You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
"Hi-cap" mag question regarding LEOs.....
- Thread starter Dangus
- Start date
Here I go again...
By Hi-Caps, do you really mean "standard capacity" magazines? ...as opposed to the restricted capacity magazines that have been forced upon on us by misguided lawmakers. Please, let's not legitimize the anti-gunners inflamatory verbiage by using it ourselves.
Joe
By Hi-Caps, do you really mean "standard capacity" magazines? ...as opposed to the restricted capacity magazines that have been forced upon on us by misguided lawmakers. Please, let's not legitimize the anti-gunners inflamatory verbiage by using it ourselves.
Joe
Dangus
Yes, but REPETITION SELLS. That's why it's importance for us, in my view, to repeatedly and consistently always use full capacity without quotation marks, and never utter the phrase "hi-capacity", unless it is specifically spelled out in the same sentence the erroneous nature of the term. If we don't do it, as consciencious (sp?) RKBA protectors, then how can we expect average joe gun owner to adopt the language, which in turn can affect the national debate on the subject?
Likewise, my goal in life right now is to prevent the re-enactment of the useful defensive weapons ban, which is erroneously called by liberal politicians the "assault weapons ban". Guys, we absolutely unequivocally do NOT want to stop re-enactment of the assault weapons ban (there is no such thing). We should, however, proclaim often and emphatically that the USEFUL DEFENSIVE WEAPONS BAN sunsets without further incident.
Yes, but REPETITION SELLS. That's why it's importance for us, in my view, to repeatedly and consistently always use full capacity without quotation marks, and never utter the phrase "hi-capacity", unless it is specifically spelled out in the same sentence the erroneous nature of the term. If we don't do it, as consciencious (sp?) RKBA protectors, then how can we expect average joe gun owner to adopt the language, which in turn can affect the national debate on the subject?
Likewise, my goal in life right now is to prevent the re-enactment of the useful defensive weapons ban, which is erroneously called by liberal politicians the "assault weapons ban". Guys, we absolutely unequivocally do NOT want to stop re-enactment of the assault weapons ban (there is no such thing). We should, however, proclaim often and emphatically that the USEFUL DEFENSIVE WEAPONS BAN sunsets without further incident.
if the mags are stamped LEO only, then when you quit the force you have to surrender those mags to police department,
I guess you get money back if you paid for them, but if paid
by department you just lose the mags,some laws say a officer
who retires can keep all?seems weird anyone can buy AK or
AR mags, but most new Glock and Sig mags that hold more than
10 rd.s are marked LEO only.you can buy crappy 15 rd mags
for Hi-powers and Berratas, and their not marked LEO. damn
strange laws.
I guess you get money back if you paid for them, but if paid
by department you just lose the mags,some laws say a officer
who retires can keep all?seems weird anyone can buy AK or
AR mags, but most new Glock and Sig mags that hold more than
10 rd.s are marked LEO only.you can buy crappy 15 rd mags
for Hi-powers and Berratas, and their not marked LEO. damn
strange laws.
cuerno de chivo
Moderator
leo only magazines
for duty guns with written permission. or it's illegal.
as it should be, cops shouldn't receive privilidges with their personal weapons.
at retirement, a department can give duty mags to a cop. a cop can't keep the ones that he bought.
for duty guns with written permission. or it's illegal.
as it should be, cops shouldn't receive privilidges with their personal weapons.
at retirement, a department can give duty mags to a cop. a cop can't keep the ones that he bought.
Dangus,
Per ATF:
The LEO must turn the standard capacity magazines in upon seperation of employment regardless if the LEO paid for the magazines. Upon retirement (emphasis on retirement), the LEO may keep personally owned magazines only if the LEO receives written permission from the head of his agency, otherwise the LEO is in violation of the law. Since most chiefs are absolutely terrified of liability I think a lot of them will not grant permission (my chief won't).
Per ATF:
The LEO must turn the standard capacity magazines in upon seperation of employment regardless if the LEO paid for the magazines. Upon retirement (emphasis on retirement), the LEO may keep personally owned magazines only if the LEO receives written permission from the head of his agency, otherwise the LEO is in violation of the law. Since most chiefs are absolutely terrified of liability I think a lot of them will not grant permission (my chief won't).
Gopher a 45
New member
Sorry to hear that, mrat.
Perhaps we should have limits on the number of lawyers, not the number of cartridges.
Perhaps we should have limits on the number of lawyers, not the number of cartridges.