Magazine legality

Here's something I can tell you...
I know a guy who got charged with possession of a butler creek 10-22 magazine. He's not a gun guy, so it wasn't on here. It was a domestic issue (crazy b!tch). In the end the charges were dropped... apparently because there was no date on the magazine. His property was not returned.
Take it for what it is.
 
King0265 said:
Fack the system. It ain’t law until it’s law. A bulletin ain’t law.
Click to expand...

I agree. I'm not going to go looking to get charged and be the test case but I'm also not going to let the RCMP's interpretation and the possible consequences of fighting prohib device charges cause me to not use these mags.

I refuse to let them "win" by making us fear the process. If everyone went and pinned their Beo mags to 2 or destroyed them or hid them and never brought them out into the light of day then the RCMP would never have to worry about getting laws changed - they can simply scare us into compliance.

I know not everyone feels this way and I'm not saying they are wrong. I'm just saying what feels right for me and I hope there are more people like me than these threads indicate....seems like the most vocal people in these sorts of threads are the ones who are bowing to the RCMP's interpretation and warning everyone else to do the same.
 
Runningfool said:
I agree. I'm not going to go looking to get charged and be the test case but I'm also not going to let the RCMP's interpretation and the possible consequences of fighting prohib device charges cause me to not use these mags.

I refuse to let them "win" by making us fear the process. If everyone went and pinned their Beo mags to 2 or destroyed them or hid them and never brought them out into the light of day then the RCMP would never have to worry about getting laws changed - they can simply scare us into compliance.

I know not everyone feels this way and I'm not saying they are wrong. I'm just saying what feels right for me and I hope there are more people like me than these threads indicate....seems like the most vocal people in these sorts of threads are the ones who are bowing to the RCMP's interpretation and warning everyone else to do the same.
Click to expand...
I have faught frivilous charges in court and won. It costs you a lot of money and likely your livelihood.

Would I do it again if I was forced to? Yes, because taking a plea for something you didn't do is far worse.

Don't forget that even after proving your innocence the fact you were arrested and charged never comes off your record, it can cause problems when applying for work, crossing borders, etc for the rest of your life. People also remember any news articles that may have been published at very inconvenient times and places. The media never makes a full retraction after you are found innocent on the same front page, if you are really lucky you may get a tiny blurb in a section nobody reads or channel nobody watches
 
Deuce-deuce said:
Here's something I can tell you...
I know a guy who got charged with possession of a butler creek 10-22 magazine. He's not a gun guy, so it wasn't on here. It was a domestic issue (crazy b!tch). In the end the charges were dropped... apparently because there was no date on the magazine. His property was not returned.
Take it for what it is.
Click to expand...

I will bet my last dollar that the guy you know was offered a deal where the charges would be dropped only IF he agreed to surrender the seized mag. Without charges, there are no grounds for police/crown to hold the mag. Only way he didn't get his mag back was if he agreed to it.

I suspect the lack of dates is why the crown was willing to make the offer. There have been several reports now of crowns not being sure if they could even win the case, and as a compromise they offer to drop charges if the accused surrenders the magazine for destruction. Very slimy.
 
Cameron SS said:
I will bet my last dollar that the guy you know was offered a deal where the charges would be dropped only IF he agreed to surrender the seized mag. Without charges, there are no grounds for police/crown to hold the mag. Only way he didn't get his mag back was if he agreed to it.

I suspect the lack of dates is why the crown was willing to make the offer. There have been several reports now of crowns not being sure if they could even win the case, and as a compromise they offer to drop charges if the accused surrenders the magazine for destruction. Very slimy.
Click to expand...

Cops confiscate stuff without charges all the time. Argue with the cop that he can't do that and they'll tell you either i take it, or i charge you and take it. Had it happen multiple times with marijuana as a teenager.

As for the date thing, I don't know how much I trust that. According to the rcmp ALL 10/22 mags over 10rds are prohib. Period. So it doesn't add up to me.

It should be noted that when the memo went out to the police, they were specifically instructed NOT to lay charges for 10/22 mags alone, and they were to confiscate without charges if that was the only offense. I'm assuming that's because charging someone runs the risk of it going to court, where a judge could potentially strike down the rcmp interpretation and they wouldn't want that to happen.
 
Cameron SS said:
I will bet my last dollar that the guy you know was offered a deal where the charges would be dropped only IF he agreed to surrender the seized mag. Without charges, there are no grounds for police/crown to hold the mag. Only way he didn't get his mag back was if he agreed to it.

I suspect the lack of dates is why the crown was willing to make the offer. There have been several reports now of crowns not being sure if they could even win the case, and as a compromise they offer to drop charges if the accused surrenders the magazine for destruction. Very slimy.
Click to expand...

They are not going to give you back something they claim is prohibited, this is just the beginning
 
Cameron SS said:
I will bet my last dollar that the guy you know was offered a deal where the charges would be dropped only IF he agreed to surrender the seized mag. Without charges, there are no grounds for police/crown to hold the mag. Only way he didn't get his mag back was if he agreed to it.

I suspect the lack of dates is why the crown was willing to make the offer. There have been several reports now of crowns not being sure if they could even win the case, and as a compromise they offer to drop charges if the accused surrenders the magazine for destruction. Very slimy.
Click to expand...

They are not going to give you back something they claim is prohibited, this is just the beginning
 
Kingjenky said:
But really what could we do about it at that point.
Click to expand...

DO not consent. Lawyer up. Make them go in front of a judge and convince him you were in possession of a prohibited device. Hint, the crown is bluffing and at the last possible second he will blink and give you your mags back.
 
Cameron SS said:
Not easily no, but ultimately unless they are willing to go to a judge for it, and prove its prohibited, they can't keep it without your consent.
Click to expand...

They have already arrested, charged and successfully kept beowulf and 10-22 mags from people. Even if you somehow win in court (unlikely as the current government is on record stating the RCMP are the only entity in canada empowered with deciding gun legalities) they will appeal and the liberals will make changes to the act if still not in their favor
 
Kingjenky said:
But really what could we do about it at that point.
Click to expand...

Go to court and fight. I will warn you though, I brought a matter to supreme court, a rather simple one (2 day trial) just the fees and my lawyers prep to be able to get in to the courtroom was $40,000. This was also not a criminal matter which is far more costly
 
Brian46 said:
They have already arrested, charged and successfully kept beowulf and 10-22 mags from people. Even if you somehow win in court (unlikely as the current government is on record stating the RCMP are the only entity in canada empowered with deciding gun legalities) they will appeal and the liberals will make changes to the act if still not in their favor
Click to expand...

Were those individuals convicted at trial after pleading not guilty, or did they consent to the criminal charges by taking a guilty plea? The last government was on record saying the RCMP have no legal empowerment to decide gun legalities, and both are wrong, as they are on many other issues. Government statements usually only reflect their intent, and are unhelpful in determine what is the current status of an issue, or its future possible outcomes.

Sorry to hear about your costs with going to the SCC. I have heard some qualified people opine that a successful SCC challenge on a criminal code issue, particularly as one as complex as a gun issue, can run north of a million. Not for the faint of heart.
 
Cameron SS said:
Were those individuals convicted at trial after pleading not guilty, or did they consent to the criminal charges by taking a guilty plea? The last government was on record saying the RCMP have no legal empowerment to decide gun legalities, and both are wrong, as they are on many other issues. Government statements usually only reflect their intent, and are unhelpful in determine what is the current status of an issue, or its future possible outcomes.
Click to expand...
the government can change the act is my point. If they are backing the rcmp like they have claimed, any ruling that goes against them will be undone with a change of the act/law
 
Brian46 said:
the government can change the act is my point. If they are backing the rcmp like they have claimed, any ruling that goes against them will be undone with a change of the act/law
Click to expand...

Thats always a possibility, although so far I have not seen anything from the Liberals that demonstrates they even understand the issue, let alone are committed to doing something about it. The track record of legislative solutions does show they could legislate something without understanding it, and its a total crap shoot where any new legislation will land. Just as the Liberals will shrug to most of gun owners complaints, if the RCMP start losing in court and complain for modified legislation, I can just as easily see the Liberals giving them a shrug as well. With the current legislative agenda and pressing issues of the day, guns just don't rank very highly on their to do list.
 
Cameron SS said:
Thats always a possibility, although so far I have not seen anything from the Liberals that demonstrates they even understand the issue, let alone are committed to doing something about it. The track record of legislative solutions does show they could legislate something without understanding it, and its a total crap shoot where any new legislation will land. Just as the Liberals will shrug to most of gun owners complaints, if the RCMP start losing in court and complain for modified legislation, I can just as easily see the Liberals giving them a shrug as well. With the current legislative agenda and pressing issues of the day, guns just don't rank very highly on their to do list.
Click to expand...

They need more un-informed voters. 2 years left with the present gov't and they need to hustle! LOL

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/immigration-canada-2018-1.4371146
 
Cameron SS said:
Thats always a possibility, although so far I have not seen anything from the Liberals that demonstrates they even understand the issue, let alone are committed to doing something about it. The track record of legislative solutions does show they could legislate something without understanding it, and its a total crap shoot where any new legislation will land. Just as the Liberals will shrug to most of gun owners complaints, if the RCMP start losing in court and complain for modified legislation, I can just as easily see the Liberals giving them a shrug as well. With the current legislative agenda and pressing issues of the day, guns just don't rank very highly on their to do list.
Click to expand...

More and more terror attacks mean any anti gun legislation will have the traction it needs to be approved quickly by those who don't understand the issue very well
 
I know its been mentioned a few times on cgn that a few people were charged for possession of a prohib dev and then it was overturned in court. Can anyone quote some court cases or case law that supports these statements?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom