This i dont understand , we have firearms that resemble prohibited firearms yet were still able to purchase them .
If a manufacturer builds a FN clone in a semi automatic only receiver that cannot accept any full automatic parts then technically it couldnt be classified as a variant .
We have legal CZ skorpions (clones) which are prohibited by name . m14 (clones) which are legal yet real m14's are prohibited by name and share certain parts commonality with real m14s , TP9 (clone) of the steyr TMP which is a named prohib , the pe90 which is a clone / look alike of the sig 550 rifle which is a named prohib .
So honestly someone please inform me of why the hell a clone of the FN or eve a g3 series rifle would matter if were allowed to own all the above clones without issue . And i would hazard a guess that no ones even tired .
*First section of an email directly from the firearms department of the RCMP
1. The rifle known as the FN FAL was "restricted" by the Government of Canada in the 1970's, then its status changed temporarily to "non restricted" in 1977 and later became "restricted" again circa 1979. The FN FAL remained "restricted" until 1992 when it (and the US Rifle M 14) became "prohibited".
2. The FN FAL was a target for special treatment and ever more restrictive legal classification by successive Governments of Canada, Orders by the Governor-In-Council (Cabinet) and were passed in a democratic fashion by majority vote in the House of Commons (Parliament).
No member of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police has the discretionary power to influence the firearms laws formulated and passed into existence by the Government of Canada, nor does any Public Servant employed by the Canadian Firearms Program.
You have a democratic right to petition your Honourable Member of Parliament on this matter and request that he / she approach the applicable Minister of the Crown on your behalf to make your opinions known. .
*second , which i think is important part*
This is how a gentleman described how the RCMP determines VARIANT
The present interpretation is found in many different tests.
1) How does the manufacturer portray the firearm? Do they state, for instance, this is their modified version of the XYZ model in sales and technical marketing information brochures. Is it portrayed as a low cost alternate training rifle for users of the XYZ rifle, and so on.
2) Is there a common receiver or how much parts commonality is there between the two firearms, and so on. If a 22 LR, blow-back operated variant, are the changes any greater than those required to support a 22 LR rim-fire calibre variant of a centre fire gas operated firearm?
3) Is the firearm made to look exactly like the firearm being imitated? (size, weight etc.)
4) Would firearm XYZ exist today if the firearm it imitates did not exist?
None of these factors in itself is conclusive but all in concert guide the decision making process. Appearance and "how does the manufacturer portrays the firearm" are the most important criteria.
