lLegal carry of Preban Glock mags

[jdesro]

Do all pre bans have identifying marks as to when they were manufactured?

No, they don't. depending on the firearm it's difficult - and sometimes impossible - to tell if a mag was made pre-ban or post.

The handguns I am most familiar with are the Smith & Wesson 3rd. Gen. auto pistols. Many of them, particularly the 5906 9mm, were manufactured prior to and during the '94 AWB., and S&W still makes mags. for them to this day.

I have seen factory 15 round mags. that I know for an absolute fact were purchased prior to the '94 AWB, and they look completely identical to the ones made today. There is no difference that I can see whatsoever.
From what I understand, the same situation exists with the Beretta 92FS, where pre- and post-ban mags. are virtually indistinguishable.

This is one reason that I carry the slightly older 14 round mags. for the 5906 - there is no doubt that they were made prior to '94, as they switched to the 15 rounders sometime in the very late '80's or early '90's. There is absolutely no question that they are pre-ban.

 

[Greschner 4]

No, they don't. depending on the firearm it's difficult - and sometimes impossible - to tell if a mag was made pre-ban or post.

The handguns I am most familiar with are the Smith & Wesson 3rd. Gen. auto pistols. Many of them, particularly the 5906 9mm, were manufactured prior to and during the '94 AWB., and S&W still makes mags. for them to this day.

I have in seen factory 15 round mags. that I know for an absolute fact were purchased prior to the '94 AWB, and they look completely identical to the ones made today. There is no difference that I can see whatsoever.
From what I understand, the same situation exists with the Beretta 92FS, where pre- and post-ban mags. are virtually indistinguishable.

This is one reason that I carry the slightly older 14 round mags. for the 5906 - there is no doubt that they were made prior to '94, as they switched to the 15 rounders sometime in the very late '80's or early '90's. There is absolutely no question that they are pre-ban.

It's really a dicey situation, imo. Most of the loud mouths under 30 who are drinking the the kool aid (and coincidentally have nothing to lose) will be crying to mama when they step on their dick. I have no doubt our more mature audience have covered their ass and not put themselves, their famalies, and their wealth in a position to be challenged by the machine.

Public Service Announcement: If you live in MA and cannot substantiate that your mag is, indeed, a "pre-ban" (and thereby legal) and have established any discernable personal and/or business "good will" (read: "reputation") and Net Worth, then you are a certifiable moron and deserve to lose everything you have presumably worked hard to attain.

 

[dcmdon]

It's really a dicey situation, imo. Most of the loud mouths under 30 who are drinking the the kool aid (and coincidentally have nothing to lose) will be crying to mama when they step on their dick. I have no doubt our more mature audience have covered their ass and not put themselves, their famalies, and their wealth in a position to be challenged by the machine.

Public Service Announcement: If you live in MA and cannot substantiate that your mag is, indeed, a "pre-ban" (and thereby legal) and have established any discernable personal and/or business "good will" (read: "reputation") and Net Worth, then you are a certifiable moron and deserve to lose everything you have presumably worked hard to attain.

Do all pre bans have identifying marks as to when they were manufactured? If not, I am sure as hell not carrying a mag greater than 10 without documentation to corroborate as such in this shitshow of a state.

I'm so confused right now

Oh good god. You guys are KILLING ME. .

Spreading fear uncertainty and doubt. Making people afraid to exercise their rights WITHIN the law. Please, if you are going to baa like sheep, keep it to yourselves.

Here it is Serapis. Its EXCRUCIATINGLY simple.

Preban high caps are legal to use anywhere anyhow, anyway.

Postban high caps are NOT legal to use anywhere, anyhow, anyway.

So stop the self flagellation that frightens those who may not have a great understanding of the law.

Re identifying marks. Remember, it is not your responsibility to prove it is legal. It is their responsibility to prove its illegal. If you want to be really cautious then only buy U notch Glock mags. These were all made prior to 94 and none were made post-04.

Anyone who chooses to not carry a high capacity magazine in a glock, when U notch mags are readily available is a fool.

This is not a complex issue.

 

[massglock17]

So U-notch weren't produced after 94?
Has anyonr had any issues of reliability with these old u-notch
I haven't used any but heard of swelling and cracking due to the lack of a metal liner

 

[dcmdon]

All U notch mags were made prior to 94. It is the only Glock mag that I know of that is 100% completely unarguably pre-ban.

They don't last as long. They do swell.

But for most people, that is a good thing. It means that if you inadvertently press the mag release, the mag won't dump out of the gun. When practicing reloads, only a fool depends on gravity to do the deed. You should be practicing sweeping the mag from the well with your support hand as you go for the next mag.

For most people, who don't carry a second mag, the fact that it is harder for it to inadvertently drop out is a plus. Especially if you are left handed. Thats why I carry them. As a lefty, I've on more than one occasion found that my mag release had been bumped in every day wear. I've also had the mag release press when the gun recoils. So for me, U notch mags are preferred. Although since I've changed over to all Gen 4 guns, I've not had an inadvertent release.

I have never had any reliability issues with U notch mags. However, I don't use them for normal range use. They get loaded with my defensive ammo and are carried. When its time to change out the ammo for new stuff, they get shot empty and reloaded. I've never had any trouble with them used this way.

I don't choose to carry U notch mags because I'm afraid to carry some of the other mags. I carry them because as a lefty who does not typically carry a spare mag, they make the most sense.

Don

 

[Youradolt]

Whats a preban mag?

 

[Len-2A Training]

Whats a preban mag?

Mag made on/before 9/13/1994 and holds more than 10 rds (pistol/rifle or more than 5 rds (shotgun)!

 

[Greschner 4]

Oh good god. You guys are KILLING ME. .

Spreading fear uncertainty and doubt. Making people afraid to exercise their rights WITHIN the law. Please, if you are going to baa like sheep, keep it to yourselves.

Here it is Serapis. Its EXCRUCIATINGLY simple.

Preban high caps are legal to use anywhere anyhow, anyway.

Postban high caps are NOT legal to use anywhere, anyhow, anyway.

So stop the self flagellation that frightens those who may not have a great understanding of the law.

Re identifying marks. Remember, it is not your responsibility to prove it is legal. It is their responsibility to prove its illegal. If you want to be really cautious then only buy U notch Glock mags. These were all made prior to 94 and none were made post-04.

Anyone who chooses to not carry a high capacity magazine in a glock, when U notch mags are readily available is a fool.

This is not a complex issue.

It will be anything but simple if you run afoul of the law and you can't prove the greater than 10 rounder is preban. No uncertainty nor doubt about it.

 

[30Mauser]

It will be anything but simple if you run afoul of the law and you can't prove the greater than 10 rounder is preban. No uncertainty nor doubt about it.

... and this is their goal.

 

[Greschner 4]

... and this is their goal.

It's not the goal, but rather the result/risk people should fixate.

 

[massglock17]

In a situation where you have to protect your life
It seems hard enough to prove self defense
Or that you had to act in the manor you did
If you draw and use your weapon.
I'd hate for somethng like the use of a preban
Mag be used against you and make you out
To be a criminal or some kind of bs.
Or even given a hard time during a routine
Traffic stop if they ask if you have any weapons
On you and they see a hi cap mag loaded in the gun

 

[dcmdon]

Greschner,

Do you understand anything about our legal system?

Are you able right now, not tonight or after you run to the bank, to prove that you own your car? Can you prove you are in your home lawfully? How do the police know you have a right to be in your home? Seriously. The obvious answer is that you don't have to.

Our legal system is based on some pretty basic principles. Here are a couple.

1) if an activity is not explicitly prohibited, then it is allowed. - Think about this the next time someone on a gun forum says something like "Show me where it says that you can. . . . ". In that case, there probably isn't anything saying you can do something. Its the absence of something saying you can NOT do something that is relevant.

2) It is NEVER your responsibility to prove that something you have is legal. It is the prosecutor's responsibility to prove that what you have is ILLEGAL.

If you are at a point in your dealings with the Police where they are investigating the capacity of your magazine, then you have already been arrested or have been involved in a defensive shooting. To this end, the U notch mags make sense for carry. There is no debating their legality. Everyone knows this. Including prosecutors.

So you can carry your 10 round Glock 17 if you'd like. But don't give people bad advice.

If you own a Glock for self defense, either in the home or outside the home. There is NO reason not to own U notch high cap mags.

 

[dcmdon]

In a situation where you have to protect your life
It seems hard enough to prove self defense
Or that you had to act in the manor you did
If you draw and use your weapon.
I'd hate for somethng like the use of a preban
Mag be used against you and make you out
To be a criminal or some kind of bs.
Or even given a hard time during a routine
Traffic stop if they ask if you have any weapons
On you and they see a hi cap mag loaded in the gun

Please provide me ONE instance of someone prosecuted in MA for a "clean" defensive use of a handgun. I'm talking someone carrying legally, who was not engaged in any questionable activities prior to the use, with no alcohol or drugs in his system.

Thanks.

Don

p.s. I don't doubt that if the cops find a high cap mag in the gun after a defensive use of a firearm, it will bring in some additional scrutiny. However, they will find the mag to be legal if it is truly pre-ban. STOP LIVING IN FEAR.

Besides. If I was only going to use 10 round mags, I wouldn't own a Glock for defensive purposes. Its much bulkier than it needs to be.

 

[bill o]

...
But for most people, that is a good thing. It means that if you inadvertently press the mag release, the mag won't dump out of the gun. When practicing reloads, only a fool depends on gravity to do the deed. You should be practicing sweeping the mag from the well with your support hand as you go for the next mag.

What if, after practicing tens of thousands of reloads where, without exception, the mag fell freely out of the gun, would it still be foolish of me to depend on gravity? I realize most of the Timmies like to yank their mag out, but that just explains why their reloads are slow and awkward.

 

[Greschner 4]

Greschner,

Do you understand anything about our legal system?

Are you able right now, not tonight or after you run to the bank, to prove that you own your car? Can you prove you are in your home lawfully? How do the police know you have a right to be in your home? Seriously. The obvious answer is that you don't have to.

Our legal system is based on some pretty basic principles. Here are a couple.

1) if an activity is not explicitly prohibited, then it is allowed. - Think about this the next time someone on a gun forum says something like "Show me where it says that you can. . . . ". In that case, there probably isn't anything saying you can do something. Its the absence of something saying you can NOT do something that is relevant.

2) It is NEVER your responsibility to prove that something you have is legal. It is the prosecutor's responsibility to prove that what you have is ILLEGAL.

If you are at a point in your dealings with the Police where they are investigating the capacity of your magazine, then you have already been arrested or have been involved in a defensive shooting. To this end, the U notch mags make sense for carry. There is no debating their legality. Everyone knows this. Including prosecutors.

So you can carry your 10 round Glock 17 if you'd like. But don't give people bad advice.

If you own a Glock for self defense, either in the home or outside the home. There is NO reason not to own U notch high cap mags.

Have you ever been directly involved in a criminal case - either has a plaintiff or defendent? If you have, then you haven't learned a thing about what really transpires in "our legal system".

So as an example (which has cited before), let's say the police, fire department, and EMT is summoned to your house after a 911 call because (hypothetically) your wife is having a potential heart attack. They all get to the upstairs bedroom to address your wifes needs and - low and behold - the police officer (who always hated your bother - your entire family for that matter) sees a glock unattended (not properly secured) on the nightstand with a large mag protruding and asks:

Officer: I'll overlook the fact that firearm was not properly stored with all th excitement, but I noticed that firearm has a magazine that is carrying more than the 10 rounds. You realize the maximum allowable number of rounds is 10.

Husband: Well .. actually Officer, that magazine is considered "preban", so actually it's legal here in MA.

Officer: And how do I know it's preban"? You certainly must have records, receipts, or the mag itself must have permanent markings displaying as such.

Husband: Like most prebans, they don't have distinguishing characteristics, but you certainly can tell by the "wear and tear" that's it's pre 1994.

Officer: So let me get this straight, you have a magazine holding 15 rounds and the only proof of its legality is that it looks old? I'll tell you what, I'm going to take this into evidence (along with all your other firearms and accessories) and make our own determination. And, my advice, for good measure, would be to consult with an attorney. Oh, and, good luck with your wife, the cardiac catherization lab is fantastic.

So, yes, after 9 months of anxiety, loss of work revenue, and 30k of legal expenses you have been exonerated.

 

[dcmdon]

What if, after practicing tens of thousands of reloads where, without exception, the mag fell freely out of the gun, would it still be foolish of me to depend on gravity? I realize most of the Timmies like to yank their mag out, but that just explains why their reloads are slow and awkward.

Whats a Timmie?

You do what you want regarding reloads. There are benefits to both methods. Depending on gravity is clearly faster. Sweeping the mag out is marginally slower but will work with any gun any time.

Its funny. Your avatar illustrates my point perfectly. Sometimes you can't depend on gravity if you are in some kind of an improvised/compromised position.

As a gamer it makes total sense to depend on gravity. The gun is always dry and clean. You are always standing on your hind legs with the gun oriented normally.

 

[dcmdon]

Greschner,

Why would your mag be protruding from the gun? A 17 round Glock mag is dimensionally identical to a 10 round mag.

Why would the gun be out in the open? My guns are either on me or in one of the safes.

And again, I am a believer in carrying U notch mags which are clearly documented as having all been made and all production discontinued before 94. Well before 94. I think actually like 89.


Besides, this goes more to the Mass Beaten Down Dog syndrome. You can always dream up one in a billion scenarios to illustrate your point.

But I'll accept your one in a million scenario at face value and simply say that in my risk reward calculus, I'd prefer to risk the scenario of having to explain a legal high cap mag to law enforcement for the benefit of having 7 extra rounds in the gun.

If you want to choose not to exercise your rights within the law. That is your own risk reward decision. I think we've both presented our positions to all those who are reading. Good luck with your methods, may neither of us ever have to test our theories.

 

[Greschner 4]

Greschner,

Why would your mag be protruding from the gun.

Why would the gun be out in the open? My guns are either on me or in the safe.


And again, I am a believer in carrying U notch mags which are clearly documented as having all been made and all production discontinued before 94. Well before 94. I think actually like 89.

Besides, this goes more to the Mass Beaten Down Dog syndrome. You can always dream up one in a billion scenarios to illustrate your point.

But I'll accept your one in a million scenario at face value and simply say that in my risk reward calculus, I'd prefer to risk that to have 7 extra rounds in the gun.

Hey Don - I just read too much crap and feel that people play it too loose having not, like you (and me), done the calculus. The scenerio I contrived is extreme, but my concern is that regardless whether you agree or don't agree with the system, the cards are increasingly marked against us. The slight **** up has life changing consequences - monetarily, emotionally, and most importantly, its affect on close friends and family.

 

[bill o]

Sweeping the mag out is marginally slower but will work with any gun any time. ...
As a gamer it makes total sense to depend on gravity. The gun is always dry and clean. You are always standing on your hind legs with the gun oriented normally.

As a gamer, I take exception to your characterization. My guns are almost always filthy.
But I will remember to always give it a tactical yank for those times I get into a defensive shooting while upside down, doing a tac reload with a gun that I'm not sure has drop free mags.

 

[dcmdon]

As a gamer, I take exception to your characterization. My guns are almost always filthy.
But I will remember to always give it a tactical yank for those times I get into a defensive shooting while upside down, doing a tac reload with a gun that I'm not sure has drop free mags.

Excellent, I'm glad I could help.

Greschner - it is very frustrating to see MA people so afraid of their shadow that they won't exercise their rights within the law. It saddens and angers me. Mostly it saddens me.

I'm reminded of this constantly. Every time I go to the gun club and see some guy putting a lock through the action of his gun and then putting it in a locking case I cringe. Or even putting a lock on any non-large capacity gun for the ride home. (not required by law, and a gun lock doesn't even meet the requirements of the law, which explicitly says that if its large capacity and not in your direct control must be in a locked container)
General Laws: CHAPTER 140, Section 131C

I know, that coming from CT things are a bit different. Actually they're a world different. I've told cops who trespassed on a friends land while we were shooting my machine gun to get off his property while refusing to show ID. In most of the country, including CT, there is NOTHING they can do. In MA things are different. We have the privilege of possessing firearms at the pleasure of our CLEO. I know that. So while I'd never rub a cop's face in it in MA, every time someone hesitates to discreetly exercise their rights fully, a little bit more slips away.

Don

 

[atilla]

will trade anyone afraid of standard capacity mags a 10 round retard mag for a glock 17 mag.

 

[massglock17]

will trade anyone afraid of standard capacity mags a 10 round retard mag for a glock 17 mag.

I second that lol I'm in the market for a 17rnd u-notch 9mm for a g17

 

[That Guy]

Excellent, I'm glad I could help.

Greschner - it is very frustrating to see MA people so afraid of their shadow that they won't exercise their rights within the law. It saddens and angers me. Mostly it saddens me.
Don

The point is, many people who own pre-ban mags aren't, technically, within their rights of the law. The MA AWB ban states pretty clearly that the magazine has to have been manufactured prior to 1994 and existed in MA prior to 1994, right? That means if you ever bought a pre-ban mag on line, there is a record of you doing so. How hard do you think it would be for the DA to figure that out?

Yes, if you have a clear cut case of self-defense where the cops and DA decide not to screw with you, but unfortunately that's not the way it always works out. Any half-intelligent DA can make even the cleanest of defensive shoots look questionable. If you want to carry a pre-ban mag that you don't have proof existed in MA prior to 1994, go nuts. But kind of like the way you defended changing your mags, why don't you STFU and let other people make decisions for themselves?

 

[bill o]

The point is, many people who own pre-ban mags aren't, technically, within their rights of the law. The MA AWB ban states pretty clearly that the magazine has to have been manufactured prior to 1994 and existed in MA prior to 1994, right?

I don't see anything about it being in MA.

Section 131M. No person shall sell, offer for sale, transfer or possess an assault weapon or a large capacity feeding device that was not otherwise lawfully possessed on September 13, 1994. Whoever not being licensed under the provisions of section 122 violates the provisions of this section shall be punished, for a first offense, by a fine of not less than $1,000 nor more than $10,000 or by imprisonment for not less than one year nor more than ten years, or by both such fine and imprisonment, and for a second offense, by a fine of not less than $5,000 nor more than $15,000 or by imprisonment for not less than five years nor more than 15 years, or by both such fine and imprisonment.

The provisions of this section shall not apply to: (i) the possession by a law enforcement officer for purposes of law enforcement; or (ii) the possession by an individual who is retired from service with a law enforcement agency and is not otherwise prohibited from receiving such a weapon or feeding device from such agency upon retirement.

 

[Len-2A Training]

The point is, many people who own pre-ban mags aren't, technically, within their rights of the law. The MA AWB ban states pretty clearly that the magazine has to have been manufactured prior to 1994 and existed in MA prior to 1994, right? That means if you ever bought a pre-ban mag on line, there is a record of you doing so. How hard do you think it would be for the DA to figure that out?

Yes, if you have a clear cut case of self-defense where the cops and DA decide not to screw with you, but unfortunately that's not the way it always works out. Any half-intelligent DA can make even the cleanest of defensive shoots look questionable. If you want to carry a pre-ban mag that you don't have proof existed in MA prior to 1994, go nuts. But kind of like the way you defended changing your mags, why don't you STFU and let other people make decisions for themselves?

See bill o's post with exact wording. So unless your real name is "Martha", please get your facts straight before spouting "fact" that is nothing more than AG/EOPS propaganda and lies (claims they made that the law actually says "existed in MA under a MA license" on that date).

I do agree with you that a DA is likely to screw you over and even make up law/facts to do so . . . and an ignorant jury/judge may well convict if you don't have the sharpest firearms attorney out there (i.e. if they don't point out the black-letter law of MGL C. 140 S. 131M vs. the wet dream of EOPS in their undated/unsigned memo to all DAs)!

Also it is frowned upon here to go into personal attacks. Better to just state your beliefs without insults to others.

 

[That Guy]

I stand corrected and offer a full apology for talking out my ass re: mags needing to be in MA prior to 94.


Did I dream that up entirely or does that actually apply to weapons themselves or anything?

 

[Smash05]

I stand corrected and offer a full apology for talking out my ass re: mags needing to be in MA prior to 94.


Did I dream that up entirely or does that actually apply to weapons themselves or anything?

I'm sure you heard it somewhere, but it's not in any statute.

 

[Len-2A Training]

I stand corrected and offer a full apology for talking out my ass re: mags needing to be in MA prior to 94.


Did I dream that up entirely or does that actually apply to weapons themselves or anything?

The memo I referred to (and copy was on GOAL.org last I looked) actually says both guns and mags had to be IN MA ON 9/13/1994 (IIRC, "before" doesn't count). The law for both does NOT mention "in MA" in any context whatsoever. Also interestingly said memo claims it is ILLEGAL for ANY MA DEALER to transfer ANY pre-ban large-cap mags or pre-ban so-called AWs. It is right there in the 3rd paragraph of said memo!! So basically, they should be prosecuting all MA Dealers if they actually believed the drivel they wrote in that memo!

Here's the verbatim quote (3rd para):

Furthermore, pursuant to G.L. c. 140, s. 123, clause 16, licensed firearms dealers in the Commonwealth are prohibited from selling or transferring assault weapons and large capacity feeding devices to any person in the Commonwealth.

You will notice the absence of any words explaining that this means "made after 9/13/1994 ONLY" in the above verbatim text of this infamous letter (and the magic date IS stated in the above-referenced clause 16 as passed by the legislature). NOT AN ACCIDENTAL OMISSION!

As for mags, almost all that I bought were at gun shows, no receipt given in most cases but certainly didn't have my name on any receipt and most don't put the date on it either!

 

[dcmdon]

The point is, many people who own pre-ban mags aren't, technically, within their rights of the law. The MA AWB ban states pretty clearly that the magazine has to have been manufactured prior to 1994 and existed in MA prior to 1994, right? That means if you ever bought a pre-ban mag on line, there is a record of you doing so. How hard do you think it would be for the DA to figure that out?

Wrong. The law says that the magazine must have been "lawfully posessed".
It does not say anything about by who or in what state.

During the federal AWB the guidance issued by the ATF was that it had to have been sold at retail by the ban date.

Again I ask you to direct me to a SINGLE prosecution of someone in possession of a pre-ban magazine under 140/131M

I'll be waiting. Thanks.

Don

p.s. Please also remember that the memo Len is referencing has no weight of law. It is an opinion. Their actions speak louder than those rules.

Another thing to remember is that it is not your obligation to prove that anything was anywhere by a certain date. It is their responsibility to prove that something was NOT somewhere by a certain date.

 

[jasons]

Public Service Announcement: If you live in MA and cannot substantiate that your mag is, indeed, a "pre-ban" (and thereby legal) and have established any discernable personal and/or business "good will" (read: "reputation") and Net Worth, then you are a certifiable moron and deserve to lose everything you have presumably worked hard to attain.

Don't be a douchebag.