Type 97 Classification Issues - PART TWO

Clobbersauras

Clobbersauras

CGN Ultra frequent flyer
Rating - 100%
96   0   0
Location
Waaay out west.
For frig sakes guys - keep this one on topic. If you have an issue with Canada Ammo take it elsewhere. This thread is for discussion of the legal classifications (and issues surrounding it) of the Type 97 and it's variants.


I called the RCMP Techs again on Friday, April 3rd. They knew exactly what I was talking about this time and exactly what to tell me.

1) The legal classification of the Type 97 is still under review.
2) They are not allowing transfers of the Type 97 at this time.
3) Currently "my" Type 97 is still classified restricted. I can still take it to the range.
4)They would give me no further information and no time frames for when the final determination on the T97 would be made.

Other points to consider:

1) In a previous conversation with a Tech (female) I was told that the
Type 97 was under review because it could easily be turned into a Full auto. By what means she didn't say. She also didn't say if the conversion allowed for use of the safety selector, etc...

2) I was also told in other conversations with RCMP Information Officers and Techs that it was prohib under 12.5, 12.3 and 12.2.:rolleyes: Which is really correct I don't know.

I am LIVID over this mess.
 
Last edited:
Armedsask said:
Since when was conversion to full-auto grounds for prohibition?

All guns can be converted to full-auto.
Click to expand...

I asked them that. She had no clear answer for me. The scuttle butt around is that someone at the CFC screwed up the ORIGINAL assessment of the Type 97. If this is the case - that person should be fired.

That may be - but the RCMP are taking an awfully long time to make the determination on the Type 97. They made the determination on Marstars new 58's very quickly.

One fact is certain - my rifle only fires in Semi-Auto, as the CFC designated it.
 
Last edited:
Clobbersauras said:
I asked them that. She had no clear answer for me. The scuttle butt around is that someone at the CFC screwed up the ORIGINAL assessment of the Type 97. If this is the case - that person should be fired.
Click to expand...

Not true. That may be the scape goat they use if they are held to task but by all rights the t97 should be non-restricted.

That may be - but the RCMP are taking an awfully long time to make the determination on the Type 97. They made the determination on Marstars new 58's very quickly.
Click to expand...

The FSN-01 was easy cause nobody owned one. People have already paid for their T97 which means there are much more legal ramifications with the T97 then with the FSN-01. The truth is that there is no legal requirement for them to ever finish their review. Meaning you can't sell your rifle and CANAM never gets to see their shipment.

One fact is certain - my rifle only fires in Semi-Auto, as the CFC designated it
Click to expand...

Exactly.

I was also told in other conversations with RCMP Information Officers and Techs that it was prohib under 12.5, 12.3 and 12.2. Which is really correct I don't know.
Click to expand...

A lie on their part that would require a OIC.

I am LIVID over this mess.
Click to expand...

We should all be livid. If the T97 is classified prohib or even restricted the precedent will have been set and you can kiss the majority of your semis goodby.
 
...so whats the next step? Has CanAm or Marstar offered any of the CFC/RCMP meeting information? I understand their wanting to keep it quiet until the proceedings are finished though.

I don't get the big deal about FA anyway... it's expensive and inaccurate... I wouldn't even use it if I had it! (Well maybe a few times.. but I'm sure it'd get old quick.) I sure as hell wouldn't convert my rifle to permanent FA!
 
I think on the grounds of your shorty remaining restricted the RCMP are looking for a reason to make the non rest. T97 restricted.

Cant the ease of making somthing FA be grounds for it to be prohib?
 
We need to chanel Johnny Cochran from the dead, he would know what to do

TheJohnnyCochran.jpg
 
Mr.4x4 said:
I think on the grounds of your shorty remaining restricted the RCMP are looking for a reason to make the non rest. T97 restricted.

Cant the ease of making somthing FA be grounds for it to be prohib?
Click to expand...

According to what I was told by a tech I guess so. BUT - "EASY" is a subjective term. And may be very important to this whole issue.

Sure it may be "easy" for a Tech to convert something to an auto. They are supposed to be firearms experts:rolleyes:. BUT - what may be easy to them may be extremely difficult or impossible for those that don't have the technical ability, tools, or knowledge to make the alterations.

Is there even a definition of the term "easily converted" in the act?
 
Clobb- that's what they're using to their advantage. There is no definition for "easily".
They grind, hack and file until they get the desired results. It can only be argued in court after, which of course suits them fine. You have to pay, not them.

It would be nice if this country was like the US and these tards had to use their own funds in court, and not be covered by the state like in kanuckistan.
 
This is from R. v. Hasselwander, 1993

The Majority



The majority of the Court of Appeal compared the definition of a firearm to that of a prohibited weapon. It was noted that in the definition of "firearm" Parliament had used the expression "anything that can be adapted for use as a firearm" while in defining "prohibited weapons" they had used the words "that is capable of firing bullets in rapid succession". The majority found that an inference could be drawn that there was an intentional difference in the wording of these definitions. As a result, the majority concluded that the word "capable" means "capable in its present condition" rather than a capability which could be achieved by way of an adaptation of the weapon. The majority then set aside the orders of the courts below: reflex, (1991), 5 O.R. (3d) 225, 50 O.A.C. 186, 67 C.C.C. (3d) 426, 9 C.R. (4th) 281.



The Minority



Tarnopolsky J.A. expressed the opinion that a firearm which could easily be converted into a fully automatic weapon was a prohibited weapon within the meaning of para. (c) of that definition in s. 84(1) of the Criminal Code. He cited and adopted the approach that had been taken by the Alberta Court of Appeal in R. v. Global Armaments Ltd. reflex, (1990), 105 A.R. 260. He would have dismissed the appeal.

There are several other examples - some I posted earlier in other threads..
 
stormtrooper1015 said:
This is from R. v. Hasselwander, 1993

The Majority



The majority of the Court of Appeal compared the definition of a firearm to that of a prohibited weapon. It was noted that in the definition of "firearm" Parliament had used the expression "anything that can be adapted for use as a firearm" while in defining "prohibited weapons" they had used the words "that is capable of firing bullets in rapid succession". The majority found that an inference could be drawn that there was an intentional difference in the wording of these definitions. As a result, the majority concluded that the word "capable" means "capable in its present condition" rather than a capability which could be achieved by way of an adaptation of the weapon. The majority then set aside the orders of the courts below: reflex, (1991), 5 O.R. (3d) 225, 50 O.A.C. 186, 67 C.C.C. (3d) 426, 9 C.R. (4th) 281.
Click to expand...

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