Shot a GSG-5 today

Strangeday said:
So not sure if this goes here or rimfire..

but anyways...too bad they crashed at the boarder and this was a cute plinker that could have been good fun and games.

It shot nicely and handled well..................like you would think it would,

if you get the chance to have one down south pick one up
Click to expand...

Shooting a .22LR is like having ### with a pillow. You might as well not shoot anything at all and experience the same sensation.
 
Hmmm. I wonder if it has anything to do with this!

http://www.canlii.org/en/on/oncj/doc/2009/2009oncj363/2009oncj363.html

Court Case in which the judge voted in favour of the gun owner in that a Armi Jager AP80 semi-automatic .22 calibre rifle (AK look alike, but semi-auto .22LR) was deemed to be Non-Restricted.

Conclusion
[58] It is my conclusion, because of the reasons set out above, that the decision of the Registrar of Firearms was unreasonable.

Remedy
[59] Under section 76 (b) of the Firearms Act, I am directing the Registrar of Firearms to issue a registration certificate to Mr. Henderson for his Armi Jager AP80 firearm, as an unrestricted firearm.
Click to expand...
 
Yes, I was asked to hold off, but Jarlath let the cat out. What the judge said was that unless it was full-auto (ie danger to public safety) or a named variant, it was not prohib. We wait to see if crown will appeal.

I recommend all read the judgment.

When people say the gun orgs are doing nothing, think again.
 
Jarlath said:
Hmmm. I wonder if it has anything to do with this!

http://www.canlii.org/en/on/oncj/doc/2009/2009oncj363/2009oncj363.html

Court Case in which the judge voted in favour of the gun owner in that a Armi Jager AP80 semi-automatic .22 calibre rifle (AK look alike, but semi-auto .22LR) was deemed to be Non-Restricted.
Click to expand...

Cool, the gun owner was arguing that the AP80 was an imitation of the AK47, and not a variant. I can definitely see that this will be useful in getting the GSG5 into Canada (legally...).
 
CanAm said:
Yes, I was asked to hold off, but Jarlath let the cat out. What the judge said was that unless it was full-auto (ie danger to public safety) or a named variant, it was not prohib. We wait to see if crown will appeal.

I recommend all read the judgment.

When people say the gun orgs are doing nothing, think again.
Click to expand...

Whoops. Damned cat... So hard to put it back in the bag...
 
Analysis

[42] No where in the Firearms Act or the Restricted Weapons Order, or

Prohibited Weapons Order, No. 13, or any other regulation, is the term

“variant” defined. Nor have I been able to find any case law interpreting its

meaning in the context of firearms legislation.

[43] Because of this, a dictionary definition will be relied upon. In the Canadian

Oxford Dictionary [ Second Edition – 2004 ], “variant” has been defined as:

1- differing in form or details from the main one
2 – having different forms
3 – variable or changing

[44] It is the first of the three which I will rely upon.

[45] Another deficiency in the Firearms Act and regulations is that Parliament

has not delegated to any person or any body the power to designate which firearms

are variants of the AK-47 which are not specifically mentioned in the Act or

regulations.

[46] In particular,there has been no delegation by Parliament to the Canadian

Firearms Centre, which keeps the FRT, to decide which firearms are considered to

be unnamed variants of the AK-47. The fact that at some point in time, perhaps

even very recently, the Armi Jager AP80 data was added to the FRT, does not

provide it with any legal effect. The courts have been left with the responsibility to

decide, in cases such as Mr. Henderson’s, what is a variant and what is not.

[47] The 1992 news release from the Department of Justice, referred to in

paragraphs 30 to 32 above, stated that the purpose behind the new firearms control

law was “to control types of weapons or components which represent a threat to

public safety.” [ Emphasis added ]

[48] Mr. Henderson in his written submissions contends that his firearm is

merely an imitation of, and not a variant of, the AK-47. The court is of the view

that two are similar in appearance, but the AK-47 is capable of fully automatic fire

and the AP80 is not. Whether or not the construction of the gun and internal parts

are similar is not important in my view. What is important is whether the AP80

represents a threat to public safety. Merely resembling the AK-47 in appearance is

not enough to make it such a threat, in my opinion.

[49] Mr. Henderson also submits that the regulations require a firearm to be a

variant of the AK-47, not of the Mitchell Arms AK22, or of any other replica of

the AK-47. I agree with that submission.

[50] Even if that were not the case, I am not sure that the average gun owner

would know that the Armi Jager AP80 and the Mitchell Arms AK22 are basically

the same firearm, and were made in Italy by the same manufacturer, as Mr. Murray

Smith said they were in his letter of July 21, 2008. If it that is so then it would

have been a simple matter to add the AP80 to the same list on the relevant

regulations and thereby remove any uncertainty.

[51] If the dictionary definition relied upon is that a variant differs in form or

details from the main one, then the AP80 cannot, in my opinion, considered to be a

variant of the AK-47.

[52] It is my conclusion thatthe AP80is nota variant of the Ak-47 nor is it a

threat to public safety like the AK-47 is. It is a fact that any firearm can be

dangerous but apart from it’s similarity in appearance to the AK-47, the AP80 is

but a semi-automatic .22 calibre rifle, the majority of which are, even today,

considered to be unrestricted firearms.

[53] To summarize, an unnamed variant of an AK-47 must be similar in

appearance and capable of fully automatic fire. This would be the case even

if the variant was not of the same calibre as the AK-47, because it is the fully

automatic feature which reresents the real threat to public safety.

[54] Parliament has the power to make whatever it wants to be a restricted or

prohibited weapon. It could even prohibit any firearm which has an appearance

similar to an AK-47. Better still, it could specifically name the Armi Jager AP80 to

be a restricted or prohibited weapon.

[55] In his testimony Mr. Perry said that “there were a number of individuals

who did apply to register firearms of the AP80 make and who are now legally

grandfathered under the Firearms Act.”

[56] In my view,it is remarkable that any reasonable person would have

known toregister any firearms not specifically mentioned in the regulations.

[57] In an article published in (1993) 25 Ottawa Law Review 579, entitled

“Perils of the Unknown – Fair Notice and the Promulgation of Legislation”, the

author John Mark Keyes, said as follows:

“If the law is to command respect and function as it is intended, it must be adequately promulgated. In a pluralistic society that demands increasingly complex solutions to social problems, promulgation of the law is a constant challenge. We cannot assume that people will find out about the law as they have in the past; we cannot even assume that they found out about it in the past. Although individuals have an obligation to inquire about the law, there are limits on how much they can be expected to find out by themselves given the complexity of modern legislation and the pace at which it changes.”

Conclusion
[58] It is my conclusion, because of the reasons set out above, that the
decision of the Registrar of Firearms was unreasonable.

Remedy

[59] Under section 76 (b) of the Firearms Act, I am directing the Registrar of

Firearms to issue a registration certificate to Mr. Henderson for his Armi Jager

AP80 firearm, as an unrestricted firearm.
Click to expand...
Redacted after reading dangertree's post #56.

Will follow this with great interest.
 
Last edited:
philthygeezer said:
Apparently there are still some things on CGN that I'm still not allowed to see. Do I need a CGN-style 12(6) classification?
Click to expand...

Meh. Why bother with anything that sidetracks the main thread purpose. It is probably in OT. Why anyone would bother remembering about those threads is pretty silly IMHO.


GSG-5 Thread. Period. Full Stop.
 
OK, we've all read the decision, so has the crown. So, now, can we all at CGN STFU while it is figured out by the crown if/when an appeal can be launched, and not unleash our collective creativity coming up with potential "loopholes", "work arounds", and 'potential outcomes' that the crown WILL then use as evidence or points in a potential appeal?

IE: Can we not do their work for them while shooting ourselves in the foot.

How long do they have to appeal?
Click to expand...

How long the crown has to appeal is the legitimate question right now. We should not get into "does this mean that we can now own ###XX" because "insert quotes from the ruling".

Please. Please. Please. Please.

I say this with full respect to the CGN community.
 
Finally a sensible thing decided. .22 LR rimfire semi-automatic imitations of military full autos are most definitely not 'variants'.

If these rational and sensible judgments continue, I may just be proud to be a Canadian again! ;)
 
dangertree said:
OK, we've all read the decision, so has the crown. So, now, can we all at CGN STFU while it is figured out by the crown if/when an appeal can be launched, and not unleash our collective creativity coming up with potential "loopholes", "work arounds", and 'potential outcomes' that the crown WILL then use as evidence or points in a potential appeal?

IE: Can we not do their work for them while shooting ourselves in the foot.



How long the crown has to appeal is the legitimate question right now. We should not get into "does this mean that we can now own ###XX" because "insert quotes from the ruling".

Please. Please. Please. Please.

I say this with full respect to the CGN community.
Click to expand...

Sounds like sage advice. I'd heed it.
 
dangertree said:
OK, we've all read the decision, so has the crown. So, now, can we all at CGN STFU while it is figured out by the crown if/when an appeal can be launched, and not unleash our collective creativity coming up with potential "loopholes", "work arounds", and 'potential outcomes' that the crown WILL then use as evidence or points in a potential appeal?

IE: Can we not do their work for them while shooting ourselves in the foot.



How long the crown has to appeal is the legitimate question right now. We should not get into "does this mean that we can now own ###XX" because "insert quotes from the ruling".

Please. Please. Please. Please.

I say this with full respect to the CGN community.
Click to expand...
Point taken and post removed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom