ATTENTION NFA!!! Troy Commemorative XM177E2 PROHIBITED!!

Bartok5 said:
Rampart International offered me a very generous $350 for just the stripped lower, or a full refund of $1599 (IIIRC) for the entire rifle. Both options come with the equally generous $250 store credit. Keeping everything but the Lower did cross my mind, as I went to a bit of trouble to source the correct lightweight 11.5" Barrel Assembly for the proper XM177E2 length. That said, I'd have to get the replacement Lower CeraKoted Grey to match the Troy Upper, and even then I'd just be pissed off every time I looked at the "mongrel" as a reminder of the RCMP's petty, bullying tactics. So I have elected to give the whole works back to to Rampart. If what Sparrow says is true, someone will get a really nice XM177E2 Upper or complete clone if Rampart goes that route to sell off what is left of the returned Commemoratives. In addition to the Barrel I replaced the Ejection Port Door with the correct early pattern and replaced the Front Sling Swivel Rivet with a Roll-Pin as was correct for the XM177E2 initial issue. It is just no longer for me. I have already purchased a nice, used Colt SP1 Carbine off of the EE which will become a GAU-5 clone in due course when the Spikes 11.5 CHF Lightweight Barrel that I just ordered is delivered by my favorite 3rd Party Importer. The rebarrelled Colt Carbine will actually make for a more correct Gu-5 clone than a Troy upper with another manufacturer's Lower, so it is a worthwhile project over the long run...

It would seem that the petty bullies at the Lab will win this round by picking on just the 4 of us who happen to own the Troy Commemorative Carbines. Let's see who is next - hopefully a larger group with the wherewithal to fight back through a Firearms Reference Hearing. Me, I am simply too tired of playing legal games having just spent the past 7 years embroiled in an ultimately unsuccessful class-action lawsuit regarding Veteran's rights. Someone else will have to carry this particular torch with me in a supporting role this time around.
Click to expand...

That sucks, I hope that the NFA does step in and say something about this as tiriaq mentioned.

OP, please change the thread title, let's see if they say anything.
 
tiriaq said:
This would have been a good one for one of the organizations to challenge. Were any approached? Seems to be right up the NFA's alley. While the NFA does not have an official presence on CGN, at least three senior members of the executive have personal accounts.
How about editing the title of this thread to include a large, bold ATTENTION NFA?
Click to expand...

Are you a member? If you are, they respond to emails promptly.
 
Last edited:
GreenBob said:
Are you a member? If you are they respond to emails promptly.
Click to expand...

Nope. I gave up on the NFA years ago when they refused to assist me in any way, shape or form with a seizure hearing wherein I lost a CA Uzi during the Great Manitoba Round-up of the early 1990s. Their accounting shenanigans and infighting more recently convinced me to keep my distance. I belong to two other firearms rights organizations instead.
 
Fat chance that any of the orgs will be coming to the rescue... That would make them actually useful.

Sorry to hear that you guys are going through this. It's infinitely frustrating to have people making decisions that truly have no idea what they are talking about.
 
Bartok5 said:
So I called Murray Smith at RCMP Technical Services this morning to query the status of the Troy Commemorative XM177s and GAU-5s. He confirmed that the status has been recently changed to Prohibited based solely and only on the engraved circle that represents the Automatic Sear Pin. I advised Mr Smith that the engraving is in the wrong spot and that M16 technical drawings are freely available on the internet, to no apparent effect. He insisted that the engraving constitutes a "just drill here" template for Auto Sear insertion. I protested this assertion by noting that the remainder of the internal blocks in the High-Shelf Troy Lower Receiver preclude insertion of an Auto Sear without recourse to a machine shop, again without apparent effect. Mr. Smith was adamant that the engraving in and of itself makes the Troy Lower Receiver "readily converted to automatic function in a short amount of time", despite the ludicrous nature of such a comment. We dicussed (argued) this point ad-nauseum, with me noting the lack of a definition for "readily and easily", the need for machine tools and precise measuring devices, etc, etc, without apparent effect.

Getting precisely nowhere with Mr. Smith's obtuse stonewalling, I ended the conversation noting that I would be consulting with the other owners r to determine if a Firearms Reference hearing is worth pursuing in this case, with the "Regina vs Hasselwander" decision (the firearm is what it is, not what it could become) figuring prominently in the proceedings. He didn't seem to care much whether or not we pursue such a course of action, probably assuming that 30 days provides us insufficient time insecure such a court hearing. And he is probably correct, short of some sort of immediate injunction no doubt requiring the costly services of a lawyer. And so here we are, with a generous return offer from Rampart International on the one hand, and a likely expensive legal manoeuvre wtth an uncertain outcome on the other. One must also consider the law of unintended consequences. What if a lieberal-inclined judge decides that Mr. Smith is correct, and rules that all High-Shelf AR15 Lower Receivers are "readily converted to automatic function in a short amount of time"? Would this not jeopardize the future status of all AR15s, playing right into Lieberal hands with a blanket prohibition?!? Perhaps this is a case of "sleeping dogs", requiring some personal loss for the greater good....

Any useful thoughts from the resident armchair quarterbacks and pseudo-lawyers?
Click to expand...


Not sure if this is applicable but as someone who works at the municipal level fairly closely with a law department prosecuting legislation removed from the Firearms Act and Criminal Code, I have seen situations where the boundaries of legislation in certain circumstances were pushed to the wall.
Most often however, there is zero desire to loose and even less desire to be seen as anything less than reasonable.

If a suitably analogous situation were to occur with the one you raised above, I’d never dream of convincing them to bring such a flimsy argument before the courts.
1) It would have to represent a serious public safety risk for them to do so (which this isn’t even coming close), and
2) Their professional legal reputations and the reputations of the Lab as subject matter experts in the eyes of the courts would be put at risk, and
3) There is risk of case law developing that would be unfavourable to the Lab and their mandate.

I’d pitch in to a go-fund-me on this. I think if you had a solid firearms lawyer involved like Burlew or Friedman, the Lab (or more specifically, their legal team)would quickly back off.
 
Bartok5 said:
Nope. I gave up on the NFA years ago when they refused to assist me in any way, shape or form with a seizure hearing wherein I lost a CA Uzi during the Great Manitoba Round-up of the early 1990s. Their accounting shenanigans and infighting more recently convinced me to keep my distance. I belong to two other firearms rights organizations instead.
Click to expand...

Exactly my experience, had been a member of the NFA from the early "Gunrunner" newspaper days. When the RCMP came to seize my CA Uzi, I reached out to NFA, as a longstanding paying member, and got absolutely zero support. NFA is a waste of rations.
 
Last edited:
I would help with a go fund me on this. This type of nitpicking BS needs to stop and we need to push back to show we won't take this silly crap.
 
I'm not sure what you think the NFA or any org can or should do??

You (the registered owner) have to file a (IIRC section 72 an 74) reference hearing. You have to do it within IIRC 30 days of notice of revokation.
http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/F-11.6/section-72-20120405.html

Filing is free, you just have to do it.

A more effective tactic from my experience is to get your member of parliament to demand answers from the CFO. The bureucrats really do not like having to answer the questions of elected officials.

Once you have filed, perhaps one of the Orgs can assist with legal.

No one else can file on your behalf.

Having said that, I find it interesting from a legal perspective that you seem to have been contacted by the importer, not the CFO. I believe that this is a tactic to eliminate your ability under the act to file a legal appeal.

To me that also implies that they view themselves on shakey legal ground.


Try reading the actual law:

Notice of refusal to issue or revocation

72 (1) Subject to subsection (1.1), if a chief firearms officer decides to refuse to issue or to revoke a licence or authorization to transport or the Registrar decides to refuse to issue or to revoke a registration certificate, authorization to export or authorization to import, the chief firearms officer or Registrar shall give notice of the decision in the prescribed form to the applicant for or holder of the licence, registration certificate or authorization.

Marginal note:When notice not required

(1.1) Notice under subsection (1) need not be given in any of the following circumstances:

(a) if the holder has requested that the licence, registration certificate or authorization be revoked; or


(b) if the revocation is incidental to the issuance of a new licence, registration certificate or authorization.



Marginal note:Material to accompany notice

(2) A notice given under subsection (1) must include reasons for the decision disclosing the nature of the information relied on for the decision and must be accompanied by a copy of sections 74 to 81.
Marginal note:Non-disclosure of information

(3) A chief firearms officer or the Registrar need not disclose any information the disclosure of which could, in the opinion of the chief firearms officer or the Registrar, endanger the safety of any person.


Marginal note:Disposal of firearms

(4) A notice given under subsection (1) in respect of a licence must specify a reasonable period during which the applicant for or holder of the licence may deliver to a peace officer or a firearms officer or a chief firearms officer or otherwise lawfully dispose of any firearm, prohibited weapon, restricted weapon, prohibited device or prohibited ammunition that the applicant for or holder of the licence possesses and during which sections 91, 92 and 94 of the Criminal Code do not apply to the applicant or holder.


Marginal note:Disposal of firearms — registration certificate

(5) A notice given under subsection (1) in respect of a registration certificate for a prohibited firearm or a restricted firearm must specify a reasonable period during which the applicant for or holder of the registration certificate may deliver to a peace officer or a firearms officer or a chief firearms officer or otherwise lawfully dispose of the firearm to which the registration certificate relates and during which sections 91, 92 and 94 of the Criminal Code do not apply to the applicant or holder.


Marginal note:Reference

(6) If the applicant for or holder of the licence or registration certificate refers the refusal to issue it or revocation of it to a provincial court judge under section 74, the reasonable period of time does not begin until after the reference is finally disposed of.


1995, c. 39, s. 72;
2003, c. 8, s. 45;
2012, c. 6, s. 22.
Date modified: 2018-09-07
 
Last edited:
sparrow said:
its not even the exact spot ... they may as well ban drawings and blocks of aluminum ...
Click to expand...

80% lowers are prohibited and cad drawings are trying to be regulated/banned in the states in the cody wilson/defcad.com case.

Welcome to the future. Good luck, I will watch the thread incase I can help.
 
X2: This right here - nailed it.

Lee Enfield said:
I'm not sure what you think the NFA or any org can or should do??

You (the registered owner) have to file a (IIRC section 72 an 74) reference hearing. You have to do it within IIRC 30 days of notice of revokation.
http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/F-11.6/section-72-20120405.html

Filing is free, you just have to do it.

A more effective tactic from my experience is to get your member of parliament to demand answers from the CFO. The bureucrats really do not like having to answer the questions of elected officials.

Once you have filed, perhaps one of the Orgs can assist with legal.

No one else can file on your behalf.

Having said that, I find it interesting from a legal perspective that you seem to have been contacted by the importer, not the CFO. I believe that this is a tactic to eliminate your ability under the act to file a legal appeal.

To me that also implies that they view themselves on shakey legal ground.


Try reading the actual law:

Notice of refusal to issue or revocation

72 (1) Subject to subsection (1.1), if a chief firearms officer decides to refuse to issue or to revoke a licence or authorization to transport or the Registrar decides to refuse to issue or to revoke a registration certificate, authorization to export or authorization to import, the chief firearms officer or Registrar shall give notice of the decision in the prescribed form to the applicant for or holder of the licence, registration certificate or authorization.

Marginal note:When notice not required

(1.1) Notice under subsection (1) need not be given in any of the following circumstances:

(a) if the holder has requested that the licence, registration certificate or authorization be revoked; or


(b) if the revocation is incidental to the issuance of a new licence, registration certificate or authorization.



Marginal note:Material to accompany notice

(2) A notice given under subsection (1) must include reasons for the decision disclosing the nature of the information relied on for the decision and must be accompanied by a copy of sections 74 to 81.
Marginal note:Non-disclosure of information

(3) A chief firearms officer or the Registrar need not disclose any information the disclosure of which could, in the opinion of the chief firearms officer or the Registrar, endanger the safety of any person.


Marginal note:Disposal of firearms

(4) A notice given under subsection (1) in respect of a licence must specify a reasonable period during which the applicant for or holder of the licence may deliver to a peace officer or a firearms officer or a chief firearms officer or otherwise lawfully dispose of any firearm, prohibited weapon, restricted weapon, prohibited device or prohibited ammunition that the applicant for or holder of the licence possesses and during which sections 91, 92 and 94 of the Criminal Code do not apply to the applicant or holder.


Marginal note:Disposal of firearms — registration certificate

(5) A notice given under subsection (1) in respect of a registration certificate for a prohibited firearm or a restricted firearm must specify a reasonable period during which the applicant for or holder of the registration certificate may deliver to a peace officer or a firearms officer or a chief firearms officer or otherwise lawfully dispose of the firearm to which the registration certificate relates and during which sections 91, 92 and 94 of the Criminal Code do not apply to the applicant or holder.


Marginal note:Reference

(6) If the applicant for or holder of the licence or registration certificate refers the refusal to issue it or revocation of it to a provincial court judge under section 74, the reasonable period of time does not begin until after the reference is finally disposed of.


1995, c. 39, s. 72;
2003, c. 8, s. 45;
2012, c. 6, s. 22.
Date modified: 2018-09-07
Click to expand...
 
Actually, I would suggest that it is Rampart that should be taking point on this situation, to include requesting a Reference Hearing once the first of the carbines is transferred back to their inventory. They should be doing so with the full support and assistance of the other Canadian importers and vendors of AR15s and parts/accessories. It is the importers and dealers of AR15s and their parts/accessories who stand to lose their livelihoods as the result of an all-out prohibition of AR15s in Canada, which is the next logical step following this self-serving, "enabling decision" by Murray Smith - head of the lab and point-man for firearms prohibitions. Anyone who cannot or will not see that a blanket prohibition based on Hasselwander is coming next, is either obtuse, a willfully blind idiot, or a quisling. This decision affects all of us, not just the four hapless individuals who happen to have purchased the rifles. But hey, that's just how I see it.
 
Bartok5 said:
This is a major piss-off, no question about it. Nothing but pointless vindictiveness on the part of the queen's cowboys, to prohibit a carbine of which there are hundreds if not thousands of physically identical examples in the country. This crystal lesson in "punitive law-making" by the national Gun Gestapo accomplishes nothing in terms of enhanced public safety and simply breeds further contempt for the national police force. This is the future of similar firearms under C71 when the Mounties finally achieve total control over the classification of our collector and target-shooting firearms!

Kudos to Rampart for offering a full refund with a Store Credit of $250 for our frustration and efforts in dealing with the CFC to transfer the firearms back. I am not sure if Rampart will accept my carbine back, as I have installed a proper-length 11.5" barrel which makes the Upper Receiver a "Short Barrelled Rifle" in the USA, subject to additional BATF paperwork and a $200 Tax Stamp. I may end up instead transferring only the prohibited, stripped Lower Receiver to Rampart for a sum yet to be determined. I will then have to find a suitable replacement Lower Receiver to Cera--kote the matching "SIG Grey" colour so that I can employ it as the lower for my Troy XM177E2 Parts Kit. What a royal Pain In The Arse!!!

I am not impressed with our "rcmp overlords" right about now. My regard for the horsemen as a taxpayer has reached an all-time low. I cannot respect nor can I trust a police force that is actively working to disarm law-abiding firearms owners....
Click to expand...

Where in C-71 does it give the RCMP any new powers that they don't already have?
 
Bartok5 said:
Actually, I would suggest that it is Rampart that should be taking point on this situation, to include requesting a Reference Hearing once the first of the carbines is transferred back to their inventory. They should be doing so with the full support and assistance of the other Canadian importers and vendors of AR15s and parts/accessories. It is the importers and dealers of AR15s and their parts/accessories who stand to lose their livelihoods as the result of an all-out prohibition of AR15s in Canada, which is the next logical step following this self-serving, "enabling decision" by Murray Smith - head of the lab and point-man for firearms prohibitions. Anyone who cannot or will not see that a blanket prohibition based on Hasselwander is coming next, is either obtuse, a willfully blind idiot, or a quisling. This decision affects all of us, not just the four hapless individuals who happen to have purchased the rifles. But hey, that's just how I see it.
Click to expand...
Rampart doesn't hold the registration certificate, you do.

You are the individual with the rights under section 72 and 74.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom