The scariest of all this is we have clerks making laws where the existance of ambiguity is downright dangerous, some would argue more dangerous than even owning the weapon. This danger is more prominent for the antique dealer who wishes to deal with antigue guns. Here are some qirks that show the assenine examples of laws that conflict and are clearly written by people who don't know what they are doing.:
Re: Dave Tomlinson's Quotes in Blue at http://www.nfa.ca/legal-issues/antique-firearms.html
84. (1)... "restricted firearm" means (a) a handgun that is not a prohibited firearm...
Therefore, any handgun that is an "antique firearm" is also a "restricted firearm" unless it is both an "antique firearm" and a "prohibited firearm".
CC s. 84(1) "prohibited firearm" says, in part:
84. (1) "prohibited firearm" means (a) a handgun that
(i) has a barrel equal to or less than 105mm [4.14"] in length, or
(ii) is designed or adapted to discharge a 25 or 32 calibre cartridge...
Therefore, any handgun that is an "antique firearm" is also a "prohibited firearm" if it has a barrel less than 105mm/4.14" long, regardless of whether it is a muzzle-loading handgun or a cartridge-firing handgun, and regardless of calibre. Also, any handgun that is an "antique firearm" is also a "prohibited firearm" if it is "designed or adapted" to use "a 25 or 32 calibre cartridge".
So which firearm is an "antique firearm" today?
What happens when a guy concludes this paradox wrong and carries an ellegal antique weapon. Is the cop going to be lenient and understand it. Is the age old excuse "I didn't know" going to work. See why this is dangerous stuff and calls for very careful analysys before implementing by people who really know what they are talking about.? Makes you think what is happening now and how many people have fell victim to these traps so far.
For another point more relevant to me as a prospector and wish to carry a weapon for predator protection, is the word intent, and I site the paragraph.. I don't really care what I carry as long as the barrel isn't rusted out and it carries some punch and I don't need to load the ball in the muzzle.
84. (2) Notwithstanding the definition "firearm" in susection (1), for the purposes of the definitions "prohibited weapon" and "restricted weapon" in that subsection and for the purposes of section 93, subsections 97(1) and (3), and sections 102, 104, 105 and 116, the following weapons shall be deemed not to be firearms:
(a) an antique firearm unless
(i) but for this subsection, it would be a restricted weapon, and
(ii) the person in possession thereof intends to discharge it...
I carry the weapon in hopes I never INTEND to use it. If I intend to use it , it is conditional and totally dependant on the rampaging bear. I may carry it for 20 years and never get to use it. Is intent an overall intent, or a intent at point of use, and since I decided to use it, then I'm intending to?.
Just goes to show you that the wording doesn't cover all aspects of the use of arms.
Tom outlines more quirks on his site. Check out the hair pulling problems that the bureaucrats missed out on in regards to Pre/Post 1898 date of MFG, and component stampings. But my main point is that stuff that should be clear and isn't could cause alot of misery.