12.5" 870 Remington Express FRT#?
- Thread starter Buzzballer
- Start date
it would be much less that that to send it for review.
I mentioned that back on the first page.
I thought that Dlask was/did go to court over these shotguns? Or did they not fight the ruling that changed the classification?
To me, the way they're classified now makes sense, under 26"= restricted. The Mare's Leg thing doesn't make sense to me since they're under 26" and it wouldn't surprise me in the least if the RCMP changed their mind on those as well, especially with the pending demise of the registry.
Buzzballer
CGN Regular
- Location
- Southern Ontario
I'm actually very surprised that the RCMP can change there mind like that. Since they can't technically don't pass laws, only policies? Or maybe I have that wrong.
Thanks for the wealth of information from every one. I wonder, did the RCMP force DLAsk to change there shot guns and not use this loop hole? Or did they just threaten that it would cause some one to go to court
Thanks for the wealth of information from every one. I wonder, did the RCMP force DLAsk to change there shot guns and not use this loop hole? Or did they just threaten that it would cause some one to go to court
Sargeant Slaughter
Regular
The Rcmp supposedly charged somebody with a Dlask shorty in Alberta to challenge the non restricted status . I don't know if they won their case or the guy ran out of money or what . The head of the Canadian NFA died around that time 'cuz he was an expert witness . Joe told me some guy spent a lot of time to get the shorty classed as non restricted before he put them for sale . The Rcmp may be thowing their weight around . Don't know for sure . All I know is the first one I bought was definitely non restricted but the second one I got the "warning " from the RCMP CFC . Maybe someone in the NFA knows .
Yes, it can come as quite a surprise when it happens.
sewktb, it has nothing to do with how the firearm is held. "handgun" is a class simply based on barrel and OAL length. If they allow non-restricted short shotguns, then they will have to start allowing non-restricted pistols as well. The idea is to keep handguns restricted, for whatever reason they have for restricting firearms. when they ad "otherwise" in there it blankets every idea you could come up with from short LOP stocks to pistol grips and anything else. Short = restricted. You can argue on here all you want but your voice is not as loud as an LEO (who can confiscate as much of your firearms, ammo, accessories etc. that he wants while he either arrests or detains you) or a judge. You can play with fire, but grey areas are highly flammable
hi supernova,
actually, it has everything to do with how the firearm is held. A handgun is defined as being a gun "designed to be used with only one hand".
Thats not the case with a pump action shotgun, no matter how small it may be. You still need both hands to use and operate it, precisely because of the pump action required to load each round before firing.
A handgun is NOT only defined by barrel length and OAL. Proof being that no matter what barrel you put on a handgun, even if it was 24", it would still be deemed a handgun, as it still functions like one and is still designed to be held/operated with only one hand.
I'm not sure why you're implying that i'm involved in any way with these short shotguns and that i could get arrested. I don't even own one. I'm only discussing the ramifications of the law.
I do know that the RCMP are only deeming these shotguns to be restricted because they don't want to go down the slippery slope of derestricting other stuff, but that doesn't make them right on this particular issue.
Last edited:
