I hesitate to wade into this discussion given the reception to my previous post on bullpups, but...
I was interested in ordering a T97, but I held off because I expected that there might be legal difficulties. As a lawyer who has very carefully read the relevant legislation, regulations, and CFC interpretive bulletin on a prior Walther bullpup design (a design that was initially approved and then declared to be prohibited), I had concerns that I tried to express in a previous post. In response, the moderator was, to put it mildly, dismissive, saying that the legality of the T97 was beyond debate, and, to my surprise, he unilaterally ended the thread. So be it - this is a private, proprietary forum and I expect no right of free expression here.
I have no idea whether the concerns I attempted to identify are the reason behind the present Customs delay or apparent RCMP involvement. I hope that Canada Ammo obtained, not just an RCMP approval, but also a legal opinion before purchasing the weapons. But let me say this based on my experience as a lawyer, both in and out of government: Don't just think about what the law says, think about why it says what it says. There is a reason why "bullpup stocks" are listed as 'prohibited devices' in Regulations made under the Firearms Act - in my view it's because the government of the day decided that it does not want powerful semi-automatic rifles with otherwise legal-length barrels to be short enough to be easily concealed. What other reason could there be?
It might well be that there is a 'loophole' permitting the Tavor and T97 to slip through - ie the argument that their layout is not one incorporating a "bullpup stock" and thus a prohibited device, or perhaps because 'factory' bullpups should be considered as different in kind than 'aftermarket' bullpups, because they aren't used to shorten an existing rifle as the definition in the regs seems to anticipate. But because the loophole is inconsistent with the obvious intent of the law - to get rid of bullpup rifles and shotguns - it will be a loophole that the authorities (who are committed to giving effect to the will of the legislature and government) will always be trying to close. They will be particularly so inclined now that the T97 can be combined with the AR-pistol's 10-round magazine to frustrate not one but two restrictions intended by the regulations (I should say parenthetically that I don't think that the "AR-pistol mag exception" will endure forever either).
And I can think of nothing that would focus the attention of the authorities on such a project of prohibition more than the arrival of a container from China with hundreds of lightly-modified and very mean-looking (and inexpensive!) military weapons on the eve of the largest security event in Canadian history, the Olympic games.
Please let me be clear, before I get flamed - I'm not endorsing the idea that the T97 either is illegal or should be made illegal, I'm simply identifying what I see as an uncertainty, something that somebody considering buying a bullpup might consider and factor into their cost-benefit analysis. Certainly I would suggest that people refrain from buying peripherals such as magazines and sights before their rifle is delivered. And somebody ought to obtain, and publish, a proper legal opinion on the issue, because I am not giving one here.
But even beyond my concern for the authorities' view of their legality under the present regime, even if these rifles are released tomorrow, I would be concerned that the first time one is used in a high-profile crime, the first time a prosecutor at a press-conference holds up the T97 and says - gasp - that it isn't even a restricted firearm and thus people are free to march down the streets with it hanging on their back, provided its magazine is in their pocket rather than the rifle, then the T97 will be banned by Order-in-Council within a week, and the weapons will have to be surrendered without compensation.
I will guarantee you that if there is a police officer tasked with assessing the T97 right now, he is thinking that if somebody goes nuts with one of these, is he going to be the subject of the next Public Inquiry into police bungling? Or would he rather say "no", and let the issue be decided by a reviewing tribunal or court, which will then take the blame if there is blame to be taken?
I should add in closing that I'm not convinced that whether the T97 was previously approved by an RCMP functionary - even in writing - is of any legal consequence whatsoever. The CFC's prior about-face on the legality of the Walther bullpup seems to support that view.
You're living history here boys (and maybe some girls).
