bumped.
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
bumped.
"Unless someone like you cares a whole awful lot, nothing is going to get better. It's not." ― Dr. Seuss, The Lorax
wow and i thought that these things were already in circulation from seeing this thread a long time ago... the RCMP is really getting bad with these classifications! there are a number of other firearms that have yet to be classified, and have been in their possession for a long time.
Yet another reason why the RCMP should be disbanded. Just another disgrace to add to the ever growing list.
I dont think disbanded... but I wouldnt mind seeing somebody else take over the classification that can also be impartial.
And mostly because the backlog/long waiting times suck.
Luke
... to ban guns because criminals use them is to tell the innocent and law-abiding that their rights and liberties depend not on their own conduct, but on the conduct of the guilty and the lawless, and that the law will permit them to have only such rights and liberties as the lawless will allow.... -- Jeff Snyder
WTF!!!!??????????? Seriously. I doubt I could not do my job for 1 hour and get fired and they get an entire ####ing year!?
I would imagine they have a few other duties besides classifying your adult gun-toys.Originally Posted by cadgo
That being said, I wish they'd get on classifying the ISSC MK22, I need a new toy. :D
" I would imagine they have a few other duties besides classifying your adult gun-toys."
No; These aren't traffic cops who deal with firearm classifications in their spare time.
Firearm classification is their actual job. And they aren't doing it.
Probably just waiting for the election to be over so they would have a better idea what to allow and what to outlaw.
Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.
- Seneca the Younger
How about the CSSA handling the Classification of new firearms ?
;-)
Yeah, this should be easy. The criminal code says a firearm is restricted if, "The firearm of the design commonly known as the M-16 rifle, and any variant or modified version of it." Now how does the law define variant? Oh, it doesn't! Let's check Webster's dictionary, "variant: varying usually slightly from the standard form"
So does the criminal code mean for us to use that definition of variant? Is the varying a matter of operation, power, cosmetics, or something else? Until the courts deal with the ambiguity anything that looks kinda, sorta like an AR if you squint could be declared a restricted firearm, even if it is a single shot airgun.
How long should it take someone to propose a legal classification on the basis of an ambiguous regulation? At least we've got this forum to come up with a definative answer to that question...
EOSC.ca
Posting Permissions
