R9 Prohibited FRT

jparent said:
The entire lab is a ####ing joke. If they can ban the Mossberg Blaze 47 based on looks, what is the purpose of the lab, other than to waste taxpayers $ trying to weld a ####ing templar upper to the lower of another already banned rifle to see if it will fire.
Click to expand...

Looking at the FRT it says it is "based on the AR-180B?" but also notes that the R9 is "blowback operated"

So in what way is it based on the AR-180B? The fact that it is gun shaped?
 
These bans are only based on look. A 22lr can't be a variant of an AR15. They only thing they have in common is the look (black, scary, full lenght picatinny rail, semi auto, detachable mag).

The whole thing is a joke. There's no point trying to find how a 9mm blowback rifle is a variant of the Ar180b platform. It's 100% based on look.
 
How many of these have been made?
Interesting that the RCMP, with this administrative decision, just ballooned the cost of the "buy-back" program.
Say 500 @$1500. Only a quarter million, a drop in the bucket as such things go. But governments generally don't like uncontrolled expenses. Particularly when a program appears to be running out of control.
 
tiriaq said:
How many of these have been made?
Interesting that the RCMP, with this administrative decision, just ballooned the cost of the "buy-back" program.
Say 500 @$1500. Only a quarter million, a drop in the bucket as such things go. But governments generally don't like uncontrolled expenses. Particularly when a program appears to be running out of control.
Click to expand...
Maybe they're not worried about buying them back (because good luck with that) and relying on the fact that 99% of Canadian legal gun owners are self-policing.
 
Corfius said:
It's not a ban with an OIC so it's not covered by the amnesty or part of a possible buyback. It's just prohibited so you can get charged right now like a common gangbanger carrying a Glock with a 30 rounds mag.
Click to expand...
Inspect dealers' records then knock on doors?
 
Corfius said:
It's not a ban with an OIC so it's not covered by the amnesty or part of a possible buyback. It's just prohibited so you can get charged right now like a common gangbanger carrying a Glock with a 30 rounds mag.
Click to expand...
Yeah I don't believe (and I could be wrong) that any of the newly prohibited guns would be covered under the buyback.
 
I Dont Care About You said:
The R9 is not a shrunk down R18. It has a completely different operating system. If a pistol caliber direct blowback carbine is a "variant" of a rifle caliber, gas operated, piston rifle then basically any firearm can be a variant of any other firearm. If this is the standard for a variant then how is a 44 mag lever rifle not a variant of an AR15?
Click to expand...
It is a variant of the Mk.18 like my 2500 Duramax is a variant of a Corvette.

DaveMachine said:
Also, while we're on the subject of "the lab". Imagine you're some constable who gets posted there thinking you're going to do investigations, catch criminals - you know, police work. But instead, most of your job is just make work to come up with ridiculous justifications to reach predetermined outcomes given to you by politicians. Imagine how little self respect you would have to do that every day.
Click to expand...
I can't imagine constables just 'get posted there'. The people in the lab need to have specific technical training to do that work. I would guess they draft tech people into becoming RCMP in order to work there.

I think you are correct on the self respect part.

tiriaq said:
But governments generally don't like uncontrolled expenses. Particularly when a program appears to be running out of control.
Click to expand...
Have you seen our government for the last 10 years? They had zero concerns about uncontrolled expenses of any sort.

Corfius said:
It's not a ban with an OIC so it's not covered by the amnesty or part of a possible buyback. It's just prohibited so you can get charged right now like a common gangbanger carrying a Glock with a 30 rounds mag.
Click to expand...
According to Runkle he has seen people charged for possession of 2020 OIC guns that are covered by the amnesty, where the gun was safely stored as per the regs. I wouldn't count on the amnesty for any sort of cover.


Mark
 
mmattockx said:
According to Runkle he has seen people charged for possession of 2020 OIC guns that are covered by the amnesty, where the gun was safely stored as per the regs.


Mark
Click to expand...

I can't wrap my head around that, there are tens of thousands of Valid PAL holders in possession of properly stored OIC guns.

What possible charge would have been laid ?

An expired PAL perhaps ?
 
FatCatsDad said:
I can't wrap my head around that, there are tens of thousands of Valid PAL holders in possession of properly stored OIC guns.

What possible charge would have been laid ?

An expired PAL perhaps ?
Click to expand...
Runkle said they were charged with possession of a prohibited firearm, same as if you got busted shooting it in the bush.


Mark
 
"A variant would not exist if not for the original." Isn't that the definition given in a hearing?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom