• If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership  The benefits pay for the membership many times over.

Hypothetical preban mag question

You're doing it wrong. Usually when these kind of questions pop up the poster is asking for 'a friend, of a friend I know
has handful of preban 15 round sig magazines....'

I'd delete it and repost it again if I were you.
 
Dennis in MA said:
15, 20, 1,000. Once you're pre-ban it really doesn't matter.
Click to expand...

Sort of.

Trouble starts when an existing pre-ban mag manufactured for one firearm is modified to function
in a different firearm and no longer functions in in the firearm it was originally intended for.
Under the old AWB, the ATF considered that manufacturing a new large capacity feeding device
(I realize this doesn't apply to the question the OP's friend is asking about)
How that would play out under current MA law anyone can probably guess.

Then again... IANAL.
 
LoginName said:
Sort of.

Trouble starts when an existing pre-ban mag manufactured for one firearm is modified to function
in a different firearm and no longer functions in in the firearm it was originally intended for.
Under the old AWB, the ATF considered that manufacturing a new large capacity feeding device
(I realize this doesn't apply to the question the OP's friend is asking about)
How that would play out under current MA law anyone can probably guess.

Then again... IANAL.
Click to expand...

Not to thread steal, but would that mean an UZI to Colt conversion would be no-go in MA? 'Cause my cousin's friend of a friend hypothetically found a place a few months ago that shipped preban UZI mags for cheap (like $13. per) and this person I don't know stocked up on 4 to do this in the future.
 
ReluctantDecoy said:
Not to thread steal, but would that mean an UZI to Colt conversion would be no-go in MA? 'Cause my cousin's friend of a friend hypothetically found a place a few months ago that shipped preban UZI mags for cheap (like $13. per) and this person I don't know stocked up on 4 to do this in the future.
Click to expand...
Note the "no longer functions in the firearm it was manufacturer for". The converted Uzi mags work in both Colt and UZI 9x19 guns.

Also keep in mind that anyone who claims to know fine point nuances of the MA AW ban/mag ban is just guessing, not matter how much authority they claim to speak with.
 
Rob Boudrie said:
Note the "no longer functions in the firearm it was manufacturer for". The converted Uzi mags work in both Colt and UZI 9x19 guns.

Also keep in mind that anyone who claims to know fine point nuances of the MA AW ban/mag ban is just guessing, not matter how much authority they claim to speak with.
Click to expand...

The conversion I was eyeballing did involve some more work than just milling out a new mag catch notch and lowering the "U" channel. I was going to attempt to do a LRBHO job, and I'm not sure if that changed how they would work in an UZI. I mean, my friend's cousin was going to try it.
 
ReluctantDecoy said:
The conversion I was eyeballing did involve some more work than just milling out a new mag catch notch and lowering the "U" channel. I was going to attempt to do a LRBHO job, and I'm not sure if that changed how they would work in an UZI. I mean, my friend's cousin was going to try it.
Click to expand...
Probably not very if you implemented it Colt style. On the other hand there is a design that would work nicely in both but requires a bit more work.
 
Rob Boudrie said:
Note the "no longer functions in the firearm it was manufacturer for". The converted Uzi mags work in both Colt and UZI 9x19 guns.

Also keep in mind that anyone who claims to know fine point nuances of the MA AW ban/mag ban is just guessing, not matter how much authority they claim to speak with.
Click to expand...
I have a few preban 92f mags that came with the gun which was made in 1989.

My take on Mass mag prosecutions is that if these are discovered somehow by LEO, the burden of proof to determine the true age would fall on me. The state would have no interest in proving my guilt. They would put me in front of a jury where I would be found guilty. Cause standard capacity.
 
pupchow said:

Model jury instruction regarding unlawful possession of large capacity weapons and/or feeding devices

From Comm. v. Cassidy, 479 Mass. 427 (2018) appendix.
www.mass.gov www.mass.gov

Notice the absence of the term, "preban."
Click to expand...

The definition of “large capacity feeding device” explicitly excludes anything made before 1994.

Therefore a magazine manufactured in 1993 is NOT a “large capacity feeding device” even if it holds 30 rounds.

This is like rifles made before 1994 that have more than two evil features are not “assault weapons”, but the same thing made in 1995, is.
 
milktree said:
The definition of “large capacity feeding device” explicitly excludes anything made before 1994.

Therefore a magazine manufactured in 1993 is NOT a “large capacity feeding device” even if it holds 30 rounds.

This is like rifles made before 1994 that have more than two evil features are not “assault weapons”, but the same thing made in 1995, is.
Click to expand...


I am 100% certain the prosecutor would make no effort explaining that magazines made prior to 1994 are exempt, and that the defense would have to make sure this is known.

How the F could i prove my mags are preban with no markings?

Is it the strategy of the state to make me prove the manufacture date? IMHO that's their job.

Or does state continue to prosecute to box people into a financial jam?
 
milktree said:
The definition of “large capacity feeding device” explicitly excludes anything made before 1994.

Therefore a magazine manufactured in 1993 is NOT a “large capacity feeding device” even if it holds 30 rounds.

This is like rifles made before 1994 that have more than two evil features are not “assault weapons”, but the same thing made in 1995, is.
Click to expand...

In not the one that would need convincing. ;)
 
Lank said:
I am 100% certain the prosecutor would make no effort explaining that magazines made prior to 1994 are exempt, and that the defense would have to make sure this is known.

How the F could i prove my mags are preban with no markings?

Is it the strategy of the state to make me prove the manufacture date? IMHO that's their job.

Or does state continue to prosecute to box people into a financial jam?
Click to expand...

You don't have to prove it's pre-ban. They have to prove it's a "large capacity feeding device"

jury instructions said:
In order to prove the defendant guilty of this offense, the Commonwealth must prove four elements beyond a reasonable doubt:

First: That the defendant possessed an item;

Second: That the item meets the legal definition of "large capacity (weapon) (feeding device)";"

...
Click to expand...
 
milktree said:
You don't have to prove it's pre-ban. They have to prove it's a "large capacity feeding device"
Click to expand...
That is indeed what the law says, but I've seen it in practice and it does NOT work that way in real life in MA!

The case I was involved with, the prosecutor got a MSP "ballistics expert" to report that a standard Norinco SKS had an 11-rd internal mag, fed by 11-rd clips. Not true, but the judge initially bought the story and I have a copy of said ballistics report stating such. My proof (testifying for the defense) was the only thing saving the guy from a long prison sentence in Walpole!

There are authorities out there that will play ball with these anti prosecutors to ensure that someone gets convicted (unjustly)! There are few defense attorneys who know firearms and even fewer who know the Mass gun laws and are capable of refuting these attempts.
 
One mistake people make is assuming "STFU" is sufficient, and once their attorney arrives everything will be done correctly in their best interests.

If you are in a jam on gun law issues, you need to be an active participant and get expert advice on the technicalities that most lawyers don't even understand. Just look at the numerous pages from MA attorneys advertising OUI defense services explaining the severe negative consequences of a conviction. I have not yet found ANY that mention the federal PP status that goes with a conviction, or that explains that a CWOF is treated as a conviction for CDL purposes. This is a particular problem with an OUI since such defendants seek out attorneys that specialize in that type of case, rather than Langer, Guida, Tassel, Foley,Chambers, etc.

The chances someone can learn of the PP issue only after rolling the dice and losing, instead of taking the CWOF that would have been painful, but avoid federal lifetime PP status, are significantly above zero - especially when the attorney has the inherit conflict of interest of additional fees if the client goes to trial rather than cop a plea.

I had to advise my estate planning attorney of how to word my will to preserve the FFL free interstate transport option for my guns when I croak. Yes, it's gun law - but it's also an inheritance related law and even an estate specialist had to have a client explain it to him.

There are authorities out there that will play ball with these anti prosecutors to ensure that someone gets convicted (unjustly)!
Click to expand...
Once charges are filed, it is not about justice, but each side fighting for a win regardless of guilt or innocence. Prosecutors are as accepting of a conviction for an innocent defendant as defense attorneys are when they help a guilty person beat the rap.
 
Last edited:
I guess my question is, with no way for me to prove the magazines were made in 1989, would I be prosecuted for having a large capacity feeding device?

And I am sorry for hijacking this thread. I'll stop.
 
Last edited:
Lank said:
I guess my question is, with no way for me to prove the magazines were made in 1989, would I be prosecuted for having a large capacity feeding device?

And I am sorry for hijacking this thread. I'll stop.
Click to expand...
The burden of proof would be on the .gov in that case.
 
Lank said:
I guess my question is, with no way for me to prove the magazines were made in 1989, would I be prosecuted for having a large capacity feeding device?

And I am sorry for hijacking this thread. I'll stop.
Click to expand...
You certainly could be. It'll be up to your attorney to get you out of it. That's reality regardless of law!!
 

Similar threads

just what we need, another hypothetical question...
2
Replies
47
Views
917
commodon
commodon
hypothetical question on setting gun price for a used gun
Replies
23
Views
660
Tartakovsky
Tartakovsky
Does FN Five-seven have preban 20 round mags?
2
Replies
34
Views
504
Agnotology
Agnotology
a .22 lr question
Replies
8
Views
253
Asaltweapon
Asaltweapon
Magazine adapter question
Replies
3
Views
224
joejoe717
joejoe717
Back
Top Bottom