Swiss Arms rifles being examined for reclassification?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Thanks TV-PressPass and Steve Janes for putting together this information --- it's definitely worth the read. It also seems apparent, in light of the now missing thread in ATR's forum that got this all this chatter started, that not all the information has been forthcoming from the individuals involved. After reading Bill Etter's letters, I don't believe the RCMP is approaching this issue with any particularly vindictive motive --- it's clear that some mistakes have been made in the importation of SAN rifles, which have caused the RCMP to rightfully scrutinize the Swiss Arms family. What's concerning to me is the fast-approaching June 30 deadline and whether SAN will be forthcoming with the required documentation to support the claim of SG540 lineage. I'm trying to feel optimistic about this, but we know how much nuance there is in the interpretation of the Firearms Act and how easy it is for a manufacture to walk "off the fine line" by making a simple marketing claim.

Do you guys have any confirmation of the supposed start date for this "new look" at the Swiss Arms rifles? JR mentioned that this review process had started 18 months ago, but I haven't read any independent confirmation. I get the impression that the RCMP is fast-tracking this issue, so it seems to me that the submission of ESF9116 may have occurred more recently.

Also, can anyone shed light on what "generous interpretation" is actually referring to?

“The most generous interpretation of our research would be that all the firearms in the list are prohibited variant or modified versions of the SG 550 rifle or SG551 Carbine as found in the Criminal Code Regulations appended to CC PART III, Section 84 (1), PROHIBITED FIREARMS paragraph 83.”
Click to expand...

Is "most generous interpretation" referring to the most favourable interpretation of the findings with respect to maintaining the NR status of the Swiss Arms rifles, or is "most generation interpretation" referring to the broadest application of the Firearms Act definitions in order to reclassify the Swiss Arms? Unfortunately, I see little in the RCMP research findings that favours maintaining the status quo on Swiss Arms rifles. The onus has been shifted to the importer/SAN to prove that these rifles should remain NR... I certainly hope this proof exists.
 
Wouldn't an Order in Council clear all this up?.. saving the taxes payers in Canada money from a potential buy back of functionally semi auto rifles that seem to exist in the twilight zone of classification due to poorly written law?
 
Thanks for the read TV PressPass. Nice to see it all in one place.

The bottom line: We have until June 30th 2013 for the popo to change their minds or bye bye Swiss Arms Rifles.
 
I took "most generous" to apply as the broadest application of the Firearms Act.

I think the fact that we've been given an opportunity to submit documentation is a good sign.

No one want's to go through the pain and cost of reclassifying large numbers of SAN rifles.

But we do need a clearer picture of where they come from, and what's been coming in lately.
 
Last edited:
I will summarize this thread:

The Swiss Arms rifles may, or may not, be reclassified to prohibs, based on the firearms act, and interpretation of how they fit into it. This may, or may not, mean seizures, that may or may not include payments. The importer may, or may not, be willing or able to prove otherwise. This may, or may not, have wider implications for Canadian firearms owners.

I may, or may not, have a cup of coffee, that I may, or may not, have already brewed. Either way, I will keep you posted.

Sask~sten: You may, or may not rot in h3ll for this, but if you're on fire, I'm all out of spit and piss.
 
You quoted the answer to your own question of what is the "most generous interpretation" stickhunter.

It would be that "all the firearms in the list are prohibited variant or modified versions of the SG 550 rifle or SG551 Carbine as found in the Criminal Code Regulations appended to CC PART III, Section 84 (1), PROHIBITED FIREARMS paragraph 83."

In otherwords, the RCMP will error on the side of caution, and by caution I mean whatever re-classifies the most guns and gets them off the streets where they are at risk of falling into criminals hands. PUKE! On the plus side, all the Swiss Arms owners in Scarbourough might get a shiny new Olympus camera if they run out and take part in Pixels for Pistols program right now...
 
BTW, a simple strike-out on the Prohib Order OIC on the SIG 5xx series section printed in the Canada Gazette would make most of this go away. ;) The PM or Minister in charge of public safety would need to initialize this.

That would still leave the converted auto receivers issue tho.
 
why would it take any longer then 5 seconds to find out where this "CA" came from? all info is documented when it enters Canada whether or not it is non-res, does it not? sooo..... who imported the suspected CA's?, and if they are all the same, should not be too hard to track those ones down.
 
jdman said:
why would it take any longer then 5 seconds to find out where this "CA" came from? all info is documented when it enters Canada whether or not it is non-res, does it not? sooo..... who imported the suspected CA's?, and if they are all the same, should not be too hard to track those ones down.
Click to expand...

They were imported by TSE in 2007/2008. TSE was the distributor at that time. The question is not who imported them but rather who submitted them to the RCMP to compare against the "spurious" copy as the control samples. This would go down as one of the stupidest decisions ever made.
 
Shooting Centre said:
They were imported by TSE in 2007/2008. TSE was the distributor at that time. The question is not who imported them but rather who submitted them to the RCMP to compare against the "spurious" copy as the control samples. This would go down as one of the stupidest decisions ever made.
Click to expand...

If it's legitimately a C/A then it was eventually going to come to light, I don't think that checking to make sure you are in line with the law is "one of the stupidest decisions ever made", actually dsounds pretty smart to me.
 
Are the dimensions of C/A lowers and purpose-made Semi-auto lowers not different or of a slightly different shape?

Can anyone hazard a guess at how many of these C/As were brought in?

The more info I see on this issue the more disgusted I get, for numerous reasons.

Thanks very much for the article and updates to come Edward and Steve!
 
Tom_Swift said:
If it's legitimately a C/A then it was eventually going to come to light, I don't think that checking to make sure you are in line with the law is "one of the stupidest decisions ever made", actually dsounds pretty smart to me.
Click to expand...

Have you actually read the respective documents? The C/A receivers were sent to the forensics lab as the control guns. The RCMP were told that a "real" classic green is a C/A. The complaint was made against the gun that was semi automatic.
 
Shooting Centre said:
Have you actually read the respective documents? The C/A receivers were sent to the forensics lab as the control guns. The RCMP were told that a "real" classic green is a C/A. The complaint was made against the gun that was semi automatic.
Click to expand...

if that's the case the complainant has some explaining to do, as the complainant is the one who's been marketing and selling them as 540 variant, and fought for the frt to that end, in which case this is a full u-turn and likely not one without legal recourse. fwiw and aimho
 
I need two things cleared up.

Is the 'control gun' like a pattern gun that was initially approved, this is the design and it stands?
Or is a 'control gun' the thing against which it is compared against, the approved vs an actual 540 or 550?
Or was it just a sample grabbed from the shelf?

Only thing is, that the whole C/A issue is rather irrelevant as they are claiming that all SA are variants.
 
Forget all the details about who did what. Doesn't matter. The big picture is how our laws screw the law-abiding.

I'm a law-abiding citizen, and all I can say is; this is sure as hell not the Canada my father thought he was getting when he put on the uniform.
 
Steiner said:
Yes politicians take notice. In spite of this being sold (along with the others on their current must ban list like the 858) your doomsday scenarios did not happen. Your laws to protect us are directed towards the wrong demographic.
Look towards your law abiding citizens and reward the virtuous with liberty instead of taking rights and privileges away from them.
The Pandora's box is they cannot admit to this.

Have they noticed beer, wine, and whiskey has killed more in Canada than guns?
Click to expand...

You assume I was inferring a possible outcome, I was not. Think about it, if the lawmakers finally do take notice there are three possible outcomes that I see. A) Nothing changes; B) The Firearms Act is scrapped and less convoluted and restrictive laws are created; C) More restrictive laws are created. The way I see it, once you open that box there is no way to predict the outcome, thus it is a box best left untouched.

x0ra said:
The Pandora Box has already been opened with the previous re-classification T97A, BD-38, AP-80... and all hell didn't break loose. Owner surrendered their possession, and went back to their daily lives...
Click to expand...

Only one straw is needed to break the camels back. This just happens to be a rather large one…
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom