Modern Sporter

Is there anything chance there would be any technical data packages that could be released to the public? ;)
 
Last edited:
Curtis.G.Stade said:
just modify the sporter so it doesn't mate with the current models name it something else and make more? as long as it doesn't tie to a current r or prohibited then it falls under nr. since you don't need to send it to the rcmp lab being domestic and non exportable. am I wrong? let me know.
Click to expand...

I've heard that the prosecution has duct taped uppers to lowers, to see if they can get a single round fired. With those types of shenanigans allowed in the courts, then who knows what the outcomes will be.
 
Every time I read Alberta Tactical posts I'm impressed. Every time I shoot his rifles I'm amazed...….which is all but my lever rifles. Otherwise they built or tuned every one. Thank you Rick! Please don't ever give up.
 
Humblepie said:
I've heard that the prosecution has duct taped uppers to lowers, to see if they can get a single round fired. With those types of shenanigans allowed in the courts, then who knows what the outcomes will be.
Click to expand...

It was the SFSS/RCMp that played that game on us when we designed a single shot lower for the Ferret 50 cal upper. Similar lower to what we did for the DA50's that Canada Ammo was selling.
They actually used tape to secure an AR upper to our 50 cal lower and concluded that it could discharge 1 round. The mere fact that the bolt assembly would then be lodged in the skull of the shooter was moot.
My belief now is regardless what we design and manufacture, the SFSS will still deem it prohibited just out of spite.
 
alberta tactical rifle said:
It was the SFSS/RCMp that played that game on us when we designed a single shot lower for the Ferret 50 cal upper. Similar lower to what we did for the DA50's that Canada Ammo was selling.
They actually used tape to secure an AR upper to our 50 cal lower and concluded that it could discharge 1 round. The mere fact that the bolt assembly would then be lodged in the skull of the shooter was moot.
My belief now is regardless what we design and manufacture, the SFSS will still deem it prohibited just out of spite.
Click to expand...

Thats insane that they can do that and label a gun prohibited. The RCMP and the SFSS are absolutely atrocious.
 
alberta tactical rifle said:
It was the SFSS/RCMp that played that game on us when we designed a single shot lower for the Ferret 50 cal upper. Similar lower to what we did for the DA50's that Canada Ammo was selling.
They actually used tape to secure an AR upper to our 50 cal lower and concluded that it could discharge 1 round. The mere fact that the bolt assembly would then be lodged in the skull of the shooter was moot.
My belief now is regardless what we design and manufacture, the SFSS will still deem it prohibited just out of spite.
Click to expand...

I wish there was a video of this. It's almost too comical to be believable. almost.
 
MrPlatypus said:
I used the lawyer advice included in the package from the ccfr and asked what happens if I get caught and charged while using one they said they will not cover you in court so take that for whatever its worth
Click to expand...

CCFR legal defense insurance has far to many "we don't cover you" clauses. Really makes me wonder what they will actually defend against
 
45C said:
So if a judge asks why it was non restricted before may 2020 and the answer is, it’s not an AR 15 . Then asks why it’s prohibited now and answer is , it’s an AR15 variant.

How can any judge possibly find you guilty?
How would any Crown, even attempt to lay a charge?

There must be some sort of law that penalizes the crown , if they are just trying to cause you financial loss.
Click to expand...

There most certainly is -- not specifically for attempting to cause a financial loss, but for "malicious prosecution." I had a bit of a front-row seat to this issue, as I was married to a crown prosecutor for over 20 years. Getting hit with a malicious prosecution accusation is a very, very big deal. The principal reason being that while the provincial Law Society provides malpractice insurance to member lawyers, the one group they do not insure are government lawyers. Instead, government lawyers are protected by the government itself ... unless the lawyer in question is found guilty of malicious prosecution. What that happens, whatever damages are awarded against the lawyer are not covered by insurance or the employer, but instead are paid out of personal assets ... like personal bank accounts and investments, one's house, etc. It is for this reason that Crown Prosecutors tend to be exceedingly cautious about the charges they bring forward, and they only do so when they have a strong professional opinion that the case is reasonably likely to result in a successful prosecution. Because if they proceed a sketchy, malicious case then they risk losing the entirety of their personal assets and any assets owned jointly with their spouse. It's no joke, and at all times my ex was exceedingly careful to weigh each case she dealt with in light of that personal financial risk.
 
ATRS Shaun said:
I saw that same article, looked like they had a heck of a lot more than Modern Sporters. But I did see what they did there with the photos...
Click to expand...
It’ll get plea bargained out, crown will chalk up a win and you’ll never hear about it again
 
Fieldcannon said:
I saw an article in global news yesterday, two guys in quebec arrested with 4 modern sporter sets
Click to expand...

As a manufacturer we have no control as to who may have purchased any of our products. So long as they meet the legal requirements set out by the regime, not much else we can do. The question then is whose make of automobile did they own?
Criminals and stupid folks can purchase cars, houses, golf clubs and cutlery and the media pays no heed, but whose gun they are in possession of is always a headline.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom