Replica versus disabled firearm

[Double Tapper]

Maybe you need a permit to buy the flints.
If that is the case,I'm on my way to buy a
Brown Bess.

[mcguyver]

Originally Posted by The Saint

Wow. Just when I thought CFC can't get more incompetent, they go and create a policy in violation of the CCC and CFA. But I suppose if this completely irrational interpretation of law on the part of the CFA plays into the hands of firearm owner, it can't be all that bad.

HaHaHa!! Why are you surprised the in anything the CFC does? Besides, it's all RCMP now, so get ready for long waits for transfers, licenses, and now processing a dewat.

Add to this the virtual shutdown of importing them to all but a very few people. That will really hurt the collector or prop house, especially for items not made in the airsoft world to import where a dewat would have filled that role.

[Styrak]

Adding to what mcguyver said, you're surprised that they contradict themselves and don't make sense? That what they do!

[Brian McIlmoyle]

Originally Posted by mcguyver

http://www.cfc-cafc.gc.ca/bulletins/2006/20061107_e.asp

OK I get that, it tells you how to make a firearm a deactivated firearm.. rendering it not a firearm.

It only makes sense that you can't import a deactivated firearm because our standards may be different than others.. and there is no enforcement on the technician who did the work if he is outside of Canada. So it is not considered deactivated until landed and confirmed.

The sheet does not say anything about this object's status after confirmed deactivated. Other than saying that once deactivated they are not firearms and not governed by the rules of firearms.

so now we fall back to the Criminal Code which says... if an object looks like a firearm but is not a firearm it is a replica. The Code does not metion any special status for Deactivated Firearms. ( although clearly enforcement seems to think they have a different status )

[mcguyver]

Well, considering a replica is proscribed to have certain regulations, but a dewat does not lends one to believe they are not the same thing at face value.

But, just like airsoft, it's not a replica until a judge says it is, right?

[Brian McIlmoyle]

Originally Posted by mcguyver

Well, considering a replica is proscribed to have certain regulations, but a dewat does not lends one to believe they are not the same thing at face value.

But, just like airsoft, it's not a replica until a judge says it is, right?

This is kinda my point... I have heard from a number of sources.. that Dewats are treated differently... I have seen dealers try to explain the difference between Replicas and Dewats.. but when asked how are they diferentiated under the law... you get bluster.. and statements like "well it just is "

I can't find any evidence that "under the law" they are considered any differently than anything else that is a replica.

All replicas have to be proven so in court..

So Dewats have the same status... It ain't a replica till a judge says it is.

Your statement that Dewats are not proscribed is untrue.. they are very much proscribed... as to how to make a Firearm not a firearm .. at that point it becomes this thing called a Deactivated Firearm.. which under the law is no longer a firearm. It is however still an "object" , a thing.. that looks like a firearm but is not a firearm... This is the definition of a replica.. and if Dewats were not intended to be caught up in that definition then the law would state. "except for deactivated Fireams" but it does not .

By the way "dewat" is jargon and does not appear in any statute of the criminal code or the firearms act.

I'm willing to be corrected... but not with anecdotes.

I will conceed that law enforcement seems to perceive "Dewats" as "something else" but this interpritation is not supported by statute.

[mcguyver]

Yes, a deactivated firearm is the correct terminology, but still everyone knows what a dewat is, and it's easier to type.

And a deactivated firearm had to at one time be a firearm, a firearm that would have had registration and regulation surrounding it. Once it becomes deactivated, it would be deregistered, and become a thing, an object, but not a firearm and not subject to regulation as a firearm, or even a replica.

If you used one to commit a crime, you would be charged with using a weapon, and a judge would then have to decide if it was a real gun, a replica, or just a thing. Like committing robbery with a 2x4, or a pipe. But until then, it is what it is, not a firearm, and not subject to regulation as a firearm.

Suported 100% by the CCC or not, this is the posted official position of the CFC and RCMP, and these are the guys who are going to be knocking on your door over this, if need be. So, I'll defer to their opinion until someone higher up than them says otherwise, namely Parliament.

[Brian McIlmoyle]

Originally Posted by mcguyver

Yes, a deactivated firearm is the correct terminology, but still everyone knows what a dewat is, and it's easier to type.

And a deactivated firearm had to at one time be a firearm, a firearm that would have had registration and regulation surrounding it. Once it becomes deactivated, it would be deregistered, and become a thing, an object, but not a firearm and not subject to regulation as a firearm, or even a replica.

If you used one to commit a crime, you would be charged with using a weapon, and a judge would then have to decide if it was a real gun, a replica, or just a thing. Like committing robbery with a 2x4, or a pipe. But until then, it is what it is, not a firearm, and not subject to regulation as a firearm.

Suported 100% by the CCC or not, this is the posted official position of the CFC and RCMP, and these are the guys who are going to be knocking on your door over this, if need be. So, I'll defer to their opinion until someone higher up than them says otherwise, namely Parliament.

Thank you , you made my point.. Deactivated firearms have no special status and are subject to the same regulations as anything else that is not a firearm.

[Double Tapper]

But what is this that Cdn stalker said about flintlocks?.No PAL required?.

[mcguyver]

No PAL if it's an antique, and they have conditions determining what is an antique, namely year of manufacture (prior to 1898 I believe).

[Double Tapper]

Be hard pressed to find one of those.

[CDN_Stalker]

Originally Posted by mcguyver

No PAL if it's an antique, and they have conditions determining what is an antique, namely year of manufacture (prior to 1898 I believe).

Ones I'm talking about are new firing flintlock muzzle loaders. Unfortuantely, since Le Baron has started their 2008 fall suppliment catalog, I can't find the rifles in it, and since the Le Baron catalog tends to really suck (all .pdf, no search function) I can't locate the page I'm talking about, but it's been in their catalog for about two years now, flintlock no permit required, matchlock, permit required.

[mcguyver]

I remember that someone locally was shooting a muzzle loader and he said no permit required too, but I don't know if it was an antique or based on design or function of the gun. I know that if it's an antique, your good to go without a PAL.

But you might need a PAL for ammo and powder.

[Double Tapper]

I was at the gun shop awhile back looking at reloading supply's,
I could buy everything but the powder and primers for 303.So with a
flintlock,just make your own powder with the right tools of coarse.

[commandojim]

No permit is required for any flintlock firearm except
new reproductions that have barrels shorter than 18.5
inches.The new flintlocks with barrels shorter than 18.5 inches
are restricted firearms and shorter than 4 inches are prohibited.