Now I been Looking at my country's stupid laws trying to figure out if this would work, now here is what I am trying to figure out, the G3 is a modified version of the CETME rifle but the law here states as follows in the list of "banned firearms:
The firearm of the design commonly known as the G3 rifle, and any variant or modified version of it, including the Heckler and Koch:
(a) HK 91;
(b) HK 91A2;
(c) HK 91A3;
(d) HK G3 A3;
(e) HK G3 A3 ZF;
(f) HK G3 A4;
(g) HK G3 SG/1; and
(h) HK PSG1.

Now since the G3 is a modified version of the CETME wouldnt the CETME be legal to purchase? Because the CETME is defenetly not a modified version of the G3 but rather its grandfather.

That's why I have contacted them to see, but usually I always end up with bad news, chances are they will probably add it to the list just for me or add some other extension to the law that is not available for public viewing.

Simply put, its your fault for not asking. that's the way they see it, and that's the way the law see's it. If a law comes out and the population isn't informed about it its the job of the population to look. they consider it negligence if you break a law you where never told was there. It pisses me off but its the truth. They have a list of banned firearms and every single time I find a gun that isn't on the list according to them it is. If there is a new list of banned firearms they should have it on their website or somewhere I can view it to make sure, but they don't apparently.

This is from a goverment survey

Public opinion on ‘gun control’ is more of a struggle between conflicting cultural values than a debate
over its effectiveness. Those who have ‘anti-firearm’ values support any measures that will restrict
gun use. Those with ‘pro-firearm’ values oppose these measures (Mauser, Buckner 1997: 13).
ˆ Only a small minority of Canadians support the confiscation of firearms from target shooters, collec-tors,
or from those who own guns for self-defence (Mauser, Buckner 1997: 38-42).
ˆ The overwhelming majority of Canadians (and Americans) do not consider ‘gun control’ an impor-tant
issue (Kleck 1991: 365, 370; Kleck 1997: 330; Mauser, Buckner 1997: 17-21). Most do not
believe that restrictive firearm legislation is likely to have a significant effect on violence (Wright, et al.
1983: 235-237; Kleck 1991: 370; Mauser, Buckner 1997: 23).
ˆ Most Canadians are completely uninformed about existing firearm legislation (Gallup 1991: Table 6;
Mauser, Buckner 1997: 16). They are just as likely to say that they ‘support’ existing gun laws as
they are to ‘support’ proposed firearm legislation (Buckner June 1994: 5; Kleck 1991: 363-364).
ˆ While Canadian government surveys appear to show “strong” support for The Firearms Act (Bill C-68),
most Canadians, especially non-gun owners, are not “aware” that the Act even exists, nor do
they have any specific knowledge of the reforms introduced by the legislation (Angus Reid 1998).
ˆ Only a minority of gun owners support The Firearms Act; however, they are only slightly more likely
than nonowners to have any specific knowledge of the Act, and appear unaware of its ultimate im-pact
on them (Angus Reid 1998). As they become aware of the Act, it is likely that support among
gun owners will decline even further (Mauser, Buckner 1997: 18).
ˆ Both government-sponsored and independent surveys show that 30 per cent to 70 per cent of Cana-dian
gun owners will not register all of their guns, or obtain the licences required by The Firearms
Act (Angus Reid 1998; Buckner, Mauser 1997: 36-37). These findings are consistent with the Ca-nadian
experience with handgun registration in 1934, universal firearm registration in Canada during
World War Two, and of other Commonwealth nations such as Britain, Australia and New Zealand.
ˆ Support for ‘gun control’ among most non-gun owners is typically weak and unstable (Kleck 1991:
365). Few consider the issue important enough for them to act on (such as writing letters to legisla-tors
in support of firearm legislation).
ˆ Gun owners have far more at stake with restrictive gun laws. As a result, they are much more likely
than nonowners to become politically involved in opposing firearm legislation (Kleck 1991: 365; Ko-pel,
Mauser 1992: 85-86).
Executive Summary
Public Opinion and ‘Gun Control’
Executive Summary