Nea 102

With the kind of explanation the RCMP gave to the 858 Spartan edition, who on earth is expecting this to be NR? If they can say the marking on the stock is different thus making it a different gun...you expect them to classify this gun according to the Armalite 102? This will be the biggest letdown in 2017 on this forum​.

PS.... I am not saying this will be prohibited...i am just using the 858 as an example that the RCMP can explain howevet they like to make this classification suit their agenda.
 
fluidmax said:
With the kind of explanation the RCMP gave to the 858 Spartan edition, who on earth is expecting this to be NR? If they can say the marking on the stock is different thus making it a different gun...you expect them to classify this gun according to the Armalite 102? This will be the biggest letdown in 2017 on this forum​.

PS.... I am not saying this will be prohibited...i am just using the 858 as an example that the RCMP can explain howevet they like to make this classification suit their agenda.
Click to expand...

The 858 receivers are converted auto. A very specific list of 858 models, by specific name, were given prescribed status as NR and R. Change the name, the OIC doesn't apply and it is classified as prohibited as a converted auto.

The NEA102 isn't converted auto, and doesn't need an OIC to make it NR or R.

NEA says the NEA102 is a remake of the Armalite AR102. The Armalite AR102 is non restricted.

Your spartan reference is apples to oranges. Two totally different legal language paths of the firearms act.
 
fenceline said:
The 858 receivers are converted auto. A very specific list of 858 models, by specific name, were given prescribed status as NR and R. Change the name, the OIC doesn't apply and it is classified as prohibited as a converted auto.

The NEA102 isn't converted auto, and doesn't need an OIC to make it NR or R.

NEA says the NEA102 is a remake of the Armalite AR102. The Armalite AR102 is non restricted.

Your spartan reference is apples to oranges. Two totally different legal language paths of the firearms act.
Click to expand...

Agreed, prohib by a different means, but prohib in a more illogical way than what this could be...
 
onetwentyish said:
Agreed, prohib by a different means, but prohib in a more illogical way than what this could be...
Click to expand...

Logic....


They re examined, determined that receivers are converted auto on a specific set of models.

Change class to prohibited as that is what converted autos are.

Politicians enact a very specific OIC that exempts very specific models b very specific names as exempt from prohibition.

A model is brought in with the same converted auto receivers, but with different branding making a different model.

Because politicians went narrow on the OIC instead of broad, the OIC doesn't cover the new name.

Converted autos outside the named versions in the OIC are still prohibited and not exempt.

Sucks, but it's a clear legal path. It sucks, but it's that straight forward.

If the OIC said "all variants" or "all variants not full auto" are exempt the spartan would be here.

But that has nothing to do with anything of the process involved in classifying the 102.
 
According to NEA the classification has been reached already. The lab is just filling in the fields, crossing their t's and doting their i's. This should play no part in the 102.


However, anything is possible with these clowns.
 
After recent announcements they could have changed their minds on a whim, but first they'll let us all get them in hand, THEN tell us nope, all restricted or phrohib, our bad, your fault , your loss.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom