Suppressor legality in Canada

Status
Not open for further replies.
Paladin308 said:
If the bit about airsoft is true, then I'm in pretty big trouble. But it's not. Airsoft guns are not firearms according to the law, and the mock suppressors are designed to look like suppressors, but don't actually function to any noticeable degree.
Click to expand...

I have a PTS M4 2000 on my AR, doesn't change POI and balances the rifle a bit better IMO. dB rating is exactly the same. I've always liked the look of the suppressed AR, I hope this doesn't make me a mall ninja lol.

Oh and the PTS M4 2000 will fit the real AAC 51T flash hider, for those wondering.
 
Kratos said:
You are right, everything should be prohibited by the definition in the law. The only place you could legally shoot firearms is in space. Now do you understand my argument against this law? It doesnt even make sense. I'm on your side, I'm sorry if my writing indicated otherwise.
Click to expand...

It's you who doesn't understand.

You are interpreting the law wrong.

The device that reduces the sound of the firearm is implied to be part of the gun. The law is not as vague as you think it is.
 
max_freddy said:
It's you who doesn't understand.

You are interpreting the law wrong.

The device that reduces the sound of the firearm is implied to be part of the gun. The law is not as vague as you think it is.
Click to expand...

Show me in the law where it states that the device has to be attached to the firearm.

And a laws shouldn't have to be interpreted. Laws should be very clear, or do you not like know what the law actually means?
 
Kratos said:
Show me in the law where it states that the device has to be attached to the firearm. ?
Click to expand...

Correct. The law does not specify a prohib device has to be attached to a firearm. But the way our language works is that the thing that must be muffled is the firearm and not the user. Thus a prohib device muffles the shot at the source or as near to it as practical. This as we have discussed, ear protection does not qualify.


This White Paper discusses many of the issues and details surrounding sound suppressors and the nonsensical nature of the ban

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/42597962/LegalizeSuppressors.pdf
 
Last edited:
blaxsun said:
And people keep thinking we make these things up...
Click to expand...

Nice quote, taking things out of context is always funny (especially when you're not contributing at all)... How's your assault rifles?

Suputin said:
Correct. The law does not specify a prohib device has to be attached to a firearm. But the way our language works is that the thing that must be muffled is the firearm and not the user. Thus a prohib device muffles the shot at the source or as near to it as practical. This as we have discussed, ear protection does not qualify.


This White Paper discusses many of the issues and details surrounding sound suppressors and the nonsensical nature of the ban

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/42597962/LegalizeSuppressors.pdf
Click to expand...

I'm just saying that if you went to court and proved that earplugs are technically prohibited under the current firearms laws, you could have a much easier time with making suppressors legal. I'm not saying my idea will work, but one idea one day will eventually work.
 
Be careful what you wish for, If supressor we're legal for hearing protection purposes, whay not make them mandatory ? just like some european country. Than you shiny new AR will cost 1500$ plus 1000$ for its supressor.

Think about it
 
vagrant said:
Be careful what you wish for, If supressor we're legal for hearing protection purposes, whay not make them mandatory ? just like some european country. Than you shiny new AR will cost 1500$ plus 1000$ for its supressor.

Think about it
Click to expand...

So $1,000 Vs your hearing which, unlike your eyesight that can be correct via lazer surgery, CANNOT be corrected surgically.

What's $1,000 over your life span really?

Think about it.
 
tiriaq said:
Well, the thread has started on its downward spiral again. Time to shut it down again?
Click to expand...

Well, instead of raising the slippery argument that oil filters are completely legal to possess for use as suppressors - until the very second they're screwed onto the end of the firearm, people are now waxing forth on how earplugs should be considered completely illegal to possess under the very same definition. So it's not so much a downward spiral really as a boomerang - from advocating illegality to advocating idiocy.
 
BenL said:
Do tell how you come to that conclusion...
Click to expand...

Well from a legal standpoint, word by word, anything that reduces the sound of the shot is considered illegal.

Earplugs are exactly doing just that.

Not allowing protection against harm(The gun shot noise) is inhumane.

Just my 2 cents.
 
In before the lock?

I am not sure why it is so hard to understand that the firearm itself is the one that has to be suppressed by an attachment to said firearm for an object to be considered a suppressor. Ever try to get out of a ticket for a noise violation with your car by telling the officer you are not required to have a muffler as your earplugs count as the same thing? Except it is not muffling the car...it's muffling everything getting to you...car, police, wife, etc.

It's like an argument over if a tree falls in the woods but CGN is not there to hear it, would earplugs have counted as a suppressor if the tree actually did make a sound...
 
Suppressors where outlawed (prohibited) in 1935 at the same time Full Auto weapons and Handguns where regulated.

It was in all likelihood a knee-jerk reaction to the 1934 NFA down here that instituted the $200 Tax on transferring the same items to individuals.

Suppressors are great -- I only shoot suppressed rifles on my property as while the neighbors don't seem to care about handgun shooting, the noise from 5.56mm and 7.62mm rifles seems to cause them some consternation.

I never figured out the apprehension about suppressors in Canada, clearly the removal of them from the prohibited weapon category would be good for all Canadians, not just from an OSHA issue, but the decreased impact that shooters would have on the rest of the community.
 
KevinB said:
Suppressors where outlawed (prohibited) in 1935 at the same time Full Auto weapons and Handguns where regulated.

It was in all likelihood a knee-jerk reaction to the 1934 NFA down here that instituted the $200 Tax on transferring the same items to individuals.

Suppressors are great -- I only shoot suppressed rifles on my property as while the neighbors don't seem to care about handgun shooting, the noise from 5.56mm and 7.62mm rifles seems to cause them some consternation.

I never figured out the apprehension about suppressors in Canada, clearly the removal of them from the prohibited weapon category would be good for all Canadians, not just from an OSHA issue, but the decreased impact that shooters would have on the rest of the community.
Click to expand...

THIS^^^^^^^^^

It would be of incredible impact to relations between neighbours that shoot and and those that don't...and hunting.
 
t_102 said:
Well from a legal standpoint, word by word, anything that reduces the sound of the shot is considered illegal.

Earplugs are exactly doing exactly that.
Click to expand...

No they are not. If you and I are standing next to a firearm being shot and I am wearing earplugs while you are not, do you think my earplugs are going to reduce the sound of the shot for you?

I'm not sure how many times this needs to be said. Earplugs block EXISTING noise from reaching the wearers ears. Earplugs have ZERO effect on the noise produced by the firearm itself therefore thy cannot be deemed as Prohibted device.
 
t_102 said:
Well from a legal standpoint, word by word, anything that reduces the sound of the shot is considered illegal.

Earplugs are exactly doing just that.

Not allowing protection against harm(The gun shot noise) is inhumane.

Just my 2 cents.
Click to expand...

You're absolutely out to left field quite unfortunately. Earplugs do not reduce the db level associate with a firearm round being shot. It only reduces the perceived db level by the person wearing the said earplugs, but the firearm shot itself remains at the same very high level.

You're confusing end-user perception Vs others around you, including other shooters, neighbors, wildlife, etc. Those plugs do diddly squat for them.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom