I was not aware that's how this issue was started. The verification process still doesn't fully make sense to me. I had to get my PS90 verified by a local gunsmith when I changed the barrel from 16in to 10.5in even though it still remain in the restricted class. But when I had to get my pistol grip 8.5 shotgun changed from from restricted to non-restricted by adding a full buttstock all the rcmp made me do was send them a picture of it next to a tape measure. Would this individual not just have to do the same and send a picture in? I'm so confused, i've only had 2 experiences with the process and they have been so different.
13 inch MSW IWI X95 Tavor now Prohibited
- Thread starter Aprilia Man
- Start date
I was not aware that's how this issue was started. The verification process still doesn't fully make sense to me. I had to get my PS90 verified by a local gunsmith when I changed the barrel from 16in to 10.5in even though it still remain in the restricted class. But when I had to get my pistol grip 8.5 shotgun changed from from restricted to non-restricted by adding a full buttstock all the rcmp made me do was send them a picture of it next to a tape measure. Would this individual not just have to do the same and send a picture in? I'm so confused, i've only had 2 experiences with the process and they have been so different.
You can't know this for sure.
First. Many ppl successfully reclassified it to NR.
Second. I have another fact for you - employee of certain popular retailer in GTA were bragging to potential buyers that these are "converted auto", which is double stupid as there are not and even if they were - like how much brain does one have to advertise the sale of what is prohibited in Canada? We are our own worst enemies.
apexanimal
CGN Regular
- Location
- Vancouver Island
Youre the second person to throw this out there as fact. It's not fact, but it is handy to see who decides to emotionally blame fellow gun owners any time the rcmp does something retarded.
I may be mistaken, but this member specifically stated he was trying to get an FRT # for this firearm. This is, as far as I can tell, what caught the attention of the SFSS. Given what we know so far this is the best explanation.
TimberWolf_3063
CGN Regular
- Location
- Victoria, B. C.
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....
Not to add fuel to the fire here - just asking, genuinely curious.
Bartok, nice Tav. I thought about one of the shorties myself, as it turns out glad I didn't...anywho, looking at the selector - is it a 45-degree throw from S to R? Because all the NR Tavs I've seen are 90-degree throw from "S" to "R". The flat curved "wedge" on yours containing the letters "S" and "R" does appear to have room for another setting (possibly "A") - and if it is a 45-degree throw, then that makes sense as 3 settings have to be covered in the 90-degree throw, as opposed to the NRs where only 2 settings have to be covered.
Again, totally have your and everyone else's backs on this, once again poorly interpreted and implemented regulations make us the bad guy - but I have to admit it makes me wonder if there isn't something to this whole thing.
Just my 2 cents.
Hi Bartok I thought there was one no? My bad, if there is no MSW Full Auto variant, and it was alwyas semi-auto makes even less sense now.
The X95 assembled in the US has S and F
The Full Auto version has S, R and A
From the initial build of the X95 MSW, the mold used is specific to a "semi-automatic" receiver.
maybe the reason and the pictures and the lab freaked out without cheking the internal when they received one for evaluation. i d like to see the inside pic of the msw sold in canada. i sold mine before and did not check the internals a shame for me.
No, there is no automatic-capable X95 MSW listed in the IWI catalogue. See the IWI Chart at Post 56, but understand that there is a typo where an "A" has been substituted for what should have been an "R". This will have to be corrected by IWI. Notwithstanding the typo in the description of the Selector Markings, it is clearly stated that the MSW is Semi-Automatic-Only. These are the X95 variants offered by IWI:
- X95 assault rifle, standard configuration
- X95 CPRF assault rifle configuration with bayonet
- X95 MSW semi-automatic configuration
- X95 SMG submachine gun configuration
- X95S SMG submachine gun configuration with integral silencer
Going to be tough to get a correction with a full blown war in Israel...
Lawyer is currently out to lunch. See my comments below, regarding his video that I posted in another thread:
Runkle is providing advice based on false information. For instance, the X95 MSWs are NOT Converted Automatic firearms. They were manufactured and left the IWI factory as semi-automatic firearms, period. The firearms were employed by the Israeli Police and Security Services as semi-automatic-only carbines. They were subsequently sold as surplus in Canada as semi-automatic-only firearms. There are NO X95 MSWs which are full-automatic or converted-automatic, full-stop! This is false misinformation which must cease lest it potentially impact future court proceedings.
Second, his (self-serving?) insistence that everyone considering a Sect 74 Challenge only do so with a lawyer's representation is counter to the fundamental intent of the Challenge procedure. It is intended that the procedure be conducted in such a manner that firearm owner are able to represent themselves. Not everyone can afford $10K to place a lawyer on retainer for full representation in a Sect 74 challenge. And it WILL be at least $10K, just as stated in the video. Ask me how I know! Is there a risk that the average gun owner may create a counterproductive precedence through their non-lawyerly self-representation in court? Certainly. Self-representation can be messy. Such is life - get used to it, or don't file a Sec 74 Challenge.
Runkle is generally very good, but in this video he is operating from a false premise that the guns were converted-automatics, which they most certainly are not. Put garbage in, and unfortunately you get garbage out. Hopefully Runkle will considerably refine his perspective based on the FACTS such that he is able to provide us with some useful insight regarding how to go about contesting a prohibition that is based on patently false information and findings by the RCMP Lab. To whit the X95 MSWs were never automatic and can not therefore be "converted automatics" as some mistakenly continue to insist. The RCMP Lab has unfortunately bought into that false narrative to the extent of declaring a semi-only firearm a prohib full-auto. What a pack of knee-jerking maroons....
I never said that any of this mess would be easy to have corrected. That said, if the RCMP Lab has based their prohibition of the X95 MSW on a typo in an online catalogue, they are going to look very stupid when the actual facts are brought to light in a Sect 74 hearing. The MSWs were manufactured as semi-automatic-only rifles. They were employed by Israeli police and security forces (not the IDF) as semi-automatic-only rifles. They were sold as surplus into Canada as semi-automatic-only rifles. Full-stop. There is nothing automatic about the MSW unless you tinker with the internals to make it go automatic, which is in and of itself, an intentional criminal act under the Firearms Act. Those are the pertinent facts. The RCMP claiming that the MSW is an automatic military weapon is patently false. It is neither military, nor automatic. To have prohibited the MSWs on that basis is patently wrong.
100%
Concerning Ian Runkle's video it was incredibly dissapointing to see. He accepted the premise of the guns being misverified. He was really hoping to get some customers, and also said it will hurt gun owners to pursue the importers!! Wow to me he lost credibility.
...actually, because he's telling us what we don't want to hear, his credibility is enhanced.
b-wingpilot
CGN Regular
- Location
- Sherwood Park
https://www.sturmgewehr.com/forums/index.php?/topic/26777-wts-israeli-tavor-x95-factory-parts-kits-price-varies/
Just for clarity, these are infact prohibited. Even if they came from the factory as semi-auto, they would not pass the Hasslewander test as not being “readily and easily converted to automatic fire”. It really sucks, but it is what it is, and I’d hate to see someone waste their time and money trying to fight this, when the time and money could be better put to use. If I had to bet, I’d say the importers are trying to work with the rcmp so that they can export them to the European market where they can be sold commercially. I’m that case, it would make it much more easy for the importers to compensate the individual owners.
Just for clarity, these are infact prohibited. Even if they came from the factory as semi-auto, they would not pass the Hasslewander test as not being “readily and easily converted to automatic fire”. It really sucks, but it is what it is, and I’d hate to see someone waste their time and money trying to fight this, when the time and money could be better put to use. If I had to bet, I’d say the importers are trying to work with the rcmp so that they can export them to the European market where they can be sold commercially. I’m that case, it would make it much more easy for the importers to compensate the individual owners.
nowrist chuck
New member
- Location
- fort mcmurray alberta
sounds like an expensive challenge
Last edited:
An uphill battle for sure.
A couple of conflicting statements at the site noted.
- Importing a working non-US compliant firearm into the US is problematic .... so yes needs to be a dewat.
- "They however had a semi auto trigger pack. This is what makes them stand out from a original Tavor. " is not an accurate statement.
- They kind of correct it by stating "The trigger pack has the auto sear."
- "..... which denotes its origin as Israeli police surplus" - correct
A quick google search will show you other countries selling the X95 MSW and confirming "semi-auto". (some sites not in English so use translate)
A couple of conflicting statements at the site noted.
- Importing a working non-US compliant firearm into the US is problematic .... so yes needs to be a dewat.
- "They however had a semi auto trigger pack. This is what makes them stand out from a original Tavor. " is not an accurate statement.
- They kind of correct it by stating "The trigger pack has the auto sear."
- "..... which denotes its origin as Israeli police surplus" - correct
A quick google search will show you other countries selling the X95 MSW and confirming "semi-auto". (some sites not in English so use translate)
Actually, "converted auto" or legally "an automatic firearm ... has been altered to discharge only one projectile with one pressure of the trigger" implies "altering" of "automatic" firearm. Two facts: 1) MSW was never automatic to begin with and 2) there are no "alterations" to them. Apart of tear and wear they had arrived and were sold as they had left the factory.
That all you need to know about his credibility, both legal and technical.
Last edited:
