Does the gun registry help reduce crime?
- Thread starter Fishbone Jones
- Start date
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
EDIT: I stand corrected, but left this post unaltered for reference purposes.
I beg to differ, however, can you provide a link to the authorisation for the use of over capacity magazines in the AR-15 standard rifle/carbine. Has there been an ammendement to the bill or criminal code allowing this? To the best of my knowledge, not.
Although the actual lower reciever may be identical in design, what is the nomenclature on the reciever itself? Does it say LAR-15 'pistol', if so this defines this specific design/reciever as a pistol, and hence the 10rd mag can be legally used. On Colt AR-15s, its usually noted SP1 or SP2, denoting this reciever as a rifle/carbine, and I would legally say, for 5rd mags only, not the 10rd type.
Again all the paperwork I have seen and have ( I am still a firearms owner with a combination of 17 rifles and handguns in Canada, owning restricted catgories since 1978) and there is NO relation to any slack for over capacity mags in centre fire semi/CA rifles/carbines, bar the M1 Garand's 8 rd enbloc clip, which is in writing in the firearms act itself.
I would say that the 10rd mag would be lawful to use in the pistol version, but not in the rifle.
If anyone else can clarify this, it would be appreciated as someone unknowingly thinking there are doing something IAW the act, may find themselves in court and with a firearms ban or worse.
EDIT: A friend of mine has a SA VZ-61 Skorpion, registered as a pistol, but with 5 rd mags for it, not 10, as there is a grey area there. He is a policeman, and does not want to cause any problems with another LEO's interpertaion of the act. Otherwords is this a pistol or a carbine/SMG, since it has a wire stock, although registered as a pistol on his FRC. He does not want to lose his hobby and/or his occupation, and that is Saskatchewan.
Maybe I6, or someone in the 'know' can clarify (with link or verbatum clause) the use of over capacity magazines in AR-15 rifles.
Cheers,
Wes
I beg to differ, however, can you provide a link to the authorisation for the use of over capacity magazines in the AR-15 standard rifle/carbine. Has there been an ammendement to the bill or criminal code allowing this? To the best of my knowledge, not.
Although the actual lower reciever may be identical in design, what is the nomenclature on the reciever itself? Does it say LAR-15 'pistol', if so this defines this specific design/reciever as a pistol, and hence the 10rd mag can be legally used. On Colt AR-15s, its usually noted SP1 or SP2, denoting this reciever as a rifle/carbine, and I would legally say, for 5rd mags only, not the 10rd type.
Again all the paperwork I have seen and have ( I am still a firearms owner with a combination of 17 rifles and handguns in Canada, owning restricted catgories since 1978) and there is NO relation to any slack for over capacity mags in centre fire semi/CA rifles/carbines, bar the M1 Garand's 8 rd enbloc clip, which is in writing in the firearms act itself.
I would say that the 10rd mag would be lawful to use in the pistol version, but not in the rifle.
If anyone else can clarify this, it would be appreciated as someone unknowingly thinking there are doing something IAW the act, may find themselves in court and with a firearms ban or worse.
EDIT: A friend of mine has a SA VZ-61 Skorpion, registered as a pistol, but with 5 rd mags for it, not 10, as there is a grey area there. He is a policeman, and does not want to cause any problems with another LEO's interpertaion of the act. Otherwords is this a pistol or a carbine/SMG, since it has a wire stock, although registered as a pistol on his FRC. He does not want to lose his hobby and/or his occupation, and that is Saskatchewan.
Maybe I6, or someone in the 'know' can clarify (with link or verbatum clause) the use of over capacity magazines in AR-15 rifles.
Cheers,
Wes
- Reaction score
- 6,080
- Points
- 1,160
Wes,
If IIRC, CSSA legal has looked at this issue and it's ok. There's a whole big thing over on Gunnutz about it. You can go and check it there. I just don't have time at the moment to research it.
If IIRC, CSSA legal has looked at this issue and it's ok. There's a whole big thing over on Gunnutz about it. You can go and check it there. I just don't have time at the moment to research it.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
Found this on the CSSA site
link http://www.cdnshootingsports.org/2007/02/dawson_gun_all_the_rage.html
--------------------------
Glen then goes on to describe the connection between Canada’s gun laws and the Montreal Massacre in 1989. He notes that among other things, the size of magazines for semi-automatic rifles was limited to five rounds and handgun magazines were limited to 10 rounds. He than worries, that the Storm was occupying a “grey zone within the law.” This “grey zone” was caused by the Storm’s having magazines identical to pistol magazines. Indeed, the Canadian Firearms Centre issued a bulletin warning gun shops that 10-round magazines stamped with the name CX4 Storm were illegal, but the identical magazine without the Storm stamp was allowed. Glen notes this “bizarre bureaucratic distinction” was not a “trivial one” in light of the details of the Dawson College shootings where the murdered girl was shot nine times. Even assuming the killer used a ten round magazine, no evidence is presented that he could not have achieved the same effect by changing magazines.
link http://www.cdnshootingsports.org/2007/02/dawson_gun_all_the_rage.html
--------------------------
Glen then goes on to describe the connection between Canada’s gun laws and the Montreal Massacre in 1989. He notes that among other things, the size of magazines for semi-automatic rifles was limited to five rounds and handgun magazines were limited to 10 rounds. He than worries, that the Storm was occupying a “grey zone within the law.” This “grey zone” was caused by the Storm’s having magazines identical to pistol magazines. Indeed, the Canadian Firearms Centre issued a bulletin warning gun shops that 10-round magazines stamped with the name CX4 Storm were illegal, but the identical magazine without the Storm stamp was allowed. Glen notes this “bizarre bureaucratic distinction” was not a “trivial one” in light of the details of the Dawson College shootings where the murdered girl was shot nine times. Even assuming the killer used a ten round magazine, no evidence is presented that he could not have achieved the same effect by changing magazines.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
Also found this....
http://www.questar.ca/deals/LAR15_mag_ruling.htm
Which I am overjoyed about. A loophole (for now).
Legal Ruling on Questar's
LAR-15 .223/5.56 Pistol Magazines...
E-mail Received – Monday March 12, 2007 from xxxx xxxxx - (copied DFAIT & CFC by xxx xxxxx)…
Good day Mark:
Attached you will find a document sent by this office to DEFAIT Canada & the Firearms Registry with respect to the LAR-15 PISTOL Magazine issue. The finding is in favour of your product.
x.x. xxxxxxx (xxxx) xxxxx
Section Head
Firearms Reference Table Section
Senior Firearms Technologist
Firearms Support Services Branch
Royal Canadian Mounted Police
P.O. Box 8885,
Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
K1G 3M8
xxx-xxx-xxxx
Good afternoon everyone:
Attached you will find an MS or Microsoft WORD document which will be of interest.
This document is the final chapter in the saga of a cartridge magazine specific to the Rock River Arms LAR-15 Pistol, which is a “handgun, commonly available in Canada”, which may have a capacity of (not more than) ten shots.
1. The Rock River Arms, LAR-15 Pistol qualifies as a “handgun, commonly available in Canada”.
2. The cartridge magazine for this handgun as manufactured by C Products LLC has been deemed to be acceptable as a "handgun magazine" as it meets the following criterion:
a) It is designed and manufactured for use in a handgun commonly available in Canada and has a capacity of not more than ten cartridges of the kind or type for which the magazine was designed.
b) The cartridge magazine for this handgun as manufactured by C Products LLC is not an adaption of a magazine designed and manufactured for use in a semi-automatic rifle.
3. The design that has been found acceptable as a handgun magazine is held by the RCMP, Firearms Support Services, Firearms Reference Table Section as a "pattern". This particular design and NO other design is approved for use as a “handgun magazine for a handgun commonly available in Canada”.
4. As an assist to identification, the cartridge magazines which have been deemed acceptable as a “a magazine for use in a handgun commonly available in Canada”, bear the following identification markings on the body or magazine case, applied at the time of manufacture by the manufacturer:
RRA MODEL LAR-15 PISTOL MAGAZINE
223 REM/5.56 MM NATO - 10 ROUND CAPACITY
NOTE: - No other ten shot capacity magazines are deemed acceptable as “a magazine for use in a handgun commonly available in Canada” as of 2007-03-12.
What does all of this mean? There are many people who mistakenly believe rifles are limited to 5 rounds and handguns are limited to 10 rounds... but that is NOT CORRECT.
The reality is the legislation specifies how to determine the capacity of a magazine... it does this by classifying the magazine itself for type and capacity based on what that magazine was "designed and manufactured" for. The legislation makes no reference to what firearm the magazine is subsequently used in once it has been classified and its' legal capacity determined. The classification of, and the legal capacity of a magazine does not change simply because it is placed in or used in a handgun, a semi-auto rifle, a pump rifle, a bolt action rifle, etc..
The applicable legislation can be found at: http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/showdoc/cr/SOR-98-462///en?page=1
Select " Section 7" to view the legislation that came into force on December 1, 1998. See specifically Part 4 Prohibited Devices, about 4/5ths of the way down the page... Read the wording carefully... it doesn't actually say that a handgun may have a 10 round magazine... what it actually does is tell you what magazines are classified as handgun magazines, what handgun magazines may not exceed 5 round capacity (yes there are some that are limited to 5), and what handgun magazines are "Prohibited Devices" because they do exceed a certain capacity.
Think of it like this... you start off from a position that all magazines are "legal" and have unlimited capacity... then the legislation puts capacity limits on certain magazines and in specified instances classifies some as Prohibited Devices, depending on whether they get caught up in the various regulations that have been passed into law. So... reading the legislation you see it states that:
A Prohibited Device is... Any Cartridge Magazine...
(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.
In other words (generally) a magazine designed and manufactured for use in a semi-auto handgun commonly available in Canada can have a capacity of 10 or fewer rounds and is perfectly legal, but if it has more than 10 rounds it is a Prohibited Device.
Notice that I said "generally"... and indicated that some handgun magazines can only contain 5 rounds maximum... this comes from Paragraph 3(1) which states that a Prohibited Device is 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;
Again, notice it doesn't say that they can contain 5 rounds, but rather that if these types of magazines contain more than 5 they are classified as being a Prohibited Device.
Now go back and re-read the RCMP's decision on our LAR-15 Pistol Magazines... it is very specifically worded because it needs to articulate how these magazines meet the specific requirements of the legislation.
First requirement is that the handgun the magazines are made for must be "commonly available in Canada" otherwise we would be limited to 5 round maximum capacity no matter what... the RCMP letter acknowledges that the LAR-15 Pistol is a handgun commonly available in Canada so we meet the first legal requirement.
Next, the RCMP acknowledged that Questar's LAR-15 Pistol Magazine (as submitted for classification) did indeed meet the other requirement of the legislation, which states the magazine must be "... designed or manufactured for use in a semi-automatic handgun..." .
Having determined that these are in fact designed and manufactured as "Pistol Magazines" and that the handgun they were made for was "commonly available in Canada" the magazines met the legal requirements and were classified by the RCMP as "Pistol Magazines" legal for use in the LAR-15 Pistol at a capacity of 10 rounds.
Since Canadian law does not re-classify a magazine (or change its' legal capacity) from it's original classification simply because you put it into a firearm other than the gun it was originally manufactured to be used in, you are free to use the magazine in any firearm that you wish at the stated legal capacity. That's the law.
This is the same for the Glock pistol magazines being used in an Olympic Arms AR rifle (10 round capacity), or the Beretta "pistol magazine" being used in a CX Storm at 10 round capacity, even though the nearly exact same magazine with CX Storm stamped on it can only have a 5 round capacity no matter what firearm you put it in. One is classified as a "Pistol Magazines" having a legal capacity of 10 rounds while the other is classified as a "Rifle Magazine" having a legal capacity of 5 rounds... nearly identical magazines but with two different classifications and two different legal capacities... neither of which are based on what gun they are used in, but rather what gun they were designed and manufactured for.
To read the CFC's official Bulletin on the Beretta CX-4 Storm and the two different magazines classified for use in the Storm rifle go to the CFC's website at: http://www.cfc-cafc.gc.ca/bulletins/businesses/bulletin-55_e.asp.
Notice that the 2nd point made in the Bulletin is: "The classification of a firearm magazine depends on the type of firearm the magazine was designed to be used in, not the type of firearm it is actually used in."
There are many other examples of magazine cross-over where 10 round magazines are legally useable in rifles as long as the magazine was classified as a "Pistol Magazine" and legal for 10 round capacity in the first place.
People who look to the legislation hoping to see where it clearly says: "the following 10 round magazine can be used in the following rifle" are going to be disappointed because that's not what the legislation does... instead, it tells you what isn't allowed. You won't find a statement in the legislation stating that pump action or bolt action rifles may have unlimited capacity magazines but in fact that is legally the case. If the bolt or pump action rifle has a magazine that was designed and manufactured specifically for it (not for a handgun, or a semi-auto rifle, or one of the specifically named firearms), then that magazine would legally have an unlimited capacity because under the legislation there is nothing that sets a capacity limit on the magazine and nothing that defines the magazine as a Prohibited Device.
You will find that the legislation does specifically make a few "exclusions" for certain firearms... only because they would otherwise be caught up in the regulations and thereby wrongly classified:
(2) Paragraph (1)(a) does not include any cartridge magazine that
(a) was originally designed or manufactured for use in a firearm that
(i) is chambered for, or designed to use, rimfire cartridges,
(ii) is a rifle of the type commonly known as the “Lee Enfield” rifle, where the magazine is capable of containing not more than 10 cartridges of the type for which the magazine was originally designed, or
(iii) is commonly known as the U.S. Rifle M1 (Garand) including the Beretta M1 Garand rifle, the Breda M1 Garand rifle and the Springfield Armoury M1 Garand rifle;
Such is the way our laws are written.
http://www.questar.ca/deals/LAR15_mag_ruling.htm
Which I am overjoyed about. A loophole (for now).
Legal Ruling on Questar's
LAR-15 .223/5.56 Pistol Magazines...
E-mail Received – Monday March 12, 2007 from xxxx xxxxx - (copied DFAIT & CFC by xxx xxxxx)…
Good day Mark:
Attached you will find a document sent by this office to DEFAIT Canada & the Firearms Registry with respect to the LAR-15 PISTOL Magazine issue. The finding is in favour of your product.
x.x. xxxxxxx (xxxx) xxxxx
Section Head
Firearms Reference Table Section
Senior Firearms Technologist
Firearms Support Services Branch
Royal Canadian Mounted Police
P.O. Box 8885,
Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
K1G 3M8
xxx-xxx-xxxx
Good afternoon everyone:
Attached you will find an MS or Microsoft WORD document which will be of interest.
This document is the final chapter in the saga of a cartridge magazine specific to the Rock River Arms LAR-15 Pistol, which is a “handgun, commonly available in Canada”, which may have a capacity of (not more than) ten shots.
1. The Rock River Arms, LAR-15 Pistol qualifies as a “handgun, commonly available in Canada”.
2. The cartridge magazine for this handgun as manufactured by C Products LLC has been deemed to be acceptable as a "handgun magazine" as it meets the following criterion:
a) It is designed and manufactured for use in a handgun commonly available in Canada and has a capacity of not more than ten cartridges of the kind or type for which the magazine was designed.
b) The cartridge magazine for this handgun as manufactured by C Products LLC is not an adaption of a magazine designed and manufactured for use in a semi-automatic rifle.
3. The design that has been found acceptable as a handgun magazine is held by the RCMP, Firearms Support Services, Firearms Reference Table Section as a "pattern". This particular design and NO other design is approved for use as a “handgun magazine for a handgun commonly available in Canada”.
4. As an assist to identification, the cartridge magazines which have been deemed acceptable as a “a magazine for use in a handgun commonly available in Canada”, bear the following identification markings on the body or magazine case, applied at the time of manufacture by the manufacturer:
RRA MODEL LAR-15 PISTOL MAGAZINE
223 REM/5.56 MM NATO - 10 ROUND CAPACITY
NOTE: - No other ten shot capacity magazines are deemed acceptable as “a magazine for use in a handgun commonly available in Canada” as of 2007-03-12.
What does all of this mean? There are many people who mistakenly believe rifles are limited to 5 rounds and handguns are limited to 10 rounds... but that is NOT CORRECT.
The reality is the legislation specifies how to determine the capacity of a magazine... it does this by classifying the magazine itself for type and capacity based on what that magazine was "designed and manufactured" for. The legislation makes no reference to what firearm the magazine is subsequently used in once it has been classified and its' legal capacity determined. The classification of, and the legal capacity of a magazine does not change simply because it is placed in or used in a handgun, a semi-auto rifle, a pump rifle, a bolt action rifle, etc..
The applicable legislation can be found at: http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/showdoc/cr/SOR-98-462///en?page=1
Select " Section 7" to view the legislation that came into force on December 1, 1998. See specifically Part 4 Prohibited Devices, about 4/5ths of the way down the page... Read the wording carefully... it doesn't actually say that a handgun may have a 10 round magazine... what it actually does is tell you what magazines are classified as handgun magazines, what handgun magazines may not exceed 5 round capacity (yes there are some that are limited to 5), and what handgun magazines are "Prohibited Devices" because they do exceed a certain capacity.
Think of it like this... you start off from a position that all magazines are "legal" and have unlimited capacity... then the legislation puts capacity limits on certain magazines and in specified instances classifies some as Prohibited Devices, depending on whether they get caught up in the various regulations that have been passed into law. So... reading the legislation you see it states that:
A Prohibited Device is... Any Cartridge Magazine...
(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.
In other words (generally) a magazine designed and manufactured for use in a semi-auto handgun commonly available in Canada can have a capacity of 10 or fewer rounds and is perfectly legal, but if it has more than 10 rounds it is a Prohibited Device.
Notice that I said "generally"... and indicated that some handgun magazines can only contain 5 rounds maximum... this comes from Paragraph 3(1) which states that a Prohibited Device is 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;
Again, notice it doesn't say that they can contain 5 rounds, but rather that if these types of magazines contain more than 5 they are classified as being a Prohibited Device.
Now go back and re-read the RCMP's decision on our LAR-15 Pistol Magazines... it is very specifically worded because it needs to articulate how these magazines meet the specific requirements of the legislation.
First requirement is that the handgun the magazines are made for must be "commonly available in Canada" otherwise we would be limited to 5 round maximum capacity no matter what... the RCMP letter acknowledges that the LAR-15 Pistol is a handgun commonly available in Canada so we meet the first legal requirement.
Next, the RCMP acknowledged that Questar's LAR-15 Pistol Magazine (as submitted for classification) did indeed meet the other requirement of the legislation, which states the magazine must be "... designed or manufactured for use in a semi-automatic handgun..." .
Having determined that these are in fact designed and manufactured as "Pistol Magazines" and that the handgun they were made for was "commonly available in Canada" the magazines met the legal requirements and were classified by the RCMP as "Pistol Magazines" legal for use in the LAR-15 Pistol at a capacity of 10 rounds.
Since Canadian law does not re-classify a magazine (or change its' legal capacity) from it's original classification simply because you put it into a firearm other than the gun it was originally manufactured to be used in, you are free to use the magazine in any firearm that you wish at the stated legal capacity. That's the law.
This is the same for the Glock pistol magazines being used in an Olympic Arms AR rifle (10 round capacity), or the Beretta "pistol magazine" being used in a CX Storm at 10 round capacity, even though the nearly exact same magazine with CX Storm stamped on it can only have a 5 round capacity no matter what firearm you put it in. One is classified as a "Pistol Magazines" having a legal capacity of 10 rounds while the other is classified as a "Rifle Magazine" having a legal capacity of 5 rounds... nearly identical magazines but with two different classifications and two different legal capacities... neither of which are based on what gun they are used in, but rather what gun they were designed and manufactured for.
To read the CFC's official Bulletin on the Beretta CX-4 Storm and the two different magazines classified for use in the Storm rifle go to the CFC's website at: http://www.cfc-cafc.gc.ca/bulletins/businesses/bulletin-55_e.asp.
Notice that the 2nd point made in the Bulletin is: "The classification of a firearm magazine depends on the type of firearm the magazine was designed to be used in, not the type of firearm it is actually used in."
There are many other examples of magazine cross-over where 10 round magazines are legally useable in rifles as long as the magazine was classified as a "Pistol Magazine" and legal for 10 round capacity in the first place.
People who look to the legislation hoping to see where it clearly says: "the following 10 round magazine can be used in the following rifle" are going to be disappointed because that's not what the legislation does... instead, it tells you what isn't allowed. You won't find a statement in the legislation stating that pump action or bolt action rifles may have unlimited capacity magazines but in fact that is legally the case. If the bolt or pump action rifle has a magazine that was designed and manufactured specifically for it (not for a handgun, or a semi-auto rifle, or one of the specifically named firearms), then that magazine would legally have an unlimited capacity because under the legislation there is nothing that sets a capacity limit on the magazine and nothing that defines the magazine as a Prohibited Device.
You will find that the legislation does specifically make a few "exclusions" for certain firearms... only because they would otherwise be caught up in the regulations and thereby wrongly classified:
(2) Paragraph (1)(a) does not include any cartridge magazine that
(a) was originally designed or manufactured for use in a firearm that
(i) is chambered for, or designed to use, rimfire cartridges,
(ii) is a rifle of the type commonly known as the “Lee Enfield” rifle, where the magazine is capable of containing not more than 10 cartridges of the type for which the magazine was originally designed, or
(iii) is commonly known as the U.S. Rifle M1 (Garand) including the Beretta M1 Garand rifle, the Breda M1 Garand rifle and the Springfield Armoury M1 Garand rifle;
Such is the way our laws are written.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
So what about the Uzi pistol and such firearms of that catagory, could you use a 10 rd Uzi pistol mag in a carbine/SM type of firearm??
If I remember right, there is no 10 rd mags for the Uzi, just blocked standard 'stick' mags. So I would understand mags would have to be manufacture to 10 rd capacityd, and so marked as for 'pistol' use. For the record, I used to own a standard Model A SA Uzi, now in the Saskatchewwan Military Museum in Regina.
This new ruling opens up all sorts of grey areas, and personally I would be cautious, as most LEOs in the field will be uninformed, and sadly, will still think of the 5rd law, and hence you could be briefly arrested, embarrassed, have your freedom violated (placed in cells) and be in trouble for a short while, with confiscated kit etc, and when you get it back, you are blacklisted, and will get no appology from the 'Stasi'.
I am sure most dealers will be sold out of these LAR 'pistol mags'.
Cheers,
Wes
If I remember right, there is no 10 rd mags for the Uzi, just blocked standard 'stick' mags. So I would understand mags would have to be manufacture to 10 rd capacityd, and so marked as for 'pistol' use. For the record, I used to own a standard Model A SA Uzi, now in the Saskatchewwan Military Museum in Regina.
This new ruling opens up all sorts of grey areas, and personally I would be cautious, as most LEOs in the field will be uninformed, and sadly, will still think of the 5rd law, and hence you could be briefly arrested, embarrassed, have your freedom violated (placed in cells) and be in trouble for a short while, with confiscated kit etc, and when you get it back, you are blacklisted, and will get no appology from the 'Stasi'.
I am sure most dealers will be sold out of these LAR 'pistol mags'.
Cheers,
Wes
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
LAR mags are being imported like crazy as a result. The dramatics of the Cx4 were interesting. A 10 round mag marked "Cx4 Storm" is a prohibited device, but a 10 mound Beretta 92/96 pistol mag which is essentially identical. It all comes down to what the magazine was actually manufactured for.
As for the Uzi mags - it would be up to the RCMP but if it was clearly marked as "pistol" that would lend weight - but the weapon would have to meet that test of being a "handgun commonly available in Canada" or however it was worded.
As for the Uzi mags - it would be up to the RCMP but if it was clearly marked as "pistol" that would lend weight - but the weapon would have to meet that test of being a "handgun commonly available in Canada" or however it was worded.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
I would figure that the LAR-15 would be less common or equal in quantity, and both, not really popular, but commonly available in Canada.
I am begiing to hopefully think that there will be a rash of designs in the upcoming months to get thru the loophole intact, while it still exists.
I bet the Cukiers out there are fuming, ha!
Cheers,
Wes
I am begiing to hopefully think that there will be a rash of designs in the upcoming months to get thru the loophole intact, while it still exists.
I bet the Cukiers out there are fuming, ha!
Cheers,
Wes
Similar threads
