MA: Identifying Pre-Ban Glock Mags

[60 buckscash]

And if I don't want to join scribe.com? You have pdfs?

 

[Len-2A Training]

There is no definitive answer. https://www.scribd.com/doc/87906038/Glock-Magazine-Identification makes some interesting claims.

And his claims are wrong also, especially since he published that in 2012 when the 2 varieties of ambi cut-outs were firmly established for post-ban mags.

His dimple theory also does not track what I was personally told by Glock-US General Counsel or Glock-US chief technician . . . both give no credibility to any dimples.

 

[modnaru]

I didn't realize it requires a login. But after Len's post, it might be a good thing... So ignore my post.

 

[Point37]

I didn't realize it requires a login. But after Len's post, it might be a good thing... So ignore my post.

It worked for me without a login, thanks


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[60 buckscash]

I didn't realize it requires a login. But after Len's post, it might be a good thing... So ignore my post.

Maybe it's because I'm on a phone.

Will do.

 

[Len-2A Training]

It worked for me without a login, thanks


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I previously registered with them, thus no login, it auto-logged me in.

 

[Point37]

i was on my iphone before and i def didn't register with them and it worked

 

[Point37]

And his claims are wrong also, especially since he published that in 2012 when the 2 varieties of ambi cut-outs were firmly established for post-ban mags.

His dimple theory also does not track what I was personally told by Glock-US General Counsel or Glock-US chief technician . . . both give no credibility to any dimples.

So I have a question...since a gun shop sold it to me with a gen 3 g19 if something were to happen who would be responsible?...the shop or me?...on "the commonwealth of Massachusetts criminal history systems board firearms record bureau firearms sales/rental/lease transaction form" it says yes next to large capacity so I assume that means that they are confirming that they sold me a large capacity feeding device or does that just say yes on that line because the firearm is capable of accepting a large capacity feeding device and is on the large capacity roster


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Glockster30]

So I have a question...since a gun shop sold it to me with a gen 3 g19 if something were to happen who would be responsible?...the shop or me?...on "the commonwealth of Massachusetts criminal history systems board firearms record bureau firearms sales/rental/lease transaction form" it says yes next to large capacity so I assume that means that they are confirming that they sold me a large capacity feeding device or does that just say yes on that line because the firearm is capable of accepting a large capacity feeding device and is on the large capacity roster


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

No, it is not a confirmation that they sold you a post-ban hi-cap magazine. It's because Glocks are on the MA Large Capacity Firearms Roster. i.e., pre-ban standard magazines can be used in a post-ban Glock.

http://www.mass.gov/eopss/docs/chsb/firearms/large-capacity-roster-06-2011.pdf

 

[Point37]

No, it is not a confirmation that they sold you a post-ban hi-cap magazine. It's because Glocks are on the MA Large Capacity Firearms Roster. i.e., pre-ban standard magazines can be used in a post-ban Glock.

http://www.mass.gov/eopss/docs/chsb/firearms/large-capacity-roster-06-2011.pdf

Gotcha, thanks...I think the liability is on them but if I can't prove that they sold it to me I should just bring it back to swap for a 10 rounder...I guess I should have done my mag homework first, I just assumed a shop would know what they were doing


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Glockster30]

Gotcha, thanks...I think the liability is on them but if I can't prove that they sold it to me I should just bring it back to swap for a 10 rounder...I guess I should have done my mag homework first, I just assumed a shop would know what they were doing


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Either that, if you have family or a second home in NH where you can leave the magazine, and you have a NH non-resident license to conceal, then you can use it while in NH.

- - - Updated - - -

 

[Point37]

Nope...it will be going back when I get a chance to get back there...the laws here suck


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Len-2A Training]

Gotcha, thanks...I think the liability is on them but if I can't prove that they sold it to me I should just bring it back to swap for a 10 rounder...I guess I should have done my mag homework first, I just assumed a shop would know what they were doing


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The legal liability is on BOTH, but they will simply deny selling you the gun with post-ban large cap mags, leaving you holding the bag (10 year felony/mag).

C. 140 § 131M Assault Weapons Sales Ban
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.

 

[Point37]

Thanks for the clarification...hopefully I have time to swing by there tomorrow


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[kalash]

I wonder how many MA gun owners that don't peruse NES on a daily basis are carrying illegal mags without any clue that they're breaking the law. I'm guessing a lot.

 

[Smokewagon]

I wonder how many MA gun owners that don't peruse NES on a daily basis are carrying illegal mags without any clue that they're breaking the law. I'm guessing a lot.

I'm wondering how many do it knowingly and give 0 effs.

 

[drgrant]

I wonder how many MA gun owners that don't peruse NES on a daily basis are carrying illegal mags without any clue that they're breaking the law. I'm guessing a lot.

Probably a lot less than the number of people that know and simply don't care.

ETA: Smokewagon beat me to it.

-Mike

 

[Reptile]

Pre ban status according to side view

All pre ban Glock mags look like the left mag in the photo.
Notice the straight line compared to the mag on the right that is post ban.
The post ban mag had beveled cuts in it.
I do not think anybody can dispute this detail.

 

[deezwho]

I think you can dispute that detail ... did you read the Sweeney article that was posted somewhere in here?

 

[Reptile]

I think you can dispute that detail ... did you read the Sweeney article that was posted somewhere in here?

I have thoroughly studied his book.

I don't think the article you are referring to was Sweeney.

 

[Len-2A Training]

I have thoroughly studied his book.

I don't think the article you are referring to was Sweeney.

Yes, he's referring to Pat Sweeney's book on the Glocks, published in 2003 (during the Fed ban) that refutes the high caliber marking theory. [I've posted that page of his book here a few times.] Further correlation of that info was given to me directly by Matt Mederios, AFS store manager based on his personal experience as well.

Some of us who have worked in the new product development involving molds for plastic parts have a good understanding of why the above is true.


But everyone claims to be an expert on Glock mags!

 

[PATRON]

I wonder how many MA gun owners that don't peruse NES on a daily basis are carrying illegal mags without any clue that they're breaking the law. I'm guessing a lot.

It's MA every gun owner is doing something illegal in the eyes of the government.

 

[Len-2A Training]

It's MA every [STRIKE=undefined]gun owner[/STRIKE] person is doing something illegal in the eyes of the government.

FIFY

 

[beaker]

Yea except that Glock told the MA AG that there was no way for them to identify a pre-ban mag from a post ban mag unless it had the LEO crap molded in to it and they wouldn't help anyone who was trying to prove anything one way or another. Isn't that one of the reasons the MA AG has a class I boner for Glock?

All pre ban Glock mags look like the left mag in the photo.
Notice the straight line compared to the mag on the right that is post ban.
The post ban mag had beveled cuts in it.
I do not think anybody can dispute this detail.

 

[Len-2A Training]

Yea except that Glock told the MA AG that there was no way for them to identify a pre-ban mag from a post ban mag unless it had the LEO crap molded in to it and they wouldn't help anyone who was trying to prove anything one way or another. Isn't that one of the reasons the MA AG has a class I boner for Glock?

What you stated is factual, however the MA DAs (yes, plural) attempting to jack people up on it happened AFTER the MA AG banned new Glocks.

 

[kalash]

Since this is about as clear as mud, how would a prosecutor ever go about attempting to prove that a given mag is post-ban, especially considering that Glock themselves will not testify to it? LE-only marked mags are a no-brainer - illegal; double-cutout mags are also quite clearly illegal. But everything else seems to fall into a gray area - square vs slated notch, high or low markings, etc.

 

[M1911]

I'm not confident that a ma judge would require proof . if a police armorer testilied that they are postban, I wouldn't be surprised if a MA judge buys it.

 

[Reptile]

I only carry mags with low markings. I spent a fortune on square notch and can carry them with impunity. My glock armorers credentials and sweeney's book are enough to give be confidence in court. I'm sure a police firearms expert would agree with what I can articulate to the judge if brought to trial.

Are legit pre ban mags worth it?

I think so and I plan on keeping my ltc.

 

[drgrant]

I only carry mags with low markings. I spent a fortune on square notch and can carry them with impunity. My glock armorers credentials and sweeney's book are enough to give be confidence in court. I'm sure a police firearms expert would agree with what I can articulate to the judge if brought to trial.

Are legit pre ban mags worth it?

I think so and I plan on keeping my ltc.

If this issue ever came up in court "keeping your LTC" would be the least of your concerns.

-Mike

 

[drgrant]

I'm not confident that a ma judge would require proof . if a police armorer testilied that they are postban, I wouldn't be surprised if a MA judge buys it.

A judge? IMHO anyone going for a bench vs jury trial on something like this is asking to get wailed upon, you might as well just plea out at that point, unless your attorney is really confident that the state's case sucks so badly that even an MA judge will dump it.

I think most of it would be the quality of the expert witness you were willing to bring. If your attorney goes in more or less saying or insinuating "I have an EW that will make your EW look like a fool in court, or at least make the jury think twice about applying that charge" I would bet nearly anything that charge suddenly disappears. A lot of the cursory research I did on this topic years ago showed that a lot of times, a lot of the "junk" charges like AWB crap, etc, were dropped pre-trial or even dropped as part of someone copping a plea. There has to be a good reason for this; and if I was going to make an educated guess, it's because the state would have a hard time selling AWB garbage in court, because there are so many exceptions, outs, and so much doubt that can be introduced in court.

-Mike