so I can have a nr 22 shorter than 660mm?

so long as they are rimfire and do not have sliding/folding/telescoping stocks...

Though ISTR there's a lmiit on how short you can go with a bbl. Anyone?
 
Deuce-deuce said:
By that logic a pistol gripped 12" 870 or grizzly would be NR. The RCMP don't seem to agree. I hear what you're saying here I'm just not so sure I'd want to test out the theory.
Click to expand...

Actually Canada Ammo and Dlask were selling an 870 with 8" or 12" barrel and pistol grip and it was non-restricted until the RCMP reclassified it as a handgun. Paul at Canada Ammo has posted about this several times, I thought it was common knowledge.
 
Don't confuse what the firearms act and the criminal code says. Case law followed by the criminal code of Canada will win vs the firearms act all day long. From the firearms act; direct cut & paste

(b) a firearm that is adapted from a rifle or shotgun, whether by sawing, cutting or any other alteration, and that, as so adapted,
(i) is less than 660 mm in length, or
(ii) is 660 mm or greater in length and has a barrel less than 457 mm in length,

So the point to be debated is what does the courts consider an alteration? Police do not like shorties. I think unless someone can find some case (common law) to reference this is a non debatable subject.

al·ter·a·tion
ˌôltəˈrāSHən/
noun
[COLOR=#878787 !important]noun: alteration; plural noun: alterations[/COLOR]


 
Tom E Gun said:
Actually Canada Ammo and Dlask were selling an 870 with 8" or 12" barrel and pistol grip and it was non-restricted until the RCMP reclassified it as a handgun. Paul at Canada Ammo has posted about this several times, I thought it was common knowledge.
Click to expand...

Canada ammo has never sold a pistol gripped shotgun. They did include pistol grips in the box with shotguns. The frt for their shotguns reads, may be restricted.

Joesph dlask sent his guns in for inspection. The RCMP ruled they are a handgun.

I would love to see sub 26" guns... But unless it comes from the factory in that configuration, I don't see it as a good idea.

Thinking changing parts isn't, "any other alteration" is crazy, factory parts or not.
 
Last edited:
The only thing I could find with respect to length in the Firearms Act was this:
.1) Subsection (6) applies in respect of a handgun
(a) that has a barrel equal to or less than 105 mm in length or that is designed or adapted to discharge a 25 or 32 calibre cartridge; and

Which section of the firearms act does the 660mm length get mentioned in. I tried doing a "Ctrl+F" of the whole act and its not coming up.
http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/F-11.6/FullText.html
 
gcdavidson said:
That's how I see it too... but... that means the extreme hypothetical rifle below is still NR? Lets say a 6" bbl and a 3" fixed butt stock (say for a little person or someone with T-rex arms), all produced at legit factories, nothing sawn/shortened after the fact....

14947622985_67cae37792_o.jpg
Click to expand...

I think you would have trouble convincing anybody that that is a "butt-stock", factory or not, using even the loosest definition:)
 
hometownhero said:
Is it 26"? If so then yes it would be non restricted. If its less it would be restricted but still legal. Just need a restricted licence.
Click to expand...

this.

if its over 26" its a rifle
if its under 26" its a restricted/pistol

if you want a short 22 then 26 1/4 is the number you are looking for if you want to be able to use it anywhere other then the range.
 
wayupnorth said:
if its under 26" its a restricted/pistol
Click to expand...

The regulations don't clearly say that, it says if it's under 26" by folding or telescoping, then it's restricted.

"a firearm that is designed or adapted to be fired when reduced to a length of less than 660 mm by folding, telescoping or otherwise"

As mention, why would it not just say, any firearm under a length of less than 660 mm
 
slipper said:
How is that not a buttstock?
What if it had a Hogue stock with a 4" barrel from "blankity blank" company? Would that be legal?
Click to expand...

The way I read the law, and I admit I am not a lawyer, is that as long as you didn't alter the stock or the barrel to make the gun shorter than 26"and as long as the stock did not fold or collapse to make the gun less than 26" even though the gun is less than 26" it would be non-restricted. Does it make any sense? Of course not, this is Canadian gun law after all, it isn't supposed to make any sense:)
 
You did alter the gun. You assembled parts into a configuration shorter than 26"... Seems pretty simple to me.

If it came from the factory in that configuration you'd be laughing. Well, opinions of the RCMP aside..
 
only a manufacturer can make a gun shorter than 26 inches and still have it nonrestricted .

people who are not manufacturers cant not legally make a nonrestricted under 26 inches .

does that make it simple enough ?
 
elimsprint said:
Would you please quote the relevant sections of the law that say that.
Click to expand...

Note, otherwise.
"a firearm that is designed or adapted to be fired when reduced to a length of less than 660 mm by folding, telescoping or otherwise"
The otherwise is the part where you remove parts and replace them with shorter parts so the oal becomes less than 26".
This shouldn't be so hard to understand, man. Maybe slow down on the avatar, dude
 
Deuce-deuce said:
Note, otherwise.
"a firearm that is designed or adapted to be fired when reduced to a length of less than 660 mm by folding, telescoping or otherwise"
The otherwise is the part where you remove parts and replace them with shorter parts so the oal becomes less than 26".
This shouldn't be so hard to understand, man. Maybe slow down on the avatar, dude
Click to expand...

Would you please list the exact section, preferably with a link. And using the section you listed would please also explain how a Henry Mares Leg is non-restricted at 25" OAL.
 
elimsprint said:
Would you please quote the relevant sections of the law that say that.
Click to expand...


first off we have what is posted in post #37 by deuce-deuce . take that phrase and google it , it will bring you to where it came from .

the other part where a manufacture can make a nonrestricted under 26 inches .... take a look at the rossi ranch hand at just over 24 inches .
it came into Canada at that length , they where inspected by the rcmp lad at that length and they where issued a nonrestricted frt number at that length .

this makes firearms overall length no different that barrel length now . and what I mean by that is a person cannot legally cut a barrel shorter that 18" . but a manufacturer can legally build one from scratch at less than 18" .

the intent of having a minimum overall length of 26" is to prevent people from cutting down rifles and shotguns so that they are easily hidden or concealed .

the information is out there if you wish to google it and not insist on being spoon fed . a phone call to the cfc would also give you similar information .


this also has been discussed here at great length every 4 or 5 months .

26 inches overall length is the magic number to stay out of jail . unless it happens to be one of the few unaltered ,under 26 inches, nonrestricted that has the rcmps blessing .
 
elimsprint said:
Would you please list the exact section, preferably with a link. And using the section you listed would please also explain how a Henry Mares Leg is non-restricted at 25" OAL.
Click to expand...

I've explained this many times... The Henry mares leg and other mares legs leave the factory in that configuration thus are non restricted... If one takes a 10-22 and changes parts that falls under the otherwise part thus restricted.

If you could talk dlask into building one of their guns in a configuration shorter than 26" and the RCMP were willing to provide an frt number then you could have a sub 26" nonrestricted gun... I do have a sneaking suspicion that the RCMP would do the same thing they did with the pistol gripped shorty 870s and call it a hand gun.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom