Reloading component reg changes! Again

Splatter

Splatter

CGN Ultra frequent flyer
Rating - 97.5%
39   1   0
Location
SouthernAB
As per SkullBoy's sticky in the realoading section, I've been searching for the stickied threads that we contributed in the years previous.... No luck.

So, I guess I need to start a new thread.

I just opened my Jan/Feb issue of Canadian Firearms Journal.

NRCan is at it again.

This time, apparently, the NFA has taken it upon itself to "negotiate" on our behalf.

The "comment period" started in October of 2011!!

Why in the hell aren't there a bunch of threads here telling us about this?


At the end of the article (on page 7), Sheldon Clare writes

"As you can see, the process is underway. Please
tell NRCan that you support the NFA in advocating..."


Ok, obviously NRCan has learned it's lesson about "leaking" it's intentions to re-imagine the regulations as concerns reloading components, when we got the (Conservative) government of the day to have the ministry abandon their intention to "improve" the current regs.

So, in all probability the NFA got told "shhhhh, this is very sensitive, don't tell your members (I.E. the people that actually ARE the organization.)

Nope, not IMHO, good enough.

I agree that the regs can be modernized and clarified, and a lot of recognition given to the absolutely superb safety record of Canadian handloaders; but I think we (the NFA members and the larger shooting/reloading community) should have been given the "heads-up" on this months ago.



BTW, if those old threads still exist, could someone please point to them, or even combine them with this, please?
 
The NFA were on our side last time. It was the CSSA that wanted to drastically change things. I'd like to know whats going on, even though I quit reloading.

PS, you avatar made me lol.
 
Milsparro said:
I don't get that publication can you post the relevant content? Your original post is kind of clear as mud from my end. What's NRCAN doing?
Click to expand...

What NRCan is doing isn't exactly clear, this time. Last time they published draft copies of the regulations for us to comment on, this time I can find nothing.
But basing my opinion on what they wanted last time, the initial draft of the new regs tossed quite a few reloaders "under the bus" to give us clearer regulations and some increased limits. They also wanted to exclude military surplus components from legal use.

This time, it seems pretty similar from what the 2 page article said.

By the time the last round of drafts was complete, I thought that we were actually pretty close to something that I would support.
 
Splatter said:
What NRCan is doing isn't exactly clear, this time. Last time they published draft copies of the regulations for us to comment on, this time I can find nothing.
But basing my opinion on what they wanted last time, the initial draft of the new regs tossed quite a few reloaders "under the bus" to give us clearer regulations and some increased limits. They also wanted to exclude military surplus components from legal use.

This time, it seems pretty similar from what the 2 page article said.

By the time the last round of drafts was complete, I thought that we were actually pretty close to something that I would support.
Click to expand...

What were some of the things that they wanted last time? How were some reloaders tossed under the bus?
 
For instance, reloaders that lived in non-detached housing were "thrown under the bus" by having reduced limits on the amounts of ammo and powder that they could keep at home (most importantly) with exactly zero evidence that these reloaders posed even one tiny bit of a threat to their neighbours.

And that's one example.

Rather than respond to every question tonight, I'm hoping that someone can find the threads and maybe even the PDFs of the drafts, from 2-or-3 (4?) years ago (I think). As I recall the drafts went to about 5 pages, so I don't have a perfect recall of what they said.


Or.... I'm hoping that someone "in the know" on the current round of proposals comes here to clear things up.
 
For instance, reloaders that lived in non-detached housing were "thrown under the bus" by having reduced limits on the amounts of ammo and powder that they could keep at home (most importantly) with exactly zero evidence that these reloaders posed even one tiny bit of a threat to their neighbours.
Click to expand...
If I lived in an attached home I would be a lot more concerned about natural gas and propane tank than powder, primers and live shells.
 
Davemc said:
If I lived in an attached home I would be a lot more concerned about natural gas and propane tank than powder, primers and live shells.
Click to expand...
Candles !

Be a lot more concerned about common wax candles. They cause a bunch of fires and deaths every year in Canada.
 
Not only did the last reg proposals throw the condo,townhouse crowd under the bus,I recall that a single dwelling had to be on the larger side because your powder or reloading bench couldn't be closer than 5 metres from a heat source (furnace) and seven metres from your nearest neighbour.Someone correct me if I'm wrong but I recall at the time pulling out the tape measure to see how far away from the furnace my bench is and only had a third of a metre grace in the corner of my basement.I hope those old reg proposals or worse don't become law.
 
From the NRCan website:

Explosives Regulatory Modernization, Explosives Regulations 2011
Purpose: To inform, consult and collaborate with industry and other government departments on the proposed revision of the Explosives Regulations.




Target Audience: Throughout this timeframe, numerous consultations with industry, law enforcement organizations and other government departments have taken place. Consultations will continue with the following organizations:
  • Canadian Explosives Industry Association
  • Canadian Pyrotechnics Council
  • Canadian Shooting Sports Association
  • National Firearms Association
Revisions of the Explosives Regulations will also appear in Canada Gazette I with a pre-publication comment period initiating in October 2011
Intended Outcome: The Explosives Regulations, 2011 introduces new requirements that reflect industry practices and standards. This initiative will clarify regulatory intent through better structure and clearer, simpler language, use of regulatory concepts and reflect evolving technologies and business practices. Through increased awareness, stakeholder support for the changes to the regulations is sought.
Time Frame: Fall 2008 – Spring 2012

Points from the NFA's Firearms Journal:

  1. NFA's interest in revision of the Act is for clarity.
  2. Some current proposals remove the current limitations on items such as primers and percussion caps.
  3. Other proposals limit quantities of powder stored in dwelling houses more than currently limited.
  4. A proposal to for a provision to provide a PAL to buy black powder (not supported by NFA as flintlock shooters do not require a PAL)
  5. A proposal to limit amount of Black powder powder to be stored in a dwelling from 75 kg to one 10 kg container. (not supported by NFA as it would negatively affect multi calibre reloaders)
  6. A proposal to limit quantity of propellant in loaded ammunition to 225 kg.. a significant reduction from reasonable... ( not supported by NFA as it will negatively effect owners of more than one type of gun / calibre and the number of rounds that can be kept.
  7. NRCan arguement is that black powder is a weapon of choice for terrorists. (NFA position is this has nothing to do with regulating safe practices for families of shooters... if it does we need to regulate propane tanks, gas cans, fertilizer etc in homes)
As stated in the NRCan notice at the top of this posting there is a pre-publication comment period. NFA is asking that we contact the Minister of Natural Resources , The Hourable Joe Oliver and state that we support the NFA position with regards to these proposals.

This is a pre-publication comment period. The offical first public comment period will happen when the proposed regulation is published in the Canada Gazette I which has not happened yet. After that happens and comments are made the regulation goes to Canada Gazette II whereafter it becomes a regulation. Any changes should happen before that happens.

By asking us to comment in the pre-publication period the NFA is trying to get us an extra kick at the can so to speak. Whether we are reloaders or not we should be supporting the NFA in this as it is another example of the government limiting our civil rights for no other apparent reason than to have control.

My 2 cents.Thk
 
Last edited:
So approximately how much ammo uses up 225kg of propellant? Lots of us like to stockpile cases of milsurp ammo, cases of shotshells, bulk purchases of 9mm etc. Plus if you reload for a bunch of milsurp rifles, that ammounts to another couple hundred rounds for each of several calibres.....
 
Beadwindow said:
So approximately how much ammo uses up 225kg of propellant? Lots of us like to stockpile cases of milsurp ammo, cases of shotshells, bulk purchases of 9mm etc. Plus if you reload for a bunch of milsurp rifles, that ammounts to another couple hundred rounds for each of several calibres.....
Click to expand...

That has serious implications for firearms dealers who import ammo by the container load. The restrictions on the amount of ammo will be used to shut down the importation of cheap mil surp ammo - you can bet NRCAN has that ace up their sleeve.
If you can't get the guns, get the ammo, or at least make it too expensive to shoot.
NRCAN has a history of limiting military surplus ammo entry into Canada - and they have used the excuse of public safety.
Just another government department that is out of control and has an anti gun owner agenda.
 
straightwalls said:
i often thought that ******** would be the target of choice in regards to these underhanded tactics; if you control primers, you control ammunition. although these types will never limit themselves i suppose.
Click to expand...

Now that you have mentioned it here, they are indeed the next and likely only target - restrictions on import and restrictions on sales.
Good idea to tell those who are anti gun owner and who lurk here how to end reloading in Canada.

For an example of how legislation can end a legal activity in Canada take a look at the dwindling number of firearms dealers due to restrictions and barriers put in place by the legislation, from 20,000 twenty years ago to just over a thousand now.
Firearms will be, like the cod stocks, managed out of reach of the average Canadian. NRCAN is just one spoke in that wheel.
 
Beadwindow said:
So approximately how much ammo uses up 225kg of propellant? Lots of us like to stockpile cases of milsurp ammo, cases of shotshells, bulk purchases of 9mm etc. Plus if you reload for a bunch of milsurp rifles, that ammounts to another couple hundred rounds for each of several calibres.....
Click to expand...

For a larger rifle (22-250,243, 30-06) using 30 grains of powder, about 115,500 rounds
For s smaller rifle (223) using 20 grains of powder, about 173,250 rounds.
For a pistol using 3 grains of powder, about 1,155,000 rounds.

Really, as much as I don;t like any restrictions on ammo, I don't think those numbers would limit any average shooter.
 
IMagius said:
For a larger rifle (22-250,243, 30-06) using 30 grains of powder, about 115,500 rounds
For s smaller rifle (223) using 20 grains of powder, about 173,250 rounds.
For a pistol using 3 grains of powder, about 1,155,000 rounds.

Really, as much as I don;t like any restrictions on ammo, I don't think those numbers would limit any average shooter.
Click to expand...

I believe it is the NFA's position that they are there to protect all firearms rights. Whether it is for the average shooter or the non average shooter. We loose rights and privileges through the continuous and steady errosion of regulations. Death by a thousand cuts if you would. If we want to protect our firearms rights and privileges then we need to protect everyones firearms rights and privileges.
 
IMagius said:
For a larger rifle (22-250,243, 30-06) using 30 grains of powder, about 115,500 rounds
Click to expand...

30 grains is rediculously low for a .243 or .30-06. 50 is more like it.

What I don't understand is why they would want to change anything? AFAIK the current laws were fine? Why must the government continually restrict our rights?
 
diemaco said:
30 grains is rediculously low for a .243 or .30-06. 50 is more like it.

What I don't understand is why they would want to change anything? AFAIK the current laws were fine? Why must the government continually restrict our rights?
Click to expand...

In reality the current regulations on powder and primers are far too restrictive. Modern smokeless powder is benign and modern primers are far less dangerous than either gasoline, propane, or butane lighters. Modern ammo is even less dangerous.

A small comparison of gun powder to gasoline, or even acetone is in order. Gasoline is one of the deadliest substances known to mankind. A litre can blow up your entire home, the fumes are toxic, it is used by arsonists as an accillerent and by the misguided as a substance (deadly) to get a high.
 
Glad to see that openness and transparency are prevalent at NRCan and the NFA.

Just another reason why I won't pay memebership dues to these firearms "organizations".

I was suckered in a few years ago and paid for one of each, only to find out that they have no real goals other than to collect people's money and then do as they please.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom