Ban includes AR upper receivers

Rebel Rouser said:
I parted out a few AR. I don't even have the uppers anymore. Just the lowers. I called the CFO on a few occasions to get it registered as a frame/receiver and they told me not to bother. They said as long as the serial number was correct, that's all they cared about. She basically hung on a me after that. So I don't know WTF you are supposed to do.
Click to expand...

that's my experience as well fine then do nothing it is ill just put the upper i have on each lower once every 30 days....
 
Leg said:
f:P: No, no it’s not.

I’m really starting to wonder how many people even bothered to read the OIC. The amount of outright ignorance is staggering.
Click to expand...

Yeah I agree, except its not so much out of ignorance, but is born out of the curious human characteristic which leads a person to say "don't believe everything you hear on the internet" and then in the next breath repeat verbatim something they just read on the internet as if its the gospel truth without the least bit of fact checking or critical analysis.

Resharing information is now a mindless reflex, with no thought given to its content, the source, the validity, or its reasonability.

contact148 said:
that's my experience as well fine then do nothing it is ill just put the upper i have on each lower once every 30 days....
Click to expand...

Not quite sure what you think that is going to save you from. Upper receivers are prohibited devices, and there is an amnesty which saves you from prosecution for possessing one. At this point it doesn't matter one bit what your receiver was registered as, or its configuration.

Fuzzy Wool Hat said:
hmm...AR uppers are a prohibited device. In the same category as 30 round magazines.....
Click to expand...

Yes, except that unlike 30 round magazines, there is an amnesty which means you can't be charged for possessing an upper, but you can be charged for possessing the magazine.

B.C.Jay said:
It's not a 'loop hole' it's the way the law was written, even if by an idiot.
Click to expand...

Correct. And while there is a lot of awkward and twisted legal opinions regarding these laws, its an old saying that poorly written laws can only possible yield poorly conceived interpretations.

S 2 of the criminal code defines a firearm as a "barrelled weapon", and includes a receiver of a "firearm".

Logically, a "firearm must have a barrel", but receivers that don't have a barrel shouldn't be considered a firearm, because having a barrel is a necessary requirement. "includes a receiver of a firearm" just means that separating the barrel from the receiver doesn't render it not a firearm, but this was poorly written.

Further, it says barrelled WEAPON, which means a firearm must ALSO meet the definition of weapon. The definition of weapon says "...and includes a firearm".

This is tautologous. to be a weapon it must be a firearm. to be a firearm is must be a weapon, and round and round.

This nonsense comes from the fact that firearms are further classified into types based on characteristics, certain characteristics being innate to a particular receiver. That of course is a gross misunderstanding of firearms.

The receiver is meaningless in determining classification. UTTERLY MEANINGLESS.

The action and trigger group determine single shot, manual, semi, full auto, etc.

The design intent of the manufacturer determines whether it is a handgun or not. This is not apparent from the receiver.

Handgun barrel length is determined by barrel length, not the receiver.

Etc etc.

At the end of the day, discharging a bullet is the important part, because deep down inside the criminal code knows that guns don't kill people, bullets kill people, and all you need to shoot a 5.56mm bullet is a barrel, and the action working parts, ie a BCG. The receiver just makes it convenient.

Prescribing upper receivers as a prohibited device seems stupid for a variety of reasons. First, without the lower, the upper is worthless. Interestingly they didn't prohibit the important part, which is the barrel.

Further, it would have made more sense to include in the criminal code a definition for a receiver, which is to say that firearms where the receiver separates into two parts, both parts are considered part of the receiver. This way uppers would have been regulated together with their lowers, rather than separately as a prohibited device. But that would have required legislative change.

It just goes to show you, for all of the goody two shoes out there that fancy themselves a good little gun owner who follows the laws, and believes that the laws we have are generally good and sensible, these are the laws we have. Written by idiots who cant be bothered to put the extra 10% to even make these Orwellian and unconstitutional bans at least consistent and technically sound.

There truly is no point in complying with any of it. If the government doesn't take them seriously, why should we?
 
A friend tried to lighten up the situation. It made me laugh. He said strip it all down expect front connecting pin. Fill the two pieces with concrete and hand in. Can't be melted and makes a terrible political photo op. Let the bastards store 100,000 of these 'centrally'. :)
 
Deckard said:
A friend tried to lighten up the situation. It made me laugh. He said strip it all down expect front connecting pin. Fill the two pieces with concrete and hand in. Can't be melted and makes a terrible political photo op. Let the bastards store 100,000 of these 'centrally'. :)
Click to expand...

Just make sure the serial is visible ;)
 
I've seen a few people mention grandfathering. You are missing something. They can only grandfather the lowers. You can't be grandfathered for a prohibited device.
 
Sniffer said:
It will be incremental and go something like this (climate change will play a part of course):

"No one needs a truck - they cause a LOT of pollution compared to a car - banned"

Joe average buys a car - fast forward x amount of years:

"No one needs a car - they cause an awful lot of pollution compared to an electric car - banned"

Joe average cant afford an electric car but Trudeau and his type can.......

I wonder if those folks that think giving Government so much power will think its still a good idea when they get around to banning something that they DO care about (and they will - sooner or later).

Having said that, the intelligence level of the average voter who voted for Trudeau twice suggests they may be too stupid to even realize.
Click to expand...

Yup pretty much the way its going to work .
 
rambones said:
do you sleep with a condom on at night, even if you are all by yourself?

Just in case you might get Fu***d?

30days to report a change, they only care about the lower.
Click to expand...

No but we all Know the RCMP read this site and probably copy it real time so I'm making sure I'm legal id prefer NOT to have black helicopters circling my house
 
Armedsask said:
I've seen a few people mention grandfathering. You are missing something. They can only grandfather the lowers. You can't be grandfathered for a prohibited device.
Click to expand...

Forest1488 said:
Interesting point and a good catch there Armedsask.
Click to expand...

A short handgun barrel is a prohibited device, but OK if part of a registered 12(6).

Heaven only knows what they will actually do though. No doubt make it up as they go along.
 
tiriaq said:
Heaven only knows what they will actually do though. No doubt make it up as they go along.
Click to expand...

Yes, they are making it up as they go, as they always have, devoid of fact, reasons, and with a stubborn commitment to ensuring they do not talk to or listen to anyone who might actually be able to help them form sensible policy.

THe one thing I have always been certain of is that they will make a mess of it, and so far they are not disappointing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom