Why are pump guns under 660mm suddenly legal?

JohnC said:
at the time ( the end of the sentence in my post) the gun was shipped to me with a PG only. I also got a non-restricted certificate for it. The government had to have known that these were being shipped in that configuration. Therefore since the government issued me an unrestricted certificate, by implication it agreed that the gun was non-restricted. I have not received an letter stating that the gun's status has changed.
Click to expand...

I believe this was a big error (or a smart scheme) on the part of Joe Dlask. He assumed he had a product he could market and sell with impunity. Notice how quickly he changed his stance and shipped long stocks to replace the pistol grips? It would be interesting to know if the issue of overall lenght was ever discussed with CFC when Dlask transferred the gun in your name. I'm pretty sure it was not. After all, when Dlask bought these guns in normal stocked configuration they were fully legal! He then machined the mag tube to fit the short barrel. Great concept and so far they were acting legally as the barrel was "manufactured" and not cut to that lenght. Overall lenght was still fine with the stock the gun came from Remington with. The screwup is when someone at Dlask decided to get cute with the interpretation of the law and figured that putting on a pistol grip did not fall under the "otherwise" clause. How could they believe this would fly in the eyes of the law??? One cannot just interpret the law as one pleases...

I'm really interested in this case as I truly do not believe that Dlask is right. His guns with the pistol grip attached are prohibited, no wonder he advises you not to put it on (after all if he said go ahead and do it, he would be party to the offense!). The funniest thing is that even though the gun is legal with the long stock on it, in BC you can't even legally hunt with a barrel of that lenght!!!

I find it amusing that everyone want's this gun to turn out to be legal, when it clearly can't without the law changing (and that is not likely to happen).

I am also interested in finding out if Dlask is actually challenging the law or is just blowing smoke up our asses as we buy more and more of these guns. I will contact the court registry and see if "Dlask vs R" has been put forward... I'll report back here, of course.


Regards, Troutseeker
 
Last edited:
has anyone concerned with the legallity of the pistol grips actually contacted a CFO and got an official interpetation...or are we all asuming that what we read on the internet is the truth?
 
Enough is enough.

To me, John, Dlask and CanAm are really heroes.

There was time people think Bullpup are "illegal" - now we know Tavor is coming. There was time people thought anything looks like AK is "illegal", then here came vz-58.

Other than them, I just see scared people. I see people willing to give up their own rights. I see people forgetting that we suppose to tell government what to do, not the other way around.

Now I am scared.
 
It should be a pleasure for a law enforcement officer to question the legality of your 12.5" pistol grip shotgun, as you would have the oppurtunity to entertain him with the facts.
 
michaelsabre said:
Enough is enough.

To me, John, Dlask and CanAm are really heroes.

There was time people think Bullpup are "illegal" - now we know Tavor is coming. There was time people thought anything looks like AK is "illegal", then here came vz-58.

Other than them, I just see scared people. I see people willing to give up their own rights. I see people forgetting that we suppose to tell government what to do, not the other way around.

Now I am scared.
Click to expand...
Holy #### man, are you ever out to lunch. Every one didn't think bullpups and semi-auto VZ58's were illegal, just the uninformed did. It can go the other way too. The uninformed could think these shotguns are legal in sub 660mm form, when it may turn out they aren't.

People with more then a passing knowledge of Canadian firearms laws questioning if a gun is legal or not is giving up to the antis and running scared? I guess you would prefer if we all ran around breaking the law? Would that make us heroes in the gun community?

I find it interesting that a lot of the posts seem the think any one who asks a question and wants to be legal is some how giving up. I see it as the opposite.
 
At the Wildlife Officers meeting sometime last year, the RCMP instructed them, in BC and Alberta anyways, that the pistol grip was acceptable. I can't seem to find the thread, but it was here somewhere.

IIRC the BC WO thought they were the cats ass for the bush.
 
Backwoods said:
At the Wildlife Officers meeting sometime last year, the RCMP instructed them, in BC and Alberta anyways, that the pistol grip was acceptable. I can't seem to find the thread, but it was here somewhere.

IIRC the BC WO thought they were the cats ass for the bush.
Click to expand...

Of course a pistol grip is acceptable......as long as the OAL is 26"+.
 
Armedsask said:
Holy s**t man, are you ever out to lunch. Every one didn't think bullpups and semi-auto VZ58's were illegal, just the uninformed did. It can go the other way too. The uninformed could think these shotguns are legal in sub 660mm form, when it may turn out they aren't.

People with more then a passing knowledge of Canadian firearms laws questioning if a gun is legal or not is giving up to the antis and running scared? I guess you would prefer if we all ran around breaking the law? Would that make us heroes in the gun community?

I find it interesting that a lot of the posts seem the think any one who asks a question and wants to be legal is some how giving up. I see it as the opposite.
Click to expand...

About the "breaking law": after half year's discussion we all know the problem is how to "explain" the current "law" instead of "law" itself.

(And any body has experience with law would know how important the "defination" part is.)

It's not my problem that they forgot define "after market stock". Before they finally figure it out, I am going to ENJOY this loophole - just like all the tax lawyers doing for living.

And I am going to fight when they try to limit "after market stock".
 
The law is clear, it has nothing to do with "after market stock" but with overall length. If your pistol grip is unmodified and the gun measures 660mm or better, you are good to go! Attempts at passing the 8.5" Dlask with pistol grip as legal will fail in the eyes of the current law.

Troutseeker
 
troutseeker said:
The law is clear, it has nothing to do with "after market stock" but with overall length. If your pistol grip is unmodified and the gun measures 660mm or better, you are good to go! Attempts at passing the 8.5" Dlask with pistol grip as legal will fail in the eyes of the current law.

Troutseeker
Click to expand...


I think the 8.5 inch with the stock is under 660mm...I may be wrong..
 
troutseeker said:
The law is clear, it has nothing to do with "after market stock" but with overall length. If your pistol grip is unmodified and the gun measures 660mm or better, you are good to go! Attempts at passing the 8.5" Dlask with pistol grip as legal will fail in the eyes of the current law.

Troutseeker
Click to expand...

I guess we need a good lawyer, but I don't want to spend that money.

Now I give up.

I will just play with my Grizzly with pistol grip and let other people worry about it.
 
Scarecrow said:
There is a case going to court, so it doesnt matter what anybody says until Dlask publishes the results.
Click to expand...

I'd be interested in seeing a detailed official explanation when it finally comes around. Hopefully it will be published where it is easy to reference, and refer others to. I could offer my interpretation of the semantics, but I don't consider myself anywhere near qualified to give an opinion on that. I'd rather just wait and see what the ruling is. Until then, the PG is staying off the Grizzly.
 
Scarecrow said:
There is a case going to court, so it doesntmatter what anybody says until Dlask publishes the results.
Click to expand...

There may well be a case going to court, but it still matters. Just because this is before the courts does not mean someone will not get charged with possession of a prohibited weapon.

There is no "amnesty" or moratorium on matters set out in the Criminal Code of Canada. The law stands as it is written, it is not gray but set out in black on white. It will be pretty hard to convince any judge that a pistol grip does not represent "otherwise", since it is... I am actually surprised that CFC has not made more noise about this, but then again, why should they? They have confirmed with everyone who asked them that the pistol grip configuration was not recognized as non-restricted (I know, I asked them, twice.). So the onus is on us (pun intended) to not make our guns prohibited.

Dlask is likely going to waste his money on legal fees, if this evens goes to court. I suspect a decent lawyer will tell him he does not have a snowball's chance in hell of getting a positive ruling.

Too bad as I'd love nothing more than ambling thru the woods with one of these guns on at my side.

Troutseeker
 
Last edited:
michaelsabre said:
I guess we need a good lawyer, but I don't want to spend that money.

Now I give up.

I will just play with my Grizzly with pistol grip and let other people worry about it.
Click to expand...

That's fine, but do you really think it's smart for people to post pics of the <26" shotties on the innernet or to public announce that they are potentially breaking the law?
It's one thing to discuss the whole issue, but to publicly announce that you don't care about the law and will do whatever you want regardless ain't all that smart.
 
Hitzy said:
It's one thing to discuss the whole issue, but to publicly announce that you don't care about the law and will do whatever you want regardless ain't all that smart.
Click to expand...

Well the whole thing started when somebody claim my gun is illegal. Last time I checked the firearm card it says it's "non-restricted" and barrel length < 470mm (?), period.

I am happy to see those facts. I trust my government like my brother.

As long as there is no court ruling against pistol grip I will keep playing pistol grips - publicly.
 
michaelsabre said:
Well the whole thing started when somebody claim my gun is illegal. Last time I checked the firearm card it says it's "non-restricted" and barrel length < 470mm (?), period.
Click to expand...

Does your non restricted card say anything about your gun being 660mm+ in overall length? Does your card say anything about the gun having a pistol grip instead of a full stock? No it doesn't. This discussion isn't about barrel length, its about overall length...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom