Modern sporters on EE

Everybody likes to act tuff until their faced with a prohibited weapons charge, confiscation, PAL loss, a court date, unemployment, jail time, travel restrictions and legal fees equivalent to buying a car.

My opinion, Tread lightly despite ur interpretation of Canadian law, cus the sad fact of reality is BS charges exist and are very common. And dont be boasting ur unlawful intentions on the interweb.
 
Murray 3-D said:
Everybody likes to act tuff until their faced with a prohibited weapons charge, confiscation, PAL loss, a court date, unemployment, jail time, travel restrictions and legal fees equivalent to buying a car.

My opinion, Tread lightly despite ur interpretation of Canadian law, cus the sad fact of reality is BS charges exist and are very common. And dont be boasting ur unlawful intentions on the interweb.
Click to expand...


I haven't read a single unlawful intention in this thread. unLAWful. The Firearms Reference Table, is not law. It is not a legal document, as shown below, and it has been infested with incorrect opinion and bias.

2020-07-09-09_37_56-frt-traf-eng.pdf-SECURED---Adobe-Acrobat-Reader-DC.png
 
RCMP are so god damned criminal its disgusting.

Sedition and its punishment are in order when it comes to these sob's. What a disgusting bunch the lot of them are.
 
Murray 3-D said:
Everybody likes to act tuff until their faced with a prohibited weapons charge, confiscation, PAL loss, a court date, unemployment, jail time, travel restrictions and legal fees equivalent to buying a car.

My opinion, Tread lightly despite ur interpretation of Canadian law, cus the sad fact of reality is BS charges exist and are very common. And dont be boasting ur unlawful intentions on the interweb.
Click to expand...

Fear, fear, and more fear.

Good point about not posting intentions.
 
Murray 3-D said:
Everybody likes to act tuff until their faced with a prohibited weapons charge, confiscation, PAL loss, a court date, unemployment, jail time, travel restrictions and legal fees equivalent to buying a car.

My opinion, Tread lightly despite ur interpretation of Canadian law, cus the sad fact of reality is BS charges exist and are very common. And dont be boasting ur unlawful intentions on the interweb.
Click to expand...
There is no interpretation to be made.

Go read SOR/98-462 (google it) it is the bill of law which lists every single firearm that is restricted or prohibited. The modern series of rifles is not on it. Therefore, it can not be anything else than non-restricted.

The OIC was an amendment to that law and list. SOR/98-462 IS THE LAW. The FRT is not law, it's an internal CFC filing system, it has no power of law.
 
Murray 3-D said:
Everybody likes to act tuff until their faced with a prohibited weapons charge, confiscation, PAL loss, a court date, unemployment, jail time, travel restrictions and legal fees equivalent to buying a car.

My opinion, Tread lightly despite ur interpretation of Canadian law, cus the sad fact of reality is BS charges exist and are very common. And dont be boasting ur unlawful intentions on the interweb.
Click to expand...
You sound like a part of the problem, not the solution.
I'd rather lose all those things you said, rather than my dignity. And stop your fear mongering Bull Sh¡t, it isn't as bad as you make it out to be.
 
Just one simple question, did anyone here shoot ATRS MS at their local range after the FRT prohibited it illegally? If yes, name one. At least my local RO told me don't bring any FRT prohibit firearms to the range.
 
sunmoong said:
Just one simple question, did anyone here shoot ATRS MS at their local range after the FRT prohibited it illegally? If yes, name one. At least my local RO told me don't bring any FRT prohibit firearms to the range.
Click to expand...
Is it a FRT prohibited fire arm?
You need to straighten out you RO.. lol
 
sunmoong said:
Just one simple question, did anyone here shoot ATRS MS at their local range after the FRT prohibited it illegally? If yes, name one. At least my local RO told me don't bring any FRT prohibit firearms to the range.
Click to expand...

Safe to say people have taken out their Rifles. As to naming one...I'm assuming you're speaking rhetorically, right?
 
Murray 3-D said:
Everybody likes to act tuff until their faced with a prohibited weapons charge, confiscation, PAL loss, a court date, unemployment, jail time, travel restrictions and legal fees equivalent to buying a car.

My opinion, Tread lightly despite ur interpretation of Canadian law, cus the sad fact of reality is BS charges exist and are very common. And dont be boasting ur unlawful intentions on the interweb.
Click to expand...

45C said:
You sound like a part of the problem, not the solution.
I'd rather lose all those things you said, rather than my dignity. And stop your fear mongering Bull Sh¡t, it isn't as bad as you make it out to be.
Click to expand...

As someone who has been arrested, charged, spent thousands on criminal defence lawyer, lost my livelihood for over a year while awaiting court date, etc. I have to go with 3-D on the fact that BS charges do exist and my defence attorney made it clear that they can be very common. He didn't have a 97% success rate at the time because he was that good, the majority of people he represented had never done what they were being charged with.
 
Brian46 said:
As someone who has been arrested, charged, spent thousands on criminal defence lawyer, lost my livelihood for over a year while awaiting court date, etc. I have to go with 3-D on the fact that BS charges do exist and my defence attorney made it clear that they can be very common. He didn't have a 97% success rate at the time because he was that good, the majority of people he represented had never done what they were being charged with.
Click to expand...

Why did you lose your job for over a year?
Were you in court every day?

It's a out time you stop your Bull Sh!t.
7 years of it gets tiresome..
 
ATRS Shaun said:
I haven't read a single unlawful intention in this thread. unLAWful. The Firearms Reference Table, is not law. It is not a legal document, as shown below, and it has been infested with incorrect opinion and bias.

2020-07-09-09_37_56-frt-traf-eng.pdf-SECURED---Adobe-Acrobat-Reader-DC.png
Click to expand...

Maybe so, but that wont keep many RCMP officers from slapping a BS charge regardless. Right or wrong they'll leave u to figure it out in court.
 
Well this post kinda got away from your initial comment. I'd have a good read of that list... You'll see that the firearms made prohibited are named with great specificity. Let's hope the retraction of this bullish!t... Err.... Bill... Is as specific.

Beware the dragnet paragraphs that talk about joules and bore-size.
 
Dietz said:
You should print out the full text of the law SOR/98-462 on which the gun is clearly not listed, if you intend to go out and shoot with one of those, and a copy of the original non-restricted FRT.







This is not legal advice. lulz
Click to expand...

I never said anything about this gun. I said I wonder if anyone ever tried using that reasoning when getting caught in possession of something with a banned FRT, and how that interaction went. (ie: using that argument with a LEO while being caught in possession of a firearm with an FRT number indicating it's banned).
 
Paul_1982 said:
This thread needs to be deleted and the servers that hold the data given the Hilary Clinton treatment.
Click to expand...

read by her drunk lawyers at 4 am holding the delete button?

Shooting is legal*. Majority of guns are legal by all standards other then by name.

Fact is if it's named the wrong thing, it's illegal, has ZERO to do with function or feature. That is a pathetic attempt at law making IMO
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom