Quote:
Originally Posted by B Wilson
Sorry! Bad example. LOL
Printable View
Quote:
Originally Posted by B Wilson
Sorry! Bad example. LOL
It's not really Ruger's doing. It's the Firearms Act's doing.
But this is not the effect of a poorly worded law. The Firearms Act is doing just what it was intended to do. I'm sure that observation will tick some people off, but that's reality.
The aim of the mag restrictions in the Firearms Act is simple: restrict semi-auto long guns to 5 rounds (except for .22 LR) and semi-auto handguns to 10.
In the case of rifles made to take handgun magazines, the wording of the Act allows those magazines. A handgun magazine doesn't become a prohibited device because someone designs a rifle to use it. This is a loophole in the Act that works in favour of gun owners.
But in this case, the 10/22 receiver is shared by both handgun and rifle. The magazine is not designed to fit a barrel length or a shoulder stock; it's designed for the mag well of a 10/22 receiver. The mags do not belong to the rifle design. And prohibiting handgun mags with a capacity over 10 rounds is just what the Act is supposed to do.
This sucks for owners of the 10/22, for sure. The other option of course would be to prohibit the handgun variant -- but this would require an Order-in-Council and I'm sure that people who own those guns would be even less pleased than people who own high-capacity 10/22 mags, so that's no solution -- although it might be more accurate to consider the Charger a short-barrelled rifle than a handgun, frankly.
From RCMP Bulletin 72...
[COLOR=#000000]Note that the maximum permitted capacity of a magazine is determined by the physical characteristics of the firearm it is designed or manufactured for and the type of ammunition for which it is designed.
[COLOR=#000000]The current mags were designed and manufactured for the physical characteristics of the 10/22 RIFLE. End of story per the RCMP's own wording.
However the mags have been legally imported for decades(with the RCMP's import blessings) and owned [COLOR=#000000](legally)[COLOR=#000000]by 10s of thousands of Canadians, the RCMP now wants to further their agenda by prohibiting them because a pistol has been introduced that can "use" the same mag even though it was ok(per their wording) and designed/manufactured for the physical characteristics of a FRT legal rifle.
More political BS from the left leaning RCMP who can't even figure out how to word their own anti gun bulletins.
The 10/22 rifle is not a single firearm but a family of similar rifles with different furniture, etc. Shortening the barrel and removing the shoulder stock doesn't make an entirely different firearm.
A 10/22 receiver is a 10/22 receiver.
Again, people are not going to like it but thia is consistent with the aim of the Act and with bulletin 72.
By the same pen, they could use an OIC to exempt 10/22 magazines from prohibition, could they not?. Or something more broad to include all rimfire magazines that run into this situation.Quote:
Originally Posted by welsh
Ruger was really just serving their main customers, I guess. The handgun designation gets around the Short Barreled Rifle legislation; which means the 22 Charger owners don't have to register with the BATF and pay their $200 tax stamp to own it.
Doesn't help in California (it's considered a type of assault weapon:whacked:) or Massachusetts, but does most everywhere else.
Anyway, there has been a bungling on the communications side of this;rollout seems patchy causing confusion and skepticism. We are getting close to small game season again, and the bugs are abating so plinking season is back on. Hunters, shooters, COs will be out in the bush and nobody has a clear picture of what is happening, or what is supposed to happen. Some businesses apparently being told to hold stock, others have heard nothing. This decision was apparently made in 2011, with the bulletin going out in 2013, but no public information campaign or enforcement guidance until 2016? Nothing to importers and distributors?
boggles the mind a bit.
The magazine in question received its patent around 1977 and production began about a year afterward. The pistol in question was produced around 2007.Quote:
Originally Posted by welsh
The RCMP was fine with all of the above between 2007 and 2016. Odd it's now an issue with the liberals in office and the fact the liberals abrogate their responsibilities to their gun grabbing department, the RCMP.
Even a Stevie Wonder could see the arbitrary and capricious connection.
Depends who "they" are ... the RCMP can't, because they don't have that authority. Cabinet could issue an OIC. But I don't think that's likely because the intent of the Act is to outlaw pistol mags holding more than 10 rounds. A Liberal government isn't going to issue an OIC that runs counter to that intent.Quote:
Originally Posted by mooboy76
Yes, I meant Cabinet; I assumed that would also be the body that could prohibit the Charger by OIC. Obviously not an option we want to explore.Quote:
Originally Posted by welsh
Unlikely to grant exemption, yes, but within the Cabinet's power. The Act outlaws semi-automatic rifle magazines holding more than 5, yet allows an exemption.
I guess somebody weighed the pros/cons of requiring hundreds of thousands -- near a million imported over the last 30 years I have read -- of magazines to be pinned, instead of making another magazine exemption.
They obviously didn't want to make this move while the CPC were in power for fear of getting their PP's whacked......again !Quote:
Originally Posted by skypilot
Don't you just hate it when someone makes a sensible argument:DQuote:
Originally Posted by welsh