Type 97 Classification Issues - PART TWO

[CanAm]

I just talked to someone from the CFC, apparently the gun is listed as fully-automatic in their computer, therefore even if it is semi-automatic the parts from a full auto may be interchangeable. For all we know the Type 97 could even be a converted auto. He also mentioned that bullpup rifles and bullpup stocks for rifles are prohibited (don't even get started on the TAR21) because it shortens the gun and could be considered the same as cutting the barrel.

The full auto FRT does not match the semi-auto guns. They deleted the proper FRT for the SA models.

 

[Killergoat86]

Bullpups are prohibited, I don't think the RCMP will go against the law just because we want one. Someone obviously screwed up when the gun was first introduced as non-restricted

 

[bingefister]

Oh, this is going to be good.

 

[CanAm]

Bullpups are prohibited, I don't think the RCMP will go against the law just because we want one. Someone obviously screwed up when the gun was first introduced as non-restricted

Damn, I wish had thought of that.

 

[Scarecrow]

Bullpups are prohibited, I don't think the RCMP will go against the law just because we want one. Someone obviously screwed up when the gun was first introduced as non-restricted

Freaking newbs, know nothings.

 

[Killergoat86]

Freaking newbs, know nothings.

That's right, I know nothings at all.

 

[urbaneddy]

A bullpup stock is only illegal if the firearm can be taken out of the stock and be fired. The stock is prohibited in this case, like the Walther G22, or the ruger bullpup stock kit right? I'm sure someonne will correct me if I'm wrong.

 

[cobra_on_speed]

That's right, I know nothings at all.

Go do some research, inform yourself, then come back and post when you know what you're talking about.

 

[guess_kto]

Bullpups are prohibited, I don't think the RCMP will go against the law just because we want one. Someone obviously screwed up when the gun was first introduced as non-restricted

Find the law to back up your point or you will be marked as a "stupid newbie" forever...

 

[Savage]

Bullpups are prohibited, I don't think the RCMP will go against the law just because we want one. Someone obviously screwed up when the gun was first introduced as non-restricted

:stfun00

 

[CaptV]

Bullpups are prohibited, I don't think the RCMP will go against the law just because we want one. Someone obviously screwed up when the gun was first introduced as non-restricted

...where to begin...where to being...? Never mind...

 

[jwc]

Impressive.

Bullpups are prohibited, I don't think the RCMP will go against the law just because we want one. Someone obviously screwed up when the gun was first introduced as non-restricted

 

[azn_hitman]

i was wondering when someone was going to n00b it up.

Bullpups are prohibited, I don't think the RCMP will go against the law just because we want one. Someone obviously screwed up when the gun was first introduced as non-restricted

 

[Deadbeat]

Thats a paddling.

 

[urbaneddy]

^^^^TOO FUNNY, yet so true. LOL

 

[Norton]

Bullpups are prohibited, I don't think the RCMP will go against the law just because we want one. Someone obviously screwed up when the gun was first introduced as non-restricted

Damn, I wish had thought of that.

At least something in this whole depressing saga made me laugh

 

[Deckard]

We have been too quiet here lately, so expect more trolling.

 

[Paul Morrison]

I just talked to someone from the CFC, apparently the gun is listed as fully-automatic in their computer, therefore even if it is semi-automatic the parts from a full auto may be interchangeable. For all we know the Type 97 could even be a converted auto. He also mentioned that bullpup rifles and bullpup stocks for rifles are prohibited (don't even get started on the TAR21) because it shortens the gun and could be considered the same as cutting the barrel.

1) The phone answerers at the CFC don't know their ass from a hole in the ground.
2) The reason why its only listed as full auto in their computer is because they deleted the other FRT #'s while the review process is underway so no one can transfer them.
3) I haven't seen the technical report, but this is a silly argument. The legally registered part of the firearm is the reciever. If you replace the reciever with a full auto reciever it will fire full auto, but then its a different firearm. If you replace the M-14 recievers with a full auto reciever, they'll fire full auto too. That's a total loser of an argument. If that's their argument, I'd challenge it in court and win. Why? Because the test from R. v. Hasselwander is:

1) The conversion to full auto must be quick (case law suggests less than an hour)
2) The conversion to full auto must be easy (as in, you don't have to be an expert, working for the RCMP firearms lab to do it).
3) The conversion to full auto must be done with parts that are available (and not only to the RCMP lab with a warehouse full of gun parts, and the ability to order stuff from anywhere in the world, regardless of of whether it would be prohibited under Canadian law).

The argument you're advancing would get SLAUGHTERED in court on the 3rd issue.

As for it being a 'converted auto', that's a loser argument too. The factory, as in the case of Marstar, has given written documentation saying it wasn't made automatic and then converted.

As has already been pointed out, a bullpup design is not prohibited. Bullpup STOCKS are a prohibited device. That's a BIG Difference.

 

[Clobbersauras]

Sigh.....

Trolls please....

 

[Rutger]

Paul, did you get a ATIA submitted on this?