Quote:
Originally Posted by tranq78
Nope, you can't have both a nullified and a valid certificate at the same time. The firearms act is very clear. You either have a certificate or you don't. It's black and white. There is no such thing as administratively expired or nullified in the firearms act and it is obvious from reading the act that they did not want any gray areas. The craziest thing is the Registrar knows this and is trying to create loopholes when they should be the ones wanting black and white.
The OIC did not de-couple your restricted from your certificate. But the registrar did -- that letter told you that you no longer had a valid certificate. That puts you and me in a state of criminality because the firearms act says you must have a proper certificate with each restricted at all times.
And if you don't have a certificate you are in trouble. The Criminal Code says not having a certificate with a restricted is an indictable offense, meaning jail time. As soon as Honda, TC and I filed for a Sec74 hearing we put a pause on this state of criminality. I don't care if the registrar tells me to not exercise my rights, I'm exercising my rights.
Only 200 of us decided to take a stand so we are in the minority, I get that. I don't know if it's incompetence or malice by the govt but that "nullification" letter from the registrar turned 70,000 law abiding citizens into criminals. If you do not have a valid certificate and you still own the restricted, you are a criminal. That's what the law says in plain English. There is 1.5 years left in the amnesty, but you are still a criminal as it's an amnesty.
It doesn't matter what the RCMP says on their website or Bill Blair says in a tweet. The judge will go by what the law says.
This stuff is maddening beyond belief. I understand why restricted owners are confused and most chose to not do anything. But if you read the Firearms Act and Criminal Code it becomes clear.  |
You have your opinion and advice, I have my opinion and advice. We both are doing our actions in our own way. Hopefully we meet in the middle and win the fight in the courts.
In this matter wording is extremely important. The government did not word the nullification letters the way they did to end up in court under section 74. They pulled a technical wording and did not revoke the registration and used a play on words. (They have done this in cancelling major contracts all across the country). So the process did not require them to provide the required documents under section 72 (2) this results in section 74 not applying.
I was informed by the CFC that they will be issuing the Revocation letters in the future as per requirements of the law. Until then the letters we were sent are for informational purposes.
As for being a criminal for having a nullified registration. You are not because you are covered under the amnesty. Again you have yours and I have my opinion and advice.
It will be interesting to see how this all moves forward.