T97 update, Sticky.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Hi Savage, I have to disagree. Of the two cases, the High Standard 10B is as important as the T97, if not more so. The RCMP doesn't care about the gun itself - they only care about the court judgement. If the courts agree that the RCMP is the ultimate classification authority, not Parliament, there is nothing the Minister will be able to do to stop the RCMP without new legislation. They will be free to attack firearms regardless of OIC classification.
 
the problem with having both cases judged at the same time it is far easier to get the stronger case [T97]destroyed because of the weaker case [M10B] because the precident is already established for the T 97 in regards to Classifaction while the Crown has a strong case in regards to the M10 B because an OIC Prohibiting the Model 10 already exists . It really depends on the advice of a lawyer which is the best avenue of approach will generate the best possible results
 
Plinker said:
Hi Savage, I have to disagree. Of the two cases, the High Standard 10B is as important as the T97, if not more so. The RCMP doesn't care about the gun itself - they only care about the court judgement. If the courts agree that the RCMP is the ultimate classification authority, not Parliament, there is nothing the Minister will be able to do to stop the RCMP without new legislation. They will be free to attack firearms regardless of OIC classification.
Click to expand...

The courts have already agreed that Parliament has the sole authority to prohibit weapons, check the R v. Henderson ruling. The judge kicked the RCMP in the balls for issuing a prohibited certificate for a .22LR AK-47 look-alike; they were forced to issue a non-restricted certificate.

Also, it was Parliament that passed the law about bull-pup stocks. I think Parliament simply passed two conflicting laws, they classified part of a restricted firearm as a prohibited device. If you look further into the classifications, they also gave grandfathering to an MP5 variant with a integral suppressor, which is another prohibited device. The Firearms Act is full of inconsistancies which could entertain most judges for several decades.

Even if the ruling goes in favour of the RCMP, which is doubtful, it would be hard for the RCMP to extend this judgement to any other firearm which doesn't have an attached prohibited device.

I frankly think AR-15 owners have little to worry about. I would be more concerned for the Skorpion owners, since their firearm is listed in the OICs as a prohibited firearm, even though somehow the importers got the semi-auto ones into the country as restricted.
 
Wildbore:

Good input, but the situation with the HS-10B is quite different to Henderson in my view. With the HS-10B, there are clearly two conflicting laws as you point out. The RCMP is using the HS-10B prohibition to get a ruling that whenever a (former) OIC classification conflicts with the Firearms Act/Criminal Code, and where the OICs are the least restrictive of the two, the most restrictive of the two "laws" should be adopted. The majority of HS-10B reference hearings will likely be fought on the contrary argument - that OIC designations take precedence regardless. This means the RCMP is going to get a ruling on this - although hopefully not the one they want.

If the RCMP prevails, then the general bullpup prohibition in the legislation would trump the OIC classification. It also means the Hasselwander case law on "easily converted" semi autos would trump the relevant OICs as well.

With the T97 hearings, the RCMP will get their first opportunity to find out where the courts draw the line on "easily converted". Once they have that information, they will know which guns they can successfully reclassify, and if the HS-10B ruling goes their way, then OIC designations will no longer protect us.

I would be more of a believer that this is just a simple situation of two seemingly unrelated reclassifications (HS-10B and T97) if it were not for the numerous semi-auto firearms now stuck in limbo at customs warehouses due to classifications coming under review.

Do not think for a moment that the RCMP has ONLY been examining the T97. It is quite likely they already have many forensics reports ready to be used to support a new round of prohibitions. Certainly, persistent rumours support this assumption. The RCMP do not refer to a "list" of prohibition candidates - they refer to it as "the binder". It's real, and it should be of concern to all of us.
 
I asked this in a different thread, perhaps it would be better asked here:

Is the only difference between the early restricted T97s under confiscation orders right now and Canada Ammos seized 2nd order of non restricted T97s the barrel length?
Is the receiver and internals identical between the two rifles?

I’m just wondering if we will have to go through two court battles if there are differences between the receivers and parts.
 
The issue the RCMP has with the T97 is that it can be converted to full auto....My issue with this is that ANY weapon can be converted to full auto. Even the bolt-gun Lee Enfield was converted to full auto - called the Charlton Automatic Rifle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlton_Automatic_Rifle).

charltonmachinegunpronepd4.jpg


My problem with the RCMP in this case is they are mistaking ABILITY with INTENT. For example, although two minutes of reading on the Internet and 10 minutes shopping at Canadian Tire would give me everything I need to construct a silencer, I have the ABILITY, but I have absolutely no INTENT of doing this because it is illegal.

I would prefer that the government not consider me to be a criminal BEFORE I commit a crime...or in this case, that the PRE-CRIME division of the RCMP not make a judgement call on a gun BEFORE I buy it by seeing how hard it would POTENTIALLY be to make an ILLEGAL modification to it IF I HAD THE INTENT TO ILLEGALLY MODIFY IT.

As I said before, ANY gun can be made full auto...

With that same logic, cars would be banned from sale because there is nothing stopping anyone from swerving up on the sidewalk and running over pedestrians.:mad:
 
Hasselwander is what they use for the "how hard" part. You are completely correct with regards to intent. We do not set our laws based on the difficulty, or lack thereof, of committing the crime.
 
Still working on it guys. We should have some announcements from the NFA in the next while.

Unfortunately, given the situation, this all needs to be done behind the scenes, thus far.

There are now several different cases proceeding.
 
CanAm said:
Still working on it guys. We should have some announcements from the NFA in the next while.

Unfortunately, given the situation, this all needs to be done behind the scenes, thus far.

There are now several different cases proceeding.
Click to expand...


Is the NFA announcement regarding the situation with the T-97's that were reclassified as prohibited and seized, or regarding the situation with the unrestricted T-97's that you guys had seized by border services?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom