Thank you.
I also have a question about item (ii) of amendment G‑3.2, which talks about a firearm that “was originally designed with a detachable cartridge magazine with a capacity of six cartridges or more”.
We're concerned about this item, and that we fear it could be easily circumvented by manufacturers. For example, a manufacturer could put a gun on the Canadian market with a magazine that would effectively be limited to five rounds. However, nothing would prevent the manufacturer from marketing the same weapon in the United States, where this can be done, and equipping it with a high-capacity magazine, such as 30 cartridges. It would then be easy to illegally obtain these high-capacity magazines on the black market and use them in Canada on a firearm that is now legal here.
Therefore, I was wondering if inserting “originally designed” into the definition might give manufacturers an opportunity to circumvent the requirement specified in the definition. Would it not be better to say “able to hold a cartridge magazine with a capacity of six cartridges or more”? I don't know if my question is clear to you.