Our Black Rifle Related Initiatives

I think some people are kinda missing what GT is saying here with respect to de-restricting long barrel AR15's. It is not the OIC that needs to be corrected, only the interpretation of the OIC. No new laws/OIC's are needed to make this change.

The only thing that needs to change is how the current OIC is read with respect to what exactly is classified as a 'variant' of the M16. It seems that any acceptable interpretation of the work 'variant' would indicate that anything deemed a 'variant' must be created chronologically after the parent. Being that the AR15 occurred before the m16, there seems to be no acceptable way to classify the AR15 as a 'variant' of the m16. The only exclusions would be the explicitly named examples in the OIC. It is also important to note the the OIC only restricts variants of the M16, not variants of the explicitly named examples.

Now, I'm no expert, but should this not be an issue for the RCMP? They are the ones that determine how firearms are classed, aren't they?
 
What QYV said.

It is nothing about new legislation or overturning new legislation.

THis is not even a new interpretation of the word variant.

It is a simple correction of an administrative mistakes that was carried over because the first executor did not read the senence properly. They just carry the mistakes over without thinking about it.

THis is called an error - !

People think way too complicated on this issue - this is such a glaring mistake that people just think there is some very complicated reason behind it. THe RCMP follow the "intent" of the regulation but the regulation in reality said the other wise. THerefore, it is a mistake because if the regulation has clearly state the intention with no room of assumption, then RCMP will be making a mistaking by assuming the assumpiton without following the actual intention of the writing.

This is pure technicality. I am actually so surprised no one has ever called this one out - people just assume the assumption- exaclty like the way they deal with bullpup stock in the last 17 years
 
Last edited:
greentips said:
What QYV said.

It is nothing about new legislation or overturning new legislation.

THis is not even a new interpretation of the word variant.

It is a simple correction of an administrative mistakes that was carried over because the first executor did not read the senence properly. They just carry the mistakes over without thinking about it.

THis is called an error - !

People think way too complicated on this issue - this is such a glaring mistake that people just think there is some very complicated reason behind it. THe RCMP follow the "intent" of the regulation but the regulation in reality said the other wise. THerefore, it is a mistake because if the regulation has clearly state the intention with no room of assumption, then RCMP will be making a mistaking by assuming the assumpiton without following the actual intention of the writing.

This is pure technicality. I am actually so surprised no one has ever called this one out - people just assume the assumption- exaclty like the way they deal with bullpup stock in the last 17 years
Click to expand...


So, who do we have to contact to bring this to light with the RCMP? Perhaps a good place to start would be with the same folks that recently OK'd the 10rnd AR Pistol mags?
 
Armedsask said:
It would be the same situation as the Robarm M96 with the short barreled upper version. The receiver is non-restricted but putting on the short barreled upper makes it restricted.
Click to expand...

Cool so alone the upper is not classified till it becomes attached to the lower.
How does it work paperwise? Let's say you have 2 uppers a 20inch and a 10 inch with 1 lower. Would you have 2 Certificates for the same rifle?
 
How does this work? Does someone have to challenge the classification of their rifle and it is brought before a judge?
 
Speckfire said:
Cool so alone the upper is not classified till it becomes attached to the lower.
How does it work paperwise? Let's say you have 2 uppers a 20inch and a 10 inch with 1 lower. Would you have 2 Certificates for the same rifle?
Click to expand...

currently it's 30 days to re-register it when a NR becomes a R over barrel lenth right? so depending on what upper you had on that day would dictate on how it's classed ,wouldn't it?
 
Last edited:
Speckfire said:
Cool so alone the upper is not classified till it becomes attached to the lower.
How does it work paperwise? Let's say you have 2 uppers a 20inch and a 10 inch with 1 lower. Would you have 2 Certificates for the same rifle?
Click to expand...

I was thinking that this one point, the availability of short uppers is what will kill any attempt to class ar-15's as non-restricted.
There is absolutely no control of uppers.

Every tom,jane and mary will suddenly have 20" ar-15's. But not one will ever be seen:rolleyes:
 
QYV said:
It seems that any acceptable interpretation of the work 'variant' would indicate that anything deemed a 'variant' must be created chronologically after the parent.
Click to expand...

I'm having a hard time finding a definition of the word "variant" that makes reference to chronology.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/variant

Most definitions refer to variations from a standard, or reference. Since the OIC already establishes a standard, or reference (i.e. the M-16) anything varying slightly from that design is a variant, whether it came before or not.
 
Gimli said:
I'm having a hard time finding a definition of the word "variant" that makes reference to chronology.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/variant

Most definitions refer to variations from a standard, or reference. Since the OIC already establishes a standard, or reference (i.e. the M-16) anything varying slightly from that design is a variant, whether it came before or not.
Click to expand...

I see what your saying, and as far as language goes chronology may be irrelevant. However, in the act of actually creating a 'variant', it is implicit that the 'standard' already exist. In other words, in real life, causality is implied by default.

When the 'standard' is stated explicitly (M16), it is clear that anything to be considered a 'variant' must have been derived by making a variation to the 'standard' M16. But what of the AR15's that existed before the M16?

I we were to ask any AR manufacturer what their design is based of off, the M16 or the AR15, what would their answer be? Think Swiss Arms vs. Sig or TP-9 vs. TMP or pistol mags vs. rifle mags. The classification of many things in Canadian gun laws is based on manufacturers intent.

Again, who do we take this to?
 
we should also get them to scrap the 18.5" barrel rule for semi's. make them like pumps and bolt actions, in that anything over 26" (over all length) is non-restrcited.
 
I like the idea of a military heritage act. Even if it only applied to our combat vets (which is starting to add up in numbers) .
 
Dr van Nostran said:
The DCRA and the provincial rifle associations have traditionally not seen themselves as political entities, they generally do not take part in the political process.

DCRA's intervention to save the AR15 back during C68 was unprecedented, but understandible.

Had the AR15 been prohibited, service rifle competitions in Canada would have been ended.

While I think DCRA would certainly support reforms to firearms regs, I don't know how willing they would be to actively lobby for them.

But it's probably a good idea to make them aware of these efforts, and offer them the opportunity for participation.
Click to expand...


Well its about damn time the DCRA and any other shooting org got interested in stepping up and saving the sport that they care about.
Are all the various governing bodies of different shooting disciplines going to wait around until after a ban, then do whole lot of whining?
Didn't seem to work so well in the UK.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom