ATRS legal action update Nov 4 2021

Exlibris said:
Can someone link to the statement of defence filed by the AG? I'm not normally this bad at searching databases, but the federal court files are particularly hard to work with.
Click to expand...

The federal court website doesn't publish these documents on their website. If you have the court file number you can email the court registrar and ask for any public documents you wish.
 
Cameron SS said:
The federal court website doesn't publish these documents on their website. If you have the court file number you can email the court registrar and ask for any public documents you wish.
Click to expand...

Yeah, that's the conclusion I was coming to, but it sounds like ATRS will publish it soon enough.
 
Please correct me if I am wrong but the statement of defense seems to claim that the Modern series of rifles was deemed non-restricted because it incorporated enough features from the AR-10 that it could not be considered to be a variant of the AR-15 and was therefore not prescribed restricted. Now that the AR-10 is prescribed as prohibited, along with the AR-15, the Modern series of rifles is therefor considered prohibited too. Assuming this is indeed what the crown is saying I am curious how ATRS will respond. If the Modern rifle series did indeed get NR status due to incorporating enough AR-10 features I kind of don't see a way to argue it is not prohibited now that both the AR-10 and AR-15 are prescribed as prohibited. Perhaps ATRS is going to argue that FRT is not law, just opinion, therefore cannot be enforced without a court intervening. I am guessing ATRS now needs to file a response, which will be available to the public once filed? If so, what is the timeline for that?
 
I really hope ATRS wins this, I'm not saying I own a Modern Sporter but I'm guessing if they end up prohib there's no reason to keep them at 18.6+ barrel length. Everyone loves a 10.5" ghost gun.:rockOn:
 
relayer1989 said:
The Canadian Law Comments were removed from the ATRS FRTs shortly after May 1st 2020.
Click to expand...

I just went back to look at the pre-OIC FRT for the MS and nowhere does it state it's a variant of anything.

"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"

Sounds to me like they're backpedaling hard and pretending like they classified as an AR10 variant in the first place, which it seems they never did.

But then again, for the SFSS a Platypus could be both a duck and a beaver variant..
 
twinge6805 said:
Please correct me if I am wrong but the statement of defense seems to claim that the Modern series of rifles was deemed non-restricted because it incorporated enough features from the AR-10 that it could not be considered to be a variant of the AR-15 and was therefore not prescribed restricted. Now that the AR-10 is prescribed as prohibited, along with the AR-15, the Modern series of rifles is therefor considered prohibited too. Assuming this is indeed what the crown is saying I am curious how ATRS will respond. If the Modern rifle series did indeed get NR status due to incorporating enough AR-10 features I kind of don't see a way to argue it is not prohibited now that both the AR-10 and AR-15 are prescribed as prohibited. Perhaps ATRS is going to argue that FRT is not law, just opinion, therefore cannot be enforced without a court intervening. I am guessing ATRS now needs to file a response, which will be available to the public once filed? If so, what is the timeline for that?
Click to expand...

Just because it has enough features to not be an AR 15 doesn't mean it has to be an AR 10.

You can take the long tongue and neck off a giraffe and put a lions head on it, that doesn't mean its a lion.

The ATRS family of firearms incorporate features from the Ar 15, features from the AR 10, and features from the genius brains at ATRS that are unique. and they are combined in a unique fashion.

The ATRS family of firearms are neither an AR 15 nor an AR 10 nor any other design, and not being one of the verbotten verbatim OiC firearms, should be properly classified as NR, subject to barrel length etc.

Applicants file first. This is the respondents (governments) statement of defense. ATRS might be permitted to file a limited reply.
 
ATRS Shaun said:
More computerish folk solution: Click Here T-1415-20 Statement of Defense
Click to expand...

Thank you shaun, not sure if you are aware of the ongoing S74 effort in provincial court, but here is why all of our different actions are mutually supportive.

In the S74 cases, the AGC is providing evidence that the Canadian Firearms Program Made NO decisions with respect to which firearms were captured under the OiC, and that the exercise to identify which registration certificates to cancel was done easily without any use of skill, judgement or technical expertise.

And yet, in YOUR case, in the posted statement of defence, the AGC argues:

8. Accordingly, the Regulation as enacted, and as amended from time to time, has always required an element of technical firearms design analysis and judgment to assist in its interpretation and application, and particularly to assess whether given firearms (if not expressly listed in the Regulation) are restricted or prohibited because they are of prescribed designs or are variants or modified versions of prescribed designs.
9.Other aspects of the definitions of restricted and prohibited firearms in section 84 of the Criminal Code also require an element of technical assessment of firearms to ascertain whether they fall into those categories. [/quote]

17.As previously outlined, application of the certain aspects of definitions of the different categories of firearms calls for inspections and certain technical assessments of firearms. The Regulation in particular calls for technical firearms design analysis and judgment to assist in in assessing whether particular firearms models (if not expressly listed in the Regulation) are restricted or prohibited because they are of prescribed designs, or are variants or modified versions of prescribed designs.

Also, one of the CCFR et al procedural motions the AGC explicitly argues that classification decisions are not reviewable in federal court on a judicial review. Ironically, the AGC in the provincial hearings is arguing that the so called 'automatic nullification' decision amounts to a classification decision that is not reviewable in provincial court.
 
Cameron SS said:
Thank you shaun, not sure if you are aware of the ongoing S74 effort in provincial court, but here is why all of our different actions are mutually supportive.

In the S74 cases, the AGC is providing evidence that the Canadian Firearms Program Made NO decisions with respect to which firearms were captured under the OiC, and that the exercise to identify which registration certificates to cancel was done easily without any use of skill, judgement or technical expertise.

And yet, in YOUR case, in the posted statement of defence, the AGC argues:

8. Accordingly, the Regulation as enacted, and as amended from time to time, has always required an element of technical firearms design analysis and judgment to assist in its interpretation and application, and particularly to assess whether given firearms (if not expressly listed in the Regulation) are restricted or prohibited because they are of prescribed designs or are variants or modified versions of prescribed designs.
9.Other aspects of the definitions of restricted and prohibited firearms in section 84 of the Criminal Code also require an element of technical assessment of firearms to ascertain whether they fall into those categories.

17.As previously outlined, application of the certain aspects of definitions of the different categories of firearms calls for inspections and certain technical assessments of firearms. The Regulation in particular calls for technical firearms design analysis and judgment to assist in in assessing whether particular firearms models (if not expressly listed in the Regulation) are restricted or prohibited because they are of prescribed designs, or are variants or modified versions of prescribed designs.

Also, one of the CCFR et al procedural motions the AGC explicitly argues that classification decisions are not reviewable in federal court on a judicial review. Ironically, the AGC in the provincial hearings is arguing that the so called 'automatic nullification' decision amounts to a classification decision that is not reviewable in provincial court.
Click to expand...

Oh wow.

Could you please provide record or source of the AGC "providing evidence that the Canadian Firearms Program Made NO decisions with respect to which firearms were captured under the OiC, and that the exercise to identify which registration certificates to cancel was done easily without any use of skill, judgement or technical expertise. "
 
twinge6805 said:
Please correct me if I am wrong but the statement of defense seems to claim that the Modern series of rifles was deemed non-restricted because it incorporated enough features from the AR-10 that it could not be considered to be a variant of the AR-15 and was therefore not prescribed restricted. Now that the AR-10 is prescribed as prohibited, along with the AR-15, the Modern series of rifles is therefor considered prohibited too. Assuming this is indeed what the crown is saying I am curious how ATRS will respond. If the Modern rifle series did indeed get NR status due to incorporating enough AR-10 features I kind of don't see a way to argue it is not prohibited now that both the AR-10 and AR-15 are prescribed as prohibited. Perhaps ATRS is going to argue that FRT is not law, just opinion, therefore cannot be enforced without a court intervening. I am guessing ATRS now needs to file a response, which will be available to the public once filed? If so, what is the timeline for that?
Click to expand...

Well it's not an ar15, not an ar10, and the OIC mentions nothing about any features, just variants.

They're reaching on a bad technicality
 
Cameron SS said:
Thank you shaun, not sure if you are aware of the ongoing S74 effort in provincial court, but here is why all of our different actions are mutually supportive.

In the S74 cases, the AGC is providing evidence that the Canadian Firearms Program Made NO decisions with respect to which firearms were captured under the OiC, and that the exercise to identify which registration certificates to cancel was done easily without any use of skill, judgement or technical expertise.

And yet, in YOUR case, in the posted statement of defence, the AGC argues:

8. Accordingly, the Regulation as enacted, and as amended from time to time, has always required an element of technical firearms design analysis and judgment to assist in its interpretation and application, and particularly to assess whether given firearms (if not expressly listed in the Regulation) are restricted or prohibited because they are of prescribed designs or are variants or modified versions of prescribed designs.
9.Other aspects of the definitions of restricted and prohibited firearms in section 84 of the Criminal Code also require an element of technical assessment of firearms to ascertain whether they fall into those categories.
Click to expand...

17.As previously outlined, application of the certain aspects of definitions of the different categories of firearms calls for inspections and certain technical assessments of firearms. The Regulation in particular calls for technical firearms design analysis and judgment to assist in in assessing whether particular firearms models (if not expressly listed in the Regulation) are restricted or prohibited because they are of prescribed designs, or are variants or modified versions of prescribed designs.

Also, one of the CCFR et al procedural motions the AGC explicitly argues that classification decisions are not reviewable in federal court on a judicial review. Ironically, the AGC in the provincial hearings is arguing that the so called 'automatic nullification' decision amounts to a classification decision that is not reviewable in provincial court.[/QUOTE]

Bump for visibility
 
island4x4 said:
I'm probably pretty late to the party, but does this document not give a hard stop to what IS and what IS NOT prohibited?

https://gazette.gc.ca/rp-pr/p2/2020/2020-05-01-x3/html/sor-dors96-eng.html

Anything arbitrarily changed afterward would not count. I only see the AT15 from ATRS....
Click to expand...

That is what we are going to court about. The Gazette lists only what the recent (May 1 2020) OIC banned. The OIC actually being law although a and evil and draconian one.
Our entire Modern line of rifles was NOT mentioned in the OIC, but the rcmp/sfss unlawfully changed FRT classifications and redacted most of the FRT notes that deemed our rifles to be NR. The FRT, as the manager of the FRT group admitted in court, is merely their opinion and is not binding. Unless a LE agent decides to ignore the law and follow the FRT "opinion". Which can and has happened in the past.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom