Dlask 8.5 with folding stock: unrestricted?

[Backwoods]

The law actually says that if the overall length is decreased to under 660mm by folding or telescoping it's a no-no. So you're guaranteed to be in trouble if it folds or telescopes. If it does neither, you're in a gray area. Personally, I think they're gonna sink this one.

Correct you are...but with a Knoxx Spec-Ops telescoping stock is is over the 660 limit when fully collapsed, I think I measured mine at 672mm....PERFECT...and it still work with the shoulder holster rig (I found it more comfortable than a sling, and easier to get to)

But do a search on the 100000000 other threads about it. Lots of info and disinformation...lol

 

[22Short_Improved]

the court case will happen as soon as the first person is charged. at which point that guy will be the one paying the lawyer bills.

Maybe or maybe not. Dlask is a few steps ahead, as usual, and they have a new device that if assembled on a pistol-grip shorty shotgun, will prevent it from being classified as restricted. It is based on another stipulation of the law that many people forget or oversee it. You see, sometimes it's ok to have laws written so losely and in such interpretable terms and conditions...
The Crossix is to be revealed if there will be some non-favourable court decision. That will add some years to the legal process intended by antis and RCMP that want to ban all the cool toys.

 

[CeeZer]

Here it is directly from Criminal Code Part III Section 84:


"restricted firearm" means

(a) a handgun that is not a prohibited firearm,

(b) a firearm that

(i) is not a prohibited firearm,

(ii) has a barrel less than 470 mm in length, and

(iii) is capable of discharging centre-fire ammunition in a semi-automatic manner,


(c) 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, or

(d) a firearm of any other kind that is prescribed to be a restricted firearm;


So, if a shotgun isn't semi-auto and cannot fire when folded under 660mm, would it be non-restricted?

 

[Canuck223]

Here it is directly from Criminal Code Part III Section 84:


"restricted firearm" means

(a) a handgun that is not a prohibited firearm,

(b) a firearm that

(i) is not a prohibited firearm,

(ii) has a barrel less than 470 mm in length, and

(iii) is capable of discharging centre-fire ammunition in a semi-automatic manner,


(c) 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, or

(d) a firearm of any other kind that is prescribed to be a restricted firearm;


So, if a shotgun isn't semi-auto and cannot fire when folded under 660mm, would it be non-restricted?

If you mean that the OAL would be under 660mm using a folding stock, but can't fire from the folded position, my take is it would be legal.

If you mean can a pump action shotgun under 660mm be non-restricted, thats a good question. The definition above would suggest it is OK.

There are two issues that creep in with using a pistol grip only. Is it "altered" making it prohibited? A commercial pistol grip is ok, and so the answer is no, it ain't prohib. Does a pistol grip on a short barreled shotgun mean it is designed or altered to be fired with one hand? This is where the RCMP seem to have decided to draw the line. Previously, a pistol grip on a shotgun was not an issue, as very clearly nobody would shoot one with one hand. With the 8.5 inch guns, they seem to feel it's a handgun if it comes with a pistol grip.

 

[Boomer]

With the 8.5 inch guns, they seem to feel it's a handgun if it comes with a pistol grip.

Right up until you pull the trigger on a 3" Federal slug.

Some members of the LEO community may have difficulty with these guns but big deal. If the gun meets the legal definition of non-restricted, it's not restricted until the definition of restricted is amended in the legislation. If the gun meets the legal definition of restricted, it's not prohibited until the definition of prohibited is amended in the legislation. There should be no grey areas, unless a individual policeman has a hate on for guns and sees an opportunity to make your life difficult.

Personally I doubt if I'll ever own one of these guns. I think that the small magazine capacity is detrimental if the gun is to be used in any sort of serious work, and I think there could be a potential for one's hand to slide past the end of the slide and in front of the muzzle at an inopportune moment, particularly if shooting under stress. If they are to be shot without a conventional shoulder stock one's ability to hit a target under stress would be less than optimum, which brings us back to the small magazine capacity.

What I like about these things is that they are gong to drive the gun haters nuts, and unless there is a change in the legislation they will for some time to come. That's almost enough reason to buy one.

 

[Dr.Lector]

Maybe or maybe not. Dlask is a few steps ahead, as usual, and they have a new device that if assembled on a pistol-grip shorty shotgun, will prevent it from being classified as restricted. It is based on another stipulation of the law that many people forget or oversee it. You see, sometimes it's ok to have laws written so losely and in such interpretable terms and conditions...
The Crossix is to be revealed if there will be some non-favourable court decision. That will add some years to the legal process intended by antis and RCMP that want to ban all the cool toys.

The Cross-X is NOT to be discussed in here or any other public place