r/canadaguns • u/AutoModerator • Jun 08 '26

Recurring Canadaguns Politics and Debate Thread

Please post all your Gun Politics or Ban-related ideas, questions, initiatives, comments, suggestions, news articles, and recommendations in this thread. This thread recurs every 14 days.

First and foremost, this is a Canadian Gun subreddit, so keep it at least decently related to both of those things.

This thread is not for general politics, there are plenty other subs that are meant for that. Off-topic threads may be removed, especially if they are leading to personal attacks, flame wars, etc.

To prevent the main sub being flooded with dozens of similar threads, text posts complaining about/asking about/chatting about gun politics will be sent here.

We understand that politics is a touchy subject, and at times things can get heated. A reminder of the subreddit rules, when commenting, where subreddit users are expected to abide.

Keep this Canadian gun politics related and polite. Off-topic stuff, flame wars, negative generalizations against groups, personal attacks and gate-keeping will be removed. Please flag any comments to bring to the attention of mods otherwise exercise your upvoting and downvoting ability.

34 Upvotes

92% Upvoted

250 comments sorted by

View all comments

9

u/[deleted] Jun 10 '26 edited Jun 10 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

10

u/Frank23682 Jun 10 '26

Yes, the Crypto would not be prohibited anymore if the OIC is rescinded because in the FRT the legal authority it was prohibited under is the paragraph for AR-15/M16 etc.

That does beg the question of whether it would become restricted or non-restricted though.

1

u/Infinite_Price_3550 Jun 12 '26

If it was prohibited because its an "AR-15" wouldn't it just become non-restricted because of its 18.6 barrel length if the OIC were struck down? Or were AR-15 and their "variants" always restricted regardless of barrel length?

3

u/Frank23682 Jun 12 '26 edited Jun 12 '26

The history of it is very convoluted. The AR-15 was made restricted through an OIC in 1977 (This was only Colt AR-15 and didn't have the variant wording) but was removed again to be not a restricted (I believe the classification of non-restricted didn't exist yet back then before the establishment of the Firearms Act) in 1980. Then in 1992 an OIC made the M-16 and their variants restricted. Assuming that the Supreme Court Case strikes down the 2020, 2024 and 2025 OICs then we would be back to the 1992 OIC of M-16 and its variants being restricted.

This is also where the problem arises. Remember that the ATRS Modern Sporter prior to the 2020 OIC was classified as non-restricted and that implies the RCMP deemed it to be not a variant of the M-16. But in the 2020 OIC they actually added extra wording to the paragraph to make it AR-10, AR-15, M-16 and M-4 Carbine and their variants. This is the argument that the RCMP made against the ATRS Modern Sporter is that because these wordings were added, the Modern Sporter, whilst not a variant of the M-16, actually does trace its lineage to the AR-10. I suppose the same argument can be made for the Crypto, but at the end of the day the RCMP Firearms Lab has the power to interpret "variants" however they want and there's nothing we can do about it, but I hope that's something that the Supreme Court case will make a concrete decision on

Edit: Some corrections after looking through the regulation archives

2

u/Infinite_Price_3550 Jun 12 '26

Thank you! This was all information I did not know before. Just when I think our gun laws can’t get even more convoluted, they do!