CanadianGunNutz.com logo, Firearms News and Classifieds in Canada

Page 8 of 52 FirstFirst 123456789101112131415161828 ... LastLast
Results 71 to 80 of 511

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

  1. #71
    CGN frequent flyer brit84's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    BC
    Posts
    1,345
    Quote Originally Posted by GMHVAC View Post
    Where can I download a copy of the OIC?
    google canada gazzette firearms ban and you will find a link. or in any news article that has to do with the ban on the day of

  2. #72
    Super GunNutz jiffx2781's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Location
    Onterrible
    Posts
    6,387
    Quote Originally Posted by ATRS Shaun View Post
    What we know:
    First and foremost, what is clear and established, is that the FRT is opinion, and not law.
    The order in council, is law and not opinion, no matter how wrong it is.
    The May 1st OIC does not mention the modern hunter, varmint, or sporter under any category, that we can find or are aware of at this time.


    Latest information we have is that the Modern Varmint, Modern Hunter and Modern Sporter were changed to a prohibited classification under the RCMP’s Firearms Reference Table.
    Of important note: Writing in the FRT has been erased or amended to cover these actions.
    Here's my interpretation of the (arguably arbitrary) amendments to the original FRT:

    The original FRT stated this:

    Canadian Law Comments - this firearm design is derived from an amalgamation of several different firearm designs and does not trace it's design lineage directly or uniquely to a "prohibited" or a "restricted" firearm found in the Regulations appended to the criminal code.
    So basically in the original FRT they found that according to the laws and regulations at that time it met all requirements of a non restricted firearm. Therefore it could not be a "variant" of the AR-15 like they now claim.

    Fast forward to the current (arguably arbitrarily changed) FRT:

    Name:  20200520_203452.jpg
Views: 1548
Size:  110.9 KB

    The "Canadian Law Comments" section of the original FRT has been replaced with a reference to Part 1, para. 87 of the OIC.

    The new version of the FRT has been amended to reflect the RCMP's interpretation of current Regulation/Law.

    For reference Part 1, para. 87 states:

    87 The firearms of the designs commonly known as the M16, AR-10 and AR-15 rifles and the M4 carbine, and any variants or modified versions of them — other than one referred to in item 47, 49 or 50 of this Part — including the/
    * note the part in bold

    While everyone is hung up on the term "variant" (because that is the term we're used to dealing with) they have now added yet another ambiguous term "modified version".

    I believe they are basing the change in classification on the new wording in the OIC "modified version" which they believe is farther reaching than the term "variant".

    Although the OIC does not specifically name the names of the "Modern Series" rifles my take on it all is that they (RCMP) interpret the new wording in Part1, para. 87 of the OIC in a way that allows them to overreach and deem them a "variant" or most likely, a "modified version" of the AR-15.

    They were given another inch which they believe gave them the power to take another mile.

    I hope it can be argued (and proven) that the RCMP's interpretation of the OIC's wording is an overreach.


    * I am not a lawyer and this post is simply a simple man's perspective on why the RCMP f#@&€d ATRS. Yes I think it was an arbitrary overreach.
    Last edited by jiffx2781; 05-20-2020 at 09:40 PM.
    "Arguing with idiots is like playing chess with a pigeon..... No matter how good you are, the bird is going to s#!t on the board and strut around like it won anyway."

  3. #73
    CGN frequent flyer
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Maple Skids, BC
    Posts
    1,756
    Quote Originally Posted by ATRS Shaun View Post
    What we know:

    Writing in the FRT has been erased or amended to cover these actions.
    I'm confused regarding the signifigance of this.Can somebody please elaborate what exactly this means and entails?

    Thanks

  4. #74
    Super GunNutz Kingjenky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Location
    The bush
    Posts
    2,633
    Quote Originally Posted by Gobc View Post
    I'm confused regarding the signifigance of this.Can somebody please elaborate what exactly this means and entails?

    Thanks
    Sesame street style?
    We are all so politically correct!!!! its gonna ruin us all......

  5. #75
    GunNutz sharpee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2017
    Location
    Saskatoon
    Posts
    455
    Quote Originally Posted by jiffx2781 View Post
    Here's my interpretation of the (arguably arbitrary) amendments to the original FRT:

    The original FRT stated this:



    So basically in the original FRT they found that according to the laws and regulations at that time it met all requirements of a non restricted firearm. Therefore it could not be a "variant" of the AR-15 like they now claim.

    Fast forward to the current (arguably arbitrarily changed) FRT:

    Name:  20200520_203452.jpg
Views: 1548
Size:  110.9 KB

    The "Canadian Law Comments" section of the original FRT has been replaced with a reference to Part 1, para. 87 of the OIC.

    The new version of the FRT has been amended to reflect the RCMP's interpretation of current Regulation/Law.

    For reference Part 1, para. 87 states:


    * note the part in bold

    While everyone is hung up on the term "variant" (because that is the term we're used to dealing with) they have now added yet another ambiguous term "modified version".

    I believe they are basing the change in classification on the new wording in the OIC "modified version" which they believe is farther reaching than the term "variant".

    Although the OIC does not specifically name the names of the "Modern Series" rifles my take on it all is that they (RCMP) interpret the new wording in Part1, para. 87 of the OIC in a way that allows them to overreach and deem them a "variant" or most likely, a "modified version" of the AR-15.

    They were given another inch which they believe gave them the power to take another mile.

    I hope it can be argued (and proven) that the RCMP's interpretation of the OIC's wording is an overreach.
    Good overview. I do think the government will have its hands full defending this branch to the MS or MDI as the previous FRT's stated they did not lineate from the AR. Kind of difficult to then say it is a modified version.

  6. #76
    CGN Ultra frequent flyer griffin86's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Saskatchewan
    Posts
    5,609
    Quote Originally Posted by Gobc View Post
    I'm confused regarding the signifigance of this.Can somebody please elaborate what exactly this means and entails?

    Thanks
    The FRT said they had no direct lineage from the AR-15, that’s why it was Non restricted. The OIC said AR variants were banned, so the Modern Sporter was banned because it was a variant. They contradicted themselves and tried to cover it up.
    CGN Weekly Schedule
    Monday: Can't access the EE! Tuesday: Non-restricted rifles like AR-15? Wednesday: Difference between 223 and 556? Thursday: 9 or 45? Friday: Bear Defense thread Saturday: Why is this prohibited? Sunday: Zombie thread

  7. #77
    GunNutz sharpee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2017
    Location
    Saskatoon
    Posts
    455
    If I was a judge I would press the government to explain as to why they would approve their FRT as Non-Restricted, explicitly stating how it was unlike the AR, then change it afterwards contradicting themseleves. If they couldn't explain it properly I would order them to either change the FRT back or compensate ATRS for all associated damages.

  8. #78
    CGN Regular TopShelf97's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2020
    Posts
    192
    Quote Originally Posted by griffin86 View Post
    The FRT said they had no direct lineage from the AR-15, that’s why it was Non restricted. The OIC said AR variants were banned, so the Modern Sporter was banned because it was a variant. They contradicted themselves and tried to cover it up.
    If the Modern Sporter truly deserved to get banned, then the RCMP wouldn’t need to rewrite the FRT and erase statements.

    This was a sleazy attack that will only help our case in court.

  9. #79
    Super GunNutz jiffx2781's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Location
    Onterrible
    Posts
    6,387
    Quote Originally Posted by sharpee View Post
    Good overview. I do think the government will have its hands full defending this branch to the MS or MDI as the previous FRT's stated they did not lineate from the AR. Kind of difficult to then say it is a modified version.
    Oh I agree their actions will be hard to defend without making themselves look like fools.

    What this boils down to is they saw an opportunity to overreach and couldn't resist regardless.

    If this overreach continues to go uncontested they will continue their path of destruction. If ATRS chooses to fight this we need to support them. This has to be stopped.
    "Arguing with idiots is like playing chess with a pigeon..... No matter how good you are, the bird is going to s#!t on the board and strut around like it won anyway."

  10. #80
    CGN Regular SQUAREHEAD1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    ONTARIO
    Posts
    918
    Quote Originally Posted by SteelFlint View Post
    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.
    Wow! Thatís extremely generous, sir! Youíre a good man.

Posting Permissions

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