actually no, only an ordinary innocent person that trusts the government would self incriminate
Asked to provide pictures of lower to RCMP before they will complete transfer?
- Thread starter John Deer
- Start date
actually no, only an ordinary innocent person that trusts the government would self incriminate
angrysoldier
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- under your bed
I guess the rcmp know where the auto sear goes in a c7/ m16?? im pretty sure its a controled item that does not show up for sale? even the selector is diffrent on a automatic m16/c7. Seems like a lot of reaching for a problem that isint there.
Unregulated parts, but that's not the point.
In my case, I used S.74 to challenge the BC CFO for refusing to issue a "Western Canada wide ATT" as I had had previously. As I recall, I went to the local courthouse in Kamloops and talked with the lady there who books the court dates. It started there, and took a couple of trips, but eventually I got on the docket.
In BC, the form I began with is called a "Reference to a Provincial Court Judge. Firearms Act." I think I got this form online, but the courthouse would have it. I filled out the identification part, and ticked the appropriate box. I should warn you that the lady who did the bookings is a sort of gate-keeper, and I recall her being cranky about fitting me into her schedule, so if you're going to start a challenge, don't leave it to the last minute- give them lots of time.
It was a 2-stage thing: first I appeared before the court to argue that there should be a reference hearing. It's not a given that you'll get one. Had I lost, that would have been it, right there. That was in October of 2008, and the actual hearing took place in late April 2009.
Present were Counsel for the CFO (a local Kamloops lawyer who usually gets the firearms cases), 2 witnesses (CFO employees), and me. I will say that the judge, recognizing that I was "self-representing", was very considerate, and advised me that I was free to stop the proceedings at any time if there was anything I didn't understand. I felt he had some sympathy for me, but I also understood I was on my own as far as arguing the facts.
Essentially, my questions were designed to make the CFO defend her position in refusing to issue me the same ATT as they had the previous time. She herself didn't appear, her employees did.
I lost my case, but I fully expected to. My real purpose was to push back against the CFO for what I considered was an unfair act: limiting an ATT that should be Canada-wide.
I will say that I really did my homework: I read the Firearms Act and anything related, spent a lot of time making sure I knew what I wanted to say, rehearsed my arguments in front of my wife, showed up in court on time, prepared, well-dressed, and respectful. I was aware that I was out of my league, certainly pushing the boundaries of my comfort zone, but I was prepared and reasonably confident that I wouldn't make a complete fool of myself.
My entire argument was based on the idea that law did nothing for public safety. It was a rude shock when I learned that their argument had nothing to do with safety, it was a matter of jurisdiction: the various CFO's were uncomfortable issuing ATT's to provinces other than their own, and appeared to have agreed amongst themselves not to do so any longer. It wasn't a pleasant moment, but I guess I did ok. Afterwards, Counsel for the CFO (the Kamloops lawyer), told me he was impressed with how I handled myself and how I presented my case.
I'm not saying any of this was easy. It was intimidating, standing in a courtroom before a judge and with a professional as an opponent, and me a rank amateur. But I believed in the rightness of what I was doing, prepared myself as best I could, and was willing to step into that arena.
I'm saying it's doable if you're willing to do your homework and you're reasonably articulate.
OldFrankHog
CGN frequent flyer
- Location
- Gatineau QC
Thank you for explaining. Certainly answers a lot of questions.
I just got the letter asking for pics on a lower I have owned for 4 years.
its a quarter circle 10 9MM AR lower Colt mag model
- Location
- Georgetown Ontario
Are they gonna go down the list of Owners I wonder! Smell a gun grab coming.
I think they'll have the decency to at least wait 'till there's a mass shooting with a semi in Canada, before full confiscation takes place.
Asked to see it out of the blue
I have owned and shot this lower for over 2 years.
The letter they sent states I requested documents which I never did..
Says my request will need to be resent if I don't comply by the 29th
Letter also stated FINAL NOTICE
When this is the first notice I have received
My first call would probably the legal defense people.
Because QC10 was originally rejected for being low shelf and then allowed after modification they may just be checking to make sure that what people own are the modified high shelf versions rather than some low shelf versions that were able to sneak through. Kind of like the situation with the classic green rifles.
My understanding is that at the rear of the receiver where the fire control group goes some are machined deeper than others. The ones machined low are low shelf, the higher ones= high shelf. The theory being the low shelf will allow the "easy installation" of full auto parts. The high shelf will not. Apparently QC10's first batch were low shelf, so they went back to the drawing board and fixed it. Since a few weeks ago they changed their interpretation of "wall thickness" they might be suspicious of brands that failed their eyeball test once and rechecking them in hopes they'll be in violation.
Having said that, the RCMP's interpretation is not law. This opinion was shared by the firearms legal defense representative in their sponsor sub-forum. So even if they find you to be in violation of their new standard they still might not be allowed to legally confiscate your firearm. Like I said, I'd consider getting them involved.
it defiantly has a high shelf
but the walls are thin and not thickened at the selector axis on either side so im thinking this receiver is questionable in their eyes
but the walls are thin and not thickened at the selector axis on either side so im thinking this receiver is questionable in their eyes
None of what they make a big deal about is about safety, but another agenda. Anybody send a photo of their junk to see if it's prohib? If it's convieneint or possible to have fun with then it must be evil.
Lets say that someone bought a complete AR, and had it registered as "restricted" with the appropriate RPAL. Then, over the years, they gradually sold off all of the un-registered parts. First the barrel, then the upper receiver, then the handguards, then the guts of the lower...etc.
Years later, the RCMP decides that the AR is now a big No No and demands that they all be surrendered. They come to collect and all you have is the registered, stripped, lower receiver.
Thoughts?
Years later, the RCMP decides that the AR is now a big No No and demands that they all be surrendered. They come to collect and all you have is the registered, stripped, lower receiver.
Thoughts?
