I have bought 30 round mags from RGUNS the sales person said they were LABEL mags they are black teflon and look new and perfect,they work well in all my AR's .there are NO markings of any kind on them no name no date.what do i have and are the LEGAL ?

Best I can tell, any date markings (either pre or post bans) will be on the mag body.  With the ones I can remember, the date stamp was on the lower 5th of the mag.  Look there, for all post bans are reported to have a mfg date stamp.  You should be able to tell, the date is pretty obviously there.

[peep] Dude, never say the word "RGUNS" around here...

Dude you got "grey market" mags.  You can't prove legality of them.  They are generally cheap and the feed lips are soft & bend easily.  Send them back if you can!  RGUNS is a shady outfit.  Their advertising in shotgun news is nice but the company on the other end sucks!  If it looks to good to be true! it must be a lie.  And you just found out!

SKYPILOT you have no idea what you are talking about. the mags in question are pre ban and as advertised. some of the best mags ever manufactured. my supply of the black teflon mags is now soon to be depleated. what is a grey market mag any way. realy know what you are talking about before you post. have a nice day. R GUNS OUT.

I have a bunch of mags that I KNOW to be pre-ban, and none have date stamps or codes of any kind. So, technically, someone (like an aggressive prosecutor) could say they're grey market, when they're not.

No date stamp means you must presume them to be pre-ban unless they have distinctive features that identify them as a type that has only been made post-ban.

CJ

I bought 6 30 rounders and 2 20 rounders. The 20 round mags are turds. I tried replacing the springs with Wolff springs with no help. The 30 round mags worked for a while and after about 800 rounds they quit working reliable. I will not buy anything but USGI mags. They say they are made by Labelle but I would like to see the proof.

The law specifically states that unless mags are marked as "...restricted LE/MIL, etc..." then the mags are automatically assumed to be preban. There is no need to prove it. No prosecutor can claim otherwise. This information is on the ATFE website. I'd read it there rather than listen to some people online speaking out their asses.

It's the date code they look for. Not all post mags were marked LE only.

Read the text of the law. (if I can find it on my hard drive, I'll post it) It says that magazines must be marked LE/MIL or Export and have a date of manufacture. The mags with a date only are not in compliance. This doesn't mean you can have them, just that they aren't in full compliance with the marking requirements.

Can't find the text, but this is from the ATF FAQ page.

[url]http://www.atf.gov/firearms/faq/faq2.htm#o3[/url]



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)]



Notice that there is no requirement mentioned for a date. Post-ban Glock mags, for example are marked as "Restricted after 9/13/94" or something along those lines.

You and your lawyer can argue about it for years against the limitless taxpayer funded resources of the justice department. Who knows, you may even win after they bankrupt you.

[LOLabove]  Well said- the best advice to heed on this thread so far.

Glock magazines have Restricted LE/Govt. Use Only,at the rear top right below where the caliber is written. Then in between the witness holes it has the section of code and the 9/13/94 if my memory serves me correctly.

I'm not arguing with anybody. I'm stating fact and providing evidence. Buster asked if his mags were legal. I showed him evidence that they were. Others said that post ban mags must have a date code or that his mags were "grey market" and so on. I showed that there is no requirement for a date code mentioned on the ATF website with respect to marking requirements for post ban mags. CMJohnson provided further evidence that pre-ban mags may not have date codes or stampings.

Are you really saying that I will be brought to bankruptcy for posessing AR 15 magazines with no markings whatsoever? Please. Ever seen a cheap USA or WMP or other off-brand pre-ban magazine? No markings. Are they illegal, too?

Keep your sarcasm to yourself and let's try to help the guy with his question.

The original question was answered. Mags with no markings, or with dates of 9/94 or earlier are pre ban and legal.

You stated that a date is insufficient to denote a post ban mag and quoted the BATFE FAQ to support your point. I'll agree that your point is valid and that the letter of the law states that a post ban mag must have the LEO/Export warning.

I'm saying that a magazine dated after 9/94 is a post ban mag and its possession is illegal for us little people, even without the warning stamp. And I'm saying that a judge is very likely to see it that way too. And I'm saying that if a judge does not see it that way, the justice department will appeal. And I'm saying that you will have to defend yourself against the charges during appeal. And I'm saying that lawyers don't work for free. And I'm saying at the end of the appeal process, you may very well win the case, but it will have cost you [b]many[/b] thousands of dollars.

If you find a prosecutor, that will bring this before a judge. I will pay your fees!

Real world folks! Reality Check! They don't bother themselves, with this trivial little "maybe may not be law violation".

I realize this is an imperfect mode of communication. Your concern was addressed when I made the following statement with respect to "date stamp only" mags: