T97 News.. not good.

Status
Not open for further replies.
ponts said:
Like I said I could be wrong but that's how I see it. If I were to bring in a newly designed or "different/changed" firearm to Canada I would be sure the RCMP lab had an the exact version for examination before I gave the go for mass production and importation, it only makes sense and really it seems that simple. Is this the case for Canam and Marstar don't know did they or didn't they (seems like they didn't if this is happening)?? Blue-Line did it right with the GSG-5, imported one, submitted to RCMP lab, classed as prohib could of ended up with a container load of prohib guns they could not sell.

Any party in Canada could turn on firearms owners but do you see a better choice? Again I'll stick with the only party in Canada with a chance at a majority that has stood AGAINST a handgun ban, semi-auto ban and the gun registry. The only thing that has stopped them from ditching the registry and making further Firearms law changes to our beneift is the fact that they have not had a majority.

I feel bad that your T-97 is being reclassed but so far I see no reason to blame the Conservatives or jump up and down shouting the sky is falling in and the RCMP and Conservatives are selling us out. Even C-301 with a minority gov't would never pass unless it was gutted just to include the end of the registry. When they get a majority you'll see we will be rewarded for our support if not well that is when I'll jump ship but not till then.
Click to expand...

amen brother
 
The FSNs have an unaltered trigger mechanism installed. Both the 858s and CZH2003 trigger mechanisms have been irreversibly modified. You can drop an unaltered trigger mechanism into an 858 but you have to remove one of the connectors for it to fit. You cannot drop an unaltered trigger into a CZH, it won’t fit.
All three CZH, 858 and FSN use the same receivers (FOR THE 1000th TIME THERE WAS ONLY ONE MANUFACTURER). Each company did DIFFERENT but extensive work to the receivers before riffle “assembly” that prevents the installation of the auto trip and various other unaltered components.
All three have an irreversibly modified leaf spring installed. You can drop an unaltered leaf spring into the CZH and the FSN including the second disconnector but it won’t do anything. You cannot drop an unaltered leaf spring nor the second disconnector into an 858.

The 858 and the FSN have an extra pin that prevents a full rotation of the selector. The CZH doesn’t. The CZH has irreversibly altered bolt carrier and an unaltered bolt carrier won’t fit. The 858 and FSN have unaltered bolt carriers and they will also work with a altered bolt carrier from a CZH.
Aside from this everything else is the same in all three models. Parts are all the same all originated from the same place. Only new parts out there are US made that comply with their compliance law.

Could the FSN having the ability to take a complete unaltered trigger mechanism be the cause for the prohib status? Maybe. Is it easier to make it go FA compared to the CZH and 858. Not with the existing auto trip you would have to modify the receiver etc…just like any other semi. Does it require the least amount of time to do?? Could be a question they might be asking.
 
Lets get back on topic.
Like NS said we dont need anti's seeing threads about parts in FA vs SA. All thier little brains are going to see is some nutz talking online about converting somthing to Full Auto and how to do it.

So anyone get an email back yet from Van Loan's office? I sent 1 email and 2 fax's, nothing nadda zip.
 
I've got nothing back from Van Loan's office either.

Either they are completely overwhelmed with letters (most likely case), or they just don't care enough to answer.
 
Mr.4x4 said:
Lets get back on topic.
Like NS said we dont need anti's seeing threads about parts in FA vs SA. All thier little brains are going to see is some nutz talking online about converting somthing to Full Auto and how to do it.

So anyone get an email back yet from Van Loan's office? I sent 1 email and 2 fax's, nothing nadda zip.
Click to expand...

No one is telling anyone how to convert anything that would be illegal. I just explained the details of those particualr firearms which I do know something about. I Also think that this is on topic and it’s looking at the root of the issue. I read somewhere that looking at the root of the problem is important, might be wrong though. The RCMP may be antis but don’t for a second think that the firearm forensics department don’t know firearms or they don’t know the area code to the Czech Republic and can’t find out all they need to directly considering that firearm laws and classifications are different there. Although I do agree and do think there is more to it than just microscopic analysis, especially with the timing of the new bill but for us to be victorious in anything our T’s have to be crossed and I’s dotted. For anyone to think that only semis or these few semis are currently the only firearms being "looked at" is naive.
 
palinak said:
No one is telling anyone how to convert anything that would be illegal. I just explained the details of those particualr firearms which I do know something about. I Also think that this is on topic and it’s looking at the root of the issue. I read somewhere that looking at the root of the problem is important, might be wrong though. The RCMP may be antis but don’t for a second think that the firearm forensics department don’t know firearms or they don’t know the area code to the Czech Republic and can’t find out all they need to directly considering that firearm laws and classifications are different there. Although I do agree and do think there is more to it than just microscopic analysis, especially with the timing of the new bill but for us to be victorious in anything our T’s have to be crossed and I’s dotted. For anyone to think that only semis or these few semis are currently the only firearms being "looked at" is naive.
Click to expand...

x2 - people still have their head in the sand about this.

Guys, consider the timing of all this. Consider what types of rifles are being talked about here.
 
palinak said:
No one is telling anyone how to convert anything that would be illegal. I just explained the details of those particualr firearms which I do know something about. I Also think that this is on topic and it’s looking at the root of the issue. I read somewhere that looking at the root of the problem is important, might be wrong though. The RCMP may be antis but don’t for a second think that the firearm forensics department don’t know firearms or they don’t know the area code to the Czech Republic and can’t find out all they need to directly considering that firearm laws and classifications are different there. Although I do agree and do think there is more to it than just microscopic analysis, especially with the timing of the new bill but for us to be victorious in anything our T’s have to be crossed and I’s dotted. For anyone to think that only semis or these few semis are currently the only firearms being "looked at" is naive.
Click to expand...

Your approach is the right one. You mentioned specific information and areas that we could look into that would help us find out what the particular point of conflict is with the FSN's. Simply saying the RCMP can't reclassify, is a hollow argument. If we can find there point of contention and then disprove it with evidence then that is the only way we can win. On top of that John from Marstar is key to any judicial action as he would have to start it. He may not want to though.
 
Simply saying the RCMP can't reclassify, is a hollow argument. If we can find there point of contention and then disprove it with evidence then that is the only way we can win. On top of that John from Marstar is key to any judicial action as he would have to start it. He may not want to though.
Click to expand...

We don't have to get in their heads.

John goes to a court house, spends 70$, files for judicial review in a superior court.

At that point, he and his lawyers file for disclosure and get every note, correspondence, transcript, etc... from the firearms labs about specifically why the rifle is prohibited.

At that point, he'll know exactly why they prohibited it.
 
Paul Morrison said:
We don't have to get in their heads.

John goes to a court house, spends 70$, files for judicial review in a superior court.

At that point, he and his lawyers file for disclosure and get every note, correspondence, transcript, etc... from the firearms labs about specifically why the rifle is prohibited.

At that point, he'll know exactly why they prohibited it.
Click to expand...

Can anyone do this, or does it have to be the importer? What specifically happens at a judicial review? How much would to cost to have a lawyer file for disclosure - ballpark?
 
I want to add my experience calling the CFC techs at the end of last week. I spoke to an actual tech out of Ottawa, not just a general front-line person.

So, to echo was others report about their conversations with them, it seems their replies are inconsistent.

While the tech was pleasant, it was a very depressing 4 minutes - but I still remain very hopeful for the future of the T97 based on the other reports of their confusion.

What the tech told me:

a) Surprised that others who call in to find out what is going on.

b) CanAm did their "marketing" before having they had the proper designations to import the T97.

c) The review is currently "on hold".

d) I asked what time frame "on hold" means. The reply was there is no answer for the T97. I asked what about in the past, what sort of time frames have been seen for these reviews. And the reply was that the G22 assessment is still on hold after 5 years. (I don't know too much about that; I thought is was simply prohibited at this point).

My goal wasn't to poke or prod too much ... as anything reasonable or thoughtful we say is wasted breath. :)

So, is there a real problem here with the import (I can't imagine), or is this a bureaucratic way to effectively circumvent the law?

Time will tell.




Clobbersauras said:
I called the CFC Techs again this morning.

I was told basically nothing. She could only tell me that the Type 97 is under review and that my model is still currently restricted.

I asked her if she could tell me why it's under review. She didn't know.

She did say that the final determination has not been made yet. Which is probably a good thing for us.

I told her that the last time I talked to a Tech I was told that current transfer were suspended because they were classified as 12.2. She said that this is incorrect - that no determination on the classification has been made...

So again - it depends on who you talk to there what type of information you get.

How can they suspend transfers if they haven't made a classification determination? Shouldn't transfers be allowed under the original classification until they actually change it? Is there some precedent for this?
Click to expand...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom