For example, the use of the word “variant”. When some previous firearms were classified by order in council, the phrase “and variants” was added. There is no legal definition of “variant”.
In the past, as with the MKA 1919 and Alpharms shotgun, if it looked like an M-16, it was reasonable to assume that it was considered a variant. After protests from us, the FRT on these shotguns was changed from restricted to non-restricted.
The RCMP claims to be forensic firearms specialists. How can they classify a firearm simply because it resembles, in outward appearance, another firearm and still maintain any kind of professional credibility?
Please note in the above examples, that both the first and later corrected FRT have the same number, despite being given a different classification. The FRT is not available to individual owners, and no one in the firearms industry was ever notified by the RCMP of any changes to the FRT. These changes could result in criminal charges to unknowing firearms owners. We do not believe this is a desirable situation for anyone as it can catch an innocent person.