Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 8/8/2002 11:11:55 PM EDT
Does this mark the end of cheap & plentiful Thermolds, Orlites, and "Imperial Defense" mags???

www.atf.treas.gov/firearms/073002openletter2.htm


IMPORTATION OF AMMUNITION FEEDING DEVICES

Section 922(w)(1) of Title 18, United States Code,provides that it shall be unlawful for a person to transfer or possess a large capacity ammunition feeding device. Large capacity ammunition feeding devices are defined in section 921(a)(31) as a magazine, belt, drum, feed strip, or similar device that has a capacity of, or that can be readily restored or converted to accept, more than 10 rounds of ammunition.

Importers may submit Form 6 permit applications for any large capacity ammunition feeding devices manufactured prior to September 13, 1994. Under 27 CFR Section 178.119(c)(7) importers must provide the following information:

* Permanent markings or physical characteristics which establish that the magazine was manufactured on or before September 13, 1994;


* A certification from the importer, under penalty of perjury, that the importer maintained continuous custody beginning on a date prior to September 14, 1994, and continuing until the dale of the certification. Such certification shall also be supported by reasonable documentary evidence, such as commercial records;


* A certification from the importer, under penalty of perjury, that the magazines sought to be imported were in the custody and control of a foreign Government on or before September 13, 1994, along with reasonable documentary evidence to support the certification; or


* A certification from the importer under penalty of perjury, that the magazine was in the possession of a foreign arms supplier on or before September 13, 1994, along with reasonable documentary evidence to support the certification.


Don't you just love the BATF... they make up new restrictions whenever they see fit, even when those restrictions are NOT spelled out in the text of the law!!!
Link Posted: 8/8/2002 11:22:06 PM EDT
This is bullshit.

I often wonder just who these guys are working for?

I mean,are they trying to help law abiding citizens follow the law and get on with their lives?

Or are they just trying to entrap every gun owner with all their hidden"opinions" and technicalities?

WTF?
Link Posted: 8/9/2002 2:42:03 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/9/2002 2:47:18 AM EDT by rocko]
Unless I'm missing something, there is nothing new here. Importers always needed to get a signed affadavit from their sellers that the magazines were made prior to the 9/13/94. Now, being that the sellers are out to make money and generally outside of US law, they probably aren't too concerned with the truth... Unless there was a policy change, and this is no longer viewed as significant proof in and of itself, from the above quote, it looks like as long as, based on the markings, the magazines could have been made prior to 9/13/94 (but a mag that, say, did not exist until 1996 wouldn't be OK), and the importer gets certification from his seller that they were, everything is fine. It looks like this may merely now be part of the form 6 itself, rather than a separate document.

Rocko
Link Posted: 8/9/2002 5:36:07 AM EDT

Originally Posted By rocko:
Unless I'm missing something, there is nothing new here. Importers always needed to get a signed affadavit from their sellers that the magazines were made prior to the 9/13/94. Now, being that the sellers are out to make money and generally outside of US law, they probably aren't too concerned with the truth... Unless there was a policy change, and this is no longer viewed as significant proof in and of itself, from the above quote, it looks like as long as, based on the markings, the magazines could have been made prior to 9/13/94 (but a mag that, say, did not exist until 1996 wouldn't be OK), and the importer gets certification from his seller that they were, everything is fine. It looks like this may merely now be part of the form 6 itself, rather than a separate document.

Rocko


you are missing something... something big.


* A certification from the importer, under penalty of perjury, that the importer maintained continuous custody beginning on a date prior to September 14, 1994, and continuing until the dale of the certification. Such certification shall also be supported by reasonable documentary evidence, such as commercial records; "



Now home many importers can prove they maintained custody of these mags prior to 9/94? And provide proofs?



Link Posted: 8/9/2002 6:59:24 AM EDT
Nothing changes my modus operandi here. Buy as many preban mags as you can afford now, and stockpile them, because they are just going to get harder and harder and harder to find.

Maybe I'll be pleasantly surprised and the 94 AWB will sunset, but in the meantime I'm shoveling magazines under my bed by the dozens (at last count, 3 Beta C mags, 1 Vector Uzi drum, 1 C&S MP5 drum, 50+ NIW M16, 10 beretta 92, 7 glock 17, 8 HK93, 12 MP5).
Link Posted: 8/9/2002 8:26:02 AM EDT

Originally Posted By vicg1:

you are missing something... something big.


* A certification from the importer, under penalty of perjury, that the importer maintained continuous custody beginning on a date prior to September 14, 1994, and continuing until the dale of the certification. Such certification shall also be supported by reasonable documentary evidence, such as commercial records; "



Now home many importers can prove they maintained custody of these mags prior to 9/94? And provide proofs?





Unless I read this wrong, any one of the above crteria would qualify as proof, otherwise it would eb impossible as you would have to certify that the mags were in your, an arms dealers. snd a forgien governmenst custody at the same time, an impossibility. You only ahve to meet one of the custody criteria, not all of them.
Link Posted: 8/9/2002 8:37:15 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Garand_Shooter:

Originally Posted By vicg1:

you are missing something... something big.


* A certification from the importer, under penalty of perjury, that the importer maintained continuous custody beginning on a date prior to September 14, 1994, and continuing until the dale of the certification. Such certification shall also be supported by reasonable documentary evidence, such as commercial records; "



Now home many importers can prove they maintained custody of these mags prior to 9/94? And provide proofs?





Unless I read this wrong, any one of the above crteria would qualify as proof, otherwise it would eb impossible as you would have to certify that the mags were in your, an arms dealers. snd a forgien governmenst custody at the same time, an impossibility. You only ahve to meet one of the custody criteria, not all of them.



good point, but it doesn't say "any of the following criteris" ... it says "importers must provide the following information: " hopefully you're right, it's any one of the above and not all of the above.
Link Posted: 8/9/2002 8:39:41 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/9/2002 8:41:16 AM EDT by Aimless]
Link Posted: 8/9/2002 8:52:44 AM EDT
methinks they left an OR off the end of that section. Makes more sense the way it is written if one figures an or there. If the importer can prove he had custody before the ban there would be no legal reason to prove that anyone else did before him.
Link Posted: 8/9/2002 9:07:55 AM EDT
Just an update I saw on ak-47.net:

OK, forget this thing. I just got off the phone with Mr. Olsen from Imports Branch and he out lined this thing. It does not say it here, but the importers are only required to meet ONE of these regulations. And I ask some VERY specific questions about this to him. For example, Warsaw Pact mags are not marked with dates. BUT, They dont need to be if the importer makes a claim and statement unrder penalty of purjury that these meet the outlined possession criteria in the native country.

Also, H&K mags are marked with a date on them. I went and looked and sure enough, my G3 mags say "G3/HK 1/66" These dont NOT require a statement for importation, they have the manufacturing dates on them.

I gotta say, he was most helpfull and didn't seem confrontational or anti-gun at all. Never gave any snide remarks or snappy answers. Actually I was quite shoked by it all.

Also, it does not change the possession of pre-ban mags, they are all still grandfathered and open for sale to non-restricted buyers.


Rocko
Link Posted: 8/9/2002 9:18:01 AM EDT
I figured that was the deal.
Link Posted: 8/9/2002 2:23:52 PM EDT
Guys, check out Chief Thunder's Longhouse on AK-47.NET if you want to see the hassles he has went through over importing AK mags. I think that the BATF cofiscated them all and he has a lawsuit against them.

www.gunsnet.net/forums/showthread.php?s=ceac03016f1e8858c5ae42695fb6ac2c&threadid=66518
Link Posted: 8/9/2002 2:36:34 PM EDT
when and if the awb does sunset is the ban on hicaps also included? if it goes away will we be able to buy brand new 30 rounders? and if so will we be able to buy the currently manufactured mags that are for law enforcement and military use only? any awnser are greatly appreciated.
Link Posted: 8/10/2002 2:00:14 PM EDT

Originally Posted By ah1z:
when and if the awb does sunset is the ban on hicaps also included? if it goes away will we be able to buy brand new 30 rounders? and if so will we be able to buy the currently manufactured mags that are for law enforcement and military use only? any awnser are greatly appreciated.



The hicaps are included. If it sunsets and isn't replaced again, new hicaps will be legal again for civilians.
Link Posted: 8/10/2002 6:20:04 PM EDT
The BATF's job is nothing more than to find ways to disarm the law abiding citizen, and I might add they are doing a fine job at it.
Link Posted: 8/10/2002 9:22:18 PM EDT
Merely because one agent " Mr. Olsen from Imports Branch" does this, may not have any bearing on the other agents out there..Anyone who has dealt with any bureaucracy more than twice has seen this..

All it takes is one jackass thinking he's Elliot Ness, and this opinion could be right out the window..

Meplat-

Link Posted: 8/11/2002 2:59:49 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Meplat:
Merely because one agent " Mr. Olsen from Imports Branch" does this, may not have any bearing on the other agents out there..Anyone who has dealt with any bureaucracy more than twice has seen this..

All it takes is one jackass thinking he's Elliot Ness, and this opinion could be right out the window..

Meplat-




Except the issue at hand is the ATF approving form 6's, which likely all go across the same person's desk, and not about different field agents making arrests, confiscations, etc.

Rocko
Top Top