Soliciting LEO Magazines?


January 3, 2003, 06:43 PM
I just finished reading the following 2 threads about unwittingly receiving LEO magazines.

Obviously there is a substantial gray area between civil disobedience in defense of our RKBA and the law abiding citizens we all want to be. I was not surprised that there were so many who wanted to immediately hang the seller of such magazines, such is human nature. Nor was I really that surprised that there were many that wanted to give the seller the benefit of the doubt in that he may have made an error. But I do wonder what prevailing opinion would be should we find out (hypothetically of course) that the seller knowingly sold the "illegal magazines" to a civilian. But that's not the purpose of this post.

What I'm curious to know, is what people would think if the table was turned? There are many guns that were released after the 1994 ban and do not have legitimate pre-ban magazines available. Say someone made an effort to seek out and purchase full capacity magazines that are LEO only. I'm not talking about someone forging a law enforcement letterhead, just someone buying the "contraband" through a less than scrupulous seller. Should we vilify this individual because he disagrees with a law that most (all?) of us also disagree with?

I guess I've rambled long enough...

If you enjoyed reading about "Soliciting LEO Magazines?" here in archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join today for the full version!
January 3, 2003, 06:49 PM
Here's one possible scenario to consider: lets say that you are involved in a home defense or CCW shooting while packing said LEO-only magazines.

Police officer notes this in his report.

Can you imagine the field day attorneys on the other side of the case would have?

January 3, 2003, 06:51 PM
are the '94 magazine laws complete BS? of course they are.
but we do strive to promote RESPONSIBLE firearm ownership, and that unfortunately includes refraining from knowingly commiting a crime that, if we were to be caught, would impact our lives and our rights.
just as we gunowners are expected to be a cut above the rest and reflect such in our everyday lives, it should also be expected that those who supply us with our firearms, accessories, etc also are a cut above.

January 3, 2003, 11:31 PM
Losing your rights to own firearms would be a big bummer. Regardless of what you think of the laws, it pays to be the 'wolf in sheeps clothing'.

January 3, 2003, 11:39 PM

Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.

Someone finally agrees with my rantings on RESPONSIBILITY.

January 4, 2003, 12:17 AM
Bravo Spiff Bravo!

January 4, 2003, 01:56 AM
Well, I can only repeat what I said in the other thread. If someone I knew obtained the said magazines, I wouldn't care in the least. And I realize that he could enjoy these magazines plinking, compeating or whatever. If he wanted to carry this weapon or use this weapon for personal defense, he needs to buy one legal magazine.

Note that in this thread, we are burning the buyer of these magazines at the stake. In the other thread we were burning the seller of the magazines at the stake.

I find it frustrating that some people think this is like a traffic ticket. If someone was caught breaking the law, they should be punished. That is where we part ways however because I realize that there are varying degrees of crime. Do I think that the buyer of this magazine should have a SWAT team kick down his doors, turn his house upside down, display his arsenal on the front lawn, drag his name through the mud on the evening news, send him to federal prision, confiscate all his worldly possessions that wern't eaten up in legal fees ? No, I don't entertain that notion even for a second.
Do we do that for traffic tickets ? No, but wait, writing on the side of a magazine is a more serious crime than reckless driving and demands a full press court regardless of the consequences. Nevermind the fact that a speeding reckless driver could actually be endangering the public.

Repeat after me. We must be in total lockstep with our masters. We do not reason. We do not use common sense. We only do what our masters say. We do not question our masters, we only obey. If we think for a moment that our masters are wrong, we should be ashamed for this independant thought. Our values and morals are not ours to decide, they are provided by our masters who always know what is right and always do what is best for us.
Anyone who disagrees with us should be sent to Gestapo headquarters for the final solution.

January 4, 2003, 02:34 AM
No, but wait, writing on the side of a magazine is a more serious crime than reckless driving and demands a full press court regardless of the consequences

Exactly and thats the way the law reads....

Work to change it, fight it, but until you win..obey it...

BTW, With all the energy you have spent tgriping about the evil mag ban, you could have written a pro se complaint for your local district court seeking to overturn it...or even better, engage in civil disobedience like Ghandi...

January 4, 2003, 04:29 AM
Talk about a wolf in sheep's clothing.
That "law" infringes on our right guaranteed by the 2nd Amendment. That "law" is against the law. Follow it if you like, but don't call me a

January 4, 2003, 07:38 AM
"Talk about a wolf in sheep's clothing"

I was thinking more like a chivato.

January 4, 2003, 09:56 AM
Agree with 444. Responsibility for one's actions must be tempered by a little common sense, independent thinking.

Consider these points:

1. A major part of the anti-gun strategy is to "divide and conquer". First, create a crime...doesn't matter how meaningless or ridiculous it is (in fact the more meaningless the better, as it will invite people to violate it). Then, the target group (that's us, folks) will be divided over how to deal with even incidental violations, expending great energy and probably creating rancor in the process. I'm sure that Feinstein, Josh Sugarman, the Brady bunch, comrade Clinton, et al, would be high-fiving each other if they read this thread...fellow gun owners getting all worked up over some meaningless writing on a magazine. Tripping all over themselves to alert the gestapo, and over what? Who is the injured party in this case? Their strategy is working beautifuly, I would say!

2. Those who would first alert the ATF seem to be ignoring their track record as a rogue agency? One that has gleefully trampled innocent parties' rights. Given the present arcane nature of firearms regulations, and encouragement by a liberal administration, they would be more than happy to bust dissenters at will, over the contents of your average garden shed! What! fertizer+ diesel fuel! Pool chemicals! Propane igniters!

3. Even if you were to mistake the ATF for a legitimate enforcement agency, you would have to agree their resources are limited. And, we ARE supposedly fighting a war against true terrorists, who have demonstrated a desire to kill innocent civilians. Every hour of an agencies' time taken away from REAL THREATS, to pursue victimless paperwork violations, is EXACTLY the kind of wrong-headed approach that allowed the terrorists to commit their crimes in the first place! That "anal-retentive Rambo" mindset has to change, and unfortunately I see little evidence of it as yet.

Think again before making that call.

January 4, 2003, 09:58 AM
My only concern is fraud and misrepresentation. If you're selling post-ban full capacity magazines, don't tell your customer that they are "legal pre-ban" magazines!

January 4, 2003, 01:46 PM
My only concern is fraud and misrepresentation

Yes, that should be an issue. Lying is always bad even if it's over a bogus law. I would hope the selling party would atleast tell me they're post-ban LEO mags and give me the ability to make the decision of accepting them.

January 4, 2003, 02:04 PM
I am with Mitch S. on this one. If I were to receive a LEO mag in the mail as a purchase, let me decide what to do with it." If anyone/dealer sends one out to a customer he's never seen, met, etc, that tells me a lot right there, like he is an idiot! If I wind up eating $30 $40 bucks, so be it. I will trash the thing and use it as a paper weight if I could not get my $$ back. And no, I am not into working for the FEDS.


January 6, 2003, 04:04 PM

I agree with Mitch and you as well, with one caveat. If the ATF comes down on the dealer and the dealer sells you out, then you are guilty of having purchased, received and retained illegal property. Whether you destroy it, use it or whatever is irrelevant. If the ATF gets wind that you "may or may not" have an illegal LEO only mag will most likely result in your arrest and the confiscation of all of your goodies. Even if there is no evidence and you are turned loose, it will take serious time and $$ to get your property returned. It is, in my eyes, better to avoid that scenario by placing the onus back where it belongs.

January 6, 2003, 05:10 PM
The mag ban and aslt weapon ban are to sunset in 2 yrs. If Bush stays in we may truly see it sunset!

January 6, 2003, 05:24 PM
okay, lets put the question in a different light....

i'm going to assume that the laws regarding LEO-only magazines likely include wording such as 'knowingly possess'. suppose you have a friend who knows little about the '94 BS laws and what kinds of magazines are legal for him/her to own/possess/etc.
if you see them sporting a new full-capacity magazine blatantly marked LEO only or has the wording scratched out, are they truly guilty of KNOWINGLY committing the crime?

do you inform your friend of the infraction and advise a course of action?

do you keep silent and hope no one else notices?

do you think that law enforcement would believe claims of 'ignorance'?

i wish we could use ignorance as a valid defense, provided of course that we are not just using it as an excuse to get out of hot water. i dont know how many times i've gone about my daily business to find out from someone else that "a new law was recently passed, and you shouldnt be doing that".
it could be little things. it could be bigger things.
from not knowing i cant inline skate on the streets, but only on sidewalks in certain areas of town, which i would never know, i dont read all the statutes and municipality laws.
or to finding out new information from, i have learned a lot by that site. you have to dig to get information, you have to search out what laws are written and how you can avoid breaking them.

whats the flip side? many people have battled for our rights, many others offer their support for those efforts. without all of those fine people, dont you think that by now we'd have far greater worries on our minds than magazines? what you may do in your life is most certainly your business. but if someone were to announce in a somewhat public forum like this that they wanted to 'give the ATF the finger, buy these altered full capacity magazines!', someone definitely will speak up, not just because a law is being broken, but because it erodes the victories won by those who support your rights. your private life is your business, until you announce your activities in a public forum.

January 6, 2003, 07:25 PM
Two scenarios I was envisioning went kind of like this:

A shopper goes to a gun show and walks the tables. He stops at a table with odds-n-ends accessories. No guns, nothing stocked more than one or two of each item. Looks to be a private citizen (not a dealer) just trying to get rid of some of his older stuff.

Shopper: You have any high-cap mags for [insert handgun here]?

Seller: I have 2 15 rounders I've been thinking about getting rid of with me. I've never been sure if they're really pre-ban though, looks a bit scratched on the back.

Shopper: I'll give you $50 each for them.

Seller: Deal.

The buyer has a pretty good idea that they may be LEO, but doesn't really care much. Seller probably wouldn't make that comment unless he knew they were probably LEO either.

Or possibly something like this.

A shopper walks into dealer he's dealt with for a long time. He goes up to the store owner and starts BSing about guns. Then asks:

Shopper: Hey you got anymore high-caps for [insert handgun here] like the ones I bought last week for 80?

Seller: Sorry, you got the last. All I've got are LEO only mags for $28.

Shopper: Oh... well, I'll give you $60 cash for those.

Seller: Yeah but you'll be up sh!#-creek without a paddle if anyone sees you with them.

Shopper: $70 and you let me worry about that.

Seller: OK, your funeral.

So who's the villain? Obviously some laws were broken on both sides. Which is worse?

January 6, 2003, 07:43 PM
i may be wrong, but dont LEO have to provide a letter on department letterhead before being able to purchase post-ban full capacity magazines?

therefore, it would be the seller who is more in the wrong, imho.

Mark Tyson
January 6, 2003, 08:59 PM
The law is wrong.

Our opponents will not be impressed by our moral rightousness when we fret over the nonsense that they have inflicted on us. They will not say to one another: "Look how good and lawful they are. We've misjudged them all this time!" Indeed, I suspect that they snicker. Obedience to these laws will win us no friends, or questionable friends at best.

Should one obey the law at all cost? In the U.S. there is a long and proud history of breaking the law when the law is wrong. Some who were once scorned as criminals are today revered as heroes for standing(sometimes alone) against unjust laws. Sometimes I think it is not just your option but your obligation to break the law.

What should be our advice for our beleaguered Canadian neighbors? What do we tell those who risk jail time because of something that they believe in? Sorry friend, you must register your guns; I know it is wrong, but it is the law. What would we tell those in the civil rights movement who braved fire hoses and batons and all the rest? Seperate but equal is the law of the land, and you must obey.

Remember Hobbes: Every act of obedience feeds the Leviathan(the state). When you go out of your way to obey the law, when you change a major part of your lifestyle to confrom to some obscure phrase or clause or exception or loophole buried in a law library, then you strengthen and sustain the system that you despise.

I will not condemn anyone who chooses to ignore such drivel, even if they do it for selfish reasons.
Obeying the law is easy. Tribalism and urge to conform run deep in human beings. Shame is a powerful motivator.
It takes guts to go against any majority. It's not what I choose, but you draw your own line, as long as you understand the consequences.

All that having been said, I think you should not advertise such activities in a public forum.

January 8, 2003, 12:38 PM
Mark, I agree with your post, but the difference here is that, typically when one of us breaks an unjust law, it's not done in full view and knowledge of someone who may or may not sell us out to save their own skin unless there are many others willing to stand with us. That is not the case here.

I believe that placing the welfare of my family in the hands of someone I neither know or have reason to believe will operate in my best interests is nothing short of ludicrous.

Moral high ground ends where my family's welfare begins. I'll make my stand when the time comes, but I'm not going to destroy my family and their future for a stupid hi-cap mag.

If you enjoyed reading about "Soliciting LEO Magazines?" here in archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join today for the full version!