Yes, the ejection port is big enough. Just launched a ton of lead this weekend with mine.
Yes, the ejection port is big enough. Just launched a ton of lead this weekend with mine.
ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ
Doesn't matter what the liberal public office says, if it wasn't mentioned by name in the OIC and is only "prohib" by FRT it is not legally binding, already confirmed by a federal judge, and is why you won't be seeing anyone charged with owning or using a firearm banned only by FRT, and if it did happen the crown would lose in court, which is another reason they won't charge anyone, because then it would be confirmed by the courts and the RCMP and Gov couldn't use the fear of prosecution anymore.
CSSA - CCFR - NFA - GOA
"Lex iniusta non est lex" - St. Augustine
So if I create a new gun tomorrow that functions like an ar15 and uses all ar15 parts. But has a new name that is not listed in the oic. You think it would be legal?…
The names listed are a list of some examples based on the law wording itself. The list itself is not inclusive
That would depend whether its an AR-15 or a new/uncategorized rifle design.
If its an AR-15 its prohib, if it's a new design you'll have to send it to the fire arms lab and wait a few months-years for the RCMP to make up their mind.
ATRS sent a new design to the lab that the RCMP officially said was not an AR-15 variant, so therefore it gets a different classification and isn't affected by AR-15 classification.
The “FRT isn’t law guy’s” sure disappear fast when you ask for any legitimate eveidence that you can still use the firearm other than there own legal opinion.