New Brunswick Hunting Forum banner
1 - 6 of 6 Posts

329 Posts
Not sure what this is. I thought they could trace guns now. Maybe has to do with keeping files of bullet markings or shell casing marks for every gun.

Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff on Monday accused the federal government of ignoring the families of those slain at Montreal's École Polytechnique in its decision to delay key gun tracing regulations.

Instead, Ignatieff said during question period, the reigning Conservatives bent to "the pressure of lobbyists" when it announced last week that the regulations, which would allow law enforcement agencies to trace guns quickly after crimes, will not be implemented until late 2012.

But government House leader John Baird defended the delay, saying it "is committed to making our communities safer."

Baird also lashed out at the Liberals, calling them "not credible on crime."

Bloc Québécois Leader Gilles Duceppe also referred to Monday's 21st anniversary of the Montreal killings in his criticism of the delay, accusing the Tories of showing "a complete lack of respect toward the victims."

The government quietly posted a notice last week indicating the regulations won't be implemented until Dec. 1, 2012.

Police say they need those regulations, which were created by the previous Liberal government.

A spokesman for Public Safety Minister Vic Toews said the government wants more time to develop a workable regulatory package.

Earlier Monday, Liberal public safety critic Mark Holland said the latest delay is proof the Conservatives are more interested in listening to the gun lobby than to police.

The Canadian Shooting Sports Association sent out an alert last week noting that it has been "working tirelessly" to delay the regulations.
On Dec. 6, 1989, enraged gunman Marc Lépine killed 14 women at the engineering school in what has since become known as the "Montreal Massacre."

Premium Member
2,759 Posts
New gun tracing regulations
That doesnt sound like a good thing --

17 Posts
The UN is trying to get all countries to add another set of markings on a gun,besides the serial number already there,so they can tell where the gun was made.When a gun crosses a border another set of engravings would have to be done showing the gun was imported from wherever it came from.Not something I'd want on my gun if I was importing an expensive gun.Not only that but since it's not done by the manufacturer at the time the gun is built it has to be done by a third party when it's imported so it's going to add a huge increase to the price of any gun not built in Canada.That $400 Stevens in now going to be $500,just so the UN can have marks on a gun that already has a serial number on it and is registered.Since a 2 min search on the internet can tell you where the manufacturer is located,what is the point?
Since it's done by a third party when the guns enter the country,smuggled guns won't have the number anyway.If they did have a number what are the chances the criminals wouldn't just grind it off like the serial number.Just another huge waste of money,mostly on the backs of legal gun owners who have to pay higher prices for their guns.

We already have a 2 billion dollar registry to keep track of our guns,I guess that's not enough info to do the job.

289 Posts
The lip service that is paid every December 6th is very predictable .... mark your calendars next year and you will again see political opportunists Dancing on the Graves of these women in a Similarly DISGUSTING manner! There message will be clear and consistent and the only folks in their venomous cross-hairs will be the 2000 000 plus legal Canadian gun Owners who In fact statistically haven't harmed anyone in over a decade since C-68 was brought in. They're not going to hurt anyone tomorrow either!

To the subject of the UN gun Markings : guns already have serial numbers and are registered in Canada. The marking scheme is designed to add cost and complexity to process already covered in useless bureaucratic red tape. A process that has yet to prevent even a single tragedy.
Criminals would of course remove these marks just like they remove serial numbers. Another useless failure designed to burden Canadian gun owners. Anyone that thinks otherwise please give your head a shake or failing that please at least demystify this for us with a coherent comment.

Practically speaking for all the Enfield 303 owners out there -- how in the world would you even know who imported your Grand Dad's gun and what year it was brought in?

There is a certain amount of inherent trust in the UN (However Misguided) that folks seem to trust implicitly . When one thinks about the composition of the UN it is difficult to ignore (unless you are trying to do so) that it is composed in no small part of third world dictators who do not even represent the people of their own countries. They represent themselves and their own governments. Their goal is to try to cloak their ambitions of non-democratic world government in an air...... of international 'consensus'. The world is full of populations that have been denied civilian Firearms ownership and then slaughtered by their respective "Governments"
These same dictators who are responsible for genocides of entire racial groups want to abolish personal firearms ownership and are working VERY hard through well funded advocacy groups in sovereign countries to do so.

We know Gun Owners are rarely a group that garners much political and societal support .... but there are a number of groups that seem to have the ear of public opinion and perhaps will be more successful in shining a light on Unbelievable atrocious acts of violence on the citizens of the world.

Need an example?

Notice that the question is not if or not Arbitrary Execution is a bad thing but who should or should not be exempt ..... UNBELIEVABLE!!

17 Posts
This may be a long read guys but it explains the problems associated with this law passing pretty well.I robbed this from a thread in the CSSA section of Canadian Gun Nutz.

Just as a refresher, below is the presentation made to the govenment by CILA's Tony Bernardo on behalf of the CSAAA. It should answer any questions you have on the requirements of the legislation and where it came from.

Truthfully, the CSSA/CILA has taken the lead on this legislation since 2004, Guy Giorno and Nigel Wright notwithstanding.

On December 23rd, 2004, the Government of Canada introduced the new regulations on Firearms Marking. By their own admission, they were intended to comply with the Protocol against the Illicit Manufacturing of and Trafficking in Firearms, Their Parts and Components and Ammunition, supplementing the United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime and the Inter-American Convention Against the Illicit Manufacturing of and Trafficking in Firearms, Ammunition, Explosives, and Other Related Materials.

This law will come into effect December 2, 2007 and its effect on the Canadian firearms industry could be disastrous. This program will require ALL imported guns to be marked with the country and year of import. Canada's marking regulations (not yet in force) are the following:

3. (1) Every individual, business or public service agency that imports a firearm shall ensure that the firearm is marked in accordance with section 4 before the 60th day after its release as defined in subsection 2(1) of the Customs Act or before transferring the firearm, whichever occurs first.
(2) Subsection (1) does not apply to
(a) a firearm imported by an individual under section 35 or 35.1 of the Act;
a specially imported firearm;
(c) a protected firearm;
(d) a firearm that was initially exported from Canada by an individual or business if the individual or business retained ownership of the firearm while the firearm was outside Canada; or
(e) a firearm that was initially exported from Canada by a public service agency and that was retained by that agency as an agency firearm while the firearm was outside Canada.

4. (1) The firearm shall be marked by permanently stamping or engraving on the firearm's frame or receiver the word "Canada" or the letters "CA" and
(a) in the case of a manufactured firearm, the name of the manufacturer and the firearm's serial number;
in the case of an imported firearm, the last two digits of the year of the importation.
(2) The markings shall
(a) be legible;
have a depth of at least 0.076 mm and a height of at least 1.58 mm; and
(c) subject to subsection (3), be visible without the need to disassemble the firearm.
(3) In the case of an imported firearm, the Registrar, on application by the individual, business or public service agency that is importing it, shall grant the applicant an exemption from the requirement set out in paragraph (2)(c) if
(a) marking the firearm in a place that is visible only by disassembling the firearm is consistent with the current practices of the manufacturer of that model of firearm;
the firearm does not provide a visible space suitable to stamp or engrave the markings;
(c) the firearm is rare;
(d) the firearm is of a value that is unusually high for that type of firearm and that value would be significantly reduced if the markings were visible without disassembly; or
(e) the firearm is imported by a business that holds a licence for the purpose of using the firearm in respect of motion picture, television, video or theatrical productions or in publishing activities.
The above appears in the Marking Regulations per Bill C10A. The intention of the Canadian Regulations is to put "CA-07" on the frame or receiver of all newly imported guns. It doesn't sound like much, but in truth, its impact on Canadian industry is somewhat different and considerably darker than what appears by a simple reading of the above text. It may spell the end for much of Canada's gun industry.

The first issue is that the marking of firearms imported into the United States has been addressed for a long time in one form or another; imports represent a small portion of their domestic consumption, and several foreign manufacturers such as Beretta, SIG & Glock have built production facilities in the U.S. to obtain a stronger market base. In Canada, this situation does not exist and we have a very small production industry for domestic consumption and precious few imports due to our restrictive legislation. This significantly differs from the practices of the world's largest producer / consumer of firearms.

Canada represents between 1% and 4% of the world market for firearms. U.S. Firearms sales approximate $1.3 billion for some 4 million firearms manufactured and imported, while Canada imported some 135,000 firearms (2005) at a cost of some $33 million to the importers. It seems ludicrous for us to expect that large American and European manufacturers would shift a small Canadian firearms order to another assembly line for specific marking and finishing, using expensive single purpose tools, and then sell these firearms to us without a commensurate price increase.

Canada imports most of its firearms as newly manufactured, while the U.S. market is about 75% domestic manufacture and 25% imports. The U.S. also has a sub-industry of manufacturing firearms from imported surplus parts as well as manufacturing facilities built by foreign manufacturers in the U.S. for domestic consumption, all of which greatly reduce regulatory compliance costs.

This means that the vast majority of our firearms imports are new firearms which the manufacturers refuse to mark especially for us, a very small percentage of their world market.
Indeed, many of the world's manufacturers have already told us that we will have to put the U.N. Mark on ourselves.

The next issue is, How do we apply the Mark?

Canada does not have a true firearms manufacturing industry for domestic consumption, and Canadian importers do not have an existing setup that could be modified for this purpose, since they do no manufacturing. The time and cost to do this would be borne by the importers who would then have to pass these costs on to the Canadian consumer.

The only practical method of adding markings is by Computer Numerically Controlled (CNC) Laser Engraving. Firearms are made out of many different materials with different finishes( case hardened, camouflage film, plating etc.) and only the computerized laser has the versatility to engrave different grades of steel, aluminum, titanium, alloys, brass, case hardening, plated metals and polymer frames/receivers. High grade engraved receivers are another issue entirely. However, laser engraving units are expensive, costing into the tens of thousands of dollars. Also, the jigs, fixtures and retainers for each make and model of manufactured firearm will be different from each other (refer to the F.R.T. for the number of new firearm models available each year), and can cost as much as $24,000 each.

This costly process is also time consuming if attempted in Canada. Each importer would have to prepare a proper "factory area", something they do not have in terms of sufficient space in existing facilities, or the profit margins to move to larger single purpose premises. In addition, specifically trained CNC employees would be needed solely for the purpose of marking imports with "CA 07".

The actual marking process, if the necessary fixtures and laser equipment were available, entails that each firearm be removed from inventory, removed from its packaging, cleaned, disassembled if necessary, placed into a specific type fixture, engraved as required, refinished as needed and re-greased, repackaged and returned to inventory. All of this must also, of course, be scrupulously paper worked. A time/cost analysis conducted with a major Canadian importer of firearms showed a best time of 20 minutes per firearms to do these tasks, or some 24 guns per eight hour shift, equaling about 45,000 total hours. Divide this into the thousands of firearms imported into Canada every year and the problem is obvious. Major importers will need several skilled full time employees (specifically trained CNC operators) doing nothing but applying the Mark to the guns, with expensive CNC machines, expensive fixtures for each model of gun in unnecessary premised.

It must be noted that the US importers report the destruction of many thousands of imported firearms due to improperly trained employees using incorrect procedures on stamping machines when marking imports. Damage during manufacturing and public liability for such damage is one of the main reasons that firearms are in general proofed twice, once in the manufacturing stage, and again after marking and finishing. The U.S. market, being as large as it is for imports, can absorb these costs much better than we can since their market is some 40 times larger than ours. Also, foreign producers of firearms have a very large market in the U.S. for their products, and can afford to mark exports to the U.S. at the time of production with the required markings, a luxury not accorded to Canada.

To stay in business, this cost can only be absorbed by being passed on to the consumer, and the cost of a new firearm in Canada will skyrocket, perhaps as much as $200 per firearm in the first five years, per our estimates.
This is the average cost applicable to any firearm regardless of retail price. It also makes the assumption that the importer can withstand the astronomical set up costs and is still in business.

This means a new firearm retailing at $150 will rise to about $350, while one retailing at $1,000 will rise to about $1,200. Based upon the 2005 imports, this could result in a net cost to Canada's firearms industry of approximately $27 million.
As if that isn't enough, how will sellers of these firearms deal with the chronic corrosion problems (the laser burns through the firearm's finish, of course). Marking the guns this way will certainly invalidate the factory warranty, and repair costs will therefore fall upon the Canadian industry. There may even be serious metallurgical issues caused by the application of intense heat to certain materials. Also, Canada does not have any in-house metallurgists who would be able to state exactly what metallurgical effects the laser engraving has on the receiver's tensile strength after final proofing. Certainly any collector's value will be destroyed and the resale value will be correspondingly reduced.

This is not a very business-like approach to an industry whose imports are some 50% below the levels of the Bill C-17 period, and about 70% below the preceding period, while costing over 200% more than in the C-17 period.

The sales of new firearms in Canada will drastically drop and our importers, distributors and retailers (who are currently hanging on by their thumbs) will go out of business for the last time. It must be noted that since the introduction of C-17 the number of full service retailers has dropped some 75%, with a drop of about half of that since C-68 was implemented.
It is the considered opinion of this organization that the Canadian firearms industry cannot survive such a debilitating situation. Recovery would be highly doubtful at best.

The C-10A Marking System cannot be allowed to proceed forward in 2007 in Canada. The livelihoods of thousands of Canadians and the economic health of a once thriving industry depend upon its repeal.
1 - 6 of 6 Posts