Revocation for X95 MSW 13' Restricted Tavors

Status
Not open for further replies.
I was warned by a lawyer to be VERY CAREFUL on this because if any of us go to court willy nilly and mess up - we could #### up any chance of a good court case being heard.
A lot of people filing and messing up could create precedents...

And here in lies the conundrum - lawyers say not to file an action yourself (ie Willy Nilly).
However, how many people have the $$ to pay the f-ing greedy lawyers $700 per hour (yes that is what I have been quoted multiple times) to file it for you?
No one can afford tens of thousands of dollars for a S74 action, so following the lawyers advice, no one would/should ever file an action.
I would rather file the action myself, and research a well constructed argument for the hearing. Yes, I would probably lose, but at least I would go down fighting.
Bear in mind, the Court system is not as overwhelming as it seems. I have filed (successfully) several small claims court actions; a Private Information criminal code charge; and a successful Firearms Hearing, based on a S74 challenge with respect to my RPAL Prohib classes.
With a little research on the government and court websites, you can find the process and the forms. Hopefully some of the firearms orgs would help with factual information, case law etc etc that could be used at a S74 hearing.
I think the important thing is to get the ball rolling within the 30 day timeframe.
I may have just been fortunate, but I have found that all the Judges I dealt with were very sympathetic to a citizen representing themselves through the Court process. Being respectful, and educating yourself, (in my experience) has gone a long way.
Worst case scenario, you can always hire a lawyer for help/advice down the road, before the hearing is completed.
Just my 2 cents.
 
Just got a letter from the RCMP saying that the rifles were "misidentified" and as military rifles and "would not have been allowed into Canada" - therefore I have 30 days to surrender the rifle or have it deactivated.

SEE HERE


What now?


EDIT: It has been suggested to me to contact the retailer where you purchased it first and pass them the email.

Also I have been told it would probably be best to contact a lawyer first before going to a judge as the letter suggested, especially if you do not know what you are doing.

Tell the Gestapo it fell out of the canoe. That's what.
 
Who sounded the alarm on these?

Please don't tell me it was another Shooting Edge / J.R. Cox sort of situation like we had with the Swiss Arms
 
Who sounded the alarm on these?

Please don't tell me it was another Shooting Edge / J.R. Cox sort of situation like we had with the Swiss Arms

I think we should be looking at the timing of all this. Dont you find it suspicious that they suddenly realized this the same month that the amnesty is over and C21 is in the Senate?

Timing? Nope. Some ppl say they heard other ppl think it has something to do with employees of unnamed retailer were using "converted auto" as a selling point while talking to potential buyers... That's the word on the streets of GTA.
 
Who sounded the alarm on these?

Please don't tell me it was another Shooting Edge / J.R. Cox sort of situation like we had with the Swiss Arms

At this point, all we got going in terms of information is what was contained on the revocation letter.

On my other thread, an Ex-IDF officer stated that from his service, the rifles were only capable of semi-auto.

The only full auto X95s were the ones made for export, which these rifles weren't as they were IDF service rifles.

So yeah, we don't know who said what to the firearms program, and we don't know why...
 
On my other thread, an Ex-IDF officer stated that from his service, the rifles were only capable of semi-auto.

You actually made me think and I was wrong when I said RCMP was correct to reclassify them as converted auto.
Manufacturer used same parts as for select-auto rifle but made them from the very beginning as semi-auto only (achieving this with minor modifications). Right from the factory they had two safety positions (safe and semi) and only two positions casted on the shell. Where does this put this rifle legally? Definitely not into "full-auto" or "converted-auto".
 
Tell the Gestapo it fell out of the canoe. That's what.

Here is my big worry with the HorseMen making these kinds of ridiculous, disrespectful and dismissive “decisions”:
Sec 106(1)CC regarding destruction of a restricted weapon - if a person destroys a restricted weapon, he must “with reasonable dispatch” report it to the authorities. It says nothing about providing proof. Nothing in case law either. Just report it.
What would happen if people decided to report their restricted’s “destroyed” instead of having them confiscated with no compensation?
Yes, the person would probably have a search warrant executed on their home, after reporting said destruction. What a scary thought for a peaceful society !!!
Remember, the Lieberals have said that Canadians have no inherent right to own private property. We need to respect that announcement, of course !
I think we are all safer and better served to do what the government says is best for us !!!
 
You actually made me think and I was wrong when I said RCMP was correct to reclassify them as converted auto.
Manufacturer used same parts as for select-auto rifle but made them from the very beginning as semi-auto only (achieving this with minor modifications). Right from the factory they had two safety positions (safe and semi) and only two positions casted on the shell. Where does this put this rifle legally? Definitely not into "full-auto" or "converted-auto".

Im not sure myself.
Someone also said it doesnt matter as long as the chassis can accept the full-auto trigger pack, and under Canadian law, there is no distinction if the firearm is capable of taking those parts...

So I'm guessing the two safety positions doesn't matter in this case.
 
You actually made me think and I was wrong when I said RCMP was correct to reclassify them as converted auto.
Manufacturer used same parts as for select-auto rifle but made them from the very beginning as semi-auto only (achieving this with minor modifications). Right from the factory they had two safety positions (safe and semi) and only two positions casted on the shell. Where does this put this rifle legally? Definitely not into "full-auto" or "converted-auto".

My thinking as well, these were designed and manufactured as semi-autos from the factory. They were never converted from auto to semi. I think there is a legal case to fight the decsion. The importers should sue the RCMP and get an injunction.
 
Im not sure myself.
Someone also said it doesnt matter as long as the chassis can accept the full-auto trigger pack, and under Canadian law, there is no distinction if the firearm is capable of taking those parts...

So I'm guessing the two safety positions doesn't matter in this case.

Yeah but is it a diffirent receiver, can someone who has both do a side by side comparison??
 
Im not sure myself.
Someone also said it doesnt matter as long as the chassis can accept the full-auto trigger pack, and under Canadian law, there is no distinction if the firearm is capable of taking those parts...

So I'm guessing the two safety positions doesn't matter in this case.

84(1) says two things:
- automatic firearm means a firearm that is capable of, or assembled or designed and manufactured with the capability of, discharging projectiles in rapid succession during one pressure of the trigger; (arme automatique)
...
and
prohibited firearm means
..
(c) an automatic firearm, whether or not it has been altered to discharge only one projectile with one pressure of the trigger, or

It says nothing about receiver being capable...
 
Yeah but is it a diffirent receiver, can someone who has both do a side by side comparison??

As I said, manufactured from the same parts as used to build select-fire rifles, however from the very scratch manufactured as semi auto. In plain words - MSW receiver and any army issue X95 receiver are identical and it is different from USA X95 receiver.
 
84(1) says two things:

and


It says nothing about receiver being capable...

I think they meant that if the chassis is "capable" of accepting the full auto trigger pack, then it would make the firearm automatic, and therefore prohibited.

And supposedly the MSW chassis can.

Actually looking back on the forums, there's discussion going as far back as 2012/2013.

See here:
https://www.canadiangunnutz.com/forum/showthread.php/742474-IWI-Tavor-X95-(micro-Tavor)/page8
 
I think they meant that if the chassis is "capable" of accepting the full auto trigger pack, then it would make the firearm automatic, and therefore prohibited.

And supposedly the MSW chassis can.

Actually looking back on the forums, there's discussion going as far back as 2012/2013.

See here:
https://www.canadiangunnutz.com/forum/showthread.php/742474-IWI-Tavor-X95-(micro-Tavor)/page8

That means that North Sylva knew and still imported them, if that is indeed the case. If true and the RCMP is correct, NS and Impact outdoors will be on the hook and a class action lawsuit will be necessary if they fail to offer total compensation.
 
I think they meant that if the chassis is "capable" of accepting the full auto trigger pack, then it would make the firearm automatic, and therefore prohibited.

And supposedly the MSW chassis can.

I know what it is capable of. I don't know where the laws says it makes firearm "automatic".
 
At this point, all we got going in terms of information is what was contained on the revocation letter.

On my other thread, an Ex-IDF officer stated that from his service, the rifles were only capable of semi-auto.

The only full auto X95s were the ones made for export, which these rifles weren't as they were IDF service rifles.

So yeah, we don't know who said what to the firearms program, and we don't know why...

The MSW isn't idf issue. It's a security guard rifle.
 
Interestingly original tar 21 were Israeli made as well. Though when. In Israel all the 13 tavors i saw soldiers carrying did not have a full auto feature they were only given semi autos
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom