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

S

stephen492

Regular
Rating - 100%
41   0   0
Location
Canada
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.
 
Even if there is a procedural or legal path to a challenge, the risk of losing NR status for the semi-autos to which we have access is a non-trivial concern.
 
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
 
There was turmoil over the initial implementation - which is why the AR isn't outright prohib - but, as of now?

This is pure speculation, but probally not to recently. Or, maybe more adept, just not yet. With specious examples either out right prohibited or restricted - and I am only arguing on behalf of non-automatics in this case - [we] both realize that their was never any legitimate reason to sigle out some semi autos over others. With growing examples of non-restricteds flooding the market, and passing the RCMP automatics tests, further highlights the hypocrisy as evidenced by the, purely, political decisions to see these firearms barred. Even a bad AK can be a 'safe' AK, by having the good luck to be Finnish made.

Can more be done? Sure. Support the NFA/CSSA. Hammer your mp's with letters and tell the government that simply repealing the LGR isn't enough. Rather, I suspect, when it comes to bill C-68, it will be better to have it come to media attention that all of these 'scary' guns are perfectly legal; internally, sound and the external cosmetics do not justify singling them when the action is valid.

Just my .02 cents - or should I round down now? Cheers!

~ Thomas
 
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". Instead deal with the AR specifically pointing out why it should be reclassified based on how the laws are written. Other than barrel length there is no reason the AR should be restricted and even that is a weak excuse. If a criminal is going to use a firearm in a crime he/she doesn't care what laws are in place or what the legal classification of a firearm is, they will find a firearm and use it regardless of length or legal status.
 
Read the OIC carefully and learn a bit about the history of AR15, you will come to the conclusion that AR15 should be NON-RESTRICTED.

If you write a law to ban the son and all the sons of the son, the father of the son, the brothers of the father and the grandfather of all the grandsons ( sons of the son)won't be affected by the law. Even if you specifically and incorrectly name a few uncles of the son as the sons of the son, it contradicts to the principle of the law which is to ban the sons of the son. It essentially nullifies itself.

The key is that ar15 is the grandfather . M16 is a government designation given to a specific model of full automatic ar15 type classified for the us government to purchase almost 10 years after the first AR15 was made. The m16 is a specific full automatic variant the ar15, not the other way around.


2. The firearm of the design commonly known as the M-16 rifle, and any variant or modified version of it, including the
(a) Colt AR-15;
(b) Colt AR-15 SPI;
(c) Colt AR-15 Sporter;
(d) Colt AR-15 Collapsible Stock Model;
(e) Colt AR-15 A2;
(f) Colt AR-15 A2 Carbine;
(g) Colt AR-15 A2 Government Model Rifle;
(h) Colt AR-15 A2 Government Model Target Rifle;
(i) Colt AR-15 A2 Government Model Carbine;
(j) Colt AR-15 A2 Sporter II;
(k) Colt AR-15 A2 H-BAR;
(l) Colt AR-15 A2 Delta H-BAR;
(m) Colt AR-15 A2 Delta H-BAR Match;
(n) Colt AR-15 9mm Carbine;
(o) Armalite AR-15;
(p) AAI M15;
(q) AP74;
(r) EAC J-15;
(s) PWA Commando;
(t) SGW XM15A;
(u) SGW CAR-AR;
(v) SWD AR-15; and
(w) any 22-calibre rimfire variant, including the
(i) Mitchell M-16A-1/22,
(ii) Mitchell M-16/22,
(iii) Mitchell CAR-15/22, and
(iv) AP74 Auto Rifle.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
greentips said:
Read the OIC carefully and learn a bit about the history of AR15, you will come to the conclusion that AR15 should be NON-RESTRICTED.

If you write a law to ban the son and all the sons of the son, the father of the son, the brothers of the father and the grandfather of all the grandsons ( sons of the son)won't be affected by the law. Even if you specifically and incorrectly name a few uncles of the son as the sons of the son, it contradicts to the principle of the law which is to ban the sons of the son. It essentially nullifies itself.

The key is that ar15 is the grandfather . M16 is a government designation given to a specific model of full automatic ar15 type classified for the us government to purchase almost 10 years after the first AR15 was made. The m16 is a specific full automatic variant the ar15, not the other way around.
Click to expand...

That's interesting, I had never heard that point before, and it convince me for a brief moment... but there is no definition of "variant" in the Firearms Act. So, using the Oxford dictionary as a source for a definition we find:

Variant

noun

a form or version of something that differs in some respect from other forms of the same thing or from a standard:
Click to expand...

There is no implication of a parental lineage or chronological order. Thus the AR-15 can be considered a variant of the HK416 even though the latter came out 50 years after the former, as both items are a variant of the other.
 
I seem to recall that the AR-15 was deemed Restricted many years ago, then it was somehow overturned by court challenge.
IIRC, it was a guy named Martinoff, from the early days of the NFA.

So it got a few years reprieve, then got listed as R again, which is the current state.
 
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.
 
It's really hard to fight stupidity because its very rampant in bureaucracy

My favorite quote is from Ron White...."Stupid, you can't fix that"
 
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...

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 .
 
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...

V:I: That is their story.

I called my M.P. Next thing you know, It is just restricted.

Your welcome. I believe it was everyone that called, wrote and voiced their opinion. One organization didn't save it.
 
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...

I know almost nothing about the DCRA, but at fist glance one could assume it is very Fuddy. Yet they saved the AR. Thanks DCRA.
 
The argument for prohibition was that there was "no legitimate sporting use" for the AR - IPSC 3 gun was in its infancy and was completely ignored as a legitimate sporting use, but when the oldest sports governing body in the country says it's the most used rifle in the oldest shooting sport competitions in the country, an argument like that falls apart very quickly. As far as "everyone saved it" that's pure bullshizzle, at that time the Liberals were running the bureaucracy, the decisions were made at meetings that very few were invited to, but the DCRA was invited to them, most shooters had no clue what was going on, and by the time they did, it was too late. The DCRA is far from Fuddy, they're the governing body for Service Rifle competition.
 
Sardaukar said:
That's interesting, I had never heard that point before, and it convince me for a brief moment... but there is no definition of "variant" in the Firearms Act. So, using the Oxford dictionary as a source for a definition we find:



There is no implication of a parental lineage or chronological order. Thus the AR-15 can be considered a variant of the HK416 even though the latter came out 50 years after the former, as both items are a variant of the other.
Click to expand...

That is how Swiss arms , TP9, sig 54x, scorpion "pistol" and a whole bunch of others things got imported. The linkage is all that matters. A cannot be a variant of B if it precedes B.

Why it was not challenged? Lots of people assume m16 is ar15. There are too many ar15s outthere the pot is too big to stir, especially people have been accepting the norm for years without complaining. However the principle of the classification has been there and there have been many precedents as said earlier.
 
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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom