rounds in magazine
- Thread starter slick39
- Start date
These sorts of arguments were debunked even before C-17 has passed the House of Commons.
The facts are pretty clear, the magazines themselves never were banned (therefore a criminal, who doesn't follow the law, can de-modify a magazine at his/her heart's content and not bat an eye), law-abiding citizens of this country were simply ordered, under threat of jail time, to permanently modify them for no reason other than they were told to do so. What some people call a power-trip, basically.
And simply to add insult to injury they came up with an exception on belt-feds (in all fairness at the time the law was written, semi-auto only belt-feds simply didn't exist yet), and also allowed handguns to hold more ammo than long guns, even though the primary argument to <restrict> handguns in the first place was that they were smaller, lighter, and more conceilable and therefore better suited for criminal use in the eyes of some who no doubt have never handled an actual firearm but have watched too many movies. In light of that then why on earth would you want this "weapon preferred by criminal" to hold more ammo than other, non-restricted firearms ? And let's not forget the exception for rimfire mags designed for non-restricted firearms.
I think those regs are more the result of someone's idea of a joke, than an actual, good-faith attempt at trying to "give police the edge in a firefight", yet the majority of MP's in the House of Commons and the Senate at the time bought it hook, line, and sinker. Besides, some people have gotten so good at reloading If you blink, you've missed it.
The facts are pretty clear, the magazines themselves never were banned (therefore a criminal, who doesn't follow the law, can de-modify a magazine at his/her heart's content and not bat an eye), law-abiding citizens of this country were simply ordered, under threat of jail time, to permanently modify them for no reason other than they were told to do so. What some people call a power-trip, basically.
And simply to add insult to injury they came up with an exception on belt-feds (in all fairness at the time the law was written, semi-auto only belt-feds simply didn't exist yet), and also allowed handguns to hold more ammo than long guns, even though the primary argument to <restrict> handguns in the first place was that they were smaller, lighter, and more conceilable and therefore better suited for criminal use in the eyes of some who no doubt have never handled an actual firearm but have watched too many movies. In light of that then why on earth would you want this "weapon preferred by criminal" to hold more ammo than other, non-restricted firearms ? And let's not forget the exception for rimfire mags designed for non-restricted firearms.
I think those regs are more the result of someone's idea of a joke, than an actual, good-faith attempt at trying to "give police the edge in a firefight", yet the majority of MP's in the House of Commons and the Senate at the time bought it hook, line, and sinker. Besides, some people have gotten so good at reloading If you blink, you've missed it.
Last edited:
We all should bow to your experience. Clearly, you are the expert.
Post #24, Gentlemen, post #24.
- Location
- Tucson, Arizona
I should think that 5 rounds in a revolver dates back to the single action revolvers that had the hammer resting in the forward position. five rounds, so the firing pin would rest on an empty chamber. Sheer official inertia "We have always done it that way" Same reason the magazine cutoff was retained on the Lee enfield even after charger loading came into use.
I believe the "logic" comes from the Canadian Government's 5 round rule in a rifle clip. Because you-know-what flows downhill, the gun clubs who were ruled by the older rifle only guys decided that the handgun guys should get screwed too, but through club "policy", not government legislation. I think if you checked you would find that the clubs with the 5 rnd policy/rule were begun or dominated by rifle/shotgunners. The more progressive clubs didn't go for that nonsense or used the democratic process to change club policy. Guess that let's Langley out....
Who was horrified??
Just exaggerating to make a point. I have felt that my .45 was not welcome at times on Monday nights when older members were around shooting .22 & light load .38.
I only feel unwelcome when this one tall guy shoots his .22 target rifle on tuesdays. He seems annoyed when I shoot my 9mm or .45, especially if I am standing in the lane right beside him.
On the contrary, lots of guys check out my Kimber .45 and ask about it when I bring it.
On the contrary, lots of guys check out my Kimber .45 and ask about it when I bring it.
I only feel unwelcome when this one tall guy shoots his .22 target rifle on tuesdays. He seems annoyed when I shoot my 9mm or .45, especially if I am standing in the lane right beside him.
On the contrary, lots of guys check out my Kimber .45 and ask about it when I bring it.
I've got a Kimber Tactical Custom II but I shoot it mostly on a range to myself at POCO now unless I bring a non-member friend and then I use the public range 7.
I got a taste of the Fuddness today. I went this morning because I have the day off work. Never gone in the mornings, only evenings. As soon as I go in the club house this tall grey hair asks "You a member??". I reply "Yes". When I go into the range I get these stares and the RO says he's never seen me before and asks if I am a member. I sign in then he asks to see my membership card, and stares at it for about 15 seconds. At least I brought my revolver, because it was pretty much old grey hairs shooting revolvers from bench rests. I brought two boxes of ammo but only went through one then left. Evenings on the other hand have always been good, a wide range of ages and types of guns.
<end rant>
The skeet/trap RO called my 14inch Fabarm (only SG I own) an '####### gun'. I nuked clay after clay but he told me I can't come back if I want to shoot that 'defender style ####### gun'.
Langley R&G is doomed with that attitude.
Langley R&G is doomed with that attitude.
- Location
- Kumankissmyass, BC
What I don't understand is why an employee in any business would think he/she has a right to discourage paying customers with that kind of attitude. There are lots of good people associated with Langley but it's a pretty tight little club and I think there are a few long-timers who steer the ship. Hopefully some members with more progressive attitudes will step up to the Exec Board before the ship runs aground.
