ATRS legal action update Nov 4 2021

[CrewSafeBC]

Sure hope this is resolved in your (our) favor. I paid in full for an upper and a lower and have nothing,,so tired of these Liberals

[no-one special]

Sure hope this is resolved in your (our) favor. I paid in full for an upper and a lower and have nothing,,so tired of these Liberals

We ALL are tired of the lieberals.

But just think at the hit Rick has taken by these shiite heads. His business has been virtually destroyed, his retirement has been decimated and his personal collection has been rendered useless. (It is substantial, I have seen some of it) Some of us are upset at the possibility of losing a G note or so on a gun that may not be delivered. Rick is watching his life's work and retirement being torn away, for doing absolutely NOTHING WRONG except living and working in Canada.

[metamatt]

To add to this, it's essentially a case of "we don't now how the law would handle it, if police were alerted to you using one, or if you were stopped with one by police". The police will likely believe that it is prohibited, because the FRT tells them it is. Your lawyer, if you were charged, would say that it's not prohibited. The judge of the eventual court case (if it goes that far) would then determine if you were legally using it at the time that police stopped you. This would help resolve some of the concerns about it's legal status for everyone else, but it would be expensive for you to find out. If it were to go poorly for you on specifically the question of "is it prohibited", then it could impact the community negatively. If you were to win that question, then it would likely help ATRS' case against the RCMP.

The litigation that ATRS is pursuing is to argue that despite the RCMP's belief that the MS series are prohibited by the OIC, the MS series are not in fact captured by the OIC because they are not a variant of the AR15 or AR10. This is how the RCMP felt previously to the OIC, and then the FRT was edited to consider the MS series a variant of a banned platform.

The decision in this case will have serious knock-on effects as far as the legality of classifications determined by the RCMP and logged in the FRT.

I believe the CFO's stance is that they've always felt it's a variant of the AR10 but the AR10 wasn't prohibited before the OIC. The language on the original FRT entry doesn't necessarily contradict this position.

They did prohibit guns in the FRT that actually said they weren't a variant of either prior to the OiC though (like the Stag 10)

[PinaKaleada]

I believe the CFO's stance is that they've always felt it's a variant of the AR10 but the AR10 wasn't prohibited before the OIC. The language on the original FRT entry doesn't necessarily contradict this position.

They did prohibit guns in the FRT that actually said they weren't a variant of either prior to the OiC though (like the Stag 10)

From the FRT comments:

- the ATRS, Model - Modern Sporter upper receiver does not have a cut for an automatic sear, and has a different system for mounting upper to lower receivers than either the AR-10 or AR-15 Rifles.
- as received at Specialized Firearms Support Services Section, the Make - Alberta Tactical Rifle, Model - Modern Sporter, serial number ATRS18-MS-000009 contains the receiver / frame of a semi-automatic firearm. Further, this firearm design is derived from an amalgamation of several different firearm designs and does not trace its design lineage directly or uniquely to a "prohibited" or a "restricted" firearm found in the Regulations appended to the Criminal Code.

TLDR: Doesn’t trace uniquely from prohibited or restricted firearm, different mounting system from ar10 and ar15. I’m curious what kind of logic they can pull from their @$$

[Janeau]

Under C21 amendments- the Libs were prohibiting everything with a mag and holding more than 5 rounds. Not just hunting rifle.
If that had passed..the ATRS guns will have been hit with the new law. What would have happened with the case then ?

Those Libs have lost face for now..they will come back with something else..they are very stubborn and will not bend over that defeat.
They will need to get the Poly and other antis happy. They threatened the Turd not to invite him at their meetings and take selfies with them…he went overboard the please them.

All the best to the ATRS team..I will keep my $ support going on. Keep up the good work.

[Dexter Morgan]

Under C21 amendments- the Libs were prohibiting everything with a mag and holding more than 5 rounds. Not just hunting rifle.
If that had passed..the ATRS guns will have been hit with the new law. What would have happened with the case then ?

Look closer at the document.

The Alberta Tactical Modern Hunter and Modern Sporter were going to be banned by name in the new legislation. (Making the OIC challenge irrelevant.)

Now that they've been forced to withdraw the attempt at legislation. They will now have to face the OIC challenges in court.

[Junction]

From the FRT comments:

- the ATRS, Model - Modern Sporter upper receiver does not have a cut for an automatic sear, and has a different system for mounting upper to lower receivers than either the AR-10 or AR-15 Rifles.
- as received at Specialized Firearms Support Services Section, the Make - Alberta Tactical Rifle, Model - Modern Sporter, serial number ATRS18-MS-000009 contains the receiver / frame of a semi-automatic firearm. Further, this firearm design is derived from an amalgamation of several different firearm designs and does not trace its design lineage directly or uniquely to a "prohibited" or a "restricted" firearm found in the Regulations appended to the Criminal Code.

TLDR: Doesn’t trace uniquely from prohibited or restricted firearm, different mounting system from ar10 and ar15. I’m curious what kind of logic they can pull from their @$$

You and me both!
The question to ask the judge/jury still remains;
“So if the receiver/rifle system does not trace its lineage to a restricted or prohibited firearm, what has changed?

Was the SFSSS incompetent at the that time? Or is the SFSSS incompetent now?
With the respects to the FRT system.””

Those “backdoor on a Friday night at 12am” FRT changes are the definition of a sneaky and malicious regime.
Hope there’s still judges left with integrity.

[tolan]

Look closer at the document.

The Alberta Tactical Modern Hunter and Modern Sporter were going to be banned by name in the new legislation. (Making the OIC challenge irrelevant.)

Now that they've been forced to withdraw the attempt at legislation. They will now have to face the OIC challenges in court.

There are a couple of ways of viewing the recent amendment shenanigans ...

1. The Liberals incompetently overstepped the appetite for this legislation
2. The government does NOT want the challenges to get heard in court and chose to render the court cases irrelevant by making the OIC into legislation
3. The Liberals are ratcheting the legislation up bit by bit in order to arrive at a place where there is no legal ownership of firearms in Canada
4. The kerfuffle caused by the amendments provided a useful distraction from other more embarrassing stories or was politically valuable for some reason
5. Etc...

I suspect that it's a combination of all of the above, coupled with some measure of "the left hand didn't know what the right hand was doing".

I'm looking forward to April when some of the challenges start to get heard - it will be interesting to see how that plays out.

[Junction]

there are a couple of ways of viewing the recent amendment shenanigans ...

1. The liberals incompetently overstepped the appetite for this legislation
2. The government does not want the challenges to get heard in court and chose to render the court cases irrelevant by making the oic into legislation
3. The liberals are ratcheting the legislation up bit by bit in order to arrive at a place where there is no legal ownership of firearms in canada
4. The kerfuffle caused by the amendments provided a useful distraction from other more embarrassing stories or was politically valuable for some reason
5. Etc...

i suspect that it's a combination of all of the above, coupled with some measure of "the left hand didn't know what the right hand was doing".

I'm looking forward to april when some of the challenges start to get heard - it will be interesting to see how that plays out.

all of the above! 99%

[SamM69]

Look closer at the document.

The Alberta Tactical Modern Hunter and Modern Sporter were going to be banned by name in the new legislation. (Making the OIC challenge irrelevant.)

Now that they've been forced to withdraw the attempt at legislation. They will now have to face the OIC challenges in court.

Could it not be argued that the fact the government named the MH and MS in the (now withdrawn) amendment was an explicit acknowledgement by the government that the MH and MS were not covered under the provisions of the original OIC?