I will support the legal action with money. Just waiting for gofundme link. I am completely disgusted with the behaviour of this government.
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
I will support the legal action with money. Just waiting for gofundme link. I am completely disgusted with the behaviour of this government.
If you have taken a 50% deposit for a receiver that is being prohibited and you're company has yet to queue-up that customers order for manufacturing: I think the honorable thing would be to return the customers deposit if they so desire.
If the company has already absorbed the cost and time associated with the machining and it was not their fault...…….I am not so sure I agree.Originally Posted by derrick1978
CCFR — CSSA
"has yet to queue-up that customers order for manufacturing"
Material has been ordered and most likely delivered, and it ain't cheap.
The honourable thing is to abide the nature of the purchase. This was all netted out in good faith a long time ago. The risks were pointed out and the option to purchase in full was always available as a means to mitigate risk. Knowing the risk, why didn’t said customer pay in full?
I'm Irish...
Of course I know how to patch drywall.
With respect, I see your point, but I don't I agree with you. ATRS has already invested time and money, even if the machining has not begun on your particular receiver set. At the time of deposit, it was made clear that there were no refunds. They are suggesting that people pay in full ASAP to ensure that your purchases are protected in case changes are made to the OIC, or the RCMP attempt to enforce the FRT. Either of these might prevent ATRS from completing your purchase.
They have also offered to convert deposits into to purchases for lower receivers only. The receiver could then be held onto until a leadership change allows for it to be re-classified as non-restricted, or turned if a compensated confiscation ever comes to pass. I see this as a compromise on the part of ATRS that goes well beyond anything we are owed. This seems very honourable to me.
Personally, were I lucky enough to get my hands on one of these, I could think of much better things to do with it than see it destroyed by a corrupt political party!
It gets written off as bad product or materials. Unless Alberta doesn't work that way?
So rather than taking ownership for not appropriately mitigating risk, despite numerous opportunities, ATRS should turn this into an accounting exercise?
I'm Irish...
Of course I know how to patch drywall.
On behalf of a friend who has an acquaintance who owns a Modern rifle, thanks for info Alex.
Now I wonder how other Province CFOs will handle that one. Will they stick to the OIC only or stretch it's application to the non-legal reference that is the FRT?
Spock to Kirk:
"Logic dictates Captain. If Pro-Gunners are as violent as Anti-Gunners say they are, there would not be any Anti-Gunners left."
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote