This has got to be wrong...

I

InTheTrees

New member
Rating - 100%
1   0   0
Location
Van Isle
So I am a newbie in the shorty shotgun word. I was poking around trying to understand the laws w.r.t. short shotguns. I came across this RCMP FAQ:

A restricted firearm is:

"semi-automatic, centre-fire rifles and shotguns with a barrel shorter than 470 mm;

rifles and shotguns that can be fired when their overall length has been reduced by folding, telescoping or other means to less than 660 mm;"

http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/cfp-pcaf/faq/index-eng.htm (see section A2)

Looks to me like they forgot an "and"



On another RCMP page it says a restricted firearm is:

"a firearm that
is not a prohibited firearm,
has a barrel less than 470 mm in length, and
is capable of discharging centre-fire ammunition in a semi-automatic manner,"

http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/cfp-pcaf/fs-fd/clas-eng.htm



Finally the criminal code says a restricted firearm is:

"(b) a firearm that

(i) is not a prohibited firearm,

(ii) has a barrel less than 470 mm in length, and

(iii) is capable of discharging centre-fire ammunition in a semi-automatic manner,

http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-46/page-19.html#h-38"



It must be a conspiracy of the JT and the Liberals.... ;-)
 
Your first mistake was trying to make sense of some of the most retarded and contradictory socialist feel good crap that has ever been made into law. Drafted by idiots for morons and does nothing except inconvenience law abiding people.
 
For us old folks, that's 18.5". Can anyone name any firearms deemed 'restricted' by the mounted ones that have barrels 18.5" and longer?? Let the fun begin!

cheers,
 
It's not wrong....you're just not understanding it correctly. The "and" in your 2nd and 3rd quote is qualifying the firearms as semi-automatic center-fire. In the first, it's laid out in the very first words..."semi-automatic, centre-fire".

"semi-automatic, centre-fire rifles and shotguns with a barrel shorter than 470 mm;"

is basically equivalent to:

"a firearm that
is not a prohibited firearm,
has a barrel less than 470 mm in length, and
is capable of discharging centre-fire ammunition in a semi-automatic manner,"
 
Last edited:
dirtybarry said:
Your first mistake was trying to make sense of some of the most retarded and contradictory socialist feel good crap that has ever been made into law. Drafted by idiots for morons and does nothing except inconvenience law abiding people.
Click to expand...

If we want to be able to say that we are "law-abiding firearms owners" when combating more restrictive legislation, we really need to make sure that we are in-fact, law-abiding. Whether or not we agree with the law ideologically, saying that the laws don't make sense and that we shouldn't try to understand them is trivializing and incorrect.
 
Last edited:
grimreefer said:
If we want to be able to say that we are "law-abiding firearms owners" when combating more restrictive legislation, we really need to make sure that we are in-fact, law-abiding. Whether or not we agree with the law ideologically, saying that the laws don't make sense and that we shouldn't try to understand them is trivializing and incorrect.
Click to expand...
I am in full compliance with all the laws as I understand them. Given the number of threads about the hair splitting and interpretations of those laws, I'm not sure that somebody else would feel the same way. The firearms laws are absurdly convoluted and nonsensical which has lead to abuse of process while utterly ignoring the reality of crime and criminals. It's as if they were written by Microsoft. Yeah, they sort of work but nobody really knows how and they screw up all the time. It would be nice to have firearms laws that A followed the constitution and B actually did something useful.
 
Last edited:
dirtybarry said:
Your first mistake was trying to make sense of some of the most retarded and contradictory socialist feel good crap that has ever been made into law. Drafted by idiots for morons and does nothing except inconvenience law abiding people.
Click to expand...

I agree. I know of a few AR's that are restricted and yet have a barrel length longer than 470mm. There are plenty more and that's the problem. I am not sure what the process really is for the mounted ones to make these decisions. Want to have some fun, watch the video on the CCFR where Rod tries to explain the classification system with examples here in Canada. I show it to as many non shooters as I can and so far, all of them leave in disbelief at just how stupid our classification system is.
 
twist your head around the fact that two shotguns that are identical except for different wording on the receiver . one is restricted while the other one is not. as Dave Tomlinson said it does not have to make sence , it is govt. policy.
 
How about 2 identical firearms - the first is prohibited, the second non-restricted, the difference being the people who made the receiver. It would be great to say ignorance of the law is no excuse, but since it is for the police that's somewhat hollow. How can ignorance of the law be an excuse for false arrest by police, and not for, for example possession of a prohibited device (magazine) by Joseph Blow who has a full time job doing something other than working with the law.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom