I have a bunch of AR mags that are marked Law Enforcement of Gov't Use Only and some S&W pistol mags that have LEO marks as well. I was concerned about owning LEO marked mags if another AWB comes into existence until I read the '94 ban. It looks like there was a really heavy burden on the government to prove that the "hi-cap" mags were illegal. If we get another ban and it is pretty much a roll out of the '94 ban, I've learned that my mags are just fine.
A typical scenario would be I am pulled over on my way back from the range and (for whatever reason, just play along) a cop becomes aware that I have "hi-cap" mags and I get arrested. The government has to show that the mags were manufactured during the ban. If there are no serial numbers on the mags, much to my surprise, the mags are considered pre-ban and allowed! (see 4 below).
If the mags do have serial numbers, it is up to the government to research the origin and date of the mags before they can get a conviction. If you assert that you bought the mags before the ban went into effect and they cannot determine the date of manufacture, you are in compliance with the law.
Here are the specifics from the previous ban.
From SEC. 110103. of H.R.3355 Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 it says:
`(w)(1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), it shall be unlawful for a person to transfer or possess a large capacity ammunition feeding device.
where large capacity feeding device is defined as:
`(A) means a magazine, belt, drum, feed strip, or similar device manufactured after the date of enactment of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 that has a capacity of, or that can be readily restored or converted to accept, more than 10 rounds of ammunition;
and the specific exception in paragraph two from (w)(1) above is:
`(2) Paragraph (1) shall not apply to the possession or transfer of any large capacity ammunition feeding device otherwise lawfully possessed on or before the date of the enactment of this subsection.
Now to the important part, identifying a "banned" large capacity feeding device:
(d) IDENTIFICATION MARKINGS FOR LARGE CAPACITY AMMUNITION FEEDING DEVICES- Section 923(i) of title 18, United States Code, as amended by section 110102(d) of this Act, is amended by adding at the end the following: `A large capacity ammunition feeding device manufactured after the date of the enactment of this sentence shall be identified by a serial number that clearly shows that the device was manufactured or imported after the effective date of this subsection, and such other identification as the Secretary may by regulation prescribe.'.
And here is where the burden of proof on the government comes in:
`(4) If a person charged with violating paragraph (1) asserts that paragraph (1) does not apply to such person because of paragraph (2) or (3), the Government shall have the burden of proof to show that such paragraph (1) applies to such person. The lack of a serial number as described in section 923(i) of title 18, United States Code, shall be a presumption that the large capacity ammunition feeding device is not subject to the prohibition of possession in paragraph (1).'.
So the bottom line is, if you have LEO marked mags, you are fine. If you have a serial number or other identifying marks on the mags, you are even more fine.
Of course this is all predicated on a new AWB being the same as the '94 ban and as I have asserted in many other posts, I think that A) it will be tough to get any AWB through the House with a roughly 233 to 200 Republican majority and even if they do get one through, it will be equal to or less restrictive than the '94 ban. YMMV
If anyone is a legal expert of any kind, please correct me if I am wrong and show me how I am wrong. Thanks!
Edit: Source
SEC. 110103. here:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c103:7:./temp/~c103wUfOe4:e643945:
A typical scenario would be I am pulled over on my way back from the range and (for whatever reason, just play along) a cop becomes aware that I have "hi-cap" mags and I get arrested. The government has to show that the mags were manufactured during the ban. If there are no serial numbers on the mags, much to my surprise, the mags are considered pre-ban and allowed! (see 4 below).
If the mags do have serial numbers, it is up to the government to research the origin and date of the mags before they can get a conviction. If you assert that you bought the mags before the ban went into effect and they cannot determine the date of manufacture, you are in compliance with the law.
Here are the specifics from the previous ban.
From SEC. 110103. of H.R.3355 Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 it says:
`(w)(1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), it shall be unlawful for a person to transfer or possess a large capacity ammunition feeding device.
where large capacity feeding device is defined as:
`(A) means a magazine, belt, drum, feed strip, or similar device manufactured after the date of enactment of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 that has a capacity of, or that can be readily restored or converted to accept, more than 10 rounds of ammunition;
and the specific exception in paragraph two from (w)(1) above is:
`(2) Paragraph (1) shall not apply to the possession or transfer of any large capacity ammunition feeding device otherwise lawfully possessed on or before the date of the enactment of this subsection.
Now to the important part, identifying a "banned" large capacity feeding device:
(d) IDENTIFICATION MARKINGS FOR LARGE CAPACITY AMMUNITION FEEDING DEVICES- Section 923(i) of title 18, United States Code, as amended by section 110102(d) of this Act, is amended by adding at the end the following: `A large capacity ammunition feeding device manufactured after the date of the enactment of this sentence shall be identified by a serial number that clearly shows that the device was manufactured or imported after the effective date of this subsection, and such other identification as the Secretary may by regulation prescribe.'.
And here is where the burden of proof on the government comes in:
`(4) If a person charged with violating paragraph (1) asserts that paragraph (1) does not apply to such person because of paragraph (2) or (3), the Government shall have the burden of proof to show that such paragraph (1) applies to such person. The lack of a serial number as described in section 923(i) of title 18, United States Code, shall be a presumption that the large capacity ammunition feeding device is not subject to the prohibition of possession in paragraph (1).'.
So the bottom line is, if you have LEO marked mags, you are fine. If you have a serial number or other identifying marks on the mags, you are even more fine.
Of course this is all predicated on a new AWB being the same as the '94 ban and as I have asserted in many other posts, I think that A) it will be tough to get any AWB through the House with a roughly 233 to 200 Republican majority and even if they do get one through, it will be equal to or less restrictive than the '94 ban. YMMV
If anyone is a legal expert of any kind, please correct me if I am wrong and show me how I am wrong. Thanks!
Edit: Source
SEC. 110103. here:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c103:7:./temp/~c103wUfOe4:e643945:
