Love for dewats?

There is no LAW about deactivation , only a RCMP crime lab guide line.

I figured, thanks. So in essence, it's an honor system and only the receiver needs to be "deactivated" as per the law... not the mag, barrel, bolt, carrier, firing pin and 1000 other non-controlled parts.

So the questions still stands: why is it that all those "gunsmiths" go to town with torches, grinders and welders on historical firearms, converting them into one solid piece of steel slag? Wouldn't a "DEWAT" be more interesting (and worth more to a collector) if only the receiver was permanently altered beyond function?
 
Well its not quite a honour system. You could 'deactivate' it to your standards and when you go to deregister the firearm (say if it is a 12.2 prohib), they could tell you it is still a firearm and as such you have wasted your time and money as you can't use it in any way. You could try and fight it in court, but good luck with that. They are the expert witnesses, you do not qualify as the same.
 
1,Gunsmiths have to follow the guide or they won't get another business licence.
2,When dewats are seized now, and no other criminal charges are being laid the police will give you 2 options . turn them in for destruction .
or have them welded up to the current guide line by a licensed Gunsmith.
3, they don't tell you, you have the option to take them to court . which will cost you $20 -30 thousand in lawyer bills and 5 to 7 years of your life fighting there BS.
 
Ok. Let's put it another way then: can you remove all parts from receiver and deactivate the receiver only and have it de-registered, which is in essence "the firearm" as per the law?

I understand some folks are way too scared of their own shadow to even ask this hypothetical (but legally sound) question, but that's not what I asked about... let's exit the safe space of pamphlets for a minute and have a real discussion, lol.
 
Ok. Let's put it another way then: can you remove all parts from receiver and deactivate the receiver only and have it de-registered, which is in essence "the firearm" as per the law?

I understand some folks are way too scared of their own shadow to even ask this hypothetical (but legally sound) question, but that's not what I asked about... let's exit the safe space of pamphlets for a minute and have a real discussion, lol.

Ok I’ll play... I’m gonna keep it as simple as I can. If you have another gun or idea in mind let me know.

Mike from Canmore buys another AR-15 from joe averagecgner.... mike doesn’t want this gun as it makes his canoe too heavy so he calls up the queens cowboys. The RCMP kindly inform mike that he can deactivate this gun, they know mike and he don’t sell guns and they don’t want him having ANOTHER boating accident. he’s really causing a back log with all his water sports....
Mike is a cheap fellow... his solution is simple. He strips the gun and cuts the lower in half at the magazine well with an angle grinder.
Now it comes down to opinions. Mine is that this meets the letter of the law as deactivated. The answer to your question is known only to the RCMP and they tend to change theirs from time to time. I’d like to hear yours.


An edit to add... it might matter if the RCMP can duct tape it back together. You’d be propper f@cked if they’ve got gorilla tape
 
Probably more of a case of not being permitted to own the firearm at all unless it is a deactivated version.....an FN FAL comes to mind . Pretty much buy a deactivated model , or not have one at all . Just another example of how unfair Canadian Firearm laws are .

I'll take "Not At All" for $300, Alex.

Dewats make me sad.
 
Myself, i haven't the funds for a non-operational gun. Theres a lovely C1A1 on the EE I'd grab if it werent 3000$... and if i had that money in the firearms budget that it's deactivated kinda settles that.
 
I’m very interested in this topic and have the same questions as 762mm! I’m looking at dewating an ak47. And want to know the criteria. I feel bad ya I do guns don’t deserve to be chopped up and hobbled it not right. I would gladly pay 20grand to have all prohibited classes just so I could buy them and save them.
 
Ok. Let's put it another way then: can you remove all parts from receiver and deactivate the receiver only and have it de-registered, which is in essence "the firearm" as per the law?

I understand some folks are way too scared of their own shadow to even ask this hypothetical (but legally sound) question, but that's not what I asked about... let's exit the safe space of pamphlets for a minute and have a real discussion, lol.

Known as a parts kit. Available for sale from CGN sponsors
 
Ok I’ll play... I’m gonna keep it as simple as I can. If you have another gun or idea in mind let me know.

Mike from Canmore buys another AR-15 from joe averagecgner.... mike doesn’t want this gun as it makes his canoe too heavy so he calls up the queens cowboys. The RCMP kindly inform mike that he can deactivate this gun, they know mike and he don’t sell guns and they don’t want him having ANOTHER boating accident. he’s really causing a back log with all his water sports....
Mike is a cheap fellow... his solution is simple. He strips the gun and cuts the lower in half at the magazine well with an angle grinder.
Now it comes down to opinions. Mine is that this meets the letter of the law as deactivated. The answer to your question is known only to the RCMP and they tend to change theirs from time to time. I’d like to hear yours.


My opinion is pretty simple. You call them up, tell them you have an "XYZ receiver" you want to deactivate and ask what the legal procedure is for receiver deactivation. The rest of the parts that were once attached to said receiver were sold to Mike from Canmore, for all they need to care - because those parts are not controlled and not considered "firearms".

This is true for any type (class) of firearm, not only prohibs. If you strip a NR Lee Enfield receiver, sell or re-purpose the other parts and want to "deactivate" the receiver itself afterwards, who says you can't? It's been done plenty of times, actually. I even remember reading old CGN posts back in the day saying that the CFO would be satisfied with a picture of the receiver being cut or rendered inoperable, as long as the serial number was visible and matched.

The point is that a DEWAT can no longer be a functional firearm, and the receiver is the firearm. Therefore, a receiver which is no longer functional is no longer a firearm, as per the law of the land. If you put or attach other "not a firearm" attachments to it afterwards, it's still not a firearm. The only way for it to re-become a firearm is if you somehow make the receiver functional again - with or without attaching any other parts to it. By functional, we mean able to chamber, fire and cycle the action (if the other parts were to be reattached to it).


In any case, I have no idea where all the nervous nellies get their pamphlet gospel from (actually I do - the Liberal gun grabbers' wish list), but all you really need to worry about is the law. No one is advocating breaking the law, but at the same time no one is above the law -- not even the "boogeyman" CFO / RCMP gun lab some on here fear so much, lol!


(this is why there will never be an NRA-like org in this country... way too many beta gun owners scared to even jiggle the boat a tiny bit by asking the right questions, lol) :d



Known as a parts kit. Available for sale from CGN sponsors

Exacto mundo. :)

The parts kit argument was my next one, for those still clinging to the "legal necessity" of turning the whole gun from butt pad to muzzle into one solid piece of scrap metal.
 
Last edited:
interesting train of thought we have going here.

However there is a distinction between the destruction of a receiver and the creation of a Dewat that the CFO may be making.

now if you have a destroyed receiver and wanted to build up a dewat on that what is the spec or would they decide that if it does not meet their guidelines for a dewat is it now a replica.
 
interesting train of thought we have going here.

However there is a distinction between the destruction of a receiver and the creation of a Dewat that the CFO may be making.

now if you have a destroyed receiver and wanted to build up a dewat on that what is the spec or would they decide that if it does not meet their guidelines for a dewat is it now a replica.

I was thinking the same thing about "building a dewat" 1919 from a side plate, or as the latest round of stupid ideas from the RCMP any of the other plates or trunnion .
 
interesting train of thought we have going here.

However there is a distinction between the destruction of a receiver and the creation of a Dewat that the CFO may be making.

now if you have a destroyed receiver and wanted to build up a dewat on that what is the spec or would they decide that if it does not meet their guidelines for a dewat is it now a replica.

There exists a legal principle in Canada, recognized by all the Courts which stipulates that "Anything not expressly forbidden [by law] is permitted"

Firearms are regulated by the Firearms Act. Nowhere in the FA does it say that attaching unregulated parts to something not deemed to be a firearm (like a dewat receiver) will make it a firearm. The LAW is all you really need to worry about, not pamphlets with some unelected organization's wish list, aka "guidelines". So, what does THE LAW say about it?

It's the same deal as the whole 80% receiver fiasco. The FA does not consider a receiver-shaped brick of aluminum or polymer a firearm (as it cannot be made to chamber, fire and cycle the action), yet the RCMP "guideline" says it is nevertheless a PROHIBITED firearm, because "one could make it into a functioning receiver" and "they don't see another utility for it". Being well aware of the legal process and the way Courts work, I am really curious to know how many people actually got charged and convicted for one of those, as this supposed "new law" is absolutely made up and not voted on/passed by the Parliament and Senate. I'd wager my next pay check that the answer is ZERO.

As for spending your 5 future generations' earnings to "defend" yourself for having a non-guideline dewat built on an officially deactivated receiver, that's b.s. too... first you are very unlikely to get charged (unless you are an illiterate moron and they think they can get away with it by having you surrender the "guns" in exchange for "dropped charges"), second it would be the shortest Court case in history: "the article of law does not exist, your Honor!"

Second case in point: the Ruger 10/22 extended mags: how many people charged and convicted so far for this "on the fly" made-up infraction? How can they prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the mag was made after the introduction of the Ruger Charger in Canada? You are constantly being fed total b.s. and aren't even asking questions, folks. Then you wonder why and how they can sneak things like C-71 right past you...


:rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom