Type 97 Classification Issues - PART TWO

Questar said:
I would beg to differ with you. If you take a receiver that's normally a full auto gun and instead put semi-auto parts in it, under Canadian law/interpretation, that gun is still classified as Full Auto. Even in the US, when manufacturers want to get BATF to approve a new semi-auto firearm they have to show that the receiver is different from the Full Auto version, not just assembled with different parts.

Unless there was a change made to those receivers at the production level... if they simply took the same receiver that is used in the Full Auto production versions and then installed semi-auto parts.. then under Canadian law those guns are in fact still classified as full autos. At best they would be considered "converted autos" because the "full auto" receiver was converted to semi-auto by installation of semi-auto parts. The receiver itself started "life" as a full auto and that can't be changed to semi-auto under Canadian regulations/interpretations.

At least that is my understanding, as it has been applied to other situations.

Mark
Click to expand...

If the manufacturer, manufactures a semi-auto is it not a semi auto ?

I realize this has been discussed, already, but could not any ar15 casting be machined to be FA but because they machine it so SA parts fit, it is SA?

To be converted auto, a 3rd party would have to do the conversion ? (Is that not how the OIC states it or is there no legal definition)?

There ARE FA ar15 lowers out there that are SA and registered as restricted correct?

Like Lector stated it is not so much that a gun is converTIBLE but that it is converTED.
 
Last edited:
Questar said:
I would beg to differ with you. If you take a receiver that's normally a full auto gun and instead put semi-auto parts in it, under Canadian law/interpretation, that gun is still classified as Full Auto. Even in the US, when manufacturers want to get BATF to approve a new semi-auto firearm they have to show that the receiver is different from the Full Auto version, not just assembled with different parts.

Unless there was a change made to those receivers at the production level... if they simply took the same receiver that is used in the Full Auto production versions and then installed semi-auto parts.. then under Canadian law those guns are in fact still classified as full autos. At best they would be considered "converted autos" because the "full auto" receiver was converted to semi-auto by installation of semi-auto parts. The receiver itself started "life" as a full auto and that can't be changed to semi-auto under Canadian regulations/interpretations.

At least that is my understanding, as it has been applied to other situations.

Mark
Click to expand...

Mark- that's what I'm trying to say, but you said it better. My understanding is that you can't just Build a semi out of a fa receiver, and can't modify an fa gun to fire semi only.

You can however build a semi auto receiver, at the factory, and use it to build your semi auto rifle. Did I miss somethning?
 
Yes you missed something:

They have never clearly defined what is a "Semi-auto receiver". So even you made "your" SA receiver, they can say it's a FA receiver.
 
employee said:
If the manufacturer, manufactures a semi-auto is it not a semi auto ?

I realize this has been discussed, already, but could not any ar15 casting be machined to be FA but because they machine it so SA parts fit, it is SA?

To be converted auto, a 3rd party would have to do the conversion ? (Is that not how the OIC states it or is there no legal definition)?

There ARE FA ar15 lowers out there that are SA and registered as non-restricted correct?

Like Lector stated it is not so much that a gun is converTIBLE but that it is converTED.
Click to expand...

I've told you my understanding... and it's what various people (involved in this stuff) have told me over the years. You can argue or discuss whatever ideas you like... your statement that "there ARE FA ar15 lowers out there that are SA and registered as non-restricted correct?" is absolutely WRONG.

First, I'm not aware of any AR being registered as Non-restricted since they are named restricted to begin with. As for if there are any full auto AR receivers out there that got registered as Restricted, well I've heard rumours but can't answer nor do I know the specifics of those cases if they exist.

But I can tell you this much... there is no way in the world that CFC/RCMP will allow me to import and register an LMT Guardian lower as a "Restricted" AR. The reason is that the Guardian lower is a full auto lower. It is different than the Defender lower that is used to make semi-auto AR's. There is a difference in the stripped lower receiver. The moment LMT makes that lower it is classified as a full-auto gun... before the rest of the parts are installed in it... so it can never be considered a semi-auto... not under Canadian law.

All the chinese had to do was make the receiver (from scratch) stamped with a different model # (T97SA for example) and show that the production run of those receivers were for manufacture of semi-auto firearms and there would be no argument... or at least little argument. But just taking a design/product that is/was full auto and assembling it as semi-auto does not make it semi-auto in the eyes of the Canadian law.

Again... that's my understanding and it's the reasoning that has been used for years by CFC/RCMP... this isn't some new thing being applied to the T97.
 
michaelsabre said:
Yes you missed something:

They have never clearly defined what is a "Semi-auto receiver". So even you made "your" SA receiver, they can say it's a FA receiver.
Click to expand...

The past rule of thumb was that the semi-auto receiver could not accept the key full auto parts... and in some cases it went further to require that it could not "easily" be modified to accept those parts. Of course "easily" has never been well defined by the courts so that continues to be open to interpretation (meaning more legal court battles to get "clarity").

An example of this is the current situation with a recently manufactured semi-auto Sten that the RCMP later re-classified as Full Auto stating that it would accept full auto parts and was easily converted to full auto and therefore was re-classified as being full auto and prohibited. Not sure what the status of that is now... if they are taking the decision to court or if they are giving in to the re-classification. The ##### of it is that even if you spend years fighting it in court and spending your money to do so... even if you eventually get lucky and win... with a stroke of the pen the government can then do an OIC and make the gun Prohibited and then all you work and money is down the tube anyway. Either way you lose... and that's the real problem here.

Mark
 
Last edited:
Questar said:
The past rule of thumb was that the semi-auto receiver could not accept the key full auto parts... and in some cases it went further to require that it could not "easily" be modified to accept those parts. Of course "easily" has never been well defined by the courts so that continues to be open to interpretation (meaning more legal court battles to get "clarity").

Mark
Click to expand...

All I can say is: Be very very very careful with that rule of thumb.

The official rule is in R. v. Hasselwander, [1993] 2 S.C.R. 398, not the receiver rule.

According to R. v. Hasselwander, [1993] 2 S.C.R. 398, if an RCMP gunsmith can convert your rifle in like 1 hr (after days of studying), it's a FA.
 
OIC is better.

Law can't be used backward so grandfather status has to be granted.

Let's see what they are going to do with the hundreds of Lever "FA" 97A
 
I think the CFC just likes reading these threads for inspiration with their morning coffee, so they haven't released them yet. I'm sure when something more interesting comes along they'll let them go. *twiddles thumbs*
 
Questar said:
I've told you my understanding... and it's what various people (involved in this stuff) have told me over the years. You can argue or discuss whatever ideas you like... your statement that "there ARE FA ar15 lowers out there that are SA and registered as non-restricted correct?" is absolutely WRONG.
Click to expand...

Sorry that was a typo, I ment restricted, and no they are not new imports.

However there are quite a few AR-15s registered as non-restricted, but those are just some of those great gun registry errors.

Questar said:
First, I'm not aware of any AR being registered as Non-restricted since they are named restricted to begin with. As for if there are any full auto AR receivers out there that got registered as Restricted, well I've heard rumours but can't answer nor do I know the specifics of those cases if they exist.
Click to expand...

Registry errors, and yeah that is a moot point

Questar said:
But I can tell you this much... there is no way in the world that CFC/RCMP will allow me to import and register an LMT Guardian lower as a "Restricted" AR. The reason is that the Guardian lower is a full auto lower. It is different than the Defender lower that is used to make semi-auto AR's. There is a difference in the stripped lower receiver. The moment LMT makes that lower it is classified as a full-auto gun... before the rest of the parts are installed in it... so it can never be considered a semi-auto... not under Canadian law.
Click to expand...

So my question is this, is the Gaurdian Reciever made on the same production line from the same castings as their other AR lowers? depending on how the manufacturer finishes the lower determines its class? Is it not the final machining that determines if a mini14 casting becomes a mini 14 or an Ac556?

Questar said:
All the chinese had to do was make the receiver (from scratch) stamped with a different model # (T97SA for example) and show that the production run of those receivers were for manufacture of semi-auto firearms and there would be no argument... or at least little argument. But just taking a design/product that is/was full auto and assembling it as semi-auto does not make it semi-auto in the eyes of the Canadian law.
Click to expand...

Norinco markets the Type 97A as a semi-auto. As to how it comes to being I do not know. With the special order barrel, I think it would be safe to assume that the recievers are machined in whatever way they do them to make them SA, then a barrel is installed, then you have an assembled SA firearm.

Questar said:
Again... that's my understanding and it's the reasoning that has been used for years by CFC/RCMP... this isn't some new thing being applied to the T97.
Click to expand...

I agree with you, however the Type 97A is manufactured as a semi making it a semi, it was never a FA firearm, nor intended to be one.
 
Last edited:
That's another interesting story:

RCMP has never seen a FA 97/95 before (based on the 97 story). How do they know what a FA receiver looks like?
 
Lol, I bet these are the exact same discussions going on the the RCMP/CFC labs except backwards. Anyone speak Chinese that could contact Norinco directly?
 
employee said:
I agree with you, however the Type 97A is manufactured as a semi making it a semi, it was never a FA firearm, nor intended to be one.
Click to expand...

Here's what the current version of the FRT says about the TYPE97A:

- "MADE IN CHINA" and "TYPE 97A" was observed marked on the left side of the magazine housing of the receiver/frame.
- introduced circa 1997.
- this is a variant of the QBZ (Qing Buquiang Zu or Light Rifle Family).
- this firearm is the export version of the 5.8x42MM CHINESE Type 95 service rifle (aka QBZ-95) and is chambered for 223 REM calibre ammunition.
- Type 97A is a "bullpup" design firearm.
- features include: bird cage type flash eliminator/muzzle break; round tapered barrel with a bayonet mount and grenade launcher mounting capability; aluminum alloy receiver/frame attached to a steel trunion that has an integral top mounted frame for the carrying handle; cocking lever is mounted inside the carrying handle (similar to the Armalite AR-10 or Famas F1); pistol grip stock; selective fire (S-E-3-F type) trigger group; ventilated top cover; vertically grooved forearm; rotating bolt locking system; fire selector/safety catch dial is located on the left rear side of the receiver/frame; rear sight is located in the rear of the carrying handle, front sight located on top of the gas block (similar to the AR 15/M16); sling attachment points; flat matte black finish.
- accessories may include optical and night vision sights, sound suppresser, laser designator and under barrel mounted grenade launcher.
- overall length with a 480 mm barrel and flash eliminator is 756mm and average weight is 3.7 kg.​
 
Questar said:
An example of this is the current situation with a recently manufactured semi-auto Sten that the RCMP later re-classified as Full Auto stating that it would accept full auto parts and was easily converted to full auto and therefore was re-classified as being full auto and prohibited. Not sure what the status of that is now... if they are taking the decision to court or if they are giving in to the re-classification. The ##### of it is that even if you spend years fighting it in court and spending your money to do so... even if you eventually get lucky and win... with a stroke of the pen the government can then do an OIC and make the gun Prohibited and then all you work and money is down the tube anyway. Either way you lose... and that's the real problem here.

Mark
Click to expand...

The semi auto sten guy (ex Spencer and a dozen other aliases all kicked off this site) is taking it to a reference hearing and is planning to use the arguement that you can convert other semi auto guns to full auto so his are just being picked on. He is representing himself.

Anyone want to bet on his sucess? I will give good odds against.


In all fairness to the RCMP his guns were never submitted for testing in the first place. They were merely verified and assigned an FRT number over the phone. There is tale that he also may have used the semi auto sten FRT which was assigned to my closed bolt semi sten for at least one of his open bolt guns. The product he was making could be converted to full auto in less than a minute and with no more tools than you would find in the average guys garage. As a result of all this, I hear that the FRT for my closed bolt sten (the sample of which was submitted for lab inspection and approved) has now been placed under review.
 
Wildbore said:
So the selective fire trigger group is the fundamental problem?
Click to expand...

Who knows? One of the "problems" with the CFC/RCMP/FRT Section is that very little information is actually given and what is given is often verbal and therefore unofficial. Until RCMP actually release some kind of "official" written classification, ruling, statement, decision, etc. everything that we all talk about and discuss is nothing more than conjecture. We think... we believe... we've heard... we assume... it's all an interesting exercise but it's meaningless really.

Until the department involved issues hard information we really don't know much of anything... and there's no timeline on any information being released. The law says they have to classify firearms but no-where in the legislation does it say how long they have to do that... what if they take 1 month to issue a decision... What if they take a year to issue the decision?

One point that has been made before and should be given serious consideration is: By discussing this stuff on open forums are we ourselves making it easier for the government to form their decisions and rule against us? Are we not in fact giving them guidance on how to word their ruling such that it has the best chance to survive a challenge... are we showing "the other side" what our arguements are going to be and helping them to make a ruling that will be most likely to survive any challenges?

Often these forums are like the "defence lawyers" giving discovery to the crown and showing the crown the defence strategy... without the crown ever giving discovery to the defence or ever even telling the defence exactly what the charges are going to be. Talk about making it easy for the "other side".

Just a thought.

Mark
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom