The FRT - Firearms Awaiting Classification - Updated 18-DEC-2017 Faxon XRS-C

Gnome75 said:
As mind bogglingly as this is I am going to try and look at the positive.

Is the PPSH going to be NR or pointless? I have been wanting an NR in 7.62x25 for a long time.

Will it be afford like other Russian guns?
Click to expand...

The ppsh is already classified as restricted with the production barrel. Buy one and rebarrel it and it will be NR.

The fact it isn't in country yet isn't the labs fault. That's a dealer issue.
 
CyprusTM said:
Do they not need to prove to the manufacturer/importer how they were able to "readily and easily converted to discharge shots in rapid succession " ?

Can a manufacturer/importer appeal this ####?
Click to expand...

There is no legal way to appeal, as the FRT is not Law, it is just the opinion of the RCMP SFSS. The "policy" of DFAIT (who issue import certs) and CBSA is to accept the FRT as a legal requirement. This is why firearms cost a lot in Canada, the hidden costs to importers are huge!
 
b-wingpilot said:
Looks like the HK 243 is prohibited. FRN# 156187. The explanation the RCMP have given is that it was "readily and easily converted to discharge shots in rapid succession with a single pressure of the trigger in a relatively short time period with relative ease."
Click to expand...

Well #### them.
 
fenceline said:
They are firearms under section 2 of the criminal code. Some shoot overy 500 fps and thus become firearms regulated by the firearms act. There is at least one list on the frt that is prohibited as it shoots full auto and over 500fps.

Most are firearms, but exempt from certain sections of the criminal code as per section 84(3) cc
Click to expand...

But isn't that why there's also an energy component? To reduce this ridiculouslness? Surely the airsoft isn't shooting over the 4.5 joules or whatever it is...
 
HawkWei said:
The EMEI T05 is also a huge lost.

SDM-SMG9-Data-Table.jpg


I contact my fried at EMEI last night he said the particular firearm were designed to be semi-auto in the first place.....well....me no happy.
Click to expand...

Fvck, nevermind
 
The type 03 an type 05 were classed prohib by the lab a year and a half ago with a notation saying the lab wasn't provided a full data package or full auto versions to compare. The lab said the gun fired semi auto but lacking a full auto to compare they couldn't tell if the guns were able to swap parts.

So they just said prohib.
 
fenceline said:
The type 03 an type 05 were classed prohib by the lab a year and a half ago with a notation saying the lab wasn't provided a full data package or full auto versions to compare. The lab said the gun fired semi auto but lacking a full auto to compare they couldn't tell if the guns were able to swap parts.

So they just said prohib.
Click to expand...

Lol, can I do that with my job?

Sorry boss, I don't have an example of what this needs to look like so I will not even do it.
 
fenceline said:
The type 03 an type 05 were classed prohib by the lab a year and a half ago with a notation saying the lab wasn't provided a full data package or full auto versions to compare. The lab said the gun fired semi auto but lacking a full auto to compare they couldn't tell if the guns were able to swap parts.

So they just said prohib.
Click to expand...

So what about guns with no full auto comparison? There must be semi auto, already classified, civilian guns that have no full auto counterpart, The Remington 750 for example.
 
SquidMeister said:
So what about guns with no full auto comparison? There must be semi auto, already classified, civilian guns that have no full auto counterpart, The Remington 750 for example.
Click to expand...

F if I know. That's just what the frt says about the 03 and 05. They prohib'd them because they couldn't make them full auto, but feel might have been able to had they had full auto versions to compare them to.

Sounds like that isn't too easy to do. But yet prohib.
 
Well, doesn't that just suck! So much for an affordable G36 in Canada...

On the bright side, I'm now very glad that I went ahead and bough an SL-8 conversion when one popped up on the EE a while back. I was only going to keep it until the 243 became available, and then take a loss on resale. With the demise of the 243, that conversion rifle will now be my "keeper" for sure! It is a "Stock Block" conversion, and as such is only the 90% solution to owning a genuine G36. With the recent bad news however, that will just have to be close enough for me. Furthermore, I can only see the prices for existing clones in Canada increasing now that the 243 is dead in the water and the handful of genuine G36s in country remain in the $10K zone. It should also be interesting to see what my minty, spare "Top Notch" G36 Pistol Grip & Butt-stock conversion kit will fetch on the EE now, given their virtually unobtanium status these days (long out of production)...
 
Mr Wolverine said:
There is no legal way to appeal, as the FRT is not Law, it is just the opinion of the RCMP SFSS. The "policy" of DFAIT (who issue import certs) and CBSA is to accept the FRT as a legal requirement. This is why firearms cost a lot in Canada, the hidden costs to importers are huge!
Click to expand...

So how did you appeal the akdal then? To get the opinion changed from restricted ar15 variant to not?
 
rambones said:
Confusing, reading it again.

"readily and easily converted to discharge shots in rapid succession with a single pressure of the trigger

in a relatively short time period with relative ease."

I think they are saying they Easily Converted to Full Auto(single pull of trigger), with little effort and time.

Stinks, how do we get them to prove this
Click to expand...

they probably grabbed the full auto bolt from the OPP G36 and dropped it in and went brrttttttt.....
 
fenceline said:
F if I know. That's just what the frt says about the 03 and 05. They prohib'd them because they couldn't make them full auto, but feel might have been able to had they had full auto versions to compare them to.

Sounds like that isn't too easy to do. But yet prohib.
Click to expand...


That's the most ridiculous version I've heard yet
 
Mr Wolverine said:
There is no legal way to appeal, as the FRT is not Law, it is just the opinion of the RCMP SFSS. The "policy" of DFAIT (who issue import certs) and CBSA is to accept the FRT as a legal requirement. This is why firearms cost a lot in Canada, the hidden costs to importers are huge!
Click to expand...

So,... the FRT (i.e. someones opinion) isn't law, but is treated as the law of the land by a bunch of agencies. Surely someone out there can point out to some court that this cannot be enforced-as it is not a real law...
Or, is it a case of agencies passing their own (binding) regulations--as allowed under existing legislation. If this is the case, every aspect of life can/will be controlled via "regulation". Enter the eventual end of freedom
 
fenceline said:
So how did you appeal the akdal then? To get the opinion changed from restricted ar15 variant to not?
Click to expand...

I didn't consider what I did was an appeal. I simply submitted a rational argument as to why an error had been made with the previous classification by indicating on a point by point basis reasons why she was not a variant of the AR15. I submitted this to the the RCMP SFSS.

By appeal I mean there is no appeal to a controlling body or through a court of law that I am currently aware of. That is why I would like the FRT to be law then it would have to be defined, accountable and there would be a legal right to appeal as well as have a reasonabl time period for the process
 
zupermann said:
So,... the FRT (i.e. someones opinion) isn't law, but is treated as the law of the land by a bunch of agencies. Surely someone out there can point out to some court that this cannot be enforced-as it is not a real law...
Or, is it a case of agencies passing their own (binding) regulations--as allowed under existing legislation. If this is the case, every aspect of life can/will be controlled via "regulation". Enter the eventual end of freedom
Click to expand...

That sounds real scary when you put it like that. A lot a the firearms "controls" voiced as law on CGN are in fact only policy. Like the "Range construction guidelines " and "Deactivation guidelines" , guidelines are policies which are presumed to be law!
 
Mr Wolverine said:
That sounds real scary when you put it like that. A lot a the firearms "controls" voiced as law on CGN are in fact only policy. Like the "Range construction guidelines " and "Deactivation guidelines" , guidelines are policies which are presumed to be law!
Click to expand...

A brave person(s) or organization must rise and challenge this (the whole concept of "guidelines"and "reasonableness"). If the politicos won't reform bad "laws", then collectively we must force the issue in court.
 
zupermann said:
A brave person(s) or organization must rise and challenge this (the whole concept of "guidelines"and "reasonableness"). If the politicos won't reform bad "laws", then collectively we must force the issue in court.
Click to expand...

I would personally donate $1000 towards this if someone like wolverine challenged the government on this frt thing not actually being law. And I'm sure others would help out as well.
 
polskiogorki said:
I would personally donate $1000 towards this if someone like wolverine challenged the government on this frt thing not actually being law. And I'm sure others would help out as well.
Click to expand...

I would give smaller amounts on an ongoing basis.
Where would a lawyer even start on this mess.....it is a ball of spaghetti that's growing every year/change of government.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom