Firearms activist loses landmark battle

[beevul]

"Firearms activist loses landmark battle
By Quinn Bender - Smithers Interior News - March 26, 2008


“It may not be a 32 calibre handgun, but it holds a .32 calibre cartridge,” Milne said. “The reasons here to me seem to say, you’re out of luck. He’s dealt with it.”

Hromatka, not letting up, challenged the math of the gun registry that designated the pistol a .32 calibre. Exasperated, he asked Milne whether the public should accept rulings that state “two plus two equals five.”

Milne replied: “If the Supreme Court says that, they’re right.”

Hromatka asserts the 7.65 millimetre handgun is not a .32 calibre prohibited pistol, but a .30 calibre restricted pistol, which after modifications he can legally possess. The incorrect designation he said was essentially caused by the conversion from its European metric classification of millimetres to the American imperial standard of calibre.

http://www.bclocalnews.com/news/Firearms_activist_loses_landmark_battle.html

7.65mm divided by 25.4mm (1 inch) = .301 inches. Thats 30 caliber. Someone correct me if my math is wrong.


Clearly not 32 caliber...


I like what the former police officer has to say - "It’s a matter of principle,...I don’t need the gun"...but then I suppose hes just another gun nut :sarcasm:

This case is kind of a head shaker imo.

[krispos42]

1. You're right.

.32 caliber is about an 8mm.

Of course, it depends on if they're measuring the barrel diameter or the bullet diameter. A .30-caliber rifle shoots .308" bullets, a .270-caliber rifle shoots .277" diameter bullets, etc.

According to Winchester, the .32 ACP uses bullets of .312" diameter and the case is .336" in diameter. Both of which are considerably bigger than .301"

Your link doesn't work, by the way...

[beevul]

2. Possibly its you?

I just tried the link and it worked ok for me.

:shrug:

[krispos42]

3. Possibly it's me?

Probably it's me?

Definately, it's me!!!! :-)


It works now...

[L1A1Rocker]

4. Didn't we go through something like this with the .50 AE?

I seem to remember a debate on when it is proper to measure the diameter of the bullet. Before or after it travels through the barrel.

[Boomer 50]

17. Technically and legally the proper measure is.....

The bore diameter, not the diameter of the lands nor the projectile itself. The confusion comes from the 50 BMG. The bore of the .50 is .500 with the grooves being .510 in diameter. Anti-gunners like to promote that the actual size of the round is the measure, not the bore, this is another poor attempt at banning the .50 BMG. Unfortunately for them, the standard established by John Browning (he adapted from historical texts regarding bore design) is the technical and legal standard in use world wide today.

Now, to explain why this is the case..... When a barrel is made, the barrel stock, or steel rod is bored with a drill called a gun drill. It is a constant diameter due to the way it works. For shits and grins, you can try this at home. Take a drill and drill a hole through a 2x4. Measure one end and then the other. Now, later in the barrel process, the grooves are cut or are broached. Due to the process, the grooves will not be 100% uniform. It is common in production barrels to see a deviation of 2-3 thousandths in the depth of the groove. Now, take a flat head screwdriver and heat it up and bend the tip over to form a hook. Run that through the hole in the 2x4 several times to make a "groove". Measure the land depth. You'll see the deviation.

[iverglas]

5. hahahaha

Youse guys is so funny. Look what the individual in question had to say:

The incorrect designation he said was essentially caused by the conversion from its European metric classification of millimetres to the American imperial standard of calibre.

“I have evidence that the Walther PP is not a .32 calibre,” Hromatka told The Interior News after the judgement. “Why are we so concerned about what the Americans call it? This is Canada and we use the metric system. The last time I checked we were still a country that could stand on its own feet.”

From what I can tell, it is called a .32 calibre in the US.

http://www.beretta.com/index.aspx?m=74&idc=2&ids=23
(just as the first handy example)

These medium frame pistols deliver .380 (9mm short)
and .32 ACP (7.65 mm) power ...

So what are you lot whining about??


.301 > .30. Duh.

[sergeiAK]

6. .312" < .32"

The name of a type of ammunition is often quite unrelated to the actual bore diameter. In this case, the bore of a .32 ACP pistol is between .307 and .309 inches, and the groove diameter is around .312". Taking the caliber literally, bore or groove diameter would have to be .32" to be a .32 caliber.

A very poorly written law, should've specified .32 ACP, 7.65 Browning, or any of the other names for the caliber. Nevertheless, the decision was correct (given the intent of the law, though the wording leaves a fair bit of play in it).

One question though, why ban .32 ACP pistols but not .30 caliber pistols?

[iverglas]

8. You might need to read the law

A very poorly written law, should've specified .32 ACP, 7.65 Browning, or any of the other names for the caliber.

And now, what the Act actually says:


http://www.canlii.org/ca/sta/c-46/sec84.html

“prohibited firearm” means

(a) a handgun that

(i) has a barrel equal to or less than 105 mm in length, or
(ii) is designed or adapted to discharge a 25 or 32 calibre cartridge,

As the most recent judge said:

“It may not be a 32 calibre handgun, but it holds a .32 calibre cartridge"

Unfortunately, neither CanLII nor the official website of the BC Supreme Court seems to have any record of the reasons for decision ...


One question though, why ban .32 ACP pistols but not .30 caliber pistols?

Handguns may be possessed in Canada only by members of approved shooting clubs, for competitive / recreational shooting purposes, and by "collectors". I looked for an explanation and this may help:

http://www.justice.gc.ca/en/ps/eval/reports/03/cfp/tech/cfp.pdf

CANADIAN FIREARMS PROGRAM
IMPLEMENTATION EVALUATION
(to September 2002)
Technical Report
April 2003

... 2.1.3 Prohibition of a Wider Range of Firearms

The statutory definition of prohibited weapon was expanded to include most .25 and .32 calibre handguns as well as all handguns with a barrel length or 105mm or less. This redefinition was intended to prohibit those handguns that are compact, easily concealed, often cheaply made, and without a recognized legitimate sporting purpose. It is important to note that individuals who were in possession of these firearms who also possessed a valid registration certificate(s) on February 14, 1995, were “grandfathered”, allowing them to maintain possession of these firearms.

It is the elimination of the grandfathering that affected Hromatka.



Hromatka is a little interesting. He was in the German navy during WWII. He also made representations to BC's Citizens' Assembly on Electoral Reform
http://www.citizensassembly.bc.ca/public/news/2004/06/pharris-292_0406080020-336
advocating proportional representation, as do I.

[sergeiAK]

13. I did read it, it was poorly written.

.32 caliber cartridge can mean waaaaay too much (and way too little), so the act should have specified exact calibers, such as .32 ACP, 7.65 Browning, .32 H&R, .32 S&W Long/Short, etc. Not all of these are true .32 calibers, and the law should either have specified a bore diameter in some known (and defined) unit of measure, or actual ammunition that it could accept. IE if it banned .32ACP and 7.65 Browning firearms, this case would have been open and shut.

Under this law, would a C96 be illegal? It uses the 7.65x25mm cartridge, which is also designated .30 Mauser. Would it be considered 30 or 32 caliber?

On the topic of why it was banned, this sentence caused some confusion:
"Hromatka asserts the 7.65 millimetre handgun is not a .32 calibre prohibited pistol, but a .30 calibre restricted pistol, which after modifications he can legally possess."

So he can (post modification) possess such a gun in 30 caliber, but not 32 caliber? Nothing I read in the links you provided said otherwise (assuming a correct barrel length), though I'm certainly no lawyer.

[L1A1Rocker]

deleted as duplicate

[Name removed]

14. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[iverglas]

15. don't know

On the topic of why it was banned, this sentence caused some confusion:
"Hromatka asserts the 7.65 millimetre handgun is not a .32 calibre prohibited pistol, but a .30 calibre restricted pistol, which after modifications he can legally possess."

So he can (post modification) possess such a gun in 30 caliber, but not 32 caliber? Nothing I read in the links you provided said otherwise (assuming a correct barrel length), though I'm certainly no lawyer.

As I said, I tried to find the BC Supreme Court's reasons, but was unable to. So I don't know what modifications are being talked about. But I think that's a bit of a herring, since the calibre seems to be the issue.

And yes. The Act refers to .32 calibre, so .30 is not prohibited, but because it is a handgun it is restricted, i.e. may only be possessed by people with permits for restricted weapons, which means only people who belong to approved clubs or qualify as collectors and obtain the relevant permit.

Is the firearm in question not "designed or adapted to discharge a 25 or 32 calibre cartridge"? That seems to be the only issue.

But federal Crown attorney Jack Talstra said the actual calibre is irrelevant.

“Regardless of some confusion over calibre... the intent of the Firearms Act was to get rid of these kinds of firearms.”

So the thing looks rather moot. Had the court ruled otherwise, the regulations could have been amended to achieve the intended purpose, and he would have been right back where he started. "Or a cartridge over .30 calibre" would seem to be the obvious useful phrasing.

At least, once we get rid of the right-wing scum pretending to be our government these days ...

[sergeiAK]

18. It would seem this act was intended to prohibit

cheap guns, in smaller calibers, with short barrels. Which the PP certainly is, though calling it cheap might be a stretch.

It would seem, if it were ruled .30 caliber, he could keep it as a restricted handgun if he lengthened the barrel.

As for saying that anything over .30 caliber should be banned, bad idea. This law was intended to ban cheap, (mostly) blowback operated, low caliber handguns with short barrels. Your wording would effectively ban everything else, as most popular handgun calibers are in the .35-.45 range.

[iverglas]

20. okay, but as I said

It is a relatively simple matter to amend the legislation to match the intent more closely. Yes, my wording seems to have missed the point of the existing prohibition; I wasn't paying attention. But the point remains that the definition can easily be adjusted if necessary. Firearms can be defined as prohibited by naming them in the regulations, and that too is easily enough done. This individual might have got to keep his possession for a little while longer if the court had interpreted the legislation differently, but there was nothing at all to stop the legislation being changed.

Remember that this individual was not charged with any offence or subject to any penalty. The only effect of the law was that he was not permitted to own the firearm and will be required to divest himself of it. As I understand it, he need not submit it for destruction; he may transfer it to someone licensed to possess prohibited weapons, for instance a dealer. So we're not looking at someone in jeopardy of a criminal conviction / loss of liberty based on vagueness in a statute.

[SteveM]

16. To the list of ".32s" we can add the .327 Federal Magnum...

a new round developed jointly by Federal and Ruger. According to the "2008 Ruger Buyer's Guide and Catalog," Ruger's SP101 revolver can be purchased with chamberings (6) which will not only accept the hot .327, but also "....32 S&W Short and Long, and .32 H&R Magnum loads as well." Here is Ruger's web site: <www.ruger.com>

Cartridges and auto engines -- they're never what they say. Maybe that's why Ruger called it a 327!

BTW, Ruger claims the .327 with 85 grain bullets has a MV of l,330 and delivers 334 ft. lb of energy, considerably more than the 245 ft lbs of a .38 Sp +P with 129 grains & 925 MV. Yet felt recoil is virtually identical. Impressive.

[spin]

19. Should be a great defensive weapon...

I carry a S&W model 642 http://www.policelink.com/products/products/283-sw-642-2-centennial-series in my pants pocket frequently as my concealed carry piece. (Yes, I have a license...no, I never have had to use it...no, I don;t have Walter Mitty fantasies...no, I don't ever go looking for trouble because I believe that if you do it will find you.) It's my insurance policy if the shit hits the fan.

The S&W is a great carry gun, but the recoil with .38 +P rounds is impressive. I hope S&W chambers an airweight revolver for the new .327 Federal Magnum. A considerable increase in stopping power without more kick...sounds good to me. The Ruger SP101 is not as good a pocket gun as the S&W model 642. If I decided to carry a gun in a holster on my belt, I go with my 3" model 60 .357 mag. http://www.sightm1911.com/lib/review/Model_60-15.htm

[iverglas]

11. just a little addition

Regulations under the Firearms Act routinely expand on the definitions in the statute, pursuant to the regulation-making authority the Act grants.

Government departments with regulation-making power always conduct extensive consultations with "stakeholders" when making changes to regulations, i.e. with the groups that are affected by the regulations. (They consult the shipping industry when making regulations about discharging waste, they consult the transportation industry when making regulations about passenger safety, etc.)

I gather from reading some gun-head sites that attempts have been made to consult the shooting community about possible exclusions from the prohibited firearms definition for firearms used in letigimate recreational / competitive activities, and the stakeholders have declined to participate. E.g.:

http://teapot.usask.ca/cdn-firearms/Digests/300-399/v01n315

On a second note I recieved a letter from Senator Ghitter in which he informed me that 32 calibre competitive handguns remain banned since they must be exempted model by model and a Mr. John Perocchio of the Shooting Federation of Canada has refused (understandably) to submit a list of "good guns" to <then Liberal Justice Minister> Rock for exemption. The position of the Federation is that there are no good guns or bad guns only legitimate and illegitimate users. Beginning shooters come into the sport using inexpensive guns and graduate to more expensive models. Banning the inexpensive ones eliminates new shooters entering the sport.

Another poster there compares this with the "assault weapon ban" in the US, and in fact has a point, although he wouldn't acknowledge it of course. As the Justice Canada document said:

This redefinition was intended to prohibit those handguns that are compact, easily concealed, often cheaply made, and without a recognized legitimate sporting purpose.

i.e. the prohibition is largely aimed at weapons that are attractive to individuals who intend to use them for illegitimate purposes because of certain of their features, and not because the features are inherently "dangerous" in themselves.

[L1A1Rocker]

7. I'm going to be nice on this reply

because it seems that you knowledge of firearm cartridges is limited.

First, What a cartridge is "called" in not necessarily what it really is. Don't ask me why, I do not know, but it is a practice started long, long ago.

How about a few examples of this? Nothing exemplifies this better than the "9mm" line.

380 auto (aka 9mm short), jacketed bullet diameter before firring is .355
9mm Makarove, jacketed bullet diameter before firring is .364
9mm Luger, jacketed bullet diameter before firring is .355
(note: 38 special cast bullets are often substituted here by re-loaders for cost savings)
357 SIG, jacketed bullet diameter before firring is .355
9mm Largo (sometimes but incorrectly called 9mm mag), jacketed bullet diameter before firring is .355
38 ACP and 39 Super auto, jacketed bullet diameter before firring is .355
38 Smith and Wesson, jacketed bullet diameter before firring is .357
38 Smith and Wesson, cast bullet diameter before firring is .358
38 Special, jacketed bullet diameter before firring is .357
38 Special, cast bullet diameter before firring is .358
357 Magnum, jacketed bullet diameter before firring is .357
357 Magnum, cast bullet diameter before firring is .358

Note: these calibers are all considered as the 9mm line as many of the "bullets" can, and often are switched out by re-loaders for a variety of reasons.


Second: It must be determined and agreed upon on where and when the bullets diameter is measured. You see there are several ways to do this:
* Before the bullet is fired? Ok then, are we going to use lead cast bullets or copper jacketed bullets. Reason, lead cast bullets generally are larger by .001 than jacketed bullets
* After the bullet is fired? Ok the, same question regarding copper jacketed vs. lead cast. In addition are you going to measure between the lanes or the grooves?

IIRC these were all major issues when determining if the .50 AE was legal or not.


The 32 auto, jacketed bullet diameter before firring is .312. It gets even smaller after being fired through a barrel. And it gets smaller still if you measure the bullet between the grooves. So it can easily be said and proved that a ".32" caliber firearm is NOT really .32 caliber.


So you can see that this in not as simple a case as it would appear.

[iverglas]

9. lucky you were nice

although you might have done better to read what the law you're trying to talk about actually says. Could have saved yourself some trouble.

It's in post #8.

[L1A1Rocker]

10. Won't make the mistake of trying to be nice to him again.

So learn WTF you talking about before spouting off, k?

[iverglas]

12. hmm

So learn WTF you talking about before spouting off, k?

I believe that is exactly what I suggested you do, in rather more civil terms. If you choose not to, no skin off my nose!