Classification of SBS (870 specifically, but who cares)

K

krprice84

CGN frequent flyer
Rating - 100%
97   0   0
Location
Calgary, Alberta
Ok, So I'm sure this has been posted on a few times, but I couldn't find it, so I'm gonna post it again, hopefully with enough words in it that it would help a search find it.

So, my understanding of the laws is that a non-restricted manual action gun CAN be shorter than 26" OAL if it is not shorter than that length by way of telescoping, collapsing, folding, or otherwise non-permanent shortening of the gun, AND if it is designed to be fired with two hands (and never was, originally, designed to be fired with one hand, such as the Rossi revolving type rifle, which is based on a handgun frame and is thus restricted forevermore regardless of if it has a stock on it and is now designed to be fired with two hands).

The Rossi Ranch Hand is 24 inches overall length, or so I read (some places say 26 inches, but I think that's a mistake because they assume it must be because of the way they've read the law), and it's non-restricted, because it does not have a pistol grip and can be said to be designed to be fired with two hands.

Now, I've heard RUMORS that for a pump shotgun, if it has a 16" barrel or over, it can have a pistol grip and be non-restricted. I've also heard that the 6.5" barrel DLASK is classed as non-restricted with a standard style stock, because it can be said that it's designed to be fired with two hands. I've also heard that any pump shotgun with a barrel UNDER 16" and a pistol grip stock, if it is under 26 inches, overall length, is interpreted by the RCMP to be a "handgun" for some dumb-ass reason.

Does anyone know the REAL word on this? Has the RCMP put out anything on their interpretation of this? Does anyone have any documentation or links showing what the real interpretation is? Obviously the wording of the law would imply that, so long as it is a gun that is designed to be fired with two hands, and was never designed to be fired with one hand, then it could be said to be a non-restricted rifle, even without a shoulder stock.

Anyways, I don't want to start an argument about what the law says - it's very clear what it says. I don't want to start an argument about HOW the RCMP *SHOULD* interpret the law, because that's immaterial. Our arguing over it won't change how they interpret it, as much as we might try.

What I want to know is does anyone know what the RCMP has actually said, and have a link or evidence, not just hearsay?

My idea would be to put a pistol grip AND a vertical foregrip style/pistol grip style foreend on it, both to make it easier to pump (that short fore grip would make it a pain to pump, I think, and possibly dangerous too). Would it be practical for much? Maybe not... but it would be fun, and it would be even more fun to make fun of our american cousins by showing off our 6.5" barrel shotguns that are only 16" long (or whatever they would end up at) overall length, and which are non-restricted. I'm not asking for suggestions on why this is stupid - I know it's impractical, and likely won't be useful, and likely won't even stay in that configuration... I'm wondering if it's interpreted as a legally non-restricted shotgun by the RCMP, or if they've that rumor is true as stated above and that it would not be ok because of the pistol grip.

If that's the case, then the next idea is to custom make a ranch-hand style "shoulder" stock, and put that on a 6.5 or 8.5" barrel gun.... not much could be said about that, because then it's basically a ranch hand with a slightly shorter barrel (and a much bigger diameter barrel :devil:)
 
daniel_250r said:
I believe it must be factory made with the shorter stock not swapped out
Click to expand...

Is that conjecture or hearsay though? There's no where in the law that claims that. I know I've read the NFA site, but what they state is not actually HOW the law is written... it's misleading, IMO. The truth is, it doesn't matter what the NFA or the CGN guys or even a lawyer says - it matters what the RCMP has decided is the law (because in Canada, apparently they write the law....).

If we went by the exact wording of the law, then a pistol grip on a 6.5" barrel 870 should be legal, because it's clearly not designed to be fired with one hand, even with a pistol grip.... it's a pump action shotgun which needs two hands to operate it in any reasonable manner, and is generally uncontrollable with only one hand on the pistol grip. But we can't go by the exact wording, because in Canada, the process is the punishment, and there's no protection from the RCMP or other police forces laying charges that are bogus, just to see what sticks.
 
Honestly you wont get a forsure answer theres how the law is written then theres the way the rcmp interpret it (usually not in our favour ) the only real answer youll get will be through a court challenge
 
That's the thing, you can't challenge it in court either, now that the registry is gone.

The idea before was that you would try to register it as a non-restricted firearm and find out what they say, then if they deny the registration and say it's restricted, then you challenge it. Now that there is no registration, there is no way to get a ruling that can be challenged. You can call them or write them and ask, but what they say really can't do much holding up in court. I guess you could maybe take it to a verifier and see if they will assign it an FRT number, but I'm not sure they can do that... they might have to submit a request to the RCMP. But either way, can't take that to court.

The other option (the stupid one, but probably the only sure-fire way to get a solid answer) is to just do it, then go somewhere you KNOW that the police will be, and walk right up to them (with it in a case, of course), and say "I just got this new shotgun, can you tell me what you think" and then, when they arrest you because they don't know the law right, you can take it to court (yay).

What i'm looking for is, supposedly DLASK or someone else had tried this with their own shotguns, and had problems, but I don't know for sure. I do know that DLASK sells their short barreled pistol grip shotguns as restricted firearms, but I don't know the why, and they are HORRIBLE with responding to people's questions, so I'm hoping someone here has a link to a thread they talked about it in, or that someone else privy to it all talked about it in.
 
TripleF said:
Did you read this page on the NFA: Barrel and Firearms Lengths? Subsection: OVERALL LENGTH LESS THAN 26"/660mm RULES:
Click to expand...

Yea I did but that's just their opinion on it.... Won't be worth a damn in court or with respect to dealing with a cop.

Plus, their points on the gun arriving a certain way don't add up.... It doesn't say anything about that in the law. Unless they got that point of view from the frt notes.

But their point of view doesn't seem too fully jive with the ranch hand, unless I misunderstood it.

Anyways, how does one get to see the notes on frt entries? Gotta know someone who's a verifier?
 
"
Example: A Remington Model 870 pump-action shotgun that has been fitted with a Scattergun Technologies 12"/305mm barrel and a Pachmayr pistol grip is less than 26"/660mm in overall length, but is NOT "prohibited." It is a "prohibited firearm" if this was done to a Remington 870 that left the factory with those parts, but it is non-restricted if it was re-manufactured and left the Scattergun Technologies factory with them. It doesn't HAVE to make sense -- it's GOVERNMENT POLICY."

This also does not make sense. If it can't come from Remington like that it couldn't come from scattergun factory like that. The law doesn't state an aftermarket company can make a shorter gun that a primary manufacturer.

Hence, anything on that page I wouldn't trust, because it was either not proof read, or it simply must be wrong.
 
d:h:d:h:d:h: This has been done ad nauseum. At the end of the day any combination of barrel and stock= less than 26" is considered restricted, provided they are parts made by a licenced supplier. (Dlask is licenced to make barrels) Do not confuse restricted with prohibited. My 8.5 with the pistol grip only is restricted, while with a full stock it is non restricted, and if I had had the barrel cut down it would be prohibited. And they do check. When I registered my shorty, I filled out the Dlask barrel as being 8" as opposed to 8.5 and all hell broke loose. I got an e mail demanding high resolution pictures of the barrel, specifically the muzzle end from both sides and facing the bore (so they could determine if it had been cut). Once I realised my mistake and told them (including a picture with a tape measure) all was good
 
So then why the ranch hand and others non restricted then?

My point is that the law doesn't state that 26" is a hard limit, only with certain things is it a hard limit.

Also, do they consider your short shotgun a pistol or a restricted length rifle? Very curious about this.

And if this has beaten to death, then there should be someone who's posted actual information from the RCMP concerning this, or FRT notes, etc. I'm sure you can appreciate why I don't really buy into mere hearsay or conjecture on a forum like this..... Everyone has a different opinion, and the fact is, when you're coming out of the bush and two fish cops are waiting for you, a bunch of opinions, or my own interpretation, of the laws mean Jack. A letter from the tech lab or FRT notes the cop can lol up or get looked up, that's gold.... Even if they aren't what a judge would agree with, they are what will keep you from being punished beefier you are proven innocent.

I'm not disagreeing that your 8.5 inch pistol grip shotgun is restricted.... I have no doubt. I'm wanting to know where they draw three line and how so. Could I make a ranch hand style shotgun, where it's maybe 23 or 24 inches, but with a fixed, very short, shoulder stock (maybe a short retractable one that's pinned to that length), and a short barrel.... Again, RCMP info should provide enough info to make this easily discernable..... If they say no, then sadly there's no recourse even because you moo longer have to register non restricted rifles and shotguns, so you can't file a section 74 hearing over them misclassifying the gun.
 
And no Dlask is not licensed to make barrel. There are no licenses to make barrels. They are licensed to make firearms.

There's no legal reason you or me couldn't whip up an 8" barrel on a lathe from bar stock and have it be perfectly legal....
 
dogzilla said:
d:h:d:h:d:h: This has been done ad nauseum. At the end of the day any combination of barrel and stock= less than 26" is considered restricted, provided they are parts made by a licenced supplier. (Dlask is licenced to make barrels) Do not confuse restricted with prohibited. My 8.5 with the pistol grip only is restricted, while with a full stock it is non restricted, and if I had had the barrel cut down it would be prohibited. And they do check. When I registered my shorty, I filled out the Dlask barrel as being 8" as opposed to 8.5 and all hell broke loose. I got an e mail demanding high resolution pictures of the barrel, specifically the muzzle end from both sides and facing the bore (so they could determine if it had been cut). Once I realised my mistake and told them (including a picture with a tape measure) all was good
Click to expand...

Have a Mare's Laig with a 12" barrel that is less than 26" OAL and according to the registration certificate that was issued for it when the LGR was in place it is non-restricted.
 
Keep pointig out little hiccups and grey areas and they might just put the kiabosh on our little levers and SBS's....
 
EL34/6L6 said:
Keep pointig out little hiccups and grey areas and they might just put the kiabosh on our little levers and SBS's....
Click to expand...

They won't, and they can't. First off, they can't reclassify the Ranch hand and other similar firearms because it's been classified for longer than one year as non-restricted. The only way it could be changed is by Order in Council, and that isn't going to come about from people discussing the boondoggle that is the CFP anyways.

Pointing out the "hiccups" has a VERY valid purpose:

First off, it allows us to confer and pass information to each other regarding the RCMP's position (and, if applicable, any court rulings regarding it, past or recent), thus making sure we are able to know we are in compliance with the law the way the RCMP reads it, not the way it's written (since, in practice, it doesn't matter as much as if we are in compliance with the law as it is written if the RCMP interpret it differently, unless we are willing and able to take it to court and risk your freedom, time, money, job, etc - and even if you win the case, you still lose in effect, having spent thousands of dollars, many hours of your time, possibly losing your guns temporarily, and quite likely now having a "black mark" on your record with the CFO, giving them one more reason to screw with you in the future, as has happened to at least two people I know who've dealt with the police in events that they were found not guilty for and were a mistake on the part of the police).

Second, pointing these kinds of things out makes lots of sense from a "this is why the law is broken" point of view. Personally, I would much rather have the laws be consistent and more logical, rather than convoluted and messed up, even if it required an exemption to make the existing ranch hands et al non-restricted. If we could have the laws re-written to be logical and consistent, it would save a lot of people a lot of pain and hassle - if it's a matter of reading the law and seeing "ok, ANY gun that's over 24" or 26" overall length is non-restricted, regardless of barrel length and regardless of action type excepting automatics" then that would be better than what we have now. I don't support classification AT ALL, but seeings as we have it, it should be done in a way that makes some sort of sense.

What we have now is a situation where the RCMP can interpret things differently depending on exactly how they feel and what the impact will be to existing owners - look at what has happened with various magazines. First, the RCMP interpreted things as "whatever gun it is designed for use in", therefore a pistol magazine could hold ten regardless of if it fit into a rifle, a bolt action magazine could fit 30 regardless of if it fit into a rifle, etc. Then they decided, for the Ruger 10/22, the BX25 magazines were "dual use" as they also fit the Charger pistol, their justification for this decision being that the magazine packaging says on it that it also fits the pistol (doesn't say it was designed for it, just says it also fits), so they call it prohibited. Of course the aftermarket brand magazines that are 25 rounds and almost identical to the BX25 are legal, as the packaging doesn't specifically say they work with the pistol. Then we have the LAR magazines, which clearly are designed after the same design as the magazines for the rifles, yet they are somehow allowed, even though they should also fall under "dual use". Fair enough, but then we have the Mossberg MVP rifle, which uses STANAG style magazines, is a bolt action rifle, and yet it's magazines must be pinned to 5 rounds, even if they are sold SPECIFICALLY for the Mossberg bolt action rifle and are marked as such. Obviously if the pistol magazines, which are made for and marketed for use with the pistols, are acceptable to hold ten rounds, then the bolt actions magazines which hold 20 or 30 rounds should also be legal to own and use in any rifle which fits them, under the logic that allows pistol mags. Yet somehow, they applied the law completely differently in that case. Then we have the AIA magazines which are similar to, but not even the same physically, as the M1A/M305/M14S magazines; they are designed explicitly for a bolt action rifle which is not mentioned anywhere in the law as having a limit (some people claim that the lee enfield type rifle is covered, this is incorrect, it is only talking about a semi-automatic rifle based on a lee enfield type action, and which uses standard 10 round magazines), and since they are actually physically different than the M1A family magazines, they are clearly not "dual use", yet when a company in Canada was going to get them produced for sale in Canada in 10, 20, and 30 round sizes, the RCMP stepped in and claimed they were dual use, and said only the ten round magazines would be legal for sale in Canada - how on earth does that even work? Where did they get a 10-round limit for these magazines, when there is NO mention of bolt action magazine limits anywhere in the law? I would have understood this one, to a minor degree, if they said 5 rounds because they are dual use for semi auto's, but clearly that wouldn't even fly because they are not physically the same.

So we have numerous different magazines, for which the legal capacity limit is applied completely differently for each case, and often contradictory, depending on the mood of the person writing the interpretation of the law.

Point being, this type of thing should be brought out in the open so that politicians who are not anti-gun can see how stupid things are, can see how the RCMP has acted, and can then step in with clear and logical regulations that make sense and are easy to understand. The hope would be that they would realize that having magazines with more than 5 rounds for semi-auto rifles hasn't caused any problems thus far, therefore the magazine capacity limit is illogical and should be scrapped completely. The hope with respect to the shorter guns would be that they would see that the Ranch Hand and similar non-restricted firearms that are shorter than 26 inches haven't caused any issues, so they could safely class any gun that's over, say, 22" or 23", in overall length, as non-restricted (of course the final goal would be to class everything as non-restricted and simply have penalties for misuse of guns in general, as we all should know there's no "more danger" to taking a pistol out into the bush than a short barreled shotgun or a 300 win mag....).

Point is, there's lots of merit to pointing these "hiccups" out. They're not hiccups. They're massive failures of a bad law that should be repealed in it's entirety, and the only way that might ever have a chance of happening is if the politicians who are not against us realize how much of a failure this bad law really is. Most of them have no idea the boondoggle that is magazine capacity restrictions; most have no idea that there is so much confusion and complication over the length of firearms and that it depends on no less than 4 or 5 factors, some of which are impossible to discern with certainty anyways.

Eventually someone's going to get in trouble for one of these types of guns that falls into what some people like to call "grey area" but which I like to call "completely legal except in the opinion of, and interpretation of the law by, an unelected bureaucrat". Sadly, that's likely what it's going to take for this to finally be brought to light. Hopefully the firearms community steps up to support that person, and hopefully they are able to get a judge who is logical and reasonable, and who says that if even lawyers, cops, and politicians cannot understand the law, that it's bad law, and hopefully he would be able to strike it down in it's entirety, forcing Parliament to re-write the whole thing. If it's a non-anti-gun (note, I'm not saying pro-gun, because Conservatives are not pro-gun, and the real pro-gun parties won't get elected because the average voter, including gun owning voters, are too afraid to vote for something that would actually be good for the country) party, then maybe we get lucky and they change the law to make sense, be understandable, AND allow things we used to have and have been fighting to get back for years. If it's an anti-gun party, hopefully they go too far and violate the constitution in a way that the supreme court judges decide isn't justifiable in a free and democratic society, thus forcing them to come back with something better (or, hopefully, exposing them as they pond scum they are, and thus losing them the next election).

Who knows, but there's absolutely no logic to your suggestion that we should just stop discussing this for fear that Mommy or Daddy will take away our toys. The goal is to take our stuff anyways, so our choice is to quietly acquiesce to their forcible theft of our property, OR we could stand up and refuse to give in. I'd rather NOT use the tactics of past gun owners, which were "well, they would never do 'X', so this new law isn't a big deal" and "if we just stay quiet and be good little boys, they won't come for our stuff" - that was a failed policy of the gun owning community, from the 70's up to the present, and I will not partake in a strategy of "staying quiet in the hopes that i'll be mostly left alone".

/END RANT

Point being, I want some information that I know is out there regarding the RCMP's "opinion" on what it would take to make a shotgun non-restricted, yet under 26 inches. There is absolutely a way, though that way might involve a manufacturer (or home-gun-builder who is building for private use of the gun) building it in a certain way, but there's a way, since the Ranch Hand et al is legally non-restricted and that cannot change since the change regarding reclassification (which is now not allowed after classification has been in place for one year, hence, the Ranch Hand is completely and totally safe from reclassification anyways, which is apparently one of your fears).

Maybe it would take somoene manufacturing a stock similar to what is on the ranch hand, with an implied shoulder mount point, but a very short length of pull. In theory, since the ranch hand is configured that way and is non-restricted, a 6.5" barrel shotgun configured with that stock would also be non-restricted. It would be very hard for the RCMP to justify classifying it as restricted when they've already said a virtually identical rifle is non-restricted and when they've already made decisions regarding SBS with pistol grips (I assume they have, somewhere, which is one of the things I'm looking for here). Maybe it would take someone putting a pistol grip/vertical fore grip on the fore end of the shotgun, thus making it clearly designed for use with two hands. Who knows, but the wording of the RCMP notes/letter/decision/whatever might shed light on it.

Hence, does anyone have any real information about the RCMP's position on various lengths of shotguns and/or rifles that they consider to be non-restricted or restricted based on overall length of the gun?
 
There was a specific notation in the frt's regarding 870 type pump shotguns which outlined what was considered restricted, and it basically laid out the criteria being any stock with any barrel that came to less than 26". The frt disks aren't available to the general public and the number of private verifiers who have them have dwindled drastically. The mares leg NR status has something to do with the action being based on an antique and nothing to do with OAL. The exact reason was also posted on this forum at one time but has been lost thru the ages. Dlask was the original to sell the shorties commercially, and they were informed that their guns had to be stocked to escape restricted classification. They had vowed to fight it in court but decided it was a fight they couldn't afford and probably not win. So you may want to take that into consideration. There have been umpteen people trying to find loopholes in this since day one and guess what?
 
dogzilla said:
There was a specific notation in the frt's regarding 870 type pump shotguns which outlined what was considered restricted, and it basically laid out the criteria being any stock with any barrel that came to less than 26". The frt disks aren't available to the general public and the number of private verifiers who have them have dwindled drastically.
Click to expand...

Could be true here, I'd love to speak to someone who actually has the disks so I can find out that for sure. But does that mean if you put a 14" barrel on it and a longer pistol grip, they aren't going to get poopy anyways, and consider it a pistol? A pistol could, in theory, be longer than 26".... I think it's unlikely, but who knows, it's the RCMP. Hence why I'd like to know what their official position is, from someone who's seen it themselves. Either that or a letter sent to DLASK regarding this issue.

The mares leg NR status has something to do with the action being based on an antique and nothing to do with OAL. The exact reason was also posted on this forum at one time but has been lost thru the ages.
Click to expand...

I read that 'theory' though it was not really a theory, it was a BS reason that someone at the CFP cooked up to a caller because they had no good explaination for it. The action of the mares leg, ranch hand, etc, are not based on an antique action, they are based on a modern lever action. Full Stop. The reason that they are non-restricted is because there is, in fact, no actual length requirement for NR firearms, only for semi-automatic ones or ones that collapse etc. The real reason for it being NR is because it is not a collapsing etc stock, and it is designed to be fired using two hands, and their logic with that was that it cannot be operated with one hand reasonably. Odd how they then turned around and (apparently) said that a pistol grip shotgun is operable with one hand.... truth is, no more than a lever gun. But the truth doesn't matter here... only their opinion. Either way, it's not because it's an antique or anything like it. The law says NOTHING about an antique based action being able to have a shorter action AND be considered non-restricted. If it's an actual antique action, then it's unclassified and uncontrolled for most purposes. If it's a reproduction of an antique action, then it's classed as a modern gun because, well, it is a modern gun.[/quote]

Dlask was the original to sell the shorties commercially, and they were informed that their guns had to be stocked to escape restricted classification. They had vowed to fight it in court but decided it was a fight they couldn't afford and probably not win. So you may want to take that into consideration. There have been umpteen people trying to find loopholes in this since day one and guess what?
Click to expand...

Yea, that's why I'm hoping someone privy to the DLASK operation or dealings can chime in, or someone privy to the FRT entries for SBS including that original DLASK and others like it.

It's not even about finding loopholes, it's about finding out what the law really is. I don't care about a loophole, or a misworded part of law that allows me something I shouldn't have, I care about following the law. If the law says, and is interpreted to say, that any gun that is not collapsable etc and is a manual action and is meant to be fired with two hands is a non-restricted firearm, then great. That's what the law ACTUALLY infers, though since there is no actual definition of an NR firearm, we are left to guess and allow the RCMP to write the law. Hence why I want to know what law the RCMP has written regarding this (yes there is sarcasm there regarding the RCMP writing laws, but the effect is the same - they write laws).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom