CanadianGunNutz.com logo, Firearms News and Classifieds in Canada

Page 9 of 12 FirstFirst 123456789101112 LastLast
Results 81 to 90 of 120

Thread: 460 Wby really is prohibited

  1. #81
    CGN Ultra frequent flyer bluelynx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    whereabouts unknown
    Posts
    2,275
    Anyone remember the .460 challenge Bob Prestash had when he owned Phoenix Guns in Edmonton centuries ago.?

    Anyone want to comment? He He He He He He.

    Some of you buggers are still alive. And have the bruise to show it.

  2. #82
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Location
    Edmonton Area
    Posts
    73
    Never heard about this 10k Jewel thing until now. Not surprised. But has a crime ever been committed with one of those, ever?

  3. #83
    CGN Regular Brassman66's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    Victoria BC or up the Creek northeast of Prince George
    Posts
    820
    Quote Originally Posted by Prophet River View Post
    We have a Westley Richards 577 Nito coming in (@243K US$ !!) in a couple weeks. Just checked, still NR (for now) Guy waited four years and will be into it for just about exactly 400K CAN$ by the time its in his hands. I wonder what compensation the government would be will to do if they were to confiscate it if it goes to prohib? (hate calling it a buy back when they never owned them in the first place)
    I am assuming with having it coming in a couple of weeks means the Gun has not entered Canada yet. It is my understanding a prohibited Gun can not be imported into Canada. If that is the case Govt. Lawyers may argue Govt. will not be liable to compensate and CBSA will either return to Sender or she goes into the Burner.

    Perhaps wiser to have the 577 mailed to his PH for safekeeping.

    Any Canadian can still own anything prohibited including Guns but just not possess it within Canadian Borders.

    The Lawyers will love it.

    Cheers

  4. #84
    Super GunNutz Bartok5's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    2,998
    What part of "the Lieberall government does not like Dangerous Game / Trophy Hunting" don't you peasants understand?!?
    Mark C

  5. #85
    Member CommonCents's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Posts
    45
    If I may provide an opinion I haven't seen voiced in this thread yet:

    I believe that the 10,000 j rating is intended to limit high bullet-mass long range rifles like the .50 BMG, and any other round that could serve its purpose, because they have the ability to reach out and touch somebody from beyond the protection of a defensive perimeter and through a protective barrier of insufficient strength.

    I believe that the rifles capable of this are being targetted because they would be the single most effective tool for a sufficiently dedictated individual should they decide to prematurely unseat an overreaching elected official, to put it nicely.

    If one anticipates a more and more unstable future, the likelihood of such a dedicated person arising amongst the capable (read: armed) population increases.

    I believe limiting this potential risk to government officials was the single most important intent behind this particular aspect of the OIC.
    Last edited by CommonCents; 03-21-2021 at 02:47 AM.

  6. #86
    Super GunNutz C-7.62x51's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Posts
    133
    Quote Originally Posted by CommonCents View Post
    If I may provide an opinion I haven't seen voiced in this thread yet:

    I believe that the 10,000 j rating is intended to limit high bullet-mass long range rifles like the .50 BMG, and any other round that could serve its purpose, because they have the ability to reach out and touch somebody from beyond the protection of a defensive perimeter and through a protective barrier of insufficient strength.

    I believe that the rifles capable of this are being targetted because they would be the single most effective tool for a sufficiently dedictated individual should they decide to prematurely unseat an overreaching elected official, to put it nicely.

    If one anticipates a more and more unstable future, the likelihood of such a dedicated person arising amongst the capable (read: armed) population increases.

    I believe limiting this potential risk to government officials was the single most important intent behind this particular aspect of the OIC.
    And this OIC does nothing to stop this “what if”. They know that. It’s intent is to ban more private property, period.

    C.

  7. #87
    CGN Ultra frequent flyer caramel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    20,835
    Quote Originally Posted by hawk-i View Post
    Some people got to much money.
    There is maybe a lot of money avalable but we never have enough the upper limit is always the goal, it's the survival of the fiffest. Spending is an extreme sport. JP.
    322 hours logged in 2021. Life is good. JP.

  8. #88
    CGN Regular
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Location
    Ottawa
    Posts
    580
    anybody who can afford a $400,000.00 rifle can afford the a team of really top lawyers to tear a new one to the Government and the RCMP..and i REALLY hope they do so,it's about time the Liberal government get what's coming to them,TOTAL EXTINCTION,,

  9. #89
    Super GunNutz 6.5x54R's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2017
    Location
    South Ontario
    Posts
    40
    Quote Originally Posted by CommonCents View Post
    If I may provide an opinion I haven't seen voiced in this thread yet:

    I believe that the 10,000 j rating is intended to limit high bullet-mass long range rifles like the .50 BMG, and any other round that could serve its purpose, because they have the ability to reach out and touch somebody from beyond the protection of a defensive perimeter and through a protective barrier of insufficient strength.

    I believe that the rifles capable of this are being targetted because they would be the single most effective tool for a sufficiently dedictated individual should they decide to prematurely unseat an overreaching elected official, to put it nicely.

    If one anticipates a more and more unstable future, the likelihood of such a dedicated person arising amongst the capable (read: armed) population increases.

    I believe limiting this potential risk to government officials was the single most important intent behind this particular aspect of the OIC.
    the people who are capable of such a task are unwilling to carry it out, if only by virtue of being law abiding. The individuals that prohibition does not reach are the ones with the capacity and inclination for such violence. Are we doomed to fight future crimes at the expense of those who would have already been beyond the scope of criminality? What incentive do we have for obeying laws that would criminalize us?

    If I were to claim that firearms ownership is living as my most authentic self why is that less valuable than if I were to claim an alternate gender identity? Is that not inherently a limitation of my section 7 rights to personal freedom under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms?

  10. #90
    CGN Regular Hybrid4163's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Where you'd least expect.
    Posts
    693
    Quote Originally Posted by C-7.62x51 View Post
    And this OIC does nothing to stop this “what if”. They know that. It’s intent is to ban more private property, period.

    C.
    Exactly. This is a fringe segment of the firearms market. Their assumption is that the majority of firearms users will sit this one out, as it doesn't impact them personally. And so we fall, one domino at a time.

Posting Permissions

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