Here's my interpretation of the (arguably arbitrary) amendments to the original FRT:
The original FRT stated this:
So basically in the original FRT they found that according to the laws and regulations at that time it met all requirements of a non restricted firearm. Therefore it could not be a "variant" of the AR-15 like they now claim.Canadian Law Comments - this firearm design is derived from an amalgamation of several different firearm designs and does not trace it's design lineage directly or uniquely to a "prohibited" or a "restricted" firearm found in the Regulations appended to the criminal code.
Fast forward to the current (arguably arbitrarily changed) FRT:
The "Canadian Law Comments" section of the original FRT has been replaced with a reference to Part 1, para. 87 of the OIC.
The new version of the FRT has been amended to reflect the RCMP's interpretation of current Regulation/Law.
For reference Part 1, para. 87 states:
* note the part in bold87 The firearms of the designs commonly known as the M16, AR-10 and AR-15 rifles and the M4 carbine, and any variants or modified versions of them — other than one referred to in item 47, 49 or 50 of this Part — including the/
While everyone is hung up on the term "variant" (because that is the term we're used to dealing with) they have now added yet another ambiguous term "modified version".
I believe they are basing the change in classification on the new wording in the OIC "modified version" which they believe is farther reaching than the term "variant".
Although the OIC does not specifically name the names of the "Modern Series" rifles my take on it all is that they (RCMP) interpret the new wording in Part1, para. 87 of the OIC in a way that allows them to overreach and deem them a "variant" or most likely, a "modified version" of the AR-15.
They were given another inch which they believe gave them the power to take another mile.
I hope it can be argued (and proven) that the RCMP's interpretation of the OIC's wording is an overreach.
* I am not a lawyer and this post is simply a simple man's perspective on why the RCMP f#@&€d ATRS. Yes I think it was an arbitrary overreach.
Last edited by jiffx2781; 05-20-2020 at 09:40 PM.
"Arguing with idiots is like playing chess with a pigeon..... No matter how good you are, the bird is going to s#!t on the board and strut around like it won anyway."
CGN Weekly Schedule
Monday: Can't access the EE! Tuesday: Non-restricted rifles like AR-15? Wednesday: Difference between 223 and 556? Thursday: 9 or 45? Friday: Bear Defense thread Saturday: Why is this prohibited? Sunday: Zombie thread
If I was a judge I would press the government to explain as to why they would approve their FRT as Non-Restricted, explicitly stating how it was unlike the AR, then change it afterwards contradicting themseleves. If they couldn't explain it properly I would order them to either change the FRT back or compensate ATRS for all associated damages.
Oh I agree their actions will be hard to defend without making themselves look like fools.
What this boils down to is they saw an opportunity to overreach and couldn't resist regardless.
If this overreach continues to go uncontested they will continue their path of destruction. If ATRS chooses to fight this we need to support them. This has to be stopped.
"Arguing with idiots is like playing chess with a pigeon..... No matter how good you are, the bird is going to s#!t on the board and strut around like it won anyway."