Sorry but no. It is not up to you to prove anything. If they believe the firearm in question is prohibited, it is up to them to prove that in court. It is up to you do defend yourself from the charge by making a case to the contrary. The way the legislation is worded makes some modifications, and variations difficult to calssify. However, there must be some basis for the suggestion that some firearm is prohibited.
Why are pump guns under 660mm suddenly legal?
- Thread starter Armedsask
- Start date
Sorry but no. It is not up to you to prove anything. If they believe the firearm in question is prohibited, it is up to them to prove that in court. It is up to you do defend yourself from the charge by making a case to the contrary. The way the legislation is worded makes some modifications, and variations difficult to calssify. However, there must be some basis for the suggestion that some firearm is prohibited.
Dont get me wrong I'm all in favour of and own this shotgun what I'm getting at is not one person on any of these "short shotgun threads" has provided any information directly from LEO's. I have. Everthing else has been speculation and subjective interpretation of the current law. You can cry its not fair, it should be this way... if and when confronted by the RCMP if they want to take it they will and now comes the expensive part if you want it back it means going to court. So I guess you are partly right it isn't up to you to prove its prohibited but you're the one standing in court, go ahead guinnea pig.
I would feel a lot better if Dlask stopped ignoring every single email anyone with even a simple question about this matter sent to them.
Just a guess, but they might be following legal council, not to talk about the situation.
That's funny... I sent them quite a few emails way before there was mention of any court case that were ignored
Not to mention that any company who actually gave a damn about its customers would post something like that on its website, or maybe reply to the email and politely explain it.
darkshadow
CGN frequent flyer
- Location
- OH Ontario, OH NO!
No offense, but a letter from the RCMP was posted, that is what was used to build the dlask gun and was fine until they changed there mind for no reason.
something in writing is better then 'my cousin who is a cop said' Just think of going to court with that!
The fact is opinions mean nothing the way the law states it is OK (by a previous ruling) BUT now the convening authority has made statements of policy based on NO law.
I thought that they would take it, and take all your guns and your lisence to own a gun if you are caught carrying around a improperly registered restricted firearm without an ATT... I dont know, but this is a pretty good indicator that we shouldn't be using these firearms with the pistol grip:
No? Don't get me wrong, I'd def rather carry it with the pistol grip when I take it on my canoe trips this summer...
-Tyler
You seriously need to re read the post you partially quoted from, out of context. Unless of course you are a journalist then good job!
No? Don't get me wrong, I'd def rather carry it with the pistol grip when I take it on my canoe trips this summer...
-Tyler
damn right, me too. Did anyone buy this gun for any other reason?LOL
Actually the CGN'r i just bought mine off hadden even taken it out of its wrapper.
But the fact of the matter is is written in plain english that it can't be done. the term "Otherwise" is not in there to help us, or provide us with a loop hole its strickly to allow the GOV't to deam anything not directly quoted in the law, as "otherwise". It's their loop hole. As much as we all, myself very much included, wish it read otherwise. I find it hard to believe anyone who isn't making a living off them really believes this will happen. no offence to anyone making a living off them, I'm glad you are.
maltextract
Regular
- Location
- Rural Manitoba
has anyone found out if the court case is actually happening?
Please. Elaborate. Are you one of the people that gets angry when someone asks if it is legal to have the pistol grip on the 12.5" shotgun? Why? You would rather people assume it is legal and walk around in the bush with one and then possibly lose everything when they run into the wrong CO? Or have an off-duty cop at the range come up to you when you bring it there to try it out?
I don't believe in dancing around gray areas, these things need to be discussed and the law will clearly fall one way or another and I am pretty sure anyone with a brain can see where the ruling would land in this case. Please, if you are so sure otherwise be the test case.
This thread goes about 6 posts to the same thing over and over again. What a waste if bandwidth. LEO and RCMP and CFO are all giving different answer to the same question. Eventually it will get sorted out. Until then, it's all speculation.
AND FYI, my 870 reg cert has no addendums or notes mentioning anything about grips or lengths....it's a very standard, typical reg cert.
AND FYI, my 870 reg cert has no addendums or notes mentioning anything about grips or lengths....it's a very standard, typical reg cert.
