22 conversion mag limits?

[JimV]

In the case of magazines built by Black Dog and many others, their AR-22 magazines (for example) were "designed and manufactured" to be used in the AR rifle conversion kits. Since they were designed for rifles they are classified as rifle magazines. It has nothing to do with what they might also fit or might later be used in... the law in this country does NOT regulate the firearm in which the magazine is subsequently used in and RCMP have repeatedly stated that fact.

Same for the 10/22 rifle magazines. They were all designed and manufactured for the 10/22 rifle... the appearance later of a 10/22 pistol would not affect the capacity of 10/22 rifle magazines unless someone designed and manufactured a magazine to be sold with BOTH guns....

Black Dog's rimfire magazines have always been designed and manufactured for rifles (not pistols). They are classified as rim-fire rifle magazines with an unlimited capacity allowance.

Mark

Excellent news if that's how these latest rulings play out.

Permit me to beat on my familiar drum again, however. Since the Chiappa mags were purchased legally and in good faith, fairness should compel the government to reimburse owners or pay for the cost of pinning them in accordance with the retroactive classification. Same as the 1522 mags.

Every owner of either gun/upper should write to Vic Toews (or his successor) demanding compensation.

 

[Questar]

Excellent news if that's how these latest rulings play out.

Permit me to beat on my familiar drum again, however. Since the Chiappa mags were purchased legally and in good faith, fairness should compel the government to reimburse owners or pay for the cost of pinning them in accordance with the retroactive classification. Same as the 1522 mags.

Every owner of either gun/upper should write to Vic Toews (or his successor) demanding compensation.

Actually I don't agree. The magazines were NEVER legal and were NEVER legal for importation. The magazines were NEVER sent to RCMP prior to importation (for review and/or classification). In theory the importer erred by importing them and CBSA erred by allowing them into the country, though they will argue that the magazines were improperly described as "Rim-Fire Rifle magazines" and they incorrectly entered the country.

If anyone is responsible it is the importer and the CBSA, but I seriously doubt CBSA would assume any liability for this. The reality is that the magazine were not legal for importation.

Just because the items made it past CBSA doesn't mean that makes them legal... sorry.

Mark

 

[JimV]

Actually I don't agree. The magazines were NEVER legal and were NEVER legal for importation. The magazines were NEVER sent to RCMP prior to importation (for review and/or classification). In theory the importer erred by importing them and CBSA erred by allowing them into the country, though they will argue that the magazines were improperly described as "Rim-Fire Rifle magazines" and they incorrectly entered the country.

If anyone is responsible it is the importer and the CBSA, but I seriously doubt CBSA would assume any liability for this. The reality is that the magazine were not legal for importation.

Just because the items made it past CBSA doesn't mean that makes them legal... sorry.

Mark

I'm not relying on the exact legal status of the magazines. The issue as I see it is that consumers had every reason to believe they were buying a legal product (since there was no RCMP bulletin to the contrary.) If CBSA and the importer erred, then they, or general government, should bear the financial responsibility. It's an issue of fundamental fairness and is more a political issue than a legal one.

 

[Questar]

I'm not relying on the exact legal status of the magazines. The issue as I see it is that consumers had every reason to believe they were buying a legal product (since there was no RCMP bulletin to the contrary.) If CBSA and the importer erred, then they, or general government, should bear the financial responsibility. It's an issue of fundamental fairness and is more a political issue than a legal one.

I think you may well have an arguement (claim) against the company that sold you the item in the first place, though they will say they were also acting in good faith... they in turn would have a claim against the importer/distributor they purchased the items from.

As for the government... well, good luck with that .

In the end the government appears to be allowing individuals and companies that have the affected magazines pinned so it's not all bad.

This is an unfortunate situation... not because of the direct issues we're seeing from these two magazine rulings (specifically) but because of what I fear it is going to mean in the future.

With everyone #####ing and screaming about the unfairness and "after the fact" ruling, I seriously fear that this will result in RCMP/CFC/CBSA all changing the rules on how new firearms and firearm parts and accessories get imported into and manufactured in this country.

Let us imagine for the moment a hypothetical situation. In order to avoid similar "problems" in the future, what if CBSA refuses to allow entry of ANYTHING firearms related, until the importer (individual or business) has first had the item reviewed and classified/approved by the RCMP lab. No magazines, barrels, handguns, rifles, etc.. EVERYTHING requires a pre-evaluation and classification to rule out any possibility that it MIGHT be somehow interpreted or classified as prohibited from entry or possession.

We are already seeing a backlog of months and in some cases years to get FRT #'s issued and classification rulings on magazines confirmed/issued. In the above hypothetical it would be years getting these reviews and rulings issued... it would literally close the border to just about all importations.

There is no stomach for more hiring or larger budget expenditures so forget about shortening the wait times that way... it would be death by attrition. We wouldn't be able to afford to import stuff anymore, let alone afford the wait periods.

Be careful what you ask for... you may get more than you bargain for. We've already had big changes the past year because of the complaints over after the fact ruling changes on firearms. Add to that accessories and we'll all regret what may happen.

Just my 2 cents worth

Mark

 

[Miltiades]

I agree with Mark. The RCMP is not the real problem here and we got LAR-15 mags that ca easily be pronounced prohibited because they ended up being dual purpose and the lower limit is five, right? We need to have the laws changed to make them more transparent, effective and easy to understand. If the CPC wins a majority, instead of putting all our efforts to scrap the LGR. we should approach the government with proposals to make the gun laws better.

My own 2 cents

 

[heckler]

Time to push for returning mags to their standard capacity as issued and no nuetering. There is no evidence that this measure reduced crime but only that the continued fog in the laws created more criminals. No mag limits would free up scads of time and wasted resources to make the FRT#/classification process move along a bit speedier.It seems funny that we can be trusted with 30rd .22cal. mags yet handguns(10),rifles(5) although both restricted we are not. FUBAR

 

[JimV]

With everyone #####ing and screaming about the unfairness and "after the fact" ruling, I seriously fear that this will result in RCMP/CFC/CBSA all changing the rules on how new firearms and firearm parts and accessories get imported into and manufactured in this country.

Mark

I know, there is the possibility of unintended consequences. But then that has to be balanced against the financial consequences to individuals, the impact on businesses that have invested in a particular product, the inadvertent criminalization of thousands of people (whether or not they're charged) and the general irritation of being screwed around by government. There is no easy answer.

I understand your reservations about complaining. In my view, however, this goes to a very large question of principle: Does the state have the right to confiscate property (or render it functionally unusable by regulation) without offering compensation? I believe it does not. Therefore I believe it is the right and duty of anyone who has been victimized by a retroactive classification to protest. All the more when the state decision effectively criminalizes them.

While you're no doubt correct that no new money is going to be going into the various screening/evaluation agencies, there are still a number of ways the process could be facilitated: target timelines/performance measures, modification of criteria, regulatory amendment, etc. Administrative changes like this don't necessarily cost money. So why aren't they done?

The answer is that politicians are either ignorant of or indifferent to firearms issues. The useless twaddle Vic Toews has sent to complainants perfectly exemplifies that. One way to get their attention is to demand compensation. (Of course I'm assuming a government that is not openly hostile to firearms. In that case we've got nothing.)

I'm also of the opinion that trying to fly beneath the radar is a poor long term strategy relative to firearms rights. The quieter and more compliant we are the easier it is for government to either ignore us or implement even more stringent and arbitrary measures.

 

[JimV]

If the CPC wins a majority, instead of putting all our efforts to scrap the LGR. we should approach the government with proposals to make the gun laws better.

I agree completely. The LGR is a huge waste of money, and rolling it back would also be a symbolic step away from excessive gun regulation. But really, from the perspective of a gun owner it's hardly more than a minor irritation. The real solution is a major revisiting and reform of all the existing firearms legislation.

 

[enefgee]

I agree completely. The LGR is a huge waste of money, and rolling it back would also be a symbolic step away from excessive gun regulation. But really, from the perspective of a gun owner it's hardly more than a minor irritation. The real solution is a major revisiting and reform of all the existing firearms legislation.

I agree completely, the LGR is barely an inconvenience to me (I've had restricted transfers go through in an hour or so, never mind non-restricted) but some of the "back room crap" allowed by pathetic legal wordings used in the firearms act are (to me) THE major issue in firearms ownership. These need to become the new focus of gun owners in a Conservative majority.