r/canadaguns • u/SuccessSeparate9014 • Jun 13 '26

Misc Crypto Question

Post image

If the ccfr win the case. Will crypto owners need to legally register the crypto as a ar15 or would owners be in possession of a legally prohibited firearm as the frt came out after the ar15 2020 prohibition.

117 Upvotes

97% Upvoted

64 comments sorted by

71

u/Frank23682 Jun 13 '26

It will depend heavily on how the ruling goes in the court case. The ruling is not going to be a binary "we win" or "they win" but rather many possible outcomes

24

u/Enough_Challenge7264 Jun 14 '26 edited Jun 14 '26

I wholeheartedly disagree. The very question before the court is binary. "Is the OIC, arrived at and implemented in the way it has been, constitutionally legal?"

If the answer is yes, we lose. The Federal Liberals will have been operating within their authorities.

When the answer arrived at is no, the OIC, and it's several iterations, will be deemed unconstitutional, and a government overreach, where their authorities are concerned.

Taking into account Trudeau's tyrannically diseased mind at the time (forced vaccinations, implementation of the emergencies act, the strong arming of his own Minister of Justice and Attorney General, the pouring in of Indians (1.4 million of them)), he'll have no friends at the SCC. Law is about balance to achieve liberty, not the leveraging of it to impose the will of an individual, or a group of individuals (poly and Kebec Krew or miscreants).

@ the OP, when the SCC overrules the OIC insanity, everything will most likely revert to it's classification prior to the implementation. If the Crypto was NR..."what rifle officer?" is the answer. If the Crypto was restricted, it's already a registered AR.

All handgun restrictions are lifted...life will be like it was in 2015. Well, aside from Indians everywhere you look that is.

13

u/SuccessSeparate9014 Jun 14 '26

As a second generation indian I agree there are way too many Indians in Canada. The use of the immigration system was obviously abused and the liberals did absolutely nothing.

10

u/HungryFollowing8909 Jun 15 '26

Life going back to pre-2015 would be a dream. Gas at 1.10 at MOST, no tiptoeing at work because an HR rep might get you fired, work on projects gets actually completed...

2

u/Jman4647 Jun 15 '26

Wait, do I gotta go back to work at the gas station, or do I get to keep my current role? 

2

u/Hopeful_Relation_441 Jun 15 '26

from my understanding if the OIC is lifted it would be easier to but an AR than a hand gun.... handguns were done as laws ... OIC was just a non debated pen stroke

0

u/Frank23682 Jun 15 '26

There are several aspects to the challenge. One of the possible scenarios is that the judge deems the OIC legal but finds the term "variants" intentionally vague in which case whilst explicit OIC ban list guns stay prohibited the Crypto or Modern Sporter would no longer be prohibited (at least until another OIC inevitably comes along in this scenario)

3

u/Enough_Challenge7264 Jun 15 '26

No. This is not before the court.

0

u/Frank23682 Jun 15 '26

That's not true... Just take a look at the application for leave, paragraph 29-35 pretty much all revolve around the usage to the term "variants" and argument that it is unconstitutionally vague

2

u/Enough_Challenge7264 Jun 15 '26

This argument was part and parcel of the argument to get the SCC to hear the matter.

The SCC isn't being asked to determine whether the term variant is constitutional.

1

u/Frank23682 Jun 15 '26

I'm really confused by what you're saying here. Are you saying you have insider information that this argument won't be brought up during the hearing by CCFR? Why would they not bring this up when it's central to the constitutional challenge? Or are you saying that there's no way the courts will render a decision on this argument and will just dance around it like the lower courts did?

3

u/Enough_Challenge7264 Jun 15 '26

No insider information, just an inkling as to how law works. The argument that the language in the OIC is ambiguous wherever it classifies a rifle as a variant will go nowhere. The Supremes would shrug shoulders and simply say to the government "clarify what is banned via the OIC." Done and done. If the CCFR's legal team is this retarded, we need a new team, now!

No. The reason the Supreme Court of Canada gave leave to hear the case is because there is something of interest to them from a Constitutional Law perspective, not a grammatical one.

OIC's have been in use since the very beginning of Canada. John A. MacDonald used the expansion of the Americans West as a reason to require Parliament to grant him leave to utilize the new order-in-council provisions so he could quickly ramp up investment for the rail line push to the Pacific. Land was expropriated, procedural corners were cut, but it got done, and, most importantly, via the sanction of Parliament. No Senate, no Royal Assent, it was the government asking the elected representatives of the house, if they would allow him to act without the Kings official blessings. Thousands if not tens of thousands of OIC's have been used since to implement sweeping legislative changes secretly and publically. It is the use, or rather the abuse of the OIC that the Supremes wish to look at through a Constitutional lens.

Never forget that our system of governance has the Judiciary as a separate body from the government. Checks and balances against tyrannical abuse of power. And I'm confident that when discussing the abuse of power, that little fajgot Trudeau ticks all the boxes.

Despite how OIC's are used, the Supremes will focus on their intended legislative tool use. Once that is established, they will view how Trudeau and his handlers (Trudeau lacks a moral compass, and is far too stupid to navigate Constitutional Law on his own), applied these several OIC's and they will look for consistency in application. Any deviation from normal and intended usage had better be for a very salient reason...I don't believe the incoherent wail of pup can banshee Provost will cut it. I'm almost sure the surreptitious recording of Gary Alphabet, the Minister for Public Safety, stating that the OIC's are nothing more than political pantomime, will be of more than a passing interest to them, and should certainly bear more evidentiary weight than the use and abuse of the word "variant".

Donate cash to the CCFR though. Without them, we'd be fuked.

3

u/Frank23682 Jun 15 '26 edited Jun 15 '26

Fair enough, to paraphrase if I understand correctly is that you are essentially saying that a ruling that only addresses the variant argument whilst dismissing the other arguments would be equivalent to a loss for us. In which case I agree with that and I did write in an earlier comment that this will inevitably lead to another OIC later down the line.

But I still think you are misunderstanding the arguments that CCFR and friends are making. The only part that revolves around constitutional law IS the the vagueness argument (the usage of the term "variants" or "modified versions" in the OICs.) The general argument against the OIC and GiC's actions being ultra vires is a reasonableness argument revolving around a subsection of the Criminal Code (subsection 117.15(2), reasonable for use in Canada for hunting or sporting purposes.) and NOT the Constitution.

So if your sense is that the SCC took the case because they have an interest from a Constitutional Law perspective then that means they are actually honing in on the constitutional vagueness argument, not the ultra vires argument.

94

u/Sea_Jaguar2040 Jun 13 '26

After the way we have been treated it's time to stop asking permission. What we own is no one's business and we need to get back to that as a free people it's time to take our power back from government

25

u/Cope180-Enjoyer Jun 13 '26

The social contract is broken. You can't keep changing the rules.

16

u/MasterScore8739 Jun 14 '26

This right here.

As childish as it sounds, you can’t continually change the rules and expect everyone to just keep following them.

The rules have been more or less the same for years and never caused such massive problems as we’re seeing now. Firearms owners typically accepted, but naturally still ‘complained’ about the rules.

The biggest gripes were the silly magazine rules. The legal loopholes entirely defeated the capacity laws by using the “what the magazine was designed and intended for use in” clause. Don’t get me wrong, I enjoyed it and had multiple 10rd pistol magazines while never owning a pistol.

The second issue was the “by name” stupidity. If the firearm met the definition of a Prohibited, Restricted or Non-Restricted then it should have fallen into that classification. Outside of those two things, I’ve never heard many (serious) complaints about the laws.

The last 6 years have been pure insanity. With the continual changes of what’s legal, it doesn’t even make any sense to even look at the laws anymore. What’s legal today might not be legal tomorrow depending on how the big man in office is feeling when he rolls out of bed.

28

u/Cre_AK47 Name Prohibited by OIC Jun 13 '26 edited Jun 13 '26

Yeah, while I can't legally encourage to break the law, but irrespective of the SCoC case outcome, you basically have an unregistered AR15, something not seen since 90s. This includes rifles like the ATRS Modern Sporter, BCL Coyote, Raven556, Maccabee Defense SLR, etc.

So make do with that information however you like... :)

10

u/OperatorBadger Jun 14 '26

Still NR, not an ar15, proprietary design not compatible with an ar15 and c21 compliant, wasn't mentioned in any OIC bans.

FRT is not a legal instrument, it says this disclaimer before you open the document and on the 2nd page of it.

Therefore the RCMPs prohibited FRT for the Crypto is just an opinion and that alone, not law. If it was law they should have and probably would have prevented the sale of it for the 9 months Crusader and other retailers sold it and taken legal action as well for selling a prohibited firearm which they did not.

Until it's put in a OIC it's still NR. If people keep letting the Govt & RCMP walk all over us then we'll never win.

2

u/CanadianGunNoob Jun 14 '26

you aren't wrong, but most people don't want to be holding a rifle that appears on the list that the cops reference when deciding if they are going to arrest you or not. You might beat the charge, but it's going to make for a very bad day and an expensive lawyer bill.

33

u/Kuzuba Jun 13 '26 edited Jun 13 '26

Wasn't the crypto designed and received a NR FRT before it was added prohibited?

If that's the case then if CCFR wins it will go back to NR.

The whole "variant" bogus is precisely one of the reasons why the supreme court wants to hear this I would assume. The intentional vagueness is contrary to how good laws should be written.

Edit: thanks for the update. Im ill informed.

23

u/hockeyfanatic777 Jun 13 '26

Never got an FRT.

8

u/SuccessSeparate9014 Jun 13 '26

It eventually did and it came out as prohibited

4

u/why-V-are Jun 14 '26

Hopefully one day the legitimacy of the FRT (vs legislation) will be put to the test. I suspect the legislation will win over the FRT.

2

u/CanadianGunNoob Jun 14 '26

For that someone is going to need to be charged, and a prosecutor has to decide to prosecute. Any sane prosecutor is not going to touch a case that will set that president.

8

u/AdeptArt Jun 13 '26

I don’t think it had an FRT but correct me if i’m wrong 

19

u/JaxIsLoud Jun 13 '26

It did not. They shipped them prior to getting one.

29

u/milanskiv Jun 13 '26

In Canada FRT is mandatory only for export and import. You can sell domestically prior to getting a FRT entry. Liberals are , or at least were , trying to change that

13

u/JaxIsLoud Jun 13 '26

I understand this. But had they waited to get an frt they wouldnt have had so many customers who hand their gun for a short period, people who's firearm got banned in the mail. People's whos firearm got banned prior to shipping. There were also plenty of storys about people who's firearm never shipped and they did not get refunded. And frt doesn't make the gun safe from band but it does help make it feel safer.

21

u/milanskiv Jun 13 '26

Crusader game is to sell as many guns as they can before the gun gets banned, change the tooling a bit, release a new gun and do it again.

13

u/JaxIsLoud Jun 13 '26

See backland hunters showing up with chopped up crypto parts LMFAO.

5

u/AdeptArt Jun 13 '26

Do you not know anything about Crusader? I doubt they care.

9

u/HatchingCougar Jun 13 '26

Blame the govt, not the manufacturer

The manufacturer complied with the law.  To argue that they are obligated to do more than complying, is asinine 

12

u/ekso69 Jun 13 '26

They didn't even apply for one, I heard that straight from the owners mouth. "Doesn't have one, doesn't need one"

-1

u/JaxIsLoud Jun 13 '26

That's shady as fuck. No fucks for the customer.

21

u/HatchingCougar Jun 13 '26

If it’s NR and wasn’t imported, it in fact doesn’t need one.

-8

u/Elbro_16 Jun 13 '26

But for the sake of your customers it’s better to have one before you start selling it

13

u/HatchingCougar Jun 13 '26

It’s irrelevant.   The govt isn’t banning firearms based on whether they have an FRT or not.

0

u/Elbro_16 Jun 13 '26

The fact is, it received an frt after the bans. I wouldn’t even buy the backland hunter until it gets a frt

8

u/HatchingCougar Jun 13 '26

Plenty of firearms have gotten FRTs and then shortly after been banned

Again, an FRT is irrelevant as to whether a firearm has or will be banned or not.    <- read that again, a few times if you must.

3

u/Dependent_Account603 Jun 14 '26

It was banned as an AR-15 variant Wouldn't have been banned if not for the 2020 OIC. If rescinded, should become legal. But who knows. Don't expect logic from the govt.

2

u/Hopeful_Relation_441 Jun 15 '26

they are probably drafting laws incase it fails

8

u/NIBLZ_HAMSTR Jun 13 '26

Any time I see a crusader arms firearm I shudder..... that company is a dumpster fire.

12

u/[deleted] Jun 13 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

6

u/NIBLZ_HAMSTR Jun 13 '26

I have a huge story about a disastrous experience ordering a templar from them... I ordered a templar with a 9mm conversion kit.. they shipped me a crusader 9, with a 556 upper... no bolt for the .556, and the upper was incomplete. Since the shipped me a crusader 9, it had the wrong stock on it and after pulling teeth, they shipped me the right stock (that i had to pay $400 extra for), but with no adaptor. So now i have the wrong gun and an extra stock that i cant use for anything. They did send me the bolt for the .556, and finished the .556 upper, but by that time (took over a year to get this settled) they were classified as prohibited... but its never been fired and all together probably cost in the neighborhood of $3000. (Long story short)

2

u/NIBLZ_HAMSTR Jun 13 '26

I had to block my number so he'd answer my calls and wouldn't return emails... it was brutal.

8

u/PrestigiousStatus711 Jun 13 '26

I think the crypto receiver set was the only decent thing they made. Build it out with quality AR parts and it is great. 

3

u/Simple_Address1934 Jun 13 '26

At least they trying to get around with the law. After crypro they lanuched the backland hunter and comp. From crypto, seems they know they dont have abillity to deisign something complicated, so just modify matured platform.

11

u/ekso69 Jun 13 '26

Crypto was a bad purchase and I admit it now. It's not even eligible for the buyback program, just straight up banned. RIP.

33

u/milanskiv Jun 13 '26

There are chads out there who bought crypto as a basically NR AR15z

17

u/Relevant_Diver_3228 Jun 13 '26

Why would you turn it in to the buyback they aren't going to give you any money for any of the guns

24

u/thecoolernameistaken Jun 13 '26

Nah. Good purchase. The receivers were sold as non restricted.

9

u/[deleted] Jun 13 '26 edited Jun 13 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

3

u/hockeyfanatic777 Jun 13 '26

They may have an FRT now, but I wouldn’t be surprised if they don’t get revoked/reclassified as prohibited in the near future. The gov, sorry, NATALIE, can’t handle gopher/pop can rifles, never mind these new ones on the market.

2

u/Weak-Coffee-8538 Jun 13 '26

Why can't this country logical and just find mental health and poverty the way it should be funded.

Instead they have lapdoga barking this and that.

Trump starts wars to distract from his pedo files/scandals and the Liberals have guns to distract people from their scandals.

1

u/Velosity79 Jun 13 '26

This lack of intellect right here is the reason Canada is spiralling down the drain.

2

u/ImTheeDentist Jun 15 '26

the cope here is insane - it's been years, the CCFR is not going to overturn the case and the OIC is here to stay.

unless gun owners in this country stop taking it in the ass while resorting to "i'll just write a really angry letter to my MP" and instead focus on strategies like mass non-compliance you'll keep asking if your cope rod made the crudely named grift company is 'ever going to be anything besides a paper weight'

2

u/Neat_Imagination2503 Jun 14 '26

The Supreme Court case literally does not mean shit and I’m tired of pretending it does. Even if the CCFR win, all they are arguing is the way the firearms were banned was unconstitutional. Now that s bunch of cons (fuckwits) crossed the floor they will just pass a law banning them in a legal way with their majority..

3

u/CanadianGunNoob Jun 14 '26

It's a fragile majority, and the political capital required for something like this has become a lot more expensive lately. There is a good chance the Liberals will have lost their majority though MPs leaving by the time the court case is decided. At very least, it's given us another year for something to happen to change the outcome. Got to take what we can get at this point.

0

u/OvertPlatypus Jun 14 '26 edited Jun 15 '26

What if someone just sold an ar15 on the open market? Call it the non restricted or whatever. Crypto was essentially that in the eyes of the law. Change the pin holes of course 

0

u/Jak_Aurora Jun 15 '26

Idk why anyone has any hope of the CCFR winning when the courts always side with the government

3

u/Candid-Tomato2971 Jun 15 '26

Not necessarily, look at the federal Judge's finding on the Emergenices Act