Why are pump guns under 660mm suddenly legal?

Armedsask

Armedsask

CGN Ultra frequent flyer
Rating - 100%
46   0   0
Location
Saskatchewan
The Grizzly thread got me going on this issue. I've been away from shotgun area for a while so haven't been following the developments with all this 12.5" guns. Needless to say, I am very concerned with the misinformation floating around on here.

What changed that a pump action shotgun with an overall length less than 660mm is still non-restricted?

Relevant sections of definition of restricted firearm (from the actual regs, not the CFC paraphrasing):

(c) a firearm that is designed or adapted to be fired when reduced to a length of less than 660 mm by folding, telescoping or otherwise, or

Is the argument that if it came from factory under 660mm then you aren't reducing the length? By my understanding of the written law, putting a pistol grip on a shotgun that was over 660mm and is now under, will make a restricted firearm (actually prohibited).
 
Last edited:
My understanding is that if the firearm has been designed and commercially manufactured that way (they would have to get an approval to make and sell them this way, won't they?), it's legit.

There is a shotgun I'm eyeing that's got 8.5" barrel and pistol grip and is NOT designed to be fired with one hand (heck - not a handgun) due to recoil and cycling rounds require two-hands hold; that is unrestricted and which I'd like to use for fishing and hiking trips in the wilderness for safety reasons.

Yes, it's designed and manufactured this way and doesn't get redused by the user.

And this is why it doesn't fall into prohibited:

The Criminal Code defines the following firearms as prohibited:

automatics, including those that have been converted so that they can only fire one projectile when the trigger is squeezed;
handguns with a barrel length of 105 mm (4.1 inches) or less, and handguns that discharge .25 or .32 calibre ammunition, except for a few specific models used in International Shooting Union competitions;.
rifles and shotguns that have been altered so that their barrel length is less than 457 mm (about 18 inches) or their overall length is less than 660 mm (about 26 inches); or
any firearm prescribed as prohibited – These can be found in the fact sheet listing restricted and prohibited firearms.

The link: h ttp://www.cfc-cafc.gc.ca/factsheets/prohibited_e.asp
 
Last edited:
For those who haven't followed this issue, the question relates to replacing the stock with a pistol grip. All the 'this is legal as a 22" firearm' comes from a letter from the RCMP stating that putting on a manufacturer's pistol grip does not fall under the definition of 'or otherwise' and is therefore legal. Supposedly this is also scheduled to be fought in court. In the meantime...

My personal opinion on this is that it is a misunderstanding and that there is no way in hell it would be considered an unrestricted firearm with JUST the pistol grip on it. My take on 'the letter' is that the person was confused and was thinking of a stock WITH a pistol grip as well as the normal shoulder stock. Now then, some people have also said that you can put the pistol grip on and 'technically' the firearm has 30 days where it is in a quasi-legal state until you have to report the new length, before which time you would change it back.

People also get really angry whenever this discussion comes up, and I really don't understand why. If it is legal, I want to see it on paper as such. I really don't think there is anyone who believes this is legal to the point where they are willing to flaunt a 22" firearm and be the test case for this. Why do people get angry? If it is legal, it should stand up to any scrutiny, discussion, and test cases no matter who you phone, who you show it to, who sees it out in the bush. The REALITY is that with the pistol grip it is very likely going to set off every alarm there is to the wrong authourities, and besides that it doesn't make for a very useful gun. That said, I would love it if it were proven legal, because it would make for the ultimate bear gun and that is the reason I bought my Grizzly which I love very much and it is awesome to gloat to the Americans who would get 10 years in the clink for being in possession of a shotgun with a barrel this short.
 
KaiBosh said:
For those who haven't followed this issue, the question relates to replacing the stock with a pistol grip. All the 'this is legal as a 22" firearm' comes from a letter from the RCMP stating that putting on a manufacturer's pistol grip does not fall under the definition of 'or otherwise' and is therefore legal. Supposedly this is also scheduled to be fought in court. In the meantime...

My personal opinion on this is that it is a misunderstanding and that there is no way in hell it would be considered an unrestricted firearm with JUST the pistol grip on it. My take on 'the letter' is that the person was confused and was thinking of a stock WITH a pistol grip as well as the normal shoulder stock. Now then, some people have also said that you can put the pistol grip on and 'technically' the firearm has 30 days where it is in a quasi-legal state until you have to report the new length, before which time you would change it back.

People also get really angry whenever this discussion comes up, and I really don't understand why. If it is legal, I want to see it on paper as such. I really don't think there is anyone who believes this is legal to the point where they are willing to flaunt a 22" firearm and be the test case for this. Why do people get angry? If it is legal, it should stand up to any scrutiny, discussion, and test cases no matter who you phone, who you show it to, who sees it out in the bush. The REALITY is that with the pistol grip it is very likely going to set off every alarm there is to the wrong authourities, and besides that it doesn't make for a very useful gun. That said, I would love it if it were proven legal, because it would make for the ultimate bear gun and that is the reason I bought my Grizzly which I love very much and it is awesome to gloat to the Americans who would get 10 years in the clink for being in possession of a shotgun with a barrel this short.
Click to expand...

yay, + 1 for canada,

they also have a bajillion times of different allowable firearms than we do...:(
 
KaiBosh said:
People also get really angry whenever this discussion comes up, and I really don't understand why.
Click to expand...

Because the topic keeps coming up (like the issue of bullpup stocks) and people keep demanding that we explain/prove how a pistol gripped 12.5" shotgun can be legal. After awhile you just feel like saying "It isn't legal - now go away." The whole system is screwy - Why is an AR-15 restricted, but an AR-180b non-restricted? Once the shotgun issue goes before a judge, I'm pretty sure we'll lose the decision. I plan to buy the 12.5" mag-fed version, but I'll keep a full stock on it anyway so a judges decision isn't going to affect me.
 
Answer me this question please:

I brought a Grizzly from CanAm. No problem, right?

Now somehow I managed to lost the stock when I do some cleaning. Yes, only action and barrel left in my hand.

Is this gun "illegal" now?
 
michaelsabre said:
Answer me this question please:

I brought a Grizzly from CanAm. No problem, right?

Now somehow I managed to lost the stock when I do some cleaning. Yes, only action and barrel left in my hand.

Is this gun "illegal" now?
Click to expand...
It is still legal because with out the stock on it, it is, by legal definition, not in the condition to be fired. In other words, it is not assembled.

I still think, and will advise others, that putting a pistol grip only stock on your non-restricted shotgun and reducing it's OAL length under 660mm is creating a prohibited firearm. Do not do it.

The reason I'm asking, and the thing that has me very worried, is there seems to be a lot of people on here that are either new to guns, or new to these confusing laws, and seem to be believing what the group is telling them. I don't want to see anyone run into legal troubles because the internet told them they could do it.
 
Last edited:
The barrel length interpretation is pretty straightforeward. The law uses the phrase "altered, modified or shortened", and this is being applied to the original barrel. Installation of a new, shorter barrel does not involve altering, modifying or shortening the original barrel, so this is why rebarrelling does not automatically cause a violation.
You quoted the section about "less than 660mm by folding, telescoping or otherwise". I assume that it is the "otherwise" that is the cause of your concern. It is apparent that at the present time, the powers that be in Ottawa have determined that installation of a short barrel and a pistol grip on a firearm do not violate the law - as opposed to a short barrel plus a folding or telescoping stock.
These shortguns are being openly advertised, sold and transferred. The powers that be are fully aware. KaiBosh, if there was confusion about whether it was a full length buttstock with a pistol grip, or a pistol grip only, the "confusion" would have been clarified by now.
It is a matter of interpretation, and at the present time, the interpretation is allowing these guns to be classed as non-restricted.
Personally, I am surprised by the situation, given that most interpretations serve to increase the level of restriction, rather than relax it.
 
Tiriaq, so the RCMP have stated that a altering pump action shotgun to be under 660mm OAL, by adding a pistol grip, is not considered "otherwise"?

This makes no sense. You can see why I am confused. Normally I just read the law and go by that but you people seem to be claiming that is incorrect?
 
After working for government for 28 years, I'm of the opinion that when the laws start making sense, I'm in real trouble, as I will be as demented as the bastard that thought it up in the first place! :runaway:

The jist seems to be the word altered. If it comes from the factory, designed and manufactured that way, and/or in specific cases has the magic approval of the RCMP, then it's cool, for now. Until those yoyo's take another picture list of guns and go through and ban all the ones they don't like the looks of. :(

One last thought, after working many years in the Queen's Bench courthouse, it seems that, in the eyes of the courts, the law is the law as I read / interperate / believe / don't believe / feel / don't feel today, but that might change tomorrow, might not, depending on the phase of the moon, the allignment of the stars, mood of the spouse, and other scientific factors not easily understood or known to us mere mortals. Sometimes there's absolutely no logic in some of the decisions that come out.
 
Last edited:
We are not talking about the barrel at all here. The overall length of the firearm is the ONLY thing in question. The FRT# for this firearm does not come from someone inspecting it with the pistol grip installed. If you believe this firearm is perfectly legal at an OAL of 22" please feel free to test this theory. We all know this is a glitch in the system and that it would never pass even the slightest scrutiny by the law.

Hey, this is my opinion on this issue. I could be dead wrong. I hope that I am! In the meantime, no way in hell would I take the chance to be stopped by a CO or RCMP officer with a 22" firearm in the vehicle. Let's face it, we all take the stock off, put the pistol grip on, show our friends, and then meekly put the stock back on before we take our Grizzly/Dlask out to the gravel pit, bush, or range.

The danger here isn't the discussions between people who understand the bizarro nature of the laws, and how they can often be muddled up due to contradictory or unclear wording along with arbitrary decisions from the CFC. The danger is in a new person coming along, seeing threads that flat out say "This firearm is legal with the pistol grip" and then being caught with it out in the wild. That person is in for a world of sh*t and we all know that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom