2 part question on mag capacities.

[Blackdeek2006]

Hey Everyone,

I know the topic of magazine capacities has been addressed (a lot) and i'll probably catch all sorts of grief for this, but i have a some, hopefully simple, questions.

1. Living In Mass, based on the searching i have done, high cap mags after the magical date are illegal. I have no problem with that. if i can't find any definite preban's i'll use the 10 round max. no biggie. my question is, i've read somewhere (i dont remember where) that the ban ended. But the high caps are still illegal? or did i just read it totally wrong? ***Cancel this one, was just on the Four Seasons website and they indicated its a Mass law that prevents this one***

2. Living In NH (i might be moving), i'm assuming there is no "ban" and that i can purchase any high cap magazine regardless of date. Correct? If that is the case and assuming i have my NH license and MA NR-LTC, i can carry those magazines for my travels in mass since i can legally own in NH. Or am i again mistaken?

Oh and a final question that isnt that important just a regular question; if i go to a mass dealer and buy a new sig P229 in 9mm, am i correct that i will get a 10 round max mag even though they make higher cap mags for free states?
Thanks guys.

 

[FPrice]

2. Living In NH (i might be moving), i'm assuming there is no "ban" and that i can purchase any high cap magazine regardless of date. Correct? If that is the case and assuming i have my NH license and MA NR-LTC, i can carry those magazines for my travels in mass since i can legally own in NH. Or am i again mistaken?

Your first assumption here is correct. NH does not have any such magazine limitation and you may buy anything up there.

However the second assumption is incorrect and can land you in legal trouble here. It has been covered in other threads.

 

[Blackdeek2006]

gotcha Frosty, thanks.

 

[Len-2A Training]

Mere possession in MA by anyone with a banned hi-cap mag or new "SAW" (resident or not) is a MA Felony.

Fed ban is over, so you can own/possess/carry those things in "free states". MA is not a "free state"!

Only exceptions to the above are LEOs and those merely traveling thru (NO stopping other than food/gas/rest stop) with locked guns in trunk under FOPA 1986.

 

[drgrant]

Some things I want to add, that are potentially useful....

Free states often have plenty of used, preban magazines. So going out, finding these, and bringing them back, is fine. You just have to know what
you're looking for.

Some general pointers-

-If the gun's model was introduced after the enactment of the
AWB, getting prebans for it is virtually impossible, with some very
narrow exceptions here and there.

(Example: HK USP Compact - anything over 10 rounds is illegal for MA
peons.. the gun didn't come out until well after the ban was passed.)

-Obviously, if a magazine has LEO markings, it's 110% off limits to an
MA resident. Mags that say "for law enforcment use only" or
"LE / Government use only " are definitely off limits. They're 110%
pure jailbait. Do not touch. Stay away.

-The above is not all inclusive- Post ban unmarked mags are also
illegal, but by what mechanism they could prove their age is relatively
unknown. Gas Chromatography is one possibility, but such a test
may create more questions than answers. MA as a state is so
screwed though that I can fathom a douchebag prosecutor mandating
that a crime lab waste time on doing something like that just to try to
drill someone, though. Of course, they'd never ever do it to someone
that committed cold blooded murder, only an otherwise law abiding citizen
who had to defend himself. I digress... According to
the federal standard if a mag was unmarked it was presumed
to be preban, and the defendants assertion that it
was preban was to be taken at face value if there were no
markings present. However, I don't believe MA has any
such proscription- meaning the prosecutor can probably use creative
license about trying to prosecute a violation of this law. Tread
carefully. Prosecution for unmarked posties is improbable,
but is certainly within the realm of possibility. I for one would not
want to be a test case. Some who are -REALLY- paranoid don't
touch ANY hicaps at all, but personally I think that's a bit overboard.

-One safer way to look for prebans is to post WTB on a few classified
sections on different boards for preban mags for (whatever gun).
Often times responders will be people that bought the mags personally
either before or -during- the ban, and these would be safer to buy if you know
when the previous owner bought them, assuming the seller is
honest about it. Free staters generally would love to dump their
prebans on us, and replace them with shiney new mags if they havent
already. Many sellers will take actual replacement cost plus some padding
on the end for shipping and their trouble. The price of such prebans is
generally downright reasonable compared to when the ban was in full
effect nationally. Granted, you're getting something used... but IMO
I'd rather get a used hicap and rebuild it (eg new spring and
follower) than a POS neutered mag, if I could avoid it.

-Mike

 

[Fooped]

Good post Mike, took the words out of my mouth

 

[Jay G]

Perhaps one of our local "legal eagles" can elucidate further, but I have a question on this:

According to
the federal standard if a mag was unmarked it was presumed
to be preban, and the defendants assertion that it
was preban was to be taken at face value if there were no
markings present. However, I don't believe MA has any
such proscription- meaning the prosecutor can probably use creative
license about trying to prosecute a violation of this law.

Isn't the MA AWB based on the Federal Ban? If so, wouldn't the MA law then be the same; i.e. if the mag is unmarked it can be assumed to be pre-ban? Or did they add in wording against that provision?

My $0.02 is that I keep a "hi-cap" (really just a regular capacity, but for the sake of clarity in MA I'll use the term "hi-cap") as a back-up magazine. If I am ever forced to use my back-up magazine, then it means I was in an extended firefight. If I survive to face prosecution on a possible pre- vs. post- ban magazine it will be the least of my worries.

 

[Len-2A Training]

The "unmarked" = assume legal part was NOT part of the law, but a "regulatory ruling" by BATFE. That was a by-product of their Technical Branch.

So, what applied to the Fed law does NOT apply by rights to MGL. You can use it as a defense when you are prosecuted and see how far you get, however.

It is NOT the policy in MA to really clarify our laws preemptively, it might give an advantage to an innocent person.

 

[Jay G]

The "unmarked" = assume legal part was NOT part of the law, but a "regulatory ruling" by BATFE. That was a by-product of their Technical Branch.

So, what applied to the Fed law does NOT apply by rights to MGL. You can use it as a defense when you are prosecuted and see how far you get, however.

It is NOT the policy in MA to really clarify our laws preemptively, it might give an advantage to an innocent person.

Ah. Gotcha. Thanks Len.

Like I said, I'd only use hi-caps as a back-up, and figure that if I'm alive to worry about prosecution that's a good thing...

Besides, I only own two handguns that can even ACCEPT high capacity magazines...

 

[drgrant]

The "unmarked" = assume legal part was NOT part of the law, but a "regulatory ruling" by BATFE. That was a by-product of their Technical Branch.

So, what applied to the Fed law does NOT apply by rights to MGL. You can use it as a defense when you are prosecuted and see how far you get, however.

It is NOT the policy in MA to really clarify our laws preemptively, it might give an advantage to an innocent person.

Actually, it was printed in the law, Len. This is a chunk of USC 18 922(W) as it was written,
at one time. (It seems to be missing from some engines, but this may have been due to the AWB
expiration so this BS no longer applies federally anymore, and it got redacted. It's kind of
strange though... cornell's engine shows no 922(W), but a few gov engines do. ) :


" (4) If a person charged with violating paragraph (1) asserts that
paragraph (1) does not apply to such person because of paragraph
(2) or (3), the Government shall have the burden of proof to show
that such paragraph (1) applies to such person. The lack of a
serial number as described in section 923(i) of this title shall be
a presumption that the large capacity ammunition feeding device is
not subject to the prohibition of possession in paragraph (1).

"
Note that, the " 923i " reference talks about crime bill markings and the
like.

I still, however, agree with the assertions that:

-It doesn't matter in MA, because MGL vaguely reference 922/921,
but only from the standpoint of adopting definitions. There isn't any strong
connection to using 922/921 as an interpretation guideline. MA is kind of
saying here "Yeah, we ban this this and this, plus all this crap referenced in
(federal law chunks) as written on 1994 blah)

-The state would not answer this question outside of the courtroom. The AG would
just laugh at someone asking for a legal interpretation of what constitutes a burden of
proof for posession of an illegal large capacity magazine. When one starts to think
about it, the state of MA makes the BATFE look FRIENDLY in comparison- because
they -will- actually tell you what they will or will not prosecute on. Basically, the state
leaves us with wild ass guesses about this issue. All we can do is try to be as "safe" as
possible.


-Mike

 

[Len-2A Training]

I stand corrected!

Mike, thank you for the citation and correction.

As you state, this part of Fed Law wasn't translated into MGLs and wouldn't likely fly here.