Silly questions...

chofo

chofo

Regular
Rating - 100%
78   0   0
Location
Aylmer, Qc.
So... the Yanqui seem to have circumvented their own silly anti-FAL laws by having DSA, Enterprise, among others, manufacturing "civilian" SA only receivers... then using a parts kit to build a rifle on.

Now, for the silly questions...

1) Why the hell can't Canadians do the same thing?
Wouldn't the CFC allow us to use the civvy receivers? Never designed or built to be FA...and cannot be converted to selective fire.

Big and heavy. LOOOONG barrels. Nice tame 5/20 mags.

So...whasssup with that? Maybe time to import some receivers?


2) WAY back in the day... there was a guy called the Gunplumber (out of Arizona I think). I was always going to send him both my bare L1A1 receivers and all the various parts I had collected and get him to build me 2 nice rifles.
Seems now that is going to be impossible since they can't even be brought to a range anymore. SO... is there anyone here in Canada that could/would do this? And I mean LEGALLY!! Since I have no locking shoulder 'collection' to sift through trying to headspace what would be "Franken-Fal's" I really DO need a good 'smith to wrench it all together for me, test fire them, all that.

Any suggestions would be welcome.. or , alternately, should I just sell all this crap. Seriously, I have an Indian 1A1 and it's decent. Who needs 2 more rifles you can't shoot. Waste of time and money.
Well...that's it. First post here... I prefer old milsurps but then, the FN is getting there dontcha know...
 
See the problem is you're thinking about it logically....
"Logic" and "canadian firearms laws" CANNOT be used in the same sentence
:)
 
I've barked up this tree in the past. Talked to DSA, CFC "Experts", on and on.
In short: We're screwed on this one:(
 
iamzill said:
I don't see why a new civilian receiver wouldn't be legal, as long as none of the parts are interchangeable with FAL.
Click to expand...

You'd probably spend a whole lotta money doing that then they would declare it a variant anyways.
 
Okay... so you're saying this whole OIC thing also covers any "'variants" , and that would include any and all rifles that even look like an FN?

How about the Springfield Armoury one... they made them in the US ... looked exactly like their trials rifle a T48 I believe, but definately civilian SA only. Legal in Canada?

My cousins buddy down in Maine had one and it looked GREAT ... I always wanted one.

(And sorry about my ignorance, I left the hobby many, many years ago... just coming back into it now.)

BTW... what the hell is a SAP ?? I just read it on CGN Gunsmith forum and apparently they're all expired now??? Guess I missed all that, but a SAP you could use your FN???

All this to say I , at least last time I checked, I still legally own these 3 FN's... they are all registered to me, and I even asked the Firearms Officer in Mirimichi if I still "owned" them... she checked and said yes, for sure. ( I was registering an M1 Carbine).

Although 2 are just receivers( They were $20 each when I got them...just for ####&giggles back then) I would like to get them into operating condition.

I found the Gunplumber again... guy by the name of Mark Graham, and yes, out of Arizona. http://www.arizonaresponsesystems.com/ and cruising his site, seems to be quite capable of doing what I want.

However... I would rather stay in Canada ( imagine the shipping nightmare !) and hope that some of you may know a Canadian 'smith who could provide a similar service.

Surely there are other FN owners out there.. I can't be all alone!
 
Just a language issue, but we didn't "circumvent" any laws on the FAL. We came up with a way to build perfectly legal semi-automatic FAL variants. I know this is what you meant, but this is one of my pet peeves. Politicians and anti-whatever groups use this language all the time.

Comfortable motorcycle helmets are designed to "circumvent" the law. Really we are wearing a motorcycle helmet as required by law so we aren't circumventing anything.

Taking a legal deduction on your taxes is a way to "circumvent" the tax code. But they wrote the deduction into law so you aren't circumventing, you are complying.

Building a semi-automatic rifle that looks and operates like a FAL is "circumventing" the law, but in reality it is just complying with the law that doesn't allow selectable fire rifles.

Nothing personal, but I just hate it when we fall into their verbal traps.
 
"...don't see why a new civilian receiver wouldn't be legal..." Because all FAL's and any variant are prohibited by name in the Criminal Code.
"...the law that doesn't allow selectable fire rifles..." Nothing to do with it. C1A1's were never select fire, but are prohibited just the same as FAL variants.
 
chofo said:
Okay... so you're saying this whole OIC thing also covers any "'variants" , and that would include any and all rifles that even look like an FN?
Click to expand...

YES! Even .22s that have no functional similarity according to the Henderson case. You could better spend your time and money getting a CPC majority gov so they can reverse that garbage :D
 
Oh, I think we'll see a Tory gov't next election with a healthy majority... at least I hope so. WAKE UP CANADA!!!

Anyways... guess that's it for the other 2 FN's... piss on it. Just leave them in the safe along with the Indian ... they didn't cost a lot but I'll be goddamned if I'll give them up.

Jeesus what a country.

Anyways... thanks everyone for the input. It was an eye-opener for sure.
 
I'm in the same boat chofo, have a couple Rifle Ishapores and a few Israeli FAL's just gathering dust and they occaisionally get shouldered and aimed at my basement wall when I clean'em, just to sort of remind me about the good old days when rifle was a rifle...not a gun safe weight.
 
Nupes said:
I'm in the same boat chofo, have a couple Rifle Ishapores and a few Israeli FAL's just gathering dust and they occaisionally get shouldered and aimed at my basement wall when I clean'em, just to sort of remind me about the good old days when rifle was a rifle...not a gun safe weight.
Click to expand...
Statement's like this make me sick. I can't believe a rifle that served our country for so many years would be prohibited for it's own citizens to own.
 
Satain said:
Statement's like this make me sick. I can't believe a rifle that served our country for so many years would be prohibited for it's own citizens to own.
Click to expand...

All it takes is unanomous complacency on behalf of the gun owning public, a few victim advocates, and lack of full understanding from the rest of the public to make up the circumstances that leads to this. The future lies in the hands of the next generation so its important to give them access, education and experience with firearms that leaves a positive imprint they can carry on to their descendants.
 
Yeah, I agree with Nupes...we need to educate the younger generations about firearms ,their uses, their limitations and the responsibilities that go along with their ownership.

Unfortunately, I have been unsuccesful in getting my neices/nephews to get more than a passing interest in the subject... usually a very intense, but very temporary excitement, usually in the fall, when I let them watch me sight in a few of my rifles for the hunt. These are usually the milsurps and the kids get a little history lesson alongside the Lee Enfields, the SKS, the Mausers and the MN's ... who they were made by, and where they were used. Like I said though, temporary excitement, and then it's back into the basement in front of that g#%@m X-Box which I swear is some kind of Commie plot to rot the brains of our children.

As I sit here, nicely ensconced in my great home, in a great city, in the greatest country on Earth, I feel my age creeping up on me and lament the way things are going down the proverbial Hershey Highway.

My Canada needs a government funded and actively promoted marksmanship program which would put this countries surplus Main Battle Rifles into the hands of as many Canadian citizens as possible. C1 and C7 rifles, and the good citizens of this country would not only own them outright, but keep them in their homes, ready and waiting for whenever they were needed. Kind of like Switzerland. Kind of like the Yanqui CMP program USED to be.

Parallel civilian initiatives, like Fred's "Appleseed" program, that would promote safe, fun yet seriously needed education on this woefully neglected Civic Duty, would make normal everyday people aware of what firearms really are all about, and to assuage their unfounded fear of inanimate objects.

Perhaps then, the majority of Canadians will see firearms for what they truly are. Tools. Tools that guarentee political empowerment and tools that will be very last line of defence against the marauding scum that would deny the freedoms that we all seem to take for granted today.

When I graduated from high school in 1974, almost every kid I went to school with had a .22 or in his bedroom closet. No trigger lock. No gunsafe. No PAL. A couple of boxes of Long Rifle in the top drawer of your dresser. Yet I NEVER saw any parents freak out and have a heart attack because their precious darlings had a gun in their hands. And in all my life, I never heard or saw anybody shoot up their school or anyone inside of it.

Anyways... my coffee is cold, the Warlord want's me to dig out the garden, and my arse is sore drom sitting here too long!

Rant mode off !

Sorry 'bout that, lads and ladies !
 
I don't see why a new civilian receiver wouldn't be legal, as long as none of the parts are interchangeable with FAL.
Click to expand...

Then you don't know the meaning of the word "Variant".

The CFC definition is a bit broader than you will find in the dictionary. Basically the CFC version encompasses anything that even resembles the original firearm. If it even looks remotely like an FN, it will be prohibited as a "variant".
 
is this the route the cz858's are going to down? If so, I need to run out and get as many as I can.
 
Prestwich said:
is this the route the cz858's are going to down? If so, I need to run out and get as many as I can.
Click to expand...

VZ-58's are not named. Therefore the "variant" thing is not applicable. The only thing that can happen to them is a reclassification to prohibited. There's no mechanism outside of an Order-in-Council or change to a Federal law to do anything different.

What grounds could they use to make them prohib? Basically they'd have to say they were Converted Automatics (a la FSN-01's) or easily convertible to full auto (a la T-97).

I don't see either of those being likely. And there's too many of us who own them to do it without a major effort.
 
Suputin said:
Then you don't know the meaning of the word "Variant".

The CFC definition is a bit broader than you will find in the dictionary. Basically the CFC version encompasses anything that even resembles the original firearm. If it even looks remotely like an FN, it will be prohibited as a "variant".
Click to expand...

basically if it even resembles a duck- ie 2 wings and feathers- it's a duck
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom