My thoughts exactly. It seems they buckled under pressure. We need to up the pressure on them. I have a feeling they would lose this battle in court, even using the hasselwander ruling.
What do you think Paul? You're our legal go to guy.
Well, a lot depends on what they did to it. I don't know what they did to it. If I ever find out, then I'd be capable of giving an opinion. I have my suspicions, and I think that the reasoning in hasselwander is much more restrictive (of how firearms can be deemed prohibited) than the RCMP likes to think it is.
Hasselwander essentially creates a new category of prohibited firearms, namely: deemed full automatics. The problem they faced was that the firearm in question could have its parts replaced quickly using mail ordered parts that were available in Canada (and had been seen at nearby gun shows), or parts from a widely available replica, or could be machined. Either of the available parts were basically drop in. So, the court basically said: if a semi-auto can be converted in a reasonably short amount of time, by a person of reasonable skill, using parts that are available in Canada, it has not lost its character as a full auto firearm.
It should be noted that in every subsequent case citing hasselwander a 'reasonably short' period of time has been less than 15 minutes.
I honestly, generally agree with the court in Hasselwander (although I recognize that on this board I am no longer popular by virtue of making that statement). The court had a real problem. There were people converting these firearms. Alongside it was the question of dewat firearms that could be un-dewatted (the CFC had not yet created the guidelines). The concern of the SCC was that gang members would purchase dewats that could be re-activated in mere seconds, and then they couldn't be arrested for possession of a firearm (there are about 15 cases citing hasselwander which deal with this particular issue).
However, it is my suspicion that the RCMP lab no longer follows the court in Hasselwander. I think they decide before testing that they will ban a rifle. Then they proceed to spend days examining and studying it, using all of their knowledge. They then reverse engineer a very easy way to quickly convert the firearm, and then use it as a reasoning to ban it. They then say: see, this is easy to convert, you just drill a hole here, then you insert a piece of wire or a straightened paperclip, then you do this, and that, and voila it fires full auto: ergo prohib.
But such reasoning, in my view, completely violates the spirit of the SCC's ruling in Hasselwander. They are using their exceptional skill and knowledge of firearms to reverse engineer an easy way for a 'person of reasonable skill' to make it fire full auto. However, a person of reasonable skill, would never have discovered their way to do it, because a person of reasonable skill is not an exceptionally skilled gunsmith working for the RCMP, they would never have come up with it on their own.
Similarly, they take days or weeks to reverse engineer the method, and then only measure the time their method takes as included in the 'reasonably quick' time required by the decision in hasselwander. If it takes them days to come up with the idea, its not a quick conversion.
Of course, saying all this, I have absolutely no proof, as I have never seen an RCMP FA Section report on any firearm prohib'd in this manner, but its my suspicion.
How so ? They are both classification issues.
Well, the most important issue is that Spencer is a firearms manufacturer. He built it himself. As a manufacturer, he can modify his firearms, and by making such manufacturing changes, change the classification of the firearm.
However, CanAm is an importer. If they were to alter the firearms currently detained by CBSA, they would be converted automatics, and hence, still prohibited. That's the biggest difference.
The hasselwander ruling makes every single gun in Canada a prohibited firearm.
It does no such thing. To argue that it does is to twist the decision of the court, which was incredibly restrictive of the idea of deemed prohibiteds. They need to be convertible quickly, by a person of reasonable skill, and with available parts.
Its not saying that if it can be converted, its a prohib. That would be a misreading of the court.
