10/30 AR mags

Well Barton's is sold out of the 10/30 Hexmags now... time to move onto to the next controversial topic.

Dunno why we have to keep beating that dead horse every single time a magazine capacity topic comes around. Some folks always need to justify their purchases, some always need to justify their interpretation of the law, some just want to police everyone under the guise of doing the community a service. I figure everyone here is old enough (physically at least) to do their homework and make an adult decision and live with the consequences of that decision.
 
Runningfool said:
Precisely.



No, Tinkerbell is right on the mark. It is quislings like a few in this thread that are doing the RCMPs job of disarming us and of having us live in fear.
Click to expand...

Sure man, go buy some and enjoy them. You have no idea how wrong your comment about me is though.

Today is a great climate to test mag limits in Canada.
 
Trinimon said:
Well Barton's is sold out of the 10/30 Hexmags now... time to move onto to the next controversial topic.

Dunno why we have to keep beating that dead horse every single time a magazine capacity topic comes around. Some folks always need to justify their purchases, some always need to justify their interpretation of the law, some just want to police everyone under the guise of doing the community a service. I figure everyone here is old enough (physically at least) to do their homework and make an adult decision and live with the consequences of that decision.
Click to expand...

Well said ^^^
 
Paul_1982 said:
Today is a great climate to test mag limits in Canada.
Click to expand...

It is! Lets get some clarity for crying out loud! If our legally purchased magazines are decided by a judge/court to be prohib devices then at least we will know where we stand! If that turns out to be the case then I will promptly stop using and destroy my magazines...the quislings might as well just take a hammer to them now because they essentially have already done so.
 
Paul_1982 said:
Right off the hop, again, you mention the need of having a good lawyer... why would that be? Your whole argument revolves around the "who me?" defence. It's absurd and is not good advise to those who will listen to someone like you and go and buy these.

You define the word carbine, both of which indicate RIFLE, and then state that doesn't apply.. how so? We are specifically talking about a pistol magazine, no? Its either a pistol magazine designed or manufactured for use in a pistol commonly available in Canada, allowing 10 rounds, or it isn't. The fact that right in the definition of its label indicates it could be for a rifle seems troubling to say it is that, no?

You state you don't care what the definition is, because YOU don't have to prove anything.

Ok, here's the crowns case. Definition of carbine=rifle. This is a pistol carbine magazine, therefore at the VERY LEAST, is a dual purpose magazine, meaning limited to 5 rounds. Easy no? That's just the tip of what their arguments could be.

You should know that which rifle or pistol a specific magazine is designed or manufactured for means EVERYTHING in our laws. Hence why some .22lr magazines may look like a duck and talk like a duck, but has to be labelled on the packaging for a penguin or it's limited to 10 rounds. I have a HK G36 in .22lr... the HK mags must be at 10, but the Colt M4 .22lr mags are ok at more than 10. They both look and function the same, but because one was designed or manufactured for a rifle that also happens to have a pistol variant that is commonly available in Canada, it has to be 10 rounds. The same applies to every magazine., including this one.

Just because a magazine fits and functions in a certain firearm, the real issue is what firearm that magazine was originally designed or manufactured for... that's what gave us the 10 round loophole in the first place.

You mention the crown needing to prove the magazine was designed or manufactured for use in something other than the LAR15... ok.. here you go:
View attachment 130138

Right from the manufacturers website, its for an M4, M16 or AR15.... You say a good question for the crown or judge.... sure, because that's where we want this to go, right?

Anyway, I'm sure you will reply with something along the lines of, this is irrelevant etc... but then you always fall back on playing innocent while the crown proves your fault. I think that in itself is a DANGEROUS attitude towards our gun laws, that may place people in spots financially they wished they weren't. But you could always represent them pro-bono?
Click to expand...

I mention a good lawyer because having a bad lawyer never works out well for anyone, and because most of what we are debating has never been in front of a judge, and until it is, all we can do is debate. There is no definitive answer until a judge says so, so that is a stunning lack of case law on this issue, meaning by and large gun owners have been doing nothing about this problem for 20 years and not getting charged.

In the definition of carbine, the examples are an AUTOMATIC rifle, which is not relevant, or a short rifle carried by cavalry, which not being cavalry, is irrelevant.

You completely glazed over the fact that any statutory ambiguity in a criminal try MUST be resolved in favour of the accused.

Your example of a crowns case is flawed. Dual purpose is not defined in law. Dual purpose, specifically admits that a magazine could have multiple legitimate uses. A judge with even a basic understanding of statutory interpretation could not agree that dual use means rifle, because rifle means five rounds, which prohibits the magazine from the other intended use, ie a pistol with 10 rounds. Such an interpretation would be overly restrictive, and would not be permitting an intended and legal use of the magazine as pistol mag, and further would not be granting the benefit of the doubt to the accused.

Further that is merely an argument. Where is the evidence? The mag? It says pistol on it. The package? It says neither. No where on the package does the word pistol or rifle appear. Just calibres, and actions. AR 15, M4, M16s are not exclusively rifle, although obviously most of them are. They are actions, that can be built into either a rifle or pistol, and the magazine is clearly intended for use in either one.

The law is poorly written, and it could only possibly yield poor interpretations. The law never considered whether a mag could fit in multiple types of firearms, and in 1993 when it was written interchangeability of magazines was uncommon.

Your assessment on which firearm a mag is designed for is mostly irrelevant. Asides from the grocery list of exemptions in the magazine regulations naming certain firearms as exempt or subject to some different limit, it doesn't consider the fact that one mag can be built for one purpose, and another magazine of identical design can be built for a different purpose. The law specifically provides for the same design of magazine to be used to manufacture two different mags for two different purposes, or even identical magazines for different purposes.

Mossberg manufacturers both ARs and MVP Bolt Action rifles that take a common magazine. If Mossberg builds a magazine for sale with the MVP rifle, is it an AR mag? No. Its an MVP magazine and being a magazine made for a bolt action rifle, it has an unlimited capacity. Your argument presumes that design is the ONLY consideration, contrary to the law. Design OR Manufacture appears in both the regs for rifles and for handguns. I wish Mossberg would start making 30 round MVP mags and importing them into Canada. It wouldn't matter in the least that the mag fits in an AR.

BOth HK and Colt .22 lr rifles are subject to an unlimited magazine capacity. Any magazine designed OR manufacture for those RIFLES will not have a maximum legal capacity. Certain MAGAZINES, but not all, that have been manufactured for RECEIVERS that have been manufactured in both rifle and pistol configurations have been deemed to be dual use, which is a made up term, and there is absolutely no legal basis for the RCMP to assume dual use automatically should mean the more restrictive capacity, or infers a presumption that any mag manufactured before the first pistol was ever made on that action is somehow a pistol magazine.

Again your arguement of magazines approaches magazines as if there is such thing as a CLASS of magazine, or presumes, erroneously, that because a magazine is of a familiar design, it was therefore designed for all firearms of that type, and not a specific one. Saying that any mag that fits an AR MUST therefore be a rifle mag because the original mag was built for the original rifle is inconsistent with the wording of the law.

Hopefully your shaft is less flaccid than the tip.
 
The vast majority of your long argument directly contradicts the RCMP opinions. You can argue till the cows come home that their opinion is irrelevant, but good luck with that if you see court.

The purpose of this bulletin is to provide greater clarity on the maximum permitted capacity of cartridge magazines designed or manufactured for use in more than one kind of firearm. Note that the maximum permitted capacity of a magazine is determined by the physical characteristics of the firearm it is designed or manufactured for and the type of ammunition for which it is designed. The maximum permitted capacity of the magazine does not depend on the classification of the firearm, nor does the magazine capacity influence the classification of the firearm.
Click to expand...

2. Magazines designed or manufactured for both centrefire calibre rifles and handguns

Magazines designed to contain centrefire cartridges and designed or manufactured for use in a semiautomatic rifle are limited to five cartridges. However, magazines designed to contain centrefire cartridges and designed or manufactured for use in a semiautomatic handgun are limited to 10 cartridges. Magazines designed or manufactured for use in both semiautomatic rifles and semiautomatic handguns are subject to the limit of five cartridges.
Click to expand...

Turns out the laws are overly restrictive, as you pointed out.

So M4, M16's, and AR15's noted on the packaging are ALL pistols in Canada? There's zero chance this is a dual purpose magazine? The magazine HAS to be identified as being designed or manufactured solely for a pistol commonly available in Canada to have 10 rounds. Period. That is why for 10 years the only LAR15 magazines available for sale have been 10 round bodied mags clealry labelled for the LAR15. The RCMP have said its a must. Again, feel free to argue with them or tell others buying these to argue with them should they end up in court or lose theirs to confiscation.

Your use of the dictionary for the word carbine is laughable, you know a judge will never read the definition like that. We both have observed this process before. Common sense is always put into these decisions and the definition clearly indicates, whether carried by cavalry or fully automatic, a carbine is a rifle.

Dual purpose is not defined in the Firearms ACT or Criminal Code when it comes to magazine capacities. It is a commonly used term when dealing with similar matters and has been adopted by the RCMP to describe the differences between requiring 5 or 10 rounds in a magazine. It's is an excellent term to shorten the explanation of the laws as written.

The only way a magazine can hold 10 rounds is for it to be designed or manufactured for a pistol commonly available in Canada. Single purpose.

If it is also designed or manufactured for use in a rifle, it is limited to 5 rounds. Dual purpose. Makes sense right? Pistol+carbine=dual purpose. Let alone LAR15 is not even on the packaging. It could be argued these are single purpose... for rifles Only! The only 10 round Lar15 magazines that can have 10 rounds must be only designed or manufactured for that firearm. Even the mention of a rifle on the packaging or labelling and it is now 5 rounds.

But again, I'm the bad guy for pointing out fun things are still illegal on a public responsible firearms forum. While my opinion on these wouldn't change if discussing this in private, much of my attitude about them would. Anyone who thinks I am the one keeping gun owners down by pointing out the laws on a public forum clearly is blind to how this forum can be used against us.
 
Oh... and as for the removable stopper/plug:
(4) A cartridge magazine described in subsection (1) that has been altered or re-manufactured so that it is not capable of containing more than five or ten cartridges, as the case may be, of the type for which it was originally designed is not a prohibited device as prescribed by that subsection if the modification to the magazine cannot be easily removed and the magazine cannot be easily further altered so that it is so capable of containing more than five or ten cartridges, as the case may be.
Click to expand...

If you can replace the spring... It's a no go. Hence the AT15 floorplate.

You already know about R v. Cancade 2008 so no need to go there.
 
Paul_1982 said:
The vast majority of your long argument directly contradicts the RCMP opinions. You can argue till the cows come home that their opinion is irrelevant, but good luck with that if you see court.





Turns out the laws are overly restrictive, as you pointed out.

So M4, M16's, and AR15's noted on the packaging are ALL pistols in Canada? There's zero chance this is a dual purpose magazine? The magazine HAS to be identified as being designed or manufactured solely for a pistol commonly available in Canada to have 10 rounds. Period. That is why for 10 years the only LAR15 magazines available for sale have been 10 round bodied mags clealry labelled for the LAR15. The RCMP have said its a must. Again, feel free to argue with them or tell others buying these to argue with them should they end up in court or lose theirs to confiscation.

Your use of the dictionary for the word carbine is laughable, you know a judge will never read the definition like that. We both have observed this process before. Common sense is always put into these decisions and the definition clearly indicates, whether carried by cavalry or fully automatic, a carbine is a rifle.

Dual purpose is not defined in the Firearms ACT or Criminal Code when it comes to magazine capacities. It is a commonly used term when dealing with similar matters and has been adopted by the RCMP to describe the differences between requiring 5 or 10 rounds in a magazine. It's is an excellent term to shorten the explanation of the laws as written.

The only way a magazine can hold 10 rounds is for it to be designed or manufactured for a pistol commonly available in Canada. Single purpose.

If it is also designed or manufactured for use in a rifle, it is limited to 5 rounds. Dual purpose. Makes sense right? Pistol+carbine=dual purpose. Let alone LAR15 is not even on the packaging. It could be argued these are single purpose... for rifles Only! The only 10 round Lar15 magazines that can have 10 rounds must be only designed or manufactured for that firearm. Even the mention of a rifle on the packaging or labelling and it is now 5 rounds.

But again, I'm the bad guy for pointing out fun things are still illegal on a public responsible firearms forum. While my opinion on these wouldn't change if discussing this in private, much of my attitude about them would. Anyone who thinks I am the one keeping gun owners down by pointing out the laws on a public forum clearly is blind to how this forum can be used against us.
Click to expand...

Lord have mercy. You have not quoted law. You have quoted legal opinions. Do you have any idea how many times judges have disagreed with the RCMPs legal opinions? The RCMPs legal opinions are overly restricted, and that is by design. Nothing about that opinion constrains a judge into agreeing. And there is a mountain of common law decisions that require a judge to take the opposite approach, which you continue to disregard.

No, M4s, M16s and AR15s are not pistols. They are actions, that can be made into either rifle or pistol. You argue that carbine means rifle. Fine. I concede. Carbines are rifles. Happy. The mag still says pistol on it, and so yes, at worst, it is a dual purpose magazine. There is still no mention in law of dual purpose.

Contrary to your post, the RCMP have not created an excellent term to explain the laws as written. They have CONTRIVED an OPINION to add to the law something very different than what was ever there, that presumes a negative assumption about something that is largely unknowable.

How do you know the law is BS? because the the DUAL USE rule they created isn't even applied consistently. With centre fires they assume dual use are rifle mags, and with rim fire they assume dual use means handgun magazines. You know its a BS rule when they invent a rule and don' even apply their own rule consistently.

The law never originally provided for the same specific magazine to be manufactured for multiple purposes.

As for the whole commonly available thing, are LA15s commonly available? I've never seen one. Not for sale, not at the range. How many need to be in Canada for them to be commonly available? Or is being legal for sale in any gun store in Canada make it commonly available? Is the LAR 15 the only pistol made on an AR receiver?

I can take absolutely any AR in the country and convert it into a handgun with readily available aftermarket parts and have it legally registered as such. Should not that make all AR pistols commonly available?

Commonly available is another term not defined in law, and I would be happy to put both commonly available and dual purpose in front of a judge.
 
Cameron SS said:
Lord have mercy. You have not quoted law. You have quoted legal opinions. Do you have any idea how many times judges have disagreed with the RCMPs legal opinions? The RCMPs legal opinions are overly restricted, and that is by design. Nothing about that opinion constrains a judge into agreeing. And there is a mountain of common law decisions that require a judge to take the opposite approach, which you continue to disregard.

No, M4s, M16s and AR15s are not pistols. They are actions, that can be made into either rifle or pistol. You argue that carbine means rifle. Fine. I concede. Carbines are rifles. Happy. The mag still says pistol on it, and so yes, at worst, it is a dual purpose magazine. There is still no mention in law of dual purpose.

Contrary to your post, the RCMP have not created an excellent term to explain the laws as written. They have CONTRIVED an OPINION to add to the law something very different than what was ever there, that presumes a negative assumption about something that is largely unknowable.

How do you know the law is BS? because the the DUAL USE rule they created isn't even applied consistently. With centre fires they assume dual use are rifle mags, and with rim fire they assume dual use means handgun magazines. You know its a BS rule when they invent a rule and don' even apply their own rule consistently.

The law never originally provided for the same specific magazine to be manufactured for multiple purposes.

As for the whole commonly available thing, are LA15s commonly available? I've never seen one. Not for sale, not at the range. How many need to be in Canada for them to be commonly available? Or is being legal for sale in any gun store in Canada make it commonly available? Is the LAR 15 the only pistol made on an AR receiver?

I can take absolutely any AR in the country and convert it into a handgun with readily available aftermarket parts and have it legally registered as such. Should not that make all AR pistols commonly available?

Commonly available is another term not defined in law, and I would be happy to put both commonly available and dual purpose in front of a judge.
Click to expand...

You may be happy to put dual purpose and commonly available pistols before a judge, but not everyone would.

Again... the biggest reason this magazine is a prohibited device is the easily removed floorplate and the ease of removing the spring and plug/stopper. That right there makes it a prohibited device and case law, and the law as written, says so.

The whole "dual purpose" may very well be a made up RCMP term, but here's the bulletin we all have seen and that I quoted earlier:

http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/cfp-pcaf/bulletins/bus-ent/20110323-72-eng.htm

It's right there on the RCMP Canadian Firearms Program website. These are drafted not just by police officers, but by the legal department of the RCMP and the Canadian Firearms Program and should not be dismissed so easily. Show me a time where one of these bulletins was ignored by a judge.

Your comments about M4's, AR15's and M16's being actions and not rifles don't hold up considering the whole FRT system we have. They are named firearms with differing manufacturers. Heck many are named right in the regulations to make them rrstricted. As is the LAR15... the only AR pistol I know that's been deemed commonly available in Canada by the RCMP lab who creates the FRT's. The laws we have name firearms, not actions.

As a side note, if these are legal as you believe, let's get some bigger distributors involved so we can get them across Canada. Cabelas, Canada Ammo, SFRC, Wolverine could all stock yhese and they'd sell like hot cakes. My guess is a 10 round bodied LAR15 mag would never be sold again!
 
Last edited:
Dual purpose magazines by reading the law... this must be what the RCMP legal read:

Rifle:
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

(i) a semi-automatic handgun that is not commonly available in Canada,

(ii) a semi-automatic firearm other than a semi-automatic handgun,
Click to expand...

Pistol:
(b) that is capable of containing more than 10 cartridges of the type for which the magazine was originally designed and that is designed or manufactured for use in a semi-automatic handgun that is commonly available in Canada.
Click to expand...

If a magazine meets the definition of 3(1)(a)(ii) then it doesn't matter if it also can meet the definition of 3(b)... because once you say it's been manufactured for use in a semi-automatic rifle it's limited to 5 rounds... The law doesn't give a provision to say... ya BUT it can also be for a pistol. It basically is a full stop once 3(1)(a)(ii) is met.
 
TinkerBell said:
what can you say.... he was born in the 80's and never owned firearms before 1996..... he never knew what freedom was
Click to expand...

Very true. I wish things were like they were before the Firearms Act. Does not take away from my point though. Because all I do know is the restrictions imposed by those laws I'm careful to protect what I already have. I'm not, and I'm sure many here are the same, willing to be the guinney pig or the martyr. Let the big distributors do that for us so they can sell them... so far only a very small business has decided to stock these, why not the big guys?

Read R v Cancade... BC 2008 and upheld by BC Court of Appeal in 2011:
https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcpc/d...gZGV2aWNlIiwgbWFnYXppbmUAAAAAAQ&resultIndex=1

Don't worry though, they will never catch you with them right?
www.canadiangunnutz.com/forum/showt...arched-in-quot-drag-net-quot-style-road-check

I also should point out to those who don't know me from previous posts that I am IN law enforcement. You can call me a quisling and a troll all you want but I see the attitude first hand that many officers take towards firearms. I have lengthy debates with my own supervisor who believes all guns should be banned. I NEED to know these laws because if I am with someone who finds one of these magazines I need to know how to best mitigate the situation. I've had to stop guys from seizing Lar15 mags. But ya, I'm the troll here.


There's a reason why you should be cautious in today's climate.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom