It’s still a silly law. Unless you’re a very short guy you can conceal almost any rifle under an overcoat or trench coat without cutting anything down.
And that’s talking about regular stocks. Use a folding stock and you can conceal an even bigger weapon.
I heard (but lack a cite) that the National Firearms Act (which is what generally makes a sawed-off rifle illegal) was supposed to also regulate handguns, as well. So the restrictions on sawed-off rifles were to close a loophole since people could cut down the less restricted rifles and conceal them like pistols. However, since the NFA was revised so that it didn’t cover pistols, you’re left with a nonsensical regulation that people incorrectly assume has some sort of valid purpose.
Though it’s still not as bad as a certain provision of the '86 FOPA.
Got a cite for how many cops have been killed with short barreled rifles?
In many (most?) states, aren’t there different laws concerning handguns vs. long guns? Registration requirements, etc.?
If so (somebody chime in here? yes? no?), then to make a handgun out of a rifle evades the registration requirements, etc., imposed on a handgun. If they went out of their way to make laws concerning only handguns, they want to be sure those laws are in fact applied to handguns, which is essentially what you’d make by sawing off the barrel and stock.
Just a WAG, anyone else think along these lines?
A Ruger Blackhawk chambered for .30 carbine weighs 49oz with six rounds, and measures 14" from butt to muzzle. It is concealable only in that you can buy a shoulder holster for it. You’d walk around looking like you have a leg of lamb in your armpit.
There are some differences here and there, but most states don’t even have gun registration.
Your theory makes even less sense given that the National Firearms Act (which is what places these restrictions on sawed-off rifles) is a federal law and so individual state restrictions wouldn’t really be a factor in crafting the law.
Depends what you mean by “perfectly legal.” A firearm with a barrel length under 470 mm (18.5 inches) is a restricted weapon, as explained on the RCMP firearms website:
[QUOTE=Royal Canadian Mounted Police]
According to the Criminal Code, a restricted firearm is:
• A handgun that is not a prohibited firearm;
• A semi-automatic, centre-fire firearm with a barrel length less than 470 mm that is not a prohibited firearm;
• A firearm that can fire after being reduced, by folding, telescoping or otherwise, to an overall length of less than 660 mm; and
• Any firearm prescribed under the Criminal Code regulations to be restricted (including some long guns).
[/QUOTE]
So a 16" rifle (semi-auto, centre-fire) is in the same class as a handgun.
A private citizen needs a special class of permit to possess a restricted weapon, and there are serious restrictions on their use. In most cases, the only legal use is for target practice:
[QUOTE=Royal Canadian Mounted Police]
Permitted Purposes For Owning A Restricted Firearm
There are a few purposes for which you can be licensed to acquire and/or possess a restricted firearm, the most common being target practice or target shooting competitions, or as part of a collection.
In limited circumstances, restricted firearms are also allowed for use in connection with your lawful profession or occupation, or to protect life.
[/QUOTE]
So yes, with the right permit, 16" rifles are perfectly legal, just like handguns.
Note: not intended as legal advice, but simply to discuss a matter of public interest. If you want legal advice about gun law in Canada, talk to a lawyer who practices in the area.
Do those rules apply across Canada with each Province able to add additional restrictions?
Yes, the rules apply across Canada, and no, the provinces can’t add anything to them.
Under our Constitution, the federal Parliament has exclusive jurisdiction over the criminal law. The Criminal Code is a federal statute passed by Parliament. The provinces can’t add anything to it.
That is still a better situation (IMHO) then we have here then. As a resident of the state of Iowa, I am unable to own a SBR regardless of the Federal rules set by the GCA 1934.
Huh?? Sawed off long guns are by no means equivalent to handguns under the law, or in any practical sense - do you have any experience with guns of any type at all?? (and - BTW - there are no “registration requirements” in most of the US for any guns).
In Massachusetts, a “firearm” (which is their legal term for a handgun) is defined as:
So yes, it’s defined in terms of barrel length. If you saw off the end of your rifle it can become a handgun under law, so in addition to any other violations, you could also be in trouble for owning a handgun without the proper license. MA has 3 levels of license, non-high capacity rifle or shotgun, high cap rifle or shotgun or non-high cap handgun, high cap handgun. IIRC it’s a one year minimum sentence to possess a gun outside your license, so this does have some teeth.
ETA: I read that law again, and I’m not sure if the phrase “as originally manufactured” only applies to shotguns, or any weapon.
If you prowl the gun-hobby publications and Youtube, you can find pistols made to fire a variety of outsized ammunition. From one angle, I can see the gee-whiz appeal of owning and firing such a thing. :eek: “…this is the most powerful handgun in the world, and can blow your head clean off…” From another angle, there’s no practical reason to make a revolver that fires a .50 cal machine gun round. If you want one, though, you can buy one.
Sure, it’s fun to see the Youtube clips of such a gun leaping out of some user’s hand, and taking out a patch of his scalp. An old friend of mine used to joke about a howitzer with a shoulder stock. 