Sig 522

Questar said:
... in instances like those involving "variants" it is our belief that the lab has consistently been directed to "broaden" that definition to the point where it no longer complies with the "legal" definitions allowed by a court of law.
Click to expand...

In this and many other cases.

Good luck, Mark.
 
Good luck with the court case,

Reading this thread has encouraged me to put you guys on the top of the list next time I am looking to purchase. If you win your appeal I look forward to buying a 522 out of principle :)
 
Mark, good on you for upholding our rights as firearms owners. Alot of Canadians, myself included, talk the talk about standing up for our rights, but when it comes down to it, do nothing about it. It's people like you and your business who are the ones making things happen and ensuring our continued rights. I humbly express my appreciation. I'll be buying one of the 522's WHEN you win the case - if for nothing else the principal (but let's be honest, they look darn neat!)
 
Paul Morrison said:
I did quite well in administrative law, actually, and I think the decision is a pile of bunk. The basic premise of administrative law is that government decision makers have to make their decisions within the parameters laid out in legislation, and any decision which falls outside those parameters is challengeable as outside the decision maker's delegated authority from parliament. The decision as to whether or not a firearm is a listed prohibited firearm, or a variant thereof falls squarely within the decision maker's delegated power. What does NOT fall within their delegated power is to decide what the word 'variant' means, since parliament did not delegate the power to enact regulations, and the term is found within the regulations. They essentially have decided that they have the power to define variant in the most restrictive way possible, which makes their decision challengable.
Click to expand...

1. There is a big tendency within RCMP to prohibit anything that average Joe can get. For example, $3000 would likely get OK (before this post :nest:), while rifle up to $1000 will be banned. Examples:
Banned or Restricted (arbitrary, in my opinion): Walter .22lr rifle, 522, S&W 22LR AR-15 looking one, T97, etc.
OK: Sig Special, HK, Tavor, Valmet, etc.

The reasons could be from: only few will be in Canada, easy to confiscate later, less people running around with them, only rich would have them, etc. (search net about why Valmet became non-restricted for example, and how that decision was "justified")

2. Every request should be done with reasons for expected ruling: e.g. we believe this rifle should be non-restricted for the following reasons.... Thus, any other ruling would have to overcome your reasoning, which is not easy. Any request "what's your opinion" leaves you only with arbitrary decision and an option of court appeal and only at "reasonableness" standard.
 
Every request should be done with reasons for expected ruling: e.g. we believe this rifle should be non-restricted for the following reasons.... Thus, any other ruling would have to overcome your reasoning, which is not easy. Any request "what's your opinion" leaves you only with arbitrary decision and an option of court appeal and only at "reasonableness" standard.
Click to expand...

The standard of review for challenges under the firearms act should not be 'reasonableness' in my opinion. The legislators put in a judicial review clause into the statute for a reason. The reason is that the decisions of RCMP decision makers have criminal law effects on legal firearms owners. To prevent the RCMP decision makers from making incorrect determinations, the legislators inserted the judicial review clause into the Firearms Act. Therefore the intended standard ought to be a correctness standard, rather than a 'reasonableness' standard.

The idea that simply asking for decision results in a different standard of review from specifically asking for a particular decision outcome is simply errant in law.
 
Its only because our government is scared of anything that looks like more dangerous than the crap they carry around
 
When handguns were banned in the UK and everyone went out and bought pistol calibre rifles instead, I remember ACPO wetting their pants about people buying "carbines" until they realized centrefire semi-autos were also banned so people weren't buying MP5SFs like the police use.
 
Questar said:
As we indicated previously, Questar is challenging (in court) the RCMP's classification of the SIG 522 as a "Prohibited Firearm" based on their contention that it is a "variant" of the SIG 556 which RCMP previously ruled was a "variant" of the SIG 550/551 which is a named Prohibited Firearm in the legislation.
Click to expand...

I know I said earlier on in the thread that appears to be their contention, but is that actually formally what they've said in writing? I was basing it on the fact that in the blurb and ads for the 522 it says clearly it is based on the 556 and the 556 is based (apparently) on the SG551. Therefore, variant of a variant, can't be prohibited. I thought their argument would be the 522 is a direct variant of the SG551, which it's not, they've simply made a mistake. I can't find anything from SIG-Sauer that says that. Moreover I've seen the .22 version of the SG550 in the RUAG museum in Thun, it's no 522.
 
Many thanks to Mike, and all the people standing up for us gun nutz! I can't thank you guys enough! Definately picking up my gear from you guys!
 
FrankieT said:
Incorrect. We can get an M1A. I believe the M14 is a select fire firearm.
Click to expand...

still, M1A IS a variant of a full auto M14 isnt it. :stirthepot2: and so is AR, VZ58 and many other black rifles that has full auto variants. but i dare them try get these banned. with enough AR/858 owners out there, there will be a public outrage.
 
RUSTSPOT said:
still, M1A IS a variant of a full auto M14 isnt it. :stirthepot2: and so is AR, VZ58 and many other black rifles that has full auto variants. but i dare them try get these banned. with enough AR/858 owners out there, there will be a public outrage.
Click to expand...

The difference is the M14 and VZ58 are not prohibited by name and their variants. The Sig 550x IS, and the AR15 is restricted by the same means.

Has nothing to do with full auto variants.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom