No offense intended to any of our good dealers, but I've noticed a trend lately that worries me a bit... quite a few scratched, worn and obviously used magazines are showing up on the market with various markings claiming they're intended for such or such "pistol" model or for a very specific large cartridge caliber.
Remember that the bulletin says "Magazines designed to contain centrefire cartridges and designed or manufactured for use...".
If I was a suspicious, nasty and cynical person, I could easily imagine a Judge saying "Those items before me were not designed or manufactured for use specifically for any pistols. They are regular, NATO STANAG-compliant rifle magazines that were re-purposed to a different firearm model or caliber by simply adding a label/stamp/mark on their exterior. Since they were originally designed for a semiautomatic centrefire rifle, their legal maximum capacity is five rounds and the magazines before me are in fact prohibited devices. Defendant condemned to two years minus served time."
At this time, I am not aware of any case like this happening, so it's all hypothetical. I have no doubt that a good defence lawyer could find avenues for including "re-purposed" within the meaning of "designed or manufactured for use".
I may be paranoid, granted! But if/when I buy AR-15 type magazines, they will be brand spanking new and from a manufacturer of readily available .223 or 7.62x39 pistols or Beowulf uppers.
*hides from the circling black choppers*
<edit> P.S. That picture may not be representative of any magazine you got from Wanstalls, I realize. The paranoid argument still stands.
No offense intended to any of our good dealers, but I've noticed a trend lately that worries me a bit... quite a few scratched, worn and obviously used magazines are showing up on the market with various markings claiming they're intended for such or such "pistol" model or for a very specific large cartridge caliber.
Remember that the bulletin says "Magazines designed to contain centrefire cartridges and designed or manufactured for use...".
If I was a suspicious, nasty and cynical person, I could easily imagine a Judge saying "Those items before me were not designed or manufactured for use specifically for any pistols. They are regular, NATO STANAG-compliant rifle magazines that were re-purposed to a different firearm model or caliber by simply adding a label/stamp/mark on their exterior. Since they were originally designed for a semiautomatic centrefire rifle, their legal maximum capacity is five rounds and the magazines before me are in fact prohibited devices. Defendant condemned to two years minus served time."
At this time, I am not aware of any case like this happening, so it's all hypothetical. I have no doubt that a good defence lawyer could find avenues for including "re-purposed" within the meaning of "designed or manufactured for use".
I may be paranoid, granted! But if/when I buy AR-15 type magazines, they will be brand spanking new and from a manufacturer of readily available .223 or 7.62x39 pistols or Beowulf uppers.
*hides from the circling black choppers*
<edit> P.S. That picture may not be representative of any magazine you got from Wanstalls, I realize. The paranoid argument still stands.
