What happens to anyone possessing a pre-ban glock hi-cap magazine?

[whatluck]

This can't be overemphasized. Even if it's a 100% clean shoot, you stand a chance of ending up in jail and broke, especially in MA. If you shoot, you have to be so sure you have to, that you can walk out of jail many years later still thinking you did the right thing.

If you exercise the second freedom anywhere you risk jail, not just MA. Thats part of the prive you have to pay. Hopefully if you cant SSS then you get a DA that isnt a Hitler.

 

[drgrant]

What makes you so sure of this? During the Fed AWB the ATF issued the Bardwell letter which gave the opinion that a modified preban magazine could be considered a new magazine due to its modification. That was a different issue than increasing capacity, but I view that opinion as an argument supporting a prosecution claim that a modified magazine is a new post ban magazine. To my knowledge your view has never been tested much as I would like to believe a court would also see it that way.

I thought that the ATF had decreed at one point that a modified mag was still OK as long as it still functioned within the firearm it was originally designed for? Or was that something they reneged on later?

 

[Brewer]

What makes you so sure of this? During the Fed AWB the ATF issued the Bardwell letter which gave the opinion that a modified preban magazine could be considered a new magazine due to its modification. That was a different issue than increasing capacity, but I view that opinion as an argument supporting a prosecution claim that a modified magazine is a new post ban magazine. To my knowledge your view has never been tested much as I would like to believe a court would also see it that way.

That Bardwell letter does not state any modification is a violation. It addresses a case of a pre-ban mag modified from 20rds 9mm to 14rds 10mm; states doing so is in effect manufacturing a new magazine regardless of how old the parts are.

http://www.titleii.com/bardwell/atf_letter85.txt

I'll buy a drink for whoever becomes the test case on simply extending a pre-ban.

 

[Broc]

OP, you should have said he tried to pull down your pants and rape you.

Then make it his problem to try to prove he didnt really do that.

It would then be up to the person to prove that it was a pre-ban mag in court.

This is the reason why you never talk to cops.
And proves how f***ed up our legal system is. What happened to innocent until proven guilty?

I would imagine a lawyer can get you out easily by simply asking the police to prove the mag is illegal. But by that time you probably lost your job, your name is on every news website and you spent a bunch of money on legal fees.

 

[nstassel]

I'm not suggesting the Bardwell opinion controls this issue at all. I think it's logic could be used by an industrious or over zealous prosecutor on a modified preban case. That concerns me.

 

[Brewer]

OP, you should have said he tried to pull down your pants and rape you.

Then make it his problem to try to prove he didnt really do that.



This is the reason why you never talk to cops.
And proves how f***ed up our legal system is. What happened to innocent until proven guilty?

I would imagine a lawyer can get you out easily by simply asking the police to prove the mag is illegal. But by that time you probably lost your job, your name is on every news website and you spent a bunch of money on legal fees.

I used to think it was enough to be right. But then you must prove you're right. And then there's funding the fight against people with a political agenda and deep pockets, eager to make an example of you. Meanwhile the dindus are a protected class.

Screwed up system. Concealed carry insurance FTW.

 

[LoginName]

I thought that the ATF had decreed at one point that a modified mag was still OK as long as it still functioned within the firearm it was originally designed for? Or was that something they reneged on later?

They did.
If IIRC at the time the ATF made this determination, there were very few models of
magazines (like 2-3 at most), that could be modified and still be legal by the ATF guidelines.

"As defined in section 921(a)(31), of Title 18, United States Code
(U.S.C.), the term large capacity ammunition feeding device -

(A) means a magazine, belt, drum, feed strip, or similar
device manufactured after the date of enactment of the Violent
Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (September 13,
1994) that has a capacity of, or that can be readily restored
or converted to accept, more than 10 rounds of ammunition; but

(B) does not include an attached tubular device designed to
accept,and capable of operating only with .22 caliber rimfire
ammunition.

It is generally unlawful for a person to transfer or possess a
large capacity ammunition feeding device as provided in 18 U.S.C.
section 922(w).

A magazine manufactured prior to September 13, 1994, would not be
a large capacity ammunition-feeding device as defined. You asked
about altering such a magazine so that it could fit in another type
of firearm.

If the altered magazine could no longer function in the firearm for
which it was originally designed, it is our opinion that a new
magazine has been manufactured. The fact that the materials used
to construct the new magazine were made prior to September 13,
1994, would not mean that the magazine was manufactured prior tot
hat date. The altered magazine would be a large capacity
ammunition feeding device and it would be subject to the
prohibition in section 922(w).

If the magazine has minor modifications performed, such as cutting
an additional slot for a different style of magazine release, and
it still functions in the original firearm for which it was
designed, we do not believe that it would be considered a new
magazine. However, it major changes are made it is possible that
a new magazine has been manufactured. It is not possible for us to
render a final opinion on such magazines without examining a
sample."

http://www.titleii.com/bardwell/atf_letter88.txt

 

[drgrant]

I'll buy a drink for whoever becomes the test case on simply extending a pre-ban.

I wish I could wager on this not happening on an annual basis, I'd make some serious cash.

 

[EJFudd]

Back when the PD was taking fingerprints on all renewals, the Sarge that took my prints would always ask me what was new in MA firearms laws.

He may have meant that as a friendly joke. The problem is that it speaks a great deal about the truth of the matter.

 

[milktree]

And a +2 baseplate on a pre-ban is...?

Still a pre-ban magazine.

A +2 base plate on a post ban 10 round mag is clearly creating a post ban large cap magazine, which is illegal

A +2 on a pre ban large cap is still a legal pre ban large cap.

A +2 on a pre ban 10 round mag? That I don’t know.

The restriction is on magazines manufactured before 1994. It's not on high capacity magazines made before 1994.

I thought that the ATF had decreed at one point that a modified mag was still OK as long as it still functioned within the firearm it was originally designed for? Or was that something they reneged on later?

That is my understanding too, based on something authoritative I read (on The Internet, it must be true)

As long as the modifications don't prevent the magazine from functioning in its original form, it's not a "new magazine", it's an old one.

e.g.: if you put the extra cuts into a 92FS magazine so it works in a Canik TP9, as long as it still works in the Beretta, it's legal. But if the modification prevents it from working in the gun it was originally manufactured for, it's considered a new manufacture (and therefore "post ban")

 

[M1911]

Well, that was the ATF’s interpretation of federal law. Who knows what would hold up in MA state court concerning MA law.

 

[milktree]

Well, that was the ATF’s interpretation of federal law. Who knows what would hold up in MA state court concerning MA law.

That's a bit of a cop-out, since it's true for *SO MUCH* of Mass. law it's barely interesting to say.

 

[Shark_Cage]

Nothing other than having the satisfaction of owning one

 

[308rifleman]

Well, that was the ATF’s interpretation of federal law. Who knows what would hold up in MA state court concerning MA law.

State laws can be stricter than federal law. States' rights and all.

 

[MGnoob]

As far as a preban with and extension... who’s to say when the extension was installed... and if the extension was manufactured after the ban ... perhaps it was a repair for an extension that was installed before the ban.....

It’s all a high burden of proof unless your completely flaunting the law...

I’m aware of the ATFs position(s) during the ban but if the states going to use that enterpration it would be total inconsistent with the Healey ban...
It must be nice to have it both ways...

 

[smokey-seven]

He may have meant that as a friendly joke

No, he was serious. He knew I stayed current with the laws and would use me as his update on MA firearms law. The problem was he would always be a number of years behind.

 

[SHOCKNAWE]

I have stacks of glock mags loaded for bear in my safe, 15 & 17 rounders for when I’m in NH, I also have a few 10 rounders for when I go into MA. I’m all set with pre bans regardless, I will take a brand new 10 round mag over a 20+ year old mag for self defense every time.

 

[whatluck]

They did.
If IIRC at the time the ATF made this determination, there were very few models of
magazines (like 2-3 at most), that could be modified and still be legal by the ATF guidelines.

"As defined in section 921(a)(31), of Title 18, United States Code
(U.S.C.), the term large capacity ammunition feeding device -

(A) means a magazine, belt, drum, feed strip, or similar
device manufactured after the date of enactment of the Violent
Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (September 13,
1994) that has a capacity of, or that can be readily restored
or converted to accept, more than 10 rounds of ammunition; but

(B) does not include an attached tubular device designed to
accept,and capable of operating only with .22 caliber rimfire
ammunition.

It is generally unlawful for a person to transfer or possess a
large capacity ammunition feeding device as provided in 18 U.S.C.
section 922(w).

A magazine manufactured prior to September 13, 1994, would not be
a large capacity ammunition-feeding device as defined. You asked
about altering such a magazine so that it could fit in another type
of firearm.

If the altered magazine could no longer function in the firearm for
which it was originally designed, it is our opinion that a new
magazine has been manufactured. The fact that the materials used
to construct the new magazine were made prior to September 13,
1994, would not mean that the magazine was manufactured prior tot
hat date. The altered magazine would be a large capacity
ammunition feeding device and it would be subject to the
prohibition in section 922(w).

If the magazine has minor modifications performed, such as cutting
an additional slot for a different style of magazine release, and
it still functions in the original firearm for which it was
designed, we do not believe that it would be considered a new
magazine. However, it major changes are made it is possible that
a new magazine has been manufactured. It is not possible for us to
render a final opinion on such magazines without examining a
sample."

http://www.titleii.com/bardwell/atf_letter88.txt

This is disgusting. How can the average American be compliant with the law if it makes no sense? Generally unlawful? Not possible to render an opinion?

 

[CrackPot]

This is disgusting. How can the average American be compliant with the law if it makes no sense? Generally unlawful? Not possible to render an opinion?

You have summarized the desired outcome. Everyone is a felon just waiting to be charged. Next...

 

[jron]

What a dip shit jack ass pud.

The state has to prove you are guilty to a jury.

As I often say, many cops can't grasp the driving laws, let alone the gun laws.
Many people/towns will be praise a cop for taking a gun "off the street" and posting a BS photo to a FB page to make the 5'o clock news.

 

[jron]

Part of the problem is that the LEO told me that if there was an incident in which you used your Glock with a hi-cap pre-ban mag for self defense, you would be charged for illegal possession of a hi-cap mag, and would then have to prove to the court that it was pre-ban. How would you do that?

Unless its dated... almost impossible. The state is supposed to charge you with a crime, then present evidence that you knowingly used a post ban magazine and that they prove it a post ban magazine to a jury. The jury has to take and process that "info" and come to a conclusion.

That is such BS, it would be like arresting you for a DUI because you simply went to the liquor store. This cop must be new lol

 

[jron]

Or if you really wanted to get around the law, pass a civil service test, get hired, then immediately retire. All LEO's (even retired) are exempt from AWB

 

[Len-2A Training]

Or if you really wanted to get around the law, pass a civil service test, get hired, then immediately retire. All LEO's (even retired) are exempt from AWB

What's wrong with this post?
- You can't "immediately retire", you have to do at least 10 yrs to get LEOSA, if your chief will issue you the ID . . . many won't.
- Retired aren't automatically exempt from the AWB. The way the law was revised leaves that a huge gray area. This was according to the FRB legal counsel who confirmed this information for me FTF.

 

[1-Up-Top]

So last year My GF and I stepped out to a Hookah bar in Worcester to celebrate her Dental school acceptance. About an hr into our celebration a shoving match took place between a group of people in our area. A police officer stepped in to break things up and as he was moving through the crowd, he put his hand on my waistline to move me back as he made his way to the issue. Of course I carry appendix. So he circled back after calling for back up and detained me because he felt my firearm when moving me back. I was carrying a Glock 19 with a square notch 15 round preban with a +2 and a backup Glock 17 square notch preban also with a plus 2 in a trex sidecar. So as he disarmed me I immediately told him to reach in my back pocket for my wallet to present my LTC. Speeding through the story, my firearm was taken from me because I was being accused of being intoxicated while carrying a firearm. Now let me mind you I’m 35 and haven’t had a drink of alcohol in almost 10 yrs. I’ve never really been a big drinker.. But this officer insisted that I had multiple drinks that night even though I told him I hadn’t. I believe the police were hoping to get an illegal gun off of the street and when they realized it was legal, they looked for every and any reason to charge me with something. As soon as my license came back valid the tried to say I didn’t have the firearm in a holster until I proved I did. Then it was the holster didn’t have enough retention which also I proved it did. That’s when they started insisting that I was intoxicated. So In short my firearm was confiscated and I was charged with “Intoxicated License to carry”. I took this to trial , won, and got my firearm back (after a full year). But what
I found interesting is that there was no mention of my Hi cap magazines being pre or post ban. ANYWHERE! Not even in the test fire report . So honestly especially with Glock’s, I feel there is no real way for the law to confirm. Unless it’s a gen 5 mag I’m sure. If Glock can’t confirm, then the courts can’t either.. Just my experience....

 

[teaser452]

So last year My GF and I stepped out to a Hookah bar in Worcester to celebrate her Dental school acceptance. About an hr into our celebration a shoving match took place between a group of people in our area. A police officer stepped in to break things up and as he was moving through the crowd, he put his hand on my waistline to move me back as he made his way to the issue. Of course I carry appendix. So he circled back after calling for back up and detained me because he felt my firearm when moving me back. I was carrying a Glock 19 with a square notch 15 round preban with a +2 and a backup Glock 17 square notch preban also with a plus 2 in a trex sidecar. So as he disarmed me I immediately told him to reach in my back pocket for my wallet to present my LTC. Speeding through the story, my firearm was taken from me because I was being accused of being intoxicated while carrying a firearm. Now let me mind you I’m 35 and haven’t had a drink of alcohol in almost 10 yrs. I’ve never really been a big drinker.. But this officer insisted that I had multiple drinks that night even though I told him I hadn’t. I believe the police were hoping to get an illegal gun off of the street and when they realized it was legal, they looked for every and any reason to charge me with something. As soon as my license came back valid the tried to say I didn’t have the firearm in a holster until I proved I did. Then it was the holster didn’t have enough retention which also I proved it did. That’s when they started insisting that I was intoxicated. So In short my firearm was confiscated and I was charged with “Intoxicated License to carry”. I took this to trial , won, and got my firearm back (after a full year). But what
I found interesting is that there was no mention of my Hi cap magazines being pre or post ban. ANYWHERE! Not even in the test fire report . So honestly especially with Glock’s, I feel there is no real way for the law to confirm. Unless it’s a gen 5 mag I’m sure. If Glock can’t confirm, then the courts can’t either.. Just my experience....

Cops are a**h***s. All of them.

Thanks for providing one more data point.

The only question I really have for you is.....drum roll please......are you not white? Because if you be brown or black in Worcester, then, being the racist shitbags that Worcester cops are, I could see this happening. I mean, all cops are racist shitbags, just some cops get to do it publicly, more than others.

 

[SgtHal75]

So last year My GF and I stepped out to a Hookah bar in Worcester to celebrate her Dental school acceptance. About an hr into our celebration a shoving match took place between a group of people in our area. A police officer stepped in to break things up and as he was moving through the crowd, he put his hand on my waistline to move me back as he made his way to the issue. Of course I carry appendix. So he circled back after calling for back up and detained me because he felt my firearm when moving me back. I was carrying a Glock 19 with a square notch 15 round preban with a +2 and a backup Glock 17 square notch preban also with a plus 2 in a trex sidecar. So as he disarmed me I immediately told him to reach in my back pocket for my wallet to present my LTC. Speeding through the story, my firearm was taken from me because I was being accused of being intoxicated while carrying a firearm. Now let me mind you I’m 35 and haven’t had a drink of alcohol in almost 10 yrs. I’ve never really been a big drinker.. But this officer insisted that I had multiple drinks that night even though I told him I hadn’t. I believe the police were hoping to get an illegal gun off of the street and when they realized it was legal, they looked for every and any reason to charge me with something. As soon as my license came back valid the tried to say I didn’t have the firearm in a holster until I proved I did. Then it was the holster didn’t have enough retention which also I proved it did. That’s when they started insisting that I was intoxicated. So In short my firearm was confiscated and I was charged with “Intoxicated License to carry”. I took this to trial , won, and got my firearm back (after a full year). But what
I found interesting is that there was no mention of my Hi cap magazines being pre or post ban. ANYWHERE! Not even in the test fire report . So honestly especially with Glock’s, I feel there is no real way for the law to confirm. Unless it’s a gen 5 mag I’m sure. If Glock can’t confirm, then the courts can’t either.. Just my experience....

Wow, that’s crazy! Even after he verified that you were properly licensed, sober and carrying correctly, he still arrested you???? Did u mouth off or piss him off calling him out on his incompetence???? They don’t like that, lol.

 

[SgtHal75]

I don’t carry a Glock or use preban mags for EDC only because it’s MA and god forbid I have to defend myself. Don’t want the jury to see the super evil, non detectable killing machine that is a Glock with its never ending arsenal of boolitts in a ghost 30 caliber clip. Bad optics and the jury says “guilty!!”

 

[Palladin]

So last year My GF and I stepped out to a Hookah bar in Worcester to celebrate her Dental school acceptance. About an hr into our celebration a shoving match took place between a group of people in our area. A police officer stepped in to break things up and as he was moving through the crowd, he put his hand on my waistline to move me back as he made his way to the issue. Of course I carry appendix. So he circled back after calling for back up and detained me because he felt my firearm when moving me back. I was carrying a Glock 19 with a square notch 15 round preban with a +2 and a backup Glock 17 square notch preban also with a plus 2 in a trex sidecar. So as he disarmed me I immediately told him to reach in my back pocket for my wallet to present my LTC. Speeding through the story, my firearm was taken from me because I was being accused of being intoxicated while carrying a firearm. Now let me mind you I’m 35 and haven’t had a drink of alcohol in almost 10 yrs. I’ve never really been a big drinker.. But this officer insisted that I had multiple drinks that night even though I told him I hadn’t. I believe the police were hoping to get an illegal gun off of the street and when they realized it was legal, they looked for every and any reason to charge me with something. As soon as my license came back valid the tried to say I didn’t have the firearm in a holster until I proved I did. Then it was the holster didn’t have enough retention which also I proved it did. That’s when they started insisting that I was intoxicated. So In short my firearm was confiscated and I was charged with “Intoxicated License to carry”. I took this to trial , won, and got my firearm back (after a full year). But what
I found interesting is that there was no mention of my Hi cap magazines being pre or post ban. ANYWHERE! Not even in the test fire report . So honestly especially with Glock’s, I feel there is no real way for the law to confirm. Unless it’s a gen 5 mag I’m sure. If Glock can’t confirm, then the courts can’t either.. Just my experience....

simply another reason why Worcester sucks

 

[Editor]

Wow, that’s crazy! Even after he verified that you were properly licensed, sober and carrying correctly, he still arrested you???? Did u mouth off or piss him off calling him out on his incompetence???? They don’t like that, lol.

The post to which this is responding does not say anyone was arrested.

 

[not new guy]

Wait - in a holster? Retention?