Parting out banned black rifles?
- Thread starter brettmt
- Start date
jmichelin84
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- Big Land, nL
If you had it marked as frame receiver only then you can park it out but if it was a complete rifle you're out of luck but I would like a 308 AR barrel
Stag 10's were non restricted, so there is no registry for them as a complete rifle or a lower only
There have been several posts including those that reference the specific law(s) regarding notifying (or if you even have to notify) the CFO if you disassemble the rifle. I would advise looking at those posts for reference as your blanket statement it not accurate.
This. Didn't you sell it pre-OIC?
which may be illegal to modify a firearm from a frame or back without telling them.. but it is an amnesty so you can turn in illegally modified firearms without repercussions. example: if you had a sawed off shotgun.
Don't think you have to take that route though as it says you must inform cfo when it becomes a rifle, doesnt say anything about when it stops being a rifle and is just a frame. also many of us tried calling april 2020 to inform them it was no longer a rifle and were told we dont need to call them and they hung up.
TV-PressPass
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- Mountains, Alberta
Yeah . . . I don't think that's likely to hold up bud.
This isn't some blanket amnesty that will give cash for nun-chuks, frag grenades, and home-made sten-guns. This is a program to recover the wide variety of firearms covered in the OIC. A program we currently know zilch about.
Now in the case of the STAG-10: It has no cert, so there's no pre-existing expectation on the RCMP's side of what it should look like when you turn it in.
A similar issue arises with the Stag 10. A pre-ban version of the FRT has an even clearer statement in its Canadian Law Comments regarding the Stag 10: “The Stag Arms, Model STAG-10 firearm does not incorporate mechanical, aesthetic or other design features that can be traced directly to any particular firearm; it is therefore not considered a variant of any firearm found in the “Prohibited Firearms Regulations” or the “Restricted Firearms Regulations” appended to the Criminal Code.”
This pre-ban FRT entry for the Stag, made publicly available and current just days before the May 1 OIC, "clearly states that the Stag 10 is explicitly not an AR variant."
S10 FRT pre Ban.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1gxRtX2jdMP5qpVneUSDy192dnJBqDwn5/view?usp=drivesdk
A post-ban version of the same FRT entry, now reflecting the Stag’s current prohibited status, has no Canadian Law Comments.
This later version of the publicly available FRT, current as of last week, indicates that the Stag 10 is now prohibited as an AR variant.
In other words, evidence of the Stag’s justification for being non-restricted; that quite clear statement, “it is therefore not considered a variant of any firearm found in the “Prohibited Firearms Regulations” or the “Restricted Firearms Regulations,” has been removed, and the firearm reclassified… a move that, according to the previous FRT data and much like what we’re seeing with today’s prohibitions, seems to be beyond the scope of the OIC’s prohibition of explicitly AR variants.
We strongly recommend anyone with one of these rifles wait for further instruction. With such strong evidence of inappropriate tampering (with regards to the legal comments and other descriptors of formerly non-restricted firearms being summarily deleted from records) and prohibitions beyond the scope of the OIC’s regulatory amendments, it is highly likely that Judicial Reviews will be employed to address this overstepping.
Further to that point. The government authorizes those competitions by legislation that has not been repealed. It subsidizes those competitions by permitting them on Federal property and still does.
It sanctions the use of shooting ranges for those purposes, ranges whose range approvals still permit those competitions, knowing full well what equipment those competitions require.
If the government was genuinely of the belief that these firearms and those like them are not suitable for competition and such competitions are a danger to the public, then there are at least 20 other things that should have been banned along with the firearms themselves. The glaring inconsistencies definitely beg scrutiny.
This pre-ban FRT entry for the Stag, made publicly available and current just days before the May 1 OIC, "clearly states that the Stag 10 is explicitly not an AR variant."
S10 FRT pre Ban.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1gxRtX2jdMP5qpVneUSDy192dnJBqDwn5/view?usp=drivesdk
A post-ban version of the same FRT entry, now reflecting the Stag’s current prohibited status, has no Canadian Law Comments.
This later version of the publicly available FRT, current as of last week, indicates that the Stag 10 is now prohibited as an AR variant.
In other words, evidence of the Stag’s justification for being non-restricted; that quite clear statement, “it is therefore not considered a variant of any firearm found in the “Prohibited Firearms Regulations” or the “Restricted Firearms Regulations,” has been removed, and the firearm reclassified… a move that, according to the previous FRT data and much like what we’re seeing with today’s prohibitions, seems to be beyond the scope of the OIC’s prohibition of explicitly AR variants.
We strongly recommend anyone with one of these rifles wait for further instruction. With such strong evidence of inappropriate tampering (with regards to the legal comments and other descriptors of formerly non-restricted firearms being summarily deleted from records) and prohibitions beyond the scope of the OIC’s regulatory amendments, it is highly likely that Judicial Reviews will be employed to address this overstepping.
Further to that point. The government authorizes those competitions by legislation that has not been repealed. It subsidizes those competitions by permitting them on Federal property and still does.
It sanctions the use of shooting ranges for those purposes, ranges whose range approvals still permit those competitions, knowing full well what equipment those competitions require.
If the government was genuinely of the belief that these firearms and those like them are not suitable for competition and such competitions are a danger to the public, then there are at least 20 other things that should have been banned along with the firearms themselves. The glaring inconsistencies definitely beg scrutiny.
A similar issue arises with the Stag 10. A pre-ban version of the FRT has an even clearer statement in its Canadian Law Comments regarding the Stag 10: “The Stag Arms, Model STAG-10 firearm does not incorporate mechanical, aesthetic or other design features that can be traced directly to any particular firearm; it is therefore not considered a variant of any firearm found in the “Prohibited Firearms Regulations” or the “Restricted Firearms Regulations” appended to the Criminal Code.”
This pre-ban FRT entry for the Stag, made publicly available and current just days before the May 1 OIC, "clearly states that the Stag 10 is explicitly not an AR variant."
S10 FRT pre Ban.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1gxRtX2jdMP5qpVneUSDy192dnJBqDwn5/view?usp=drivesdk
A post-ban version of the same FRT entry, now reflecting the Stag’s current prohibited status, has no Canadian Law Comments.
This later version of the publicly available FRT, current as of last week, indicates that the Stag 10 is now prohibited as an AR variant.
In other words, evidence of the Stag’s justification for being non-restricted; that quite clear statement, “it is therefore not considered a variant of any firearm found in the “Prohibited Firearms Regulations” or the “Restricted Firearms Regulations,” has been removed, and the firearm reclassified… a move that, according to the previous FRT data and much like what we’re seeing with today’s prohibitions, seems to be beyond the scope of the OIC’s prohibition of explicitly AR variants.
We strongly recommend anyone with one of these rifles wait for further instruction. With such strong evidence of inappropriate tampering (with regards to the legal comments and other descriptors of formerly non-restricted firearms being summarily deleted from records) and prohibitions beyond the scope of the OIC’s regulatory amendments, it is highly likely that Judicial Reviews will be employed to address this overstepping.
Further to that point. The government authorizes those competitions by legislation that has not been repealed. It subsidizes those competitions by permitting them on Federal property and still does.
It sanctions the use of shooting ranges for those purposes, ranges whose range approvals still permit those competitions, knowing full well what equipment those competitions require.
If the government was genuinely of the belief that these firearms and those like them are not suitable for competition and such competitions are a danger to the public, then there are at least 20 other things that should have been banned along with the firearms themselves. The glaring inconsistencies definitely beg scrutiny.
This just proves how corrupt the RCMP’s so called “Firearms Experts” are!
Police State tactics by low life slugs!
The best solution for that, is everyone of us keep buying whatever unrestricted black rifles we can afford to keep driving up the cost of their proposed communist agenda. This will make it political suicide to continue - I do believe to a certain extent that is happening within our community right now.
When the time comes, perhaps we can organize something big like the Truckers have managed to pull off. Only time will tell, but it will be hard to ignore us if we can occupy Toronto or Vancouver.
Its an amnesty for guns banned in the May 1 OiC. It is not an amnesty for ALL guns. It doesn't even apply to guns that weren't named in the OiC but have been defacto-banned by FRT changes post-OiC.
