PDA

View Full Version : PDF of the RCMP's Briefing to Steven Blaney Before the Reclassification



TV-PressPass
05-14-2014, 08:36 AM
It looks like CBC corrected the 5 year vs 2 year amnesty error I called them out on, and published this little gem:

http://tv-presspass.com/blaney-briefing-notes-swiss-arms.pdf (http://tv-presspass.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/rcmp-swiss-arms-blaney-briefing-notes.pdf)

The RCMP's briefing to the Public Safety Minister regarding the Swiss Arms reclassification.

There is a particularly interesting segment of "strategic considerations."

I would encourage all Canadian gun owners to read this document carefully, as it is at least one of the documents that led to this decision.

Note some of the key names have been redacted, but little else.

So now we know a little bit more about what Blaney knew.

Also interesting that the weird phrase about fully automatics we were hassling CBC for came straight from the RCMP.

And then there's this:

http://i.imgur.com/LeubNSg.png

Strewth
05-14-2014, 08:44 AM
Well, I appreciate them saying that it would be operationally difficult to notify all the owners of NR Swiss Arms thereby hopefully encouraging the re-re-classification of these firearms.

Nice find TVPP, thanks for posting it up.

Foxer
05-14-2014, 08:59 AM
Well, I appreciate them saying that it would be operationally difficult to notify all the owners of NR Swiss Arms thereby hopefully encouraging the re-re-classification of these firearms.

Nice find TVPP, thanks for posting it up.
I wouldn't appreciate it too much - they've been trying to float it as proof that we should go back to a long gun registry. "oh if only these guns were ALL registered we could notify everyone and protect them against accidentally being criminals!"

killer kane
05-14-2014, 11:07 AM
Too late, I'm thinking that compliance would be even lower than last tme. As well as a whole lot more guns getting buried.

Ben
05-14-2014, 02:12 PM
And there's this little gem "In 2012, the RCMP technically reviewed 3,793 new types/models of firearms in order to form an expert classification opinion and register where appropriate"

3,793?

In 2012 alone?

Really?

Reeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaall lllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllly??

Simple math tells us that's 14.588 different firearms reviewed per day, 5 days a week, 52 weeks straight. No holidays. No statutory days off. No holidays. Nothing. Sweat Camp CFC is what that place must be called.

How many techies work at the CFC lab? 2? 5? 10?

We're talking about full take down inspection here right....

Sigh.

Not only do they take us for complete f'in idiots, but our elected officials as well, not that's very surprising coming from ol' Bill at the CFC though.

Waynetheman
05-14-2014, 04:11 PM
And there's this little gem "In 2012, the RCMP technically reviewed 3,793 new types/models of firearms in order to form an expert classification opinion and register where appropriate"

3,793?

In 2012 alone?

Really?

Reeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaall lllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllly??

Simple math tells us that's 14.588 different firearms reviewed per day, 5 days a week, 52 weeks straight. No holidays. No statutory days off. No holidays. Nothing. Sweat Camp CFC is what that place must be called.

How many techies work at the CFC lab? 2? 5? 10?

We're talking about full take down inspection here right....

Sigh.

Not only do they take us for complete f'in idiots, but our elected officials as well, not that's very surprising coming from ol' Bill at the CFC though.

No kidding. Since everytime there's a new interesting gun on the horizon it takes like 2 years for classification, I'm gonna have to go ahead and call bs on their number.

RobSmith
05-14-2014, 04:15 PM
Sounds like they're going thru the whole list of non-prohib firearms that look scary (thru a backdoor) to see how they could reclassify them.


And there's this little gem "In 2012, the RCMP technically reviewed 3,793 new types/models of firearms in order to form an expert classification opinion and register where appropriate"

3,793?

In 2012 alone?

Really?

Reeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaall lllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllly??

Simple math tells us that's 14.588 different firearms reviewed per day, 5 days a week, 52 weeks straight. No holidays. No statutory days off. No holidays. Nothing. Sweat Camp CFC is what that place must be called.

How many techies work at the CFC lab? 2? 5? 10?

We're talking about full take down inspection here right....

Sigh.

Not only do they take us for complete f'in idiots, but our elected officials as well, not that's very surprising coming from ol' Bill at the CFC though.

Mr. Lahey
05-14-2014, 05:19 PM
Sounds like they're going thru the whole list of non-prohib firearms that look scary (thru a backdoor) to see how they could reclassify them.

Um no. Every new gun that someone tries to import or sell in Canada needs to be classified, because law enforcement needs to know which of the three classifications every gun falls under. There are probably oodles of hunting rifles that get classified as non-prohib in bunches. They probably do dozens of models at a time, and for most non-tactical rifles or shotguns, they make a decision based on the technical documentation rather than a minute disassembly and verification of every part to make sure that the latest shotgun cannot be converted to full-auto.

harbl_the_cat
05-14-2014, 08:45 PM
Um no. Every new gun that someone tries to import or sell in Canada needs to be classified, because law enforcement needs to know which of the three classifications every gun falls under. There are probably oodles of hunting rifles that get classified as non-prohib in bunches. They probably do dozens of models at a time, and for most non-tactical rifles or shotguns, they make a decision based on the technical documentation rather than a minute disassembly and verification of every part to make sure that the latest shotgun cannot be converted to full-auto.

Sounds like pointless make work to me.

harbl_the_cat
05-14-2014, 08:57 PM
That blurb about "could not be registered or legally imported into Canada, preventing thousands of private purchaes or transfers" is government burecrat-ese for "my job serves no legitimate purpose, but if I throw scary sounding numbers out and puff up how important I am, it might seem like I actually do something useful that justifies the salary I recieve."

Same thing goes with anything pertaining to "public safety."

harbl_the_cat
05-14-2014, 09:10 PM
I actually feel better reading that.

It confirms my suspicion that the senior ranking individuals at the RCMP CFP aren't acting out of maliciousness. They are just unthinking drones acting legalistically in what they believe to be good faith.

The law allows them to do this. They even say so.

That's what they mean when they say "Firearms are classified under the Criminal Code and it's supporting regulations. As such the RCMP has no authority to classify firearms."

Never mind the fact that their actions in formulating their opinion as to a classification, especially with the Swiss Arms has an injurious implication on their fellow human beings.

That be damned - the law is the law, and even though I doubt any of them have ever actually read or fully understand the law - their job is to enforce it, and they were just doing their job. I don't say that questioning their ability - the law is just too big for anyone to fully read or understand.

Anyone here who is not a lawyer read the entire Firearms Act, Criminal Code, and associated regulations? Could you explain them to a child?

It's good to know men like that are in senior positions of leadership of this country.

That confirms for certain how they would act if laws were instituted to herd arbitrarily declared enemies of the state into concentration camps and gas chambers. To men like this, the law is the law and obedience to the law is right - no matter how much harm that obedience inflicts on other people.

At least they weren't acting with a personal vendetta.

Foxer
05-14-2014, 09:29 PM
Anyone here who is not a lawyer read the entire Firearms Act, Criminal Code, and associated regulations?

Yes, although while i'm not a lawyer i'm not exactly the 'average person either'.


Could you explain them to a child?

I can barely explain them to a cop.

speedloader
05-14-2014, 09:59 PM
yep make work projects and for what does it stop any crime or prevent any accidents nope
and if this whole SA thing is any indication at all of the competence level they have in classifying firearms
they completely blew that by claiming they can be converted to full auto easily because they can't
so I agree with all of you its complete Bull S..t and does nothing but waste our hard earned tax dollars

Facepalm
05-14-2014, 10:15 PM
yup.... our tax dollars spent on the finest things.....

Ben
05-15-2014, 04:09 AM
Um no. Every new gun that someone tries to import or sell in Canada needs to be classified, because law enforcement needs to know which of the three classifications every gun falls under. There are probably oodles of hunting rifles that get classified as non-prohib in bunches. They probably do dozens of models at a time, and for most non-tactical rifles or shotguns, they make a decision based on the technical documentation rather than a minute disassembly and verification of every part to make sure that the latest shotgun cannot be converted to full-auto.

You're missing the point here.

If in 2012 alone they reviewed 3,793 firearms, how many were reviewed in 2009? 2010? 2011? 2013? Try and find the list of every single firearm manufacturer in the world that have tried importing firearms in Canada and see if the number add up.

There have been firearms (made by Canadian manufacturer amongst those) that have been in the lab for years. Yes, YEARS, and have yet to be "reviewed".

And yet they could have technically (their words, not mine) reviewed maybe 19,000 firearms in roughly 5 years (if they have about the same output every year as they did in 2012).....

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.







Le grand Sigh.

Candychikita
05-15-2014, 11:02 AM
Anyone here who is not a lawyer read the entire Firearms Act, Criminal Code, and associated regulations? Could you explain them to a child?

Yes...it's dry like reading the bible, but it's interesting if you have stakes in it and people to ask questions about it.

And no, my kids aren't interested in hearing about how their mom has a piece of paper that can be revoked at any time that is the only thing stopping her from being classified a criminal. That makes them uncomfortable...

harbl_the_cat
05-15-2014, 12:15 PM
Yes...it's dry like reading the bible, but it's interesting if you have stakes in it and people to ask questions about it.

And no, my kids aren't interested in hearing about how their mom has a piece of paper that can be revoked at any time that is the only thing stopping her from being classified a criminal. That makes them uncomfortable...

Certain books of the Bible are quite dry, others make it VERY hard to put it down.

Also, the Bible is consistent, makes sense and isn't full of glaring inconsistencies. The same can't be said for all the laws of Canada.

Candychikita
05-15-2014, 12:58 PM
Also, the Bible is consistent, makes sense and isn't full of glaring inconsistencies.

bahahahahahahahahah exercising my right to silence on this one bahahahhahahah

harbl_the_cat
05-15-2014, 01:46 PM
:P

Is that actually a right in Canada? (I'm just giving you a hard time).

Seriously though - the more important theme I'm getting at is in a REAL democracy and certainly in a free society, laws aren't crafted such that both the elected officials and the people cannot read and comprehend the laws they are governed by.

There are 770,000 words in the Bible, 80,000 words in the Koran. Is it any surprise Islam is the fastest growing religion in the world?

Does anyone know how many words there are in ALL of Canadian law?

This was a great video from Rand Paul that illustrates the point talking about the States which is as bad (or worse) than Canada in this regard.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=svGDZOW-brA

Obviously the source report prepared for Steven Blaney was NOT read (or at the very least, not understood).

What does it say about our system of government (and our elected officials) if they can't read and comprehend a simple 5 page memo, let alone a several hundred page bill?

It says this country is either governed by morons or tyrants.

I know some folks will chime in saying "Well, they have to read HUNDREDS of documents daily." My response to that is - so what?

I read (and write) hundreds of documents daily too. If I don't understand something I'm supposed to, I make it my business to reread it and research it until I understand it. If I still don't - I don't take any action on it.

Instead, power and authority is delegated to these morons/tyrants to just sign on a doted line (or raise their hand and say "yay") and an unread 5 page memo or a hundred page long document that NO ONE knows or understands then becomes a law dictating to the people what they can and cannot do, delegating more and more power to the state.

Why does this perverse system even exist today?

I asked - "Can you explain it to a child?" earlier, because there is absolutely no reason civilization should steer itself to the point of making things so unexplainable (whether through complexity or dishonesty) that future generations cannot understand them.

For example - look at the Bank Act - can someone reading that really understand where (Canadian) money comes from and what laws govern it?

Everyone uses "money" in some capacity - but the laws are so convoluted and outright fraudulent it is impossible for the majority of people to understand.

Strangeday
05-15-2014, 09:59 PM
Has anyone noticed that these are Protected A? The RCMP could have not disclosed them under provisions they were exempt from disclosure. Seems they disclosed them just to screw with Blaney.

Foxer
05-15-2014, 11:31 PM
Seems they disclosed them just to screw with Blaney.

Yes, more accurately to create a paper trail so it would appear as tho he was 'in the loop'. It's not like he could do much - "we're investigating a complaint" .. well what's blaney going to say? No - don't do that? You can't order the cops NOT to investigate. Then it's Oh, we reached a decision and we're just letting you know, fyi. come talk to us if you like. They didn't even sit down with him before they reached their final conclusion and say' 'this is what we found, this is what we're thinking of doing, what do you think or how would you like it handled'. Just - "nope, we've decided, so, ya know, suck it".

But - because of the paper trail it looks like they were 'informing' him. Even the term 'briefing' is grossly exaggerating what they did.

Mr. Lahey
05-16-2014, 03:35 PM
Has anyone noticed that these are Protected A? The RCMP could have not disclosed them under provisions they were exempt from disclosure. Seems they disclosed them just to screw with Blaney.

Protected A is the lowest level of security. It is there to protect basic personal details. From where I sit, that would be the name of the person/business that originally made the complaint (which is blanked out, to respect their privacy.)

The documents were obtained by CBC through the Access to Information Act. They would have been released once the Protected information was redacted.

Mr. Lahey
05-16-2014, 04:15 PM
Yes, more accurately to create a paper trail so it would appear as tho he was 'in the loop'. It's not like he could do much - "we're investigating a complaint" .. well what's blaney going to say? No - don't do that? You can't order the cops NOT to investigate. Then it's Oh, we reached a decision and we're just letting you know, fyi. come talk to us if you like. They didn't even sit down with him before they reached their final conclusion and say' 'this is what we found, this is what we're thinking of doing, what do you think or how would you like it handled'. Just - "nope, we've decided, so, ya know, suck it".

But - because of the paper trail it looks like they were 'informing' him. Even the term 'briefing' is grossly exaggerating what they did.

I'm no longer sure you actually read the briefing notes in question, but you will note that the initial one states right at the top that it was written following a request for an update on the status of this situation by the Minister's Office. As you point out, it's clear that at no point do the RCMP imply that they will be looking for confirmation or approval from the Minister on the "expert opinion" they would make on the status of the guns, or indicate that they feel they need it, based on how they have operated the FRT to that time. If Minister Blaney wanted to check on the legalities of this process, determine what the role of the RCMP is supposed to play, or find out how such a special situation might have been handled differently, he could have asked for options, because he is the Minister.

I don't know why you're trying to make it sound like Minister Blaney and his staff are a bunch of good-hearted simpletons that got hoodwinked by the evil RCMP with all of their sneaky long words and technical mumbo-jumbo. I suppose if you don't try and twist what's in these documents, it might leave the impression that the RCMP did the job they were asked to do, and kept the Minister's Office informed, while they did nothing to intervene.

Foxer
05-16-2014, 06:24 PM
I don't know why you're trying to make it sound like Minister Blaney and his staff are a bunch of good-hearted simpletons that got hoodwinked by the evil RCMP with all of their sneaky long words and technical mumbo-jumbo.
I'm a big fan of the truth. And what you're saying simply isn't. It's spin.

Fact - he was informed there was an investigation. He's not going to stop an investigation.

Fact - he DID INDEED ask for options and called them into his office to discuss it, and they blew him off and went ahead anyway.

Fact - it is quite clear that he did NOT agree with them doing that.


I suppose if you don't try and twist what's in these documents, it might leave the impression that the RCMP did the job they were asked to do, and kept the Minister's Office informed, while they did nothing to intervene.

You suppose wrong. Well - at least you suppose wrong for those who take an honest look at what happened and understand the process. You would NEED to twist what's been written to walk away with the idea that somehow he'd been fully briefed and included in the process, or that he was somehow 'in it' with the rcmp, or that the rcmp were even "asked" to do the job.

and you're the only one talking about anyone being 'duped' by 'sneaky long words'. That's a pretty sad attempt to spin in favour of the cops. It's pretty obvious what happened - "hey, we're investigating something" followed by "we already made a decision but we're willing to talk to you about options" (provided it's in the next 24 hrs) followed by "we're aware you have concerns but don't give a flying crap, we're doing this and we're doing the cz's as well".

Nothing particularly 'long worded' in it - but no chance for the minister to do anything either seeing as they weren't interested in listening to his concerns. I'm sure you know the minister can't order the police to do anything.

So when he says it was decisions made by unelected bureaucrats, it's 100 percent true. it wasn't a decision made by him, or one they even brought to him to discuss before deciding, or one they were terribly interested in his thoughts on when they DID meet with him.

Exactly what kind of 'intervention' would you think would be lawful into an RCMP investigation by the minister? Would "none" be pretty accurate? The only thing he can do is change the law if they don't want to listen to him. Which is where we are now.

You seem to agree with the police's actions here. I'll have to admit, they're more or less lawful - but they're still very wrong and things need to change. THis is a problem with the cops - the easiest way to fix that is eliminate the cops from the equation moving forward. THAT is how a minister 'intervenes' and that's what they're doing.

So I disagree with you, I think what the cops did was wrong (you appear to look at it as 'just a bunch of hardworking guys doing the job they were asked to do') and it clearly wasn't a problem with the minister. The solution will be the minister's problem, and we'll see how he does with that.

Mr. Lahey
05-16-2014, 09:42 PM
You suppose wrong. Well - at least you suppose wrong for those who take an honest look at what happened and understand the process. You would NEED to twist what's been written to walk away with the idea that somehow he'd been fully briefed and included in the process, or that he was somehow 'in it' with the rcmp, or that the rcmp were even "asked" to do the job.

and you're the only one talking about anyone being 'duped' by 'sneaky long words'. That's a pretty sad attempt to spin in favour of the cops. It's pretty obvious what happened - "hey, we're investigating something" followed by "we already made a decision but we're willing to talk to you about options" (provided it's in the next 24 hrs) followed by "we're aware you have concerns but don't give a flying crap, we're doing this and we're doing the cz's as well".

Nothing particularly 'long worded' in it - but no chance for the minister to do anything either seeing as they weren't interested in listening to his concerns. I'm sure you know the minister can't order the police to do anything.

So when he says it was decisions made by unelected bureaucrats, it's 100 percent true. it wasn't a decision made by him, or one they even brought to him to discuss before deciding, or one they were terribly interested in his thoughts on when they DID meet with him.

Exactly what kind of 'intervention' would you think would be lawful into an RCMP investigation by the minister? Would "none" be pretty accurate? The only thing he can do is change the law if they don't want to listen to him. Which is where we are now.

You seem to agree with the police's actions here. I'll have to admit, they're more or less lawful - but they're still very wrong and things need to change. THis is a problem with the cops - the easiest way to fix that is eliminate the cops from the equation moving forward. THAT is how a minister 'intervenes' and that's what they're doing.

So I disagree with you, I think what the cops did was wrong (you appear to look at it as 'just a bunch of hardworking guys doing the job they were asked to do') and it clearly wasn't a problem with the minister. The solution will be the minister's problem, and we'll see how he does with that.

I think you're absolutely right that this is a chance for the Minister to do something about it. Perhaps, in fact, some of the controversy generated by this situation might actually give the CPC the political capital to make changes to the FA, or to the regulations or procedures around the FRT (don't ask me if it was a deliberate ploy - not even Mr. Fugi was that devious :))

As far as the possible events between the first briefing to the Minister's Office and the RCMP decision, the briefing notes gave the Minister everything he needed - they outlined the issue, explained the consequences (including the unknown number of these guns in circulation, which was written in black and white), the legal implications on owners, the challenge of this being a "re"-classification and the fact that the story had already received press attention.

What he could have done was to work before the decision was made (since he knew full well that the guns might have been declared prohib) to have a plan set up to have the amnesty in place beforehand, or a buy-back program, or something else. As far as challenging the RCMP to find an alternate solution that might exceed his authority, not a problem. A quick check of the news will reveal numerous of cases where the Government went all the way to the Supreme Court because they tried to do something they were legally not allowed to do. The notion that Minister Blakey would have acted passively because he felt he wasn't allowed to challenge the actions or processes of the RCMP is totally at odds with how the Conservative Government has operated since they took power.

As far as the legality of the RCMP actions, the implication of that is that unless there are changes to how the system works, simply transferring responsibility for identifying and categorizing firearms to another body would presumably have led to no different conclusions.

Finally, I think that the line about the "unelected bureaucrats" may be true, but it's true because that is the system that the Government put in place (the CPC didn't set it up, but they allowed it to continue even after they amended the FA). In my brief time on this site I've seen you post in support of the parliamentary system, but I'd point out that the Government couldn't function without the Public Service. Dumping on the Public Service is a cheap, classless way of passing blame. The media often does it, but it's just sad when politicians stoop to that level. I've commented on his lack of leadership, and that pretty much is a prime example.

Foxer
05-16-2014, 10:03 PM
What he could have done was to work before the decision was made (since he knew full well that the guns might have been declared prohib) to have a plan set up to have the amnesty in place beforehand

Are you kidding me? So... your advice would be to have the minister prepare some sort of blanket amnesty for a class of firearms (which is highly questionable at the best of times) and have it in place IN CASE the rcmp MIGHT prohib' some or all of them, and without full knowledge of their argument or anything? THAT is what you think he should have done? There is no way. And if he did and it ever came out that a minister was planning to circumvent an rcmp investigation without even knowing the details of that investigation, they would be slaughtered by the press AND the opposition, and rightly so.

The minister did the correct thing - wait till the rcmp complete their investigation and then review their findings and consult with them. What he didn't know is they had no intention of consulting with him in the first place. Their 'briefings' (lets call them what they are - notices) did not go into any detail at all other than they were investigating and there could be ramifications if they determined there was a violation.


As far as challenging the RCMP to find an alternate solution that might exceed his authority, not a problem. A quick check of the news will reveal numerous of cases where the Government went all the way to the Supreme Court because they tried to do something they were legally not allowed to do.

So plan B is to knowingly break the laws and then fight it in court. Please tell me you're kidding. Not to mention that you're dreaming if you think the cops would have gone along with that - they'd have done precisely what they DID do, ignore him and do it anyway.

The gov't often does things it believes are legal and which are challenged, but it doesn't do things knowingly that are not lawful and if it does it usually pays a pretty hefty price.


Finally, I think that the line about the "unelected bureaucrats" may be true, but it's true because that is the system that the Government put in place (the CPC didn't set it up, but they allowed it to continue even after they amended the FA).

Wasn't a problem initially - it's been shown to be one after. You're right in the sense that now that it's clear the RCMP will exceed it's intended authority and has no intention of working with the gov't the onus is on the gov't to take action or be held to account. But that would be what they're doing now - it's still the RCMP that chose to exceed the intent of their authority. They were given a long leash with the belief they would be impartial and fair, and they have hung themselves with it.


In my brief time on this site I've seen you post in support of the parliamentary system, but I'd point out that the Government couldn't function without the Public Service. Dumping on the Public Service is a cheap, classless way of passing blame.

Oh bullshit. The Public Service as you call it IS accountable for it's actions, period. The RCMP CHOSE to do this, they CHOSE to violate the spirit of the law and ignore the minister, they CHOSE to interpret the law in the most harmful way to gun owners to the point of being absurd, and THEY SHOULD BE HELD TO ACCOUNT.

Sorry - if you were under the impression that the civil servants of our country somehow have no responsibility for their actions and should not be held to account you are sadly mistaken. You might as well suggest that high river is the cpc's fault too and the police have no responsibility.

The one thing we do seem to agree on is that the minister is responsible for how he responds to the actions of the RCMP, which are reprehensible regardless of whether or not they are legal. But it's pretty obvious that that should include clipping the wings of the RCMP with regards to firearms and taking them out of the loop, as it is clear they intend to be malicious and vindictive in their persecution of gun owners and not neutral and unbias as they should have been.

Tactical72
05-16-2014, 10:14 PM
Interesting opinions. You want to know what I think? I think that if we, as gun owners, put as much effort into working for change, as some here spend chirping back and forth, we would be in great shape. Just a thought...

Foxer
05-16-2014, 10:23 PM
Interesting opinions. You want to know what I think? I think that if we, as gun owners, put as much effort into working for change, as some here spend chirping back and forth, we would be in great shape. Just a thought...

probably a grain of truth to that :)

Mr. Lahey
05-17-2014, 11:05 AM
probably a grain of truth to that :)

But it's easier to reach the Doritos when I'm splitting hairs on the interwebs. ;D

Foxer
05-17-2014, 11:31 AM
But it's easier to reach the Doritos when I'm splitting hairs on the interwebs.

For heaven's sake man - if you're going to be a proper internet debate-ist invest in the right tools!

http://www.norpro.com/gallery/2725-long-reach-grabber/2725-2651e19e10-long-reach-grabber-original.jpg

If you REALLY want to step it up, get one of these robots that delivers your beer :)

http://hackadaycom.files.wordpress.com/2010/07/robotic-beer-delivery.jpg?w=470&h=266

Mr. Lahey
05-17-2014, 06:40 PM
It's like WaffleBot... but for beer!

Foxer
05-17-2014, 11:32 PM
It's like WaffleBot... but for beer!

which is eminently more practical in my opinion :)