Billing all the time is overrated! Have some fun.
-
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
Billing all the time is overrated! Have some fun.
Sorry about that, I posted the WRONG section of the law......
![[puke]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/023.gif "Puke [puke]")
http://www.mass.gov/legis/laws/mgl/140-131m.htm
That should cover it...
-Mike
Sorry about that, I posted the WRONG section of the law......
http://www.mass.gov/legis/laws/mgl/140-131m.htm
That should cover it...
-Mike
This thread, again, reinforces that the laws here are not even close to being straight forward or readily understandable.
It is annoying. I find it interesting that you disagree with some fellow firearm attorneys though. Would you be willing to take a case pro bono if someone else gets into a jam and that's the only charge (which is quite unlikely)?
![[wink]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/002.gif "Wink [wink]")
BTW in addition to the whole high cap thing, does anyone have a link to the Federal Assault Ban or a Mass link that describes exactly what constitutes an assault weapon? The only thing I have found is what is in this thread and it only addresses the high capacity point. And I've seen the other part that describes the various weapon models that are supposedly prohibited but it doesn't say anything about the components in that part. I'm talking where it says no flash hiders, folding stocks, threaded barrels, exploding babies, etc......
Last edited:
It is annoying. I find it interesting that you disagree with some fellow firearm attorneys though. Would you be willing to take a case pro bono if someone else gets into a jam and that's the only charge (which is quite unlikely)?
Not sure I am disagreeing with them. To be safe, don't possess high cap magazines unless you are reasonably sure they were pre-ban. If you knowingly purchase a post-ban and bring it into the state, you are asking for trouble. Can't really defend that charge other than trying to get the whole law tossed out (not too easy). The basis here would be you can't determine whether or not you violate the law because there is no distinction by the manufacturer between the pre- and post-ban mags in many instances where used magazines are purchased - the old ones look like the new ones. Thus, it is impossible for you to determine if you are or are not complying with the metes and bounds of the law (not really a great argument but you use whatever you have).
Pro bono, what's that?
Last edited:
Allright...let me add a bit more confusion...actually, this is just an example of the convoluted nature of the situation.
Today I was at a gun shop that shall remain nameless (in MA). The only salient aspect of this gun shop is that it has been around, under the same ownership, for 20 years and I was speaking to the owner.
As I was examining a Sig (as usual) he said "Well, this one only comes with 2 ten rounders but you'll just go down to CT and ask for mags for a 226 and they'll give you the fifteen rounders."
Me playing devils advocate: "I see, I always thought that it was illegal to own post-ban mags in the state of MA (he knew I wasn't LEO)."
"NO, no, it's only illegal to sell them. You can have them (post-ban high-caps)," he said looking at me like I was the dumbest thing on two legs.
Me: "So I can just drive to another state and buy them?
him: Sure.
Now, I ask you, where are these dealers when you need someone who's willing to bend the rules.
Also, how do you stay in business for 20 years when your saying stuff like this to a customer you just met?
That said, he was a nice guy, took some time to show me a few guns and so I bought some ammo and cleaning supplies to make it worth his while.
Today I was at a gun shop that shall remain nameless (in MA). The only salient aspect of this gun shop is that it has been around, under the same ownership, for 20 years and I was speaking to the owner.
As I was examining a Sig (as usual) he said "Well, this one only comes with 2 ten rounders but you'll just go down to CT and ask for mags for a 226 and they'll give you the fifteen rounders."
Me playing devils advocate: "I see, I always thought that it was illegal to own post-ban mags in the state of MA (he knew I wasn't LEO)."
"NO, no, it's only illegal to sell them. You can have them (post-ban high-caps)," he said looking at me like I was the dumbest thing on two legs.
Me: "So I can just drive to another state and buy them?
him: Sure.
Now, I ask you, where are these dealers when you need someone who's willing to bend the rules.
Also, how do you stay in business for 20 years when your saying stuff like this to a customer you just met?
That said, he was a nice guy, took some time to show me a few guns and so I bought some ammo and cleaning supplies to make it worth his while.
M.G.L. Ch. 140, Sec. 131M includes possession and not just transfer.
It is true that you can buy them out of state and use them out of state, but you are not supposed to bring them back into the state with you. Great law huh?
calsdad
NES Member
Can you quote out the section that has the wording that specifically bans "high capacity feeding device"???
I am looking at Ch. 140 Section 131 right now - and I went down to (m) - and don't see it.
http://www.mass.gov/legis/laws/mgl/140-131.htm
calsdad
NES Member
Here you go (note that it is from Sec. 131M and not Sec. 131, sub-section (m) - caps matter in this case)
Chapter 140: Section 131M. Assault weapon or large capacity feeding device not lawfully possessed on September 13, 1994; sale, transfer or possession; punishment
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.
A large capacity feeding device is defined as:
(i) a fixed or detachable magazine, box, drum, feed strip or similar device capable of accepting, or that can be readily converted to accept, more than ten rounds of ammunition or more than five shotgun shells; or (ii) a large capacity ammunition feeding device as defined in the federal Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act, 18 U.S.C. section 921(a)(31) as appearing in such section on September 13, 1994. The term “large capacity feeding device” shall not include an attached tubular device designed to accept, and capable of operating only with,.22 caliber ammunition.
calsdad
NES Member
Excellent. Thank you very much for posting that. When I get a chance I will be sending an email off to this guy with all of this information so he can read for himself what the laws are here.
I will be sure to note that he should be aware that the laws here in MA are so convoluted that not even the police even know what is legal - and what is not. DO NOT rely on the word of an officer telling you what the law is - at least in regards to firearms.
At the risk of belaboring a point which has almost certainly been discussed already, I wonder whether the definition of "lawfully possessed" has been tested. Theoretical case: someone buys a high-cap mag which can be proven to have been manufactured prior to 9/94 (for example, an M-16 mag from a 1960s contract). Grammatically, since the statement "large capacity feeding device that was not otherwise lawfully possessed" does not specify "by whom", this section states that it must only have been lawfully possessed by someone. However, I wonder whether an overzealous DA could have enough wiggle room to argue that the statement actually refers back to the person in question (who currently possesses, transfers, offers for sale, etc).
Or should I just sit down, shut up, and not give anyone any ideas?
![[grin]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/041.gif "Grin [grin]")
At the risk of belaboring a point which has almost certainly been discussed already, I wonder whether the definition of "lawfully possessed" has been tested. Theoretical case: someone buys a high-cap mag which can be proven to have been manufactured prior to 9/94 (for example, an M-16 mag from a 1960s contract). Grammatically, since the statement "large capacity feeding device that was not otherwise lawfully possessed" does not specify "by whom", this section states that it must only have been lawfully possessed by someone. However, I wonder whether an overzealous DA could have enough wiggle room to argue that the statement actually refers back to the person in question (who currently possesses, transfers, offers for sale, etc).
Or should I just sit down, shut up, and not give anyone any ideas?
I think you have a valid point. However, the DA's argument would be a bit inconsistent with the "transfer" term expressly stated in the statute. In other words, transfer of magazines from one person to another was expressly indicated to be permissible by the legislator (can't really transfer possession to yourself unless you have multiple personalities
).I think you have a valid point. However, the DA's argument would be a bit inconsistent with the "transfer" term expressly stated in the statute. In other words, transfer of magazines from one person to another was expressly indicated to be permissible by the legislator (can't really transfer possession to yourself unless you have multiple personalities
Ah, very good point... I hadn't considered that the "unless" specifically allows the transfer. Of course, in that case, they could still argue that even though the transfer is legal, the possession on the part of the person who received it is not... but that'd be a stretch even for an MA DA.
Just be careful that the firearm in question actually existed pre-September 1994.
Case in point: I have a S&W SW99 in .40 S&W. This gun was introduced in 1997; ergo, any magazines > 10 rounds with no LEO markings were made AFTER September 2004. That's easy to prove.
Just carry a .45 ACP. If you can't do the job with 11 rounds of that, another 3-5 rounds isn't going to make any difference...
Case in point: I have a S&W SW99 in .40 S&W. This gun was introduced in 1997; ergo, any magazines > 10 rounds with no LEO markings were made AFTER September 2004. That's easy to prove.
Just carry a .45 ACP. If you can't do the job with 11 rounds of that, another 3-5 rounds isn't going to make any difference...
But who would know better than the manufacturer when a magazine was made for their gun?
Who's to to say Glock didn't produce tons of G21SF mags pre-1994 AWB in preparation for it? Thinking ahead to make sure they're covered, amidst R&D for a new gun...? Their stance is that they can't tell which mags were made when, for any gun.
If you had a court case involving a Honda, and Honda couldn't say for sure when a car door was made, or an engine, which "expert witness" would be called to testify who's more knowledgeable than the creator of it? Would someone rely on Internet pictures to prove when a particular style of door was put into production?
I'm of the opinion that a lot of this conjecture is just that, conjecture.
It's not to say you couldn't become "unsuitable," all I'm saying is, no one knows a Glock like Glock.
I've heard of other manufacturer's doing just that, making them in advance. I've heard Para Ordinance did, and I'd imagine other companies did to.
I think it'd be pretty foolish to have high caps in a G21SF or a Sigma .40 or any other number of guns that didn't exist as of the ban. But I also think they'd have a heck of a time prosecuting that with the anti-cooperation of Glock.
Nope, I'm not a lawyer, LEO, expert, or anything special like that. But for someone to tell me some DA's case will hinge on a picture posted on Glockmeister of magazine bodies...?
Much like with GOAL conclusively answering our LTC "reason for issuance" vs. "restriction" issue, I don't think we're going to see the AG say "Hey, good point, you got us on this one, own whichever guns and mags you want guys, sorry for any confusion."
I think it'd be pretty foolish to have high caps in a G21SF or a Sigma .40 or any other number of guns that didn't exist as of the ban. But I also think they'd have a heck of a time prosecuting that with the anti-cooperation of Glock.
Nope, I'm not a lawyer, LEO, expert, or anything special like that. But for someone to tell me some DA's case will hinge on a picture posted on Glockmeister of magazine bodies...?
Much like with GOAL conclusively answering our LTC "reason for issuance" vs. "restriction" issue, I don't think we're going to see the AG say "Hey, good point, you got us on this one, own whichever guns and mags you want guys, sorry for any confusion."
Yes, there are cases where there may be "wiggle room". I'm not willing to base my freedom and future ability to own firearms anywhere in the country based on "wiggle room".
That said, I should have used a more concrete example like the Smith & Wesson M&P series, which were introduced after the ban. Any normal capacity magazines (because the neutered 10 rounders for MA are LOW capacity) for the M&Ps are post-ban, and will get you a stay in the greybar hotel for possession in MA.
And you'll get laughed out of court for suggesting that Smith & Wesson made magazines for the M&P series 10+ years before they went on sale...
That said, I should have used a more concrete example like the Smith & Wesson M&P series, which were introduced after the ban. Any normal capacity magazines (because the neutered 10 rounders for MA are LOW capacity) for the M&Ps are post-ban, and will get you a stay in the greybar hotel for possession in MA.
And you'll get laughed out of court for suggesting that Smith & Wesson made magazines for the M&P series 10+ years before they went on sale...
DickWanner
Banned
Supposedly the caliber designation on the back of the mag was "moved up" during the ban to make room for the 'LE/GOVT USE ONLY' markings and then after the ban the caliber designation stayed up high. I do recall some people of having documented cases of having pre-94 high-caps with the designation up high though, before they had 'LE/GOVT' printed on them. What I do know is new Glock mags have the markings up high and there are about 7/8 different generations of mag bodies. I think you can even get new "replacement" mag bodies from Glock to replace your "old/worn out" pre-94 ones.
I agree with you on the 1st part, I'm not advocating committing a felony, my point is, people here are debating to death the position of markings or alignment of metal lining on Glock mags based on Internet pictures, when the company doesn't date mags ever. That's all. I don't see it as wiggle room, I personally believe it's Glock extending their middle finger at certain entities.
I'm afraid I know next to nothing about S&W's history of manufacture and legal positions (as evidenced in my correction from vellenueve on Sigmas), but as I said in past posts, all of this is conjecture, since NES as a collective body has yet to mention anyone being chraged under MGL 140-131m.*
That's all.
I'm not trying to be a Richard Cranium to anyone.*See the link in my sigline, people have definitely been prosecuted for post-ban mags in Mass.
Last edited:
Yup yup, I recall reading similar things in my Glock research.
With the AWB looming over their heads in 1993, I don't think it's unreasonable to think that Glock may have done what other companies did and manufacture as many "ban" items as possible for financial gain and availability after the law passed.
With no case law (that I know of in this state), and closed lips from Glock, the only real advice I'd give anyone is be reasonably sure they're legal, get some kind of receipt that says "pre-ban" on them, and don't let the tinfoil brain condoms get too tight as we strive to stay legal in Mass.
Y'know, this would all be easier if you just got rid of the tupperware and got yourselves some nice 1911s.
In the 1600's they would have burned you for such heresy.
However, I would rather convert you to fantastic plastic then burn you, so you're welcome to try my Glocks at the range sometime.
![[smile]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/001.gif "Smile [smile]")
No thanks, I've owned one and my groups got significantly better when I got the M&P, even when it still had the MA trigger. But to each his own.
As for the mags, I'd try to be reasonably sure that they're preban. The mags that you can 100% be sure of are the LEO marked mags (obviously postban) and the NFML mags (all preban)
As for the mags, I'd try to be reasonably sure that they're preban. The mags that you can 100% be sure of are the LEO marked mags (obviously postban) and the NFML mags (all preban)
These five Glock 21 magazines were purchased in the late 90s while I was living in MA. If you look at the two magazines with the Grams Engineering base plates you can see the left hand magazine has the markings "up high" while the two on each side have the lower markings. Since then I have moved to NH and enjoyed living free so I've purchased "post ban" Glock 21 magazines but I have documents that show I purchased three "pre ban" magazines (at pre ban prices) while in MA so I consider it fairly well documented that these high marking pre ban magazines exist.
-Nat
Similar threads
