The rcmp substituted a bolt that they had modified to make it go full auto.
All the ######## guns apparently have full auto bolts.
Sten Gun advice from those who know??
- Thread starter sparrow
- Start date
The rcmp substituted a bolt that they had modified to make it go full auto.
All the ######## guns apparently have full auto bolts.
A couple of points:
1. The reason I got the ruling from the AG of a Province rather than from the Feds is relatively simple.
A. Lieberals were in power federally and they were shafting us, and
B. Conservatives were in power in Newfoundland and I knew about half the Cabinet.
C. If you check the British North America Act of 1867, which is still in force as Article 1 of our Trudeau Constipation, you will find that the Federal Government has jurisdiction in regard to the Criminal Law but the PROVINCES have EXCLUSIVE jurisdiction as to how that Criminal Law shall be enforced. As well, the word "criminal" refers to BEHAVIOUR and not to PROPERTY.... and it is the PROVINCES which have the EXCLUSIVE RIGHT to legislate insofar as Property is concerned. As well, the Provinces have the DUTY to protect the PROPERTY RIGHTS of the Citizens. This goes back to the Common Law and is specifically delineated in the Magna Charta of 1215 and firearms are specifically covered in the Bill of Rights of 1689, not to mention Property rights being INCLUDED in the Canadian Bill of Rights of 1960, which is still in force to this day. You have to read Secs 91 and 92 in concert in order to realise the full impact of what Lord Thring and Lord Carnarvon wrote there. This covers the division of powers between the Federal and Provincial Governments and is in force to this day, with relatively minor adjustments (apart from one in which the Feds simply TOOK jurisdiction over non-renewable resources, this in 1982). But we DO have property rights and the Provinces are supposed to be looking after this.
As to the Son of Sten in the photo, I note that it has been redesigned to fire with a vertical feed. An Army bolt will not work in this gun at all. The police would have to design and manufacture an entirely new bolt in order to make this thing FA. This requires machine-shop services to do properly and should NOT be termed an "easy" job.
Hope this helps.
1. The reason I got the ruling from the AG of a Province rather than from the Feds is relatively simple.
A. Lieberals were in power federally and they were shafting us, and
B. Conservatives were in power in Newfoundland and I knew about half the Cabinet.
C. If you check the British North America Act of 1867, which is still in force as Article 1 of our Trudeau Constipation, you will find that the Federal Government has jurisdiction in regard to the Criminal Law but the PROVINCES have EXCLUSIVE jurisdiction as to how that Criminal Law shall be enforced. As well, the word "criminal" refers to BEHAVIOUR and not to PROPERTY.... and it is the PROVINCES which have the EXCLUSIVE RIGHT to legislate insofar as Property is concerned. As well, the Provinces have the DUTY to protect the PROPERTY RIGHTS of the Citizens. This goes back to the Common Law and is specifically delineated in the Magna Charta of 1215 and firearms are specifically covered in the Bill of Rights of 1689, not to mention Property rights being INCLUDED in the Canadian Bill of Rights of 1960, which is still in force to this day. You have to read Secs 91 and 92 in concert in order to realise the full impact of what Lord Thring and Lord Carnarvon wrote there. This covers the division of powers between the Federal and Provincial Governments and is in force to this day, with relatively minor adjustments (apart from one in which the Feds simply TOOK jurisdiction over non-renewable resources, this in 1982). But we DO have property rights and the Provinces are supposed to be looking after this.
As to the Son of Sten in the photo, I note that it has been redesigned to fire with a vertical feed. An Army bolt will not work in this gun at all. The police would have to design and manufacture an entirely new bolt in order to make this thing FA. This requires machine-shop services to do properly and should NOT be termed an "easy" job.
Hope this helps.
When a Sten fires semi auto, the bolt strikes the tip of the tripping lever, which disconnects the sear, and allows the gun to recock.
The RCMP cut a slit through the sear bent of a bolt. When this bolt was installed, the tripping lever tip was not touched, and the gun fired auto.
The RCMP chose to convert the gun to auto the hard way, but it still took only a few minutes.
A redesigned specimen with features that make it a bit harder to remove the bolt was tested and accepted.
With the laws we have today, anything at all can be made into a prohibited weapon in relatively short order. For 'offensive weapons', it's even easier.
The only problem is that they all are playing games with the dictionary. Even a full-auto only BECOMES a "weapon" when it is used to hurt someone or strike fear or apprehension into someone. All the rest of the time, it is simply a piece of PROPERTY, an inanimate object. Inanimate objects have no will, they have no volition; it requires a HUMAN to make them offensive, defensive, frightening or whatever.
I once spent 4 hours getting a friend out of our local jail. His crime? Walking from my house to my vehicle (parked at the end of the sidewalk) carrying a gray plastic 3/4-scale model of an M-4 Carbine with the "LIVE ACTION SOUND!!" sticker and the $3.98 price tag still in place. What happened? A "good Christian" saw him and thought that "people might be alarmed" and so reported it to the cops. Storn in a teapot? He spent the time in jail. Fortunately, we DID get it thrown out of court.
This is why the division of powers among the various levels of Government in Canada is so very important. WE have PROPERTY. We can, by our ACTIONS, make that property criminal but the property, per se, is neutral, it is inanimate, it has no moral value...... and it, and the possession of it, is a responsibility and a DUTY of the PROVINCIAL Government.
And yet the Feds are criminalising PROPERTY, which is something they have no jurisdiction over.
I really think a well-financed court appeal could do something here..... if we could get the judges to rule by the law rather than by what they are told to do.
The only problem is that they all are playing games with the dictionary. Even a full-auto only BECOMES a "weapon" when it is used to hurt someone or strike fear or apprehension into someone. All the rest of the time, it is simply a piece of PROPERTY, an inanimate object. Inanimate objects have no will, they have no volition; it requires a HUMAN to make them offensive, defensive, frightening or whatever.
I once spent 4 hours getting a friend out of our local jail. His crime? Walking from my house to my vehicle (parked at the end of the sidewalk) carrying a gray plastic 3/4-scale model of an M-4 Carbine with the "LIVE ACTION SOUND!!" sticker and the $3.98 price tag still in place. What happened? A "good Christian" saw him and thought that "people might be alarmed" and so reported it to the cops. Storn in a teapot? He spent the time in jail. Fortunately, we DID get it thrown out of court.
This is why the division of powers among the various levels of Government in Canada is so very important. WE have PROPERTY. We can, by our ACTIONS, make that property criminal but the property, per se, is neutral, it is inanimate, it has no moral value...... and it, and the possession of it, is a responsibility and a DUTY of the PROVINCIAL Government.
And yet the Feds are criminalising PROPERTY, which is something they have no jurisdiction over.
I really think a well-financed court appeal could do something here..... if we could get the judges to rule by the law rather than by what they are told to do.
Sparrow, to slug through this thread, I'll say I own a Sten MKII, non-restricted. I also own a dummy barrel for it. When I go to shows, it draws crowds like bees to flowers. I wanted the same thing as you as I don't have 12.2 status. I wanted to own one "just for the sake of owning it," and I for the obvious reason it generates my firearms business revenue at the guns shows I go to. People DO NOT believe it's a live, working, functioning, non-restricted firearm. They think it's a dewat like all the rest they have seen. With the 18.5" target barrel on the non-res version, yes it looks retarded, and you'll have to get over that when you shoot it. You "can" buy the shorter barrel and have a discussion with the CFC on dual-classifying your Sten so you can shoot it legally with the short barrel at the range and then shoot it legally in the pits. (I have not personally tried to dual-classify mine yet because I keep forgetting to ask when I call but some people here on CGN have indicated some guns due to the nature of their easily convert-able nature from res to non-res like the Sten can have dual status so you don't have to keep re-classifying it when you change out barrels)
NavyShooter
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- XMU Local .303
Strange, all the fairy tales that seem to be associated with STEN's and "variants" around here.....
I wonder if they're related to the fairy tale import certificates for gun parts that let people fly PPSH and Suomi parts into the country. (or do they just get sprinkled with fairy dust and fly themselves over?)
NS
I wonder if they're related to the fairy tale import certificates for gun parts that let people fly PPSH and Suomi parts into the country. (or do they just get sprinkled with fairy dust and fly themselves over?)
NS
Here is the answer to this question right from Firearms Records and Analysis:
- A gun cannot have dual status. It's either restricted or non-restricted.
- A gun's design can be changed and that change can be updated within 30 days of that change with the CFC.
- You can fax or mail a letter to the CFC "appending" the registration certificate # of a particular gun (like your Sten) indicating that you own both barrels, and the gun's "status" changes from restricted to non-restricted and back again when you as the owner changes out the barrels. This eliminates the need to be constantly changing the status and getting a new card and cert #.
- This area is a "grey one" and there is no definitive answer in the Firearms Act, and to make this so would require an OIC.
- Technically, if you are shooting your Sten with the restricted barrel on it, it should be registered as "restricted." (the "higher" classification as they put it) Because if you're shooting it with the restricted barrel on it, and it's classified at non-restricted, you need to call the CFC within 30 days and have the classification changed. From a LEO standpoint though, no police officer has ever gone into a range and asked "hey, is your rifle restricted?"
This is what I was told.
So to conclude:
- When you buy your Sten, have both barrels.
- There are two different answers to this question, and both are right, wrong, and right/wrong at the same time. I am not surprised.
Last edited:
So if I change barrels I have 30 days to shoot with a restricted length barrel before I need to inform the CFC. If I put the long non restricted barrel back on again within the 30 day period I do not have to tell them ?
Sounds GREAT ! A fairy tale come true !!
Sounds GREAT ! A fairy tale come true !!
You don't need an RPAL or even a firearms license to buy a barrel. My 4 year old can buy a barrel.
If you buy the barrel with the intention of changing it's status, you need the RPAL to change it's status. If you called the CFC and said "please change my Sten to restricted," they won't do it. You'll have to keep your non-restricted barrel on your Sten until you get your RPAL.
The CFC is only informed if you call them and tell them, which was one of the points I was told about when I called the registry. You can call them and notate on your Sten you have both barrels for the rifle and you intend to interchange them for use wherever you are located. (range or a non-restricted location)
The problem here is the Firearms Act does not permit rifles to be dual classified, and at the same time, the Firearms Act that states that if the status of a firearm changes, you have 30 days to inform the CFC and therefore change the status of that firearm as it appears in their database. It does not state in the Act what you can and cannot do with your rifle while that 30 days is happening. The employee at the registry did mention several times that the rifle "should" be registered at it's "highest state" (ie. restricted) if a restricted barrel is going to be used on it. Same rules apply; you change the barrel out, you have 30 days from the date you made the change to call the CFC and change it's status. This is where the Act contradicts itself. There was no indication in the conversation the registration "had" to be changed to restricted because barrels cannot be registered, just that it "should" be. By the letter of the Firearms Act, this works in both directions.
The truth is, the Act is poorly written, and every law in it is open to interpretation, and is based on your intent. Tread lightly.
angrysoldier
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- under your bed
so where can i buy one of these stens?
These are all very good points, and shouldn't be lost on those wanting barrel conversions for other systems. Dare we mention a well-known non-restricted platform imported recently?
With that being said, one case where it does NOT apply, is the conversion of a restricted handgun to a barrel length <106mm. In this case, the law says that the short barrel - e.g. a factory barrel for a G19 or G26 - is a prohibited device even if it's just sitting in your sock drawer. Much like a normal-capacity AR15 mag is prohibited even if it's unloaded and not in the firearm. Even so, the 'conversion' law may actually apply - but the charge would most definitely be "possession of a prohibited device" - against which there would be no reasonable argument under the current laws.
Other than that, seems that the barrel swap is a "go" provided one makes their best effort to obey the laws regarding where each barrel length can be used.
-M
These are all very good points, and shouldn't be lost on those wanting barrel conversions for other systems. Dare we mention a well-known non-restricted platform imported recently?
With that being said, one case where it does NOT apply, is the conversion of a restricted handgun to a barrel length <106mm. In this case, the law says that the short barrel - e.g. a factory barrel for a G19 or G26 - is a prohibited device even if it's just sitting in your sock drawer. Much like a normal-capacity AR15 mag is prohibited even if it's unloaded and not in the firearm. Even so, the 'conversion' law may actually apply - but the charge would most definitely be "possession of a prohibited device" - against which there would be no reasonable argument under the current laws.
Other than that, seems that the barrel swap is a "go" provided one makes their best effort to obey the laws regarding where each barrel length can be used.
-M
That did come up in conversation. (handguns) The barrel itself is not a prohibited device if it's not attached to the gun. Again, the barrel is not registered.
The magazine issue is a component of the Act, so that is a definite, even though the magazine is not registered.
It all comes down to intent.
