13 inch MSW IWI X95 Tavor now Prohibited

Horilka said:
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.
Click to expand...

I'm a perpetual nay-sayer (which is good otherwise CGN is just an echo chamber) but past "precedent" has already happened with other "easily convertible" firearms being denied entry.

ARX 160
HK243
SCAR
Bren 805


I already answered you in a previous thread about R v Hasselwander and easily convertible so that is what the law is. I'm quite surprised at how how many people are wishing what the law should be rather than what it is and has been applied (inconsistently) by the RCMP for the past 10 or so years. (not directed at you specifically but the multitude of threads/posts that insist "readily convertible to full auto" hasn't been a thing since the 90's)


Personally as a non-lawyer I think this hinges on, is the IWI MSW a different firearm than the IWI Tavor? That's really the only question based off the RCMP letter sent out. Because the reasoning of why the 4 firearms I named above are prohibited is because you can swap out the semi-auto groups with unobtainium full auto trigger packs and make them automatic firearms inline with the Hasselwander definition of "capable of" which means

The word "capable" in para. (c) includes an aspect of potential capability for conversion and, given a reasonable interpretation, should be defined as meaning capable of conversion to an automatic weapon in a relatively short period of time with relative ease.
Click to expand...

It doesn't matter if the IWI MSW was built semi-auto in the factory what matters is, is the IWI MSW receiver identical to the IWI Tavor (and thus both are semi-auto only receivers) or was the IWI MSW built so that you can easily swap out the trigger pack for a full auto one?
 
Last edited:
You replied with reference to court case to Bartok, not to me. But I read it and I stand corrected. Factually and technically MSWs were manufactured as semi. They function as semi only. Legally I said my opinion was not a lawyer opinion and I read the law literally. However if Canadian court says that white is not white when the law wants to protect us from evil guns, when "capable" means not "able to", but rather " can easily be modified into", then now I agree, in that case legally MSW are "automatic". Again, strictly my opinion.
 
Last edited:
“I'm feeding information to helpful lawyers.”

Can you (or other members) recommend lawyers in BC who have experience with such matters?
 
Case law is clearly stacked against us. No disputing that. However, a Sec 74 Challenge is the only option for retention of the firearm for the longest possible period. l will therefore file a Challenge in the hopes that the Importer/Distributor and the RCMP are able to come to a resolution of the issue before my hearing comes up.

Failing all of the above, the RCMP will get a stripped out MSW receiver from me. I will then swap my MSW Barrel Assembly and short Handguard onto my NR X95, creating a restricted, pseudo-MSW with the exact same handling characteristics and ergos (less the 45-degree Selector lever throw). Report it to the CFC within 30 days and easy-peasy - for all intents and purposes I have an MSW again with a full slate of spare parts. Full-auto parts are fine for use in a semi-auto firearm so long as they do not cause automatic function in and of themselves. An example would be the many M16 full-auto Bolt Carriers used in Canadian AR15s for their increased mass. I could care less about making my NR X95 into a Restricted firearm, as I have plenty of other NR rifles should I suddenly start shooting on Crown Land instead of the flat range.

Where there is a will, there is a way. The gun-banning RCMP can pound sand for all I care. At the end of the day I will still end up with what I want, $$ be damned!!
 
Interesting that the X95 MSW is intended to be semi-auto from the time the mold is made for the frame / body.

The other models use a different mold, hence the different marking and capabilities, etc.


53240604643_9d693705f1_c.jpg


53239433092_3fbb4a2a91_c.jpg
 
Last edited:
Horilka said:
Request for informational assistance

Gentlemen who are affected by this ####storm. At this very moment of time I consider our chances to win and keep MSWs as insignificant, however.... It is just a one person opinion, it doesn't mean we are not going to do our best to fight it. New information is coming in pretty fast, and information changes a lot. We haven't heard orgs, I'm feeding information to helpful lawyers. We will see.
I'm looking for 2-4 ppl that are willing to send an email with specific request to provincial CFO and share some details from provided reply (nothing private) with me. It might help, it might not help, at this stage we're on the fishing trip for information.

So I need couple of ppl who has X95 MSW in restricted configuration registered to them.
And I need another couple of ppl who more or less recently (up to a year) converted X95 MSW into NR configuration and submitted request to reclassify it. It doesn't matter if you still have it or sold it. WHat matter is the fact you're were the owner who reclassified it.

Please PM me and I'll send you instruction, it's very easy and cost you nothing, just several minutes of your screen time.
Click to expand...

The importers will be coming out with answers next week. I spoke with both of them, NS told me nothing. Impact Outdoors said that they believe it's a mistake and are talking to the lab to get the situation rectified. In either case if the lab sticks to it's guns, they will have no choice to either sue the RCMP and obtain an injunction, or refund all end-users.
 
KanadianShooter said:
The importers will be coming out with answers next week. I spoke with both of them, NS told me nothing. Impact Outdoors said that they believe it's a mistake and are talking to the lab to get the situation rectified. In either case if the lab sticks to it's guns, they will have no choice to either sue the RCMP and obtain an injunction, or refund all end-users.
Click to expand...

I want a cancellation of the revocation, and a small monetary compensation for emotional damages.

'__'
 
MlCE said:
I want a cancellation of the revocation, and a small monetary compensation for emotional damages.

'__'
Click to expand...

I really want to know how the lab came to this conclusion. I would be surprised if they changed their opinion considering how bad it would make them look. However, we need a FOIA request to get the information. I believe it's because there is a variant of the MSW which is full auto and not that these are Converted or easily convertible to full auto.
 
Last edited:
KanadianShooter said:
I really want to know how the lab came to this conclusion. I would be surprised if they changed their opinion considering how bad it would make them look. However, we need a FOIA request to get the information. I believe it's because there is a variant of the MSW which is full auto and not that these are Converted or easily convertible to full auto.
Click to expand...

im curious where two yrs later with this being sold as idf surplus from day one they suddenly woke uo. as a not IDF does not issue full auto tavors like these only semi auto
 
KanadianShooter said:
I really want to know how the lab came to this conclusion. I would be surprised if they changed their opinion considering how bad it would make them look. However, we need a FOIA request to get the information. I believe it's because there is a variant of the MSW which is full auto and not that these are Converted or easily convertible to full auto.
Click to expand...

IWI documents (see above) do not list a select-fire nor auto-capable MSW. Where did you obtain the information that there is a variant of the MSW which is full-auto, as this would appear to contradict IWI's own description of the MSW as semi-auto only? Please elaborate and confirm your source.
 
if you were to put a NR barrel on this guy, reclassify it , would this solve the issue? asking for a friend
 
Steers said:
if you were to put a NR barrel on this guy, reclassify it , would this solve the issue? asking for a friend
Click to expand...

no, barrel length has nothing to do with the "issue" and rcmp would not approve the reclassification of it due to the status/situation these rifles are in at the moment.
 
Mesayat said:
Yes. And the moment your appeal is filed your revocation is cancelled until your hearing. Success? Probably not. Sets precedent and you learn. Plus it's free and you self represent. The instructions to do so were included with the revocation letter from the RCMP.
Click to expand...

So they actually sent a revocation, the reg certificate isn't "nullified".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom