Barrel install legality

Factory barrel? As in a commercial, finished barrel? There is no legal requirement. Most barrel manufacturers mark their finished products. Most barrel makers stamp information on the face of the blank, but that doesn't survive fitting.
 
It is a factory barrel, from IMZ or Baikal. I got it long ago, direct from the factory. I haven't checked it for length markings, but will.
What do you think would happen, upon inspection, particularly in the field?
The Dominion and Norinco are advertised, and easily referred to... I can find zero info on line regarding a factory 12" barrel from IMZ.
Thanks for your help with this.

R.
 
tiriaq said:
It is established practice and policy that installing a replacement barrel does not result in prohibited classification as long as overall length greater than 660mm is maintained.
Let's hope that the powers that be don't adopt your interpretation.
Click to expand...

So I can install 16'' VZ58 barrel on my SKS and it's not prohibited.
 
Last edited:
bgcameron said:
I had wondered the same thing myself. I spoke with a verifier at the firearms center who confirmed that a newly manufactured barrel is ok so long as it is not a semi-auto centerfire and your OAL is 26 inches or greater.
Click to expand...

And guess who won't be testifying at your trial in your defense. Go ahead and see if you can get them to commit to their legal opinion in writing for you.

The law does not specify what "any other modification" means. Note that it is NOT "any other modification to the stock or barrel", but more general any other modification, ie to the firearm as a whole. Judges will be required to interpret this within the apparent intent of the legislation. The apparent intent of the legislation is to restrict or prohibit the practice of people shortening the barrel or OAL of a factory firearm to be under certain limits.

The judge will generally not care, as the law generally does not care, HOW it gets to be at that length, as the net result, a shorter and presumably more concealable firearm, will be the end state. The judge will only care about WHO did the work, as this is the essence of the law. From the factory, its legal. Modified by you to be under the limits, its not. DIY shortening of guns is clearly what the law is trying to deter, and that is how the judge is going to see it.

It is utterly irrelevant that the barrel is a factory barrel. The rules for prohibited firearm and restricted firearm are concerned with any modification to the firearm which results in a change in length. The underlying firearm IS being modified by the substitution of barrels, especially if it requires permanent modifications to the receiver. The law was clearly written by people who did not contemplate the common substitution of factory parts. Despite most shotguns being designed expressly to permit this, and that even in the 90s modular and easily modifiable guns were growing in popularity, our laws did not properly address this technical issue at all.

We are fortunate that there is limited jurisprudence on this, and you would have more luck consulting a bag of chicken bones than calling the CFP for an interpretation. Their answers change with the breeze. The lack of jurisprudence tells us that police generally seem to be unconcerned with the modifications of legal owners' firearms. But then there is always a first for everything.

If the thought of winding up in court for something innocuous as barrel length scares you, then you are probably ill suited for gun ownership in Canada.
 
Cameron SS has carefully and eloquently explained his interpretation of the law.

The RCMP have been using their interpretation, which is different, thus the established practice of short replacement barrels being sold and installed.
Should a case ever get to court, established past practice would certainly be a factor.
 
tiriaq said:
Cameron SS has carefully and eloquently explained his interpretation of the law.

The RCMP have been using their interpretation, which is different, thus the established practice of short replacement barrels being sold and installed.
Should a case ever get to court, established past practice would certainly be a factor.
Click to expand...

Factor, certainly yes, since any accused would argue the assumption that past practice being deemed lawful is proof of legality. It would in no way be determinative. Rampant rule breaking is never taken as evidence that such rule breaking is in fact lawful.

Just look at the R v Frank ruling that resulted in all pellet guns, paintball guns and airsoft guns being deemed firearms, and yet the RCMP ignored that with impunity and basically hasn't enforced it. DOes the failure of Law Enforcement to grasp or apply that ruling mean the supreme court judgement is without any force or effect. Good luck convincing a judge of that.

Or even go WAAYYY back to the Felawka ruling where a supreme court judge ruled that all non gun shaped cases have to be labelled "firearm" other wise it can be considered concealed. I suspect not one police officer in 10,000 has even heard of Felawka, and certainly there hasn't been a single charge laid as a result of it, fortunately for all the Guitar-case-come-gun-cases since then.

Or look at the issues with the way Variant and Modified Version are very inconsistently applied. If the Mossberg Blaze 47 is a variant of the AK 47, as the RCMP have deemed, than every bolt gun on earth is a variant of the Macmillan M87 bolt action Sniper Rifle.

And of course nothing accounts for how the law, regulations, and jurisprudence with regards to magazines or partially completed lowers did not change, and yet RCMP "practices" did.

I would love it if past practice was taken with serious consideration. If I was ever convinced of that I'd shred my PAL that day, and join the millions of unlicensed gun owners who have owned guns without a license for decades with impunity. When law enforcement doesn't even respond AFTER a judge has issued a ruling, even in the face of a contempt of court ruling (ask the Ontario CFO), its hard to think that what happened before hand would matter much.

FOr the time being, I guess we should consider ourselves fortunate the RCMP currently don't take issue with the practice, but then, they never took issue with 25 rd .22 rifles mags or 80% receives either, until they did.
 
So what if your gun is already restricted? I want to do a UMP conversion on my USC and would like to keep the factory polygonal rifled barrel, but shorten it to about 8". Also, if shortening a factory barrel is illegal, why do people admit to doing it on here? Is it just the minimum length you have to worry about?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom