M16 restricted?

R

Rooster1a2

Regular
Rating - 100%
22   0   0
Location
North Vancouver, BC
I realize how this question might seem naive, but under the criminal code regulations that name certain firearms as prohibited or restricted, it says the M16 is restricted. Is that right?

I apologize for asking this if it has been before, and doubly so if this is the wrong forum. Given the apparent precedence of these regulations over the class definitions in the criminal code (e.g. because an AR-15 with a 20" barrel is restricted while otherwise it would be non-restricted), doesn't this mean that the M16 is restricted and we can legally own them?

I realize getting one would be an issue, but this seems like a pretty glaring error on the part of the people who wrote this.

Regulations Prescribing Certain Firearms and other Weapons, Components and Parts of Weapons, Accessories, Cartridge Magazines, Ammunition and Projectiles as Prohibited or Restricted

SOR/98-462

.
.

PART 2
RESTRICTED FIREARMS

Former Restricted Weapons Order

1. The firearms of the designs commonly known as the High Standard Model 10, Series A shotgun and the High Standard Model 10, Series B shotgun, and any variants or modified versions of them.
2. The firearm of the design commonly known as the M-16 rifle, and any variant or modified version of it, including the
(a) Colt AR-15;
.
.
Click to expand...
 
Yeah but this says that a select-fire rifle is restricted. I guess what I should be asking in addition to this is whether there are other regulations making the full-auto parts and the auto sear illegal to own.
 
M16 is the military designation of the AR15 (though the designation has been used on civi models). All models are restricted except for the select fire version (full auto) which is prohibited. Select fire parts are legal to own except for the auto sear (and DIAS/lightning links).
 
If you can find a rifle that is marked "M16" and left the Colt factory as a semi-auto it would indeed be restricted.

If it is select fire that property takes preeminence in defining its legal classification.
 
Here is how the list of Prohibited rifle got created... A small group (maybe just one) of unelected government bureaucrats who knew nothing about firearms got their hand on a copy a "Guns of the World" with a lot of pictures... Every firearms in that book that looked "military" (pistol grip, "big" magazine, plastic parts, black color) was deemed prohibited, including the semi-auto M-16... Then someone pointed out that it would be impossible to have the traditional Service Rifle competitions if both the semi-auto FAL and the semi-auto version of the M-16 (used in the CF as the C-7) were prohibited so they only "restricted" the semi-auto M-16 and all variants...

But why are there "black rifles" that are non-restricted you might ask?... Because they did not exist at the time or were not in the book they looked in....

Scrap C-68!!!
 
Do not try to find logic where there is no logic. The FA is full of such nonsense.
If you found an M-16 marked rifle you'd be in possession of a 12(3) prohibited firearm.
 
Shrapnel said:
Here is how the list of Prohibited rifle got created... A small group (maybe just one) of unelected government bureaucrats who knew nothing about firearms got their hand on a copy a "Guns of the World" with a lot of pictures... Every firearms in that book that looked "military" (pistol grip, "big" magazine, plastic parts, black color) was deemed prohibited, including the semi-auto M-16... Then someone pointed out that it would be impossible to have the traditional Service Rifle competitions if both the semi-auto FAL and the semi-auto version of the M-16 (used in the CF as the C-7) were prohibited so they only "restricted" the semi-auto M-16 and all variants...

But why are there "black rifles" that are non-restricted you might ask?... Because they did not exist at the time or were not in the book they looked in....

Scrap C-68!!!
Click to expand...

That's my understanding, but it appears as though they just replaced prohibited with restricted. Perhaps they didn't fully realize the distinction that the M16 is select-fire while the AR15 is semi only.
 
I just find it odd that I haven't heard of some sort of court challenge based on this. Surely the wording in the restricted weapons order, as it is, would be the basis for something like a section 74 challenge. Does anyone know if that ever happened?

Precedence wise, it seems like the classification based on naming overrules the criminal code definitions for all other firearms - why not this one, too?
 
There are Colt M16A2 rifles that were assembled with semi auto FCGs at the factory that are restricted in Canada and not prohibited. A small batch was made back in the day, restricted FRT is in the system.
 
Yes but that would be illegal as you would be manufacturing a prohibited weapon. Also since the new ruling this could not happen again in Canada for example with M16A3 or M16A4 as they would most likely be deemed "easily convertible". The restricted FRT only cover the A2 version.
 
There are not that many M16 FA rifles registered in Canada Colt took their time in selling them and the Canadian Government changed
the law
 
Considering how loosely the term variant has been applied - I would think the M16, A1, A2, A3 & A4 should be covered. Unless there is a specific piece of legislation saying possession of the auto sear is illegal, then as you would not be modifying the receiver I think you would be good to go.

Edit: I found this in the regulations under the criminal code:

Regulations Prescribing Certain Firearms and other Weapons, Components and Parts of Weapons, Accessories, Cartridge Magazines, Ammunition and Projectiles as Prohibited or Restricted

SOR/98-462

PART 4
PROHIBITED DEVICES

Former Prohibited Weapons Order, No. 9

1. Any electrical or mechanical device that is designed or adapted to operate the trigger mechanism of a semi-automatic firearm for the purpose of causing the firearm to discharge cartridges in rapid succession.
Click to expand...

It specifically states a semi-automatic firearm, whereas the M16 is selectfire. Further, it says to operate the trigger mechanism, whereas the sear is part of the trigger group. Based on this, I'm thinking the auto sear isn't illegal.
 
Last edited:
Rooster1a2 said:
It specifically states a semi-automatic firearm, whereas the M16 is selectfire. Further, it says to operate the trigger mechanism, whereas the sear is part of the trigger group. Based on this, I'm thinking the auto sear isn't illegal.
Click to expand...

Doesn't the FA also say that any parts that are "made exclusively for an automatic firearm" (ie FA fire control group parts) are prohibited devices? I may be mistaken, but if that is the case, then possession of the sear would be an offence. Let's not even talk about if you installed it into a gun, lol.

With regards to the original topic, yes, it says that the firearm commonly known as the "m16" is restricted, but it also says that any automatic (which is very clearly defined) or converted automatic (also very clearly defined) is a 12.2 or 12.3 prohib, respectively. I wouldn't hold my breath about finding an original select-fire M16 and getting it registered as a restricted. :)

Adam
 
Rooster1a2 said:
Perhaps they didn't fully realize the distinction that the M16 is select-fire while the AR15 is semi only.
Click to expand...

I think you are the one with the recognition problem. M16's are not necessarily select fire, and many, many AR15's have been made made with full-auto capability. That is why both models are listed as restricted, and that is why the actual features factory installed on each individual rifle are used to determine its actual legal status.

Slide11.jpg
 
Last edited:
BattleRife said:
I think you are the one with the recognition problem. M16's are not necessarily select fire, and many, many AR15's have been made made with full-auto capability. That is why both models are listed as restricted, and that is why the actual features factory installed on each individual rifle are used to determine its actual legal status.

Slide11.jpg
Click to expand...

Nope. If that was the case, then an AR with a 20" barrel would be non-restricted.

The definitions in 84(1) of the CC lay out the criteria for prohibited and restricted weapons, however, they also state that firearms can be prescribed as either restricted or prohibited by regulations. My point is that the prohibited/restricted weapons orders in SOR/98-462 appear to prevail over the 84(1) criteria with the exception of the The firearm of the design commonly known as the M-16 rifle, for which the reverse is apparently the case.

It says commonly known as - I'm pretty sure that the M16 is commonly known as being full-auto. In either case, it does not single-out a semi-auto-only version.

Also I don't think it is right to say that "many, many AR15's have been made with full auto capability". I had to do some research, but the only AR15s that were full-auto from the factory were the Colt models 601 and 602 (in the image in your post) made right after Colt acquired the AR15 patent. So there were a few but not that many. They were practically prototypes.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom