Limiting magazines is one thing… I just read an article not long ago where anonymous rcmp officers were reported to be concerned about the roll out of their own ar-15 style weapons and subsequent training. The law abiding gun owner is not the issue, limiting magazines to 5 does nothing to stop the determined criminal from illegally obtaining a 30 rd mag and filling it or pulling the pin on such a mag. I think all semi's should be able to load 10 in the mag. My two cents.
Stop the RCMP!
- Thread starter TSE JR
- Start date
- Location
- At the gettin' place.
I think as a licensed and law abiding gun owner, with a RPAL, I should be trusted to have as many rounds as I want in my magazines, I mean seriously, I'm allowed to own restricted firearms, but I can't be trusted with a standard capacity magazine? Ridiculous.
If this is about "stopping crime" then make standard cap mags require a PAL, if you don't have a PAL and get caught with one, then give them a prohib charge. Law abiding owners can have it their way, and they can look like they actually care about crime reduction.
I've been working on my letter since Monday, I want it to be clear, to the point and polite. I think regardless if you use these mags or not everyone needs to do the same. A polite, well put together letter could be the turning point that is required to get through to the white shirts in Ottawa.
I don't want to get off topic, but to say we should forgive this guy because he apologized clearly shows they don't own a SA rifle. It hasn't effected them, so it's easy to forgive.
Greedy, selfish whistle blowers don't and never will sit well with me.
I don't want to get off topic, but to say we should forgive this guy because he apologized clearly shows they don't own a SA rifle. It hasn't effected them, so it's easy to forgive.
Greedy, selfish whistle blowers don't and never will sit well with me.
This could be fixed in 5 minutes by retiring Mr Paulson, who should have been gone after High River, and absolutely gone after the Parliament Hill debacle...
Robber A: Let's rob the bank tomorrow.
Robber B: No, don't do it as for the new law we can only use 5 round mags, it will make our work less opportunity to success.
Robber A: F**king laws we are robbers who F**king care the law???
Robber B: No, don't do it as for the new law we can only use 5 round mags, it will make our work less opportunity to success.
Robber A: F**king laws we are robbers who F**king care the law???
Paulson is a low life bully on a power trip,,,he will eventually realize that gun owners area force to reconed with,,,and the lifestyle and industry is also behind us,,,look at what the NRA is able to do in the US,,,that takes serious political power,,something the CPC must be realizing now,,this is a serious group that could affect elections,,at the end of the day,,any of the bull#### laws they pass will only create NEW NON law abiding citizens who used to be straight law abiding gun owners,,,gun owners are not the rollover on their backs type,,,are NOT going to turn over ANYTHING they own,,,and at that point,,who is going to care about capacity laws,,,20 seconds with a drill and it's full capacity again,,,seems to me working WITH law abiding gun owners is a much better way to go,,at we are all on the same side of the law,,and the minute a law enforcement officers life is SAVED by a good guy with a gun,,,that takes on a whole new look,,,
The Regulation is pretty clear. A mag can be 5 rounds, if made for a rifle, and 10 rounds if made for a pistol. Bulletin 72 was the correct interpretation. They can change the bulletin to read "bananas in a rifle, peppers in a pistol", but it still won't change what's legal and what's not.
The bulletin did provide a childproof document to show an over-zealous LEO. We'll now have to show them a highlighted page from the Regs, but it's not a total game changer.
Unless the RCMP can change the Reg, we're still OK, yes?
http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/regulations/SOR-98-462/page-2.html#docCont
3. (1) Any cartridge magazine
(a) that is capable of containing more than five cartridges of the type for which the magazine was originally designed and that is designed or manufactured for use in
(i) a semi-automatic handgun that is not commonly available in Canada,
(ii) a semi-automatic firearm other than a semi-automatic handgun,
(iii) an automatic firearm whether or not it has been altered to discharge only one projectile with one pressure of the trigger,
(iv) the firearms of the designs commonly known as the Ingram M10 and M11 pistols, and any variants or modified versions of them, including the Cobray M10 and M11 pistols, the RPB M10, M11 and SM11 pistols and the SWD M10, M11, SM10 and SM11 pistols,
(v) the firearm of the design commonly known as the Partisan Avenger Auto Pistol, and any variant or modified version of it, or
(vi) the firearm of the design commonly known as the UZI pistol, and any variant or modified version of it, including the Micro-UZI pistol; or
(b) that is capable of containing more than 10 cartridges of the type for which the magazine was originally designed and that is designed or manufactured for use in a semi-automatic handgun that is commonly available in Canada.
LAR-15 is a pistol, therefore 10 rounds. Unless someone can find a specific "thou shalt not put Mag A into firearm B" - it's the Mag that's pinned, not the rifle.
The bulletin did provide a childproof document to show an over-zealous LEO. We'll now have to show them a highlighted page from the Regs, but it's not a total game changer.
Unless the RCMP can change the Reg, we're still OK, yes?
http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/regulations/SOR-98-462/page-2.html#docCont
3. (1) Any cartridge magazine
(a) that is capable of containing more than five cartridges of the type for which the magazine was originally designed and that is designed or manufactured for use in
(i) a semi-automatic handgun that is not commonly available in Canada,
(ii) a semi-automatic firearm other than a semi-automatic handgun,
(iii) an automatic firearm whether or not it has been altered to discharge only one projectile with one pressure of the trigger,
(iv) the firearms of the designs commonly known as the Ingram M10 and M11 pistols, and any variants or modified versions of them, including the Cobray M10 and M11 pistols, the RPB M10, M11 and SM11 pistols and the SWD M10, M11, SM10 and SM11 pistols,
(v) the firearm of the design commonly known as the Partisan Avenger Auto Pistol, and any variant or modified version of it, or
(vi) the firearm of the design commonly known as the UZI pistol, and any variant or modified version of it, including the Micro-UZI pistol; or
(b) that is capable of containing more than 10 cartridges of the type for which the magazine was originally designed and that is designed or manufactured for use in a semi-automatic handgun that is commonly available in Canada.
LAR-15 is a pistol, therefore 10 rounds. Unless someone can find a specific "thou shalt not put Mag A into firearm B" - it's the Mag that's pinned, not the rifle.
Yes. We are all still OK.
Here are many other plausible explanations (NOTE: I AM NOT SUGGESTING ANY OF THESE ARE ACCURATE):
LAR15s and other pistol-length firearms based on AR receivers are going to be reclassified as rifles on the FRT making the mags prohibited devices.
LARs will be deemed to be "not readily available in Canada" because our great sponsors can't keep them on the shelf making the mags prohibited devices
The RCMP didn't want to advertise that LAR15 mags are exceptions thus giving people ideas
Some bureaucrat decided the bulletin looked nicer with a single example instead of two examples
We come off as loonies when people get all bent out of shape talking about loosing freedoms and the rampant RCMP bureaucrats when they are responding to NOTHING at all of substance. Especially when they can't put together a sentence without misspelled words.
And if you want to make it right JR, you can start reimbursing people with Swiss Arms rifles. Starting with dealers who have held them in inventory for a while without the possibility of earning any money from them and then the people who've not been able to take them out of their houses or stressed about prosecution for something as simple as moving houses during this debacle you initiated.
FF
Here are many other plausible explanations (NOTE: I AM NOT SUGGESTING ANY OF THESE ARE ACCURATE):
LAR15s and other pistol-length firearms based on AR receivers are going to be reclassified as rifles on the FRT making the mags prohibited devices.
LARs will be deemed to be "not readily available in Canada" because our great sponsors can't keep them on the shelf making the mags prohibited devices
The RCMP didn't want to advertise that LAR15 mags are exceptions thus giving people ideas
Some bureaucrat decided the bulletin looked nicer with a single example instead of two examples
We come off as loonies when people get all bent out of shape talking about loosing freedoms and the rampant RCMP bureaucrats when they are responding to NOTHING at all of substance. Especially when they can't put together a sentence without misspelled words.
And if you want to make it right JR, you can start reimbursing people with Swiss Arms rifles. Starting with dealers who have held them in inventory for a while without the possibility of earning any money from them and then the people who've not been able to take them out of their houses or stressed about prosecution for something as simple as moving houses during this debacle you initiated.
FF
Mauser GDog
CGN frequent flyer
Has anyone else received this email response from Blaney's office?
While the LAR-15 example was removed, the principle remained on the website, namely:
The maximum permitted capacity of a magazine is determined by the kind of firearm it is designed or manufactured for use in and not the kind of firearm it might actually be used in. As a consequence, the maximum permitted capacity remains the same regardless of which firearm it might be used in.
I have been advised that it was more of an administrative streamlining of the website to shorten the list of examples, and not an attempt to remove that example as being acceptable. Either way, no changes have been made to those regulations, and none are currently planned. If there is an attempt to circumvent the existing regulations, we will act.
Branden Leslie
Liaison for the
The Honourable Steven Blaney
Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness
House of Commons
Ottawa, Canada K1A 0A6
While the LAR-15 example was removed, the principle remained on the website, namely:
The maximum permitted capacity of a magazine is determined by the kind of firearm it is designed or manufactured for use in and not the kind of firearm it might actually be used in. As a consequence, the maximum permitted capacity remains the same regardless of which firearm it might be used in.
I have been advised that it was more of an administrative streamlining of the website to shorten the list of examples, and not an attempt to remove that example as being acceptable. Either way, no changes have been made to those regulations, and none are currently planned. If there is an attempt to circumvent the existing regulations, we will act.
Branden Leslie
Liaison for the
The Honourable Steven Blaney
Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness
House of Commons
Ottawa, Canada K1A 0A6
