As much as I vehemently disagree with gun prohibitions in general and this OIC in particular, the OIC was clearly worded to capture pre-AR15 designs like the AR10 and AR102. Unlike the previous restricted AR15 OIC which didn't mention those.
That said, a clean sheet design engineered to use the same internal components as an AR15 is NOT an AR15. Just as the RCMP determined with the original Modern Sporter FRT.
Buuut...when the litigation indicates that the RCMP will lose this case the Liberal Party will simply issue a new OIC to include all these ATRS guns (and more). This moving goalpost is the most obscene part of this whole #### show.
What if an auto manufacturer designed a car to comply with all existing safety standards, spent huge $$$ on R&D, invested in manufacturing capacity and then a couple years later the federal government says "Sorry, this model is prohibited; cease production and sales!"
Noone would stand for that! Why is it so different with the gun industry? It's somehow ok to drag them through the mud and force them out of business? This BS gets me hotter under the collar than the thought of losing my own guns...
If there's going to be firearm classifications, the determinants need to be consistent and objective attributes of the firearm. Not the fact that some latté liberal feels triggered when they see a photo of it... PolySeSouvient claims that manufacturers like ATRS were "skirting the law" with their new designs. No, they were COMPLYING with the law!
It's like at my workplace when the QA Manager says that our product is "Almost out of grade". You know what "almost out of grade" means? It means you're in grade! LOL
|
Reply With Quote
Originally Posted by alberta tactical rifle
I want you to be pleased with your purchase, so do not hesitate one bit to ask questions before purchase! If we do decide to go forward with payment, I assume that you are satisfied with all info provided before payment. This is a polite as-is disclaimer. 
