Walther G22
- Thread starter gobrob
- Start date
Red Star said:
Ooohhh, good attempt at a backpedal...Red Star said:
"I don't know how I got so lucky, but I guess because I said it worked for me and said someone somewhere said it was all good that I was right based on my own experiences. I didn't mean to make you all think I was the man with the answers, I was just a little behind the curve but I've caught up now; seems you all may be right but I am right too so can't we all just get along."
Bull.
You're either a deliberate troll or a poor BS'er that thought he could spin some little stories and everyone would say, "Gee, that Redstar knows so much, he's a great guy - and wow, can you believe what sorta info that guy can find? Let's throw him a parade!!"
Go find a bridge or a clue or both...
Mr. Fraser's note doesn't make sense. He states that bullpup stocks are prohibited devices, and that possession of the G22 with stock attached is in contravention of the Criminal Code. OK. If it is the stock which is a prohibited device, the presence of the the barreled action is irrelevant. His use of the term "attached" suggests that he is aware of this. He then states that the legal classification of the G22 is prohibited. He has gone from a prohibited device (a stock) to a prohibited firearm. This is quite a leap because a prohibited device is not a prohibited firearm. There are procedures for declaring a firearm to be prohibited but there does not appear to have been any such process applied here.
vitriol said:
It's a bullpup rifle. The law only states that bullpup stocks are prohibited. The reason that the dsr is legal is that it cannot be fired without the bullpup stock. The G22 can fire with it's stock removed which makes the stock prohibited.
Confusing isn't it.
The whole G22 case is under appeal which is why a person who owns a G22 with stock can still own it. But you cannot transfer nor aquire a G22 at this time.
vitriol said:The G22 can be fired without the stock? You sure about that?
Confusing? Hell yes
Positive. The stock is not integral to the reciever.
That aside, the main point is Red Star was wrong about saying that they changed the ruling on the G22. It's still the same old bull ####.
It speaks...and it's not saying much...you realize the people that you say ar 'BSing' are the people empowered to interpret the law?Red Star said:
BS'ing is what you do, when you say something outlandish that you can't in any way back up.
The above quote isn't BS, it's backed up by the fact that, contrary to what you claimed/retracted/obfuscated, these rifles aren't being sold, can't be transfered, and potentially could be seized. That's kinda the opposite of BS.
I don't like it, but that's the way it is...
Red Star said:
SUre they are bs-ing.
Oh and is this what you are talking about?
Because this is true. Bullpup rifles are not prohibited. We already brought up this with the DSR-1 shown here:
Notice that the reciever is the part that makes this a bullpup. This is non restricted.
Now bullpup stocks on the other hand are specifically named as a prohibited device. T
Now re-read the letter and you see why you are full of ####.
If you still don't think it's true you may want to check these sites out:
http://www.cdnshootingsports.org/special_bull.html
Notice how it mention's that the stock is prohibited. Also notice how it's the RCMP who have determined it.
Or how about this site from the CFC:
http://www.cfc-cafc.gc.ca/compliance-conformite/bulletins/verifier/bulletin1_e.asp
Maybe all of the CFC is mistaken.
i know this is going out on a limb trying to get something that probebly isnt there but does anyone have an clue at all why the government has decided that bullpup stocks are prohib but bull pup rifles arnt ? how are they any differnt or more dangerous then a standard monte-carlo or choate stock ?
