I would say that rifle caliber ammunition is that which is generally understood as being designed for rifles whereas pistol ammunition is generally understood to be designed for semiautomatic pistols or revolvers, even though there are exceptions such as specialty pistols and pistol calibre carbines.
Not at all - your logic is flawed.
You assume that a single .223 pistol caused all .223 ammo with armour-piercing designs to become prohib. First, show us the written ruling.
McCoy posted it up there:
1. Any cartridge that is capable of being discharged from a commonly available semi-automatic handgun or revolver and that is manufactured or assembled with a projectile that is designed, manufactured or altered so as to be capable of penetrating body armour, including KTW, THV and 5.7 x 28 mm P-90 cartridges.
Nevertheless, I am not aware of any ruling that the law be interpreted to prohibit AP 5.56/.223 on the basis of the common availability of a semiautomatic pistol in that calibre (although the wording makes it a possibility).
Just because case law hasn't caught-up with a fairly recent ruling by the RCMP doesn't mean something is legal; it just means nobody's been prosecuted for it yet. It doesn't change the letter of the law, which is very clear.
If this were the case, then 5.56 ammo with SS109 type bullets would have to be prohibited because this ammunition was developed to penetrate a steel helmet (body armour) at 600m, which the old M193 round was not capable of. However, newly manufactured PMC NATO spec ammo is commercially available and I believe that surplus has been sold in the past. It is therefore my opinion that there is no prohibition against AP 5.56 ammunition.
Again, just because distribution channels haven't caught up doesn't mean something isn't illegal. It wouldn't be the first time retailers would have to pull products they thought were legal from the shelves.
As an aside, I agree that M855/SS109/etc. ammo is not true AP because the core isn't composed entirely of tungsten or hardened steel, but it was indeed designed to provide enhanced body armour penetration.
I believe this is the only aspect that is subject to interpretation in a court of law as there is no regulation or ruling as to what grade of body armour must be penetrated to be considered "designed to penetrate body armour". Unfortunately judges in Canada tend to interpret firearm laws and regulations as broadly as they can to achieve the most restrictive effect.
Second, what about all of the "commonly available" .223 pistols before that? Ever hear of the Savage Striker and Remington XP100? There must be other examples.
Has the RCMP or anybody else in Canada ever been called to provide a judgement as to the common availability of those firearms in Canada? Unfortunately they have in the case of the LAR-15 pistol. Here's the first point the RCMP determined when they were
asked to approve 10-round LAR-15 .223 pistol magazines:
1. The Rock River Arms, LAR-15 Pistol qualifies as a “handgun, commonly available in Canada”
and you can bet your ass that if the CFOs want to start enforcing this they will produce all of the RCMPs documentation on how they made that determination as evidence which would either:
a) be accepted by the Court and screw owners of AP .223 and 5.56 NATO ammo; or
b) be rejected by the Court and screw owners of 10-round LAR-15 pistol magazines.
Virtually every rifle cartridge out there is or was available in a handgun (right up to .50BMG and 600 Nitro). So virtually every armour-piercing-designed rifle ammo would have to be prohib - but it isn't.
Just because a handgun in that caliber once existed doesn't make it "commonly available". It has to still be in production and there needs to be Canadian distributors for it. In most cases it would be for the Crown to prove that this is the case but, as I said, that determination has already been made in order for us to have those precious 10-rounders. An unfortunate turn of events created by badly written regulations but real nonetheless.
I'm not saying that there is even a will for the CFO to actually start trying to enforce this but we should still be aware of the sword hanging over our heads and individually make decisions accordingly. Brushing it up under the carpet would be irresponsible and legally dangerous for our community.
; of course that leaves me and the 12 year old who assembled the Norinco as wildcard variables.
