Why are pump guns under 660mm suddenly legal?

That might be the ticket. Have a verifier add comments on the FRT number/documentation regarding is <660mm OAL. At least this data or paperwork would be in the "system".

It probable won't help you in the field though. At least if your SBS got confiscated you could use the "system" and the verifiers comments as bail money for your SBS.
 
ok so, for what i know (i've been selling firearms for over 5 years) the OAL must be above 26something inches total

you can buy a shotgun ( new) with a barrel of 12.5 inches if it comes stock with the gun, you can't cut a barrel below 18" (must be dont by a gunsmith) if you cut your own barrel below 18" it gets automaticly prohibited. but, thats the stupid part of the law, you can buy a factory one of 14 or 12.5 and fit it on your shotgun as long as it is factory made and as long as your OAL is above 26 something inches. thats why shotguns with short barrel always come with non folding stock so they strictly fit to the regulation, but in the process of modifications you CANT put a stock that reduces the OAL below 26" of automaticly your gut gets prohibited
 
Calling Mr. Mark at Questar.

If you had the <660mm OAL shotgun as identified below in the field and were confronted by a CO/PO that was testy or didn't attend this seminar regarding its non-restricted status, how would you defend/justify it and yourself?


Questar International (May 2007)

...these short barrel pump shotguns with pistol grips are legal and classified as Non-Restricted. Remington has offered a commercial version of the 870 with 10" barrel and pistol grip for years. I understand that Dlask is now making a conversion for the 870 that creates an 8" barrel, pistol grip 870 and maintains the non-restricted classification... this information came directly from CFC at a seminar about 2 months ago.

The legislation quoted above specifies: (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,

CFC and RCMP interpret the phrase "adapted from" as meaning that the individual cuts, saws, etc. the firearm himself, not that he installs or has a gunsmith install commercially available components. This legislation does NOT include modifications made by a proper gunsmith, nor does it affect models that were either "commercially" made or those resulting from installation of commercially available barrels, pistol grips, etc..

If you take a standard non-restricted 870 shotgun... if you then purchase a commercially manufactured 8" barrel and pistol grip... if you then install those 2 items on your 870 shotgun... you will have a short shotgun as shown above and you will have done nothing that would cause any legislation to trigger a change in legal classification of the firearm. That was how/why CFC decided these were non-restricted.

If, however, you take your 870, cut the stock and/or cut the barrel then you will have created a Prohibited Firearm.

Don't know if this helps to understand the situation but that is how CFC explained it to us.

Mark

Questar International
Firearm Import / Export Services...
Firearm Sales... Training... and more...
www.questar.ca
sales@questar.ca
 
Sawedoff, well I guess that answers it.

Turns out I'm wrong and you guys are right. Good old legal wording saves the day again. God this stuff is confusing. You know, the laws use no logic and make no sense, but you used to be able to get by reading the regs and following them. Now we have a ruling that directly contravenes everything written in the regs because of a simple interpretation of wording. Still, I would suspect a judge would disagree with that interpretation as it goes against the "spirit" of the law

Jesus, we all must be damn near lawyers by now. :rolleyes:
 
Armedsask said:
Sawedoff, well I guess that answers it.

Turns out I'm wrong and you guys are right. Good old legal wording saves the day again. God this stuff is confusing. You know, the laws use no logic and make no sense, but you used to be able to get by reading the regs and following them. Now we have a ruling that directly contravenes everything written in the regs because of a simple interpretation of wording. Still, I would suspect a judge would disagree with that interpretation as it goes against the "spirit" of the law

Jesus, we all must be damn near lawyers by now. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Thats what happens when the people that make firearms laws know nothing about firearms...then the laws that they created come and bite them in the ass...
 
beware if your firearm is registered with an OAL over 660 mm and you caught by a cop and he check the OAL of your gun with short barrel and pistol grip, if the OAL is blow 660 mm your in deep #### wether your mods are legal or not.
 
I agree. It may not be over yet but I PM'd Questar to comment in the thread.

I realize the introduction of Marks comments contradict my prior beliefs but facts-may-be-facts and if we can conclude this in a civilized manner that's GREAT! I'm pissed that I'm on the fence right now...:confused: It still comes down to what a person should do in the field with their <660mm SG when confronted.

If we conclude this in a reasonable manner please sticky this.
 
Still_free said:
beware if your firearm is registered with an OAL over 660 mm and you caught by a cop and he check the OAL of your gun with short barrel and pistol grip, if the OAL is blow 660 mm your in deep s**t wether your mods are legal or not.
Click to expand...


I have never seen a reference to overall length on either an individual or dealer version of a registration certificate.
Individual certificates make reference to barrel length, dealer certs are more specific and include greater detail, but there is no mention of overall firearm length.
 
A few things to look at from a language perspective.

(c) a firearm that is designed or adapted to be fired when reduced to a length of less than 660 mm by folding, telescoping or otherwise, or
Click to expand...

The word 'reduced' means that the gun must have had a length greater than 660mm to begin with. If the shotgcould rule out manufactured guns, except for the 'reduced' part mentioned above.un was manufactured with the pistol grip, then it was never reduced in length.

The 'designed' word covers manufactured guns. However, the gun is not 'designed' to 'reduce', simply 'designed'.

The same holds true for 'otherwise' - having a factory installed pistol grip is not reducing, thus not an 'otherwise'. It may be considered 'otherwise' if you originally bought a full stocked short-barreled gun and then put a pistol grip on.

Just my $0.02. I'm no lawyer :)
 
Concept2w said:
From my point of view, it just means that when "reduced" if the length is under 660mm; then its restricted. I don't read any part that it says specifically that, before "reduced", it must have been over 660mm. It's not logical, but it's the way it's written and it's the law. :cool:

those are my 2 cents. :runaway:
Click to expand...

I can modify my statement a bit. The gun could have been 659mm, and that is OK unless 'reduced' in length by some means. If it was made under 660mm, then it has never been 'reduced' by any method :) For example, your 12" grizzly with a pistol grip may be ok, but if you put an 8.5" barrel on it you have 'reduced' it, AND it is below 660mm, satisfying the requirements of section c and making it restricted.

I can only hope that this is how a judge would interpret that part of the law - it seems fairly straightforward and unambiguous when one examines the meaning of the word 'reduced'.
 
There is one simple reason why we are starting to see a whole lot of short barrel shotgun...

People are getting a little fedup of playing sheep, and they are ready to rock the boat :dancingbanana: :rockOn: :dancingbanana:

10-15 years ago, we just wanted to lay low and wish they would forget about us... it didn't do us any good! So now, companies like Dlask and CanadaAmmo have decided to take more of a "in your face" attitude... and it seems to work pretty good.

(This is not a sales pitch... but)
The more Canadians we have with these little bugger of a shotgun, the less incline will the government be to ban them and/or change the regulation.

Just my 2 cents worth,
Mike.
 
sillymike said:
There is one simple reason why we are starting to see a whole lot of short barrel shotgun...

People are getting a little fedup of playing sheep, and they are ready to rock the boat :dancingbanana: :rockOn: :dancingbanana:

10-15 years ago, we just wanted to lay low and wish they would forget about us... it didn't do us any good! So now, companies like Dlask and CanadaAmmo have decided to take more of a "in your face" attitude... and it seems to work pretty good.

Just my 2 cents worth,
Mike.
Click to expand...

+1 , I agree.
 
sillymike said:
There is one simple reason why we are starting to see a whole lot of short barrel shotgun...

People are getting a little fedup of playing sheep, and they are ready to rock the boat :dancingbanana: :rockOn: :dancingbanana:

10-15 years ago, we just wanted to lay low and wish they would forget about us... it didn't do us any good! So now, companies like Dlask and CanadaAmmo have decided to take more of a "in your face" attitude... and it seems to work pretty good.

(This is not a sales pitch... but)
The more Canadians we have with these little bugger of a shotgun, the less incline will the government be to ban them and/or change the regulation.

Just my 2 cents worth,
Mike.
Click to expand...

The law is written and these guns are obviously not non-restricted once you put the pistol grip on them. It does not matter how many Canadians have one, they are still only useable in public with the standard stock on and an overall length over 660mm. The government won't ban them (why, they are legal with the full stock!), they'll just make sure that anyone caught with one wering a pistol grip is prosecuted to the full extent of the law, which in this day and age wil include a firearms prohibition. If you are willing to be denied firearm ownership, go ahead and take a chance. I'm not taking that chance and I am glad I traded my Dlask 8.5 when I had the opportunity.

Hey, I'm not saying they are evil guns, they are great! But the law says I can't have them in the short configuration so why would I? If I'm going to take a chance I might as well just strap on my .44mag Super Redhawk when I head in the bush!

The gun manufacturers and sellers themselves tell you not to put the pistol grip on, does that not tell you something?

Troutseeker
 
Last edited:
Sawed Off said:
Can you clarify how the gluberment did that?
Click to expand...

at the time ( the end of the sentence in my post) the gun was shipped to me with a PG only. I also got a non-restricted certificate for it. The government had to have known that these were being shipped in that configuration. Therefore since the government issued me an unrestricted certificate, by implication it agreed that the gun was non-restricted. I have not received an letter stating that the gun's status has changed.

The issue that arose with the SMD-12 being restricted I understand had to do with the labeling (SMD-12 vs. Remington) and that it was original manufacture. I have no info on the specific legalities.

The shipping of stocks, cautionary notes etc all arose later - hence my use of "at the time". However, there still hasn't been an official change in the status one way or the other. What I see elements of is the Kanuckistan attitude of wanting permission for everything, and that if sometihng is not approved it is forbidden. Perhaps that is what Canada has come to - in spite of the different wars Canadians have participated in to fight this sort of thing - kind of a pity, but there it is.

FWIW
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom