Page 4 of 54 FirstFirst 1234567891011121424 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 538

Thread: ATRS Update: May 20th 2020 Re: MS / MH / MV

  1. #31
    CGN Regular SteelFlint's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    BC
    Posts
    976
    Shaun, let us know when you guys firm up on your legal challenge. I'd like to propose another option for 50% deposit guys: to convert my deposit with you into your legal fund. More than happy to do that.

    Thread tagged, awaiting your next updates.

    Best.
    "Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world; indeed, it's the only thing that ever has." - Margaret Mead

  2. #32
    CGN Regular
    Join Date
    Jul 2018
    Location
    SW Ontario
    Posts
    173
    What is happening to this country of ours where hard working, entrepreneurial, law abiding Canadians supporting families and jobs can be unilaterally taken out of business on a whim?????

    You play by the rules, you pay your taxes, you support your community, you do all that is asked of you and this is what you get in return?
    Where is the justice in this?
    ==========
    CCFR Member

  3. #33
    CGN Regular
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Posts
    114
    Thanks for the update. Keep fighting the good fight. This country is heading in a very dark direction.

  4. #34
    CGN Regular Nightstalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    KaH-NaH-Da
    Posts
    191
    Quote Originally Posted by steamy teabag View Post
    For the life of me I cannot understand why the 3 Karen's and their organization's are not getting served for restitution and damages.

    Poly is directly attacking 49k employees and thousands of small businesses.

    Hit back.
    I've copied and posted this before in another thread and the Original Poster has a seperate thread on this also but hit back at them legally. Tie them up in so many civil litigations it makes their head spin

    They (Polysesuvient) are based in Quebec.
    One of the quirks of civil litigation in Quebec, passed by past Quebec governments to discourage/prevent the plebes from suing the Government, is that you cannot be awarded legal fees as damages, unless the litigation was abusive (not frivilous....just abusive. Like burying their counsel in paperwork, knowing you will charged for every second your lawyer has to spend answering)

    So even if you win, you lose. This is the tactic the Government of Quebec uses to get money out of people via Revenu Quebec, and more recently, by having any senior with any dementia or brain impairement (aneurism, stroke, etc...) be declared "wards of the state" so that the Gov't then takes over the person's assets and bank account to prevent any kind of "elder abuse", and of course, to guarantee their monies from income tax, inheritance tax, and capital gains tax (once - not if - they sell any immoveable the senior may own) get paid to them. Both tactics depend on a cost/benefit analysis: no one wants to spend $50k fighting the Govt over an assessment or grandma's life savings, knowing that even if they win, they'll still be out alot of money. Quebecers don't have that much disposable income, thanks to the tax regime.

    Ask me how I know both of these.

    In any case, the point is if we decide to file a litigation suit against them - in Quebec, naturally - they will have to defend themselves. Win or lose, they will have to pay their legal bills out of pocket.

    I'm going to suggest we not only outnumber them nationwide, but we can outspend them. For years.

    For a nominal amount per month, we could essentially sue them out of existence

    Also FRT re-classification is not considered a Law re this, here is the original poster

    https://www.canadiangunnutz.com/foru...FRT-is-not-law

    With all the reclassifications happening in the FRT lately, it's important that we all remember that the FRT is not law. The FRT is just a bureaucrat's interpretation of the law as it relates to specific firearms -- it's like a Coles Notes of firearms law. While the FRT may be used to inform a police officer's decision as to whether or not to lay charges, for example, it has zero force and effect in court.

    The RCMP FRT page says as much:

    Legal disclaimer for public use

    The Firearms Reference Table (FRT) is not a legal instrument. The FRT is an administrative document created by the RCMP's firearms experts who have, based on criteria in the definitions found in section 84 of the Criminal Code and the supporting Regulations Prescribing Certain Firearms and other Weapons, Components and Parts of Weapons, Accessories, Cartridge Magazines, Ammunition and Projectiles as Prohibited or Restricted SOR/98-462, and the Firearms Act, conducted technical assessments of firearms to assist law enforcement officers, customs officers, and officials responsible for the regulation of firearms with the identification and classification of firearms. The aforementioned Acts and Regulations are the prevailing legal authority with respect to firearm classification.
    If you have guns like the Mossberg 715T or any of the other firearms that have been reclassed in the FRT but clearly do not fall under the enumerated models and their varants in the OIC, just a reminder: they're not prohibited just because someone changed a database record.... there has to be a basis in law. Obviously the Crown's argument will be around the word "variant", but that leaves them open to the question of why it wasn't considered a variant prior to the OIC, but is considered a variant now... did the meaning of the word "variant" change, or were they just incompetent before?

    Case law is made by having actual test cases. If you own one of the newly-prohib guns that clearly fall outside the OIC, and the thought of a potential stint in prison bothers you less than living in a dictatorship, well.... do with this information as you will...
    Last edited by Nightstalker; 05-20-2020 at 02:52 PM.
    NFA CCFR

    PRO PATRIA

  5. #35
    CGN frequent flyer brit84's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    BC
    Posts
    1,391
    Quote Originally Posted by GMHVAC View Post
    The ban does not apply to indigenous peoples.
    Yes, it does they have to turn them in after two yr amnesty too. They just have exemption to use then hunting in the meantime.

  6. #36
    CGN Regular GMHVAC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    126
    Quote Originally Posted by brit84 View Post
    Yes, it does they have to turn them in after two yr amnesty too. They just have exemption to use then hunting in the meantime.
    I must have read this wrong then.

    https://www.canadiangunnutz.com/foru...3#post16989173

  7. #37
    Newbie
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Downtown Toronto
    Posts
    10
    Quote Originally Posted by Nightstalker View Post
    I've copied and posted this before in another thread and the Original Poster has a seperate thread on this also but hit back at them legally. Tie them up in so many civil litigations it makes their head spin

    They (Polysesuvient) are based in Quebec.
    One of the quirks of civil litigation in Quebec, passed by past Quebec governments to discourage/prevent the plebes from suing the Government, is that you cannot be awarded legal fees as damages, unless the litigation was abusive (not frivilous....just abusive. Like burying their counsel in paperwork, knowing you will charged for every second your lawyer has to spend answering)

    So even if you win, you lose. This is the tactic the Government of Quebec uses to get money out of people via Revenu Quebec, and more recently, by having any senior with any dementia or brain impairement (aneurism, stroke, etc...) be declared "wards of the state" so that the Gov't then takes over the person's assets and bank account to prevent any kind of "elder abuse", and of course, to guarantee their monies from income tax, inheritance tax, and capital gains tax (once - not if - they sell any immoveable the senior may own) get paid to them. Both tactics depend on a cost/benefit analysis: no one wants to spend $50k fighting the Govt over an assessment or grandma's life savings, knowing that even if they win, they'll still be out alot of money. Quebecers don't have that much disposable income, thanks to the tax regime.

    Ask me how I know both of these.

    In any case, the point is if we decide to file a litigation suit against them - in Quebec, naturally - they will have to defend themselves. Win or lose, they will have to pay their legal bills out of pocket.

    I'm going to suggest we not only outnumber them nationwide, but we can outspend them. For years.

    For a nominal amount per month, we could essentially sue them out of existence

    Also FRT re-classification is not considered a Law re this, here is the original poster

    https://www.canadiangunnutz.com/foru...FRT-is-not-law

    With all the reclassifications happening in the FRT lately, it's important that we all remember that the FRT is not law. The FRT is just a bureaucrat's interpretation of the law as it relates to specific firearms -- it's like a Coles Notes of firearms law. While the FRT may be used to inform a police officer's decision as to whether or not to lay charges, for example, it has zero force and effect in court.

    The RCMP FRT page says as much:

    Legal disclaimer for public use

    The Firearms Reference Table (FRT) is not a legal instrument. The FRT is an administrative document created by the RCMP's firearms experts who have, based on criteria in the definitions found in section 84 of the Criminal Code and the supporting Regulations Prescribing Certain Firearms and other Weapons, Components and Parts of Weapons, Accessories, Cartridge Magazines, Ammunition and Projectiles as Prohibited or Restricted SOR/98-462, and the Firearms Act, conducted technical assessments of firearms to assist law enforcement officers, customs officers, and officials responsible for the regulation of firearms with the identification and classification of firearms. The aforementioned Acts and Regulations are the prevailing legal authority with respect to firearm classification.
    If you have guns like the Mossberg 715T or any of the other firearms that have been reclassed in the FRT but clearly do not fall under the enumerated models and their varants in the OIC, just a reminder: they're not prohibited just because someone changed a database record.... there has to be a basis in law. Obviously the Crown's argument will be around the word "variant", but that leaves them open to the question of why it wasn't considered a variant prior to the OIC, but is considered a variant now... did the meaning of the word "variant" change, or were they just incompetent before?

    Case law is made by having actual test cases. If you own one of the newly-prohib guns that clearly fall outside the OIC, and the thought of a potential stint in prison bothers you less than living in a dictatorship, well.... do with this information as you will...
    Give this man a standing ovation.

    Honestly it all boils down to each person's individual circumstance. Do you have the time and resources in the unlikely event that you have to go to court over using a firearm now classified in the FRT as prohibited? You'll likely win, but what's that time worth to you?

  8. #38
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2019
    Location
    Scarborough ON
    Posts
    69
    If you guys are determined to take legal action I'd donate my deposit for it

  9. #39
    CGN frequent flyer brit84's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    BC
    Posts
    1,391
    Quote Originally Posted by GMHVAC View Post
    Its in the OIC

  10. #40
    CGN Regular GMHVAC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    126
    Quote Originally Posted by brit84 View Post
    Its in the OIC
    Where can I download a copy of the OIC?

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •