CZ Bren 805 S1

Status
Not open for further replies.
Marilius said:
Aesthetics. And very few people, including that guy, base purchases on aesthetics ALONE. But it is a consideration. I'd much rather have an NR CZ Evo 3 with the long handguard and fake can, rather than the short handguard alone.

dhYz6MV.jpg

Jhe7cv9.jpg
Click to expand...

Exactly. If I'm shelling out that kind of coin, I want to be totally happy with it.

At least an extended fore-end could give us a longer sight radius on the irons as well as not looking quite so goofy.
 
The CZ BREN has been classified as prohibited. Quote:
The outcome is "prohibited firearm". The CZ805 Bren S1 can be made to fire in a full automatic manner in a relatively short period of time with relative ease.
 
Mr Wolverine said:
The CZ BREN has been classified as prohibited. Quote:
The outcome is "prohibited firearm". The CZ805 Bren S1 can be made to fire in a full automatic manner in a relatively short period of time with relative ease.
Click to expand...

Based on your experience and knowledge of firearms do you believe this to be the case? It boggles the mind that they don't have to prove this assertion to either the importer or the manufacturer.
 
The Joe-Man said:
Based on your experience and knowledge of firearms do you believe this to be the case? It boggles the mind that they don't have to prove this assertion to either the importer or the manufacturer.
Click to expand...

What's also boggling is that nowhere in the law does it say/define this and conclude that it's an illegal firearm.


Edit: if there is a section, please tell me. (Not talking about an actual automatic firearm, im referring to any firearm that MAY be converted to automatic fire in a 'short period of time')

If you buy one of these in the USA, bring it up to the border and declare it, how can they seize it? What *law* are they enforcing?
 
Last edited:
The Joe-Man said:
Based on your experience and knowledge of firearms do you believe this to be the case? It boggles the mind that they don't have to prove this assertion to either the importer or the manufacturer.
Click to expand...

Let's just leave it with the fact I am not surprized and will not appeal the decision as made with the current example.
 
I am vary curious of the truth.
The Joe-Man said:
Based on your experience and knowledge of firearms do you believe this to be the case? It boggles the mind that they don't have to prove this assertion to either the importer or the manufacturer.
Click to expand...

tharkhold said:
What's also boggling is that nowhere in the law does it say/define this and conclude that it's an illegal firearm.


Edit: if there is a section, please tell me. (Not talking about an actual automatic firearm, im referring to any firearm that MAY be converted to automatic fire in a 'short period of time')

If you buy one of these in the USA, bring it up to the border and declare it, how can they seize it? What *law* are they enforcing?
Click to expand...

Mr Wolverine said:
Let's just leave it with the fact I am not surprized and will not appeal the decision as made with the current example.
Click to expand...
 
tharkhold said:
What's also boggling is that nowhere in the law does it say/define this and conclude that it's an illegal firearm.


Edit: if there is a section, please tell me. (Not talking about an actual automatic firearm, im referring to any firearm that MAY be converted to automatic fire in a 'short period of time')

If you buy one of these in the USA, bring it up to the border and declare it, how can they seize it? What *law* are they enforcing?
Click to expand...

This court case is the one I think covers Capable of Automatic fire, defining convertible auto firearms

R. v. Hasselwander 1993

The word "capable" in para. (c) includes an aspect of potential capability for conversion and, given a reasonable interpretation, should be defined as meaning capable of conversion to an automatic weapon in a relatively short period of time with relative ease. To come to any other conclusion would undermine the very purpose of the legislation. Therefore, where a weapon can be quickly and readily converted to automatic status, that weapon falls within the definition of "prohibited weapon". The 1991 amendment to para. (c) does not indicate that the word "capable" should be given a narrow or strict interpretation. Rather, it should be viewed as a response to the perceived need to remove any doubt as to the meaning of the word.
Click to expand...

That case was the supreme court ruling that the trial judges opinion of Capable of automatic included convertible to automatic, and set aside the Court of Appeals ruling.

EDIT: You also need to tend with US export laws but assuming you got past that. The CBSA use the FRT table to determine classification of firearms, when they enter the stats for the CZ 805 Bren it will be confiscated as a prohibited firearm unless you have the right permits. CBSA just enforces the law and since they aren't lawyers will just rely on the the FRT classification as prohibited.
 
Last edited:
The question of conversion to automatic fire is due to a court case, R. V. Hasselwander (193) 2 SCR 398 where a Judge rule that if a firearm was found to be readily converted to discharge shots in rapid succession with a single pressure of the trigger in a relatively short period with relative ease.

This has set a legal precedent, not a good one but until the decision is reversed in a higher court that is what we are stuck with.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom