logo, Firearms News and Classifieds in Canada

Results 1 to 6 of 6

Thread: Question re non-published yet amendments to the FRT

  1. #1
    CGN Regular
    Join Date
    Mar 2017

    Question re non-published yet amendments to the FRT

    Quote Originally Posted by SLToronto View Post

    until these changes get propagated into the business and/or civilian versions of the FRT there's not a very significant chance to get more problems than just temporary requisition by an overzealous LEO …

    OIC additions, I would guess here - not a lawyer - would have to be made public just as OIC itself had to be published to come in force …

    if any real lawyers are around, would be nice to see their takes on that …

    also, will be so much pushed and advertised here on CGN insurance cover these situation while changes are not published? Zach, where are you?

    so, from NOW until it GETS PUBLISHED in business and/or civilian versions of FRT, that's the question ...

    Folks, pretty please … a few words re this conundrum with CFP's and RCMP Lab's covert operation ...
    If a politician’s life is worth armed guards, why aren't our children's lives worth the ability for us to give them the same level of protection?

  2. #2
    CGN Regular j_san's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Simcoe County
    Zach did respond to my email about coverages. I did not however ask your specific question.
    He is working from home and has taken some time to be with a new member of his family.
    Maybe he will chime in here At some point.
    I look forward to a response to this as well.
    ORA Service Rifle competitor, NSCC/DCRA supporter, CPC member, CSSA and CCFR member + Firearms legal defence
    The Antis are after ALL of your firearms. NONE of them are “safe”.
    Wake up Canada!!.

  3. #3
    Business Member Capri Insurance's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2017
    Quote Originally Posted by SLToronto View Post
    Folks, pretty please … a few words re this conundrum with CFP's and RCMP Lab's covert operation ...
    I'm Alive!

    Sorry for the CGN radio silence on my part. Between the pandemic, the state of the insurance industry and welcoming a beautiful baby girl into the world in April I have not had time to dedicate to CGN, but I'm back.

    Since the time you posted this there has obviously been a ton of lawyers opinion shared that can all really be summed up with "my legal opinion is" and "what a gong show". The reality is that we're in the same boat. FLD was designed to protect gun owners who follow the law and are charged regardless. The FRT makes itself quite clear that its not a legal document. If you find yourself wrongfully charged with one of the overages included in the policy then you should expect the policy to respond.

    I know in my personal experience and speaking with certain lawyers, they would tell you to put it away and don't risk it while these lawsuits run their course, but again that's another opinion. We're keeping our fingers on the pulse, doing our best to stay undated and ahead of this and are committed to continuing to support gun owners in the trying times.

    As always, you can always reach me directly at:


  4. #4
    CGN Ultra frequent flyer
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Ground Zero
    There are two sides to this coin. Compliance in advance, and conviction after non compliance.

    Even though the RCMP have been ordered to publish the FRT, they have not made it very user friendly. A lot of gun owners still don't know it even exists. The RCMP treat it like its a secret operational document and publishing it will enable manufacturers to exploit loop holes. The RCMP will never make it easy for us to use as a tool for ensuring we are compliant with the law in advance.

    The second issue, is whether you can be convicted because of the FRT. Lets say you have every good reason to believe a certain firearm is NR, and at first second and third glance it looks like an NR, but then because of some obscure fact or interpretation, contained only within the FRT, which you have not seen, the firearm is a prohib. Then you get found in possession of the firearm, and the police lay charges thinking its a prohib. Your defense would essentially be a mistake of fact defense, where you claim you believe the firearm in question was NR. The crown has to prove its a prohib, which itself is not a given, and allows you to challenge that assertion.

    You will then have to raise constitutional arguments regarding whether you need to possess knowledge that the firearm is illegal, or is mere possession of an illegal firearm enough to convict. This has been an issue with the criminal code definitions of weapon and firearm for 4 decades, and the court is usually split whenever it comes up. However, based on the vagueness and unknowability of the FRT, if you can reasonably show you coudn't have known it was a prohib, then you should be acquitted. But thats not a given.

    Its not clear what your actual concern is, but this has been a problem for a generation, it was a problem made 10 times worse when the Conservatives gave control of the Canadian Firearms Program to the RCMP, and until the firearms act and Canadian Firearms Program are torn to shreds and burned to the ground, it will continue to be a problem.

    Our gun control laws were not meant to be complied with.
    Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard. HL Mencken. 1916.
    Government is a broker in pillage, and every election is sort of an advance auction sale of stolen goods. HL Mencken. 1919.

  5. #5
    CGN Regular Iloverifles's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Far from Justin
    Would it be possible to sue the gvt and/or the RCMP for making compliance difficult? To force them to publish the FRT openly, in light of the consequences this could have on legal firearms owners?
    NFA & CSSA member

  6. #6
    CGN Regular Shorerider's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    British Columbia
    Well I just bought the insurance so it won’t have to come out of my pocket should something happen. I have original FRT copies that state what I have is NR and I have the gazette on my phone to show what was prohibited.

Posting Permissions

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