3D printed non-restricted

A) There are plenty of FRT entries for homemade firearms, including non-restricted, restricted, and prohibited.

For sure! There is nothing illegal about possessing a homemade firearm -- after they are manufactured (or merely "made" if that is distinct from manufacturing), they are treated just like any other gun.

Also, the existence of a homemade firearm is not proof that a crime has occurred in its creation, even if it is decided that it was 'manufactured'. A section 99 conviction requires prosecution to prove that the manufacturer knew they were not authorized. Thus, a gun can be manufactured legally:
- If you believed the old advice of the CFO and RCMP, then you may very well legitimately believe that you were authorized to manufacture for personal use.
- If you misread the law, you might have gotten an impression that you were authorized to manufacture for personal use.
However:
- If you had strong suspicions that you were not authorized, and went ahead anyway, then you'd probably be judged to be 'wilfully blind' on this knowledge.
- Also, if your defence is that "personal use is not manufacturing, so even though I'm not authorized for manufacture it doesn't matter", then you have admitted to knowing you're not authorized, and it becomes a question of law as to whether personal use is manufacturing. A skilled interrogator would probably try to get you to make this admission.
 
Some miscellaneous thoughts; first is that a ghost gun is one that of which there is no record and in recent years has referred to restricted and prohibited guns which are unregistered or for which the registration has been lost with the computer crash in the 1980s or 90s. In the absence of the long gun registry, there is minimal record of the existence or ownership of long guns but they are rarely referred to as ghost guns.
Around 20 years ago, I phoned the provincial firearms office to ask about cost and details of a manufacturing and gunsmithing license and at that time, the manufacturing license was necessary if you were building the gun for sale or for another person. As long as you built the gun for yourself and as long as it was not prohibited, you only required a PAL for that category of gun. Similarly, gunsmithing license was required if you were doing the work for someone else. If you think about it, most of do gunsmithing work for ourselves on a frequent basis. Cleaning a gun, installing sights replacing damaged screws all constitute a form of gunsmithing and as long as we are working on our own guns, we do not require a license. There are a number of registered handguns on the registry which are listed as home made and if the law was newly interpreted to mean you could not make a restricted firearm for yourself, the RCMP would have to either grandfather current owners or confiscate with compensation home made firearms

cheers mooncoon
 
You don’t think the RCMP in their decision would explore how it’s categorized in its originating country? Somewhat?

No. Because they are not concerned whatsoever with what happens in 'the originating country', they are concerned with what happens in Canada.

They are not going to look into the stuff until someone makes them get up out of their chair, and come up with a decision based on a sample that is submitted to them.
 
Afaik it's a 'if you can own, you can make' sort of deal, with the condition that at no point during the process does it fall into the restricted/prohib category if you don't have the license.

Our laws are pretty useless, just saw you can get a 9" barrel for the gsg16 as long as you pin the stock to keep the gun itself over 26".
 
Afaik it's a 'if you can own, you can make' sort of deal, with the condition that at no point during the process does it fall into the restricted/prohib category if you don't have the license.

Our laws are pretty useless, just saw you can get a 9" barrel for the gsg16 as long as you pin the stock to keep the gun itself over 26".

Sorry dude, our laws are NOT "kinda useless"! Enjoy that you can have something that makes the Yanks drool, at least a little! :)

They are used all the time to beat people over the head for things that should not have needed much more than a stern talking to!

What they are, is a twisted mess of bad opinions, mostly, I figure, from various Parliamentary bodies having too much time on their hands, and taking Hollywood, Bollywood, and Hong Kong Hakki-choppi movies as a reference for how reasonable people use guns every day.

Seriously, if you went to the bother of researching the background of Bill C-68, I am reasonably certain that you could zero in on the exact magazines they were looking through, in order to decide that 'normal people don't need that'.

Same with previous OIC that banned Martial arts weapons. Used to be Karate Magazines full of adverts for blow guns and throwing stars, and nunchucks. Ever hear of a Bank being robbed by a guy swinging nunchucks around? Me neither.

I would bet that when it finally does come to light, it was some minimum wage flunky sent to buy a bunch of gun magazines (the paper kind, from the magazine rack at your drug store or wherever you buy them), that was the pivotal person in all of the firearms banned by the recent OIC.

Our Laws may not be Useless, but they for sure, are stupid, ill thought out, based on knee jerk reactions, and poor information.
 
Seriously, if you went to the bother of researching the background of Bill C-68, I am reasonably certain that you could zero in on the exact magazines they were looking through, in order to decide that 'normal people don't need that'.

Same with previous OIC that banned Martial arts weapons. Used to be Karate Magazines full of adverts for blow guns and throwing stars, and nunchucks. Ever hear of a Bank being robbed by a guy swinging nunchucks around? Me neither.

Our Laws may not be Useless, but they for sure, are stupid, ill thought out, based on knee jerk reactions, and poor information.

I don't believe the laws are ill thought out and based on photos in magazines. At the time of bill C 68, people were concentrating on the creation of a long gun registry and gave little thought to Allan Rock's statement that they intended to ban Saturday night specials because they were cheaply made and innacurate. Because most people by and large did not have the ability or inclination to read the written words of the bill, the Liberals were able to ban 58% of all handguns in Canada, at that time. The law was a sneaky way of banning large numbers of handguns.
In the current prohibitions, I suspect the 20 mm rule and 10,000 jules prohibition is probably because politicians are afraid of becoming targets for long range sniping and / or mortar attacks.

Regardless, we seem to be drifting away from building our own guns.

My personal concern about computer printing a gun is the strength of the finished product. I don't have absolute confidence in the ability of a computer to print a homogenous metal reciever and one which is made out of a suitable grade of steel

cheers mooncoon
 
I don't believe the laws are ill thought out and based on photos in magazines. At the time of bill C 68, people were concentrating on the creation of a long gun registry and gave little thought to Allan Rock's statement that they intended to ban Saturday night specials because they were cheaply made and innacurate. Because most people by and large did not have the ability or inclination to read the written words of the bill, the Liberals were able to ban 58% of all handguns in Canada, at that time. The law was a sneaky way of banning large numbers of handguns.
In the current prohibitions, I suspect the 20 mm rule and 10,000 jules prohibition is probably because politicians are afraid of becoming targets for long range sniping and / or mortar attacks.

Regardless, we seem to be drifting away from building our own guns.

My personal concern about computer printing a gun is the strength of the finished product. I don't have absolute confidence in the ability of a computer to print a homogenous metal reciever and one which is made out of a suitable grade of steel

cheers mooncoon

May well be as you suggest, just as it may well be as I do.
But given the lack of 'gun literacy' that most involved with bill c68 demonstrated, I have no real issues with the idea that they went through what magazines their lackey gathered at the local magazine rack.

This recent issue regarding 20mm and 10k Joules, I cannot place.

As for computer printed, it needs a better definition than that. Making a gun or gun part these days, in any level of the industry, almost always uses a CNC mill or lathe. Is that "made by a computer" or is it only if it is extruded by a cheap plastic melting device which accurately deposits material that counts? Because there are a fair few other technologies out there for rapid prototyping, which are technically not "printing".

This lot of idiots are not showing any more signs of having any knowledge about the subject that they are making laws about, than the previous lot.
 
You can make, for personal use, anything you can legally own. Doesn't matter if you 3D print it from CAD files, or carve it from stone with a chisel. When it is capable of firing, you need to inform the CFO and it will likely need to be verified. They prefer you to inform them before that stage. If it is fairly straight forward firearm (based on an existing design), verification can be as simple as sending pictures.

You cannot make anything to sell, trade, or give away without a manufacturing license. You cannot make a barrel less than 18" without a manufacturing license.

Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer or an expert. The above information is from my personal experience building some semi-automatic, non-restricted lower recievers a few years ago. Things may have changed with how your CFO makes up their own rules.
 
. When it is capable of firing, you need to inform the CFO and it will likely need to be verified. They prefer you to inform them before that stage. If it is fairly straight forward firearm (based on an existing design), verification can be as simple as sending pictures.
.

I think that only applies to restricted firearms. It may also apply to semi auto long guns, in order to confirm that the gun in question can not be easily converted to full auto. Basically why would you need to have a single shot, bolt action, or pump action non restricted gun verified now that there is no long gun registry ?

cheers mooncoon
 
I think that only applies to restricted firearms. It may also apply to semi auto long guns, in order to confirm that the gun in question can not be easily converted to full auto. Basically why would you need to have a single shot, bolt action, or pump action non restricted gun verified now that there is no long gun registry ?

cheers mooncoon

That is my understanding as well. I had it in there at first but edited it out just to be safe .
 
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:purpose

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.
 
...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...

There have been a number of homemade restricted firearms made post 1995 with the cooperation and prior knowledge of the Canadian Firearms Program, and duly registered on completion.
 
There are several FRT entries for homemade firearms. But all that being said it does not appear to be an offence to possess a home made NR firearm under weapons trafficking. So once the NR firearm has been made by who knows it is not an offence for you to possess it and NR firearms do not require an FRT
 
...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.


Your JustinTr account is a new one. How many accounts do you have?
 
A bunch of gibberish by someone who doesn't know how to read law.

Sure, you can quote legal text all you want but it does no good if you can't read it. Legalese is an entire language unto itself. The big problem here is you are missing that a firearms license is the authorization to make guns for your personal use. Your PAL or RPAL is the authorization. You are also making the incorrect assumption that "manufacturing" refers to making things for personal use. The basic definition of manufacturing is the building of firearms for a third party "for consideration" (that means money or some other compensation). The legal definition of manufacturing is not the same as the common language use definition. Making a gun for personal use is not manufacturing according to the law. It therefore simply falls into the question of whether or not you are authorized to own that type of firearm.

If this law came into place in 1995, please explain how hundreds of Canadians have registration certificates for firearms they built themselves decades after that date.
 
Your JustinTr account is a new one. How many accounts do you have?

I think that section of text was from the original Reddit post. It appears he's some wet behind the ears young buck that copy pasted a Reddit post without any actual knowledge of the discussion at hand.
 
either way appear no offence to possess.The Crown has to prove you knew you couldnt make it. Wasnt there a bunch of 80% receivers that came into the country that people manufactured into complete firearms before the RCMP reclassified 80% receivers as firearms.

I would like to see case law on this. I cant see it not requiring some sort of intent to manufacture for the purpose of trafficking in a firearm not for personnel use. The next section 100 C.C. is possession for the purpose of trafficking which requires an intent to transfer. I cant imagine section 99 weapons trafficking not requiring an element for manufacturing with the intent to transfer.

I found this in the firearms act

117 The Governor in Council may make regulations

(k) for authorizing

(i) the possession at any place, or

(ii) the manufacture or transfer, whether or not for consideration, or offer to manufacture or transfer, whether or not for consideration,

But I couldnt find any regulations pertaining to the manufacture of anything but prohibited firearms. So I cant find any regulation saying we cant
 
Last edited:
If I made it and didn’t register it.
A) how would anyone know if I made it and
B) if it’s even homemade
Single shot rifle plans are easy to make and sometimes can’t be differentiated from the originals. Now what?
I say build it and live your life like a free man.
 
Back
Top Bottom