Red Rock Arms .223 FAL?

Standard Model Features:

* Based on the FN FAL platform

* Original FN FAL gas operated piston breech block unlocking sysytem, proven, reliable field history in Military and Law enforcement applications.

* The lower, including the fire control mechanism and all components thereof, are original FN FAL components.
Click to expand...

not in this country
 
Last edited:
The upper on the FN is the registered part.

However as was pointed out they shot themselves in the foot for Canada with the "based on the FAL" comments in their literature.

Someone should buy one and roll the dice with CFC...
 
I argue that the wording of "based on FAL" does not necessarily consititutes the definition of of "being a variant" of FAL. The swiss arms action is "based on the AK" as well, but obviously it is not a variant of AK. The list goes on.

For example, you will never call a civic SiR a "variant" of the Acura RSX because they share the same engine. However, we will agree that their enginees are based on the common model. You will also decline to call a Hummer H2 a "variant" of some other suburbans because they might share the same chasis- although we commonly regard them as "basing" on the same chasis. The language used is very precise in this matter.

Therefore, I argue that the wording of the regulation confines to a very narrow definition of what consititutes a "variant", that certain direct linkage in terms of heritage and technical data ownership must be involved.
 
Last edited:
Therefore, I argue that the wording of the regulation confines to a very narrow definition of what consititutes a "variant", that certain direct linkage in terms of heritage and technical data ownership must be involved.
Click to expand...

Working backwards would it be possible to get something on paper from "them" stating exactly what they use as their reasoning process to determine what is a variant and what is not.
 
Gunslinger said:
Working backwards would it be possible to get something on paper from "them" stating exactly what they use as their reasoning process to determine what is a variant and what is not.
Click to expand...

That won't happen, there isn't a lot of reasoning because the process is from time to time completely screwed up by politics. The RCMP guys went by the rules for years, then the OIC prohibitions came in, so now the RCMP has to tell you that the Dragunov is an AK variant. They have to do this with a straight face, even though they know that there is no way in hell a Dragunov is an AK variant. They aren't dumb, they know if they spell out a process for this they'll be forced to defend the prohibited classifications in court - they don't want to defend the prohib classifications in court, because they could easily lose.
 
I think the problem here is that it uses the same trigger mech and bolt system. Operating system is a big factor in the variant question.

If they had made it with an AR15 trigger mech, it probably could have flown. Look at the AR180B.

You know, if the manufacturer played ball, there is a very slim chance it could fly up here.
 
Nope. I disagree. Just look at Swiss Arms, TP9, AR180B and many many others.

There is nowhere in the regulation that provides the definition of "variant".

Armedsask said:
I think the problem here is that it uses the same trigger mech and bolt system. Operating system is a big factor in the variant question.

If they had made it with an AR15 trigger mech, it probably could have flown. Look at the AR180B.

You know, if the manufacturer played ball, there is a very slim chance it could fly up here.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
There is nowhere in the regulation that provides the definition of "variant".
Click to expand...

Well then how do they define a variant if there is no definition. It was obviously designed to be obtuse. Could the gov. not just tweak this by defining what a variant is specifically. It seem ludicrous to me that a law be passed without defining specifically how it is to be excecuted.
 
greentips said:
Nope. I disagree. Just look at Swiss Arms, TP9, AR180B and many many others.

There is nowhere in the regulation that provides the definition of "variant".
Click to expand...
Which part do you disagree with? That it might fly?

Although I'd like to be wrong, I think this is the nail in the coffin: "The lower, including the fire control mechanism and all components thereof, are original FN FAL components."
 
Last edited:
Gunslinger said:
Well then how do they define a variant if there is no definition. It was obviously designed to be obtuse. Could the gov. not just tweak this by defining what a variant is specifically. It seem ludicrous to me that a law be passed without defining specifically how it is to be excecuted.
Click to expand...

That is precisely why you'll never see standards, the laws were passed on the back of the OIC's, the OIC's were based on how bad the gun looked on a magazine page. As they stand the current supporting logic for the prohibition of every prohib rifle comes down to "because we said so". This is indefensible, the government knows it's indefensible therefore they avoid any situation where they might have to defend them. This is done by hiding behind the RCMP (who have a vested interest in ensuring there are fewer firearms in the country and this is an easier way to do that than arresting gun smugglers). If you're wondering why the "gun friendly" Conservative government hasn't done anything, it's because they don't want to face a backlash in the likely event another Kimv*r Gill comes along.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom