OTTAWA – Bob Zimmer, Member of Parliament for Prince George-Peace River-Northern Rockies and Co-Chair of the Parliamentary Outdoor Caucus hand delivered his rebuttal regarding the recent Ruger 10/22 magazine prohibition to Minister Goodale.
“I hope that Minister Goodale understands the mistake that the RCMP Firearms Division made and reverses their errant decision prohibiting the 10/22 magazine,” said Mr. Zimmer. “I am deeply concerned that firearms regulations are being changed by bureaucrats without due process or oversight by elected officials.”
Full text of letter below.
Dear Minister Goodale,
Thank you for your prompt reply to my letter concerning the change in classification of certain Ruger 10/22 magazines. I would like to point out three clear errors in the RCMP decision. These errors are being used as a foundation to turn law abiding Canadians into criminals.
The Sturm Ruger 10/22 Rifle was originally manufactured and released in 1964. Subsequently, accessories were manufactured, including the 25 round magazine produced in 1978 by Butler Creek and later the BX-25 magazine manufactured by Ruger in 2012.
The Sturm Ruger Charger pistol was manufactured and sold starting in 2008 and ceased being produced as of 2013. It was then manufactured again from 2014-2015. Of note, less than 500 Sturm Ruger Charger pistols were exported to Canada and no BX-25 magazines were shipped from Ruger to Canada.
I have outlined below the three errors in the RCMP’s reasoning for the prohibition.
“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.”
Part 4 of the Regulations Prescribing Certain Firearms sections of the Criminal Code states that rimfire magazines are exempt from the Prohibited classification:
(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,
Secondly, the “originally designed” reference excludes the BX-25 and Butler Creek 10/22 25-round magazines as they were originally designed for the rifle and not the handgun. This is proven by the original date of manufacture of the 10/22 rifle in 1964 and the 25 round magazines in 1994, thirty years later.
Lastly, the error that was made making the 10/22 Magazines prohibited as a result of being “commonly available in Canada.”
3(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.
The Sturm Ruger Charger pistol was first manufactured and sold starting in 2008, long after the first 25 round magazines were manufactured starting in 1994. Less than 500 Sturm Ruger Charger pistols were exported to Canada and zero BX-25 magazines were shipped from Ruger to Canada, far from qualifying as commonly available in Canada.
The Firearms Act does not grant authority to the RCMP to make classifications or re-classifications of any kind. Nor does it recognize the existence or legitimacy of the Firearms Reference Table, known as the FRT. The FRT constitutes nothing more than the opinion of one RCMP technician, the Firearms Act specifically grants authority only to the Minister to make classification decisions through Order-in-Council.
It is clear that the classification and subsequent prohibition of legal items owned by lawful Canadians is clearly ultra vires of the RCMP’s authority. By what authority do they possess the ability to provide statements to other law enforcement bodies and the Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA) directing the prohibition of items they have no authority to prohibit?
Could a civilian employee of the Canadian government interpret a law that created upwards of 400 thousand criminals without first consulting the full session of Parliament? To put it mildly, that civilian employee would have usurped the function of Parliament.
As a result of these errors, I ask for an immediate reversal of the reclassification as it has clearly been done outside of the parameters that have been set.
Once again, I thank you for your attention to this matter.
Member of Parliament
Prince George-Peace River-Northern Rockies
Co-Chair, Parliamentary Outdoor Caucus
More information: 613-947-4524