Updating Pre-ban AR Mags?

Joined
Sep 13, 2008
Messages
325
Likes
13
Location
Airstrip One, MA
Feedback: 25 / 0 / 0
What if any are the legal issues regarding updating and altering pre-ban AR magazines. For instance, I recently purchased some and they are pretty worn out. I planned on buying some new followers and springs and sanding down the bodies to re-paint them. Is there a problem with this, and if not, where does the legal issues if any come into play when doing something like this. Thanks.
 
There are no legal issues involved in maintaining pre ban mags with new parts. The only part you can't replace with a new one is the body.
 
IANAL... as long as the bodies are preban, you can replace springs, followers, and floor plates. Refinishing should be fine too.
 
The only thing you cannot do is alter the magazine to make it work in a different firearm than what it currently works in. That is considered manufacturing a new magazine. But as everybody else said, replacing parts and refinishing is no problem.
 
There are no legal issues involved in maintaining pre ban mags with new parts. The only part you can't replace with a new one is the body.

Not trying to hijack another Mag thread, or make too big a deal out of this but do you have any "proof" that I can't replace a mag body???

I mean a follower cracks I can replace it because its "just a mag part" well if my mag body cracks why can't I replace it with a new body (using old "guts") as it is "just a part"...Or are mag bodies the mags equivalant of a "reciever"...
 
I mean a follower cracks I can replace it because its "just a mag part" well if my mag body cracks why can't I replace it with a new body (using old "guts") as it is "just a part"...Or are mag bodies the mags equivalant of a "reciever"...

Who knows.

During the federal AWB, post-ban magazine bodies needed to have "LE/GOVT ONLY" stamped on them. So it was obvious that you couldn't replace a pre-ban magazine body with a post-ban one, as it would then be a post-ban marked mag. So people started producing 'rebuild kits' which contained all new parts except the mag body, to allow you to have a basically new magazine but keep the unmarked body. Now that the federal ban is over and new bodies are being produced without the marking, it's not terribly clear what MA has in mind. For all we know, MA courts could decide that even enough replaced innards makes for a 'new' magazine. But since the 'rebuild kit' behavior was allowed during the fedal ban, it's a decent line in the sand to stay behind.
 
The only thing you cannot do is alter the magazine to make it work in a different firearm than what it currently works in. That is considered manufacturing a new magazine. But as everybody else said, replacing parts and refinishing is no problem.

It is my understanding that as long as it still worked in the original gun, that it was ok to make it work in the other gun.
 
The only part you can't replace with a new one is the body.

Says who? The law? Court precedent? A similar discussion occured in California on Calguns.net. Some users there wrote the CA Department of Justice. Their lawyers explained that you can repair ANY parts, including the body. You can legally go so far as to end up eventually replacing every part with a new part. The only thing you can't do is actually manufacture a new magazine. In other words, if you started with 5 pre-ban mags, and you replace all of their parts, you better end up with exactly 5 when you are done.

Is MA law different? What is so sacred about the mag body under the law?
 
Nothing at all. I'm pretty sure the body is replaceable. However, like you said, once you've replaced all the parts, then you've got a problem.
 
I'm pretty sure the body is replaceable.

You are? I'm not. If you were allowed to replace everything, including the body, that would make the law entirely and completely unenforceable in most cases, as you could always use as a defense to any post-ban mag, even a LE/GOV marked one, in your possession that it is actually pre-ban and you replaced all the parts. Since the burden of proof would be on the state, you wouldn't even need to produce any evidence for your assertion. The only time this wouldn't work is on a type of mag that wasn't produced pre-ban.

Given that, I could see a prosecutor putting forth the argument that the body is the mag, and I could see a MA jury swallowing it.
 
You are? I'm not. If you were allowed to replace everything, including the body, that would make the law entirely and completely unenforceable in most cases, as you could always use as a defense to any post-ban mag, even a LE/GOV marked one, in your possession that it is actually pre-ban and you replaced all the parts. Since the burden of proof would be on the state, you wouldn't even need to produce any evidence for your assertion. The only time this wouldn't work is on a type of mag that wasn't produced pre-ban.

Given that, I could see a prosecutor putting forth the argument that the body is the mag, and I could see a MA jury swallowing it.

Jeremy, as much as I could easily see MA prosecuting someone for rebuilding a mag . . . after all it's great fodder for their AG campaign! . . . the Fed position (in writing) during the Fed Ban was clear.

Feds (BATFE Tech Branch) put in writing that you could replace the entire mag, as long as you destroyed the old one/mag tube, so that no additional hi-cap mag was created. It was a one-for-one deal. Many on ARfcom recommended crushing the old mag tube and keeping it as proof, just in case (although Feds didn't require this). [Worth Noting: The Feds had the same position on the mfr of a pre-ban frame destroying a defective pre-ban frame and replacing it with a "new pre-ban" frame . . . but they only allowed the mfr to do this and keep the paperwork as proof of said action.]

Would this fly in MA, with DAs just chomping at the bit to jail lawful gun owners . . . to prove they are "tough on crime" so that they get re-elected or elected to the next step up (AG) . . . I seriously doubt it! I would expect the poor slob getting "caught" this way would have to pay a ton of money to stay out of jail and only perhaps a jury trial (using the Fed position paper) "MIGHT" spring him free.

We're all speculating here, so that's my speculation.
 
Jeremy, as much as I could easily see MA prosecuting someone for rebuilding a mag . . . after all it's great fodder for their AG campaign! . . . the Fed position (in writing) during the Fed Ban was clear.

Large capacity feeding devices is one part of the MA ban which is significantly different than the old federal ban. As I recently posted in a different thread, the federal ban was against mags "manufactured after the ban date" where as the MA ban is against mags "not lawfully owned on the ban date". That change in wording makes the situation very different between the MA and federal ban.

As we've discussed before, though, I think the whole area is mostly only good for theoretical debate, as I can't really see the probability of anybody getting prosecuted on 131M for having questionable mags.
 
I suppose I am going off the premise that the body is essentially the magazine. Personally I doubt someone could get away with replacing a body with a new one and have it considered pre ban especially if the body you replace it with is date stamped or clearly from a company that only produced the mags post ban.

Like JD said though the likely hood of prosecution is probably very low as nothing has happened with it yet.
 
Large capacity feeding devices is one part of the MA ban which is significantly different than the old federal ban. As I recently posted in a different thread, the federal ban was against mags "manufactured after the ban date" where as the MA ban is against mags "not lawfully owned on the ban date". That change in wording makes the situation very different between the MA and federal ban.

As we've discussed before, though, I think the whole area is mostly only good for theoretical debate, as I can't really see the probability of anybody getting prosecuted on 131M for having questionable mags.

I'm basing the assertion on what LenS said. If you keep the old body, rendered nonfunctional, and don't replace every single part of the magazine, a body replacement should be just fine.
 
I certainly can too... and I wouldn't personally do it. I just think that you could probably get off in court on it.
 
Back
Top Bottom