body: Under the Firearms Act of Canada, the SVD Dragunov is banned as a variant of the AK-47. The SVD is a completely different design which shares no important parts (a single screw in the buttstock), and you'd be hard pressed to find a firearm expert who would agree that it's a variant of any Kalashnikov design.
  
  
  Here is the text:
  
  
  
  > 
  > The firearm of the design commonly known as the AK-47 rifle, and any variant or modified version of it except for the Valmet Hunter, the Valmet Hunter Auto and the Valmet M78 rifles, but including the:
  > 
  > 
  > (a) AK-74;
  > 
  > 
  > (b) AK Hunter;
  > 
  > 
  > (c) AKM;
  > 
  > 
  > (d) AKM-63;
  > 
  > 
  > (e) AKS-56S;
  > 
  > 
  > (f) AKS-56S-1;
  > 
  > 
  > (g) AKS-56S-2;
  > 
  > 
  > (h) AKS-74;
  > 
  > 
  > (i) AKS-84S-1;
  > 
  > 
  > (j) AMD-65;
  > 
  > 
  > (k) AR Model .223;
  > 
  > 
  > (l) Dragunov;
  > 
  > 
  > ...
  > 
  > 
  > 
  
  
  It seems to me this would be equivalent to say, a law banning steam locomotives specifically naming the Ford Mustang as a steam locomotive. While a Ford Mustang shares some common traits with a steam locomotive, such as being motorized transport that requires fuel, it's quite obvious that a Ford Mustang is not a steam locomotive.
  
  
  I'm specifically looking for examples in common-law countries where this sort of thing has been challenged or ruled on instead of being ignored.
  
  
  
title: What is the effect of a law which relies on false statements?