.50 Beowulf Magazine Classification Update

[Drache]

The law does say that if a magazine is 'modified' from the original it doesn't count - and mags that are specifically designed for the 50 are designed for the 50.

Their argument is, the beowulf mags are just modified 223/556 magazines. Thus the whole law of "what they are originally designed for" comes into play (according to them).

[Foxer]

Their argument is, the beowulf mags are just modified 223/556 magazines. Thus the whole law of "what they are originally designed for" comes into play (according to them).

Well - more or less, although they're really arguing that they're designed for both - 'dual' designed so to speak. That it's not really a modification, it's actually a design intended to be used for both in the same gun platform. While they use the word 'modified', what they seem to really be saying is that the new design was specifically 'redone' to deliberately suit either chambering and thus it was 'designed' for both.

If you actually modify a magazine to fit a different gun, then the 'original' design doesn't necessarily apply any more, but they're saying it's designed for both.

Now - i don't know if they're going to be able to sell that. It gets a little iffy. I think we would argue that ANY mag that works for 50 beowolf would have to work for 223 and it's not designed that way, it's just the way it is. And there is no way to make a 50 without it also being able to take 223 without a lot of special engineering. So - it IS a 'happy circumstance' that they work for both, not by 'design'. They argue it the other way around, that it's by design and not a 'happy circumstance'.

We'll see how it plays out. They are in a very grey area and i'm not sure how another authority will see it, although they tend to favour the police historically

[RangeBob]

They claim that the difference here is that it's a magazine designed for two guns. It's 'designed' to fit in a 223 based platform AND a 50 platform, thus being one mag designed for two guns.

My read was that they felt that it was originally designed for 223,
and that it was subsequently modified/adapted using one of 3 techniques ("widening the space between the magazine lips, changing the angle of the magazine lips, or changing the feed angle of the magazine follower") to feed 50 Beowulf without deleting the ability to feed 223. This makes them prohibited.

That how they are currently is that they are now designed as dual caliber, regardless of what's printed on them, which also makes them prohibited.

[RealDeckard]

8 members and 89 guests browsing....smile and wave, boys; smile and wave...

It does seem like a High River style trial balloon. Pathetic they need four dozen shytbirds gauging our reaction. Nice priorities. Meanwhile, at our open borders...
..

[Neil Burke]

Doesn't this also affect shotguns in so far as tubular magazines being originally designed for a shorter cartridge?

[Petamocto]

Doesn't this also affect shotguns in so far as tubular magazines being originally designed for a shorter cartridge?

Oh my god, man, don't post things like this?!

[Neil Burke]

Oh my god, man, don't post things like this?!

You're kidding yourself if you think it hasn't already crossed their mind. Beowulf, just like the SA and CZ, are low hanging fruit. It would affect a lot more people if they went after the shotguns or the 40 s&w mags based on the same logic than the 50 Beo.

[RangeBob]

The RCMP are suggesting the designer didn't do this bit, and that it's required:

Former Cartridge Magazine Control Regulations

(4) A cartridge magazine described in subsection (1) that has been altered or re-manufactured so that it is not capable of containing more than five or ten cartridges, as the case may be, of the type for which it was originally designed is not a prohibited device.

although that used to be about riveting.

[RangeBob]

There was a while years ago that greentips was having the mods lock any thread, and delete any advertisement, about Beowulf mags. Today he posted

My personal opinion is that, until the time it is published in an official RCMP bulletin that is the authorized source of interpretation or/and distributed to all stake holders in official letterhead, it is just a copy and paste of a private communication in response to an unknown inquiry.

For example, let's take CRA and tax cases as an example, a CRA employee may tell you something in a communication in response to your particular inquiry. .

Until CRA actually publishes the interpretation in their official bulletins, it is just the opinion of one employee in response to a particular inquiry by one person in one case. It is not the official published interpretation of the law by the CRA and has no legal weight, in my opinion. They can do all kind of "internal interpretations" within their organizations, but if it is not published it is not official.

I am just looking at the technical aspect of how a bureaucracy goes about making an official interpretation of the law.

It appears that RCMP only tells people privately one by one through private communication in response to certain inquiry, but they are not publishing an official interpretation bulletin in the official channel to the public for all to read per normal procedure when it comes to major interpretation of law by government ministry that has the power to do so.

Fruit for thought. Internal interpretation/policy in response to inquiry vs official published interpretation that has legal weight.

Unfortunately, people are publishing these internal letters and writing the PMO, it is going to force the hands.

People need to think ahead and look at the big picture before doing stuff. We have just induced our own Apocalypse.

==============

A response from the RCMP regarding the legality of 50 Beowulf magazines has recently been made public. In this response, the RCMP have stated that any 50 Beowulf magazine capable of holding more than 5 rounds of ANY ammunition is a prohibited device.
This directly contradicts the Canadian Firearms Act as well as previous responses from the RCMP including Bulletin 72.
Despite this contradiction, until this matter is officially resolved, as of November 17, 2015, we are suspending sales of the PCV-50.
At this time, we are not offering refunds or returns on previously purchased magazine as such sales were considered completely legal as per the Canadian Firearms Act and all information available to us at the time.
-- http://presscheckventures.3dcartstor...-Gen2_p_8.html


==============

[RangeBob]

I'm wondering if it will boil down to what Alexander Arms did originally.

Did Alexander Arms
a) take a .223 mag they had lying around, and bend it open with a pair of pliers, eor
b) think: we've been building and designing magazines for years, they have to have this and this and that and that, here's an autocad that will fit our new round, press that out.

If (a) then it's prohibited,
and if (b) then its originally designed as 50 Beowulf and not designed for dual caliber.