13 inch MSW IWI X95 Tavor now Prohibited
- Thread starter Aprilia Man
- Start date
I agree, I don't know who it was, I heard maybe North Sylva? But it sounds like they didn't do their proper due diligence. They should be on the hook to compensate these buyers. Would like to know the full process how they got the initial approval for restricted status when they brought them in
well look up the history of cz/swiss ...
- Location
- Leduc County, Alberta
Or those of us who had BD38s…
Registration = Confiscation
Registration = Confiscation
So, what's the problem? Genuine question.
How to begin the Process.. First recognize this is a Revocation Notice. A Revocation is challenged by filing for a Hearing with the local Criminal Court. YOU have ONLY 30 days from Receipt of the revocation Notice to make the filing. No extensions.This is the way to obtain a section 74 Reference Hearing. You can obtain the form from your local court. It is to be filled out and served on the Crown Attorney's office of your local court Then the Reference along with proof of service is filed with the local criminal court registrar. The Registrar with either assign a date or you can tell them the date you wish to have as the first appearance in the local criminal court.
This then begins the long process of preparing for the hearing. The point of the hearing is to prove the revocation was unfounded and the opinion that the firearm is a converted full auto to semi auto is in error. You will be requesting all of the notes and investigations of the RCMP lab. You will need information from the manufacturer and you will need a firearms expert who can testify that he firearms was so fully remanufactured that the idea of it being a converted full auto is not relevant to it's being reclassified now as prohibited. This is truly a matter of expert vs expert to be presented to the court.
I have not examined the facts or issues and can not say if this will be a winning case BUT if it si not started then there is no case to evaluate the opinion of the RCMP SFSS lab .
But filing has no drawbacks. If you withdraw you do not suffer costs against you. Also during the time you have the Reference Hearing in play you may hold the firearm in you home. This allows the expert to attend and examine the firearm.
Regards
Ed Burlew LL.B.
This then begins the long process of preparing for the hearing. The point of the hearing is to prove the revocation was unfounded and the opinion that the firearm is a converted full auto to semi auto is in error. You will be requesting all of the notes and investigations of the RCMP lab. You will need information from the manufacturer and you will need a firearms expert who can testify that he firearms was so fully remanufactured that the idea of it being a converted full auto is not relevant to it's being reclassified now as prohibited. This is truly a matter of expert vs expert to be presented to the court.
I have not examined the facts or issues and can not say if this will be a winning case BUT if it si not started then there is no case to evaluate the opinion of the RCMP SFSS lab .
But filing has no drawbacks. If you withdraw you do not suffer costs against you. Also during the time you have the Reference Hearing in play you may hold the firearm in you home. This allows the expert to attend and examine the firearm.
Regards
Ed Burlew LL.B.
Cameron SS
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- Ground Zero
Does anyone know the date that these firearms were first registered? The date of the RCMPs inspection, amd thendate of the revocation notices?
Aprilia Man
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- Canadian "WET" Coast (Raincouver)
File a referral under S.74. That will at least get you an extension on the 30 day time frame. Hopefully by the time you get a court date there will either be president or, best case, matter will be dropped. Don’t just ignore the “Notice of Revocation”.
Here is a link for the referral form:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1iUV_oRvz_Qo2p0LrDfbXEKuqnSU5q47m/view?pli=1
Here is a link for the referral form:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1iUV_oRvz_Qo2p0LrDfbXEKuqnSU5q47m/view?pli=1
Last edited:
I think the problem here is that someone at the lab received a sample of this version of the Tavor and was able to drop a full-auto trigger pack in the receiver.
Full-auto parts are not illegal in Canada so by the RCMP's own internal guidelines it makes this particular receiver a machine gun even though it may have never had a full-auto pack installed originally or ever. The Israeli units that had these surplus guns fired them in the semi/safe configuration and the markings on the polymer lower had the same markings.
You can't drop a full-auto trigger pack in the civi version of the Tavor.
This has been an issue with other drop-in trigger pack firearms as well. Not agreeing with it, just what the powers that be operate under.
From what I’ve gathered the X95 MSW was never a Full-Auto firearm, it was designed as a Semi-Auto for use by the Israeli police (selector switch only has 2 positions S&R). The issue seems to be that the MSW receiver is capable of excepting a Full-Auto trigger package making it prohibited under the Firearms Act.
I find it hard to believe that both the importer’s verifiers and the RCMP inspectors missed this pretty obvious item.
Regardless, if you received a “Revocation Letter” you should file a referral under S.74. If you fail to act within the 30 days the RCMP could revoke your RPAL for non-compliance.
I find it hard to believe that both the importer’s verifiers and the RCMP inspectors missed this pretty obvious item.
Regardless, if you received a “Revocation Letter” you should file a referral under S.74. If you fail to act within the 30 days the RCMP could revoke your RPAL for non-compliance.
