Max shotgun rounds per the RCMP

tiriaq said:
Perhaps your credibility would be greater if you had not deleted the name of the RCMP official. If this is indeed a formal RCMP interpretation, the name of the person responsible for the interpretation is part of the decision. For example, it was Bill Etter of the SFSS who issued the interpretation that allowed a 10 round handgun magazine to be used in a semi auto centerfire long arm.
Click to expand...

I thought about including the name, but decided not to because I didn't think an appropriate outcome of my query would be "interwebs versus a single individual." And as for credibility, if you don't feel my post was an authentic copy-paste of emails between myself and the RCMP, then feel free to not believe it. The edits I made were the names, reversing the conversation so my question comes before the answer, and a whole crap load of indents to make it readable.

But I can clarify that the email did not appear to come from a senior official, and it was not Mr. Etter. My perception is that the individual who responded would be the same one a firearm query would be forwarded to if a call came in to the 1-800 number.
 
Bubbafett33 said:
.....Five shots plus one in the chamber exceeds the five shots restriction....

Utterly irrelevant statement. The restriction is specifically and entirely on magazine capacity; a round in the chamber is not relevant.

.....Firearms that have a magazine capacity greater than five rounds must have their magazine pinned or altered to only allow five rounds (again with one exception, the M1 Garand).....

Utterly incorrect statement. Magazines for automatic firearms are limited in capacity, not firearms in general.

.....This five shot restriction does not include pump, lever or bolt action firearms. It also does not include rimfire ammunition.

Rimfire ammunition, for the most part, is more commonly known as 22 LR, 22 MAG and 17 HMR. There is no restriction on the number of shots a firearm can have in these three caliber's.....

Crap. Whether a firearm is pump, lever or bolt action is irrelevant; it is the magazine which may be restricted, depending on the firearm for which it was designed. Pistol magazines are limited to 10 rounds, regardless of centerfire or rimfire.

.....caliber's.....

"caliber's" is a possessive from of the noun. "calibers" is the plural. Unusual to see an official RCMP release with an error like this.

You won't identify the RCMP official who generated this drivel, but it is obviously not someone competent to be in a position to issue an official RCMP interpretation.

You might want contact the RCMP again, and speak with someone actually qualified and authorized to issue an interpretation.
Click to expand...
 

:confused:

Ah I found the officer, using complex hexidecimal calculations and created a fortran basic code to derive his identity, I can't name him but here's his photo with a bar to protect his identity..

wKsDwRb.jpg


https://www.mnn.com/earth-matters/space/stories/black-holes-are-portals-to-other-universes-according-to-new-quantum
 
Bubbafett33 said:
Yes - Grew up with rifles/shotguns on the farm, then pretty much left them untouched as I moved to the big city for edumacation, wife, and kids. But now my kids are at an age where we can enjoy shooting together, and I'm "catching up" on 20 years of firearms developments.

Top of mind (because kids) is safety and legality. I want as many shells as I can jam in the damn thing, and for many many clays and watermelons to pay the price...but I'm trying to avoid a situation where one of my kids' shooting memories is "that day dad got his shotgun confiscated".

Hence my attempt at clarifying the topic from the RCMP's perspective (because regardless of the 'code, it would likely be the RCMP interpreting it on the side of the road).

Apologies for causing a fuss!
Click to expand...

We do not need to be contacting the RCMP for clarification as this could potentially raise red flags. I would think the best person to contact would be a lawyer well versed in firearm law. We have all seen the "interpretations" handed down from the RCMP in the past.
 
Pocisk said:
Yes, I was being a trouble maker :)

The RCMP says STANAG rifle mags are limited to 5, but that's not what the law says. This is evidenced by the fact that they already differentiate between STANAG handgun mags and STANAG rifle mags. Not recognizing STANAG manual bolt action mags is entirely arbitrary and inconsistent with the law.
Click to expand...

Totally went over my head initially. Yeah, I agree it’s arbitrary bullcrap.
 
Bubbafett33 said:
I thought about including the name, but decided not to because I didn't think an appropriate outcome of my query would be "interwebs versus a single individual." And as for credibility, if you don't feel my post was an authentic copy-paste of emails between myself and the RCMP, then feel free to not believe it. The edits I made were the names, reversing the conversation so my question comes before the answer, and a whole crap load of indents to make it readable.

But I can clarify that the email did not appear to come from a senior official, and it was not Mr. Etter. My perception is that the individual who responded would be the same one a firearm query would be forwarded to if a call came in to the 1-800 number.
Click to expand...

GTFO, you shht disturber. Go play "on that farm with your kids" somewhere else PLEASE!
 
Junction said:
GTFO, you shht disturber. Go play "on that farm with your kids" somewhere else PLEASE!
Click to expand...

Why are you harping on the op like that? He asked a reasonable question, albeit one that should have been clear after taking his PAL course, of an official who should have been able to answer it correctly. No need to rag on him for his decision to not include names in his post.

OP, would you care to share the name of the official who responded to you? It would not be inappropriate as it is an on the record correspondence in a field he should be well versed in.
 
new210/22 said:
Why are you harping on the op like that? He asked a reasonable question, albeit one that should have been clear after taking his PAL course, of an official who should have been able to answer it correctly. No need to rag on him for his decision to not include names in his post.

OP, would you care to share the name of the official who responded to you? It would not be inappropriate as it is an on the record correspondence in a field he should be well versed in.
Click to expand...

Something tells me we won't get a response on this.
 
Wow. Some of the replies in this thread are pretty salty... Just a reminder that I don’t make or interpret any firearms laws! ��

Here’s a screen shot of the email. Had I known people would have been bent out of shape about the name, I would have included it in the first place. Especially since it’s first name only. As I said earlier, this was not a formal response from a senior official. Likely she’s the same one who handles firearms 1-800 calls.

**Image and video linking functions will be enabled after you have contributed more to the forum**

Edit—won’t let me post screenshot. Name was Karri. No last name.

Edit 2: maybe link itself will work: https://photos.app.goo.gl/EawXfJirNEe3MEGHA
 
Last edited:
Just more BS it seems. If its an email, whats the email address that "Karri" uses?

Also, why don't you email it to a CGNer, they will post it, or better yet, upload to a photo hosting site and post a link to it. Its not that hard.


Bubbafett33 said:
Wow. Some of the replies in this thread are pretty salty... Just a reminder that I don’t make or interpret any firearms laws! ��

Here’s a screen shot of the email. Had I known people would have been bent out of shape about the name, I would have included it in the first place. Especially since it’s first name only. As I said earlier, this was not a formal response from a senior official. Likely she’s the same one who handles firearms 1-800 calls.

**Image and video linking functions will be enabled after you have contributed more to the forum**

Edit—won’t let me post screenshot. Name was Karri. No last name.
Click to expand...
 
Light Infantry said:
I must say, you don't give up.

Even though its easy to fake an email, you can't even do that.
Click to expand...

Okay. Enough. Why in hell would I want to fake an email like this?

If you don't believe it's legit, then don't. I saw a bunch of contradicting information online about this issue, and went to these guys (http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/en/firearms) and contacted them to clarify.

The fact that the RCMP also happen to be the most likely to someday ask me "do you have any firearms in the vehicle, sir?" makes their thoughts on the matter even more compelling.

I simply thought the folks on a forum like this would find the response interesting, but at this point I wish I hadn't shared.
 
Last edited:
Bubbafett33 said:
Okay. Enough. Why in hell would I want to fake an email like this?

If you don't believe it's legit, then don't. I saw a bunch of contradicting information online about this issue, and went to these guys (http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/en/firearms) and contacted them to clarify.

The fact that the RCMP also happen to be the most likely to someday ask me "do you have any firearms in the vehicle, sir?" makes their thoughts on the matter even more compelling.

I simply thought the folks on a forum like this would find the response interesting, but at this point I wish I hadn't shared.
Click to expand...

There is a lot of contradicting information about everything online. The thing you seem to be missing is that the correct information is available online and it is found in the firearms act. The information you received from the rcmp is not enlightening to anyone here. And it’s not even remotely interesting and the reason is because it is wrong. Just for fun, submit your question to the rcmp again. How much do you want to bet you get an answer different from the one you just posted?

You need to understand that if you came on here with a letter from the people most likely to ask you do you have any firearms in the vehicle sir and they said you could legally hold 20 rounds in your shotgun, you would have gotten the same response. Hang around here long enough and you will come to realize that one rcmp officer’s letter does not the law make! The reply you got was worthless because it was patently wrong; it would afford you the same protection as a letter saying 20 rounds was ok. The answer is in the firearms act - read that and you will see the legal capacity of your shotgun is no big mystery.
 
Bubbafett33 had a question which is a serious one, given the possibility of different interpretations.
He contacted someone in the RCMP, and got the response that he posted. There is no doubt that he wished to pass on this information in good faith.
It is apparent that the person who responded was not qualified or competent to make an official RCMP interpretation.
For quite some time, the principal has been that tubular magazine capacity had to be restricted to no more than five rounds of the ammunition for which the shotgun was designed and chambered.
If "Karri's" interpretation is correct, these tubular shotgun magazines would have to be limited to about 7" of cartridges, five of the shortest 1 1/2" Aguila shells being about that length. This would mean that just about every autoloading shotgun in the country (with the possible exception of the Browning Double Auto) would have a prohibited magazine.
There is no evidence whatsoever that this is RCMP policy or practice.
If someone needs to get an official RCMP policy or interpretation, it is important that the information comes from someone qualified and competent to release it. The RCMP has, from time to time, released official policy statements. These appear on the CFP website.
 
For what it's worth, on a canada geese hunt this fall on the Ontario side, i had a chat with a conservation officer that i know personally.

I ask him about the shell i put on the carrier plate of my Benelli M4, and i was told that if the shotgun is properly plugged, anything else is irrelevant.

He call my shell on the carrier plate, a magical trick, he told me he was impress, it was funny, we had some laughs. At the end, i was told, that he could not charge someone for that.
 
Bubbafett33 said:
Okay. Enough. Why in hell would I want to fake an email like this?

If you don't believe it's legit, then don't. I saw a bunch of contradicting information online about this issue, and went to these guys (http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/en/firearms) and contacted them to clarify.

The fact that the RCMP also happen to be the most likely to someday ask me "do you have any firearms in the vehicle, sir?" makes their thoughts on the matter even more compelling.

I simply thought the folks on a forum like this would find the response interesting, but at this point I wish I hadn't shared.
Click to expand...

Don't let the louder people on this forum dissuade you from sharing or participating. The louder and crazier the voices, usually are to be ignored.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom