Colt M4??

Well, sadly, they have chosen to assert such things, and give themselves such rights unilaterally .... And let's face it, a CPC Government isn't going to stand in their way .... Therefore, they now have such authority, since nobody dares oppose them .... The latest recruit of the RCMP now officially outranks the Prime Minister of Canada ... Wether we like it or not, that is now fact.

2bad4u2 said:
Oh, I'm sorry. Here all along I thought we lived in a democracy where interpretation of the law was left to the courts. Unless I'm mistaken, we're not quite a police state - yet.

What the cops "think" doesn't mean a tinkers damn. It's their job to enforce the law of the land as passed through legislation and be regulation. They don't have the ability to make s**t up as they go along. It's either a variant, or it isn't. Those guidlines and the priciples behind them have to be applied consistently and evenly. Either that, or their ass ends up before an ombudsman or before the courts.

We all know how much the RCMP are enjoying public scrutiny these days. They're walking on thin ice and the sheeple aren't so completely and blindly trusting these days. A little media and public pressure can go a long way.

I think I'm going to spend $5 for a "Freedom for Information" request and ask for the RCMP guidlines used during the classification process. Why someone on this site hasn't done so yet already surprises me.
Click to expand...
 
2bad4u2 said:
With no evidence to support what Soli claims, his story does nothing but cloud the issue and add to the rampant speculation in this thread.
Click to expand...

By all means, and as mentioned in the relevant post, contact the appropriate RCMP department through the CFC extension I've so nicely offered and validate the information I've posted: I don't get in the habit of talking out of my @ss unlike what many seem to believe, so unless I was misinformed by the technician, everything I posted is valid and up to date.
 
Not that any of this sh*t matters anyway, since we all know the damned thing will be prohibited for arbitrary reasons known only to the RCMP. Seeing as nobody will challenge the decision through legal means because it's a boatload of money for dubious chances of success, it'll end there and we'll start dreaming of the next rifle the RCMP will ban. Sweet.
 
Soli said:
Not that any of this sh*t matters anyway, since we all know the damned thing will be prohibited for arbitrary reasons known only to the RCMP. Seeing as nobody will challenge the decision through legal means because it's a boatload of money for dubious chances of success, it'll end there and we'll start dreaming of the next rifle the RCMP will ban. Sweet.
Click to expand...

Now, you're not making sense. You claim to know that the M4 .22RF classified as restricted without an FRT # to support the claim,could it be the person you spoke to was speaking out of her ass? Do you seriously think the M4 will somehow be re-classified as prohibited when the parent rifle is restricted? Am I understanding you correctly here or are you simply making an off-the-cuff remark due to the recent GSG-5 situation?
 
I think Soli, as well as me, are trying to make you understand that this rifle will be classified as its parent rifle. Maybe the person Soli talked to was off the tracks, but we need to step back.
Click to expand...

I'm well aware of the situation, thanks. Like many others on this site, I've had AR's now for close to 15 yrs. now and would gladly own a rifle that simulates the feel, size, and weight of a real AR for training purposes.

With no one comming forward with definitive information one way or another, the delay is just compounding the situation here, with rampant speculation sure to continue.
 
2bad4u2 said:
Now, you're not making sense. You claim to know that the M4 .22RF classified as restricted without an FRT # to support the claim,could it be the person you spoke to was speaking out of her ass? Do you seriously think the M4 will somehow be re-classified as prohibited when the parent rifle is restricted? Am I understanding you correctly here or are you simply making an off-the-cuff remark due to the recent GSG-5 situation?
Click to expand...

Soli not even one page ago said:
By all means, and as mentioned in the relevant post, contact the appropriate RCMP department through the CFC extension I've so nicely offered and validate the information I've posted: I don't get in the habit of talking out of my @ss unlike what many seem to believe, so unless I was misinformed by the technician, everything I posted is valid and up to date.
Click to expand...

As for the rest, you're correct that I'm making a remark due to my frustration with the GSG-5 fiasco.
 
philthygeezer said:
So how about we all organize with a distributor to purchase one, submit it with a letter explaining why it shouldn't be restricted, and have a list of people who want it as a sort of petition to go along with the letter? If we donated $10 apiece we'd have one there in no time.

IMO it also lets RCMP know that we wish to operate in accord with its evaluatory mandate.
Click to expand...

Sign me up for it.:rockOn:
 
There's a review of the M4 on GunBlast. He's pretty positive about them (though I don't think Quinn ever met a gun he didn't like.) Says they handle and feel much like the real AR. He also notes that the M4 uses a blow back action, and so it is mechanically nothing like an AR. If these things end up as restricted it certainly won't be for any kind of remotely rational or legal reason.
 
JimV said:
There's a review of the M4 on GunBlast. He's pretty positive about them (though I don't think Quinn ever met a gun he didn't like.) Says they handle and feel much like the real AR. He also notes that the M4 uses a blow back action, and so it is mechanically nothing like an AR. If these things end up as restricted it certainly won't be for any kind of remotely rational or legal reason.
Click to expand...

lots of negitive reveiws on rimfire central
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom