RCMP declares 10+ round 10/22 mags prohibited

[rick_iles]

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?

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.
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.

[welsh]

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.

[skypilot]

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.

[skypilot]

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

[rick_iles]

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.

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"....

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

  
  
  
  

[welsh]

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.

[welsh]

Nothing like having an enemy like you inside the wire welsh.

Thanks for again validating my central argument.

[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.

[Bushmoose]

You are much too two faced to have a central argument.

"like" "like" "like'''''''''''''''''''

[B Wilson]

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