how is this for canadian legal window Pmag?

A guy in BC was charged and convicted of importing 30 round mag bodies. It was ruled that since they were so easily assembled into full capacity 30 round mags that the bodies by themselves where to be considered a prohibited device. Supposedly, certain factors, such as the mag bodies never being pinned, where considered. Up until this case mag bodies were widely considered just parts and not prohibited. Nothing in the actual law has changed, just now a court has interpreted it and set precedence.

Can you disassemble a mag to clean it, I would probably say you can, but there is a slim chance you maybe standing in front of a judge trying to explain yourself. Just as there is a slim chance you might be with that mag. Take it for what its worth, but something tells me the guy who imported those mag bodies never thought he would be liable for 5 years in prison, as many did before him.
 
RUSTSPOT said:
what i did does not change the functionality of the mag. still holds 5 rounds and its pined. the rounds at the bottom also acts as magazine block too.(ive owned mags that are blocked with a glue base plate, not sure if there is changes of the law prohibiting that method of round capping. ). last i check its not illegal to have parts of magazines dissembled (unpin) as long as it doesnt functions as ammunition feeding device. also im adding stuff on the non feeding end of the mag. and if you want to get technical of "holding" then we all have illegal mags.

a definite yes or no would be great. i think guys running 13 rounds of 9mm in glock .40 mags or 14 rounds of 223 in a 50 beowolf would have issues before this 5 round P mags does.
Click to expand...

Next time you might want to show the rivet/pinning in the video, because you made no mention of this in your original post. It implied that the rounds (which again, you didn't indicate were dummies) were the limiting factor.

An unpinned, disassembled magazine body is in fact a prohibited device. What happens when you have to unpin one to perform maintenance on it is a bit of a grey area, but suffice it to say the operational window for such is probably measured in minutes and not hours or days.

And no, there are absolutely no issues with the two scenarios you indicated - because the CFC has specifically addressed these in a special bulletin (as TV pointed out).
...

So in answer to your question: is it legal? Yes, if it's still pinned/riveted it is - provided you're using dummy rounds. It could be argued that anything other than non-functional rounds for cosmetic purposes is actually holding more than 5 rounds (regardless of capability). Is this practical? Not really - seems like a lot of work for some aesthetics. Modifying the functionality might lead to reliability issues down the road as well. And despite "technically" being legal, it will almost certainly be seized - so why take the chance?
 
blaxsun said:
Next time you might want to show the rivet/pinning in the video, because you made no mention of this in your original post. It implied that the rounds (which again, you didn't indicate were dummies) were the limiting factor.

An unpinned, disassembled magazine body is in fact a prohibited device. What happens when you have to unpin one to perform maintenance on it is a bit of a grey area, but suffice it to say the operational window for such is probably measured in minutes and not hours or days.

And no, there are absolutely no issues with the two scenarios you indicated - because the CFC has specifically addressed these in a special bulletin (as TV pointed out).
...

So in answer to your question: is it legal? Yes, if it's still pinned/riveted it is - provided you're using dummy rounds. It could be argued that anything other than non-functional rounds for cosmetic purposes is actually holding more than 5 rounds (regardless of capability). Is this practical? Not really - seems like a lot of work for some aesthetics. Modifying the functionality might lead to reliability issues down the road as well. And despite "technically" being legal, it will almost certainly be seized - so why take the chance?
Click to expand...

There were a couple of cases early on that Dave Tomlinson was involved in where the Judge declared that a disassembled magazine was a collection of spare parts.
as I understand it this set precedence on possession of mag bodies, then there was a case under CBSA where the ruling was that for Importation mags had to be pinned .
Can you shed any more light on this ?
 
Last edited:
Ditchdogger said:
There were a couple of cases early on that Dave Tomlinson was involved in where the Judge declared that a disassembled magazine was a collection of spare parts.
as I understand it this set precedence on possession of mag bodies, then there was a case under CBSA where the ruling was that for the purpose of importation they had to be pinned.
Click to expand...

As I understand, CBSA made a ruling to disallow mag bodies. To enforce this they had to set precedence in court, they made an example out of one poor guy. The case was taken to the Supreme Court of BC where it was lost. It was decided that they would not take the case any further out of fear of setting precedence in the Supreme Court of Canada. At this point in time it was said that other cases where going to be going through the courts in other provinces, if this was true or what the results may have been I do not know.
 
skip1600 said:
No. If it is possible for you to put more than 5 rounds in a rifle mag it is prohib ... Simple as that. In reality we get of easy on this ridiculous law with the current allowance of rivets. They could easily say that "rivets are not permanent" and require much more restriction on us.


Actually with what you describe when you take the mag apart it would in fact be prohib as it now holds 30 rounds
Click to expand...

From what I have gathered, isn't this is completely false? Isn't it the law that only the intended caliber the magazine was designed to hold may not exceed 5 rounds, which creates the gray area that allows .223 into .50 Beowolf, 9mm in 40s&w mags, etc. Also, what about the 10 round "pistol" mags for .223? I believe this proves my point, but please correct me if I am wrong.
 
While we're talking about aesthetics . . .

8445404999_4466243ea4_b.jpg


c0789f5c6f2c11e289bf22000a1fa4a9_7.jpg
 
Firas said:
From what I have gathered, isn't this is completely false? Isn't it the law that only the intended caliber the magazine was designed to hold may not exceed 5 rounds, which creates the gray area that allows .223 into .50 Beowolf, 9mm in 40s&w mags, etc. Also, what about the 10 round "pistol" mags for .223? I believe this proves my point, but please correct me if I am wrong.
Click to expand...

No that's still true. "If it is possible for you to put more than 5 rounds in a rifle mag it is prohib."

Pistol mags are still ten.

Rifle mags are still five.

The better way to think about .50 Beo is this: There isn't any law about how many .243 rounds you can put into a magazine thats made for 300 WinMag right? It's not made for that, so its not a factor. And there's no law about what you do with a pistol mag once you've loaded it with its proper ten rounds.

Items are either uncontrolled or prohibited. Behaviours are not.
 
TV-PressPass said:
No that's still true. "If it is possible for you to put more than 5 rounds in a rifle mag it is prohib."

Pistol mags are still ten.

Rifle mags are still five.

The better way to think about .50 Beo is this: There isn't any law about how many .243 rounds you can put into a magazine thats made for 300 WinMag right? It's not made for that, so its not a factor. And there's no law about what you do with a pistol mag once you've loaded it with its proper ten rounds.

Items are either uncontrolled or prohibited. Behaviours are not.
Click to expand...

Thank you for the clarification.
 
Mirk said:
As I understand, CBSA made a ruling to disallow mag bodies. To enforce this they had to set precedence in court, they made an example out of one poor guy. The case was taken to the Supreme Court of BC where it was lost. It was decided that they would not take the case any further out of fear of setting precedence in the Supreme Court of Canada. At this point in time it was said that other cases where going to be going through the courts in other provinces, if this was true or what the results may have been I do not know.
Click to expand...

I was under the impression that it was pretty narrowly defined as being prohibited under importation not possession, and they did not take it any farther for fear that it would expand the definition to possession. Keeping in mind what I am referring to is parts not complete magazines.
 
Sorry for not showing the pin. Originally I shot the video for my buddy to see then I decided to post it here to hear others opinions on it. But ya. It's like stuffing a round underneath a normal 5/30 p mag and close the base plate. Does it hold more than 5? Yes but would it feed more than 5? No
 
Ditchdogger said:
There were a couple of cases early on that Dave Tomlinson was involved in where the Judge declared that a disassembled magazine was a collection of spare parts. as I understand it this set precedence on possession of mag bodies, then there was a case under CBSA where the ruling was that for Importation mags had to be pinned .
Can you shed any more light on this ?
Click to expand...

This was subsequently lost (and again on appeal) in a case in BC where an unpinned magazine body was ruled to be a prohibited device.

Ditchdogger said:
I was under the impression that it was pretty narrowly defined as being prohibited under importation not possession, and they did not take it any farther for fear that it would expand the definition to possession. Keeping in mind what I am referring to is parts not complete magazines.
Click to expand...

The difference between importation and possession is that CBSA will seize it, and you may be charged; in the latter, you will almost certainly be charged and have your firearms seized in addition to the magazine.

TV-PressPass said:
While we're talking about aesthetics . . .
Click to expand...

You realize you have no shame, right? ;)

loki_81 said:
$1000 PMag, is Blaxsun back? :p
Click to expand...

Yes, and I'm not selling any of my new M3 versions. :D
 
Last edited:
That's the idea. Like the million of other gun related stuff we don't really need but want to have. :). I use my LAR mags at range anyways. I don't really care if this mag doesn't feed at all. I for few surplus P mags I have kicking around so I piece the parts together. I chopped up a couple P mags to make mag extension for my LAR mags too. Ya I could sell them for 1000 a piece on EE but I prefer easier draw of my mags over money. Lol
 
Ditchdogger said:
I was under the impression that it was pretty narrowly defined as being prohibited under importation not possession, and they did not take it any farther for fear that it would expand the definition to possession. Keeping in mind what I am referring to is parts not complete magazines.
Click to expand...

I think you are thinking that it is more complicated than it is. Basically the BC Supreme Court interpreted the language used in the Criminal Code. Specifically, the Regulations Prescribing Certain Firearms and other Weapons, Components and Parts of Weapons, Accessories, Cartridge Magazines, Ammunition and Projectiles as Prohibited or Restricted. In regards to rifle magazines it says:

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…
Click to expand...

They used the precedence set by R. v. Hasselwander to interpret “capable” as meaning readily or immediately capable. So now, at least in BC, that section of the regulations is now to be interpreted as anything that is readily or immideatly capable of holding more than five rounds and will feed rounds into a rifle. Complicated but simple, the meaning of only one word changed and it applies universally.
 
Mirk said:
I think you are thinking that it is more complicated than it is. Basically the BC Supreme Court interpreted the language used in the Criminal Code. Specifically, the Regulations Prescribing Certain Firearms and other Weapons, Components and Parts of Weapons, Accessories, Cartridge Magazines, Ammunition and Projectiles as Prohibited or Restricted. In regards to rifle magazines it says:



They used the precedence set by R. v. Hasselwander to interpret “capable” as meaning readily or immediately capable. So now, at least in BC, that section of the regulations is now to be interpreted as anything that is readily or immideatly capable of holding more than five rounds and will feed rounds into a rifle. Complicated but simple, the meaning of only one word changed and it applies universally.
Click to expand...

Are you talking about R. v. Cancade, 2011 BCCA 105 (CanLII)?
http://canlii.ca/t/fkfmh

Because there it seems to me to be a bit different than what you are suggesting:

I consider a purposive approach to this legislative provision is the proper one to be adopted here. That in my opinion is the proper approach in construing this legislation having regard to the intention of Parliament to severely restrict the availability of high capacity weapons and their appurtenances. If this approach is adopted, it seems to me that the conclusion reached at trial by Baird Ellan P.C.J. is sustainable. I do not consider she erred when she found that the appellant was in possession of a cartridge magazine of a prohibited sort and was therefore guilty of offences against Code section 91(2), 92(2) and 104(1)(a).
Click to expand...

They quote Cory J. from Hasselwander:
In my view, any uncertainty as to whether the word “capable” means either “immediately capable” or “readily capable”, is resolved as soon as the word is interpreted in light of the purpose and goals of the prohibited weapons provisions of the Code. Therefore, there is no need to resort to the rule of strict construction in this case.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom