Did you know? 14 ROUNDS LEGAL

hane6661 said:
DO NOT MESS AROUND WITH THIS LAW!!!!! YOU WILL SCREW EVERYTHING UP FOR PISTOL OWNERS. ONCE THEY CATCH WIND OF THIS WHAT DO YOU REALLY THINK WILL BE THE END RESULT! CHANGING THE MAG LAWS TO ALLOW HICAP OR MAKEING THEM WORSE AND ONLY ALLOWING 5RND.

:bangHead: LEAVE IT ALONE !!!

CSSA KNOWS HOW THIS WILL GET TURNED AROUND BUT THEY DONT CARE, ITS NOT GOING TO BE THEM IN COURT. IT WILL BE YOU.

ONCE YOU PUT 9MM AMMO INTO A 40 CAL MAG AND YOU PASS THE 10RND MARK. YOU NOW HAVE A PROHIB DEVICE AND ARE BREAKING THE LAW.

try to explain this sistuation to a judge... what do you think will happen. even with your silly little letter.
Click to expand...

Just for your information, typing in all capitals does not automatically make you right and generally makes you look like a raving lunatic.

Most of us firearms owners are levelheaded people who thoroughly enjoy our sport and would use any written advantage in law to enjoy it further.

I just bought a bunch of cheapo P226 9mm mags, but now I'm only going to buy .40 mags because I'm eventually going to get a .357 sig... I'll probably end up shooting lots more 9mm...

How many rounds does the sig mag hold? 12-13?
 
hane6661 said:
DO NOT MESS AROUND WITH THIS LAW!!!!! ...
Click to expand...

Blah, blah, blah... etc.

NavyCuda said:
Just for your information, typing in all capitals does not automatically make you right and generally makes you look like a raving lunatic.
Click to expand...

I was just going to say it looks like someone went off their meds (OP)... This is no different than being able to own legal bullpups, use 10-rnd LAR-15 magazines, etc. While I don't claim to be an expert in law, your knowledge of what is legal or prohibited is definitely lacking.

Slavex said:
so long as it still works in the gun it was intended for, without modification, you're fine.
Click to expand...

x3.
 
ALFREDS said:
The RCMP does not determine the meaning of legislation. Judges determine what the law means.

Think about it. What if an RCMP or another bureaucrat writes an erroneous statement of law? Say this erroneous statement of law is provided to you in the form of a letter. Will this letter bind a judge?

Can you imagine a judge, say, in the Supreme Court of Canada saying, “Having reviewed the legislation and listened to counsel from the defense and Crown, I find that the magazine is a prohibited device. But the RCMP said the magazine is “ok,” so we will go with that.”

I think there are two issues being confused in this thread. One issue is: “Do regulatory officials determine what is lawful and what is illegal?” The answer to that is simply “no, the courts do.”

Another issue is, “if I act upon the written advice of an RCMP official, and that advice is faulty, can I be convicted of an offence?”

Please note that officials can and do give erroneous advice. For that matter, the ruling of one judge may be over-ruled by a higher court. Thus, the determination of a lower court may be found to be erroneous by a higher court. However, in cases where a person has acted upon advice given to him by a regulatory official, in this case the RCMP, there is a lawful defense know as “officially induced error.” The principals read like this:

“The defence of "officially induced error" is available as a defence to an alleged violation of a regulatory statute where an accused has reasonably relied upon the erroneous legal opinion or advice of an official who is responsible for the administration or enforcement of the particular law. In order for the accused to successfully raise this defence, he must show that he relied on the erroneous legal opinion of the official and that his reliance was reasonable. The reasonableness will depend upon several factors including the efforts he made to ascertain the proper law, the complexity or obscurity of the law, the position of the official who gave the advice, and the clarity, definitiveness and reasonableness of the advice given.”

In certain circumstances, and perhaps even in this case, your letter from the RCMP might work as a defense. In that circumstance, a judge might enter a judicial stay of proceedings, and you may not be convicted. But consider all the elements that must be proven. Consider that judges are also human and may find you to be guilty, because your defense has not been made out to his satisfaction. In that case, you will be convicted. But even if the defense works, and the judge does not convict you, then consider what you have in store, traveling this road.

If you have a magazine that appears to be illegal, a cop will arrest you and simply ignore any letter you provide from the RCMP. At best, he will staple the letter to his file and proceed with the charges. You will be forced to pay tens of thousands of dollars in legal fees. If you win at the lower court, the Crown may appeal. Tack another fifty-thousand dollars on top of your legal bill.

So, if you want follow this course of action, then keep your letter from the RCMP attesting to the lawfulness of your actions. And take an extra fifty to seventy-five thousands dollars out of your petty cash reserve and keep it handy. Then pray that you own lawyers does not screw up your case.

You should be fine.
Click to expand...

Riiiiiiight.

Well, they've got my address and name whenever they want to kick off that political disaster of attempting to roast a guy who is actively complying with the written position of the nations leading authorities, using non-modified products approved for sale in Canada and in common use. I heard through the grapevine that the RCMP is actively LOOKING to appear less competent. Especially at senior levels.

I'm NOT a hard guy to find considering that my full name and website is advertised in my sig line. :rolleyes: But maybe you'll excuse me if I don't hold my breath waiting for that one.



That whole notion is so lame that I bet you a dollar that I could find five recognizable lawyers that would take that case on the basis of lawsuit recovery alone, because we'd be making a lot of money from that process.

Good lord. (silly voice): It'll cost you $75,000 of your own dollars.

Do you have any clue how long it has taken to prosecute people that are actually in violation of the criminal code? This internet legal advice/interpretation shtick really makes me giggle.
 
BP7 said:
isn't this type of "loophole" best kept relatively quiet if one wants to keep it as a loophole? this is canada - if you get too excited, the gov't will step in and take care of that for you...

not long ago, i saw a similar loophole / oversight / ambiguity get quickly "taken care of" by the gov't proposing an update to the relevant laws. those laws would take a "i can live with and potentially overcome this limitation" loophole and make it a "well, fawk me sideways yet again!!!" loophole.
Click to expand...

ya like nobody's lookin over yr shoulder
 
Thank you for your legal advice. It's not needed what with you being wrong and all.

The same RCMP folks who determine whether a particular firearm is prohibited, restricted or non-restricted have put in writing that this is legal.


ALFREDS said:
The RCMP does not determine the meaning of legislation. Judges determine what the law means.

Think about it. What if an RCMP or another bureaucrat writes an erroneous statement of law? Say this erroneous statement of law is provided to you in the form of a letter. Will this letter bind a judge?

Can you imagine a judge, say, in the Supreme Court of Canada saying, “Having reviewed the legislation and listened to counsel from the defense and Crown, I find that the magazine is a prohibited device. But the RCMP said the magazine is “ok,” so we will go with that.”

I think there are two issues being confused in this thread. One issue is: “Do regulatory officials determine what is lawful and what is illegal?” The answer to that is simply “no, the courts do.”

Another issue is, “if I act upon the written advice of an RCMP official, and that advice is faulty, can I be convicted of an offence?”

Please note that officials can and do give erroneous advice. For that matter, the ruling of one judge may be over-ruled by a higher court. Thus, the determination of a lower court may be found to be erroneous by a higher court. However, in cases where a person has acted upon advice given to him by a regulatory official, in this case the RCMP, there is a lawful defense know as “officially induced error.” The principals read like this:

“The defence of "officially induced error" is available as a defence to an alleged violation of a regulatory statute where an accused has reasonably relied upon the erroneous legal opinion or advice of an official who is responsible for the administration or enforcement of the particular law. In order for the accused to successfully raise this defence, he must show that he relied on the erroneous legal opinion of the official and that his reliance was reasonable. The reasonableness will depend upon several factors including the efforts he made to ascertain the proper law, the complexity or obscurity of the law, the position of the official who gave the advice, and the clarity, definitiveness and reasonableness of the advice given.”

In certain circumstances, and perhaps even in this case, your letter from the RCMP might work as a defense. In that circumstance, a judge might enter a judicial stay of proceedings, and you may not be convicted. But consider all the elements that must be proven. Consider that judges are also human and may find you to be guilty, because your defense has not been made out to his satisfaction. In that case, you will be convicted. But even if the defense works, and the judge does not convict you, then consider what you have in store, traveling this road.

If you have a magazine that appears to be illegal, a cop will arrest you and simply ignore any letter you provide from the RCMP. At best, he will staple the letter to his file and proceed with the charges. You will be forced to pay tens of thousands of dollars in legal fees. If you win at the lower court, the Crown may appeal. Tack another fifty-thousand dollars on top of your legal bill.

So, if you want follow this course of action, then keep your letter from the RCMP attesting to the lawfulness of your actions. And take an extra fifty to seventy-five thousands dollars out of your petty cash reserve and keep it handy. Then pray that you own lawyers does not screw up your case.

You should be fine.
Click to expand...
 
Here's the CSSA release on the subject, from the February newsletter:

Did you know?

Many .40 S&W handgun mags are perfectly usable in 9mm Luger pistols. These magazines will hold an extra 3-4 shots.

For example, the Beretta 96 .40 S&W magazine will hold 14 rounds of 9mm ammunition and functions perfectly in Beretta 92 pistols and Cx4 carbines. Not only is the extra magazine capacity handy, IT IS PERFECTLY LEGAL!

In a letter dated July 9, 2007, RCMP Senior Firearms Technologist William Etter states, “The Former Cartridge Magazine Control Regulations are oriented to the possession of Cartridge Magazines. Once a cartridge magazine is acceptable as a magazine for a "handgun, commonly available in Canada" and is capable of containing ten shots or less of the kind or type for which the magazine was originally designed, its further use in any other handgun or any other calibre cartridge is not regulated.

The use of a Heckler & P7 M10 cartridge magazine in a Heckler & P7 M13 firearm loaded with 13 cartridges of 9MM LUGER calibre, in our opinion, would not constitute a violation of the Former Cartridge Magazine Control Regulations.”

This is great news for pistol shooters. Canadian shooters have envied our American cousins since the onset of our silly magazine restrictions came into force. Now it appears, there is a little light at the end of the tunnel.
 
The whole 10 round restriction law is ridiculous anyways. If any unlawful person or gangbanger that wants the full capacity, he or she is going to just unpin or get a full capacity magazine anyways, so the only people this law is affecting is the LAWFUL target shooters like us. Its not rocket science to figure it out. 5 Minutes work on a Pinned Magazine and a Gangbanger has a full capacity Magazine.
 
I can get 13 rounds of 9mm into my G22 mags. The thirteenth sticks up at quite an angle however and doesn't feed reliably into the barrel. I will stick with 12 for the moment. I assume the tweak involves moving the lips inwards (down)? I will be doing 12 (or 13) mostly for the novelty as I agree with V29189- I need the practice on reloads.
Haven't tried this a lot and would want to know that the mags worked without glitches. I prefer 10 reliable feeds to 13 sketchy ones. I guess I will have to dedicate a .40 cal. mag for the experiment.

Sorry for the somewhat fuzzy pics. Not my camera and it doesn't do closeups very well but I think you get the idea. These are pre-tweaked pics with 13 rounds in. If anyone has any suggestions or hints prior to tweaking please feel free to pass them on.

PICT2089.jpg


PICT2087.jpg
 
I think that this has been addressed but to be clear it is not the use of the 40cal mags that is an issue, it is the modification of the mags (if any) that is.
 
An interesting topic. It's nice to know you can do it but an extra two or three rounds isn't particularly important to me. It's kind of like getting away with chewing gum behind the teacher's back. Unfortunately we live in a political climate that is traditionally hostile towards firearms ownership. With the massive boondoggle C-68 has became I don't think the feds really want to play in that field anymore, but don't kid yourself if you point out their supidity and they can make political points by kicking our asses they will.

Lets face it, all it would take is an amendment (that you would never hear about until it was law) stating that magazines could only used in firearams for which they were specifically intended/designed and all of a sudden all of those 10 rd LAR mags would be useless to most AR owners unless they wanted to risk sanction. Would it make sense? No. Would it be a clusterF**k? Oh yeah. But it hasn't stopped them before. Just my two cents.
 
Last edited:
Oroborus said:
Lets face it, all it would take is an amendment (that you would never hear about until it was law) stating that magazines could only used in firearams for which they were specifically intended/designed and all of a sudden all of those 10 rd LAR mags would be useless to most AR owners unless they wanted to risk sanction. Would it make sense? No. Would it be a clusterF**k? Oh yeah. But it hasn't stopped them before. Just my two cents.
Click to expand...

That's right.

So lets ALL make sure that the Governments that are willing to make that amendment are NEVER elected. (Liberal/NDP/Greenies)


Until then...
 
Any idea if this works on a CZ75B with the .40 cal mags?

ezkmo said:
I want to know which other models will work.

Here is the article from the CSSA


Did you know?

Many .40 S&W handgun mags are perfectly usable in 9mm Luger pistols. These magazines will hold an extra 3-4 shots. For example, the Beretta 96 .40 S&W magazine will hold 14 rounds of 9mm ammunition and functions perfectly in Beretta 92 pistols and Cx4 carbines. Not only is the extra magazine capacity handy, IT IS PERFECTLY LEGAL!

In a letter dated July 9, 2007, RCMP Senior Firearms Technologist William Etter states, "The Former Cartridge Magazine Control Regulations are oriented to the possession of Cartridge Magazines. Once a cartridge magazine is acceptable as a magazine for a "handgun, commonly available in Canada" and is capable of containing ten shots or less of the kind or type for which the magazine was originally designed, its further use in any other handgun or any other calibre cartridge is not regulated.

The use of a Heckler & P7 M10 cartridge magazine in a Heckler & P7 M13 firearm loaded with 13 cartridges of 9MM LUGER calibre, in our opinion, would not constitute a violation of the Former Cartridge Magazine Control Regulations."

This is great news for pistol shooters. Canadian shooters have envied our American cousins since the onset of our silly magazine restrictions came into force. Now it appears, there is a little light at the end of the tunnel.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom