Type 97 Classification Issues - PART TWO
- Thread starter Clobbersauras
- Start date
Perhaps that is a factor in the police actions. If the CPC back up the RCMP, it costs them political support, and this will hurt them. If the CPC exercises control over the RCMP, they will be accused of putting assault weapons on the streets, and this will hurt them.
Clever.
Yeah but I give a rat's ass about their politicking. My vote is earned - plain and simple. But it has occurred to me that the Liberal bureaucracy doing all of this is playing unfairly in an attempt to force the issue on the CPC, their real enemy. Won't the CPC wake up and see through this?
- Location
- In the Land of Lies Being Exposed!
That's some good wording to add to a letter!
EMAIL Sent
Dear Prime Minister Harper and Mr. Toews:
A am writing you to convey my concern and utter disgust with the RCMP's decision to reclassify privately owned T-97 firearms from restricted to prohibited; the subsequent revocation of registration certificates for these firearms; and the impending confiscation of these firearms without compensation.
I myself do not own a Type-97, but I have been an avid hunter, sport shooter and firearms collector all my life. I was trained in the safe handling and use of firearms by family members and during my many years in the Air Cadets and Canadian Forces Reserves. Just like the civilian owners of these T-97 firearms, I am a licensed and law-abiding citizen of this country and the thought that the RCMP can arbitrarily determine that personal property should be prohibited and confiscated concerns me greatly!
These semi-automatic firearms were legally imported into Canada by Lever Arms, under the watch of the RCMP. They were legally purchased by licensed firearms owners with restricted status on their PAL's. To the best of my knowledge, no owner of one of these firearms has ever been accused of improper storage or handling.
After their legal purchases were made, the RCMP decided to have their professional technicians re-work sample guns to determine if they could be made to fire fully automatic - something that a professional gunsmith with access to a complete machine shop could probably do with most firearms. Obviously with their unlimited resources, their technicians were in fact able to make the T-97 fire fully automatic (or so they claim). BUT, there has never been any disclosure as to how they did this, or how much re-manufacturing was needed.
I myself almost purchased one of these guns when they were first imported, but I didn't have the necessary $1500 to do it. However, I know enough about them to know that converting them to fire full auto like a machine gun is not possible for the average person. Nor would a law-abiding firearms owner such as myself stoop to such foolishness. Full-auto machine guns are prohibited and cannot be fired on any civilian range, and to modify a semi-auto to fire full-auto would jeopardize a person's ability to own any firearms.
The idea that they can be converted to fire full-auto, is much the same as taking a stock sporty 2-door car, and converting it to a 200 mph racecar! Anything can be done with the right knowledge and resources, but what COULD be done by an expert with unlimited resources, and what CAN be done by the average person within the law are 2 totally different things.
Yes, to some people these Type-97 rifles are "evil-looking" military-style firearms. BUT, the inner workings are not the same as their military cousins. Likewise, most guns have a military background. Just look at the Lee Enfields and the Mausers which have been used as target and hunting rifles for generations. They too were military guns originally intended to kill people - but the people that own, collect, and shoot them today use them for other purposes. Why should the Type-97 be any different? Who cares what it looks like?
Furthermore, Canada Ammo, another importer has had their shipment of longer-barreled (non-restricted) Type-97A's held by Canada Customs and the RCMP for nearly a year. Why?
To me there are several issues here:
1. If the Canadian Government deems me to be safe and responsible with non-restricted long-guns, why not other types of firearms? If I follow the government's rules for licensing, registration, safe storage, safe transportation, and safe handling, what difference should it make to the government if the firearm is has a military look, or is a basic hunting gun? Either I am safe and responsible or I am not. The appearance of the firearm or it's heritage should not enter into the equation. Everything should be based on the qualifications of the owner.
2. Why does the RCMP classify firearms based on looks? I can provide countless examples of look-a-likes that have been classified as "variants" and therefore restricted or prohibited simply based on their looks. Despite the fact that the internal operating mechanisms bear no resemblance to the original, nor are the parts interchangeable. There are many .22 semiauto rifles available stateside, which loosely resemble the larger prohibited AK47, which are deemed "variants" and therefore not allowed into Canada. Some resemble the AR15, and therefore are restricted - based solely on appearance. Even though the same guns are available in sporter stocks, and are non-restricted. It makes absolutely no sense. "Variant" should mean that they share the same design and operating system - not simply a vague resemblance in appearance.
3.What gives the RCMP (or the government) the right to arbitrarily re-classify firearms? They have the opportunity to classify a firearm before it is imported. Based on that classification, the importer spends a great deal of money to purchase their inventory, and then they are sold to retailers and then to consumers. Classification is like a contract - the RCMP tells the importer what the rules are, and then the importer and subsequent purchasers base their buying decision on those rules. Re-classification after the fact should be deemed to be breach of contract by everyone that has money invested based on the original classification, and the RCMP should be held accountable.
4.What gives the Canadian Government (through the RCMP) the right to seize property from law-abiding citizens, especially without compensation? I fully agree that the government should seize property which is determined to be proceeds of a crime (ie: houses, cars, etc... owned by convicted drug dealers and other criminals). However, the owners of these T-97 firearms have committed no crimes. Technically they have been made to be criminals as a result of the RCMP's actions - they are in possession of an unregistered firearm, but the firearm is only unregistered because the RCMP reclassified it, and revoked the registration certificate! Recently the safety of Toyota products has been called into question. How far would the government get if they decided that for safety reasons, Toyota's were no longer welcome in Canada, and that all the affected models were going to be confiscated and destroyed without compensation? The only difference is the dollars and the number of affected citizens - the concept is just as frightening!
5. Since the Canadian Firearms Centre was turned over to the RCMP, the RCMP have been making far too many arbitrary firearms decisions, and have been playing "God" with the firearms community. Their arrogant attitudes and subsequent actions and decisions are neither fair nor respectful towards the law-abiding firearms owners. I am not suggesting that all of their decisions are wrong, but it seems that they only way to challenge them is in court - something that the general public cannot afford. It is time that they be held accountable and that they realize that they are not "God"!
As I previously stated, I do not own a Type-97, so this issue does not directly affect me. HOWEVER, what will be the next firearm that the RCMP suddenly re-classifies? Maybe it will be one that I own, and then the fight will be right on my doorstep. Or, maybe it will be some other piece of property that I have worked hard to legally obtain, and I will be told that it is being confiscated without compensation, just BECAUSE!
As a law-abiding Canadian citizen, I am respectfully urging you to address this matter, and deal with these firearms (and all firearms) in a rational and common-sense manner. Furthermore, it's time that the RCMP be told to deal with firearms owners as the responsible people that they are, and to treat them with the respect that they deserve. Whether we like the firearm laws or not, we in the firearms community are doing our best to abide by the laws - something that the criminal element does not do! It's time that we be respected and rewarded for our efforts.
Lastly, the Conservative Party owes a great deal of it's votes to the firearms community, and it is time that the party strongly demonstrates that they understand and respect the concerns of law-abiding firearms owners.
Thank you for your attention to this issue.
Yours truly,
Dear Prime Minister Harper and Mr. Toews:
A am writing you to convey my concern and utter disgust with the RCMP's decision to reclassify privately owned T-97 firearms from restricted to prohibited; the subsequent revocation of registration certificates for these firearms; and the impending confiscation of these firearms without compensation.
I myself do not own a Type-97, but I have been an avid hunter, sport shooter and firearms collector all my life. I was trained in the safe handling and use of firearms by family members and during my many years in the Air Cadets and Canadian Forces Reserves. Just like the civilian owners of these T-97 firearms, I am a licensed and law-abiding citizen of this country and the thought that the RCMP can arbitrarily determine that personal property should be prohibited and confiscated concerns me greatly!
These semi-automatic firearms were legally imported into Canada by Lever Arms, under the watch of the RCMP. They were legally purchased by licensed firearms owners with restricted status on their PAL's. To the best of my knowledge, no owner of one of these firearms has ever been accused of improper storage or handling.
After their legal purchases were made, the RCMP decided to have their professional technicians re-work sample guns to determine if they could be made to fire fully automatic - something that a professional gunsmith with access to a complete machine shop could probably do with most firearms. Obviously with their unlimited resources, their technicians were in fact able to make the T-97 fire fully automatic (or so they claim). BUT, there has never been any disclosure as to how they did this, or how much re-manufacturing was needed.
I myself almost purchased one of these guns when they were first imported, but I didn't have the necessary $1500 to do it. However, I know enough about them to know that converting them to fire full auto like a machine gun is not possible for the average person. Nor would a law-abiding firearms owner such as myself stoop to such foolishness. Full-auto machine guns are prohibited and cannot be fired on any civilian range, and to modify a semi-auto to fire full-auto would jeopardize a person's ability to own any firearms.
The idea that they can be converted to fire full-auto, is much the same as taking a stock sporty 2-door car, and converting it to a 200 mph racecar! Anything can be done with the right knowledge and resources, but what COULD be done by an expert with unlimited resources, and what CAN be done by the average person within the law are 2 totally different things.
Yes, to some people these Type-97 rifles are "evil-looking" military-style firearms. BUT, the inner workings are not the same as their military cousins. Likewise, most guns have a military background. Just look at the Lee Enfields and the Mausers which have been used as target and hunting rifles for generations. They too were military guns originally intended to kill people - but the people that own, collect, and shoot them today use them for other purposes. Why should the Type-97 be any different? Who cares what it looks like?
Furthermore, Canada Ammo, another importer has had their shipment of longer-barreled (non-restricted) Type-97A's held by Canada Customs and the RCMP for nearly a year. Why?
To me there are several issues here:
1. If the Canadian Government deems me to be safe and responsible with non-restricted long-guns, why not other types of firearms? If I follow the government's rules for licensing, registration, safe storage, safe transportation, and safe handling, what difference should it make to the government if the firearm is has a military look, or is a basic hunting gun? Either I am safe and responsible or I am not. The appearance of the firearm or it's heritage should not enter into the equation. Everything should be based on the qualifications of the owner.
2. Why does the RCMP classify firearms based on looks? I can provide countless examples of look-a-likes that have been classified as "variants" and therefore restricted or prohibited simply based on their looks. Despite the fact that the internal operating mechanisms bear no resemblance to the original, nor are the parts interchangeable. There are many .22 semiauto rifles available stateside, which loosely resemble the larger prohibited AK47, which are deemed "variants" and therefore not allowed into Canada. Some resemble the AR15, and therefore are restricted - based solely on appearance. Even though the same guns are available in sporter stocks, and are non-restricted. It makes absolutely no sense. "Variant" should mean that they share the same design and operating system - not simply a vague resemblance in appearance.
3.What gives the RCMP (or the government) the right to arbitrarily re-classify firearms? They have the opportunity to classify a firearm before it is imported. Based on that classification, the importer spends a great deal of money to purchase their inventory, and then they are sold to retailers and then to consumers. Classification is like a contract - the RCMP tells the importer what the rules are, and then the importer and subsequent purchasers base their buying decision on those rules. Re-classification after the fact should be deemed to be breach of contract by everyone that has money invested based on the original classification, and the RCMP should be held accountable.
4.What gives the Canadian Government (through the RCMP) the right to seize property from law-abiding citizens, especially without compensation? I fully agree that the government should seize property which is determined to be proceeds of a crime (ie: houses, cars, etc... owned by convicted drug dealers and other criminals). However, the owners of these T-97 firearms have committed no crimes. Technically they have been made to be criminals as a result of the RCMP's actions - they are in possession of an unregistered firearm, but the firearm is only unregistered because the RCMP reclassified it, and revoked the registration certificate! Recently the safety of Toyota products has been called into question. How far would the government get if they decided that for safety reasons, Toyota's were no longer welcome in Canada, and that all the affected models were going to be confiscated and destroyed without compensation? The only difference is the dollars and the number of affected citizens - the concept is just as frightening!
5. Since the Canadian Firearms Centre was turned over to the RCMP, the RCMP have been making far too many arbitrary firearms decisions, and have been playing "God" with the firearms community. Their arrogant attitudes and subsequent actions and decisions are neither fair nor respectful towards the law-abiding firearms owners. I am not suggesting that all of their decisions are wrong, but it seems that they only way to challenge them is in court - something that the general public cannot afford. It is time that they be held accountable and that they realize that they are not "God"!
As I previously stated, I do not own a Type-97, so this issue does not directly affect me. HOWEVER, what will be the next firearm that the RCMP suddenly re-classifies? Maybe it will be one that I own, and then the fight will be right on my doorstep. Or, maybe it will be some other piece of property that I have worked hard to legally obtain, and I will be told that it is being confiscated without compensation, just BECAUSE!
As a law-abiding Canadian citizen, I am respectfully urging you to address this matter, and deal with these firearms (and all firearms) in a rational and common-sense manner. Furthermore, it's time that the RCMP be told to deal with firearms owners as the responsible people that they are, and to treat them with the respect that they deserve. Whether we like the firearm laws or not, we in the firearms community are doing our best to abide by the laws - something that the criminal element does not do! It's time that we be respected and rewarded for our efforts.
Lastly, the Conservative Party owes a great deal of it's votes to the firearms community, and it is time that the party strongly demonstrates that they understand and respect the concerns of law-abiding firearms owners.
Thank you for your attention to this issue.
Yours truly,
CanadianReich
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- nova scotia
Im confused. The Canadian government looked at this gun and ALREADY classified it. For them to reclassifiy the SAME gun AGAIN implies they screwed up the first time, that they were in error. If it was THEIR error the should be reimbursing the importer of the firearms for the arms he orderered with the Canadian Governments permission and approval. Civilians and others who bought this gun, again with government approval, paying the best part of $1000 and taxes, should be reimbursed. Theft is theft.
Making someone who bought this gun take the government to court is also wrong, unless the government (ie taxpayers) plan on paying his legal expenses.
they are stealing regardless how you look at it, your property, your taxes (that you paid on the gun) your money for legal fees that you should not have to incure. IF they classified this as prohibited the FIRST time they would never have been imported.
The government screwed up so they should reimburse all parties who suffered because of their mistake.
CanadianReich
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- nova scotia
Break-ins and roberies have always been higher around owners of Type-97s, I think. I either dreamed that or read it somewhere.
CanadianReich
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- nova scotia
aaa
Very well written, your concerns are clearly made by breaking out the issues individually. Good job - I hope more than a few at the CPC get to see it, read it and understand what the firearm community's concerns are with these review tactics.
On weekend I sent letters to everywhere and everyone. I'm also trying to pull some personal connection to get media's attention. Furthermore, I scheduled personal meeting with MP where I'm going to express all of my "feelings" about RCMP's action. Additionally I got myself a lawyer, introduced him to an issue and paid retainer. I also took my t97 to a gunsmith for a "tune-up" and instructed him to strip everything out of receiver as soon as I call him. Now I'm somewhat prepared and waiting for frucking "notice of revocation".
Every one affected by t97 (and we all are affected!) have to do everything they can to fight back! This is not about t97 or money anymore. This is about our freedom and defending our personal property!!!
Every one affected by t97 (and we all are affected!) have to do everything they can to fight back! This is not about t97 or money anymore. This is about our freedom and defending our personal property!!!
sillymike
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
Can't wait for the first letter to actually come in... I think the DDM is going to be busy over the next few weeks!
http://www.democracy-machine.com/
http://www.democracy-machine.com/
+1 good moves on your part. Keep us up to date.
Feel free to use whatever parts you want in your own letter.
Remember, real paper letters are better than emails.
Mine is on real paper.
Honourable Vic Toews,
Dear Sir,
First of all, I want to thank you for extending the amnesty for the Firearms Registry, and once again stating your intention of scrapping the long gun registry soon.
As a firearms owner, I pay close attention to such issues. As a direct result of the CPC’s sensible policy towards firearms ownership, I have donated both time and money during past elections.
So it is with great disappointment that I now learn that law abiding firearms owners are losing their legally acquired rifles.
I am referring to the Chinese made Type 97 rifle. These guns were approved for import and private sale. The owners complied with all the relevant rules, including registering their rifles. Now they are being told that even though the error in classification was not their error, they will NOT be reimbursed for their loss.
Mr. Minister, please understand that Confiscation Of Legally Owned Property Without Compensation Is Theft.
Have we as a country learned nothing from the confiscation of property from
Japanese-Canadians during WW2?
I do not own a Type 97 myself, but I am very concerned about this issue nonetheless. As I own other firearms, I am well aware that any confiscation sets the stage for future confiscations.
As well, the bigger picture of fairness and property rights should concern every Canadian, regardless of their personal opinion of firearms ownership.
I remember hearing a comment a few years ago, at the time the Liberals were introducing the Registry.
“Register only the guns you want to lose.”
It seems there is some truth to this statement. Hearing good, productive citizens of this country talking in such ways is not a good sign. Yet, with a confiscation without compensation policy in place, is it really surprising? Another saying that comes to mind is “Punish the good.”
The heart of the problem is the RCMP making arbitrary decisions on what is or is not appropriate for civilian sporting use. As I understand Canadian law, Parliament makes laws, and the police enforce the law. I find it troubling that the RCMP seems to be operating somewhat on its own. Besides these arbitrary decisions, I have noticed that senior RCMP brass have occasionally voiced their own opinions regarding the registry, thereby challenging your position.
Sir, will you please look into this matter and resolve it fairly?
Seizure without full and fair compensation is unjust. Regardless of how or why the guns came to be reclassified, the fact remains that good citizens are being stripped of their property, through no mistake of their own.
The preferred solution is to acknowledge these guns as what they are, semi auto only, and treat them as such, and allow the owners to keep them.
Considering that people buy items to have and enjoy, not simply to resell, if
seizure WITH compensation is the route chosen, then I feel that it would be reasonable to pay 50 percent OVER what the owner originally paid.
Thank you for your attention to this matter. As I feel strongly about this issue, I ask that you respond.
Sincerely,
Remember, real paper letters are better than emails.
Mine is on real paper.
Honourable Vic Toews,
Dear Sir,
First of all, I want to thank you for extending the amnesty for the Firearms Registry, and once again stating your intention of scrapping the long gun registry soon.
As a firearms owner, I pay close attention to such issues. As a direct result of the CPC’s sensible policy towards firearms ownership, I have donated both time and money during past elections.
So it is with great disappointment that I now learn that law abiding firearms owners are losing their legally acquired rifles.
I am referring to the Chinese made Type 97 rifle. These guns were approved for import and private sale. The owners complied with all the relevant rules, including registering their rifles. Now they are being told that even though the error in classification was not their error, they will NOT be reimbursed for their loss.
Mr. Minister, please understand that Confiscation Of Legally Owned Property Without Compensation Is Theft.
Have we as a country learned nothing from the confiscation of property from
Japanese-Canadians during WW2?
I do not own a Type 97 myself, but I am very concerned about this issue nonetheless. As I own other firearms, I am well aware that any confiscation sets the stage for future confiscations.
As well, the bigger picture of fairness and property rights should concern every Canadian, regardless of their personal opinion of firearms ownership.
I remember hearing a comment a few years ago, at the time the Liberals were introducing the Registry.
“Register only the guns you want to lose.”
It seems there is some truth to this statement. Hearing good, productive citizens of this country talking in such ways is not a good sign. Yet, with a confiscation without compensation policy in place, is it really surprising? Another saying that comes to mind is “Punish the good.”
The heart of the problem is the RCMP making arbitrary decisions on what is or is not appropriate for civilian sporting use. As I understand Canadian law, Parliament makes laws, and the police enforce the law. I find it troubling that the RCMP seems to be operating somewhat on its own. Besides these arbitrary decisions, I have noticed that senior RCMP brass have occasionally voiced their own opinions regarding the registry, thereby challenging your position.
Sir, will you please look into this matter and resolve it fairly?
Seizure without full and fair compensation is unjust. Regardless of how or why the guns came to be reclassified, the fact remains that good citizens are being stripped of their property, through no mistake of their own.
The preferred solution is to acknowledge these guns as what they are, semi auto only, and treat them as such, and allow the owners to keep them.
Considering that people buy items to have and enjoy, not simply to resell, if
seizure WITH compensation is the route chosen, then I feel that it would be reasonable to pay 50 percent OVER what the owner originally paid.
Thank you for your attention to this matter. As I feel strongly about this issue, I ask that you respond.
Sincerely,
- Location
- East Vancouver
Flip...............good letter! A Million or more gun owners plus spouses and voting age children, relatives, parents, and friends adds up to a lot of votes considering we all show up to vote!
rollingrock
CGN frequent flyer
- Location
- Port Moody, BC
So my question is....
Lever brought in these guns first and sold them as restricted and non-restrictd soly basing on the length of the barrels. Then CanAm followed and imported a larger quantity of T97 too because Lever set the precedent which led CanAm to think these guns should be fine.
Now the inspection on CanAm's batch of T97 was mandatory, or only because RCMP thought...hang on a sec, these guns were originally designed for Chinese Army as new assault rifles which were supposed to be able to fire full auto?
Are firearms dealers required to submit some new 'faces' to RCMP lab for inspection?
Or all this protesting and letter writing movement was caused by Lever and CanAm who tried to get around the hoops and screwed up?
Lever brought in these guns first and sold them as restricted and non-restrictd soly basing on the length of the barrels. Then CanAm followed and imported a larger quantity of T97 too because Lever set the precedent which led CanAm to think these guns should be fine.
Now the inspection on CanAm's batch of T97 was mandatory, or only because RCMP thought...hang on a sec, these guns were originally designed for Chinese Army as new assault rifles which were supposed to be able to fire full auto?
Are firearms dealers required to submit some new 'faces' to RCMP lab for inspection?
Or all this protesting and letter writing movement was caused by Lever and CanAm who tried to get around the hoops and screwed up?
sillymike
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
rollingrock,
This is a good opportunity to get the government to explain their 12(x) classification of firearms.
As far as I know, there are no known instance of legally bought 12(2), 12(3), 12(4) and 12(5) firearms used in a crime.
It doesn't make sense that I can take a HK770 semi-auto in 308 to the range... but I can't take a HK91.
It doesn't make sense that I can take a Valmet Hunter to the range, but I can't take a Norinco Hunter...
Now is a good time to bring this non-sense in the media.
beside fear-mongering, the RCMP have nothing to stand on.
This is a good opportunity to get the government to explain their 12(x) classification of firearms.
As far as I know, there are no known instance of legally bought 12(2), 12(3), 12(4) and 12(5) firearms used in a crime.
It doesn't make sense that I can take a HK770 semi-auto in 308 to the range... but I can't take a HK91.
It doesn't make sense that I can take a Valmet Hunter to the range, but I can't take a Norinco Hunter...
Now is a good time to bring this non-sense in the media.
beside fear-mongering, the RCMP have nothing to stand on.
puterbrother
Regular
About the concrete guys...LOL...I really like the idea but I think you will have to prove that the receiver is actually in there.If they don't believe you they will get a warrant to search your house and you don't want pissed off LEO's ripping your house apart,just in spite and they will.
lucky07
CGN frequent flyer
About the concrete guys...LOL...I really like the idea but I think you will have to prove that the receiver is actually in there.If they don't believe you they will get a warrant to search your house and you don't want pissed off LEO's ripping your house apart,just in spite and they will.
that's why you leave the serial number as close to the top as you can so it's visible and use re-bar to anchor it to the entire cement block.
