Yeah well it's emotional to have a revocation letter stating you have 30 days to hand in a 3000$ rifle. But nonetheless the only eason this came up is because people wanted to convert them to NR. Which you might as well save the money and buy an NR from the factory.
13 inch MSW IWI X95 Tavor now Prohibited
- Thread starter Aprilia Man
- Start date
Yeah well it's emotional to have a revocation letter stating you have 30 days to hand in a 3000$ rifle. But nonetheless the only eason this came up is because people wanted to convert them to NR. Which you might as well save the money and buy an NR from the factory.
There is no NR micro tavor from the factory unfortunately. The MSW is the Tavor nerds dream rifle.
I understand the RCMP are blaming this on "verifiers" working on behalf of the importer. That's fair to a degree, but it still begs the question of how the system works. If the RCMP trust people to tell the truth/know what they are talking about when importing guns and do not think it necessary to check the guns themselves, I guess if a few machine guns make it through that's just an acceptable "whoopsie" to be corrected 2 years later? Talk about a systemic oversight failure. The incredible irony here is that after the May 2020 OIC with all the "assault rifle" wording fanfare, the RCMP actually allowed genuine select fire "assault rifles," that were issued during actual wars, to come in and be sold openly in Canada for 2 years (I am aware of the need to obtain the completely unobtainable prohibited trigger groups to make these practically full auto)
Where I think there are a whack of unanswered questions regarding fault (in letting this problem persist for as long as it did) is in situations where owners submitted their rifles for verification as NR after installing longer barrels. In these cases, many rifles were verified by provincial CFO's (and maybe RCMP verifiers?) as NR. It seems harder for the argument of "the importer screwed the pooch" when these things were under inspection for verification as NR by government agencies.
What a mess.
Where I think there are a whack of unanswered questions regarding fault (in letting this problem persist for as long as it did) is in situations where owners submitted their rifles for verification as NR after installing longer barrels. In these cases, many rifles were verified by provincial CFO's (and maybe RCMP verifiers?) as NR. It seems harder for the argument of "the importer screwed the pooch" when these things were under inspection for verification as NR by government agencies.
What a mess.
funny the trhead is now locked ...but lasted a day ...
i doubt the lab did prove it was full auto ... just do an atipp and file the s74 challenge you might some gems into it and learn a lot.
They'll maybe unlock it once North Sylva is ready to make a statement
they may update but will reloack in the same token like in the past but that is life.
OK, guys. These firearms were originally manufactured as semi-auto by IWI, these firearms are advertised as semi-auto by IWI, they are factually and technically semi-auto. And legally (here's my personal opinion, because I am not a lawyer), by definition of 84(1) they are NOT prohibited firearm (they don't fall into two possible catch identifications - "automatic", or "modified automatic").
Anyone who tells you otherwise ignores the facts of how these firearms were manufactured.
Now, having said that.
- Is it true that some parts of MSW are the same as with IWI automatic version of X95? Yes, true.
- Is it true that some parts of MSW are the different from IWI automatic version of X95? Yes, true.
- Does the presence of some "automatic" parts make this firearm automatic technically? No. Legally? No (again, strictly my opinion).
- You may ask is it easy convertible? - I would ask you back - provide me with clear technical and legal definition of easy convertible" and provide me with reference to the law how the fact of "easy convertible" (if that's the case) is considered during classification of firearm.
Anyone who tells you otherwise ignores the facts of how these firearms were manufactured.
Now, having said that.
- Is it true that some parts of MSW are the same as with IWI automatic version of X95? Yes, true.
- Is it true that some parts of MSW are the different from IWI automatic version of X95? Yes, true.
- Does the presence of some "automatic" parts make this firearm automatic technically? No. Legally? No (again, strictly my opinion).
- You may ask is it easy convertible? - I would ask you back - provide me with clear technical and legal definition of easy convertible" and provide me with reference to the law how the fact of "easy convertible" (if that's the case) is considered during classification of firearm.
Last edited:
Yeah fvcking right. NS is not even going to acknowledge this.
themarauder
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- Just north of Toronto, thankfully.
How it should work, in a rational system (Assuming we're going to ban full autos, which is itself BS):
Is it currently full auto? No? 100% legal, enjoy.
Is it currently full auto? No? 100% legal, enjoy.
Not that I am in any way, shape, or form a North Silva supporter or apologist, but we need to take a step back along with a deep breath. Faced with a potential $1 Million(+) class-action lawsuit from current MSW owners, I would expect silence from NS until such time as they themselves fully understand what is going on and where the problem(s) with the importation lie. They will need some time (at least a few business days) to consult with the lab and their lawyers to determine culpability and likely outcomes so that they can develop a sound plan of action.
I suggest that we all relax and enjoy our Thanksgiving Long Weekend with friends and family. I fully appreciate that the potential for a non-compensated $2K seizure from anyone's collection is significant cause for concern. However precedent has been set for compensation in at least once similar case (CZ 858), so there is hope on that front. Also, it would seem that there is a strong case to be made that the rifles were manufactured as semi-autos, and only semi-autos based on their receiver markings and the limited movement of the selector lever. Past case law clearly states that in the eyes of the court, a firearm "is what it is" at the time of examination. In other words, even if the lab can make a semi-auto firearm operate fully-auto, it means nothing because that act (converting a firearm to full-auto) is specifically covered by the Fireaerms Act and is a punishable offence under the law. So what a firearm can "become" is irrelevant to the courts if it is manufactured as a semi-auto and is only capable of semi-auto function as presentedd/retailed. What the lab can make the rifle do with illegal modifications ought to be of little to no relevance in the eyes of a judge familiar with Canadian firearms case law. At least that is my understanding of the outcome of the "Hasselwander" case back in the 1980s. I am sure that one of our sharp-eyed "Legal Eagles" will correct me if I am off-base, but IIRC, that was one of the principal outcomes of that particular firearms case...
So let's please not panic on here, FB, Reddit or elsewhere. Panic is never a positive nor productive option. Plus people who run in circles waving their arms and shouting about the sky falling typically look like fools. We need to look at this objectively to determine fault (if any), scrutinize the Lab's actions/findings, and then act in accordance with the facts as presented/understood. This will take some time, so let's give it a week (5 business days) to see what the facts are as best we can determine them. THEN we need to develop the best arguments possible based on those facts and the hive-mind here and at the CCFR, NFA, CSSA, etc. That will take a few more working days. Only once we are all singing off the same song-sheet, should we proceed with filing Sec 74 Hearing Applications within our respective provinces, based on the best argument(s) that we can collectively devise. THAT is how we go about dealing with this unfortunate situation in a logical, analytical, and (hopefully) productive manner.
And yes, I have "skin" in the game....
I suggest that we all relax and enjoy our Thanksgiving Long Weekend with friends and family. I fully appreciate that the potential for a non-compensated $2K seizure from anyone's collection is significant cause for concern. However precedent has been set for compensation in at least once similar case (CZ 858), so there is hope on that front. Also, it would seem that there is a strong case to be made that the rifles were manufactured as semi-autos, and only semi-autos based on their receiver markings and the limited movement of the selector lever. Past case law clearly states that in the eyes of the court, a firearm "is what it is" at the time of examination. In other words, even if the lab can make a semi-auto firearm operate fully-auto, it means nothing because that act (converting a firearm to full-auto) is specifically covered by the Fireaerms Act and is a punishable offence under the law. So what a firearm can "become" is irrelevant to the courts if it is manufactured as a semi-auto and is only capable of semi-auto function as presentedd/retailed. What the lab can make the rifle do with illegal modifications ought to be of little to no relevance in the eyes of a judge familiar with Canadian firearms case law. At least that is my understanding of the outcome of the "Hasselwander" case back in the 1980s. I am sure that one of our sharp-eyed "Legal Eagles" will correct me if I am off-base, but IIRC, that was one of the principal outcomes of that particular firearms case...
So let's please not panic on here, FB, Reddit or elsewhere. Panic is never a positive nor productive option. Plus people who run in circles waving their arms and shouting about the sky falling typically look like fools. We need to look at this objectively to determine fault (if any), scrutinize the Lab's actions/findings, and then act in accordance with the facts as presented/understood. This will take some time, so let's give it a week (5 business days) to see what the facts are as best we can determine them. THEN we need to develop the best arguments possible based on those facts and the hive-mind here and at the CCFR, NFA, CSSA, etc. That will take a few more working days. Only once we are all singing off the same song-sheet, should we proceed with filing Sec 74 Hearing Applications within our respective provinces, based on the best argument(s) that we can collectively devise. THAT is how we go about dealing with this unfortunate situation in a logical, analytical, and (hopefully) productive manner.
And yes, I have "skin" in the game....
Last edited:
I agree that it makes sense for NS to wait and see. From my conversation with the RCMP it would seem that the investigation is ongoing. Which to me translates into we haven't yet been able to convert it to full auto. They are calling them fully auto guns because a variant of the MSW is full auto.
Well I love your gun collections bartok but that was completely wrong.
Hasselwander's case when it got appealed to the Supreme of Canada defined capable as "being readily convertible" meaning that it doesn't have to be full auto at the time of examination but if it can be readily converted with relative ease. That it would be defined as an automatic firearm.
EDIT: You may have been around at the time of the case and not followed it to the end, but the case history went local court; prohibited, appeals court; not prohibited because it should be looked at what a firearm is at the time (what you think), then the final SCC ruling I just linked.
https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/1007/index.do
Dropping a full auto trigger pack into it, easily meets the definition of relatively short time with relative ease
Last edited:
Thanks for the kind words. �� I may be wrong regarding the ultimate outcome of Hasselwander (which is why I deferred to our CGN Legal types), however the fact remains that any conversion of a semi-auto firearm to full-auto function is a criminal act in and of itself. Regardless of whether the conversion is an easy matter or not, should be argued as irrelevant, since any conversion to automatic function is a deliberate criminal act which no law-abiding firearms owner would ever attempt in the first place. Even if the act is as simple as installing a select-fire Trigger Pack, so what? Where would I obtain such a Trigger Pack (assuming I wanted one), and even if I could find one, why would I choose to break the law by installing it?
The bottom line is that the facts and resultant legal arguments will be determined in the coming days (possibly weeks). The primary point of my post is still relevant - people need to relax, enjoy Thanksgiving with friends and family, and not worry about this bull-crap until we know some concrete facts. Running around on Reddit and FB screaming about the sky falling is not productive, nor does it reflect well upon the community when people go off half-cocked (pun intended).
The "converted auto" argument that the receivers were full-auto-capable but repurposed ought to run head-long into the counter-argument of "So what? The MSWs were manufactured as semi-automatic-only firearms and left the factory in that operational state". Which will bring us right around to the question of rapid conversion through the replacement of factory select-fire parts (Trigger-Pack, Bolt Carrier, etc). Which I would argue is completely irrelevant for the previously stated reasons - A firearm "is what it is" when it leaves the factory, and any conversion is a deliberately illegal act that no law-abiding firearms owner would ever perform.
I am thinking if “whoever” feels that dropping a Tavor full auto pack into the rifle meets the definition of “relatively short time”, that is one thing. The other part I would argue is where th heck in North America are you going to find a Tavor full auto trigger pack? Not like it is a FA AR bolt carrier etc, that could be demonstrated to be “easily obtained”.
Just food for thought.
Yup - I mentioned the non-availability of select-fire-specific parts as they pertain to "ease of conversion" in post #45 above. There can be no "easy" conversion if the parts necessary to convert an MSW to automatic fire are simply not available to Canadian firearms owners and must therefore be fabricated in a machine shop with (rare) requisite skills and knowledge.
Last edited:
This was also my initial thoughts, folks here informed me that there is nothing "illegal" about purchasing and importing FA parts. While the firearm may be prohibited, nothing stopping anyone from purchasing parts. Myself, I'd be concerned about even conducting a web search for FA trigger pack for fear of black helicopters, but apparently they are available. I have no idea where aside from pointing to the states.
