I shot my FN FAL today - legally

DND allows CGN now that OT was removed (some complained about the content in OT and it was Force wide banned - I discussed it with the IT and IS pers and we cannot access chat or messages due to security concerns)

Its a Sunday - I'm reg force - dont't worry I'm just here watching paint dry today so no waste of tax dollars...
 
Sorry if my post was somehow out of line, but to further clarify, I made no comments nor did I make mention of the word "ghestapo".

---------- Back on topic:

I think that this would be an excellent opportunity to highlight the mistakes of the registry and that perhap this person can in the future use the government's error to all of our benefit.

In truth the people need to know how ridiculously uninformed and incompetent the registry workers actually happen to be. This mistake of the people at the registry to not be able to tell the simple difference between one rifle and another, especially when one happens to be prohib, I think is an importnat sticking point in all of our arguments against their overburdening system.

Am I wrong in thinking this?
 
It doesn't matter if the mistake is on their part or not, they'll just take your gun and your high priced mouth piece will only be too happy to rack up a hefty bill trying to get it back (which would never happen). These guys are like customs, they make up the rules as they go along and they'll use your money to fight you in court and you'll NEVER win. Posting this on a public board is very unwise.
 
So then maybe if he had some backing from one or more of the various high profile gun organizations while announcing it publically, this issue then might have the greater vocal power it needs to further back the government into a corner.

I think that the CFC has literally handed the shovel to the Libs on this one allowing them to further dig their own hole, and it should be capitalized on before it gets buried with the rest.
 
peckerwood said:
I think that the CFC has literally handed the shovel to the Libs on this one allowing them to further dig their own hole, and it should be capitalized on before it gets buried with the rest.
Click to expand...

Agreed. I don't think the Canadian courts would rule against the gunowner on this one. I've heard alot of crazy things over the years from my father (lawyer/judge). If anything would happen, you'd set a precedent for allowing the FAL to be redesignated a restricted firearm. You did nothing wrong. The CFC are the ones in a world of trouble now. They dropped the ball, it's our chance to intercept on this one.
 
I've been musing about this, and I bet with the right legal advice, someone with a restricted licence (no 12-5) could likely purchase a FN FAL due to this precedent. It'd definitely go to court, but as I mentioned before, they already screwed up the desgnation. The precedent has been set. If we're lucky the courts may end up scrapping the 12-5 designation of the FAL. Again, you would need a good legal team.
 
haha!! Nice one !! I hope they continue with their wonderful mistakes!!! Good going! :mrgreen: :mrgreen:

High 5 :wink:
 
As stated before the FN FAL was prohibited by OIC and is documented there; end of discussion. The OIC rulling would superseed any clerical error made by the CFC. Not that they should not be liable and made aware of their mistake. My feeling is the law was broken and as a prohibited firearms owner you would have been well aware of your guns status and classification regardless of what the reg card says. Not that I would not like to see all this crap scrapped; a gun is a gun is a gun, we all know that. However, the law is the law and you have to obey it, not agree with it, and try to change it for the better. If your only defence is your reg card you're probably in trouble. I'd call the CFC and get it straight asap.

Ace
 
space_ace said:
As stated before the FN FAL was prohibited by OIC and is documented there; end of discussion. The OIC rulling would superseed any clerical error made by the CFC. Not that they should not be liable and made aware of their mistake.
Click to expand...

This is true, but Canadian laws don't always work the way they were inteded to. I still think it's possible to exploit this error.
 
I still think it's possible to exploit this error.
Click to expand...

The only way I can see doing this is through the media. Without releasing personal information provide a copy of the reg card showing only the type of rifle and class and then reference the C-68 and the OIC. This would clearly point out the the CFC has no idea what they are doing and that registration is a joke. It would then be easy to make the argument that if one firearm is mis-classed or has errors on the reg card what's to say their aren't thousands like that and therefore the system is useless for another reason, inaccuracy. What media outlet would publish this type of article is another question. It would also probably be worth contacting Gary B's office and bringing this to his attention because it would be more ammo for him to use in our fight.

Just my thoughts,
Ace
 
Enjoy your FN-FAL. For the moment, your gun is legal when used with the care and diligence required of restricteds. While it is true that some, maybe all, FN-FALs are prohibited by OIC, the CFC, through their minster's delegation, and their intepretation of the relevent statutes, have determined that your FN-FAL does not meet the criteria of the OIC as a prohibited firearm, and have therefore registered it as a restricted firearm. Perhaps there is something different about your firearm...

Until they tell you otherwise, you have every right to use the firearm as they have classified it, since it is their mandate, under law, to classify it, and have done so. You are but a mere mortal, the classification decision doesn't rest with you. :wink:
Keep the reg cert with it. Quit bragging on line about it. :wink: :wink:
 
Ignorance of the law is not a valid defense...... :wink:
Click to expand...

Actualy, yes it is. :wink:

If you don't know that what you are doing is against the law(there is no mens rea, in legal speak), then under Canadian law you have not commited a crime.
 
Ulrik said:
Ignorance of the law is not a valid defense...... :wink:
Click to expand...

Actualy, yes it is. :wink:

If you don't know that what you are doing is against the law(there is no mens rea, in legal speak), then under Canadian law you have not commited a crime.
Click to expand...

By posting here, he has already shot down this line of defence. It is a no go.
 
The end user is not the arbiter of the classification of the firearm. Only the CFC has that authority, and they have declared it to be restricted. The owner may believe that it may be something else, but he does not make the decision, only the CFC can. If he wishes, he can challenge the CFC's decision, or he can use his legally registered firearm according to its registration, until such time as the registration is changed. :wink:
 
Actualy, yes it is.

If you don't know that what you are doing is against the law(there is no mens rea, in legal speak), then under Canadian law you have not commited a crime.
Click to expand...


You've got to be kidding me, guess my criminal justice proffesor is wrong. Anyone else know?
 
Ignorance of the LAW is not an excuse - but the reasonable person tests comes to play with the issue of mens rea. I.E. would a reasonable personal made the same understanding.

Here there is a firearm that is registered as resticted by a 'competant' authority.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom