Pre Ban?

[drgrant]

II know its a different case, but 'd like to hear what a MSP ballistics guy would say about a semi-auto shotgun with a pistol grip loaded with 7 mini shot shells. Gotta love MA for their ridiculousness.

Good defense tactic though would be to claim that it wasn't semiautomatic in that configuration because it would probably jam after each shot.

-Mike

 

[drgrant]

Mike, this isn't a problem for the prosecution. They just need to parade out the same MSP Trooper - Ballistics Ex-Spurt who testified (and filed a written ballistics report) that a standard Norinco SKS is a 11+1 rd gun with 11 rd clips in the case I refuted last year. I'm sure that he'd have no problem sharing his expertise that every large-capacity mag for Glocks are post-ban!!

I wish I were joking, but I'm not. They have these guys in their pocket who will no doubt testify to such crap to get a conviction.

While these people exist it seems to me like there is an on the ground game of chicken of sorts going on in the MA court system.

What you speak of is true, though. A long time ago Darius Arbabi (RIP) told me of a case that he had worked where the prosecutor tried to argue that a Walther P22 was "large capacity" because it could hold 11 rounds of ammunition total... He told me it was pretty easy to make it a non issue by countering it, but the fact that they tried to go to that length of a reach was pretty obnoxious.

ETA: while we're on the topic the above reason is why I laugh people who get fixated about pre ban mags and so on- because it's quite obvious that between things like that, and things like what MTBS guy" went through, if the prosecution is playing dirty pool they can still invent things to screw with people, even if you're 100% within the law. If people are that afraid of the system in general they're better off selling all their stuff or moving out of MA.

-Mike

 

[atilla]

 

[bigblue]

It should say "Gen 2 Glock 17 BNIB, only slight holster wear: Was LEO trade-in and you know they never shoot guns. $975 firm. Mags available only if you show LEO ID."

 

[drgrant]

Wheres the lasermax? (AKA the thing that nobody wants) That would make it $1200.

-Mike

 

[TomMontana]

Wheres the lasermax? (AKA the thing that nobody wants) That would make it $1200.

-Mike

And the five holsters that come with it (Serpa, Uncle Mike, Blackhawk, UTG, grand dad's old leather one)

 

[ggboy]

I thought that all post bans had
1., Ambi cut ( on both sides) ,
2., high caliber marking" ,
3., the metal "window in the front".
Does that magazine have ALL three?
ggoby

 

[bigblue]

I thought that all post bans had
1., Ambi cut ( on both sides) ,
2., high caliber marking" ,
3., the metal "window in the front".
Does that magazine have ALL three?
ggoby

It. Is. Not. That. Simple.

 

[slap shot]

Is Op in jail yet?

 

[beaker]

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That is a pre ban glock mag...

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

 

[pupchow]

At the $100 asking price, maybe the prospective buyer was attempting to devalue the item? Likely this thread wouldn't exist if the asking price were lower.

 

[daekken]

The prosecution needs to bring in an expert witness, like a forensics guy, a detective, or other LEO with enough knowledge to demonstrate to the court that the magazine in question is post ban.

The prosecutor braying "It's post ban cuz we said so" is not going to fly. That's likely why a lot of these charges seem to get dropped even before trial.

Has there ever been clear caselaw or evidence that they have to prove it as post-ban apart from the fact that it's > 10 rounds? As opposed to the defense simply just asserting it is preban. I know under the federal AWB the ruling was that if it were unmarked it was fair game, but MA hasn't adopted this. I've read in NY that for prebans the defense must prove it's preban; I have no idea if this is true or not.

I guess if both sides are claiming it's post ban/pre ban "because they say so" then you would get edge due to presumption of innocence. I'd rather not have it be that close though.

I'm just more concerned with:
- This mag is more than 10 rounds. No one disputes this
- The defense says it was lawfully possessed on/before 9/13/1994 but offers nothing further

To me, it's a little tenuous. In Mokdad, if memory serves, if it had gotten that far, the defense might have been expected to offer some sort of evidence that "someone" lawfully possessed them. If that's the case, other than saying "it was made before then, so therefore it was lawfully possessed," what can they offer? I'm sure the prosecution could offer a bunch of scenarios that could provide ways/possibilities for it to be illegal, even if made before 9/13/1994. Whether or not the jury buys them is another matter.

I'm just playing a cynical devil's advocate. EOPS or whoever sent out that letter about prebans needing to be in the state on the ban date or something in order to be legal, which is pretty garbage, but gives you insight into how they view the ban. I think you can expect them to push the "if you did not own them in MA on this date personally, they are illegal" angle. For those of us under age 43 or so, that's demonstrably impossible since we weren't 21 on the ban date.

Remember the prosecution has to basically conduct a dog and pony show to secure a conviction. If they fail in doing that, even an "MA jury" will let people off, all day long.

If that is what your experience and/or knowledge has taught you to be the case, then I have a little better impression of our peers. I just know enough people who, when presented with: "it's definitely over 10, and no one has offered further evidence either way" just might deem that as meeting reasonable doubt and go with the prosecution. I always tell people not to consent to searches but you might be surprised as how many people bite on old "if you've done nothing wrong, you have nothing to hide" angle.

In the end, my original point is that for firearms where it's relatively easy to get magazines that are 99% indisputable as having been manufactured prior to 9/13/94, I would just go that route. Everyone's acceptable risk level is different.

 

[Sf Becket]

Wtf is the deal with Massachusetts and glocks in general? I have seen used glock 42s for sale in Massachusetts for $600 that would not fetch more than $ 400 down in Connecticut....

 

[Acujeff]

I've always noticed the number holes are different on pre-bans. The holes through the metal lining on prebans are all off centered and uneven.

On postbans, they are all uniformly centered and even.

Combine tat with the raised caliber printing and the mags in question look post ban to me.

 

[Individualist]

I wouldn't give 1 cent for that mag if it was being sold as pre-ban. There is no definitive word but the majority of people on just about every forum seem to buy into that famous "generations" photo. If trying to convince a jury and nether side can prove conclusively, that may be one of the best pieces of material available to sway opinion. If I'm going to shell out $ for a pre-ban it has to be based on "the photo". It doesn't 100% eliminate the risk of getting jammed up but it mitigates the risk IMHO.

 

[pupchow]

Wtf is the deal with Massachusetts and glocks in general? I have seen used glock 42s for sale in Massachusetts for $600 that would not fetch more than $ 400 down in Connecticut....

The only people who can purchase them new from a dealer are those with LEO credentials, or those people buying from a dealer that doesn't GAF about a possible $5000 fine for selling them in violation of a supposed consumer protection regulation.

 

[Al-Jim19]

I view the mag in question as preban. Depends on your level of comfort in my opinion. You would be fine in court with that mag I think, but it depends on the level of risk you're ok with. I don't necessarily give the average MA police officer (if he's getting this intimate with your guns) much credit in discerning preban vs post an mags based on any markings, unotch or square notch, caliber markings or not. I'm sure there are some cops out there who would jam you up even for the u notch no caliber gen 1 mags....

Oddly enough, I have a cop-friend who was confused when I told him I didn't think I would ever buy an M&P or SR pistol because I couldn't get standard cap mags. He knew I had a "high capacity" license and thought I could own any mags I wanted

 

[Sf Becket]

I saw the glock 42 on the Massachusetts Compliant list, so this means one can be only purchased used or brought in???

 

[drgrant]

Has there ever been clear caselaw or evidence that they have to prove it as post-ban apart from the fact that it's > 10 rounds?

It's not case law it's standard SOP for a criminal trial. Innocent until proven guilty, etc. The prosecution must make a statement that convinces the jury to find you
guilty on that count. It's that simple. It's not that hard in most of these cases for an attorney to shoot peoples testimony up.

One scenario:

Mr Gunexpertguy: "When I examined the magazines I found this this and that feature, and according to a few different textbooks about glock firearms, this magazine seems to align with what we generally would described as a post ban, illegal magazine. It holds more than 10 rounds of ammunition and it looks like it was made recently. "

(all hell breaks loose from here)

Then later on your attorney brings out your own expert witness, who shares his creds and then starts basically blowing fist sized holes in the prosecution's case by introducing the things we've been talking about constantly on this board for like the better part of a decade, things that introduce reasonable doubt. The things that make the law ****y, inconsistent, and difficult to enforce.

As opposed to the defense simply just asserting it is preban. I know under the federal AWB the ruling was that if it were unmarked it was fair game, but MA hasn't adopted this.

The fed law was way better to the extent that if that ANY preban assertion was made it was to be taken at face value and the only way you could prove someone guilty under fed law was if it had LE markings, there were no other exceptions.

I've read in NY that for prebans the defense must prove it's preban; I have no idea if this is true or not.

I bet it's worse than that now, SAFE act probably outlawed most of that shit, or at least carrying it at capacity.

I guess if both sides are claiming it's post ban/pre ban "because they say so" then you would get edge due to presumption of innocence. I'd rather not have it be that close though.

If you've managed to make it to a full blown trial it's always going to be "that close", unless you're going in with a loaded deck in your favor and the DA/ADA is too stupid to realize that your attorney is a lot smarter than they are.

I'm just more concerned with:
- This mag is more than 10 rounds. No one disputes this
- The defense says it was lawfully possessed on/before 9/13/1994 but offers nothing further

To me, it's a little tenuous. In Mokdad, if memory serves, if it had gotten that far, the defense might have been expected to offer some sort of evidence that "someone" lawfully possessed them. If that's the case, other than saying "it was made before then, so therefore it was lawfully possessed," what can they offer? I'm sure the prosecution could offer a bunch of scenarios that could provide ways/possibilities for it to be illegal, even if made before 9/13/1994. Whether or not the jury buys them is another matter.

What is Mokdad? Do you have a link to this case?

I'm just playing a cynical devil's advocate. EOPS or whoever sent out that letter about prebans needing to be in the state on the ban date or something in order to be legal, which is pretty garbage, but gives you insight into how they view the ban.

I think you're confusing that with the ****y memo about preban GUNS that they sent out (that guida refused to sign his name on, that's how embarassing it was) . I don't remember anything about a magazine memo from EOPS. Len or someone else might have heard of this.

I think you can expect them to push the "if you did not own them in MA on this date personally, they are illegal" angle. For those of us under age 43 or so, that's demonstrably impossible since we weren't 21 on the ban date.

If that was true (and viable) then a lot more people would be getting prosecuted as it would be trivially easy from a standard of evidence perspective. The number of AWB prosecutions is tiny, I would bet anything that there are probably less than a dozen AWB cases brought in MA courts every year, and out of that dozen, most of the charges are probably dropped before trial or dumped even when the guy goes to plea out. It gets very hard to get a bead on how the law gets interpreted at the judcial level because of the low frequency of cases.

If that is what your experience and/or knowledge has taught you to be the case, then I have a little better impression of our peers. I just know enough people who, when presented with: "it's definitely over 10, and no one has offered further evidence either way" just might deem that as meeting reasonable doubt and go with the prosecution. I always tell people not to consent to searches but you might be surprised as how many people bite on old "if you've done nothing wrong, you have nothing to hide" angle.

I've served on a Jury twice, granted, civil trials, but I can tell you that it doesn't take much to make jurors skeptical. Particularly in cases that involve something where someone
didn't get hurt.

That's why I qualified having to have a decent lawyer, if you don't. you're ****ed anyways, because you will be virtually forced to plead out (on whatever, probably not the AWB
issue) to avoid jail.

In the end, my original point is that for firearms where it's relatively easy to get magazines that are 99% indisputable as having been manufactured prior to 9/13/94, I would just go that route. Everyone's acceptable risk level is different.

The problem is they're not "99% indisputable." Did you NOT see the pic of the U notch mag with the LE markings in this thread? Yet most people think things like "all U notches are preban" those obviously weren't. There's tons of this shit. The infinite stash of Para "preban" mags during the AWB (that never ran out) that was a running joke, too. Good luck divining the truth. My advice to the pant shitters is to just carry a revolver, if it makes you guys sleep better at night.

-Mike

 

[Gibbs]

Can anyone provide definitive proof (i.e. hard factual evidence) that it's a post-ban mag?

No?

I didn't think so. I wouldn't worry about that mag.

The jeans are post-ban.

I'm certain.

 

[Feral]

......give you a pre-tubby for it.

 

[bostonasphalt2]

I wouldn't give 1 cent for that mag if it was being sold as pre-ban. There is no definitive word but the majority of people on just about every forum seem to buy into that famous "generations" photo. If trying to convince a jury and nether side can prove conclusively, that may be one of the best pieces of material available to sway opinion. If I'm going to shell out $ for a pre-ban it has to be based on "the photo". It doesn't 100% eliminate the risk of getting jammed up but it mitigates the risk IMHO.

Well, there is no hard evidence to back up "the photo"

 

[fox2boost]

did you pay top dollar for this mag?

 

[n1oty]

a.) I believe there have been posts here from (perhaps now banned) lawyer members mentioning cases with just mag charges. Rare, for sure, but I think they have happened.
b.) I would NOT want a Massachusetts-based jury thinking about the mags. Maybe I'm not giving the general populace enough credit, but a line of:

Prosecutor: "The law says no more than 10 rounds"
Defense: "Only if it was not possessed before 9/13/94"
Prosecutor: "Prove it was pre-94"
Defense: "The burden is on you, but take our word for it"

I don't have a ton of confidence that you wouldn't get some folks who would be willing to side with the prosecutor without clear evidence on its status (date stamp, out of business manufacturer, etc.).

In all, you probably have bigger things to worry about. I would rather take the time for find magazines that can easily, with very little uncertainty, be said to be preban. Obviously, depending on the manufacturer, this may not always be possible.

Don't get me wrong, I'd love to be able to say "hey, they have to prove it, innocent until proven otherwise!" The cynic/realist in me can't always be that positive. In a fateful scenario I hope no one encounters, I'd prefer to be able to say to a LEO, "this company went out of business before 1994" or "the date of manufacture is stamped here, 1992" etc. Whether or not the LEO would accept it is another matter, but I'd rather be able to start with that from the get go.

Mokdad's case was probably the best precedent on mags in MA that I can remember, but if I recall it correctly, the magazine issue was basically tossed because there was no testimony that no one else possessed them pre-94, not that the prosecution couldn't prove they were pre-94, so kind of a technicality. Actually, it's a little scary--what kind of testimony could someone offer for an unstamped/unmarked AK mag?

Since the date of manufacture/possession is an element of the crime, I doubt most judges would even allow any testimony along these lines to a jury without SOME form of official proof. This would all be hammered out in pre-trial conferences.

 

[Individualist]

Well, there is no hard evidence to back up "the photo"

I agree. However you can use it to show that it is something that a majority follow in trying to determine preban, and that you as a very concerned and responsible gun owner did your due diligence and tried your best to stay within the law. As I said it could sway opinion if it ever got that far, which I also agree is unlikely. However I would never pay rape prices for a mag that clearly is not supported by that photo.

 

[Come and take]

Can anyone provide definitive proof (i.e. hard factual evidence) that it's a post-ban mag?

No?

I didn't think so. I wouldn't worry about that mag.

This.

 

[Glockster30]

IDing Glock mags is always an exercise in futility. But as far as I'm concerned I would be very Leery of that one. The high caliber marking and lack of the two mystery holes scare Me.

Lack of the two mystery holes isn't worth much either for identifying Glock mags. My photo of two G22 pre-ban mags, one square notch, 1 u-notch. Note the the square notch has the two mystery holes and the u-notch doesn't. Need to click on it to enlarge it.

 

[kalash]

i say don't worry about it. no ambi notch and no LE/GOV markings. therefore they are a-ok.

I would be very Leery of that one.

I wouldn't worry about that mag.

Looks like a post ban mag to me.

it's likely post ban

I would be comfortable with them being pre ban

That is a pre ban glock mag...

the mags in question look post ban to me.

I wouldn't give 1 cent for that mag if it was being sold as pre-ban.

I view the mag in question as preban.

I'd carry it - your comfort level may be different.

Does that clear it up for you, OP?

 

[Chevy 2 65]

If it doesn't have the words restricted LE/GOV'T use only. Let someone prove it's not.

 

[drgrant]

If it doesn't have the words restricted LE/GOV'T use only. Let someone prove it's not.

The problem in MA is that is not the standard for prosecution, and basically god probably doesn't even know what it is...

ETA: An attorney might be able to make an argument based off the fed legacy stuff, but my guess is they'd either strike it or suppress it, because if the jurors knew that, they'd be "contaminated" - eg, "Well, even the feds that originally did this shit knew the law was ****y and weird, so they put that clause in as a stopgap to prevent this kind of prosecution from happening."