beowulf magazine

[fenceline]

DOJ and what other department?

Cbsa.

[fenceline]

I am not afraid of their opinion. That being said, if their opinion was to change on a subject that would have legal implications on law abiding citizens, they are obligated to inform those who would be affected.

Have you received a letter with regards to a change in laws, regulation or enforcement of both on the issue of Beowulf letters? Has there been a public announcement?

Now I'm not sure in what context are you using the word publish here. Is it in legal or simple colloquial terms? "Use of the FRT Web is limited to individuals who have been authorized by the RCMP."

Does that sound like a public data base to you?

I don't expect you to consider my feelings when making public statements, but perhaps a wiser choice of words would help everyone that is concerned with the issue.

Public in that it is accessable to officers, verifiers and range employees.

Which has been posted here by third parties.

So it is public. And fact that the rcmp have published it somewhere. That being said, published does not equal public. Courts can publish a ruling... and them seal it from public view. Classified documents can be published... and never see the light of day.

Maybe you should be wiser when you read.

I speak truth. It is the rcmp opinion and they have put it in writing. Deal with it however you like.

[Dave P]

Public in that it is accessable to officers, verifiers and range employees.

Which has been posted here by third parties.

So it is public. And fact that the rcmp have published it somewhere. That being said, published does not equal public. Courts can publish a ruling... and them seal it from public view. Classified documents can be published... and never see the light of day.

Maybe you should be wiser when you read.

I speak truth. It is the rcmp opinion and they have put it in writing. Deal with it however you like.

Publish:
To issue for sale or distribution to the public.
To announce formally or officially
Law- to communicate (a defamatory statement) to some person or persons other than the person defamed.
I'd say published does equal public. If its not available to the general public, its not published.

[fenceline]

Publish:
To issue for sale or distribution to the public.
To announce formally or officially

Law- to communicate (a defamatory statement) to some person or persons other than the person defamed.

I'd say published does equal public. If its not available to the general public, its not published.

As per the "law" definition... one person or group can be advised directly without advising the affected party directly.

The RCMP distribute the information, and sell it directly, to a limited audience. In essence you buy it. Just like any other publication that isn't open source.

Do i think it should be more accessible... yes. Does that mean it isn't punlished? No.

Regardless, my point is the RCMP are on record, in the FRT, as saying that their opinion of beowulf mags is that they are a modified 5.56 mag, and must be pinned to 5 rounds of 5.56. This equates to 2 rounds of Beowulf.

Whether or not they are willing to charge someone, go to court, and explain why these are in the country in the first place, and the intitial complicity they had in it... remains to be seen. The nfa and/or cssa have stated they have heard of no charge seizures being directed, and want to know about such situations so that representation can be had at a disposition hearing (which would be required for seizure without charge).

[Brianma65]

So ,do entrapment apply here.

As they state that they were always prohibited.
They then let thousands of people buy prohibited devices,for years.
And now they close the trap.

[Ironheart]

I just love all the crown land In BC all I gotta say.....sick of things legally imported then deemed banned later on

[VinnyQC]

This subject has been beaten to death multiple times.

At the end of the day, the lab, which is made of experts on guns, have given their opinion on the law, not on guns. It's worth about as much as a medical opinion from an electrical engineer, so take it for what it's worth. Buy one, don't buy one, pinned to 5, pinned to 2, it's up to you.

Personnaly, I don't have any of these mags, because I'm perfectly happy with my LAR mags (although I'm the OP requesting those mags, I since have lost any interest in getting any). However, although I don't own any, I believe the 5 rounds are perfectly legal, and would be very confident to win such a case into any court of the country. The fact that no prosecutor has decided to go forward with such cases (although some have been presented) makes me believe they're of the same opinion. I'm not anyones legal consel here, so take my words for what they're worth (which is not much, from your PoV, I'm an anonymous guy on the internet), but the fact remains that given the choice between the legal opinion of all the crown prosecutors in the country or that of a gun lab, I'll take the opinion of the prosecutors.

Anyway the point is moot. Too many bits have been wasted on this subject already.

[VinnyQC]

So ,do entrapment apply here.

As they state that they were always prohibited.
They then let thousands of people buy prohibited devices,for years.
And now they close the trap.

This doesn't even come close to fulfill the requirement for an entrapment defense in this country. The rcmp has sold bomb materials to people and then arrested them for terrorism, and that didn't even en up being entrapment, even though the "terrorists" would never have been able to obtain such materials without the rcmp facilitating the transaction.

Any honorable retailer should offer a refund though.

[TIGERTACTICAL]

^^^ Actually in the case of the RCMP selling bomb materials to that couple in BC, it was ruled entrapment.^^^

[fenceline]

This subject has been beaten to death multiple times.

At the end of the day, the lab, which is made of experts on guns, have given their opinion on the law, not on guns. It's worth about as much as a medical opinion from an electrical engineer, so take it for what it's worth. Buy one, don't buy one, pinned to 5, pinned to 2, it's up to you.

Personnaly, I don't have any of these mags, because I'm perfectly happy with my LAR mags (although I'm the OP requesting those mags, I since have lost any interest in getting any). However, although I don't own any, I believe the 5 rounds are perfectly legal, and would be very confident to win such a case into any court of the country. The fact that no prosecutor has decided to go forward with such cases (although some have been presented) makes me believe they're of the same opinion. I'm not anyones legal consel here, so take my words for what they're worth (which is not much, from your PoV, I'm an anonymous guy on the internet), but the fact remains that given the choice between the legal opinion of all the crown prosecutors in the country or that of a gun lab, I'll take the opinion of the prosecutors.

Anyway the point is moot. Too many bits have been wasted on this subject already.

Expert witness testimony is accepted as fact in court.

There are techs in the lab that have given evidence in court and have been deemed experts.

A good defence would require hiring a legal expert to counter said testimony.

So not quite a medical opinion from an engineer.