Large Fierce Mammal

The most recent article in my Short, Easily Digested Firearms Education Lecture series referred the reader to the first two items in this parallel one.  If you haven’t read any or all of that material, I suggest you do so before you continue here because those articles explore the historic and practical precedents for the shape of the modern assault rifle as it Truly is, and not merely as defined by ideology. Bashing on then, having defined in detail what an assault rifle is, let’s take a look at what it isn’t. An easy job because the press is only too happy to help.

As a Canadian living with firearms legislation applicable solely to Canada, this discussion will take a Canadian slant. Nevertheless, in doing that I must also deal with U. S. law because a disappointingly large number of seats at Tim Hortons shops across the Great White North are filled with bums attached to people who think the news item they just saw on TV about the proposed “assault weapons ban” applies here.

So turning to the U. S. for just a moment, let’s begin with an illuminating video of Texas Senator Ted Cruz in a recent Senate Judiciary Committee debate on the subject of gun control, and most specifically on the concept of the “assault weapon”. This is an excellent illustration because it touches on the mindset of many Canadians.

Senator Cruz makes a number of vital points about firearms reality vs. skewed interpretations prevalent among people who have little to no experience with or desire to own firearms, but let’s pause here a moment to reprise something specific that he said in that clip:

I was having a conversation recently with a loved one in my family who asked a very reasonable question. She said, “Why do regular people need machine guns?”

And, you know, one of the things that happens in this debate is the phrase “assault weapons ban” gets a lot of people really concerned, and they assume – much like the phrase, “military style weapons” – that we’re talking about ordinary citizens running around with M16’s and Uzis that are fully automatic.

Fully automatic machine guns are already functionally illegal. Ordinary citizens cannot own them absent very, very heavy regulation. This entire discussion does not concern machine guns; and yet I would venture to say that a large percentage of Americans do not understand that.

Now, this refers to the situation in the United States of America, but it has successfully duplicated itself here in Canada. For an example of this, I need look no further than recent news from my own back yard.

A little over two weeks ago, on Monday, 21 January 2013, police in the town that Mrs. LFM and I live a kilometer outside of – Bridgewater, Nova Scotia –  received a complaint regarding a man who had uttered death threats against his father. Police responding to a residence at 201 York Street, found 37 year old Sheldon Earl Bowers outside the residence, in what has been described as “an agitated state”, and armed with what appeared to be an AR15 type rifle. Mr. Bowers was subsequently disarmed, arrested, and the property searched. The address happened to be in close physical proximity to both the Bridgewater Elementary School and the Bridgewater Junior Senior High School, and as a precautionary measure, the Bridgewater Police Service ordered both schools locked down to ensure that students wouldn’t be wandering into the secured perimeter. According to official statements made by BPS Constable William Creamer, “At no point in time, to my knowledge, was there any direct threats toward the students.”

In the course of the search, it was discovered that the suspect was running a marijuana growing operation, and was in possession of a sufficient quantity of marijuana, hashish, and cocaine to justify the laying of trafficking charges. Including the firearm Bowers was holding when they arrived, police seized eight long guns from the property. What at first appeared to be an AR15 type rifle (designed to fire the 5.56 x 45mm or .223 Remington center fire cartridge) turned out to be a semi-automatic rifle of .22 rimfire “Long Rifle” (LR) calibre that at first sight had only appeared to be a member of the AR15 series of rifles.  Figure 1 shows the rifle in question as part of a tableau set up by the Bridgewater Police Service during a press photo shoot in the wake of the operation.

Figure 1: .22 LR calibre semi-automatic rifle (foreground) seized during the drug bust. (Herald News Photo)

So, to recap, police received a complaint that involved an armed and agitated person who had uttered a death threat against another person, and who was believed to be at or near a premises that was located near two schools. As a very sensible and correct precaution, police ordered both schools locked down to keep their occupants out of the line of fire in the off chance that things went sideways. The arrest was made without the need for police to resort to deadly force, and in view of the circumstances I feel this speaks to the professionalism of the Bridgewater Police Service. A subsequent search of the premises turned up marijuana production and evidence of trafficking in marijuana, hashish, and cocaine. Firearms at the scene – eight long guns according to reports – were seized, as they would certainly be in such a case. This is all quite cut and dried, and yet to read news reports, the facts have gotten lost in a sea of what I see as irresponsible implication, made all the worse by clear though not quite overtly stated attempts to draw parallels with what happened at Newtown, Connecticut.

In fact, there is no comparison, and yet here are sample headlines with links to the associated articles:

• Police seize guns, drugs from home near locked down N.S. schools
• Police seize weapons from home near Bridgewater schools
• N.S. police find cache of weapons in home near Bridgewater schools
• Guns, drugs seized in Bridgewater home after lockdown — 8 firearms including assault rifle seized

Another article posted 22 January 2013 by South Shore News Now, and regrettably since taken down, states:

Police confirmed Tuesday that they seized eight long guns late Monday after getting a search warrant for 201 York Street.

Chief John Collyer said one of those weapons was a .22-calibre assault rifle with an overcapacity magazine, laser sight and scope.

“It’s quite the weapon. It looks just like our AR-15 or our C8 [tactical weapon] that we have in our patrol cars,” he said.

This selective reportage, coupled with some uneducated and ill advised off the cuff remarks tossed off by the Police Chief, instantly left the public with a completely wrong understanding of how, and to what degree, the presence of firearms at the crime scene plays into the matter. Let’s highlight those:

1. References to police finding an “arsenal” or a “weapons cache” imply that the number of long guns seized – specifically eight – is in and of itself a cause for concern. It has yet to be explained what interest Mr. Bowers had in legitimate shooting activities, but the lack of reference to possession of firearms without a license implies that they were legally acquired, if not legally stored or handled. However, in point of fact – and this must be emphasized – anyone who hunts and engages in shooting sports like pistol competition, service rifle competition, skeet and trap, or sporting clays, will commonly own at least that many firearms if not more. This is usually a result of the fact that there is no “do all” firearm. There is a time and place for a shotgun over a rifle and vice versa. For a .22 LR calibre rifle over a .30 calibre one and the other way around. There is also the not uncommon case of bona fide collectors who may routinely own twice as many firearms as were seized. The suspect in question here does not appear to be one of those, but the media have made this an issue of quantity as though this alone speaks to an controvertible cause for concern. In fact, there is nothing illegal about possessing eight long guns, or eighteen, or eighty. In fact, if they all fit the Canadian legal definition of a non-restricted firearm, none of them would even need to be registered. All that is required is that the owner hold a valid Possession and Acquisition License (PAL) to keep what he has with the option to acquire more.
2. Headlines have made much of the mere presence of firearms in proximity to two schools whereas, in reality, it is the way they were used and stored that constitute the offenses for which the specific firearms and weapons related charges were laid. Their existence in a dwelling, regardless of location, does not represent a breach of any law pertaining to firearms ownership. A licensed firearms owner has no restriction on where he or she may reside relative to any other property, facility, occupancy type, or institution. Lest that statement be insufficiently clear, let me emphasize that this includes schools.
3. Proximity of the premises to the schools may have been an accident of geography, although it could be argued that a block away from a high school isn’t a bad choice of location for someone who’s in the business of selling illegal drugs. This is the singular part that bothers me, and in my opinion should be the focal point of public outrage rather than sidestepping this issue in favour of a mad dash to put an “assault rifle” at the scene of every crime.
4. As reported, the litany of charges laid against Bowers included, uttering a death threat, possession of a weapon for a dangerous purpose, unsafely storing weapons, possession of marijuana for the purpose of trafficking, producing marijuana, and possession of cocaine and hashish. The references to weapons offenses are very specific and based on my understanding of events, not surprising. Under Canadian law, a firearm may only be loaded where it is permissible for it to be discharged, and a residential street in Bridgewater isn’t it, let alone inside a school zone. At all other times, firearms must be unloaded and either under the direct control of the licensed owner (for example, being maintained, handled pursuant to transport, shown to someone, etc.), or stored in a state from which they cannot be made readily fireable (trigger locked, locked inside a secure cabinet or storage space, bolt removed, etc.), and the ammunition must be stored separately inside a locked container or storage space. In short, the law does not permit a “grab and go” situation to exist, and police finding such a situation will normally seize any firearms found and lay a charge of unsafe storage. Further, police responding to a report of someone uttering a death threat who find a loaded firearm at the scene, even one that is not actually in the hands of, or even near to, the suspect, may be justified in laying a charge of “possession of a weapon for a dangerous purpose” or that is “dangerous to the public peace”. However, this is neither unique nor exclusive to firearms, and may also apply to a knife, a tire iron, a fireplace poker, a rock, a hammer, a piece of fire wood, or a baseball bat found leaning against the wall inside the kitchen door if the situation, history of the suspect, and/or the nature of the threat (threatening to cut someone’s throat or beat them to death, for example) lead police to believe that a specific item might be the weapon of choice referred to in the threat.

I would like to draw special attention to statements made by BPS Chief John Collyer whom I believe stepped more than a little outside his area of expertise, both in terms of firearms realities and Canadian firearms laws, in speaking the words for which he is quoted above. In my own experience, both as a qualified firearms training instructor, and experienced dog handler/trainer, members of the public – including the media – routinely believe police officials to be in possession of knowledge and understanding that is not even remotely present. Using a Dog related example, Mrs. LFM and I have consulted in Dog behaviour cases wherein the people involved had first sought assistance from a Police Dog handler of their acquaintance. This has cropped up several times, and certainly not all Police Dog handlers will get involved in something like this, but of those that have, we have yet to encounter a case in which the problem was subject to any improvement whatsoever. Why is this? Well, I can assure you it has nothing to do with incompetence on the part of the Police Dog handler as a Police Dog handler. It comes from the fact that he or she is a specialist in working with a specific Dog – usually one chosen for them by other specialists who do that for their organization – for a specific set of purposes within a specific set of operating guidelines. They train together with their assigned Dog to become a seamless Team that is poetry in motion, but their occupation is a part of a very narrow and specialized field. This should come as no surprise because in many more areas of endeavour beyond K9 work, there are a myriad of examples of specialization. It must never be forgotten that exceptional aptitude on the part of a specialist in one field does not automatically translate into anything approaching the same level of performance in another, even a related one. As Socrates said, “Better to do a little well, than a great deal badly.”

And so it is with firearms. I know a few active and retired members of law enforcement who have an interest in firearms outside of occupational necessity, and these will be more than willing and able to give straight word on what the law does and does not permit. But these are in the minority, and for most, their service firearms are necessary pieces of hardware that they must tote around, maintain, and periodically qualify with, and that they would be just as happy to do without if possible. Some of this group would prefer that nobody else have them either, but that is not a choice to be made on the law enforcement level.

On the subject of the rifle that is front row center of all media photographs that headed up stories on the Bridgewater event, Chief Collyer is quoted as calling it a, “… .22-calibre assault rifle with an overcapacity magazine.” Also, “It’s quite the weapon. It looks just like our AR-15 or our C8 [tactical weapon] that we have in our patrol cars,”

What Chief Collyer failed to grasp is that the rifle he was referring to as an “assault rifle” is, in fact, a .22 rimfire rifle that is nothing more than its manufacturer’s standard semi-automatic small game sporting rifle installed in a different stock. In essence, a Smart Car engine installed in a Ferrari. It only looks fast on the outside. Worst of all though, because it speaks loudest to lack of knowledge in firearms law on the part of a high ranking law enforcement official, is his reference to an, “… overcapacity magazine ….” Under Canadian law as it applies to .22 calibre rimfire rifles, there is no such thing as a limit on magazine capacity unless, and only unless, the magazine used by the rifle also fits a semi-automatic rimfire handgun. Most rimfire rifles, including the one seized in Bridgewater, employ a purpose built magazine that fits nothing else, and so there is no limit on capacity.

Figure 2: Left to Right – .22 LR (Long Rifle) cartridge, .223 calibre bullet fired by the cartridge at right, and .223 Remington cartridge used in the AR15.

To clarify, .22 rimfire ammunition designed for use in modern rimfire firearms regardless of action type, is the traditional load for training, target shooting, small game hunting, and pest control. It is also a popular round for Deer poachers because its low power makes the report of its firing hard to detect and recognize over long distances, unlike a full sized and legal Deer hunting rifle. This is why, even though the Nova Scotia Deer and Rabbit seasons overlap for a spell, and the Deer season ends before Rabbit season does, no small game hunting is permitted with a rimfire rifle until after the Deer season has ended. The .22 can kill a Deer sized animal with a well placed short range head shot, but it is far too low powered to be generally considered a humane means of harvesting big game.

Likewise, here in Nova Scotia where most hunters are after Deer, Bear, and Rabbits, a few also obtain license to hunt the wily Coyote. Regulations dictating energy levels for ammunition to be used in hunting “big game” (Deer and Bear) preclude use of the .223 Remington cartridge (as fired by the actual AR15) because it is too small in calibre and lacks sufficient energy to quickly and humanely kill an animal of that size. The .223 Remington is an up-sized evolution of the .222 Remington cartridge that was developed as a “varmint” round for killing damaging or troublesome wild life at a distance., and in this it is well suited to hunting Coyote that are notoriously uncooperative in permitting a close shot.

Getting back to .22 rimfire rifles of the sort seized at the Bridgewater bust, there are four commonly encountered .22 LR calibre rifles on the market – Ruger, Remington, Smith & Wesson, and Mossberg make them, and the list will no doubt expand – all of which resemble the AR15 rifle. Figure 2 shows the .22 LR rimfire cartridge (left), the type used by the rifle seized by the Bridgewater Police Service, in comparison with the .223 Remington centerfire cartridge (right) fired by the AR15 and C8 rifles that, as mentioned by Chief Collyer, ride in BPS patrol cars. Between the two is a specimen of the actual bullet for the .223 Remington full metal jacket (FMJ) military/police loading. You will notice that the .223 Remington bullet is approximately the same length as the entire .22 LR cartridge, and if you are reading this on a full size computer screen, they will appear very near to actual size.

In addition, each of the .22 LR AR15 lookalikes started life as its manufacturer’s standard .22 LR semi-automatic small game hunting rifle. For example, the Ruger 10/22 semi-automatic sporting rifle (Figure 3) is arguably the most reliable and highly regarded .22 rimfire rifle on the market today, and it is the action of the 10/22 that Ruger chose to mount in a plastic and light metal chassis – instead of the customary traditional wood stock – to create the SR-22 (Figure 4); a rifle with identical performance to that of the 10/22, but decidedly different physical appearance. It does not fire ammunition that even approaches that used in a true assault rifle or semi-automatic variants thereof, nor does the installation of its operating parts in a plastic stock assembly in any way alter its ballistic performance as a rifle by comparison to other versions that are assembled in a more traditional way.

Figure 3: Ruger 10/22 semi-automatic .22 LR rimfire rifle (Source: Ruger Firearms). Click image to enlarge.

Figure 4: Ruger SR-22 semi-automatic .22 LR rimfire rifle – Nothing more or less than a 10/22 wearing a new suit of clothes. (Source: Ruger Firearms). Click the image to enlarge.

Under Canadian law, .22 rimfire rifles are exempt from magazine capacity restrictions that apply to their higher power center fire brethren, no matter how similar in appearance they may be to one another. The rifle seized in Bridgewater comes standard from the manufacturer with a 25 round magazine, and contrary to Chief Collyer’s statement, this does not violate the magazine capacity restrictions defined by the Criminal Code of Canada. In short, if one could devise a 1000 round magazine for a semi-automatic rimfire rifle, it might be looked upon as an overzealous endeavour indulged in by someone with far too much time on his hands, but its possession and use for legal applications of the firearm to which it was attached would not violate the law.

I’ll close today with an image of the Bushmaster Carbon 15 Superlight ORC State-Compliant .223 Remington calibre sporting rifle. Figure 5 below shows this rifle as it presently appears on the manufacturer’s website. Canadian firearms law considers it a “restricted firearm”, and treats it for regulatory purposes as being in the same legal class as handguns. Next time we’ll look at the whys and hows of that, and answer the immortal question – how could anyone have a legitimate reason to own something like that?

Figure 5 – Assault rifle? No. It’s just another Restricted Firearm.  (click the image to enlarge)