User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 5/4/2016 4:28:28 PM EDT
[#1]
It's a grey area. If there are no markings, which can sometimes be found inside the mag body, it really comes down to if the company existed before September of '94. Some AG's will try to force the issue, some don't.
I know that doesn't really help. But, ultimately, it's up to the buyer. Eta- I do have non-stamped mags. Eta 2- I will never personally pay more than $15 for a preban mag. Some pay $30. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/4/2016 4:30:24 PM EDT
[#2]
Who still has pre-ban mags? MA and sorta-CO?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/4/2016 4:31:51 PM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Who still has pre-ban mags? MA and sorta-CO? MA. Not sure about CT. No clue about CO. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/4/2016 4:33:44 PM EDT
[#4]
No, they don't have to be stamped with a date.
MA has the same rules as the old Federal AWB (94-04). |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/4/2016 4:36:39 PM EDT
[#5]
Dates don't matter in CO (provided they're not positively post 7/1/13), since the mags aren't grandfathered by themselves. If you didn't have it prior to the law going into effect, you can't get it now just because it was made before a certain date - only possession before the date allowed it to be grandfathered.
(though for the most part we just ignore the silly ban) Apparently pre-ban magness still has meaning in MA, CT and maybe IL. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/4/2016 4:37:20 PM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
MA. Not sure about CT. No clue about CO. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Who still has pre-ban mags? MA and sorta-CO? MA. Not sure about CT. No clue about CO. Folks say sorta-CO because we have to have possessed them before July 1, 2013 but the burden of proof is on the prosecution to disprove such a claim. Obviously a date-code later than that would be "proof" that such a claim was false, as would a manufacturer or model which didn't exist back then. So an "unscrupulous" person with a pre-1994 magazine in hand would probably feel little risk of claiming s/he had that magazine prior to the dark days of Koloradostan. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/4/2016 5:12:02 PM EDT
[#7]
how are your refinishing them?
i have a few rusty ten rounders that i sand blasted all the flash rust and paint off them. i was going to rustoleum them. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/4/2016 5:13:55 PM EDT
[#8]
you can mark your mags with a number punch set and just date them pre-ban...no one could argue against it...
http://www.globalindustrial.com/g/metalworking-tools/metal-fabrication/shop-arbor-presses/steel-letter-figure-stamp-sets-95878 Just add something to the mag so you don't crush it... |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/4/2016 5:15:44 PM EDT
[#9]
In Colorado it is a misdemeanor to transfer a mag over 15 rounds. Owning them is fine as long as you pinky swear that you possessed it prior to the June 2013 cutoff.
Buying replacement parts is not illegal and a large number of local gun stores around me sell all the parts necessary to assemble a fully functional mag. So it is entirely plausible that a new magazine body was purchased to repair a broken one (which was legally owned prior to the cutoff) and now happens to have a newer date. Hell, if the spring and follower went bad too it might look like you have a whole new magazine with all new date codes, but you could legally be in the clear. Basically, the law is unenforceable as written unless you do something REALLY stupid. I guess if you were found to be in possession of a mag that's for a platform that wasn't even produced until after the cutoff date that would be pretty cut and dry, but again...the burden of proof is entirely on the prosecutor and, ultimately, you're only on the hook for a misdemeanor. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/4/2016 5:18:06 PM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
how are your refinishing them? i have a few rusty ten rounders that i sand blasted all the flash rust and paint off them. i was going to rustoleum them. I use Perma Slik to refinish grungy USGI mags. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/4/2016 5:26:18 PM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Dates don't matter in CO (provided they're not positively post 7/1/13), since the mags aren't grandfathered by themselves. If you didn't have it prior to the law going into effect, you can't get it now just because it was made before a certain date - only possession before the date allowed it to be grandfathered. (though for the most part we just ignore the silly ban) Apparently pre-ban magness still has meaning in MA, CT and maybe IL. Not at the state level, possibly a few of the Chicago counties though. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/4/2016 5:35:43 PM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
MA. Not sure about CT. No clue about CO. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Who still has pre-ban mags? MA and sorta-CO? MA. Not sure about CT. No clue about CO. My understanding from family in CT is that only 20 or 30 rounders owned before the most recent pushed through legislation are allowed to be owned. And those must be registered or kept in the house... I wouldn't take my word as gospel. YMMV and all that. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/4/2016 5:40:25 PM EDT
[#13]
Quoted:
I'm going through a box of old mags that I'm getting ready to refurbish (stripping, refinshing, new followers, etc). I've found a small handful (maybe 10) that are stamped with dates from '91-'93. Those are obviously preban. I also have maybe 15-20 that I know are from the same time frame but have no markings. .. SO, do the mags have to be marked/stamped? From what I remember, magazines were not date marked prior to the '94 AWB because there was not legal need to, nobody cared. The numbers that were stamped on the magazines usually related to lot numbers or cage codes. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/4/2016 5:41:01 PM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
My understanding from family in CT is that only 20 or 30 rounders owned before the most recent pushed through legislation are allowed to be owned. And those must be registered or kept in the house... I wouldn't take my word as gospel. YMMV and all that. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Who still has pre-ban mags? MA and sorta-CO? MA. Not sure about CT. No clue about CO. My understanding from family in CT is that only 20 or 30 rounders owned before the most recent pushed through legislation are allowed to be owned. And those must be registered or kept in the house... I wouldn't take my word as gospel. YMMV and all that. That is the same that I hear from my family in CT. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/4/2016 9:25:34 PM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
how are your refinishing them? i have a few rusty ten rounders that i sand blasted all the flash rust and paint off them. i was going to rustoleum them. For the ones that absolutely no finish left they'll be media blasted and KG Gunkoted with "GearKote" Good stuff, solid film lubricant. For the ones that have almost all there finish on them and just have the dry lube rubbed off they'll be clean stripped with degreaser and and recoated with Perma-Slik G Perma-Slik G is said to be as close to Mil-Spec coating as you can get....if not outright the same stuff. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/4/2016 9:27:49 PM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Eta 2- I will never personally pay more than $15 for a preban mag. Some pay $30. Yeah, not looking to trying to rake anyone across the coals....but I figure for $15 a mag I could turn that into 2 mags when the sales are going strong. Heck, even $12 a mag would net me almost 2 sometimes. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/4/2016 9:38:43 PM EDT
[#17]
Here in the People's Republic of Konnecticut there is no such thing as a "pre-ban magazine". You had to declare how many greater than 10 round mags you had by a certain time limit, and once the time limit expired no other magazines are allowed. You can't even give your registered magazines to other people here. None of them have any registerable features so if one is destroyed you can replace it under the table and there's no way the state would know.
This crap doesn't make sense even after you explain it twice. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/4/2016 9:43:52 PM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
My understanding from family in CT is that only 20 or 30 rounders owned before the most recent pushed through legislation are allowed to be owned. And those must be registered or kept in the house... I wouldn't take my word as gospel. YMMV and all that. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Who still has pre-ban mags? MA and sorta-CO? MA. Not sure about CT. No clue about CO. My understanding from family in CT is that only 20 or 30 rounders owned before the most recent pushed through legislation are allowed to be owned. And those must be registered or kept in the house... I wouldn't take my word as gospel. YMMV and all that. Almost. It's any mag greater than 10 rounds. A 15 round SIG mag had to be registered too. You can use them in a CCW gun but by law they can only be loaded with ten rounds. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/4/2016 9:43:55 PM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted: That is the same that I hear from my family in CT. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Who still has pre-ban mags? MA and sorta-CO? MA. Not sure about CT. No clue about CO. My understanding from family in CT is that only 20 or 30 rounders owned before the most recent pushed through legislation are allowed to be owned. And those must be registered or kept in the house... I wouldn't take my word as gospel. YMMV and all that. That is the same that I hear from my family in CT. Basically if you didn't register already owned mags at the date of the ban, they cannot be owned, PERIOD. We do still need preban lowers/ARs, if you gottem. I can't tell you how many people I run into that are either completely ignorant of what is banned, or understand the law. Every time I go to the range someone is using/shooting something they think is legal because their "ex cop" buddy they bought it off of said it is fine. Not everyone is internet savvy like us, and unfortunately innocent people will pay  |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/4/2016 9:46:46 PM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Almost. It's any mag greater than 10 rounds. A 15 round SIG mag had to be registered too. You can use them in a CCW gun but by law they can only be loaded with ten rounds. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Who still has pre-ban mags? MA and sorta-CO? MA. Not sure about CT. No clue about CO. My understanding from family in CT is that only 20 or 30 rounders owned before the most recent pushed through legislation are allowed to be owned. And those must be registered or kept in the house... I wouldn't take my word as gospel. YMMV and all that. Almost. It's any mag greater than 10 rounds. A 15 round SIG mag had to be registered too. You can use them in a CCW gun but by law they can only be loaded with ten rounds. As long as the LCM doesn't protrude more than 1" below the grip of the pistol. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/4/2016 9:54:41 PM EDT
[#21]
The answer is just Massachusetts.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/4/2016 10:04:42 PM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Basically if you didn't register already owned mags at the date of the ban, they cannot be owned, PERIOD. We do still need preban lowers/ARs, if you gottem. I can't tell you how many people I run into that are either completely ignorant of what is banned, or understand the law. Every time I go to the range someone is using/shooting something they think is legal because their "ex cop" buddy they bought it off of said it is fine. Not everyone is internet savvy like us, and unfortunately innocent people will pay
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Who still has pre-ban mags? MA and sorta-CO? MA. Not sure about CT. No clue about CO. My understanding from family in CT is that only 20 or 30 rounders owned before the most recent pushed through legislation are allowed to be owned. And those must be registered or kept in the house... I wouldn't take my word as gospel. YMMV and all that. That is the same that I hear from my family in CT. Basically if you didn't register already owned mags at the date of the ban, they cannot be owned, PERIOD. We do still need preban lowers/ARs, if you gottem. I can't tell you how many people I run into that are either completely ignorant of what is banned, or understand the law. Every time I go to the range someone is using/shooting something they think is legal because their "ex cop" buddy they bought it off of said it is fine. Not everyone is internet savvy like us, and unfortunately innocent people will pay
By the same token I have yet to go to a range where anyone bothered to check. Even the guys at the state range said they had no idea how to enforce it since only the police have access to the registry. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/4/2016 10:12:03 PM EDT
[#23]
Good EE ad.
Contact FreeFallE7, he's been doing this a while. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/4/2016 10:28:43 PM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
In Colorado it is a misdemeanor to transfer a mag over 15 rounds. Owning them is fine as long as you pinky swear that you possessed it prior to the June 2013 cutoff. Buying replacement parts is not illegal and a large number of local gun stores around me sell all the parts necessary to assemble a fully functional mag. So it is entirely plausible that a new magazine body was purchased to repair a broken one (which was legally owned prior to the cutoff) and now happens to have a newer date. Hell, if the spring and follower went bad too it might look like you have a whole new magazine with all new date codes, but you could legally be in the clear. Basically, the law is unenforceable as written unless you do something REALLY stupid. I guess if you were found to be in possession of a mag that's for a platform that wasn't even produced until after the cutoff date that would be pretty cut and dry, but again...the burden of proof is entirely on the prosecutor and, ultimately, you're only on the hook for a misdemeanor. Same in CA prior to 2015! Now we are stuck with what we have build parts can no longer be imported! |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/4/2016 10:46:06 PM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Same in CA prior to 2015! Now we are stuck with what we have build parts can no longer be imported! The Kalifornia cutoff was 1994 though, right? |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/4/2016 10:54:35 PM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Good EE ad.
Contact FreeFallE7, he's been doing this a while. Refurbing mags? |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/4/2016 11:27:53 PM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The Kalifornia cutoff was 1994 though, right? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Same in CA prior to 2015! Now we are stuck with what we have build parts can no longer be imported! The Kalifornia cutoff was 1994 though, right? January 1, 2000. Anyone born on or after that date cannot possibly be in possession of mags they owned prior to the ban. A child born on December 31,1999 could have theoretically been gifted 1,000 pre ban mags by his father and could legally possess them for his entire life. Gun owners in California are quickly approaching the time (2018) when new shooters will no longer be able to legally justify being in possession of high capacity mags. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/4/2016 11:40:51 PM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Who still has pre-ban mags? MA and sorta-CO? MA for sure. I pulled out about 20 lightly used and about 20 new in wrap pre bans to sell. They all went to MA. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/4/2016 11:47:05 PM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The Kalifornia cutoff was 1994 though, right? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Same in CA prior to 2015! Now we are stuck with what we have build parts can no longer be imported! The Kalifornia cutoff was 1994 though, right? No 2000 was the cut off! 2015 was the No rebuilds allowed! |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/4/2016 11:52:05 PM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
In Colorado it is a misdemeanor to transfer a mag over 15 rounds. Owning them is fine as long as you pinky swear that you possessed it prior to the June 2013 cutoff. Buying replacement parts is not illegal and a large number of local gun stores around me sell all the parts necessary to assemble a fully functional mag. So it is entirely plausible that a new magazine body was purchased to repair a broken one (which was legally owned prior to the cutoff) and now happens to have a newer date. Hell, if the spring and follower went bad too it might look like you have a whole new magazine with all new date codes, but you could legally be in the clear. Basically, the law is unenforceable as written unless you do something REALLY stupid. I guess if you were found to be in possession of a mag that's for a platform that wasn't even produced until after the cutoff date that would be pretty cut and dry, but again...the burden of proof is entirely on the prosecutor and, ultimately, you're only on the hook for a misdemeanor. Wow, I feel much safer now. I can't imagine how safe residents of Colorado must feel, knowing that their government is SO brilliant that they could craft such a bill and get it passed into law! 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/5/2016 12:02:04 AM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
January 1, 2000. Anyone born on or after that date cannot possibly be in possession of mags they owned prior to the ban. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
The Kalifornia cutoff was 1994 though, right? January 1, 2000. Anyone born on or after that date cannot possibly be in possession of mags they owned prior to the ban. ...but from 1994-2004 was the federal AWB, so you couldn't have legally owned a >10rd magazine made from 1994-2000 anyway, thus making the cutoff effectively 1994 AFAIK. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/5/2016 12:04:01 AM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Wow, I feel much safer now. I can't imagine how safe residents of Colorado must feel, knowing that their government is SO brilliant that they could craft such a bill and get it passed into law! Oh yes, we love it! As an aside, each of my children has a notarized document gifting them as of June 2013 a collection of magazines which may be best described as .... impressive. Doesn't do their kids any good though 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/5/2016 12:04:12 AM EDT
[#33]
I feel like one day magazine bodies will be like transferable mg receivers
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/5/2016 12:07:36 AM EDT
[#34]
It isn't enforced or supported by law enforcement here. In fact, most of the Sheriff's sued the state to have it repealed. If you are in a conservative county there's virtually no threat of prosecution.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/5/2016 12:08:37 AM EDT
[#35]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/5/2016 12:10:31 AM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Oh yes, we love it! As an aside, each of my children has a notarized document gifting them as of June 2013 a collection of magazines which may be best described as .... impressive. Doesn't do their kids any good though Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Wow, I feel much safer now. I can't imagine how safe residents of Colorado must feel, knowing that their government is SO brilliant that they could craft such a bill and get it passed into law! Oh yes, we love it! As an aside, each of my children has a notarized document gifting them as of June 2013 a collection of magazines which may be best described as .... impressive. Doesn't do their kids any good though Good man. All of mine were included in a trust as of June 30, 2013. |
|
|
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
