Letter I got back from Goodale, typical form letter that I am certain everyone is getting, bunch of nonsense and rhetoric, especially the part about what the magazine was initially designed for, which wasn't a handgun, therefore at the time of purchase these magazines were intended to be used with a 10-22 rifle, as such they should not be prohibited. The handgun was released long after the magazines were released. None of my concerns were addressed. My reply to Goodale:
Dear Mr. Goodale.
Your rhetorical form letter reply did not address my questions or concerns. I understand the regulations, the magazine was not designed for a handgun, the magazine was designed for a non restricted rifle, the handgun was designed long after the magazine was designed, therefore it was never designed for intended use in the handgun. The magazine should only be restricted to individuals who own the handgun, that should be fairly simple to administer as the handgun is a restricted weapon, and the CFC should have record of who owns the handgun. Keep in mind I am not debating, nor do I have interest in debating, it’s open to interpretation.
Your reply, which is attached to this email, inappropriately addresses my concerns. To reiterate my questions and concerns to be addressed accordingly:
“First and foremost is the issue that those enforcing the law should have no authority to create the law, this is un-constitutional.” Would you please acknowledge that the RCMP enacting firearms legislation changes is unconstitutional and that you will take action to prevent the RCMP from making modifications to firearms legislation without approval?
“I would also request an indefinite amnesty for people already owning and possessing these magazines.” Would you please reply to my request for an amnesty?
Would you kindly address my concerns appropriately? Thank you.
