.22 mag limit?????

madmac

madmac

CGN Regular
Rating - 100%
13   0   0
Location
cape breton ns-esquimalt bc-halifax ns
can somebody set me strait, I am admittedly out of date on this, but I thought .22 mags were limited to 10 rounds around 3 years ago??? maybe it was just a rumor but I would like to know for certain.

what got me thinking is I just tripped over a 100 plus mag at cabelas???
https://www.cabelas.ca/product/134722/gsg-16-110-round-drum-magazine
 
madmac said:
can somebody set me strait, I am admittedly out of date on this, but I thought .22 mags were limited to 10 rounds around 3 years ago??? maybe it was just a rumor but I would like to know for certain.

what got me thinking is I just tripped over a 100 plus mag at cabelas???
https://www.cabelas.ca/product/134722/gsg-16-110-round-drum-magazine
Click to expand...

What you're thinking of only applied to the 10/22, because 10/22 mags also fit the Ruger Charger pistol. As long as there isn't a pistol variant then there is no magazine limit.
 
Suther said:
What you're thinking of only applied to the 10/22, because 10/22 mags also fit the Ruger Charger pistol. As long as there isn't a pistol variant then there is no magazine limit.
Click to expand...

I have no idea what you’re talking about. Surely, if my legally purchased property had been suddenly deemed a prohibited device, I would have received a registered letter from the RCMP or CFO informing me that if I happened to own such a product, it’s status had been changed and I could turn it in for appropriate financial compensation. But alas, the mail box sits empty. Oh well. Off to the range I go.
 
wow, that's so ####ed up, even for Canada!!!!

but ok, thanks for sorting that out for me.

but you have to wonder in our ban happy country, would it not have been more ban efficient to ban say a couple hundred ruger chargers, vs making a fun gun mag prohibited and tracking down maybe a couple thousand of them?
 
kodiakjack said:
I have no idea what you’re talking about. Surely, if my legally purchased property had been suddenly deemed a prohibited device, I would have received a registered letter from the RCMP or CFO informing me that if I happened to own such a product, it’s status had been changed and I could turn it in for appropriate financial compensation. But alas, the mail box sits empty. Oh well. Off to the range I go.
Click to expand...

Because they sent out registered mail to everyone with a cz858 or SAN rifle 5 years ago when those got banned... Ignorance of the law is not a valid defense.

(and yes I'm well aware you're being facetious)
 
madmac said:
wow, that's so ####ed up, even for Canada!!!!

but ok, thanks for sorting that out for me.

but you have to wonder in our ban happy country, would it not have been more ban efficient to ban say a couple hundred ruger chargers, vs making a fun gun mag prohibited and tracking down maybe a couple thousand of them?
Click to expand...

They're not tracking down any mags. They're not even charging people that get caught with them. Confiscation only (unless there are other things to charge them with). They know this will have a hard time holding up in court so they're not letting it get there.
 
madmac said:
but you have to wonder in our ban happy country, would it not have been more ban efficient to ban say a couple hundred ruger chargers, vs making a fun gun mag prohibited and tracking down maybe a couple thousand of them?
Click to expand...

Whoever said rational, level headed logic ever played a role in Canadian firearms laws? Their logic is simple: why make only a couple hundred law-abiding citizens miserable, when you could make several hundred thousand miserable? Malicious intent is behind everything the politicians do.
 
Suther said:
They're not tracking down any mags. They're not even charging people that get caught with them. Confiscation only (unless there are other things to charge them with). They know this will have a hard time holding up in court so they're not letting it get there.
Click to expand...

If they take my mags and won’t take me to court for it, I’ll sue them, and take THEIR asses to court. Not that I’m going out of my way to be a legal precedent poster boy, mind you. I’d much rather just carry on as normal. But if it goes that way, it won’t be without a fight! (In a courtroom only... so we’re clear.)
 
kodiakjack said:
If they take my mags and won’t take me to court for it, I’ll sue them, and take THEIR asses to court. Not that I’m going out of my way to be a legal precedent poster boy, mind you. I’d much rather just carry on as normal. But if it goes that way, it won’t be without a fight! (In a courtroom only... so we’re clear.)
Click to expand...

You'll sue them for confiscating a prohibited device? Have you talked to a lawyer who will take such a case? I'm genuinely curious I'm not trying to be a #### this time.
 
Suther said:
You'll sue them for confiscating a prohibited device? Have you talked to a lawyer who will take such a case? I'm genuinely curious I'm not trying to be a #### this time.
Click to expand...

They are not charging people because the law never changed and they are still legal.

Shawn
 
kodiakjack said:
Exactly. Unless they can point to a law prohibiting them, they’re f****d. Interpretations are not laws.
Click to expand...

Well obviously they would point to the law that they changed their interpretation on, and say that due to the existence of a pistol that is designed to take 10/22 mags, any 10/22 mags are designed for both the pistol and the rifle. I know all about the dates, and how illogical their interpretation is (how can something designed/manufactured for decades before the charger ever existed be designed/manufactured for the charger), but if it suing is an option why did the gun orgs fail?

Besides, isn't the charger pistol and 10/22 the same action with different stocks? So technically the charger isn't really a new design? It seems to me that there are enough twists and turns with this that a judge could very well agree with the RCMP's interpretation - at minimum it doesn't seem like a slam dunk to me.

And what if you win? They give you $25 for your mag after you spend thousands on a lawyer? Can you also sue for legal fees at the same time?
 
Last edited:
You cant design a mag for a gun that wont exist for 30 years

Sorry the law remains unchanged. There is a reason they refuse to charge anyone, they know it wont stand up in court

Shawn
 
Suther said:
You'll sue them for confiscating a prohibited device? Have you talked to a lawyer who will take such a case? I'm genuinely curious I'm not trying to be a #### this time.
Click to expand...
As long as the lawyer gets paid, he will argue anything. No such thing as bad publicity
 
Remington came out with a inserts into where the standard 10/22 mag would go and adapts it to take remington 597 mags so you can purchase drums and monkey clips
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom