Thread by @timthurley

The Order in Council has again raised the question of what constitutes a “variant” of a prohibited firearm. I filed an ATIP and got some answers, along with many more questions. Thread, with extracts throughout.🧵

Firearms classification includes two broad categories: firearms classified by characteristic, and firearms classified by name. Those assigned by name include the AR-15. By design, it would be a non-restricted (NR) firearm; by name, first restricted and then prohibited.

Variants act to classify the rest of the “family” of firearms. This makes some sense. Renaming a firearm alone shouldn’t be sufficient to change its legal classification.

But how do we know what a variant is? Where is the line?

That line has been blurry, and resulted in some very weird cases. The most famous is the @MossbergCorp Blaze 47. The Blaze is NR. The Blaze 47 - exact same gun, different appearance - is a prohibited AK-47 variant under Former Prohibited Weapons Order, No. 13.

This is naturally confusing and controversial. How can the exact same gun with the same internals, same calibre, and same function be simultaneously NR and prohibited depending on how it looks?

Variants are also a current issue in a court case with the ATRS Modern Sporter #OIC.

My #ATIP to the @rcmpgrcpolice brought a little bit of clarity to this. Sort of. But not really.

First, as many expected based on inconsistency of classifications, there's no functional definition of variant, even internally. It is an individual determination, based on:

Does the design match? The RCMP uses the example of substituting wood for steel. That's fair. It also uses the example of changing the action to substitute a different calibre, which can be a fairly consequential change to the design, but alright.

Is the variant somehow defined in law? This is mostly out of the hands of the RCMP too, but I will be interested to see how broadly the courts allow the Canadian government to define a variant.

Purpose of firearm. This also makes some sense. A firearm designed solely as a trainer for another firearm is probably going to simulate that firearm to an extent, and we can generously assume the government might intend to incorporate it in the regulations.

The same family is also a reasonable way to define a variant, but the RCMP internal document proceeds to hedge this in such broad language that this becomes meaningless after the first sentence.

Now it gets wild. Advertising, depiction by the press, and depiction by the manufacturer.

These have nothing to do with how a firearm functions. Finding an advertisement, or a press article, that links a firearm to a prohibited firearm can contribute to a "variant" definition.

Note that this is not limited to a manufacturer's technical description of a firearm, but also how they advertise it or how the press depicts it. Have a gun that is nothing like a prohibited firearm, but is poorly advertised or reported on? Good luck!

Historical significance. Again, nothing to do with the function or even appearance, and everything to do with later sales or linkages. As a recovering history major you bet I'll be filing more requests here.

Interchangeable parts. These sometimes imply some functional similarities, but not necessarily. The description does not lend us insight into what level of interchangeability is necessary.

And appearance. I'll just let you read this yourselves.

Still confused? Good. Here is your continuum of variants:

A few key takeaways:

1) This confirms what many long suspected: there is no clear formula or definition for determining a variant.

2) Elements unrelated to function, internal design or even calibre, like appearance, ads, and history, matter to the result.

3) Even after reading the internal rules, a manufacturer, owner, or importer is nowhere closer to understanding a potential classification. This opens the system to arbitrary rule, something we should try to avoid when implementing law.

Even a technician reading these rules could end up with a wildly different classification than another technician. This demands definition in written or case law, and I sincerely hope we get that from ongoing court cases.

Tagging potentially interested folks: @Dr_Langmann @Calibremag @NoahSchwartzy @Dicky_Paul_95 @shandro @SaskParty @AikiCulture @RealDennisYoun2 @theyoungjoo @jenndvc @GaryMauser @CivilAdvantage1 @CCFR_CCDAF

Full ATIP release available on request.

Oh and @mattgurney, can't believe I forgot you.

@IanRunkle