RHFC_piper
Sr. Member
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 160
Loachman said:
Exactly... It only takes one round to kill...
Silly gun laws...
But back on track... When someone figures out how to get PMAGs, let me know... as I've said before; I WANT!!
Canadian Magpul Source?
- Thread starter Loachman
- Start date
Exactly... It only takes one round to kill...
Silly gun laws...
But back on track... When someone figures out how to get PMAGs, let me know... as I've said before; I WANT!!
Bzzliteyr
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 25
- Points
- 530
Someone once said to me.. when I mentioned having accidentally brought my "real" mags home with me.. "do you have an ar-15 at home?" I said of course not.. "then what's the worry". It kind of made sense but on that note I ask, is there a clause in the rules that states you have to own the weapon the mags are for? Or does it not make a difference? Just owning a mag can get you time in jail/hand slapping?
The magazines themselves are prohibited. It makes no difference if you own the matching weapon or not.
But, as I've posted somewhere (might be this thread), no single part of a mag legally constitutes a mag as the "frame or receiver" legally constitutes a firearm. All of a mag's components are, therefore, under the legislation, simply uncontrolled parts until they are assembled into a complete mag. That concept has not yet been tested in the courts, however - but to rule contrary to that would require a judge to decide which part, if any, does and that requires a legal leap. The "pinning" guidelines are exactly that: guidelines. They are not written into the legislation or its attendant regulations. "Suggestions" in the "guidelines" include pins through the body or a post upwards from the baseplate, hence the inability to legally determine which part must be modified. The courts are supposed to interpret legislation, and not write missing bits in.
One could, then, pin bodies on some mags and "permanently" (again, not defined) attach posts to the baseplates of others and, should one subsequently go "postal", swap the parts to provide some whole mags (and some ruined ones). One could also simply drill pins out, too.
As the late Dave Tomlinson of the NFA was fond of saying. "It doesn't have to make sense, it's government policy".
But, as I've posted somewhere (might be this thread), no single part of a mag legally constitutes a mag as the "frame or receiver" legally constitutes a firearm. All of a mag's components are, therefore, under the legislation, simply uncontrolled parts until they are assembled into a complete mag. That concept has not yet been tested in the courts, however - but to rule contrary to that would require a judge to decide which part, if any, does and that requires a legal leap. The "pinning" guidelines are exactly that: guidelines. They are not written into the legislation or its attendant regulations. "Suggestions" in the "guidelines" include pins through the body or a post upwards from the baseplate, hence the inability to legally determine which part must be modified. The courts are supposed to interpret legislation, and not write missing bits in.
One could, then, pin bodies on some mags and "permanently" (again, not defined) attach posts to the baseplates of others and, should one subsequently go "postal", swap the parts to provide some whole mags (and some ruined ones). One could also simply drill pins out, too.
As the late Dave Tomlinson of the NFA was fond of saying. "It doesn't have to make sense, it's government policy".
MedTech said:
Yup. Hence my six-pack comparison.
In most crimes, even a single-shot firearm is adequate, as victims are too stunned to react anyway.
The laws and regulations were written by highly prejudiced people with absolutely no knowledge of firearms for highly prejudiced people with absolutely no knowledge of firearms.
Similar threads
