Barrel Length Question
- Thread starter bruma
- Start date
- Location
- Winnipeg MB
If you can't answer why it is restricted, you have no argument. If it's a Remignton factory made configuration then it certainly was not designed or adapted to be fired when reduced to a length of less than 660 mm by folding, telescoping or otherwise. However, my guess is that the RCMP has determined it to be a handgun.
CCC definition of a handgun:
“handgun”
« arme de poing »
“handgun” means a firearm that is designed, altered or intended to be aimed and fired by the action of one hand, whether or not it has been redesigned or subsequently altered to be aimed and fired by the action of both hands
That is a question only the RCMP frt lab could answer and no one else, i can only tell you was is written on the registration certificate, and it is written '' Class: restricted , Type: shotgun,
One thing for sure i can't shoot that thing with only one hand, no way !
.
One thing for sure i can't shoot that thing with only one hand, no way !
.
"a firearm that is designed or adapted to be fired when reduced to a length of less than 660 mm by folding, telescoping or otherwise"
Factory putting a short barrel and pistol grip is "a firearm that is designed to be fired when reduced to a length of 660mm by otherwise". It was reduced to that length by changing the barrel and stock.
Nothing in the law says it has to be a feature of the gun to be less than 660 mm like folding or telescoping. Just that if it can be fired while being less than 660mm then its restricted.
And dont even bring up the Mare's Leg (I know, too late) because that one just doesn't make any sense. Its sold as a handgun in the states, but somehow its a rifle up here AND NR while being too short. But Im not about to ##### about it!
Factory putting a short barrel and pistol grip is "a firearm that is designed to be fired when reduced to a length of 660mm by otherwise". It was reduced to that length by changing the barrel and stock.
Nothing in the law says it has to be a feature of the gun to be less than 660 mm like folding or telescoping. Just that if it can be fired while being less than 660mm then its restricted.
And dont even bring up the Mare's Leg (I know, too late) because that one just doesn't make any sense. Its sold as a handgun in the states, but somehow its a rifle up here AND NR while being too short. But Im not about to ##### about it!
Last edited:
Yes I understand that.
But it is a firearm that was designed to be fired from a length shorter than 660mm. That is where the term "otherwise" comes in. One definition for otherwise is "in circumstances different from those present or considered" which would simply mean that they didn't consider a shotgun of such a configuration, so they used an ambiguous word which allows to them to declare any gun that can be fired from a length shorter than 660mm as restricted.
If this wasn't the case, why don't we see more short-ass firearms? 10/22 with just a pistol grip and a 8" factory barrel would be awesome for a side-arm for grouse while out hunting for deer.
- Location
- Winnipeg MB
"Otherwise" is an expansion upon "folding, telescoping" not an all encompassing god term. It's saying "we can't think of any other words to describe a collapsible stock, so basically anything that is similar to these other two is described here".
The powers that be seem to differ with your interpretation. Except for the Mares leg. For whatever reason those are NR even though they are too short. If you can show more examples than just the Mares leg, then I am willing to change my interpretation on this, but the examples we have - most of which seems to be from short shotguns - all seem to say the interpretation is if it shoots from under 660mm length, its restricted, period.
