Dispute over SMD-12 classification

[easy]

Right. It would have been nice for a change that this thread was left for updates and bonified info on the matter as Joe had started this thread to inform you about what's going on. Instead a bunch of you came and pissed all over each other as usual. Goofs! Damn it, is there a thread that can remain civil for once.

I don't subscribe to the Off Topic section by choice not listen to idiots pissing and moaning at every corner. Why don't you little babies take your #### to the Off Topic section so that men can communicate ratioanally here.

I'm not sure if many of you even have a firearms licence. If you do, it's time to give it up. You're sertainly not using it by playing armchair commando hiding under your mamas skirt ... and you're not doing anyone any favors opening your big #### holes.

Now have a cup of STFU and get lost. I have rights too.

... and administrators .... why don't you get rid of these #######s before they do more damage to this site? You have rules here I have to obide by. I expect the same from everyone else.

Joe came to this site after long being bashed about his products. If you guys want him to stick around, I'd suggest you change your tunes here. We need Dlask Arms in Canada and on this site. What we DON"T need is #######s undermining our every step. So you know who you are ..... ####-Off!

 

[ponts]

Can we all be friends now???

 

[JohnC]

Can we all be friends now???

sure would be nice

 

[atr]

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 .

 

[easy]

Mods .... except for Joe's first post, why not move all other posts in this thread to the Piss and Moan section at the bottom and start all over on this one by paying attention to what is said and by whom.

 

[ponts]

Mods .... except for Joe's first post, why not move all other posts in this thread to the Piss and Moan section at the bottom and start all over on this one by paying attention to what is said and by whom.

I'm all for that......delete or move the thread. Leave Joe's first post but locked!

 

[rgv]

Many on this board questioned the status of the shotgun right off the bat . Dlask said they were non-restricted and my registration slip says non-restricted . When the nay sayers had it perfectly explained to them the difference between an altered firearm and a manufactured firearm , they couldn't grasp it and those same many felt obligated to call the CFC and argue with them , the same way they argued here . That brought a lot of needless attention and then more jumped on the bandwagon telling the CFC that if Dlask could built a shorty there was no reason that they couldn't put a pistolgrip on thier 14 inch shotgun . That also brought a lot of needless attention . So now i sit with my non-restricted 8.5 inch shotgun which many didn't have the guts to purchase but they sure had the guts to call the CFC and argue about it . Everyone cries because they can't get an ATC to carry in the bush and Dlask brings something forward that we can and half the guys here say it isn't legal and i'm going to call the CFC about it . If the spotlight wasn't shone on this gun it would probably have flown till the end of time because the RCMP had already ruled it as non-restricted . What a bunch of f*cking idiots .

I agree with you, except the part about the 'needless attention' ruining the party.

The shotgun is either legal or it is not, under the CFC/C68 guidlines. If someone (anyone) really did call the CFC or whoever, all they did was cause scrutiny by the RCMP/CFC earlier than later. Don;t for a minute think that if this was 'let go' for a year or so, that the Canadian gov't would somehow grandfather the status.

Blaming the nay-sayers for the re-evaluation of the non-restricted status is simply admitting that the smd-12 exists within a loophole or oversight.

 

[sillymike]

Ok guys!

Why don't we use this "incident" as an opportunity to get some answers from the government and the RCMP

Plenty of firearms have been classified as restricted "by name"... Shouldn't they have to explain the logic behind this? Are names really that dangerous.

Plenty of firearms have been classified as prohibited because they are a "variant" of another model. Yet, the RCMP do not have any kind of technical descrition of what makes a rifle a variant of... Shouldn't they have explain themselves?

Magazine capacity has been restricted to 5 or 10 shots... yet, the government and RCMP never produced any kind of research to support this action. Shouldn't they have to explain themselves?

I think this might just be the one mistake they made that will topple their whole deck of card castle We just have to keep on pushing them!

Fire for effect, all stand by...

 

[Claybuster]

Blaming the nay-sayers for the re-evaluation of the non-restricted status is simply admitting that the smd-12 exists within a loophole or oversight.

Whether anyone from CGN actually called the CFC to complain is neither here nor there. This site is monitored by various levels of government and our opponents.

I'll take ponts at his word. Someone told him CGN people contacted the CFC. That doesn't mean it happened. It means someone at the CFC and/or RCMP is saying that. Have they ever lied to us before?

 

[Foxer]

Blaming the nay-sayers for the re-evaluation of the non-restricted status is simply admitting that the smd-12 exists within a loophole or oversight.

Nonsense. Many guns have been 're-evaluated' without the benefit of 'loophole' for 'political' reasons. Hell - the mini 14 almost got it for that reason till we raised a ####storm about it.

Sure - i bet the gun grabbers who wrote the law wish they could rewind history and make the laws even MORE restrictive, but the fact is the law is what the law is. And we should resist any attempts to 'redefine' the law on the fly.

Now, i think blaming people who called in to verify the law is stupid. But blaming those who called in and COMPLAINED about the law, or the gun, is pretty reasonable. Public pressure will cause the cops to find a way to 'redefine' the law, especially when the beurocracy is so full of 'gun grabbers'.

 

[rgv]

Ok guys!

Why don't we use this "incident" as an opportunity to get some answers from the government and the RCMP

Plenty of firearms have been classified as restricted "by name"... Shouldn't they have to explain the logic behind this? Are names really that dangerous.

Plenty of firearms have been classified as prohibited because they are a "variant" of another model. Yet, the RCMP do not have any kind of technical descrition of what makes a rifle a variant of... Shouldn't they have explain themselves?

Magazine capacity has been restricted to 5 or 10 shots... yet, the government and RCMP never produced any kind of research to support this action. Shouldn't they have to explain themselves?

I think this might just be the one mistake they made that will topple their whole deck of card castle We just have to keep on pushing them!

Fire for effect, all stand by...

this is exactly my point, we should not be afraid of scrutiny, because the illogical and generally unfounded and arbitrary laws are what will ultimately get scrutinized

 

[Jay]

Foxer, Ponts, atr, Scarecrow... Can someone "clear the air" on this issue for me... From what I "understand"...
(1) Dlask IS a manufacturer of firearms, so they can make a "factory" barrel length, i.e. of 8.5 inches
(2) the 8.5 inch 870 is over the legal minimum OAL length and therefore non-restricted
(3) the 8.5 inch 870 is not semi, it's a pump and therefore doesn't need a minimum barrel length of 18.5 inches...

Just why and what the heck is going on? I thought I spent enough time here on CGN to have a vague idea, but I am truely lost on this particular issue.

Cheers
Jay
P.S. Thanks to Dlask for pushing the envelope, without such efforts we wouldn't have the few cool firearms that we now have to play with!!!

 

[rgv]

Sure - i bet the gun grabbers who wrote the law wish they could rewind history and make the laws even MORE restrictive, but the fact is the law is what the law is. And we should resist any attempts to 'redefine' the law on the fly.

and the gun owners who ignored the oncoming of C68 wish they could rewind history too.

so you agree that the 'law is what the law is'. Then you have nothing to fear or loathe from those who actually complained about the law, since the law 'is what it is'.

 

[Wrong Way]

Foxer, Ponts, atr, Scarecrow... Can someone "clear the air" on this issue for me... From what I "understand"...
(1) Dlask IS a manufacturer of firearms, so they can make a "factory" barrel length, i.e. of 8.5 inches
(2) the 8.5 inch 870 is over the legal minimum OAL length and therefore non-restricted
(3) the 8.5 inch 870 is not semi, it's a pump and therefore doesn't need a minimum barrel length of 18.5 inches...

Just why and what the heck is going on? I thought I spent enough time here on CGN to have a vague idea, but I am truely lost on this particular issue.

Cheers
Jay
P.S. Thanks to Dlask for pushing the envelope, without such efforts we wouldn't have the few cool firearms that we now have to play with!!!

Go back to the shotgun forum, search SMD-12, find a ppic, and all will be clear (as well, you will find endless pissing, moaning, and general #### disturbing by those who insisted it "can't" be non-restricted......

 

[buckbrush]

The NFA seems to be taking point in this matter, what is the CSSA position?

 

[Foxer]

and the gun owners who ignored the oncoming of C68 wish they could rewind history too.

Sure. but because we can't, we seek to CHANGE the law now. If you read what i said, i said we should resist efforts to 'redefine' the law on the fly.

so you agree that the 'law is what the law is'.

Sure. I have issues when people say 'the law is what the law is, but we're not really happy about that so we're going to say the law is ALSO kinda this because we feel like it'.

Then you have nothing to fear or loathe from those who actually complained about the law, since the law 'is what it is'.

Ahh - had they complained to authorities who could change the law demanding change, then you'd have a point. I'd still fight them, I'd still disagree. But at least it's due process where everyone gets a say.

However- if they just complain to the cops demanding a 're-interpretation' of the law that suits them, then i have issues.

And frankly - i don't recal claiming to fear OR loathe them. Your use of words suggests bias on your part. I take issue with gun owners complaining about guns to the authorities and trying to pressure for someone else's gun to be prohib'd by 'twisting' the law, if that's what you mean.

 

[Leg]

(2) the 8.5 inch 870 is over the legal minimum OAL length and therefore non-restricted

Cheers
Jay
P.S. Thanks to Dlask for pushing the envelope, without such efforts we wouldn't have the few cool firearms that we now have to play with!!!

Jay, It isn't over the minimum OAL of 26". This is why people have asked questions about it.

 

[b-wingpilot]

We seem to have quite a few enemies here on the board. Instead of congratulating Dlask on being innovative and pushing the envelope of our illogical firearms laws, some people have expressed anger and attack towards the SMD-12. History seems to have repeated itself. I remember when another member posted his project of welding a Velmet receiver to part of an AK receiver, thus making a non-restricted rifle that was very similar to an AK. Once again instead of everyone applauding him for his ingenuity, he was met with the same ridicule and attacks from these Fudd-type people. One wonders if it is worth posting a cool project on here, the antis will just call the CFC and try to get it prohibited. Is the CFC getting the same calls prohibition for the Tavor? The semi-auto sten seems to be back under scrutiny as soon as the projected was posted in detail here, someone calling the CFC complaining about this?

Personally, I would just like to take the time to thank Joe and the people at Dlask Arms for making this and other great products available for us, standing behind your products, and for fighting for our gun rights as Canadians. I am already one of their satisfied customers and they will continue to get my business, even more so as of late.

 

[Foxer]

Foxer, Ponts, atr, Scarecrow... Can someone "clear the air" on this issue for me... From what I "understand"...
(1) Dlask IS a manufacturer of firearms, so they can make a "factory" barrel length, i.e. of 8.5 inches
(2) the 8.5 inch 870 is over the legal minimum OAL length and therefore non-restricted
(3) the 8.5 inch 870 is not semi, it's a pump and therefore doesn't need a minimum barrel length of 18.5 inches..

Well you got most of it.

1) is correct. A barrel can not be shortened below about 18 inches. However - if it comes from a manufacturer that way it's fine. Consider for example the 16 inch barrel 'trapper' winchester 94's which have been sold in canada for ages. Or the stoeger iga 'backpacker' shotgun which is a single shot with a 12 inch barrel. All perfectly legal and common.

2) - well now.. here's where we run into an issue. The 'oal' is defined in such a way as to only really apply to guns which have been 'modified'. (i'm leaving out restricteds, not relevent here). So if a gun is modified, there's an 'oal' issue. But if it comes from the MANUFACTURER that way...

3) - yes, the rules are more relaxed for non-semi's.

Now - there's a couple of questions.

1 - the question becomes 'when does a gun become a pistol'. Beacuse of course all pistols are restricted. That is not clearly defined in the law. Did dlask manufacture a pistol? Or a short 'rifle'?

That's going to be a big questionmark. Frankly, i'd argue that it's not a pistol if it requires two hands to operate. Not just shoot, but operate. A common characteristic of all pistols is that with one hand you can fire it and prepare the next round to be fired. With this gun, you need two hands to operate it properly. Yes, it can be fired one handed (sort of) but ANY rifle can be fired one handed technically. Clearly this was designed for two handed operation.

our second issue is of course, what does 'modified' mean. Does it mean the addition of aftermarket stocks from a manufacturer, or does it mean changing the stock or barrel that came with the gun by sawing or other alteration?

And i suspect (but do not know) that this is where the police who want to reclassify it are getting into trouble. The 'modified' definition has not been applied to replacing an existing stock with an aftermarket stock. That would be impractical at best, considering stocks break, sometimes people want a different stock, etc.

BUT - they are probably trying to claim dlask stamped guns are actually a new gun, and they are a pistol by design. I don't KNOW that, but i would guess that's their angle.

 

[rdelliott]

REALLY....................


So you figure there is not one ANTI-GUN activist that is a member on our site?? Got any proof of that??

And yes CFC did in fact recieve MANY calls to that affect

Merely repeating an unsubstantiated claim does not substantiate it. 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?

Oh, and for the record, I am totally rooting for Dlask on this one (and generated a sale a half-dozen of those smiley-face mag caps for them via a post on the SMD on a US gun forum). Here's hoping the good guys win.