What do you think? Antique or not?

[Bittermansbro]

The Obrez or 'cut-off' originated in the dying days of the First World War in Russia and during the Revolution when the rainbow of insurgents and revolutionaries rose. Common on both the white and red sides, attribution goes more towards the White-Russian sympathetic folks who would cut them down to make them easily concealable under their garments, and be able to whip them out to put a bullet in the back of a Red. Whether Kulak rebel peasants, Ukrainian Revolutionary Guards, Red Guards or the like, they were around!

 

[762mm]

The Obrez or 'cut-off' originated in the dying days of the First World War in Russia and during the Revolution when the rainbow of insurgents and revolutionaries rose. Common on both the white and red sides, attribution goes more towards the White-Russian sympathetic folks who would cut them down to make them easily concealable under their garments, and be able to whip them out to put a bullet in the back of a Red. Whether Kulak rebel peasants, Ukrainian Revolutionary Guards, Red Guards or the like, they were around!

Thanks for the clarification! Much appreciated!

 

[mooncoon]

I think the key phrase is that a handgun is designed to be shot with one hand. A cut down rifle has been modified to be shot with one hand not designed to be shot that way. It was designed to used as a rifle with two hands

cheers mooncoon

 

[jethunter]

Well, that's where the catch 22 is at!

The Mosin-Nagant "Obrez" pictured above would have to be legally registered as a restricted firearm in Canada and therefore require an RPAL to possess, in other words same as if it were a handgun. So, if a Mauser 71/84 rifle suffers the same type of a "modification" (shortening to handgun specs), shouldn't it also be reclassified as a handgun?

SHOULD?? You're talking about government bureaucrats - don't bring common sense into it.

Shortening to "handgun specs" does not change the classification from rifle to handgun, it changes from non-restricted rifle to restricted rifle. Restricted does not automatically = handgun. The gun-cops DO NOT reclassify between handgun and rifle, ever, that I am aware of. I have had this converstaion with the techs.

You could shorten a Mosin barrel to 5", convert it to a revolver and chamber it for .455 webley, fit it with a pistol handle and engrave "PISTOL" on it - but it would still be classified as a rifle, but a restricted one of course.

Whatever it was originally is what it stays, regardless of what modifications are done, according to the CFP-RCMP. Of course they follow their "interpretation", and a court of law MIGHT have a different interpretation if it ever went to court. This has never ben tested in court. So - do you feel lucky? Wanna give it a shot and become the test case?

 

[RobSmith]

Only way it could work IMO is if you started with a bare receiver, and removed the magazine to make it a single shot. The fact that it's a bolt action fails into the definition of a handgun being capable of being operated by one hand.

 

[H Wally]

My argument is no, because pistols are meant to be fired/operated single handed. Same reason why the mare's leg is non-res is why that cut down pre-1898 mosin wouldn't make it.

 

[tiriaq]

Neither a M91 nor a 71/84 is an antique rifle. Both are modern.
If a modern rifle is altered, modified or shortened such that the barrel is less than 18 inches in length, it becomes a prohibited firearm. Not restricted. Not an antique firearm. Sawing it off doesn't make it into a pistol, it just makes it into a prohibited firearm.

 

[achtanelion]

I think the order of operations would matter here.

CC 84(1)

“handgun”

« arme de poing »

“handgun” means a firearm that is designed, altered or intended to be aimed and fired by the action of one hand, whether or not it has been redesigned or subsequently altered to be aimed and fired by the action of both hands;

“prohibited firearm”

« arme à feu prohibée »

“prohibited firearm” means

(b) a firearm that is adapted from a rifle or shotgun, whether by sawing, cutting or any other alteration, and that, as so adapted,

(i) is less than 660 mm in length, or

(ii) is 660 mm or greater in length and has a barrel less than 457 mm in length,

SOR 98/464

3. A rifle manufactured before 1898 that is capable of discharging centre-fire cartridges, whether with a smooth or rifled bore, having a bore diameter of 8.3 mm or greater, measured from land to land in the case of a rifled bore, with the exception of a repeating firearm fed by any type of cartridge magazine.

7. A handgun manufactured before 1898 that is capable of discharging centre-fire cartridges, other than a handgun designed or adapted to discharge 32 Short Colt, 32 Long Colt, 32 Smith and Wesson, 32 Smith and Wesson Long, 32-20 Winchester, 38 Smith and Wesson, 38 Short Colt, 38 Long Colt, 38-40 Winchester, 44-40 Winchester, or 45 Colt cartridges.

The Mauser 71/84 is a repeater in 11x60mm with a 850mm barrel. It is antique in age, but not considered an antique for legal purposes due to its being a repeater.

So, if you were to FIRST, cut down the stock to a pistol grip making it "altered or intended to be fired by the action of one hand" and therefore a handgun, it would automagically revert to antique status, not being in a named cartridge.

Then you could trim the mag tube and barrel making it an antique that would otherwise be a prohibited firearm.

Of course, IANAL, do this at your own risk, don't blame me if you end up with bubba as a roommate, etc.

BTW

J

PS: please don't do this.

 

[fiscus]

edit: (deleted, realized my post went around the scope of the original post)

 

[achtanelion]

Just had a thought.

IF this worked to get a 71/84 reclassed as antique, it would be an antique handgun. As CC 84(1) says about handguns:

“handgun”

« arme de poing »

“handgun” means a firearm that is designed, altered or intended to be aimed and fired by the action of one hand, whether or not it has been redesigned or subsequently altered to be aimed and fired by the action of both hands;

Since the law is written as "Once a handgun, always a handgun" you could theoretically make a handgun stock for a 71/84, and just drop actions in for as long as it takes to reclass them as antique (the way the law is written, it should even be enough to intend to do so, but 1 second should put you within range of the law), then you could put them back in their regular stock, and they would still be a handgun, and therefore legally antique!

Let's face it, as poorly written as the firearms act is, it isn't that hard to find crooked edges.

J

 

[tactical870]

Think of it this way:

Pre 1898 non restricted rifle cut below 26" OAL or 18" barrel = Prohibited weapon
Pre 1898 antique status rifle cut down below 26" OAL or 18" Barrel = Short antique rifle

The action was designed as a rifle and will always be. Regardless of order of operations it will never be antique status.

 

[jethunter]

Think of it this way:

Pre 1898 non restricted rifle cut below 26" OAL or 18" barrel = Prohibited weapon
Pre 1898 antique status rifle cut down below 26" OAL or 18" Barrel = Short antique rifle

The action was designed as a rifle and will always be. Regardless of order of operations it will never be antique status.

That is the correct answer.

 

[BrotherRockeye]

2 things

legal logic is non existent

and

lol @ slippery pig poop

 

[achtanelion]

Think of it this way:

Pre 1898 non restricted rifle cut below 26" OAL or 18" barrel = Prohibited weapon
Pre 1898 antique status rifle cut down below 26" OAL or 18" Barrel = Short antique rifle

The action was designed as a rifle and will always be. Regardless of order of operations it will never be antique status.

Well, you and I both know that would be the intent of the people that wrote the law. However the law as written says that you CAN make a rifle into a handgun, but once a handgun, always a handgun. Admittedly, a handgun that is over 26" OAL would be an unweildy thing, but so long as it is "altered or intended to be aimed and fired by the action of one hand" it would be a handgun according to the law as (poorly) written.

Also, since the 71/84 rifle (ignoring the carbines) has an 850mm (33") barrel, you could put a handgun stock on one and not go below the magic 26" OAL. It would be interesting to submit to a verifier and see if you could get it de-registered. Worst comes to worst and they refuse, it's still a non-restricted firearm. Just put the action back in the original stock and you're right back where you began.

IF they agreed to de-register it, the law as written says that it is and will forever more be a handgun. THEN you could put a rifle stock on it, and have a "de-registered antique handgun that happens to look a hell of a lot like a rifle but legally it's a handgun dammit!"

Hell, mostly I do thought excercises like this for fun. I'm not a lawyer, this ain't legal advice, but it sure is fun to think about!

J

 

[achtanelion]

Just an additional note:

You can buy a T/C Encore handgun frame, and mount a 28" muzzleloader barrel on it. It's still legally a handgun. Even if you then mount a rifle stock on it, it's still legally a handgun, and therefore restricted, and you can only shoot it at a range.

If it works to limit us for modern firearms, why can't it be turned on its head to free us with antique firearms?

J

 

[cyclone]

I think the key phrase is that a handgun is designed to be shot with one hand. A cut down rifle has been modified to be shot with one hand not designed to be shot that way. It was designed to used as a rifle with two hands

cheers mooncoon

Respectfully , I've never liked that definition - for example, just how many RCMP/CFC "techs" could fire a .500 S&W revolver with one hand ?

So maybe all such revolvers are really "non-semi-automatic" short-barrel rifles with pistol grips ?

 

[tiriaq]

I would suggest that a longarm with its stock sawed off or replaced with something that doesn't have a butt would not be a handgun.
If this were the case, all the uberkewl pistol gripped shotguns would be restricted firearms, regardless of barrel length.
Incidentally, a verifier cannot contribute much to the classification of a firearm - all a verifier can do is try to match a firearm with an existing FRT entry.

There is one possible exception.....
We have seen that if a brand new, never assembled as a firearm, VZ58 machinegun receiver is remanufactured into a semi auto, the resulting firearm is either restricted or non-restricted, depending on barrel length. This being the case, if a brand new, never assembled as a firearm receiver, for an antique rifle, were located, presumably it could be assembled into some sort of handgunnish repeating firearm, and not lose antique status. Of course, it would be necessary to be able to prove that the receiver had never been assembled as a firearm.

 

[BrotherRockeye]

how many RCMP/CFC "techs" could fire a .500 S&W revolver with one hand ?

it's not as bad as you might think...with the 350gr factory Hornady rounds anyway...course I'm not a tech...

 

[achtanelion]

I would suggest that a longarm with its stock sawed off or replaced with something that doesn't have a butt would not be a handgun.
If this were the case, all the uberkewl pistol gripped shotguns would be restricted firearms, regardless of barrel length.
Incidentally, a verifier cannot contribute much to the classification of a firearm - all a verifier can do is try to match a firearm with an existing FRT entry.

Hmmmm... I think the reason the pistol gripped shotguns are not handguns is that they have a forestock as well and are therefore designed to be fired by the action of 2 hands. Any stock you designed for this would have to be quite explicit in being designed for one handed use.

There is one possible exception.....
We have seen that if a brand new, never assembled as a firearm, VZ58 machinegun receiver is remanufactured into a semi auto, the resulting firearm is either restricted or non-restricted, depending on barrel length. This being the case, if a brand new, never assembled as a firearm receiver, for an antique rifle, were located, presumably it could be assembled into some sort of handgunnish repeating firearm, and not lose antique status. Of course, it would be necessary to be able to prove that the receiver had never been assembled as a firearm.

I think that this would also work, and much more easily than any conversion, if you could find and document such a receiver.

Just as a note to all players:

I'm not a lawyer, I'm not advocating trying to make a handgun out of a "would be antique but it's a repeater" rifle. I firmly believe that you would NEVER be able to get one deregistered without a LOT of court time, and that would be very expensive. I'm just having fun playing with the idea. I find edge cases and unintended consequences interesting.

Respectfully , I've never liked that definition - for example, just how many RCMP/CFC "techs" could fire a .500 S&W revolver with one hand ?

So maybe all such revolvers are really "non-semi-automatic" short-barrel rifles with pistol grips ?

I think, the way that things are currently done, and the way the law is currently written, you could at least have a solid argument that something like a contender that shipped from the factory with a 28" barrel (and foregrip, but that's default), or possibly a 600 NE revolver is actually a long gun. Once again though, making that stick would require significant court time and money.

Soapbox time!

I think that the reason such edge cases appear so often in firearms law is that they're trying to force artificial distinctions on guns. For instance, if I have an 870 and put a rifled barrel on it, is it a shotgun or a rifle? Now how about if I take a "Zulu" shotgun and put a 12ga rifled barrel on it? For the 870 it doesn't matter much, but it sure does for the zulu. If a zulu with a 12ga rifled barrel is a shotgun, it's not an antique, but if it's a rifle it is!

Once again, just playing around with the edge cases of the law in my mind. If anyone is over-equipped with time and money, please feel free to use any of my ideas you'd like to try and make a case out of this. I can pretty much guarantee after the attempt you won't be over-equipped with either.

J

 

[762mm]

“handgun”

« arme de poing »

“handgun” means a firearm that is designed, altered or intended to be aimed and fired by the action of one hand, whether or not it has been redesigned or subsequently altered to be aimed and fired by the action of both hands;

This is very interesting.... I don't know about you, but I'd be game to aim & fire that "Obrez" with one hand, lol! If we consider the above definition, then any firearm shortened (altered) to handgun specs (intended to be fired with one hand) indeed becomes a handgun. Bundled with the "prohibited firearm" definition, it then automatically becomes a "prohibited handgun". And... since it's built prior to 1898 and satisfies the conditions of an "antique handgun" as well... it then also becomes a "prohibited antique handgun"! In other words, an antique. (if you follow the legal logic)

Please note that there's no mention in the law saying that certain provisions (articles) supersede others, in other words all of the FA's dispositions are applicable with equal priority (so no one can claim that one article of the law is more important than another). Seems pretty straight forward, doesn't it?

Once again, just playing around with the edge cases of the law in my mind. If anyone is over-equipped with time and money, please feel free to use any of my ideas you'd like to try and make a case out of this. I can pretty much guarantee after the attempt you won't be over-equipped with either.

J

Same here... and thanks for the very interesting intervention! You pretty much described what was on my mind and even added some other avenues to explore.

As for being over-equipped, I wish it were the case, lol! Same as you, I simply wanted to see what other collectors' take would be on something like this... as the legal concept behind the idea seems to be sound, given enough thought. Having said that, I would not be interested in possessing such a handgun-rifle and not only for it's legal implications. As a general rule, I am firmly against "Bubba"-style antiques or other collectibles, unless they're completely refinished to their original specs. In other words, a cut down 71/84 would not appeal to me, but I find the legal ramifications of what's involved to be a very interesting topic of discussion.

Like I said... debunking legal paradoxes such as these is good for democracy, as it creates awareness. After all, there's nothing worse than collective ignorance for society! (gun owners' society, in this case)