I just purchased my first restricted firearm last week, and on the day it arrived, the hammer came down from Ottawa on banning the gun i bought. I grew up with guns my whole life, I just wanted to own one that I actually could take to the range and enjoy with my friends. I knew that if i bought it that i would have to jump through a ton of hoops, drop my pants to the government by actually giving up my right to privacy because they knew i owned the gun...but i thought that because i am a law abiding, tax paying Canadian...i would be OK with that. Now i am faced with having to potentially surrender my firearm that I just paid $4000 for, because it "looks like" a fully automatic assault rifle. Rod, I am grateful to have you try to bring the awareness to people that we are not just losing the privilege of firearm ownership, we are losing the freedom of choice.

Fellow Canadians- never give up your guns. Any of them.

You have a great talent. A very neutral approach but with fact and rationale bring the viewer home. Also a very good reminder about the responsibility of owning firearms

I just finished watching all four videos of your "The Legal Truth" series and I find them quite interesting and enlightening. It is very reassuring to see that there are still Canadians out there who act as citizens instead of subjects not only by owning guns but by learning about gun laws, defending gun rights and encouraging others to do so. I hope you will keep producing and posting videos in this series.

Rod - Always enjoy your videos. You always present your information in a professional and informative manner. Great job and much appreciated.

You hit on the most valid point of all and it is the loss of trust between millions of Canadians and their police services and the government as well. Very sad as it may never come back. You can forgive but can you forget. I don't think so.

2 thumbs down this time. Nice. Twice as many as I normally get. I guess the truth hurts...

In the video one of the guys said someyhing along the lines of "Its the rcmp's job to protect society not gun owners" this really grinds my gears people considering us as not being part of society just because of our possessions they teach in school that its bad to make uneducated guesses but thats exactly whats happening the government is supposed to be a representation of the people and theres a lot of pissed off people

You should make a T.V add campaign to talk about these type of things. Inform the public

Thank you, Rod, Keep up the good work. We will help to spread by sharing.

Another excellent video. Thank-you Rod for sharing.

Thanks for doing these videos. You're a great spokesperson for all law abiding Canadian gun owners.

Good timing on the release of this video. I found out a couple days that the RCMP has classified the Mossberg Blaze 47 (a normally NR rifle) as prohibited.

Another well done video Rob! I hope someone in the RCMP see it and maybe wake up!

It truly boggles the mind to see how the government gets to it's point. I'm at the point of being ashamed of being Canadian, To feel so untrustworthy even after complying with all their demand is unbearable. It took the love of firearms to open my eyes on how rotten they really are. I know it has nothing to do with the video, but the more i learn the more i get to this one conclusion.

Thanks for the video Rod. Loved the section of you comparing the "variants" and how there are literally no similarities. Great editing. Very strong points. Would love to see more short quick videos like this on other prohibited firearms. Very impactful and makes very valid points. Also makes the RCMP look like fools for their classifications methods.

Every gun owner in Canada should submit an Access to Information request to the CFC - on the same day!

Awesome video, Rod! Real head-scratcher for sure.

This is absolutely ridiculous, how have we let this society get to a point where the government can get away with this kind of stuff. Like the most baseless of baseless assertions. And ive seen the other three parts too, the fact that law abiding citizens are given more scrutiny and have a much harder time getting guns than criminals do. Absolutely ridiculous.

NEWS: _Man buys sadan uses it to run over 16 pedestrians._ RCMP: *Bans Ferraris* Canadians: Whaaat?

Thanks for this series.

Love your videos. Great job. Well researched and reasoned points.

Great video, I look forward to the next

Pissed myself laughing when they compared the ak47 and Ap180, the legal system could seriously use a face-lift...

Great video Rod

Great info,thank's!

Thank you for all your hard work

It's now almost the end of 2017. Did the RCMP get back to you on the definition of "Variant" and how it's used in regulation?

Good information!

Great video!

Great video Rod, but it's sad to hear all this. I think we are not as free as we would like to believe. They will make it harder and harder until we finally quit.

I think someone would have to take a case to court fighting a reclassification thereby forcing a legal decision about what variant means. Then once a definition was part of case law every reclassification that didn't meet the legal definition could be called into question

Keep em comin

Hey Rod. I love your videos. They are concise and easy to understand. You must spend a lot of time in research and on writing the script and I wanted to thank you. I do have a question regarding, "The RCMP declared authority to classify firearms." Being a Canadian who believes in the system and is relatively new to the firearms scene; I was wondering when this happened? Also, if you could point me to a link when they declared this and when it was accepted by the legislature? I just have a hard time believing that Canada's checks and balances system is not working in a subject that is a pretty big deal.

thanks for the info Rod!

Awesome video as always Rod, thank you for the information. Have you thought of making a video explaining every bit of legal paperwork we firearm owners must take with us to the range? I remember in one of your videos you briefly covered some of the paper we must bring, and some other paper that you find useful to bring. Thanks for the consideration!

Great exposé.

What timing! Today we heard that the Blaze47, a Mossberg 22 with AK-esque furniture has been prohibited as an AK47 variant. I guess the "we didn't know any better back then" excuse is out for the RCMP.

great video

I agree this is irrational and unreasonable. What can I do to help remove that stupid classification system?

this is absolutely crazy!!

Nice vid Rod, keep up the info

Those crickets chirping are there for a reason.. To make ppl forget and give up..

Sad but true after the government had on paper who owned what all of the sudden this gun and that one were deemed illegal (for ridiculous reason's) then had to be turned in to be destroyed.Also sad but true alot of law maker's don't have the mental capacity to be a burger joint manager. A 22 rimfire(made for shooting pop can's and gopher's) made illegal because it "look's like" a 60 year old Ak-47.That's about as stupid as stupid can get.

4:05 Went into Lever Arms once. Won't be back. I found that guy to be arrogant, dismissive, and generally lacking in manners. I'm not the sort of guy who puts up with that, but I had my son with me and did't want to embarrass the guy. In balance, though, after the one word answers to my questions, demanding my firearms license without saying please, and finally stating what I owed him without saying please, I couldn't help myself and without making a fuss, I just looked him directly in the eyes and very quietly sad, "Say, 'please'". There was a pause as it sunk in, then his face dropped and he mumbled, "please". I thanked him politely in front of my boy and never said another word about it. But the fact is that his prices are not competitive. I can get stuff way cheaper. I just happened to be in the area and thought I'd give it a shot. Maybe he was having a bad day; maybe not. It wasn't my aim to make it worse, but it sure was my aim to somewhat gently let him know that he was out of line. Italian Sporting goods on the other hand got my repeat business. When I bought scopes off them in person, they were polite and friendly and I found their prices to be decent. They even took digital pics of rings and sent me specs when I made inquiries. Wanstalls was pretty good, too. I did an online transaction with them from the other side of the world and they were very helpful. Yes, I know this is rather off topic. Oh, well!

Here's an idea! If they are going to allow you to buy a gun only to reclassify it and steal from you, start issuing prohibited licenses to the effected owners. It only sounds fair to me.

I worked in the RCMP labs when the discussion of variant came up and I can tell you that no one from the Firearms Sections in the labs considered this one a variant. Like you, we understood it was wrong to consider this a variant. We also didn't agree on the definition of replica but understood it was a device that closely replicated the "real" firearm to the point of even being made on the same machinery but not able to fire a cartridge. We had many arguments on this with some managerial types even suggesting we should base our decision on how it looked from several feet away. It was simply silly and not practical. The point was if the "victim" could think it was a firearm then it was a replica. Notwithstanding that many Canadians don't know what a real firearm looks like and many "victims" could actually be LEO's. Please don't put all the Firearms examiners in the same basket. I can assure you that it wasn't the case. Some of us were badly overworked and didn't even want to do "classification" cases thinking any competent gunsmith could easily accomplish the work as easily as us and we should have concentrated on criminal casework involving misuse of firearms. I also argued against minimal barrel lengths for handguns. Their rebuttal was that no one practices precision shooting with short barrels obviously omitting the use of any optics. I also argued against the prohibition of 25 and 32 calibers saying that by prohibiting those you would flood the black market and ensure that anyone killed in the future would have less chance of survival. Please don't confuse the decisions made by a beauraucracy that justified their existence with how many firearms they could prohibit and restrict with all of us who worked in the firearms sections of the labs that were then across the country. While we agreed with some of the regulations we certainly disagreed with many others. To the point where we now have such a convoluted legislation that most police officers no longer understand it and they had to creat NWEST to try and keep up with it.

much appreciated if you can do a series about situations where it's legal to shoot someone such as if Canada has any stand your ground law similar to the states completely agree with your videos and I'm considering legally getting a handgun despite the restrictions, but only if there is any situation where it's a legal way of defending yourself

The PAL system is subject to the same abuse by the RCMP.....a friend of mine has been in limbo for 1 1/2 years waiting for the CFC to renew his RPAL....he is frustrated to the point of thinking about telling the CFC the he is willing to give up his RPAL for a PAL..and no answer as to why or timelines from the CFO...I told him to contact his MP and MLA....but they are both NDP anti-gunners....so, he has been forced to sell his restricted firearms to RPAL holders in order to avoid a raid and possible arrest....because the RCMP have put him in that position. He can only assume that this is most likely due to an ex-spouse he co-parents a child with, an ex who worked as a police counsellor....and who has tried everything she can to undermine him in court over custody/support issues and lost every single time. The reality is that without effective oversight the RCMP can manufacture criminals simply by doing nothing....

Another point on reclassified in real time is something I noticed in Cabela's most recent catalog and online might conflict with parts of the Special Bulletin for Businesses No. 72: "Example 2*: The Ruger BX-25 magazine, chambered for 22 LR calibre, is designed and manufactured for use in the Ruger SR22 rifle, the 10/22 family of rifles/carbines and the 22 Charger handgun. As a result, this magazine is a prohibited device unless modified so its capacity is 10 cartridges or less. (*This information was not included in the original version of this bulletin, but was added on 2013-09-05.)" www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/cfp-pcaf/bulletins/bus-ent/20110323-72-eng.htm www.cabelas.ca/product/9883/butler-creek-25-round-1022-banana-magazines www.cabelas.ca/product/62029/gsg-ruger-1022-110-round-drum-magazine OK so the Ruger BX-25 and BX-15 are prohibited, but the nearly identical 25-Round Butler Creek model is not? Also is the G.S.G. Drum Magazine 11 times over capacity as well? I might have missed something, who is correct? To my understanding all magazines are prohibited unless pinned to 10. Links current as of posting on Mar 14, 2016.

And now there's a new AK47 "variant" on the prohibited list....the Blaze 47...just because it has extra plastic on it...and for the cherry on top, the Blaze, which actually is a variant of the Blaze 47, is non restricted. Makes no sense.

So Rod, asides from keeping up with the gun law changes daily and / or being a advocate and follower of CCFR, what would be the best way to stay aware... I am in fear that one day, not only myself but others will own a legal non-restricted firearm, and then the next morning they / I, will be in possession of a Prohibited firearm and am unaware of it and be at the risk of jail time.

Hey Rod, do you have any updates on the ar15 petition? BTW great video keep em coming

Another recent manifestation of the problem Rod is explaining here: www.gunownersofcanada.ca/showthread.php?23616-RCMP-Prohibited-another-gun-Based-on-Looks-only Mossberg Blaze - Non-Restricted semi-auto 22LR rifle Mossberg Blaze 47 - Prohibited semi-auto 22LR rifle From my understanding, both Mossberg Blaze and Blaze 47 are functionally identical, and the Blaze 47 shares nothing in common with the AK-47 besides looks.

Whats goin on with the petition for the ar15 and turning it to a non restricted and having 30 rounds

Mossberg Blazer 47 another "variant" another blunder that Canadians miss out on.

Another case is the Smith and Wesson M&P15-22. Looks like an AR. Uses an AR trigger group. An AR mag release, although the magwells are the same shape internally so mags do not interchange. It uses the same bolt release/catch, although the bolts are very different. No gas system, blowback only. It uses the same butt stock, although the extension tube is really only a solid piece of plastic that cannot contain a buffer tube. The upper and lower receivers split using two pins, although they're not quite in the same place so you can't accidentally swap with a real AR. Oh, and I mention that the receivers are both plastic!!? In short, it looks like an AR. It feels like an AR. It's perfect for AR training, using $.04 each ammunition. But it is not and can never be an AR15. It's restricted though. Is it because S&W called it an AR and therefore restricted by name? Maybe...

this should not need saying...but I'll say it anyway. Guns are built to be rebarrelled because barrels wear out. That's all there is to it.

How long until my ruger sr22 is considered a variant. With collapsible stock, magpul grip, full rail and battledyne mags, I know people are unsure of what I have.

I think this is a sad result of people in power making rules for things they have no education in.

Hey Rod where do we stand on the classification of the Swiss arms.

So who currently is responsible for writing or amending the regulation? Is this still the RCMP? When the Regulation is amended is there a Public comment period before the final regulation is adopted?

How dare you think things through Rod! Can't you just roll over and ask for the Gov'ment to save you already??

Isnt it illegal for them not to give you the information under the freedom of information act?

given the 'as determined by regulation' back door, and no definition of 'variant', the RCMP could make fish sticks and chicken burgers illegal if they wanted to....without a legal definition, the word variant could mean anything....legally the daisy red rider could be regulated as an AK-47 variant..... Two things need to change... 1) regulation needs to be by legislation only...no more make it up as you go along.... 2) citizens must be able to sue their government to help control over reach. .... the biggest issue with bill C-68 is the fact that the reason for the legislation was in response to a mass shooting in which a mini-14 was used.... but the mini-14 is not on the list....how does it make sense to ban everything except the gun that was actually used? it's like banning potato chips and chocolate bars in response to a case of food poisoning caused by oysters. We are living with 14th century politics in the 21st century...'it is illegal because we say so! now shut up and give us half your wages in taxes, and thank us for it...'

Iv watched prt 1 - 4 and iv made up my mind.... Im moving to america

Do you know that part two and three are not on KZfaq?

going to do my CFSC on the 8th. wish i could do my restricted as well. damn age limits. XD wish me luck guys

Legislation is statutory law (aka statutory admiralty legal jurisdiction aka private contract law...so make sure that the "law" they are trying to apply to you actually does apply to you) but there is also constitutional law and common law...both of which statutory law cannot violate unless you consent to it (which to do you must not be under duress and you must have full disclosure of the effects & relevant consequences to do) as it would be unlawful & illegal (which are not synonymous term and do not mean the same thing) and would violate your God rights & due process (which is also unlawful & illegal). When statutory "law" that violates constitutional or common law (which in most cases they will also codify under statutory admiralty legal jurisdiction when it suits their purpose to try and muddy the waters) is enforced as the law of the land it is called color of law and is tantamount to treason. And yes...I realize you're in Canada. Canada is a common law country as is Australia, the UK, and the 50 union States and our legal systems are all derived from English Common Law and the Magna Carta. "Color" means "An appearance, semblance, or simulacrum, as distinguished from that which is real. A prima facia or apparent right. Hence, a deceptive appearance, a plausible, assumed exterior, concealing a lack of reality; a disguise or pretext. See also colorable." Black's Law Dictionary, 5th Edition, on page 240. "Colorable" means "That which is in appearance only, and not in reality, what it purports to be, hence counterfeit feigned, having the appearance of truth." Windle v. Flinn, 196 Or. 654, 251 P.2d 136, 146. "Color of Law" means "The appearance or semblance, without the substance, of legal right. Misuse of power, possessed by virtue of state law and made possible only because wrongdoer is clothed with authority of state is action taken under 'color of law.'" Atkins v. Lanning. D.C.Okl., 415 F. Supp. 186, 188. If something is "color of law" then it is NOT law, it only looks like law. If you go to the website for the Office of Law Revision Counsel, you will see that most of the titles of the United States Code are "prima facia evidence of the laws of the United States". What does prima facia mean....... "prima facia" means "At first sight; on the first appearance; on the face of it; so far as can be judged from the first disclosure; presumably; a fact presumed to be true unless disproved by some evidence to the contrary." State ex rel. Herbert v. Whims, 68 Ohio App. 39, 38 N.E.2d 596, 599, 22 O.O. 110. Black's Law Dictionary 5th Edition page 1071. Prima facia and color of law both go hand in hand, because if a law is prima facia evidence of the laws of the United States, that means it is color of law, by definition. In other words the bureaucrat presumes that the law applies to you until you defeat their presumption. If you read these prima facia, color of law statutes, you will find them using words like "person". I will use the color of law Title 26 USC as a typical way that they do it. 26 USC 7701 (a) (1) Person. The term “person” shall be construed to mean and include an individual, a trust, estate, partnership, association, company or corporation. If you look in the Canadian statutes you will see it is structure is very similar. But you can hit them the the Ejusdem Generus maxim of law which states....... "Of the same kind or nature. A rule of interpretation that where a class of things is followed by general wording that is not itself expansive, the general wording is usually restricted things of the same type as the listed items." Which is why you must challenge their jurisdiction immediately because when you do they must address it. If you don't you will end up submitting to their jurisdiction before you realize it (via something they call tacit consent). This is just scratching the surface so look into before trying to apply this. And be careful...in court they speak legalese (I'm not kidding)...not English.

So it's been over a year since the request about the official definition of "variant" was made. Do you know if there has been any response or clarification yet?

Valmet Hunter?

WOW

So with C42 is my AK Variant (cz-858) going back to non-restricted?

classifying by looks is a a bunch lies and looks have no real classifying tools like this.

I was wondering how I could contact you because I need to know if I could be arrested for my replica bb gun

Are slide fire stocks legal in Canada?

if it looks like a duck

"The government are the public servants". Seriously? And one can say it with the straight face after giving all this information in this video?

did these fu... clowns have classified the 22lr prohibited ... seriously ,imagine a "gun guy" who s working at the rcmp reaction should be , like " boss you re not serious with that one " and all of the rest of the team are laughing their ass off :)

Very disappointed in your choice of shirt.

Stupid people making irrational and irrelevant decisions, for example the Kel-Tec SU-16 uses AR mags and uses the same ammo and is non restricted, but the AR-15 is restricted, we can use LAR15 mags in an SU-16 with 10 rounds in it legally because it's classified as a pistol magazine, plus all of what was mentioned in the video, they need to have real professionals working on classifications.