Notice to S&W M&P 15-22 Rifle Owners

Questar said:
In this case the RCMP (based on S&W's own assertions) has ruled that that one particular S&W Magazine (part # specified previously) is in fact a Handgun Magazine and therefore limited to 10 shot capacity and if it is not limited to 10 shots then it is classified as a "Prohibited Device"... regardless of the firearm in which it is subsequently used.
Click to expand...

That certainly seems like a flimsy basis for classification. If S&W had called it a rifle magazine and indicated that the pistol could accept it, would it therefore not be classified prohibited? Alternately, if they assigned the rifle magazine a different part number (even though it was otherwise identical) would it avoid the prohib list?

I'm well aware that the Firearms Act is absurd, but is it really this absurd? Am I missing something here?
 
JimV said:
That certainly seems like a flimsy basis for classification. If S&W had called it a rifle magazine and indicated that the pistol could accept it, would it therefore not be classified prohibited? Alternately, if they assigned the rifle magazine a different part number (even though it was otherwise identical) would it avoid the prohib list?

I'm well aware that the Firearms Act is absurd, but is it really this absurd? Am I missing something here?
Click to expand...

You sir have an excellent grasp on the situation.....

This exactly the situation we are currently in......
 
JimV said:
That certainly seems like a flimsy basis for classification. If S&W had called it a rifle magazine and indicated that the pistol could accept it, would it therefore not be classified prohibited? Alternately, if they assigned the rifle magazine a different part number (even though it was otherwise identical) would it avoid the prohib list?

I'm well aware that the Firearms Act is absurd, but is it really this absurd? Am I missing something here?
Click to expand...

The Act is more absurd that most people will ever realize.

The SIG 556 is classified Prohibited primarily because all of advertising (done by SIG USA) leading up to the release of that new firearm stated that the newly designed firearm had been based on "the legendary SIG 550"... and by doing that the RCMP were given a clear path (some would argue they had little alternative) to classify the gun as a variant of the 550 and therefore "Prohibited". SIG themselves made the connection between the 550 and the 556 because to them it was a good marketing tool to sell the firearm in the USA and frankly they never thought about (or cared much about) what affect it would have on the gun in Canada.

If SIG had not advertised the product that way then there is a very good chance that the SIG 556 would not be classified as a "Prohibited" variant today and if the 556 had not been classified as a variant then the SIG 522 could not have been so classified.

I know everyone likes to blame the RCMP for this stuff but truthfully it is the politicians who are to blame. They wrote the laws and did a piss poor job of it. To make it worse they failed to build into the Firearms Act proper methods for making these rulings and determinations... or proper procedures for challenging and appealing the interpretations.

The more you know about the whole thing and the more you actually deal with it (day in and day out) the more frustrating and maddening it all is.

Mark
 
DVXDUDE said:
so we need another manufacture to make us a 25 round mag the exact same but punch For RIFLE only. There, problem solved.
Click to expand...

Just about. Even S&W could manufacture a magazine "for the rifle" and it would be fine... as I said originally, it is just that one model specified that has been delcared a "Prohibited Device".

Mark
 
Questar said:
I know everyone likes to blame the RCMP for this stuff but truthfully it is the politicians who are to blame. They wrote the laws and did a piss poor job of it. To make it worse they failed to build into the Firearms Act proper methods for making these rulings and determinations... or proper procedures for challenging and appealing the interpretations.
Click to expand...

True enough, but the RCMP seem eager make the most restrictive interpretation of every hazy area of the law. They could have let this 1522 mag thing alone and no one would have complained. But that's just idle whining...

More to the point, if there are not "proper procedures" for appeal, are there any, short of a court challenge? Specifically, can rulings like this be reversed or modified by OIC or ministerial direction?
 
Questar said:
I know everyone likes to blame the RCMP for this stuff but truthfully it is the politicians who are to blame.

Mark
Click to expand...

That.

Thanks Mark. All of your post hopefully helped explain things in a way that people on this site can understand.

Unfortunately, there is so much open hate and hostility towards police, and especially the rcmp, that no amount of info or reasoning will reduce the 'liability' the rcmp lab had in this decision....
 
JimV said:
True enough, but the RCMP seem eager make the most restrictive interpretation of every hazy area of the law. They could have let this 1522 mag thing alone and no one would have complained. But that's just idle whining...

More to the point, if there are not "proper procedures" for appeal, are there any, short of a court challenge? Specifically, can rulings like this be reversed or modified by OIC or ministerial direction?
Click to expand...

+1. I don't blame the RCMP for the laws, but I do blame them for pursuing an anti-gun agenda, making up policy that is not within their authority to do so, routinely overstepping their bounds wherever they can, blatant political lobbying that is directly against their policy and rules and more.

I don't know that the ruling can be overturned, but the entire mag capacity rule could be removed or altered by OIC. Read through Section 117 of the Firearms Act, it defines the regulations that the Governor in Council (Public Safety Minister Vic Toews) can alter with OIC's.

http://laws.justice.gc.ca/eng/F-11.6/page-8.html#codese:117

The problem we currently have is that Toews couldn't give a lesser s**t about black rifles of any sort, including rimfire. He doesn't think that anyone should own them and doesn't understand why anyone would want to. I wouldn't be looking to him for any support on this issue at all.

Mark
 
To be truthful, when I found out that I could be a paper criminal, in a small way I felt increased solidarity with those gun-owners who have had their firearms prohibited and confiscated. A hundred dollars pale in comparison to the thousands that were taken from others but the sense of outrage is still there.

Moving forward, *if* Smith & Wesson or another manufacturer were to build essentially the same mag but stamp it with "For use in M&P 15-22 Carbine/Rifle" would that satisfy the RCMP? If this were possible I would pay quite a bit more to obtain said magazines.
 
For those that may think we're just spreading rumour... I did get a written confirmation of this ruling and status directly from the RCMP Department involved... it is confirmed... it is NOT a mistake.
Click to expand...

Can we maybe see a copy of this written confirmation from the RCMP so we can put this tinfoil hatness to rest?
 
drache said:
Can we maybe see a copy of this written confirmation from the RCMP so we can put this tinfoil hatness to rest?
Click to expand...

As I just posted in the other thread... Badger's post is BS and insulting.

Questar had (along with North Sylva) one of the first S&W M&P 15-22 rifles in Canada long before RCMP classified them and gave us the FRT # to register them. We sold the rifles at the beginning and had ours long before Badger sold his first unit.

We have some of the magazines that were declared "Prohibited Devices" in inventory so we got caught up in this as much as anyone else... and we've been fighting it and trying to get clarification since July 8th on whether the issue applied to the rifle configuration and the hundreds/thousands of magazines already imported and sold across Canada.

I will not make public the months of emails and communication between myself and the Tables Section at RCMP (doing so would obviously affect my future communication with those people and I wouldn't blame them for taking offence to posting their emails on a public website)... but I will simply say this:

If you think I'm lying then ask anyone you know (any dealer) who has a Business Firearms License to go to the on-line FRT and look up the FRT for the S&W M&P 15-22 and the S&W M&P 15-22P firearms... ask them to click on the tab called "Additional Notes" and ask them to read you what has been added to both of those firearm classifications. They can confirm that it clearly states the rifle configuration is limited to 10 shots because the magazine has been ruled a handgun magazine.

I spoke with Domenic (North Sylva) earlier this week and directed him to this same section and he confirmed it with his own eyes while we spoke. So have others.

Those who want to ignore it all and believe I was just starting rumours... enjoy your fantasy world.

Mark
 
Oh I believe this is all going down..... I never doubted you or your honesty Mark....

I just wonder how/if are they going to enforce this retroactively? Will they let us keep our 'rifle' mags & just limit all mags sold from this point forward to 10 rnds? Or will they make us 'pin' our mags?
 
notsorichguy said:
Oh I believe this is all going down..... I never doubted you or your honesty Mark....

I just wonder how/if are they going to enforce this retroactively? Will they let us keep our 'rifle' mags & just limit all mags sold from this point forward to 10 rnds? Or will they make us 'pin' our mags?
Click to expand...

That is what everyone is trying to find out... including us.

Unlike others who are calling the CFO and asking them verbally what to do, we have submitted a written request for their instructions as to our options on how we can deal with the "now declared Prohibited Devices" we find ourselves holding in inventory as a result of this ruling. At the end of the day it is their written response that matters because the rest is just verbal and can be denied at anytime.

We have yet to get a reply... I suspect because they are trying to figure out what to do themselves.

If we look at similar situations (from the past)... I think the closest would be what happened when the Beretta Storm Rifles were first introduced to Canada (and perhaps someone with more intimate knowledge than I have could better detail those events)... the first shipment of guns arrived with 10 round magazines that had been marked as CX4 Storm magazines and if memory serves some of those guns were sold with those 10 round magazines. RCMP later ruled that the magazines were in fact "Rifle" magazines because Beretta had made them specifically for the rifle and therefore they were legally only allowed to hold 5 shots... RCMP declared the 10 round CX4 Storm rifle magazines as "Prohibited Devices" including the ones already imported into Canada and sold to customers.

I believe (this is where I don't know the facts) that dealers and distributors and customers were allowed to either pin the magazines to be in compliance or to return them to Beretta who replaced them with 10 round legal "Pistol" versions (properly marked). Actual owners who experienced this event can correct me if I'm wrong on the details.

Regardless of how they handle it... or how they decide to enforce it... the fact is that as of now the damn things have been declared "Prohibited Devices" by the only agency that matters and that is the RCMP Tables Section (the people who classify firearms and rule on what is Prohibited per the FRT).

We did NOT destroy our inventory... nor have we "pinned" them... what we did is put them aside and in writing notified the CFO that we just found out about the ruling, we stated how many we had in our possession, and we asked for clarification (in writing) from the CFO on what our legal options were for bringing ourselves into compliance, including specifically asking if we could legally "pin" the magazines to hold a maximum of 10 shots. Based on their response we will take action accordingly.

Having taken those steps we believe that it would be impossible for any court to convict us of any wrong doing given the facts and given that we are not to blame in any way and have taken all reasonable and possible steps to comply with this "new" decision.

If I was an individual I wouldn't over react but I would take steps to "cover my ass"... like writing the CFO as we did... so you have a written record of your attempt to comply and of their reply to you... if it's ever needed.

That's just my opinion...

Mark
 
Questar said:
Unlike others who are calling the CFO and asking them verbally what to do, we have submitted a written request for their instructions as to our options on how we can deal with the "now declared Prohibited Devices" we find ourselves holding in inventory as a result of this ruling. At the end of the day it is their written response that matters because the rest is just verbal and can be denied at anytime.
Click to expand...

That's pretty smart :yingyang: , and I salute you for it....:cheers:
 
Have you ever considered just sitting on the information until you had more than he said she said bs?! Causing a panic over a issue that's not even a real issue YET accomplished nothing, until you get something on writing I say you're just a #### disturber.

PS: thx for ruining my thanksgiving.
 
LuckyLuc82 said:
Have you ever considered just sitting on the information until you had more than he said she said bs?! Causing a panic over a issue that's not even a real issue YET accomplished nothing, until you get something on writing I say you're just a s**t disturber.

PS: thx for ruining my thanksgiving.
Click to expand...

Some people are not as selfish as yourself. These FACTS coming out now benefit many others for various reasons. They might hurt you but that's life.
 
LuckyLuc82 said:
Have you ever considered just sitting on the information until you had more than he said she said bs?! Causing a panic over a issue that's not even a real issue YET accomplished nothing, until you get something on writing I say you're just a s**t disturber.

PS: thx for ruining my thanksgiving.
Click to expand...

We did... we "sat on the info" as you suggested from July 8th until last week when we were sent a clear and unquestionable written communication from RCMP Tables Section telling us that the S&W 25 round magazines (part # specified) were in fact "Prohibited Devices" and that this included their use in the rifle configuration, not just the handgun model. We spent those four months trying to get a clear statement in writing from RCMP whether this ruling applied to the magazines previously imported into Canada with rifles and whether it applied to use of the magazine in rifle models. When we got that written confirmation and when we ALSO confirmed that the RCMP had put this notice into the on-line FRT system for all dealers and public agents to see, then and only then did we go public with the info.

If that makes me a s**t disturber in your eyes then so be it. If it ruined your Thanksgiving then that's just too bad... put your head back in the sand and pretend none of this is happening... you'll be fine.

Mark
 
mmattockx said:
I don't know that the ruling can be overturned, but the entire mag capacity rule could be removed or altered by OIC. Read through Section 117 of the Firearms Act, it defines the regulations that the Governor in Council (Public Safety Minister Vic Toews) can alter with OIC's.

http://laws.justice.gc.ca/eng/F-11.6/page-8.html#codese:117

The problem we currently have is that Toews couldn't give a lesser s**t about black rifles of any sort, including rimfire. He doesn't think that anyone should own them and doesn't understand why anyone would want to. I wouldn't be looking to him for any support on this issue at all.

Mark
Click to expand...

Still, if he's the only recourse.....Seems to me that this is perfect opportunity for CSSA/NFA/CFI, whoever, to approach him with a rational presentation and seek a reversal of this obviously absurd anomaly. After all, this isn't even really a "black rifle", just a dressed up .22. Even Toews should be able to understand that it's fundamentally no different than thousands of other ones and that few, if any at all, have ever created any kind of public safety problem. I've got to believe that he is not totally immune to logic. And I don't think there would be any political repercussions given the overall situation and relative puniness of the issue.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom