Who wants a Restricted M16?

K

kilo69

Regular
Rating - 100%
4   0   0
Location
Colchester County, Nova Scotia
Once C-42 goes into force this new clause will have some interesting side effects.

(4) Despite the definition “prohibited firearm” in subsection 84(1), a firearm that is prescribed to be a restricted firearm is deemed not to be a prohibited firearm.


Subsection 84(1) is where the criminal code lays out what is prohib and restricted. That new clause allows the government to prescribe a firearm as prohibited or restricted in an order in council (OIC).

Now check the current OIC list and you note a very very interesting OIC.

http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/regulations/sor-98-462/fulltext.html

PART 2
RESTRICTED FIREARMS

Former Restricted Weapons Order

2. The firearm of the design commonly known as the M-16 rifle, and any variant or modified version of it, including the:
(a) Colt AR-15;
(b) Colt AR-15 SPI;
etc etc etc

Now prior to C-42 the M-16 being a full auto met the prohibited status laid out in 84(1). However the new clause over rules 84(1) as the M-16 is prescribed as a restricted firearm in the current OIC's that are in effect today.

So who's going to call the RCMP to change that FRT classification? I'm sure a court battle will ensue for that, however the wording is very clear and unless the OIC changes the M-16 will be restricted due to the current listings.

Discuss

:cheers:
 
I couldn't afford a full auto :p

Would be nice to have the choice though, but that is just a dream. No way this will go down well. The media would have a field day with that if it is true.
 
driller212 said:
I couldn't afford a full auto :p

Would be nice to have the choice though, but that is just a dream. No way this will go down well. The media would have a field day with that if it is true.
Click to expand...

Well it is true... it's just a matter of pressing the issue with the RCMP and the courts... also known as spending lots of money! Unless a new OIC comes in then the letter of the current law in combination with the new clauses in C-42 will in fact restrict the M-16 platform.
 
I personally don't see the need for full auto. It's totally useless and COMPLETELY dangerous in the hands of an untrained shooter. Now I'm not trying to ruffle any feathers here or stray away from the topic at hand here but in reality, it has no purpose in civilian hands.
 
84wh1 said:
I personally don't see the need for full auto. It's totally useless and COMPLETELY dangerous in the hands of an untrained shooter. Now I'm not trying to ruffle any feathers here or stray away from the topic at hand here but in reality, it has no purpose in civilian hands.
Click to expand...

agreed
 
Sorry this is old. That definition for the M16 and variants has been in the Criminal Code since C-68, 1995. This argument was used for the converted auto M16s and should they therefore be restricted or prohib via the 12.3
 
84wh1 said:
I personally don't see the need for full auto. It's totally useless and COMPLETELY dangerous in the hands of an untrained shooter. Now I'm not trying to ruffle any feathers here or stray away from the topic at hand here but in reality, it has no purpose in civilian hands.
Click to expand...

While I respect your opinion that is a slippery slope. Replace Full auto with "semi-auto" and voila you now are NDP/Liberal land on gun control.

The purpose off all our restricted firearms right now is for sport shooting and recreation, since the laws prevent 99.99% of us using them for anything but.
 
84wh1 said:
I personally don't see the need for full auto. It's totally useless and COMPLETELY dangerous in the hands of an untrained shooter. Now I'm not trying to ruffle any feathers here or stray away from the topic at hand here but in reality, it has no purpose in civilian hands.
Click to expand...

We stand together or we fall individually.

Full autos are like dragsters; there is no "need" for a useless single-seat car that burns parts and money, makes huge amounts of smoke and noise without doing very much else, but go to any race track and you'll experience plenty of "desire" for exactly that.
 
koldt said:
Sorry this is old. That definition for the M16 and variants has been in the Criminal Code since C-68, 1995. This argument was used for the converted auto M16s and should they therefore be restricted or prohib via the 12.3
Click to expand...

Interesting, Do you have info on how that went in the courts? I did not know it was challenged before for CA M-16

EDIT actually 84(1) specifically lays out that hence why it failed in court, or was changed to make sure it wouldn't allow M-16.

“prohibited firearm” means

(c) an automatic firearm, whether or not it has been altered to discharge only one projectile with one pressure of the trigger, or
 
Last edited:
The way i read it is, the semi-auto version is prescribed as restricted and the full auto version as prohibited.

This is all about the swiss arms and CZ85, a gun that is prescribed as a restricted can not be changed to a prohib without the OIC. So the RCMP can't just change a gun from restricted to prohiob.

A full auto M16 isnt a restricted it's a prohib and will stay that way after C-42. An automatic firearm, whether or not it has been altered to discharge only one projectile with one pressure of the trigger is prohibited.
 
Sir, respectfully you are the reason we have BS restrictions, I suggest you close your CGN account and open an account with Momsdemandaction.
84wh1 said:
I personally don't see the need for full auto. It's totally useless and COMPLETELY dangerous in the hands of an untrained shooter. Now I'm not trying to ruffle any feathers here or stray away from the topic at hand here but in reality, it has no purpose in civilian hands.
Click to expand...
 
Riggseven said:
The way i read it is, the semi-auto version is prescribed as restricted and the full auto version as prohibited.

This is all about the swiss arms and CZ85, a gun that is prescribed as a restricted can not be changed to a prohib without the OIC. So the RCMP can't just change a gun from restricted to prohiob.

A full auto M16 isnt a restricted it's a prohib and will stay that way after C-42. An automatic firearm, whether or not it has been altered to discharge only one projectile with one pressure of the trigger is prohibited.
Click to expand...

Yes however I can't find any OIC prescribing the M-16 as prohib... only thing I can find that makes it prohib is that it falls into that class via the CC 84(1) definitions. However with the new C-42 Clause it being NAMED in the restricted OIC would in effect override that 84(1) definition. Something that was not there prior to this bill.

Unless there is somewhere else that names the M-16 specifically is prohib in the OIC's, which I have yet to find.

84(1) says
“prohibited firearm” means

(a) a handgun that
(i) has a barrel equal to or less than 105 mm in length, or
(ii) is designed or adapted to discharge a 25 or 32 calibre cartridge,
but does not include any such handgun that is prescribed, where the handgun is for use in international sporting competitions governed by the rules of the International Shooting Union,

(b) a firearm that is adapted from a rifle or shotgun, whether by sawing, cutting or any other alteration, and that, as so adapted,
(i) is less than 660 mm in length, or
(ii) is 660 mm or greater in length and has a barrel less than 457 mm in length,
(c) an automatic firearm, whether or not it has been altered to discharge only one projectile with one pressure of the trigger, or
(d) any firearm that is prescribed to be a prohibited firearm;
 
84wh1 said:
I personally don't see the need for full auto. It's totally useless and COMPLETELY dangerous in the hands of an untrained shooter...it has no purpose in civilian hands.
Click to expand...

I personally do not hunt or see the need for hunting firearms. They are totally useless, if you want food you can get it at a grocery store, and high power hunting firearms are COMPLETELY dangerous in the hands of an untrained hunter roaming around in the woods shooting at anything that moves......hunting firearms have no purpose in civilian hands, only trained conservation officers should have access to firearms in the performance of their duties
 
Last edited:
Fudds gonna fudd

No one needs a car that exceeds the speed limit. No one can use a race car on public roads so no one should have it since there are no civilian purposes.

Get real.
84wh1 said:
I personally don't see the need for full auto. It's totally useless and COMPLETELY dangerous in the hands of an untrained shooter. Now I'm not trying to ruffle any feathers here or stray away from the topic at hand here but in reality, it has no purpose in civilian hands.
Click to expand...

twincamharley said:
agreed
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom