Idpa q&a

mcpiper said:
I just checked my email and when I asked them about it on Oct 18th I was told that they have a 5 round rule. If they don't they should clarify it with the person answering emails for them, plus I would have joined them instead of staying where I am.
Click to expand...

Please send me a copy of this email ASAP.

stormbringer@amtelecom.net



I have a theory as to who replied and I want to make sure before I start building the noose.......

edit............I guess I should have read this whole email before replying 3 times........LOL..........but this sort of s**t just pisses me off to no end.

BTW..........EESA goes by what ever the LAW says........not one point less.

Which if you were unaware means that if you have a Beretta 92 in .40 SW and it fits 14 9mms you would be good to go! (note in IPSC you are limited to 10).
 
mcpiper said:
i'm surprised at the number of ontario clubs limiting their pistol mags to 5 rounds, crumlin and eesa being two that come to mind. Seems an open invitation to the the anti gun lobby that there is no need for anyone to have a 10 round pistol magazine.
Click to expand...

wtf?
 
I'll send a copy of the email out to you tonight Storm. Too bad I got the wrong info as I've been a guest out at EESA a couple of times and was going to switch clubs based on all the handgun restrictions at my current club. Oh well maybe next year as I just renewed here.
 
stormbringer said:
BTW..........EESA goes by what ever the LAW says........not one point less.

Which if you were unaware means that if you have a Beretta 92 in .40 SW and it fits 14 9mms you would be good to go! (note in IPSC you are limited to 10).
Click to expand...

Is that a typo? 14 rounds of 9mm? Good to go?
 
Zeb said:
Is that a typo? 14 rounds of 9mm? Good to go?
Click to expand...


Not to hijack but no it is not a typo.

The mag limitation are NOT on the firarm but on the magazine.

It is writen to limit the magazine for a handgun to "10 rounds of the ammunition for with the magazine is originally designed" or similar verbage.

Think about it for a moment.

If your 92F mag holds 10 rounds of .40 and 9mm is smaller than a .40 if follows that you would be able to fit more than 10 rounds of 9mm into it (the answer btw is 14).

If you were to limit said magazine to 10 rounds of 9mm then what you really have created is a 8 round .40 magazine (or thereabouts) which is just silly.

The restirctions do not include mention of limiting the firearms itself which is odd to say the least.

I use this as yet more evidence in debates that the people who wrote the laws had ZERO practical experience with regard to firearm use not to see the obvious flaw in this language if one wanted to limit handgun capacity.

But I am glad that they did screw it up.

It is also what openned the door to the AR15 LAR mags BTW.

Anway I have a copy of the email in question and I will be taking up the issue with the individual in question directly..........TRUST ME!


7.62mm I will give you ONE guess as to who it was
 
Steve David said:
When did it become once again legal to own a handgun magazine that will hold more then 10 rounds?
Click to expand...

See Storms post above, it covers it off. Personally, I don't have a glock 40 so I have never tried it, but from what I hear, feeding is still reliable even with 13-14 rounds in a .40 mag.
 
Steve David said:
When did it become once again legal to own a handgun magazine that will hold more then 10 rounds?
Click to expand...

As soon as someone who understood guns and the English language read the law................would be my guess.

edit....it should also be noted that for this to be in effect the magaizine in question would have to CLEARLY be marked as a .40 magazine.

If one were to try this with a generic unmarked magazine with no caliber indication one would be violation of the law.
 
Steve David said:
Instead of the smartass sarcastic remark, how about you just honestly post how it is written it for those that are honestly asking?
Click to expand...

Wow! What a great idea!

I should do that!

Like why would I not have?


Of course..........if you were to look and READ


POST 30 IN THIS THREAD

you would see that I already did that but you did not bother to read it which is why all you got in reply was a sarcastic rebuff.....
 
I found this

Regulations Prescribing Certain Firearms and other Weapons, Components and Parts of Weapons, Accessories, Cartridge Magazines, Ammunition and Projectiles as Prohibited or Restricted
SOR/98-462
Registration September 16, 1998

PART 4
PROHIBITED DEVICES

3. (1) Any cartridge magazine
(a) that is capable of containing more than five cartridges of the type for which the magazine was originally designed and that is designed or manufactured for use in
(i) a semi-automatic handgun that is not commonly available in Canada,
(ii) a semi-automatic firearm other than a semi-automatic handgun,
(iii) an automatic firearm whether or not it has been altered to discharge only one projectile with one pressure of the trigger,
(iv) the firearms of the designs commonly known as the Ingram M10 and M11 pistols, and any variants or modified versions of them, including the Cobray M10 and M11 pistols, the RPB M10, M11 and SM11 pistols and the SWD M10, M11, SM10 and SM11 pistols,
(v) the firearm of the design commonly known as the Partisan Avenger Auto Pistol, and any variant or modified version of it, or
(vi) the firearm of the design commonly known as the UZI pistol, and any variant or modified version of it, including the Micro-UZI pistol; or
(b) that is capable of containing more than 10 cartridges of the type for which the magazine was originally designed and that is designed or manufactured for use in a semi-automatic handgun that is commonly available in Canada.
 
EvilDezel said:
I thought that RRA made the LAR as a pistol specifically. Therefore utilizing the 10 round mags.
Click to expand...



Yes they did..
and said magazine is MARKED as a pistol magazine as it is for a pistol.

Reading the above from Onagoth (thanks btw bud) you see that if it is orginally DESIGNED for a pistol then it is good to go.

Just because it happens to fit a semi automatic rifle has no bearing on its legality.

The exact same logic follows handgun magazine capacity.




The ONLY thing that matters is what the magazine was originally designed for.



Many people like Steve David it would appear have fallen into the trap that occurs when you do not actually read the laws yourself. It is assumed that the writers of the law wanted to actually limit handguns to 10 rounds and semi rifles to 5 rounds. However that is NOT what they ended up writing as can clearly be seen by the bolded section in Onagoths post above.

However many people took it for granted that what they intended was actually what was written which is plainly not the case. Thus lie becomes fact...........

Of course there is that nagging problem in that most police officers have no glimmer as to the actualy text of the law so anyone doing the above had better be prepared for excitment should they encounter any LEOS with the same or less factual knowledge about the facts than the average gun owner.
 
Its simple handgun not more then 10 rounds mags for pistol and for revolvers no more then 10 rounds cylinder
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom