From firearms-alert-owner Mon Nov 13 01:07:46 1995 Received: (chan@localhost) by jobe.shell.portal.com (8.6.11/8.6.5) id BAA20776 for firearms-alert-outgoing; Mon, 13 Nov 1995 01:05:34 -0800 Received: (chan@localhost) by jobe.shell.portal.com (8.6.11/8.6.5) id BAA20704 for firearms-alert; Mon, 13 Nov 1995 01:05:25 -0800 Date: Mon, 13 Nov 1995 01:05:25 -0800 From: Jeff Chan Message-Id: <199511130905.BAA20704@jobe.shell.portal.com> To: firearms-alert Subject: FEDERAL: BATF to allow pre-ban magazine imports Sender: firearms-alert-owner@shell.portal.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Jeff Chan Followup-To: firearms-politics@cup.hp.com Status: RO [I have not personally checked this, but these sources should be good. You can get to James Bardwell's letters as: http://www.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs.cmu.edu/user/wbardwel/public/nfalist/index.html#magcase Jeff C.] __ From: Lawrence.V.Cipriani@att.com To: chan@shell.portal.com Date: Thu, 09 Nov 95 15:59:13 EST Subject: is this ok for alerts ? Subject: pre-ban high capacity mag imports will be allowed >From James O. Bardwell (bardwell@netcom.com): I just got an extremely cool call from a lady at ATF Import Branch. She told me that they have decided to comply with the law regarding the import of 10+ mags and feed devices, and ALLOW the import of such items if they were made before 9/14/94, which is the cutoff in the law. If an item was made before that date, the date of the enactment of the Crime Bill, it is not a large capacity ammunition feed device, which is the banned item. It doesn't matter how many rounds it holds, or where on the planet it resides at this moment. Such an item is perfectly legal for a civilian to have. The problem is that while persons are only banned from having large capacity feed devices, and such had to be made after the law took effect, Congress required that the marking that is supposed to identify such items needs to be put not only on items MADE after the effective date, but also those IMPORTED after the effective date. So the LEO only marking is required on items it is legal for civilians to have, and thus the marking is not an indicator that it is really illegal to have, and ATF loses the presumption against someone who possessed a marked magazine. I don't know how they will handle the marking issue, I suspect they will have different marking for a true post-ban mag, and one made beforehand but imported after. Congress required the marking, so I don't think ATF can just waive it for imported items that were made before hand. But maybe they will, I didn't ask and the ATF person didn't tell me. In any case, she said that their request to amend the regs and policy was at Treasury, for approval. She said it should come in a few weeks at most, and she would notify me, and at that time I could re-apply for the Form 6, and it would then be approved, all other things being equal. She suggested I shouldn't sue if I could wait a little while. I will keep the list updated. As I said before, if I don't need to file suit any donations toward that will be given by me to the NRA-ILA. For those who missed the start of this dispute, you can see my previous dealings with ATF on the server, under the "mag. suit" heading. James -- Larry Cipriani, l.v.cipriani@att.com Ever feel like you're being watched ? -- You will.