The Sterling Arms TR Intro..... Well hello world... and DONE

Status
Not open for further replies.
TSE JR said:
I and more importantly, my lawyer disagrees. While I am producing, but have sold the item, I simply am holding it in trust. Once it is complete, I can ship it once to the actual owner. Just as the CFO offices completed transfers for restricteds after the OIC... as long as the transaction began before the prohibition.
Click to expand...

But didn't the FRT you are trying to ride the coattails of just went prohib yesterday? so you are selling because you said you don't have an FRT yet and you don't need one, if this is what you are standing on, then what is stopping another vendor in the future to mass produce a copy of a "Newly" prohibited firearms (with different name and minor modification) and start selling 2 minutes after an FRT application? this can be repeated multiple times in the next 23 month as long as you submit a new FRT application every time and make sure it is named differently.
 
Last edited:
I suspect it may be because the overall function of the rifle is considered NR. There is nothing in the Firearms Act that would make this Prohibited. As mentioned before, the FRT is an opinion, not law. If it is legal to build and sell NR rifles in Canada without an FRT, then would this not be gtg?
 
Humblepie said:
I suspect it may be because the overall function of the rifle is considered NR. There is nothing in the Firearms Act that would make this Prohibited. As mentioned before, the FRT is an opinion, not law. If it is legal to build and sell NR rifles in Canada without an FRT, then would this not be gtg?
Click to expand...

if that is the logic behind it...there is a huge loophole in the logic and my scenario above can be used to exploit the newly prohibed firearms until the law is changed.
 
Hey all! I am new here, but very interested in this! So, if i scoop this product & a standard AR15 Lower parts kit, this becomes a non restricted rifle? A bit confused!
 
fluidmax said:
if that is the logic behind it...there is a huge loophole in the logic and my scenario above can be used to exploit the newly prohibed firearms until the law is changed.
Click to expand...

The problem is that the RCMP overstepped and declared the Modern Sporter prohibited. There was zero rational for that move as according to every interpretation of the law it is a non-restricted rifle. If it had been explicitly named in the OIC that would be a different story, but it was not.
 
Humblepie said:
I suspect it may be because the overall function of the rifle is considered NR. There is nothing in the Firearms Act that would make this Prohibited. As mentioned before, the FRT is an opinion, not law. If it is legal to build and sell NR rifles in Canada without an FRT, then would this not be gtg?
Click to expand...

I wonder if it will take 1-2 years for the RCMP Lab to announce the classification of the Sterling Arms TR?? Noooot! They move quick when it serves their purposes aka civilian disarmament...
 
rifleman762 said:
I wonder if it will take 1-2 years for the RCMP Lab to announce the classification of the Sterling Arms TR?? Noooot! They move quick when it serves their purposes aka civilian disarmament...
Click to expand...

It would also be in our favour. I cannot see that the RCMP have full power to prohibit firearms that would be NR under the Firearms Act. Even if the RCMP are given the discretion to be the Judges of firearms, represented in the Act, they can still be wrong. Just as Judges have their rulings overturned likely every day somewhere in Canada.
 
Our laws are being stomped on daily... and daily Mike in Canmore runs out of space in his house to store all his firearms.

https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/c-46/section-117.15-20150618.html

(2) In making regulations, the Governor in Council may not prescribe any thing to be a prohibited firearm, a restricted firearm, a prohibited weapon, a restricted weapon, a prohibited device or prohibited ammunition if, in the opinion of the Governor in Council, the thing to be prescribed is reasonable for use in Canada for hunting or sporting purposes.
 
might be time to take the RCMP back to court to provide a clear response to their"variant" excuse,,they'll probably back out AGAIN,,as to not have to describe their "variant" parameters,because they would lose that case,they always back ot when they know they can't win,it's just they thing they have Fuhrer Turdo covering their back,wont be the same game once they see the Fuhrer is about to get thrown out on his ass,
 
Wiskey1 said:
might be time to take the RCMP back to court to provide a clear response to their"variant" excuse,,they'll probably back out AGAIN,,as to not have to describe their "variant" parameters,because they would lose that case,they always back ot when they know they can't win,it's just they thing they have Fuhrer Turdo covering their back,wont be the same game once they see the Fuhrer is about to get thrown out on his ass,
Click to expand...

Especially when things they have already declared "not a variant of" are being declared "a variant of" in the OIC. Clear as mud for sure.

Edit: But this does show that Trudeau and Blair no longer respect the "expertise" of the RCMP Firearms Lab.
 
Last edited:
Is there any way the cad files for this be made public? I can think of many ways it could be modified forever.
 
Wiskey1 said:
might be time to take the RCMP back to court to provide a clear response to their"variant" excuse,,they'll probably back out AGAIN,,as to not have to describe their "variant" parameters,because they would lose that case,they always back ot when they know they can't win,it's just they thing they have Fuhrer Turdo covering their back,wont be the same game once they see the Fuhrer is about to get thrown out on his ass,
Click to expand...

The word 'variant' in the dictionary, is described as a 'slight' difference.

The very fact that the upper and lower could not mate together, should pass the beyond variant test.

Clearly, the Prohibitions are not based on legal NR function as prescribed by the Firearms Act.

Just appearance alone. That likely will not hold up in court....if it ever makes it there.
 
Humblepie said:
The word 'variant' in the dictionary, is described as a 'slight' difference.

The very fact that the upper and lower could not mate together, should pass the beyond variant test.

Clearly, the Prohibitions are not based on legal NR function as prescribed by the Firearms Act.

Just appearance alone. That likely will not hold up in court....if it ever makes it there.
Click to expand...

They once duct taped an upper to a lower, and made it fire once. That was good enough.
 
Mr Freeze said:
Our laws are being stomped on daily... and daily Mike in Canmore runs out of space in his house to store all his firearms.

https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/c-46/section-117.15-20150618.html

(2) In making regulations, the Governor in Council may not prescribe any thing to be a prohibited firearm, a restricted firearm, a prohibited weapon, a restricted weapon, a prohibited device or prohibited ammunition if, in the opinion of the Governor in Council, the thing to be prescribed is reasonable for use in Canada for hunting or sporting purposes.
Click to expand...

That one word gives the government carte blanche.
 
Armed Hippie said:
Kenny needs to make a stand on this issue. There are ways in which a provincial government can exempt their province from this bs. Maybe not so much the import aspects but certainly the use and maybe local production. Hence, Quebec’s exemption to bring back the long gun registry.

If Kenny hasn’t already, he needs to get in touch with JR and other Albertan gun dealers/manufacturers. Alberta’s economy needs every option available for staying afloat during and after covid. I think encouraging the manufacture of high quality firearms for not just provincial, but international sale would employ dozens to hundreds and bring much needed profit to Alberta’s economy.
Click to expand...

x2
we need King Ralph back...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom