Bcl coyote no frt

scrammersam

scrammersam

Regular
Rating - 100%
7   0   0
Location
abbotsford, bc
I've been trying to get the cfp to give info on where the bcl coyote sits legally, being that it was listed as prohibited after the oic and not added to the list either. Does anyone know what's going on? They now say that it does not even exist.:confused:
 
Coyote uses an MDI lower, therefor the Mac Def SLR Multi FRT. the coyote certainly is a grey area considering there’s only a couple hundred floating around out there.
 
jiffx2781 said:
Too bad BCL doesn't grow a pair and keep pumping these out.
Click to expand...

ATRS seems to have the biggest kahunas in our community !

HotMedicalGardensnake-size_restricted.gif
 
why would you call them?

only a judge in a courtroom can awswer the question about it's current status.

FRT's are not needed for non restricted firearms made in Canada.
 
The FRT is a list, a catalogue. Every firearm that comes to the attention of the group responsible for the FRT will have an entry and FRT number created.
The classifications in the FRT reflect decisions that have been made.
Just because a given firearm doesn't appear in a published version of the FRT, it does not mean that it does not have a FRT number assigned. Entries appear and disappear. Best to assume that a FRT number exists for about all firearms.
 
scott said:
why would you call them?

only a judge in a courtroom can awswer the question about it's current status.

FRT's are not needed for non restricted firearms made in Canada.
Click to expand...

Could you elaborate on "FTS's are not needed for non restricted firearms made in Canada"? I've been wondering about this.

Is it only firearms made in Canada?

Why would a company like ATRS even submit to the RCMP if their product is non-restricted?

What is to prevent Canadian manufacturers to build receiver sets 'similar' to the ATRS MS or MDI SLR and then not submit them to the RCMP, thus keeping them from being classified?

Thanks in advance!
 
Taurkon said:
Could you elaborate on "FTS's are not needed for non restricted firearms made in Canada"? I've been wondering about this.

Is it only firearms made in Canada?

Why would a company like ATRS even submit to the RCMP if their product is non-restricted?

What is to prevent Canadian manufacturers to build receiver sets 'similar' to the ATRS MS or MDI SLR and then not submit them to the RCMP, thus keeping them from being classified?

Thanks in advance!
Click to expand...

Submitting products to RCMP for classification may be a condition of their manufacturing licence.
 
Taurkon said:
Could you elaborate on "FTS's are not needed for non restricted firearms made in Canada"? I've been wondering about this.

Is it only firearms made in Canada?

Why would a company like ATRS even submit to the RCMP if their product is non-restricted?

What is to prevent Canadian manufacturers to build receiver sets 'similar' to the ATRS MS or MDI SLR and then not submit them to the RCMP, thus keeping them from being classified?

Thanks in advance!
Click to expand...

Firearms are routinely classified without being submitted.
 
How would they be classified without being submitted? RCMP buy one and then evaluate? The whole world of classification is rather foreign to me other than what is somewhat randomly assigned assigned based on criteria that also seems broad and random.
 
Taurkon said:
Could you elaborate on "FTS's are not needed for non restricted firearms made in Canada"? I've been wondering about this.

Is it only firearms made in Canada?

Why would a company like ATRS even submit to the RCMP if their product is non-restricted?

What is to prevent Canadian manufacturers to build receiver sets 'similar' to the ATRS MS or MDI SLR and then not submit them to the RCMP, thus keeping them from being classified?

Thanks in advance!
Click to expand...

to confirm it was non restricted before they started selling. if they sold a bunch and the RCMP delclared them restricted ATRS would be in ####. if they built a wood stock bolt action I doubt they would apply for one.

most guns have FRTs because they are created when every model is imported into the country for the first time. the importor has to submit one to the rcmp for testing.

the sterling TSR also does not have an FRT.
 
Taurkon said:
Could you elaborate on "FTS's are not needed for non restricted firearms made in Canada"? I've been wondering about this.

Is it only firearms made in Canada?

Why would a company like ATRS even submit to the RCMP if their product is non-restricted?

What is to prevent Canadian manufacturers to build receiver sets 'similar' to the ATRS MS or MDI SLR and then not submit them to the RCMP, thus keeping them from being classified?

Thanks in advance!
Click to expand...


if the ATRS was not declared prohib you can bet lots would be making copies right now. but since it was. anything else like it would be assumed to be as well.

if the MS FRT gets overturned, I'm sure lots of copies will appear the following week.
 
scott said:
if the ATRS was not declared prohib you can bet lots would be making copies right now. but since it was. anything else like it would be assumed to be as well.

if the MS FRT gets overturned, I'm sure lots of copies will appear the following week.
Click to expand...

ATRS is STILL taking orders for the MS since the FRT is not law and was not listed on the May 1st OIC.
 
Taurkon said:
ATRS is STILL taking orders for the MS since the FRT is not law and was not listed on the May 1st OIC.
Click to expand...

Hence the comment about their need for a wheelbarrow. I'm guessing that they want to go to court about the legality of relying on the frt to make regulations that are in effect law. You can't really fight some of Canada's BS "laws" without being subjected to them.
 
And they haven't had their doors kicked in because the RCMP knows they would get their ass handed to them in the courts.

A CDN Manufacture submitted a rifle to the lab, it received a NR designation and went into production legally and was not determined to be a "variant" of the AR15. Now that the AR15 has been prohib'd, they now think it is a all of a sudden a AR15 variant?

How would that look to a Judge worth a pinch of salt? It would look like the Police and Govt going above the law to step on CDN business and legal owners.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom