Maybe it's me who should stop feeding you.
So you are saying on an open forum that only 30% of the magazines you inspected at a local gun store met the modification requirements wirtten in the regulations to limit a magazine to 5 or 10 as the case may be? You are then using that finding, as some sort of proof that buying magazines that you KNOW do not meet the regulations, and thus are prohibited devices, is ok because the police havent cared yet so carry on? Great legal advise.
The liberals just fulfilled their promise to provide hundreds of millions to police that is supposed to go directly to guns and gangs initiatives... amd we all know where the majority of that ends up... and its not against the gangs.
You then bring up what you perceive to be further unlawful actions regarding registration certificates and restricted firearm possession and transporting. Somehow this too is supposed to further your argument that breaking the regulations is ok and because it happens everyday carry on?
Despite what many commenting here think, I am not a "quisling" and have no interest in doing anything outside this thread to bring any light on these mags that could cause grief to who Im sure is a decent store owner. Why suggest that I do?
You think Im unfamiliar with the Charter and its protections, and you couldnt be further from the truth. I hit court about once a week to testify at charter motions brought by defence.
You continually try to lead me down rabit holes and down garden pathways, defence lawyer tactics that detract from main issues. Im not going to discuss airsoft or its laws.
You also totally missed my point about the RCMP bulletins. Yes i agress they are not law, I agree they are not binding on any judge. What they are though are guides written by lawyers and officers with the Canadian Firearms Program designed to assist individuals and officers about a certain topic. The same lawyers and officers who will instruct crowns and provide expert witnesses at trial. What that means is that yes, a judge COULD disagree with the bulletin, its the officer investigating you before you even get there who will use it as factual at the time.
Theres plenty of instances where an officer could legally end up inspecting these from anyone who possesses them.
So yes, maybe these mags go unoticed just like the rest of the ones that you state do not meet the regulatory requirements preventing them from being prohibited, but dont go telling the people here they are legal and meet the reuirements at the same time.
So you are saying on an open forum that only 30% of the magazines you inspected at a local gun store met the modification requirements wirtten in the regulations to limit a magazine to 5 or 10 as the case may be? You are then using that finding, as some sort of proof that buying magazines that you KNOW do not meet the regulations, and thus are prohibited devices, is ok because the police havent cared yet so carry on? Great legal advise.
The liberals just fulfilled their promise to provide hundreds of millions to police that is supposed to go directly to guns and gangs initiatives... amd we all know where the majority of that ends up... and its not against the gangs.
You then bring up what you perceive to be further unlawful actions regarding registration certificates and restricted firearm possession and transporting. Somehow this too is supposed to further your argument that breaking the regulations is ok and because it happens everyday carry on?
Despite what many commenting here think, I am not a "quisling" and have no interest in doing anything outside this thread to bring any light on these mags that could cause grief to who Im sure is a decent store owner. Why suggest that I do?
You think Im unfamiliar with the Charter and its protections, and you couldnt be further from the truth. I hit court about once a week to testify at charter motions brought by defence.
You continually try to lead me down rabit holes and down garden pathways, defence lawyer tactics that detract from main issues. Im not going to discuss airsoft or its laws.
You also totally missed my point about the RCMP bulletins. Yes i agress they are not law, I agree they are not binding on any judge. What they are though are guides written by lawyers and officers with the Canadian Firearms Program designed to assist individuals and officers about a certain topic. The same lawyers and officers who will instruct crowns and provide expert witnesses at trial. What that means is that yes, a judge COULD disagree with the bulletin, its the officer investigating you before you even get there who will use it as factual at the time.
Theres plenty of instances where an officer could legally end up inspecting these from anyone who possesses them.
So yes, maybe these mags go unoticed just like the rest of the ones that you state do not meet the regulatory requirements preventing them from being prohibited, but dont go telling the people here they are legal and meet the reuirements at the same time.
Last edited:
