Registration shut down?

[Johnyy]

will they force us to register non-restricted firearms after a certain date - is it time to buy now?

..so you have 'more' to register ... ~ ? :D

[Neo]

Yes , but you knew that going in. There was a date the act was announced , after that it was iffy, and did not work out.
We knew at the time there was a cut off date, some waited too long.
Mind you I don't think that will make any difference in this case.
people are still buying guns, of all type, thou I do see 22 target pistols are not moving that great, but center fire are.

No, there was nothing to know going in. Yes, there was a document to sign, but the contents were legal nonsense, essentially a claim that the government might eventually apply criminal law retroactively. It was without any basis in legal principal. You cannot allow someone to do today something which you intend to make illegal in the future and then at that later date come back and charge them for a an act that WAS LEGAL when they did it. This was the argument we were required to sign in acknowledgement of (NOT agreement with). The government did eventually realize that there was no way for that argument to hold up in court — which was why the decision was made to instead delay the issuance of the registration certificates. The acknowledgement waiver was utter bull####, and they knew it.

So please, don’t tell me that I knew based on the acknowledgement I signed that that I was on iffy ground. Legally I knew I wasn’t, not one bit. So did the government. Had they not played the “no certificate” game, I would still have that gun.

[coletrain]

^^^^^^^^
Well said, I couldn’t agree more!!!

[Mr Wolverine]

No, there was nothing to know going in. Yes, there was a document to sign, but the contents were legal nonsense, essentially a claim that the government might eventually apply criminal law retroactively. It was without any basis in legal principal. You cannot allow someone to do today something which you intend to make illegal in the future and then at that later date come back and charge them for a an act that WAS LEGAL when they did it. This was the argument we were required to sign in acknowledgement of (NOT agreement with). The government did eventually realize that there was no way for that argument to hold up in court — which was why the decision was made to instead delay the issuance of the registration certificates. The acknowledgement waiver was utter bull####, and they knew it.

So please, don’t tell me that I knew based on the acknowledgement I signed that that I was on iffy ground. Legally I knew I wasn’t, not one bit. So did the government. Had they not played the “no certificate” game, I would still have that gun.

I remember a gun club member telling me he had to sign this "acceptance form" or they would stop the transfer. I called BULL#### and started a transfer for myself just to see if this was true and sure enough was told I had to sign this form. I asked for a copy, the Officer checked with his Sgt and then gave me a copy. I folded the copy, placed it in my pocket and then refused to sign the first copy and asked for my prohib firearm. The officer went and consulted with his Sgt who came to the front counter. I basically told him the form was bull#### and was not a legal requirement. He agreed with me and my prohib purchase was handed over.

To often we accept policy as law! If we accept it long enough and it may be slipped in as a law. To often on CGN RCMP opinions and policy are quoted as law. This I am sure is well intended but it does no one any good. If in doubt ask your MP to look into it. The more often the RCMP CFC are held accountable to Parliament the better.

[Ptigris762]

I remember a gun club member telling me he had to sign this "acceptance form" or they would stop the transfer. I called BULL#### and started a transfer for myself just to see if this was true and sure enough was told I had to sign this form. I asked for a copy, the Officer checked with his Sgt and then gave me a copy. I folded the copy, placed it in my pocket and then refused to sign the first copy and asked for my prohib firearm. The officer went and consulted with his Sgt who came to the front counter. I basically told him the form was bull#### and was not a legal requirement. He agreed with me and my prohib purchase was handed over.

To often we accept policy as law! If we accept it long enough and it may be slipped in as a law. To often on CGN RCMP opinions and policy are quoted as law. This I am sure is well intended but it does no one any good. If in doubt ask your MP to look into it. The more often the RCMP CFC are held accountable to Parliament the better.

Sorry John.

When has the RCMP/CFC ever been truly held accountable to Parliament? NEVER.

C-17, C-68 and the LGR. Why was a copy saved to screw the gun owners in Quebec years later. Despite a CPC/ Harper majority, did any heads roll at the RCMP? NO.

High River, AB. did any RCMP heads roll over that? NO.

C-71 and what the RCMP/Lieberals did to current SAN and CZ owners.

What about the two investigations about RCMP wrongdoing into the discrimination/sexual harassment lawsuits filed by their own officers? NO. Nothing but
two successful lawsuits costing us taxpayers over a Billion plus. Revenue collectors for the mafia in Parliament!!

We've got a new-female RCMP commissioner to run things now. Do you actually think the rot in the RCMP ranks is going to disappear with her appointment,
and the RCMP's black-eye is going to disappear? NO.

We all know that once you reach a certain level in any police force you stop being a regular cop and become a politician instead. Just look at our buddy Bill Blair
and what his Lieberals have in store for us. Fr##ckin' pond scum.

Despite what the majority of CDN Chiefs of Police say about the uselessness of Turdeau's proposed handgun ban, do you really think they give a sh#t about
our long guns, especially all those evil black guns we own_sorry, we are ALLOWED to own for now.

Never, ever, forget history!!

[mbogo3]

I hope your right, I think it will be the AR-15's and other semi-automatic rifles first. But make no mistake, handguns will be next and all our other firearms as well. They will not stop until they have achieved utter disarmament.

Why would a tyrannical government trust law abiding citizens with firearms? They want us to be helpless sheep that can be controlled or even eliminated if necessary.

Sheep with guns can contest the vote of wolves that states "what's for supper"!!..............

It's a UN goal for all member nations to disarm their populations before the one world Gov't steps in.

[P11]

So when does this shutdown come into effect. Is this coinciding with the frt shutdown ?

[lyman54]

May or may not have to do with it,
In my 12 years of owning an RPAL, i never waited more than 1 month for registration with the exception of my first AR.
Now I’m more than 2 months in, for a ruger wrangler 22lr and a G17gen5 at two different retailers.
I did receive transfer numbers months ago but still not being processed.

9 weeks in now, am in no rush so i haven’t called in yet, but am wondering if this political turmoil has anything to do with it, and i tend to say yes.

Was just wondering the same thing. What happens to the money that was prepaid to order a handgun if they never transfer it.

[gutinater]

John are there any legal issues with the RCMP changing classification of guns and deleting FRT numbers (no law change or act of parliament) as I was told they are currently doing with multiple AR-15 models? (I believe they are or were doing this because of the labs new AR lower SP1 standard they made up)

[Mr Wolverine]

John are there any legal issues with the RCMP changing classification of guns and deleting FRT numbers (no law change or act of parliament) as I was told they are currently doing with multiple AR-15 models? (I believe they are or were doing this because of the labs new AR lower SP1 standard they made up)

I am not one to answer legal questions, so this is only my opinion.

The FRT is not law, it has no legal authority but it is the opinion of the appointed Government "experts" and this carries weight in court. I see no legal issues when some one changes their opinion. If that changed opinion is enforced as law then I see it as open to be challenged in court. The resulting decision then sets a legal standard. This is why if the Judges decision is not viewed favorably by the Government they will appeal to a higher court. This is why if a legal challenge is made, the case must be prepared very carefully or we finish up with a mess like, "the ease of conversion" which was not clearly defined by the judge.

Again this is only my personal opinion.