r/canadaguns • u/Mountain-Badger-4627 • Mar 14 '26

Application / Regulation advice Legalities to 3d print firearm parts

In Canada, what firearm-related things are legal to 3D print? I know receivers are illegal to print, but what about things like chassis and stocks?

9 Upvotes

80% Upvoted

26 comments sorted by

View all comments

5

u/Acceptable_Visit_115 Mar 14 '26 edited Mar 15 '26

Things we know you can't print (or even possess the computer files for them) because the Criminal Code explicitly listed them:

  • "firearm" i.e. Handgun frames, and the "receiver" part of a long gun (Criminal Code 2)

  • "firearm parts" i.e. Barrels and handgun slides (Criminal Code 84(1))

  • "prohibited devices" i.e. Overcapacity magazines, suppressors, drop-in autosears, bull-pup chassis/stock, bumpstocks, etc. (Criminal Code 84(1) and SOR/98-462)

Owning the files would violate Criminal Code 102.1. Manufacturing them falls under Criminal Code 99 at the very least.

I am not a lawyer. These are all openly available, easily searchable, and unambiguously listed on the government's website.

2

u/CorsicanMastiffStrip Mar 15 '26

It’s important to clarify that 102.1 is so poorly written that it could apply to all of this or it could not. The exact wording is:

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.

So firearms parts are not firearms. But “pertain to” is ambiguous enough that it concerns me. I believe the intent it so cover things like 80% designs as there really is no reason to not say “firearm or firearm part” as the latter has an exact definition, as you pointed out, if they wanted to include parts. They do included “prohibited device”, which includes things like undersize pistol barrels. There’s also the “for the purpose of manufacturing or trafficking a firearm” bit, which is NOT “for the purpose … a firearm or firearm part”.

99 uses the same wording about not manufacturing things for firearm parts and ammunition.

So my opinion at this time is that you could legally design and manufacture firearm parts as long as they aren’t prohibited devices, you aren’t selling them, and you are licensed to possess the firearms they fit. Like if you made a replacement barrel for a pistol you own, that appears to be ok.

Naturally any of that could change with a single ruling that interprets things differently, so that’s fun.

1

u/Acceptable_Visit_115 Mar 15 '26

 There’s also the “for the purpose of manufacturing or trafficking a firearm” bit

My guess is that they only threw that into 102.1 in the rare case of 99 (trafficking) doesn't cover it. Gotta catch em all!

 Naturally any of that could change with a single ruling that interprets things differently, so that’s fun.

Yup, afaik none of the 102.1 has been tested in court ever. We'll see how it plays out.

1

u/CorsicanMastiffStrip Mar 15 '26

It honestly can’t really hurt to send your CFO an email on these kinds of questions. Maybe from an anonymous or pseudonymous email lol.