I know of no reverse onus in a case like this, it is the crown that is in charge of proving beyond a shadow of a doubt that the change occurred more than 30 days ago. You are still innocent until proven guilty in this country. Not to mention you could charter challenge any reverse onus should one be in place.
Will the AR ever be Non-Restricted, again?
- Thread starter M4-OPERATOR
- Start date
I know of no reverse onus in a case like this, it is the crown that is in charge of proving beyond a shadow of a doubt that the change occurred more than 30 days ago. You are still innocent until proven guilty in this country. Not to mention you could charter challenge any reverse onus should one be in place.
We will probably have a better chance of getting the requirement for an ATT removed, thus allowing us to take restricted firearms anywhere we can take non-restricted, therefore the only difference will be the license requirement. This has a better chance of happening in the near future. Then, once people start to see that the country is not a deadlier place because restricted can be discharged under the same regulations as non-restricted, and restricted are no more dangerous, we can work on getting rid of the restricted category all together, or a least at first the restricted rifle category, then all restricted.
One of the main reason people stay away from restricted is them being limited to the range. If they were not limited to the range, then more people would be interested and more people will purchase handguns, and rifles like the AR if they can hunt or shoot them in the bush. This will increase the amount of people fighting to get rid of the restricted category, thus increasing our chances, so in other words, reduce the "I don't have restricted so it does not affect me" mentality that we see so much.
Most people want the war won in one big offensive, but it will take several smaller battles over time to get our goals accomplished.
One of the main reason people stay away from restricted is them being limited to the range. If they were not limited to the range, then more people would be interested and more people will purchase handguns, and rifles like the AR if they can hunt or shoot them in the bush. This will increase the amount of people fighting to get rid of the restricted category, thus increasing our chances, so in other words, reduce the "I don't have restricted so it does not affect me" mentality that we see so much.
Most people want the war won in one big offensive, but it will take several smaller battles over time to get our goals accomplished.
blaxsun
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
Wouldn't that be great!
Another option is getting the ATT altered so they are a general authorization to transport, this might be easier then getting rid of it all together, but generally having the same effect. IE you can transport them anywhere. The reasoning behind this is the Antis will still have the "feel safe' factor of all restricted owners having to have authorization to transport their firearms allowing a better chance of happening, but we can take them anywhere non-restricted can go. After a few years, it would be easier to eliminate the need altogether.
You know what, enjoy your AR while you can and when the cops come knocking, give them your rifle and cry.
I do not see the ARs being unrestricted ever, in fact I expect a huge "let's collect them all" party (i.e. confiscation) in my life time...
Addition: I do send out letters, contribute to CSSA/NFA, talk about issues and encourage fellow shooters at the range to join the fight.
I do not see the ARs being unrestricted ever, in fact I expect a huge "let's collect them all" party (i.e. confiscation) in my life time...
Addition: I do send out letters, contribute to CSSA/NFA, talk about issues and encourage fellow shooters at the range to join the fight.
Last edited:
Yeah i see this coming soon, possibly sooner then we all might think! Just a bad feeling though.
The thing about those two guns is the small numbers make it easy to confiscate. The T97 I believe there is around 35, not sure of the HS10B but I read they are rarer than the SPAS12 was.
According to this thread, there are over 4000 ARs registered under the model name 'AR-15' and the general consensus of that thread was there were many thousands more under different model names.
http://www.canadiangunnutz.com/forum/showthread.php?t=291380
Removing the requirement for an ATT would be nice, but largely symbolic since discharge regulations are still there and confine restricteds to ranges.
A "better" solution IMO would be to get the definitions altered so that no long-gun can fall into the "restricted" category.
Such a definition would need to be extremely carefully crafted however. For example if we stick to the conventional "designed or adapted to be operated with one hand" definition, it's only a matter of time before the RCMP decides that all semi-autos should be restricted based on the fact that you need only one hand to pull the trigger, the gun itself does all the work. And since even a pistol requires a 2nd hand to rack the slide to chamber the 1st round, well, you get the idea.
Mind you if we were to go that route, we would still have to contend with that pesky little item that is designed to keep people from sawing off barrels of non-restricted firearms as they please. Lots of folks out there have used the fact that it only applies to non-restricted firearms to chop the barrels off their restricted firearms to as short as they can while the firearm is still functional. Many, many, many people would now be facing serious jail time as a result.
A "better" solution IMO would be to get the definitions altered so that no long-gun can fall into the "restricted" category.
Such a definition would need to be extremely carefully crafted however. For example if we stick to the conventional "designed or adapted to be operated with one hand" definition, it's only a matter of time before the RCMP decides that all semi-autos should be restricted based on the fact that you need only one hand to pull the trigger, the gun itself does all the work. And since even a pistol requires a 2nd hand to rack the slide to chamber the 1st round, well, you get the idea.
Mind you if we were to go that route, we would still have to contend with that pesky little item that is designed to keep people from sawing off barrels of non-restricted firearms as they please. Lots of folks out there have used the fact that it only applies to non-restricted firearms to chop the barrels off their restricted firearms to as short as they can while the firearm is still functional. Many, many, many people would now be facing serious jail time as a result.
That is the ultimate fear, and de-restricting the AR may in fact unintentionally trigger such an event.
Let me explain my train of thought, ya'll tell me if my logic is flawed at some point as I have given the subject considerable thought.
AR's basically come in 3 distinct flavors.
Factory made, complete rifles with an original barrel lenght that, would it not be for the OIC which deems them restricted, would be non restricted. I will refer to these further by "category A" or cat A for short.
Factory made, complete rifles with an original barrel lenght which would remain restricted regardless based on barrel lenght. Cat B
And home-built jobs assembled from a lower in various state of completion. Cat C
AR owners generally own a single lower of their liking, and various uppers to suit their taste of the day(many of them anyway).
When it comes to Cat A rifles, well if you own a Cat B upper (or God forbid a Cat C upper whose barreled you at some point chopped off), once the Minister signs off on an OIC which removes the AR-15 design from the "deemed restricted" list, that upper is now either an expensive paperweight similar to 12(2) thru 12(5) rifles, or a prohibited weapon, since the very second that you dare push in that front pin to put it on your "non-restricted" lower, you have now created a prohibited weapon and made yourself a criminal.
Cat B owners would be largely untouched since existing regs would still apply and you can do pretty much whatever the hell you want barrel-wise with a restricted firearm. Your AR would still be confined to the range only however.
Cat C is where it gets interesting, and scary. Those fine folks would most-likely fall into the "home-built firearm" regs, which stipulate that it must be submitted to the RCMP for "evaluation". Now say the RCMP would put in place an internal "policy" that they won't "evaluate" more than one "home-built-firearm" a year, something that is well within their power in the existing law, and you won't ever see your precious firearm again.
Then there's this whole business of people whom have made it a habit of installing all sort of parts inside their S/A AR's which were intended to be used in F/A firearms .... Given the fact that the RCMP has made it a habit of tinkering with "new" S/A firearms (using a full team of engineers, master gunsmiths, and a ridiculously-well equipped machine shop no less) until they can get a firearm to fire twice with a single pull of the trigger just so they can "reject" and seize it and well, you get the idea.
I cite as an example a firearm known as the M96, which is no longer manufactured but opened a hellova can of worm merely a few years ago when it was available with uppers (the thing used a two-pin upper/lower system quite similar to the AR, but the internals were quite different) of both restricted and non-restricted barrel lenghts.
Since the CFC/RCMP won't (not like they can't while staying within the law) issue multiple registration certificates for the same firearm ... You get the idea.
Let me explain my train of thought, ya'll tell me if my logic is flawed at some point as I have given the subject considerable thought.
AR's basically come in 3 distinct flavors.
Factory made, complete rifles with an original barrel lenght that, would it not be for the OIC which deems them restricted, would be non restricted. I will refer to these further by "category A" or cat A for short.
Factory made, complete rifles with an original barrel lenght which would remain restricted regardless based on barrel lenght. Cat B
And home-built jobs assembled from a lower in various state of completion. Cat C
AR owners generally own a single lower of their liking, and various uppers to suit their taste of the day(many of them anyway).
When it comes to Cat A rifles, well if you own a Cat B upper (or God forbid a Cat C upper whose barreled you at some point chopped off), once the Minister signs off on an OIC which removes the AR-15 design from the "deemed restricted" list, that upper is now either an expensive paperweight similar to 12(2) thru 12(5) rifles, or a prohibited weapon, since the very second that you dare push in that front pin to put it on your "non-restricted" lower, you have now created a prohibited weapon and made yourself a criminal.
Cat B owners would be largely untouched since existing regs would still apply and you can do pretty much whatever the hell you want barrel-wise with a restricted firearm. Your AR would still be confined to the range only however.
Cat C is where it gets interesting, and scary. Those fine folks would most-likely fall into the "home-built firearm" regs, which stipulate that it must be submitted to the RCMP for "evaluation". Now say the RCMP would put in place an internal "policy" that they won't "evaluate" more than one "home-built-firearm" a year, something that is well within their power in the existing law, and you won't ever see your precious firearm again.
Then there's this whole business of people whom have made it a habit of installing all sort of parts inside their S/A AR's which were intended to be used in F/A firearms .... Given the fact that the RCMP has made it a habit of tinkering with "new" S/A firearms (using a full team of engineers, master gunsmiths, and a ridiculously-well equipped machine shop no less) until they can get a firearm to fire twice with a single pull of the trigger just so they can "reject" and seize it and well, you get the idea.
I cite as an example a firearm known as the M96, which is no longer manufactured but opened a hellova can of worm merely a few years ago when it was available with uppers (the thing used a two-pin upper/lower system quite similar to the AR, but the internals were quite different) of both restricted and non-restricted barrel lenghts.
Since the CFC/RCMP won't (not like they can't while staying within the law) issue multiple registration certificates for the same firearm ... You get the idea.
That's the problem, reverse-onus, to my knowledge, has never been successfully struck down by the courts to this day on "public safety" grounds .... So these days virtually every new CCC (Criminal Code of Canada) altering-bill includes some form of reverse onus.
Read the law carefully, understand it.
Read the law carefully, understand it.
aftermidnight
CGN frequent flyer
- Location
- West Kelowna BC
ATC's are firearm specific. You dont just get a blanket ATC. No one is going to issue an ATC listing 'AR15 and/or variant'.
It's only a Order in Council, which are done all the time. what you have to do is change attitude to firearms first. With the growth of AR's for hunting south of us, it is a good case for making some changes, the problem of course is once open they will likley want to add some of the newer guns to the list. Before opening the regulation up for changes you will want the methodolgy for grading firearms to be hammered down to something somewhat reasonable and slightly intelligent. it can be done, but a lot of footwork to get there need to be done yet.
The main problem, as I see it, is that the AR is modular.
Any lower (for the most part - and remember that's the part with the serial number and is such considered the firearm) can fit almost any upper, simply by driving out the front pivot pin. Since I can put a 11.5" barrel on the lower I have, that would make it restricted based on barrel length alone, let alone overall length (BTW, does anyone know the OAL of an 11.5" bbl M4 with the collapsible stock when the stock is collapsed?)
AFAIK, there are uppers with even shorter barrels available in the US.
What needs to happen, I think, is that the Government needs to go back to the old Overall Length (26") rule to determine what is and is not restricted. That would make most AR's non-restricted overnight. You aren't going to conceal a 26" long firearm very easily, unless you happen to be over 7 ft tall.
Any lower (for the most part - and remember that's the part with the serial number and is such considered the firearm) can fit almost any upper, simply by driving out the front pivot pin. Since I can put a 11.5" barrel on the lower I have, that would make it restricted based on barrel length alone, let alone overall length (BTW, does anyone know the OAL of an 11.5" bbl M4 with the collapsible stock when the stock is collapsed?)
AFAIK, there are uppers with even shorter barrels available in the US.
What needs to happen, I think, is that the Government needs to go back to the old Overall Length (26") rule to determine what is and is not restricted. That would make most AR's non-restricted overnight. You aren't going to conceal a 26" long firearm very easily, unless you happen to be over 7 ft tall.
ATCs are not always firearm specific. For example, your range membership should say something along the lines of 'authorized to transport restricted firearms to such and such range'.
aftermidnight
CGN frequent flyer
- Location
- West Kelowna BC
Cancer - that is an AT"T" - Transport only. The other was AT"C" - Carry..
