Zxthinger wrote: »

Lets keep it focused.. can you show me where this explicit determination on function exists..

The Act defines components parts required for functioning, as firearms in themselves.

Specifically, Section 1, 'firearm', subsection (g), article (iii)

( g ) ... and, without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing, the following articles shall be deemed to be such component parts:

...

(iii) any object —

(I) manufactured for use as a component in connection with the operation of a firearm, and

(II) without which it could not function as originally designed,

You need to read the entire subsection. Subsection (g) (in red above) defines article (iii) as a component part, and therefore a firearm under section 1.

Important to note that part (I) uses the indefinite article, "a firearm", not "the firearm". Therefore part (II) is referring to the function of any firearm, not a specific firearm.

In the case in question, the Applicant argued that the objects did not meet the requirements of part (II), therefore it was not a component under subsection (g).
The judge agreed;

"...the goods did not constitute component parts within the meaning of the Firearms Acts..."

That meaning of the firearm act is specifically subsection (g) above.
The goods in themselves are not firearms.
Now, hopefully that's clear. I'm surprised that that was still being questioned tbh. But lets move on.

Now, you claimed that (additionally or otherwise) it's not a firearm/component under the act because he had functioning versions in his possession.

Can you show me where this explicit determination on possession exists? Including the definitions referenced.

Zxthinger wrote: »

This is what the OP said as a line of his defense..

I cant tell you what the deliberations of the judges were.. We only seen their statement..

He says"My firearm is complete and functioning without any of these new items and as such under the firearms act they cannot be classified to be component parts, only accessories"

I'm aware he made that statement in his defense. But as I said, I think you are misinterpreting that statement.
He is using simple language to drive the point relating to his accessories. He is not writing a legal act, and technically some of that may not be correct in other situation - irrelevant in his case.

Basically, his statement doesn't form the law.
The law is formed by the act, and judges determination of how to apply it.
The judge didn't reference possession. Nor does the act.

The object and it's function defines a firearm, not the person using it and what they have at home.

Excavo wrote: »

This case is now settled. Revenue lost. A precedent has now been set. You can order away directly from MDT.

I think the law has been clarified but I don't think a precedent has been set because (according to my understanding) the parties came to an agreement rather than the judge making a ruling.

Excavo wrote: »

I was indeed in the same position and I've had mine handed back to me since this decision.
Just a point of note, I was particularly disappointed by the NARGC - I've been a member for over 20 years and when I contacted them and spoke to them they didn't wish to get involved. It will only get harder for all of us unless our associated bodies start making a bigger effort to support individuals in bringing cases like this.

I don't suppose you can divulge what types of items you acquired or the content of the correspondence issued following the items release.

Regards zx

Excavo wrote: »

I have much correspondence in relation to my own dealings with this. Not exactly something you'd publish publicly but if anyone is in the same position I am happy to share my experiences from this 18 month long ordeal..pm me no problem.
I can say that the goods I acquired where identical (item for item, Howa instead of Savage, chassis, poly mag 10 round, butt spacer kit, swivel stud) and purchased directly via MDT, Cananda in the same fashion.
I found MDT to be an extremely professional and friendly company with outstanding customer service. It was a pleasure to deal with those lads and they were most helpful at all times.

That's sufficient info to be honest.. However how did they justify or explain the reasons behind the or change of direction..

Thanks,, Dont mean to be noisy..