SCAR Where Art Thou ?

Dumantepe yes there is a reason. They are scary looking. Some politician flipped through a copy of "Gun Digest" and pointed out the scary looking ones.

I mean a real FAL is an automatic weapon, but there is no reason why a FAL modified to be semi-auto and with an acceptable barrel length should be anything but NON RESTRICTED, let alone prohibited.

It's just arbitrary.

The only reason AR-15 got on the restricted rather than prohibited list is it was in wide use for target shooting.
 
The RCMP also used Gunbroker, FN's website, the user manual, Shooting Illustrated, fnforum.net, World.guns.ru, allexperts.com, statemaster.com, hk94.com and Wikipedia as references for information.
Click to expand...

If Wikipedia is a valid source for reference material, that should be sufficient to get it approved for release... I want my SCAR already!
 
FN responds on March 23, 2011. Curiously, they don't answer any of the questions. Instead, they ask 8 questions of their own. All the questions relate only to what our specifications are for classifying firearms as either restricted or non-restricted. This is very odd. It is almost as if an email is missing. The RCMP has not replied to this.
Click to expand...

Curiously...

FN is asking the logical question: So the classification depends on it being a variant of something. SO WHAT THE F**K IS THE GODDAMN DEFINITION OF A VARIANT?????????????????????? :confused:
 
blaxsun said:
If Wikipedia is a valid source for reference material, that should be sufficient to get it approved for release... I want my SCAR already!
Click to expand...

Maybe we just have to edit the Wikipedia page ourselves, and put:

"Despite repeated attempts, gun enthusiasts have failed to find any way to modify a semi-automatic SCAR so that it becomes a fully automatic weapon. The overwhelming majority of gun experts on the internet have concluded that it is simply not possible to do so."

Then the FRT will be approved.
 
Xiao Xiong said:
Maybe we just have to edit the Wikipedia page ourselves, and put:

"Despite repeated attempts, gun enthusiasts have failed to find any way to modify a semi-automatic SCAR so that it becomes a fully automatic weapon. The overwhelming majority of gun experts on the internet have concluded that it is simply not possible to do so."

Then the FRT will be approved.
Click to expand...

I lol'd hard:D
 
I was looking at pictures and prices (you cannot blame me for wanting to move down south) of Scars on gunbroker and the one Scar 17S I saw was marked Made in Belgium on it. American ITAR rules only apply to weapons made in the U.S AFAIK.
 
Dumantepe said:
I was looking at pictures and prices (you cannot blame me for wanting to move down south) of Scars on gunbroker and the one Scar 17S I saw was marked Made in Belgium on it. American ITAR rules only apply to weapons made in the U.S AFAIK.
Click to expand...

US law is as dumb as ours when it comes to black rifles, just differently dumb.

They have a law against importing non "sporting" weapons. However, it's a big market, so what firms do is set up an assembly plant in the US. They then import the core parts of the gun from overseas, and slap on some appropriate percentage of US made parts so that they can say it is a US made rifle. So they have their own version of the Swiss Arms, the 556, made by "SIG Sauer USA". The SCAR is manufactured by FN inside the US just so it can be sold there. And so on.

We can get many better guns than the Americans can. The only advantage they have over us is AR-15 is restricted in Canada, whereas they can have them "non restricted" (they don't have the restricted concept).

California is the worst. Their laws are much more restrictive than ours.
 
Xiao Xiong said:
US law is as dumb as ours when it comes to black rifles, just differently dumb.

They have a law against importing such weapons. However, it's a big market, so what firms do is set up an assembly plant in the US. They then import the core parts of the gun from overseas, and slap on some appropriate percentage of US made parts so that they can say it is a US made rifle.

We can get many better guns than the Americans can. The only advantage they have over us is AR-15 is restricted in Canada, whereas they can have them "non restricted" (they don't have the restricted concept).

California is the worst. Their laws are much more restrictive than ours.
Click to expand...

Only? Hardly. If you live in a free state your gun is:
Not registered
Can be loaded and ready
Can have a can (pay your tax stamp)
Have standard or hi capacity magazines
Can have sub 18in barrels anywhere you like (and sub 16 if you pay your tax stamp)
etc.

However, if you live in a commie state like Kalifornia or Mass. then you might have some dumber rules than in Canada. But by in large, you have more rights and more freedoms in the US
 
You have more rights and freedoms in the US unless, say, you want to buy a Swiss Arms rifle, or a Norinco, or a Tavor.
 
How come the Tavor is non restricted? Is it possible that they made it like that because it's made in Israel and there is a trade agreement between Canada and Israel?
 
flafson said:
How come the Tavor is non restricted? Is it possible that they made it like that because it's made in Israel and there is a trade agreement between Canada and Israel?
Click to expand...

No. The best reasons that we can ascertain for the SCAR delay are presented above from the FOI.

In other words, the RCMP arbitrarily dinks us around. Don't look for meaning other than that they want gun ownership (especially semis) to be as difficult as possible.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom