LAR 15 mags are no longer directly refered to in the RCMP special bulletin

Deuce-deuce said:
Brian, We've been though this already.... It was never "valid". The bulletin in question is/was simply the rcmp's opinion on the matter.
Click to expand...
ok, I will change the words to match yours since you wish to use opinion.

what do you do when the officer says that is the old opinion of the RCMP, hence why I said it (old bulletin 72) was no longer valid? RCMP opinions change, which can clearly bee seen by the attempted change of swiss arms and 858 rifles to prohib status after many years of NR status.

The law hasn't changed
Click to expand...
correct, I did not say that did I?
 
Last edited:
Brian46 said:
ok, I will change the words to match yours since you wish to use opinion.

what do you do when the officer says that is the old opinion of the RCMP, hence why I said it (old bulletin 72) was no longer valid? RCMP opinions change, which can clearly bee seen by the attempted change of swiss arms and 858 rifles to prohib status after many years of NR status.

correct, I did not say that did I?
Click to expand...
Brian, ask the lawyer you've claimed to have on retainer. He or she is where you should obtain these answers from this is why you're paying them, right? Again, the law hasn't changed.
 
Deuce-deuce said:
Brian, ask the lawyer you've claimed to have on retainer. He or she is where you should obtain these answers from this is why you're paying them, right?
Click to expand...
I have all the legal opinion and representation I need
Again, the law hasn't changed.
Click to expand...
Again, I never said the law had changed, I sad bulletin 72 changed, which is an opinion of the RCMP. It is also left open to broad interpretations just like our firearms act.

To rely on an old outdated opinion of the RCMP by making copies and passing it off as current like many have suggested is not the best idea to ensure you are not subject to persecution by an uninformed officer while out shooting is all I am saying/have said.
 
Brian46 said:
I have all the legal opinion and representation I need Again, I never said the law had changed, I sad bulletin 72 changed, which is an opinion of the RCMP. It is also left open to broad interpretations just like our firearms act.

To rely on an old outdated opinion of the RCMP by making copies and passing it off as current like many have suggested is not the best idea to ensure you are not subject to persecution by an uninformed officer while out shooting is all I am saying/have said.
Click to expand...

Not like Itl negitives effect it. If he thinks it's illegal and calls your piece of paper outdated you're no further behind than if you didn't have the paper.
 
Brian46 said:
I have all the legal opinion and representation I need Again, I never said the law had changed, I sad bulletin 72 changed, which is an opinion of the RCMP. It is also left open to broad interpretations just like our firearms act.

To rely on an old outdated opinion of the RCMP by making copies and passing it off as current like many have suggested is not the best idea to ensure you are not subject to persecution by an uninformed officer while out shooting is all I am saying/have said.
Click to expand...
You need a new lawyer. Bottom line.
 
Brian46 said:
lol, you should start representing people in firearms cases in this country if you think you are more experienced that what is considered to be one of the best, if not the best firearms lawyers in the country today.
Click to expand...

You've got "the best firearms lawyer in the country" and he can't tell you that the law hasn't changed?
How about you tell us who this fellow is and what his opinion is... Because truth be told all I've seen you do so far is squack and ask silly questions. You haven't provided an opinion, yours, the best firearms lawyer's or other wise.
Apparently you shoot .50 in an AR-15 or so you've claimed... Do you also have a LAR pistol or do you have no dog in this fight?
 
Brian46: I've told you before... Obviously us cretins don't appreciate your sagacious counsel... You should abandon us to our fates and annoy; *ahem*, enlighten those on other websites...
 
Really getting tired of this - if you honestly think this stuff is illegal, or might be, don't do it. If you don't think it's illegal, go ahead and do it. Quit worrying about some ###### who can't tell a firing pin from a selector switch.
 
Deuce-deuce said:
You've got "the best firearms lawyer in the country" and he can't tell you that the law hasn't changed?
Click to expand...
which law did I say changed, please post the link because I do not know what you are talking about.

Apparently you shoot .50 in an AR-15 or so you've claimed... Do you also have a LAR pistol or do you have no dog in this fight?
Click to expand...
never said in an AR-15, nor does one need a LAR pistol or AR 15 to own and use 10 rnd pistol mags
 
Wow...just wow?
Why are some insisting on twisting Brian's words.
It DOES NOT MATTER what the law actually is vs. what an 8yr old document says vs. the original Bulletin 72 nor the revised Bulletin 72 FFS!
What DOES MATTER is that LEOs don't KNOW the LAW,as has been clearly demonstrated on the "hidden camera" YouTube vid posted here awhile back,wherein a Mounty argued(wrongfully) that the mags were illegal and proceeded to seize the rifle,despite the gun owner's insistance that "everybody has them" and "it's plastered all over gunnutz" etc., etc.
Wether it's an over zealous,misinformed mounty,city cop,game warden,CO,or know it all range master,the fact remains,IT WOULD BE NICE to have a copy of the unedited,original B72 in one's possession to HOPEFULLY avoid the hassle and expense of having to fight to get one's unlawfully seized property returned.
Thanks for posting the linked 2007 doc.,but as previously posted,wether the LAW has changed or not is irrelevant,if the LEO is of the opinion that it has changed is all that matters at the time,and IT WOULD BE NICE to have the more recent copy of B72 prior to the direct reference to LAR15 being deleted from same.
 
Exactly, it boils dow to punishment by process because the people enforcing the laws quite often do not know the law as we have see mulitple times on this forum through members posting their interactions, some even on video.

Old bulletin link

http://web.archive.org/web/20130703024127/http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/cfp-pcaf/bulletins/bus-ent/20110323-72-eng.htm

Not that it is even worth the paper it is written on
 
Neither are worth it if the cop is going to be an idiot. So I'll use them - legally. Regardless of the paper, but there is no harm in having it. Be it the old one or the new one.
 
Contrary to the firm belief held by the RCMP's senior ranks, the Queen's Cowboys are tasked with enforcing current laws, not the creation of their own. The only way they've gotten that $hit to fly in the past is thanks to political apathy/collusion and firearms owners lacking the cojones to stand up for themselves and demand that Ottawa rein in their bully boys.
 
Brian46 said:
Exactly, it boils dow to punishment by process because the people enforcing the laws quite often do not know the law as we have see mulitple times on this forum through members posting their interactions, some even on video.

Old bulletin link

http://web.archive.org/web/20130703...fp-pcaf/bulletins/bus-ent/20110323-72-eng.htm

Not that it is even worth the paper it is written on
Click to expand...

Thank you! If a LEO is ignorant enough not to know the proper LAW on this matter he will be ignorant on knowing old from new opinions
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom