14" barrel cut vs. 14" factory and ammo?
- Thread starter Scott Bear
- Start date
Minimum length for shortening a manually operated or rimfire firearm barrel is 18". 18 1/2" is a critical length for semi auto centrefires.
The laws respecting barrel length are a bit odd - shortening an existing barrel is quite different than a barrel being originally manufactured a certain length. Cutting below legal minimum produces a prohibited firearm, while an original unaltered barrel can be significantly shorter, and the firearm can remain non-restricted, as long as the overall length exceeds 26".
No Bob, that is not fearmongering. The poster is just expressing the seriousness of being in possession of an illegal firearm. I doubt if any of those things would happen.
MauserMike
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- SW Ontario
I don't live in Grizz country anymore but I would take a 45-70 over a shotgun any day. You've got to turn a charge with one or two shots at most.
The owner of the illegal firearm may feel in deep #### for a while and would probably loose the gun, because after all it is illegal. No need to go the mistake of fact defence, whatever that is? When the new owner expains that he bought the gun that way and did not know it was illegal, the seller or the person he got the gun from may be on the hook and have to explain.
I would make my one or two shots both 1 oz. slugs.
So, if i understand corectly....
I can take my Lakefield/Mossberg 400g tath as a 30" barrel an a woden stock
and change the stock for a shotforce stock like the t6 and cut down the barrel to 18 5" and still be legal !!!!
yes... looking forward for the mods......
I can take my Lakefield/Mossberg 400g tath as a 30" barrel an a woden stock
and change the stock for a shotforce stock like the t6 and cut down the barrel to 18 5" and still be legal !!!!
yes... looking forward for the mods......
Scott Bear
Regular
- Location
- Prince George
Thanks for all your help.
I do own a Marlin 45-70 guide rifle and love it. It is like a little shoulder canon but it is very expensive to shoot and it usually just sits in the truck.
I thought the Grizzly 12.5" would be better but when I handled it I realized there was no way I could pack that thing around the bush all day every day.
I just saw the "backpacker" on the CanAm site. Single shots are nice and light. Has any one tried one? I don't like walking around with a gun loaded, cocked and locked on my back all day. Is that hammer exposed so you can lower it or is that the action lever to open the breech?
I do own a Marlin 45-70 guide rifle and love it. It is like a little shoulder canon but it is very expensive to shoot and it usually just sits in the truck.
I thought the Grizzly 12.5" would be better but when I handled it I realized there was no way I could pack that thing around the bush all day every day.
I just saw the "backpacker" on the CanAm site. Single shots are nice and light. Has any one tried one? I don't like walking around with a gun loaded, cocked and locked on my back all day. Is that hammer exposed so you can lower it or is that the action lever to open the breech?
because most reg certs for police style shotguns say "under 470mm" and that is all.... 18.5 or longer they will list the actual length....
so swapping a 14" barrel would cause no concerns certificate wise... and even if the certificate says ovber 470mm or whatever how many people actually go get thier gun reverified and the registration changed ??
Joe,
Once a firearm like an 870 gets verified and registered and a cert. number assigned, quite often, no one ever asks again. In fact one can own the action on a firearm like the 870 without a barrel. I have an 870 with two different butt stocks and 4 different barrels. All of them legal
Suppose I wanted to sell my 870 and I attached an illegal barrel. I could phone the CFC and give them my PAL number and the cert number for the 870 and there is a good chance that no one would ask. There is a good chance that no one would ask the buyer as well. That is how it could happen. Certainly not saying that it is right, but that is how it could happen.
short barrel
Uhmm....Definitely NOT.
If you are caught in possession of stolen property or a illegal firearm, the defense of "I didn't know" or " I got it this way" will not only not fly.
Ignorance of the law has never been an acceptable defense.
Upon your utterance of either of these defense staements the very next thing you would hear is the Gavel coming down, not a postponement of proceedings to query the previous owner.
Uhmm....Definitely NOT.
If you are caught in possession of stolen property or a illegal firearm, the defense of "I didn't know" or " I got it this way" will not only not fly.
Ignorance of the law has never been an acceptable defense.
Upon your utterance of either of these defense staements the very next thing you would hear is the Gavel coming down, not a postponement of proceedings to query the previous owner.
Obviously you do not know Canadian Law. As it is often said, that Ignorance of the law is no excuse, but that is not written in stone. What is written in stone is that intent to commit a Criminal Offence is a requirement to prove the charge and the Criminal Code often details what must be proven before there is an assumption of that intent.
Now the stolen property thing?
It is not against the law by itself to be in possession of stolen properrty. It is against the law to be in possession of property knowing that it was obtained in Canada by the commission of an indictable offence or the commission of an offence in another country that would have been an indictable offence if committed in Canada. There are certain circumstances where guilty knowledge is assumed, but in most cases this quilty knowledge must be proved.
just a few extra thoughts
there is the doctrine of recent possession, that if one is in recent possession, there is the higher assumption for finding of guilt, e.g. having a stolen camera within hours, days or weeks of a break and enter, months gone by or years, there is the defence that one might not know, as these items pass hands, including pawn shops, one still has to argue having paid a cheap but reasonable price.
ignorance of the law is no excuse (however if one is led to believe that a law is not being enforced, but simply on the books, one might still be found quilty but can argue for a discharge with no conviction... leave it to the lawyers, lol)
ignorance of a material fact can be an excuse or defence. eg. precise barrel length
there is the doctrine of recent possession, that if one is in recent possession, there is the higher assumption for finding of guilt, e.g. having a stolen camera within hours, days or weeks of a break and enter, months gone by or years, there is the defence that one might not know, as these items pass hands, including pawn shops, one still has to argue having paid a cheap but reasonable price.
ignorance of the law is no excuse (however if one is led to believe that a law is not being enforced, but simply on the books, one might still be found quilty but can argue for a discharge with no conviction... leave it to the lawyers, lol)
ignorance of a material fact can be an excuse or defence. eg. precise barrel length
short barrel
Whoa.....easy there tiger.
My posted comments weren't referred to you in the 1st person, they were posted to assist the original poster for his solicited opinions on the matter.
Suggesting that he would have nothing to fear from simply offering "I bought it this way" to the authorities is less than good advice IMO.
Even if the fine print of the law were to present a glimmer of hope when it comes time to apply the law with respect to firearms the benefit of the doubt is highly unlikely to go to the firearm owner.
I've observed several firearms proceedings as well as brought 2 of my own through both provincial and federal court self represented..... I do in fact know something of the law.
No need for "You obviously know nothing" offgassing.
I can see where the small cap under your User name stems from?
Moderators?????
Whoa.....easy there tiger.
My posted comments weren't referred to you in the 1st person, they were posted to assist the original poster for his solicited opinions on the matter.
Suggesting that he would have nothing to fear from simply offering "I bought it this way" to the authorities is less than good advice IMO.
Even if the fine print of the law were to present a glimmer of hope when it comes time to apply the law with respect to firearms the benefit of the doubt is highly unlikely to go to the firearm owner.
I've observed several firearms proceedings as well as brought 2 of my own through both provincial and federal court self represented..... I do in fact know something of the law.
No need for "You obviously know nothing" offgassing.
I can see where the small cap under your User name stems from?
Moderators?????
OK, a manufactured short barrel will not be automatically illegal. A shortened one is.
Let's suppose that someone innocently acquired a firearm with a shortened (i.e. illegal) barrel. Let's assume that the firearm attracted attention, was examined, and was determined to be a prohibited firearm. There is every possibility that charges would be laid. In all likelihood, every firearm that the person owned would be seized pending disposition of the case. Now, if the person had acquired the firearm honestly believing that it was legal, it is possible that the charges could be dropped, or that an acquittal could result. Perhaps there would be no application for a prohibition order, and any seized firearms would be returned. The short barrelled firearm would be forfeit, of course. It would be a misery.
This is a situation that can be easliy avoided. Don't mess with a gun that may have been shortened. If a shortgun is needed, make sure that its origin, or the barrel's origin can be documented.
Let's suppose that someone innocently acquired a firearm with a shortened (i.e. illegal) barrel. Let's assume that the firearm attracted attention, was examined, and was determined to be a prohibited firearm. There is every possibility that charges would be laid. In all likelihood, every firearm that the person owned would be seized pending disposition of the case. Now, if the person had acquired the firearm honestly believing that it was legal, it is possible that the charges could be dropped, or that an acquittal could result. Perhaps there would be no application for a prohibition order, and any seized firearms would be returned. The short barrelled firearm would be forfeit, of course. It would be a misery.
This is a situation that can be easliy avoided. Don't mess with a gun that may have been shortened. If a shortgun is needed, make sure that its origin, or the barrel's origin can be documented.
Agreed. Great reason right there to support our CGN sponsoring dealers when purchasing a short barreled scattergun. Buy New, buy CGN and buy often.
I never said that you do not know nothing I said you obviously do not know Canadian Law. I am not sure who you were refering to and in what person, but you said "Uhmm....Definitely NOT." and you tagged that on to my post.
As far as what it says under my user name that comes with having a certain amount of posts.
As far as the fine print of the law and the glimmer of hope you mentioned, you are in error. I was refering to the basics of Canadian Law. You know? Innocent til proven guilty! and intent to commit a criminal offence must be proven.
You said "when it comes time to apply the law with respect to firearms the benefit of the doubt is highly unlikely to go to the firearm owner."
Canadian law requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Further, if there is a reasonable doubt, the benifit of the doubt must go to the accused.
Glad you have been in court so many times. I have been there way more.
short barrel
Well put.
As you mention, the grief and expense to possibly successfully defend yourself is hardly worth it....and there would be grief and expense involved.
It would be nice if the government would enact some golf club laws involving arbitrary restriced lengths/sizes/types etc.
Then maybe the masses would gain an appreciation for the grief firearms enthusiasts wallow in on a regular basis and get off their asses to push back.
" I'm sorry sir but your 9 iron is 5mm under the regulations. We now hereby seize ALL the golf equipment you currently possess and see you in court if you want it back and or care to defend yourself against criminal charges"
Now that would be interesting!! LOL
Well put.
As you mention, the grief and expense to possibly successfully defend yourself is hardly worth it....and there would be grief and expense involved.
It would be nice if the government would enact some golf club laws involving arbitrary restriced lengths/sizes/types etc.
Then maybe the masses would gain an appreciation for the grief firearms enthusiasts wallow in on a regular basis and get off their asses to push back.
" I'm sorry sir but your 9 iron is 5mm under the regulations. We now hereby seize ALL the golf equipment you currently possess and see you in court if you want it back and or care to defend yourself against criminal charges"
Now that would be interesting!! LOL
