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

[Chuckbuster]

I have a slightly different take on this. I don't think this was a deliberately provocative campaign... .

Yes, I would have to agree. The way I framed the statement was not meant to say that this whole fiasco was planned out...but that is how I (poorly) worded it at the time. Rather, I meant that due to bureaucratic bungling, we are being told that we will be held responsible for their mistakes.

 

[cybershooters]

The three things that piss me off the most about this are:

(a) I went out of my way to comply with the law and if I hadn't, I would have had a much easier time of it because I could have turned them in now and gotten a properly worded receipt that would satisfy the CFC;
(b) I've probably spent more time on this bureaucratic paper chase than I have actually shooting the thing and
(c) These things are legal in the UK, where I'm originally from. In fact the SIG-Sauer 522 is legal in the UK let alone the S&W mags.

The guy I spoke to sounded surprised I hadn't pinned them, I couldn't see the point to pinning them because you just have a big empty space at the bottom of the mag that gets in the way, I'd rather have a shorter mag.

 

[Shalpin]

well surprise, surprise... The Ontario CFO is finally getting their propaganda out... I was beginning to feel left out until friday morning when the mailman left me a nice letter saying he had registered mail... Complete BS now that i have actually read this... To think I was out just last week enjoying the full use of that mag...

 

[Scott Max Danger]

this is why i swapped my mp15-22 for a colt, now i got a big banana dink mag and im still smiling.

 

[JimV]

this is why i swapped my mp15-22 for a colt, now i got a big banana dink mag and im still smiling.

Well, keep smiling, but don't imagine you're out of the woods yet. If, for instance, the manufacturer should decide to produce a "pistol" version of that gun (which, BTW, are very popular in the States) your big banana dink mag would be next on the prohibited list.

The S&W 15-22 situation is just the tip of the iceberg. The CCC regulations governing classification are so poorly worded the RCMP has wide discretion to determine what's allowed and what isn't.

 

[Scott Max Danger]

Well, keep smiling, but don't imagine you're out of the woods yet. If, for instance, the manufacturer should decide to produce a "pistol" version of that gun (which, BTW, are very popular in the States) your big banana dink mag would be next on the prohibited list.

The S&W 15-22 situation is just the tip of the iceberg. The CCC regulations governing classification are so poorly worded the RCMP has wide discretion to determine what's allowed and what isn't.

Well for what its worth I'd just take one on the chin for the greater good before I made an up-roar. The mp15-22 has its own design for the bolt catch. Otherwise it could use the colts and other ar15-22 mags. Now if that were the case all ar-22 mags would have to be pinned. Same thing with all the 10/22s because the charger is a pistol verson.

 

[Max Owner]

Apparently we are "getting away" with the LAR 223 10 rounders.

This might be the reason why the Orgs are keeping quiet.

 

[JimV]

Apparently we are "getting away" with the LAR 223 10 rounders.

This might be the reason why the Orgs are keeping quiet.

No, we're not "getting away" with anything. The reg that restricts pistol mags to 10 rnds applies in both cases. The S&W decision, however, is more questionable since the rifle was produced long before the pistol. The basis for deciding that the mag had been designed for both was a few words in a S&W catalogue. This is a flimsy and preposterous basis for making classification determinations.

But even accepting the 15-22 mag classification and the fundamentally absurd regulation, there is still plenty to complain about, including:

a) the failure to provide compensation for financial losses incurred because of the reclass;
b) the failure to notify owners immediately of the reclass (which unwittingly criminalized most owners);
c) the hostile and abusive tone of Nicole Boucher's letter to owners; and
d) the ridiculous and ineffective way she (the RCMP) is trying to address the issue (which, of course, they created in the first place.)

These are all points which should be made strenuously at the political level.

In my opinion, staying quiet is not a productive long term strategy. Fly under the radar long enough and they'll get you with ground fire. Every stupid and abusive act by government should be contested.

 

[Scott Max Danger]

No, we're not "getting away" with anything. The reg that restricts pistol mags to 10 rnds applies in both cases. The S&W decision, however, is more questionable since the rifle was produced long before the pistol. The basis for deciding that the mag had been designed for both was a few words in a S&W catalogue. This is a flimsy and preposterous basis for making classification determinations.

But even accepting the 15-22 mag classification and the fundamentally absurd regulation, there is still plenty to complain about, including:

a) the failure to provide compensation for financial losses incurred because of the reclass;
b) the failure to notify owners immediately of the reclass (which unwittingly criminalized most owners);
c) the hostile and abusive tone of Nicole Boucher's letter to owners; and
d) the ridiculous and ineffective way she (the RCMP) is trying to address the issue (which, of course, they created in the first place.)

These are all points which should be made strenuously at the political level.

In my opinion, staying quiet is not a productive long term strategy. Fly under the radar long enough and they'll get you with ground fire. Every stupid and abusive act by government should be contested.

I agree with you 100%, but I like to pick battles I can win. Some things you can never change. I seen this coming so i changed guns, they want to keep doing this ill change countries. Something that allows me to shoot something a little faster then a muzzleloader, which is,, well just about every where else in the world.

 

[Hokus Grey]

I, as well as other owners of this rifle, wrote Public Safety Minister Vic Toews last year regarding this matter. We all received the same form letter in response that backed the RCMP's decision. It is obvious that the RCMP is administrating the CFC with little or no oversight or accountablility and the minister in charge of the file is willing to manage all inquiries at arm's length. This is just another feather in our cap when it comes to the registration/confiscation arguement, sadly. It sucks to be right sometimes.

Also, we are not "getting away" with anything when it comes to the use of LAR mags in rifles. You can read all about Questar's submission of the mags to the RCMP for approval and the ensuing conversation regarding their use in rifles. This was all done above board with no use of loopholes, or trickery. Their use is legitimately legal, not some backdoor around the system.

 

[tiriaq]

The issue of whether the rifle or pistol came first is irrelevant.
The LAR 10 round interpretation is based on the letter of the law.
The classification of the .22 ARish magazines is also based on the letter of the law.
The reason for the reclassifications is that the manufacturers advertised and promoted the magazines as being suited for use in both the rifle and the pistol versions of the designs.
If the manufacturer had not mentionned pistol use, there would be no problem.
Ruger has announced the BX-25 magaizne as being intended for the 10/22 rifle and the Charger pistol. What do you suppose the classification of this magazine is going to be?
What do you suppose is going to happen to all the over-10-shot 10/22 magazines when the manufactures mention their suitability for the Charger pistol?
The only remedy is in the law. It could be amended. The amendment would have to specifically exempt rimfire magazines from rilfe and pistol applications.
It is satisfying to fulminate about the secret conspiracy within the RCMP.
But the problem is the law. The RCMP are doing nothing outside the letter of the law.
Are they handling the situation well? No. But the central issue is the poor legal draftsmanship of the legislation.

 

[kxc223]

Wow what great service from the CFC. I just called them to report that I surrendered my mag. to the local police and gave them the number of their evidence tag. But that wasn't enough for them. I'm supposed to fax them a copy now. I explained that I don't have a fax and they could send me a self addresed stamped envelope if they wanted the tag.
Nope, they don't do that they said. They seem to have lots of money( $8.69) to send out registered letters though. The woman I spoke to originally wouldn't take my information and just hung up the phone. I called my local MP and they will forward my written complaint about that kind of conduct.
I called again and spoke with a different agent and at least he took my information but said it was up to me to prove I surrendered the mag and suggested I have the local police fax a copy to them. I suggested that he call the local police but he replied that they are not "an investigative agency". He also didn't like the idea of sending a Mountie around to my house to see the tag. So in the end at least he took my info and is going to "look into it for me". I'm not going to hold my breath though. Nice to see our tax dollars at work isn't it.

 

[gushulak]

I wish the CFC and RCMP would stay out of law abiding peoples business. Gun laws in this country are a retarted heaping steaming mound of S*&T. CFC doesn't have a clue what they are doing and the RCMP doesn't give two ####s about our rights and their own laws that they enforce. Utterly embarressing to live in a free country that is run by the RCMP.

I wish for once the RCMP would enforce laws like arson, manslaughter, murder to the extent of the law. Being caught with a S&W mag and you will spend 30 years in jail. Rape and kill someone in Canada and they are lucky to get house arrest or a fine, let alone see the inside of jail cell. This is my reason I have no respect for them. Enforce all the laws, not just the ones you want.

The way our gun laws are worded gives the RCMP every exemption in the book to prohibit anything they deem dangerous, like a piece of plastic that holds 25 rimfire cartridges. I wonder how they sleep at night or even understand their own stupidity at times.

Not bashing the RCMP but our gun laws and the red tape.

 

[JimV]

The issue of whether the rifle or pistol came first is irrelevant.
The LAR 10 round interpretation is based on the letter of the law.
The classification of the .22 ARish magazines is also based on the letter of the law.
The reason for the reclassifications is that the manufacturers advertised and promoted the magazines as being suited for use in both the rifle and the pistol versions of the designs.
If the manufacturer had not mentionned pistol use, there would be no problem.
Ruger has announced the BX-25 magaizne as being intended for the 10/22 rifle and the Charger pistol. What do you suppose the classification of this magazine is going to be?
What do you suppose is going to happen to all the over-10-shot 10/22 magazines when the manufactures mention their suitability for the Charger pistol?
The only remedy is in the law. It could be amended. The amendment would have to specifically exempt rimfire magazines from rilfe and pistol applications.
It is satisfying to fulminate about the secret conspiracy within the RCMP.
But the problem is the law. The RCMP are doing nothing outside the letter of the law.
Are they handling the situation well? No. But the central issue is the poor legal draftsmanship of the legislation.

I agree with your post, especially about the law (CCC regulation, actually) being the root of the problem.

However, I don't think the 15-22 decision is quite that black and white. The term "letter of the law" presumes that the law is clear and precise in detail. It is not. The "designed for" criterion, for example, sounds clear but is actually a stinking pile of ambiguity. The RCMP has developed some operational definitions of what this means, but we should not be relying on them to interpret the regulation.

The whole classification process resembles the medieval practice of trying to count how many angels fit on the head of a pin. You are right, poor legal draftsmanship (and lack of common sense) is the basic issue.

 

[JimV]

Wow what great service from the CFC. I just called them to report that I surrendered my mag. to the local police and gave them the number of their evidence tag. But that wasn't enough for them. I'm supposed to fax them a copy now. I explained that I don't have a fax and they could send me a self addresed stamped envelope if they wanted the tag.
Nope, they don't do that they said. They seem to have lots of money( $8.69) to send out registered letters though. The woman I spoke to originally wouldn't take my information and just hung up the phone. I called my local MP and they will forward my written complaint about that kind of conduct.
I called again and spoke with a different agent and at least he took my information but said it was up to me to prove I surrendered the mag and suggested I have the local police fax a copy to them. I suggested that he call the local police but he replied that they are not "an investigative agency". He also didn't like the idea of sending a Mountie around to my house to see the tag. So in the end at least he took my info and is going to "look into it for me". I'm not going to hold my breath though. Nice to see our tax dollars at work isn't it.

I'm doing the same thing. This illustrates a basic problem - the default posture of the firearms bureaucracy is to treat law abiding citizens like criminals who have to be bullied and threatened. This has got to change. Even the Canada Revenue Agency (who we all love to hate) is far more respectful of citizens (i.e. the people who pay their salaries) and more generally flexible is sorting out problems than the CFC.

 

[cybershooters]

Wow what great service from the CFC. I just called them to report that I surrendered my mag. to the local police and gave them the number of their evidence tag. But that wasn't enough for them. I'm supposed to fax them a copy now. I explained that I don't have a fax and they could send me a self addresed stamped envelope if they wanted the tag.
Nope, they don't do that they said. They seem to have lots of money( $8.69) to send out registered letters though. The woman I spoke to originally wouldn't take my information and just hung up the phone. I called my local MP and they will forward my written complaint about that kind of conduct.

That woman is a complete idiot. Ignore her.

I called again and spoke with a different agent and at least he took my information but said it was up to me to prove I surrendered the mag and suggested I have the local police fax a copy to them. I suggested that he call the local police but he replied that they are not "an investigative agency". He also didn't like the idea of sending a Mountie around to my house to see the tag. So in the end at least he took my info and is going to "look into it for me". I'm not going to hold my breath though. Nice to see our tax dollars at work isn't it.

Pretty much my experience too. Probably the same guy.

 

[cybershooters]

Folks, what I have done is to make a formal complaint to the RCMP. My argument is basically that the RCMP acted unlawfully maintaining information about magazines in the registry, which is not authorized under the Firearms Act, also that the notification provisions in the Criminal Code relating to prohibited devices cannot be applied retroactively, and they certainly can't be applied in a way that is impossible to comply with, for example if you destroyed or disposed of the magazine, because you have no proof to provide them.

 

[cybershooters]

But the problem is the law. The RCMP are doing nothing outside the letter of the law.
Are they handling the situation well? No. But the central issue is the poor legal draftsmanship of the legislation.

Their interpretation of the law I think is legal, the way they are enforcing it is not. You cannot mandate that someone proves the non-existence of something, that by definition is impossible. This is what I was trying to explain to that stupid woman, there are rules of evidence and your civil rights. You cannot be compelled to be a witness against yourself and they cannot refuse to amend the registration record of your rifle in violation of that right.

 

[JimV]

Folks, what I have done is to make a formal complaint to the RCMP. My argument is basically that the RCMP acted unlawfully maintaining information about magazines in the registry, which is not authorized under the Firearms Act, also that the notification provisions in the Criminal Code relating to prohibited devices cannot be applied retroactively, and they certainly can't be applied in a way that is impossible to comply with, for example if you destroyed or disposed of the magazine, because you have no proof to provide them.

Well done! These are excellent points. Your post made my day.

I am writing a stiff note to the Registrar of Firearms (cc to many MPs) taking issue with the explicit threat in her letter.

If more people on this board raised their voices in the right place (as opposed to just whining here) we could, at the very least, extract some respect and accommodation from the firearms bureaucracy.

 

[Chuckbuster]

Well done! These are excellent points. Your post made my day.

I am writing a stiff note to the Registrar of Firearms (cc to many MPs) taking issue with the explicit threat in her letter.

If more people on this board raised their voices in the right place (as opposed to just whining here) we could, at the very least, extract some respect and accommodation from the firearms bureaucracy.

I have faxed a copy of the letter to my MP. I included complaints about: retroactive criminalization, having to provide proof (in my case anyway) of having obtained with the firearm a perfectly legal for anyone, unregulated, unrestricted, unserialized item, as well as the letter threatening police action. And, why the current heavy handed approach with regard to these magazines in light of the fact that when the FA came into existence, owners of the many many now overcapacity mags already in circulation at the time, were allowed to see to it they came into compliance (left on their own to ensure the mags were pinned) without harassment and unreasonable demands for proof.