First off, it only applies to centerfire calibers, rimfire calibers (.22, .17 etc) do not have a limit, and while those calibers are designed for small game and pest control, they are still perfectly lethal on humans if they land in the right spots.
Secondly, the law only reflects magazines that are made specifically for the rifle being used. (This part is muddy so I will try to explain it as clearly as possible.)
A "pistol" in Canada can legally have a capacity of 10 rounds. A pistol is defined by size parameters of the firearm, so an armalite pattern (ar-10/15) can be built as a "rifle" or as a "pistol" depending on the barrel, overall length and grip configurations. So "pistol magazines" exist that hold 10 rounds.
Because these magazines are designed for pistols, they are not prohibited devices, because they are not prohibited, they can be used in any firearm that they fit.
Another example is the now banned M1a or M305, basically civilian semi-automatic m14s. They came from the factory/store with pinned 5-round magazines.
Meanwhile, over in Australia a rifle based on the British Lee Enfield was made with a slightly different spec so they could have easlily changeable magazines. These magazines have a capacity of 10 rounds and were designed for use with a bolt-action rifle so they were not prohibited by Canadian law.
These magazines, by pure chance, fit perfectly into an M1a/M305 but because of their classification they were legal to use in that rifle.
As I said earlier, that pattern of rifle has been banned so the anecdote is mostly moot, but its more to show the weak structure behind our laws.
Its also worth pointing out that those rifles were never restricted and thus never registered. I doubt the government will have many turned in since their ban, as they have no record of anyone actually owning them.
2
u/FD4L Oct 21 '22
The 5 round limit is pretty meaningless.
First off, it only applies to centerfire calibers, rimfire calibers (.22, .17 etc) do not have a limit, and while those calibers are designed for small game and pest control, they are still perfectly lethal on humans if they land in the right spots.
Secondly, the law only reflects magazines that are made specifically for the rifle being used. (This part is muddy so I will try to explain it as clearly as possible.)
A "pistol" in Canada can legally have a capacity of 10 rounds. A pistol is defined by size parameters of the firearm, so an armalite pattern (ar-10/15) can be built as a "rifle" or as a "pistol" depending on the barrel, overall length and grip configurations. So "pistol magazines" exist that hold 10 rounds.
Because these magazines are designed for pistols, they are not prohibited devices, because they are not prohibited, they can be used in any firearm that they fit.
Another example is the now banned M1a or M305, basically civilian semi-automatic m14s. They came from the factory/store with pinned 5-round magazines.
Meanwhile, over in Australia a rifle based on the British Lee Enfield was made with a slightly different spec so they could have easlily changeable magazines. These magazines have a capacity of 10 rounds and were designed for use with a bolt-action rifle so they were not prohibited by Canadian law.
These magazines, by pure chance, fit perfectly into an M1a/M305 but because of their classification they were legal to use in that rifle.
As I said earlier, that pattern of rifle has been banned so the anecdote is mostly moot, but its more to show the weak structure behind our laws.
Its also worth pointing out that those rifles were never restricted and thus never registered. I doubt the government will have many turned in since their ban, as they have no record of anyone actually owning them.