The Valmet

cyclone

cyclone

CGN Ultra frequent flyer
Rating - 100%
379   0   0
Location
Toronto, Ontario
.
Many of you are probably familiar with the story that the Government bought a number of Valmet rifles for aboriginal people, and was therefore unwilling to change to category for Valmet rifles away from non-restricted.

My question is, does anyone know (1) which Government (e.g. federal or provincial/territorial) gave the Valmets; (2) which Government ministry/department gave the Valmets (e.g. Indian Affairs?); and (3) in which year the Valmets were given?

Thanks in advance.
 
Just imagine if they were given AR-15s instead.

lionel-hutz-world-peace.gif
 
Search the forum, there's been lots of threads about this already. I recall someone actually dug up and posted a snippet of the classification doc with the actual annotation mentioning the Metis. It was quite the find indeed.
 
cyclone said:
.
Many of you are probably familiar with the story that the Government bought a number of Valmet rifles for aboriginal people, and was therefore unwilling to change to category for Valmet rifles away from non-restricted.

My question is, does anyone know (1) which Government (e.g. federal or provincial/territorial) gave the Valmets; (2) which Government ministry/department gave the Valmets (e.g. Indian Affairs?); and (3) in which year the Valmets were given?

Thanks in advance.
Click to expand...

Interesting that you are not the first person in recent weeks to post just such an inquiry.

While the 'stories' abound, I think it will take some investigative work to actually find anything concrete.

Here's what I can tell you.

The Specific Order in Council that First Mentioned an exemption for the Valmet's was Prohibited Weapons Order 13, made by Order in Council P.C. 1994-1974 of November 29, 1994 and registered as SOR/94-741.

If you search the Canada Gazette Archives, you can find a scanned PDF of the original regulation. https://recherche-collection-search...angaz&IdNumber=9965&q=Prohibited Weapon order

I have downloaded a copy before it disappears.

And in looking for this original copy, we just found a MAJOR clue.

In 1994, there WAS NO EXEMPTION FOR CERTAIN VALMETS. All of them were specifically included as prohibited.
This Prohibited Weapons Order was eventually repealed and replaced by SOR/98-462, which we now know as the Firearm Classification Regulations currently in force under the Firearms Act.
When these regulations were published https://www.gazette.gc.ca/rp-pr/p2/1998/1998-09-30/pdf/g2-13220.pdf, See page 107 of the PDF, all of a sudden the exemption for the Valmets appears.

The Regulatory Impact Analysis statement issued with these regulations includes a statement:
This class comprises the paramilitary firearms which are currently prohibited weapons pursuant to Orders in Council made under subsection 84(1) of the Criminal Code as it now stands. No new firearms are being added to the class. One firearm, the Valmet Hunter, including the Valmet Hunter Auto and the Valmet M78, has been deleted from the class, as it has been determined that it is not essentially a paramilitary firearm and is suitable for hunting purposes
Click to expand...

So, somewhere between 1994 and 1998 someone in the Justice Department formed the opinion that these firearms were suitable for hunting purposes.

I suspect your next move would be a freedom of information request against the Department of Justice for information about how this decision was made. Being more than 20 years ago, there shouldn't be any valid claim of cabinet privilege.
 
Cameron SS said:
Interesting that you are not the first person in recent weeks to post just such an inquiry.

While the 'stories' abound, I think it will take some investigative work to actually find anything concrete.

Here's what I can tell you.

The Specific Order in Council that First Mentioned an exemption for the Valmet's was Prohibited Weapons Order 13, made by Order in Council P.C. 1994-1974 of November 29, 1994 and registered as SOR/94-741.

If you search the Canada Gazette Archives, you can find a scanned PDF of the original regulation. https://recherche-collection-search...angaz&IdNumber=9965&q=Prohibited Weapon order

I have downloaded a copy before it disappears.

And in looking for this original copy, we just found a MAJOR clue.

In 1994, there WAS NO EXEMPTION FOR CERTAIN VALMETS. All of them were specifically included as prohibited.
This Prohibited Weapons Order was eventually repealed and replaced by SOR/98-462, which we now know as the Firearm Classification Regulations currently in force under the Firearms Act.
When these regulations were published https://www.gazette.gc.ca/rp-pr/p2/1998/1998-09-30/pdf/g2-13220.pdf, See page 107 of the PDF, all of a sudden the exemption for the Valmets appears.

The Regulatory Impact Analysis statement issued with these regulations includes a statement:


So, somewhere between 1994 and 1998 someone in the Justice Department formed the opinion that these firearms were suitable for hunting purposes.

I suspect your next move would be a freedom of information request against the Department of Justice for information about how this decision was made. Being more than 20 years ago, there shouldn't be any valid claim of cabinet privilege.
Click to expand...

but there is a chance that the decision and the reasons behind are lost ...
 
I don't know if this has any relevance to this discussion but I remember back in the mid to late 90's , a van was pulled over by Vancouver police because the occupants had just purchased a large number of firearms and ammunition from one of the Vancouver gun stores. The occupants of the Van were first nations and I believe if memory serves, the reason for the large purchase was to supply the bands with hunting firearms for training and supplying new hunters. It was big news back then and was live on tv and radio when it happened. I wonder if the result if that incident prompted the decision on the valmets. The firearms they purchased were semi auto but I can not remember the details. I'm sure the vancouver sun or province newspaper will have the incident archived. It fits the time frame and I do believe there was a court case and I do believe the firearms were returned in the end.
 
RRCo. said:
One other question: WHY did they give them Valmets? (If they did!)
Click to expand...

I think that is the Question that the OP and others are trying to get at.

Of all the rifles that the .gov could have purchased, an AK made by Valmet would have been like giving them pick up trucks made by Mercedes Benz.
 
can14 said:
I think the guns were Norinco m14 rifles and crates of 308 nothing exotic
Click to expand...

Just so I understand, you are suggesting that the government exempted the Valmet AK 47 from Prohibition because they gave Norinco M-305s to indigenous people?

I mean the government does an awful lot of stuff that really doesn't make sense, but thats a pretty odd suggestion.
 
Cameron SS said:
Just so I understand, you are suggesting that the government exempted the Valmet AK 47 from Prohibition because they gave Norinco M-305s to indigenous people?

I mean the government does an awful lot of stuff that really doesn't make sense, but thats a pretty odd suggestion.
Click to expand...

he was replying to my post, I don't think he was suggesting anything.
 
RRCo. said:
One other question: WHY did they give them Valmets? (If they did!)
Click to expand...

I heard they were asked what rifle they wanted. AKs are known to be very good cold weather rifles, with the military Valmet specifically having design features that lend well to wearing gloves during operation. It's a good choice for the arctic.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom