Nonsense in the Canadian

Firearms Act (C-68)

(Which could be replaced with common sense)

Prepared for presentation to my MP - July 28, 2014
1
NONSENSE IN THE CANADIAN FIREARMS ACT
Introduction
The Canadian rearms act contains a lot of nonsense. If there is to be a common sense
rearms act, this is a great opportunity to remove the nonsense and replace it with common
sense. This will be a difcult political battle, as gun control advocates have a genuinely held
belief that increased regulation will increase public safety, even in the face of numerous
studies that persuasively demonstrate that the spike in gun violence in the 1970s and 1980s
was caused by other, predominantly socio-economic, drug related and demographic, factors.
We must also recognize that perpetrators of mass shootings and other criminal users of
rearms are criminal and/or crazy, not stupid. They can and will nd a way to arm
themselves (typically with rearms illegally in Canada, smuggled from the US). Legally
licensed gun owners (hunters and sport shooters) are a different social group, who by
denition have agreed to abide by reasonable use rules and regulations, undergo training,
testing, rigorous screening, and invest in safety and security equipment to the level required
by law or greater.
It is important to have safeguards in place to ensure that the lives of ordinary
Canadians and the lives of those in the police services are not endangered by poorly thought
out and drafted regulations. It is also important that law abiding gun owners, hunters and
sport shooters can look at and respect the laws around rearms ownership and use, and
recognize that those laws do make sense and do make a difference in public safety. Currently
rearms owners consider that legislation in place has been created in response to unfounded
fears in the public without any consideration for its resulting effectiveness.
Many of these regulations are instituted via Orders in Council, and are thus easy to
change without full legislation in the house. While gun owners would love to see new laws
enacted as a stronger protection, revised OICs would be more than welcome as an interim
measure.
The elimination of the long gun registry was a good rst step in rationalizing rearms
ownership regulation for Canadians and shutting down wasteful bureaucracy. The changes
spoken of in the forthcoming "Common Sense Firearms Act", such as the combining of the
license and authorization to transport, and the institution of truly federal standards for the
treatment of rearms owners are also welcome, but there is much left to do.



2
NONSENSE IN THE CANADIAN FIREARMS ACT
Authorizations to Transport (ATTs)
Registration and authorization to transport for restricted rearms are needlessly
complex, manually processed (at great expense), regionally disparate, and generally screwed
up. It appears that the provincial CFOs are interested in creating employee lled manual
processing bureaucracies rather than a streamlined, service oriented public services.
To buy a new or used restricted rearm, a licensed individual will perhaps visit a local
gun store, select and pay for the desired model, and the merchant will use the online system
to apply for a transfer. The rearm will, of course, be in the system already. The transfer of
the rearm to the new owner will take some time, up to weeks, and after that is complete the
merchant or new owner will have to apply for a special STATT (Short Term Authorization to
Transport) to take the rearm home (since the STATT is short term, and no one knows how
long the registration transfer will take, they must be applied for separately). Since I cannot
think of why anyone would purchase a rearm to leave in the store, common sense would
suggest that the issuance of the STATT should be at least be coincident with the transfer, if
not covered by the LTATT (Long Term Authorization to Transport) the new owner most likely
already has.
To obtain a STATT, LTATT, or to transfer a rearm at all, a licensed rearm owner or
prospective owner must belong to a range or club. In effect such a membership is a tax on the
owner, as one that shoots at multiple clubs may nd it far more cost effective to purchase 'day
passes' at the club rather than a membership, especially if one shoots at multiple venues.
The transfer itself is notable for being a 100% manual process. I can understand ags in
the system to catch for manual inspection and intervention cases that are outside the norm
(licences expired or on the cusp of expiration, incomplete information, address mismatches,
etc.), but I fail to understand why it cannot be automated for the 99.9% of transfers that are
"normal" in every way. In the Information Age, failing to automate repetitive processes is
wasteful and stupid, and I question what agenda is being served by this.
There is also signicant provincial inequity in the terms and conditions of the LTATTs,
with some provinces not issuing them at all, the length of the Authorization being variable,
and the locations to which one may Transport them being different (some provinces allow all
ranges and gunsmiths, some allow only a single range). The process is also different, with
some (Ontario) forcing the range or club to apply on behalf of the rearm owner, while the
other provinces have the individual apply. This makes a mockery of the concept of a federal
3
NONSENSE IN THE CANADIAN FIREARMS ACT
system, forces needless complexity, work, and costs into the volunteer sector, and generally
makes for a confused regulatory environment.
It is also a criminal code offence to forget your paperwork at home. While many
Canadians may be blessed with perfect memories, I am not one such individual. Perhaps it
would be more appropriate to ne me, if any punishment at all is indeed required, for such a
lapse. In 2014, virtually any peace ofcer in virtually any part of Canada has instant access
online to prove the bona des of a licensed rearms owner.
All of these conditions and processes can be (and have been) changed at the caprice of
the provincial CFOs, who are under no obligation to justify or answer for their decisions,
having been granted near-limitless power by the act to create, extend and manage regulation
and their bureaucratic empires. Changes have been enacted without disclosing any rationale,
and CFOs have refused to answer challenges in writing to those changes, as doing so opens
them to legal action.
I hope that the forthcoming "Common Sense Firearms Act" takes into account and
resolves these issues to streamline and equalize the ownership and use of rearms for all
Canadians.

Firearms classication
The rearms classication system now in place in Canada is arbitrary and silly. It does
not conform to an orderly, rational and reasonable taxonomy such that a reasonable person
could determine a rearm's place in the prohibited -- restricted -- non-restricted spectrum by
the rearm's characteristics. For example, see these three rearms:
Each is a metal, semi automatic, magazine fed, center re rie with 'iron sights'. If each
was equipped with a barrel 18.5" long, they would be similar in size and weight, effective
range and "killing power". They are available in a variety of calibres and congurations. Each
has a strong military heritage, as do virtually all rearms.
The rst is an AK-47, prohibited (along with all variants) under Canadian law. I cannot
nd a reference to one being discharged or brandished in the commission of a crime in
Canada (there are of course, storage and possession offences).
The second is an AR-15, restricted (along with all variants) under Canadian law. I am
also unable to nd a reference to one being used in the commission of a crime in Canada
(beyond possession and storage offences).
4
NONSENSE IN THE CANADIAN FIREARMS ACT
The last is the Sturm Ruger Mini-14, a non-restricted rie under Canadian law. This is
the type of rie used in the infamous Ecole Polytechnic shootings on December 6, 1989. Of
the three, it is the only one not restricted to a special class of license, and the only one that is
clearly identied with a mass shooting/crime in Canada.
The arbitrary sorting and classication of these three rearms into these three classes
dees logic, and a common sense approach would use technical characteristics explicit in the
design or features of the rearms to classify them. It is rumoured that the original
classication of restricted and prohibited weapons was done by a bureaucrat scanning a
rearms magazine and placing all rearms he thought 'looked dangerous' in the restricted
class and all he thought 'looked scary' in the prohibited class. This is as good an explanation
as is available for how rearms ended up in each of the classes.
5
NONSENSE IN THE CANADIAN FIREARMS ACT
To make the situation even more bizarre, classications can and are revisited and
reassessed (such as in the recent Swiss Arms case). As well, the classications of rearms are
not publicly available, so gun owners or would be gun owners are unable to review them.
There are many other examples of arbitrary classications and reclassications that can
be offered.
Magazine limits
Magazines are nominally limited to ve rounds for semi automatic ries and shotguns
and ten rounds for handguns. There are numerous 'workarounds' used legally by rearms
owners and some specic exceptions (such as using commonly available and certied-legal-
by-the-RCMP LAR-15 ten round pistol magazines for use in AR-15 type ries, which as semi
automatic ries are nominally limited to ve rounds, and the M1 Garand semi automatic
rie, limited to eight rounds by name).
Yet the law allows magazines to be limited by the insertion of a simple aluminum pop
rivet, or the use of a long 'follower' in the body of the magazine. It is a trivial matter to
remove the rivet with tools such as a pair of pliers or a drill, cut the follower to a shorter
length with a saw or knife, or swap a long follower from a magazine with a large nominal
capacity with one from a magazine with a shorter body and smaller nominal capacity and
transform a legally limited magazine into a prohibited device. Indeed many rearms owners
have removed the rivet to allow cleaning and maintenance of magazines, replacing the rivet
when done, thus committing a criminal code violation in the process.
Under Canadian law, a rearms owner who owns a long and short magazine for his
rie where the followers could be thus exchanged is guilty of possession of a prohibited
device under the law, even if the magazines are not assembled in an illegal or prohibited
conguration.
Semiautomatic shotguns are commonly and legally limited to the ve round limit by
the epoxying of a stick or dowel of wood, metal or plastic in the magazine tube, one that
must be (and easily is) removed for cleaning the rearm. Forgetting to replace and re glue it
constitutes a criminal code offence.
It seems that the intent of this law was to eliminate the possibility of a spree killer or
gang member from having a larger, normal capacity magazine available. Since spree killers
and gang members are criminal and/or crazy, not stupid, it seems that they would be easily
capable of modifying their magazines to full nominal capacity (or obtain prohibited class
6
NONSENSE IN THE CANADIAN FIREARMS ACT
magazines by smuggling them in with their rearms) before committing their crimes. Forcing
these arbitrary and meaningless limits on law abiding gun owners makes no sense since it
will have no effect on criminals or madmen. Silliness.
Criminal charges for storage infractions
While safe storage and security of rearms is important, it seems inappropriate to
prosecute legal gun owners for criminal acts should they lapse in this area. Fines or other
administrative penalties are more appropriate. If I forget to spin the combination dial on my
safe to lock it when putting away my rearms I am committing a criminal act. Perhaps I do
deserve sanction under the law for this oversight, but a criminal code charge (all that is
available to prosecutors) seems excessive. Silliness.
Barrel length silliness
Firearms have proscribed minimum barrel lengths by law to conform to the various
classes under Canadian law. These are of course, arbitrary. Some aspects of these rules are
also silly.
For example, it is legal to have a shotgun barrel of any length in a non-restricted
shotgun as long as the overall length of the rearm has an overall length of 26 1/2". This
allows a 'normal' shotgun to have a 12 1/2" (or shorter) barrel, and one can legally purchase
these shorter barrels at gun stores in Canada. A shorter barrel like this is appropriate and
commonly used to make a shotgun 'handier' for uses such as bear defence.
Yet the law prohibits one from shortening a longer than 18 1/2" barrel to shorter than 18
1/2" oneself, or having a gunsmith shorten the barrel for you, for fear of criminal
prosecution. Commonly available barrels for AR-15s are in 20", 16" and 14 1/2" lengths, and
shortening a 20" to 14 1/2" is illegal, even though the class and characteristics of the rearm
would remain unchanged. Silliness.

7
NONSENSE IN THE CANADIAN FIREARMS ACT
Bullpup stocks vs. bullpup guns
The regulations around bullpup stocks and rearms are also silly. (Bullpups are ries in
which the action and magazine are located behind the trigger group and alongside the
shooter's face, decreasing their overall length. See picture for a Canadian legal bullpup rie.)

Bullpup rearms are legal, if
manufactured and delivered as
bullpups. If you convert a
rearm to a bullpup by
changing the stock or even
possess a bullpup conversion
stock for a non bullpup rie, it is
illegal. Silliness.
Firing ranges
Firing ranges across Canada are under attack by suburban encroachment, most
commonly for noise related issues. I would like to see ring ranges share the same protection
afforded airports under federal law to prevent their forced relocation by new neighbours.
Wilderness ATCs, use of restricted on crown land, own land, etc.
Canadians heading into the wilderness to hunt, sh or camp may apply for a
Wilderness ATC (Authorization to Carry) for their legally owned large calibre handgun to
allow them to carry it for bear defence. This will be routinely denied.
Foresters, prospectors, surveyors, trappers and others who also use the wilderness may
also apply, and will be routinely approved.
Since bears do not check professional status before attacking humans, this seems
inappropriate. Silliness.
Use on crown or own land
Canadians are also prohibited from ring their own legally owned rearms outside an
inspected ring range if those rearms are restricted or prohibited class, even on their own
8
NONSENSE IN THE CANADIAN FIREARMS ACT
property. They may re non restricted rearms on crown land or their own property, subject
to local regulation. There is no relationship between rearms class and rearms lethality. You
may re your .300 Winchester Magnum rie on your own property, or on local crown land,
but not your .22 calibre handgun. Silliness.
12.X status rearms
There are many rearms legally held by Canadians under the Firearms Act that are
classed "12.X". These are rearms that require a special license (no longer available to obtain)
to possess, and the ranks of those with these licenses are dwindling. In effect, the property
rights of the owners of these rearms are severely curtailed by the act. In reality, the vast
majority of these rearms (if not all of them) are no more dangerous than those that may be
held under a normal forearms license (for example, a .22 or .38 calibre handgun is commonly
and legally available to a normal restricted licence holder, yet a .25 or .32 calibre is a 12.X
class) yet they are in special classes and treated uniquely. Moving the majority of these, if not
all of them, into less restrictive classes would have no effect on public safety. Their owners
face a shrinking market and lower market value due to their status. This is unfair and should
be revisited in the name of common sense.
Suppressors
Suppressors or any other device designed to reduce the noise of a rearm are illegal in
Canada. In many European jurisdictions and in New Zealand, they are legal (even considered
'polite' to use). They do not operate in the real world in the same way they do in Hollywood
movies. They make rearms somewhat quieter, not silent. Virtually all ammunition creates a
sonic boom when red and a suppressor cannot quiet this, it can only reduce the noise of the
muzzle blast or report.
Firearms are noisy, like power tools or jackhammers. Even with hearing protection,
large calibre rearms can cause hearing loss. To deny owners access to what is basically a
health and safety accessory designed to help protect their hearing is unfair, and I encourage
the government to legalize their sale and use. Please use common sense, do not ban safety
equipment from hunters and sport shooters.

9
NONSENSE IN THE CANADIAN FIREARMS ACT