Latest news on FN PS90 and FS2000

Questar said:
The amount of mis-information is just amazing :runaway:

There was no "loophole" and no "official who didn't know any better". As far as Canadian law is concerned the FS2000 and the PS90's are perfectly legal firearms. They are in the FRT... they are NOT prohibited so there is no issue with owning them. In fact we received IIC's to import the guns... that was never the issue.
Click to expand...

I'm talking about the U.S. Department of State, not the Canadian government - and specifically the importation of the rifle I own, and a small number of others that came in the same 'batch'.


Questar said:
The issue as far as importing them to Canada was that US State Department would NOT approve Export Permits for those guns for civilian end-users. They never did and were quite clear about it from the start. No legal way to export them from the US, not for sale to civilian end-users.
Click to expand...

I agree with you that it is standing policy to not approve these firearms for export to civilian end users, however the above statements are not correct.
I have a copy of the approved export permit -which is what I was refering to in my first post...:eek:;)
 
redleg said:
Actually they were obviously qualified as they had the license. It is unfortunately another case of a dealer taking short cuts on license requirements. Many times these are unintentional, sometimes they are criminal. In the end everyone pays for it.
Click to expand...

Yeah your right.Bad wording.A film liscence means you use the weapons for film though.There have been 3 cases in the last 2 years in BC of this type of scam.Bringing guns in under the liscence then flogging them or using them for other purposes.Someone needs to check if these people that are "qualified" actually work in the industry.

Any guns that get brought in are real live guns.There are no good blank firing guns to bring in.Once they are in,then they get converted to blank firing.Just so people know.:)
 
Longshot said:
Yeah your right.Bad wording.A film liscence means you use the weapons for film though.There have been 3 cases in the last 2 years in BC of this type of scam.Bringing guns in under the liscence then flogging them or using them for other purposes.Someone needs to check if these people that are "qualified" actually work in the industry.

Any guns that get brought in are real live guns.There are no good blank firing guns to bring in.Once they are in,then they get converted to blank firing.Just so people know.:)
Click to expand...


Well again I am afraid I disagree. A license holder should not need to meet additional "qualifications". In my opinion many license holders just lack a clear understanding of the conditions of the license. This is further confused by contradictory direction from the CFOs and RCMP. I know that with our business there are often disagreements in interpretation of the conditions. Sometimes they just need to invest in good legal advice.
Of course in some cases the guys are just crooks (and I am willing to bet that there are crooks in the film industry too).
 
Well I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.As someone who makes his living from a "movie license", in my opinion someone who holds one of these licenses SHOULD have to meet the qualification of actually using it,surprise surprise,for the film industry! Every time someone gets caught doing something funky under a movie permit it puts my job,and all the other armourers actually involved in making films,jobs at jeopardy.
 
Longshot said:
Well I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.As someone who makes his living from a "movie license", in my opinion someone who holds one of these licenses SHOULD have to meet the qualification of actually using it,surprise surprise,for the film industry! Every time someone gets caught doing something funky under a movie permit it puts my job,and all the other armourers actually involved in making films,jobs at jeopardy.
Click to expand...


Yes, and it also puts all dealers under greater scrutiny. However I don't feel comfortable making it more difficult for new businesses to get started. That just does not seem very fair to me.
In any event, you may have noted that the license is not just restricted to the film industry, it also includes publications and video. So maybe you should be arguing that it is the publishers who are to blame. That should keep the movie industry safe.
 
redleg said:
Yes, and it also puts all dealers under greater scrutiny. However I don't feel comfortable making it more difficult for new businesses to get started. That just does not seem very fair to me.
In any event, you may have noted that the license is not just restricted to the film industry, it also includes publications and video. So maybe you should be arguing that it is the publishers who are to blame. That should keep the movie industry safe.
Click to expand...

There are many things in life that aren't fair.If a new buisness is legitimate then it shouldn't be a problem,should it?
If publishers were buying full autos and then flogging them out the backdoor to gangs and other scumbags, I'd be all over them too.But that's not the reality is it.The reality is that many who hold movie type permits have little or nothing to do with the actual industry the permits were originally intended for,be it film,video or publication.
 
Questar (Mark) & jcbruno:

I'm coming into this topic a little late so I apologise.

I was one of the original owners of the ONLY two legal FS2000's, that I am aware of, that came into the Country. This may be a tough pill for you and others to swallow but Belt Fed and I purchased the first 2. We have the approved paper work from the US State Dept. Since that time 2 more have come in. The weapons had to be slightly modified as per the approval granted by the US State Dept., that is printed directly on their forms, and the guns were modified. I sold mine to a fellow in BC but Beltfed still has his (he's smarter than I am). I retained the State Dept. Forms in my records.

I don't know why they (US Gov.) approved this particular importer but they only did it for 4 guns (he has now been told it's over). It does not make sense that other larger and much better known importers have been denied and this one was not. I am not aware of any other FS2000's in Country that have US State Dept. approval papers (I could be wrong).

Please don't come on the board and say that FS2000's have never ever been approved. I have the paper work (so does Beltfed) to prove you wrong. It's not fair and I wish more would get approved because they are good, very interesting guns (like a dummy I sold mine).

Rich
 
Unfortunately these guns would do a shooter no good. As there is no source of legal parts, warranty etc. They hold a good eye to a collector only. I sold mine to someone from Alberta who will own it as a collector.

No shame in selling yours Rich LPS as it would just be a safe queen
 
Rich LPS said:
Questar (Mark) & jcbruno:

I'm coming into this topic a little late so I apologise.

I was one of the original owners of the ONLY two legal FS2000's, that I am aware of, that came into the Country. This may be a tough pill for you and others to swallow but Belt Fed and I purchased the first 2. We have the approved paper work from the US State Dept. Since that time 2 more have come in. The weapons had to be slightly modified as per the approval granted by the US State Dept., that is printed directly on their forms, and the guns were modified. I sold mine to a fellow in BC but Beltfed still has his (he's smarter than I am). I retained the State Dept. Forms in my records.

I don't know why they (US Gov.) approved this particular importer but they only did it for 4 guns (he has now been told it's over). It does not make sense that other larger and much better known importers have been denied and this one was not. I am not aware of any other FS2000's in Country that have US State Dept. approval papers (I could be wrong).

Please don't come on the board and say that FS2000's have never ever been approved. I have the paper work (so does Beltfed) to prove you wrong. It's not fair and I wish more would get approved because they are good, very interesting guns (like a dummy I sold mine).

Rich
Click to expand...

Only going on what US State Department told us... we had/have no reason not to believe them.

If you have a copy of the DSP-5 Export Permit, then just curious, who is named as the End-User and what was declared as the "Purpose"? Who signed the DSP-83 and who was named as End-User on that certificate. Were the permits shown as being for personal use or did they show Commercial Re-Sale or something else?

Mark
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom