80% upper recievers? A theoretical discussion of legality
- Thread starter Armedsask
- Start date
Someone really needs to start a business on the www.79percentreceivers.com domain name.
On a separate, but parallel subject, I wonder if one could finish a forging to a workable part with a dremel and tungsten bits.. mmm
But 'workable part' I obviously mean a nice pseudo-reproduction paperweight.
So, apparently '80%' is the magic number where that particular part's ONLY end result can be a firearm (or prohib part).
Anything from 0-79% could still be made into something else than a firearm/receiver...
^ Of course there is no law, or case law to back this up though. It's the RCMP's opinion that 80% receivers were prohib because these could potentially be made into 'automatic receivers'. (This is for the AR15 variants though)
On a separate, but parallel subject, I wonder if one could finish a forging to a workable part with a dremel and tungsten bits.. mmm
But 'workable part' I obviously mean a nice pseudo-reproduction paperweight.
So, apparently '80%' is the magic number where that particular part's ONLY end result can be a firearm (or prohib part).
Anything from 0-79% could still be made into something else than a firearm/receiver...
^ Of course there is no law, or case law to back this up though. It's the RCMP's opinion that 80% receivers were prohib because these could potentially be made into 'automatic receivers'. (This is for the AR15 variants though)
Last edited:
meveringham
Regular
- Location
- Southern Ontario
One could have an 80% sitting on their desk as a paper weight fully intent on having it as a paper weight. I would go to court for that. They cannot prove intent.
Or use that 'receiver-ish' part and mount it with AR15 parts as a nice wall piece, no lock required.
Cameron SS
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- Ground Zero
1) No we don't know that, do we. The RCMP believe it, and it has never been in front of a judge.
2) You are wrong. 80% are not believed to be a firearm because of intent, they are believed to be a firearm because they are "readily convertible" into a firearm.
Applying "readily convertible" to prohibited devices would be a stretch because unlike a fully functional firearm, prohibited devices are particularly useful in conjunction with a firearm. If the readily convertible doctrine were so applied, then every handgun barrel in the country becomes prohibited because it is readily convertible by hack saw to a prohibited length handgun barrel.
I too engage in random musings while gardening.
The real question is how does the RCMP think they quantify 80% finished. Its a marketing term. RCMP Bans 80% receivers and people will just start selling 79% receivers.
The 80% receiver percentage came from the states. Canada make rules up as they go along.
From the ATF website:
In this country you could make a 10% receiver and the horse cops would label it a firearm if they wanted to. 'Cause gang bangers love to use milling machines in their spare time
From the ATF website:
In this country you could make a 10% receiver and the horse cops would label it a firearm if they wanted to. 'Cause gang bangers love to use milling machines in their spare time
The 80% receiver percentage came from the states. Canada make rules up as they go along.
From the ATF website:
In this country you could make a 10% receiver and the horse cops would label it a firearm if they wanted to. 'Cause gang bangers love to use milling machines in their spare time
I feel like if i look at a piece of aluminum with the wrong thoughts I'll be jailed...
rommelrommel
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
RCMP: 80% lowers are actually prohibited firearms
Everyone: what’s considered an 80% lower?
RCMP: you’ll know when we arrest you
Anyways, I don’t think you can make a prohibited device until it’s a prohibited device... like was suggested a handgun barrel isn’t a barrel if it doesn’t work as a barrel yet.
I do figure they wouldn’t be shy to arrest first and let it be sorted out in a year or two if you were commercially making not quite finished AR15 uppers tho.
Everyone: what’s considered an 80% lower?
RCMP: you’ll know when we arrest you
Anyways, I don’t think you can make a prohibited device until it’s a prohibited device... like was suggested a handgun barrel isn’t a barrel if it doesn’t work as a barrel yet.
I do figure they wouldn’t be shy to arrest first and let it be sorted out in a year or two if you were commercially making not quite finished AR15 uppers tho.
Cameron SS
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- Ground Zero
Thats what 40 years of liberal social engineering gets you. No one will ever go to jail over possession of an inanimate piece of aluminum, even if its a 100% receiver. There would have to be some other act of criminality in the story for you to get a custodial sentence, and even then thats a 1:1000 odds against scenario.
This is confusing. You most certainly can make a prohibited device. Just unpin a magazine. Surprisingly, while the act of manufacturing a prohibited device without authority is illegal, modifying a lawful device to become a prohibited device is not. Converting a firearm to a full auto is a criminal offence separate from possession of the full auto, but the same does not appear to be true for prohib devices. Manufacturing a prohibited magazine would be illegal, but converting a legal magazine to a prohibited device does not appear to be an offence.
The weird thing about this 80% nonsense is that you start with a legal item, a block of aluminum, and at some point you pass through the 80% stage and are in possession of prohibited device which is unlawful to make, and if you keep going to 100% you have made a firearm receiver which is deemed restricted and lawful to own. If you stop to pee, eat a sandwich, answer the phone or check the time while passing through that 80% stage you are a criminal. While that 80% item is prohibited and illegal to own because of the risk it poses to the public, it is practically useless. But if you finish it into a receiver and then a firearm that shoots actual bullets capable of killing humans, its considered safe and legal to own. Thats literally how stupid the RCMP are and how stupid the government is that supports them. But bad laws can only possibly result in bad interpretations.
What the police and crown do is they arrest and charge, and then offer to drop all charges if you voluntarily forfeit the item. Every defense lawyer on earth will beg you to take that deal. The item is never worth the cost of defending the charges, and this is why years later the issue has still never been in front of a judge.
that literally made me LOL
That pretty much sums it up perfectly. Most of us can’t afford to go to court to fight over a hunk of aluminum and if you win the case you really lost your finances to Judicial stupidity
rommelrommel
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
I meant that you can’t manufacture a prohibited device until it’s either complete or pretty damn close, logically. A 4” scrap of barrel isn’t a prohibited handgun barrel just because it could be one was my point.
maple_leaf_eh
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
There are Youtubes on guys machining, casting, strip-building, and otherwise experimenting with home machine shops. Always intertaining.
- Location
- WMU248 near Edmonton
so I take a rifle with a 24" barrel cut 3" off,
that 3" chunk is rifled but is it a barrel
what if I chamber it but there are no threads to attach it to a receiver is it a barrel
as for the upper, perhaps when it can fit on to a lower and house the BCG and barrel..... but that's just an opinion.
that 3" chunk is rifled but is it a barrel
what if I chamber it but there are no threads to attach it to a receiver is it a barrel
as for the upper, perhaps when it can fit on to a lower and house the BCG and barrel..... but that's just an opinion.
suppose you design a firearm from scratch. it becomes a firearm under the law when it is capable of discharging a shot, but the reciever is the firearm. if you make the whole thing with a proprietary barrel attachment, but never make a barrel, is it a firearm? the reciever is complete, but it cant discharge a shot. if it is a firearm, is it restricted? is it non restricted? how could they determine if the barrel doesnt exist yet?
