Trudeau and Blair BAN 12 Gauge and 10 Gauge SHOTGUNS!

Big-boss-man said:
I love how some troll with 3 posts comes here as a purported lawyer with all the answers just in the nick of time.
Click to expand...

Take my post as you will. I likely want the same outcome as you. But tactics matter. While fighting fire with fire is sometimes necessary, in my view fighting idiocy with idiocy ain’t a sound tactic.
 
Spinoza said:
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.
Click to expand...

It's TRUE... they were instructed...


Largely because the real point is to make sure the actual firearms ban that was announced May 1st goes off without a hitch...

;)
 
Big-boss-man said:
I love how some troll with 3 posts comes here as a purported lawyer with all the answers just in the nick of time.
Click to expand...

Yeah kinda fishy.

I'm also amazed at how many people want to just hope that the cops will be reasonable with the law, after so many years of ridiculous rulings.
 
Spinoza said:
Take my post as you will. I likely want the same outcome as you. But tactics matter. While fighting fire with fire is sometimes necessary, in my view fighting idiocy with idiocy ain’t a sound tactic.
Click to expand...

I cant speak for Boss man but I would be interested to hear you outline the outcome you want...

Is it a complete repeal of the firearms act and a criminal registry?
Maybe using your legal expertise to advocate for CCW?
 
Mds694 said:
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.
Click to expand...

Well now we are going in circles down the drain. Seriously tho i couldn't give 2 craps what you do or do not do. I couldn't care less what your (or anyone else) interpretation of the 20mm bore deal is. If I'm right or if I'm wrong doesn't matter the only thing that matters is IF I am right and take a 12 gauge out (which measures over 20mm at the muzzle) and I get arrested for that. I'm going to be up shyte creek without a paddle. So I will not take the chance ( and can't since I recently sold my 12 gauge) I will suck it up and replace my 12 gauge with a 20, simple solution for me. No loss. Better safe than sorry in my eyes.
 
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.
Click to expand...

LOL "retired lawyer" with that spelling, grammar and painfully wrong conclusion no wonder you're retired.
 
CosmiC10R said:
I cant speak for Boss man but I would be interested to hear you outline the outcome you want...

Is it a complete repeal of the firearms act and a criminal registry?
Maybe using your legal expertise to advocate for CCW?
Click to expand...

If you want to make all firearms unregulated, we’re on different paths. I’m not sure what you mean by criminal registry. I would be happy to see firearms laws in Canada go back to pre 1969. I don’t think anything that’s happened since has made Canada a better, or a safer place. I might be happy to go back to 1934 - I’d have to give that some thought. All theoretical, ‘cuz it ain’t gonna happen. As a practical matter ie. realistically achievable, the outcome I want is not have more restrictive laws, and ideally getting the current OIC repealed. Likely to happen if we get a Conservative government before it’s enacted as legislation. “Using my legal expertise to advocate” well - legal expertise is unnecessary here. It isn’t a legal problem. It’s a political problem.

I’ve hung around in these forums for a while. Learnt a lot. There’s lots good information. I’ve never posted ‘cuz I’ve never really had anything to say - most here probably know lots more about firearms than me. But there’s some stuff here that does not help in the political arena.
 
Spinoza said:
Take my post as you will. I likely want the same outcome as you. But tactics matter. While fighting fire with fire is sometimes necessary, in my view fighting idiocy with idiocy ain’t a sound tactic.
Click to expand...

Maybe but as I just stated it really doesn't matter. The chance that I COULD be attested and face up to 10 years for stupidity and a poorly written law isn't worth the risk and I think anyone who has much to loose as a licensed firearm owner should be extra vigilant. Just in case. Besides (for me) the 20 gauge is actually a better option then the wife and kids can handle it too. Not to mention im recoil averse.
 
anglia2 said:
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
Click to expand...

Fair point. I suppose FUDD is exactly the correct term in this case. I will refrain from lumping boomers in with them, for that, and to you, I apologize.
 
parkervh said:
LOL "retired lawyer" with that spelling, grammar and painfully wrong conclusion no wonder you're retired.
Click to expand...

Dude, we are on the same side, please don't attack each other! We need to stand together now, more than ever.

Verbally attack the turd and his Liberals, not your brother in arms.
 
parkervh said:
LOL "retired lawyer" with that spelling, grammar and painfully wrong conclusion no wonder you're retired.
Click to expand...

My goodness. Your reply omitted the Oxford comma. You must be a grammar whiz. I’ll certainly yield the floor to your explication of my many errors. Spelling ain’t my strong suit so skip those. I’ll take Fowler’s as authoritative on my grammatical errors. Cite freely. I’m sorry that my conclusion that shotguns are still legal causes you pain. Feel free to set me straight.
 
trimeal1 said:
Fair point. I suppose FUDD is exactly the correct term in this case. I will refrain from lumping boomers in with them, for that, and to you, I apologize.
Click to expand...

From my understanding, the Elmer FUDD term should not be used. Let's stand together and united to fight these Liberal @@@holes!
 
Spinoza said:
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.
Click to expand...

Are you willing to risk that?
 
Big-boss-man said:
Maybe but as I just stated it really doesn't matter. The chance that I COULD be attested and face up to 10 years for stupidity and a poorly written law isn't worth the risk and I think anyone who has much to loose as a licensed firearm owner should be extra vigilant. Just in case. Besides (for me) the 20 gauge is actually a better option then the wife and kids can handle it too. Not to mention im recoil averse.
Click to expand...

You have to what you think is best. For sure: I won’t be giving up my 12 gauge. If I had a 9 gauge though, it would be a different matter.
 
Epoxy7 said:
RCMP don’t use CBSA’s definitions. Remember CBSA stopped the import of flip open knives as they deemed them prohibited. A quick read of the criminal code and they clearly weren’t prohibited. Had police used the CBSA definition rather than the Criminal code a lot of people with regular common knives (think Spyderco, zero tolerance etc) would have been arrested for possession of a prohib weapon.

I do like their shotgun definition. However it’s not binding and I wouldn’t count on it vs the RCMP lab and past cases with subject matter experts. Much like the SAMI spec, it makes sense but isn’t necessarily going to be a winning argument.
Click to expand...

(Actually, flick knives have been illegal for a long time. The relevant section is 84 1(a) “a knife that has a blade that opens automatically by gravity or centrifugal force or by hand pressure applied to a button, spring or other device in or attached to the handle of the knife...” it’s the centrifugal force bit that outlaws flick knives. What CBSA got wrong is the status of assisted opening knives and whether a thumb stud is a “button in or attached to...” That section is a good example of a badly drafted law and the kind of goofy interpretation that can follow.)
 
As a country, we must ask ourselves as voters, does this OIC make Canadians feel better about their lives living here or does it create confusion, division and uncertainty among its citizens? Whether you are a liberal or a conservative you must reflect and ask “is the current government with its decision creating stability within our country or is dividing us as a nation? It seems that those that are ok with regulation are in most cases those that aren’t affected.
For me it has nothing to do with my firearms and has everything to do with “due process” . Executive order in this situation is an over reach, the current government’s victory will always have an asterisk beside it
This is a civil liberties issue more than a firearms issue , that’s how I see it any how
 
Last edited:
Spinoza said:
If you want to make all firearms unregulated, we’re on different paths. I’m not sure what you mean by criminal registry. I would be happy to see firearms laws in Canada go back to pre 1969. I don’t think anything that’s happened since has made Canada a better, or a safer place. I might be happy to go back to 1934 - I’d have to give that some thought. All theoretical, ‘cuz it ain’t gonna happen. As a practical matter ie. realistically achievable, the outcome I want is not have more restrictive laws, and ideally getting the current OIC repealed. Likely to happen if we get a Conservative government before it’s enacted as legislation. “Using my legal expertise to advocate” well - legal expertise is unnecessary here. It isn’t a legal problem. It’s a political problem.

I’ve hung around in these forums for a while. Learnt a lot. There’s lots good information. I’ve never posted ‘cuz I’ve never really had anything to say - most here probably know lots more about firearms than me. But there’s some stuff here that does not help in the political arena.
Click to expand...

Which firearms should be regulated and how do we rationalize that with the reality apparently the Strela and Javelin launchers needed to be prohibited by this ban...

As well as .50 which are upwards of 8$ per round on a 5ft 30lb rifle... forgive me on the measurements... I'm not a liberal drafting gun policy ;)

Even if it was... is every ban now justified by whether it was used in commission of a crime...
If an officer uses a service weapon and is criminally negligent... do we ban that gun too...

Where do we call the line?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom