Possible LAR and Beowolf Mag Restrictions

Craig0ry

Craig0ry

CGN Ultra frequent flyer
Rating - 100%
236   0   0
Location
Southen Alberta
Just in case anyone has been missing whats been going on check it out here, I hope this thread doesn't disappear, Its intentions are to help the Canadian gun community by informing as many as possible. This is where this topic will get the most traction as I know not everyone subscribes and follows the news digest and/or supporting dealer sub forums

http://www.canadiangunnutz.com/forum/showthread.php/1244821-Get-Onto-Your-MP-and-Minister-Blaney-NOW!

http://www.canadiangunnutz.com/forum/showthread.php/1244830-Stop-the-RCMP!
 
Last edited:
You know, I was sort of expecting this. In part because of the number of totally stupid questions people persisted in asking about 'are these legal' etc etc .
 
Just like the SA/858 fiasco... In 2008 RCMP-SFSS sent Questar a letter stating LAR15 mags are pistol mags, and their use in AR rifles was permitted, as the mag is what is limited, not the rifle. Bulletin 72 sent in 2011 clarified this.

7 years later it appears as though they're going to "change their mind" and prohibit the property they previously said we could own.

Don't know about you, but I compete and have close to $1000 tied up in mags. Check those threads out and get writing to the PM, Minister Blaney, and your MP!
 
God forbid the RCMP actually care about what the Firearms Act says.

What does the law mean to folks who don't respect it or the citizens under their heel? Not ####ing much.
 
Stevo said:
God forbid the RCMP actually care about what the Firearms Act says.
Click to expand...

To be fair, the RCMP have been given licence/the task to interpret crappy laws as they are written in the absence of common sense and logic - the very basis they should have been written in the first place.

The very market for the Beowulf and LAR mags is due to sh!tty wording of the laws and the generous interpretation the RCMP gave it.
Instead of the wording of this portion of the law and the RCMP's interpretation of it, we should be concentrating on getting rid of mag restrictions entirely, as there is ZERO proof it adds any benefit whatsoever in preventing or limiting firearms related crime.
 
beltfed said:
To be fair, the RCMP have been given licence/the task to interpret crappy laws as they are written in the absence of common sense and logic - the very basis they should have been written in the first place.

The very market for the Beowulf and LAR mags is due to sh!tty wording of the laws and the generous interpretation the RCMP gave it.
Instead of the wording of this portion of the law and the RCMP's interpretation of it, we should be concentrating on getting rid of mag restrictions entirely, as there is ZERO proof it adds any benefit whatsoever in preventing or limiting firearms related crime.
Click to expand...

7ac.jpg
 
I heard thru some friends in the industry that the rcmp was up to no good, and it is surprising that the examples of bulletin 72 no longer list LAR mags as an example... It's awfully telling.
 
I live in a fee and democratic country. Somebody reassure me that the rcmp has not gone rogue, flip-flopping on issues to suit the Prime Directive - civil disarmament, one gun, one magazine limit at a time.
 
The original wording of the law was intentional and it was designed to protect gun owners. Think about this, if magazine rule is based on usage and/or intent of usage by the user, you will have to block all your glock mags to 5rds if you have access to a carbine that uses glock mags.

The current wording of the law, which is based on the "design" intention of the manufacturer, is to prevent the boundless and therefore unjust application of the magazine limit and prosecution that is not the intention of the law.

If the wording of the law can be interpreted any other ways, the original intent of the law is perverted as it was designed to protect and give gun owners the benefit whenever a scenario may put the status of the magazine in doubt.
 
Phat Eagle said:
7 years later it appears as though they're going to "change their mind" and prohibit the property they previously said we could own.
Click to expand...
Much like when Bill C-68 came into force (Firearm Act) making close to 600,000 handguns in Canada "prohibited". The value of many peoples collections tanked overnight and for a lot more than a thousand bucks. Don't get me wrong. What the RCMP is trying to do is now is wrong on more that one level.
 
calibre magazine certainly has a negative outlook (as posted on their facebook page) on the LAR mags future :(
 
In the event that several thousand hitherto law-abiding gun owners become criminals (according to the rcmp), the courts and jails are going to get very crowded. I don't think the CPC will let that happen as it would be political suicide.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom