3 gun shotgun?

[Cameron SS]

Well perhaps "any similar method" is rather broad. Either that or pinned and riveted mags are all prohibited devices.

Correct. Rivets do not meet this definition.

Yes, but again if we follow this to the letter, our rivetted and pinned magazines are prohibited devices. This particular part of the law (methods to limit magazine capacity) does not seem to be adequately defined or perhaps enforced, especially in regards to tubular magazines. And as such:

guys I've figured it out. I'm gonna buy a +30 extension designed for a pump action shotgun and put it on my semi shotgun. Magazine not designed for a semi-auto so I should be good to go according to the law right?

The law is very adequately defined. Anyone who thinks wood is similar to metal, or thinks floating around loose inside the spring is the same as welded to the case body is grasping at straws.

The problem is enforcement. The RCMP and CBSA have never consistently enforced this law, but then they have never consistently enforced licensing for that matter either.

Go buy that 30 rd extension. Is it legal? thats for a judge to say, but whether you are 1 rd over, or 30 rds over, you are breaking the same law. In for a penny, in for a pound.

 

[Cameron SS]

And not sect. 3(5)(a) either?

add a soft metal rivet is not the same as modifying the case body itself. Swagging the steel case of a magazine body is a very different process, and much harder to undo, then putting in a soft metal fastener. And not by any honest person's assessment is a rivet permanent. The intent of the law is clear. To make it so difficult to unmodify a 'pinned' mag that its easier to build a new one from scratch then it is to unpin it.

 

[grimreefer]

And not sect. 3(5)(a) either?

No, I don't see how a rivet or pin qualifies as "the indentation of its casing by forging, casting, swaging or impressing". I don't think we are going to get any further on this subject unless someone can direct us to case law and legal precidents.


Is the Stoeger M3K stock compatible with any other models that I might be able to get a magpul stock adapter for in Canada?

 

[grimreefer]

The law is very adequately defined. Anyone who thinks wood is similar to metal, or thinks floating around loose inside the spring is the same as welded to the case body is grasping at straws.

The problem is enforcement. The RCMP and CBSA have never consistently enforced this law, but then they have never consistently enforced licensing for that matter either.

Go buy that 30 rd extension. Is it legal? thats for a judge to say, but whether you are 1 rd over, or 30 rds over, you are breaking the same law. In for a penny, in for a pound.

Not sure why you are directing the wooden dowel comment at me. Of course it would be wise to follow the intent of the law, and I think that could probably be accomplished with something in between an easily removable wooden dowel and welding the extension together.

I thought the 30+ and the wink emoji would be enough to let people know I was joking, but perhaps not...

 

[CV32]

add a soft metal rivet is not the same as modifying the case body itself. Swagging the steel case of a magazine body is a very different process, and much harder to undo, then putting in a soft metal fastener. And not by any honest person's assessment is a rivet permanent. The intent of the law is clear. To make it so difficult to unmodify a 'pinned' mag that its easier to build a new one from scratch then it is to unpin it.

I don't necessarily disagree (my question was being posed to grimreefer to gauge own his personal view and thought process), except to say:
- the material chosen need only be steel, aluminum or "similar material" (again, somewhat subjective, and I don't think hardness of the metal is implied);
- I think in many applications you will find a rivet to be intended as a permanent fastener. "Permanent" is, of course, once again somewhat subjective in the sense that many "permanent" things can be reversed without destroying the functionality of the object.

 

[Cameron SS]

No, I don't see how a rivet or pin qualifies as "the indentation of its casing by forging, casting, swaging or impressing". I don't think we are going to get any further on this subject unless someone can direct us to case law and legal precidents.


Is the Stoeger M3K stock compatible with any other models that I might be able to get a magpul stock adapter for in Canada?

I have been unable to find any case law that speaks specifically to the technical aspects of pinning magazines, under any circumstances.

Which I take as evidence that those who are concerned about complying with magazine capacity restrictions are making a mountain out of a molehill. More than twenty years and the issue has never been before a judge. Unless someone deliberate wants to martyr themselves for a test case, I suspect we never will.

I am happy to discuss the law all day long, truly. But its been years since I have given one hoot how many rounds of what my mags can hold.

 

[Cameron SS]

Not sure why you are directing the wooden dowel comment at me. Of course it would be wise to follow the intent of the law, and I think that could probably be accomplished with something in between an easily removable wooden dowel and welding the extension together.

I thought the 30+ and the wink emoji would be enough to let people know I was joking, but perhaps not...

Apologies. Wasn't directed AT you.

But no, the intent of the law can not be satisfied with anything that makes it possible to easily unplug it. It if the mag is steel, the modification that renders it pinned must be welded, AND it must not be easily undone.

The requirement is ridiculously obtuse, and basically any semi auto shotgun with a removable cap for taking the barrel off would probably run afoul a very strict interpretation of this law. No wonder the cops haven't bothered even remotely enforcing it, and barely seem able to muster the energy to seize some 25 rd .22lr mags.

 

[CV32]

I have been unable to find any case law that speaks specifically to the technical aspects of pinning magazines, under any circumstances. Which I take as evidence that those who are concerned about complying with magazine capacity restrictions are making a mountain out of a molehill. More than twenty years and the issue has never been before a judge. Unless someone deliberate wants to martyr themselves for a test case, I suspect we never will. I am happy to discuss the law all day long, truly. But its been years since I have given one hoot how many rounds of what my mags can hold.

You will be able to find some case law that, rather than addressing the technical requirements, speaks to the issue in obiter fashion. For example, in R. v. Stearman, 2003 BCPC 359, the BC provincial court notes:

[6] When the search warrant was executed, all of the 33 restricted firearms were recovered from appropriate storage. It is alleged that one of the magazines, Exhibit 24, had been inadequately modified such that it retained its original capacity to hold 20 rounds for automatic fire instead of having been reduced to a capacity of five rounds. Other magazines had been modified by welding or with rivets to the proper capacity.

[7] In the case of Exhibit 24 it is alleged that the modification was done with pieces of cotter pin bent through holes drilled near the top of the magazine for this purpose. Corporal O'Haloran says that he found the magazine with the pins in place but that he could remove the pins by hand without the need for any tool. Once the pins were removed, he was able to push the feed mechanism to the bottom of the magazine. The magazine was found in a CAR-AR rifle that had a fire selector switch that permitted either semi-automatic fire or full automatic fire.

You're left with an impression that the police were happy enough with rivets, and the court - relying on the police and Crown in this respect, as they are apt to do - accepted that this was sufficient.

 

[Cameron SS]

You will be able to find some case law that, rather than addressing the technical requirements, speaks to the issue in obiter fashion. For example, in R. v. Stearman, 2003 BCPC 359, the BC provincial court notes:

You're left with an impression that the police were happy enough with rivets, and the court - relying on the police and Crown in this respect, as they are apt to do - accepted that this was sufficient.

Thank you for this reference. I had found a similar case, I think it was Ontario, where there was a magazine that as completely not pinned, found with riveted magazines, and only the one that was unriveted was the basis of a charge. This further proves my point and I believe your point that the police generally accept riveting as being compliant, despite that the law clearly says they aren't.

The police and crown were once satisfied that 80% receivers were unregulated, and that 25 rd buttler creek magazines were legal, and that the CZ858 was a non restricted firearm.

Certainly if the police thought it was sufficient, that is good news. But nothing binds them to that position, and the judge could never have substituted his own opinion on something if the crown wasn't pushing it as an issue. And high capacity magazines and associated loop holes are right up there with semi autos and handguns in terms of the hit list. Fully enforcing something that is already on the books is low hanging fruit.

 

[grimreefer]

But no, the intent of the law can not be satisfied with anything that makes it possible to easily unplug it. It if the mag is steel, the modification that renders it pinned must be welded, AND it must not be easily undone.

You misunderstood me. My point was that it's possible to restrict the capacity in such a fashion that it cannot be easily undone, without welding. ie a bolt through the endcap epoxied or staked in place. It would accomplish the intent of the law but obviously does not strictly follow the methods outlined in the law...which would appear to be the same story as the pinned and riveted mags that everyone has.

I don't think anyone is interested in a scholarly discussion of the law in this thread. I think we just want to stay out of trouble while maximizing our competitiveness in 3gun.

 

[CV32]

Thank you for this reference. I had found a similar case, I think it was Ontario, where there was a magazine that as completely not pinned, found with riveted magazines, and only the one that was unriveted was the basis of a charge. This further proves my point and I believe your point that the police generally accept riveting as being compliant, despite that the law clearly says they aren't. The police and crown were once satisfied that 80% receivers were unregulated, and that 25 rd buttler creek magazines were legal, and that the CZ858 was a non restricted firearm. Certainly if the police thought it was sufficient, that is good news. But nothing binds them to that position, and the judge could never have substituted his own opinion on something if the crown wasn't pushing it as an issue. And high capacity magazines and associated loop holes are right up there with semi autos and handguns in terms of the hit list. Fully enforcing something that is already on the books is low hanging fruit.

Yep, we are much on the same page.

 

[bsand]

You misunderstood me. My point was that it's possible to restrict the capacity in such a fashion that it cannot be easily undone, without welding. ie a bolt through the endcap epoxied or staked in place. It would accomplish the intent of the law but obviously does not strictly follow the methods outlined in the law...which would appear to be the same story as the pinned and riveted mags that everyone has.

I don't think anyone is interested in a scholarly discussion of the law in this thread. I think we just want to stay out of trouble while maximizing our competitiveness in 3gun.

If you plug the end cap, tube is still considered unaltered. Thus you have a prohibited device unless that end cap is permanently attached to the tube. regardless if when end cap is installed it holds only 5 rounds.

I ended up having this discussion with the RCMP Lab regarding blocking pistol mags using a mag block. They basically said unless you cannot disassemble the magazine the blocks are not sufficient as you have an unaltered magazine tube that can be easily changed to full capacity. Which is the exact same as the plug on end cap only.

 

[dacron]

If you plug the end cap, tube is still considered unaltered. Thus you have a prohibited device unless that end cap is permanently attached to the tube. regardless if when end cap is installed it holds only 5 rounds.

I don't see anything separating the tube from the end cap in the statutes, it uses the term casing. Without the end cap you do not have a cartridge magazine and it isn't encased, that requires both tube and end cap to be a magazine / encased. You just have to limit the magazine permanently, doing the cap is okay as without the cap you do not have a magazine - it would be incapable of holding/feeding any shells.

 

[bsand]

I don't see anything separating the tube from the end cap in the statutes, it uses the term casing. Without the end cap you do not have a cartridge magazine and it isn't encased, that requires both tube and end cap to be a magazine / encased. You just have to limit the magazine permanently, doing the cap is okay as without the cap you do not have a magazine - it would be incapable of holding/feeding any shells.

You can replace the cap with one not limited, thus the magazine is considered to be unaltered.

 

[AB_blaster]

You can replace the cap with one not limited, thus the magazine is considered to be unaltered.

By your logic all mag extensions that fit semi autos are thus prohibited devices. It's no different than drilling the rivet on a magazine. That is something anyone could do if they wanted to circumvent the law. Still doesn't make owning a riveted magazine a crime..

 

[bsand]

By your logic all mag extensions that fit semi autos are thus prohibited devices. It's no different than drilling the rivet on a magazine. That is something anyone could do if they wanted to circumvent the law. Still doesn't make owning a riveted magazine a crime..

Sounds like it,but the extension nut is what makes it application specific. Therefore untjl it's attached to an extension nut it's just a pipe.


Connect the extension nut to the extension and you now have a tubular magazine.

 

[juancarlos]

Sounds like it,but the extension nut is what makes it application specific. Therefore untjl it's attached to an extension nut it's just a pipe.

Connect the extension nut to the extension and you now have a tubular magazine.

I'm not sure I follow you. Anyone can take off a mag extension and put a new one on or even remove the original cap. You are basically stating that unless the extension is modified at the nut so that the extension itself cannot be removed than it is illegal? You must be an RCMP lab trainee if that is indeed where you are going with this. Hopefully you don't get the job.

 

[Dexter Morgan]

You guys are WAY overboard.

Even if the tube was filled with solid steel; I could still just put it in the lathe and bore it out again.

I Run Guns Inc. glues a piece of wood to the endcap on all of their automatic shotguns that cross the border.

CBSA is totally fine with it.

 

[adamg]

So are we in agreement that high capacity 'pump shotgun' box mags that happen to fit semiauto shotguns are legal to use with both shotguns?
And that high capacity 'pump shotgun' tube mags that happen to fit semiauto shotguns are legal to use with both shotguns?

 

[Dexter Morgan]

" And that high capacity 'pump shotgun' tube mags that happen to fit semiauto shotguns are legal to use with both shotguns? "

No. They are fundamentally different.

The extended tube is not a magazine. It's a modification to the gun's internal magazine.