Type 97 Classification Issues - PART TWO

Mark, you make a valid point.
By the same token, of the 281 posts in this thread, how many actually say anything at all worthwhile?
Sometimes getting actual, factual reliable information on threads like this at CGN is about as frustating as waiting for something definitive from the RCMP. The difference is that the RCMP say little, whereas on CGN having nothing to say doesn't mean that folks don't say it anyway.
 
tiriaq said:
Mark, you make a valid point.
By the same token, of the 281 posts in this thread, how many actually say anything at all worthwhile?
Sometimes getting actual, factual reliable information on threads like this at CGN is about as frustating as waiting for something definitive from the RCMP. The difference is that the RCMP say little, whereas on CGN having nothing to say doesn't mean that folks don't say it anyway.
Click to expand...

Well said by the guy with 8000+ posts ;)
 
If the selector switch itself is what the FRT is referring to, I am doubtful that will suffice to make the firearm prohibited.

There are approximately 12 cases or tribunal references in CanLII and Lexis Nexis, in which 'semi-automatic' and 'selector' are present. In most of those cases, a firearm which had its selector knob welded permanently were found to be prohibited. There is NO CASE LAW that I have found, which indicates the presence of a selector switch alone is sufficient to make the firearm prohibited.

However, I am also curious about the 'selective fire trigger group'. How would they determine the trigger group was selective fire?

I do, however, think CanAm now needs to play their hand out. The RCMP is clearly happy with the status quo: Do nothing, leave it under review, and they get a prohibition without having actually issued one. If they'd found a reason to prohibit it, they would have done so. They've had 4 months now, its time for CanAm to play their hand. Go to the courthouse and file a writ of mandamus to force them to make a decision.
 
Paul Morrison said:
The RCMP is clearly happy with the status quo: Do nothing, leave it under review, and they get a prohibition without having actually issued one. If they'd found a reason to prohibit it, they would have done so.
Click to expand...

And there is the center of the issue, although I am not sure 'happy' quite covers it ... ;)
 
Questar said:
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
Click to expand...

There is a reason why CanAm is so quite these days.
 
I think the positive sign lies in the facts when you compare between 2 stories of Lever Arm and CanAm. RCMP made a quick decision to reclassify Lever Arm's T97s to be Prohib and Lever Arm pulled both versions from their website immediately. Why it takes so long for same bunch of people to make a decision of reclassification on CanAM's T97A and CanAm is still advertising the rifle on their website? Because they are completely different version regarding the reality of C/A or potential of F/A from Lever Arm's, otherwise the decision has already been out. Just my 2 cents.
I am with CanAm on this!
 
We have to be with CanAm.

The whole thing is leading to an extremely bad direction:

RCMP re-classified a WELL KNOWN semi-auto rifle. I don't see why can't they d that to other semi-autos. Personally, I can make most of them go auto in 5 min.

Is that the end of semi-auto in Canada?
 
Last edited:
Clobbersauras said:
Why don't you call the CFC techs to find out for sure?
Click to expand...


Because I am working in Kandahar for the winter. When I get back in a few more weeks I will call them. I have more important things to do in the middle of the night here and with my 35 minutes of phone time I am allotted than listening to that Liberal muzak while on hold with the CFC.

A frw guys have used the FRT for it's intended purpose, a closed bolt sten. I suspect they are going through the registrations to sort out anybody who used it for open bolt stens.
 
stencollector said:
Because I am working in Kandahar for the winter. When I get back in a few more weeks I will call them. I have more important things to do in the middle of the night here and with my 35 minutes of phone time I am allotted than listening to that Liberal muzak while on hold with the CFC.
Click to expand...

Well...I guess that's a good enough reason....for now.:D

If you are in the military, stay safe.
 
Clobbersauras said:
Well...I guess that's a good enough reason....for now.:D

If you are in the military, stay safe.
Click to expand...

Retired military, working on contract. Safety is not that big an issue as I only stay on the base. There is the occasional rocket attack a couple times a week, but the odds of getting hit on a base this size are remote.

Reading all the "breaking news" on CGN while I am over here, then coupled with all the theories being posted by guys who have no real information, have been more worrying to me than those rockets.
 
I can't give any details right now but it looks like something good may be coming of all this. I don't know if it will be beneficial to the T97 specificly but its good news, keep sending those letters.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom