MA: Identifying Pre-Ban Glock Mags

Could the follower potentially identify whether the mag is post or pre ban? After looking thru some Glocktalk threads I came across one where a person asked what number was on the follower - when I look at the follower in the mag I have it has two numbers: ".40" and " 7 ".

Problem is that strictly speaking even this number could not identify whether the actual mag itself is post or pre - because the follower can be replaced.
 
Rob Boudrie said:
Be careful what you asked for.

Remember, some time ago, a less than ALP LTC bore the nomenclature "Reason For Issuance", which gave someone carrying outside the restriction at least a chance of beating a "violation of restriction" rap. GOAL was concerned about the ambiguity, pushed for a resolution, and got it. All LTCs now bear the designation "Restriction" rather than "Reason for issuance."
Click to expand...

Well there is that to bear in mind [sad2] [angry] . I keep forgetting we are dealing with lawyers and politicians that things don't have to make any sense. I guess the problem I see is that given the ambiguity around what is a pre-ban, and what is a post-ban, mag it is entirely likely that a cop (who as previous posters mentioned may only operate on the 15 round is illegal rule) would arrest you for posession of the mag, when the reality is that the law says you can have pre-ban high cap mags - but nobody can apparently prove what those are. Of course you could go to court and probably prove that the law is completely ambiguous, but that involves lawyers fees, court time etc. Basically you are screwed even if you win the case - over a $20.00 piece of plastic and metal.

I know the easy solution is to just use 10 round mags and avoid the whole problem , but that is not the point, the law is just F%$#*& up. If I lived my life by the rule of avoiding any possible conflict with the law I wouldn't even be on this forum in the first place because I wouldn't have bought a gun.
 
calsdad said:
They probably are "post ban" since I can't see any evidence of wear on them, they look absolutely brand new to me. This however goes right in line with the previous responders to this thread who said that even Glock cannot identify which are pre - and which are post - ban. The whole thing is just freakin ridiculous if you ask me.
Click to expand...

+1. In terms of AR mags if there is no date stamp it's extremely
difficult to determine when the mags were made. Many USGI mags have
date stamps, but not all vendors, even the domestic ones, were making
mags with date stamps. There were also a buttload of magazines
imported from other countries. (Namely, Taiwan and England).

Further compounding provenance of AR mags is the fact that there are
probably at least a half dozen or more companies that make/sell the
things, and probably several others that made mags under different
names, etc, companies that changed names, or companies that were
basically sales fronts for manufacturers. When you have the world's
2nd most popular assault rifle, the market needs an assload of
magazines to feed them.

Just because it looks new is also not an accurate indicator. I remember
seeing AK mags coated in oil in early 2004 that looked "new". I also
saw vendors at gun shows in 2003 selling non-leo marked AR mags in
virtually new condition, with little wear. Friends of mine have also
bought mags in the mid 90s without issue. This leads me to believe
that there never really was a supply shortage of these things. Even
during the ban, 30 rnd AR and AK mags were not difficult nor expensive to
procure. Yeah, some guys were gouging at $30 a mag, but you often
could find mags selling for $11-15 too. All the while, Glock 21 normal
cap mags were fetching like $70-80 a piece, due to relative scarcity.

I guess what I'm driving at, is someone selling "new old stock" AK or
AR mags would not surprise me at all. Problem is now for MA dealers
is that the bigger distributors of that stuff don't really keep track of
provenance anymore, because the majority of the states in the US no
longer have this issue.

-Mike
 
That info is not 100% reliable.

- Patrick Sweeney in his book on Glocks points out the fallacy with the assumption about the caliber marking being "high" meaning post-9/13/94.

- One of the AFS management folks has a G21 with pre-ban hi-caps, purchased during the Fed Ban with "high markings".

- As I reported earlier, probably in this thread (no time to look), per Glock-Legal Dept and Glock-Tech Supt, there is NO definitive way to tell pre-ban from post-ban mags. That is there position and what they have told a number of MA DA's that were looking to prosecute people.
 
LenS said:
That info is not 100% reliable.

- Patrick Sweeney in his book on Glocks points out the fallacy with the assumption about the caliber marking being "high" meaning post-9/13/94.

- One of the AFS management folks has a G21 with pre-ban hi-caps, purchased during the Fed Ban with "high markings".

- As I reported earlier, probably in this thread (no time to look), per Glock-Legal Dept and Glock-Tech Supt, there is NO definitive way to tell pre-ban from post-ban mags. That is there position and what they have told a number of MA DA's that were looking to prosecute people.
Click to expand...

Given the confusion and possible legal ramifications over this issue... it's probably best (at least for ban states), that Glock themselves doesn't know. [thinking]
 
LenS, I was under the impression that to date no one in Mass. had been prosecuted for a violation of the no post ban high cap law, except for gang bangers and others who were caught with illegal guns. I can't recall where I heard that, but is that just another gunshop rumor?
 
TTBOMK nobody has been prosecuted, but since there are so many district courts thru-out the state and their record systems are chaotic at best, nobody can say definitively unless they have personal knowledge of a case.

I was just reporting what I was told by Glock-USA's Chief Counsel. So some DAs have inquired and that was Glock's "standard answer". Glock-USA's Tech Supt also reported to me something similar wrt characteristics of mags and what they mean wrt 9/13/94.

Gang-bangers are not prosecuted on Bartley-Fox (see some posts by RKG on why) and I seriously doubt that any actually serve time for "illegal possession of hi-cap mags" when the case is done. What we always hear is the "big splash" by the DA listing a laundry list of charges . . . most of which are dropped, filed, etc. long before judgment day!
 
This is all going to change in short order now that Glock has modified their magazines a bit to account for the ambidextrous magazine release. I've already seen some of the new type mags for the G21 and the G17. I expect soon this will become the norm for just about all of their mags.

-Cuz.
 
Cuz said:
This is all going to change in short order now that Glock has modified their magazines a bit to account for the ambidextrous magazine release. I've already seen some of the new type mags for the G21 and the G17. I expect soon this will become the norm for just about all of their mags.

-Cuz.
Click to expand...

+1
That new mag style removes the "grey" area of date of manfacture.
 
Quesiton- are the ambi mags only going to be for the G21SF or
are they going to be standard for all standard-line glocks?

-Mike
 
drgrant said:
Quesiton- are the ambi mags only going to be for the G21SF or
are they going to be standard for all standard-line glocks?

-Mike
Click to expand...

I have already seen them for the 17 round G17. A friend got some from Natchez.
 
I think caption with the picture is inaccurate

I bought a pre-ban 9mm mag before the AWB ended for a lot of money and have the receipts with dates.

If it were post ban but before the AWB ended it would have said "For Law Enforcement Only".

The the word "9mm" is on the top. According to the picture this would be post ban.

Like I said, I bought it before the AWB ended.

Goes to show that nobody can tell which Glock mags are illegal in Mass.
 
Reptile said:
Goes to show that nobody can tell which Glock mags are illegal in Mass.
Click to expand...

AND, as proven recently, if the state of MA tries to contact Glock to get an official ruling as to when the mag was manufactured, Glock tells them to pound sand!
 
Reptile said:
I bought a pre-ban 9mm mag before the AWB ended for a lot of money and have the receipts with dates.

If it were post ban but before the AWB ended it would have said "For Law Enforcement Only".

The the word "9mm" is on the top. According to the picture this would be post ban.

Like I said, I bought it before the AWB ended.

Goes to show that nobody can tell which Glock mags are illegal in Mass.
Click to expand...

+1 on that. I'm not one of those "Glock Experts". I purchased a Glock 35 from Four Seasons just prior to the cutoff. The simple fact was that it came with hi-cap 40 S&W mags with the ".40" on the top as pictured in the "post ban" picture. I have a copy of Ptooma Production's "The Complete Glock Reference Guide". In the book, it shows how to identify pre and post ban mags. Further proof that you can't believe everything you read; even from self proclaimed "experts".
 
Conviction for hi cap might not be so easy.

Although there's good reason to be paranoid when it comes to Mass gun laws, there are still hurdles the state would have to meet.

Sometimes, you know, from shooting a lot, the date codes on the back of the magazine wear out, not to mention the numbers on the follower that tend to fade away. Don't forget, a lot of aftermarket manufacturers never dated their magazines before the ban, especially those who made AR-15 mags; therefore a missing date wouldn't necessarily prove anything.

Add to this the availability of rebuild kits for some pistols (new magazine tubes) that were available and perfectly legitimate to use during the AWB period and it gets pretty fuzzy as to whether or not they can prove when your Glock magazine was manufactured. The rebuild kits I've seen were made for Glocks, but not by Glock. Glock might have sold these too, however I'm unsure of that. Unless the prosecution plans on carbon-dating the plastic (not sure if that's even possible or available), then good luck proving when the die was cast.

Someone in this thread suggested that the burden of proof rests on the accused to demonstrate that the magazine is a pre ban. I'm not sure how Coupe Deval has been running things lately, but last time I checked, it's not the job of the defendant to prove he's innocent, its the state's job to prove he's guilty.

Man, no offense, but I grew up there and that state STILL sucks.
 
OK so here is my input. Below are photos of some of my Glock mags, now I own both a Glock 23 and 27 both pre-ban and the case for my 23 says on the side "includes 3- L.E. / GOV. mags. Now I have looked closely at all of my mags from my 10, 12, 15, and 29 rounders and none of them have LEO/GOV markings and look identical to me except for my 29 rounder that has .40S+W marking. I know a few of my hi-cap mags came with my Glock 23 and are pre-ban and a few I purchased later but look the same to me so I believe them to be pre-ban. [smile]





GlockMags004.jpg


GlockMags001.jpg


GlockMags002.jpg


GlockMags003.jpg
 
And Glock-USA's answer to all inquiries is that there is NO DEFINITIVE WAY TO TELL that a mag is post-9/13/94 for certain. Parts may have been replaced. [Glock has shipped me new followers and springs for some of my Wife's pre-ban G17 mags.]

So, I'd give up worrying about it. We certainly do NOT know better here ("armchair quarterbacking") than Glock's legal staff wrt this matter.
 
Amen.
LenS said:
And Glock-USA's answer to all inquiries is that there is NO DEFINITIVE WAY TO TELL that a mag is post-9/13/94 for certain. Parts may have been replaced. [Glock has shipped me new followers and springs for some of my Wife's pre-ban G17 mags.]

So, I'd give up worrying about it. We certainly do NOT know better here ("armchair quarterbacking") than Glock's legal staff wrt this matter.
Click to expand...
 
I purchased my BYW as a NIB old stock from a dealer in mass about 15 months ago. I have gone to three other dealers looking for accessories like holsters, mags, sights etc. The owners a every place asked to see it not believing me that it was NIB and Ma compliant and after they looked over my 27 and a couple of my hi-cap mags all of them said they were MA compliant and could be sold through a dealer anytime (probably in case I was interested in trading it in).

So I guess that brings us back to the question if Glock, dealers and "Experts" can't agree, who (if anyone) really does know what is and is not MA compliant.

An even better question is how with so many different sources saying different things how would anyone or could anyone prove it??
 
For those that are paranoid, I recommend that they only buy Gen 1 and Gen 2 guns and if they dare to possess hi-caps, restrict it to the U-Channel mags.

For everyone else, at ease! [When Glock-USA's senior technician and their chief counsel both tell you (me and others) there is NO WAY to be certain that a mag is post-9/13/94 hi-cap, it's time to take their word for it.]
 
New development

Glock current production hi cap mags now a small cutout to the metal lining on the front of the mag. Looking for pictures. They are, without question, post ban mags.
 
BillO said:
Glock current production hi cap mags now a small cutout to the metal lining on the front of the mag. Looking for pictures. They are, without question, post ban mags.
Click to expand...

Until Glock starts to replace parts in older pre-ban magazines with parts from these new magazines, at which point the cut-outs no longer prove a damn thing.

Ken
 
The cutouts you're referring to are for the ambidextrous mag releases found on the 21SF and upcoming 30SF. Without a doubt these are post-ban but i've only seen them offered in .45 ACP. Unless GLOCK decides to slim down other models or release ambi mag releases for other models then it really doesn't matter.

BTW the ambi mags with the cutouts will work in the 21SF & 30SF as well as the 21 & 30but the original 21 & 30 mags won't.
 

Similar threads

Post-ban High Capacity Magazines
Replies
6
Views
398
CrackPot
CrackPot
Post ban fixed mag AR15 style rife question
Replies
3
Views
117
Shevchenko
Shevchenko
A local MA Gun Ban Group - Falmouth Gun Safety Coalition
Replies
9
Views
491
LLF
LLF
Expired MA LTC = useful?
Replies
21
Views
591
67ray
67ray
Personal transfer of pre-Healy MA compliant AR and/or lowers
Replies
4
Views
296
Mesatchornug
Mesatchornug
Back
Top Bottom