Well, it is my understanding that the DCRA played a big part in having AR variants spared from the prohib list and slapped on the restricted list in order to continue having them strictly for "target shooting". My question is, why couldn't the FAL have been saved from being prohibited for the same reason? I assume the FAL and C1 were a common rifle used in DCRA shooting. I appreciate their effort in allowing AR's to continue to be owned, but I am dying to get my hands on an FAL.
Why couldnt the FAL be saved?
- Thread starter cote_b
- Start date
It's most likely because the C1 FAL can be made to fire full-auto without changing out parts (there's a trick to it).
You won't hit jack squat if you do the trick, because the recoil just pushes the barrel up, and up, and up. You wind up shooting at the sun. The FN-FAL, unless you're in the prone position supported by a bipod, effectively becomes uncontrollable on full auto.
Of course, it's "scary looking" and has that evil pistol grip too.......
You won't hit jack squat if you do the trick, because the recoil just pushes the barrel up, and up, and up. You wind up shooting at the sun. The FN-FAL, unless you're in the prone position supported by a bipod, effectively becomes uncontrollable on full auto.
Of course, it's "scary looking" and has that evil pistol grip too.......
FAL is classified as a converted auto. The AR's are a civilian version of the M16 (also prohib) with new manufacture receivers that can't accept the necessary parts for full auto. The AR's only went restricted due to scariness, not by any of the technical criteria that class a firearm.
And don't bother trying to rationalize laws written by irrational people.
And don't bother trying to rationalize laws written by irrational people.
There are FAL's in 3 different categories. Certainly far from all of them were CA. Most as I recall were semi, built from new for semi auto only.
But, the government knew of that trick the militia and army guys did on occasion...thus they did not want hordes of these rifles in circulation. They were restricted first, and then prohibited in a successive law.
The C1's and C2's are long since slag now, no point worrying about them anymore. You can buy a deact if it flips your switch.
I saw a live Lithgow L1A1 yesterday for sale at the gun show. 12(5) prohib.
In the DCRA and the ORA for that matter there were several FALs or L1A1's that i saw competing in the 500m run down. They were just restricted back then, as he AR's are now.
Was there a rational reason to prohib the C1? Why class them so they can't be used at ranges like prohib handguns?
Was there a rational reason to prohib the C1? Why class them so they can't be used at ranges like prohib handguns?
Chuckbuster
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
See post #4. Trying to find reason anywhere in our gun laws is like trying to pi$$ on the sun to put it out.
Navy Gunner
Regular
- Location
- Eastern Passage NS
It's most likely because the C1 FAL can be made to fire full-auto without changing out parts (there's a trick to it).
You won't hit jack squat if you do the trick, because the recoil just pushes the barrel up, and up, and up. You wind up shooting at the sun. The FN-FAL, unless you're in the prone position supported by a bipod, effectively becomes uncontrollable on full auto.
Of course, it's "scary looking" and has that evil pistol grip too.......
The C2 was full auto ie fun switch installed heavyier barrel ect. You still couldn't hit jack squat with it on full auto but it sure was fun to shoot when they were legal to take outside. Now they're expensive door stoppers.
The big push was from the Liberals and they didn't want a war time type rifle out on the streets so ban them ban them now! That's the crap they do.
MY Grandfather had his from the Korean war they didn't want to give it to him since it was a sample to test but since he used it in combat he said I want my rifle they said no many times he said I want my rifle cost him 10,000 in legal fees to keep it and another 12,000 to buy it so he spent on 1 rifle 22,000. Now they offered him other Canadian issused rifles that would fall off the back of the truck hint, hint no paperwork he said no I want my rifle I don't care about the paperwork I want it and I want it legally. It ended up deactivated and destroyed but he got his rifle and when he was alive he could go out and shoot it then the laws changed and it was a door stopper that came with yearly inspections.
Now he willed it to me as his last will and testament and he told me how to screw with the CFO they made him fight to have it he was going to make them fight to get it from a child. I had a 12.2 for 1 day and they freaked out because I was only 10 at the time and they did it legally and I went haha not signing it out of my name they went O crap. They tried tricking me and they asked why I'm doing this I said it was my Grandfathers last request my FAC expires in a week I will renew it they didn't like that because they would have to renew it as well if they did give it to me. The idea was my Grandfahters neighbor wanted to give my grandfather all his rifles to give to his grandsons since he never had kids or a wife he had no one to pass them legally down to. I didn't get my 12.2 so he got really mad and said screw it want all my guns anyways I'm 92 F them. I just want to protect the history behind the rifles and I trust you so you take them. I said no because they would say I broke into his house and stole them after he passed away and that comes with a 25 year sentence heck no not going there. He gave them away at the local range handed out almost 100 machine guns. Were they went no one knows cops figured some collectors basement.
Last edited:
ipscgraz
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
Back to the original question about prohib'ing FN's...
Somehow or other I was talking to a mountie about something else and the topic came up. From what he said, several nations were pulling their FN's out of service in favour of the next gen of 5.56 mm and the rifles were headed for the surplus markets, at the same time a separatist group concerned with Indian politics was forming in western Canada. The govt of the day prohib'ed FNs because they did not want an armed group staging and arming themselves in Canada.
This was very possibly at the request of the Indian govt. but that is 100 % conjecture on my part.
Somehow or other I was talking to a mountie about something else and the topic came up. From what he said, several nations were pulling their FN's out of service in favour of the next gen of 5.56 mm and the rifles were headed for the surplus markets, at the same time a separatist group concerned with Indian politics was forming in western Canada. The govt of the day prohib'ed FNs because they did not want an armed group staging and arming themselves in Canada.
This was very possibly at the request of the Indian govt. but that is 100 % conjecture on my part.
Eaglelord17
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- Sault Ste. Marie
Well look at the prohibited by name list. It features most the 7.62x51 battle rifles of the day/were just being sold on the surplus market. FN-FAL's, G3's, CETME's, etc. (you could by a FN-FAL for 200-300 at the time). The list was intended to be updated every year but fortunately it hasn't been (otherwise I imagine things like the SKS, SVT, Tavor, Type 97, RFB etc. would be prohibited). The only 7.62x51 battle rifle they really missed was the M14 but you can't legally get an original one anyways (original would be full auto or a converted auto).
Yep.
BattleRife
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- of No Fixed Address
Holy crap, it's painful to read a thread like this. So much ignorance.
Full auto with a match stick. Waves of surplus coming to the market. Separatist wars. These are all crocks of ####, to a greater or lesser degree, at least as far as explaining the law that passed in the 1990s. Some or all of these points probably were factors in having the FN singled out to be restricted back around 1980, but that was old news by the time C-68 came along.
At that time, the FN FAL was not singled out to be prohibited, in any way. The only design that was singled out was the AR-15. With that sole exception, C-68 made every centrefire, semi-automatic rifle with a pistol grip prohibited. Unless you know-it-alls think that the HK-91 could be made full auto with a match stick? Or that waves of surplus FAMAS rifles were on their way? Or that northern separatist guerillas were thinking of arming themselves with Thompson M1927A1s? The original poster seems to understand that, I don't know why the respondents do not. The vast majority of Canadian, British, Australian and Indian FN rifles in Canada were manufactured as semi-autos, why couldn't they be saved?
I think the outcome is an indicator to how very close we came to having the AR prohibited as well. It was everything they could do to save that one rifle. Of course, by 1994 the FNs were mostly already gone, with even most militia units using the C7. I don't think the DCRA had much legitimate claim to label the FAL a current service rifle, certainly not enough to fight against the wave hysteria that had every media outlet in the country at the time editorializing about the evils of any firearm that wasn't clearly a duck or deer gun.
Full auto with a match stick. Waves of surplus coming to the market. Separatist wars. These are all crocks of ####, to a greater or lesser degree, at least as far as explaining the law that passed in the 1990s. Some or all of these points probably were factors in having the FN singled out to be restricted back around 1980, but that was old news by the time C-68 came along.
At that time, the FN FAL was not singled out to be prohibited, in any way. The only design that was singled out was the AR-15. With that sole exception, C-68 made every centrefire, semi-automatic rifle with a pistol grip prohibited. Unless you know-it-alls think that the HK-91 could be made full auto with a match stick? Or that waves of surplus FAMAS rifles were on their way? Or that northern separatist guerillas were thinking of arming themselves with Thompson M1927A1s? The original poster seems to understand that, I don't know why the respondents do not. The vast majority of Canadian, British, Australian and Indian FN rifles in Canada were manufactured as semi-autos, why couldn't they be saved?
I think the outcome is an indicator to how very close we came to having the AR prohibited as well. It was everything they could do to save that one rifle. Of course, by 1994 the FNs were mostly already gone, with even most militia units using the C7. I don't think the DCRA had much legitimate claim to label the FAL a current service rifle, certainly not enough to fight against the wave hysteria that had every media outlet in the country at the time editorializing about the evils of any firearm that wasn't clearly a duck or deer gun.
This.
ipscgraz
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
I guess it says something about the allure of the FN (and especially C1's and C1A1's) that they are the rifles most pined after; You are correct though, HK 91's received the same fate. I liked them as well, just not as much as an FN.
On a smaller point, I do believe the Feds were worried about Sikh separatists around this time...Air India bombing, a couple of baggage handlers in Japan were killed, and not everyone remembers that there was an assassination attempt on an Indian minister here in BC around the same time. I don't recall who was in power around this time, but there wasn't much difference between the liberals and the conservatives of the day; either party would be happy to throw anybody under any available bus.
