Stop the RCMP!
- Thread starter TSE JR
- Start date
IMHO this letter needs to point out the part that has been edited out of the new bulletin 72. Without showing the previous version and what they have unilaterally changed with their 'policy' and interpretation of law, the RCMP string pulling behind the scenes might be lost in the eyes of the politicians.
To be clear: RCMP changing their interpretation of law and thus making law abiding firearms owners criminals needs to be stopped.
neoconfection
Regular
- Location
- Ottawa, ON
Exactly. It's just like the Sig brace in the US. They kept pushing the ATF after they initially said it was fine to use, and they kept pushing and pushing. Then the ATF had enough and stopped it. The exact same thing is happening here. The E-Lander Enfield mags are what did us in, IMO.
- Location
- Southern Ontario
This is utterly ridiculous.
So the implication is the RCMP has "had enough" of us (licensed, law-abiding gun owners) having access to LAR, Beowulf or E-Lander mags? Had enough of us doing WHAT grievous things with them? Had enough of seeing us use them SAFELY as licensed gun owners, and NOT having a single accident at a range attributed to an extra capacity mag? Had enough of there NOT being a single crime committed by a law-abiding AR owner who owns a Beowulf or LAR mag? Yes, I can certainly see their (RCMP's) point, due to the huge wave of carnage that must be spilling out on our streets as I type this (NOT !), all due to legally available 10 or 15 round mags owned by licensed holders of RPALS??, who must certainly be the scourge of society, and not worthy of trust,... ... MAINLY because the RCMP approved all of us. Makes perfect sense doesn't it?
If they think so lowly of us that we cannot be trusted still, AFTER already having passed their requirements for the issuance of our licenses, and having a history of conducting ourselves safely at ranges and public shooting events throughout the country, then does this imply that they have reservations about our safety or our conduct? If they have made such serious errors in judging the character, skill and/or safety of of all us tens or hundreds of thousands of legal gun owners in Canada, then maybe they must be also implying that they are not up to the job of evaluating us accurately. Is it possible that these high up bureaucrats in the RCMP office who came up with this pretzel logic on mag capacity rules just don't know what they're doing? They do seem to be changing their mind about things fairly often, and re-writing their own rules at the drop of a hat. I think it's a cry for help. Perhaps they need to be relieved of some of their hard and tricky duties, like trying to tell the BASIC difference between the good guys and the bad guys. Between law-abiding gun owners versus criminals who laugh at the law. If that's too much to ask of them, and they can't see that difference clearly, then they are in the wrong job, or maybe the wrong country. If that's the way they want to do their job, I think they need to move to a banana republic where it suits their philosophy better.
So the implication is the RCMP has "had enough" of us (licensed, law-abiding gun owners) having access to LAR, Beowulf or E-Lander mags? Had enough of us doing WHAT grievous things with them? Had enough of seeing us use them SAFELY as licensed gun owners, and NOT having a single accident at a range attributed to an extra capacity mag? Had enough of there NOT being a single crime committed by a law-abiding AR owner who owns a Beowulf or LAR mag? Yes, I can certainly see their (RCMP's) point, due to the huge wave of carnage that must be spilling out on our streets as I type this (NOT !), all due to legally available 10 or 15 round mags owned by licensed holders of RPALS??, who must certainly be the scourge of society, and not worthy of trust,... ... MAINLY because the RCMP approved all of us. Makes perfect sense doesn't it?
If they think so lowly of us that we cannot be trusted still, AFTER already having passed their requirements for the issuance of our licenses, and having a history of conducting ourselves safely at ranges and public shooting events throughout the country, then does this imply that they have reservations about our safety or our conduct? If they have made such serious errors in judging the character, skill and/or safety of of all us tens or hundreds of thousands of legal gun owners in Canada, then maybe they must be also implying that they are not up to the job of evaluating us accurately. Is it possible that these high up bureaucrats in the RCMP office who came up with this pretzel logic on mag capacity rules just don't know what they're doing? They do seem to be changing their mind about things fairly often, and re-writing their own rules at the drop of a hat. I think it's a cry for help. Perhaps they need to be relieved of some of their hard and tricky duties, like trying to tell the BASIC difference between the good guys and the bad guys. Between law-abiding gun owners versus criminals who laugh at the law. If that's too much to ask of them, and they can't see that difference clearly, then they are in the wrong job, or maybe the wrong country. If that's the way they want to do their job, I think they need to move to a banana republic where it suits their philosophy better.
Order in Council.
http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/regulations/sor-98-462/fulltext.html
This could be fixed in a day by drawing up the new OIC and taking it to the GG for signature. Done.
http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/regulations/sor-98-462/fulltext.html
This could be fixed in a day by drawing up the new OIC and taking it to the GG for signature. Done.
I had a copy of the old bulletin but lost it. Do you happen to know where I can find the old copy?
Here are the PDFs for the Special Bulletin No. 72 and one for the LAR-15 Ruling in 2008.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/jk2fb0u3uouy1zo/LAR%20Pistol%20Mags%20Ruling%202008-06-18.pdf?dl=0
https://www.dropbox.com/s/vjzkihv23kcqtg7/SpecialBulletinNo72.pdf?dl=0
- Location
- Okanagan BC
This is mine:
Honourable Steven Blaney,
It has come to my attention that the RCMP has the intention to issue a new interpretation of Part 4 of the "Regulations Prescribing Certain Firearms and other Weapons, Components and Parts of Weapons, Accessories, Cartridge Magazines, Ammunition and Projectiles as Prohibited or Restricted". Specifically, it is concerning the use of magazines commonly referred as "LAR15" pistol magazines and its status related to clause 3(1)(b) concerning magazines that are "originally designed and that is designed or manufactured for use in a semi-automatic handgun that is commonly available in Canada."
The intention of clause 3(1)(b) is to make sure that law abiding Canadian citizens will not be prosecuted for possessing 10 round pistol magazines that happen to work in rifles, as long as the magazines are designed or made by the factory to use in a pistols. Otherwise, anyone who happens to own a pistol and its magazine will be under constant threat of prosecution, if somehow its magazine can be used in a rifle. Without the straight adherence to the intention of the law, great injustice would be resulted.
If the status of magazine that is clearly marked and manufactured for a pistol can be disregarded by the RCMP, this would pervert the intention of the law and therefore the will of the parliament. A government bureaucracy cannot be allowed to make interpretation of the law that takes away protection to its citizens. To allow so, the government is essentially unloading its responsibility to its executive branches.
As a voter, how can I trust a government and allow it to rule, if it cannot ensure the intention of the law is fulfilled by its executive branches?
Sincerely
Honourable Steven Blaney,
It has come to my attention that the RCMP has the intention to issue a new interpretation of Part 4 of the "Regulations Prescribing Certain Firearms and other Weapons, Components and Parts of Weapons, Accessories, Cartridge Magazines, Ammunition and Projectiles as Prohibited or Restricted". Specifically, it is concerning the use of magazines commonly referred as "LAR15" pistol magazines and its status related to clause 3(1)(b) concerning magazines that are "originally designed and that is designed or manufactured for use in a semi-automatic handgun that is commonly available in Canada."
The intention of clause 3(1)(b) is to make sure that law abiding Canadian citizens will not be prosecuted for possessing 10 round pistol magazines that happen to work in rifles, as long as the magazines are designed or made by the factory to use in a pistols. Otherwise, anyone who happens to own a pistol and its magazine will be under constant threat of prosecution, if somehow its magazine can be used in a rifle. Without the straight adherence to the intention of the law, great injustice would be resulted.
If the status of magazine that is clearly marked and manufactured for a pistol can be disregarded by the RCMP, this would pervert the intention of the law and therefore the will of the parliament. A government bureaucracy cannot be allowed to make interpretation of the law that takes away protection to its citizens. To allow so, the government is essentially unloading its responsibility to its executive branches.
As a voter, how can I trust a government and allow it to rule, if it cannot ensure the intention of the law is fulfilled by its executive branches?
Sincerely
Well Said !
Such a crappy worded law, but you can still see the spirit of what it is. 5 rounds for semi auto rifles and 10 rounds for pistols. I can see where a officer could get confused. Especially if someone doesn't follow the spirit of the law and starts using a 10 round in an AR rifle. I thought this was going to get all fixed up with the Beretta Storm thing.
I myself am worried about what solution lies around the corner. Detachable mags to all be 5 rounds pistol and rifle anybody? or some crap like that.
I myself am worried about what solution lies around the corner. Detachable mags to all be 5 rounds pistol and rifle anybody? or some crap like that.
BigUglyMan
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- New Scotland
Ironic, given your betrayal of Canadian firearm owners during the SAN debacle.
Dexter Morgan
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
That would by my guess.
I think they'll just say that any magazine that can fit and function in a semi-auto, center-fire rifle needs to be pinned at 5 rounds. That would include LAR, Glock, Beretta, 1911, and most other handgun mags.
Semi-auto shotguns will need to be blocked to hold no more than 5 rounds of 2.75" ammo, regardless of what the gun is chambered for.
Bewoulf mags will only be legal if the follower is modified so they cannot feed .223 ammo. (Otherwise they must be pinned to 5 rounds of .223)
