T97 News.. not good.

Status
Not open for further replies.
The strange thing is that the wording of the law mentions NOTHING about "ease of conversion", either a firearm is FA, or it ain't. This appears to be the same old "RCMP making up rules as they go along" type of situation.
 
The idea of preserving freedom is pretty foreign to the RCMP based on their current actions so I wouldn't bet on their help at all. The truth is that Norinco could certainly fix this by having the factory weld up the receiver so any FA parts won't fit. That said this does seem to be a gray area in the law and we should still continue to lobby for our cause.

keep sending those letters and emails.

stormtrooper1015 said:
Let's say, for the sake of argument, that the T97 in it's present form is easily converted to FA. And therefore it's the reason they want to prohib/reclassify them... Perhaps there's just as "easy a way" to make them "difficult" to convert to FA - Welded part, Big UZI washer etc...

Maybe a quick solution would be to correct the perceived problem and voila... they have absolutely no argument. The RCMP inspectors who "made this discovery" certainly have at least one method to correct it - I would if I were in their position...
Click to expand...
 
greentips said:
That is not the case. What you said is the US BATF definition of FA.

In canada, the long standing policy is that if it is out of the original factory as a semi, it is a semi. They can do whatever in the original factory and convert semi from FA, as long as it is out of the original factory as semi only. Only 3rd party conversion makes a weapon converted auto.
Click to expand...

Hmmm...this statement interest me more than anything I have read yet. Do you have any info to back this up?

This may be why the last CFC tech I talked to told me the classification was 12.2??? Full Auto.

Because they can't classify it s 12.5 - that is written in stone. They can't classify it as 12.3 because of your statement above. The only thing they have left is 12.2?

This whole thing reeks of Bullsh!t the more we talk about it. If it left the factory as a semi than it can't be considered 12.3 (converted auto), right? As I told the Tech, mine certainly only fires in semi auto mode. You can spin the safety lever all you want and it only has two functions...SAFE and SEMI.

How the FACK can they consider it a 12.2 if it will only fire in semi-auto mode?

They are reaching here - and I think stalling for more time. Like I've posted before, if it was that cut and dry for them they would have prohibited already by now. I hope Canada Ammo walks in there with a good lawyer and a tape recorder because the holes in their case are starting to show.
 
Last edited:
Please close/lock this thread.
There is really no substance here, other than second hand (I heard it through a "friend"), speculation, heresay etc.

Don't you think if there is anyone who wants this issue resolved (and similar issues) its folks like CanAM and Marstar??

Don't you also believe as soon as they know anything CONCRETE they will let us know?

Its not surprising that CANAM and Marstar are relatively absent from any of these threads...obviously, they still don't know anything FIRM, or are still trying to get answers, or are still trying to argue their cases...

They are doing the CORRECT thing in not uselessly fanning the flames of conjecture.

PERHAPS YOU ARE ALL MISSING MY POINT.
THERE ARE NOW ABOUT 50 PAGES, WITH THE MAJORITY OF THESE CONTAINING NOTHING MORE THAN EVERY "ARMCHAIR LAWYERS" INTERPRETATION OF ONE OF THE MOST CONFUSING PIECES OF CANADIAN LAW.

PERHAPS I SHOULD HAVE REWORDED MY REQUEST TO "PLEASE DON'T POST YOUR LEGAL INTERPRETATION UNLESS YOU ARE A LAWYER SPECIALIZING IN THE FIELD"

I FULLY SUPPORT "LETTER WRITING" AS A MEANS OF TRYING TO SECURE POLITICIANS "EARS" AND ENCOURAGE POSTS CONTAINING LINKS, ADDY'S ETC. FOR THIS PURPOSE, AS WELL AS POSTS WITH REAL FACTS, BUT I JUST DON'T SEE HOW ALL THIS CONJECTURE HELPS ANYONE.
 
Last edited:
you have no right to ask for this to be closed it gives one a way to communicate to others steps they have taken to speak to their MP or the PM do we toss a car because of a bad part? Not all is pn topic but much is




canuckchap said:
Please close/lock this thread.
There is really no substance here, other than second hand (I heard it through a "friend"), speculation, heresay etc.

Don't you think if there is anyone who wants this issue resolved (and similar issues) its folks like CanAM and Marstar??

Don't you also believe as soon as they know anything CONCRETE they will let us know?

Its not surprising that CANAM and Marstar are relatively absent from any of these threads...obviously, they still don't know anything FIRM, or are still trying to get answers, or are still trying to argue their cases...

They are doing the CORRECT thing in not uselessly fanning the flames of conjecture.
Click to expand...
 
No please do not.

Do we have concrete information? No.

Do we have information from credible sources? Yes.

If the RCMP make a ruling will it be much more difficult to change then if we pressure them now? Yes.

Canam and Marstar have vested interest in the form of profit so they really can't say anything more then what they know. Canam has stated that there is some odd juju afoot and so we must respond.

For those of us whose main interest in this issue is our personal freedom then we really must continue to push back every chance we get. In the end it may all blow over and we never know why, if that happens I'm happier for the fact that we got involved and active rather then not. If I did nothing but wait and more freedom was taken away I would be sick at myself.

canuckchap said:
Please close/lock this thread.
There is really no substance here, other than second hand (I heard it through a "friend"), speculation, heresay etc.

Don't you think if there is anyone who wants this issue resolved (and similar issues) its folks like CanAM and Marstar??

Don't you also believe as soon as they know anything CONCRETE they will let us know?

Its not surprising that CANAM and Marstar are relatively absent from any of these threads...obviously, they still don't know anything FIRM, or are still trying to get answers, or are still trying to argue their cases...

They are doing the CORRECT thing in not uselessly fanning the flames of conjecture.
Click to expand...
 
The reason why I think John and CanAm stay out of this is because it is in their best interests to keep their mouths shut until after everything is sorted out. There is Scum lurking through these pages waiting for a slip up. (Yes we know you are watching).
 
Uh, isn't this the internet? Pretty much everything is conjecture, speculation, heresay etc. If this thread gets locked because of that sort of thing, we might as well just shut the whole operation down right now.

Besides, without this thread I never would've (hand) written letters to the PM and various MPs and Ministers. Maybe it won't make a bit of difference, but at least I was given the motivation to at least try.
 
No please do not.

Do we have concrete information? No.

Do we have information from credible sources? Yes.

If the RCMP make a ruling will it be much more difficult to change then if we pressure them now? Yes.

Canam and Marstar have vested interest in the form of profit so they really can't say anything more then what they know. Canam has stated that there is some odd juju afoot and so we must respond.

For those of us whose main interest in this issue is our personal freedom then we really must continue to push back every chance we get. In the end it may all blow over and we never know why, if that happens I'm happier for the fact that we got involved and active rather then not. If I did nothing but wait and more freedom was taken away I would be sick at myself.

canuckchap said:
Please close/lock this thread.
There is really no substance here, other than second hand (I heard it through a "friend"), speculation, heresay etc.

Don't you think if there is anyone who wants this issue resolved (and similar issues) its folks like CanAM and Marstar??

Don't you also believe as soon as they know anything CONCRETE they will let us know?

Its not surprising that CANAM and Marstar are relatively absent from any of these threads...obviously, they still don't know anything FIRM, or are still trying to get answers, or are still trying to argue their cases...

They are doing the CORRECT thing in not uselessly fanning the flames of conjecture.
Click to expand...
 
canuckchap said:
Please close/lock this thread.
There is really no substance here, other than second hand (I heard it through a "friend"), speculation, heresay etc.

Don't you think if there is anyone who wants this issue resolved (and similar issues) its folks like CanAM and Marstar??

Don't you also believe as soon as they know anything CONCRETE they will let us know?

Its not surprising that CANAM and Marstar are relatively absent from any of these threads...obviously, they still don't know anything FIRM, or are still trying to get answers, or are still trying to argue their cases...

They are doing the CORRECT thing in not uselessly fanning the flames of conjecture.
Click to expand...

I own a 97 Type. I have thousands of dollars worth of scope mounts that I built specifically for the Type 97. I obtained (purchased) dealer status on this board to sell them to legal Type 97 owners. These mounts are basically worthless because of this mess. I think I have the right to post anything I feel regarding this issue. Everything I posted regarding my conversations with the CFC is not conjecture. It's the truth. My personal opinions are just that, opinions. But opinions built on being more involved in this mess than most.
 
Last edited:
If it's semi, it's semi.... if it's FA, then it's FA... There isn't a law that I'm aware of that prohibits something that has "the potential" to be converted from semi, to FA... on the other hand, there exists law that states firearms that were FA, and converted to semi, are still prohibited... (remember that little chunk of case law I posted a while ago..)

The argument that the firearm can "easily" be converted from one classification to another, in this instance, from Non-Restricted to Prohibited, doesn't hold alot of water. Do you think it's easier to tinker with triggers, springs, sears etc, or to take a long gun, and chop it's barrel and stock with a hacksaw...??? Anyone with criminal intent, and a $5 hacksaw can turn a Non-Restricted into a Prohibited firearm... ergo, the logic of the "easily converted" argument doesn't make sense...

Regardless, whatever Federal Agency that's upset with these guns, is looking for some argument they can present to prevent their import. Conversely, the importer has the written law - and some physical case law on their side. Not to mention the ongoing support from folks on this forum. The continual barrage of email, voice calls, letters etc. are certainly helping CanadaAmmo much more than they are hurting...

There is no reason to close this thread - it's helping folks vent their frustrations, and direct their energy towards pressuring our politicians...
 
There must be some kind of review going on. (I did not read all 43 pages) I phoned the firearms center today (on hold for 20 mins) and they said they could not find a Norinco Type 97 on their system. WTF It was on there before and now it is gone? I asked them what that meant and they could not tell me. They did tell me that there would have to be an order in council for the classification to be changed.
If the classification does get changed, then I think they should be civilly liable for their initial negligent classification. Many people put in orders based on the initial classification.
 
Storm well said. Now if the RCMP say these are prohib, they will be until an appeal is won.

That's the part i don't like. Hopefully our letter storm will have van loans office telling these guys to quit crossing the line.
 
haptagud said:
There must be some kind of review going on. (I did not read all 43 pages) I phoned the firearms center today (on hold for 20 mins) and they said they could not find a Norinco Type 97 on their system. WTF It was on there before and now it is gone? I asked them what that meant and they could not tell me. They did tell me that there would have to be an order in council for the classification to be changed.
If the classification does get changed, then I think they should be civilly liable for their initial negligent classification. Many people put in orders based on the initial classification.
Click to expand...

This doesn't surprise me - the story changes depending on who you talk to. You need to talk to the Techs - they have a little more info than the Information Officers.

stormtrooper1015 said:
If it's semi, it's semi.... if it's FA, then it's FA... There isn't a law that I'm aware of that prohibits something that has "the potential" to be converted from semi, to FA... on the other hand, there exists law that states firearms that were FA, and converted to semi, are still prohibited... (remember that little chunk of case law I posted a while ago..)

The argument that the firearm can "easily" be converted from one classification to another, in this instance, from Non-Restricted to Prohibited, doesn't hold alot of water. Do you think it's easier to tinker with triggers, springs, sears etc, or to take a long gun, and chop it's barrel and stock with a hacksaw...??? Anyone with criminal intent, and a $5 hacksaw can turn a Non-Restricted into a Prohibited firearm... ergo, the logic of the "easily converted" argument doesn't make sense...

Regardless, whatever Federal Agency that's upset with these guns, is looking for some argument they can present to prevent their import. Conversely, the importer has the written law - and some physical case law on their side. Not to mention the ongoing support from folks on this forum. The continual barrage of email, voice calls, letters etc. are certainly helping CanadaAmmo much more than they are hurting...

There is no reason to close this thread - it's helping folks vent their frustrations, and direct their energy towards pressuring our politicians...
Click to expand...

Very well said.
 
tiriaq said:
No, if that were the case, the AR type rifles being sold in Canada could have M-16 lowers with semi auto parts in them, and the Czech rifles would not have altered receivers. Is there any recent import that has a receiver capable of accepting selective fire trigger components without alteration?
Click to expand...

Yes.
 
An auto shoots automatically. A coverted auto is one that is converted to semi from an auto.

If it cannot shoot automatically, then it is not an auto.

If it doesn't start life as an auto, then it cannot be "converted"

If the original factory is not the "origin" point of manufacturing, there is no starting point for the term "converted auto". If the activity of the original manufacturing is considered "converting", then any thing ever made by anyone is open game to reclassification.

You can go as far as classifying a Ruger mini 14 as converted auto, because Ruger takes a raw casting that is useable to make a Full Auto AC556 to make the receiver - this logic will just keep digging a deeper and deeper hole. When a policy that cannot withstand a standard test of logic - it will be a disaster.

That's why it is funny, as I was reading Marstar's thread on the VZ. They were running a perfectly sound policy before - adn then all a sudden going off track on talking about FA parts - so if a hand shield useable on the AC556 that is shared by the min 14, the mini 14 is a Full automatic now? This kind of policy has no consistent basis to apply. Bad policy making. A rifle might have some parts that could be shared with a FA rifle, but can it shoot FA out of the factory?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom