r/canadaguns • u/Esan-256 qb • Sep 15 '20
CFO and Technician in Ottawa's take on the ATRS Modern Sporter
Hi everyone, I am making that post to share my conversation on the ATRS Modern Sporter that I had yesterday with a CFO and a technician in Ottawa.
So I originally ordered a full build of a Modern Sporter about a year ago and finally received it in early September of this year. I called the CFO to inquire about the new status of the rifle and the grey area that some of us are:
- Does the 2 years amnesty period for the newly prohibited guns applies as well for the ATRS Modern Sporter since it is now prohibited but not part of the ban on the 1rst of May?
- Why was the ATRS Modern Sporter prohibited after the ban and not at the same time?
- Why was the classification of the ATRS Modern Sporter changed?
It took some time to get an answer from the CFO who didn't seem to understand my point at first which was: The hypothetical buyback program and 2 years amnesty period only applies for the guns that were prohibited on may first. Anything else added by the RCMP after doesn't fall in those kinds of parameters. After a few minutes, the CFO admitted not knowing and suggested to transfer me to a technician in Ottawa who could answer my question, to which I agreed. The technician had this to say:
- The ATRS Modern Sporter is covered by the 2 years amnesty period of the guns prohibition of May 1rst even though it wasn't listed.
- The ATRS Modern Sporter wasn't listed in the newly prohibited guns on May 1rst because it doesn't matter, the list is not an exclusive list. It's a whatever gun is on it and whatever gun applies to it (in their opinion), listed or not.
- The classification of the ATRS Modern Sporter changed because of the new prohibition on May 1rst. It is considered a variant of a now prohibited firearm(s).
- I challenged him on his answer mentioned above; If the ATRS Modern Sporter was non-restricted and the AR-15 was restricted, then it means they didn't thought that the former was a variant the later. He replied that it's because the ATRS Modern Sporter is made up of parts used in the AR-15, AR-10 and some other guns that were made prohibited on may 1rst (So they seems to think that it's a variant of multiple guns, which is ridiculous since it could be applied to literally anything).
- I challenged him again on his latest answer; if it had a different classification than any of theses guns, then it couldn't have been a variant. He replied "well, that's the law now". I don't think he said that in a dishonest way, I think he knew that it doesn't make sense but it was a decision taken way above what that technician can actually do.
I know it not a bright picture of what to expect in a near future, but I still wanted to share with you guys what a firearms technicians for the Canadian Firearms Program in Ottawa had to say about that, which isn't much. Something seems clear though, way more guns will make their way on that list, even more than the 400-ish guns they added on top of the original 1500 guns prohibited on May first.
72
u/binarycrystal Sep 15 '20
And this is exactly why we need a clearly defined definition of "variant" when it comes to firearms.
Jesus, takes parts from the AR-15. Well hell so do most of the NR options companies have created to at least minimize our losses by recycling parts. But nope, once again the RCMP gives us the big old "get fucked".
And to expand on that, IF YOU THINK YOUR BOLT ACTIONS ARE SAFE, THEY ARE NOT!!!
There are at least 2, and will most likely be more "bolt action" receivers that take AR parts. Welcome to the slippery slope.
44
u/thehuntinggearguy 3gun, Mapleseed, YouTuber, SlamFire Radio, Revolver-hater Sep 15 '20
IMO, that's not far enough. The RCMP clearly has an agenda and is bending the rules of law to that agenda, or in this case, just ignoring it and making shit up as they go. Reworking the classification system so that firearms owners are not subject to the whims of the RCMP is the only solution.
15
u/WhackDanielz I <3 shitposts Sep 15 '20
the RCMP have an agenda
I can't imagine why the police would want to have a monopoly on violence...
14
u/binarycrystal Sep 15 '20
I wholeheartedly agree. Ideally reworking the entire firearms program would be the best solution, and finally getting rid of whatever absolute shit show we have now.
11
u/starscr3amsgh0st Sep 15 '20 edited Sep 15 '20
And this is exactly why we need a clearly defined definition of "variant" when it comes to firearms.
That would then ban the Valmet, which means going after indeginous hunters.
Edit: Nevermind, according the firearms act, 3 Valmet rifles are excluded from being considered AK's by name. I still think someone needs to make a Valmet Hunter clone.
29
u/binarycrystal Sep 15 '20
True, which apparently the government is completely willing to bend the knee to indigenous people.
That's probably the part of the OIC that is the most annoying, "not suitable for hunting" except for if you are indigenous, then it's fine for hunting.
With everything JT has done, yeah, unfortunately there is no question. Systemic racism exists in Canada, both in the Firearms Program, and that new grant program, and most of Canadian history. (Mods if this is too far, I'll remove/edit it, just let me know)
15
u/pepethemisunderstood Sep 15 '20
Why would the truth be to far? Your not being a dick about it ; you stated facts. Never apologize for that
17
Sep 15 '20
[deleted]
8
u/JimmyKillem sk Sep 15 '20
Or political posts for some, but not for others. That one grinds my gears
0
u/CanadaGunsMod Sep 16 '20
We had it the other way previously, and the whole thing turned into an endless stream of political rants with no guns. So we put (some) of the politics and (some) of the newbie stuff in a thread, and now there is actual, real, content, and a good amount of it. We're increasing users by about 30 a day, which is great for a little sub like ours.
Like it or not, four of us keep an eye on this thing and even then that's our limit. And if something gets nuked, it's usually because we all decided it. Bans especially, we discuss that shit.
By the "mental issues" comment I'm guessing we banned your alt earlier today.
2
u/JimmyKillem sk Sep 16 '20
Would it make sense if you updated the FAQ/criteria for this, then?
Codify it so it isn't open for debate, and we don't think you're removing it just because of your emotions or opinions.
You've removed a post of mine over your opinion, and obviously a code of conduct/criteria to remove it would have made that a non-issue.
Same goes for political posts. One day an NDP related post will get removed with mention of convincing a candidate to research gun laws, and on that same day, Green party posts litter the sub.
4
Sep 16 '20
I am skeptical how many of the users here would agree that pictures of the same ~6 guns over and over again qualifies as "actual content", but discussion about the future of firearms ownership in this country somehow doesn't. It would be interesting to see a poll on this.
By the "mental issues" comment I'm guessing we banned your alt earlier today.
No, I don't have an alt account and never have. You personally banned this account for 7 days because someone asked why legal gun ownership is such a hot political issue to Urbanites who've never seen a gun in their life - and I compared it to the way transgender issues suddenly became one of the biggest political issues despite only affecting a tiny minority of the population. When I asked you why you banned me, you said that it was hate speech and then instantly muted me for 4 days. It was a ~150 character comment which didn't make any assertion or judgement about trans people, but was simply commenting on the way sensationalist media can cause people to get highly invested in something that will never impact them or anyone they care about.
I also see you pretty regularly removing posts (and presumably issuing bans) in response to pretty mild meme humor.
2
u/CanadaGunsMod Sep 16 '20
We will remove pretty much anything that even smells like racism, homo/transphobia. Full stop. Even if it's innocuous, it goes. Taking down one post here is better than dealing with the brigading that happens when someone finds that post, or better yet, it winds up on Twitter, which happens, and then we have to deal with that.
There is a bigger picture here that we have to balance the community's desire to have a voice against the optics of some of the more fringe or extreme viewpoints.
Most of the comments I remove don't result in bans. Most of the accounts we perma ban are less than a week old (I'd say 90%?) and are generally trolls or people who have made an alt to post something that they know they're getting punted for.
Anyways, we made a post awhile back saying anyone who says anything about the LGBTQ community, POC, BLM, anything that could get the twitter brigade all up in this place, zero tolerance. We don't have time to deal with that shitstorm. If we see it, it goes, and generally we wait for that person to double down before issuing a ban.
I'm going to leave your comment up here, because it's an answer to my statement, but even the way you say this:
the way transgender issues suddenly became one of the biggest political issues despite only affecting a tiny minority of the population
That's enough. Because they're not "transgender issues" it's a human rights issue. Someone could easily grab this and say "here's the firearms community, those filthy conservatives, brushing off our rights". The firearms community is "a tiny minority of the population" too, and everyone here is all up about our "rights" which isn't even a thing here, it's actually LESS of a thing than the issue you're brushing off, because they're actually protected by the Charter.
We know that politics are a cornerstone of this hobby, like it or not. But we will keep the discussion on topic, because the alternative is not pretty.
2
Sep 16 '20
That's enough. Because they're not "transgender issues" it's a human rights issue.
This is possibly the most fringe authoritarian stance I've ever seen a reddit moderator take on anything. You're saying it's a bannable offense to even speak about the concept of issues that specifically relate to transgender people. So a transgender person could come here in good faith discussing how they're hesitant to vote CPC because they're afraid that the CPC will reverse course on issues that specifically relate to transgender people, and you're telling me you would ban that person for specifying transgender issues instead of using a totally ambiguous term like "human rights". The term "transgender issues" is not some indication of political stance as you've asserted - I've seen it used by transgender activists probably thousands of times at this point. Same with women's issues. It's standard terminology.
The firearms community is "a tiny minority of the population" too, and everyone here is all up about our "rights"
That is the point I was making in the comment you banned me for. We actually use firearms and many of us rely on them to maintain our lifestyle. That's why we care about the issue. The fact that we're a tiny minority and therefore have close to zero representation in politics makes sense. What doesn't make sense is the fact that people who've had their lives negatively impacted by legal firearms in this country are less than 1% of the population, yet this country's largely urbanite voterbase vehemently wants to ban guns.
Now if you think about the implications of this comparison I made, it makes far more sense in my analogy that anti-gunners are the equivalent of fundamentalist religious people who've been up in arms about transgender people since long before transgender issues had any real political weight behind them. Otherwise my argument would be that anti-gunners are the equivalent of people who advocate for human rights regardless of whether they are personally affected - not sure how anyone could believe that this is an epic zinger against the gun grabbers. But for some reason you are assuming that any mention of the transgender political debate is a solid indicator of far-right views.
it's actually LESS of a thing than the issue you're brushing off
I didn't brush anything off. I made a comparison between two political issues. Not only were both issues equal in my comparison, but the point I was making was about the political exposure relative to the lack of presence in most peoples' lives. It had nothing to say about the legitimacy of either issue.
I could understand the assumptions you're making if this was my umpteenth ban and I was known to be a frequent instigator of political arguments. But that was the first and only time I've been banned. To my memory I have not even vaguely mentioned political issues outside of the purview of firearms in this sub apart from that one instance where I was making a point about how volatile the current political landscape is.
It seems like a pretty terrible idea that you've committed to issuing bans for any comment which you think could be interpreted by radical ideologues as a vaguely right-wing view. If that is your intention then you should probably start banning people who want lower taxes and adequate border security, because the people you're censoring this sub for believe that both of those views are racist. It also seems like just bad faith moderation that you're assuming people's political leanings when they mention a political issue with complete neutrality, and then banning them if you think they're right-wing and muting them right away so they don't even have the chance to explain that you're mistaken.
1
u/binarycrystal Sep 15 '20
More to clarify I'm not trying to offend anyone and I know some of the rules are to minimize racist/overly political shit storms.
Also Mods, I, along with I'm sure (hopefully) everyone else appreciate what you do, thanks for all your hard work.
9
u/behindtheselasereyes Sep 15 '20
I don't hate everything JT has done, but by god he has been the most politiciany politician i have ever seen in my lifetime, and that includes the massively corrupt bc liberals under christy clarke; like I wasn't a fan of many harper polcies, but at least his policies were consistent and logical and I could understand why and how (beyond just pandering) his government made those policy decisions even if i didn't agree with them.
with JT it seems it's like 100% pandering or backroom dealing. he presents himself like he upholds certain ideologies, but will swing back and forth depending on the political winds. So yea, I support a some of the policies his government currently has, but I have no trust that suddenly he won't find some forced justification to change direction.
5
u/binarycrystal Sep 15 '20
You probably won't find much love for his policies in this particular sub.
It all ends up, even if he has made positive changes, everything else is just kindling and wood under the fire, burning the rest of the policy house down.
I'd say that how all governments work anyway, there are issues that start a fire they can't put out.
Canada has been going back and forth on gun control for literally all of my life and even before that, and it's unfortunately (probably) never going to change. I wish it would, and that I could just be left alone and not told what I need, or how to live my life.
2
u/humanefly on Sep 15 '20
If you look at the wording of the OIC it is not limited to indigenous, it is anyone who hunts for sustenance or something like that; I believe many people are misunderstanding the OIC on this point.
6
u/justanotherreddituse on Sep 15 '20
What exactly is a sustenance hunter? This is the closest thing I can find mentioned and seems to only apply to indigenous.
The right to hunt, trap or fish is an inherent right of aboriginal people which has always been recognized by treaty.
As the Firearms Fees Regulations are drafted, only hunters who require a firearm to hunt in order to sustain themselves or their families are exempt from the fees payable for a licence and registration certificate.
The right to hunt, trap and fish under section 24 of the agreement is not simply limited to those Cree who hunt and trap for sustenance, but is a right that extends to all beneficiaries under the agreement. Such individuals may be working in the wage economy or actively participating in many traditional hunting activities in our communities. Therefore, the notion that only sustenance hunters, within the narrow meaning ascribed to the term under the regulations, are exempted from licensing and registration fees seriously undermines the scope of the Cree right to hunt, fish and trap.
https://sencanada.ca/en/Content/Sen/committee/352/lega/46ev-e
3
u/humanefly on Sep 15 '20 edited Sep 15 '20
A sustenance hunter is just anyone who hunts for food
If you were a sustenance hunter, you would be supplying yourself or being supplied with food; the definition would not be so narrow as to say that it was your only form of economic activity.
1
u/Yillis nb Sep 16 '20
Sustenance hunters:
https://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/wam/media/3615/original/dd2a057ccbde46fec1d35c18a8f41255.pdf
"Only the Chief Firearms Officer (CFO) of your province or territory can make this determination. Contact the CFO for further information"
2
u/justanotherreddituse on Sep 16 '20
Lovely, so in Ontario that's a "Go fuck yourself" as that's our CFO's position on everything.
7
u/binarycrystal Sep 15 '20
This is true, but for a lot of people (myself included) that live in major cities, we don't sustenance hunt.
Either way you slice it, it's still a racist policy by even mentioning special conditions for indigenous vs others.
1
u/humanefly on Sep 15 '20 edited Sep 15 '20
A sustenance hunter is just someone who hunts for food
If you were a sustenance hunter, you would be supplying yourself or being supplied with food; the definition would not be so narrow as to say that it was your only form of economic activity.
7
u/binarycrystal Sep 15 '20
Okay, but I'm not willing to test that in court. I could go hunt for food, but what if my only rifle was an M14? According to the OIC I'm okay, because I'm sustenance hunting. I'm sure the RCMP and our "glorious leader" would throw the entire book at me and I'd be worse off than before.
Some people aren't in a position to replace their hunting rifle if it went prohibited and was previously NR
I'm sure most people that hunt for food, even if they live in the city have better things to do than take a prohibited firearm out to hunt, get arrested, dragged though court, have all their firearms seized (and potentially destroyed) than just not hunt.
3
u/humanefly on Sep 15 '20
I don't honestly think you would any trouble, and if you did go to court you should be able to explain that you are acting in accordance with the law but I am certainly not a lawyer; I can understand your reluctance. That being said I think really the entire point of the law is not to make people safer or reduce crime; it is to make people uncomfortable with firearms.
Judging by your response I think it was a great success. I am not blaming you, not one bit
1
u/binarycrystal Sep 15 '20
Oh I'm comfortable with firearms. If anything I'll buy as many NR as I possibly can.
I'm sure plenty of people doubled down last time, and it will be even more now.
But yes, it's to alienate us from the rest of society that doesn't know/or give a shit about the rules around firearms and how responsible we really are.
1
u/humanefly on Sep 15 '20
I think the combination of Covid/seeing what is happening in the US and seeing the Liberals move on firearms actually sparked my wife's interest. She has never really shown much interest but a month or so back she asked me to buy her a firearm. I had to pinch myself.
When this OIC thing happened I promised myself that I would look into airguns (I like the idea of not requiring powder) so I am thinking about picking up something like this for her to try: https://www.canadashootingsupply.ca/puncher-mega-marine-walnut-sidelever-pcp-25.html
and maybe a .22 takedown or something
1
u/Yillis nb Sep 16 '20
Sustenance hunters:
https://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/wam/media/3615/original/dd2a057ccbde46fec1d35c18a8f41255.pdf
"Only the Chief Firearms Officer (CFO) of your province or territory can make this determination. Contact the CFO for further information"
1
u/humanefly on Sep 16 '20
That's interesting! However, I would like to see the actual law that says "Only the CFO can make this determination."
My understanding is that in court, what matters is the law. What I see here is a link to a pdf that appears to contain the opinion of the RCMP; not the law.
Further, in my opinion, we actually have a right to hunt and fish according to the law in Ontario. I would interpret that to mean that we have a right to choose to sustain ourselves through hunting and fishing. If we have a right to do so, then at least in Ontario it is not clear to me how the CFO has the right to make this determination; it is our right.
https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/02h10
snip
Right to hunt and fish 1 (1) A person has a right to hunt and fish in accordance with the law. 2002, c. 10, s. 1 (1).
I understand this is not a constitutional right but it does appear to be a legal right. IANAL I am just some dick on the internet with an opinion
1
u/Yillis nb Sep 16 '20
I’ll back you all day on the RCMPs opinion isn’t law, but it would seem this is just another license or whatever you’d like to call it. What you linked isn’t much as I assume you need a license to hunt, as that is accordance with the law. (Unfamiliar with ON laws, it is in NB).
So I don’t know, if the province gets to say whether or not you are actually allowed to hunt, I can see them having the say whether or not you are a sustenance hunter. Unfortunately.
Also, I too am just a dick on the internet. Have to get Runkle of the Bailey on the case.
1
u/humanefly on Sep 16 '20
Sure but these are two different things: having a license to hunt is one thing, and being a sustenance hunter is a different thing. I do not honestly know if the CFO has to give a reason to decline granting a hunting license or if they can simply decline, but it is my position that if you have a firearms license, and you have a hunting license, and you meet the legal obligations to hunt then you have a right to hunt for sustenance in Ontario; the CFO does not decide whether you are a sustenance hunter or not: you do.
That being said /u/varsil is actually qualified to have an opinion and I am not. All hail Varsil! Thank you for your infinite patience in a world of infinite dicks on the internet with opinions,
2
4
Sep 15 '20
[deleted]
2
u/starscr3amsgh0st Sep 15 '20 edited Sep 15 '20
I'm not lawyer but i'm under the impression the Valmet is only legal because it is not named. This is why it has to be the M78 or Hunter since other Valmet's i believe are named. Getting banned as a variant does not mean it has to be named as seen with the very gun this thread is about. In theory a Valmet Hunter or M78 could get banned as a true variant.Again i could be wrong.
Edit: So i looked it up and they are specifically named as not included in the ban with Ak47. You are right i believe, since they are named exception, they would be fine.
V64 The firearm of the design commonly known as the AK-47 rifle, and any variant or modified version of it except for the Valmet Hunter, the Valmet Hunter Auto and the Valmet M78 rifles, but including the
3
Sep 15 '20 edited Sep 15 '20
[deleted]
2
u/starscr3amsgh0st Sep 15 '20
I edited that like 3 minutes ago to say this, i was wrong. I knew Valmets where named but thought those 3 were not. They are in fact named exceptions. It's funny though because the M78 is fine , but the M78/A2 is not. Wonder what deadly upgrades were made between the two.
I'm also really curious how these are not Ak variants when they clearly are, like how do they think shit will fly?
4
u/Cingetorix Tacticool whore Sep 15 '20
Hell, there are a bunch of chassis products for virtually all common bolt-action and semi-auto rimfire and centerfire rifles that use AR grips and buffer tubes, many of which are made / designed in Canada. E.g.:
- MDT products like the LSS chassis for various bolt-action rifles
- various 10/22 chassis systems
- Shotgun adapters that allow for the use of AR grips and stocks
It's ridiculous.
1
4
Sep 15 '20
My mossberg MVP in 5.56 was designed to accept STANAG mags. You're absolutely right, "it takes the same magazines as an AR15". I could 100% see those asshats trying to ban it for the sheer joy it would give them.
35
Sep 15 '20
Just keep in mind that from a legal point of view the FRT is just the RCMP labs OPINION and is NOT the law.
All the shadow banned firearms are still perfectly legal while also prohibited. They are "Schrödinger's 's firearms" until a court decides their status. Obviously no one wants to be the test case but in order for the FRT to be seen as authoritative the court would have to make up law that doesn't exist.
25
22
u/Flat-Dark-Earth Big Bore Specialist Sep 15 '20
That news doesn't bode well for the new straight pulls hitting our market.
0
u/UNSC157 Sep 15 '20
Can you elaborate? I’m not sure I understand what you mean by “straight pull”?
4
u/sacchetta Sep 15 '20
I think he's talking about the new rifles that have upper and lower recievers and take AR parts that are bolt action but utilize a straight pull bolt
2
u/Flat-Dark-Earth Big Bore Specialist Sep 15 '20
The posters below have elaborated, I was referring to the new Canadian products by Spectre Ballistics and Maple Ridge Armory. Both firearms are "straight-pull" action rifles specially designed so that they cannot be converted to semi auto.
While they may look AR-ish, they were designed to be anything but, unfortunately with how the Firearms Technician mentioned in OP's post above views firearms, it sounds like anything that would remotely accept any AR part could be considered a variant.
Bolt action rifle that accepts AR stocks, grips, magazines, optics(?) could be thrown in with the group as "ar-15 variants". Crazy times.
20
u/starscr3amsgh0st Sep 15 '20
May i recommend using a recording app in the future to have a copy of the convo.
13
Sep 15 '20
It is considered a variant of a now prohibited firearm(s)
Ok, why wasn't it a variant BEFORE may 1st? If you look at the SLR FRT, it state clearly that "it doesn't trade it's design lineage directly or uniquely to a prohib or R firearm found in the regulation appended to the criminal code."
What gives?
Gotta love the incoherence of their web of lies.
8
Sep 15 '20 edited Jan 23 '21
[deleted]
3
u/Armed_Accountant Whoever wants to touch my guns has to touch me first. Sep 15 '20
I don’t think the MOdern Sporter had any lineage to the AR10.
7
u/Vearo nb Sep 15 '20
Firearms Reference No.: 194622
Date: 2018/10/04
Page: 2/3
Canadian Law Comments:
The ATRS, Model - Modern Sporter upper receiver does not have a cut for an automatic sear, and has a different system for mounting upper to lower receivers than either the AR-10 or AR-15 Rifles.
As received at Specialized Firearms Support Services Section, the Make - Alberta Tactical Rifle, Model - Modern Sporter, serial Number ATRS18-MS-000009 contains the receiver / frame of a semi-automatic firearm. Further, this firearm design is derived from an amalgamation of several different firearm designs and does not trace its design lineage directly or uniquely to a "prohibited" or a "restricted" firearm found in the Regulation appended to the Criminal Code.
Version 3.18.0 of the FRT
Doesn't state anything in particular regarding AR-10 aside that it can't mount an AR-10 upper.
9
Sep 15 '20
Thank you for the info. Not surprised that virtually no one knows what the fuck they are doing
21
u/SmashDonnybrook Sep 15 '20
What modern sporter?
13
u/Esan-256 qb Sep 15 '20
Modern Sporter is the name of the model; it is made by Alberta Tactical Rifle Supply (ATRS)
18
11
u/kijijidiot Sep 15 '20
The RCMP are not playing by their own rules? That can't be can it? The RCMP are very good at what they do. I'll leave it to your imagination to determine what that is. Hopefully our legal cases bury these people. Its sad to think the majority of people have no idea what their government is really doing. Replace CFO and Firearms with cars and Ministry of Transportation and maybe people will get it.
9
Sep 15 '20 edited Dec 28 '20
[deleted]
3
u/howdydoodys Sep 15 '20
They somewhat defined it when they did the original frt for the modern sporter
6
Sep 15 '20
My ex wife worked at rcmp hq as a civilian. She told me back in the early 2000's that the rcmp wanted all guns gone, they were just waiting for the right tragedy. I thought she was kidding, I was wrong...very wrong.
2
u/whaleoilbeefhookt Nov 21 '20
their mandate since before confederation has always been to suppress the use of firearms.
and not the good kind of suppress.
11
4
u/plokoon005 Sep 15 '20
I don't understand this extra "list"
How am I supposed to know what is suddenly prohibited?
I just eventually find out over Reddit
6
u/wslvt on Sep 15 '20
Sign up on armalytics.ca for notifications when there's a FRT update.
I found out one of my firearms isn't even on the FRT list. I'm not going to say what it is but they can't ban it if they can't name it!
1
2
5
8
u/bcbuddy Sep 15 '20
Honestly if I didn't have a family and people who depended on me, I would be using a ModSports and MacDef out on crown land.
If stopped and arrested the reasonable doubt established by the techs and the CFO would make this a slam dunk for either Crown dropping the case or found not guilty
1
u/Taurkon Nov 25 '20
I do use my ATRS MS on crown land, and am prepared to take this to court on my dime, even though I have firearms insurance and after speaking their lawyer, it seems that they would cover me since the FRT is NOT LAW!
8
u/runs_with_guns bc Sep 15 '20
Try telling that to the people still buying and selling ATRS receivers on CGN like they’re NR
13
Sep 15 '20 edited Dec 02 '20
Deleted
11
u/runs_with_guns bc Sep 15 '20
The average Joe working at the CFO probably realized the new rules are bullshit, but just has to tow the party line when confronted about it. Can you think of a single instance of someone being charged for violating the new rules?
7
3
Sep 15 '20 edited Dec 19 '20
[deleted]
4
u/Esan-256 qb Sep 15 '20
Well, I suppose that was a CFO; I used the following number:
1 800 731-4000: it is found on the RCMP website CFO contact informations.
At first I wanted to contact the CFO in Quebec since it's my province, but both numbers provided on the link above are just fax numbers.
2
Sep 15 '20
[deleted]
2
Sep 15 '20
[deleted]
2
2
u/runs_with_guns bc Sep 15 '20
I still see guys shooting Beowulf mags at 3 gun matches, the RCMP poopooed them but nobody gave a shit. The only mag 'ban' that seemed to gain any traction was the BX-25. Of course that one isn't even worth it's weight on paper, some guy got caught with one, charged for it, and Crown dropped the case.
2
Sep 15 '20 edited Sep 15 '20
The Canada government are literally like little pyro kids playing with lighters in a pool of jet fuel. They frivolously turned this unconstituional ban by Trudeau into a fucking free pass, chaotic butfuck orgy to ban whatever guns they feel like on a given day. This will not stop until they remove most if not all firearms from law biding citizen's hands and turn us into criminals without any due process or legal grounds.
I honestly think they are messily testing out what power grabs they can get away with and so far its working as intended; they are causing uncertainty, confusion, and unrest. Once they are satisfied with making everyone who legally owns a firearm a criminal, they are going to use these bans as precedent to pass more executive orders and give the rcmp more power to enforce more unconstitutional laws.
Mark my words this is going to start creeping into other charter rights and freedoms. I would not be surprised if they basically pass another executive order declaring the charter "simply a guideline and up to the interpretation of presiding officials."
And if you think im being all conspiracy theory, I am not. Officials already publicly remarked, during the last few months, that micro chipping the Canadian population and tracking everyones exact location by their private phone data was a really good idea. The Canadian government is just as fucking corrupt as the USA, the only difference is the Canadian government sees our charter of rights as simply outdated priviledges which they will continue to take away when they feel like it. Oh ya don't forget the 'notwithstanding clause' they allowed themselves.
3
Sep 15 '20
[deleted]
0
Sep 15 '20
But literal micro chips under our skin....im not exaggerating, Dr. Theresa Tam our Chief Health Officer and a couple others were openly talking about it as an option in the last several months.
3
Sep 15 '20
[deleted]
1
Sep 16 '20 edited Sep 16 '20
Hence why i think they are trying to hit mutliple birds with one stone. The gun bans and monitoring disarms civilians, they want least amount of resistance as possible when the second wave comes, the economy tank and milk costs 30$ a gallon and there are no jobs. They used a random shooting and the pandemic as a scapgoat for executive order. It was a blatant and direct abuse of power, but they do have an internal agenda as to why they did it. Control.
As to to what you said about western exit are you refering to BC? Like Greater Vancouver etc?
I have thought of leaving. If i had the means id fuckoff to the Yukon or Labarador and have a cabin built in the middle of the forest and live off the land. I am tired of the city living, its a joke.
2
u/Troycifer_tron Sep 16 '20
At what point do gun owners stop caring about respecting these new changes? Or at what point do local police stop enforcing these new changes?
2
1
1
Sep 15 '20 edited Sep 16 '20
[deleted]
2
u/Esan-256 qb Sep 15 '20
They don't know who I am anyway. I didn't gave them any personnal information, not even my first name.
1
1
1
u/d-shrute Sep 15 '20
The criminals are taking notes so that the rifle they use in a robbery isn't a prohibited gun. An unlicensed individual wouldn't want to accidentally use a prohibited gun in a robbery. Only people that are going to pay attention to these rules and the rule followers. I mean I guess the idea is that less of them will be stolen and such but with the natives still allowed to use ar15 and there are reserves that are both in Canada and the USA wouldn't that be they new way for criminals to get them in? They've probably been doing this for years
1
u/skillest Sep 16 '20
Honestly, I don't know if this is gonna fly, especially once it gets to court. I think the Gov clearly understands that if the firearm was stated to NOT be or have any lineage to an AR10 or 15 before hand (thus making it NR) then banning those 2 models doesn't retroactively make the ATRS a gun that now has lineage to the AR10 or 15. Also, if the FRT currently states straight pull ARs as non restricted, then that contradicts what this person just said, as many of these SPARs were produced after the ban and use almost all normal AR parts. That doesnt make any sense no matter how you spin it. I think they're just trying to make up excuses on the fly, which if they stick with what they're saying, would have grave consequences.
If they say any gun that accepts AR parts is now a variant, then I would assume that means almost every gun made for sports shooting is now banned, regardless of its action (since most Bolt Actions for precision shooting incorporate some sort of pistol grip, buffer tube, handguard or stock from an AR). Theres a reason why parts currently arent regulated like this.
Hell, if AR parts end up being regulated, then does that mean that many airsoft guns are now illegal to have, since they often have the same size spec for furniture as their real life counterparts? Does that mean that they're gonna try and regulate ALL parts of an AR, and not just uppers and lowers like the OiC says? (just like theyve tried to do illegally at the border).
I also believe that because of the other major issues with the FRT that this is gonna cause it to either be completely dismantled or to be changed. This isnt the only gun that's banned for seemingly unknown reasons. The civilian Semi Auto CZ805 is banned as a full auto gun, even though its clearly designed to to be semi only. The Desert Tech MDR is banned because its "capable of rapid fire and is a bullpup firearm that doesnt use a bullpup stock" (not kidding, look it up, they just make up excuses).
Those, combined with the RCMP not actually being allowed to change certain classifications of firearms within a year time limit, which there are supposedly 340 cases of, and not being allowed to get rid of old records of classifications, which they have, makes me think that something major HAS to change with the FRT. I mean, I'm not u/varsil, im not an expert or educated in law, but I cant see the current system going on like this for much longer. There's no rules to it, and once a court sees that I don't think they'll let it go.
1
u/Ommageden on Sep 16 '20
I mean of Airsoft guns have uppers and lowers then the uppers are already illegal since they fit onto an AR-15 lower.
I don't expect someone to be charged but that's how we've been defining upper receivers
0
u/mwmwmwmwmmdw Sep 16 '20
why do people keep calling the firearms center and poking the wasp nest?
its how the swiss arms and cz 858 debacle started
92
u/KTMan77 sk Sep 15 '20
By that standard any gun capable of using an ar style buffer tube stock will be prohib.