AR-15 belt-fed upper

nairbg said:
My wrong, what?

Without being an asshat, I'd appreciate the full reference.
Click to expand...

PART 4
PROHIBITED DEVICES

(f) is of the "belt" type consisting of a fabric or metal belt, is not a reproduction and was originally designed or manufactured for the purpose of feeding cartridges into a automatic firearm of a type that was in existence before 1945.

http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/C-46/SOR-98-462/82866.html
 
Thank you! But you are quoting:

PART 4
PROHIBITED DEVICES

Former Prohibited Weapons Order, No. 9


Former Cartridge Magazine Control Regulations


3.(2) Paragraph (1)(a) does not include any cartridge magazine that.....

(f) is of the "belt" type consisting of a fabric or metal belt, is not a reproduction and was originally designed or manufactured for the purpose of feeding cartridges into a automatic firearm of a type that was in existence before 1945.

Which is the first of 4 paragraphs describing exemptions to Paragraph 1.

Your arguement presumes that a disintegrating link belt is considered a "cartridge magazine".

Not withstanding a previous discussion, not yet referenced, I can find no reference that defines the disintegrating link belt as a magazine. The most common definition I have found being something like; A compartment in some types of firearms, often a small detachable box, in which cartridges are held to be fed into the firing chamber. The operative word seeming to be "compartment".

Is there some official Department of Justice definition of "magazine" that obviates my arguement?
 
Last edited:
nairbg said:
Thank you! But you are quoting:

PART 4
PROHIBITED DEVICES

Former Prohibited Weapons Order, No. 9


Former Cartridge Magazine Control Regulations


3.(2) Paragraph (1)(a) does not include any cartridge magazine that.....

(f) is of the "belt" type consisting of a fabric or metal belt, is not a reproduction and was originally designed or manufactured for the purpose of feeding cartridges into a automatic firearm of a type that was in existence before 1945.

Which is the first of 4 paragraphs describing exemptions to Paragraph 1.

Your arguement presumes that a disintegrating link belt is considered a "cartridge magazine".

Not withstanding a previous discussion, not yet referenced, I can find no reference that defines the disintegrating link belt as a magazine. The most common definition I have found being something like; A compartment in some types of firearms, often a small detachable box, in which cartridges are held to be fed into the firing chamber. The operative word seeming to be "compartment".

Is there some official Department of Justice definition of "magazine" that obviates my arguement?
Click to expand...


The fact that the belt disentegrates as it is used up would be irrelevant, much like the fact that nobody has been charged for having a full capacity magazine as a parts kit. The fact that they exempt certain belts is a pretty strong indication that they consider a loaded belt to be a form of a magazine. Remember that their intention is to limit semi-automatic guns to 5 rounds (10 for pistol) with the allowance for a couple of historic guns (pre 45 belt fed, some drum fed) as well as for some more common guns (M1 Garands and early Enfields, which share their magazine with a F/A version)
Sure, a lot of the gun laws are vague and poorly written, and you might be able to beat them in a court of law, but is it really worth a lot of your money to try and do so?
 
stencollector said:
Sure, a lot of the gun laws are vague and poorly written, and you might be able to beat them in a court of law, but is it really worth a lot of your money to try and do so?
Click to expand...

Probably not, but I am just looking for a little clarity on this issue, if there is some. Reason being, I have heard conflicting opinions (which is a huge surprise in this group!!) on this issue, from persons to whom I would attribute some expertise.
 
"any cartridge magazine that.....is of the "belt" type consisting of a fabric or metal belt"
There, I've attached the two portions of the exemption. I think that makes it pretty clear whether or not a belt is considered a magazine in the eyes of federal government. Just because it disentegrates after it is used would not matter to this exemption, nor to the regulation. It would be likely that the mere attachment of 6 rounds of .308 onto the current issue .308 disentegrating links would be in contravention of the law. Put them into a cloth belt that is origional and made for a gun in existance before 1945, and you'd be OK. Even if the gun you are feeding them into was made after 45, cause the exemption is for the belt, not for the gun.
 
Thank you for your personal opinion........... this adds you to the list of "persons to whom I would attribute some expertise".

Now all I need is a reference to an official interpretation, if there is such a thing.
 
If the plain English language in the exemption won't convince you, then call this number: 1-800-731-4000 and ask them. For a more direct route call (613) 991-2383 and talk to the technical advisors. Others already have.
If you want to read some of the earlier threads on this subject, try the search function.
I've never heard of anyone getting charged for a belt of any length, but just know that the possibility exists. And if you've shelled out the money for a semi-auto 1919 or a shrike upper, you don't want to add the loss of them to your legal fees.
At this point in time, there are only a few guns (namely the Enfields, Garands, Lugers, and the semi-auto manufactured belt fed guns like the M2, the M1919s, and the MG34s) which will benefit from the magazine cartridge exemptions. The majority of the guns that were apllicable to the exempted fullcapacity magazines (either drum or belt) were effectively nuetered with the lack of SAPs allowing them to go to the ranges.
 
Last edited:
matt%20e.jpg

xmg99.1.jpg

xmgross.jpg

xmg.ht1.jpg

scope7.jpg

xmgscope22.jpg

xmgscope23.jpg

onAA1.jpg

c21.jpg.jpg

41801test.jpg

prone.jpg
 
nairbg said:
My research reveals that a disintegrating link belt is not considered a magazine,

but only as individual rounds traveling in tight formation.
Click to expand...

So, nairbg, have you researched this any further? Have you called the techs?
Inquireing minds want to know.

By the way, Marstar, who could be considered to be somewhat knowledgeable regarding firearms, and the laws in Canada, give this warning on their website:

Warning for Canadian semi/full-auto MG Owners: Maximum legal belt/link length varies depending upon such factors as the calibre of ammunition and make/model of gun. We strongly recommend clients check with the CFC or their CFO for regulations affecting their gun(s) BEFORE assembling any belts or links.
Click to expand...
 
Nobody truly knows the answer to this question. Marstar is covering their ass. The CFC or your CFO can't even give you a definitive answer, because this is a law, not a regulation. The law is unclear, and thus the only way to find out for sure is to get charged and have a judge rule on it. Aren't our gun laws wonderful?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom