# Does the gun registry help reduce crime?



## Fishbone Jones (20 Dec 2007)

http://rm.angusreidforum.com/?cid=964&rs=GREnGg

Does gun registry help reduce crime?
YES	4%	

NO	96%


----------



## Loachman (20 Dec 2007)

The population at large may be smartening up.

Not terribly likely, though.


----------



## Flip (30 Dec 2007)

Ummmm  ........  no

It causes crime. 
By criminalizing law abiding gun owners.

In Canada the weapon of choice is the knife!
We would need a law that restricts everything including 
pointed sticks.

In truth we have enough laws and virtually no penalties
for violent criminals.  Fix that - fix the problem.

IMHO anyway.


----------



## 1feral1 (30 Dec 2007)

No, it just sucks millions out of the tax payer, when those millions could be going to cancer research and other notable things.

My 2 cents,

Wes


----------



## 1feral1 (30 Dec 2007)

Flip said:
			
		

> In Canada the weapon of choice is the knife!



In Saskatchewan some weapons of choice area pair of cowboy boots, tire iron, a two x four, or a broken beer bottle. oh yes and the super store paring knfe too, thats good value, a bit of hockey tape on the grip to keep it firm in one's hand.

Regina and surrounding First Nation Reserves, and I am not playing the race card.


----------



## medaid (30 Dec 2007)

Knives are your number one worries in many places. Not to mention intoxicated drivers....


----------



## zipperhead_cop (30 Dec 2007)

Yah!  Cars kill lots of people!  So, what, are we going to have, like, a *car* registry now?  

Oh...


----------



## Colin Parkinson (30 Dec 2007)

Personally I am all in favour of registering firearms just like we register cars, first improvement is that it will not be a crimmanl offence to neglect informing them of a address change. Plus if I want to have a 3.9 barrel on my 229, only my insurance rate changes. Also there won't be a need for ATT or SAPs anymore.


----------



## zipperhead_cop (31 Dec 2007)

Colin P said:
			
		

> Personally I am all in favour of registering firearms just like we register cars, first improvement is that it will not be a crimmanl offence to neglect informing them of a address change. Plus if I want to have a 3.9 barrel on my 229, only my insurance rate changes. Also there won't be a need for ATT or SAPs anymore.



That would probably work, but only because it would be supported by the insurance companies, who will use any excuse to jack rates.


----------



## Hawk (31 Dec 2007)

Potential weapons - knitting needles on airplanes! Oh - but I could take a circular needle, if security doesn't think its a threat and its less than 31 inches long. My grandmother's steel needles, I can understand - but what about my old plastic ones? Crochet hooks seem to be ok. However, I have some very tiny ones that could stab you quite effectively, and any of them could put out an eye. Go figure.

At home my cast iron frying pan would make an effective weapon, not to mention my knives. Go ahead - legislate against my cooking equipment.

Hawk


----------



## smcleod (24 Jan 2008)

Wesley  Down Under said:
			
		

> No, it just sucks millions out of the tax payer, when those millions could be going to cancer research and other notable things.
> 
> My 2 cents,
> 
> Wes



Millions? Try BILLIONS. And yes, a total waste of taxpayer money. Liberal ideals which, in principle, may sound good--but they never work and we don't live in a perfect world. They (Liberals) always forget about reality.

Qualified citizens (background checks, training, safety, etc) should be able to carry concealed firearms in Canada as well. We'd have a lot less crimes against persons. This is a touchy issue, but we should be able to protect ourselves with lethal force if a lethal threat presents itself.


----------



## Mikeg81 (24 Jan 2008)

Colin P said:
			
		

> Personally I am all in favour of registering firearms just like we register cars, first improvement is that it will not be a crimmanl offence to neglect informing them of a address change. Plus if I want to have a 3.9 barrel on my 229, only my insurance rate changes. Also there won't be a need for ATT or SAPs anymore.



The Government has no need to know that I own a rifle. Period.


----------



## rz350 (24 Jan 2008)

my rifles have never so much as been pointed at another human being. (well  my M1 carbine, SMLE and SKS may have...but not in my hands   ) I dont think legal gun owners are the problem. I think the registry should go, and the punishment for cupable homicide/attemp homicide and assault/weapon should be harsher.

that said, if you defend your self legally, it should not be such a farce in court to stay out of jail. (You know, you can punch him once to make him stop, but if you do it again, its assault...its also heat of the moment with someone who was just doing violence against you)


----------



## eurowing (24 Jan 2008)

I would like to carry as well.  Mostly because carrying a COP is hard work.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (24 Jan 2008)

eurowing said:
			
		

> I would like to carry as well.  Mostly because carrying a COP is hard work.



Not to mention the upkeep in donuts and coffee


----------



## medaid (24 Jan 2008)

Colin P said:
			
		

> Not to mention the upkeep in donuts and coffee



No way! They eat WAY more healthier now... it'll be the up keep of FREE TRADE coffee, organic green tea, and SUBWAY... oh boy...


----------



## ghyslyn (26 Jan 2008)

Dunno about you guys but it seems to me canadian gun laws and such make it harder to sell a gun, not harder to buy or own a gun.

I have a friend who after turning 18 bought like 7 guns in 3 months, without much trouble at all(I was hoping to do so as well but first day of univ. was same date as PL)


----------



## Loachman (26 Jan 2008)

Colin P said:
			
		

> first improvement is that it will not be a crimmanl offence to neglect informing them of a address change.



Another of the uncountable flaws with the whole legislative nightmare...

If it was not a criminal offence to refuse or neglect to inform the system, then there would be no penalty at all.

Regulation of property is the purview of the provinces. The federal government has no constitutional authority to do so. This is why all firearms legislation has been made within the Criminal Code, and why all penalties for this and other paper crimes consist of jail sentences and come with a criminal record - there can be no non-criminal penalties for violations.


----------



## uzi (16 Mar 2008)

it helps, but not much. reducing crime is more about education, job market, pressure,social value...........


----------



## Loachman (16 Mar 2008)

uzi said:
			
		

> it helps,



Please back that up.


----------



## 1feral1 (16 Mar 2008)

uzi said:
			
		

> it helps,



?
A waste of over a billion dollars, and law abiding citizens getting stuffed around does not help.

I don't think it helps one single bit!


----------



## Fishbone Jones (16 Mar 2008)

uzi said:
			
		

> *it helps,* but not much. reducing crime is more about education, job market, pressure,social value...........



I'd like to see your verifiable statistics proving your point that 'it helps'.


----------



## Old Ranger (16 Mar 2008)

No 97%


			
				uzi said:
			
		

> it helps, but not much. reducing crime is more about education, job market, pressure,social value...........



And reading your profile...your email address...are you a "troll"?

As with others, care to back up your statement?


----------



## Colin Parkinson (17 Mar 2008)

Considering the registry has made up to 150,000 people into "paper criminals", I would have to say that it's net effect is to increase the level of crime.


----------



## TCBF (17 Mar 2008)

Mikeg81 said:
			
		

> The Government has no need to know that I own a rifle. Period.



- They know now!

 ;D


----------



## sjm (20 Mar 2008)

It can't possibly not reduce crime.  With my licence now expired I now have to pay tonnes of money to recertify.  This is going to cut into my coke habit in a huge way.

Gun registy has in fact increased the crime rate.  Look at me, I am now a criminal because I possess wpns without a valid licence.  This is the same boat that many others are sitting in right now.  The database "knows" whos expired but the cops don't really care about the registry otherwise I would have had someone knocking at my door a long time ago.


----------



## KevinB (20 Mar 2008)

Sadly if you treat one person as an idiot -- it is harassment, if you treat everyone as an idiot you have a safety policy -- or in this case a Gun Registry...


----------



## AirCanuck (20 Mar 2008)

hell no.  If you are going to commit a crime with a gun, why would you register it?


----------



## midgetcop (24 Mar 2008)

Not sure that many criminals who are committing these firearms offenses are all that concerned with registering them in the first place. 

NOT TO MENTION, the idea of a handgun ban (popular topic in Toronto right now) isn't really convincing me that criminals will suddenly give them up to the authorities. 

Both 'feel good' policies...one costing taxpayers WAY too much money, and the other likely to do the same if implemented. It simply gives the appearance that the current government is actively 'doing something' about the problem.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (24 Mar 2008)

the_midge said:
			
		

> Both 'feel good' policies...one costing taxpayers WAY too much money, and the other likely to do the same if implemented. *It simply gives the appearance that the current government is actively 'doing something' about the problem.*



It is NOT the current Federal government  that is pushing this agenda. They would like to dismantle the registry. It is the left leaning nanny parties, and the hoplophobes like Wendy Cukier. Of course the Ban Brothers of McGuinty, Benson and Bryant fame do nothing useful by trying to force liberal provincial agendas on federal legislation here in Bantario, from their seats in Moronto.


----------



## midgetcop (24 Mar 2008)

recceguy said:
			
		

> It is NOT the current Federal government  that is pushing this agenda. They would like to dismantle the registry. It is the left leaning nanny parties, and the hoplophobes like Wendy Cukier. Of course the Ban Brothers of McGuinty, Benson and Bryant fame do nothing useful by trying to force liberal provincial agendas on federal legislation here in Bantario, from their seats in Moronto.



I meant in the general sense of the 'current' governments which implement these projects. In the specific case of the registry: the federal Liberals.

Edited to add the above clarification.


----------



## NL_engineer (24 Mar 2008)

YES it does, it prevents registered gun owners for using their guns in a crime  ;D 











[joke]

It has done good for the paper industry  :  but thats about it.

As for crimianls using hand guns, most if not all are from the US (smuggled in, or are bought of the streets).  So my question to the people proposing the ban is: how is that going to stop the criminals from using them?


----------



## George Wallace (24 Mar 2008)

I suppose as much good as "Registering Criminals" has prevented them from committing Crimes.


----------



## AirCanuck (24 Mar 2008)

the issue here is that it's a useless policy.  It makes it expensive for law-abiding gun owners to keep owning them, and it is costing the taxpayers millions in wasted money.  The policy was a quick-fix, feel-good policy designed to deflect blame away from the nancy liberals regarding the rising problems with gun violence in places like Toronto - well, we see how effective that is.  What was it, January 1st of this year when the first gun death occurred?  Pretty sure it was an old lady shot in the face, wasn't it?

Anyhow.  To sum:
1)USELESS
2)EXPENSIVE
3)COSTS THE WRONG PEOPLE MONEY
4)INNEFECTIVE AT PREVENTING GUN VIOLENCE

If they want to spend money cutting down gun violence, they should pour more of it into anti-smuggling work.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (25 Mar 2008)

Well I suppose it might cut the crime rate in Mirimachi as the registry seems to be one of the bigger employers there. Otherwise you might have gangs of unemployed ladies running around sticking people with knitting needles.  

Of course they could use the system to track dangerous offenders or child molesters but that would interfere with the important work of tracking 30 year old .22cal rifles and such.


----------



## AirCanuck (25 Mar 2008)

couldn't agree more.  My dad has a collection of Lee Enfields that he has to pay a ton to keep registered - only one of which (a '47 jungle carbine) he actually uses for hunting!


----------



## NL_engineer (25 Mar 2008)

Colin P said:
			
		

> Of course they could use the system to track dangerous offenders or child molesters but that would interfere with the important work of tracking 30 year old .22cal rifles and such.



That would make sense 

Said system would invade there rights; as our right to know is not as important  :


----------



## 1feral1 (26 Mar 2008)

AirCanuck said:
			
		

> couldn't agree more.  My dad has a collection of Lee Enfields that he has to pay a ton to keep registered - only one of which (a '47 jungle carbine) he actually uses for hunting!



Hey Air, he should not have had to pay a cent. When I renewed my possession only license, I was even refunded, and registration is free. This is Saskatchewan thought, so I can't speak for other provinces.


Cheers,

Wes


----------



## Inch (26 Mar 2008)

Wesley  Down Under said:
			
		

> Hey Air, he should not have had to pay a cent. When I renewed my possession only license, I was even refunded, and registration is free. This is Saskatchewan thought, so I can't speak for other provinces.
> 
> 
> Cheers,
> ...



Same here in NS. I didn't get refunded for my PAL, but you're right Registration is free and since I'm a handgun owner, I have to be a member of a gun club. Irregardless, paying $80 every 5 years and $60 a year for a gun club membership is hardly a fortune. 

Air, once a gun is registered, it is registered and no further action is required. Sounds like you made that up, I'm a gun owner and other than the license fee every 5 years which the Conservatives now reimburse, it costs nothing to own hunting rifles.


----------



## AirCanuck (26 Mar 2008)

Inch said:
			
		

> Same here in NS. I didn't get refunded for my PAL, but you're right Registration is free and since I'm a handgun owner, I have to be a member of a gun club. Irregardless, paying $80 every 5 years and $60 a year for a gun club membership is hardly a fortune.
> 
> Air, once a gun is registered, it is registered and no further action is required. Sounds like you made that up, I'm a gun owner and other than the license fee every 5 years which the Conservatives now reimburse, it costs nothing to own hunting rifles.



Wasn't trying to make anything up - I haven't heard my dad mention it in years (as it's no longer a new item for discussion) so perhaps things have changed since the conservatives have been in power - I could have been wrong, but there was no intention to mislead.

Regardless, I still believe that the registry program is an unnecessary hassle.


----------



## Redeye (26 Mar 2008)

The system is incredibly effective, I have to say.  Just yesterday, in fact, I got a letter in the mail advising me that a transfer had been approved for a Norc SKS I purchased in a bulk order for another officer in my unit had been approved.  I initiated this transfer on 26 Sept 07, of a non-restricted firearm, and only now I'm getting this letter.  I guess it's a good thing I gave her the registration slip when I "lent" it to her way back then, I didn't even realize the transfer wasn't complete until today.

Thank god we register those guns, it makes sure there's no more gun crime.  All the inconvenience of waiting six weeks to sell a handgun is so worth it.  (/sarcasm)


----------



## Colin Parkinson (26 Mar 2008)

Well that's improvement, they took 2 years to register my .22 and .303 that I have had for 20+ years. 2 years after submitting my forms I get a *letter * from the CFC saying they could not complete the registration because of missing information, the information missing, you ask.......?


*My mailing address* They couldn't answer how they were able to send me a letter without that information  ;D


----------



## Redeye (27 Mar 2008)

Now how did I miss this?

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/ottawa/story/2007/08/30/ot-keg-070830.html

A beer keg registry.  I wonder if we'll need ATT's for taps too?


----------



## midgetcop (29 Mar 2008)

> Identify who is responsible for an out-of-control party.
> Conduct pre-emptive strikes on suspicious parties.
> Crack down on underage drinking.



Yes. I'm sure they're going to make TONS of headway with those last two points there.  ;D


----------



## Hawk (29 Mar 2008)

One more example in Winnipeg today of how well the gun registry is reducing crime. Three people dead, 2 or perhaps 3 more in hospital with gunshot wounds from a shooting in Winnipeg's north end. I'm getting a blow-by-blow account of what's happening in that neighbourhood - a good friend lives 4 doors down from where this all came down, and the police were all around her house - they seem to think people were running through her yard when this happened.

I'm sure the gun registry makes her and her young daughter feel safer!


Hawk


----------



## I_Drive_Planes (29 Mar 2008)

Redeye said:
			
		

> Now how did I miss this?
> 
> http://www.cbc.ca/canada/ottawa/story/2007/08/30/ot-keg-070830.html
> 
> A beer keg registry.  I wonder if we'll need ATT's for taps too?



No, but you will need ATTs and double locking for mini kegs and all kegs deemed restricted by order-in-coucil.  You will want to buy as many different kinds of kegs as you can now because you never know which ones will be deemed prohibited.  If you already own said kegs you can be grandfathered for a 12(9) Prohibited Keg Posession and Aquisition Licence.

This is utter stupidity, if it was coming from anywhere but Ontario I would say that someone made it up to parody the firearms registry.

Planes


----------



## Redeye (30 Mar 2008)

I_Drive_Planes said:
			
		

> No, but you will need ATTs and double locking for mini kegs and all kegs deemed restricted by order-in-coucil.  You will want to buy as many different kinds of kegs as you can now because you never know which ones will be deemed prohibited.  If you already own said kegs you can be grandfathered for a 12(9) Prohibited Keg Posession and Aquisition Licence.
> 
> This is utter stupidity, if it was coming from anywhere but Ontario I would say that someone made it up to parody the firearms registry.
> 
> Planes



I wonder if they'll hit Guinness with that just for being an "evil looking black beer".


----------



## AirCanuck (31 Mar 2008)

a keg registry?  this does not bode well for my fraternity haha


----------



## midgetcop (31 Mar 2008)

Redeye said:
			
		

> I wonder if they'll hit Guinness with that just for being an "evil looking black beer".



 :tsktsk:

Racial profiling..!


----------



## Redeye (31 Mar 2008)

Well, an AR-15 is restricted by order-in-council by name because it's an "evil looking black gun".  Funny enough, a Mini-14, which has a similar operating mechanism, isn't.


----------



## midgetcop (31 Mar 2008)

Redeye said:
			
		

> Well, an AR-15 is restricted by order-in-council by name because it's an "evil looking black gun".  Funny enough, a Mini-14, which has a similar operating mechanism, isn't.



Seriously?? That's the actual wording they use? 

Who are these clowns?  :


----------



## Redeye (31 Mar 2008)

I guess my quotes were deceiving.  That isn't the actual wording, but there's no other reason that really has ever been offered for why the AR-15 is restricted when so many other semiautomatic rifles are not.  They are the one unique example of a rifle that is in the restricted class without any real reason.  I wish I had a source, but many folks over on Canadian Gun Nutz refer to a story which suggests that Wendy Cukier (public enemy #1) went through a Guns and Ammo Annual and picked out ones that looked more "evil".  There are plenty of other air-cooled, gas operated, magazine fed semiautomatic rifles (like the Mini-14) that don't seem to have any problems for the anti-gun set.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (31 Mar 2008)

the_midge said:
			
		

> Seriously?? That's the actual wording they use?
> 
> Who are these clowns?  :



Attempts to use logic to understand the Firearm Act will cause your brain to explode!! you have been warned!


----------



## Fishbone Jones (31 Mar 2008)

Redeye said:
			
		

> Well, an AR-15 is restricted by order-in-council by name because it's an "evil looking black gun".  Funny enough, a Mini-14, which has a similar operating mechanism, isn't.


Actually the operating systems aren't similar at all. Unless you're considering the generic similarities of detachable magazine and semi automatic

The Mini-14 is a miniature copy of the M-14, hence it's name. The M-14 and the AR family are not similar in mechanism.


----------



## Redeye (31 Mar 2008)

I'm referring to generic similarities - not the origins (ie direct impingement vs. piston/operating rod).  I wasn't suggesting they're identical or of similar descent.



			
				recceguy said:
			
		

> Actually the operating systems aren't similar at all. Unless you're considering the generic similarities of detachable magazine and semi automatic
> 
> The Mini-14 is a miniature copy of the M-14, hence it's name. The M-14 and the AR family are not similar in mechanism.


----------



## AirCanuck (7 Apr 2008)

I don't think that there is any real point in searching for logic in certain legislations... this is certainly one of those!


----------



## 1feral1 (7 Apr 2008)

To to think the Mini 14 was used in the Ecole du Polytech shootings, and was left off the list.  

The only difference between now and the pre ban days for the Mini 14 is the 5 rd mags, as all centre fire rifles which are semi automatic (less the M1 Garand - 8 rds), all must have a maximum capacity of 5 rds.  The Mini is available in 5.56 x 45mm and 7.62x39mm.

Pre 1978 ( I bought my AR-15 in 1978 and it was restricted then, so I don't know how long it was on the list in the pre 78 days) the 5.56mm AR-15 was a restricted weapon, and when the PC's came in about 1980, they changed the order in council, and the AR-15 family with 508mm bbls was stricken off the list.

In about 1983, however, the 7.62mm FN FAL family was classified as a restricted weapon. Go figure?

The AR-15 family was not classified as restricted until the Alan Rock times of the early 1990's, and remains so now.

Foolishness as far as I am concerned.


----------



## Redeye (8 Apr 2008)

You can get 10rnd mags to fit AR-15s now, Wes.  LAR-15 pistol mags will fit in the mag port of an AR-15 and are legal because they are marked as pistol mags.


----------



## CBshadow (8 Apr 2008)

Gun registry is useless as many have said its not the legal gun owners that pose the problem, there are lots of firearms that come across the border all the time.  They even disassemble the guns and bring them over piece by piece which is even harder to track.


----------



## 1feral1 (8 Apr 2008)

Redeye said:
			
		

> You can get 10rnd mags to fit AR-15s now, Wes.  LAR-15 pistol mags will fit in the mag port of an AR-15 and are legal because they are marked as pistol mags.



Maybe so, but get caught with an over capacity mag in your AR-15 rifle, and kiss your legal gun owning days goodbye, and welcome a criminal record.

The AIA M10A2 7.62 carbines uses 10 rd AK mags, not a problem to own, but get caught with a 10 rd mag in your semi/CA AK, and you're buggered.


----------



## Redeye (8 Apr 2008)

Not so, my friend.  The law pertains to the weapon the magazine is made for, not what it's in.  A LAR-15 mag with 10 rounds in an AR-15 rifle in Canada is perfectly legal!


----------



## 1feral1 (8 Apr 2008)

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


----------



## Fishbone Jones (8 Apr 2008)

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.


----------



## 1feral1 (8 Apr 2008)

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.


----------



## 1feral1 (8 Apr 2008)

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.


----------



## 1feral1 (8 Apr 2008)

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


----------



## Redeye (8 Apr 2008)

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.


----------



## 1feral1 (8 Apr 2008)

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


----------

