I have read the other hi-point threads and talked to the CFC, I know it classed as prohibited, but other bullpups have made it into the market.... what is the difference and how come the hi-point is prohibited? Can we challenge this ruling in anyway?
Hi-point Carbines, Challenging Prohib Designation
- Thread starter ridgearms
- Start date
When I spoke to hi-point they mentioned they are aware the carbine is prohibited in Canada. They mentioned they would like to enter our market and are working on a legal version for us. I have no information on what changes there will be. I have no information on ETA. I have no information on who will be importing these. That's all I know.
It would make most of our problems go away if the action wasn't behind the trigger like it is currently. That is, what I believe, to be the cause of the bullpup designation. Although, I still wonder from a policy standpoint, how come bullpups like the T97s and Tavors can receive non-restricted designations(I know barrel length fits NR) but the Hi-point carbine cannot?
The difference is that the hi-point has been determined to be functional without the stock. So the stock is prohibited. If the stock was integral to the gun, then it is ok. Clear as mud?
And yes, we can debate whether the gun is functional without the stock, but that is the rcmp ruling.
And yes, we can debate whether the gun is functional without the stock, but that is the rcmp ruling.
saskgunowner101
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- middle of Sask
Please clarify this for me. Cannot all actions be removed from their stocks? Do you mean that it is functional after being removed from the stock?
I had a lady from the CFC read me the details on the 995 from their reference table on that particular model. She said that the gun is listed as restricted, but once she scrolls down there is additional script that says prohibited because it is in bullpup configuration. No mention of the stock issue. I emailed the CFC technician for clarification and have yet to receive a reply.
Thanks for the clarification. I haven't read that the stock and receiver need to be one assembly in order for a firearm not to be prohibited. All I have read is about bullpups being prohibited. With your latest imports of bullpups and non-prohibited designation, I fail to see how the Hi-point should be different. Is my logic off and am I missing some point or does anyone else see the confusion?
In conclusion, if we can ascertain the incongruity of the legislation and ruling I would like to challenge this designation of prohibited.
If you read the regs, the stock is the prohib part. So if you can take off the stock and leave the receiver behind, it is a prohib stock. The action of the hi-point is perfectly legal. Thus the gun is defacto prohib as it is not of much use without the stock. Same issue as the G22
Last edited:
If you can pull the barrel and action out of the stock and still fire it, then it is prohibited. The Tavor and T97 cannot do this. When you dimantle the Tavor or T97, there is no discreet stock and action separate from one another, just a pile of parts.
Mark
Thats what they (CFC) told me as well. One of the things that made the carbine interesting to me is that I thought it would take a hi-point pistol mag thus allowing it to hold 10 rounds. From what I have found out it won't take a pistol mag. A carbine mag will fit in hipoint pistol but not vis versa...carbine mag is longer. Atleast thats what my research pulled up.
I contacted them and they said that the .40s&w pistol and carbine mags are interchangeable but the 9mm carbine has the longer mag that may fit the pistol but would look funny. I don't know about 8 round 9mm pistol mags. They may fit the carbine.
So would it not take a reworking of the entire carbine to make the stock an integral part of the gun? I asked them about stand alone receivers and they said no dice. Even if we could get receivers, wouldn't we still need a stock that is integral to the rifle?
