T97 News.. not good.

Status
Not open for further replies.
greentips said:
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?
Click to expand...


I hope the court judge sees it that way...
 
What kind of legal threat can we force their hand with? They should have made a press release weeks ago. Completely unacceptable behavior for a government entity.
 
SCDL said:
What kind of legal threat can we force their hand with? They should have made a press release weeks ago. Completely unacceptable behavior for a government entity.
Click to expand...

Exactly
Customs can hold a shipment for a long time by law. But isnt there a 30 day period that the RCMP have to respond to in a case like this. Im sure that there is some fine print somewhere stating that they have x days to find evidence ect ect ect.
 
How about this :

Commission for Public Complaints Against the RCMP
http://www.cpc-cpp.gc.ca/index-eng.aspx

Quote from the website -

The Commission for Public Complaints Against the RCMP is an independent agency, created by Parliament, to ensure that complaints made by the public about the conduct of RCMP members are examined fairly and impartially. The CPC accepts and attempts to resolve complaints lodged by the public about the conduct of RCMP members. More specifically, it conducts reviews when complainants are not satisfied with the RCMP's handling of their complaints; conducts investigations; holds hearings; reports findings; and makes recommendations for changes in national policing policy and practice

Click here to file complaint
http://www.cpc-cpp.gc.ca/srv/mac/index-eng.aspx



OR


The National Weapons Enforcement Support Team (NWEST)
They are part of the RCMP since 2003 and help identify firearms, track firearms , inspect them ect
Maybe they know something
Vancouver office - (604) 777-7901
 
Give this link a look - there's a pdf for the rules that CBSA follow with respect to importation of firearms...

http://www.cbsa-asfc.gc.ca/publications/dm-md/d19/d19-13-2-eng.html

Here's a couple highlights - interesting what they did and didn't do...

IDENTIFYING AND CLASSIFYING FIREARMS
2. When identifying and classifying non-restricted,
restricted, or prohibited firearms under tariff
item 9898.00.00, customs officers are encouraged to use
the Firearms Reference Table (FRT). The FRT is an
automated application on CD-ROM that provides
descriptions and visual representations of a variety of
firearms.
3. When a firearm cannot be identified or classified using
the FRT, such as home-made firearms or extensively
modified firearms, customs officers should consult with the
Regional Firearms Liaison officer or the Regional Firearms
Coordinator before detaining it.

Interesting, as the FRT disks clearly indicate it as being a non-restricted rifle with the appropriate number - wonder why it was detained???

This sniglet refers to parts...

20. The frame and receiver of a firearm are considered
firearms in their own right. As a result, the same permit
requirements apply to importing a frame or receiver as they
apply to importing firearms.
21. All components or parts designed exclusively for use in
the manufacture of or assembly into an automatic firearm
are considered to be prohibited goods for the purpose of
tariff item 9898.00.00. The components and parts may be
imported, but only under certain conditions (e.g., with a
prohibited weapons licence).
22. Customs officers must first ensure that the components
or parts in question are designed exclusively for use in the
manufacture of, or assembly into, an automatic firearm. In
some instances, the parts may be used on a firearm other
than an automatic firearm, and may be released if all other
requirements are met. Customs officers should make use of
all available expertise to make this decision. The Regional
Firearms Liaison Officer may be able to advise whether the
person or business is entitled to import such items.
the transportation activity.

Wow - the parts have to be EXCLUSIVELY for use in FA firearms... If they can be used in other firearms, it's ok to import them. That sort of kills their argument that the parts make the gun prohibited, not the receiver... Ooops - not looking good for CBSA.

Both CBSA and RCMP have nothing to stand on... In their own testimony some years ago, RCMP expert stated that "true" semi-auto firearms would only have selector positions that read "safe" and "fire"... Are they going to recant this testimony now to say that it's not the receiver, but the internal parts??? Boy they stepped into it deep....

Anyways... Back to my letter writing... Dear Uncle Stevie....
 
Both CBSA and RCMP have nothing to stand on... In their own testimony some years ago, RCMP expert stated that "true" semi-auto firearms would only have selector positions that read "safe" and "fire"... Are they going to recant this testimony now to say that it's not the receiver, but the internal parts??? Boy they stepped into it deep....
Click to expand...

Does anyone have a full transcript of this?
 
From the Firearms Act:
References to Provincial Court Judge

Reference to judge of refusal to issue or revocation, etc.

74. (1) Subject to subsection (2), where

(a) a chief firearms officer or the Registrar refuses to issue or revokes a licence, registration certificate, authorization to transport, authorization to export or authorization to import,

Limitation period
(2) An applicant or holder may only refer a matter to a provincial court judge under subsection (1) within thirty days after receiving notice of the decision of the chief firearms officer, Registrar or provincial minister under section 29, 67 or 72 or within such further time as is allowed by a provincial court judge, whether before or after the expiration of those thirty days.

Evidence
(2) At the hearing of the reference, the provincial court judge shall hear all relevant evidence presented by or on behalf of the chief firearms officer, Registrar or provincial minister and the applicant or holder.

Burden of proof
(3) At the hearing of the reference, the burden of proof is on the applicant or holder to satisfy the provincial court judge that the refusal to issue or revocation of the licence, registration certificate or authorization, the decision or the refusal to approve or revocation of the approval was not justified.

Where hearing may proceed ex parte
(4) A provincial court judge may proceed ex parte to hear and determine a reference in the absence of the applicant or holder in the same circumstances as those in which a summary conviction court may, under Part XXVII of the Criminal Code, proceed with a trial in the absence of the defendant.

Decision by provincial court judge

76. On the hearing of a reference, the provincial court judge may, by order,

(a) confirm the decision of the chief firearms officer, Registrar or provincial minister;

(b) direct the chief firearms officer or Registrar to issue a licence, registration certificate or authorization or direct the provincial minister to approve a shooting club or shooting range; or

(c) cancel the revocation of the licence, registration certificate, authorization or approval or the decision of the chief firearms officer under section 67.
Click to expand...


These decisions are subject to appeal to superior courts and up the judicial food chain.
 
Quote -

Customs officers must first ensure that the components
or parts in question are designed exclusively for use in the
manufacture of, or assembly into, an automatic firearm. In
some instances, the parts may be used on a firearm other
than an automatic firearm, and may be released if all other
requirements are met.

I take this to mean that the customs officers are incharge of this inspection and since they should have done due dilligence in looking at the firearms themselves there should have been no need to contact the CFC or anyone else.
 
Everyone should email / fax this to MP's and Van loans office with a header regarding the holding of Can-ams shipment


From the Fire arms Act :

References to Provincial Court Judge

Reference to judge of refusal to issue or revocation, etc.

74. (1) Subject to subsection (2), where

(a) a chief firearms officer or the Registrar refuses to issue or revokes a licence, registration certificate, authorization to transport, authorization to export or authorization to import,

Limitation period
(2) An applicant or holder may only refer a matter to a provincial court judge under subsection (1) within thirty days after receiving notice of the decision of the chief firearms officer, Registrar or provincial minister under section 29, 67 or 72 or within such further time as is allowed by a provincial court judge, whether before or after the expiration of those thirty days.

Evidence
(2) At the hearing of the reference, the provincial court judge shall hear all relevant evidence presented by or on behalf of the chief firearms officer, Registrar or provincial minister and the applicant or holder.

Burden of proof
(3) At the hearing of the reference, the burden of proof is on the applicant or holder to satisfy the provincial court judge that the refusal to issue or revocation of the licence, registration certificate or authorization, the decision or the refusal to approve or revocation of the approval was not justified.

Where hearing may proceed ex parte
(4) A provincial court judge may proceed ex parte to hear and determine a reference in the absence of the applicant or holder in the same circumstances as those in which a summary conviction court may, under Part XXVII of the Criminal Code, proceed with a trial in the absence of the defendant.

Decision by provincial court judge

76. On the hearing of a reference, the provincial court judge may, by order,

(a) confirm the decision of the chief firearms officer, Registrar or provincial minister;

(b) direct the chief firearms officer or Registrar to issue a licence, registration certificate or authorization or direct the provincial minister to approve a shooting club or shooting range; or

(c) cancel the revocation of the licence, registration certificate, authorization or approval or the decision of the chief firearms officer under section 67.
 
Based on their own SOP's regarding importation, they were first supposed to check the FRT table - most up to date version is Dec 08. And if they can't find the firearm, they're to check with their regional firearms liaison, and regional co-ordinator prior to detention. When I looked in the FRT's I typed in Norinco, and voila - 3 types of Type 97's and the long barrel noted as non-restricted... so why the detention, and why ship to RCMP for verification...
 
I wonder which came first . Clobb's shorty being questioned or the Can - am shippment?

My money is on the Can-am which raised alarm due to some nosey customs inspector.
 
It's kinda like studying for a test... in a way it's cheating... you know the answers to the questions before they're even asked...

By preparing well ahead of time, studying the appropriate legislation, being able to reference past case law etc, strengthens your argument. I'm certain that the legal advice that CanadaAmmo's receiving is vastly superior to anything I can dig up...but if he wants me to help reference CanLii for him, I'm more than willing to do so...
 
It could be the tinfoil speaking but it looks as if the RCMP has backed itself into a corner where they can't really prohibit these firearms within the existing classifications/legislation. However, I can't imagine that they started this with out some sort of end game move in mind. Could it be that they are setting the stage such that the government is forced to implement a new OIC to protect the public from these nasty military guns? Why would they go to that much trouble for just a couple of firearms? See where this could be going?
 
smartbomb said:
It just sounds like it from the last few posts. I'm crossing my fingers for those VZ58s Marstar wanted in the country.
Click to expand...

Look at the Marstar thread. Johnone said that there are FA parts in the gun that the RCMP is not happy about and the gun will not be changed to restricted from prohib. They are going to stay Converted Auto classification.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom