T97 News.. not good.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Thumbs up on that. Your work is funny if not painfully true.

And others would have to agree...

buck_thumbs_up.jpg
 
Last edited:
chris said:
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).
Click to expand...

Chris - I just had a thought. Perhaps they don't have to legally classify them as prohib to accomplish almost the same thing:eek:

From what they told me, they haven't yet prohibited my Type 97. The "legal classification is currently under review". But they have suspended transfers of all Type 97's. So I can't transfer it, but I can still take it to the range. By suspending transfers they have, in effect, prohibited the rifle from purchase by approved PAL and RPAL holders.

Could this have been their strategy all along?:eek:

This way they don't have to make a decision.

Is this legal? To hold something in bureaucratic limbo?
 
Last edited:
If that is the case, it is WORSE than prohib. At least grandfathered prohibs can be transfered if the buyer is in the right class.
 
There is an expectation of procedural fairness in Canadian Law.

"A recent articulation of the elements of procedural fairness in the administrative law context was provided by the Supreme Court in Baker:

Baker v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship & Immigration) 2 S.C.R. 817 6:

The values underlying the duty of procedural fairness relate to the principle that the individual or individuals affected should have the opportunity to present their case fully and fairly, and have decision affecting their rights, interests, or privileges made using a fair, impartial and open process, appropriate to the statutory, institutional and social context of the decisions.7"

From:
http://www.nelligan.ca/e/pdf/Procedural_Fairness_in_Ontario.pdf
 
Deckard said:
There is an expectation of procedural fairness in Canadian Law.

"A recent articulation of the elements of procedural fairness in the administrative law context was provided by the Supreme Court in Baker:

Baker v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship & Immigration) 2 S.C.R. 817 6:

The values underlying the duty of procedural fairness relate to the principle that the individual or individuals affected should have the opportunity to present their case fully and fairly, and have decision affecting their rights, interests, or privileges made using a fair, impartial and open process, appropriate to the statutory, institutional and social context of the decisions.7"

From:
http://www.nelligan.ca/e/pdf/Procedural_Fairness_in_Ontario.pdf
Click to expand...

Wow Deck! You are the google king.

Nicely done.
 
Do you guys think that I'm stuck with my Type 97 (restricted) for an indefinate period of time? Will I ever be able to get rid of it? That kinda sucks I have one but have to keep it... Wonder if they are going to take it away? Will they compensate me if they decide that I can't own it anymore?
God what next
 
Clobbersauras said:
Chris - I just had a thought. Perhaps they don't have to legally classify them as prohib to accomplish almost the same thing:eek:

From what they told me, they haven't yet prohibited my Type 97. The "legal classification is currently under review". But they have suspended transfers of all Type 97's. So I can't transfer it, but I can still take it to the range. By suspending transfers they have, in effect, prohibited the rifle from purchase by approved PAL and RPAL holders.

Could this have been their strategy all along?:eek:

This way they don't have to make a decision.

Is this legal? To hold something in bureaucratic limbo?
Click to expand...

Clobb I have been thinking the same thing, and mentioned it a few pages back. They can screw us just by having them under review or on hold.

Aren't there laws saying they need to make decisions/rulings in a timely fashion?
 
It's called fundamental justice, and is essential to democracy. Part of the ruling in Baker was the expectation for timely disclosure of documents and reasons for decisions. Constitutional law also limits the arbitrariness of decisions and powers (a procedural violation), particularly when decisions unfairly deprived a citizen of his property.


http://www.lawyersweekly.ca/index.php?section=article&articleid=354
http://www.uottawa.ca/constitutional-law/Division of Powers Topics - Rule of Law.htm
 
Mean Steak said:
Do you guys think that I'm stuck with my Type 97 (restricted) for an indefinate period of time? Will I ever be able to get rid of it? That kinda sucks I have one but have to keep it... Wonder if they are going to take it away? Will they compensate me if they decide that I can't own it anymore?
God what next
Click to expand...

No, I think if we get active and stay on top of things we will be rewarded.
 
Just to make sure that readers realize that the chris quoted by Clobb is not CanAm's Chris.... :)

But I as well do agree that bureaucracies have many diverse tools up their sleeves.





Clobbersauras said:
Originally Posted by chris
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).
Click to expand...
Chris - I just had a thought. Perhaps they don't have to legally classify them as prohib to accomplish almost the same thing

From what they told me, they haven't yet prohibited my Type 97. The "legal classification is currently under review". But they have suspended transfers of all Type 97's. So I can't transfer it, but I can still take it to the range. By suspending transfers they have, in effect, prohibited the rifle from purchase by approved PAL and RPAL holders.

Could this have been their strategy all along?

This way they don't have to make a decision.

Is this legal? To hold something in bureaucratic limbo?
Click to expand...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom