Conservative MP for Bruce-Grey-Owen Sound, Larry Miller, tabled a bill on February 24 that could resolve the problems caused by the RCMP's reclassification of firearms based on looks or colour.

However, there are some back door changes that could also make this bill a gun grabbers’ delight.

On the good side, Miller’s bill actually clearly defines a word -- "variant" -- found in the Criminal Code and Firearms Act, and that was left open to interpretation by bureaucrats.

Canadian gun owners learned this when some of our guns were reclassified because, solely on account of their appearance, they were deemed to be a "variant" of an already "prohibited" firearm. The Mossberg Blaze 47 rifle was just one example.

Miller's bill C-230 will end the practice of unwarranted and inconsistent reclassification, by concretely defining the word "variant" as “in respect of a firearm, means a firearm that has the unmodified frame or receiver of another firearm."



However, the down side to this bill is that it also changes the Criminal Code definitions of "prohibited firearm" and "restricted firearm," with the addition of the following phrase to both definitions:

“(e) any variant of a firearm described in any one of paragraphs (a) to (d).‍”

Many more guns, and especially handguns, could get moved to the "prohibited" list automatically if bill C-230 is passed.

There are many restricted firearms that have been manufactured to comply with Canada’s existing regulations, by extending barrel lengths, for example. The fact that a firearm has a longer barrel length will not matter if it also shares the same frame or receiver as a prohibited firearm, because a "variant" is now a firearm that has the unmodified frame or receiver of another firearm.

So, your once restricted firearm automatically becomes a prohibited firearm (if it shares the same frame or receiver of a prohibited firearm) under C-230.

A simple solution would be to strike the following from the bill:

(2) The definition prohibited firearm in subsection 84(1) of the Act is amended by striking out “or” at the end of paragraph (c), by adding “or’’ at the end of paragraph (d) and by adding the following after paragraph (d):

(e) any variant of a firearm described in any one of paragraphs (a) to (d). (3) The definition restricted firearm in subsection 84(1) of the Act is amended by striking out “or” at the end of paragraph (c), by adding “or’’ at the end of paragraph (d) and by adding the following after paragraph (d):(e) any variant of a firearm described in any one of paragraphs (a) to (d).‍

And keep:

(1) Subsection 84(1) of the Criminal Code is amended by adding the following in alphabetical order:

variant, in respect of a firearm, means a firearm that has the unmodified frame or receiver of another firearm.

The effort is admirable and I am sure Larry Miller means well, but we must always be vigilant when someone is proposing to change the law.



(Recognition and thanks to Edmonton lawyer Ian Runkle for pointing this out.)



