Is my Stag 10 upper and lower a paper weight?

dangertree said:
Unfortunately the firearms on the May 2020 prohibition list cannot be sold, as per the OIC.

To question of sending to USA as mentioned by others, the ATF does allow the original US Exporter, Arms East LLC, (Stag Arms wouldn't/didn't do any of the exporting) to return firearms to the USA. We have sent some firearms back since May 2020. However, we have had very few inquiries on the subject, and had hoped for a change in Govt in the last election rendering the OIC moot. We also didn't want to be seen as seeking to profit ghoulishly on exporting firearms banned by T*****u.

Canada does require export licenses to send 'prohibited' firearms to USA. Since the election, we are actively working to reduce some of the requirements that DFAIT has imposed on the export of "prohibited" firearms, which used to mean, automatic firearms. We hope to have some further news on this over the next few weeks. Technically, we can export to USA and sell for customer on Gunbroker, however, in the case of a receiver set in particular, it probably wouldn't be cost effective.

Personally, I still hope for success politically and would prefer to Canadians stick it to the current govt to pay if they want to take firearms from Canadian owners. We do understand that some owners have reasons to want to export in the meantime rather than wait on a useless govt to eventually implement a paid-theft program, and are willing to provide the service in such instances. More to follow.
Click to expand...

so if a person had thier firearm exported back to the usa and then said person moved to the usa, they could then arrange to pick up thier exported firearm and carry on with life?
 
Keep it and Yeet anyone who attempts to take it. If you don’t, you never deserved it in the first place.
And no, burial is not an option. That’s as bad as giving it up.
 
With all these delays... I cannot help but wonder if we can sue for emotional distress in small claims court?
- All this non-sens about having $$ tied in newly prohibited devices is certainly causing me lots of stress... not to mention the aggravation of not being allowed to use them, even though they were lawfully purchased...
 
Instead of turning upper/lower
- Couldn't we just bring this in, with the serial # written on it?

aluminium-shavings-100g.jpg
 
A similar issue arises with the Stag 10. A pre-ban version of the FRT has an even clearer statement in its Canadian Law Comments regarding the Stag 10: “The Stag Arms, Model STAG-10 firearm does not incorporate mechanical, aesthetic or other design features that can be traced directly to any particular firearm; it is therefore not considered a variant of any firearm found in the “Prohibited Firearms Regulations” or the “Restricted Firearms Regulations” appended to the Criminal Code.”


This pre-ban FRT entry for the Stag, made publicly available and current just days before the May 1 OIC, clearly states that the Stag 10 is explicitly not an AR variant.

A post-ban version of the same FRT entry, now reflecting the Stag’s current prohibited status, has no Canadian Law Comments.


This later version of the publicly available FRT, current as of last week, indicates that the Stag 10 is now prohibited as an AR variant.

In other words, evidence of the Stag’s justification for being non-restricted; that quite clear statement, “it is therefore not considered a variant of any firearm found in the “Prohibited Firearms Regulations” or the “Restricted Firearms Regulations,” has been removed, and the firearm reclassified… a move that, according to the previous FRT data and much like what we’re seeing with today’s prohibitions, seems to be beyond the scope of the OIC’s prohibition of explicitly AR variants.

We strongly recommend anyone with one of these rifles wait for further instruction. With such strong evidence of inappropriate tampering (with regards to the legal comments and other descriptors of formerly non-restricted firearms being summarily deleted from records) and prohibitions beyond the scope of the OIC’s regulatory amendments, it is highly likely that Judicial Reviews will be employed to address this overstepping.


Further to that point. The government authorizes those competitions by legislation that has not been repealed. It subsidizes those competitions by permitting them on Federal property and still does.

It sanctions the use of shooting ranges for those purposes, ranges whose range approvals still permit those competitions, knowing full well what equipment those competitions require.

If the government was genuinely of the belief that these firearms and those like them are not suitable for competition and such competitions are a danger to the public, then there are at least 20 other things that should have been banned along with the firearms themselves. The glaring inconsistencies definitely beg scrutiny.
 
Except I’m pretty sure the Stag 10 was named by name in the OIC. Therefore they really don’t have to give any reason why it’s prohibited. The FRT is not law and as such anything in them shouldn’t be able to be used in court. Wether for or against us. That argument is better for anything that wasn’t named and has since had its FRT changed. We all know the OIC list was created without any real common sense or mechanical or firearm knowledge. They can’t demonstrate to a judge what was used in the creation of the list, so we know they wasn’t any actual fact used in its creation.
 
sillymike said:
With all these delays... I cannot help but wonder if we can sue for emotional distress in small claims court?
- All this non-sens about having $$ tied in newly prohibited devices is certainly causing me lots of stress... not to mention the aggravation of not being allowed to use them, even though they were lawfully purchased...
Click to expand...

I like this, it’s worth a shot.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom