They just banned the Accuracy International AX rifle, 308/338

ArmedGinger said:
Notice how they list the AX under the 10,000 Joules section? Meaning only the calibers over 10,000 joules would be prohibited from that type....
Click to expand...

96 Any firearm capable of discharging a projectile with a muzzle energy greater than 10,000 joules — other than one referred to in item 12, 13, 14, 20, 22 or 30 of this Part or one designed exclusively for the purpose of neutralizing explosive devices — including the

(d) Accuracy International AX;

A crown prosecutor can argue the "including the" is in addition to the 10,000 joule general statement. The wording sucks and creates a legal jeopardy through differing interpretations.
 
Falling Hammer said:
96 Any firearm capable of discharging a projectile with a muzzle energy greater than 10,000 joules — other than one referred to in item 12, 13, 14, 20, 22 or 30 of this Part or one designed exclusively for the purpose of neutralizing explosive devices — including the

(d) Accuracy International AX;

A crown prosecutor can argue the "including the" is in addition to the 10,000 joule general statement. The wording sucks and creates a legal jeopardy through differing interpretations.
Click to expand...

NO it doesn't. This is simply an example of people unfamiliar with how the law operates trying to misconstrue the plain meaning of words in order to torture the application of a section of law that is already bad enough on its own.

The law bans 10Kj+ firearms. The law then lists known models which have variants or modified versions that exceed that limit. THe FRT then sets out to specify which variants are and are not prohibited. While there may be errors, generally only firearms models chambered in cartridges known to produce in excess of 10kj ME are prohibited.

The list of firearms in the OIC is legally meaningless. It is propaganda. On the list of not, if it isn't more than 10K J then it isn't prohib under this section.

Rather than pissing and moaning about which variant that 4 people in Canada might own is prohib or not, how about we force the government to answer the more basic question of how the hell is anyone supposed to know?
The ban is an objective standard. If the firearm, under any circumstances, can produce a shot with >10,000 J ME, then its prohib. This is a material fact that can be independently evaluated through direct observation. While this is more complicated than simply applying a rule to objectively measure barrel length, the concept is the same. Measure the thing that gives rise to the ban.

I suspect not one gun owner in 1,000 has the equipment or expertise necessary to independently verify this limit. There are no national, international, industry or government standards that can be relied on to infer in the inherent ability of a firearm to withstand the chamber pressures necessary to generate such a shot. Very few firing ranges in Canada are rated for muzzle energies of this magnitude, and I am aware of none that will allow individuals conduct destructive testing of firearms in their ranges as routine business.

The only way to do it is to put the firearm in the laboratory and conduct positive case testing in a lose/lose scenario. To do so safely with the necessary safety constraints in a properly constructed range, the cost of the test would often exceed the value of the firearm. Further, If the firearm passes the test and produces a shot in excess of 10K J ME, then the firearm is prohibited and seized. IF the firearm fails to pass the test, then it is legal to own, but likely destroyed in the process. This is a Catch-22 created by law that is akin to burning woman at the stake to determine if they possess sufficient witchcraft to avoid certain death.

I have personally observed firearms chambered in 300 RUM produce shots in excess of 10K J ME. Not all firearms chambered in 300 RUM would survive such a shot. Relying on SAAMI Specs for typical chamber pressures and extrapolating for ME will be inadequate to offer protection from criminal liability for a significant number of gun owners, and to that end many gun owners will run afoul of this law out of well intended ignorance and a lack of resources to correctly determine the limitations of their firearms.

This state of affairs is made worse by the fact that the amnesty issued for the purposes of allowing people to deactivate firearms, does NOT permit people to transport their firearm to the range for the purpose of determining whether in fact their firearm is capable of exceeding this limit, nor does it permit MODIFICATION of these firearms so that they are no longer prohibited, but still a firearm.
 
Falling Hammer said:
96 Any firearm capable of discharging a projectile with a muzzle energy greater than 10,000 joules — other than one referred to in item 12, 13, 14, 20, 22 or 30 of this Part or one designed exclusively for the purpose of neutralizing explosive devices — including the

(d) Accuracy International AX;

A crown prosecutor can argue the "including the" is in addition to the 10,000 joule general statement. The wording sucks and creates a legal jeopardy through differing interpretations.
Click to expand...

The "including the" is to give examples only of what is "included" under that heading.
 
Cameron SS said:
NO it doesn't. This is simply an example of people unfamiliar with how the law operates trying to misconstrue the plain meaning of words in order to torture the application of a section of law that is already bad enough on its own.

The law bans 10Kj+ firearms. The law then lists known models which have variants or modified versions that exceed that limit. THe FRT then sets out to specify which variants are and are not prohibited. While there may be errors, generally only firearms models chambered in cartridges known to produce in excess of 10kj ME are prohibited.

The list of firearms in the OIC is legally meaningless. It is propaganda. On the list of not, if it isn't more than 10K J then it isn't prohib under this section.

Rather than pissing and moaning about which variant that 4 people in Canada might own is prohib or not, how about we force the government to answer the more basic question of how the hell is anyone supposed to know?
The ban is an objective standard. If the firearm, under any circumstances, can produce a shot with >10,000 J ME, then its prohib. This is a material fact that can be independently evaluated through direct observation. While this is more complicated than simply applying a rule to objectively measure barrel length, the concept is the same. Measure the thing that gives rise to the ban.

I suspect not one gun owner in 1,000 has the equipment or expertise necessary to independently verify this limit. There are no national, international, industry or government standards that can be relied on to infer in the inherent ability of a firearm to withstand the chamber pressures necessary to generate such a shot. Very few firing ranges in Canada are rated for muzzle energies of this magnitude, and I am aware of none that will allow individuals conduct destructive testing of firearms in their ranges as routine business.

The only way to do it is to put the firearm in the laboratory and conduct positive case testing in a lose/lose scenario. To do so safely with the necessary safety constraints in a properly constructed range, the cost of the test would often exceed the value of the firearm. Further, If the firearm passes the test and produces a shot in excess of 10K J ME, then the firearm is prohibited and seized. IF the firearm fails to pass the test, then it is legal to own, but likely destroyed in the process. This is a Catch-22 created by law that is akin to burning woman at the stake to determine if they possess sufficient witchcraft to avoid certain death.

I have personally observed firearms chambered in 300 RUM produce shots in excess of 10K J ME. Not all firearms chambered in 300 RUM would survive such a shot. Relying on SAAMI Specs for typical chamber pressures and extrapolating for ME will be inadequate to offer protection from criminal liability for a significant number of gun owners, and to that end many gun owners will run afoul of this law out of well intended ignorance and a lack of resources to correctly determine the limitations of their firearms.

This state of affairs is made worse by the fact that the amnesty issued for the purposes of allowing people to deactivate firearms, does NOT permit people to transport their firearm to the range for the purpose of determining whether in fact their firearm is capable of exceeding this limit, nor does it permit MODIFICATION of these firearms so that they are no longer prohibited, but still a firearm.
Click to expand...

Interesting interpretation, what you are indicating does make sense, it is what is not said in the OIC and preamble that creates the confusion. I'd sure like to see a couple more lawyers interpretations of it that way though.Just to reassure my non-lawyer educated peanut of a brain. Even an interpretation like that from the justice dept., on paper to carry with me, so to speak.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom