Magazines for Ruger 10/22's declared "Prohibited"

[Bigdoggdon]

Just read an article in the Prince George Citizen that MP Bob Zimmer is raising questions on behalf of his constituents about the Canadian Firearms Centre arbitrarily declaring magazines for Ruger 10/22 rifles with a capacity of more than 10 rounds are "Prohibited". The new CFC ruling was issued without public notification.
http://www.princegeorgecitizen.com/news/local-news/zimmer-raises-concern-about-prohibited-firearm-magazine-1.2312534

Was wondering how long the ugly head of gun control was going to take to resurface under the new Liberal Government. Counting the days until the RCMP breaks down my door now that I'm a criminal for something that I've owned for years without incident.

[Boner]

All the Citizen is good for is recycling. They don't like Zimmer's stance on the AR-15, and there were editorial views that tried to roast him mid June right after the incident in Florida.

[Bubba123]

The RCMP have issued a bulletin clarifying the existing law surrounding the use of magazines designed and manufactured for the Ruger 10/22 that are able to hold more than 10 rounds. They maintain that they have been prohibited all along, in spite of the CBSA allowing their import, and there being no seizures of these magazines prior to the 26th of July 2016. This communique was issued as a result of several citizens calling the CFC regarding Cabela's, and some other retailers suddenly removing these mags from the shelves, and the New Brunswick CFO contacting retailers and gun ranges 10 days ago that this was being done. Many retailers are waiting to be contacted directly by the CFC, and until such time, the magazines in question are still being sold.
The advice of most gun orgs is to hold tight. Do not use the mags, transport them, or have them modified (pinned). It is important for all firearm owners to write a letter to their MP, Ralph Goodale, and Justin Trudeau voicing the displeasure over the conduct of the RCMP to arbitrarily decide to start enforcing prohibition on something that has never been a problem in the past.
the CSSA in conjunction with the CSAAA are mounting a class action lawsuit regarding this issue. Other orgs such as the CCFR are promoting public awareness around the issue.
Mr. Zimmer is purely calling upon the government to clarify their position, and has used the local media to bring the issue to the public.

[caddisguy]

I don't agree with Mr Zimmer's "advice" for stores to stop selling them. Only stores start pulling them from the shelves it sets a tone or prohibition and lends credibility to the RCMP's far fetched mis-interprutation of the Firearms Act. While most stores continue to sell them and stick up for gun rights, to my knowledge Cabelas is the only one to entertain the prohibition and pull them from the shelves. I will keep their "advocacy" in mind before shopping there.

I believe his motive is that he does not want the case tested in court before "his" class action lawsuit. His heart is in the right place and I am glad he is working the class-action angle, but I do think if all the big fish were to stop selling them, those left will be easy to target. A law is pretty tough to enforce when it is over-reaching especially if the stance of the memo is rejected across the board.

There are other lawyers looking for volunteers willing to have a mag confiscated, order to pin or charged so they can take it to court and test the case as soon as possible. I believe it will be one of these cases which resolve the issue. Efficieny and staight to the point. No advice about stores an gun owners hiding in the shadows as if they are doing something wrong.

[caddisguy]

To make the overreaching mis-interprutation crystal clear, the relevant wording of the actual law is:

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.

The design of the Butler Creek Steel-lips / Hot-lips magazines pre-dates the Charger (which was made in 2007) so it was not possible for them to have designed or manufactured for use in the charger. The law says "originally designed and that is designed or manufactured for use in" NOT "happens to fit"

Judges are very literal, so much that they often cite the dictionary in rulings. I do not think a case can be made against an aftermarket 10/22 magazine unless there is some packaging/documentation/etc that indicates intended use in the Charger. I highly doubt any that were imported into Canada fit this criteria.

[Xenomorph]

I don't agree with Mr Zimmer's "advice" for stores to stop selling them. Only stores start pulling them from the shelves it sets a tone or prohibition and lends credibility to the RCMP's far fetched mis-interprutation of the Firearms Act. While most stores continue to sell them and stick up for gun rights, to my knowledge Cabelas is the only one to entertain the prohibition and pull them from the shelves. I will keep their "advocacy" in mind before shopping there.

I believe his motive is that he does not want the case tested in court before "his" class action lawsuit. His heart is in the right place and I am glad he is working the class-action angle, but I do think if all the big fish were to stop selling them, those left will be easy to target. A law is pretty tough to enforce when it is over-reaching especially if the stance of the memo is rejected across the board.

There are other lawyers looking for volunteers willing to have a mag confiscated, order to pin or charged so they can take it to court and test the case as soon as possible. I believe it will be one of these cases which resolve the issue. Efficieny and staight to the point. No advice about stores an gun owners hiding in the shadows as if they are doing something wrong.


And here's why I don't shop at "big box" stores. Corporate BS. If there was a coherent Gunsmith/Shop owners association, a group voice like that would stand much firmer against overreaching policies like this.

Curious to see where this goes, and I am pretty sure this is a test of things to come for us.

[caddisguy]

And here's why I don't shop at "big box" stores. Corporate BS. If there was a coherent Gunsmith/Shop owners association, a group voice like that would stand much firmer against overreaching policies like this.

Curious to see where this goes, and I am pretty sure this is a test of things to come for us.

I would consider WSS big box and they are still selling them. That is huge IMHO.

[Xenomorph]

I would consider WSS big box and they are still selling them. That is huge IMHO.

Thanks for that, guess it's time to buy some.

[caddisguy]

New development... just got a message from Xenomorph that they weren't on the WSS website anymore. I checked myself and sure enough it seems they are gone.

They were still on the website last week and as of Thursday when I went to WSS in Langley to get some new waders for caddisgirl, they were still on the shelves. I chatted briefly with the guys at the counter about the RCMP memo and got the impression they weren't the slightest bit concerned about it.

It seems WSS might have followed Cabelas lead and pulled them. I probably won't be at WSS this week but if anyone is, please check for the 10/22 mags and let us know if they are still in store.

[walks with deer]

I bought a 10 round yesterday so I would be comfortable taking the gun out..

[Bigdoggdon]

Typical knee-jerk reaction to a non-existent problem. I've heard there are less than 30 of the charger handguns registered in Canada.

[BimmerBob]

It seems to me the logic (really illogic if you think about it much) of the RCMP is that the combination of the handgun and the magazine make it prohibited, that logic extended would be that if a person does not own the handgun then the magazine (with a rifle) would be OK. How could they EVER prosecute someone successfully with this? If the RCMP were to charge someone under this provision it would seem a harassment countersuit should be successful.

[howa1500]

It seems to me the logic (really illogic if you think about it much) of the RCMP is that the combination of the handgun and the magazine make it prohibited, that logic extended would be that if a person does not own the handgun then the magazine (with a rifle) would be OK. How could they EVER prosecute someone successfully with this? If the RCMP were to charge someone under this provision it would seem a harassment countersuit should be successful.

Its the law it can change.... Thats how you would get charged. While you might not get convicted do you want your guns taken away and your firearms licence revoked? Even worse what if you do get convicted and recieve a mandatory firearms prohibition?

Well at least they stopped ISIS from taking over parliament with 10/22's and butler creek mags.....

[Bigdoggdon]

Just seems that it would have been much easier to prohibit the Charger handgun since there's so few of them, rather than try to track down the TENS OF THOUSANDS of Ruger 10/22 Mags.

[r106]

Just seems that it would have been much easier to prohibit the Charger handgun since there's so few of them, rather than try to track down the TENS OF THOUSANDS of Ruger 10/22 Mags.


Horrible idea. Prohibiting one item in exchange for another is not the answer. You might have a different opinion if you were one of the 300+ people who own a charger.

Time for gun owners to get on the same page instead of throwing each other under the bus

[caddisguy]

I still don't think a judge would rule in favor of the RCMP's new re-interpretation of the law, particularly anyone who purchased the magazines prior to 2007. Simply put, the argument of the prosecution would require a time machine. You cannot "design or manufacture" an accessory for a device that does not exist. The onus would be on them to prove otherwise which is utterly laughable. Can you imagine being a fly on the wall for that argument? It tickles me even thinking about it.

Now, for the magazines designed after 2007. I do not think Butler Creek has altered the design in any way since the Charger came out, or marketed these magazines for the Charger, so I believe it would still be a difficult case to make for the prosecution.

Judges are typically very literal and cite the dictionary multiple times during a ruling. Even in "spirit of the law" scenarios, judges are adamant that law is not to be interpreted, neither by them "for the most part", nor the RCMP. The wording of the law is very specific that the magazine would have need to have been "designed or manufactured for" the Charger. Whether or not it fits a firearm that was created 5, 10 or 20 years later is not the slightest bit relevant.

That said, lets consider a full on 100% "spirit of the law" ruling, disregarding the language of the law (this will not happen but I am playing devils advocate) and a judge just goes with his/her gut on what the law should be and why. The ultimate spirit of the law would be to protect the public from criminals running around with Charger's loaded with high capacity magazines. Now what is the Charger exactly? It is essentially a "sawed off rimfire rifle". It is no different than cutting the barrel off any other 22 rifle which would still allow for legal use of magazines exceeding 10 rounds. A 100% spirit of the law (and again, this will never happen) interpretation could not even make a high level argument that it would make a difference to public safety at all.

This would also be a huge event in case law and could impact many other cases. A judge will know the severity of such a ruling (ie: a product can be made and sold and another product made in the future could make the first item prohibited. In this case both products are made by the same company--and it would be huge even then--but what if they're not?)

Any defending lawyer would be prepared to easily counter any angle the prosecution would take. My guess is that that the crown would be reluctant to take on any case since the outcome will be that the magazines are legal. For now, the status quo is that 10/22 owners will feel pressured and be reluctant to use, transport, talk about (their) or sell these magazines. This is why lawyers are actively looking looking for activist volunteers to intentionally get charged, to get this show on the road. Otherwise I suspect status quo will carry on for many years. Finding a test case however might be difficult because as it is said, often the punishment is the process. It could potentially mean using a compound bow or less for some years.

Lastly, the more time that goes on before the case is tested the less likely the prosecution can win. After all, these magazines were being sold by big box stores and mom and pop shops across the country for decades (to which only the last 9 years could possibly be relevant). If the prosecution wants to be able to make an argument that these magazines are a risk to public safety, it will be difficult to make that argument if years pass by and they charged an individual. After all, they will have had years to get a warrant to seize inventory and sales records from any of these big box stores, which of course they would be doing if the magazines are a thread to public safety, right? This will make the case even more fragile. Looks like they are darned if they do and darned if they don't.

[Bigdoggdon]

Next they will probably outlaw 30-06 ammo because it can be used in an M-60 machine gun