Sig 522

Update... SIG 522 Court Challenge

Just to give everyone a bit of an update...

As we indicated previously, Questar is challenging (in court) the RCMP's classification of the SIG 522 as a "Prohibited Firearm" based on their contention that it is a "variant" of the SIG 556 which RCMP previously ruled was a "variant" of the SIG 550/551 which is a named Prohibited Firearm in the legislation.

We had a hearing date set for July 4th, 2011 however, the court has agreed with a joint submission, that the hearing be postponed until after a final decision has been released in the Henderson appeal.

The court has rescheduled our hearing to January 2012 (the next available court date) and hopefully the Henderson decision will have been released by then.

While a favourable decision in Henderson is NOT required for our challenge, it would make our challenge that much more compelling.

Mark
 
1. Cheap rifle
2. Lack of good argument why it is not a variant, to the point it would be stupid to make a decision otherwise.... learn administrative law or speak to the lawyer before you do something stupid and screw firearm community!

PS. I almost got OK on this one before you step in.
 
guess_kto said:
1. Cheap rifle
2. Lack of good argument why it is not a variant, to the point it would be stupid to make a decision otherwise.... learn administrative law or speak to the lawyer before you do something stupid and screw firearm community!

PS. I almost got OK on this one before you step in.
Click to expand...

Sorry but I have no idea how we did "something stupid and screw firearm community!"

I am also interested to hear how you: "almost got OK on this one before you step in."

Our application for classification of the SIG 522 was actually initiated at the SHOT Show (one and a half years ago) the day the gun was officially announced by SIG to the public. It baffles me how you believe you had "almost got OK" before we stepped in :confused:

I am very interested to hear the details of your above claims... please educate me.

Mark
 
guess_kto said:
1. Cheap rifle

All reviews have been favourable. It is a .22 rimfire.

2. Lack of good argument why it is not a variant, to the point it would be stupid to make a decision otherwise.... learn administrative law or speak to the lawyer before you do something stupid and screw firearm community!
QUOTE]
This post makes no sense.

I appreciate Questar fighting these battles for my benefit and it costs me nothing. I will remember these battles when I am deciding who to purchase my next firearm from.
Click to expand...
 
Thanks for fighting this for all of us Questar. As a fan of the SA and all other SIG rifles, I would have loved to have bought this one. Hopefully the courts will rule in our favor.
 
guess_kto said:
1. Cheap rifle
2. Lack of good argument why it is not a variant, to the point it would be stupid to make a decision otherwise.... learn administrative law or speak to the lawyer before you do something stupid and screw firearm community!

PS. I almost got OK on this one before you step in.
Click to expand...

Really?


7 years on this forum and not much to show for it...

Questar is fighting this for the better interest of the Canadian shooting community. You realize that this is no different than the Henderson case, right? If "variant" cases like this are won, we could see firearms pulled off of the prohib list like the GSG mp5.

But please, explain your concerns about how they "screwed the firearms community", many are wondering how.

Aside from great service and products this is another reason I have no problem shopping there.
 
Let's be clear on this... we are fighting this because we believe the classification ruling was a wrong decision AND because we believe there is an excellent basis for winning a court decision in our favour.

Frankly there is no viable economic reason for fighting it... at least not directly for us. Even if we win there is no way that we can make enough money on SIG 522 sales to ever repay the costs involved... if that were the basis for doing it then we wouldn't bother.

The reality is we believe that it's important to assist the RCMP lab in getting their classification rulings correct and in instances like those involving "variants" it is our belief that the lab has consistently been directed to "broaden" that definition to the point where it no longer complies with the "legal" definitions allowed by a court of law. Our appeal directly brings that issue into question and a decision in our favour would set specific limits on what would and would not be deemed a variant. On that basis we believe it's important to pursue this issue. It will not only assist the RCMP lab in limiting their use of variant prohibitions in future firearm classifications, but it would open the door to re-evaluation and possible re-classification of 100's of previous classifications deemed to be prohibited variants that might no longer be so classified.

This appeal was begun only after a great deal of throught and consultation. We did in fact consult with several well known legal minds (in this field) and engaged one of them to handle the case... a case that is ongoing still.

It sadens me that our actions are being distorted and misrepresented without a shred of fact or evidence... which is why I asked for clarification and details of the comments.

Mark
 
guess_kto said:
1. Cheap rifle
2. Lack of good argument why it is not a variant, to the point it would be stupid to make a decision otherwise.... learn administrative law or speak to the lawyer before you do something stupid and screw firearm community!

PS. I almost got OK on this one before you step in.
Click to expand...
Its people like you who screw the firearm community.



Thanks for fighting this Questar. If it wasn't for people like you we would have no cool toys to play with!:rockOn: probably all we would be allowed to have is bolt action guns.
 
Looking forward to your success. I would love to buy one of these 22 rifles. I'm holding off on other 22LR rifles for one of these.

On a side note, when you win. We'll need some of the Swat versions. :D along with the 50 round drum mags.
 
Thanks for challenging the WRONG ruling. I don't see how it could stand up in court.
 
On a side note, where do they find these "experts" that work in the classification labs?
 
1. Cheap rifle
2. Lack of good argument why it is not a variant, to the point it would be stupid to make a decision otherwise.... learn administrative law or speak to the lawyer before you do something stupid and screw firearm community!
Click to expand...

I did quite well in administrative law, actually, and I think the decision is a pile of bunk. The basic premise of administrative law is that government decision makers have to make their decisions within the parameters laid out in legislation, and any decision which falls outside those parameters is challengeable as outside the decision maker's delegated authority from parliament. The decision as to whether or not a firearm is a listed prohibited firearm, or a variant thereof falls squarely within the decision maker's delegated power. What does NOT fall within their delegated power is to decide what the word 'variant' means, since parliament did not delegate the power to enact regulations, and the term is found within the regulations. They essentially have decided that they have the power to define variant in the most restrictive way possible, which makes their decision challengable.
 
Questar said:
The reality is we believe that it's important to assist the RCMP lab in getting their classification rulings correct and in instances like those involving "variants" it is our belief that the lab has consistently been directed to "broaden" that definition to the point where it no longer complies with the "legal" definitions allowed by a court of law. Our appeal directly brings that issue into question and a decision in our favour would set specific limits on what would and would not be deemed a variant. On that basis we believe it's important to pursue this issue. It will not only assist the RCMP lab in limiting their use of variant prohibitions in future firearm classifications, but it would open the door to re-evaluation and possible re-classification of 100's of previous classifications deemed to be prohibited variants that might no longer be so classified.
Click to expand...

Critically important. Good to know that some folks (like Questar) are thinking of the bigger picture. My own opinion is that you're in good shape to win this, assuming logic rules the day. (No sure thing these days).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom