Dispute over SMD-12 classification

I dont have one of these Shotguns but if I did I would be very happy to know Dlask would exchange it for free! Now that fantasic service and everyone should thank Dlask for there good will, instead of complaining or saying I told you so.
 
atr said:
I'm looking through every post in every thread i can find on this subject as i seem to recall at least one name brand dealer questioning the legality of this shotgun because it competed with his Fabarms line and he was upset because he couldn't get this length of barrel on the Fabarms shotguns . If i can find it , or if anyone can find that post please paste it here . I believe everything ponts said and i want everyone to know who outed us .

Randall , ponts has been on this from the very beginning and has explained , in great detail , himself , the shotgun and the legality to everyone multiple times . No matter how good or dedicated the teacher is there will always be children requiring the special ed class . Surely you can't be so stupid as to expect him to give up the confidential name of an RCMP or CFC officer on a public forum , or maybe you can , in which case , special ed may be for you .
Click to expand...

I remember reading about another "member" moaning about the legalities of the Dlask shotgun... this individual also moaned about 10rnds being allowed in the CX4 Storm way, way back; that irked me back then but I ignored it.

Hmmmm sure hope I am just being overly sensitive in light of this new information.
With friends like "whoever" who called into the CFC multiple times to complain, who needs enemies.
 
Last edited:
Are you saying that you have proof that a large number of CGN members called the CFC asking that the SMD be reclassified, or are you saying that you think that antis lurking among us did so?
Click to expand...

I think he was fairly clear in saying that some of the complaints came from cgn members, and he SPECULATES that they might well be anti's lurking here.

Which of course raises another intersting point - how did they know they were CGN members? Chances are someone said "i saw this gun on cgn, and you should look at it.. etc etc" Now - an officer might assume that means they're members. And they might be. But then again - it would take ONE anti who is a member here to monitor us to spread the word to a few dozen anti friends for them to ALL call in and say the same thing.

For that matter - there ARE some gun owners who'll have a problem with it. I showed the pics to one guy who's a good gun owner and he said "it's really cool, but i'd be worried what would happen if a criminal ever got one".

He wasn't that worked up, but i know a lot of gun owners will take that sentiment to a more extreme position.

So who knows. If 'cgn' came up in the discussions, it only goes to show that we need to be VERY carefull what we say around here in the future. Obviously, one way or another, info mentioned here can find its way into the hands of those who would oppose this firearm.
 
So where does Dlask stand if they all get taken away by the RCMP?
Click to expand...

I don't think they can... slap a regular stock on them and there's zero conflict with the law. The worst they can do is force people to give up using pistol grips.
 
I believe that the status of these short shotguns being questioned is not the result of the people who complained o the CFC. If all we had to do is have a bunch of people complain to get gun laws changed, why have the antis complained that the AR should be prohibited, or why havent we complained that it should be non-restricted?
 
I believe that the status of these short shotguns being questioned is not the result of the people who complained o the CFC. If all we had to do is have a bunch of people complain to get gun laws changed, why have the antis complained that the AR should be prohibited, or why havent we complained that it should be non-restricted?
Click to expand...

Where have YOU been? There's been lots of guns that have been 'reclassified' after some time of being legal.

You can't just make a gun 'prohib'd' without changing the law. BUT - if there's a way you can BEND the law so that a previously legal gun now is 'deemed' to fall under it, then you can get away with it.

Consider the G22 for example.

In this case, the law seems to support dlask, which would explain why they're only going after dlask stamped guns at the moment, and not other 870's. But as i said.. if they can try to 'redefine' something so that it fits under the law then they'll do it if there's political or public pressure.
 
are we our worst enemy ?

i mean pepole calling to complain about 10 rnd mags, pepole calling the police in US states about our CCW permits, now this...

what posses these pepole ?? are they so full of themself that they cannot accept sommeone has the right interpretation ?
 
To my mind Dlask is offering a unique niche product which is not for the inexperienced and/or untrained. As for the length argument (ie ease of concealability) I suspect any inner city gang member who somehow managed to get one of these & fired it - without training and practice - to impress his fellow homies would soon discover how quickly a broken wrist and nose, and the loss of a few fingers can happen.

I can certainly see dealers of competing products having an issue with the Dlask products, but he seems to be one of very few catering to the Canadian market. For instance , he pioneered the production of short 870 barrels when they dried up- & I never heard of a large non-canadian manufacturer lobbying Homeland Security and/or the State dept to get an exemption for short barrel exports to Canada. There's nothing physically stopping other large manufacturers from doing what Dlask is doing - except, of course, the time honored argument "the Canadian market is too small". ( there are exceptions- I understand Ruger came up with a 17 inch barrelled revolver to meet the requirement of UK laws)

So if you can't compete with a similar or better product, then slag the competition & try to get their products banned. Which is a real shame -since,as has been pointed out in another post, this allows a very portable short range (and hence safer) wild animal defense option without the need for a wilderness ATC which is difficult if not impossible to get for most of us...

Just my .02's
 
sendero , if you ever have second thoughts on outing that f*cker , send his name to me . In fact , if you get a p.m. from anyone here requesting that you not out the f*cker , post the p.m. or send it to me and i will . In any case make sure that Dlask and the NFA gets the name .
 
G37 said:
I remember reading another Non-Banner Dealer moaning about the legalities of the Dlask shotgun... this person also moaned about 10rnds being allowed in the CX4 Storm way, way back; that irked me back then but I let it slide.

Needless to say I will no longer be buying my ammo there when I pass by on my way up to PoCo.
Click to expand...

Good point, Some people still dont understand the 10 round pistol mag in a rifle concept..:slap:
 
Gun control advocates lurking the site? Most definitely. That's to be expected.

The disgruntling part is I do believe it's gun owning members making these phone calls. I've argued with them before. Go to any Canadian hunting forum where they won't be lynched on the spot and ask about handguns but more specifically black rifle type firearms and they'll come crawling out. I guarantee it.

Whether it be they agree with our current laws or only cherish their traditional hunting guns the Fudd's are among us.
 
Last edited:
Foxer said:
I think he was fairly clear in saying that some of the complaints came from cgn members
Click to expand...
He may be stretching the complaints issue with what I believe that possibly members calling the CFC themselves to check the Legalities of this shotgun. I was told that For Now They are legal by the CFC with a strong emphasis on the Now part.
 
Armament said:
Gun control advocates lurking the site? Most definitely. That's to be expected.

The disgruntling part is I do believe it's gun owning members making these phone calls. I've argued with them before. Go to any Canadian hunting forum in Canada where they won't be lynched on the spot and ask about handguns but more specifically black rifle type firearms and they'll come crawling. I guarantee it.

Whether it be they agree with our current laws or only cherish their traditional hunting guns the Fudd's are among us.
Click to expand...

Gun owners are their own worse enemies always have been always will be..
 
aproperone said:
Now THIS is how you make a statement. He gives no actual names, but provides enough details that it SOUNDS PLAUSABLE. When ponts said it, it just sounded like hearsay/rumours. Sorry ponts.
Click to expand...

No problem. Like I said before and I will repeat it again. I will not release my sources and possible jeopardize any future proceedings. So if that is how it sounded aproperone so be it.

After another member repeats the same thing it now becomes more believable no?? Anti's among us......who woulda thought.....

Even worse Anti's who own guns!!!!!!!!
 
That the pro-gun control crowd lurk here on CGN is a given...IIRC even Wendy made mention of CGN in past interviews. That these idiots would call to complain and stir up crap, is also a given and I can accept that, because even though I totally disagree with them and their "cause," at least they're sticking to their convictions.

What disgusts me, is the possibililty that legitimate gun owners and/or dealers would be so petty, so small, so pathetic to actually try and screw over one of Canada's few remaining gun manufacturer's and their fellow responsible gun owners, because of their elitist attidudes or jealously!

I got the same attitude from the skeet & trap crowd when the Lieberals were talking about banning handguns and semi-autos.
 
You can't just make a gun 'prohib'd' without changing the law. BUT - if there's a way you can BEND the law so that a previously legal gun now is 'deemed' to fall under it, then you can get away with it.

Consider the G22 for example.
Click to expand...

yer right and that is exactly what is wrong withthe law
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom