Firearms classification restricted or non restricted? Very gray area!

[DrXenon]

Cheers

 

[tiriaq]

Several people here have made the claim that you have 30 days to report a conversion of an NR firearm to a Restricted firearm. After a careful review of relevant law I cant agree.

The requirement to report modifications of restricted firearms are governed by the regulations for firearms registration certificates. These regs mandate that the registrar must attach those reporting conditions to all restricted firearm registration certificates. Since NR guns are no longer registered or have certificates, they no longer have such conditions. Likewise there is no exemption in law for having a restricted firearm without a certificate.

Back when the LGR was in effect, NR guns carried these reporting conditions. Modifying a firearm did not affect the validity itself, therefore an NR firearm modified such that it is now restricted still leaves the owner with a valid (albeit inaccurate) registration certificate.

There is no loophole. The absence of a good rule does not create confusion. The law is clear.
A) NR firearms modified to be restricted IMMEDIATELY puts the owner in possession of an unregistered restricted firearm.
B) Restricted firearms modified to be Non-Restricted no longer have to report anything, because its no longer restricted,
And non restricted firearms have no requirement to report anything. (Prudence demands that you report it anyways because A) having a firearm registered to you that is no longer restricted may cause you problems, and B the CFO might disagree that your modifications did in fact result in a change of classification.)

This is a problem that was created by the incompetent Conservatives who ended the LGR without being able to think through the implications of only registering some firearms.

Thats just my read. If anyone has been convicted of an offence where a judge has found contradictory to the above assessment Ill stand corrected.

If the receiver is registered as restricted, it stays restricted, until it is formally deregistered as non-restricted.

 

[tiriaq]

I know i'm probably not the only one wonder this. But with all these new ar style lowers and uppers coming out and with the ability of installing shorter ar barrels how does our old firearms regulations actually work?

Example 1

If i own a complete slr, stag 10, bcl, or atrs sporter with a non restricted barrel length installed but have a spare 16" barrel laying around does it make the gun restricted?

No, not at present. A spare barrel is just a barrel. However, if you had a lower receiver from a non-restricted Stag, and the only barrel in your possession was the 16" one, it might be possible that you could be considered to be in possession of an unregistered restricted firearm.

Example 2
If i own a complete slr, stag 10, bcl, or atrs sporter with a non restricted barrel length installed but have bought a spare upper with a 16" barrel installed does it make the gun restricted?


I know the regulation was never made for modular rifles but was just wondering what peoples interpretation of the law was?

Be very careful about swapping n-r and r length barrels on a n-r receiver. Let's say you were caught with the short barrel shooting on private land, or while travelling to or from the shooting site. The cop says you are in possession of an unregistered restricted firearm. You say "Oh no, officer, I have 30 days to get the appropriate registration certificate". How do you think things are going to go? At the very least, the rifle is going to be held until you present the registration certificate.

 

[Cameron SS]

If the receiver is registered as restricted, it stays restricted, until it is formally deregistered as non-restricted.

With respect, that is not what the law says. The registration certificate is simply a record of what the cfo thought it was at the time of registration.

If I put a prohibited length barrel in my glock 19 then the pistol is prohibited regardless of what the certificate says.

Nowhere in law does it state that registration in any way affects its actually classification. Like the frt, the certificate is just an opinion and an opinion that was only valid at the time of inspection.

This isnt to suggest that the opinion doesnt matter. Of course it does. But it is not in any way determinitive of what it actually is.

 

[Juster]

I have a shotgun with a folding stock and an 18" barrel. I have an identical shotgun with a 12" and a fixed stock. To date, I have avoided incarceration.

 

[Juggernaut77]

I know i'm probably not the only one wonder this. But with all these new ar style lowers and uppers coming out and with the ability of installing shorter ar barrels how does our old firearms regulations actually work?

Example 1

If i own a complete slr, stag 10, bcl, or atrs sporter with a non restricted barrel length installed but have a spare 16" barrel laying around does it make the gun restricted?

Example 2
If i own a complete slr, stag 10, bcl, or atrs sporter with a non restricted barrel length installed but have bought a spare upper with a 16" barrel installed does it make the gun restricted?


I know the regulation was never made for modular rifles but was just wondering what peoples interpretation of the law was?

Never mind I found the answer in the thread.

 

[tiriaq]

With respect, that is not what the law says. The registration certificate is simply a record of what the cfo thought it was at the time of registration.

If I put a prohibited length barrel in my glock 19 then the pistol is prohibited regardless of what the certificate says.

Nowhere in law does it state that registration in any way affects its actually classification. Like the frt, the certificate is just an opinion and an opinion that was only valid at the time of inspection.

This isnt to suggest that the opinion doesnt matter. Of course it does. But it is not in any way determinitive of what it actually is.

I can appreciate your interpretation.

 

[Cameron SS]

I can appreciate your interpretation.

And I readily concede its just my interpretation. I can find no case law that specifically deals with a case where there was confusion as to the status of the firearm or the certificate. All the cases I found it was a clear cut case of deliberately modifying a firearm and deliberately not registering anything, usually by an unlicensed individual.

Not surprisingly its virtually impossible for law enforcement to detect issues where the paper doesnt match the firearm.

 

[TheWhole9Yards]

They basically own the nr lower have two uppers one with restricted length and one non restricted. They use the restricted on there own private land and the non-restricted for storage and range use. And they say as long as you change it back to non restricted in 30 days you don't have to register it

This is why we can’t have nice things. I’m sorry guys but this has to be the dumbest idea I’ve heard in a while, this is the kind of crap that ruins it for everyone. If you are dumb enough to take a perfectly functioning NR rifle and build a rectricted upper for it you are just begging the RCMP to find a reason to reclassify the rifle.

As stated enough in this thread, please leave well enough alone. Keep your NR rifle in NR form, and get yourself a restricted rifle for your SBR needs.

I’m normally quite reserved on this forum, but this conversation has to be the dumbest crap I’ve read in a while. “How can I skirt firearms laws” is basically what this thread is about. If you put a restricted legth upper on a NR lower you have an unregistered restricted rifle period. Even if there is a grace period, you’re gonna have a bad day. Just don’t do it, if not for yourself - don’t do it for everyone here that loves the idea of finally having some great NR black gun options available.

Rant over, Merry F-ing Christmas

 

[Forest1488]

All the 'gray areas' can be exploited by people, gives them leeway... BUT that also gives any judge the same leeway to interpret the law on the opposite side.

Well stated.

 

[Kosmonument]

They basically own the nr lower have two uppers one with restricted length and one non restricted. They use the restricted on there own private land and the non-restricted for storage and range use.

Restricted firearms aren't legal to use on private land, ever. Not even if they're temporary mods to NR firearms. In doing so, these folks are committing a felony each time they fire a round out of one of them. Worse yet, they're admitting to a crime online. Genial!

 

[Innavedaw]

Restricted firearms aren't legal to use on private land, ever. Not even if they're temporary mods to NR firearms. In doing so, these folks are committing a felony each time they fire a round out of one of them. Worse yet, they're admitting to a crime online. Genial!

LOL...If you are going to advise people about the law, at least know something about the law...There is no such thing as a felony in Canada.

You may also want to walk back your position that there is never a justified use of a restricted firearm on private land...semantics I know...but nonetheless...

 

[josey wales]

There are members here who have built ranges on their private land and had them inspected and are cleared for restricted use.
not cheap, but still restricted use on private land.

 

[Armedsask]

There are members here who have built ranges on their private land and had them inspected and are cleared for restricted use.
not cheap, but still restricted use on private land.

At lot cheaper than you'd think, depending on the type. Private range, exclusively to be used by only the owner, it's basically just needing a backstop and fence.

At least, it used to be.

 

[Kosmonument]

LOL...If you are going to advise people about the law, at least know something about the law...There is no such thing as a felony in Canada.

You may also want to walk back your position that there is never a justified use of a restricted firearm on private land...semantics I know...but nonetheless...

Indictable offence then, if that's your preferred wording.

The private range case is something else obviously. I wasn't looking to fill my post with asterisks but it seems like there's a lot of easily offended people here when it comes to this. Do what you want, guys, just don't be surprised at the outcomes.

 

[Cameron SS]

Restricted firearms aren't legal to use on private land, ever. Not even if they're temporary mods to NR firearms. In doing so, these folks are committing a felony each time they fire a round out of one of them. Worse yet, they're admitting to a crime online. Genial!

I wasn't looking to fill my post with asterisks but it seems like there's a lot of easily offended people here when it comes to this. Do what you want, guys, just don't be surprised at the outcomes.

Not easily offended. Just informed as to the law and don't want to see other people who rely on this forum for information mislead by people who don't know what they are talking about.

And if you think you need a lot of asterisks to explain the law, you are probably doing it wrong.

First, by use, I assume you mean discharge, as opposed to possession.

By law, restricted firearms can be legally discharged anywhere that it is permitted to discharge NR firearms. Which is to say asides from municipalities that have TOTAL firearms discharge bans, it is lawful to discharge a restricted in the vast majority of the country's land mass. Possession is a different matter, as it is unlawful to possess a restricted anywhere outside of the registered storage location, usually the home of the owner, without an ATT. But possession and discharge are two separate activities that are regulated separately. And even when you are in a discharge ban area, discharge can still be lawful if justified by Section 34 and 35 of the criminal code, ie acting in defense of self or property.

The bottom line is that there is no jurisdiction in the country, federal, provincial or municipal, that makes a distinction based on class when it comes to discharging firearms.

Second, if your residence is in an area where there is no discharge ban, it is neither a felony nor an indictable nor a summary conviction offence to discharge a restricted firearm anywhere that it is legal to possess, as long as you aren't be careless.

Third, there is no such thing under the law as a "temporary mod to NR". If its NR, then its NR. If its Restricted, its Restricted. Period.

 

[TheWhole9Yards]

there is no such thing under the law as a "temporary mod to NR". If its NR, then its NR. If its Restricted, its Restricted. Period.

Bingo, no grey area IMHO

 

[Kosmonument]

Second, if your residence is in an area where there is no discharge ban, it is neither a felony nor an indictable nor a summary conviction offence to discharge a restricted firearm anywhere that it is legal to possess, as long as you aren't be careless.

Got a source? This one interests me.

 

[cr5]

I have a shotgun with a folding stock and an 18" barrel. I have an identical shotgun with a 12" and a fixed stock. To date, I have avoided incarceration.

Non restricted manually operated centerfire long guns are not semi automatic centerfire rifles and as such have some different rules attached to them.
You will never be incarcerated for having your 12 inch barrel shotgun because there is nothing illegal about it. What this thread is about is taking a non restricted semi automatic centerfire rifle and swapping in a restricted length upper or barrel.
Two very different things.

 

[Cameron SS]

Non restricted manually operated centerfire long guns are not semi automatic centerfire rifles and as such have some different rules attached to them.
You will never be incarcerated for having your 12 inch barrel shotgun because there is nothing illegal about it. What this thread is about is taking a non restricted semi automatic centerfire rifle and swapping in a restricted length upper or barrel.
Two very different things.

Except that regardless of action type, MODIFYING, a firearm from its factory condition such that it is under a certain length can render it either restricted or prohibited or both.

Criminal code, s84

Prohibited firearm:
(b) a firearm that is adapted from a rifle or shotgun, whether by sawing, cutting or any other alteration, and that, as so adapted,
(i) is less than 660 mm in length, or
(ii) is 660 mm or greater in length and has a barrel less than 457 mm in length,

You will note, that this criteria of the prohib class does not care what action the firearm is, and it is an open question as to whether or not "any other alteration" includes the substitution of OEM parts which has the same net effect as sawing or cutting.

Restricted Firearm:
(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,

Once again, this section does not care what action the firearm is, so a bolt gun or pump shotgun that is modified with a folding, telescoping or other stock that can be reduced to OAL less than 660mm and can fire is restricted.

If your 12 inch barrel shotgun has a fixed stock and was shipped that way from the factory, then yes, it is NR.
If you had a longer barrel and modified it yourself to include a folding stock and a shorter barrel, it could meet the definition of both restricted and prohibited. Given that such firearm would also be unregistered, I think we can agree that this would be VERY illegal.