Please show me the case law where someone has been charged for storing ammunition in a buttstock.
I disagree wholeheartedly with your interpretation. Free legal advice on the internet is worth every penny that you pay for it.
It pretty much comes down to the above... A court case where someone is charged for breaching the law via the above definition of "unloaded" which then becomes the way this is pursued afterwards as this is a grey area...
But...
Let's look at their definition of a firearm: (
http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/cfp-pcaf/faq/index-eng.htm#a4 )
"Q4. What is considered to be a firearm for purposes of the Firearms Act and for offences related to the Firearms Act in the Criminal Code?
A4. As set out in section 2 of the Criminal Code, "firearm" means:
a barrelled weapon from which any shot, bullet or other projectile can be discharged and that is capable of causing serious bodily injury or death to a person, and
includes
any frame or receiver of such a barrelled weapon, as well as
anything that can be adapted for use as a firearm."
The definition of a firearm includes frame and receiver, they did not include stock in the definition of a firearm. The above laws you quoted, were with respect to a firearm, by their own definition the stock is not an included component.
If you were arrested to the above laws which mention magazines attached, you would have to go to court and argue this case with a lawyer. Afterwards the rest of us would benefit from you establishing that magazines attached to the stock are acceptable, but at an expense.
So in the case of an early browning A-bolt where the drop mag swings out, it's attached to the "frame or receiver", but in the case of the backpacker or say a steyr scout, the extra magazine is attached to the stock, which by definition of a firearm, is not a firearm.
Just my 2 cents. I hope no one has to go to court over this.
