Questions on the Remington R-15 & R-25 restricted rifles for varmint hunting...

Gatehouse said:
Looks like I hurt some feelings. :(

Sorry about that. Next time I will try to be much sweeter when I point out the obvious fact that you should be aware what class a firearm is in before buying it, and that the colour of the paint has no bearing on it's classification.

:bigHug:
Click to expand...

The paint doesn't have anything to do with the classification and that isn't the point I was trying to make. My feeling aren't hurt because I was not wrong I was more speaking that not everyone is as educated as you and some people and may buy things based on impulse or convince themselves that it may be used for a hunting rifle just by impression. They are not right but I guarantee it happens more than you think. I for one know you can't and was more just trying to get people to look at it from the non-armchair elitist standpoint (the people just getting into the sport or do not recite the gun laws verbatim which there are people like this). That is all.

The law is messed up and sarcasm and just preaching to the choir is not going to make things better. Its almost like you are happy or at least complacent with the fact that 2 rifles differing only by degree of intimidating looks makes the difference between its uses. That is what I am getting at.

Obviously you are a smart individual which is a given but some times you should use your intelligence like stated earlier for more constructive means. If you think I am wrong than I don't know what else to say because I don't feel I am wrong on this in any way shape or form. If you look at what I say as a whole and open your mind you will see what I am trying to say and that it makes sense.

One more time. I know that Restricted are not allowed for hunting and only killing paper with bulls eyes on it. But the logic behind what makes a certain guns restricted and some non when they are essentially the same type of gun and can do exactly the same thing perplexes me.

The difference between an AR15 and a Mini besides simple cosmetics is the difference between a regular car and one with a spoiler. Same care only one looks faster(in the guns case more scary). Hopefully you finally get it. Thanks
 
BigGameHunter said:
The paint doesn't have anything to do with the classification and that isn't the point I was trying to make. My feeling aren't hurt because I was not wrong I was more speaking that not everyone is as educated as you and some people and may buy things based on impulse or convince themselves that it may be used for a hunting rifle just by impression. They are not right but I guarantee it happens more than you think. I for one know you can't and was more just trying to get people to look at it from the non-armchair elitist standpoint (the people just getting into the sport or do not recite the gun laws verbatim which there are people like this). That is all.
Click to expand...

If they have gone through the RPAL course, and when they go to buy the rifle at the gun store, do you not htink that they might figure out that they are buying a restricted rifle?


The law is messed up and sarcasm and just preaching to the choir is not going to make things better. Its almost like you are happy or at least complacent with the fact that 2 rifles differing only by degree of intimidating looks makes the difference between its uses. That is what I am getting at.
Click to expand...

I don't know where you got the idea that I am happy that the scary guns from Gun DIgest 1996 got classed as restricted.

Obviously you are a smart individual which is a given but some times you should use your intelligence like stated earlier for more constructive means. If you think I am wrong than I don't know what else to say because I don't feel I am wrong on this in any way shape or form. If you look at what I say as a whole and open your mind you will see what I am trying to say and that it makes sense.
Click to expand...

Here is why you are wrong- You started to whine about "false advertising"

This is your post that I replied to, which is mostly complaining that the guns are expensive and not allowed for hunting.

These rifles are false advertising. Its ridiculous that they sell this as a varmint gun, that the price went us several hundred dollars in a year and all they are is a painted lower end AR. They should make it clear that they are just paper hunters in the advertisements for them or Canada should smarten up and allow them to be used for coyote, groundhog, etc

Unless you see the gun store advertising it as a good rifle for hunting in Canada- It's nothing of the sort. The rifle is what it is. A consumer should take responsibility for at least knowing what product they are buying.

One more time. I know that Restricted are not allowed for hunting and only killing paper with bulls eyes on it. But the logic behind what makes a certain guns restricted and some non when they are essentially the same type of gun and can do exactly the same thing perplexes me.
Click to expand...

It doesn't perplex me at all. There is no logic behind it.

The difference between an AR15 and a Mini besides simple cosmetics is the difference between a regular car and one with a spoiler. Same care only one looks faster(in the guns case more scary). Hopefully you finally get it. Thanks
Click to expand...

You think you are the first one to figure this out? Maybe go back a few posts and see that I was commenting on your mistaken false advertising belief, and not dumb gun laws...
 
TheTooner said:
Well, as long as there is a regulation with the force of law against firing a restricted firearm other than on an approved range, hunting varmints with it anywhere but on an approved range wouldn't constitute a legal purpose. Therefore a CFO's discretion to issue an ATT for a legal purpose wouldn't extend to issuing an ATT for not a legal purpose. The ATT is only Authority To Transport, it isn't Authority To Shoot.

Of course, of all the things I could be wrong about, this would be nice. And I'd settle for just CFOs overstepping their authority and undermining the stupid regulations.
Click to expand...


There is no regulation restricting you to approved shooting ranges only.

If the CFO would issue you an ATT that would allow you to take your restricted rifle to zone 123 or any other place where it is legal to discharge a firearm (any firearm) then you could use your AR-15 (or handguns for that matter) for hunting.

But currently the CFO's will not issue ATT's worded to allow you to transport your restricted firearms anywhere but an approved range. The ATT has nothing to do wit where you can discharge your restricted firearms, you can fire your restricted firearms anywhere you can fire your non restricted firearms. You just can't take them there
 
woodchopper said:
There is no regulation restricting you to approved shooting ranges only.

If the CFO would issue you an ATT that would allow you to take your restricted rifle to zone 123 or any other place where it is legal to discharge a firearm (any firearm) then you could use your AR-15 (or handguns for that matter) for hunting.

But currently the CFO's will not issue ATT's worded to allow you to transport your restricted firearms anywhere but an approved range. The ATT has nothing to do wit where you can discharge your restricted firearms, you can fire your restricted firearms anywhere you can fire your non restricted firearms. You just can't take them there
Click to expand...

I begin to wonder if there are any actual regulations at all.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom