Reloading component reg changes! Again

The entire text from NRcan is confusing. The definitions are not well defined, and leads to interpretation. The notion that we need to a receptacle called explosive for smokeless power is ludicrous and dangerous. Not to mention how they want us to handle primers or are they primers, detonators, percussion caps ?? Who knows??

CSSA / NFA still we the reloaders have not been consulted on this. And to be frank NRCAN has done it again.

The 225kg ammo limit is not well worded and could be interpreted to mean 225kg of "total" ammo weight .. now your limits are in the hundreds of rounds..
 
TightGroup said:
Now is this regulation or law ?? Under whos jurisdiction. Do I get fined or go to jail for non compliance.. Where is the remedy for confusing interpretation. Who enforces these regulations or laws ??
Click to expand...

No one will be fined or go to jail. Any person or business found not in compliance will have their property seized and in a bargain, or plea bargain, charges will be reduced or dropped and the property will be forfeit.

That is how it works with guns and licensing under the "enforcement" of section 91 of the criminal code.
 
10x said:
No one will be fined or go to jail. Any person or business found not in compliance will have their property seized and in a bargain, or plea bargain, charges will be reduced or dropped and the property will be forfeit.

That is how it works with guns and licensing under the "enforcement" of section 91 of the criminal code.
Click to expand...

Ahh so its under criminal code and I believe that the property seized can be your dwelling. So does anyone think its important to have a very clear understanding of the regulations are.

And why for #### sakes is it under section 91 of the criminal code. This is compliance not criminal activity.
 
TightGroup said:
Ahh so its under criminal code and I believe that the property seized can be your dwelling. So does anyone think its important to have a very clear understanding of the regulations are.

And why for f**k sakes is it under section 91 of the criminal code. This is compliance not criminal activity.
Click to expand...

Section 91 of the criminal code is a possession offense. THere is no threat, no intimidation, no rape, no injury, no robbery, no violence, no murder and no victim. Yet possession of a firearm without the right valid license is subject to conviction with a criminal record, fines, and up to four years in Jail.
Oh and if you are Bruce Monatgue who bought and sold guns - your property can be considered the proceeds of crime and seized by the government - along with having your bank accounts frozen...
 
TightGroup said:
The entire text from NRcan is confusing. The definitions are not well defined, and leads to interpretation. The notion that we need to a receptacle called explosive for smokeless power is ludicrous and dangerous. Not to mention how they want us to handle primers or are they primers, detonators, percussion caps ?? Who knows??

CSSA / NFA still we the reloaders have not been consulted on this. And to be frank NRCAN has done it again.

The 225kg ammo limit is not well worded and could be interpreted to mean 225kg of "total" ammo weight .. now your limits are in the hundreds of rounds..
Click to expand...

Over the past ten years I have consulted many reloaders and shooters about the Explosives Act. The limit of 225 Kg that NRCan proposes is intended to be propellant contained within loaded ammunition. Some points raised in our consultation session included: how could this be weighed, why is it a concern when loaded ammunition is not an explosive hazard, and, as was indicated to me by some shooters, it simply isn't enough for many, particularily those who shoot several calibres of large capacity and buy ammunition of different calibres in large lots for consistency in shooting accuracy.

If you wish to have your comments heard in the consultation process, I encourage you to send them to NRCan. Certainly the initial proposal will not do the job of fixing regulations that are currently difficult to interpret for the average person and full of limits that are too small for what actually is going on in Canadian homes.
One thing that we did as part of our consultation was to invite them into one highly active shooters home to see how ammunition and powders were stored and the quantities as well as how magazines were used in a dwelling house. We also managed to explain the differences between primers and percussion caps and why people need different kinds of primer and percussion caps and different kinds of powder. As these folks were from the commerical explosives side of the world than from the firearms community, this information was very useful in getting them to understand how the regulations affect people and why our proposals to them are sensible and reasonable.
 
Last edited:
redleafjumper said:
Over the past ten years I have consulted many reloaders and shooters about the Explosives Act. The limit of 225 Kg that NRCan proposes is intended to be propellant contained within loaded ammunition. Some points raised in our consultation session included: how could this be weighed, why is it a concern when loaded ammunition is not an explosive hazard, and, as was indicated to me by some shooters, it simply isn't enough for many, particularily those who shoot several calibres of large capacity and buy ammunition of different calibres in large lots for consistency in shooting accuracy.

If you wish to have your comments heard in the consultation process, I encourage you to send them to NRCan. Certainly the initial proposal will not do the job of fixing regulations that are currently difficult to interpret for the average person and full of limits that are too small for what actually is going on in Canadian homes.
One thing that we did as part of our consultation was to invite them into one highly active shooters home to see how ammunition and powders were stored and the quantities as well as how magazines were used in a dwelling house. We also managed to explain the differences between primers and percussion caps and why people need different kinds of primer and percussion caps and different kinds of powder. As these folks were from the commerical explosives side of the world than from the firearms community, this information was very useful in getting them to understand how the regulations affect people and why our proposals to them are sensible and reasonable.
Click to expand...

My comments where not meant as an attack, but rather as a question on the incongruities of said proposal.

Let me ask this stupid question, under current regulation, which I believe it to be under criminal law, what is the punishment for having 11 kg of powder in a magazine instead of 10kg. What if you have a 1 kg container at your reloading bench while not loading, or you left powder in the funnel of your progressive press.

On that case what is exactly a compliant magazine ?? What are the specifications, size of lettering material used etc etc..
 
TightGroup said:
My comments where not meant as an attack, but rather as a question on the incongruities of said proposal.

Let me ask this stupid question, under current regulation, which I believe it to be under criminal law, what is the punishment for having 11 kg of powder in a magazine instead of 10kg. What if you have a 1 kg container at your reloading bench while not loading, or you left powder in the funnel of your progressive press.

On that case what is exactly a compliant magazine ?? What are the specifications, size of lettering material used etc etc..
Click to expand...

To be quite blunt, I have no care of having my comments heard by NRcan. I do not want for the regulation of ammunition and powder storage to be under criminal law.. If my propane heater is not up to code I will get a fine and have to fix it. I do not feel that loading ammunition should be governed under criminal law it is an activity that is quite harmless and presents no threat to anyone. Secondo, why oh why do I have to call the propellant an explosive when it clearly is not!! "Section on magazines" rant /off
 
10x said:
No one will be fined or go to jail. Any person or business found not in compliance will have their property seized and in a bargain, or plea bargain, charges will be reduced or dropped and the property will be forfeit.

That is how it works with guns and licensing under the "enforcement" of section 91 of the criminal code.
Click to expand...

Penalties for non compliance are found in the Explosives Act not under the Criminal Code. Enforcement is through an NRCan Inspector and a Peace Officer is only used if they are denied entry and need to seek a warrant. Towards the end of the Explosives Act all the penalties for summary convictions are laid out. With regards to ammunition, the Criminal Code is specific to prohibited ammunition. This is my understanding as I interpret the regulations.
 
dumpdog said:
Penalties for non compliance are found in the Explosives Act not under the Criminal Code. Enforcement is through an NRCan Inspector and a Peace Officer is only used if they are denied entry and need to seek a warrant. Towards the end of the Explosives Act all the penalties for summary convictions are laid out. With regards to ammunition, the Criminal Code is specific to prohibited ammunition. This is my understanding as I interpret the regulations.
Click to expand...

Thank you, that makes sense to me. From some of the articles that I have read I was under the impression that the non-compliance was under the criminal code.
 
So... here we are. 18 months after I started this thread... does anyone know what has been happening?

Unfortunately, the wife and I are both unemployed, so my NFA membership has lapsed, has there been anything more in the magazine?
 
41 Colt said:
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.
Click to expand...

The NFA wants drastic changes to those regulations - they just want those changes to be reasonable and of benefit to folks who hand load. There is a great deal of restriction in the Regulations that is either not needed or creating potential hazards. The rules on sending ammo through the postal system have to go too. Safety ammo is extremely safe. Even in a fire, or while being crushed.
Gasoline is far more dangerous (Flammable and explosive) than smokeless powder.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom