So the Federal Police interpret what the written law means........Not the Supreme Court, not the weasels in Parliament that penned such juvenille legalese.... but the "Federales." Can sombreros and bananas be far behind?
Printable View
So the Federal Police interpret what the written law means........Not the Supreme Court, not the weasels in Parliament that penned such juvenille legalese.... but the "Federales." Can sombreros and bananas be far behind?
Uh, no. The RCMP can bring charges based on their interpretation of the law but it's up to the courts to decide if that interpretation is valid.
Problem is the RCMP can go to court everyday for every charge on our dime$$ none of them have any skin in the game. The poor tax paying citizen can destroy his savings fighting his own tax money. Not unlike Human Rights Commissions who give other people's money away.
So according to Daniel at the SFSS/lab, it was a incorrect interpretation years ago and a re- interpretation of a law they misinterpreted years ago and anyone in possession of a Butler Creek mag is in possession of a prohibited device...
So the RCMP "EXPERTS" ruled one way on codified law but now the EXPERTS rule the opposite way.....Welcome to Cana duh.
http://i1056.photobucket.com/albums/...pswkxv00qi.jpg
That's exactly what happened with the CZ 858 and the Swiss Arms rifles. There classed as non-restricted when first examined and then classed as prohibited when re-examined years later. The difference this time is we don't have a gun friendly Federal party in power to say WTF? and repeal the magazine re-classification. TCQuote:
Originally Posted by skypilot
UH,no. It must be factory stamped. TCQuote:
Originally Posted by patvetzal
I have a copy of the rcmp letter. It CLEARLY STATES ALL MAGAZINES for the 10/22 if the magazine is designed for the rifle it is prohibited regardles if its butler creek.. ruger or gsg.
Rcmps new interpretation is since the magazine fits a handgun REGARDLESS of what it was desgned for.
The magazines butler creek for example were disigned. Ill tey to find the pic inhave from rcmp.
Found it.
http://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/2016...18ff852301.jpg
Sent from my SM-G920W8 using Tapatalk
The 10/22 design is common to both rifle and handgun versions. This seems to be the basis of the RCMP's decision: it's not a case of a mag for a handgun of a different design that happens to fit a rifle, but a case where the mag is made for the 10/22 platform, period.
When was the 10/22 introduced 1960s? When was the Pistol RE-introduced? 2014?
Common sense would be to reference a restriction WRT the re introduced Charger, not ban/prohibit all 10/22 mags over 10 for the rifle AND make criminals out of law abiding citizens overnight.
It's clear the RCMP is following a disarmament agenda litttle by little with a liberal gov. passing off to the "expert RCMP" and the RCMP grousing "we don't make law."
This "common sense" solution would require new legislation, which is Parliament's job, not the RCMP's. Are you suggesting the RCMP should be able to make new laws out of thin air?Quote:
Originally Posted by skypilot
And with respect to the ongoing, BS line about making criminals out of law-abiding citizens overnight ... read the RCMP letter. Nobody is going to be charged simply for possessing one of these magazines.