Prove Magazine Ownership


PDA






KenB22
January 24, 2013, 09:36 PM
I am relatively new to gun ownership and live in Oho so I've never had to worry about ownership of "hi cap" mags.

Let's assume that a 10 round limit in enacted but current ownership of hi caps are grandfathered in. What did everyone do years ago to be able to prove they owned pre-ban mags. I have no receipts for when I bought them. I was thinking of taking some digital photos which will have a time stamp on the file. Maybe some polaroids with a date on them.

Thanks for any help.

If you enjoyed reading about "Prove Magazine Ownership" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
beatledog7
January 24, 2013, 09:38 PM
I can make a digital photo have any time stamp I want, and so can you.

If you want to create a "proof photo," lay them out on a current newspaper with current headlines and dates clearly showing. Photograph that.

Str8Shooter
January 24, 2013, 11:29 PM
You didn't have to do anything to prove magazines were pre-ban. All the >10 round magazines produced after the ban was in effect had "RESTRICTED LE/GOVT ONLY" engraved into them. The Glock 15-round mag I'm looking at right now also has the date 9.13.94 engraved into it.

AlexanderA
January 25, 2013, 12:10 AM
The previous ban allowed transfer of pre-ban mags. This made things simple -- anything that was not marked with a post-ban date, or "LE use only"
indication, was presumed to be pre-ban, and thus freely transferable. The only effect of this was to drive up prices, because plenty of pre-ban mags were still available.

The antigunners have learned a lesson from this experience. Their current plans are to ban transfers of existing mags, as well as ban production and sale of new ones. The only thing that would be grandfathered would be mere possession. Therefore, you would have to have owned the specific magazine before the ban went into effect.

But it would be impossible, as a practical matter, to prove this, since magazines are not serial numbered. The only way to enforce the anti-transfer provision would be undercover sting operations, etc. I don't see how Feinstein's plan to outlaw transfers of existing magazines would be feasible.

mgmorden
January 25, 2013, 12:32 AM
If you want to create a "proof photo," lay them out on a current newspaper with current headlines and dates clearly showing. Photograph that.

If that worked you'd only need to dig up a 1993 newspaper and you could "prove" that any mag was pre-ban :).

During the previous ban, pre-ban mags were unmarked. Mags produced during the ban were generally marked "for law enforcement use only" (and often serial numbered). If you had one of those it was against the law.

If a new such ban passes you can expect a similar marking identifying mags made after the passage of AWB 2.0. You just don't buy those.

Jorg Nysgerrig
January 25, 2013, 12:56 AM
If you want to create a "proof photo," lay them out on a current newspaper with current headlines and dates clearly showing. Photograph that.

You do realize that the idea of the newspaper is to show that something is recent, not to authenticate when something happened in the past, right? Since one can't predict the front page of a newspaper in advance, if one takes a picture of someone or something with the current newspaper, one had the person or thing recently. If you have something or someone with an with an old newspaper, that just means you have an old newspaper and took the picture sometime between then and now. It's a "this didn't occur before this date" thing.

If you still think it works the other way, perhaps I can interest you in buying this vintage PMAG from January 1996?

http://www.thehighroad.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=178349&d=1359093284

KenB22
January 25, 2013, 06:18 AM
Thanks

Blackhawk30
January 25, 2013, 08:34 AM
I din't do anything.100 ak mags all look alike.Nobody was demanding proof of ownership.

beatledog7
January 25, 2013, 08:43 AM
No thanks, Jorg, I don't need any mags.

I grant that one could argue down the road that you simply used on an old newspaper to make the photo, but one could also argue that any sort of documentation is forged. If government decides to confiscate, no form of pre-ownership documentation will guarantee exemption.

ultramag44
January 25, 2013, 10:38 AM
Here's the thing. Everyone has someone that doesn't like you.

Maybe an ex spouse, lover, the guy you edged out @ work for that promotion, the uber-libatard neighbor that would look out their window and grit their teeth as they watched you load gun cases into the truck during hunting season, etc. have you ever told an in-law "No" when they asked for a loan (that would never be repaid)? Ever call LEO on a couple that were up fighting @ 3am when you were trying to sleep? add your own whomever a to this list.

They all will rat on you in a heart pump to some snitch hotline #.

Kingcreek
January 25, 2013, 01:08 PM
Wouldn't the authorities have to prove I didn't?

thorazine
January 25, 2013, 02:34 PM
If a new such ban passes you can expect a similar marking identifying mags made after the passage of AWB 2.0. You just don't buy those.

lol buy them all up and set them a drift!!

If we can't have them then no one can!!! muahahahaha.

Jim K
January 25, 2013, 02:53 PM
The NY ban includes semi-autos with internal magazines over seven rounds. The idea was to ban the M1 Garand and the SKS. The M1 is especially hated by the anti-gunners as it is a symbol of American soldiers fighting against tyranny, when the antis see a future in which American soldiers will be killing American citizens to impose tyranny.

Jim

bubba in ca
January 25, 2013, 03:08 PM
If the bill passes, all new mags will have serial numbers. they are not kidding this time around.

KenB22
January 25, 2013, 04:05 PM
As long as the new mags look different from the old ones, I'll be fine.

FWIW, I downloaded a camera app for my phone and took a date stamped photo. I then took that digital file and saved it to a DVD I have important documents on. The date stamp on the photo matches the date stamp on the digital file. I guess if i really did a lot of stuff I could manipulate those but I'm hoping this will be enough in the event I need to try and prove I owned them. I could always have the gov't hire a computer consultant to prove the meta data in the file accurately reflects the date but I'm also guessing if it comes to that, I'll have bigger problems than mag ownership. :banghead:

Thanks for all the thoughts

Outlaw Man
January 25, 2013, 04:22 PM
If you want to do the photograph thing, take a number from the poor-man's copyright. Mail the photos to yourself and leave the postmarked envelope unopened. Of course, you'll have to find a way to prove they're the same mags, either way. A little tough, without serial numbers.

As mentioned, the new mags will have serial numbers. Yours won't, and that SHOULD be enough proof.

Vermont Guy
January 27, 2013, 01:47 AM
but one could also argue that any sort of documentation is forged.

Like maybe a birth certificate?

It works like this. The government has to prove the law was broken. We don't gotta' prove nothing.

beatledog7
January 27, 2013, 06:38 AM
It works like this. The government has to prove the law was broken. We don't gotta' prove nothing.

You mean like the IRS? If you believe a government that will knowingly and with pride violate the Constitution regularly will adhere to the axiom that a person is innocent until proven guilty, then for you the entire argument is moot.

thump_rrr
January 27, 2013, 07:23 AM
All digital photos have embedded EXIF data.
You can download a simple EXIF reader online.
Just drag and drop the photo in the EXIF reader and all pertinent data will be seen.
Just make sure that the date and time are properly set in your camera.

As a side note if you are using a smartphone and do not have Location ID set to OFF the GPS location where the photo was taken will also be displayed.

berettaprofessor
January 27, 2013, 07:57 AM
Nice thought, Thump, but if it's digital, it can be changed. There's even freeware to do it:

http://www.softpedia.com/get/Multimedia/Graphic/Digital-Photo-Tools/Exif-Date-Changer.shtml

berettaprofessor
January 27, 2013, 07:58 AM
It works like this. The government has to prove the law was broken. We don't gotta' prove nothing

No, it works like this. They don't have to prove anything. They can just bankrupt you and destroy your life.

thump_rrr
January 27, 2013, 08:44 AM
Nice thought, Thump, but if it's digital, it can be changed. There's even freeware to do it:

http://www.softpedia.com/get/Multimedia/Graphic/Digital-Photo-Tools/Exif-Date-Changer.shtml
That's the problem with thinking like an honest person.
No wonder why I'm not rich.

goon
January 27, 2013, 08:51 AM
Ken - no offense, but let's not assume anything. Let's write our reps and tell them what they need to do to get re-elected.

Don't worry about grandfather clauses for laws that don't exist yet. That is defeatist thinking and we don't want to be defeated. And we don't have to be if we all keep the pressure on congress.

hso
January 27, 2013, 08:51 AM
You can not do anything to prove it. Magazines aren't serial numbered and have no time related information associated with them.

The failed AWB of '94 caused magazine manufacturers to mark the ones made between 1994 and 2004 with LE only sorts of markings (I have several as souvenirs of that moronic law).

Magazine capacity has nothing to do with murder rates. The data clearly shows that while the popularity of the rifles and their magazines that are under debate has increased, the murder rate has decreased. The murder rate is at the lowest point in a generation. If the rate of murders is at 30 year low then how can the most sought after firearms and their magazines be responsible for an increase in murder rates? Up is down? Black is white? Lies are being told to the public so they start to ask questions like "Who needs...?" in spite of the fact that there's nothing about them moving the needle on murder nationwide.

Ash
January 27, 2013, 09:02 AM
HSO, as do I. I even have a Ruger Mini 14 so marked, sold to me, through an FFL I know, by the Mississippi Highway Patrol.

thump_rrr
January 27, 2013, 02:08 PM
You can not do anything to prove it. Magazines aren't serial numbered and have no time related information associated with them.

The failed AWB of '94 caused magazine manufacturers to mark the ones made between 1994 and 2004 with LE only sorts of markings (I have several as souvenirs of that moronic law).

Magazine capacity has nothing to do with murder rates. The data clearly shows that while the popularity of the rifles and their magazines that are under debate has increased, the murder rate has decreased. The murder rate is at the lowest point in a generation. If the rate of murders is at 30 year low then how can the most sought after firearms and their magazines be responsible for an increase in murder rates? Up is down? Black is white? Lies are being told to the public so they start to ask questions like "Who needs...?" in spite of the fact that there's nothing about them moving the needle on murder nationwide.
They may not be serialized but Pmags are actually date stamped by month and year.
If you look closely there is a clock with the 12 months on it.
An arrow points to the month of manufacture and on either side there is 1 digit corresponding with the last 2 digits of the calendar year.

beatledog7
January 27, 2013, 02:21 PM
If government wants your mags, they will take them. You have no rights once confiscation begins.

kimbershot
January 27, 2013, 02:22 PM
charles krauthamer estimates that there have been 100 million high cap mags produced. the genie is out of the bottle--no way you can control or manage that. no way the gov. or legal community could police that, no way could they prosecute offenders--heck hardened criminals are getting early outs as there is not enough $$$ to keep them in jail.

hrvster
January 27, 2013, 03:27 PM
Like maybe a birth certificate?

It works like this. The government has to prove the law was broken. We don't gotta' prove nothing.
Don't be so naive. The government puts the burden on you everyday. The mere fact that they can bring a case against you shifts the burden to you. Do you have the money to fight the charges? Do you have the internal fortitude?

hAkron
January 27, 2013, 03:46 PM
If you still think it works the other way, perhaps I can interest you in buying this vintage PMAG from January 1996?

http://www.thehighroad.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=178349&d=1359093284

Without getting of topic, what was the answer to the "Seattle - Dead of Alive?" question?

gc70
January 28, 2013, 01:00 AM
What did everyone do years ago to be able to prove they owned pre-ban mags.

Nobody did anything during the 1994 AWB because pre-ban mags were transferable. Post-ban mags were marked LE/GOV ONLY, so there was not much chance for confusion.

With the current proposals, it would be illegal to transfer pre-new-ban mags. Legally, it might be a problem to explain if something came up where a person was found to have a gun purchased post-ban with pre-ban mags. Realistically, the government won't put any effort into searching for mag transfers. The easiest thing for the government is like the tobacco and alcohol signs in stores. Born after 1992 or 1995? If so, there would be a presumption that a person generally could not have legally purchased pre-ban pistol or rifle magazines, respectively. The government does not need to rush and put forth a lot of effort if it can eventually get the mags just by waiting.

If you enjoyed reading about "Prove Magazine Ownership" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!