Sig 522
- Thread starter Roughneck12
- Start date
Folks,
I have definitely voiced my opinion here but there's something I think we're missing.
Perhaps we could also be voicing our concerns to our ELECTED officials with our opinions and our positions.
The NRA has been extremely successful at this - perhaps we should organize some skeet/clay shoots as fund-raisers for our local conservative candidates? Nothing better than getting a politician around some unhappy gun owners...
Thoughts?
I have definitely voiced my opinion here but there's something I think we're missing.
Perhaps we could also be voicing our concerns to our ELECTED officials with our opinions and our positions.
The NRA has been extremely successful at this - perhaps we should organize some skeet/clay shoots as fund-raisers for our local conservative candidates? Nothing better than getting a politician around some unhappy gun owners...
Thoughts?
Last edited:
LuckyLuc82
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- Rockwood, Ontario
Need I say More
[youtube]julnt19Pl8E[/youtube]
I Don't think anyone can find a better example of how the RCMP classifies firearms, plus I doubt I would be too far off with this example.
No, I'm saying that the RCMP is limited in the discretion it can exercise to those limits which are in the applicable acts (firearms act and Criminal Code). While they've made some very questionable calls, they've always at least pretended to fit the round peg in the square hole, which is to say: they can't make something that doesn't fit the criteria for a restricted firearm into a restricted firearm. They could make it a prohib by jigging the tests they perform, or they could play fair and make it non-restricted. But they can't make it a restricted because the legislation limits restricteds to variants of firearms specifically named as restricteds in the legislation/regulation, or firearms which are under a certain overall length. This firearm meets the overall length criteria, and is not a variant of a restricted firearm.
Yes, it also prohibits a firearm that does not, in actuality, exist: the G11.
Because the legislature says so, and they get to make the laws, we get to pick who they are. We've done a poor job of it, IMO.
Again, because the legislature says so, and they get to make the laws, we get to pick who they are. We've done a poor job of it, IMO.
At the risk of sounding like a broken record: Because the legislature says so, and they get to make the laws, we get to pick who they are. We've done a poor job of it, IMO.
Ditto
Ditto
Your problem is that you are ascribing to the legislature reason as the principle used to enact legislation. It is not reasonableness, it is electoral protection. They do whatever they think will get them re-elected. Which is why we have to demonstrate to them that doing these sorts of things will harm their re-election chances.
Law is not about reason. Its about the supremacy of parliament, and the interpretation of the soveriegn acts of parliament by the judiciary of the working out of those acts by the servants of the government.
Sounds Nutty
"Law is not about reason. Its about the supremacy of parliament, and the interpretation of the soveriegn acts of parliament by the judiciary of the working out of those acts by the servants of the government." [/QUOTE]
Not to be a petty, but what does "Its about the supremacy of parliament, and the interpretation of the soveriegn acts of parliament by the judiciary of the working out of those acts by the servants of the government" mean?
I don't purport to be a lawyer, or a law student, but that sentence makes no sense.
Might not the following sequence of events occur on the issue?
1. The RCMP prohibits the Sig 522
2. Concerned citizens take the matter to the courts for judicial review
3. The courts side with the RCMP because the courts hate guns
4. Concerned citizens appeal to higher courts
5. The matter ends up before the Supreme Court of Canada, and this court agrees with the RCMP, because this court hates guns too.
If the above scenario is true, then it is a matter of happenstance whether the gun is prohibited, restricted or non-restricted. It might happen. It might not. Toss a coin.
"Law is not about reason. Its about the supremacy of parliament, and the interpretation of the soveriegn acts of parliament by the judiciary of the working out of those acts by the servants of the government." [/QUOTE]
Not to be a petty, but what does "Its about the supremacy of parliament, and the interpretation of the soveriegn acts of parliament by the judiciary of the working out of those acts by the servants of the government" mean?
I don't purport to be a lawyer, or a law student, but that sentence makes no sense.
Might not the following sequence of events occur on the issue?
1. The RCMP prohibits the Sig 522
2. Concerned citizens take the matter to the courts for judicial review
3. The courts side with the RCMP because the courts hate guns
4. Concerned citizens appeal to higher courts
5. The matter ends up before the Supreme Court of Canada, and this court agrees with the RCMP, because this court hates guns too.
If the above scenario is true, then it is a matter of happenstance whether the gun is prohibited, restricted or non-restricted. It might happen. It might not. Toss a coin.
WHERE HAVE YOU BEEN, UNDER A ROCK OR SOMETHING?!!?
The coin was tossed in the Henderson case, and the judge ruled in OUR FAVOUR. The RCMP is on the defensive now, they have appealed to a higher court.
Read the ruling, currently the PRECEDENT is on our side.
It means that parliament gets to make the laws, and they trump anyone. If they don't like how the public servants are working out that law, or they don't like the way courts are interpreting it, they can change it. They are supreme.
The Courts interpret the law. They get to tell everyone, including parliament and public servants what it means. In doing this, though, they are restricted by certain principles, one of which is purposive interpretation, which means that they are to interpret the law by attempting to discern what parliament intended in passing it.
The public servants are the ones who actually enforce or act out the law, they occaisonally get directed as to how by the courts, and by the government (the executive branch, not the legislature).
In this case you have the public servants, attempting to discern what the firearm is, at law, that decision can be scrutinized by the judges, but the ways in which both the exercise of discretion and the judicial review can be done must be in line with the statutes passed by parliament.
I would say that pressuring elected officials is another tack to take. If an MP hears from enough constituents regarding an issue and your concern around it then perhaps we could point the light into those dark corners that some organizations would rather we not.
Does anyone have a form letter or something that could be printed out and mailed to our own MPs or perhaps the Gov't Ombudsman? Postage going to an MP is free....
Does anyone have a form letter or something that could be printed out and mailed to our own MPs or perhaps the Gov't Ombudsman? Postage going to an MP is free....
Unless there is (a) a legitimate prescribed mechanism of law to deem the SIG 552 restricted or prohibited, it must be done through (b) an OIC or Act of Parliament. This is the basis of the Henderson case. IIRC, this is the firearm that the RCMP want to deem restricted and there is no basis whatsoever. I think the Valmet Hunter and M78 reclassification and related case law would support it - as would Henderson case law.
- Location
- Calgary, Alberta
Um, anyway, I handled a SIG-Sauer 522 the other day at a shop in the US, it's well-made but there's not much to it really. The gas plug is made from ABS plastic to fill the hole in the front sight, the barrel appears shorter than you would expect because it is recessed into the receiver.
The best things about it are the adjustable stock and also it has a really nice trigger, similar to the PE90, pretty sure it's the same mech actually but made in the US and a touch grittier, probably don't finish them quite as well. It has the Black Dog mags with SIG-Sauer markings on them.
I'm definitely going to buy one if they're legal. You can't really go wrong for US$500, definitely more upmarket than a 10/22 so it's worth the money.
The best things about it are the adjustable stock and also it has a really nice trigger, similar to the PE90, pretty sure it's the same mech actually but made in the US and a touch grittier, probably don't finish them quite as well. It has the Black Dog mags with SIG-Sauer markings on them.
I'm definitely going to buy one if they're legal. You can't really go wrong for US$500, definitely more upmarket than a 10/22 so it's worth the money.
One good thing about sitting around waiting for the eventual ruling is that Sig may have worked the bugs out of the 522 by then. As an example, it appears that the infamous e-clip issue is known by the manufacturer and there is a solution. My wallet is quivering...
Dammit I need an update on this. Does the RCMP already have a sig 522 in their possession for review? If they do how much longer is this going to take to classify it or is this another T97 type deal where they hold it indefinitely without classifying it.
Yes they have a sample.
How long is anyone's guess.
I don't think this has any comparison to T97 situation... The 522 will either be classified as a "Variant" or not... that is the issue with this gun from the RCMP's standpoint.
Mark
I can't even begin to guess what you are referring to...
More of "what" kind of magazines... be specific. We have literally thousands of magazines here of all different types. From your question I have no idea what type of magazines you're asking about... Black Dog AR-22/Black Dog 10-22/SIG mags/LAR15 mags/etc.
Mark
