Can an ATRS MS still be sold?

There is an old adage - just because you CAN do something doesn't mean you SHOULD.

Certainly, no one wants to live in an environment of what ifs and hypotheticals, but in most of our daily lives we do make risk/reward calculations and make decisions makes on discriminating evidence.

I make no bones that I use the currently legally procured LAR15 10 round magazines. I figured, hey, they are legal and as of recent, still sold in stores, so I will use them. Some have mentioned a previous RCMP bulletin (from 2011 or thereabouts that explicitly makes provision for the legal use of the LAR15 mags - that has since been struck from the RCMP website. Why, I have no idea). Some have taken that to mean that these are now verboten, and given how the rest of these obtuse laws are written about use in this and designed for that - it's fairly confusing. But they are still sold in retail stores, so I will use them.

BUT...a couple of years back this topic came up in discussion in a sub-forum and well respected firearms lawyer Ed Burlew injected here to use some discretion and be cautious when using LAR15 magazines as he has had some clients charged when LEOs/COs found his client in possession / using them. I believe the charges were later dropped, but still...

The other problem, which I have found in my previous interactions with the police is that some of them are very ignorant of what is legal and what is not. I have written on this extensively in the past so I won't rehash it here, but my ex had the police take away a .40S&W magazine with rounds in it and the police said I had to come to the station to explain myself as at the time, I did not have a Restricted endorsement on my PAL (I do now, and no, it's not because of that incident). I explained the 22/35 Glock mag he had is for my non restricted firearm. He argued with me at the station (on camera too!) that no, I am wrong that is a handgun magazine and I don't have a restricted so I shouldn't have a handgun so what am I doing with this (implication was that I had a handgun illegally). I reiterated that it was for my non restricted firearm, Keltec Sub 2000. He said sub what? It's a handgun magazine (he called it a "clip", which probably grated on me more). Anyways I asked him to go look it up and he left the interview room and then came back and said, "well, what do you know - learn something new every day".

With the ATRS MS mired in some degree of ambiguousness between FRT classification, legal status, the currently anti-firearms slant in media and politics, coupled with a seemingly North American societal dislike of the AR-15 or anything that the politicians classify as a "assault style", not sure the risk / reward (for me) juice is worth the squeeze
 
KND said:
I could not find that as well. It was like when I got the first infraction then I tried to PM him and explained that it must be a misunderstanding or something like that but he never got back to me, I sent a few more PMs then again, I never got any reply. I was kinda angry a bit, so I sent another PM in a bit of angry manner to demand for at least some explanations then I finally got another infraction for the language. The most I used is WTH or something similar.
Click to expand...
A member can't do much about an infraction... a few years ago I received an infraction and a ban from EE for a few months... My infraction was I filled out my profile as CGN suggested telling some facts about myself. CGN took exception saying I told too much in my profile. When I complained I was ignored.
 
Everything Tiroaq is saying is correct but with a caveat: it's how they the law. The same logic applies to the dual use thing for magazines. All of a sudden the 50 beo mags were considered prohib without pinning at 2 rounds because they can fit another calibre in it, meanwhile the legislation and former RCMP bulletins explained this exact concept as legal and irrelevant to the definitions.

The frt is a catalogue of their interpretations based on legislation or regulations under those. The few times an frt entry made its way to be debated in court the RCMP used the frts and photos to state specific firearms are no longer NR or r but p class due to being a variant now, whereas most if not all were not listed as such prior. A number of 22s had this happen.

They converted the frt from being a 1 for 1 catalogue of entries to models to become that and the families of OIC prohibs blanket banning anything they deem to be those firearms.

Now if they see a firearm with unique features or other things but they deem it an AR it can be prohib at any time because they owe no procedural fairness to Canadians.
 
Assume it will be in the buy back program. Don't take legal advice here on CGN.

Let's just make a scenario: You list it and sell it with NR reference number with the RCMP. The buyer goes somewhere where he can legally shoot a NR. A cop or conservation officer sees him and wonders. The rifle gets confiscated and he gets charged. He tells them that he legally bought it from you. Easily to track with the reference number.
 
scianna54 said:
Assume it will be in the buy back program. Don't take legal advice here on CGN.

Let's just make a scenario: You list it and sell it with NR reference number with the RCMP. The buyer goes somewhere where he can legally shoot a NR. A cop or conservation officer sees him and wonders. The rifle gets confiscated and he gets charged. He tells them that he legally bought it from you. Easily to track with the reference number.
Click to expand...

scianna54 said:
Assume it will be in the buy back program. Don't take legal advice here on CGN.

Let's just make a scenario: You list it and sell it with NR reference number with the RCMP. The buyer goes somewhere where he can legally shoot a NR. A cop or conservation officer sees him and wonders. The rifle gets confiscated and he gets charged. He tells them that he legally bought it from you. Easily to track with the reference number.
Click to expand...
How would they prove that the seller is really the seller?
 
I saw a retailer selling an ATRS MS as "non-restricted" on the other big website that's sort of like a GUN outPOST. I was surprised someone who presumably has a FBL was willing to stick their neck out like that. This is notwithstanding the fact that the FRT is not law.
 
Last edited:
There isn't a buyback.

It might be on a iist or two but the legality of it hasn't changed, it is in a grey area at worst. Until their court case or the fed appeal is settled there won't be an actual answer. It's RCMP pointing fingers and us pointing back
 
hsatimmy said:
There isn't a buyback.

It might be on a iist or two but the legality of it hasn't changed, it is in a grey area at worst. Until their court case or the fed appeal is settled there won't be an actual answer. It's RCMP pointing fingers and us pointing back
Click to expand...

Just because somebody started a court case?

I know everything about this situation but I am giving the topic starter the info he needs to make an informed decision.
 
scianna54 said:
Just because somebody started a court case?

I know everything about this situation but I am giving the topic starter the info he needs to make an informed decision.
Click to expand...
Sorry I didn't realize the anointed expert is here. Your vast knowledge is appreciated..
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom