Explanation of the Remington 870 8.5” ruling and current production...SEE PICTURES!!!

redleafjumper said:
There might be a technical problem in that the BC government defines any firearm with a barrel shorter than 12" as a handgun:

" Handgun - is a firearm that is designed, altered or intended to be aimed or fired by the action of one hand or that has a barrel less than 305mm (12") in length."

Page 3, Hunting & Trapping Regulations Synopsis 2006-2007

Where it gets tricky is that, for example, in provincial parks, firearms may only be carried during a hunting season and the person carrying must hold a hunting license. (see the Wildlife Act) The problem is that if it is a "handgun" as defined above, then it cannot be hunted with and the hunting license is not a remedy. It is a lovely firearm, and like everyone else, I'd love to have one, but there are some provincial complications here which remain unclear.

(Sigh)
Click to expand...


yes, those are the hunting laws. you would not be able to hunt with it in BC. this was already mentioned. it just means you can't shoot a game animal with it for the purpose of hunting. shooting a charging bear is not hunting. nor is shooting pop cans in the woods.

Also as you mentioned BC parks might be a problem. however the parks that allow firearms (most don't anyways) state you can only discharge a firearm durring a hunting season. it doesn't say you can only dischange a firearm to hunt. there should be no reason not to bring firearms to the park to shoot with. no licence would be required if you're not hunting.

Besides There is lots of places to hang around in BC other then parks.
 
Last edited:
scott said:
yes, those are the hunting laws. you would not be able to hunt with it in BC. this was already mentioned. it just means you can't shoot a game animal with it for the purpose of hunting. shooting a charging bear is not hunting. nor is shooting pop cans in the woods.

Also as you mentioned BC parks might be a problem. however the parks that allow firearms (most don't anyways) state you can only discharge a firearm durring a hunting season. it doesn't say you can only dischange a firearm to hunt. there should be no reason not to bring firearms to the park to shoot with. no licence would be required if you're not hunting.

Besides There is lots of places to hang around in BC other then parks.
Click to expand...


EXCELLENT!!
 
Foxer said:
We're going to have the odd issue here and there, but I expect they'll get sorted quickly and pretty soon word spreads in the cop community and it's not an issue anymore. The vast majority of cops have no interest in harassing lawful gun owners, once they realize a gun is allowed by law, they'll back off.
Click to expand...

:eek: Too much faith in the police... I hope one day your faith in them doesn't get you burned. I'm not bashing them. I'm just making the observation that in my dealings with them, they have not been the type of people who readily admit they have made a mistake. I would be willing to bet that the first person who gets pulled over with one of these finds themselves in a holding cell while the cops double, triple and quadruple check with the CFC. If they're lucky, they may even get their gun back before its "lost".

I'll hold off on one of these until someone else becomes the guinea pig. The CFC is one thing, an actual police officer who thinks he knows the law like the back of his hand is a completely different thing.
 
Last edited:
Too much faith in the police... I hope one day your faith in them doesn't get you burned.
Click to expand...

Well, that's what lawyers are for if it comes to it. However - while you can get the odd #### policeman, generally the sergeant or the crown will be more reasonable. They don't like to make paperwork for nothing.

I would be willing to bet that the first person who gets pulled over with one of these finds themselves in a holding cell while the cops double, triple and quadruple check with the CFC. If they're lucky, they may even get their gun back before its "lost".
Click to expand...

I don't know about a holding cell. Maybe back east. But it might be a decent time to renew your NFA membership if you haven't :) They're pretty good at getting people out of this kind of scrape.
 
unopistoleros said:
Here is letter from CFC / RCMP:
Dear #########,
Thank you for your telephone call today with regard to the legal classification of the Remington 870 shotgun and the MCS system, ###############################################################################################################x. Short barreled pump action shotguns with folding stocks are controlled within the Criminal Code of Canada, and it specifically details that the firearm is reduced to a length of less than 660 mm by means of folding, telescoping or otherwise. The otherwise does not take into consideration replacement with commercially available stocks such as a pistol grip stocks. Thus it is very legal and does not change the class of a non semi automatic firearm if you put a manufactured short barrel and pistol grip on the gun.
#############################################################################################################################################################################################
I trust this response has met your needs, please feel free to call if I can be of any further assistance.
Regards,
#########
Manager
#######################################x
Canada Firearms Centre | Centre des armes à feu Canada
Royal Canadian Mounted Police | Gendarmerie royale du Canada
Click to expand...

"Short barreled pump action shotguns with folding stocks" has nothing to do with this gun. It seems to me that this gun is reduced in length below the legal limit, not with a pistol grip stock, but a pistol grip alone. combined with the excessively short barrel, I have no doubt this gun will be considered a restricted weapon, in its inherently "handgun-like" configuration. Even if the CFC does accidentally call that gun non-restricted, I really doubt it will stand for very long. but hey, sometimes loopholes never get closed, the american gunlaws are full of it.
 
ApoC_101 said:
"Short barreled pump action shotguns with folding stocks" has nothing to do with this gun. It seems to me that this gun is reduced in length below the legal limit, not with a pistol grip stock, but a pistol grip alone. combined with the excessively short barrel, I have no doubt this gun will be considered a restricted weapon, in its inherently "handgun-like" configuration. Even if the CFC does accidentally call that gun non-restricted, I really doubt it will stand for very long. but hey, sometimes loopholes never get closed, the american gunlaws are full of it.
Click to expand...


Go back and read both threads on this subject. A canadian MANUFACTURER has spent the last year or so working on getting this decision. What in the world makes you think he has no idea what he is doing?
 
ApoC_101 said:
"Short barreled pump action shotguns with folding stocks" has nothing to do with this gun. It seems to me that this gun is reduced in length below the legal limit, not with a pistol grip stock, but a pistol grip alone. combined with the excessively short barrel, I have no doubt this gun will be considered a restricted weapon, in its inherently "handgun-like" configuration. Even if the CFC does accidentally call that gun non-restricted, I really doubt it will stand for very long. but hey, sometimes loopholes never get closed, the american gunlaws are full of it.
Click to expand...

:mad:

I have asked a mod to step in on this thread. It is making a lot of people very angry when IGNORANT people chime in like this!
 
It surprises me that some people are worried that these legally registered shotguns might somehow get them into trouble? Firstly, to be convicted of a crime you need to have mens rea, or a guiltly mind, which you won't have because of the fact that you purchased it legally from a gun store. Secondly, the letter from the CFC clearly states that they are legal. If you're worried about it keep a copy of the letter in the glove box of your vehicle. Most RCMP officers, aren't unreasonable like some people are suggesting. If they question you about it just explain the situation and show them the registration certificate. They can look into it later when they get back to the detachment.
 
valtro12 said:
Firstly, to be convicted of a crime you need to have mens rea, or a guiltly mind, which you won't have because of the fact that you purchased it legally from a gun store.
Click to expand...

Not true at all. Having no guilt will not protect one from being ignorant of the law. Which is why we talk about such things in this forum...to help each other.
 
Not true at all. Having no guilt will not protect one from being ignorant of the law.
Click to expand...

Well... in Canadian law it does, IF the law is a criminal charge and involves the possibility of jail time. In such cases, there's an expectation that you should have known what you did was wrong.

I don't think anyone would be charged or face jail time over this - they'd just seize the gun. But then you'll have to deal with them to get it back - which you probably will.
 
ponts said:
:mad:

I have asked a mod to step in on this thread. It is making a lot of people very angry when IGNORANT people chime in like this!
Click to expand...

I dont see how my post was in any way ignorant, I'm just questioning that not entirely absolute statement by the RCMP regarding the legality of the weapon in question. like I said, its great if theyre legal, i think its a pretty kickass little cannon.
 
ApoC_101 get with the program, we do not have weapons in this country unless used in a crime. Are you a criminal because you own firearms?:rolleyes:
Regardless of your answer, don't make the rest of "us" look/sound bad:mad:
 
valtro12 said:
It surprises me that some people are worried that these legally registered shotguns might somehow get them into trouble? Firstly, to be convicted of a crime you need to have mens rea, or a guiltly mind, which you won't have because of the fact that you purchased it legally from a gun store. Secondly, the letter from the CFC clearly states that they are legal. If you're worried about it keep a copy of the letter in the glove box of your vehicle. Most RCMP officers, aren't unreasonable like some people are suggesting. If they question you about it just explain the situation and show them the registration certificate. They can look into it later when they get back to the detachment.
Click to expand...

Every time a nice new toy makes it into the Canadian market a bulletin isn't sent around to all LEO agencies explaining the legalities. It's an awesome breakthrough and I hope things stay as they are however to a peace officer who interprets the law one way could make for a messy situation. Yes you'd be in the right however it's a hassle that would be better evaded.
 
Yes you'd be in the right however it's a hassle that would be better evaded.
Click to expand...

Well - if by 'evaded' you mean "evaded by making sure you have all the documents and contacts necessary to address the officers concerns and lack of information, and a plan to deal with his superior if that doesn't work', then I'd agree with you.

If you mean we should 'evade' hassles at all by not 'pushing the envelope'... I have to say I disagree with you entirely. If you want to grow stronger physically you have to exercise your muscles till you can feel it a bit. Same with your rights - you gotta exercise 'em if you want them to be stronger, even if it's a little uncomfortable once in a while till you get stronger.

For most police forces, it will take one or two 'encounters' for the word to spread and the cops to get the message it's legal. After that - it's not a problem. And as long as you're prepared with the appropriate documents, the hassle should be fairly minimal. No one's likely to get arrested, and if the gun is registered and verified then really it's going to be a fairly short proceedure.

Like i say, if we run into real problems we'll have to get the nfa or someone to start sending notes out to the cop shops telling them the law and asking them to brief their people so that legal gun owners are not hassled.
 
Hey, I've been thinking, does this mean that I can now buy a double-barrelled shotgun with two 8 1/2" barrels and a deleted, pistol-grip style stock if I can find a manufacturer to make it that way?

What counts as a 'manufacturer?'

Or could I just build a shotgun like that? Would that be alright?

- Dave.
 
Hey, I've been thinking, does this mean that I can now buy a double-barrelled shotgun with two 8 1/2" barrels and a deleted, pistol-grip style stock if I can find a manufacturer to make it that way?
Click to expand...

Presumably. Good luck with that tho.

Or could I just build a shotgun like that? Would that be alright?
Click to expand...

No, definately not.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom