Gun magazines are now limited to 10 rounds, but if you already have magazines of higher capacity you may still use them.
But suppose I have a Ruger Mini-14 that I owned before the capacity limits, and a brand-new Ruger Mini-14 that I just bought. (Just using a Ruger as an example. I mean any gun that can use “high capacity” magazines.) Is it legal to use a 20-rd. magazine in the new gun, just as it is to use one in the older gun? Or is it prohibited?
Could be wrong on this, but IIRC buying any magazine with over 10 rounds is illegal. The magazines that are already out there are legal. The law pertains to the magazine, not the gun. So, yes you could.
Yes. The law only applies to hi-cap magazines manufactured after 1994.
So if I were to buy a Springfield M-1A that was manufactured this year, I could legally use surplus M-14 magazines in it? Somehow I was under the impression that putting a hi-cap mag into a gun made after the ban magically changes the gun into a prohibited “assault rifle”. Could there be another law that specifically prohibits the use of hi-cap mags in an identical, albeit newer, gun?
(BTW: All of my firearms of this type are pre-ban. I’m just curious.)
I legally purchased 15 round clips for my P85 in 1996 at a gun shop. The ban is on manufacture, not selling, owning, or use.
There are some illegal magazines out there, beware.
If you are caught with an illegal magazine(even thought the seller told you it was legal) then you are looking at prison time.
Yes
No. According to the assault weapon law, a semi-automatic rifle is an assault weapon if it can accept a detachable magazine (either hi-cap or 10 round) and has two or more of the following:
A folding or telescoping stock
A pistol grip
A bayonet mount
A flash suppressor, or threads to attach one
A grenade launcher.
The magazine part of the law prohibits the manufacture of hi-cap magazines for civilian use past 1994. It’s fine if you are LEO or military.
What Billy wrote is correct. You can buy them if they have already been legally made before the ban went into effect. The ban is on the manufacturers.
What do you mean by an illegal magazine Susanann? If you bought a magazine from a licenced dealer and he is selling magazines that were made after the ban, I don’t see why you believe the buyer is looking at prison time.
I don’t want no prision time…can you cite a source for this??
If you have a post-ban magazine, then you would have to convince a jury that you did not know it was post-ban. But I don’t think it would get that far unless the prosecutor was particularly zealous. If you told him where you got the magazine, then the person selling it would be in trouble.
Ummm…guys? Aren’t all post-ban magazines supposed to, by law, have a serial number on them and a date? And didn’t the law say that the absence of the serial number and date was a legal presumption that the magazine was “pre ban”, and thus permitted? I’m certain I remember language to that effect in the bill which was signed.
On the second subject: don’t be so sure to trust what you read here in this thread without further research, Johnny. When I was a dealer, there was some controversy under the Clinton ATF as to whether or not the scenario you described (a pre-ban magazine being put onto a current manufacture weapon) did in fact constitute making the firearm “illegal”. This also applied to folding stocks, and I think the case in point was a pre-ban folding stock put on an MAK-90, thus creating a “prohibited weapon” from a combination of pre and post-ban parts.
In short, until people (myself included) start posting actual links to the actual law, and to court decisions and ATF publications - or you find them via other means - err on the side of safety.
Well, since no one else is going to look it up, I will.
From:
[Code of Federal Regulations]
[Title 27, Volume 2]
[Revised as of April 1, 2003]
From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access
[CITE: 27CFR478]
[Page 101-169]
TITLE 27–ALCOHOL, TOBACCO PRODUCTS AND FIREARMS
CHAPTER II–BUREAU OF ALCOHOL, TOBACCO, FIREARMS, AND EXPLOSIVES, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
From Section 478.40a
And from Sec. 478.92 “How must licensed manufacturers and licensed importers identify firearms, armor piercing ammunition, and large capacity ammunition feeding devices?”
And from Sec. 478.119 Importation of ammunition feeding devices.
Thanks Anthracite. I’ll need some more coffee before I can process all of that, though! 
Its possible you may not go to prison if what Johnny says comes true and your jury finds you not guilty.
The simple fact is, that you were definitely in possession of illegal magazines. The case against you is easy and a slam dunk for the prosecutor. You are in possession of federally prohibited substances.
It would be up to you to convince a jury that the particular illegal magazine was purchased unknowingly by you, and that you could prove that that specific magazine was sold to you by some other person under false pretences. Keep in mind that the other person is not on trial, you are.
The court and prosecutor may not even want to bother with building a case against the other person, why should they? The “reasons”(i.e. excuses) why you are in possession of prohibited substances may be immaterial. It would almost be impossible even if you had a receipt that the particular magazine that you bought from anyone was the illegal one.
You may get lucky(?), not be convicted, and end up only paying $10,000 - $20,000 in attorney costs for possession of those illegal magazines.
In addition to prison time, as a convicted felon, keep in ming that you will not be allowed to own or possess any firearm, nor any ammunition for the rest of your life.
Why dont you reflect on this a little bit. Do you want to risk at least $10,000, months of court and trial time, and maybe even prison time and the loss of your right to bear arms forever, just to save a few bucks?
You can save yourself a lot of court costs and attorney fees, by just buying a used older gun which had high capacity.
In the case of registered handguns, if the state registration form states the capacity of that particular handgun to be 15, 17 or whatever, and you have factory magazines, you are pretty safe from any zealous prosecutor or cop.
If you buy a current(newer post ban) handgun, where the registration form of the gun actually states the magazine only carries 10, and you are in possession of a larger magazine, then any cop and prosecutor is going to examine that magazine with a fine toothcomb.
What the cops and the prosecutor will be seeing, is that you obviously intentfully purposely modified the gun to carry more rounds than it was legally manufactured for. You will have an extremely difficult time convincing any jury that although you knowingly, admittedly, and deliberately modified the gun, that you were unaware of its illegality in spite of the fact that you knew you could not buy a legal one manufactured today.
The ban is not just on the manufacture, but on the possession.
Furthermore, many of the illegal magazines floating out there, are manufactured overseas, and not many prosecutors would be willing to drop the easy case against you, and instead try to prosecute some machine shop in Bulgaria that actually made the illegal magazines.
Sorry, but you haven’t modified anything by putting an older magazine in the gun. I have a Glock 22 that is two years old. It will use older preban Glock mags that hold more than 10 rounds. This is perfectly legal and no modification is necessary to make them work.
As far as registered guns go, I guess I am lucky that I do not have to register my pistols where I live. But if it were the case, the Glock 22 made in July 1994 uses the same magazines as the 22 made in 2002. How one could be registered with one capacity and the other exact same model be registered differently is beyond my comprehension. Is capacity truly even registered?
The ban (which should expire next year hopefully) applies to magazines, and not the guns that use them. Your local laws may vary however…
All I can say is, that I have a Berretta high capacity, it was manufactured that way, the official state registration says it is high capacity, and the magazines are factory made. I am not worried at all about having it.
The rest of you can hire lawyers if you get caught with an illegal one.
Susanann, you’re just plain wrong. I have a Glock 27, which has two 9-round magazines standard with them and always has. I can take a Glock 22 or 23 magazine and use it, legally, even though it would protrude around 4-6 inches from the grip. That is, in fact, why Glock designed their guns to be able to share magazines.
In other words, you’re gonna have to pony up something better than what you have so far.
Susanann, you really ought to get your facts straight before you post in GQ.
That’s bullshit.