PDA

View Full Version : Selling Out of Fear?



TV-PressPass
03-04-2014, 11:51 AM
I'm disappointed when I see sale ads with things like this in them:


"I'm selling this Vz58 cheap because I'll be honest: I'm scared about this impending gun ban, so I'm getting rid of all my restricted rifles. However, this rifle has not been banned; but I'm fearing for the worst that it will be the next on the chopping block. I also do not have any feedback on the EE, as this is my first exchange, so I don't really feel like I should be charging too much and I feel this is a fair price."

awndray
03-04-2014, 11:56 AM
It is disappointing, but can we really blame those who will chose this route? I think we're only going to see more of this unless we see some real changes happening (not just talk).

Xtreme
03-04-2014, 11:59 AM
I'm disappointed when I see sale ads with things like this in them:

Not everyone can afford to just throw away money, and lets face it - hanging on to one of these right now carries a very high potential of having an armed government employee showing up at your door.

TV-PressPass
03-04-2014, 12:01 PM
Except that the sale item is a 7.5" CSA Vz58.

I don't know. On one hand I want to be angry and call it cowardice. On the other, I can understand it as a cautious preparation for the worst.

infidel29
03-04-2014, 12:04 PM
it all depends how important the item in question is to the seller, and how important guns in general are to the seller, and whether they attach any other conditions to themselves owning guns ie hobby vs 1776 style freedom or death...

BrotherRockeye
03-04-2014, 12:21 PM
time to free up some cash :)

Strewth
03-04-2014, 12:24 PM
time to free up some cash :)

Bingo:). And the gunshow's in town this weekend too, we shall see what we shall see....

bettercallsaul
03-04-2014, 02:17 PM
Cowardly.

First: There is a 5 year amnesty.

Second: This is only the first step.

Why would anyone jump the gun and sell?

Prairie Dog
03-04-2014, 02:21 PM
Cowardly.

First: There is a 5 year amnesty.

Second: This is only the first step.

Why would anyone jump the gun and sell?

Some, even here, are not convinced the amnesty is good or good enough for now and that's it's a method to buy time to implement further solutions.

awndray
03-04-2014, 02:21 PM
So that one of us can take advantage of a good deal. :)

Ben
03-04-2014, 02:54 PM
Oh boy is it Caramel (JP) selling off all of his guns again???

I kid I kid..

It's cowardly IMO.

Oh and there's that thing about the 5 year amnesty.

FALover
03-04-2014, 03:05 PM
Sounds like a lame sales pitch to me.

.driven by little old lady on Sundays
.highway miles
.divorce/baby/health reasons
.fund new projects
.blablabla

BrotherRockeye
03-04-2014, 03:18 PM
c'mon now...what's not to like about value priced bang sticks? :p

webster
03-04-2014, 03:32 PM
One man's cowardice is another man's bargain. :)

Code-Red
03-04-2014, 03:52 PM
Means cheap guns for no-nonsense no-compromise people like myself. Sell them all cowards, leave the fight for those with kahones.

JustBen
03-04-2014, 05:44 PM
I will buy all the $2000 Swiss arms and $450 CZs I can find.

blacksmithden
03-04-2014, 07:17 PM
I will buy all the $2000 Swiss arms and $450 CZs I can find.

And any you dont take, I will Ben !!!! I can see people getting burnt out by all the B.S. Sometimes I feel then same way. Then I just have to picture Createn smirking at me with a mount under one are and Wendy nutjob under the other. Funny.....suddenly I want to buy more guns....especially if they're "make a liberal wet the bed" guns. :)

ilikemoose
03-04-2014, 07:23 PM
I am at the point in my life where the cost of a used CZ/VZ really is not a meaningful amount of money. It's not that I am rich or anything, but it's not that important.

On the other hand, I can certainly remember a time in my like where losing that $500-$700 would have been a really big deal.

Basically what I am saying is that it would be wrong to call a guy a coward just because I can afford to lose, and he cant.

SantaClawz
03-04-2014, 08:13 PM
I don't own these guns so I won't judge ads like this because I am not in Swiss Arms and VZ owners shoes, but the way things are going, no guns are safe anymore, and it's possible that whatever else you have could be reclassified too, sooner or later. So once you find yourself in the same boat, then you can talk and judge.

infidel29
03-05-2014, 01:22 AM
I will buy all the $2000 Swiss arms and $450 CZs I can find.

while it would be nice, I certainly cant afford to buy new guns right now, even at half price...

zulu
03-05-2014, 02:39 AM
A point to note i have also seen more wtb cz/vz ads then ever before

Ben
03-05-2014, 07:32 AM
I will buy all the $2000 Swiss arms and $450 CZs I can find.

Here here!

Blindeyes
03-05-2014, 08:25 AM
I can't even believe people keep talking about amnesty . Screw amnesty if I still had my 858 I wouldn't hand it in. Why should I live by laws when people can just come along and change them at their will. Amnesty or no amnesty if they wouldn't give full value back for a handed in rifle, said rifle would stay were it is. I think we need to stop talking about amnesty (cowardly) and start saying no. Everyone bought these rifles fair and square perfectly legal, if they want to make them prohib. then they should grandfather the one that are out there.We give in now then it will be anything semi auto and anything restricted next then we might as well change our country name to England, or Australia.

Xtreme
03-05-2014, 08:38 AM
I am at the point in my life where the cost of a used CZ/VZ really is not a meaningful amount of money. It's not that I am rich or anything, but it's not that important.

On the other hand, I can certainly remember a time in my like where losing that $500-$700 would have been a really big deal.

Basically what I am saying is that it would be wrong to call a guy a coward just because I can afford to lose, and he cant.

^^^ Exactly. Some people have a lot more invested in this, monetarily and emotionally. Everyone needs to remember that the casual hobby shooter who isn't going to march on parliament in demonstration isn't hurting the cause by being indifferent, they have different values than you. What they do to help is buy firearms, which increases the number PAL holders in the country, which does help.

Two For Sure
03-05-2014, 09:02 AM
Selling now is dumb. No one is going to pay full value. I'd hold on until the final word is handed down on these rifles. There is a pretty good legal case to be made that owners should be compensated in full for what amounts to a government screw-up.

awndray
03-05-2014, 09:05 AM
Drop the compensation dialog. This is about civil rights and freedoms.

If people want to sell at a discount because they're afraid, fine. Don't chastise them. Instead, buy from them.

BrotherRockeye
03-05-2014, 09:09 AM
compensation is a government reach around while they bend you over...



while it would be nice, I certainly cant afford to buy new guns right now, even at half price...

neither can I, but I don't see that stopping me.

hercster
03-05-2014, 09:20 AM
Drop the compensation dialog. This is about civil rights and freedoms.

If people want to sell at a discount because they're afraid, fine. Don't chastise them. Instead, buy from them.

I agree. I'm not impressed with this "cowardice" label. For many people $850.00 is a lot of money. Many people buy a CZ because a fully dressed AR-15 is beyond their reach. Many people buy .22's because .223's are beyond their reach. The 1000's of people who have bought Norincos and other entry level guns have strengthened our ranks in a big way. Many of them have become the "new normal" in at least some eyes.

There's a lot of "freedom" and "liberty" talk on these forums but now that some want to exercise theirs because of a freedom and financial threat they are flamed. Not good people, not good.

Xtreme
03-05-2014, 09:43 AM
I agree. I'm not impressed with this "cowardice" label. For many people $850.00 is a lot of money. Many people buy a CZ because a fully dressed AR-15 is beyond their reach. Many people buy .22's because .223's are beyond their reach. The 1000's of people who have bought Norincos and other entry level guns have strengthened our ranks in a big way. Many of them have become the "new normal" in at least some eyes.

There's a lot of "freedom" and "liberty" talk on these forums but now that some want to exercise theirs because of a freedom and financial threat they are flamed. Not good people, not good.

Well put.

Steveo9mm
03-05-2014, 09:55 AM
The fact that you may never be able to use it again could defeat the purpose of having one to some people. I considered that myself. I fought in the battle this past weekend and will still keep fighting. Even though i have an "evil" rifle, I know that if I dont fight, I may not have any rifles down the road...

Mine cost a bit more because it came with a lot of xcr mags and an adaptor. and a bunch of other accessories. I bought it because I have a fetish for Czech and Soviet and German nonsense. Including the women. I am not only fighting for the right to keep something that I legaly bought and could be taken away from me by "insert swears here" mounties, I am also fighting against a system that is clearly corrupt.

Its does not matter if the people keep, sell, blow up, chop up or bury their prohibited. It only matters that they keep up the fight.

Two For Sure
03-05-2014, 10:08 AM
Drop the compensation dialog. This is about civil rights and freedoms.

If people want to sell at a discount because they're afraid, fine. Don't chastise them. Instead, buy from them.
People who are selling have already made their position clear on "civil rights and freedoms." For them it's about the money. I won't take advantage of people who are panic selling. I will suggest to them that they hold on and see how this unfolds. There is recent precedent for compensation when government screwed up the classification of a firearm.

http://globalnews.ca/news/525833/525833/

hercster
03-05-2014, 10:33 AM
Without trying to insult any one, there are a lot of people who have fought the battle at home with local management. Those folks are going to be hammered with the "I told you so" weapon. When it comes to guns or day-care expenses it's hard to argue successfully. If you are not in those shoes be "happy, happy, happy".

I was here in Texas last year when the Sandy Hook tragedy struck. There was a huge outcry about the indecency of predicted government gun grab; all sorts of "Freedom and Liberty" rants. Then two weeks later, some people I know were flogging their used PMAGs for $80. Opportunists are still trying to sell bricks of .22 for $75. So much for brotherhood and solidarity.

webster
03-05-2014, 04:35 PM
I can't even believe people keep talking about amnesty . Screw amnesty if I still had my 858 I wouldn't hand it in. Why should I live by laws when people can just come along and change them at their will. Amnesty or no amnesty if they wouldn't give full value back for a handed in rifle, said rifle would stay were it is. I think we need to stop talking about amnesty (cowardly) and start saying no. Everyone bought these rifles fair and square perfectly legal, if they want to make them prohib. then they should grandfather the one that are out there.We give in now then it will be anything semi auto and anything restricted next then we might as well change our country name to England, or Australia.

And we all know grandfathering is just time-delayed confiscation anyway.

RobSmith
03-05-2014, 04:48 PM
As collectors would say, you buy the rifle, not the story ...

TV-PressPass
03-06-2014, 10:00 AM
I won't take advantage of people who are panic selling.

That's a whole 'nother mess. Does offering $500 for a Swiss Arms make someone a bad gun owner?

hercster
03-06-2014, 11:01 AM
That's a whole 'nother mess. Does offering $500 for a Swiss Arms make someone a bad gun owner?

"Ethics" are not pin-point right or wrong things. Often they are a personal decision as is the case with individual gun owners, gun buyers and gun sellers. You actually make your own rules. So on the one hand, a $500 offer for something you know has a value of much more might be considered unethical. However, if recast into a situation where the seller is desperate for one reason or another and needs the only $500 you have available, then the buyer might be a hero. :horse: As a good friend of my used to say, "it depends on what end of the Coke bottle you are looking through". Actually I can't remember what he used to say so I just made that up.;D

leibermuster
03-06-2014, 12:29 PM
$500 for a Swiss arms now is a huge gamble and at this moment is over paying the gun is near worthless to any legal owner now. It comes with liability and a chance of jail time!

awndray
03-06-2014, 12:36 PM
It comes with liability and a chance of jail time!

As do all of our firearms.

As for what it's worth, I think that's subjective. Many people equate monetary value to worth. Some see it differently. Something free could be worth more to me than it is to you.

hercster
03-06-2014, 12:48 PM
I wonder if you could even transfer a formerly restricted?? The CFO's aren't going to be friendly either. Obviously an ATT is out.

RobSmith
03-06-2014, 12:53 PM
Shouldn't be a problem if the transferee already hold the right call on his PAL.


I wonder if you could even transfer a formerly restricted?? The CFO's aren't going to be friendly either. Obviously an ATT is out.

awndray
03-06-2014, 12:54 PM
Apparently the agents at the CFC don't have any instructions. I'm willing to bet a transfer might go through if you were to try.

http://youtu.be/tFSdAWXT7-s

hercster
03-06-2014, 01:23 PM
Shouldn't be a problem if the transferee already hold the right call on his PAL.

I dunno. By definition those guns are now "prohibited" amnesty or not. It depends on how the "amnesty" is worded. Possess does not mean sell or transfer.

harbl_the_cat
03-06-2014, 03:06 PM
"Ethics" are not pin-point right or wrong things. Often they are a personal decision as is the case with individual gun owners, gun buyers and gun sellers. You actually make your own rules. So on the one hand, a $500 offer for something you know has a value of much more might be considered unethical. However, if recast into a situation where the seller is desperate for one reason or another and needs the only $500 you have available, then the buyer might be a hero. :horse: As a good friend of my used to say, "it depends on what end of the Coke bottle you are looking through". Actually I can't remember what he used to say so I just made that up.;D

I disagree - there is one universal ethic that is absolutely black and white.

When one person engages in a transaction of a good or service with one party and one party uses force (such as violence or implied violence) or fraud (lying, misleading, or cheating) to finalize the transaction - that is unethical.

In such a transaction, consent is not mutual and the party who instigated force or fraud against the other is clearly engaging in something unethical.

When I bought one of my now prohibited 858's from one guy at a gun show for $500, he told me he was worried about it being banned and that was a big motivation to his decision to sell it. I valued that rifle at about $650 - $700, the other guy didn't - but in the end, we both voluntarily agreed to the transaction without lying to each other or forcing each other. I was the first one at the show to make an offer and guaranteed if I did not, in that unregulated free market, someone else would have.

When I exchanged for another fully dressed one with 9 mags for a Kel Tec SU16 with no mags, I didn't ask the sellers motivation. He told me about the rifle, and I valued it at about $1000 - 1500.

Neither transaction involved force or fraud on either of our sides. Neither was unethical.

Conversely - EVERYTHING the government does involves force, fraud, or both. Ergo - a logical proposition to make is EVERYTHING the government does is unethical.

Two For Sure
03-06-2014, 03:43 PM
$500 for a Swiss arms now is a huge gamble and at this moment is over paying the gun is near worthless to any legal owner now. It comes with liability and a chance of jail time!
That's the potential risk. The potential reward of buying a Swiss Arms at $500 is that the government will compensate owners for the rifle's full value and you could at realize a 400 to 500 per cent profit.

There are no morals or ethics involved as long as both the buyer and seller are willing and informed. The old owner doesn't want to take the risk and wants to get something out of his investment. The new owner is prepared to take the risk but only if the return is worthwhile.

awndray
03-06-2014, 03:49 PM
The potential reward of buying a Swiss Arms at $500 is that the government will do the right thing, and the buyer will have more money left over to buy ammunition and enjoy shooting it at the range.

Fixed, to emphasize that compensation is not what we're after.

Strewth
03-06-2014, 03:53 PM
Fixed, to emphasize that compensation is not what we're after.

Well put.


and harbl,

- EVERYTHING the government does involves force, fraud, or both. Ergo - a logical proposition to make is EVERYTHING the government does is unethical.
not to get off topic on some anti-everything rant, but I disagree with your disagreement.
Not on it's general pretense per se, but the idea that you're using it to downplay or obfuscate what hercster said, to whit: hercster is talking about selling an object for less than it's market value because of previously established government intervention creating an outside force, and debating the pros and cons from both sides of this transaction. As he said, the article being sold may be priced under market value because of other outside influences, such as a debt to be paid elsewhere.

The government influence has been tacitly agreed upon by all here I believe; we're discussing the ethics of taking advantage of other people's fears.

As hecster said in post #32, there may indeed be a battle on the homefront forcing the sale as well; this is unfortunately very likely in many cases. I would not consider the transaction unethical if my wife was being a nagging shrew about keeping the object in my/our possession. Not that the beautiful love of my life would ever nag. Or shrew. Or insist unpleasantly. Or bring stuff up from four years ago to throw in my face.:)

Camo tung
03-06-2014, 04:08 PM
Not that the beautiful love of my life would ever nag. Or shrew. Or insist unpleasantly. Or bring stuff up from four years ago to throw in my face.:)

Wasn't there one episode of bacon withholding over yard work vs range work? ;D

Strewth
03-06-2014, 04:11 PM
There may or may not have been...that's the joy of being me, memory like a goldfish:).

harbl_the_cat
03-06-2014, 06:58 PM
Well put.


and harbl,

not to get off topic on some anti-everything rant, but I disagree with your disagreement.
Not on it's general pretense per se, but the idea that you're using it to downplay or obfuscate what hercster said, to whit: hercster is talking about selling an object for less than it's market value because of previously established government intervention creating an outside force, and debating the pros and cons from both sides of this transaction. As he said, the article being sold may be priced under market value because of other outside influences, such as a debt to be paid elsewhere.

The government influence has been tacitly agreed upon by all here I believe; we're discussing the ethics of taking advantage of other people's fears.

As hecster said in post #32, there may indeed be a battle on the homefront forcing the sale as well; this is unfortunately very likely in many cases. I would not consider the transaction unethical if my wife was being a nagging shrew about keeping the object in my/our possession. Not that the beautiful love of my life would ever nag. Or shrew. Or insist unpleasantly. Or bring stuff up from four years ago to throw in my face.:)

The concerned wife argument carries a lot of weight and I agree - it provides incentive to try for fire sale pricing.

The point I was driving at was when two knowing, consenting adults enter into a transaction - provided one party does not deliberately deceive or force the other, the outcome of that transaction is ethical. Period.

If there are folks willing to sell their Swiss Arms or 858s for fractions of what they originally paid there is nothing unethical about buying it from them

Conversely, if someone is offering to buy one for well below the market price 2 weeks ago, again, there is nothing unethical about it either.

Ethics are related to morals - and while everyone claims to have their own set of morals, it is clear that in addition to being the most universally ethical, a system of morals based on respect for the individuals right to self ownership (and with it acknowledgement that force and fraud are always wrong) is also the most universally efficient, just, and fair.

The biggest problem that I see personally is corruption of moral absolutes and claims that it's too fuzzy to make determinations about what is right and what is wrong. A consequence to this moral relativism is that it is too easy once in this state to default to a mentality that what is easiest and what is the most democratic is also what is morally righteous. In essence, in the minds of those who believe this, the law of the land supersede the law of the universe.

This, I submit is the reason many (but not all) are panic selling their newly prohibited rifles. The law of the land, from which they derive their sense of morality have placed them in contravention with the tangible actions they took while being under the law. Being in contravention with that very law, they now feel they are no longer morally righteous and obliged to do whatever they can to rectify that situation.

It's a sad state of affairs, as to many, instead of realizing the law is imperfect, unjust, and worthy of rebellion - they bow before it I'm fear.

Fear (and greed) are natural human emotions - a psychological reflex and coping mechanism to immediately stressful and physically demanding situations that require a necessary flight or fight response to ensure survival. That said, the world you and I live in isn't one where those responses result in productive or effective outcomes.

As human beings, logic, reason, creativity and imagination are our greatest strengths - strengths that are only realized when primal, physical instincts are suppressed and intellectual and mental functions are at their peak.

To this point, I don't think the ethical comsideration of profiteers or cowards are necessarily important as much as the logical implications of such a market development.

I contend if anything, rapid public movement of these guns will serve to send a message to the authorities that tracking and seizing these rifle will be an almost impossible proposition. These fire sale trades should be considered a Godsend in that regard, as it further obfuscates any existing data on where these rifles are.

mechanic1908
03-06-2014, 07:06 PM
Yeah having a fire sale because of prohib. status change is counter productive. Back when they moved 4" revolvers to prohib. status, I just held onto mine, they grandfathered me.

hercster
03-06-2014, 08:12 PM
Just four years Mr. Strewth? I'm 47 years into my experiment and still am amazed at the female memory for us innocent males' occasional missteps.

As I said early, everything depends on everything which was the quote I was trying to remember. I still believe it's a personal choice. If I had a friend or even an acquaintance I respected, that I knew was under some form of pressure, I'd rather lend him the $500.00 if that were within my means. I don't think I would ever be happy with a $4000.oo gun that I bought for $500 under those circumstances. Now if he offered the gun for $500.00 and I had just that in return, I might try to make a buy back deal should his situation improve; that would be like a secured loan. But if he said he had to sell the gun and I had $3000 in my pocket, I couldn't live with offering $500.00. It depends.

There are a lot of people in business that specialize in buying from distressed people. It's just not for me. I agree with the principle that it's a good deal if both parties agree without any dishonesty or force of any kind but given the choice I'd let someone else make the $500.00 deal and sleep better. I still think that ethics unless defined by policy or the like are one of the few things we can decide on as a personal choice.

harbl_the_cat
03-07-2014, 09:42 AM
I still think that ethics unless defined by policy or the like are one of the few things we can decide on as a personal choice.

When I was in the military, an important lesson at basic training was that recruits were trained on was to disobey an illegal order. The problem with ethics being defined by policy is unethical actions can be justified by simply amending or altering the law of the land.

If international laws governing war made it legal for soldiers to summarily execute unarmed civilians in battle, would that make it ethical? Absolutely not. Would soldiers who were trained to not carry out illegal orders carry out such an order if given in that environment? Technically - they would be obliged to.

Now that's an extreme case that likely won't happen, but the less extreme, more realistic one is that volumes and volumes of legislation, regulation, and policy can be created regulating everything from how a person breathes to what they can put in their bodies. These legislation can be sweeping and all encompassing of every aspect of human life and give bureaucrats all kinds of power over the people. Such is the situation you and I live under today.

Personally, I prefer the system of Greek style, city-state democracy that had several built in checks and balances to prevent runaway government growth: Laws had to be carved in stone and placed in prominent public places (ensuring there were not too many created). Public works were oversaw by officials with limited term limits who were RANDOMLY selected (ensuring corrupt, lifer bureaucrats couldn't abuse their position). The size and scope of laws were within a confined geographic area and limited to the local population (ensuring the say of individuals actually mattered in the democratic process and voting actually mattered).

This system is the only system that actually works. Our system today of massive, supposedly democratically elected government creating bloated bureaucracies to hyper-regular bloated encyclopedias of laws, regulations and policies is a barbarous relic that deserves to collapse on itself.

It also highlights the importance of a simple code of universal ethics that supersede all laws written by governments.

In fact, the first line of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms reads:


Whereas Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law:

In other words - Canada is founded on principles recognizing the non-supremacy of human institution and the constraint of all such institutions to prevent them from occupying a position of deity. Put another way - government can never attain the omni-benevolence, omnipotence, omniscience, eternal transcendence and all attributes God (if there was a God) would have to necessarily possess to be God.

Whether you believe in God or not, you certainly can have an understanding of what characteristics God would have. Governments and laws instituted can NEVER and MUST NEVER attempt to attain those characteristics. In so doing, they can only create their own set of ethics and morals - but then you get into the problem you and I have today, where an uncontrollable, unaccountable, evil system exists that trumps on the liberties of individuals in it's pursuit to attain a false godliness that is impossible to attain.

Candychikita
03-07-2014, 10:22 AM
Just four years Mr. Strewth? I'm 47 years into my experiment and still am amazed at the female memory for us innocent males' occasional missteps.

Bahahhaha we give elephants a run for their money in that regard ;) It's also associated with the very efficient lost item recovery memory gene ("Mommmmmmmmmm....where'd I put my ____?"/Honey, have you seen my ___?") You like us because we remember :D Sometimes :D

I wouldn't say it's cowardice or unethical that people are selling out of fear, and people are taking advantage of this situation. There are people who make their living on buying low and selling high - from the pawn shop dealer to the stocks trader.

Strewth
03-07-2014, 11:37 AM
Just four years Mr. Strewth? I'm 47 years into my experiment and still am amazed at the female memory for us innocent males' occasional missteps.


It's because the missteps are so occasional that they are so easy to remember. :p
I don't know if it was four years or fourteen, I wasn't really paying attention, and probably wasn't paying attention when I did whatever it was she was talking about either:D

hercster
03-07-2014, 11:51 AM
Mr. Strewth,

The partial answer is to occasionally buy em a special gift. I got my CEO a new vacuum cleaner recently. For some reason, this sort of largess doesn't make up for those anniversaries I forgot back in the 70's. Before we leave here I'm going to buy her a new chair. Now that should work right?? In return I bought a new Pistola just so things don't get totally out of balance at the ranch.

Strewth
03-07-2014, 12:06 PM
Yes, I'll have to get her a gift this weekend, I'm spending most of it at the gunshow:).

Personal ethics demand I make some attempt to acknowledge her sacrifice in parenting while I frolic. Maybe a nice reloading die, or if she's really lucky a Central or Lane peep sight for my Omark. I'll let her dust it!
And to drag myself by the ear kicking and screaming back on topic, from a friend I would buy the rifle for $500 with a buyback understanding; from a stranger, I would keep it. No one is forcing anyone to sell, you are allowed to keep it, even look into exporting it to make more than $500.

hercster
03-07-2014, 02:24 PM
Gun shows are a different story as everyone needs to go to those sober and with the brain in gear. I find it's rare to see anything that you can't get elsewhere at a similar or better price. I go to several every year down here and of course the real hardware is off limits to us "non immigrant aliens". The whole scene is a pretty good example of the free market at work. I went to one two weeks ago and they are still flogging .22 LR at $80 / brick. It's very much a business where the buyer has to keep on his toes as those folks with tables do the game 40 weeks a year on the circuit. I never see people thumbing through their Ethics and Decorum hand books at those events.

The cool thing about gun shows is that you can wander around like a kid without too much guilt. All of them have a trinkets row with all sorts of non-guy stuff. I always buy the manager something. This past show got her some solar powered lawn lights that look like crystal birds, bees and flowers. They were a big hit at two fer $15. Have fun Mr. Strewth!

Two For Sure
03-08-2014, 08:28 AM
Another good reason to keep them is the potential for a jackpot. In the 90's the government exempted certain Valmet rifles that were variants of the AK but banned future importation. Today the prices of them are through the roof. If the Harper government does the same with the Swiss and CZ......Cha-CHING!!!!!

harbl_the_cat
03-08-2014, 10:46 AM
I just bought the Mrs. harblthecat a new house, got her pregnant again, and positioned our family so she can stay home with the kids. I want 6 but she thinks 5 is enough.

She cuts me a lot of slack.

Stephen
03-09-2014, 02:38 AM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ji_me74Xvg0

Steveo9mm
03-10-2014, 11:26 AM
recruits were trained on was to disobey an illegal order

so what's the RRRRCMP's excuse...

Smellofspentcasings
04-26-2014, 11:16 AM
Tell it to all the FN owners that have boat anchors sitting in their gun lockers waiting for the Queens Cowboys to one day come and round them up. It's easy to talk tough about prying your guns from your cold dead hands but in reality it's a lame bluff. Hide them in the woods ,sell them and get something or wait for confiscation. You should protest and lobby the government but nothing wrong with people that sell .

aaa
04-26-2014, 03:48 PM
Not just FN. Market for 12.x CA has pretty much dried up and they are now practically worthless. These bad boys are destined to end up the same way.

CanadianEh
06-22-2014, 12:15 AM
According to the last Small Arms Survey FRANCE has 16,000,000 illegal firearms..............


from otherwise "law abiding citizens".


The norm in the case of widespread firearms bans is to hide them.........


I hope they did not hide them on, inside, or under their property though......... sonar, metal detectors, etc.

In Australia as we speak the gun control group..... their version of our Coalition for gun control, is trying to convince the government to "find" that country's illegal firearms by enabling the police to search people's homes without a warrant.......

not just legal gun owners either- everyone.


victoria australia they can already randomly search folk outside of their home without cause or warrant..... most citizens on the media during such searches were quoted as saying "I have nothing to hide I dont care".


They already lost their freedom over there...........

Just more "tools" the police need to "fight crime", and no one wants to appear to be "anti cop" so the politicians sign everyones rights and freedoms away.......


not listing any quotes here, all easy to find on google


such a shame

CLW .45
06-22-2014, 11:04 PM
You are disarmed, in the eyes of the gun-grabbers, if your gun is banned, and you

- turn it in, or

- keep it unlawfully.

And, disarmed is the goal.

Daniel_250r
06-26-2014, 01:56 PM
imo this entire fiasco will linger on as an election promise, then in 2015 we will be fed to the wolves aka the liberals. The liberals are frothing at the mouth to update the prohib list if its restricted your easy pickings.

Swampdonkey
07-04-2014, 02:09 PM
Is it legal to approach someone with the intent of buying their Swiss?

x0ra
07-04-2014, 02:57 PM
Is it legal to approach someone with the intent of buying their Swiss?
IANAL, but I'd say only if you have the right license.

Swampdonkey
07-18-2014, 01:06 PM
IANAL, but I'd say only if you have the right license.

Wouldn't the amnesty apply to the new owner? How would they know I didn't own it before the reclassification?

jwirecom109
07-18-2014, 02:52 PM
Wouldn't the amnesty apply to the new owner? How would they know I didn't own it before the reclassification?

Amnesty only applies to the owner of the firearm when amnesty was issued. The owner can not sell or give the firearm anyway to someone that does not have the proper license.
If you do it behind closed doors no one would know per-say, but that doesn't mean you can't get caught and well we all know they look for reasons to charge firearms owners.

parrnan
07-27-2014, 08:23 PM
The amnesty will end on 2016-03-14 so let's hope Minister Blaney will find a permanent fix so we can keep our CZ858 forever. But if the Liberals or the NDP win the 2015 election I guess we will then have to say bye bye to our CZ858...

http://news.gc.ca/web/article-en.do?nid=870079

FALover
07-27-2014, 09:04 PM
Tell it to all the FN owners that have boat anchors sitting in their gun lockers waiting for the Queens Cowboys to one day come and round them up. It's easy to talk tough about prying your guns from your cold dead hands but in reality it's a lame bluff. Hide them in the woods ,sell them and get something or wait for confiscation. You should protest and lobby the government but nothing wrong with people that sell .


WHAAAT! My baby is a boat anchor? http://i1354.photobucket.com/albums/q699/falover57/012_zpsa3e5bedd.jpg (http://s1354.photobucket.com/user/falover57/media/012_zpsa3e5bedd.jpg.html)

FALover
07-27-2014, 09:08 PM
Not just FN. Market for 12.x CA has pretty much dried up and they are now practically worthless. These bad boys are destined to end up the same way.

Nothing is ever "worthless". But if anyone has a 12.3 they think has no value and wants it to go to a good home let me know!