The legal definitions for “weapon" and "firearm" are deceptive: Lies at worst, but misleading at best.
In my first article, I explained how the two definitions are intentionally conflated to make sure that all guns are legally categorized as "weapons."
Now I want to explain how the definition of "firearm" is an attempt by the government to “suck and blow” at the same time.
In the definition of "firearm," two distinct definitions of the same word are being forced down our collective throats
Again, here is the definition of "firearm" from the Criminal Code of Canada (CCC):
[A] barrelled weapon from which any shot, bullet or other projectile can be discharged and that is capable of causing serious bodily injury or death to a person, and includes any frame or receiver of such a barrelled weapon and anything that can be adapted for use as a firearm;
Now I am going to break this down into two parts.
In the first part, “firearm” means "a barrelled weapon from which any shot, bullet or other projectile can be discharged and that is capable of causing serious bodily injury or death to a person…" which I've already covered.
However, the second part reads as follows:
...and includes any frame or receiver of such a barrelled weapon and anything that can be adapted for use as a firearm;
Do you know what a frame or receiver is?
It is the part that everything else that makes a gun function attaches to.
The Canadian government thinks that this is the most dangerous part of the gun? Well, maybe when you throw it! On its own it is nothing more than a paper-weight.
However, current Canadian legislation mandates that the frame or receiver IS the gun.
Now, since the anti-gunners always like comparing guns to cars, why don’t we do that too?
When is a car a car? Let’s take one apart. There would be the body, seats, interior carpet, engine, drive train, wheels and then finally, the frame, the part that everything else attaches to.
Which part or group of parts is "the car"? Can you even consider one part or group of parts "the car"? Of course not.
So how can a part of a "firearm" be the whole "firearm," when all parts are needed to make the gun function?
There is a saying:
“It doesn’t have to make sense. It’s government policy.”
PS: Here is Sheila Gunn Reid's video "How I Became a Gun Criminal (While I Slept)"