Modern Sporter Update April 5th 2018

[Brian46]

Ok I understand that. What I wonder about is what we say to police that may question our rifle if the see us in the bush or something. How will they know our rifle is non-restricted without an FRT? Will they be ok with our explanations? Genuine question I am having trouble finding an answer too.

The firearms act defines what class a firearm falls under. Be prepared to have the rifle confiscated if the officer is unsure at roadside and later returned if no laws were broken. Make sure you get a receipt for any property that is seized, take pictures of condition if possible and follow up immediately via a lawyer to get your property returned as quickly as possible.

If you hunt with a black rifle, this will happen to you sooner or later

[Brian46]

That makes sense but what do you tell the police if they think you have a restricted rifle? How do you prove to them it's non-restricted? Or will they just take your gun?

Let them take it, get a receipt, then follow up with a phone call to your lawyer immediately to get your property back

[PZero]

Will the lower be produced with an ambi bolt release?
Please direct me to the post if this question was already answered.

[alberta tactical rifle]

Will the lower be produced with an ambi bolt release?
Please direct me to the post if this question was already answered.

No because that would require some proprietary parts being made AND it would increase the price and as everyone wants cheapest possible these will not have the additional features our AT15, MH and MV come with.

BUT a BAD lever will fit the MS

[alberta tactical rifle]

For NR, I don't think so at this time. Post C71 is still anyones guess.
IF the RCMPee decided that the MS is classed a restricted , I could see some significant fallout. The only way I would consider going ahead and releasing them prior to the FRT would be by recording each purchasers R PAL details so in the event of a restricted classification, ATRS could then register them and transfer the rifles that had been sold. This then becomes a nightmare logistically and I think there would be significant backlash from the public who had the rifles already.
Pretty much a no win situation to be in really. On 1 hand many thousands of dollars are at stake for ATRS versus the potential nightmare the RCMPee could unleash on ATRS.
Glad it is not my dilemna. Personally I will await the FRT.

Oddly most of the folks we have sold MH's and MV's to have RPALs. I would have thought the appeal was more to the standard PAL holders. Who knew?
We have always been of the opinion that the less client info we have on file, the better. I DO see where you are going however. A CYA plan for us should we get an undesirable legal classification should we elect to sell these prior to the FRT.
Reading the letter Wolverine shared re their new rifle Etter is very clear that should they (SFSS/RCMP) deem their version of the 180 to be anything but NR Wolverine would then be responsible for any fall out.

With their being absolutely no rhyme nor reason to the legal classifications of firearms in Canada and knowing how expensive and likely it would be to be put out of business should the feds elect to pursue some possible wrong doing, it is the "what IF" that concerns me.
It is easy for guys to say go ahead I will take the risk, but their total exposure is about $1000.00, my exposure is significantly greater.

"Good day John:

With respect to your statement: - “If Wolverine Supplies was to manufacture a semi auto center fire rifle in Canada with a 19 inch barrel I assume we could simply go ahead and market her without your inspection as there is no legal requirement to have an FRT”.


1. For the purposes of the FRT, I would like to draw a clear distinction between the “manufacturer” who makes all components from “scratch” including the receiver and barrel and is not just an assembler of components with metal working, metal finishing and woodworking skills, which accurately describes the average “gunsmith”. The former is a “manufacturer”, the latter is not.

2. I presume that Wolverine (the business entity) in the hypothetical statement above, and their supply chain have all the required licences and authorities.

Then the answer is YES, BUT the manufacturer assumes full responsibility for assuring accurate classification of the firearm and accessories such as stocks and cartridge magazines.

Be aware that other regulators may require an FRT Record for their purposes.

Regards.

Bill Etter

F.A. William (Bill) Etter
Chief Firearms Technologist
Specialized Firearms Support Services
Firearms Investigative and Enforcement Services Directorate
RCMP-CFP
Specialized Policing Services"

[jiffx2781]

...

[alberta tactical rifle]

Also this statement is concerning;

"Be aware that other regulators may require an FRT Record for their purposes."

My interpretation of it is that "other regulators" may mean Law Enforcement Agencies and or CO's who rely on checking the FRT database to determine the legalities of an item they aren't sure about.

This is the part of the letter that doesn't limit the intent of the letter to only the manufacturer. The customer needs to be aware that they would assume some form of risk factor if in possession of a not yet approved item.

On the surface the letter may seem like a free pass for evaryone but if you read carefully it's anything but.

"Distrust of authority should be the first civil duty" Henry David Thoreau

In my case the distrust is of the current government especially but also of the RCMP.
The laws are purposefully vague and those who wield the power are very light in being of service in so far as what really is and isn't.

I do not want to have any hand in someone getting jacked up and their lives ruined because of LE uncertainties, and I know they have happened with regards to the legal classification of a rifle.

[8 ball]

These look drastically better than other options coming out! Anxiously awaiting!

[robab]

Hi
Atrs. Suppose this gets less than favourable classification. Is there anything stopping you from selling the current MV assembled upper/lower minus the barrel, furntire etc. Basically the matched set and all the proprietary parts. We can complete the builds as NR then. ? Just a thought.

[alberta tactical rifle]

Hi
Atrs. Suppose this gets less than favourable classification. Is there anything stopping you from selling the current MV assembled upper/lower minus the barrel, furntire etc. Basically the matched set and all the proprietary parts. We can complete the builds as NR then. ? Just a thought.

Yes there is. Being a proprietary rifle we have to release only completed and test fired rifles to comply with our insurance carriers policy.
About the only completely non proprietary parts in the MH or MV is the furniture, which you can supply and we simply deduct the cost of the base model furniture.

Again I want to point out that although these rifles are similar to an AR they are also very different is some respects.