-
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.
-
Be sure to enter the NES/Pioneer Valley Arms February Giveaway ***Smith & Wesson SD9VE 9MM***
MA: Identifying Pre-Ban Glock Mags
- Thread starter MarkM
- Start date
That's completely bogus. A lot of laws are open to some degree of interpretation. Better written laws are more specific.... just because a law is poorly written doesn't make it "not a law" anymore. When laws are poorly written then you end up with situations that can swing either way- either in the favor of the state or in the favor of the accused. This is why lawyers make a lot of money and case law ends up being very important- because it often irons out the loose ends in the laws.
The problem is in this case is there is no case law. (Well, depending on how you look at it, this can be a good or a bad thing.... I'd say it's worse not knowing where the real line in the sand is. ) IMO (and I'm not a lawyer) the standard of evidence on the side of the state has to be pretty high to secure a conviction. This of course, assumes that you have a lawyer that is willing to napalm the prosecution on the issue- eg- question them on what authority they believe that a mag is postban- and then watch them flib flub the whole thing on the stand when they can't come up with a solid answer- thus causing the prosecutions argument to fail. I think this explains why it hasn't really been used yet. There is also another felony in MGL that bans possession of an LCAFD without a license- and I think most DAs in MA are going to go for that first (as the standard of evidence there is simply possession, nothing more) although obviously that would not apply in the case of a person with an LTC. My bet is in the case of an LTC holder they try to use the "illegal magazine" thing as part of a carrot and stick approach with a crappy lawyer to try to get someone to plea out to something else.
Ironically this sets up a situation where an otherwise non criminal is more likely to get charged with an AWB violation than a real criminal would... but that's MA for you. The Bartley Fox crap is the same way- it'll put granny in jail, but rarely if ever will a gangbanger get hit by it, due to the mechanics of the law/charge.
ETA: There -is- a way that a law that is "open to interpretation" can be effectively nullified- but that's unlikely to ever happen in MA. Basically you'd have to have a
situation where juries or judges as par for the course, consider the law to be BS and start a trend of never convicting on that charge, then all those failed convictions
can often effectively set a precedent. For example, some of the really old laws (I'm talking like 1800s) on the books that have never been repealed in some places end up suffering this fate, but that takes a loooong time and a long history of the courts ignoring the dumb old laws. That's not a usual case scenario.
-Mike
Last edited:
If you truly believe that, then you seriously need to get educated on the US legal system. Because that statement is patently false.
Hey guys, another question. Will the mags with the u Shaped cut out
"Gen 1" feed ok in a gun that uses Later gen mags. My 23 is preban and legal in ma, just wanna make sure the mags will work before i go and buy them.
Thanks again,
-Matt
"Gen 1" feed ok in a gun that uses Later gen mags. My 23 is preban and legal in ma, just wanna make sure the mags will work before i go and buy them.
Thanks again,
-Matt
Yes, they will feed fine. But they won't drop free. You'll have to pull them out during a magazine change.
+1. Laws are written intentionally so they can be interpreted and applied broadly by judges. There are very few laws that are so specific that there is only a single interpretation. Facts do matter in each case, so the law has to be flexible enough to be applied in a whole host of factual scenarios.
I think you should wake up and get educated! It is not your responsibility to decide what is legal or not. If a written law is so written that the responsibility is on the end user to decide if what they are buying is legal or not it is not a law. It is not left up for you to decide. The writers of the law tell you that! In the case of high cap mags you are told you cannot have over 10 rounds. Period. If you are told what is pre ban or not it is their responsibiliy to show you examples of what is and what is not legal.
- Joined
- Jun 27, 2007
- Messages
- 1,864
- Likes
- 69
your statements make absolutely no sense.
- Joined
- Feb 26, 2005
- Messages
- 57,069
- Likes
- 21,253
I think that if you tried that approach in court, in MA, you are unlikely to get the verdict that you'd like to see. In other words, perhaps what you state is the "way it should be", but I doubt that it would fly in the corrupt judicial system that exists in MA!
I'm sorry, but you simply do not understand how our legal system works. The Commonwealth of MA is under no obligation to tell you how to identify pre-ban magazines.
Likewise, you might want to take your own advice.
Problem is that ignorance is not an excuse for violating any law. There is
some crunch room here with "reasonable person..." but that's mostly in the
sense that the jury would have a dilemma with convicting a person based
on flimsy evidence more than anything else.
![[rofl]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/013.gif "ROFL [rofl]")
So you're going to tell me a guy who is offered an 8 ball of crack is not
responsible for the legal outcomes of their decision to buy it or not?
![[laugh]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/012.gif "Laugh [laugh]")
The "unless lawfully possessed..." thing precludes this, so this is patently
wrong. the law allows for an explicit exception there.
While it's "good conduct" by an enforcement organization to do so, there's no legal obligation for them to do so. And they know this, and they get away with it because there is no punishment for it. The only way they'd ever get punished for it is if the courts routinely ruled against them on that
specific law, rendering it functionally null through failures in prosecution.
-Mike
Pre-bans are #1-2-3-4 and I am pretty sure #5 also even though it is a non hi-cap.
Indicators are the feed cut at the top, the placement of 9mm marking height on the face of the mag body and also the cuts / indents style on the side of the mag body.
Use this pic for referance:
Indicators are the feed cut at the top, the placement of 9mm marking height on the face of the mag body and also the cuts / indents style on the side of the mag body.
Use this pic for referance:
DickWanner
Banned
- Joined
- Oct 9, 2007
- Messages
- 11,157
- Likes
- 1,647
Exactly. And if even glock cannot tell you, I don't expect some guy from the Internet to know more than them...
DickWanner
Banned
I've never heard of the magazine itself having DPD markings. Does it look like a standard "LE only" marked Glock mag with DPD added somewhere in the mix, or something different? Does it have an ambi notch?
- Joined
- Dec 10, 2008
- Messages
- 13
- Likes
- 0
No I have not seen "LE only" marks anywhere. It is, however, distinctly marked DPD, right at the bottom below Glock Austria marks. As to the presense of an ambi notch, I am deeply embarrased to ask what thas notch is.
Silver cutouts on the front of the mag body, a recent update to their design.
According to Glock legal, if it doesn't have the ambi notch or LE only marks, it's pre-ban. I'm assuming you got this mag with a 2nd gen DPD G22, right? If that's the case I'd be very interested in seeing pictures of the mag.
The low .40 markings make it appear pre-ban on the surface, but it looks like the mags have a serial number in addition to the DPD designation. From everything else I've seen and read on the subject, the only mags made with serial numbers were LE only mags made during the 94 AWB, meaning post-ban. But the mag pictured doesn't appear to meet ATF's requirements for mags, although they may have had an approved "alternate means of identification" in this case. Does anyone here know if Glock made mags in the US during the AWB, or if they were imported from Austria like the frames? That would affect some of the requirements here.
http://www.atf.gov/firearms/guides/importation-verification/firearms-verification-overview.html
If I were you and living in Massachusetts, to cover my bases I'd do two things. I'd call Glock (770-432-1202) and give them the serial number off of the gun itself to determine when it was made. I'd also read them the serial number off of the mag, since they're required to keep the records indefinitely if the mags were imported, which they very likely were.
http://atf.gov/firearms/faq/saws-and-lcafds.html#expiration-records
If Glock tells you the serial number was just to mark a lot going to DPD, and the gun itself was issued pre-9/13/94, then chances are it's a pre-ban mag. If they tell you that the serial number and DPD mark on the mag was their way of complying with the law for LE only marks on a post-ban mag, then it's a felony to possess it in Masachusetts.
I've never seen or heard of a Glock mag like this before, so please post here and let us know what Glock tells you on the mag.
Another thought. Since this could be interpreted as an LE marked mag, if Glock tells you that it is in fact pre-ban you may want to request something in writing to back that up. If that comes to the attention of LE, saying "I called Glock and talked to some guy who said it was pre-ban" won't keep you out of hot water. If Glock can't date it (and their official position is that they can't date the manufacture of many of them because they never kept track of design changes) then you should be all set.
I'm saying this because of this thread, where there was some confusion over the pre- or post-ban status of something, and it turned into a headache (assuming we have the full story there). Anything that will help you avoid unnecessary drama is a good thing in my opinion.
I'm saying this because of this thread, where there was some confusion over the pre- or post-ban status of something, and it turned into a headache (assuming we have the full story there). Anything that will help you avoid unnecessary drama is a good thing in my opinion.
You can say that again. I spent a small fortune on one during the ban from a reputable source. I still have the receipt. I was told in Glock Armorers class that the high mark was created to make room for "RESTRICTED LE/GOVT ONLY". They did not actually "stamp" LEO only until after the 1994 AWB came into effect. In the mean time thousands of mags were produced with the high markings.
- Joined
- Dec 10, 2008
- Messages
- 13
- Likes
- 0
I made a call to Glock and spoke to their customer service rep who was very surprized with the DPD pistol's serial number and thought I had gotten it wrong. She had to transfer me to a person specializing in dating pistols whom I eventually I got a hold of. He was able to date the pistol itself but not the DPD marked magazine. He told me that he does not have such records, or something to that effect. I thought that if the company representative could not date it and everything else point to the mag being legal, than it is indeed legal. That is of course until I am in jail pondering where I went wrong in my search. 
Similar threads
