Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
1/25/2018 7:38:29 AM
Posted: 10/14/2003 3:16:08 PM EST
I got in my hands 2 mags in very good USGI's but I'm doubting their pre-ban status. Although they are not marked "Military and Law Enforcement Only Blah Blah Blah", they do have stamped on them 02/00 and 03/00. Does this mean they were made in Feb 2000 and March 2000 or not? BTW, I'm in the Military so I'm not too concerned about being in posession of them for now, I just plan on holding onto them after I get out. Thanks.
Link Posted: 10/14/2003 5:53:48 PM EST
Link Posted: 10/15/2003 12:30:41 PM EST
Thanks Troy. I recieved these from someone on the EE board and trying to sort it out.
Link Posted: 10/15/2003 4:26:56 PM EST
[Last Edit: 10/15/2003 4:35:49 PM EST by GUNNERM15]
Link Posted: 10/15/2003 4:46:42 PM EST
View Quote
Email just sent
Link Posted: 10/15/2003 5:06:26 PM EST
Link Posted: 10/15/2003 7:29:37 PM EST
Originally Posted By rackedAK: ...... BTW, I'm in the Military so I'm not too concerned about being in possession of them for now, I just plan on holding onto them after I get out. Thanks.
View Quote
Not to start an argument but you may be operating under a false sense of security. Just because you are in the Military doesn't necessarily mean that you can have the restricted (MIL/LEO) mags. If these were issued to you by the military for military use you are ok, you cannot use them in personal weapons for personal use. I’ve seen guys get into lukewarm water on this issue. Its not usually a big deal if you are shooting at on-base ranges. However, I’ve seen this become an issue with civilian LEOs at off-base ranges. Just a heads up, I hate to see guys get reamed over this when you can still buy pre-bans and everyone is happy. MM
Link Posted: 10/15/2003 10:38:48 PM EST
Link Posted: 10/17/2003 7:06:39 AM EST
Originally Posted By Troy: And, it appears that GUNNERM15 is a stand-up guy who made an effort to do the right thing. Anyone can make a mistake; it's how you deal with the mistake that matters. Good job. -Troy
View Quote
Yep, he's taking care of it by the looks of it. Thanks GUNNERM15
Link Posted: 10/20/2003 3:49:55 PM EST
Plead ignorance? I have a friend....ummm...well...he just wrapped the bottoms with duct tape and and parachute cord on the bottom (cheap Magpulls)to cover up the "flaw" or "said numbers in question" on them. He's military also and I warned him...So he just went back and exchanged them for ones that didn't have the goofy numbers on them. He sleeps better now. Bridge in Brooklyn is still for sale,last I heard.
Link Posted: 10/20/2003 3:58:06 PM EST
Two thumbs up for GUNNERM15. He's not even mentioned in the thread, but he's standing up to his deal, and promptly too. I'll echo Troy's thoughts of him.
Link Posted: 10/20/2003 4:17:54 PM EST
I'm going to try to clear a "lil' sumthin'" up. LEO's and Mil. may "possess" restricted mags. ie. they may "have them on their person" while performing their official function. ie. at work, or whle working. So, the feds can't "lock up" LEO/Mil types while they are performing a state/fed sanctioned function. Banning these mags/weapons from LEO/MIL use, would make it very difficult for them to function. It does not make it legal for LEO/MIL to "own" ANY mag. Only those they can articulate are necessary for work, ie. those issued w/ for their issued arms. So being a LEO/MIL, would allow one to carry/have certain mags that they need while working and or performing a work function, off duty for agencies that allow off duty MOS to carry obviously is covered, or MIL members travelling that happen to possess M16 +10 rndrs. as well. But an LEO w/ Posty AR mags, if their dept. doesn't require them to use an AR, may very well have problems. A MIL. member, w/ +10 Glock mags could have a problem. Now, is it possible for a fed type to overlook a trained pro. mil or LE that knows the benefit of protecting themselves and their family adequately? Sure, I've seen it. But, beware, its not automatic or legislated.
Top Top