WORST CASE SCENARIO - buyback is implemented

[M4_556]

Hey I just wanted to make a thread of worst case scenario if the buyback program is implanted and what is the best way to deal with it.

My understanding is that the only “illegal” part of the AR 15 is the receiver. So that said, if they government requires a surrender, can I just give them the receiver and save the rest of the parts for a non restricted build?

Scenario 2, could I dissemble my AR and report it to the RCMP as the rifle has been “deactivated” and thus I am technically not in possession of an AR?

 

[btabin]

The receiver (upper and lower) are the only prohibited parts. Everything else can be stripped and used elsewhere. If you disassemble it, you will need to report it that it's now just a "frame/receiver" but the lower will still be in your name and prohibited.

 

[Rwilco]

Hey I just wanted to make a thread of worst case scenario if the buyback program is implanted and what is the best way to deal with it.

My understanding is that the only “illegal” part of the AR 15 is the receiver. So that said, if they government requires a surrender, can I just give them the receiver and save the rest of the parts for a non restricted build?

Scenario 2, could I dissemble my AR and report it to the RCMP as the rifle has been “deactivated” and thus I am technically not in possession of an AR?

I know nothing about ARs, but Ian Runkle had something to say about this topic.

https://youtu.be/y4HvtuYIleE

 

[jfirefighter]

I know nothing about ARs, but Ian Runkle had something to say about this topic.

https://youtu.be/y4HvtuYIleE

Interesting but I believe he’s wrong about your void certificate. All restricted certificates are considered prohibited now and all corresponding rules apply.

It’s very ####ty situation. Many on here have thousands and thousands invested in their sporting collections. I personally only have 1 that is OIC banned and it was a project my father and I worked on before he died. I do not wish to give it up.

 

[bertn]

Worst case after buyback is implemented (for previously restricted firearms) is that you will get way less than the value on May 1st 2020 and get zero money for your mags, optics, cases and all other accessories.

For previously non restricted firearms the worst thing is they can't see the range or crown land anymore.
Just kidding of course, since we do have to obey our overlord pm Turdo who banned our legally bought property over bs reasons...

 

[squidxm]

Worsts case after buyback is implemented (for previously restricted firearms) is that you will get way less than the value on May 1st 2020 and get zero money for your mags, optics, cases and all other accessories.

For previously non restricted firearms the worst thing is they can't see the range or crown land anymore.
Just kidding of course, since we do have to obey our overlord pm Turdo who banned our legally bought property over bs reasons...

This, pennies on the dollar likely in the form of a tax rebate.
I thought I was planning ahead by buying 20+ proprietary mags for my cz scorpion. Then there’s aftermarket trigger, springs, safety, grip, charging handle etc..
The little bit of consolation is that some AR parts and mags can be used in other platforms, but between parts and accessories I’m already out thousands. That’s without even factoring in the thousands lost for the firearms themselves.

 

[Auggie Doggie]

It's not a buy back, it's a buy out. You can't buy back something you never owned in the first place.

Auggie D.

 

[rifleman762]

It's not a buy back, it's a buy out. You can't buy back something you never owned in the first place.

Auggie D.

It's not even that. It's confiscation under threat of imprisonment and financial ruin. With a vague promise of some kind of compensation if you would so kindly obey.

 

[IvoB]

Tax credits not actual cash - they will base this on current market value (used) and we all know they are not worth what was originally paid - therefore pennies to the dollar would be my guess - sad situation people are in

 

[Scotty454]

Deactivating a firearm requires a lot more than just disassembling it. So no, that is not an option. You could pay to have it "properly" deactivated, but the whole point of that is that it would render it completely and permanently unusable. But the RCMP is not just going to take your word for it, you have to have it verified as deactivated, as far as I know.

 

[J.Hancock]

The receiver (upper and lower) are the only prohibited parts. Everything else can be stripped and used elsewhere. If you disassemble it, you will need to report it that it's now just a "frame/receiver" but the lower will still be in your name and prohibited.

It's my understanding that registrations were nullified, we would be crazy to remain in possession of prohibited firearms without any form of registration. IDK what they expected.

 

[Desjard]

I'll probably take an angle grinder and zip disc to my receivers before I hand them over. I don't need the $500 cheque they will give me for my combined rifles. Screw em.

 

[53Izzy744]

 

[HuntingOntario]

Hey I just wanted to make a thread of worst case scenario if the buyback program is implanted and what is the best way to deal with it.

My understanding is that the only “illegal” part of the AR 15 is the receiver. So that said, if they government requires a surrender, can I just give them the receiver and save the rest of the parts for a non restricted build?

Scenario 2, could I dissemble my AR and report it to the RCMP as the rifle has been “deactivated” and thus I am technically not in possession of an AR?

This is such a great point. Legally (in my subjective opinion) or technically speaking i think that once you are no longer in possession of the illegal component you are in compliance with the regulation.
I would challenge it even further and suggest that the component is / has only been deemed illegal when its a part of the entire build i.e the gun / AR. Therefore, if the gun is apart, and simply owning the parts does not violate the regulation, because you are not in possession of the gun - AR but simply separate pieces of components.

Ill develop my argument here - if you own a bolt rifle and take the bolt out, your rifle is no longer operational. It might still be a firearm that requires a license to own, but do you legally have to have a trigger lock on it? No bolt = no possibility of firing it.
There was a case a while back of a gentleman storing just the bolts in a safe and the guns out (without the bolts), i can't recall the judgment and reasoning but ill dig for it.


Scenario 2- i think the term deactivated is only applicable when the item cannot be reverse back to activated. Essentially deactivated presumes permanently disabled.

 

[golddust]

Didn't the Customs just stop shipments of PARTS from the UA. These PARTS were firing pins and springs and deemed Prohibited because they are used in Prohibited firearms. So when they come for your guns, PARTS WILL BE INCLUDED!

 

[Jäger1]

This is such a great point. Legally (in my subjective opinion) or technically speaking i think that once you are no longer in possession of the illegal component you are in compliance with the regulation.
I would challenge it even further and suggest that the component is / has only been deemed illegal when its a part of the entire build i.e the gun / AR. Therefore, if the gun is apart, and simply owning the parts does not violate the regulation, because you are not in possession of the gun - AR but simply separate pieces of components.

Ill develop my argument here - if you own a bolt rifle and take the bolt out, your rifle is no longer operational. It might still be a firearm that requires a license to own, but do you legally have to have a trigger lock on it? No bolt = no possibility of firing it.
There was a case a while back of a gentleman storing just the bolts in a safe and the guns out (without the bolts), i can't recall the judgment and reasoning but ill dig for it.


Scenario 2- i think the term deactivated is only applicable when the item cannot be reverse back to activated. Essentially deactivated presumes permanently disabled.

AR upper and lower receivers, regardless of their state of assembly, are prohibited.

Deactivating and disabling are two different things. The storage regulations are clear that removing a critical component to disable a non-restricted firearm is satisfactory in place of a trigger lock. This does not "deactivate" a firearm however, which has a set of conditions that effectively permanently render it an unfireable non-firearm. Removing the bolt was never stated to be as a satisfactory disabling method for restricted firearms. The regulations state a secure locking device must be applied if the gun isn't stored in a safe/vault/room designed for firearm storage. This is likely because restricted rifles were an afterthought, but the regulations are what they are.

 

[HuntingOntario]

Receiving parts that are titled / made for AR in any way or capacity raises red flags and naturally the Gov. exercises on the side of caution and does not allow entry.
This is different than what is already in possession of the individual owner.

In addition, enforcing or suggesting that ANY part that can be in a prohibited gun is prohibited from possession is a bit broad and in my view unenforceable - bolts, springs, etc etc are somewhat interchangeable.
Currently, it appears that even accessories (red dots / mounts etc) that have the wording AR or anything that resembles such is prohibited from entry. But its unreasonable to suggest that if you have any of those accessories, they are illegal or can't be used on other firearms that are not covered by the legislation.

Unless im misunderstanding what CBSA is enforcing (?)

Not to sound too ignorant about this, but it seems that legal gun owners are being reactive to the legislation and therefore taking action to keep the guns in possession. I wonder what happens if i use a .50 BMG at the range, would i get charged and if so with what and by whom? Almost makes me want to try and im on Gov side in my day job haha.

 

[HuntingOntario]

AR upper and lower receivers, regardless of their state of assembly, are prohibited.

Deactivating and disabling are two different things. The storage regulations are clear that removing a critical component to disable a non-restricted firearm is satisfactory in place of a trigger lock. This does not "deactivate" a firearm however, which has a set of conditions that effectively permanently render it an unfireable non-firearm. Removing the bolt was never stated to be as a satisfactory disabling method for restricted firearms. The regulations state a secure locking device must be applied if the gun isn't stored in a safe/vault/room designed for firearm storage. This is likely because restricted rifles were an afterthought, but the regulations are what they are.

I like this!
I failed to keep in mind the difference in storage rules (don't own any and generally not mindful of this)
you are absolutely correct

 

[55recce]

We can only speculate if, and until the buyback is eventually rolled out. I see that NZ has managed to organize 2 of them while our government seems to be having problems getting one planned. Perhaps they are happy with the optics of having implemented stronger gun control without having to actually implement anything concrete. It is after all votes that they are after and not sensible firearms laws.

1. I expect any buyback will be based on the NZ example and we will get compensated with actual money.

2. When I had to surrender my original Type 97 they wanted the firearm and all the accessories. I kept the magazines, sling, cleaning kit etc. as I told the guy who came to pick it up that they were not prohibited. Luckily I still had the original receipt so was refunded the full purchase price.

3. Rather ironically I was able to buy a non-restricted Type 97 at a later date for less money. So I ended up with the same rifle non restricted, an extra set of accessories and about $350 in my pocket. Every cloud.......

 

[Scotty454]

We can only speculate if, and until the buyback is eventually rolled out. I see that NZ has managed to organize 2 of them while our government seems to be having problems getting one planned. Perhaps they are happy with the optics of having implemented stronger gun control without having to actually implement anything concrete. It is after all votes that they are after and not sensible firearms laws.

1. I expect any buyback will be based on the NZ example and we will get compensated with actual money.

2. When I had to surrender my original Type 97 they wanted the firearm and all the accessories. I kept the magazines, sling, cleaning kit etc. as I told the guy who came to pick it up that they were not prohibited. Luckily I still had the original receipt so was refunded the full purchase price.

3. Rather ironically I was able to buy a non-restricted Type 97 at a later date for less money. So I ended up with the same rifle non restricted, an extra set of accessories and about $350 in my pocket. Every cloud.......

Expecting that anything similar to this very specific scenario will happen is kind of hilarious.