MRA Renegade Rifles, Parts, and Kits now available

[Philosoraptor]

The RCMP are not the source. Unless you mean the source of garbage political opinions. But in any event, read your own reference. Sub 660mm only matters if the length is achieved via some type of variable length stock.

Here is the actual law. https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/....html#h-117003

With a fixed length stock on it, OAL and Barrel length don't matter: its NR.

See grizzly shotgun or mares leg 'rifle'. Both under 660mm. Both NR.

That is true, I used the easiest accessible source for the info. You are right to quote the lois website; I detest using it as much as the horse police and their treatment of current matters. Have a look at both sources, the text is identical in all but a few examples of grammatical tense and plural vs singular in referencing handgun(s).

I have heard about the Mare's Leg, although I do not know the full story or history behind it's classification here in Canada. Is this a case of it being the exception rather than the rule?

As for the Grizzly you must be referring to the pistol grip version? As the stock'ed versions come in around 27-28" OAL. I believe that was another can of worms pertaining to the definition of 'altered,' as there was an issue with the RCMP arguing that a Dlask 8.5" barreled 870 with Pistol Grip was now a 'handgun' and got reclassified.

I think that is where the crux of this discussion comes into play. What do the lawmakers mean by 'otherwise?' and did they intentionally omit an Oxford comma? How else would one modify the length of a firearm by the stock other than folding or telescoping? 1913 Pic adapter with a QD lever? Hacksaw?

Either way, I think most of us on here do not have the time or financial resources to find out by going to court over the matter. That is why all my fun-sized toys measure above 26". I don't believe I am the only one erring on the side of caution; as this manufacturer and another making a similar rifle both suggest barrel lengths to keep their product NR.

[STEELCITYSLICKER]

Well.......I appreciate MRA's input as I had intended to use a telescoping stock.

[Cameron SS]

That is true, I used the easiest accessible source for the info. You are right to quote the lois website; I detest using it as much as the horse police and their treatment of current matters. Have a look at both sources, the text is identical in all but a few examples of grammatical tense and plural vs singular in referencing handgun(s).

I have heard about the Mare's Leg, although I do not know the full story or history behind it's classification here in Canada. Is this a case of it being the exception rather than the rule?

As for the Grizzly you must be referring to the pistol grip version? As the stock'ed versions come in around 27-28" OAL. I believe that was another can of worms pertaining to the definition of 'altered,' as there was an issue with the RCMP arguing that a Dlask 8.5" barreled 870 with Pistol Grip was now a 'handgun' and got reclassified.

I think that is where the crux of this discussion comes into play. What do the lawmakers mean by 'otherwise?' and did they intentionally omit an Oxford comma? How else would one modify the length of a firearm by the stock other than folding or telescoping? 1913 Pic adapter with a QD lever? Hacksaw?

Either way, I think most of us on here do not have the time or financial resources to find out by going to court over the matter. That is why all my fun-sized toys measure above 26". I don't believe I am the only one erring on the side of caution; as this manufacturer and another making a similar rifle both suggest barrel lengths to keep their product NR.

You are correct to identify the open ended nature of "or otherwise." Both the prohibited and restricted definition have this open ended catchall. Prohibited in relation to cutting sawing, etc, restricted has telescoping, folding, etc. Using the grizzly as an example, does substituting factory parts for other OEM factory parts constitute either, or both? Clearly the intent of the law is to regulate shortening of the firearm, and clearly installing the pistol grip shortens the firearm. Its entirely possible that a firearm shortened in this way could be both restricted AND prohibited. I've searched extensively and can not find any case law on this.

Whats interesting in this case is the interesting examples of the grizzly and the mares leg were manufactured as WHOLE firearms. The law clearly indicates that in the case of prohibited firearms, WHOLE firearms from the manufacturer are not captured, but modifications after the fact by a 'non-manufacturer' could be. In this case, MRA is selling receivers and the WHOLE firearm is being assembled us, the end user. So by installing parts are we now modifying the manufactured firearm, or completing it?

As with the AR, any one of us could decide to build this receiver into a handgun. What then? Does that then make this a dual use receiver?

I do have the time to go to court over the matter, and I am not convinced it would be particularly expensive. I am much more convinced however, that the issue will never see the light of day in the court room. These laws have been on the books for more than 30 years, with millions of gun owners owning tens of millions of firearms, with probably thousands of firearms getting modified and used every day. And its not been in front of a judge yet.

At the end of the day, the issue is this: There is no OAL requirement for a centre fire rifle that does not have a telecsoping/folding stock. A pistol grip alone would likely risk being deemed a handgun, so you need some kind of butt stock there. So when you consider the shortest possible buffer, and shortest possible fixed stock, plus the receiver length, you would need an awfully short barrel to get under 26". I don't think most people are going to be at risk of wanting to make their bolt action-ish rifle that short.

[jiffx2781]

You are correct to identify the open ended nature of "or otherwise." Both the prohibited and restricted definition have this open ended catchall. Prohibited in relation to cutting sawing, etc, restricted has telescoping, folding, etc. Using the grizzly as an example, does substituting factory parts for other OEM factory parts constitute either, or both? Clearly the intent of the law is to regulate shortening of the firearm, and clearly installing the pistol grip shortens the firearm. Its entirely possible that a firearm shortened in this way could be both restricted AND prohibited. I've searched extensively and can not find any case law on this.

Whats interesting in this case is the interesting examples of the grizzly and the mares leg were manufactured as WHOLE firearms. The law clearly indicates that in the case of prohibited firearms, WHOLE firearms from the manufacturer are not captured, but modifications after the fact by a 'non-manufacturer' could be. In this case, MRA is selling receivers and the WHOLE firearm is being assembled us, the end user. So by installing parts are we now modifying the manufactured firearm, or completing it?

As with the AR, any one of us could decide to build this receiver into a handgun. What then? Does that then make this a dual use receiver?

I do have the time to go to court over the matter, and I am not convinced it would be particularly expensive. I am much more convinced however, that the issue will never see the light of day in the court room. These laws have been on the books for more than 30 years, with millions of gun owners owning tens of millions of firearms, with probably thousands of firearms getting modified and used every day. And its not been in front of a judge yet.

At the end of the day, the issue is this: There is no OAL requirement for a centre fire rifle that does not have a telecsoping/folding stock. A pistol grip alone would likely risk being deemed a handgun, so you need some kind of butt stock there. So when you consider the shortest possible buffer, and shortest possible fixed stock, plus the receiver length, you would need an awfully short barrel to get under 26". I don't think most people are going to be at risk of wanting to make their bolt action-ish rifle that short.

Just to point out another interesting example of the absurdity of things...

The mares leg rifles with a 12" barrel are under 26" OAL and they were deemed NR.

But there are also factory made mares leg firearms with a 9" barrel that were deemed restricted.

ht tps://www.gotenda.com/product/chiappa-1892-mares-leg-walnutblack-44-mag-9-inch-41rd/

Wondering if the mares legs with the 9" barrel were classified as a rifle? Or did they classify them as a handgun?

None of this makes any sense. Then again that's just how they want it.

[Cameron SS]

Just to point out another interesting example of the absurdity of things...

The mares leg rifles with a 12" barrel are under 26" OAL and they were deemed NR.

But there are also factory made mares leg firearms with a 9" barrel that were deemed restricted.

ht tps://www.gotenda.com/product/chiappa-1892-mares-leg-walnutblack-44-mag-9-inch-41rd/

Wondering if the mares legs with the 9" barrel were classified as a rifle? Or did they classify them as a handgun?

None of this makes any sense. Then again that's just how they want it.

I believe they classified the 9" barrel as a handgun. Chiappa makes the mares leg with a breakdown receiver. You can get the 12" and 9" as a matched set. Don't forget which barrel belongs to which receiver now...

There is a ready case to be made barrel length has nothing to do with whether or not a firearm was designed or adapted for use with one hand. The only thing sadder than the fact that gun owners have let this nonsense go on for so long, is that somewhere in the bowels of the dungeon at the RCMP firearms lab is an otherwise seemingly intelligent human who actually thinks that makes sense.

[Big bore dinosaur]

My mares leg measures 26 and a quarter..
12 barrel.
Chiappa makes a great take down..
But I agree, stupid laws came out in 79 when the TURDS dad was in power.. JUST REDICULAS

[chrisco]

Pre-order in with Bullseye.
Waiting in anticipation.
Quick question for Maple Ridge

Will the receiver set accept the “Franzen” style magwell locks?

Shoot straight - chrisco

[Cameron SS]

My mares leg measures 26 and a quarter..
12 barrel.
Chiappa makes a great take down..
But I agree, stupid laws came out in 79 when the TURDS dad was in power.. JUST REDICULAS

My Mares leg is 24" If I were to put on a different stock that shortens down to 24" by telecsoping, it would be restricted. If I were to put on a longer stock that increases OAL to 25", it becomes prohib.

If I were to put on a shorter 9" barrel, it would look like a restricted, but it would be a prohib. If I were to put on a 13" barrel, it would be a prohib. If I were to put on an 18.5" barrel, its NR.

Go figure.

The first stupid gun law in Canada was whenever they published the first gun law.

In any event, I like the look of these receivers and can't wait to see what they look like finished. I couldn't care less what class they end up as or what the RCMP thinks about them.

[Maple Ridge Armourer]

Here are some more media for you all.

We are shipping showcase models to the following stocking dealers. Pay them a visit in a week, or drop by our shop in Barrie Ontario, to check out the Renegade in person.

Red Deer Shooting Centre
Bullseye North
SFRC The Ammo Source
True North Arms

[Maple Ridge Armourer]

Pre-order in with Bullseye.
Waiting in anticipation.
Quick question for Maple Ridge

Will the receiver set accept the “Franzen” style magwell locks?

Shoot straight - chrisco

Yes it will work with Franzen locks