i spoke with the RCMP on the classifcation of the FN FAL as i hear it now classified as a Sporting rifle in the united states and the chances of it being taken off the prohib list .
Basically in a nutshell he told me the RCMP has no say in wether or not that firearm comes off the list . We would have to lobby a conservative government mp to release it due to military collectibility or something similar . Ill see if i can pull up the email and maybe someone can take it in another direction .
Found them ... I wasnt quite sure where to go with this email so take it with a grain of salt.
----------------
Dear RCMP .
I just had a quick inquiry about 2 rifles i was researching . The rifle
in question is the FN FAL , my question pertains to its legal
classification when compared to a M-14. For a long time our Canadian
forces used this rifle and as such is highly sought after by collectors
and enthusiasts throughout the licensed firearms community , even though
they are currently 12(3) , 12(4) and 12(5) , which of course means you
need a prohibited license to own one , my question boils down to why did
the FN FAL get prohibited when their are semi automatic only versions of
the once common rifle which also of course has a fully automatic cousin
and the m-14 remained non restricted which also happens to have the
ability to have fully automatic parts installed . Both rifles have a 22
" inch barrel , non collapsible stock and were made in .308 semi
automatic versions only , the only difference being the FN FAL had a
pistol grip , also its my understanding that the Belgian made FN FALS
were never manufactured to have fully automatic parts installed in the
rifle to begin with .
Considering the collectivity and history of this magnificent rifle and
the forces throughout the world that they served including our own ,
would the RCMP ever consider taking the Semi Automatic versions only of
the FN FAL off of the prohibited list so that collectors and sport
shooters throughout Canada would have a chance to own a piece of
Canadian history that is slowly and sadly making their way towards
destruction . Possibly by having the rifle re-classified as Restricted
instead of prohibited as long as they are Semi automatic only . I
imagine that this act of courtesy would go along with the licensed
firearms community and would possibly benefit the RCMP if newer changes
were ever to be considered.
Thank you very much for your time and hope to hear back .
---------------------
Reply.
The question you posed to The Canadian Firearms Program, Policy Branch has been forwarded to me for a reply.
Let me firstly identify myself and my job function to you. I hold the job/position title, Senior Firearms Technologist, Specialized Firearms Support Services Section (SFSS). The SFSS Section is the policy centre / technical authority in the subject area of assigning the applicable legal class to all firearms found on the Firearms Reference Table. The Specialized Firearms Support Services Section is a component of the Firearms Investigative and Enforcement Services Directorate, RCMP, Canadian Firearms Program.
I am authorized to speak as the representative for the Firearms Policy Centre (Specialized Firearms Support Services).
1. The rifle known as the FN FAL was "restricted" by the Government of Canada in the 1970's, then its status changed temporarily to "non restricted" in 1977 and later became "restricted" again circa 1979. The FN FAL remained "restricted" until 1992 when it (and the US Rifle M 14) became "prohibited".
2. The FN FAL was a target for special treatment and ever more restrictive legal classification by successive Governments of Canada, Orders by the Governor-In-Council (Cabinet) and were passed in a democratic fashion by majority vote in the House of Commons (Parliament).
No member of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police has the discretionary power to influence the firearms laws formulated and passed into existence by the Government of Canada, nor does any Public Servant employed by the Canadian Firearms Program.
You have a democratic right to petition your Honourable Member of Parliament on this matter and request that he / she approach the applicable Minister of the Crown on your behalf to make your opinions known.
I hope this helps.
-----------
Reply
Thank you very much for your reply i really appreciate it . Another quick question I do have though , is what exactly does the RCMP consider a "variant" ? theres alot of misconception and misinformation in the firearms community on the term and was wondering if you can maybe clear this up for me . For example there is a company that makes a clone of the HK g3 rifle , its called the PTR 91 and is not listed in the Prohibited weapons list , however would it be considered a variant for simply being a clone ?
Thanks again for your time and hope to hear back .
------
Reply - RCMP
The question you ask is somewhat complicated.
There is no "official" government legal interpretation of the word "variant, or modified version". The closest I can come to a definition is to offer the Concise Oxford dictionary definition of the word "variant". You are as capable as I in using the dictionary, so I will not go any further.
I understand that the Dept of Justice, drafters of Legislation and Regulations are attempting at this moment to write a Criminal Code definition of the words "variant or modified version". The question you ask is well known at the highest levels of the Justice Department.. I have not seen their efforts in print as of this moment. (I am so far down the "food chain" that they will not be asking my opinion of their efforts.) - Hopefully we will see their efforts in the next few months (before Christmas) and the debate about the definition will be "put to rest".
ANSWER TO YOUR SPECIFIC QUESTION
The present interpretation is found in many different tests.
1) How does the manufacturer portray the firearm? Do they state, for instance, this is their modified version of the XYZ model in sales and technical marketing information brochures. Is it portrayed as a low cost alternate training rifle for users of the XYZ rifle, and so on.
2) Is there a common receiver or how much parts commonality is there between the two firearms, and so on. If a 22 LR, blow-back operated variant, are the changes any greater than those required to support a 22 LR rim-fire calibre variant of a centre fire gas operated firearm?
3) Is the firearm made to look exactly like the firearm being imitated? (size, weight etc.)
4) Would firearm XYZ exist today if the firearm it imitates did not exist?
None of these factors in itself is conclusive but all in concert guide the decision making process. Appearance and "how does the manufacturer portrays the firearm" are the most important criteria.
I am not qualified to diagnose the intent of Parliament (the law makers) only a judge in his courtroom may do that.
I would suspect that in the case of the example you use (PTR 91) - if the Parliament of Canada thought that the German Service Rifle G 3 was a public safety concern then all variant or modified versions of the German Service Rifle G 3 were also a public Safety concern and deserved to be treated in the same way the German Service Rifle G 3 is treated. In my estimation that is the reason the Regulations, specific to Make and Model have the phrase "and any variant or modified version of it" included in the description, not to frustrate you in particular in your efforts to own a G 3 or a G 3 lookalike, but to insure that "substitute goods" don't take the place of the real thing.
The PTR 91 is a variant or modified version of the HK 91 family of firearms. The HK 91 is a semi automatic variant of the German Service Rifle G 3. Semi automatic versions of full automatic firearms such as the Heckler & Koch, HK 91 were a targets for special more restrictive legal classification by the Government of Canada, Orders by the Governor-In-Council (Cabinet) and was passed in a democratic fashion by majority vote in the House of Commons (Parliament). This change was implemented circa 1992.
Hope this helps. It is the only answer that I have for this particular question.
