Seen a few at a show and it just bugged the crap out of me that they are dated on the same day the AWB started.

Just a pointless rant that those mags are out of my reach by one day, hours acutally.

CH

i think those would be nice to have in a collection.

They will be a year from now, when they're 89 cents a piece at Big Lots.

Sorry, that law does not have a sunset provision.  We're stuck with it until it is repealed.

Actually, the 10-round magazine capacity limitation provision also "sunsets" next year, so hicap mags WILL be available again.

[;)]

ALL of my Glock mags have that date on them and I have bought them at different times. That date is the date that the stupid ban went in place, not the manufacture date.

Karl

Really? That is the first ones I have ever seen like this. I guess you being LEO would have you seeing more of those restriced ones then I.

So what is the point of putting that exact date on them?
CH

BTW your right, it is a stupid ban.

Yes. Really.

So what is the point of putting that exact date on them?
CH


I have no idea other than marking them as post ban mags.

Karl

They're legal.  If they don't say LE/Gov't only, they're good to go.

Not true.  If they are dated to indicate manufacture they are considered post-ban as well.

Cape I dunno if you're LEO or not, but those are LEO mags.  That's how Glock marks (or did mark) all of their LEO mags.

Nope not LEO, just wondering about the date. I have seen MFG dates on other types of mags, just not the exact date of the AWB start.

It was almost like, well being teased! Fuckers!
CH

Well, when you said picked up....

My point is, and someone can correct me if I'm wrong, but what you now have in your possesion are LEO-only magazines.  That is not the manufacture date, it is Glock's way of noting ALL of their LEO-only magazines.  Even mags made in 2000 (last time I worked in a shop selling new LEO-only mags) had the same date.

Unless you are LEO, what you "came by" are illegal for you to have.
If, what you mean is that you came across, but did not purchase, then OK, but like I said, it's not the actual manufacture date.

actly ATF has said to be a post ban mag it must say on it LAW ENFORCMENT,GOVERMENT OR EXPORT USE only on the magazine with or without a date or something to that effect a date alone does not make it a postban mag.

straight from ATF

 [url]http://www.atf.gov/firearms/faq/faq2.htm#o15[/url]

Is that a recent ruling?  I can't actually remember if the Glock mags said anything else, but I do know that they had the date of the ban printed on them. Maybe an LEO with mags could weigh in and enlighten all of us.

Norman I edited my previus post to add the info straight from ATF's site.

From your above quote


I would guess that Glock makes mags in Smyrna with the pistols, but I could be wrong.  If so it would appear that there's a seperate set of rules for imported mags as opposed to domestically manufactured.
This is making my head hurt, haha.

Once again, you are FULL OF SHIT. Do your parents know you're posting here?

Norman,
I am not in possesion of anything just seen them at a show and was curious. As I said in my first post;


Thought I would clear that up.

Still, the question remains why the exact date of the AWB?
CH

I just looked at some of my mags. They are marked as follows.
9mm Restricted LE/Govt Only 9.13.94 Glock Inc. Smyrna GA

So I am guessing that all post ban Glock mags are marked with this date and that it is not a date of manuf. but just indicating post ban status.

[img]http://myweb.cableone.net/uziforme/glock18mags.jpg[/img]

I disagree with your interpretation of the ATF's FAQ.  That is referring only to the marking requirements for a manufacturer importer and not your defense from criminal liability.

18 USC s922(w)(4) says that in order to convict a person of possession large capacity ammunition feeding device when the person claims a magazine is a preban, "the Government shall have the burden of proof to show that [the high cap restriction in] paragraph (1) applies to such person. The lack of a [r]serial number[/r] as described in section 923(i) of this title shall be a presumption that the large capacity ammunition feeding device is not subject to the prohibition of possession in paragraph (1)."

Section 923(i) contains the marking requirements for large capacity ammunition feeding devices manufactured post-ban.  It states that "a large capacity ammunition feeding device manufactured after the date of the enactment of this sentence shall be identified by a serial number that clearly shows that the device was manufactured or imported after the effective date of this subsection, and such other identification as the Secretary may by regulation prescribe.

The markings mentioned in the ATF FAQ are required to be put on by a manufacturer/importer, but they do not have to be present to find a violation of 922(w).  [u]922(w) only requires that the serial number specified in 923(i) be on the magazine[/u].  In the case of Glock, the 9/13/94 marking is the serial number referred to.  

On a separate note, all postban glock mags I have seen have the LEO markings down the backside of the mag, although some unscrupulous types have milled off those marks.

Ya think you can make that pic and BIGGER there David?