Dewats

T

tiriaq

Super Moderator
Moderating Team
Rating - 100%
252   0   0
These aren't my cup of tea. And this post isn't about whether or not dewatting a gun is the way to go. But if it going to be done, it should at least be done in a skillful manner by a thoughtful and creative 'smith.
The current Gunsmith Canada auction has a couple listed. #6055 is a 1945 dot MG34 with Israeli stampings. (Its listed as Rheinmetall). #6060 is a 1943 Inglis Mk. II Bren.
Lots of photos. Study them carefully. It is entirely possible to perform deactivations to meet current RCMP guidelines without a host of obvious rough external welds.
These are terrible jobs. I've seen worse, but these are pretty bad. And the opening bids are to be $2000.
I recently had occasion to inspect a dewat that had been done by someone with a knowledge of the mechanics of the firearm, had decent welding skills and who went out of his way to make the work as unobtrusive as possible. The result meets current standards, but it still presents well.
 
Last edited:
tiriaq said:
These aren't my cup of tea. And this post isn't about whether or not dewatting a gun is the way to go. But if it going to be done, it should at least be done in a skillful manner by a thoughtful and creative 'smith.
The current Gunsmith Canada auction has a couple listed. #6055 is a 1945 dot MG34 with Israeli stampings. (Its listed as Rheinmetall). #6060 is a 1943 Inglis Mk. II Bren.
Lots of photos. Study them carefully. It is entirely possible to perform deactivations to meet current RCMP guidelines without a host of obvious rough external welds.
These are terrible jobs. I've seen worse, but these are pretty bad. And the opening bids are to be $2000.
I recently had occasion to inspect a dewat that had been done by someone with a knowledge of the mechanics of the firearm, had decent welding skills and who went out of his way to make the work as unobtrusive as possible. The result meets current standards, but it still presents well.
Click to expand...
Yes there are some real hack jobs out there. Some beautifully done too. Current standards are terrible. Make a paperweight about as useful as a weighted photograph. Never understood why the old C and C standard wasn’t good enough.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Just to make it clear - in no way am I faulting the auction house. Their photos insure that there isn't going to be disappointment when the buyer opens the box.
 
The CFP won't remove a firearm from the registry as deactivated unless it is done according to the RCMP "guidelines". This is not a legal requirement, but it is how things are being done. The rules are being made up as the powers that be see fit.
Is it possible to challenge the guidelines? I don't know.
The standard for whether or not something is legally deactivated would be in accordance with the SCoC Hasselwander decision. The guidelines go way beyond this. Maybe this is why the guidelines are not being applied retroactively.
 
They cannot apply retroactively when you think about it. If a gun was de-registered and deactivated to the rules of its time, the subsequent owners may have no PAL, likely would not understand what might have changed, etc. It would be near impossible for the courts to argue a law was broken if the firearms program blessed the deactivation technique at the time the work was done.

The new guidelines are frankly without real reason or merit. For example why would a non removable (because of welding the receiver shut) bolt with the face ground away at an angle not be OK for a c@ck and click gun today? It was just fine a few years back, what changed? Short answer: nothing except the whims of Bill Etter.
 
As far as retroactivity goes, it is being applied when 12-3 guns are being transferred. Not unusual for them to be called in for inspection prior to the transfer being approved. This can take considerable time, and additional modifications may be required.
 
Hypothetically, if someone is audited by law enforcement and in possession of an old spec dewatt (c0ck & click or other old method that's clearly not to modern standards), what proof can one carry with them to show that what they have is legal? I think the answer is, unless one has a modern deactivation certificate, they are taking a risk, not being able to prove on the spot that what they possess isn't a firearm (anymore)?
Are old spec dewatts ACTUALLY & PERFECTLY legal?
What's to discourage auditing law enforcement from laying a criminal charge for what they incorrectly think is a prohibited firearm?
 
Maybe I'm missing something here, but once it's dewatted, it is no longer a firearm, so much like selling an old arm chair, how/why would the government be able to call it in for inspection before being transfered. Why is there even a transfer process, if it is no longer a firearm.
 
There is no transfer process. If something which was registered gets deactivated there will be a record of its deletion from the registry.
Once deactivated, it can be bought, sold, given away as a party favor.

If something was not registered and was deactivated at some time in the past, there is not going to be any paperwork. If the thing is deactivated and the deactivation passes the Hasselwander standard, it should be a non-issue.
Currently the CFP only recognizes their list of approved gunsmiths for deactivation. Once again, that isn't law, its policy.

A while back, there was a situation where guns were reported as being deactivated and sold. The deactivations were done in a manner that was intended to be reversible, and the things were turning up in functional condition in illegal circumstances. That's when the deactivation standards policy reared its ugly head.

There is a transfer process for 12-3s (converted autos), and these can and do get called in for inspection, which can take a very long time, and which can result in further modification being mandated.
 
Of course, the stupid thing is any good machine shop with welders and machinists can “reactivate” a virgin lump of steel into a machine gun. Never mind a teenager with an 3D printer and some ambition. Our lame laws are only for the law abiding.
 
KePet said:
Maybe I'm missing something here, but once it's dewatted, it is no longer a firearm, so much like selling an old arm chair, how/why would the government be able to call it in for inspection before being transfered. Why is there even a transfer process, if it is no longer a firearm.
Click to expand...
They can’t review the firearm that is no longer a firearm for the second, third, fourth etc transfer however because they unlawfully dictate the standard of deactivation, they do control the transition from firearm to not a firearm
 
tiriaq said:
The CFP won't remove a firearm from the registry as deactivated unless it is done according to the RCMP "guidelines". This is not a legal requirement, but it is how things are being done. The rules are being made up as the powers that be see fit.
Is it possible to challenge the guidelines? I don't know.
The standard for whether or not something is legally deactivated would be in accordance with the SCoC Hasselwander decision. The guidelines go way beyond this. Maybe this is why the guidelines are not being applied retroactively.
Click to expand...
Firearms are not removed only marked deactivated in the system. If they appear again active , it’s on the shop or person who owned it last.
 
pardon my ignorance, but can't a person destroy a firearm they own and report it destroyed? There is no proof required to prove the firearm destroyed to my knowledge. Would not plugging and welding the barrel and welding up the internals not destroy said firearm?
 
You'd think so, wouldn't you.
Legally, the receiver is the firearm. If the receiver is rendered non-functional, the firearm is non-functional, and is no longer a firearm. The mechanical bits are uncontrolled. Magazines must be blocked at five rounds if designed for an auto.
Why must the internals be welded up? They are just parts. Sort of makes the "guidelines" irrelevant...
 
beltfed said:
pardon my ignorance, but can't a person destroy a firearm they own and report it destroyed? There is no proof required to prove the firearm destroyed to my knowledge. Would not plugging and welding the barrel and welding up the internals not destroy said firearm?
Click to expand...

true but I suspect that by destruction they imply that the receiver bits are chopped up.

if you were to destroy the receiver then take the bits and weld it up into a lump like metal bit that looks like a firearm I guess that would be legal. (unless they decide you are manufacturing replicas)
 
I wonder if the guidelines be different if it were a "receiver only" type registration? If it was not a complete / functional firearm to begin with
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom