ALERT – If you are in the Firearms Industry, READ THIS.

Bill C-10A Firearms Marking Implementation

The Marking System has been POSTPONED until Dec. 1, 2009

Many thanks to Public Safety Minister Stockwell Day and Prime Minister Stephen Harper for their clear understanding of this important issue.

Special thanks to John Mock of CSAAA/Stoeger Canada, Steve Torino of CSSA, Bob Nichols of R.Nichols Distributing, Daniel Legault of Browning Canada, Rick Patterson of SAAMI, Greg Thomas of Remington, Mark Barnes of Barnes and Associates, and of course, the members of Canadian Shooting Sports and Canadian GunNutz.

You all made a tremendous difference and it was a pleasure to work with all of you.

Tony Bernardo
Executive Director, CILA
Communications Director, CSAAA

As of November 23rd, The CPA (Canadian Police Association), CACP (Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police), and Canadian Association of Police Boards have spoken out IN FAVOUR of the onerous UN Markings scheme. (See letter at bottom.)

We need letters addressed to the Minister immediately, particularly if you are a Law Enforcement Officer. Send them by fax NOW to the following numbers:
613-952-2240 and 613-995-1154

The Canadian Sporting Arms and Ammunition Association’s July 12, 2007 Alert to the Firearms Industry is here. Read it.

The US Sporting Arms and Ammunition Manufacturers’ Institute (SAAMI) has issued a white paper on the implementation of the Canadian regulations for marking on import here. They say, "We have read the Canadian Sporting Arms and Ammunition Association’s July 12, 2007 paper on the subject and find it to understate the problems with the proposed marking regulation."

The scheduled date for the implementation of the UN inspired firearms marking regulation is December 1, 2007. Despite regulation being postponed several times in the past, our sources have informed us that IT WILL BE IMPLEMENTED this time.

The effects on Canada’s firearms industry will be at very least, extremely expensive. At worst, this law could cause the catastrophic collapse of Canada’s firearms importing industry. This is not overstating the issue.

Please read the attached documents thoroughly. If you have any questions regarding this legislation, do not hesitate to contact us at the numbers listed below. Your complete understanding of this issue and its potential implications is critical to our fight to defeat it.

Your business and livelihood is at stake. The politicians have a limited understanding of this issue and we, collectively, must take steps to ensure their knowledge of this attack against legitimate business is brought up to speed sufficiently to allow them to take positive action against this regulation.

As well, time is of the essence. The wheels of government can move very slowly so any action you may undertake must be done as soon as possible. We are aware you have businesses to run but if you wish to be doing so next year, DO NOT PROCRASTINATE.

Please contact the following with your concerns:

copy

The Hon. Rob Nicholson
Minister of Justice / Attorney General of Canada
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Wellington Street
Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0A6
Telephone: (613) 995-1547
Fax: (613) 992-7910

The Hon. Stockwell Day
Minister of PUBLIC SAFETY
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Wellington Street
Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0A6
Telephone: (613) 995-1702
Fax: (613) 995-1154

The Hon. Peter MacKay
Minister of FOREIGN AFFAIRS
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Wellington Street
Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0A6
Telephone: (613) 992-6022
Fax: (613) 992-2337

As well, contact your M.P and any other political connections you may have. Send your concerns in writing and retain copies for your future reference, DO NOT SEND E-MAIL, fax or snail mail only please. Please keep all correspondences civil.

For more information contact: Tony Bernardo
Director of Political Communication – CSAAA
P: (905) 571-2150 F: (905) 436-7721
abernardo343@rogers.com

The United Nations Firearms Marking System and its Canadian implementation through Bill C-10A

July 12, 2007

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 1, 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:

MARKING OF IMPORTED FIREARMS (Bill C-10A Regulations)

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;
  (b) 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.

MANNER OF MARKING

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; and
  (b) in the case of an imported firearm, the last two digits of the year of the importation.

 (2) The markings shall
  (a) be legible;
  (b) 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;
  (b) 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.

Respectfully submitted

John Mock, Director

The CPA (Canadian Police Association), CACP (Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police), and Canadian Association of Police Boards Letter.

November 23, 2007

The Honourable Stockwell Day, P.C., M.P.
Minister Public Safety Canada
340 Laurier Avenue West
Ottawa, Ontario
K1A 0P8

Dear Minister:

We are writing as the three national associations representing policing in Canada, in response to recent reports that your government is considering another postponement of the Regulations requiring the marking of imported firearms, consistent with Canada‚s international commitments. We understand that this is being considered at the urging of the firearms community, without the benefit of adequate consultation with law enforcement. We respectfully urge you and your government to stand by the current commitment requiring marking of all imported firearms effective December 1, 2007. The current Regulations were created in 2004, to come into force in April, 2006. These regulations were established to enable Canada to fulfil its international commitments as a result of international treaties, to which Canada is a signatory, dealing with illegal firearms and gun crime as well as the flow of guns to conflict zones. The United States has had import marking regulations since the adoption of the 1968 Gun Control Act.

The United States government supports import marking as an international best practice. Canada has signed the O.A.S. Firearms Convention and United Nations Firearms Protocol. The Firearms Marking Regulations are essential to ratifying Canada's participation in these agreements and implementation. 28 of 35 O.A.S. countries have ratified the O.A.S. Firearms Convention. Canada has not yet done so, and was subject to criticism by other O.A.S. countries at the recent Canadian sponsored meeting in Geneva. In 2006, Canada supported the development of a politically binding agreement on marking and tracing flowing from to the UN Program of Action on the Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons. Currently, Canada is profiting from the United States‚ system of import marking and is not living up to its obligation to reciprocate. If the U.S. can do it, so can Canada. Some Canadian importers have already applied import markings.

From an international perspective, the application of an import mark implies a transfer of responsibility between countries for the safekeeping of the firearm. It is the acceptance of this responsibility that underpins the international agreements concerning firearms.

The Canadian Regulations have already been deferred once, from April 2006 to December 1, 2007, at the request of the firearms community. It appears now that the industry has not taken adequate steps to comply, and as a consequence seeks to undermine, through non-compliance and deferral, Canada‚s obligation to meet its international obligations. The impact of this decision for law enforcement is significant. Import marking is an important international law enforcement cooperation tool. Marking a firearm for import can assist domestic law enforcement with the identification of a firearm was lawfully imported-even if the serial number is obliterated. Knowing that a firearm was lawfully imported may help an investigator identify the firearm's source when linked to knowledge about legal importers or the firearms registry.

The main purpose of the import marking regime is to shorten tracing time for firearms that are transferred between nations as part of regular commerce. Police can commence the trace at the last country where the firearm was legally held and not waste time verifying prior transactions. This is best illustrated by an example: Suppose a Beretta pistol is found in criminal circumstances in Canada. Beretta firearms are made in Italy and typically are marketed to Canadian businesses through large U.S. distributors. Without an import marking physically present on the firearm, it would be unknown whether the firearm was diverted from lawful possession in Italy, the U.S.A, or Canada. Police would have to determine that through a time consuming records check with the U.S.A and Italy. With an import mark present, police would instantly know the country in which the firearm was last lawfully possessed and initiate the trace at that point. This can make the difference between a firearm trace taking hours verses months. The presence of a Canadian import mark instantly identifies the firearm as having been legally admitted to Canada. In such cases police can limit their search to domestic databases.

Canadian tracing of firearms is greatly facilitated by the U.S. import marking. A large percentage of firearms arriving in Canada come from the U.S. Canadian police routinely inspect seized firearms for a U.S. import mark in order to make use of the U.S. A.T.F. tracing centre resources. A Canadian import mark would likewise be useful to a foreign police agency in their tracing regime.

Import marking provides the ability to track firearms from non-compliant countries who do not respond to tracing requests. For example, whenever a Chinese firearm legally enters the marketplace of a country that is party to either the O.A.S. Firearms Convention or the U.N. Firearms protocol, the firearm would be physically marked with that country's import mark and a record made of the transaction. If that firearm were ever to be diverted to crime, the import marking would render tracing possible.

Even if the serial number of the firearm were defaced and thus made not uniquely traceable, the import mark would inform police as to whether the firearm was sourced domestically or smuggled. Such information is useful not only to the investigation at hand but also for intelligence and statistical purposes. Over time, as the percentage of firearms in Canada bearing an import mark increases, it would help answer the question of whether firearms involved in Canadian crime are smuggled or diverted domestically.

Physical import marking at the time of importation offers the opportunity to inspect the firearm to ensure it meets other marking standards such as a unique serial number. This is particularly relevant for older used firearms that may have been marked in an obsolete manner. It is required by the O.A.S. and U.N. instruments.

Minister, we believe that your government is committed to supporting law enforcement in our collective efforts to reduce firearms crime in Canada and the corresponding loss of lives. A decision to back away from Canada‚s international commitments is inconsistent with this desire, and we urge you to reconsider.

Sincerely,

Tony Cannavino,
President
Canadian Police Association

Steven Chabot,
President
Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police

Ian Wilms,
President
Canadian Association of Police Boards