T97 update, Sticky.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Whats the story on these, was it an "orders in council" thingy where they just say its prohibited and take it without confiscation, or was it the RCMP unilaterally saying its prohibited without the OIC, or other?
Click to expand...

While there are specific rifles prohib'd in the regs - there are general catagories as well.

The RCMP has decided that this firearm is very very easy to turn in to a full auto, and therefore is prohibited because the law says any gun that can easily be turned into a full auto with commonly available parts by someone of average skill is prohibed.

Of course - they're not saying HOW they converted it or giving any details, they're just saying 'trust us'. But apperently they claim it can be done without tools.

We'll see if that stands up to closer scrutiny.
 
Foxer said:
While there are specific rifles prohib'd in the regs - there are general catagories as well.

The RCMP has decided that this firearm is very very easy to turn in to a full auto, and therefore is prohibited because the law says any gun that can easily be turned into a full auto with commonly available parts by someone of average skill is prohibed.

Of course - they're not saying HOW they converted it or giving any details, they're just saying 'trust us'. But apperently they claim it can be done without tools.

We'll see if that stands up to closer scrutiny.
Click to expand...
Actually it is not the law, per se, but one case, R v. Hasselwander.
 
Foxer said:
The RCMP has decided that this firearm is very very easy to turn in to a full auto, and therefore is prohibited because the law says any gun that can easily be turned into a full auto with commonly available parts by someone of average skill is prohibed.
Click to expand...

Maybe the definition of 'full auto' needs to be clarified. If the RCMP can make the gun shoot two or three rounds with one trigger pull, then does that make it a fully automatic weapon and therefore prohibited?
 
please change your sig line.

A gun should not be classified on what it can be, but on what it is. If that's the case, then Anne Maclellan should be arrested for prostitution because she has a ######. Same with Allan Rock
 
Foxer said:
While there are specific rifles prohib'd in the regs - there are general catagories as well.

The RCMP has decided that this firearm is very very easy to turn in to a full auto, and therefore is prohibited because the law says any gun that can easily be turned into a full auto with commonly available parts by someone of average skill is prohibed.

Of course - they're not saying HOW they converted it or giving any details, they're just saying 'trust us'. But apperently they claim it can be done without tools.

We'll see if that stands up to closer scrutiny.
Click to expand...

Sounds like a carte blanche to declare any firearm they want 'prohib'. :mad:

Anyone moron can take a semi-auto and turn it full auto with no tools by bump firing it and that would likely pass as 'full auto' by their standards.
 
dave_t73 said:
Sounds like a carte blanche to declare any firearm they want 'prohib'. :mad:

Anyone moron can take a semi-auto and turn it full auto with no tools by bump firing it and that would likely pass as 'full auto' by their standards.
Click to expand...

Bump firing involves a rapid series of pressures on the trigger. That is not the legal definition of full auto.
 
dave_t73 said:
What is legal and what the RCMP does are two separate things.
Click to expand...

Are they? The RCMP appears to be working within the Hasselwander precedent.
When the first T97 reference hearing makes it to court, the manner and ease of conversion will be made available.
If the conversion falls within Hasselwander, the T97 is in real trouble. That is why a thorough understanding of the T97 mechanism is an absolute necessity for anyone going to court.
 
tiriaq said:
Are they? The RCMP appears to be working within the Hasselwander precedent.
When the first T97 reference hearing makes it to court, the manner and ease of conversion will be made available.
If the conversion falls within Hasselwander, the T97 is in real trouble. That is why a thorough understanding of the T97 mechanism is an absolute necessity for anyone going to court.
Click to expand...
The exact idea of what "falls within Hasselwander" is still up for a great deal of debate.
 
CanAm said:
The exact idea of what "falls within Hasselwander" is still up for a great deal of debate.
Click to expand...

Yes, and that is why the first T97 reference hearing is so important.
It will provide a starting point to establish a more detailed definition than exists at present. Case law precedents on the topic are few and far between.
This is why whoever gets to court first had best have all their ducks in a row.
If the RCMP can demonstrate that conversion is extremely easy, and this is what they seem to be claiming, it is unlikely that a judge who is not particularly knowledgable about firearm design is going to disagree with them.
 
dave_t73 said:
Sounds like a carte blanche to declare any firearm they want 'prohib'. :mad:
Click to expand...

You're getting the idea. The RCMP agenda is to prohibit all "military" semi-autos, but they do not have the resources to do it all at once.

Worse, they are currently running "open loop", essentially without government oversight.

We will lose several firearms every year until this is somehow shut down. Even changing the Minister of Public Safety will only buy time. Van Loan shut it down, and the RCMP went right back at it after the cabinet shuffle. Since it is very unlikely that we will be given any sort of legislative protection, the best hope is to pursue reference hearings and work to have the reclassifications overturned. Eventually, the RCMP may have their noses bloodied enough that they back off.

One thing we need to remember is that the RCMP and Crown only have so many experts and lawyers. If you ban a gun where there are HUNDREDS or THOUSANDS of affected owners, then you need to resource a similar number of reference hearings. That is a huge drain on resources, and it's one of the reasons they're picking their targets carefully, at least for now.

It is important for every affected gun owner to seek a reference hearing for that reason alone.
 
Jay said:
Well said Plink! Bang on the money!

Cheers
Jay
Click to expand...

Thanks. One more thing. Our opponents are unfortunately quite clever. The T97 and the High Standard shotgun were not selected at random - they are test-cases designed to produce favourable court verdicts that can then be used to go after whole swaths of firearms. In the case of the High Standard, it is the test-case for prohibiting the AR15/AR-10 and variants (and that's just the beginning).

Once the T97 reference hearings are done, the RCMP will have a much better idea regarding how far they can push Hasselwander. With the High-Standard, they hope to establish that RCMP classifications have supremacy over OIC classifications - they may get this ruling even if they lose the actual reference hearings.

This is arguably the most dangerous situation we have ever faced as a community.
 
Plinker said:
.... In the case of the High Standard, it is the test-case for prohibiting the AR15/AR-10 and variants (and that's just the beginning)....
Click to expand...

The High Standard issue is based on the bullpup stock legislation.
How would this spill over to the AR series?

There has to be a legal basis for reclassification. Auto convertiblilty for the T97, bullpup stock for the High Standard 10s.
 
tiriaq said:
The High Standard issue is based on the bullpup stock legislation.
How would this spill over to the AR series?

There has to be a legal basis for reclassification. Auto convertiblilty for the T97, bullpup stock for the High Standard 10s.
Click to expand...

You have to look at the big picture. The High Standard is being used to test the ability of the RCMP to prohibit firearms that are designated as restricted by name in OICs. There are not that many of these shotguns out there, so there will be a handful of reference hearings - a workload the RCMP can easily manage.

If the courts rule that the RCMP does indeed have the authority to overrule OICs, then Hasselwander will be used to prohibit the AR15. You have to connect the dots - there is a lot more going on here. The High Standard was selected because it presents the most manageable test case with the best odds of success. Even if the RCMP loses every single reference hearing on the 10B on purely technical merits (i.e. we successfully challenge the technical findings of the forensics group), they do not care. What they are after is for a plurality of judges to opine that the RCMP does indeed have authority to prohibit what is designated as "restricted" in OICs. That is their objective. I'm sure that most of the challenges we present at the reference hearings will be constucted on that particular point, so there is going to be a ruling.
 
Last edited:
The RCMP intends to use the T97 and 10B rulings together to define the "envelope". Any gun within this envelope will, over time, become prohibited. This is part of a carefully planned strategy.
 
Last edited:
A free society should be extremely wary of, and alarmed by, a national paramilitary police force that is circumventing rule of law in an attempt to disarm lawful citizens. We need to demand proper oversight by our elected officials.
 
Forget the High Standard M10 B issue that is a Prohibited firearm because it is a modernized version of the High Standard M10 which is listed as a Prohibited Firearm it is not going to get reversed .The T97 is another matter because it was orginally classed as a Restricted/Non Restricted Firearm and given the time it took the RCMP to declare it a Prohibited the CPR laid enough track to cover half of Canada back in our early years
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom