]
 
Lynne,

Why should he bother? Check out the tag below his name.

He doesn't have to care about such BS where he lives.
 
Lynne,Lens,
Sad to say but I do care very much about the rights of ALL firearms onwers. I really have a hard time with what The People (yea that means YOU) let happen there. This forum lets me see the train of thought that is out there and its no wonder you have mag and gun bans. I miss New England very much but I cant see spending my dollars to support the repressive goverments just to visit .

Fight the good Fight

Soap Box
Ballot Box
Bullet Box
 
KIDGLOCK said:
Lynne,Lens,
Sad to say but I do care very much about the rights of ALL firearms onwers. I really have a hard time with what The People (yea that means YOU) let happen there. This forum lets me see the train of thought that is out there and its no wonder you have mag and gun bans. I miss New England very much but I cant see spending my dollars to support the repressive goverments just to visit .

Fight the good Fight

Soap Box
Ballot Box
Bullet Box
Click to expand...

We don't have the numbers for the ballet box to stop a lot of it, Kid. That's the sad and honest truth. Our numbers have been growing of late, but it's still an uphill battle whilst shoveling youknowwhat against the tide.
 
KIDGLOCK said:
Lynne,Lens,
Sad to say but I do care very much about the rights of ALL firearms onwers. I really have a hard time with what The People (yea that means YOU) let happen there. This forum lets me see the train of thought that is out there and its no wonder you have mag and gun bans. I miss New England very much but I cant see spending my dollars to support the repressive goverments just to visit .

Fight the good Fight

Soap Box
Ballot Box
Bullet Box
Click to expand...

Yep Kid. I guess you got us pegged. We let it happen and just stood around.

Why oh why didn't you stay here and show us the error of our ways and lead us out of this wilderness instead of doing the ole "cut 'n run"?
 
KIDGLOCK said:
Lynne,Lens,
Sad to say but I do care very much about the rights of ALL firearms onwers. I really have a hard time with what The People (yea that means YOU) let happen there. This forum lets me see the train of thought that is out there and its no wonder you have mag and gun bans. I miss New England very much but I cant see spending my dollars to support the repressive goverments just to visit .

Fight the good Fight

Soap Box
Ballot Box
Bullet Box
Click to expand...

There are so many things wrong with this statement I don't even know where to begin. Do you even know that over 60% of the state population is liberal here?

Kinda hard to fight legislation without the bodies. When you're from a state like Wyoming and there are only 47 people that live there, it's not too tough to get legislation passed. [rolleyes]
 
I just can't feature someone living in CT, hating the gun laws, and moving WAY out west, when there's a state (VT) within a days drive that has NEVER required Carry Permits. Also a state that's "Shall Issue" is about the same distance (NH).
 
Frosty, please don't dump on Kid. We all have our reasons for staying/leaving and guns may not be the only reason to make a decision!

Kid, to be truthful, as Lynne pointed out we don't have the numbers to be effective with legislation here. Here are some reasons, but I'm sure that there are plenty of others as well.

- When FIDs were issued for "life" (pre 1998) we had a total of ~1.5 million people in MA with LTC and/or FID. MANY had both, many had moved/died and so this number is not at all reflective of the true number of gun owners.

- We are highly fractionalized. Most hunters/skeet/trap shooters in MA don't care about CCW and thus see no need to support (or join) GOAL. I've witnessed this in a club where I was the Legislative Chairman for 14 years (and belonged to said club for 24 years before quitting in disgust).

- GOAL has less than 20K members, not a huge group when legislators count votes won/lost due to their stand on gun issues.

-Most gun owners that I know will vote for larger SS checks, more welfare over protecting gun owners rights when push comes to shove.

Some of us aren't able to cut and run. Some of us fight the system in our own ways and try to make a difference.
 
Len,

Like Nickle, I have had interactions with KidGlock on other forums and have seen the same ideas expressed regarding his opinion of those of us who remain back east.

But your point is well taken. I'll try to be more polite in future discussions.

Or, at least, more funnier.
 
Back
Top Bottom