I just purchased my first restricted firearm last week, and on the day it arrived, the hammer came down from Ottawa on banning the gun i bought. I grew up with guns my whole life, I just wanted to own one that I actually could take to the range and enjoy with my friends. I knew that if i bought it that i would have to jump through a ton of hoops, drop my pants to the government by actually giving up my right to privacy because they knew i owned the gun...but i thought that because i am a law abiding, tax paying Canadian...i would be OK with that. Now i am faced with having to potentially surrender my firearm that I just paid $4000 for, because it "looks like" a fully automatic assault rifle. Rod, I am grateful to have you try to bring the awareness to people that we are not just losing the privilege of firearm ownership, we are losing the freedom of choice.
@Crawlerjamie9 жыл бұрын
Fellow Canadians- never give up your guns. Any of them.
@deadmanprodinc8 жыл бұрын
You have a great talent. A very neutral approach but with fact and rationale bring the viewer home. Also a very good reminder about the responsibility of owning firearms
@videosurfnet60818 жыл бұрын
I just finished watching all four videos of your "The Legal Truth" series and I find them quite interesting and enlightening. It is very reassuring to see that there are still Canadians out there who act as citizens instead of subjects not only by owning guns but by learning about gun laws, defending gun rights and encouraging others to do so. I hope you will keep producing and posting videos in this series.
@Boneman1319 жыл бұрын
Rod - Always enjoy your videos. You always present your information in a professional and informative manner. Great job and much appreciated.
@ajtaylor5609 жыл бұрын
You hit on the most valid point of all and it is the loss of trust between millions of Canadians and their police services and the government as well. Very sad as it may never come back. You can forgive but can you forget. I don't think so.
@ajtaylor5609 жыл бұрын
***** Terrorism is commonly defined as violent acts (or the threat of violent acts) intended to create fear (terror), perpetrated for an economic,[1] religious, political, or ideological goal, and which deliberately target or disregard the safety of non-combatants (e.g., neutral military personnel or civilians). I can say that I have seen none of that perpetrated in Canada in the last decades other than by actual Islamic terrorists. Certainly not by our police or government. Their job is not to keep us alive. The laws of the land are designed to allow us to live in a civil manner without going off the wall and killing each other. Large numbers of humans without laws would soon degenerate into crazies. The job the police do is in fact, exceptional. On a daily basis they face the worst our society can toss at them. They virtually never see good citizens. They face horror at accidents and scenes of violence. They witness carnage and mayhem and then people throw it back in their faces when they break laws and expect to be treated like aristocrats. No I see them in a different context. I certainly respect them.
@ajtaylor5609 жыл бұрын
***** Sorry can't agree with any of your arguments. The jay walking scenario was really lame. Sounds to me you have a bit of a hate on for any form of law and order. I don't see the terrorist connection at all. But you are welcome to your opinions.
@civiladvantage9 жыл бұрын
2 thumbs down this time. Nice. Twice as many as I normally get. I guess the truth hurts...
@tyguy62969 жыл бұрын
Civil Advantage i can only hope that those 2 people can move on with their lives... I know simple legal definitions can be difficult to come to terms with
@corylahey99419 жыл бұрын
yugnok exactly what i thought, aus or uk i bet lol
@flamedrag189 жыл бұрын
Civil Advantage would you do a video on the general regulations on antique firearms? I have recently seen conflicting information from many people and am confused about what you can do with a antique firearm, namely a antique handgun. can you shoot a antique handgun outside of a shooting range? can you hunt with a antique handgun? can you carry it concealed or only open carry?
@chainsawcanuck9 жыл бұрын
Civil Advantage its strange, there has been progress since bill c-68, yet you see things like bill s-231 which has been around since 2008... senate needs to go, and us gun owners need to educate anti gunners that owning a firearm is not and evil thing if in hands of a responsible gun owner
@inspectyerbooty9 жыл бұрын
Civil Advantage how about this idea and a thumbs up?...... i saw an opening for the job of police chief in dryden ontario.... you take the job in my province, work the problem from the inside, join that organization/federation/ council whatever of police chiefs or whatever, become an accepted and trusted member of the establishment bureaucracy, win/ be appointed the chief firearms officer of my province and then arbitrarily establish and decree widespread commonsense changes from your position of authority, all the while being paid to do it...... i could happen :-) love ya man , best of luck, be well my friend
@bcoffroad4x49 жыл бұрын
In the video one of the guys said someyhing along the lines of "Its the rcmp's job to protect society not gun owners" this really grinds my gears people considering us as not being part of society just because of our possessions they teach in school that its bad to make uneducated guesses but thats exactly whats happening the government is supposed to be a representation of the people and theres a lot of pissed off people
@civiladvantage9 жыл бұрын
***** Excellent point. More them vs us crap.
@Kune358 жыл бұрын
+lucas ruth It also sort of implies that they're trying to protect society FROM the gun owners.
@nacholibre19627 жыл бұрын
That wasn't a guy, that was Evan Solomon, a simpering sycophant of the Liberal Party masquerading as a journalist. Entirely different beast and one indeed who, while acting high and mighty about gun legislation, was busily using his position at CBC to make shady deals in the art world for which he was fired in 2015. He now works for XM Radio. He's 48 and has the voice of a 12 y/o boy. Not to be taken seriously at all!
@romeoneverdies6 жыл бұрын
its not implied its expressed plainly and explicitely.
@applemanipodmac9 жыл бұрын
You should make a T.V add campaign to talk about these type of things. Inform the public
@jacques49lussier19 жыл бұрын
Thank you, Rod, Keep up the good work. We will help to spread by sharing.
@Sgt.Ursula9 жыл бұрын
Another excellent video. Thank-you Rod for sharing.
@brigademajor9 жыл бұрын
Thanks for doing these videos. You're a great spokesperson for all law abiding Canadian gun owners.
@MsCheesebread9 жыл бұрын
Good timing on the release of this video. I found out a couple days that the RCMP has classified the Mossberg Blaze 47 (a normally NR rifle) as prohibited.
@D3ggz069 жыл бұрын
Another well done video Rob! I hope someone in the RCMP see it and maybe wake up!
@kobaltstaub2879 жыл бұрын
It truly boggles the mind to see how the government gets to it's point. I'm at the point of being ashamed of being Canadian, To feel so untrustworthy even after complying with all their demand is unbearable. It took the love of firearms to open my eyes on how rotten they really are. I know it has nothing to do with the video, but the more i learn the more i get to this one conclusion.
@jj.talbott9 жыл бұрын
Thanks for the video Rod. Loved the section of you comparing the "variants" and how there are literally no similarities. Great editing. Very strong points. Would love to see more short quick videos like this on other prohibited firearms. Very impactful and makes very valid points. Also makes the RCMP look like fools for their classifications methods.
@nacholibre19627 жыл бұрын
Every gun owner in Canada should submit an Access to Information request to the CFC - on the same day!
@davisjtc9 жыл бұрын
Awesome video, Rod! Real head-scratcher for sure.
@shanewelches53188 жыл бұрын
This is absolutely ridiculous, how have we let this society get to a point where the government can get away with this kind of stuff. Like the most baseless of baseless assertions. And ive seen the other three parts too, the fact that law abiding citizens are given more scrutiny and have a much harder time getting guns than criminals do. Absolutely ridiculous.
@checkmate0584 жыл бұрын
NEWS: _Man buys sadan uses it to run over 16 pedestrians._ RCMP: *Bans Ferraris* Canadians: Whaaat?
@Bikerbob599 жыл бұрын
Thanks for this series.
@gregorycraig98829 жыл бұрын
Love your videos. Great job. Well researched and reasoned points.
@fester55689 жыл бұрын
Great video, I look forward to the next
@Misty9949 жыл бұрын
Pissed myself laughing when they compared the ak47 and Ap180, the legal system could seriously use a face-lift...
@allanhundeby16758 жыл бұрын
+Crash Bandicoot My favourite was Rod's response at 08:12. ;)
@roccozambrifoto9 жыл бұрын
Great video Rod
@tempo5299 жыл бұрын
Great info,thank's!
@kevincarvalho40229 жыл бұрын
Thank you for all your hard work
@tgmotz6 жыл бұрын
It's now almost the end of 2017. Did the RCMP get back to you on the definition of "Variant" and how it's used in regulation?
@tippin269 жыл бұрын
Good information!
@tletang9 жыл бұрын
Great video!
@legoandbikes9 жыл бұрын
Great video Rod, but it's sad to hear all this. I think we are not as free as we would like to believe. They will make it harder and harder until we finally quit.
@civiladvantage9 жыл бұрын
rsidney23 Simple, never quit. This will change one way or another. More and more people are becoming informed and aren't willing to stay quiet about all the corruption and abuse of authority. I count myself as one of those people.
@Kevinclearysharpstuff9 жыл бұрын
I think someone would have to take a case to court fighting a reclassification thereby forcing a legal decision about what variant means. Then once a definition was part of case law every reclassification that didn't meet the legal definition could be called into question
@Kevinclearysharpstuff9 жыл бұрын
Kevin cleary Sorry just want to add great video and keep up the good work
@jimlahey83129 жыл бұрын
Keep em comin
@jakabboudreau46857 жыл бұрын
Hey Rod. I love your videos. They are concise and easy to understand. You must spend a lot of time in research and on writing the script and I wanted to thank you. I do have a question regarding, "The RCMP declared authority to classify firearms." Being a Canadian who believes in the system and is relatively new to the firearms scene; I was wondering when this happened? Also, if you could point me to a link when they declared this and when it was accepted by the legislature? I just have a hard time believing that Canada's checks and balances system is not working in a subject that is a pretty big deal.
@Ryeman20129 жыл бұрын
thanks for the info Rod!
@jonathansokoluk90037 жыл бұрын
Awesome video as always Rod, thank you for the information. Have you thought of making a video explaining every bit of legal paperwork we firearm owners must take with us to the range? I remember in one of your videos you briefly covered some of the paper we must bring, and some other paper that you find useful to bring. Thanks for the consideration!
@diegofianza35257 жыл бұрын
Great exposé.
@Huntinggearguy9 жыл бұрын
What timing! Today we heard that the Blaze47, a Mossberg 22 with AK-esque furniture has been prohibited as an AK47 variant. I guess the "we didn't know any better back then" excuse is out for the RCMP.
@pathfinderpreston25389 жыл бұрын
That Sucks about the blaze 47, I really wanted one for the collection.
@FreedomClause9 жыл бұрын
The Hunting Gear Guy what someone needs to do is invent a single set of ak furniture that will make ANY gun look like an ak, dress up every long rifle model sold in Canada and force the issue.... the RCMP must face up to the reality that putting a pistol grip on a 22lr doesn't make it an ak variant just like putting lipstick on a pig doesn't make it a hooker.
@fulblaze49 жыл бұрын
great video
@elendal9 жыл бұрын
I agree this is irrational and unreasonable. What can I do to help remove that stupid classification system?
@louisdoucet4207 жыл бұрын
this is absolutely crazy!!
@hrcanada15749 жыл бұрын
Nice vid Rod, keep up the info
@meals24u9 жыл бұрын
Those crickets chirping are there for a reason.. To make ppl forget and give up..
@ldg3320048 жыл бұрын
Sad but true after the government had on paper who owned what all of the sudden this gun and that one were deemed illegal (for ridiculous reason's) then had to be turned in to be destroyed.Also sad but true alot of law maker's don't have the mental capacity to be a burger joint manager. A 22 rimfire(made for shooting pop can's and gopher's) made illegal because it "look's like" a 60 year old Ak-47.That's about as stupid as stupid can get.
@nacholibre19627 жыл бұрын
4:05 Went into Lever Arms once. Won't be back. I found that guy to be arrogant, dismissive, and generally lacking in manners. I'm not the sort of guy who puts up with that, but I had my son with me and did't want to embarrass the guy. In balance, though, after the one word answers to my questions, demanding my firearms license without saying please, and finally stating what I owed him without saying please, I couldn't help myself and without making a fuss, I just looked him directly in the eyes and very quietly sad, "Say, 'please'". There was a pause as it sunk in, then his face dropped and he mumbled, "please". I thanked him politely in front of my boy and never said another word about it. But the fact is that his prices are not competitive. I can get stuff way cheaper. I just happened to be in the area and thought I'd give it a shot. Maybe he was having a bad day; maybe not. It wasn't my aim to make it worse, but it sure was my aim to somewhat gently let him know that he was out of line. Italian Sporting goods on the other hand got my repeat business. When I bought scopes off them in person, they were polite and friendly and I found their prices to be decent. They even took digital pics of rings and sent me specs when I made inquiries. Wanstalls was pretty good, too. I did an online transaction with them from the other side of the world and they were very helpful. Yes, I know this is rather off topic. Oh, well!
@j.danaclark898 жыл бұрын
Here's an idea! If they are going to allow you to buy a gun only to reclassify it and steal from you, start issuing prohibited licenses to the effected owners. It only sounds fair to me.
@denisleblanc45069 жыл бұрын
I worked in the RCMP labs when the discussion of variant came up and I can tell you that no one from the Firearms Sections in the labs considered this one a variant. Like you, we understood it was wrong to consider this a variant. We also didn't agree on the definition of replica but understood it was a device that closely replicated the "real" firearm to the point of even being made on the same machinery but not able to fire a cartridge. We had many arguments on this with some managerial types even suggesting we should base our decision on how it looked from several feet away. It was simply silly and not practical. The point was if the "victim" could think it was a firearm then it was a replica. Notwithstanding that many Canadians don't know what a real firearm looks like and many "victims" could actually be LEO's. Please don't put all the Firearms examiners in the same basket. I can assure you that it wasn't the case. Some of us were badly overworked and didn't even want to do "classification" cases thinking any competent gunsmith could easily accomplish the work as easily as us and we should have concentrated on criminal casework involving misuse of firearms. I also argued against minimal barrel lengths for handguns. Their rebuttal was that no one practices precision shooting with short barrels obviously omitting the use of any optics. I also argued against the prohibition of 25 and 32 calibers saying that by prohibiting those you would flood the black market and ensure that anyone killed in the future would have less chance of survival. Please don't confuse the decisions made by a beauraucracy that justified their existence with how many firearms they could prohibit and restrict with all of us who worked in the firearms sections of the labs that were then across the country. While we agreed with some of the regulations we certainly disagreed with many others. To the point where we now have such a convoluted legislation that most police officers no longer understand it and they had to creat NWEST to try and keep up with it.
@denisleblanc45068 жыл бұрын
+GutsLCF I don't think you understand how these regulations came to be. A forensic firearms examiner working in Halifax had no say about these regulations. Look at the committee makeup that actually wrote these regulations. When I wrote my conclusions in my reports, I had to follow the regulations. I did express my disagreement when I had a chance, but all that accomplished was limit my career paths (which I didn't regret. ) We were severely understaffed and not keeping up with the caseload and we were given two huge binders of regulations with all the added casework it implied without any additional staff. Police forces were confiscating firearms for reasons like unsafe storage and we were tasked with determining if these were firearms, or variants, etc. Every registered converted firearm was submitted to the labs to determine if it was converted properly or was easy to convert back to full auto. Can you imagine how much work this entailed? Most of these cases could have been done any competent gunsmith but they were sent to the labs. We fell so far behind the RCMP decided to stop doing casework for wildlife enforcement agencies. I again expressed my disagreement with their decision stating that these agencies had no one else to turn to. Their answer was that we were to concentrate on criminal acts. Unsafe storage was deemed criminal and big game poaching was deemed trivial. BTW, I've since retired and have my own forensic lab now catering mostly to wildlife enforcement agencies (for the last 10 years.) If you really think that the RCMP has the competence to write firearms regulations for public safety think again. Is a handgun with a barrel 104 mm long so dangerous it should be prohibited and one that is 105 mm OK? Is a semi-automatic centerfire rifle that fires 6 cartridges so much more dangerous it should be prohibited while one that fires 5 is OK? Is a .25 or .32 caliber handgun so much more dangerous to public safety it should be prohibited while all the other calibers are OK for public safety? There was no reasoning with these people. What the committee wanted to do at that time was to confiscate as many firearms as possible (to brag about it) and they created such a jumble of regulations that the common policeman didn't understand them and they had to create NWEST to deal with that problem. These were specialized policemen with additional training and were responsable for dealing with firearms cases. Good luck to the legal firearms owner that just wanted to follow the law and enjoy his sport. They never were a consideration. I saw the consequences of these regulations first hand and they weren't what was reported in the mainstream medias. Don't blame me for them. I voiced my disagreement in a paramilitary organisation. That's all I was allowed to do. I could not voice it publicly.
@0zeroSubz3 жыл бұрын
much appreciated if you can do a series about situations where it's legal to shoot someone such as if Canada has any stand your ground law similar to the states completely agree with your videos and I'm considering legally getting a handgun despite the restrictions, but only if there is any situation where it's a legal way of defending yourself
@TheWolfsnack3 жыл бұрын
The PAL system is subject to the same abuse by the RCMP.....a friend of mine has been in limbo for 1 1/2 years waiting for the CFC to renew his RPAL....he is frustrated to the point of thinking about telling the CFC the he is willing to give up his RPAL for a PAL..and no answer as to why or timelines from the CFO...I told him to contact his MP and MLA....but they are both NDP anti-gunners....so, he has been forced to sell his restricted firearms to RPAL holders in order to avoid a raid and possible arrest....because the RCMP have put him in that position. He can only assume that this is most likely due to an ex-spouse he co-parents a child with, an ex who worked as a police counsellor....and who has tried everything she can to undermine him in court over custody/support issues and lost every single time. The reality is that without effective oversight the RCMP can manufacture criminals simply by doing nothing....
@knightsun29208 жыл бұрын
Another point on reclassified in real time is something I noticed in Cabela's most recent catalog and online might conflict with parts of the Special Bulletin for Businesses No. 72: "Example 2*: The Ruger BX-25 magazine, chambered for 22 LR calibre, is designed and manufactured for use in the Ruger SR22 rifle, the 10/22 family of rifles/carbines and the 22 Charger handgun. As a result, this magazine is a prohibited device unless modified so its capacity is 10 cartridges or less. (*This information was not included in the original version of this bulletin, but was added on 2013-09-05.)" www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/cfp-pcaf/bulletins/bus-ent/20110323-72-eng.htm www.cabelas.ca/product/9883/butler-creek-25-round-1022-banana-magazines www.cabelas.ca/product/62029/gsg-ruger-1022-110-round-drum-magazine OK so the Ruger BX-25 and BX-15 are prohibited, but the nearly identical 25-Round Butler Creek model is not? Also is the G.S.G. Drum Magazine 11 times over capacity as well? I might have missed something, who is correct? To my understanding all magazines are prohibited unless pinned to 10. Links current as of posting on Mar 14, 2016.
@donkeydonk964 жыл бұрын
Knight Sun rim fire is different
@1314Erik9 жыл бұрын
And now there's a new AK47 "variant" on the prohibited list....the Blaze 47...just because it has extra plastic on it...and for the cherry on top, the Blaze, which actually is a variant of the Blaze 47, is non restricted. Makes no sense.
@AetheusZX8 жыл бұрын
So Rod, asides from keeping up with the gun law changes daily and / or being a advocate and follower of CCFR, what would be the best way to stay aware... I am in fear that one day, not only myself but others will own a legal non-restricted firearm, and then the next morning they / I, will be in possession of a Prohibited firearm and am unaware of it and be at the risk of jail time.
@civiladvantage8 жыл бұрын
+Mchang3838 Join our Facebook group or other large group concerning firearms. Gunowners of Canada (forum) is another good resource. Word travels very fast on these platforms.
@LifeThug1969 жыл бұрын
Hey Rod, do you have any updates on the ar15 petition? BTW great video keep em coming
@MegaJFAR9 жыл бұрын
Another recent manifestation of the problem Rod is explaining here: www.gunownersofcanada.ca/showthread.php?23616-RCMP-Prohibited-another-gun-Based-on-Looks-only Mossberg Blaze - Non-Restricted semi-auto 22LR rifle Mossberg Blaze 47 - Prohibited semi-auto 22LR rifle From my understanding, both Mossberg Blaze and Blaze 47 are functionally identical, and the Blaze 47 shares nothing in common with the AK-47 besides looks.
@schectersynyster43189 жыл бұрын
Whats goin on with the petition for the ar15 and turning it to a non restricted and having 30 rounds
@Canadiangunman17179 жыл бұрын
Mossberg Blazer 47 another "variant" another blunder that Canadians miss out on.
@Canadiangunman17179 жыл бұрын
Oh I would have very much enjoyed having the counter part to my 715T. Both in .22 cal and a neat collection from Mossberg. When I discovered this new rifle I had NO IDEA Canada would ban it BASED on LOOKS!!!! And it looks plastic but authentic.I further grow EMBARRASSED AGAIN!! Ok bill C-42 stamp "Veto" by Government overruling like you said they can DO and override the classification because even you can see this is becoming an EMBARRASSMENT TOO!! And they have gone too far.this time"We have to give a little to get their votes" SO COUGH IT UP!! By September 2015 or I'll fly down south and smuggle 50 and put some hard earned smiles on the faces of good and decent "Legal Gun Owners" here.
@Canadiangunman17179 жыл бұрын
This is so STUPID we can't have them here because it "looks" like the AK-47 for God sake give us a fucking break?
@mikecharters83249 жыл бұрын
Another case is the Smith and Wesson M&P15-22. Looks like an AR. Uses an AR trigger group. An AR mag release, although the magwells are the same shape internally so mags do not interchange. It uses the same bolt release/catch, although the bolts are very different. No gas system, blowback only. It uses the same butt stock, although the extension tube is really only a solid piece of plastic that cannot contain a buffer tube. The upper and lower receivers split using two pins, although they're not quite in the same place so you can't accidentally swap with a real AR. Oh, and I mention that the receivers are both plastic!!? In short, it looks like an AR. It feels like an AR. It's perfect for AR training, using $.04 each ammunition. But it is not and can never be an AR15. It's restricted though. Is it because S&W called it an AR and therefore restricted by name? Maybe...
@Canadiangunman17179 жыл бұрын
mike charters Any rifle that takes pistol mags is Restricted. Case in point of my Mossberg 715T which I refuse to exchange my 25 round magazines for shitty 10's. My Sub 2000 takes Glock pistol mags and it is non restricted? And it's 9mm not ,22 cal! Where is the fucking logic in this country?
@mikecharters83249 жыл бұрын
Not true. An H&K SL8 with a magwell conversion can use a LAR mag. So can an XCR. Neither are restricted. The JR Carbine uses Glock mags. Non-restricted.
@Canadiangunman17179 жыл бұрын
I agree with you but my point is that the way the RCMP classifies rifles that take pistol mags are stupid and not thought out well at all. Why is one but not the other? My S2K takes Glock pistol mags. And because there is a pistol version of my 715T it has made my 25 round mags prohibited? Is it because one is a 10 round and other is 25? NOPE just because there is a pistol version in the states that we here in Canada don't have at all. And I will not give my 25 round mags up that is not fair.
@mikecharters83249 жыл бұрын
lol. Questar brought six (6!) of the M&P15-22P into Canada. I guess that makes them commonly available?
@Canadiangunman17179 жыл бұрын
Is it a person or a couple of people? Licensed gun owners? Who makes the decision of what gun is what? RCMP technicians who live on another planet? They make semi auto AK47s with the same barrel length as the current AR15 or is that the other way around? Have one military rifle BUT not both! How many mass killings in the Sates involve AK47s? ZERO! AR15s? Sandy Hook the worse yet in my life. Colorado, premiere of a Batman movie. But here in Canada the hero gun still remains the AR15 over the "evil" AK47s.Have we owners not proven anything if not responsible? Magazine cap of 5 rounds? Still? Can somebody cut us some slack since that one time in 1989? Sorry for the rant.
@BCUMF038 жыл бұрын
this should not need saying...but I'll say it anyway. Guns are built to be rebarrelled because barrels wear out. That's all there is to it.
@snwsk89 жыл бұрын
How long until my ruger sr22 is considered a variant. With collapsible stock, magpul grip, full rail and battledyne mags, I know people are unsure of what I have.
@TheComputerUnderground7 жыл бұрын
I think this is a sad result of people in power making rules for things they have no education in.
@onlock6089 жыл бұрын
Hey Rod where do we stand on the classification of the Swiss arms.
@bradgillies77728 жыл бұрын
So who currently is responsible for writing or amending the regulation? Is this still the RCMP? When the Regulation is amended is there a Public comment period before the final regulation is adopted?
@BabylonYoga9 жыл бұрын
How dare you think things through Rod! Can't you just roll over and ask for the Gov'ment to save you already??
@elobiretv9 жыл бұрын
Isnt it illegal for them not to give you the information under the freedom of information act?
@FreedomClause9 жыл бұрын
given the 'as determined by regulation' back door, and no definition of 'variant', the RCMP could make fish sticks and chicken burgers illegal if they wanted to....without a legal definition, the word variant could mean anything....legally the daisy red rider could be regulated as an AK-47 variant..... Two things need to change... 1) regulation needs to be by legislation only...no more make it up as you go along.... 2) citizens must be able to sue their government to help control over reach. .... the biggest issue with bill C-68 is the fact that the reason for the legislation was in response to a mass shooting in which a mini-14 was used.... but the mini-14 is not on the list....how does it make sense to ban everything except the gun that was actually used? it's like banning potato chips and chocolate bars in response to a case of food poisoning caused by oysters. We are living with 14th century politics in the 21st century...'it is illegal because we say so! now shut up and give us half your wages in taxes, and thank us for it...'
@teejay74158 жыл бұрын
Iv watched prt 1 - 4 and iv made up my mind.... Im moving to america
@73canuck9 жыл бұрын
Do you know that part two and three are not on KZfaq?
@civiladvantage9 жыл бұрын
Pascal Bolduc Yes, they are there.
@tyler1117629 жыл бұрын
going to do my CFSC on the 8th. wish i could do my restricted as well. damn age limits. XD wish me luck guys
@bazyrkyrsbunker58429 жыл бұрын
Legislation is statutory law (aka statutory admiralty legal jurisdiction aka private contract law...so make sure that the "law" they are trying to apply to you actually does apply to you) but there is also constitutional law and common law...both of which statutory law cannot violate unless you consent to it (which to do you must not be under duress and you must have full disclosure of the effects & relevant consequences to do) as it would be unlawful & illegal (which are not synonymous term and do not mean the same thing) and would violate your God rights & due process (which is also unlawful & illegal). When statutory "law" that violates constitutional or common law (which in most cases they will also codify under statutory admiralty legal jurisdiction when it suits their purpose to try and muddy the waters) is enforced as the law of the land it is called color of law and is tantamount to treason. And yes...I realize you're in Canada. Canada is a common law country as is Australia, the UK, and the 50 union States and our legal systems are all derived from English Common Law and the Magna Carta. "Color" means "An appearance, semblance, or simulacrum, as distinguished from that which is real. A prima facia or apparent right. Hence, a deceptive appearance, a plausible, assumed exterior, concealing a lack of reality; a disguise or pretext. See also colorable." Black's Law Dictionary, 5th Edition, on page 240. "Colorable" means "That which is in appearance only, and not in reality, what it purports to be, hence counterfeit feigned, having the appearance of truth." Windle v. Flinn, 196 Or. 654, 251 P.2d 136, 146. "Color of Law" means "The appearance or semblance, without the substance, of legal right. Misuse of power, possessed by virtue of state law and made possible only because wrongdoer is clothed with authority of state is action taken under 'color of law.'" Atkins v. Lanning. D.C.Okl., 415 F. Supp. 186, 188. If something is "color of law" then it is NOT law, it only looks like law. If you go to the website for the Office of Law Revision Counsel, you will see that most of the titles of the United States Code are "prima facia evidence of the laws of the United States". What does prima facia mean....... "prima facia" means "At first sight; on the first appearance; on the face of it; so far as can be judged from the first disclosure; presumably; a fact presumed to be true unless disproved by some evidence to the contrary." State ex rel. Herbert v. Whims, 68 Ohio App. 39, 38 N.E.2d 596, 599, 22 O.O. 110. Black's Law Dictionary 5th Edition page 1071. Prima facia and color of law both go hand in hand, because if a law is prima facia evidence of the laws of the United States, that means it is color of law, by definition. In other words the bureaucrat presumes that the law applies to you until you defeat their presumption. If you read these prima facia, color of law statutes, you will find them using words like "person". I will use the color of law Title 26 USC as a typical way that they do it. 26 USC 7701 (a) (1) Person. The term “person” shall be construed to mean and include an individual, a trust, estate, partnership, association, company or corporation. If you look in the Canadian statutes you will see it is structure is very similar. But you can hit them the the Ejusdem Generus maxim of law which states....... "Of the same kind or nature. A rule of interpretation that where a class of things is followed by general wording that is not itself expansive, the general wording is usually restricted things of the same type as the listed items." Which is why you must challenge their jurisdiction immediately because when you do they must address it. If you don't you will end up submitting to their jurisdiction before you realize it (via something they call tacit consent). This is just scratching the surface so look into before trying to apply this. And be careful...in court they speak legalese (I'm not kidding)...not English.
@allanhundeby16758 жыл бұрын
So it's been over a year since the request about the official definition of "variant" was made. Do you know if there has been any response or clarification yet?
@civiladvantage8 жыл бұрын
+Allan Hundeby Sept 28, 2015 Quote Concerning the ATI request for determining variants: Hi Rod: I received 144 pages from Justice today but almost all relevant sections were blanked out under Section 23 Solicitor-Client Privilege and Section 21(1)(a) Advice to a Minister, etc. I have attached a copy of the 17 pages that appear to have something relevant orinteresting. If you want a copy of the entire response with all the blanked out pages, I'll get a copyfor you. What it shows is that this has been a matter of a lot of discussion for a long time in the Dept. of Justice.
@MrJakeGowans9 жыл бұрын
Valmet Hunter?
@-0__________________________0-7 жыл бұрын
WOW
@sailpunk14259 жыл бұрын
So with C42 is my AK Variant (cz-858) going back to non-restricted?
@civiladvantage9 жыл бұрын
Tyler Campbell It's not an AK variant. It's a "converted full auto". C-42 won't fix that specifically. There's a little more that has to be done.
@blizte36 жыл бұрын
classifying by looks is a a bunch lies and looks have no real classifying tools like this.
@earthenwarrior89757 жыл бұрын
I was wondering how I could contact you because I need to know if I could be arrested for my replica bb gun
@gr743g43ggfb49 жыл бұрын
Are slide fire stocks legal in Canada?
@civiladvantage9 жыл бұрын
gr743g43ggfb4 no
@quantumleap15939 жыл бұрын
if it looks like a duck
@yuowatcher8 жыл бұрын
"The government are the public servants". Seriously? And one can say it with the straight face after giving all this information in this video?
@martinrobillard19 жыл бұрын
did these fu... clowns have classified the 22lr prohibited ... seriously ,imagine a "gun guy" who s working at the rcmp reaction should be , like " boss you re not serious with that one " and all of the rest of the team are laughing their ass off :)
@Pimptorious699 жыл бұрын
Very disappointed in your choice of shirt.
@frankyg23848 жыл бұрын
Stupid people making irrational and irrelevant decisions, for example the Kel-Tec SU-16 uses AR mags and uses the same ammo and is non restricted, but the AR-15 is restricted, we can use LAR15 mags in an SU-16 with 10 rounds in it legally because it's classified as a pistol magazine, plus all of what was mentioned in the video, they need to have real professionals working on classifications.