High capacity magazines

[SSShooter]

I'm sorry if this has been addressed before, I'd imagine it has but I haven't figured out the trick to get the new site to give meaningful search results and I didn't find anything browsing through.

I had a listing on Gunbroker for high capacity magazines (12 rounds) for a Springfield XD. They are post-ban and illegal in MA, so I have kept them stored in NH. The auction was just won by a buyer in New York state, and my understanding is that these are illegal in NY just like in MA. Can anyone confirm this for me, or point me to the right place in the New York laws that cover this? From the laws I was able to find, these are specifically banned so I can't sell them to the auction winner.

Thanks.

 

[Kevlar]

You are correct.

http://www.ypdcrime.com/penal.law/article265.htm

S 265.00 Definitions.

>snip<

23. "Large capacity ammunition feeding device" means a magazine, belt,
drum, feed strip, or similar device, manufactured after September
thirteenth, nineteen hundred ninety-four, that has a capacity of, or
that can be readily restored or converted to accept, more than ten
rounds of ammunition; provided, however, that such term does not include
an attached tubular device designed to accept, and capable of operating
only with, .22 caliber rimfire ammunition.

S 265.02 Criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree.

A person is guilty of criminal possession of a weapon in the third
degree when:

>snip<

(8) Such person possesses a large capacity ammunition feeding device.

 

[glide]

They are illegal for that person to possess. I'm not sure what the legality of you selling to them to that person is.

I would re-list the auction though and avoid the headache.

 

[SSShooter]

Thank you both. I told the auction winner that I will not sell the magazines to him and he apologized and said he was not aware of the restriction. Gunbroker refunded my auction fees and I have relisted the magazines.

 

[Colt 700]

You are correct. The 12 rd mags would be illegal. The Buyer should not have bid on your auctio, if he wanted it shipped to NYS.

 

[SSShooter]

Thanks for the follow-up. I did not complete the transaction with that NY bidder, relisted them, and sold them to another buyer that could legally own them.

 

[mjmcg]

Thank you both. I told the auction winner that I will not sell the magazines to him and he apologized and said he was not aware of the restriction. Gunbroker refunded my auction fees and I have relisted the magazines.

Assuming that buyer has a gun to put them in, as well as the permit to have it, what kind of nincompoop wouldn't keep up on the laws surrounding this? It's actually a provision of having a permit that you stay aware of the laws...he must have skipped that part.

 

[SSShooter]

Yeah, I don't know if he was ignorant, or just pretending to be after I told him I wasn't going to sell to him. I'll give him the benefit of the doubt because gun laws are unnecessarily complex and can be difficult to understand, but not understanding them can be flirting with disaster.

 

[mjmcg]

You are absolutely right. And what's furthermore, you can in fact have a "pre-ban" handgun with it's original, say 15 round mags... but the catch is you better not actually have one in the gun if you use it in self defense. The law says you can possess pre-ban equipment as such, however USE of it not okay. Go figure!

 

[JStarX7]

You are absolutely right. And what's furthermore, you can in fact have a "pre-ban" handgun with it's original, say 15 round mags... but the catch is you better not actually have one in the gun if you use it in self defense. The law says you can possess pre-ban equipment as such, however USE of it not okay. Go figure!

What? There's nothing in NY law that says that you cannot use pre-ban magazines, only a prohibition on magazines over 10 rounds manufactured after Sept 14, 1994. (Excepting attached tubular .22 magazines.)

 

[mjmcg]

Trust me when I tell you, pre ban or otherwise, in the eyes of the LEO who WILL arrest you, and the judge who will hear your case, the DA who will prosecute you and the jury who MAY or may not buy the story, if you have a firearm equipped with what our anti gun liberal society contends is a "large capacity feeding device" it will cause you problems if you use it (hopefully only) in a defense situation. The burden of proving that it was "legal" for you to have will fall squarely on your shoulders only after you've been arrested by a LEO who I can guarantee will not stop to listen to your tale of how it was manufactured prior to sept 94 etc etc... you'll be told to tell it to the judge.
I'm not saying there is any law that prohibits the possession or private use of what we here all know to be a legal device, but on the streets when the S hits the fan... heed my words closely, you'd better make sure you're only packing 10 rounds in a magazine or you will become a temporary criminal until which time, if you're lucky (and a few thousand dollars later) you get it straightened out with the system.

Apparently I'm not the only one who knows this either:

http://www.thehighroad.org/archive/index.php/t-393632.html

 

[JStarX7]

Trust me when I tell you, pre ban or otherwise, in the eyes of the LEO who WILL arrest you, and the judge who will hear your case, the DA who will prosecute you and the jury who MAY or may not buy the story, if you have a firearm equipped with what our anti gun liberal society contends is a "large capacity feeding device" it will cause you problems if you use it (hopefully only) in a defense situation. The burden of proving that it was "legal" for you to have will fall squarely on your shoulders only after you've been arrested by a LEO who I can guarantee will not stop to listen to your tale of how it was manufactured prior to sept 94 etc etc... you'll be told to tell it to the judge.
I'm not saying there is any law that prohibits the possession or private use of what we here all know to be a legal device, but on the streets when the S hits the fan... heed my words closely, you'd better make sure you're only packing 10 rounds in a magazine or you will become a temporary criminal until which time, if you're lucky (and a few thousand dollars later) you get it straightened out with the system.

Apparently I'm not the only one who knows this either:

http://www.thehighroad.org/archive/index.php/t-393632.html

That's all well and good as an opinion. As someone who is acquainted with LEOs, former LEOs, lawyers, trainers, and who has taken and is still taking law classes to stay current I can tell you that:

A: You will almost certainly be arrested after any defensive shooting. Period.
B: The burden of proof falls on the DA, not you, to prove the magazine is not pre-ban.
C: Any defensive shooting is likely to cost you thousands in lawyers bills, even if there are no charges filed.
D: Your lawyer should do most of the talking after a defensive shooting. Yapping at the police about your magazine is going to be the least of your worries.

There are plenty of "Internet experts" who love to voice their opinions long and loud all over, and then there are hard, legal facts and the experiences of those who deal with this type of thing on a professional level. I tend not to listen to anecdotal evidence. I carry pre-ban magazines as through my training and experiences more rounds equals better chance of survival. You are of course free to choose to do the same or not, but telling people something is against the law when it is not is just giving false information.

 

[mjmcg]

Well first of all, I never said that having or using a high-cap mag (pre or post ban) was illegal, I stated that it would be problematic under certain circumstances.
Second, Your speculation of my being an "internet expert" reveals your own lack of experience, for I am a former LEO and current NYS licensed armed guard, which may or may not mean much in some people's book, but the fact is you don't get that license without knowing article 35 inside out, upside down and backwards in addition to knowing every aspect of the legal responsibilities of having a pistol license and the obligations that go along with gun ownership.
I'm not looking to argue or get into a who's right and who wrong pissing match, but I stand by my words, legally justified or not, if a person uses a handgun (as I said before, hopefully in a defensive manner, not unlawfully...which is a whole other nut) and it is discovered through (as you pointed out, any shooting will be investigated thoroughly) you are only asking for ADDITIONAL problems by adding to the mix something that the public and those in the legal system will use to find a way to criminalize YOU, though you have done nothing wrong.
Take for example something I see in our newspapers all the time. Headline: "Man arrested on XXXX charge... found in possession of gun loaded hollow point bullets..."
Now you know as well as I do, there is nothing whatsoever illegal about having HP's in your gun... but in the papers and in the minds of the general public you may as well have committed the ultimate crime in being found in possession of them.

Example:
Prosecutor to defendant: "Your gun was loaded with hollow point bullets. Is it not true that hollow point bullets are specifically designed to inflict more injury to the person that you hit with them?"
Defendant: "Yes, they are designed for that purpose."
Prosecutor: "Then it was your intent when you shot Mr.X to kill him wasn't it?"
Defendant: "No, it was my intent to stop him from harming me."
Prosecutor: "Wouldn't normal bullets accomplish that goal?"
Defendant: "Well, yes, they probably would."
Prosecutor: "But you loaded your gun with something you knew to be more lethal, isn't that right?"
Defendant: "Yes, I chose bullets which purposely inflict greater damage."
Prosecutor: "Then I'll ask you again, with the knowledge you intentionally loaded your gun with ammunition designed to inflict greater harm to the subject you shoot, it must have been your pre-meditated goal to kill him when you shot at him, wasn't it?"
etc etc etc....


The above paraphrased exchange actually took place in a civil court case as a result of a man defending himself against an attacker whom he in fact shot, and subsequently killed, and the dead man's family sued for wrongful death....and WON. Why? Not because he was in the wrong in any way shape or manner, but because the prosecution successfully manipulated a jury into believing that by using HP bullets in a gun there could be no other way of interpreting one's intent in doing so other than to kill whoever you might shoot with them.
Nothing illegal there, however the fellow in question was in fact found guilty of the wrongful death of the guy he shot in self defense and it ruined his life.

That's a true story to make my point I don't care how righteous you may think you are in doing something that on paper is perfectly legal. I'm telling you by EXAMPLE, not opinion that you can in fact make matters worse for yourself no matter how legitimate your intent may be.

Now if you want to be hard headed and carry a handgun with a perfectly legal 12, 13 15 or 100 round pre-ban magazine in it... then hallelujah!!! God bless America, you go right ahead and I'll support you 100%... however, that doesn't mean when you get car jacked at gun point and you opt to blast the bastard you won't have as many additional legal problems on your hands as you did extra rounds in your magazine when you did it. If you believe otherwise then you don't know as much about the world we live in as you think you do.
You put another 20 or 30 years of living on this planet than the 20-something I'm figuring you are, and you will wake up one day and realize what I'm trying to tell you.
Life ain't lived in a book son.

That's all...peace and happiness!

 

[JStarX7]

The law says you can possess pre-ban equipment as such, however USE of it not okay. Go figure!

That quote, by you, implies that the law says it is OK to possess, but not to use. If you didn't mean to imply that, you wrote it wrong. I'm not going to respond to you anymore. I made my point. Legally, pre-bans are OK to use and possess. You can voice whatever opinion you like about the use of pre-ban magazines, but the only fact is that legally they are OK.

PS - Internet Experts - You linked to a thread containing opinions and anecdotal evidence and not much else. Those are internet experts. I was not pointing at you in particular.

PPS - Judging my age on a post and making snide, holier than thou comments? Classy.