LOL...I guess nuance isn’t your thing is it...
beo mags, yes beo mags, what's going on?
- Thread starter chemo
- Start date
LOL...I guess nuance isn’t your thing is it...
There is not tens of thousands of AA beowulf magazines in country.
The only evidence that will mater in court is what AA supplies in regards to the design process of the magazine.
You are assuming the RCMP did not do their due diligence of investigating the design origins before writing what they did in the FRT.
AA is not a Canadian manufacturer, what happened with their product on the Canadian market was an unintended consequence of the adaptation of their design and our laws
If they initially used a 223/556 magazine to design the mag, it never loses that design even if they manufacture their own copy after the fact and label it 50 beowulf.
Just like how a converted automatic is still a prohib no matter how many new parts you slap on it with a different name
Last edited:
The AR magazine was not the first magazine in the world. It does not matter if they did from the ground up, or modified existing.
For all we know, they looked at a PEZ dispenser and thought....Why not bullets?- this is humour and a little bit of sarcasm.
Read the wording of the law.
Sure how about the prohibited weapons order:
•The firearm of the design commonly known as the Armalite AR-180 Sporter carbine, and any variant or modified version of it.
Yet the AR-180b is legal.... even though it is obviously a modified version of the 180.
But still you are focused on the example, and the concept eludes you again...
The AR10 was designed first... the AR15 was based on the design of the AR10... through modification to dimensions, and so on..... the AR15 is a modified (albeit heavily) AR10.
And hey, currently through research and hard work, BCL/NEA convinced the powers that be that the 102 is based on that ever so rare KLM AR10 rifle.... albeit modified quite substantially from its original configuration. Good news for us. (And good Job BCL).
You see Brian, arguing that modification of an existing design isn't enough to be considered a new design, is very flawed logic.
now don't get too hung up on the examples... figure out the concept.
Last edited:
Runningfool
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- SW Ontario
The prohib device charges were never prosecuted, they were dropped. It is painfully obvious you selectively omit many details because they don’t fit your oft trumpeted claim that 5 round beo mags are prohibited devices.
Here are the exact words from the person you are referring to:
” About two weeks ago court finished up with the firearm charges by withdrawing all of them. Unfortunately there is still no precedent set for the two magazines as they were the only two seized items they were firm on not returning. They kept the two mags in exchange for dropping everything including prohib device charges. The crown said in court when withdrawing all the charges that they were still "unclear" if they were legal or not and said that forfeiting the magazines was enough punishment”
See that bolded part? If the crown is unsure if they are legal or not, how is it that you are so certain? You must be very special.
and yes... with very minor modification to the magazine itself, I likely could.
But for that to work I would have to modify the rifle to be chambered in 5.56....
and since I would be manufacturing a magazine to hold more than 5 rounds for the rifle it is designed to function in....it would be illegal.
But for that to work I would have to modify the rifle to be chambered in 5.56....
and since I would be manufacturing a magazine to hold more than 5 rounds for the rifle it is designed to function in....it would be illegal.
Last edited:
They were dropped because he made a deal, how about you highlight the rest of it rather than only what supports your narrative
Where have I said I am sure? It seems others are more sure they are legal by what they are posting, nobody has yet been willing to take it to task though or we would have seen a trial already
Runningfool
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- SW Ontario
He made a deal? They dropped all of the charges and kept 2 of his Beowulf mags.
Let’s make this perfectly clear right now. The deal he made was to forfeit 2 beo mags and in exchange ALL of the firearms charges against him were dropped; not just the prohib device X 2 charges, but the other ones he faced as well.
So in summary, we currently only know of two concrete examples of someone being charged with these mags and in one instance the charges were dropped and the magazines returned and in the other the charges were dropped but the magazines were not returned.
https://www.canadiangunnutz.com/for...device-*victory!*?highlight=Prohibited+device
https://www.canadiangunnutz.com/for...-50-Beowulf-mags-all-done-All-Charges-Dropped
Last edited:
At what point did of any of those adaptations of design in your example create a rifle magazine with the same ability of its features as the 50 beowulf has?
The 180b was different enough to not be considered a variant at the time, did they build a new rifle from scratch? Or was the prototype a prohib they slapped parts on?
Last edited:
Brian, I have highlighted a few things that are really the heart of this thread.
1. the law says that the magazine is permitted 5 rounds of what the rifle is designed for.... in the case of that AA .50 beowulf rifle, that is 5 rounds of .50 beowulf.
2. the law says that it doesn't matter how may other types of ammo fit in the mag.
3. the wording of the law (legislation) has not changed. The legally purchased magazines are still just as legal as they were when they were purchased under that law.
4. There is no OIC mentioning anything about the .50 beowulf
5. The Crown must believe there is enough evidence to secure a conviction, and prosecution must serve the publics interest. (weak on both counts here)
Have a read about prosecution, Here, seeing as there is evidence the crown already backed down due to not being sure that they are illegal, and the fact that a law abiding person enjoying the property they bought legally, and the wording of the law is not clear with what constitutes "modify" "design" "alter" and the degrees of such, I am certainly confident that unless you are a lowlife the police have for endangering the public, or they already have you on weapons trafficking, they will not put this for a conviction.
1. the law says that the magazine is permitted 5 rounds of what the rifle is designed for.... in the case of that AA .50 beowulf rifle, that is 5 rounds of .50 beowulf.
2. the law says that it doesn't matter how may other types of ammo fit in the mag.
3. the wording of the law (legislation) has not changed. The legally purchased magazines are still just as legal as they were when they were purchased under that law.
4. There is no OIC mentioning anything about the .50 beowulf
5. The Crown must believe there is enough evidence to secure a conviction, and prosecution must serve the publics interest. (weak on both counts here)
Have a read about prosecution, Here, seeing as there is evidence the crown already backed down due to not being sure that they are illegal, and the fact that a law abiding person enjoying the property they bought legally, and the wording of the law is not clear with what constitutes "modify" "design" "alter" and the degrees of such, I am certainly confident that unless you are a lowlife the police have for endangering the public, or they already have you on weapons trafficking, they will not put this for a conviction.
Exactly, one way you have a prohib, the other you dont.
You do realize that when a sample is submitted to the rcmp by a manufacturer, they ask for all kinds of documentation with it in regards to its design, origins, etc. The outcome is not just based on what the finished product looks like
Your opinion is just that, same as mine.
Everyone has to decide for themselves what risk they are willing to take.
If the courts had overthrown RCMP determinations contained in the FRT before, I would be more inclined to take the risk. For now I will side with my lawyers cautioning and advise which comes from a collective of discussions between some of the best firearms lawyers in the country.
Yes that opinion was a costly one to get, but pale to what I stand to lose if criminally charged let alone convicted. Fact is, I have never had anyone look at my magazines without 50 beowulf ammunition having been seen first.
I have always said, seek your own legal advise outside of this forum or the internet and decide for yourself as I have what is best for you.
This is getting cult-like.
https://www.canadiangunnutz.com/for...1842614&auth=771f1b65ab86793e6e0fdb6a929a7e7e
https://www.canadiangunnutz.com/for...1842614&auth=771f1b65ab86793e6e0fdb6a929a7e7e
