LAR mags Do they have to be labelled as such ?

the actual labelling has no criminal "weight" as if this went to court, a party would have to go back to the actual manufacturer for those "designed for" details.

You could label anything as anything, it's just paint/etching/etc.

I'm also fairly certain that the crown would have to prove without reasonable doubt that the magazine was indeed a prohibited device to get you in jail/$$, and not the other way around.
 
Anybody know how approx how many LAR pistols (or similar) were sold in Canada? I wonder if we've reached the point yet where there are 1,000 mags for each one floating around ;)
 
Rally_Driver said:
Anybody know how approx how many LAR pistols (or similar) were sold in Canada? I wonder if we've reached the point yet where there are 1,000 mags for each one floating around ;)
Click to expand...

jeesus, there's WAY more than 1000... Dilligaf on his own must have half that number, lol. Mike must have 5k of them also.

I've got 15 (i think).


if only magpul made pistol pmags... I'd flush all the other ones i have!
 
Last edited:
tharkhold said:
the actual labelling has no criminal "weight" as if this went to court, a party would have to go back to the actual manufacturer for those "designed for" details.
Click to expand...

That is exactly what the rcmp lab does when deciding legality..... For example, Part of the reason why the rcmp takes forever in generating an art is because of how long it takes for whoever submitted the item to procure and supply said paperwork to the rcmp lab

Or do you believe they just make it up as they go?
 
tharkhold said:
the actual labelling has no criminal "weight" as if this went to court, a party would have to go back to the actual manufacturer for those "designed for" details.

You could label anything as anything, it's just paint/etching/etc.

I'm also fairly certain that the crown would have to prove without reasonable doubt that the magazine was indeed a prohibited device to get you in jail/$$, and not the other way around.
Click to expand...

You are correct that in court, the validity of the marking as a proxy for understanding the designers and manufacturers intent will be an issue. And in particular, the lack of marking can not be taken as proof of anything. The onus should be on the crown to establish that the magazine was infact designed or manufactured as something that would correspond to a prohibited capacity.

The crown does not have to prove that you intended to possess the device as a prohibited item. If that was true than everyone would simply claim no intent to break the law and no one would ever get convicted of anything.

The onus on the crown is to prove that the item is prohibited, by proving the capacity is excessive based on the regulations and the design/manufacture of the mag, and then they have to prove simply that you intended to possess it. THe possession part will be the easy part. Proving the design part will be a mess which is why no crown would ever go to trial on it.

Sadly, few gun owners would want to go to trial on it either considering trial costs tens of thousands, and so far the crown has always offered to drop all charges if you simply forfeit the 30 dollar magazine. You'd have to be willing to martyr yourself for the cause not to take that offer. I suspect that unless the law changes, we will still be talking about this 30 years from now, and still without a judges ruling .
 
Brian46 said:
That is exactly what the rcmp lab does when deciding legality..... For example, Part of the reason why the rcmp takes forever in generating an art is because of how long it takes for whoever submitted the item to procure and supply said paperwork to the rcmp lab

Or do you believe they just make it up as they go?
Click to expand...

They mostly make it up as they go. Keep in mind there is an editorial process involved in these designations. I've had a guy from SFSS contact my company as the manufacturer of regulated items, and ask for additional technical information on an item. And he frankly admitted that all his technical information will be taken "under advisement" as a recommendation, and the head of the group, whose name is often cursed here on the forum, has the final say, which is only somewhat informed by the technical research and heavily informed by what he wants it to be.
 
Cameron SS said:
You are correct that in court, the validity of the marking as a proxy for understanding the designers and manufacturers intent will be an issue. And in particular, the lack of marking can not be taken as proof of anything. The onus should be on the crown to establish that the magazine was infact designed or manufactured as something that would correspond to a prohibited capacity.

The crown does not have to prove that you intended to possess the device as a prohibited item. If that was true than everyone would simply claim no intent to break the law and no one would ever get convicted of anything.

The onus on the crown is to prove that the item is prohibited, by proving the capacity is excessive based on the regulations and the design/manufacture of the mag, and then they have to prove simply that you intended to possess it. THe possession part will be the easy part. Proving the design part will be a mess which is why no crown would ever go to trial on it.

Sadly, few gun owners would want to go to trial on it either considering trial costs tens of thousands, and so far the crown has always offered to drop all charges if you simply forfeit the 30 dollar magazine. You'd have to be willing to martyr yourself for the cause not to take that offer. I suspect that unless the law changes, we will still be talking about this 30 years from now, and still without a judges ruling .
Click to expand...

I do not know of one case where a judge has ruled against the RCMP's lab determination forcing a change of said classification.

Such a ruling would undermine the current system, something our current government would never allow considering how they back the rcmp lab as the only entity capable of deciding firearm legalities
 
Cameron SS said:
Sadly, few gun owners would want to go to trial on it either considering trial costs tens of thousands, and so far the crown has always offered to drop all charges if you simply forfeit the 30 dollar magazine. You'd have to be willing to martyr yourself for the cause not to take that offer. I suspect that unless the law changes, we will still be talking about this 30 years from now, and still without a judges ruling .
Click to expand...

Maybe if this ever happened to a CGNer we could start a gofundme for legal costs. I'd gladly give a few hundred to set a desired precedent.
 
There is no law, therefor no legal requirement for the magazines to have any markings on them at all.

However, you will then be left to prove what the magazine really is, in the event you need to deal with the authorities.
 
ponymusic said:
Bill Etter's 'ruling' (when referring to the Rock River Arms Model LAR-15 magazines) included:

These particular designs are approved for use as "handgun magazines for a handgun commonly available in Canada"
Click to expand...

DVX said:
Hence my comment "for any pistol sold in Canada" ;)
Click to expand...

Not to put too fine a point on it, but "commonly" , not "any" , is the relevant part in Etter's ruling I was referring to.
 
Bubba Yugga said:
Don't confuse federal law with provincial.
Ontario hunting regulations specify 2+1 for shotguns but defer to federal law for rifle capacity, while mentioning "usually 5".
Don't forget that a lot of hunters take deer with 10 round capacity Lee Enfields.
Click to expand...

Don't confuse a Lee Enfield with a semi auto and we'll be onto something.
 
Thought it better to resurrect this thread than start a new one.

I can't find any anecdotal commentary one way or the other on the legality of the MFT mags (sold by nearly every online gun retailer). They don't appear to be marked as pistol mags. Are people running a risk with these, or is it common knowledge amongst law enforcement that these 10 round mags regardless of markings are legit?

Is there any documentation one could carry if stopped by an uninformed LE officer? I guess you could print the receipt for the purchase and hope that the word "pistol" in the product description is satisfactory.

Thoughts?
 
Juster said:
There is always somebody who feels compelled to post "A gun shop is selling this, isn't it illegal?".
Click to expand...

Well, I'll admit... I'm new to all this so are you saying that if it's for sale it can't possibly be a prohibited mag?

I did find this at one online retailer who sells the LAR mags, which they offer as support for using the LAR marked versions. It seems to indicate that the markings on the mag are an important identifier...

https://static.wixstatic.com/media/...14c4_1e1876c99574487c840433720f697ee1~mv2.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom