View Full Version : What is a "pre-ban" magazine?

January 8, 2013, 07:19 PM
I was digging around in my garage today and came across something I had completely forgotten I possessed. It was a couple of surplus mag pouches, and one of them still had a pair of 30 rnd magazines in it, metal.

The floor plates are stamped ADVENTURE LINE MFG. CO.
PARSONS. KS. U.S.A., and as far as I can tell they're unused. From what I can gather these were produced under contract for the US Army and Air Force between about 67-71.

Ok...so what? I admit that until recently I had no real knowledge of the Clinton era ban except in the most vague way, and don't have a clear understanding of how it affects people in say, California. I've gathered that high-cap mags are already a no-no there, but how does pre-ban work into that equation?

January 8, 2013, 07:40 PM
Ok to own before their ban I think.

January 8, 2013, 07:52 PM
Mags made during the ban have "LE and Military use only" stamped on them if they are designed to hold more than 10 rounds. Most (if not all) mags made since the ban expired in 2004 have no such markings and for most of us any mag is now legal. Even the LE only marked mags. I have no idea how people in states with a 10 round limit can prove if it was made prior to 1994, or after 2004.

If anyone living there can shed some light on this I'd like to know how it works.

January 8, 2013, 08:28 PM

Hehe, maybe I should have been a bit more clear. I understand what it means, I just want to know how you determine what defines a pre-ban mag.

January 8, 2013, 09:43 PM
You can't. Unless it has a serial number on the mag to prove the date it was made or is stamped with the restricted to LE only there is no way to tell when a mag was produced. Unless of course it is for a gun that was released for sale after the 1994 ban so then in fact there are no preban mags made for it. It's a joke. Every hi cap I own is a preban.

January 9, 2013, 05:47 PM

Then how does "The Man" enforce hi-cap mag ban if there is no real way to determine when such mags were built, or is it a matter of unless the mag has a manufacture date it's ineligible or something? I only question for the sake of knowledge since it makes no real difference to me where I live.

On a related note, would there be any interest in these things? I have no specific interest in keeping them, but I imagine some guys might go for the "authentic" look. I'd rather have a couple bx-25s for my 10-22, or some mags for my Ruger SR22, which coincidentally are sold out everywhere around my stomping grounds. Really? I mean it's a 10-shot mag for a pocket sized .22 for crying out loud.

January 11, 2013, 01:21 AM

"The man" has to be able to prove when your mag was made. In the case of Ruger bx-25's that's easy because they have only been made a short time so there is no way there are any pre 1994 mags. Now AR-15 mini 14,mini 30, Beretta 92's, Glock, etc,etc, and aftermarket brand mags are a different story, how many millions were produced before 1994? Again unless it's a brand that wasn't manufacturing before the ban went into effect they have nothing to arrest you for. After the ban went into affect until it sunseted mags were marked "restricted for LE, military use or export only". When the ban sunseted some states kept the ban therefore any marked mags are a no-no in the "banned states", But when the warnings came off the mags unless they have a serial number or date of manufacture on them it cannot be proven when they are made therefore impossible to tell pre94 from post 2004. I Hope that helps.

January 11, 2013, 08:39 AM
The current problem is that a ban could now include any magazine over a certain round count no matter what ever the build date. At that point all the playing around with semantics is over.

Bart Noir
January 11, 2013, 03:24 PM
Interesting that the Clinton Ban was enacted, well, during the Clinton administration.

"That depends on what the meaning of 'ban' is."

The old 'ban' meant: Banned from selling newly produced mags. Mags existing prior to start date are still legal to sell.

The new 'ban' could be as bad as: Banned from owning, no matter when manufactured.

That last one would be making federal felons out of a great many otherwise law-abiding Americans.

Bart Noir

January 11, 2013, 03:30 PM
The new 'ban' could be as bad as: Banned from owning, no matter when manufactured.

That last one would be making federal felons out of a great many otherwise law-abiding Americans.

You think they don't know that?

In view of the simple fact that felons can do pretty much everthing anyone else can, including vote, in many states ...... with ONE exception: they can not possess a firearm.

If they make enough arcane and unintelligible laws, they can effectively do anything to anybody.

January 11, 2013, 03:58 PM
Whatever ,the ones that make the laws limiting them,decide to make them if any. It is up to the Representatives to decide, that is why,we need to stay on them. Writing, emailing, and calling them.

James K
January 11, 2013, 10:01 PM
Magazines over 10 rounds made before the last AWB were grandfathered; new high capacity magazines could be sold only to the military or law enforcement agencies (not individual officers). The latter were marked, so that any new magazine in the hands of an individual was illegal.

The current proposals, as I understand, will totally ban all magazines over ten rounds* and any over that will have to be surrendered; illegal possession will carry a heavy penalty; one source says a mandatory 20 years in federal prison. I hate to think what that would mean to a widow who found one in her late husband's belongings, but the anti's have no concern about such things.

*Federal proposal. I understand the NY governor wants a 7 round magazine limit whether detachable or not and on all guns, making the Garand rifle, SKS, and millions of .22 rifles instantly illegal under the "magazine ban."


January 12, 2013, 01:48 AM
I watched NY Gov Cuomos's state of the state address. He taked gun control for about 30 seconds out of an hour speech/presentation He made "7 points"

1. He want's the toughest AW laws in the nation

2. Ban on private sales from person to person. A nics check must be performed

3. Ban Hi Capacity magazines ( but does not give a number) NY is already 10 so he must mean less than 10 (maybe that's where the 7 comes in. My opinion is that all preban 1994 mags will be illegal but again he did not say it.

4. Tougher penalties on gun related crimes ( That at least is a no brainer)

5. More indepth mental health check before sale of firearm. I took that to mean days/weeks before purchasing instead of instant NICS check but again no explanation

6. No sales of ammo over the internet.

7. NICS check on ammo sales. ( No amount of ammo given or if he is limiting quanity of ammo to be allowed to be bought at one time)

That was it on guns other than his quote " I own a Remington 870 and you don't need 10 bullets to kill a deer"

What a tool!!! I wrote him a scathing email so if you don't hear from me for awhile I'm probably in custody.