They apparently have banned all flintlock and percussion shotguns all gauges.
- Thread starter tula
- Start date
Again I will say. Please show me where this is defined in law in canada?
For the record let us not forget what the RCMP have done with rimfire and .50 bmg mags, and there is also this too, but hey you are free to ignore the facts cause i'm just a troll.
The AR-15 was non restricted before (1970;s and 90;s) so, aside from the fact you would need an att, the oic also makes it legal to hunt with an AR due to the wording.
show me how wrong I am go ahead.
Last edited:
thanks Mooncoon that can be found here although it really doesn't help this argument :
https://cssa-cila.org/canada-border-services-agency-cbsa-guidance-on-returning-to-canada-with-shotguns/
Back many many years ago when it was determined how to measure the bore of a shotgun it was decided the gauge was based on a round lead ball that fit the bore... The gauge of a shotgun was calculated as how many round lead balls (that fit the bore) it took to make a pound (12 lead balls = 12 gauge)... so the bore was based on the smallest diameter from ahead of the chamber up until the choke... the choke being an even smaller diameter but not included in the measurement...so regardless of how large the chamber is, how large the forcing cone is, how large a choke tube recess is - they are not part of the bore measurement. Where in the OIC does it state a shotgun bore is measured any other way than after the chamber and before the choke? It does not have to state how a shotgun bore is measured as how has been a fact forever. This is a fact accepted by the RCMP, the Government and everywhere in the firearms industry.
There seems to be a persistence to ignore the fact on how to measure a shotgun bore... is it true ignorance or trolling? Is there another choice?
There seems to be a persistence to ignore the fact on how to measure a shotgun bore... is it true ignorance or trolling? Is there another choice?
Edit: where does it state that it is measured that way?
The question is where does the Law define bore? why does the rcmp have 1 definition and the CBSA have another. Until bore is defined in law it is arbitrary no matter what your wiki page says. How hard is this for you to understand?
Edit #2: what is the legal definition of the throat of a firearm?
also can you remind me which one of these agencies make the law in Canada (wiki included)
Last edited:
Last edited:
Cameron SS
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- Ground Zero
Any competent lawyer with a grade 8 education and 20 minutes of research should be able to enlighten a crown attorney as to how S 84(3) of the criminal code works.
Antiques do not need a specific exemption from the new OICs because they are already exempted from all the parts of the criminal code that matter.
There is a constant degree of confusion with antiques, where people think that antiques are a separate classification from NR, Restricted, and Prohibited. Antique is not a classification of firearm. It is an additional special status that exempts certain firearms from certain sections of the code.
Correct, however it needs to pointed out that antiques are ALSO either NR, RES or PROHIB.
A flintlock that was an NR antique may have have been prescribed to prohib, and now it is a prohib antique. Which means it STILL does not require a license, a registration certificate, or any authorizations, and can be possessed loaded and discharged any place where it is lawful to discharge firearms.
Given that the exemption of antiques from certain portions of the criminal code does NOT exempt antiques from the storage regulations, Some of these previously NR antiques would now need to be stored as prohibited antiques.
Since the coming into force of the firearms act, and probably before, there is no such thing as antiques not being considered firearms in a general sense.
I feel like we need a flow chart here.
Does the object in question consist of a barrel and a receiver through which a shot can be fired which sufficient energy/velocity to post a risk of bodily harm? IF yes, then its a firearm. Forever and always. No exceptions. If it meets the definition of firearm in the criminal code at section 2, then its a firearm.
Being a firearm, if it meets the definition of a prohibited firearm, per 84(1) of the criminal code, which includes being prescribed to be a prohibited firearm by regulations, then it is a prohibited firearm. Full stop, no exceptions.
IF its not a prohibited firearm, but meets the definition of a restricted firearm in 84(1) of the code, which includes being prescribed to be a restricted firearm by regulations, then its a restricted firearm. Full stop, no exceptions.
IF neither restricted nor prohibited, then its a Non-restricted firearm. Full stop no exceptions.
By virtue of the language construction in these three definitions, a firearm MUST be one of these three classes.
If a firearm, regardless of NR, RES, or Prohib Classification, meets the definition of antique in 84(1) (any firearm manufactured before 1898 that was not designed to discharge rim-fire or centre-fire ammunition and that has not been redesigned to discharge such ammunition) or is PRESCRIBED to be an antique by regulations, then regardless of its classification as NR, Res, or Prohib, it is exempt from sections 91 to 95, 99 to 101, 103 to 107 and 117.03 of the criminal code. Since Section 84.1 is not one of the sections from which Antiques are exempted, then clearly despite qualifying for this exemption, it is still subject to those definitions, such as NR, Res or Prohib.
So even if antiques have recently been moved to the prohib class, the only meaningful change is that they now need to be stored, transported displayed etc in accordance with the rules for prohibs, and they can not lawfully be discharged at shooting ranges which are not approved for prohibited firearms. Otherwise they are still legal to own, possess, discharge, transport, transfer, without any license, registration or authorization etc.
Therefore, given that Antiques are already exempt from most of the consequences of being a prohibited firearm, there is no need to carve out some special exemption within the antique definition or the regulations prescribing certain firearms as this or that, to undo this oversight.
There are lots of short barreled antique handguns that were already prohibited, and no one seemed to care. The fact that there are now prohibited antique rifles due to bore diameter should upset no one. Yes its stupid, and most certainly unintended. In the grand scheme of our problems this is mostly harmless. I can understand why antique enthusiasts would have knots in their face, but most of them already don't understand how the law for antiques work and are still basing their understanding of the laws on the CFSC course book printed in 1980.
top notch.
Cameron SS
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- Ground Zero
Correct on all points.
When the definition of SEMI AUTO mattered in classifying firearms, the government legislated a definition.
When the definition of HANDGUN mattered in classifying firearms, the government legislated a definition.
When the procedure for measuring a handgun barrel mattered in classifying handguns, the government legislated a measurement process.
There can be no certainty until either the government legislates a process for measure bores, or a judge creates one.
In being asked to create one, a bunch of options will be suggested by the crown and the defense. The defense will rely on PAST RCMP practice and guidance, which is consistent with CURRENT CBSA practice. The crown may rely on the CURRENT RCMP policy which was adopted within hours of the Public Safety Minister tweeting admonishments at the RCMP via twitter.
Regardless of what the judge rules, clearly the changing of the process which has significant legal consequences which jeopardize the liberty of millions of Canadians should not be so arbitrary as to be vulnerable to abrupt changes based on Bliar's Twitter Tantrums.
Ultimately, until a judge settles this for all, by either striking down the offending section of the regulations, or creating a legal standard for measuring bores, we simply can not know the classification of these firearms. Remember, these regulations were not crafted by technical experts in order to capture certain firearms within the prohibited class. They were crafted by idiot politicians in order to capture the votes of other idiots in Toronto and Montreal.
Once you accept that all firearms ownership is an act prohibited by law, it gets a lot easier to simply not know the answer to some of these questions.
I think the difference is in your last sentence "how to measure a bore" vs. "how to determine the gauge" .
The apparent error written into the law is that the law appears to require a physical bore measurement of your specific firearm to determine its classification, not just to look at the data stamp on the barrel.
Your explanation about the history of shotgun "gauges" is speaking about the gauge of the barrel. However, the "gauge" is a theoretical bore diameter, or nominal diameter within a certain range, not the actual bore diameter of whatever 12 gauge shotgun you may have in your hands. I am sure that you would agree that not every 12 gauge ever made has the same bore diameter even though they are marked "12 gauge". Manufacturing tolerances alone are going to have some bores larger than others, bores are not always manufactured perfectly round either. Leaving out back-boring and other design features, there are variances, and these variances could exceed the legal 20mm limit.
If the legal bore size is based on the smallest diameter anywhere in between the throat and the muzzle as you suggest the law intends: first of all the law should clearly state that, and second of all there may be some - or all - 20mm cannon's (probably the intended target of this section of the OIC) that would be below the 20mm bore diameter by using that method.
Theoretically, you could also crush the end of your >=20mm barrel enough to reduce the bore diameter to 19.999mm and have it avoid the diameter rule because the crushed portion is below the threshold.
I think that the fact that there are discussions like this occurring in the public (and in government boardrooms as well I am sure) means that there needs to be clarification.
Last edited:
- Location
- Greater Toronto Area
Absolutely crazy. Are we supposed to willingly just hand over guns that have been in families for generations?
Cameron SS
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- Ground Zero
The problem with your thinking is that the you are using the term gauge and diameter interchangeably.
"12 Gauge" is a CARTRIDGE SHAPE. While Gauge itself is a term used to describe diameter, the nomenclature used for describing firearms Calibers is distinct, but often muddled together with cartridge geometry.
This is why there are so many different names for firearms all with the same .308 bore diameter. ITs because the cartridges are different.
Even with shotguns, The markings on the barrel are not describing the bore diameter. They are marking the chamber geometry as it relates to cartridge/shell size. Of course we all know this. The point is that firearms are not marked with bore diameter.
What you suggest is an error in the law was not an error, but in fact was by design. The government did not want to ban firearms by cartridge/shell size, they wanted to ban based on diameter of the bore.
The liberals did not want to ban certain cartridges or shell sizes. They wanted to ban ALL bore diameters over a certain size. IF they banned cartridge/shell sizes by name, people would invent new ones that sneak in between the banned cartridges.
The government wanted to ban grenade launchers and 20mm+ cannons. IF they had to ban every munition by name they would constantly be banning the 66.5mm mortars and 40.5mm grenade launchers that would popup afterwards.
Likewise its the same thinking with the 10K + J of ME restriction. They wanted to ban the 50 bmg, and everything close to it, without having to constantly add all the new wildcats to the list that would pop up, such as the 49 BMG or the 417 Rigby.
The trouble here is the liberals have conjured out of thin air a technical means of regulating firearms that exists no where else in the world, and is based on criteria for which no specifications exist, and therefore the tools and procedures to evaluate these criteria are simply beyond the means of most gun owners, both in terms of skills and access to the tools, so there is no readily identifiable way for a person to know if their firearm meets the criteria or not. This is not something that can be clarified by a judge. Even if a judge picked a measurement procedure that became the legal standard, Most gun owners still would not possess the tools necessary to physically measure their barrels.
Regulating based on cartridge markings would make sense, sort of, until one realizes that to this day there is still no internationally adopted standard of marking firearms barrels for cartridge/chamber. There are standards, certainly, but they are not universal, nor are they mandatory. But this is not something that a judge can simply substitute on their own, or develop some degree of equivalency.
Ultimately the law is fundamentally flawed, and the only judicial solution is to strike it down and send it back to the Governor in Council for a re-write.
"I think that the fact that there are discussions like this occurring in the public (and in government boardrooms as well I am sure) means that there needs to be clarification."
SharpCdn.
"Once you accept that all firearms ownership is an act prohibited by law, it gets a lot easier to simply not know the answer to some of these questions."
Cameron SS.
I was going to post this another thread but it was locked.
SharpCdn.
"Once you accept that all firearms ownership is an act prohibited by law, it gets a lot easier to simply not know the answer to some of these questions."
Cameron SS.
I was going to post this another thread but it was locked.
