Type 97 Classification Issues - PART TWO
- Thread starter Clobbersauras
- Start date
If someone from our side was overseaing anything at the CFC we wouldn't be having this conversation at all.
I like the reference to the ar15 type of rifle.. a person could manufacture or purchasethe items to convert it to a full auto even without having to machine the lower to accept the auto sear. i do not remember what that doothingy is called. I am sure it is prohibited.. Now if it was approached in the same way, you may have a better case. These suppose ed items that are to convert the item to full auto were prohibited just like the gizmo for the ar15, everthing should be good.. Unfortunately I have the feeling that the rcmp have a different agenda. I assume that they do not want the rifle available to average joe, in any way shape or form.
The jokes between you and Deckard were good for a while, but these are times when we should not goof around more than it is necessary.
I posted the above in a thread that got locked. Lector, I am challenging you and urging you to speak about these things now, the convertibility and what is happening beyond our reach. Let us know the things that you know about how bad the things are, before this thread gets locked. If you see this post, please reply. PM send.
Some time ago I also posted some questions for you in the Type 97 FAQ thread, but they are of lesser importance now. What is important now is to know what is happening with the legality of these guns and why. Thanks.
What testing? Who says there has to be any testing?
When we applied for an FRT # for the SIG 556 Pistol we were told that it was a variant of the 550/551 and therefore classified as a Prohibited Firearm. An FRT # was created and the gun was deemed to be a Prohibited variant of the 550/551. This was all done without the RCMP ever seeing a sample and based soley on their examination and review of the manufacturers advertising material and website postings.
We requested a review of the decision and we submitted a sample of the actual firearm. They inspected a sample but stated that because the manufacturer had drawn a direct reference to the original 550/551 series designs that the gun was considered by the RCMP/FRT Section to be a 'variant' under the meaning of the legislation and they upheld their decision to classify the gun as a "Prohibited firearm".
To overturn that decision would take a protracted court case which has limited chance of success... and even if it is successful, there is a high likelihood that in the end an OIC would be forthcoming which would overturn any court decision anyway.
The point here is that no testing was done to make the initial determination. There is no legal requirement for "testing"... only that they can make a reasonable arguement to support their decision... it would then be up to "someone" to challenge that decision... get it into a court of law and fight for a court decision that overturns the RCMP/FRT Sections interpretation of the law. Until then their interpretation is all that matters... it is by default the basis on which police will lay charges, etc..
That's the system.
When we applied for an FRT # for the SIG 556 Pistol we were told that it was a variant of the 550/551 and therefore classified as a Prohibited Firearm. An FRT # was created and the gun was deemed to be a Prohibited variant of the 550/551. This was all done without the RCMP ever seeing a sample and based soley on their examination and review of the manufacturers advertising material and website postings.
We requested a review of the decision and we submitted a sample of the actual firearm. They inspected a sample but stated that because the manufacturer had drawn a direct reference to the original 550/551 series designs that the gun was considered by the RCMP/FRT Section to be a 'variant' under the meaning of the legislation and they upheld their decision to classify the gun as a "Prohibited firearm".
To overturn that decision would take a protracted court case which has limited chance of success... and even if it is successful, there is a high likelihood that in the end an OIC would be forthcoming which would overturn any court decision anyway.
The point here is that no testing was done to make the initial determination. There is no legal requirement for "testing"... only that they can make a reasonable arguement to support their decision... it would then be up to "someone" to challenge that decision... get it into a court of law and fight for a court decision that overturns the RCMP/FRT Sections interpretation of the law. Until then their interpretation is all that matters... it is by default the basis on which police will lay charges, etc..
That's the system.
Clobbersauras
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- Waaay out west.
Specific knowledge of the issue the RCMP has with the rifle does not mean the details should be shared in a public forum. Asking Lector to post info is unfair - and who says he has any info??
The only relevant issue is that the RCMP believe the Type 97 to be an easily converted auto. I've been told this by a Tech. By what mechanism they consider it to be "easily"converted matters only to those who may be willing to fight this in court. The only thing we can do is write our MP's and put pressure on the CFC to make a decision. That being said, I would donate money for legal proceedings.
For me, the specific mechanism the RCMP uses for conversion is of no interest. Reclassifying my semi auto restricted rifle to a prohibited full auto or converted auto status is what concerns me.
Last edited:
Even if someone was remotely impartial we wouldn't be having this conversation.
ginseng503
CGN frequent flyer
- Location
- N. Ontario
Join the club. Lots of other people have 12.5's, 12.4's, 12.3's, etc. They did not want their firearms singled out either.
If you eventually get "full auto" or some other OIC, grandfathered on the back of your card - you will be able to acquire a class or participate in a class that others are excluded from. Not much of a compensation but that is all they "give out".
There are hundreds of makes and models on all the different lists. So far the trend has been to make more lists or make them bigger. Sorry I don't have an answer for you.
He would get jack s**t on the back of his license card. One cannot be grandfathered after the date specified in the law.
Interesting, they wish to prohibit an item because someone "Might" take it upon themselves to "Break the law" and make that item into something it is not. An interesting argument. So because you think I will do something, or there is a chance I might? Very interesting indeed.
Scott
Scott
- Location
- land of f-cktards
i guess they will have to start ordering prohibitions for stock and machining equipment
The reason I concluded this was from a post that Mark from Questar posted in a thread on Fullauto parts that we are alble to posses all parts for a AR15 except those parts prohibited under law. Westicle was arguing that we could not be in possesion of any parts that were specific to the operation of a M16 .
So What you are saying is we cannot buy Bolts and Fire control parts that are designed for use in Prohibited models of our civilian sporters. So if the Norinco M4 Copy has a unmodified bolt that would make the rifle ....................... prohibited
Last edited:
We can take this thinking further:
All citizens should be put in jail since someone could decide at one point to kill another.
- Location
- on the road again
You can ask him and he may tell you some things, but i dont know if in an open forum. You can make fun of him too, he doesn't mind that. but try not to chalenge him, he doesn't react very well to that. Lol
Correct!
I asked Johnone about what (if any) class his now prohib Vzs would go in, because I would be willing to buy one anyway just to help him offset his costs if it fell into a class I had. The answer is that it is prohib. Period. Full Stop.
The prohib classes were carved in stone when the OIC was issued. So if you have 12.5 grandfathering, you can only have/buy what is already on the 12.5 list, and there is no way to add other firearms to that list.
This is actually in some ways a good thing, since they made a list of what they thought was available at the time, rather than some weasel words like "..based on a military service pattern.." or something like that. If they had done it that way, we would not have the CZ-858/VZ-58s, Swiss Arms, AR-180B, TAVOR etc etc etc.
The only way to grandfather a "new" firearm would be to get the cabinet to put out a "new" OIC making up a "new" grandfathered class (12.8?), and most likely you would end up with a safe queen just like the rest of the 12.3/4/5.
If this were not done, and the "new" firearm is simply declared prohib, that is it. No grandfathering, you would have to turn it in, fight it in court, or get it deactivated.
OK I have talked with trustworthy sources about what is going on and I think we have an action plan. One thing you need to understand that the actions being undertaken at the CFC are not necessarily supported by the weapons techs, your average RCMP officer, the current government or the majority of Canadians who would rather see the albatross of gun control removed from our necks. This lack of support is the only reason why we can beat this. Here are main issues and the solutions that we can undertake to rectify them:
Issues:
1) A small senior group withing the CFC has been slowly working to tighten up the ability of Canadians to access semiautomatic firearms. So far these actions have been directed towards importation of new firearm types meant for the Canadian market that so far have not been imported to Canada. The reason we as firearms owners haven't noticed it till now is that these are firearms that we have not yet seen on the Canadian market and that this marked change in internal CFC policy has only been in effect for the last 6-12 months. This relatively short period of time is why FRTs were issued for the FSN-01 and T97, then suddenly changed/reviewed upon arrival at Canadian shores.
2. The FSN-01 was a relatively easy example for them for two reasons. The rifle was restricted meaning it was only accessible to a small number of firearms owners meaning only a few would care cause only a few could own them anyways. The second reason is that nobody owns them here so there is no need to require that you turn your rifle in. In fact if Johnone had never posted about the fact he was importing them we would likely never know or care about the FSN-01. Why the FSN-01 is important for use to consider is the method they used to classify it as prohib, this set the precedent.
3. The T97 was another issue all together but related none the less. The main reason it was stopped seems to be the size of the order, its non-restricted status, and the precedent set with the FSN-01 and others. The major issue for them seems to be that the T97 is already in the hands of Canadian firearms owners and so many of us have already prepaid for our so they are in a bit of a pinch. If they apply their new standing criteria (which I might add is not written into the firearms act) to the T97 then their manipulation of the law comes to a head with both the criteria outlined in the firearms act and its previous interpretation. This is where we stand now.
4. Legal action on the part of CANAM or Marstar is much much more complicated then it seems on the surface. These people are supported by a small group of Crown Attorneys who will use the court case to bleed you dry and by the time a SCC judge sees it years will have passed and through the course of an election an OIC will have been issued wasting your time and money.
5. There is currently limited political support for all this. Obviously the Liberal party leadership (not all MPs for sure) based on their history and latest statements, some provincial politicians namely in eastern Canada and BC and of course the Toronto Mayors office.
What is important to understand about the issues.
1. This represents a marked change and some would say an extreme one. One day certain people occupied certain positions and then the next time you looked others occupied them. In some cases civilians were replaced with RCMP officers (keep in mind the RCMP is at its core a military organization with a definable rank structure and rules of conduct WITHIN that structure). Note I have no issue with the average RCMP officer or the military in any way whatsoever, they aren't the issue. Many within the RCMP have been the ones getting this information out.
2. The criteria being used against the FSN-01 and T97 represent an interpretation that pushes the limits of the firearms act (FA) to such an extreme that the intentions and spirit of the FA are no longer being fulfilled. Understand that this is a modification of the law by civil servants to such an extreme that new law is being formed without the authorization of a judge or political process. Take very special note that this is a behavior typically practiced by a police state and it is not acceptable behavior in a democratic republic such as Canada.
3. It is reasonable to assume that the actions of the CFC in this case would not stand in a Canadian court and that is why there is such a desperate effort on their part to keep this away from a SCC judge as long as possible.
4. Certain politicians who support this activity if given the power will simply legitimize it and we're hooped. Thankfully they don't have that power at this time.
5. This situation completely eliminates the whole C-301/S-5 debate because C-301 was great if applied to the circumstances of a year ago. If applied to todays circumstances it only means non semi autos would be removed from the registry. The best part of what the CFC has done is that they have given us the opportunity to slam them and the opposition to C-301 all in one go.
What we need to do, I mean what we need to do and why it will allow us to meet all of our short term goals:
1. We must and I mean must pressure CSSA/CILA/NFA to make this public. . The RCMP, the CFOs and crowns have no power over CSSA or CILA. They don't hold license approval over their head... they can't revoke their Business License or raid
the business and lay charges or suspend the operating licensed or close them
down. In fact any action that might be taken against CSSA/CILA/NFA would likely backfire again working in our favor. Tony needs to be made to understand that what is happening behind the cloak of the CFC has much deeper ramifications then the word of one or two ministers or S-5.
2. Write letters to parliament. Ask them two questions: Why is the RCMP being allowed to make legal changes without their consent? and What are you doing about it? Keep asking them in every way you can so that they cannot deny you an answer.
3. Contact needs to be made with judges alerting them to the situation. Tell them that law is being enacted without their knowledge or approval. If they understand the circumstances surrounding any court cases being brought then any legal proceedings are much more likely to come to quick and decisive end meaning a decision by the SCC could happen much faster.
4. We need to bring these people and their actions to light. This situation needs to be made known to the media. All it takes is one paper to print it and the rats will scurry away from the light. If this scandal hits the press then the Canadian public will truly know that Canadian gun laws are wrong and that they allow for very bad things to happen beyond financial mismanagement. If this scandal is brought to like I think that C-301 in its original form will once again have the support needed to pass and the laws will once again begin to reflect the best interests of the Canadian people. So start contacting media outlets that you think will listen, tell them to start digging. If enough of us ask then they will see smoke and they know more then most that where there is smoke there is fire.
Issues:
1) A small senior group withing the CFC has been slowly working to tighten up the ability of Canadians to access semiautomatic firearms. So far these actions have been directed towards importation of new firearm types meant for the Canadian market that so far have not been imported to Canada. The reason we as firearms owners haven't noticed it till now is that these are firearms that we have not yet seen on the Canadian market and that this marked change in internal CFC policy has only been in effect for the last 6-12 months. This relatively short period of time is why FRTs were issued for the FSN-01 and T97, then suddenly changed/reviewed upon arrival at Canadian shores.
2. The FSN-01 was a relatively easy example for them for two reasons. The rifle was restricted meaning it was only accessible to a small number of firearms owners meaning only a few would care cause only a few could own them anyways. The second reason is that nobody owns them here so there is no need to require that you turn your rifle in. In fact if Johnone had never posted about the fact he was importing them we would likely never know or care about the FSN-01. Why the FSN-01 is important for use to consider is the method they used to classify it as prohib, this set the precedent.
3. The T97 was another issue all together but related none the less. The main reason it was stopped seems to be the size of the order, its non-restricted status, and the precedent set with the FSN-01 and others. The major issue for them seems to be that the T97 is already in the hands of Canadian firearms owners and so many of us have already prepaid for our so they are in a bit of a pinch. If they apply their new standing criteria (which I might add is not written into the firearms act) to the T97 then their manipulation of the law comes to a head with both the criteria outlined in the firearms act and its previous interpretation. This is where we stand now.
4. Legal action on the part of CANAM or Marstar is much much more complicated then it seems on the surface. These people are supported by a small group of Crown Attorneys who will use the court case to bleed you dry and by the time a SCC judge sees it years will have passed and through the course of an election an OIC will have been issued wasting your time and money.
5. There is currently limited political support for all this. Obviously the Liberal party leadership (not all MPs for sure) based on their history and latest statements, some provincial politicians namely in eastern Canada and BC and of course the Toronto Mayors office.
What is important to understand about the issues.
1. This represents a marked change and some would say an extreme one. One day certain people occupied certain positions and then the next time you looked others occupied them. In some cases civilians were replaced with RCMP officers (keep in mind the RCMP is at its core a military organization with a definable rank structure and rules of conduct WITHIN that structure). Note I have no issue with the average RCMP officer or the military in any way whatsoever, they aren't the issue. Many within the RCMP have been the ones getting this information out.
2. The criteria being used against the FSN-01 and T97 represent an interpretation that pushes the limits of the firearms act (FA) to such an extreme that the intentions and spirit of the FA are no longer being fulfilled. Understand that this is a modification of the law by civil servants to such an extreme that new law is being formed without the authorization of a judge or political process. Take very special note that this is a behavior typically practiced by a police state and it is not acceptable behavior in a democratic republic such as Canada.
3. It is reasonable to assume that the actions of the CFC in this case would not stand in a Canadian court and that is why there is such a desperate effort on their part to keep this away from a SCC judge as long as possible.
4. Certain politicians who support this activity if given the power will simply legitimize it and we're hooped. Thankfully they don't have that power at this time.
5. This situation completely eliminates the whole C-301/S-5 debate because C-301 was great if applied to the circumstances of a year ago. If applied to todays circumstances it only means non semi autos would be removed from the registry. The best part of what the CFC has done is that they have given us the opportunity to slam them and the opposition to C-301 all in one go.
What we need to do, I mean what we need to do and why it will allow us to meet all of our short term goals:
1. We must and I mean must pressure CSSA/CILA/NFA to make this public. . The RCMP, the CFOs and crowns have no power over CSSA or CILA. They don't hold license approval over their head... they can't revoke their Business License or raid
the business and lay charges or suspend the operating licensed or close them
down. In fact any action that might be taken against CSSA/CILA/NFA would likely backfire again working in our favor. Tony needs to be made to understand that what is happening behind the cloak of the CFC has much deeper ramifications then the word of one or two ministers or S-5.
2. Write letters to parliament. Ask them two questions: Why is the RCMP being allowed to make legal changes without their consent? and What are you doing about it? Keep asking them in every way you can so that they cannot deny you an answer.
3. Contact needs to be made with judges alerting them to the situation. Tell them that law is being enacted without their knowledge or approval. If they understand the circumstances surrounding any court cases being brought then any legal proceedings are much more likely to come to quick and decisive end meaning a decision by the SCC could happen much faster.
4. We need to bring these people and their actions to light. This situation needs to be made known to the media. All it takes is one paper to print it and the rats will scurry away from the light. If this scandal hits the press then the Canadian public will truly know that Canadian gun laws are wrong and that they allow for very bad things to happen beyond financial mismanagement. If this scandal is brought to like I think that C-301 in its original form will once again have the support needed to pass and the laws will once again begin to reflect the best interests of the Canadian people. So start contacting media outlets that you think will listen, tell them to start digging. If enough of us ask then they will see smoke and they know more then most that where there is smoke there is fire.
Last edited:
