Sig 522

Questar said:
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.
Click to expand...

Well, that's more than a little unrealistic Mark, given the way our electoral system works .... the votes are based (at the best of times) on a variety of issues, not just on correcting this wrong or that.

The bureaucracy sees itself as the 'permanent government' and acts accordingly, cooperating with some elected parties and doing it's finest to bamboozle others less friendly to its perceived interests. I don't see the fine folks at forensics any differently, they are protecting their own interests in my view, and not acting in good faith as you might have us all believe.

I hope that doesn't make me too 'unpopular' with either you or your friends at the rcmp forensics lab.

Questar said:
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.
Click to expand...

Well, I call BS on this one ... from what I have seen, the rcmp have consistently acted to expand the definitions and limits of legislation as far as possible.

At times they have acted beyond the law in order to create delay or uncertainty; I suppose this will be for the courts to decide, but as the rcmp are full aware this takes both time and money. Why not acheive your aims through a legal 'chill' when you know that the law in and of itself does not support you?

There is also the small problem of blacked out sections on FOI requests and delay after delay to get these. Add to that the absolutely scurrilous turnabout on the T97 FRT, and I find myself quite astonished at your point of view.

Questar said:
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.
Click to expand...

Again, I disagree ... the rcmp were more than willing to call nearly everything a variant. This is why Henderson is such an issue, not because "some of their decisions were incorrect" as you so carefully understate.

I for one am glad that we are beginning to fight back and hope for a MAJOR wing clipping exercise of the organization. Actually, make that an EPIC wing clipping exercise ... :kickInTheNuts:

Questar said:
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.
Click to expand...

So you believe that the crown attourneys haven't consulted with the rcmp about this case? I kinda think they might have shared a word or two. God I hope they get massacred in court.

Questar said:
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.
Click to expand...

So who is responsible for withholding info on FOI requests? Who is responsible for issuing the T97 FRT and the withdrawing it? Who is responsible for undertaking the review of guns long established as restricted by Canadian law (the model 10 shotgun)? Doesn't sound like anyone else but the rcmp to me.

Clearly these 'fine folks' and the job they do are quite opposed to our interests as private owners of firearms.

Questar said:
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
Click to expand...

I've read it Mark, lets just leave it at 'thanks but no thanks', I'm not buying it.
 
Mark's opinions on the RCMP's conduct are reasonable and valid, but I have to agree with Gothmog on these issues. Great post, GM.
 
Questar said:
In the meantime there will obvioiusly be no SIG 522's available for commercial sale here in Canada.

Mark
Click to expand...

Before I get wound up about this, was the State Dept. even willing to issue DSP-5s for them? Because it's got all the "nasty" features, although imx in the past they will relent on .22s sometimes.

But yeah, this is a dumb decision. First of all it's not a variant of the SG550. The SIG-Sauer 556 is a variant of the SG551, not the SG550, I know the SG551 is prohibited by name also, but it just goes to show that they're clueless, because the 556 is a variant of an SG551 and the 522 is a variant of the 556. Variants of a variant aren't prohibited, imo.
 
Why couldn't they have just caled it the PE 90/22 - give some direction to the RCMP as to which rifle it should be a variant of.

I find it very hard to believe that my PE 90 is unrestricted and the identical looking .22is prohibited.

How did stuff like the PE 90, XCR, 858 etc. slip through the cracks? My guess if these were being reviewed today, they would all be prohibited.
 
K1LLswitch said:
Why couldn't they have just caled it the PE 90/22 - give some direction to the RCMP as to which rifle it should be a variant of.

I find it very hard to believe that my PE 90 is unrestricted and the identical looking .22is prohibited.

How did stuff like the PE 90, XCR, 858 etc. slip through the cracks? My guess if these were being reviewed today, they would all be prohibited.
Click to expand...

The decision to prohibit the 522 is justifiable (not that I agree with it). However, how could they possibly justify prohibiting the XCR or CZ 858? They aren't even close to a variant of anything that is prohibited. That's stretching it a little far. So no, if they were brought through today they probably would have been classed the same.
 
cadgo said:
The decision to prohibit the 522 is justifiable (not that I agree with it). However, how could they possibly justify prohibiting the XCR or CZ 858? They aren't even close to a variant of anything that is prohibited. That's stretching it a little far. So no, if they were brought through today they probably would have been classed the same.
Click to expand...

Are you insane? Please tell me this is sarcasm...

It's a blowback 22, with a fancy "shell!" NOTHING in common with any of the SIG rifles of which it's apparently a "variant."

Justifiable? Hardly!

-M
 
What a bunch of chicken heads. Damit. i already saved the money, but i had a bad feeling about it considering all the B.S the RCMP have been up to. I didn't trust em' when i was a kid getting in trouble, and now as a law abiding adult i trust them even less. 0% to be exact. Jag offs.
 
When I said justifiable I just meant there are reasons why they can get away with a prohibition of the 522 (for now). I was just responding to K1LLswitch's comment that the XCR and the 858 would have been banned if they were brought in now. It would be quite a stretch to say the 858 was a variant of the AK, where the 522, to someone who knows nothing about firearms (a judge), does resemble the 552.
 
cadgo said:
When I said justifiable I just meant there are reasons why they can get away with a prohibition of the 522 (for now). I was just responding to K1LLswitch's comment that the XCR and the 858 would have been banned if they were brought in now. It would be quite a stretch to say the 858 was a variant of the AK, where the 522, to someone who knows nothing about firearms (a judge), does resemble the 552.
Click to expand...

The CZ858 or VZ58 looks like an AK to someone who knows nothing about firearms. The XCR looks like an AR-15 to someone who knows little about them.

Putting a Ferrari body kit on a Fierro (Late 80's little sports car) doesn't make it a Ferrari. Same thing should apply with firearms. If it's not a variant then it shouldn't be classified as one.

A direct blowback .22LR is definitely not a Sig 550 design. f:P:2:

Yes I wanted one of these .22 rifles as well.
 
This kind of nonsense will be going away if Henderson stands up on appeal... in this case, applications can be made to strike existing "variant" prohibitions from the books.

Should be a decision any day, hopefully.

I would like to see Vic Toews FORCE the RCMP to present evidence and obtain an OIC for prohibition of a given firearm - as it should be. Remind them that they're the hand of the legislative branch, not the brain.

-M
 
Doc M said:
It's a blowback 22, with a fancy "shell!" NOTHING in common with any of the SIG rifles of which it's apparently a "variant."
Click to expand...

I think it's got the same trigger mech, I handled one in AZ and it appeared to be the same, or the same design at any rate. But regardless of that, even according to their own literature, it's based on the SIG-Sauer 556, not the SG550 or SG551. A variant of a variant can't possibly be prohibited (unless it's a very slight variant) otherwise anything could be banned.
 
Questar said:
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...

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...
Click to expand...

I think all of your points are well-balanced, and I appreciate your comments.

I'd also like to point out that while many of the laws were ill-conceived and poorly written, it is that very wording that has allowed quite a few black rifles to be imported (including some notable non-restricted ones) that would otherwise have been prohibited based on appearance or type alone.

In addition, thanks to the efforts of Questar (and indirectly, a ruling from the RCMP) we have benefited from 10-round pistol magazine capacity in .223 - again, something that would not have been possible with different legislation. These are just a few notable examples of how the laws have worked for us; it's not all completely one-sided.

And while I'm obviously disappointed with the ruling on the 522LR, I truly appreciate Mark's continued willingness and hard efforts to try and bring us these new and exciting products. Thanks!
 
The Liberals and NDP parties want to see the mandatory firearms license continue, with all of its criminal penalties for failure to renew or possess. They have an ideological commitment to maintaining the idea that Canadians shall not own property without government permission.
With the failure of the C-68 Firearms Act, what is needed is a made in Canada practical firearms control system. Not something dreamed up by UN bureaucrats and international gun control non-governmental organizations.
Tell your government and your MP that the failed firearms licensing sysem must be reformed.
 
PROHIBITED:
sig_552_22lr-01.jpg


NON-RESTRICTED:
Stuff049.jpg



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