The backpacker I was referring to is the one mentioned in this thread.
http://www.canadiangunnutz.com/forum/showthread.php?t=387551&highlight=backpacker+frontier+length
Also, I believe Kodiak outpost is waiting for the export permits to be approved on the Bounty Hunters. They have a non-res FRT#, so they are clearly not pistols here.
right, and that thread is more conjecture as to what is legal/not legal.
that entire thread does nothing but prove my point about the retarded speculation that goes on in these forums. there is not one shred of hard fact/legal precedent that supports that gun being non-restricted. the fact that frontier is representing those as unrestricted firearms just blows my mind - and goes to show what lengths people will go to to make a buck.
my guess is that they were originally registered with a full stock and then modified based on the 'theory' that shortening it with a PG is not 'or otherwise', and that it cant be fired one-handed.
the first thing a cop is going to do when he sees you with one of those is measure it. this isnt grade school:
'well, Frontier sold it like this so i thought it was non-restricted' is not going to save you when he finds out its well under minimum OAL.
Also, I believe Kodiak outpost is waiting for the export permits to be approved on the Bounty Hunters. They have a non-res FRT#, so they are clearly not pistols here.
ill believe it when i see it (ie: in the country, and being
registered as non-restricted <660mm guns), otherwise its just more wishful thinking.
its easy to sit at home and post theories and assure others that <660mm OAL PG shotguns can be non-restricted -- especially when you have nothing to lose. for all the OAL legal experts: if you are so certain you are correct, then go be a test case for your theory.
