The Pentagon ordered 110,000 Glock pistol for the Iraqi security forces including , police , security , and military so the plant in Smyrna Georgia was about to hire 400 more employees and put on another shift . They cancelled the deal and bought the pistols from Glock Austria over this very issue . The UN actually cancelled the deal because of the new mandated marking , registration and end user certificates . The guns were UN marked in Austria and then registered four times . First time , US Military , second time , Gov't of Iraq , third time , unit or force they were being transfered to and fourth , to the individual they were issued to . Half went to stores but are registered and half were issued and documented to individual police , security or military and God help that guy if his pistol shows up anywhere else . Many leave their Glocks in their locker or hidden at home and carry an undocumented gun because it's far less trouble if something goes wrong . Same when the Canadian army tried to transfer 1,500 ancient old worn out M-16s to the Afghan army . It took 4 years to do the UN documentation , transfer , registration and end user certificates . In the budget of two weeks ago Trudeau has already allocated the money for the new gun registry .
U.n. Firearms marking regulations
- Thread starter Wolverine .303
- Start date
CILA-1
CGN frequent flyer
The United Nations Firearms Marking System
On December 23rd, 2004, the Government of Canada introduced the new regulations on Firearms Marking. By their own admission, they were intended to comply with the United Nations Protocol against the Illicit Manufacturing of and Trafficking in Firearms, Their Parts and Components and Ammunition, supplementing the United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime and the Inter-American Convention Against the Illicit Manufacturing of and Trafficking in Firearms, Ammunition, Explosives, and Other Related Materials.
This law, postponed for 12 consecutive years by three consecutive governments, will come into force June 1, 2017 and its effect on the Canadian firearms industry could be disastrous. This program will require ALL imported guns to be marked with the country and year of import. Canada’s marking regulations (passed into law but not yet in force) are the following:
MARKING OF IMPORTED FIREARMS (Bill C-10A Regulations)
3. (1) Every individual, business or public service agency that imports a firearm shall ensure that the firearm is marked in accordance with section 4 before the 60th day after its release as defined in subsection 2(1) of the Customs Act or before transferring the firearm, whichever occurs first.
(2) Subsection (1) does not apply to
(a) a firearm imported by an individual under section 35 or 35.1 of the Act;
(b) a specially imported firearm;
(c) a protected firearm;
(d) a firearm that was initially exported from Canada by an individual or business if the individual or business retained ownership of the firearm while the firearm was outside Canada; or
(e) a firearm that was initially exported from Canada by a public service agency and that was retained by that agency as an agency firearm while the firearm was outside Canada.
MANNER OF MARKING
4. (1) The firearm shall be marked by permanently stamping or engraving on the firearm’s frame or receiver the word “Canada” or the letters “CA” and
(a) in the case of a manufactured firearm, the name of the manufacturer and the firearm’s serial number; and
(b) in the case of an imported firearm, the last two digits of the year of the importation.
(2) The markings shall
(a) be legible;
(b) have a depth of at least 0.076 mm and a height of at least 1.58 mm; and
(c) subject to subsection (3), be visible without the need to disassemble the firearm.
(3) In the case of an imported firearm, the Registrar, on application by the individual, business or public service agency that is importing it, shall grant the applicant an exemption from the requirement set out in paragraph (2)(c) if
(a) marking the firearm in a place that is visible only by disassembling the firearm is consistent with the
current practices of the manufacturer of that model of firearm;
(b) the firearm does not provide a visible space suitable to stamp or engrave the markings;
(c) the firearm is rare;
(d) the firearm is of a value that is unusually high for that type of firearm and that value would be significantly reduced if the markings were visible without disassembly; or
(e) the firearm is imported by a business that holds a licence for the purpose of using the firearm in respect of motion picture, television, video or theatrical productions or in publishing activities.
*****
The above appears in Canada's Marking Regulations. The intention of the Canadian Regulations is to put “CA-15” on the frame or receiver of all newly imported guns. It doesn’t sound like much, but in truth, its impact on Canadian industry is somewhat different and considerably darker than what appears by a simple reading of the above text. It may spell the end for much of Canada’s gun industry.
The first issue is that the marking of firearms imported into the United States has been addressed for a long time in one form or another; imports represent a small portion of their domestic consumption, and several foreign manufacturers such as Beretta, SIG and Glock have built production facilities in the U.S. to obtain a stronger market base. In Canada, this situation does not exist and we have a very small production industry for domestic consumption and precious few imports due to our restrictive legislation and smaller population base. This significantly differs from the practices of the world’s largest producer / consumer of firearms.
Canada represents between 1% and 4% of the world market for firearms. The vast majority of our firearms imports are new firearms which the manufacturers have refused to mark especially for Canada, a very small percentage of their world market. Indeed, many of the world’s largest manufacturers have already told us that we will have to put the U.N. Marking on ourselves.
The next issue is, How do we apply the Marking?
Canada does not have a large firearms manufacturing industry for domestic consumption, and Canadian importers do not have an existing setup that could be modified for this purpose, since they do no manufacturing. The time and cost to do this would be borne by the importers who would then have to pass these costs on to the Canadian consumer.
The only practical method of adding markings is by Computer Numerically Controlled (CNC) Laser Engraving. Firearms are made out of many different materials with different finishes( case hardened, camouflage film, plating etc.) and only the computerized laser has the versatility to engrave different grades of steel, aluminum, titanium, alloys, brass, case hardening, plated metals and polymer frames/receivers. High grade engraved receivers are another issue entirely.
However, the specialized laser engraving units are expensive, with costs approaching $100,000. Also, the jigs, fixtures and retainers for each make and model of manufactured firearm will be different from each other, and can cost as much as $30,000 each. There are literally thousands of different models required.
This costly process is also time consuming if attempted in Canada. Each importer would have to prepare a proper “factory area”, something they do not have in terms of sufficient space in existing facilities, or the profit margins to move to larger single purpose premises. In addition, specifically trained CNC employees would be needed solely for the purpose of marking imports with “CA 15”.
The actual marking process, if the necessary fixtures and laser equipment were available, entails that each firearm be removed from inventory, removed from its packaging, cleaned, disassembled if necessary, placed into a specific type fixture, engraved as required, refinished as needed and re-greased, repackaged and returned to inventory.
All of this must also, of course, be scrupulously paper worked. A time/cost analysis conducted with a major Canadian importer of firearms showed a best time of 20 minutes per firearm to do these tasks, or some 24 guns per eight hour shift. Factor this into the hundreds of thousands of firearms imported into Canada every year and the problem is obvious. Major importers will need several skilled full time employees (specifically trained CNC operators) doing nothing but applying the cursed U.N. mark to the guns, with expensive CNC machines, using expensive fixtures for each model of gun, in expensive new premises.
To stay in business, this enormous cost can only be absorbed by being passed on to the consumer, and the cost of a new firearm in Canada will skyrocket, perhaps as much as $200 per firearm in the first five years, per CSAAA (Canada's industry organization) estimates. This is the average cost applicable to any firearm regardless of retail price. It also makes the assumption that the importer can withstand the astronomical set up costs and is still in business.
This means a new firearm retailing at $150 may rise to about $350, while one retailing at $1,000 will rise to about $1,200. Based upon recent imports, this could result in a net cost to Canada’s firearms industry of approximately $60 million per year after the set up costs.
As if that isn’t enough, how will sellers of these firearms deal with the chronic corrosion problems (the laser burns through the firearm’s finish, of course). Marking the guns this way will certainly invalidate the factory warranty, and repair costs will therefore fall upon the Canadian industry. There may even be serious metallurgical issues caused by the application of intense heat to certain materials. Certainly any collector’s value will be destroyed and the resale value will be correspondingly reduced.
It is the considered opinion of the CSSA that the Canadian firearms industry cannot survive such a debilitating situation. Recovery would be highly doubtful at best.
The U.N. Marking System cannot be allowed to proceed forward in Canada. The livelihoods of thousands of Canadians and the economic health of a thriving industry depend upon its repeal.
On December 23rd, 2004, the Government of Canada introduced the new regulations on Firearms Marking. By their own admission, they were intended to comply with the United Nations Protocol against the Illicit Manufacturing of and Trafficking in Firearms, Their Parts and Components and Ammunition, supplementing the United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime and the Inter-American Convention Against the Illicit Manufacturing of and Trafficking in Firearms, Ammunition, Explosives, and Other Related Materials.
This law, postponed for 12 consecutive years by three consecutive governments, will come into force June 1, 2017 and its effect on the Canadian firearms industry could be disastrous. This program will require ALL imported guns to be marked with the country and year of import. Canada’s marking regulations (passed into law but not yet in force) are the following:
MARKING OF IMPORTED FIREARMS (Bill C-10A Regulations)
3. (1) Every individual, business or public service agency that imports a firearm shall ensure that the firearm is marked in accordance with section 4 before the 60th day after its release as defined in subsection 2(1) of the Customs Act or before transferring the firearm, whichever occurs first.
(2) Subsection (1) does not apply to
(a) a firearm imported by an individual under section 35 or 35.1 of the Act;
(b) a specially imported firearm;
(c) a protected firearm;
(d) a firearm that was initially exported from Canada by an individual or business if the individual or business retained ownership of the firearm while the firearm was outside Canada; or
(e) a firearm that was initially exported from Canada by a public service agency and that was retained by that agency as an agency firearm while the firearm was outside Canada.
MANNER OF MARKING
4. (1) The firearm shall be marked by permanently stamping or engraving on the firearm’s frame or receiver the word “Canada” or the letters “CA” and
(a) in the case of a manufactured firearm, the name of the manufacturer and the firearm’s serial number; and
(b) in the case of an imported firearm, the last two digits of the year of the importation.
(2) The markings shall
(a) be legible;
(b) have a depth of at least 0.076 mm and a height of at least 1.58 mm; and
(c) subject to subsection (3), be visible without the need to disassemble the firearm.
(3) In the case of an imported firearm, the Registrar, on application by the individual, business or public service agency that is importing it, shall grant the applicant an exemption from the requirement set out in paragraph (2)(c) if
(a) marking the firearm in a place that is visible only by disassembling the firearm is consistent with the
current practices of the manufacturer of that model of firearm;
(b) the firearm does not provide a visible space suitable to stamp or engrave the markings;
(c) the firearm is rare;
(d) the firearm is of a value that is unusually high for that type of firearm and that value would be significantly reduced if the markings were visible without disassembly; or
(e) the firearm is imported by a business that holds a licence for the purpose of using the firearm in respect of motion picture, television, video or theatrical productions or in publishing activities.
*****
The above appears in Canada's Marking Regulations. The intention of the Canadian Regulations is to put “CA-15” on the frame or receiver of all newly imported guns. It doesn’t sound like much, but in truth, its impact on Canadian industry is somewhat different and considerably darker than what appears by a simple reading of the above text. It may spell the end for much of Canada’s gun industry.
The first issue is that the marking of firearms imported into the United States has been addressed for a long time in one form or another; imports represent a small portion of their domestic consumption, and several foreign manufacturers such as Beretta, SIG and Glock have built production facilities in the U.S. to obtain a stronger market base. In Canada, this situation does not exist and we have a very small production industry for domestic consumption and precious few imports due to our restrictive legislation and smaller population base. This significantly differs from the practices of the world’s largest producer / consumer of firearms.
Canada represents between 1% and 4% of the world market for firearms. The vast majority of our firearms imports are new firearms which the manufacturers have refused to mark especially for Canada, a very small percentage of their world market. Indeed, many of the world’s largest manufacturers have already told us that we will have to put the U.N. Marking on ourselves.
The next issue is, How do we apply the Marking?
Canada does not have a large firearms manufacturing industry for domestic consumption, and Canadian importers do not have an existing setup that could be modified for this purpose, since they do no manufacturing. The time and cost to do this would be borne by the importers who would then have to pass these costs on to the Canadian consumer.
The only practical method of adding markings is by Computer Numerically Controlled (CNC) Laser Engraving. Firearms are made out of many different materials with different finishes( case hardened, camouflage film, plating etc.) and only the computerized laser has the versatility to engrave different grades of steel, aluminum, titanium, alloys, brass, case hardening, plated metals and polymer frames/receivers. High grade engraved receivers are another issue entirely.
However, the specialized laser engraving units are expensive, with costs approaching $100,000. Also, the jigs, fixtures and retainers for each make and model of manufactured firearm will be different from each other, and can cost as much as $30,000 each. There are literally thousands of different models required.
This costly process is also time consuming if attempted in Canada. Each importer would have to prepare a proper “factory area”, something they do not have in terms of sufficient space in existing facilities, or the profit margins to move to larger single purpose premises. In addition, specifically trained CNC employees would be needed solely for the purpose of marking imports with “CA 15”.
The actual marking process, if the necessary fixtures and laser equipment were available, entails that each firearm be removed from inventory, removed from its packaging, cleaned, disassembled if necessary, placed into a specific type fixture, engraved as required, refinished as needed and re-greased, repackaged and returned to inventory.
All of this must also, of course, be scrupulously paper worked. A time/cost analysis conducted with a major Canadian importer of firearms showed a best time of 20 minutes per firearm to do these tasks, or some 24 guns per eight hour shift. Factor this into the hundreds of thousands of firearms imported into Canada every year and the problem is obvious. Major importers will need several skilled full time employees (specifically trained CNC operators) doing nothing but applying the cursed U.N. mark to the guns, with expensive CNC machines, using expensive fixtures for each model of gun, in expensive new premises.
To stay in business, this enormous cost can only be absorbed by being passed on to the consumer, and the cost of a new firearm in Canada will skyrocket, perhaps as much as $200 per firearm in the first five years, per CSAAA (Canada's industry organization) estimates. This is the average cost applicable to any firearm regardless of retail price. It also makes the assumption that the importer can withstand the astronomical set up costs and is still in business.
This means a new firearm retailing at $150 may rise to about $350, while one retailing at $1,000 will rise to about $1,200. Based upon recent imports, this could result in a net cost to Canada’s firearms industry of approximately $60 million per year after the set up costs.
As if that isn’t enough, how will sellers of these firearms deal with the chronic corrosion problems (the laser burns through the firearm’s finish, of course). Marking the guns this way will certainly invalidate the factory warranty, and repair costs will therefore fall upon the Canadian industry. There may even be serious metallurgical issues caused by the application of intense heat to certain materials. Certainly any collector’s value will be destroyed and the resale value will be correspondingly reduced.
It is the considered opinion of the CSSA that the Canadian firearms industry cannot survive such a debilitating situation. Recovery would be highly doubtful at best.
The U.N. Marking System cannot be allowed to proceed forward in Canada. The livelihoods of thousands of Canadians and the economic health of a thriving industry depend upon its repeal.
CILA-1
CGN frequent flyer
Sadly, petitions are as useful as horns on a horse. They sound like a good idea but honestly, have very little effectiveness other than to potentially rise attention to an issue. If you want to do that for real, write a letter and cc your own MP.
CILA-1
CGN frequent flyer
It does not say, " ensure it is marked within 60 days of release from CBSA." It says, " ensure it is marked within 60 days AFTER its release from CBSA.
There are two components to all legislation, that is the "letter of the legislation" and the "spirit of the legislation." The "spirit of the legislation" refers to what the legislation was intended to do and the "letter of the legislation" refers to the way that will be accomplished.
In this case, the "spirit of the legislation" is to establish a system of marking firearms UPON IMPORT to a specified country. To place the marking on firearms that have not been shipped to Canada is not consistent with the spirit of the legislation. In that instance it would be an export mark applied by the manufacturer prior to export of the firearm. Given that other circumstances may not be in the control of the government of Canada nor of the importer, i.e., the firearm's possible diversion to another country, person, importer etc, the marking can not be done outside of Canada prior to export, and still be termed an import marking.
The lawyers concur.
pisces-guy
CGN frequent flyer
- Location
- West Kelowna, B.C.
Maybe Eastern Canada can join us in Western Canada in voting Conservative in the next election and not for that traitor moron Turd-oh Junior?
- Location
- B.C.
Seriously ? Other than using different form of grammar, they both mean the same thing. C'mon now.
Cameron SS
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- Ground Zero
I wish, but don't hold your breath. Whose votes do you think he is buying with that 60 billion deficit
Cameron SS
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- Ground Zero
You should read a trial decision where a judge has had to make a ruling on ambiguous wording. Grammatically, they dont mean the same thing and a judge has to get into the weeds to figure it out.
One means marked any time before 60 days from the date of release, the other means marked in the 60 day period from release to 60 days after.
Given that the legislative intent is import marking, markings before import arent really valid.
i agree wholeheartedly. I believe that anyone that thinks otherwise has their head in the sand or is simply naive. This is an import marking regulation, not export marking.
J996
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
The Russians re-marked millions of firearms after WW2 with an electro pencil. Lee Enfields were also electro penciled if I'm not mistaken (much better job than the ruskies). It won't win a beauty contest but it's cheap.
P.S. The UN and Turdo can suck it.
P.S. The UN and Turdo can suck it.
Last edited:
VinnyQC
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- Quebec city
The legislator's intent is clearly to have the marking on imported firearms, not to create jobs in Canada. It's definitely an import marking if Canadian imports have that marking. Canadian import papework is routinely done outside of canada.
The fact that a firearm marked CA17 could be diverted is irrelevant. A firearm manufacturer could very well mark a rifle CA17 and then send it to Syria, and no one in Canada would be able to stop it.
Look at it from a different point of view: suppose a firearm is marked CA17 by the manufacturer at the factory (for whatever reason of their choosing, the manufacturer has chosen by himself to mark CA17 on that firearm), would the CBSA stop that firearm on that sole basis? Of course not. So then CBSA, in whatever manner they see fit, decides after 60 days to inspect said firearm. They see that it's marked CA17 (duh...), which is a valid import marking. Somehow, they get a warm and fuzzy feeling of having done their job. In this scenario. the only way to effectively force the marking after the firearm has entered the country would be to bar entry to any firearm for the sole reason that it has the import marking before entering the country. That would be nut, and then the logical step for that manufacturer who has a whole shipment of firearms that he can't sell anywhere due to those ugly markings would be to unload them in the nearest conflict zone in retaliation.
- Location
- B.C.
I'm kind of slow I guess so make it easy for me. A gun is released January 1. What is the deadline to have it marked under the two different meanings ?
Cameron SS
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- Ground Zero
The difference isn't in the deadline. The difference is when the gun can be marked.
Under the two different meanings, assuming January 1 release date, one gun must be marked at any time in human history prior to March 1st. Under the other meaning, the gun must be marked between January 1st and march 1st, meaning it can not have been done at the time of manufacture.
- Location
- B.C.
With all due respect Cameron, this is where I disagree. I feel that the regulation is crystal clear and honestly do not understand where there is any room for different interpretations. The gun has to be marked before the 60th day after it's release. It does not specify who has to mark it just as stated in the opinion offered by Mr. Gallant. I give up though. It's not my forum or issue to resolve. Have fun with this.
MARKING OF IMPORTED FIREARMS (Bill C-10A Regulations)
3. (1) Every individual, business or public service agency that imports a firearm shall ensure that the firearm is marked in accordance with section 4 before the 60th day after its release as defined in subsection 2(1) of the Customs Act or before transferring the firearm, whichever occurs first.
MARKING OF IMPORTED FIREARMS (Bill C-10A Regulations)
3. (1) Every individual, business or public service agency that imports a firearm shall ensure that the firearm is marked in accordance with section 4 before the 60th day after its release as defined in subsection 2(1) of the Customs Act or before transferring the firearm, whichever occurs first.
joe6167
CGN frequent flyer
- Location
- Warszawa, Polska
What other countries are now bound by this treaty? Has anyone heard anything about the experiences of gun owners and importers in those countries?
joe6167
CGN frequent flyer
- Location
- Warszawa, Polska
How much was allocated for this registry?
Cameron SS
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- Ground Zero
Yes it can be interpreted multiple ways, which is one of the problems that all importers will face day 1 of this regulations coming into force. Without a clear interpretation, some bureaucrat will take a guess, and only a court challenge can resolve it for sure.
The UN Arms Trade Treaty has been signed by over 130 countries, and ratified by 89. The vast majority of them have no domestic arms manufacturing, virtually no civilian firearms ownership, and already pay exorbitant customs and taxes for the importation of firearms. A significant proportion of them are banana republics where the vast majority of imported arms are owned by government officials who can easily avoid having their precious personal use firearms avoid state import controls. https://www.un.org/disarmament/convarms/att/
Most European countries have signed the treaty. Not sure how implementation is going, but the fact that domestic manufacturers can mark at the time of manufacture without cost, but imported firearms must be marked afterwards which includes cost, this has the de facto effect of emphasizing a buy local approach to civilian sporting arms, but putting a premium on imported firearms.
Its also quite possible the EU has worked out some special arrangement where guns crossing borders within the EU need not be marked, as long as the original country of manufacture within the EU has marked the place of origin.
It would be a great step in the right direction if we could work out such an agreement with the US, given the volume of imports crossing that border alone.
Cameron SS
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- Ground Zero
I doubt it. The spartan markings which created the new variant were done by the manufacture for marketing purposes.
These markings will be done by a 3rd party for legal compliance purposes.
