Trudeau and Blair BAN 12 Gauge and 10 Gauge SHOTGUNS!

[Big-boss-man]

The bore is the interior of a barrel of a firearm. Bore diameter, which is the issue at hand, is the interior dimension of the barrel forward of the chamber but before any restrictive choke or expanded muzzle.

And HOW is that determined? Is it safe to say that the bore is the LARGEST diameter?

 

[CosmiC10R]

Honest question, maybe I’m missing it but now where does it state that the forensic standard for bore diameter is the widest portion?

Fair question... and keep in mind I'm just another gun owner trying to piece it all together too

here is what that is derived from... So if this is how CBSA measures it... what is that based on... you can see how convoluted it gets...

Importing and Exporting Firearms, Weapons and Devices
Memorandum D19-13-2

So if the CBSA uses this as an importation standard... why does it change after it crosses the border?



Remember... muzzle devices are NOT used to calculate barrel length....

So if muzzle devices arent used to calculate barrel length...
Why are they used to calculate bore dimensions...

And if CBSA imports guns based on that standard of bore definition..
why does it change after importation to Canada in relation to the OIC and its interpretation?

 

[Spinoza]

And HOW is that determined? Is it safe to say that the bore is the LARGEST diameter?

I’m a retired lawyer with a fair bit of experience relevant to this thread. Let me say that I’m a long time firearms owner, and that I don’t at all agree with the OIC here, which will I think, do nothing whatever to advance public safety, and which I think was instead drafted with purely, and coldly, political motives. I also think it less than well thought out, inelegantly drafted, contains some clear mistakes, and shouldn’t have been put in force by the route adopted. I hope the present government pays a political price for it. However the notion that it turns shotguns into prohibited weapons is not, in my view, correct, and advancing that argument does not, in my view, help our cause. At best, it’s a distraction; at worst, it makes us look foolish.

This notion started as a result of an opinion which I have read. I do not know the motives behind the writing of that opinion; I do disagree with the conclusion. While hardly necessary: I am not now a practicing lawyer, and what follows is but my opinion, and not legal advice.

The opinion upon which this whole mess is based has, as its core premise, the following definition: “The bore of a firearm barrel is the largest internal diameter of the barrel tube through which the projectile travels.” (Emphasis added.)This is stated without any authority whatever. The core question is: is this correct? Given that the conclusions of the opinion depend entirely upon the acceptance of the definition, it’s a tad strange that it is presented without giving any authority.

Be that as it may. How do you interpret s. 95 which, subject to some exceptions, makes “(a)ny firearm with a bore diameter of 20 mm or greater...” a prohibited weapon.? Obviously, how you determine the bore diameter is pretty important. Note that ‘bore’ in “bore diameter” doesn’t have the same meaning as ‘bore’ in the definition quoted above. Here ‘bore’ simply means the interior of the barrel, and prohibits barrels whose measured internal diameter is 20mm or more. So the question is: where do you measure it? If the bore is of constant diameter, no problem (leaving aside land to land or grove to grove issues). But if it isn’t, do you measure at the smallest bit, the largest bit, or take some average? The terms ‘bore’ and ‘bore diameter’ aren’t defined in the OIC, the regulations, or Firearms Act. So we have to look at normal usage, and the legislative intent, as shown, among other things, by the relevant bits of the language of the OIC itself.

Let’s do both. To start with legislative intent: is the intent to prohibit weapons with large bores, because they are a danger in and of themselves, or is it to prohibit weapons capable of firing projectiles with certain characteristics? The objectives stated in the OIC are to prohibit firearms “...characterized by their design and their capability of inflicting significant harm....” We can also look to the particularized list, which includes anti-tank rifles, mortars, missile launchers and the like. Not a single firearm on the list fires a projectile less than 20mm in diameter, and all of the intended projectiles are capable of inflicting more damage than your average rifle or shotgun. So the question is: is the intent of the legislation to prohibit weapons capable of firing projectiles larger than 20mm in diameter, which would entail measuring bore diameter at the smallest bit, or is it to ban an Elmer Fudd style .22 rifle, manufactured with a flared muzzle exceeding 20mm, although the rifle is incapable of firing anything other than a .22? That would be a silly result, and isn’t consistent with the stated objectives. There’s a principle of legislative interpretation that you don’t adopt a meaning that gives a silly result when a meaning that doesn’t give a silly result is available. Accordingly, ‘bore diameter’ means as measured at the smallest point if the bore has a varying diameter.

What about normal usage? While hardly precisely defined terms of art, ‘bore’ and ‘calibre’ are sometimes defined such that for a particular barrel ‘bore’ is the inside diameter of the barrel, and ‘calibre’ is the outside diameter of a projectile that barrel will fire, and that calibre roughly equals bore. For obvious reasons, if the barrel is not of constant diameter, the bore is the smallest diameter of the barrel. That usage is common enough that defining ‘bore’ as the “...largest internal diameter of the barrel tube...” is clearly wrong.

Finally, given that the OIC effectively creates a crime, and is therefore to be strictly construed in favour of an accused, there is simply no way on earth given the above, and given other factors - such as whether the language is the section can even be applied to shotguns given their barrels are measured by gauge, not by bore diameter, and given that the Minister responsible says otherwise, that any court would find a 12 gauge shotgun is captured by the language of this OIC, or that any Crown would approve a charge in the first place.

A final point: the language in the OIC which effectively makes some firearms prohibited starts off with “the firearms...” or “any firearm.... ” In other words, if something isn’t a firearm, the language that follows doesn’t apply, and ‘firearm’ does have a legislative definition. So because a flare gun isn’t a firearm, the OIC doesn’t apply however big the bore. So too with air soft guns or the like. Just because it has a name that occurs in a list, it doesn’t become a prohibited firearm, unless it was a firearm in the first place. To put it another way: the OIC only changes the classification of some firearms; it doesn’t make anything a firearm that wasn’t so in the first place. I can name my dog AR-15. The OIC doesn’t thereby make him into a prohibited weapon.

 

[CosmiC10R]

The opinion upon which this whole mess is based has, as its core premise, the following definition: “The bore of a firearm barrel is the largest internal diameter of the barrel tube through which the projectile travels.” (Emphasis added.)This is stated without any authority whatever. The core question is: is this correct? Given that the conclusions of the opinion depend entirely upon the acceptance of the definition, it’s a tad strange that it is presented without giving any authority.

Be that as it may. How do you interpret s. 95 which, subject to some exceptions, makes “(a)ny firearm with a bore diameter of 20 mm or greater...” a prohibited weapon.? Obviously, how you determine the bore

Wouldnt the standard the CBSA uses for importation be a metric?

 

[Mds694]

And HOW is that determined? Is it safe to say that the bore is the LARGEST diameter?

Largest diameter forward of any restrictive choke or expanded muzzle..

 

[CosmiC10R]

Largest diameter forward of any restrictive choke or expanded muzzle..

where was that from again?

 

[anglia2]

Too many people don't get it.
If you force them to admit they ####ed it, it forces them to acknowledge that the legislation is deeply flawed.
When the fudds and good ole boys agree with Bill Blair that their shotguns are exempt without it being included in the legislation they/you are enabling his efforts.
They are never going to actually come for your shotguns, but you need to convince them that they technically must so it forces their hand.

Too many halfwit boomers here are far too willing to throw everyone else in the sport under the bus so long as it means they get warm and fuzzies from Bill Blair that their duck gun is safe.

This is the perfect opportunity to stand up with each other but self serving idiots are standing in the way. But boomers never were the generation to give a #### about anyone else.
If we don't all get on the same page when they are done banning mine, I am going to support them coming for yours.

I stand to loose a number of guns . I've already had a large number of guns declared prohib by the same bunch of imbeciles in the 1970's and again in the 90's . Long story short , I'm a boomer and I'm on your side . It isn't about boomers and Gen Xers and Millenials . It's always been about people who enjoy shooting and those who don't like people like you and me . There are just as many people in the above mentioned groups who hate guns and people who like guns , Boomers or Millenials , to be honest , probably more in the under 35 group . I understand your frustration , believe me , I've been fighting it for over 45 years . Don't turn it into OK Boomer moment , it isn't , it's about people who don't like what we all stand for trying to take it away , the same bunch who were sticking it to me before the word Millenial existed .

AB

 

[Big-boss-man]

Largest diameter forward of any restrictive choke or expanded muzzle..

Ok so largest diameter. This being your position how can you argue that 12 gauge with a diameter at the muzzle exceeding 20mm is not prohibited? (Nb I have just established that the cbsa uses the length of barrel from muzzle to breach as bore)

 

[Spinoza]

Wouldnt the standard the CBSA uses for importation be a metric?

If it defined what bore diameter means or how to measure it, it would be relevant, although not determinative. But it doesn’t. So it isn’t.

 

[Mds694]

I’m a retired lawyer with a fair bit of experience relevant to this thread. Let me say that I’m a long time firearms owner, and that I don’t at all agree with the OIC here, which will I think, do nothing whatever to advance public safety, and which I think was instead drafted with purely, and coldly, political motives. I also think it less than well thought out, inelegantly drafted, contains some clear mistakes, and shouldn’t have been put in force by the route adopted. I hope the present government pays a political price for it. However the notion that it turns shotguns into prohibited weapons is not, in my view, correct, and advancing that argument does not, in my view, help our cause. At best, it’s a distraction; at worst, it makes us look foolish.

This notion started as a result of an opinion which I have read. I do not know the motives behind the writing of that opinion; I do disagree with the conclusion. While hardly necessary: I am not now a practicing lawyer, and what follows is but my opinion, and not legal advice.

The opinion upon which this whole mess is based has, as its core premise, the following definition: “The bore of a firearm barrel is the largest internal diameter of the barrel tube through which the projectile travels.” (Emphasis added.)This is stated without any authority whatever. The core question is: is this correct? Given that the conclusions of the opinion depend entirely upon the acceptance of the definition, it’s a tad strange that it is presented without giving any authority.

Be that as it may. How do you interpret s. 95 which, subject to some exceptions, makes “(a)ny firearm with a bore diameter of 20 mm or greater...” a prohibited weapon.? Obviously, how you determine the bore diameter is pretty important. Note that ‘bore’ in “bore diameter” doesn’t have the same meaning as ‘bore’ in the definition quoted above. Here ‘bore’ simply means the interior of the barrel, and prohibits barrels whose measured internal diameter is 20mm or more. So the question is: where do you measure it? If the bore is of constant diameter, no problem (leaving aside land to land or grove to grove issues). But if it isn’t, do you measure at the smallest bit, the largest bit, or take some average? The terms ‘bore’ and ‘bore diameter’ aren’t defined in the OIC, the regulations, or Firearms Act. So we have to look at normal usage, and the legislative intent, as shown, among other things, by the relevant bits of the language of the OIC itself.

Let’s do both. To start with legislative intent: is the intent to prohibit weapons with large bores, because they are a danger in and of themselves, or is it to prohibit weapons capable of firing projectiles with certain characteristics? The objectives stated in the OIC are to prohibit firearms “...characterized by their design and their capability of inflicting significant harm....” We can also look to the particularized list, which includes anti-tank rifles, mortars, missile launchers and the like. Not a single firearm on the list fires a projectile less than 20mm in diameter, and all of the intended projectiles are capable of inflicting more damage than your average rifle or shotgun. So the question is: is the intent of the legislation to prohibit weapons capable of firing projectiles larger than 20mm in diameter, which would entail measuring bore diameter at the smallest bit, or is it to ban an Elmer Fudd style .22 rifle, manufactured with a flared muzzle exceeding 20mm, although the rifle is incapable of firing anything other than a .22? That would be a silly result, and isn’t consistent with the stated objectives. There’s a principle of legislative interpretation that you don’t adopt a meaning that gives a silly result when a meaning that doesn’t give a silly result is available. Accordingly, ‘bore diameter’ means as measured at the smallest point if the bore has a varying diameter.

What about normal usage? While hardly precisely defined terms of art, ‘bore’ and ‘calibre’ are sometimes defined such that for a particular barrel ‘bore’ is the inside diameter of the barrel, and ‘calibre’ is the outside diameter of a projectile that barrel will fire, and that calibre roughly equals bore. For obvious reasons, if the barrel is not of constant diameter, the bore is the smallest diameter of the barrel. That usage is common enough that defining ‘bore’ as the “...largest internal diameter of the barrel tube...” is clearly wrong.

Finally, given that the OIC effectively creates a crime, and is therefore to be strictly construed in favour of an accused, there is simply no way on earth given the above, and given other factors - such as whether the language is the section can even be applied to shotguns given their barrels are measured by gauge, not by bore diameter, and given that the Minister responsible says otherwise, that any court would find a 12 gauge shotgun is captured by the language of this OIC, or that any Crown would approve a charge in the first place.

A final point: the language in the OIC which effectively makes some firearms prohibited starts off with “the firearms...” or “any firearm.... ” In other words, if something isn’t a firearm, the language that follows doesn’t apply, and ‘firearm’ does have a legislative definition. So because a flare gun isn’t a firearm, the OIC doesn’t apply however big the bore. So too with air soft guns or the like. Just because it has a name that occurs in a list, it doesn’t become a prohibited firearm, unless it was a firearm in the first place. To put it another way: the OIC only changes the classification of some firearms; it doesn’t make anything a firearm that wasn’t so in the first place. I can name my dog AR-15. The OIC doesn’t thereby make him into a prohibited weapon.

This. 100% this. What I’ve been suggesting all day, in perhaps a slightly more confrontational way.

 

[Mds694]

delete

 

[CosmiC10R]

If it defined what bore diameter means or how to measure it, it would be relevant, although not determinative. But it doesn’t. So it isn’t.

So how would the CBSA know whether it was a legal import? If there is no metric... If the CBSA cant define the 20mm limit... how do they approve imports?

Since the CBSA doesnt seem to define it... what can we import to Canada with no definition... wouldnt that mean we couldnt import choke shotguns because they might be prohibited and not understanding the definition of a law isnt a defense?

Or does it mean the CBSA approves all imports and we get to find out in court?

 

[Mds694]

Ok so largest diameter. This being your position how can you argue that 12 gauge with a diameter at the muzzle exceeding 20mm is not prohibited? (Nb I have just established that the cbsa uses the length of barrel from muzzle to breach as bore)

Because technically it’s an expanded muzzle.

 

[scottsman]

The problem here is certain members are assuming that the police officer looking at their firearm will be very knowledgeable and know that the bore opens up for the choke. Not so. Legislation needs to be clear so even the dumbest police officer understands it. And trust me the guy measuring your bore isn’t going to be smart. He’s going to be the dumbest knuckle dragger on the force. Puts his cartridges in backwards dumb. Has a negligent discharge at least once a year dumb. And you’re putting your faith in him(or her) to properly use a set of calipers rather than demand Bill Blair fix this flawed piece of regulation. So who is really the dumb one here? I haven’t been alive long and even I know they aren’t scraping the best off the top. I have met officers who didn’t even understand basic vehicle insurance regulations. Just straight up bang your head against your steering wheel dumb and they are capable of ruining your life. By all means though put your trust in them to understand what the OIC means.

 

[Mds694]

The problem here is certain members are assuming that the police officer looking at their firearm will be very knowledgeable and know that the bore opens up for the choke. Not so. Legislation needs to be clear so even the dumbest police officer understands it. And trust me the guy measuring your bore isn’t going to be smart. He’s going to be the dumbest knuckle dragger on the force. Puts his cartridges in backwards dumb. Has a negligent discharge at least once a year dumb. And you’re putting your faith in him(or her) to properly use a set of calipers rather than demand Bill Blair fix this flawed piece of regulation. So who is really the dumb one here? I haven’t been alive long and even I know they aren’t scraping the best off the top. I have met officers who didn’t even understand basic vehicle insurance regulations. Just straight up bang your head against your steering wheel dumb and they are capable of ruining your life. By all means though put your trust in them to understand what the OIC means.

So puts his cartridge in backwards and doesn’t know what a choke is yet is going to know how to remove one to take a measurement??

 

[Big-boss-man]

If it defined what bore diameter means or how to measure it, it would be relevant, although not determinative. But it doesn’t. So it isn’t.

I love how some troll with 3 posts comes here as a purported lawyer with all the answers just in the nick of time.

 

[Big-boss-man]

Because technically it’s an expanded muzzle.

And this matters for your definition of bore that we just established because?

 

[Mds694]

And this matters for your definition of bore that we just established because?

You were asking questions so I answered...but as far as I can tell it’s as good a definition as any that’s been offered on here.

 

[Spinoza]

The problem here is certain members are assuming that the police officer looking at their firearm will be very knowledgeable and know that the bore opens up for the choke. Not so. Legislation needs to be clear so even the dumbest police officer understands it. And trust me the guy measuring your bore isn’t going to be smart. He’s going to be the dumbest knuckle dragger on the force. Puts his cartridges in backwards dumb. Has a negligent discharge at least once a year dumb. And you’re putting your faith in him(or her) to properly use a set of calipers rather than demand Bill Blair fix this flawed piece of regulation. So who is really the dumb one here? I haven’t been alive long and even I know they aren’t scraping the best off the top. I have met officers who didn’t even understand basic vehicle insurance regulations. Just straight up bang your head against your steering wheel dumb and they are capable of ruining your life. By all means though put your trust in them to understand what the OIC means.

A police officer is as likely to use use callipers to measure the bore diameter of your shotgun as he is to bring out lab equipment to measure the muzzle energy when your rifle is discharged. Ain’t the way the world works. I can guarantee you that most any police officer is smart enough to (a) distinguish a shotgun from a mortar or rocket launcher, and (b) not arrest people for possessing shotguns when they will have most certainly been instructed otherwise.

 

[Bfranklin]

I’m a retired lawyer with a fair bit of experience relevant to this thread. Let me say that I’m a long time firearms owner, and that I don’t at all agree with the OIC here, which will I think, do nothing whatever to advance public safety, and which I think was instead drafted with purely, and coldly, political motives. I also think it less than well thought out, inelegantly drafted, contains some clear mistakes, and shouldn’t have been put in force by the route adopted. I hope the present government pays a political price for it. However the notion that it turns shotguns into prohibited weapons is not, in my view, correct, and advancing that argument does not, in my view, help our cause. At best, it’s a distraction; at worst, it makes us look foolish.

This notion started as a result of an opinion which I have read. I do not know the motives behind the writing of that opinion; I do disagree with the conclusion. While hardly necessary: I am not now a practicing lawyer, and what follows is but my opinion, and not legal advice.

The opinion upon which this whole mess is based has, as its core premise, the following definition: “The bore of a firearm barrel is the largest internal diameter of the barrel tube through which the projectile travels.” (Emphasis added.)This is stated without any authority whatever. The core question is: is this correct? Given that the conclusions of the opinion depend entirely upon the acceptance of the definition, it’s a tad strange that it is presented without giving any authority.

Be that as it may. How do you interpret s. 95 which, subject to some exceptions, makes “(a)ny firearm with a bore diameter of 20 mm or greater...” a prohibited weapon.? Obviously, how you determine the bore diameter is pretty important. Note that ‘bore’ in “bore diameter” doesn’t have the same meaning as ‘bore’ in the definition quoted above. Here ‘bore’ simply means the interior of the barrel, and prohibits barrels whose measured internal diameter is 20mm or more. So the question is: where do you measure it? If the bore is of constant diameter, no problem (leaving aside land to land or grove to grove issues). But if it isn’t, do you measure at the smallest bit, the largest bit, or take some average? The terms ‘bore’ and ‘bore diameter’ aren’t defined in the OIC, the regulations, or Firearms Act. So we have to look at normal usage, and the legislative intent, as shown, among other things, by the relevant bits of the language of the OIC itself.

Let’s do both. To start with legislative intent: is the intent to prohibit weapons with large bores, because they are a danger in and of themselves, or is it to prohibit weapons capable of firing projectiles with certain characteristics? The objectives stated in the OIC are to prohibit firearms “...characterized by their design and their capability of inflicting significant harm....” We can also look to the particularized list, which includes anti-tank rifles, mortars, missile launchers and the like. Not a single firearm on the list fires a projectile less than 20mm in diameter, and all of the intended projectiles are capable of inflicting more damage than your average rifle or shotgun. So the question is: is the intent of the legislation to prohibit weapons capable of firing projectiles larger than 20mm in diameter, which would entail measuring bore diameter at the smallest bit, or is it to ban an Elmer Fudd style .22 rifle, manufactured with a flared muzzle exceeding 20mm, although the rifle is incapable of firing anything other than a .22? That would be a silly result, and isn’t consistent with the stated objectives. There’s a principle of legislative interpretation that you don’t adopt a meaning that gives a silly result when a meaning that doesn’t give a silly result is available. Accordingly, ‘bore diameter’ means as measured at the smallest point if the bore has a varying diameter.

What about normal usage? While hardly precisely defined terms of art, ‘bore’ and ‘calibre’ are sometimes defined such that for a particular barrel ‘bore’ is the inside diameter of the barrel, and ‘calibre’ is the outside diameter of a projectile that barrel will fire, and that calibre roughly equals bore. For obvious reasons, if the barrel is not of constant diameter, the bore is the smallest diameter of the barrel. That usage is common enough that defining ‘bore’ as the “...largest internal diameter of the barrel tube...” is clearly wrong.

Finally, given that the OIC effectively creates a crime, and is therefore to be strictly construed in favour of an accused, there is simply no way on earth given the above, and given other factors - such as whether the language is the section can even be applied to shotguns given their barrels are measured by gauge, not by bore diameter, and given that the Minister responsible says otherwise, that any court would find a 12 gauge shotgun is captured by the language of this OIC, or that any Crown would approve a charge in the first place.

A final point: the language in the OIC which effectively makes some firearms prohibited starts off with “the firearms...” or “any firearm.... ” In other words, if something isn’t a firearm, the language that follows doesn’t apply, and ‘firearm’ does have a legislative definition. So because a flare gun isn’t a firearm, the OIC doesn’t apply however big the bore. So too with air soft guns or the like. Just because it has a name that occurs in a list, it doesn’t become a prohibited firearm, unless it was a firearm in the first place. To put it another way: the OIC only changes the classification of some firearms; it doesn’t make anything a firearm that wasn’t so in the first place. I can name my dog AR-15. The OIC doesn’t thereby make him into a prohibited weapon.

Good job.

It has been said before, we are our own worst enemy.

If any retailer chose to not sell me the 12g of my choice tomorrow, I would consider them off limits forever.