l;a GRC essaie de ressortir une ancienne recommandation fais par un comité spécial du report du BILL C-80, 1991
RECOMMENDATION 24
The Special Committee recommends that the Department of Justice, in
consultation with the Canadian Advisory Council on Firearms, develop regulations
defining the scope of the term “device”, and the criteria pursuant to which a power
to prohibit “devices” by order—in—council would be used. The Special Committee
further recommends that the regulations be made “subject to affirmative
resolution of the House of Commons” pursuant to section 39(1)(b) of the
Interpretation Act
.
6.
AMMUNITION MAGAZINE SIZE LIMITS
The Minister of Justice has announced that the government intends to prohibit large
capacity ammunition magazines used in semi-automatic firearms, under the power which Bill
C-80 would grant to prohibit “devices”. The proposed limits are 10 for all handgun
magazines, and 5 for centrefire long gun magazines. The limits would thus not extend to low-
velocity, low-calibre rimfire rifles such as the standard .22 calibre. The Minister advised the
Special Committee, however, that no firm decision has yet been made on the precise limits
and the criteria for their application.
Perhaps no other single issue was more controversial than this one in all of the hearings,
particularly to hunters and competition shooters. The government’s concern is with the rapid-
fire capability that large capacity magazines give to any semi-automatic firearm. The Minister
suggested that magazine limits were an alternative to prohibiting or restricting semi-
automatic firearms entirely. The Minister’s view is that large capacity magazines have no
legitimate hunting or sporting use, and that they pose a danger to public safety. It was noted,
for example, that Marc L~pine used two 30-round magazines in his rampage at the Ecole
Polytechnique, and it was suggested by the representatives of the families of the victims of
that tragedy that the death toll might well have been less if only smaller magazines had been
available. It was also strongly argued by the Minister and the victims’ families that the effect
on hunters and recreational shooters of the proposed magazine limitations would be both
reasonable and minimal.
The Special Committee is sensitive to these concerns, and sees no legitimate reason for
the availability of magazines in the order of 30-round capacities. We are concerned, however,
that the prohibition approach suggested by the Minister might not be workable and
enforceable, and that the limits proposed would unduly hamper the legitimate activities of
some classes of firearms users.
Much of the opposition to the government’s proposal centred on the specific limits suggested.
Concern was expressed with the effect of the limits on rifles with built-in magazines of a
capacity over 5 that could not be altered and could thus become effectively prohibited.
Although the Department of Justice suggested that hunting rifles with built-in magazines of a
capacity of more than 5 are uncommon, they do apparently exist, and it was not clear what the
extent of this presumably unintended effect would be. While the limits could be applied only
to detachable magazines, this would produce anomalies that could undermine the rationale for
the proposal.
Competition shooters argued that most competition shooting involves magazines of a
capacity greater than the proposed 5 and 10 limits. The International Practical Shooting
Confederation, in particular, asserted that such limits would shut down many of their
activities. They stated that they use 10 to 17 round magazines in their competitions, and that
many of the more modern handguns that they use have magazines with more than 10 rounds.
Other witnesses charged that the proposed limits would simply be unfeasible as
proposed. The limits are based on whether the magazine is intended for a handgun or a long
gun, and some magazines are interchangeable. The Department of Justice asserted that such
magazines are rare and could be separately dealt with, but so long as the problem of
interchangeability exists there will continue to be anomalies and problems of interpretation
that could place legitimate firearms users in unnecessary criminal jeopardy. Future
developments in both firearm and magazine manufacturing could also exacerbate the
problem.
Magazines are also unmarked and thus untraceable. This would make enforcement
difficult, and it would mean that distinctions could not be made on the basis of certain
magazines being registered as restricted. No method apparently exists at present for
identifying particular magazines so as to make such distinctions. Mr. Murray Smith, the
firearms expert from the R.C.M.P., acknowledged that the problems of interchangeability and
untraceability, compounded by the several million ammunition magazines that are already in
the country, would make any limits very difficult to administer and enforce.
Collectors cited the effect of any limits on the authenticity and value of collectible
firearms and certain magazines, some of which are extremely valuable. Compensation has not
been offered by the government, but this would seem to be out of the question in any case
because of the sums that would probably be required. The Department of Justice has
suggested that magazines designed for certain non-semi-automatic firearms, but which fit
some modern semi-automatics, such as the 10-shot Lee-Enfield, would be exempted. This
would deal with some of the concerns of users of Lee-Enfields, but the interests of collectors
are much larger. The Special Committee is of the view that large capacity magazines are not a
danger to public safety in the hands of properly-defined and regulated gun collectors.
The Special Committee is concerned that the actual limits proposed by the government
are unnecessarily low, and would detrimentally affect legitimate shooting sports that pose no
danger to public safety. The Committee is also skeptical that limits based purely on the size of
the magazine would be workable. We thus propose that the limits be larger, that they be tied
to the activities engaged in by the user, and that special authorization be required for the
acquisition of magazines in excess of our proposed basic limit. In particular, we believe that
hunters should be permitted to use up to 10-shot magazines, competition shooters up to 20-
shot magazines, and that genuine gun collectors be unrestricted. These limits could be
imposed by way of restrictions placed on the sale ofmagazines, and authorizations to purchase magazines larger than those permitted would be specified
on the FAC or restricted weapon registration certificate of the owner seeking the magazines. As 10-
round magazines would be permitted for hunting and all other purposes, the restrictions would apply
only to magazines with a capacity larger than 10.
http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/cfp-pcaf/pol-leg/pdf/c80-eng.pdf
Accueil 
Dim 31 Mai 2015 - 20:02
Excellent!!!!