Legality Question - Game Birds in Alberta

[FLHTCUI]

Whats the point of waking up at 530 in the morning heading out into the field setting up decoys only to be done shooting a days limit in 10 minutes?
There is more to hunting than being able to kill your limit by bending the rules , but if thats your game have at it...
Tight Groups,
Rob

 

[CV32]

Though "magazine" may not be defined in the hunting regulation, I think it is pretty clear what is and isn't a magazine in the firearms regulations. Remember, the hunting regulation says it is unlawful if the chamber and magazine hold more than 3, it says nothing as to how many rounds you have loaded at the time. So by your reckoning, my Beretta semi that only holds 2 in the tube would be unlawful to hunt with since it could potentially be ghost-loaded.

You're missing the point. The fact that the regulation doesn't define "magazine" forces the judge consider what it means to have an extra shell on the feed plate. Since the regulation says three shells total in the gun ready to go, that's the intent of the law, i.e. to restrict you to a maximum of three shells at a time, for conservation and sporting reasons. Its not the same as extra shells in a butt stock shell holder, for example, because that's no different than having extra shells in a belt.

 

[Brutus]

IMO, it's threads exactly like this that thrust all of us hunters/gun owners into an unfavorable public light.
Makes us all look like a bunch of law breaking game hogs that really need to be closely monitored by the authorities.
Because we cannot self-police ourselves!
Nature, we all have a duty to conserve and protect it.

vote for a terrible thread.......

 

[trevj]

The General Regulations state:



Where do ghost loading capable shotguns come into this? Is the feed plate considered part of the magazine or chamber? I don't believe it is but I'd like to be sure before I do it with my Benelli SBE.

If you're unfamiliar with ghost loading, it is essentially the process of placing an extra shell onto the feed plate. It doesn't cause the shotgun to jam and essentially allows the shotgun to carry an additional shell. Here's a video demonstrating it:

My money is on that the judge that sits this, will determine that any part of the firearm that holds ammunition that can be fed in to the chamber by that firearm, will be considered to be part of the magazine. This, as opposed to how things in BC were interpreted for a short while, that a loaded magazine in your pocket, or shells in a butt stock carrier in contact with the gun, was considered a "loaded firearm". More rational thinkers got that sorted out, but it was the way it was interpreted for a very short while here.

Were you, say, to stand up from your blind, and fire 4 shots in quick succession, without a pause for reloading, I suspect you would get to explain your version to that judge. Same if you get stopped by a CO out in the bush, and he asks you to unload, and you produce 4 cartridges. My money is that he won't much care about the semantics of whether it is in the chamber or magazine or not either.

AFAIK, this is done to align ALL Alberta game bird hunting to the Federally mandated three rounds for waterfowl rules. Same as that you are only allowed one unncased gun per hunter in the duck blind. Makes only one rule to remember. That is for the CO's benefit, not the Hunter's.

Not positive, going by memory, but pretty sure that the regs here in BC differentiate between upland and waterfowl, as far as capacities are concerned. I do know for sure that the magazine limit, among a bunch of other rules affecting hunting, get chucked out the window when I go out to protect livestock. Minor little details, eh?

And yeah, that's how the Legal System works. Laws get made, and some poor sap gets to wallow his way through his life's savings to prove it was a bad idea. Spend YOUR money more wisely!

Cheers
Trev

 

[CV32]

IMO, it's threads exactly like this that thrust all of us hunters/gun owners into an unfavorable public light. Makes us all look like a bunch of law breaking game hogs that really need to be closely monitored by the authorities. Because we cannot self-police ourselves! Nature, we all have a duty to conserve and protect it.

I totally agree. It was a fair question in a theoretical sorta way, but the answer is more than obvious if you think about its rationale.

 

[Runningfool]

....Since the regulation says three shells total in the gun ready to go...

It does not say that!
Let me try and explain this another way. Presuming you hunt migratory birds, how many rounds does your shotgun hold? If you are like me you would answer 3. Have you tried ghost-loading it? If you are like me, you haven't. According to your interpretation of the hunting regs though, you and I would be in violation if it was possible for us to ghost-load even if we followed the spirit of the law and only loaded 3 shells. This is because the regulations explicitly state it is the capacity that defines what is lawful or not. Fortunately the regs clearly define capacity as what is in the chamber plus what is in the magazine period, full stop and therefore you and I would NOT be in violation of the hunting regulations.

Please be clear, I am NOT in favour of ghost loading for hunting, I feel it is against the spirit of the regs, and anyone who bangs out 4 quick rounds is going to have some esplainin' to do! I just think the hunting regulations are abundantly clear about what is lawful and what is not in this instance.

 

[CV32]

It does not say that!

Sure it does. Have you considered what having three shells total in the magazine and chamber means. What it really means? To recap what has already been said (numerous times by folks other than me in this thread) it is a limit on your capability to bring down multiple birds in a single shooting opportunity. The limit is there for that specific reason.

Let me try and explain this another way. Presuming you hunt migratory birds, how many rounds does your shotgun hold? If you are like me you would answer 3. Have you tried ghost-loading it? If you are like me, you haven't. According to your interpretation of the hunting regs though, you and I would be in violation if it was possible for us to ghost-load even if we followed the spirit of the law and only loaded 3 shells.

Nope. That's not how I am interpreting the regs at all. I do understand what you're saying, but you're never going to be charged for having a shotgun that is functionally capable of being ghost loaded but isn't holding more than three shells at the time.

This is because the regulations explicitly state it is the capacity that defines what is lawful or not. Fortunately the regs clearly define capacity as what is in the chamber plus what is in the magazine period, full stop and therefore you and I would NOT be in violation of the hunting regulations.

We'll have to agree to disagree on that point. Courts don't operate in a vacuum, and if they need to consider a set of circumstances not covered by the regs, they are going to consider the spirit and intent of the law. And I dare say you won't likely be volunteering to test your theory with an Alberta conservation officer in the field.

Please be clear, I am NOT in favour of ghost loading for hunting, I feel it is against the spirit of the regs, and anyone who bangs out 4 quick rounds is going to have some esplainin' to do! I just think the hunting regulations are abundantly clear about what is lawful and what is not in this instance.

These two sentences do not jive with each other. Anyone found with four rounds in their shotgun (ready to go!) in this situation is going to be charged and very likely convicted of the offence.

 

[Runningfool]

Sure it does....

No it doesn't. What it says is posted in the very first post and I've quoted it already but here it is again for those following along: "It is unlawful to hunt any game bird using a shotgun in which the magazine and chamber combined will hold more than three rounds of ammunition". This is what it says. You may interpret how you wish, but it does not say "three shells total in the gun ready to go"

...if they need to consider a set of circumstances not covered by the regs, they are going to consider the spirit and intent of the law...

But it is covered by the regs, in black and white. Your supposition that the term "magazine" is somehow open for interpretation is weak but as you say, I guess we will just have to agree to disagree on that.

 

[pbonura]

During the controlled deer hunt the co's checked to make sure you had you plug to limit your gun to 3 rounds. Doubt they will check your magazine capacity by your ghost loads. But hey each to their own.

 

[CV32]

No it doesn't. What it says is posted in the very first post and I've quoted it already but here it is again for those following along: "It is unlawful to hunt any game bird using a shotgun in which the magazine and chamber combined will hold more than three rounds of ammunition". This is what it says. You may interpret how you wish, but it does not say "three shells total in the gun ready to go"

You can argue semantics, but that is what it means.

But it is covered by the regs, in black and white. Your supposition that the term "magazine" is somehow open for interpretation is weak but as you say, I guess we will just have to agree to disagree on that.

If a guy is using the feed plate to feed shells into the chamber (i.e. ghost load), I am willing to bet that most any judge in the country is going to interpret it as functionally the same (and thus legally the same, as far as the spirit and intent of the regulation goes) as the actual magazine. In the end that is all that matters.

 

[the spank]

I always lmao at ghost loaders that wanna hunt..... seriously, just follow the regs to a tee....

Me too!! Third shell is always a waste IMO anyways......just one of the reasons I shoot an O/U.

 

[Brutus]

You can argue semantics, but that is what it means.



If a guy is using the feed plate to feed shells into the chamber (i.e. ghost load), I am willing to bet that most any judge in the country is going to interpret it as functionally the same (and thus legally the same, as far as the spirit and intent of the regulation goes) as the actual magazine. In the end that is all that matters.

I don't understand why anyone in their right mind would argue against these last few common sense statements?

 

[Runningfool]

I don't understand why anyone in their right mind would argue against these last few common sense statements?

No one is arguing that. But IF what CV32 says is true, namely that a round that is neither in the magazine nor in the chamber counts, then any of us with a gun that can be ghost-loaded is contravening the regs since the regs explicitly state that it is what you are capable of loading that determines whether you are lawfully hunting or not. It is NOT what you have loaded in the gun, it is what it will hold. I don't know how many ways I can say this to help those who seem unable or unwilling to read the regulation as posted.

 

[Runningfool]

In one last effort to make this clear, let's look at two scenarios:

Scenario #1: On Monday, Jimbo is out hunting migratory birds in Alberta. He has a semi-auto shotgun that is limited to 3 rounds (one in the chamber and 2 in the magazine) but he can ghost-load a round and he does so. He gets stopped by a CO who asks him to unload his gun and 4 rounds pop out. The CO charges him with contravening the alberta hunting regs. It goes to court and the prosecutor cites the regs: "It is unlawful to hunt any game bird using a shotgun in which the magazine and chamber combined will hold more than three rounds of ammunition". According to CV32, the judge will surely decide the defendant is guilty since the "spirit" of the regulation is broken.

Scenario#2: On Tuesday, Bubba is out hunting migratory birds in Alberta. He has the exact same shotgun as Jimbo but he only loads 3 rounds. The same CO that stopped Jimbo, stops Bubba and recognizes the make and model of shotgun. He promptly charges Bubba with the same charge as Jimbo because he knows that shotgun contravenes the alberta hunting regs. To the CO, a gun that can be ghost-loaded is no different than a gun that isn't plugged or pinned and holds 3 in the magazine. Again, the prosecutor stands before the judge, stating this is the exact same shotgun as Jimbo and cites the regulations: "It is unlawful to hunt any game bird using a shotgun in which the magazine and chamber combined will hold more than three rounds of ammunition". If the judge finds Jimbo guilty in scenario #1 as CV32 suggests, how does Bubba avoid the same charge?

 

[bearkilr]

In one last effort to make this clear, let's look at two scenarios:

Scenario #1: On Monday, Jimbo is out hunting migratory birds in Alberta. He has a semi-auto shotgun that is limited to 3 rounds (one in the chamber and 2 in the magazine) but he can ghost-load a round and he does so. He gets stopped by a CO who asks him to unload his gun and 4 rounds pop out. The CO charges him with contravening the alberta hunting regs. It goes to court and the prosecutor cites the regs: "It is unlawful to hunt any game bird using a shotgun in which the magazine and chamber combined will hold more than three rounds of ammunition". According to CV32, the judge will surely decide the defendant is guilty since the "spirit" of the regulation is broken.

Scenario#2: On Tuesday, Bubba is out hunting migratory birds in Alberta. He has the exact same shotgun as Jimbo but he only loads 3 rounds. The same CO that stopped Jimbo, stops Bubba and recognizes the make and model of shotgun. He promptly charges Bubba with the same charge as Jimbo because he knows that shotgun contravenes the alberta hunting regs. To the CO, a gun that can be ghost-loaded is no different than a gun that isn't plugged or pinned and holds 3 in the magazine. Again, the prosecutor stands before the judge, stating this is the exact same shotgun as Jimbo and cites the regulations: "It is unlawful to hunt any game bird using a shotgun in which the magazine and chamber combined will hold more than three rounds of ammunition".

If the judge finds Jimbo guilty in scenario #1 as CV32 suggests, how does Bubba avoid the same charge?

By stating he's never heard of the term "ghost loading" nor is he aware of the fact his shotgun is capable of this action, evidenced by the fact his gun was only holding three rounds.

 

[Brutus]

I'm done here. This thread is now an obvious waste of time.

cheers!

 

[Runningfool]

By stating he's never heard of the term "ghost loading" nor is he aware of the fact his shotgun is capable of this action, evidenced by the fact his gun was only holding three rounds.

Oh I see. All one has to say is, "I didn't know how many shells it holds" and you'll be just fine. Makes sense.

In my example above, Jimbo should be charged IMO and Bubba shouldn't, but neither would because they do not contravene the regs, plain and simple. Take a look at pistol mag use in rifles and tell me if the "spirit" trumps the regulations.

I'm done here. This thread is now an obvious waste of time.

cheers!

Me too.

 

[CV32]

In my example above, Jimbo should be charged IMO and Bubba shouldn't, but neither would because they do not contravene the regs, plain and simple.

We appear to be hardened in our positions, so I will simply suggest to you that you are far more likely to find legal precedent for the propensity of courts to find something to meet the definition of a "magazine". Such as cases like R. v. Cancade, 2008 BCPC 336 (CanLII), where the mere plastic or metal magazine casing (without springs or followers, and therefore incapable of feeding ammo) was considered enough to meet the definition of a prohibited mag.

Take a look at pistol mag use in rifles and tell me if the "spirit" trumps the regulations.

Completely different situation. Unless you can find some case law that shows otherwise?

 

[Suka]

"It is unlawful to hunt any game bird using a shotgun in which the magazine and chamber combined will hold more than three rounds of ammunition"
That seems abundantly clear to me.

I don't understand why the OP would even care about this or want to push this. The rule and the spirit of the rule is very clear. To me this is no different than trying to get around prohibition against shooting swimming animals by trying to argue once it's belly is clear of the water it's technically no longer swimming even though we all know what we would think of someone who shot an animal before it was up on dry land.

It's unsportsmanlike, and it's wrong. I doubt anyone who's read the regulations and hunted could not know it's wrong.

Besides if you can't hit it in 3, another isn't going to help you in the least.

 

[the spank]

This just came back to me while reading this thread. Wasn't that one of the handful of charges laid against Jeff Folies of Foiles Migrators in Alberta a few years back? He was shooting a Benelli SBE II and I seem to recall they had him in one of his videos firing a 4th shot at birds and I thought the argument was the term "ghost loading" a 4th round?