Canadian LEGAL 223 Remington, thirty round capacity mags

I am fairly new to all this but dam how hard id it to understand something so easy.
hand guns mags 10 rounds
center rifle mags 5 round

if handgun mag fits rifle then 10 round. is ok

Even my dad gets it... even though it makes no sence my wife even understands.

my 2 cents
 
Since I have already gone to the effort of putting the soapbox down in the street I may as well continue to use it.

The laws ARE actually confusing. They are totally and utterly illogical. It is a natural result of people who have little-to-no knowledge of a subject and no interest in researching it being given the power to write laws that we are in this situation.

There are two major and related misconceptions that affect the lawmakers regarding 'size'. Both have to do with causality.

Our laws are written with the false basis there is a certain magic number that can turn ordinary, decent, law-abiding Canadians into rabid killers, foaming at the mouth and bent on causing death, mayhem and destruction. In the case of capacity, it is '10' for handguns; '5' for semi-automatic rifle. In regards to barrels for Pistols it is '105mm'

Having lived in Australia before the latest tightening of already pointlessly rigid firearms laws I had fully legal, unlicensed access to pistols with barrels of less than 105mm and unlimited magazine capacity at my gun club. Did I awake one day from a blood-filled haze to find myself waist-deep in bodies with a Glock 19 in one hand and a thirty-three round magazine in the other?

Nope.

Did I on the other hand walk through the dark, crime-riddled parts of town hoping that all criminals were armed with 106mm+ barrelled handguns with imported US 10-round mags? Why not? Surely in that scenario I would have been perfectly safe, right? Right??

Anything in the hand of a criminal is dangerous. Someone can kill you as easily with the first round of ten as they can with the thirty-third of thirty-three. Or with their car. Or with a knife. Or a decent-sized piece of wood.

Intention matters. Numbers do not. A nutcase with a can of gasoline in hand and a lighter in his pocket is far more dangerous than a (relatively) sane, licensed gun-owner toting an M60 with a 500 round belt.
 
Last edited:
I have been thinking for some time on this subject, and it occurs to me that it is a matter of semantics.

Not semiautomantics, otherwise I would be limited to using words with 5 letters or less in a sentence. Unless, of course I were to use a sentence that was shorter, less accurate and more easily concealed. Then I could use up to 10 letter words. But once my finger hit the 11th key I would be offering myself up for five years reluctant romantic involvment with a number of quite sub-standard ###ual partners.

The rules were drafted to walk a very, very fine line; to sit on a narrow fence. Possibly a chain-link fence. A wobbly, frost-lifted chain-link fence teetering on collapse. A chain-link fence of the weak mind.

A semi-automatic centrefire rifle will not exert a powerful mental control ray to your mind on the sixth pull of the trigger. The ray that must by the logic of a 5 round magazine limit turn a sane, law-abiding Canadian into the lowest, most murderous sewer beast with a mind only for killing when the phallic, murderous rape-stick that is a firing pins detonates the sixth shot since you reloaded. Nor will the eleventh round from a handgun imbue you with the dark shades of Hitler and Stalin but with less of a 'tache to slow you up with grooming requirements to clean the innocent blood out of.

The rules make no sense, and that is what happens when people are able to make laws without understanding anything about the technical issues involved or the logical consequences of them.

The study of logic was recorded way back when the years ended with BC. Why the hell can people we pay to represent us not use it?? I am going to paraphrase myself: Search, Read, Think… Search, Read, Think… THEN draft new Bills!

You might be saying to yourself: “But Moosie, this sounds like the drunken rantings of a guy who has had a few too many alcoholic girly-pops.”

To that I would reply: “Well invisible imaginary internet audience, that may be true but it does not change the issue at hand. You can sober up in the morning and see the horrible hose-bag you drunkenly and clumsily seduced last night and chew your own arm off to escape. If you are deluded into thinking that the hose-bag has amazing ‘inner-beauty’ despite small children running from the sight of them in the street then you may already be eligible to stand for Parliament.”

We pay their salaries. We elect them to represent us. We pay armed people to guard them, and when I say armed I mean people with GUNS, not just guys standing around looking like a ticket theatre employee collecting tickets.

We need to make THEM accountable to us.

We have responsibilities to them. We need to train them properly, feed them, water them, take them for long walks and scratch them behind the ears and rub their bellies when they don’t piddle on the carpet. They need structure, and without giving it to them and correcting them when they are way outside acceptable behavior; then we have no-one but ourselves to blame when they bite the mailman on the bum.
 
Questar said:
Rifle are NOT restricted in their magazine capacity, it is the magazine itself that is or is not restricted and that is based on the specific legislation which classifies the magazine and it's legal capacity based on what firearm the magazine was originally "DESIGNED AND MANUFACTURED TO BE USED IN".

Based on what the manufacturer designed and made the magazine to be used in our regulations either limit it's capacity to 5 rounds, 10 rounds or unlimited. That limit does not change no matter what firearm you actually use the magazine in.

Mark

Mark,

I know that - I forgot the sarcasm smilie...;)


blake
 
Moosefondler said:
You know I think that if Mark was able to get paid for the number of times he has had to clarify the rules regarding magazine limits and answer stupid posts with no thought or research put into them regarding magazines in general he would already be retired to a tropical island.

Mark, I am amazed you even bother any more, or that you haven't come up with a justifiably curt form reply yet. Spiced with some good words of Anglo-Saxon origin to boot!

Having done an incredible amount of good for lovers of black rifles by getting us legal 10 round magazines (at a very reasonable price to us, the potential customers IMHO) it seems like a very cruel and unusual punishment to still have to spend time here each day explaining exactly how someone has no idea what they are talking about. Kind of like pushing crap uphill with a sharp stick...a visual image I will kick up a notch by throwing in the useful phrase 'verbal diarrhea' and substituting a sewing needle for the pointy stick.

With the unholy union of the Tavor arriving in country and the recent availability of the RRA LAR-15 5.56 mags through Mark's efforts I think we can safely say that Black Gun Lovers have it better than now they have had in many, many years.

Please, for the love of God use the search function before exposing your ignorance to the world. I would rather see Mark slaving away to bring in more and better toys for those with the cash to burn than explaining the way things are for the kajillionth time.

Easy big fella - I'm on your side. Hard to convey sarcasm and intent on the internet.

Back to your regularly scheduled programming...
 
Moosefondler said:
I have been thinking for some time on this subject, and it occurs to me that it is a matter of semantics.

Not semiautomantics, otherwise I would be limited to using words with 5 letters or less in a sentence. Unless, of course I were to use a sentence that was shorter, less accurate and more easily concealed. Then I could use up to 10 letter words. But once my finger hit the 11th key I would be offering myself up for five years reluctant romantic involvment with a number of quite sub-standard ###ual partners.

The rules were drafted to walk a very, very fine line; to sit on a narrow fence. Possibly a chain-link fence. A wobbly, frost-lifted chain-link fence teetering on collapse. A chain-link fence of the weak mind.

A semi-automatic centrefire rifle will not exert a powerful mental control ray to your mind on the sixth pull of the trigger. The ray that must by the logic of a 5 round magazine limit turn a sane, law-abiding Canadian into the lowest, most murderous sewer beast with a mind only for killing when the phallic, murderous rape-stick that is a firing pins detonates the sixth shot since you reloaded. Nor will the eleventh round from a handgun imbue you with the dark shades of Hitler and Stalin but with less of a 'tache to slow you up with grooming requirements to clean the innocent blood out of.

The rules make no sense, and that is what happens when people are able to make laws without understanding anything about the technical issues involved or the logical consequences of them.

The study of logic was recorded way back when the years ended with BC. Why the hell can people we pay to represent us not use it?? I am going to paraphrase myself: Search, Read, Think… Search, Read, Think… THEN draft new Bills!

You might be saying to yourself: “But Moosie, this sounds like the drunken rantings of a guy who has had a few too many alcoholic girly-pops.”

To that I would reply: “Well invisible imaginary internet audience, that may be true but it does not change the issue at hand. You can sober up in the morning and see the horrible hose-bag you drunkenly and clumsily seduced last night and chew your own arm off to escape. If you are deluded into thinking that the hose-bag has amazing ‘inner-beauty’ despite small children running from the sight of them in the street then you may already be eligible to stand for Parliament.”

We pay their salaries. We elect them to represent us. We pay armed people to guard them, and when I say armed I mean people with GUNS, not just guys standing around looking like a ticket theatre employee collecting tickets.

We need to make THEM accountable to us.

We have responsibilities to them. We need to train them properly, feed them, water them, take them for long walks and scratch them behind the ears and rub their bellies when they don’t piddle on the carpet. They need structure, and without giving it to them and correcting them when they are way outside acceptable behavior; then we have no-one but ourselves to blame when they bite the mailman on the bum.


Fondler of the Swamp-Donkey,

Wow - I should have read this thread all the way through before responding.

You are seriously on a roll and should not stop now (and I mean that for real - no sarcasm intended :D ). Well put ... :rockOn:

We all OK now? :bigHug:


blake
 
Throttle_monkey1 said:
Yeah but the 7615 mags were no different than AR mags. If this pac-5 mag does not fit in an AR it should be good to go. Now, nothing says you can't modify your AR to accept the magazine.
Hopefully Dlask figured that out, and will adjust their lower to accept those mags.
 
tangospike99 said:
I am fairly new to all this but dam how hard id it to understand something so easy.
hand guns mags 10 rounds
center rifle mags 5 round

if handgun mag fits rifle then 10 round. is ok

Even my dad gets it... even though it makes no sence my wife even understands.

my 2 cents

But that's wrong, centrefire rifle mags are only restricted to five rounds for semi-autos. In theory you could have a bolt-action rifle mag that holds twenty rounds that fits a pistol. But a magazine that is designed for that pistol is limited to ten. Unless of course it's not "commonly available" in Canada, then it's five.

I find that confusing. I think the wording of "not commonly available" is extremely vague and fluffy.
 
the only reason the AR 10rnd mags exist is because the US exports AR pistols; the AR-Pistols are registered as pistols and thus can accept AR 10rnd PISTOL mags.

Unless the laws change there will never be a legal-30rnd AR mag for a bolt/pump gun that fits an AR.
 
cancer said:
If that's true then how can you explain the perpetual belief that all centrefire rifles (regardless of action) are only allowed 5 shots?

Try explaining the darwin awards... some people just DONT GET IT. No matter how many times you say it, or try to convince them. same thing with firearms regs.. some people just don't get it..
 
G37 said:
Unless the laws change there will never be a legal-30rnd AR mag for a bolt/pump gun that fits an AR.

Wasn't the point of the thread to say that there was? If you have a bolt-action rifle called the "piss-taking 30" that happens to use 30-round magazines that have "piss-taking bolt-action rifle" stamped on them, and they just happen to be dimensionally identical to an AR-15 magazine, that would be legal in an AR-15, yes? Not designed for a centrefire semi-auto rifle.

My original point several pages ago was that if people keep pushing the envelope like this, the regs will be rewritten.

And I think it has now been proven beyond all doubt that there is a great deal of confusion about what is allowed and what isn't! :D

On that basis alone the regs should be rewritten...
 
i realize what the libs want....if you want to fight make sure the conservatives get a majority next election. rewritting the laws right now will only give us a less than ideal liberal/NDP compromise. we need a majority government.

Deckard said:
Keep fighting because the next Lib push is not a rewrite, it is a total ban. Too late for pussy footing. Where have you been?
 
Back
Top Bottom