Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 8/5/2003 6:41:24 PM EDT
I posted this in the magazine forum also, but I am very concerned about this situation and posted it here too. I know this is a technical violation, but I'm a bit nervous about this hypothetical situation. The post is as follows:

Hypothetically speaking: If I hypothetically went to a gun shop and bought some hypothetical mags that had the following markings, what should I hypothetically do?

69199
04/00

Above is what is hypothetically stamped on the hypothetical mag bodies. What would I hypothetically do? Would such mags be illegal? Would I hypothetically take them back to the shop and explain that there has been a hypothetical error and that I would like a hypothetical refund? Please hypothetically help me. Sorry for all the hypothetical questions, but I need help here.
Link Posted: 8/5/2003 6:52:03 PM EDT
Unless you use one in the commission of a crime, don't worry about it. I have no idea what the markings mean but post-ban mags are everywhere and nobody will ever care unless you kill someone or get caught dealing dope and have one in your possession.
Link Posted: 8/5/2003 7:00:28 PM EDT
Date codes or other numerical markings are meaningless. In the eyes of the law, this is what matters: http://www.atf.treas.gov/firearms/faq/faq2.htm#o15 [b](O15) What markings must appear on large capacity ammunition feeding devices manufactured after September 13, 1994? [/B] Persons who import large capacity ammunition feeding devices manufactured after September 13, 1994, or manufacture large capacity ammunition feeding devices must legibly identify each device imported or manufactured by serial number and other prescribed markings. The same serial number may be used for all devices manufactured or imported. Such devices must also be marked "RESTRICTED LAW ENFORCEMENT/ GOVERNMENT USE ONLY" or, in the case of devices manufactured for export, "FOR EXPORT ONLY." Domestically made devices must also be marked with the name, city and state of the manufacturer. Imported devices must be marked with the same of the manufacturer, country of origin, and name, city and state of the importer. Persons who manufacture or import metallic links for use in the assembly of belted ammunition are only required to place the prescribed identification marks on the containers used for packaging the links. [18 U. S. C. 923( i), 27 CFR 178.92( c)]
Link Posted: 8/5/2003 7:16:10 PM EDT
If your hypethetical mags hold more than 10 rounds, and you are not a LEO or government alphabet boy, you cannot legally posess them. Take them back and get a refund. It is strange that they don't say "RESTRICTED LAW ENFORCEMENT/ GOVERNMENT USE ONLY", but the date clearly shows that they were made after the Sep 94 cutoff. Does the bottom plate identify the hypothetical manufacturer? You are breaking the law by posessing them. All it would take is one nosey knowitall at the range to ruin your life, and end your right to own a firearm. Hell man, good preban USGI's are easy to find and they aren't that expensive. Why risk it?
Link Posted: 8/5/2003 7:20:04 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/5/2003 7:21:02 PM EDT by Stryfe]
Originally Posted By Dilbert_556: It is strange that they don't say "RESTRICTED LAW ENFORCEMENT/ GOVERNMENT USE ONLY", but the date clearly shows that they were made after the Sep 94 cutoff. Does the bottom plate identify the hypothetical manufacturer? You are breaking the law by posessing them. All it would take is one nosey knowitall at the range to ruin your life, and end your right to own a firearm. Hell man, good preban USGI's are easy to find and they aren't that expensive. Why risk it?
View Quote
Some manufacturers didn't always stamp them as restricted. I can't remember which. Troy will probably wander in and mention who it was. You can: 1. Get a refund. 2. Remove internals and floor plate, then destroy the post-ban bodies. 3. Wish them away to the cornfield for about 13 months. Everyone is getting cocky now that the ban is drawing to a close, and there haven't been any serious crack downs. Me personally, you can get NIW mags for less than 30 dollars easily. Is 60 dollars worth a tax payer funded trip to federal ram me in the a$$ prison?
Link Posted: 8/5/2003 7:54:11 PM EDT
Keep them hidden until 04 when you find out if the ban sunsets. Thats less than one year I assume you can keep out of trubble until then. Deal with it from there.
Link Posted: 8/5/2003 9:00:08 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Stryfe:
Me personally, you can get NIW mags for less than 30 dollars easily. Is 60 dollars worth a tax payer funded trip to federal ram me in the a$$ prison?
View Quote
I personally think that if someone isn't intelligent enough to keep to themselves the fact that they have post-ban high caps then they probably deserve anal rape. Anyone that gets caught with them did so because of their own stupidity.
Link Posted: 8/6/2003 2:12:41 AM EDT
I believe that's "OKAY Industries" mark. As long as you don't have an AR or keep them under the same roof as an AR, no problem. They're just conversation pieces, but "ticklish" conversation pieces at that. Be careful about what you "hypothetically" do next. The pucker-factor is high.
Link Posted: 8/6/2003 2:41:59 AM EDT
Originally Posted By john316: I believe that's "OKAY Industries" mark. As long as you don't have an AR or keep them under the same roof as an AR, no problem. They're just conversation pieces, but "ticklish" conversation pieces at that. Be careful about what you "hypothetically" do next. The pucker-factor is high.
View Quote
I'm goign to have to slightly disagree with ya there. He is in possession of a post ban high capacity ammunition feeding device. Whether he owns an AR15 or not, he is still in possession of a post ban high cap mag. This isn't like a DIAS, where possession along with an AR is illegal. Mere possession of a post ban hi-cap (by non-LEO, etc.) is a violation of law.
Link Posted: 8/6/2003 3:00:27 AM EDT
Link Posted: 8/6/2003 9:04:50 AM EDT
another possibility that was not raised yet and I have seen this on GI mags-this could be a date mag was REBUILT/REFUNISHED not originally produced
Link Posted: 8/6/2003 1:59:56 PM EDT
Originally Posted By captain127: another possibility that was not raised yet and I have seen this on GI mags-this could be a date mag was REBUILT/REFUNISHED not originally produced
View Quote
GI mags are not REBUILT/REFUNISHED, they are considered disposable items. These are mags that were made in April of 2000. Mack
Link Posted: 8/6/2003 2:26:53 PM EDT
From the cage code, I believe those to be Center Industries magazines and I think there is a reference to them not being marked in the magazine FAQ's.
Link Posted: 8/6/2003 11:27:31 PM EDT
Personally, I’d return the things. 100% legal hi-caps are just too cheap to ever justify taking any risk with questionable ones. I does appear at this point that having questionable mags by itself isn’t a big deal. However, if you ever get in a jam, they could certainly make things worse. For example, IIRC, a couple of years ago a member got jammed up pretty badly by a soccer mom who happened to see his AR in his vehicle as he was taking his kids out trick-or-treating. While he was doing nothing wrong with the AR, the cops did get him on another minor charge. They also seized the AR, which took him a lot of aggravation to get back. If he’d been caught with a questionable magazine at the time, things could have been quite a bit worse (for whatever reason, the cops definitely wanted to nail him for something). The problem with a questionable mag is that you are putting yourself at the mercy of someone else.
Link Posted: 8/7/2003 3:07:23 AM EDT
There are post ban high caps that do not carry the for "Restricted LE/Government use only" on them. HK is one manufacture who made some unmarked post bans. Cal's Sporting Armory was carrying post ban high capacity mags for the HK USP at one point.
Link Posted: 8/7/2003 5:46:57 AM EDT
The way I read the law it's not a crime to own post ban high cap mags .It's only a crime to sell them to civies.Prehaps I am uninformed. If they where my hypothetical mags I would fix the problem with a drimmel and a bottle of cold gun blue.
Link Posted: 8/7/2003 6:20:35 AM EDT
Shhhhh!!!! just keep your hypothetical mouth closed and do not use your hypothetical mags until we know better in Sept/04
Link Posted: 8/7/2003 6:43:31 AM EDT
Originally Posted By 199: the cops did get him on another minor charge.
View Quote
What kind of minor charge?
Link Posted: 8/7/2003 7:20:26 AM EDT
Hypothetical UPDATE! This is hypothetical scenario that solved my hypothetical problem. When I first got my AR rifle a few months ago, I was very uninformed about the AWB of '94. I hypothetically purchased the aforementioned magazines from a reputable military surplus type store. When I decided to replace the followers and springs on my mag collection recently, I noted that the hypothetical mags had a faint stamp on them, which was detailed earlier in the thread. That is when I decided to post this hypothetical thread. I returned these non-existant magazines to the non-existant shop and got a full hypothetical refund and hypothetical apologies too. I guess this goes to show that these products are out there, it is up to us to watch our backs.
Link Posted: 8/7/2003 7:23:52 AM EDT
Here is the law you decide. Pay attention to the last paragraph. (w) (1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), it shall be unlawful for a person to transfer or possess a large capacity ammunition feeding device. (2) Paragraph (1) shall not apply to the possession or transfer of any large capacity ammunition feeding device otherwise lawfully possessed on or before the date of the enactment of this subsection. (3) This subsection shall not apply to - (A) the manufacture for, transfer to, or possession by the United States or a department or agency of the United States or a State or a department, agency, or political subdivision of a State, or a transfer to or possession by a law enforcement officer employed by such an entity for purposes of law enforcement (whether on or off duty); (B) the transfer to a licensee under title I of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 for purposes of establishing and maintaining an on-site physical protection system and security organization required by Federal law, or possession by an employee or contractor of such licensee on-site for such purposes or off-site for purposes of licensee-authorized training or transportation of nuclear materials; (C) the possession, by an individual who is retired from service with a law enforcement agency and is not otherwise prohibited from receiving ammunition, of a large capacity ammunition feeding device transferred to the individual by the agency upon such retirement; or (D) the manufacture, transfer, or possession of any large capacity ammunition feeding device by a licensed manufacturer or licensed importer for the purposes of testing or experimentation authorized by the Secretary. (4) If a person charged with violating paragraph (1) asserts that paragraph (1) does not apply to such person because of paragraph (2) or (3), the Government shall have the burden of proof to show that such paragraph (1) applies to such person. The lack of a serial number 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).
Link Posted: 8/7/2003 7:28:43 AM EDT
The hypothetical surplus store probably bought them from a hypothetical soldier or NG who hypothetically sold off some government property, i.e. his TA-50. Then the shop owner wasn't savvy enough to identify the markings.
Link Posted: 8/7/2003 7:45:13 AM EDT
Hypothetically speaking, this is an informative thread.
Link Posted: 8/7/2003 9:24:44 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/7/2003 10:45:17 AM EDT by gijohnny223]
Hypothetically, don't ask questions like this, act stupid if questioned about it. Never draw attention to yourself whether it be here on this site or out in public. Big Brother is reading everything you post.
Link Posted: 8/7/2003 9:33:02 AM EDT
And here we insert my new favorite rules to live by-------------- SHOOT SHOVEL SHUT-UP
Link Posted: 8/7/2003 12:58:11 PM EDT
Originally Posted By dcoke76:
Originally Posted By 199: the cops did get him on another minor charge.
View Quote
What kind of minor charge?
View Quote
Well, my memory is foggy – and it was a rather involved story. I’m thinking it was a having a stun gun, which apparently was illegal in his state, county or whatever. This poor guy was really drug over the coals - he had to hire any attorney, had to make at least a couple of court appearances, had to really fight to get his AR back, and IIRC ultimately wound up pleading guilty to something or another.
Top Top