Page 6 of 8 FirstFirst 12345678 LastLast
Results 51 to 60 of 74

Thread: Tnw m2/m3hb eta

  1. #51
    CGN Ultra frequent flyer fenceline's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    East of Home, West of the Rest
    Posts
    14,936
    A manufacturer can't build a gun using another manufactures FRT for classification.

    New manufacturer, new FRT entry. Always how it works. The RCMP would want to examine the rifle to make sure it abides by the Firearm Act classifications, before the licenced manufacturer could obtain an FRT entry.
    CQB, 3 Gun, ISSAC and Service Rifle Shooter.
    ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ - 1* - SI VIS PACEM, PARA BELLUM - HAN SHOT FIRST - YOUR FREEDOM IS YOUR RESPONSIBILITY

  2. #52
    GunNutz stencollector's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    shilo MB, the armpit of Canada
    Posts
    4,389
    delete
    Last edited by stencollector; 12-19-2015 at 11:48 PM.

  3. #53
    CGN Regular
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    .
    Posts
    237
    delete
    Last edited by Airborneboi69; 03-12-2017 at 10:59 AM.

  4. #54
    CGN Ultra frequent flyer fenceline's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    East of Home, West of the Rest
    Posts
    14,936
    Quote Originally Posted by stencollector View Post
    If it had a TNW serialised sideplate, would it not be a TNW? After all, that is what North Sylva was trying to do.
    If it was a TNW serialized side plate, and had the other walls all made from new, then yes. Unless the TNW sideplate had been obtained from a converted auto build of theirs, then it would be from a converted auto receiver, and make the other 4 walls added to it part of a converted auto build.

    Fun laws eh???
    CQB, 3 Gun, ISSAC and Service Rifle Shooter.
    ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ - 1* - SI VIS PACEM, PARA BELLUM - HAN SHOT FIRST - YOUR FREEDOM IS YOUR RESPONSIBILITY

  5. #55
    GunNutz stencollector's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    shilo MB, the armpit of Canada
    Posts
    4,389
    delete
    Last edited by stencollector; 12-19-2015 at 11:47 PM.

  6. #56
    CGN Ultra frequent flyer fenceline's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    East of Home, West of the Rest
    Posts
    14,936
    Unfortunately the debate would be in court and would be surrounding the difference of opinion held by the rcmp and the accused.

    The rcmp lab have secured "expert opinion status" with the courts. How do you think that would go?

    Can you convert the receiver of a converted auto gun to a legal non restricted of restricted receiver? No. So if a tnw gun is deemed prohibited as a converted auto, would taking one of the walls from that receiver then be usable in building a non restricted or restricted gun? Nope.

    Once a prohibited CA or FA receiver, always one.

    There are two frt entries for tnw guns. One as nr. The other as prohibited.

    If you sourced a newly made tnw side plate, or sourced one from a gun that was deemed NR and then used that plate to build a receiver with 4 other new sides, you'd be fine.

    If the tnw side plate came from a prohibited CA gun, it would still be prohibited as a CA receiver wall. The serial number is on that plate. If it was registered as prohib, it would never change.

    Of course if one never knew the origin of the side plate, one would never be able to say either way for sure. And doubt always goes in favor of the accused.
    CQB, 3 Gun, ISSAC and Service Rifle Shooter.
    ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ - 1* - SI VIS PACEM, PARA BELLUM - HAN SHOT FIRST - YOUR FREEDOM IS YOUR RESPONSIBILITY

  7. #57
    CGN Ultra frequent flyer mildcustom2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Surrey, B.C.
    Posts
    4,676
    Quote Originally Posted by stencollector View Post
    I think that would be debatable. The RCMP knew full well that the early imports recycled the parts.....read an older FRT description where it states the receiver uses surplus parts. It was the sudden prospect of both both Sylva's guns coming onto the market along with those from Alberta Tactical that had them re-think their previous ruling and play like they never knew. Even their current description of a TNW is somewhat convoluted. Apparently all 5 sides of the box make the receiver, but the right side plate is the registered part. What of the rivets? What of the feed guides? How far does the stupidity go?

    At present, the FRT entry and classification is over a year old, so under the previous safety minister's rule, the RCMP can't change it. So, at present, any sideplate off a TNW build (with the possible exception of one that used a Cdn Arsenals LongBranch top plate) is a sideplate off a non-restricted gun. That will fall onto the advisory/classification committee or the new government to decide.
    Your statement is not correct.

    The original TNW 1919's were made from unassembled new old stock parts kits therefore were never a complete firearm and could not be considered converted auto. They purchased a huge surplus lot of these unassembled parts kits. When they were all gone they started using demilled Israeli parts kits like just about everyone else. Due to the guns assembled from demilled parts kits they considered them converted auto.

    This same logic applies to the M2HB's. If it was made from a NOS unassembled Kit it's ok and if it was made from a demilled Israeli kit which has markings on the parts to prove it then it's a converted auto.

    Now what none of you are probably aware of is that the U.S. state department is working in conjunction with the RCMP and will not issue permits for any 1919 or M2HB to leave the U.S. Unless it can be proven 100% that the receiver is made entirely of new parts. This is why our favourite gun runner can't get them into Canada anymore and have a couple sitting down in the U.S.

    So aside from someone getting their hands on drawings and building from scratch in Canada the RCMP have figured out a way to get rid of some that are in Canada already and stop the flow of them into the country.

    Welcome to the RCMP political agenda.

  8. #58
    CGN Ultra frequent flyer fenceline's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    East of Home, West of the Rest
    Posts
    14,936
    Quote Originally Posted by mildcustom2 View Post
    Your statement is not correct.

    The original TNW 1919's were made from unassembled new old stock parts kits therefore were never a complete firearm and could not be considered converted auto. They purchased a huge surplus lot of these unassembled parts kits. When they were all gone they started using demilled Israeli parts kits like just about everyone else. Due to the guns assembled from demilled parts kits they considered them converted auto.

    This same logic applies to the M2HB's. If it was made from a NOS unassembled Kit it's ok and if it was made from a demilled Israeli kit which has markings on the parts to prove it then it's a converted auto.

    Now what none of you are probably aware of is that the U.S. state department is working in conjunction with the RCMP and will not issue permits for any 1919 or M2HB to leave the U.S. Unless it can be proven 100% that the receiver is made entirely of new parts. This is why our favourite gun runner can't get them into Canada anymore and have a couple sitting down in the U.S.

    So aside from someone getting their hands on drawings and building from scratch in Canada the RCMP have figured out a way to get rid of some that are in Canada already and stop the flow of them into the country.

    Welcome to the RCMP political agenda.

    The cz858 receivers that were deemed prohibited after the fact by the lab were never assembled into complete guns. The were never actually built into full auto firing guns. However they were modified before their first assembly into semi autos. Some would say that means they were complete initially as semi auto guns.

    The rcmp does not follow this line of thinking. They believe the dividing line is during manufacture of the receiver, and what the receiver was originally intended to be. In the rcmp mind those cz858 receiver were conceived to be full auto, so that made them full auto from the first pour of the metal into the mold. Thus, the modification was a conversion of a full auto receiver, even though the receiver was never made into a complete and functional full auto gun.
    CQB, 3 Gun, ISSAC and Service Rifle Shooter.
    ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ - 1* - SI VIS PACEM, PARA BELLUM - HAN SHOT FIRST - YOUR FREEDOM IS YOUR RESPONSIBILITY

  9. #59
    CGN Ultra frequent flyer mildcustom2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Surrey, B.C.
    Posts
    4,676
    Quote Originally Posted by fenceline View Post
    The cz858 receivers that were deemed prohibited after the fact by the lab were never assembled into complete guns. The were never actually built into full auto firing guns. However they were modified before their first assembly into semi autos. Some would say that means they were complete initially as semi auto guns.

    The rcmp does not follow this line of thinking. They believe the dividing line is during manufacture of the receiver, and what the receiver was originally intended to be. In the rcmp mind those cz858 receiver were conceived to be full auto, so that made them full auto from the first pour of the metal into the mold. Thus, the modification was a conversion of a full auto receiver, even though the receiver was never made into a complete and functional full auto gun.
    My statement is about the reality of what will turn out to be a process of eliminating all the guns in civilian ownership. It's only a matter of time before they are all reclassified. They are just whittling it down bit by bit.

    However given that the left side plate, trunion and top and bottom plate for a semi auto gun is no different in shape or design than a full auto gun this kogic you are using would not apply. I am unfamiliar with the CZ design however if it stamped steel receiver was of one or two pieces and was full auto then modified during production it explains the logic for reclassification as you have described.

    I think it's all BS myself

  10. #60
    CGN Ultra frequent flyer fenceline's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    East of Home, West of the Rest
    Posts
    14,936
    Quote Originally Posted by mildcustom2 View Post
    My statement is about the reality of what will turn out to be a process of eliminating all the guns in civilian ownership. It's only a matter of time before they are all reclassified. They are just whittling it down bit by bit.
    My statement is about how a gun receiver doesn't need to have ever been assembled or fired full auto, for it to be considered a full auto receiver.

    For them to be all reclassified, the law would need to change. I'm sure the liberals have ideas on how to do that.

    Currently however, the RCMP do not, and never have, had that ability or power on their own outside of the interpretations of the firearms act, which is politician controlled.

    The rcmp are the messenger, the firearms act is the message, politicians are the author.
    CQB, 3 Gun, ISSAC and Service Rifle Shooter.
    ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ - 1* - SI VIS PACEM, PARA BELLUM - HAN SHOT FIRST - YOUR FREEDOM IS YOUR RESPONSIBILITY

Page 6 of 8 FirstFirst 12345678 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •