Please Note: This package is now being distributed in ALL parts of Canada.. BEWARE

The Federal Government has announced a new program allowing
Canadians to register their firearms for free.

Here is the NFA's analysis of the problems associated with this
program.
 

THE  REGISTRATION PACKAGE

I have been studying a sample of the 8-page Atlantic Package
that is being sent to Atlantic Canada firearms owners.  The
NFA has a duty to its members to explain the risks that one
assumes when filling out such an application Package, and
how to remain safe while doing it.

The Atlantic Canada package is a test package, and it is
severely flawed.  The flaws come in several areas, and some
flaws prevent others from being fixed in any way that is
easily visible.
(There has been NOTHING changed in the package sent to the rest of Canada)

What are the risks?  The main risk is that, if you "make a
statement" by filling in even one of these 7 boxes, and some
police officer or firearms control clerk or Crown prosecutor
decides -- now, or ten years from now -- that your
"statement" is "false or misleading", you can be charged
with violation of Firearms Act section 106.  That is a
criminal and indictable offence.  The penalty is up to 5
years in prison [FAS s. 106, 109].  It is unsafe to take
such a risk.

Another major risk comes from the way the Package is
designed to be used.  It comes with the firearms owner's
name and address on it, and does not require a signature
when it is returned.

That means that if someone else gets his hands on your
Atlantic Package, he can fill it out in any way he chooses
-- and the Registry will accept it as coming from you.  That
is very dangerous -- for you.

It seems probable that any entry which does not conform
exactly to the Firearms Reference Table (the FRT CD-ROM, a
listing compiled by the Canadian Firearms Registry to
display the one and only correct way to register each type
of firearm) will be considered "false or misleading".
Therefore, if you do not know what entry the FRT disk
expects, you are at risk -- because you may make an entry
that is not what the FRT says the entry should be.

Because of the way FA s. 106(1) and (3) are written, a
person "knowingly makes a statement" even if he or she only
gives an opinion, or states a belief, orally or in writing.
If that "statement" turns out to be "false or misleading",
the person who made it is criminalized -- even if he or she
believed it to be true.  Therefore, it is unsafe to "make a
statement, orally or in writing" if you have any doubt
whatever that the statement contains wording that is, in any
way, different from the wording found in the FRT disk.

The main problem with FA s. 106 is that the offence is
"knowingly makes a statement".  The other words, "that is
false or misleading" are not modified by the adverb
"knowingly", so that a person who "knowingly makes a
statement" is anyone who makes a statement -- but if the
statement turns out to be "false or misleading" the Crown
prosecutor does not have to prove that the accused knew it
was "false or misleading".  An honest mistake is a crime,
says FA s. 106.

It is a good idea to think about that risk before, during,
and after filling out the application.

Now, let's take a close look at the Atlantic Package, item
by item.

First, there are 7 boxes per firearm to fill out for the
registration of non-restricted firearms -- some just ask
questions, and the rest give some information and ask for
more.

1. Is the barrel length 470mm 18.5 inches) or greater?  (Yes
or No)

NFA:  That is a silly question.  470mm/18" is meaningful;
below that limit, the firearm may be a "restricted firearm",
but ONLY if it is center-fire AND semi-automatic.  Barrels
are, of course, interchangeable uncontrolled spare parts
that can be removed, installed or substituted at any time.
If you give a truthful answer about your 28"-barrel
non-restricted pump-action shotgun today, and are caught
with the same firearm ten years from now at a time when it
is a non-restricted shotgun wearing a perfectly legal 18"
barrel, there could be problems.  It may be best to leave
this entry blank.

2.  Is the firearm a frame/receiver only that is not
intended to discharge ammunition?

NFA:  That is another silly question.  If it is a "frame or
receiver", it is, by law, a "firearm".  All "firearms" are
"intended" to discharge ammunition -- in someone's mind.  It
is very difficult to know what to put in this space -- so
perhaps it is wise to leave it blank.  The Regulations say
that one must re-register a "frame or receiver" if enough
uncontrolled parts are added to allow it to shoot -- but
that Regulation seems to be null and void.  The Act does not
allow the Crown to make such a Regulation, and it will
probably fail if tested in court.

3.  Make: (12 common "Make" names are listed, with a space
for "Other".

NFA:  Suppose one has a .22 rifle that is only marked
"Ranger", and one knows it was made by Cooey.  Because the
bureaucrats could not figure out that "Rangers" were made by
Cooey, the word "Ranger" is now listed in their FRT CD-ROM
as a "Make".  So -- should one circle "Cooey" or write in
"Ranger" where it asks for "Other"?  If one has a rifle
marked "Marlin" that was actually made by Sako (yes, there
are some!), should one enter the "Make" as "Marlin" or
"Sako"?  If the only name on the gun is stamped on the
barrel -- which is an interchangeable uncontrolled spare
part -- should one believe that it is the "Make" one should
enter?  It is much safer to enter "Unknown" beside the
"Other" in this box, unless one is a world-class expert in
firearms identification -- with access to the FRT CD-ROM.

4. Type: Shotgun  Rifle  Combination rifle and shotgun

NFA:  Many rifles and shotguns seem simple -- but
interchangeable uncontrolled rifled barrels for shotguns and
shot barrels for rifles are quite common.  One can, for
example, rebarrel almost any .22 rifle to take shot
cartridges -- or just bore out its rifling to make a shotgun
for killing snakes at short range.  This is a difficult
entry to make, unless one is a world-class expert in
firearms identification -- with access to the FRT CD-ROM.

5.  Action: Bolt  Lever  Pump  Hinge  Semi-auto  Air, spring
or gas over 152.4 me/sec (500 fps) and exceeding 5.7 joules
(4.2 ft-lbs)

NFA:  This box a[[ears to be a trap -- if one has an air,
gas or spring gun.  It indicates that the gun is in one
category if it exceeds BOTH those limits, but the new Bill
C-15 (which is not yet law) says it changes category if it
exceeds EITHER  of those two limits.  It becomes a "real
firearm" requiring a licence, a registration certificate,
and possibly an authorization to transport if you take it
out of your home -- IF it exceeds one or both limits.  This
box is based on a presumption that the faulty wording in
Bill C-15 -- which isn't law yet -- will be fixed before it
becomes the law of the land.  That is a risky assumption.

5a.  Is the firearm a "single shot" firearm?

6.  Serial number: If unknown, check this box

NFA:  One may THINK that a number on the firearm is a serial
number, and be wrong.  It may be an assembly number, a
property number, or even a patent number.  The writer of
this paper once learned that the RCMP Registry once had 17
Walther PP handguns registered, all with the same Serial
number.  It was, of course, the patent number -- used in
error.  Therefore, it is much safer to check the "unknown"
box unless one is a world-class expert in firearms
identification -- with access to the FRT CD-ROM.

7.  Gauge(s) and/or calibre(s)

NFA: This is a major problem area.  Is the form asking for
the gauge/calibre of the firearm as it is at the moment, all
of the gauges and calibres that it can be if the owner uses
all of the interchangeable barrels that he owns, or all of
the gauges/calibres that it can become using
easily-available uncontrolled spare parts from the
marketplace?  Any entry in this box can be held to be "false
or misleading -- even an entry made by a world-class expert
in firearms identification -- who has access to the FRT
CD-ROM.

8. Model (if known):

NFA:  This looks simple, but it is not.  If one has a
Winchester Model 70, for example, looking at the FRT CD-ROM
will show you that there are dozens of different "Models"
that are ALL variants of the Model 70, and that are all
supposed to be registered with something other than just
"Model 70" in that box.  If one is not a world-class expert
in firearms identification -- with access to the FRT CD-ROM
-- it is safer to leave this box blank.

Looking back at all that, an applicant who wishes to remain
safe from charges under FA s. 106 cannot safely give much
information.  However, there are three tests that a
registration system must pass if it is to be useful and
trustworthy.

1. It must be impossible to find, anywhere in the database,
a single registration certificate that describes two
different firearms well enough to make it impossible to tell
which of the two firearms is registered, and which is not.

2. It must be impossible to find two different registration
certificates, anywhere in the database, that describe a
single firearm so well that it is impossible to tell which
registration certificate relates to that firearm.

3. It must be possible to locate any firearm-registration
certificate-registrant combination by computer search of the
Registry's database, easily and quickly.

Considering the amount and quality of information given if
all the boxes are filled out to the best of an average
person's ability, it is glaringly obvious that a
registration "system" based on such scanty and inadequate
information cannot possibly pass the three tests.

It is the duty of the firearms community to insist that
those tests be passed by each and every firearm-registration
certificate combination that enters the system.  We cannot
tolerate shoddy registration practices.  Errors, omissions
and duplications are likely to result in criminal charges
against any person affected by an error, omission or
duplication.

The NFA has noted for years a strong tendency on the part of
Registry bureaucrats to claim accuracy that the system does
not provide, passage of the three tests that the system does
not pass, and cover for a registration system that is
riddled with errors, omissions, and duplications.

The NFA is therefore determined to hold the Registry to
standards that will allow the Registry to pass the three
tests, and asks you to assist us in holding their noses to
the grindstone.

Obviously, data of the quality that is likely to be
submitted in Atlantic Package non-restricted firearm
registration applications will not be enough to pass the
three tests.  If the data is submitted by a person who knows
about the FA s. 106 risks, the Registry will probably have
to seek more information.

The Registry, and indeed the entire firearms control
bureaucracy, is currently being hit with money problems
severe enough to cause extensive layoffs.  Given that, any
registration application that requires the seeking of more
information is going to be a major problem.

The government has created a huge problem for the Registry.

By FA s. 106. the government has made it very risky for
anyone to try and help the Registry identify firearms, or to
give more than an absolute minimum of information in an
application.

Therefore, if the Registry cannot accurately identify the
firearm, it will be necessary for a firearms expert to
actually look at it.  The Registry usually demands that the
firearm be shipped to Ottawa for examination.   Once the
Registry or a police or firearms control bureau has its
hands on a firearm, it may take years to get it back.   When
it is finally returned, it may be in the original condition,
or utterly ruined, or anywhere in between.  It is not safe
to sent firearms.

The Registry does not have any legal authority to demand
that firearms be sent to it for identification.  Therefore,
an owner who knows that can tell them to come to his home
and look at it -- but it will not be sent to them.
Unfortunately, that will increase the Registry's need for
more staff and more money.

Staff and  money are C-68 Titanic's biggest leaks.  They are
the reasons that C-68 Titanic's bow is under water today.

But -- back to the Atlantic Package.  The package also
contains re-registration applications for registered
firearms that are currently registered on old green paper
registration certificates.

Here, the NFA is blaring the alarm bells.  All the Atlantic
Package asks for is the registration certificate number from
the old green registration certificate and the Serial number
of the firearm.

That is not acceptable.  As any well-informed person knows,
the Registry's pre-01-Dec-1998 records are riddled with
errors, omissions and duplications.  They are very
untrustworthy, because the same gun can be registered in
fifty different ways.   The same gun can show up as
registered to several different people and/or businesses.
That means that a search of the system for a particular gun
or registration certificate will often fail -- because the
firearm is registered in a way different to the way the
searcher thought it would be registered, or because it is
registered to someone else as well.

The FRT system is vital if the registration system is ever
to be able to pass the three tests.  At present, the system
cannot pass any of the tests -- and, unless the firearms
community demands  precision, it never will be able to pass
the tests.

The Atlantic Package is set up to transfer registration
records from the old, defective system directly into the new
system without checking.  That is unacceptable.  Incorrect
Serial numbers will be transferred.  Incorrect Make, Model,
Action, Barrel length, Shots and Calibre information will be
transferred.

No verification will be done to ensure that the new
registration certificates will be accurate, up to date, or
correct.  That is unacceptable.

It is not possible for the average firearms owner to know
whether the new certificate that he gets conforms to the FRT
standard or not -- unless he is a world-class expert in
firearms identification -- and a person who has access to
the FRT CD-ROM.

If the thousands of errors now in the old registration
certificate record system are to be corrected, it is vitally
necessary that every firearm being re-registered be
carefully examined by a verifier -- at the very least.

As part of the cutbacks, the government has just laid off 17
of the 23 Provincial and Regional Verifier Coordinators.
The government is apparently destroying the verifier system
at the moment when it is most needed.

Now, some of you are probably wondering why the NFA would be
insisting that the "system" be operated as the law says it
is supposed to be operated.  Wouldn't it be easier on the
firearms owner to allow the government to ease up on
registration?

NO.  The law's requirements are still there -- and will be
imposed on us at a time when the money and staff are
available to the firearms control bureaucracy.

Every "easing" of the "system" is designed, today, to ease
the workload and cost to the firearms control bureaucracy.
The NFA totally rejects any attempt to do that -- because,
in the long run, the firearms community will have to pay for
it.  It is much better to force the firearms control
bureaucrats to obey their own laws.

IF WE HAVE TO OBEY THESE RIDICULOUS LAWS, SO DO THEY.

If they have to obey every bit of their own laws -- if they
have to deal with all the ridiculous flaws in their "system"
-- C-68 Titanic will sink by the end of 2002.