Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 3/20/2002 1:16:42 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/20/2002 1:18:19 PM EDT by gijohnny223]
I was told via phone today that it is illegal to use any mag that holds more then 10 rounds in any postban AR..........
Link Posted: 3/20/2002 1:40:18 PM EDT
Well, there they go again, making up laws that were not passed by Congress, nor signed by the President.

So, either this ATF dipstick was wrong, or we are all felons, either way, I don't care anymore.
Link Posted: 3/20/2002 1:44:09 PM EDT

Originally Posted By A_Free_Man:
Well, there they go again, making up laws that were not passed by Congress, nor signed by the President.

So, either this ATF dipstick was wrong, or we are all felons, either way, I don't care anymore.



i agree. Fvk them. It is time to follow your conscience.
Link Posted: 3/20/2002 1:46:39 PM EDT
Despite the NRA's scare tactic to try to convince people to donate more money, it isn't true.z
Link Posted: 3/20/2002 1:48:20 PM EDT
Talking with them on the phone is pointless and less than intelligent. I had an Agent tell me it was illegal to fed-ex a handgun to a dealer. I had to point out on the BATF's own website that they indicated IT WAS LEGAL. After reading it she sheepishly admitted she was wrong.

your 'Agent' was wrong on this - there is no law or regulation that prohibits using a pre-ban magazine in a post-ban rifle.

If you want a REAL opiont then write the Technology Branch. Those are the guys that make the opions and they will send an answer IN WRITING.
Link Posted: 3/20/2002 1:49:04 PM EDT
Link Posted: 3/20/2002 2:15:57 PM EDT
It seems no matter what we do it is wrong. Our legal system is a bunch of bullshit.
Link Posted: 3/20/2002 2:28:42 PM EDT
If you don't like the answer you get from one agent, thank him or her politely, hang up, and call back and talk to another agent. Keep doing this until you hear the answer you want to hear.
Link Posted: 3/20/2002 2:36:57 PM EDT
The irony of this topic is fantastic! Just recently in another thread on this very board a know-it-all, and rude "expert" used in his arguement that the ATF could never say that it would be illegal to do this very thing that GIJohnny223 was told today on the phone to prove a point. I guess one should never say never, huh?

Link Posted: 3/21/2002 12:49:03 AM EDT
It doesn't matter what they tell you on the phone, because they won't testify that they gave you that particular answer later if you end up in court because they gave you bad info. Get it in writing or don't bother.
Link Posted: 3/21/2002 2:47:28 AM EDT
Check out the response in the link Noname provided:

...

A large capacity magazine having a capacity of more than 10 rounds can be used in any semiautomatic rifle, provided that the magazine
was lawfully possessed prior to September 14, 1994. It is unlawful for an individual to possess or transfer a large capacity magazine which was manufactured after September 13, 1994...

What kind of crap is that? The idiot means manufactured, not posessed.

I don't believe the idiots they have working there.
Link Posted: 3/21/2002 3:45:11 AM EDT
Well, it would have been possessed by someone, wouldn't it?

If the ATF's phone people are like the level 1 technicians at the ISP I work for, there is no telling how qualified these people are or what kinds of answers you are getting. They probably aren't all that familiar with the laws we ask about, so they have quick-reference law manuals on their desks and look up the statute when you call and just interpret them on the fly while on the phone. Dunno.
Link Posted: 3/21/2002 5:43:01 AM EDT

Originally Posted By mattja:
Check out the response in the link Noname provided:

...

A large capacity magazine having a capacity of more than 10 rounds can be used in any semiautomatic rifle, provided that the magazine
was lawfully possessed prior to September 14, 1994. It is unlawful for an individual to possess or transfer a large capacity magazine which was manufactured after September 13, 1994...

What kind of crap is that? The idiot means manufactured, not posessed.




Yep all that letter states is its OK to have magazines that were manufactured proir to 13 Sept 1994

and

Its illegal to posses or transfer magazines That were Manufactured after 13 Sept 94. Duhh.. Magazines manufactured after 13 Sept 94 should (key word there) be marked with a date and "for LEO/Military Use only" or "For Export Only" or similar wording. These are the magazines that are illegal for us (mere citizens) to posses or use.

I'd go with this written opinion before I accepted some 'agents' word over the phone (BTW that 'Agent' could be the group secretary and the agents were too busy to answer the phone <G>).
Link Posted: 3/21/2002 6:01:26 AM EDT
You might as well ask the village idiot as soon as any given ATF agent concerning federal firearms law. I used to work for an FFL and have received as many as three different and contradictory replies to the same question depending on which agent or office I called.

Chairborne_Ranger pretty much has the procedure down correctly. The only thing I'd add would be to try and get them to mail you the statement in writing as well (although most of them are smart enough not to put things in writing that might embarrass them later)

If you enjoy a good beer on the phone, you can also craft some enjoyable drinking games out of it as well...
Link Posted: 3/21/2002 11:52:56 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Admiral_Crunch:
Well, it would have been possessed by someone, wouldn't it?



My mags are all possessed. They keep whispering to me.....more ammo, more ammo, more ammo.....
Link Posted: 3/21/2002 2:51:23 PM EDT
Please limit the questions to the BATF concerning legalities. It gives them ideas. Someone wrote a letter to the BATF about making an SBR out of a preban. The ATF concluded that registering a preban as an SBR negates the preban stautus because you have, in affect, manufactured a new weapon. It took a whole lot of time and red tape to un-F that situation.

Besides many of the people answering the phones don't know a whole lot about guns or the technical aspects of the laws. Going into an ATF field office and answering a phone is just a job for most of them.

Where's Pete in NH...he definately has $.02 worth listening to in reguards to giving the ATF ideas.

Top Top