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

DILLIGAF said:
Shot mine today. Zero ####s given here :shotgun:
Click to expand...

You are not alone. I can only imagine hundreds of gun owners who do not come on CGN saw their MH, MS, MV, SLR, various shotguns etc., we're not on the widely broadcasted gazette OIC so went and used them. Of course not knowing Billy Bliar had banned their gear after. Pretty sketchy situation they have created.

I still haven't seen a clear answer on what exactly is the situation on the additions from a legal standpoint. Everyone is presuming they are prohibited because butternuts changed the FRT before he retired but that's all we know....crickets otherwise.
 
sharpee said:
You are not alone. I can only imagine hundreds of gun owners who do not come on CGN saw their MH, MS, MV, SLR, various shotguns etc., we're not on the widely broadcasted gazette OIC so went and used them. Of course not knowing Billy Bliar had banned their gear after. Pretty sketchy situation they have created.

I still haven't seen a clear answer on what exactly is the situation on the additions from a legal standpoint. Everyone is presuming they are prohibited because butternuts changed the FRT before he retired but that's all we know....crickets otherwise.
Click to expand...

Even more incoherent and convoluted; are the newly prohibited firearms in FRT but not named in OIC (like the modern sporter) even covered under the amnesty or are they just straight up prohibited now?
 
metamatt said:
Even more incoherent and convoluted; are the newly prohibited firearms in FRT but not named in OIC (like the modern sporter) even covered under the amnesty or are they just straight up prohibited now?
Click to expand...

FRT is NOT law so means virtually nothing.
OIC IS law so means something.

Personally I won't be taking my semi auto anythings out until some of the actions are filed and hopefully the OIC is suspended until the courts hear on it.
 
Steve MKII said:
I'm in for a donation when you file a court challenge. I think you guys have a pretty strong case here, especially since it sounds like you have all the supporting documentation that this was an entirely new firearm design and the RCMP agreed that it was a new design. This blatant overreach and abuse of power needs to be put to an end, just like the OIC.
Click to expand...

I so agree we all need to stand up to the bully JT and his band of idiots. Those special interest groups make enough noise that JT grants them their wish it's time for all gun owners to make noise, we vote, we work, we pay taxes so it's time for us to make our noise put those clowns in Ottawa on notice
 
mangoman said:
Also I'm still confused as to if I can shoot my ATRS and SLR or not?
Click to expand...

To paraphrase myself from another thread, the firearms recently marked as prohibited in the FIC, but not listed in the OIC are like Schrodinger's cat in the box; that they would be illegal to transport away from home and fire on crown land or farm land, and they would be perfectly fine to fire on crown land or farm land as non restricted firearms are both true at the same time. Until someone opens the box to see if the cat is alive, or in this case , actually gets arrested with a firearm like an ATRS Sporter or SLR in the field, brings a challenge to Her Majesty's Court about the validity of the historical negationism wrought by the editing of the FRT, and we receive the ruling from the Supreme Court, both realities are true.
 
Ustauk said:
To paraphrase myself from another thread, the firearms recently marked as prohibited in the FIC, but not listed in the OIC are like Schrodinger's cat in the box; that they would be illegal to transport away from home and fire on crown land or farm land, and they would be perfectly fine to fire on crown land or farm land as non restricted firearms are both true at the same time. Until someone opens the box to see if the cat is alive, or in this case , actually gets arrested with a firearm like an ATRS Sporter or SLR in the field, brings a challenge to Her Majesty's Court about the validity of the historical negationism wrought by the editing of the FRT, and we receive the ruling from the Supreme Court, both realities are true.
Click to expand...

Great analogy.

Lets hope the cat survives.
 
Ustauk said:
To paraphrase myself from another thread, the firearms recently marked as prohibited in the FIC, but not listed in the OIC are like Schrodinger's cat in the box; that they would be illegal to transport away from home and fire on crown land or farm land, and they would be perfectly fine to fire on crown land or farm land as non restricted firearms are both true at the same time. Until someone opens the box to see if the cat is alive, or in this case , actually gets arrested with a firearm like an ATRS Sporter or SLR in the field, brings a challenge to Her Majesty's Court about the validity of the historical negationism wrought by the editing of the FRT, and we receive the ruling from the Supreme Court, both realities are true.
Click to expand...

A truly apt analogy, love it.

Only wish we could put that inverse temporal symmetry concept to action somehow.
 
metamatt said:
Even more incoherent and convoluted; are the newly prohibited firearms in FRT but not named in OIC (like the modern sporter) even covered under the amnesty or are they just straight up prohibited now?
Click to expand...

file an access to information request to the RCMP for all notes, emails, memos and meeting minutes related to changes to the FRTs after the OIC. This will give a better picture as to the reasoning for the changes “ variant “ or “ modified” and if it was one man’s action or a process. No point in guessing and trying to make arguments that will not hold water if there was a coherent process ( not to be confused with a reasonable / legal one) used to make the changes.
 
Curtis.G.Stade said:
well its been what a week since the "secret" frt changes, and nothings been reverted. nor has an updated oic list been released. wtf is going on?
Click to expand...

We will be waiting 1-5 years for the access to information request, because you know liberals are all about full disclosure and not hiding everything.

Every single person that voted liberal is a brain dead idiot.
 
I think the jist of it is this: the FRT changes don't hold water since everyone's got a copy of the "old" FRTs everywhere; and, as mentioned, it's a reference point but not a legal document.

Once a court hears of these changes and someone shows up with a document that says "not a variant of" from the same system, it's about done there and then.

You can't post a speed limit of 55km, leave the sign up but secretly change it to 25km and start ticketing people for it. Obvious though not unexpected overstep. Remember the RCMP was ORDERED to publish the FRT and still they tried this offline/online dual version crap. Insofar as I'm aware, judges hate that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom