*** CZ 858 March Update ***

[mikethebike]

According to Mr. Smith's reply, the receiver is the main problem. It is explained in the 3rd paragraph of the "Background" section, and has nothing to do with the name "Sparta" or "Spartan" or whatever. In this paragraph, Smith claims that these rifles were manufactured with converted Automatic receivers.

So, the question is...Did CZ continue to use re-manufactured select fire receivers when they manufactured this latest shipment of rifles for Wolverine?

According to the RCMP, they did. Who's at fault for that is anyone's guess...

no you are wrong, what you are mentionning is covered by oic to NR
the word spartan is not covered by oic to NR
hence the problem at hand
the word spartan is the problem
seems the firarms act now controls words as well as firearms
who knew... well I guess the RCMP is now the word police

[Midnight Rider]

I think saying the problem has "nothing to do with the name Sparta or Spartan" is incorrect. If you've been reading the thread, that is at the very center of the problem. It began when Wolverine inadvertently advertised this rifle as a "Spartan Limited Edition", essentially giving it new designation, opening the door for the RCMP to create a new FRT entry. Since any CZ858 called the "Sparta-whatever" is not covered by the OIC that allowed these rifles to be reverted back to NR, they are considered prohib, for the same reason they RCMP tried to prohibit all of them in the first place a couple years back, as converted autos.

That does seem to be the case .......

[jakester]

Mr. Smith also states in his reply that the previous Ministerial Directive (OIC by Mr. Blaney), is no longer in effect as of June 6 2016. (This found under the heading of Ministerial directive in his reply).
From what I've read, CZ858's being manufactured on converted auto receivers has always been at the heart of this issue as far as the RCMP are concerned. The name Sparta or Spartan in the naming convention for whatever purpose may have contributed to the FRT issue in a negative manner this time around, but appears (at least to me) not to be the sole reason for refusal of entry of these rifles . Since Mr. Blaney's OIC is no longer in effect, then it looks like this whole issue is back to square one anyway.

[Epoxy7]

no you are wrong, what you are mentionning is covered by oic to NR
the word spartan is not covered by oic to NR
hence the problem at hand
the word spartan is the problem
seems the firarms act now controls words as well as firearms
who knew... well I guess the RCMP is now the word police

Words and markings on non controlled parts apparently. This is a dangerous and poorly thought out precedent that the lab is setting. If the orgs are sitting back on this one, then they are of no use to firearm owners here in Canada.

[Bad Lieutenant]

Mr. Smith also states in his reply that the previous Ministerial Directive (OIC by Mr. Blaney), is no longer in effect as of June 6 2016. (This found under the heading of Ministerial directive in his reply).
From what I've read, CZ858's being manufactured on converted auto receivers has always been at the heart of this issue as far as the RCMP are concerned. The name Sparta or Spartan in the naming convention for whatever purpose may have contributed to the FRT issue in a negative manner this time around, but appears (at least to me) not to be the sole reason for refusal of entry of these rifles . Since Mr. Blaney's OIC is no longer in effect, then it looks like this whole issue is back to square one anyway.

If the OIC that reverted CZ858's back to NR were no longer in effect, then ALL CZ858's would be considered prohib, again, just like they were a couple years ago, along with the Swiss Arms PE-90, when all this nonsense began. Vendors wouldn't be able to sell any CZ858s. These rifles that Wolverine has were apparently already cleared. Again, it wasn't until the RCMP took note of the ad calling them "Spartan Limited Edition" that they claimed Wolverine had designated them as a new model, therefore requiring a new FRT. Since the OIC that designated CZ858's as NR doesn't cover this new FRT, they are deemed prohib. This has been explained numerous times. The wording of the ad is where the problem began, and it is at the very center of the problem. It's the wording the was basis for a whole new FRT entry. I'm not sure why you keep trying to negate or even dismiss it's role here.

The simple fact is that the receiver is the critical part, along with the length of the barrel. What's engraved on a non-regulated part, such as the bolt or the furniture should have no bearing on the status of a firearm. If I go and engrave a Spartan helmet on the bolt of my NR 858 and engrave "Molon Labe" on the stock, I should not be required to register it as prohib. This is a ridiculous situation and Mr. Smith and RCMP know it, but they simply don't care because they are supported, emboldened even, by a majority gov't with an anti-gun agenda. At the same time, this decision could be challenged, so Mr. Smith is talking in circles and adding as much fluff as he can to his explanation, to try and make appear justifiable. Don't buy it.

[Longarm9]

Your statement would prove "innocent" all guards and executors in the Nazi camps and is absolutely wrong !
As a enforcer of the law you should be prepared with a plan how to deal with a unjust/bad/senseless law or an order. You can choose not to enforce it and deal with the consequences or to enforce it and become an accomplice in the unjust act against the public.
If you can not make such a decision then you should find different occupation.
If all the law enforcers decide not to enforce a unjust law do you think the people in the Ivory Tower in Ottawa will bring their f*t asses on the street to enforce it?

Do you know how absurd you sound by comparing law enforcement in a country like Canada to extermination camp guards in a fascist totalitarian dictatorship?

In Canada, we have the rule of law. The laws are made by the duly elected members of the national parliament, through a long established process which has elements of accountability built into it, and which is in itself subject to the law. The job of law enforcement is to apply and enforce these laws, not to ignore them or make up their own laws as they see fit. Unless the laws we are expected to enforce are either completely beyond the pale of morality (such as extermination of a particular ethnic group) or are negated by the supreme law, the constitution, we are bound by duty to uphold them. We may not particularly like aspects of those laws or agree with them, but part of living in a society that has the rule of law is that we do not overstep the authority given to us. If laws need to be changed, that authority rests in the hands of parliament, not in the hands of frontline law enforcement. The whole problem here seems to be that certain elements of the RCMP are NOT doing exactly what I'm talking about, but are rather arbitrarily making things up as they go along in order to push their political agenda.

If you really cannot see how your comment is totally irrelevant and bears no comparison, then there's no much point in discussing it with you.

[mikethebike]

Do you know how absurd you sound by comparing law enforcement in a country like Canada to extermination camp guards in a fascist totalitarian dictatorship?

In Canada, we have the rule of law. The laws are made by the duly elected members of the national parliament, through a long established process which has elements of accountability built into it, and which is in itself subject to the law. The job of law enforcement is to apply and enforce these laws, not to ignore them or make up their own laws as they see fit. Unless the laws we are expected to enforce are either completely beyond the pale of morality (such as extermination of a particular ethnic group) or are negated by the supreme law, the constitution, we are bound by duty to uphold them. We may not particularly like aspects of those laws or agree with them, but part of living in a society that has the rule of law is that we do not overstep the authority given to us. If laws need to be changed, that authority rests in the hands of parliament, not in the hands of frontline law enforcement. The whole problem here seems to be that certain elements of the RCMP are NOT doing exactly what I'm talking about, but are rather arbitrarily making things up as they go along in order to push their political agenda.

If you really cannot see how your comment is totally irrelevant and bears no comparison, then there's no much point in discussing it with you.

Germany wasnt a magical spontaneous dictatorship, it was ruled by a person that was democatrically elected to rule them, the Germands wanted to be ruled by that man.

Everything the Nazis did was actually legal in Germany to do so, they passed the laws that made it legal, therefore they also had the rule of law. What they did, they did incrementally, very small steps towards the final solution over the span of more than a decade.

I can be elected in power and pass a law that says everything you own is now mine, another law that says that your wife is now my slave, that would be legal for me to do so, who would stop me? I have the RCMP and all the LEOs of the country on my side since everything I am doing is legal therefore I am right.

It is the moral duty of a man not to respect an unjust law, it is the moral duty of a citizen to rise against tyranny of government. More importantly LEOs have an even higher moral duty towards ethics and the right thing, not just the legal thing, since they are the gatekeepers of civility and a moral society.

Guards in Nazi Germany would be met with the very fast introduction of a bullet if they said NO. What would an RCMP or any LEO in Canada face? Suspension with pay (also known as a vacation)? A reprimand? A strong worded letter? A talk in the supervisors office? Wow the price of doing what is right sure is not very high!!!

Perhaps I'm hitting a soft spot. I know I sure have arguments with my boss and my CEO all the time, and yes I even refuse to do explicit orders they tell me to do, and why not if they go against my ethics and values? Do I fear being fired, sure, why not, but who cares! I'll find another job. Certainly I should not compromise my values just because I am ordered to do so.

Taking away the rightfully owned property of civilians is wrong, no matter how you cut it. It being done legally by the government and their strong arm RCMP is even more wrong. I would expect, even demand, that LEOs would stand up to such ox excrement.

[Longarm9]

Germany wasnt a magical spontaneous dictatorship, it was ruled by a person that was democatrically elected to rule them, the Germands wanted to be ruled by that man.

Everything the Nazis did was actually legal in Germany to do so, they passed the laws that made it legal, therefore they also had the rule of law. What they did, they did incrementally, very small steps towards the final solution over the span of more than a decade.

I am very well versed in the history of Nazi Germany in the 20th century, thanks.

I can be elected in power and pass a law that says everything you own is now mine, another law that says that your wife is now my slave, that would be legal for me to do so, who would stop me? I have the RCMP and all the LEOs of the country on my side since everything I am doing is legal therefore I am right.

No, actually, you can't. In Canada we have something called the constitution, specifically the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which declares any law inconsistent with its provisions to be of no force or effect, so therefore you could not legally pass such laws. Even if you were the PM with a majority in parliament, and even if you managed to get such laws past the senate, which is unlikely, they would be struck down by the SCC. Furthermore, LEO's have a LEGAL basis for refusing to enforce laws inconsistent with the constitution and the charter.

It is the moral duty of a man not to respect an unjust law, it is the moral duty of a citizen to rise against tyranny of government. More importantly LEOs have an even higher moral duty towards ethics and the right thing, not just the legal thing, since they are the gatekeepers of civility and a moral society.

So who decides what laws are just and what laws are unjust? Who decides which laws we uphold and which we ignore? I am telling you that we have provisions in place in our society to prevent grossly unjust laws from being enacted. We have democratic processes in place, we have the rule of law, we have judicial oversight, none of which Nazi Germany had. I am probably one of the harshest critics you're ever going to find of the Westminster Parliamentary system and our milquetoast constitution, but as flawed as they are, they are far better than the arbitrary rule of megalomaniacal dictators or mob violence. You're comparing apples to oranges.

Guards in Nazi Germany would be met with the very fast introduction of a bullet if they said NO. What would an RCMP or any LEO in Canada face? Suspension with pay (also known as a vacation)? A reprimand? A strong worded letter? A talk in the supervisors office? Wow the price of doing what is right sure is not very high!!!

How about getting fired and losing your livelihood and being unable to support your family? When Justin declares himself the supreme ruler, dissolves parliament and starts setting up death camps, I'll be first in line to lead the Resistance. Until then, I'm going to let due process and the rule of law decide what's legal and what's not. If you don't like the laws, use the legal, democratic means at your disposal to change them.

Perhaps I'm hitting a soft spot. I know I sure have arguments with my boss and my CEO all the time, and yes I even refuse to do explicit orders they tell me to do, and why not if they go against my ethics and values? Do I fear being fired, sure, why not, but who cares! I'll find another job. Certainly I should not compromise my values just because I am ordered to do so.

Again, comparing apples to oranges. As a civilian, you no doubt do not comprehend the situation of being entrusted with enforcing laws, carrying weapons, etc. We in law enforcement have to be extremely careful how we exercise our authority - we do not act arbitrarily on our own whims or ideas, but in accordance with the law. Again, if you don't like the law, work to change it. That's what I'm doing - joined the CPC and am going to vote for Maxime Bernier as leader.

Taking away the rightfully owned property of civilians is wrong, no matter how you cut it.

Really? So we shouldn't be able to seize the assets of criminals? Should we not be able to seize illegal goods being smuggled across the border as long as the smugglers paid for the stuff elsewhere? The world is not as cut and dried as you'd like it to be.

It being done legally by the government and their strong arm RCMP is even more wrong. I would expect, even demand, that LEOs would stand up to such ox excrement.

I agree with you that the RCMP's firearms division's actions are improper, and probably not legal. Insofar as it falls within my sphere of discretion, any declarations they make which are inconsistent with the law as I know it will be ignored. As for the rest, the decision whether their actions are lawful or not rests with the SCC. I'm going to uphold the system of accountability and rule of law, flawed as it may be, until such time as it has been shown to have broken down beyond repair. We're not there yet.

[XRAYGUY]

Yaaaawwwnnn...

[wbaad]

Words and markings on non controlled parts apparently. This is a dangerous and poorly thought out precedent that the lab is setting. If the orgs are sitting back on this one, then they are of no use to firearm owners here in Canada.

So if someone engraved their post 2007 858 or upgraded the furniture it is therefore prohib because it's a "different" gun??!!