Owning an AR just for the sake of it

J_Scott said:
I have a really nice LMT AR, it's set up just the way I want, functions perfectly, is accurate for an SBR... but, I just don't like shooting it. I find myself at the trap, handgun or Long Distance range way more. However, I continue to own this firearm just for the fact that if they're ever banned, I'll be grandfathered.

I'm definitely not a tin-foil hat guy, but what are the chances of this happening? Is that how things worked with the 12(2-6)?

I have some other projects the money would go towards funding if I ever sold it, so the question is... do I HAVE to own an AR? I know you guys will set me straight! ;)
Click to expand...

Remember the VZ858 and swiss arms fiasco? Or the 80% lower ban? Or the Spartan CZ58 ban? I am sure there are a few others. These events alone makes me think that there will never be another grandfathering.

If a gun ban does come up one can hope there is a grandfathering but I doubt it.
 
J_Scott said:
Thanks for your opinions, it seems my fear isn't unfounded.

It just seems stupid as I always have invested money into black guns that I never shoot. SL-8, XCR's, Tavor etc. Meanwhile, here I am shooting trap with an 870 and a Derya MK10 haha.
Click to expand...

You..... don't want to sell that SL-8, do you? Not that I have the money for one anyway, but I've noticed lately they are impossible to find.
 
m39a2 said:
Just for interest and information, there is no way for the feds to "Grandfather" any other firearm without a complete re-wright of the firearms act. The prohibited classes were conjured up on a list and nothing can be added to those specific lists. AR's almost went prohibited the first time but the DCRA kinda raised a stink and saved them, also, even then there were a few of them in the country.

Take a look at the prohibited lists, there were really 2, prohibited period and prohibited with grandfathering. It was pretty easy to figure out why. The prohibited period guns were fairly few where as the grandfathered guns had a few more, for just 10 or so people to put up a fight, government can win that pretty easy but a few thousand and the government has a fight.

Scott
Click to expand...

Sorry, but you have this exactly backwards on multiple counts. First, the firearms act specifically states that any owner is eligible to hold a license for prohibited by OIC firearms as long as they owned one before the coming into force of the OIC, meaning the only way we DON'T get grandfathered, is if they amend the Firearms Act BEFORE they prescribe by OIC.

Second, The prohibited classes are twofold. Prohibited by characteristics per the definition in Section 84 (A-C) of the criminal code, or prohibited by regulation (84. D). The prohibited by definition still resulted in a significant number of people being grandfathered, particularly short barreled pistols, but also converted automatics. By far the largest number of newly prohibited guns in 1995 were the short barreled hand guns that were prohibited outright, not by OIC, but then saved by grand fathering.

Despite being fictitious, according to the firearms act anyone who owned a HnK G11 prior to being banned, was entitled to being grandfathered.

Go Read S12 of the firearms act. 12.1 through 12.8. Everything that is prohibited by OIC is covered by a grandfathering. Now Read the definition of Prohibited firearm in S84 of the code. The only guns not eligible for grandfathering are sawed offs, which virtually no law abiding gun owner would have owned.
 
Last edited:
I find it highly unlikely that they will be so lenient to allow for any more grandfathering of anything.
Also, AR prices are in the dumpster, if you sell one you’re taking a huge loss, kinda stuck at this point.
 
Well. She’s sold pending funds already. I’m not going to lose sleep over it.

ColKurtz said:
You..... don't want to sell that SL-8, do you? Not that I have the money for one anyway, but I've noticed lately they are impossible to find.
Click to expand...

An SL8-5 is up there now. I may sell mine but I first have to bag at least one ‘yote with it. It’s just so damn accurate and I love the look with the psg-1 stock I have.
 
The whole restricted class is a bunch of bullsh*t...that being said..I would want to own a stripped lower or pistol frame just to play it safe should skippy the wonder chimp and his band of clowns decide to go full retard. My hope would be that grandfathering works in my favor...
 
I'm hoping that if the government does move towards negatively changing the laws surrounding the AR15 platform it would be alike to the USA Assault weapons ban. They stay restricted, everyone that has them gets to keep them and use them as usual and anyone with a restricted license can buy one from already existing Canadian black rifles but no more Ar15's get imported into the market. That way to government does not invalidate the millions of dollars of legally owned property of Canadians and we all see the value of the Ar platform increase instead of decrease.

I would prefer things stay as is or even have the ar15 go to non restricted with the 18.5 inch caveat of course but realistically the government is going to do something and its definitely not going to be a move towards less regulation. If you are that worried pick up a stripped lower for $100 bucks and get your foot in the ar15 door in case they are planning to try and close it.

Ben
 
pygmalion2020 said:
I'm hoping that if the government does move towards negatively changing the laws surrounding the AR15 platform it would be alike to the USA Assault weapons ban. They stay restricted, everyone that has them gets to keep them and use them as usual and anyone with a restricted license can buy one from already existing Canadian black rifles but no more Ar15's get imported into the market. That way to government does not invalidate the millions of dollars of legally owned property of Canadians and we all see the value of the Ar platform increase instead of decrease.

I would prefer things stay as is or even have the ar15 go to non restricted with the 18.5 inch caveat of course but realistically the government is going to do something and its definitely not going to be a move towards less regulation. If you are that worried pick up a stripped lower for $100 bucks and get your foot in the ar15 door in case they are planning to try and close it.

Ben
Click to expand...

You seem to have a weak grasp of how prohibitions affect the value of firearms. Prohibition/restriction tends to make firearms less valuable, not more, as there is a shrinking pool of available buyers?

Not one prohibited firearm has gone up in value due to be grandfathered, and most prohibited in firearms sell for a minute fraction for what they would be worth in the US on an open market.

Who cares if the government does not seize millions of dollars of legally owned property? The people manufacturing ARs in Canada will be ruined. Screw em as long as you get to keep yours?

Why be so defeatist? Rather than sending a message to the government trolls who peruse the form that includes the terms and conditions of your surrender, you should be sending letters to your MP and the public safety minister indicating that you will not, under any circumstances, accept or comply with an AR ban.
 
I have 2X AR15 and 2X AR10, if we lose them so be it, but i dont think so, i would not get caught without some AR's in my safe... JP.
 
If you don't shoot it and really have no interest then sell it and get a stripped lower.

Aero lowers regularly go for $99 it's a small investment imo.
 
I think everyone on this board who can afford it should buy an AR or a lower, as a matter of principle. A case of putting your money where your mouth is !
 
Cameron SS said:
You seem to have a weak grasp of how prohibitions affect the value of firearms. Prohibition/restriction tends to make firearms less valuable, not more, as there is a shrinking pool of available buyers?

Not one prohibited firearm has gone up in value due to be grandfathered, and most prohibited in firearms sell for a minute fraction for what they would be worth in the US on an open market.

Who cares if the government does not seize millions of dollars of legally owned property? The people manufacturing ARs in Canada will be ruined. Screw em as long as you get to keep yours?

Why be so defeatist? Rather than sending a message to the government trolls who peruse the form that includes the terms and conditions of your surrender, you should be sending letters to your MP and the public safety minister indicating that you will not, under any circumstances, accept or comply with an AR ban.
Click to expand...

I don't think you actually read my whole post or at least you didn't understand it. Under the assault weapons ban the USA went through, the value of all fully automatic firearms went through the roof as there is now a finite number of them in the USA and no more being able to enter the civilian market. They can still be used and can be sold to anyone who passes the background checks.

Companies manufacturing Ar's in Canada would still be able to sell their rifles to any country in the world who wants to buy them. Just because Canada would not be allowing any more ar15's into the Canadian civilian market would not mean that all Canadian AR manufacturer's would automatically be shut down. Furthermore the domestic AR15 market cannot be that lucrative, you have almost all the domestic manufacturers doing whatever they can to get new NR black rifles onto the market. NEA had a press release just last week basically saying they are moving away from AR15 for a while to focus on the BCL102.

Long story short if they were to ban them I would comply, I wouldn't agree with the law and would protest and do whatever I legally could to stop the law from going through but if they were banned I would comply. I don't get to pick and choose which laws I feel like following. We may not like this government or the choices they are making but they are the government in power. Something is coming from this government and they stand to gain a lot more votes than they would lose if they did ban all assault type weapons. I guess being sensible and talking about the realities of the current climate in Canadian politics makes me a defeatist, I see myself as more of realist and will deal with reality regardless of how the situation turns out.

Cheers,

Ben
 
pygmalion2020 said:
I don't think you actually read my whole post or at least you didn't understand it. Under the assault weapons ban the USA went through, the value of all fully automatic firearms went through the roof as there is now a finite number of them in the USA and no more being able to enter the civilian market. They can still be used and can be sold to anyone who passes the background checks.

Companies manufacturing Ar's in Canada would still be able to sell their rifles to any country in the world who wants to buy them. Just because Canada would not be allowing any more ar15's into the Canadian civilian market would not mean that all Canadian AR manufacturer's would automatically be shut down. Furthermore the domestic AR15 market cannot be that lucrative, you have almost all the domestic manufacturers doing whatever they can to get new NR black rifles onto the market. NEA had a press release just last week basically saying they are moving away from AR15 for a while to focus on the BCL102.

Long story short if they were to ban them I would comply, I wouldn't agree with the law and would protest and do whatever I legally could to stop the law from going through but if they were banned I would comply. I don't get to pick and choose which laws I feel like following. We may not like this government or the choices they are making but they are the government in power. Something is coming from this government and they stand to gain a lot more votes than they would lose if they did ban all assault type weapons. I guess being sensible and talking about the realities of the current climate in Canadian politics makes me a defeatist, I see myself as more of realist and will deal with reality regardless of how the situation turns out.

Cheers,

Ben
Click to expand...

The big difference between the US assault weapon ban, and the full autos that are now rare and expensive, is that ANYONE who passes the check can own one, even if you weren't alive when they were banned. That is a VERY different proposition from what we have in Canada where ONLY people who owned at the time of banning can still own one, and there is no new way to get that class of license. As those people die, your pool of buyers shrinks, and since they already have one, most aren't about to go out on a buying spree.

Unless you are in to Military and LE sales, there isn't a huge export market for ARs commercially, and most of the countries who would allow the import would put hefty duties and controls on it to protect their own fledgling firearm industries. Without the Canadian civilian market, Canadian AR manufacturers are basically toast.

Its great that NEA wants to focus on the BCL. Dont think for a second that an AR ban would easily include all of the AR esque firearms that escaped restricted status.
 
Cameron SS said:
The big difference between the US assault weapon ban, and the full autos that are now rare and expensive, is that ANYONE who passes the check can own one, even if you weren't alive when they were banned. That is a VERY different proposition from what we have in Canada where ONLY people who owned at the time of banning can still own one, and there is no new way to get that class of license. As those people die, your pool of buyers shrinks, and since they already have one, most aren't about to go out on a buying spree.

Unless you are in to Military and LE sales, there isn't a huge export market for ARs commercially, and most of the countries who would allow the import would put hefty duties and controls on it to protect their own fledgling firearm industries. Without the Canadian civilian market, Canadian AR manufacturers are basically toast.

Its great that NEA wants to focus on the BCL. Dont think for a second that an AR ban would easily include all of the AR esque firearms that escaped restricted status.
Click to expand...

Yes that was the basis of my post, i'm hoping that if there is a change coming that it would be the USA style ban because that would do the least harm to the firearms community while still allowing the liberals to appear tough of crime/guns. We all know an assault weapons ban would do almost nothing to change the firearms crime rates in Canada but the liberal party doesn't like facts, it prefers feelings and banning assault weapons makes the average uninformed voter feel safe while in reality probably making them less safe overall.

I'm really hoping that with a community like this and with social media the government will not be able to invalidate our property with the swipe of a pen. They have gotten away with it in the past but the ability to communicate and organize is present today like no other time in history. If they announce a total ban of black rifles, we can organize a peaceful protest on parliament hill and have letter writing campaigns. I honestly don't think writing my MP and saying that I won't comply with a firearms ban if the enact one will be a smart move. There are much better arguments to be made to try and get our point across.
 
pygmalion2020 said:
Yes that was the basis of my post, i'm hoping that if there is a change coming that it would be the USA style ban because that would do the least harm to the firearms community while still allowing the liberals to appear tough of crime/guns. We all know an assault weapons ban would do almost nothing to change the firearms crime rates in Canada but the liberal party doesn't like facts, it prefers feelings and banning assault weapons makes the average uninformed voter feel safe while in reality probably making them less safe overall.

I'm really hoping that with a community like this and with social media the government will not be able to invalidate our property with the swipe of a pen. They have gotten away with it in the past but the ability to communicate and organize is present today like no other time in history. If they announce a total ban of black rifles, we can organize a peaceful protest on parliament hill and have letter writing campaigns. I honestly don't think writing my MP and saying that I won't comply with a firearms ban if the enact one will be a smart move. There are much better arguments to be made to try and get our point across.
Click to expand...

Nothing in the history of the Firearms act or Canadian gun control generally should give you any hope that the liberals "would do the least harm to the firearms community". The whole point is to harm the firearms community, because the firearms community is seen as part of the problem.

Personally I am just hoping the liberals live up to their campaign promise of making policy based on science, evidence, and respect for lawful gun owners and refrains from embarking on populist feel good measures. So far they have been living up to expectations by doing mostly nothing.

You may think its a bit of a bold move to claim that you won't comply, but non compliance is about the scariest thing there is to a government. Legislation is all they go. Enforcement is expensive and the government is broke. Nothing demonstrates commitment to your stated principles louder than a firm stance of non compliance. If millions of Canadians complied with the prohibition on marijuana and stopped smoking, do you think for a second it would be getting legalized?

Whether or not you actually comply with any particular ban is up to you, and of course we don't get to call ourselves law abiding gun owners if we are in fact breaking laws, particularly in relationship to our gun ownership. So maybe its just a bluff. If enough people bluff the risks for calling it get incredibly risky for the government.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom