Originally Posted by
Chuckbuster
Sending this to my MP, the Justice Minister and the PMO...I might even submit it to the local rag to raise public awareness and ensure that my MP takes note.
If anybody likes it enough to think they want to use it, whole or for ideas...go for it! I'll post this in the other thread as well.
----------
Mr. MP,
I am writing as a concerned constituent and citizen of Canada. It has recently come to light that the RCMP has unilaterally declared all cartridge ammunition magazines of 10+ capacity for the very popular Ruger 10-22 rifle to be prohibited devices. This is most wrong, egregious and unjustified for a number of reasons.
The RCMP have declared the magazines as prohibited because they will fit both the Ruger 10-22 semi-automatic rifle and the Ruger Charger semi-automatic handgun. Both are chambered for the .22 Long Rifle rimfire cartridge; commonly known as a ".22". Under the cartridge magazine regulations of the Firearms Act, .22 semi automatic handgun magazines are limited to 10 rounds. Under those same regulations, cartridge magazines for .22 semi-automatic rifles have no proscribed limit. Thus, according to the law as written, the 10-22 rifle has no limits on the capacity of it's rimfire cartridge magazines. The Charger pistol, on the other hand, has a very definite cartridge magazine capacity limit of 10 or less. That the magazines of one will fit the other is at the heart of the matter.
The Ruger 10-22 rifle has been in existence since the 1960s, and is one of the most popular .22 calibre rifles ever manufactured. There are probably tens of thousands, or more, of them in Canada. Cartridge magazines with capacities of 10, 25, or more cartridges for this rifle have been readily available in Canada for decades. And, importantly, these magazines were specifically manufactured to fit the 10-22 rifle. The Charger pistol did not appear until the latter part of the first decade of the new millennium; some 40 years after the release of the 10-22 rifle. How then, can the RCMP claim the 10+ cartridge capacity magazines for the 10-22 rifle were also made for the Charger? How is it possible to design something for that which does not exist? How is it logically possible to say that all 10+ cartridge capacity magazines for the 10-22 were designed and manufactured for the Charger pistol--for that is what the RCMP are claiming--when the latter was not created until decades after the 10-22's debut?
A more rational assessment of the situation would clearly determine that it is indeed impossible to design something for the non-existent. And furthermore, this same assessment would quickly point to a circumstance where the pistol was later designed to accept the magazines in question. Based on this simple factual analysis, it is clear that the RCMP have come to an incorrect conclusion. What's more, the simple solution of making it clear that use of 10+ capacity magazines in the Charger is a criminal offence, while leaving owners of 10-22 rifles and their magazines, regardless of capacity, alone, presents itself as quite obvious.
Mr. MP, please understand that what the RCMP is doing is unilaterally criminalizing thousands of law abiding citizens, with supreme indifference, over an incorrect opinion. Consider that if there are at least 10s of thousands of 10-22 rifles in Canada, they can be found in homes across the country and across all social strata, in concert with unknown thousands or even millions of 10+ cartridge capacity magazines that have been legally purchased since the 1970s. If these magazines constitute the grave public safety risk that the RCMP are now claiming they do, why have we not heard of any documented incidents where they were used criminally in life threatening situations? And furthermore, why are the RCMP only acting on this now, when their concurrent claim is that the magazines in question have always been prohibited under the Firearms Act? If they are so dangerous, should they not have been considered the same public and officer safety threat in 1996, as they are now in 2016? And if so, why has the RCMP knowingly allowed the import, sale, distribution and use of such "dangerous" devices until now? Taken together, the answers to my questions point to a deliberate attempt to "crack down" yet again on the law abiding gun owners of Canada.
Finally, Mr. MP, I ask that you and the Liberal Party of Canada work together with Canada's recreational firearms community to find the right solution to this problem I have outlined, and refrain from isolating and criminalizing untold thousands of hard working Canadians over what the RCMP have unilaterally taken it upon themselves to impose on your fellow Canadians.
Sincerely,
Me.
Reply With Quote
