That was put up when he was running for party leadership in an attempt to win support, I can't recall if he ever was that vocal about gun issues.
Magazine legality
- Thread starter nikola499
- Start date
What is the longest range you can shoot vs the range of surface to surface missile.
Colossal Ursidae
CGN Regular
- Location
- Ottawa Valley
He has a full interview with Rod from CCFR on YouTube on gun laws
Lungorthin
Regular
- Location
- Calgary, AB
How would they do that, what would that mean for pistol caliber rifles that can have 10rds?
I wouldn't put it past them but really...
More retardation from the Liberals, the only effect on crimes that magazine restrictions would have is bad guys getting charged with one more criminal count for illegal "high capacity" magazines to go along with the usual grab bag of charges that are either dropped of sentenced concurrently with some other more serious charge like murder.
If any government official or law enforcement officer thinks that an additional paper crime conviction is going to cause someone who has the intent to commit the ultimate crime to not commit that crime, they are beyond delusional.
If any government official or law enforcement officer thinks that an additional paper crime conviction is going to cause someone who has the intent to commit the ultimate crime to not commit that crime, they are beyond delusional.
- Location
- Boring side of the 49th
Lol, ahh the innocence
You're 100% right but that won't stop them from charging you and taking away your guns and maybe your truck while you spend thousands upon thousands of dollars and a lot of your time defending yourself. Is it really worth the possible headache just to put five extra rounds in a magazine? So far LAR mags are still good to go and are not mentioned in the bulletin as a problem (yet).
Just remember, they are in a position to make your life a living hell and even if you end up winning the court battle you won't get compensation other than maybe getting your stuff back if they haven't melted it down by that time.
blaxsun
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
Tell it to the judge... Maybe he agrees. Maybe not...
With regards to the original post all this back and forth is pointless since it sounds like he wants to legally use a magazine that holds more 223 than a pistol magazine which can not be done anymore without risking legal repercussions.
If you actually own a 458, 450, 50 whatever and you have a magazine that holds five of those rounds you need to make sure it will not function with 223 or they could drag you through the ringer for possession of a prohibited device. They may still try but at least you could argue that it isn't a 223 AR-15 magazine.
I would hope that eventually you would be found innocent since it isn't actually law yet but that is for each person risking charges to decide if it's worth it just to waste ammo faster.
If you want to run 30 round mags take a vacation in the US and go to one of their rental ranges where you can do it without risk. 30's are great but I sure go through a lot more ammo when I get a chance to play with them.
Maybe what we should be fighting for is to have it made legal to use 30 round mags at the gun range only just like a restricted rifle, that way at least the guys doing 3-gun and other competitive shooting sports can stop trying to use coupled pistol mags. Make them a restricted device instead of a prohibited device.
Makes sense to me anyway, baby steps
What's not law? A stanag pattern 556 magazine must be pinned to 5 rds 556 (or 10 if a pistol mag). According to rcmp interpretation, all 50 Beo mags are modified 556 mags, there is no such thing as a dedicated 50 Beo mag. Therefore, any 50 Beo mag is actually a 556 mag and must be pinned accordingly.
While the rcmp changed their interpretation, no laws have to change. Any 556 rifle magazine not pinned to 5 is already a prohibited device, and that's where charges would come from.
But it is law. Until someone makes a 50beo mag from the ground up, not just take a 556 mag and swap the follower, the 50beo mags are in fact 556 mags and must be pinned accordingly.
don’t push it guys. Really simple. The left will call these things loopholes. So why bother doing it in the first place. Just asking for trouble. 
Sadly I'm not sure how we can fight this one. We would have to convince a judge that they are in fact different from a 556 mag, which I'm not sure is possible, as simply changing a follower doesn't change what cartridge it was designed and manufactured for.
If you've got a plan though, I'm all ears.
Cameron SS
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- Ground Zero
Just because no one has said it yet, I need to correct one thing about the OPS question.
Some of you may already know this, but just to be clear, there is no such thing as a prohibited use of a magazine. Magazines are either unregulated, or prohibited devices. If a prohibited device, then you can not own it. The OPs question implies you might be able to own something, but not be allowed to use it for certain firearms, and this is incorrect. If its legal to own, its legal to use with any type of ammunition in any type of firearm.
First off, there is no such thing as a restricted device. You can tidy up magazine laws to some extent by simply amending the regulations that prohibited them. Doing what you suggest would require the amendment of the criminal code itself, which is a far more time consuming process for parliament. There is absolutely no reason why any government would want to go down the political rabbit hole of amending our firearms laws for such a trifling change. There is a provision for certain magazines to be prescribed as restricted weapons, but that would be immediately be open to challenge because a magazine on its own does not constitute a weapon.
The rumours are going around that the 5/30 pinned mags are on the chopping block. Highly unlikely that the Liberals would go the other way and let sport shooters have full cap 30 rounders, and trust us to only use them at the range.
Personally, what I think we should do is this:
Step 1. Tell government what we actually want, not some half measure of what we would accept. Shoot for the moon: land among the stars. I want unregulated magazines.
Step 2. When the Liberals pass whatever nonsense they want to pass, send them more letters, and reiterate what you want. Donate to gun orgs who are fighting the legal fights, buy firearms legal insurance to help fund the law suits of other gun owners who are willing to martyr themselves for the cause.
Step 3. Do a serious gut check, and see if you are willing to be a martyr for the cause, buy firearms legal insurance, and than live your life after the new regs the same as you did before, either as civil disobedience or blissful ignorance. There are already 10,000+ Canadians turned presumed criminals by the current RCMP interpretation. Any new regs could see that number go to 100,000 or more. The more people criminalized by this the more the Liberals get blamed for making criminals out of honest people, and at the end of the day, that is the exact same argument that will soon cause marijuana to be legalized. By hiding, or quietly complying out of fear, you are letting the Liberals off the hook.
Repinning a 10 round LAR to 5 rounds is not what anyone should consider being grandfathered.
The best that the Liberals can realistically achieve is an import ban, or a total ban, neither of which will be particularly effective.
LOL guy wants to buy a private island to be free of gun control nonsense and claims his island will still have gun laws. If I had a private island at all the only would be "immediate banishment for anyone who quarrels with the king...ie me."
It would have to be achieved by doing something which so far no government has done, and that is by regulating the USE of magazines, and not just their possession. They could easily say you can have a 10 round pistol mag, but it is an offence to use it in a firearm that is not registered as a handgun.
This right here is why we still have magazine laws at all. If two million gun owners publicly disobeyed this law, called their MP to protest and bought a membership in a gun organization, mag laws in their entirety would be long gone.
No, we would only have to convince a judge that the law is so poorly worded and ill-suited to actually regulating magazines that it is unconstitutionally vague, and should be struck down and rewritten. Ignorance of the law is no excuse, but ignorance of facts is. Gun owners can not simply be expected to understand the complex history of firearms or magazine design, let alone the particular manufacturing design, or intent, of a given magazine, in order to be able to determine for themselves whether a particular magazine is legal or not.
Not only does the law have to be knowable, but your average person has to be reasonably capable of applying it with reasonable certainty to a particular situation. Not one AR owner in a hundred is sufficiently familiar enough with the issues being discussed here to take a plain reading of the regulations and know whether a given magazine is legal or not. We get this question on the forum every week like clock work. That is all a good judge needs to know in order to strike down the current magazine regulations. I highly doubt, based on their track record, that any new version of mag limits will be better written than the old ones.
Some of you may already know this, but just to be clear, there is no such thing as a prohibited use of a magazine. Magazines are either unregulated, or prohibited devices. If a prohibited device, then you can not own it. The OPs question implies you might be able to own something, but not be allowed to use it for certain firearms, and this is incorrect. If its legal to own, its legal to use with any type of ammunition in any type of firearm.
Maybe what we should be fighting for is to have it made legal to use 30 round mags at the gun range only just like a restricted rifle, that way at least the guys doing 3-gun and other competitive shooting sports can stop trying to use coupled pistol mags. Make them a restricted device instead of a prohibited device.
Makes sense to me anyway, baby steps
First off, there is no such thing as a restricted device. You can tidy up magazine laws to some extent by simply amending the regulations that prohibited them. Doing what you suggest would require the amendment of the criminal code itself, which is a far more time consuming process for parliament. There is absolutely no reason why any government would want to go down the political rabbit hole of amending our firearms laws for such a trifling change. There is a provision for certain magazines to be prescribed as restricted weapons, but that would be immediately be open to challenge because a magazine on its own does not constitute a weapon.
The rumours are going around that the 5/30 pinned mags are on the chopping block. Highly unlikely that the Liberals would go the other way and let sport shooters have full cap 30 rounders, and trust us to only use them at the range.
Personally, what I think we should do is this:
Step 1. Tell government what we actually want, not some half measure of what we would accept. Shoot for the moon: land among the stars. I want unregulated magazines.
Step 2. When the Liberals pass whatever nonsense they want to pass, send them more letters, and reiterate what you want. Donate to gun orgs who are fighting the legal fights, buy firearms legal insurance to help fund the law suits of other gun owners who are willing to martyr themselves for the cause.
Step 3. Do a serious gut check, and see if you are willing to be a martyr for the cause, buy firearms legal insurance, and than live your life after the new regs the same as you did before, either as civil disobedience or blissful ignorance. There are already 10,000+ Canadians turned presumed criminals by the current RCMP interpretation. Any new regs could see that number go to 100,000 or more. The more people criminalized by this the more the Liberals get blamed for making criminals out of honest people, and at the end of the day, that is the exact same argument that will soon cause marijuana to be legalized. By hiding, or quietly complying out of fear, you are letting the Liberals off the hook.
Did you purchase them that way, or did you have them modified after the fact?
There will never never never never never be any grandfathering of magazines, because there is zero traceability on when magazines were purchased, by who and whether or not they are grandfathered, at least not without a magazine registry. Good luck with that.
Repinning a 10 round LAR to 5 rounds is not what anyone should consider being grandfathered.
The best that the Liberals can realistically achieve is an import ban, or a total ban, neither of which will be particularly effective.
LOL guy wants to buy a private island to be free of gun control nonsense and claims his island will still have gun laws. If I had a private island at all the only would be "immediate banishment for anyone who quarrels with the king...ie me."
It would have to be achieved by doing something which so far no government has done, and that is by regulating the USE of magazines, and not just their possession. They could easily say you can have a 10 round pistol mag, but it is an offence to use it in a firearm that is not registered as a handgun.
This right here is why we still have magazine laws at all. If two million gun owners publicly disobeyed this law, called their MP to protest and bought a membership in a gun organization, mag laws in their entirety would be long gone.
No, we would only have to convince a judge that the law is so poorly worded and ill-suited to actually regulating magazines that it is unconstitutionally vague, and should be struck down and rewritten. Ignorance of the law is no excuse, but ignorance of facts is. Gun owners can not simply be expected to understand the complex history of firearms or magazine design, let alone the particular manufacturing design, or intent, of a given magazine, in order to be able to determine for themselves whether a particular magazine is legal or not.
Not only does the law have to be knowable, but your average person has to be reasonably capable of applying it with reasonable certainty to a particular situation. Not one AR owner in a hundred is sufficiently familiar enough with the issues being discussed here to take a plain reading of the regulations and know whether a given magazine is legal or not. We get this question on the forum every week like clock work. That is all a good judge needs to know in order to strike down the current magazine regulations. I highly doubt, based on their track record, that any new version of mag limits will be better written than the old ones.
Last edited:
