T1X 16 inch bbl in a Grey Birch folder OAL

Suther said:
These two posts are giving two different answers... Unless you think adding a muzzle device to a CMR30 is enough to make it NR??
Click to expand...

The common thread is that it makes no sense.... and apparently that's ok with the folk in charge.

The lack of consistency that we have seen from the RCMP lab when it comes to classifications is just another example of how dysfunctional things are.

If some brainiac decides that a certain length makes a gun safe then who cares how it's made that way? Ok I could see a requirement that the part added be permanent as was the case with the M1's... but even that was not accepted?

It's all so silly and just more fuel for the bonfire when it comes time to simplify and re-write the book.
 
PaveHammer said:
Was it a restricted or nonrestricted gun to begin with?

Bradley
Click to expand...

That doesn't matter. Either it falls into the restricted class, or the nonrestricted class. Where it starts should have zero bearing on where it ends up, all that matters is its CURRENT configuration.

Either adding a muzzle device would be enough to make a CMR30 NR, or its not enough to make a bolt action NR. It can't be both. If the OPs gun is 25" without a muzzle device then it is by definition an R gun, regardless of whether it has been registered or not at this point. If a muzzle device is enough to change the OPs R gun to an NR gun, then it would follow that it also applies to any other rimfire that is R based on OAL.


The OP COULD be a test case on this if he buys the chassis. Register the rifle at its 25" folded length. Then try to unregister it by adding a muzzle device and making no other changes. I'll bet $100 the Lab tells him no dice...
 
Last edited:
Suther said:
That doesn't matter. Either it falls into the restricted class, or the nonrestricted class. Where it starts should have zero bearing on where it ends up, all that matters is its CURRENT configuration.

Either adding a muzzle device would be enough to make a CMR30 NR, or its not enough to make a bolt action NR. It can't be both. If the OPs gun is 25" without a muzzle device then it is by definition an R gun, regardless of whether it has been registered or not at this point. If a muzzle device is enough to change the OPs R gun to an NR gun, then it would follow that it also applies to any other rimfire that is R based on OAL.


The OP COULD be a test case on this if he buys the chassis. Register the rifle at its 25" folded length. Then try to unregister it by adding a muzzle device and making no other changes. I'll bet $100 the Lab tells him no dice...
Click to expand...

Your not wrong.... but your trying to make sense where none exists.

2 guns lying on a table, same action, same stocks, same barrel lengths but one is a factory barrel and the other has been cut and re-crowned by a smith...... one is non restricted the other is prohibited.

It makes zero sense..... the sad thing is the insanity within the firearms act is just the tip of the iceberg as far as govt legislation and regulations that make no sense in a practical day to day reality and only adds cost, frustration and wasted time and resources to many endeavours today.......
 
Can-down said:
Your not wrong.... but your trying to make sense where none exists.

2 guns lying on a table, same action, same stocks, same barrel lengths but one is a factory barrel and the other has been cut and re-crowned by a smith...... one is non restricted the other is prohibited.

It makes zero sense..... the sad thing is the insanity within the firearms act is just the tip of the iceberg as far as govt legislation and regulations that make no sense in a practical day to day reality and only adds cost, frustration and wasted time and resources to many endeavours today.......
Click to expand...

But it does make sense, because the law clearly states that cutting a barrel below 18" is not allowed. WHY the law is written that way might not make sense to you, but the application of the law in your example makes sense just fine.

Nowhere does the law state anything about muzzle devices applying differently to OAL based on whether the gun is NR or R.
 
Last edited:
Suther said:
But it does make sense, because the law clearly states that cutting a barrel below 18" is not allowed.

Nowhere does the law state anything about muzzle devices applying differently to OAL based on whether the gun is NR or R.
Click to expand...

I'm not shocked that you would think that it makes sense, I think we will have to agree to disagree on that.

Have you found somewhere where the law states that over all length of a firearm does not include muzzle devices?

If you could that would certainly end this debate.
 
Can-down said:
I'm not shocked that you would think that it makes sense, I think we will have to agree to disagree on that.

Have you found somewhere where the law states that over all length of a firearm does not include muzzle devices?

If you could that would certainly end this debate.
Click to expand...

You seem to have quoted me before I added clarification, so I'll re-clarify here: I am not saying the LAW makes sense, I am saying the application of the law makes sense in your above example.


From the perspective of the firearms act and criminal code "overall length" is a meaningless term. Not only is it not defined, it is not even mentioned. So this is a very different situation than your above example where the law very clearly states a barrel cut below 18" makes a firearm prohibited.

The ONLY thing we have to work with is the following, from the criminal code definition of restricted firearm:
(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
Click to expand...

A laymans interpretation would likely lead one to believe a muzzle device WOULD count, but we have ample evidence that the lab - who are considered the experts on these matters and will be relied upon by the prosecution in court if you were to ever get charged - does not consider them to count.


I've seen it in writing from the lab that it does NOT count. I don't see anyone claiming they've got it in writing that the lab told them otherwise. I feel like if muzzle devices were legal to increase OAL we'd have proof of this by now, but I see no evidence in this thread to support that, just conjecture based on personal interpretations of the legalese.
 
Last edited:
I was pretty sure you agreed with me that there is much in our gun laws that makes zero sense.

Your correct again that none of it is spelled out clearly and simply and it's been left open to interpretation and that's what the RCMP in all it's pea brained wisdom has decided to do with things like the LAR VS Ruger 10/22 mags and also your example of the Keltec CMR30.

If the RCMP had any brains at the top they would recognize gun owners as potential allies in re-building their lost credibility with society at large..... but no, their political lust for power won't let them see the obvious long and difficult path to redemption.

If I ever meet someone like Wendy Cuckier or any other pollitican talking about the need for more gun laws and restrictions, my first request of them would be to name their top 3 examples of current laws that make no sense from a practical perspective.

No doubt their response would be to correct these issues by defaulting to the more punitive and restrictive options regardless of the lack of evidence to support a public safety issue.

I'm mildly optimistic that the Liberals and left in general is about to ruin their gun control wedge issue by overplaying it going into the next election.... they have been piling on the restrictions but there is no evidence of a decrease in urban crime where most of the wedge voters live.... fingers crossed some of these people wake up to the non sense of going after legal guns. Most people are going to be voting away from the Liberals over cost of living, interest rates, inflation and other wallet issues but the Conservatives can take a play out of Justin's playbook by talking about a complete re-write of the firearms act in advance of the election and then claiming that Canada gave them a mandate to do it.
 
I've been told that a muzzle device does NOT make a barrel longer for purpose of the 18.5" semiauto rule, but does count along with all the other parts of the rifle/shotgun toward the 26" rule.
 
660mm OAL makes sense until it doesn’t, given that we also have several firearms that are now less than 26” OAL and remain non-restricted - all the Sulun Arms shotguns, Chiappa/Henry Mare’s Legs, Rossi Ranch Hand, etc.

At the end of the day, all we have are opinions, and it is up to the individual to determine how they would like to test their theories. I believe that my 13” .308WIN gun is non-restricted with a folding stock attached due to the addition of a longer Area 419 muzzle device, as the gun is now >26” tip to tip. Am I going to email the lab and ask? No - their opinion is not law. Am I seeking out an interaction with law enforcement to test my theory? No, because none of them know a goddamned thing about firearms law, and they would probably be more interested in my Raven than my Remington.

Put the muzzle device on and keep your folder, or give in and self-censor out of a desire to adhere to unwritten interpretations of laws. Shrug.

Bradley
 
propliner said:
So the laws are so vague that there can barely be a consensus as to what is legal. Sounds about right for Kanada.
Click to expand...

I have never understood how the laws are written so poorly... but for sure every firearm law that is made is done to eventually help eliminate firearms ownership... The Liberals and the NDP and the Green Party all support this.

What really is bad is that the RCMP add their interpretation with an anti gun bias. And who wants to spend the money going to court to challenge them.
 
Matt308 said:
You keep talking barrel length. It’s a rim fire man. Over all length is the concern. There’s people running 9 inch dlask barrels with no issues
Click to expand...

You miss the point... the RCMP do not accept muzzle brakes or any other addition to the muzzle of a barrel as part of the length...(e.i. the 30 M1 problem with length back in the 1980's) what ever addition to the barrel you have can not be counted as part of the barrel length... so now measure your oal not including that device on the end of it...

The legality of a short barrel has nothing to do with this... it is the addition on the muzzle that can not be counted as part of the length ... including oal.
 
guntech said:
You miss the point... the RCMP do not accept muzzle brakes or any other addition to the muzzle of a barrel as part of the length...(e.i. the 30 M1 problem with length back in the 1980's) what ever addition to the barrel you have can not be counted as part of the barrel length... so now measure your oal not including that device on the end of it...

The legality of a short barrel has nothing to do with this... it is the addition on the muzzle that can not be counted as part of the length ... including oal.
Click to expand...

I emailed the RCMP about this very issue regarding a shotgun with a folding stock but with an extended mag tube and this was his reply

“Hello, You are correct that the overall length of a firearm can be independent of the barrel length. In this case you could potentially attach a folding stock and magazine extension to a manual action firearm, as long as the overall length in its shortest configuration was over 660mm, and have it remain non-restricted. If you have any other questions don't hesitate to ask.”
Click to expand...

A mag extension counts... yet not a muzzle brake?
Pretty sure rimfire and centerfire have different rules.
 
Last edited:
guntech said:
No. The RCMP made the decision a device added required it having a bore the same as the barrel.
Click to expand...

You are fixated on the barrel. No it doesn't increase the barrel length. But increases the overall length. Rimfires don't have the same rules as centerfire.

If adding a stock spacer counts as OAL, using only a screw driver to change. Adding a flash hider on a rimfire should count for OAL, as we are talking rimfire, not centerfire.
 
Last edited:
OkayShooter said:
You are fixated on the barrel. No it doesn't increase the barrel length. But increases the overall length. Rimfires don't have the same rules as centerfire.

If adding a stock spacer counts as OAL, using only a screw driver to change. Adding a flash hider on a rimfire should count for OAL, as we are talking rimfire, not centerfire.
Click to expand...

Should. We all agree it SHOULD....

Well everyone but the lab at least...
 
Suther said:
Should. We all agree it SHOULD....

Well everyone but the lab at least...
Click to expand...

Well the Lab said a shotgun mag ext tube, counts towards the OAL on a shotgun.

I emailed the RCMP about this very issue regarding a shotgun with a folding stock but with an extended mag tube and this was his reply

“Hello, You are correct that the overall length of a firearm can be independent of the barrel length. In this case you could potentially attach a folding stock and magazine extension to a manual action firearm, as long as the overall length in its shortest configuration was over 660mm, and have it remain non-restricted. If you have any other questions don't hesitate to ask.”
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom