illegal to make your own guns despite previous informal advise it was okay as long as you held the corresponding license.
this has been discussed on reddit and very well explained.
Unlike the US, there is no constitutional right to bear arms. So, everything is subject to licensing.
Your license grants you rights to possess and acquire; Criminal Code says you cannot manufacture unless you are authorized. Nothing in the Firearms Act or regulations authorizes an individual (without a specific license) to manufacture arms.
If you think you will persuade a Canadian court that "manufacturing" is only for purposes of sale -- good luck. 30K you'd spend on a crim lawyer to find out. Might as well spend 15K to rent something and apply for a business license
copypasta:
The specific law if you are interested is as follows:
Criminal Code:
-----------------------------
Weapons trafficking
99 (1) Every person commits an offence who
(a) manufactures or transfers, whether or not for consideration, or (b) offers to do anything referred to in paragraph (a) in respect of
a prohibited firearm, a restricted firearm, a non-restricted firearm, a prohibited weapon, a restricted weapon, a prohibited device, any ammunition or any prohibited ammunition knowing that the person is not authorized to do so under the Firearms Act or any other Act of Parliament or any regulations made under any Act of Parliament.
---------------------------
Here is the full text of the firearms act:
https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/F-11.6/FullText.html
The relevant text to us is:
Purpose
Marginal note
urpose
4 The purpose of this Act is
(b) to authorize,
(i) notably by sections 5 to 12 and 54 to 73, the manufacture of or offer to manufacture
If we dig in to sections 5-12 and 54-73 what we find are
------------------------------------------------
5-12 Authorized Possession
Eligibility to Hold Licences
--------------------------------------------------
This section 5-12 explicitly only outlines licensing eligibility and does not mention the word manufacturing once. This licensing section is intended to apply to all licenses including PAL and manufacturing licenses which are not defined in this document.
-------------------------------------------
54-73 Licences, Registration Certificates and Authorizations
Applications
Marginal note:Applications
54 (1) A licence, registration certificate or authorization, other than an authorization referred to in subsection 19(2.1) or (2.2), may be issued only on application made in the prescribed form — which form may be in writing or electronic — or in the prescribed manner. The application must set out the prescribed information and be accompanied by payment of the prescribed fees.
------------------------------------------------
This section lays out how the licensing system works at a general level, there's more than just section 54 I've copied in but it basically just goes into detail about how you get "A license".
The licenses in general are laid out here:
https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/regulations/SOR-98-204/FullText.html
You will notice that the fees in here are outlined by type, and you need several licenses to even run a business. There is a business license for manufacture, prohibited manufacture, wholesale, etc.
---------------------------------------------------
When you put this all together the law was clearly written with the licensing regulations in mind, it fails to outline what it says it outlines in sections 5-12 and 54-72 because it relied on the business licensing document to do so. It is essentially passing its authority on to the licensing system.
There is one argument you could make as a defense to weapons trafficking which is that weapon's trafficking says "knowing that the person is not authorized to do so under the Firearms Act or any other Act of Parliament or any regulations made under any Act of Parliament.". You could attempt to argue that you are not un-authorized or that you were not knowingly not authorized.
The judiciary system in the west is generally based on a degree of judicial common sense and precedent, judges are brought to interpret law even if it does not exist in a properly written sense. Additionally, your case will be weighed against older cases on similar topics due to a concept that ensures the judiciary keeps laws consistent. As people in the past have been sentenced for illegally manufacturing, a judge will almost definitely side against you to ensure that they do not undermine the entire business licensing system.
If you believe you are exempt from the business regulations the other side's argument that you can manufacture anything you can have but not sell it is odd and legally unfounded, as there are no real restrictions in the criminal code or firearm's act preventing a private individual from selling a firearm class they are legally allowed to own to another person they are allowed to sell to when they follow the proper procedures. All laws with regards to sale licensing point only to businesses and it is a weird stance to argue you need a business license to wholesale, but not a business license to manufacture.
You might be able to get away with it if you create it and run into more RCMP officers who do not know the law, but if you do wind up getting charged by one you will have an extremely hard time arguing a somewhat ambiguously written law against decades of precedent.
Additionally, these laws only came into existence in 1995, the existence of home made firearms in the FRT if they do exist could be explained by poor enforcement, manufacturing prior to 1995, and the caveat that it is not illegal to own a home made firearm, just to manufacture one. People who manufactured one in the 50s may be allowed to register it, but I do not know the law on pre 1990s manufacturing.
Edit: Also, for some time machining look into my oldest post histories on this account, I also wanted to design and build an AR-10 non-variant that took DPMS barrels. I had a machine shop willing to do the upper if I could get a letter from the CFO, and I was planning to use an extremely robust AR-10 lower design I had. My intent was to modify both heavily and then be exempt from ban-by-naming. Took me weeks to sort through the law and get definitive answers.
