FRT Recordkeeping Regs Repealed - But Why Might (Actually) Surprise You

On December 16th, the Liberal Party authored a new Order in Council that was then published in the Canada Gazette on January 1st, 2025, entitled “Regulations Repealing the Firearms Records Regulations (Classification): SOR/2024-276.”

This order repeals SOR/2014-198; a firearms regulation created in 2014 when then-Minister of Public Safety Steven Blaney, serving in PM Stephen Harper’s Cabinet, sought to rectify issues raised by the reclassification of the Swiss Arms and CZ-858 Tactical 2P and 4P rifles by the RCMP on March 14th of that year.

The reclassification fiasco of 2014

Early in 2014, the RCMP announced they would be amending the Firearms Reference Table (FRT) entries for all Swiss Arms rifles, and specific models of the CZ-858 rifle to reflect their newly-held opinion that both formerly non-restricted rifles were in fact prohibited: The Swiss Arms being considered a variant of an existing prohibited firearm, and the CZ-858 Tactical 2P and 4P models on account of being built from receivers that were originally manufactured as fully automatic rifles that were then welded up during the manufacturing process to limit their function to semi-automatic - hereby running afoul of Criminal Code 84(1) that defines a prohibited firearm as “an automatic firearm, whether or not it has been altered to discharge only one projectile with one pressure of the trigger,” among other things.

Obviously, this was a controversial decision, mainly owing to both rifles’ longstanding status as non-restricted firearms. With many businesses and individuals having bought, sold, and used the rifles for years without issue, the news that the RCMP was, or even could, unilaterally determine formerly non-restricted firearms to be prohibited left many feeling frustrated, and among stakeholders especially, brought a long-simmering sense of resentment with the RCMP’s FRT division to a head.

Because at the time, the FRT itself was not publicly available, and stakeholders felt that the process of classification had become too opaque and that the RCMP was abusing the classification system. Importers and manufacturers often waited years for a classification decision only to receive decisions that made little to no sense, and being afforded no explanation whatsoever, were frequently told that the justification for the decision could not be divulged for reasons of public safety, nor could it be challenged in any way.

Government vs. the RCMP

In response to the outrage from stakeholders in the firearms community, Minister Blaney’s response was largely twofold: The creation of the Common Sense Firearms Licensing Act (C-42) and SOR/2014-198. The former provided a definition for “non-restricted firearm” that granted the Minister of Public Safety the ability to deem a firearm as non-restricted by regulation, providing a remedy that would allow both rifles in question to be named as non-restricted firearms in a binding manner that put them out of the reach of the RCMP’s firearms technicians, and beyond the scope of the Criminal Code’s definition of prohibited firearms.

The latter, SOR/2014-198 sought to provide industry with stability and the RCMP’s FRT department with accountability by requiring the RCMP keep and maintain all records pertaining to classification decisions and prohibited the alteration or amendment of those records one year after their publication. Bluntly, this regulation required that an FRT record needed to be maintained, could not be deleted, and could not be altered after a year had elapsed.

And it is this regulation, SOR/2014-198, that was repealed last month.

So, why repeal SOR/2014-198?

In 2017, concerns that themselves dated back to the regulations’ introduction were brought to the attention of the Standing Joint Committee for the Scrutiny of Regulations (also known as REGS). In plain language, the issue was simple: By prohibiting the Registrar (RCMP) from amending classification records in the FRT, the regulations sought to supersede the Criminal Code; something that obviously exceeds the Registrar’s authority.

If that’s a little hard to follow, consider this salient example: If these regulations were in place when the CZ858 Tactical 2P was initially classified as a non-restricted rifle, the RCMP would not have been able to reclassify it within the FRT, even upon learning it met the Criminal Code definition of a prohibited firearm. In effect, SOR/2014-198 would force the RCMP to allow a prohibited firearm to remain non-restricted within the FRT, but in contravention of the Criminal Code - something that the RCMP, as the Registrar, do not have the authority to do.

As it was put by the Committee’s General Counsel Cynthia Kirkby; “If it is the intent of the regulations that the determination kept in a record could somehow overrule the Criminal Code itself, then much stronger enabling authority is required than the power related to recordkeeping.”

A 7-year Process

In response to REGS’ queries on the subject, Public Safety provided no clarification on the question of authority around the regulations. It simply demurred that they intended to repeal the regulations, and thus any concerns about their authority would die with the regulations.

However, REGS would spend the next seven(!) years discussing these regulations, with Public Safety repeatedly expressing a desire to repeal them but seemingly forgetting to at every possible turn; initially stating that they intended to repeal them with a clause in Bill C-71, then again with a clause in Bill C-21 (the first one), and then again with Bill C-21 Part Deux before the committee appears to have grown frustrated. Again, General Counsel for the Committee, Cynthia Kirkby opened discussion in REGS around SOR/2014-198 in February of 2019 thusly:

“The issue raised in 2014 is that either these regulations create a record-keeping requirement that has little consequence, or their intended effect exceeds by far the scope of the authority relied upon. Public Safety Canada has never provided an explanation that attempts to reconcile the gap between what the enabling act authorizes and what the regulations are purported to accomplish. As the chronology in the note describes, there has been a history on this file of the department failing to reply to correspondence and of the department delaying action on these regulations as it conducts broader policy work.”

One member put it more succinctly: “Hit your alarm, it’s Groundhog Day again. This is like Punxsutawney Phil coming back to haunt this committee.”

However, after seemingly endless delays and ignored correspondence, on May 27th, 2024, the committee demanded the regulations be repealed by December 31, 2024 under the threat of disallowance, and it appears that it was this deadline that this latest Order in Council served to meet.

Conclusions - Mostly, not not all bad news

So, does this enable more gun bans in the future? In a word: Yes. By repealing this regulation, the FRT is once again able to be amended unilaterally by the RCMP just as it was in 2014 when the CZ858 and Swiss Arms rifles were reclassified.

Perhaps even more concerning is also that in the earliest discussions around SOR/2014-198 within the REGS committee, the government’s lawyers who took issue with the regulation’s authority noted that what the regulations sought to do was otherwise made possible by the aforementioned clause in Bill C-42, which gave the Governer-in-Council the ability to determine a firearm to be non-restricted by name - and that doing so did not invoke the same questions around authority as the regulations around recordkeeping would have.

But Bill C-71 repealed that particular component of C-42, meaning that in very real terms, with the recordkeeping regulations now repealed, firearm classification is right back to where it was in 2014; with the RCMP able to reclassify firearms through the FRT, with no recourse or remedy available to those impacted through our elected representatives.

However, while it does allow for the prohibition of firearms through an avenue gun owners haven’t had to worry about for over a decade, none of this is to say that the repealing of these regulations necessarily signals an appetite for additional prohibitions through FRT. On the contrary, with seven years’ worth of well-reasoned legal arguments in favour of repealing the regulations and unanimous support from every member of the committee (including many members of the CPC over the course of those seven years), it does indeed appear to be a regulatory correction, rather than indicating any nefarious intent.

Moreover, from a broader political perspective, this government has repeatedly gone to great lengths to ensure every gun ban they’ve instituted is both extremely public and very much a product of the Liberal Party’s governance, likely to accrue as much political capital and create the largest wedge issue possible. An RCMP-led ban conducted via FRT does not advance any of those goals and would likely invite further allegations of mismanagement of the gun file into a government that, for all intents and purposes, appears to be quickly reaching its expiration date.

Public Safety Minister indicates new long gun ban OIC "in coming days"

Yesterday, in response to a question from Bloc MP Kristina Michaud, Minister of Public Safety Dominic LeBlanc testified before the Standing Committee on Public Safety (SECU) that the government intends to issue another OIC prohibiting yet more long guns “in the coming days.”

Prefacing her question by citing the pending 35th anniversary of the tragic massacre that occurred at Polytechnique on December 6, 1989, Michaud then went on to repeat a line of inquiry often put forward by anti-gun lobbyists Polysesouvient; stating that although the government banned 1,500 firearms on May 1, 2020 (a number that has since eclipsed 2,000 as a result of ongoing prohibitions by FRT) there remain hundreds of “similiar firearms” that are not banned, and that unless those firearms are also prohibited, gun owners will simply take the compensation the government provides them in exchange for their prohibited firearms and purchase one of these similiar, but non-restricted firearms - rendering the entire program moot. She then closed, asking LeBlanc “can we expect a total ban of assault-style firearms before implementation of this program?”

LeBlanc’s circuitous response was to the affirmative; saying that yes, a new OIC is going to be presented in the coming days with a “final list of prohibited weapons” that will prevent the situation Michaud laid out and prevent gun owners from being able to buy a “modern version” of their prohibited firearm. He specifically referred to a “gap list,” presumably indicating the existence of a new list of firearms the government believes it failed to prohibit initially, and so it appears the government intends to expand the list of prohibited long guns significantly, and imminently - likely in conjunction with the upcoming anniversary of the Polytechnique mass murder.

LeBlanc also mentioned the existence of a “task force” that will work with the RCMP to achieve this objective, and that this “technical team” has had numerous meetings, with the most recent one occurring just last week. This is noteworthy both because it indicates that the government has abandoned its commitment to reconvening the Canadian Firearms Advisory Committee, instead preferring to use a murky, entirely non-transparent “task force” to produce the so-called “gap list.” Additionally, the comment that this team “works with the RCMP” would seem to indicate that they do no work for the RCMP - meaning it is not comprised of members of the RCMP’s Firearms Program.

More on this developing story as it unfolds.

Total Spending On Long Gun Ban Will Exceed $100M This Fiscal Year

The amount of money allocated by Public Safety for the Liberals’ long gun ban announced four years ago has increased again, according to Public Safety’s most recent financial report, and means the combined total spent by Public Safety and the RCMP on the ban since its inception will eclipse $100M this fiscal year. It has not yet confiscated a single firearm.

Having originally been provided with $30.4M over two years by Budget 2024 “for the buyback of assault-style firearms,” Public Safety’s most recent Quarterly Financial Report for the period ending June 30th indicates that the department is now earmarking $36.9M for the program this fiscal year: $23.2M in operating expenses for the Assault Style Firearms Compensation Program (ASFCP), and $13.7M for new funding delivered through grants and contributions “to complete the collection and destruction of business owned assault style firearms and to establish a compensation program.”

Additionally, Budget 2024’s allocation of $30.4M stated that funding would be “sourced from existing departmental resources,” however, the financial report identifies the $23.2M in operating expenses incurred by the Assault Style Firearms Compensation Program (ASFCP) as the largest contributor to a 21.9% increase in Public Safety’s operating costs year-over-year, with the ASFCP now constituting 9.6% of Public Safety’s annual operating budget. Additionally, the $13.7M provided for grants and contributions to action Phase 1 of the gun ban is explicitly referred to as “new funding.”

Ban’s Total Budgeted Cost Eclipses $100M

A recent Order Paper question tabled by Ontario MP Larry Brock revealed that Public Safety had spent $51.6M on the ban from 2021 to 2023, which brings their total projected spending on the ban to at least $88.5M by the time the government’s fiscal year ends next March. However, that total may grow again, if Public Safety felt the need to increase the program’s funding after the period reflected by the quarterly report. It also does not include the amount spent by Public Safety during the 11-month period between the ban’s introduction on May 1, 2020 and the following April 1st, 2021. But for context, Public Safety reports having spent $12.5M and $12M on the ban in the 2021 and 2022 fiscal years, respectively.

Additionally, that same Order Paper question revealed that the RCMP have spent $13.4M on the ban thus far, meaning the combined known cost of the ban will surpass $100M sometime between now and next March, when it is projected to reach $101.9M - and it’s entirely possible that figure will be surpassed, or perhaps already has been, given the full scope of the RCMP’s financial commitment to the ban for 2024/2025 is not known, and Public Safety’s inability to report on what introducing the ban cost.

54 Months Later, Ban Still Plagued With Delays

Public Safety’s 2024/2025 Departmental Plan laid out the ministry’s intent to “continue work towards the launch of the Firearms Compensation Program (FCP) for businesses,” eventually indicating that it hoped to begin the confiscation of firearms from businesses in the Fall of 2024. Questioned about this in a press conference on September 25th, Minister of Public Safety Dominic Leblanc claimed the program was “on track,” and that the confiscation of firearms from businesses would begin no later than November 8. To this end, on October 16th, the government introduced an order-in-council allowing Canada Post to handle and store these prohibited firearms deemed too dangerous for even firearms businesses to retain, but as of now, the confiscation / compensation program remains unintroduced and unavailable to both business owners and individuals.

Moreover, with the government’s chosen shipping company for the business portion of the confiscation being served a strike notice by their unionized labour force, even if introduced, this first phase of the so-called “buyback” may stall if postal workers walk off the job later this month.

Finally, the confiscation of firearms from individuals was entirely omitted from the 2024/2025 departmental plan, meaning the much larger and more complicated task of seizing firearms from licensed gun owners and issuing compensation was never projected to begin before the end of this fiscal year. It is expected to come after the confiscation of firearms from businesses begins, but due to obvious logistical issues (Canada Post, for example, has refused to handle firearms being confiscated from individuals, citing concerns over staff safety), will likely look almost entirely different from the portion of the program targeting businesses. Lastly, anyone possessing these firearms is protected from being criminally charged for owning them until October 30th, 2025 - just days after the next fixed election date.

All For Naught

Over the same span of time as all this has occurred, Public Safety has not just been failing to achieve its own goals with regard to crime prevention and community safety, it’s been falling further behind in some of the most important metrics year-over-year. According to Public Safety’s own reporting, the Crime Severity Index has risen from 73.96 in 2021, to 74.9 in 2022, before jumping considerably to 78.1 in 2023 - getting farther and farther from Public Safety’s goal of 70.1. The crime rate, similarly, has gone from 5,301 to 5,375 to 5,625 - again, farther from the department’s stated goal of getting the crime rate below 5,200. The only metric by which Public Safety is actually achieving its goal in the name of “Canadian communities are safe” is the percent of homicides categorized as firearm-related, where 2023’s result of 39.2% satisfies Public Safety’s goal of maintaining a rate less than 40%. However, it’s going in the wrong direction: 36.6% of homicides were gun-related in 2021 and 37.7% in 2022.

More mystifying is that while Public Safety states that Statistics Canada provides these indicators, none of the figures reported by Public Safety match those available from Statistics Canada, and generally seem to understate the reality. According to Statistics Canada, the Crime Severity Index was 74.87 in 2021, 78.76 in 2022, and 80.45 in 2023. Likewise, the crime rates reported directly by Statistics Canada are dramatically higher; 5,921 in 2021, 6,229 in 2022, and 6,302 in 2023. The percentage of homicides committed by shooting seems entirely disconnected from Public Safety’s reporting, at 37.3, 38.8, and 37.1. These discrepancies perhaps give some insight as to why Public Safety also reports a reduction in the “percentage of stakeholders who report consulting Public Safety research or policy documents to inform their decision making” from 91% in 2021 to 70% in 2023.

In 2019, an unredacted report from the Department of Justice indicated that an “assault-style firearms buyback” would likely cost $1.8 billion dollars between administration and compensation. Today, that would equate to $2.1 billion, which is still lower than the $4-6 billion estimated by some - and all are dramatically more than the premature and overly simplistic $300-400 million figure put forth by Bill Blair; a figure that now looks comically low, given the program is poised to have consumed $100 million without seizing a single firearm.

BC NDP Misleads Public on Firearms, Owners

Late last month, in the lead-up to British Columbia’s provincial election on October 19th, John Rustad stated that his Conservative Party of BC, if allowed to form government, would follow in the footsteps of various other provincial governments and refuse to dedicate provincial resources to the fulfillment of Justin Trudeau’s firearms bans; specifically the May 2020 OIC-instituted ban on 2000+ varieties of long gun, and the ban on handguns dating back to 2022 and more recently codified into law with the passage of the Liberals’ Bill C-21.

In the days since, David Eby and his BC NDP have hugely embellished this statement, claiming “Rustad's refusal to enforce bans on handguns and semi-automatic weapons would put people at greater risk,” and “under a John Rustad government, abusers, gang members, and traffickers would be allowed to carry assault weapons unchecked.”

This statement is, as all licensed gun owners know, absolutely untrue.

This claim is nothing more than a cheap attempt to leverage misinformation to sow fear among the electorate. Eby’s allegation that Rustad’s unwillingness to allocate a budget for the confiscation of licensed firearms will result in violent criminals being “allowed to carry assault weapons unchecked” conflates legal gun ownership with violent crime to an offensive degree and does so at a time when too many British Columbians have been made abundantly aware of how thin the province’s police resources are stretched.

In a recent press conference, Eby stated that Rustad’s unwillingness to spend taxpayer dollars confiscating guns owned by licensed owners would culminate in the importation of “lax, US-style handgun and semi-automatic gun rules that make us all less safe,” communicated from behind a banner that stated “stop illegal guns.” The event where this occurred was covered by the Canadian Press, which provided it with the headline “Eby supports police on guns and gangs, flanked by four law enforcement candidates.”

These comments will likely (and should) offend BC’s gun owners. Eby’s allegation that allowing British Columbians to retain firearms they’re licensed to possess is somehow analogous to gang members carrying them is, in a word, nothing short of slanderous. Licensed gun owners are among the least likely to commit crimes and their ability to retain the possession of handguns and semi-automatic firearms they bought legally does not constitute a risk to Canadian public safety.

Finally, that these claims emanate from a party whose leader is a lawyer, a former Attorney General, and once served as a professional spokesperson for civil liberties indicates that they are not the product of ignorance. Rather, it indicates the alternative: That the BC NDP has a clear, intentional, and repeated desire to incite a fear of firearms, and the nearly 400,000 British Columbians who own them.

Vote accordingly.

Editor’s note: We requested a comment from the BC NDP over 24 hours ago, asking “if the NDP would like to clarify their position to the nearly 400,000 legal firearms owners in the province who may feel as if your party views them as analogous to violent criminals.” We did not receive a response.

Casio G-Shock GBD-200: The Almost Smartwatch

We’ll cut right to the chase and lead off with the absolute best part of the GBD200: It’s not a smartwatch, but it’s not a dumb one either. Sporting a modern Bluetooth connection and a reasonably reliable smartphone app, the GBD200 has the ability to alert the wearer to all manner of phone notifications without the somewhat distracting feature of also displaying those notifications nor the requirement that it be charged nightly. To clarify, while there is a menu through which you can use the GBD200 to read messages, it’s not a primary function - in fact, it’s pretty onerous, to be honest. Rather, when messages or phone calls come in, the watch can beep, vibrate or do nothing (depending on your notification settings selected in the app), while a simple message appears on the screen; usually taking the form of the app name that’s sending the notification (Instagram, Facebook, etc) and the sender’s name when applicable. After a brief period, the notification disappears and is added to the notification counter in the top left.

This lets it bridge the gap between a conventional smartwatch that all but mirrors your phone screen on your wrist, and a traditional digital watch; providing some of the benefit of a smartwatch without the intrusiveness. In my case, that takes the specific form of having set the watch to vibrate for incoming calls, and remain muted for all others. It’s a perfect balance.

MIP Screen Means No Recharging

The other advantage over a conventional smartwatch is the GBD’s unique display. Referred to as a “memory-in-pixel,” or MIP display, this sort of digital readout differs from a conventional LCD display in that the individual pixels do not consume power unless they are actively changing from shaded to unshaded, and once shifted, revert back to not requiring power. Obviously, for a watch, where the majority of the pixels remain static for minutes, hours, or days at a time, this provides a massive boost in battery life and so the GBD200 boasts an estimated battery life of 2-years on a single CR2032 cell. That compares very favourably against conventional smartwatches that almost all require recharging in a matter of days.

Of course, the downside is that it’s a black and white display and obviously lacking in the vibrancy of the high-resolution TFT displays on most smartwatches. But when compared to standard LCD displays it actually ranks quite high in terms of visibility. For example, compared to a digital watch with a similarly “negative” conventional LCD display (where the background is black and the digits appear brighter, as opposed to a “positive” display where the background is lighter than the digits being displayed), the MIP display is noticeably more legible in all conditions and the backlight is exceptional, being both brighter and more uniform across the display. Overall, it almost has the same quality as an e-book display, being somehow flatter and crisper than the average LCD, but being both higher resolution and faster to refresh than the average e-ink display by a large margin.

Fitness Tracker

In addition to being a sorta-smartwatch for those of us that don’t like smartwatches, the GBD200 is actually marketed as a fitness watch, on account of it having both a step tracking function and a pretty reasonable workout/activity tracker. And again, it does so in a very intelligent way intended to prevent unnecessary power consumption: When paired with your phone and permitted access to GPS, the smartphone app and an accelerometer in the watch will basically work out how the movement of your arm correlates to distance traveller - or rather, what your stride is. In essence, it compares the accelerometer inputs with the GPS data, so as to provide accurate data on steps taken, distance travelled, time and speed.

The coolest part is that as it learns your gait, it can end up becoming quite accurate without the phone’s GPS connection; relying on just the watch’s accelerometer inputs to come up with an accurate activity log. And if you do go for a hike or jog without your phone, at the next available opportunity the watch will transfer the data recorded to the app, which of course has a whole host of additional fitness features beyond the watch’s simple step tracker or activity recording displays. Calorie counting, activity plans, data logs, distance goals; it’s all there. Of course, for someone like myself, the simple step-tracking display on the watch is enough to remind me of my too-sedentary lifestyle. But, if you’re planning on wandering through the woods this fall, it’s certainly more than capable of giving you plenty of feedback as to how far!

Unfortunately though, for the outdoorsman, it doesn’t include a few features we’d love to see. First and foremost would obviously be solar charging to stave off battery changes entirely, but simply put, without becoming a much larger watch to allow for the installation of a solar cell that’s an impossibility - and much of the GBD200’s appeal is its relatively small size.

Additionally, it’d be great if the GBD featured a sunrise/sunset display, and perhaps a moon phase and tide display. Any digital calendar can produce an accurate moon phase calendar, and moreover, all of these are offered as features on the GBD’s surfing-market cousin, the GBX100. Functionally and physically nearly identical with the solitary differences being a metal bezel insert, a heavier-duty strap, and the addition of the tide table/moon-phase display, the GBX generally runs about $50 more though, so perhaps that price differential explains why those features were left off the GBD. Bit of a bummer, nonetheless.

Conclusions

In daily use, the GBD200 is quite simply excellent, on account of being possibly the most comfortable G-Shock on the market with a softer and more breathable strap than most and a relatively slim, cuff-friendly case, combined with a feature set that makes it among the most broadly useful. Add to that the display has the low profile of a negative display without the legibility issues, and you’d have a winner already. Add the smartphone connection, vibration alarm, and fitness tracking features, and with a retail price of $200 it feels like an absolute bargain. And of course, short of doing something you really wouldn’t want to put your arm through, you will not kill it; it’s subjected to all the same extreme durability testing that all G-Shocks are which means it’s among the most indestructible watches on the market. If you lead an active lifestyle and want something to help you track that activity with minimal intrusion and maximum durability, this may be the ticket.

Saskatchewan Passes Motion Seeking Control of Firearms Regulation

The Saskatchewan legislature unanimously supported the passage of a motion that "calls upon the Government of Canada to devolve all relevant parts of The Firearms Act to the province of Saskatchewan in order to allow it to administer and regulate legal firearms possession." If permitted, this would make the Province of Saskatchewan broadly responsible for the application and administration of the Firearms Act within provincial boundaries.

Tabled by Carrot River MLA Fred Bradshaw, the motion was tabled in response to widespread provincial opposition to the federal Liberal Party of Canada's Bill C-21, which the Saskatchewan Party's caucus press release identifies as nullifying the value of legally owned handguns "despite the fact that most handgun crime is committed using illegally trafficked and acquired handguns." Now having been passed, it will require a response from the federal government and will likely add fuel to an already acrimonious relationship that seems to be forming between Saskatchewan's provincial government, headed up by Scott Moe, and the Trudeau government.

The press release also stated that the Government of Saskatchewan will not "stand idly by as the federal government brands thousands of law-abiding citizens as criminals," but expressed support for measures that actually work to interdict and prevent criminal use of firearms and improve public safety.

Saskatchewan had previously passed firearms legislation that required anyone involved in the confiscation of firearms to possess a Saskatchewan firearms licence - an evident and effective measure to subvert the Liberals' banning of long guns that largely began in May of 2020 by way of Order in Council.

We have reached out to the Government of Saskatchewan for more information and will update this space as we learn more.

Long Gun Ban: Canada Post Refuses To Handle Confiscated Gun Shipments

Canada Post is refusing to handle shipments of confiscated firearms, according to a letter the postal service has written to the federal government.

Leaked, partially, by federal sources who are not authorized to speak on the matter publicly, the letter cited concerns over "employee security," with "one key source of concern" being the potential for conflict between postal workers and gun owners. From this language, it can be assumed that other concerns were presented as well, and likely included concerns about the obvious potential criminal threat posed by theft and robbery from criminal elements to concerns around internal policy issues or theft that may compromise the integrity of the postal system, or gun confiscation itself.

The plan presented to the federal government by contractor IBM, in response to the May 1st, 2020 Order in Council banning some 1,500+ varieties of long gun, involved gun owners applying for confiscation and compensation through an online portal, prior to receiving a government-issued box via Canada Post, into which the firearm for confiscation would be secured and shipped to the Firearms Program for evaluation, valuation, and eventual destruction.

Gun owners were quick to identify issues with this plan, ranging from the lengthy chain of custody of prohibited firearms for which the owner would likely be liable to the use of identifiable standardized boxes as potential risks, and it would be reasonable to assume Canada Post has alighted on at least some of the same issues - especially given the mail carrier's recent increase in firearms shipment regulations, which include policies around ensuring firearms are shipped in "anonymous packaging."

Government officials maintain that Canada Post is the most efficient and cost-effective way to "recover" newly prohibited firearms, and is reportedly still in talks with the Crown corporation, with a supposed compromise being sought around Canada Post "transport the weapons without taking charge of receiving them." Federal sources also said, "It's a challenge, but we do not think this jeopardizes our timetable or the government's desire to move forward," which may be interpreted as meaning such a compromise is likely - or, perhaps, that the government is being realistic about their ability to action this plan before the next election.

Editorial Note:

The only potential concern for gun owners around this news is the seemingly selective nature of the alleged "leak." As can be seen in the CBC coverage linked above, direct quotes were provided by the sources, but only one cause for Canada Post's security concerns was - and it just so happens to be both the least realistic security concern, and the one that paints gun owners in the worst light.

Every gun owner who participates in the confiscation will be likely doing so voluntarily; an amnesty currently protects owners of "newly prohibited firearms" from being charged and will likely be extended until the program is terminated - the Ministry of Justice will likely demand it, Public Safety has intimated the confiscation program for individuals will not occur until at least 2025, and the next election is slated to be within 10 days of the current amnesty expiring - all reasons for it to be extended. That is all to say that it's hard to envision gun owners voluntarily taking part in a confiscation/compensation program representing much risk of conflict to Canada Post employees facilitating that.

Conversely, the threat to Canada Post facilities and staff by criminals who will target both seems like a more realistic and obvious concern, leading one to wonder why this very specific concern centred around potential conflict with gun owners was highlighted as the solitary example provided by these unnamed "federal sources."

Henry Survival Rifle: The AR-7 Today

At the time of writing, most Canadians’ AR-platform rifles are still on the chopping block, thanks to the Liberal government’s Order in Council. But, there is one AR left out there that you can still buy. It’s non-restricted, even, and has a cool quasi-military backstory. And it’s super-affordable to shoot.

I’m talking about the AR-7 survival rifle, currently sold by Henry Repeating Arms as the U.S. Survival AR-7. Designed by Eugene Stoner himself in 1959, when he worked for ArmaLite, this gun has an interesting history, and it’s fun to shoot.

I’ve been fascinated by these little .22s ever since I was a kid, when I first saw them in the King Sol’s Army-Navy surplus catalog. The old black-and-white drawings inspired daydreams of a life as a pith-hatted jungle explorer, fighting off jaguars with my trusty semi-auto. When I got my PAL much later in life, my dreams of an Indiana Jones existence were long-gone, but I was still curious about the rifle and bought one about a decade ago.

The first AR-7 I bought was built by Henry, one of the company’s early-production models after buying the production rights from Charter Arms (who manufactured the rifle after ArmaLite’s production run). It was inaccurate, and it jammed a lot--basically all the things that I was warned about. Eventually, I moved it on.

And yet, it was a fun rifle to shoot. After reading much about Henry’s mid-production re-design of the rifle, I decided it was worth the gamble to give the U.S. Survival AR-7 one more try. Turns out it was a good idea, as the Henry re-design makes it a much more workable firearm.

Ch-ch-ch- changes

When Henry purchased the AR-7 production rights from Charter Arms, it didn’t purchase any machinery. Henry said it wanted to make significant changes to the design, so it started from the ground up, building new tooling for the manufacturing process. In other words, the original Henry design had some big differences from the Charter Arms version.

The mid-production redesign does the same thing again, and several of those changes were immediately noticeable as I assembled the rifle.

The latest AR-7 design is basically the same as the original ArmaLite version. The barrel, action, and magazines store inside the ABS stock. To fire the rifle, you pop the buttpad off the stock, remove the components and assemble them.

Right away, I noticed the new version’s buttpad fits the rifle very tightly (at least, it does so when new), but it’s more flimsy than the previous version. It also appears to be less leakproof, although I never float-tested my old-production version to do a proper comparison. Given the common idea that “these rifles were made to float,” that might be a problem for some. Personally, I think that’s silly; these rifles would sink like a stone if they fell out of a canoe in a backpack, where they’d likely be stored anyway. Still, this could be a factor for some buyers.

Henry itself says the stock is actually beefier now, less prone to breakage than earlier design. It does seem more solid, but I didn’t beat it against a fencepost to find out for sure.

On to the other changes. There’s a new plastic, high-viz orange front sight. The old dovetail scope rail is replaced by … a dovetail scope rail that’s notched, to look like a Picatinny rail. I’m baffled as to why there’s a scope rail on this rifle at all, as you can’t stow a scope rifle inside the buttstock, which surely is the main reason to buy this in the first place? So, while it’s unfortunate to see Henry still doesn’t have a real Picatinny rail here, I don’t think it matters.

Henry also made some tweaks to the magazine design, to improve feeding, and put a slot in the bolt, allowing the handle to be removed via a hole on the side of the receiver. Previously, users had to disassemble the rifle’s sideplate to remove the bolt, and there were many complaints that it caused a jumbled mess. This isn’t the case anymore.

And finally, maybe the most important change: There’s a stud on the top of the barrel that slides into a notch on the front of the receiver, to make sure the barrel is aligned properly with the receiver. On my old Henry, that stud was made of plastic, and it wore down over time. That would have created accuracy problems in the long term. On the new Henry rifle, that barrel location stud is made from metal, so it won’t wear out.

How does it shoot?

The older AR-7s mostly had a reputation for inaccuracy, but I’d heard the newer version was better. After some range time, I’d have to say the rumours are true. This newer model is definitely a better shooter than the older Henry I owned.

I think the problem many shooters have with the AR-7 is, it looks like it should be an accurate rifle. That free-floated barrel combined with semi-tactical looks implies a capability that isn’t there.

But, the AR-7 was never designed to be a tack driver. Eugene Stoner built a rifle for air crash survivors to hunt for food, and the AR-7 will do that job just fine.

During one range visit, I ran a test of seven commonly-available .22lr loads. Generally speaking, the round-nosed lead bullet loads shot the best, and the faster rounds cycled the action best. Henry recommends use of high-velocity or hyper-velocity ammo; I found CCI Mini-Mags were very reliable, but not as accurate as CCI Standard Velocity. Unfortunately, the Standard Velocity didn’t have enough jam to reliably cycle the action, with a fail-to-extract jam in almost every 8-round magazine.

The ammo that worked the best? Good old Blazer. Blazer was as accurate as anything else, and never failed to cycle the action.

Of course, take this all with a grain of salt--buy one of these, and you may find your Henry hates Blazer, or jams on Mini-Mags, or whatever. However, I was most pleased to find that one of the most common budget rounds also happened to shoot very well.

To me, shooting at a standard sighting-in target was only half of the test, though. Practically speaking, survival rifles need to manage head shots on small animals. So, I tacked up some small game targets, roughly the same size and shape as a snowshoe hare.

Shooting from a rest at 25 yards, head shots were no problem. Same for heart-lung shots. Obviously, a downed pilot wouldn’t have the luxury of a shooting bench in the middle of the woods, but there’s usually a tree to brace against, or something--someone who’s hungry enough will quickly figure that problem out. And at 2.5ish pounds, it’s not as if the Henry is a heavy rifle to hold steady, either.

I shot with the reversible peep sight set at its more open setting. Flip the sight upside-down, and there’s a smaller peep, which in theory allows more accuracy, but I suspect it would prove impractical in dark, wooded areas.

Some closing thoughts

Henry’s upgrades make this clever little semi-auto a much more useful gun than before, and should prolong its lifespan. These aren’t made to be high-volume shooters, but if something breaks, it’s certainly easy to replace. There are still some chintzy parts, like the plastic spring guide inside the action, but I’ve never actually heard of one wearing out. Plus, Henry has a lifetime warranty on these things. If something breaks when it shouldn’t, generally they have a reputation for excellent service.

Would I want to trust my life to one, in a survival situation? Having fooled around with similar .22s for several years, I think the AR-7 has a few advantages over some other takedown rifles on the market. It’s a repeater, unlike the straight-shooting Chiappa Lil’ Badger. It’s a bit less money than the Ruger 10/22 Takedown. It’s far more compact than the pump-action Winchester 62 and its Brazilian copies. Thanks to its design, the AR-7 is easy to store. The Teflon finish on the barrel means you don’t have to worry about it rusting when not being used.

So, yeah, I think it would work. It shoots well enough, and with the right ammo, it seems reliable enough. But even if you aren’t flying over the wilderness in northern British Columbia, this is a very fun-to-shoot rimfire; its light weight means that with more powerful .22 cartridges, you get the faintest hint of recoil. The Henry redesign seems to have come with improved fit-and-finish. The trigger is better on this rifle than on the one I owned years ago, the mags are better-made, the safety has a smooth-positive click. It’s a much nicer rifle.

So, if you’re ok with a rimfire that won’t shoot cloverleafs at 25 years, you might want to check it out. I know I’m far more impressed with Henry’s second go at the AR-7; now, I’m just wishing they’d make a straight-pull bolt-action version in .22 magnum, or even better, .22 Hornet.

The Rossi 62: The Vintage Winchester Repeater You Can Afford

How’d you like to own a classic Winchester rifle, for under $500? That’s basically impossible these days, as even beater post-64 Model 94 carbines now regularly sell for that, or more. It gets even more silly if you want a vintage rimfire repeater like a Model 62. You can either pay crazy money for a collector’s gun, and then be afraid to shoot it because you don’t want to rough it up. Or, you can pay slightly less-crazy money for a beat-up shooter, and then be afraid to shoot it because it’s worn out and likely to break.

Or, you can buy a Rossi 62. It might not have the Winchester name on the barrel, but it’s the same design as the pump-action rimfire rifle, and just as much fun to shoot.

John Browning’s brainchild

The .22LR Winchester rifle that Rossi copied was originally a John Browning design. In the late 1800s, Browning thought pump action was the future, not lever action. The Model 1890 rimfire rifle was one of his earliest attempts. A second, similar model joined the lineup more than a decade later, the Model 1906. The Model 62 came along in 1932, also the same basic design. When Model 62 production ended in 1958, Winchester had built almost 2 million rifles along this pattern.

That’s a long production run, and a lot of rifles. Why was it so popular? Browning’s design was successful for two basic ideas: The pump-action rifles were fun to shoot, and they got into the hands of the right people. Professional trick shooters showed what the gun could do, and then kids went out and shot the exact same gun in shooting galleries.

Shooting galleries using real firearms were considered perfectly reputable entertainment in the early 1900s, set up at carnivals and fairs. Pay the carnies, and blast away for a chance at a prize (often not using full-power .22LR--many of these guns came chambered in .22 Short).

They were popular with hunters and general shooting enthusiasts, too. Semi-auto rimfires weren’t as prevalent in the first half of the 20th century; pump-action .22s were fast-shooting, and able to handle just about any kind of ammunition.

However, like most vintage Browning designs, these guns were not aimed at dumbed-down mass production, which made them more expensive to manufacture and more fiddly to fix. With its open-top action, you couldn’t easily mount a scope to the Model 62. And, in the Baby Boom years, the market moved towards semi-autos. It’s no surprise Winchester dumped the Model 62 in the late ‘50s--if anything, it’s a surprise the design lasted that long, and a testament to just how good and how much fun these rifles are.

The Brazilian connection

Most of the American gunmakers had built pump-action .22s in the first half of the 20th century, but by the 1970s, only Remington was still in the game, with the Model 572 Fieldmaster. And then, the Rossi Model 62 started to appear on the market. It was basically the same gun as the Winchester Model 62, but made in Brazil and imported to North America through Interarms.

No doubt some shooters were suspicious of the Rossi brand, as it wasn’t exactly a household name back then--at least, not in North America. The Amadeo Rossi SA factory had a long history of its own, though, building firearms in São Leopoldo all the way back to 1889.

In a way, Rossi was just carrying on a time-honoured tradition with the Model 62. Overseas factories, particularly in Spain, had been copying North American “cowboy guns” for decades. In some cases, like the El Tigre carbine (a copy of the Winchester 1892), production numbers ran over a million rifles built.

Changes to the formula

The Rossi Model 62 is mostly faithful to the original John Browning design. It’s a takedown rifle; a knurled screw on the left side of the receiver splits the rifle into two pieces, a common feature on older sporting firearms. This allowed for easier storage, and made the rifle easier to transport in cramped railway luggage.

There’s no lawyer-friendly safety on the Rossi Model 62; the hammer has a half-cock position instead. The ribbed forearm connects to a single action bar; push the bolt backwards, and it lifts out the rear of the receiver as it ejects an empty casing and lifts a fresh cartridge from the magazine. Pump the forearm forward, and the bolt drops back into the receiver, locking at the front as the cartridge is pushed into the chamber.

Like other classic pump-action designs, the Rossi Model 62 has no trigger disconnect. This means you can hold the trigger down, and the rifle will fire as fast as you can pump the forend. This slamfire feature has zero usefulness on a rimfire rifle, but it’s a fun way to do a mag dump once in a while.

Loading the Model 62 is easy, via a familiar under-barrel tube mag. Rifles with a 23-inch barrel will hold 14 rounds of .22LR.

However, not all these Rossis came with a 23-inch barrel, and not all were chambered in .22LR. Some came with a 16-inch barrel, a much more compact arrangement. And, some were chambered in .22 magnum. Some came with octagon barrels as well.

Rossi also sold the Model 62 with either a blued or stainless finish. Hardcore Winchester fans will say the original rifles had a better finish, but the Rossi rimfires look much better than many of the el-cheapo .22 semi-autos on the market today.

Some hardcore Winchester fans will also say the original rifles shoot better than the Rossi copies. Not all will hold to this belief, though; it seems Rossi Model 62 production did not have great quality control, and some are actually more accurate than the Winchester originals, while others exhibit less-than-stellar precision.

On inaccurate Rossi rimfires, the crude sights are part of the problem. I’ve seen these rifles with decent irons, but others have cheap sights best-suited for a water pistol or capgun. Rossi’s tendency to use odd-shaped sight dovetails makes the problem worse, as it’s not always easy to swap out a better sight system. If you look around long enough, there are solutions on the market, though. One popular upgrade from past years was a tang sight, originally designed for a Rossi lever-action. However, it seems this sight is basically unobtanium now, as it’s been discontinued.

The new Model 62

The Rossi Model 62 was never a huge seller in North America, but there seems to have been a relatively steady supply through the 1970s and 1980s, at least. They’re not common, but they’re not that rare, either. If you want one badly enough, you should be able to find a decent example for $450 or less, depending on condition (although prices are rising, as always).

Rossi seems to see a demand for the rifle, though, because the company revived the Model 62 at the 2020 SHOT Show … except it isn’t really a Model 62.

Looking at photos from last year’s SHOT Show, the new Model 62 is a pump-action .22LR with exposed hammer, but the rest of the rifle looks very different from the classic John Browning design. There’s an ejection port on the side of the receiver, which makes scope mounting easier, but it definitely isn’t the original layout. It comes in several different versions, including one with a synthetic stock and fiber-optic sights.There’s a cross-bolt safety, and an ugly slide release in front of the trigger guard. It’s not a takedown rifle, either.

The new rifle will likely generate some interest, as pump-action .22s are hard to find these days. But, if you want the original John Browning classic, keep your eyes open on used gun sales websites--you should be able to find the older Rossi for roughly the same money, and its vintage design comes with some advantages of its own.