A Video Overview Of Canadian Gun Laws

The second-largest country in the world by area, aka the Great White North or Canada, has gun laws that would alternately have Americans cheering and jeering. For example, a Norinco M-14 clone which is banned from import in the US sells for approximately $650 Canadian or about $520 US. It is a semi-auto with an 18.5″ barrel and is non-restricted. However, if you would rather have a FN-FAL or G-3 clone, they are prohibited. Another example would be short barrel pump shotguns which would be classified as NFA items in the US. In Canada, they are non-restricted so long as the overall length is 26″ or greater.

Ian McCollum of Forgotten Weapons discusses the various categories – non-restricted, restricted, and prohibited – with John from Marstar Canada Classic Collectibles in the video below. Non-restricted allows gun owners to shoot anywhere it is legal to shoot, restricted firearms are only allowed to be shot at approved ranges, and prohibited firearms, in general, are not allowed to be shot anywhere. As with all laws, there are exceptions and the RCMP has a firearms page with both FAQs and more detailed information.

In Gun News From The Sub-Polar Region To The North

The Canadian Firearms Blog is reporting that the Royal Canadian Mounted Police’s Director of Firearm Regulatory Services has decreed that 80% AR lowers are prohibited. The rationale given is that they can be converted into M16 lower receivers. This prohibition also extends to receiver flats for the AK-47/74 and AMD-63/65.

From the memo issued by Robert J. O’Reilly of the RCMP:

Receiver blanks are firearms since they are nearly completed receivers and fall within the adaptability clause of the firearms definition in Section 2 of the Criminal Code. In other words,
a receiver blank is considered a
“barrelled weapon from which any shot, bullet or other projectile can be discharged and that is capable of causing serious bodily injury or death in a person,
and includes any frame or receiver of such a barrelled weapon and anything that can be adapted for use as a firearm”. As such, they are subject to the firearms-related regulatory and enforcement provisions of the Firearms Act and the Criminal Code, including licensing and registration.

Depending on their properties, receiver blanks can fall into any one of the three firearm classifications: non-restricted, restricted, or prohibited. 

The memo goes on to say that individuals have no legal authority “to possess or acquire prohibited receiver blanks”. The memo contains a table listing many of the most common receiver blanks and their classifications under Canadian firearms law. The only receiver blank that is listed as “non-restricted” are ones for the Ruger 10/22. The rest are either prohibited or restricted.

The Canadian Firearms Blog goes on to report some hearsay evidence behind the RCMP’s decision and the reaction within the Canadian firearms community.

A user on a popular Canadian firearms forum on Reddit, who wished to remain anonymous, has reportedly spoken with RCMP firearms techs in Ottawa, stating they had explained that their interpretation is “so long as the blank (in whatever state it may be in) can be ‘easily’ turned into a firearm, it’s a firearm, and since machining is ‘easy’ that any completion of the receiver is enough.”

This decision by the RCMP has drawn considerable criticism, with some expressing concern that, by the verbiage used in the memo, any unmilled piece of alunimium or polymer in the size or shape of an AR-15 receiver can be affected, and some fearing that this is the foundation to reclassify AR-15s as a whole.

I feel for our Canadian gunny friends. While I have neither the skill nor the inclination to complete an 80% lower, I understand the appeal especially if you live in either Canada or California.  I doubt that they are going to get any relief from these onerous regulations in the immediate future given their respective governing parties.

What Do The ObamaCare Website And Canada’s Gun Registry Have In Common?

The answer to the question posed in the headline, that is the commonalities between the ObamaCare website and Canada’s failed gun registry, is software company CGI. The Conservatives under Canadian PM Stephen Harper dumped the gun registry last year deeming it ineffective and too costly. The Firearms Registry had been plagued by cost overruns from day one.

Sun News has more on other failures by CGI with regard to healthcare related databases in their report below.

Breitbart has more on these failures by CGI.

The failed gun registry was only one of CGI’s many Canadian failures, which included canceled contracts to build health care databases in the provinces of Ontario and New Brunswick. Despite CGI’s checkered record, the Obama administration awarded its U.S. subsidiary, CGI Federal, the $93.7 million contract to build healthcare.gov, part of $678 million in health care services contracts awarded to the company.

The Washington Post has more on how CGI Federal, a wholly owned subsidiary of Canada’s CGI Group, went about winning the contract for the ObamaCare website. In a significant omission, the Washington Post fails to mention the role of CGI in the failed Firearms Registry.

It is obvious to me that no one in the Department of Health and Human Services did any sort of due diligence on CGI or CGI Federal. It could be just a coincidence that CGI was involved in a gun registration scheme and was the firm selected by the most anti-gun administration in recent memory to handle their healthcare exchanges website. I know correlation is not causation but one does have to wonder.

Quote Of The Day

The quote of the day comes from a resident of High River, Alberta. That Canadian town of about 13,000 about 25 miles south of Calgary has been evacuated from the greater part of a week due to the flooding of the Highwood River. Residents there are not only angry that they are not being allowed to return to their homes but that the RCMP or Royal Canadian Mounted Police had gone house to house and confiscated their firearms.

One resident with memories of police confiscation of firearms in New Orleans had this to say:

“This is the reason the U.S. has the right to bear arms,” said Charles Timpano, pointing to the group of Mounties.

Video of the confrontation between residents of High River and the RCMP is below.

As a followup, the Solicitor General of the Province of Alberta announced today that he is working with the Mounties to assure a speedy and timely return of the seized firearms to their owners.

Quote Of The Day

The quote of the day comes from Bitter at Shall Not Be Questioned. By now, I’m sure most people have heard about the Canadian father who was arrested because his four year old daughter drew a picture of a gun at pre-school in Kitchner, Ontario.

As Bitter notes there is a lot of people to blame over this travesty including the cops, the school principal, the teacher, and the social workers. She asks the logical question as to why no one stopped to ask the right questions and then put a stop to it before it spiraled out of control (which it obviously did.)

Ultimately, I do think that someone should have stopped the process and really inquired just what the hell actually happened in regards to the drawing and how the teacher asked questions about it. However, depending on how stories are passed along, concerns about a potential crime could continue to be blown way out of proportion. Ever played a game of telephone? Yeah, same thing, only with real lives on the line.

But, when we have a bunch of bureaucrats who believe they are there to do good no matter what impact it might have on innocent people and who fear not following an exact protocol that makes no accommodation for stopping to ask questions, then things like this will happen more often regardless of the country. At some point, we have to demand accountability from those who allow these things to get out of hand. Unfortunately, that’s not something that’s easy to do, especially with many protections in place for staff in these various jobs.

Oh, Canada!

A guy defends himself against assailants firebombing his home and he is the one on trial? It is obvious from Cam Edward’s interview of Lorne Gunter of the National Post that the Crown Prosecutor doesn’t have a clue about guns.

Frankly, I blame the late Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau. As Justice Minister he introduced the first gun control into Canada back in late 1967. I find it interesting that both Canada and the United States introduced major gun control measures at approximately the same time. In Canada it was the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1968-69 while in the United States it was the Gun Control Act of 1968.