I don't see it quite that dire but it's foolish to think anything is safe because of the law. The lab has free reign with the Liberals in power. They have shown us that.
An FN CAL might be in the works..maybe...I hope
- Thread starter Ceiferiro
- Start date
I don't see it quite that dire but it's foolish to think anything is safe because of the law. The lab has free reign with the Liberals in power. They have shown us that.
He literally told that he was changing FRT entries during May and June classifying various rifles prohibited, as he got instruction to prep the OiC prohibition list late April and couldn't make it. So he was just changing database entries. Based on his opinion. After the OiC date. That's how original 1500 prohibs became 10K+.
When confronted that FRT is not a law, he agreed, but said that validity of FRT classification has to be determined in court then.
And don't take me wrong, I wish all these people success with their lab submissions, it's just such a naiveté to believe anything good is coming from the government. System was always rigged like that, we were just lucky that politicians did not abuse it.
BattleRife
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- of No Fixed Address
Nope, you are entirely wrong about the rest. We had access to the various AR102 derivatives as non-restricted firearms for a couple of years specifically because legal precedent dictated that they could not be variants of the AR15 as they predated it.
That is why when the OIC was issued it was careful to list AR15, AR10 and AR102 variants separately and specifically. The AR10 is now prohibited on its own merits, not because it is a variant of the AR15.
b-wingpilot
CGN Regular
- Location
- Sherwood Park
I read Murray Smith's affidavits in their entirety and posted the highlights on here and reddit. I have also spoken to and corresponded with Murray Smith on several occasions. Aside from "readily and easily converted to automatic fire", I have a complete understanding of how the RCMP SFSS determines firearms classifications. Lineage is absolutely key, and Smith indicated so in his affidavit.
Precisely.
x2. Even Trudeau's dad thought they were cool:
Did we read the same affidavit? The AR10 is prohibited because it is a part of "AR family", same reason as Derya MK12 shotgun.
Many on these boards, who own firearms businesses, corresponded with him. Don't believe his words, look at his actions. He just does what Public Safety tells him to do. He used creative mechanics in his determinations numerous times. "Dual-use" magazines, "auto-sear shelf", Vz58 Spartan classification - that's all his creations.
They can sing beautiful songs about "evidence based decisions", it's all BS. It's political based. Politicians make decisions and Lab just make their determinations accordingly.
The short reprieve we had during Harper was due to politicians not giving two ####s about firearms, so lab could actually do something properly.
wrong, the AR-10 is listed in the oic that is why it is banned, did they list it because it is an 'ar' maybe but that is irrelevant as it is listed. The Derya is listed in the FRT as an ar-15 variant because it looks like one. Same as the Mossberg 702 Plinkster [or blaze 47 for that matter]
Last edited:
So the description of the Derya shotgun in the model
1 description of the firearm. It speaks to its -- to
2 some of its characteristics, but it's not a detailed
3 analysis on the characteristics that would be
4 considered for variant status.
5 Q. Okay. And who prepared this description? Was it you?
6 A. No. That would be one of the SFSS staff members who
7 did that.
8 Q. Doing it under your supervision?
9 A. At the time, yes.
10 Q. Okay. And, now, I see that there are a lot of
11 references to similarity with the AR-15, but I don't
12 see any references to any similarity with the AR-10.
13 You would agree with me the AR-10 is not mentioned
14 here?
15 A. In that description, yes.
16 Q. Okay. And you will agree with me that this particular
17 firearm does not have the same receiver as any AR-10,
18 AR-15, M4, or M16 firearm?
19 A. As I said earlier, it does not have the same receiver
20 as any of the original firearms of those types.
21 Q. Okay. Does it have the same receiver as any
22 non-original firearm of that type?
23 A. Well, as I said before, the Turkish shotgun industry
24 reuses parts and components between brands of shotguns
25 considerably. And so there may be other
1 similar to the Derya which fall within the ambit of
2 paragraph 87 and which have parts that are
3 interchangeable to the Derya MK12.
4 Q. Well, I don't think you're quite answering my question,
5 though. So let me put it this way: Are you aware of
6 any shotgun, Turkish or otherwise, that has the same
7 receiver as the original AR-10, AR-15, M4, or M16?
8 A. No. The receivers would be -- would logically be
9 different because they're shotgun receivers.
10 Q. Okay. So then I think what that means is that this
11 particular firearm does not have the same receiver as
12 any M4, M16, AR-10, or AR-15?
13 A. I'm, again, presuming you're referring to the original
14 firearms of those model designations?
15 Q. Well, we have already established that no shotgun has
16 the same receiver as the original, so I'm not quite
17 sure why we need to make the distinction.
18 A. The reason I need to make the distinction is because
19 the AR platform family of firearms consists of
20 thousands and thousands of models, some of which are
21 very similar to the original designs, and some of which
22 are quite different.
23 So -- and on top of that, there are a number of
24 Turkish made shotguns, which are also variants of
25 the -- of that family of firearms, and I cannot
1 with certainty today, with the information I have at
2 hand, whether any of those Turkish shotguns have common
3 components.
6 Q. But hold on a second. But you said something
7 interesting. You said that, you know, there's the
8 original AR-15s and then -- they are very different
9 from the original. The ones that are very different,
10 they are not AR-15s at all, are they?
11 A. They can be. What I meant when I referred to that was
12 that -- when I was talking about the AR-15 -- or rather
13 the AR platform family, which as I said, consists of
14 thousands of models of firearms, made by hundreds of
15 manufacturers, supplied by thousands of third-party
16 parts suppliers. The range of designs are huge, yet
17 they're all part of the AR platform family, most of
18 which would be variants of one of those four original
19 firearms.
20 Q. Okay.
21 A. In addition to that, there are Turkish shotguns other
22 than the three that you have mentioned, which would
23 fall into the variant category for paragraph 87, and
24 because of the way the Turkish shotgun industry works,
25 with a high degree of interchangeability between parts
1 and components within that industry, it's entirely
2 possible that some other variant of a firearm named in
3 paragraph 87 would have some exchangeability or
4 capability with components of the three shotguns you
5 referred but I simply don't have that detailed information
8 available here today.
9 Q. But the reason why the Turkish shotguns were deemed
10 variants of the AR family by you has nothing to do with
11 their receivers. That's not why they're considered to
12 be variants, correct?
13 A. First of all, SFSS does not deem anything. That's a
14 legislative power. SFSS does not do that.
15 Secondly, as I have said earlier, the
16 determination as to whether any firearm is a variant or
17 not is based on all of the information available; not
18 just whether it has a common receiver or any other
19 exchangeable or interoperable parts.
20 Q. And I do understand that, but I just want to make it
21 clear that the reason why the Turkish shotguns are
22 variants, in your view, has nothing to do with their
23 receivers, correct?
24 A. No, I would disagree with that. The receiver of a
25 variant firearm can be different but still a variant
1 So -- and, for example -- I gave you an example earlier
2 of the 1990s era AR-10s made by the resurrected
3 ArmaLite Corporation. The -- they were designed,
4 manufactured, and offered for sale as AR-15 variants
5 even though the firearm had been altered to be
6 chambered for .308 Winchester rather than .223
7 Remington, and that involves a change to the receiver.
8 The magazine well has to be longer. The receiver ring
9 has to be bigger. There's a number of differences
10 there. So these firearms are still variants of the
11 AR-15 even though the receiver is not the same as the
12 AR-15.
13 So as a principle, a variant does not have to have
14 the exact same receiver as the original, and in most
15 cases -- well, I mean, in many cases they do not.
16 Q. And is there a degree of difference that is necessary
17 for something to be different than after it's no longer
18 a variant? I'm talking about receivers specifically.
21 A. As I said earlier, the determination of whether a
22 firearm is a variant or not does not depend on the
23 single matter of whether a firearm has a receiver which
24 is the same or different. That's not the basis on
25 which
1 Q. No, no. I don't think -- that's not my question. You
2 were talking about whether one receiver is a variant of
3 another receiver. So we're just talking about
4 receivers, specifically, okay.
5 So is there a degree of difference, a specific
6 degree of difference that is required for one receiver
7 to no longer be a variant of another receiver?
8 A. No. There's no specific amount of change. I'm not
9 sure how you would measure amount of change, even if it
10 were. As I said earlier, the similarities of the
11 receiver is but one factor that's considered in
12 determining whether a firearm is a variant of another
13 firearm.
14 The decision as made by -- or I mean the
15 determination as made by SFSS is based on the totality
16 of information available; not individual single
17 factors.
18 Q. And I think we (indiscernible) from the receivers. I'm
19 not sure if I've asked you about the barrel and the
20 bolt, but you would degree with me that the barrel and
21 bolt of this shotgun does not -- of the Derya MK12 is
22 not shared with any AR-10, AR-15, M4, or M16 in the
23 regulations?
24 A. Correct. The barrel of the Derya shotgun is not the
25 same as any barrel used in any of the original AR-10
1 AR-15, M16 or M4 firearms.
2 Q. And the same goes for the bolt and the magazine, right?
3 A. Yes, that's correct.
4 Q. Okay. So just so we're clear, because I think, you
5 know, this is an important point, you referred to the
6 original design of the AR-10, AR-15, M4, and M16.
7 The firearms -- I'm not sure what the right
8 terminology is. The group that is specifically named
9 in the regulation as M4, AR-15, M16, AR-10, is that a
10 reference to their original designs? Is that what the
11 regulation refers to in your understanding?
12 A. Yes, it does.
13 Q. So just to be clear, if you can give me one second. Do
14 you have a copy of the regulation handy?
15 A. It's not in front of me right now, but I imagine we
16 could get one fairly quickly.
17 Q. Okay. Well, it's probably easier if I share a screen
18 with you, so just give me one second.
19 Now, I'm showing you section 87 of the regulation,
20 and there's a reference there to the firearms of the
21 designs commonly known as the M16, AR-10 and AR-15
22 rifles and the M4 carbine. So that reference in
23 section 87 is to their original designs, right?
24 A. Yeah. The screen share has not come through. I can
25 see you but not the document.
9 Q. MR. BOUCHELEV: Okay. Do you see section 87 now?
10 A. Yes, it's come through now.
11 Q. Okay. Excellent. So the firearms of the design
12 commonly known as M16, AR-10, AR-15 rifles, and the M4
13 carbine; do you see that?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. Okay. So in your understanding, section 87, when it
16 lists these four firearms, it refers to the original
17 designs from the 1950s and 60s?
18 A. That's my understanding.
19 Q. Okay. All right. So all of the firearms listed in
20 subparagraphs starting with (a) and going all the way
21 down hundreds of entries here, they are all, in your
22 understanding, variants of the original design of the
23 AR-10, AR-15, M4, or M16?
24 A. Well, the content of those regulations was determined
25 by the Governor in Council.Canadian Coalition for Firearm Rights et al v. Attorney General
1 Q. Okay. But I'm asking for your understanding.
2 A. They all look like variants to me.
3 Q. No, no. But -- so section 87 has a number of
4 subparagraphs, right? Starting with (a)?
5 A. Yes, it does.
6 Q. Okay. And all of these subparagraphs refer to
7 individual firearms, right?
8 A. They refer to individual makes and models, which may
9 actually represent more than one firearm.
10 Q. Okay.
11 A. If you factor in calibers and barrel lengths.
12 Q. But all of these individual makes and models are
13 variants of the original M4, M16, AR-10, and AR-15,
14 right?
15 A. Well, those firearms were put there by the Governor in
16 Council, so they are named as variants, and I accept
17 them as that.
18 Q. Okay. But is it your understanding that they are
19 variants of the original design?
20 A. They certainly appear to be, but the rationale for
21 determining what went into the named variant list lies
22 with the Governor in Council, and I don't know what
23 that is.
Q. Okay. But you don't have any information to suggest
25 that they -- okay. Anyways, I think you've answered my
1 question.
2 I take it it is your understanding that they are
3 all variants of these four?
4 A. It certainly appears to be to me.
1 description of the firearm. It speaks to its -- to
2 some of its characteristics, but it's not a detailed
3 analysis on the characteristics that would be
4 considered for variant status.
5 Q. Okay. And who prepared this description? Was it you?
6 A. No. That would be one of the SFSS staff members who
7 did that.
8 Q. Doing it under your supervision?
9 A. At the time, yes.
10 Q. Okay. And, now, I see that there are a lot of
11 references to similarity with the AR-15, but I don't
12 see any references to any similarity with the AR-10.
13 You would agree with me the AR-10 is not mentioned
14 here?
15 A. In that description, yes.
16 Q. Okay. And you will agree with me that this particular
17 firearm does not have the same receiver as any AR-10,
18 AR-15, M4, or M16 firearm?
19 A. As I said earlier, it does not have the same receiver
20 as any of the original firearms of those types.
21 Q. Okay. Does it have the same receiver as any
22 non-original firearm of that type?
23 A. Well, as I said before, the Turkish shotgun industry
24 reuses parts and components between brands of shotguns
25 considerably. And so there may be other
1 similar to the Derya which fall within the ambit of
2 paragraph 87 and which have parts that are
3 interchangeable to the Derya MK12.
4 Q. Well, I don't think you're quite answering my question,
5 though. So let me put it this way: Are you aware of
6 any shotgun, Turkish or otherwise, that has the same
7 receiver as the original AR-10, AR-15, M4, or M16?
8 A. No. The receivers would be -- would logically be
9 different because they're shotgun receivers.
10 Q. Okay. So then I think what that means is that this
11 particular firearm does not have the same receiver as
12 any M4, M16, AR-10, or AR-15?
13 A. I'm, again, presuming you're referring to the original
14 firearms of those model designations?
15 Q. Well, we have already established that no shotgun has
16 the same receiver as the original, so I'm not quite
17 sure why we need to make the distinction.
18 A. The reason I need to make the distinction is because
19 the AR platform family of firearms consists of
20 thousands and thousands of models, some of which are
21 very similar to the original designs, and some of which
22 are quite different.
23 So -- and on top of that, there are a number of
24 Turkish made shotguns, which are also variants of
25 the -- of that family of firearms, and I cannot
1 with certainty today, with the information I have at
2 hand, whether any of those Turkish shotguns have common
3 components.
6 Q. But hold on a second. But you said something
7 interesting. You said that, you know, there's the
8 original AR-15s and then -- they are very different
9 from the original. The ones that are very different,
10 they are not AR-15s at all, are they?
11 A. They can be. What I meant when I referred to that was
12 that -- when I was talking about the AR-15 -- or rather
13 the AR platform family, which as I said, consists of
14 thousands of models of firearms, made by hundreds of
15 manufacturers, supplied by thousands of third-party
16 parts suppliers. The range of designs are huge, yet
17 they're all part of the AR platform family, most of
18 which would be variants of one of those four original
19 firearms.
20 Q. Okay.
21 A. In addition to that, there are Turkish shotguns other
22 than the three that you have mentioned, which would
23 fall into the variant category for paragraph 87, and
24 because of the way the Turkish shotgun industry works,
25 with a high degree of interchangeability between parts
1 and components within that industry, it's entirely
2 possible that some other variant of a firearm named in
3 paragraph 87 would have some exchangeability or
4 capability with components of the three shotguns you
5 referred but I simply don't have that detailed information
8 available here today.
9 Q. But the reason why the Turkish shotguns were deemed
10 variants of the AR family by you has nothing to do with
11 their receivers. That's not why they're considered to
12 be variants, correct?
13 A. First of all, SFSS does not deem anything. That's a
14 legislative power. SFSS does not do that.
15 Secondly, as I have said earlier, the
16 determination as to whether any firearm is a variant or
17 not is based on all of the information available; not
18 just whether it has a common receiver or any other
19 exchangeable or interoperable parts.
20 Q. And I do understand that, but I just want to make it
21 clear that the reason why the Turkish shotguns are
22 variants, in your view, has nothing to do with their
23 receivers, correct?
24 A. No, I would disagree with that. The receiver of a
25 variant firearm can be different but still a variant
1 So -- and, for example -- I gave you an example earlier
2 of the 1990s era AR-10s made by the resurrected
3 ArmaLite Corporation. The -- they were designed,
4 manufactured, and offered for sale as AR-15 variants
5 even though the firearm had been altered to be
6 chambered for .308 Winchester rather than .223
7 Remington, and that involves a change to the receiver.
8 The magazine well has to be longer. The receiver ring
9 has to be bigger. There's a number of differences
10 there. So these firearms are still variants of the
11 AR-15 even though the receiver is not the same as the
12 AR-15.
13 So as a principle, a variant does not have to have
14 the exact same receiver as the original, and in most
15 cases -- well, I mean, in many cases they do not.
16 Q. And is there a degree of difference that is necessary
17 for something to be different than after it's no longer
18 a variant? I'm talking about receivers specifically.
21 A. As I said earlier, the determination of whether a
22 firearm is a variant or not does not depend on the
23 single matter of whether a firearm has a receiver which
24 is the same or different. That's not the basis on
25 which
1 Q. No, no. I don't think -- that's not my question. You
2 were talking about whether one receiver is a variant of
3 another receiver. So we're just talking about
4 receivers, specifically, okay.
5 So is there a degree of difference, a specific
6 degree of difference that is required for one receiver
7 to no longer be a variant of another receiver?
8 A. No. There's no specific amount of change. I'm not
9 sure how you would measure amount of change, even if it
10 were. As I said earlier, the similarities of the
11 receiver is but one factor that's considered in
12 determining whether a firearm is a variant of another
13 firearm.
14 The decision as made by -- or I mean the
15 determination as made by SFSS is based on the totality
16 of information available; not individual single
17 factors.
18 Q. And I think we (indiscernible) from the receivers. I'm
19 not sure if I've asked you about the barrel and the
20 bolt, but you would degree with me that the barrel and
21 bolt of this shotgun does not -- of the Derya MK12 is
22 not shared with any AR-10, AR-15, M4, or M16 in the
23 regulations?
24 A. Correct. The barrel of the Derya shotgun is not the
25 same as any barrel used in any of the original AR-10
1 AR-15, M16 or M4 firearms.
2 Q. And the same goes for the bolt and the magazine, right?
3 A. Yes, that's correct.
4 Q. Okay. So just so we're clear, because I think, you
5 know, this is an important point, you referred to the
6 original design of the AR-10, AR-15, M4, and M16.
7 The firearms -- I'm not sure what the right
8 terminology is. The group that is specifically named
9 in the regulation as M4, AR-15, M16, AR-10, is that a
10 reference to their original designs? Is that what the
11 regulation refers to in your understanding?
12 A. Yes, it does.
13 Q. So just to be clear, if you can give me one second. Do
14 you have a copy of the regulation handy?
15 A. It's not in front of me right now, but I imagine we
16 could get one fairly quickly.
17 Q. Okay. Well, it's probably easier if I share a screen
18 with you, so just give me one second.
19 Now, I'm showing you section 87 of the regulation,
20 and there's a reference there to the firearms of the
21 designs commonly known as the M16, AR-10 and AR-15
22 rifles and the M4 carbine. So that reference in
23 section 87 is to their original designs, right?
24 A. Yeah. The screen share has not come through. I can
25 see you but not the document.
9 Q. MR. BOUCHELEV: Okay. Do you see section 87 now?
10 A. Yes, it's come through now.
11 Q. Okay. Excellent. So the firearms of the design
12 commonly known as M16, AR-10, AR-15 rifles, and the M4
13 carbine; do you see that?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. Okay. So in your understanding, section 87, when it
16 lists these four firearms, it refers to the original
17 designs from the 1950s and 60s?
18 A. That's my understanding.
19 Q. Okay. All right. So all of the firearms listed in
20 subparagraphs starting with (a) and going all the way
21 down hundreds of entries here, they are all, in your
22 understanding, variants of the original design of the
23 AR-10, AR-15, M4, or M16?
24 A. Well, the content of those regulations was determined
25 by the Governor in Council.Canadian Coalition for Firearm Rights et al v. Attorney General
1 Q. Okay. But I'm asking for your understanding.
2 A. They all look like variants to me.
3 Q. No, no. But -- so section 87 has a number of
4 subparagraphs, right? Starting with (a)?
5 A. Yes, it does.
6 Q. Okay. And all of these subparagraphs refer to
7 individual firearms, right?
8 A. They refer to individual makes and models, which may
9 actually represent more than one firearm.
10 Q. Okay.
11 A. If you factor in calibers and barrel lengths.
12 Q. But all of these individual makes and models are
13 variants of the original M4, M16, AR-10, and AR-15,
14 right?
15 A. Well, those firearms were put there by the Governor in
16 Council, so they are named as variants, and I accept
17 them as that.
18 Q. Okay. But is it your understanding that they are
19 variants of the original design?
20 A. They certainly appear to be, but the rationale for
21 determining what went into the named variant list lies
22 with the Governor in Council, and I don't know what
23 that is.
Q. Okay. But you don't have any information to suggest
25 that they -- okay. Anyways, I think you've answered my
1 question.
2 I take it it is your understanding that they are
3 all variants of these four?
4 A. It certainly appears to be to me.
To summarize from the above.
In order for any firearm to be classified as variant of a prohibited firearm there is no need to have part interchangeability, receiver similarities or anything else but determination made by SFSS.
In order for any firearm to be classified as variant of a prohibited firearm there is no need to have part interchangeability, receiver similarities or anything else but determination made by SFSS.
b-wingpilot
CGN Regular
- Location
- Sherwood Park
This is the most pertinent quote from Smith regarding how a firearm cannot be a variant if it preceded the named variant. In this case the CAL preceded the named prohibited FNC. The Cetme Model A preceded the named prohibited Cetme Sport auto rifle. And prior to the May OIC, the AR10 preceded the named restricted AR-15.
You are not hearing me. The main take away of the case cross-examination is not that Murray Smith contradicts himself. We already know he does it routinely in his classifications.
The thing every firearm owner in Canada needs to understand is that no firearm is ever safe from prohibited status. Because the SFSS can change the classification any time if ordered by Public Safety.
To high-lite their expert technical determinations.
At the same time:
ATRS is a variant of AR10.
Blaze 47 is not variant of Mossberg Blaze.
Vz58 Spartan is not a variant Cz858.
The thing every firearm owner in Canada needs to understand is that no firearm is ever safe from prohibited status. Because the SFSS can change the classification any time if ordered by Public Safety.
To high-lite their expert technical determinations.
At the same time:
ATRS is a variant of AR10.
Blaze 47 is not variant of Mossberg Blaze.
Vz58 Spartan is not a variant Cz858.
This is the most pertinent quote from Smith regarding how a firearm cannot be a variant if it preceded the named variant. In this case the CAL preceded the named prohibited FNC. The Cetme Model A preceded the named prohibited Cetme Sport auto rifle. And prior to the May OIC, the AR10 preceded the named restricted AR-15.
Someone once explained to me that this is how a semi auto AA-12 could remarkably get R status here in Canada. The USAS-12 and its variants is listed as Prohib, but the AA-12 which served as the design base for the USAS-12 predates it.
Aside from adding some info I am not understanding what it is I got wrong. Probably because you didn't actually comprehend what you read... Try harder FFS. You even went so far as to repeat what I said using your own words.
Last edited:
thats not exactly accurate. Public safety can do so through OIC there hasnt been evidence they ordered classification changes.
CZ858 fiasco is a more in depth story during Cons reign, where the cz858 spartan, not vz, was not a cz858 because it was listed on frt as a new model which was not listed as NR due to not being named specifically. All happened under Stephen Blaney, where his fix was an OIC instead of slapping RCMP lab policy
atrs according to M.S. was a combo of ar15/10 features, and the wording of the OIC was designed to capture more 'assault weapons' than just the intended 4 families, and that the 'project' was started prior to the calendar year of the arson/shooting that happened in 2020.
blaze 47 is a variant of the blaze but is also a variant of the ak47 even though they share zero commonality between the two
if you somehow manage to find an original FN CAL yes. They are restricted due to a barrel shorter than 18.5" (by 6 whole millimeters)
Now seeing how there are like 5 in all of Canada and 22 in the United states (most of which are NFA registered machine guns) Yiu better put your nose to the pavement and get looking. Long story short the sourr grapes in here are being defeatists and if you live in fear about every shadow around every corner the antigunners win.
Big ups Bwing I hope you post some vids of the CAL and I REALLY hope you uh...do your thing and make some magic :^)
