8.5" grizzly

Below is my understanding of definitions in CC quoted further down:

If shotgun is manually operated, it is non-restricted if it was manufactured with any length of barrel and in any fixed overall length and never altered.

If shotgun is manually operated, it is non-restricted if it cannot be reduced to a length of less than 660mm by folding, telescoping, or any other means.

If shotgun is semi-automatic, it is non-restricted if it has an 470mm barrel or longer and cannot be reduced to a length of less than 660mm by folding, telescoping, or any other means.

If shotgun is semi-automatic, it is restricted if it has a barrel shorter than 470mm

Both manually operated and semi-automatic shotguns that can be reduced to a length shorter than 660mm and fired in that state are restricted.

Both manually operated and semi-automatic shotguns are prohibited if they were modified to be shorter than 660mm or longer than that, but with barrel of 457mm or shorter.

Criminal code said:
84. (1)
“prohibited firearm” means
(b) a firearm that is adapted from a rifle or shotgun, whether by sawing, cutting or any other alteration, and that, as so adapted,
(i) is less than 660 mm in length, or
(ii) is 660 mm or greater in length and has a barrel less than 457 mm in length,

“restricted firearm” means
(b) a firearm that
(i) is not a prohibited firearm,
(ii) has a barrel less than 470 mm in length, and
(iii) is capable of discharging centre-fire ammunition in a semi-automatic manner,
(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...

What is important is the lack of definition for the terms
  • adapted
  • alteration
  • reduced
That, as I understand, is left upon the arresting officer and the courts to decide what those mean. Under criminal law a reasonable man's test has to be applied to see if accused's understanding of those terms is correct and they must be interpreted in the manner most favourable for the accused.

If for example someone puts a pistol grip on a 15" Dominion Grizzly that they bought initially with a full length stock, then it sounds like making that gun prohibited through adapting by other alteration.

This is why Firearms Act has to be totally scrapped - it is too vague, too complicated, and makes too little sense.
 
That also makes it sound like a pistol that was not semi-automatic in operating (is a revolver considered "semi-automatic"? if so, then a hypothetical single-shot pistol...) would be non-restricted.

But this doesn't seem to jive with the implementation and interpretation of the law by the RCMP.

This stuff really needs to be tested in the courts. Sounds like a worthy job for the gun lobbies.
 
Now let me put together another scenario.
Let's imagine that Dominion Arms manufactured a pump shotgun with 15" barrel and full length stock, which is non-restricted. Then we remove the 15" barrel and install a 26" barrel. It is still non-restricted.
Then we remove shoulder stock and install a pistol grip. Still non-restricted.
Let's install 15" barrel back. Is it a prohib now? But how can it be a prohib, if the barrel can be removed and installed at any moment w/o using tools? In my opinion adapted and alteration carry a great deal of permanency.
Installing different barrels using just bare hands does not mean adapting, just like inserting barrel tubes does not mean changing calibre, because it's not permanent. But once you glued an insert permanently in the bore, then you've adapted a shotgun to a different calibre.
The law has to be consistent and its enforcement must be consistent too, otherwise we are wading into the area of disrepute.
If I was a judge, I would ignore any changes of configuration to a shotgun that can be done using bare hands or a screwdriver, and concentrated on the question of whether there was a fact of permanent alteration to a shotgun that made it permanently shorter than 660mm.
In case of Rem 870 platform that question is irrelevant, because that platform is just a base for a kit, with any length of barrel and any kind of shoulder stock or pistol grip imaginable, as opposed to sawing off shotguns with a barrel permanently attached to the receiver and for which no pistol grips are available on the market.
In my opinion, if there is no permanent cutting of metal required to change the overall length, then it's not adaptation or alteration, but change of configuration that can be undone at any moment in time.

From that we can only conclude that installing a pistol grip instead of a shoulder stock should not be treated as adaptation and does not make shotgun prohibited.

If the law can be open to interpretations and twisted to such extent, it's a bad law and it should not be on the books.
 
Glockenshpiel said:
Now let me put together another scenario.
Let's imagine that Dominion Arms manufactured a pump shotgun with 15" barrel and full length stock, which is non-restricted. Then we remove the 15" barrel and install a 26" barrel. It is still non-restricted.
Then we remove shoulder stock and install a pistol grip. Still non-restricted.
Let's install 15" barrel back. Is it a prohib now? But how can it be a prohib, if the barrel can be removed and installed at any moment w/o using tools? In my opinion adapted and alteration carry a great deal of permanency.
Installing different barrels using just bare hands does not mean adapting, just like inserting barrel tubes does not mean changing calibre, because it's not permanent. But once you glued an insert permanently in the bore, then you've adapted a shotgun to a different calibre.
The law has to be consistent and its enforcement must be consistent too, otherwise we are wading into the area of disrepute.
If I was a judge, I would ignore any changes of configuration to a shotgun that can be done using bare hands or a screwdriver, and concentrated on the question of whether there was a fact of permanent alteration to a shotgun that made it permanently shorter than 660mm.
In case of Rem 870 platform that question is irrelevant, because that platform is just a base for a kit, with any length of barrel and any kind of shoulder stock or pistol grip imaginable, as opposed to sawing off shotguns with a barrel permanently attached to the receiver and for which no pistol grips are available on the market.
In my opinion, if there is no permanent cutting of metal required to change the overall length, then it's not adaptation or alteration, but change of configuration that can be undone at any moment in time.

From that we can only conclude that installing a pistol grip instead of a shoulder stock should not be treated as adaptation and does not make shotgun prohibited.

If the law can be open to interpretations and twisted to such extent, it's a bad law and it should not be on the books.
Click to expand...

A non restricted, 14" barreled, Rem 870 can be fired with the stock removed and would be less then 26" overall length ......:eek:

According to the law it should be prohibited but it's not.....nothing makes sense.

The "No Sawed Off" laws make no sense since committing crimes with guns is already a serious crime.....who cares how big it is!

You can buy, posses and use a short barrel........ but you can't make one......W.T.F.
 
Can-down said:
A non restricted, 14" barreled, Rem 870 can be fired with the stock removed and would be less then 26" overall length ......:eek:

According to the law it should be prohibited but it's not.....nothing makes sense.
Click to expand...
That's open to interpretation. W/o the stock firearm is incomplete, not in the proper configuration. If firing a partially disassembled firearm was a criminal offense, that would lead to all kinds of unforeseen consequences in other areas of law.

Can-down said:
The "No Sawed Off" laws make no sense since committing crimes with guns is already a serious crime.....who cares how big it is!
Click to expand...
Not really, because sawing off is an act of preparation to committing other crimes, i.e. shows criminal intent.

Can-down said:
You can buy, posses and use a short barrel........ but you can't make one......W.T.F.
Click to expand...
You can manufacture your own. What you can't do is shorten an already manufactured longer barrel. Consistent with the above, the law considers that criminal intent. I can't really blame the government for that, because sawing off shotgun barrels is a common practice among the criminals. It's food for another debate about the right to own firearms though.
But yes, if you are going to manufacture a shotgun barrel in Canada from scratch, you can make it any length, even just as short as to barely house a fired hull.
 
Glockenshpiel said:
That's open to interpretation. W/o the stock firearm is incomplete, not in the proper configuration. If firing a partially disassembled firearm was a criminal offense, that would lead to all kinds of unforeseen consequences in other areas of law.


Not really, because sawing off is an act of preparation to committing other crimes, i.e. shows criminal intent.


You can manufacture your own. What you can't do is shorten an already manufactured longer barrel. Consistent with the above, the law considers that criminal intent. I can't really blame the government for that, because sawing off shotgun barrels is a common practice among the criminals. It's food for another debate about the right to own firearms though.
But yes, if you are going to manufacture a shotgun barrel in Canada from scratch, you can make it any length, even just as short as to barely house a fired hull.
Click to expand...

Well I guess I see it differently then you.

Having the law open to interpretation is part of our legal system and allows judges to judge. The problem is people pushing a personal social agenda and twisting the laws to go after law abiding citizens caught up in laws originaly aimed at organized criminals.

Regardless it makes no sense to me because I don't think size of a firearm should be a factor in determining criminal intent.

To me criminal intent is criminal intent.

Shortening a gun to make it handy and compact does not equal criminal intent any more then wearing baggy pants does.

Yes you can manufacturer any length if you are a manufacturer. I'm not a manufacturer.
My point was, why make it illegal for a citizen to trim and finish a barrel to a length that is legal to posses and use? How that makes sense to anyone is beyond me....
Sure It's one more charge to throw at a criminal, but I'd rather see less charges thrown, and more serious convictions when dealing with weapons and violent crime.
 
I think it's more that we'd just like to know exactly what is legal and what is not. Nevermind trying to inject any logic into it... just figuring out what they mean in the first place seems nearly impossible.
 
Can-down said:
Having the law open to interpretation is part of our legal system and allows judges to judge.
Click to expand...
Hell no! The criminal court judges are there to check the validity of criminal charges and see if police erred in laying them, and if the accused has excuse or exculpatory circumstances.

Can-down said:
Shortening a gun to make it handy and compact does not equal criminal intent any more then wearing baggy pants does.
Click to expand...
You are trying to convince me that one firearm is no more dangerous than another. I am with you. I know that. The government, that I was talking about, is not. They see sawed off shotguns in the police reports from the crime scenes and associate them with criminal activity. If you want to damage our cause and advocate for legalization of sawed off shotguns - power to you. I am taking realistic approach and don't want to touch this issue with a 10' pole yet.

Can-down said:
Yes you can manufacturer any length if you are a manufacturer. I'm not a manufacturer.
Click to expand...

Everybody in Canada is a manufacturer. Everybody can manufacture a firearm, as long as they get an approval from CFP and FRT# for it.
 
Glockenshpiel said:
Hell no! The criminal court judges are there to check the validity of criminal charges and see if police erred in laying them, and if the accused has excuse or exculpatory circumstances.


You are trying to convince me that one firearm is no more dangerous than another. I am with you. I know that. The government, that I was talking about, is not. They see sawed off shotguns in the police reports from the crime scenes and associate them with criminal activity. If you want to damage our cause and advocate for legalization of sawed off shotguns - power to you. I am taking realistic approach and don't want to touch this issue with a 10' pole yet.



Everybody in Canada is a manufacturer. Everybody can manufacture a firearm, as long as they get an approval from CFP and FRT# for it.
Click to expand...

I think you've missed my point.

I'm not sure I'd try to convince you of anything.... but I hardly think pointing out the idiocy of our laws is damaging our cause.

You seem to agree that the current system is flawed around barrel lengths but then you feel it is damaging to expose the flaws?
Sawed off? It seems as dirty and scary as a swithblade but how do you think ,Dlask and Norinco make 14 or 12.5 inch cylinder bore barrels?
Even licensed manufacturers can't cut down an existing longer barrel below 18"( only Gov't agents/gunsmiths can do this it seems).....they can only cut down barrels that haven't yet been in private hands.

Any way you look at it there are a lot of problems with our current system and hopefully we will see some positive changes in the near future.

Most of the changes can be made as cost saving measures (get rid of license renewal and ATT's) which would fit in well with all the other cuts going on right now in Govt. spending and then hopefully some of the other issues such as classification, barrel lengths, mag capacities can be at least be considered for discussion.
 
Prototype. Obviously we will not be selling with the folder

ETA Q1 2013

85magfed.jpg
 
CanAm said:
85magfed.jpg
Click to expand...

... and que the 50,000,000 "ME WANT THIS" replies... in 3... 2.... 1.... :D:D:D

Since you guys HAD to just tease us with that picture, you MIGHT as well go ahead and make this the Mag-Fed 8.5" thread... c'mon... you know ya wanna... ;):D;)

Looks sweet though CanAm youve got a winner there thats for sure! :rockOn:
 
Ahh, this is what I've been waiting for. I have a 12'' mag fed, but I dislike some of the disadvantage's of having a mag fed to anyone with a shandard size 870.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom