Has There Ever Been A Formal Legal Challenge of The ARs Restricted Status

I'd donate cashto challenge the restricted status of the AR15 and AR10. It's a pile of BS and a good lawyer followed by a media smear plan on how stupid the classification laws are would eventually prove victorious.

Problem is too many haven't go the berries to do anything. They prefer to hide under there bed with the night light on.
 
Well what about we form a group law sue to Challenge the whole bill C68?
inculed the firearm self defense right and the all prohibited class?
 
stephen492 said:
Just curious if there has ever been a formal legal challenge of the restricted status of the AR.

Firearms law seems arbitrary at best and with the large number of mag fed SA rifles (Robinson, Mini 14, Swiss Arms, SKS, M14...not to mention the bullpups now coming on the market as NR) out there that are Non Restricted, Id guess that the ARs status is ripe for a challenge.

Has there ever been a formal legal challenge on this issue.
Click to expand...

Let me get this straight.
The reason why you see many bullpups and XCR unrestricted is because liberal weren't in power when they got introduced.
If Liberal were in power still in 2005, rest assured those modern rifle would be prohibited. SKS, M14, and Mini 14 probably would've got banned anyways just because its "military grade" Oh wait, didn't Liberal back in 05 promised to ban all semi autos?
 
yingtsay said:
Let me get this straight.
The reason why you see many bullpups and XCR unrestricted is because liberal weren't in power when they got introduced.
If Liberal were in power still in 2005, rest assured those modern rifle would be prohibited. SKS, M14, and Mini 14 probably would've got banned anyways just because its "military grade" Oh wait, didn't Liberal back in 05 promised to ban all semi autos?
Click to expand...

Yup, if the Mini, SKS and M14 had metal stocks, they'd be banned now - or if they'd been in the Gun World book of Assault Rifles.
 
Perhaps if all dealers that sold ARs in Canada levied a small fee at the time of purchase that went into trust (perhaps with an organization like the DCRA) we could generate enough cash to challenge this classification and to set a precedent for future classification cases. I'd be happy to chip in and I'm sure that most AR owners would be happy to support this.
 
enefgee said:
You can appeal an order in council (OIC) that's why the laws were changed to include "the former OIC number xx" the FA now incorporates those prejudices as law - the only way to change or get rid of that is to change or get rid of the FA
Click to expand...

+1. The former OIC's were enshrined into legislation with the firearms act, making a challenge impossible.


cr5 said:
I would definitely suggest that you never compare any rifle to the AR in an attempt to justify making the AR non restricted. What is most likely to happen is they will spin it around and say "maybe we made a mistake classifying these other rifles".
Click to expand...

Exactly. This happened with pump action shotguns in England (or was it Australia?). The semi's were going to be banned and a group of shooters went to the government and demonstrated that pumps were just as fast as semi's, thinking this would keep the semi's legal. Instead, the government decided to ban pump actions as well...


#1bcshooter said:
Oh there will be a change .
But unfortunately it will be all those non restricted guns you mentioned becoming restricted .
It's just a matter of time .
Click to expand...

On that you are incorrect. Those NR guns will become prohibited, not restricted. The anti's regularly push for updates to the named prohibited lists and they want all NR black rifles added directly to those lists.


connexion123 said:
This is why we need to keep pushing the cpc while they have a majority to abolish the FA.
Click to expand...

Laugh2

The CPC do something about the firearms act? That's a good one. They won't even touch the obviously useless and unfair portions, let alone the entire act.


mildcustom2 said:
I'd donate cashto challenge the restricted status of the AR15 and AR10. It's a pile of BS and a good lawyer followed by a media smear plan on how stupid the classification laws are would eventually prove victorious.
Click to expand...

You missed enefgee's posts, huh? There is no way to legally challenge the named restricted list, it is enshrined in legislation and is not vulnerable to a Charter challenge. Unless you think you can convince the supreme court that there is a legal right to be allowed an AR-15 outside of a shooting range.


OccasionallyOnTarget said:
There is no mechanism for a challenge to the restricted list other than politics or a Charter challenge, and there is no basis for a Charter challenge so all that's left is politics.
Click to expand...

Exactly. As much as it sucks, the only way to deal with this is through legislation that amends the laws or nukes the firearms act.


Mark
 
Lexthedestroyer said:
That article is so slanted I'm surprised it didn't fall on the guy who wrote it... Every time I read what qualifies as a restricted or prohibited weapon, I shake my head. It just reinforces that the people who make the laws know nothing about the subject they are dealing with. My TT-33 barrel measures .312 across the lands. My reloads are done with a .32 ACP projectile. But because it fires a "7.62x25mm" cartridge, they didn't catch it? It's almost comical. Same goes for that new semi auto shotgun irunguns is bringing in that looks like an AR15; restricted, even though the system it uses is closer to a semi auto Beretta or Browning than an AR15. I imagine there was a time when people said the Lee-Enfield no4 mark1 wasn't a "firearm suitable for hunting"... Anyways, that's my disjointed rant for the day. Happy thanksgiving everyone.
Click to expand...

It is the 32 auto caliber specifically that they sought to prohibit due to the prevalence of low cost, small pistols chambered in this round. They claimed that 25 and 32 auto were calibers associated with crime (SNS), and with limited sporting use. The only reason the Skorpion is not prohib is because it is registered as a rifle, so it bypasses the prohib order on pistols in 32 auto.

The Semi shotgun that Irunguns brought in the Akdal? why is this restricted?
 
c0ntract said:
It is the 32 auto caliber specifically that they sought to prohibit due to the prevalence of low cost, small pistols chambered in this round. They claimed that 25 and 32 auto were calibers associated with crime (SNS), and with limited sporting use. The only reason the Skorpion is not prohib is because it is registered as a rifle, so it bypasses the prohib order on pistols in 32 auto.

The Semi shotgun that Irunguns brought in the Akdal? why is this restricted?
Click to expand...

Actually it was ALL pistols in 32 caliber - including 32 S&W Long then they realized that certain individual Olympic events use these calibers, and AGAINST the advice of our friend Wendy, allowed an exemption for those individual pistols. The Akdal shotgun is an AR 15 variant, of course - how on earth could you miss that (just because it shares no parts, no design features and utilizes an entirely different operating system, doesn't mean it isn't a variant).
 
c0ntract said:
The Semi shotgun that Irunguns brought in the Akdal? why is this restricted?
Click to expand...

It was deemed a variant by the complete F'n morons that are the RCMP.

Absolutely nothing in common with an AR15 in any way other than physical appearance, but still a variant.

Same goes for the S&W MP22 rifles.

Like I said, absolute F'n morons, known as the RCMP firearms lab!!!

Guess they aren't worried about looking like idiots......
 
sillymike said:
Speaking of IOC, as anybody ever been able to get the government to release the documentation used to create those IOC?...
Click to expand...

The Orders in Council? Yes the NFA FOI'd the background info on that years ago, they got some redacted documents, the usual meeting minutes, and photocopied pages of "The Gun Digest Book of Assault Rifles" with little X marks in the bottom corner. That isn't a joke - that's what they actually used, they looked through it and decided based on the pictures, what was "good" and what was "bad". Did you ever wonder why the HK G11 - a gun that never made it to production, and that you can't get ammunition for, and can't reload for - was prohibited in Canada? It was in the book.
 
mlehtovaara said:
It was deemed a variant by the complete F'n morons that are the RCMP.

Absolutely nothing in common with an AR15 in any way other than physical appearance, but still a variant.

Same goes for the S&W MP22 rifles.

Like I said, absolute F'n morons, known as the RCMP firearms lab!!!

Guess they aren't worried about looking like idiots......
Click to expand...

If you are ever bored and looking for a silly endeavour... try to get the legal/technical definition of a <Variant>...
Certainly, if items firearms were confiscated, destroyed because they were deemed a variant... such technical information should be readily available... right?
 
enefgee said:
The Orders in Council? Yes the NFA FOI'd the background info on that years ago, they got some redacted documents, the usual meeting minutes, and photocopied pages of "The Gun Digest Book of Assault Rifles" with little X marks in the bottom corner. That isn't a joke - that's what they actually used, they looked through it and decided based on the pictures, what was "good" and what was "bad". Did you ever wonder why the HK G11 - a gun that never made it to production, and that you can't get ammunition for, and can't reload for - was prohibited in Canada? It was in the book.
Click to expand...

Along with the laser rifle from the original "total recall" iirc
 
enefgee said:
It was listed as Restricted, only because the DCRA fought very hard against what they wanted to make it - it was supposed to be prohibited. The DCRA threw it's full weight (oldest sporting organization in the country, Royal patronage, National Awards, strong Provincial structures, many of which pre-date confederation) against the prohibition and saved the AR 15 from prohibition.
Click to expand...

Don't forget the contribution of David Tomlinson and the National Firearms Association on this case either during this same period; the former appearing before the Parliamentary committee at the time and driving home the point that the AR is/was a true sporting and competition firearm. The NFA has continued to maintain the position that "modern sporting rifles" or black rifles continue to have legitimate sporting and competition roles and should be classified as non-restricted, the same as their less "scary" traditional semi-auto counterparts liker the Ruger Mini-14, Browning BAR or Remington 742. Banning or restricting firearms based on cosmetics is simply idiotic, unjustifiable and wholly unacceptable.
 
X-man said:
Don't forget the contribution of David Tomlinson and the National Firearms Association on this case either during this same period; the former appearing before the Parliamentary committee at the time and driving home the point that the AR is/was a true sporting and competition firearm. The NFA has continued to maintain the position that "modern sporting rifles" or black rifles continue to have legitimate sporting and competition roles and should be classified as non-restricted, the same as their less "scary" traditional semi-auto counterparts liker the Ruger Mini-14, Browning BAR or Remington 742. Banning or restricting firearms based on cosmetics is simply idiotic, unjustifiable and wholly unacceptable.
Click to expand...

While I agree wholeheartedly with that sentiment, in reality it happens in Canada all the time. AP-80, anyone? Moved from non-restricted to prohibited solely because of its appearance.
 
A challenge is not impossible one only has to demonstrate to the court the law is either victimizing people or is allowing people to be victimized. The prostitution law was overturned on this reasoning. It is possible to challenge the firearm laws if we can prove that the laws victimize owners and that it is continuing to victimize people. So if the system in place is say allowing firearms owners to be victims of many different things, like Ians - home being fire bombed. We have a right to security of person, this is in the charter. If prostitutes can win based on being victimized by the system, can we not say the same for self defense or defense of ones person? So a legal challenge to the entire law is possible, maybe not feasable. And to answer the OP's question, yes some one should be able to fight the law. By restricting a firearm, or prohib and continuing to increase the requirements to own said firearm and the very nature of the system is victimizing owners, maybe? See it doesn't even make sense when I try to make sense of it. We need a solid lawyer to answer these questions.

News spots of the prostitution laws.

h ttp://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-11432138

ht tp://whyprohibition.ca/prostitution
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom