Revolver shotgun for your AR15
- Thread starter SKS-Stu
- Start date
- Location
- East of Home, West of the Rest
What??? It isn't a hangun, and therefor restricted, just because it is a revolver action. That specific firearm has the exact same frame as the pistol version, and was modified from the pistol frame with the addition of a rifle stock and longer barrel from the factory. It was a rifle built off a pistol frame, so that is why that specific firearm was restricted.
It has no relevance to this specific shotgun or how it will potentially be classified.
And even if it is classified as restricted, that won't have anything to do with determining the capacity of the cylinder. Cylinder capacities aren't regulated, magazine capacities are.
Again, you've taken a little bit of information and a whole lot of assumptions on how things work legally that form no basis in fact. Just stop.
Last edited:
I believe it is a belt fed machine gun, because for all you know the cylinder could be classified as a belt, because something. Who knows. It could be seen as the same as a gatling gun (it has multiple barrels of different length that you can buy), therefore possibly prohib. Therefore Aliens. Take my money. And other memes.
- Location
- East of Home, West of the Rest
And the nominees for "Best Internet Sarcasm in an Understanding the Law" film are...
Dude seriously #### off,
You just said the exact same thing as I did, The circuit judge was built off a revolver (read pistol) frame therefore restricted. ( classified based on lineage) I understand exactly what happened with the circuit judge.
I know it has nothing to do with the six12.
I also know that a cylinder is not regulated. And that a cylinder is not a magazine.
My only point is that the firearms lab can deem the damn thing restricted or prohibited if they want to for no good reason.
Full stop. That is all. And all true.
My comment about the removable/swappable cylinder possibly being considered a "magazine" (not by legal definition which I said in my first or second post) I said because it is a device designed to hold ammunition and is inserted into the action of the firearm. Like a magazine.
- again, I know that it contains 6 chambers.. And is not a magazine by definition at this time, but that could change with a minor amendment to the FA.
To my knowledge this is the first action of this type to be considered for non-restricted class in Canada, therefore it will likely set the precidence for other similar firearms.
We are same team here man, why are you being such a prick and twisting my words?
I expressed my opinion about something that has not been classified, with sarcastic reasons why five is safer than six, and I referred to how the legal definitions for classification of firearms really don't matter since the lab can do what it wants to suit it's needs. For example take a rifle that meets all the requirements to be NR but restrict it anyway just because (AR-15 with 18.5" barrel)
Or prohibit a rifle based on looks alone calling it a varriant of another gun it has almost nothing in common with (the gsg mp5). Or prohibit a gun that never even was available for purchase. (HK G11)
Last edited:
i suspect the bullpup part (the stock atleast) would be prohibited
- Location
- East of Home, West of the Rest
No need to get emotional over it.
The lab can only classify things based on the parameters established by the firearms act. No where does it say "removable cylinders" are magazines. As displayed by c42, there is no easy way to make such a "minor" Ammendment to the Firearms Act to make such a change as you fear might happen with this gun and its cylinder.
The ar15 is restricted because the government regulations say it is. Not because the lab said so.
The hk g11 was also not classified by the lab. It was classified by government regulation.
And the gsg mp5 is classed as a variant as its lower will work off an mp5 regulated upper, the regulated part, much like how ar15 have the upper to regulated lower comparison. The variant issue is, again, a government regulation imposed situation under the act and the lab is bound by this regulation.
You are guessing that this could form a precedence. It can't, as precedence of one unrelated gun has nothing to do with classification of a different gun.
Again highlighting my point of how multiple misinterpretations of how the firearms act works and is applied is routinely muddying the waters of what actually happens vs the assumption of how things happen. Your fears and assumptions are not based in legal fact.
It is impossible for the lab to deem it "restricted or prohib" just because they want to. They have to be able to attribute the classification to the firearms act.
Last edited:
PROHIBITED DEVICES
Former Prohibited Weapons Order, No. 9
1. Any electrical or mechanical device that is designed or adapted to operate the trigger mechanism of a semi-automatic firearm for the purpose of causing the firearm to discharge cartridges in rapid succession.
2. Any rifle, shotgun or carbine stock of the type known as the “bull-pup” design, being a stock that, when combined with a firearm, reduces the overall length of the firearm such that a substantial part of the reloading action or the magazine-well is located behind the trigger of the firearm when it is held in the normal firing position.
As the stock doesn't reduce the overall length, nor does it use a magazine-well.
"Should" be in the clear with this. imho
onetwentyish
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- East Central AB (AKA Northern Texas)
- Location
- East of Home, West of the Rest
Anyone else notice the "display" ar15 lower on that gun for the shot show pics. No safety cut out. No trigger. Not a completed lower. Digging the clean no marking look, although I know it isn't an option for a completed gun.
Fair enough. Replace "the lab" with the government in my earlier post, (though I learned something about the gsg mp5) nothing like that could possibly happen in the Canadian FA.
You are right. You managed to create an argument where there needn't be one. You know what though, I don't mind having someone educate me... And I don't mind someone who corrects information if I am wrong. But I do dislike someone who chastises another person especially when their opinion was valid.
My second post was a sarcastic one with a legitimate question. Instead of a conversation we got this.
Last edited:
the mag well doesnt matter, the chamber (and therefore "a substantial part of the reloading action") is behind the trigger. i think the old T-97 had a removable butt that the RCMP decided was a bullpup stock, hence the prohib status. this could go the same way. of course the stocks for luger and hipower pistols also place the mag well behind the trigger and i dont recall those ever getting picked on, so who knows
