-
If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership The benefits pay for the membership many times over.
MA: Identifying Pre-Ban Glock Mags
- Thread starter MarkM
- Start date
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2005
- Messages
- 47,515
- Likes
- 33,526
Remember, there is a big difference between unconfirmed folklore about magazine features, positions of markings, and court admissible sworn testimony from an authoritative source.
Mag is dated 9-13-94 which is preban, no?
I thought Post ban became effective 9-14-94 and later.
What am I missing? Is the Mass date one day different than the federal ban date?
- Joined
- Nov 6, 2008
- Messages
- 1,271
- Likes
- 184
They put that date on all post ban magazines. That doesn't mean it was made on that date.
Correct that anything made ON or before 9/13/1994 is legal and grandfathered.
The law apparently went into effect at the end of the day on 9/13/1994 and Glock chose to mark their Post-Ban mags with that date. Yes it causes confusion.
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2005
- Messages
- 47,515
- Likes
- 33,526
Adding to the confusion - is it proven that Glock did not make any of the mags with the new markings until after the ban? Is it possible some of the mags were made that way in anticipation of the ban going into effect in order to build up inventory? If so, would those be pre or post ban mags?
According to numerous Glock Armorers Class instructors, Glock raised the caliber markings to make room for the LEO markings underneath, before the ban. They were running at full tilt before that day. On the day of the ban, all mags since had the LEO markings printed below the high caliber markings.
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2005
- Messages
- 47,515
- Likes
- 33,526
1. Did the instructors state that the markings were added only after midnight on the day of the ban, and no marked mags were made to build inventory so they would be ready for distribution on the ban date?
2. Will Glock provide experts with company records to swear to this in court?
Rob,
It would have been dumb to flood distribution with post-ban mags on 9/14. Instead they flooded the market with grandfathered pre-ban mags until they ran out. I can't see why they would rush crippled mags to market.
My understanding is that all AR mag mfrs did the same thing.
The instructor who first told of this was with the company at the time and provided lots of interesting mass centric info.
He stated with certainty that no LEO marked mags were made before the ban.
His explanation to the high caliber mags in existence was nice to hear as well.
This is the go to book for mass legal mag questions. A whole long chapter on mags that will help consumers stay legal.
https://www.amazon.com/Gun-Digest-Book-Glock-2nd/dp/0896896420
I'm sure Glock would not provide an expert witness for anybody.
A prosecutor would not do well try pin a charge on a legally owned mag without an expert of their own.
The rule of thumb is that even without a u notch, if there are low caliber markings, you are good to go.
Beyond that is a grey area.
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2005
- Messages
- 47,515
- Likes
- 33,526
It could also be a fact witness subject to subpoena.
Glock corporate certainly wouldn't do it but there are a few expert witness types that could run a dog and pony show well
enough to throw a gun owner squarely under the bus in front of a jury if they really wanted to go that far, and it would
work unless you had a savvy attorney that could skillfully undermine their EW.
A small bird a year or so ago dropped some leaked MA court testimony in front of me (I wasn't allowed to copy or photograph it, for obvious reasons) that outlined a case where a rabidly anti gun LEO did exactly that, and it was scary enough of a dog and pony show that guy could probably convince any typical retarded MA jury filled with 50% moonbats. It was the type of thing where you'd have to have an attorney that was capable of undermining the credibility of this LEO, either with your own EW or some pretty intense cross examination that would make the LEO look like a fool to the jury. That aside, I still believe this kind of thing to be highly improbable for a number of reasons. Usually these mag charges get tossed or used as a small part of a bargaining chip to get people to plea out to something else.
Part of the problem with legal examination of these cases is that there are very, very few of them, and 99 out of 100 of them probably get plead out or CWOFed, etc. Even FINDING a self defense case where say, someone with an LTC, faced ABDW/manslaughter + an AWB charge in the same case is exceedingly difficult. I'm not a lawyer but I think in order to see a case where expert witnesses get brought out you'd have to have a perfect storm- a defendant willing to go full boat jury trial or a bench trial with a non shitty judge, and a DA who constructed a case so poorly that they had to resort to trying to string someone up on an AWB charge to preserve their win record, with a bad LEO in the mix for frosting.
-Mike
Mike is right. I was brought in as an expert witness in one such case where a MSP trooper (ballistics "ex-spurt") wrote a report that an unmodified Norinco SKS was a large capacity weapon with large capacity clips. Lawyer didn't know what a gun was, but thankfully the PI involved knew me and got me involved otherwise the defendant would have done hard time in state prison (PI told me that after the sentencing). DA tried to throw spaghetti at the guy with made up non-law charges.
BTW: No such thing as leaked testimony unless it is a juvie case or in some sex assault cases (maybe). Entire docket is available for anyone to look at if they go to the clerk's office.
BTW: No such thing as leaked testimony unless it is a juvie case or in some sex assault cases (maybe). Entire docket is available for anyone to look at if they go to the clerk's office.
1903Collector
NES Member
I once saw some 9rnd G27 mags with the LEO only stamp on them......What the hell are those all about? Was Glock just stamping everything back then?
my personal favorites to add to the confusion...
Last edited:
Because these are two examples of the universally accepted "preban" U-notch and "preban" low caliber square notch magazines with post ban markings
Len, I'll just put it this way I think the small bird who showed me this information was prohibited by some kind of policy from doing such things for whatever reason.
-Mike
expedition03
NES Member
I say F; it and screw the LEOs that are "anti guns for non-leo citizens" and then who go buy new glocks because they think they are special. Not all LEOs are bad, just some that think they are in a special class. ![[smile]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/001.gif "Smile [smile]")
My 2 pennies.
My 2 pennies.
L & R notches are for Gen 4 Glocks. Long after the Fed Ban sunsetted, therefore illegal if large-capacity.
For Glocks? At least at the time of the federal AWB I believe "the wording of the marking" was stipulated in federal
law. I've never seen one that was top marked but not sideways marked. I wouldn't say "never" though because I've
seen enough variations of glock mags that people didn't think exist. (like that 33 round U notch with the LE markings, so much for the U notch is always pweeban" crowd types.
-Mike
Okay.... Keeping in mind that Glock won't verify this, wouldn't it logically follow that any mag that isn't stamped "restricted" (indicating a post-09/13/94 mag) and doesn't have the ambi cutout (indicating a newer mag) is pre-ban? U-notch, square notch, slant/V-notch - all preban, no?
Again, I realize that none of this can be verified with any certainty and that this is a very, very dead horse that I'm beating, but I'm bored today
![[laugh]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/012.gif "Laugh [laugh]")
I suggest reading the old Fed Law wrt what was required for a marking. IIRC a date wasn't required, but the words LE/Mil Only were required.
AFAIK, NOBODY marked mags that way until the Fed Ban came into being. There was no reason to do so and it wouldn't provide any marketing advantage.
On the other hand, EOTech puts LE/Mil markings on their sights and when the Fed Ban happened some mfrs put LE/Mil Only on their AR lowers to ID it and perhaps for marketing purposes. I suspect some mfrs continued the LE/Mil marking after the Fed Ban expired as a marketing gimmick . . . as people always want something "special" that LE or Mil have. But no such markings were required for guns before, during or after the Fed Ban (only required on mags during the ban).
AFAIK, NOBODY marked mags that way until the Fed Ban came into being. There was no reason to do so and it wouldn't provide any marketing advantage.
On the other hand, EOTech puts LE/Mil markings on their sights and when the Fed Ban happened some mfrs put LE/Mil Only on their AR lowers to ID it and perhaps for marketing purposes. I suspect some mfrs continued the LE/Mil marking after the Fed Ban expired as a marketing gimmick . . . as people always want something "special" that LE or Mil have. But no such markings were required for guns before, during or after the Fed Ban (only required on mags during the ban).
