Type 97 Classification Issues - PART TWO

If (and when) they will lose that particular one by a court decision,
then, they will put another one on the table (one at a time),
Click to expand...

This is impossible.

The rules of civil procedure allow for complete disclosure. If CANAM was to file for a court to reconsider the decision (and frankly they should), their lawyer would file for a complete disclosure of all records related to the RCMP's evaluation of the T-97. At that time the RCMP would be compelled by law to provide all the records relating to that decision, including the 'three' other grounds you cite.

The courts take a VERY DIM view of the RCMP failing to properly disclose documents.

As for it being a CA, that would require it to have been made as a full automatic, and then swapped to a semi-automatic rifle. It has to have been 'converted' from a full auto to a semi.

That's a dog that won't hunt.

Honestly, it is my legal opinion (such as its worth, being a law student and not a lawyer), that the RCMP's alleged analysis would not stand up in court. Further to the point, I'd be willing to offer my services as a legal researcher to ANY challenge to an RCMP decision related to any firearm classification.

I am already doing legal research in a different field for a pre-eminent legal mind.
 
Rutger said:
Lector,

I don't know you, I don't know where your information comes from, and I certainly was not part of this board 2+ years ago during the time you refer to as the "start" of the 97 problems... however, I *have* been following this thread, and you are very critical of everyone's having "fallen" for this cunning rouse.

My question then, is why (with over 1,500 posts) are we just hearing from you now with such a critical view as to us gullible little CGNrs who fell for this brilliant RCMP trap?

Your post is carefully crafted, informative, thorough, well thought out, and about 3 weeks too late, no?
Click to expand...

If you refer to the scrap the registry thing,
it may be marginally late, but we can still be able to save the day.
I acted in desperation,
after I had enough of listening to some here crying, b!tching, sniveling,
while the stage is being set for us to be screwed.
I am not a good thread starter, nor a good campaign leader.
I cannot even be a good whistle blower.
I only pointed out things that were obvious.
 
Duly noted. thank you for clarifying.

I hope, for all our sakes, that it is not too late.

Dr.Lector said:
If you refer to the scrap the registry thing,
it may be marginally late, but we can still be able to save the day.
I acted in desperation,
after I had enough of listening to some here crying, b!tching, sniveling,
while the stage is being set for us to be screwed.
I am not a good thread starter, nor a good campaign leader.
I cannot even be a good whistle blower.
I only pointed out things that were obvious.
Click to expand...
 
Dr.Lector said:
About the issue of convertibility I was asked about:
There is a difference between some things said in the thread.
Clobbersauras sez easy converted. I don`t know WTF that is.
Other people say convertible.
About the meaning and the difference between convertible and converted
if you do not see the difference,
then the best is to go and consult a dictionary,
unless some text of law has a precise
and different definition of any of the two
in the context and for the purpose of interpretation of that law only.
Click to expand...

Lector – just for clarity – these were the terms used by the CFC Techs in conversations with myself. I didn’t make this sh!t up to increase my status as an internet legend:rolleyes:. I posted what I did to provide info to the community.

Dr.Lector said:
After 2 years of un-necessary and stupidly beating the drum
about the 97 wherever and however you could,
Click to expand...

Dr.Lector said:
The losers and the whoring component of the human naturemade too much noise around this gun (despite warnings),
attracting un-wanted attention.
Click to expand...

Besides Deckard, I have probably more posts than anyone on CGN regarding the T97. Call me an attention whore, loser or not, my posts were simply based on my enthusiasm for the rifle, and then later my interest in selling products for the Type 97. HOW THE F@CK could I have known that these rifles had issues with them?? To me the T97 was like any other rifle. It had a valid FRT number for frig sakes. You talk like we should hide in the shadows so as not to bring attention....like a Mushroom? Stay in the dark and eat sh!t?

Dr.Lector said:
RCMP did their homework this time
but the gun community (meaning dealers, importers) did not do so.
Click to expand...

So Lever Arms sh!t the bed? Great! And they knew this two years ago?

Dr.Lector said:
There is no Type 97. It never had a chance.
I said it 2 years ago and more than once
Click to expand...

Certainly you knew about it.

Dr.Lector said:
T97 is dead. D E A D.
Click to expand...

Ok I get it – finally. Want to buy a commemorative T97 picatinny paper weight? I have lots.

P.S. I don't take offense to anything you posted here. At the end of the day, you're just some dude I know on the internet. Cheers:cheers:
 
Last edited:
Thank you guys...for all the info.

One thing, my (our) war against the stupid gun laws didn't started just now nor ended just now...I will keep kicking and screaming till I got what I want and or I can't kick and scream any more....
 
years ago , in the last go-round, that "easily converted" thing was tried against what is now the class 12( 3) bunch- ie the semi open bolt stens and the uzi- the judge hearing the case, said that the "WAYS AND MEANS USED BY THE RCMP techicians " were unavailable to the general public, and inadmissable- that's the reason we got the uzis back- the sten was "too easily converted" - that precludes dropping in f/a parts such as a bolt, sear, etc- if i remember correctly, it had something to do with being able to use hand tools only and in a matter of under 30 minutes- no dremels, parts, etc- and they had to show intent on the part of the general public , which they had failed to do- the rcmp techs are now "hoping " for a more sympathetic judge- it's not the firat time we've seen this song and dance
 
Well, I'm expecting Tuesday when everyone goes back to work, to hear something from Can amm.

I think it's a little unfair though to say that the dealers didn't do their homework, unless of course one is willing at the same time to say that they are incompetent, or worse, malicious. It would be nice to know what kind of "homework" Can amm did, i.e. research, discussions with the manufacturer/exporter, trip to factory. I really hope I'm not wrong, but I believe that Can amm was working under the assumption that these rifles were manufactured as semi-auto only. Was that not what he said himself, because that's what he was told by, and made clear to the manufacturer/exporter? Is that not the conclusion he drew from his research?

How many times has it been said in relation to this issue (and it makes logical sense to me) that a "converted" auto must be produced by a third party? i.e. first manufactured/imported as full auto then converted, or is that line of thinking incorrect? No one is Canada "converted" these rifles from anything. Of course, I can only go on what I was told: that they were made from the factory to fire semi-auto only. If it turns out that these were first made full auto, assembled, then Can amm's order comes in, and they figure it's easier to take these guys off the shelf and weld a few things up to make them semi only, well there that is, but I think a case could still be made that they hadn't left the factory yet.

Another thought just occurred to me, and this may be a bit of a stretch. Is it possible that the politics of this situation run a little bit deeper, and in a different direction then we think? Would the RCMP have been so observant had these same rifles came from and had been manufactured in the US, or Taiwan, or even here in Canada? Maybe I should put tinfoil around this paragraph, but you can decide.

So, in the end, I don't get my chinese bullpup. I have about 100 rounds of .223 with no rifle to put them in. I guess I might have to buy a mini 14 instead, or put that cash towards a swiss arms, or a tavor, or an xcr....

Here's a thought, the Chinese are ripping people off all the time, maybe we should take a page from their book and make T97's ourselves in Canada, and make damn sure that they are semi-auto only ;)
 
Dr.Lector said:
It doesn't matter how hard or easy is to convert.
CA stands for Converted Auto, not Convertible Auto.
Click to expand...

It does matter how hard or easy it is to convert to fully automatic. If it can be converted "quickly and readily", then it is prohibited. The Supreme Court ruled in R v. Hasselwander: "Where a weapon can be quickly and readily converted to automatic status, then that weapon must fall within the definition of 'prohibited weapon.'"

It could also be prohibited as a CA. If it is prohibited as a CA, then there must be some evidence that it was once a fully automatic firearm which was converted to semi-automatic only mode.

I have a feeling that none of the above are true about the T97. But, if one or both are true about the T97, then the RCMP had the legal authority and duty to prohibit it.
 
imbane said:
Other than the legal issues, it's gonna be much more expensive if it's made in Canada.
Click to expand...

Of course it would be more expensive to produce here, and legal issues....Ya, I guess there might be some there, but I'm no expert on international copyright law, and given their history, it would be a little ironic for a Chinese company to raise such a concern. There's no saying though that it couldn't be done under license. Unless you're referring to the whole prohib thing? Well it's not prohib by name, and last I checked it's not a variant of anything prohib by name, so that really isn't a concern.

It's just all wishful thinking though
 
cobra_on_speed said:
Of course it would be more expensive to produce here, and legal issues....Ya, I guess there might be some there, but I'm no expert on international copyright law, and given their history, it would be a little ironic for a Chinese company to raise such a concern. There's no saying though that it couldn't be done under license. Unless you're referring to the whole prohib thing? Well it's not prohib by name, and last I checked it's not a variant of anything prohib by name, so that really isn't a concern.

It's just all wishful thinking though
Click to expand...

Apparently the Chinese have no problem with copy right laws
 
Sniper1 said:
humm "quickly and readily"... didn't it take a month for the expert RCMP weapon techs to find a way to make this conversion ?
Click to expand...

I'm sure they did one or two before the rifles ever entered the country, I'm not sure what they're doing now.

The main reason nobody would make a copy is production cost. I'm sure somebody could do it but by the time all was said and done you would be paying $3k+ for a T97.
 
suprathepeg said:
I'm sure they did one or two before the rifles ever entered the country, I'm not sure what they're doing now
Click to expand...
The first examples of the T97 that were imported into Canada were 12.2 models these only needed a verification as these were Prohibited . The 2 variants that Lever brought in were restricted . However these samples were not sent to the Firearms lab in Ottawa as required to be inspected but had the inspection done in Vancouver with all notes and photograph's being sent to the Firearms tech in Ottawa .The bottom line is the Rifles from Lever Arms were never properly inspected and as result were given FRT #'s were issued
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom