Ruger 10/22 Magazine: Background and the Latest Update

greentips

greentips

Administrator
Moderating Team
Rating - 100%
261   0   0
Location
Pluton
To help members, especially new members, who are not very tuned in to the current news, I have prepared a synopsis of what it is happening right now in regard to the Ruger 10/22 magazines.

The Criminal Code and its regulations specifically prohibit magazines that " are designed or manufactured " for pistols that can hold more than 10 rounds. On the same page, the Criminal Code and its regulations specifically exclude rifle magazines for rimfire cartridges from the capacity limit. For many years, close to 40 years, rimfire magazines with capacity over 10 rounds were freely possessed by firearms owners and could be easily purchased at pretty much any gun stores and sporting goods outlets.

The issue began in 2008 when Ruger released a pistol version of the Ruger 10/22 rifle, it is called the "Charger". Ruger subsequently released a magazine for Ruger 10/22 called BX-25 around 2012. At that point, the RCMP argued that the BX-25 is a prohibited device. The logic seems to be like that, the BX-25 magazine was designed after the "Charger" pistol was released, therefore it implied that BX-25 was designed as a pistol magazine.

Fast forward to right now, the RCMP through the Canadian Firearms Program, began to inform police departments and businesses ALL rimfire magazines for Ruger 10/22 with a capacity over 10 rounds are prohibited devices because of the existence of the "Charger" pistols in Canada. Without much thinking, this is not consistent with the Criminal Code and its regulation. This is because, it is pretty much common knowledge, rimfire magazines for Ruger 10/22 rifles with over 10 round capacity were designed and had been manufactured long before the existence of the "Charger" pistol.

Easily verifiable fact: the first Butler Creek magazine was patented in 1978 but the first "Charger" pistol was released in 2008. How could a magazine be designed and subsequently manufactured for a pistol over 30 years before the pistol was even born?

Patent of Butler Creek 25 round Rimfire magazines for Ruger 10/22 rifles in 1978: http://www.google.com/patents/US4127954

This illogical and ill supported position of the RCMP and the Canadian Firearms program will be facing a legal challenge. CSSA and CSAAA will be bringing a class action, where the purpose of the action is to seek a judgement that these magazines are not prohibited, to declare the magazine capacity restrictions void as unconstitutional or in the alternative to force a buy-back of each at full retail value. A claim for the intentional infliction of mental distress due to the fear of police action and criminal charges will be included

Both organizations are currently advises its members to stop the sale and transfer of Ruger 10/22 rifle rimfire magazines over 10 round in capacity. It is also advised that owners of these magazines should hold on to these magazines and do not attempt to make modification and dispose of said magazines.

If you have one of these magazines, you should strongly consider joining the class action, AT NO FEE, by contacting the followings:
For individuals: classaction@cssa-cila.org 905-571-2150
For Businesses: csaaa.legalaction@gmail.com705-875-2302

CSAAA update
http://www.csaaa.org/csaaa-update-1022-high-capacity-magazines-2/

Other references:

Regulations concerning prohibited Devices as part of the Criminal Code
http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/regulations/sor-98-462/fulltext.html


Updated July 23,16: Internal Memo circulated within the RCMP
IMG_2536.jpg


Updated July 28, 16: CSSA and CSAAA action
http://myemail.constantcontact.com/...CTION.html?soid=1124731702303&aid=U1AJXd1stas
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE - July 28, 2016

ETOBICOKE, ONTARIO - The Canadian Shooting Sports Association (CSSA), representing recreational firearms owners, has joined with the Canadian Sporting Arms and Ammunition Association (CSAAA), representing firearms business owners, to empower legal action against the recent decision by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Firearms Program to prohibit several brands of imported 10/22 extended capacity rifle magazines.

The CSAAA and CSSA Boards of Directors voted late last week to raise and contribute funding to a legal defence fund to make this legal action possible.

The action will be conducted by noted firearms lawyer Edward L. Burlew, L.L.B. , General Counsel for the CSSA.

Mr. Burlew states, "This recent, sudden reversal deprives legal firearms owners of their property rights and attacks their freedom. The RCMP has a duty to every Canadian to act fairly and consistently. The recent decision to reverse position on Ruger 10/22 magazines holding over 10 cartridges is a deliberate move to cause serious worry to hundreds of thousands of Canadians, licenced firearms dealers and importers."

Burlew adds, " A Federal Court Class Action on behalf of all persons, individuals, dealers and distributors who now possess cartridge magazines to fit the Ruger 10/22 that can contain more than 10 cartridges will be commenced. The purpose of the action is to seek a judgement that these magazines are not prohibited, to declare the magazine capacity restrictions void as unconstitutional or in the alternative to force a buy-back of each at full retail value. A claim for the intentional infliction of mental distress due to the fear of police action and criminal charges will be included."

Individuals are advised not to use, transfer, dispose of, alter or modify, or transport these magazines at this time.

At this time, due to the controversy, importers, dealers and individual owners are advised to stop sales and transfers of all 10/22 high capacity (over 10 rounds) rifle magazines. Businesses are cautioned not to attempt to “pin” magazines unless their license specifically authorizes work on prohibited magazines.

We are advising against businesses or their customers surrendering or returning these magazines to anyone at this time.

If you are the consumer owner of one of these magazines your participation in the action is very much desired. THERE IS NO FEE FOR YOUR PARTICIPATION BUT DONATIONS TO THE ACTION ARE WELCOME.

DONATIONS CAN BE MADE AT: 10/22 +10 Class Action Donation

From consumer owners we need:
• A communication informing us of your willingness to participate in a class action lawsuit;
• Brands and models of 10/22 +10 round capacity magazines currently in inventory and the value of the inventory;
• Digital copies of product packaging, manufacturers’ or distributors’ product sales information, product press releases;
• Any information, actions or comments by your Chief Firearms Officer, Inspectors, RCMP or any other law enforcement agency.
Consumer owners interested in joining the class action, are asked to email the above information to the CSSA at classaction@cssa-cila.org.

For more information call the CSSA at 905-571-2150.

From business owners we need:
• A communication informing us of your willingness to participate in a class action lawsuit;
• Brands and models of 10/22 +10 round capacity magazines currently in inventory and the value of the inventory;
• Digital copies of any product packaging, manufacturers’ or distributors’ product sales information, product press releases you may possess;
• Any information, actions or comments by your Chief Firearms Officer, Inspectors, RCMP or any other law enforcement agency.
Business owners interested in joining the class action, are asked to email the above information to the CSAAA at csaaa.legalaction@gmail.com.

For more information call the CSAAA at 705-875-2302.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
The 10/22 rifle was released in 1964 - Fact

The Ruger Chager was released in late 2007 - FACT

gunblast.com/Ruger-22Charger.htm

As Greentips points out, Butler Creek patented the design of the magazine in 1978 - FACT

www.google.com/patents/US4127954

I purchased a Butler Creek 25 round magazine well before the Charger became commonly available in Canada.

So my magazine was "designed and manufactured" for something that did not exist??

I am sure someone in Canada has a Butler Creek magazine purchased in the 1980's.

Can anyone bring logic that a 1980's rimfire magazine was "designed and manufactured" for something almost 30 years in the future?

Wait, there is an answer........... :eek:

dn28374-1_800.jpg
 
We already went through this with the Mossberg 715T .22 rifle.
When I bought it, it came with a 25 round mag which I enjoyed very much thank you.
Next thing you know Mossberg decides to make a pistol version taking the same mag.
Original mag is now prohibited even though the pistol is not sold in Canada.
Now I get to shoot with 10 round mags.
The gun is much safer now fortunately!!!
 
silver bullet said:
We already went through this with the Mossberg 715T .22 rifle.
When I bought it, it came with a 25 round mag which I enjoyed very much thank you.
Next thing you know Mossberg decides to make a pistol version taking the same mag.
Original mag is now prohibited even though the pistol is not sold in Canada.
Now I get to shoot with 10 round mags.
The gun is much safer now fortunately!!!
Click to expand...

The difference between the Mossberg (and the M&P15-22 too) is that the pistol version of those guns come equipped with the 25 round mags. Mossberg (and S&W) openly market the 25 rounders to be used for both pistol and rifle, so regardless of what the original mag was designed for, the mags currently being sold are "designed" for both the rifle and pistol. The 10/22 situation is a bit different. The BX-25 falls into the same logic as the Mossberg and 15-22. The BC mags OTH have never been marketed for the pistol. They were designed and sold for rifle, and always have been.

I'm not saying that the Mossberg and 15-22 logic is right, just saying that it's different than the case we're seeing here with the 10/22.
 
What really gets me going is how this is being played by the CFP as a threat to public safety. From the nation wide memo released to police earlier today:

"Magazines up to 110 shot capacity are available. Although the 22LR cartridge is less powerful than most, it is nonetheless lethal, and combined with high capacity magazines, presents a public safety hazard and an officer safety concern when responding to incidents involving these magazines"

Once again, science and fact take a back seat to irrational fear mongering. I'd love to know how many "incidents involving these magazines" the police have responded to in the last 35 years.
 
Deuce-deuce said:
Taber. AB.
Click to expand...

Looks like the shooter used a sawed off .22. Can you confirm it was a 10/22? Any indication he had a "high capacity magazine"? Regardless, considering he cut his barrel down, I'm sure a rivet wouldn't have stopped him...

Any other incidents? Obviously my point is that high cap .22 mags are about as low down on the safety totem pole as it gets. Considering the time and resources this is gonna eat up, it's beyond ridiculous.
 
Okay. The ONLY way that we are going to be able to fight this one is to argue that the Charger Pistol does NOT meet the definition of a handgun under the criminal code. I shall cite the section in question here for the benefit and ease of reference:

Part III

handgun means a firearm that is designed, altered or intended to be aimed and fired by the action of one hand, whether or not it has been redesigned or subsequently altered to be aimed and fired by the action of both hands;
Click to expand...

Anyone can fire just about ANYTHING with one hand but SAFE MANIPULATION of the Charger so-called "pistol" requires TWO hands unless it's resting on something (example: bipod) but even then? Two hands are usually needed. This firearm therefore does NOT MEET THE DEFINITION of a handgun as it cannot be cycled with just one hand. A handgun on the other hand CAN BE cycled with one hand. Example: Hooking the sights on your boot, belt, a table to rack the slide or reload.

I don't know if I can swing that or not.
 
TylerM said:
Okay. The ONLY way that we are going to be able to fight this one is to argue that the Charger Pistol does NOT meet the definition of a handgun under the criminal code. I shall cite the section in question here for the benefit and ease of reference:



Anyone can fire just about ANYTHING with one hand but SAFE MANIPULATION of the Charger so-called "pistol" requires TWO hands unless it's resting on something (example: bipod) but even then? Two hands are usually needed. This firearm therefore does NOT MEET THE DEFINITION of a handgun as it cannot be cycled with just one hand. A handgun on the other hand CAN BE cycled with one hand. Example: Hooking the sights on your boot, belt, a table to rack the slide or reload.

I don't know if I can swing that or not.
Click to expand...

This is not going to work and it is a bad argument not based on the actual fact of the Charger.

You can fire a "Charger" with one hand. You can also fire an AR15 pistol with one hand, and you can also fire a 308 XCR pistol with one hand. You can find youtube videos of people doing it.
 
greentips said:
This is not going to work and it is a bad argument not based on the actual fact of the Charger.

You can fire a "Charger" with one hand. You can also fire an AR15 pistol with one hand, and you can also fire a 308 XCR pistol with one hand. You can find youtube videos of people doing it.
Click to expand...

I know that it sucks. That thought DEFINITELY occurred to me long before I ever posted this but it seems to be the only way out of this that's within reach. I don't like it but the bureaucrats backed us into another corner. The current administration will NOT be even remotely sympathetic to us either so with that in mind??? Desperate times = desperate measures. I'm sick of it but see no alternative :(

A little bit of HISTORY? The company marketed this as a "PISTOL" to get around ATF regulations in regard to TITLE II weappons under the NFA. If you're unfamiliar with U.S. law? The long and short of it is it requires federal registration since it would be considered an SBR (short barrelled rifle) and a $200 tax stamp from the ATF.
 
silver bullet said:
We already went through this with the Mossberg 715T .22 rifle.
When I bought it, it came with a 25 round mag which I enjoyed very much thank you.
Next thing you know Mossberg decides to make a pistol version taking the same mag.
Original mag is now prohibited even though the pistol is not sold in Canada.
Now I get to shoot with 10 round mags.
The gun is much safer now fortunately!!!
Click to expand...
Actually it is the same. Mossberg designed a 25 rnd mag to fit in there rifle. Years later , they designed a pistol that also happened to use the same mags. These 25 rnd mags were designed for the rifle only . And I do believe after all the crap happened, they repackaged them as rifle mags only.
And they are in Canada. Four of them I think , which makes them common.You can buy one from a Canadian vendor ,as a matter of fact.
But hey, this was no big deal,who wants a 715 anyway , right? Shoulda fought this when it first started.
 
If the interpretation is inconsistent with the law, can we all just give them the finger and let them have fun interpreting whatever they want? At the end of the day the law is still the same.

This RCMP behavior is so funny.
 
Agreed. ^^^^

ht tp://www.wholesalesports.com/store/wsoo/en/Categories/Hunting/Firearm-Accessories/Magazines/Ruger-10-22-Steel-Lips-Magazine-22LR-25-Rounds-Smoke/p/41169
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom