Who posted that a Canadian without a PAL could legally purchase a firearm? Am I missing something here?
You're the one claiming that the CFO is correct is saying a lower receiver is not a firearm
Shawn
Who posted that a Canadian without a PAL could legally purchase a firearm? Am I missing something here?
Who posted that a Canadian without a PAL could legally purchase a firearm? Am I missing something here?
You're the one claiming that the CFO is correct is saying a lower receiver is not a firearm
Shawn
It is NOT a firearm until you have a barrel on it. Final word. Period.
I will respectfully disagree and suggest the CFO and RCMP do know the law and should follow their directive. Reading the law is self explanatory.
My mistake. He did:
However you then went on to say:
It is technically a serial numbered receiver only and is registered as such then becomes a "firearm" when a barrel is added and then re-registered with an updated certificate. I understand what Katazone is posting and agree with his comment, because he is correct.
I think that is what a number of posters have stated. I know many on here break the law by leaving the original "receiver" certificate as the paperwork and feel it is enough and play the 30 day card.
Sigh
I will make it simple: Do all the laws that pertain to a firearm and barrelled receiver pertain to a bare receiver. Yes, or no? Simple question and simple answer.
Edit to add: Regardless of what some telephone monkey told the other poster.
Yes.......
You should have stopped there. As the rest of the sentence clearly shows you have no idea what you are talking about.

Bwahaaaaaaaaaa your joking right? YOU know more then the CFO, RCMP and the HWRP firearms officer?
![]()
Bwahaaaaaaaaaa your joking right? YOU know more then the CFO, RCMP and the HWRP firearms officer?
![]()



























