Suppressor legality in Canada

[screwtape]

Suppressors are illegal in Canada because section 84(1) of the Criminal Code contains the following definition:

"prohibited device" means ...
(c) a device or contrivance designed or intended to muffle or stop the sound or report of a firearm.

Unlike all the prohibited firearms people complain about - the FN FALs, AKs and variants, Steyr AUGs, etc. etc. etc., this particular one is NOT by Order in Council (i.e. Regulation) but is contained right in the body of the governing Act.

OICs are passed by the Cabinet - not by Parliament as a whole - and can just as easily be repealed by the same or a later Cabinet.

Which is how the RCMP can so easily reclassify firearms from NR to Restricted or Prohibited: because the Firearms Section just has to explain to the PM and Cabinet why it would be a good idea, and if the PM and Cabinet agree, they can write a Reg, have it published in the next issue of the Canada Gazette and Hey Presto! -- another gun bites the dust.

Of course, it could work the other way too: if the PM and Cabinet decided the list of firearms that are Restricted and Prohibited by Regulation was a load of crap, they could just issue a new Reg repealing the old Regs, and magically all those FN FALs, AUGs, and AKs could be owned by us poor peons again, and the range-only limitations on the ARs would disappear and they would be useful hunting rifles again. Which is why Harper, Toews and the Conservative majority government saying they can't do anything RFN to address gunowners' concerns about ongoing burdensome restrictions is a load of bullsh!t - they could get rid of ALL the restrictions and prohibitions on NAMED firearms without even asking the Opposition to comment first, never mind having to have a formal motion and a vote first.

Suppressors, however, are another matter. They are specifically listed, not in a Cabinet-issued Regulation, but in the actual legislation itself. Removing that will require the introduction of a Bill in Parliament to amend the Criminal Code to remove them from the definition of "prohibited device", much as C-19 was required to abolish the LGR provisions in the Firearms Act.

And just as a similar amendment to the Criminal Code definition of "prohibited firearm" would be required to give us back the handguns with barrels less than 105mm or in .25 or .32 calibre, or the "converted auto" rifles.

Frankly, there are a lot of things the government could do for us before we ever get that far down the list. If we ever get the CPC to agree to introduce further amendments to actual Acts on behalf of firearm owners, we need to be doing a lot more than just trying to get suppressors legalised.

And in the meantime, there is a whole lot the CPC as the majority government could be doing for us without ever having to introduce new Bills in Parliament:

1. They could get rid of the whole laundry list of "named by make and model or as variants" Prohibited and Restricted rifles and shotguns at one Cabinet meeting in one afternoon with a single Regulation repealing all the previous Regulations on the subject.

2. They could get rid of the entire ATT process by passing a Regulation at the same Cabinet meeting automatically making a right to transport restricted weapons to any approved range, gunsmith or border point anywhere in Canada a condition permanently attached to every RPAL.

3. They could set out a Regulation specifying that CCW permits SHALL be issued to any RPAL holder who wants one. (Or at the very least, to any RPAL holder travelling into a wilderness area for protection against wildlife - and define 'wilderness' as any place more than 500m from a dwelling...)

And those are just the ones I thought of off the top of my head here at 3:00am without bothering to do any research.

 

[tiriaq]

None of the recent reclassifications to prohibited status was done using the OIC process.
Laws must be amended by legislative action. Many laws provide for regulation by OIC, but an OIC cannot be used to amend legislation.
The prohibited lists were initiated by OIC. C.C. 84(1) incorporated these OIC prohibitions in the Regulations.

Anyway, this thread has incorporated enough foolishness to warrant closing it down. Anyone wanting to play the fool with oil filters can discuss it elsewhere.

It has been requested that this thread be reopened so that serious discussion of suppressors can continue. There will be no discussion of oil filters or other jackleg improvised prohibited devices.

 

[tiriaq]

Reopened.

 

[FALover]

Is their a prize for being in first after the lock?

 

[EDX2308]

Screw it, who can I write a letter to to unprohibit suppressors? This has been talked over and over and if we want it, we need people in volumes to do it. Suppressors cut dB's by (at the highest quality) of around 30 dB reduction. I need a letter, I need the person in the gov't that we should target with our letter and a serious group of people.

 

[Pure Energy]

What if the firearm was manufactured with a built in suppressor? Like say a new gun, built in Canada, with it made into the barrel. If it left the factory like that, then it would no longer be a device used to reduce sound, as that is the sound it makes from the factory no?

 

[F22_RaptoR]

What if the firearm was manufactured with a built in suppressor? Like say a new gun, built in Canada, with it made into the barrel. If it left the factory like that, then it would no longer be a device used to reduce sound, as that is the sound it makes from the factory no?

Probably would be classified as prohib, but it does strike the question of "a device designed to change the sound"... I have thought of this before, and by the letter of the law a factory made and non-disassemble-able integrally suppressed rifle (like the factory sealed can on the MP5SD) SHOULD be legal but there would be no way the RCMP would let that go. They would FIND a reason to prohibit it, somehow or some way. There is more on the subject I'd like to say but for fear of putting ideas in the RCMP's heads, I'll let sleeping dogs lie.

 

[Hellbroke]

Suppressors are illegal in Canada because section 84(1) of the Criminal Code contains the following definition:



Unlike all the prohibited firearms people complain about - the FN FALs, AKs and variants, Steyr AUGs, etc. etc. etc., this particular one is NOT by Order in Council (i.e. Regulation) but is contained right in the body of the governing Act.

OICs are passed by the Cabinet - not by Parliament as a whole - and can just as easily be repealed by the same or a later Cabinet.

Which is how the RCMP can so easily reclassify firearms from NR to Restricted or Prohibited: because the Firearms Section just has to explain to the PM and Cabinet why it would be a good idea, and if the PM and Cabinet agree, they can write a Reg, have it published in the next issue of the Canada Gazette and Hey Presto! -- another gun bites the dust.

Of course, it could work the other way too: if the PM and Cabinet decided the list of firearms that are Restricted and Prohibited by Regulation was a load of crap, they could just issue a new Reg repealing the old Regs, and magically all those FN FALs, AUGs, and AKs could be owned by us poor peons again, and the range-only limitations on the ARs would disappear and they would be useful hunting rifles again. Which is why Harper, Toews and the Conservative majority government saying they can't do anything RFN to address gunowners' concerns about ongoing burdensome restrictions is a load of bullsh!t - they could get rid of ALL the restrictions and prohibitions on NAMED firearms without even asking the Opposition to comment first, never mind having to have a formal motion and a vote first.

Suppressors, however, are another matter. They are specifically listed, not in a Cabinet-issued Regulation, but in the actual legislation itself. Removing that will require the introduction of a Bill in Parliament to amend the Criminal Code to remove them from the definition of "prohibited device", much as C-19 was required to abolish the LGR provisions in the Firearms Act.

And just as a similar amendment to the Criminal Code definition of "prohibited firearm" would be required to give us back the handguns with barrels less than 105mm or in .25 or .32 calibre, or the "converted auto" rifles.

Frankly, there are a lot of things the government could do for us before we ever get that far down the list. If we ever get the CPC to agree to introduce further amendments to actual Acts on behalf of firearm owners, we need to be doing a lot more than just trying to get suppressors legalised.

And in the meantime, there is a whole lot the CPC as the majority government could be doing for us without ever having to introduce new Bills in Parliament:

1. They could get rid of the whole laundry list of "named by make and model or as variants" Prohibited and Restricted rifles and shotguns at one Cabinet meeting in one afternoon with a single Regulation repealing all the previous Regulations on the subject.

2. They could get rid of the entire ATT process by passing a Regulation at the same Cabinet meeting automatically making a right to transport restricted weapons to any approved range, gunsmith or border point anywhere in Canada a condition permanently attached to every RPAL.

3. They could set out a Regulation specifying that CCW permits SHALL be issued to any RPAL holder who wants one. (Or at the very least, to any RPAL holder travelling into a wilderness area for protection against wildlife - and define 'wilderness' as any place more than 500m from a dwelling...)

And those are just the ones I thought of off the top of my head here at 3:00am without bothering to do any research.

I fully agree with this. Suppressors are cool and all but I would much rather have these things above changed before I would want a suppressor, especially ATT bullsh*t.

 

[screwtape]

None of the recent reclassifications to prohibited status was done using the OIC process.
Laws must be amended by legislative action. Many laws provide for regulation by OIC, but an OIC cannot be used to amend legislation.
The prohibited lists were initiated by OIC. C.C. 84(1) incorporated these OIC prohibitions in the Regulations.

It has been requested that this thread be reopened so that serious discussion of suppressors can continue. There will be no discussion of oil filters or other jackleg improvised prohibited devices.

With respect, ALL of the firearms that have been restricted or prohibited by name have had that done by Regulation. The regulation in question is SOR-98-462, as amended from time to time. And No, they are not "subsequently incorporated into law": there is no "law" for the Regulations to be "incorporated into"; they ARE the law.

Just like the Safe Storage Regulations, the Cartridge Magazine Regulations and so forth. The fine points are ALL done by Regulation - and Regulation is just a fancy way of saying OIC.

Now, there is a provision that requires any Regulations relating to firearms do have to be laid before Parliament. I don't remember the exact details (and I'm not sure if it includes Regulations pursuant to the Criminal Code or only ones made under the Firearms Act), but I think it's basically that a report has to be filed with Parliament about any changes every 6 months.

The problem, of course, is that the provision merely requires that the government basically report the changes to Parliament; there was no provision for any requirement that Parliament had to debate and approve the Regulations or they became invalid, or anything of that sort.

The reason I remember this is because when C-68 was being introduced and then enacted back in the early 1990s, Alan Rock pointed to this provision with great earnestness to assure us that "See, we aren't giving the government of the day unfettered power to do whatever it wants to your firearms without even any debate in Parliament; there is Parliamentary oversight of the process." And we - we being the various firearms lobby groups that had sprung up then - all told him what we thought of that crock.

One of the issues with the changes made by C-68 - and we are seeing its effects now - is that under the previous definitions, firearms could only be restricted or prohibited by regulation if "in the opinion of the Governor in Council (i.e. Cabinet) the firearm is not suitable for hunting or sporting purposes in Canada".

That was the phrase that saved the Ruger Mini-14 from being immediately restricted right after the 1989 Ecole Polytechnique massacre, because there were many thousands of them in private hands across Canada that had already been used for a couple decades for hunting and varmint shooting, which made it impossible for the government to declare the firearm "wasn't suitable" for hunting use in Canada.

So the Liberal government solved the whole problem by removing that handy little phrase from the definitions, and now the "prohibited firearm" and "restricted firearm" definitions now just have as their final 'catch-all' phrase "one that is prescribed by regulation".


In other words, since 1995, the government has been able to restrict or outright ban any firearm it wants by regulation without having to give any justification whatsoever for the decision.

Gunowners naturally pointed out that little problem in the public debates and HoC committee hearings leading up to the enactment of C-68, and argued this was the Liberal government setting the groundwork for the eventual confiscation of all firearms by OIC. In response to which, Alan Rock as the Justice Minister trotted out the above-mentioned line of crockery.

And with the restrictions and prohibitions of named firearms since 1995 - and the lengthy and intense debate that occurred in Parliament before each and every one was enacted [sarcasm] - we've all seen who was right on that one, haven't we?

But if a truly firearm-friendly government was in power, it could equally well work the other way too. Because all those earlier restrictions and prohibitions on named firearms could be repealed again by the same stroke of a Cabinet pen. And while the OIC would have to be laid before Parliament within 120 days, nothing says the government has to ask for Parliament to debate and approve it - and in particular, at most the government would have to have discussion about it for maybe a day, instead of the multiple readings and committee meetings and reports required for legislation.

Oh yeah, and said government could also repeal the one-size-fits-all safe storage laws that allow someone like Ian Thompson to be charged if he has a gun loaded and ready for home-defence and
those stupid 5 and 10 shot limits on cartridge magazine sizes. Because those are all enacted by Regulation too...

 

[Tom_Swift]

Out of all the wants of the firearms community suppressor legalization would be the easiest. Unfortunately a lot of people would rather shoot for the stars before they've even got off the ground.

 

[fireball]

http://www.canadiangunnutz.com/foru...-paper-avail-in-post-135&highlight=Suppressor

OP, the search function....use it.

 

[mmattockx]

ONLY LEA and MIL are allowed, everyone else is not, clubs,hunting or any place.

Since it has not been mentioned, there is another group that can own suppressors - businesses that are licensed to possess prohibited devices. They do not have to be elaborate, profitable, or a full time occupation and are relatively easy to get licensed. There are CGN members that have such businesses, mostly just to have access to all of the forbidden toys, with little to no intention of ever making money from the enterprise.

The government, and especially the CFO's, don't want this known, but it is all there in the firearms act and criminal code.


Mark

 

[t_102]

Since it has not been mentioned, there is another group that can own suppressors - businesses that are licensed to possess prohibited devices. They do not have to be elaborate, profitable, or a full time occupation and are relatively easy to get licensed. There are CGN members that have such businesses, mostly just to have access to all of the forbidden toys, with little to no intention of ever making money from the enterprise.

The government, and especially the CFO's, don't want this known, but it is all there in the firearms act and criminal code.


Mark

Where do I sign up.

 

[f55]

Since it has not been mentioned, there is another group that can own suppressors - businesses that are licensed to possess prohibited devices. They do not have to be elaborate, profitable, or a full time occupation and are relatively easy to get licensed. There are CGN members that have such businesses, mostly just to have access to all of the forbidden toys, with little to no intention of ever making money from the enterprise.

The government, and especially the CFO's, don't want this known, but it is all there in the firearms act and criminal code.


Mark

Correct

Some one needs to make the suppressors to sell to LEA and MIL.

 

[F22_RaptoR]

Where do I sign up.

Get your firearms business license and then apply for Prohibited Devices.

99.9% chance it will be denied (as it's granted by the Chief Firearms Officer, and you need to convince him WHY you need it or want it), but it definitely can happen. I know a guy that has his, of course he also has a Firearms MFG license and some other stuff, but alas he does have it.

 

[t_102]

Get your firearms business license and then apply for Prohibited Devices.

99.9% chance it will be denied (as it's granted by the Chief Firearms Officer, and you need to convince him WHY you need it or want it), but it definitely can happen. I know a guy that has his, of course he also has a Firearms MFG license and some other stuff, but alas he does have it.

So again, its up to the CFO *facepalm*

 

[blaxsun]

And to think they are legal in the UK.

I've seen what passes for "handguns" in the UK. They're not really ahead...

 

[enfield303t]

IIRC someone in Kamloops owns two, legally.

Someone who posts on this site knows about them and the "gong show" they created a few years ago. I can't recall the exact details and maybe he will post his recollection of the incident should he see this thread.

 

[Suputin]

Is their a prize for being in first after the lock?

Nope. There isn't even a prize for being the one who made the reasoned argument to the mod the thread be reopened.

 

[mmattockx]

Where do I sign up.

You must apply to the CFO for a business license that allows possession/manufacture of prohibited devices/firearms. This includes suppressors, full capacity mags, full auto firearms, 12(X) prohibs and so on. They may or may not ask you to justify the request, they will almost certainly inspect your home/place of business, review your security arrangements, require separate safe(s) for the business stuff plus an alarm system and probably give you a hard time about where you are going to shoot your wonderful toys.

Get your firearms business license and then apply for Prohibited Devices.

99.9% chance it will be denied (as it's granted by the Chief Firearms Officer, and you need to convince him WHY you need it or want it), but it definitely can happen. I know a guy that has his, of course he also has a Firearms MFG license and some other stuff, but alas he does have it.

I know people whose experiences say otherwise.


Mark