Restricted or even Non-resricted FN FAL?

The only non-restricted FN-FAL is a DEWAT. The rifle is covered under (i believe) three different and overlapping prohib classes.
 
Unfortunately, they are prohibited by name, so there is no chance of getting a working one. When I first joined the site, I asked if one were to be marketed as a hunting rifle such as some of the DSA FALs are, would there be a legitimate reason (in the government's eyes) to own one , as to my understanding the Valmet Hunter and M-78 were exempted for this reason. I found out that there was a lot more to it than that, and the Valmets were a special case, exempted for different reasons. If that were the case, the Remington R-15 and the R-25 would be non-restricted instead of restricted. The simple fact that if it is a FAL or variant, it is prohib.
 
I have heard that there are a couple that are still incorrectly listed as "restricted" in the database, but as soon as a transfer is tried, they find the mistake and correct it. So other than the CAL, no way to get an FAL currently unless it is a DEWAT or you are grandfathered, and even that is a PITA. If you are grandfathered and bought it pre C-68 for "target shooting" they will make you get your collector's status as soon as you try to buy another one.
 
If the FN CAL is a version of the FNC it's prohib too. Most black guns that were available at the time of C68 and a number that weren't available but were listed in the "Gun Digest Book of Assault Weapons" such as the HK G11, were prohib by name. Canada is the only country in the world that has prohibited by name a prototype firearm, which is made better by the fact that the rifle in question never went into production.
 
ian_in_vic said:
Given the Government's track record on chicken and egg questions the result is the same.
Click to expand...

That may not be entirely true. The marketing plays a good, read large part on the classification, then comes the variant BS. The CAL isn't a FAL or a FNC either, if it is semi-auto made from the start and has the appropriate lenghts (barrel & OAL) there is no reason for it to be prohibited or even restricted. Why it haven't went evil with C68 is matter of questionning...

After a bit of googling there is about 20 of them that have been imported in the USA, what about here ?

I have found a few pics and its a nice looking rifle
 
still learning here, but could someone tell me if nost88 was banned for asking this question or some thing esle?
cause if it was for asking this question who decides what is appropriate to ask?
scared stiff to ask a question now!
 
coldfire said:
still learning here, but could someone tell me if nost88 was banned for asking this question or some thing esle?
cause if it was for asking this question who decides what is appropriate to ask?
scared stiff to ask a question now!
Click to expand...

Banned because he was a multiple account troll.
 
mosquito99 said:
I have very puzzling question, why the FAL is pro. But the M1A1/M14 is unrestricted. both have Semi auto only variance.
Click to expand...

news for you - the REAL m14 IS PROHIBITED, regardless if it's semi auto only or not- basically if it was made by springfield armoury( the government one, not the commercial concern) winchester, trw, or h&r, it's a PROHIBITED- only the norc and the springfield commercial and the newly manufactured commercial receivers are unrestricted- as for the fn- it used to be RESTRICTED back as early as 75 OR 78-, WHEN RON BASFORD introduced the FIRST ROUND OF GUN CONTROLS- as to why, it's because they said so- the liberals have acted with the immunity of kings over the years, and only in very special circumstances have their decisions EVER been reversed
as to why it went prohibited, the liberals wanted to make all STANDARD CAPACITY semi -automatics PROHIBITED- and since it was already restricted, no big deal- just move it up one- what they did to the m14 was far more devestating- it went from unrestricted to prohibited overnite,-
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom