Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 21 to 26 of 26
  1. #21
    Senior Member Drache's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Williams Lake, BC
    Posts
    7,576
    Quote Originally Posted by RangeBob View Post
    The FRT is still for police & verifiers.
    Or for anyone who works in the industry

  2. #22
    Senior Member Zinilin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    3,349
    Quote Originally Posted by RangeBob View Post
    RCMP page on Solvent Traps
    http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/en/firearms/solvent-traps



    BTW, the RCMP CFP have reorganized their website
    http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/en/firearms
    The FRT is still for police & verifiers.
    However, the RCMP has determined that several devices being imported as "solvent traps" or "fuel filters" are in fact firearm suppressors/silencers based on the following key characteristics:
    Actually it is not relevant what the RCMP determines the parts might be used for. It is up to a Judge, based on Evidence, to determine whether or or not a part kit can only become a prohibited device, and nothing else.

    There is not a Pre-Crime department in Canada, yet.
    A block of aluminum is not a lower.

    'Could Be' isn't.

  3. The Following 3 Users Like This Post By Zinilin

    firemachine69 (11-30-2019), Gunexpert007 (11-29-2019), TheMerlin (11-30-2019)

  4. #23
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    3,492
    Quote Originally Posted by Gunexpert007 View Post
    Very true . Now it sounds like even if you have the parts to make a prohibited device , then you are charged......maybe thought crime will be next .
    If this were to be the standard then every CDN could be arrested. I did some experimenting (because I had the equipment and the licencing) and discovered a number of ways to make very effective sound suppressing devices out of everyday, ordinary object everyone would have in their home. These kinds of devices can be made in minutes to seconds depending on the device and they generally work surprisingly well.

    If CDN law is going down the route of, "it is what it can be converted into" then nobody in the country is safe and the govt can make up whatever charges it wants to. I suspect this is not where we are going though.

    What is needed is a halfway smart lawyer to bring a number of ordinary items into the courtroom and show how those can be quickly made into prohibited devices, which thus shows the idiocy of the RCMP banning stuff and charging people for what an item "can be."

  5. The Following User Liked This Post By Suputin

    TheMerlin (11-30-2019)

  6. #24
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    3,492
    Quote Originally Posted by Zinilin View Post
    Actually it is not relevant what the RCMP determines the parts might be used for. It is up to a Judge, based on Evidence, to determine whether or or not a part kit can only become a prohibited device, and nothing else.

    There is not a Pre-Crime department in Canada, yet.
    A block of aluminum is not a lower.

    'Could Be' isn't.
    THIS.

    The following items can and have been used to silence firearms.

    - pillow
    - soda bottles
    - tape
    - shaving cream
    - tennis balls

    Who does not have one or more of these items in their home? Following the RCMP judgement on "solvent traps" you and everyone else in the country has a prohibited device in their home.

  7. #25
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2018
    Location
    Chilly-WHACK
    Posts
    327
    All I will say is given the Arsempee’s opinion on the Butler Creek 10/22 mags, the term “Prohibited Device” means much less to me than it used to

  8. The Following 3 Users Like This Post By TheMerlin

    Gunexpert007 (11-30-2019), ilikemoose (12-01-2019), Rory McCanuck (11-30-2019)

  9. #26
    Senior Member RangeBob's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Ontario
    Posts
    39,920
    (3) As a result of the 1995 Supreme Court Decision in Hasselwander, the courts no longer interpret firearms legislation strictly. This change has resulted in numerous injustices. Parts have been found to be "capable" of being firearms or prohibited devices when they were not actually capable at the time the person was in possession. The RCMP have also made multiple dubious classifications on the basis of the term "variant" These terms are not defined in the statute, and so therefore legal firearms owners are at the whims of the RCMP's interpretation from day to day. The purpose of the regulatory framework within the firearms act is to enhance public safety by ensuring that people who are legally entitled to possess firearms are able to do so in a safe manner by complying with the regulations set out in the law. This is very difficult to do when the terms are vague or undefined. If requested I am sure I could assist in identifying numerous terms which would benefit from definition (or clarification in their definitions). These would ultimately assist firearms owners in ensuring they do not break the law. Accidental criminals is not the intention of the law.
    -- Paul Morrison, St. Thomas, ON (at the time the above was written Paul was a para-legal, today Paul is a lawyer)

  10. The Following User Liked This Post By RangeBob

    TheMerlin (11-30-2019)

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •