Tell me about the Australian Arms rifles
- Thread starter popcan
- Start date
You need to brush up on your reading comprehension.
That makes more sense......
.....as if "sense" could be used when referring to the concept of pinning in the first place.....
A detachable magazine made for a semi-auto centrefire must comply with the capacity limit for such firearms even if you use it in another firearm that it happens to fit which is not a semi-auto. An M-14 magazine that isn't pinned to the relevant capacity limit is a prohibited device in itself, even if you don't have an M-14 or other semi-auto to use it in. It wouldn't make your AIA M10 bolt action illegal, but it would still be illegal itself.
A magazine made for a firearm that is not semi-auto isn't itself subject to a capacity limit, but the regulation doesn't say you are allowed to use it with capacity in a semi-auto that it wasn't designed for and which it just happens to fit. If the 10 round magazine from an AIA M10 happens to fit in an M-14, that doesn't mean your M-14 is suddenly exempt from the magazine capacity limit. Possession of the M10 magazine is still fine, even if you happen to be in possession of a semi-auto that it could fit. But if you use it in the M14 and you get caught and charged a court could certainly interpret the situation as an illegal act on your part and convict you. Good luck.
Update later: It turns out I'm wrong on this, although my logic is reasonable, it is based on a mistaken understanding of the way the regulations are constructed. If you read through it all, you'll see Cyclone, Can-Am and Tiriaq nudging me towards the light but if you want to save time and stay on topic you can just skip those bits, because my remarks on this are irrelevant.
A magazine made for a firearm that is not semi-auto isn't itself subject to a capacity limit, but the regulation doesn't say you are allowed to use it with capacity in a semi-auto that it wasn't designed for and which it just happens to fit. If the 10 round magazine from an AIA M10 happens to fit in an M-14, that doesn't mean your M-14 is suddenly exempt from the magazine capacity limit. Possession of the M10 magazine is still fine, even if you happen to be in possession of a semi-auto that it could fit. But if you use it in the M14 and you get caught and charged a court could certainly interpret the situation as an illegal act on your part and convict you. Good luck.
Update later: It turns out I'm wrong on this, although my logic is reasonable, it is based on a mistaken understanding of the way the regulations are constructed. If you read through it all, you'll see Cyclone, Can-Am and Tiriaq nudging me towards the light but if you want to save time and stay on topic you can just skip those bits, because my remarks on this are irrelevant.
Last edited:
themarauder
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- Just north of Toronto, thankfully.
It's because they're designed from the ground up for a pistol isn't it? Just happy co-incidence they happen to fit into an AR-15 style rifle.
You had better explain that to everyone who uses LAR-15 magazines, post-haste!
Trying it on and getting away with something doesn't make it legal. Getting charged for it, tried, and not convicted could be a precedent that is useful for us all and I'll be grateful to the Gunnut that tries to fight that one.
My comment "good luck" was sincerely meant and said with a straight face. The magazine capacity limits are silly and I'll speak against them, but so long as they have the force of law I obey them, because that is not a legal issue on which I particularly want to be made an example of.
Show us the portion of the act on which your position is based?
They are not designed for a pistol, but manufactured for a pistol.
That was my point. Because they are designed for something that is allowed to have magazines of that capacity, the magazines themselves aren't prohibited devices. But nowhere in the regulation that allows those magazines to be used in the guns for which they were made does it say a centrefire semi-auto long gun is allowed to be used with a magazine with a capacity over five rounds provided the magazine was designed for a different gun. People may use them and probably nothing will be done about it for a long time, if ever, but if someone is ever charged, a court could decide the regulation against having a centrefire semi-auto long gun with a magazine capacity greater than five rounds applies to improvising with magazines from another gun. Then we'll see how it turns out, but it may never happen.
If you read the RCMP letter posted by Questar, I believe it states the magazines can be used in anything. You clearly have not read the act.
I can't - it based on the non-existence of any portion saying you can use a magazine that exceeds the legal capacity of a firearm as long as it comes from a different firearm. Without such a permission explicit in the act, the portion that say guns that meet certain criteria aren't allowed to have magazines with capacity over a certain number of rounds could be interpreted by a court to prohibit improvising with a magazine from another gun that exceeds that capacity. A set of circumstances that would lead to such a case coming up seems unlikely, but it can't be shown to be impossible.
If you see a portion of the act that does explicitly state it's o.k. to get round the magazine capacity limit this way, please point it out and I'll see that I've been mistaken.
In Canada, the law generally tells us what we can't do, not what we can, that is the basis for our whole legal system. The law doesn't say we can walk down the street, but since it doesn't, we can, and do.
If the RCMP say they aren't going to enforce the regulation in such circumstances, that's helpful. It doesn't mean no one else will, and the courts are certainly not bound by the RCMP's opinions or interpretations, even if based on a learned opinion by qualified lawyers, but as I already said, it is probably never going to come up.
Yes, but courts can interpret what they believe to be the intent of a law or regulation. A regulation that says a centre fire semi-auto long gun with detachable magazine shall not have a capacity greater than five rounds could be strictly interpreted to say it must not have a magazine that was manufactured for it with more than five rounds capacity, or it could be interpreted to mean you mustn't ever equip it with any working magazine that exceeds that capacity.
And then the decision of one court can be reversed by another.
They couldn't exempt the M1 Garand from it if such a regulation doesn't exist.
I don't have a copy of the Act and its regulations on hand, and I'm not going to stay up all night on this, but if no one else has more details when I check in tomorrow I'll try to research it, but I wish my tame Fed lawyer wasn't leaving for a holiday in Spain first thing in the morning.
I don't have a copy of the Act and its regulations on hand, and I'm not going to stay up all night on this, but if no one else has more details when I check in tomorrow I'll try to research it, but I wish my tame Fed lawyer wasn't leaving for a holiday in Spain first thing in the morning.
I say all of what I'm about to with respect and politeness ; please don't take any of it as a personal affront, attack or insult .......:
I refer you to the Canada Gazette:
http://canadagazetteducanada.gc.ca/archives/p1/1998/1998-06-20/html/reg1-eng.html
where it (basically?) clearly indicates that any and all cartridge capacity limitations are relegated to the magazines themselves, and that cartridge-capacity-limits exist independant of the firearms that the cartridges/magazines may be used in. Looking at the title of the section:
it seems pretty indisputable that all regulations pertaining to cartridge-capacity are rooted in the type of magazine itself and, as such, no "cartridge-capacity-limitation" (consideration/regulation) regarding firearms themselves was ever created/passed..........
Per above, the regulations were designed for the magazines themselves, and so the key consideration (as CanAm so rightly and succinctly indicated 
) is (a) what cartridge the magazine itself was designed/manufactured for use with and (b) what firearm the magazine itself was designed/manufactured for use with 
. Let us read from the aformentioned source?
It's perfecty alright to say that the design of the firearm makes a difference - so long as we realize that it is only the cartridge capacity of the magazine itself that is effected by the design of the firearm (for which the magazine was designed/manufactured to be used with).....
More on this later..........but, IIRC, the fine folk at Questar have already gotten "clearance" on this all?.......
...that, and what we've discerned from the Canadian Gazette, above! ......
; please don't take any of it as a personal affront, attack or insult .......:I refer you to the Canada Gazette:
http://canadagazetteducanada.gc.ca/archives/p1/1998/1998-06-20/html/reg1-eng.html
where it (basically?) clearly indicates that any and all cartridge capacity limitations are relegated to the magazines themselves, and that cartridge-capacity-limits exist independant of the firearms that the cartridges/magazines may be used in. Looking at the title of the section:
it seems pretty indisputable that all regulations pertaining to cartridge-capacity are rooted in the type of magazine itself and, as such, no "cartridge-capacity-limitation" (consideration/regulation) regarding firearms themselves was ever created/passed....
......Per above
, the regulations were designed for the magazines themselves, and so the key consideration (as CanAm so rightly and succinctly indicated ) is (a) what cartridge the magazine itself was designed/manufactured for use with and (b) what firearm the magazine itself was designed/manufactured for use with . Let us read from the aformentioned source?It's perfecty alright to say that the design of the firearm makes a difference - so long as we realize that it is only the cartridge capacity of the magazine itself that is effected by the design of the firearm (for which the magazine was designed/manufactured to be used with).....
More on this later.....
.....but, IIRC, the fine folk at Questar have already gotten "clearance" on this all?..........that, and what we've discerned from the Canadian Gazette, above! ......
Last edited:
