Future Problems with Law Enforcement Only Magazines

[jzimm9mm]

I was wondering to myself what the possible liability of owning "Law Enforcement Only" marked standard capacity magazines will be when the new AWB is passed. They became legal for citizens under the law to own with the sunset of the old AWB, but how do you suppose the old legal ones be discerned from the new illegal (LE only) ones when the time comes? I'm not sure I would want to have any in my possession once the new ban is passed (assuming I had any to begin with).

Jer..

 

[kingpin008]

People forget that when you are accused of a crime, the burden of proof is on the accuser to prove that whoever they are accusing is guilty, not the other way around.

All you'd have to do, if you were accused of having illegal LEO-only mags, is say "prove it". End of story. You are not required to produce receipts, records of sale or transfer, etc. You may want to do so should the situation ever arise, but you don't have to prove your innocence.

 

[Erik]

That's true, as far as the authorities seeking a conviction goes.

If they are seeking a seizure... Not so much.

 

[cassandrasdaddy]

"All you'd have to do, if you were accused of having illegal LEO-only mags, is say "prove it". End of story. You are not required to produce receipts, records of sale or transfer, etc."


illustrating yet again the danger of internet legal advice

 

[K3]

People forget that when you are accused of a crime, the burden of proof is on the accuser to prove that whoever they are accusing is guilty, not the other way around.

All you'd have to do, if you were accused of having illegal LEO-only mags, is say "prove it". End of story. You are not required to produce receipts, records of sale or transfer, etc. You may want to do so should the situation ever arise, but you don't have to prove your innocence.

Theoretically.

In practice, not so much.

Go ahead and give that a try and then send me a copy of the bill from your lawyer. I bet it's got a few zeros on the end of it.

 

[polizei36]

Glock magazines are marked with the LE/Military only and date stamped 1994. So if a new ban comes ups, and you mags are marked like the Glock mags tou should be okay. I think thats the "grandfather clause"...but not certain.

 

[polizei36]

I gotta learn how to type and not "hunt and pick" lol

 

[Polish_Pounder]

What is with the new AWB freakout? Personal gun rights are at a high right now, more states are becoming "shall issue", in MI you can get machine guns now, etc. Where is this "imminent ban" coming from?

Also, saying "prove it" is similar to saying "you'll never figure it out because I'm smarter than you" when accused of a crime. It implies guilt. If you bought them legally, say so. If they say prove it, then you lawyer-up and get some real legal advice.

-Polish

 

[Dope]

Good question. I often wonder myself. I have a number of pre-ban mags (the '94 AWB is permanent here in MA). Some, that were manufactured near the ban are dated (like '92/'93-ish). My oldest ones, that are pretty beat up, have no dates on them. How could I prove they are pre-ban? I assume that everything is date-coded these days to prevent confusion, but why would they have dated mags back then? Is it safe to assume that undated mags are "pre-ban"? Is it LEGALLY safe to do the same?

Tough call.

Dope

 

[Tyris]

What bothers me as much are the current production AR15s from bone head manufacturers like Colt that mark the lowers with "LEO Only". While legally meaningless, most LEOs dont know much about gun laws and will probably have a seizure when they see it.

To the retards and retarded lawyers running Colt: stop doing that, you're going to cause the fools who buy your junk a world of hurt in the future.

-T

 

[Tyris]

What is with the new AWB freakout? Personal gun rights are at a high right now, more states are becoming "shall issue", in MI you can get machine guns now, etc. Where is this "imminent ban" coming from?

I think the notion of a Democrat controlled senate, house and presidency coming into play in a couple of months should be reason enough. Especially since one of the candidates has publicly stated he wants to renew the AWB and kill concealed carry at the federal level.

-T

 

[JImbothefiveth]

What is with the new AWB freakout? Personal gun rights are at a high right now

The upcoming elections present a very real possibility of getting a lot of anti-gunners in power.

 

[jzimm9mm]

I understand that the burden of proof is supposed to be on the accuser, but with all the respect for civil rights I see these days it doesn't make me feel very comfortable.

Not to make this thread at all political, but yes, the probable results of the upcoming election are what make me think we will see a new AWB in the near future.

I didn't think about date stamps. I wonder how many manufacturers put dates on their LEO magazines. That would be a handy way to differentiate old ones from new ones.

Jer..

 

[Dgreno]

fools who buy your junk a world of hurt in the future.

A little harsh don't you think?

 

[p2000sk]

http://www.atf.gov/firearms/faq/faq2.htm#n2

O. SEMIAUTOMATIC ASSAULT WEAPONS AND LARGE CAPACITY AMMUNITION FEEDING DEVICES (SAWs and LCAFDs)

(O1) What was the semiautomatic assault weapon (SAW) ban? [Back]

The SAW ban was enacted on September 13, 1994, by PL 103-322, Title IX, Subtitle A, section 110105. The ban made it unlawful to manufacture, transfer, or possess SAWs. The law defined SAWs as 19 named firearms, as well as semiautomatic rifles, pistols, and shotguns that have certain named features. The ban was codified at 18 U.S.C. § 922(v). SAWs lawfully possessed on September 13, 1994, were not covered by the ban. There also were certain exceptions, such as possession by law enforcement.


(O2) Was the SAW ban permanent? [Back]

No. The law enacting the ban provided that it would expire 10 years from the date of enactment, which was September 13, 1994. Therefore, effective 12:01 a.m. on September 13, 2004, the provisions of the law ceased to apply.


(O3) What was the Large Capacity Ammunition Feeding Device (LCAFD) ban? [Back]

The LCAFD ban was enacted along with the SAW ban on September 13, 1994. The ban made it unlawful to transfer or possess LCAFDs. The law generally defined a LCAFD as a magazine, belt, drum, feed strip, or similar device manufactured after September 13, 1994, that has the capacity of, or can be readily restored or converted to accept, more than 10 rounds of ammunition. The ban was codified at 18 U.S.C. § 922(w). As with SAWs, there were certain exceptions to the ban, such as possession by law enforcement.
That seems fair (sarcasm).


(O4) Was the LCAFD ban permanent? [Back]

No. The LCAFD ban was enacted by the same law as the SAW ban. Therefore, like the SAW ban, it expired 10 years from the date of enactment. Therefore, effective 12:01 a.m. on September 13, 2004, the provisions of the law ceased to apply.


(O5) Does expiration of the ban affect records maintained by licensed manufacturers, importers and dealers? [Back]

Yes. Federal firearms licensees are no longer required to collect special records regarding the sale or transfer of SAWs and LCAFDs for law enforcement or government sales. However, existing records on SAWs and LCAFDs must still be maintained for a period of 5 years. Moreover, records of importation and manufacture must be maintained permanently, and licensees must maintain all other acquisition and disposition records for 20 years.


(O6) Are SAWs and LCAFDs marked “Restricted law enforcement/government use only” or “For export only” now legal to sell to civilians in the United States? [Back]

Yes. SAWs and LCAFDs are no longer prohibited. Therefore, firearms with the restrictive markings are legal to transfer to civilians in the United States, and it is legal for non-prohibited civilians to possess them. All civilians may possess LCAFDs.

So, we are free now...
but if things change for the worse,
you could be ATFs grandaddy, hopefully.

 

[Erik]

Correct. If things change, and the magazines in question become "contraband," then they will be subject to seizure upon discovery, and the burden of proof has little to do, if anything, with their recovery.

Contraband isn't returned to the owner, absent proof on the owner's part, in most circumstances.

Money, narcotics, magazines, other items of contraband, etc...

 

[ProficientRifleman]

but how do you suppose the old legal ones be discerned from the new illegal (LE only) ones when the time comes?

When will you mere serfs get it? Don't you know that your betters will tell you what you need and what you don't need?

You don't know where the line is? You can never be sure how to comply with the law?

Damn right! Don't you forget it!

When DaddyState/JohnnyLaw tells you what the truth is at any particular moment, that is the "truth" with which you must comply!

To quote our benevolent hero, Sheriff Teasle in First Blood, "People go f%&*ing around with the Law and all hell breaks loose..."

 

[jeff-10]

You are asking us how to interpret a law that has yet to be written and passed? Not a very easy task.

 

[deanf]

I have a couple that are stamped LE Only. I will just throw them away if it comes to them being banned again. Not worth the trouble. Pick your battles . . .

 

[Tyris]

Sell them to real criminals.

-T

 

[K3]

Question:

Is it illegal to machine or grind off markings on a magazine? Obviously that is a no-no for guns and serial numbners, but what sayeth the law on a magazine? 'Tis not a firearm.

 

[bdickens]

Who knows? Why not concern yourself with what's going on in the real world here and now?

 

[DoubleTapDrew]

have a couple that are stamped LE Only. I will just throw them away if it comes to them being banned again. Not worth the trouble. Pick your battles . . .

If there is another ban passed and Americans don't have the guts to stand up and fight for their rights I imagine there will be a sharp rise in the number of tragic boating accidents that claim untold numbers of guns and accessories.

 

[buzz_knox]

People forget that when you are accused of a crime, the burden of proof is on the accuser to prove that whoever they are accusing is guilty, not the other way around.

All you'd have to do, if you were accused of having illegal LEO-only mags, is say "prove it". End of story. You are not required to produce receipts, records of sale or transfer, etc. You may want to do so should the situation ever arise, but you don't have to prove your innocence.

Others have remarked that there is a problem with this, but none have explained why.

The grandfather clause in the original AWB (and which likely won't be in the Obama AWB) is an affirmative defense. To establish this defense, you will need to show that the weapon or magazine was owned by you (or someone else, if transfer is allowed which it is not under the current draft AWB) at the time the ban became effective. If there is a modified LEO marking standard put in place (i.e. with a new date), the mag itself should be sufficient. If there is no modified LEO marking standard put in place, then all the prosecution has to do is present the mag as evidence, and you have the burden of raising and supporting your defense.

The same problem arises in the self-defense context. If you remain perfectly silent, you will likely go to prison because you cannot establish the affirmative defense of justifiable homicide without showing that you subjectively believed that you were afraid for your life.

Telling a prosecutor to "prove it" ignores one simple fact: that's their job to begin with. If you aren't able to shoot holes in the proof, you will need to rely on divine providence to avoid jail.

 

[Hawaiian]

The 15rd mags for my HK USP9SD are marked for govt and leo use only 10-94.
The gun was manufactured in 2005. I bought it NIB from a dealer in 2007. So after the ban was gone, they shipped the older mags with the newer guns because they had a gazillion of them made up pre ban.

Just like the AR builders are currently building receivers that are dated and serial numbered before any future AWB. This is why they are all behind on completed rifles and other orders.