Maccabee SLR classification
- Thread starter RaTFiNk306
- Start date
It was still NR at the time
Verifiers and Businesses have different access.
YoungestPiperCub
CGN frequent flyer
- Location
- Near KW Ontario
So it is or is not? WTF
zKn0xvillex
Member
- Location
- Windsor, Ontario
Reports from Calibre and CTCS now say that it is indeed prohibited in the verifiers FRT portal
Quote from CalibreMag:
"Ok. To explain, since people seem confused about these screenshots vs. my now-removed post. These guns are prohib now. Here's why they don't appear that way here:
There are two parallel ways to access the FRT data. One is through the business portal, that's what these screenshots are. You can tell because it has the blue bars and the formatting. It is updated, generally, weekly and does not reflect the "live" FRT.
The second way is to access a recently-updated interface for verifiers, which is live, and provides updates in real time as the FRT is updated by the Firearms Technologists that run it. This is the system from which I pulled those screenshots I posted of these guns as prohibited.
The problem stems from an update this system got six months ago that required verifiers to re-apply for status to access it. Many businesses with staff that have verifier status did not re-apply to access this verifier portal because they can access the business-facing FRT, and they have better things to do with their time than re-apply to access a document that (up until now) they've not needed real-time, live-updated access to. Thus, they cannot see the updated FRT, and are going off the business portal posted above.
So tl;dr, these screenshots are not the most current reflection of the FRT, and the screenshots with the grey index bars instead of blue are. No one doctored anything. It's just people not understanding the two parallel systems. "
Quote from CalibreMag:
"Ok. To explain, since people seem confused about these screenshots vs. my now-removed post. These guns are prohib now. Here's why they don't appear that way here:
There are two parallel ways to access the FRT data. One is through the business portal, that's what these screenshots are. You can tell because it has the blue bars and the formatting. It is updated, generally, weekly and does not reflect the "live" FRT.
The second way is to access a recently-updated interface for verifiers, which is live, and provides updates in real time as the FRT is updated by the Firearms Technologists that run it. This is the system from which I pulled those screenshots I posted of these guns as prohibited.
The problem stems from an update this system got six months ago that required verifiers to re-apply for status to access it. Many businesses with staff that have verifier status did not re-apply to access this verifier portal because they can access the business-facing FRT, and they have better things to do with their time than re-apply to access a document that (up until now) they've not needed real-time, live-updated access to. Thus, they cannot see the updated FRT, and are going off the business portal posted above.
So tl;dr, these screenshots are not the most current reflection of the FRT, and the screenshots with the grey index bars instead of blue are. No one doctored anything. It's just people not understanding the two parallel systems. "
Can you please post it?
84wh1
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
Sorry guys but I've left work for the day and am on the way to the lake where cell reception is a dog's dish. I hate to leave everyone in shambles here but I'll update on Tuesday if nothing has been added by anyone else by that time. It has in fact now been deemed a variant of the ar15. The term variant needs a legal challenge IMO
The FRT aint worth sh*t in court.
So something is labelled as 'prohibited', but there is not legislature to back that claim up? Or even announced in the Gazette?
#1000laughs
Again, the crown has to prove and demonstrate that the item, is indeed according the the law(s), prohibited.
For all this "AR variant" bs, again, the crown has to demonstrate that it is, in fact, a variant. They can't just recall the FRT up and declare it prohibited.
The crown will have to be EXTREMELY careful for such a case as it will set precedence (good and/or bad) for any decision the judge makes.
Hint: the whole 'looks like an AR/tactical' will get shot down soo fast in a criminal court it will be laughable (and set a precedent).
Any any point, the legislature will have to define what 'variant' is/means. For a firearm, is it the receiver? Is it a combination of receiver/bolt/action? Is it color? etc
So something is labelled as 'prohibited', but there is not legislature to back that claim up? Or even announced in the Gazette?
#1000laughs
Again, the crown has to prove and demonstrate that the item, is indeed according the the law(s), prohibited.
For all this "AR variant" bs, again, the crown has to demonstrate that it is, in fact, a variant. They can't just recall the FRT up and declare it prohibited.
The crown will have to be EXTREMELY careful for such a case as it will set precedence (good and/or bad) for any decision the judge makes.
Hint: the whole 'looks like an AR/tactical' will get shot down soo fast in a criminal court it will be laughable (and set a precedent).
Any any point, the legislature will have to define what 'variant' is/means. For a firearm, is it the receiver? Is it a combination of receiver/bolt/action? Is it color? etc
Last edited:
