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

Hi guys, I'm a newbie to this forum looking for threads on the new gun I recently purchased- the S&W M&P 15-22 (that is currently in discussion here). I purchased my gun February 2011 from SFRC which came with 6 mags. These mags are the 25 round capacity you talk about. Due to my busy schedule, I haven't had the time to go to the range and shoot it. After reading all this, I'm glad i haven't shot it! What the heck!!!

Now my question is- knowing that this magazine has been classified as "prohibited" since last year, why would SFRC sell me a gun with "prohibited" magazines? Now what do I do?

This is nuts!
 
I just dropped you a pm. The RCMP just released the official bulletin last week. I think Wolverine has it posted in their forum.

Just pin them or block them and glue the floor plate on. RCMP tech I spoke with last week said blocking them and gluing the floor plate on to make it perm was fine as they are plastic.
nexqunyx said:
Hi guys, I'm a newbie to this forum looking for threads on the new gun I recently purchased- the S&W M&P 15-22 (that is currently in discussion here). I purchased my gun February 2011 from SFRC which came with 6 mags. These mags are the 25 round capacity you talk about. Due to my busy schedule, I haven't had the time to go to the range and shoot it. After reading all this, I'm glad i haven't shot it! What the heck!!!

Now my question is- knowing that this magazine has been classified as "prohibited" since last year, why would SFRC sell me a gun with "prohibited" magazines? Now what do I do?

This is nuts!
Click to expand...
 
Chemist said:
I just dropped you a pm. The RCMP just released the official bulletin last week. I think Wolverine has it posted in their forum.

Just pin them or block them and glue the floor plate on. RCMP tech I spoke with last week said blocking them and gluing the floor plate on to make it perm was fine as they are plastic.
Click to expand...

The same story with me. I've also got 6 mags from SFRC. For possible solution please see http://www.canadiangunnutz.com/forum/showthread.php?t=588062
 
Max Owner said:
Will the CFC notify owners of this?
Click to expand...

They certainly don't intend to, or they would have done it by now.

The more pertinent question is: did you, and the other 15-22 owners, write to Vic Toews demanding compensation? There is precedent for that from the T97 case. Now is a particularly good time since elections tend to focus politicians' attention on potentially angry supporters.
 
Most of you folks here are probably "handy" when it comes to "do-it-yourself" modification procedures such as pinning mags. Well I'm not. I don't feel comfortable drilling on these mags and pinning them myself. I'm just scared I'll mess it up. But that's just me:)

Anyhow, I just purchased some 10 round restrictors from Tacticool22 for $4.25 a piece. Looks very easy to install: h ttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UYJuVfWcwpc

This is how I will deal with this issue.
 
Max Owner said:
They should notify people.

I haven't been on their site in six years. Plus some people don't have the internet.
Click to expand...

I couldn't agree with you more:cool: Let's step back for a second and pretend we (M&P 15-22 owners) knew nothing about this new prohibition of the 25 round mag, why would we even look at the RCMP website? For what purpose? And you're right- what about people who own this gun that don't have internet? How are they suppose to know? All of a sudden, we are all in possession of prohibited devices! Why the heck wouldn't the RCMP and/or the CFO (the agency with the registry of 15-22 owners) notify us directly? How hard is it to filter (identify) the registry for all 15-22 owners....write a letter....print...then mail! Seriously!

BS!!!!:mad:
 
JimV said:
The more pertinent question is: did you, and the other 15-22 owners, write to Vic Toews demanding compensation? There is precedent for that from the T97 case.
Click to expand...

How is compensation required? Adding a rivet to meet the law is not the same as having a legally purchased and owned gun moved to prohibited status and confiscated. Nothing has been confiscated, you can still own all of the mags you purchased, just with a reduced operating capacity.

Mark
 
stark said:
Why are dealers still selling these mags can anybody explain that??
Click to expand...

Yeah I know what you mean. The place where I got my gun in February of this year (SFRC), still sells these guns that come with 25 round mags. He even gives out 5 FREE mags with every purchase. So you're stuck with 6 prohibited devices!

I questioned SFRC about this issue and posted it here....but he took it down. He said I should deal with him personally and not here. It's almost like he doesn't want the public or unsuspecting buyers to know that he is still selling these 25 round mags. Go figure!


This makes me so angry...gotta calm down:evil:
 
This could be an opportunity to use the ultra useful registry to inform all the registered owners of the firearm that they could be in violation of mag capacities, but i bet that would cost too much.
 
that guy said:
This could be an opportunity to use the ultra useful registry to inform all the registered owners of the firearm that they could be in violation of mag capacities, but i bet that would cost too much.
Click to expand...

Yeah....meanwhile, let unsuspecting John, Peter, Michael, and other people who legally acquired this firearm, and don't have internet access, shoot their guns at the range and have their 25 round mags inspected and ceased- because they had no way of knowing they they were re-classified as "prohibited".:evil:

Evil isn't it!
 
mmattockx said:
How is compensation required? Adding a rivet to meet the law is not the same as having a legally purchased and owned gun moved to prohibited status and confiscated. Nothing has been confiscated, you can still own all of the mags you purchased, just with a reduced operating capacity.

Mark
Click to expand...

In my case the magazines literally were confiscated - the gun was in for service when the reclass took effect and the dealer was instructed by the CFO not to return them. Several other customers were in the same boat.

As for everyone else, it is entirely unreasonable for government to expect owners to modify a major firearms component on their own. Meeting the legal requirement and assuring there is no safety issue requires a certain amount of technical skill. Therefore, there is at least a putative cost, which should be borne by the people that created this issue.

Lastly, and most importantly, government should be made aware that there are financial, and possibly political, consequences to retroactive reclassifications. Firearms owners only have a voice if they use it. Tugging your forelock, mumbling "yes sir" and punching a rivet through your magazine does nothing to advance the cause.

There is also the issue of notification. As has been noted by me and others, possession of the 25 round magazines is now a criminal offense. The very least they could have done was to individually notify owners.

The actual financial aspect of this issue is fairly trivial, but it's a good one to fight on principle.
 
In my case the magazines literally were confiscated - the gun was in for service when the reclass took effect and the dealer was instructed by the CFO not to return them. Several other customers were in the same boat.
Click to expand...

The shop servicing your rifle wouldn't pin them, making them legal? It took me 10 mins to pin three mags so they could have at least offered the choice instead of keeping your perfectly good mags.
 
TacticalTrunkMonkey said:
The shop servicing your rifle wouldn't pin them, making them legal? It took me 10 mins to pin three mags so they could have at least offered the choice instead of keeping your perfectly good mags.
Click to expand...

I didn't ask and they didn't offer. Possibly they might have. However, the letter from the CFO (of which I have a copy) was fairly prescriptive, so they might have felt they would be in some kind of legal jeopardy by doing so.

Anyway, that is not the point. The point is that the RCMP made a questionable retroactive decision based on an asinine law and it was mindlessly confirmed by the minister responsible. This kind of action should be challenged.

Anyone who is untroubled by this absurd and arbitrary government action should also write Vic Toews. It could go something like this:

"Dear Vic,

Thanks for getting rid of those dangerous 25 round magazines. I neutered mine in a jiffy and it only cost a buck or two. No problem, really. I'm happy the children of Canada can sleep safely in their beds at night now. Keep up the good work.

Yours in servility,

###x"
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom