Printable View
Surely of interest to many here given the popularity of the 10/22. The problem is that they can fit some handguns. A bit of an odd interpretation given the existing situation with pistol mags that fit some rifles.
http://calibremag.ca/rcmp-declares-1...bited-devices/
So now when the spring on my old ten round mag gets a little weak and you can crow bar a 11th round in I get to go to jail for having a 10+ round mag?
This is just an end run to remove auto-loaders from the public. And with the liberal government in power, they will be allowed to roll over the rights of gun owners across the country. Today they ban a mag for the 10/22 tomorrow your rifle is banned because it is a reaction (blowback) style and not gas operated.
From what I'm hearing,the Ruger 10/22 (OEM) mags specifically for Ruger rifles are NOT included.
When the Police have the power to make something illegal, the country is in trouble.
That was the main reason the Liberals "amended" C-42,so,they could deflect gun control measures back to the RCMP. Now,they can simply feed their BS snowballs to the Mounties and let them throw them. No accountability. Nice,eh?Quote:
Originally Posted by woody1948
and so it begins.......
Tip of the iceberg boys, stay tuned. It will be incremental and deflected to the RCMP. If they think a .22 mag should be prohibited how long before they turn to black guns, SKS and that type of thing.
So if they are designed for the 10/22 rifle then they are still no limited but if they are designed and designated for use in both then they are regulated. It does not seem like there is any change in the law here, just a 10/22 pistol is now available.
It looks like this was added in 2013 according to the RCMP
http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/cfp-pcaf/b...323-72-eng.htm
So true....we ain't seen nothin' yet ! It's only just begun !Quote:
Originally Posted by terrym
The RCMP does not have the power to prohibit or restrict the SKS. Their classification power is limited to interpreting the law as it stands. Reclassifying the SKS would require legislation or an order-in-council.Quote:
Originally Posted by terrym
I don't believe their powers to make this particular decision were in any way limited by C-42. I think that applied only to classifying actual firearms.
As Fox mention with has been in place for some years now so is this now becoming an issue to 10/22 carbine users who have butler creek type banana magazines because Ruger came out with the charger pistol last year that can take the carbine mags?
If so this sucks!
Is the magazine designed for a rifle? If so then if marked for the rifle would be fine. This would be the same as the pistol magazines in 10rds being used for semi auto carbines.Quote:
Originally Posted by Quack_Kills
I assume it is just because it was purchased many years ago. I need to find out how to identify it, however, even if it was originally designed and dedicated for the rifle but now can be used in a pistol wouldn't it still be prohibited due to the fact that it can be used in a pistol? I am assuming that any 10/22 carbine mag can fit a pistol and vise versa...is this correct or is there a difference in the newer mags after the pistol came out?
You can legally use a center fire pistol magazine with a 10rd capacity in a carbine designed for it without it becoming illegal. It is the magazine that is prohibited, not what it is used in. If the magazine is a 50rd rimfire magazine for a rifle it would not make it illegal unless it is prescribed as a magazine for a pistol as well or just for a pistol.Quote:
Originally Posted by Quack_Kills
Clear as mud! lol
I found the following on the wolverine supplies website...not sure how accurate it is but based on their interpretation the butler Creek mags are ok since they were designed and marketed for the rifle not the pistol....
[COLOR=#505050]"The same goes for the factory Ruger 10/22 25 round magazines. These magazines are limited to 10 rounds as they are also for the Ruger Charger pistol. However, after market 10/22 mags such as the Butler Creek models have no such restriction placed on them, as they are not marketed as pistol magazines. This makes them legal to use in both rifles and the Charger pistol. "
https://www.wolverinesupplies.com/blog/wolverine-supplies/2013/04/22/how-come-yours-is-bigger-than-mine-magazine-capacity-and-canadian-firearms-law
My brain hurts lol
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fox
What Calibre is telling us is that the RCMP are reversing their position on this. The situation is a bit confused at the moment (and I haven't looked for the latest updates), but as of last night, the RCMP was taking a position that was the opposite of the previous guidance, and prohibiting magazines that could be used in a handgun regardless of which firearm they were originally made for.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fox
It could well be that the original reports were out to lunch and Calibre was playing Chicken Little.
I hope they are not making all of those mags prohibs in one night but sits like Calibre have been known to scream the sky is falling before.Quote:
Originally Posted by welsh
Back in 1974 I bought my 10/22. During the next few years I bought a handful of magazines of various sizes. Now the RCMP is apparently making them prohibited if they hold over ten rounds. They have no marking on them to indicate when they were made.
Write/go visit your MP and tell him you are now a criminal. They are on summer vacation right?
What fooked up convoluted firearm laws and processes.
I just read the report on the Calibre website and it appears this actually came into effect in 2013. I have an "in" with a firearms retailer and they haven't heard a thing other than the BX-25 mags manufactured for the pistol are prohibited. There will be a form letter coming out soon about this. It will be wise to fill it out and send it in or write your own and send it in. TC
But somehow it's Trudeau's fault?Quote:
Originally Posted by trky chsr
Let's face it the RCMP have been pulling this crap for years and neither party has stopped it.
Can someone explain what pistol can fit a 10/22 mag? I have a Ruger 22/45 and there is no way any 10/22 mages will fit into the mag well.
Its the Ruger Charger pistol. It looks like they used the carbine receiver with pistol furniture.
http://www.ruger.com/products/22Charger/models.html
I do not suspect that thing would balance well in the hand at all, it is essentially a carbine barrel with a pistol grip, gross.Quote:
Originally Posted by Quack_Kills
The Conservatives did with C-42,specifically,removing RCMP authority without Justice Ministry Committee oversight. The Liberals under Justin Trudeau re-instated RCMP authority to do whatever the hell they want. When a government entity like a Police Force can arbitrarily make laws as they go along without any form of accountability,democracy is in serious peril.Quote:
Originally Posted by Woodsman
The Liberals have not given the RCMP the authority to make laws. Only parliament makes laws.
The authority over classification belongs with civil servants, not with Cabinet. Placing that power in Cabinet was a stupid move. Do you want that power in the hands of politicians? To make decisions based on political expediency, without any oversight at all?
Do you seriously think that the best possible way of doing this is to let Justin Trudeau decide what's prohibited, and what's restricted?
Because that's what the Conservatives did.
Trudough is about to completely "game" the electoral system we have had since confederation to pretty well guarantee liberal wins forever. Remember this is the guy who admires China's system. Trudough also parachuted personal picks and caused battles with riding associations last election. Trudough doesn't even know how to spell democracy but it doesn't matter anymore. Twitter, nice hair, selfies are what the idiots need now.
As far as I'm concerned, WARNING! Common sense about to be spouted, IF you are caught with a Charger pistol and a 10+ Rd mag, then charges warranted. If you have a rifle/carbine and a 10+Rd mag, then be on your way and have a nice day.
I don't believe the police should have the powers to make/change rules, laws or regulations AT ANY TIME. What's to stop the local LEO from saying the 80km/h sign you just passed while doing 80 is now invalid, it's now a 60 because the road is wet. Here's your fine.
Oh, we have had a problem with drivers texting and driving and we can't see in the car to verify, so your window tint is resulting in a ticket. "Oh, it doesn't matter that you have no phone on you sir, we couldn't see inside to confirm that you were not texting, so the ticket is for your window tint. No, sir, the MTO has not made the change official yet, but we will inform them that the change has been made so they can inform others."
This would indeed be sensible, but it would also require a change to the law as written.Quote:
Originally Posted by 35wailin
It would also ban a lot more guns and magazines then you think, lots of centerfire carbines use pistol mags and they would then have to be pinned to 5 rds, you have both a pistol and a carbine then you cannot have more than 5rds in the pistol because there is no way you can tell.Quote:
Originally Posted by welsh
This will probably boost sales of other 22lr rifles. Me and my brother are in the market for a 22lr chambered rifle and now knowing this we will probably take a closer look at Savage MK II with scope at Cabelas.
Bought a Chiappa's little badger too. For 170$ cant go wrong with that lol
Everybody seems to be really going over board with the self-defeating rhetoric. The Ruger 10/22 rifle is not what's being reclassified. It's one of three different magazines that may be used in the rifle which has been reclassified as "high capacity". It's a stupid regulation change and silly on every level,typical Liberal inspired nonsense,but, it doesn't mean we still can't use the 10/22 rifles. The Ruger 10 shot mags that come standard with the rifle are still allowed to be used.
Saw a copy of an RCMP directive posted online today ... clarifies *all* 10/22 mags now prohibited.
did it say "all" or all high capacity?Quote:
Originally Posted by welsh
Would be a quick and dirty way around to remove all firearms......Yup you can own any gun you want, just outlaw any mag that fits any rifle, pistol, or shotgun.
All that exceed 10
Sent from my SM-G925W8 using Tapatalk
All HIGH CAPACITY mags that can be used in both pistols AND rifles are now prohibited devices. Ruger 10/22 rifles come with a rotary 10 shot mag as standard equipment. Good to go. If that's changed since yesterday,please post the link.Quote:
Originally Posted by welsh
Sorry, I wasn't clear. All 10/22 mags with a capacity over 10 rounds are now prohibited. This is regardless of whether they were made for the rifle, etc., etc. A capacity of over 10 rounds now makes the mag a prohibited device.
https://twitter.com/Silvercore/statu...76036675248128
Actually that's not quite correct either. The GSG 110rnd mag states directly that it is for the 10/22 rifle and as such is not included in this prohibition. That's really all Butler Creek needs to do now, mark "for Ruger 10/22 rifle" on the mag and they will be good to go. If this passes older ones will need to be pinned. TCQuote:
Originally Posted by welsh
That's not what the RCMP letter says....Quote:
Originally Posted by trky chsr
So if I etch my old 30 round mag as 10/22 rifle, I should be ok?
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.
You are aware that that letter is only an internal force directive. It does not say charges are NOT to be laid. It has no significance to other police services. The RCMP do not dictate how or when a charge is laid by other services. If the mag becomes a prohibited device, which apparently is the case, appropriate charges can be laid.Quote:
Originally Posted by welsh
Once a charge is laid, and I bet one will be, it will be up to the crown to decide if the charge proceeds. Past cases would indicate the charges would go forward.
That still doesn't make anyone into a criminal overnight.
You're not a criminal until a court convicts you, and no court is convicting anyone until they've had a reasonable opportunity to dispose of the prohibited device.
This "made into a criminal overnight" thing is a popular componentbof the whole victimhood narrative we live ao much, but it just ain't true.
From your last few post...
Funny, you posted they(RCMP) interpret the law and it follows that they enforce upon their interpretation. So they "made" a different law even though they didn't pen it.
Ralph Goodale said he won't stick his noise in it even though they changed the intent and meaning of the law.
So you going to pay any fines if people are charged? Do you really, honestly believe they won't charge? I'd say your the BS in this thread.
Boy if anyone knows BS it's you welsh as you are a published BShter and a good one if you got those idiots to publish such an ink stained wretch such as yourself, isn't that what you call yourself at least in the past?
Nothing like having an enemy like you inside the wire welsh.
Quote:
Originally Posted by welsh
Quote:
Originally Posted by welsh
Hey welsh, if one is in possession of a prohibited device...you are a criminal, just not charged and due processed yet. You are still in contravention of the LAW because you possess a prohibited device by law.Quote:
Originally Posted by welsh
Semantics.....if one is committing a criminal offence, he/she is in fact a "criminal". Lots of criminals out there that have not been convicted yet, they are none the less, "criminals"....Quote:
Originally Posted by welsh
crim·i·nal
ˈkrimənl/
noun
- 1.
a person who has committed a crime.
[COLOR=#878787 !important]"these men are dangerous criminals"
synonyms: lawbreaker, offender, villain, delinquent, felon, convict, malefactor, wrongdoer, culprit, miscreant; [COLOR=#1A0DAB]More
Rick, I'd normally agree with that point because of course the heart of criminality is intent. I've made that very argument myself in the past. But in a situation like this, you aren't made a criminal overnight. You become one when you fail to comply with the law within a reasonable time -- not "overnight."
That's not semantics ... you haven't committed a crime until you've committed a crime, and there is no crime until you've had a reasonable amount of time to comply.
Thanks for again validating my central argument.Quote:
Originally Posted by skypilot
You have no central argument. You are just an ideological chameleon that only pretends to support continued gun ownership.
You are much too two faced to have a central argument.
"like" "like" "like'''''''''''''''''''Quote:
Originally Posted by skypilot
If I understand things correctly, the law didn't change, the Ruger 10/22 rifle didn't change. But Ruger introduced a pistol that 2 was designed to accept magazine's with a capacity greater than 10 rounds.
Ruger seems to be the creator of the problem
Actually,the Firearms Act created the problem. Ruger didn't create the problem anymore than Ford created a problem with the Shelby Mustang GT.Quote:
Originally Posted by B Wilson
Thanks 'B'...I was looking for the "in a nutshell view" of what precipitated this.Quote:
Originally Posted by B Wilson
How so ? The law was in place before the Ruger charger was introduced to the market place.
Shelby Mustang's are junk, so Ford owns that problem
So, are the Charger 'pistols' commonly available in Canada?
From: SOR/98-462 Regulations Prescribing Certain Firearms and Other Weapons, Components and Parts of Weapons, Accessories, Cartridge Magazines, Ammunition and Projectiles as Prohibited, Restricted or Non-RestrictedQuote:
PART 4 Prohibited Devices
[snip]
3(1) Any cartridge magazine
[snip]
(b) that is capable of containing more than 10 cartridges of the type for which the magazine was originally designed and that is designed or manufactured for use in a semi-automatic handgun that is commonly available in Canada.
Poorly written legislation by anti gun political zealots causes vague, ambiguous and conflicting law.
The whole magazine related law is a joke. It was legal to take a 5 round .50 cal Beowulf magazine and load it with 11-15 rounds of .223 then use it in an AR 15 or any semi with a STANAG magwell. That was ok with the RCMP per their interpretation of the week.
Now .22 cal mags over 10 are prohibited overnight due to yet another mag interpretation due to yet another pistol re introduction that uses the same type magazine.
The whole Firearms Act needs to be rewritten to spell out specifics in black and white and no gray. Law shouldn't be such that every firearm law is an interpretation of someone in LE. It either meets the letter of law or it doesn't and it should be clear to all which is which.
well, I had my magazines for well over thirty years, the government did NOT change any laws, and yet the RCMP have decided that I am no longer allowed to have them. Who would you say is guiding the horse? Granted they will not charge me, as long as I get rid of them in thirty days....Quote:
Originally Posted by welsh
The RCMP in effect, CHANGED THE LAW/Regulations on 2013-09-05 when THEY included the information and example about the Ruger .22 cal Charger Pistol WRT magazine capacity. It wasn't on the ORIGINAL "bulletin."Quote:
Originally Posted by mooboy76
As I posted before. It's a re interpretaion of an interpretation they made about the original REGULATIONS.(I believe 1993)
So now overnight, they have made criminals out of everyone who is in possession of a 10+ .22 cal magazine WITHOUT ANY due process, without any charges, without any court, with no compensation and with no consideration for property rights. Just a "memo"/"bulletin" and a stoke of the keypad and one is in possession of a prohibited device.
The rest of the joke is when you call and ask what to do about compliance. They don't know, they are not into compliance advice. Their bulletins aren't edicts for other Agencies I'm told and they have no say on what other departments do, yet one idiot said see your local Police and take it to them to see what to do. Wait what......
Gawd, you can't make this stuff up........
But it does feel good to shake a fist a Ruger for the Charger. Should you really market a 19.25" firearm, that you promote to be shot off a bipod, as a handgun? It's 3 1/8 lbs unloaded without optics, so up there with the 8" barreled revolvers, or 454 Casull revolvers, but double the length. Smells like a carbine to me, but I guess they have their reasons. Walther also released the HK 416 as a pistol - 5lbs unloaded and bare, 17" long. I guess they would be fun to shoot with only one hand?Quote:
Originally Posted by trimmer21
Edit - I guess if you're shooting it off a bipod, then one hand shooting is a breeze
The sweeping 10+ is the issue I have with the new reinterpretation. The BX-15 is designed and manufactured for the 22 Charger as of 2015. The BX-25 and other 25+ magazines are designed and manufactured for the 10/22 rifle, since they interfere with normal bipod use in the 22 Charger. The original 22 Charger shipped with the standard 10-round rotary mag which has no issues with the regulations. None of the 22 Charger models sold by Ruger are spec'd with anything except the 10 round rotary or BX-15.Quote:
designed or manufactured for use in a semi-automatic handgun that is commonly available in Canada.
It should really just be the BX-15 that is the prohibited device.
Funny. This is exactly what transpired with the Mossberg 715T. Originally sold with a 25 round mag.
Mossberg then designed a funny looking half Tac pistol that looked a bit like the Ruger charger.
The reg was applied then, mainly serving notice to retailers that they would not be able to sell the 25 round mags after a specified date. And effective after that date, importation into Canada became prohibited. Hence, you could only find the Mossy 715T with 10 rounders after that.
No attempt by the RCMP has been made to recover pre-existing 25 round mags, nor were any sales of existing mags , or 715Ts with them prosecuted. This was 2 years ago.
An individual in the gun community on CGN out of Alberta, contacted the CFC, and inquired about this. The answer he received was that it was mainly an exercise in prohibiting further importation, and sale. But anyone having the rifle with the 25 rounders would not be prosecuted.
I'll see if I can't find the thread later ( I cant go on CGN from work).
I strongly think that this is exactly what's happening here.
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
This is the clarification from the RCMP - CFP
http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/cfp-pcaf/notice-avis-2016-07-27-eng.htm
Quote:
22 Long Rifle calibre magazines for 10/22 platform firearms
***In light of several inquiries received recently regarding the legal status of 22 Long Rifle calibre magazines for 10/22 platform firearms, please see the following information:***
This further explains the Special Bulletin for Business No. 72 that was issued in September 2013.
The maximum capacity of a cartridge magazine is set out in Part 4 of the Regulations Prescribing Certain Firearms and other Weapons, Components and Parts of Weapons, Accessories, Cartridge Magazines, Ammunition and Projectiles as Prohibited, Restricted or Non-Restricted (the Regulations) under the Criminal Code. Pursuant to the Regulations, a magazine that has a capacity which exceeds the maximum permitted capacity is a prohibited device.
Specifically, paragraph 3 (1)(b) of the Regulations prohibit a cartridge magazine that is capable of containing more than 10 cartridges of the type for which the magazine was originally designed and that is designed or manufactured for use in a semi-automatic handgun that is commonly available in Canada.
22 Long Rifle calibre magazines designed or manufactured for 10/22 platform rifles are also inherently designed or manufactured for 10/22 platform handguns. Because 22 Long Rifle calibre 10/22 platform magazines are designed or manufactured for use in a semi-automatic handgun, they are prohibited devices if they are capable of containing more than 10 cartridges. The 10 cartridge limit for the 10/22 platform applies irrespective of the type of firearm it is used in.
Questions and Answers
Table of contents
- What are the latest changes to the legal status of 22 Long Rifle calibre magazines designed for the 10/22 platform of firearms?
- What magazines are prescribed as prohibited?
- Are 10 cartridge 22 Long Rifle calibre 10/22 platform magazines prohibited?
- Am I criminally in possession of a 22 Long Rifle calibre magazine?
- If I am in possession of a 10/22 Long Rifle calibre magazine, how do I comply with the law?
What are the latest changes to the legal status of 22 Long Rifle calibre magazines designed for the 10/22 platform of firearms?
The legal status of 22 Long Rifle calibre magazines designed for the 10/22 platform of firearms has not changed.
The Regulations prohibit a cartridge magazine that is capable of containing more than 10 cartridges of the type for which the magazine was originally designed and that is designed or manufactured for use in a semi-automatic handgun that is commonly available in Canada.
What magazines are prescribed as prohibited?
Magazines designed for 22 Long Rifle calibre 10/22 platform firearms that have not been altered, or "pinned", so that they can hold more than 10 cartridges are prohibited devices.
Are 10 cartridge 22 Long Rifle calibre 10/22 platform magazines prohibited?
No. Factory made 22 Long Rifle calibre 10/22 platform magazines that cannot hold more than 10 cartridges are not prohibited.
Am I criminally in possession of a 22 Long Rifle calibre magazine?
If you are in possession of a 22 Long Rifle calibre magazine for 10/22 platform firearms that is not permanently altered, or "pinned" to meet the maximum capacity of a cartridge magazine, as set out in the Regulations, you may be in possession of a prohibited device.
If I am in possession of a 10/22 Long Rifle calibre magazine, how do I comply with the law?
A 10/22 platform magazine permanently altered, or "pinned", so that it cannot hold more than 10 cartridges, is no longer considered to be prohibited. Subsections 3(4) and 3(5) of Part 4 of the Regulations as outlined below describe the acceptable methods of altering or re-manufacturing a cartridge magazine so that it cannot hold more than the legal limit.
3(4) A cartridge magazine described in subsection (1) that has been altered or re-manufactured so that it is not capable of containing more than five or ten cartridges, as the case may be, of the type for which it was originally designed is not a prohibited device as prescribed by that subsection if the modification to the magazine cannot be easily removed and the magazine cannot be easily further altered so that it is so capable of containing more than five or ten cartridges, as the case may be.
3(5) For the purposes of subsection (4), altering or re-manufacturing a cartridge magazine includes: (a) the indentation of its casing by forging, casting, swaging or impressing;
(b) in the case of a cartridge magazine with a steel or aluminum casing, the insertion and attachment of a plug, sleeve, rod, pin, flange or similar device, made of steel or aluminum, as the case may be, or of a similar material, to the inner surface of its casing by welding, brazing or any other similar method; or
(c) in the case of a cartridge magazine with a casing made of a material other than steel or aluminum, the attachment of a plug, sleeve, rod, pin, flange or similar device, made of steel or of a material similar to that of the magazine casing, to the inner surface of its casing by welding, brazing or any other similar method or by applying a permanent adhesive substance, such as a cement or an epoxy or other glue.
Lawful disposition options are available if you no longer wish to possess an overcapacity magazine. Please contact the Canadian Firearms Program at 1-800-731-4000 for further details.
I guess Glock owners had better hope that Glock doesn't make a rifle format for their receiver that takes the handgun magazines.Quote:
Originally Posted by welsh
If applied in this style, I would think we will see new bulletins on those existing 715T magazines, and maybe a revisit to the LAR-15.
On the other hand, the 'platform' before 2007 was only rifle-based, so all of the magazines manufactured prior to the design of the 22 Charger were designed and manufactured for a rifle. The courts will perhaps need to decide whether the interpretation is retroactive to the existence of a handgun based on that receiver.
Also, let us all be clear: This is not part of the Firearms Act; this is from the Criminal Code regulations.
I stand corrected.Quote:
Originally Posted by mooboy76
MP (Prince George) Bob Zimmer has written a letter to the RCMP Commissioner, Bob Paulson, regarding the situation.
http://www.bobzimmer.ca/wp-content/u...-magazines.pdf
Quote:
Originally Posted by mooboy76
BREAKING NEWS MP Bob Zimmer under RCMP investigation. Details tonight on CBC.........:sad:
Well not yet but how long before they decide they can get away with that too.
LOLQuote:
Originally Posted by Snowwalker
Actual BREAKING NEWS:
CSSA and the Canadian Sporting Arms and Ammunition Association (CSAAA) are now collecting names and donations for the class action suit they are bringing against the RCMP. Ed Burlew LLB is conducting the legal action.
CSSA even has a spot for it on their Legal Fund page:Quote:
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE - July 28, 2016 ETOBICOKE, ONTARIO - The Canadian Shooting Sports Association (CSSA), representing recreational firearms owners, has joined with the Canadian Sporting Arms and Ammunition Association (CSAAA), representing firearms business owners, to empower legal action against the recent decision by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Firearms Program to prohibit several brands of imported 10/22 extended capacity rifle magazines.
The CSAAA and CSSA Boards of Directors voted late last week to raise and contribute funding to a legal defence fund to make this legal action possible.
The action will be conducted by noted firearms lawyer Edward L. Burlew, L.L.B. , General Counsel for the CSSA.
Mr. Burlew states, "This recent, sudden reversal deprives legal firearms owners of their property rights and attacks their freedom. The RCMP has a duty to every Canadian to act fairly and consistently. The recent decision to reverse position on Ruger 10/22 magazines holding over 10 cartridges is a deliberate move to cause serious worry to hundreds of thousands of Canadians, licenced firearms dealers and importers."
Burlew adds, " A Federal Court Class Action on behalf of all persons, individuals, dealers and distributors who now possess cartridge magazines to fit the Ruger 10/22 that can contain more than 10 cartridges will be commenced. The purpose of the action is to seek a judgement that these magazines are not prohibited, to declare the magazine capacity restrictions void as unconstitutional or in the alternative to force a buy-back of each at full retail value. A claim for the intentional infliction of mental distress due to the fear of police action and criminal charges will be included."
Individuals are advised not to use, transfer, dispose of, alter or modify, or transport these magazines at this time.
At this time, due to the controversy, importers, dealers and individual owners are advised to stop sales and transfers of all 10/22 high capacity (over 10 rounds) rifle magazines. Businesses are cautioned not to attempt to “pin” magazines unless their license specifically authorizes work on prohibited magazines.
We are advising against businesses or their customers surrendering or returning these magazines to anyone at this time.
If you are the consumer owner of one of these magazines your participation in the action is very much desired. THERE IS NO FEE FOR YOUR PARTICIPATION BUT DONATIONS TO THE ACTION ARE WELCOME.
DONATIONS CAN BE MADE AT: 10/22 +10 Class Action Donation
From consumer owners we need:
- A communication informing us of your willingness to participate in a class action lawsuit;
- Brands and models of 10/22 +10 round capacity magazines currently in inventory and the value of the inventory;
- Digital copies of product packaging, manufacturers’ or distributors’ product sales information, product press releases;
- Any information, actions or comments by your Chief Firearms Officer, Inspectors, RCMP or any other law enforcement agency.
Consumer owners interested in joining the class action, are asked to email the above information to the CSSA at [email protected].
For more information call the CSSA at 905-571-2150.
From business owners we need:
- A communication informing us of your willingness to participate in a class action lawsuit;
- Brands and models of 10/22 +10 round capacity magazines currently in inventory and the value of the inventory;
- Digital copies of any product packaging, manufacturers’ or distributors’ product sales information, product press releases you may possess;
- Any information, actions or comments by your Chief Firearms Officer, Inspectors, RCMP or any other law enforcement agency.
Business owners interested in joining the class action, are asked to email the above information to the CSAAA at [email protected].
For more information call the CSAAA at 705-875-2302.
http://store.cssa-cila.org/cart.php?...ategory_id=253
From a radio interview I had heard. Once this class action is filed, those individuals that possess the magazines in question will be safe from any charges for possession of said magazines - until the lawsuit is concluded and the legal status clarified.
Zimmer's letter is in error ... the exclusion of .22 LR from the regulation, which he cites, applies to rifle magazines over 5 rounds, but these are being prohibited as handgun magazines exceeding 10 rounds, for which there is no exemption.
I'd really love to know what Burlew's constitutional argument is here ... I can't see that class action being much more successful than the NFA's lawsuit against Quebec will be.
So we can count on you to donate and support Canadian gun owners? Maybe the proceeds from your book?
Good one! :thumbup::thumbup::thumbup:Quote:
Originally Posted by skypilot
I don't donate to doomed lawsuits.
Let me explain something to you, skypilot: thinking the lawsuit is doomed doesn't mean I don't think people are getting a raw deal here.
Can you wrap your head around that?
Welsh, if you told me good morning, I'd check my watch.
No surprise, I knew you wouldn't donate. You've never been a friend to gun owners.
There seems to be some confusion here. I'm discussing 10/22 mags, a recent decision by the RCMP, and the prospects for successful legal action to overturn said decision.
You seem to be discussing me.
Perhaps you should start a new thread.
Just ignore the Liberal supporters when it comes to firearms... they won't believe the evidence, the comments by anti-gunners or lawyers, an ideologue never accepts evidence.
How the RCMP’s new firearms rule turns thousands of Canadians into “paperwork criminals” overnight
http://www.therebel.media/how_the_rc...nals_overnight
But the RCMP now says it is illegal to have one and people caught with one, even one they have owned for 30 years or more, could face a decade in prison.
They got stalled by the Conservatives and common sense, but looks to me like the RCMP has decided that the Liberals are now in power and have arbitrarily made this change and we will see criminal charges and if it succeeds there will be more changes. Glad CSSA is acting but with this government common sense is thrown out the window!
The Trudough/Wynne government will support the RCMP completely in any and all attempts to remove firearms and if needed firearms parts. Get ready for more of this type of activity and unfortunately there isn'st enough money to sue your own government who uses tax dollars to fight you. You will run out of money and they never will. I hate to say this but it's reality. I suspect that the next targets will be centerfire semiauto rifles. Look out if you own a semiauto big game rifle or worse yet what they term as an assault rifle. The RCMP hate gun owners and now have a government that will help them all the way. Wether thats just money, law changes whatever it takes. They have a majority, we lost. Sell em or bury them. I sold mine while it still had value.
Stash them away and get ready for a police state. Bad things are going to happen real soon I feel.
Sent from my SM-G925W8 using Tapatalk
We already have a police state. The OPP campaigned for the liberals and how many investigations are or have been dragging on for years? The police will never bite the hand that feeds them and Wynne will give them everything they demand. Banana republic without the palm trees already.
No I mean full on police state.
Sent from my SM-G925W8 using Tapatalk
Although Bob Zimmer's argument is a miss, it is nice to see the involvement and political capital spent. I guess it gives Bob Paulson an excuse to make a short, direct reply on the matter.Quote:
Originally Posted by welsh
I'm also interested in seeing what Ed Burlew's claims are for unconstitutional actions, but they may be less important than the exposure and splash in the media for now. Plus, the protection the lawsuit provides those with magazines under scrutiny.
Also, it's in the political arena now; errors, misconstrued facts, or misinterpretations are the pillars of political discourse.:moose:Quote:
Originally Posted by welsh
I don't know how much media splash this will really make. My experience is that unless we're looking at a gun control bill in Parliament, the public at large simply does not care. It's not on the radar. (And even when we are looking at a gun control bill, the public at large doesn't care about the details but simply approves on principle....)Quote:
Originally Posted by mooboy76
What it does do is make a splash with gun owners and help convince people to join organizations.
True enough!Quote:
Originally Posted by mooboy76
Still sounds to me like a law made by the RCMP instead of parliament....even though parliament gave them the power to do it....
LOL, don't flatter yourself. I'm definitely on the correct topic of 10/22, and that you're no friend of gun owners. I just happen to know a chameleon when I see you Welsh.Quote:
Originally Posted by welsh
I have seen a flurry of 'joined the CSSA/CCFR' posts on the forums.Quote:
Originally Posted by welsh
Yeah, I guess there has not been a media splash. I've heard the Rebel Media bunch has covered it, but I think that is it.
Only half of my police friends have heard of this, mostly because the informed half are also gun enthusiasts. They are split between OPP and municipal police. I guess the trickle down is slow.
I guess once the 'Gay Pride' parades are over and the PM has returned to the boring job of running the country, then smaller issues like this may crop up on a slow news day...but I wouldn't hold my breath. ..LOL...Quote:
Originally Posted by mooboy76
Lots of ways to handle the 10/22 mag issue correctly but High River spoke volumes about the RCMP brass and their playbook.
The Butler Creek magazines have been sold in Canada since 1978 which was designed for the 10/22..Since when do we have capacity restrictions on rimfire???
The issue arises because the exemption of rimfire mags from capacity limits applies only to rifle magazines. Rimfire handgun mags are limited to 10 rounds.
OEM 10 shot mags supplied and re-orderable for Ruger 10/22 rifles are NOT....repeat NOT....subject to this issue. Only the 20+ shot mags that can used in BOTH 10/22 and handguns are subject to The Firearms Act and Criminal Code. That has never changed from the time the legislation was introduced and passed into law. Nowhere,no how is the Ruger 10/22 being "outlawed" as some misinformed people erroneously assume and would have us believe.:rolleyes:
Looks like I will renew my OFAH membership, legal firearm owners should be united
https://www.ofah.org/firearms/rcmp-p...1022-magazine/
Also every gun owner in Canada should belong to CSSA and/or NFA. It boggles my mind why most gun owners won't spend a box of shells to join an organisation which has a voice in Ottawa and locally. TCQuote:
Originally Posted by jethro66
Quote:
Originally Posted by trky chsr
I'll second that! SCI is another one more should belong to too. The Anti crowd as a billion dollar spin doctor (CBC) on their side feeding Canadians truth mixed with fiction and half truths that fit their ideology so the more and stronger the voices the better... Doubtful Libs will listen to truth (You need the letters LIE to spell LIbEral) but if enough votes are threatened some might listen.
Since the RCMP decided that we would!Quote:
Originally Posted by jethro66
From what I read, if the magazines were designed for rifles, they were ok. Even the RCMP blurb states that " you MAY have a prohibited mag", not that you DO have etcQuote:
Originally Posted by welsh
In other words, if we are found with a 20/30 round magazine while in a car acident or our house is being flooded etc, then we WILL be charged by the RCMP. At which point we lose our PAL and any jobs which require a clean record.....Quote:
Originally Posted by skypilot
Quote:
Originally Posted by patvetzal
This is not what the RCMP direction actually says:
22 Long Rifle calibre magazines designed or manufactured for 10/22 platform rifles are also inherently designed or manufactured for 10/22 platform handguns. Because 22 Long Rifle calibre 10/22 platform magazines are designed or manufactured for use in a semi-automatic handgun, they are prohibited devices if they are capable of containing more than 10 cartridges.
http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/cfp-pcaf/notice-avis-2016-07-27-eng.htm
The RCMP letter says you won't.Quote:
Originally Posted by patvetzal
That RCMP directive means nothing as I posted earlier.Quote:
Originally Posted by welsh
Mine were made thirty years before any handgun that they would fit....Quote:
Originally Posted by welsh
Yes, but read the RCMP statement again: "magazines designed or manufactured for 10/22 platform rifles are also inherently designed or manufactured for 10/22 platform handguns."
Nothing in that statement suggests a magazine manufactured before a given date is exempt.
These seem to about sum it up, PROHIBITED anything over 10 rounds.... at this point would you believe an organization that kicked down doors and searched houses without warrants, seems intent on "clarifying" items etc.... not pinned will equal charges is my expectation! They will be looking for a test case (as an example).
http://www.police.midland.on.ca/news...2#.V4-jO_mU0uV
The CFP specifically addressed one of the more common overcapacity 10/22 platform magazines, the Ruger BX-25 magazine, which contains 25 cartridges and is described by Ruger as being manufactured for both the Ruger 10/22 rifle series and 22 Charger pistol series, identifying the BX-25 magazine as a prohibited device (CFP Bulletin 72, 2013-09-05).
Additionally, the Canadian International Trade Tribunal (CITT) decided that a similar magazine, the Ruger BX-25x2 magazine (50 shots), was a prohibited device (AP-2013-059).
Magazines up to 110 shot capacity are available. Although the 22LR cartridge is less powerful than most, it is nonetheless lethal, and combined with high capacity magazines, presents a public safety hazard and an officer safety concern when responding to incidents involving these magazines.
Notwithstanding the steps taken to inform the Canadian public and firearms businesses, it appears that prohibited 10/22 platform magazines continue to be imported into Canada and sold by unqualified businesses and individuals.
Rationale
In short, 10/22 platform magazines are designed and/or manufactured for both rifles and handguns. While rimfire calibre rifle magazines are not regulated, the capacity of handgun magazines is universally limited to ten cartridges, and in consequence, 10/22 platform magazines are prohibited devices if the ten shot limit is exceeded. Whether the magazine is intended by the importer to be used in a rifle is not relevant to the classification determination. Summary
All 22 Long Rifle calibre magazines for the 10/22 platform, regardless of brand, are prohibited devices at any capacity exceeding ten shots.
and more here.
http://calibremag.ca/1022-magazine-update/
"Possession of Prohibited Device under S.84, Part 4 CCC not recommended as a stand-alone charge unless RPG's of criminal intent, activity, or association exists within the totality of the situation, and or public safety."
"Not recommended" means squat ! This also comes from little more than an inter office memo. It means absolutely nothing. The RCMP do not dictate whether criminal charges are laid or not.Quote:
Originally Posted by welsh
Now the "OTHER" question. So a guy has one or two because it's a great way to carry a full 50 round box in a way that is not easy to lose( open box spilled in pack, glove compartment) the rounds out of the box.
Now what do you do with it? Walk in the front door of the local RCMP detachment, and hand them and ten years of your life over because there is no grace period and possession is possession. Call them up and ask them to come get it....possession is possession.
So what is the answer
BFH? (Big Flipping Hammer)
FIRE PIT?
Give it to the Idiot at the range that is a pain in the you know what
( I like this one, but I would need to go buy a few more to cover most of the list)
Absolutely, it does not dictate a charge won't be laid and it doesn't give anyone a defence. But it does suggest that the idea that the RCMP will be looking to nail someone as a test case, as a matter of policy, is false. That was the claim to which I was responding.Quote:
Originally Posted by rick_iles
Before declaring that "possession is possession," it's handy to know how the courts define "possession."Quote:
Originally Posted by Snowwalker
Possession is a mens rea offence and as such has a component of intent. By turning the mag in, you demonstrate that you do not intend to possess the device, and therefore you do not actually have possession.
Reading between the lines of the "memo",it appears to me that it's merely intended as an staff advisory. When it says something like "not recommended or intended as a stand-alone........",that makes me think they're tacitly advising that if a charge was to be laid,don't be surprised if it gets "tossed"as insufficient evidence.
I'd suggest the reason for "not recommended" is a fear of creating bad precedent through an expensive appeals process. Likely to be dropped by the Crown before trial as not in the public interest to pursue.
Exactly,no one want s to be made to "look bad" nor to have something come back to bite them on the arse,later,by having a dubious charge tossed or even worse,having an acquital registered establishing a "precedent". Once that happens,there goes the ball game.Quote:
Originally Posted by welsh
Looking at the CCC, I don't get this point. Section 84 is mostly definitions, and it falls under Part 3, not Part 4. Unless they meant s. 84 (4) which is a licence holder clarification.Quote:
Originally Posted by welsh
I would think any charge would be under s. 92(2) Possession of prohibited weapon, device or ammunition knowing its possession is unauthorized.
Also, a charge under s. 92 (2) is an indictable offence, and is not tried as a summary offence. Is the memo suggesting that officers let an indictable Firearms and Weapons offence slide?
Maybe I'm misunderstanding how charges under various sections are applied.
That is odd ... I guess they cited the wrong section.
Bit of a necropost, but I think the body's still warm.Quote:
Originally Posted by skypilot
I've highlighted the paragraph above, because of the FRT entry that was posted on CGN regarding the .50 Beowulf magazines.
Paraphrased
The Canadian Law Comments in the FRT now state that the .50 Beowulf marked magazines are just modified 5.56 NATO magazines for the AR Platform. As such, any .50 Beowulf magazine that is not pinned to only accept 5 rounds of 5.56 NATO (223 Rem) is a prohibited device. Legal capacity is essentially 2 rounds of .50 Beowulf.
Also following a thread on CGN for a guy in Ontario that is supposedly facing 2 counts of possession of a prohibited device; he had two of the .50 Beowulf marked magazines in his vehicle at the time of a search.
Unlike the 10/22 situation, interpretation of the legal status of .50 Beowulf marked magazines does not appear to have officially changed, unless you count the one RCMP opinion letter to an importer, that went viral in November 2015. As far as most owners would know, they are required to have a magazine that holds 5 rounds of .50 Beowulf.
There is no specific mention of it in Bulletin 72, just a change to the Canadian Law Comments in AR-platform rifle FRT entries. Only dealers can see those entries - how is this change in opinion supposed to have been communicated to end users? Shipments have been delayed or cancelled by importers due to the legal murkiness, but what about the people that are already using them?
Maybe this is just being used as an intimidation technique to buy a plea for a lesser offence, and the Crown doesn't really want to try this in court yet - or maybe they expect an easy conviction to get some case law as precedent.
I haven't heard anyone getting charged for possession of the 25 round 10/22 mags yet, so I guess we have yet to see whether the RCMP's addition of the word platform, and their re-interpretation survives the courts.