Type 97 Classification Issues - PART TWO

Killergoat86 said:
He also mentioned that bullpup rifles and bullpup stocks for rifles are prohibited
Click to expand...

Hey guys, he is Newbie, so give him a chance to learn.

KG86, welcome to CGN, I am the Newbie moderator here.
Please do yourself a favour and read the Newbie FAQ Section. The link is in my sigline below, AND IT CONTAINS SOME INFO ON BULLPUPS THAT YOU REALLY NEED TO READ.

Guys, give him the opportunity to read and learn.
If he STILL doesn't get it, then ....:kickInTheNuts:
 
Damn it, I just double checked my own links and there is a problem!

Now I gotta actaully type out s**t.

Anyway, KG86, this is the deal.
A STOCK that can be removed, with the gun still being able to fire, is a prohibitted DEVICE.
Notice the terminology. The law refers to a device rather tahn a firearm.
This is primarily aimed at aftermarket conversions for the Ruger mini 14 and the 10-22.
The RIFLE (mini-14 or 10-22) still remains OK, but the stock is banned.

If the STOCK is the receiver, such as with the Tavor, the FN-FS2000, the FN-PS90, etc., then all is fine.
 
love it when only part of a quote is used
ok well first off i said writing your MP is a step in the right direction the point I was trying to make is saying things like going for a FOI on here is foolish.if you think that a FOI from anyone other than Canam is going to get any attention you are naive and there is always the possibility that some thing MAYget forgotten than canam can use blurting out do this or that mayclose that hole.There are many things we can do as a group in fact i offered on here to have a form letter written out and printed where you could check off the boxes you feel apply to you with a space to add your own comments.all i asked for was for members to pm me and give me the address of there local gun shop.30 thousand was going to cost me 1500 and i was willing to pay that out of my own pocket they were in books of a hundred.guess how many responses i got.one that was it only one. so yes i say fight however do it in ways that do not impede Canam.write to the paper,yourMP,take a new person shooting,speak out to people on the street let them know that their rights are being eroded call into talk shows offer the news to come down and shoot with you there is a thousand things we can do that do not hamstring another CGNer.how bout what they did in the UK try a walk while we still have our rights instead of after like they did.

thanks
SonofTweety
 
I spoke to my MP's office. official line no comment Due to legal action taken by distributor. It was made clear we must make our voices heard to the minister and our MP's. Stop wasting time and contact your MP, the Justice Minister and The PMO. This is an issue about our rights and freedoms. I will wait it out untill the end. But I wont gripe on here. Do something constructive.
 
Then can we sue RCMP "abuse of power"? RCMP hit THREE dealers in short period of time.

Too bad we can't sue Crown discrimination on this case.

Paul Morrison said:
1) The phone answerers at the CFC don't know their ass from a hole in the ground.
2) The reason why its only listed as full auto in their computer is because they deleted the other FRT #'s while the review process is underway so no one can transfer them.
3) I haven't seen the technical report, but this is a silly argument. The legally registered part of the firearm is the reciever. If you replace the reciever with a full auto reciever it will fire full auto, but then its a different firearm. If you replace the M-14 recievers with a full auto reciever, they'll fire full auto too. That's a total loser of an argument. If that's their argument, I'd challenge it in court and win. Why? Because the test from R. v. Hasselwander is:

1) The conversion to full auto must be quick (case law suggests less than an hour)
2) The conversion to full auto must be easy (as in, you don't have to be an expert, working for the RCMP firearms lab to do it).
3) The conversion to full auto must be done with parts that are available (and not only to the RCMP lab with a warehouse full of gun parts, and the ability to order stuff from anywhere in the world, regardless of of whether it would be prohibited under Canadian law).

The argument you're advancing would get SLAUGHTERED in court on the 3rd issue.

As for it being a 'converted auto', that's a loser argument too. The factory, as in the case of Marstar, has given written documentation saying it wasn't made automatic and then converted.

As has already been pointed out, a bullpup design is not prohibited. Bullpup STOCKS are a prohibited device. That's a BIG Difference.
Click to expand...
 
I spoke to my MP's office. official line no comment Due to legal action taken by distributor. It was made clear we must make our voices heard to the minister and our MP's. Stop wasting time and contact your MP, the Justice Minister and The PMO. This is an issue about our rights and freedoms. I will wait it out untill the end. But I wont gripe on here. Do something constructive.
Click to expand...

So Canam has taken legal action??? Yahooo...way to go boys, stick it to 'em...

An update would be nice, hmm?
 
I highly doubt any MP would be aware of litigation.

As for the timeframe, if Canam decided the change the classification, I believe there is a 30 day timeframe in the firearms act, but it might not apply to classifications.
 
If that is wrong, then well... Hasellwander occurred in 1989, it hit the supreme court in early 1993. First court hearing was in 1991.
 
If something (anything) is seized by the LAW (cops, whatever)...they have 90 days to lay charges or return the property seized

Im not a lawyer but I play one on TV
 
Klunk said:
If something (anything) is seized by the LAW (cops, whatever)...they have 90 days to lay charges or return the property seized

Im not a lawyer but I play one on TV
Click to expand...
If the guns are classified as prohib it doesn't really matter whether CanAm gets them back or not. He won't be able to sell them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom