Public notice issued by RCMP regarding 10/22 magazines

The Royal Canadian Mounted Police have issued an official public notice more than 10 days after circulating internal documents

After more than a week of speculation, uncertainty, and even fear of law-abiding firearms owners becoming criminals the RCMP have finally issued an official public notice regarding 10/22 magazines.

The notice, which was posted to the RCMP’s Canadian Firearms Program website, states:

The maximum capacity of a cartridge magazine is set out in Part 4 of the Regulations Prescribing Certain Firearms and other Weapons, Components and Parts of Weapons, Accessories, Cartridge Magazines, Ammunition and Projectiles as Prohibited, Restricted or Non-Restricted (the Regulations) under the Criminal Code. Pursuant to the Regulations, a magazine that has a capacity which exceeds the maximum permitted capacity is a prohibited device.

Specifically, paragraph 3 (1)(b) of the Regulations prohibit a cartridge magazine 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.

22 Long Rifle calibre magazines designed or manufactured for 10/22 platform rifles are also inherently designed or manufactured for 10/22 platform handguns. Because 22 Long Rifle calibre 10/22 platform magazines are designed or manufactured for use in a semi-automatic handgun, they are prohibited devices if they are capable of containing more than 10 cartridges. The 10 cartridge limit for the 10/22 platform applies irrespective of the type of firearm it is used in.

This comes the same day that Conservative MP Bob Zimmer, for the riding of Prince George-Peace River-Northern Rockies wrote an open letter to RCMP Commissioner Bob Paulson expressing his concern and requesting that the decision be reversed. Whether this notice was issued in response to that letter is unclear. What is clear, however, is that many members of the firearms community are upset. And rightfully so.

So what can I do? 

For the sake of legality it is recommended that you comply – for now – with the decision and “pin” the magazine to 10 rounds. But you can also write to your MP and to the Minister of Public Safety, Ralph Goodale and politely urge them to help restore the unregulated status of these magazines. There is also a lawyer in Edmonton who is looking for people who might potentially represent in court so that he can fight and have the decision overturned by a judge (interested parties may contact me using the contact page and I will forward his information to you).

  • sinbad

    Liberals are scumbags for letting the RC’s do this

    • Kevin Price

      The conservatives let them get away with a lot. Possibly even a lot more.

      Many rifles have been called prohibited by the RCMP, for no reason whatsoever.

      • Bobd06

        Stop blaming conservatives, they moved the classification into cabinet, got rid of the registry, and relaxed the ATT’s to logically conclude if you have an RPAL it’s assumed you are a member of a gun range as that is a requirement of the registration and you are going to go from home to the range.
        The disappointment for me is they did not gut C68 completely. Ottawa is not a friendly place for conservatives from the west who want to make changes.

        The Liberals immediately sent classification back to the RCMP and signed onto the UN small weapons treaty which they can and will use I am sure to harass law abiding gun owners.

        So if you care about your gun rights support the groups that are going to fight the gun grabbers on your behalf with memberships and or donations.

        It’s too bad the average deer hunter who maybe shoots 10 – 20 rounds a year sees no interest in this, but one day it will come to them and the competition shooters (many thousands of rounds a year with semi autos, etc) who are shut down are not going to come to your aid.

        • Kevin Price

          Sorry, but I’m not going to sit here and pretend the conservatives did what they could. They did not dismantle a program that they should have they made minor changes that they knew the liberals could and would reverse very quickly and easily if they got into office.

          Their ATT as a condition of license did not assume you are a member of a gun range, and being a member isn’t a legal requirement it’s a bogus requirement the CFO has in most provinces. And it’s still a requirement, only now they have to issue your ATT but they can (and do) just refuse to approve a transfer until you show you’re a member (and if you take their refusal to court you will win, proving that it’s not a lawful requirement). The conservatives did nothing about that.

          They also allowed prohibited guns to remain prohibited, keeping all those people under the bus. They kept registration of restricted and prohibited. They allowed the CFO to still have massive power in his province. Etc.

          They were also in power as the RCMP reclassified or improperly classified many guns as restricted or prohibited. They could have stepped up, but until their last year, and even then it was a token step.

          By the way, I’m a conservative through and through. Cases carrying member of the party. They did not do us favors and I’m hoping the new policy on firearms will help them get it straight. If they ever get elected again.

          Oh and regarding supporting the groups, I’m heavily involved with the running of the fairly new (about a year old) Canadian Coalition for Firearm Rights.

          • Bobd06


            Membership at a range is clearly stated in the law in order to possess a restricted weapon. No wiggle room there.

            As far as being an activist and educating the many people who think gun owners are red necks, I am all for that, but you have to be educated about the law, the BS statistics the press pushes and be polite.

            Try to get people to a range, their views will change.

            Thanks for your blog and your efforts. I would like to do more with the CCFR myself and will.

          • Kevin Price

            Actually Bob it’s not a requirement. At all. The only requirement is that the restricted firearms be possessed for an authorized purpose, which is generally target shooting or collecting. But you can own them for target shooting and simply go to drop in ranges or as a guest at clubs or for matches etc.

            It’s a CFO policy you must have a membership. If you get denied because you don’t have a range membership and take it to court under section 72, you can win if you present your case properly ( it’s been done in Alberta at least twice I believe, once by a lawyer). It is not the law, it’s an arbitrary rule made up by CFO’s.

            But yea, education of the public is huge and that’s why we are here. The truth needs to get out there, people need to be taken to the range, etc.

  • Dave

    If there is no referral to the mags in the criminal code or firearms act then what they charge you with?

    • Kevin Price

      They will charge you with possession of a prohibited device, claiming they are pistol magazines.

      Any decent lawyer would likely get you off and set precedent meaning the RCMP could no longer arrest people for it because precedent was set and the law would have been clarified by judge.

      • Bobd06

        After $20K in legal fees if you are lucky.

        • Kevin Price

          So better to just comply with unlawful orders?

          Someone will end up getting charged, it’s a matter of time. Just sad that most people sit around saying “oh can’t be me”.

          What would you say or do if tomorrow the RCMP stated that all semi auto firearms were now considered variants of a prohibited firearm and therefore prohibited themselves? Just turn them in, even though their opinion is wrong? Even though they are in contradiction with the law?

          • Bobd06

            No, maybe this is where the CSSA or CCFR and groups like them have their insurance kick in to cover the challenge.

          • Kevin Price

            Someone needs to get arrested and charged first. Our legal defense insurance would cover the costs if the arrest was not due to a willful criminal act. Where it gets complicated from what I understand is if the act isn’t actually criminal but you are willfully following the law by still possessing these mags. I’m told that if you were arrested and charged just while shooting or transporting and had our defense insurance, you’d be covered.

          • Bobd06

            As far as the RCMP declaring all semi autos as prohibited, the compliance would be less than that of the gun registry. It would be outright defiance. You know that.

  • Johnn Dinnery

    I have been involved with the legal system regarding weapons issues and the 4 charges against me were dropped involving “bear spray”. I questioned the RCMP that “bear spray” was not in the Criminal Code. (Bear spray was supplied to me by my employer, CN Rail, while working in bear territory) But, even though the charges specified, “Under the Criminal Code of Canada”, the Detachment Corporal informed me I was not really charged under the Criminal Code, but rather under the “Regulations”. Can I presume the “Regulations” are “regs” initiated from and implemented by the RCMP and are NOT borne from the Government of Canada ? In other words, the RCMP is a distinct, non-government body entitled to make laws in Canada ?? If so, I am totally not in favour of this. And besides, if we, here in Canada, have NOT experienced issues with these magazines, why is the RCMP, or even the Federal Government, enacting laws to restrict them. I have a better solution – stop the immigration of fanatics who are using these magazines to commit illegal acts and cease harassing honest, law abiding Canadians !!

    • Brian

      No, the Regulations are created under the Criminal Code and the Firearms Act. They are law passed by the Government of Canada.

    • Kevin Price

      Regulations are passed, generally without debate being required, by the public safety minister. In our case currently, that’s Ralph Goodale. He can draft up an order in council prohibiting or restricting any weapon or device he deems a weapon, or firearm. He can still also declare any firearm to be non restricted.

      RCMP doesn’t make law and this interpretation of the mag laws by them is wrong. The mags aren’t illegal.

  • Stephan

    They will never make me believe that criminalswho already possess illegal guns will care and comply with the magazine capacity . Once more this is an attack towards us Legal firearm owners. If the 10+ rnds mags are illegal in a handgun why dont they just prohibit their use in a handgun. It would be much more simple and credible than turns thousands of canadian into criminals, To start how many Charger there is in Canada ? Aren’t they all supposed to be registered ? Why dont they just send a reminder to the charger’s owners telling them the 10+ rnds are NOT allowd in their guns. I am sure this would affect much less honnest gun owners/ Tax payers than making them prohibited for all 10/22 owners .

    what a non-sence !

    • Kevin Price

      Because that’s not what the law says.

      The law allows you to use a rifle mag in a pistol and vice versa legally. The mag limits apply to the mag based on what the mag was made for.

      These mags were made for the rifles explicitly. Rimfire rifles have no capacity limit. Ergo the mags are legal. The RCMP is wrong.

  • Kevin Price

    Actually the recommended action it’s not too comply by pinning the mags. The recommended action is to keep them at home until someone ends up having to go through the courts and proves themselves innocent with a good lawyer, or until the government makes an order in council declaring the mags specifically legal or prohibited.

    This so-called decision by the RCMP odd not binding. It’s simply their own incorrect (malicious) interpretation of the law. They do not make the law and aren’t even supposed to interpret it like this.

    But since their opinion is wrong, these mags are not prohibited.

    The only issue, I feel, with my statement here is that if the RCMP them prohibited, then you may be charged for possession or use. But then again, in a free and democratic nation one generally doesn’t do something that isn’t required by law just because an unelected bureaucrat says they think that’s what the law says. In a free and democratic nation, citizens are free to read the law themselves and the law should be able to be understood well enough that they can follow it.

  • robert x martin

    Allowing the RCMP to make the law and re-interpret it at will has all the hallmarks of a police state. This can not stand and must be challenged in court.

    • Newsblaster

      And just where do you think you’ll get with it in a Canadian court? Our judges are unelected servants of the state. They don’t believe in private firearms ownership either. Don’t expect to be treated fairly by those pompous twits.

      • Kevin Price

        Actually you’re wrong. The courts have ruled against the RCMP countless times when their unfair and unjust rulings have been brought under a section 72 review.

        Much of the political realm is against us, the crown appears to be in many cases, but for the most part judges do simply apply the law as written.

        The RCMP here are not following the law as written.

  • Newsblaster

    They are doing this at the behest of their Liberal counterparts in Ottawa. There’s more of this nonsense coming down the pipeline. What do you think you’ll get from a police force that doesn’t believe in private firearms ownership?

  • Bobd06

    This is an example of Trudeau and his “let the experts decide”. He washes his hands of this and he may get away with it.
    We don’t have leadership, we have cowardice.
    Any bureaucrat reinterpreting law by decree is a dangerous thing and should be quashed in a supposedly free country.
    This needs to be debated in Parliament by elected representatives and voted on, PERIOD!

  • Pingback: Public notice issued by RCMP regarding 10/22 magazines()