Ghost loading while waterfowl hunting.

[mgroom]

You don’t really understand ghost loading. In some sort of competition, as you say, everyone’s semi-auto shotgun magazine is limited to 5 rounds regardless of how long their mag extension is. So with one in the chamber you have 6 shots before you have to reload while innavedaw knows how to ghost load his gun and will have 7 shots before he has to reload. Not really a parlor trick but a distinct advantage in a competition.

You're talking to a guy who runs around in cowboy costume's in real life, he won't understand. I guarantee he fully supports the gun ban too, one of those "hurr if'n ya need more'n one boolit to kilt that thar deer" types.

 

[kamlooky]

You're talking to a guy who runs around in cowboy costume's in real life, he won't understand. I guarantee he fully supports the gun ban too, one of those "hurr if'n ya need more'n one boolit to kilt that thar deer" types.

So Santa is wearing a costume as well?
Go figure.

 

[CV32]

I am posting this mostly because I want to see the dumpster fire of opinions it becomes. As I understand the hunting regulations you are allowed a maximum of three rounds between the chamber and magazine. What are people’s opinion on ghost loading a fourth round in a firearm capable of doing so? If this topic has been covered I could not find it. Thanks.

Yes, its been discussed before. One such thread here.

Same response here as there:

While not technically the magazine, I think you would find that a judge would likely interpret putting a shell anywhere into the shotgun in such a manner that it can be fed into the chamber and fired simply by working the action, to be functionally the same as the magazine and therefore within the spirit and intent of the regulation. I would not personally consider that extra shell valuable enough to test the theory, and being at risk of being charged, losing the firearm etc, and being convicted of a wild life offence.

The problem is that "magazine" isn't defined in the regulation, and if a judge is forced to consider whether the feed plate is a factor, he or she is also going to consider the spirit and intent of the law. Since the limit is there for conservation and sporting reasons, adding an extra round of ammunition runs directly counter to that spirit and intent. Just speaking objectively.

If a guy is using the feed plate to feed shells into the chamber (i.e. ghost load), I am willing to bet that most any judge in the country is going to interpret it as functionally the same (and thus legally the same, as far as the spirit and intent of the regulation goes) as the actual magazine. In the end that is all that matters.

 

[Cameron SS]

And that effectively illegally loads the gun with 4 rounds
Cat

I watched the same video as you. He is using a pump gun, on a range, with a 4 round capacity + 1 in the chamber. I don't think this video even addresses so called ghost-loading.

+1 to this

If you need to 'ghost/carrier load' or do anything else that goes against the spirit of the law to give the birds some kind of chance, GTFO.

If you need more than 3 rounds to get your targets, go and practice more before any actual hunt.

If you like to sky bust, GTFO and give us your rounds instead.

I think the spirit of the law can FO and die. Likewise so can your "no one needs" argument.

Asides from octogenarian hunters getting precious about how many rounds THEY need to hunt THEIR game, there really is no rational basis for 2+1 vs 1+1 or 10+1. It is a completely arbitrary and unscientific magazine limit.

The environmentalists manage and monitor species numbers and determine bag limits accordingly. There is absolutely no environmental, ecological or public safety reason to dictate magazine size. What difference does it make if you limit out on your first wave or if you need five waves inbound to take 5 birds?

Give the birds a chance? If thats your argument maybe we should all be hunting with boomerangs, yeah?

When the daily limit is more than 3, I am going to need more than 3 rounds to get my limit. If the limit of three was meant to affect your ability to collect your quarry, then it would be unlawful to possess more than 3 rounds period. Or alternatively, if your bag limit is fine, and three shots per bird is considered reasonable, then why would anyone be permitted to possess enough ammunition to take more than three times their bag limit?

I have no idea what sky busting is. But then I only hang around young people who like to explore how their firearms work.

Are you in that big of a hurry to have the hunt done you need to break the law? Do you think you will hit much on that forth shot? We are out for fun and fellowship, I often will look over at the other blinds and a couple will be running video. The kill is not the quest.

You decide what you are out for, and how much time you have. That's got nothing to do with what other people are out for, or how much time they have.

The question is whether ghost loading is legal, not whether you need to break the law to get the hunt done on time.

Also, I am not sure where this nonsense about needing 3 or 4 rounds comes from. Do you guys only ever see one bird at a time?

You do you, but for me, when I am out hunting, the kill is literally the quest. I can socialize with guns in full camo in my man cave.

Mentioned above, at least the Versamax, some Benelli models, the B80, Beretta 302, and I think the Beretta 1301. too.

You "can" do it on an 870 with a flex tab too.

Whats a flex tab?

After less than 5 minutes of fiddling with the versa max, I figured out how to "ghost load" as the OP describes. My magazine tube is properly plugged to two rounds, and I can definitely get a 4th round on the lifter with the action closed and have the gun properly cycle and fire without issue.

Based on the definition of shotgun in the Ontario Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act, 1997, I am of the opinion that the shotgun is legal to use for hunting.

19 A person shall not hunt with a shotgun unless the shotgun has been permanently plugged or altered so that it cannot hold a total of more than three shells at one time in the chamber and magazine. 1997, c. 41, s. 19.

Being legal to use, there are no further restrictions in law, in Ontario, that prohibit the ability to use the firearm in any safe manor. Being that the firearm functions reliably and consistently as designed by the manufacture and intended by the user, I see no reason for concluding ghost loading is unsafe. Ergo, I am of the opinion that ghost loading in Ontario is legal.

Anyone who hunts in Ontario who is of the opinion that ghost loading is illegal, must, logically, refrain from using any such shotgun which is capable of ghost loading.

Debate nuances all you want, but the spirit of the law is "three shots max." Anyone trying to beat that spirit is not welcome in my blinds.

Noted. You are still welcome in mine.

It’s not debatable; because it’s not possible. You can either be chambered or ghost loaded; not both. Duhhhhhh

I think you have a different definition of ghost loading in mind. And I will admit, before reading the entire thread, I think we were on the same page.

To, ghost loaded always means gun cocked on an empty chamber. This would include putting the safety on if the firearm is equipped with one.

There are various technical reasons why a person might want to ghost load in such a fashion, none of which are applicable here.

Personally I think ghost loading is a poorly chosen term for trying to cram an additional round into the action of a repeating firearm. But it seems to be a commonly understood term. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FDZnJe3VO90

No, I made this post because I am genuinely curious about the answer and what some folks here have to say about it. I do post it however, with the knowledge that these sorts of questions can certainly stir the pot. I post it because this is the type of debate I would have over a drink with friends.

Having fiddled with this now, and formed the opinion that its legal to do, my only other comment is that I don't think I could honestly be bothered. I'm sure you can get good enough at it to reduce the likelihood of pinching a finger. I am not convinced taking the time to set it up is worth the time it takes to just manually port load additional rounds in the event that after 3 or 4 shots there are still birds in front of you to shoot at.

I was also unable to confirm if the versa max will ghost load and still function with 3.5" shells, as I only had 2-3/4" dummies.

I don't really get the need to do it to be honest.

Yeah on the range, in competition maybe. IF I was truly bothered by the 3 round limit to such extent that I felt I needed more than that, I'd just take the plug out. As stupid as the mag limit when hunting is, I'd just as soon not put myself in a position where I need to demonstrate to a CO or a judge what ghost loading is.

 

[Cameron SS]

Yes, its been discussed before. One such thread here.

Same response here as there:

The Criminal code does define magazine. While not necessarily binding on provincial law, virtually all provincial hunting firearms rules use language consistent with the criminal code definitions.
The magazine is a place for holding ammunition which is fed by the action into the chamber. It does not include the chamber or the action.

IF a judge accepts that the feed ramp counts towards magazine capacity, than all of the guns capable of ghost loading would necessarily need to be limited to one in the tube. That is clearly a perverse result, and since there is no requirement for a firearms manufacturer or anyone else to indicate whether a firearm was designed to be capable of, or capable of regardless of design, there is no way for your average gun owner to authoritatively determine whether a firearm is capable of ghost loading, and therefore must reduce magazine capacity accordingly. For a judge to make such a ruling, he would be in effecting deeming hundreds of thousands of shotguns to have a prohibited capacity for hunting purposes, and likely would criminalizing thousands of hunters.

Any decent judge would be reluctant to issue such a ruling.

The judge only considers the broader spirit of the law, ie the legislative intent, when the law itself is ambiguous or unclear. In Ontario, and likewise many other provinces, total capacity of the shot gun to hold ammunition is defined by expressly referencing CHAMBER + Magazine. The feed ramp is clearly neither. And the omission of any reference to ghost loading, or loading rounds into the action will not be construed as an error or oversight. Clearly the law simply doesn't care about rounds in the action. The law is neither ambiguous nor unclear, and therefore there is no need to consider the legislative intent.

 

[CV32]

The Criminal code does define magazine. While not necessarily binding on provincial law, virtually all provincial hunting firearms rules use language consistent with the criminal code definitions.

The quote was about the federal Migratory Birds Convention Act, 1994. There's little doubt that the Act did not consider 'ghost loading' at the time it was developed and passed. (The three shell limit is nearly a hundred years old.) There is also no doubt whatsoever that the Act was aimed (as a result of international treaty) at the conservation of migratory birds, including game species like waterfowl.

The magazine is a place for holding ammunition which is fed by the action into the chamber.

Which is exactly what 'ghost loading' does.

For a judge to make such a ruling, he would be in effecting deeming hundreds of thousands of shotguns to have a prohibited capacity for hunting purposes, and likely would criminalizing thousands of hunters. Any decent judge would be reluctant to issue such a ruling.

Nonsense. Spend some time in provincial courts where these MBCA offences are prosecuted. The vast majority of judges will probably care very little for your argument that convicting a duck hunter for ghost loading his shotgun in contravention of section 15(1)(d) of the Migratory Birds Regulations will "criminalize" thousands of others. (Which it wouldn't, in any case.)

The judge only considers the broader spirit of the law, ie the legislative intent, when the law itself is ambiguous or unclear. In Ontario, and likewise many other provinces, total capacity of the shot gun to hold ammunition is defined by expressly referencing CHAMBER + Magazine. The feed ramp is clearly neither. And the omission of any reference to ghost loading, or loading rounds into the action will not be construed as an error or oversight. Clearly the law simply doesn't care about rounds in the action. The law is neither ambiguous nor unclear, and therefore there is no need to consider the legislative intent.

The law in question is federal. You can argue the nuances of the provincial laws if you wish, but the federal MBCA governs hunting of waterfowl.

Suggesting that putting four shells into your shotgun (making use of the feed ramp, aka 'ghost loading') is legal for waterfowl hunting, is terrible legal advice. It would very likely result in a charge and conviction.

 

[Cameron SS]

The quote was about the federal Migratory Birds Convention Act, 1994. There's little doubt that the Act did not consider 'ghost loading' at the time it was developed and passed. (The three shell limit is nearly a hundred years old.) There is also no doubt whatsoever that the Act was aimed (as a result of international treaty) at the conservation of migratory birds, including game species like waterfowl.

Parliament is free to consider or not consider anything it wishes. Evidence that something was not considered does not give any weight to a judges interpretation of an act, and only in the most egregious of situations will a judge impose upon parliaments supremacy to consider something that parliament itself did not consider.

Further, the quote is not in fact from the Migratory Birds Convention Act. It is from the Migratory Birds Regulations, issued under the MBCA. Regulations which have been amended at least 20 times since being first issued, and as recently as 2018. Ample time for parliament to incorporate a prohibition on ghost loading if it saw fit.

Also, it doesn't matter one bit what the law is aimed at, until you can establish that the letter of the law is unclear. The letter of the law is what governs. The spirit of the law is ONLY used to interpret the meaning of the letter, when the letter itself is unclear.

From the regulations, just for clarity:

(d) with a shotgun of any description capable of holding more than three shells unless the capacity of the gun has been reduced to three shells in the magazine and chamber combined, by means of the cutting off or the altering or plugging of the magazine with a one-piece metal, plastic or wood filler that cannot be removed unless the gun is disassembled;

Semantically, IF the capacity of the magazine and chamber combined has been reduced by means of plugging the magazine, then it is permitted for the firearm to be capable of holding more than three shots.
If your firearm is built with a two round magazine AND is capable of ghost loading, then your firearm is clearly capable of holding more than three shells, and not having been altered in any way, would therefore not be permitted for use.

Firearms which have been so altered, need only be restricted to holding 2+1 in the chamber and magazine.

This is crystal clear. There is no ambiguity, and therefore no need to consider legislative intent.

The MBCA predates the firearms act, but the definitions of magazine in the current version of the code were substantially the same as what appeared before. Both being federal law, the judge will rely on the code by default. Absent a reliance on the code, the judge will rely on the dictionary. Neither the code nor the dictionary agree with the proposition that the action is part of the magazine or the chamber.

If the letter of the law is out of line with the spirit of the law, the judge MUST leave it to parliament to reconcile that fact.

Which is exactly what 'ghost loading' does.

Ghost loading is not a part of the firearm.

Here is the criminal code, ver batim:

cartridge magazine means a device or container from which ammunition may be fed into the firing chamber of a firearm; 

Barrel length (2) For the purposes of this Part, the length of a barrel of a firearm is
(b) in any other case, the distance from the muzzle of the barrel to and including the chamber

So while chamber is not expressly defined, nor is action, the definition of barrel readily lends itself to being inclusive of the chamber. Not being part of the chamber or the magazine, the action is clearly a separate thing.

Having ammunition pass through the action temporarily from the magazine on its way to the chamber falls well short of saying the action is a device or container from which ammunition is fed. To make such a determination then all Actions would be deemed magazines, and like I said, if that were true, then all shotguns capable of ghost loading would have to be limited to 1 shell in the magazine. You didnt address this implication of your argument in your reply.

Nonsense. Spend some time in provincial courts where these MBCA offences are prosecuted. The vast majority of judges will probably care very little for your argument that convicting a duck hunter for ghost loading his shotgun in contravention of section 15(1)(d) of the Migratory Birds Regulations will "criminalize" thousands of others. (Which it wouldn't, in any case.)

https://www.canlii.org/en/nl/nlpc/d...mF0aW9uIGFjdCBtYWdhemluZQAAAAAB&resultIndex=1

The Defence called Conservation Officer Conrad Smith, an employee of Provincial Department, Natural Resources. He testified that his method of checking a gun for compliance is by putting two shells into the magazine. If that is all the magazine takes, then he assumes that it is properly plugged and it is therefore in compliance and permits the user of the gun to continue on. He does not take the gun apart to determine if the gun is plugged or to determine the type of the plug that is installed, if any. He merely assumes that it is properly plugged as long as the magazine cannot take more than two shells.

No consideration of ghost loading or capacity of the action to hold ammunition.

During the check of Mr. Critchell’s vessel, the officers noticed that there were three shotguns in the vessel. The three shotguns were checked by the officers and one of them, which was owned by Mr. Nippard, was found to have the capacity to hold more than three shells. The shotgun was seized and subsequently examined by a gunsmith (Mr. Bruce Porter).

[https://www.canlii.org/en/nl/nlpc/d...F0aW9uIGFjdCBvZmZlbmNlAAAAAAE&resultIndex=38]

Mr. Porter testified that the shotgun had the capacity to hold three shells in its magazine and one in its chamber.

No consideration of the capacity of the action to hold ammunition.

https://www.canlii.org/en/nl/nlpc/doc/2015/2015canlii7133/2015canlii7133.html

The trial judge in Seward, however, noted something troubling about that case because the rules in the provincial Wild Life Regulations and the federal Migratory Bird Regulations expressed differently the requirement about making sure that a shotgun was not capable of holding more than three shells, namely one in the chamber and two in the magazine....

This was a side comment in a largely unrelated case, but again, focuses on magazine, and chamber. Action not included.

I searched on Canlii for as many different terms as I could imagine, and found 4 relevant cases spanning 30 years. Canlii only coveres superior courts and courts of appeal, so if you know of a way of searching trial level decisions, I'd be happy to review.

Further, Judges absolutely do concern themselves with the unintended consequences of their rulings. If they don't and the case makes it to an appeal court, a failure to do so can often be cited as a reason for things being overturned. In fact the mandatory minimum sentences for firearms offences was struct down on just such an analysis.

The law in question is federal. You can argue the nuances of the provincial laws if you wish, but the federal MBCA governs hunting of waterfowl.

Fair point. I will omit to include any further provincial laws in this discussion.

Suggesting that putting four shells into your shotgun (making use of the feed ramp, aka 'ghost loading') is legal for waterfowl hunting, is terrible legal advice. It would very likely result in a charge and conviction.

This is not legal advice. I am not advising anyone to do anything. I am giving an opinion, based on the plain reading of the law. As are you. Stay classy.

 

[Butcherbill]

Having fiddled with this now, and formed the opinion that its legal to do, my only other comment is that I don't think I could honestly be bothered. I'm sure you can get good enough at it to reduce the likelihood of pinching a finger. I am not convinced taking the time to set it up is worth the time it takes to just manually port load additional rounds in the event that after 3 or 4 shots there are still birds in front of you to shoot at.

Thats is how I look at it as well, I’d likely not do it as port loading will be less screwing around. I’ve come upon 5 grouse at a time and dropped 4 out of 5 by port loading after I had already shot the first three, the rest just stood their and the fifth finally decided to flush as I chambered the last shell.

 

[Cameron SS]

Thats is how I look at it as well, I’d likely not do it as port loading will be less screwing around. I’ve come upon 5 grouse at a time and dropped 4 out of 5 by port loading after I had already shot the first three, the rest just stood their and the fifth finally decided to flush as I chambered the last shell.

Having now read several court cases where magazine capacity was in question, including spending a few minutes on the phone with a Conservation officer, and speaking to several hunters who have been inspected for capacity, I am now thoroughly convinced its perfectly legal and the COs absolutely don't care about ghost loading. They are 100% focused on what the tube can hold. Max 2 rounds in the magazine, nothing else matters.

 

[iron cat]

You're talking to a guy who runs around in cowboy costume's in real life, he won't understand. I guarantee he fully supports the gun ban too, one of those "hurr if'n ya need more'n one boolit to kilt that thar deer" types.

You don't know jack squat about me and I take that last comment about supporting the gun ban as an insult of the most childish and uniformed kind .
Cat

 

[Butcherbill]

Having now read several court cases where magazine capacity was in question, including spending a few minutes on the phone with a Conservation officer, and speaking to several hunters who have been inspected for capacity, I am now thoroughly convinced its perfectly legal and the COs absolutely don't care about ghost loading. They are 100% focused on what the tube can hold. Max 2 rounds in the magazine, nothing else matters.

I wouldn’t be surprised if they only cared about the actual number of shells a tube mag can hold, as that’s what the hunting regs state, out of curiosity the next time I run into a CO in the bush I’ll have to ask them what their take on it is. If you look at the hunting regs in bc it says a magazine that is incapable of holding more than two, I would expect holding a shell means completely held captive by the tube and latches, it would be interesting to see what their take on it is but then again depending on the individual CO you talk to you might get different interpretations of it.

 

[CV32]

Further, the quote is not in fact from the Migratory Birds Convention Act. It is from the Migratory Birds Regulations, issued under the MBCA. Regulations which have been amended at least 20 times since being first issued, and as recently as 2018. Ample time for parliament to incorporate a prohibition on ghost loading if it saw fit.

I said the quote was about the MBCA, necessarily including its regulations, not from it. I'd wager that Environment and Climate Change Canada has never spent any time thinking about ghost loading, let alone asking someone in the department or Justice to draft an amendment to the regulations to cover it.

Also, it doesn't matter one bit what the law is aimed at, until you can establish that the letter of the law is unclear. The letter of the law is what governs. The spirit of the law is ONLY used to interpret the meaning of the letter, when the letter itself is unclear.

It matters very much what the law is aimed at.

The MBCA predates the firearms act, but the definitions of magazine in the current version of the code were substantially the same as what appeared before. Both being federal law, the judge will rely on the code by default. Absent a reliance on the code, the judge will rely on the dictionary. Neither the code nor the dictionary agree with the proposition that the action is part of the magazine or the chamber. If the letter of the law is out of line with the spirit of the law, the judge MUST leave it to parliament to reconcile that fact.

Generally courts applying a federal statute that doesn't have a pertinent definition will turn to the Interpretation Act first. Though it isn't especially helpful here.

Ghost loading is not a part of the firearm.

It does not have to be, but the feed ramp is. Quoting your own statement: "The magazine is a place for holding ammunition which is fed by the action into the chamber," ghost loading uses the feed ramp as a place for holding ammunition which is fed by the action into the chamber. The entire purpose of ghost loading is to create an extended magazine.

Having ammunition pass through the action temporarily from the magazine on its way to the chamber falls well short of saying the action is a device or container from which ammunition is fed. To make such a determination then all Actions would be deemed magazines, and like I said, if that were true, then all shotguns capable of ghost loading would have to be limited to 1 shell in the magazine. You didnt address this implication of your argument in your reply.

I don't need to, because your premise is fatally flawed.

No consideration of ghost loading or capacity of the action to hold ammunition.

Because the case law you have quoted doesn't address ghost loading.

I searched on Canlii for as many different terms as I could imagine, and found 4 relevant cases spanning 30 years. Canlii only coveres superior courts and courts of appeal, so if you know of a way of searching trial level decisions, I'd be happy to review.

Actually, CanLII covers reported provincial court decisions as well. You just referred to them here. I have access to case law that doesn't get reported in CanLII, but can find no cases that address ghost loading. I suspect its because most waterfowlers are either owners of shotguns that are incapable of permitting it, are unaware of the possibility, aren't dumb enough to try and get away with it, or haven't been caught because it would be very difficult to actually catch someone doing it.

Further, Judges absolutely do concern themselves with the unintended consequences of their rulings.

Criminality isn't an unintended consequence here, but in any case, I can tell you from experience that the vast majority of provincial court judges would probably find your argument entirely unconvincing.

This is not legal advice. I am not advising anyone to do anything. I am giving an opinion, based on the plain reading of the law. As are you. Stay classy.

I would recommend any waterfowler worth his salt not to attempt ghost loading in the field. It would be an extraordinarily dumb move, and if caught, very likely to result in a charge and conviction. Classy opinion indeed.

 

[CV32]

... then again depending on the individual CO you talk to you might get different interpretations of it.

Yes, and their personal opinion is entirely useless to you.

 

[guntech]

Having now read several court cases where magazine capacity was in question, including spending a few minutes on the phone with a Conservation officer, and speaking to several hunters who have been inspected for capacity, I am now thoroughly convinced its perfectly legal and the COs absolutely don't care about ghost loading. They are 100% focused on what the tube can hold. Max 2 rounds in the magazine, nothing else matters.

I would tend to agree with you.. the regulations simply state the magazine can hold not more than 2 shells... the regulations do not address those few guns that are capable of holding a shell in the action at the same time there is one in the chamber...

 

[Gatehouse]

Ghost loading or not, you can still shoot with a shell in your fingers and drop it in fast,