Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 9/24/2004 7:44:18 PM EST
OK, here's the deal...NY will allow high capacity mags if they were produced prior to '94...
in:
www.nraila.org/GunLaws/StateLaws.aspx?ST=NY
it states:
"It shall be unlawful to possess any "assault weapon"1 or "large capacity ammunition feeding device"2. So called "assault weapons" lawfully possessed prior to September 14, 1994 and "large capacity ammunition feeding devices" manufactured prior to such date are grandfathered."

But my question is how does one able to prove that the magazine was infact made prior to '94 or
able to make sure they aren't getting screwed on non PreBan mags?
Last thing anyone would want (esp. in NYS) is to purchase mags sold as preBan mags
and not have proof that they are infact legal.
I wanted to purchase some LaBelle or USGI PreBan mags but dont see where they are
date stamped. Any help appreciated.
Thanks,
ar15_finatik
Link Posted: 9/24/2004 7:52:17 PM EST
if they dont have any date markings then you should be ok
Link Posted: 9/25/2004 3:06:18 AM EST
Link Posted: 9/25/2004 12:19:25 PM EST
If there is no date stamp or restricted markings on the mag..you are good go....have fun! I'm pretty sure that after all the LEO marked mags run dry, the 'PRE BANS' will show up shortly there after...
Link Posted: 9/25/2004 2:35:45 PM EST
All Beta mags are marked with a serial number. A call to Beta will tell you the manufacture date.
Link Posted: 9/25/2004 2:50:33 PM EST
Ya know ...... Letter of the law and all ,,,,,,,,,,,,, BUT

If your not selling them , no one is ever likely to ask , let alone look .
Link Posted: 9/25/2004 5:54:39 PM EST
I don't know that it's quite so clear-cut, Chuck.

For example, by federal law, machine guns are illegal. However, it is an affirmative defense if you can prove that it is legally registered in the NFRTR. This means that the burden of proof is on you; guilty until proven innocent.

The quote above is obviously just a digest version of the NY state law, but it does sound like it could be in the same boat there -- i.e., hi-cap mags are illegal, but it's an affirmative defense if you can prove that they were made prior to 1994.

If I lived in NY, I'd do some research to find out what the law actually states.
Link Posted: 9/25/2004 5:59:31 PM EST
Thanks guys for the info...definitely have a better understanding now.
In case ya can't tell, I'm still new to this AR15 thing ya know...hinking.gif
I know this may sound wierd, but I'm not real fond of the 30rnd mags...
mainly interested in the 20 rounder's and wanted to make sure all is kosher as I'm shopping.
My Bushy lower/PCM16 upper just doesn't seem the type to outfit with the larger mags,
especially with prone/bench resting shooting and all.
Best regards,

ar15_finatik
Link Posted: 9/25/2004 6:23:04 PM EST
Link Posted: 9/25/2004 6:39:41 PM EST
Reminds me of all the hicap .357 Glock mags that were being sold in the US. Glockmeister had hundreds of them. Glock didn't make .357 Sig mags before 94. But an unmarked mag is just that and ATF could not prevent them from being imported.
Link Posted: 9/26/2004 5:25:49 AM EST
There most definitely is such a law, put on the books in 1986. I own several NFA firearms and have read this section many many times.

Relevant portion of Federal Law



TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 44
Sec. 922. - Unlawful acts
(o)
(1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), it shall be unlawful for any person to transfer or possess a machinegun.
(2) This subsection does not apply with respect to -
(A) A transfer to or by, or possession by or under the authority of, the United States or any department or agency thereof or a State, or a department, agency, or political subdivision thereof; or
(B) any lawful transfer or lawful possession of a machinegun that was lawfully possessed before the date this subsection takes effect.




An excellent read to learn all about machine guns, etc: NFA FAQ


All four of the federal circuit courts of appeals
(U.S. v. Just, 74 F.3d 902 (CA8 1996), U.S. v. Gravenmeir, 121 F.3d
526 (CA9 1997), U.S. v. Gonzales, 121 F.3d 928 (CA5 1997) and U.S.
v. Franklyn, 157 F.3d 90 (CA2 1998)) that have addressed the issue
have ruled that sec. 922(o) prohibits possessing all machine guns,
and it is an affirmative defense to such a charge that the weapon
was legally possessed before it took effect. It is up to the
defendant to prove an affirmative defense, although by a lower
evidentiary standard than the government needs to prove to show a
criminal violation (usually preponderance of the evidence versus
beyond a reasonable doubt). It is not up to the government to prove
the weapon was not registered, for a charge under sec. 922(o), at
least according to all the appeals courts that have considered the
question.



Link Posted: 9/26/2004 5:40:52 AM EST
Link Posted: 9/26/2004 5:43:57 AM EST
Link Posted: 9/26/2004 5:49:25 AM EST

Originally Posted By Chuck:
Of course it's that simple. The government has to prove you committed a crime, you don't have to prove anything.

There is no federal law which makes machineguns illegal. There's certainly a law which places a tax on them.

And even I can tell a machine gun from a semiautomatic weapon. A magazine with no markings is clean.

-- Chuck



The key here is that you are talking about a regulated item... the law strictly prohibits the possesion of the item, but allows certain exemptions -- conditions of the regulation.

Yes, you must legally prove that you meet the contditions of the regulations, same as you must have a prescription for some drugs, or a registration for you vehicle. I few years ago I had to defend the search policies of my team to the policy makers, I was able to argue that we were not conducting "invasion of privacy" searches, but rather regulatory inspections... I learned a lot about regulatory law and requirements during that.

Personal conduct is far different from a persons volentary involvement in a regulated actions... basically (not saying it is right or wrong), if you want to play... you have to play by the rules.
Link Posted: 9/26/2004 6:11:19 AM EST

Originally Posted By innocent_bystander:
Reminds me of all the hicap .357 Glock mags that were being sold in the US. Glockmeister had hundreds of them. Glock didn't make .357 Sig mags before 94. But an unmarked mag is just that and ATF could not prevent them from being imported.


I guess it doesn't matter anymore, but I thought the importer had to prove that imported mags were manufactured prior to the ban. Otherwise, I'd have set up shop in Mexico and been cranking out AR mags.
Link Posted: 9/26/2004 6:25:05 AM EST
Chuck,

The idea that I'm trying to convey here is that, indeed, there are many cases where the burden of proof is on us (the citizens), not the government. In the case of machinegun ownership, we are guilty unless we can prove our own innocence. Wrong or right, fair or not, the burden of proof is clearly on us.

NY state law regarding hi-cap magazines appears to be structured almost identically: that is, hi-caps are illegal -- unless you can prove yours were made prior to 1994.
Link Posted: 9/26/2004 7:40:12 AM EST
Wow! this is the dubacle I was originally thinking of...
I know I may be over-worrying...but to CYA, or CMA for that matter, if it came down to it
and I had to prove a magazine was pre-ban...how can it be done if they're not date stamped?
You guys are really fortunate you don't need to deal with these preBan laws...hinking.gif

ar15_finatik
Link Posted: 9/26/2004 8:03:22 AM EST

Originally Posted By ar15_finatik:
Wow! this is the dubacle I was originally thinking of...
I know I may be over-worrying...but to CYA, or CMA for that matter, if it came down to it
and I had to prove a magazine was pre-ban...how can it be done if they're not date stamped?
You guys are really fortunate you don't need to deal with these preBan laws...

ar15_finatik


The law required them to be date stamped. If they are not date stamped they are legal unless .gov can prove that they were illegally manufactered without the date stamp.

We've been dealing with these preban laws for 10 years.
My question is, why are we still doing it.

If it isn't date stamped, don't worry about it.
Link Posted: 9/26/2004 10:42:24 AM EST

To change the subject slightly.

Does New York code define "assault weapon?" Or "high capacity feeding device?" There's no defination in the US code anymore.

-- Chuck



Unfortunatelly, Yes:


PENAL
New York State Consolidated Laws
ARTICLE 265
FIREARMS AND OTHER DANGEROUS WEAPONS
Section 265.00 Definitions.
.
.
.
.
22. "Assault weapon" means (a) a semiautomatic rifle that has an
ability to accept a detachable magazine and has at least two of the
following characteristics:
(i) a folding or telescoping stock;
(ii) a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of
the weapon;
(iii) a bayonet mount;
(iv) a flash suppressor or threaded barrel designed to accommodate a
flash suppressor;
(v) a grenade launcher; or
(b) a semiautomatic shotgun that has at least two of the following
characteristics:
(i) a folding or telescoping stock;
(ii) a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of
the weapon;
(iii) a fixed magazine capacity in excess of five rounds;
(iv) an ability to accept a detachable magazine; or
(c) a semiautomatic pistol that has an ability to accept a detachable
magazine and has at least two of the following characteristics:
(i) an ammunition magazine that attaches to the pistol outside of the
pistol grip;
(ii) a threaded barrel capable of accepting a barrel extender, flash
suppressor, forward handgrip, or silencer;
(iii) a shroud that is attached to, or partially or completely
encircles, the barrel and that permits the shooter to hold the firearm
with the nontrigger hand without being burned;
(iv) a manufactured weight of fifty ounces or more when the pistol is
unloaded;
(v) a semiautomatic version of an automatic rifle, shotgun or firearm;
or
(d) any of the weapons, or functioning frames or receivers of such
weapons, or copies or duplicates of such weapons, in any caliber, known
as:
(i) Norinco, Mitchell, and Poly Technologies Avtomat Kalashnikovs (all
models);
(ii) Action Arms Israeli Military Industries UZI and Galil;
(iii) Beretta Ar70 (SC-70);
(iv) Colt AR-15;
(v) Fabrique National FN/FAL, FN/LAR, and FNC;
(vi) SWD M-10, M-11, M-11/9, and M-12;
(vii) Steyr AUG;
(viii) INTRATEC TEC-9, TEC-DC9 and TEC-22; and
(ix) revolving cylinder shotguns, such as (or similar to) the Street
Sweeper and Striker 12;
(e) provided, however, that such term does not include: (i) any rifle,
shotgun or pistol that (A) is manually operated by bolt, pump, lever or
slide action; (B) has been rendered permanently inoperable; or (C) is an
antique firearm as defined in 18 U.S.C. 921(a)(16);
(ii) a semiautomatic rifle that cannot accept a detachable magazine
that holds more than five rounds of ammunition;
(iii) a semiautomatic shotgun that cannot hold more than five rounds
of ammunition in a fixed or detachable magazine;
(iv) a rifle, shotgun or pistol, or a replica or a duplicate thereof,
specified in Appendix A to section 922 of 18 U.S.C. as such weapon was
manufactured on October first, nineteen hundred ninety-three. The mere
fact that a weapon is not listed in Appendix A shall not be construed to
mean that such weapon is an assault weapon; or
(v) a semiautomatic rifle, a semiautomatic shotgun or a semiautomatic
pistol or any of the weapons defined in paragraph (d) of this
subdivision lawfully possessed prior to September fourteenth, nineteen
hundred ninety-four.


And furthermore defines Large capacity magazines:

23. "Large capacity ammunition feeding device" means a magazine, belt,
drum, feed strip, or similar device, manufactured after September
thirteenth, nineteen hundred ninety-four, that has a capacity of, or
that can be readily restored or converted to accept, more than ten
rounds of ammunition; provided, however, that such term does not include
an attached tubular device designed to accept, and capable of operating
only with, .22 caliber rimfire ammunition.



ar15_finatik
Link Posted: 9/26/2004 11:12:41 AM EST
[Last Edit: 9/27/2004 2:23:33 PM EST by Chuck]
Link Posted: 9/27/2004 6:05:20 AM EST
This also brings up a question about having the magazine components available such as shells, for example, but not assembled. Under Federal law you were able to rebuild damaged magazines using post ban parts. The parts themselves are useless unless assembled and there is nothing in the law that says you cannot have the components.

Likewise, would there be a problem having the parts to put together an m4ergery but not actually assemble it? Connecticut has a rule prohibiting possession of parts that can be assembled but the New York law, having been lifted from the Federal law, makes no such distinction.
Link Posted: 9/27/2004 2:43:34 PM EST
You are still innocent until proven guilty. (even in NY!) The machine gun anology does't fit. It is easy to prove somthing is a machine gun. The burden will be on the state to prove they were made after 1994. If that's not the case a lot of us New Yorkers are headed for the slammer. As far as components go it seems they are also legal. Obviously a law written by people that have no understanding of it.
Link Posted: 9/27/2004 3:11:21 PM EST
If you want to play it safe, I thing CMMG has new unmarked USGI mag bodies for 10 dollars. Just get some springs and followers and you have $15 NIW USGI mags....
Link Posted: 9/27/2004 3:18:21 PM EST

Originally Posted By Trey-W:
If you want to play it safe, I thing CMMG has new unmarked USGI mag bodies for 10 dollars. Just get some springs and followers and you have $15 NIW USGI mags....




I think they are $13
Top Top