Originally Posted by
Cameron SS
Incorrect. The OIC prescribing AR15s as restricted includes the phrase "and includes variants and modified versions". The dilettantes who wrote Blaney's OIC unprohibiting the 858s did not. Murray Smith is correct on that point. We can suspect his motives, but his interpretation of the law and common practice with regards firearms models and editions is correct.
The problem here is Blaney could have written his "thou shalt not create new FRTs for similar firearms" into the regulations, or he could have written it into the law with C42.
At every single step of the process to fix the original 858 issue, the Conservative's did the absolute bare minimum possible to solve the current issue, and either lacked the knowledge and expertise to anticipate future problems, or more likely, simply didn't care.
They were specifically warned about the consequences of failing to include "variants" in the OIC, and they refused to heed the warning. At the time I had many conversations with people in Blaneys office and there was definitely an attitude of they knew what they were doing and didn't need any more advice.
People here blindly cheerleading for the CPC as the solution to all our problems need to give their head a shake. The conservatives are the party most likely to do something beneficial, but their proven history on this file leaves a lot to be desired.
By this logic, firearms do change their model based on look, and that is nothing new. There are over 100 Remington 700 FRT entries. Many of them have identical barrelled actions and differ only as a result of superficial cosmetic differences. The difficulty (read:insanity) with both our classification system and the operation of the FRT is that functionally identical firearms of different models can be classified differently.
What you have described is a great unknown. The FRT is not defined or authorized by law. But this is not uncommon with a variety of the tools that government agencies use. The key issue with the FRT is that what was started as a catalogue of known manufactured firearms models, came to include notes on classification, and due to the absence of any other useful list of classifications, came to be used by a multitude of government agencies, and now has the practical effect of carrying the force of law. Without the FRT, every single time a government agent in any department or role needed to identify the classification of a firearm, a length investigation would have to take place. 99% or more of the time, the FRT makes things simpler for gun owners and importers.
One thing the FRT was never meant to do, and to my knowledge has never actually done, is anticipate or imagine possible firearm configurations based on the substitution of legally owned aftermarket parts, and issue FRTs for them. Likewise I have seen no evidence that the RCMP creates a new FRT whenever they come into possession of home made 'customs' that no longer conform to the original FRT that the manufactured firearm belongs to.
So then to answer your question, we have no idea. We have no idea if the RCMP would want to create a new FRT for a single custom firearm. If you were a firearms business in the business of for profit manufacturing or remanufacturing of firearms, it would probably be treated differently then if you are just selling a firearm you modified for your own purposes, and then no longer wanted to own.
Here is the tougher question, that we also don't know the answer to. IF you took one of the legal 858s and legally modified it with either the substitution of legal parts or legal custom engraving, such that it now exactly matched the FRT for the 'SPARTAN', are you now in possession of a prohibited firearm?
If the police found your "punisher", they would not find an FRT for it, your evidence would be that it was legally purchased, and the police would have no evidence to the contrary.
However, if the police found your 'spartanized' 858, they would find an FRT for the Spartan, and despite your evidence that it is a legally modified standard 858, they would have reasonable and probably grounds to lay charges, your firearm would be seized and guess where it would be sent for investigation to determine if it was or wasn't a 'Spartan' or a modified 'legal 858'.
Swapping the furniture will confuse the issue.
IF you were to remove all of the furniture from a Spartan that distinguishes it form the standard model, it would be impossible for anyone to determine which frt the firearm belonged to, and the RCMP could easily create a new FRT for that partially assembled firearm rendering it again, prohibited.
Returning those firearms to a configuration consistent with the OIC exempted models, and including the Spartan bits in a separate kit only down loads the problem from the importer to the gun owner. Remember, every registration certificate comes with the condition that the gun owner must notify the CFO of any changes to the firearm that result in a change of classification. Now that the Spartan FRT exists, it is a complete unknown, and a risky one, how the law would be applied to an individual who made their own Spartan at home out of a legally OIC exempted 858 and after market parts.
The only way the Spartan will be changed to NR is by the minister of public safety. Doubtful
The only way the Spartan will be added to the FRT for the other 858s is by the RCMP. Doubtful
The only other way Spartans can be come legal is if a judge orders one of the two above to do so.
It matters, because the criminal code definition of prohibited firearm includes converted auto. The RCMP don't have to imply anything in relation to the owners intent. As far as the law goes, once a prohibited full auto, always a prohibited full auto, even if no longer a full auto.
Your example is therefore inaccurate. Are more appropriate example is once you have been convicted of DUI, you lose your license for life, even if you are no longer an alcoholic.
But this is the kind of bad law you get when people who are afraid of inanimate pieces of metal imbue them with evil spirits.
Posting Permissions
