RCMP declares 10+ round 10/22 mags prohibited

[rick_iles]

"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.

[Snowwalker]

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)

[welsh]

"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.

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.

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.

Before declaring that "possession is possession," it's handy to know how the courts define "possession."

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.

[trimmer21]

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.

[welsh]

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.

[trimmer21]

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.

[mooboy76]

"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."

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.

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.

[welsh]

That is odd ... I guess they cited the wrong section.

[mooboy76]

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.

Bit of a necropost, but I think the body's still warm.

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.

[mooboy76]

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.