Sig 522

when it comes down to it any gun can be classified as restriced based on pure looks
Click to expand...

Look, no matter how many times you say it, it still isn't true. They can't make ANY gun restricted based on looks. They CAN make your pet MP-22 restricted because they can argue it is a variant of the AR-15 because it looks like one. They're wrong, but they can at least use that argument.

That argument WILL NOT WORK with the Sig22. It doesn't look like any firearms restricted by name, nor does it have restricted characteristics. Their only options are:

1) Prohib as a full auto (arguing it is 'capable' of full auto fire)
2) Prohib as a variant of the 55x series
3) Non-restricted.

There is no reasonable way to make it restricted.
 
Paul Morrison said:
Look, no matter how many times you say it, it still isn't true. They can't make ANY gun restricted based on looks. They CAN make your pet MP-22 restricted because they can argue it is a variant of the AR-15 because it looks like one. They're wrong, but they can at least use that argument.

That argument WILL NOT WORK with the Sig22. It doesn't look like any firearms restricted by name, nor does it have restricted characteristics. Their only options are:

1) Prohib as a full auto (arguing it is 'capable' of full auto fire)
2) Prohib as a variant of the 55x series
3) Non-restricted.

There is no reasonable way to make it restricted.
Click to expand...

Paul, in regards to situation (1), where in Canadian firearms law does it indicate that a firearm is considered prohibited because of "what it could be"? I know of no such reference.

Also, how could it possibly hold up in court? It either is, or isn't. There are no could be's.
 
2bad4u2 said:
Also, how could it possibly hold up in court? It either is, or isn't. There are no could be's.
Click to expand...

Because the proverbial "reasonable man" doesn't always hang out in legislators' offices or in Courtrooms, unfortunately. :(

(Sorry, that's a pessimistic view of the SiG 522 issue. I sincerely hope I am very, very wrong).
 
What it boils down to is that it is just a .22 , period. Even thinking about restricting or prohibiting a rifle of this type defies logic and common sense.
Oh wait, I forgot I was talking about the Canadian government here, those words aren't even in there dictionary. Maybe I should be using terms like corruption, arrogance and ignorance .......
 
I really like the sig 522 as well I'm not only making a stink about the m&p, I'm standing up for all mil type .22's, my concern isn't about a specific firearm its about the lottery classification system.

I wanted to take a stand now to prevent at least 2 more .22s from being missclassified.
 
LuckyLuc82 said:
I really like the sig 522 as well I'm not only making a stink about the m&p, I'm standing up for all mil type .22's, my concern isn't about a specific firearm its about the lottery classification system. I wanted to take a stand now to prevent at least 2 more .22s from being missclassified.
Click to expand...
Luc, that's the best three word description of the mess we have I've ever heard. :)
 
I'm sure a phone number may help swing things, but possibly for the worse.
I'm sure if I wasn't a gun enthuist and people were "annoying" me at work I'd
do exactly what I couldto piss them off. But that's me, and unfortunatly I don't get to
be the one classifying these little toy guns.
How would I apply for that job?? It's probably a lottery job for retiring custodial staff. Lol
 
I know what you mean, it's all about the approach though, calling and being a #### is one thing, calling and being a nice guy, cracking a couple jokes, maybe listening to what their job is like, making a observation or two, you know just to feel them out. I know that when I call the CFC sometimes I get the nicest lady, other times I get the demon ##### from hell, but it never hurts to try and make a good impression. Just saying.........
 
Paul your a law clerk right?

You will make a fine lawyer! Pm me you contact info, I don't plan on ever needing a lawyer but I really like the cut of your jib. Seriously though, great work your doing!

Ps: I wasn't joking about that contact info.
 
I have to ask... Is a restricted classification not better then a prohibited one ? Would you rather be able to legally own it as a restricted weapon vs not at all ?

I can understand people get upset because their technically is no reason to classify it as a restricted but I'd think some would be happy simply being able to own one instead of not at all.
 
Here is how I see it. Restricted I wayyyy better than prohibited, hands down no argument there. I wouldn't even mind the restricted part if there was a valid reason for it.

What I do have a problem with is how the lottery system works, you can have 2 rifles that look simular, operate on the same principals, but one of them is restricted just because the tech that's testing it had indigestion that day and he wasn't in the mood to play with the rifle. On the other hand you have the second rifle, the tech is having a phenomenal day, just got laid, the coffee tasted fantastic that morning, he got all greens on the way to work, he's doing great in his hockey pool, you get where I'm going with this. The second rifle gets a non-restricted status, just because the universe came together and the individual thar makes the dcision decided to spread the joy.

That my friends is why I have beef with the system.
 
Jefro said:
I have to ask... Is a restricted classification not better then a prohibited one ? Would you rather be able to legally own it as a restricted weapon vs not at all ?

I can understand people get upset because their technically is no reason to classify it as a restricted but I'd think some would be happy simply being able to own one instead of not at all.
Click to expand...

You must have been one of the people working on the original classification system. Your train of thought seems to be that they'd be doing us a favour by restricting it as opposed to prohibiting it. Geez, thanks for throwing us a bone:jerkit:

Truth of the matter, it should be non-restricted. Full stop. It's not a 55x series rifle, and if it's overall length is over 27", it's good to go. Restricted isn't even an option here.
 
FrankieT said:
You must have been one of the people working on the original classification system. Your train of thought seems to be that they'd be doing us a favour by restricting it as opposed to prohibiting it. Geez, thanks for throwing us a bone:jerkit:

Truth of the matter, it should be non-restricted. Full stop. It's not a 55x series rifle, and if it's overall length is over 27", it's good to go. Restricted isn't even an option here.
Click to expand...

Hey, opinions vary but all I was asking is if something is better then nothing. I have no interest in picking up one and in the end I don't really care how they classify it. But one thing I do know is if I did want one, I'd be buying it regardless of whether its non restricted or restricted and would simply enjoy it.

Is there grounds for complaint, sure I admitted that. But really... I personally see it in black and white. Either buy it, or don't.
 
Jefro said:
Hey, opinions vary but all I was asking is if something is better then nothing. I have no interest in picking up one and in the end I don't really care how they classify it. But one thing I do know is if I did want one, I'd be buying it regardless of whether its non restricted or restricted and would simply enjoy it.

Is there grounds for complaint, sure I admitted that. But really... I personally see it in black and white. Either buy it, or don't.
Click to expand...


Something is not better than nothing if its wrong in the first place. Why would you want a non-restricted firearm classified as restricted? Do you want to give the RCMP the impression that its OK to classify non-restricted firearms as restricted at their unfettered discretion? There is no basis to classify the rifle as restricted or prohibited..........only non-restricted. The RCMP should do their jobs and classify it properly - not make up laws as they go along.
 
I would think others would want it non restricted for the same reasons I would, I want it non restricted so I can go shoot it anywhere I want and not be limited to an authorized shooting range, if it were restricted I probably wouldn't get it.
 
Paul your a law clerk right?

You will make a fine lawyer! Pm me you contact info, I don't plan on ever needing a lawyer but I really like the cut of your jib. Seriously though, great work your doing!
Click to expand...

Law student. Will be an articling student NEXT summer.
 
Paul Morrison said:
Look, no matter how many times you say it, it still isn't true. They can't make ANY gun restricted based on looks. They CAN make your pet MP-22 restricted because they can argue it is a variant of the AR-15 because it looks like one. They're wrong, but they can at least use that argument.

That argument WILL NOT WORK with the Sig22. It doesn't look like any firearms restricted by name, nor does it have restricted characteristics. Their only options are:

1) Prohib as a full auto (arguing it is 'capable' of full auto fire)
2) Prohib as a variant of the 55x series
3) Non-restricted.

There is no reasonable way to make it restricted.
Click to expand...

Can you please explain what this last line means? Are you saying that it is unreasonable to prohibit the Sig22, and therefore it will not be prohibited?

If I understand you correctly, you seem to be saying the laws of Canada are based upon reason. Or are you saying that reasoned argument will win out in the end, in the Canadian legal process?

Are you aware that along with AK-47 rifles, the Criminal Code also outlaws nunchakus as prohibited weapons?

Can you explain why nunchakus, that is "hard non-flexible sticks, clubs, pipes, or rods linked by a length or lengths of rope, cord, wire or chain, and any similar instrument or device" is prohibited and subject to the same punishment regime as owning a select fire assault rifle?

While you are at it, can you reasonably explain why two pieces of wood linked by string is prohibited, but a Ruger Mini-14 is not? As I recall, nobody has committed mass murder with Nanchuks in this country. The same cannot be said about the Ruger.

Can you explain why 'one-handed' crossbows are prohibited, but handguns are not?

Can you explain why Yaqua Blowguns are prohibited but SKS rifles are not?

Can you explain why a thirty-round rifle magazine is a prohibited device, while it is nevertheless lawful to own a thirty round magazine blocked by means of a single rivet limiting the magazine to five rounds?

Isn't it reasonable to outlaw the thirty-round magazine which is blocked to five, because any idiot can remove the rivet and then load it with thirty rounds?

Is there any rational justification for these laws, as they stand?

If I misunderstand your point, please correct me.

Thanks
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom