Akdal 1919 Now non-restricted
- Thread starter CanAm
- Start date
Mr Wolverine
CGN Regular
- Location
- Manitoba. Canada
It is very simple 2 1/2 years ago I submitted a sample shotgun with a logical argument why she was not a variant of the AR 15 and there for should not be restricted. I am just very disappointed that it would appear that similar designs were approved as non restricted after I had submitted my request, I was told all applications were handled in chronological order.
The lab knows they're on thin ice with some of their decisions, the last thing they want is their "expertise" questioned in court - shake that and you shake the whole house of cards. They'd rather make a quiet change on some of these questionable calls then get proven wrong.
I'm not sure I follow. The Akdal was restricted, right? So your argument was not accepted at the time of classification. What changed?
That sounds perfectly reasonable. It just seems that, up until now, my perception is that they really haven't cared about questionable calls. I'm not disagreeing with you, I'm just wondering what happened. Did the RCMP change - or have they been 'reasonable' all along - and my perception of them needs to change.
Mr Wolverine
CGN Regular
- Location
- Manitoba. Canada
I did not import the Akdal and accept a restricted classification. I importer the Laider later and was told she was restricted as she was the same as an Akdal. I said no that was wrong, because, because, because! Two and half years later the RCMP SRSS agreed with my presentation.
Maybe if the first importer had the expertise and balls to argue intelligently with the RCMP SFSS at the time of first importation this would have been resolved years ago? Sadly this did not happen, a lot of importers are scared and only after a quick buck, they don,t want to rock the boat. Some of us are "marked men" and believe in principals and to hell with the cost.
Last edited:
- Location
- East ontario
Because in the last 3 months the lab have approved 2 other mfg of this same design
Ascthe 1919 8w the original design it should also be approved.
Bbb
Ascthe 1919 8w the original design it should also be approved.
Bbb
Right. I just would have expected those two other designs to also be classified as restricted - based on their similarity to a gun already classified as restricted. (..and, of course, to their COSMETIC similarity to an AR.) I'm always been under the impression that when it comes to classification, cosmetic similarity is sufficient. That prohib .22 MP5 comes to mind.
Mr Wolverine
CGN Regular
- Location
- Manitoba. Canada
The question is not when they were approved but rather when the application was first made? If not before mine 2 1/2 years ago, then where is the chronological order we have all been told is followed. Remember with out fear favour or affection. Oops I forgot, or are they only civilians discrediting the rank and file?
- Location
- East ontario
Let's put it this way the rcmp would restrict or ban a ham sandwich if we let them get away with it.
It's all about how hard and long the importer fights to get approval on that firearm and how many times they keep coming back when the rcmp says no!
People like Mr hipwell .Chris from Canada and a few others have been in for the long fight for many years.
Moat just import a sample wait a year or 2, yet told no and walk away..
This is why the rcmp win.
I truly believe that if we make the rcmp accountable for there decisions, they would have a much harder time banning firearms.
After all we managed to get what they told us were converted auto cz58 & sig p90 from prohib to non restricted by making them accountable and not giving up.
OK, so my next question is: Is there an end to the classification process? In other words; is there a point at which the RCMP can simply say 'Firearm X is prohib, and that's final!' Or can the importer keep the dialogue going indefinitely? I should also note that the return of Sig and CZ to nonres status was not a decision the RCMP made willingly, it was a decision imposed upon them by govt. And, in any case, it was merely a return to the status those rifles originally held.
Mr Wolverine
CGN Regular
- Location
- Manitoba. Canada
You are entering a very cloudy and complex area that I can not start to explain at this time of night. The firearms laws and regulations are very poorly worded and open to interpretation. Both the RCMP SFSS, RCMP, CFC, CBSA and ourselves all have to follow these cloudy regulations. Many of us, on both sides, are very ignorant of these regulations. Then there are many of us, again on both sides, who try and interpretative the regulations to suit their own believes, no wonder we have a mess that most people are ignorant of and do not understand.
Thank you very much for standing up for what is right and holding them to their job, which should be to serve the public in a proper and timely manner!
Yes. When an appropriately high level of the judiciary says so, and the aggrieved party ceases to appeal, OR, and Order in Council makes a clear regulatory determination about a firearm by name. Before that, everything else is just "expert opinion".
That's very interesting. I was under the impression pretty much all this stuff was, in practice anyway, in the 'expert opinion' category. So:
- are there cases of an OIC specifying the classification of a gun after C-68?
- are there cases of judicial action specifying the classification of a gun in contrast to RCMP 'expert opinion'?
I don't often agree with NFG, but on this I think he's spot on. Once they admit to an error, everyone can start saying "Oh yeah? What else have you been mistaken about, then?" and the the gates of Hell creak open for those bureaucrats.
Which is a fine thing in my eyes!
New amendments to the firearms classification regulations on July 31, 2015
The Government of Canada prescribed Ceska Zbrojovka (CZ) 858 rifles and certain Swiss Arms family of firearms as "restricted" or "non-restricted" as they were treated prior to February 26, 2014. The associated news release is available at: Harper Government amends firearms classification regulations.
Right. But that's not an OIC, nor does it sound like judicial action. It sounds like - and correct me if I'm wrong - lawmakers exercising their prerogative to compose and rewrite law.
