r/canadaguns • u/goshathegreat • Aug 09 '25

Uhhhh guys?

Post image

Does this mean what I think it does? New FRT for the FGC9, a 3d printed 9mm PCC.

143 Upvotes

92% Upvoted

72 comments sorted by

View all comments

62

u/feeddageek Aug 10 '25 edited Aug 10 '25

If what you think is "I can print one", it probably does not mean what you think it does.

First-off C-21 made the files for the fgc9 prohibited by themselves. Second, the (new) position of the RCMP is that a PAL does not allow you to manufacture a firearm, not even for personal use.

So if you have a business firearm licence that allow you to manufacture restricted firearm, you could print a fgc9, but in any other case, you cannot! And just having or accessing the file required to print one would be a criminal offence. 

20

u/FluffyPlays22 Aug 10 '25

"First-off C-21 made the files for the fgc9 prohibited by themselves." and "just having or accessing the file required to print one would be a criminal offence. "

Both of these are false.

The law states that it is illegal to use the files for the "purpose" of manufacturing or trafficking a firearm or prohibited device derived from that data. So just having the files themselves is totally legal, and you can use them for any purpose besides manufacturing or trafficking. If it was the case where just having the files would be illegal just having modern games installed like escape from tarkov would be in violation of that, due to the highly detailed models that can actually be used to manufacture firearms or prohibited devices.

Possession of computer data102.‍1 (1) Every person commits an offence who possesses or accesses computer data that pertain to a firearm — other than a firearm that is deemed under subsection 84(3) not to be a firearm — or a prohibited device and that are capable of being used with a 3D printer, metal milling machine or similar computer system for the purpose of manufacturing or trafficking a firearm or prohibited device derived from that computer data otherwise than under the authority of the Firearms Act or any other Act of Parliament or any regulations made under an Act of Parliament.

8

u/feeddageek Aug 10 '25

The law is poorly written and there is no consensus saying whether the qualifier "for the purpose of manufacturing or trafficking" apply to the possession (your interpretation) or to the data itself (mine).

I think that it is dangerous to choose your interpretation if you are not a well funded litigant or their lawyer. Until there is a jurisprudence I won't touch this kind of file. But hey, if someone want to hoard them thinking that they are safe because the crown will not be able to prove purpose, I'll be genuinely grateful if they create said jurisprudence and genuinely sad if they end up in prison.

1

u/FluffyPlays22 Aug 10 '25

I get that without a court case setting a precedent, there’s always some risk in how a law will actually be interpreted, that’s true for almost any law. But the way this section is written isn’t vague if you just read it in plain English. The illegal part is "possessing or accessing for the purpose of manufacturing or trafficking". That qualifier is tied to the person’s actions, not to the nature of the file itself. If it was meant to ban the files on their own, it wouldn’t need the purpose clause at all. As it’s written, you need both elements, possession and that specific purpose for it to be a crime. Otherwise, people could technically be charged for having CAD files, models, or even educational materials that just happen to be capable of making a gun, which clearly isn’t the intent.