Funny story, or "how we get screwed in Canada"...

[AirGunEric]

Manufacturer in this case will be left out.

A number of "non-firearm" rifles hit the Canadian border going to a dealer.

Border Services gets them, sees the label stating they shoot "560fps" and says "whoa- hold that stuff- there's firearms in them thar boxes"- which is justifiable up to this point.

Next step, dealer says "no, I won't give you a firearm dealer license number- we don't want these things to be listed as "firearms" coming in, having to register them for a buyer in Quebec, and collecting firearms license information from buyers elsewhere- they are "non-firearms".

Border says "huh?"

Dealer says "there is a 'non-firearm' designation on these rifles in addition to the 'firearm' designation and these units are the 'non-firearm' units".

Border people - "we need to check that out".

Dealer- "OK, but here, I'll make it easy- I will email you a note from the CFC with the 'non-firearm' information and test results on the product indicating it falls below the threshold for 'firearm'."

Border- "No, fax it."

Dealer- "OK"

after receipt of fax;

Border- "what does this mean? We will have to wait for the Senior Compliance Officer to come in next week to look at this."

Dealer- "it's called false, or at least, misleading advertising on the box, the gun can only shoot 475fps using regular pellets, maximum."

Border- "I don't know what you're saying but it sounds pretty dubious to me, we'll wait until next week."

Dealer- "Fine. But, why not call or direct the Senior Compliance Officer to call the CFC to figure this out through your own means- nobody's BS'ing you here."


So, dealer waits till the next week, talks to CFC for details on things, gets a note back from CBSA that apparently the rifles in the boxes don't match the specs on the rifles listed in the FRT- so they must go on the side of caution and label them 'firearms' until proven otherwise.

CFC people understand the legal definition of 'firearm' and agree that if the products fall under the threshold, they are not 'firearms'- but there is also a 'firearm' version of the gun on record so it must be determined how to differentiate them from one another. CFC calls manufacturer for details. Manufacturer does not seem to understand the question(s), dealer calls manufacturer to see what they are doing about this.

Dealer talks with manufacturer and determines the gun was designed to never shoot over 4.1fpe- thereby making ALL versions of the rifle ever built "non-firearms" but the manufacturer labels them at 560fps because that's more marketable for the US. Dealer convinces manufacturer to put this on paper and send to CFC so they can remove the "firearm" designated product from the FRT and have the current batch of rifles release by CBSA and all future shipments to any dealer/seller in Canada fly through customs without any issues. Manufacturer constructs letter and agrees to send to CFC.

CFC contacted about the content of upcoming letter and is told "wonderful, but the 'firearm' designation must remain in the FRT until such time as the rifle is not advertised as being over 500fps".

Dealer- "Huh? None of them are or ever were, 'firearms' by the legal definition!"

CFC- "But the boxes say 560fps and this is bound to cause confusion to border people and the general public."

Dealer starts scratching his head over this bizarre conundrum- in reality, the product has never been a "firearm" but will remain as a dual classification as a possible "firearm" because the manufacturer puts a misleading fps number on the packaging. Score: Reality, 0, Bizarre Perception, 1.

Border people- can't figure out what to do because the firearm designation still exists and there is no way to determine what's in the box except by learning the entire law/history of the product and then still have an incorrect label coming into the country- so "firearms" they remain.

Dealer goes back to manufacturer and discovers they "mailed" the letter to the CFC- so it won't show up for two weeks in CFC office- meaning even if something can be worked out, the rifles will be sitting in a customs warehouse for 3-4 weeks by the time things might be resolved. Dealer asks manufacturer to write another letter indicating he boxes were mis-labeled and they are in fact below 4.2fpe/500fps using standard pellets, but that they had no "Canadian" packaging so they were put in US-spec boxes. Manufacturer says "we've done so much already, and it should eliminate any problems having the rifles sent to Canada in future, so go away".

Dealer snaps, tells manufacturer where to go from this point forward, sends email to border people asking them how to have the products released back to the US side of the border to be returned to the manufacturer and gives up.

Total time invested by dealer- a week with daily telephone calls, emails and faxes.

End result- nothing but a waste of time.

But, this manufacturer has a product line that has not been popular for years (and hasn't had a 'new' product brought to market for at least 5 years) and any previous orders have been pooched up by them anyways.

The main point here is that unless a couple hundred of these things were going to be sold in Canada- it couldn't begin to pay for the time wasted trying to sort things out- which it still has not been, technically speaking.

So, between a border service that is somewhat limited in its ability to do things on its own as it must rely on the CFC for information which is technically incorrect but put in place to avoid "confusion" for the border people and Joe Public, and a manufacturer that proves time and time again they really don't give a damn about running an efficient, go-forward type of company (I have been betting for years they will be out-of-business in about 10 minutes if they ever lose their Wal-Mart USA business) and people wonder why the number/variety of products in Canada seems limited at times? This is but one of many of the potential answers...

[AirGunEric]

After thinking about this for awhile, and remembering back to the concept we have been told by the RCMP/CFC for a number of years now- i.e. "once labeled an 'x' type of gun, always labeled an 'x' type of gun"- i.e. the Crosman 2250 is always known as a "pistol" despite it possibly having a 24" barrel on it.

So this gets me thinking- if a product that is not, by the legal definition, a "firearm"- but is still labeled as a "firearm" by the CFC in its "guide" (the FRT)- causing entities like the CBSA and/or local police to consider them suspect- it strikes me that alot of this classifying is being done based on somebody's opinion of how things should be done, rather than on the actual word of the law- i.e. there may be quite a bit of room for legal challenge if an issue with such products were to come up.

Additionally, as in the case of this bizarre "we understand none of these are 'firearms' but we will retain a 'firearm' listing in the FRT which can only result in such product being turned away at the border unless being brought in under a license" is in fact a form of institutional discrimination. Discrimination against who/what? Canadians- business and consumers. If I had really deep pockets, I might think of taking such a thing to court under the idea of "abuse of process" or somesuch- seems that perhaps we have become accustomed to government employees making alot of opinion-based judgements that do not appear to have any basis in actual law, but are based on information most people lack, or have no interest in acquiring so it is rarely challenged.

[averagejoe]

Wow.... For the love of God somebody tell them to get stickers saying "Detuned to 495 FPS for Canadian market"...... Not that hard to put them on the specs area as they are going by or on the ends of the boxes as they are being loaded on to a pallet.

So much hassle... I wonder if border services has somebody waiting in the bathrooms with TP because they cant do that on their own either. Did the boxes say 560 fps... with alloy pellets? or just 560 fps?

[SeanMP]

We run into a similar issue with Transport Canada Marine Safety all the time and the problem with challenging them in court is the legislation comes with a built in "subjective interpretation clause" I've been told the the Canada Shipping Act and Consolidated Statutes is the largest piece of legislation in Canada. And every single regulation contains the clause "As deemed to be necessary and appropriate by the steamship inspector"

So you can challenge the ruling and win then sail to the next port and face the same thing all over again.

One example that I can think of that comes up every year like clockwork is our medicals. Our medicals exceed the transport canada medical in every respect but it's not on their form so they wont accept it. So once a year during annual inspection we get told our medicals are not valid and we can't sail.....You would think that because their jacket and our jacket both say "Canada" on the shoulder that we would actually get along and work together.....NOPE!

So they whip theirs out and start p$$ing on us, then we whip ours out and start p$$'ing back. We always win because our "Canada" has a crown over it and theirs doesn't. And in Canadian law crowns trump everything.

So yes I agree their is a whole lot of subjective interpretation and if this situation is anything like my situation CBSA and CFC wont agree with each other that two apples are indeed apples. Guaranteed one will say it's an orange and the other will say it requires further testing

[SureShot]

I once crossed the border with a package of computer printer paper to declare. It took more than half an hour to clear up the confusion because Canada Customs didn't know how to enter it into their computer. Was it a computer or paper product? Apparently different codes.

I feel for you Eric. Canada Customs, heck any government entity can be inflexible and difficult to deal with at time.
That's why we buy from you and not Pyramyd Air

[AirGunEric]

They were only marked as "560fps" - and of course in nice over-sized type.

I'm not 'blaming' the border people in this case- they are looking at a label and getting, in my view, poor guidance from the CFC/FRT. It gets established there is no such thing as a "firearm" version of this product, but the RCMP refuses to remove the "firearm" classification from the records as it is advertised in the US as "560fps" even though it doesn't meet the Canadian requirement for "firearm".

And Sean, you're probably correct about this "interpretive" idea- I think this is the entire issue- allows for alot of leeway and confusion.


#$@#$$%

[poil27]

wish magnifacturer are you talking about ? if it's not too mutch to ask

[DocGadget]

Why can't they just test it out? I don't know who's the manufacturer but the way some of them threat Canadian customers is shameful.
I understand CFC or RCMP or wathever acronym they don't have time to test everything out but in this case they have 2 product numbers, one firearm/one non-firearm, test it out or send some official to the dealer to have it tested? The rifles, a tin of pellet and a chrony and the issue is resolved.

[Scottster]

Seems that if the manufacturer wants to increase market share in this country, they could repackage the merchandise. Or at the very least, as noted above, put a cover label on all exports to Canada.
Maybe we're too small time to be worth the effort...

[AirGunEric]

That would be the point- the RCMP/CFC is well aware there is no actual "firearm" version of the product available now, or ever, anywhere.

Their contention is that because the rifle is marked and advertised somewhere in the world as having an output of 560fps (and they are also aware this is with 5.5gr pellets, or 3.8fpe- i.e. NOT a "firearm") they must have this "firearm" classification and the manufacturer must label the boxes as "under 500fps" so there is no CBSA or consumer "confusion"- NOT because there is any such product that is, in fact, a "firearm" by the legal definition for Canada.

And that would be the point, the RCMP/CFC is not just acting within the "law"- they are acting in some sort of 'public relations' mindset where if the box says anything over 500fps then they will create a "firearm" classification for it and rely on the manufacturers to re-label the boxes, even if only just for Canada.

So what this is, ultimately, is the RCMP/CFC dictating labeling to manufacturers instead of having to educate people- i.e. Border Services personnel or the public. I assume the idea is that most people (ie. border services types and people in general) will not take the time or the care to really investigate something to be clear on what is correct or appropriate- so the easier path is to make manufacturers re-do packaging just for Canada. Mind-you, I can partially see this- many people (too many it seems at times) don't apparently like straining their brain too much and prefer to make "snap judgments" based on nothing more than their own perspective at any given moment. So, if a box says "560fps" and they don't care to educate themselves on what this really means- they jump to the conclusion of either "firearm!" or that anything with a label stating "560fps" is not a firearm.