strategicwin
Member
- Location
- Vancouver Lower Mainland
Am I a felon now because I own a toaster- I mean prohibited firearm?
RCMP "Information Regarding 80% Lowers"
- Thread starter Wolverine .303
- Start date
Sample email to send to Goodale if anyone wants to take the time.. just copy, paste, and send.. and CC a few conservatives while your at it
Dear Mr. Goodale,
As I'm sure you are aware. The RCMP very recently sent a memo to firearms businesses in Canada, to inform them that they have once again made a new category of prohibited devices. This time, they argue that what is known as an 80% completed receiver is a prohibited firearm. These 80% finished chunks of plastic or aluminum are essentially no more dangerous than a paper weight. It is already illegal to complete the significant amount of work required to turn one of these into a firearm without registering the completed firearm. There is no need to criminalize the possession of a useless block of aluminum or plastic.
I have attached a copy of the RCMP's memo that was sent out only to select businesses for your review. I would also like to express my disappointment that the vast majority of firearms owners in Canada were not informed of this change, and have no way to find out. Putting them in potential possession of a prohibited device punishable by up to 10 years imprisonment! These changes must be communicated effectively by the RCMP when they happen. Without communication, and with no public access to the firearms reference table, any prosecutions under the recent rash of re-classifications and rule changes would amount, in my opinion, to nothing more than entrapment by the RCMP and by your government.
I would like to explain why, despite being forced to comply with the non-legislated and non-debated "opinion" of the RCMP, I completely disagree.
From the “interpretation” section of Section 2 of the criminal code, a firearm is defined as a barrelled weapon from which any shot, bullet or other projectile can be discharged and that is capable of causing serious bodily injury or death to a person, and includes any frame or receiver of such a barrelled weapon and anything that can be "adapted" for use as a firearm;
I would submit that the machining of an 80% receiver into a functional finished receiver, would to the average reasonable person, be considered a significant alteration.
Notice that the criminal code uses the word “adapt”
Lets look at how Dictionary.com, Merriam Webster, and Oxford define the word adapt:
TO ADAPT
Dictionary.com
to make suitable to requirements or conditions; adjust or MODIFY fittingly:
Merriam Webster
to make fit (as for a new use) often by MODIFICATION
Oxford
Make (something) suitable for a new use or purpose; MODIFY.
Notice how all 3 definitions use the term "modify"; if we explore how that word is defined, something interesting happens.
TO MODIFY
Dictionary.com
to change somewhat the form or qualities of; ALTER PARTIALLY; amend
Oxford
Make PARTIAL OR MINOR changes to (something)
Merriam Webster
to make MINOR changes in
In all 3 definitions of modify, the concept of a MINOR change is expressed. The significant alteration required to complete an 80% receiver is not the minor change as expressed in the criminal code by the word “altered”. I don’t believe the average judge in Canada could draw the same conclusion as the firearms lab.
In my opinion, the interpretation made by Mr. Smith’s team at the RCMP firearms lab is very misguided in this particular example.
I urge you to look into this further, and reign in the arbitrary power you continue to grant the RCMP to both make and enforce criminal laws.
Regards,
Dear Mr. Goodale,
As I'm sure you are aware. The RCMP very recently sent a memo to firearms businesses in Canada, to inform them that they have once again made a new category of prohibited devices. This time, they argue that what is known as an 80% completed receiver is a prohibited firearm. These 80% finished chunks of plastic or aluminum are essentially no more dangerous than a paper weight. It is already illegal to complete the significant amount of work required to turn one of these into a firearm without registering the completed firearm. There is no need to criminalize the possession of a useless block of aluminum or plastic.
I have attached a copy of the RCMP's memo that was sent out only to select businesses for your review. I would also like to express my disappointment that the vast majority of firearms owners in Canada were not informed of this change, and have no way to find out. Putting them in potential possession of a prohibited device punishable by up to 10 years imprisonment! These changes must be communicated effectively by the RCMP when they happen. Without communication, and with no public access to the firearms reference table, any prosecutions under the recent rash of re-classifications and rule changes would amount, in my opinion, to nothing more than entrapment by the RCMP and by your government.
I would like to explain why, despite being forced to comply with the non-legislated and non-debated "opinion" of the RCMP, I completely disagree.
From the “interpretation” section of Section 2 of the criminal code, a firearm is defined as a barrelled weapon from which any shot, bullet or other projectile can be discharged and that is capable of causing serious bodily injury or death to a person, and includes any frame or receiver of such a barrelled weapon and anything that can be "adapted" for use as a firearm;
I would submit that the machining of an 80% receiver into a functional finished receiver, would to the average reasonable person, be considered a significant alteration.
Notice that the criminal code uses the word “adapt”
Lets look at how Dictionary.com, Merriam Webster, and Oxford define the word adapt:
TO ADAPT
Dictionary.com
to make suitable to requirements or conditions; adjust or MODIFY fittingly:
Merriam Webster
to make fit (as for a new use) often by MODIFICATION
Oxford
Make (something) suitable for a new use or purpose; MODIFY.
Notice how all 3 definitions use the term "modify"; if we explore how that word is defined, something interesting happens.
TO MODIFY
Dictionary.com
to change somewhat the form or qualities of; ALTER PARTIALLY; amend
Oxford
Make PARTIAL OR MINOR changes to (something)
Merriam Webster
to make MINOR changes in
In all 3 definitions of modify, the concept of a MINOR change is expressed. The significant alteration required to complete an 80% receiver is not the minor change as expressed in the criminal code by the word “altered”. I don’t believe the average judge in Canada could draw the same conclusion as the firearms lab.
In my opinion, the interpretation made by Mr. Smith’s team at the RCMP firearms lab is very misguided in this particular example.
I urge you to look into this further, and reign in the arbitrary power you continue to grant the RCMP to both make and enforce criminal laws.
Regards,
Like everyone has a CNC machine in their garage or basement and knows how to use it!
Typical Government "mind control". Create a problem where one doesn't exist, pound it long enough so that people start to believe it's true.
Still trying to figure out how the police get to create "law" without involvement of any government due process. Definite police state situation unfolding.
I wonder if this violates and Constitutional laws.
Still trying to figure out how the police get to create "law" without involvement of any government due process. Definite police state situation unfolding.
I wonder if this violates and Constitutional laws.
majormalfunction
Regular
- Location
- Wet Coast
You are not looking at the big picture
They are preparing for something big
If these actions don't give you alarm bells.....
Its not coming fellas, IT'S ALREADY HERE!!
They are preparing for something big
If these actions don't give you alarm bells.....
Its not coming fellas, IT'S ALREADY HERE!!
Dad003
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- Fort Saskatchewan
well if you got one of those you know how to use it , anybody with some knowledge can make a firearms you dont need to be a smart guys for that , even you can 3dprint a one shot gun , they need to wake up there no gun problem here , just a liberal bureaucrats problem ...
Sample email to send to Goodale if anyone wants to take the time.. just copy, paste, and send.. and CC a few conservatives while your at it
Dear Mr. Goodale,
As I'm sure you are aware. The RCMP very recently sent a memo to firearms businesses in Canada, to inform them that they have once again made a new category of prohibited devices. This time, they argue that what is known as an 80% completed receiver is a prohibited firearm. These 80% finished chunks of plastic or aluminum are essentially no more dangerous than a paper weight. It is already illegal to complete the significant amount of work required to turn one of these into a firearm without registering the completed firearm. There is no need to criminalize the possession of a useless block of aluminum or plastic.
I have attached a copy of the RCMP's memo that was sent out only to select businesses for your review. I would also like to express my disappointment that the vast majority of firearms owners in Canada were not informed of this change, and have no way to find out. Putting them in potential possession of a prohibited device punishable by up to 10 years imprisonment! These changes must be communicated effectively by the RCMP when they happen. Without communication, and with no public access to the firearms reference table, any prosecutions under the recent rash of re-classifications and rule changes would amount, in my opinion, to nothing more than entrapment by the RCMP and by your government.
I would like to explain why, despite being forced to comply with the non-legislated and non-debated "opinion" of the RCMP, I completely disagree.
From the “interpretation” section of Section 2 of the criminal code, a firearm is defined as a barrelled weapon from which any shot, bullet or other projectile can be discharged and that is capable of causing serious bodily injury or death to a person, and includes any frame or receiver of such a barrelled weapon and anything that can be "adapted" for use as a firearm;
I would submit that the machining of an 80% receiver into a functional finished receiver, would to the average reasonable person, be considered a significant alteration.
Notice that the criminal code uses the word “adapt”
Lets look at how Dictionary.com, Merriam Webster, and Oxford define the word adapt:
TO ADAPT
Dictionary.com
to make suitable to requirements or conditions; adjust or MODIFY fittingly:
Merriam Webster
to make fit (as for a new use) often by MODIFICATION
Oxford
Make (something) suitable for a new use or purpose; MODIFY.
Notice how all 3 definitions use the term "modify"; if we explore how that word is defined, something interesting happens.
TO MODIFY
Dictionary.com
to change somewhat the form or qualities of; ALTER PARTIALLY; amend
Oxford
Make PARTIAL OR MINOR changes to (something)
Merriam Webster
to make MINOR changes in
In all 3 definitions of modify, the concept of a MINOR change is expressed. The significant alteration required to complete an 80% receiver is not the minor change as expressed in the criminal code by the word “altered”. I don’t believe the average judge in Canada could draw the same conclusion as the firearms lab.
In my opinion, the interpretation made by Mr. Smith’s team at the RCMP firearms lab is very misguided in this particular example.
I urge you to look into this further, and reign in the arbitrary power you continue to grant the RCMP to both make and enforce criminal laws.
Regards,
Thanks Magz, as you pointed, can we against it by lawsuit?
romurra
Regular
- Location
- Vancouver BC
This is a bizzare and dangerous slope for the RCMP to head down.
The extension of this logic means:
Every AR15 is a 90% (or whatever %) M16.
Every rifle and shotgun barrel in Canada over 18.5" is in imminent danger of being cut to a restricted length.
Every Ross rifle is ready to be converted to full auto using the Huot automatic rifle conversion pattern.
Every Lee Enfield is almost a machine gun, ready to be converted on one of the Charlton, Elkins, Howell, or Rieder plans.
A block of T6061 T6 aluminium 1.5 x 4.5 x 8.0" is a 0% M16 receiver (after all, what else could you use it for? It just screams 'I'm a machine gun').
Riveted mags are a drill bit away from being prohibited.
Most tube fed semi auto shotguns are a mag tube away from prohibition.
. . . . And the list could go on
Three D printers with spools of plastic or bags of sintering powder are actually a download and mouse click away from producing AR15s, M16s or who knows what else.
This kind of licensing overreach is a dangerous step. It has no bounds, and allows almost unfettered restrictions.
Perhaps we should send every sitting MP a raw aluminium block of the appropriate dimensions and let them know that they have a prohibited device in their possession, and request they deal with the issue, as we have to as legally licenced firearms owners.
The extension of this logic means:
Every AR15 is a 90% (or whatever %) M16.
Every rifle and shotgun barrel in Canada over 18.5" is in imminent danger of being cut to a restricted length.
Every Ross rifle is ready to be converted to full auto using the Huot automatic rifle conversion pattern.
Every Lee Enfield is almost a machine gun, ready to be converted on one of the Charlton, Elkins, Howell, or Rieder plans.
A block of T6061 T6 aluminium 1.5 x 4.5 x 8.0" is a 0% M16 receiver (after all, what else could you use it for? It just screams 'I'm a machine gun').
Riveted mags are a drill bit away from being prohibited.
Most tube fed semi auto shotguns are a mag tube away from prohibition.
. . . . And the list could go on
Three D printers with spools of plastic or bags of sintering powder are actually a download and mouse click away from producing AR15s, M16s or who knows what else.
This kind of licensing overreach is a dangerous step. It has no bounds, and allows almost unfettered restrictions.
Perhaps we should send every sitting MP a raw aluminium block of the appropriate dimensions and let them know that they have a prohibited device in their possession, and request they deal with the issue, as we have to as legally licenced firearms owners.
The way things in government work is based on statistics.
This is the key to government departments receiving more of your hard earned tax dollars.
Every time they screw around and make stupid rules that make more paper criminals they generate more statistics.
All these statistics come under the heading of "gun crime".
This all sounds very ominous and scary when they go to the media and government and squeal about the drastic year over year increase in "gun crime" and they are quickly handed more resources and $$$ making their corrupt little empire a little bit bigger.
Look at Australian "gun crime" statistics..... That is the model they are following....
This is the key to government departments receiving more of your hard earned tax dollars.
Every time they screw around and make stupid rules that make more paper criminals they generate more statistics.
All these statistics come under the heading of "gun crime".
This all sounds very ominous and scary when they go to the media and government and squeal about the drastic year over year increase in "gun crime" and they are quickly handed more resources and $$$ making their corrupt little empire a little bit bigger.
Look at Australian "gun crime" statistics..... That is the model they are following....
buckmagnet
New member
Just wait it's a matter of time before the RCMP dictates that all AR 15's are prohibited Mark my words
That seems to be the direction, im thinking as well...
.hahaa..sure this about sums it up for 'most' nutz.... ~
“That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.”
Cameron SS
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- Ground Zero
They are. BUt they are a named exemption in OIC as specifically being classed as restricted. The irony is all of these people that argue that AR's should not be a named restricted, but should be classed based on function. Without the regulations naming ARs as restricted, they all become prohibited as variants of the prohibited M16.
What surprises me is that there is a bunch of AR-like guns out there that for some reason or another are classed as non restricted. Way I see it, with the way that the terms variant and modified version have been applied in the past, Mossberg Blaze 47 anyone?, anything that resembles an AR should either be a Restricted variant or version of the restricted AR or the prohibited M16.
I think its only a matter of time before the RCMP at least come back with that the notion that all NR AR-Like firearms must be either restricted or prohibited, and THEN if that doesn't get shot down, they can update all of them to just flat out prohibited.
In my opinion the RCMP should be tasked with national security concerns like the FBI are, and provincial police forces should effectively be highway patrols. Each municipality should have its own force, accountable to its municipality.
This stupid-ness effects all of us {Legal Gun Nutz} You don't have to own an 80% or a Beowulf, or a Replica or certain BB Gun/Starter Pistol, or a 10/22 mag or any of the many other Overnight Criminals we all seem to be. So Effin' Ridiculous- How many More will there be!??? Why can't all the Retailers, who's bottom line is continually being effected, just Step up, DO SOMETHING to Challenger all their B.S. {with our & the Orgs help}? Are they worried to make a 'Fuss', so as their 'next' shipment of 'legal' items don't get held up {at the border}permanently? I own a Business, if I had some AHoles w/ obviously some hand of "power", taking away from my bottom line on many B.S occasions, I'd be stepping up- I really hope those with {allot} of skin in the game & the Orgs. will step up- or what's the point of supporting any of these Biz/Orgs. Im Sure we ALL are, all us little/Big/Medium guyz, with or without allot of skin in the game are finally ready to do something... Where do we sign up??
A few things that I'd REALLY like to know... (not that I can't guess the answers)
1. what, in exact terms, was this office of the RCMP told by the Liberal government when they got elected?
2. does this office work like say...automotive unions? Stirring-up sh*t and finding problems that aren't there to justify their exsistence? (meaning, justify their budgets)
3. ARE the RCMP working from any crime data that offers some insight into why AR-15s are so deserving of their time/meddling?
4. is there ANY shred of evidence that this office, for the resources it ties-up, provides even an ounce of benefit to the Canadian population from an "added safety" POV?
Seems to me that this is very much a politically-driven arm of the Liberal Government (to put it mildly) and that BEING firearms-related, flies totally under the radar of the non-shooting community in Canada. As a result, the RCMP can quite literally bend the rules and overstep their mandate without raising the hackle of the average, non-shooting Canadian. I think we're victims of our silence, and the Liberal A-Holes who take advantage of how complacent most Canadians are. I've said it before, if the only "gun" news most people EVER hear on the 6pm news is all BAD news, then gun ownership restrictions become a case of "the more, the merrier" for most people. Conspicuous in it's absence is any reporting of the COUNTLESS hours of safe, lawful use of firearms, and the industry's contribution to the economy.
On a related note, I grow very weary of the words "assault", and of the word "weapon" related to firearms, and given the opportunity, I'll take anyone to task on their use. In both cases, the words suggest intent that isn't there, so we should all expect nothing less than their proper use in any gun control discussion. At the end of the day, it's clear the RCMP have the AR "in their sights" and I wonder if this is ANY response to the petition to make them NR. WE all know their function does not differ from lots of sporting rifles of the same caliber(s) but yet that rifle is demonized here in Canada. There is no data I'm aware of that offers any justifiable explanation for it being so scrutinized by the RCMP, I'd personally like to know why my tax dollars even support this office of rogue, Liberal puppets.
I think if the government wants to be the all-knowing, "care about it's citizens", fatty-smoking, over-spending hippies it seems to want to be...then perhaps it ought to look at what really hurts/kills people in Canada and start devoting resources to that. With gun-owners being the "low-hanging" fruit, they'd rather antagonize us and pretend it's making a difference. The general public doesn't know enough about it all to realize/care that rights are being trampled on. Disgusting.
1. what, in exact terms, was this office of the RCMP told by the Liberal government when they got elected?
2. does this office work like say...automotive unions? Stirring-up sh*t and finding problems that aren't there to justify their exsistence? (meaning, justify their budgets)
3. ARE the RCMP working from any crime data that offers some insight into why AR-15s are so deserving of their time/meddling?
4. is there ANY shred of evidence that this office, for the resources it ties-up, provides even an ounce of benefit to the Canadian population from an "added safety" POV?
Seems to me that this is very much a politically-driven arm of the Liberal Government (to put it mildly) and that BEING firearms-related, flies totally under the radar of the non-shooting community in Canada. As a result, the RCMP can quite literally bend the rules and overstep their mandate without raising the hackle of the average, non-shooting Canadian. I think we're victims of our silence, and the Liberal A-Holes who take advantage of how complacent most Canadians are. I've said it before, if the only "gun" news most people EVER hear on the 6pm news is all BAD news, then gun ownership restrictions become a case of "the more, the merrier" for most people. Conspicuous in it's absence is any reporting of the COUNTLESS hours of safe, lawful use of firearms, and the industry's contribution to the economy.
On a related note, I grow very weary of the words "assault", and of the word "weapon" related to firearms, and given the opportunity, I'll take anyone to task on their use. In both cases, the words suggest intent that isn't there, so we should all expect nothing less than their proper use in any gun control discussion. At the end of the day, it's clear the RCMP have the AR "in their sights" and I wonder if this is ANY response to the petition to make them NR. WE all know their function does not differ from lots of sporting rifles of the same caliber(s) but yet that rifle is demonized here in Canada. There is no data I'm aware of that offers any justifiable explanation for it being so scrutinized by the RCMP, I'd personally like to know why my tax dollars even support this office of rogue, Liberal puppets.
I think if the government wants to be the all-knowing, "care about it's citizens", fatty-smoking, over-spending hippies it seems to want to be...then perhaps it ought to look at what really hurts/kills people in Canada and start devoting resources to that. With gun-owners being the "low-hanging" fruit, they'd rather antagonize us and pretend it's making a difference. The general public doesn't know enough about it all to realize/care that rights are being trampled on. Disgusting.
Last edited:
