RCMP Bans High Capacity Ruger 10/22 magazines

1323473_orig

Recently the RCMP (Royal Canadain Mounted Police) have moved to declare magazines of more than 10 rds for the Ruger 10/22 as a prohibited device. Click here to see the report by Calibre, a Canadian firearm magazine.

For those not familiar with Canadian firearm restrictions typically rifles are limited to only 5rd magazines while handguns can enjoy double the capacity at 10rd magazines. .22LR however has no limit for rifles. The RCMP however sees that people can use these high capacity magazines in the Ruger 10/22 Charger which is a handgun and since handguns are limited to 10 rds and the higher capacity magazines can be used in the Ruger Charger they should be banned.

Here is a recorded phone call with the Canadian Firearms Centre.



Nicholas C

Co-Founder of KRISSTALK forums, an owner’s support group and all things KRISS Vector related. Nick found his passion through competitive shooting while living in NY. He participates in USPSA and 3Gun. He loves all things that shoots and flashlights. Really really bright flashlights.

Any questions please email him at nicholas.c@staff.thefirearmblog.com


Advertisement

  • Nandor

    Seeing articles like this make me curious to see what mental gymnastics NY needs to finally ban more than 10 rounds in a tube fed .22lr rifle.

  • TVOrZ6dw

    What public threat has .22LR in larger that 10 round magazines been causing up north?
    Other than perforating tin cans?
    Is this a ‘Tin Cans Matters’ issue?

    • Michel_T

      You’d think they have bigger-meaner fish to go after… right?

      Then again, it’s probably easier to go after regular folks then to chase religious extremist and mobsters…

    • None, It’s an attack on peaceable gun owners, nothing more and nothing less.

  • TheNotoriousIUD

    “I feel safer already”

  • CanadianShill

    This is absolutely disgusting… So many things I could rant about, but have no energy to do so. It’s a sad time we live in.

  • Wetcoaster

    Goddamn it. It begins. We’ve suspected the RCMP has been itching to do this for a while since the BX-25 fiasco. If they’re okay with turning tens (hundreds?) of thousands of 10/22 magazine owners into paper criminals, then making a move on the 10-round AR pistol magazines can’t be far behind.

    • flyfishr

      Could you explain the BX-25 fiasco? I’m not up to date on my Canadian firearm history.

      • Wetcoaster

        The BX-25 was a factory 25-round magazine from Ruger and advertised as being ideal for both the 10/22 rifle and the 10/22 Charger.

        The RCMP determined that this made them pistol magazines (not technically wrong as the same interpretation is what allowed 10-round AR-type magazines) and thus subject to the 10-round limit and needed to be plugged.

        Of course, they only decided this after the magazines had been on the market and available for a time already, turning unsuspecting buyers into owners of a prohibited device.

    • Jay

      In 2012, the last year they counted, there were over a hundred fifty thousand 10/22’s in Canada. It should be way over 200k by now. Now remember, thwre are less than a hundred Charger pistols in Canada….and for that, they will ban the mag used in over 200k rifles…

      RCMP can now do whatevwr it wants, when it comes to firearms.

      • Jako

        364 Charger pistols as of Q1 2015.

        A pitiful amount, but it’s enough for them to consider it “commonly available”.

  • thedonn007

    Are the existing magazines grandfathered in or do they have to be turned in for disposal?

    • H&R Canada

      Got to be pinned to 10 or turned in.

    • Kefefs

      Not since the classification system was first introduced have they given anything grandfather status. Every gun/device banned since then has been totally banned, no exceptions, with requirements to destroy or turn in. For example, everyone who owned a Feather carbine or SPAS-12 was legally required to turn their guns in when they were banned, without compensation, even though they purchased the guns legally.

  • RageRifter

    Dumb. Tin cans everywhere rejoice!

  • john huscio

    Good olé RCMP……..when they’re not tasing poles at airports, they’re banning 22lr mags……i can see why the highway of tears has persisted so long….

  • lavashark

    So in Canada the RCMP create the laws? No need for their Parliament to get involved? Do they bother with judicial process too, or is that just a formality?

    • JumpIf NotZero

      So how is this not like our ATF? And EPA? And DEA? And IRS? And…

      • Vitsaus

        Nailed it.

      • Bob

        Well, to my US citizen ears this sounds a little weird too. I don’t think of the “Canadain” RCMP being anything like the ATF, but as more of a police department kind of entity. Thus, this sounds to me like “Texas Sheriff’s Department bans blah blah blah…”

        Clearly not the case. I learned something new today.

        • RocketScientist

          The RCMP is essentially equivalent to the FBI in ‘murica. They are the federal-level police force/law enforcement/investigative agency. So the have local/municipal police forces, provincial/territorial police forces (equivalent to state police), and the RCMP. Obviously there are a LOT of differences between the two, but hierarchically, thats where they fit in.

          • Jako

            Calling them the equivalent to the FBI is a stretch.

            In many areas, the RCMP are the local police. Ontario has the OPP, and Quebec has the Sûreté. T

          • RocketScientist

            “Obviously there are a LOT of differences between the two, but hierarchically, thats where they fit in.”

            Guess you didn’t read that bit? FBI is the national police force in America. RCMP is the national police force in Canada. Thats all I was trying to say (since many Americans aren’t aware of that fact, and think the mounties are an archaic group of horse-riding guys in goofy uniforms)

          • Jim_Macklin

            U S Marshals are a national police force, the FBI is investigators.

          • ostiariusalpha

            That’s incorrect. The marshals are the enforcement arm of the federal courts; they are part of the judicial branch of government, and thusly don’t concern themselves with any criminals that are not already processed into the federal court system. The FBI is very much a national police force, as they do the same job as local law enforcement except they have complete federal jurisdiction sanctioned under the US Department of Justice.

          • Stijn Van Damn

            FBI is also the leading federal law enforcement agency, which per definition makes them a police force.

          • Bill

            The US doesn’t have a national police force. The FBI is a component of the investigative arm of the Department of Justice, and has jurisdiction over specific federal crimes.

            They assist state and local agencies when needed, but don’t have general police powers and functions like the RCMP does.

            The US has approximately 70-plus federal law enforcement agencies, because we don’t want a national police force, as efficient as it might be.

          • Steve_7

            RCMP is not like the FBI directly, the FBI is a federal agency that only enforces federal laws, RCMP is a national police force that enforces the Criminal Code which is federal as well as any local laws in the jurisdiction where they are. There is no real equivalent in the US. Most criminal law in the US is made at the State level whereas in Canada it is mostly Federal. Provinces only have the power to make criminal law in relation to property offences. RCMP got the job regulating firearms from the DoJ, which at the time was put forward as an improvement for gun owners, lol.

        • Dave Parks

          AFAIK, the ATF is just a federal police task force, too, akin to the FBI, although these days they’re more like the IRS — not as much actual police work going on, but a lot of auditing, processing paperwork, and collecting taxes/fines. They’re not supposed to make policy, but enforce existing policy. The rub comes from spirit-of-the-law vs letter-of-the-law and the current goals of the organization. Agencies will always choose one interpretation or another based on their own goals, which is especially problematic when dealing with legislation around the particulars of a piece of machinery not terribly well understood by those who wrote the laws.

          It’s pretty clear, I think, that the spirit of the magazine restriction is to prohibit handguns that hold more than 10 rounds, but by the letter of the law, you can ban 25 round 10/22 magazines. It appears the RCMP are more interested in using the law to ban as many magazines as possible than complying with the spirit of the law. If I was in Canada and had a 25 round 10/22 magazine, I’d put a pin in it and write a letter to my representative asking them to amend the law so that it can’t be interpreted to apply to 10/22’s.

          I don’t envy the RCMP or the ATF. They’ve been given laws to enforce that don’t make practical sense when read literally, and trying to divine what the legislators meant is rife with ambiguity. Mix that with the fickleness of federal governments and the ridiculously huge territory they need to cover, and you’ve got a nearly impossible job.

      • lavashark

        Good point.

      • truthsayer

        Foreseeing both the future of weaponry and resistance to obsessive micromanagement of every aspect of our lives, despotic visionaries with guilty consciences have ensured that only those wearing government costumes are allowed powerful lasers and other beam weapons.

    • Brian Truscott

      The RCMP didn’t create any laws. This is their interpretation of existing law.

      • lavashark

        I am not familiar with the Canadian legal system. I’m told the RCMP are federal like the FBI. How do Canadians petition the government for redress if they object a federal agency’s interpretation?

        • Steve_7

          The point is that it’s meaningless until someone is arrested over it and goes to court. It’s just like in the US when ATF issues a ruling, it means nothing really until someone ends up in court over it. Then you can argue their opinion is wrong. This is frankly small beer, if you read the regulations on how magazine capacity must be limited, clearly hardly anyone follows them. Most magazines seem to be limited using a pop rivet which can be easily removed. There have been prosecutions over the years but dealers still appear to sell them.

    • FarmerB

      Well, this might be just an interpretation issue on behalf of the RCMP, but I’ll let you in on a dirty little secret. I’m not sure about US laws, but in other parts of the world I’m (very) familiar with, there are usually TWO parts to a law. First is the actual statute – approved by Parliament. But then, there is the REGULATIONS.
      The statute says things like “Possession of prohibited weapons, as defined in the Regulations, is punishable by 100 penalty units”.
      The regulations are simply drawn up by some bureaucrat (e.g. the commissioner of police) and published in the govt. gazette. Done. It’s law. You want to ban a different gun, you just publish a new list every second Thursday.
      So, the statute basically says “do whatever the commissioner of police publishes in the govt. gazette”. No nasty political bunfights needed. No debate. No media scrutiny. Done.
      Similarly, the “penalty units” can be simply changed with an update to the gazette. That way, the govt. can (for instance) increase all e.g. speeding fines (or all fines in the complete body of law) without any nasty political oversight with a single line in the govt. gazette that changes the “One penalty unit is $100” to “One penalty unit is $150”.

      • lavashark

        You’re correct, it’s that way in America too. The 2700 page “Obamacare” law was just the authorization from congress for agencies to draft the regulations that become published in the Federal Register. Those are the actual rules, good or bad.
        I just don’t like the idea of the police having the interpretive power. It’s arbitrary, subject to abuse, and limits the peoples right to seek redress through the political process. It creates a fourth branch of government which is not directly accountable to free citizens. If the Canadians are happy with it that’s their business. But it reminds me of what Jefferson said about why you need a revolution every generation or so. Regulatory tyranny is harder to fight that unjust rulers.

        • FarmerB

          Well, I can somewhat understand interpretive power, we all have to interpret the law we are charged with enforcing, upholding or even obeying. But I definitely have an issue where the police commissioner has the power to make law all alone. Add in the next step, the NGO’s and the media, and you have a perfect storm for fascist style abuse.
          It works like this: NGO’s releases a “report” or “study” which finds that X is a problem and causes death/whatever. Sends out press release to media. Media publish “report” and interview NGO advocates for a couple of (emotional) 10 second sound bites.
          Media does editorial comment on why govt. doesn’t “do something”. Cue politician on parliament steps saying “we’ll ban X”. Calls commissioner, he drafts change to regulations, print it on Thursday. Done.
          Welcome to democracy, 21st century style.

      • Steve_7

        Bear in mind the regulations in question weren’t drawn up by the DoJ alone, they consulted with various organizations and then mishmashed them together, which is why they make no sense.

    • Wetcoaster

      Gotta love the vague definitions (of prohibited devices) written by lawyers and laymen that the RCMP get to interpret (‘impartially’, hah!) two decades later.

    • Anon. E Maus

      Due process? Accountability? What’s those?

      • Steve_7

        Due process is an American concept from the Fifth Amendment. In Canadian law due process is described as a set of procedures in the charter of rights, but I think it’s quite hard to argue that an opinion issued by a regulatory agency violates the charter.

    • Michel_T

      They don’t make laws… they are just very ‘liberal’ in their interpretation of them…

    • Steve_7

      The problem is the law is extremely vague, it says “designed and manufactured for use in”, so you have to be psychic to know what the designer intended. RCMP have to therefore use their psychic powers. The problem comes up when they change their minds, like now. Bear in mind it goes the other way, for example there is a five-round limit for centrefire semi-auto long guns, which people get around by stamping their magazines with “pistol use only” to get the 10-round limit. It’s just a really badly written law, it’s the most vague gun law I’ve ever come across, for example it also says that handguns that are not “commonly available in Canada” are subject to a five-round limit, what the hell does that mean? Another thing in it is: “is a variant of”, so the AK-47 is banned for example, but it’s open to interpretation what a “variant” is.

      At the end of the day, RCMP have no power at all, just like ATF have no actual power, they can issue their opinions as guidance, but the law is enforced by a court. And the court will then have to use their psychic powers backed up by expert opinion.

  • valorius

    Been some mass shootings with .22 charger pistols up there that i havent read about in the press?

  • David Harmon

    Number 1 million and change why I will never step foot in Canada.

    • H&R Canada

      We’re still ahead of some states in terms of laws, don’t write us off bc of a few silly laws. Fantastic big game and fishing up here, plus lots of ranges.

      • David Harmon

        I refuse to give any government that or economy that would treat it’s people in such a manner any revenue.

  • H&R Canada

    Yet my Marlin 795 still uses pro mag 25 rounders perfectly legal. Our firearm laws are a flaming pile of dog turds, now with a liberal govt they’re going to get worse.

  • LazyReader

    Who cares. What’s Canada gonna do about it? Nothing.
    They could ban maple syrup, they’ll agree to it. “If it’s for childhood obesity, I’ll support it Eh”

    • We have to stand together. If the USA becomes the only country to allow civil firearms ownership, how long do you think it will last?

  • garymac66

    That’s kind if a shame. During the last AWB in the US high cap 10/22 mags were readily available across the border in the great white north. The exchange rate was also very favorable from what I’ve been told.

  • Jim_Macklin

    Laws are written then they have to be interpreted. RCMP is the agency with the authority to interpret. I have relatives in the Toronto area. They told me fifty years ago that a person was murdered in Toronto with a Colt Woodsman pistol so they banned Colt Woodsman pistols. The Huntsman remained legal.
    There is no way to enforce stupid laws and when you as stupid people to enforce stupid laws, comedy is the result.
    The barrels are different, that’s all.

  • IndyToddrick

    Are they afraid of gangs using a 10/22 Charger?

  • RickOAA .

    Good thing to finally get rid of those 25 rounds in half a second assault clips, aye?

    I kid, but this will be awaiting America if crooked Hillary gets elected.

  • This information may be old, but the “head guy” of the RCMP from years back is no more than a crooked Liberal similar to Kevin De Leon.

    >Goes to a firing range and shoots an AR15 looking gun to see if it should be restricted or not
    >”Hmm, this gun feels and looks scary, the recoil is massive and exposive!”
    >”This obviously feels and looks like an AK47!”
    >BAN!!

    Welcome to Canada. The idiots that appoint whoever is in charge of deciding which gun is restricted or not in the RCMP appoints Liberals and not actual gun owners or pro-gun Conservatives.

    This is the reality of Canada. Why do you think it took such a long time for a detachable magazine AR-in-apperance shotgun to be declared as “unrestricted?”

    >LOOK! IT’S AN ASSAULT RIFLE 47 THAT SHOOTS SHOTGUN SHELLS! ASSUALT WEAPON ASSAULT WEAPON!!!! BAN!!!!

    Again, welcome to Canada.

  • Joseph Rivers

    The real danger here is that it cements the RCMP’s ability to interpret the law in place of a court of law. The RCMP had enough clout to force people into being convicted. This means if, for example, they decide to interpret that whoever causes a motor-vehicle accident is guilty of vehicular assault, that person is going to be convicted of vehicular assault. It’s a breakdown of trust.

  • Richard Lutz

    So the armed agents of the Canadian government (I think they are called the “Gestapo”) have put a gun to the head of law-abiding Canadian citizens and told them to hand over their lawfully acquired property “or else”. How should we react to such threats?

  • Jamie Clemons

    wow

  • Mael99

    So they have solved all Canada’s other problems and moved on to REALLY important things like the magazine capacity of a specific .22 caliber firearm? Things must be very quiet up there, including the citizens who are scared to death of their government.