Revocation for X95 MSW 13' Restricted Tavors

Status
Not open for further replies.
This is pretty much what happened with the CZ 858. At least some versions came into Canada as converted full-autos, therefore falling into 12(3) status, but they were classified as non restricted since they were semi-automatic with a barrel length longer than 18.5". Eventually the RCMP caught up to this, which led to the prohibition that the Conservative government of the time reversed. Of course, they were wrapped up in the May 1st OiC anyway and are prohibited as of right now.

These particular X95s would also fall into 12(3) status as converted full autos. Shame that it's a decision that won't be overturned by the government of today.
 
I'm curious how many won't do anything, and won't suffer any consequences for not doing anything.
 
David890 said:
They just got back to me (multiple other people have called them regarding the exact same issue).
We're basically #### out of luck.
The CCFR representative said the Tavor's were fully auto but then were converted to semi-auto, but that doesn't meet the requirements in Canada apparently (why not? wtf, someone know more about this?).
The CCFR then said I have 2-3 options: 1. Handing it over to RCMP (at a financial loss) or 2. getting the gun deactivated (aka it'll become a nice house prop), or going after the importer (but I'm a second-hand buyer so I didn't deal with them directly and I'm out of luck on this one).
The CCFR said we can't even sell them (to someone abroad like in the US) because the RCMP has suspended/canceled our certificate.


I tried calling the RCMP (before 4pm) but they aren't responding to the extension listed on the emailed letter, I'm assuming you all are calling them simultaneously overloading their calls....
I'll try calling tomorrow but whoever has already called and spoken to them about available options then POST IT ON HERE ALREADY!
Click to expand...

You can sell them to a business in Canada who has a Prohibited designation on their license.

Only problem is that more than likely you will not get the same money for it that you paid. I get calls all the time from people trying to sell me their newly prohibited stuff expecting to get full price for it. They don't realize that a lot of times prohibs sell for much less because there is a very small market of people that can legally buy them.
 
I just Spoke with North Sylva, they are working with the CFO to find a solution. But they could not guarantee any compensation. However, this is a pretty clear case for a lawsuit if owners have no choice but to hand in their rifle. If this was a mistake by the RCMP, North Sylva should take them to court. If the RCMP is correct then at mininum North Sylva needs to offer an equivalent NR Rifle or a full Refund.
 
KanadianShooter said:
I just Spoke with North Sylva, they are working with the CFO to find a solution. But they could not guarantee any compensation. However, this is a pretty clear case for a lawsuit if owners have no choice but to hand in their rifle. If this was a mistake by the RCMP, North Sylva should take them to court. If the RCMP is correct then at mininum North Sylva needs to offer an equivalent NR Rifle or a full Refund.
Click to expand...

Thank you for the update!
 
DirtyGun said:
These particular X95s would also fall into 12(3) status as converted full autos. Shame that it's a decision that won't be overturned by the government of today.
Click to expand...

These X95's are not 12(3)'s. 12(3) refers to a grandfather class of firearms that was locked in long before the X95 was invented.
 
KanadianShooter said:
I just Spoke with North Sylva, they are working with the CFO to find a solution. But they could not guarantee any compensation. However, this is a pretty clear case for a lawsuit if owners have no choice but to hand in their rifle. If this was a mistake by the RCMP, North Sylva should take them to court. If the RCMP is correct then at mininum North Sylva needs to offer an equivalent NR Rifle or a full Refund.
Click to expand...


RCMP is correct. Our gun laws are barbaric, most of developed countries where firearms are legal classify "converted auto" into the same category as semis. I.e. reasonable laws classify by function, not by scare factor, not by history, not by political preferences (hello non-restricted AK-variants AKA Valmets!)
The only practical solution here is figure out if it sufficient to surrender just the receiver and then get creative with it.
 
Last edited:
KanadianShooter said:
I just Spoke with North Sylva, they are working with the CFO to find a solution. But they could not guarantee any compensation. However, this is a pretty clear case for a lawsuit if owners have no choice but to hand in their rifle. If this was a mistake by the RCMP, North Sylva should take them to court. If the RCMP is correct then at mininum North Sylva needs to offer an equivalent NR Rifle or a full Refund.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the update. Still too early to know what to do.
 
I have a strong suspicion (based on historical precedent) that NS will absolve themselves of any blame, putting it on the government. The CFC will say in turn that it is NS fault as the Importer and Distributor, putting it back on them. The only resolution is likely to come from a Class-Action Lawsuit against North Sylva. They can sort it out with their insurers and/or by taking the RCMP to court if they think that they have a strong case. As for any harm that might come to NS as a result? That is is THEIR problem, directly arising from business that they conducted for (no doubt) considerable profit. Presumably they have insurance, no?
 
Bartok5 said:
I have a strong suspicion (based on historical precedent) that NS will absolve themselves of any blame, putting it on the government. The CFC will say in turn that it is NS fault as the Importer and Distributor, putting it back on them. The only resolution is likely to come from a Class-Action Lawsuit against North Sylva. They can sort it out with their insurers and/or by taking the RCMP to court if they think that they have a strong case. As for any harm that might come to NS as a result? That is is THEIR problem, directly arising from business that they conducted for (no doubt) considerable profit. Presumably they have insurance, no?
Click to expand...

Absolutely 100% with you on this. I paid 3000$ with tax for my rifle. People saying it's not North Sylva's fault don't care because it's not their hard earned cash. They are at fault and will need to find an adequate solution. Class action incoming. If the RCMP is wrong have NS sue them.
 
Apologies if this is not applicable as I have not read the whole thread but this is exactly what happened to me and the initial batch of Type 97s imported by Lever Arms in Vancouver.

They wanted to confiscate without compensation. I took it as far as having a date for a court hearing before a judge to see if a case court case was justifiable. Before this happened I was informed that they would fully compensate owners. Long story short I did have to give it up but did receive the full purchase price back from the government.

You may be able to use this argument as precedent setting particularly as it was their mistake in the first place.
 
55recce said:
Apologies if this is not applicable as I have not read the whole thread but this is exactly what happened to me and the initial batch of Type 97s imported by Lever Arms in Vancouver.

They wanted to confiscate without compensation. I took it as far as having a date for a court hearing before a judge to see if a case court case was justifiable. Before this happened I was informed that they would fully compensate owners. Long story short I did have to give it up but did receive the full purchase price back from the government.

You may be able to use this argument as precedent setting particularly as it was their mistake in the first place.
Click to expand...

Thank you for pointing it out.

It does sound similar to yours. Just trying to get more details at this time since its still early, but hopefully it ends up similar to yours at the very least.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom