Shot a GSG-5 today

It always takes a lot of time and money when it comes court cases. Very well done to those who push on for the right principle.

Let’s keep our fingers crossed for GSG5 case.
 
My guess is likely not. The test used was whether or not the firearm is a threat to public safety. There may be other reasons to suggest that these might be a threat to public safety other than full auto fire capability. In the case at hand, the test was only FA, but that does not preclude a future court deciding that some other feature is a threat to public safety.

There is also a risk that those firearms would be deemed to be prohibited full auto firearms, if they can be easily converted to full auto (see: R. v. Hasselwander).

However, it bodes very well for the GSG and the Umarex M4's.

The CFP cannot appeal the ruling, that would be up to the Crown in right of Ontario. This was a quasi-criminal case. The province prosecutes criminal proceedings. Its up to Ontario.

But... lets try not to bring attention to the ruling for another week or so. I believe the crown has 15 days to appeal, which means they have until saturday.
 
Last edited:
dangertree said:
OK, we've all read the decision, so has the crown. So, now, can we all at CGN STFU while it is figured out by the crown if/when an appeal can be launched, and not unleash our collective creativity coming up with potential "loopholes", "work arounds", and 'potential outcomes' that the crown WILL then use as evidence or points in a potential appeal?

IE: Can we not do their work for them while shooting ourselves in the foot.



How long the crown has to appeal is the legitimate question right now. We should not get into "does this mean that we can now own ###XX" because "insert quotes from the ruling".

Please. Please. Please. Please.

I say this with full respect to the CGN community.
Click to expand...


good idea.
 
We can hope , and i do but a Crown from Ontario ? The same people who confiscated Bruce Montagues house so he couldn't defend himself ? The same Crowns appointed by liberal administrations . The same Crowns that McGinty organized into teams just to go after guns . I'll believe it when i see it and i have the money this instant but in the meanwhile i'll shoot my 10/22's that so far haven't been prohibited by looks alone like the GSG5 . The Crown will have absolutely no problem coming up with a flunkie RCMP expert firearms tech to testify that there will be wholesale slaughter if the GSG goes non-restricted and he can point to the wholesale massacures that happen in Canada everyday with identically functioning .22's that just happen to look different . My God , the humanity , think of the children . Haven't you seen the movies ? A person with one of there awesomely powerfull .22's could kill gophers with single independant trigger pulls . The horror . Gophers would surrended just looking at the evil beast . It doesn't have to be a varient nor does it matter that there is no parts interchangabily , it's black , black i tell you , black . Not only black but liberal dicks go limp even contemplating a semi-auto .22 , other than the couple of million non-restricted ones that are already out there . It's a slippery slope , if we open the doors to this one , i shudder to think it , but Canadians might want other 22's besides the millions they have now . 22's are twice as powerfull as pellet gun . If for no other reason , think of the buffalos and the slaughter we'll be enabling if semi-auto .22's ever become legal . O.K. , they are legal but this one is far worse .
 
if we are smart we will import the GSG AK imitation.... since this case references the AK.. then the cases are parallel and easy deductions can be drawn... then do other GSG products...
 
hfp75 said:
if we are smart we will import the GSG AK imitation.... since this case references the AK.. then the cases are parallel and easy deductions can be drawn... then do other GSG products...
Click to expand...

I was thinking the same thing. after all it is just another imitation, not a varient.
 
and it is the exact same...

AK = prohib... imitation Armi Jager AP-80 = non-restricted.

even a baboon can draw a logical conclusion....

AK = prohib... imitation GSG-AK = non-restricted...

Neither are AKs.....

We are treated like sheeple.... its demeaning
 
What I find most interesting about this court case is that the judge was being rational and unbiased when it came to the firearms laws (unlike how we view the extreme bias of the RCMP and CFC in constantly trying prevent Canadians from owning firearms).

Perhaps the most important point is that the judge said classification depends on deciding what's best for public safety. That could really open the doors for a significant number of citizen appeals. Espeically when the judge indicated that the automatics were the main concern. I wonder if this could eventually lead to the 12-5 OICs being withdrawn/abolished.
 
hfp75 said:
if we are smart we will import the GSG AK imitation.... since this case references the AK.. then the cases are parallel and easy deductions can be drawn... then do other GSG products...
Click to expand...

We may be getting ahead of ourselves . See dangertrees post .
 
[56] In my view,it is remarkable that any reasonable person would have

known to register any firearms not specifically mentioned in the regulations.
Click to expand...

Interesting comment from a judge. As much as a person tries to find out what is and isn't legal, ignorance is not an excuse according to the law. So one has to go through the pains of a legal defence when un-common sense is found to be lacking during an investigation into firearms. This is a bothersome hitch in our system - and costly one - financially, emotionally and to the individual's credibility.

As Dangertree has said folks. Let's keep this on track and wait out.

Boltgun
 
Boltgun said:
Interesting comment from a judge. As much as a person tries to find out what is and isn't legal, ignorance is not an excuse according to the law.Boltgun
Click to expand...

Ignorance of the law may not be an excuse but the next issue is 'intent' . Did the person intend to comit a criminal act ? Recently we saw the issue where quit a few folks bought shotguns from a fellow who purchased them from a law enforcement agency , he cut the barrels to 16 inches and re-sold them . By doing that he created prohibited weapons but when the CFC noticed , they contacted the owners telling them to re-barrel the guns . The chopped barrel makes the whole gun prohibited and they were subject to siezure but with the confusing shotgun barrel laws there was no way of proving , 'intent' by the fellow who originally purchased the shotguns or those he sold them to so there were no siezures and no charges layed . The folks who bought the shotguns are free to re-barrel them with a 14 inch Remington factory barrel or an 8.500" Dlask factory barrel but they can't have the 16 inch chopped barrel . Sadly , in most cases now there is reverse onus when it comes to firearms as a person is now guilty until they prove themselves innocent , now matter the intent . Last fall i ran into a guy shooting in a gravel pit with a Mini-30 , 7.62x39 with 20 round mags . The guy didn't have a clue about 5 round mags or 20 round mags pinned to 5 rounds . Clearly , he had no , intent and told me he'd look into it . About 3 years ago 2 old Finn guys were caught up in Black Sturgeon hunting moose with FN rifles and 20 round mags . They bought them from Eatons in the late 1960's , registered them when that was required and knew nothing else about it . They had been hunting with the rifles and mags ever since and had never been pulled over or checked . The judge or JOP decided that they had no intent , brought them up to speed on the gun laws , kept that mags and gave the guns back . There are still a lot of people who aren't on shooting forums , take the guns out for a hunt once per year and have no idea . Add to that the OPP officer i ran into two years ago that thought my folding stock 10/22 with a Butler Creek mag was probably a prohibited Stengun . It looked like a Stengun to him . Now , intent , with reverse onus is far less of an aspect . Now the two 75 year old Finn guys and the guy with the Mini-30 would be facing prison time even though they didn't know the difference . The OPP officer was befuddled by my registration slip that didn't say Stengun or prohibited , took all of the particulars and my identification down and told me he would be confiscating the rifle and mag if it came back prohibited . Never heard from him again .
 
The required amount of intent is very minimal. Its not intent to break the law, but only intent to do the prohibited act.

However, with possession offenses (such as possession of a prohibited device), there has to be knowledge of the nature of the item. See R. v. Oakes.

However, for other firearms offenses, such as safe storage laws, 'intent' matters very little.
 
It becomes even more confusing when new laws come into effect. I personally find it very unjust that an individual have to be up to speed with 3 sections of law - Federal, Provincial and Local. In other words the politicians had to split the responsibilities but an individual had to be on top of the whole thing.

In the past I found that getting answers from certain Government offices was partially inaccurate, very very time consuming and very frustrating. Yes ignorance of the law is illegal but is misleading and hiding specific information OK?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom