Yet Another 3rd Gen "Pre-Ban" Magazines Question

[TTSH]

WARNING & DISCLAIMER: This is a loony moonbat state-related thread. Members aggravated or annoyed by such threads, please do not read or reply. Even worse, it is a .40S&W-related thread. That makes it even worse.

PLEASE DON'T SAY YOU HAVEN'T BEEN WARNED!​

++++++++++++++++++

Recently, a few members of Team 3rd Gen have noticed that I've been going a little nutty trying to figure out which .40S&W 11-round 3rd Gen magazines are pre-ban and which are post-ban as I am only allowed to possess pre-ban hi-cap magazines (those over 10-rounds) or I become an instant felon. For a long time now, I've gone by the blue follower vs. yellow follower rule even though it is clear that the switch to blue followers pre-dated the 1994 Federal AWB. Sticking with the older yellow follower magazines was simply playing it super-safe. I've even gone so far as to replace blue followers in two of my pre-bans with yellow followers just in case our cops and DA's don't know any better.

Fast forward to my most recent purchase, a Model 410S manufactured in 2005. One would naturally assume that the magazines that came with a gun manufactured post-AWB sunset would have post-ban 11-round magazines included with it, correct? But here is what's confusing me: They still have the (now expired) S&W trademark "Accu-Guide" on them.

S&W applied for the "Accu-Guide" (or "Accuguide") trademark in 1990 about the same time the .40S&W round was developed. The trademark was officially granted in 1991 and sometime between 1990 and 1994, S&W turned out its first .40S&W 11-round magazines with blue followers and the "Accu-Guide" trademark stamped onto the magazines. During the Federal AWB, S&W turned out "Accu-Guide" 10-round magazines for civilians and 11-round magazines for the cops... the latter magazines marked "for cops & export only."

The Federal AWB ended in 2004. Production of .40S&W 10/11-round 3rd Gens ended in 2007, although most such models were discontinued much earlier. The S&W trademark "Accu-Guide" (or "Accuguide") was legally abandoned in 1998. Someone else unrelated to S&W or firearms now owns that trademark.

You can probably see where this is going. Did S&W actually re-start the manufacture of non-cop-restricted 11-round .40S&W magazines for civilians at some point after 2004? After almost all 10/11-round .40S&W 3rd Gens had been discontinued? And if they did, why would they continue to use a trademark on them that was abandoned sometime before 1998?

Bottom line: Suddenly I am not so sure that the magazines included with that Model 410S are, in fact, post-bans. Is it possible that a 2005 pistol would be shipped with magazines manufactured pre-1994? Or is it more likely that S&W was just careless or negligent about using a long-expired trademark no longer legally owned by them?

I've seen some very old S&W magazines in new-style packaging lately. I've even bought some... so nothing would surprise me.

Your opinions please.

 

[cololab]

Interesting questions. Out of curiosity, how would you able to definitively prove to any overly zealous person in a position of authority that your pre-ban magazines are actually pre-ban?

 

[Sevens]

While it is a little but tough to follow what you're saying (to be honest -- those of us who live in free states just typically do NOT think this way without genuine effort...), the one bit that occurs to me that does not appear to be given much nod in your post is:

S&W has a long, long, LONG and even documented history of making a slew of something, putting it in a box on a high shelf, and pulling it out again & putting it in to "use" later. Often, MUCH later, and in some cases, "out of order" with respect to a superceding design.

Also, and I hesitate to mention this because it may come off as a direct thread drift and "not specifically related", but simply as a sign of the times: it was also recently documented in a book about Glock that Glock bent over backwards in the early days of the AWB to give tremendous deals to large LE organizations on brand new AWB-era guns & equipment that also included the organization sent BACK all the pre-ban stuff in trade. Glock was sly enough to figure that Grandfathered pre-ban hardware had serious resale value and the LE organizations wouldn't care one iota, since they were not subject to the restrictions of the AWB. Glock likely made a PILE of money on pre-ban stuff they got back in their hands.

Thread drift? Perhaps. And/or... perhaps Smith & Wesson did something VERY similar.

 

[Gunhacker]

Interesting questions. Out of curiosity, how would you able to definitively prove to any overly zealous person in a position of authority that your pre-ban magazines are actually pre-ban?

That's a good question... in CA it's been suggested that you have dated receipts, but that's about to be turned into a moot point if the ballot initiative legislation our dear Lt. Governor is pushing gets passed into law... then in CA anything over 10rds is banned period, the previously grand-Fathering +10 magazines instantly become illegal.

 

[colt_saa]

You can probably see where this is going. Did S&W actually re-start the manufacture of non-cop-restricted 11-round .40S&W magazines for civilians at some point after 2004? After almost all 10/11-round .40S&W 3rd Gens had been discontinued? And if they did, why would they continue to use a trademark on them that was abandoned sometime before 1998?

Every magazine Smith and Wesson produced after Sep 13, 2004 is a non-restricted magazine for anyone to possess under Federal Law no matter what text might be on it.

3rd Gen S&Ws have been in production at the facility in Houlton Maine, they are not discontinued, they are just not marketed to the general public. Examples as recent as 2012 manufacture dates have shown up right here on the Forum.

For the trademark not to be on the magazines any longer, someone in the legal department would have had to notify someone responsible for the CNC machine code and the code would have to be modified to not do that step any longer.

I doubt that occurred since abandoning something is not necessarily a conscious action. Things can be abandoned due to inaction.

I think you are over analyzing the magazines.

If a reasonable person bought a gun manufactured after the Expiration of the Crime and Control Act of 1994, it would be fair to presume that the magazines supplied with it were of a similar manufacture date.

 

[KSDeputy]

Why all this BS over one round? Why not just get the 10 round magazines?

 

[TTSH]

Why all this BS over one round? Why not just get the 10 round magazines?

Because 11-round magazines happened to come with the gun I bought. I have a trade deal pending... but I'm now starting to wonder if it's necessary.

Oddly enough, most folks use the 11-round .40 magazines as 10-rounders anyway because that last round can be awfully hard to get in there... ... or they chamber from the magazine and don't top off. But that won't stop my beloved state government from declaring me a "one extra round" felon.

 

[TTSH]

Interesting questions. Out of curiosity, how would you able to definitively prove to any overly zealous person in a position of authority that your pre-ban magazines are actually pre-ban?

Well, that's the whole reason for my questions here today. I want to be damn sure that I am 100% legal. The odds of trouble are actually quite low... but the penalties are so insanely brutal and costly that one must take the issue very, VERY seriously.

 

[mauser9]

Understand your pain TTSH. Doesn't a move to Florida or Arizona sound tempting? Maybe even Vermont if ya don't mind freezing!!

 

[TTSH]

Thread drift? Perhaps. And/or... perhaps Smith & Wesson did something VERY similar.

You raise a very interesting point about the Federal AWB of 1994. We know that hi-cap magazines legally possessed by individuals prior to the Federal AWB were exempt from the law. We also know that most of law enforcement just went by the date of manufacture of the magazines rather than trying to prove a date associated with "legal possession."

So the question is this: Was S&W legally able to sell off all the pre-ban hi-caps they already had in stock after the Federal AWB was passed? And if so, did they do that? I should know the answer to those questions but I don't.

Obviously, if they were allowed to do so and did... then all non-restriction marked hi-caps sold by them after the AWB sunset date would have to have been newly manufactured... correct?

 

[Sevens]

Manufacturers of magazines were responsible for marking them as restricted/LE only -- and any magazines they made without those markings were 10rds or less.

Pre-ban magazines were NEVER illegal to own or to sell or to furnish. They were illegal to PRODUCE. Gun stores, distributors and manufacturers were shipping NEW, never owned guns with pre-ban magazines in them and that was legal also.

They shipped them legally until they ran out of them.

 

[cololab]

I just took a look at the AWB bill, H.R. 3355. Section 110103, paragraph (d). Paraphrasing here, this portion of the law mandated that any feeding device over 10 rounds manufactured after the effective date of the law be marked/dated so as to identify it as a post ban item.

If none of your magazines is marked as being restricted for LE or export, that would seem to potentially cover part of your issue since an argument could be made that unmarked means pre-ban. Since the AWB was something that every manufacturer knew was coming, there was ample time to gear up magazine or magazine body production.

I would guess that if the authorities decided to pursue the post ban magazine matter, they would have to find an expert witness who could establish post ban manufacture. I don't know if that would be S&W, but who else could provide accurate documentation on when they produced an item?

Any idea if S&W could shed light on this?

 

[TTSH]

For the trademark not to be on the magazines any longer, someone in the legal department would have had to notify someone responsible for the CNC machine code and the code would have to be modified to not do that step any longer.

I doubt that occurred since abandoning something is not necessarily a conscious action. Things can be abandoned due to inaction.

I get your point. Still we would be talking about a stainless steel magazine cut and formed in 2005 (+/-, per your argument) with an S&W trademark rolled into the stainless steel that was legally abandoned in 1998 and picked up not long thereafter by another unrelated company. I find it very hard to believe that no one inside or outside of S&W noticed or cared. S&W is supposed to have such a crack legal team.

Of course we still don't know for certain whether these .40 3rd Gen magazine bodies were made in-house or sub-contracted out. I've heard it both ways. It could be that no one ever told the sub-supplier not to use the expired trademark.

If a reasonable person bought a gun manufactured after the Expiration of the Crime and Control Act of 1994, it would be fair to presume that the magazines supplied with it were of a similar manufacture date.

... which was my first assumption and why I alerted my FFL to hang onto the magazines for me while I tried to trade or sell them to someone in a free state. And it may be that I still go that route if my suspicions about them possibly being pre-ban leftovers are wrong.

One can't look at this question without considering the fact that most of the cataloged 11-round .40S&W 3rd Gens were discontinued before the 2004 AWB sunset date. The 410/410S was the one big exception to that rule.

 

[TTSH]

They shipped them legally until they ran out of them.

Then if that is the case, my 410S came with post-ban magazines and I better go through with the trade I've arranged. Thank you for clarifying that.

 

[TTSH]

I would guess that if the authorities decided to pursue the post ban magazine matter, they would have to find an expert witness who could establish post ban manufacture. I don't know if that would be S&W, but who else could provide accurate documentation on when they produced an item?

Any idea if S&W could shed light on this?

There are so few instances of case law on this "pre-ban" restriction that I don't think anyone knows what a PRM ADA might do. All I can tell you is that the penalties are onerous and you can kiss goodbye to your license, your money, your collection and your life if you take a risk and lose.

I highly doubt S&W CS would be of any help. My luck with them has not been great lately.

 

[TTSH]

That's a good question... in CA it's been suggested that you have dated receipts, but that's about to be turned into a moot point if the ballot initiative legislation our dear Lt. Governor is pushing gets passed into law... then in CA anything over 10rds is banned period, the previously grand-Fathering +10 magazines instantly become illegal.

Believe me, I feel your pain. I have a ton of money invested in these crappy old pre-bans. The only thing government can do that's worse is to ban them altogether.

Understand your pain TTSH. Doesn't a move to Florida or Arizona sound tempting? Maybe even Vermont if ya don't mind freezing!!

The People's Republic of Vermont??? No thanks!!!

 

[jimbo728]

Believe me, I feel your pain. I have a ton of money invested in these crappy old pre-bans. The only thing government can do that's worse is to ban them altogether.


The People's Republic of Vermont??? No thanks!!!

Come up to New Hampshire. We need all the pro gun voters we can muster. We are still living free and are not dead.
Jim

 

[TTSH]

Come up to New Hampshire. We need all the pro gun voters we can muster. We are still living free and are not dead.
Jim

We would if we could. Your super-high property taxes up there are the number one thing preventing it. Not good for old retired folks without a lot of money.

 

[BAM-BAM]

Read this thread......my head hurts!!!!!

 

[TTSH]

Read this thread......my head hurts!!!!!

It's not like I didn't warn you!