The Year of the magazine, RCMP Info sheet

Please correct me if I'm wrong but doesn't these two paragraphs contradict each other?

What are the latest changes to the legal status of 22 Long Rifle calibre magazines designed for the 10/22 platform of firearms?
The legal status of 22 Long Rifle calibre magazines designed for the 10/22 platform of firearms has not changed.

The Regulations prohibit a cartridge magazine 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.


What magazines are prescribed as prohibited?
Magazines designed for 22 Long Rifle calibre 10/22 platform firearms that have not been altered, or "pinned", so that they can hold more than 10 cartridges are prohibited devices

If the magazines were legal, then they are still legal. If they were originally designed for the rifle, and the "pistol" is an obviously newer design, then they are still legal.
 
The Lieberals have stated many times that these decisions should fall with the "firearms experts" which ironically ....or maybe sarcastically they mean the police.
They dont care, and will do nothing. Closer to the truth would be that they are pulling the strings at the RCMP, but want to appear to not be involved.

The obvious choice is to have a business start a lawsuit. I would contribute to a fund for that.
 
First thanks John for always keeping us updated on important issues as this, you always go above and beyond for our community.

Does anyone have some sort of forum letter started to send to our local MPs to help fight this attack on our rights? If so I would like a copy so that I can send it to my local MP. We all need to stand up on this as it's just the beginning.
 
H.K.Glock 007 said:
Nope, pay them handsomely and they go get a non restricted one. 400 people? Get new guns for free and hundreds of thousands of others are not criminals for no reason.
Click to expand...

I see your handle here is Glock. So what next....every one of the mags you own pinned to 5 because the JR Carbine takes Glock mags.....and we handsomely pay off many thousands of owners of JR Carbines. Maybe you leave the range in bracelets because you are shooting a 40 mag out of ;your 9.

This sort of attitude is Fuddism in the worst way.
 
notsorichguy said:
That is not correct. Crimes have in fact been committed in Canada with 10/22 rifles.

There was a shooting here in SK 8-10 years ago.

The person walked into a rival gangs bar and opened fire with a cut down 10/22. Expended 4 magazines of ammo and fled. Iirc he used Butler Creek 25 rnd magazines. 2 people were killed and 8 were injured. The person in question is currently serving time for the crime.

I also recall an incident in Taber AB that involved a 10/22. I do not recall the particulars of the incident.

Saying that "no crimes ever" is not accurate. Using such statements makes us all look bad.
Click to expand...

You're right. If the guy shot 100 times (4x25) and killed 2 + injured 8, we shouldn't say "no crimes ever commited", we should say "bloodbath averted due to using a 10/22 instead of a powefull firearm". Do you imagine how much more damage that psycho could have done with a .308 rifle with 4 mags of 5 rounds, or a 12gauge shotgun with 4 mags of 5 slugs? Or would it have made any difference if the killer had used a Pietta with 4 mags of 25 rounds instead of a 10/22?

Now I know dying from a 22lr isn't any better than dying from a more powerfull ammo, but I believe that from a public safety point of view, there's a whole bunch of things that the rcmp could spend time and resources on that would increase public safety a lot more than 10/22 25 rounders#. Start with people talking on their cell phone while driving, you're gonna save more lives right there.
 
I would imagine Ruger themselves ought to be upset over this. They are going to lose a lot of 10/22 sales. One of the biggest reasons for people to buy a 10/22 is because of the availability of higher capacity feeding devices. Consumers are going to favor other manufacturer's guns from now on. Maybe it's time for Ruger to replace the 10/22 platform with a new design and higher capacity factory magazines.
 
H.K.Glock 007 said:
Nope, pay them handsomely and they go get a non restricted one. 400 people? Get new guns for free and hundreds of thousands of others are not criminals for no reason.
Click to expand...

We don't want to give an inch...you're proposing we give them a mile! Get it yet?!

I think they were legal...still are legal because the rcmp has no RIGHT to alter law. Clearly all mags commonly sold were designed for the rifle. Hell anybody have packaging for a butler creek 25? What does it say on the label...for 10/22 rifle by chance?

I was going to ditch my 10/22 platform...changed my mind. I'm not complying!
 
Who is the largest retailer of Ruger in Canada? This retailer should go to Ruger and try and get a letter stating that the magazine WAS ORIGINALLY DESIGNED FOR A RIFLE. Send to RCMP. End of story. Then every other magazine they try to prohibit, go to the manufacturer, ask same question. Heaven would be "these were originally designed for a bolt action rifle."
 
drift1122 said:
So which org is going to try and reverse this decision so I know where to send my money?
Click to expand...

Why join just one? The amount of money involved is so small compared to what we stand to lose. It's the cost of a box of ammo, the cost of an extra mag or two, the cost of a couple of long drives back and forth to the range.

Personally, I recommend the CSSA and the CCFR.

Join, and feel free to donate too. Or maybe buy memberships for 2 or 3 buddies who aren't paying attention to what's happening.
 
veygas said:
Who is the largest retailer of Ruger in Canada? This retailer should go to Ruger and try and get a letter stating that the magazine WAS ORIGINALLY DESIGNED FOR A RIFLE. Send to RCMP. End of story. Then every other magazine they try to prohibit, go to the manufacturer, ask same question. Heaven would be "these were originally designed for a bolt action rifle."
Click to expand...

They could say it was designed for a toaster and it wouldn't matter to the rcmp. Their reasonning is:
it works in a pistol = it was designed and manufactured for a pistol.

The contentious mags were not even designed or manufactured by Ruger. They're from Butler creek, Pro Mag, GSG and others. All these companies, especially Butler creek, stand to make more money selling 10 rounders when people break their 25 rounders trying to pin them.

First it was the 715T / 715P.
Then the 10-22 / 10-22 charger.
My money is on the Remington 597 next. Some clown will make a 597 pistol and get it an FRT. I guarantee it. The only question is whether it'll happen before or after they prohibit pistols mags for which carbines exists.
 
TJspeller said:
Why join just one? The amount of money involved is so small compared to what we stand to lose. It's the cost of a box of ammo, the cost of an extra mag or two, the cost of a couple of long drives back and forth to the range.

Personally, I recommend the CSSA and the CCFR.

Join, and feel free to donate too. Or maybe buy memberships for 2 or 3 buddies who aren't paying attention to what's happening.
Click to expand...

^^ On point for sure! If you took that money you spent on 1000 rounds of 9mm and x it by 2 million(just guessing)owners..well I'm thinking(in my head...carry the 4 and add 2 more, then subtract 8-for those that hand load) that is atleast a gajjilion dollars we could use to fight this in court!

OH...I'm not so good with numbers ;)
 
Where exactly is communication from the gun orgs on this? I donate so they can go silent when SHTF? Aren't they supposed to be vocal about crap like this?
 
veygas said:
Isnt the key word "ORIGINALLY" designed for? If ruger states or someome has info that the rifle came first then the mag was ORIGINALLY designed for it. Same with Glock mags. I dont think anyone could argue Glock mags were originally designed for anything but the handgun.
Click to expand...

Section 3(1)(b) says "...and that is designed or manufactured for use in a semi-automatic handgun that is commonly available in Canada". The fact that the magazines came before the pistol is irrelevant. The issue (from the eyes of the RCMP, although I think its bull****) is that Ruger manufactures (and advertises...see below) these with the intent of them also fitting the Charger pistols, since they run on the same receiver / platform.

The "originally" part, is not about the firearm, its about the caliber. It says "...containing more than 10 cartridges of the type for which the magazine was originally designed for". This means the type of caliber the magazine was originally designed for. The magazine was originally designed for the 22 LR cartridge. It holds more than 10 of this caliber, thus that statement is satisfied.

Interestingly, that same statement (but the reverse) is what allows us to somewhat get away with the .50 Beo magazines.

k327ep.png
 
Last edited:
enefgee said:
It's interesting that they actually state that the law hasn't changed, the regulations have. How many regulatory changes in Canada come with a 2 year minimum and 10 year maximum sentence?
Click to expand...

Actually neither
- the Law (Firearms Act), nor
- the Regulation (Regulations Prescribing Certain Firearms and Other Weapons, Components and Parts of Weapons, Accessories, Cartridge Magazines, Ammunition and Projectiles as Prohibited, Restricted or Non-Restricted SOR/98-462),
has changed.

What's changed is the interpretation.
The RCMP are arguing that they changed their interpretation back in 2013 and no one noticed its full effect (nor did they inform Canada Boarder nor Retailers), and now they're clarifying their 2013 interpretation to include more, and that due to their interpretation these million things are now illegal and have been since 2007 (when not even they noticed).

i.e. The RCMP are asserting today:
2008 - they became prohibited devices, but they hadn't noticed
2013 - they are still prohibited devices, but their pronouncement 74 wasn't clear (BX only, not all)
2016 - they are still prohibited devices, and they're being more clear (millions were illegal since 2008; although there is still some ambiguity about magazines for product lines other than Ruger's)



The up to 10 years for first offence is correct, assuming anyone gets charged rather than just property seized.
The 2 year mandatory minimum for first offence is not part of the criminal code, but I'm unclear if possession of more than one magazine might be a 2nd and 3rd charge which could have a mandatory minimum.

CriminalCode said:
Possession of firearm knowing its possession is unauthorized

92 (1) Subject to subsection (4), every person commits an offence who possesses a prohibited firearm, a restricted firearm or a non-restricted firearm knowing that the person is not the holder of
(a) a licence under which the person may possess it; and
(b) in the case of a prohibited firearm or a restricted firearm, a registration certificate for it.

Possession of prohibited weapon, device or ammunition knowing its possession is unauthorized

(2) Subject to subsection (4), every person commits an offence who possesses a prohibited weapon, a restricted weapon, a prohibited device, other than a replica firearm, or any prohibited ammunition knowing that the person is not the holder of a licence under which the person may possess it.

Punishment

(3) Every person who commits an offence under subsection (1) or (2) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable
(a) in the case of a first offence, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years;
(b) in the case of a second offence, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of one year; and
(c) in the case of a third or subsequent offence, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of two years less a day.

http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-46/page-21.html#docCont
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom