Another RCMP Memo?
- Thread starter mmattockx
- Start date
I'm not sure it's that straightforward. The ruling says "designed or manufactured for use in both rifles and semi automatic handguns." It doesn't speak to the original intent. If a new "handgun" comes along, the RCMP could easily say that a magazine was manufactured for it as well as the rifle.
They base their rulings on slender threads. The 1522 pistol was not released until about a year after the rifle. S&W's web site makes no reference to the magazine being "designed" for both guns. It simply sells them for both guns. However, the RCMP unearthed a Smith catalog whose wording allowed them to decree that the mag was also designed for the pistol.
The Chiappa ruling is even more obscure and mysterious. The Chiappa 28 round mag is now prohibited on the basis that it was also designed for the Chiappa pistol (which must be a truly rare beast - this was the first time I ever heard of it.) But of course the Chiappa upper accepts any .22 AR conversion mag. So does that mean that only Chiappa mags are prohibited, or does that include all the other ones made by various manufacturers? They were not originally designed for the Chiappa pistol but they are certainly manufactured for it in the sense that they fit.
If all third party high cap AR conversion mags are prohibited, then I see nothing whatsoever stopping them from banning 25 rnd Ruger mags on the basis that they're also "manufactured for use" in both rifles and the Charger pistol.
What we have here is a firearms bureaucracy that has lost all sense of acting in the public interest and spends all day, every day, interpreting a vague, poorly worded and absurd set of regulations.
And no, as I and others have noted, they won't be notifying owners. They didn't notify 1522 owners and those guns were on the restricted registry. They obviously don't see that as their job. So everyone is on their own lookout.
This whole stinking mess is entirely the responsibility of Vic Toews, who has never lifted a finger to supervise the CFC or inject a trace of common sense into the department or the regulations.
I hope you are right about that, but I'm not entirely confident. Part 4, S.3(1)(b) of the CCC Regs prohibits a magazine:
"that is capable of containing more than 10 cartridges of the type 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."
Note that "originally designed" refers to the type of cartridge it was intended for, not the type of gun. (That's why you can legally load more than 10 9mm in a mag that was originally designed for .40 caliber.)
Note also that the mag is prohibited if "it is designed or manufactured for use in a semi-automatic handgun.." How can we be certain that a mag that fits both a rifle and a handgun is not "manufactured for use" in the latter?
Seems to me that the Chiappa situation will be a test. If the prohibition extends to all third party AR conversion mags, which were clearly designed before AR pistols were created, then the meaning of "manufactured for use" is much broader than before. In that case I don't think high cap mags for Rugers are safe.
Ar180shooter
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- Ottawa, ON
Note ORIGINALLY designed. The BC 10/22 mags were designed and on the market before the Charger was even released, so there's no question as to the legality of them, and any newly designed magazines will be unregulated as long as they are not marked "for Ruger 10/22 Charger".
Where the issues have arisen in the past is with incidences like with the CX4 where the magazines were marked with "CX4 Storm" and not "Beretta 92".
The part you bolded is not what is the concern here, it is the section that reads "that is designed or manufactured for use in a semi-automatic handgun that is commonly available in Canada" that we are concerned with here. Since the BC mags were neither designed nor manufactured for use in a semi-automatic pistol, the restriction of 10 rounds does not apply to them.
As long as the RCMP is running the show, nothing is safe... the real question is "what do we have to fight them with in court". The answer being lots, if it's in regard to the BC 10/22 mags. The reason why the mags for the S&W and the Chiappa were classified the way they were was because (at least for the S&W) they were marketed as being both a rifle and pistol mag.
Read that clause again carefully. The phrase "originally designed" refers to the cartridge for which the magazines were designed, not the gun. In other words, the magazine can't hold more than 10 of, say, 9mm if it was originally designed to hold 9mm. If it was designed to hold .40 but 13 9mm will fit it, that's OK.
Yes, I agree that is the critical clause. Trouble is, there's nothing there, the way I read it, that exempts the magazine from prohibition just because it appeared before the handgun.
When a handgun is released that will accept an already available magazine you can probably make the case that it was not "designed" for the handgun. (Unlike the 1522 case where the same manufacturer designed the rifle, the pistol and the magazine.)
However, the clause includes the phrase "or manufactured for use" in a hand gun. That's why the Chiappa issue is important. If only the Chiappa mag is prohibited, then it's pretty much the same situation as the 1522. However, if the ruling extends to third party AR conversion mags that were designed before the existence of any AR pistol, are not marketed as pistol mags and do not say "pistol" on them, then the only reason they could be prohibited is that they are deemed "manufactured for use" in a hand gun (basically, just because the fit.)
In that case I don't see why high cap mags that fit Ruger Chargers would not fall into the same prohibited category. Carrying this to its logical conclusion, any high cap mag would be prohibited if and when a handgun appeared that would accept it. (I hope I'm being paranoid here and would be grateful if you could point out any flaws in my logic.)
Too true, about the RCMP. Changing the regs would be a much better solution than fighting the interpretation of the existing regs in court. Court would be really expensive and a loss would lock in the existing system forever.
BTW, were you aware of the existence of this Chiappa "pistol?" I never heard of it before and don't see it on their web site. At the very least it is not "commonly available in Canada" as the reg requires.
Ar180shooter
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- Ottawa, ON
Basically... they're not stupid... they know what they can get away with, and what they can't.
I wish the RCMP would go solve some real crimes, what a waste of taxpayers dollars.
Almost 50 posts again almost 7 different interpretations of what the letter says. I laugh at the "ignorance is no excuse" cliché because NO ONE knows all of the laws and rules on the books. This is by design, it keeps judges, lawyers, police and government representatives employed. We get the short end because police ignorance of the law allows them to charge whomever with whatever, our ignorance of the laws require us to waste large sums of money and time defending ourselves from corrupt and unjust laws and rules.
Almost 50 posts again almost 7 different interpretations of what the letter says. I laugh at the "ignorance is no excuse" cliché because NO ONE knows all of the laws and rules on the books. This is by design, it keeps judges, lawyers, police and government representatives employed. We get the short end because police ignorance of the law allows them to charge whomever with whatever, our ignorance of the laws require us to waste large sums of money and time defending ourselves from corrupt and unjust laws and rules.
This is so confusing. I went to wholesale today and i spoke to one of the salesman there. He said that they received memo from rcmp about 1022 mag (25 rounds) so they have pulled them of the shelves. 3 days later Wholesale staff received 2-nd memo about these same mags reversing the 1st memo. So those mags are back on shelves. Looks like nobody know what is going on.
Here is a suggestion.
If someone has a good conservative MP in their riding, bring up the issue to them. This is what they are for!!! Make sure to explain all the "why" and details. The 10/22 is one of the most popular rimfire rifles around and what kind of issues this ruling does to the very large number of owners.
I'm stuck with a Lieberal in my riding...
If someone has a good conservative MP in their riding, bring up the issue to them. This is what they are for!!! Make sure to explain all the "why" and details. The 10/22 is one of the most popular rimfire rifles around and what kind of issues this ruling does to the very large number of owners.
I'm stuck with a Lieberal in my riding...
Ar180shooter
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- Ottawa, ON
What's their source for that?
Checking the RCMP bulletins to businesses only states that the Chiappa and S&W mags are limited to 10 rounds.
thebutcher
CGN Regular
- Location
- Calgary, Alberta
Okay I know some people are gonna call me dumb for asking but,
I have read all the posts here and read the Special Bulletin #72, and am trying to get ahold of someone in maramachi to verify this info but (apparently they are closed right now,- at 1155 AM their time.)
Are the butler creek 10/22 mags (25rnds) no Prohibited or not?
I see both opinions and wanted to clarify after readin so much confusion (both form the Special bulletin and form others here.
A clear answer (Yes or No) would be great.
I have read all the posts here and read the Special Bulletin #72, and am trying to get ahold of someone in maramachi to verify this info but (apparently they are closed right now,- at 1155 AM their time.)
Are the butler creek 10/22 mags (25rnds) no Prohibited or not?
I see both opinions and wanted to clarify after readin so much confusion (both form the Special bulletin and form others here.
A clear answer (Yes or No) would be great.
Originally Posted by JimV View Post
Read that clause again carefully. The phrase "originally designed" refers to the cartridge for which the magazines were designed, not the gun. In other words, the magazine can't hold more than 10 of, say, 9mm if it was originally designed to hold 9mm. If it was designed to hold .40 but 13 9mm will fit it, that's OK.
Yes, I know that, but that has never been the issue here... so why discuss it?
I only bring it up because many posters mistakenly believe that if a mag was originally designed for a rifle, but turns out to fit in a pistol, it is automatically exempt from prohibition. As we know, that is not necessarily the case, because the "or manufactured for use" clause also applies.
But if the same magazine was in production by a third party and before the handgun came out, can you really argue that it was designed and/or manufactured for a handgun? No. Also, the original letter that we are talking about does not say that the Ruger mags are prohibited... and any talk about them going prohibited is pure speculation!!!
I certainly wouldn't argue that. It clearly makes no sense. However, a lot of RCMP classification decisions employ a tortured logic that also doesn't make any sense (in part because the law itself is nonsensical.)
As I said before, the test is non-Chiappa AR conversion mags. If they are deemed to be prohibited too, then the various high cap Ruger mags fall into the same category. Yes, this is all speculation. However, based on reports from other posters it appears that businesses are already doing things based on this speculation - pinning AR mags, withdrawing Ruger mags, etc. Hopefully it will turn out to be a false alarm.
Because it does not matter what firearm the magazine fits in to... only what firearm the magazine is designed and/or manufactured for. The 10/22 has been out for too long and there are way too many out there... the RCMP know this... and they know that if they start deciding that 10/22 mags are prohibited, a massive lawsuit challenging the decision would follow (one which they know they would likely loose).
I'd be careful about ascribing this degree of calculation to the RCMP. I've had some contact with the head of the classification section and my distinct impression is that he could care less about the political/legal/financial fallout of his decisions. He sees his role as determining the requirements set out in the black letter of the CCC Regs and acting accordingly. Everything beyond that is a decision for the politicians.
Basically... they're not stupid... they know what they can get away with, and what they can't.
No, they're not stupid. But they're very narrowly focused bureaucrats who concentrate only on technical interpretation. If that results in a court case they will simply say they were doing their job and if somebody wants to change the law then take it up with the politicians.
Which is why the only route to getting any sensible changes to the regs (and other firearms law) is through Rip Van Toews and his colleagues.
Read that clause again carefully. The phrase "originally designed" refers to the cartridge for which the magazines were designed, not the gun. In other words, the magazine can't hold more than 10 of, say, 9mm if it was originally designed to hold 9mm. If it was designed to hold .40 but 13 9mm will fit it, that's OK.
Yes, I know that, but that has never been the issue here... so why discuss it?
I only bring it up because many posters mistakenly believe that if a mag was originally designed for a rifle, but turns out to fit in a pistol, it is automatically exempt from prohibition. As we know, that is not necessarily the case, because the "or manufactured for use" clause also applies.
But if the same magazine was in production by a third party and before the handgun came out, can you really argue that it was designed and/or manufactured for a handgun? No. Also, the original letter that we are talking about does not say that the Ruger mags are prohibited... and any talk about them going prohibited is pure speculation!!!
I certainly wouldn't argue that. It clearly makes no sense. However, a lot of RCMP classification decisions employ a tortured logic that also doesn't make any sense (in part because the law itself is nonsensical.)
As I said before, the test is non-Chiappa AR conversion mags. If they are deemed to be prohibited too, then the various high cap Ruger mags fall into the same category. Yes, this is all speculation. However, based on reports from other posters it appears that businesses are already doing things based on this speculation - pinning AR mags, withdrawing Ruger mags, etc. Hopefully it will turn out to be a false alarm.
Because it does not matter what firearm the magazine fits in to... only what firearm the magazine is designed and/or manufactured for. The 10/22 has been out for too long and there are way too many out there... the RCMP know this... and they know that if they start deciding that 10/22 mags are prohibited, a massive lawsuit challenging the decision would follow (one which they know they would likely loose).
I'd be careful about ascribing this degree of calculation to the RCMP. I've had some contact with the head of the classification section and my distinct impression is that he could care less about the political/legal/financial fallout of his decisions. He sees his role as determining the requirements set out in the black letter of the CCC Regs and acting accordingly. Everything beyond that is a decision for the politicians.
Basically... they're not stupid... they know what they can get away with, and what they can't.
No, they're not stupid. But they're very narrowly focused bureaucrats who concentrate only on technical interpretation. If that results in a court case they will simply say they were doing their job and if somebody wants to change the law then take it up with the politicians.
Which is why the only route to getting any sensible changes to the regs (and other firearms law) is through Rip Van Toews and his colleagues.
Weapontech
CGN frequent flyer
- Location
- On my way to Hell in a handbasket
Wow.....
Yet another RCMP fiasco as a result of questionable interpretation of an ambiguious law. This $hit makes my head hurt.....
As for my own interpretation - I see this whole ordeal fucusing on mags specifically fabricated to interchange between a specific model of rifle & handgun. I don't see any correlation anywhere that takes it beyond that.
The RCMP's second memo probably had to clarify that exact point, after their first memo made it appear every mag over 10 was included.
I can't stand that the RCMP are being given free-reign to decide what can be, or not while seemingly ignoring specifics of the law.
They don't appear to be accountable to anyone as they create this bull$hit.
Good gawd, a CPC majority please....please.
Glockster Dude
Regular
I just called reliable gun in Vancouver and they said that the Ruger Charger is not classified as a pistol but in fact a restricted long gun (looks short though lol). Therefore if the Charger is considered a rifle the new rule doesn't seem to apply here.
Now this is just what they said, I'm not sure if its correct. Just thought I would throw it out there.
I just bought a 1022 with a 25 round mag as well as a tapco stock. I sure hope the rules don't change. Being a gun owner is very stressful, I'm not gonna lie.
Now this is just what they said, I'm not sure if its correct. Just thought I would throw it out there.
I just bought a 1022 with a 25 round mag as well as a tapco stock. I sure hope the rules don't change. Being a gun owner is very stressful, I'm not gonna lie.
Glockster Dude
Regular
The CPC says the Charger is classified as a pistol so so much for that.
I asked her specifically about the ruger 1022 and the 25 round mags. She said that they are not prohibited at all. Perfectly legal.
25 round mag in a 1022 = legal
25 round mag in a charger pistol = illegal
She said that because the mags are aftermarket and were "probably" designed for the rifle its ok and won't be banned. I asked what if its advertised for pistol and rifle and she said that it would be "looked at".
Now typically I don't trust the answers I get from these people. But she knew a lot just off the top of her head. I didn't have to wait while she researched answers. She knew about the case of the M&P 1522 mags, the Chippa mfour as well. She even brought up the CXstorm or whatever.
I'm gonna just relax and enjoy my rifle until I hear something official otherwise.
http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/cfp-pcaf/bulletins/bus-ent/20110323-72-eng.htm
I asked her specifically about the ruger 1022 and the 25 round mags. She said that they are not prohibited at all. Perfectly legal.
25 round mag in a 1022 = legal
25 round mag in a charger pistol = illegal
She said that because the mags are aftermarket and were "probably" designed for the rifle its ok and won't be banned. I asked what if its advertised for pistol and rifle and she said that it would be "looked at".
Now typically I don't trust the answers I get from these people. But she knew a lot just off the top of her head. I didn't have to wait while she researched answers. She knew about the case of the M&P 1522 mags, the Chippa mfour as well. She even brought up the CXstorm or whatever.
I'm gonna just relax and enjoy my rifle until I hear something official otherwise.
http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/cfp-pcaf/bulletins/bus-ent/20110323-72-eng.htm
