UN Firearms Marking Regulations

[hercster]

Once again, Cheryl Gallant is asking for our support. I received the following email this morning and co-signed her letter with my comments. I urge you to consider doing similarly.

Dear Gordon,

December 1, 2013 the UN-ropelled Firearms Marking systems regulations are set to come into force in Canada.
They stipulate the markings that need to be permanently stamped or engraved on the frame or receiver of all firearms imported into, or manufactured in, Canada.

Domestically manufactured firearms must bear the name of the manufacturer, serial number and “Canada” or “CA”; imported firearms must be marked with “Canada” or “CA” and the last two digits of the year of import (e.g. “12” for 2012). For retailers to stay in business, this cost can only be absorbed by being passed on to the consumer, and the cost of a new firearm in Canada will skyrocket, perhaps as much as $200 per firearm in the first five years, per estimates.

This is the average cost applicable to any firearm regardless of retail price. It also makes the assumption that the importer can withstand the astronomical set up costs and is still in business. This means a new firearm retailing at $150 will rise to about $350, while one retailing at $1,000 will rise to about $1,200. Based upon the 2005 imports, this could result in a net cost to Canada’s firearms industry of approximately $27 million.

Canada has signed, but not ratified, the United Nations Protocol against the Illicit Manufacturing of and Trafficking in Firearms, their Parts and Components and Ammunition (UN Firearms Protocol) [2002] and the Organization of American States (OAS) Inter-American Convention against the Illicit Manufacturing of and Trafficking in Firearms, Ammunition, Explosives and Other Related Materials (CIFTA) [1997]. This UN initiative is intended to stem the flow of firearms across the borders of post-conflict countries like Bosnia, Kosovo and Libya. Canada has not been in a post-conflict situation for almost 200 years

Please, co-sign my letter to the Ministers on this file and share your thoughts on what should be done with these regulations.
Have a goodnight,

Cheryl

http://rnp-conservative.ca/your-voice/?email

 

[Pistolwhiptricks]

I've co-signed the letter as well.

 

[ginseng503]

done

 

[bush1]

done

 

[iamcanadianeh]

signed

 

[hercster]

Some have questioned the estimate of additional costs for this kind of foolishness. In response, I offer the following explanation:

Modern production processes are intolerant of small changes to the product that produce no value for the seller. Most plants operate on a batch process where set up and tear down time are critical elements of total cost. Henry Ford understood these concepts which is why he initially would give you a car in any colour you wanted as long as it was black. Canada is a small market that doesn't generate large demands. So when S&W sets up a line, they will produce some form of economic production quantity before they tear down for another model. So just adding that CA seems trivial but it's not. Not only does it represent disrupting the process but then the finished goods have to be stored and sold separately as they can't be sold in the domestic market. Then you run into packaging and labeling changes and additional costs in processing returns. The costs never quit. $200 would be a reasonable number to me. We already pay a fortune for that additional barrel length on pistols and revolvers that does nothing but add costs.