Ruger 10/22 Magazine: Background and the Latest Update
- Thread starter greentips
- Start date
Still they have to be more specific and make a more recent announcement. In the past they updated the bulletin to reflect the changes to the BX-25, S&W and Beretta CX4 mags so why haven't they done so for the BC mags? I thought Ed Burlew said until it has been posted officially on the CFP website then nothing has changed.
Less than a year into government and the Liberals are already enacting new gun control. Goodale must have approved but this under-the-table lawmaking means he can conveniently wash his hands of responsibility -- part of their platform has been to "return firearms classification to the police and not the politicians" which of course is backwards since legislative change is squarely in the political domain not the enforcement domain.
This could be a metaphoric declaration of war against gun ownership, or a preliminary skirmish to assess our capability and our collective will -- to test our ability to organize and take action.
This could be a metaphoric declaration of war against gun ownership, or a preliminary skirmish to assess our capability and our collective will -- to test our ability to organize and take action.
Alright let's get down to it. This is bull as anyone can see, a scare tactic at best. Any vendor who pulls mags instead of saying F off to these nazis looses my business forever. So far wholesale sports? Confirm please. I will start a new thread listing these turncoat vendors, time to use our purchasing power to shut this #### up. Cheers
From what I can tell someone called a bunch of stores and told the managers that the BC mags were prohibited and that they must be taken off the shelves immediately. Somehow this seems to have created a chain reaction based on speculation without proper verification and has caused rumors and knee jerk reactions amoungst us and some eastern Canadian police department. Without the RCMP actually announcing something more specific about this I find it hard to believe that anything has really changed.
Taking a wait and see approach to this issue.
Nothing from any official source anywhere. So far the " facts" are a notice from Moncton fish and game Moncton NB and Caliber magazine repeating the Moncton fish and games claim.
Seems super Official to me.
I do however like that the CGN community is fired up and ready to voice their displeasure even the suggestion that the rights of legal gun owners might be abused again.
Nothing from any official source anywhere. So far the " facts" are a notice from Moncton fish and game Moncton NB and Caliber magazine repeating the Moncton fish and games claim.
Seems super Official to me.
I do however like that the CGN community is fired up and ready to voice their displeasure even the suggestion that the rights of legal gun owners might be abused again.
I know that it sucks. That thought DEFINITELY occurred to me long before I ever posted this but it seems to be the only way out of this that's within reach. I don't like it but the bureaucrats backed us into another corner. The current administration will NOT be even remotely sympathetic to us either so with that in mind??? Desperate times = desperate measures. I'm sick of it but see no alternative
A little bit of HISTORY? The company marketed this as a "PISTOL" to get around ATF regulations in regard to TITLE II weappons under the NFA. If you're unfamiliar with U.S. law? The long and short of it is it requires federal registration since it would be considered an SBR (short barrelled rifle) and a $200 tax stamp from the ATF.
Your approach creates even more inconsistency within the lab, and it just opens up more troubles for the lab and for us.
The Lab makes a choice. The recognize these as commonly available pistols. The same goes for the XCR and AR15 pistols. The lab and everyone here cannot have their cake and eat it too. At least they are consistent in this area.
We can only argue based on the choice they have made on the status of the Charger as a pistol. People need to focus on the fact that these magazines, especially those that were designed or made before 2008, could only be designed or made for the rifle. There is absolutely no basis to declare ALL 10/22 mags as prohibit device. This is their mistake, and it is completely NOT what the regulation said. It will not stand in the court of law.
Also, magazines originally designed for rifles are always unmarked. They made the manufacturers mark the LAR15 mags and all the regular rifle AR15 mags are unmarked. Therefore, by default, all the 10/22 unmarked mags are for rifle based on precedent made by the lab itself. If the RCMP wants to limit pistol mags, only those that are marked for pistol should be limited to 10 rounds. They need to play by their own rules and precedent. This is the key argument to win and to release all the mags held back right now and prevent this ridiculous interpretation to go retroactively on all magazines currently in country. Precedent is the key.
These are REALISTIC arguments and actually have legs to stand on, not pipe dreams
Calling Solomon Friedman.
I am good for $200 for the defense fund if Mr. Friedman takes on the case once the RCMP ruling is enforced.
bcbravo2zero
CGN Regular
Quite frankly, the most practical step most of us can take is to join the CSSA and/or the NFA and/or your provincial org.
You spend more in an afternoon at the range.
Then write letters (not emails) to the PM, Mr. Goodale, and your local MP. (Addresses on the CSSA's website)
You spend more in an afternoon at the range.
Then write letters (not emails) to the PM, Mr. Goodale, and your local MP. (Addresses on the CSSA's website)
I think the technicians point is that all 10-22 magazines are inherently designed for all 10-22, including the charger. On a technical point of view, he isn't wrong. However, the RCMP bulletin (http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/cfp-pcaf/bulletins/bus-ent/20110323-72-eng.htm) doesn't end after alinea 1. There's points. But let's talk about the first one first:
I'm not 100% familiar with the history of the BX-25, but given that Ruged markets the thing for the 10-22, SR-22, 10-22 takedown and the charger, it seems that it is indeed "designed or manufactured for use in both rifles and semiautomatic handguns", and therefore prohibited. Had Ruger sang a different song when the charger came out (saying the magazine is expressely designed for the 10-22 carbine, we only support the use of rotary 10 rounds mags in the charger), the story might be different today. The hot lips and steel lips and the drums (and most other aftermarket mags), however, have entirely different stories: they were on the market before the charger even existed. Therefore, one could not possibly argue that they were designed for the charger. One could however argue that they are nowaday manufactured for the charger, which is true on a technical point of view only. The argument is very week though, and it completely crumbles if you take into account the market presence of the charger (nobody would manufacture mags for a pistol that's all but impossible to find) and it would still only apply to magazines manufactured before the charger was brought to market.
Now let's see alinea 4:
Given that the aftermarkets magazines were designed and (mostly) manufactured before the charger even existed, I believe this is the point that stands. Until a court decides where the tails and where's the head, we can't know for sure, but I'd say that it's legal to use a butler creek in a charger, not that it's illegal to own a BC.
It all boils down to wheter or not the magazines is designed or manufactured for use in a pistol or a rifle, for which the technical possibility to use it in that rifle or pistol is merely ONE component. In the end, intentions of the manufactrer would actually be a factor.
It belongs to our elected officials to write the laws (which currently are a complete cluster####) and to the courts to interpret it. The RCMP lab technician's job is merely to give a technical opinion/fact, he has given it (the mags can be used in the charger), and that's pretty much it. From what I get, the lab technician's word don't have any more meaning than if he'd said "the 1911 magazines can be used in the marlin model 45". Which is technically true, but doesn't make those mags prohibited.
I'm not 100% familiar with the history of the BX-25, but given that Ruged markets the thing for the 10-22, SR-22, 10-22 takedown and the charger, it seems that it is indeed "designed or manufactured for use in both rifles and semiautomatic handguns", and therefore prohibited. Had Ruger sang a different song when the charger came out (saying the magazine is expressely designed for the 10-22 carbine, we only support the use of rotary 10 rounds mags in the charger), the story might be different today. The hot lips and steel lips and the drums (and most other aftermarket mags), however, have entirely different stories: they were on the market before the charger even existed. Therefore, one could not possibly argue that they were designed for the charger. One could however argue that they are nowaday manufactured for the charger, which is true on a technical point of view only. The argument is very week though, and it completely crumbles if you take into account the market presence of the charger (nobody would manufacture mags for a pistol that's all but impossible to find) and it would still only apply to magazines manufactured before the charger was brought to market.
Now let's see alinea 4:
Given that the aftermarkets magazines were designed and (mostly) manufactured before the charger even existed, I believe this is the point that stands. Until a court decides where the tails and where's the head, we can't know for sure, but I'd say that it's legal to use a butler creek in a charger, not that it's illegal to own a BC.
It all boils down to wheter or not the magazines is designed or manufactured for use in a pistol or a rifle, for which the technical possibility to use it in that rifle or pistol is merely ONE component. In the end, intentions of the manufactrer would actually be a factor.
It belongs to our elected officials to write the laws (which currently are a complete cluster####) and to the courts to interpret it. The RCMP lab technician's job is merely to give a technical opinion/fact, he has given it (the mags can be used in the charger), and that's pretty much it. From what I get, the lab technician's word don't have any more meaning than if he'd said "the 1911 magazines can be used in the marlin model 45". Which is technically true, but doesn't make those mags prohibited.
P0WERWAGON
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- burnaby BC كافر
where is the firearms act does it mention "dual purpose"?
Nowhere. The exact wording from the RCMP bulletin is "Magazines designed or manufactured for use in both rifles and semiautomatic handguns ".
Note that the RCMP bulletin isn't even a law. It's merely how the RCMP interprets of the law, in other words, if/when/why they will take action, and a guideline on how they will classify a given firearm or weapon. The "dual purpose" thing isn't even in an official bulletin (at least not yet). It shouldn't even have been made public for Pete's sake.
Retailers are jumping the gun (pun intended) on this subject imho. In the current state of affairs, I definitely fail to see how "the Butler creek can be used in a charger" translates to "butler creek are prohibited". Not anymore than "1911 mags can be used in Marlin model 45" translates to "1911 mags are prohib".
But then it belongs to a court to decide, not to some dude on the internet or a lab technician.
Last edited:
US laws and ATF's policies have no weight in Canada. I have those post removed so we can focus on 10/22, instead of drawing attention to other firearms and US National Firearm Acts and their tax issue.
Last edited:
SGS 110 Drum mag stamped on back "Designed for Ruger 10/22 rifle Canadian Model" Will not fit in Charger ! Packaging also says Canadian Model .
Chuckbuster
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
Sending this to my MP, the Justice Minister and the PMO...I might even submit it to the local rag to raise public awareness and ensure that my MP takes note.
If anybody likes it enough to think they want to use it, whole or for ideas...go for it! I'll post this in the other thread as well.
----------
Mr. MP,
I am writing as a concerned constituent and citizen of Canada. It has recently come to light that the RCMP has unilaterally declared all cartridge ammunition magazines of 10+ capacity for the very popular Ruger 10-22 rifle to be prohibited devices. This is most wrong, egregious and unjustified for a number of reasons.
The RCMP have declared the magazines as prohibited because they will fit both the Ruger 10-22 semi-automatic rifle and the Ruger Charger semi-automatic handgun. Both are chambered for the .22 Long Rifle rimfire cartridge; commonly known as a ".22". Under the cartridge magazine regulations of the Firearms Act, .22 semi automatic handgun magazines are limited to 10 rounds. Under those same regulations, cartridge magazines for .22 semi-automatic rifles have no proscribed limit. Thus, according to the law as written, the 10-22 rifle has no limits on the capacity of it's rimfire cartridge magazines. The Charger pistol, on the other hand, has a very definite cartridge magazine capacity limit of 10 or less. That the magazines of one will fit the other is at the heart of the matter.
The Ruger 10-22 rifle has been in existence since the 1960s, and is one of the most popular .22 calibre rifles ever manufactured. There are probably tens of thousands, or more, of them in Canada. Cartridge magazines with capacities of 10, 25, or more cartridges for this rifle have been readily available in Canada for decades. And, importantly, these magazines were specifically manufactured to fit the 10-22 rifle. The Charger pistol did not appear until the latter part of the first decade of the new millennium; some 40 years after the release of the 10-22 rifle. How then, can the RCMP claim the 10+ cartridge capacity magazines for the 10-22 rifle were also made for the Charger? How is it possible to design something for that which does not exist? How is it logically possible to say that all 10+ cartridge capacity magazines for the 10-22 were designed and manufactured for the Charger pistol--for that is what the RCMP are claiming--when the latter was not created until decades after the 10-22's debut?
A more rational assessment of the situation would clearly determine that it is indeed impossible to design something for the non-existent. And furthermore, this same assessment would quickly point to a circumstance where the pistol was later designed to accept the magazines in question. Based on this simple factual analysis, it is clear that the RCMP have come to an incorrect conclusion. What's more, the simple solution of making it clear that use of 10+ capacity magazines in the Charger is a criminal offence, while leaving owners of 10-22 rifles and their magazines, regardless of capacity, alone, presents itself as quite obvious.
Mr. MP, please understand that what the RCMP is doing is unilaterally criminalizing thousands of law abiding citizens, with supreme indifference, over an incorrect opinion. Consider that if there are at least 10s of thousands of 10-22 rifles in Canada, they can be found in homes across the country and across all social strata, in concert with unknown thousands or even millions of 10+ cartridge capacity magazines that have been legally purchased since the 1970s. If these magazines constitute the grave public safety risk that the RCMP are now claiming they do, why have we not heard of any documented incidents where they were used criminally in life threatening situations? And furthermore, why are the RCMP only acting on this now, when their concurrent claim is that the magazines in question have always been prohibited under the Firearms Act? If they are so dangerous, should they not have been considered the same public and officer safety threat in 1996, as they are now in 2016? And if so, why has the RCMP knowingly allowed the import, sale, distribution and use of such "dangerous" devices until now? Taken together, the answers to my questions point to a deliberate attempt to "crack down" yet again on the law abiding gun owners of Canada.
Finally, Mr. MP, I ask that you and the Liberal Party of Canada work together with Canada's recreational firearms community to find the right solution to this problem I have outlined, and refrain from isolating and criminalizing untold thousands of hard working Canadians over what the RCMP have unilaterally taken it upon themselves to impose on your fellow Canadians.
Sincerely,
Me.
If anybody likes it enough to think they want to use it, whole or for ideas...go for it! I'll post this in the other thread as well.
----------
Mr. MP,
I am writing as a concerned constituent and citizen of Canada. It has recently come to light that the RCMP has unilaterally declared all cartridge ammunition magazines of 10+ capacity for the very popular Ruger 10-22 rifle to be prohibited devices. This is most wrong, egregious and unjustified for a number of reasons.
The RCMP have declared the magazines as prohibited because they will fit both the Ruger 10-22 semi-automatic rifle and the Ruger Charger semi-automatic handgun. Both are chambered for the .22 Long Rifle rimfire cartridge; commonly known as a ".22". Under the cartridge magazine regulations of the Firearms Act, .22 semi automatic handgun magazines are limited to 10 rounds. Under those same regulations, cartridge magazines for .22 semi-automatic rifles have no proscribed limit. Thus, according to the law as written, the 10-22 rifle has no limits on the capacity of it's rimfire cartridge magazines. The Charger pistol, on the other hand, has a very definite cartridge magazine capacity limit of 10 or less. That the magazines of one will fit the other is at the heart of the matter.
The Ruger 10-22 rifle has been in existence since the 1960s, and is one of the most popular .22 calibre rifles ever manufactured. There are probably tens of thousands, or more, of them in Canada. Cartridge magazines with capacities of 10, 25, or more cartridges for this rifle have been readily available in Canada for decades. And, importantly, these magazines were specifically manufactured to fit the 10-22 rifle. The Charger pistol did not appear until the latter part of the first decade of the new millennium; some 40 years after the release of the 10-22 rifle. How then, can the RCMP claim the 10+ cartridge capacity magazines for the 10-22 rifle were also made for the Charger? How is it possible to design something for that which does not exist? How is it logically possible to say that all 10+ cartridge capacity magazines for the 10-22 were designed and manufactured for the Charger pistol--for that is what the RCMP are claiming--when the latter was not created until decades after the 10-22's debut?
A more rational assessment of the situation would clearly determine that it is indeed impossible to design something for the non-existent. And furthermore, this same assessment would quickly point to a circumstance where the pistol was later designed to accept the magazines in question. Based on this simple factual analysis, it is clear that the RCMP have come to an incorrect conclusion. What's more, the simple solution of making it clear that use of 10+ capacity magazines in the Charger is a criminal offence, while leaving owners of 10-22 rifles and their magazines, regardless of capacity, alone, presents itself as quite obvious.
Mr. MP, please understand that what the RCMP is doing is unilaterally criminalizing thousands of law abiding citizens, with supreme indifference, over an incorrect opinion. Consider that if there are at least 10s of thousands of 10-22 rifles in Canada, they can be found in homes across the country and across all social strata, in concert with unknown thousands or even millions of 10+ cartridge capacity magazines that have been legally purchased since the 1970s. If these magazines constitute the grave public safety risk that the RCMP are now claiming they do, why have we not heard of any documented incidents where they were used criminally in life threatening situations? And furthermore, why are the RCMP only acting on this now, when their concurrent claim is that the magazines in question have always been prohibited under the Firearms Act? If they are so dangerous, should they not have been considered the same public and officer safety threat in 1996, as they are now in 2016? And if so, why has the RCMP knowingly allowed the import, sale, distribution and use of such "dangerous" devices until now? Taken together, the answers to my questions point to a deliberate attempt to "crack down" yet again on the law abiding gun owners of Canada.
Finally, Mr. MP, I ask that you and the Liberal Party of Canada work together with Canada's recreational firearms community to find the right solution to this problem I have outlined, and refrain from isolating and criminalizing untold thousands of hard working Canadians over what the RCMP have unilaterally taken it upon themselves to impose on your fellow Canadians.
Sincerely,
Me.
