can anyone point me towards the laws on pre ban hi caps, specifically laws on rebuilding them. Basically i am looking into the legality of changing a pre ban magazines body.
-
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.
-
Be sure to enter the NES/MFS May Giveaway ***Canik METE SFX***
MA pre ban magazine laws
- Thread starter burnedtolfe
- Start date
Here is the text of the applicable statute:
"Chapter 140: Section 131M. Assault weapon or large capacity feeding device not lawfully possessed on September 13, 1994; sale, transfer or possession; punishment
"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."
As you can see, the question you raise is not directly addressed, and so becomes a matter of interpretation. So far as I am aware, there are no reported decisions on how the courts have interpreted this statute in the context of the question you raise.
Being a test case can be costly.
"Chapter 140: Section 131M. Assault weapon or large capacity feeding device not lawfully possessed on September 13, 1994; sale, transfer or possession; punishment
"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."
As you can see, the question you raise is not directly addressed, and so becomes a matter of interpretation. So far as I am aware, there are no reported decisions on how the courts have interpreted this statute in the context of the question you raise.
Being a test case can be costly.
The magazine body is the magazine. it is the part that was dated during the fed ban. I don't see any viable argument that would justify replacing the body in the law. It either was or it was not possessed by sep 13 1994. You certainly cold not replace the damaged pre-ban body with a post ban dated one. If you are replacing the body you are replacing the mag.
ETA: all the other parts of the mag have 3rd party replacement parts. the body doesn't.
ETA: all the other parts of the mag have 3rd party replacement parts. the body doesn't.
Companies like C-Products sell just the bodies of magazines. This topic has been discussed here before and it was determined that we do not know what part of the magazine would be considered the magazine as the law does not specifically address that point. You can't simply say it's the dated magazine body because not all magazine bodies are stamped or dated like C-products. IIRC during the fed ban it was determined that you could replace the body with a new one but you were advised to keep the old crushed one around just for backup so you could show the new body was a replacement.
Well considering that when the feds required dated mags, they only dated the bodies, that seems to be sufficient reason to me that the body is considered the mag. I may be totally off base and you make good points. Like all vague MA gun laws, it comes down to risk assessment. For me, I would rather just buy another pre-ban mag for $10 and refinish it to look new, than take the chance of getting jacked up for a magazine that I can easily replace with a known pre-ban one.
Chris
NES Member
- Joined
- May 24, 2005
- Messages
- 13,395
- Likes
- 8,239
I'm not a lawyer, but basically, if a law does not prohibit something, it is legal.
No law says you can't repair a damaged magazine or prescribes how it can be repaired. So long as you retain the evidence that you started with a legal mag and in the end you ONLY have that magazine, I can't see how you have violated the law. This does not mean you can add capacity.
This also means you can't go having a bunch of spare parts around if it were possible to assemble a new mag from those parts. I would also make a point to obviously make any replaced part inoperative so there is no question that you can't assemble it into a 'new' magazine.
So, if you had a pre-ban that was damaged and you kept the damaged body with the receipt for the new body in your files, if the question ever arose, I can't see how anyone would find an issue.
But we all know that Courts can and do find wording that isn't in the law. If at all possible, avoid the situation and the chance to become a test case. If you can still obtain a real pre-ban, do so.
I do not know ANY case that has ever been tried on this law. Because there is no precedent or ruling to guide us (and the jerks who wrote the law failed in their duty to be clear, concise, and consistent) all we can do is guess at what is or isn't allowed.
If this were a car, I could take that car, replace every single part with a brand new one and still register it as the original car. You'd think similar standards would apply.
No law says you can't repair a damaged magazine or prescribes how it can be repaired. So long as you retain the evidence that you started with a legal mag and in the end you ONLY have that magazine, I can't see how you have violated the law. This does not mean you can add capacity.
This also means you can't go having a bunch of spare parts around if it were possible to assemble a new mag from those parts. I would also make a point to obviously make any replaced part inoperative so there is no question that you can't assemble it into a 'new' magazine.
So, if you had a pre-ban that was damaged and you kept the damaged body with the receipt for the new body in your files, if the question ever arose, I can't see how anyone would find an issue.
But we all know that Courts can and do find wording that isn't in the law. If at all possible, avoid the situation and the chance to become a test case. If you can still obtain a real pre-ban, do so.
I do not know ANY case that has ever been tried on this law. Because there is no precedent or ruling to guide us (and the jerks who wrote the law failed in their duty to be clear, concise, and consistent) all we can do is guess at what is or isn't allowed.
If this were a car, I could take that car, replace every single part with a brand new one and still register it as the original car. You'd think similar standards would apply.
![[laugh]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/012.gif "Laugh [laugh]")
A lawyer is probably going to tell you to get another preban mag if it's that broken that it needs the tube replaced. Could you elaborate, please? I have seen in other threads where you have asserted this, and there is reference to a ruling from the ATF, but I am unable to find said letter. Do you know where I could find it?
Yes, but if you replace the body of the car, which contains the V.I.N., it is no longer the original car, and could not be registered as such.
I would say that the body is the magazine. I think the intent of the law is to grandfather those people who had hi caps at the time of the ban to maintain possession of those mags. The drafters of the law expected that over time those magazines would be damaged and would be out of circulation. Eventually there would be no more functioning preban mags left. If you allow the replacement of the follower, the spring, and the body, the magazines will never expire.
That is the reasoning behind "grandfather clauses" and it is the argument the prosecuted would make.
That is the reasoning behind "grandfather clauses" and it is the argument the prosecuted would make.
You don't know what you're talking about... a great number of mags have dated floorplates, not dated bodies. Nor is the body defined as the feeding device either in MA law or in the expired Federal law.
You have multiple issues confused here. The grandfather clause has nothing to do with the definition of a magazine. The clause was put in there because it would have been impossible and political suicide to pass a law demanding confiscation.
Last edited:
[/QUOTE]You have multiple issues confused here. The grandfather clause has nothing to do with the definition of a magazine. The clause was put in there because it would have been impossible and political suicide to pass a law demanding confiscation.[/QUOTE]
That is a correct statement. I understand that the grandfather clause does not define what a magazine is. However, there is an argument to be made that allowing the replacement of the body of the magazine defeats the intended purpose of the law and was not within the intent of the grandfather clause which was, as you noted, to avoid confiscation creating a political firestorm and let the magazines eventually wear out and become unusable taking them out of circulation. I am not saying this is an absolute fact just an argument that could very easily be made.
That is a correct statement. I understand that the grandfather clause does not define what a magazine is. However, there is an argument to be made that allowing the replacement of the body of the magazine defeats the intended purpose of the law and was not within the intent of the grandfather clause which was, as you noted, to avoid confiscation creating a political firestorm and let the magazines eventually wear out and become unusable taking them out of circulation. I am not saying this is an absolute fact just an argument that could very easily be made.
Why do you say that? If it's pre-ban then it is already large capacity device. I was under the impression the law stated you could not create a NEW large capacity device.
Um... many AR-15 magazines have dates on the floorplate.
I don't think you understand the original intent of the law. The law had nothing to do with letting old magazines wear out. It was simply a law against making new ones.
Increasing the capacity of a pre-existing large capacity feeding device does not constitute creating a new large capacity feeding device.
Grant, use the new Slap Forehead emoticon!
And this is for what reason?
Scriv, do you have text on this? I'd love to see it. Even if a brief synopsis from memory. In my futile searches I've only been able to come up with prosecutions based off "Possession of an LCAFD without a license" which as you know, is a completely different section of MGL. (and far easier to prosecute). I'm curious to see what the standard of evidence would be in an AWB prosecution. Of course, if this was an LE marked mag involved, that's probably the most boring and uninteresting example, since that's basically a slam dunk for the prosecution.
-Mike
So I am searching the web and stumble upon a site selling various magazines.
They state on their site they will ship hi-caps disassembled as a 'repair kit', as a bunch of parts to MA, CA, NY, etc. Not one wanting to be a test case I don't think I'd bother as pre-bans for most everything are available.
Comments?
They state on their site they will ship hi-caps disassembled as a 'repair kit', as a bunch of parts to MA, CA, NY, etc. Not one wanting to be a test case I don't think I'd bother as pre-bans for most everything are available.
Comments?
Didn't you read the thread? There are no clean interpretation on this. The ATF standard was, that you could replace anything, as long as you were not producing an entire extra magazine out of the deal. Not sure if that would hold water in MA or not, since there hasn't been any case law in MA that shows them adopting interpretations used by the feds during the AWB.
-Mike
Twigg
NES Member
For provenance on pre-ban AR mags take a look at The AR-15 Magazine FAQ by Troy Tiscareno
Here is a random Pre-ban AR floorplate:
I'm no expert on Pre-Ban AR mags but I've never seen a magazine body with a date stamped on it.
NOT sayin' they don't exist.
The Okay Industry mags I have, they have a manuf date and a cage code stamped in them. I've seen lots of pre and post bans with date codes. I also have a crapload of preban mags that have no codes or markings whatsoever. They came with blank floorplates, too!
-Mike
Twigg
NES Member
Yeah, and I had about twenty OKAY mags without any kind of codes on them and one "pre-ban" mag I purchased at a MA gunstore with a blank floorplate as well. ...and then there is the subject of Glock pre-bans... ![[popcorn]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/043.gif "Popcorn [popcorn]")
![[banghead]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/045.gif "Bang Head [banghead]")
Not to rub it in but I'm so glad I don't have to deal with this "Pre-Ban" bullcrap anymore !
Not to rub it in but I'm so glad I don't have to deal with this "Pre-Ban" bullcrap anymore !
