Type 97 Classification Issues - PART TWO

Once a prohib, always a prohib. Would need new recievers at least.

I hope what I've heard and a few others (Arctic Blaser, etc) is wrong. It may just be posturing by someone at the RCMP or CFC.
 
Lector’s point is starting to be missed here.
The law says converted, not convertible at a later date.
If the F/A receivers for our T97’s were simply modified at source by any means that makes them convertedF/A.
Converted F/A are prohibited.
Unfortunately pulling some bits out of the receiver and adding a longer barrel doesn’t change that.
 
For all the negativity here, doesn't it make anyone wonder why it seems to be taking so long to make this determination? I suspect that this is quite a positive aspect of this case, aside from poor CanAm having his shipment and his capital tied up.

I don't believe this is as cut and dried as some are making it out to be ... but I could be wrong of course.
 
Throttle_monkey1 said:
I'm guessing no. There would have to be all new rifles with a different frt #

A la ar180b (ar180 is prohib).


If I'm wrong someone will be along shortly to correct me
Click to expand...

Yeah, this is why it's the Type-97A. The Type-97 or Type-95 would definately be prohibited.

I read somewhere before I first ordered (can't remember where right now, but I'll look for it) that the Type-97 was the export version of the Type-95 and that the Type-97A was the civilian export.
 
Last edited:
True. But the RCMP can rule it is a converted auto. Converted from 97 to 97a. Or more likely rule that they are FA if they say the 97a are too much like the 97.

Believe me, I hope they don't and I support canam 100%, but let's be realistic here, it's April, the guns arrived in January. Not a peep from the RCMP. The frts have been pulled.
 
cobra_on_speed said:
Does it really matter?, he said they were new, and the FA design was changed to allow SA only,

More clearly, he could have as easily said that the FA design was adapted to fire SA only...at least that's what I understood.
Click to expand...

It does matter. If these receivers were never assembled into fa guns then they should be good to go, provided they have sEmi auto parts in them.

Now say the Chinese simply took a 97 and cut out the auto sear, that would be no good.

Canam says they built them to be semi auto. I believe him.

I'm just trying to figure out what angle our friends at the RCMP are using to pull this crap.
 
Throttle_monkey1 said:
It does matter. If these receivers were never assembled into fa guns then they should be good to go, provided they have semi auto parts in them.
Click to expand...

And that's exactly what Canada Ammo said.

If you say this :
Throttle_monkey1 said:
Canam says they built them to be semi auto. I believe him
Click to expand...
, then you should not have a question of whether they were assembled originally as FA, or not, right?

Either way, we're all on the same side, If Canam says these are new SA only receivers, then I'll take his word for it.
 
Throttle_monkey1 said:
It does matter. If these receivers were never assembled into fa guns then they should be good to go, provided they have sEmi auto parts in them.

Now say the Chinese simply took a 97 and cut out the auto sear, that would be no good.

Canam says they built them to be semi auto. I believe him.

I'm just trying to figure out what angle our friends at the RCMP are using to pull this crap.
Click to expand...

I would beg to differ with you. If you take a receiver that's normally a full auto gun and instead put semi-auto parts in it, under Canadian law/interpretation, that gun is still classified as Full Auto. Even in the US, when manufacturers want to get BATF to approve a new semi-auto firearm they have to show that the receiver is different from the Full Auto version, not just assembled with different parts.

Unless there was a change made to those receivers at the production level... if they simply took the same receiver that is used in the Full Auto production versions and then installed semi-auto parts.. then under Canadian law those guns are in fact still classified as full autos. At best they would be considered "converted autos" because the "full auto" receiver was converted to semi-auto by installation of semi-auto parts. The receiver itself started "life" as a full auto and that can't be changed to semi-auto under Canadian regulations/interpretations.

At least that is my understanding, as it has been applied to other situations.

Mark
 
Last edited:
I just received a call from prime minister Hu, he told me that Norinco will export new T97 rifle to Canada, and they rename it too! it's "T97SA-Only-CanNotBeConverted2FullAutoByRCMP".
Hu also mentioned that he will give order to the ministry of foreign affairs to send bomes to RCMP and CFC.... to make sure we can enjoy the rifle and no one will bother us no more

Gary
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom