I expect that what I'm about to post won't be all that "popular" and most won't agree with me but I'll say it anyway...
I don't blame the RCMP or the old Tables Section (recently renamed) for the decision they made on the SIG 522 classification. Frankly if I was in their shoes I might well come to the same "ruling".
That doesn't mean that I agree with them... I don't.
It doesn't mean that they are correct... that is for a court to decide.
But I don't blame them for reaching the conclusion they came to given the history of "variant" decisions in this country.
The people to blame for this are the politicians and civil servants who wrote the law itself and the citizens of Canada for voting in those politicians and not forcing those who came after to amend/fix bad laws.
The RCMP are doing their job... they are enforcing the laws that were written and given to them to work with. They get direction from the legal departments (crown attorney's) on how to interpret the law... and I suspect that at times they get "political pressure" to interpret things certain ways as well. Not an envious position to be in especially in cases like this where the law is poorly written and open to wide interpretation.
The problem here is defining the meaning of "variant" as it applies to this particular section of the firearms act. The politicians and civil servants who wrote the legislation did not bother to define the term variant or to give any insight as to what they had in mind when the law was passed. Up until recently the courts had never reviewed and ruled on this question so there was no direction or assistance there... and so for years the RCMP have used a very wide assortment of definitions of the term "variant" as it applied to named Prohibited and Restricted firearms in the legislation. For years "variant" has meant everything from sharing parts to sharing designs, from sharing "lineage" to merely "looking the same"... in some cases all it takes is a piece of promotional literature that states a firearm is "based on" or "the modern version of"... even if that firearm shares no actual similarities to the original model.
Is it right to call that a variant? Up until Henderson the RCMP have said that they were merely following the law and without a court ruling to the contrary they were correct... but with Henderson we now have a court ruling that at least some of the RCMP's decisions were not correct. Problem is that the Henderson ruling is being appealed by the crown and until that appeal is decided the ruling is in limbo and while it's in limbo the RCMP continue to act as they always have... if I was them I would do the same thing.
Keep in mind it's not the decision of the guys who do the examinations whether they appeal the court case... that's a legal decision made by the crown attorneys and the politicians... so if you want to blame someone they are the ones to be pointing fingers at... and blame the citizens for not bringing pressure on the politicians to change the law when the law is unclear as it is in many parts of the firearms act. Let's get a clear and workable definition of "variant" as it applies to the various sections of the firearms act that use that term. The act has a variety of "Definitions" contained in it... get the politicians to add a definition of "variant" to that list... this would clear up all uncertainty and "interpretation".
Remember that the Henderson case, even if upheld on appeal still doesn't give us an all encompassing definition of "variant" for the firearms act... it merely addresses the situation that existed in that one case... other cases that don't share the same basic facts would not be affected.
I have a lot of respect for the people I work with at RCMP and the old FRT/Tables Section... they are good people who do a great job under some rather difficult conditions. I don't always agree with their decisions but I don't blame them for these situations... I put the blame where the blame belongs.
Others may have different opinions and other peoples experiences may differ from mine but for those who have never had direct contact with the RCMP classification section I am simply suggesting that you judge them fairly... a lot of the posts I read are far from fair or valid.
Just my opinion... perhaps you'll give it some consideration...
Mark
