Cameron SS
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- Ground Zero
This thread is a mess.
Yes, the law is an ass. No debate there. So are the people who wrote it.
I am going to address your situation below, explaining why a firearm registered as a WHOLE firearm, likely does not need to be reported when you change uppers at the range.
False.
From the firearms registration certificate regulations:
IF the firearm is registered as a frame only, you MUST report the change within 30 days. It does not matter if it is intended to be permanent or not. If within that 30 day period you modify it again so that it can not discharge ammunition, you MUST report this again. Yes, this is stupid. We already agreed the law is an ASS. Firearms registered as receiver only are legally different and have different reporting obligations than firearms registered as whole firearms.
If the firearm is registered as a whole firearm, then yes, swapping uppers on the range is good to go all day long as you put the original upper that matches the registration certificate back on, or you report the change as required.
This is true of firearms registered as a whole firearm. This is not true for firearms registered as a receiver only.
False. If a firearm registered as a whole firearm, and you separate the upper, you have merely disassembled it.
Not sure what new category for ARs you are talking about. The law that says a firearm may be a whole firearm, or a receiver only, has existed for 20 years.
Currently, nothing in law prohibits you from converting your AR receiver only into a whole firearm. You simply need to report the changes as stated by the conditions on your registration certificate, which should look verbatim as those which appear in the regulations for firearms registration certificates.
Probably for the same reason that you don't understand it. Because you have a preconceived idea of something that makes sense to you, and you are torturing your interpretation of the law to fit that preconceived idea, rather than considering the operation of the CFP in entirety, in the context of how the CFP has conducted business for 20 years, and forming an understanding of the law accordingly.
The criminal code definition of firearm makes says a firearm is a barrelled weapon, AND included in that definition is the receiver of a barreled weapon. Receiver, or frame, is not defined in law on its own.
This is a terrible working definition because to be a firearm it must have a barrel, except if it doesn't have a barrel its just a receiver and so still a firearm.
It would have made far more sense if they had just said that a firearm is the receiver and left barrels out of it entirely. Not included in that definition of a firearm is any mention of type, IE handgun, rifle, etc. While handgun is defined in law, rifle is not. and yet we can have this same conversation all over again about what constitutes modifying a rifle to make it so that it is capable of being shot with one hand. Arnold can shoot an M249 B with one hand. Does that make it a handgun? Don't get too hung up on what you want the law to say, or what you might make sense. Lets just focus on how the CFP has been handling this for the last 20 years, because in the end following their made up nonsense is whats going to keep most of us out of trouble.
For all intents and purposes there are two types of firearms: Receivers only, and what I call WHOLE firearms. The law would make more sense if they made this distinction throughout, but that is just one of a 100 things that would help make this all make more sense. You have to parse the law quite precisely to understand if they are talking about ALL firearms, Whole Firearms, or receivers only. One of the clues you can use to determine what they are talking about comes from the fact that ONLY whole firearms have a barrel, and therefore a caliber and length, and in some cases only a whole firearm will have the parts necessary to determine Action, Type, etc. After all, an AR 15 without a gas block is a bolt action, not a semi.
Firearms registered as WHOLE firearms must state the type action barrel caliber etc on the certificate, and have an actual number assigned to those fields, and can therefore be 'changed'.
Simple disassembly does not constitute modification under the law. Modification is the intent and the act of substituting one component for another. If those components are materially different than what was there before, such that the registration certificate no longer accurately describes the firearm, it must be updated.
When you register a firearm as a receiver only, the type, action, barrel, caliber, etc are all listed as N/A. You can not 'change' the barrel length of a firearm that never had a barrel to begin with. However adding a barrel to it does constitute a modification that makes it capable of discharging ammunition, and per S 4(1) of the regulations, must be reported. Note that nothing in section 4.1 specifies any requirement for such modification to be permanent.
Section 4(2)(b) ONLY applies to firearms that have a stated action barrel type caliber etc. For firearms registered as a receiver only, (which are presumed to therefore not be capable of firing at all) adding the upper makes it capable of firing ammunition and therefore is no longer a receiver only and the registration certificate must be updated.
I am sure that we could both invent a better way to handle the registration of ARs that equated a functional lower (with LPK) as being the same as a WHOLE firearm, despite the lack of an upper, as being different than a stripped lower, but that can't be the basis of interpreting the laws we actually have.
Yes, it is a firearm, a firearm that is registered as a receiver only, that is incapable of firing ammunition, and that is issued with a registration certificate that says any modification that permits the discharge of ammunition must be reported. Period.
You are missing the point. The law does not consider a frame on its own to be the same as a firearm. Its very sloppy word smithing, but you can't expect much when it was written by an anti gun Liberal dilettante more than 25 years ago.
1) The Supreme court of Canada.
2) R V Covin. 1 SCR 725, 1983 CanLII 151 (SCC). Justice Cory Quoting from Nova Scotia Superior Court: a disassembled prohibited firearm is a prohibited firearm: R. v. Haines (1981), 45 N.S.R. (2d) 428 at 436, 6 W.C.B. 146 (N.S.S.C.(A.D.));
You can also read R. v. Hasselwander, 1993 CanLII 90 (SCC), which was the genesis of the readily convertible doctrine. Anything that is readily convertible into something can be treated by law as being the same as that thing as though it were already assembled that way. IE, if you can turn a semi into a full auto in mere seconds, then it can be classified and treated as full auto, even if only a semi. If a receiver only can be assembled into a functional firearm in mere seconds, than it can be regulated as if it were a full firearm.
You should also note that rarely are legal rulings universally applied to all circumstances to which they could apply. Otherwise after hasselwander one would question why we are ever allowed to register something as a receiver only at all.
From Covin, TO Hasselwander, to R. v. Taylor, 1990 CanLII 2560 (NB QB), all of them create significant problems of interpretation on their own that if universally applied would make you want to pull your hair out.
So don't over think it. If you own guns, sooner or later you will be a criminal. Thats not a bug. Its a feature of gun control laws designed at the outset to disarm you.
Yes, the law is an ass. No debate there. So are the people who wrote it.
I am going to address your situation below, explaining why a firearm registered as a WHOLE firearm, likely does not need to be reported when you change uppers at the range.
False.
From the firearms registration certificate regulations:
IF the firearm is registered as a frame only, you MUST report the change within 30 days. It does not matter if it is intended to be permanent or not. If within that 30 day period you modify it again so that it can not discharge ammunition, you MUST report this again. Yes, this is stupid. We already agreed the law is an ASS. Firearms registered as receiver only are legally different and have different reporting obligations than firearms registered as whole firearms.
If the firearm is registered as a whole firearm, then yes, swapping uppers on the range is good to go all day long as you put the original upper that matches the registration certificate back on, or you report the change as required.
This is true of firearms registered as a whole firearm. This is not true for firearms registered as a receiver only.
False. If a firearm registered as a whole firearm, and you separate the upper, you have merely disassembled it.
Not sure what new category for ARs you are talking about. The law that says a firearm may be a whole firearm, or a receiver only, has existed for 20 years.
Currently, nothing in law prohibits you from converting your AR receiver only into a whole firearm. You simply need to report the changes as stated by the conditions on your registration certificate, which should look verbatim as those which appear in the regulations for firearms registration certificates.
Probably for the same reason that you don't understand it. Because you have a preconceived idea of something that makes sense to you, and you are torturing your interpretation of the law to fit that preconceived idea, rather than considering the operation of the CFP in entirety, in the context of how the CFP has conducted business for 20 years, and forming an understanding of the law accordingly.
The criminal code definition of firearm makes says a firearm is a barrelled weapon, AND included in that definition is the receiver of a barreled weapon. Receiver, or frame, is not defined in law on its own.
This is a terrible working definition because to be a firearm it must have a barrel, except if it doesn't have a barrel its just a receiver and so still a firearm.
It would have made far more sense if they had just said that a firearm is the receiver and left barrels out of it entirely. Not included in that definition of a firearm is any mention of type, IE handgun, rifle, etc. While handgun is defined in law, rifle is not. and yet we can have this same conversation all over again about what constitutes modifying a rifle to make it so that it is capable of being shot with one hand. Arnold can shoot an M249 B with one hand. Does that make it a handgun? Don't get too hung up on what you want the law to say, or what you might make sense. Lets just focus on how the CFP has been handling this for the last 20 years, because in the end following their made up nonsense is whats going to keep most of us out of trouble.
For all intents and purposes there are two types of firearms: Receivers only, and what I call WHOLE firearms. The law would make more sense if they made this distinction throughout, but that is just one of a 100 things that would help make this all make more sense. You have to parse the law quite precisely to understand if they are talking about ALL firearms, Whole Firearms, or receivers only. One of the clues you can use to determine what they are talking about comes from the fact that ONLY whole firearms have a barrel, and therefore a caliber and length, and in some cases only a whole firearm will have the parts necessary to determine Action, Type, etc. After all, an AR 15 without a gas block is a bolt action, not a semi.
Firearms registered as WHOLE firearms must state the type action barrel caliber etc on the certificate, and have an actual number assigned to those fields, and can therefore be 'changed'.
Simple disassembly does not constitute modification under the law. Modification is the intent and the act of substituting one component for another. If those components are materially different than what was there before, such that the registration certificate no longer accurately describes the firearm, it must be updated.
When you register a firearm as a receiver only, the type, action, barrel, caliber, etc are all listed as N/A. You can not 'change' the barrel length of a firearm that never had a barrel to begin with. However adding a barrel to it does constitute a modification that makes it capable of discharging ammunition, and per S 4(1) of the regulations, must be reported. Note that nothing in section 4.1 specifies any requirement for such modification to be permanent.
Section 4(2)(b) ONLY applies to firearms that have a stated action barrel type caliber etc. For firearms registered as a receiver only, (which are presumed to therefore not be capable of firing at all) adding the upper makes it capable of firing ammunition and therefore is no longer a receiver only and the registration certificate must be updated.
I am sure that we could both invent a better way to handle the registration of ARs that equated a functional lower (with LPK) as being the same as a WHOLE firearm, despite the lack of an upper, as being different than a stripped lower, but that can't be the basis of interpreting the laws we actually have.
Yes, it is a firearm, a firearm that is registered as a receiver only, that is incapable of firing ammunition, and that is issued with a registration certificate that says any modification that permits the discharge of ammunition must be reported. Period.
You are missing the point. The law does not consider a frame on its own to be the same as a firearm. Its very sloppy word smithing, but you can't expect much when it was written by an anti gun Liberal dilettante more than 25 years ago.
1) The Supreme court of Canada.
2) R V Covin. 1 SCR 725, 1983 CanLII 151 (SCC). Justice Cory Quoting from Nova Scotia Superior Court: a disassembled prohibited firearm is a prohibited firearm: R. v. Haines (1981), 45 N.S.R. (2d) 428 at 436, 6 W.C.B. 146 (N.S.S.C.(A.D.));
You can also read R. v. Hasselwander, 1993 CanLII 90 (SCC), which was the genesis of the readily convertible doctrine. Anything that is readily convertible into something can be treated by law as being the same as that thing as though it were already assembled that way. IE, if you can turn a semi into a full auto in mere seconds, then it can be classified and treated as full auto, even if only a semi. If a receiver only can be assembled into a functional firearm in mere seconds, than it can be regulated as if it were a full firearm.
You should also note that rarely are legal rulings universally applied to all circumstances to which they could apply. Otherwise after hasselwander one would question why we are ever allowed to register something as a receiver only at all.
From Covin, TO Hasselwander, to R. v. Taylor, 1990 CanLII 2560 (NB QB), all of them create significant problems of interpretation on their own that if universally applied would make you want to pull your hair out.
So don't over think it. If you own guns, sooner or later you will be a criminal. Thats not a bug. Its a feature of gun control laws designed at the outset to disarm you.
