Talk:Gun politics in Canada

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Gun politics in Canada article.
Article policies
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Firearms; If you would like to join us, please visit the project page where you can find a list of open tasks. If you have any questions, please consult the FAQ.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.

Contents

[edit] Possible POV=

Interesting article this one, and the companion one on the UK - thank you. However I wonder about the phrase "groups that might have opposed gun control becuase of their normal political stance". I think that it has to be realised that it is largely a peculiarity of US society and history that right-wing attitudes go with opposition to gun control; in many other loosely "Western" societies, rightest attitudes are associated with support of a "state monopoloy on violence" position, which naturally leads to support of gun control. This is the general position in the UK, for example (though there is also an urban/rural dimension in Britain). I don't want to start an accidental edit war on this one, which can be highly contentious, but would like to check out other impressions and evidence of how attitudes vary here. seglea 09:32, 2 Feb 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Gun registry additions

I have added a section on gun registry and added to the information that was already here for this topic. I realise this is a politically sensitive issue so have tried to remain as non-partisan as possible, drawing the majority of my information from the 2002 Auditor Genral report. Comments/edits are welcomed, I am certainly not an expert on this topic, just trying to make some sense of it. Pasd 16:04, 6 Jun 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Source?

However, Canada has a violent crime rate approximately twice that of the United States.

Where does that information come from? Must be a per capita figure, does it include the same categories of crimes and so on? Sound suspicious, esp. considering Canada's much lower murder rate... Krupo 19:57, Oct 5, 2004 (UTC)

Well, of course it's per capita. That's what a rate is--not the number of crimes, but the frequency. I don't know about violent crimes, but I've read from multiple sources that Canada's overall crime rate is higher than that of the United States (and Great Britain's is higher than both). Funnyhat 05:47, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

To answer this question: "does it include the same categories of crimes and so on?"

-- no. Figures for the two countries (and between the US and numerous other countries) are not remotely comparable.

Most importantly, the US does not include common assaults (essentially, assaults without injury) under the "violent crime" rubric. Canada does. See here: http://www.statcan.ca/Daily/English/070718/d070718b.htm "Assault level one" accounted for far more than 50% of the violent crimes recorded in 2006.

In addition, Canada no longer has an offence called "rape"; there are three levels of sexual assault, defined by factors including the force used. Some of the offences covered are entirely non-violent, and this makes no comparison possible with US figures.

I hope this helps. And I hope I'm doing this right ... Iverglas 23:41, 10 October 2007 (UTC)


  • Upon further examination, my suspicions are deepened. My understanding that the claim in this wiki article is correct: Moore seeks to answer, in his own unique style, the questions of why the Columbine massacre occurred, and why the United States has higher rates of violent crimes (especially crimes involving guns) than other developed nations, in particular Germany, France, Australia, Japan, the United Kingdom, and especially Canada. Going to change that claim in the article now. Krupo 20:34, Oct 5, 2004 (UTC)

I certainly agree with your removal of the statement: "Canada has a violent crime rate approximately twice that of the United States." However, I'm curious about your comment that "some argue that more violent crimes are instead committed with weapons other than firearms, negating Canada's better position." Some may well argue this, but do they have data to support it? Sunray 08:43, 2004 Oct 6 (UTC)

  • In that case, I'm emboldened to completely remove that last part - I included in in deferrence to the other POV, although I don't support it myself. Seems like it's just made-up, though, eh? Krupo 19:21, Oct 12, 2004 (UTC)
Actually, I was just going to question that statement. I can't find my sources right now, but the comparision was between Vancouver and Seattle. Point being, if you take racial/ethnic groups (and hence (roughly) socio-economic levels (because of imbedded racism in the US)) into account, Canadians are much more violent (in the firearm homicide) category than comprable Americans.
~ender 2005-02-26 08:12:MST

[edit] US stats are incident-based

From the article: "Some mistakenly compare government data directly between the two countries (i.e. 958 per 100,000 for Canada vs 523 per 100,000 for the United States) and conclude that Canada is more violent. This comparison is inaccurate because Canada collects the incidence of reported violent crimes, while the United States collects violent crimes committed."

The UCR is also an incident-based system. In fact, the reporting program is called NIBRS - National Incident-Based Reporting System. [1]

Further clarification is needed to explain the difference in reporting criteria that would account for the disparity in rates. And it'd be nice to have some kind of statistical cite for the info, too. 24.148.249.55 15:20, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] You cannot compare apples and oranges!

This is an excellent and concise history of gun control in Canada. Ignore the propaganda of the anti-gun lobby. Do your own research. Both the U.K. Home Office and the Australian government publish firearms statistics on the web. Make sure though, that you are comparing similar statistics and not mixing them.

The finding is clear that Canada cannot, based on the realities, support the continuance of the gun registry in it's present form. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zeister (talk • contribs)

[edit] NPOV/Cleanup

This is a terribly written article, full of bias of every kind. The section 'Commentary' is clearly biased against the gun registry, provided a voice for its opponents and ignoring any supporters. The one sentence with a citation is nothing more than a Conservative's political opinion, not backed by any facts. The section on the Dawson College shooting displays a chronological bias: giving too much prominence to the event just because it happened recently. If any shooting deserves it's own section it would be the Polytechnique massacre. The 'Other' section is again commentary masked as an NPOV. Sentences like 'The murder of four RCMP officers in Mayerthorpe...has underscored the futility of the firearms registry and the Firearms Act itself.' express an opinion, not fact. Similarly, the Violent Crimes statistics have no place in this article, and were almost certainly placed there by an pro gun-legislation editor. And the 'Complex Political Situation' tries vainly to guess the motivation of the population in its support or criticism of gun control without citing anything at all. It is nothing more than opinion. Seeing as this is linked from a front page article, it should be cleaned up right away - 3:30 , 16 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Minimum age to purchase a firearm

This article doesn't seem very clear on what the minimum age to purchase a firearm in Canada is. The only figure stated is 16 more than a hundred years ago, and that's can't still be accurate. --—JeremyBanks Talk 03:29, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

18 is the minimum age, I am adding this now. A firearm can be used by someone younger, but not purchased. The minimum age for a minor licence is 12. If you are this age and get a licence, you can borrow an use unsupervised a rifle or shotgun. You may use a firearm if you are under 18 without a minors licence if you are under direct supervision of a licenced adult. http://www.cfc-ccaf.gc.ca/info_for-renseignement/factsheets/minor_e.asp
Hey hey, why not throw my name against that above paragraph and link? I have edited the article, I hope it is acceptable by everyone (or at least by most)Pissedpat 08:16, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
That's very interesting. Thanks for your contribution! =] —JeremyBanks Talk 01:25, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of section on Dawson College shooting

I just reverted the removal of the section on the Dawson College shooting because I feel it helps to put the laws into perspective. I'd appreciate anybody's input on this. --—JeremyBanks Talk 00:12, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

The paragraph "This article states firearms registration laws, the shooters name and no information pertaining to the Dawson college shooting. It has no room in the Canadian Gun politics on Wikipedia." by 24.141.244.29 Does not belong in the article, it belongs in the talk page. Regardless of how I feel about whether it belongs in the article or not the main page in not the location to have quarrels. Personally, I would only recomend leaving the reference to the shooting in the article if the event turns out to have an influence upon Canadian firearm law, and even then, more of a simple reference to the event, not a full description including gun model and description of the weapons action. If this event becomes as much of a turning point as the ecole polytechnique then sure put it in. But as it stands, this event will likely go down in history the same way the taber shooting did, a tragic event that had little effect on the law.Pissedpat 06:56, 20 September 2006 (UTC

The Dawson Shooting incident does not provide perspective into Canadian gun laws and gun politics in Canada. The article should be in another section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dumby1111 (talk • contribs)

Please keep in mind that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and that this particular article needs to stand the test of time as an overview of Canadian gun politics. Tempting as it might be in the moment, we shouldn't turn this article into a collection and commentary of recent and dramatic crimes that involved firearms. I don't see any reason to include a section on the Dawson College incident any more than the hundreds of other historic crimes committed in Canada that involved a firearm. Down the road, if this incident actually changes the politics of firearms, then we can cite it and include it in the article. For now, it's speculation and/or original research. --Ds13 23:37, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I've just reduced the Dawson College section to what I believe is relevant to an article about politics. i.e. very little, and no more than most incidents involving firearms, of which there are hundreds. All the details of the offender and the firearm are easily found through the main Dawson College shooting article and don't belong here. I still think having a section for this incident is a slippery slope though, so while this is an improvement, I am still in favor of removing the section altogether. --Ds13 02:46, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gun Registry

I am sorry but the neutrality is not in question here, it is clearly and absolutly a non-neutral article. It is best for everyone that no information be presented instead of blatently ussubstatiated and wrong information. Removing:

"The legislation was written primarily to avoid situations such as the Oka Crisis rather than irrational behaviour. Notice that the firearm used in the École Polytechnique Massacre (A Ruger Mini-14) is still non-restricted, yet all firearms used by the natives at Oka are now prohibited. The present law requires all firearms to be registered. The cost of the registry has soared from the original two million dollar cost promised by Allan Rock to nearly three billion dollars. This proved embarrassing for the Liberal Government and has led to increased calls for the registry's cancellation. The Liberal government of the day originally claimed that costs would be recovered through registration fees, however the Ministry later decided to waive the fees in an effort to increase compliance rates. This decision has somewhat contributed to the huge increase in the registry's cost; however, most of the costs of the scandal resulted from poor planning, impossible goals, and money being siphoned off to Liberal supporters as part of what came to be known as Adscam.[citation needed]"

Citation needed is an understatement here. The declaration that the registry is costing nearly $3 billion is unnerving. One article by the CBC has claimed that the over $1 billion figure was inacurate that that nearly $2 billion might be more reasonable when including money set aside to dun the registry for future years. I have never, anywhere outside of this wikipedia article, seen a reference to $3 billion. If the best that can be done to support this is a request that someone else finds a citations, I feel that that is to much on the side of heresay to be part of an encyclopedia. Mentioning the Oka crisis with no citation or sliver of evidence is the same. The subarticle Other is in much the same state.Pissedpat 07:16, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the the Dawson shooting article reflects tabloid reading material and is a standing insult to the contents of Wikipedia —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dumby1111 (talk • contribs) }

I am a rank novice at this and am hoping to find the best way of commenting on this article.

The historical review is well done. Much of the rest is seriously problematic.

To start with the last: the Canadian Coalition for Gun Control is not an "anti-gun advocacy organization" -- nor, in fact, is the National Firearms Association a "pro-gun advocacy organization". Neither organization advocates either for or agin firearms; that would be nonsensical, as being pro- or con- inanimate objects is hardly rational. The Canadian Coalition for Gun Control is exactly what it says it is, would could be summed up as "pro-gun control"; and the National Firearms Association ... well, one can look at its web site and see what it is, but it's hard to put in a nutshell without sounding biased, even if simply offering an accurate characterization ... might be best described as "opposed to most existing gun control".

"Critics say the majority of handguns used in crime are smuggled in from the United States thus banning handguns in Canada will make no difference to the supply." -- another case of they can say it all they want, but the assertion that a majority of handguns used in crime are smuggled appears to be false. The Toronto Police Service has data on this subject, for example.

"there is no registry of offenders who are prohibited from owning firearms or a requirement that they keep the government advised of their place of residence" -- this assertion also appears to be false. Police have access to information elsewhere than in the Firearms Registry. An individual on probation or parole will always have to report address changes. The CPIC and FPS systems provide the relevant information:

"The FPS/CPIC data bank provides police and criminal justice agencies with an up-to-date national inventory of offenders which is used by police agencies for law enforcement duties and by the courts for sentencing purposes. This data bank is the largest national offender-based data bank which is continuously updated on a daily basis. Once an indictable charge is laid against a person, their fingerprints and other information (number of charges, type of disposition) are submitted to FPS staff for entry into the CPIC system. ... The Department of Justice requested a download of FPS/CPIC data from the RCMP. The RCMP supplied a file inclusive of all 1991 firearms offences, which contained the following information: the offender's sex, date of birth, date of sentence, place of sentence, statute they were charged under, type of offence, prior/subsequent offences if applicable, and type of disposition for that specific offence and (any) other offences." http://www.cfc-cafc.gc.ca/pol-leg/res-eval/publications/1990-95/sec85_rpt_e.asp

"In Canada, gun control is more of a rural versus urban issue." -- looks like a case of correlation being represented as causation. The right/left split in Canada is also largely rural/urban. Do positions on firearms control result from rural/urban status, right/left political views, or neither? The fact is that left-voting western rural dwellers oppose firearms control -- but so do right-voting Ontario town/city dwellers.

"all provinces except Quebec have refused to prosecute people for these charges effectively nullifying the law for simple possession offenses" -- this is simply false. August 24, 2007 headline: "Ottawa man accused of stockpiling 30,000 rounds of ammunition ... a man accused of possessing 30 firearms ...". Police normally lay charges only when an offence comes to their attention, in this as in any other situation.

"access to and the use of firearms can differ between provinces" -- a blatantly unsubstantiated assertion.

"Referring to Bill C-68, John Dixon, a former advisor to Deputy Minister of Justice John C. Tait, stated that the Firearms Act was not public safety policy, but rather an election ploy by the Liberal party of Canada intended to help defeat Prime Minister Kim Campbell." -- and we care because ... and what does anybody else have to say about it??

Oops. That last one appears under "History of gun politics in Canada", so my opinion of that review is lower than I originally thought. That presentation of one uncited and irrelevant comment, supporting one political position, has no place in this section.

Quite a lot of stuff still needs to be removed from this paper. Certainly there needs to be information about various views on the subject. It needs to consist of quotations with citations, not selective and unsubstantiated assertions framed as what some people think. Iverglas 00:37, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

First, I'd like to thank you for checking over the article. It doesn't get much attention so a critical eye is always welcome. The issues you have presented are important and I think you have some good points.
Labels of the groups: They do appear to be mislabeled. Perhaps it would be better to go into more detail. The NFA has more than one purpose and other groups have more than one purpose so providing more detail on them might be prudent.
Smuggled %: Here's a preliminary source. [2] 70% smuggled, 30% stolen. Yeah, OK, it's a Toronto Sun editorial, but it's an indication that the actual stats are out there. Having the actual stats instead of just "critics say", "supporters say" would be a benefit.
No murderer registry: I've never liked that sentence either, it seems to be a straight-up POV problem.
Urban vs Rural: I don't think that statement speaks to causation. I think all it states is that a correlation exists. Unless gun control isn't more of a urban vs rural issue in Canada I don't see a problem with it.
Simple possession: The wording is 'simple possession'. That takes into account charges laid in connection to other crimes or gross violations of the law, as is the case with your example. Many people where I live have openly flaunted their violation of the law and have not been charged, nor have their firearms been confiscated. The RCMP have publicly (on video) refused to charge them. I can see that the wording of that sentence is a bit ambiguous though. Maybe enforcement is "spotty" rather than completely null.
Access differers between provinces: That phrase by itself could be false, but you have taken it out of context. The preceding text is the substantiation for that statement. As an example, the CFO of BC will only issue a inter-province ATT if the applicant is a member of IPSC. In Alberta, an inter-province ATT does not require IPSC. Of course, finding available sources for this is nigh impossible.
Other quotes: The quotes need to be balanced for sure.
Theres quite a lot of work to do to get this article into proper form. Perhaps we should develop a list of things that need to be done for this article. Nailedtooth 01:33, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Licensing

I would like to expand on the actual licensing process here in Canada. Info as to what kinds of tests you must take, what kinds of permits you require. The diferrent classifictions: prohibited, restricted and non-restricted firarms, etc. We are missing a lot of info here. Thoughs anyone??Cavell 05:14, 28 November 2006 (UTC) The prohibited class includes multiple sub-calsses: 12.2: Fully Automatic 12.3: Automatics Converted to be Semi-Automatic 12.4: Short-Barrel OIC (The guns in this class don't have prohibited qualities, they just look scary, RCMP were odered to raid any houses with these guns and confiscate them, but remember registration dosen't lead to confiscation) 12.5: Long-Barrel OIC (The guns in this class don't have prohibited qualities, they just look scary.) 12.6: Handguns in .25(?) or .32 caliber or with a barrel length under or equal to 4" 12.7: Inherited 12.6 Handguns Made before 1947 (Mostly Lugers)

Restricted is handguns or Long-Guns with an OAL length of under 26" or a BBL length of under 18.5" in the case of Semi's

Non-Restricted is anything that isn't Prohib or Restricted.

[edit] The answer?

Full on gun control is never the answer, some of the guns people own have sentimental value to them like they belonged to a loved one. if you take away guns completely the bad guys will still find ways to obtain them. How long will it take to realize this?

  • The talk page is only to be used to discuss changes to the article itself. Talk pages are not for general conversation or for someone to write their personal views. Please keep this in mind. Windscar77 11:47, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Simple -- leave it as it is

It's not possible to write a completely unbiased article on such a debatable subject; it would inevitably have a slant to either a conservative or to a "liberastic" point of view. I prefer it being as is, on the conservative side, -- and clearly, that's how the majority of the Canadian population feels (which is proven by the utter failure of the Gun registry project). The views of the vociferous (and somewhat extremist) gun-control minority should in no way be promulgated here. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dsizintsev (talk • contribs) 23:07, 15 January 2007 (UTC).

[edit] "Futility"

Removed this sentence for obvious POV: "The murder of four RCMP officers in Mayerthorpe, Alberta in 2005 and two RCMP officers in Spiritwood Saskatchewan in 2006, in both cases by well known violent police haters who liked firearms, has underscored the futility of the firearms registry and the Firearms Act itself." Using words like 'futility' are clearly POV. Blotto adrift 18:08, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Commentary"

Removed this section. It fits poorly with the flow of the article (such as it is) and consisted mainly of uncited statements. The single cited comment was added to the history section. Also, the name "commentary" suggests POV, as someone is providing commentary on the pervious history section. Gun politics in Australia provides a good template for this page. Blotto adrift 18:29, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Gun registry—results

I've changed the section titled "Other" to the above. I am also moving statements from Fantino and Mauser here"

"O.P.P. Commissioner Julian Fantino is opposed to the gun registry, stating in a press release:
We have an ongoing gun crisis including firearms-related homicides lately in Toronto, and a law registering firearms has neither deterred these crimes nor helped us solve any of them. None of the guns we know to have been used were registered, although we believe that more than half of them were smuggled into Canada from the United States. The firearms registry is long on philosophy and short on practical results considering the money could be more effectively used for security against terrorism as well as a host of other public safety initiatives."[1]
Gary Mauser, a member of the Fraser Institute and professor at Simon Fraser University in British Columbia, has stated:
The handguns being misused are illegal. Nobody thinks banning guns will stop violent crime, and there is no empirical support for gun controls working. [2]

For every such comment, I can find several to the contrary. For example:

"Because 50% of the firearms found in crime scenes can be traced back to their owners according to some estimates, making traceable is an important feature of the new system. Under the of old system, we didn't have any way of knowing what firearms there might have been with the exception of restricted weapons."
—Chief Cal Johnston, Regina Police Service and President of Saskatchewan Association of Chiefs of Police, Star Phoenix, June 17, 2000
"We will continue to defend this legislation because we are convinced that a national licensing and registration system with continuous eligibility checks and more detailed and accessible data will facilitate police work while enhancing public safety."
—Brian Ford, Ottawa-Carleton Regional Police Chief and Secretary Treasurer, Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, Toronto Star, July 26, 1999
"Registering handguns in Canada over the past 60 years has clearly paid off. The United States serves as a constant reminder of what happens when a government fails to make that investment."
—Arn Snyder, Canadian Criminal Justice Association, Ottawa Citizen, July 31, 1999

In order to produce an article that meets WP:NPOV, what is needed is a well-written summary of the views on both sides. One or two quotes such as the above could be used, provided that both sides of the argument are presented fairly. Sunray 02:02, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of clean-up tag

I didn't really agree with placement of the tag back in September 2006, but as I was away from WP, for several months didn't comment. Since then, there have been many improvements. While the article isn't perfect, I think we can safely remove the clean-up tag. Tags are a barrier to the reader, and are only meant for short term situations. Sunray 01:55, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Provincial versus federal

There's a lot of speculation about the role of provincial courts in this article -- the contributor seems confused about the role of the provincial governments in the enforcement of gun regulations. As a general rule, if it's a federal regulation, the federal courts do the enforcement. Provinces don't have a specific role in enforcing the gun registry laws -- the police do. I've removed one sentence and tagged the rest. Unless someone can come up with corroborating references, this stuff is living on borrowed time. In general, the article is poorly referenced and has the taint of bias. I can see why it was tagged for cleanup in the first place. --Rhombus 07:32, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Law enforcement and policing are provincial matters. I cannot see anything wrong with the wording as it is. I do agree that it needs citations. With regard to the "clean-up" tag, the article has been vastly improved since September 2006 (when the tag was placed on the article). There are still sections that need work, however the lead and history sections of the article are relatively well-written (and referenced). Sunray 07:46, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Auditor General's Report

The article says:

"The Auditor General's report also found that there is a lack of evidence to support the effectiveness of the gun registry, or to prove that it is meeting its stated goal of improving public safety. The report states:

"The performance report focuses on activities such as issuing licences and registering firearms. The Centre does not show how these activities help minimize risks to public safety with evidence-based outcomes such as reduced deaths, injuries and threats from firearms."

I think this part could be worded better. The Auditor General is noting that the Centre does not report on the effectiveness of the program as part of its annual performance report, and presumably wants the Centre to include this information in future reports. The section in the article could be interpreted that the Auditor General stated that there was no evidence that the program was meeting its objectives.

The Auditor General's role is not to comment on public policy, but rather its implimentation. Whether or not evidence of the effectiveness of the program could be found elsewhere would be outside the scope of her audit. So the Auditor's criticism is of the Centre, not of the policy of the long gun registry.

Also, since the article is about "politics" it might be helpful to mention the views of different political parties regarding the implimentation and continuation of the program. It seems that the original policy was a cynical wedge issue, but not between Liberals and the Reform Party, but between Liberals and the other three moderate parties: Progressive Conservatives, New Democrats and Bloc Quebecois. The Four Deuces (talk) 19:04, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

She may be criticizing the Center for not providing information on the registries effectiveness however, I don't think it changes the argument much. She's still saying the body set up to administer the long gun registry cannot provide quantitative evidence for the program's effectiveness. Technically, no, she's not saying there's no evidence. She's simply saying that the body most intimately involved with the long gun registry can't or won't present evidence to justify it's own existence.
Making that kind of distinction about her intention changes the nature of her statement but it really doesn't stop it from being a criticism of the program.
In any case, I agree that rewrites are in order. Nailedtooth (talk) 08:27, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Violent crime, suicide and accidents in Canada

Koby2 has revised this section with additional statistics on average suicide rates, average firearm suicide rates and accidental shooting rates. This is all information from Statistics Canada and he provides citations. However, my reaction is that the numbers overwhelm the text in that section to make it less readable. In the interests of avoiding an edit war, I would like to discuss it here. Please respect the groundrules specified in the talkheader at the top of the page and bear in mind that editorial decisions are made by consensus. Sunray (talk) 14:01, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Lee-Enfield

Why would the Lee-Enfield be exempted by name from the magazine capacity limit on semi-automatic centerfire rifles, when it's a bolt-action rifle? 71.203.209.0 (talk) 08:13, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

The magazines are exempted since they fit some LE semi-autos, but were designed for and used overwhelmingly in LE bolt action rifles.Nailedtooth (talk) 23:06, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Legality of suppressors

Researching something for the suppressor article, I've been able to verify that importing a suppressor into Canada is prohibited. (http://www.cbsa-asfc.gc.ca/publications/pub/bsf5044-eng.html) What about use, possession, sale, transfer, and any grandfathered status of these devices? I've seen many unreliable sources talk about vague law(s) surrounding devices designed to reduce the report of a firearm... can someone point me at an actual regulation (vague or otherwise) from a government source? Thanks! --Ds13 (talk) 18:24, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Here's the criminal code of Canada. http://198.103.98.49/en/showdoc/cs/C-46/bo-ga:l_III//en#anchorbo-ga:l_III . Part III: FIREARMS AND OTHER WEAPONS. "prohibited device" means (c) a device or contrivance designed or intended to muffle or stop the sound or report of a firearm.
Now, it's of some note that 'prohibited devices' are not illegal, just given 'prohibited' status. With the correct license they are legal to possess. Good luck getting one. Nailedtooth (talk) 21:41, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Great, that's the sort of thing I was looking for. Agreed, about the distinction between prohibited and illegal. Thanks. --Ds13 (talk) 22:36, 11 June 2008 (UTC)