ATRS Update: May 20th 2020 Re: MS / MH / MV

GarandStanding said:
Thanks for the update, Shaun.
This whole development makes me sick, can’t imagine how it’d feel to be in your shoes.
Let us know how we can help. I’d gladly donate to a legal fund to fight this.View attachment 385157

Edit:the picture was taken last night. Since delivery and completion I’ve used my MS around the farm weekly. I always have it with me and has proven useful many, many times. I’ve also used it to dispel myths of black guns to my local community/ friends and family. I refuse to let it become a safe queen and will involve myself anyway I can in this fight.
Click to expand...

Friend just be careful! If you look at my recent post you would find that I am pushing as much as the next guy to help to turn this around. But I would hate to see some of the good folks here go down in the flames of our injustice department!
 
ATRS Shaun said:
What we know:

First and foremost, what is clear and established, is that the FRT is opinion, and not law.
The order in council, is law and not opinion, no matter how wrong it is.
The May 1st OIC does not mention the modern hunter, varmint, or sporter under any category, that we can find or are aware of at this time.


Latest information we have is that the Modern Varmint, Modern Hunter and Modern Sporter were changed to a prohibited classification under the RCMP’s Firearms Reference Table.
Of important note: Writing in the FRT has been erased or amended to cover these actions.


What we are doing:

We are continuing to manufacture and ship out receivers. Communication in regard to this will be ongoing.

Our position is even though the MS is listed in the FRT as prohibited, all of the paid-in-full orders are already legally sold PRIOR to the recent changes and are a matter of returning property to their owners. Current deposit orders represent a transaction that began before this unlawful FRT change took place.

Orders that are just a deposit are encouraged to finalize the order and complete payment, but in compliance with our terms and conditions, refunds and cancellations are not being accepted at this time with one exception:

If someone has a 50% deposit placed we will allow them to back out of the remaining 50%. We will convert the existing deposit to the purchase of a lower receiver. The lower will be shipped, and you can partake in the government’s upcoming buyback program at your discretion.

At this time we would appreciate all communication to be handled through email to info@albertatacticalrifle.com and please be patient as we are being inundated with questions to which no one has any answers.

We will be answering phones only between the hours of 11 am and 3 pm Mountain Standard Time.
All other phone calls will be directed to voicemail until further notice to allow us to work through this situation.


What is coming:

We intend to fight this, and are in talks with other organizations to potentially pool resources towards this cause. We are working towards setting up a gofundme for legal action.
Click to expand...

Does this mean that i could still place an order for one of these, or are these only available for the pre orders that were in before may 1st?
 
ATRS Shaun said:
What we know:
First and foremost, what is clear and established, is that the FRT is opinion, and not law.
The order in council, is law and not opinion, no matter how wrong it is.
The May 1st OIC does not mention the modern hunter, varmint, or sporter under any category, that we can find or are aware of at this time.


Latest information we have is that the Modern Varmint, Modern Hunter and Modern Sporter were changed to a prohibited classification under the RCMP’s Firearms Reference Table.
Of important note: Writing in the FRT has been erased or amended to cover these actions.
Click to expand...

Here's my interpretation of the (arguably arbitrary) amendments to the original FRT:

The original FRT stated this:

Canadian Law Comments - this firearm design is derived from an amalgamation of several different firearm designs and does not trace it's design lineage directly or uniquely to a "prohibited" or a "restricted" firearm found in the Regulations appended to the criminal code.
Click to expand...

So basically in the original FRT they found that according to the laws and regulations at that time it met all requirements of a non restricted firearm. Therefore it could not be a "variant" of the AR-15 like they now claim.

Fast forward to the current (arguably arbitrarily changed) FRT:

20200520_203452.jpg

The "Canadian Law Comments" section of the original FRT has been replaced with a reference to Part 1, para. 87 of the OIC.

The new version of the FRT has been amended to reflect the RCMP's interpretation of current Regulation/Law.

For reference Part 1, para. 87 states:

87 The firearms of the designs commonly known as the M16, AR-10 and AR-15 rifles and the M4 carbine, and any variants or modified versions of them — other than one referred to in item 47, 49 or 50 of this Part — including the/
Click to expand...
* note the part in bold

While everyone is hung up on the term "variant" (because that is the term we're used to dealing with) they have now added yet another ambiguous term "modified version".

I believe they are basing the change in classification on the new wording in the OIC "modified version" which they believe is farther reaching than the term "variant".

Although the OIC does not specifically name the names of the "Modern Series" rifles my take on it all is that they (RCMP) interpret the new wording in Part1, para. 87 of the OIC in a way that allows them to overreach and deem them a "variant" or most likely, a "modified version" of the AR-15.

They were given another inch which they believe gave them the power to take another mile.

I hope it can be argued (and proven) that the RCMP's interpretation of the OIC's wording is an overreach.


* I am not a lawyer and this post is simply a simple man's perspective on why the RCMP f#@&€d ATRS. Yes I think it was an arbitrary overreach.
 

Attachments

  • 20200520_203452.jpg
    20200520_203452.jpg
    110.9 KB · Views: 2,027
Last edited:
jiffx2781 said:
Here's my interpretation of the (arguably arbitrary) amendments to the original FRT:

The original FRT stated this:



So basically in the original FRT they found that according to the laws and regulations at that time it met all requirements of a non restricted firearm. Therefore it could not be a "variant" of the AR-15 like they now claim.

Fast forward to the current (arguably arbitrarily changed) FRT:

View attachment 385301

The "Canadian Law Comments" section of the original FRT has been replaced with a reference to Part 1, para. 87 of the OIC.

The new version of the FRT has been amended to reflect the RCMP's interpretation of current Regulation/Law.

For reference Part 1, para. 87 states:


* note the part in bold

While everyone is hung up on the term "variant" (because that is the term we're used to dealing with) they have now added yet another ambiguous term "modified version".

I believe they are basing the change in classification on the new wording in the OIC "modified version" which they believe is farther reaching than the term "variant".

Although the OIC does not specifically name the names of the "Modern Series" rifles my take on it all is that they (RCMP) interpret the new wording in Part1, para. 87 of the OIC in a way that allows them to overreach and deem them a "variant" or most likely, a "modified version" of the AR-15.

They were given another inch which they believe gave them the power to take another mile.

I hope it can be argued (and proven) that the RCMP's interpretation of the OIC's wording is an overreach.
Click to expand...

Good overview. I do think the government will have its hands full defending this branch to the MS or MDI as the previous FRT's stated they did not lineate from the AR. Kind of difficult to then say it is a modified version.
 
Gobc said:
I'm confused regarding the signifigance of this.Can somebody please elaborate what exactly this means and entails?

Thanks
Click to expand...

The FRT said they had no direct lineage from the AR-15, that’s why it was Non restricted. The OIC said AR variants were banned, so the Modern Sporter was banned because it was a variant. They contradicted themselves and tried to cover it up.
 
If I was a judge I would press the government to explain as to why they would approve their FRT as Non-Restricted, explicitly stating how it was unlike the AR, then change it afterwards contradicting themseleves. If they couldn't explain it properly I would order them to either change the FRT back or compensate ATRS for all associated damages.
 
griffin86 said:
The FRT said they had no direct lineage from the AR-15, that’s why it was Non restricted. The OIC said AR variants were banned, so the Modern Sporter was banned because it was a variant. They contradicted themselves and tried to cover it up.
Click to expand...

If the Modern Sporter truly deserved to get banned, then the RCMP wouldn’t need to rewrite the FRT and erase statements.

This was a sleazy attack that will only help our case in court.
 
sharpee said:
Good overview. I do think the government will have its hands full defending this branch to the MS or MDI as the previous FRT's stated they did not lineate from the AR. Kind of difficult to then say it is a modified version.
Click to expand...

Oh I agree their actions will be hard to defend without making themselves look like fools.

What this boils down to is they saw an opportunity to overreach and couldn't resist regardless.

If this overreach continues to go uncontested they will continue their path of destruction. If ATRS chooses to fight this we need to support them. This has to be stopped.
 
SteelFlint said:
Shaun, let us know when you guys firm up on your legal challenge. I'd like to propose another option for 50% deposit guys: to convert my deposit with you into your legal fund. More than happy to do that.

Thread tagged, awaiting your next updates.

Best.
Click to expand...

Wow! That’s extremely generous, sir! You’re a good man.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom