Remington R-15 - Non-restricted or Restricted?

W

WAT5ON87

New member
Rating - 100%
2   0   0
Location
Bowmanville, Ont
I searched "remington r15" nothing came up so sorry if this has been covered.

I think i heard this gun is restricted, but i dont understand why. It would make a great coyote hunting gun in .223.

Can anyone verify whether or not it is a restricted or not and if so, a straight answer as to why?

The version i'm referring to is the Model R-15 VTR Predator Rifle (Not carbine). It has a 5 round mag and it's not the one with the collapsible stock. Available in either 18" or 22" barrel.

http://www.remington.com/products/firearms/centerfire/model-r-15/model-r-15-vtr-predator-rifle.aspx

R-15VTRPredatorRifle-prod.ashx


thanks!
 
It is restricted because it is an AR-15. AR-15 is a named restricted firearm, and all variants and version thereof are restricted.
 
Im too lazy to search how about thoise keltecs? .223 and 9mm's seems like they might be neat little survival guns.
 
mlehtovaara said:
Did you really think a paint job would make it non restricted? f:P:
Click to expand...

Is that such an unreasonable idea when a 4" barreled handgun is prohibited but the same model with a 4.25" barrel is only restricted? Is it any more unreasonable than the idea that all .32 caliber handguns are prohibited but really there are no .32 caliber handguns, they're all .30 caliber, but a .30 caliber Tokerav is restricted not prohibited. Is it unreasonable when the law says a long gun can have a manufactured barrel shorter than 18.5" but not if you cut it that way yourself?

Because the entire notion of the classification of firearms is nonsensical, any minor differences in the appearance of one gun and another can have dramatic differences of how they are perceived under the law.
 
^^ well said. Our laws are completely upside down and sideways at times. Some firearms have been labelled restricted when they shouldn't be, others non-restricted when they should be- according to RCMP logic. For the most part this is based on look or impression rather than function. A lot of our firearms laws contradict eachother and it's understandable if people ask questions we already have the "obvious" answer to.
 
Mechanical vs. Cosmetic

Yes, there is a difference.

I do understand that there is confusion around many issues in the FA, but there is no confusion about the AR-15.

It either is or it isn't, and in many cases, even if it isn't it will be classified as a variant and retricted anyways. :p
 
mlehtovaara said:
Mechanical vs. Cosmetic

Yes, there is a difference.

I do understand that there is confusion around many issues in the FA, but there is no confusion about the AR-15.

It either is or it isn't, and in many cases, even if it isn't it will be classified as a variant and retricted anyways. :p
Click to expand...

Except in the minds of the people who think there are good guns and bad guns; they're pretty confused. In order to know that every AR-15 variant is restricted in Canada, an individual has to be be told, particularly in light of the fact that according to the US gun media that the AR-15 is the most popular sporting rifle in the world. Its barely even thought of as a black gun anymore. Not so here though, where the only thing worse than a toy gun is a real gun that looks like a toy.
 
Boomer said:
...the only thing worse than a toy gun is a real gun that looks like a toy.
Click to expand...

That's actually a really profound statement-on a number of levels- and I'm not being sarcastic. Whether it's for the anti's, complaining about kids being turned on to firearms, or police making public safety statements, or...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom