PDA

View Full Version : My letter...



L33CHW33D
08-18-2014, 03:43 PM
Here's a small snipet from the letter I wrote to Minister Blaney a few weeks ago.

Not really the priority amongst us gun owners but has anyone ever thought of this?

...

I must demand a reform to the laws regarding muzzle-loader firearms of any length, number of barrels, and type of action (flintlock, matchlock, wheellock, or percussion-cap). Currently the laws regarding muzzle-loaders are inconsistent and needlessly so. Firearms laws exist only to protect the public. Muzzle-loader firearms (whether pistol, smooth-bore musket, shotgun, or rifle) are not a danger to the public and need to be reclassified to antique status (as a pre-1898 flintlock musket and a post-1897 flintlock musket are). Especially when regarding pistols. The fact an antique flintlock pistol is considered an antique and carries with it regulations less stringent than a non-restricted firearm, yet one made in 1898 is considered a restricted is of course ridiculous. The enforcement and regulations regarding any firearm is vast, let alone a restricted firearm. This is all unnecessary and embarrassing to the Canadian legal system. Criminals do kill or harm other people with muzzle-loader weapons. They use automatic weapons and other firearms which are all heavily regulated and controlled in order to keep these firearms in the hands of the law-abiding only. Automatic weapons are prohibited in any case.

...

http://www.gunownersofcanada.ca/showthread.php?1715-Antique-Legalities&highlight=flintlock

canthitathing
08-18-2014, 05:53 PM
I would agree that true muzzleloaders with the firing mechanisms cited should be non-restricted, even single shot 'pistols' (not too many true pirates about anymore). Criminal element wouldn't bother with them.

How would you want to classify multi-shot blackpowder revolvers? They may be a little more of an issue, especially where some can have replacement, convertible cylinders to accomodate cartridges so they are essentially no different than regular revolvers. They would seem to be outside your reform boundaries.

L33CHW33D
08-19-2014, 08:32 AM
I would agree that true muzzleloaders with the firing mechanisms cited should be non-restricted, even single shot 'pistols' (not too many true pirates about anymore). Criminal element wouldn't bother with them.

How would you want to classify multi-shot blackpowder revolvers? They may be a little more of an issue, especially where some can have replacement, convertible cylinders to accomodate cartridges so they are essentially no different than regular revolvers. They would seem to be outside your reform boundaries.

Are those considered muzzle-loaders? I've never used one (not yet :)) but aren't those loaded directly into the cylinder?

My arguement of the whole thing is that gun laws only exist to protect the public. Perhaps to destroy all our freedoms too. They seem to like to do that but I don't want to be one of those paranoid people so I'll just pretend it's only to protect the public. It's the inconsistencies which are irritating. Why is an old flintlock pistol considered an antique (which has minimal laws regarding it) and one made after 1897 a restricted. That's a CRAAAZY difference in what you can do with it and where you can go with it.

Basically if you have a flintlock pistol made in 1899 you could go to jail if you were shooting it anywhere but at a range. And at the ATT laws all apply and storage and blabla. Not to mention the gun itself is much much much safer to store because children don't just get into a flintlock pistol, go through all the work of loading one, and then endanger themselves or anyone else. Criminals 200 years again may have used one. But today they do not. That's loco. And the hilarious part is that modern metallurgy is much better than it was prior to the 20th century. So the gun itself is safer for the user. Which honestly I'm hoping safety to the user isn't taken into consideration because there no licenses required for the safe and proper use of power tools, chainsaws, horses, etc.