.22 MP5! No not rhineland.
- Thread starter Scarecrow
- Start date
- Status
Never
NEVER
NEVER!!!!
I want one of these, and bumbling
bureaucrats cannot be allowed to piss on my parade! This is the first 22 in about 5 years I wanted (I know Reg is pained to even think that what I am saying is true, but it is).
I want one of these, and wants it now!
Maybe it's time to ask the manufacturer to relabel the GSG-5 as the GSG-51 and submit the "new" model for RCMP classification? It would add a little extra to the cost of the rifle since they would have to run Canadian specific stamped rifles, but at least it would get around the CFC retards.
I'm just curious... what do you think the "CFC retards" think of your comments when they read them? And read them they do.
Also, what makes you believe that "relabel" would change anything? The model number/designation that the manufacturer puts on the firearm really doesn't determine how RCMP/CFC classifies the gun or determines it to be a variant. You can call the damn thing whatever you like it's still a variant based on previous "variant" rulings (for similar firearms).
Of course calling the people who make these determinations derogatory names can't help but make them like us and want to help us
keep up the great work! Mark
darkshadow
CGN frequent flyer
- Location
- OH Ontario, OH NO!
Is it?
I was under the impression that it operated quite differently internally and that it was not a variant, does them marketing it as a 22.MP5 clone now make it a variant?
I'm just curious... what do you think the "CFC retards" think of your comments when they read them? And read them they do.
Also, what makes you believe that "relabel" would change anything? The model number/designation that the manufacturer puts on the firearm really doesn't determine how RCMP/CFC classifies the gun or determines it to be a variant. You can call the damn thing whatever you like it's still a variant based on previous "variant" rulings (for similar firearms).
Of course calling the people who make these determinations derogatory names can't help but make them like us and want to help us
Mark
And how is scolding your customer base helping your sales?
If someone from the CFC wants to pipe in and explain how a .22LR that has no parts interchangability with an MP-5 deserves to be prohibited as a variant of an MP-5, then I'll listen. Until then, you and them will just have to put up with lil 'ol me calling the CFC a bunch of slack jawed, brother & sister lovin' morons. Oh my! Now they'll probably prohibit every new firearm deveoped huh?
Read the thread. Blueline claims the only reason this is currently prohib is because the RCMP saw it at last year's SHOT show but could not get a look inside... So they judged it to be a variant. If they had an actual firearm in their hand, things would go differently.
I guess he's assuming the retards, yes retards, at the RCMP are taking their sweet ass time because it's a reclassification and they think their "expertise" is being questioned. So sending them a new and improved model to classify might get quicker results.
That's how I understood it, anyway.
So what you're saying is that because one guy on Gunnutz made this claim a large number of people now believe what he said is true and without any evidence to support that it is even being reviewed you're all anxiously awaiting a reclassification?
There have been many guns classifed as variants (over the years) which have no interchangability of parts... in some cases the classification was based solely on similiarity of apprearance. Tomlinson wrote an extensive multipage article on this subject a few years ago... his conclusion was that a variety of "grounds" were used by the goverment over the years to classify various firearms as "variants" and there is no clear cut definition in the legislation determining what a "variant" is under the firearms act... it is therefore whatever they say it is (as ridiculous as that sounds).
Classifications are NOT done based on a picture... they are done based on technical specifications from the manufacturer, pictures and other information... where that is deemed insufficient they require a sample before making a determination (recent example was the MSAR where they declined to give us a classifcation based on the written info we supplied and asked instead for a sample to be submitted).
As it stands right now the FRT lists this .22 MP5 as a Prohibited Firearm (MP5 variant) and all I've asked throughtout this thread is what makes people believe that is going to change or that it is in fact even being reconsidered.
If they reclassify this one they'd have to reclassify a lot of other guns as well... I don't know anyone in this business who believes that's going to happen.
Max Owner
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
We all can understand peoples frustration with the system. No rhime or reason for their decisions.
We can hope. We can lobby.
Be interesting if a hearing could be put together to see why the RCMP made some of the decisions they have.
We can hope. We can lobby.
Be interesting if a hearing could be put together to see why the RCMP made some of the decisions they have.
TheGamerXxX
CGN frequent flyer
- Location
- North of the 49, Manitoba
The ONLY reason I believe the RCs are 'considering' a re-classification is the fact that the manufacturer sent them a 'sample' to look over. Other than that we're all going on hopes and dreams
Luke
Luke
- Status
