Reloading component reg changes! Again

Well, I'm happy to pay my NFA and CSSA dues (when I can afford them).

Neither org is perfect; but neither am I.
I figure that if I want to make any changes to an organization, my chances are probably better working from inside.

Dumpdog: Thank you for finding that, I thought I gave the NRCan site a pretty good crawl, and totally missed that.
 
i begrudgingly pay dues...to two separate gun groups that should get their s**t together, then get together dumping the overheads of two groups with the same purpose..more leverage
 
Petrock said:
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.
Click to expand...

Actually the NFA has been entirely transparent about what we are doing and how we are supporting shooters. But you aren't a member and didn't read the article, did you? Our goal is to change things and our volunteer board is working hard to make a difference. We aren't merely complaining and if you were a member and read the report, you would know that.

NRCan actually has attempted to follow a better process and actually listened to our serious criticisms. They still have not posted the proposed changes for feedback in the Canada Gazette which they were upfront about telling us were no different from what they proposed previously. They did say that after the comment period that our concerns would receive attention for the revisions.
 
dumpdog said:
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
Click to expand...

Well put - an accurate portrayal of the situation.
 
dumpdog said:
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.
Click to expand...

Dumpdog this is to true. One of the reasons the antigun crowd has been able to get so much and so far is that there are still large groups of fudds in the firearms community. Rather then being a group that defends every firearm owner we are splintered in to little groups.

Nrcan holds the biggest card, while others have been worried about the lgr, nrcan has been trying to start chipping away at the ammunition, powder and primers that we can all have access to. If they are allowed to further there agenda based on what ifs (actually more like a coalition for gun guide book) there will not be any ammunition or powder left. The NFA and others are at least involved in the process, before they were not.
 
redleafjumper said:
NRCan actually has attempted to follow a better process and....
Click to expand...
A better process than last time? I actually thought last time went pretty well. (I mean the proposals from a few years ago)


redleafjumper said:
They still have not posted the proposed changes for feedback in the Canada Gazette which they were upfront about telling us were no different from what they proposed previously.
Click to expand...
[emphasis, mine]

Their opening position is the same as the final draft of the proposed changes from 2010(?), because I thought that proposal wasn't too bad, with some minor tweeking, I think it could have been acceptable.
 
Well, 225 kg of aggregate lets me have somewhere along the lines of a hundred thousand reloaded .303s, or over a million .38 special or 9mm. What's the problem?
 
mwjones said:
Well, 225 kg of aggregate lets me have somewhere along the lines of a hundred thousand reloaded .303s, or over a million .38 special or 9mm. What's the problem?
Click to expand...

Regulation in the Explosives act should be based on safety. In todays modern cartridges we have safety that far exceeds what was available many years ago.

If this is the case why a 225 kg limit if it is not "safety" related? This leads me to suspect it is a "politcal" limit. If we go under the assumption that this is a indeed a "political" limit then what is to stop regulator justification in 5 years from reducing to 100kg and 5 years after that to 50 kg? It is a slippery slope in my opinion.

Again, to protect your firearms rights and privileges we need to protect the entire community. I will never have need to have that many cartirdges on hand as I cannot afford to buy that many guns (not that I wouldn't want to) but that doesn't mean someone else will not.

I do not hunt but I support the rights of those that do, to be able to do so. I do not own an AP-80 but would argue against those that would change its classifcation because of the way it looks.
I do not reload (yet) but support the right of individuals that do to have the components on hand so they can reload.

If all anyone in the firearms community is interested in protecting is their little slice of the pie then we are screwed. To those that don't see that, I say .... get your head out of your ass and look around.
 
dumpdog said:
Regulation in the Explosives act should be based on safety. In todays modern cartridges we have safety that far exceeds what was available many years ago.

If this is the case why a 225 kg limit if it is not "safety" related? This leads me to suspect it is a "politcal" limit. If we go under the assumption that this is a indeed a "political" limit then what is to stop regulator justification in 5 years from reducing to 100kg and 5 years after that to 50 kg? It is a slippery slope in my opinion.

Again, to protect your firearms rights and privileges we need to protect the entire community. I will never have need to have that many cartirdges on hand as I cannot afford to buy that many guns (not that I wouldn't want to) but that doesn't mean someone else will not.

I do not hunt but I support the rights of those that do, to be able to do so. I do not own an AP-80 but would argue against those that would change its classifcation because of the way it looks.
I do not reload (yet) but support the right of individuals that do to have the components on hand so they can reload.

If all anyone in the firearms community is interested in protecting is their little slice of the pie then we are screwed. To those that don't see that, I say .... get your head out of your ass and look around.
Click to expand...

This is the best post I have read on CGN in a while. Well done, Sir.
 
dumpdog said:
If this is the case why a 225 kg limit if it is not "safety" related? This leads me to suspect it is a "politcal" limit.
Click to expand...

The reason 225 kg was picked, is because that's what a retail store can have on hand. The original proposal from NRCan was much smaller; but we argued that "if a shop in a mall can have 225 kg, why can't a household?", and we got 225 kg.


dumpdog said:
If we go under the assumption that this is a indeed a "political" limit then what is to stop regulator justification in 5 years from reducing to 100kg and 5 years after that to 50 kg? It is a slippery slope in my opinion.
I think you are quite correct about the "slippery slope". I think there are 2 ways this could be less slippery.

- One is to have the limits enshrined in the legislation, meaning that if the limits are to be reduced, the whole act needs to come before parliment again.
- Two is to have the household limit and the retail store limit linked, so that if they reduce one they reduce the other. This gets us a few more allies when it comes time to fight the new reduction in the regulations, when it comes.

At least that's what I think, maybe I'm completely turned around.

dumpdog said:
Again, to protect your firearms rights and privileges we need to protect the entire community. I will never have need to have that many cartirdges on hand as I cannot afford to buy that many guns (not that I wouldn't want to) but that doesn't mean someone else will not.

I do not hunt but I support the rights of those that do, to be able to do so. I do not own an AP-80 but would argue against those that would change its classifcation because of the way it looks.
I do not reload (yet) but support the right of individuals that do to have the components on hand so they can reload.

If all anyone in the firearms community is interested in protecting is their little slice of the pie then we are screwed. To those that don't see that, I say .... get your head out of your ass and look around.
Click to expand...

Exactly! If we don't hang together, we'll hang seperately.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Ok- so this is clear as mud to me- the sticky in the reloading section says 10kg aggregate in a detached household. No distinction between black and smokeless.

This now says black (only black???) was (is) 75kg aggregate, but they want to limit it to 10kg? So which is it? 10kg. total aggregate of smokeless propellant+ 75 kg. of black?One or the other but not both? Is there a distinction on limit in household between the two types?And the 225kg thing- so thats the weight of the propellant found in all the completed cartridges you have on hand?Exclusive of canister powders in one's possession? This is just a cluster ****. Makes it harder than it has to be to read and abide by the rules.
 
mwjones said:
Well, 225 kg of aggregate lets me have somewhere along the lines of a hundred thousand reloaded .303s, or over a million .38 special or 9mm. What's the problem?
Click to expand...

The problem is how they will use that against dealers and importers to make it unprofitable or impractical to stock or import powder and mil-surp ammo. Prices will fast reflect the difficulties or sources will vanish entirely.
 
NRCC and Fire Codes should be consulted when drafting up regulations that directly affect construction and fire fighting in Canada....if that is what they are really concerned with....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom