# The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0



## Jarnhamar (28 Apr 2018)

> *Gerald Stanley to pay $3,900 and receive 10-year ban on gun ownership for improper firearm storage*
> 
> Gerald Stanley pleaded guilty to improperly storing firearms.
> 
> Gerald Stanley has been fined $3,000, plus a $900 victim surcharge, and banned from owning firearms for 10 years after he pleaded guilty Monday to improper storage of firearms.





> The seven guns alleged to be stored improperly by Stanley, as listed in the court file, are a J. Stevens Arms Company 520 rifle; a .22-calibre semi-automatic rifle; a.22-calibre bolt-action rifle; a Winchester 1200 shotgun; a Lakefield Mark 2 .22-calibre rifle; and a Winchester 1894 rifle.
> 
> A previous charge relating to a Ruger Blackhawk .45-calibre handgun was dropped.



https://www.google.ca/amp/s/www.cbc.ca/amp/1.4621381

$3900 and a 10 year firearms ban for improper storage.

Its unfortunate that the _ other firearm owner_ in this story who was Illegally in possession of a firearm that was not only improperly stored but loaded in a moving vehicle and present during the commission of robberies isn't facing any sort of punishment.


----------



## Strike (30 Apr 2018)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Its unfortunate that the _ other firearm owner_ in this story who was Illegally in possession of a firearm that was not only improperly stored but loaded in a moving vehicle and present during the commission of robberies isn't facing any sort of punishment.



I've searched online and haven't found anything in any news articles stating such.


----------



## Strike (30 Apr 2018)

So, found this little gem last night about the government considering banning lead ammunition (along with fishing weights and such).

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/ammunition-lead-gun-owners-1.4636598

The numbers they spout are way off and they've had to estimate pretty much all of it since most clubs didn't want to play ball. I would be interested in seeing those original studies in full though.

https://www.canada.ca/en/environment-climate-change/services/management-toxic-substances/list-canadian-environmental-protection-act/lead/using-more-lead-free-ammunition/lead-ammunition-executive-summary.html

Thoughts from the masses? Seems especially sucky for those who make their own ammo.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (30 Apr 2018)

Strike said:
			
		

> So, found this little gem last night about the government considering banning lead ammunition (along with fishing weights and such).
> 
> http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/ammunition-lead-gun-owners-1.4636598
> 
> ...



The quantity of lead that enters the environment from shooting in a non-range setting in Canada is not significant, given the size of the country.

This is just an attack on legal gun owners, by misusing environmental regulations.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (30 Apr 2018)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> The quantity of lead that enters the environment from shooting in a non-range setting in Canada is not significant, given the size of the country.
> 
> This is just an attack on legal gun owners, by misusing environmental regulations.



It seems a favourite of this government. Everytime there is something they don't like, (pipelines) they slap enviromental clauses all over it. Next they'll ban FMJ steel core bullets as "cop killer" bullets. Death by a thousand cuts.

Yet they allow places like Montreal and Vancouver to dump billions of gallons of raw sewage, baby wipes and condoms into our waters. Can't shoot, can't fish, can't drive. Eliminate CO2 and carbon footprint? We won't be able to breathe when all the vegatation dies.


----------



## Jarnhamar (30 Apr 2018)

Strike said:
			
		

> I've searched online and haven't found anything in any news articles stating such.



What do you mean?

One of the occupants of the car that was going around stealing admitted that the loaded 22 caliber rifle that police found in the vehicle was his. Even if he actually had a firearms licence and the gun wasn't stolen (assumptions on my part) it's still illegal to drive around with a loaded gun.  And especially have it ne present when robbing people I'd guess.

To date police haven't charged him.


----------



## Strike (30 Apr 2018)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> What do you mean?
> 
> One of the occupants of the car that was going around stealing admitted that the loaded 22 caliber rifle that police found in the vehicle was his. Even if he actually had a firearms licence and the gun wasn't stolen (assumptions on my part) it's still illegal to drive around with a loaded gun.  And especially have it ne present when robbing people I'd guess.
> 
> To date police haven't charged him.



I mean news either way - nothing saying they wouldn't charge him and nothing saying they were charging him. That's all.


----------



## Jarnhamar (30 Apr 2018)

Ah right, gotcha.
I think it's safe to assume at this point he won't be charged.


----------



## Loachman (30 Apr 2018)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> The quantity of lead that enters the environment from shooting in a non-range setting in Canada is not significant, given the size of the country.
> 
> This is just an attack on legal gun owners, by misusing environmental regulations.



Yup.

Solid lead is rarely ingested by fish, birds, or animals.

Leaded fuel, leaded paint, and public water systems are prime sources of lead in the environment.

http://teachersinstitute.yale.edu/curriculum/units/1997/7/97.07.05.x.html

http://dhhs.ne.gov/publichealth/Pages/LeadSources.aspx

http://www.lead.org.au/fs/fst2.html

https://www.webmd.com/children/lead#1


----------



## Jarnhamar (6 May 2018)

> Okotoks rancher charged with shooting intruder frustrated with court delays



http://calgaryherald.com/news/crime/okotoks-rancher-charged-with-shooting-intruder-frustrated-with-court-delays/wcm/838fa343-fa42-4a8b-b8f3-b115c182be4a


----------



## suffolkowner (8 May 2018)

https://ipolitics.ca/2018/05/08/police-should-decide-limits-on-guns-not-politicians-trudeau-says/

guess which way the wind is blowing


----------



## Jarnhamar (8 May 2018)

Police should make decisions about guns because they're the experts.

Police have no business making decisions about drugs because they're not the experts.
 :nod:




> The rifle jammed on the first shot, and Bissonnette then used a handgun, but the letter asks how much worse the carnage could have been had Bissonnette’s rifle worked.



Good thing he didn't have a pump action shotgun. Mine hasn't jammed once in 25 years of use.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (8 May 2018)

suffolkowner said:
			
		

> https://ipolitics.ca/2018/05/08/police-should-decide-limits-on-guns-not-politicians-trudeau-says/
> 
> guess which way the wind is blowing



I cannot think of another area of law where Liberal politicians would even dream of deferring to police...


----------



## Colin Parkinson (9 May 2018)

Ralph suggesting that if he see a assault weapon ban, he will review it, trial balloon enough?


----------



## Jarnhamar (9 May 2018)




----------



## Jed (9 May 2018)

How is the petition against C-71 going?  I know this is most likely a pointless exercise as the Liberals have already decided to push an agenda against law abiding citizens to further the eventual process of taking away firearms from all Canadians. (Unless it is a compliant Police Force that can be bent to the will of the Government of the Day). 

Future Police State anyone? In about the year 2025?


----------



## Fishbone Jones (9 May 2018)

.....and you wonder why he just appointed a new RCMP Commissioner. Well below seniority from what I read. I think she's beholden to Trudeau and will do whatever he wants. We'll see what falls out.


----------



## Jarnhamar (9 May 2018)

Goodale





			
				Colin P said:
			
		

> Ralph suggesting that if he see a assault weapon ban, he will review it, trial balloon enough?



It's so blatant. Goodale talking about an assault weapon ban after a whopping 75 people signed their name. Fun y there's  no mention of the over 100'000+ people who signed a petition against C71.


----------



## Jarnhamar (9 May 2018)

http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/cfp-pcaf/pol-leg/bill-c71-projet-de-loi/index-eng.htm


Is it me or does it seem like the bill is already passed?


----------



## Retired AF Guy (9 May 2018)

suffolkowner said:
			
		

> https://ipolitics.ca/2018/05/08/police-should-decide-limits-on-guns-not-politicians-trudeau-says/
> 
> guess which way the wind is blowing



Passing the buck. If the Horseman start banning firearms and upsetting gun owners, the PM can say, "Out of my hands, its the RCMP making the decision."


----------



## Cloud Cover (10 May 2018)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/cfp-pcaf/pol-leg/bill-c71-projet-de-loi/index-eng.htm
> 
> 
> Is it me or does it seem like the bill is already passed?



the fact the RCMP chose to put these words in bold suggests something else is going to happen between now and 2021: "The Order will provide protection from criminal prosecution for illegal possession of these firearms until February 28, 2021, while *the Government implements measures to address continued possession and use.*


----------



## Fishbone Jones (10 May 2018)

Gun owners are already distrustful of the RCMP, their hate for private gun ownership, their overbearing and overblown actions, their illegal activity, smash and grabs, invasion of property and confiscation without warrants.

An absolutely horrendous appreciation by civilians towards the RCMP is about to become even worse. All vestiges of trust in the law and the RCMP is evaporating at a huge rate.

Your about to see comparisons between the RCMP and the gestapo or stazi. And we all know what the population's feeling of them were.

Federal police replacing our legislative body is an abhorent thought to a democratic society. This is more akin to a dictatorship or a communist triumvirate.

And their first step? Steamroll legal, law abiding citizens, make them criminals due to administrative errors and ommissions, invade their medical history, search without warrants, seizure of personal property with no compensation, disregard orders of the government and intentionally kept unauthorized copies of the gun registry after being ordered by the government to destroy it, then using the same to harass law abiding citizens. I shouldn't call it a first step, they've done all this already.

I hope they realize that their iconic stature throughout the world is going to take a massive hit that Walt Disney won't even know how to spin. Bullies and secret police are the future for them. The internet is a wonderful thing and the world will know within minutes when they start operating by their own rules rather than those expected of them.

Meanwhile, not one single thing is being done about the criminals or illegal guns. That takes real work to make a case and catch the bad guy. Easier to target tax paying, legal people sitting home reading the paper that have done nothing wrong except to have a legal hobby and interest in using their property.

They may be giggling and rubbing their palms together now, but they are not looking at the long game and the damage they are about to inflict on themselves.

Not one single good thing will result in letting the RCMP make their own laws, and no democracy should allow it. But we don't have a democracy anymore, do we.


----------



## ModlrMike (10 May 2018)

One has to understand the root cause:

    “I came to Ottawa . . . with the firm belief that the only people in this country who should have guns are police officers and soldiers.” –Liberal minister of justice, Allan Rock, 1994.

    “Canada will be one of the first unarmed countries in the world.” –Liberal foreign affairs minister Lloyd Axworthy, 1998.

    “Disarming the Canadian public is part of the new humanitarian social agenda.” — Liberal foreign affairs minister Lloyd Axworthy at a gun control conference, Oslo, Norway, 1998

C-71 is just more unfinished work.


----------



## Loachman (11 May 2018)

Gun Control Explained by Rowan Atkinson https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GwKThyMmi7I


----------



## Shrek1985 (15 May 2018)

What am I doing all this for again?


----------



## Jarnhamar (22 May 2018)

Interesting article over at the gun blog.

Seems like having to actually pass Bill C-71 is just a formality. Looks like a done deal to me. 



> TheGunBlog.ca — Canada’s federal police agency is so eager to ban guns that it’s ordering owners to register their firearms under a law that doesn’t exist.
> 
> The Royal Canadian Mounted Police, which manages firearm licensing, registration and classification, said owners of so-called “Restricted” CZ 858 and SAN Swiss Arms rifles must register the firearms with the police by June 30 to benefit from the delayed confiscation offered by Bill C-71.
> 
> ...


----------



## SeaKingTacco (22 May 2018)

Well, I for one welcome our new RCMP gun control overlords.

You know, the ones the Liberals are so eager to delegate the role of Parliament to.

 :


----------



## Jarnhamar (26 May 2018)

Pretty weird there's a deadline to be grandfathered for a law that hasn't passed yet.  Thinking of buying one just to get the prohibited grandfather class. Probably won't even shoot it  :facepalm:

Kinda funny- someone else who won't be shooting guns, some retired American porn star. 
(she retired from porn because ISIS was threatening to kill her). 
I think the real travesty there is that she thinks a Remington 870 is worth $1500 USD.

https://tribunist.com/news/mia-khalifa-calls-police-to-surrender-her-shotgun-it-doesnt-make-me-feel-safe-anymore/?fb_comment_id=1891021197583804_1891072267578697&comment_id=1891072267578697


----------



## Eaglelord17 (26 May 2018)

The RCMP should have all the members involved with that page either fired or reprimanded. Unfortunately nothing will be done about it much like High River. Simply put it is a blatant abuse of power and it is fraud. The question is who polices the police?

To be honest I wouldn't bother with the prohibited class. I suspect it will end up like all 12.x classes (except 12.6) where you are unable to use them at all.


----------



## Jarnhamar (27 May 2018)

I thought I read somewhere that CZ victims who are grandfathered  will be allowed to buy, use and sell the cz's and other prohibited guns in that 12 class.

Kinda sounded too good to be true.  
I'd like to trust the RCMP when it comes to firearms but they really seem to be targeting law abiding gun owners.  

It's too bad too because I think most of us legal gun owners really detest criminals and dirt bags. I'd take pride in being able to help th RCMP catch criminals and going out of my way to help and support them but the trust just isn't there.  I don't feel like they make a distinction between me(us) and a gang member. Imagine the kind of support they'd get if they did a 180?


----------



## Eaglelord17 (27 May 2018)

I suspect those grandfathered into the new prohibited class would be able to still transfer and sell the CZ and Swiss Arms rifles, however I also suspect like all 12.x classes other than the 12.6 short barrelled handguns you wouldn't be able to shoot them. 

In recent years my faith in the police has reached a all time low. Large cases like High River, smaller things like this C-71 page, a friends cousin who was a Bosnia vet getting shot and killed from behind and lying about how it happened (coroners report contradicted the police statement, however they had already been cleared by the provinces investigative unit). Other cases like some local cases where clear nepotism, corruption, and abuse of power came to light and was agreed upon by a judge. Police threating members of the press with lawsuits, police chiefs son abusing a unarmed and cooperative arrested citizen (to the point that citizen almost died in the hospital from his injuries), supervisors watching the abuse and doing nothing about it. 

I honestly believe there is a 'old boys club' at work in many police forces and they fail to take the criminals within their ranks to task. Much like how the military can't seem to make hard decisions and do what we are ordered to do (such as more teeth, less tail), the police can't police themselves.


----------



## Jarnhamar (6 Jun 2018)

I'm not going to be able to drive around town with my AR15 and glock under my seat anymore. That sucks. 




> Mr. Mark Holland (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, Lib.)
> 
> “By having clear legislation on the requirement to have an authorization to transport, that sends that clear message that one cannot just drive around with a restricted or prohibited weapon anywhere one wants to go. I think that is a reasonable way of working with law-abiding firearms owners to make sure we do not have thugs who can just throw weapons in the back of their car, and drive anywhere they want to go.”
> 
> ...



https://firearmrights.ca/en/mark-holland-calls-gun-owners-thugs-in-parliament/


----------



## Fishbone Jones (6 Jun 2018)

Holland with his same old tired bullshit.

He just admitted that the grits gun laws are a farce and have no deterrence, whatsoever, to people intent on breaking the law.

They are only there to harass the lawful gun owner.


----------



## Jarnhamar (6 Jun 2018)

> and not have to answer any questions.





> all they have to do is list one of a million different places to explain



So which is it?


----------



## Jarnhamar (11 Jun 2018)

Liberals making Liberal use of the definition of "consulted".

I guess they thought adding names of various people in the firearms community as people they consulted would lend some kind of credibility to Bill C-71.  They they think people wouldn't object to being lied about? Or maybe just expected people not to find out.

https://thegunblog.ca/2018/06/10/bill-c-71-consultations-table-lists-people-who-werent-consulted/

"Lengthy posts and fully quoted articles are posted here. Link to these large posts in the regular boards."
https://milnet.ca/forums/threads/128220.0.html

Edit: thanks for the editing MM!


----------



## Jarnhamar (21 Jun 2018)

*RCMP (could be) in Contempt*



> Commons Speaker Geoff Regan has ruled the RCMP could be found in contempt of Parliament over advice to firearm owners and gun shops on rifle prohibitions under new gun law amendments.
> Regan said language the national police force had used assumed the government’s bill to bring in new controls over gun sales had already been approved by the Commons – when it had not yet passed through committee hearings.
> Responding to a complaint from Alberta Conservative MP Glen Motz, Regan said the RCMP acted in a “careless manner” by posting advice to gun owners and businesses that made it seem as if Bill C-71 had already become law.
> The Commons referred the incident to the Procedure and House Affairs Committee for investigation on a motion from Motz.
> ...




More at link
https://ipolitics.ca/2018/06/20/rcmp-web-posts-on-gun-bill-careless-and-could-be-contempt-of-parliament-speaker/


----------



## PuckChaser (21 Jun 2018)

With only 18 months left, I can either see 2 things happening:

1. Liberals use majority to ram the legislation through with limited or no debate.
2. Senate holds up the legislation in committee or with amendments so that it dies on the order paper when Parliament is prorogued for the fixed election date in October 2019. Then the Liberals pacify their base that they desperately tried to stop those mean gun owners from murdering people, but it didn't work.

Edit to remove implication that October 2019's election is rigged.  :rofl:


----------



## Colin Parkinson (23 Jul 2018)

Brihard said:
			
		

> Their 'familiarity' with weapons does not, to mind, extend to any particular degree of expertise. A small number of CAF members are pretty experienced and proficient with pistols. The rest might occasionally get to play with them but fall well short of anything I would want to see for someone carrying.
> 
> Aside from that, as frequently as I've seen CAF members saying really outlandish stuff on police use of force discussions, I have zero faith that CAF training or mindset appropriately equips people to be carrying firearms on civvy street. Honestly, soldiers and vets are some of the worst armchair quarterbacks for what should be done in use of force situations. There's quite a strong hubris from soldiers who believe that carrying a rifle in training or combat operations carries across perfectly or even adequately for being armed for daily carry for self/public defense. Many are very out to lunch. All that said- military training/experience should not be a factor that is at all in play in determining whether someone should or should not be permitted to carry a firearm in public in Canada.
> 
> There's not a chance we are going to see private open or concealed carry of firearms expanded generally in Canada, and I'm fine with that. There's no significant political appetite here, and few of us want to see us move along the trajectory to what we see south of the border. Just no thanks.



CCW was more common here, without a wild west happening. There are quite a few people , myself included that would like to see a return to historical levels or higher. CCW permit carriers in the US have a incredibly low indictment rate, they are not the problem. For a civilian CCW, the use of deadly force is much more cut and dried, then for a police officer who has several levels of lethal and non-lethal force to use and a much wider level of variables to consider.


----------



## RocketRichard (23 Jul 2018)

Colin P said:
			
		

> CCW was more common here, without a wild west happening. There are quite a few people , myself included that would like to see a return to historical levels or higher. CCW permit carriers in the US have a incredibly low indictment rate, they are not the problem. For a civilian CCW, the use of deadly force is much more cut and dried, then for a police officer who has several levels of lethal and non-lethal force to use and a much wider level of variables to consider.


Pretty sure there is little to no appetite for ccw permit carrier expansion in Canada. Our laws around handguns are sound. If and when I get a restricted permit to go with my non restricted permit it will be a PIA to transport a pistol but I will do it properly IOT    to keep  sidearms out of criminals’ hands. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Colin Parkinson (23 Jul 2018)

There is a strong effort to push for a more open policy on CCW here, known as ATC for self defense. The CFO's won't even release the training standard as they know that someone will design a course to meet it and that would remove another obstacle to getting them.

 https://globalnews.ca/news/1411270/applications-to-carry-handguns-skyrocket-in-b-c-alberta/


----------



## JesseWZ (23 Jul 2018)

Colin P said:
			
		

> CCW was more common here, without a wild west happening. There are quite a few people , myself included that would like to see a return to historical levels or higher. CCW permit carriers in the US have a incredibly low indictment rate, they are not the problem. For a civilian CCW, the use of deadly force is much more cut and dried, then for a police officer who has several levels of lethal and non-lethal force to use and a much wider level of variables to consider.



My comments (and criticisms) are more directed towards the idea that every able bodied soldier, sailor or air-person could be an ideal candidate for a CCW. The sheer number of lost weapons, magazines and ammunition files that came through the Esquimalt guardhouse when I worked there was argument enough that many in the military are not aptly suited to take care of and/or keep custody of a weapon. Sometimes I had a hard time believing we weren't tripping over old weapon parts in the training area with every step. (I jest, but only slightly...)

Honest unbaited question - In your ideal CCW world, would we relax magazine restrictions for CCW permit carriers so that they could have more than 5 rounds?


----------



## Jarnhamar (23 Jul 2018)

[quote author=JesseWZ] would we relax magazine restrictions for CCW permit carriers so that they could have more than 5 rounds?
[/quote]

Handguns are limited to 10 rounds and semi-auto rifles 5.

Most people can pop the rivet out of a pinned magazine in a few seconds.


----------



## JesseWZ (24 Jul 2018)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Handguns are limited to 10 rounds and semi-auto rifles 5.



Whoops... brain fart. 

You're answer is not really what I meant by the question - I know people *can* unpin their magazines easily. People *can* do lots of things. I'm wondering if those who support a more robust CCW program would argue for more relaxed rules in general for the portion of the population granted CCW status.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (24 Jul 2018)

Quite frankly, since most of the hand guns I know have a maximum capacity  of 13 to 15 rounds for their magazines, I don't believe that the "10" rounds restriction is a biggie when compared to the restriction on mags for the semis.


----------



## Jarnhamar (24 Jul 2018)

JesseWZ said:
			
		

> Whoops... brain fart.
> 
> You're answer is not really what I meant by the question - I know people *can* unpin their magazines easily. People *can* do lots of things. I'm wondering if those who support a more robust CCW program would argue for more relaxed rules in general for the portion of the population granted CCW status.



Happens  ;D
Asking about mag limits and ccw seemed like a bit of a red herring and I was wondering where you were going with it. Carrying a handgun for self defense and limiting how much ammo is in the mag seems self-defeating, know what I mean?


----------



## Eaglelord17 (24 Jul 2018)

Honestly for self defence you can't beat a revolver. If it is in good shape basically no stoppages, and anything that is a stoppage is solved by pulling the trigger again vs. a semi where you can have all sorts of out of ammo related stoppages, people grabbing your pistol and putting it out of battery, safeties to fumble with (as opposed to a DA trigger pull for a revolver). Many of the serious self defence classes in the US show just how much more difficult it can be to use a pistol for self defence over a revolver as most these situations happen within 5m or less where there can be a chance to try and grab your gun. 5 or 6rds is sufficient for pretty much all self defence requirements, anything requiring more than that you really should have something more serious such as a rifle or shotgun. 

Shooting skill for concealed carry is pretty much not important. Some of the worst trained pistol shooters I have ever seen are the police and they carry pistols on a regular basis. What is important is knowing where and when you are legally able to use your carry firearm. That is the part which matters, and for those arguing about civilian casualties how is it that the police and all these civilian concealed carry permit holders in the States seem to avoid them despite in many States the bar for being both is pretty low?


----------



## mariomike (24 Jul 2018)

Eaglelord17 said:
			
		

> Honestly for self defence you can't beat a revolver.



"I like to know the XXXXX is going to work."  
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vI33vW90yqg

Warning: Offensive language.


----------



## YZT580 (24 Jul 2018)

Cdn Blackshirt said:
			
		

> I'd be quite happy if started holding the illegal gun dealers much more accountable.
> 
> If an illegal gun you sold was used in a murder = Automatic 10 years.
> 
> ...


aUTOMATIC penalties don't work in Canada.  They have been deemed unconstitutional by the supremes in most cases.  Although you might get away with it when it comes to firearms.


----------



## Sig_Des (24 Jul 2018)

YZT580 said:
			
		

> aUTOMATIC penalties don't work in Canada.  They have been deemed unconstitutional by the supremes in most cases.  Although you might get away with it when it comes to firearms.



Not necessarily automatic sentences, however supplementary charges in my opinion are warranted. IE, Criminal Code 351(2):



> Every one who, with intent to commit an indictable offence, has his face masked or coloured or is otherwise disguised is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years.


.

I don't like group punishment, along the lines of "criminals are wearing body armour, so legislate and regulate body armour". But targeting criminals who commit these particular offences makes sense to me.

Used body armour in the commission of an indictable offence? Additional charge.
Used a firearm in the commission of an indictable offence? Additional charge.


----------



## EpicBeardedMan (24 Jul 2018)

> that the Trudeau government is prepared to consider a proposal to ban handguns.



When are we going to ban drinking and driving so no more drinking and driving related deaths occur? Oh wait... :facepalm:


----------



## Retired AF Guy (24 Jul 2018)

EpicBeardedMan said:
			
		

> When are we going to ban drinking and driving so no more drinking and driving related deaths occur? Oh wait... :facepalm:



Maybe before the politicians start talking about banning handguns, they should determine how someone with a history of mental illness and thus unable to legally buy a firearm, let alone a handgun, was able to obtain one. 

Also, if more money was spent on treating people with mental illness, its possible we wouldn't have people going on shooting rampages.


----------



## EpicBeardedMan (24 Jul 2018)

"The vote comes at a time when gun violence has been overwhelming in Toronto with numerous incidents being reported this year. There were 39 people who fell victim to gun violence in Toronto during the month of July alone. "

www.narcity.com/news/toronto-city-council-just-voted-to-ban-the-sale-of-handguns-and-am


----------



## ModlrMike (25 Jul 2018)

Following recent events in Toronto, it appears the CBC is doing a full court press on the gun control issue.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/toronto-shooting-goodale-guns-1.4759484
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/guns-domestic-danforth-shooting-toronto-1.4759159
https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/liberal-gun-bill-gang-crime-1.4733374

Joined it seems, by the Globe and Mail.

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/politics/article-feds-prepared-to-consider-proposal-to-ban-handguns-goodale-says/
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/editorials/article-globe-editorial-rethinking-canadas-outdated-gun-control-laws/
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/canada/toronto/article-all-the-other-answers-come-after-fewer-guns/



Edit to add G&M piece and links.


----------



## Furniture (25 Jul 2018)

It's easier to scapegoat law abiding citizens than it is to deal with an issue like gangs, particularly when the gang issue is mixed up in race and class issues as well.


----------



## Jarnhamar (25 Jul 2018)

I'd really like to meet Ralph Goodale in person and pick his brain.

2.1 million or 5.6% of Canadians own 10-20 million guns.

I don't think the liberals fart without paying a lot of money to advisors and spin doctors to calculate how it will effect voting, polls and such.  

Ralph and friends are going to have to try pretty hard to spin a gun ban on legally owned guns based on an asshole using an illegal gun to shoot people.  

Elections coming up, go hard and use the shooting to enamor anti-gun types or kick the can down the road as to not piss off the voters on the fence.

4500 firearm and ammo businesses and 1000 restricted handguns and rifles are bought ever week, or a restricted firearm bought every 6 hours. And that doesn't include all the restricted guns that are privately sold every day. Little political minefield for Justin to dance in.


----------



## Remius (25 Jul 2018)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> I'd really like to meet Ralph Goodale in person and pick his brain.
> 
> 2.1 million or 5.6% of Canadians own 10-20 million guns.
> 
> ...



Toronto is a vote rich area.  Torontonians want to see something done.  Easy win for the liberals to just ban handguns and claim they did something.  Most handgun advocates don't vote liberal for the most part so its hardly a mine field.


----------



## RocketRichard (25 Jul 2018)

There are many switched on folks (including you Jarnhamar)  in this forum.  Many gun owners (myself included) here.  Still waiting for a coherent argument as to why a private citizen would need or should own a handgun...  Thanks all for the debate.



			
				Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> I'd really like to meet Ralph Goodale in person and pick his brain.
> 
> 2.1 million or 5.6% of Canadians own 10-20 million guns.
> 
> ...


----------



## Fishbone Jones (25 Jul 2018)

RocketRichard said:
			
		

> There are many switched on folks (including you Jarnhamar)  in this forum.  Many gun owners (myself included) here.  Still waiting for a coherent argument as to why a private citizen would need or should own a handgun...  Thanks all for the debate.



We've had this discussion. Go check the old thread.


----------



## Halifax Tar (25 Jul 2018)

RocketRichard said:
			
		

> There are many switched on folks (including you Jarnhamar)  in this forum.  Many gun owners (myself included) here.  Still waiting for a coherent argument as to why a private citizen would need or should own a handgun...  Thanks all for the debate.



Need is rarely an approved reason to gain the privilege of private firearms ownership in Canada.  Very few concealed carry permits are issued and one must have very well defined, apparent and documented reasons.  For the most part its purely a recreational want. 

This is the crux of firearms ownership in Canada.  We have no legislated right to own firearms if we wish.  So "need" or "should" cant really enter the discussion no matter how much we wish they could. 

The vast majority of handgun owners are sports shooter or target shooters.  And sadly these privately handgun owners can be made criminals with a pen and a couple of votes, and thousands of dollars invested will be for not. 

And it will not stop at handguns, this will continue on until we are down to levers, bolts and slides. 

Unfortunately we law abiding firearms are forced to pay the consequences for criminals like this fellow in Toronto.


----------



## Remius (25 Jul 2018)

RocketRichard said:
			
		

> There are many switched on folks (including you Jarnhamar)  in this forum.  Many gun owners (myself included) here.  Still waiting for a coherent argument as to why a private citizen would need or should own a handgun...  Thanks all for the debate.



There is a whole slew of reasons. 

Some like to compete.  Some like to hone their skills on their own (most handgun owners I know are military, ex military or LEO). Some want something cool to do that isn't knitting or bowling. 

One could ask why anyone needs to learn a martial art.  Plenty of reasons there too and no less valid.


----------



## RocketRichard (25 Jul 2018)

Thanks for your points HT and Remius. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Colin Parkinson (25 Jul 2018)

Yes, just a few months ago the Liberals were saying "We aren't going after anyone guns"....

which is why no experienced gun owner trusts the Liberals.


----------



## RocketRichard (25 Jul 2018)

Colin P said:
			
		

> Yes, just a few months ago the Liberals were saying "We aren't going after anyone guns"....
> 
> which is why no experienced gun owner trusts the Liberals.



Incorrect.  I know many experienced gun owners who trust the Liberals AND the Conservatives. Depends on whether they lie or not...


----------



## Jarnhamar (25 Jul 2018)

RocketRichard said:
			
		

> There are many switched on folks (including you Jarnhamar)  in this forum.  Many gun owners (myself included) here.  Still waiting for a coherent argument as to why a private citizen would need or should own a handgun...  Thanks all for the debate.



I think that's a fair question to ask RocketRichard. I'll try not to be soap-boxy (but I'll fail!)  

It's hard to quantify a need because really it's a want and at the end of the day I think something like this boils down to what the public majority wants, what the politicians think will get them the most votes and money. It's not about saving lives, other wise we wouldn't sell cigarettes or alcohol.

I find smoking insane. People poison their own bodies, put a drain on health care and poison non-smokers with second hand smoke. How on earth do we still sell that poison? Enough people still want it and money in the business. 

Alcohol? How many injuries and deaths are caused by alcohol being a factor. Domestic abuse, assaults, sexual assault. It's a substance we put in our body and just a little too much leads to people being hurt or worse. (How many of us have driven home from the mess when we probably shouldn't have?). 
But the lives having no alcohol available would save isn't a big enough trade off for the monetary value alcohol brings in/jobs it creates and just how many people _want it._

If we're pretending the argument is we need to ban handguns to save lives then sure saving lives is important but there's a number of areas ahead of handguns that cause more deaths so as far as I'm concerned start there.


We could (should) triple the capability of our borders. I've been trained on a pretty awesome XRay machine that could pick up weapons being carried by people inside of vehicles as they drove through the portal. You could see different metal (and liquid) densities. Let's set those up at the borders, scan everyone and everything. Instead of giving India 750 million dollars put that towards our own borders. We're such a materialistic society. I think I read CBSA only searched 3% of incoming cargo ships? That's crazy. Lets give them more money and better tools. They won't just catch guns but illegal alcohol, drugs AND humans too (whether they're illegal immigrants or especially sex trade slaves)

Domestically sourced guns? Get rid of the revolving door system we have. Double or triple the punishment for thieves and gun sellers. Families and communities can know it off with the "he's a good boy" bullshit and stop making excuses for people.




I hate bringing up Uhaul trucks, and no disrespect intended to the families of the deceased, but Faisal Hussain killed 2 people and injured 13 with a handgun. That's alot. Alek Minassian killed 10 people and injured 13 with a van attack, that's alot more.

A $400 handgun costs over $2000 on the blackmarket (ammo is very expensive too). Blackmarket isn't like a Walmart and _that_ easy to access. From what I understand of the 2006 _Toronto 18_ planned terrorist attack the members tried but failed to source illegal guns on the black market. 
26 foot UHaul truck is $39.95 to rent and you don't require a special license (minus Quebec). 

No, we can't ban trucks but maybe looking at what we can ban is less effective than looking at how we can forecast and intervene before these attacks happen.   



Why should I be allowed handguns? Stop worrying about me and go after people who are "known to police", access violent radical websites, associate with criminals and terrorist groups or are simply criminals themselves. (Generally speaking, I know you're not targeting me personally RR).


----------



## Jed (25 Jul 2018)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> I think that's a fair question to ask RocketRichard. I'll try not to be soap-boxy (but I'll fail!)
> 
> It's hard to quantify a need because really it's a want and at the end of the day I think something like this boils down to what the public majority wants, what the politicians think will get them the most votes and money. It's not about saving lives, other wise we wouldn't sell cigarettes or alcohol.
> 
> ...


Great reply, worthy of posting to papers in the an editorial. As if that would even happen given the Mainstream Media’s bias on the storyline.


----------



## RocketRichard (25 Jul 2018)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> I think that's a fair question to ask RocketRichard. I'll try not to be soap-boxy (but I'll fail!)
> 
> It's hard to quantify a need because really it's a want and at the end of the day I think something like this boils down to what the public majority wants, what the politicians think will get them the most votes and money. It's not about saving lives, other wise we wouldn't sell cigarettes or alcohol.
> 
> ...


Whoa. That was more of a response than expected. Really appreciate it J. You almost have me convinced I will use your points when I get into a debate with my friends that are very ‘left wing’. Maybe I will even buy a hand gun, nah, too much of a PIA. Have a great day. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Colin Parkinson (25 Jul 2018)

Wasn't just a few months ago we were told the Liberals aren't coming for your guns.......


----------



## Colin Parkinson (25 Jul 2018)

Then they are fools who don't bother studying history. The Liberals are always one crisis away from banning firearms, generally by taking a few slices at a time.


----------



## RocketRichard (25 Jul 2018)

Colin P said:
			
		

> Then they are fools who don't bother studying history. The Liberals are always one crisis away from banning firearms, generally by taking a few slices at a time.


Thank you for contributing to the discussion with your blanket statements about gun owners and their political leanings and that those who trust Liberals and conservatives are fools. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Furniture (25 Jul 2018)

Colin P said:
			
		

> Wasn't just a few months ago we were told the Liberals aren't coming for your guns.......



They don't want all of your guns, just the "scary" ones... they'll come back for the rest later.


----------



## Jarnhamar (25 Jul 2018)

Non-restricted
Restricted 
Prohibited


Ubless you're in Oshawa Ontario then they're all illegal  ;D


----------



## Colin Parkinson (25 Jul 2018)

RocketRichard said:
			
		

> Thank you for contributing to the discussion with your blanket statements about gun owners and their political leanings and that those who trust Liberals and conservatives are fools.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk



I am 12(5) so I am all to painfully aware of Liberals and their "gifts". My comment is directed to gun owners who naively think the Liberals won't come after them, because they don't own scary guns.


----------



## PuckChaser (25 Jul 2018)

CTV is now reporting the gun used was illegal to start with, and smuggled from the US.

https://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/toronto-shooter-s-gun-was-illegal-originally-from-u-s-source-1.4027129



> The gun used to shoot 15 people on a busy Toronto street was likely obtained from a “gang-related source,” according to a person familiar with the case.
> 
> CP24 safety specialist Cam Woolley says a police source has told him the semi-automatic handgun used in the shooting is illegal in Canada and was originally from the United States. American authorities are helping track the gun’s exact origin.
> 
> ...



So how many laws were broken here? Prohibited weapon, prohibited device, carried concealed, murder, attempted murder, weapons trafficking... a handgun ban stops none of them.


----------



## my72jeep (25 Jul 2018)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> CTV is now reporting the gun used was illegal to start with, and smuggled from the US.
> 
> https://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/toronto-shooter-s-gun-was-illegal-originally-from-u-s-source-1.4027129
> 
> So how many laws were broken here? Prohibited weapon, prohibited device, carried concealed, murder, attempted murder, weapons trafficking... a handgun ban stops none of them.


But now your making sense, stop that it’s anti Canadian


----------



## Jarnhamar (26 Jul 2018)

recceguy said:
			
		

> Mentally ill :



He was using illegal hi capacity magazines. I think we should lower the magazine limit from 10 to 5 just to be safer.


----------



## ModlrMike (26 Jul 2018)

More on the illegal gun discussion:

http://brianlilley.com/no-50-of-guns-used-in-crime-are-not-from-canada/


----------



## Xylric (27 Jul 2018)

I seem to recall reading a statistic from some years back (2010 or so) which strongly indicated that the majority of murders in Canada *aren't even committed with firearms*...


----------



## Ostrozac (27 Jul 2018)

Xylric said:
			
		

> I seem to recall reading a statistic from some years back (2010 or so) which strongly indicated that the majority of murders in Canada *aren't even committed with firearms*...



That is true. The number one cause of murder varies from year to year between shooting and stabbing, but neither category is ever large enough to be the cause of a majority of murders.

https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/t1/tbl1/en/tv.action?pid=3510006901


----------



## ModlrMike (27 Jul 2018)

It depends on how you frame the interpretation: guns account for the most frequently used means vs guns account for the majority of murders. You can make the results say what you want if you pick the right data point. Witness the oft cited 2016 is the worst year ever statistic, with the starting point of 2013. If you go back to 2011, there's no statistically significant increase in the number of gun related homicides (614 vs 611). In fact if you go back 20 years, there are eight periods where the numbers are equal or worse than today. Sample size matters.

Lies, damned lies, and statistics...


----------



## Jarnhamar (27 Jul 2018)

Big city criminals like using handguns because they're easy to conceal (obviously). The police I know in Toronto say the same thing. Our gun control is generally working. Criminals/gang members aren't carrying around their pistols every day and not everyone is carrying one like in the US.

They're very expensive, they're hard to obtain and they'll get in a lot of shit for having one both from the police and from their gang leaders (for getting caught and losing the pistol). A gang of 20 to 30 losers might have 2 or 3 guns they share between themselves. They'll hid them in construction yards and abandoned places and pick them up as required.

There's an estimated 10 million to 20 million guns in Canada. In 2015 there was 795,854 restricted firearms [384,888 in 2004].  Out of that 795'000 I believe I've read there's only 50'000 AR15 restricted firearms so lets say there's about 650'000 handguns.

If criminals are predominately drawn to pistols I find it hard to believe 50% of guns used in crime are sourced in Canada.

There are a few cases of legal gun owners selling their guns illegally but I think when I looked in the past I found maybe 5 or 6 examples in the news (I've seen the media say 40 cases but there seems to be no where near that many according to the google machine)
But lets just say even 20 people out of close to 2 million license holders. Not a significant amount.

Here's a picture from Cornwall Ontario (border town) on June 22nd 2018 of 78 guns seized. These weren't taken out of some target shooters basement and they didn't "fall off the truck" on the way to a Canadian firearms retailer.






Here is a picture of a seizure from June 2016 in Toronto. Once again, these aren't coming from firearm retailers in Canada.







These were the 33 guns confiscated from the Toronto shooters brother in 2017. Definitely a trend.







Theft of firearms from homes is a problem, especially out west in rural areas but a 3.5 foot long SKS isn't the weapon of choice for criminals so much less attractive to serious criminals and for sale on the black market.


----------



## Journeyman (27 Jul 2018)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Big city criminals like using handguns because ...


Excellent post.  Thank you.


----------



## Rifleman62 (31 Jul 2018)

The legislation will be aimed at legal hand gun owners of course. Won't stop criminals.

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/canada/article-as-toronto-says-goodbye-to-shooting-victim-reese-fallon-trudeau-says/

*As Toronto says goodbye to shooting victims, Trudeau says Ottawa will study handgun ban* -30 Jul 18

Extract: He (Trudeau) said his government will study approaches to gun violence in other jurisdictions before deciding on a policy direction. “We’re taking a look at things that have been done around the world,” he told reporters at the Alexander the Great Parkette in Toronto’s grieving Danforth neighbourhood on Monday afternoon. “Things that have been done in other jurisdictions, looking at the best evidence, the best data to make the right decisions to make sure that we are ensuring that our citizens, our communities are safe into the future.”

Last week, a senior official told The Globe and Mail that Mr. Trudeau will decide in mid-August whether to pursue a ban on handguns as part of a new legislative agenda he would outline in a fall Throne Speech.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (31 Jul 2018)

“We’re taking a look at things that have been done around the world,”

That means taking the false stats from countries (Britain, Australia, etc.) that have full bans, and making Canada the same. No guns.


----------



## Journeyman (31 Jul 2018)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> It depends on how you frame the interpretation: guns account for the most frequently used means vs guns account for the majority of murders.
> 
> Lies, damned lies, and statistics...



According to StatsCan, the consistently top three homicide methods are stabbing, shooting, and beating.

Raw Numbers:
Gun Deaths in Canada this Year:  357 gun deaths in Canada as of July 31, 2018 at 10:28:33
However, note that suicides are by far the leading form of gun death in Canada, outpacing homicides by about 4:1.

Suicide  77.16%
Homicide  19.29%
Unintentional  2.54%
Undetermined  1.01%


----------



## Remius (31 Jul 2018)

ok, I'm a little confused.

https://globalnews.ca/news/4355300/danforth-shooting-handgun-stolen-saskatchewan/

So the gun was stolen during a break and enter at a gun store in Saskatchawan but the gun may have been illegally obtained from the US?

Does anyone have any other info on this?

I can see this going two ways.  Handguns used in crimes are illegally obtained in almost all cases.  How they are obtained may shape the way the government reacts.  If theft from lawful gun owners/stores is the issue then they may go the ban route or use that as a justification.  if it comes across the border then the ban might no seem justified. 

Either way I sense an overreaction.


----------



## Rifleman62 (31 Jul 2018)

> Either way I sense an overreaction.


What would you expect?


----------



## Journeyman (31 Jul 2018)

recceguy said:
			
		

> That means taking the false stats from countries...


In what way are they false?


----------



## Hafoc (31 Jul 2018)

Long time reader first time poster.  

This thread caught my attention so I thought I would chime in.  I'm an Electrical Engineer, numbers and data are my speciality.



			
				Journeyman said:
			
		

> In what way are they false?



They are false in the sense they are cherry picking data.  You will notice they (Media etc.) use the term "Firearm related death rate" or something similar, not Homicide rates. This distinction is very important if one really cared about reducing homicides.   I did my own research on this subject using two studies from the United Nations Office of Drugs and Crime (UNODC) data for Firearms ownership rates per capita and the Intentional Homicide rate per capita.  When plotted there is ZERO correlation between firearms ownership rates and intentional homicide rates.  If anyone is interested I can dig through my archives to find the excel file.

As a counter example to the commonly presented narrative, take a look at the homicide rates in New Hampshire, which has some least restrictive firearm laws.  Then take that data and compare it to provinces in Canada.

-Hafoc


----------



## Journeyman (31 Jul 2018)

Hafoc said:
			
		

> They are false in the sense they are cherry picking data.  You will notice they (Media etc.) use the term ….


Numbers, data, and _perhaps_  psychic abilities must be your speciality.

The government hasn't yet surveyed these other, unnamed countries, so I'm not predisposed to judge that 'they' (as in government, not media) are cherry-picking data or using dubiously vague language.  I do assume that their sources will be more credible than evil, tree-hugging media headlines from these countries though.

So while I don't claim it as a "specialty," I am predisposed to wait for the results to come in...or _at least_  know the questions being asked... before judging.


Welcome to the site.   :cheers:


----------



## SeaKingTacco (31 Jul 2018)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> Numbers, data, and _perhaps_  psychic abilities must be your speciality.
> 
> The government hasn't yet surveyed these other, unnamed countries, so I'm not predisposed to judge that 'they' (as in government, not media) are cherry-picking data or using dubiously vague language.  I do assume that their sources will be more credible than evil, tree-hugging media headlines from these countries though.
> 
> ...



You aren't a firearms owner, are you?

I have learned to have low expectations around Truth and Statistical Correlation when it comes to the LPC and firearms policy in Canada.


----------



## Journeyman (31 Jul 2018)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> You aren't a firearms owner, are you?


Response via PM

And while the current Prime Minister has reaped a significant amount of well-deserved skepticism, I don't feel a need to pre-emptively foam at the mouth and call everything I personally disagree with "fake news".... especially before anything actually happens.

 :2c:


----------



## SeaKingTacco (31 Jul 2018)

Fair enough.


----------



## Jarnhamar (31 Jul 2018)

Remius said:
			
		

> ok, I'm a little confused.


Me too. I've heard both accounts now and wonder where the final answer is with where did the gun come from.

It was apparently kept at the parents house, I say hit them with unlawful firearms storage.



So if there were 722 deaths caused by firearms this year so far, and 19.2% of them were cases of murder instead of suicide+murder then that's 138 deaths out of a population of 36'708'100.    Every preventable death is horrible but is 138 out of almost 37 million people an epidemic? And that's 138 shootings, not all handguns. 


Is a gun ban about saving lives or could the driving factor here, insofar as the government is concerned, be about votes? 

Is the government sitting around a table discussing what banning handguns will result in not in terms of how many people will be saved but the political fall out? The hardcore left and right have already made up their mind about votes, but what about people in the middle. Will a move like that make people want to vote for them for (presuming to) make streets just a bit safer, or will it upset them that the government is infringing on something many Canadians enjoy or don't have an issue with.

What would the government do? Tell hundreds of thousands of handgun owners that they need to turn in all their guns by a certain date or they'll be arrested?  Will the government buy back all those handguns? If an average pistol runs $1000 and there's that subjective number of 650'000 handguns in Canada is the government going to cut a check for 650 million dollars? Would they take the cheaper option and say gun owners can keep their handguns they just can't buy anymore or sell theirs so once they die they get destroyed. 

That's a great way not to shell out any money but with 650'000 pistols still in civilian hands what about those 138 / (handgun deaths) per year?  Would gun store owners have to eat millions of dollars of product lost? Or will the government be buying those too?


----------



## Jarnhamar (9 Aug 2018)

American story but posting here to show how simple someone legally carrying a concealed handgun can save lives.



> A concealed carry holder stopped a gunman on Saturday in Florida who opened fire on a back-to-school event where dozens of children were present.
> 
> Law enforcement officials say that the shooting happened at Isaac Campbell Park around 5 p.m. when a man "returned to the park after a fistfight and began firing," WFTV reported.
> 
> Once the gunman opened fire, an armed citizen, who was legally carrying, shot him. The gunman was reportedly taken to a nearby hospital after sustaining life-threatening injuries.





https://www.dailywire.com/news/34089/concealed-carry-holder-stops-shooting-school-event-ryan-saavedra?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social&utm_content=062316-news&utm_campaign=benshapiro


----------



## ModlrMike (10 Aug 2018)

Was this really published by the CBC?

Canada can't say where its crime guns are coming from

Governments, police not collecting national statistics on whether guns are smuggled or sourced domestically
Evan Dyer · CBC News · Posted: Aug 10, 2018 4:00 AM ET | Last Updated: 6 hours ago

"It is a fact that the majority of gun-related crimes in our communities are committed with guns that are domestically-sourced," RCMP Inspector Chris McBryan told the Vancouver Sun two years ago.

Insp. McBryan was speaking as head of the Western Canada division of the National Weapons Enforcement Support Team (NWEST) of the Canadian Firearms Program (CFP).

But when CBC News contacted the CFP and asked for the data behind his categorical statement, the RCMP replied that no such data exists.

[remainder at link]


----------



## Jarnhamar (22 Aug 2018)

https://nationalpost.com/opinion/the-liberals-are-playing-dishonest-games-with-stats-to-crack-down-on-legal-gun-owners



> According to Public Safety Minister Ralph Goodale, Bill C-71 is a response to substantial increases in gun violence since 2013. It is legislation driven and justified by the empirical evidence. Or so it would seem.
> 
> In actuality, the statistical basis for Bill C-71 is particularly weak. Its reliance on faulty assumptions regarding crime and firearms breaks with the government’s promise of legislation tempered by “evidence-based decision making.”
> 
> ...




A handgun ban will still be low hanging election fruit starving liberals will be grasping for.


----------



## Halifax Tar (22 Aug 2018)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> https://nationalpost.com/opinion/the-liberals-are-playing-dishonest-games-with-stats-to-crack-down-on-legal-gun-owners
> 
> A handgun ban will still be low hanging election fruit starving liberals will be grasping for.



No doubt at all.  This and Carbon Tax could be 2 big election issues.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (22 Aug 2018)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> Response via PM
> 
> And while the current Prime Minister has reaped a significant amount of well-deserved skepticism, I don't feel a need to pre-emptively foam at the mouth and call everything I personally disagree with "fake news".... especially before anything actually happens.
> 
> :2c:



When it comes to legal firearms, the Liberals have a long history of being untrustworthy and for targeting gun owners for political gain.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (22 Aug 2018)

Colin P said:
			
		

> When it comes to legal firearms, the Liberals have a long history of being untrustworthy and for targeting gun owners for political gain.



True. And if handguns increased votes, they'd be handing them out on the street corner.

Likely at Jane and Finch.

Let's not forget, one of the first goals of a socialist government is to disarm the population to give the government a position of strength over the populous.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (22 Aug 2018)

It's demographics like this that scares the Libs, once gun owners reach a certain point, it will be politically toxic to go after them and unlike the early 90's gun owners are connected and internet savy. Not to mention a rapid increase in gun ownership by wealthy ethnic groups like the Chinese. https://thegunblog.ca/2018/08/15/gun-licences-rise-to-record-in-june-after-21-quarterly-increases/


----------



## Jarnhamar (22 Aug 2018)

The left wing want to drum up ridicule for gun owners by suggesting they're a bunch of angry whiten racist rednecks. Unfortunately for the Liberals, and I think fortunatly for gun owners,  there's a wide variety of people of both genders who are interested in shooting and that number keeps getting bigger.

I suspect that's why the Liberals haven't just broke out their hair trigger double barrel ban machine gun. They know it'll cost votes.


----------



## Haggis (22 Aug 2018)

Because lawful gun owners are a fractured community (they can take your handguns and semi-auto rifles if they leave my bolt-action alone), they fear them as a voting bloc even less than they fear veterans.  They know a gun ban will win them the metropolitan vote.  After that, they really don't care.


----------



## Halifax Tar (23 Aug 2018)

Haggis said:
			
		

> Because lawful gun owners are a fractured community (they can take your handguns and semi-auto rifles if they leave my bolt-action alone), they fear them as a voting bloc even less than they fear veterans.  They know a gun ban will win them the metropolitan vote.  After that, they really don't care.



That is a very accurate statement.  Not to mention the toxic vitriol that some gun owners have no problem spewing on public forums, example CGN.  In some senses we, legal firearms owners, can be our own worst enemies.


----------



## Remius (23 Aug 2018)

Haggis said:
			
		

> Because lawful gun owners are a fractured community (they can take your handguns and semi-auto rifles if they leave my bolt-action alone), they fear them as a voting bloc even less than they fear veterans.  They know a gun ban will win them the metropolitan vote.  After that, they really don't care.



Agreed.  I know plenty of long gun owners who hunt primarily that could care less if there was a hand gun ban and don't care about competitive shooting.


----------



## Haggis (23 Aug 2018)

My belief is that if the Liberals are successful in 2019 and form a majority again, any gun ban in place from an expanded C-71 will be expanded to resemble the Australian or British model.  By then, it will be too late for the hunter/sports shooter community to make a stand.  lawful firearms owners need to be united now and accept that there are exclusive factions who can be mutually supporting to the benefit of the entire community.  Throwing handgun owners under the bus to preserve your deer gun will eventually fail you as a political choice.

Liberals understand two things:  
- lawful gun owners and their property are an easy political target which will garner huge votes; and
- criminals (even inmates) still get to vote and they will vote for whomever empowers their enterprise.

And there are more criminals in Canada than lawful gun owners.


----------



## Jarnhamar (26 Aug 2018)

TheGunBlog.ca — Toronto Mayor John Tory asked the city’s 100,000 federally licensed gun owners to leave town, he said today on NewsTalk 1010 radio. He didn’t ask the murderers and gangs responsible for a wave of shootings to leave or to stop.



> “I repeat the question that you posed: Why does anybody need to have a gun in the city of Toronto?,” Tory told the Moore in the Morningshow today, according to a recording shared by JohnToryWatchon Twitter. “And if it’s someone who’s involved in a gun club, perhaps they could do that somewhere else, because I’m just trying to make sure we do everything we can to save lives and to save the trauma that I’ve seen in the community when these kinds of shootings take place.”





https://thegunblog.ca/2018/08/07/john-tory-asks-sport-shooters-to-leave-toronto-he-tells-radio/


----------



## Haggis (26 Aug 2018)

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> That is a very accurate statement.  Not to mention the toxic vitriol that some gun owners have no problem spewing on public forums, example CGN.  In some senses we, legal firearms owners, can be our own worst enemies.



Thanks.  

For the record, I'm a gun owner, a veteran and I work in law enforcement.  In my agency there are a lot of lawful gun owners and a fair number of hunters and other sport and competitive shooters.

The Canadian "gun lobby" (i.e. CCFR, NFA etc.) are mostly on the right track but, in my opinion, they have to re-work their message a bit. They are not protecting gun ownership "rights".  This doesn't exist in Canada.  Legally owning a firearm is a privilege, much like legally driving a car, flying a plane or practicing brain surgery.  They are protecting the privilege of gun ownership by lawful owners.  A privilege can be rescinded for bad conduct but it should only be rescinded from those who misbehave (criminals, for example), not the entire community.  (We all know how much "group punishment" was enjoyed at BMQ.  :nod. They have to abandon the gun "rights" narrative.  This is too easily countered by the anti-gun coalitions and the government and too easily equated to the "evil NRA".

I'm also of the opinion that they have to distance themselves from the "Canadian Citizens Concealed Carry" crowd.  Mainstream Canada is not ready for that extreme version of firearms ownership nor is there a general need for it here.  Unlike the US, not even our cops carry off-duty as a rule.  The argument has been made that civilian gun owners are better shots than cops.  To an extent I can buy that, but it's equally (if not more) important to know WHEN to shoot and when not to, something none of our mandated civilian firearms safety training covers.

So, I support legal firearms ownership.  I support registration of restricted firearms.  I find magazine capacity restrictions unrealistic (the Parkland shooter had 10 round magazines).  I believe that police and the CBSA should be properly resourced and empowered to combat illegal/illicit firearms trafficking and misuse.  And, once that's done, I believe that our existing firearms laws - properly and consistently applied - are more than sufficient to deal with Canada's "gun crisis".


----------



## SeaKingTacco (26 Aug 2018)

But, beating up on legal gun owners is poltically nearly risk free; it makes politicians look like they are doing something, wothout actually upsetting constituencies who come out and protest if they were to actually go after the root causes of gang/gun crime.

The fact of the matter is that our gun laws currently work exceeding well. You are far more likely (by orders of magnitude) to die Canada in a traffic accident or from opioid overdose, than from a bullet- random or otherwise.


----------



## ModlrMike (26 Aug 2018)

I think what some folks are missing in this discussion is that the gun control issue is pretty much emblematic of the urban-rural divide. The Liberals know that their support is quite shallow outside the major population centers, and they can afford to write those areas off in favour of solidifying their vote in urban centers. The reaction of the Toronto and Montreal mayors are just icing on the same cake.


----------



## Halifax Tar (26 Aug 2018)

Haggis said:
			
		

> Thanks.
> 
> For the record, I'm a gun owner, a veteran and I work in law enforcement.  In my agency there are a lot of lawful gun owners and a fair number of hunters and other sport and competitive shooters.
> 
> ...



I think our positions are pretty much on par with each other.  I have my restricted license, but now that Non-Res AR styled platforms are out in .308 Win I will be going that route.  

Having said the above I will support my restricted owning brother and sisters in anyways I can.


----------



## ballz (26 Aug 2018)

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> I think our positions are pretty much on par with each other.  I have my restricted license, but *now that Non-Res AR styled platforms are out in .308 Win* I will be going that route.
> 
> Having said the above I will support my restricted owning brother and sisters in anyways I can.



Brand / model? I better get one before the bureaucrats swipe their pens.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (26 Aug 2018)

This is one of my .308's

Took some tuning to get it to run solid, but it's a great gun now.


----------



## Lumber (26 Aug 2018)

Can you hunt with that thing? (would you?) if so, what range would you rely upon it to make a kill with?


----------



## Fishbone Jones (26 Aug 2018)

Lumber said:
			
		

> Can you hunt with that thing? (would you?) if so, what range would you rely upon it to make a kill with?



Yes, it's non restricted. It has an 18.5" barrel. The chamber is located just ahead of the magazine. A true bullpup. It's as accurate as any semi .308 in the scout category. I'd be willing to bet 500 and under. Your pushing the 18" barrel accuracy at that point, the gun will do its job. It's up to the operator at that range though. It'd take a bear or deer at those ranges, lots of velocity and energy still. Most bear and deer in NA are taken at under 50 yards though.


----------



## AbdullahD (26 Aug 2018)

I am not sure if it has been gone over.. but the restricted crowd or competition crowd vs the yearly hunting crowd is far more complex then "they just dont care".. in my opinion.

I have many friends who are competition firearms owners, many who love the "toys" side and even more who are hunters only. (I am sure this is a debate strategy now that I'm re reading it haha, I just meant to say I've seen people from each group and got to know them per se)

I find the more someone is into the gun cultural scene, the more likely they are going to be a single issue voter. Unlike those who only hunt once a year. The person who hunts once a year, may still want everyone to have the chance/right/privilege* to own a firearm.. but may at each election cycle have a more pressing priority governing their vote. So they vote in essence against firearms rights*.

I find the issue with a lot of the pro firearms propaganda is it revolves around firearms issues only. Or maybe rights being infringed upon and it is very reactionary to any and/or all issues that may or may not exist in the firearm community and does not really allow for dialogue or reform due to fear (which I may say is well grounded) that any try at reforming firearm laws will take a lot more then they intend so they cant allow any changes*.

I relatively obtained my restricted license and I'd like to believe I'm a relatively well balanced, healthy person. But! I felt that process left a little for the wanting.. it seemed to easy to me personally. I think we need to address the issue of gun smuggling and/or reporting illegal firearms etc, which may not be a firearm owners issue to firearms owners, but it is to everyone else. I don't know the answer to what is a healthy amount of regulation vs freedoms, I'd personally be ok with three or 4 levels of common accessible licenses allow people to own up to fully auto firearms IF they prove they are stable etc etc. 

Any rate my point is as long as firearms rights are only firearms rights, we lose a lot of people who would otherwise support the cause per se. We need to prove or establish that restricting or forbidding firearms rights or privileges is a far more heinous issue then crying they will take all our guns. We need to make sure firearms owners show that the money spent to govern and watch over firearms owners is paid for by firearms owners or make it that way if it is not the case. We need to show that we have no issue with our guns being taken either temporarily or permanently to a third party if we go off our rocker* etc etc

Basically just grow up past the "come and take them" or "from my cold dead hands" rhetoric that so many espouse these days.

Abdullah

*ps these are things as I understand them, believe them or think exist. If I am wrong in these things or any others please correct me and show me how I am 

Ps also maybe this struck a chord because I voted NDP last time around because of issues other then firearms rights etc so when I perceived contempt against people who do not put firearms issues first, I shook my head and decided I needed to put a self righteous rant up. If I took it the wrong way oops haha and sorry for the rant lol


----------



## Haggis (26 Aug 2018)

AbdullahD:

Just to be clear, no one has the right to own a firearm in Canada without a license to do so.  Unlike other licensed activities, firearms ownership is more restrictive.  You can own a car without a driver's license but you cannot drive it legally.

If you are moderately intelligent, involved in a stable emotional relationship and have no overt or reported psychological issues, you can get a firearms license in Canada fairly easily.  That's a given.  If you have a history of violence, substance abuse, relationship issues or psychosis, then, no, it's not easy. It should be impossible, but people lie.

Firearms licences in Canada are also very easy to lose.  The fact that it happens very rarely means that firearms owners are very well behaved and well adjusted citizens who, as a matter of daily life, play by the rules.  Many understand the Firearms Act better than most police officers because, despite MSM rhetoric, firearms offences are relatively rare.  Again, this is a testament to their commitment to making their sport as safe and legal as possible.  

Canadian firearms license holders (who may not even own firearms) are vetted daily in CPIC and if that daily vetting indicates that you have been charged with a crime which, in the eyes of the Canadian Firearms Program may compromise your ability to safely possess, store, use or transport your firearms, you will lose them and your license.  If found not guilty, your firearms will likely be returned and your license re-instated as long as you still meet all the conditions for licensing.  (This happened to a family member, wrongfully accused of domestic violence, substance abuse and suicidal thoughts - the trifecta for triggering a firearms seizure.  He was found not guilty and his firearms returned within a week.)

if you post photos of you and your firearms doing stupid, unsafe or illegal things together, know that there is an RCMP section that scours the Internet looking for such things and you can expect to be contacted as a result.

Do we really need more controls on lawful firearms owners?  Or should we just use those controls we already have more effectively on illegal firearms users?

BTW I'm not a single issue voter.  Defense (obviously - I'm on Army.ca), the economy and trade (I live in a border town), public safety (I live in a border town)  and healthcare (I'm and old guy who lives in a border town) are also equally high on my list of concerns. But I do recognize that the government's current attitude and rhetoric towards lawful firearms owners can easily be extended to any other demographic that will garner quick votes from the uninformed/misinformed.


----------



## Halifax Tar (26 Aug 2018)

ballz said:
			
		

> Brand / model? I better get one before the bureaucrats swipe their pens.



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BCL_102

https://www.theammosource.com/store/index.php?main_page=advanced_search_result&search_in_description=1&zenid=9bmggn4kb7oueqfts5mhri6kp6&keyword=BCL+102&x=0&y=0

https://blackcreeklabs.com/


----------



## Halifax Tar (26 Aug 2018)

Lumber said:
			
		

> Can you hunt with that thing? (would you?) if so, what range would you rely upon it to make a kill with?



Why not ?


----------



## AbdullahD (26 Aug 2018)

Haggis

Thanks for your reply mate, I am not sure were I got that it is a "right" idea from.. probably US news.

I see your point and I think I agree with you, we do have a lot of good controls in place.. which should all be utilized. Yet, we still have shootings sadly, something everyone hates. The vast majority, as I understand are not by lawful firearms owners and the extremely small percent that do commit them, I agree do not create a significant portion and can as such be largely ignored as outliers/one offs/what have you.

But what happens, after every shooting is one side screams take them all away and the other dig ins and shows how it is not the lawful owners creating the issue and from what I see and dig in that way (I'll admit I dont follow the news closely so I could be out to lunch). Now I absolutely hate when innocent people who in no way associate with the crazy's get forced to defend their way of life, but sadly that is the way this twisted world is and firearms owners are forced into this corner.

Now one way we can argue to reduce firearms crimes is by being tougher on crimes, but that is a predictable approach that many would scoff at and ignore (again only my opinion). What I wonder is why doesn't the firearms association's out left the left and say something to the effect of

 "We are all deeply and cofoundly saddened by these actions, that have resulted in such a catastrophic loss of life. We the xyz firearms association all have broken hearts when we see the social and economic issues that led this troubled individual to commit this heinous crime. We call on the prime minister to launch an investigation into social and economic problems that created this scenario and we implore him/her to create programs to support individuals who need help in their social lives and or with their financial/economic well being."

I remember reading somewhere that the fees firearms owners and hunters pay, create a surplus in many provinces and or for the country.. so we don't we demand better fiscal governance and maybe show that if the firearms branch is properly managed we can use some of that money to help solve these problems.

Any rate I'm pretty out of the loop with the firearms stuff/any other issues, I have the problem of just keeping to myself in my own little world.. I play my game on my phone, i use Facebook, YouTube and I come here.. so I could be considered sheltered haha

Abdullah


----------



## Jarnhamar (27 Aug 2018)

Lumber said:
			
		

> Can you hunt with that thing? (would you?) if so, what range would you rely upon it to make a kill with?




Technical wise that rifle is essentially the same as this. 







Same caliber. 
Both magazine fed
Same barrel length


----------



## Halifax Tar (27 Aug 2018)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Technical wise that rifle is essentially the same as this.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Well put.


----------



## Lumber (27 Aug 2018)

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> Well put.



I ask because I don't hunt (and I've never shot at anything living).

I've always wondered why is it that "hunting rifles" always seems to look like, well, "hunting rifles". 

I was curious whether anything in that design (being a bull pup, having a tri-pod, whatever) would lend it to being advantageous toward hunting.

I mean, it looks cooler than a standard hunting rifle (at least that's my opinion), so if you can have a rifle that's good for hunting AND have it look cool, why not?


----------



## Halifax Tar (27 Aug 2018)

Lumber said:
			
		

> I ask because I don't hunt (and I've never shot at anything living).
> 
> I've always wondered why is it that "hunting rifles" always seems to look like, well, "hunting rifles".
> 
> ...



Functionally they do they same thing.  Semi-Auto .308.  With ergonomic and esthetic differences. 

Depending on how one hunts a bipod can be valuable or simply added weight with little value.  For instance, I am still young enough that I find it hard to sit for 8 hours in a blind or stand.  So I always bring two rifles hunting.  One is Lee Enfield No.5 Jungle Carbine, its short and light and good for my morning hunts when I like to walk the choppings perimeters and goat trails.  At lunch I switch it out for my Norc M305 or a .12ga shotgun and use either to sit in my ground blind for the evenings.  When in my ground blind I also employ my homemade shooting sticks, which act like a bipod. 

Sorry if I came off defensive earlier, that was not intended.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (27 Aug 2018)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Technical wise that rifle is essentially the same as this.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



That is the same as my deer rifle. A Remington 742. Very versatile. It is barreled in a number of calibers and you can just change out the barrels. .243 Win up to 30-06.


----------



## Infanteer (27 Aug 2018)

But it is black.  Therefore it is an assault rifle.  Therefore it is used to kill people.  Therefore it should be banned.  :Tin-Foil-Hat:



Now you see how silly the ban guns argument can get at times, when it is driven by emotion and not an understanding of the technical functionality of any specific firearm.  People feel "safer" if they ban something purely for its features.  Its like trying to curb speeding by demanding that all sports cars not be painted red.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (28 Aug 2018)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> But it is black.  Therefore it is an assault rifle.  Therefore it is used to kill people.  Therefore it should be banned.  :Tin-Foil-Hat:
> 
> 
> 
> Now you see how silly the ban guns argument can get at times, when it is driven by emotion and not an understanding of the technical functionality of any specific firearm.  People feel "safer" if they ban something purely for its features.  Its like trying to curb speeding by demanding that all sports cars not be painted red.



You're preaching to the choir in here Infanteer.  :nod:


----------



## Remius (28 Aug 2018)

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/liberals-handguns-firears-1.4801700

Liberals looking at full ban on handguns and "assault" weapons.


We'll see where this goes...

My take is that I don't fear lawful gun owners.  So I don't think a ban will make me any safer.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (28 Aug 2018)

Bill Blair, as many other police officials, believe that only the police and military should have guns.

I'm pretty sure we already know what is going to happen to our private property.

The Trudeau Sr didn't write property rights into the Charter, we have none. So likely no compensation for the theft of our property.

And as been proven, even in Australia and Britain, as long as people have some basic tools, you will not get rid of guns.


----------



## Lumber (28 Aug 2018)

recceguy said:
			
		

> Bill Blair, as many other police officials, believe that only the police and military should have guns.
> 
> I'm pretty sure we already know what is going to happen to our private property.
> 
> ...



I just found out yesterday that in Nova Scotia (and i've heard other places as well), you are actually allowed to "trespass" on someone else's property if that property is forestland and you are doing it for the purpose of hunting. 

I mean it kind of makes sense; if you have a gun in your hands, how am I supposed to stop you from coming on my property?  ;D

How's them for property rights.

As for Australia and Britain, they didn't outright ban their guns, so why would you expect them to get rid of all the existing guns?


----------



## Halifax Tar (28 Aug 2018)

Lumber said:
			
		

> I just found out yesterday that in Nova Scotia (and i've heard other places as well), you are actually allowed to "trespass" on someone else's property if that property is forestland and you are doing it for the purpose of hunting.
> 
> I mean it kind of makes sense; if you have a gun in your hands, how am I supposed to stop you from coming on my property?  ;D
> 
> ...



The law in NS is more along the lines of not being able to interfere with a legal hunt, you are also allowed remove any materials that persons leave on your property, such as trail cams, blinds, stands ect ect ect.  

Its people who abuse this nuance that give hunters a bad name.  IMHO the law should be changed.


----------



## Lumber (28 Aug 2018)

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> The law in NS is more along the lines of not being able to interfere with a legal hunt, you are also allowed remove any materials that persons leave on your property, such as trail cams, blinds, stands ect ect ect.
> 
> Its people who abuse this nuance that give hunters a bad name.  IMHO the law should be changed.



I'm a very strong proponent of property rights (and by property I specifically mean "my land"), and it blows me away that if I cant you just walking through my forest, that's trespassing, but if you have a gun in your hands and claim to be "hunting", then you haven't broken any law.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (28 Aug 2018)

We are not talking just land, but anything you own.

It's not about trespassing and hunting rights (which is not part of the Gun Control debate)

It's about the government's ability to seize anything you own and not compensate you for it, or just the ability to arbitrarily and usually with flawed logic, statistics and just plain lies, take what they want and leave you at the side of the road with an empty bag.

I certainly don't want to lose any guns, but in the event of government seizure, fair compensation would go a long way to smooth things a bit.

However, I doubt they'll be willing to give me $100,000 for my retirement nesteggs.

Amnesty's to turn in guns usually net owners $25-$50 for each firearm, which is a major loss for some.

It's like the government going in and just draining your RRSP account and telling you 'tough shit.'


----------



## Remius (28 Aug 2018)

Maybe if they allowed a tax deduction...

Better than nothing.


----------



## Lumber (28 Aug 2018)

recceguy said:
			
		

> We are not talking just land, but anything you own.
> 
> It's not about trespassing and hunting rights (which is not part of the Gun Control debate)



I just find it hypocritical that a faction of those who are very pro gun (hunters) are concerned about with property rights (owning guns), while at the same time maintaining the right to infringe on my property by trespassing on my property (hypothetically).

Otherwise, yes, this tangent has nothing to do with the overall theme of the government simply making a law forcing law abiding gun owners to hand over their weapons.


----------



## Haggis (28 Aug 2018)

recceguy said:
			
		

> Bill Blair, as many other police officials, believe that only the police and military should have guns.


  The RCMP Commissioner and some major municipal police chiefs don't agree that a gun ban is the solution.  They want more resources to go after bad guys.   Both the promised and undelivered ($300 M +) and un-promised but soon-to-be asked for.  A gun ban will tax existing resources even more leaving even less money for front-line law enforcement.   I think Minister Blair is in for quite a fight - from within and without - if this is the path he chooses.  And, this is not the top item in his mandate letter nor the most pressing for the Liberals. He's also got irregular migration, cannabis regulation and dealing with the opioid crisis on his plate.


----------



## Retired AF Guy (28 Aug 2018)

recceguy said:
			
		

> The Trudeau Sr didn't write property rights into the Charter, we have none. So likely no compensation for the theft of our property.



While you are for the most part right, I think that trying to confiscate property (firearms) from people who have committed no crimes would result in numerous constitutional challenges that it would go all the way to the Supreme Court.


----------



## PuckChaser (28 Aug 2018)

Lumber said:
			
		

> I just find it hypocritical that a faction of those who are very pro gun (hunters) are concerned about with property rights (owning guns), while at the same time maintaining the right to infringe on my property by trespassing on my property (hypothetically).
> 
> Otherwise, yes, this tangent has nothing to do with the overall theme of the government simply making a law forcing law abiding gun owners to hand over their weapons.


Lawful hunters don't trespass. They'd be the ones knocking on your door to ask polite permission to hunt your property. Some will even offer money or some of the meat as thanks. Its even covered in the Ontario hunter safety course.


----------



## RedcapCrusader (28 Aug 2018)

recceguy said:
			
		

> Bill Blair, as many other police officials, believe that only the police and military should have guns.
> 
> I'm pretty sure we already know what is going to happen to our private property.
> 
> ...



Compensation for damages, losses, theft of property as a result of crime would be covered under the Victim's Bill of Rights and your provincial Victims of Crime Act/Fund.


----------



## Cloud Cover (28 Aug 2018)

LoL. Not a snowball's chance....


----------



## Stoker (28 Aug 2018)

Retired AF Guy said:
			
		

> While you are for the most part right, I think that trying to confiscate property (firearms) from people who have committed no crimes would result in numerous constitutional challenges that it would go all the way to the Supreme Court.



They have already confiscated firearms without compensation. SPAS 12, Tec 9, Barrett .50. They showed up to peoples doors without warning with a bunch of cops and took them.


----------



## RedcapCrusader (28 Aug 2018)

Chief Stoker said:
			
		

> Barrett .50.



When? Because you can still buy Barrett's and other branded .50's.


----------



## Stoker (28 Aug 2018)

LunchMeat said:
			
		

> When? Because you can still buy Barrett's and other branded .50's.



The semi auto barret M82

http://www.firearms-safety-course.com/list-of-restricted-and-prohibited-firearms


----------



## larry Strong (28 Aug 2018)

Lumber said:
			
		

> I just found out yesterday that in Nova Scotia (and i've heard other places as well), you are actually allowed to "trespass" on someone else's property if that property is forestland and you are doing it for the purpose of hunting.
> 
> I mean it kind of makes sense; if you have a gun in your hands, how am I supposed to stop you from coming on my property?  ;D
> 
> How's them for property rights.



Post your fence line every 50'.... "No Trespassing or Hunting"...pretty sure that would have legal standing, it does in Alberta.


Cheers
Larry


----------



## Nuggs (28 Aug 2018)

That varies province to province.

In Nova Scotia:

No person may be
prosecuted for contravening any notice given
pursuant to this Act prohibiting entry or prohibiting
activity on "forest land" as defined in the Act if that
person is hunting as defined in the Wildlife Act,
fishing, picnicking, camping, hiking skiing or
engaged in another recreational activity or
engaged in the study of flora or fauna.

"forest land" means a wooded area, forest stand,
tract covered by underbrush, barren ground, marsh
or bog.

"hunting" means chasing, driving, flushing,
attraction, pursuing, worrying, following after or on
the trail of, searching for, trapping, attempting to
trap, snaring or attempting to snare, shooting at,
stalking or lying in wait for any wildlife whether or
not the wildlife is then or subsequently captured,
killed, taken or wounded, but does not include
stalking, attracting, searching for or lying in wait for
any wildlife by an unarmed person solely for the
purpose of watching or taking picture of it.


I've run into a similar issue back home recently. When they get into trouble is building a blind, leaving garbage, causing damage, or violating hunting regs.

WRT hunters; Basically once they break a law they are deemed to no longer be engaged in a lawful activity under the wildlife act and are then subject to trespass charges.


----------



## Jarnhamar (5 Sep 2018)




----------



## Jarnhamar (7 Sep 2018)

Data shows Toronto’s gun ‘surge’ never happened


https://globalnews.ca/news/4428617/matt-gurney-toronto-gun-crime-statistics/?utm_source=GlobalNews&utm_medium=Facebook

 :tsktsk:


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (7 Sep 2018)

Another aspect that is often overlooked here is that the numbers involved are so low that they make any statistical change from year to year fall in the "not statistically significant" category, regardless of how wild the swings. It is only long term trends that can be significant here, and they are all downwards presently.

The reason is simple: the sample numbers are so low that they can be largely impacted by single events. An example: In year X, a gang is busted that used the "legitimate owner that has guns stolen" trick as the method to acquire their firearms, and 30 firearms are seized in that sole bust. In that year, there will be a huge jump in the number of firearms traced to as legally registered in Canada. Yet it means nothing. Next year no such bust occurs and we are back down by as much.

As usual, statistics can tell a story, but you must review the basis of their collection to draw meaningful conclusions.

Here, the statistics have now been shown to be in the "Lies, Damn Lies" category.


----------



## ballz (7 Sep 2018)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Data shows Toronto’s gun ‘surge’ never happened
> 
> 
> https://globalnews.ca/news/4428617/matt-gurney-toronto-gun-crime-statistics/?utm_source=GlobalNews&utm_medium=Facebook
> ...



And the damage is already done... despite this, the Liberals, the media, and the general anti-firearm crowd will continue repeating the false claim by the TPS officer until it is accepted as truth by the general population.


----------



## Old Sweat (7 Sep 2018)

I caught part of an interview with the Ottawa chief of police about half an hour ago. When asked, he stated he was not in favour of a ban, because it would not work. Instead he suggested stiffer and more stringent bail conditions, along with heavier penalties for criminal use of a firearm.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (7 Sep 2018)

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> I caught part of an interview with the Ottawa chief of police about half an hour ago. When asked, he stated he was not in favour of a ban, because it would not work. Instead he suggested stiffer and more stringent bail conditions, along with heavier penalties for criminal use of a firearm.



Exactly as advocated, consistently, by the legal gun owning crowd for years. We are not afraid of stiff penalties and jail time, because we follow the rules. We want this so the government can stop inflicting damage to us and goes after those that need it. It is too easy for the government to make us the constant scapegoat.


----------



## ballz (7 Sep 2018)

That means the Ottawa chief, the TPS Union President, and the RCMP Commissioner have all either questioned this ban or outright said it's a bad idea because it will waste resources.

Maybe, for once, we have a chance...


----------



## ModlrMike (7 Sep 2018)

It won't matter who says it's a bad idea. It is a core Liberal goal to disarm the public. 



> “Disarming the Canadian public is part of the new humanitarian social agenda.” — Liberal foreign affairs minister Lloyd Axworthy (1998)
> 
> “I came to Ottawa . . . with the firm belief that the only people in this country who should have guns are police officers and soldiers.” — Liberal minister of justice, Allan Rock, 1994.
> 
> ...



While these statements all occurred in the late 90s, I see no evidence to suggest any change of heart.


----------



## a_majoor (8 Sep 2018)

National Post had a good article here: https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/what-it-would-look-like-if-canada-banned-all-handguns

But recent history tells us it is all a sham anyway. Mayor David Miller in Toronto puled a lot of crap, including closing gun ranges and harassing legal gun owners while Toronto was suffering a wave of violent gun crimes in the early to mid 2000's, yet gun crimes continued to climb.

What ended the reign of violence was a multi national police operation in Canada, the US and Jamaica which took down a criminal organization known as the Shower Posse...no amount of "gun control" stopped the violence, only dedicated and wide ranging police work directed against the criminals. South of the border, we also have the example of cities like Chicago with draconian gun laws suffering waves of violence similar to low intensity war zones.

This is all about posturing and virtue signalling, pure and simple.


----------



## Jarnhamar (8 Sep 2018)

The Liberal government was quick to trump out the police in support of their designs, like when Goodale got behind the cheery picked 2013 stat, bullshit "gun and firearm related surge"  or mysterious Toronto police detective.

When the police however advised caution a out legalizing pot the Liberals brushed them off. 


I wonder how the Liberals will handle  these police members or unions or whoever going on the record saying a handgun ban won't help.
Will the Liberals just ignore them (and the pretty solid looking stats and evidence they tried to bullshit everyone) or will the clever Liberals capitalize on this and use it as a political get out of jail free card to avoid the mess of banning handguns.

'We looked at banning handguns but our brave and wise police officers say it won't fix the problem so we're looking at other avenues, because we care'.



And speaking about missing firearms. 
In 2012 a Freedom of Information request from then NFA determined that between October 2008 and February 2012, police forces and other law-enforcement agencies have lost at least 428 firearms nationwide.


----------



## Halifax Tar (8 Sep 2018)

I think we as Canadians way over react when it comes to crime and gun crime.  

Sure we have pockets of rougher areas but in comparison to juristicians in other countries we have a pretty safe country.  

We tend to internalize American problems as well, I suspect that this comes from an over consumption of American media. 

Truly in Canada the small problems we do have are 99% socioeconomic I reckon.  Withs gun play being a small spin off effect.


----------



## Jarnhamar (9 Sep 2018)

Hypothetical question.

Suppose the government decides all handguns and "assault weapons", let's say ar15s, are banned and must be turned in to the government without compensation.

Considering it is a firearms serialized receiver that is the registered part, could gun owners get away with turning in stripped down pistol and rifle receivers?













After all I don't even need a firearms licence to purchase an AR15 upper receiver or pistol upper slide.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (9 Sep 2018)

Hypothetical answer

They will likely insist on the whole firearm, but you're right.

All of my ARs are builds. They are registered Receiver Only. That will all they get from me. Totally stripped and smashed in a press with only the serial # untouched. They will get the same with my pistols. I sold all the other non accountable parts before they asked me to turn them in.

edit - You _MAY_ be able to call them, tell them you've stripped it all away and only have the receiver left and could they register it Receiver Only? It's still restricted. The worse they can do is say NO.


----------



## Haggis (9 Sep 2018)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Hypothetical question.
> 
> Suppose the government decides all handguns and "assault weapons", let's say ar15s, are banned and must be turned in to the government without compensation.
> 
> Considering it is a firearms serialized receiver that is the registered part, could gun owners get away with turning in stripped down pistol and rifle receivers?



On a Sig Sauer P320 the serial number only appears on the fire control group, which is removable from the frame by rotating one pin.


----------



## AbdullahD (9 Sep 2018)

Haggis said:
			
		

> On a Sig Sauer P320 the serial number only appears on the fire control group, which is removable from the frame by rotating one pin.



So you are saying we should all go buy sig sauer p320's, right? Just want to be sure... 

Abdullah

P.s if I stop posting on here it is cause my wife offed me for doing it haha


----------



## Jarnhamar (26 Sep 2018)

Bill C71 is crushing through Parliament, there is talk of it being implemented by christmas.

Max Bernier didn't bother to even shown up to vote on Bill C71. 



In other news Ralph Goodale supported the woman who was found guilty kidnapping raping and murdering Tori Stafford, 8,  getting moved to a healing lodge, calling her actions "bad practices".

This guy is really something else.


----------



## Haggis (26 Sep 2018)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Bill C71 is crushing through Parliament, there is talk of it being implemented by christmas.


It is now in the Senate.



			
				Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Max Bernier didn't bother to even shown up to vote on Bill C71.



Nor did 18 CPC members.  Not that it would've made a difference, because the Bill was destined to pass by virtue of the Liberal majority anyways (bolstered by the near-liberals of the NDP).  However, it would've been nice if they'd showed up even to symbolically vote against it and show their support to law-abiding firearms owners.


----------



## Jarnhamar (27 Sep 2018)

[quote author=Haggis] 

Nor did 18 CPC members. [/QUOTE] 
I seen that, very shitty of them. I hope the members of their ridings give them an ear full.


----------



## my72jeep (27 Sep 2018)

My NDP Member of Parliament voted for it, even after her telling me she knew it was flawed.


**Edit: IAW the site's Political Discourse policy.  **
*Staff*


----------



## Haggis (27 Sep 2018)

my72jeep said:
			
		

> My NDP Member of Parliament voted for it, even after her telling me she knew it was flawed.
> 
> 
> **Edit: IAW the site's Political Discourse policy.  **
> *Staff*



The NDP are even more left than the Liberals.  That your NDP member supported the Liberal social agenda should not surprise you.  Legal firearms owners have very, very few allies in the House.


----------



## my72jeep (27 Sep 2018)

Haggis said:
			
		

> The NDP are even more left than the Liberals.  That your NDP member supported the Liberal social agenda should not surprise you.  Legal firearms owners have very, very few allies in the House.


I thought she was coming around as her riding is northern ont. She has voted against a few of the UN proposals, she was all for the sniper rifle ban till I schooled her on the use of lee Enfields as the prime sniper platform for the commonwealth and the fact that 90% of the people in the room had one at home.


----------



## Halifax Tar (28 Sep 2018)

my72jeep said:
			
		

> I thought she was coming around as her riding is northern ont. She has voted against a few of the UN proposals, she was all for the sniper rifle ban till I schooled her on the use of lee Enfields as the prime sniper platform for the commonwealth and the fact that 90% of the people in the room had one at home.



Sniper rifle ban ?  Did I miss a timing ?


----------



## my72jeep (28 Sep 2018)

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> Sniper rifle ban ?  Did I miss a timing ?


It was something the dipers were wailing about a few years back.


----------



## Haggis (28 Sep 2018)

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> Sniper rifle ban ?  Did I miss a timing ?



it's also something currently being looked at in Australia, one of the countries Minister Blair and the PM hold out as a successful model of gun control/confiscation.  Some Australians who own "very powerful firearms" are being asked by the police to justify their continued ownership and demonstrate proficiency in order to continue to possess them. Canada's anti-gun lobby has already drawn parallels between "hunting" and "sniper" rifles, a move which should concern sportsmen should a handgun and "assault weapons" ban become reality.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (30 Sep 2018)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> I seen that, very shitty of them. I hope the members of their ridings give them an ear full.



Do we know where they were or what they were doing? I'll reserve judgement till I know that.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (12 Oct 2018)

Here's the government's public consultation questionnaire. Pretty obvious the direction their taking. Fill it out. You know the gungrabbers are going to fill it out dozens of times each. No retreat, no surrender!

https://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/cnt/cnslttns/hndgn/index-en.aspx


----------



## ModlrMike (12 Oct 2018)

It certainly has a "zero sum" flavour about it.


----------



## Jarnhamar (12 Oct 2018)

Fishbone Jones said:
			
		

> Here's the government's public consultation questionnaire. Pretty obvious the direction their taking. Fill it out. You know the gungrabbers are going to fill it out dozens of times each. No retreat, no surrender!
> 
> https://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/cnt/cnslttns/hndgn/index-en.aspx



Using the shit show US federal weapons ban as a definition base for assault weapons?

"Barrel shroud safety feature that prevents burns to the operator" 

How deadly. 

"https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Assault_Weapons_Ban#Criteria_of_an_assault_weapon

Besides didn't the US assault weapons ban prove to be ineffective in lowering crime rates/shootings?


----------



## SeaKingTacco (12 Oct 2018)

Jarnhamar, the policy paper attached to the survey is actually pretty good. It notes (amongst other things) that the US Assualt weapons ban had no real effect on violent crime in the US; that violent crime is on a general decline in Canada but that the vast majority of gun violence is gang related and there is not really any good data that legal gun ownership is problematic.

So basically, this Government is trying to solve that does't exist. 

Spread the word- every gun owner needs to fill his survey out!


----------



## my72jeep (12 Oct 2018)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Using the crap show US federal weapons ban as a definition base for assault weapons?
> 
> "Barrel shroud safety feature that prevents burns to the operator"
> 
> ...


Since when did semi auto qualify for assault status?


----------



## ballz (12 Oct 2018)

Make sure you do your part and answer the government survey...

https://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/cnt/cnslttns/hndgn/index-en.aspx


----------



## cld617 (12 Oct 2018)

my72jeep said:
			
		

> Since when did semi auto qualify for assault status?



Since it became the most convenient definition to benefit the predetermined outcome.


----------



## Retired AF Guy (12 Oct 2018)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> It certainly has a "zero sum" flavour about it.



The fact that the last firearms related question is, "Are there any other comments you would like to share with respect to limiting firearms?" would indicate that the fix is in.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (13 Oct 2018)

I suppose we could hope they drop a writ before this gets moving through Parliament. Then it could die on the floor. They can't really campaign until the writ is dropped so the longer they wait, the less campaigning he can do. And I'm pretty sure the PM wants to campaign as much as possible. Hopefully, they'll want this as an election issue to get the gungrabber vote. All this is just spit balling and wishful hoping.


----------



## Jarnhamar (13 Oct 2018)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> Jarnhamar, the policy paper attached to the survey is actually pretty good. It notes (amongst other things) that the US Assualt weapons ban had no real effect on violent crime in the US; that violent crime is on a general decline in Canada but that the vast majority of gun violence is gang related and there is not really any good data that legal gun ownership is problematic.
> 
> So basically, this Government is trying to solve that does't exist.
> 
> Spread the word- every gun owner needs to fill his survey out!



Thanks, I should have read it in hindsight. 

I'll jump on board and fill out the survey as well but I still think the Liberal government will only hear what it wants to hear. If enough responders want guns taken away from lawful owners they'll run with the results like they did that erroneous report from the random Toronto police detective.
If the survey goes against what they want to hear then they'll spin it one way or another and just approach the issue from a different angle. 

The survey is set up to target lawful gun owners along with criminals, it's pretty blantent in it's bias. 

I guess there's a small victory in denying them a small piece of propaganda. 

I mentioned a while ago I was pleasantly surprised the Liberals seemed to be leaving gun owners alone and wondered if they were holding the issue as an ace up their sleeve for closer to election time. Thinking I was right.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (14 Oct 2018)

E-petition, sponsored by Michelle Rempel, against a handgun ban.

https://petitions.ourcommons.ca/en/Petition/Sign/e-1883


----------



## ontheedge (14 Oct 2018)

I read in one of the regulations that members of the CAF are not allowed to sign petitions. Anyone in the know about this??


----------



## SeaKingTacco (14 Oct 2018)

I noticed that this e-petition has over 13,000 signatures.

The one above it sponsored by Robert Falcon Oullette calling for the ban of all private firearms? 39 signatures.

Keep up the good work, everyone. Pass the word to your fellow firearm enthusiasts!


----------



## Jarnhamar (14 Oct 2018)

Mrs Rempel brings up an interesting point.


> Bill C-71 contains no mention of the words “gang” or “organized” crime anywhere


----------



## Haggis (14 Oct 2018)

ontheedge said:
			
		

> I read in one of the regulations that members of the CAF are not allowed to sign petitions. Anyone in the know about this??



Not entirely true.  QR$O 19.10 reads:

"No officer or non-commissioned member shall without authority:

a.  combine with other members for the purpose of bringing about alterations in existing regulations for the Canadian Forces;
b.  sign with other members memorials, petitions or applications relating to the Canadian Forces; or
c.  obtain or solicit signatures for memorials, petitions or applications relating to the Canadian Forces."

So, as this petition does not relate to the Canadian Forces specifically, you're in the clear.


----------



## ontheedge (14 Oct 2018)

Thanks for the help!
Okay there was another petition going on several years ago allowing soldiers to carry concealed firearms. I guess that also borders on an authorized petition since perhaps the request is a change in the criminal code not a CAF issue directly...


----------



## mariomike (14 Oct 2018)

ontheedge said:
			
		

> I read in one of the regulations that members of the CAF are not allowed to sign petitions. Anyone in the know about this??



Signing a Petition? Go or No Go?
https://army.ca/forums/threads/109788.0


----------



## Colin Parkinson (15 Oct 2018)

The petition site won't let you sign in from a government computer.


----------



## ModlrMike (15 Oct 2018)

Aaaaaaaaand the inevitable outcome:

Strong support for handgun ban
Women more likely than men to back prohibition

There is strong support among Winnipeggers for a Canadawide handgun ban.

Three-quarters of respondents to a Probe Research poll, which was commissioned by the Free Press and CTV, said "urgent action should be taken on banning handguns in Canada."


----------



## Fishbone Jones (16 Oct 2018)

.


----------



## Lumber (16 Oct 2018)

Fishbone Jones said:
			
		

> .



What's this called... a red herring? My point is that this is a flawed argument. Yes, you can build a gun in shop class, but the meme implies that if you were to ban guns, former gun owners would start making their own guns en masse. I highly HIGHLY doubt that. How many of the thousands and thousands of gun owners in Canada have the skill, knowledge, capacity and desire to actually make their own guns? I'm going to guess that that number is EXTREMELY small.

Thus, the meme implies that "if you can't get a 100% solution, don't bother." No solution is ever a 100% solution, but we still do _something._

To be clear, I'm not expressing support for or against any gun laws; I'm just playing devils advocate and ripping apart what I think is a sh*tty argument in a sh*tty meme.  :sword:

And to be more clear, I actually am against a handgun ban, and like someone said earlier on, gun owners/enthusiasts of all types need to all be on the same page, or they will slowly whittle away until one day you can only own a bolt action center fire rifle with a 1 rounds magazine that can only be used to hunt and must have a trigger lock on it until you get to your blind...


----------



## Jarnhamar (16 Oct 2018)

Approximately 795,000 restricted guns in Canada. Handguns, revolvers, ar15s and such.

Let's say all those are banned. Pistols run from $400 to $1600 on average so let's say $1000 each. Restricted rifles on average $800 to $2500.

So let's say each of those 795,000 guns are worth $1500. 
Do we think the government will come up with * $1'192'500'000* to pay gun owners for the guns they turn in?


And that's just restricted guns. 

A very large portion of the 10-20 million estimated guns in Canada are non-restricted and would fall under the "assault weapon" definition.  Two of mine do and run $3300 each.  

If we lowball and say there's only 5 million assault weapons at $1500 a piece is the government going to add another $7'500'000'000 to the $1'192'500'000 compensation package? 


Or are Canadian firearm owners going to be out $8'692'500'000? 

And don't forget the 4'500 firearm and ammunition businesses across Canada that will suffer lay offs and closings. Or practically all of the 1'400 target ranges that would probably close up.


----------



## Lumber (16 Oct 2018)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Or are Canadian firearm owners going to be out $8'692'500'000?



First, we need to tackle the really important question, which is, why do you use apostrophes in your numbers instead of commas? Seriously, just curious.

Second, if there is any compensation, I would hazard a guess that it would be a set amount, like $100 per gun, regardless of how much you paid for. But that's just a guess.

I think a more workable and therefore more likely solution would be to first, make all current guns prohibited, and remove the right to pass along your existing weapons to family members. In the short term, no one gets their guns taken away, but in the long term, your children will have to surrender your guns to the police for destruction once you die.

Second, they invite people to voluntarily hand in their weapons with a tax deduction based on (ideally) the market value of the weapon, or (more likely) a set amount per weapon (and let's not start a discussion about "how do you assess the value of a custom rifle?". I don't have real answers here, I'm just spit-balling).

Cheers,


----------



## Haggis (16 Oct 2018)

Lumber said:
			
		

> I think a more workable and therefore more likely solution would be to first, make all current guns prohibited, and remove the right to pass along your existing weapons to family members. In the short term, no one gets there guns taken away, but in the long term, your children will have to surrender your guns to the police for destruction once you die.



The Liberals pander to the millennial and urban elite crowd.  That's their support base.  Both crave instant gratification. Grandfathering, in my case, means that my guns will remain in my possession for (hopefully) another 30+ years.  That's not acceptable to those that want guns off the street "*NOW*!".  Confiscation will be the only way to satisfy them.


----------



## Journeyman (16 Oct 2018)

Lumber said:
			
		

> First, we need to tackle the really important question, which is why do you use apostrophes in your numbers instead of commas? Seriously, just curios.
> 
> Second, if there is any compensation, I would hazard a guess that it would be a set amount, like $100 per gun, regardless of how much you paid for. But that's just a guess.
> 
> I think a more workable and therefore more likely solution would be to first, make all current guns prohibited, and remove the right to pass along your existing weapons to family members. In the short term, no one gets there guns taken away, but in the long term, your children will have to surrender your guns to the police for destruction once you die.


Why, indeed.


----------



## Furniture (16 Oct 2018)

Lumber said:
			
		

> I think a more workable and therefore more likely solution would be to first, make all current guns prohibited, and remove the right to pass along your existing weapons to family members. In the short term, no one gets there guns taken away, but in the long term, your children will have to surrender your guns to the police for destruction once you die.



The  flaw I see with this idea is a pretty serious one. Your proposed plan would instantly make all firearms legally worthless, but would create the opportunity for a massive illegal market. The government doesn't know how many, or what type of non-restricted firearms people own. The vast majority of people wouldn't do it, but there are those that would be so offended by the government devaluing their property that they would look to recuperate the lost value somehow. If people decided to start selling their non-restricted firearms under the table to friends, and friends of friends the likelihood that firearms would start ending up in criminal/less than desirable hands greatly increases.


----------



## Lumber (16 Oct 2018)

Furniture said:
			
		

> The  flaw I see with this idea is a pretty serious one. Your proposed plan would instantly make all firearms legally worthless, but would create the opportunity for a massive illegal market. The government doesn't know how many, or what type of non-restricted firearms people own. The vast majority of people wouldn't do it, but there are those that would be so offended by the government devaluing their property that they would look to recuperate the lost value somehow. If people decided to start selling their non-restricted firearms under the table to friends, and friends of friends the likelihood that firearms would start ending up in criminal/less than desirable hands greatly increases.



Hey it's not MY proposed plan, it's the plan of the hypothetical future government that exists in my head...

Anyways, as with making your own guns in shop class, I highly HIGHLY doubt that law abiding gun owners (the ones getting the shaft) would risk being caught involved with ILLEGAL WEAPONS TRAFFICKING, no matter how mad they are.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (16 Oct 2018)

I would say a good half of the people I knew who were gun owners had a unregistered firearm or two during the long gun registry. I suspect any ban will be on new guns and new gun owners, as the cost of seizing guns is massive. The good news is it would give time for a Conservative government to overturn the law. But what a mess it would create.


----------



## Lumber (16 Oct 2018)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> Why, indeed.



'You makin' fun of me, kind Sir?


----------



## Furniture (16 Oct 2018)

Lumber said:
			
		

> Hey it's not MY proposed plan, it's the plan of the hypothetical future government that exists in my head...
> 
> Anyways, as with making your own guns in shop class, I highly HIGHLY doubt that law abiding gun owners (the ones getting the shaft) would risk being caught involved with ILLEGAL WEAPONS TRAFFICKING, no matter how mad they are.



Forgive me for assuming that the words you had written as a possible government COA was you plan.  

You'd likely be surprised how many people failed to comply with the registry, we all would really because there was no enforceable way to ensure it was correct apart from door to door searches. Those searches didn't happen so there is no accurate figure on compliance. 

People don't like being pushed around by people in suits, siting in a office half a continent away. Some of the 2 million+ firearms owners would likely sell firearms illegally if that was the only way left to get value from their property. Nobody wants to wake up one morning to find that tens of thousands of dollars of their legally owned property is now illegal and worthless.


----------



## Jed (16 Oct 2018)

The first rule of fight club is we don’t talk about fight club will be the modus operendi.


----------



## Jarnhamar (16 Oct 2018)

[quote author=Lumber] 

Second, if there is any compensation, I would hazard a guess that it would be a set amount, like $100 per gun, regardless of how much you paid for. But that's just a guess.[/QUOTE] 

Me and 2 million some Canadians stand to sell $3000 guns to the government for $100, which we'll probably be taxed on too. Probably a good guess, all things considered. 

The thing is with that COA guns likely won't be made illegal over night, they'll likely have some sort of time line. Within that time line I can see a lot of licensed gun owners offering to legally buy non-restricted guns from other liscensed gun owners looking to sell them quick (already happening with the cz878 rifles) 
I'd rather lose a couple hundred bucks and still make two grand a pop than get $100 ea. for them.  

I sort of feel some of those 2million gun owners would feel the same way. 


Making guns non transferable so we die with them and give them to the government sounds like a great 30+ year plan that will get lots of votes (I'm sure) but do nothing to curb crime.


----------



## Jed (16 Oct 2018)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Me and 2 million some Canadians stand to sell $3000 guns to the government for $100, which we'll probably be taxed on too. Probably a good guess, all things considered.
> 
> The thing is with that COA guns likely won't be made illegal over night, they'll likely have some sort of time line. Within that time line I can see a lot of licensed gun owners offering to legally buy non-restricted guns from other liscensed gun owners looking to sell them quick (already happening with the cz878 rifles)
> I'd rather lose a couple hundred bucks and still make two grand a pop than get $100 ea. for them.
> ...




A key observation. A government COA the will be sure to fester hard feelings from good citizens for decades to come. Probably not as bad as Marie Antoinette's 'Let them eat cake'


----------



## Fishbone Jones (16 Oct 2018)

ONE of my guns is worth approx $5000. It is not unique nor uncommon.

Some have collections worth tens of thousands of dollars. Those people stand to lose an enormous amount of money, that they rightfully and legally invested.

If their worth tanks because of market value, so be it. 

If it tanks because of government intervention and confiscation of legally owned goods, that government is responsible for those losses. Especially, if they allowed you to initially and legally purchase them.

Other than feeling good about signing petitions and ranting on social media, there is SFA anyone can do but sit and wait.

Hopefully, this is something that they might be promising to get votes, intending to implement it after re-election.

That should give us some breathing room.


----------



## Brad Sallows (16 Oct 2018)

>Making guns non transferable so we die with them and give them to the government sounds like a great 30+ year plan

Would it be OK with real estate?  Stocks and bonds?  Stamp and coin (and other) collections?


----------



## Kat Stevens (17 Oct 2018)

I've said it before and I'll say it again;  I have 6" ABS pipe, cleanout caps, pipe glue, grease and plastic sheeting, along with a sharp shovel. I'd rather put them in the ground for four years than hand them over, only to start again when the inevitable regime change comes about.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (18 Oct 2018)

No wonder the consultation numbers were skewed. It seems our government doesn't even know how to conduct a proper poll.

No control to stop anyone filling it out more than once and it garnered thousands of anti votes from all over the world.

Bet the grits stick to their guns, pretend the numbers are good and they will consistently tout it during debate and an excuse to push the legislation.

https://torontosun.com/news/crime/lilley-serious-flaws-in-ottawas-handgun-ban-consultations?utm_term=Autofeed&utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Facebook#Echobox=1539736101


----------



## ModlrMike (31 Oct 2018)

A rather long, but well written piece by the MacKenzie Institute

Why is ‘gun control’ seen as a critical priority when increased vehicular safety is virtually ignored?

Many public safety issues confront Canada’s governments and police every day. Why do politicians seem to hyperventilate over lawful firearms use when moose actually kill more people every year than do licensed firearms owners? Could such posturing about “gun bans” be nothing more than a “red herring” to distract voters from real problems? It doesn’t seem to be about saving lives.


----------



## Furniture (31 Oct 2018)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> A rather long, but well written piece by the MacKenzie Institute
> 
> Why is ‘gun control’ seen as a critical priority when increased vehicular safety is virtually ignored?
> 
> Many public safety issues confront Canada’s governments and police every day. Why do politicians seem to hyperventilate over lawful firearms use when moose actually kill more people every year than do licensed firearms owners? Could such posturing about “gun bans” be nothing more than a “red herring” to distract voters from real problems? It doesn’t seem to be about saving lives.



I read that article this morning, it lays out a pretty simple explanation for why more laws aren't the answer.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (16 Nov 2018)

Saw this today. Better than the cold, dead fingers analogy.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (9 Jan 2019)

GOODALE, RCMP HEADING TO COURT FOR VIOLATING ACCESS TO INFORMATION ACT

 https://firearmrights.ca/en/goodale-rcmp-heading-to-court-for-violating-access-to-information-act/

The CCFR has been following the saga of a Canadian citizen who is in a battle for information with the RCMP. That battle is heading to federal court, on advice from the OIC (Office of the Information Commissioner) after Public Safety & Emergency Preparedness Minister Ralph Goodale refused to comply with the request and findings of the Information Commissioner. 

This 4.5 year battle began with a simple request by a Canadian citizen for a copy of the FRT (Firearms Reference Table), an RCMP database of firearms and their classifications. This same document has been shared and sold over 10 000 times with foreign governments and private companies, yet the RCMP are refusing to hand it over – in spite of a decision by the Information Commissioner that they must do so.

When the RCMP fail to comply with a decision from on high, who answers for that? Minister Goodale of course. 

Only problem is he is also failing to comply and has refused to order the RCMP to follow the law.

<more at link>

Funny. I'm not suprised. :


----------



## Haggis (19 Jan 2019)

Consultations are still, technically, underway, but Minister Blair is ready to make his pitch for a ban to Cabinet "within two weeks".  Shared with the usual disclaimer and an additional one against reading the article's comments.  They will inflame you, regardless of your thoughts on the matter.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (19 Jan 2019)

Blair is completely biased and an absolute hypocrite. He has always expressed the opinion that only military and police should have guns. The poll he produced was a total farce and  fell outside normal polling practices.  All we can hope for is a compliance date for surrender after Oct 19 and the Conservatives shut it down.

It'll be interesting to see if their seizure of private property, duly and lawfully purchased under existing law, will be reasonably compensated. Or whether the grits are just going to steal them for a hundred apiece, if anything.

Blair used to compare cannabis to heroin in effect and use. Now he owns million of dollars in stock with one of the largest cannabis growers in Canada. As did other liberal party insiders, before cannabis use was passed in the house. How's that for timing and changing lifelong opinions?

I don't expect much difference from him on the firearms file.


----------



## Infanteer (19 Jan 2019)

Wonder what they'll do after they ban handguns and then some guy shoots up Toronto with a handgun?   :dunno:


----------



## Fishbone Jones (19 Jan 2019)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> Wonder what they'll do after they ban handguns and then some guy shoots up Toronto with a handgun?   :dunno:



Like Chicago. They just hardened their gun laws, again, last week. They already had the toughest laws in the US, even with all that, they still kill more in a week there, than some small countries.

In order to try quell the outrage of seizing or hindering property taken from legal owners, I expect they'll use the false excuse that most firearms illegally used here are stolen from us lawful Canadian owners. Total bullshit. They've tried to push that narrative before and got called on it, but they keep trotting it out. The number one cause of illegal firearms, are smuggled guns into Canada from elsewhere. Stolen Canadian firearms used in crimes is so minisculle in comparison that it can almost be ignored.

 The rcmp and stats Canada don't even track that info - http://brianlilley.com/no-50-of-guns-used-in-crime-are-not-from-canada/


----------



## Jarnhamar (20 Jan 2019)

I've found some nice 22 caliber pistols I think would be great purchases for family shooting at the range but I'm holding off until I see whether pistols are banned.

I don't relish the idea of the government confiscation a few thousand dollars of personal property, which appear legally capable of. 

Between private owners and businesses there's millions and millions of dollars worth of handguns in Canada. Maybe 800 million in private ownership alone (850'000x$900 average)   

Think the government will forkup over a billion dollars?  Maybe maybe not. Possible they're just going to make handgun ownership and use so restrictive people will say screw it and try to sell them, perhaps turning them in when no one buys em, and not renewing their licence.

And like you point out FJ, the police and government unfortunately got caught making up numbers and stories about the leading cause of firearms in criminal hands is stolen from lawful gun owners residences. It's been debunked and called out - but its like a news paper printing a retraction to a story on page 8. Damage is already done.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (20 Jan 2019)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> Wonder what they'll do after they ban handguns and then some guy shoots up Toronto with a handgun?   :dunno:



Ban long guns. 

It is easier than actually police work and going after actual criminals.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (20 Jan 2019)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> Ban long guns.
> 
> It is easier than actually police work and going after actual criminals.



The problem isn't wanting to do 'police work and go after criminals', it's that those criminals are back in play in minuscule amounts of time......


----------



## SeaKingTacco (20 Jan 2019)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> The problem isn't wanting to do 'police work and go after criminals', it's that those criminals are back in play in minuscule amounts of time......



Oh, I get that part, too.

My point was that this Government is all about the "optics" of being seen to do something, rather actually doing the hard, uncomfortable work of getting at the root causes of urban gang violence.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (20 Jan 2019)

So true...but can't lose those prison votes...


----------



## Jarnhamar (23 Jan 2019)

Probably a glitch.


----------



## Halifax Tar (23 Jan 2019)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Probably a glitch.



Does the amount of signatures matter ?


----------



## Loachman (23 Jan 2019)

No more than facts do to decision-based evidence-making Liberals.

On the brighter side - and be prepared to be shocked by this RCI article about firearms and pending legislation: http://www.rcinet.ca/en/2019/01/21/the-gun-debate-in-canada-pt-2-assault-weapons/comment-page-1/#comment-18699


----------



## Haggis (23 Jan 2019)

Loachman said:
			
		

> No more than facts do to decision-based evidence-making Liberals.
> 
> On the brighter side - and be prepared to be shocked by this RCI article about firearms and pending legislation: http://www.rcinet.ca/en/2019/01/21/the-gun-debate-in-canada-pt-2-assault-weapons/comment-page-1/#comment-18699



Wow!  Just.....wow.


----------



## Haggis (28 Jan 2019)

Loachman said:
			
		

> No more than facts do to decision-based evidence-making Liberals.
> 
> On the brighter side - and be prepared to be shocked by this RCI article about firearms and pending legislation: http://www.rcinet.ca/en/2019/01/21/the-gun-debate-in-canada-pt-2-assault-weapons/comment-page-1/#comment-18699



it appears that the series has been removed from the RCI website for being "too one-sided."


----------



## AbdullahD (28 Jan 2019)

Haggis said:
			
		

> it appears that the series has been removed from the RCI website for being "too one-sided."



Can anyone give a quick breakdown of it?

Abdullah


----------



## Haggis (28 Jan 2019)

AbdullahD said:
			
		

> Can anyone give a quick breakdown of it?
> 
> Abdullah



in a nutshell it showed gaping holes and inconsistencies holes in the government and media's assertions regarding the source of so-called "crime guns' in Canada and also showed legal firearms owners in a positive light.


----------



## AbdullahD (28 Jan 2019)

Haggis said:
			
		

> in a nutshell it showed gaping holes and inconsistencies holes in the government and media's assertions regarding the source of so-called "crime guns' in Canada and also showed legal firearms owners in a positive light.



Thank you and yeah, definitely understand why that can not see the light of day up here.


----------



## Loachman (29 Jan 2019)

https://www.thepostmillennial.com/cbc-pulls-fact-based-firearms-article-for-being-too-pro-gun/

And the links to the cached articles from within:

https://web.archive.org/web/20181205135115/http://www.rcinet.ca/en/2018/12/03/the-gun-debate-in-canada-where-lies-truth-part-1/

https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache%3AUmVxeI_xvg8J%3Awww.rcinet.ca%2Fen%2F2019%2F01%2F21%2Fthe-gun-debate-in-canada-pt-2-assault-weapons%2Fcomment-page-1%2F%20&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=ca&client=safari&fbclid=IwAR2AxvPzs6Dr685yGfPgGs8mKY5Ne3MZYa1Ev41vI3MJIRIGzkmTK6Ou3qQ


----------



## Jarnhamar (19 Feb 2019)

Maybe, just maybe, with all the shady SNC business going on the Liberals will be too nervous to push through a handgun/black rifle ban on the accout of it may look like they're grasping low hanging fruit and trying to divert attention from their imploding empire.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (19 Feb 2019)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Maybe, just maybe, with all the shady SNC business going on the Liberals will be too nervous to push through a handgun/black rifle ban on the accout of it may look like they're grasping low hanging fruit and trying to divert attention from their imploding empire.



Or they might blitzkrieg it hoping to win back the support they are losing through their other scandals? 

Or the PM may just implode and decide to do as much damage as possible until October?

Don't forget his end game. It's not to make things better for us, it's to move us to the NWO form of world socialism. Make us a broken nation for the picking.

You can vote your way into socialism, but you have to shoot your way out of it.

He only needs to get us to that tipping point of no return. He condemns Maduro in public, but, in private, he's on the exact same path with Canada as Maduro took with Venezuela.

 I'm getting too political for the gun thread. Stopping now.


----------



## Jarnhamar (19 Feb 2019)

I'm going to email the prime minister and offer to meet with him one on one to talk a out guns and gun control. Maybe float some ideas by him.

Im thinking he needs all the friends he can get. 

Any idea what email address to use?


----------



## Rifleman62 (19 Feb 2019)

purgatory@parl.gc.ca


----------



## Colin Parkinson (21 Feb 2019)

meanwhile

https://vancouversun.com/news/crime/rcmp-labs-make-more-cuts-to-firearms-testing-impacting-some-criminal-cases


----------



## Fishbone Jones (21 Feb 2019)

They still have enough money and manpower to hound and harass legal gun owners and taxpayers though. :


----------



## Colin Parkinson (21 Feb 2019)

exactly, priorities and all that......


----------



## Cloud Cover (21 Feb 2019)

The Senate has temporarily iced this one. Not going to be a forum for JT to change the current public discourse on other matters  :


----------



## Haggis (21 Feb 2019)

Cloud Cover said:
			
		

> The Senate has temporarily iced this one. Not going to be a forum for JT to change the current public discourse on other matters  :



Really?  Hearings of the Senate's Standing Committee on National Security and Defence and scheduled to resume next Monday.  Blair is set to deliver his report (and recommendations for any bans) to Cabinet by the end of the month.


----------



## Cloud Cover (21 Feb 2019)

Haggis said:
			
		

> Really?  Hearings of the Senate's Standing Committee on National Security and Defence and scheduled to resume next Monday.  Blair is set to deliver his report (and recommendations for any bans) to Cabinet by the end of the month.



https://ipolitics.ca/2019/02/20/committee-presses-pause-on-senate-study-of-gun-bill-amid-snc-lavalin-affair/


----------



## Haggis (21 Feb 2019)

Then the Senate needs to update their web calendar.


----------



## ballz (21 Feb 2019)

Haggis said:
			
		

> Really?  Hearings of the Senate's Standing Committee on National Security and Defence and scheduled to resume next Monday.  Blair is set to deliver his report (and recommendations for any bans) to Cabinet by the end of the month.



I believe that's completely separate from Bill C-71. Bill C-71 actually can and still may get passed before October... Blair's new gun grab wouldn't have nearly enough time, he even said as much that it wouldn't be happening this time around. With that said, it may be a campaign strategy for them.


----------



## Cloud Cover (21 Feb 2019)

I wonder if ipolitics has published irregular facts.


----------



## Haggis (22 Feb 2019)

A group of about a dozen victims of Toronto's Danforth shooting have called for a complete ban on private ownership of legal handguns and "assault weapons".  They go so far as to suggest that competitive and sport shooters could still pursue their sport, but by using firearms owned by and stored at licensed shooting clubs and not their own.

No mention of action against illegal guns, though....

This should give the Liberals something to distract the public from SNC Lavalin and a few other files.


----------



## Kat Stevens (22 Feb 2019)

I think we should make it illegal to be a criminal. That would fix everything.


----------



## Jarnhamar (22 Feb 2019)

[quote author=HAGGIS] 
This should give the Liberals something to distract the public from SNC Lavalin and a few other files.
[/quote]

Right on time and predicted.


----------



## Cloud Cover (22 Feb 2019)

ballz said:
			
		

> I believe that's completely separate from Bill C-71. Bill C-71 actually can and still may get passed before October... Blair's new gun grab wouldn't have nearly enough time, he even said as much that it wouldn't be happening this time around. With that said, it may be a campaign strategy for them.



It could clear the Senate by May if everything falls into place and the Senate does not vote to change even a word of the Bill: https://ipolitics.ca/2019/02/22/gun-bill-still-faces-long-haul-as-election-closes-in/

I assume Royal Proclamation would occur before the election kicks off. Regulations can come later by OIC or they can come on day 1. Either way, it's a legislative assassination of loyal law abiding citizens ("legicide") who are not the problem and nothing of substance will be addressed from a criminal use of firearms perspective.


----------



## Haggis (22 Feb 2019)

Cloud Cover said:
			
		

> Regulations can come later by OIC or they can come on day 1.



My guess is that the regulations are all ready to go on Day 1.  There will be no delay in implementation as the results have to be visible to the Liberal loyalists before the writ drops.


----------



## Haggis (26 Feb 2019)

The Senate's Standing Committee on National Security and Defence sat yesterday and heard testimony from both sides of the C-71 debate.   I won't dissect the veracity of anyone's claims on either side, but I will say that watching Dr. Gary Mauser waving a photo of a moose while declaring that more Canadians are killed by moose each year than by lawful firearms owners was epic.


----------



## Loachman (26 Feb 2019)

And far more are killed by medical staff as well.


----------



## mariomike (26 Feb 2019)

Haggis said:
			
		

> I will say that watching Dr. Gary Mauser waving a photo of a moose while declaring that more Canadians are killed by moose each year than by lawful firearms owners was epic.



Can't comment on moose fatalities. They never sent us to one. 

I would say that about 90 per cent of the gun fatalities they sent us to were suicides. No idea if they were lawful firearms owners.


----------



## Haggis (26 Feb 2019)

mariomike said:
			
		

> I would say that about 90 per cent of the gun fatalities they sent us to were suicides. No idea if they were lawful firearms owners.



That statistical void is part of the problem.  Bill C-71 is aimed (pun intended) at enhancing the psychological background checks of lawful owners.  If my unhinged spouse/child/other relative/friend/neighbour unlawfully takes my lawfully owned gun and offs himself, Bill C-71 won't prevent that.

And Dr. Mauser was making a comparison between moose caused deaths and homicides by lawful firearms owners.


----------



## mariomike (26 Feb 2019)

Haggis said:
			
		

> < snip> more Canadians are killed by moose each year than by lawful firearms owners was epic.





			
				Haggis said:
			
		

> And Dr. Mauser was making a comparison between moose caused deaths and homicides by lawful firearms owners.



ok. Thank-you for the clarification.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (26 Feb 2019)

Haggis said:
			
		

> That statistical void is part of the problem.  Bill C-71 is aimed (pun intended) at enhancing the psychological background checks of lawful owners.  If my unhinged spouse/child/other relative/friend/neighbour unlawfully takes my lawfully owned gun and offs himself, Bill C-71 won't prevent that.
> 
> And Dr. Mauser was making a comparison between moose caused deaths and homicides by lawful firearms owners.



If you have anyone in your home without a PAL, they should not be able to access your firearms or ammo. Keep your stuff secure, as required by law and dont make it accessable to anyone. My wife had firearms prior to the PAL. They are secured and she will never get them again, until she gets her PAL. She s no idea how to access anything.

Now, that raises another point. No matter how much the CFO badgers her, she cant get at anything. If she could, and does for the CFO, we can both end up in jail. She is oblivious to what is where and how many there are. If she gets her PAL, she gets her guns back.


----------



## Haggis (26 Feb 2019)

Fishbone Jones said:
			
		

> If you have anyone in your home without a PAL, they should not be able to access your firearms or ammo. Keep your stuff secure, as required by law and don't make it accessible to anyone.



Hence my qualification of "unlawfully takes".  My firearms and ammo storage arrangements exceed the requirements of the Firearms Act.  However, in the eyes of Minister Blair and other Liberal MPs, this is still insufficient and my firearms are deemed to be at risk of unlawful use.  Since I clearly can't be trusted, centralized storage is the only solution



			
				Fishbone Jones said:
			
		

> My wife had firearms prior to the PAL. They are secured and she will never get them again, until she gets her PAL.


That's awesome incentive, particularly if she wants her guns (her property) back.


----------



## Retired AF Guy (26 Feb 2019)

mariomike said:
			
		

> I would say that about 90 per cent of the gun fatalities they sent us to were suicides. No idea if they were lawful firearms owners.



Two personal anecdotes. 

My uncle who had been suffering from both mental and health problems managed to find a .22 rifle in the attic that everyone had forgotten about and used it to commit suicide.

One of my best friends committed suicide using his legally owned hunting rifle. He was also having problems; alcohol, split with his wife, etc.


----------



## Haggis (26 Feb 2019)

Sorry for your losses, brother.



			
				Retired AF Guy said:
			
		

> My uncle who had been suffering from both mental and health problems managed to find a .22 rifle in the attic that everyone had forgotten about and used it to commit suicide.


  I assume the gun was unregistered and he was un-licensed?  C-71 would not have prevented that, nor would, I suspect, the former long gun registry.



			
				Retired AF Guy said:
			
		

> One of my best friends committed suicide using his legally owned hunting rifle. He was also having problems; alcohol, split with his wife, etc.


  Our current laws could have prevented this tragedy had someone (family member, co-worker, ex-wife) spoken up and called the local PD or CFO.  But no one wants to be "that guy" who gets a friend or relative "in trouble" even if getting them "in trouble" saves their life.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (27 Feb 2019)

Haggis said:
			
		

> That's awesome incentive, particularly if she wants her guns (her property) back.



It sounds mean and autocratic, but it's for her own protection against an unscrupulous government or Crown prosecutors.


----------



## Loachman (27 Feb 2019)

Haggis said:
			
		

> Our current laws could have prevented this tragedy



They may have eliminated firearms as a method in this, and similar tragedies, at best.

There are plenty of other methods that are just as lethal, however.

This is why gun grabbers speak about "gun deaths", and not total homicide and suicide rates.

The current legislation may have reduced the number of suicides in which firearms were used, but rope sales easily made up the difference.


----------



## Haggis (27 Feb 2019)

Loachman said:
			
		

> The current legislation may have reduced the number of suicides in which firearms were used, but rope sales easily made up the difference.



An uncomfortable truth overlooked by those who portray guns as the only suicide method that matters.  "If it saves only one life..."


----------



## mariomike (28 Feb 2019)

Haggis said:
			
		

> An uncomfortable truth overlooked by those who portray guns as the only suicide method that matters.



Hardly the only way. Although not failsafe, certainly one of the more reliable. 

Not suitable for a "suicidal gesture".


----------



## Colin Parkinson (28 Feb 2019)

Suicide rates have little to do with method, Japan and South Korea would love to have the US suicide rate per 100,000


----------



## ballz (28 Feb 2019)

Sorry, but I get a little irritated every time these debates switch to suicide. 

Was the 1995 Firearms Act about preventing suicide? Is Bill C-71 about preventing suicide? Is the potential handgun ban and "assault weapon" ban (i.e. every restricted weapon) about preventing suicides?

Did suicides spur this debate? Are lawful firearm owners being attacked because the suicide rate is too high? Is it suicide they are talking about when they keep talking about how violent our streets are becoming? Are we discussing the "legally purchased and then diverted to the black market" firearms because those are apparently causing suicide? I never once heard Ralph Gooddale mention suicides in all of this.

There is no doubt that suicides are by far the biggest danger that firearms offer, and that suicide prevention is an important part of firearm policy (probably the most important if preventing death is the goal)... but I can't help but find that bringing the topic of suicide into the fold creates a tangent that takes the heat off of those who are trying to use violent crime, gang violence, homicides, mass shooters, etc, as propaganda to disarm lawful citizens, those are the same people who don't give a damn about how many suicides occur and their rhetoric takes away from the possibility of any reasonable policy measures that could be used to prevent suicide or accidental deaths. Anyone who is concerned about suicides should be as angry as firearm owners with the government's agenda.


----------



## Loachman (28 Feb 2019)

mariomike said:
			
		

> Hardly the only way. Although not failsafe, certainly one of the more reliable.



Haggis did not say that it was "the only way". He said that it was "the only suicide method _*that matters*_".

There is a big difference.

Gun-grabbers do not care about the poor unfortunates that leap from tall buildings, lie down on railway tracks, ram their cars into bridge abutments, or hang themselves etcetera. They only care when firearms are used. And, even then, they don't actually care about the people. They only care that an inanimate object that they unreasonably hate and fear and want to take away from people like me was used, and want them all banned even though restrictions and bans do not affect suicide rates. That is why they use the term "gun deaths" and not "deaths".

Yes, "gun deaths" can be reduced, but overall suicide and homicide rates tend not to be affected by such restrictions and bans.

How many gun-grabbers does it take to change a light bulb?

None. They just pass a law banning burnt-out light bulbs and stumble around wondering why it is still dark.



			
				ballz said:
			
		

> Sorry, but I get a little irritated every time these debates switch to suicide.
> 
> Was the 1995 Firearms Act about preventing suicide?



They claimed that, back then, as partial justification for the legislation - even though they had the same information that we had.

Reductions of deaths and injuries really had nothing to do with it, though. It was always only about votes - and mainly votes in Quebec. They cashed in - and continue to cash in - on the memory of the Ecole Polytechnique tragedy. Emotion over logic.



			
				ballz said:
			
		

> There is no doubt that suicides are by far the biggest danger that firearms offer



Firearms do not, and cannot, "offer danger". Triggers do not, and cannot, pull fingers.

Absent a human operator, firearms can do nothing at all.



			
				ballz said:
			
		

> and that suicide prevention is an important part of firearm policy (probably the most important if preventing death is the goal



Firearm policy cannot influence suicide prevention one whit. Firearms legislation is completely impotent as a means of suicide  - and homicide - reduction.

Well, not completely. Restricting possession by honest citizens does not reduce is impotent. Reducing restrictions has proven benefits, however.

The US has seen significant reductions in homicides, rapes, assaults, and robberies in most jurisdictions that have reduced or eliminated restrictions on non-felonious citizens and certain people with adjudicated mental health problems. The "bad" areas - which drive and distort the US national homicide rate - tend to be large, Democrat-controlled cities with extremely- and unreasonably-restrictive policies, and even certain specific smallish neighbourhoods within those cities. There are several states with lower homicide rates than Canada - New Hampshire and Vermont are two such. Either or both are now "constitutional-carry" states, in which no permit is required for either open or concealed carry by citizens with no criminal background or certain categories of mental illness. Nunavut was, for at least one year recently, the territory/province/state in Canada and the US with the highest homicide rate.



			
				ballz said:
			
		

> Anyone who is concerned about suicides should be as angry as firearm owners with the government's agenda.



Yes - if they cared to study the actual facts and evidence with open minds. Few people understand firearms. Few people have ever handled one, let alone fired one. They are influenced by fictional movies and television programmes, and anti-gun media and government propaganda.

They have been taught to fear what they do not understand. It is called "hoplophobia".


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (28 Feb 2019)

I am not going to enter the gun debate but I will provide a little not-objective, personal observation: Here in Montreal, where anti-gun/gun grabbers have the most sway and where, I suspect, you probably have the lowest gun ownership rates in the country, we have the subway stopped for a few hours for unspecified "technical" reasons (and everybody in Montreal know what those are - jumpers) about twice a week - with all the delays and late arrivals that entails. Yet, when I was a kid and guns were more easily available, you never even had more than one or two of those a year.

I know that is not scientific, but it's a fact. At the same time, the Federal government invested millions in a suicide prevention barrier on the Jacques-Cartier bridge pedestrian walkways. it is now impossible to jump from the bridge to your death in the river below. Yet, that's been up for ten years now and the suicide rate in Montreal didn't drop.

Go figure!


----------



## Loachman (28 Feb 2019)

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Here in Montreal, where anti-gun/gun grabbers have the most sway and where, I suspect, you probably have the lowest gun ownership rates in the country



I don't think that the ownership rate is significantly different. A lot of Quebeckers love to hunt as much as anywhere else. They don't seem to have been as vocal as owners eslewhere - who are already not vocal enough.



			
				Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> we have the subway stopped for a few hours for unspecified "technical" reasons (and everybody in Montreal know what those are - jumpers) about twice a week - with all the delays and late arrivals that entails.



And the traumatic effect on crews and those who have to clean up the mess.

Statistically, a head-end crewmember (conductor or engineer), will kill at least one person in a twenty-year career.

We got sent to check a section of the CN mainline near the lakeshore on the western edge of Toronto for a potentially suicidal person sometime after midnight one night when I was flying the Police Helicopter Trial. He had been drinking heavily at a local bar, and announced his intentions to his buddies just before leaving. We searched along the tracks for several kilometres in either direction, well beyond the distance that he could have run, let alone staggered, with no sign of him. One of the coppers on the ground had phoned CN, to see when the next train was due past. Buddy would have lain on the tracks for almost 1.5 hours, in the cold, before getting "lucky". The only humanoids that we saw were fishing along the banks of a small stream that passed under a bridge carring the mainline over it. We were astounded that anybody would be fishing at that time (it was, by then, somewhere around 0200), but passed the location to the ground guys. They found our quarry huddled under the bridge - and also told us that the fisherpeoplekind were all Chinese (I still do not know whether or not that was of any significance, or a particular Chinese fishing custom). Buddy was taken to a hospital for observation and treatment, and we all felt pretty good about things.

We found out later that he'd been successful in the same area a few days after we thought that we'd saved him. He'd seemed in a good mood at the same bar, said a cheery goodnight to his friends and, this time, made no mentioned of his intent.



			
				Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> At the same time, the Federal government invested millions in a suicide prevention barrier on the Jacques-Cartier bridge pedestrian walkways. it is now impossible to jump from the bridge to your death in the river below. Yet, that's been up for ten years now and the suicide rate in Montreal didn't drop.



Toronto wasted a few million on an anti-suicide net on the Bloor Street Viaduct across the Don Valley several years ago, which was a popular spot for jumpers (somebody, I think a councillor, had referred to it as a "romantic" location for suicides). This, obviously to all non-experts, was a wasted effort, as there is no shortage of other tall structures around. Or railway tracks, or ropes etcetera. The only part that would have made sense would have been the section that crosses the Don Valley Parkway a few hundred feet below: six lanes with an occasionally-attainable 90 km/hr speed limit. To the best of my knowledge, however, nobody had ever been so inconsiderate as to launch his/herself into a car below, but it would not have been an unreasonable safety precaution.


----------



## Jed (28 Feb 2019)

Rural Quebec culture is pretty insular. They own guns and be damned if some modi Anglais or Big City gars will tell them what to do.


----------



## mariomike (28 Feb 2019)

Loachman said:
			
		

> Toronto wasted a few million on an anti-suicide net on the Bloor Street Viaduct across the Don Valley several years ago, which was a popular spot for jumpers (somebody, I think a councillor, had referred to it as a "romantic" location for suicides).



The Bloor Viaduct was North America's No. 2 suicide draw. Second only to the Golden Gate Bridge in San Francisco.



			
				Loachman said:
			
		

> To the best of my knowledge, however, nobody had ever been so inconsiderate as to launch his/herself into a car below,



Oh, they have.



			
				Loachman said:
			
		

> And the traumatic effect on crews and those who have to clean up the mess.



Only bothered me once. Some joker sounded the Operator's horn twice, while my partner and I were crawling under a subway with flash lights picking up the pieces. 

Two blasts on the horn was the "Go" signal. Guess he thought it was funny. Not!


----------



## Fishbone Jones (1 Mar 2019)

Why do I feel like we did the whole suicide thing already?

Still the same charges, still the same sensible facts in reply?

Nothing has changed has it? Did I miss something?


----------



## Jarnhamar (1 Mar 2019)

Did some quick checking, but it's tricky because there seems to be conflicting stats. 


In one study I'm seeing that during the 1980s and 90s firearms and hanging were the leading 1st & 2nd (respectively) methods of suicide in Canada with a rate of around 13 cases per 100'000 people.

In the mid and later 2000s it appears that hanging (suffocation) and poisoning were the leading methods used, and the rate dropped to around 11 per 100k.

In nuvavut its between 60 and 70 suicides per 100k.

Other studies suggest that hanging and poisoning were always the leading cause of suicides in Canada. 

Two family members I've had commit suicide one was hanging and the other vehicular, the latter having access to firearms and ammunition. 


What I find irksome is that anti-gun proponents often seem to try and relate increasing gun control with preventing suicides but their prevention/help concerns don't go beyond gun control debates. Don't use deaths of people you don't otherwise care about to push an agenda.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (1 Mar 2019)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Did some quick checking, but it's tricky because there seems to be conflicting stats.
> 
> 
> In one study I'm seeing that during the 1980s and 90s firearms and hanging were the leading 1st & 2nd (respectively) methods of suicide in Canada with a rate of around 13 cases per 100'000 people.
> ...



That is the forte of many governments.........and news agencies. Dance on the graves of the dead to try bolster a lacking opinion or perspective.


----------



## Cloud Cover (1 Mar 2019)

Jed said:
			
		

> Rural Quebec culture is pretty insular. They own guns and be damned if some modi Anglais or Big City gars will tell them what to do.



Ditto Northern Ontario.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (1 Mar 2019)

Cloud Cover said:
			
		

> Ditto Northern Ontario.



Sorry fellas. That feeling is not singular to those two areas. Gun owners right across the country hold that sentiment.


----------



## Haggis (7 Mar 2019)

The Senate Standing Committee on National Security and Defence will hold hearings on Bill C-71 again next Monday.  The witness list has yet to be posted.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (18 Mar 2019)

The events in NZ will be used to punish legal gun owners in Canada, done by the same people who say we cannot hold Muslim there or here responsible for the action of other Muslims elsewhere. That disconnect galls us.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (18 Mar 2019)

Colin P said:
			
		

> The events in NZ will be used to punish legal gun owners in Canada, done by the same people who say we cannot hold Muslim there or here responsible for the action of other Muslims elsewhere. That disconnect galls us.



Again, at the risk of thread drift, if it does hapoen in Canada, it will not be sold as punishment. It will be a public safety measure. The fact that tens of thousands of Canadians stand to lose thousands, if not tens of thousands of dollars in property and many sporting goods stores will cease to exist, is neither here nor there, in the minds of official Ottawa.


----------



## observor 69 (18 Mar 2019)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> Again, at the risk of thread drift, if it does hapoen in Canada, it will not be sold as punishment. It will be a public safety measure. The fact that tens of thousands of Canadians stand to lose thousands, if not tens of thousands of dollars in property and many sporting goods stores will cease to exist, is neither here nor there, in the minds of official Ottawa.



Looks like we follow the model of most countries. "How to Buy a Gun in 16 Countries"
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/03/02/world/international-gun-laws.html


----------



## Haggis (18 Mar 2019)

During today's SECD hearings, Liberal Senator Marilou McPherdran proposed Bill C-71 be amended to make all handguns prohibited.  She states this must be done now as the government is running out of time before the next election.  it was only a matter of time before this happened and it can be accomplished without C-71 being passed but by a simple OIC.


----------



## The Bread Guy (19 Mar 2019)

Found some interesting charts in this article about three Americans pleading guilty to firearms trafficking offences (here's the September 2018 state attorney's news release on the charges), so sharing the charts so people who know more about this than me can check out & pick apart as needed.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (19 Mar 2019)

Hopefully, should it come to it, I hope it comes with a very robust buy back program.

I'll could use that money to try get a visa somewhere more copacetic.  :rofl:


----------



## Haggis (19 Mar 2019)

Fishbone Jones said:
			
		

> Hopefully, should it come to it, I hope it comes with a very robust buy back program.



The most vocal anti-gun groups are dead set against any buyback schemes.  In their opinion, why should the government pay to purchase illegal property?  Just seize and destroy it.


----------



## Jarnhamar (19 Mar 2019)

This sucks.

I just want my kids to be safe at school and not worry about some psychopath shooting up the school, then take then shooting at the range after school.

Not looking forward to stripping down my pistols and ARs to turn in bare-bones receivers.

Should probably pick up a few more NR rifles come to think of it.


If the government thinks the SNC bullshit would cost a lot of jobs the shooting community is going to knock their rainbow socks off.

A quick glance at a message forum that has just _some _of the firearms/ammo/target/sporting shit for sale in Canada shows 126 businesses- that's alot of (actual, non SNC-bullshit) jobs and stock to lose.

If there's around 950'000 legally owned handguns in Canada (not counting what's in stock in stores) at an average of $750 per handgun thats + $712 million dollars in private property. I doubt the government can afford a buy back program.


----------



## Stoker (19 Mar 2019)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> This sucks.
> 
> I just want my kids to be safe at school and not worry about some psychopath shooting up the school, then take then shooting at the range after school.
> 
> ...



You may very well see AR's having to be turned in whole as the parts are also prohibited and such not being able to be sold. Any NR AR's will probably be seen as a loophole and be reclassified by the RCMP as Prohibited under a OIC. Any buyback will most likely go the same as Australia with a government "guide" to prices, you won't be getting full value. Between restricted and prohibited rifles and handguns I have about 35 guns that I may lose at some point.


----------



## Haggis (20 Mar 2019)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> If there's around 950'000 legally owned handguns in Canada (not counting what's in stock in stores) at an average of $750 per handgun thats + $712 million dollars in private property. I doubt the government can afford a buy back program.





			
				Chief Engineer said:
			
		

> Any buyback will most likely go the same as Australia with a government "guide" to prices, you won't be getting full value. Between restricted and prohibited rifles and handguns I have about 35 guns that I may lose at some point.



A quick look at today's pre-election budget doesn't show any money to fund a buyback.  The antis are all about confiscation without compensation.  My hope is for grandfathering but it's starting to look like any pre-election moves on legal gun control will be heavy-handed and harsh, with immediate effect,  to "turn the page" away from other problems dogging the ruling party these days.


----------



## Jed (20 Mar 2019)

Haggis said:
			
		

> A quick look at today's pre-election budget doesn't show any money to fund a buyback.  The antis are all about confiscation without compensation.  My hope is for grandfathering but it's starting to look like any pre-election moves on legal gun control will be heavy-handed and harsh, with immediate effect,  to "turn the page" away from other problems dogging the ruling party these days.



Heavy-handed and harsh would no doubt yield a hard push back. As per Quebec non compliance to their gun registry. Lots of fur will fly.


----------



## Haggis (20 Mar 2019)

Jed said:
			
		

> Heavy-handed and harsh would no doubt yield a hard push back. As per Quebec non compliance to their gun registry. Lots of fur will fly.



You re most likely right.  But, at this point, new legal gun control measures are not about achieving results, but about distraction.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (20 Mar 2019)

Chief Engineer said:
			
		

> You may very well see AR's having to be turned in whole as the parts are also prohibited and such not being able to be sold. Any NR AR's will probably be seen as a loophole and be reclassified by the RCMP as Prohibited under a OIC. Any buyback will most likely go the same as Australia with a government "guide" to prices, you won't be getting full value. Between restricted and prohibited rifles and handguns I have about 35 guns that I may lose at some point.



My receivers are all Receiver Only registrations. Bought bare balls like that and they have no idea if they were ever assembled or not. Thats all they get, after we put them through a press, leaving the markings alone.

I'm hoping an immediate stay pending appeal to the SCC. That should get us to the election at least.

I'm wondering though, this won't just put gun owners against him, as we've always been, it'll also affect others who may not like guns. What about constitutionalists and freedom seekers and other bellwethers of authoritarian takeover.

Even peasants get the balls to take back their daughters and farm by the end of the movie.🤣


----------



## Jarnhamar (20 Mar 2019)

Chief Engineer said:
			
		

> You may very well see AR's having to be turned in whole as the parts are also prohibited and such not being able to be sold.



I figure that would be quite the nightmare for the RCMP. You can buy AR upper recievers and pistol slides at the gas station (where I got mine).

Firearm owners don't have to inform the RCMP when they purchase that stuff, or when they sell it. The RCMP can (and may) decide all that stuff is prohibited and unsellable over night but nothing stops a firearms owners from saying they've already sold it.


----------



## TimneyTime (20 Mar 2019)

If criminals don't follow the law, how is new legislation going to stop criminals and gangs?  This is obvious virtue signalling to try to get new votes for the Liberal party.  This is an attempt to recuperate the losses the Liberals have suffered due to the SNC Lavalin debacle. I'm totally biased though.  It's staggeringly divisive behavior that shouldn't be allowed in the first place.  Bill C-71 should have been shot down the moment it was even thought of.  I really have to use a heavy filter when I'm talking about this stuff, because it annoys the heck out of me.

I honestly believe that armed men are citizens; unarmed men are subjects.  I can feel the eyes rolling, but you know, I don't really want to test the theory, do you?


----------



## Stoker (20 Mar 2019)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> I figure that would be quite the nightmare for the RCMP. You can buy AR upper recievers and pistol slides at the gas station (where I got mine).
> 
> Firearm owners don't have to inform the RCMP when they purchase that stuff, or when they sell it. The RCMP can (and may) decide all that stuff is prohibited and unsellable over night but nothing stops a firearms owners from saying they've already sold it.



When the SPAS 12 and Tech 9 firearms were confiscated without compensation in the early 90's the police turned up for them and you had to turn in the entire firearm not just the receiver. Basically several cars showed up, they went to your door and you had to immediately surrender them. It was mentioned in a previous post that like myself some people who bought receivers and built AR's are only going to turn over the receiver. That being said there will thousands of people with AR parts they can't sell which are kind of useless.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (20 Mar 2019)

Chief Engineer said:
			
		

> When the SPAS 12 and Tech 9 firearms were confiscated without compensation in the early 90's the police turned up for them and you had to turn in the entire firearm not just the receiver. Basically several cars showed up, they went to your door and you had to immediately surrender them. It was mentioned in a previous post that like myself some people who bought receivers and built AR's are only going to turn over the receiver. That being said there will thousands of people with AR parts they can't sell which are kind of useless.



I used to be a Boy Scout. I still follow the motto 'Be Prepared'.

If you've been watching what has been going on, and you haven't prepared yourself, or your firearms, that is no one's fault but yours.

If you still have all your parts, it will be much easier to rebuild them when we need them.


----------



## TimneyTime (20 Mar 2019)

.22s are great and all, but their ballistics are horrible, and any moderate winds affect performance.


----------



## Cloud Cover (21 Mar 2019)

Looks like New Zealand is going after the rifles, parts and accessories.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (21 Mar 2019)

Fishbone Jones said:
			
		

> I used to be a Boy Scout. I still follow the motto 'Be Prepared'.
> 
> If you've been watching what has been going on, and you haven't prepared yourself, or your firearms, that is no one's fault but yours.
> 
> If you still have all your parts, it will be much easier to rebuild them when we need them.



I am curious what you think "we" might "need" them for?


----------



## Fishbone Jones (21 Mar 2019)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> I am curious what you think "we" might "need" them for?



For hunting of course.

Ask the Venezuelans. They can explain it better.


----------



## Haggis (21 Mar 2019)

Cloud Cover said:
			
		

> Looks like New Zealand is going after the rifles, parts and accessories.



And it was done through an OIC. Maybe that's the "really big" announcement that Ministers Blair and Goodale are expected to make "very quickly".


----------



## SeaKingTacco (21 Mar 2019)

Fishbone Jones said:
			
		

> For hunting of course.
> 
> Ask the Venezuelans. They can explain it better.



I feel sometimes, that as a gun owner in Canada, that I am caught between federal politicians, whose endgame motive on firearms ownership I cannot fully trust and a vocal group of firearms owners whose rhetoric on firearms I find distasteful and will be seized upon by those opposed to all firearms ownership in Canada to use as a club against us all.

The fact of the matter is that in Canada, there is no constitutional protection for firearms ownership, unlike the US. To run around pretending otherwise and comparing Canada to Venezula is somewhat of a stretch. At least for now.


----------



## Kat Stevens (21 Mar 2019)

I wouldn’t bother buying, may as well just send the money straight the government, they’ll all be illegal soon.


----------



## TimneyTime (21 Mar 2019)

Target Up said:
			
		

> I wouldn’t bother buying, may as well just send the money straight the government, they’ll all be illegal soon.



Ah c'mon.  I'm not worried about that.  You really think C-71 will hold water?


----------



## Kat Stevens (21 Mar 2019)

Perhaps not, but this gov has proved it’s willingness to ram through legislation. I think the smart money would be on waiting for the results of the next election before splashing out the cash.


----------



## TimneyTime (21 Mar 2019)

Target Up said:
			
		

> Perhaps not, but this gov has proved it’s willingness to ram through legislation. I think the smart money would be on waiting for the results of the next election before splashing out the cash.



That'll just make the Liberals even less popular than they already are.


----------



## Haggis (21 Mar 2019)

TimneyTime said:
			
		

> Ah c'mon.  I'm not worried about that.  You really think C-71 will hold water?



You don't need a bill to prohibit firearms.  The Kiwis just did it through an OIC.  I fear (suspect) Ministers Blair and Goodale will do the same thing based on the results of Minister Blair's "extensive consultations".  I, for one, am not buying anything new until after the writ is dropped, at the very least.


----------



## Cloud Cover (21 Mar 2019)

If NZ can do it in a week, and the people clapped, then so will we. I just hope the Cons don't take the bait, what is done by OIC can be reversed by OIC after an election.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (21 Mar 2019)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> I feel sometimes, that as a gun owner in Canada, that I am caught between federal politicians, whose endgame motive on firearms ownership I cannot fully trust and a vocal group of firearms owners whose rhetoric on firearms I find distasteful and will be seized upon by those opposed to all firearms ownership in Canada to use as a club against us all.
> 
> The fact of the matter is that in Canada, there is no constitutional protection for firearms ownership, unlike the US. To run around pretending otherwise and comparing Canada to Venezula is somewhat of a stretch. At least for now.



Venezuela* was* a world class economy and near the biggest suppliers of oil in the world. A vibrant, beautiful country. Just like Canada was. 

Now they are a cesspool of misery and starvation. Led by the type of socialist dictatorship that so enamours and guides our own lead politician.

Just because Canada hasn't gotten there...yet, doesn't mean we aren't comparable.

Maybe we can ban UHaul vehicles also, or maybe knives. Cars, planes and cows are also on the agenda.

I'm terribly sorry that my concerns seem frivolous to everyone else, but I follow a bigger picture than most, that just look local.

I like to extrapolate and plan for most contingencies. I'm not zeroed in on any single fact or outcome.

Total failure of our government is simply another of those contingencies to plan for. What are the odds? If it's not zero, nobody should be condemned for planning for it.

I cannot fully trust a government whose rhetoric on firearms I find distasteful and will be seized upon by those opposed to all firearms ownership in Canada to use as a club against us all.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (21 Mar 2019)

Cloud Cover said:
			
		

> If NZ can do it in a week, and the people clapped, then so will we. I just hope the Cons don't take the bait, what is done by OIC can be reversed by OIC after an election.



...and the next government will flip it again. Maybe we can just rent our guns, four years at a time. We're a hot button, divisive topic that all politicians love to hate and they drag us out every four years to try curry favour. You're doubly screwed if your a Vet. You suffer twice concurrently.

Until property rights are enshrined in the Charter and it will cost a government millions upon millions to buy back whatever they decide to ban, we'll continue being ping pong balls and at the mercy of dimwitted, spiteful politicos and parties.


----------



## Remius (21 Mar 2019)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> The fact of the matter is that in Canada, there is no constitutional protection for firearms ownership, unlike the US. To run around pretending otherwise and comparing Canada to Venezula is somewhat of a stretch. At least for now.



Very much so.  A very simple read of the history of Venezuela shows that it is apples and oranges.  That won't stop people from believing it to be true as long as it fits their narrative. 

Convince the government that legal gun owners are not the problem.  Except that legal gun owners blew a away a bunch of people in Quebec and Christchurch. 

I think we need to move away from the term legal gun owners and go with "*lawful*" gun owners.  Anyone can do illegal things withy legal tools.  Knives, cars, Tylenol.  A legal gun owner can do unlawful things.  

So lawful gun owners are not the issue.  It's the unlawful ones that need to be targeted.


----------



## Jarnhamar (21 Mar 2019)

Remius said:
			
		

> Very much so.  A very simple read of the history of Venezuela shows that it is apples and oranges.  That won't stop people from believing it to be true as long as it fits their narrative.
> 
> Convince the government that legal gun owners are not the problem.  Except that legal gun owners blew a away a bunch of people in Quebec and Christchurch.
> 
> ...



There's no apples or oranges or hunting in Venezuela because the starving people ate everything already


----------



## Haggis (21 Mar 2019)

Cloud Cover said:
			
		

> what is done by OIC can be reversed by OIC after an election.


... but by then the semis and handguns will have been collected and destroyed.  There will be no need for an OIC and the Liberal opposition will push very hard against it.



			
				Fishbone Jones said:
			
		

> .....and it will cost a government millions upon millions to buy back whatever they decide to ban....



Look at the budget.  There is NO money set aside to finance any buybacks.  The gun grabbers have supported Bill C-71 and Minister Blair's campaign against handguns and semis on the pretext that there will be confiscation without compensation, just like in the 1990's.  The LAST thing the Liberals want to do is to alienate the antis by being too soft in their application of the bans.  The Liberals will need to show immediate results in order to capitalize on the support of the anti-gun crowd before the election.

My firm belief is that bans are coming - soon.  Handguns, semi rifles and shotguns and, for good measure, pump shotguns. They will be overarching, comprehensive, immediate and diligently enforced.   There will be no grandfathering.  There will be no buyback and there will be at least a Liberal minority government in October as a result.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (21 Mar 2019)

Haggis said:
			
		

> ... but by then the semis and handguns will have been collected and destroyed.  There will be no need for an OIC and the Liberal opposition will push very hard against it.
> 
> Look at the budget.  There is NO money set aside to finance any buybacks.  The gun grabbers have supported Bill C-71 and Minister Blair's campaign against handguns and semis on the pretext that there will be confiscation without compensation, just like in the 1990's.  The LAST thing the Liberals want to do is to alienate the antis by being too soft in their application of the bans.  The Liberals will need to show immediate results in order to capitalize on the support of the anti-gun crowd before the election.
> 
> My firm belief is that bans are coming - soon.  Handguns, semi rifles and shotguns and, for good measure, pump shotguns. They will be overarching, comprehensive, immediate and diligently enforced.   There will be no grandfathering.  There will be no buyback and there will be at least a Liberal minority government in October as a result.



Please read my response again.
What I said was, 

"Until property rights are enshrined in the Charter _*and*_ it will cost a government millions upon millions to buy back whatever they decide to ban, "

No sweat, I'm used to it.


----------



## Jed (21 Mar 2019)

So if immediate Bans are arbitrarily applied and 10s of thousands of Canadians have the property stolen by the government in the next few months; what kind of a backlash would you expect to see? Especially after the country and the world views the gong show going on in Ottawa?  As I have said before, fur will fly. Lucky if Canada will be intact within a few years.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (21 Mar 2019)

I've had some doubt that ruination was the end game. Those doubts are losing ground quicker with every day that passes.

I'm glad its coming to an end, only because I've become tired waiting for the hammer to drop for almost four years.

I haven't looked much and dont know if it could work, but if the Speaker sides with the Conservatives on the budget vote, I understand the trudeau grits could fall to a no confidence vote?

There's the Mother of all Hail Mary passes.


----------



## Cloud Cover (21 Mar 2019)

Haggis said:
			
		

> ... but by then the semis and handguns will have been collected and destroyed.  There will be no need for an OIC and the Liberal opposition will push very hard against it.
> 
> Look at the budget.  There is NO money set aside to finance any buybacks.  The gun grabbers have supported Bill C-71 and Minister Blair's campaign against handguns and semis on the pretext that there will be confiscation without compensation, just like in the 1990's.  The LAST thing the Liberals want to do is to alienate the antis by being too soft in their application of the bans.  The Liberals will need to show immediate results in order to capitalize on the support of the anti-gun crowd before the election.
> 
> My firm belief is that bans are coming - soon.  Handguns, semi rifles and shotguns and, for good measure, pump shotguns. They will be overarching, comprehensive, immediate and diligently enforced.   There will be no grandfathering.  There will be no buyback and there will be at least a Liberal minority government in October as a result.



100 percent agree. They are wickedly desperate now to switch the channel from SNC.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (21 Mar 2019)

And what better way than to enrage millions of gun owners, who don't vote Liberal, anyway.

They get to change the channel on SNC. 

In fact, they stand to gain the more they goad gun owners- some of whom are virtualiy garaunteed to say and do inflammatory things, which will then run 24/7 on CBC Newsworld.

Cynical and very, very dangerous.

The CPC had better have already gamed this out.


----------



## Jed (21 Mar 2019)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> And what better way than to enrage millions of gun owners, who don't vote Liberal, anyway.
> 
> They get to change the channel on SNC.
> 
> ...



And the Liberals are too self absorbed to game this out and see the damage they are foisting on to the country.


----------



## Haggis (22 Mar 2019)

Fishbone Jones said:
			
		

> Please read my response again.


 I read it.  I focused on the line related to the topic at hand.



			
				Fishbone Jones said:
			
		

> What I said was,
> 
> "Until property rights are enshrined in the Charter _*and*_ it will cost a government millions upon millions to buy back whatever they decide to ban, "



Yup, but property rights never were, and will not be enshrined in the constitution in our lifetime and probably never.



			
				Fishbone Jones said:
			
		

> No sweat, I'm used to it.


If you believe I quoted you out of context, I am sorry.  But, like you, I represent everything Liberals disdain and I'm taking this upcoming gun grab very, very personally as it's a disgusting, self serving and deeply offensive affront to the values I spent my entire adult life defending. I will fight it and I will campaign vigorously against any politician who supports it as it is symbolic of a government's mistrust of those who brought them to power and it's desire to rule rather than govern Canada.

The really sad part is that I will most probably also comply.  The last 40 years have conditioned me to be a creature of duty.  I still obey lawful authority.  To do otherwise, even if I don't agree with the law, is wrong and could very well see me in jail or, at least, unemployed.  I will not sacrifice my career and my family's livelihood for simple property, no matter how valuable it may be in my eyes.

if there is time between the OIC publication and the implementation, I will either sell or transfer my guns to some American friends in the hopes a future government will overturn the bans some day.  But I'm sure the Liberals will find a way to close that loophole, too.


----------



## Rifleman62 (22 Mar 2019)

I don't own guns. I shoot with a hand gun in the US with a friend who has several kinds of wpns.

Is it possible to move your guns to the US, store them in a facility, and go there to shoot as an alternative to losing them completely?


----------



## Kat Stevens (22 Mar 2019)

All we have to do is make being a criminal illegal. That way, nobody will ever get killed again, too easy.


----------



## TimneyTime (22 Mar 2019)

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> I don't own guns. I shoot with a hand gun in the US with a friend who has several kinds of wpns.
> 
> Is it possible to move your guns to the US, store them in a facility, and go there to shoot as an alternative to losing them completely?



It's possible, but it's a royal pain in the butt... and ultimately not worth it.  Might as well look for a long term posting in the states instead.


----------



## Haggis (22 Mar 2019)

Target Up said:
			
		

> All we have to do is make being a criminal illegal. That way, nobody will ever get killed again, too easy.


Where were you 313 posts ago?


----------



## Remius (22 Mar 2019)

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> I don't own guns. I shoot with a hand gun in the US with a friend who has several kinds of wpns.
> 
> Is it possible to move your guns to the US, store them in a facility, and go there to shoot as an alternative to losing them completely?



I found this. 

https://www.ezbordercrossing.com/the-inspection-experience/transporting-firearms/bringing-firearms-into-the-u-s/

This part:_it is unlawful for non-U.S. residents to possess or obtain firearms or ammunition while in the U.S. 
_ but there are a few exception listed on that page. 

Short answer might be no.  But I am not sure.  I heard that ironically, bringing a gun into the US legally is apparently harder than legally bringing in a gun to Canada.  Not sure if that is true or not.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (22 Mar 2019)

If your paperwork is in order, it takes no time at customs. We used to shoot competition almost every weekend over there. I still cross yearly, more than once with guns. Sometimes I've never even been sent to secondary. Just know the laws and have your papers ready. If you didn't have your own, you borrowed one, at the range. All legal and easily doable.

Same if we won a gun as a prize. Report to Customs on return and it's almost easier to register it through them than on your own.

Taking firearms into the states, for legal reasons, is not a heartache. Most times you spend way less time with US Border Patrol than Canada Customs. Even if you don't bring anything back. Just tell them you were over there shooting, then settle in for the wait. At least you're back on your side of the border.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (23 Mar 2019)

:Tin-Foil-Hat:


----------



## Jarnhamar (23 Mar 2019)

Fishbone Jones said:
			
		

> :Tin-Foil-Hat:



I've conversed with a number of gun owners who hold on to this belief that gun ownership will be deregulated and gun owners won't need to possess a licence to own guns. At the very minimum licenses are cash grabs for the government and the government loves it's money. Need a license for everything these days. I don't see it happening.

But what do you think of this idea.

I think the system the RCMP has in place for handgun ownership and transfers is working. For the most part handguns are difficult enough to find on the black market and we don't have the same guns everywhere problem the US does.

What if all semi-automatic rifles and shotguns were treated the same way as handguns WRT all being registered with the RCMP and require RCMP approval and facilitation of transferring. On the same note "AR15s" and other semi-autos under 18.5 would be treated like non-restricted firearms and you could bring them to private ranges, private property or use them on crown land.

Would registering all semis and having the RCMP involved be a worth while trade off to use them like non-restricted firearms?  With a big caveat that the RCMP wouldn't be banning named guns willy nilly and confiscating them.

It may not be a popular opinion among gun owners but I actually think the RCMP registration/transfer process works.  What do you (or anyone else) think?

All semi-automatic rifles and shotguns are registered through the RCMOP


----------



## Jed (23 Mar 2019)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> I've conversed with a number of gun owners who hold on to this belief that gun ownership will be deregulated and gun owners won't need to possess a licence to own guns. At the very minimum licenses are cash grabs for the government and the government loves it's money. Need a license for everything these days. I don't see it happening.
> 
> But what do you think of this idea.
> 
> ...





It would work if it was just pistols. Too me it is a non starter because hunters do use Semi long guns and shotguns all the time. You are missing the whole point of this Gun Control push, that is the long game of Anti gun zealots is that they want all guns gone. Period. 


As long as only Government controlled forces and / or Criminals have access to guns, this is bad news for a society that respects the rule of law and freedom of lawful citizens.


----------



## Haggis (23 Mar 2019)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> For the most part handguns are difficult enough to find on the black market and we don't have the same guns everywhere problem the US does.


Illegal guns can be had within hours in most urban centres for under $500 cash.  Want an 'untraceable' one, it'll cost you about $1500.



			
				Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> What if all semi-automatic rifles and shotguns were treated the same way as handguns WRT all being registered with the RCMP and require RCMP approval and facilitation of transferring.


What if I told you that somewhere, someone has a copy of the former LGR just waiting to be uploaded after C-17 passes? Government records are never really "destroyed" unless it's done to protect the government.



			
				Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> It may not be a popular opinion among gun owners but I actually think the RCMP registration/transfer process works.  What do you (or anyone else) think?


I actually agree with you in this regard.  My main beef with C-71 is that the system we have now works very well for law abiding gun owners.  But, just like in the senior ranks of the CAF, politicians and bureaucrats like to have that "leading change" bubble ticked off on their PER, whether that change is good, proper and required, or not.


----------



## Jarnhamar (23 Mar 2019)

Haggis said:
			
		

> Illegal guns can be had within hours in most urban centres for under $500 cash.



I've heard they're harder to obtain which is one of the reasons a lower level gangs share guns between them use dead drops but the $500 is just as believable.



> Want an 'untraceable' one, it'll cost you about $1500.


i'd prefer GPS enabled  ;D



> What if I told you that somewhere, someone has a copy of the former LGR just waiting to be uploaded after C-17 passes? Government records are never really "destroyed" unless it's done to protect the government.


We've seen that of course.

I don't see how the LGR would really assist police officers.  I sold all but two of the guns I registered years ago. We weren't required by law to keep track of who bought what after the LGR was dismantled so the info seems mostly useless to me?



> I actually agree with you in this regard.  My main beef with C-71 is that the system we have now works very well for law abiding gun owners.  But, just like in the senior ranks of the CAF, politicians and bureaucrats like to have that "leading change" bubble ticked off on their PER, whether that change is good, proper and required, or not.


I've also read gun owners in Canada are statistically more law abiding than non gun owners.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (23 Mar 2019)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> I've conversed with a number of gun owners who hold on to this belief that gun ownership will be deregulated and gun owners won't need to possess a licence to own guns. At the very minimum licenses are cash grabs for the government and the government loves it's money. Need a license for everything these days. I don't see it happening.



I don't see it happening either. I've never heard of anyone that ever thought it was all going away. At that though, I am satisfied with the the basics of what we have. I would like some of the restricted rifles designations lifted. The 'assault rifle' argument is hyperbolic horse hockey. There isn't a single valid arguement for any of the reasons, whether large capacity mags or pistol grips. I'm good with the handgun registration system. I would like the class system reviewed. I've never had any real problem with transfers back and forth.
Confiscation will accomplish nothing. Except piss off millions, pull scarce resources from cops while they run around collecting magazines, cause people to do things they would never do otherwise and put lots and lots of people in danger of one sort or another. Attacks won't stop or diminish, theyll just become more savage, bloody and terrifying.

I am also a believer that every person that has or carries firearms, except military, should have a PAL course.
Permits for handguns? Sure, as long as I can take it to any range set up for it and to anywhere else related to the handgun, like a gunshop or smith or to the border.


----------



## Haggis (24 Mar 2019)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> I've also read gun owners in Canada are statistically more law abiding than non gun owners.


That's because they have more to lose from non-compliance with the law - any law - than, say sport anglers or dirt track racers.

Off the top of my head I cannot think of another group of sports enthusiasts/hobbyists who stand to lose their hobby, their property and possibly their freedom and end up with a criminal record for even a minor transgression of the often confusing and poorly conceived laws of our passion.  or any other law, for that matter.  Defend yourself in a domestic assault?  You're prone to violence.  Lose your guns.  (If you think I made that up, it happened to a relative.  Yes, he eventually got his guns back, almost three years later,  but he was guilty until proven innocent in the eyes of the Firearms Act.)

And what other legal segment of the sporting/hobby community stands to be criminalized at the stroke of a pen from a government who panders to vocal special interest groups?


----------



## Jed (24 Mar 2019)

Haggis said:
			
		

> That's because they have more to lose from non-compliance with the law - any law - than, say sport anglers or dirt track racers.
> 
> Off the top of my head I cannot think of another group of sports enthusiasts/hobbyists who stand to lose their hobby, their property and possibly their freedom and end up with a criminal record for even a minor transgression of the often confusing and poorly conceived laws of our passion.  or any other law, for that matter.  Defend yourself in a domestic assault?  You're prone to violence.  Lose your guns.  (If you think I made that up, it happened to a relative.  Yes, he eventually got his guns back, almost three years later,  but he was guilty until proven innocent in the eyes of the Firearms Act.)
> 
> And what other legal segment of the sporting/hobby community stands to be criminalized at the stroke of a pen from a government who panders to vocal special interest groups?


That, in my way of thinking is a very key point. This result is very unjust, grossly unfair and non democratic.


----------



## Halifax Tar (24 Mar 2019)

Haggis said:
			
		

> That's because they have more to lose from non-compliance with the law - any law - than, say sport anglers or dirt track racers.



While I dont disagree we, firearms enthusiasts, have everything to lose I don't think that is the reason.  

Simply put criminals have no interest in spending the time or capital it takes gain the ability to walk into a store and legally buy firearms and ammunition.  Not to mention the licencing process would preclude most of them anyways, think back ground checks and references. 

Its my opinion that the reason legal firearms owners aren't the cause of any significant gun crime in Canada is: 

1) Those seeking to legally obtain firearms don't have a preclusion or background of criminal behavior to begin with, and;

2) Our current licencing program is effective in deterring and weeding the bad apples out. 

I would change two things though:

1) The PAL/RPAL courses should have implemented a practical marksmanship portion with additional fees to cover the expenses, and;

2) The AR platform should be moved to the non-restricted catagory, as its position in the restricted catagory is based solely on aesthetics and not about functionality or capability.


----------



## Haggis (25 Mar 2019)

An article in today's G&M shows the results and, more importantly, calls into question the methodology and reliability of the recent on-line poll commissioned by Minister Blair.

I believe that, as a result of one person's ego-driven statement to the G&M, the "gun lobby" has lost the ethical high ground in this fight.


----------



## Jed (25 Mar 2019)

Haggis said:
			
		

> An article in today's G&M shows the results and, more importantly, calls into question the methodology and reliability of the recent on-line poll commissioned by Minister Blair.
> 
> I believe that, as a result of one person's ego-driven statement to the G&M, the "gun lobby" has lost the ethical high ground in this fight.



While I believe it would be impossible to expect everyone in the firearms community to have the same opinion. It wouldn’t matter one way or the other. The Liberal machine would continue to gaslight the issue for their own purposes.


----------



## Haggis (25 Mar 2019)

Jed said:
			
		

> The Liberal machine would continue to gaslight the issue for their own purposes.



Having ethically conducted poll results in favour of the regulatory status quo with more emphasis on* illegal* guns would have made it much harder for the Liberals to gaslight the issue.  We have lost that.  The entire result is suspect.  Even if the questions were slanted towards the achieving the government's aim and roundly opposed, it's now clear that (at least) one side in the debate has deliberately influenced the results.

On the good news (?) side, there is increasing chatter of amending Bill C-71, possibly to include bans, which should result in it going back to the House for a vote then returning to committee for further study.  This would push it beyond the writ being dropped and it would die on the order paper.  Not a bad thing, IMO.


----------



## TimneyTime (25 Mar 2019)

Cloud Cover said:
			
		

> the fact the RCMP chose to put these words in bold suggests something else is going to happen between now and 2021: "The Order will provide protection from criminal prosecution for illegal possession of these firearms until February 28, 2021, while *the Government implements measures to address continued possession and use.*



I'm not sure what was so dangerous about those particular firearms that they had to table them for prohibited firearms anyhow?  Seems like random tooling by the Liberals, to me.


----------



## TimneyTime (25 Mar 2019)

Does it seem like the people pushing gun control are more violently attacking gun rights, than the vast majority of gun owners in Canada are attacking people with guns?  I can't even bring up AR-15s where I work without someone seeing red and exploding all over me.  It's really sad.


----------



## Haggis (25 Mar 2019)

TimneyTime said:
			
		

> I'm not sure what was so dangerous about those particular firearms that they had to table them for prohibited firearms anyhow?  Seems like random tooling by the Liberals, to me.



First off, the RCMP jumped the gun (pun intended) and were forced to revise the text of the website you referenced.  They have been called to task on that as Bill C-71 has not yet passed.



			
				TimneyTime said:
			
		

> Does it seem like the people pushing gun control are more violently attacking gun rights, than the vast majority of gun owners in Canada are attacking people with guns?



This is, for the most part, true.  It's highly uncommon for the MSM to challenge the "facts" trotted out by gun control advocates, such as the "50% of crime guns are domestically sourced", which has been thoroughly disproven.  Some gun control advocates have proposed drastic measures against gun owners and threatened them with violence should they not comply.



			
				TimneyTime said:
			
		

> I can't even bring up AR-15s where I work without someone seeing red and exploding all over me.  It's really sad.



The AR has a bad rep thanks to the MSM, never mind how many lives it's saved and how many good guys/gals have used it to defend others.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (25 Mar 2019)

TimneyTime said:
			
		

> Does it seem like the people pushing gun control are more violently attacking gun rights, than the vast majority of gun owners in Canada are attacking people with guns?  I can't even bring up AR-15s where I work without someone seeing red and exploding all over me.  It's really sad.



That is because the medium is the message and the message is false fake news, proceeding with a communist agenda for their benefactors and bosses.


----------



## FSTO (25 Mar 2019)

Haggis said:
			
		

> First off, the RCMP jumped the gun (pun intended) and were forced to revise the text of the website you referenced.  They have been called to task on that as Bill C-71 has not yet passed.
> 
> This is, for the most part, true.  It's highly uncommon for the MSM to challenge the "facts" trotted out by gun control advocates, such as the *"50% of crime guns are domestically sourced"*, which has been thoroughly disproven.  Some gun control advocates have proposed drastic measures against gun owners and threatened them with violence should they not comply.
> 
> ...



Heard that quote today by a Dr who is a gun control advocate on Anthony Fury's radio show this morning (Canada Talks on Sirius). He said nothing to the good Dr to refute that claim.


----------



## Haggis (25 Mar 2019)

FSTO said:
			
		

> Heard that quote today by a Dr who is a gun control advocate on Anthony Fury's radio show this morning (Canada Talks on Sirius). He said nothing to the good Dr to refute that claim.


My point is made.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (25 Mar 2019)

I've said it before. If you are sitting on a firearms panel for legislation., everyone there should be PAL restricted trained and have at least one good range session under their belt.

It is the norm rather than the exception, that we deal constantly with those that have no idea what the laws are. Firearms owners, by default are the best experts at that.

I'm including police in this also. There are huge amounts of hunters and shooters that have been stopped, searched, harassed and penalized because the officer that was carrying as part of the job has no civilian arms and no PAL. They only try think about firearms laws when a situation is encountered. Even shooters carrying copies of the RCMP rules of transport and storage guidance memo, have not been able to assuage the ire of certain RCMP. Typically, at the station, the Desk Sgt usually prevails with some common sense and education of the officer. If they had the same training as firearms owners, maybe the mistakes would diminish. If councils and boards and committees, had the training, we might not have as much animosity when they finally understand. Unfortunately, most have no interest of becoming educated and are comfortable in their belief that firearms sneak out at night and kill people while the owner sleeps.


----------



## TimneyTime (25 Mar 2019)

Loachman said:
			
		

> Gun Control Explained by Rowan Atkinson https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GwKThyMmi7I



There's a reason this is categorized as comedy.

The reality is that a criminal in Canada can break into your house, and if the judge feels like it... if you defend yourself, and injure the criminal, you can be charged as well.  Because the law is truly blind, and there was an incident of violence on your behalf.

The very fact that you have to use 'reasonable force' when defending yourself on your own property, when someone else is clearly breaking the law... is quite frankly totally insane.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (25 Mar 2019)

TimneyTime said:
			
		

> There's a reason this is categorized as comedy.
> 
> The reality is that a criminal in Canada can break into your house, and if the judge feels like it... if you defend yourself, and injure the criminal, you can be charged as well.  Because the law is truly blind, and there was an incident of violence on your behalf.
> 
> The very fact that you have to use 'reasonable force' when defending yourself on your own property, when someone else is clearly breaking the law... is quite frankly totally insane.



The only thing a homeowner can do is harden his home, but many local laws prevent that. Or you can run, after you herd all the family out of danger. Or you can have your kids traumatized while the perps beat you and the wife. If you're in bed and the bad guys kick in the door, you have seconds to react. If unarmed, your only recourse is option three and hope you get squeamish assailants. You're either dead or beat, but you shouldn't get charged. I say shouldn't because the Crown appears to have their own thoughts that home invaders aren't the problem, the people that chase them out with guns are.

Call 911, because when seconds count, police are only minutes or hours away. To Serve and Investigate.


----------



## TimneyTime (25 Mar 2019)

Fishbone Jones said:
			
		

> The only thing a homeowner can do is harden his home, but many local laws prevent that. Or you can run, after you herd all the family out of danger. Or you can have your kids traumatized while the perps beat you and the wife. If you're in bed and the bad guys kick in the door, you have seconds to react. If unarmed, your only recourse is option three and hope you get squeamish assailants. You're either dead or beat, but you shouldn't get charged. I say shouldn't because the Crown appears to have their own thoughts that home invaders aren't the problem, the people that chase them out with guns are.
> 
> Call 911, because when seconds count, police are only minutes or hours away. To Serve and Investigate.



Also, taxpayers have to pay for expanded police protection, while if firearms were allowed as a deterrent to home invasion... as in you can get killed if you break into someone's house... I'm pretty sure criminal b&e would decline rapidly.

Fun fact:  in 2012, Winnipeg was more dangerous per capita in terms of violent crime than Compton.


----------



## Haggis (25 Mar 2019)

TimneyTime said:
			
		

> The very fact that you have to use 'reasonable force' when defending yourself on your own property, when someone else is clearly breaking the law... is quite frankly totally insane.



Honestly, what's wrong with "reasonable force"? Do you understand the concept of reasonable force?

Reasonable force is not proportional force.  It is force that is reasonable in the circumstances.  It is dependent on situational factors, such as the abilities of the victim and individual perceptions as per CCC s 34(2).  For example, a smaller person may have to use very violent, disproportionate force to defend themselves against a bigger aggressor.  This force is reasonable, because proportional force would not have resulted in an adequate defense and the victim reasonably feared grievous bodily harm or death and was able to articulate those fears.

I have no problem with reasonable force.  Anything more may subject me to civil or criminal liability.


----------



## TimneyTime (25 Mar 2019)

Haggis said:
			
		

> Honestly, what's wrong with "reasonable force"? Do you understand the concept of reasonable force?
> 
> Reasonable force is not proportional force.  It is force that is reasonable in the circumstances.  It is dependent on situational factors, such as the abilities of the victim and individual perceptions as per .  For example, a smaller person may have to use very violent, disproportionate force to defend themselves against a bigger aggressor.  This force is reasonable, because proportional force would not have resulted in an adequate defense and the victim reasonably feared grievous bodily harm or death and was able to articulate those fears.
> 
> I have no problem with reasonable force.  Anything more may subject me to civil or criminal liability.




What's wrong with "reasonable force" is that criminals use it against civilians who are trying to defend themselves.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (25 Mar 2019)

What??   You need to open the criminal code and read what reasonable force is


----------



## Fishbone Jones (25 Mar 2019)

TimneyTime said:
			
		

> What's wrong with "reasonable force" is that criminals use it against civilians who are trying to defend themselves.



There's a fair amount of cases where the assailants have sued the homeowner for getting hurt after breaking in.

"I only broke in to steal his beer and he hit me with a golf club. I wasnt even armed, just thirsty."

Civilians bolting out of bed don't know how to recognise subtle aggression moves, or not. They are intent on protecting themselves and their family without consulting on the Use of Force Continuum


----------



## mariomike (25 Mar 2019)

TimneyTime said:
			
		

> The very fact that you have to use 'reasonable force' when defending yourself on your own property, when someone else is clearly breaking the law... is quite frankly totally insane.



For reference to the discussion,

The Legality of Self Defence In Canada
https://navy.ca/forums/threads/97769.75
7 pages.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (25 Mar 2019)

Yup.....and "I feared for my life" when weighed by a reasonable and unprejudiced mind allows you to do whatever you need to do....in good faith of course.    Anyone can sue anyone else for anything....that's a whole different ball game.


----------



## Haggis (25 Mar 2019)

TimneyTime said:
			
		

> What's wrong with "reasonable force" is that criminals use it against civilians who are trying to defend themselves.



Wrong, on so many levels.  A criminal who uses force to commit an offence does so unlawfully, regardless of the circumstances.  

It becomes an issue for the victim only when the force used is so wildly disproportionate as to be unreasonable in the circumstances.  Someone attacks me with fists, I cannot use force which could reasonably be expected to cause grievous bodily harm or death UNLESS I can articulate that I believed the force was reasonable for me, given the circumstances and the judge (or jury) buys it.



			
				Fishbone Jones said:
			
		

> Civilians bolting out of bed don't know how to recognize subtle aggression moves, or not. They are intent on protecting themselves and their family without consulting on the Use of Force Continuum.



Agreed, up to the point where a firearm is used.  The use of lethal force as a "go to" in all circumstances is unacceptable.

Those who argue for concealed carry or the ability to have a firearm readily available for home defense often fail to understand that knowing how to shoot is sometimes less important than knowing when to shoot.  The US is rife with stories of homeowners who fired at sounds and shadows, only to have shot a family member, neighbour or friend.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (25 Mar 2019)

Haggis said:
			
		

> Wrong, on so many levels.  A criminal who uses force to commit an offence does so unlawfully, regardless of the circumstances.
> 
> It becomes an issue for the victim only when the force used is so wildly disproportionate as to be unreasonable in the circumstances.  Someone attacks me with fists, I cannot use force which could reasonably be expected to cause grievous bodily harm or death UNLESS I can articulate that I believed the force was reasonable for me, given the circumstances and the judge (or jury) buys it.
> 
> ...



Then there's this. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basil_Parasiris some may remember when this happened
Not disagreeing, just filling it out .🙂


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (25 Mar 2019)

I got no issue with a firearm being used.....knife, bat, big guy, all could be lethal and therefore lethal force would be "reasonable ".  Just make sure he/she are advancing and not retreating


----------



## Haggis (25 Mar 2019)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> I got no issue with a firearm being used.....knife, bat, big guy, all could be lethal and therefore lethal force would be "reasonable ".  Just make sure he/she are advancing and not retreating



Fully agree.  Considering  the situational factors, as per my post No. 347, above, lethal force can be quite reasonable.


----------



## Haggis (25 Mar 2019)

Fishbone Jones said:
			
		

> Then there's this. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basil_Parasiris some may remember when this happened
> Not disagreeing, just filling it out .🙂



I remember that well. An all-round trail of errors on the part of the police who were the the substantial authors of this tragedy. He was found guilty of the firearms charges and his wife and children recently lost their bid for compensation from the Laval Police in a decision where that judge saw the conduct of the police far differently than the trial judge in 2007.


----------



## Cloud Cover (25 Mar 2019)

That decision was issued just this past February, the English version is not yet available in CanLII: Gounis c. Ville de Laval, 2019 QCCS 479 (CanLII), < http://canlii.ca/t/hxm21 >

I note Basil himself is not listed as one of the plaintiffs.


----------



## Jarnhamar (25 Mar 2019)

Humor me fellas.

In less than 2 weeks the number of Canadians killed in alcohol related vehicle accidents will surpass the NZ shooting number of fatalities. Up to 4 lives a day are lost on average.

What if, to save lives, we started implementing changes. 

Require a license to drink alcohol. Lets say one licence to drink at a bar, and another licence to drink at home which involves a police check, maybe some interviews. 

You have to call in to the government to get permission to transport alcohol from the store to your house, on top of having a licence.

Limit alcohol consumed at the bar to 5 or 10 drinks.

For those allowed to store alcohol at home, a locked container that's difficult to break into. Which is subject to police inspections.

Prohibit certain brands of beer with higher alcohol content. Prohibit some alcohol based on popularity or even how the bottles look.

Now I know that probably sounds obnoxious and clearly there's a difference between a bottle of beer and an AR15. Personally I get annoyed when gun owners start droning on about banning trucks and knives.

But if the big rallying call here is about saving lives in Canada, well alcohol is a factor in more deaths than firearms by a pretty big margin.
Plus I would also argue a larger factor in suicides, assault, sexual assault, maybe robbery?





On a side note every day an average of 11 people overdose in Canada on opioids. Of course someone overdosing on opioids in a mcdicks bathroom isn't as violent as someone shooting up a school (more of a someone elses problem) but again if lives are lives and suicide gets included in "gun deaths" 11 people (accidentally) killing themselves every day is a pretty huge problem isn't it?


----------



## Fishbone Jones (26 Mar 2019)

The reason though for your ideas is saving lives.

The government gun plans are not safety related or victim related. If they were, they'd be settled by now. That is a well orchestrated curtain of deceit.

The government gun plans are being used for confiscation, not safety. 

Safety is simply a convenient excuse to muddy the waters and distract from their real reason.

Simply, the government is saying, "we don't trust you with guns and we won't let you keep them"

Why would they be afraid of gun owners?

When your government tells you you don't need a gun, you need a gun.

Numerous examples exist where confiscation has led to subjugation and genocide after taking place.

Can it happen here? Never say never. The Brits tried confiscating everyone's guns just before the American Revolution. Things might have been different had the colonials complied.

More recently, we can look to Stalin, Hitler, PolPot, Mao, to name few.


----------



## Haggis (26 Mar 2019)

I know this article  is from the CBC but it's fairly well balanced for a change.  The one point that the author misses is that the Trudeau government can also show courage and responsibility by NOT following New Zealand`s  lead and bowing to the strident cries of the anti-gun crowd and the intent of the terrorist who openly stated in his manifesto that he wanted his attack to precipitate exactly this type of assault on gun ownership in NZ (and America) so it would become a highly divisive international issue.

Trudeau desperately needs to start displaying integrity if he is to salvage his party`s future by October.  Leaving lawful gun owners alone and targeting criminals would be a great start.


----------



## Cloud Cover (26 Mar 2019)

That's a strategy fraught with the perils of exercising common sense in an irrational debate.


----------



## Haggis (26 Mar 2019)

Cloud Cover said:
			
		

> That's a strategy fraught with the perils of exercising common sense in an irrational debate.


True, but I'm feeling particularly optimistic today.  Must be the sunshine.


----------



## Jarnhamar (26 Mar 2019)

https://www.tvnz.co.nz/one-news/new-zealand/firearm-buyback-scheme-could-cost-500m-twice-governments-estimate-lobbyist-group-says?variant=tb_v_3&fbclid=IwAR2kDAk6E4FnCFEuzXC5AzZ6VjHv-SXBlvrnk1STAuq1hOFmas2PDCuzS8Y


The $200 million dollars  buy back the NZ government initially claimed for the 15'000 semi-automatic rifles their estimating could be as much $500 million.

$500 million for 15'000 if I'm reading that right. In Canada I believe there's an estimated 50'000 AR15s alone and a hell of alot more guns that would fall under a military style /detachable magazine clause. Litterally millions I'd guess.

NZ gun owners also want more compensation for magazines (I have 9 P226 mags at $65 a pop), expensive reloading equipment and especially ammunition.

I'd imagin Canadians would demand the same. 

Liberal government is going to have to come up with a lot of money, kick the can down the road, or confiscate millions of dollars or private property. Tough choices for Mr T.


----------



## TimneyTime (26 Mar 2019)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> https://www.tvnz.co.nz/one-news/new-zealand/firearm-buyback-scheme-could-cost-500m-twice-governments-estimate-lobbyist-group-says?variant=tb_v_3&fbclid=IwAR2kDAk6E4FnCFEuzXC5AzZ6VjHv-SXBlvrnk1STAuq1hOFmas2PDCuzS8Y
> 
> 
> The $200 million dollars  buy back the NZ government initially claimed for the 15'000 smti-automatic rifles their estimating could be as much $500 million.
> ...



The idea of paying taxes so that the government can buy back my guns is kind of circular too.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (26 Mar 2019)

My reloading equipment is off the table. I reload for guns other than semi's & rifles fire pistol cartridges. Other than an ancillary relationship. My reloading stuff won't kill anyone. Besides, it can't figure out how the door works.

On the other hand, I caught my guns having a party the other night and stopped them before they went downtown and caused trouble. They thought about pushing it, but I reminded them, I was the one that feeds them. They grudgingly returned to their rooms. You think they didn't have a brain sometimes. :facepalm:


----------



## Haggis (26 Mar 2019)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> I'd imagine Canadians would demand the same.


That would be asking the government for more than they can give right now. 



			
				Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Liberal government is going to have to come up with a lot of money, kick the can down the road, or *confiscate millions of dollars or private property*.


 As I pointed out before, there is no money earmarked in the FY 2019/2020 budget for compensation following a ban.



			
				Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Tough choices for Mr T.


  He's used to tough choices.  He's just not used to accepting the consequences of those choices.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (26 Mar 2019)

Haggis said:
			
		

> He's used to tough choices.  He's just not used to accepting the consequences of those choices.



He doesn't make tough choices, he throws darts. He has no idea what he's doing as he bumbles from one fiasco to another. All he hopes for, is that if it goes in the shitter, he has someone to blame.


----------



## Kat Stevens (26 Mar 2019)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> https://www.tvnz.co.nz/one-news/new-zealand/firearm-buyback-scheme-could-cost-500m-twice-governments-estimate-lobbyist-group-says?variant=tb_v_3&fbclid=IwAR2kDAk6E4FnCFEuzXC5AzZ6VjHv-SXBlvrnk1STAuq1hOFmas2PDCuzS8Y
> 
> 
> The $200 million dollars  buy back the NZ government initially claimed for the 15'000 semi-automatic rifles their estimating could be as much $500 million.
> ...



We can demand all we want, everyone here knows what we'll get is the square root of fuck all.


----------



## Cloud Cover (26 Mar 2019)

TBH the feds are setting themselves up for an epic constitutional battle with provinces who, should they choose, have a lot of firepower. If Kenney wins the election in AB, the block from AB to Ont. will be looking to backhand the feds on pretty much every issue they can. The mission for firearms owners is to push for enshrined property rights.


----------



## SentryMAn (28 Mar 2019)

Why gun control works....for reasonable society
If no one has guns and a fight breaks out, the hospital deals with a couple broken bones, a concussion, some lacerations, etc.
If a fight breaks out and everyone has guns, the coroner is called, the police need to make notifications, the wounded are arrested, families destroyed, the good guys get shot by the police, etc.

I'm not against gun ownership, I could care less about you spending 1000's on arming yourself for when the government gets overthrown by......the military? Militia? USA?  still trying to figure out what people are arming themselves against.

Responsible ownership of weapons and guns SHOULD be what every person in Canada is looking for.  I really don't want to go down the road of the USA where I get stopped for speeding and need to be removed from my car by a trigger happy gun pointing officer of the law for possibly having a firearm in my car.  

Do you really want some Joe kid with a fake ID walk into a gun store and pay a few quid for a gun then walk out after 20mins of pleading with the store owner?

does anyone really believe the ideology that to solve the gun problem we need more guns?  Why is it that guns make people feel safe?  Why are people scared of some mythical uprising of the totalitarian state?  Are we all scared of Putin?

Flame away.....


----------



## Jarnhamar (28 Mar 2019)

[quote author=Sentry Man] 

I'm not against gun ownership, I could care less about you spending 1000's on arming yourself for when the government gets overthrown by......the military? Militia? USA?  still trying to figure out what people are arming themselves against.

[/quote]

Thats as pig headed as me saying I'm not against you buying alcohol so you can.... get women drunk to date rape them?


----------



## Haggis (28 Mar 2019)

SentryMAn said:
			
		

> Responsible ownership of weapons and guns SHOULD be what every person in Canada is looking for.



Canada already does have responsible ownership of firearms and that privilege is exercised by two million Canadians every day.  If you read through the 300+ posts that precede yours you'll see that the focus of current government initiatives on gun "control" are aimed at those 2M Canadians that are already responsible.  There is nothing - absolutely NOTHING in Bill C-71 to address current and future criminal acquisition and use of illegal firearms.



			
				SentryMAn said:
			
		

> Do you really want some Joe kid with a fake ID walk into a gun store and pay a few quid for a gun then walk out after 20mins of pleading with the store owner?



The instances of this happening in Canada (and I suspect you're unaware of how the current laws work to have made such a statement) is so rare as to be statistically insignificant.  Again, current gun "control" initiatives will do nothing to stop Joe Kid from buying an illegal gun smuggled in from the US out of the trunk of a car.  And it'll cost a heck of a lot more than a few quid.


----------



## SentryMAn (28 Mar 2019)

My apologies, I need to remember the audience of this board isn't "general public" and more geared towards trained military members/former members.

I'm used to the Canadians wanting the 2nd amendment in Canada and allowing open carry and everything that comes with it


----------



## Lumber (28 Mar 2019)

SentryMAn said:
			
		

> My apologies, I need to remember the audience of this board isn't "general public" and more geared towards trained military members/former members.
> 
> I'm used to the Canadians wanting the 2nd amendment in Canada and allowing open carry and everything that comes with it



There are some on here who want exactly that, and would go a step further and believe guns should be treated like, oh let's say... breakfast cereal. Production standards for sure, but no real laws when it comes to buying, selling, owning, using, sharing, etc.

So, while we're definitely more a "right leaning" site when it comes to gun laws, I would say the majority of us on here thing that gun laws and gun control are good thing, but that those laws need to be smart and based on real data. Most probably don't want it to be like the US where you can go into a store without any kind of licence or training and buy a gun. In fact, most states have passed laws that expressly state that it is illegal to MAKE gun laws requiring licences and registration, meaning to create licencing nad registration laws, they'd first have to repeal the anti-licence and registration laws.

I, for one, used to be much more pro gun-control, but the people here make sound arguments, and it's hard to be pro-gun control (the really strict kind of gun control) when you stop and listen and hear the facts.

When it comes to the US, I'm mixed. I don't personally believe that we need guns for "home protection" or "self defence" here in Canada, but in the US, there are SO MANY FREAKING GUNS that if I lived there, I would probably want one too. Other than making guns illegal and forcibly taking guns away from all gun owners to reduce the number of guns in the US, no gun control law, IMO, will take away the threat posed by the fact that there are just an unbelievable number of guns, both legal and illegal, floating around the states.


----------



## Remius (28 Mar 2019)

I think that it might just be as simple as not criminalising legal law abiding gun owners when the government moves the goal posts. 

Grandfathering people who followed the rules might be nice too. 

People like to use the car license analogy.  Well when they moved to graduated licensing in Ontario, current licensees didn't have to go back and redo the new tests and conditions. 

I think a vast majority of the pro gun lobby in Canada aren't against certain legislation surrounding fire arms just legislation that they feel unfairly treats them when all they do is follow the rules.


----------



## Haggis (28 Mar 2019)

Remius said:
			
		

> I think that it might just be as simple as not criminalising legal law abiding gun owners when the government moves the goal posts.


The problem is that the government rarely moves the goalposts in favour of law abiding gun owners.  By default, they become as criminalized as the gang bangers.  What would be nice is if simple paper gun crimes were decriminalized and dealt with administratively instead.



			
				Remius said:
			
		

> Grandfathering people who followed the rules might be nice too.


  This statement implies that something needs to be grandfathered because it was banned.  



			
				Remius said:
			
		

> I think a vast majority of the pro gun lobby in Canada aren't against certain legislation surrounding fire arms just legislation that they feel unfairly treats them when all they do is follow the rules.



But it's because they follow the rules that law abiding gun owners are an easy target for new laws.  For the most part, they will comply, likely grudgingly, because they are law abiding.  This gives the government the social justice "win" needed.  The Liberals know that criminal possession and use of firearms is already outlawed.  They can "re-outlaw" it.  So, they go after something they can outlaw (like handguns) so they can be seen to have done "something".


----------



## Kat Stevens (28 Mar 2019)

If I had guns that were required to be turned in, they’d be going through a 80 ton press on the way to their internment.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (28 Mar 2019)

Lumber said:
			
		

> There are some on here who want exactly that, and would go a step further and believe guns should be treated like, oh let's say... breakfast cereal. Production standards for sure, but no real laws when it comes to buying, selling, owning, using, sharing, etc.



Not trying to force an issue, but I don't think I've seen anyone here voice that extreme an opinion. Maybe I'm wrong. Can you point me to a post where the user that said they preferred no gun laws whatsoever and give things over to the 1800's Old West? That would be akin to saying they want criminals to have the same status as law abiding owners.  :dunno:

On the face, that seems a rather, over the top, hyperbolic statement. 




			
				SentryMAn said:
			
		

> Why gun control works....for reasonable society
> If no one has guns and a fight breaks out, the hospital deals with a couple broken bones, a concussion, some lacerations, etc.
> If a fight breaks out and everyone has guns, the coroner is called, the police need to make notifications, the wounded are arrested, families destroyed, the good guys get shot by the police, etc.
> 
> ...



If your queries are genuine. Start reading this thread at the beginning. Then go read The Great Gun Control Debate ver 1.0. A lot of your questions, if not all, have been asked and answered before. Go spend some quality reading time, your perspective might change.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (28 Mar 2019)

Target Up said:
			
		

> If I had guns that were required to be turned in, they’d be going through a 80 ton press on the way to their internment.



I have a standing offer at a die shop, 24/7.


----------



## suffolkowner (28 Mar 2019)

Before the Christchurch massacre I felt that the Liberals would move handguns to prohibited and semiautomatics to restricted. I am now fearing that there is pressure and opportunity to do more and follow the NZ example. It would be a great wedge issue for the election. My rifles are split almost 50/50 between semis and levers and I am extremely disinclined to lose them. For me they are a tool that I use in my daily/yearly life. For hunting and the removal of predators that threaten my family and livestock. I feel that firearm ownership is more than just a privilege and more like a restricted right. I don't believe my grandfather had any real restrictions on his firearm use (and he used to shoot an excessively large amounts of wildlife a year it was part of his livelihood). In what other case are people advocating that people use an inferior tool and disregard progress. This is probably completely beyond the comprehension of urban voters, unfortunately.


----------



## Jarnhamar (28 Mar 2019)

Here's an example of more stupidity.

Last Saturday Dean Carr, owner of Select Shooting Supplies in Cambridge Ontario , was knifed in his store. Looks like some nutbar who maybe wanted to commit suicide by cop. Haven't read why yet. 

City councillor Mike Mann's response speaks volumes. 



> In the wake of Saturday’s incident at a Preston gun shop, city Coun. Mike Mann is asking city staff to develop a list of shops selling guns and ammunition in Cambridge.
> 
> “My concern is we don’t know about these gun shops that are located in our communities,” he told council Tuesday.
> 
> ...



https://www.cambridgetimes.ca/news-story/9245317-cambridge-councillor-wants-better-information-on-city-gun-shops/?fbclid=iwar1ljzhi-p02eibnuw2bj5gi-nqacwf9_wmqs2ohm8xny_minv-68gx6upg

The store owner was *stabbed*. 

Why is having a gun store near a park, school and senior center inappropriate?  Because gun owners are waiting months to get their license then buying guns when they finally do get approved and turning around and shooting up senior centers?


----------



## Cloud Cover (28 Mar 2019)

Interesting. SAIL is just up the road from there. The second floor is where all the iron is. There is a bank and a liquor store nearby, there's another deadly mixture  :


----------



## SentryMAn (29 Mar 2019)

Quote from: SentryMAn on Yesterday at 09:32:47

Why gun control works....for reasonable society
If no one has guns and a fight breaks out, the hospital deals with a couple broken bones, a concussion, some lacerations, etc.
If a fight breaks out and everyone has guns, the coroner is called, the police need to make notifications, the wounded are arrested, families destroyed, the good guys get shot by the police, etc.

Hmmmm, where to start. Gun control, as envisioned by our current government, doesn't work. Full stop. They go for votes, not safety. Law abiding citizens are penalized because they are easy prey for the propaganda and derision spread by Blair, Trudeau, Goodale and Toronto's John Tory, to name a few. Their disinformation campaign would make Joseph Goebbels blush with envy. It would take balls and guts for a government to tackle the criminal side of the issue, but our government is impotent and disinterested when it comes to tackling the criminals.

If they are intent on causing bodily harm, as with a gun, they will employ whatever they have at hand or brought with them. Bats, golf clubs, axes, knives, swords, trucks or explosives........Oh, plus, zipguns and homemade firearms. It will be much more bloody and horrific, than if a gun had been used. The end results are the same, but bloodier and more violent.  The coroner will still be called, the police will still need to make notifications, the wounded will still be arrested(?not sure where you were going with that?), families will still be destroyed, the good guys will still get shot by police, etc, as per your explanation.


I'm not against gun ownership, I could care less about you spending 1000's on arming yourself for when the government gets overthrown by......the military? Militia? USA?  still trying to figure out what people are arming themselves against.

If you could care less, why come here and ask? Are you trying to inflame things? A person can own a firearm for any number of reasons, not just the single one you've stated or decided to hang your hat on. Is there a reason someone should not be prepared for any contingency? It may only be 1% of the overall reasons for owning, but it doesn't hurt anyone to look toward all options. Proper Planning Prevents Poor Performance. Better to hope, but be prepared, in case. What is wrong with that? It's not prepping, or militia or anything else. It's a thought, a "What if?", a combat estimate, if you will. Isn't that what the military pounds into every leader's head? Never say never.

I have friends that prepare for the Zombie Apocalypse too, if they brought this into a combat estimate I'd politely ask them to proceed directly to mental health

It is what every gun owner wishes for, but that is not what some Canadians and our government wish for. If you have not had concealed carry training, don't know the laws or mechanics of it, don't know how, or refuse to properly respond to an officer's instructions, you'll have the hard time your expecting. Learn the rules, take the training, etc, then you can talk from a position of knowledge, instead of ignorance. If your speeding, your already breaking the law, aren't you. Not what we want in law abiding firearms owners. Is it?

Tell that to the 100's of Americans shot dead each year by cops at routine traffic stops, for listening to and abiding by commands.  Everyone is packing in the USA(ok ya got me, it's like 70% of the population own guns....)

Where did this happen in Canada? Post me a link please. Otherwise that's a red herring. A hypothetical that doesn't rate any sort of serious answer
Follow=-on to the moving towards a USA style gun control system in Canada, where so long as you can pay, you can play....everything else it secondary

does anyone really believe the ideology that to solve the gun problem we need more guns?  Why is it that guns make people feel safe?  Why are people scared of some mythical uprising of the totalitarian state?  Are we all scared of Putin?

Many people are hunters. Many people are collectors. Many have firearms for self defence. Many are target shooters. You, on the other hand, have bypassed the brush and gone straight to throwing the paint bucket at the wall. It appears you're being purposely inflammatory. Why should it concern you what I want to buy or possess. What business is it, of yours, what I own or possess? Has anyone asked you for an inventory of your holdings so they can tell you what you can have or have not? Can I look over your list and tell you what you can keep? Of course not.
What are you hunting with an assault riffle or is this for protection(from what exactly in Canada)?  Collectors can collect.  I picked a segment of the Gun touting population and targeted them.  
I prefer to say I bypassed the Brush and grabbed the paint gun as it does a better job of covering...


Reminds me of an adage though.
If a Conservative doesn't like guns, they don't buy one.
If a liberal doesn't like guns, nobody can buy one.

Why segregate the population on gun control?  Maybe there are Liberals on your side and maybe there are Cons not..... 



Flame away.....

Tanks!

You said a lot of words.....I decided to only read half of them due to time constraints.

I also like teal


----------



## Jarnhamar (29 Mar 2019)

[quote author=SentryMAn]

Tell that to the 100's of Americans shot dead each year by cops at routine traffic stops, for listening to and abiding by commands.  Everyone is packing in the USA(ok ya got me, it's like 70% of the population own guns....)


Follow=-on to the moving towards a USA style gun control system in Canada, where so long as you can pay, you can play....everything else it secondary
[/quote]

SentryMAn it seems like there is a specific argument you're looking to have here. I'll be honest I don't think you're going to find what you're looking for.  If you really want gun owners to flame you and beat up on you and your _assault rifles for hunting_ style arguments there's probably a number of forums out there (both pro and anti gun) that you'd probably find more fulfilling.     :2c:






This article is about New Zealand gun confiscation but I'm placing it here of the obvious similarities of what could go wrong.

*NZ Confiscations Begin: Police Going to Gun Owners’ Homes, Jobs…One Gun Owner Dead*
https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2019/03/luis-valdes/nz-confiscations-begin-police-going-to-gun-owners-homes-jobs-one-gun-owner-dead/



16 year old kid posted a photo of him holding an airsoft rifle and helmet on Facebook, looks like him and his father were airsoft players. People reported the photo to the police who showed up at the homes of his father, mother and grandparents to search for weapons.

Father is ex Russian military and for whatever reason assumed/was afraid of going back to prison and the 3 hour standoff ended in his apparent suicide.



> Upon a search of the residence, police found an 8mm blank pistol, an airsoft rifle, and a SKS carbine. The SKS is now illegal under the country’s new ban.


----------



## Haggis (29 Mar 2019)

SentryMAn said:
			
		

> Tell that to the 100's of Americans shot dead each year by cops at routine traffic stops, for listening to and abiding by commands.



I call bullcrap.  Since 2015 US police have shot 3309 people.  Only 7% (231) were unarmed.

US police have to, by virtue of the Second Amendment, assume that every traffic stop will result in the presence of a firearm other than the officer's.  Not everybody acutely obeys the officer.  Some think they are trying to help by being proactive during a traffic stop (jumping out of the car with a wallet in their hands, for example).  Others are genuinely obstructive (refusing to take their hands out of pockets) before eventually complying, sometimes too late.

No LEO I know (American or Canadian) wants to shoot somebody.  All LEOs I know want to go home alive at the end of their shifts, though.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (29 Mar 2019)

I thought as much. I could have wrote your post for you, having dealt with these same, comical fantasy comments all the time as a gun owner. Does sentryman even know what an assault rifle is? I'm sure he's trying to speak to what is referred to in law enforcement as Patrol Carbines. These still don't meet definition, but that is ignored by anti gun people. Doesn't fit their fantasy objectives. I'm starting to agree with Jarn. We've had this type here before. The only right answer is the predisposed one they brought here.

I'm not repeating our documented responses, to these open ended, hyperbolic hypothesis. sentryman has no documentation to prove his argument, which are all made up and not based on any kind of truths he can prove. Running on disjointed emotional hate of gun owners. 100's shot in traffic stops yearly by US LE? That is the over the top, emotional, and false info he's bringing to the table and resting his argument on.

Things have been explained, technically and without emotion by members here. Responded to by more of the same.

I refuse to waste time on those that are just looking for an argument based on emotion. I'm not responding anymore to the ignorant emotional drama brought here by those with a torch.


----------



## garb811 (29 Mar 2019)

SentryMAn said:
			
		

> You said a lot of words.....I decided to only read half of them due to time constraints.
> 
> I also like teal


SentryMAn:

If your sole intent is to troll the thread, it isn't going to be tolerated. If you wish to actually engage in a reasonable and facts based debate with the remainder of the posters in this thread, bring your contributions up to that level.

Fair Warning

*Milnet.ca Staff*


----------



## Jarnhamar (1 Apr 2019)

CCFRs response to the handful of Canadian doctors calling for a complete firearms ban. 

Doctors didn't like having their ethics and appropriateness questioned and reacted by painting themselves as big victims of bully gun owners. 

https://youtu.be/_T41KfeBPrw

There were 13,168 deaths from firearms between 2000 and 2016 in Canada (9919 of which were suicides).

There's an estimated 70,000 Canadians harmed by medical errors per year.  The University Health Network estimates medical errors killed more than 30,000 Canadians in 2014 alone. 
Statistically speaking there's one death from medical error per 3 doctors in Canada. 

I think I'd feel a little safer knocking those medical mistake numbers down first.


----------



## Lumber (2 Apr 2019)

Fishbone Jones said:
			
		

> Not trying to force an issue, but I don't think I've seen anyone here voice that extreme an opinion. Maybe I'm wrong. Can you point me to a post where the user that said they preferred no gun laws whatsoever and give things over to the 1800's Old West? That would be akin to saying they want criminals to have the same status as law abiding owners.  :dunno:
> 
> On the face, that seems a rather, over the top, hyperbolic statement.



FJ, I can see how my statement would seem hyperbolic but I promise it's not. I tried looking for the original conversation in v1.0, but couldn't find it.

I've had a poster on here call me a "grabber" just for supporting any form of gun control, and it may have been the same person who, when asked, admitted that they believe we should have no regulation what so ever. 

Wish I could provide the source, but that statement (and the "grabber" accusation) both seem to have been removed from the v1.0 thread.

Cheers.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (2 Apr 2019)

Thanks for the effort. 8)


----------



## suffolkowner (3 Apr 2019)

two articles by Matt Guerney

https://www.macleans.ca/opinion/new-zealand-is-not-showing-canada-the-way-on-gun-control/

https://nationalpost.com/opinion/matt-gurney-the-globe-and-mails-little-and-big-gun-control-screwups

pissing in the wind no doubt.

I thought the NZ ban encompassed all semis other than those limited to 5 rd magazines sort of like the M1 with its 8 rd?


----------



## Jarnhamar (8 Apr 2019)

* Senator McPhedran to move Bill C-71 amendment to “prohibit” handguns in Canada* 


For immediate release
Ottawa, April 8, 2019 – Today at the Standing Senate Committee on National Security and Defence’s
(SECD) clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-71, An Act to amend certain Acts and Regulations in
relation to firearms, Senator Marilou McPhedran, an independent Senator for Manitoba, will move to
amend clause 16 that already proposes to amend subsection 84(1) of the Criminal Code – exactly the
subsection that could also be amended to add handguns to the “prohibited firearm” list in the Code.
“Looking at how swiftly the New Zealand government is moving to prohibit the weapons used in the
mass killings of Muslims in their places of worship, and looking realistically at the Canadian
parliamentary agenda, the Government of Canada has run out of time unless the bill currently before
the Senate is used for a new initiative to deal more effectively with the proliferation of handguns in
Canada.” – Hon. Marilou McPhedran, Independent Senator for Manitoba
During their appearance at SECD on February 18th, 2019, Doctors for Protection from Guns advised
that: “A now abundant and international body of medical evidence shows that reducing access to
guns through regulations saves lives and decreases the burden of injury.” The Coalition for Gun
Control expanded on the link between access to firearms and death, submitting that: “About one in
five (21%) firearm-related deaths in Canada is the result of a criminal offence, while the majority
(79%) are the result of suicide, accident, or legal intervention.” Making it harder to access killing
weapons can reduce occurrence and lethality.
A handgun killed Colton Boushie of the Red Pheasant First Nation in Saskatchewan. In Toronto, Police
Chief Saunders reported that 514 handguns were seized in 2018 - 222 more than in 2017 and 172 more
than in 2016. This amendment is being introduced in light of extensive testimony with factually
accurate evidence heard by the SECD committee from groups such as Doctors for Protection from
Guns, the Coalition for Gun Control, and the Centre culturel islamique de Québec that illustrate the
need for decisive action in combating firearm violence against women, children, and Canadians at
large.
“Prohibition of handguns would strengthen Canada’s leadership internationally, including Canada’s
commitment to the 2030 UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), with SDG 16 on significant
reductions in homicides and SDG 5 on reducing violence against women and girls,” notes Senator
Marilou McPhedran.


----------



## Cloud Cover (8 Apr 2019)

"A handgun killed Colton Boushie of the Red Pheasant First Nation in Saskatchewan."

Can't deny that,  never mind all the other facts and evidence in the case, FFS.


----------



## Haggis (8 Apr 2019)

Thankfully, Sen McPhedran's motion was defeated.  There will not be a handgun ban in C-71.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (8 Apr 2019)

Every single person or group cited is anti gun and their use of half truths and omissions of fact belies the deceit they are employing to get their way by lying to the public.

Firearms owners will never get their side told honestly. Nor will a party, liberal or ndp, ever agree to a proper panel where all sides are given equal weight and experts are vetted for their knowledge of the subject, before being considered experts.

This has nothing to do with firearms safety and classification. It is about incremental confiscation and they won't let facts, feeling or finances get in the way of their social engineering of the Canadian populace.


----------



## Lumber (11 Apr 2019)

Fishbone Jones said:
			
		

> This has nothing to do with firearms safety and classification. It is about incremental confiscation and they won't let facts, feeling or finances get in the way of their social engineering of the Canadian populace.



I don't think it's nefarious like that at all. I think people are just genuinely ignorant. The mayor of Cambridge Ontario isn't trying to "socially engineer" Canadians, he just holds an honest, but insanely ignorant, belief that having a fully regulated gun store near a liquor store and 2km from a school is somehow dangerous. He believes that banning all guns is necessary and would solve our gun problems. He's not lying and ignoring facts or the opinions of the pro-gun side, he's just stupid.  :nod:


----------



## Fishbone Jones (11 Apr 2019)

I'm not talking mayors or city councillors.

I'm talking about the current federal government.

All gun laws are federal._ No one_ else can do anything about it except them. Every nuance is dictated by the Feds

I don't care about Tory, the Mayor of Cambridge, or anyone else like them, they are just sideshows and only have an opinion. Ignorant or otherwise. They are no different than opinions here.


----------



## Furniture (11 Apr 2019)

Lumber said:
			
		

> I don't think it's nefarious like that at all. I think people are just genuinely ignorant. The mayor of Cambridge Ontario isn't trying to "socially engineer" Canadians, he just holds an honest, but insanely ignorant, belief that having a fully regulated gun store near a liquor store and 2km from a school is somehow dangerous. He believes that banning all guns is necessary and would solve our gun problems. He's not lying and ignoring facts or the opinions of the pro-gun side, he's just stupid.  :nod:



This is the true issue facing firearms owners in Canada, the ignorance of the population. 

Most Canadian's don't know what our laws are, and the media is not interested in letting them know. There are far more views/clicks to be had for the media(advertisers) by dragging crying families, half a dozen doctors, or masacre survivors on screen to have them yell about how all guns are evil. (A shooting is what happens on the range when you shoot targets, when you kill people it's a murder, or masacre)

Firearms owners also have a public image problem, because far too often the "from my cold dead hands" crowd is who the media wants to show. They aren't interested in lawyers, doctors, mechanics, store owners,  etc. that advocate for firearms, they want the crazies. Crazies make for more entertaining viewing, and more views works out to more advertising dollars.


----------



## Lumber (11 Apr 2019)

Fishbone Jones said:
			
		

> I'm not talking mayors or city councillors.
> 
> I'm talking about the current federal government.
> 
> ...



I apologize; that was merely a recent and poignant (IMO) example.

I will make the same claim about the federal governement. Some know better but see it as an opportunity to win over voters, but for the most part I believe the politicians are just as ignorant (sometimes willfully so) and are not running some backroom scheme to try and "socially engineer" the population. They just don't like guns, don't understand guns, don't understand why anyone would want to own a gun, and want to see guns gone. That's it. 

It's frustrating, I know. I just think we need to look any deeper than that.


----------



## Jarnhamar (11 Apr 2019)

[quote author=Lumber]not running some backroom scheme to try and "socially engineer" the population. [/quote]

[quote author=Lumber]They just don't like guns, don't understand guns,* don't understand why anyone would want to own a gun, and want to see guns gone.* That's it. 

[/quote]
Isn't *that* social engineering?



> the use of centralized planning in an attempt to manage social change and regulate the future development and behavior of a society.


----------



## Eaglelord17 (12 Apr 2019)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Isn't *that* social engineering?



Which is also interesting because you could also argue it is cultural genocide. Whether people like it or not, firearms have always been a large part of Canadian culture. Early Canada especially was gun crazy, we even helped found the NRA (though the aims of the organization then was to train marksmenship, it wasn't really political at that point). 

'Cultural genocide is a term used to describe the deliberate destruction of the cultural heritage of a people or nation for political, military, religious, ideological, ethnical, or racial reasons'


----------



## Fishbone Jones (12 Apr 2019)

Eaglelord17 said:
			
		

> 'Cultural genocide is a term used to describe the deliberate destruction of the cultural heritage of a people or nation for political, military, religious, ideological, ethnical, or racial reasons'



FTFY


----------



## Fishbone Jones (13 Apr 2019)

Trudeau government will consider handgun ban if re-elected

https://tnc.news/2019/04/12/trudeau-government-will-consider-handgun-ban-if-re-elected/?fbclid=IwAR3WWRw4s1LMEEqaidiRwO5SQxRQ6avNzuRzQL2xxHUuqbS1A2_-SmEZlxA



> It’s too late to consider a handgun ban before the 2019 federal election this fall, but the Trudeau government will explore it if re-elected.
> 
> Bill Blair, Border Security and Organized Crime Reduction Minister, refused to tell the Senate Committee on National Security and Defence if a government-initiated report on the effects of a handgun ban would be finished by the time of the election.
> 
> ...


Well, we can quit worrying for a little while longer. 
Blair is also examining central storage.


----------



## Haggis (13 Apr 2019)

Fishbone Jones said:
			
		

> Blair is also examining central storage.



Since no club I know of can afford to implement central storage, the government will likely step in to provide, fund or subsidize the facilities.  IMO central storage of firearms in government owned or controlled facilities is covert confiscation.


----------



## Jarnhamar (13 Apr 2019)

Sheldon Clare and the *National Fire Arms Association *(NFA), who claims  "THE NFA IS LEADING THE FIGHT AGAINST BAD GUN LAWS - THE UNIFIED VOICE OF THE CANADIAN FIREARMS COMMUNITY" is suing a new but popular *Canadian Coalition for Firearm Rights*.

Copyright infringement and the NFA want money from the CCFR.

Wonderful timing from the NFA and really highlights what they're all about. I'll be interested to see how the lawsuit pans out. The logo in question wasn't originally property of the NFA. Some gun owner made the logo and started sharing it. The NFA unofficially started using it and promoted all gun own owners to use it. A couple years later it's their trade marked property. Weird.

Here's some explanation from the CCFR.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1430DEYyZTY&feature=youtu.be


If anyone is looking for a gun org in Canada to join I highly recommend the CCFR. They're the second org I donate to (first being army.ca). I'm biased but where the NFA is a_ pry guns from my dead fingers_ type organization the CCFR push firearms education, women using firearms and an all around balanced approach to firearm ownership and firearm rights.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (13 Apr 2019)

You know, there is one thing I notice missing in all the firearms control discussions (and to me that is likely because the Canadian media is mostly biassed in favour of the "control" crowd): The differences in National Psyche between Canada and the US.

To my mind, that is in itself the greatest difference between the two nations that explains why our gun violence is much much lower than the US one and really not that significant in overall World wide comparison

In the US, the founding myth are the bloody war of independence  against the British, then the Wild West and it's sharpshooter and the need for everyone to be armed against one another. That Wild West permeated all their police/military and even "gang" movies, etc., which are basically all remakes of the "Shooting at the O.K. Coral" In short, in the US, people see guns as a requirement of protection against other people, and consider their primary use as being for shooting people.

In Canada, we have never really felt such need. Our founding myth are not wild people but wild nature. Our guns are for hunting, to sustain ourselves, and for protection not against one another, but against wild animals likely to hurt us in the woods and to remove threat from these same animals against our herds. Canadians simply don't consider their guns as a safety device for their personal security from other Canadians. And that, to me, explains why we very seldom use them against other people.


----------



## Jed (13 Apr 2019)

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> You know, there is one thing I notice missing in all the firearms control discussions (and to me that is likely because the Canadian media is mostly biassed in favour of the "control" crowd): The differences in National Psyche between Canada and the US.
> 
> To my mind, that is in itself the greatest difference between the two nations that explains why our gun violence is much much lower than the US one and really not that significant in overall World wide comparison
> 
> ...



Interesting generalization. In my opinion there is some truth to this but the sentiment is rapidly evolving. As media becomes more evasive and city population  grows and strays apart from rural roots, Canadians start to want the need of personal protection. They know they are the first line of defence to protect themselves and their loved ones.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (13 Apr 2019)

Protect yourself from a criminal and you become a criminal is the Crown stance.


----------



## Haggis (13 Apr 2019)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> If anyone is looking for a gun org in Canada to join I highly recommend the CCFR.



I'm a member of neither simply because the public/social media rhetoric of the membership - not leadership - of both organizations casts a pall of instability over lawful/law abiding gun owners writ large.  I support their advocacy against C-71 and the upcoming (if the liberals win in October) gun bans.  I support their assertions that magazine capacity limits for legal owners is idiotic.  And I support their push for the entrenchment of property rights in our Constitution.  I don't don't support their advocacy for Second Amendment type rights, civilian concealed carry, "stand your ground' laws  or castle doctrine in Canada.

Canadain gun rights organizations need to start working together for the common goal and adopt the motto of 33 CBG, "The Wolfpack": "Strong Alone - Stronger Together".


----------



## Jarnhamar (13 Apr 2019)

Haggis said:
			
		

> I'm a member of neither simply because the public/social media rhetoric of the membership - not leadership - of both organizations casts a pall of instability over lawful/law abiding gun owners writ large.  I support their advocacy against C-71 and the upcoming (if the liberals win in October) gun bans.  I support their assertions that magazine capacity limits for legal owners is idiotic.  And I support their push for the entrenchment of property rights in our Constitution.  I don't don't support their advocacy for Second Amendment type rights, civilian concealed carry, "stand your ground' laws  or castle doctrine in Canada.
> 
> Canadain gun rights organizations need to start working together for the common goal and adopt the motto of 33 CBG, "The Wolfpack": "Strong Alone - Stronger Together".



Understandable. I really like the CCFR because of what I felt was a non-polarizing attitude and behavior, especially across social media. I've noticed in some of my conversations with gun owners is that we can agree on 99 items but if I'm for licensing and they're against then I'm basically an enemy, throw gun owners under the bus and probably a liberal plant. It can be exhausting conversations. I'm not suggesting you're like that at all, of course. I just try not to get too wrapped up about singular items. 

Will Canada ever see CCW? Never. Do a lot of gun owners want CCW? probably. That puts the CCFR, for example, in a position of being pro or against CCW. When they lean one way the other side erupts. I'd rather time and effort into education campaigns to mitigate anti-gun advocates pushing the narrative that gun owners are white racist male conservatives.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (13 Apr 2019)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Understandable. I really like the CCFR because of what I felt was a non-polarizing attitude and behavior, especially across social media. I've noticed in some of my conversations with gun owners is that we can agree on 99 items but if I'm for licensing and they're against then I'm basically an enemy, throw gun owners under the bus and probably a liberal plant. It can be exhausting conversations. I'm not suggesting you're like that at all, of course. I just try not to get too wrapped up about singular items.
> 
> Will Canada ever see CCW? Never. Do a lot of gun owners want CCW? probably. That puts the CCFR, for example, in a position of being pro or against CCW. When they lean one way the other side erupts. I'd rather time and effort into education campaigns to mitigate anti-gun advocates pushing the narrative that gun owners are white racist male conservatives.



The liberal narrative has moved on. We're white nationalists now. Along with the Yellow Vests.


----------



## Haggis (13 Apr 2019)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> I'm not suggesting you're like that at all, of course.


You know me personally and you know I'm not like that.  As you stated, some participants in this conversation are very polarized to take an all-or-nothing approach to the issue.  it'e either "Canadian Second Amendment NOW" or "No Guns in Canada NOW" 



			
				Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Will Canada ever see CCW? Never.


  We have CCW now, but it's very limited in scope and numbers (less than 1000 nationwide) 



			
				Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Do a lot of gun owners want CCW? probably.


Yes, but many want it "just because" and not because they _need_ it. They fail to realize that carrying a firearm outside of a training/competition environment is an awful responsibility which opens you up to considerable civil and legal liability should you act _in any way _inappropriately.  I have very firm views on the general practice of civilian CCW both in the US and here.  But that's for another discussion


----------



## Halifax Tar (13 Apr 2019)

Haggis said:
			
		

> I'm a member of neither simply because the public/social media rhetoric of the membership - not leadership - of both organizations casts a pall of instability over lawful/law abiding gun owners writ large.  I support their advocacy against C-71 and the upcoming (if the liberals win in October) gun bans.  I support their assertions that magazine capacity limits for legal owners is idiotic.  And I support their push for the entrenchment of property rights in our Constitution.  I don't don't support their advocacy for Second Amendment type rights, civilian concealed carry, "stand your ground' laws  or castle doctrine in Canada.
> 
> Canadain gun rights organizations need to start working together for the common goal and adopt the motto of 33 CBG, "The Wolfpack": "Strong Alone - Stronger Together".



I couldn't agree with you more.  I find their facebook groups very toxic and I find I have little in common with allot of the participants.  

I find it hard to reason supporting these organizations because of the polarizing posts made by members.  

Personally I have very little issue with our current firearms laws with the exception being what you have already stated and I dream of the day when the AR platform is made NR.  But I know that is probably never going to happen.


----------



## Retired AF Guy (13 Apr 2019)

Haggis said:
			
		

> We have CCW now, but it's very limited in scope and numbers (less than 1000 nationwide)



Not that I doubt you, but do you have a source for that? The reason I ask is that over the years the numbers I heard were much, much lower that that.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (13 Apr 2019)

I know more than a few judges who have them, and some for good reasons. In fact, all for good reasons as it is the one imperative requirement for such permission. Similarly, many Police investigators and Crown attorneys who worked on various gang, drug cartels and other organized crime files get such permit for the rest of their lives. About 1000 in Canada as a whole sounds about right to me, but be certain you will find no statistics on it for obvious reasons.


----------



## AbdullahD (13 Apr 2019)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Understandable. I really like the CCFR because of what I felt was a non-polarizing attitude and behavior, especially across social media. I've noticed in some of my conversations with gun owners is that we can agree on 99 items but if I'm for licensing and they're against then I'm basically an enemy, throw gun owners under the bus and probably a liberal plant. It can be exhausting conversations. I'm not suggesting you're like that at all, of course. I just try not to get too wrapped up about singular items.
> 
> Will Canada ever see CCW? Never. Do a lot of gun owners want CCW? probably. That puts the CCFR, for example, in a position of being pro or against CCW. When they lean one way the other side erupts. I'd rather time and effort into education campaigns to mitigate anti-gun advocates pushing the narrative that gun owners are white racist male conservatives.



Jarnhamar, I think Mr.Giltaca and by extension the ccfr have really done a good job by pushing education instead of the childish rhetoric of the "from my cold dead hands" crowd. 

I find the CCFR is far more presentable at the dinner table then the NFA and as such, I do intend to donate to them.. but I agree with was it Haggis? That said that the membership of both groups does leave some to be desired. So while I follow on YouTube, I cant on fb really.

Abdullah


----------



## Jarnhamar (14 Apr 2019)

No disagreement here. Social Media is a double-edged ball.


----------



## Haggis (14 Apr 2019)

Retired AF Guy said:
			
		

> Not that I doubt you, but do you have a source for that? The reason I ask is that over the years the numbers I heard were much, much lower that that.



The last FIRM number I saw was 678 from 2015.  I've been told by reliable sources that it has gone up since then, with a spike seen after the shooting of a high profile Toronto lawyer in 2016.  So, my statement that the number is "under 1000" is as accurate today as anything you'll get from the Government.  ;D


----------



## Retired AF Guy (14 Apr 2019)

Haggis said:
			
		

> The last FIRM number I saw was 678 from 2015.  I've been told by reliable sources that it has gone up since then, with a spike seen after the shooting of a high profile Toronto lawyer in 2016.  So, my statement that the number is "under 1000" is as accurate today as anything you'll get from the Government.  ;D



Interesting. Thanks.


----------



## Furniture (14 Apr 2019)

AbdullahD said:
			
		

> Jarnhamar, I think Mr.Giltaca and by extension the ccfr have really done a good job by pushing education instead of the childish rhetoric of the "from my cold dead hands" crowd.
> 
> I find the CCFR is far more presentable at the dinner table then the NFA and as such, I do intend to donate to them.. but I agree with was it Haggis? That said that the membership of both groups does leave some to be desired. So while I follow on YouTube, I cant on fb really.
> 
> Abdullah



This is essentially the same way I think of the CCFR, and the NFA as well. 

Just so people are clear, the FB group for the CCFR has many posters/members that aren't actually CCFR members, just people that follow the updates and drama. I'll also point out that I have yet to see an organization made up of people that I agree with on every point, all the time. I'm pretty sure I don't agree with myself all the time... 

I suggest joining, or at least donating to the CCFR or CSSA to help them keep up the good fight against the anti-firearms crowd. Both suggested organizations present themselves well, and show the public that all firearms owners aren't crazies.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (16 Apr 2019)

> From Glen Motz, MP for Medicine Hat
> 
> "Quietly, the Liberals put out the results of their handgun ban consultation. Overwhelmingly, Canadians do not support a ban on legally acquired handguns. Of the 130k+ responses, 81% said no to further handgun restrictions. Two out of three Canadians who do not currently own any firearms said they did not support a handgun ban. Of note, a majority of women and urban residents are also opposed to the ban"


----------



## The Bread Guy (16 Apr 2019)

And for a bit more detail, here's the report, with some more results/highlights below.

(I guess MP Motz or his staff don't use Google News much if they think the engagement report was released "quietly" - here's what's out there as of this post)


----------



## Jarnhamar (16 Apr 2019)

Should Canada track race when it comes to crime like the US does? To include crimes committed with firearms/weapons, by race?


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (16 Apr 2019)

Here's an interesting statistics coming off those slides:

While many "elites" and MSM, particularly here in Quebec (where they drag out the Polytechnic shooting every chance they got) are "en bloc" behind further restriction - if not outright ban of handguns and assault weapons, the provided stats would indicate that Quebecers are the ones least in favour of such ban. The percentage of Quebecers who want such step is the group with the lowest level of support from all provinces. interestingly enough, it appears that Ontario is the big driver, with the highest number who want such further restrictions - though still not a majority - and just because of the weight of Ontario in population number, they probably skew the results heavily.

All in all, we will now see if the Liberals govern for their clique's socialistic views or on behalf of the people they are supposed to represent.

P.S.: I believe the results actually depict the fact that Canadians don't generally perceive that there is any gun violence problem in Canada, save the occasional bout here and there, so they don't see this as an issue. It flies in the face of the oft repeated mantra of the MSM decrying the power of Canada's "gun-lobby". IMHO, not only is there not a gun lobby in Canada (unlike in the US), but we rather have the reverse: there is a strong Anti-gun-Lobby which is trying to push their agenda even though, as we now see, Canadians feel no interest in the issue or need to bother with it.


----------



## Kirkhill (25 Apr 2019)

There must be a wheen o' a lot o' Cameronians in Indiana



> IN lawmakers OK guns in schools when building is used by, or attached to, a house of worship
> 
> 
> APRIL 25, 2019 DAN CARDEN - THE TIMES
> ...




https://americanmilitarynews.com/2019/04/in-lawmakers-ok-guns-in-schools-when-building-is-used-by-or-attached-to-a-house-of-worship/?utm_campaign=alt&utm_source=amn&utm_medium=facebook&fbclid=IwAR3YCBtnv_VGZIbyDJIA5bD0kt1DLCeuX7ydVHh4jb6MdeoxSmX1bEUFweI


> Sunday 15th of May is Cameronian Sunday, the nearest to the 14th of May on which the regiment was both raised (1689) and disbanded (1968).
> 
> As ever the services are held in the village of Douglas South Lanarkshire, home of the legendary Douglas family who raised the regiment in Covenanting Times.
> 
> The day starts at 9 30 am with the raising of the regimental flag, 10 am church service at St Brides Church, 2 pm *service at the memorial cairn in the form of a Cameronian Conventicle, piquets at four points of the compass and the all clear given to Minister of no enemy in sight, the service, sermon and hymn proceeds*.



"No enemy in sight!"


----------



## Haggis (6 May 2019)

Retired AF Guy said:
			
		

> Interesting. Thanks.



Last week, gun rights advocate and researcher Dennis R. Young received a final reply to an ATIP request for the number of Authorizations to Carry in Canada.  In their initial reply, the RCMP refused to disclose the number of ATCs issued for "protection of life" (e.g. concealed carry) saying that to do so could pose a risk to those persons.  Mr. Young complained to the Information Commissioner.  As a result, the RCMP revised their reply and now state that the number of ATC in Canada specifically for protection of life is ONE.

Speculation is rampant on social media as to who "The ONE" is.


----------



## Journeyman (6 May 2019)

Haggis said:
			
		

> Last week, gun rights advocate and researcher Dennis R. Young received a final reply to an ATIP request for the number of Authorizations to Carry in Canada.  In their initial reply, the RCMP refused to disclose the number of ATCs issued for "protection of life" (e.g. concealed carry) saying that to do so could pose a risk to those persons.  Mr. Young complained to the Information Commissioner.  As a result, the RCMP revised their reply and now state that the number of ATC in Canada specifically for protection of life is ONE.
> 
> Speculation is rampant on social media as to who "The ONE" is.


Well, we know from Kevin Vickers in 2014 that the Parliamentary Sergeant-at-Arms is armed.


----------



## Haggis (6 May 2019)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> Well, we know from Kevin Vickers in 2014 that the Parliamentary Sergeant-at-Arms is armed.



Likely as a consequence of his employment along with 6687 other Canadians (armed guards, couriers etc.). The claimed one (1) ATC for protection of life is probably not him as he's been OUTCAN for a few years and his ATC would have been cancelled/revoked as a result.


----------



## Journeyman (7 May 2019)

Haggis said:
			
		

> Likely as a consequence of his employment along with 6687 other Canadians (armed guards, couriers etc.). The claimed one (1) ATC for protection of life is probably not him as he's been OUTCAN for a few years and his ATC would have been cancelled/revoked as a result.


I was referring to the position, rather than the individual, in that the concealed carry was a generally unknown aspect (unlike armed guards, etc, who are open carry).

I fully acknowledge that it was merely a guess.  :dunno:


----------



## mariomike (7 May 2019)

Haggis said:
			
		

> As a result, the RCMP revised their reply and now state that the number of ATC in Canada specifically for protection of life is ONE.
> 
> Speculation is rampant on social media as to who "The ONE" is.



Norm Gardner used to carry. Not sure if he still does? Must be in his 80's by now.

Oops. Apparently not,

"This week Gardner said he’s no longer permitted to carry a gun."
https://www.thestar.com/news/city_hall/2014/01/31/former_pistolpacking_politician_norm_gardner_aims_for_mayor_rob_fords_job.html


----------



## Haggis (7 May 2019)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> I was referring to the position, rather than the individual, in that the concealed carry was a generally unknown aspect (unlike armed guards, etc, who are open carry).
> 
> I fully acknowledge that it was merely a guess.  :dunno:



And it was a good guess.  My understanding of how events unfolded was that Mr. Vickers was not carrying at the time of the incident but had to return to his office to retrieve his firearm from secure storage.


----------



## mariomike (7 May 2019)

From what I understand, years ago, an armoured truck company had an armed plain-clothes member. 

I remember a friend of mine who owned an auto repair business who carried a gun. Not sure if he had a permit. 



			
				Haggis said:
			
		

> My understanding of how events unfolded was that Mr. Vickers was not carrying at the time of the incident but had to return to his office to retrieve his firearm from secure storage.



Sounds similar to the bank managers, years ago. As long as the gun stayed on the property. That came to an end when a bullet fired by a manager during a robbery ricocheted and killed a teller.

Race tracks had armed plain clothes men as well. Not sure if they still do?


----------



## Haggis (7 May 2019)

mariomike said:
			
		

> From what I understand, years ago, an armoured truck company had an armed plain-clothes member.....
> Race tracks had armed plain clothes men as well. Not sure if they still do?



That would be an ATC for employment, quite different from an ATC for protection of life.


----------



## Jarnhamar (7 May 2019)

25 counts of attemoted murder, drive by shooting and organized crime related offenses? Recipe for a plea bargain for sure.


*Plea deals made for 3 Calgary gangsters involved in gun violence
Tarek El-Rafie and brothers Barakat and Talal Amer originally faced a total of 25 attempted murder charges*
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/calgary-gangsters-amer-el-rafie-guilty-pleas-sentence-1.5125325
Three Calgary men involved in gun violence connected to a 2015 gang war on city streets have been sent to prison after plea deals meant most of their charges were withdrawn.

The three men — Tarek El-Rafie and brothers Barakat and Talal Amer — originally faced a total of 25 attempted murder charges as well as organized crime-related offences.

Plea deals were arranged between prosecutor Brian Holtby and defence lawyers Brian Greenspan, Brian Beresh and Kent Teskey.

Tarek El-Rafie pleaded guilty to one count of recklessly discharge of a restricted firearm and received a six year, four month sentence of which he has just over two years left to serve.

El-Rafie admitted to his involvement in a November 2015 drive-by shooting in the city's northeast, according to an agreed statement of facts.


----------



## Haggis (9 May 2019)

I don't usually quote Reddit but I''ve now seen this same assertion from at least two other source including Tony Clement's own Twitter page.  

Today during question period Independent MP Tony Clement is said to have asked the following question.

*Tony Clement:* "...I have it on good authority that the PM has a secret plan to ban legal firearms. Apparently this plan is to be executed by cabinet directive with no debate in parliament. The PM plans to announce this gun ban at the Women Deliver conference held in early June in Vancouver where New Zealand PM Ardern will also attend. Can the PM confirm or deny this zero-accountability secret plan?"

*Bill Blair:* "I just want to assure this house that our government remains absolutely committed to taking all the measures that are effective in keeping Canadians safe and as I believe every member of this house will agree, there is no greater responsibility for any order of government..."

I have been saying it for months... this is how the Liberals will ban firearms in Canada.  No debate. No consideration of studies that don't fit their agenda.  Just an OIC.  Boom.  Done. Just like New Zealand.   No grandfathering, just confiscation.

I suspect the timelines to surrender our firearms will be very short and the penalties for non compliance quite harsh to get as many firearms seized and destroyed as possible before the election.


----------



## Stoker (9 May 2019)

Haggis said:
			
		

> I don't usually quote Reddit but I''ve now seen this same assertion from at least two other source including Tony Clement's own Twitter page.
> 
> Today during question period Independent MP Tony Clement is said to have asked the following question.
> 
> ...



Prepare for massive non compliance like in NZ.


----------



## ModlrMike (9 May 2019)

Just remember, there are no property rights in Canada. Remember also who's bright idea that was.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (9 May 2019)

Question period, note the response. Remember Paul Martins handgun ban, every time they suck in the polls they go this route.

https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=362176877975151&t=9


----------



## AbdullahD (9 May 2019)

Haggis, do we have a more reputable source for this then reddit?

It kind of seems like fear mongering from anti-government or pro-firearm crowds... it does not make a lot of sense to me. I am not saying that Trudeau would not love to ban firearms, cause god knows he would. I just do not think his people feel that the social support for it in Canada has reached a level to support such a call.

I found the post, posted from the original reddit thread showing a huffington post on it...
https://m.huffingtonpost.ca/2019/05/09/tony-clement-secret-plan-firearms-ban_a_23723860/?utm_hp_ref=ca-homepage

Then a bunch of firearms blogs etc... any rate will be very interesting to see how this plays out. I suspect it will be more of a "if re-elected" kind of thing.

Abdullah


----------



## Sig_Des (9 May 2019)

Just received this in my inbox. Usually don't pay much attention to Mrs. Gallant, but seems relevant. 



> Dear XXXX,
> 
> Today it was revealed Trudeau has a secret plan to ban all legal firearms.
> 
> ...



Ironically,  just as I was about to hit post on this, the CTVnews headline on the telly was "*Homemade guns on the rise*"


----------



## Cloud Cover (9 May 2019)

The man loves the applause of a crowd. He's got nothing else to offer them, and since he seems to think this will piss off men to please certain women, what better way than this?
Would this also be why he is not in Parliament QP?


----------



## Cloud Cover (9 May 2019)

Can't find any good news articles, but I read on CGN that Kingston City Council defeated a complete gun ban in a 7-6 vote last night. Well done!


----------



## Jarnhamar (9 May 2019)

When I was in Kingston the wait list to join the gun club (requirement to possess restricted firearms) was up to two years.

I've been told the city constantly treated the club like shit and now and then students try to shut it down but there's a lot of gun owners.


----------



## Kirkhill (9 May 2019)

AbdullahD said:
			
		

> Haggis, do we have a more reputable source for this then reddit?
> 
> It kind of seems like fear mongering from anti-government or pro-firearm crowds... it does not make a lot of sense to me. I am not saying that Trudeau would not love to ban firearms, cause god knows he would. I just do not think his people feel that the social support for it in Canada has reached a level to support such a call.
> 
> ...



Abdullah, see Colin P above.


----------



## AbdullahD (10 May 2019)

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> Abdullah, see Colin P above.



I saw that, both versions the 40~ second one and the 57~ second one.

The allegations were made, but nothing was confirmed. The devils advocate in me thinks it could be a low level trying to be important, misinformation being fed from the liberals, the conservatives using it to rally the troops and so on and so forth.

I do not trust politicians of any side, stripe or inclination. Not saying they are bad people, but sometimes they make choices that are.. interesting.

So yes, the allegations have been made and they have been neither confirmed nor denied.. i just feel something more concrete is needed before i visit mike from canmore or have a boating accident haha

Abdullah


----------



## Jarnhamar (10 May 2019)

I'm glad I called the CFO and registered my AR15 as a reciever only. Very helpful and pleasent people to deal with. AR15 owners might want to consider it.


----------



## Retired AF Guy (10 May 2019)

Haggis said:
			
		

> *Tony Clement:* "...I have it on good authority that the PM has a secret plan to ban legal firearms. Apparently this plan is to be executed by cabinet directive with no debate in parliament. The PM plans to announce this gun ban at the Women Deliver conference held in early June in Vancouver where New Zealand PM Ardern will also attend. Can the PM confirm or deny this zero-accountability secret plan?"



On the other hand the source may be some Russian troll just trying to stir things up. 

I'll wait until I see something more substantial.


----------



## ballz (10 May 2019)

A wounded animal is a dangerous one, and the Libs are definitely wounded. I'm unsure if Bill C-71 has time to get passed which would be another failure of them to execute and another blow for them. They are bleeding votes and a new threat on their left, the Greens, has emerged making their job even harder.

This could be easy cheap points for them to try and recuperate some of the votes they lost on the left, if they overdo it (all handguns and all currently restricted rifles) I think it might backfire as those who sit on the LibCon fence would be pushed to the Cons after another serious blow to democracy and liberty. But I think if they limited the order-in-council to make AR-15s prohibited, they would walk away saying they did something to take assault rifles off the streets as they promised, and unfortunately not enough Canadians, including not enough firearm owners, would be appalled.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (10 May 2019)

Couple of problems I see with making them prohibited.

a) do you grandfather all owners to 12.6 status and expand the base of people that can own prohibs?

b) if not, do we create a special class for AR variants?

There's more along that line, but eliminating the obvious allows for drilling down to the end result.

Whatever they do though, they will be creating thousands of criminals overnight.


----------



## Cloud Cover (11 May 2019)

The only reason I can see them doing that is to try and bait the worst out of some people, and it's working. 
On CGN, I see people working  on theories that they have not enough time left in their lives to let anyone take their weaps. I get the sentiment, but I think it's too much Hollywood and not enough pragmatism. Why anyone would think the high ground would be to operationalize this to fighting words let alone fighting sentiment is beyond me. It's just property and a certain construct of "rights", and the deprivation thereof does not amount to property in weapons = the DNA of their life, or anyone else.


----------



## ballz (11 May 2019)

https://myemail.constantcontact.com/UPDATE---AR-15-Rifle-to-be-included-in-Liberal-Gun-Bans.html?soid=1124731702303&aid=3w5MwM13yKc

CSSA is reporting that "two separate, unconnected government sources, one of whom has direct knowledge of the plan, confirmed the Liberal government’s proposed “sweeping gun ban” will include the AR-15 target rifle."


----------



## Eaglelord17 (11 May 2019)

Fishbone Jones said:
			
		

> Couple of problems I see with making them prohibited.
> 
> a) do you grandfather all owners to 12.6 status and expand the base of people that can own prohibs?
> 
> ...



They cannot grandfather anyone without changing the laws. Currently the laws allow for the prohibition of firearms based off a OIC but you cannot grandfather anyone into a prohibited category except for direct relatives with a pre-1945 registered 12.6 firearm.


----------



## Cloud Cover (11 May 2019)

The Toronto Star takes the view there is no sweeping gun ban in the works, because --- wait for it .... 
"It could be that the Trudeau team is aware that all this pro-feminist rhetoric of the past four years has been interpreted in some quarters as being unfriendly to men, and that it doesn’t want gun control falling into that polarized, men-versus-women atmosphere. Gun control, historically, has been polarizing enough already."

 : As everybody knows, Trudeau is not about polarizing ...


"https://www-thestar-com.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/www.thestar.com/amp/politics/political-opinion/2019/05/10/trudeau-government-takes-a-gender-neutral-approach-to-gun-control.html?amp_js_v=0.1#referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com&amp_tf=From%20%251%24s&ampshare=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.thestar.com%2Fpolitics%2Fpolitical-opinion%2F2019%2F05%2F10%2Ftrudeau-government-takes-a-gender-neutral-approach-to-gun-control.html"


----------



## ballz (11 May 2019)

Eaglelord17 said:
			
		

> They cannot grandfather anyone without changing the laws. Currently the laws allow for the prohibition of firearms based off a OIC but you cannot grandfather anyone into a prohibited category except for direct relatives with a pre-1945 registered 12.6 firearm.



The CSSA notice seems to imply that there is something in Bill C-71 that might enable it, and could even enable taking it to the range.

It's almost like they've had this planned........................................


----------



## Halifax Tar (11 May 2019)

Cloud Cover said:
			
		

> The only reason I can see them doing that is to try and bait the worst out of some people, and it's working.
> On CGN, I see people working  on theories that they have not enough time left in their lives to let anyone take their weaps. I get the sentiment, but I think it's too much Hollywood and not enough pragmatism. Why anyone would think the high ground would be to operationalize this to fighting words let alone fighting sentiment is beyond me. It's just property and a certain construct of "rights", and the deprivation thereof does not amount to property in weapons = the DNA of their life, or anyone else.



I think allot people talk a big game but when actually faced with violent civil disobedience the vast majority will cower and peacefully surrender their firearms. 

The thing with firearms arms debates in Canada is that the Liberals and other left leaning parties really have nothing to lose with bans and confiscations. 

Our numbers are too small and we are more or less mostly right leaning folks.  So it wouldn't hurt the poll numbers. 

In fact I think it would work in their favor.  The average Canadian is apathetic to just about everything that doesn't immediately effect them negatively or get in the way of hockey night in Canada, and they aren't firearms owners.   Lastly they have a negative opinion of firearms and believe there is a gun problem in this country. 

Just look at the Kingston city council vote.


----------



## Retired AF Guy (11 May 2019)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> Just remember, there are no property rights in Canada. Remember also who's bright idea that was.



Regarding the first part of your statement I refer to what The Constitution Act of 1867 has to say on the matter:



> EXCLUSIVE POWERS OF PROVINCIAL LEGISLATURES
> 
> 92. 	In each Province the Legislature may exclusively make Laws in relation to Matters coming within the Classes of Subjects next hereinafter enumerated; that is to say,
> .
> ...



Also, from the Supreme Court of Canada in its ruling in _Harrison v. Carswell, [1976] 2 S.C.R. 200 Date: 1975-06-26_



> (page 201) Anglo-Canadian jurisprudence has traditionally recognized, as a fundamental freedom, the right of the individual to the enjoyment of property and the right not to be deprived thereof, or any interest therein, save by due process of law.



Whether federal responsibility for regulating firearms overrides provincial responsibility for property rights and whether an OIC would constitute "due process" I'll leave up the legal experts.

As for the second part of your statement, I take it you are placing the blame on PM Pierre Trudeau, when the actual guilty person was Roy Romanow, Sask. Attorney General.

Anyone looking for further reading of Canadian property rights can check out these sites:

PROPERTY RIGHTS AND THE CONSTITUTION

Property Law (The Canadian Encyclopedia)

Are property rights protected in Canadian law?

Sorry for the hijack. Back to regular programming.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (11 May 2019)

Bottom line is that you can sit back, do nothing and wait until June.

This government will do what it wants, no matter what the populous thinks or wants.

You can worry a hole in your guts till then or sit back and wait to see what happens.

Civil disobedience to the previous laws was fairly widespread with people refusing to register their firearms.

Once the requirement got dropped, even more vowed to never again let the government know what property they hold.

Quebec is the most draconian in the country for self established gun laws.

They also have the highest incidence of non compliance.

The law will be ineffective and only useful for scoring political points, depending of course whether it happens or not and what kind of dictatorial powers the PM decides to exercise.

This could/ could not become a defining moment in civil disobedience and far outweigh whatever points he thought he could gather.

The anti gun squad on Parliament Hill is really just a well connected, vocal minority of bleating folks that roll out Armageddon for the benefit of the liberal party's tactics of demonization and deflection of the less organised, uninterested and feeble response from the gun lobby that far outweighs the concern of the left.

Whatever is planned, will probably take place in whatever form they decide. They'll talk about concensus and overwhelming support of the majority of Canadians, but it'll just be another lie from the liberals to force their agenda.

Bottom line is we don't know what's happening. A couple of rumours, well placed or not. That's not enough to get upset about......yet. We need to see what they roll out, then there will be serious thought among individuals, who will seek out like minded others to become a larger force. With luck this will be the incident that galvanizes everyone in the country concerned with overreach of government and property rights.

But again, until we see what he says when he gets all grandiose and pompous during the speech to women and virtue signals the world, there is no sense getting wrapped around the axle about what may or may not happen.

Any firearm owner that didn't see this coming and didn't make contingencies to ensure their property would be somewhat safe until the liberals are defeated has only themselves to blame and will likely be the same people that meekly turn over their property with all the woe is me whimpering that'll come with it. They'll gather in garages, have a couple of beers, grouse about trudeau, bitch about their losses, then go home and watch Jimmy Fallon.


----------



## Jarnhamar (17 May 2019)

https://torontosun.com/opinion/columnists/lilley-gun-buyback-screw-up

In the Toronto police's attempt to brag about the success of their gun buyback program they posted personal information about at least one of the individuals turning in guns. This puts them at an increased risk to be targeted by thieves and probably harassment from anti-gun SJWs.


----------



## Good2Golf (17 May 2019)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> https://torontosun.com/opinion/columnists/lilley-gun-buyback-screw-up
> 
> In the Toronto police's attempt to brag about the success of their gun buyback program they posted personal information about at least one of the individuals turning in guns. This puts them at an increased risk to be targeted by thieves and probably harassment from anti-gun SJWs.



Good thing all those Webleys are coming off the street!  Those things are without a doubt THE ubiquitous gang piece!

:not-again:


----------



## Haggis (19 May 2019)

Even though it a long weekend, Minister Blair is keeping the gun ban possibility very much alive..  However, if one reads between the lines one could surmise that anything AR-15 like is probably doomed in June with all other semi-automatics and handguns to follow during their next mandate.


----------



## Edward Campbell (19 May 2019)

Haggis said:
			
		

> Even though it a long weekend, Minister Blair is keeping the gun ban possibility very much alive..  However, if one reads between the lines one could surmise that anything AR-15 like is probably doomed in June with all other semi-automatics and handguns to follow during their next mandate.




Gun bans ~ real bans ~ are likely keys to winning many urban ridings in October. 

35% of Canadians live in three cities:

Toronto     ~ population 5.9 Million;
Montreal    ~ population 4.0 Million; and
Vancouver ~ population 2.4 Million.

Of course, some of those voters are in "close" suburbs" but many, something like 100 of the 338 seats in the Commons are really "urban" and in those ridings gun ownership is low and gun ownership is often seen as a problem, not as a right.

I'm not predicting anything ... just saying why Bill Blair is not saying anything that gun owners want to hear.


----------



## Haggis (19 May 2019)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Gun bans ~ real bans ~ are likely keys to winning many urban ridings in October.



Edward, you may not be predicting anything, but I earlier posted a quote from a Liberal strategist that predicted gun bans as an "untapped opportunity" to boost Liberal fortunes.  Any bans announced in June may well push Liberal poll numbers back into majority territory.  But I also believe those numbers will fall once the Liberals start to open their mouths and speak to a stable or increasing violent crime rate post ban.


----------



## Jarnhamar (19 May 2019)

May have posted this from. The gun blog


> -10-20 million. Guns owned by individual Canadian hunters, farmers, collectors, recreational shooters and competitors. (Adding in government agencies, military and police would add less than 0.5 million.)
> -2.2 million. Canadian men and women with gun licences. (30 June 2018)
> -833,000. Pistols, revolvers, AR-15 rifles and other “Restricted” firearms owned by private individuals at 30 June 2018. (All guns are tightly restricted. Including businesses and museums, ownership is higher.)
> -443,000. Canadians prohibited by courts from owning firearms (2017)
> ...



Some target ranges charge over $1000.a year for members-and people pay it.
A good number of those 4500 business's would go under if pistols and ARs were banned.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (20 May 2019)

All semantics and conjecture until the shoe drops. It'll be what it is. 

People have had fair warning, if they haven't taken steps by now, to secure or dispose of the rumoured items, they have nobody to blame. 

I know, at least, five people that have called the CFO in the last week, and had their AR registrations changed to lower receiver only. The CFO has been, surprisingly, cordial, efficient and happy to help. It's a small move that *may* save you thousands, depending on your holdings. If you haven't made that call....... :dunno:


----------



## ballz (20 May 2019)

I think I need a lawyer to interpret it, but I think Bill C-71 has built into it that if you own a restricted firearm and it is changed to prohibited, you are then eligible for a prohibited PAL.

"Grandfathered individuals — regulations
(9) An individual is eligible to hold a licence authorizing the individual to possess prohibited firearms of a prescribed class if the individual
(a) possesses one or more firearms of that class on a day that is prescribed with respect to that class;
(b) holds a registration certificate for one or more firearms of that class in the circumstances prescribed with respect to that class; and
(c) was continuously the holder of a registration certificate for one or more firearms of that class beginning on the day that is prescribed — or that is determined under the regulations — with respect to that class."

Tricksy Liberals, they aren't just using an OIC because they've ran out of time / are desperate, banning firearms by OIC was always their plan.....


----------



## Fishbone Jones (21 May 2019)

I wonder if this will create a new class of prohibs? Their original idea for prohibs was to class a number of poodle shooter pistols and their owners to 12.6. The idea was that in a couple of generations, they'd be done with prohibs by default death of the holders. If everyone that has AR types, get that 12.6 designation, they've just expanded the prohib base by thousands of people and guns....and years. The legal traffic/ market in prohibs will expand accordingly. 

If they give out 12.6 that is.

If all they do, is switch the designation to 12.6, it'll make no difference to the owner. They'll still be able to take them to the range, etc just as now. Maybe they just want to be seen as tough, but it's all a word game. Prohibited 12.6 or restricted carry the same rules for transport and use, just a different class name. They get their publicity and they don't end up in a big confiscation fight with taxpayers.


----------



## Cloud Cover (22 May 2019)

The anti-gun lobby will see right through that, and hoist Trudeau by the nuts.


----------



## BurnDoctor (22 May 2019)

Cloud Cover said:
			
		

> The anti-gun lobby will see right through that, and hoist Trudeau by the nuts.


The mention of a specific hoist point makes an assumption that may not be accurate.


----------



## Cloud Cover (22 May 2019)

Lol!!


----------



## RocketRichard (22 May 2019)

Cloud Cover said:
			
		

> The anti-gun lobby will see right through that, and hoist Trudeau by the nuts.


Classy comment. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Jarnhamar (22 May 2019)

* RCMP Slows Printing Gun Licences, Fuelling Speculation of Bans* 

15 May 2019

TheGunBlog.ca — Canada’s federal agency in charge of gun licensing everyone from hunters and farmers to Olympic shooters said it slowed printing the permits because of “technical circumstances,” fuelling speculation new firearm bans are imminent.

“Due to technical circumstances, the Canadian Firearms Program (CFP) is * producing firearms licence cards in a limited capacity between March 11 and June 7, 2019,”* a spokeswoman for the Ottawa-based Royal Canadian Mounted Police told TheGunBlog.ca today by e-mail in response to questions.

https://thegunblog.ca/2019/05/15/rcmp-slows-printing-gun-licences-fuelling-speculation-of-bans/



The RCMP will "fix" their technical difficulties one day after the 
Women Deliver conference that the Liberals are rumored to announce sweeping changes to firearm laws and ownership in Canada. 

I'm sure its a coincidence.


----------



## Jarnhamar (22 May 2019)




----------



## Loachman (22 May 2019)

Link to original...?


----------



## Halifax Tar (23 May 2019)

Loachman said:
			
		

> Link to original...?



There is a link on the graphic.


----------



## Lumber (23 May 2019)

Jesus what did John Tory do? The spike started at almost the exact moment he got elected!  :cold:


----------



## QV (23 May 2019)

John Tory ended "carding", and he reduced the number of cops.  Seems like an appropriate result. 


https://nationalpost.com/news/toronto/toronto-mayor-john-tory-announces-plans-to-permanently-end-carding

https://toronto.citynews.ca/2018/06/15/mayor-tory-rejects-idea-carding-ban-led-gun-violence/


----------



## Jarnhamar (23 May 2019)

Loachman said:
			
		

> Link to original...?



Thieved it from another site. OP is pretty solid with this stuff


----------



## Cloud Cover (27 May 2019)

Time to ban bananas...


----------



## Haggis (28 May 2019)

Bill C-71 just passed third reading in the Senate a few minutes ago.  It will receive Royal Assent tomorrow.


----------



## Jarnhamar (28 May 2019)

What's the worst fallout from C-71?


----------



## Haggis (28 May 2019)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> What's the worst fallout from C-71?



The Liberals win a majority in October as a result of "making Canada safer".


----------



## Jarnhamar (31 May 2019)

https://globalnews.ca/news/5335558/feds-guns-clamp-down-hunt-people/


Forget for a minute that Bill Blair is telling us the RCMP and other police forces use guns "designed to hunt people", check out the blatant attempt at identity politics. Specifically, who he's trying to drum up support from.



> “These weapons are for use in the battlefield, but too often they have been brought into our communities and used to target and kill law enforcement, women, members of the LGBTQ2S community, religious observers and children doing nothing more than attending class.



What garbage.


----------



## Haggis (31 May 2019)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> What garbage.



Not garbage.  Strategy.  The Liberals control the narrative on gun control and are using the MSM to shape the battlespace in support of their ban(s).  The harsher the precursor condemnation of "weapons of war in our neighbourhoods in civilian hands" the harsher the ban(s) will be.  My prediction is that this will be so well sold that by mid-month they will be polling back in minority territory in most urban areas.


----------



## Journeyman (1 Jun 2019)

Haggis said:
			
		

> Strategy.  The Liberals control the narrative on gun control and are using the MSM to shape the battlespace...


And with every news story about a school/religious shooting in the US, the people most disposed to proclaim that Canadians are superior to Americans will buy in that 'something must be done' here.  Actual legal and statistical comparisons between the two countries are irrelevant.


----------



## Haggis (1 Jun 2019)

2019: "military style assault weapons used to hunt people will be banned!"
2020: "handguns used to rob and murder people will be banned!" 
2021: "super accurate bolt-action and scoped sniper rifles used to hunt people from afar will be banned!"
2022: "shotguns, which are really just cannons used to blow people to pieces, will be banned!"

It's important to note that a firearm or class of firearm banned by an OIC by this government cannot be un-banned by an OIC by a future government.  It remains banned until legislative changes are made to refine the classification to now include the banned class/firearm in the refined definition.

The big question now is that under C-71, is an OIC even required to ban certain classes?  Now that the RCMP can classify/reclassify firearms, could they not simply reclassify all restricted to prohibited with/without grandfathering?  Could the PM - as he did with VAdm Norman - publicly state that "I expect that the RCMP will now reclassify all handguns and semi-automatic firearms to keep them out of civilian hands" and the RCMP, like in the Norman investigation, would follow this implied order?


----------



## Jarnhamar (3 Jun 2019)

Haggis said:
			
		

> Not garbage.  Strategy.  The Liberals control the narrative on gun control and are using the MSM to shape the battlespace in support of their ban(s).  The harsher the precursor condemnation of "weapons of war in our neighbourhoods in civilian hands" the harsher the ban(s) will be.  My prediction is that this will be so well sold that by mid-month they will be polling back in minority territory in most urban areas.



I have words I'd like to use to describe him  but I'd get infractions for it. 

Everything about what they're trying to do is deceitful and based on bullshit. 

Like the idea that requiring gun owners to call the RCMP to obtain a permission slip to transport restricted firearms to the post office or gun Smith will combat crime. The whole principal of a ATT is stupid. It's like having a driver's licence but requiring a permission note to drive to get gas or take the car to the mechanic.


----------



## Haggis (16 Aug 2019)

The Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police won't be supporting a handgun ban.  Clearly, they are not as smart as the PM and Mayor Tory, who both know that real problems require unreal solutions.


----------



## Halifax Tar (16 Aug 2019)

Haggis said:
			
		

> The Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police won't be supporting a handgun ban.  Clearly, they are not as smart as the PM and Mayor Tory, who both know that real problems require unreal solutions.



Indeed.


----------



## mariomike (17 Aug 2019)

Haggis said:
			
		

> The Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police won't be supporting a handgun ban.



They supported this,



> Police chiefs endorse long-gun registry
> https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/police-chiefs-endorse-long-gun-registry-1.886844


----------



## tomahawk6 (17 Aug 2019)

Other than assigning police to every church or school or mall is an armed public.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (17 Aug 2019)

Police Forces don't want changes to handgun laws because they are some of the biggest benefiters from the present set up.

Most police forces don't own their own ranges.  They have deals with civilian owned ranges that are run by the sport shooting community.  No handguns allowed, sports shooting community dies and ranges close leaving police forces on the hook.

Many police officers also own their own pistols and rifles and shoot on their own time because they are professionals who want to stay sharp.  No police force gives their regular members anywhere near enough rounds to stay proficient with their service weapon.

I used to be a member of the Frontenac Rifle and Pistol Club, some of the biggest users of our facility were Kingston Police Force.

Edit:

Too add, a registry makes sense to police because it allows them a certain level of control and is just personal information at the end of the day.

An outright ban doesn't make sense because now it's also affecting them negatively.


----------



## Jarnhamar (17 Aug 2019)

Good point about the police using privately owned ranges, I've seen it myself a few times including kingston as well. Had some pretty good convos and shoots at the corneall handgun club with cops. 

I believe Kingston has or had a 1-2 year wait period to even join the shooting range. People underestimate how popular shooting is.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (17 Aug 2019)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Good point about the police using privately owned ranges, I've seen it myself a few times including kingston as well. Had some pretty good convos and shoots at the corneall handgun club with cops.
> 
> I believe Kingston has or had a 1-2 year wait period to even join the shooting range. People underestimate how popular shooting is.



Two year minimum wait, you need to go to an interview meeting and orientation and you need to do I believe five accompanied range days before you can shoot on your own.  You also need to commit to show up to do work like clean up days, building ranges, maintenance, etc.  It's about $300.00 a year just for membership.

Police Officers don't need to do any of that.  They can show up whenever they want, have first priority on all ranges and don't need to pay or participate in any of the social club BS that I never really cared about.


----------



## Haggis (17 Aug 2019)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> I believe Kingston has or had a 1-2 year wait period to even join the shooting range. People underestimate how popular shooting is.



In some provinces the CFO will not approve a restricted purchase or transfer to someone who is not a club or range member.  Those CFOs believes that proof of club or range membership is required to show "target shooting at an approved club or range"  as a legitimate purpose for owning a restricted.

I'm a training officer in my club.  New members are required to attend a classroom day plus up to six supervised range visits with a club training officer and attend a club level holster user's course, if they intend to use their own holsters. (LEO need not attend this if and only if they are using duty gear and firearm.  If they intend to use their personal firearm(s) and holster, they must attend the course to show safe handling and proficiency with that setup.) 

Even with those requirements, membership applications have exploded over the past few months as we are one of the only clubs in our region that doesn't have a year-plus long waiting list or a membership cap.... yet.


----------



## Infanteer (18 Aug 2019)

Sounds like there is opportunity for those who want to open a new business in the area...that whole supply/demand thing....


----------



## SeaKingTacco (18 Aug 2019)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> Sounds like there is opportunity for those who want to open a new business in the area...that whole supply/demand thing....



Good luck getting a new range through the zoning/approval process in most municipalities today. You might as well propose building an oil pipeline....


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (18 Aug 2019)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> Sounds like there is opportunity for those who want to open a new business in the area...that whole supply/demand thing....



Except Supply/Demand doesn't work with guns in this country because municipalities have basically killed the ability to build a new one with legislation.  

There is only one range anywhere near the GTA and it's 40 min outside the city.  There can't be many sports shooters in Toronto so I wonder where all those handguns are coming from?


----------



## my72jeep (18 Aug 2019)

The range I run in Wawa (missed a monthly meeting and got elected president)  :facepalm: has members from the gta that own camps here and can't get into clubs south of Hwy 7. They meet all club safety requirements by shooting here when at camp, this gives them the ability to do walk-in’s down south till an opening presents its self.


----------



## Cloud Cover (19 Sep 2019)

Colt is going to stop making AR15 rifles for consumers. Says the market is flooded and there’s an excess of stock: 
https://www.cnn.com/2019/09/19/business/colt-ar15/index.html


----------



## Jarnhamar (19 Sep 2019)

Not surprised. Colt refused to evolve with the times.


----------



## Jarnhamar (20 Sep 2019)

Trudeau is going to need something big to deflect the black face fuck up.

Time to play the Gunn control card?


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (20 Sep 2019)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Trudeau is going to need something big to deflect the black face frig up.
> 
> Time to play the Gunn control card?



Already in motion, press conference at 1030am.  At the location of a fatal shooting last year in TO.


----------



## Jarnhamar (20 Sep 2019)

Oh, well shit lol

Trudeau has been eating black face paint if he thinks this is going to go well for him.


----------



## Remius (20 Sep 2019)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Oh, well crap lol
> 
> Trudeau has been eating black face paint if he thinks this is going to go well for him.



Calculated risk.  Most of the pro gun types are against him no matter what.  According to some sources 75% of Canadians want to see some sort of "Assault" weapons ban.

If they can frame Scheer as being in league with the gun lobby that can only help them.   

I am certain they were waiting for the right tinme (like after this blackface fiasco) to do this. 

Like them or not, the LPC war room is shaping this election battlefield.


----------



## Jarnhamar (20 Sep 2019)

From the free sources I cared to look at it looked like the majority thought our gun control was sufficient and didn't want to change it. Of course that's not going to stop Trudeau.

On the bright side the chances of a picture of him doing something stupid with a gun in existence is pretty high.


----------



## The Bread Guy (20 Sep 2019)

Initial reports from a 1030EDT Liberal newser via The Canadian Press:


> Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau is promising to ban all military-style assault rifles as part of a broader gun-control plan that will also take steps towards restricting and banning handguns.
> 
> Trudeau is making the pledge in Toronto as he tries to get his campaign back on track after apologizing for wearing blackface years ago.
> 
> ...



Cross-posted this to the Election 2019 thread so the politics can be discussed there, and the mechanics of the proposals here.


----------



## Brad Sallows (20 Sep 2019)

In Canada, what constitutes an "assault rifle"?

If the definition is feature/configuration dependent, will removal of the offending features/configuration render a weapon "lawful"?


----------



## my72jeep (20 Sep 2019)

If the boy blunder gets in gun owners are royalty knackered.


----------



## Jed (20 Sep 2019)

Well PM Trudeau and the Liberal Party have now launched the opening salvo on the division of this once great nation of Canada. Fingers are crossed that the Canadian people are not duped into putting these charlatons back into power.


----------



## George Wallace (20 Sep 2019)

Jed said:
			
		

> Well PM Trudeau and the Liberal Party have now launched the opening salvo on the division of this once great nation of Canada. Fingers are crossed that the Canadian people are not duped into putting these charlatons back into power.



I noted his DIVISIVE comments in inaccurately stating the policy held by the Conservatives.  
This man blames everyone else and is the one who drives division more than any other faction in Canada.
Definitely not a nation builder and a unifier of peoples.


----------



## VinceW (20 Sep 2019)

There will be a Liberal ban before there’s another gun ban.


----------



## AbdullahD (20 Sep 2019)

VinceW said:
			
		

> There will be a Liberal ban before there’s another gun ban.



I disagree gun owners who care on this subject are already voting Conservative. This mobilizes the mass of likely ignorant people who think a Ban will make Canada safer.

It also deflects attention away from the Blackface issue and if Scheer is not careful he will get caught up in the pro-firearms argument effectively moving the Liberal campaign forward past this black face issue.

So sadly I still expect to see a liberal minority, our best hope is to block these motions before they become law.. cause our voters seem not to care.
Also, I am curious if they will try to ban the SKS too...

Abdullah


----------



## Jarnhamar (20 Sep 2019)

my72jeep said:
			
		

> If the boy blunder gets in gun owners are royalty knackered.



Maybe it'll be like New Zealand.  Turn up to turn your guns in and if you don't like the price and decide to leave the armed gentlemen at the back of the room will take your guns from you anyways lol


----------



## VinceW (20 Sep 2019)

AbdullahD said:
			
		

> I disagree gun owners who care on this subject are already voting Conservative. This mobilizes the mass of likely ignorant people who think a Ban will make Canada safer.
> 
> It also deflects attention away from the Blackface issue and if Scheer is not careful he will get caught up in the pro-firearms argument effectively moving the Liberal campaign forward past this black face issue.
> 
> ...



Conservatives are ahead in polls so far and the last time a gun ban was announced during an election was in 2005 when Harper won.


----------



## Remius (20 Sep 2019)

VinceW said:
			
		

> Conservatives are ahead in polls so far and the last time a gun ban was announced during an election was in 2005 when Harper won.



Unfortunately they are not ahead where it counts and for seat distribution.

That may change in the coming days but the latest Nanos poll sees no significant drop yet. 

And that election was all about the Gomery report.  gun control played little or no role in that.


----------



## Lumber (20 Sep 2019)

1. "Semi-Automatic Assault Weapons" : does this mean all semi-autos or just "assault" semi-autos, and if the latter, wtf makes it an assault weapon vice a nongassault weapon?

2. I agree with Abdullah. Most of those who this pisses off the most were never going to vote liberal anyway. Of those who are on the fence about who to vote for (like me), there are probably very few who consider gun control or gun rights as one of their top priorities. That's also like me. I don't own a gun, but I support gun ownership in general, and I don't think we need this ban. That being said, will this decide my vote? Nope.

I think this is a win for the liberals. Not only does it move the message away form black face, but it could sway votes from ignorant voters on the left side of the spectrum.


----------



## Jarnhamar (20 Sep 2019)

Lumber said:
			
		

> 1. "Semi-Automatic Assault Weapons" : does this mean all semi-autos or just "assault" semi-autos, and if the latter, wtf makes it an assault weapon vice a nongassault weapon?
> 
> 2. I agree with Abdullah. Most of those who this pisses off the most were never going to vote liberal anyway. Of those who are on the fence about who to vote for (like me), there are probably very few who consider gun control or gun rights as one of their top priorities. That's also like me. I don't own a gun, but I support gun ownership in general, and I don't think we need this ban. That being said, will this decide my vote? Nope.
> 
> I think this is a win for the liberals. Not only does it move the message away form black face, but it could sway votes from ignorant voters on the left side of the spectrum.



You're still on the fence about voting Liberal?


----------



## Remius (20 Sep 2019)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> You're still on the fence about voting Liberal?



It is not unreasonable depending on your intentions.  gun control one way or another won't sway my vote either.  I support gun owners and am ok with the laws we have.  But I have other issues that are more important than guns.  Same with defence.  it's white noise from both the liberals and the CPC as neither will keep their promises on that so I ignore their policies on that when vote time comes. 

Campaigns matter.  the day of the election is what matters and that's when I will decide.


----------



## Jarnhamar (20 Sep 2019)

I'm not thinking about just gun control - this is really a small thing and not surprising. I meant in light of everything else.


----------



## Remius (20 Sep 2019)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> I'm not thinking about just gun control - this is really a small thing and not surprising. I meant in light of everything else.



Don't want to derail this much but I'm still hoping for a weak LPC majority.  Scheer steps down and someone better steps up.  Trudeau government falls within a year and we get a better option for maybe two terms.  I don't want to see Scheer or Trudeau as PM.  So I'm thinking long game here.


----------



## Jarnhamar (20 Sep 2019)

Editing for decorum. I respectfully hope you don't get what you want  :nod:



I wonder where the liberal government will get the money for a buy back program. 

This seems like a good time to look for some cheap gun deals and make some cash down the road. Do you have a pal/rpal?


----------



## Cloud Cover (20 Sep 2019)

Which police force is going to go on to FN land and disarm them of their "assault rifles" and other soon to be banned weapons. 

I can't think of any officer I know that is prepared to face the two way range over that, and I would not support the army once again being asked to take up arms against people in our own country.


----------



## Lumber (20 Sep 2019)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> You're still on the fence about voting Liberal?



Yes. Yes, I am.


----------



## OldSolduer (20 Sep 2019)

I’m not impressed with Bill Blair and the plan to ban handguns. Really. 
How about using laws already on the books to incarcerate repeat offenders? 


Oh I’m sorry.... I forgot they aren’t offenders they just perceive laws differently than we do.


----------



## Remius (20 Sep 2019)

Great time to invest in real estate if you live in Carleton Place or anywhere in Renfrew or lanark as im pretty sure Ottawa will get on the handgun ban and some people will look to move lol.


----------



## Jarnhamar (20 Sep 2019)

Lumber said:
			
		

> Yes. Yes, I am.



Cool cool. Gun owner?


----------



## Jarnhamar (20 Sep 2019)

Remius said:
			
		

> Great time to invest in real estate if you live in Carleton Place or anywhere in Renfrew or lanark as im pretty sure Ottawa will get on the handgun ban and Somme people will look to move lol.



Let's split on some land. We can be conservative & liberal land lords and make a reality tv show about it 


News article is saying most guns are around $1500. Sure. Mine are between $2700-$3300 a pop. Just seen some atrs rifles for $4500-$5500. I think the Liberals are purposefully lowballing the cost estimate. 

Do gun buy back programs take into account accessories? Optics? $2500 elcan spectre and $1600 acog would be pretty silly on a bolt action "hunting" rifle and essentially useless on most guns that will be permitted I'd guess.

There's around 4500 firearm businesses, about 2200 of them I believe are ammo only. Lots of these businesses cator to tactical shooting (not to mention all the gear and kit businesses).
Banning semi autos and probably pistols is going to cost a lot of jobs. Probably hundreds of millions in revenue too. Think there's a plan for that?

How many jobs was Trudeau talking about saying for the snc bs?


----------



## Remius (20 Sep 2019)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Let's split on some land. We can be conservative & liberal land lords and make a reality tv show about it
> 
> 
> News article is saying most guns are around $1500. Sure. Mine are between $2700-$3300 a pop. Just seen some atrs rifles for $4500-$5500. I think the Liberals are purposefully lowballing the cost estimate.
> ...



Meh I’m more of a red Tory rather than a liberal.  But a love it or list it type show might get some traction...

To be honest I don’t support the liberal gun law plan.  But it isn’t an issue that will sway me one way or another.  

My riding is currently Blue but has a real chance of going red.  Last time it was about a 1400 vote difference.  Like I said I want a weak LPC minority in order to usher in change in The CPC.  Means I might have to pull an Alpharius (I’m pretty sure you are the only one here who might get that reference).


----------



## Stoker (20 Sep 2019)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Let's split on some land. We can be conservative & liberal land lords and make a reality tv show about it
> 
> 
> News article is saying most guns are around $1500. Sure. Mine are between $2700-$3300 a pop. Just seen some atrs rifles for $4500-$5500. I think the Liberals are purposefully lowballing the cost estimate.
> ...



I feel you're pain, I stand to lose close to 40 firearms, including prohibits. You won't get top dollar that's for sure.


----------



## AbdullahD (20 Sep 2019)

Only the Lower.
Only the trigger assembly for my handguns?

Basically the bare minimum I can surrender... and hope for laws to change. Screw giving them everything I bought for free. I'll keep all my accessories and if the Laws do not change, I will move.

I hear they need railroaders bad down south 
Abdullah


----------



## midget-boyd91 (20 Sep 2019)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Oh, well crap lol
> 
> Trudeau has been eating black face paint if he thinks this is going to go well for him.



Quick, look!!! A distraction!!!!


----------



## Jonezy76 (20 Sep 2019)

> The proposal also includes pledges to create a buy-back program for all _legally purchased assault rifles_ and a two-year amnesty while the program is being set up.



As someone pointed out in the election thread, I'm sure glad that they are going to leave all the illegally owned guns alone.  :


----------



## Cloud Cover (20 Sep 2019)

What’s his plan to deal with these upstanding citizens: https://bc.ctvnews.ca/mobile/someone-found-a-loaded-shotgun-stuffed-in-a-duffle-bag-in-kelowna-1.4603475


----------



## Journeyman (21 Sep 2019)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> Cross-posted this to the Election 2019 thread so the politics can be discussed there, and the mechanics of the proposals here.


How'd that work for you?   op:


----------



## Haggis (21 Sep 2019)

Remius said:
			
		

> Great time to invest in real estate if you live in Carleton Place or anywhere in Renfrew or lanark as im pretty sure Ottawa will get on the handgun ban and some people will look to move lol.


  No municipality is safe from the possibility of a ban.  Cities, townships, counties and probably even provinces will be empowered to enact bans.  There could be nowhere in Canada for legal handgun owners to hide.

And for those wondering what "assault" rifles will be banned, look at Part 2 of  this schedule to see what, at a minimum, will be immediately banned.  Then add in every semi auto rifle of any calibre that meets the to be published post election CC definition of "assault rifle".  Lastly, it would be wise to expect that semi-automatic and possibly pump shotguns are tossed in there, too.


----------



## Jonezy76 (21 Sep 2019)

Haggis said:
			
		

> No municipality is safe from the possibility of a ban.  Cities, townships, counties and probably even provinces will be empowered to enact bans.  There could be nowhere in Canada for legal handgun owners to hide.
> 
> And for those wondering what "assault" rifles will be banned, look at Part 2 of  this schedule to see what, at a minimum, will be immediately banned.  Then add in every semi auto rifle of any calibre that meets the to be published post election CC definition of "assault rifle".  Lastly, it would be wise to expect that semi-automatic and possibly pump shotguns are tossed in there, too.



From there it would go to bolt and lever guns that hold more than 7 rounds, and rimfires that hold more than 11, like the deadly Cooey M60.....
Say goodbye to your duck gun and trusty Rem 760.

Here's New Zealand's list...

https://gazette.govt.nz/notice/id/2019-go2786

There's even parts and accessories listed...


----------



## Jarnhamar (21 Sep 2019)

Jonezy76 said:
			
		

> From there it would go to bolt and lever guns that hold more than 7 rounds, and rimfires that hold more than 11, like the deadly Cooey M60.....
> Say goodbye to your duck gun and trusty Rem 760.
> 
> Here's New Zealand's list...
> ...



Ever seen the video of new Zealand police going to a gun owners house "just to talk" but refuse to talk to the owner unless he stops recording them? Nothing shady about that.

Last I heard they had about 700 guns turned in out of an estimated 1 million.


----------



## Jarnhamar (21 Sep 2019)

[quote author=Remius]Means I might have to pull an Alpharius (I’m pretty sure you are the only one here who might get that reference).
[/quote]

Unique and great example! 
(minus their plan being to end humanity quicker and all)   ;D


----------



## Cloud Cover (21 Sep 2019)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Ever seen the video of new Zealand police going to a gun owners house "just to talk" but refuse to talk to the owner unless he stops recording them? Nothing shady about that.
> 
> Last I heard they had about 700 guns turned in out of an estimated 1 million.



Here’s a thought: When gun owning people have to renew drivers licenses, register a car or business, transfer title of a house, apply for a passport, receive a tax refund, enrol in school and the like, then the guns will be turned in or those people do not pass “go”. 

Fight this one people, there’s much more at stake here than guns and ammo.


----------



## Jed (21 Sep 2019)

Cloud Cover said:
			
		

> Here’s a thought: When gun owning people have to renew drivers licenses, register a car or business, transfer title of a house, apply for a passport, receive a tax refund, enrol in school and the like, then the guns will be turned in or those people do not pass “go”.
> 
> Fight this one people, there’s much more at stake here than guns and ammo.



Right on Cloud Cover; there is a lot more at stake than guns and ammo. There is essential basic freedom an protection from bureaucratic zealots and possibly unethical and criminal politicians.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (21 Sep 2019)

If this goes through, what will be super fun to watch is when the few remaining private ranges left in Canada  (no shooting sports= no ranges) refuse to rent to police forces (why would you rent to the people putting you out of business?) and the police leadership in most municipalities suddenly realize that they have no place to qualify or maintain their members on firearms currency.

This is a travesty that everytime the Liberal Party in Canada gets themselves in trouble, lawful gunowners become the distraction.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (21 Sep 2019)

Cloud Cover said:
			
		

> Here’s a thought: When gun owning people have to renew drivers licenses, register a car or business, transfer title of a house, apply for a passport, receive a tax refund, enrol in school and the like, then the guns will be turned in or those people do not pass “go”.
> 
> Fight this one people, there’s much more at stake here than guns and ammo.



Cloud Cover: sorry- I don't understand the point you are trying to make. Can you try again for a simpleton, such as myself?


----------



## ModlrMike (21 Sep 2019)

I think he's implying that the next step is to tie surrender to one's official documents.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (21 Sep 2019)

Basically criminalize over a million previously law abiding citizens of Canada?

I could see them sinking that low.


----------



## The Bread Guy (21 Sep 2019)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> How'd that work for you?   op:


Not as well as hoped, but ya do the best ya can, right?  ;D


----------



## Haggis (21 Sep 2019)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> If this goes through, what will be super fun to watch is when the few remaining private ranges left in Canada  (no shooting sports= no ranges) refuse to rent to police forces (why would you rent to the people putting you out of business?) and the police leadership in most municipalities suddenly realize that they have no place to qualify or maintain their members on firearms currency.



This is already a concern.  Many clubs will not rent to LEAs and some don't want LEOs as members, either.  In that most clubs operate as not-for-profit entities, when use dries up (i.e. IPSC, IDPA, 3-Gun ,  long range precision shooting etc. become outlawed activities under CCC s 70.(1)(b)) they will quickly fold and be forced to sell off their facilities, possibly to the feds or local LEAs (or SNC-Lavalin???), or face expropriation.

Remember who we are dealing with here.


----------



## ballz (21 Sep 2019)

Haggis said:
			
		

> Many clubs will not rent to LEAs and some don't want LEOs as members, either.



It's pretty sad when the relationships between firearm owners and LEOs is so poor. In the US the firearms community are typically dyed-in-the-wool LEO supporters.

The Liberal govenments, *and* the RCMP _leadership_ who have more than just supported them in this but actively sought to make life for firearm owners even harder than the law requires, are turned what should be productive, positive relationships into bitter mistrust for one another.


----------



## Haggis (21 Sep 2019)

ballz said:
			
		

> It's pretty sad when the relationships between firearm owners and LEOs is so poor. In the US the firearms community are typically dyed-in-the-wool LEO supporters.



I have heard of isolated cases where LEOs have taken it upon themselves to visit gun clubs -  which are generally private properties -  and ask to see PALs, ATTs and check storage/transport conditions of members firearms, in essence trolling for offences.  This has undoubtedly poisoned the relationship in some areas.

There are several LE members of my club.  Most established members know who we are and generally, we keep a low profile.  We, as sport handgun shooters, obviously bemoan the latest Liberal theatrics as we know they will make no difference in the long run.


----------



## OldSolduer (21 Sep 2019)

Remember the flood in Calgary?
The RCMP took it upon themselves to enter vacated premises and seize firearms. Public Safety they said, which it may have been.
It didn’t appear that way to firearms owners.


----------



## Jonezy76 (22 Sep 2019)

Hamish Seggie said:
			
		

> Remember the flood in Calgary High River?
> The RCMP took it upon themselves to enter vacated premises and seize firearms. Public Safety they said, which it may have been.
> It didn’t appear that way to firearms owners.



Public safety, my eye. They abused the public trust and broke into houses and safes. In the end cost taxpayers $2.3M.



> A report released last year found that RCMP-led search teams used crowbars and sledgehammers, in some instances, to gain entry to homes and dragged mud and debris across floors as they searched for stranded people and pets and checked for gas leaks, weapons and other hazards. The house entries and seizures of more than 600 firearms sparked outrage among residents and even claims that gun safes had been breached by the Mounties. But an investigation by the Civilian Review and Complaints Commission for the RCMP could find no evidence to support those claims.
> The watchdog did, however, criticize the Mounties for carrying out, in some cases, overly broad searches for firearms and contraband and for improperly seizing a number of guns that had been lawfully secured. (The Criminal Code allows only for warrantless seizures of unsecured firearms or contraband that are in “plain view”).



From here:
https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/high-river-residents-paid-2-3m-for-controversial-rcmp-home-and-gun-sweeps-during-2013-flood


----------



## OldSolduer (22 Sep 2019)

Thank you for clarifying that.


----------



## Jarnhamar (22 Sep 2019)

There were accusations of the RCMP using information from the long gun registry which was supposed to be destroyed, too.


----------



## ModlrMike (22 Sep 2019)

New salvo fired by CBC:

Targeted - Inside the gun lobby's fight to save assault weapons in Canada.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (22 Sep 2019)

Funny. There wasn't a "gun lobby" in Canada until gun owners backs got put to the wall.

Strange how people get militant when they are continually treated unfairly and demonized by their government...


----------



## Cloud Cover (23 Sep 2019)

Cloud Cover said:
			
		

> Which police force is going to go on to FN land and disarm them of their "assault rifles" and other soon to be banned weapons.
> 
> I can't think of any officer I know that is prepared to face the two way range over that, and I would not support the army once again being asked to take up arms against people in our own country.



Eating crow and stand corrected: https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/drugs-guns-cash-peguis-first-nation-1.5294088

Looks like they modified the barrel on the bolt action sniper rifle as well. This could have been a bloodbath.


----------



## Jarnhamar (23 Sep 2019)

75,634 AR15's as of August 14, 2019. A small drop in the bucket when you consider the number of other firearms that will likely be identified as "assault weapons". Easily over a million I'd say. Maybe closer to 5?
Wonder where the Liberals would get the money for compensation.


And what would the Liberals DO with all these firearms? Destroy them? Store them with the police?

https://torontosun.com/opinion/columnists/lilley-hundreds-of-guns-go-missing-from-the-mounties-military-and-other-departments


> Newly-released documents from the RCMP and other federal departments and agencies show that if the risk of lost and stolen guns is an issue, then we better think of taking guns from the Mounties, maybe even the military.
> 
> Firearms researcher Dennis Young obtained a list of the number of guns lost or stolen by police or public agencies from 2005 through 2019 and the numbers might shock you.
> 
> A total of 640 firearms were reported lost in that time frame, another 173 were reported stolen.



640 lost firearms. Ouch.  Military has lost 559 firearms and another 14 stolen between 2008-18.


----------



## AbdullahD (23 Sep 2019)

Sorry, I have a hard time believing in "lost" firearms. I think someone (multiple someones) have sticky fingers and can't resist.

I consider 95% of "lost" stats stolen personally.

Unless their is a logical reason, people can "lose" firearms easily.. happened in combat? Ok I'll buy that... but I don't think thats the case.

Abdullah


----------



## Halifax Tar (23 Sep 2019)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> 75,634 AR15's as of August 14, 2019. A small drop in the bucket when you consider the number of other firearms that will likely be identified as "assault weapons". Easily over a million I'd say. Maybe closer to 5?
> Wonder where the Liberals would get the money for compensation.
> 
> 
> ...



As a guy who has been running SNACs, every quarter, for 2 decades I would like to know the details behind the 559 lost firearms and 14 stolen.  

If there is one thing we done mess about with its verifying those E class items (weapons) every quarter.  

Any destroyed in service are written off but that's not a loss in the same manner as this article is making it out.


----------



## my72jeep (23 Sep 2019)

AbdullahD said:
			
		

> Sorry, I have a hard time believing in "lost" firearms. I think someone (multiple someones) have sticky fingers and can't resist.
> 
> I consider 95% of "lost" stats stolen personally.
> 
> ...


I’ve seen two weapons lost one went overboard in swan lake (nothing comes back out of that place, second one off a bridge in Germany so yes lost does happen.


----------



## garb811 (23 Sep 2019)

Looking at what was produced in response to that ATIP request, it looks like someone took the lazy way out when they processed it by just doing a generic CCJS search in SAMPIS without actually seeing what the items lost actually was. "THEFT, PUBLIC (WEAPON)" or "LOST, PUBLIC (WEAPON)" can be anything that is associated with a weapon. So some of those will be actual weapons, but the vast majority will be EIS items, probably with C7/C8 mags topping the list by a huge margin.

ie. Between 20 and 30 July 2012 there were 13 LOST, PUBLIC (WEAPONS) files generated in Gagetown. Do you think that might not have warranted some kind of panic if there were 13 instances of actual weapons being lost, or is it more probable 13 items of EIS being lost by students out in the training area and recorded under that CCJS code because there isn't any other alternative? Anyone who has been DS on a course in Gagetown, Wainwright, Petawawa, Meaford etc has probably had to deal with at least one lost mag at the end of a trace...

_Edit: Typo_


----------



## ballz (24 Sep 2019)

garb811 said:
			
		

> ie. Between 20 and 30 July 2012 there were 13 LOST, PUBLIC (WEAPONS) files generated in Gagetown.



Tangent, but somewhere in that 10-day period the entire Infantry School was sweeping for a lost ELCAN by one of the demo staff. I remember missing our forced rest window for it during Ph III. Your post was a trigger for a memory I had repressed.


----------



## AbdullahD (24 Sep 2019)

my72jeep said:
			
		

> I’ve seen two weapons lost one went overboard in swan lake (nothing comes back out of that place, second one off a bridge in Germany so yes lost does happen.



I believe 100% that loss DOES happen, but at what rate I feel is subject to debate. Had a quick look at your profile, you have 30 some odd years of service? And personally seen 2 weapons lost?

I am not trying to insult, belittle or mock the respective organizations. I just think, maybe x% of firearms reported as lost are actually stolen is all. I originally stated 95%, but I think maybe I was to harsh with that.

Regardless legitimate cases exist. No debate at all, I have been around the block enough to know crap happens.

Abdullah


----------



## Haggis (24 Sep 2019)

garb811 said:
			
		

> Anyone who has been DS on a course in Gagetown, Wainwright, Petawawa, Meaford etc has probably had to deal with at least one lost mag at the end of a trace...



And to the folks who say "it's just a mag", it's also a prohibited device under the CC and FA and a controlled asset. How many "lost mags" have been recovered by contractors, scavengers in the trg areas (yes, it happens) or follow-on course and never properly dealt with?


----------



## garb811 (24 Sep 2019)

ballz said:
			
		

> Tangent, but somewhere in that 10-day period the entire Infantry School was sweeping for a lost ELCAN by one of the demo staff. I remember missing our forced rest window for it during Ph III. Your post was a trigger for a memory I had repressed.


It isn't a tangent. If the ELCAN wasn't found, it will be one of those files.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (24 Sep 2019)

Haggis said:
			
		

> And to the folks who say "it's just a mag", it's also a prohibited device under the CC and FA and a controlled asset. How many "lost mags" have been recovered by contractors, scavengers in the trg areas (yes, it happens) or follow-on course and never properly dealt with?



Crap happens when doing the business.  I've dropped mags during quick mag change on an attack and seen some go missing on an attack. Train like you fight and sometimes you just don't have time to put them in the drop pouch.  

Luckily the miltiary isn't beholden to the firearms act, otherwise we would never get any real training done.  

As for lost weapons, funniest one I saw was a Canadian Maple Branch snag a C7 out of the bustle rack of a LAV.  Spent a couple of hours driving around looking for that thieving tree!


----------



## Haggis (24 Sep 2019)

Humphrey Bogart said:
			
		

> Luckily the military isn't beholden to the firearms act, otherwise we would never get any real training done.



I get that, but it doesn't change the fact that the item is still prohibited when not in the lawful (i.e. duty or training related) possession of a CAF member or other exempted person.  E.g. A troop "loses" a C7 magazine or two on an FTX.  Then, he uses the magazine in his _dreaded_ S&W AR-15 clone on a civilian range.  That magazine is prohibited as it is not lawfully in his possession as he is now subject to the CCC/FA .  That's what I meant.


----------



## Jarnhamar (24 Sep 2019)

Good side of banning firearms out west.

Less things criminals, burglers and intruders have to worry about being hurt with.

https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/canada/alberta-man-who-fired-warning-shots-at-bandits-is-now-being-sued-for-damages-by-one-of-them/ar-AAHJRjc?li=AAggNb9


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (24 Sep 2019)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Good side of banning firearms out west.
> 
> Less thibgs criminals, burglers and intruders have to worry about being hurt with.
> 
> https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/canada/alberta-man-who-fired-warning-shots-at-bandits-is-now-being-sued-for-damages-by-one-of-them/ar-AAHJRjc?li=AAggNb9



This is why nobody in Alberta likes or respects the RCMP any more  :nod:

Not really their fault as they are just agents of the state but a little common sense would go a long way.


----------



## Mister Donut (24 Sep 2019)

Haggis said:
			
		

> I get that, but it doesn't change the fact that the item is still prohibited when not in the lawful (i.e. duty or training related) possession of a CAF member or other exempted person.  E.g. A troop "loses" a C7 magazine or two on an FTX.  Then, he uses the magazine in his _dreaded_ S&W AR-15 clone on a civilian range.  That magazine is prohibited as it is not lawfully in his possession as he is now subject to the CCC/FA .  That's what I meant.



If founnd, a law abiding fire arm owner would put a rivet in that magazine


----------



## Jonezy76 (24 Sep 2019)

Another promise from JT is to “further strengthen safe-storage laws”. (Which are already rock solid) I'm thinking they are looking seriously into centralized storage. Ranges will have increased costs for facilities and security or close up completely. The costs related to sport or recreational shooting would skyrocket. More costs = less shooters = exactly what the Liberals want.

More importantly, centralized storage makes confiscation oh so easy.....


----------



## Haggis (25 Sep 2019)

Jonezy76 said:
			
		

> I'm thinking they are looking seriously into centralized storage.



Blair specifically mentioned centralized storage at gun clubs and ranges for gun owners in urban areas during an interview on CTV's Question Period. This is because those are the only places where one can legally use them.


----------



## Furniture (25 Sep 2019)

Haggis said:
			
		

> Blair specifically mentioned centralized storage at gun clubs and ranges for gun owners in urban areas during an interview on CTV's Question Period. This is because those are the only places where one can legally use them.



Unless your firearms are non-restricted. Not everyone that lives in a urban area has restricted firearms, or belongs to a gun club.


----------



## Jarnhamar (25 Sep 2019)

Centralized storage is a throw away COA.


----------



## Halifax Tar (25 Sep 2019)

We are such a fractured group of people, Canadian Firearms owners.  We have just as much suspicion and mistrust from within as we do for the outside.  

What defence can we mount ?

I am very interested to see what happens if the Liberals manage to pull another majority and pass their plans into legislation and law.  There are allot of key board commandos talking about resistance and vaguely veiled hints of possible violent resistance as well.  

I for see the sale of rifle length PVC piping and caps, strong plastic bags and shovels to skyrocket.


----------



## Jonezy76 (25 Sep 2019)

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> We are such a fractured group of people, Canadian Firearms owners.  We have just as much suspicion and mistrust from within as we do for the outside.
> 
> What defence can we mount ?
> 
> ...



The amnesty for the LGR lasted as long as the registry did, one could only hope that there will be non-compliance or owners taking advantage of the 2 year amnesty. If only 10% or 25% of "assault weapons" are turned in, the amnesty will be extended. The only other recourse would be to start a legal protest.

IF the government wants to ban any firearms by OIC, then the firearms act automatically creates grandfathered ownership privileges for all affected owners via 12.8 of the firearms act. If they do this, everyone who holds a registration certificate for these firearms will receive a new registration certificate indicated prohibited status, and should at the same time receive a new license indicating prohibited in some way. If for whatever reason you are not eligible for a prohibited license, or if the government tries to enact that ban without grandfathered privileges, you will receive a seizure notice in the mail, giving you 30 days to comply or file a protest. Filing a protest is free, and involves you requesting a S74 judicial review of the revocation of your certificate. You do not need a lawyer for this. You will be given a court date. Probably 9-12 months away.  You have 9-12 months to find a lawyer, tell them about your actual court date, and pay them for actual advise. 

With or without them you will go in front of the judge, plead your case, and the judge will rule that the order was properly enacted, that governments are allowed to make stupid laws, and will order you to comply with the seizure notice. IN other words, you will lose. BUT, then you get to file an appeal. This will cost money. You will NEED a lawyer. This will take at least a year. By this point the court system will be clogged with hundreds of thousands of reviews and appeal requests that the Crown Attorneys will be begging the government to do something or else bona fide criminals will be having their cases tossed due to excessive delays.

2 year amnesty + 1 year wait for court + waiting for an appeal. Hopefully the conservatives will get elected and repeal that nonsense by then.


----------



## Cloud Cover (25 Sep 2019)

Taken from the shipbuilding thread:

 “The tribunal was still formulating an official response to the government’s use of the exception, which the Liberal government quietly expanded over the summer without any consultation with industry or experts”

This expansion* of power appears to be a running theme from all levels of Canadian government in many areas- from ship building to gun control. 

If the federal government gives municipalities any powers whatsoever in gun control (which many cities are requesting)  they will most assuredly ban most firearms and then seek to expropriate some existing ranges for police training purposes. This might be constitutional overreach, but if a province approves then it can be done. 

The only provinces that might push back are in the West, with the exception of BC.

*  silent exercise of raw legal power for political purpose.


----------



## Retired AF Guy (25 Sep 2019)

Cloud Cover said:
			
		

> The only provinces that might push back are in the West, with the exception of BC.



I suspect that Ontario under Ford, no friend of John Tory or anything Toronto. might also push back.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (28 Sep 2019)

Haggis said:
			
		

> I get that, but it doesn't change the fact that the item is still prohibited when not in the lawful (i.e. duty or training related) possession of a CAF member or other exempted person.  E.g. A troop "loses" a C7 magazine or two on an FTX.  Then, he uses the magazine in his _dreaded_ S&W AR-15 clone on a civilian range.  That magazine is prohibited as it is not lawfully in his possession as he is now subject to the CCC/FA .  That's what I meant.



If he wanted a 30 round mag for his AR, he can just drill out the rivet. A whole bunch simpler and expedient than fucking with the military horseshit over a lost mag.


----------



## Jarnhamar (29 Sep 2019)

Fishbone Jones said:
			
		

> If he wanted a 30 round mag for his AR, he can just drill out the rivet. A whole bunch simpler and expedient than fucking with the military horseshit over a lost mag.



Isn't this prohibited in Canada too? 4 nails and some electrical tape.


----------



## Jonezy76 (29 Sep 2019)

Absolutely. I often wonder why some people don't understand that prohibition doesn't work.
If it did, we could just make murder and assault illegal...... that would cure the "gun" problem.

Let's put meth and crack cocaine on the list too!!


----------



## Jonezy76 (29 Sep 2019)

An interesting read on gun control from Bermuda... and their solution when bans and confiscation didn't work.


https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/article-what-bermudas-50-year-old-gun-ban-can-teach-canada/ 



> It’s become a tragic ritual: Whenever gun violence strikes, there is a conversation about gun control.
> And in that conversation, certain “success stories” invariably come up. After 35 people were killed in the Tasmanian city of Port Arthur in 1996, Australia banned certain guns, established a registry and implemented tighter restrictions. The firearm homicide rate dropped by about 42 per cent in the seven years afterward. Canada, too, is often cited as a haven, especially compared with the United States.
> But Canada saw 249 gun-related killings in 2018. And Toronto – where a fifth of those killings occurred – endured another spate of violence this summer evoking fears of 2005’s “year of the gun.”
> For people truly looking for a better approach on gun violence, Australia is not a fair parallel. Allowing provinces to decide to implement a handgun ban, along with a prohibition on military-style “assault weapons” – as the Liberal party proposed, in its campaign platform last week – won’t work if that’s the extent of its gun policy. And a better example lies on an affluent island nation that’s closer to home.
> ...


----------



## Kat Stevens (29 Sep 2019)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Isn't this prohibited in Canada too? 4 nails and some electrical tape.



Fun fact; brass knuckles are illegal in Canada, but knuckledusters made of 1/2” Lexan are just fine.


----------



## Jarnhamar (1 Oct 2019)

Seen an article, think it was Toronto sun, that said the gun that was used in the BC murders (an SKS) is the same gun that Trudeau wants to ban.

Read: those murders wouldn't have happened if these assault weapons were banned.


----------



## Jonezy76 (1 Oct 2019)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Seen an article, think it was Toronto sun, that said the gun that was used in the BC murders (an SKS) is the same gun that Trudeau wants to ban.
> 
> Read: those murders wouldn't have happened if these assault weapons were banned.



I read the same article. By the same logic, we could reduce drunk driving by making it tougher for sober people to own cars.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (2 Oct 2019)

Restricting advertising means no CGN or other firearms forums. No gun shops online, means no ordering over the internet. There is no definition of assault rifles. They can take what they want. Fair market value for buyback? More lies.


----------



## ModlrMike (2 Oct 2019)

If you think this is about guns, you're not paying attention:

"Disarming the Canadian public is part of the new humanitarian social agenda" 
"Canada will be one of the first unarmed countries in the world."

- Lloyd Axworthy, Liberal Foreign Affairs Minister 1998


----------



## Eaglelord17 (2 Oct 2019)

Where are these Canadians killed or injured by 'assault rifles' in Canada?

Last I checked more people have been killed by the Remington 700 in this country than a AR-15 (as far as I am aware not a single person has been killed by a AR-15). 

Frankly this whole thing is a joke. Tyranny by majority. A large number of uninformed ignorant people who don't even know what our laws are, think they should be tighter because they are too dumb to understand we are not the US and their news isn't ours. 

If we had a serious gun violence issue in Canada we would know. If gun owners were as violent as the media portrays us to be, there wouldn't be any media speaking out against us.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (2 Oct 2019)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> If you think this is about guns, you're not paying attention:
> 
> "Disarming the Canadian public is part of the new humanitarian social agenda"
> "Canada will be one of the first unarmed countries in the world."
> ...



Brazil beat us to it. Now look where they are.


----------



## Jarnhamar (2 Oct 2019)

As of 14 August 2019 there were 75,634 AR15s registered to Canadians. 

Is it true there has been a total of 1 murder with an AR15 in Canada? Kevin Leclair?


----------



## Fishbone Jones (3 Oct 2019)

Everything I've seen has no murders with AR-15s. Didn't really look though.


----------



## my72jeep (3 Oct 2019)

One drug guy or a terrorist killed an other druggie of whatever with a ar smuggled in from the US. Back in 1994?


----------



## Halifax Tar (3 Oct 2019)

Seen this floating around FB. 

Think this ends with ARs and Handguns ?


----------



## Haggis (3 Oct 2019)

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> Seen this floating around FB.
> 
> Think this ends with ARs and Handguns ?



Not a chance! 

Your image, coupled with this now deleted tweet from the Polysesouvient group, is shaping the battlespace for full confiscation of everything but single shot long guns..


----------



## Mister Donut (3 Oct 2019)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> As of 14 August 2019 there were 75,634 AR15s registered to Canadians.
> 
> Is it true there has been a total of 1 murder with an AR15 in Canada? Kevin Leclair?



Assuming Leclair was killed with an AR15, they want to ban something that has been used legally 99.99867784329799% of the time.

Pretty sure you can't get stats like that for a kitchen knife, baseball bat, or motor vehicle,


----------



## Jarnhamar (3 Oct 2019)

Mister Donut said:
			
		

> Assuming Leclair was killed with an AR15, they want to ban something that has been used legally 99.99867784329799% of the time.
> 
> Pretty sure you can't get stats like that for a kitchen knife, baseball bat, or motor vehicle,



When I searched for the above "sniper rifle story" (which turns out to be from April 2016, see below) the first story in Toronto that came up was a woman being hacked to death with a machete. 
https://torontosun.com/news/crime/woman-killed-in-horrific-scarborough-machete-attack

Seems like machetes have killed more people in Canada than AR15s.


The sniper rifle, aka hunting rifle story
https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/toronto-man-murdered-in-driveway-was-shot-with-a-high-powered-sniper-rifle-from-180-metres-police




Another disgusting story.

*Man charged in machete attack arrested in shooting of pregnant woman, boyfriend*
_“Three men, known to the man and woman, entered the unit armed with handguns,” Const. Jenniferjit Sidhu said Wednesday.

The intruders then opened fire on the man, 23, and woman, 20, while they were in bed and two kids, ages 8 and 4, were asleep in the next room.

The woman, who is three months’ pregnant, was hit in her upper chest but survived. Police say her unborn child was uninjured._

https://www.theobserver.ca/2017/07/05/trio-arrested-in-shooting-of-pregnant-woman-boyfriend/wcm/3bec3fe1-66ba-4030-bf72-fe5f7a4cfe3b


Good thing the Liberals want to make an election promise of taking the AR15 I use on shooting ranges away from me.

Toronto though, that sure sounds like a nice place to raise a family.


----------



## mariomike (3 Oct 2019)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Toronto though, that sure sounds like a nice place to raise a family.



I thought Metro was a good place to live, and a good employer.

So do others,

World Rankings for Toronto
https://www.toronto.ca/city-government/data-research-maps/toronto-progress-portal/world-rankings-for-toronto/

If you are worried about your personal safety,



> These are the top 10 MOST DANGEROUS cities in Canada 2018:
> https://www.iheartradio.ca/virginradio/edmonton/trending/the-top-10-most-dangerous-cities-in-canada-2018-1.8543815


----------



## Mister Donut (3 Oct 2019)

mariomike said:
			
		

> I thought Metro was a good place to live, and a good employer.
> 
> So do others,
> 
> ...



I'm surprised Surrey BC wasn't in the top ten


----------



## Jarnhamar (3 Oct 2019)

mariomike said:
			
		

> I thought Metro was a good place to live, and a good employer.
> 
> So do others





> If you are worried about your personal safety,



*
GTA leads Canada in organized crime homicides, Statscan reveals in new gangland data*
Jul 28, 2019
_A clearer picture of the nation's criminal underworld emerged this week, as Statistics Canada released detailed data on organized crime for the first time in a decade.

Within the report were figures that show more murders linked to gang activity and traditional organized crime happened in the Greater Toronto Area last year than anywhere else in Canada.

Investigators say the new data is a boon for police as they try to figure out which criminal organizations to target. But the local homicide numbers also point to a region that's bucking a worldwide trend as its criminal organizations clash violently in a bid for power amidst increased instability, a leading expert says._
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/organized-crime-statistics-1.5226940


----------



## Mister Donut (3 Oct 2019)




----------



## daftandbarmy (3 Oct 2019)

Mister Donut said:
			
		

> The gun thing really irks me.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




The reality is that, because we're Canada, as with the weather, if you don't like it just wait awhile....


----------



## mariomike (3 Oct 2019)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Within the report were figures that show more murders linked to gang activity and traditional organized crime happened in the Greater Toronto Area last year than anywhere else in Canada.



Because there's more people.

Greater Toronto Area ( GTA ) Population 6,417,526 people ( 2016 ).

Province of British Columbia
4.992 million (2018)

Province of Alberta
4.307 million (2018)

Montreal 1.78 million (2017)

Atlantic Canada combined 2.333 million (2016)
( New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, and Prince Edward Island – and the easternmost province of Newfoundland and Labrador combined ).


----------



## Fishbone Jones (3 Oct 2019)

Population would only be part of the equation


----------



## brihard (3 Oct 2019)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> *
> GTA leads Canada in organized crime homicides, Statscan reveals in new gangland data*
> Jul 28, 2019
> _A clearer picture of the nation's criminal underworld emerged this week, as Statistics Canada released detailed data on organized crime for the first time in a decade.
> ...



Further down in the article it normalizes gross numbers to the /100,000 population norm used in criminological comparison. Adjusted for population, the GTA’s murder rate is below that of the Vancouver area and Edmonton.


----------



## mariomike (3 Oct 2019)

Brihard said:
			
		

> Adjusted for population, the GTA’s murder rate is below that of the Vancouver area and Edmonton.





			
				Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Toronto though, that sure sounds like a nice place to raise a family.



For reference,



> Police-reported Crime Severity Index and crime rate, by census metropolitan area, 2018
> https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/daily-quotidien/190722/t004a-eng.htm
> 
> 2018 – Crime Severity Index:
> ...



Toronto's 2018 statistics would include the van attack on Yonge St. It was the deadliest attack of any kind ( terror or non-terror ) in the city's history.


----------



## Brad Sallows (4 Oct 2019)

Those interested in where violence happens should be drilling down to specific neighbourhoods and communities.


----------



## observor 69 (4 Oct 2019)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> Those interested in where violence happens should be drilling down to specific neighbourhoods and communities.


Watch local TO news and there is close to a shooting incident every day.
And as Brad says "specific neighbourhoods" are where most of it happens. Unfortunately there are a lot of innocent civilians caught in the crossfire. And some of these weapons are used outside these areas. If you hear TO talking about a handgun ban this is what is driving the concern. Shootings are occurring in public areas thruout the city. I live in a suburban TO community and serious gun violence is higher than in any past year I can recall.
Contributing causes ... drugs...proximity to the border !


----------



## mariomike (4 Oct 2019)

Mister Donut said:
			
		

> I'm surprised Surrey BC wasn't in the top ten



I suspect Surrey was included in the Vancouver census metropolitan area ( CMA ).

"A census metropolitan area (CMA) consists of one or more neighbouring municipalities situated around a major urban core. A CMA must have a total population of at least 100,000 of which 50,000 or more live in the urban core. To be included in the CMA, other adjacent municipalities must have a high degree of integration with the central urban area, as measured by commuting flows derived from census data. A CMA typically comprises more than one police service."

"Metro Vancouver is a federation of 22 municipalities."



			
				Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> Those interested in where violence happens should be drilling down to specific neighbourhoods and communities.



There are 140 neighbourhoods officially recognized by the City of Toronto, and upwards of 240 unofficial neighbourhoods.

That is City only. Does not include the Greater Toronto Area ( GTA ) Regions of Halton, Peel, York and Durham.

If one is looking to "drill down" for a crime hot spot, I think my neighbourhood would be pretty disappointing,

It's the only one that has its own community run Town Hall. It is the only one to have a lake, a river, and a pond as it's natural boundaries. It's very hilly with  winding roads and many mature trees. It was a village until 1967, and we had our own Fire Dept.

Other than at the Legion, you couldn't buy alcohol until after 2000 ( The year. Not the hour. ) Want beer or wine with your spaghetti in a restaurant? Sorry, have a Coke or ginger ale. 

Not exactly Mayberry. Not exactly the crime hot spot some might be looking for either.


----------



## GK .Dundas (4 Oct 2019)

mariomike said:
			
		

> I suspect Surrey was included in the Vancouver census metropolitan area ( CMA ).
> 
> "A census metropolitan area (CMA) consists of one or more neighbouring municipalities situated around a major urban core. A CMA must have a total population of at least 100,000 of which 50,000 or more live in the urban core. To be included in the CMA, other adjacent municipalities must have a high degree of integration with the central urban area, as measured by commuting flows derived from census data. A CMA typically comprises more than one police service."
> 
> ...


 If I'm right you live in Port Credit
And you have my Grandad to blame he was a founder of that Legion and the Mayor of Port Credit at roughly the same time.


----------



## mariomike (4 Oct 2019)

GK .Dundas said:
			
		

> If I'm right you live in Port Credit
> And you have my Grandad to blame he was a founder of that Legion and the Mayor of Port Credit at roughly the same time.



No. I love Port Credit. But, I live in the former Village of Swansea. "The final frontier before the Borough of Etobicoke". Now incorporated into the City of Toronto.

The Legion was Branch #46. Coincidentally located directly across the street from the village firehouse. How's that for urban planning?

The firehouse is still there. ( A one-truck station. ) But, the legion closed after the area went "wet".


----------



## Jarnhamar (4 Oct 2019)

It sounds like Toronto is a lot safer and nicer than I thought. Why do we hear them so much in the news?  Are they blowing the gun and gang violence out of proportion? Sort of a _it snowed send in the army_ response?


----------



## mariomike (4 Oct 2019)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> It sounds like Toronto is a lot safer and nicer than I thought.



Not sure it could _ever_  be safe enough for some.

We explained the residential population. Now, you can add the tourist population,



> Toronto is the leading tourism destination in Canada. In 2017, Toronto welcomed over 43.7 million visitors.
> •A record 15.5 million were overnight visitors
> •28.2 million same day visitors
> •International travellers to Toronto: ◦5.1 million overnight visitors came from international destinations
> ...



Most come looking for a good time. Some may get into trouble.



			
				Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Why do we hear them so much in the news?



Where do you think Canada's news media is located?



			
				Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Are they blowing the gun and gang violence out of proportion?



Probably could _never_  blow it up enough to satisfy some. 



			
				Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Sort of a _it snowed send in the army_ response?



Once. In the 1990's. Worst one I ever worked.

Do you know the effect a snow storm can have on emergency operations in a big city?



> "FDNY EMS has a aprox 5 hour delay to Emergencies. FDNY personal are advised not to do CPR more then 20 min due to high vol of jobs." [ sic ]
> 
> FDNY-EMS reported a backlog of 1,300 9-1-1 calls and a 3-hour to 12-hour delay in response to critical cases, including cardiac arrests and heart attacks.
> 
> ...



To avoid lawsuits, NYC does not hesitate to call in the army.

If you need outside help, ask for it! Otherwise, those you swore to serve and protect will sue the city.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (12 Oct 2019)

The list of guns banned in NZ including .22cal rimfires Lever Actions. Remember how they told us, they are not coming for our guns and we are paranoid? If you think Canada won't do the same, you are sadly mistaken  https://www.police.govt.nz/sites/default/files/publications/prohibited-firearms-and-parts-buy-back-price-list.pdf


----------



## Jarnhamar (12 Oct 2019)

Colin P said:
			
		

> The list of guns banned in NZ including .22cal rimfires Lever Actions. Remember how they told us, they are not coming for our guns and we are paranoid? If you think Canada won't do the same, you are sadly mistaken  https://www.police.govt.nz/sites/default/files/publications/prohibited-firearms-and-parts-buy-back-price-list.pdf



I checked what two of my firearms are worth according to that list in new condition and it came back $14'250 Canadian.

I paid $3800 Canadian for em both.


----------



## Stoker (12 Oct 2019)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> I checked what two of my firearms are worth according to that list in new condition and it came back $14'250 Canadian.
> 
> I paid $3800 Canadian for em both.



My FNC para gets me a little under 8K in NZ, probably about $800 here.


----------



## Jarnhamar (12 Oct 2019)

The internets says $8000 NZD is worth $6691 CDN.

I'd definitely take that off your hands for $800 if that's the case  ;D


----------



## Jonezy76 (12 Oct 2019)

Ah yes, the knee-jerk reaction of the NZ government.

They fear the mighty Cooey 60 and the venerable Wingmaster 870, along with the ever so deadly Win '94.  anic: 

Think of the children!!! No-one will be able to teach them to enjoy shooting and hunting safely.....   ;D



Again, gun control is not about the guns..... It's about the control.


----------



## Jarnhamar (16 Oct 2019)

338canada has Ralph Goodale behind in the polls.  Good for gun owners.


----------



## NavyShooter (16 Oct 2019)

A portion of my collection rings in at just about $40K according to that list...interesting.

Not that I'm interested in surrendering any of them.

NS


----------



## Jarnhamar (18 Oct 2019)

Well this is terrifying.

https://globalnews.ca/news/6044669/liberals-defend-chinese-facebook-ads-on-andrew-scheers-gun-policy/




> Once the Conservatives are in power, these assault rifles will spread to the streets




It's really weird that the ton of military style (theme? Flavored?) firearms already out there that are non-restricted and not tracked by the RCMP aren't flooding the streets, but if it's coming from the LPC at election time it seems like a legit concern.


----------



## Remius (18 Oct 2019)

Taking a closer look at the NDP and LPC stance on guns.  It is looking more and more like a coalition will form and I`m curious about what they have in common.

A few thing...

LPC - Ban military assault style weapons.  Not sure what that is and they don`t seem to know. 

NDP - No mention of a ban.  Just that they will work to get them off the street.  Pretty vague. 

Both support letting cities ban handguns.  Not even sure how that would work. 

I noted one more thing from the LPC:   People in intimate relationships _suspected_ of being violent will have their licenses revoked.  I see a lot of potential for abuse here by vindictive partners. 

I suspect the NDP will be fine with the LPC gun violence platform.  They seem more focused on stopping gun violence at the source but I doubt they will oppose anything the LPC is proposing. 

I`m not sure what gun owners can do to insulate themselves from this but hopefully they have been looking at it.  I think though it will require the next CPC leader to try and overturn it if they can win next time. (I am being presumptuous but I am fairly certain the CPC will not get a majority, without which they will not be able to govern.)


----------



## Jarnhamar (18 Oct 2019)

Liberals digging deep lol


----------



## SeaKingTacco (18 Oct 2019)

Are you telling me that if I vote Conservative, I get an AK-47?

That. Is. Awesome!


----------



## Good2Golf (18 Oct 2019)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> Are you telling me that if I vote Conservative, I get an AK-47?
> 
> That. Is. Awesome!



I’ll take the HK-416! ;D


----------



## OldSolduer (18 Oct 2019)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> Are you telling me that if I vote Conservative, I get an AK-47?
> 
> That. Is. Awesome!



A Timberwolf for me. It looks cool.


----------



## AbdullahD (18 Oct 2019)

I just want something belt fed


----------



## CBH99 (19 Oct 2019)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Liberals digging deep lol




Perhaps its just me, and I am feeling pretty apathetic this election - not going to lie.  But it's these types of petty tactics that I find, for myself anyway, work AGAINST the party putting up those kinds of posters.

It's not hard to slander your political opponents, sensationalize minor things, dig up petty dirt on someone & portray them to be the most horrid choice imaginable.  Elementary school kids could probably do an equally good job of running a political campaign if that's the substance of it.


Instead of coming up with posters like that in order to scare people...why not take the time to simply argue what you WOULD do if elected, and how that would benefit people?  Talk about what things you'd like to accomplish and how that might come to be, so people vote for you based on merit and optimism about those plans.

Putting down the other political parties tells me absolutely nothing other than your taking the time to discredit them, rather than taking the time to clearly tell the public what you'd like to do and why, so they vote for you out of affection for your ideas & not sensationalized nonsense about the other parties.


And in the case of the Liberals this time around, if you had just put your foot down & governed well in the first place, you wouldn't have to lay it on so thick come election time.  Instead of trying to buy voters with big election promises, why not just lead in a way that people support in the first place?


----------



## Jarnhamar (19 Oct 2019)

Great points CBH.

I always scratch my head when people buy into to these 11th hour election promises.

If it was such a big deal why not start dealing with it week one someone is in office. 

Speaking of backfiring, the LPC did a bunch of them in chinese targeting Chinese Canadians. I guess to counter the Conservative Chinese ads about Liberals and hard drugs. 

The LPC must not have did their homework- Asians in Canada make up a huge, I'd say exploding, demograph of firearm owners and people getting into guns and shooting. 

When I seen the ads I laughed and said you dummies.


----------



## Jarnhamar (23 Oct 2019)

Any ideas where this election leaves the liberal promise of banning firearms?

Few thoughts. 

The criteria for what constitutes an assault weapon is pretty open meaning millions of guns could in theory be taken. Easily over a billion dollars. I think I calculated up to 6 or, 7 billion. 

Would a minority government be able to pass a law like that which will cost 6 billion?

NDP didn't seem to care that much. Singh spoke about supporting cities and municipalities being able to ban handguns if they wanted but I don't recall much talk about assault weapons.

Quebec instituted their own gun registry but from what I can see there's a very low compliance rate. Like the long gun registry of old, Quebec firearm owners aren't playing ball. Would the Bloc want to escalate the Quebec gun registration into a full firearm ban?

With the #wexit talk what would the optics of a gun ban pushed by the Liberals look like?  I can't imagine western Canada using it as an oppertuity to paint the LPC as trying to disarm them before bullying them. Like Trudeau told Scheer "You're not in Alberta anymore".



Safe to say that promise is put on the back burner or will the Liberals try to use it to their advantage?


----------



## Remius (23 Oct 2019)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Any ideas where this election leaves the liberal promise of banning firearms?
> 
> Few thoughts.
> 
> ...



I think they will move quick on this.  The NDP will support as they are on the same page more or less.  Quebec's political class has always supported less guns so I doubt the Bloc will oppose it either.  

At least on cities banning handguns.  Banning certain firearms would likely be easy as well as they would leave it to the RCMP to decide I would think.


----------



## Haggis (23 Oct 2019)

Look for an announcement on or near the Ecole Polytecnique massacre date.  As for what will be banned, see the New Zealand list for an idea of how the PM will proceed.

My guess is that the Government will determine that allowing municipalities to enact handgun bans wilt be too cumbersome to administer and result in a patchwork of gun free urban areas with lawless countrysides in between, that a nation handgun ban will follow shortly thereafter.

And if you think the "fair market value" price offered for your confiscated guns will be anywhere near reasonable, forget it.   I foresee that all transfers of newly classified prohibs will be stopped meaning that you won't even be able to sell then to a foreign buyer, thus driving the "fair market value" in Canada to near zero.


----------



## Eaglelord17 (24 Oct 2019)

My prediction unfortunately is they are likely to use a OIC to ban rifles they don't like (hence avoiding parliament), and might just forget about the handgun thing. Otherwise they have to risk running it through parliament and that is only risk, not much reward.

The laws required to ban any firearm in the country is already enacted, its surprisingly easy for the government to do so, its just disgusting that they might.


----------



## Jarnhamar (2 Nov 2019)

https://toronto.ctvnews.ca/mobile/rcmp-handgun-stolen-at-mall-in-west-toronto-1.4665811


Not sure why someone would keep a handgun in a satchel and goto the mall with it. Shoulda went with a fanny pack.

Those guns look like bricks. I wonder why the RCMP haven't moved to Sigs or Glock.


----------



## Jonezy76 (2 Nov 2019)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> https://toronto.ctvnews.ca/mobile/rcmp-handgun-stolen-at-mall-in-west-toronto-1.4665811
> 
> 
> Not sure why someone would keep a handgun in a satchel and goto the mall with it. Shoulda went with a fanny pack.
> ...



"Only the Police and Military should be trusted with guns"  ;D


----------



## Eaglelord17 (6 Nov 2019)

https://kitchener.ctvnews.ca/police-seize-250-guns-200-000-rounds-of-ammo-from-kitchener-residence-1.4669099

Way to go police, you really have caught a dangerous criminal  :


----------



## Jarnhamar (6 Nov 2019)

Eaglelord17 said:
			
		

> https://kitchener.ctvnews.ca/police-seize-250-guns-200-000-rounds-of-ammo-from-kitchener-residence-1.4669099
> 
> Way to go police, you really have caught a dangerous criminal  :



Our storage laws seem very ambiguous but 250 guns in the open or easily accessible if that's the case seems irresponsible to me.

He probably could have stuck with 225 guns and bought some trigger locks and safes.


----------



## Cloud Cover (7 Nov 2019)

Judge rules RCMP weapons serial numbers are not personal information. There must be a story behind this story! https://www.ctvnews.ca/mobile/canada/gun-serial-numbers-are-not-personal-information-judge-tells-rcmp-1.4673232


----------



## Eaglelord17 (7 Nov 2019)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Our storage laws seem very ambiguous but 250 guns in the open or easily accessible if that's the case seems irresponsible to me.
> 
> He probably could have stuck with 225 guns and bought some trigger locks and safes.



Obviously we don't have all the details as to how they were stored, such as was he home (in which case it doesn't have to be stored), where they were, and how they were. But even if it wasn't stored properly, at the end of the day it is a victimless crime.

If I was him I would also be looking at a lawsuit against the police for destruction of property (how they have his personal property stacked like cordwood), and invasion of privacy for the photos of personal property which is all legally acquired and is legally his property. That dummy grenade isn't a licenced or registered item and even if after all this is over his firearms get taken, he will still be allowed to own those. It is also interesting to note how most the media has reported that he had a grenade, this is the only one I saw which reported its dummy status.


----------



## Jarnhamar (7 Nov 2019)

Eaglelord17 said:
			
		

> Obviously we don't have all the details as to how they were stored, such as was he home (in which case it doesn't have to be stored), where they were, and how they were.* But even if it wasn't stored properly, at the end of the day it is a victimless crime.*



Understanding how flippy floppy our storage laws are, I don't think insecure firearms are a victimless crime. If they're stolen they can very much create victims. It's kind of like saying drinking and driving is a victimless crime as long as you don't crash. Lots of missing information so it's hard to make an informed opinion. 




> That dummy grenade isn't a licenced or registered item and even if after all this is over his firearms get taken, he will still be allowed to own those.


Yup. He can also own a flame thrower (for clearing ice and brush), RPG7 and 84mm CG. Just not a blow gun or ninja star.  

M203 style grenade launchers used to be unlicenced but I heard people need a RPAL to buy one now?


----------



## NavyShooter (7 Nov 2019)

You can own a 40mm, but you need to be registered with the Controlled Goods Directorate....there's a post about this on CGN somewhere I saw a while ago.  I haven't been on there in a while.


----------



## Cloud Cover (7 Nov 2019)

He had them In his dwelling together with ammunition, ostensibly also not stored. Even if he committed no firearms offence, it is certainly reckless or blind to the potential for something to happen.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (7 Nov 2019)

Careful about how much you take from media and LEO in regards to Firearms Act violations, I have seen figures as high as 84% for "safe storage" charges withdrawn or tossed. Mainly as people don't understand the Act. if the non-restricted firearms are locked in a room or a closest they are considered stored. also the Act is silent as I recall on the "in use", so if a firearm is in use, then the storage requirements do not apply. The Act also does not speak that much about ammunition. Been a while since I dove into it, but with a "safe" (anything that has been modified to store firearms securely) then yes you can store ammunition with them.


----------



## Cloud Cover (7 Nov 2019)

True enough: as a matter of being a responsible citizen and gun owner though? Locking the front door isn’t going to make the grade of reasonable and prudent behaviour in an urban environment ( and probably nowhere for that matter).


----------



## Colin Parkinson (7 Nov 2019)

Well they tried charging a guy for unsafe storage when it took the bad guys 3 days with power tools to break into his safe. The difference now is that there are several good lawyers versed in firearms law. A lot of cases were pleaded that should not have been because the lawyer hired did not know the Act. There is nothing stopping you from going above and beyond and it certainly helps you when you go to court. Fast access is also possible with biometric safes.


----------



## Haggis (7 Nov 2019)

Let's just hope that this case is not another example used by the Government to "prove" that the only safe storage is centralized storage.


----------



## Loachman (7 Nov 2019)

Colin P said:
			
		

> Well they tried charging a guy for unsafe storage when it took the bad guys 3 days with power tools to break into his safe.



Mike Hargreaves, a firearms instructor who also wrote articles for Blue Line Magazine. I remember this incident well.

Only one article popped up when I (quickly) searched: https://www.reddit.com/r/canadaguns/comments/1yt5l0/charges_dropped_in_mike_hargreaves_unsafe_storage/


----------



## Jarnhamar (7 Nov 2019)

Loachman said:
			
		

> Mike Hargreaves, a firearms instructor who also wrote articles for Blue Line Magazine. I remember this incident well.
> 
> Only one article popped up when I (quickly) searched: https://www.reddit.com/r/canadaguns/comments/1yt5l0/charges_dropped_in_mike_hargreaves_unsafe_storage/



Thats such a messed up situation. 2 days to burn their way into a safe and he was still charged. 


I do recall reading allegations the police had something against him and eledgedly wanted to punish him. Also allegations that the theives had connections to the police or one of the officers. 

Not trying to disparage the police but when you consider it took 11 years to drop the charges and the whole 2 days to blow torch their way in = unsafe storage it doesn't seem implausible.


----------



## Good2Golf (7 Nov 2019)

And yet a Member can lose their service S&W from a Satchel..in a mall....le sigh...


----------



## Eaglelord17 (8 Nov 2019)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Understanding how flippy floppy our storage laws are, I don't think insecure firearms are a victimless crime. If they're stolen they can very much create victims. It's kind of like saying drinking and driving is a victimless crime as long as you don't crash. Lots of missing information so it's hard to make an informed opinion.



No its more like saying leaving your car idling with the keys in it is a victimless crime. If its stolen it can very much create victims. That still doesn't make it the fault of the car owner, rather the fault of the criminal who chooses to commit the crime. I also suspect that his home is still more locked up than that, as it likely had the front door locked at least.


----------



## Remius (8 Nov 2019)

Eaglelord17 said:
			
		

> No its more like saying leaving your car idling with the keys in it is a victimless crime. If its stolen it can very much create victims. That still doesn't make it the fault of the car owner, rather the fault of the criminal who chooses to commit the crime. I also suspect that his home is still more locked up than that, as it likely had the front door locked at least.



Your example is a better comparison. 

But how would your insurance company react if you left your car idling with the doors unlocked?

Not saying it's right but how many times have criminals successfully sued people for unsafe conditions when they break into things? 

But negligence can lead to prosecution.  If I plan an expedition with an inexperienced group and we hit by sudden bad weather and they die am I liable despite it not being my fault? What if my equipment was sub par?  The storm killed them but if I had taken precautions they would all still be alive.

I am not a lawyer nor have I played one on TV so maybe my example (which I poached btw) may not be a good one. 

On the flip side, if the storm hit and I lucked out that no one was killed would I still get charged?


----------



## Jarnhamar (8 Nov 2019)

Eaglelord17 said:
			
		

> No its more like saying leaving your car idling with the keys in it is a victimless crime. If its stolen it can very much create victims. That still doesn't make it the fault of the car owner, rather the fault of the criminal who chooses to commit the crime. I also suspect that his home is still more locked up than that, as it likely had the front door locked at least.



The firearm community didn't consider this a victimless crime. 

* RCMP officer, whose gun was stolen from cruiser and used in shooting, remains on duty* 

https://www.google.ca/amp/s/www.cbc.ca/amp/1.3297483

In fairness I don't remember if this was the case where the police officer was "eatting supper" at midnight at a sports bar when the gun was stolen. But, victimless crime?


----------



## Jarnhamar (8 Nov 2019)

I can't tell if this is a legitimate website or not.



> * Police meet with gang leaders to try and convince them to surrender guns during amnesty*
> 
> Illegal guns are remaining in the hands of organised crime as gang leaders refuse to give up their weapons.
> 
> ...



Thats gotta be some New Zealand version of the Beaverton right?

I mean, criminals refusing to give up guns? 

I know from reading forum posts from NZ gun owners they're saying the police are habitually under valuing firearms.  Others have said ammunition is is being banned but no compensation is being offered. Not sure if that's accurate.


----------



## The Bread Guy (8 Nov 2019)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Thats gotta be some New Zealand version of the Beaverton right?


Looks like it's legit - matching stories from other NZ media ...

_*"Police have been talking directly to dozens of influential gang members to convince them to give up their banned guns, but it's yet to result in many illegal weapons being handed over ..."*_ (Radio New Zealand)
_*"More than 100 gang leaders contacted by police after reluctance to hand over guns"*_ (TV New Zealand)


----------



## Eaglelord17 (9 Nov 2019)

Remius said:
			
		

> Your example is a better comparison.
> 
> But how would your insurance company react if you left your car idling with the doors unlocked?
> 
> Not saying it's right but how many times have criminals successfully sued people for unsafe conditions when they break into things?



And that's between you and the insurance company, that doesn't mean that the person who was victimized deserves to go to jail or have their property permanently taken away because of a criminals actions, or in the case of the gun collector here, a potential criminal action. When you think about it the only real victim here is the man being arrested. No attempts to harm others, no threats made, but the State has deemed it necessary to use force to arrest and take away this mans legally acquired property. 

I also don't agree with the ability for criminals to sue when injured in places they aren't legally entitled to be in, another example of punishing the victim.


----------



## GR66 (9 Nov 2019)

I think that the discussion about this incident on this site perfectly exemplifies the divide in Canadian opinion over gun ownership.

Those that have been exposed to "gun culture" or whatever you wish to call it note that the collector was legally entitled to own the guns.  There is no indication that this individual had any criminal intent or posed any risk to society.  The debate then revolves around how reasonable our storage laws are and how hard the legal system comes down on what some view as minor infractions compared to the relative slap on the wrist that actual criminals get.

On the other hand, many of the general public that don't have exposure to gun culture simply think WTF?  250 guns???  200,000 rounds of ammo???  What kind of whack-job needs enough weapons and ammo to start WWIII???  And when they hear other gun enthusiasts reacting like "meh, no biggie" they think that they must all be "gun nuts".  

There is a fundamental divide between those that view guns as a tool like any other tool and when used reasonably by a law abiding citizen pose no more risk to society than any other tool and don't deserve any special regulation by the state.  Then there are those that view guns primarily as a weapon that should be strictly controlled to prevent their misuse.  Some lump all guns into this category while some (maybe the silent majority?) accept that there are some legitimate uses for guns (mainly hunting rifles) but don't get why anyone needs a "military-style" weapon or handgun as typically the only time they actually see those types of guns used is by criminals or nut-jobs.

 :2c:


----------



## Jarnhamar (9 Nov 2019)

Having a little familiarity with firearms the "oh no military style firearms" narrative really bugs me.

The idea that a gun commonly used for hunting aninals like a 600 pound bear or 1200 pound moose is some how less deadly is ridiculous.

As much as I enjoy owning and shooting handguns they're statistically more attractive and present in criminal activity and shootings. Yet like the US handguns are being ignored over ambiguous and non statistically supported assault weapons.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (9 Nov 2019)

Murders in the US by rifles of all types range between 375-400 per year on average. Both Canada and the US should be asking why young males generally going to school are driven to attack groups of people and deal with those social issues openly. Sadly to many scared cows to be examined I think.


----------



## Jarnhamar (9 Nov 2019)

Colin P said:
			
		

> Murders in the US by rifles of all types range between 375-400 per year on average.



And handguns are in the 8000-9000 range aren't they?


----------



## Colin Parkinson (9 Nov 2019)

About 6,000 https://www.statista.com/statistics/195325/murder-victims-in-the-us-by-weapon-used/

Mind you this year they have a large "type unknown". The great thing about US stats is that they are generally very detailed and well done all things considered, once you start going into the county level, you can really see that the issues are very geographically contained. Canada is not bad, but not as precise as the US. Canada throws everything but the kitchen sink into the "firearm category" including imitation and pellet guns, this helps to create a worse situation than exists. Also if firearms are at the scene of a domestic incident and are still locked in the safe and never used, they can be counted as a firearm related crime. 

from https://thegunblog.ca/facts-stats/
_ Homicide: (This is 2017 data.) Fatal stabbings exceeded fatal shootings in 7 of the past 10 years. Shooting overtook stabbing as the leading method of homicide in 2016, led by gang murders in Toronto and Vancouver. *Note: StatsCan includes flare guns, nail guns, pellet guns and other non-firearms in its totals for “firearm-related homicide.”*_

from https://www.theglobeandmail.com/canada/article-how-the-globe-tried-and-failed-to-find-the-source-of-canadas/
_Our access-to-information requests to municipal police forces also came up short: Of the 36 forces across the country from which we requested firearms-tracing data, none were able to provide it.

In almost all cases, we found that police-level tracing information – when it existed – was kept as written reports attached to individual case files. The police forces said they would have to spend hundreds or thousands of hours to find, scan, redact and release each tracing report for the thousands of firearms they seize each year. It could be years before we received the files we’d requested.

The fee estimates were often staggering. The Peterborough Police Service quoted us $4,000 to provide any kind of tracing information. Windsor said it would cost $6,000. Our largest fee estimate came from the Greater Sudbury Police Service, which asked for $26,460 to produce the files.

We eventually changed our requests to accommodate what the police forces felt they were capable of providing in a reasonable time frame, which meant excluding tracing information and focusing on seized and surrendered statistics, which would show us the number and kinds of firearms law enforcement were seizing.

Some police forces refused to release anything at all. The Royal Newfoundland Constabulary, a provincial police force that is also the local police in St. John’s, denied us outright, as did the Longueuil and Quebec City police forces._


----------



## Jarnhamar (13 Nov 2019)

This guy had over 850 guns. Police Say all legally owned. Looks like they're be returned to him despite some of them apparently improperly stored.

https://globalnews.ca/news/6163162/heron-gate-home-450-guns/?fbclid=IwAR3hb8d7BCnEh2EomaBEdn0Orz_KavHP5piuoAcIeMBWXN6wTfDHmMuVc6E


----------



## Jonezy76 (13 Nov 2019)

I'd bet that they don't come back is as good condition as when they left. I'll hazard a guess and say that the owner didn't just have them laying in a heap like in the picture. I'd lose my mind if that's how my property were treated.

If they were stored like that, then that's just not right..


----------



## Jarnhamar (13 Nov 2019)

I'm willing to bet he didn't have 850 guns stored with the same care and space me and you store ours. That's a lot of guns dude.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (13 Nov 2019)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> This guy had over 850 guns. Police Say all legally owned. Looks like they're be returned to him despite some of them apparently improperly stored.
> 
> https://globalnews.ca/news/6163162/heron-gate-home-450-guns/?fbclid=IwAR3hb8d7BCnEh2EomaBEdn0Orz_KavHP5piuoAcIeMBWXN6wTfDHmMuVc6E



Check out that AK front and centre  ;D


----------



## Colin Parkinson (13 Nov 2019)

I also guess that the Crown Prosecutors said "little hope of successful prosecution". I bet he hired a good firearms lawyer.


----------



## Jarnhamar (13 Nov 2019)

Humphrey Bogart said:
			
		

> Check out that AK front and centre  ;D



Interesting collection for sure. It looks like he has a Sten gun too. Kinda seems all over the place.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (13 Nov 2019)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Interesting collection for sure. It looks like he has a Sten gun too. Kinda seems all over the place.



Not just any AK either, an AK74u.


----------



## Haggis (7 Dec 2019)

All gun owners, not just handgun and restricted rifle owners, should listen very carefully to this video clip at the 2:08 mark.  This is where Minister Blair, either accidentally or intentionally tips the Government's hand as to it's true intentions towards the ban of  "military style weapons".  When pressed he mentions the ban will cover the types of weapons used in Montreal, Moncton, Quebec City and Fredericton.  Yes, Fredericton, where four people were allegedly killed in August 2018 by a suspect using a *bolt action hunting rifle*.  Remember this little snippet from those who shared the Liberal spotlight yesterday. 

Wake up your deer hunter, farmer and collector friends.  They're about to get blindsided in a major way.


----------



## Eaglelord17 (7 Dec 2019)

I predict this ban shall result in the old Canadian tradition of non-compliance to a large degree.

Before the long gun registry was put into effect there was a estimated 20-30 million firearms in Canada. After the long gun registry was put into effect there was magically about 8 million firearms.

I also predict much like New Zealand, the government is going to learn how ineffective a ban is when the firearms aren't registered to begin with. Confiscation is a two step process, 1 register the firearms, and 2 come and take them away. If you fail to do #1 you end up failing to do #2.


----------



## Jarnhamar (7 Dec 2019)

Don't forget to register all your firearms online first in order to qualify for the buy back. 

That way if you don't like getting $900 for your $3400 rifle they'll just come to your house after the buy back is over and take it for free  ;D


----------



## mariomike (11 Dec 2019)

Saw this in Radio Chatter. I'll reply in gun politics.



			
				Blackadder1916 said:
			
		

> But gun owners aren't on the fringe. Ideologically, they (_those who base their political action on this single issue_) are firmly entrenched in the middle of the Conservative camp.



I'm a gun owner. But, not obsessed with them. 

My voting priority has always been non-partisan and based on who is best for my career, and retirement. Not my hobbies.


----------



## Furniture (11 Dec 2019)

mariomike said:
			
		

> I have always voted - based on the advice of my union and pension association -what is best for my career, and retirement. Not my hobbies.
> 
> YMMV.



At least you're honest, most would try to hide the selfish motivation behind their vote. 

I suspect the Liberal ban plan will create further urban/rural divide, as well as increased East/West divide.


----------



## Jarnhamar (11 Dec 2019)

> Public Safety Minister Bill Blair has pegged the figure at close to 250,000 with an average retail price of $1,500 each, pushing the total cost of a buyback program to between $400-million and $600-million.



10-20 million estimated firearms in Canada and only 250,000 estimated "military assault style weapons" which will probably be anything semiautomatic and/or with a magazine?

I think Mr Blair is being disingenuous in order to not scare the public a out how much this will cost. 

There's 75,634 AR15s alone registered in Canada. Tens of thousands of ruger mini 14s, maybe even 100,000+

Tons of "assault style weapons" have been approved by the RCMP, many non restricted, important and sold in the last decade or two. 

Easy 2 billion for the buy back.


----------



## mariomike (11 Dec 2019)

Furniture said:
			
		

> At least you're honest, most would try to hide the selfish motivation behind their vote.



I don't feel it's "selfish" for working people to feel motivated about wages, health and safety, benefits, pensions and so many other things they worked hard for all their lives.

Our union supported the politicians who supported us.

Sneering at "materialism" was a luxury for idealists, not realists.


----------



## Haggis (11 Dec 2019)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> I think Mr Blair is being disingenuous in order to not scare the public a out how much this will cost.



I'm sure the Minster will explain how the costs of the buyback will be offset by, for example, making the reimbursement taxable.



			
				Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> There's 75,634 AR15s alone registered in Canada. Tens of thousands of ruger mini 14s, maybe even 100,000+
> 
> Easy 2 billion for the buy back.



At a average retail price of $1500, the cost to buy back just the ARs exceeds $113 M.


----------



## Jarnhamar (11 Dec 2019)

Are accessories included?

I have a $2500 scope on top a $2400 AR15. Another $600 in upgrades.


----------



## NavyShooter (11 Dec 2019)

You are assuming 'fair market value' will be paid...

I have no such expectation.

The fact that in the 90's, the prohibitions resulted in two classes - grandfathered, or non-grandfathered meant that the non-grandfathered class were required to be handed over...with no compensation.

I am a 'grandfathered' owner of type 12(5) firearms, banned by OIC 13 back in 1992.  

I am not looking forward to the next round...and I fear it's coming soon.

If they do come for my AR's...but leave me with my FN's...that'll be...odd.

NS


----------



## Furniture (11 Dec 2019)

mariomike said:
			
		

> I don't feel it's "selfish" for working people to feel motivated about wages, health and safety, benefits, pensions and so many other things they worked hard for all their lives.
> 
> Our union supported the politicians who supported us.
> 
> Sneering at "materialism" was a luxury for idealists, not realists.



I wasn't sneering, I was pointing out that it's nice to see someone be honest about a selfish motivation. Wages, pensions, and benefits fall under selfish. They don't work toward the greater good of the electorate, they enhance your lifestyle. 

I vote for people that don't try to take away my legally purchased private property(selfish), on the basis that taking my stuff from may help shore up their weak vote numbers.


----------



## Halifax Tar (11 Dec 2019)

I bet we see a spike of sales for PVC tubing, end caps and durrable plactic bags in the future...


----------



## mariomike (11 Dec 2019)

Furniture said:
			
		

> Wages, pensions, and benefits fall under selfish. They don't work toward the greater good of the electorate, they enhance your lifestyle.



Politicians who vote to improve wages, pensions, benefits, working conditions, health and safety etc. are good things for all working people. 

Guns may be the favorite political chew toy for some people. For others it may be reproductive rights, the environment, or other social issues they hold firm beliefs about.

The point is, nobody - including a union or people on the internet - has a right to tell anyone how to vote.


----------



## Jarnhamar (11 Dec 2019)

Correct me if I'm wrong but don't unions take money (earned from members union dues?) and decide which political party *they* feel should be supported/that best supports their members interest and support that party?  Without bothering to ask their membership? Essentially you could be a card carrying conservative member but your union decides they will support and donate to the Liberals. So your union dues go towards a party you're possibly 100% opposed to.


----------



## Jarnhamar (11 Dec 2019)

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> I bet we see a spike of sales for PVC tubing, end caps and durrable plactic bags in the future...



Thinking the police will decide to search known firearm owners houses just to look for banned items?

I honestly think the last thing the Liberals want us for us to is actually take part in the buy back. 

They're guessing many firearm owners will whether down and hide their guns away. Maybe to just keep them, maybe to hope the Conservatives reverse it. 
Liberals get liberal points for banning guns but don't have to actually pay for them to be bought.
Win win


----------



## mariomike (11 Dec 2019)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Correct me if I'm wrong but don't unions take money (earned from members union dues?) and decide which political party *they* feel should be supported/that best supports their members interest and support that party?



Unions have elections. That's when members vote for the representatives they feel best supports their intersts on employment related issues. 

This explains the non partisan endorsement philosophy,
https://www.iaff.org/my-resources/programs/politics-legislation/iaff-endorsement-philosophy/
No one, including your union, and especially people / bots on the internet, has a right to tell you how to vote.


----------



## suffolkowner (11 Dec 2019)

https://ipolitics.ca/2019/12/10/gun-owners-wanted-buy-back-plan-for-prohibited-rifles-says-blair/

The above article seems to suggest that the government looks to follow the NZ example much more closely than indicated


----------



## Halifax Tar (12 Dec 2019)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Thinking the police will decide to search known firearm owners houses just to look for banned items?
> 
> I honestly think the last thing the Liberals want us for us to is actually take part in the buy back.
> 
> ...



Who knows what will happen.  Might be worth it to disregard and hope the Cons get in and reverse it.


----------



## Jonezy76 (12 Dec 2019)

suffolkowner said:
			
		

> https://ipolitics.ca/2019/12/10/gun-owners-wanted-buy-back-plan-for-prohibited-rifles-says-blair/
> 
> The above article seems to suggest that the government looks to follow the NZ example much more closely than indicated



New Zealand is sitting at about a 10% compliance rate right now. 

Word on the street is that Canadians may follow suit.


----------



## Haggis (12 Dec 2019)

A Sun editorial yesterday estimated that the Liberals will almost spend twice as much money ($600M over two years) buying back legal firearms than they will spend on fighting gangs and illegal guns ($327 M over five years) ten times more than they will spend to combat smuggling ($60M over five years).


----------



## Brad Sallows (12 Dec 2019)

Everyone works hard for all the things in their lives, and everything done at public expense draws from a finite pool.  It's long-established that politics is partly a spoils system.  I don't know of any measures of how much people vote for themselves, versus voting for the general good of society.


----------



## mariomike (12 Dec 2019)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> I don't know of any measures of how much people vote for themselves, versus voting for the general good of society.



I see gains made by working people as a positive thing for the greater good.

We used run into the angry "I pay your salary" types: "I don't have it, so you shouldn't either!" Like it was a race to the bottom.

You couldn't argue with the taxpayers. But, I used to think the better way of looking at it was, "They have it - why don't I?"


----------



## Brad Sallows (12 Dec 2019)

Gains made by "working people" these days tend to pretty narrowly be for the "working people".  Everyone wants to earn more money for less work.  Some people can't be ignored when they stop working, and some people can.

Try to imagine a society in which everyone "has it".  No-one who "has it" right now would like it very much, and they'd be right back in line fighting to get "above it".  A couple of times I've suggested to teachers that daycare workers should make about the same money.  "Oh, no.  They don't have to have a university degree."  (Truly.)  The buying power of some higher income is a lot better in a society with a much lower median income than in a society in which everyone earns the same income.

Gun control is just an aspect of that fight (the politics of selfishness) - people who want something, at someone else's expense.  In this case, some people want a little more security.  They are willing to trade away someone else's liberty for that.  But, instead of limiting the liberties of the people committing most of the crimes, or likely to commit most of the crimes, they have focused on third parties.  The only explanations I can figure for that are the politics of cultural enmity, and - again - the politics of selfishness: your recreation must be forbidden because misadventures might deplete the public resources I need when my recreation leads to misadventure.


----------



## Jarnhamar (12 Dec 2019)

[quote author=mariomike] 
We used run into the angry "I pay your salary" types: [/quote] 
There's truth in this though. 
For paramedics, police, firefighters, military, teachers and so on. 



> "I don't have it, so you shouldn't either!"


Exactly. 
"I don't own or shoot guns so you shouldn't either".


----------



## Retired AF Guy (12 Dec 2019)

Just speculating here but what effect will the proposed Liberal ban on "military style assault rifles" have on Canadian firearms manufactures like Black Creek Labs? 

Will they still be allowed to operate? Export only?

If not, will they be compensated for lost of business and all the money they have invested in their company?  

Just asking.


----------



## Haggis (12 Dec 2019)

Retired AF Guy said:
			
		

> Just speculating here but what effect will the proposed Liberal ban on "military style assault rifles" have on Canadian firearms manufactures like Black Creek Labs?
> 
> Will they still be allowed to operate? Export only?


The usual suspects in the gun control campaign have called for  the government to ban further manufacture, sale, resale or importation of 'military style assault weapons" because they will soon be banned anyway.



			
				Retired AF Guy said:
			
		

> If not, will they be compensated for lost of business and all the money they have invested in their company?



Probably not.  If the gun grabbers are telling gun owners who stand to lose thousand in personal property that they should "find another hobby", I'm sure gun companies will be told that they should "find another business line".


----------



## Colin Parkinson (12 Dec 2019)

Retired AF Guy said:
			
		

> Just speculating here but what effect will the proposed Liberal ban on "military style assault rifles" have on Canadian firearms manufactures like Black Creek Labs?
> 
> Will they still be allowed to operate? Export only?
> 
> ...



LOL your funny, now off to the Gulag....


----------



## AbdullahD (13 Dec 2019)

Not sure if this has been posted yet...

https://pm.gc.ca/en/mandate-letters/minister-public-safety-and-emergency-preparedness-mandate-letter


----------



## The Bread Guy (13 Dec 2019)

AbdullahD said:
			
		

> Not sure if this has been posted yet...
> 
> https://pm.gc.ca/en/mandate-letters/minister-public-safety-and-emergency-preparedness-mandate-letter


Good catch - here's a bit more on the guns bit ....


----------



## Haggis (14 Dec 2019)

Based on the wording of Minister Blair's mandate letter, I don't think the government will issue an OIC to ban so called"assault rifles".  Firearms prohibited under an OIC are generally grandfathered.  This goes against the Liberal's desire to get them out of circulation entirely and quickly.

Legislating them out of existence is slower but will result in them being liable to compensated confiscation (i.e. "bought back").  This and the handgun ban will require amendments to the Criminal Code and Firearms Act.

The handgun ban will likely take the form of legislated changes and regulation issued under the Firearms Act which allows for the creation of municipally defined restriction zones and prohibition zones for certain classes of firearms as defined under the Firearms Act.  Regulations will also be needed which allows the Canadian Firearms Program (CFP) to provide municipalities who establish such zones with the names  addresses and ownership particulars for all registered firearms within their restriction and prohibition zones. (You can bet that, at least in Québec, this will also include information from the long gun registry.) Those municipalities will now be empowered to issue confiscation orders and lay charges under the Firearms Act for non compliance.

Lastly, knowing that the Liberals are particularly vindictive when it comes to lawful gun owners, the CFP could be directed by the Minister to deny transfer certificates to anyone living in a restriction or prohibition zone to prevent the migration of firearms to a restriction free zone thereby facilitating confiscation.  I also foresee that the municipalities will not be issuing any compensation.

Her's hoping that none of this actually comes to pass due to the expected short lifespan of this minority government.


----------



## Jarnhamar (14 Dec 2019)

More proof of Liberal "evidence based approaches".


https://torontosun.com/opinion/columnists/towhey-new-crime-data-contradicts-government-gun-plans


The latest crime data released by Statistics Canada make a mockery of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s posturing on gun violence.

The newly released data on homicides and gun violence in Canada during 2018 hold some surprises. Overall, murders are down – not up. Gun killings are down – not up. And gang-related homicides are also down – not up. This holds true almost everywhere in Canada, except in Ontario and Quebec.

For the Liberal government in Ottawa hell-bent on banning hunting and sport rifles, the cold, hard truth spelled out in this StatsCan report is very inconvenient, indeed.

Nationwide, murder was down in 2018

According to StatsCan, there were 651 homicides in Canada last year. That’s down 4% from 2017.

As much as murders are shocking events to good and honest people, and garner 24/7 media coverage, it’s important to remember – as StatsCan points out – homicide is exceedingly rare in Canada.

Compare 651 homicides last year (666 in 2017) to StatsCan figures for other causes of death in 2017 (the last year for which data is publicly available.) 1,968 people died in vehicle accidents. 4,108 died from accidental drug overdoses. 4,904 Canadians died from falls.

A prudent government motivated to reduce death and suffering might focus first on ladders.

Gun deaths down overall

Most murders are not committed with firearms. Last year, 249 of Canada’s 651 homicides were committed with a gun, down 8% from 2017 – the first reduction since 2013.


----------



## ModlrMike (14 Dec 2019)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> 4,904 Canadians died from falls.



Clearly, we must repeal the laws of gravity.


----------



## Cloud Cover (14 Dec 2019)

I honestly can’t see very many gun owners comply with any of this. On the other hand, what’s the point in holding onto a rifle or handgun that can’t lawfully be used anywhere?


----------



## NavyShooter (15 Dec 2019)

I have 6x FN's + 1x Thompson + 1x AK Variant in my gun safe right now that I haven't legally been allowed to shoot in almost 15 years....


----------



## Jarnhamar (15 Dec 2019)

whiskey601 said:
			
		

> I honestly can’t see very many gun owners comply with any of this. On the other hand, what’s the point in holding onto a rifle or handgun that can’t lawfully be used anywhere?



Good question. 

Some people collect vintage cars and never drive them. 
Some people collect coins and stamps. 
A few months ago I met someone with a $50,000 scotch collection (figuring most bottles were unopened) and I have a couple gerber Mk ii fighting knives I'd never bring to the woods or even cut anything with.

Some gun owners treat their firearms like collection pieces and don't require to shoot them to appreciate them.
That said it's annoying when you do own them and want to shoot them but can't.

In NavyShooters case as many other Canadians that's the government saying fuck you to gun owners rather than somehow keeping people safe or protecting lives.

This gun ban is a $1B vote buy in the Toronto and Montreal strongholds.


----------



## Good2Golf (15 Dec 2019)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> ...A few months ago I met someone with a $50,000 scotch collection (figuring most bottles were unopened)...



???

I was tracking your post up until the Universe started to tear apart right about here...

To quote The Champ, “I says...Pardon??”


----------



## Jarnhamar (15 Dec 2019)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> ???
> 
> I was tracking your post up until the Universe started to tear apart right about here...
> 
> To quote The Champ, “I says...Pardon??”



During the Ottawa floods a gentleman invited some of us in for drinks when we were checking on houses. I had to be the fun police and refuse the alcohol but he offered some pop so we meet him half way. Ended up showing us this insane collection of scotch and some whiskies. Filled up two rooms. He offered us shots from an $800 or $1800 bottle (can't recall which). It hurt to say no. On the way out I thanked him for the pop and showing the collection but suggested he be a little less trusting of strangers in uniform in the future.
I may or may not have marked it on places to stop when bugging out for the zombie apocalypse.


----------



## AbdullahD (15 Dec 2019)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> During the Ottawa floods a gentleman invited some of us in for drinks when we were checking on houses. I had to be the fun police and refuse the alcohol but he offered some pop so we meet him half way. Ended up showing us this insane collection of scotch and some whiskies. Filled up two rooms. He offered us shots from an $800 or $1800 bottle (can't recall which). It hurt to say no. On the way out I thanked him for the pop and showing the collection but suggested he be a little less trusting of strangers in uniform in the future.
> I may or may not have marked it on places to stop when bugging out for the zombie apocalypse.



Haha hot damn, that is impressive. Pretty cool.

Abdullah


----------



## Jarnhamar (17 Dec 2019)

Victims of Toronto’s Danforth shooting launch class-action lawsuit against gun maker Smith & Wesson
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/canada/article-toronto-danforth-shooting-victims-lawsuit-gun-maker-smith-wesson/

Classy


----------



## Haggis (18 Dec 2019)

Conservative MP Glen Motz has sponsored another petition for the PM and Minister Blair to ignore. This one, unfortunately, asks only for a debate of the OIC/ban and associated costs, not for the abandonment of the plan.


----------



## Haggis (21 Dec 2019)

Haggis said:
			
		

> The handgun ban will likely take the form of legislated changes and regulation issued under the Firearms Act which allows for the creation of municipally defined restriction zones and prohibition zones for certain classes of firearms as defined under the Firearms Act.  Regulations will also be needed which allows the Canadian Firearms Program (CFP) to provide municipalities who establish such zones with the names  addresses and ownership particulars for all registered firearms within their restriction and prohibition zones. (You can bet that, at least in Québec, this will also include information from the long gun registry.) Those municipalities will now be empowered to issue confiscation orders and lay charges under the Firearms Act for non compliance.



And  this article would seem to indicate that my quote above may be right on the money.  Trudeau WILL get his ban, whether the provinces support it or not.  It will be interesting to see which level of government by invokes the "notwithstanding clause" first.


----------



## Jarnhamar (21 Dec 2019)

> "In some situations, we may have a province that is unwilling to do that despite the willingness of a city or cities to do that," he said. "At which point, I have been assured, there are other tools we can use that wouldn't be as ideal, because it would involve disagreements with the provinces at a time where we want to be collaborative."
> 
> Trudeau declined to elaborate on any alternative measure, "because it's something we hope to not have to use."



Classic Honourable Prime Minister Trudeau right there.


And when Toronto bans handguns and there's still shootings they'll simply say it's because the next city over didn't ban the-so better ban them everywhere.


----------



## The Bread Guy (23 Jan 2020)

Interesting letter a Liberal MP wrote to Minister Blair, attached - more here ...

Edited to add:  I suspect he & the whip (at least) got to know each other _much_ better after this.


----------



## Eaglelord17 (24 Jan 2020)

Haggis said:
			
		

> And  this article would seem to indicate that my quote above may be right on the money.  Trudeau WILL get his ban, whether the provinces support it or not.  It will be interesting to see which level of government by invokes the "notwithstanding clause" first.



Notwithstanding clause I don't think would work. The ban will likely be struck down in the Supreme Court as it violates our constitution. There is a clear separation of powers in this country, and part of that is that cities gain their powers from the Provinces, not the other way around. The Federal government cannot give powers to a city, only to the Province. 

No matter what happens it is going to be some interesting constitutional law happening.


----------



## Haggis (26 Jan 2020)

Eaglelord17 said:
			
		

> Notwithstanding clause I don't think would work. The ban will likely be struck down in the Supreme Court as it violates our constitution. There is a clear separation of powers in this country, and part of that is that cities gain their powers from the Provinces, not the other way around. The Federal government cannot give powers to a city, only to the Province.



Minister Blair was directed to "amend Canada's firearms laws" in order to fulfill the campaign promises of confiscation and municipal bans.  See my reply #690 which outlines how the municipal bans will likely come about which will make them constitutionally sound.

Another point to watch in the near therm is the upcoming initial ban on the sale of soon-to-be-banned/confiscated firearms.  You won't even be able to sell your AR platform, SKS, Mini-14, Garand etc. to an American/foreign buyer, driving the "fair market value" in Canada to near zero.  I suspect $500 will be the top end payout during the confiscation, thereby allowing the Liberals to stay within their $250M buyback budget.


----------



## Eaglelord17 (27 Jan 2020)

I don't see the changes that you think they might propose as sound. Currently there is no prohibition in Canada as to where you can own a prohibited or restricted firearm, only where they can be used. Hypothetically I could live right next to parliament and if I was 12.2 licenced there is nothing that they could do to stop me from storing my property in my home. To try and argue that they can establish areas that you cannot possess legally acquired property on your legally owned property where you are legally required to store it (in the case of restricted firearms) is hopefully impossible under our current form of governance. I still see that as a violation of our separations of powers as it is still giving municipalities more powers than the province, just trying to word it differently. Hopefully the courts have enough sense and are impartial enough to see it that way.


----------



## Haggis (27 Jan 2020)

Eaglelord17, the PM has said that there are tools available to force recalcitrant provinces to comply.  He will use those.  He will not accept challenges to a key plank in his election platform.  If certain provinces fail to play along, then a national handgun ban will probably be imposed.

There are no property rights enshrined in our Constitution.  PM Trudeau senior made sure of that.


----------



## Eaglelord17 (28 Jan 2020)

Haggis said:
			
		

> Eaglelord17, the PM has said that there are tools available to force recalcitrant provinces to comply.  He will use those.  He will not accept challenges to a key plank in his election platform.  If certain provinces fail to play along, then a national handgun ban will probably be imposed.
> 
> There are no property rights enshrined in our Constitution.  PM Trudeau senior made sure of that.



No property rights enshrined in our Charter, however I would argue that those are rights that existed prior to the 1867 Constitution, and should be enshrined in common law in this country. Property rights are also upheld in our Bill of rights even though that isn't nearly as binding as the Charter. 

It could also be argued under the Charter that a handgun ban in your city or town is a violation of your right to life, liberty, and security of the person, as well as your right to not receive cruel and unusual punishment (which a arbitrary ban on ownership of property based off a geographic area is).

This city banning idea is the stupidest one I have heard of in a long time, because as much as I hate our current firearms act at least it is consistent across the country. This starts turning us into the States with there mishmash of laws depending on the states, and city you live in.

Its disgusting how this current government is acting. They want to bully and attack law abiding citizens who have done nothing to harm anyone, instead have been persecuted for decades simply based off of their decision to legally own and acquire certain property. If anything their aggressive and holier than thou attitude shows more of a reason why we shouldn't disarm ourselves.


----------



## Haggis (28 Jan 2020)

Eaglelord17 said:
			
		

> This city banning idea is the stupidest one I have heard of in a long time, because as much as I hate our current firearms act at least it is consistent across the country. This starts turning us into the States with there mishmash of laws depending on the states, and city you live in.



Which is why most anti-gun organizations are pushing for a full ban, which is where I think the current government will go when they see how unworkable local/regional bans are.


----------



## Retired AF Guy (28 Jan 2020)

Haggis said:
			
		

> There are no property rights enshrined in our Constitution.  PM Trudeau senior made sure of that.



Not entirely true.



> CONSTITUTION ACT, 1867
> 
> 92. In each Province the Legislature may exclusively make Laws in relation to Matters coming within the Classes of Subjects next hereinafter enumerated; that is to say,
> 
> 13. Property and Civil Rights in the Province.



And while Trudeau gets the blame for not including property rights in CA 1982, the real guilty party was Roy Romanov, Premier of Saskatchewan who convinced him not to.


----------



## Cloud Cover (28 Jan 2020)

92(13) is a division of powers clause, it doesn’t create a right to any private individual to own property. 

The only quasi constitutional document that creates some property ownership “rights” is the Diefenbaker era Canadian Bill of Rights, which is a federal statute and not part of the actual Constitution and certainly not part of the Charter. It’s called quasi constitutional because it has been used as an affirmative defence that has sometimes been accepted by the Supreme Court. If Justin Trudeau wanted to, he could repeal or amend the CBoR this afternoon.


----------



## Jarnhamar (28 Jan 2020)

Surprising insight from Toronto area mayors. 

*Toronto-area mayors calls for action at border following forum on gun violence*


> "Our provincial numbers show 84 per cent are illegal guns that come across the borders," she said. "We need to actually crack down on that because that ultimately will keep our community safer."



https://www.lillooetnews.net/toronto-area-mayors-calls-for-action-at-border-following-forum-on-gun-violence-1.24062834

Police and Border services communicating better and going after guns coming across the border? Good to hear. 




Editing to add, it's interesting that classical Liberalism, including the most influential early thinkers like John Locke, believed that Liberalism included individual property rights.


----------



## Haggis (3 Feb 2020)

The petition asking for the Liberal government to actually debate any gun bans and compensated confiscations (AKA "buybacks") sponsored by Conservative MP Glen Motz is now the most signed parliamentary e-petition in Canadian history, closing in on 150,000 signatures as of today.


----------



## Haggis (5 Feb 2020)

The Liberals have proposed a "new" law (which pretty much already exists) to allow medical professionals and educators to call their local police to report persons at risk of harm to themselves or others and as that the police seize their legally owned firearms.  This "Red Flag Law" is already on the books, but those doctors and teachers must call their CFOs, not the local police.  Not even the most strident of the anti-gun groups thinks this law is needed.


----------



## Jarnhamar (5 Feb 2020)

Short of banning all guns in Canada, or a law that severely screws over gun owners, I don't think anti gun advocates will really support or care about this type of stuff. 

They don't want connon sense laws they want all guns gone.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (5 Feb 2020)

It appears that Ducks Unlimited won't support the petition and are now shedding support from gun owners and hunters.


----------



## Remius (5 Feb 2020)

Colin P said:
			
		

> It appears that Ducks Unlimited won't support the petition and are now shedding support from gun owners and hunters.



I thought their primary mission was wetland conservation and advocacy.  They are not a firearms lobby group.  Seems to me they are being neutral and not taking a position on a policy matter that is outside of their mandate. 

As a tax exempt not for profit group their status as such could be at threat if they started getting political.


----------



## NavyShooter (5 Feb 2020)

They have a seat on the National Firearms Consultation board....so....yeah....guns are in their wheelhouse.


----------



## Remius (5 Feb 2020)

NavyShooter said:
			
		

> They have a seat on the National Firearms Consultation board....so....yeah....guns are in their wheelhouse.



Right so even more reason not to take a a side while they sit on that advisory board.  See the terms of reference. 

https://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/cnt/cntrng-crm/cfac/tor-en.aspx


----------



## Jarnhamar (5 Feb 2020)

Remius said:
			
		

> Right so even more reason not to take a a side while they sit on that advisory board.  See the terms of reference.
> 
> https://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/cnt/cntrng-crm/cfac/tor-en.aspx



Wasn't one of the women who was present at the Polytechnique  shooting on the advisory board and continued to  advocate against firearms even though she wasn't supposed to do any advocating?


----------



## Haggis (5 Feb 2020)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Wasn't one of the women who was present at the Polytechnique  shooting on the advisory board and continued to  advocate against firearms even though she wasn't supposed to do any advocating?


  Quite true. And when Liberal gun control proposals weren't draconian enough or implemented swiftly enough for her she stepped down.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (5 Feb 2020)

Remius said:
			
		

> Right so even more reason not to take a a side while they sit on that advisory board.  See the terms of reference.
> 
> https://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/cnt/cntrng-crm/cfac/tor-en.aspx



That was not the reason they gave and now it's biting them. They are about to take a major hit in the wallet for their virtue signalling.


----------



## Jarnhamar (5 Feb 2020)

Haggis said:
			
		

> Quite true. And when Liberal gun control proposals weren't draconian enough or implemented swiftly enough for her she stepped down.



Ah yes, and she didn't just quit. She went for the Facebook style "I'm leaving this group!" public announcement.


----------



## daftandbarmy (5 Feb 2020)

Tangentially, 

I seem to recall having at look at stats like these during a criminology course many years ago... and it always amazed me (and made me thankful to live in Canada):


Gun violence by the numbers: How America, Canada and the world compare

Overall, Americans are almost 70 per cent more likely to die at the end of a gun — shot by someone else, by themselves, by accident — than Canadians are to die in a car accident.

https://globalnews.ca/news/2378037/gun-violence-by-the-numbers-how-america-canada-and-the-world-compare/


----------



## Jed (5 Feb 2020)

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> Tangentially,
> 
> I seem to recall having at look at stats like these during a criminology course many years ago... and it always amazed me (and made me thankful to live in Canada):
> 
> ...



I don't have the link for it but recently I have viewed a youtube video that disputes the validity of most of this US Mass shooting stats due to a very flawed report that did not adequately cover non English reports and stats from countries around the world.


----------



## Remius (5 Feb 2020)

Colin P said:
			
		

> That was not the reason they gave and now it's biting them. They are about to take a major hit in the wallet for their virtue signalling.



What was the reason they gave?

All I see is their statement that is essentially the same statement DU USA has made as well.

At any rate, gun owners that support DUC can do what they like but a weaker DUC isn’t going to help their cause at all.


----------



## Jed (5 Feb 2020)

Correct me if I am wrong, but, Gun Owners are by far the majority supporters of DUC.

I have supported them for decades, my relatives have been top tier supporters gifting significant land holdings etc.

I am pissed off enough that it will effect my support for DUC. I'm sure this will hit them in the pocketbook.


----------



## Haggis (5 Feb 2020)

Jed said:
			
		

> I am pissed off enough that it will effect my support for DUC. I'm sure this will hit them in the pocketbook.


  Rest assured that whatever financial losses DUC suffers as a result of this "principled decision" will be offset by Liberal "conservation initiative funding".


----------



## Colin Parkinson (5 Feb 2020)

Jed said:
			
		

> I don't have the link for it but recently I have viewed a youtube video that disputes the validity of most of this US Mass shooting stats due to a very flawed report that did not adequately cover non English reports and stats from countries around the world.



When people think "Mass shootings" they don't think to include 4 people killed in a drug hit gone wrong, but it does get included. Average people in the US killed by long guns is about 375 on average per year. Not exactly a crisis.


----------



## Eaglelord17 (6 Feb 2020)

Haggis said:
			
		

> The Liberals have proposed a "new" law (which pretty much already exists) to allow medical professionals and educators to call their local police to report persons at risk of harm to themselves or others and as that the police seize their legally owned firearms.  This "Red Flag Law" is already on the books, but those doctors and teachers must call their CFOs, not the local police.  Not even the most strident of the anti-gun groups thinks this law is needed.



This is a terrible idea. I can think of educators I have had over the years that would likely call the police if they found out the parents owned guns just because of their own personal bias. 

Not to mention, have they ever considered the fact that taking away someone's firearms if they are suicidal is more of a reason not to report mental health issues? I personally think that laws like this help cause mental illness as if you are suffering your not going to report it due to the consequences. I know you can't really get statistics on that as those people who are suffering wouldn't report it for the obvious reasons (its hard enough to get information on depression as is), but I do think it is a factor.



			
				Colin P said:
			
		

> When people think "Mass shootings" they don't think to include 4 people killed in a drug hit gone wrong, but it does get included. Average people in the US killed by long guns is about 375 on average per year. Not exactly a crisis.



Canada and the USA have basically the same long gun death rate per capita despite the differences in our laws. Its the handgun death rate that the rates separate fast.


----------



## Cloud Cover (26 Feb 2020)

This should be banned just on principle:


----------



## NavyShooter (26 Feb 2020)

I shared that photo in a Canadian firearms group the other day...it's...an interesting mash-together.

Personally, if they'd added a wood stock and wooden pistol grip, it'd be almost elegant!

I would honestly consider doing this, but I would not cut apart a No1 Mark 3 rifle to do so.

NS


----------



## Cloud Cover (26 Feb 2020)

https://www.ontariocourts.ca/decisions/2020/2020ONCA0151.htm

Pay attention to the storage of the shot gun, and the supposed use of military training. Bear in mind, please, that a person is dead and the reason given is the accused only sought to protect his spouse while a crime was committed on his property.


----------



## Cloud Cover (2 Mar 2020)

Was this self defence: https://twitter.com/Imamofpeace/status/1234518575106248705?s=20


----------



## Haggis (2 Mar 2020)

CloudCover said:
			
		

> Was this self defence: https://twitter.com/Imamofpeace/status/1234518575106248705?s=20



in order to make that determination from a legal standpoint you have to look at the incident in the context of where it happened and who was involved.  This is said to have occurred in Brazil and the female was allegedly an off-duty police officer. If not clearly 'self defence", definitely "defence of others".


----------



## LittleBlackDevil (2 Mar 2020)

CloudCover said:
			
		

> https://www.ontariocourts.ca/decisions/2020/2020ONCA0151.htm
> 
> Pay attention to the storage of the shot gun, and the supposed use of military training. Bear in mind, please, that a person is dead and the reason given is the accused only sought to protect his spouse while a crime was committed on his property.



His shotgun was possibly stored contrary to the _Storage, Display, Transportation and Handling of Firearms by Individuals Regulations_. According to the Court of Appeal's summary of the facts, "Mr. Khill kept a shotgun in the closet of his bedroom". If that closet had a lock on it and "kept securely locked", then the storage would be in conformity with the regulations. It was not stored loaded, I assume, as it says he got ammunition from elsewhere in the bedroom and loaded the shotgun.

As for the use of Mr. Khill's military training, it appears that his defence lawyer used this in much the same way that police use their training as favouring a finding that their actions "are reasonable in the circumstances" when they've been involved in a shooting. As the Court of Appeal noted "[c]ounsel for Mr. Khill stressed that the training triggered a mindset in dangerous situations that emphasized proactive responses intended to gain control of the situation." Frustratingly (to me), this seems to result in police being held to a lower (rather than higher) standard than untrained citizens ... i.e. they are taught to see threats and therefore are more likely to feel the need to use deadly force. But it makes complete sense that his lawyer would use it this way since the exact same reasoning is used for police frequently (and is usually used before charges are even laid to decide not to charge -- I have seen this several times in SIU reports to this effect).

Going back to the overall "gun debate" from what is outlined by the Court of Appeal, it sounds like the jury made the right decision. A man should have the right to arm himself to defend his home in uncertain/dangerous circumstances. When the guy he's approaching spins around and looks like he's going for a gun, you have to make a split second decision which should get every benefit of a doubt IMO. It's unfortunate the Court of Appeal gave the Crown a second crack (especially since they granted the appeal on a ground that was never objected to the prosecutor at trial).

EDITED TO ADD: I want to be clear -- when I express frustration at my perception of a double standard for police and civilians, I'm not saying police should be held to higher standard necessarily. Everyone she be held to a lower standard when it comes to self defence IMO, than is often the case.


----------



## Jarnhamar (2 Mar 2020)

CloudCover said:
			
		

> Was this self defence: https://twitter.com/Imamofpeace/status/1234518575106248705?s=20



I'd say yes. Should have used more shots though and not backed up.

*rubs armchair*


----------



## LittleBlackDevil (2 Mar 2020)

CloudCover said:
			
		

> Was this self defence: https://twitter.com/Imamofpeace/status/1234518575106248705?s=20



It's a bit difficult to say for sure because some of the action is off-camera or very near the edge, but this looks like defence of others rather than self defence.

For Canadian context, in section 34 of the _Criminal Code of Canada_ (the self defence section), one is justified if "defending or protecting themselves or [another] person from [the] use or threat of force". Self and defence of others are essentially the same thing in Canadian criminal law. So under Canadian law that lady would avail herself of s. 34 either way and I think she'd be justified.

In my view she should not even be charged. As an undercover police office in Canada she almost certainly wouldn't. As a civilian ... well, we don't have carry conceal laws so she'd probably be in a heap of trouble for other reasons even if not charged for the actual use of the firearm!


----------



## Cloud Cover (2 Mar 2020)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> I'd say yes. Should have used more shots though and not backed up.
> 
> *rubs armchair*



You’re so right!!

What we had in the video was damned near a calm and cold execution followed by some kicking, verbal threatening and probably some offensive body language. 

Multiple shots is an expression of real fear. One in the foot, one in gut and one in schnoz, then kick, stomp, swear. And use that little red car for something creative ....


----------



## Colin Parkinson (20 Mar 2020)

Once they bring in the Emergency Act I will not be surprised that Blair and JT will abuse it to round up undesirable firearms, that sort of power is often  irresistible to those types. the only thing saving us would be the already critical manpower shortages.


----------



## Jarnhamar (20 Mar 2020)

Colin P said:
			
		

> Once they bring in the Emergency Act I will not be surprised that Blair and JT will abuse it to round up undesirable firearms, that sort of power is often  irresistible to those types. the only thing saving us would be the already critical manpower shortages.



I can see that.

_Uh uh uh uh safety and security of all Canadians uh uh because climate change and corona virus we need to ban assault weapons uh uh safety and security uh climate change._

They won't care about confiscating them, it's a lot cheaper for the government if people hide them at home, but they get to smash through the law while everyone is concerned about mitigating a pandemic.


----------



## Haggis (20 Mar 2020)

Colin P said:
			
		

> Once they bring in the Emergency Act I will not be surprised that Blair and JT will abuse it to round up undesirable firearms, that sort of power is often  irresistible to those types. the only thing saving us would be the already critical manpower shortages.


  Highly unlikely, and for exactly that reason.  Plus, the Emergencies Act has a sunset clause of 90 days for a public welfare emergency declaration, unless a continuance is put in place prior to the end of the 90 day period.  Lastly, the cost to the government of the court challenges that would arise out of such an act, given a complete lack of justification (i.e. no COVID-19 related gun crimes... so far), would be enormous.



			
				Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> _Uh uh uh uh safety and security of all Canadians uh uh because climate change and corona virus we need to ban assault weapons uh uh safety and security uh climate change._



I was watching his last few scripted performances on TV.  He sounds prime ministerial while he's on the script.  Once he goes off script to answer questions, even his translator says "uh".


----------



## Eaglelord17 (21 Mar 2020)

Colin P said:
			
		

> Once they bring in the Emergency Act I will not be surprised that Blair and JT will abuse it to round up undesirable firearms, that sort of power is often  irresistible to those types. the only thing saving us would be the already critical manpower shortages.



That would very much go against self quarantining, having to go into all those homes. Plus I don't think they would want the added burden on the medical system at this point in time as if they start kicking in doors to take peoples property, there will likely be at least a few cops and citizens dead.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (21 Mar 2020)

That's logical thinking, but you can bet that some are fantasising about doing just that and it's likely been kicked around in cabinet. They could just order you to bring your guns in for "safe keeping" and never return them. Failure to do so, would invalidate your PAL and they will confiscate them later.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (21 Mar 2020)

Bring them to who? Where?

The Provinces are responsible for policing. They would all scream bloody murder if this was overlayed on an international health emergency. It runs contrary to all of the social distancing orders.

Even the Liberals are not quite that stupid.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (21 Mar 2020)

Well it's as logical as the whole ban thing, it does not mean they won't try.


----------



## my72jeep (21 Mar 2020)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> Even the Liberals are not quite that stupid.


Do you really believe that?


----------



## AbdullahD (21 Mar 2020)

Eaglelord17 said:
			
		

> That would very much go against self quarantining, having to go into all those homes. Plus I don't think they would want the added burden on the medical system at this point in time as if they start kicking in doors to take peoples property, there will likely be at least a few cops and citizens dead.



If it happens, which I doubt it will.. I will be coughing my heart out while they are in my home and on to them, shaking their hands, patting their back, guiding them to my safe with my arms etc ^^

Heck right now all I technically need to surrend is a stripped AR Lower I bought for a hundred-ish bucks.. (i forget how much tbh). It could be worth it to me, just to say I'm self quarantining and they raided my house and then didn't quarantine themselves haha.

Abdullah 

P.s this is my second sarcastic, joking post today.. I must just be in a sarcastic mood. Sorry if it annoys.


----------



## Jarnhamar (21 Mar 2020)

I can see the government using the fear of the unknown and threat of armed gangs stealing peoples limited supplies as fuel to justify smashing the assault weapon ban through.

After all you don't want conservatives criminals running around with assault weapons at times like this do you? When police are stretched to their limit? Let the military and police be the ones holding these deadly death dealing machines.

What mr gun owner? You want to make a big deal about money for your inanimate property when people have lose their jobs and and are trying to afford essentials like food? Shame on you, you'll get your money later, after we give people money for food.


----------



## Jarnhamar (31 Mar 2020)

What are politicians doing about all the mass shootings and drastic increase in "gun crime" after unprecedented amounts of guns and ammo have been bought across Canada due to the corona virus panic?


----------



## LittleBlackDevil (17 Apr 2020)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> What are politicians doing about all the mass shootings and drastic increase in "gun crime" after unprecedented amounts of guns and ammo have been bought across Canada due to the corona virus panic?



Yeah, funny how society hasn't dissolved into complete anarchy and violence with all the gun and ammo sales.

It's crazy, I can't find 5.56 anywhere, aside from a few boxes of the really really expensive stuff. I went to Canadian Tire a few weeks ago and bought their last few boxes of 12 Guage 00 Buck. The "hunting is the only legitimate reason to own firearms" type working the counter was fit to be tied and vented freely to me about "why is everyone buying this stuff? People are idiots". I decided to just keep my peace and took my ammo.

I have also found it very interesting to see some attitudes change. Chatting with a couple police officers (again a few weeks ago, before complete lockdown and social distancing -- i.e. when you could still have conversations with people not of your own household) about how the police are scaling back their enforcement of crime due to COVID-19 concerns. A young lady who was hitherto a "no one needs guns" sort, said "maybe I should get a gun" and the officers just kind of quietly nodded without saying anything. I guarantee 60 days ago that would conversation would have never happened.


----------



## CBH99 (17 Apr 2020)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> What are politicians doing about all the mass shootings and drastic increase in "gun crime" after unprecedented amounts of guns and ammo have been bought across Canada due to the corona virus panic?




I'm not being sarcastic here at all.  Has their been a dramatic increase in mass shootings and gun crime?  

Honest question.  I've tried to tune the news out of late, and usually just come here to read articles posted by members.  The non-stop nonsense of the mainstream media has finally driven me to ignore them almost completely.


----------



## Jarnhamar (18 Apr 2020)

Not at all. There was a toilet paper style buying frenzie on ammo and some stores even sold out of guns.

Government still says they want to go ahead with banning a certian style of firearm that "science based evidence" as Trudeau loves saying, doesn't indicate are used in more shootings.


----------



## Brad Sallows (18 Apr 2020)

>Has their been a dramatic increase in mass shootings and gun crime? 

Not yet, but many more people than usual are under severe stress.  But the stress is the root of problems, not the guns.


----------



## Kat Stevens (18 Apr 2020)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> >Has their been a dramatic increase in mass shootings and gun crime?
> 
> Not yet, but many more people than usual are under severe stress.  But the stress is the root of problems, not the guns.




You say "not yet" like it's an inevitability, wouldn't a simple "no" have done?
'


----------



## Brad Sallows (18 Apr 2020)

Unfortunately, I think it's a possibility (not an inevitability).  My answer combines "no" with "but it might".


----------



## LittleBlackDevil (20 Apr 2020)

Trudeau wasting no time whatsoever to capitalize on the tragedy in NS:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/the_americas/nova-scotia-shootings-trudeau-gun-control-wortman-rcmp/2020/04/20/dbc54d40-829e-11ea-81a3-9690c9881111_story.html


----------



## Jarnhamar (20 Apr 2020)

I wonder if we will see a ban on civilian owned police uniforms, auctioned police vehicles and lights/sirens to go with the assault weapons.


----------



## McG (21 Apr 2020)

LittleBlackDevil said:
			
		

> Trudeau wasting no time whatsoever to capitalize on the tragedy in NS:
> 
> https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/the_americas/nova-scotia-shootings-trudeau-gun-control-wortman-rcmp/2020/04/20/dbc54d40-829e-11ea-81a3-9690c9881111_story.html


If you watch the interview, he was responding to a question from a reporter asking if gun control would be increased in response to the shooting.  He opened by correctly noting that it was too soon to speculate on specific reactions or decisions that should/could stem from these recent killings.


----------



## Haggis (21 Apr 2020)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> .... civilian owned police uniforms...



Like the dark blue work pants and work shirts worn by mechanics and other tradespeople every day?  I can see maybe some type of ban on the sale of Police/LE insignia and memorabilia.

FWIW the ban on military-style semi automatics, (then, when the Liberals saw the pushback against that was manageable, all semi automatics, then handguns) was going to happen no matter what.  COVID -19 just pushed it to the right for a while.  This event has brought it back out in front.  What remains to be seen now is whether the advertised buyback will still be in place or will it be deemed too expensive or marketed as "taking money away from essential healthcare"?


----------



## Journeyman (21 Apr 2020)

I imagine imagery like this is having an effect on anti-gun thinking.


----------



## Haggis (21 Apr 2020)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> I imagine imagery like this is having an effect on anti-gun thinking.



indeed, because anti-gun activists conveniently draw parallels between the American NRA, who condone these displays (even if legal, they are wholly inappropriate IMO) and the Canadian pro-gun "NRA-like" groups (CSSA, CCFR, NFA).

This may sound callous, but what made this latest attack so successful was not the firearm(s) used, but that the attacker posed as a trusted public figure to close with and engage his victims who had their guard completely down.  Even a "prepper" type would have likely let their guard down had they been approached by a uniformed officer showing no threat cues.


----------



## mariomike (21 Apr 2020)

Haggis said:
			
		

> This may sound callous, but what made this latest attack so successful was not the firearm(s) used, but that the attacker posed as a trusted public figure to close with and engage his victims who had their guard completely down.





> Mar 30, 2020
> 
> Fake Police Are Pulling Drivers Over During The Stay-At-Home Directive. Here’s How To Avoid Being A Victim
> 
> https://www.forbes.com/sites/joshmax/2020/03/30/fake-police-are-pulling-drivers-over-during-stay-at-home-directiveheres-how-to-get-around-it/#188dfdbc34d3


----------



## Cloud Cover (21 Apr 2020)

That there is a constitutional right 2A "right" to bear loaded arms with ammunition on display with the intent to intimidate, communicate malice or encourage rebellion against public health and safety is a stretch. If 4 guys from the US chapter of MFA showed up on the steps of the State Legislature with all that iron for the simple purpose of protesting, they would shot full of holes even if the only thing they were doing is affirming their 2A rights.


----------



## Lumber (21 Apr 2020)

CloudCover said:
			
		

> That there is a constitutional right 2A "right" to bear loaded arms with ammunition on display with the intent to intimidate, communicate malice or encourage rebellion against public health and safety is a stretch. If 4 guys from the US chapter of MFA showed up on the steps of the State Legislature with all that iron for the simple purpose of protesting, they would shot full of holes even if the only thing they were doing is affirming their 2A rights.



What is MFA and what state legislature are you referring to?


----------



## Haggis (21 Apr 2020)

> Fake Police Are Pulling Drivers Over During The Stay-At-Home Directive. Here’s How To Avoid Being A Victim



This guy went way beyond what these good ole boys were trying to do.  My guess is some people will think twice before pulling over for police now for fear of a copycat.


----------



## mariomike (21 Apr 2020)

Haggis said:
			
		

> My guess is some people will think twice before pulling over for police now for fear of a copycat.



Nothing new about police impersonation.



> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police_impersonation
> 
> Fake vehicle: The imposter places police lights (these can be either permanently mounted onto the car or temporary lights magnetically attached to the cartop), decals, siren, or other equipment on a personal vehicle to disguise it as a police car and enable the offender to pass through red traffic lights, bypass traffic other non-emergency traffic would have to wait for, make traffic stops, or even arrests.



We had unmarked Crown Vic's ( aka "cottage cars" ) with the police interceptor package where I used to work. They had little flashing red lights mounted into the outside mirrors. And a siren behind the grill.

I never heard of them being used for nefarious purposes. But, I noticed people tended to slow down when they saw you in their rear-view mirrors.


----------



## ballz (21 Apr 2020)

Haggis said:
			
		

> the attacker posed as a trusted public figure to close with and engage his victims who had their guard completely down.



This aspect of it has occupied my thoughts on this whole thing the most. They would have been completely helpless, unsuspecting, and vulnerable. Many of the victims died thinking they had been betrayed by our RCMP officers, and they'll never know the truth. What a horrifying last thought... :'(


----------



## Haggis (21 Apr 2020)

mariomike said:
			
		

> We had unmarked Crown Vic's ( aka "cottage cars" ) with the police interceptor package where I used to work. They had little flashing red lights mounted into the outside mirrors. And a siren behind the grill.


We still have unmarked Crown Vics at work, too  They are used for training and ferry duty.  People are reluctant to pass them on the highway.



			
				mariomike said:
			
		

> I never heard of them being used for nefarious purposes. But, I noticed people tended to slow down when they saw you in their rear-view mirrors.


Up until last summer, I had a dark blue Impala with an amateur radio installation, so it had a trunk mounted antenna. I would park on the boulevard in front of my house just to slow certain idiots down.


----------



## LittleBlackDevil (23 Apr 2020)

So, the murderer in NS did not have a PAL or RPAL, the firearm(s) used in his mass-murder were illegally obtained. Strengthening firearms laws and confiscating those owned lawfully by citizens vetted under the current system would not have prevented this tragedy:

https://www.vice.com/en_au/article/3a83av/nova-scotia-gunman-was-not-a-legal-firearms-owner-rcmp-says

I note the same article says he had an assault conviction from 2001. He may well have had an outright firearms prohibition as a result, not just a lack a PAL/RPAL.

So how does this "reinforce the need for stricter gun control" per Trudeau?

Do we even know what sort of firearm this guy used? I haven't been able to find anything on that. They are of course targeting black guns over this, but was he even using one?


----------



## Remius (23 Apr 2020)

Low hanging fruit.  Easier to ban guns than address the actual issue.


----------



## Jarnhamar (23 Apr 2020)

I wasn't surprised the Prime Minister immediately talked about his platform on gun control instead of waiting to comment. There's little solace in the revelation that it looks like shooter didn't have a PAL. I think that little fact will be lost on a lot of people.

It's sad it's such a politically charged topic. The bodies weren't even fully counted before usual groups [Canadian Doctors for Protection From Guns, PolySeSouvient, the Coalition for Gun Control, Danforth Families for Safe Communities etc..] started penning letters calling for more gun control. 
Or to be honest, usual gun owners/enthusiasts started whining about losing their guns and the government banning them.

Without knowing all the facts, just from what does seem to be known, the type of gun used looks to probably be irrelevant. It seems like the victims were in 2's and 3's. Compounded by the fact he was in uniform so his victims were completely unaware.  This case is an example why getting hung up on gun types, looks, magazine capacity, accessories, "military style" is useless. The emphasis on "military style" is really stupid.
It sounds like any sort of "hunting" gun could have been used. Like my great grandfathers 6-round level action Winchester that I own which was registered with the RCMP 80 years ago.

Not that I support the notion, but anything short of banning _*ALL*_ civilian firearm ownership in Canada is deflection and bandied solutions. Which of course is even mitigated if the shooter sources their gun from the US.


----------



## Jarnhamar (23 Apr 2020)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> I imagine imagery like this is having an effect on anti-gun thinking.



Those guys look like dipshits and aren't helping the image of firearm owners.

They're probably pretty harmless though. 

The sad irony is that one of Canada's worst mass-murderers most likely dressed like this for work every day.


----------



## Stoker (23 Apr 2020)

More details released that he had a handgun, rifle and shotgun even though he had no license. Started shooting people after an argument with his girlfriend and escalated from there.

https://globalnews.ca/news/6858994/nova-scotia-shootings-gunman-attacked-girlfriend/?fbclid=IwAR3ruI_mG4i564ezKbpmPwV7pvvfJTVUKenOwzAcrmY4VIIgppyYpp-NOmc


----------



## Jarnhamar (23 Apr 2020)

These kind of gems come from the gun-control advocates. Banning pistol grips  :



> As for the pistol grip — a feature on controversial weapons like the AR-15 rifle, a legal-though-restricted weapon in Canada — Cukier said there’s a reason the moulded hand grip should be banned.
> 
> *“The pistol grip allows you to stabilize the weapon so you can effectively spray fire as opposed to a hunting rifle, which typically will sit on the shoulder,” *she said.


https://globalnews.ca/news/6856478/gun-advocates-justin-trudeau-nova-scotia-shooting/


----------



## kkwd (23 Apr 2020)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> These kind of gems come from the gun-control advocates. Banning pistol grips  :
> https://globalnews.ca/news/6856478/gun-advocates-justin-trudeau-nova-scotia-shooting/


I guess all those expensive sighting systems are a waste of money since you can just affix a pistol grip and shoot from the hip.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (23 Apr 2020)

So if I add a pistol grip to my .303, then it's an assault rifle?


----------



## Jarnhamar (23 Apr 2020)

Colin P said:
			
		

> So if I add a pistol grip to my .303, then it's an assault rifle?



Absolutely.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (24 Apr 2020)

On the bright side, this should mean that SKS, M1s and mini-14 owners will be left alone. No pistol grip there....

Wendy Cukier can be relied on to always say something ill-informed about firearms. Remarkable, since she has opposed firearms ownership of any kind for decades, you think that she would have learned something, anything that is actually true (even accidentally) on the subject by now.


----------



## Remius (24 Apr 2020)

Colin P said:
			
		

> So if I add a pistol grip to my .303, then it's an assault rifle?




Assault rifles aren’t really a thing so you can call anything an assault rifle by adding all sorts of parts.

In Star Wars Battlefront 2 on Xbox I sometimes play the assault variant.  Plenty of space guns to mod up.  I much prefer the sniper variant with telescoping sights and stabilizers. 

The real problem is pistols.  Han Solo’s especially.  That needs to go. Blaster pistols should be banned.


----------



## Haggis (24 Apr 2020)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> On the bright side, this should mean that SKS, M1s and mini-14 owners will be left alone. No pistol grip there....
> 
> Wendy Cukier can be relied on to always say something ill-informed about firearms. Remarkable, since she has opposed firearms ownership of any kind for decades, you think that she would have learned something, anything that is actually true (even accidentally) on the subject by now.


Nonetheless, the media listens to her and she is regularly trotted out as a gun policy "expert". Because the antis have no aversion to latching onto a criminal act involving firearms, they are always able to get out in front on this issue every time while the pro-gun groups are more cautious in their statements, using facts instead of emotions and, therefore, playing catch-up.   Gun control groups are well versed in the Catherine McKenna style of swaying public opinion.


----------



## NavyShooter (24 Apr 2020)

I suppose I could re-do this SOPMOD Enfield with a pistol grip and collapsing stock too...?


----------



## Kat Stevens (24 Apr 2020)

I bet that’s a kicky little goat.


----------



## Baz (24 Apr 2020)

> Some of N.S. gunman's weapons came from U.S., police say


https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/investigation-firearms-ns-shooting-1.5544180


----------



## McG (25 Apr 2020)

Remius said:
			
		

> Assault rifles aren’t really a thing so you can call anything an assault rifle by adding all sorts of parts.


Actually, assault rifles are a thing.  Assault rifles are fully automatic capable rifles which fire a sub-powered rifle ammunition.  Assault rifles are already prohibited weapons in Canada.
By contrast, "assault-style rifle" and "assault weapon" are meaningless terms.


----------



## MilEME09 (25 Apr 2020)

MCG said:
			
		

> Actually, assault rifles are a thing.  Assault rifles are fully automatic capable rifles which fire a sub-powered rifle ammunition.  Assault rifles are already prohibited weapons in Canada.
> By contrast, "assault-style rifle" and "assault weapon" are meaningless terms.



Do you have that definition from a book? Even at RCEME School, our books still would call that a semi-automatic firearm, as does the RCMP.


----------



## McG (25 Apr 2020)

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> MCG said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Why would the RCEME school refer to a fully automatic capable rifle as a semi-automatic firearm?
As for a reference that defines assault rifles as being fully automatic capable, check any number of books by Ian Hogg to include: 

https://www.amazon.com/Story-Gun-Ian-V-Hogg/dp/031214895X/
https://www.amazon.com/Janes-Guns-Recognition-Guide-4e/dp/0007183283


----------



## MilEME09 (25 Apr 2020)

MCG said:
			
		

> Do you have that definition from a book? Even at RCEME School, our books still would call that a semi-automatic firearm, as does the RCMP.
> Why would the RCEME school refer to a fully automatic capable rifle as a semi-automatic firearm?
> As for a reference that defines assault rifles as being fully automatic capable, check any number of books by Ian Hogg to include: https://www.amazon.com/Story-Gun-Ian-V-Hogg/dp/031214895X/ref=olp_product_details?ie=UTF8&me=



After rechecking my available resources, I am mistaken, C7 is an automatic rifle, While assault rifle makes sense for a fully automatic rifle, it describes a physical action, not a mechanism of the weapon which is why i do not like that term.


----------



## suffolkowner (25 Apr 2020)

Not to dig up old wounds, but I believe the terminology is derived from the US military to differentiate between battle rifles/full powered cartridges and assault rifles/intermediate powered cartridges. Outside of that there is probably no relevance


----------



## McG (25 Apr 2020)

suffolkowner said:
			
		

> Not to dig up old wounds, but I believe the terminology is derived from the US military to differentiate between battle rifles/full powered cartridges and assault rifles/intermediate powered cartridges. Outside of that there is probably no relevance


No.  The terminology does draw on the distinction between full powered cartridges and intermediate powered, because it is that distinction that makes the assault rifle capable of controlled automatic fire.  But it is not derived from US military terminology.  Ian Hogg is a British historian, and he links the term back to the original assault rifle - the Sturmgewehr 44.


----------



## suffolkowner (25 Apr 2020)

MCG said:
			
		

> No.  The terminology does draw on the distinction between full powered cartridges and intermediate powered, because it is that distinction that makes the assault rifle capable of controlled automatic fire.  But it is not derived from US military terminology.  Ian Hogg is a British historian, and he links the term back to the original assault rifle - the Sturmgewehr 44.



So maybe an assault rifle ban will leave my non automatic battle rifles alone, lol


----------



## dangerboy (25 Apr 2020)

So I have an older CAF pam, which is no longer available B-GL-317-025/JK-001 Weapons Volume 25 Small Arms Vocabulary and it defines Assault Rifle as “Light, short-barrelled, selective-fire rifle utilizing an intermediate-powered cartridge".


----------



## Jarnhamar (25 Apr 2020)

*Two men face charges after police respond to weapons complaint in Dartmouth, N.S.*


> HALIFAX -- Two men have been arrested and are facing charges after Halifax Regional Police responded to a weapons complaint in Dartmouth, N.S. Friday afternoon.
> 
> Police received a report at 3:14 p.m. that two men had been passing a firearm back and forth in the parking lot of the Canadian Tire in Dartmouth Crossing.





> Police believe the men took the airsoft weapon to the parking lot and passed it back and forth, then entered the Canadian Tire store to purchase airsoft ammunition and a Co2 canister.





> *The men are facing charges of possession of a weapon dangerous to the public peace.*



https://atlantic.ctvnews.ca/two-men-face-charges-after-police-respond-to-weapons-complaint-in-dartmouth-n-s-1.4910892

Overkill?


----------



## ballz (25 Apr 2020)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> *Two men face charges after police respond to weapons complaint in Dartmouth, N.S.*
> https://atlantic.ctvnews.ca/two-men-face-charges-after-police-respond-to-weapons-complaint-in-dartmouth-n-s-1.4910892
> 
> Overkill?



The usual oppression of Canada's 2nd-class citizens....


----------



## Infanteer (25 Apr 2020)

The two are tone deaf maybe, but I can't figure out how an airsoft rifle could be considered a weapon dangerous to the public peace.


----------



## my72jeep (25 Apr 2020)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> The two are tone deaf maybe, but I can't figure out how an airsoft rifle could be considered a weapon dangerous to the public peace.


It’s catch all charge just like unsafe storage. Yahoos with look alike guns could start a panic. It will most likely stick do to the current climate in Nova Scotia.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (26 Apr 2020)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> The two are tone deaf maybe, but I can't figure out how an airsoft rifle could be considered a weapon dangerous to the public peace.



Section 88 of the Criminal Code states: "_Every person commits an offence who carries or possesses a weapon, *an imitation of a weapon*, a prohibited device or any ammunition or prohibited ammunition for a purpose dangerous to the public peace or for the purpose of committing an offence_."

So an air soft gun can certainly qualify as an imitation of a weapon, especially to the uneducated eye.

However, you may have noted that either the journalist because he wanted to edit his piece, or the cops because they wanted to make a point outside the purview of the law as drafted, left out the word "purpose" from the accusation. This actually requires evidence of an intent to use the imitation weapon for a dangerous purpose to public peace. That intent will be hard to prove, as merely showing up somewhere with a weapon for a legal purpose yet causing concern in some citizens is not sufficient evidence of intent.

In short, the mere effect caused in some citizens is not proof of intent in and of itself.

I suspect that the charges will be dropped quietly once a defence attorney gets involved.


----------



## Kat Stevens (26 Apr 2020)

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Section 88 of the Criminal Code states: "_Every person commits an offence who carries or possesses a weapon, *an imitation of a weapon*, a prohibited device or any ammunition or prohibited ammunition for a purpose dangerous to the public peace or for the purpose of committing an offence_."
> 
> So an air soft gun can certainly qualify as an imitation of a weapon, especially to the uneducated eye.
> 
> ...


Any competent defense lawyer should be able to shred this one, but not before costing these two a pretty hefty sum.


----------



## Haggis (26 Apr 2020)

Target Up said:
			
		

> Any competent defense lawyer should be able to shred this one, but not before costing these two a pretty hefty sum.



Which is punishment enough and will encourage other Airsofters to be more discreet.  Mission accomplished.


----------



## Jarnhamar (26 Apr 2020)

Target Up said:
			
		

> Any competent defense lawyer should be able to shred this one, but not before costing these two a pretty hefty sum.



Thousands each for a retainer alone.

Before the pandemic hit we were complaining about an over burdened justice system.
During the pandemic we started releasing prisoners due to Covid fears
[ Judges release growing number accused of violent crimes due to COVID-19 fears 
https://globalnews.ca/news/6788223/coronavirus-prisons-inmates-released/ ]
So we charge a couple of tone deaf guys with weapon charges. 


Interesting comment in the above story


> One is the accused getaway driver for a recent Toronto murder attempt. Another allegedly pistol-whipped and Tasered two in Ottawa over a drug debt. A third was allegedly involved in a Toronto strip mall shooting.



Great people to let out of jail.


----------



## Cloud Cover (28 Apr 2020)

Target Up said:
			
		

> Any competent defense lawyer should be able to shred this one, but not before costing these two a pretty hefty sum.



This is a specific internet offence. High bar. 
Theoretically they can’t be found guilty to a crime that doesn’t fit the facts. So there’s that ...


----------



## Eaglelord17 (29 Apr 2020)

Target Up said:
			
		

> Any competent defense lawyer should be able to shred this one, but not before costing these two a pretty hefty sum.



They should sue the cops who charged them. It is malicious prosecution, and harassment to law abiding citizens who have committed no illegal act. Not the best choice at the moment, however they did not commit a crime. Hell you can walk into that store and buy one yourself if you want to with no restrictions whatsoever. Once the cops knew it was a airsoft gun and they had not done anything wrong they should have been let go. The cops also knew this didn't qualify for the charges as to quote the article "Investigators don’t believe there was ever a threat to public safety".

These cops let their egos get before their jobs and it is disgraceful.


----------



## Kat Stevens (29 Apr 2020)

Eaglelord17 said:
			
		

> They should sue the cops who charged them. It is malicious prosecution, and harassment to law abiding citizens who have committed no illegal act. Not the best choice at the moment, however they did not commit a crime. Hell you can walk into that store and buy one yourself if you want to with no restrictions whatsoever. Once the cops knew it was a airsoft gun and they had not done anything wrong they should have been let go. The cops also knew this didn't qualify for the charges as to quote the article "Investigators don’t believe there was ever a threat to public safety".
> 
> These cops let their egos get before their jobs and it is disgraceful.



Sounds like a case of "because we (think we) can".


----------



## LittleBlackDevil (29 Apr 2020)

Eaglelord17 said:
			
		

> These cops let their egos get before their jobs and it is disgraceful.



Not necessarily. A lot of police forces have "policy manuals" on stuff like this. The officers may well have felt they had no choice.

I remember many a conversation I had with police back when I was still a prosecutor, wherein I would demand to know why they laid a charge when there was clearly no evidence of an offence and the response was, invariably, "because I would get fired if I didn't".


----------



## LittleBlackDevil (29 Apr 2020)

CloudCover said:
			
		

> This is a specific internet offence. High bar.
> Theoretically they can’t be found guilty to a crime that doesn’t fit the facts. So there’s that ...



Yes, there is pretty clear case law out there that there needs to be solid proof of an actual dangerous purpose. It is well-established that "a purpose suspected to be dangerous to the public peace" is not enough. That said, these guys should still hire a lawyer, because if they want to be assured of walking away without their lives destroyed they need someone who really knows the law, not someone who knows how to use google.


----------



## LittleBlackDevil (29 Apr 2020)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Before the pandemic hit we were complaining about an over burdened justice system.
> During the pandemic we started releasing prisoners due to Covid fears
> [ Judges release growing number accused of violent crimes due to COVID-19 fears
> https://globalnews.ca/news/6788223/coronavirus-prisons-inmates-released/ ]
> *So we charge a couple of tone deaf guys with weapon charges.*



It's worse than that, I've seen cases of people being charged for coughing, like this one: https://globalnews.ca/news/6793781/stratford-covid-19-cough-assault-lcbo/

And yes, I can confirm that this man was actually charged, just can't find a news article that confirms that.


----------



## Good2Golf (29 Apr 2020)

Target Up said:
			
		

> Sounds like a case of "because we (think we) can".



Putting it in context days after a mass shooting in the Province, I’d assess these two AirSofters as idiots who were stupid for doing a trunk-to-trunknexchange of what looks to 99.999% of the population to be a real, menacing weapon. I don’t think existing case law would immediately exonerate them.  I do think it was stupid of them, that some citizens were ‘reasonably concerned’ enough to call HPS, and that the PCs took action and passed the responsibility to judge accordingly to the judicial system. I don’t see where it’s not working. Will it cost them to go to court for an appearance (where I honestly think the Judge will give them a speech for a lesson then acquit them)? Yes.  Would any of us firearms owners have ever done the same, real weapons or airsoft?  I’d like to think not. They need a lesson, and it can also be a positive opportunity to note that legal firearms owners don’t do this kind of stupid stuff. 

Regards
G2G


----------



## Kat Stevens (29 Apr 2020)

Undeniably they are a pair of idiots, but if that were illegal prison building would be our number one industry.


----------



## Haggis (29 Apr 2020)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> Putting it in context days after a mass shooting in the Province, I’d assess these two AirSofters as idiots who were stupid for doing a trunk-to-trunk exchange of what looks to 99.999% of the population to be a real, menacing weapon.


There is a small, rebellious segment of legal gun owners who are openly self righteous and will challenge the boundaries of acceptable behaviour to prove a point. These are the types which will transport an unloaded non restricted in the back seat of their car hoping to get pulled over so they can educate Barney Fife on gun laws.



			
				Good2Golf said:
			
		

> I don’t think existing case law would immediately exonerate them.


  Case law is a guide to be followed by judges and not a line in the sand to never be crossed.  Yes, it creates precedents, but so does stupid behaviour on the part of the accused.



			
				Good2Golf said:
			
		

> I do think it was stupid of them, that some citizens were ‘reasonably concerned’ enough to call HPS, and that the PCs took action and passed the responsibility to judge accordingly to the judicial system.


I violently agree with that.


			
				Good2Golf said:
			
		

> I don’t see where it’s not working. Will it cost them to go to court for an appearance (where I honestly think the Judge will give them a speech for a lesson then acquit them)? Yes.


Depending on the delay before this comes in front of a judge and how the Crown presents the situational factors will determine if your belief comes true and they are excoriated or they are used to set an example 'pour encourager les autres".



			
				Good2Golf said:
			
		

> Would any of us firearms owners have ever done the same, real weapons or airsoft?  I’d like to think not. They need a lesson, and it can also be a positive opportunity to note that legal firearms owners don’t do this kind of stupid stuff.


And that will be re-tried in the media as a "soft on gun crime" sentencing.


----------



## Jarnhamar (29 Apr 2020)

*
Federal government could act on gun control as early as Friday: sources*
Public Safety Minister Bill Blair has a list of 11 firearms he wants to see banned
https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/liberal-government-gun-control-friday-1.5549969


World wide pandemic.
Economy is taking a shit kicking.
Mass shooting with illegally smuggled guns
Perfect time to push the banning of 11 (?) types of firearms.


----------



## cavalryman (29 Apr 2020)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> *
> Federal government could act on gun control as early as Friday: sources*
> Public Safety Minister Bill Blair has a list of 11 firearms he wants to see banned
> https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/liberal-government-gun-control-friday-1.5549969
> ...



Never let a crisis go to waste.


----------



## dangerboy (29 Apr 2020)

Curious to see what the 11 firearms are.


----------



## Jarnhamar (29 Apr 2020)

dangerboy said:
			
		

> Curious to see what the 11 firearms are.



Semi-automatics with magazines
Semi-automatics without magazines that hold over 5 rounds
Guns with flash hiders
Guns with pistol grips
Guns with plastic parts
Shotguns that hold over 3 rounds
Pump action guns that hold over 5
Bolt actions with detachable magazines
Guns with folding stocks
Lever action guns that hold over 5 rounds
Semi-automatic pistols maybe for the bonus?


----------



## dangerboy (29 Apr 2020)

Don't forget any rifle that is black.


----------



## Stoker (29 Apr 2020)

dangerboy said:
			
		

> Curious to see what the 11 firearms are.



AR-15
Mini 14
CZ Scorpion
Swiss Arms Classic Green
Beretta Cx4 Storm
Robinson Armament XCR 
Sig Sauer SIG MCX
SKS
BCL 102
WK 180-3
DERYA


----------



## Colin Parkinson (30 Apr 2020)

That would cost me 5 firearms at least.


----------



## Eaglelord17 (30 Apr 2020)

LittleBlackDevil said:
			
		

> Not necessarily. A lot of police forces have "policy manuals" on stuff like this. The officers may well have felt they had no choice.
> 
> I remember many a conversation I had with police back when I was still a prosecutor, wherein I would demand to know why they laid a charge when there was clearly no evidence of an offence and the response was, invariably, "because I would get fired if I didn't".



Well then the 'policy manual' needs to be changed. The officers have unions to protect them, and they have a responsibility to the public and to the government. Laying charges they know don't apply to punish by process the individual is a crime against the individual and the officer laying the charge should be liable for any and all expenses/damages occurred by the defendant. I don't accept the 'just following orders' excuse. Didn't work for the Nazis at Nuremburg and it doesn't work for my police who I hold to a infinitely higher standard.


----------



## Stoker (30 Apr 2020)

Colin P said:
			
		

> That would cost me 5 firearms at least.




Yep I'm going to lose 26 at least.


----------



## Stoker (30 Apr 2020)

Chief Engineer said:
			
		

> Yep I'm going to lose 26 at least.




More information came out today, apparently of the 11 types 9 of them cover over 1500 variants. I was wrong on the SKS but it appears the hit list also includes the M14 and VZ. Anything over 20mm metric and 10000 joules are gone that includes all sorts of tactical shotguns and the .50 BMG.


----------



## Navy_Pete (30 Apr 2020)

10 000 J is not quite 7400 lb f; from a cursory search didn't see much other then a .50 BMG that exceeds that.  Are those not already controlled/banned?

Also found some countries have minimum requirements for hunting purposes based on the size of the animal, which makes sense but never thought about it.

I don't think any of these bans are going to really do much when we live within driving distance of the world's biggest arms exporter, but generally speaking can't see any reason someone would need a grenade launcher or anti-material sniper rifle.


----------



## Jarnhamar (30 Apr 2020)

[quote author=Navy_Pete]but generally speaking can't see any reason someone would need a grenade launcher or anti-material sniper rifle.
[/quote]

Bears.



Looks like Cabellas yanked their Mini-14s.


----------



## my72jeep (30 Apr 2020)

Chief Engineer said:
			
		

> Yep I'm going to lose 26 at least.


I won’t say numbers as some have met the Plummer or at least supply’s from his truck. But my wife and I are about to take a financial hit.


----------



## Jarnhamar (30 Apr 2020)

*LILLEY: Trudeau lies and subverts democracy to push his anti-gun agenda*
https://torontosun.com/opinion/columnists/lilley-trudeau-lies-and-subverts-democracy-to-push-his-anti-gun-agenda

LILLEY: Trudeau lies and subverts democracy to push his anti-gun agenda
Brian Lilley

Justin Trudeau is about to sell the confiscation of private property and the outlay of close to $1 billion to do it as a matter of public safety.

That’s nothing but an outright lie.

“We have long been committed to strengthening gun control in this country,” Trudeau said on Thursday.

“Including, banning military style assault weapons. There is no need in Canada for guns designed to kill the largest amount of people in the shortest amount of time.”

That statement is supposed to make you feel good, it is supposed to make you feel safe, that our political leaders are doing something to stop gun violence like the gang shootings in cities across the country or the massacre that just occurred in Nova Scotia.

Neither the Prime Minister’s words nor the actions he is about to take will help with any of that.

The massacre in Nova Scotia was carried out by a man who never had a gun licence but had a stash of illegal weapons — one traced to Canada, the others from the United States.

The gun violence we see in our streets is similarly carried out mostly by gang members who don’t follow the law, smuggle guns from the U.S. and don’t bother with things like licences.

So, what will the Trudeau government do? They are about to pass a government order, not even legislation but a simple order, banning a whole series of rifles that are currently legal in Canada.

“There is a large consensus by Canadians who want to see less violence and fewer deaths from gun violence in this country,” Trudeau said.

Nice words but the reality is these actions won’t do a thing to stop gun violence in Canada.

Taking rifles used for target shooting by licensed gun owners won’t stop the violence committed by gangs who used smuggled handguns to protect their drug trade.

That’s what these orders will be, a seizing of rifles, many without any history of use in crime in this country. There won’t be any move on taking guns away from criminals or stopping the smuggling at the border.

In fact, in the last election the Liberals pledged to spend $600 million to pay for the rifles they are going to confiscate, which is far more than the amount of money they are giving to the Canada Border Services Agency to deal with gun smuggling. The government’s multi-year guns and gang strategy allocated $86 million over five years to deal with the number one source of crime guns, the border.

The number of rifles that will fall under this ban would be difficult to estimate, but one industry source estimates there are more than 83,000 AR-15 type rifles in Canada. This is a rifle that has been legal in Canada for more than 40 years and, despite its notoriety in the U.S., has no history as a crime gun in Canada.

This is not about safety, it is the Trudeau Liberals using hundreds of millions of tax dollars to enact their agenda and they are doing it without Parliamentary oversight. There will be no bill to debate, no votes to be had.

According to the story planted with friendly media, the ban will happen through a cabinet order — in other words government fiat, no accountability.

Even if you are no fan of guns, every Canadian should be outraged that our democracy is being subverted and that their government is lying to them about what their actions will accomplish.


blilley@postmedia.com


----------



## ballz (30 Apr 2020)

Navy_Pete said:
			
		

> but generally speaking can't see any reason someone would need a grenade launcher or anti-material sniper rifle.



Well, the government is coming to confiscate our weapons, we've been forced into segregating ourselves and it's basically illegal to protest this all across the country, and the media (who this government is constantly trying to control and recently gave boatloads of cash to which even they didn't want because of partisanship) is saying this decision is based around "science" ...


----------



## PuckChaser (1 May 2020)

Big cabinet press conference for Liberal gun grab: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WZSQHWUhpFo. Starts shortly.

Listening to the preamble, Rosemary Barton did her typical shilling for the Liberals by tying the gun list to foreign gun crime, but one of the other anchors actually brought up that the Nova Scotia shooting firearms are almost all illegally imported from the US and the shooter didn't have a firearms licence so she wasn't sure how the government would try to link the the legislation to the shooting.


----------



## MilEME09 (1 May 2020)

https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/pm-trudeau-announces-federal-ban-on-assault-style-firearms-in-canada-1.4920528


And so it is offical, by decree of the grand po ba him self 1500 guns are now illigal.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (1 May 2020)

I think once the Liberals are done  dealing with gun crime, they should move on outlaw motorcycle gangs. They can apply the same template from guns. 

It it obvious that outlaw motorcycle gangs exist because of motorcycles. It is also obvious that motorcycles kill people. According to Transport Canada, in 2017, 191 people were senselessly killed by motorcycles. Harley's are used alot by criminal gangs. And certainly nobody needs a bike with an engine exceeding 750 ccs.

Therefore, I propose that the next OIC the Liberals pass is to ban any make/model of Harley and every motorcycle over 750cc of engine displacement. The carnage on our streets and in our overworked Emergency Rooms would end. Motorcycle owners can apply to their local police department for a "fair market" buyback of their motorcycle (but, obviously, not their helmets, saddlebags and riding gear).

It doesn't matter if you follow the rules and are law abidding. This is what gun owners deal with every damned day in this country.


----------



## blacktriangle (1 May 2020)

Don't forget trucks. Trucks are bad for the environment. And they might have guns or conservatives in them.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (1 May 2020)

That is a great idea! Nobody living in a city "needs" a pickup truck. The Liberals can give municipalities the power to ban pickup trucks, if they like. I like the way you think!


----------



## Stoker (1 May 2020)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> That is a great idea! Nobody living in a city "needs" a pickup truck. The Liberals can give municipalities the power to ban pickup trucks, if they like. I like the way you think!



At least there's grandfathering, try and wait it out until the next election.


----------



## dapaterson (1 May 2020)

Frankly, I think we should keep the Harleys, and just ban Harley owners.


----------



## MilEME09 (1 May 2020)

Chief Engineer said:
			
		

> At least there's grandfathering, try and wait it out until the next election.



Can an order in council be repealed easily? better question can parliament overturn it?


----------



## SeaKingTacco (1 May 2020)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Frankly, I think we should keep the Harleys, and just ban Harley owners.



No, the object itself is inherently evil and causes people to cause death. Nobody is inherently responsible for their own actions.


----------



## Jarnhamar (1 May 2020)

With 1500 models and variants I'm guessing it's essentially banning any semi-automatic rifle with a magazine?


edit- here's a list
http://www.gazette.gc.ca/rp-pr/p2/2020/2020-05-01-x3/html/sor-dors96-eng.html


----------



## Jarnhamar (1 May 2020)

They're even somehow banning upper receivers which you don't need a firearms license to buy.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (1 May 2020)

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> Can an order in council be repealed easily? better question can parliament overturn it?



Yes. OIC are overturned by a stroke of a pen as easily as they are passed by the same people who ordered it. It is not an act of Parliament but regulation, which I find profoundly undemocratic. This  is super interesting if they say there is a gun- buyback program (which is a money supply issue and the territory of Parliament not Cabinet) with no underlying legislation to back any of that up. If theLiberals had balls, they would at least introduce this in Parliament, but I guess they figure they don't have to since gun owners don't vote Liberal anyway.

Has anyone got an actual, government of Canada source for what has  been banned and what the way forward is for hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of gun owners who are now paper criminals?

It was too much to hope  for that anything would actually be posted to the Canadian Firearms Centre website.

Edit: i see the link above from Jarnhamer. Thanks!


----------



## LittleBlackDevil (1 May 2020)

Chief Engineer said:
			
		

> At least there's grandfathering, try and wait it out until the next election.



There's currently a two-year amnesty, so the firearms community REALLY needs to pull together and get the CPC elected next election (hoping that this happens within two years due to minority government). I only say CPC because they are the one and only party who woulda actually rescind this "executive order".

As for amnesty, since they did this via order-in-council, there is grandfathering for all current owners per s. 12(8) of the _Firearms Act_. This really just delays confiscation, but delay = buying time to fight for this to be rescinded.



> Grandfathered individuals — regulations
> 
> 12(9) An individual is eligible to hold a licence authorizing the individual to possess prohibited firearms of a prescribed class if the individual
> 
> ...



Also, owners of registered, restricted firearms who are going to be hit by this may consider s. 72 of the Firearms Act:



> 72 (1) Subject to subsection (1.1), if a chief firearms officer decides to refuse to issue or to revoke a licence or authorization to transport or the Registrar decides to refuse to issue or to revoke a registration certificate, authorization to export or authorization to import, *the chief firearms officer or Registrar shall give notice of the decision in the prescribed form* to the applicant for or holder of the licence, registration certificate or authorization.
> 
> (1.1) Notice under subsection (1) need not be given in any of the following circumstances:
> (a) if the holder has requested that the licence, registration certificate or authorization be revoked; or
> ...



Imagine if all the owners of the firearms that have suddenly been prohibited filed appeals. With potentially thousands of review applications hitting each and every single provincial court in the country, it could take years to hear all of the review applications.


----------



## Haggis (1 May 2020)

LittleBlackDevil said:
			
		

> There's currently a two-year amnesty, so the firearms community REALLY needs to pull together and get the CPC elected next election (hoping that this happens within two years due to minority government). I only say CPC because they are the one and only party who woulda actually rescind this "executive order".



I doubt there will be an election within two years because this pandemic will drag on for at least another year and no other party is going to want to tackle the mess left behind.



			
				LittleBlackDevil said:
			
		

> As for amnesty, since they did this via order-in-council, there is grandfathering for all current owners per s. 12(8) of the _Firearms Act_. This really just delays confiscation, but delay = buying time to fight for this to be rescinded.


  No other firearms OIC has ever been reversed by a subsequent government that I can recall.  The risk is too high.  The best we can hope for is that this becomes the "new normal" for firearms ownership and we face no further bans.  Sadly, I suspect the usual suspects will soon loudly declare that the PM didn't go nearly far enough and more is needed.


----------



## NavyShooter (1 May 2020)

I will be appealing.


----------



## Haggis (1 May 2020)

> 72 (1) Subject to subsection (1.1), if a chief firearms officer decides to refuse to issue or to revoke a licence or authorization to transport or the Registrar decides to refuse to issue or to revoke a registration certificate, authorization to export or authorization to import, the chief firearms officer or Registrar shall give *notice of the decision* in the prescribed form to the applicant for or holder of the licence, registration certificate or authorization.



There is no decision to be appealed.  No facts to be argued or contested.  This is a decree that certain firearms are now prohibited and applies equally to every person who owns a firearm in that class.  S. 72 will not apply and I'm sure that appeals will not be allowed.  In fact, I would not be at all surprised to find out after the technical briefing this afternoon that s 72 will also be/has been repealed.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (1 May 2020)

Haggis said:
			
		

> There is no decision to be appealed.  No facts to be argued or contested.  This is a decree that certain firearms are now prohibited and applies equally to every person who owns a firearm in that class.  S. 72 will not apply and I'm sure that appeals will not be allowed.  In fact, I would not be at all surprised to find out after the technical briefing this afternoon that s 72 will also be/has been repealed.



How exactly do you repeal an Act of Parliament by OIC?


----------



## Stoker (1 May 2020)

For me I have about 20 AR's in different configurations, I plan to sell back to the government the cheaper under a thousand guns. The higher end stuff I'll keep and see what happens. The strange thing is they didn't ban the SKS or the Type 81's, even stranger I have a number of 12-6 prohib handguns, I can still shoot with those but the long rifles I can't.


----------



## dapaterson (1 May 2020)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> How exactly do you repeal an Act of Parliament by OIC?



Unless there is provision within the legislation to do so (which would be highly unusual) you can't.


----------



## PuckChaser (1 May 2020)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> How exactly do you repeal an Act of Parliament by OIC?



Can repeal it via another Act of Parliament when you have a majority government. Right now the Liberals are at the mercy of the fringe left to hold onto power until the Tories sort out leadership and get confidence pulled. NDP will prop the government up because they can't afford an election, Greens are useless so its up to the Bloc.

Another big thing would be for the Tories to put a motion up that's not a confidence motion to repeal the OIC and force every MP to put their name on a side of the line. That could cause a lot of Liberals to lose seats.


----------



## Stoker (1 May 2020)

Apparently if you want to be grandfathered your must have it deactivated. So much for waiting them out.....


----------



## suffolkowner (1 May 2020)

I can't access the gazette so I can't see what rifles are banned. Can anyone see an obvious pattern?
I'm assuming a Browning BAR is ok because its not "military style" but why ban a M14 and not a sks?
I wonder how long before handguns face the same treatment? Hopefully more details emerge in the next week so I can plan accordingly but it sure does underscore the difference between rural and urban Canada


----------



## Good2Golf (1 May 2020)

suffolkowner said:
			
		

> I can't access the gazette so I can't see what rifles are banned. Can anyone see an obvious pattern?
> I'm assuming a Browning BAR is ok because its not "military style" but why ban a M14 and not a sks?
> I wonder how long before handguns face the same treatment? Hopefully more details emerge in the next week so I can plan accordingly but it sure does underscore the difference between rural and urban Canada



Posted up thread:



			
				Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> With 1500 models and variants I'm guessing it's essentially banning any semi-automatic rifle with a magazine?
> 
> 
> edit- here's a list
> http://www.gazette.gc.ca/rp-pr/p2/2020/2020-05-01-x3/html/sor-dors96-eng.html


----------



## Stoker (1 May 2020)

suffolkowner said:
			
		

> I can't access the gazette so I can't see what rifles are banned. Can anyone see an obvious pattern?
> I'm assuming a Browning BAR is ok because its not "military style" but why ban a M14 and not a sks?
> I wonder how long before handguns face the same treatment? Hopefully more details emerge in the next week so I can plan accordingly but it sure does underscore the difference between rural and urban Canada



BAR is not on the list although I suspect it will be a matter of time before the SKS will be banned along with other firearms. The M-14 was banned because it was used in that shooting of the police in NB along with the Storm. The ban of handguns is still going ahead with cities being given the power to ban them in their jurisdictions instead of a national ban. The anti-gun lobby will continue to go after other firearms as well.


----------



## suffolkowner (1 May 2020)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> Posted up thread:



when I click on it the link doesn't work for me and when I try to go to the gazette directly it doesn't work either for some reason


----------



## dapaterson (1 May 2020)

suffolkowner said:
			
		

> when I click on it the link doesn't work for me and when I try to go to the gazette directly it doesn't work either for some reason



I'm assuming that the server at the other end can't handle the number of requests it's getting.


----------



## Stoker (1 May 2020)

Try this. Here is the list.


----------



## suffolkowner (1 May 2020)

Chief Engineer said:
			
		

> Try this. Here is the list.



Thanks Chief


----------



## MilEME09 (1 May 2020)

I feel like MANPADS, Mortors and ATGMs are a little over kill since you cant buy those on the civilian market any way,and pretty sure the ammo was already prohib.


----------



## OldSolduer (1 May 2020)

NavyShooter said:
			
		

> I will be appealing.



I'm a gun owner. One .22 cal single shot is all I have so I think I'm ok.

I am guessing the owner groups/associations will mount a Supreme Court challenge to this? 

Despite the fact virtually all of gun crimes committed were with illegally owned weapons, the Canadian way is to ban everything that might hurt someone. Using this logic, my 5.7 L Hemi powered car should be banned, because its fast and scary looking.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (1 May 2020)

Well, I read the OIC. It makes no logical sense. I mean- making mortars, SAMs and Anti-Armour weapons prohibitted? There was a problem that needed a solution  :. Although, I feel for the poor bastard who just had his Eryx banned- not because it is banned, but because he owned that piece of crap in the first place.

There is zero logical consistency in the document. It is not really based on common operating principles that  I can detect. It is more like somebody played "call of duty" and said "ban all that stuff".

I take issue with them basing this on the consultations over the past year in which the vast majority of respondents said there was not a problem. But, I guess only some voices are important enough for hearing in Canada in 2020.


----------



## OldSolduer (1 May 2020)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> Well, I read the OIC. It makes no logical sense. I mean- making mortars, SAMs and Anti-Armour weapons prohibitted? There was a problem that needed a solution  :. Although, I feel for the poor ******* who just had his Eryx banned- not because it is banned, but because he owned that piece of crap in the first place.
> 
> There is zero logical consistency in the document. It is not really based on common operating principles that  I can detect. It is more like somebody played "call of duty" and said "ban all that stuff".
> 
> I take issue with them basing this on the consultations over the past year in which the vast majority of respondents said there was not a problem. But, I guess only some voices are important enough for hearing in Canada in 2020.



Emotions vs facts. 

Emotions win.


----------



## NavyShooter (1 May 2020)

Well FML.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (1 May 2020)

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> I feel like MANPADS, Mortors and ATGMs are a little over kill since you cant buy those on the civilian market any way,and pretty sure the ammo was already prohib.



You would be correct- missiles and real mortar bombs would all be Prohibitted/regulated under the explosives act anyway, so this is pointless/humourous. Though, it got me thinking what this does to legitimate fireworks contractors. I mean: a mortar is a frickin pipe, basically. Hell,  a novice plumber could build a Mortar inside an hour.


----------



## MarkOttawa (1 May 2020)

And we all know why the Ruger Mini-14 was banned although it looks nothing like a military-style assault rifle, rather just another traditional rifle design. Can versions with 20-round mag. (see link) be bought legally in Canada?
https://ruger.com/products/mini14RanchRifle/models.html







Mark
Ottawa


----------



## SeaKingTacco (1 May 2020)

Mark, 

No, you could not buy the 20 round magazine for the Mini-14 legally in Canada. It was prohibitted.


----------



## dapaterson (1 May 2020)

My primary critique (I own no firearms and live in an urban area) is that the regulations purport to address assault-style weapons, but never define the term "assult-style".

I also note the observations on risk:



> There is also a risk that affected firearms owners may elect to replace their firearms with models unaffected by the ban, causing a market displacement. This risk may be mitigated by adding additional makes and models to the list of prohibited firearms in the future.


----------



## Cloud Cover (1 May 2020)

On what basis to appeal. This is a complete blanket ban. The Supreme Court has already decided that the regulations about possession and use of firearms are within federal authority so there really is no need to consult on this. The only things that might be appealed are lack of compensation, or insufficient compensation but even that is a stretch.

I would note the governments true ideological intention was expressly stated by Bill Blair this morning - to end the “militarization in society”  - to the extent that even actually exists in Canada.  Note also they state in the Gazette that they have no idea of the true numbers of the “ implicated” firearms, but they also write with some glee that it will be “aggressive” males primarily located in Ontario, BC and Alberta who will be impacted. So no hit to the liberal voter base and that is the only thing that matters to these people.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (1 May 2020)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> My primary critique (I own no firearms and live in an urban area) is that the regulations purport to address assault-style weapons, but never define the term "assult-style".
> 
> I also note the observations on risk:



If they define the term in law, then somebody can actually go to court and fight decisions on a legal basis and a judge may not necessarily come down on the government's side. If they refuse to define the term, then it means whatever the Liberals want it to mean. Pretty handy, huh?


----------



## Cloud Cover (1 May 2020)

They use “specified firearm” and “ specified device”


----------



## Jarnhamar (1 May 2020)

[quote author=CloudCover] write with some glee that it will be “aggressive” males primarily located in Ontario, BC and Alberta who will be impacted. So no hit to the liberal voter base and that is the only thing that matters to these people.
[/quote]

Yup.


----------



## dapaterson (1 May 2020)

The narrative discussing the rationale for the regulations uses the phrase "assault-style" a minimum of twenty times.

I suspect that "assault-style" is like pornography - they can't define what it is, but know it when they see it.


----------



## Cloud Cover (1 May 2020)

“ military or tactical in nature”.  Because that’s a social crime ...


----------



## MarkOttawa (1 May 2020)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> Mark,
> 
> No, you could not buy the 20 round magazine for the Mini-14 legally in Canada. It was prohibitted.



Thanks, was pretty sure that was the case. So ban is logically non-sensical--compare to same barrel length Ruger® 10/22® Stainless Synthetic Semi-Auto Rifle (11 rounds):
https://www.cabelas.ca/product/4883/ruger-1022-stainless-synthetic-semi-auto-rifle







Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa (1 May 2020)

Love when Justin said firearms were an indigenous tradition ;D so they needed them.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Jarnhamar (1 May 2020)

Certain people in Canada can continue using assault weapons, which the government argues can't be used for hunting, to hunt animals.


----------



## Brad Sallows (1 May 2020)

Another consequence of elections.  If these things truly do never get rolled back and the compensation is short of value, at least maybe a future government can top up compensation to what the value was before the market was threatened.

Disappointing to see the "reality-based" community so far from reality-based policy.  This is basically the mob against a minority culture.


----------



## Jarnhamar (1 May 2020)

I see they banned a $7965.00, 15 pound .308 bolt action rifle. (Accuracy International AX)   :


----------



## ballz (1 May 2020)

And the anti-gun community has already moved onto handguns, because this ain't enough either and nothing firearm owners compromise on ever will be....


----------



## FJAG (1 May 2020)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> I see they banned a $7965.00, 15 pound .308 bolt action rifle. (Accuracy International AX)   :



That's because it looks like this:






And not like this:






This is truly a stupid government supported by a stupid bureaucracy

 :brickwall:


----------



## Colin Parkinson (1 May 2020)

CloudCover said:
			
		

> On what basis to appeal. This is a complete blanket ban. The Supreme Court has already decided that the regulations about possession and use of firearms are within federal authority so there really is no need to consult on this. The only things that might be appealed are lack of compensation, or insufficient compensation but even that is a stretch.
> 
> I would note the governments true ideological intention was expressly stated by Bill Blair this morning - to end the “militarization in society”  - to the extent that even actually exists in Canada.  Note also they state in the Gazette that they have no idea of the true numbers of the “ implicated” firearms, but they also write with some glee that it will be “aggressive” males primarily located in Ontario, BC and Alberta who will be impacted. So no hit to the liberal voter base and that is the only thing that matters to these people.



That might come as a shock to the Two urban Lesbians I just helped to get their PAL's. I think they find the spread is larger than anticipated.


----------



## PuckChaser (1 May 2020)

Folks to show you how serious the Liberals are at saving Canada, they've made sure to ban 2 websites (technically a website and the forum on the website). I wish I was kidding. This is a cut from the Gazette post, I had to check to make sure it was legit since I saw it on Facebook first.






Signaller screwed up image hosting, I'll turn my cap badge in at the door.


----------



## mariomike (1 May 2020)

FJAG said:
			
		

>



My deer rifle.


----------



## MarkOttawa (1 May 2020)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> I see they banned a $7965.00, 15 pound .308 bolt action rifle. (Accuracy International AX)   :



Looks, er, too mean; great for a tower mass shoot by a skilled marksman, otherwise...:






Mark
Ottawa


----------



## ballz (1 May 2020)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Folks to show you how serious the Liberals are at saving Canada, they've made sure to ban 2 websites (technically a website and the forum on the website). I wish I was kidding. This is a cut from the Gazette post, I had to check to make sure it was legit since I saw it on Facebook first.
> 
> <cut>
> 
> Signaller screwed up image hosting, I'll turn my cap badge in at the door.



Wow. I'm not super familiar with AR-15 variants but the name looked so peculiar so I googled it... It looks like AR-15 Chatterbox is a FB group.

They put so much thought into all this they failed to even read their google search before copying & pasting into the gazette?


----------



## MarkOttawa (1 May 2020)

mariomike said:
			
		

> My deer rifle.



Military-style, designed to kill the greatest number of people in the shortest... Lever-action only Winchesters etc. for the public, slow to reload for mass shooting (like Parliament Hill).

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## mariomike (1 May 2020)

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> Military-style, designed to kill the greatest number of people in the shortest... Lever-action only Winchesterse etc. for the public, slow to reload for mass shooting (like Parliament Hill).
> 
> Mark
> Ottawa



I haven't been following this. Did they ban the Lee Enfield? I've had it since I was 16. All I ever used for deer.


----------



## MarkOttawa (1 May 2020)

Irony...but if the Liberals understood firearms history and logic...

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Jarnhamar (1 May 2020)

* Indigenous hunters excluded from Ottawa’s assault weapons ban under Section 35* 

Indigenous hunters will be excluded from Canada’s sweeping ban on 1,500 assault weapons announced Friday.

“There will be an exception for Indigenous people’s exercising a section 35 hunting right, as well as those who use the weapon for hunting to feed themselves or their family,” said Justice Minister David Lametti.

“They may continue using firearms that were previously non-restricted for these purposes until a suitable replacement can be acquired.”



https://aptnnews.ca/2020/05/01/indigenous-hunters-excluded-from-ottawas-assault-weapons-ban-under-section-35/


----------



## mariomike (1 May 2020)

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> Lever-action only Winchesters etc. for the public, slow to reload for mass shooting (like Parliament Hill).



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8fMN8a3ZRUY

Chuck was an artist with a Winchester, and our hero when we were kids.


----------



## MarkOttawa (1 May 2020)

Ah, but see at the end of the clip the start of his slow re-load, hence bolt-actions with mags for armies. Learned a lot myself about guns from those shows when a kid, was a master fanner of a revolver. But then again the slow re-load.

Favourite of the "adult westerns", actually great for kids: "Have Gun, Will Travel: Wire Paladin San Francisco":







And the great song: "...a soldier of fortune is the man...":

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tgvxu8QY01s

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Brad Sallows (1 May 2020)

>Indigenous hunters excluded from Ottawa’s assault weapons ban under Section 35

The reports I read indicates that this is only during the 2-year "amnesty".  Effectively, it just means they can use their weapons for that time while others have to stop using them entirely.  There is apparently some room for non-indigenous users also.  There's an enjoyable irony in a cultural exception for indigenous users of non-indigenous tools.

So while the banned weapons may not be strictly necessary for hunting, the government concedes that they are not only in use, but necessary for now.  And the government also effectively concedes that there is no pressing safety issue if owners may retain their weapons for the amnesty period.

And the policies to deal with gangs and arms smuggling from the US?  Tuesday, fer sure.


----------



## mariomike (2 May 2020)

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> Ah, but see at the end of the clip the start of his slow re-load, hence bolt-actions with mags for armies. Learned a lot myself about guns from those shows when a kid, was a master fanner of a revolver. But then again the slow re-load.



Chuck had a solution for that.


----------



## FSTO (2 May 2020)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Folks to show you how serious the Liberals are at saving Canada, they've made sure to ban 2 websites (technically a website and the forum on the website). I wish I was kidding. This is a cut from the Gazette post, I had to check to make sure it was legit since I saw it on Facebook first.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



They also banned an nintendo zombie site! 
Zombie Defense Z-4.

https://www.microsoft.com/en-ca/p/yet-another-zombie-defense-hd/c0988kfjn8bl?activetab=pivotverviewtab


Yes I do know that its a receiver but when you first google it, the nintendo game comes up. Kind of funny


Another site I'm a member of is full of anti-gun folks. I don't even try to talk to them because their auto response is "Move to the states you redneck!"


----------



## Stoker (2 May 2020)

FSTO said:
			
		

> They also banned an nintendo zombie site!
> Zombie Defense Z-4.
> 
> https://www.microsoft.com/en-ca/p/yet-another-zombie-defense-hd/c0988kfjn8bl?activetab=pivotverviewtab
> ...




Funny but legit, AR!5.COM is a named lower receiver.


----------



## Jarnhamar (2 May 2020)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> >Indigenous hunters excluded from Ottawa’s assault weapons ban under Section 35
> 
> The reports I read indicates that this is only during the 2-year "amnesty".  Effectively, it just means they can use their weapons for that time while others have to stop using them entirely.  There is apparently some room for non-indigenous users also.  There's an enjoyable irony in a cultural exception for indigenous users of non-indigenous tools.
> 
> ...



Anyone willing to take bets that 2 year amnesty for 'Indigenous hunters' gets extended?


----------



## MilEME09 (2 May 2020)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Anyone willing to take bets that 2 year amnesty for 'Indigenous hunters' gets extended?



Yes, but the real irony is that they said these weapons have no purpose in our society. Then the next sentence they say the indigenous hunters exemption. I am no legal expert but that may open up a way to challenge this in court. Though I would guess an OIC could only be challenged by the supreme court it at all.


----------



## MarkOttawa (2 May 2020)

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> Yes, but the real irony is that they said these weapons have no purpose in our society. Then the next sentence they say the indigenous hunters exemption. I am no legal expert but that may open up a way to challenge this in court. Though I would guess an OIC could only be challenged by the supreme court it at all.



And the PM himself said in announcing the "ban":



> ...you don’t need an AR-15 to bring down a deer.”..
> https://aptnnews.ca/2020/05/01/indigenous-hunters-excluded-from-ottawas-assault-weapons-ban-under-section-35/



Mark
Ottawa

Staff Edit to comply with rules of posting in political threads.


----------



## MilEME09 (2 May 2020)

Which is a half truth/ lie of statement because you cant hunt with restricted weapons.


----------



## Kat Stevens (2 May 2020)

May 1st. Mayday. Maidan. A very apt day for this sort of move, beloved of totalitarian assholes everywhere.


----------



## cavalryman (2 May 2020)

Target Up said:
			
		

> May 1st. Mayday. Maidan. A very apt day for this sort of move, beloved of totalitarian assholes everywhere.


May 1st is what some of us call the Victims of Communism Memorial Day.


----------



## OldSolduer (2 May 2020)

cavalryman said:
			
		

> May 1st is what some of us call the Victims of Communism Memorial Day.



Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated.

Count me out.


----------



## blacktriangle (2 May 2020)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> I mean: a mortar is a frickin pipe, basically. Hell,  a novice plumber could build a Mortar inside an hour.



Don't give the government any ideas, or we'll all be crapping in blue rockets or holes in the ground.


----------



## Kat Stevens (2 May 2020)

I may or may not have built a pretty effective MAP gas potato mortar from some PVC pipe, a few adapters, and a bbq igniter.


----------



## dapaterson (2 May 2020)

Target Up said:
			
		

> I may or may not have built a pretty effective MAP gas potato mortar from some PVC pipe, a few adapters, and a bbq igniter.



Silly sapper.  Potatoes are to mash and make Vodka.


----------



## McG (2 May 2020)

So, were missile and rocket launchers previously accessible to Canadians?  I feel the munitions generally would have already been covered under the Explosives Act and both the missiles and the launchers themselves under the Defence Production Act, but maybe I am missing something here.


----------



## Kat Stevens (2 May 2020)

These ones were all rooty and icky. It could also shoot tennis balls, which were more expensive but way more fun.


----------



## Jarnhamar (2 May 2020)

MCG said:
			
		

> So, were missile and rocket launchers previously accessible to Canadians?  I feel the munitions generally would have already been covered under the Explosives Act and both the missiles and the launchers themselves under the Defence Production Act, but maybe I am missing something here.



I believe so yes. I knew someone who brought an RPG (launcher, no war head) back from Afghanistan and was able to heep it. Like an M203, its legal to own and does not fall under being classified as a firearm.

Munitions are another story.


----------



## Cloud Cover (2 May 2020)

It does seem odd to permit ownership of a functioning TOW launcher regardless of whether munitions are lawful to possess. 

On the other hand, they do seem to be banning weapons that could be used in a rebellion.


----------



## blacktriangle (3 May 2020)

I kind of wonder what's next though. The gun thing will only buy them votes for so long, and then they will need something else. I'm assuming it will be something environmental, but even that won't be it. I worry that since "property" doesn't seem to matter much in Canada, that we could one day see some drastic re-distribution of wealth "for the good of society" (AKA votes)


----------



## GAP (3 May 2020)

With the PM appearing daily giving humungus gifts of cash, solicitation and good cheer, delivering on his election promise of 2015, there will be an election call ASAP, depending on the CoVid19 stats......


----------



## Cloud Cover (3 May 2020)

Not much will change for him in al Western Canada, as this pandemic lifts the economic carnage is going to be brutal and his policies make it much worse.


----------



## MilEME09 (3 May 2020)

https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=538035560216267&id=1036846836425359

Oh look our PM lying about gun control plans

As well,

https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/c-46/page-29.html#h-117787

Regulations

117.15 (1) Subject to subsection (2), the Governor in Council may make regulations prescribing anything that by this Part is to be or may be prescribed.

Marginal note:Restriction

(2) In making regulations, the Governor in Council may not prescribe any thing to be a prohibited firearm, a restricted firearm, a prohibited weapon, a restricted weapon, a prohibited device or prohibited ammunition if, in the opinion of the Governor in Council, the thing to be prescribed is reasonable for use in Canada for hunting or sporting purposes.

Marginal note:Non-restricted firearm

(3) Despite the definitions prohibited firearm and restricted firearm in subsection 84(1), a firearm that is prescribed to be a non-restricted firearm is deemed not to be a prohibited firearm or a restricted firearm.

Marginal note:Restricted firearm

(4) Despite the definition prohibited firearm in subsection 84(1), a firearm that is prescribed to be a restricted firearm is deemed not to be a prohibited firearm.

Is this ban illegal then by using a OIC?


----------



## FJAG (3 May 2020)

Normal Boot v Military Style Assault Boot

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10223557259504920&set=gm.1332585443594845&type=3&theater&ifg=1

 ;D


----------



## dimsum (3 May 2020)

FJAG said:
			
		

> Normal Boot v Military Style Assault Boot
> 
> https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10223557259504920&set=gm.1332585443594845&type=3&theater&ifg=1
> 
> ;D



I mean, I wouldn't mind having the "normal" boot for DEU instead of the Oxfords or parade boots.  The Australian Defence Force issues black RM Williams boots and they look great.


----------



## FJAG (3 May 2020)

Dimsum said:
			
		

> I mean, I wouldn't mind having the "normal" boot for DEU instead of the Oxfords or parade boots.  The Australian Defence Force issues black RM Williams boots and they look great.



Them suckers is pricey. I hope the ADF gets a bulk rate.

 ;D


----------



## Cloud Cover (3 May 2020)

Blundstone combat boots?


----------



## AbdullahD (3 May 2020)

Anyone have any more information regarding the UCP of Albertas possibility of establishing their own CFO and having a more common sense gun rights province?

If so, they may have a BC refugee in short order.

Thanks guys, I tried googling but only found one article..
Abdullah


----------



## dimsum (4 May 2020)

CloudCover said:
			
		

> Blundstone combat boots?



Same idea, but RMs are a lot nicer quality.  However, they're double (or triple) the price of Blundstones.

Blundstones in Australia are the boots you see tradesmen (city service workers, construction, etc) wear.


----------



## MilEME09 (4 May 2020)

AbdullahD said:
			
		

> Anyone have any more information regarding the UCP of Albertas possibility of establishing their own CFO and having a more common sense gun rights province?
> 
> If so, they may have a BC refugee in short order.
> 
> ...



He hasn't given any details yet, if he does, expect them this week. However firearms are a federal program so I don't know how much Alberta can do.


----------



## AbdullahD (4 May 2020)

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> He hasn't given any details yet, if he does, expect them this week. However firearms are a federal program so I don't know how much Alberta can do.



Yeah, I am curious to how it plays out.. I do not understand how The Liberals expect to make handguns a municipal issue, when firearms are federally regulated. It could make for some interesting back door applications of any new laws... or more effective defence of our current situation etc.

Far to many scenarios for me to hazard a guess, my little head is going insane trying to figure out how this will all play out.

Thanks for the insight though 
Abdullah


----------



## mariomike (4 May 2020)

AbdullahD said:
			
		

> make handguns a municipal issue,



The municipality can only limit gun range locations.


----------



## Stoker (4 May 2020)

They announced that they are apparently going after pinned magazines now and bringing in ammunition restrictions. Looks like they're going all in. I wonder will it be the amount of ammo you can buy or are they going after reloading?


----------



## Haggis (4 May 2020)

AbdullahD said:
			
		

> Yeah, I am curious to how it plays out.. I do not understand how The Liberals expect to make handguns a municipal issue, when firearms are federally regulated. It could make for some interesting back door applications of any new laws... or more effective defence of our current situation etc.



My expectation is that the Firearms Act will be amended to allow municipalities to declare "handgun prohibition zones" where the possession, storage and use will be prohibited.  Some provinces will push back, notably ON, MB and the PM has said that there are tools available to force recalcitrant provinces to comply.  He will use those.  He will not accept challenges to a key plank in his election platform.  If certain provinces fail to play along, then a national handgun ban will probably be imposed.


----------



## Good2Golf (4 May 2020)

Haggis, when you say Forearms Act expected to be amended, am I tracking correctly that this would take a Parliamentary bill to amend the act, since it is federal legislation?  As others have noted, this would require all good Liberals to come to the aid of the party and put themselves on record as to which side of the line they are, which may be a short-term gain, but longer-term (read, next election, whenever that is) pain for the LPC of it dilutes their brand in regions where firearms aren’t thought of as evil?


----------



## Haggis (4 May 2020)

Exactly.

The PM has said that he will pursue further measures once Parliament is back sitting again and the pandemic has eased or passed.

The votes on the the buyback spending bill and the amendments to the Firearms Act will be whipped, of course, and the NDP and Bloc will probably support both.

This leaves the Conservatives between a rock and a hard place.  If they support the buyback spending bill they may be seen as throwing gun owners under the bus. If they oppose it and it and it fails, the Liberals may opt for straight up confiscation without compensation.


----------



## lenaitch (4 May 2020)

AbdullahD said:
			
		

> Yeah, I am curious to how it plays out.. I do not understand how The Liberals expect to make handguns a municipal issue, when firearms are federally regulated. It could make for some interesting back door applications of any new laws... or more effective defence of our current situation etc.
> 
> Far to many scenarios for me to hazard a guess, my little head is going insane trying to figure out how this will all play out.
> 
> ...



As am I.  Introduced Bills are usually accompanied by a Justice Department analysis that includes a statement on Constitutional impact.  I'm neither a lawyer or Constitutional expert, but it would interesting to see how they would view such a Bill in view of Section 15.  I can envision an argument of 'geographic discrimination'.


----------



## Jarnhamar (4 May 2020)

The only real option for gun owners is to recoup some of the money they spent on the now prohibited firearms. And recoup the money they spent on the rest of the semi-automatic rifles and shotguns and pistols that will soon be banned.

Trudeau is untouchable. He can sexually assault, black face, intimidate and ethically violate himself from BC to Newfound land and back again and no one can do shit about it. Not enough people want to do shit about it. SNC shows us he doesn't care for rules or the law and gets what he wants.  But the SNC jobs. Liberals estimate the banning of these firearms will cost over 33,000 Canadians their jobs. What better timing than in the middle of a pandemic? Those jobs won't even be noticed.

Even with all the strategic voting bu Green and NDP voters the conservatives still won the most votes, but that doesn't matter.
What matters is Quebec and Toronto. It's going to take something catastrophic to turn Quebec away from Liberal promises and shake the downtown Toronto core away from them.

The Liberals didn't even read the petition for firearm owners that racked up 120K or 150K signatures. They simply don't care.

Gun owners can expect the minimal amount of outrage from the conservative party. They know they're largely seen as the only option for gun owners (who see firearm ownership/rights as a priority) but they won't really do much. Just like they didn't during their consecutive time in power. 

I bet the Liberals are counting on non compliance (just like the massive non compliance in New Zealand). 
First it paints gun owners as criminals (which tens of thousands of us technically are now) and second, the less prohibited guns Canadians turn in the less money the Liberals have to fork over.


----------



## McG (4 May 2020)

Haggis said:
			
		

> This leaves the Conservatives between a rock and a hard place.  If they support the buyback spending bill they may be seen as throwing gun owners under the bus. If they oppose it and it and it fails, the Liberals may opt for straight up confiscation without compensation.


If it is a spending bill, is it not a confidence vote?


----------



## Brad Sallows (4 May 2020)

If some municipalities find a way to block possession, storage, and use, then I predict that other municipalities will become centres of possession, storage, and use facilities, and make some money.  A small community near a punitively restrictive metro area could do quite well.


----------



## OldSolduer (4 May 2020)

On 1 May 2022 all RCMP personal security details should be redeployed to front line policing. After all there won’t be any scary looking weapons, right?


----------



## QV (4 May 2020)

I think by the time Trudeau gets finished the only legal firearms will be a small handful of single shot and bolt action rifles and a few models of shotguns.  

What a disaster for small businesses and those folks involved in shooting sports.


----------



## MilEME09 (4 May 2020)

MCG said:
			
		

> If it is a spending bill, is it not a confidence vote?



Yes it would be


----------



## Haggis (4 May 2020)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> *If some municipalities find a way to block possession, storage, and use*, then I predict that other municipalities will become centres of possession, storage, and use facilities, and make some money.  A small community near a punitively restrictive metro area could do quite well.



The PM will provide the way.   I can just envision myself driving to an IPSC match in western Ontario and having to completely avoid the Golden Horseshoe because it's a gun free zone.


----------



## Eaglelord17 (4 May 2020)

His municipality ban will fail in court.

Cities get their powers from the Provinces not the Federal Government, it is why the Provinces can disband or create them, or modify their powers at will. He could give the powers to the Provinces (who should be the ones legislating firearms to begin with as Property is a Provincial responsibility not a Federal one), but he cannot skip the Provinces and go straight to the cities.


----------



## PuckChaser (4 May 2020)

Haggis said:
			
		

> The PM will provide the way.   I can just envision myself driving to an IPSC match in western Ontario and having to completely avoid the Golden Horseshoe because it's a gun free zone.



Shame that won't stop the gang bangers at Jane/Finch or Rexdale, but it'll stop you. What a joke.


----------



## Haggis (4 May 2020)

That's the diffrence between law abiding and criminal gun uses, a distinction lost on the Liberals. 

So, my new term for armed criminals is "unaffected gun users". You saw it here first.

Sent from my SM-G950W using Tapatalk


----------



## Jarnhamar (4 May 2020)

I shaved off my manly beard in protest.


----------



## brihard (4 May 2020)

Eaglelord17 said:
			
		

> His municipality ban will fail in court.
> 
> Cities get their powers from the Provinces not the Federal Government, it is why the Provinces can disband or create them, or modify their powers at will. He could give the powers to the Provinces (who should be the ones legislating firearms to begin with as Property is a Provincial responsibility not a Federal one), but he cannot skip the Provinces and go straight to the cities.



Chiming in only to speak narrowly to this particular legal question: There's old constitutional law to the contrary on that. It goes back to when there were both a Federal and provincial Temperance Acts. The federal one gave municipalities a 'local option' to prohibit intoxicating liquors locally under the federal law. The federal law drew its constitutional legitimacy from the 'criminal law' head of power granted federally in the constitution. It went through various levels of appeals, but ultimately it was held in 1946 by the Judicial committee of the Privy Council (back when Britain still had the ability to ultimately decide our legal appeals) that it was within the constitutional authority of the federal government to give municipalities the option to ban liquor even in the face of overlapping provincial legislation. While this is pretty old jurisprudence, it has not been overruled, and supports the notion of the federal government being able to empower municipalities to prohibit certain things where it falls within matters that are typically in the federal sphere.

The chain of jurisprudence on this starts with Russell v The Queen (1882), and ends with Ontario (AG) v Canada Temperance Federation (1946). So the constitutional law on this actually may well specifically empower what the feds are considering doing. I've no doubt the federal counsel looking into this are well aware of this possibility, and it's classic constitutional law on division of powers and where federal and provincial authorities crash into each other.

I'm not entering the discussion into whether this is sound policy or not, I'm just offering the caution that the constitutional law on this may not say what you think and expect it does vis a vis the ability of the feds to statutorily empower municipalities.


----------



## PuckChaser (4 May 2020)

Unverified Reddit user, claiming to be LPC insider that leaked firearms list to media outlines what the Liberals are planning to do next.

https://www.reddit.com/r/canadaguns/comments/gdec16/this_is_whats_coming_next/?utm_medium=android_app&utm_source=share



> The next tag line the party will push is women and domestic violence, as well as suicide. The point the government will be pushing is that women are victim of gun violence at home, and suicide by gun are happening because the gun is readily accessible at home.
> 
> They know that a ban on hunting rifles and shotguns will have very bad optics, but they feel they will be able to get away with central storage. The argument will be made that if the gun isn't readily available, it can save the lives of women and those who might re-think their suicide if they don't have their firearm handy, while not infringing on the rights of hunters by banning their firearms.


----------



## Haggis (4 May 2020)

Women are the fastest growing segment of the shooting sports in Canada.  This may come back to bite him.


----------



## PuckChaser (4 May 2020)

Haggis said:
			
		

> Women are the fastest growing segment of the shooting sports in Canada.  This may come back to bite him.



They also underestimate the ability of firearms owners to organize and get out to vote. With the amount of hoops someone has to jump through to just get a PAL/RPAL, whats 20 minutes in line to check the box next to Anyone But Liberal?


----------



## Jarnhamar (4 May 2020)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> They also underestimate the ability of firearms owners to organize and get out to vote. With the amount of hoops someone has to jump through to just get a PAL/RPAL, whats 20 minutes in line to check the box next to Anyone But Liberal?



It won't matter unless the voters in down town Toronto change their tune.


----------



## Haggis (4 May 2020)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> They also underestimate the ability of firearms owners to organize and get out to vote. With the amount of hoops someone has to jump through to just get a PAL/RPAL, whats 20 minutes in line to check the box next to Anyone But Liberal?



If that's true, then why didn't he get voted out last time?  Two reasons that I can see.

1. Because gun owners are fragmented and live in silos.  Trudeau won the hunter/farmer vote by not banning deer rifles and grand-daddy's shotgun this time. Next, he'll tell hunters and farmers that question him to simmer down, or they'll be hunting and defending their livestock with slings and sticks.

2. Too many gun owners drank the PPC Kool-Aid and put their faith in Mad Max.  Had they voted strategically (i.e. for the candidate most likely to defeat their local Liberal, whether Conservative or not) we may not be where we are today.


----------



## Remius (4 May 2020)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> They also underestimate the ability of firearms owners to organize and get out to vote. With the amount of hoops someone has to jump through to just get a PAL/RPAL, whats 20 minutes in line to check the box next to Anyone But Liberal?



Too spread out and not enough to make a difference.  Like puckchaser said, Toronto is key and they don’t like guns.  And 60% of Canadians voted for parties with stricter gun legislation proposals.  I’m certain that firearms owners came out in max force last election and the one before it.  

I’m not sure that had a big effect.


----------



## Kat Stevens (4 May 2020)

Firearm owners mostly live in jurisdictions that already would not vote lib.


----------



## PuckChaser (4 May 2020)

Haggis said:
			
		

> 2. Too many gun owners drank the PPC Kool-Aid and put their faith in Mad Max.  Had they voted strategically (i.e. for the candidate most likely to defeat their local Liberal, whether Conservative or not) we may not be where we are today.



Quickly looking at the numbers, PPC didn't have the support they thought they would. They only got 1.6% of the popular vote spread out across the entire country. Quickly looking at the numbers here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Results_of_the_2019_Canadian_federal_election#Seats_won_and_lost_by_party I only found 1 riding that the Tory candidate would have won with the PPC votes.

I honestly think Andrew Scheer had an uphill battle to fight against the media and a long shot to make Trudeau a single-term Prime Minister. With a new leader, mounting debt, terrible economy and fractured national unity, the Tories will be better positioned in 2021 to take away the basic dictatorship Trudeau has cemented himself in. This firearms ban is also relatively easy to pick apart. Next May if the homicide rate by firearms hasn't dropped then there's hard data Trudeau did nothing for gun crime.


----------



## ballz (4 May 2020)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> With a new leader, mounting debt, terrible economy and fractured national unity, the Tories will be better positioned in 2021 to take away the basic dictatorship Trudeau has cemented himself in. This firearms ban is also relatively easy to pick apart. Next May if the homicide rate by firearms hasn't dropped then there's hard data Trudeau did nothing for gun crime.



I am way less optimistic. Unless another scandal hits between now and a somewhat return to normalcy, I'd be surprised if we're not at the polls again sooner rather than later. The Liberals are polling in majority territory and the Conservatives are in shambles, wounded, leaderless, and the party is disenfranchised by the lackluster leadership candidates.

Once we're back to some normalcy, and by then we'll be experiencing economic recovery as it bounces back from people actually doing things again, the Liberals well say "well, situation has changed drastically, a new government needs a new, stronger mandate from Canadians to help us fully recover from this."


----------



## MilEME09 (4 May 2020)

I would argue it depends who us the new leaders inner circle, Pierre poilievre is great at playing offensively. If I was leader I would be using him to form my election media strategy. The next leader would need to win over Toronto that the CPC has a better plan for gun control, strike the liberals at any weakness, but also show why your the better choice.


----------



## ballz (4 May 2020)

Some interesting posts today....

On FB, Ian Runkle, a well-known firearms lawyer in AB, posted this FB three hours ago:
https://www.facebook.com/Ian.Runkle.Lawyer



> Apparently the rumour (which I consider fairly credible) is that the LPC is going to push for central storage next.
> Gun owners know why this is terrible, so this is largely going to be aimed at friends, colleagues, and so forth who may not be aware of some of the issues.
> The first is practicality.  A farmer who has a pack of coyotes eyeing his/her cattle can't drive an hour each way (you think these storage locations are going to be convenient in rural Canada?) to get a rifle.  A hunter who has to wake up in the early hours to get to his/her spot is pretty inconvenienced by having to do so hours early--and would the central storage even be open?  How do we know the difference between a hunter who is spending a week bedded down in the wilderness versus one who just takes their gun home?  We have communities that are fly-in, fly-out, and so a hunter or target shooter might need to get on a plane (or a ferry) to get to the nearest central storage location.
> The second is cost.  If you're requiring central storage, that won't be free.  What this means is that the notion of "We are sparing hunters and farmers" is anything but--it's going to put tremendous costs on hunters and farmers.  These costs will disproportionately harm those who are most vulnerable.  My mother, growing up, was in a family with many children and where hunted meat was necessary for them because they were far from wealthy.  Living off the land should not be something partitioned off for the wealthy elite.
> ...




And this was posted to Reddit, which is obviously not reliable but the reasoning stated seems exactly what the Liberals would go for... https://www.reddit.com/r/canadaguns/comments/gdec16/this_is_whats_coming_next/?utm_medium=android_app&utm_source=share



> I work for the LPC, and I'm also a gun owner who is not only affected by the recent ban, but is disgusted by it. I do not want to give more details to what extent I work for the party other than to say there are quite a few of us, and we were the ones responsible for leaking the list of firearms to the media before the official announcement. We've been keeping our ear to the ground since, and this is what we've heard from the public safety office on recommendations for future legislation;
> 
> *The next tag line the party will push is women and domestic violence, as well as suicide. The point the government will be pushing is that women are victim of gun violence at home, and suicide by gun are happening because the gun is readily accessible at home.*
> 
> ...


----------



## Infanteer (4 May 2020)

Yikes.  :not-again:


----------



## MilEME09 (4 May 2020)

Sounds like they want to make it an unaffordable hobby


----------



## ModlrMike (5 May 2020)

> ...proving you're holding firearms for hunting by showing yearly proof in the form of hunting tags.



Yea, I can see all the FN getting behind that one.


----------



## Cloud Cover (5 May 2020)

Yes, but what about domestic violence and firearms related suicides on Indian reserves. They get a pass on that too? 
This government's decisions are truly questionable. 

 Staff Edit to comply with rules of posting in political threads.


----------



## Haggis (5 May 2020)

Not that I am in any way advocating for it/them, there is already one company in the GTA selling offsite firearm storage space.

I suspect the Liberal's first target for centralized storage will be remaining semi-automatic long guns, bolt action long range rifles and handguns. Farmers and FN will be exempt but with severe calibre and action type restrictions.  The costs to gun clubs, as alluded to above, will be enormous thus pushing the price of participation in the shooting sports out of reach of most who now partake.


----------



## Haggis (5 May 2020)

Haggis said:
			
		

> No other firearms OIC has ever been reversed by a subsequent government that I can recall.



I posted this a few days ago.  Subsequent research and discussion has shown that there was recently one reclassification OIC that was reversed regarding the Swiss Arms and cz858 rifles.  Both have now been prohibited as of last Monday, but the point is that reclassifications to a less controlled class have happened by OIC, except that Bill C71 has taken that power away from cabinet.


----------



## Jarnhamar (5 May 2020)

Sounds like a lot of hunters are criminals now too. Well those with 12 gauge shotguns that have removable chokes. 

Imagine a pump action shotgun with a honking 28" long barrel being considered an assault weapon  :




> For Immediate Release! CSAAA- Shotgun ban!!
> 
> The Canadian Sporting Arms and Ammunition Association (CSAAA) and the Canadian Shooting Sports Association (CSSA) demand the immediate withdrawal of the flawed Order in Council.
> Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and Minister Bill Blair looked Canadian gun owners in the eye last Friday and said they would not take guns suitable for hunting away from us.
> ...


----------



## Stoker (5 May 2020)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Sounds like a lot of hunters are criminals now too. Well those with 12 gauge shotguns that have removable chokes.
> 
> Imagine a pump action shotgun with a honking 28" long barrel being considered an assault weapon  :



Not actually banned by name. Its a gambit to take the government to court on the OIC.


----------



## NavyShooter (5 May 2020)

I ended up having some 'discussions' with a couple of people.  One of them addressed me in the following way after I posted them:


> "I would like to see the abusive rhetoric on this issue - on both sides - toned down."


My detailed comments.  Question for the group - is any of the below rhetoric?


> I'll point out that any shotgun larger than 12 Gauge is now a prohibited device - so Grandpa's old 10 gauge? Prohib because it's got a bore larger than 20mm. There are also somewhat 'standard' big game and dangerous game cartridges (.416 Rigby I think is one of them) that are also now prohibited. There is a photo of a beautiful Westley and Richards double hunting rifle from the early 1900's that's floating around the internet - it is now prohibited also.
> The single shot bolt action rifle that is the basis for the Cadet Fullbore program is (I think) the RPA - it's now on the prohibited list as well, so a bunch of $5000 target rifles are now prohibited.
> This prohibition order is as useless as the ones that were done in the early 90's. Recall the tragedy in Mayerthorpe where 4 RCMP officers were murdered? The gun used there had been prohibited for over 2 decades.
> Sadly, evil will find a way, whether it is a rental truck, or arson (9 of the deaths here in NS were from fire so I'm told.)
> ...






> There can be arguments that fully automatic firearms have a place in the world as well. *HEAR ME OUT PLEASE*.
> Consider that most innovation in this world comes not out of governments or government controlled development programs. We all know how efficient those can be.
> Some of the greatest innovations in small arms over the past number of years have been driven by individuals, rather than businesses or governments. John Moses Browning - John Garand - Carbine Williams - Eugene Stoner - Diudonne Saive, etc. For development purposes, having a good understanding of how to improve small arms needs to involve doing more than just looking at them in museums.
> Governments may be good at managing incremental improvements (see M1 Garand vs M14 rifle) or the entire development of the Lee Enfield after James Paris Lee did his work (truly, the differences between a #1 and a #4 rifle are fairly small.) I won't even really discuss the SA-80 rifle project that the Brits ran....ironically, it's just a development of Eugene Stoner's Armalite Rifle model 18 (AR-18) put into a 'bullpup' configuration.
> ...







> Peter, I will observe that a single shot rifle is not the pinnacle of safety when dealing with dangerous game. Do you want to deal with a grizzly bear with one shot? Do you want to deal with a pack of wolves with a single shot rifle? When hunters have been trying to deal with the recent scourge of feral pigs across the north American continent (note, they're now in Canada too) there were groups in the US actually using helicopters and rifles with 30 round magazines to take them down. When a herd of 40-50 pigs is running - that makes sense.
> Limiting a hunter to a single shot is to endanger that hunter - you may not hunt anywhere by the meat market, but for some that is their primary means of filling their larder and freezer.
> As for modifying bolt action rifles - well, I will ask you to consider that in WW1, when there were not enough machine guns available, an enterprising Canadian by the name of Huot modified a number of Ross Rifles to become machine guns that were trialed against the Lewis gun and found to be slightly more reliable than the Lewis.
> https://youtu.be/1UI0XvrIfl0
> ...





> Peter, I will also speak to the 'ease' of modification that is needed to make a standard semi-automatic rifle function in full-auto (firing more than one shot for every pull of the trigger.)
> I am *quite* familiar with the internals of the C-7/M-16 and the civilian AR-15. While they are externally similar, the internals have a number of changes that make it very difficult to convert the civilian rifle to Full Auto. There is also no way to do so without resorting to permanent modifications to the receiver - modifications which are clearly visible should the firearm be inspected - and of note - any firearms owner who holds restricted firearms, or has more than 10 firearms is subject to inspection under the Firearms Act as enacted in the early 90's.
> First. The Hammer. The hammer on the semi-auto has two distinct modifications, first the auto-sear catch has been ground off, and second a notch has been cut in the face of the hammer that is designed to interact with the bolt and firing pin to prevent full auto fire.
> Second. The Auto Sear. This piece is physically not present in the gun, nor is the hole for it's cross-pin.
> ...






> I gather that your position is not swayed?
> The above information is the sort of detail that is not a part of the discussions surrounding gun laws in Canada. The 'evidence based' research that brought us to this place and enacted this Order in Council is so detailed that, as mentioned, the bolt action Cadet target rifle has now been prohibited - the Cadet fullbore program has just been shut down. The list includes airsoft pellet guns even that are not firearms at all, and as mentioned, every shotgun above a 12 gauge is now a prohibited weapon.
> The list looks to me like a 'copy/paste' from various parts of the internet, and will certainly not have the positive influence on public safety that is supposedly the reason for it's implementation.
> I would far rather see some honest open discussions to find REAL ways to fix the problems. The 'buy back' or 'compensation' for these guns - which are demonstrably not the problem - will see by some estimates 3-5 times the amount of money given to firearms owners as is being spent on border security programs designed to stop smuggled guns.
> ...


----------



## PuckChaser (5 May 2020)

I'm not a huge gun guy, but a quick look online shows a 12ga barrel diameter is 18 and change millimetres. Are there chokes that make the barrel flared so its larger than a 10ga at the opening, since chokes by name and nature actually constrict the barrel?


----------



## Haggis (5 May 2020)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> I'm not a huge gun guy, but a quick look online shows a 12ga barrel diameter is 18 and change millimetres. Are there chokes that make the barrel flared so its larger than a 10ga at the opening, since chokes by name and nature actually constrict the barrel?



18.3 to 20.3 mm for a .12 ga.   .10 ga average is 19.69 mm.  I'm sure someone from the Minister's office will be along to put the CSAAA in their place very shortly.


----------



## NavyShooter (5 May 2020)

Put who in their place?


The technical details apparently specify that the bore is to be measured at the muzzle with all muzzle devices removed.


----------



## NavyShooter (5 May 2020)

"The Benelli Nova measures 0.789" or 20.04 mm and the Winchester SX3 measures 0.836" or 21.23 mm"​


----------



## Haggis (5 May 2020)

NavyShooter said:
			
		

> Put who in their place?
> 
> The technical details apparently specify that the bore is to be measured at the muzzle with all muzzle devices removed.



And here comes "the law of unintended consequences".  Maybe the hunters and farmers will listen now.


----------



## Jarnhamar (5 May 2020)

Haggis said:
			
		

> And here comes "the law of unintended consequences".  Maybe the hunters and farmers will listen now.



Ducks Unlimited was very neutral on the proposed coming gun restrictions and abjectly refused to sign that petition that went around.


----------



## mariomike (5 May 2020)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Ducks Unlimited was very neutral on the proposed coming gun restrictions and abjectly refused to sign that petition that went around.






			
				Remius said:
			
		

> I thought their primary mission was wetland conservation and advocacy.  They are not a firearms lobby group.  Seems to me they are being neutral and not taking a position on a policy matter that is outside of their mandate.
> 
> As a tax exempt not for profit group their status as such could be at threat if they started getting political.


----------



## MarkOttawa (5 May 2020)

Opinion piece in _Globe and Mail_:



> Canada’s ‘gun ban’ is not what the government says it is
> Robyn Urback
> 
> Canada’s new gun “ban” is not a ban.
> ...



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Jarnhamar (5 May 2020)

Good point MM. I'm sure their members will be satisfied by that logic.


In the mean time Michelle Rempel's petition about this ban got 12,000 signatures in less than 4 hours and seems to have been overloaded.

Liberals keep talking about how 80% of Canadians approve of this ban. It sounds like they're quoting an Angus Reid poll. 
"Four-in-five Canadians support complete ban on civilian possession of assault style weapons"

Those 4 in 5 Canadians are out of a 1500 strong poll, always found it weird how that somehow speaks for all Canadians. 
It also mentions _"the rampage of an assault weapon-carrying murderer who killed 22 people in Nova Scotia last month"_. That's weird since there's still no definition on what an assault weapon is and as far as I'm aware the type of weapon hasn't been released to the public. 

Petition is up to 19,000 signatures in 6 hours?
https://petitions.ourcommons.ca/en/Petition/Details?Petition=e-2574


----------



## Kat Stevens (5 May 2020)

Ducks Unlimited was started by a bunch of duck hunters who wanted to preserve wetlands so they'd have lots of places to go and kill ducks. Their altruism was based on selfishness.


----------



## mariomike (5 May 2020)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Good point MM.



Back at Reply #717 there was a debate about Ducks Unlimited and a petition.


----------



## PuckChaser (5 May 2020)

Target Up said:
			
		

> Ducks Unlimited was started by a bunch of duck hunters who wanted to preserve wetlands so they'd have lots of places to go and kill ducks. Their altruism was based on selfishness.



Hunters put more money into conservation than most other groups, whats your point? Where do you think the money from all those tags, licences, etc go to every year? If hunting within scientifically designated limits and putting money towards preserving and creating habitats to do that hunting is selfishness, then you and I have different definitions of the term. At the end of the day, habitat is protected.


----------



## my72jeep (5 May 2020)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Good point MM. I'm sure their members will be satisfied by that logic.
> 
> 
> In the mean time Michelle Rempel's petition about this ban got 12,000 signatures in less than 4 hours and seems to have been overloaded.
> ...


----------



## PuckChaser (5 May 2020)

I haven't even gotten my email verification to confirm my signature on the petition, so I bet the volume crashed the system.


----------



## Kat Stevens (5 May 2020)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Hunters put more money into conservation than most other groups, whats your point? Where do you think the money from all those tags, licences, etc go to every year? If hunting within scientifically designated limits and putting money towards preserving and creating habitats to do that hunting is selfishness, then you and I have different definitions of the term. At the end of the day, habitat is protected.



Why are you looking to pick a fight with me? I said what I said. That was my point. Go find another leg to hump.


----------



## PuckChaser (5 May 2020)

Target Up said:
			
		

> Why are you looking to pick a fight with me? I said what I said. That was my point. Go find another leg to hump.



I'm not picking a fight with you, I'm disagreeing with your statement. Don't try to make it personal when its not personal.


----------



## suffolkowner (5 May 2020)

The vast majority of people in favor of this gun ban do not understand the difference between fully automatic and semi automatic they just hear automatic and think of what they see in the movies. Comments that I have read online think that everything that was on the list was easily available before May 1st including anti tank weapons. Earlier upthread there was mention of the legality of howitzers which reminded me of some decades ago now I was told that you could own the device or the ammo but not both over 2". I'm not sure how much to believe in that but at the time I was convinced


----------



## Kat Stevens (5 May 2020)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> I'm not picking a fight with you, I'm disagreeing with your statement. Don't try to make it personal when its not personal.



What did I say that was incorrect, exactly? Of course hunters have a vested interest in conservation. That's what I said. You asked me my point, then went into a long winded explanation of why I was right. I guess if I had an underlying point it's that DU maybe should weigh in on the issue.


----------



## PuckChaser (5 May 2020)

Target Up said:
			
		

> What did I say that was incorrect, exactly? Of course hunters have a vested interest in conservation.



Perhaps its the way you worded it that made it sound like hunters can't be conservationists and hunt as well by calling them selfish?


----------



## Kat Stevens (5 May 2020)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Perhaps its the way you worded it that made it sound like hunters can't be conservationists and hunt as well by calling them selfish?



You're looking for problems that aren't there. Preserving something so that you can benefit from it is selfish. If others benefit from it too, then that's a bonus.


----------



## BDTyre (5 May 2020)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> I haven't even gotten my email verification to confirm my signature on the petition, so I bet the volume crashed the system.



It took a few hours for mine to show up.


----------



## Jarnhamar (5 May 2020)

mariomike said:
			
		

> Back at Reply #717 there was a debate about Ducks Unlimited and a petition.



Did you sign this new petition?


----------



## mariomike (5 May 2020)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Did you sign this new petition?



Documents I sign, or do not sign, are none of your business, Jarnhamar.


----------



## Jarnhamar (5 May 2020)

mariomike said:
			
		

> Documents I sign, or do not sign, are none of your business, Jarnhamar.




I got 300 milpoints for you if you do, friend


----------



## mariomike (5 May 2020)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> I got 300 milpoints for you if you do, friend



You know how to buy me off!


----------



## OldSolduer (5 May 2020)

suffolkowner said:
			
		

> The vast majority of people in favor of this gun ban do not understand the difference between fully automatic and semi automatic they just hear automatic and think of what they see in the movies. Comments that I have read online think that everything that was on the list was easily available before May 1st including anti tank weapons. Earlier upthread there was mention of the legality of howitzers which reminded me of some decades ago now I was told that you could own the device or the ammo but not both over 2". I'm not sure how much to believe in that but at the time I was convinced


Just a thought but where was this poll taken?

No one asked me or my wife - I'm willing to bet it was taken in Toronto.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (6 May 2020)

Why 12ga may be prohibited   https://s3.amazonaws.com/CSSA/PDF/SOR2020-96-CSSA-Legal-Opinion-re-12-gauge-shotguns.pdf


----------



## mariomike (6 May 2020)

Hamish Seggie said:
			
		

> Just a thought but where was this poll taken?





> For detailed results by age, gender, region, education, and other demographics,
> 
> http://angusreid.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/2020.04.30_Gun-Control_PR-Tables_Demos.pdf


----------



## Haggis (6 May 2020)

Minister Blair has reached out to the CSSA and CSAAA via Twitter to set the record straight and to correct their misunderstanding.  .10 and .12 ga shotguns are not banned.


----------



## mariomike (6 May 2020)

Haggis said:
			
		

> .10 and .12 ga shotguns are not banned.



Thank-you for that information, Haggis.


----------



## my72jeep (6 May 2020)

Haggis said:
			
		

> Minister Blair has reached out to the CSSA and CSAAA via Twitter to set the record straight and to correct their misunderstanding.  .10 and .12 ga shotguns are not banned.


Back peddling, the liberals don’t want to piss off the duck hunters yet, they are not ready for that fight quite yet.
But all it will take is one over zealous LEO or fish cop and bam someone’s 870 is prohib. My$0.02.


----------



## FSTO (6 May 2020)

A telling stat.
No, never owned a gun 73%

Maybe they should have asked if you have ever handled/fired a weapon to get more of a handle on firearms knowledge in Canada. Or maybe the government doesn't want that information?


----------



## Stoker (6 May 2020)

Haggis said:
			
		

> Minister Blair has reached out to the CSSA and CSAAA via Twitter to set the record straight and to correct their misunderstanding.  .10 and .12 ga shotguns are not banned.



Yes a misunderstanding but convinces me that this OIC was put together last minute as they banned an airsoft rifle and a .308 bolt action.


----------



## Fabius (6 May 2020)

Bill Blair has indicated on twitter ( a non official non binding social media platform) that 10 and 12 gauges are not banned.

The Government OIC published in the Canada Gazette ( a formal official means of updating regulations and policy) specifically and unequivocally states that firearms with a bore of over 20mm are prohibited.

10 gauge and 12 gauge sizes are .780 inches (19.80mm) and .727 inches (18.46mm). 

All the above statements of fact.  However modern shotguns have bores that do not necessarily align to SAAMI gauge sizes and are in fact slightly larger to accommodate manufacturing processes for removable chokes. This is also fact as exhibited by manufacture specifications and the CSSA legal opinion. Bore measurements are an area of interpretation but common practice and legal understanding indicates that removable chokes could be seen as not counting and therefore we would be measuring bore sans installed choke tubes, again this is over the gauge size.

The question is are we now prohibited by gauge size or bore size?  Since the OIC specifies bore size not gauge we would be going with bore size and hence Bill Blair is actually wrong. I understand that may not have been their intent but until the OIC is redone and reissued it is at minimum a grey area subject to court interpretation.

 A million twitter blasts does not change that. Only a formal redaction and reissuing of the OIC does, although the governments own rules on policy may prevent that.

Poorly worded and drafted regulations lead to this sort of confusion of understanding.  Any organization or company or person reading and then following the regulation as written should not be blamed for the poorly written regulations. Until we get formal official clarification from the government we can't just assume "Oh well they couldn't possibly have meant that".

That is akin to issuing poor, confusing and contradictory direction of subordinates then yelling at them for not doing exactly what you envisioned.   

I do not think they meant to do what they have done with regards to the 20mm bore prohibition, but without formal clarification they have opened a grey area that a twitter message can't close.
However that said I will also not ascribe to Bill Blair any level of trust or confidence that when he says anything it is actually backed by best intentions towards any type of continuing legal ownership of firearms by Canadians.


----------



## Jarnhamar (6 May 2020)

Chief Engineer said:
			
		

> Yes a misunderstanding but convinces me that this OIC was put together last minute as they banned an airsoft rifle and a .308 bolt action.



Exactly. I'll wait until I see Bill Blair's explication why the firearms lawyer was wrong.


----------



## Haggis (6 May 2020)

mariomike said:
			
		

> Thank-you for that information, Haggis.


You're welcome, but this isn't the US so a Tweet from a minister who was never a lawyer or a judge doesn't have the force of law.  Strict interpretation is what courts go by.  Case law will determine the validity of the 20mm bore diameter firearms ban.



			
				Fabius said:
			
		

> The question is are we now prohibited by gauge size or bore size?  Since the OIC specifies bore size not gauge we would be going with bore size and hence Bill Blair is actually wrong. I understand that may not have been their intent but until the OIC is redone and reissued it is at minimum a grey area subject to court interpretation.
> 
> A million twitter blasts does not change that. Only a formal redaction and reissuing of the OIC does, although the governments own rules on policy may prevent that.



The end result may be a revised OIC closing all the loopholes identified on social media and withdrawing the hated grandfathering to appease the gun grabbers.

I've heard that Conservative MP Glen Motz will be presenting E-Petition 2341 today.  Too little, too late.  Less than 10% of PAL holders in Canada signed it and the legislation it was intended to oppose has already been passed.

However, a new petition has been created demanding the last ban be rescinded and has garnered over 64000 signatures in 24 hours.  At this rate it could easily surpass E-2341 (175K+).


----------



## Kat Stevens (6 May 2020)

When was the last time a petition actually achieved anything in Canada, other than making those who signed it feel good about "doing something", I mean?  The Canadian government, and this one in particular, is deaf to the will of the people, unless it aligns with their own objectives.


----------



## Jarnhamar (6 May 2020)

Target Up said:
			
		

> When was the last time a petition actually achieved anything in Canada, other than making those who signed it feel good about "doing something", I mean?  The Canadian government, and this one in particular, is deaf to to the will of the people, unless it aligns with their own objectives.



Never?
Trudeau could get handed a petition with 30 million verified signers and he would blabber about 80% of (1500) Canadians from the agnus reid poll anonymously votes to ban guns after being given a confusing question with a bullshit phrase so that's what he's going by.


----------



## suffolkowner (6 May 2020)

Target Up said:
			
		

> When was the last time a petition actually achieved anything in Canada, other than making those who signed it feel good about "doing something", I mean?  The Canadian government, and this one in particular, is deaf to the will of the people, unless it aligns with their own objectives.



I don't think the Liberals are deaf to the will of the people, the gun ban is I think very popular. The problem is that the country is very much split on this issue along I think a primarily urban/rural divide. Thus 70% of the population is making the rules for 70% of the country by area. More and more I have come to question how this dynamic will play out perhaps if the Windsor to Quebec corridor and east were to be split off from Canada West, sort of the Old Canada/New Canada that ERC has talked about


----------



## LittleBlackDevil (6 May 2020)

suffolkowner said:
			
		

> I don't think the Liberals are deaf to the will of the people, the gun ban is I think very popular. The problem is that the country is very much split on this issue along I think a primarily urban/rural divide. Thus 70% of the population is making the rules for 70% of the country by area. More and more I have come to question how this dynamic will play out perhaps if the Windsor to Quebec corridor and east were to be split off from Canada West, sort of the Old Canada/New Canada that ERC has talked about



It's difficult for me to determine how popular it really is. You will see the odd Angus-Reid poll of 1500 people that suggest support, but then I contrast that with online polls that are always overwhelmingly "pro-gun". I recognize that the latter is not as scientific but I think it supports my anecdotal observations that the majority of Canadians are largely indifferent/undecided/neutral and don't see themselves as having a dog in the fight, so they are okay with a gun ban because they see it as not effecting them but are not necessarily all in favour.

However, Toronto seems to be a more strongly "anti-firearms" place and there are a massive number of votes there. Anti-gun legislation certainly won't negatively impact LPC election prospects since their supporters are going to keep voting LPC, the pro-gun people never voted for them anyway, and the majority "in-between" are not invested in the argument.

I don't really see a separation you mention happening anytime soon, but who knows what the future holds. I suspect that the cultural divide will only grow larger not smaller as time moves on.


----------



## Jarnhamar (6 May 2020)

Looks like they banned the *Black Rifle Company BRC15B;*

Line (z.117) in the ban list.

Is that some kind of obscure AR15 that's not turning up on a Google search or did the Liberals just ban a brand of coffee?


----------



## LittleBlackDevil (6 May 2020)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Is that some kind of obscure AR15 that's not turning up on a Google search or did the Liberals just ban a brand of coffee?



Looks like it's an obscure AR-15: https://www.tactical-life.com/firearms/black-rifle-brc-556mm/


----------



## Jarnhamar (6 May 2020)

Whoops my mistake thanks. That's a nice looking rifle.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (6 May 2020)

Haggis said:
			
		

> Minister Blair has reached out to the CSSA and CSAAA via Twitter to set the record straight and to correct their misunderstanding.  .10 and .12 ga shotguns are not banned.



So removable choke shotguns have magically shrunk their bore to less than 20mm?


----------



## Remius (6 May 2020)

Colin P said:
			
		

> So removable choke shotguns have magically shrunk their bore to less than 20mm?



Bad legislation.


----------



## Jarnhamar (6 May 2020)

Looks like the CCFR is taking the Liberal government to court.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_nHoD3DXaXQ


----------



## MilEME09 (6 May 2020)

Facebook posts have no legal standing, expert firearms lawyers have said they are now prohibited, so unless they clarify the OIC in writing. That's how it will be interpreted


----------



## NavyShooter (6 May 2020)

And This is what the organization that identified the issue yesterday had to say today.  I suspect that the Minister has discovered that he's actually incorrect...


----------



## Jarnhamar (6 May 2020)

Enjoying the thought of Bill Blair frantically trying to do damage control. 

Criminal Defence Lawyer(who also handles a lot of firearm cases) Solomon Friedman says it appears the OIC banned 10&12 gauge shotguns as well.


----------



## MilEME09 (6 May 2020)

Gotta hand it to minister Blair, he just handed every rural riding to the CPC


----------



## PuckChaser (6 May 2020)

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> Gotta hand it to minister Blair, he just handed every rural riding to the CPC



It was already there, they didn't piss away any votes they already didn't have. What they are doing though, is risking NDP and BQ seats. Do NDP stalwarts like Charlie Angus stand up and save their seat by voting against the party, or do they fall in line with the urban progressives taking over the NDP? The Liberals also won a few ridings by under 2000 vote margains (same with NDP over Tory and BQ over Tory). Does the firearms lobby get out and run a massive third party campaign against the Liberals/NDP in those battleground ridings? We saw how effective grassroots Ontario Proud was at targetting the provincial Liberals when Doug Ford took power.

Perhaps its time Canadians realized big public sector unions are running our elections with massive ad dollar buys (Working Families Coalition anyone?) where other grassroots causes can start running counter campaigns. Firearm owners have deep pockets and are probably a lot more of a silent majority than the Liberals think.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (6 May 2020)

A lot of union members are gun owners, if the CPC could grow up a bit and realize there is generally a massive divide between union management and union members. Most people on the shop floor are a whole lot less socialist than the people who work fulltime for the unions.


----------



## AbdullahD (6 May 2020)

Colin P said:
			
		

> A lot of union members are gun owners, if the CPC could grow up a bit and realize there is generally a massive divide between union management and union members. Most people on the shop floor are a whole lot less socialist than the people who work fulltime for the unions.



Almost this entire terminal will be voting CPC next election due to this and we are Union.. only the hard union guys here are anti-cpc and they care only about "muh raits" and the cpc being "3v1l" then the reality...

But yeah if the CPC could address us boys on the ground.. they could gain votes.. a lot of us feel the unions are corrupt as hell as well as the company.

To bad everything is polarized these days.
Abdullah


----------



## Remius (7 May 2020)

https://globalnews.ca/news/6902912/justin-trudeau-assault-weapons-erin-otoole/?fbclid=IwAR16T_zA7UB2Q_30BsszitoMcH4t0es_sV8r6TJfEoboQoYefZXFFJoMSh4

So Otoole was military at some point right?

“O’Toole is a decorated military veteran who knows exactly what a “military assault weapon” really is.

“When I joined the military, I learned to fire assault weapons — a fully-automatic C7, which is a variation of a U.S. machine gun,” O’Toole told me.”

Um...


----------



## Kat Stevens (7 May 2020)

Remius said:
			
		

> https://globalnews.ca/news/6902912/justin-trudeau-assault-weapons-erin-otoole/?fbclid=IwAR16T_zA7UB2Q_30BsszitoMcH4t0es_sV8r6TJfEoboQoYefZXFFJoMSh4
> 
> So Otoole was military at some point right?
> 
> ...



Swing and a miss...


----------



## Colin Parkinson (7 May 2020)

I found that most vets from 70-80's really didn't know much about firearms outside of what was directly taught to them. In fact I say "I can shoot pistol despite my army training".


----------



## MilEME09 (7 May 2020)

Remius said:
			
		

> https://globalnews.ca/news/6902912/justin-trudeau-assault-weapons-erin-otoole/?fbclid=IwAR16T_zA7UB2Q_30BsszitoMcH4t0es_sV8r6TJfEoboQoYefZXFFJoMSh4
> 
> So Otoole was military at some point right?
> 
> ...



Well he was an air force officer, how often does a navigator shoot?


----------



## ballz (7 May 2020)

It's so cringy when politicians play up their military experience for more than what it was, and there's no shortage of it... sadly the ones that don't, such as Andrew Leslie, get little attention for what they might have to bring to the table.

It's not quite the Dunning-Kruger effect, but it seems in line with that. It's like humility, which is a characteristic we all need a little more of, works against them.


----------



## Baz (7 May 2020)

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> Well he was an air force officer, how often does a navigator shoot?



He should have shot C7 and pistol once a year while at 423, and C6 on the aircraft more often when at sea.

I hate people being "experts" more than they actually are.  But is this a case of he was trying to make a point, and then what he said not put completely in context?

In any case, the liberals have put the conservatives in an unenviable position.  How do they do what their base wants, without alienating most urban Canadians?


----------



## Good2Golf (7 May 2020)

A for effort in O’Toole’s part, but D for execution. 

If he’d said (and actually done) “I’ve fired the C6 and C9 fully-automatic machine-guns and those are assault weapons meant to incapacitate and kill large numbers of enemy.” it would have been okay.  Swing and a miss, unfortunately.

Saying a C7 is fully-automatic is painfully wrong and when picked apart, doesn’t help the cause. 

As an aside, I consider ‘decorated’ to be something more along the lines of a meritorious or bravery decoration, not just 12+ years of service, but maybe that’s just a personal thing. 

Regarding the Gazette list, did I miss seeing the Diemaco C7 and C8?


----------



## Lumber (7 May 2020)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> Saying a C7 is fully-automatic is painfully wrong and when picked apart, doesn’t help the cause.



Wait, what? 14 years in now, with plenty of refresher trg/boarding party using the C7/C8, and my understanding was that it _IS_ a fully-automatic rifle? Have I been wrong this whole time?

Doesn't the spiel from basic training go something like: "the C7 is a fully-automatic, gas operated, etc..."?


----------



## Stoker (7 May 2020)

Lumber said:
			
		

> Wait, what? 14 years in now, with plenty of refresher trg/boarding party using the C7/C8, and my understanding was that it _IS_ a fully-automatic rifle? Have I been wrong this whole time?
> 
> Doesn't the spiel from basic training go something like: "the C7 is a fully-automatic, gas operated, etc..."?



I believe the C7 is a select fire weapon capable for semi auto and automatic fire. The C9 and C6 is capable of automatic fire only.


----------



## dangerboy (7 May 2020)

The quote from the pam is "It is a direct gas operated, air cooled, magazine fed, rifle capable of firing in semi-automatic or fully-automatic modes."


----------



## YZT580 (7 May 2020)

How to escape the trap?  He said it himself, tell the truth in painful detail outlining statistics for illegal possession weapons being used contrasted with the number of registered firearms used in crime and explaining how the money being used to buy off legitimate gun owners will be applied to stopping or at least reducing the smuggling.  Make it a cost/benefit analysis format that people can understand (like as a cartoon).  For those who really are concerned make available a list of gun crimes by type and legal or illegal possession.  Make it part of a greater campaign of 'Here is how the liberals have deceived you and wasted your money' .  It is only a trap if you don't make the truth readily apparent


----------



## Good2Golf (7 May 2020)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> A for effort in O’Toole’s part, but D for execution.
> 
> If he’d said (and actually done) “I’ve fired the C6 and C9 fully-automatic machine-guns and those are assault weapons meant to incapacitate and kill large numbers of enemy.” it would have been okay.  Swing and a miss, unfortunately.
> 
> ...



“Time to eat crow in this one,” he said, dusting off the grey cells and remembering through the fog that it was the C1 that was semi-auto only. 

Virtual apologies to Erin O’Toole, he was right, I was wrong.  C7 (and C8) is indeed full-auto.  I can’t honestly recall ever firing the C7/C8 full auto. 

Follow-on question from before...I see the Colt C7A1, A2 and CT but no C8 in the Gazette.  Could one still buy a C8 then?

Regards
G2G


----------



## FSTO (7 May 2020)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> As an aside, I consider ‘decorated’ to be something more along the lines of a meritorious or bravery decoration, not just 12+ years of service, but maybe that’s just a personal thing.



I'm like that as well. I've got a chest full of gongs but none are what I would consider at the level of having a "decorated" career.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (7 May 2020)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> “Time to eat crow in this one,” he said, dusting off the grey cells and remembering through the fog that it was the C1 that was semi-auto only.
> 
> Virtual apologies to Erin O’Toole, he was right, I was wrong.  C7 (and C8) is indeed full-auto.  I can’t honestly recall ever firing the C7/C8 full auto.
> 
> ...



No, one cannot by a C8. You never could, because the were always Prohibited, asthey have a selective automatic fire capability. Therefore, it was not necessary to OIC them. Mind you, as TOW 2 missiles and Mortar bombs were already Prohibited under the Controlled Goods or Explosives Acts, TOW missiles launchers and Mortars did not need to be OIC’d either, but looking for coherence/logic from the Liberals on anything firearms related is too much to ask.


----------



## Haggis (7 May 2020)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> A for effort in O’Toole’s part, but D for execution.



I give him "A" for effort and "C+" for execution. Remember who his audience is.  It's not us, it's the great unwashed masses.



			
				Good2Golf said:
			
		

> Regarding the Gazette list, did I miss seeing the Diemaco C7 and C8?



Diemaco was purchased by Colt in 2005.  The C7 and C8 were already prohibited for being selective fire. If you mean the Colt Canada SA20 and SA 15.7, they were done away with on May 1st (para 87 items z223 and z224 of the OIC).


----------



## Kat Stevens (7 May 2020)

Remius said:
			
		

> https://globalnews.ca/news/6902912/justin-trudeau-assault-weapons-erin-otoole/?fbclid=IwAR16T_zA7UB2Q_30BsszitoMcH4t0es_sV8r6TJfEoboQoYefZXFFJoMSh4
> 
> So Otoole was military at some point right?
> 
> ...



When was the M16 ever a machine gun? Words matter.


----------



## LittleBlackDevil (7 May 2020)

Baz said:
			
		

> In any case, the liberals have put the conservatives in an unenviable position.  How do they do what their base wants, without alienating most urban Canadians?



It's a tough tactical problem.

I think one way to go about it is play the "emotional" angle rather than the facts, which often won't get through. Point out to the urban Canadians that the legal firearms owners being vilified and penalized by these laws are their neighbours, people they have BBQs with, people they trust to babysit their children. Play the angle how these people have unfairly had things taken away from them without due process?

I don't know, I'm not a politician. The only other thing I can think of is to just focus on the facts that lawful firearms owners are very safe people and try to educate the urban voter on the very strict firearms laws we already have. Most people I encounter are completely ignorant and assume we basically have a free-for-all firearms wise right now. If they knew what we already had in place they would probably be satisfied with that.

All very difficult to do when the media is not going to help spread such a message at all.


----------



## MilEME09 (7 May 2020)

Target Up said:
			
		

> When was the M16 ever a machine gun? Words matter.



Yea the C7 is a Fully automatic Rifle, he messed up their, and he should know the difference, and doesn't help our case for using facts to trying and win here if he can't get terminology right.


----------



## Jarnhamar (7 May 2020)

I thought I was being clever and registered my AR15 as a receiver only. Wouldn't be able to shoot it but that way I could hand back a little piece of metal. 
Didn't expect the Liberals to out clever me and prohibit Ar15 upper receivers. How sneaky. 

Leslyn Lewis seems like the only Conservative contender to want to make waves about the gun ban.


----------



## Haggis (7 May 2020)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> I thought I was being clever and registered my AR15 as a receiver only. Wouldn't be able to shoot it but that way I could hand back a little piece of metal.
> Didn't expect the Liberals to out clever me and prohibit Ar15 upper receivers. How sneaky.



Not sneaky at all.  After Tony Clement brought the possibility of an OIC into the light last year, which sparked the "Bill Blair Sent Me" rush to purchase ARs and AR lowers, the Minister stated in January that he would not hint about what may be on the list to prevent another buying frenzy and that measures would be included to ensure that no one could circumvent future bans.  To that end, I'm sure the Liberals were mining all types of social media to identify any of the good ideas people came up with to circumvent the ban and incorporated those ideas into the OIC.  In that their stated main effort was to ban the AR, no one should be surprised that they acted to comprehensively do so in an irreversible way.


----------



## ModlrMike (7 May 2020)

Haggis said:
			
		

> ...no one should be surprised that they acted to comprehensively do so in an irreversible way.



Except for the concept of Parliamentary sovereignty, which holds that a parliament cannot bind its successors.


----------



## LittleBlackDevil (7 May 2020)

Haggis said:
			
		

> ...  no one should be surprised that they acted to comprehensively do so in an irreversible way.



I don't see how it's irreversible. The regulations could be changed just as easily by another OIC by a subsequent government. The OIC is actually the most reversible. Passing new legislation would be harder given the composition of the senate which would take several consecutive CPC terms to rebalance.


----------



## Haggis (7 May 2020)

LittleBlackDevil said:
			
		

> I don't see how it's irreversible. The regulations could be changed just as easily by another OIC by a subsequent government. The OIC is actually the most reversible. Passing new legislation would be harder given the composition of the senate which would take several consecutive CPC terms to rebalance.



I used the word "irreversible" as I believe that the Liberals will win a majority next time around and this will become fully entrenched in legislation.

I hope I'm wrong.


----------



## PuckChaser (7 May 2020)

There's an $8B industry that hopes you're wrong too.


----------



## Brad Sallows (7 May 2020)

>In any case, the liberals have put the conservatives in an unenviable position.  How do they do what their base wants, without alienating most urban Canadians?

The Liberals might be in the unenviable position.  "Gun control" strikes me as a vote-killer issue (among firearm owners), not a single-issue winner (among everyone else, except for the activists).  The owners are likely much more numerous than the activists.  "Vote-killer" means an issue that will turn a voter away, irrespective of the remainder of the platform (opposite of "single-issue", which conventionally means a voter will support regardless of all other positions).

A couple more vote-killers (eg. leaving "big oil" to twist in the wind, which matters to workers from Atlantic Canada as much as to AB and SK), and the Liberals could be done, even if the single issue polls look favourable on each issue.


----------



## Kat Stevens (7 May 2020)

Remember not too long ago when everyone on facebook was putting up "Relax, muffins, nobody is coming for your guns" memes?  Good times.


----------



## ballz (7 May 2020)

LittleBlackDevil said:
			
		

> I don't see how it's irreversible. The regulations could be changed just as easily by another OIC by a subsequent government. The OIC is actually the most reversible. Passing new legislation would be harder given the composition of the senate which would take several consecutive CPC terms to rebalance.



No, they cannot reverse it with an OIC. When the Liberals amended the legislation before the election with Bill C-71, it authorized that you could "increase" the classification level (bring it from non-restricted to restricted or prohibited, etc.) but did not authorize the executive to "decrease" it (change it from prohibited to restricted or non-restricted).

So in order to reverse this ban, the legislation would have to be amended. This was obviously a deliberate move to ensure future government's would have a much harder path to unbanning firearms. As you can probably surmise, the only way this is happening is if the Conservatives get a majority and are actually willing to spend the political capital on amending the legislation.


----------



## Good2Golf (7 May 2020)

Perhaps a tit for tat for PM Harper reducing GST from 7% to 5%.  LOC still hasn’t gone there, even though the savvy financial types know reversion to original GST levels is the only way we can come close to addressing the huge deficit the Government is building up.


----------



## Haggis (7 May 2020)

ballz said:
			
		

> No, they cannot reverse it with an OIC. When the Liberals amended the legislation before the election with Bill C-71, it authorized that you could "increase" the classification level (bring it from non-restricted to restricted or prohibited, etc.) but did not authorize the executive to "decrease" it (change it from prohibited to restricted or non-restricted).



Has Bill C-71 or any of it's provisions actually come into force yet? I don't believe so.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (7 May 2020)

Target Up said:
			
		

> Remember not too long ago when everyone on facebook was putting up "Relax, muffins, nobody is coming for your guns" memes?  Good times.



Yea those same people are very quiet now


----------



## PuckChaser (7 May 2020)

Colin P said:
			
		

> Yea those same people are very quiet now



Same with the ABC Veterans...


----------



## ballz (7 May 2020)

Haggis said:
			
		

> Has Bill C-71 or any of it's provisions actually come into force yet? I don't believe so.



I would need a lawyer to explain that piece to me (and I'd be super interested to learn more about it), but from the articles I read, some of it active and some of it is not. I.e. I do not believe any vendors are currently required to partake in the "back-door registry" just yet.

But, given that they used an OIC to do this, that piece must have come into force or they wouldn't have been able to do this with an OIC (PM Harper had previously made it a Parliament decision).


----------



## CBH99 (7 May 2020)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Ne158mb8YM




Is a Star Wars blaster considered prohibited?  restricted?  non-restricted?


----------



## Kat Stevens (7 May 2020)

CBH99 said:
			
		

> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Ne158mb8YM
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Not the first time Lethbridge's Finest have wound up with poop on their boots. Seems to be a bit of a clown college down there.


----------



## Haggis (7 May 2020)

ballz said:
			
		

> But, given that they used an OIC to do this, that piece must have come into force or they wouldn't have been able to do this with an OIC (PM Harper had previously made it a Parliament decision).



An OIC was used to reclassify the cz858 and Swiss Arms rifles (which were to be grandfathered under Bill C-71.  Because the new OIC specifically make reference to the Swiaa Arms rifles as now being prohibited again.  Which, to me means that they were not yet grandfathered by C-71 but were still restricted until the is OIC came into force.


----------



## PuckChaser (7 May 2020)

CBH99 said:
			
		

> Is a Star Wars blaster considered prohibited?  restricted?  non-restricted?



Judging by the competency of whoever drafted the Liberal's OIC, it'll be prohibited in the next legislation.


----------



## CBH99 (7 May 2020)

Target Up said:
			
		

> Not the first time Lethbridge's Finest have wound up with poop on their boots. Seems to be a bit of a clown college down there.




As some folks here know, I now work as a civilian investigator for the Alberta Solicitor General Office, aka SOLGEN.


Maybe about a year ago, I went on a tirade on here about why/how Lethbridge police ended up being such a joke in the law enforcement community.  (As usual, it's a few bad apples that make them all look bad.  Most of them are good people.)

I promptly deleted my post a few hours later, out of caution.



The service leaves MUCH to be desired, especially in terms of their utterly lazy professional standards section.


----------



## mariomike (7 May 2020)

Colin P said:
			
		

> there is generally a massive divide between union management and union members.



Union "management" are union members elected, and rejected, by their fellow union members.



			
				Colin P said:
			
		

> Most people on the shop floor are a whole lot less socialist than the people who work fulltime for the unions.



The emergency services in my town have been unionized since 1918. That does not make us socialists.


----------



## Retired AF Guy (7 May 2020)

CBH99 said:
			
		

> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Ne158mb8YM
> 
> 
> 
> ...



If I heard it correctly it sounds like a police officer with a "assault weapon" told the person filming the episode to move on or be arrested. I could be wrong, but just as troubling.


----------



## ballz (7 May 2020)

Haggis said:
			
		

> An OIC was used to reclassify the cz858 and Swiss Arms rifles (which were to be grandfathered under Bill C-71.  Because the new OIC specifically make reference to the Swiaa Arms rifles as now being prohibited again.  Which, to me means that they were not yet grandfathered by C-71 but were still restricted until the is OIC came into force.



Not if memory, and what I can still find on Google which corroborates with my memory, serves me correctly.

In 2014 when the CZ858 and Swiss Arms rifles were reclassified overnight, the legislation at the time gave police the power to reclassify it, it didn't even require an Order in Council, the RCMP just had to change the FRT. The CPC were governing with a majority parliament, and were as surprised as the rest of us to wake up and find out it had been reclassified. They put in a 5-year amnesty immediately, and went to work on legislation to fix the issue. You may remember the Liberals opposing it at the time, saying that the decision to re-classify firearms should be left with "experts," not politicians... They got the legislation passed (Bill C-42 "The Common Sense Firearms Licensing Act") before the next election was called.

Part of the Liberals campaign in 2015 (although small part) was to change the legislation back so that the "experts" made the call. But, what they really did was change it so that it could be done by OIC so that it was actually them, being "advised" by experts. Hence the Minister for Public Safety having this file, since he is "advised" by the "experts" at the RCMP. That was part of Bill C-71 which passed and received Royal Assent.

Now, I don't understand how something receives Royal Assent but only half of it is in force as of yet (I thought it would be all or nothing), other than I guess the bill just authorized the executive government to do something and they just haven't acted on some parts, but I did read prior to this ban that only "some" of the provisions of Bill C-71 were actually in place. So, for example, the executive has not yet used the authority to create the "back-door registry." That's why that particular piece is not "in force." That's me guessing.


https://ipolitics.ca/2019/06/05/bill-c-71-small-print-allows-prohibited-rifles-at-shooting-ranges-gun-clubs/


> As part of the Liberal government’s attempt to fulfil gun-control promises from the 2015 federal election, Bill C-71 reverses a Conservative decision to overrule RCMP re-classifications for four models of a Soviet-era Czechoslovakian assault rifle that had been modified from an automatic shooting capability to semi-automatic only and imported into Canada.
> 
> The RCMP, which initially classified the Czech-made CZ858 as a non-restricted firearm, which could be used for hunting or range purposes, had reclassified the rifles as prohibited. The RCMP said the guns could be converted back into automatic-fire weapons.
> 
> ...



https://openparliament.ca/bills/41-2/C-42/


> This enactment amends the Firearms Act to simplify and clarify the firearms licensing regime for individuals, *to limit the discretionary authority of chief firearms officers* and to provide for the sharing of information on commercial importations of firearms.
> 
> Lastly, it defines “non-restricted firearm” and gives the *Governor in Council authority to prescribe a firearm to be non-restricted and expanded authority to prescribe a firearm to be restricted.* note the absence of authority to prescribe it as prohibited here



I could be wrong and I can't find it for certain, but I'm pretty sure Bill C-42 made it a Parliament decision to reclassify a firearm to *prohibited*. And so the Liberals would not have been able to pass this through OIC unless that part of the Bill C-71 was in force.

But you could be right, it might have made it that an OIC was required, which then would have allowed the Liberals to use OIC to ban these firearms without Bill C-71 being in force. But right now all signs point me to believe otherwise, and that parts of Bill C-71 are in force.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (7 May 2020)

mariomike said:
			
		

> Union "management" are union members elected, and rejected, by their fellow union members.
> 
> The emergency services in my town have been unionized since 1918. That does not make us socialists.



The shop stewards, but the upper management of a big union have not been in a shop floor for a long time. You also need to read the stuff the labour Congress of Canada puts out.


----------



## MilEME09 (8 May 2020)

https://www.hilltimes.com/2018/03/12/upcoming-gun-legislation-scaring-hell-liberal-caucus-pm-trudeaus-vitriolic-response-grit-mp-harveys-concerns-put/137000



> This MP said the soon to be tabled gun legislation is “scaring the hell out of the Liberal caucus,” especially the ones representing rural ridings.



Sounds like it's the PM's way or no way, wondering who is actually calling the shots in this government


----------



## LittleBlackDevil (8 May 2020)

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> https://www.hilltimes.com/2018/03/12/upcoming-gun-legislation-scaring-hell-liberal-caucus-pm-trudeaus-vitriolic-response-grit-mp-harveys-concerns-put/137000
> 
> Sounds like it's the PM's way or no way, wondering who is actually calling the shots in this government



I would guess the PM is calling the shots?

In fairness, he did campaign on a programme of strict gun control. I'm expecting something like what NZ did since he seems to be ideologically very closely aligned with Ms Ardern down there.


----------



## Jarnhamar (8 May 2020)

[quote author=LittleBlackDevil]

In fairness, he did campaign on a programme of strict gun control.
[/quote]

Just like electoral reform.


----------



## Haggis (8 May 2020)

ballz said:
			
		

> I could be wrong and I can't find it for certain, but I'm pretty sure Bill C-42 made it a Parliament decision to reclassify a firearm to *prohibited*. And so the Liberals would not have been able to pass this through OIC unless that part of the Bill C-71 was in force.[/quote}  I think the reverse is true.  Had C-71 been in force, the executive would not have been able to reclassify a firearm.  In that they did so by OIC, leads me to believe this portion of the Bill is not yet in force.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## MilEME09 (8 May 2020)

Haggis said:
			
		

> According to the RCMP Firearms website, the only provision of Bill C-71 now in force is that which compels The Commissioner of Firearms, if requested by the Government of Quebec, to provide a copy of all records that were in the Canadian Firearms Registry for all non-restricted firearms registered to residents of Quebec on April 3, 2015.



You mean the records that were supposed to be destroyed if I recall correctly?


----------



## LittleBlackDevil (8 May 2020)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Just like electoral reform.



If only firearms was an election promise he broke, too. But I knew that was never one we could bank on him breaking and no one, certainly not members of the LPC, should be shocked that this is coming to pass.

There real question, though, is will they do anything about it, or will they submit to the Party Whip and vote as they're told? I'm not holding my breath ...

Is losing every single rural riding enough to get the LPC out of power though? I suspect that these firearms laws may be popular in urban centres, since that's where all the strongly anti-firearm polls seem to come from.


----------



## Jarnhamar (8 May 2020)

[quote author=LittleBlackDevil]
Is losing every single rural riding enough to get the LPC out of power though? I suspect that these firearms laws may be popular in urban centres, since that's where all the strongly anti-firearm polls seem to come from.
[/quote]

The Liberals have the Toronto core and lots of Quebec.

The Torontonians also think that banning a dozen types of semi-automatic rifles (and mortar tubes, a bolt action 308, airsoft toy, TOW launcher etc..) will stop illegal handguns from being smuggled in from the US and the gangbangers to stop using those illegal handguns in shootings.


----------



## MilEME09 (8 May 2020)

LittleBlackDevil said:
			
		

> If only firearms was an election promise he broke, too. But I knew that was never one we could bank on him breaking and no one, certainly not members of the LPC, should be shocked that this is coming to pass.
> 
> There real question, though, is will they do anything about it, or will they submit to the Party Whip and vote as they're told? I'm not holding my breath ...
> 
> Is losing every single rural riding enough to get the LPC out of power though? I suspect that these firearms laws may be popular in urban centres, since that's where all the strongly anti-firearm polls seem to come from.



Another thing to consider, in the article i posted the rural caucus is no small group. What if some of them quit the party or cross the floor over this to try and save them selves come election time? The article states the rural caucus is 55 members, or about 1/3 of their seats. If even half try to save their own election chances the PM is in major trouble.


----------



## blacktriangle (8 May 2020)

I suspect that there are already enough illegal weapons floating around major population centres to supply the bad guys for years to come. That's assuming that more don't enter the country, which we all know they will. 

I'm assuming that after this ban proves ineffective, you will see the Canadian left do their best to sweep future gun crime and mass-shootings under the rug.


----------



## ballz (8 May 2020)

Haggis said:
			
		

> According to the RCMP Firearms website, the only provision of Bill C-71 now in force is that which compels The Commissioner of Firearms, if requested by the Government of Quebec, to provide a copy of all records that were in the Canadian Firearms Registry for all non-restricted firearms registered to residents of Quebec on April 3, 2015.



Well that was last modified 6 months ago, and it also conflicts with the news release that it links to:

https://www.canada.ca/en/public-safety-canada/news/2019/06/royal-assent-of-legislation-strengthening-gun-laws-to-keep-communities-safe.html



> While some technical amendments came into force immediately, others including licence verification, business record keeping, transportation provisions and grandfathering for CZ/SA owners will come into force by Order-in-Council at a later date.



Like I said, I'd need a lawyer to explain exactly to me how parts of a bill can be in force and other parts not, when the bill as whole has received Royal Assent.... I will interrogate one tomorrow over a beer. I hope you are right (not that it will matter, I am sure the Liberals will make sure that part of the bill is in force before they leave), but I think it's wishful thinking.

On another note, what you linked me too seems crooked as all hell. Were the RCMP not ordered to destroy that data? My memory is foggy, did the courts grant an injunction to stop it from happening and the court case was still pending?


----------



## Kat Stevens (8 May 2020)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Just like electoral reform.



Oo! Oo! And the transparency, don't forget the transparency! Where's that carbon tax money going again?


----------



## daftandbarmy (8 May 2020)

Apologies if this has already been shared...

"Friday’s announcement accomplished two things. It banned a style of weapon that has no place outside of the military, but it also reminded people who care about gun control that the Liberals have been inconsistent and at times illogical in their approach to the issue."

*Trudeau’s hurried assault-rifle ban is a weak half-measure
*
Looked at in isolation, the Trudeau government’s announcement on Friday banning military-style, semi-automatic rifles is a logical and timely move.

Just two weeks ago, the worst mass murder in the country’s history left 22 people dead in Nova Scotia. The killer used a variety of firearms, two of which now join a list of more than 1,500 models and variants that can no longer be used, purchased or sold in Canada.

Like New Zealand, which moved quickly to ban similar weapons after the mosque shootings in Christchurch in 2019, Canada appears on the surface to be acting decisively in the wake of a similar tragedy.

“Canadians deserve more than thoughts and prayers,” Prime Minister Justin Trudeau said Friday.

The inference was easy to understand: Canada is not the United States, and it can and should ban a type of weapon built to do one thing only: kill as many people as possible, as quickly as possible.

For gun-control supporters, the move is long overdue. This page called for the banning of semi-automatic weapons, as well as handguns, last year. Others, including survivors of the École Polytechnique massacre in 1989, have been lobbying for decades for a ban on military-style weapons.

That has now been done, through a simple regulatory change. But it’s not accurate to say the Trudeau government moved swiftly on this issue. It promised similar actions months ago. And Friday’s announcement, by the government’s admission, was prompted by the Nova Scotia killings.

On the ban itself, the government has got many things right. To give gun owners time to adjust, it is putting in place a two-year amnesty. During that period, owners of the newly banned weapons won’t be allowed to use them for any purpose, and won’t be allowed to transport them unless it is to return them to the manufacturer, or to have them deactivated or destroyed.

Once Parliament can reconvene in full, the government will table legislation for a buyback program.

Even more importantly, the government says it will fix the regulatory regime used to impose the ban, so that manufacturers can’t get away with making minor tweaks to illegal models so as to render them legal.

Public Security Minister Bill Blair said the regulations will be “evergreen,” meaning the government should be able to close loopholes that allowed the semi-automatic rifle used in the Polytechnique massacre to remain a legal weapon in Canada 30 years later.

This is more than just a symbolic act. The ban will decrease the number of military-style semi-automatics in circulation in this country, while leaving law-abiding Canadians free to continue to purchase, own and use hunting rifles and sport-shooting guns.

But the ban is far from a guarantee that no high-powered semi-automatic weapon will ever find its way into the wrong hands again.

The killer in Nova Scotia, for instance, was not a licensed gun owner, and some of his weapons appear to have been smuggled into Canada from the United States. To date, the Trudeau government has not brought in any provisions to stop guns from flowing across the border.

As well, the Liberals passed a law in June of 2019 to beef up background checks and record-keeping related to guns sales, but many of its provisions still have not come into force.

Most puzzling of all is the government’s position on handguns. It has no intention of banning them in Canada; at best, as Mr. Trudeau repeated on Friday, Ottawa will give municipalities the power to restrict or ban handguns within their own jurisdictions.

That is an odd choice, and an empty gesture. If a ban on military-style semi-automatics is an effective way to reduce the number of weapons in circulation and available for mass shootings, then surely a similar ban on handguns – which also have no legitimate civilian purpose, and that kill and wound more Canadians every year than any other firearm – would have a similar effect.

Friday’s announcement accomplished two things. It banned a style of weapon that has no place outside of the military, but it also reminded people who care about gun control that the Liberals have been inconsistent and at times illogical in their approach to the issue.

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/editorials/article-trudeaus-hurried-assault-rifle-ban-is-a-weak-half-measure/


----------



## FJAG (8 May 2020)

ballz said:
			
		

> Well that was last modified 6 months ago, and it also conflicts with the news release that it links to:
> 
> https://www.canada.ca/en/public-safety-canada/news/2019/06/royal-assent-of-legislation-strengthening-gun-laws-to-keep-communities-safe.html
> 
> ...



A piece of legislation has in it a "Coming into Force Provision" which details how and when elements of the bill come into force and effect. Most simply say "upon proclamation" but they can be very different and complex. Bill C-71's "Coming Into Force" provision reads as follows:



> Coming into Force
> Order in council
> 22 (1) Section 1, subsections 3(2) and 4(2) and sections 16 and 18 to 21 come into force on a day to be fixed by order of the Governor in Council.
> Order in council
> ...



The Bill itself is here if you wish to look at which provisions are which:

https://www.parl.ca/DocumentViewer/en/42-1/bill/C-71/royal-assent

The Order in Council search database is here: https://orders-in-council.canada.ca/index.php?lang=en

You can easily put in search criteria for recent dates and find the text of the orders in council made. I believe OiC 2020-0298 is the one of interest.



> PC Number: 2020-0298
> 
> Date: 2020-05-01
> 
> ...



Unfortunately the DoJ website for Regulations is only current to April 21st and therefore Regulation SOR/ 2020-0096 is not posted on it. (I think though that the Gazette copy is posted on this thread). This is the link to the Firearms Act which lists the regulations at the bottom and will eventually list the regulation that you are interested in. https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/F-11.6/

 :cheers:


----------



## Jarnhamar (8 May 2020)

The Truth Matters - Bill Blair



*RCMP prohibits first 12-Gauge Shotgun with 20mm Bore Law - CBSA Memorandum backs Firearms Lawyers on Shotgun Ban*
_The deadly evil weapon? An old Iver Johnson single-shot, fixed choke 12-gauge shotgun with a 2 3/4" chamber. That's right, a standard old farm gun. _
http://web-extract.constantcontact.com/v1/social_annotation_v2?permalink_uri=https%3A%2F%2Fmyemail.constantcontact.com%2FFor-Immediate-Release---RCMP-Prohibits-first-12-Gauge-Shotgun-with-20mm-Bore-Law.html%3Fsoid%3D1124731702303%26aid%3D0kYJWd-2OU8&image_url=https%3A%2F%2Fmlsvc01-prod.s3.amazonaws.com%2Ff1ccb3fd501%2F4b135be3-ee53-458a-8029-947d3c8c05d2.jpg%3Fver%3D1582690646000


----------



## MilEME09 (8 May 2020)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> The Truth Matters - Bill Blair
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Hard for him to back pedal on this now. 55 rural Liberal MP's are now very worried about what happens next. Technically if they all jumped ship or crossed the floor, the cons could force the government to resign, and form a government then selves. Now I doubt it will happen but if 55 MPs crossed the floor to the cons suddenly the CPC would have a majority.


----------



## Kat Stevens (8 May 2020)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> The Truth Matters - Bill Blair
> 
> 
> 
> ...



You said "farm". That's where contemptibles live. F**k those guys.


----------



## Haggis (9 May 2020)

ballz said:
			
		

> Were the RCMP not ordered to destroy that data? My memory is foggy, did the courts grant an injunction to stop it from happening and the court case was still pending?



When the Harper government was scrapping the registry, Québec obtained an injunction to preserve data on registered firearms in that province.  They lost, and the data was to have been destroyed in 2015...... however.... we had an election and the Liberals won so maybe the data was never actually destroyed.

Under Bill C-71, that "destroyed" data was returned to Québec and incorporated into their new registry. However, tens of thousands of legal long guns were bought, sold, traded, gifted,  exported, lost or destroyed in the years in between.


----------



## MilEME09 (9 May 2020)

Haggis said:
			
		

> When the Harper government was scrapping the registry, Québec obtained an injunction to preserve data on registered firearms in that province.  They lost, and the data was to have been destroyed in 2015...... however.... we had an election and the Liberals won so maybe the data was never actually destroyed.
> 
> Under Bill C-71, that "destroyed" data was returned to Québec and incorporated into their new registry. However, tens of thousands of legal long guns were bought, sold, traded, gifted,  exported, lost or destroyed in the years in between.



I feel like a ATI request should go in to see if the rest of those documents were actually destroyed


----------



## Jarnhamar (9 May 2020)

In the aftermath of the high river stuff I thought it came to light that the RCMP didn't actually destroy the information (which explained why they searched houses multiple times for firearms).


----------



## MilEME09 (9 May 2020)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> In the aftermath of the high river stuff I thought it came to light that the RCMP didn't actually destroy the information (which explained why they searched houses multiple times for firearms).



Yeah, and I remember one CAF member telling me about it, RCMP enlisted our help for transport, tossed them all on an HL, never to be seen again. They were getting tired from kicking in doors, at one point this soldier kicked a door in for them as in his words he had to "hold the officers purse for him", Grey area as to whether he should of done it. Regardless RCMP have been seen as corrupt on gun issues, I feel like the only way to settle this once and for all is something long and drawn out like a Royal commission on firearms control, a thorough investigation, engaging with stake holds, especially law enforcement and developing a real strategy to combat gun violence in this country.


----------



## Jarnhamar (9 May 2020)

Liberals have said the RCMP are the firearm experts.

https://twitter.com/fivefivesix_ca/status/1258720475649388547?fbclid=IwAR2qdksW6PqsiN-FMGcf8H_K6l1JT_dnmeqYOyBFF_x5-PdDhhkGStXH8hQ

According to the RCMP a few years ago, AR15s are not "military weapons"

Now the Liberals are saying AR15s and any other gun they decide are military weapons.

So which is it?


----------



## blacktriangle (9 May 2020)

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> Yeah, and I remember one CAF member telling me about it, RCMP enlisted our help for transport, tossed them all on an HL, never to be seen again. They were getting tired from kicking in doors, at one point this soldier kicked a door in for them as in his words he had to "hold the officers purse for him", Grey area as to whether he should of done it.



I'm sorry, but most of the above text sounds a little far-fetched to me. You might want to consider your source on that.


----------



## kratz (9 May 2020)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Liberals have said the RCMP are the firearm experts.
> <snip>



Save this nugget for the review of the NS shooting.


----------



## FJAG (9 May 2020)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Liberals have said the RCMP are the firearm experts.
> 
> https://twitter.com/fivefivesix_ca/status/1258720475649388547?fbclid=IwAR2qdksW6PqsiN-FMGcf8H_K6l1JT_dnmeqYOyBFF_x5-PdDhhkGStXH8hQ
> 
> ...



I had a weapons confiscation case in the 1990s where the legal and factual issue was the "convertibility" of three restricted firearms to prohibited ones. The crown brought in two RCMP officers from their firearms lab in Ottawa as experts for the prosecution. I interviewed them prior to the hearing and found them both very knowledgeable and credible (unlike the crown prosecutor handling the case). We won the case largely based on admissions both officers were prepared to make on the stand during cross examination. It didn't hurt that the judge was a Provincial Court Judge with a rural background. (Not sure how well my case would have gone down in Toronto)

I don't sell the RCMP short. (Full disclosure, my daughter is married to one). Like any organization, there are good ones and bad ones and not every RCMP officer is an expert in firearms--far from it, most are casual users at best. On the other hand there are experts within the system who are every bit as knowledgeable as the keenest weapons enthusiast.

When it comes to this whole firearms issue, however, there are two viewpoints: the technical one and the emotional one. The technical viewpoint can be well argued with facts and statistics. The emotional one doesn't care what the facts and the statistics are. Right now the political agenda is being pushed by the emotional agenda largely fueled by a key demographic voter base for the Liberals. Both the DOJ and the RCMP hierarchy are being pushed by this political agenda. I expect along the way there have been briefing notes sent back by the "technicians" and "statisticians" from both the DOJ and RCMP who have, however,  been told by their political masters to get on with what the politicians want. It's far easier to ban a black rifle and claim victory than to reduce gang and drug crime.

 :cheers:


----------



## Jarnhamar (9 May 2020)

FJAG said:
			
		

> I had a weapons confiscation case in the 1990s where the legal and factual issue was the "convertibility" of three restricted firearms to prohibited ones. The crown brought in two RCMP officers from their firearms lab in Ottawa as experts for the prosecution. I interviewed them prior to the hearing and found them both very knowledgeable and credible (unlike the crown prosecutor handling the case). We won the case largely based on admissions both officers were prepared to make on the stand during cross examination. It didn't hurt that the judge was a Provincial Court Judge with a rural background. (Not sure how well my case would have gone down in Toronto)
> 
> I don't sell the RCMP short.



I've always found it a bit weird that the RCMP always seem so stuck on convertibility to automatic weapons. Aside from that they seemed to approve a lot of new guns for Canadian markets, I was always pleasantly surprised at the cool guns they were approving. Many non-restricted too.

I think you're hitting the nail on the head with the RCMP being told what the government wants and to make it happen. The government is willing to laud the RCMP as firearm experts as long as the RCMP say what the government wants and expects them to say.


----------



## kratz (9 May 2020)

[quote author=Jarnhamar]
<snip> The government is willing to laud the RCMP as firearm experts as long as the RCMP say what the government wants and expects them to say.
[/quote]

Of topic, but to the point:
Oh? The largest national veteran's organisation  says what the government wants.

[/cease derail]


----------



## MilEME09 (9 May 2020)

If they wanted to do this right per say, they would of amended the criteria and let the RCMP reclassify based on that.


----------



## Haggis (9 May 2020)

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> If they wanted to do this right per say, they would of amended the criteria and let the RCMP reclassify based on that.



Until they reclassify the wrong ones and the PMO has to step in yet again.


----------



## FJAG (9 May 2020)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> I've always found it a bit weird that the RCMP always seem so stuck on convertibility to automatic weapons. Aside from that they seemed to approve a lot of new guns for Canadian markets, I was always pleasantly surprised at the cool guns they were approving. Many non-restricted too.
> 
> I think you're hitting the nail on the head with the RCMP being told what the government wants and to make it happen. The government is willing to laud the RCMP as firearm experts as long as the RCMP say what the government wants and expects them to say.



I can't speak for every case but the three I had (which were all merged into one trial) came because Canada Customs received the three firearms which were being imported into Canada by a dealer and sent to the RCMP lab for evaluation as to whether they were restricted or prohibited. Two (a Thompson submachine gun receiver and a complete M2 carbine) were originally manufactured as full auto but had modifications to make them semi-auto only. The third was a foreign version of the FN FAL which was built semi-auto but questioned by Customs (and considered easily convertible to full-auto ) because at the time those were treated in a more restricted fashion than the near identical Canadian FN C1A1.

 :cheers:


----------



## Colin Parkinson (9 May 2020)

My friend imported the first batch of Type 97 bullpups, they had been approved by the RCMP for import and given a Firearm reference number. He had all his paperwork in order. Next thing he knows, CBSA seizes the shipment, they decide to do a big dog and pony show with the media about how they stopped a major shipment of smuggled bad guns. Reading the emails ( I read them myself as well) obtained by an ATIP on the CBSA, 1/2hr before the media event, someones asks: "Did they have any paperwork?", a bunch of back and forths and the answer comes back "Yes all in order". The RDG cancels the media event about 10 minutes beforehand. CBSA sends part of the shipment to the RCMP firearms lab. They spend 6 months looking at them and then claim they can be easily converted to full auto, but won't explain how or what equipment they used to do so. Therefore the guns are now prohibited. The guns cannot be sold in Canada and can't be exported or sent back, so eventually my friend has to abandon the shipment and eat most of the costs.

To be fair to the CBSA they honoured the ATIP fully and released information embarrassing to themselves.
The RCMP basically redacted everything to cover their ***, even stuff CBSA released. I like a lot of RCMP members, but I have zero trust of the RCMP as an organization.


----------



## Jarnhamar (10 May 2020)

[quote author=Colin P]

To be fair to the CBSA they honoured the ATIP fully and released information embarrassing to themselves.
The RCMP basically redacted everything to cover their ***, even stuff CBSA released. I like a lot of RCMP members, but I have zero trust of the RCMP as an organization.
[/quote]

That's crazy.



The Bloc won't support the gun ban unless there is no grandfathering clause. That puts Trudeau in a tricky spot.

It's also a bit strange that we haven't heard much more about that shooting in Alberta. RCMP and a gunman exchange gunfire. RCMP suffers a gunshot wound, shooter is killed. No name yet?


----------



## Haggis (10 May 2020)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> It's also a bit strange that we haven't heard much more about that shooting in Alberta. RCMP and a gunman exchange gunfire. RCMP suffers a gunshot wound, shooter is killed. No name yet?



We still haven't heard exactly what firearm was used in Fredericton, either.  That was 18 months ago.  So a delay of a day or two in Alberta is not unexpected.


----------



## Jarnhamar (10 May 2020)

Haggis said:
			
		

> We still haven't heard exactly what firearm was used in Fredericton, either.  That was 18 months ago.  So a delay of a day or two in Alberta is not unexpected.



A picture of the gun the shooter used a few days ago was released almost immediately, as was the information that the gun was non restricted and legally owned.


----------



## NavyShooter (10 May 2020)

The Fredericton shooting was apparently a Norinco M-305 (M-14 clone).


----------



## ballz (10 May 2020)

I can't say this is perfect but have been trying to be less ideological, or at least test what my principles would have me hypothesize against whether the data actually corroborates or proves otherwise. In any case, I did some data searching on Google for homicide rates, civilian firearm ownership rates, etc. There are 54 countries included included in this... the graph is on sheet 1 and the data is on sheet 2, the data highlighted is what is used to create the chart, the rest was just me working to that point.

The line of best fit certainly appears to indicate there is no correlation between civilian firearm ownership and homicide. I know that's what I already thought and probably what a lot of people here thought, but I thought running the numbers would be a good exercise for myself.

EDIT: Some of my friends have been interested so I've gotten a little better at Excel, adding data labels, etc.


----------



## Infanteer (10 May 2020)

The best read I've seen on this is "The Dark Side of Man."  It looks at male violence in Rape, Homicide, War, and Genocide and looks heavily into why different societies or sub-societies are more violent than others.  Guns are a symptom, not a root problem.


----------



## Eaglelord17 (11 May 2020)

ballz said:
			
		

> I can't say this is perfect but have been trying to be less ideological, or at least test what my principles would have me hypothesize against whether the data actually corroborates or proves otherwise. In any case, I did some data searching on Google for homicide rates, civilian firearm ownership rates, etc. There are 54 countries included included in this... the graph is on sheet 1 and the data is on sheet 2, the data highlighted is what is used to create the chart, the rest was just me working to that point.
> 
> The line of best fit certainly appears to indicate there is no correlation between civilian firearm ownership and homicide. I know that's what I already thought and probably what a lot of people here thought, but I thought running the numbers would be a good exercise for myself.



I personally have looked at homicide rates of many countries, what their gun controls are, and if there was any difference after tightening or loosening the laws. My conclusion is gun control really doesn't have a effect one way or another. The UK the violent crime rate went up after the bans were enacted, in Canada rates continued downward on the same trend they have been on for decades. 

Guns don't change someone's mindset, they aren't a drug. If someone wants to kill you, they want to kill you whether or not they own a gun or not. 

I do believe in small controls such as requiring a licence (but it should never expire) that has a background check to verify you aren't a criminal, registering handguns and full autos (to prevent straw buying), but otherwise beyond that it really doesn't have much of a effect.

Up until 1978 we had looser firearms laws than the USA where we could still buy a full auto legally and it only be required to be registered. We never had the violence the States had. The answer isn't the fact that our laws were looser, rather we don't have the social-economic issues the USA has. Switzerland has some of the largest concentration of military rifles in the world, yet one of the lowest crime rates due to the fact the society doesn't have much poverty, drug abuse, and in general most people are very responsible/happy citizens. 

One thing that is 100% verifiable is the tighter the gun control the more likely your country is going to turn into a dictatorship. I can't find a single example of a well armed populace that goes from democracy to dictatorship, but I can find plenty of examples that went from armed, to unarmed, to dictatorship. Easiest example in the last decade is in 2012 Venezuela banned firearm ownership, now they are a dictatorship where the people are starving and unable to receive aid because their country refuses to accept it.


----------



## Haggis (11 May 2020)

NavyShooter said:
			
		

> The Fredericton shooting was apparently a Norinco M-305 (M-14 clone).



I've done a number of searches and couldn't find that information.  Do you have a source?  PM if you like.


----------



## MilEME09 (11 May 2020)

Related, RCMP confirm only one of the 4 guns can be traced to Canada. Logical assumption here is that said firearm is the one stolen off the slain RCMP officer. Other 3 are suspected to be from the US. Really puts a nail against gun control when it looks more like a border control issue.

https://thepostmillennial.com/nova-scotia-rcmp-shooter-used-semi-automatic-handguns-rifles-only-one-traces-back-to-canada/


----------



## Colin Parkinson (11 May 2020)

Eaglelord17 said:
			
		

> I personally have looked at homicide rates of many countries, what their gun controls are, and if there was any difference after tightening or loosening the laws. My conclusion is gun control really doesn't have a effect one way or another. The UK the violent crime rate went up after the bans were enacted, in Canada rates continued downward on the same trend they have been on for decades.
> 
> Guns don't change someone's mindset, they aren't a drug. If someone wants to kill you, they want to kill you whether or not they own a gun or not.
> 
> ...



With 54% of the homicides confined to 2% of the counties. Same in Canada, with most of the homicides in urban area as a result of the drug trade. They know the problem, they know the players, but they are afraid to deal with it.


----------



## ModlrMike (11 May 2020)

Folks are missing the point. It's not about gun control, it's about people control.


----------



## Fabius (11 May 2020)

That is the 2nd most scary part of this whole agenda from the Liberal Party over the last 30 years.

The most scary part is that a wide swath of our citizens in Canada, a liberal democratic country, believe in and support the agenda.


----------



## Haggis (11 May 2020)

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> Related, RCMP confirm only one of the 4 guns can be traced to Canada. Logical assumption here is that said firearm is the one stolen off the slain RCMP officer. Other 3 are suspected to be from the US. Really puts a nail against gun control when it looks more like a border control issue.
> 
> https://thepostmillennial.com/nova-scotia-rcmp-shooter-used-semi-automatic-handguns-rifles-only-one-traces-back-to-canada/


CTV reported that he left his residence with four guns. Two semi-automatic handguns and two semi-automatic long guns. Cst. Stevenson's gun would have been a fifth.


----------



## Halifax Tar (12 May 2020)

Colin P said:
			
		

> With 54% of the homicides confined to 2% of the counties. Same in Canada, with most of the homicides in urban area as a result of the drug trade. They know the problem, they know the players, but they are afraid to deal with it.



I think the underlined portion hits the nail on the head and I am will to expand.  Firearm control is the low hanging fruit.  It’s much easier to enact and then lavish self-praise for holding up an election promise.  

On the other hand actually tackling and reversing socio economic issues and wage disparities that are the actual precursor to violent crime, take years and many more sheckles.  Meaning it’s allot harder to claim another completed electoral promise.  And in today’s era of instant gratification the slow methodical and accurate method will always get trumped by the fast, error prone and inaccurate.


----------



## Jarnhamar (12 May 2020)

Interesting article in the Halifax Examiner.
https://www.halifaxexaminer.ca/featured/he-was-a-psychopath/


The woman nicknamed "Boe" says she moved out of Portapique because of Nova Scotia shooter Gabriel Wortman. She alledges:



> “He was a psychopath”
> A former resident of Portapique says she called the RCMP to tell them the future gunman assaulted his domestic partner and that he had illegal weapons. The police took no action.


----------



## ballz (13 May 2020)

Anybody know if there is any data of RPAL holders published by province? RCMP seems to only publish total PAL holders and doesn't differentiate between RPAL and PAL from what I can find.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (13 May 2020)

and the poopfest continues

Virtue-Signalling Over Workplace Protection: Public Safety Minister Endangers Lives of Road Crews With OIC Firearm Prohibitions

The Minister of Public Safety is supposed to keep Canadians safe, not put their lives in danger, yet Bill Blair’s fatally flawed Order in Council immediately puts the lives of road construction crews and workers in other industries at risk.

Minister Blair’s OIC reclassifies all 8-gauge industrial guns as Prohibited firearms.

The bore of an 8-gauge industrial gun is 0.835 inches or 21.2 mm – outside the government’s 20mm maximum allowed._

These guns are specifically designed for use in the cement, lime, and ferro alloy industries, as well as for road construction crews to take down dangerous rocks and other hazards after blasting operations take place.

Winchester Industrial, a division of Winchester Firearms, manufactures two models of 8-gauge industrial shotguns to meet the needs of these industries:[ii]

The Ringblaster Industrial Tool, a heavy-duty shooting platform
The Western Industrial Tool, a portable alternative to the Ringblaster

Winchester Industrial Equipment was used in Canada for:
cleaning rotary kilns, waste incinerators, silo interiors, and
dropping dangerous outcroppings left behind by blasting during road construction and maintenance.

Not any more.

Now these industries must find a new way to clean these pieces of equipment, and road crews must find some other way of removing dangerous rock outcroppings left over from blasting operations.

The unintended consequences of Public Safety Minister Bill Blair’s incompetence continues to grow, as does the evidence the Liberal government didn’t talk to anyone before implementing SOR/2020-96 and their so-called “military style assault weapons” ban.


Sources:

 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/8_bore
[ii] https://winchesterindustrial.com/equipment.html_


----------



## MilEME09 (13 May 2020)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Interesting article in the Halifax Examiner.
> https://www.halifaxexaminer.ca/featured/he-was-a-psychopath/
> 
> 
> The woman nicknamed "Boe" says she moved out of Portapique because of Nova Scotia shooter Gabriel Wortman. She alledges:


https://thepostmillennial.com/ns-shooter-had-been-reported-to-police-for-domestic-abuse-and-illegal-firearms-years-earlier


It sounds like RCMP never followed up on the 2013 weapons complaint. Makes you wonder how many others aren't followed up on either. With all due respect to the RCMP, they have a lot of great people but it sounds more and more like they aren't handling gun laws as well as we thought.


----------



## Eaglelord17 (13 May 2020)

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> https://thepostmillennial.com/ns-shooter-had-been-reported-to-police-for-domestic-abuse-and-illegal-firearms-years-earlier
> 
> 
> It sounds like RCMP never followed up on the 2013 weapons complaint. Makes you wonder how many others aren't followed up on either. With all due respect to the RCMP, they have a lot of great people but it sounds more and more like they aren't handling gun laws as well as we thought.



I have only been pulled over by cops once when I had firearms. It was one of the most ignorant experiences of my life. Cops are sitting there attempting to lecture me on the 'law' and I was constantly having to correct there incorrect assertations. Remember ignorance of the law is no excuse for you as the citizen but cops who are paid to enforce the law aren't required to know it.


----------



## MilEME09 (13 May 2020)

Eaglelord17 said:
			
		

> I have only been pulled over by cops once when I had firearms. It was one of the most ignorant experiences of my life. Cops are sitting there attempting to lecture me on the 'law' and I was constantly having to correct there incorrect assertations. Remember ignorance of the law is no excuse for you as the citizen but cops who are paid to enforce the law aren't required to know it.



So is this a problem with the laws? or do we have an enforcement issue? I do believe their are gaps in our current firearms laws that need to be addressed, however if their is no enforcement or a lack of knowledge on the part of the police it doesn't matter how good we make the laws.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (13 May 2020)

I've avoided weighing in on this for the most part but I'll just say this:

Violence is a cultural and social issue, firearms can be a tool but they aren't the real issue.

I personally think letting kids sit at home playing violent video games is far more dangerous than any firearm ever will be. Or how about the stupid gangbanger culture that promotes violence, misogyny and anti-authoritarianism?

Nobody is saying we should ban people playing GTA or listening to NWA.

We've got our priorities all backwards. We try and attack symptoms rather than the root cause of our problems.


----------



## OldSolduer (13 May 2020)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Interesting article in the Halifax Examiner.
> https://www.halifaxexaminer.ca/featured/he-was-a-psychopath/
> 
> 
> The woman nicknamed "Boe" says she moved out of Portapique because of Nova Scotia shooter Gabriel Wortman. She alledges:



I said at the beginning of this we would hear statements like that. These spree killers give of behavioral clues that are often ignored or excused.
"He was a quiet guy but a bit off" or things of that nature. 
He had an interest in the RCMP that was over the top to the point of procuring uniforms and dressing up cars to look like RCMP cruisers. And he had help. Maybe it was unintentional but SOMEONE made those decals on the cars.


----------



## Haggis (13 May 2020)

Humphrey Bogart said:
			
		

> I personally think letting kids sit at home playing violent video games is far more dangerous than any firearm ever will be. Or how about the stupid gangbanger culture that promotes violence, misogyny and anti-authoritarianism?


  You're channeling Grossman, aren't you?  He, for one, has been saying this for years.



			
				Humphrey Bogart said:
			
		

> Nobody is saying we should ban people playing GTA or listening to NWA.


  Firearms bans, as we all know, are easy and low hanging fruit.  They affect only a very small minority. If you ban violent video games you affect millions of "regular" people and their immediate families.  Remember, though, the Liberal's other campaign promise to "limit the glorification of violence by changing the way firearms are advertised, marketed and sold in Canada".  Will that legislation target violent video games and their "glorification of violence" that are sold in Canada?  Probably not.


----------



## MilEME09 (13 May 2020)

There have been multiple studies that have not found a credible leak between video games and real world violence. While I think violence in games has desensitized people to violence, i don't believe its a root cause in society, goes goes for violence in tv and movies. Are we about to ban films that contain violence? I doubt that, and violence in film has been around a lot longer then video games, ditto for books.


----------



## lenaitch (13 May 2020)

Eaglelord17 said:
			
		

> I have only been pulled over by cops once when I had firearms. It was one of the most ignorant experiences of my life. Cops are sitting there attempting to lecture me on the 'law' and I was constantly having to correct there incorrect assertations. Remember ignorance of the law is no excuse for you as the citizen but cops who are paid to enforce the law aren't required to know it.



This is a big problem for the road warriors.  The Criminal Code is a really big book full of really important stuff.  Add to that the Controlled Drug and Substances Act and other federal statutes plus a plethora of provincial statutes and it's an awful lot to be an 'expert' on.  Layer on to that the evolving appellate court rulings that impact their enforcement. Obviously, the core stuff needs to be know by heart.  I would imagine most cops know the general law on what defines a restricted or prohibited weapons, but regulations often get into the weeds of particular weapons by name and model.  Up-to-date mobile data helps but only to a point, and often the up-to-date part is the challenge.


----------



## Eaglelord17 (13 May 2020)

lenaitch said:
			
		

> This is a big problem for the road warriors.  The Criminal Code is a really big book full of really important stuff.  Add to that the Controlled Drug and Substances Act and other federal statutes plus a plethora of provincial statutes and it's an awful lot to be an 'expert' on.  Layer on to that the evolving appellate court rulings that impact their enforcement. Obviously, the core stuff needs to be know by heart.  I would imagine most cops know the general law on what defines a restricted or prohibited weapons, but regulations often get into the weeds of particular weapons by name and model.  Up-to-date mobile data helps but only to a point, and often the up-to-date part is the challenge.



I'm not saying it isn't a issue for them, if I had my way Parliament would be going though every law on the books and ditching a lot of obsolete ones that aren't necessary, as well as updating them to make more sense. Personally I am a huge fan of rewriting the criminal code to be much more simplified in layman's terms, reduce the need for lawyers and help citizens follow the laws easier when they can understand what they mean.

Its just interesting how if I accidentally break the law, go to court saying I didn't know it was against the law, it isn't a defence. Yet police officers whose job is to enforce the law, ignorance of it is a defence?

In my case I was target shooting on Crown land with a 90 year old bolt action rifle. I had it trigger locked for transport (above and beyond the legal requirements) and the cop was arguing with me stating things like the action needs to be open for transport as well, and you can't be doing that here and can only target shoot at approved ranges (which is not a legal requirement). 

I don't have a issue with cops not being 100% up to date on the law, there is too much there for one person to know at the moment. I do have a massive issue with when they take their ignorance and pretend it is the law. At that point it is essentially fraud, they are misrepresenting the law to the citizen and trying to force them to comply with their warped version of reality, with the threat of force behind their actions. Refuse to comply they might arrest you even though you are 100% in the right and all that shall happen to them is don't do that again.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (13 May 2020)

The problem with all of these laws is the Government won't actually enforce them.  It will become yet another law on the books, psychopaths will still be able to get their guns as will criminals.

It makes no sense of course but at least the Government can put their hands up and say they did something  :rofl:


----------



## CBH99 (13 May 2020)

Many of you have nailed it.

It's the appearance of doing something.  That's all.


Most of the general public is beyond ignorant of how things actually work, from a practical perspective.  The government can loudly decry "We've banned assault rifles!"   and most of the public will cheer them.  _It's the appearance of doing something._

A 10 round magazine from a 22 rifle, legally obtained, will do just as much damage as 10 rounds from a 22 chambered AR-15 type weapon illegally obtained.  But the public doesn't think that way.


They want headlines, and to be reassured with a false sense of satisfaction that 'the government needs to do something'.  And, alas, the sheep are satisfied.


----------



## Jarnhamar (13 May 2020)

This is awesome.

Bill Blair stumbling through trying to explain why a 12 pound Cannon made in 1816 mounted on a pedestal in Stanley Park that's fired daily is now a prohibited firearm, is like a Grenade Launcher and likens it to mass shootings.

He sounds fucking clueless.

https://twitter.com/CCFR_CCDAF/status/1260628675504082947


Here is the assault weapon in action.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=duv2eYPP-t4&feature=youtu.be


----------



## MilEME09 (13 May 2020)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> This is awesome.
> 
> Bill Blair stumbling through trying to explain why a 12 pound Cannon made in 1816 mounted on a pedestal in Stanley Park that's fired daily is now a prohibited firearm, is like a Grenade Launcher and likens it to mass shootings.
> 
> ...



Funny too cause its a cannon, muzzle loaded and given its age would be considered an antique firearm and thus not require a PAL at all.


----------



## Retired AF Guy (13 May 2020)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Interesting article in the Halifax Examiner.
> https://www.halifaxexaminer.ca/featured/he-was-a-psychopath/
> 
> 
> The woman nicknamed "Boe" says she moved out of Portapique because of Nova Scotia shooter Gabriel Wortman. She alledges:



There was an article todays National Post that has additional details and actually names "Boe."


----------



## lenaitch (13 May 2020)

Eaglelord17 said:
			
		

> I'm not saying it isn't a issue for them, if I had my way Parliament would be going though every law on the books and ditching a lot of obsolete ones that aren't necessary, as well as updating them to make more sense. Personally I am a huge fan of rewriting the criminal code to be much more simplified in layman's terms, reduce the need for lawyers and help citizens follow the laws easier when they can understand what they mean.
> 
> Its just interesting how if I accidentally break the law, go to court saying I didn't know it was against the law, it isn't a defence. Yet police officers whose job is to enforce the law, ignorance of it is a defence?
> 
> ...



I get what you are saying.  It's not unknown that some cops will take the 'it looks illegal so it probably is' approach.  An actual false arrest can have significant civil liability to a member and their department, but I understand what you are saying.  They thought what you were doing was illegal.  It seems you convinced them otherwise but it could have gone badly if heels were dug in.  There is always the recourse of recording all the information then consulting the Crown or doing research then serving a summons.  I have do that when I was uncertain.

Caveat - I'm not a lawyer, but I doubt we will ever see a 'Cole's Note' or 'Law for Dummies' level of legislative writing.  Legislators need to craft laws to speak to actions more than situations, so they have to be written in a certain way.  There is also a writing standard that has evolved over the years (I recall the SCOTUS deliberating on the Oxford Comma).  It's a lot better than it used to be.  There are almost no Latin terms anymore - primarily in the procedural law.  House-cleaning might sort out Witchcraft or Driving a Horse Furiously (Ontario Highway Traffic Act) but sections like those do little more than take up space these days.  A wholesale re-writing of criminal law might have the opposite effect of what you envision.  Most of the commonly-used sections of the Criminal Code have essentially been parsed word-by-word to the SCOC over the years.  A significant re-structuring of the sections would likely start that all over again and guarantee employment for litigators for years to come.


----------



## Jarnhamar (15 May 2020)

Open carry in Merica'


----------



## Jarnhamar (15 May 2020)

Strange we're not hearing anything about that shooting in Alberta. Especially the shooters name. Seems like things that are normally released are being kept secret. I wonder why that is?


----------



## mariomike (15 May 2020)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Open carry in Merica'



See also,

Gun Control: US and Global II  
https://army.ca/forums/threads/128785.0.html
7 pages.


----------



## MilEME09 (15 May 2020)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Strange we're not hearing anything about that shooting in Alberta. Especially the shooters name. Seems like things that are normally released are being kept secret. I wonder why that is?



https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/alberta-rcmp-shooting-blackfalds-1.5570254

27 year old Phillip Blair used a 12-gauge, semi-automatic shotgun. Given no criminal record I am willing to bed he was a PAL holder.


----------



## Jarnhamar (15 May 2020)

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/alberta-rcmp-shooting-blackfalds-1.5570254
> 
> 27 year old Phillip Blair used a 12-gauge, semi-automatic shotgun. Given no criminal record I am willing to bed he was a PAL holder.



Thanks! I didn't see that come across my news feed this morning.


----------



## Jarnhamar (15 May 2020)

https://twitter.com/InfoCSAAA/status/1261314512428453890/photo/2

Looks like RCMP? decided to include a bunch more shotguns as prohibited yesterday. 

With the OIC happening 15 days ago how can they keep adding guns to the list?


----------



## FJAG (15 May 2020)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> https://twitter.com/InfoCSAAA/status/1261314512428453890/photo/2
> 
> Looks like RCMP? decided to include a bunch more shotguns as prohibited yesterday.
> 
> With the OIC happening 15 days ago how can they keep adding guns to the list?



Technically -- and legally-- they can't. The order in council speaks of an "annexed regulation" therefore only the regulation which formed the annex to the OiC is legally enforceable. If the RCMP (or whoever) amend the regulation then the amendment would be "ultra vires" (or done beyond the legal authority) and therefore could be challenged in court.

Any amendment to the "annexed regulation" would require a new OiC to give it proper force and effect.

For the RCMP (or whoever) to make a legal amendment would require a provision in the legislation itself delegating that power to the RCMP (or whoever). I must admit I have not read the legislation to the extent of some others on this thread, but I don't think that such a power is there.

 :cheers:


----------



## Halifax Tar (15 May 2020)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> https://twitter.com/InfoCSAAA/status/1261314512428453890/photo/2
> 
> Looks like RCMP? decided to include a bunch more shotguns as prohibited yesterday.
> 
> With the OIC happening 15 days ago how can they keep adding guns to the list?



Can you post the list here ?  Good ol DWAN...  Cant see twitter...


----------



## Jarnhamar (15 May 2020)

I'm still trying to decipher the list of what's being banned and what's not. I'll try and shore up a list.


----------



## NavyShooter (15 May 2020)

So here's the thing, the OIC gave the notation that 'other arms may be added' (words to that effect).

The problem is, they're adding guns that were previously determined by their own experts to not be variants of the AR-15, and are apparently now prohibiting them because they are a variant now.  

Some of the examples include a bolt action shotgun, as well as some of the Alberta Tactical rifles - the Modern Sporter, and Modern Hunter.  The Macabee Defence SLR is also on the list now.

I am wondering if there's a force afoot in the background which is unhappy with the way this has come and is doing this to give ammunition to the 'pro gun' side by deliberately over-reaching.

On the other hand, I see a list that's being deliberately expanded by a government that seems to be doubling down and doing their damndest to destroy the shooting industry.

I'm dismayed.


----------



## MilEME09 (15 May 2020)

Correct me if I am wrong but does the RCAF still use shotguns to scare off birds near airfields? Do civilian airports do it as well? If so how does this affect them?


----------



## Cloud Cover (15 May 2020)

NavyShooter said:
			
		

> So here's the thing, the OIC gave the notation that 'other arms may be added' (words to that effect).
> 
> The problem is, they're adding guns that were previously determined by their own experts to not be variants of the AR-15, and are apparently now prohibiting them because they are a variant now.
> 
> ...



Probably better to attribute not to malice but ....


----------



## GAP (15 May 2020)

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> Correct me if I am wrong but does the RCAF still use shotguns to scare off birds near airfields?



Hmmm....so that would be them assaulting the birds with an assault shotgun.....no?    ;D


----------



## Jarnhamar (15 May 2020)

NavyShooter said:
			
		

> So here's the thing, the OIC gave the notation that 'other arms may be added' (words to that effect).
> 
> The problem is, they're adding guns that were previously determined by their own experts to not be variants of the AR-15, and are apparently now prohibiting them because they are a variant now.
> 
> ...



Government is out of control. 

They're taking their marching orders from the ladies at  PolySeSouvient. 







Guns that were "missed" in the first wave (were seeing that now with the over night frt updates) 
Central storage with talk of a hand gun ban
No judicial review or any form of protest to the laws. 
No grandfathering. 
And the most fucked up thing, away to ban guns forever with no way to change the law in the future. Someone should tell them laws that you can't change aren't democratic.


----------



## lenaitch (15 May 2020)

Banning judicial review?  Banning protest?  Binding future parliaments?  My Gawd.  What are they teaching people these days?

I've admittedly not been following the issue that closely - most of what I've learned has been from this forum - but the government's actions seem to be a royal screw-up; more incompetent than purposeful but I could be wrong.  Many bridges-too-far.  The general media coverage has been very minimal.  In more normal times and with a competent opposition, I think things would be much different.


----------



## Jarnhamar (15 May 2020)

OIC was the beginning. The bans are on going.




> CSSA
> 
> For Immediate Release –
> May 15, 2020
> ...


----------



## MilEME09 (15 May 2020)

He certainly has egg on his face now, resign? I doubt he will, even if he does I bet he will be given a nice appointment after the dust clears.


----------



## AbdullahD (16 May 2020)

With out of touch sensationalist such as this guy, who in my opinion and only my opinion and no one elses.. he is blathering non-sensical gibberish.

I think the bans will continue. If they keep banning firearms I legally obtained and enjoy shooting, I will leave Canada if it does not get overturned. But for now they are ban happy.

Abdullah

https://www.cbc.ca/news/opinion/opinion-gun-control-handguns-1.5532173


Staff edit to reflect site/political posting policies


----------



## Haggis (16 May 2020)

His "out" will be the provision in the OIC that other firearms may be added. Further study has concluded that needed to happen.  People on gun blogs and social media have to stop giving him ideas of what escaped the ban and would, therefore, make a nice addition to the list.


----------



## Haggis (16 May 2020)

AbdullahD said:
			
		

> With out of touch sensationalist such as this guy, who in my opinion and only my opinion and no one elses.. he is blathering non-sensical gibberish.
> 
> I think the bans will continue. If they keep banning firearms I legally obtained and enjoy shooting, I will leave Canada if it does not get overturned. But for now they are ban happy.
> 
> ...


The military, outside of some specific occupations and specialties, is p!ss poor at training people how to properly use a pistol. His credibility is undermined significantly by assertion that general military training is sufficient while also stating that "Military medics know well that when you draw a pistol in a panic, the first round sometimes goes through your foot. Or an innocent bystander."  This is a classic rookie mistake which is corrected by training.

I have trained hundreds and hundreds of CAF members and law enforcement officers on how to use a pistol. I shoot competitively and am a club level safety instructor outside of work. I have NEVER seen this happen.  Maybe I'm just lucky, but I have also failed some pretty scary people, the types you would expect to have this happen, but didn't.  

Nope, he has no credibility with me. But the PM and Minister Blair will take him at his word.

Staff edit to reflect site/political posting policies in quote


----------



## AbdullahD (16 May 2020)

Haggis said:
			
		

> The military, outside of some specific occupations and specialties, is p!ss poor at training people how to properly use a pistol. His credibility is undermined significantly by assertion that general military training is sufficient while also stating that "Military medics know well that when you draw a pistol in a panic, the first round sometimes goes through your foot. Or an innocent bystander."  This is a classic rookie mistake which is corrected by training.
> 
> I have trained hundreds and hundreds of CAF members and law enforcement officers on how to use a pistol. I shoot competitively and am a club level safety instructor outside of work. I have NEVER seen this happen.  Maybe I'm just lucky, but I have also failed some pretty scary people, the types you would expect to have this happen, but didn't.
> 
> Nope, he has no credibility with me. But the PM and Minister Blair will take him at his word.



Yep, which pisses me off to no end. People with no knowledge, understanding or experience and creating laws, policies and programs.. that the rest of us are forced to follow.

What happened to educated, experienced, experts helping form laws and policies.

This indicates a downfall in society to me.
Abdullah


----------



## Colin Parkinson (16 May 2020)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> I'm still trying to decipher the list of what's being banned and what's not. I'll try and shore up a list.



online FRT list https://www.armalytics.ca/?size=n_5_n


----------



## Good2Golf (16 May 2020)

Yet nothing for mental health...because, you know, Marc Levine was a happy, well adjusted person and had no pre-identifiable I’ll will towards anyone, women or men alike.


----------



## Good2Golf (16 May 2020)

Yet nothing for mental health...because, you know, Marc Lepine was a happy, well adjusted person and had no pre-identifiable I’ll will towards anyone, women or men alike.

:not-again:


----------



## ModlrMike (16 May 2020)

I know it's generally bad form to quote yourself, but if you want to understand the LPC end state on gun control:



			
				ModlrMike said:
			
		

> If you think this is about guns, you're not paying attention:
> 
> "Disarming the Canadian public is part of the new humanitarian social agenda"
> "Canada will be one of the first unarmed countries in the world."
> ...


----------



## mariomike (16 May 2020)

AbdullahD said:
			
		

> I will leave Canada if it does not get overturned.



Wherever you go, avoid Singapore.  
https://sso.agc.gov.sg/Act/AOA1973


----------



## Jarnhamar (16 May 2020)

Andrew from Rebel Media asks Toronto 'Whats an assault rifle?'

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OyerGiQ2OSo


----------



## Cloud Cover (16 May 2020)

“ No, I don’t know anything about it .... umm, ahhh ... I still think that all guns should be banned whether they are rifles or ...””

That right there is the sentiment that hast be defeated at the ballot box, so good luck with that because we are outnumbered.


----------



## MilEME09 (17 May 2020)

CloudCover said:
			
		

> “ No, I don’t know anything about it .... umm, ahhh ... I still think that all guns should be banned whether they are rifles or ...””
> 
> That right there is the sentiment that hast be defeated at the ballot box, so good luck with that because we are outnumbered.



The only way to defeat it, in my opinion is to find common ground and convince people that you have a real plan that is better then just banning. Target organized crime, more tools for CBSA to try and stop smuggling of firearms. Most gun crime is committed with hand guns from the data I have read, if you can convince toronto you can get hand guns off the streets, you'll have their vote.


----------



## AbdullahD (17 May 2020)

mariomike said:
			
		

> Wherever you go, avoid Singapore.
> https://sso.agc.gov.sg/Act/AOA1973



As I may have stated here, I am in the process of purchasing investment houses in the USA mostly in OH and AL. Have friends in both states and I can very easily get work in both states as well, I find this ban extremely undemocratic and setting an extremely dangerous precedent. I have the money, the capability and werewithal to move. I plan on starting sailing fall 24 or spring 25 (due to the keel issue I am having more likely spring 25).

All I would change is my primary home becomes another investment and when I am done sailing, I will apply for a position with CN rail in the USA.

I am not spouting hot air here, I am deadly serious. 
Abdullah


----------



## Kat Stevens (17 May 2020)

AbdullahD said:
			
		

> As I may have stated here, I am in the process of purchasing investment houses in the USA mostly in OH and AL. Have friends in both states and I can very easily get work in both states as well, I find this ban extremely undemocratic and setting an extremely dangerous precedent. I have the money, the capability and werewithal to move. I plan on starting sailing fall 24 or spring 25 (due to the keel issue I am having more likely spring 25).
> 
> All I would change is my primary home becomes another investment and when I am done sailing, I will apply for a position with CN rail in the USA.
> 
> ...



This is their tipping point. If this is allowed to stand, it will give them free reign to infringe as much as they like without consequence. I'm starting to think that if I could get out of my house what I owe on it, I'd be gone.


----------



## MilEME09 (17 May 2020)

Target Up said:
			
		

> This is their tipping point. If this is allowed to stand, it will give them free reign to infringe as much as they like without consequence. I'm starting to think that if I could get out of my house what I owe on it, I'd be gone.



Sadly the public will stay quiet most likely, ND we aren't like say Turkey where the military has a history of stepping in when the people are being infringed of their rights under the constitution


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (17 May 2020)

Only one way to defeat this, get team blue in to Office.

The Cons desperately need some leadership though.


----------



## MilEME09 (17 May 2020)

Humphrey Bogart said:
			
		

> Only one way to defeat this, get team blue in to Office.
> 
> The Cons desperately need some leadership though.



And a plan


----------



## dapaterson (17 May 2020)

Humphrey Bogart said:
			
		

> Only one way to defeat this, get team blue in to Office.
> 
> The Cons desperately need some leadership though.


Their leadership selection process encourages candidates to appeal not to the wider public but to factions within the party.

With little space between the two Dal law grads, they have to tailor their messages to be second and third choices for Sloan and Lewis supporters, which are messages that would tend to alienate centrist voters who might otherwise give Team Blue a chance.

As well, remember, Team Blue did not amend the CCC or Firearms Act, and left classification to regulation, not legislation.  They had ample opportunity to amend the framework for firearms in Canada, and chose to do nothing (except to routinely use it as a tool for fundraising).


----------



## PuckChaser (17 May 2020)

Here is Erin O'Toole's townhall with the CCFR. 42 min video, and he answers questions from the general public later on in the video. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bK3huhPM9RA


----------



## Jarnhamar (17 May 2020)

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/alberta-rcmp-shooting-blackfalds-1.5570254
> 
> 27 year old Phillip Blair used a 12-gauge, semi-automatic shotgun. Given no criminal record I am willing to bed he was a PAL holder.



He sure was a pal holder. The police immediately make sure everyone knew that. Strange his name wasn't released for 9 days though, then name gets released from the family in a very official sounding release from the CBC and a veteran crime and justice reporter.

Feels like there is a lot of effort to keep this shooting out of the news and put it in the past as quickly as possible. I wonder why that is.


----------



## Jarnhamar (17 May 2020)

[quote author=dapaterson]

As well, remember, Team Blue did not amend the CCC or Firearms Act, and left classification to regulation, not legislation.  They had ample opportunity to amend the framework for firearms in Canada, and chose to do nothing (except to routinely use it as a tool for fundraising).
[/quote]
That's the sad truth about the CPC. For voters whom firearms are a major issue, who else are they going to vote for? Conservatives know they have that vote and Liberals know they'll never get it.

Conservatives had 10 years to make changes but they kicked the can down the road. Sure they got rid of the LGR but really why wouldn't they? It was costing them money and it wasn't working a intended. Plus the RCMP have shown they ignored the order to hit delete, so hardly a win.

If the population at large wasn't so retarded when it comes to firearms I would go for registering every firearm in Canada and treat their buying and selling like handguns and AR15s were treated. RCMP approves it. That would require a lot of trust that the government wouldn't arbitrarily ban them of course.

Now we seen them arbitrarily banned on May 1st and 15 days later the Liberals observed there was no protests or major heartache for them so they're sliding more banned firearms onto the list over night. By the end of this firearms that are black, have plastic on them, use magazines or are semi-automatic will be banned.


----------



## Jarnhamar (17 May 2020)

https://www.facebook.com/WanstallsFirearms/posts/3359823587379777

Another 255 firearms allegedly being banned.


----------



## Jarnhamar (17 May 2020)

I wonder when we'll see this new NZ law pop up in Canada

*Coronavirus: New Covid-19 law gives police power to conduct warrantless searches amid civil liberty concerns*
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/health/coronavirus/121504938/coronavirus-new-covid19-law-gives-police-power-to-conduct-warrantless-searches-amid-civil-liberty-concerns

And no I didn't post this in the wrong section.


----------



## Haggis (17 May 2020)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> As well, remember, Team Blue did not amend the CCC or Firearms Act, and left classification to regulation, not legislation.  They had ample opportunity to amend the framework for firearms in Canada, and chose to do nothing (except to routinely use it as a tool for fundraising).



Should the Cons get elected, any pro-gun legislative changes they attempt to the CCC or Firearms Act will die in the Liberal dominated Senate.  

Both the OIC and C-71 are here to stay unless the SCOC strikes the OIC down or Canadians wake up to the true economic impact of this, which is significant.  Sadly, as Jarnhamar mentioned earlier, the economic impact and job losses associated with the OIC bans will be lost in the post COVID-19 recession/depression.  Our only hopes are that hunters and farmers take note that they are at risk of losing their guns now, too, or the court challenges succeed, and those are both long shots (pun intended).


----------



## Halifax Tar (17 May 2020)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> https://www.facebook.com/WanstallsFirearms/posts/3359823587379777
> 
> Another 255 firearms allegedly being banned.



Can anyone post this list ?  Stupid ship borne DWAN wont open anything... Other than Army.ca of course  

I am still at sea until the end of July, at the earliest, I would like to know how many firearms I stand to lose...


----------



## Jarnhamar (17 May 2020)

They didn't put up a list but I will when I see one.


----------



## Halifax Tar (17 May 2020)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> They didn't put up a list but I will when I see one.



Thanks brother!


----------



## Jarnhamar (17 May 2020)

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> Thanks brother!



*I could be wrong* but from what I understand after years of pressure the RCMP "obeyed" a court order to make the FRT system more accessible to the public. The RCMP however did it with a twist, the FRT system has 3 levels of accessibility. For them it's updated every day. For businesses it's updated on a weekly basis, so a business could theoretically be selling a non-restricted firearm that was prohibited 5 days ago. For the public it's even longer for it to be updated so today or in two weeks when I go shooting I could be using a prohibited gun and have no idea.

It's causing a confusion over what businesses are seeing as now prohibited and what the public is seeing. 
What *IS* plain to see is that the RCMP are adding more and more firearms to the OIC list of banned firearms.

It seems that Search Results PolySeSouvient is coming up with guns they want to see banned, sending that to Bill Blair and he's directing the RCMP what to ban next.

There's guns that the RCMP previously deemed to be "NOT based on AR15s platforms" this non-restricted which they're now deeming as "AR15 platforms" or however they're wording it.

Everything I'm seeing and hearing is suggesting beat cops and even chiefs think this is stupid, politically driven and not going to prevent crime.


----------



## mariomike (19 May 2020)

> Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police
> 
> May 1, 2020
> 
> ...


----------



## Eaglelord17 (19 May 2020)

Absolutely disgusting. The police have no business lobbying the government for or against any laws put in place.


----------



## Navy_Pete (19 May 2020)

Eaglelord17 said:
			
		

> Absolutely disgusting. The police have no business lobbying the government for or against any laws put in place.



Why not?  The police are part of the front line enforcing the laws, there should be feedback if laws are/aren't working as intended, or if things could be done better in some areas.

The statement also actually isn't even supporting the legislation, they are just saying they need to review it to see if it will actually do anything (which is pretty neutral, and the opposite of a ringing endorsement).


----------



## Haggis (19 May 2020)

Navy_Pete said:
			
		

> Why not?  The police are part of the front line enforcing the laws, there should be feedback if laws are/aren't working as intended, or if things could be done better in some areas.
> 
> The statement also actually isn't even supporting the legislation, they are just saying they need to review it to see if it will actually do anything (which is pretty neutral, and the opposite of a ringing endorsement).



Agreed.  They also have to figure out how they will enforce it.  Little things like measuring the bore of a shotgun correctly and consistently.


----------



## Jarnhamar (19 May 2020)

Navy_Pete said:
			
		

> Why not?  The police are part of the front line enforcing the laws, there should be feedback if laws are/aren't working as intended, or if things could be done better in some areas.



Should the CAF lobby the government?


----------



## MilEME09 (19 May 2020)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Should the CAF lobby the government?



You mean we don't behind closed doors? Bit of apples to oranges. The CAF is directly employed by the federal government, with the exception of the RCMP, police forces around the country are not. They are the experts on law enforcement, not the GoC. I believe there input is very much needed, and there are no rules i am aware of preventing them from doing so, unlike rules around the CAF and commenting about the government.


----------



## Jarnhamar (19 May 2020)

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> You mean we don't behind closed doors? Bit of apples to oranges. The CAF is directly employed by the federal government, with the exception of the RCMP, police forces around the country are not. They are the experts on law enforcement, not the GoC. I believe there input is very much needed, and there are no rules i am aware of preventing them from doing so, unlike rules around the CAF and commenting about the government.



Personally I think citizens should decide what laws work and what laws don't. Keep what works, change what doesn't. 

The government didn't seem to care much when the experts on law enforcement disagreed about legalizing pot.


----------



## MilEME09 (19 May 2020)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Personally I think citizens should decide what laws work and what laws don't. Keep what works, change what doesn't.
> 
> The government didn't seem to care much when the experts on law enforcement disagreed about legalizing pot.



Problem is your average citizen doesn't know much about the law


----------



## Haggis (19 May 2020)

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> They are the experts on law enforcement, not the GoC.


  Ask a Liberal.  They will disagree.

The police serve the state and the state tells them what laws to enforce.  The police have to figure out how to do that, in concert with the Crown, so that when charges laid they are defensible in court. 

Cannabis is a perfect example. Despite the misgivings of the LE community, the state decreed that cannabis was now legal and the police were left to figure out how to "make it work".


----------



## Jarnhamar (19 May 2020)

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> Problem is your average citizen doesn't know much about the law



I think you're right and I think that's an even better reason why laws shouldn't be left to the government and police to decide.

I agree that police are experts on how to enforce the law, I think them deciding laws (as an institution) is a conflict of interest.



Federal Court approves next $100M RCMP sexual harassment class-action lawsuit
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/rcmp-class-action-lawsuit-women-non-policing-roles-approval-order-1.5493266
Court clears $900M settlement for military and civilian victims of sexual misconduct
https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/national-defence-armed-forces-sexual-assault-settlement-1.5372919

Both of us are pretty shitty when it comes to how we treat people.


----------



## RangerRay (19 May 2020)

From the Alberta Game Warden Association Facebook page:

https://www.facebook.com/AlbertaGameWardenAssociation/

“On May 1, 2020, Prime Minister Trudeau and the Liberal government implemented a prohibition of over 1500 firearms through an Order in Council (OIC). 

The Alberta Game Warden Association (AGWA) wishes to clearly state that they oppose the OIC Firearms Ban and believes that any such issues should be taken through the democratic processes which our officials have been elected and sworn to uphold. 

The Alberta Game Warden Association consists of Fish and Wildlife officers who strive to conserve the natural resources of Alberta by ensuring compliance with resource related activities such as hunting, trapping and fishing and to provide public safety by managing dangerous wildlife. AGWA believes it is critically important to show support for their stakeholders, specifically lawful firearms owners in the hunting, trapping,  sport competition/target shooting and ranching community. 

The OIC Firearm Ban lacks evidence-based decision making as shown in the following paragraphs. 

The OIC claimed to be banning Military Grade Assault Weapons. That fundamental premise of the OIC is flawed as Military Grade Assault Weapons refers to fully automatic firearms with high capacity magazines, both of which were already prohibited in Canada in 1977 and 1992 respectively. None of the firearms that were banned are capable of firing in fully automatic mode (one depression of the trigger allowing for continuous firing) or legally able to contain more than five rounds in the magazine.

The Federal Liberal OIC further states that none of the firearms banned are commonly used for sporting or hunting purposes. However, the restricted firearms that are now prohibited, have been used for decades for sporting and competition purposes and were licensed by the Federal government for this very purpose.   The non-restricted firearms that were banned under the OIC are common hunting rifles for both predators and large game animals. This was demonstrated by the fact that an exemption was included in the OIC allowing Indigenous people to continue to hunt for subsistence purposes with these very same firearms.

In addition to banning 1,500 firearms by specific make and model, the firearm ban includes the banning of firearms with a bore of 20 mm or more. Most 10 and 12 gauge shotguns with a removable choke have a bore of 20 mm or more, and would therefore be banned under the new regulations imposed.  The intent of making these firearms may not be there at this moment.  However, we believe that this oversight is a key example why this issue should have gone through the Parliamentary process.  Instead, the lawful outdoor community members such as upland bird hunters or waterfowler’s have become criminals for possession of certain shotguns. 

Statistics Canada figures show licenced gun owners are among the least likely citizens to commit a violent crime. New public safety measures should target the people responsible for criminal activity, tighten bail release conditions and address the socio-economic environments that give rise to violent life styles. Criminals who have illegally obtained firearms will not be impacted by this confiscation regime.

The Vancouver City Police Chief, who is the head of the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, was asked in 2019 whether he felt Canada needed further gun controls.   He said, “Canada already has strong firearms regulations and no other law is required. The firearms laws in Canada are actually very good right now. They’re very strict.” 

The Alberta Game Warden Association urges the Federal Liberal Party to repeal the OIC Firearm Ban immediately to ensure Canadian citizens can continue to use these firearms responsibly and not face criminal prosecution for possessing lawfully acquired property. Limited government resources should be focused on taking action against the root causes of violent crime, such as gang violence, firearms obtained illegally or those which are illegally smuggled into Canada.“


----------



## Eaglelord17 (20 May 2020)

Navy_Pete said:
			
		

> Why not?  The police are part of the front line enforcing the laws, there should be feedback if laws are/aren't working as intended, or if things could be done better in some areas.
> 
> The statement also actually isn't even supporting the legislation, they are just saying they need to review it to see if it will actually do anything (which is pretty neutral, and the opposite of a ringing endorsement).



The police should not be providing feedback unless its related to equipment needed to do the job. 

They are not parliament, they do not know the intent behind the laws and their job is simply to enforce the law to the letter. Anything else is a overreach of their jurisdiction. They also are not supposed to be involved in the political process, they are not elected and hold no authority in that regard. When unelected bureaucrats (basically what a police chief is) start dictating, supporting, or not supporting, the laws we as a nation have (especially when they are the ones to be enforcing said laws), there a issue with the democratic process.

If they have a issue with it, they should resign but most lack the fortitude to do so today.


----------



## Navy_Pete (20 May 2020)

Eaglelord17 said:
			
		

> The police should not be providing feedback unless its related to equipment needed to do the job.
> 
> They are not parliament, they do not know the intent behind the laws and their job is simply to enforce the law to the letter. Anything else is a overreach of their jurisdiction. They also are not supposed to be involved in the political process, they are not elected and hold no authority in that regard. When unelected bureaucrats (basically what a police chief is) start dictating, supporting, or not supporting, the laws we as a nation have (especially when they are the ones to be enforcing said laws), there a issue with the democratic process.
> 
> If they have a issue with it, they should resign but most lack the fortitude to do so today.



So the Big Giant Heads make a policy. People at the front end read the policy, and are looking at it to see if it's a workable policy. If the people at the front end have feedback, they should just lump it and do what the policy says (even if it's unworkable), or quit?  That's helpful, and the kind of forward thinking that has kept the CAF retention numbers sky high.

Typically this kind of order would have been rolled out under legislation, that would have involved all kinds of mechanisms for things like community input, feedback from different stakeholders (like the police departments, border agents, firearms groups etc). They did the run around on all that by doing it via an OIC, so how else are people like the frontline workers now responsible for enforcing the order supposed to provide input?

I agree that police may have a conflict of interest in some areas, but when you are creating top down policy like this and slap down something that could potentially turn a lot of Canadians into unwitting criminals, it's really stupid to not talk to people first. Also, if their intent is to take guns out of the hands of criminals, they should probably talk to the people that actually deal with criminals to see what would work, and there may be other options that would actually do that, while costing far less. There are lots of ways to balance that conflict of interest and take input from different sources into consideration, but they deliberately skipped that here.

The justice system is a team sport, and not considering how it will work at the coal face is just dumb. The fact that there are a bunch of shotguns being arbitrarily added on is a good example of something that could have been avoided, and also creates an obvious chink in the armour for a court challenge. Making good laws is hard, and virtually impossible to do from a bubble totally removed from the day to day application.


----------



## lenaitch (20 May 2020)

In my humble view, police leadership providing input on proposed legislation impacting law enforcement is no less valid and appropriate then the medical community providing input on medically-related legislation.  Bodies such as the CACP are means to focus the input from across the profession and draw input from provincial associations.  It is input, to be accepted in whole or part, or ignored, at the pleasure of the legislators.  Organizations such as the AGWA are not police leadership;  they are either an informal or formal organization representing the interests of its members, similar to police bargaining units.


----------



## Jarnhamar (20 May 2020)

[quote author=Navy_Pete]*could potentially* turn a lot of Canadians into unwitting criminals,
[/quote]

Aren't we criminals though? Over 100,000 Canadians are in possession of prohibited items without a license.  What's the difference between my prohibited AR15 and a prohibited 30 round magazine? Or switchblade? Or full auto Uzi? The amnesty letting us be criminals without punished for a little while? Still seems like we're technically criminals.


----------



## Navy_Pete (20 May 2020)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Aren't we criminals though? Over 100,000 Canadians are in possession of prohibited items without a license.  What's the difference between my prohibited AR15 and a prohibited 30 round magazine? Or switchblade? Or full auto Uzi? The amnesty letting us be criminals without punished for a little while? Still seems like we're technically criminals.



Yeah, I agree, it's BS.  I'm not in anyway affected personally, but still fundamentally disagree with the approach, as well as the breadth of the ban.  Maybe that was to prevent any additional sales and increase the buy-back cost?  Either way, should have been better handled given this has been on their radar since the Montreal mosque shooting, and some of those gun bans are based on incidents that happened 30 years ago (under a different rule set).

I think addressing the underlying issues of mental health, socio-economic disparity and others that lead to gun crime, as well as some real, concrete measures to beef up illegal guns from getting across the border would be more effective. Also, treating domestic abuse as a possible precusor to more serious crimes and putting more to addressing it(and providing social support for the victims) wouldn't hurt. Those are too hard though, and dont' win any shiny election line promises, so lets make scary tactical looking weapons illegal and ignore the real problem.


----------



## Jarnhamar (21 May 2020)

Navy_Pete said:
			
		

> Yeah, I agree, it's BS.  I'm not in anyway affected personally, but still fundamentally disagree with the approach, as well as the breadth of the ban.


Yea man. Sorry for all the spam. I get I'm not a card carrying Liberal but still, the audacity of what they're doing creates a real sense of betrayal by the government.

*rephrased.


----------



## Haggis (21 May 2020)

The RCMP have posted an update regarding .10 and .12 ga shotguns.  It's interesting that it took them almost two weeks to figure out how to word this in order to save face for the Liberals.  It reads:

"*Important notice: Update on 10 and 12 gauge shotgun classification under the new prohibition*
On May 1st, 2020, the Government of Canada announced that it had made amendments to the Regulations Prescribing Certain Firearms and Other Weapons, Components and Parts of Weapons, Accessories, Cartridge Magazines, Ammunition and Projectiles as Prohibited, Restricted or Non-Restricted (SOR/98-462) [Classification Regulations] prescribing certain firearms as prohibited. One of the categories of the newly prohibited firearms include "Any firearm with a bore diameter of 20 mm or greater" (s. 95 of the Classification Regulations).

The Canadian Firearms Program (CFP) of the RCMP adheres to the Association of Firearm and Tool Mark Examiners' (AFTE) definition for bore diameter measurements. "The interior dimensions of the barrel forward of the chamber but before the choke." (Glossary of the Association of Firearm & Tool Mark Examiners by the AFTE Standardization Committee, 1st Ed. 1980). This is reflected in the RCMP's Firearms Reference Table (FRT) which clearly states that "...in shotguns, diameter of the barrel forward of the chamber but before the choke." The CFP also recognizes the Sporting Arms and Ammunition Manufacturers' Institute (SAAMI) standards regarding firearms and ammunition. The SAAMI chamber specifications for 10ga and 12ga shotguns do not include chokes therefore indicating that chokes are not part of the bore. Accordingly, it is the CFP's view that, in accordance with acceptable firearms industry standards for shotguns, the bore diameter measurement is considered to be at a point after the chamber, but before the choke.

Further, in making classification assessments of firearms which are reflected in the FRT, the CFP relies on recognized industry standard measurements. With respect to 10ga and 12ga shotguns, the CFP recognizes the SAAMI standard specifications which establish that the nominal (i.e. standard) bore diameter measurements for 10ga and 12ga shotguns are below the 20mm threshold (*19.69mm for 10ga, 18.42mm for 12ga).*"


----------



## MilEME09 (21 May 2020)

Thats funny so what's with all the prohib shotguns then? Sounds like lip service to me.


----------



## NavyShooter (21 May 2020)

See, the thing about that, a notice on a website isn't actually what's written in the OIC...and until the OIC is changed or amended, I'll go by what's actually written in the OIC.


----------



## Haggis (21 May 2020)

NavyShooter said:
			
		

> See, the thing about that, a notice on a website isn't actually what's written in the OIC...and until the OIC is changed or amended, I'll go by what's actually written in the OIC.



The OIC only stipulates the prohibited bore diameter. The website update describes, in detail, how the bore will be measured to determine classification under the OIC. Now, it will be up to the LEA in the field to figure out how they will measure a shotgun's bore or will they just take it on faith that a nominal .10 or .12 ga is still good to go?  Or will they seize it and send it for detailed measuring for determination?


----------



## ModlrMike (23 May 2020)

It appears the challenge has been made:

https://tinyurl.com/ybjb78mz


----------



## Colin Parkinson (23 May 2020)

Haggis said:
			
		

> The RCMP have posted an update regarding .10 and .12 ga shotguns.  It's interesting that it took them almost two weeks to figure out how to word this in order to save face for the Liberals.  It reads:
> 
> "*Important notice: Update on 10 and 12 gauge shotgun classification under the new prohibition*
> On May 1st, 2020, the Government of Canada announced that it had made amendments to the Regulations Prescribing Certain Firearms and Other Weapons, Components and Parts of Weapons, Accessories, Cartridge Magazines, Ammunition and Projectiles as Prohibited, Restricted or Non-Restricted (SOR/98-462) [Classification Regulations] prescribing certain firearms as prohibited. One of the categories of the newly prohibited firearms include "Any firearm with a bore diameter of 20 mm or greater" (s. 95 of the Classification Regulations).
> ...



They had to go find something to give them an out, then get it cleared by DOJ and now if the choke is no longer part of the bore, is it still included when measuring barrel length?


----------



## Haggis (23 May 2020)

Colin P said:
			
		

> They had to go find something to give them an out, then get it cleared by DOJ and now if the choke is no longer part of the bore, is it still included when measuring barrel length?



Probably not, but a good question for the here and now.  Under the old rules, it was not considered part of the barrel length if it was removable, same as flash hiders/flash suppressors.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (23 May 2020)

They were using the threaded portion of the barrel were the choke goes into as part of the barrel length (excluding the chamber), which is the part in question. This ruling may affect barrel measurements in the future.


----------



## Jarnhamar (29 May 2020)

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/firearm-reclassification-after-ban-anounced-1.5589519

RCMP sure are having a field day.


----------



## dangerboy (29 May 2020)

Just waiting for the SKS to be added to the list.


----------



## Haggis (29 May 2020)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/firearm-reclassification-after-ban-anounced-1.5589519
> RCMP sure are having a field day.



Aside from the initial 1500 models banned on May 1st, anything with a passing mechanical or cosmetic resemblance to the nine core models will be banned in the coming weeks.

The usual players are beginning to shape the battlespace for the handgun ban/centralized storage which will be announced in the Fall when Parliament reconvenes.


----------



## Cloud Cover (30 May 2020)

Attached is the CCFR court filing made earlier in the week.  Don’t put too much faith in it, the response will be strong and the court will be inviting pretty much every interest anti firearms group to join in and make submissions.


----------



## Jarnhamar (30 May 2020)

[quote author=Cloud Cover] every interest anti firearms group to join in and make submissions.
[/quote]

Ah yes the people who put _professional victim_ on their resumes. Or perhaps bully in Wendy Cukier's case.


----------



## BurnDoctor (31 May 2020)

I love how the mailed notice says in Column A that the firearms cannot be sold and in Column be says the government is working out details to "buy back" said firearms.


----------



## Jarnhamar (4 Jun 2020)

Could this explain why Bill Blair is so obsessed with going after legal gun owners?


*CBSA warned Bill Blair that organized crime groups may be corrupting border officers*
_ Canada's border agency says there's "growing evidence" that organized crime groups are trying to corrupt its officers, leading to a growing number of cases of drug and firearm smuggling.

The warning was included in a set of documents prepared for Public Safety Minister Bill Blair when he took over the job late last year. The documents were obtained by CBC News through an access to information request.
_https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/cbsa-organized-crime-warning-1.5584691


----------



## Haggis (18 Jun 2020)

Saskatchewan is moving to ban cities from banning handguns. The PM has already said he has tools to force recalcitrant provinces to comply.  Let's see how this plays out.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (18 Jun 2020)

Haggis said:
			
		

> Saskatchewan is moving to ban cities from banning handguns. The PM has already said he has tools to force recalcitrant provinces to comply.  Let's see how this plays out.



Constitutionally speaking, I doubt it. Municipalities are creatures of the Provinces- full stop. If this PM wants to create a full blown constitutional crisis in Canada, with Saskatchewan, Alberta and potentially other Provinces leading the charge, he is well on his way. He may wish to consider if this is the particular hill that he wants a Liberal Government to die on.


----------



## ballz (18 Jun 2020)

I'm very interested to see exactly what the Liberals role out to try and achieve this, but I agree I can't see how. The provinces can literally make a municipality disappear, or appoint a Mayor/Council/etc. if they want.

The thing the Feds have over them is spending power, which has been abused before (the Canada Health Act, as an example), and I have just been trying to figure out how exactly they could set something up to use that spending power to seize de facto power to do this.


----------



## FJAG (18 Jun 2020)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> Constitutionally speaking, I doubt it. Municipalities are creatures of the Provinces- full stop. If this PM wants to create a full blown constitutional crisis in Canada, with Saskatchewan, Alberta and potentially other Provinces leading the charge, he is well on his way. He may wish to consider if this is the particular hill that he wants a Liberal Government to die on.



Creating a constitutional crisis over handguns may very well be where this government wants to go if for no other reason than to temporarily take the focus off the UN debacle. The determining factor is whether Metro Toronto voters would circle the wagons around his hill.

 :worms:


----------



## MilEME09 (18 Jun 2020)

Oh the Supreme Court is going to love this, but perhaps its high time the provinces start asserting and pushing back against federal over reach.


----------



## Haggis (20 Jun 2020)

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> Oh the Supreme Court is going to love this, but perhaps its high time the provinces start asserting and pushing back against federal over reach.



Push back against what?  Firearms fall under federal jurisdiction.

Minister Blair has been directed to "amend Canada's firearms laws" in order to enact the promised bans.  What I think he will do/is doing is he will amend the Firearms Act to allow for the creation of municipally defined restriction zones (no use, possession allowed) and prohibition (no use or possession allowed) zones for handguns.  Regulations will also be changed to allow the Canadian Firearms Program (CFP) to provide municipalities/local police services with the names  addresses and ownership particulars for all registered firearms within their boundaries that are no longer welcome. Those municipalities will now be empowered to issue confiscation orders and lay charges under the Firearms Act for non compliance. 

The antis hope this will also include a ban on the sale/transfer of handguns from a prohibited zone to someone on the outside, thus taking those guns out of circulation forever. They are also asking for a ban on the importation of new handguns and much stricter magazine capacity limits (5 rounds for every type of magazine fed firearm).


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (20 Jun 2020)

Haggis said:
			
		

> Push back against what?  Firearms fall under federal jurisdiction.



Pushback against anything that could be construed as federally amending Provincial laws, such as this one in Quebec, or its equivalent everywhere else:

http://legisquebec.gouv.qc.ca/en/showDoc/cs/C-47.1?&digest=



			
				Haggis said:
			
		

> amend the Firearms Act to allow for the creation of municipally defined restriction zones (no use, possession allowed) and prohibition (no use or possession allowed) zones for handguns.



If the Federal government does that and retains the sole power and discretion to do so without any input from the municipality so defined, it may be ok. You can see how that can't work however: The first municipality targeted by such definition without having asked for it will immediately create a situation that will be seen as Federal government overreach into the municipal law field, which is Provincial. On the other hand, to do so at the request of the municipality could create the same problem, i.e. Federal government granting a power (to request the ban) to a municipality, which could also be construed as overreach into municipal legislation at worst or as improper delegation of power to a Provincially created institution without authorization from the Province. Either way there is a constitutional challenge in there.

BTW, if the law was to grant municipality the power to request such bans, which the Federal government would then be bound to enact, that would be an interesting political situation, as it would be coming from the "Liberal" government that, on principle, refused to appoint as senators people who had been selected for such office by  Provincially held elections. Geese and ganders come to mind.



			
				Haggis said:
			
		

> Those municipalities will now be empowered to issue confiscation orders and lay charges under the Firearms Act for non compliance.



This one is even more straightforward: There exist no federal power to empower municipalities to do anything. Period. Without Provincial agreement to grant such power, it would be a straightforward constitutional case. Almost open and shut.


----------



## Cloud Cover (20 Jun 2020)

Perhaps Trudeau will tie this into a condition for transfer payments. Some provinces , and I think BC will be one of them, will issue a province wide handgun possession + use prohibition. It won’t go over very well in the interior and north but these regions are already on the outs with Victoria/Vancouver.

Still, almost nobody is going to actually be eager to comply with any of this and I can’t see the RCMP risking their lives over it except on a case by case, as needed basis. However, it wouldn’t surprise me if the federal government held back GST, CPP, EI, income tax refunds, passports etc to those who are registered but have not turned over prohibited weapons once the buy-back confiscation period closes. ( recognizing it has to start first!!). Also I think they will proceed regardless of whether the legal challenges have concluded. 

And as expected, there is already a flourishing circumvention market. Ban, what ban? The whole thing is stupid and accomplishes nothing useful.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (20 Jun 2020)

I think you would be looking at serious charter issues if a federal government withheld entitlements without a court order.


----------



## blacktriangle (20 Jun 2020)

Doesn't the government already have various powers to withhold/seize entitlements for tax reasons? Would there be no way for them to do the same with guns?


----------



## Cloud Cover (20 Jun 2020)

Yes but they need to put the authority into the enforcement provisions as regulations of the firearms act.


----------



## Haggis (21 Jun 2020)

CloudCover said:
			
		

> Yes but they need to put the authority into the enforcement provisions as regulations of the firearms act.



Brihard referenced a precedent for the devolution of federal authority to municipalities  in a narrowly defined situation before in his post below.  It's been done before and it can/might/will be done again.



			
				Brihard said:
			
		

> ...There's old constitutional law to the contrary on that. It goes back to when there were both a Federal and provincial Temperance Acts. The federal one gave municipalities a 'local option' to prohibit intoxicating liquors locally under the federal law. The federal law drew its constitutional legitimacy from the 'criminal law' head of power granted federally in the constitution. It went through various levels of appeals, but ultimately it was held in 1946 by the Judicial committee of the Privy Council (back when Britain still had the ability to ultimately decide our legal appeals) that it was within the constitutional authority of the federal government to give municipalities the option to ban liquor even in the face of overlapping provincial legislation. While this is pretty old jurisprudence, it has not been overruled, and supports the notion of the federal government being able to empower municipalities to prohibit certain things where it falls within matters that are typically in the federal sphere.
> 
> The chain of jurisprudence on this starts with Russell v The Queen (1882), and ends with Ontario (AG) v Canada Temperance Federation (1946). So the constitutional law on this actually may well specifically empower what the feds are considering doing. I've no doubt the federal counsel looking into this are well aware of this possibility, and it's classic constitutional law on division of powers and where federal and provincial authorities crash into each other.
> 
> I'm not entering the discussion into whether this is sound policy or not, I'm just offering the caution that the constitutional law on this may not say what you think and expect it does vis a vis the ability of the feds to statutorily empower municipalities.


----------



## Retired AF Guy (21 Jun 2020)

According to Wikipedia the Temperance Act was repealed in 1984.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (21 Jun 2020)

Haggis said:
			
		

> Brihard referenced a precedent for the devolution of federal authority to municipalities  in a narrowly defined situation before in his post below.  It's been done before and it can/might/will be done again.



You don’t suppose a widely accepted failure of legislation to ban a substance (Alcohol Prohibition) from the 1920s (a failure that was used by this government to justify Marijuana legalization), might just raise a few eyebrows at the Supreme Court, if it was used to justify a firearms ban at the Municipal level?


----------



## MilEME09 (21 Jun 2020)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> You don’t suppose a widely accepted failure of legislation to ban a substance (Alcohol Prohibition) from the 1920s (a failure that was used by this government to justify Marijuana legalization), might just raise a few eyebrows at the Supreme Court, if it was used to justify a firearms ban at the Municipal level?



So where in 2020 apocalypse bingo is constitutional crisis?


----------



## brihard (21 Jun 2020)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> You don’t suppose a widely accepted failure of legislation to ban a substance (Alcohol Prohibition) from the 1920s (a failure that was used by this government to justify Marijuana legalization), might just raise a few eyebrows at the Supreme Court, if it was used to justify a firearms ban at the Municipal level?



No, the courts consciously and deliberately don’t concern themselves with the _wisdom_ of legislation, but rather the _legality_ of it, such as, in this instance, the constitutionality of certain exercise of power by various levels of government. The constitutional powers in question are not dependent on the ultimate fate of a given piece of legislation. I had made that post only to illustrate that we have some historical constitutional jurisprudence that speaks somewhat to the issue.


----------



## Retired AF Guy (21 Jun 2020)

Brihard said:
			
		

> No, the courts consciously and deliberately don’t concern themselves with the _wisdom_ of legislation, but rather the _legality_ of it, such as, in this instance, the constitutionality of certain exercise of power by various levels of government. The constitutional powers in question are not dependent on the ultimate fate of a given piece of legislation. I had made that post only to illustrate that we have some historical constitutional jurisprudence that speaks somewhat to the issue.



The only thing we know for sure is that a lot of lawyers are going to get rich..


----------



## FJAG (21 Jun 2020)

Retired AF Guy said:
			
		

> The only thing we know for sure is that a lot of lawyers are going to get rich..



Maybe a few will make a few bucks. Get rich off gun owners? Never happen!


----------



## Haggis (30 Jul 2020)

Owners of now prohibited forearms for which the CFR has information are now receiving letters from the RCMP telling them their registration certificates are nullified. However, some lawyers are saying they are not Revocation Letters because they are not in the form prescribed under s 72(1) of the Firearms Act and do not contain the reasons for the revocation or the information required to file an appeal under s.72(2).

What the lawyers are missing is that this is a blanket ban, not an individual revocation.  The government will argue, likely successfully, that there is not right to appeal because it doesn't apply specifically to you.


----------



## OldSolduer (30 Jul 2020)

Retired AF Guy said:
			
		

> According to Wikipedia the Temperance Act was repealed in 1984.


And the town of Steinbach Manitoba finally allowed restaurants to serve liquor and wine a very few short years ago.


----------



## Donald H (1 Aug 2020)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> Well.  Look on the bright side.  If firearm owners protest confiscation and tie up trains and traffic, maybe they won't be immediately hauled off and detained, and subsequently prosecuted.



Time to float my trial balloon on this site:

It's most likely that Canada doesn't have enough of that sort of gun owners to be noticed in the same way Americans did by bringing their AR-15's to a protest. And wouldn't you say that the police would stomp down hard to stop the few that could try doing that?


----------



## PuckChaser (1 Aug 2020)

Donald H said:
			
		

> Time to float my trial balloon on this site:
> 
> It's most likely that Canada doesn't have enough of that sort of gun owners to be noticed in the same way Americans did by bringing their AR-15's to a protest. And wouldn't you say that the police would stomp down hard to stop the few that could try doing that?



Apples and oranges. They have laws that allow them to do that. Our laws are so restrictive they'd just charge everyone with unsafe storage and prove the Liberals right that Canadian gun owners are just criminals.


----------



## Donald H (1 Aug 2020)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Apples and oranges. They have laws that allow them to do that. Our laws are so restrictive they'd just charge everyone with unsafe storage and prove the Liberals right that Canadian gun owners are just criminals.



I'll float another balloon and assume it's o.k. to follow a staff member off topic. The suggestion seems to be that Canada should be more like the US on gun laws. 

The Liberals don't consider gun owners to be criminals; that's just political poppycock. The Liberals can however be accused of bowing to the wishes of the majority of Canadians. This, in my opinion is wrong on account of a minority voice can't be ignored in a properly functioning democracy. (my position being that the status quo was just fine)

Could we equate that to the debate over capital punishment? This would then relate to minority governments in some way. If the people demanded and were given a referendum on the death penalty, would they not vote in favour? They likely would, but that doesn't justify allowing the people to decide that question. That my friend, being completely relevant to the power of a minority in a democracy.

Even unpopular ideas are better grist on a forum such as this, than cheap oneliners that won't be questioned because of political correctness being upheld.

I hope we can have a fair and decent discussion but I'm under no illusion that the troll accusation won't be quickly summoned up in the interest of political biases.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (1 Aug 2020)

There are laws against bringing guns to a protest already on the books in Canada, including non-restricted and it could likely cover pellet and airsoft as well.


----------



## PuckChaser (1 Aug 2020)

Donald H said:
			
		

> I'll float another balloon and assume it's o.k. to follow a staff member off topic. The suggestion seems to be that Canada should be more like the US on gun laws.



With great power comes great responsibility, so I can just move (which I did) the discussion to the appropriate thread. Can be on topic all we want now.



			
				Donald H said:
			
		

> The Liberals don't consider gun owners to be criminals; that's just political poppycock. The Liberals can however be accused of bowing to the wishes of the majority of Canadians. This, in my opinion is wrong on account of a minority voice can't be ignored in a properly functioning democracy. (my position being that the status quo was just fine)



Really? Because a lot of the gun laws they've come up with criminalize Canadians for simple administration issues (licence expires for example). There were ways to draft the legislation they've made over the years that did not criminalize gun owners, but they chose to do it anyways.



			
				Donald H said:
			
		

> I hope we can have a fair and decent discussion but I'm under no illusion that the troll accusation won't be quickly summoned up in the interest of political biases.



I'm not following here, no one called you a troll or dismissed your posts?


----------



## Donald H (1 Aug 2020)

[quote author=PuckChaser 

 There were ways to draft the legislation they've made over the years that did not criminalize gun owners, but they chose to do it anyways.

[/quote]

Did you not understand what I said in my previous post? And in fairness to you, was it because I didn't state my position clearly enough?

I took a position against the Liberals in that I said that it's my opinion the status quo was just fine. My position is rather nuanced in that I stated that the majority opinion on government decisions isn't always the best decision. And so even though the majority of Canadians are probably anti-guns, it's not the right position for any government to attempt to outlaw guns. And I equated that to the capital punishment issue.

And so I don't quite get why you would tell me that which I've quoted here? 

Can it be accepted that democracy doesn't always demand that the wishes of the majority need to become the law? 

Push the envelope in the same way the US has pushed it to the extreme and it bloody well 'will' become the law demanded by the Canadian people.


----------



## PuckChaser (1 Aug 2020)

You weren't very clear in your position then. You made a statement calling "Liberal considering gun owners criminals" as political poppycock. I disputed that assertion. 

Its really hard to understand what point you're trying to make when every 2nd sentence is a question, be it actual or rhetorical...


----------



## Haggis (1 Aug 2020)

Donald H said:
			
		

> The Liberals don't consider gun owners to be criminals; that's just political poppycock.


The facts don't bear out your assertion. Liberal LP Mark Holland routinely criminalizes lawful gun owners, going as far as to refer to them as "thugs" during the last election campaign.  And, more recently, another Liberal MP publicly stated "there is no such thing as a 'responsible gun owner' in Canada". 



			
				Donald H said:
			
		

> The Liberals can however be accused of bowing to the wishes of the majority of Canadians.



Again, facts and statistics don't support this.  Dozens and dozens of polls and the government's own study have come out AGAINST further restrictions on lawful fin ownership. In fact, the only recent polls that have come out in favour of more restrictions were conducted by left leaning pollsters in metropolitan areas.
  
It is a vocal and very well funded minority that is influencing the anti-gun campaign. They claim to represent all Canadians while not providing those Canadians with the facts they need to have an informed opinion.

Lastly, when this whole ban ends in April 2022, not a single firearms that was already illegally possessed *PRIOR TO 01 May 2020* will have been turned in.  Yet, the Liberals will claim hundreds of thousands of illegal guns have been taken off the streets.  That's because they made them illegal to accomplish their aim of criminalizing hundreds of thousands of otherwise lawful Canadians for purely political gain.  The crooks, gang bangers and drug dealers will keep their guns, though, but it's still a "win" in the Liberal campaign strategy.


----------



## Donald H (2 Aug 2020)

Haggis said:
			
		

> The facts don't bear out your assertion. Liberal LP Mark Holland routinely criminalizes lawful gun owners, going as far as to refer to them as "thugs" during the last election campaign.  And, more recently, another Liberal MP publicly stated "there is no such thing as a 'responsible gun owner' in Canada".



To say that the entire Liberal party criminalizes lawful gun owners would be equivalent to me saying the entire Conservative party is racist ….staff edited.  Personal unproven attack on a public figure


----------



## Haggis (2 Aug 2020)

Donald H said:
			
		

> To say that the entire Liberal party criminalizes lawful gun owners would be equivalent to me saying the entire Conservative party is racist....staff edited.  Personal unproven attack on a public figure


 Today's federal Liberal Party is more of a personality cult centered around their charismatic leader.  

The party is the leader and the leader speaks for the party.

Until you can point out one single federal Liberal MP who will publicly speak out in favour of pre-May 2020 lawful gun ownership and/or condemn the May 1st OIC, I will stand by my belief.


----------



## GR66 (2 Aug 2020)

Haggis said:
			
		

> Today's federal Liberal Party is more of a personality cult centered around their charismatic leader.
> 
> The party is the leader and the leader speaks for the party.
> 
> Until you can point out one single federal Liberal MP who will publicly speak out in favour of pre-May 2020 lawful gun ownership and/or condemn the May 1st OIC, I will stand by my belief.



Not arguing your point, but how many Conservative MPs spoke out against Stephen Harper when he was PM?  It's likely more of a reflection of the PMO/PCO domination of our political system than any one specific party leader.


----------



## suffolkowner (2 Aug 2020)

GR66 said:
			
		

> Not arguing your point, but how many Conservative MPs spoke out against Stephen Harper when he was PM?  It's likely more of a reflection of the PMO/PCO domination of our political system than any one specific party leader.



Haggis, GR66, I think you are both right in this. Except in some rare cases in Canadian politics both federal and provincial the caucus is going to dance with the one who brought them sorta a till death do us part thing. You need look no further than the current WE charity issue on that where the caucus and cabinet could have chosen to make their voices heard, but have not. If we could find some way to empower our MP/MPP's more I think it would greatly improve our democracy. Having said all that I firmly believe that a large number of the left side of the spectrum have negative views on firearm ownership


----------



## Haggis (2 Aug 2020)

suffolkowner said:
			
		

> Having said all that I firmly believe that a large number of the left side of the spectrum have negative views on firearm ownership.



And I firmly believe that's because they have been conditioned to do so by a left wing establishment that equates any type of firearms possession/use with criminality.


----------



## Cloud Cover (2 Aug 2020)

Haggis said:
			
		

> And I firmly believe that's because they have been conditioned to do so by a left wing establishment that equates any type of firearms possession/use with criminality.



And a steady stream of shooting spree violence. What really doesn’t resonate with them is that the violence is rarely caused by licensed gun owners.


----------



## Donald H (2 Aug 2020)

suffolkowner said:
			
		

> Having said all that I firmly believe that a large number of the left side of the spectrum have negative views on firearm ownership



You could be right, but you also could be wrong. There's a way of finding out! If we take the accepted priorities of both the left and the right we should find some indications of just what their respective priorities are on nearly all issues.

If the US is the most rightist country in the world then it would be fair to say that they represent extremism on gun ownership.

As for the most anti-gun country in the world, what country would that be and where does that country fit on the political spectrum? And is that country the extreme left? I don't think so but I could be wrong.

As a wild guess, Australia may be one of the most anti-gun countries. 

Here's my contribution to represent the priorities of the left: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KO8OxfFiVv8


----------



## suffolkowner (2 Aug 2020)

Donald H said:
			
		

> You could be right, but you also could be wrong. There's a way of finding out! If we take the accepted priorities of both the left and the right we should find some indications of just what their respective priorities are on nearly all issues.
> 
> If the US is the most rightist country in the world then it would be fair to say that they represent extremism on gun ownership.
> 
> ...



Donald I think you may be confusing/conflating the ideology of Liberalism with the ideology of the Liberal Party of Canada. I think in this case people are discussing what they think the ideas of the Liberal Party of Canada are in practice not Liberalism as a stand alone philosphy. Just because someone calls themselves something does not make it true just the same as to be called something by someone else does not make it true.


----------



## Donald H (2 Aug 2020)

suffolkowner said:
			
		

> Donald I think you may be confusing/conflating the ideology of Liberalism with the ideology of the Liberal Party of Canada. I think in this case people are discussing what they think the ideas of the Liberal Party of Canada are in practice not Liberalism as a stand alone philosphy. Just because someone calls themselves something does not make it true just the same as to be called something by someone else does not make it true.



Fair enough Suffolk. The link was meant as my attempt to place the Liberal party on the political spectrum. So would you place them as left of center? And would you place the CPC as right of center?

The whole point of the exercise is a challenge to show that the left is tradionally gun control throughout the world. 

As for Australia, I don't know if it was the left or the right that brough in the extreme measures on gun control because I don't know where all of their political parties stand. I did note however that they voted recently to keep in place some gun control measures by a margin of 33 to 25. 

Some Australian member here could likely clarify some points and further comment on their current system which appears to be pretty extreme. I don't think that Canada is intent on going 'there'.


----------



## ballz (2 Aug 2020)

Donald H said:
			
		

> To say that the entire Liberal party criminalizes lawful gun owners would be equivalent to me saying the entire Conservative party is racist because MP Derek Sloan is a racist.



You're right, there is no way such a broad brush could be 100% accurate if you're going to break down to individual MPs. If the criteria is that every individual MP must be racist for a party to be racist, you'd be right, but I would argue that's a pretty narrow definition.

If the Conservatives had a bunch of racists, who are "actively" racists in their policies and comments, and every time a minority group stole something the CPC wanted to go after all the other law-abiding visible minority citizens, and the rest of the party who disagreed were complicit... then we'd be right in calling the CPC a "racist party" and we'd be right to do so. Replace this scenario with the Liberals and legal firearm owners, and it's a pretty accurate comparison.



			
				GR66 said:
			
		

> Not arguing your point, but how many Conservative MPs spoke out against Stephen Harper when he was PM?  It's likely more of a reflection of the PMO/PCO domination of our political system than any one specific party leader.



Most definitely. It's crazy to watch it happen, but we can watch each successive government bring more and more power into the executive branch. Canada's constitution seems powerless to stop it.


----------



## Haggis (2 Aug 2020)

CloudCover said:
			
		

> And a steady stream of shooting spree violence. What really doesn’t resonate with them is that the violence is rarely caused by licensed gun owners.



Shooting "sprees" in Canada are exceedingly rare. The constant use by anti-gun activists of foreign statistics and criminal acts to advance a domestic agenda is simply dishonest.  Our firearms laws are vastly different than even the strictest of those of our southern neighbours.  The anti-gun movement is counting on Joe and Josephine Canada to not distinguish between the two.

When the Coalition for Gun Control posits to the media that lawful gun owners are more of a deadly threat to Canadian society than criminals because we practice and become proficient with out firearms,  then you know the argument has abandoned fact entirely.



			
				Donald H said:
			
		

> Some Australian member here could likely clarify some points and further comment on their current system which appears to be pretty extreme. I don't think that Canada is intent on going 'there'.



We are closer to 'there' than I think you realize.  Since the initial ban on May 1st, the RCMP have since banned an additional several hundred firearm models without any check or balance.  The promised municipal handgun ban, which I expect to become a national ban for reasons I stated earlier, will be tabled when the House sits this this Fall. 'There' is just awaiting the next election.


----------



## suffolkowner (2 Aug 2020)

Donald H said:
			
		

> Fair enough Suffolk. The link was meant as my attempt to place the Liberal party on the political spectrum. So would you place them as left of center? And would you place the CPC as right of center?
> 
> The whole point of the exercise is a challenge to show that the left is tradionally gun control throughout the world.
> 
> ...



I tend to view the left-right dichotomy like all in that they are not true representations of reality but to be judged more on their usefulness. Nonetheless, in my mind the current Liberal party is a little too far to the left and the current Conservative party a little too far to the right to offer reasonable alternatives for my voting preferences.

I have quite a few friends who came from Eastern Europe or their families did and they for sure correlate gun rights and the lack thereof with leftist ideology and thus are very outspoken on the issue. 

As far as Australia goes they may have passed restrictive gun laws but how many actually follow them. I know there was a reduction in mass shootings there but I'm not sure what all the factors could be


----------



## Jarnhamar (2 Aug 2020)

I've seen a couple comments on Reddit here and there about mass filings of Sec.74 challenges with the coincidental (or purposeful) result of tying up the already overburdened court system causing actual violent criminals to be released under the Jordan clause I believe it's called (tried under reasonable times). 

One hell of a way to protest.


----------



## Haggis (2 Aug 2020)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> I've seen a couple comments on Reddit here and there about mass filings of Sec.74 challenges with the coincidental (or purposeful) result of tying up the already overburdened court system causing actual violent criminals to be released under the Jordan clause I believe it's called (tried under reasonable times).



Those cases on the docket now, ahead of s. 74 filings, will be heard first.  The risk is those that come after a mass of s. 74 filings may cause more serious criminal cases to be thrown out under s. 11(b) of the Charter.

There is still the question of if s.74 appeals are of any use.  The RCMP website now states that the now nullified registration certificates were the result in a change of legislation and not the result of a Registrar's decision, which is the basis for a s. 74 review.  The inference here is that a s.74 challenge cannot be mounted.


----------



## Donald H (3 Aug 2020)

ballz said:
			
		

> You're right, there is no way such a broad brush could be 100% accurate if you're going to break down to individual MPs. If the criteria is that every individual MP must be racist for a party to be racist, you'd be right, but I would argue that's a pretty narrow definition.



Agreed! It's not 100% accurate to say that the Conservative MP's are racists and it's not accurate to say that the Liberal party MP's want to take away people's guns. 

It might be 10% accurate in both cases.

And the real question is on what % of the Canadian people want  some  level of gun control. That which amounts to sensible and necessary is the question.

Do you want to get down to specifics with me? I wouldn't touch Canada's handgun laws at all.

Both parties are likely pretty well confident that they can play politics with the issue now and that's far more important then anything else. Very similar to how Trump plays politics with racism in the US. The latter is a point that's being debated on another thread.


----------



## Haggis (3 Aug 2020)

Donald H said:
			
		

> Agreed! It's not 100% accurate to say that the Conservative MP's are racists and it's not accurate to say that the Liberal party MP's want to take away people's guns.


  The Liberal *Party* has as it's stated aim, since at least 1994, to disarm the Canadian public. 

_"I came to Ottawa with the firm belief that the only people in this country who should have guns are police officers and soldiers." _and _"Protection of life is not a legitimate use for a firearm in this country, sir. Not!  That is expressly ruled out"_  Allan Rock, Liberal Justice Minister, 1994.

Then, let's look at what Liberal Senator Sharon Carstairs said in 1996: "_C68 has little to do with gun control or crime control but is the first step necessary to begin the social reengineering of Canada."
_
Liberal Foreign Affairs Minister Lloyd Axworthy had this to say in 1998:  "_Canada will be one of the first unarmed countries in the world." _and _"Disarming the Canadian public is part of the new humanitarian social agenda."_

Finally, Liberal Justice Minister Ann McLelland came out strongly in favour of any Canadian using firearms for self defence, and, in particular, against concealed carry of any type.  (McLelland had been hand-picked to participate in the Nova Scotia mass killing independent review but withdrew when it became a public inquiry.)

These views were supported by the party and the PM.



			
				Donald H said:
			
		

> And the real question is on what % of the Canadian people want  some  level of gun control. That which amounts to sensible and necessary is the question.



Depends on who you ask.  Most Canadians are quite uninformed on what the current laws are regarding licencing, magazine capacity and storage regulations.  In fact many gun owners only know the laws pertaining to the specific firearm(s) they own.  Non-restricted owners and the general public would be shocked to know exactly what is required to legally possess and use a handgun in Canada

Our own PM publicly stated that you could buy a gun in Canada without having to show a licence (PAL).  While I'm sure he was inferring that his statement applied only to illegal gun sales, he deliberately left that fact out.  Again, that's dishonest, but not surprising.


----------



## ballz (4 Aug 2020)

Donald H said:
			
		

> Agreed! It's not 100% accurate to say that the Conservative MP's are racists and it's not accurate to say that the Liberal party MP's want to take away people's guns.
> 
> It might be 10% accurate in both cases.



I think you missed the point of my post, or cherry-picked a quote to take out of context.

It may not be 100% accurate to say that every Liberal MP's thoughts toward firearm ownership is that we (law-abiding firearm owners) are all a bunch of criminals / criminals-in-waiting / can't be trusted / other unfair and hostile sentiments... but that alone doesn't defeat the assertion that the _Liberal Party_ thinks we are all a bunch of criminals / criminals-in-waiting / can't be trusted / other unfair and hostile sentiments...

It's actually just setting a fairly ridiculously high bar for that assertion... you can't get 100% of 100+ people on _anything_.


----------



## Donald H (4 Aug 2020)

ballz said:
			
		

> I think you missed the point of my post, or cherry-picked a quote to take out of context.



No, I didn't miss your point and I didn't cherry pick. I'm fully aware of your opinion "that the _Liberal Party_ thinks we are all a bunch of criminals / criminals-in-waiting / can't be trusted / other unfair and hostile sentiments..."


----------



## Haggis (4 Aug 2020)

After what happened publicly to JWR, Jane Philpot and Celina Caesar-Chavannes when they drew the PM's ire, I doubt any Liberal MP would even privately break ranks with the PM on the firearms issue. This is not a big enough hill for them to die on.


----------



## Jarnhamar (4 Aug 2020)

Haggis said:
			
		

> After what happened publicly to JWR, Jane Philpot and Celina Caesar-Chavannes when they drew the PM's ire, I doubt any Liberal MP would even privately break ranks with the PM on the firearms issue. This is not a big enough hill for them to die on.



Exactly.

Liberal MPs can secretly love AR15s and love shooting as much as they want, the Liberal party is anti-firearm which means the MPs are effectively anti-firearm. They throw out comments about supporting farmers and legal gun owners but that's as believable as Justin Trudeau saying he won't violate the ethics act again.
MP's know full well what will happen if they go against the PM's wishes.


----------



## Haggis (4 Aug 2020)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Exactly.
> 
> Liberal MPs can secretly love AR15s and love shooting as much as they want, the Liberal party is anti-firearm which means the MPs are effectively anti-firearm......
> MP's know full well what will happen if they go against the PM's wishes.



Which is why maintaining the integrity of rhe party image is crucial. When was the last time anyone saw a photo of a Liberal MP with a handgun or scary black rifle taken since Trudeau came to power?


----------



## shawn5o (6 Aug 2020)

Donald H said:
			
		

> You could be right, but you also could be wrong. There's a way of finding out! If we take the accepted priorities of both the left and the right we should find some indications of just what their respective priorities are on nearly all issues.
> 
> If the US is the most rightist country in the world then it would be fair to say that they represent extremism on gun ownership.
> 
> ...



prohibition: In a few countries, including Cambodia, Eritrea, and the Solomon Islands, ownership of firearms is completely prohibited.
(source - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overview_of_gun_laws_by_nation)


----------



## Jarnhamar (11 Aug 2020)

Treat yourself.

https://twitter.com/firearmsoutlet1/status/1293219694669901824?s=12


----------



## Halifax Tar (11 Aug 2020)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Treat yourself.
> 
> https://twitter.com/firearmsoutlet1/status/1293219694669901824?s=12



Why ?  Why now ?  This will not buy us any credibility with the swing opinions on this topic.


----------



## Jarnhamar (11 Aug 2020)

Pretty awesome right? Good for melting ice on your drive way (which is super annoying).
As for any credibility with swing voters or whatever, it doesn't matter. You've seen how uninformed a lot of Canadians are about guns. 


Personally I find this more scary and dangerous.

*B.C. police officer deletes cellphone video after pointing gun at bystander*
https://globalnews.ca/news/7264225/abbotsford-police-cellphone-video-mistake/?utm_source=%40globalnews&utm_medium=Twitter


----------



## Haggis (12 Aug 2020)

The Notice of Proposed Procurement is out for the design of a _potential_ buyback program for those firearms recently prohibited by OIC.  Only certain firms need apply.


----------



## LittleBlackDevil (13 Aug 2020)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> I've seen a couple comments on Reddit here and there about mass filings of Sec.74 challenges with the coincidental (or purposeful) result of tying up the already overburdened court system causing actual violent criminals to be released under the Jordan clause I believe it's called (tried under reasonable times).
> 
> One hell of a way to protest.



It's not the "Jordan clause" -- the right to trial within a reasonable time is guaranteed by s. 11(b) of the _Charter of Rights and Freedoms._"Jordan" refers to the case of R. v. Jordan, 2016 SCC 27, which laid out a new/updated framework for determining what is "reasonable". Essentially, it is a ceiling of 18 months for a case at provincial court, or 30 months at superior court. If a case exceeds that timeframe without being concluded, it is presumed to breach s. 11(b) but this presumption can be displaced by the defence causing delay or "exceptional circumstances". COVID-19 will certainly be considered "exceptional circumstances" such that the Jordan guidelines/presumptive timelines essentially do not exist anymore.

I think that this protest may be an effective way of going about it. It's not the firearms owners' fault, it's the prosecutors' fault, if they determine that its so important to take lawful firearms owners firearms away that they're willing to let real criminals go.


----------



## LittleBlackDevil (13 Aug 2020)

Donald H said:
			
		

> Agreed! It's not 100% accurate to say that the Conservative MP's are racists and it's not accurate to say that the Liberal party MP's want to take away people's guns.
> 
> It might be 10% accurate in both cases.



I'd say that a lot more than 10% of LPC party members want to take away peoples' guns, otherwise it would not have been a key policy that the Party campaigned on. I haven't gone out and counted but I'm pretty sure more than 10% of LPC members have publicly stated support for Trudeau's undemocratic gun control measures.



			
				Donald H said:
			
		

> And the real question is on what % of the Canadian people want  some  level of gun control. That which amounts to sensible and necessary is the question.



The problem is that the vast majority of Canadians are completely ignorant of what Canada's gun laws are. Because of our proximity to the US, the availability of their media, and even Canadian media reporting on their news, combined with irresponsible/dishonest propaganda from the anti-gun lobby, most Canadians think we have no gun control or very limited gun control.


----------



## Jarnhamar (13 Aug 2020)

Haggis said:
			
		

> The Notice of Proposed Procurement is out for the design of a _potential_ buyback program for those firearms recently prohibited by OIC.  Only certain firms need apply.



A private company to organize the buy back, that's perfect.

Besides showing the Liberal party has no idea how to implement their own ideas it gives them someone else to blame if the plan doesn't go as planned.

Only 4% turned in their firearms? Clearly the firm put in charge of this failed, not the LPC.


----------



## shawn5o (13 Aug 2020)

Haggis said:
			
		

> Those cases on the docket now, ahead of s. 74 filings, will be heard first.  The risk is those that come after a mass of s. 74 filings may cause more serious criminal cases to be thrown out under s. 11(b) of the Charter.
> 
> There is still the question of if s.74 appeals are of any use.  The RCMP website now states that the now nullified registration certificates were the result in a change of legislation and not the result of a Registrar's decision, which is the basis for a s. 74 review.  The inference here is that a s.74 challenge cannot be mounted.



Hi Haggis

Ref the nullified registration certificates - more info from CCFR

https://firearmrights.ca/en/govt-rcmp-continue-to-sow-confusion-for-gun-owners/

July 31, 2020


Gun owners across the country are once again left wondering what the RCMP and the Liberal government are trying to accomplish. A recent RCMP website notice claims that the letters gun owners received about their restricted firearms are not actually registration certificate revocations. So what are they?

The RCMP have announced their position on the s.74 issue:

_“… a letter was recently sent out to individuals/businesses to inform them that their previously registered restricted firearms are now prohibited and their registration certificates became nullified. This nullification is the result of the legislative change to the Criminal Code Regulations and not the result of any decision by the Registrar to revoke the registration certificates under the Firearms Act. Accordingly, the letter is not a Firearm Registration Certificate Revocation Notice…”_

Obviously this does not answer the question of whether or not the revocation of your registration certificates is valid, or if in fact that actually happened (which is very much a live question), but it does add another feature to this unusual landscape.

To be clear, neither the OIC nor the Firearms Act have any mechanism for the alleged “nullification”, so the question is immediately this: by what authority are the RCMP and the Registrar of Firearms saying our registration certificates certs are no longer valid?

Our money is on this: they just made it up and the notice is not only non-compliant, as our legal team has previously written, it’s an outright fabrication.

The Firearm Act reads;

_“12.1 A registration certificate may only be issued for a prohibited firearm or a restricted firearm.
2012, c. 6, s. 10_

Registration certificate

_13 A person is not eligible to hold a registration certificate for a firearm unless the person holds a licence authorizing the person to possess that kind of firearm.”_

From there, if you possess something you are not eligible to have, what happens? The Firearm Act does not say.

Term of Registration Certificates;

_66 A registration certificate for a prohibited firearm or a restricted firearm expires when
(a) the holder of the registration certificate ceases to be the owner of the firearm; or
(b) the firearm ceases to be a firearm_


There is absolutely NO “automatic nullification” on a prohibition, nor is there a provision within the Firearms Act for it.

Is this a way for the RCMP to avoid angry gun owners filing Section 74 challenges? Perhaps.

Our legal team is working on this right now and this story will be updated as new or additional information arises.

Support our fight against the OIC gun ban!!


----------



## Haggis (13 Aug 2020)

I'm guessing that the RCMP CFP sought legal advice before releasing this letter and posting their position on their website given how they stepped on their XXXXs with the inadvertent 12 and 10 gauge shotgun ban and had to retroactively post a clarification.

IANAL, but my interpretation of the letter and nullification is that the RCMP are saying that because AR-15s are now prohibited nobody can hold a valid registration certificate for restricted AR-15.  Therefore all registration certificates for restricted AR-15s are now nullified. Case law will determine the legality of this process and that may take a while.

Secondly, a s. 74 filing is only allowed in the case of a specific named person having their registration revoked for a circumstance unique to them.  The RCMP legal team likely concluded that since this is a blanket "nullification", rendering ALL registration certificates for the named firearms banned, regardless of who owns them or their personal circumstances, that s.74 did not apply.  Again, we will probably have to wait until the first s.74 challenge works it's way through the courts.

Remember, too, that there was never supposed to be a grandfathering regime attached to the OIC.  Once the ban was announced both the NDP and Bloc came out hard against the grandfathering proposal.  If the Bloc do move no confidence in September over WE, the NDP may push for no grandfathering in order for the Libs to defeat that vote.  They will likely ask for other things, too but it would be easy for the PM to abandon grandfathering in order to horse trade with the NDP.


----------



## shawn5o (17 Aug 2020)

It seems the lawsuit is going full steam

From CSSA News



Special Report

The CSSA Supports the John Hipwell Judicial Review

August 17, 2020

CSSA is proud to have the affidavits of our members and directors served against the federal government on Friday, August 15, 2020.

CSSA Director Joel Sturm stood with life member Edward Burlew LL. B. and member Bruce Boyden LL.B. as they served the Department of Justice with over 2,300 pages of solid evidence showing conclusively that the May 1, 2020 Order in Council (OiC) is based on inaccurate facts.

Each paragraph of the OiC is clearly shown to be based on lies and untruths. The public statements of Prime Minister Trudeau and Public Safety Minister Blair are conclusively refuted.

The documents illustrate that Canada’s licensed firearms owners are not the problem and that these guns are used in legitimate shooting sports recognized around the world.

As we know, these firearms are safely used to hunt and put high-quality organic game meat on the family table. These same civilian firearms are used by police and Canadian Armed Forces members to hone their skills – the same skills they use to defend the lawful citizens of this great country – by participating in matches and training supported and organized by the CSSA.

CSSA has consistently been on the forefront of exposing the lies and incompetence of Canada’s firearms control regime. We were the first to challenge the ban with quality legal opinions on the 20mm bore issue. The first to inform Canadians about the train-wreck-waiting-to-happen regarding the 10,000 Joules issue.

Despite our demands for clarity regarding these issues, our government has responded with sophomoric twitter posts, useless web pages and absolutely no changes to the OiC. These important issues still hang over the firearms community’s head like the executioner’s axe.

CSSA is proud to support the Civil Litigant’s Judicial Review, the K.K.S. Tactical Judicial Review and now, the excellent John Hipwell Judicial Review.

You may view the entire John Hipwell Judicial Review here:

https://s3.amazonaws.com/CSSA/PDF/John-Hipwell-Notice-of-Application.pdf

We strongly urge you to generously support these court actions. You can donate today to any or all of these actions here:

https://cssa-cila.org/store/product-category/contributions-donations/

CSSA walks the walk, again. We are proud to be a member of John Hipwell Judicial Review team. Please walk with us, together we can protect your firearms rights and freedoms.


----------



## Jarnhamar (25 Aug 2020)

When's Erin getting me back on the range with my AR15?


----------



## stellarpanther (25 Aug 2020)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> When's Erin getting me back on the range with my AR15?



Hopefully never!  
We don't need those kinds of weapons in the hands of the general public.  I'm not hunter at all and probably couldn't shoot an animal if my life depended on it but I'm not going to criticize those who do or call for typical hunting rifles to be banned.  I know its nice to get on the range and fire certain types of weapons so rather than individual people owing things like AR15's or AK47's, maybe a gun club can have then available for people to go in and shoot.  Just a thought.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (26 Aug 2020)

stellarpanther said:
			
		

> Hopefully never!
> We don't need those kinds of weapons in the hands of the general public.  I'm not hunter at all and probably couldn't shoot an animal if my life depended on it but I'm not going to criticize those who do or call for typical hunting rifles to be banned.  I know its nice to get on the range and fire certain types of weapons so rather than individual people owing things like AR15's or AK47's, maybe a gun club can have then available for people to go in and shoot.  Just a thought.



So, you are no kind of expert on firearms, but you are certain about what kinds of firearms people should/should not own in Canada.

Firstly, AK-47s are already prohibited in Canada and have been for years. So, congratulations.

Secondly, do you how many criminal acts resulting in death AR-15s have been involved in, in Canada? Zero. None.

But hey- do not let evidence get in the way of your “opinion”.

Edit: Jarnhamar has corrected me in another thread. Apparently, an AR-15 was used, some years ago, in a gangland hit and an illegally obtained AR15 may have been used in the NS shooting recently (to my knowledge, the firearms used have not yet been identified, officially).


----------



## stellarpanther (26 Aug 2020)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> So, you are no kind of expert on firearms, but you are certain about what kinds of firearms people should/should not own in Canada.
> 
> Firstly, AK-47s are already prohibited in Canada and have been for years. So, congratulations.
> 
> ...



Is it possible for you to respond to a post without the ******* insults and sarcasm?


----------



## Stoker (26 Aug 2020)

stellarpanther said:
			
		

> Hopefully never!
> We don't need those kinds of weapons in the hands of the general public.  I'm not hunter at all and probably couldn't shoot an animal if my life depended on it but I'm not going to criticize those who do or call for typical hunting rifles to be banned.  I know its nice to get on the range and fire certain types of weapons so rather than individual people owing things like AR15's or AK47's, maybe a gun club can have then available for people to go in and shoot.  Just a thought.



Why does it not surprise me that you want to ban AR15's....


----------



## blacktriangle (26 Aug 2020)

There have been a number of shootings in Ottawa recently, and I'll go out on a limb and say none of these were done by legal gun owners. In fact, I doubt the perpetrators care much about *any* Canadian laws... 

But yep, let's punish the law abiding, tax-paying legal gun owner. It's the Canadian way!


----------



## stellarpanther (26 Aug 2020)

Chief Engineer said:
			
		

> Why does it not surprise me that you want to ban AR15's and hunting rifles..



I'm not sure but so does the Ontario Association of Chiefs of Police.  I think they know what their talking about.


----------



## stellarpanther (26 Aug 2020)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> I have a low tolerance for your passive, aggressive “my opinion must be fact” style of posting.
> 
> You do not like being challenged. You are overly confident in what you “think” you know. You wear insult like a badge.
> 
> If you don’t like that- take it to a mod.



I am confident in my opinions but my opinion on many topics are often supported my expert in the specific field.  In this case the police amongst many believe these weapons have no business being in the hands of the general public.  I never clamed to be an expert on weapons but I don't think a person needs to be to have an opinion.  I have been guilty of inappropriate posts and being insulting which I shouldn't.  That said, most people don't like hypocrites which is what I see of* some* mbr's here.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (26 Aug 2020)

stellarpanther said:
			
		

> I am confident in my opinions but my opinion on many topics are often supported my expert in the specific field.  In this case the police amongst many believe these weapons have no business being in the hands of the general public.  I never clamed to be an expert on weapons but I don't think a person needs to be to have an opinion.  I have been guilty of inappropriate posts and being insulting which I shouldn't.  That said, most people don't like hypocrites which is what I see of* some* mbr's here.



So, we are off topic here. Feel free to PM me, rather than continue to derail this thread.


----------



## stellarpanther (26 Aug 2020)

Chief Engineer said:
			
		

> Why does it not surprise me that you want to ban AR15's and hunting rifles..



Can you please read my post again because while I am against AR15's in the hands of the general public, I clearly said I would *not* call for a ban on typical hunting rifles.  You even quoted me saying it.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (26 Aug 2020)

stellarpanther said:
			
		

> Can you please read my post again because while I am against AR15's in the hands of the general public, I clearly said I would *not* call for a ban on typical hunting rifles.  You even quoted me saying it.



Stellarpanther did not call for hunting rifles to be banned. He is correct.


----------



## Stoker (26 Aug 2020)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> Stellarpanther did not call for hunting rifles to be banned. He is correct.



Made the change, he's still dead wrong though...


----------



## stellarpanther (26 Aug 2020)

Chief Engineer said:
			
		

> Made the change, he's still dead wrong though...


----------



## Jarnhamar (26 Aug 2020)

stellarpanther said:
			
		

> Can you elaborate on what I am dead wrong on?  While most gun owners are honest, law abiding people, I still don't believe certain weapons should be in hands of the general public.  Based on what I've read and from a few people I've spoken to in the past who are hunters, these are not the types of rifles used to hunt.  I don't see why they should be allowed.




Far as I can tell AR15s have been used in 2 murders by criminals in 40 years. First was a drug user using an illegally owned AR15 to shoot another druggie some 20 years ago. The second was _probably_ used by the shooter in Novascotia. The thing with that is it didn't matter what kind of gun he had because he was dressed like a police officer so walked up to people in cars or houses and murdered them.
2 shootings (with murders) in 40? years in Canada, in both shootings the type of gun didn't matter. 

Statistically insignificant.

As for hunting, an AR15s bullet is too light to hunt 150 pound deer with in many parts in Canada. It's considered inhumane because it doesn't do a good job killing the animals. We use them for target shooting and sports.

"Hunting rifles" are used to effectively shoot and kill 700+ pound Grizzly bears and 1500 pound moose.
An AR15 can maybe effectively hit someone out to 300 meters. A hunting rifle can easily hit twice that range. Some hunting rifles with heavier calibers can hit something 4-5 times that.

Hunting rifles aren't less dangerous than AR15s. Given things like range, penetration, bullet weight and energy, in a lone gunman/active shooter scenario, I'd say they're more dangerous.

If your only argument is because they're not used for hunting in Canada  they should be banned then their is no counter argument I can think of other than an indifferent _good for you_.


----------



## Jarnhamar (26 Aug 2020)

stellarpanther said:
			
		

> Can you elaborate on what I am dead wrong on?



Sure.

https://army.ca/forums/threads/127924.1225.html


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (26 Aug 2020)

LittleBlackDevil said:
			
		

> Honest question ... why is it more acceptable to you to have a leftist wing nut who doesn't respect other peoples' personal rights, than a "religious wing nut" who doesn't respect a different group of other's peoples' personal rights?
> 
> It's not as if the Liberals under Justin Trudeau's leadership are social libertarians. They just disrespect the rights of different groups. Yet this is somehow acceptable to most.



Apologies for taking a while to get back to you, I've been busy with work.  

I don't think we should conflate personal rights with property rights.  Firearms ownership is not a personal right.  Firearms are pieces of property and like many pieces of property, the Government can regulate it and do with it, as they see fit.  Firearms is one of those areas that I think it's perfectly reasonable for the Government to want to regulate it, just like they regulate many other things.   

This doesn't mean that I am happy at all with what the Government has done WRT recent events governing firearms because for one thing, it has made my personal property worthless (I am a firearms owner) and also because I don't agree with their interpretation; however, that does not mean that I disagree with their inherent right to regulate firearms. 

Do I view this issue as an issue that is as important as Abortion or Same-Sex Marriage though?  Not even in the same stratosphere.  I may be out a couple of thousand dollars as a couple of my firearms are now real expensive paper weights but my personal rights are not really affected by this.  Abortion and Same-Sex Marriage?  Those are issues that can have lifelong consequences for people and take a physical, mental and great fiscal toll on people. 

Will the Liberals recent decisions WRT firearms weigh in my decision of who I vote for in the next election?  It certainly will but it is one of a number of factors.  I would love to see a Political Party in Canada that is fiscally responsible BUT also socially progressive (think Progressive Conservative).  Both the LPC and CPC suffer from cognitive dissonance in a number of platform areas to the point that I don't think either one really holds a monopoly on stupidity.


----------



## Halifax Tar (26 Aug 2020)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Far as I can tell AR15s have been used in 2 murders by criminals in 40 years. First was a drug user using an illegally owned AR15 to shoot another druggie some 20 years ago. The second was _probably_ used by the shooter in Novascotia. The thing with that is it didn't matter what kind of gun he had because he was dressed like a police officer so walked up to people in cars or houses and murdered them.
> 2 shootings (with murders) in 40? years in Canada, in both shootings the type of gun didn't matter.
> 
> Statistically insignificant.
> ...



I do believe the NS shooter's firearms were all illegally obtained as well.  So he simply ignored firearms laws, which is the bog standard thing for a criminal to do... you know, ignore laws.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (26 Aug 2020)

Humphrey Bogart said:
			
		

> Apologies for taking a while to get back to you, I've been busy with work.
> 
> I don't think we should conflate personal rights with property rights.  Firearms ownership is not a personal right.  Firearms are pieces of property and like many pieces of property, the Government can regulate it and do with it, as they see fit.  Firearms is one of those areas that I think it's perfectly reasonable for the Government to want to regulate it, just like they regulate many other things.
> 
> ...



I am somewhat similar to you in viewpoint. Firearms can and should be regulated in Canada (in fact, they have been for decades). Up until this year, we had a regulation regime that, while not without irritants and illogical elements, I thought generally did a pretty reasonable of balancing rights and responsibilities.

That was until the Liberals figured they could play to their base after the NS shooting and unilaterally ban by OIC, entire categories of firearms. All without resorting to Parliament.

A government that can do that, can do anything. If they thought changing the firearms regulation regime in Canada was such a hot and popular idea, do it the right way: introduce a bill, debate it, vote on it. At least then, whatever changes get made have the approval of Parliament, instead of (apparently) being cooked up overnight by the PMO and RCMP HQ.


----------



## QV (26 Aug 2020)

Humphrey Bogart said:
			
		

> Apologies for taking a while to get back to you, I've been busy with work.
> 
> I don't think we should conflate personal rights with property rights.  Firearms ownership is not a personal right.  Firearms are pieces of property and like many pieces of property, the Government can regulate it and do with it, as they see fit.  Firearms is one of those areas that I think it's perfectly reasonable for the Government to want to regulate it, just like they regulate many other things.
> 
> ...



I've always believed there should be a well defined right to property.  Because of the progressive left movement which I fear would abuse government powers, I am now much more in favour of having property rights enshrined in our charter somehow.  I don't know how or if that is possible, I understand it certainly won't happen under the current government.


----------



## stellarpanther (26 Aug 2020)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Sure.
> 
> https://army.ca/forums/threads/127924.1225.html



The only thing I can assume is meant by Chief Engineer saying I am still wrong is that he thinks I'm wrong about people my belief about people owning AR15's.  That link doesn't prove me wrong.  I read an article last night that stated 78 percent of Canadians want those types of weapons banned.  The Canadian and Ontario Chiefs of Police want them banned as well.  No need for them in my opinion.


----------



## LittleBlackDevil (26 Aug 2020)

stellarpanther said:
			
		

> I am confident in my opinions but my opinion on many topics are often supported my expert in the specific field.  In this case the police amongst many believe these weapons have no business being in the hands of the general public.  I never clamed to be an expert on weapons but I don't think a person needs to be to have an opinion.  I have been guilty of inappropriate posts and being insulting which I shouldn't.  That said, most people don't like hypocrites which is what I see of* some* mbr's here.



Citing the O.A.C.P. is simply an appeal to authority. And the O.A.C.P. apparently relies on their own authority without backing up their position with any facts, data, or even political ideology, they simply state: "Ontario’s police leaders support a prohibition on all military-designed assault rifles. In our view, these weapons have no place in our communities and should be reserved for use by Canada’s military and law enforcement." (http://www.oacp.on.ca/Userfiles/Files/NewAndEvents/OACP%20Statement_Control%20of%20Firearms%20in%20Canada%20and%20Impact%20of%20Gun%20Violence%20on%20our%20Communities%20-%20Sept%202019.pdf)

Since they do not explain WHY they take that position, I don't know why ... but it certainly is not because AR-15s or other "military designed assault rifles" have been used in crimes or pose a danger to society as already outlined by others in this thread. If these items are not being used in crimes and are not dangerous, then we are left with purely ideological reasons divorced from logic and facts. That is not a good reason to ban things "because we don't like them".

WHY is there no place in Canadian society for certain firearms? No one ever explain why other than that "we don't like them".

I would argue that there's no place in Canadian society for cars that can drive faster than 100 km/hr. There actually is data to show that "speed kills". And why does one need a vehicle that is capable of breaking the law (I don't believe its legal to drive over 100 km/h anywhere in Canada)? Far FAR more people die in motor vehicle accidents every year than involving firearms. Take illegal firearms out of that equation and firearms ownership is actually one of the safest pastimes available.


----------



## stellarpanther (26 Aug 2020)

LittleBlackDevil said:
			
		

> Citing the O.A.C.P. is simply an appeal to authority. And the O.A.C.P. apparently relies on their own authority without backing up their position with any facts, data, or even political ideology, they simply state: "Ontario’s police leaders support a prohibition on all military-designed assault rifles. In our view, these weapons have no place in our communities and should be reserved for use by Canada’s military and law enforcement." (http://www.oacp.on.ca/Userfiles/Files/NewAndEvents/OACP%20Statement_Control%20of%20Firearms%20in%20Canada%20and%20Impact%20of%20Gun%20Violence%20on%20our%20Communities%20-%20Sept%202019.pdf)
> 
> Since they do not explain WHY they take that position, I don't know why ... but it certainly is not because AR-15s or other "military designed assault rifles" have been used in crimes or pose a danger to society as already outlined by others in this thread. If these items are not being used in crimes and are not dangerous, then we are left with purely ideological reasons divorced from logic and facts. That is not a good reason to ban things "because we don't like them".
> 
> ...


Please go back and read post #525, there is an edit on the bottom showing they have been used.  As well, for some reason the RCMP have not officially stated an AR15 was used in Nova Scotia shooting spree, many sources have privately said it was one of the weapons used.  IMO, the only firearms that should be allowed are hunting rifles.  No handguns, or other firearms.  We don't need them.  If people want to shoot them, they can join a gun club and lets have the gun clubs own these weapons so that people can use while on the premises.  This is my opinion and I understand others may have a different belief.


----------



## LittleBlackDevil (26 Aug 2020)

stellarpanther said:
			
		

> Please go back and read post #525, there is an edit on the bottom showing they have been used.  As well, for some reason the RCMP have not officially stated an AR15 was used in Nova Scotia shooting spree, many sources have privately said it was one of the weapons used.  IMO, the only firearms that should be allowed are hunting rifles.  No handguns, or other firearms.  We don't need them.  If people want to shoot them, they can join a gun club and lets have the gun clubs own these weapons so that people can use while on the premises.  This is my opinion and I understand others may have a different belief.



I actually saw that ... I don't consider twice in the sixty or so years AR-15s have been around to be statistically significant. 

Ok, so you've stated your opinion ... perhaps I missed it but WHY do you think hunting rifles should be the only legal firearms?

Again, there's "no need" for many things. I cited vehicles that drive faster than 100 km/h. Why does anyone need a sports car that can drive well over 200 km/h? If they want to drive them, they can join a car club that lets car enthusiasts use such vehicles while on their private track.

Many things are "not necessary". So how does the fact that something is "not necessary" = a reason to make it illegal?


----------



## stellarpanther (26 Aug 2020)

LittleBlackDevil said:
			
		

> I actually saw that ... I don't consider twice in the sixty or so years AR-15s have been around to be statistically significant.
> 
> Ok, so you've stated your opinion ... perhaps I missed it but WHY do you think hunting rifles should be the only legal firearms?
> 
> ...



The AR15 and similar weapons were designed to kill people and since it's illegal to kill people we shouldn't have them.  Your example of vehicles that can drive faster 100km/h (NB allows 110 km/h) is a good one and it's an example of something that doesn't make sense.  They should be equipped with a tamperproof governor allowing a little room so you can safely pass someone not going the speed limit but we don't need vehicles that can go as fast as they do.


----------



## LittleBlackDevil (26 Aug 2020)

stellarpanther said:
			
		

> The AR15 and similar weapons were designed to kill people and since it's illegal to kill people we shouldn't have them.  Your example of vehicles that can drive faster 100km/h (NB allows 110 km/h) is a good one and it's an example of something that doesn't make sense.  They should be equipped with a tamperproof governor allowing a little room so you can safely pass someone not going the speed limit but we don't need vehicles that can go as fast as they do.



Well, I give you credit for consistency. Most people who think firearms should be illegal are fine with fast cars, so I respect your view.

I obviously disagree that we can/should make everything that is dangerous illegal. There are many reasons for that and this is supposed to be the CPC Leadership discussion so perhaps not the best place to go into detail on that. I think that, in short, the only way to make a completely safe society is to make an intolerably totalitarian society where life would not be worth living.

Arguably, hunting rifles are more effective at killing people than the AR-15 and related platforms. Is it a wood stock that makes something less offensive, or simply the intention when manufactured? Is something like the STAG 10 OK because while it looks like an AR-15 you can get it chambered in .308 or 6.5 Creedmoor which absolutely can be used for hunting and a lot of people do use them for hunting. I know at least one hunter who used to be opposed to "black guns" but after taking a STAG 10 hunting is now "converted" to their usefulness as hunting rifles. I don't know what the manufacturer's intent in building them is but I guess they're built for hunting. I actually believe that AR-15s are intended for target shooting.


----------



## Jarnhamar (26 Aug 2020)

stellarpanther said:
			
		

> The AR15 and similar weapons were designed to kill people and since it's illegal to kill people we shouldn't have them.  Your example of vehicles that can drive faster 100km/h (NB allows 110 km/h) is a good one and it's an example of something that doesn't make sense.  They should be equipped with a tamperproof governor allowing a little room so you can safely pass someone not going the speed limit but we don't need vehicles that can go as fast as they do.



I think you're on to something. While we're taking all these steps to control citizens we should ban certain words or phrases from being typed out on the internet. Like in children's computer games where they can't type swear words.
Maybe only allow Canadians to use certain cell phones? 
How else should we regulate and control Canadians lives?


----------



## stellarpanther (26 Aug 2020)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> I think you're on to something. While we're taking all these steps to control citizens we should ban certain words or phrases from being typed out on the internet. Like in children's computer games where they can't type swear words.
> Maybe only allow Canadians to use certain cell phones?
> How else should we regulate and control Canadians lives?



Wow...


----------



## shawn5o (26 Aug 2020)

stellarpanther said:
			
		

> Please go back and read post #525, there is an edit on the bottom showing they have been used.  As well, for some reason the RCMP have not officially stated an AR15 was used in Nova Scotia shooting spree, many sources have privately said it was one of the weapons used.  IMO, the only firearms that should be allowed are hunting rifles.  No handguns, or other firearms.  We don't need them.  If people want to shoot them, they can join a gun club and lets have the gun clubs own these weapons so that people can use while on the premises.  This is my opinion and I understand others may have a different belief.



Hi SP

Good msg and I have to say its good. I just wanted to point out that handguns are used more often than rifles ref homicide.

https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/t1/tbl1/en/tv.action?pid=3510007201

I don't think it would be a good idea (it does have merit) to store your firearms at the gun club. Wouldn't the gun club(s) be targeted for robbery when bad guys want to do some shopping? I know its a stretch to say that but stranger things have happened.

Cheers


----------



## stellarpanther (26 Aug 2020)

Drallib said:
			
		

> stellarpanter, I would say handguns could be used for self defence reasons. With this ban, where it may or may not reduce the amount of guns aquired illegally, I think that law-abiding and responsible citizens should be able to use this weapon system in the event of self defence.



I do think people should be able to protect themselves but the way our laws are and I think it would be the same regardless of the party in power, if you shoot someone in your house, you will probably go to prison.  I knew someone who stabbed a person in the hand after he saw the person look in his child's bedroom, this father was charged because according to the police and prosecutor, he intruder didn't actually threaten the child or anyone else and you can't use that kind of force to protect your property.  If he would have used a gun, the guy would probably be dead and this father in prison.  I don't know all the details but the case was apparently tossed on a technicality. This was about 12 years ago.


----------



## Drallib (26 Aug 2020)

stellarpanther said:
			
		

> I do think people should be able to protect themselves but the way our laws are and I think it would be the same regardless of the party in power, if you shoot someone in your house, you will probably go to prison.  I knew someone who stabbed a person in the hand after he saw the person look in his child's bedroom, this father was charged because according to the police and prosecutor, he intruder didn't actually threaten the child or anyone else and you can't use that kind of force to protect your property.  If he would have used a gun, the guy would probably be dead and this father in prison.  I don't know all the details but the case was apparently tossed on a technicality. This was about 12 years ago.



I'm not completely sure, but I think it's if you shoot someone in the back? I could be wrong.

When I first read about the person looking into the child's bedroom I imagined them already being inside the house? Not sure the details, but if the father pointed a Glock in their face, I'm sure they'd run, and then call the cops. Or if they were outside peeking inside the child's bedroom, fire a warning shot, then call the cops.

This could go on forever... I respect your opinion. I know you just want safety for Canadians, as do I.


----------



## Jarnhamar (26 Aug 2020)

[quote author=stellarpanther] if you shoot someone in your house, you will probably go to prison.
[/quote]

Thankfully that's not accurate. Canada has some pretty robust self defense laws and examples of people not going to prison for self defense. Here's a short clip from a lawyer. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DB2Z8yreRbY&app=desktop


----------



## shawn5o (26 Aug 2020)

Here's an an article ref MP O'Toole's view on firearms. Sensible in my view. Via email


*The CSSA Congratulates Erin O'Toole on his victory as the new Leader of the Conservative Party of Canada*

Canada is a nation with proud rural and outdoor traditions. Learning to hunt or target shoot with a family member is a way of life for millions of Canadians and must be respected. Firearm owners, be they hunters, farmers or sport shooters are among the most law-abiding citizens in Canada. 

*An O'Toole-led Opposition will:*

Oppose efforts to reverse the former Conservative government’s policy advances on firearms, including the Trudeau government’s new proposals to confiscate legal firearms.

Oppose regulations that do not advance public safety and instead penalize law-abiding firearms owners. This includes the arbitrary reclassification of firearms and magazines.

An O’Toole government will update Canada’s firearms legislation to ensure that it is evidence-based and focuses on keeping Canadians safe, not demonizing those Canadians the Liberals do not like.

*The Proposed legislative changes will:*

Conduct a review of the Firearms Act with participation of law enforcement, firearms owners, manufacturers, and members of the public, and then update legislation by introducing a simplified classification system and codifying it in law, so that it is clear what types of firearms fit into each category and classification decisions can, therefore, be made quickly, and with the public and firearms owners having confidence that they are not arbitrary. The legislation will also – for the first time – contain definitions of currently ambiguous issues like the term “variant”.

Harmonize rules for discharging firearms on your own property so that restricted firearms are treated the same as non-restricted, where the local municipality allows the discharge of firearms.

Mandate a return to the 180-day period for the re-designed classification system to release firearm import decisions and put final authority for classification decisions back in the hands of Cabinet.

Focus the resources of the federal government on criminals engaged in the trafficking and use of illegal firearms instead of imposing more layers of bureaucracy on law-abiding Canadians.

Amend firearms laws to ensure that no administrative expiry could lead to criminal charges or the seizure of a licence holder’s firearm(s). Until an expired licence is renewed, it would remain illegal for licence holders to acquire new firearms or ammunition.

Support specialized illegal firearms enforcement led by the CBSA and RCMP working closely with American authorities in the United States, to target smuggling operations before illegal firearms reach the border.

Develop a suicide prevention strategy that encourages people – including legal firearms owners – to seek help when they need it. The current system actually discourages firearms owners from seeking help, due to the fear that the police will show up at their door, and the Trudeau government is making this worse, putting lives at risk.

The CSSA believes that Erin O'Toole will be an outstanding leader for Canada, and we strongly encourage our membership to support him in his efforts to bring a Conservative majority government to the House of Commons.


----------



## LittleBlackDevil (26 Aug 2020)

stellarpanther said:
			
		

> I do think people should be able to protect themselves but the way our laws are and I think it would be the same regardless of the party in power, if you shoot someone in your house, you will probably go to prison.  I knew someone who stabbed a person in the hand after he saw the person look in his child's bedroom, this father was charged because according to the police and prosecutor, he intruder didn't actually threaten the child or anyone else and you can't use that kind of force to protect your property.  If he would have used a gun, the guy would probably be dead and this father in prison.  I don't know all the details but the case was apparently tossed on a technicality. This was about 12 years ago.



In my view, it is actually very unlikely for someone to actually be convicted of defending themselves inside their own home. They will most likely be charged and have to pay a lawyer lots of money and go through the stress of the court process, but they will most likely be acquitted in the end. Just consider a few recent cases where people were acquitted:

R. v. Peter Khill - summary of facts from the Ontario Court of Appeal decision on his case: [6] Mr. Khill and his then girlfriend, now wife, Millie Benko, lived in a single-story house in a rural area near Hamilton, Ontario. Mr. Khill was asleep at about 3:00 a.m. on February 4, 2016 when Ms. Benko woke him up and told him she had heard a loud banging. Mr. Khill listened and heard two loud bangs. He went to the bedroom window. From the window, he could see his 2001 pickup truck parked in the driveway. The dashboard lights were on indicating, to Mr. Khill, that some person or persons were either in the truck or had been in the truck
...
[7] ... Mr. Khill loaded the shotgun he kept in the bedroom and, armed with the shotgun, went to investigate the noises.

[8]         Using techniques he had learned as an army reservist, Mr. Khill stealthily made his way through his house, ending up at the front door of the breezeway connecting the house to the garage.
…
[10]      Mr. Khill said in a loud voice, “Hey, hands up.” Mr. Styres, who apparently had not seen Mr. Khill, began to rise and turn toward Mr. Khill. As he turned, Mr. Khill fired a shot. He immediately racked the shotgun and fired a second shot. Khill said he thought the deceased had a gun and was reaching for it.

Mr. Khill was acquitted by a jury. I'm not sure that I would have acquitted him ... sneaking up on a guy who's ransacking your truck and shooting him twice when he turns around does not seem like a reasonable use of force. Personally, while I think people should have wide latitude to defend themselves inside their homes, if someone was stealing from my car I'd call police but otherwise let them have whatever is in my car. Neither my life nor the thief's life is worth whatever is in my car.

But the point is he was acquitted. Also there's the case of Gerald Stanley, also acquitted. I could give lots of other examples, but it seems that unless the case is very clearly not one of self defence (like repeatedly striking someone once they're already unconscious, or stabbing someone in retaliation for them saying something offensive) people are most likely to be acquitted. In the case of your friend, I suspect that there was more to the story than what you heard if he was convicted.


----------



## LittleBlackDevil (26 Aug 2020)

shawn5o said:
			
		

> Here's an an article ref MP O'Toole's view on firearms. Sensible in my view. Via email



Thanks for posting this.

Mr. O'Toole's firearms policy was the thing that, at the last second, caused me to switch my vote from MacKay to O'Toole. Also, MacKay's stated position that "assault rifles" (i.e. black firearms) should be banned (cf. https://thepostmillennial.com/exclusive-mackay-proposed-ban-on).


----------



## Donald H (26 Aug 2020)

shawn5o said:
			
		

> Here's an an article ref MP O'Toole's view on firearms. Sensible in my view. Via email
> 
> 
> *The CSSA Congratulates Erin O'Toole on his victory as the new Leader of the Conservative Party of Canada*
> ...



Is that a quote of O'Toole? 

If it is, I would be disappointed if Trudeau was challenged on it's substance and couldn't say the exact same thing.


----------



## Eaglelord17 (26 Aug 2020)

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> I do believe the NS shooter's firearms were all illegally obtained as well.  So he simply ignored firearms laws, which is the bog standard thing for a criminal to do... you know, ignore laws.



He didn't just ignore firearms laws, it seems the RCMP in his case did too...


----------



## shawn5o (26 Aug 2020)

Donald H said:
			
		

> Is that a quote of O'Toole?
> 
> If it is, I would be disappointed if Trudeau was challenged on it's substance and couldn't say the exact same thing.



I can't say for sure Don

But it is from Canadian Shooting Sports Association. The editors may have put their spin on it.


----------



## Haggis (26 Aug 2020)

Donald H said:
			
		

> Is that a quote of O'Toole?
> 
> If it is, I would be disappointed if Trudeau was challenged on it's substance and couldn't say the exact same thing.



No, it is not.  It is, however, a statement of fact by the CSSA.  A fact that is routinely ignored by the left in their haste to craft new laws for criminals to thumb their noses at.

A Liberal MP was recently quoted by O'Toole stating "there is no such thing as a 'responsible gun owner' in Canada".  That's the ideology we are up against.


----------



## stellarpanther (26 Aug 2020)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Thankfully that's not accurate. Canada has some pretty robust self defense laws and examples of people not going to prison for self defense. Here's a short clip from a lawyer.
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DB2Z8yreRbY&app=desktop



You are wrong, what I said is very accurate,  Unless you or your family is being physically threaten there is a very good chance you will be charged if you shoot an intruder even in your house.

https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/im-glad-he-shot-him-newfoundland-man-up-on-murder-charges-for-shooting-home-invader


----------



## LittleBlackDevil (26 Aug 2020)

stellarpanther said:
			
		

> You are wrong, what I said is very accurate,  Unless you or your family is being physically threaten there is a very good chance you will be charged if you shoot an intruder even in your house.
> 
> https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/im-glad-he-shot-him-newfoundland-man-up-on-murder-charges-for-shooting-home-invader



To be fair, you didn't say "there is a very good chance you will be charged" you said "you will probably go to prison".

You're pretty much guaranteed to get charged. But you're very likely to be acquitted at trial, and therefore very unlikely to do jail time. Unless you have a prior criminal record, you will most likely get bail pending trial and therefore never go to prison but at most spend a night or two in a police station's overnight holding cells.


----------



## Jarnhamar (26 Aug 2020)

stellarpanther said:
			
		

> You are wrong, what I said is very accurate,
> 
> https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/im-glad-he-shot-him-newfoundland-man-up-on-murder-charges-for-shooting-home-invader



You said: 
_ if you shoot someone in your house, you will probably go to prison._ 

You should have picked a better example to prove your point. 

The guy in your article had the charges dropped, did't even make it to trial. 


*Murder charge dropped against Gilbert Budgell, who police say killed home intruder* 

Crown says couldn't prove it wasn't self defence, no reasonable liklihood of conviction

Gilbert Budgell, a Botwood homeowner who police say shot and killed a man who was invading his home, will not face trial for murder charges.

Crown attorneys have decided not to proceed with a second-degree murder charge against Budgell, citing a low likelihood of securing a conviction.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cbc.ca/amp/1.4351371


----------



## stellarpanther (26 Aug 2020)

LittleBlackDevil said:
			
		

> To be fair, you didn't say "there is a very good chance you will be charged" you said "you will probably go to prison".
> 
> You're pretty much guaranteed to get charged. But you're very likely to be acquitted at trial, and therefore very unlikely to do jail time. Unless you have a prior criminal record, you will most likely get bail pending trial and therefore never go to prison but at most spend a night or two in a police station's overnight holding cells.



You make a good points.  I also noted in your other post on this topic that the shooter, while likely to be acquitted will still be stuck with expensive legal bills. I have no idea what that amount could be but I would assume it could be pretty high for the average person.  Please correct me if I'm wrong but I've heard that sometimes just a charge is enough to ruin a persons life.  I can imagine a murder charge even if acquitted could be tough on a person afterwards.

,


----------



## Stoker (26 Aug 2020)

stellarpanther said:
			
		

> You make a good points.  I also noted in your other post on this topic that the shooter, while likely to be acquitted will still be stuck with expensive legal bills. I have no idea what that amount could be but I would assume it could be pretty high for the average person.  Please correct me if I'm wrong but I've heard that sometimes just a charge is enough to ruin a persons life.  I can imagine a murder charge even if acquitted could be tough on a person afterwards.
> 
> ,



What would you rather have, some legal bills or be dead. I know what I would do. What would you do if you had an armed intruder?


----------



## stellarpanther (26 Aug 2020)

Chief Engineer said:
			
		

> What would you rather have, some legal bills or be dead. I know what I would do. What would you do if you had an armed intruder?



I think it's a fair bet to say anyone would rather be alive but I'm just saying the consequences of shooting that person even if not convicted can still be severe.  Having legal bills probably in the tens of thousands of dollars can be enough to ruin someone as well.  I would suggest that unless you or your family's life is threaten let them have what they are stealing and call the police.  I don't own a gun but I can guarantee I would use whatever I could find, such as the bat under my bed to defend my family if they were at risk of being harmed.


----------



## Jarnhamar (26 Aug 2020)

[quote author=stellarpanther.] I don't own a gun but I can guarantee I would use whatever I could find, such as the bat under my bed to defend my family if they were at risk of being harmed.
[/quote]

Interesting. 
You wouldn't use a gun to shoot an animal to save yourself but you would use a bat to bludgeon someone threatening your family. 

Would you use an AR15 to protect your family?


----------



## Donald H (26 Aug 2020)

stellarpanther said:
			
		

> I think it's a fair bet to say anyone would rather be alive but I'm just saying the consequences of shooting that person even if not convicted can still be severe.  Having legal bills probably in the tens of thousands of dollars can be enough to ruin someone as well.  I would suggest that unless you or your family's life is threaten let them have what they are stealing and call the police.  I don't own a gun but I can guarantee I would use whatever I could find, such as the bat under my bed to defend my family if they were at risk of being harmed.



You're safer not having a gun in the house for self defense.
https://www.thetrace.org/2020/04/gun-safety-research-coronavirus-gun-sales/



> Having a gun in the home increases the chance for accidental injury, homicide, and suicide, all of which have been shown to outweigh the potential protective benefits of firearms.



This has been a pretty well known fact for a long time.


----------



## Brad Sallows (26 Aug 2020)

"You're safer not having a gun in the house for self defense."

What that actually means is, statistically most people are not safer, particularly those who are accident- and suicide-prone.  It doesn't mean I'm not.


----------



## Jarnhamar (26 Aug 2020)

Donald H said:
			
		

> You're safer not having a gun in the house for self defense.
> https://www.thetrace.org/2020/04/gun-safety-research-coronavirus-gun-sales/
> 
> This has been a pretty well known fact for a long time.



Do you happen to have a Canadian source of research?

There's at least 75,634 of those AR15 rifles in Canada, the ones designed for killing. I'm wondering how many family members are murdered in their homes by these guns every month.


----------



## Stoker (26 Aug 2020)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Do you happen to have a Canadian source of research?
> 
> There's at least 75,634 of those AR15 rifles in Canada, the ones designed for killing. I'm wondering how many family members are murdered in their homes by these guns every month.



End of the day, due to no fault of my own I will more than likely be out thousands of dollars when everything is said and done.


----------



## Donald H (26 Aug 2020)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Do you happen to have a Canadian source of research?



No. There are relatively few Canadians who are hiding guns under their beds (or wherever) in Canada and so we are short of that kind of information I think. The US tells the story pretty well I think.



> There's at least 75,634 of those AR15 rifles in Canada, the ones designed for killing. I'm wondering how many family members are murdered in their homes by these guns every month.



I haven't the slightest idea but I would assume it's not many. But I don't see any connection on that statistic to what I've said.

It does bring up an interesting question though. Numbers of AR type weapons (meaning black, semi-auto, assault weapon style which would include the FN's and AK's) as opposed to other legitimate hunting rifles, the number of people killed with each would be an interesting statistic. I would highly expect those who own hunting rifles and shotguns would be less likely to kill for any and all reasons. 

Or another way of putting it would be, how many murders, suicides, accidental deaths happen with each type of weapon? On an even playing field in which the number of weapons of each type is considered.


----------



## Kat Stevens (26 Aug 2020)

I've been unfortunate enough to have more than a couple of friends self terminate themselves. Only one used a firearm, and it was a shotgun. One opened up his forearms with a box cutter, two decided a rope in the garage/basement was the way to go, and one swallowed about a years supply of oxy one afternoon. Almost every one of them owned firearms.


----------



## Jarnhamar (26 Aug 2020)

Donald H said:
			
		

> No. There are relatively few Canadians who are hiding guns under their beds (or wherever) in Canada and so we are short of that kind of information I think. The US tells the story pretty well I think.



Fair enough. When I can go hunting with an AR15 or carry around a concealed pistol I'll be happy to use US data on firearms.



> I haven't the slightest idea but I would assume it's not many. But I don't see any connection on that statistic to what I've said.


I'm cheating a little. I've seen that research referenced a lot before.

The connection is the argument that guns in the house don't make them safer, it makes them (houses) more dangerous (well you know what I mean)
There's 20 million guns in Canadian houses. There doesn't seem to be a correlation in Canada where guns in the home make them less safe. 




> It does bring up an interesting question though. Numbers of AR type weapons (meaning black, semi-auto, assault weapon style which would include the FN's and AK's) as opposed to other legitimate hunting rifles, the number of people killed with each would be an interesting statistic.* I would highly expect those who own hunting rifles and shotguns would be less likely to kill for any and all reasons. *



Why? If my wife cheats on me am I going to be more inclined to murder her if I'm an AR15 owner instead of a shotgun owner?
What makes hunting rifle owners less likely to kill than target rifle owners?


----------



## stellarpanther (26 Aug 2020)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Would you use an AR15 to protect your family?



Seems like a strange question since I've already said I don't own a gun and have no interest in owning a gun, I can't see how I would have the option.  I suppose if someone was in my house and about to attack my family and one magically appeared, I would use it.


----------



## Jarnhamar (26 Aug 2020)

stellarpanther said:
			
		

> Seems like a strange question since I've already said I don't own a gun and have no interest in owning a gun, I can't see how I would have the option.  I suppose if someone was in my house and about to attack my family and one magically appeared, I would use it.



No one should own an AR15 because they're just used for killing people and killing people is illegal. 
But you would use an AR15, to kill someone.


----------



## stellarpanther (26 Aug 2020)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> No one should own an AR15 because they're just used for killing people and killing people is illegal.
> But you would use an AR15, to kill someone.



Lol... I was typing a reply wondering what you were getting at and I knew it would be something like that.   I'm glad you agree with me that, no one should own an AR15 and I've been saying that since this conversation started.  If someone was threating my family, I would use whatever I had available.  In my post I said if one magically appeared.  Since that isn't going to happen, I might just end up using a butter knife from the drawer or hit him in the head with the alarm clock or maybe just throw his *** down the stairs and call the police.  I guess either way the police are getting called but you know what I mean.


----------



## Jarnhamar (26 Aug 2020)

[quote author=stellarpanther]   I'm glad you agree with me that, no one should own an AR15[/quote] 

That's a 1/10 effort I'm afraid. I think every 
(Heinlein) citizen should own an AR15. It should be your civic duty to be armed  :rules:



> If someone was threating my family, I would use whatever I had available.



I think most people would, even those who want to ban guns.
Which I think is funny.


----------



## stellarpanther (26 Aug 2020)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> That's a 1/10 effort I'm afraid. I think every
> (Heinlein) citizen should own an AR15. It should be your civic duty to be armed  :rules:
> 
> 
> ...



I don't know, your post was clear.  No one should own and AR15 you said, you were very clear.  :arid rifleman: :sarcasm:


----------



## LittleBlackDevil (27 Aug 2020)

stellarpanther said:
			
		

> You make a good points.  I also noted in your other post on this topic that the shooter, while likely to be acquitted will still be stuck with expensive legal bills. I have no idea what that amount could be but I would assume it could be pretty high for the average person.  Please correct me if I'm wrong but I've heard that sometimes just a charge is enough to ruin a persons life.  I can imagine a murder charge even if acquitted could be tough on a person afterwards.



If you hire a lawyer who's actually any good, a murder trial could cost $100,000 or more I expect. Peter Khill's trial was 12 days in front of the jury, plus then you need to factor in preparation time, and he probably ran a preliminary inquiry before that. He was acquitted but I'm sure it cost him a LOT.

You're also correct that a murder charge would be very stressful to deal with.

It's a fact that even if it's a completely "righteous" shooting, there's a high probability of being "punished by the process". That said, I'd still rather be alive and have my family alive and deal with those issues. But I agree with you, there's no way I'd arm myself to go confront guys rifling through my car like Peter Khill, Gerald Stanley, and Edouard Maurice did (all acquitted or charges withdrawn) ... I'd just let them have my car/its contents and call police/my insurance company. Nothing I own is worth it. But to protect myself or my family, different story.


----------



## Eaglelord17 (27 Aug 2020)

Donald H said:
			
		

> You're safer not having a gun in the house for self defense.
> https://www.thetrace.org/2020/04/gun-safety-research-coronavirus-gun-sales/
> 
> Having a gun in the home increases the chance for accidental injury, homicide, and suicide, all of which have been shown to outweigh the potential protective benefits of firearms.
> ...



Actually they do not increase the suicide rate at all. They just change HOW people commit suicide. When Canada brought in the safe storage requirements and licencing our FIREARM suicide rate went down, however the OVERALL suicide rate remained the same, people just changed how they kill themselves. Instead of shooting themselves they hung themselves etc. Attached is a chart showing suicide per capita in Canada from 1950-2009. I know the key dates for firearm laws, none of them made any difference. The argument can even be made that our current laws hinder mental health for firearms owners as if you admit to having suicidal thoughts they will take your firearms away from you, meaning that people are not likely to report having problems. Which in turn leads to small problems becoming bigger. Unfortunately you cannot get numbers for my point as no firearm owner will admit it or not due to the threat of losing their property. 

https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/82-624-x/2012001/article/chart/11696-02-chart1-eng.htm

In regards to accidental injury, that is only a factor when firearms are left loaded and unlocked around the house. Since that isn't legal in Canada those statistics are invalid for Canada as well. 

The USA's gun violence problem isn't actually related to firearms, it is related to people. The USA has always had a much higher gun violence problem than Canada, even though up until 1978 our laws were looser than theirs. If you want to tackle gun violence in the States you need to tackle the social issues that fuel it, and that is much harder than the myth of saying we banned this type of property and now we are safe. Countries like Switzerland are great examples of extremely armed populations who have next to no crime due to the fact they lack the social issues which cause them (drugs, social inequity, etc.).


----------



## Donald H (27 Aug 2020)

Eaglelord17 said:
			
		

> Actually they do not increase the suicide rate at all. They just change HOW people commit suicide. When Canada brought in the safe storage requirements and licencing our FIREARM suicide rate went down, however the OVERALL suicide rate remained the same, people just changed how they kill themselves. Instead of shooting themselves they hung themselves etc. Attached is a chart showing suicide per capita in Canada from 1950-2009. I know the key dates for firearm laws, none of them made any difference. The argument can even be made that our current laws hinder mental health for firearms owners as if you admit to having suicidal thoughts they will take your firearms away from you, meaning that people are not likely to report having problems. Which in turn leads to small problems becoming bigger. Unfortunately you cannot get numbers for my point as no firearm owner will admit it or not due to the threat of losing their property.



Thanks for your reasoned reply. You may have a point on suicides other than a gun but it doesn't change the statistic on people being safer without a gun for self defense. 



> Countries like Switzerland are great examples of extremely armed populations who have next to no crime due to the fact they lack the social issues which cause them (drugs, social inequity, etc.).



That is very true of other countries as compared to the US. My aim is not to dwell on the problems the US has with their over-abundance of guns, combined with social issues. but to use their example as that which would be socially irresponsible for Canada. Changing and/or relaxing laws on handguns should be considered by all Canadians as completely out of the question. 

And as to my personal starting point on assault rifles in Canada? I think the issue nearly solves itself because we lack the social ills that drive a lot of people to want to own one, use one on a range, or even walk down main street carrying one. Exceptions may exist but IMO the exception would require a valid explanation.


----------



## QV (27 Aug 2020)

Donald H said:
			
		

> Thanks for your reasoned reply. You may have a point on suicides other than a gun but it doesn't change the statistic on people being safer without a gun for self defense.
> 
> *That is very true of other countries as compared to the US. My aim is not to dwell on the problems the US has with their over-abundance of guns, combined with social issues. but to use their example as that which would be socially irresponsible for Canada. Changing and/or relaxing laws on handguns should be considered by all Canadians as completely out of the question. *
> 
> And as to my personal starting point on assault rifles in Canada? I think the issue nearly solves itself because we lack the social ills that drive a lot of people to want to own one, use one on a range, or even walk down main street carrying one. Exceptions may exist but IMO the exception would require a valid explanation.



So wouldn't it be more productive to fix the social issues that lead to the problems rather than target gun laws that won't change anything?  The answer seems so obvious, I can't imagine why our elected class would want to do what they are now doing (making gun laws more strict while considering legalizing hard drugs).  What possibly could the motivation be for that?


----------



## Donald H (27 Aug 2020)

QV said:
			
		

> So wouldn't it be more productive to fix the social issues that lead to the problems rather than target gun laws that won't change anything?  The answer seems so obvious, I can't imagine why our elected class would want to do what they are now doing (making gun laws more strict while considering legalizing hard drugs).  What possibly could the motivation be for that?



When you introduce legalizing hard drugs to the conversation, you introduce the question of whether or not that would be socially responsible change? Huge topic! 

But back to guns. Relaxing laws on handguns would change a h--- of a lot of things.


----------



## Eaglelord17 (27 Aug 2020)

Donald H said:
			
		

> When you introduce legalizing hard drugs to the conversation, you introduce the question of whether or not that would be socially responsible change? Huge topic!
> 
> But back to guns. Relaxing laws on handguns would change a h--- of a lot of things.



Like what? I can think of plenty of things which make no sense in our handgun laws which if removed would have no effect whatsoever on anything other than getting rid of some bureaucratic jobs.

For example if they removed the ATT system and just made a list of places that is legal to bring a Restricted firearm (such as the range, gunsmith, gunshow, border crossings, to a new residence, transported to a new owner, lend to a friend, etc.) there would be no difference whatsoever. It is just a waste of time for all parties as you already possess the firearm and if your going to do something illegal with it, you are not going to ask permission to do so. 

If they allowed people to shoot restricted firearms in the same places you can shoot a non-restricted firearm there would also be no difference, people are basically already doing that with antique firearms, and surprise there isn't a pick up in crime. In fact a restricted firearm is generally safer to shoot in most areas as they tend to be lower powered than a non-restricted firearm (i.e. pistol ammo has a much shorter range). 

If you wanted to talk about concealed carry, provided you put in place the proper training and requirements you wouldn't see any difference in crime stats. A cop or soldier is just a citizen who has some extra training and that job. There is no reason why your average citizen if they wanted to get use of force training, a restricted licence, and a competency test couldn't effectively concealed carry a firearm. Odds are they would actually be safer than most police as many firearms owners shoot more regularly than most cops do. Having been in a situation where I wished I was armed, I personally think it is ridiculous the government has basically prohibited citizenry from defending themselves  (including the banning of less lethal options such as pepper spray) well they themselves walk around with armed guards. I understand this isn't a popular viewpoint in Canada, and likely won't be seen again in this country, however a citizen who has taken all the training, has no criminal record, and is a upstanding member of society would be no risk to the public. The people committing the crimes don't do any training, usually have a criminal record, no licencing, yet they are still walking around armed anyways. The only thing that would change is now there is more good guys armed as well.


----------



## shawn5o (27 Aug 2020)

Donald H said:
			
		

> You're safer not having a gun in the house for self defense.
> https://www.thetrace.org/2020/04/gun-safety-research-coronavirus-gun-sales/
> 
> This has been a pretty well known fact for a long time.



Hi Don others on this  thread

Here's a link from 2018 on _What Do We Know About Firearms in Canada?: A Systematic Scoping Review_

https://ir.lib.uwo.ca/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1053&context=sociologypub

Its not conclusive, however, its a good start (I think) about suicides, violence, etc.


----------



## shawn5o (27 Aug 2020)

Some commenters say that  the AR15 should be banned because you can't hunt with them or ...

Question: Why are First Nations exempted from the legislation ref AR15s?


----------



## Stoker (27 Aug 2020)

shawn5o said:
			
		

> Some commenters say that  the AR15 should be banned because you can't hunt with them or ...
> 
> Question: Why are First Nations exempted from the legislation ref AR15s?



Subsistence hunting I would imagine. Up until 1977 the AR15 was non restricted firearm in Canada and was able to brought hunting.


----------



## Ostrozac (27 Aug 2020)

Chief Engineer said:
			
		

> Subsistence hunting I would imagine. Up until 1977 the AR15 was non restricted firearm in Canada and was able to brought hunting.


Correct me if I’m wrong, but wasn’t the semi-automatic AR15 restricted by order in council in 1992, and non-restricted prior to that date?

1977 was, I believe, the date of the introduction of the Firearms Acquisition Certificate (now known as the Possession and Acquisition Licence).


----------



## Stoker (27 Aug 2020)

Ostrozac said:
			
		

> Correct me if I’m wrong, but wasn’t the semi-automatic AR15 restricted by order in council in 1992, and non-restricted prior to that date?
> 
> 1977 was, I believe, the date of the introduction of the Firearms Acquisition Certificate (now known as the Possession and Acquisition Licence).



You maybe right on that date, so really a pretty recent thing.


----------



## Donald H (27 Aug 2020)

shawn5o said:
			
		

> Hi Don others on this  thread
> 
> Here's a link from 2018 on _What Do We Know About Firearms in Canada?: A Systematic Scoping Review_
> 
> ...



Hi Shawn, and thanks for your effort to post the link. I'm sorry but I'm not inclined to read such a lengthy pro-gun piece as that but I 'am' interested in hearing of individual talking points on gun control or lack of.


----------



## Halifax Tar (27 Aug 2020)

Donald H said:
			
		

> Thanks for your reasoned reply. You may have a point on suicides other than a gun but it doesn't change the statistic on people being safer without a gun for self defense.
> 
> That is very true of other countries as compared to the US. My aim is not to dwell on the problems the US has with their over-abundance of guns, combined with social issues. but to use their example as that which would be socially irresponsible for Canada. Changing and/or relaxing laws on handguns should be considered by all Canadians as completely out of the question.
> 
> And as to my personal starting point on assault rifles in Canada? I think the issue nearly solves itself because we lack the social ills that drive a lot of people to want to own one, use one on a range, or even walk down main street carrying one. Exceptions may exist but IMO the exception would require a valid explanation.



Hold up... Are you insinuating that those that currently own or would like to own an AR platform, for what ever legal reason, have some sort of social ill ?


----------



## Donald H (27 Aug 2020)

Eaglelord17 said:
			
		

> For example if they removed the ATT system and just made a list of places that is legal to bring a Restricted firearm (such as the range, gunsmith, gunshow, border crossings, to a new residence, transported to a new owner, lend to a friend, etc.) there would be no difference whatsoever.



My intention is not to ignore your points in favour of relaxing handgun laws, but to narrow it down to a managable level of debate. And so this:



> For example if they removed the ATT system and just made a list of places that is legal to bring a Restricted firearm (such as the range, gunsmith, gunshow, border crossings, to a new residence, transported to a new owner, lend to a friend, etc.) there would be no difference whatsoever.



And so in my opinion, all roads lead to at least one of those destinations, effectively making it legal to carry a handgun anywhere one should choose and to carry it at any time. Thereby turning Canada into the equivalent of the US on handgun laws.

 :cheers:


----------



## SeaKingTacco (27 Aug 2020)

Donald H said:
			
		

> My intention is not to ignore your points in favour of relaxing handgun laws, but to narrow it down to a managable level of debate. And so this:
> 
> And so in my opinion, all roads lead to at least one of those destinations, effectively making it legal to carry a handgun anywhere one should choose and to carry it at any time. Thereby turning Canada into the equivalent of the US on handgun laws.
> 
> :cheers:



Not really.  You would have no business being in a mall parking lot (or really just about any parking lot), with your handgun in the car, if you were on your way to the range.  Cops aren't stupid: they can use Google maps, too, to see if you are (more or less) on a direct route from your house to a designated destination.

The current ATT system is designed to be an irritant and thus deter people from owning firearms.  It does nothing for firearms safety.


----------



## shawn5o (27 Aug 2020)

Donald H said:
			
		

> Hi Shawn, and thanks for your effort to post the link. I'm sorry but I'm not inclined to read such a lengthy pro-gun piece as that but I 'am' interested in hearing of individual talking points on gun control or lack of.



yeah, it is long, howver, the report irself is only 25 pgs. The rest of the report is references


----------



## Eaglelord17 (27 Aug 2020)

Donald H said:
			
		

> My intention is not to ignore your points in favour of relaxing handgun laws, but to narrow it down to a managable level of debate. And so this:
> 
> And so in my opinion, all roads lead to at least one of those destinations, effectively making it legal to carry a handgun anywhere one should choose and to carry it at any time. Thereby turning Canada into the equivalent of the US on handgun laws.
> 
> :cheers:



So at the moment my ATT covers the range, gunshow, gunsmith, gun stores, and border crossings. Your saying I can drive anywhere with it? Actually thinking about it I COULD drive anywhere with it at the moment, it just wouldn't be legal. The ATT system is designed to frustrate and deter law abiding citizens from going about their legal business for no real benefit or safety to the public. There is only cost in wasted time for both the citizen attempting to go about their business and in bureaucracy because you are now spending likely thousands if not millions of dollars each year to 'approve' going to legal destinations.


----------



## Jarnhamar (27 Aug 2020)

[quote author=Donald H] 

And so in my opinion, all roads lead to at least one of those destinations, effectively making it legal to carry a handgun anywhere one should choose and to carry it at any time. Thereby turning Canada into the equivalent of the US on handgun laws.

 :cheers:
[/quote]

I have a Glock 26, what's stopping me from carrying it around everyday if I want to?


----------



## Colin Parkinson (27 Aug 2020)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> I have a Glock 26, what's stopping me from carrying it around everyday if I want to?



Because it's an uncomfortable and ugly block of plastic and metal?  8)


----------



## Haggis (27 Aug 2020)

Donald H said:
			
		

> And so in my opinion, all roads lead to at least one of those destinations, effectively making it legal to *carry* a handgun anywhere one should choose and to carry it at any time. Thereby turning Canada into the equivalent of the US on handgun laws.



Not even close!

You are confusing carrying with transportation.

Carrying is done with the handgun in a holster, with the handgun loaded and/or made ready for use once drawn.  Only one civilian in Canada is licensed to *legally carry* a handgun at a place other that a shooting range.  (Criminals don't have a license and usually 'carry" in a pocket or waistband.)

Transportation is the movement of an unloaded and properly secured firearm between authorized locations.  It requires you to have the handgun unloaded, trigger or cable locked and secured in a locked case.


----------



## mariomike (27 Aug 2020)

Haggis said:
			
		

> Only one civilian in Canada is licensed to *legally carry* a handgun at a place other that a shooting range.



Norm Gardner used to carry. Saw some action with it too.

Not sure if he still has that "protection-of-life" permit.


----------



## Donald H (27 Aug 2020)

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> Hold up... Are you insinuating that those that currently own or would like to own an AR platform, for what ever legal reason, have some sort of social ill ?



That's a pretty loaded question Halifax Tar but I feel that I shouldn't avoid answering.

In my opinion there are exceptions to the rule I've mentioned but there's little doubt that some owners of AR-15's are seen proudly standing on a street corner in full camo with their AR-15. Or, as was the case in the US recently, extreme rightist dressed up the same with their AR-15's on the steps of a government building in the US. I have an issue with that kind of behaviour and I surely don't want to ever see it in Canada. That was all apparently quite legal in America. This is behavour I see as quite distinct from seeing a hunter standing in a duck blind, for instance, with a shotgun and dressed in his camo gear.

And now fwiw, a 17 year old murders two people on the street and is seen walking by the police with his AR-15 in tow.


----------



## Haggis (27 Aug 2020)

Donald H said:
			
		

> Or, as was the case in the US recently, extreme rightist dressed up the same with their AR-15's on the steps of a government building in the US. I have an issue with that kind of behaviour and I surely don't want to ever see it in Canada. That was all apparently quite legal in America.


Under current Canadian law you won't see this.  The differences between Canadian and US gun laws,  gun owners and gun culture are as different as apples and bricks.  Lawful, licensed Canadian firearms owners are some of the best behaved, safest and socially responsible citizens. It's unfair and dishonest to equate and compare them to the types of behaviors and personalities seen in a small and radical segment of the American firearms community.


----------



## QV (27 Aug 2020)

Donald H said:
			
		

> And now fwiw, a 17 year old murders two people on the street and is seen walking by the police with his AR-15 in tow.



Allegedly.  It may be determined to be self defence.


----------



## Jarnhamar (28 Aug 2020)

[quote author=Donald H] 

And now fwiw, a 17 year old murders two people on the street and is seen walking by the police with his AR-15 in tow.
[/quote]

Why would they have stopped him?
No probable cause to. They didn't see him shoot anyone and carrying a rifle isn't illegal.


----------



## Brad Sallows (28 Aug 2020)

>we lack the social ills

All the less reason to prohibit firearm ownership by ordinary people here.


----------



## Halifax Tar (28 Aug 2020)

Donald H said:
			
		

> That's a pretty loaded question Halifax Tar but I feel that I shouldn't avoid answering.
> 
> In my opinion there are exceptions to the rule I've mentioned but there's little doubt that some owners of AR-15's are seen proudly standing on a street corner in full camo with their AR-15. Or, as was the case in the US recently, extreme rightist dressed up the same with their AR-15's on the steps of a government building in the US. I have an issue with that kind of behaviour and I surely don't want to ever see it in Canada. That was all apparently quite legal in America. This is behavour I see as quite distinct from seeing a hunter standing in a duck blind, for instance, with a shotgun and dressed in his camo gear.
> 
> And now fwiw, a 17 year old murders two people on the street and is seen walking by the police with his AR-15 in tow.



I appreciate your reply and I don't think the question is loaded unless you have an incorrect preconceived notion of firearms owners.  

I think you need to educate your self on firearms in Canada, the laws (over time up to their current state) and their employment in crimes VS legal uses.  You seem to be a very typical  non-firearm owning Canadian who uses occurrences and happenings in another country as reason to punish limit law abiding Canadians who have nothing to do with what happens in another country. 

I have stated repeatedly on this and other sites I have no issues with firearms regulation but they must be fact and science/engineering based, not on the unreasonable and unfounded fears of soccer moms. 

What does that 17 year old in the USA have to do with Canadian firearms legislation ?


----------



## Donald H (28 Aug 2020)

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> I appreciate your reply and I don't think the question is loaded unless you have an incorrect preconceived notion of firearms owners.



Lots of questions so I'll try to answer as best I can.  



> I think you need to educate your self on firearms in Canada, the laws (over time up to their current state) and their employment in crimes VS legal uses.  You seem to be a very typical  non-firearm owning Canadian who uses occurrences and happenings in another country as reason to punish limit law abiding Canadians who have nothing to do with what happens in another country.



I'm quite familiar with firearms, had used them for many years, and became very proficient in their use. Fwiw, I don't now and I don't own firearms anymore. Ithink that would place me in the top third of Canadians at least on the use of firearms.  And now by taking part on this thread I'm learning more about Canada's laws. That which is happening in the US is something we don't want to happen in Canada and that's good reason to refer to it. 



> I have stated repeatedly on this and other sites I have no issues with firearms regulation but they must be fact and science/engineering based, not on the unreasonable and unfounded fears of soccer moms.



Soccer moms are the same as all Canadian moms and their opinions are just as legitimate as all dads. If upwards of 70% (?) of Canadians are supportive of our current laws, and more that are proposed then your point could be right on my lack of education, and especially theirs.

The Americans out standing on Main street with their AR-15's deserves closer consideration and a closer look. It's not the AR-15 that's going to kill somebody, it's the person with the gun that's possibly go berserk and kill.  Same as the gun lying on the table example that we're all heard of. 

So it's mostly the social ills of that country that are the problem and therefore, IMO, they aren't legitimately of sound enough mind to be allowed to carry their AR-15 on Main street. Their track record tells us so. Consequently, there's good reason to forbid socially unfit Americans to own assault rifles.

And now to how that applies to Canada. We can say we're different but we know in fact that we have some similar bad apples in the barrel too. This is, IMO a good reason to not allow them the type of weapons that are an encouragement of that behaviour. 

The legitimate AR-15 owner or wannabe owner in Canada must pay the price of the American experience due to the opinions of those moms (and dads). Therefore, perhaps what is needed is a re-education of the majority of Canadians in order to convince them they are wrong. 

Do those Canadians who want to own AR-15's possess the sincerity and compassion it would take to re-educate those millions of soccer moms? I think the first obstacle against accomplishing that would be to not narrow it down to just 'soccer' moms 



> What does that 17 year old in the USA have to do with Canadian firearms legislation?



In fact everything. America doesn't have a monopoly on mentally ill 17 year olds that are fascinated with the prospect of killing somebody with their gun. Although admittedly most likely less on a comparable per capita basis. The only thing lacking in Canada is the easy access to the AR-15 with which to do the job efficiently.

- Staff edit to fix quote box.


----------



## Donald H (28 Aug 2020)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Why would they have stopped him?
> No probable cause to. They didn't see him shoot anyone and carrying a rifle isn't illegal.



It's possible the police didn't see him shoot anybody and so the bottle of water the police gave him may not have been meant as a reward. But two people were murdered and a couple of reasons why are that the kid was mentally ill and he exercized his right to carry his AR-15 on Main street. 

In Canada we can't eliminate the first possibility completely because we can only succeed partially with more socially responsible government aid to the mentally ill. 
Dealing with the AR-15 on Main street is much more easily dealt with. My reply to Halifax Tar explains my feelings in more detail.


----------



## Remius (28 Aug 2020)

Donald H said:
			
		

> It's possible the police didn't see him shoot anybody and so the bottle of water the police gave him may not have been meant as a reward. But two people were murdered and a couple of reasons why are that the kid was mentally ill and he exercized his right to carry his AR-15 on Main street.
> 
> In Canada we can't eliminate the first possibility completely because we can only succeed partially with more socially responsible government aid to the mentally ill.
> Dealing with the AR-15 on Main street is much more easily dealt with. My reply to Halifax Tar explains my feelings in more detail.



This is purely anecdotal on my part. I literally know dozens of people that own ARs and other types of firearms.  Some of them are of the very best shots in Canada and the CAF.  None of them are mentally ill.   At all.  A few I would consider to be gun nuts and all about morale patches and wear what they think is SOF kit etc etc.  But they don't worry me, they are just a bit too much enthusiastic.  The majority are professionals though.


----------



## Donald H (28 Aug 2020)

Remius said:
			
		

> This is purely anecdotal on my part. I literally know dozens of people that own ARs and other types of firearms.  Some of them are of the very best shots in Canada and the CAF.



I'm not unaware of a legitimate reason to own AR-15's, and even a legitimate need, as you're suggesting. One who needs to be highly proficient with the use of the particular weapons can't be so without using it frequently. Or at least that was my experience with other firearms. 

It's still the illegitimate factor that we need to be concerned about.

Have you noticed that an often heard talking point from those who oppose any gun control measures, sometime old existing measures and sometimes new proposed measures, very often draw a comparison to how different Canadians are to Americans? Or perhaps more accurately, how different Canada is to America?


----------



## Stoker (28 Aug 2020)

Donald H said:
			
		

> I'm not unaware of a legitimate reason to own AR-15's, and even a legitimate need, as you're suggesting. One who needs to be highly proficient with the use of the particular weapons can't be so without using it frequently. Or at least that was my experience with other firearms.
> 
> It's still the illegitimate factor that we need to be concerned about.
> 
> Have you noticed that an often heard talking point from those who oppose any gun control measures, sometime old existing measures and sometimes new proposed measures, very often draw a comparison to how different Canadians are to Americans? Or perhaps more accurately, how different Canada is to America?



So service rifle and sport shooting is not a legitimate reason to own a AR15? It was for many years until the government decided it wasn't and banned them by OIC.


----------



## Brad Sallows (28 Aug 2020)

WTF is this "legitimate reason" bullshit?  Do I need a legitimate reason to own a muscle car?  A pair of skis?  A leather BDSM suit for dungeon night?


----------



## dapaterson (28 Aug 2020)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> Do I need a legitimate reason to own a muscle car?  A pair of skis?  A leather BDSM suit for dungeon night?



Well, if your BDSM hangout needs you to commute via car, then ski overland to get to it, then yes.


----------



## Jarnhamar (28 Aug 2020)

Donald H said:
			
		

> I'm not unaware of a legitimate reason to own AR-15's, and even a legitimate need, as you're suggesting.



Out of curiosity is it AR15s you don't think is I should own?
Semi-automatic firearms?
Black "military looking" firearms?

What criteria do you use to define what's dangerous and what's not in a firearm?


----------



## Donald H (28 Aug 2020)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> WTF is this "legitimate reason" bullshit?  Do I need a legitimate reason to own a muscle car?  A pair of skis?  A leather BDSM suit for dungeon night?



How about some sort of screening of those who wish to own a firearm to ensure they have a legitimate reason? 
I would refer to the 17 year old mentally ill kid who just murdered two people. In my opinion he acted like he had just fulfilled a dream he had and that's got something to do with his past record of misbehaving. 

I wonder if anybody ever asked him why he wanted to own an AR-15? He probably would have been quite truthful that it wasn't to shoot targets or small animals.   That's my opinion on WTF this is all about Brad.

 :cheers:


----------



## Good2Golf (28 Aug 2020)

A legitimate reason can be to exercise one’s rights to the maximum legal extent possible.

That’s why a rifle such as the Remington 700 PCR Enhanced is still legal in Canada.


----------



## Haggis (28 Aug 2020)

In response to: 


			
				Donald H said:
			
		

> I'm not unaware of a legitimate reason to own AR-15's, and even a legitimate need, as you're suggesting.



and



> How about some sort of screening of those who wish to own a firearm to ensure they have a legitimate reason?



When the AR-15 was still restricted, Canadians had to already justify owning one and that justification was usually competition or target shooting which were legitimate uses up until May 1st, 2020 when they magically weren't.  As a lawful Canadian gun owner you should know that.  

The same could be said for your statements regarding carrying versus transporting a handgun. As a licensee you should know that, too.

Why should one have to justify owning an AR-15 any more than any other firearm? Many hunting rifles are far more powerful and, therefore, more lethal than a legally owned 5 round AR-15.




			
				Donald H said:
			
		

> Have you noticed that an often heard talking point from those who oppose any gun control measures, sometime old existing measures and sometimes new proposed measures, very often draw a comparison to how different Canadians are to Americans? Or perhaps more accurately, how different Canada is to America?



Yes and this is why, again, your comparisons of a lawful Canadian AR-15 owner and a 17 year-old American kid is disingenuous.  Different societies, gun cultures and vastly different gun laws make that comparison invalid.  Someone doing what that kid did - even in an open carry state like Wisconsin -  is breaking more than just gun laws.  More laws wouldn't have stopped him.

Maybe a better solution than creating more laws for criminals to ignore would be to apply and enforce exiting laws more consistently and effectively?

Lastly:



			
				Donald H said:
			
		

> One who needs to be highly proficient with the use of the particular weapons can't be so without using it frequently. Or at least that was my experience with other firearms.



One of the left's favourite talking heads on gun policy, Wendy Cukier of the Coalition for Gun Control (Confiscation?) has stated that lawful gun owners are more dangerous than criminals because they are proficient.  Are we to infer that you believe civilians should not be proficient or that such proficiency leads to criminality?


----------



## Haggis (28 Aug 2020)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> That’s why a rifle such as the Remington 700 PCR Enhanced is still legal in Canada.


...for now.


----------



## Good2Golf (28 Aug 2020)

Haggis said:
			
		

> ...for now.



Sadly, you may be right, Haggis.


----------



## Eaglelord17 (29 Aug 2020)

Donald H said:
			
		

> Lots of questions so I'll try to answer as best I can.
> 
> I'm quite familiar with firearms, had used them for many years, and became very proficient in their use. Fwiw, I don't now and I don't own firearms anymore. Ithink that would place me in the top third of Canadians at least on the use of firearms.  And now by taking part on this thread I'm learning more about Canada's laws. That which is happening in the US is something we don't want to happen in Canada and that's good reason to refer to it.
> 
> ...



So 70% of Canadians don't have a clue about our firearms laws, I am failing to see your point? Just because something is popular doesn't mean it is right. If I was to say 90% of people think that wearing a mask is stupid, and the 10% that don't are experts, who are you going to listen to the 90% or the experts? When the general public becomes actually aware of our laws, and has actual exposure to firearms I will take them a bit more seriously. Some peoples opinions aren't as legitimate as others. A doctor's opinion on health is more legitimate than mine. However firearms are one of the few things I actually have a decent amount of knowledge on, enough that at one point I turned down a job to work at the RCMP firearms lab.

The AR-15 isn't a super deadly murder machine, any more than any other rifle is. The USA has the same long gun (which a AR-15, AK-47, etc. are long guns) death rate as Canada despite significantly less controls on them. There was a kid in the USA who shot up his school in I believe Texas with a shotgun and revolver killing 14 a few years ago. That is one of the deadliest school shootings in the USA and a significantly higher kill count than most who use ARs or AKs. 

Banning specific firearms is stupid. If you need to have legislation you need to be able to justify it though science. If it is the semi-automatic part which is scary, then all semi-automatics are equally scary. Our firearms act attempted to do that with the prohibited, restricted, and non-restricted classes where they listed what features put them in certain categories. Then they basically said we did this wrong, we shall also ban these specific firearms just because we said so. The AR-15 for example with a 20" barrel should be a non-restricted firearm in this country, but only poor legislation has made it what it is today.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (29 Aug 2020)

Donald H said:
			
		

> My intention is not to ignore your points in favour of relaxing handgun laws, but to narrow it down to a managable level of debate. And so this:
> 
> And so in my opinion, all roads lead to at least one of those destinations, effectively making it legal to carry a handgun anywhere one should choose and to carry it at any time. Thereby turning Canada into the equivalent of the US on handgun laws.
> 
> :cheers:



You realize that Canada used to allow concealed carry far more than it does now? It's a fallacy that guns are not a part of our culture, there are more licensed gun owners in Canada, than people playing organized hockey. I will argue the reason the Libs are pushing gun control is due to the steady rise in gun ownership in Canada and that the increase is been driven by new Canadians and women. (Note women are also a major force in new gun ownership in the US as well)  Also in the US the CCW permit holders have a incredibly small rate of indictment for offenses, in and around the 1% rate for the majority of jurisdictions. The majority of homicides in the US are gang and drug related and over half of them are concentrated in 2% of the counties.


----------



## Donald H (29 Aug 2020)

Eaglelord17 said:
			
		

> So 70% of Canadians don't have a clue about our firearms laws, I am failing to see your point? Just because something is popular doesn't mean it is right. If I was to say 90% of people think that wearing a mask is stupid, and the 10% that don't are experts, who are you going to listen to the 90% or the experts? When the general public becomes actually aware of our laws, and has actual exposure to firearms I will take them a bit more seriously. Some peoples opinions aren't as legitimate as others. A doctor's opinion on health is more legitimate than mine. However firearms are one of the few things I actually have a decent amount of knowledge on, enough that at one point I turned down a job to work at the RCMP firearms lab.



That's a very dangerous argument to make in a democratic country Eagleford, but I have to be honest and say that I respect it and understand that there are certain circumstances in which it's quite legitimate. The debate over capitol punishment is another example of where the same argument could be legitimate. 



> The AR-15 isn't a super deadly murder machine, any more than any other rifle is.



It's a copy of a design that was meant for doing just that if we can say that it was designed for killing people instead of it being a murder weapon. With my limited knowledge I don't know of any other long gun that is better suited to killing people. (that needs to be qualified of course) 



> The USA has the same long gun (which a AR-15, AK-47, etc. are long guns) death rate as Canada despite significantly less controls on them.



I didn't know that. But I may be misquoting you because you added another sentence: "more than any other rifle.'



> There was a kid in the USA who shot up his school in I believe Texas with a shotgun and revolver killing 14 a few years ago. That is one of the deadliest school shootings in the USA and a significantly higher kill count than most who use ARs or AKs.



I'm not familiar with the particular shooting offhand but I'll assume he didn't use an AR-15. If that's true then it would be the exception for school shootings in the US. 



> Banning specific firearms is stupid. If you need to have legislation you need to be able to justify it though science. If it is the semi-automatic part which is scary, then all semi-automatics are equally scary. Our firearms act attempted to do that with the prohibited, restricted, and non-restricted classes where they listed what features put them in certain categories. Then they basically said we did this wrong, we shall also ban these specific firearms just because we said so. The AR-15 for example with a 20" barrel should be a non-restricted firearm in this country, but only poor legislation has made it what it is today.



I respectfully disagree. GM makes pickup trucks and that's not questioned as legitimate. If they started making pickup trucks with a 50 cal. machine mounted in the bed of the truck, that wouldn't be legitimate in my opinion. AR-15's are a copy of a weapon that was designed to kill people. (I am assuming that's correct) Therefore I consider the AR-15 to not be a legitimate weapon on Canada's streets. 

There could be many different long guns that are incorrectly designated as not being legal for civilians to own. That will hopefully be sorted out over time. But at the same time there are in my opinion quite sensible laws being proposed and adopted. For instance, I owned a couple of Remington 1100's and from experience I would say that they are legitimate shotguns to own. They're a lot different from a weapons that was designed to kill people and is super efficient at doing so.

- Staff edit to fix quote box.


----------



## Fabius (29 Aug 2020)

I would suggest that tyranny of the majority is a clear and present danger that democracies need to be cognizant of...

The Remington 1100 is a 12 gauge gas operated shotgun, designed in the early 1960s.
The Beretta M4 is a 12 gauge gas operated shotgun, designed in 1998 for the US Military. 
Both fire the same ammo, both are capable of similar ammo capacities, both can be similar length and weight with mods.

Do you consider them both legitimate or not? Its an honest question as I have no idea how you can say that this specific firearm was designed for killing people and is not legitimate while this one is not designed for killing people and is legitimate?

Note here that we are not talking about belt fed fully automatic weapons, but rather firearms like the above shotguns, the Lee Enfield, the M1 Garand, M9 Pistol. How about the British Army's Brown Bess, its a flintlock that was designed for use by a military force, hence presumably with the aim of killing the British Empires enemies?


----------



## suffolkowner (29 Aug 2020)

I fully expect the rest of semi-automatic rifles to be prohibited as well. What makes a Browning BAR less dangerous than the rifles recently moved from non-restricted and restricted to prohibited? Maybe semi-automatic shotguns will follow. Handguns for sure. I'm not sure how anyone can support a system that bans a bolt action shotgun. Here's a thought, maybe we should stop continuousl letting the truly violent criminals out of jail. The Toronto Sun ran a few articles in the spring on this and the list was astounding


----------



## Good2Golf (29 Aug 2020)

The AR-15 and the whole move from 7.62mm to 5.56mm was actually to cause more wounding vice killing, thus committing the enemy to use more soldiers to care for wounded comrades, reducing enemy effectiveness.


----------



## Haggis (29 Aug 2020)

Donald H said:
			
		

> I'm not familiar with the particular shooting offhand but I'll assume he didn't use an AR-15. If that's true then it would be the exception for school shootings in the US.



It was clearly stated that he used a shotgun and revolver.  Most school shootings in the US are committed with non-AR style firearms. 



			
				Donald H said:
			
		

> AR-15's are a copy of a weapon that was designed to kill people. (I am assuming that's correct).



You are incorrect.  The military M-16/M-4 are descendants of the civilian marketed AR-15.  "AR" is an abbrevaitation of "Armalite Rifle", not "Assault Rifle" as many left wingers would have you believe. 



			
				Donald H said:
			
		

> Therefore I consider the AR-15 to not be a legitimate weapon on Canada's streets.



Any AR style rifles on Canadian streets - before and after the May 1st OIC -  are either possessed by the  police or criminals.  Legally owned civilian ARs have been banned from Canadian streets *for decades*.


----------



## Jarnhamar (29 Aug 2020)

Donald H your Remington 1100 is a semi-automatic  (read faster shooting) version of the 870 which as a firearm type probably holds the record for most people killed with a shotgun.

You're hung up on the nuanced opinion that an AR15 is designed for killing yet that arguable hunting shotgun of yours is based off a 70 year old design which is still used the world over by police and the military (on top of everyone else).

If you load that shotgun up of yours with some "hunting" ammo like slugs or OO buck you can cause a hell of a lot of damage. In an enclosed room or building by a single shooter? Way more dangerous than an AR15 IMO. Happy to hear arguments to the contrary if someone disagrees.


----------



## Ostrozac (29 Aug 2020)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> The AR-15 and the whole move from 7.62mm to 5.56mm was actually to cause more wounding vice killing, thus committing the enemy to use more soldiers to care for wounded comrades, reducing enemy effectiveness.


I’m not so sure about that. The 1962-63 M14 vs AR15 trials run by the US Army Test and Evaluation Command were a major waypoint along the road to the replacement of 7.62mm with 5.56mm. And the trials report (as summarized in The Black Rifle by Stevens and Ezell) talks about accuracy, recoil and weight — but wounding vs lethality isn’t mentioned.


----------



## Donald H (29 Aug 2020)

Fabius said:
			
		

> I would suggest that tyranny of the majority is a clear and present danger that democracies need to be cognizant of...
> 
> The Remington 1100 is a 12 gauge gas operated shotgun, designed in the early 1960s.
> The Beretta M4 is a 12 gauge gas operated shotgun, designed in 1998 for the US Military.
> Both fire the same ammo, both are capable of similar ammo capacities, both can be similar length and weight with mods.





> Do you consider them both legitimate or not?



It would seem to me that the M4 should be taken into consideration in the same way as the 1100, and I can't think of any reason why it wouldn't be. I would assume it could be fitted with a three round plug.  However, I would be cautious about making that decision if I was called upon to do so. I won't be!



> Its an honest question as I have no idea how you can say that this specific firearm was designed for killing people and is not legitimate while this one is not designed for killing people and is legitimate?



I would say that the difference is in the AR-15 being designed for killing people and it's likely the most efficient long gun for that purpose. (qualifications required) While the M4, I am cautiously assuming, is no more efficient than the 1100 for killing people. (possible permutations considered) Short or shortened barrel lengths already adequately covered by law.




> Note here that we are not talking about belt fed fully automatic weapons, but rather firearms like the above shotguns, the Lee Enfield, the M1 Garand, M9 Pistol. How about the British Army's Brown Bess, its a flintlock that was designed for use by a military force, hence presumably with the aim of killing the British Empires enemies?



That's a hard one to answer. How about if we consider all of those long guns being analogous to the pickup truck with a box liner and the AR-15 a long gun that is analogous to a pickup truck with the 50 cal. mounted in the box, straight from the GM factory?

To refer to the Lee Enfield, it was a very efficient hunting rifle and I owned a couple of them when I was a kid. Nothing about that rifle to object to as a deer hunting rifle other than the fact that hardpoint ammunition was easily obtained and then used for deer hunting by some people. 

The AR-15 is not such a useful weapon for hunting or for target shooting. That is, in my opinion. An opinion that may or may not be valid? I think I'm right on that but maybe that opinion will be challenged?


----------



## Haggis (29 Aug 2020)

Donald H said:
			
		

> The AR-15 is not such a useful weapon for hunting or for target shooting. That is, in my opinion. An opinion that may or may not be valid? I think I'm right on that but maybe that opinion will be challenged?



I'll challenge your opinion.  It depends on what you hunt.  For smaller game and varmints the .223/5.56 mm is more than sufficient.

And as far as target shooting, sure, it's totally suitable and remained so for decades, up until May 1st when, magically, it was unsuitable for one reason only - votes.  

"Designed to kill the largest amount of people in the shortest amount of time" presupposes the shooter uses overcapacity magazines, which are already illegal.  One law broken.  The shooter uses those overcapacity magazines to commit murder. Two laws broken.  How many new laws do we need to put in place for this shooter to break?  Do you think the Québec mosque shooter, the Dawson College shooter, the Ecole Polytechnique shooter or the Nova Scotia and New Brunswick shooters were concerned about laws?? Not a single existing laws stopped them.  Not a single new law would have any different effect.

The AR design has led to some amazingly accurate target rifles in many different calibres.  It's only failing is that it has been used in murders in other countries with different gun cultures and didfferent laws which has led to the Trudeau Liberals using it to get re-elected.


----------



## GR66 (29 Aug 2020)

A picture is worth a thousand words...


----------



## Kat Stevens (29 Aug 2020)

Donald H said:
			
		

> It's a copy of a design that was meant for doing just that if we can say that it was designed for killing people instead of it being a murder weapon.  So is a Lee-Enfield .303. With my limited knowledge I don't know of any other long gun that is better suited to killing people. (that needs to be qualified of course) AK 47? 74? MP-5? Galil? Steyr Aug? ACR? SCAR?


----------



## Donald H (29 Aug 2020)

GR66 said:
			
		

> A picture is worth a thousand words...



If that's correct then I have a totally wrong understanding of what is meant by the term 'firepower'. Maybe somebody will clear that question up?


----------



## GR66 (29 Aug 2020)

Donald H said:
			
		

> If that's correct then I have a totally wrong understanding of what is meant by the term 'firepower'. Maybe somebody will clear that question up?



Two rifles can have the exact same workings.  Shoot the exact same ammo at the exact same velocity.  Have the same range, ammo capacity, etc. but look totally different.  One has a wooden stock and looks like your dad's old hunting rifle.  The other is black and nasty looking with a pistol grip and appears all "military"...but they are functionally the same rifle.

Here's another example.  Both these rifles are Ruger Mini 14's.  Same capabilities. Both can be used for hunting.  One though is a nasty, scary "assault rifle" and must be kept away from people with mass murderous intent.

Edited to add:  The analogy of one being a normal pick-up truck and the other being a pick-up truck with a machine gun mounted in the bed isn't accurate.  It's more like one is your 50 year old aunt's Honda Accord....and the other it your buddy Gino's Honda Accord that's a low-rider with custom rims, neon lights and a tail fin.  They look totally different and your impression of the way they are driven might be based on their appearance...but they're both just Honda Accords.


----------



## RangerRay (29 Aug 2020)

Unless something has changed, I thought Mini14s were banned by OIC as well?

As for the “before times”, Mini14s were unrestricted while AR-15s were restricted. Which made no bloody sense.


----------



## Donald H (29 Aug 2020)

GR66 said:
			
		

> Two rifles can have the exact same workings.  Shoot the exact same ammo at the exact same velocity.  Have the same range, ammo capacity, etc. but look totally different.  One has a wooden stock and looks like your dad's old hunting rifle.  The other is black and nasty looking with a pistol grip and appears all "military"...but they are functionally the same rifle.



Well then if that's all true (with a few more qualifications) then nobody should have an issue if he/she is limited to the brown one. Or a pink one if they're still available in pink.



Edited to add:  The analogy of one being a normal pick-up truck and the other being a pick-up truck with a machine gun mounted in the bed isn't accurate.  It's more like one is your 50 year old aunt's Honda Accord....and the other it your buddy Gino's Honda Accord that's a low-rider with custom rims, neon lights and a tail fin.  They look totally different and your impression of the way they are driven might be based on their appearance...but they're both just Honda Accords.
[/quote]

Gwan! Somebody's buddy Gino's pickup truck wouldn't have the 50 cal mounted in the box. OH, and I notiece that the picture that is worth a thousand words isn't the same picture you posted. 

And then we can probably guess that the brown one won't appeal to people like the 17 year old mentally ill kid nearly as much as the black one. (or a pink one)


----------



## Good2Golf (29 Aug 2020)

Donald H, you keep referring to Kyle Rittenhouse as ‘mentally ill’.  Do you care to qualify that accusation?


----------



## Haggis (29 Aug 2020)

Donald H said:
			
		

> If that's correct then I have a totally wrong understanding of what is meant by the term 'firepower'. Maybe somebody will clear that question up?



In the context of small arms, which includes the infamous banned rifles, firepower can be defined as a combination of the calibre, accuracy and volume of rounds being fired at a target. That can be from a single firearm, such as a rifle (C7A2/M-16), or combination of firearms sch as a rifle, squad automatic weapon (C9A2/M249) and platoon medium machine gun (C6A2/M240B).

The term "firepower" is often used to describe the capability of a specific weapon to inflict harm/damage to a target.  That's wrong.  A rifleman with an AK-47 does not have more firepower than one with a C7A2.  He has a larger calibre bullet.  He has a heavier barrel, but if he cannot employ the principles of marksmanship and hit what he's aiming at, all that is useless.

The "firepower" of long guns in Canada is severely limited by their legal magazine capacity, that being 5 rounds. Again, Liberals overlook this legal limitation when fear mongering to support their ban of lawfully owned and used firearms.


----------



## Jarnhamar (29 Aug 2020)

G2G beat me to it.

Anxious to hear why you keep calling him mentally ill Donald.


----------



## Retired AF Guy (29 Aug 2020)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> The AR-15 and the whole move from 7.62mm to 5.56mm was actually to cause more wounding vice killing, thus committing the enemy to use more soldiers to care for wounded comrades, reducing enemy effectiveness.



My understanding was that with an 5.56mm rifle you could carry more ammo. Also, the AR-15 was a lot shorter than the M-14 making it easier to handle in the jungles of Vietnam.


----------



## Haggis (29 Aug 2020)

Retired AF Guy said:
			
		

> My understanding was that with an 5.56mm rifle you could carry more ammo. Also, the AR-15 was a lot shorter than the M-14 making it easier to handle in the jungles of Vietnam.


True, but the US and Australians still made extensive use of 7.62 mm in Vietnam due to the shortcomings of the 5.56 mm in the jungle. There are tons of 7 62 mm/.308 hunting rifles in Canada which are far more powerful than the AR-15.


----------



## tomahawk6 (29 Aug 2020)

The M16 was light and alot more ammo could be carried which has seen the weapon a staple in our tool box. The M16 has less range than say an M14 which became a point of discussion During the Afghanistan War. The result I think was the advent of designate marksmen in the infantry squads with sniper type rifles. I think Canadian snipers also made an impression. ;D


----------



## FJAG (30 Aug 2020)

Haggis said:
			
		

> True, but the US and Australians still made extensive use of 7.62 mm in Vietnam due to the shortcomings of the 5.56 mm in the jungle. There are tons of 7 62 mm/.308 hunting rifles in Canada which are far more powerful than the AR-15.



Australians rifle sections had a mixture of M16s and FALs and an M60 GPMG (the latter two being 7.62) US rifle squads were basically M16s throughout but the platoon's weapon squad had several M60 GPMGs.

 :cheers:


----------



## Jarnhamar (30 Aug 2020)

Can I post this here?



*We’re marching on Ottawa – JOIN US*
https://firearmrights.ca/en/were-marching-on-ottawa-join-us/



> Canadian gun owners have been under attack by the Liberal government since the 2015 election. Bill Blair’s reaction to a horrific tragedy in Nova Scotia committed by a madman with a known criminal past and illicit firearms was to punish legal, RCMP vetted gun owners with a mass gun ban and confiscation plan, all during a global pandemic and a suspended parliament.
> 
> We are “marching on Ottawa” on Saturday, September 12, 2020 @ 1:00pmEST – The Integrity March. We are going to the capital of Canada, where the laws are made and the lawmakers are, to demand integrity from our politicians and in the decisions they make. Canadian gun owners want a safer Canada too – and we demand credible work on crime and violence.


----------



## Donald H (30 Aug 2020)

Haggis said:
			
		

> In the context of small arms, which includes the infamous banned rifles, firepower can be defined as a combination of the calibre, accuracy and volume of rounds being fired at a target. That can be from a single firearm, such as a rifle (C7A2/M-16), or combination of firearms sch as a rifle, squad automatic weapon (C9A2/M249) and platoon medium machine gun (C6A2/M240B).
> 
> The term "firepower" is often used to describe the capability of a specific weapon to inflict harm/damage to a target.  That's wrong.  A rifleman with an AK-47 does not have more firepower than one with a C7A2.  He has a larger calibre bullet.  He has a heavier barrel, but if he cannot employ the principles of marksmanship and hit what he's aiming at, all that is useless.
> 
> The "firepower" of long guns in Canada is severely limited by their legal magazine capacity, that being 5 rounds. Again, Liberals overlook this legal limitation when fear mongering to support their ban of lawfully owned and used firearms.



Thanks for that explanation Haggis. That tells me that I don't have a wrong idea on what 'firepower' means. Note though that the first picture that supposedly 'speaks a thousand words' is not the same picture that was later posted. 

But I have to ask you why you think 'Liberals' overlook magazine capacity? Is it not one of the main talking points of the anti-gun lobby in Canada, as it is in the US?


----------



## Haggis (30 Aug 2020)

Donald H said:
			
		

> But I have to ask you why you think 'Liberals' overlook magazine capacity? Is it not one of the main talking points of the anti-gun lobby in Canada, as it is in the US?



When the PM and Minister Blair talk about  the rationale for banning lawfully owned"military/assault style" firearms, they frequently use the phrase "designed to kill the largest amount of people in the shortest amount of time".  This ignores the fact that a lawful gun owner needs to change magazines every five rounds.  So, they would have to carry an awful lot of magazines.  Using New Zealand's mass shooting as an example, the shooter would've needed a minimum of eleven legal Canadian capacity magazines to murder 51 people if every shot was a kill.

Again, a criminal firearm user doesn't care about legal magazine capacity limits or any other gun laws.  But criminal firearms are not the target of this OIC, amnesty period or possible compensated confiscation (buyback), just legally owned ones.  Thus, the Liberals omit any discussion of legal magazine capacity to let the public think that 30 rounders are in every gun owners closet and glovebox.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (30 Aug 2020)

Haggis said:
			
		

> True, but the US and Australians still made extensive use of 7.62 mm in Vietnam due to the shortcomings of the 5.56 mm in the jungle. There are tons of 7 62 mm/.308 hunting rifles in Canada which are far more powerful than the AR-15.



7.62mm was also the preferred calibre in African Brushfire Wars.  The Portuguese, South African and Rhodesian Armies all preferred the FN FAL due to much of the terrain being flat brush land or savannah.  The FN outranged the AK47 significantly and was a very effective rifle for Fireforce Operations.  The South African Army now uses the R4 and R5 series which is 5.56mm but still uses the R1 (SA FN copy) as a designated marksman rifle.


----------



## Donald H (30 Aug 2020)

Haggis said:
			
		

> When the PM and Minister Blair talk about  the rationale for banning lawfully owned"military/assault style" firearms, they frequently use the phrase "designed to kill the largest amount of people in the shortest amount of time".  This ignores the fact that a lawful gun owner needs to change magazines every five rounds.  So, they would have to carry an awful lot of magazines.  Using New Zealand's mass shooting as an example, the shooter would've needed a minimum of eleven legal Canadian capacity magazines to murder 51 people if every shot was a kill.
> 
> Again, a criminal firearm user doesn't care about legal magazine capacity limits or any other gun laws.  But criminal firearms are not the target of this OIC, amnesty period or possible compensated confiscation (buyback), just legally owned ones.  Thus, the Liberals omit any discussion of legal magazine capacity to let the public think that 30 rounders are in every gun owners closet and glovebox.



Thank you for your explanation, but to the point, larger magazines certainly do aid in increasing firepower. Which goes to explain my comment on the picture 'that supposedly spoke a thousand  words'. Not the second picture which was different. 

 :cheers:


----------



## Haggis (30 Aug 2020)

Donald H said:
			
		

> Thank you for your explanation, but to the point, larger magazines certainly do aid in increasing firepower. Which goes to explain my comment on the picture 'that supposedly spoke a thousand  words'. Not the second picture which was different.



Regarding that picture, which seems to show a large capacity magazine on the top rifle, an AR-15, it's important to understand that the market for custom manufactured 5 round magazines is very, very small globally.  Most 5 round magazines in Canada are formerly 20 or 30 rounders which are modified to accept only 5 rounds.  They look like the should hold 20 or 30 but are, in fact, only capable of 5 rounds capacity.


----------



## Good2Golf (30 Aug 2020)

Donald H said:
			
		

> Thank you for your explanation, but to the point, larger magazines certainly do aid in increasing firepower. Which goes to explain my comment on the picture 'that supposedly spoke a thousand  words'. Not the second picture which was different.
> 
> :cheers:



You seem to be missing the specific context of the two pictures that GR66 posted.  The first was to note the now legal difference between a now prohibited weapon and a still legal weapon.  Both are semi-auto .223/5.56 and would have 5-round magazines, as Haggis noted, modified so as to not be able to carry the unrestricted 20-30 rounds. 

The second photo GR66 posted was to provide an accurate firearm analogy (correction) to your GM pickup (one stock, one with a 0.50 GPMG mounted) - he showed two versions of the same firearm (Ruger Mini-14) that have the same operational characteristics, just different furniture.  One most people call an assault rifle, the other they perceive as a reasonable hunting rifle (although both are now banned).

Regards
G2G


----------



## Ostrozac (30 Aug 2020)

Humphrey Bogart said:
			
		

> 7.62mm was also the preferred calibre in African Brushfire Wars.  The Portuguese, South African and Rhodesian Armies all preferred the FN FAL due to much of the terrain being flat brush land or savannah.  The FN outranged the AK47 significantly and was a very effective rifle for Fireforce Operations.  The South African Army now uses the R4 and R5 series which is 5.56mm but still uses the R1 (SA FN copy) as a designated marksman rifle.


7.62NATO was the available cartridge, not necessarily the preferred cartridge. South Africa starting adopting the R4 in 5.56mm in 1982 as a replacement to the R1/FN FAL while still heavily engaged in Angola. If they wanted to, they could have adopted the R4 in 7.62NATO, the R4 was a variant of the Galil which was available in either calibre. That South Africa chose to switch to 5.56mm while actively involved in a war strongly suggests that was actually their preference.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (30 Aug 2020)

Haggis said:
			
		

> When the PM and Minister Blair talk about  the rationale for banning lawfully owned"military/assault style" firearms, they frequently use the phrase "designed to kill the largest amount of people in the shortest amount of time".  This ignores the fact that a lawful gun owner needs to change magazines every five rounds.  So, they would have to carry an awful lot of magazines.  Using New Zealand's mass shooting as an example, the shooter would've needed a minimum of eleven legal Canadian capacity magazines to murder 51 people if every shot was a kill.
> 
> Again, a criminal firearm user doesn't care about legal magazine capacity limits or any other gun laws.  But criminal firearms are not the target of this OIC, amnesty period or possible compensated confiscation (buyback), just legally owned ones.  Thus, the Liberals omit any discussion of legal magazine capacity to let the public think that 30 rounders are in every gun owners closet and glovebox.



Not to mention that the OIC is far broader than that and goes after all sorts of collector grade military arms. Like a French 25mm AT gun, M72 LAW empty tubes, Several different mortars from WWII. Likely because we all live in fear of a 711 being held up by crew served weapons. It is social engineering, they hate all things military unless controlled by them.


----------



## Haggis (30 Aug 2020)

Colin P said:
			
		

> Not to mention that the OIC is far broader than that and goes after all sorts of collector grade military arms. Like a French 25mm AT gun, M72 LAW empty tubes, Several different mortars from WWII. Likely because we all live in fear of a 711 being held up by crew served weapons. It is social engineering, they hate all things military unless controlled by them.



The OIC was intentionally broad to show a comprehensive and decisive action towards public safety. And, the door was intentionally left open to include further guns as banned without the need for another OIC.  As we already know, the RCMP has been in a frenzy of adding to the OIC's list of banned firearms.


----------



## Eaglelord17 (1 Sep 2020)

Donald H said:
			
		

> That's a very dangerous argument to make in a democratic country Eagleford, but I have to be honest and say that I respect it and understand that there are certain circumstances in which it's quite legitimate. The debate over capitol punishment is another example of where the same argument could be legitimate.
> 
> It's a copy of a design that was meant for doing just that if we can say that it was designed for killing people instead of it being a murder weapon. With my limited knowledge I don't know of any other long gun that is better suited to killing people. (that needs to be qualified of course)
> 
> ...



It is not a dangerous argument to suggest many people don't know what they are talking about. It is dangerous to suggest that all opinions are equal and that majority=right. Most people believed the world was flat for centuries, we know now that is incorrect but the majority believed it. Democracy is a terrible form of government, it just happens to be the best one tried so far.

Most people which want to ban firearms in this country tend to have no exposure to them and don't even know what our laws currently are. They are not informed at all, and what little knowledge they possess is basically American influenced trash. Movies, video game, are how they view firearms and people really don't understand they do not function as they are shown in movies. You don't have infinate capacity magazines which hit 1000% of the time on full auto, etc. As such their opinions aren't worth much. They are still entitled to them, I am not taking that away from anyone, but to say that their opinions are equal really isn't true. 

All firearms are designed to kill. Be it a AR-15, A Winchester 94 (lever action), a double barrel shotgun, a handgun, a brown bess musket, etc. It is the height of ignorance to pretend that they all aren't capable of doing the same thing. Some can be more efficient, but there is a lot of factors in there. The skill of the shooter, the location, etc. I am more afraid of someone with a shotgun in close quarters than a AR-15. Ultimately what matters is who has the gun more than what the gun is. The Swiss basically all possess full autos or converted autos in their homes, going back several generations. They don't have any real crime rate however. There are little girls who ride their bikes to the range with Sig 550s (a illegal to possess firearm here) strapped to their back and there is no issue. This pretending to minimize damage by banning certain firearms is stupid. What actually minimizes damage is controlling who has firearms, and specifically getting them out of the hands of criminals.


----------



## Donald H (1 Sep 2020)

Eaglelord17 said:
			
		

> It is not a dangerous argument to suggest many people don't know what they are talking about.



Agreed.



> It is dangerous to suggest that all opinions are equal and that majority=right.



All opinions are not equal. In a democracy, the majority decide what is right.



> Most people believed the world was flat for centuries, we know now that is incorrect but the majority believed it. Democracy is a terrible form of government, it just happens to be the best one tried so far.



Agreed. And they hung witches too.



> Most people which want to ban firearms in this country tend to have no exposure to them and don't even know what our laws currently are.



Agreed. At least agreed in the sense of what you are suggesting as exposure. Exposure could also mean people's impressions due to experience with damage done with firearms, as they perceive the issue



> They are not informed at all, and what little knowledge they possess is basically American influenced trash. Movies, video game, are how they view firearms and people really don't understand they do not function as they are shown in movies. You don't have infinate capacity magazines which hit 1000% of the time on full auto, etc. As such their opinions aren't worth much. They are still entitled to them, I am not taking that away from anyone, but to say that their opinions are equal really isn't true.



Agreed. I think you may have misinterpreted what I said. So for clarification:

Democracy will decide the question. It is true for knowledge on guns being lacking by the majority. That which I claim is dangerous is to say that the majority doesn't get to decide. Then I provided another instance in which I gave my opinion that the majority shouldn't be allowed to decide on capitol punishment because the majority has traditionally decided wrong. (IMO) You can say the same thing about gun control.

The nature of a democracy is such that there are instances in which the public aren't given a  vote or referendum in which to decide. That can happen in a situation in which the majority of M.P.'s decide to make the decision themselves. The next election will decide whether or not they get away with doing that.



> All firearms are designed to kill. Be it a AR-15, A Winchester 94 (lever action), a double barrel shotgun, a handgun, a brown bess musket, etc. It is the height of ignorance to pretend that they all aren't capable of doing the same thing. Some can be more efficient, but there is a lot of factors in there. The skill of the shooter, the location, etc. I am more afraid of someone with a shotgun in close quarters than a AR-15. Ultimately what matters is who has the gun more than what the gun is. The Swiss basically all possess full autos or converted autos in their homes, going back several generations. They don't have any real crime rate however. There are little girls who ride their bikes to the range with Sig 550s (a illegal to possess firearm here) strapped to their back and there is no issue. This pretending to minimize damage by banning certain firearms is stupid. What actually minimizes damage is controlling who has firearms, and specifically getting them out of the hands of criminals.



Agreed on all of that. My only criticism on any of it would be that you didn't mention that some firearms are specifically designed to kill people. But in fairness to your argument, it might be true that the M94 was designed to kill people? Was it?

I don't think you've mentioned anything we can disagree upon.

edit: This could all lead us to making sure everybody is aware of the meaning of 'democracy'. I'm going to assume everybody already gets it.


----------



## Haggis (1 Sep 2020)

Eaglelord17 said:
			
		

> Most people which want to ban firearms in this country tend to have no exposure to them and don't even know what our laws currently are.



Your comment hit a nerve so my reply is a general one, not aimed at anyone in particular.

Our PM doesn't even know the laws so how can we expect joe civvy to know them, either.  Remember when he said you could buy a gun without having to show a licence/  Clearly he meant illegal guns... or did he?

So, here's the nerve.

It's a running and disingenuous joke that most lawful firearms owners know far more about firearms laws that the majority of police/peace officers, and it's true.  But let's put that into some context.

Gun owners have guns as a hobby, be it collecting, target shooting, competing or hunting.  People become immersed in their hobbies and learn them in great detail including the laws that govern them.  So, most serious gun hobbyists take great pains to be well versed in those laws because the punishments for even a simple paper/administrative transgression are quite severe.

Police/peace officers, on the other hand, have to be somewhat versed on more than just firearms laws and they will, by necessity, be very well versed on those laws they deal with most frequently.  Highway Safety Division officers know the traffic and commercial trucking laws.  Guns and Gangs unit officer will specialize in firearms laws and the, Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.  Border Services Officers (BSOs) will specialize in the Customs Act/Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.  (BSOs, for example are responsible for enforcing ninety (90) different acts and regulations.)  And this is on top of everything else they need to stay current on such as agency/service policy, collective agreements and working conditions, healthy work practices, case law, new legislation, use of force and reporting, etc.  

Couple that with the fact that our firearms laws are more poorly written than WalMart  appliance instructions and you can see where confusion can occur.

So, the next time that you, as a law abiding firearms owner, have an interaction with law enforcement, instead of getting on your high horse, maybe try to see things from the officer's position and make the encounter educational.


----------



## Fabius (1 Sep 2020)

> This could all lead us to making sure everybody is aware of the meaning of 'democracy'. I'm going to assume everybody already gets it.



I don't think everyone understands the meaning of democracy. Respectfully, I don't think it means what you think it does to be honest.

Democracy is typically found in one of two forms. Either Direct Democracy or Representative Democracy.

Direct Democracy is exceedingly rare and exists in no nation state at this time although it exists in several regional forms such as Swiss Cantons. This is what you seem to be referring to when talking about majority rule ala everyone has a *direct* vote on policy.

The second more common form is Representative Democracy. This can take a multitude of sub forms, usually either some form of parliamentary or presidential democracy.
Canada, like the rest of the Commonwealth, is a Constitutional Monarchy with a parliamentary democracy.

Canadian's do not vote directly on any policy at the Federal or Provincial levels with the exception of when either level calls a referendum. We elect representatives who then vote on policy.
This is a key feature of representative democracies and is a key part in limiting and controlling the excesses of the majority. 

Referendums are useful in certain situations and can be used to create a more hybrid form of democracy and for fundamental questions of importance to all citizens belong the authority of our representatives to decide, an example is the Quebec referendums on sovereignty. 

All this to say that in Canada, what 50% + 1 of the Canadian population want does not equal anything.  We are not a direct democracy. 
Now the argument can be made that our politicians don't act like statesmen and don't do anything but go where the wind blows them, when they should be shaping and steering a consensus but that's a separate discussion.


----------



## Donald H (2 Sep 2020)

Fabius said:
			
		

> I don't think everyone understands the meaning of democracy. Respectfully, I don't think it means what you think it does to be honest.
> 
> Democracy is typically found in one of two forms. Either Direct Democracy or Representative Democracy.
> 
> ...



Ironically Fabius, you have posted exactly what I was thinking, and which I assumed everyone would be fully aware of. So if you're accusing me of thinking something else then why not try to elaborate? I think I made it pretty damn clear when I suggested that sometimes M.P.'s will choose to make decisions by themselves.

Fwiw, all Democracies I know of are a combination of 'Direct' and 'Representative' and I'm pretty happy to keep it that way. Regardless of whether the Conservatives form Canada's next government.


----------



## Fabius (2 Sep 2020)

I am confused by your position as you appear to have laid it out.  

An opinion was offered that a significant portion of our citizens are ignorant of our laws, the very laws under debate here. It was noted that something that is popular is not necessarily right. It was offered that informed opinions are more legitimate than uninformed opinions.

You stated that, that is a dangerous argument to make in a democracy. However you have also stated that all opinions are not equal.

You have stated that the majority decide what is right.  Given the conversation, and the lack of definition of what you mean when you say "majority" I have assumed you mean a majority of citizens.

As I laid out that is inaccurate in Canada. We have elected representatives, who we have elected to do what is right and what is best for the country, NOT (in my opinion at least) what is popular. 

If you meant a majority of MPs then okay but that is different than what your statements have led me to think. Even then I would still argue that MPs should not simply vote according to what the majority of citizens want. That is a road to ruin.


----------



## Donald H (2 Sep 2020)

Fabius said:
			
		

> I am confused by your position as you appear to have laid it out.
> 
> An opinion was offered that a significant portion of our citizens are ignorant of our laws, the very laws under debate here. It was noted that something that is popular is not necessarily right. It was offered that informed opinions are more legitimate than uninformed opinions.
> 
> ...



And I'm doubly confused on how we disagree on anything? Can we put this in context to the gun control debate?

It makes no difference at all whether soccer moms understand what a weapon was designed to do, how many rounds a minute, muzzle velocity, etc., etc., as that decides on what guns are allowed.

What does matter to the soccer moms, hockey moms, crocheting moms, or whatever moms (and dads) is how little children are being mowed down on the other side of the border. Not even in Canada because they don't care, they see the threat to their children. And so the pro-gun lobby would serve its interests better if it stopped complaining about the moms not being aware of Canada's gun laws and concentrate more on convincing the moms that the gun violence in the US isn't going to come to Canada. 

So this is to the point of majorities being able to make decisions in parliament, because there's likely not going to be a referendum offered on the new gun laws. The Liberals will likely win the day and then the pro-gun lobby will be left having to vote them out and elect Conservatives who might be more favourable to their priorities. That is at least, if the Conservatives believe it's a winning strategy to get rid of some gun laws that 70-80% of Canadians support.


----------



## suffolkowner (2 Sep 2020)

Donald H said:
			
		

> And I'm doubly confused on how we disagree on anything? Can we put this in context to the gun control debate?
> 
> It makes no difference at all whether soccer moms understand what a weapon was designed to do, how many rounds a minute, muzzle velocity, etc., etc., as that decides on what guns are allowed.
> 
> ...



I'm with Fabius on this, in that I do not understand what you are saying with respect to democracy.
It certainly does matter what soccer moms understand as an illiterate electorate undermines the very basis of our democracy especially when our representatives do not exercise their own authority

The rest of your argument looks like strawman nonsense to me. The "gun lobby" has being putting out all sorts of information for years but it matters not if the audience is not receptive. Most non gun people are still confusing semi automatics with full automatic. I hope the next time the conservatives get in they strengthen gun rights in Canada


----------



## Fabius (2 Sep 2020)

In the context of gun control:

1. US laws are different. US culture is different. Due to proximity and media, US problems can be confused with Canadian realities.
2. The Canadian Parliament has passed legislation  (Laws) on firearms which are vastly different and distinct from the laws of the US both federal and state.
3. It is the executive branch of our government who have the responsibility to implement and oversee our law. This includes explaining our firearms laws and how they differ from those to the south and how they are aimed ensuring the safety of soccer moms and kids.
4. The firearms community can reinforce and support the executive branch and our parliament in this explanation but they do NOT have the democratic responsibility to do so in my opinion.
5. This is where both the executive and Parliament MUST shape and steer public consensus.

IF the executive was properly informed AND honest in its depiction of the current firearms laws, there could be a rational discussion of any issues stemming from current laws and the merits in either tightening or loosening firearms legislation.  That is NOT occurring.  The executive branch is equally ignorant of the laws as are soccer moms and are using the issue for partisan points.

Our system devolved authority away from Parliament to the PMO and PCO thereby weakening the individual MPs ability to disagree with the executive and actually have an impact.

This is my perspective.


----------



## suffolkowner (2 Sep 2020)

Fabius said:
			
		

> In the context of gun control:
> 
> 1. US laws are different. US culture is different. Due to proximity and media, US problems can be confused with Canadian realities.
> 2. The Canadian Parliament has passed legislation  (Laws) on firearms which are vastly different and distinct from the laws of the US both federal and state.
> ...



I am in 100% agreement.


----------



## Fabius (2 Sep 2020)

An additional comment/perspective. How does this situation look if we take the gun control specifics out and just look at it as a general policy. Does it seem like a good overall policy that we want to follow for other issues.

1. Canadian public is being highly influenced by an outside power (inadvertently but influenced nonetheless)
2. Canadian public is unaware of Canadian specifics.
3. Public officials ignore Canadian specifics and reinforce the malign although inadvertent influence, though inadvertent or deliberate ignorance. At worst they deliberately misrepresent the situation.
4. Canadian public officials implement unilateral changes via bureaucratic mechanisms to resolve manufactured crisis.
5. Changes specifically and deliberately target a minority segment of society.
6. Minority segment of society deprived of legitimately acquired and owned property, which has been held and used for decades.

I can not understand how any of those points either in isolation or in combination are tolerated and supported.  If that model of action were to be applied to any other situation it would be unacceptable. I would argue that the very party implementing the current changes would vehemently object to this approach (and rightly so) if it were to be applied  to other issues or minorities.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (3 Sep 2020)

Haggis said:
			
		

> Your comment hit a nerve so my reply is a general one, not aimed at anyone in particular.
> 
> Our PM doesn't even know the laws so how can we expect joe civvy to know them, either.  Remember when he said you could buy a gun without having to show a licence/  Clearly he meant illegal guns... or did he?
> 
> ...



My friend who is a RCMP Constable just got his PAL, he didn't really believe me when i had pointed out some of the illogical crap in the Firearm Act. After the course he came back and said "Holy Crap you weren't kidding , what an utterly stupid system"


----------



## Eaglelord17 (3 Sep 2020)

Fabius said:
			
		

> An additional comment/perspective. How does this situation look if we take the gun control specifics out and just look at it as a general policy. Does it seem like a good overall policy that we want to follow for other issues.
> 
> 1. Canadian public is being highly influenced by an outside power (inadvertently but influenced nonetheless)
> 2. Canadian public is unaware of Canadian specifics.
> ...



I disagree with you on the Liberals (or any other political party in Canada for that matter) vehemently objecting if this was applied to other issues as it already is in Quebec with their religious symbols ban (well they still have a giant cross up in Quebec parliament so it isn't about religious symbols, rather whose symbols are being shown). They want the public to think they would, but the reality is all political parties have been pretty silent on what is one of the largest attacks on Canadian rights in modern history because it is good politics in Quebec. 

One of the largest flaws in our democracy is the 4 year election cycle. It gives no incentive to long term planning, and instead rewards short term, short sighted approaches to things. My personal solution to that is to elect 1/4 of the parliament every year, essentially forcing political parties to be less drastic, and allowing the public to respond to issues as they arise. It would hopefully usher in more accountability and create a more stable governance. But that doesn't really belong on a gun control thread.



			
				Colin P said:
			
		

> My friend who is a RCMP Constable just got his PAL, he didn't really believe me when i had pointed out some of the illogical crap in the Firearm Act. After the course he came back and said "Holy Crap you weren't kidding , what an utterly stupid system"



I am personally a big fan of education, and I try to expose as many people as I can to firearms ownership, offering to take them to the range, explaining the laws, etc. Most people are shocked when I start explaining it all to them as the amount of almost contradictory, non-sensical stuff in there is hard to keep track of.


----------



## Donald H (3 Sep 2020)

suffolkowner said:
			
		

> I'm with Fabius on this, in that I do not understand what you are saying with respect to democracy.
> It certainly does matter what soccer moms understand as an illiterate electorate undermines the very basis of our democracy especially when our representatives do not exercise their own authority
> 
> The rest of your argument looks like strawman nonsense to me. The "gun lobby" has being putting out all sorts of information for years but it matters not if the audience is not receptive. Most non gun people are still confusing semi automatics with full automatic. I hope the next time the conservatives get in they strengthen gun rights in Canada



It was a pretty simple message on democracy and Fabius seemed to get it right away. Direct and Representative democracy.

My only reaal point that you could be disagreeing with is that soccer moms aren't ever going to take any interest in Canada's gun laws. Their interest lies in safety for their children and their perceptions from the other side of the border are mainly that guns aren't safe.

If I've missed some point or you think I'm putting up a straw man argument then you're have to tell me what you are thinking.


----------



## suffolkowner (3 Sep 2020)

Donald H said:
			
		

> It was a pretty simple message on democracy and Fabius seemed to get it right away. Direct and Representative democracy.
> 
> My only reaal point that you could be disagreeing with is that soccer moms aren't ever going to take any interest in Canada's gun laws. Their interest lies in safety for their children and their perceptions from the other side of the border are mainly that guns aren't safe.
> 
> If I've missed some point or you think I'm putting up a straw man argument then you're have to tell me what you are thinking.



Well I read Fabius and others as a complete rebuttal of what I felt was your position on Democracy.

 I'm not really aware of much direct democratic action in our country we've had the odd referenda when our elected representatives refused to step up to the challenge and assume responsibility but they have been exceedingly rare. Please correct me if I am wrong.

I think where we're disagreeing is on the value and importance of an individuals opinion on a matter of which they have little knowledge and have made little effort on to influence public policy and restrict the actions of others in society. I read your earlier post(s) as an argument in favour of "mob rule" the 50 + 1 side of democracy.

The strawman is the idea that the "gun lobby" needs to do a better job of education. It is not any fault of said lobby that our PM/MP's doesn't understand the regulations around firearms or that they vote on issues they don't understand or don't agree with.

The strawman is the idea that uneducated and uninformed opinions bear no consequences for our democracy. They infact undermine the entire democratic principle.

We may just as well have a referendum on the weapons fit for the CSC or our next fighter(acknowledging that Switzerland did exactly that)


----------



## Colin Parkinson (3 Sep 2020)

Donald H said:
			
		

> It was a pretty simple message on democracy and Fabius seemed to get it right away. Direct and Representative democracy.
> 
> My only reaal point that you could be disagreeing with is that soccer moms aren't ever going to take any interest in Canada's gun laws. Their interest lies in safety for their children and their perceptions from the other side of the border are mainly that guns aren't safe.
> 
> If I've missed some point or you think I'm putting up a straw man argument then you're have to tell me what you are thinking.



It's the soccer moms in the US that are the biggest group of new buyers of guns, in order to keep their kids safe from thugs.


----------



## Jarnhamar (3 Sep 2020)

Colin P said:
			
		

> It's the soccer moms in the US that are the biggest group of new buyers of guns, in order to keep their kids safe from thugs.



I recall seeing a few articles about shooting in Canada becoming more and more popular with women (and immigrants). 

The Liberals really smashed the 3-gun sport in Canada.


----------



## Haggis (3 Sep 2020)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> I recall seeing a few articles about shooting in Canada becoming more and more popular with women (and immigrants).



A quarter to a third of the new members I train at my club are women or new Canadians and some are have already dumped a lot of money into the sport.


----------



## shawn5o (3 Sep 2020)

Eaglelord17 said:
			
		

> I disagree with you on the Liberals (or any other political party in Canada for that matter) vehemently objecting if this was applied to other issues as it already is in Quebec with their religious symbols ban (well they still have a giant cross up in Quebec parliament so it isn't about religious symbols, rather whose symbols are being shown). They want the public to think they would, but the reality is all political parties have been pretty silent on what is one of the largest attacks on Canadian rights in modern history because it is good politics in Quebec.
> 
> One of the largest flaws in our democracy is the 4 year election cycle. It gives no incentive to long term planning, and instead rewards short term, short sighted approaches to things. My personal solution to that is to elect 1/4 of the parliament every year, essentially forcing political parties to be less drastic, and allowing the public to respond to issues as they arise. It would hopefully usher in more accountability and create a more stable governance. But that doesn't really belong on a gun control thread.
> 
> I am personally a big fan of education, and I try to expose as many people as I can to firearms ownership, offering to take them to the range, explaining the laws, etc. Most people are shocked when I start explaining it all to them as the amount of almost contradictory, non-sensical stuff in there is hard to keep track of.



Hi EL

I live in _la belle province_ and you are spot on. We were happy (most all of us in gun ownership) when the registration program went null and void. But that fell away when Red Tory Charest backstabbed us with introducing the Québec Firearms Registry. Anyway, I gave up and sold/gave away my rifles. All I  have left is my 7mm mag (that I built  ;D ) and the Russian SKS. I'm surprised that the Queen's Cowboys didn't ban the SKS.

Cheers EL - Good post.


----------



## Donald H (3 Sep 2020)

suffolkowner said:
			
		

> I think where we're disagreeing is on the value and importance of an individuals opinion on a matter of which they have little knowledge and have made little effort on to influence public policy and restrict the actions of others in society.



I don't know how you can disagree. My position is simply that soccer moms have a vote. You're obviously saying that those soccer moms  should know all the facts before they make a decision on support/non support. And so in a perfect world, yes they should. 

Here's a possibility for disagreement: Those soccer moms are going to vote with their gut feeling and it looks like the outcome on the gun issue is running 70-80%.



> on a matter of which they have little knowledge and have made little effort on......



Meaning that they have made little effort to understand?


----------



## suffolkowner (3 Sep 2020)

Donald H said:
			
		

> I don't know how you can disagree. My position is simply that soccer moms have a vote. You're obviously saying that those soccer moms  should know all the facts before they make a decision on support/non support. And so in a perfect world, yes they should.
> 
> Here's a possibility for disagreement: Those soccer moms are going to vote with their gut feeling and it looks like the outcome on the gun issue is running 70-80%.
> 
> Meaning that they have made little effort to understand?



I certainly thought your position was a lot stronger than that. At least it read that way to me

And yes there has been little effort put in by gun opponents to understand the issue and no that is not that different than many other issues the difference being that this one directly targets the personal property of others


----------



## materialpigeonfibre (6 Sep 2020)

Forgive my impudent tone.
I have heard *you can* build a slam shot gun from home hardware parts (galvanized gas pipe) for under 20$ canadian! I have heard *you can* start manufacturing ammunition for 50$!!   I have even heard rumours *you can*   3D print lowers and use EDM to make barrels(using parts from thrift stores)!!!!  :rofl: I won't link to it because my post will be deleted  (again)

Gun control?

You will only disarm the people who are willing to follow the law and arm those people who aren't.

It's only the Army gals and guys I know who are slightly worried about following the law. All the civies I know are just waiting for the police to knock...

My high school had an airgun shooting range. Probably one of the last in Canada.  My culture is firearms and having a good time.


----------



## Donald H (6 Sep 2020)

materialpigeonfibre said:
			
		

> Forgive my impudent tone.
> I have heard *you can* build a slam shot gun from home hardware parts (galvanized gas pipe) for under 20$ canadian! I have heard *you can* start manufacturing ammunition for 50$!!   I have even heard rumours *you can*   3D print lowers and use EDM to make barrels(using parts from thrift stores)!!!!  :rofl: I won't link to it because my post will be deleted  (again)



When people build their own guns from pipes and other hardware, they will become criminals with illegal guns. This isn't a helpful attitude to be promoting anywhere. Gun owners need to learn to cooperate with the soccer moms and try to convince those moms that gun owners have a good case for owning some guns.

The anti-gun lobby already contains uninformed extremists. Don't get their backs up and make it worse. Many would be delighted to quote you on your notions of building guns out of pipes,  etc.


----------



## Haggis (6 Sep 2020)

Donald H said:
			
		

> When people build their own guns from pipes and other hardware, they will become criminals with illegal guns.


 These guns are not the focus of the Liberals because this requires hard and complicated police work.



> Gun owners need to learn to cooperate with the soccer moms and try to convince those moms that gun owners have a good case for owning some guns.


 Gun owners have beem doing this for years. Personally, I have taken well over a dozen uninformed Canadians to the range to see what it takes to be a lawful gun owner in Canada.  There is no shortage of effort on the part of gun owners and pro-gun organizations to gey the message out that legally owned guns hold a place society.



> The anti-gun lobby already contains uninformed extremists. Don't get their backs up and make it worse. Many would be delighted to quote you on your notions of building guns out of pipes,  etc.



I'm confident that his point with this post is that criminals will find a way regardless of how many laws are on the books.


----------



## Donald H (6 Sep 2020)

Haggis said:
			
		

> I'm confident that his point with thia post is that criminals will find a way regardless of how many laws are on the books.



Probably true but not a good reason why 'you' should object to what I said. If people build illegal guns then they become criminals. You're talking about something entirely different because you're talking about criminals and my point made it abundantly clear that people who build illegal guns turn themselves into criminals in the process.

And also fwiw, he wasn't talking about criminals either so your objection is unfounded.


----------



## NavyShooter (7 Sep 2020)

Donald H said:
			
		

> When people build their own guns from pipes and other hardware, they will become criminals with illegal guns.




To be precise.

If you build a firearm of a class for which you have no license, you are a criminal.

If you build yourself a non-restricted firearm as a Possession an Acquisition License holder, you are, legally, good to go.

If you build yourself a restricted firearm as a holder of a Restricted PAL, and you go through the process to register and build the firearm properly, you are, legally, good to go.

You may not, without a business or special movie license, build a prohibited firearm.  

How do I know?  I may have built a firearm once upon a time.  It might be restricted.  I might have met with the Provincial Chief Firearms Officer three times during the build process for inspections of the item and to get his help with the paperwork.  

It might have originally been registered as a 'frame or receiver only' and then, on completion, re-registered as a Restricted Firearm.

There is no need to have a business license to build a firearm, only to build firearms to sell.

There are minutia of law that apply, and the problem with firearms laws seems to be that the idiots who write new legislation seem to not have a clue about the importance of that.  Some would call it dancing on the head of a pin, others would call it attention to detail.  A distinct lack of it is usually exhibited by those writing laws.

NS


----------



## Haggis (7 Sep 2020)

Donald H said:
			
		

> Probably true but not a good reason why 'you' should object to what I said. If people build illegal guns then they become criminals. You're talking about something entirely different because you're talking about criminals and my point made it abundantly clear that people who build illegal guns turn themselves into criminals in the process.
> 
> And also fwiw, he wasn't talking about criminals either so your objection is unfounded.



I didn't "object" to what you said.  I stated facts.

As Navyshooter pointed out there is a process whereby a PAL/RPAL holder can build their own firearm,whether it be from mail ordered parts (which will be screened by CBSA upon entry into Canada and only released if the consignee has the proper licences) or from gun tape, water pipes and 550 cord.  Everything else is illegal.


----------



## Donald H (7 Sep 2020)

Haggis said:
			
		

> I didn't "object" to what you said.  I stated facts.
> 
> As Navyshooter pointed out there is a process whereby a PAL/RPAL holder can build their own firearm,whether it be from mail ordered parts (which will be screened by CBSA upon entry into Canada and only released if the consignee has the proper licences) or from gun tape, water pipes and 550 cord.  Everything else is illegal.



Yes Haggis, years ago a good friend of mine, a CPO on the West coast, built his own deer rifle from scratch. Everything! And then created a new cartridge out of the 7.62X50 necked down to about .250. And all completely legal of course. If Navyshooter was around in the 70's he would know my friend as Les. Pretty much all the P/O's on the west coast knew each other.

Sorry about going off topic but I thought it was useful information.


----------



## shawn5o (7 Sep 2020)

materialpigeonfibre said:
			
		

> Forgive my impudent tone.
> I have heard *you can* build a slam shot gun from home hardware parts (galvanized gas pipe) for under 20$ canadian! I have heard *you can* start manufacturing ammunition for 50$!!   I have even heard rumours *you can*   3D print lowers and use EDM to make barrels(using parts from thrift stores)!!!!  :rofl: I won't link to it because my post will be deleted  (again)
> 
> 
> My high school had an airgun shooting range. Probably one of the last in Canada.  My culture is firearms and having a good time.



Hi materialpigeonfibre

I wouldn't trust a "gun" made from hardware parts. The 3D printing is true. Someone in Alberta got caught building lower recievers using 3D.

*Alberta man charged with 3D printing firearm parts*
https://globalnews.ca/news/7313873/alberta-man-charged-alert-3d-printing-firearm-parts/

And the local HS here has a pellet gun range (for Army Cadets)

Your culture is like mine - guns and fun

 :cheers:


----------



## Haggis (9 Sep 2020)

shawn5o said:
			
		

> I wouldn't trust a "gun" made from hardware parts.



It will fire at least once.  That may be all you need.  Or, you may not need to fire it at all and just use it to threaten or intimidate someone who believes it to be real. 

I recall a few decades ago some craftsmen-turned-bandits built a very realistic looking mock Browning M2 .50 cal and put it in the back of a van.  Then, they pulled up in front of a Brinks truck and used the fake "Ma Deuce" to rob the truck of it's contents.


----------



## shawn5o (9 Sep 2020)

Haggis said:
			
		

> It will fire at least once.  That may be all you need.  Or, you may not need to fire it at all and just use it to threaten or intimidate someone who believes it to be real.
> 
> I recall a few decades ago some craftsmen-turned-bandits built a very realistic looking mock Browning M2 .50 cal and put it in the back of a van.  Then, they pulled up in front of a Brinks truck and used the fake "Ma Deuce" to rob the truck of it's contents.



Hi Haggis

Do you remember "zip guns" - I don't know if true or not, but breaking a car antenna to fire a .22 round?

Yeah, I  remember that robbery with the 50 cal. I don't blame the Brink's guys - who would want to take a chance, eh


----------



## Colin Parkinson (9 Sep 2020)

Khyber pass gun plumbers laugh at your futile attempts


----------



## suffolkowner (10 Sep 2020)

https://torontosun.com/opinion/columnists/lilley-trudeau-targets-hunting-rifles-and-shotguns-not-crime-guns/wcm/9e23d0a9-b000-4fd9-994d-f1c21cc25e0f/

posting this article mostly because it says the ruger no 1 is banned! WTF, I have two and I never saw it on the list before. Its a single shot rifle for....I guess I'm 100% a criminal now


----------



## Halifax Tar (11 Sep 2020)

suffolkowner said:
			
		

> https://torontosun.com/opinion/columnists/lilley-trudeau-targets-hunting-rifles-and-shotguns-not-crime-guns/wcm/9e23d0a9-b000-4fd9-994d-f1c21cc25e0f/
> 
> posting this article mostly because it says the ruger no 1 is banned! WTF, I have two and I never saw it on the list before. Its a single shot rifle for....I guess I'm 100% a criminal now



Look into banned ammunition.  Some rifles have been banned in certain calibers.


----------



## Donald H (11 Sep 2020)

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> Look into banned ammunition.  Some rifles have been banned in certain calibers.



Are there other ammunition restrictions that would make Suffolk's rifle illegal?



> On May 1, 2020, the Government of Canada has prohibited: nine (9) types of firearms, by make and model, and their variants; and. firearms with a bore of 20 mm or greater, and those firearms capable of discharging a projectile with a muzzle energy greater than 10,000 Joules; and.Jul 30, 2020


----------



## Haggis (11 Sep 2020)

Donald H said:
			
		

> Are there other ammunition restrictions that would make Suffolk's rifle illegal?


The Ruger No.1 came in a variety of calibres. If the one owned suffolkowner is of a calibre that would generate a muzzle energy greater than 10K joules, that firearm is now prohibited.


----------



## Donald H (11 Sep 2020)

Haggis said:
			
		

> The Ruger No.1 came in a variety of calibres. If the one owned suffolkowner is of a calibre that would generate a muzzle energy greater than 10K joules, that firearm is now prohibited.



Thanks for the info. So is this correct?

204 Ruger.
22 Hornet.
218 Bee.
222 Remington.
223 Remington.
22 PPC.
22-250 Remington.
220 Swift.

Not being familiar with the 22 PPC, I'm assuming the 220 Swift.


----------



## suffolkowner (11 Sep 2020)

Thanks guys I double checked and it's just the 460 weatherby that's banned due to the joules. My 6.5x55 and 35 whelen are safe for now


----------



## Haggis (11 Sep 2020)

suffolkowner said:
			
		

> Thanks guys I double checked and it's just the 460 weatherby that's banned due to the joules. My 6.5x55 and 35 whelen are safe for now


Curious. What 6.5x55 mm rifle do you have?


----------



## suffolkowner (11 Sep 2020)

Haggis said:
			
		

> Curious. What 6.5x55 mm rifle do you have?



Both my 6.5 x 55 and 35 whelen are ruger no 1. They're beautiful rifles but I haven't figured out the scope to my satisfaction yet. Which is why I started to freak out a little.


----------



## shawn5o (12 Sep 2020)

Donald H said:
			
		

> Are there other ammunition restrictions that would make Suffolk's rifle illegal?



Hey Don

Speaking of restrictions, ref ammo restictions for rifles .I won't comment. But going with pistols, calibres prohibited are .32 and .25 cals. 

Back when I was attached posted to in D & E Pl, 1 HQ & Sigs, I cleaned the Brig Comd's weapon, a .32 cal and was told it was his "suicide pistol".
Cool, eh

Anyway maybe the govt. should just ban the AR-15 556 round from the civie market. Just a thought.


----------



## Jarnhamar (12 Sep 2020)

[quote author=shawn5o] 

Anyway maybe the govt. should just ban the AR-15 556 round from the civie market. Just a thought.
[/quote]

Or we could ban rap music and target the gangster culture flourishing in big cities causing violence, shootings and crime.


----------



## Eaglelord17 (12 Sep 2020)

shawn5o said:
			
		

> Hey Don
> 
> Speaking of restrictions, ref ammo restictions for rifles .I won't comment. But going with pistols, calibres prohibited are .32 and .25 cals.
> 
> ...



Caliber restrictions are the most pointless thing possible. How does banning any specific caliber accomplish any sort of reduction in crime?


----------



## Donald H (12 Sep 2020)

shawn5o said:
			
		

> Hey Don
> 
> Speaking of restrictions, ref ammo restictions for rifles .I won't comment. But going with pistols, calibres prohibited are .32 and .25 cals.
> 
> ...



That has me interested in the topic Shawn. Why would a .32 and a .25 be banned? I can only guess that there has to be a lot more 32's and .25's than I was familiar with 20 or 30 years ago.

I'm not familiar with any round that is designated AR-15 or would be suitable for only an AR-15. You must be suggesting a ban on some 5.56 round?

 :cheers:


----------



## Donald H (12 Sep 2020)

Eaglelord17 said:
			
		

> Caliber restrictions are the most pointless thing possible. How does banning any specific caliber accomplish any sort of reduction in crime?



I have to agree in principle with that, at least from a relatively uninformed position.  Having said that, I do recognize the difference between a 50 cal machine gun and an old British double rifle of 50 cal or larger.

If those who make the laws are uninformed then it behooves the gun lobby to step forward and volunteer expertise on the subject that falls within the suggested parameters. All that is required would be that an agreement could be reached on the parameters. By doing that, silly mistakes could be avoided.

That is, assuming that there are some silly mistakes. 

That would be a good discussion but don't consider it for my benefit.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (12 Sep 2020)

Donald H said:
			
		

> I have to agree in principle with that, at least from a relatively uninformed position.  Having said that, I do recognize the difference between a 50 cal machine gun and an old British double rifle of 50 cal or larger.
> 
> If those who make the laws are uninformed then it behooves the gun lobby to step forward and volunteer expertise on the subject that falls within the suggested parameters. All that is required would be that an agreement could be reached on the parameters. By doing that, silly mistakes could be avoided.
> 
> ...



This government removed nearly everyone with firearms expertise from the firearms advisory council and replaced them with activists.

This government is entirely uninterested in hearing from firearms owners and experts.


----------



## Donald H (12 Sep 2020)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> This government is entirely uninterested in hearing from firearms owners and experts.



Thanks for your opinion. I won't attempt to dispute that because I'm not confident I'm on safe grounds to do so.


----------



## Kat Stevens (12 Sep 2020)

Donald H said:
			
		

> Thanks for your opinion. I won't attempt to dispute that because I'm not confident I'm on safe grounds to do so.



Good, because you're not. This gov't gives the square root of fuck all's amount of shits what gun people have to say.


----------



## shawn5o (12 Sep 2020)

Eaglelord17 said:
			
		

> Caliber restrictions are the most pointless thing possible. How does banning any specific caliber accomplish any sort of reduction in crime?



You got me there EL17

I have no idea why certain calibres are banned. Saturday night specials perhaps?


----------



## shawn5o (12 Sep 2020)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Or we could ban rap music and target the gangster culture flourishing in big cities causing violence, shootings and crime.



If it helps - go for it. Main reason - I can't stand rap and gangster culture.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (12 Sep 2020)

Donald H said:
			
		

> Thanks for your opinion. I won't attempt to dispute that because I'm not confident I'm on safe grounds to do so.



Fair enough. Don’t take my word for it alone. Ask around.

https://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/cnt/cntrng-crm/cfac/index-en.aspx

Edited: to add the link to the bios of the advisory council. Not one member possesses what I would call a “technical expertise” in firearms. It would be about like having a medical policy  advisory council composed of bus drivers, auto mechanics and florists.


----------



## Donald H (12 Sep 2020)

Target Up said:
			
		

> Good, because you're not. This gov't gives the square root of frig all's amount of shits what gun people have to say.



On that I can say that I'm perfectly confident in saying that's not true. If only for their own political reasons of knowing they need to fear the reaction of the gun lobby. 

But obviously more.

The gun lobby's attitude of all or nothing is probably not going to work. Make the best of the situation with some positive input that can be received by the estimated 70% majority.

Fwiw, I've been trying to inject a bit of moderation into this conversation. 

If it's somewhere close to unanimous that I should just butt out of the conversation then I'll do so. Otherwise I think that some are at least interested in debating and rebutting my opinions. Reserved as they are!


----------



## GAP (12 Sep 2020)

> If it's unanimous that I should just butt out of the conversation then I'll do so



do so


----------



## SeaKingTacco (12 Sep 2020)

Donald H said:
			
		

> On that I can say that I'm perfectly confident in saying that's not true. If only for their own political reasons of knowing they need to fear the reaction of the gun lobby.
> 
> But obviously more.
> 
> ...



Moderation and cooperation in the firearms community hasn’t really worked. Because the Liberals like to demonize firearms owners as evil and treat every firearms issue as a zero sum game, where owners do not get due process or input. Consequently, over time, the owners become more and more militant and fight every initiative around firearms because one can never be sure it is not a Trojan horse for abolition. Which is not awesome for anyone.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (12 Sep 2020)

GAP said:
			
		

> do so



I disagree. Nobody will learn anything if people “just butt out” of subjects they are unfamiliar with.

I am more than willing to politely debate you, Donald.


----------



## Donald H (12 Sep 2020)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> Moderation and cooperation in the firearms community hasn’t really worked. Because the Liberals like to demonize firearms owners as evil and treat every firearms issue as a zero sum game, where owners do not get due process or input. Consequently, over time, the owners become more and more militant and fight every initiative around firearms because one can never be sure it is not a Trojan horse for abolition. Which is not awesome for anyone.



I hear you! If that is so then the Liberal party is not in tune with it's voters who must be fairly representative of gun owners. It's not just Conservatives who enjoy the sport. And so that indicates to me that the Liberal party should be running up against a brick wall at some point in time.

I'll speak for myself. I'll either support the Liberals or the party that has the best chance of beating the Conservative in my riding. And I'm supportive of gun related sports with some qualifications.


----------



## suffolkowner (12 Sep 2020)

One of the problems with a caliber restriction is that the cutoff point is entirely arbitrary as it in all things searching to define a "type" as it is comitting an essentialist error in logic. It is actually worse than that as the caliber is not a measure of the firearm's power at all as it does not take into account the case capacity of the round. Banning a firearm/round due to it's muzzle energy of 10000 joules is better I guess but what if I use a round with 9999 joules? One of the reasons I have a 6.5x55 and a 260 is that in some places in Ontario you can not carry a larger caliber rifle during the hunting season where rifle hunting is not permitted.


----------



## Kat Stevens (12 Sep 2020)

Donald H said:
			
		

> I hear you! If that is so then the Liberal party is not in tune with it's voters who must be fairly representative of gun owners. It's not just Conservatives who enjoy the sport. And so that indicates to me that the Liberal party should be running up against a brick wall at some point in time.
> 
> I'll speak for myself. I'll either support the Liberals or the party that has the best chance of beating the Conservative in my riding. And I'm supportive of gun related sports with some qualifications.



There is no brick wall when you can ram through anything you like with an OIC. Gun owners were already compliant with a pretty balanced system between safety and liberty to go play guns in the bush. The people you need to worry about are the ones that don't play by the rules, including bringing unreg'd firearms across an international border. One, ten, or a hundred more laws aren't going to make them quit, nor will it make Jane and Finch even the tiniest bit safer after dark on a Friday night.


----------



## Haggis (12 Sep 2020)

Donald H said:
			
		

> I hear you! If that is so then the Liberal party is not in tune with it's voters who must be fairly representative of gun owners. It's not just Conservatives who enjoy the sport. And so that indicates to me that the Liberal party should be running up against a brick wall at some point in time.


You are confusing Liberal voters with the Liberal Party. There a re lots of Liberal gun owners who still vote Liberal for more reasons than gun laws. They are wiling to sacrifice their sport for what they perceive to be a greater societal good.

The Liberal Party, however, is hard over against any type of civilian gun ownership and that has been shown time and time again by the legislation they bring into force which is intended to make legal gun ownership so difficult, complicated and expensive that it will be abandoned as a sport form/hobby in Canada.These laws, by and large, target lawful owners only because criminals already ignore gun laws and more won't mean anything to them. A case in point is the potential buyback (compensated confiscation) regime which the Liberals may enact to collect up and destroy the lawfully owned newly banned 1800+ models of firearms. That buyback, if eventually offered, will only apply to lawfully owned guns. No incentive there for criminals to turn in theirs. 



			
				Donald H said:
			
		

> I'll speak for myself. I'll either support the Liberals or the party that has the best chance of beating the Conservative in my riding.


 That's your choice and the majority here will respect that, even if they don't support it.



			
				Donald H said:
			
		

> And I'm supportive of gun related sports with some qualifications.


I'd like to hear some examples of those qualifications you'd like to see enacted above and beyond those that are already in place in Canada and your rationale for each.


----------



## Jarnhamar (12 Sep 2020)

[quote author=Haggis] 
 I'd like to hear some examples of those qualifications you'd like to see enacted above and beyond those that are already in place in Canada.
[/quote]

Gender parity with the club management. 
Mandatory course on climate change. 
Regulate number of vehicles traveling to the range per day
Advisory board for the spot who lack any knowledge on firearms. 
Sole sourced contract to set up a committee on something or another.
Has to use ammunition purchased in Quebec?


----------



## Haggis (12 Sep 2020)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Gender parity with the club management.
> Mandatory course on climate change.
> Regulate number of vehicles traveling to the range per day
> Advisory board for the spot who lack any knowledge on firearms.
> ...


*STOP HELPING!!!*


----------



## SeaKingTacco (12 Sep 2020)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Gender parity with the club management.
> Mandatory course on climate change.
> Regulate number of vehicles traveling to the range per day
> Advisory board for the spot who lack any knowledge on firearms.
> ...



Funnily enough, the gender parity thing is happening (Maybe not fast enough for some) on its own and is healthy for sport shooting Canada. I have met some wicked good women shooters. Good on them for being a part of the sport.


----------



## Donald H (12 Sep 2020)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> I disagree. Nobody will learn anything if people “just butt out” of subjects they are unfamiliar with.
> 
> I am more than willing to politely debate you, Donald.



Thank you! I basically ignore that kind of crap.

 :cheers:


----------



## Haggis (12 Sep 2020)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> Funnily enough, the gender parity thing is happening (Maybe not fast enough for some) on its own and is healthy for sport shooting Canada.


But is hasn't been legislated yet.


			
				SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> I have met some wicked good women shooters. Good on them for being a part of the sport.


Women are the fastest growing demographic in sport shooting today. The Liberals and anti-gun groups, however, are making huge efforts to tell those women that guns are bad and dangerous and they should find a less socially toxic hobby than sport shooting.


----------



## Jarnhamar (12 Sep 2020)

Haggis said:
			
		

> But is hasn't been legislated yet.Women are the fastest growing demographic in sport shooting today.



I was about to mention that.



> The Liberals and anti-gun groups, however, are making huge efforts to tell those women that guns are bad and dangerous and they should find a less socially toxic hobby than sport shooting.


Yes, with Mrs Wendy Cukier leading the crusade. Well, when she's not busy bullying people in the work place (and quietly being fired).

Excellent figure to preach being less toxic that Mrs Cukier.


----------



## Weinie (12 Sep 2020)

And the people speak:

https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/canada/people-are-super-frustrated-gun-owners-firearm-activists-march-at-parliament-hill/ar-BB18YmCm?ocid=msedgdhp


----------



## Jarnhamar (12 Sep 2020)

Weinie said:
			
		

> And the people speak:
> 
> https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/canada/people-are-super-frustrated-gun-owners-firearm-activists-march-at-parliament-hill/ar-BB18YmCm?ocid=msedgdhp





> An *estimated 800* gun owners and firearm rights activists assembled on Parliament Hill on Saturday to express their displeasure with the federal government’s gun policies, especially the ban on assault-style firearms announced after the mass killing in Portapique, N.S., in April.



Interesting estimate. CCFR is estimating around 5000.


----------



## mariomike (12 Sep 2020)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Interesting estimate. CCFR is estimating around 5000.



Not to argue Gun Politics with you Jarnhamar, but this is what I read,



> Organizers claimed 5,000 people flooded the streets of Ottawa for the rally, but the parliamentary security service said the number was closer to 800.
> https://globalnews.ca/news/7331295/pro-gun-rally-parliament-hill/


----------



## SeaKingTacco (12 Sep 2020)

I am no expert but, if the picture above is actually from the rally, that looks alot closer to 5000 people, than 800 (at least on the Sparks St Mall. Maybe they didn’t all go onto Parliament Hill.


----------



## Stoker (12 Sep 2020)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> I am no expert but, if the picture above is actually from the rally, that looks alot closer to 5000 people, than 800 (at least on the Sparks St Mall. Maybe they didn’t all go onto Parliament Hill.



That is a picture from the march, 700 to 800 was reported as the attendance 32min before the start. Parliamentary Protective Services estimated 5000 plus.


----------



## mariomike (12 Sep 2020)

Chief Engineer said:
			
		

> Parliamentary Protective Services estimated 5000 plus.



Not to disagree, but can you post a source for that?



> Organizers claimed 5,000 people flooded the streets of Ottawa for the rally, but the parliamentary security service said the number was closer to 800.
> https://globalnews.ca/news/7331295/pro-gun-rally-parliament-hill/


----------



## Stoker (12 Sep 2020)

mariomike said:
			
		

> Not to disagree, but can you post a source for that?



Just what I seen on twitter, where that picture was posted. It does look a lot more than 800 people. It was a hell of a lot more than the last anti protest and impressive considering we are in a pandemic.


----------



## brihard (13 Sep 2020)

A lot of the hill is blocked off for construction. Might be there were lesser numbers on the hill and more down below? PPS worries about the parliamentary precinct, not the streets of Ottawa.


----------



## Eaglelord17 (13 Sep 2020)

shawn5o said:
			
		

> You got me there EL17
> 
> I have no idea why certain calibres are banned. Saturday night specials perhaps?



Well when they banned .25s and .32s they said it was because of Saturday night specials and they were 'inherently inaccurate' calibers. Then they proceeded to put a exemption for if its used for target shooting (.32s in particular are Olympic target shooting pistols). The best part about that bit of stupidity is the Saturday night specials were banned due to the barrel length restrictions, so there was no need to do a caliber one. Just one of the many examples of ineffective and contradictory legislation on the governments part when they made the firearms act.


----------



## Haggis (13 Sep 2020)

Eaglelord17 said:
			
		

> The best part about that bit of stupidity is the Saturday night specials were banned due to the barrel length restrictions....



.25 and .32 calibre handguns were banned due to their being easily concealed.


----------



## Stoker (13 Sep 2020)

Haggis said:
			
		

> .25 and .32 calibre handguns were banned due to their being easily concealed.



True with their Saturday night special fears they banned all handguns with a barrel length of less than 105mm and those .25 and .32 calibers. They banned 585,000 handguns in the interest of public safety.


----------



## Haggis (13 Sep 2020)

Chief Engineer said:
			
		

> They banned 585,000 handguns in the interest of public safety.



I would not be at all surprised if the banning of the remainder is announced during the Speech from the Throne in 10 days.


----------



## Donald H (13 Sep 2020)

Haggis said:
			
		

> I would not be at all surprised if the banning of the remainder is announced during the Speech from the Throne in 10 days.



The Liberals know that they need to stay on the side of a clear majority and so won't step beyond those boundaries. I feel that the pro-gun faction of Canadians must consider popular politics in their fight. That won't result in a complete win but it will cut the losses.


----------



## Haggis (13 Sep 2020)

Donald H said:
			
		

> The Liberals know that they need to stay on the side of a clear majority and so won't step beyond those boundaries. I feel that the pro-gun faction of Canadians must consider popular politics in their fight. That won't result in a complete win but it will cut the losses.



Wait....what does that paragraph even mean???

Are you saying they will?  Or they won't?  What will keep them on the side of a clear majority?

Your statement that "the pro-gun faction of Canadians must consider popular politics in their fight" means what? Pro-gun groups should just accept that the future of legal gun ownership and the legally conducted shooting sports in Canada is limited and just give up?  

What are the Liberals going to do about illegal guns and the illegal shooting sports like drug hits, drive-bys and smuggling?

BTW, Donald H, I'm still waiting for your proposals on the qualifications you think are needed to regulate gun ownership in Canada. (see reply # 1436 from yesterday)


----------



## Donald H (13 Sep 2020)

Haggis said:
			
		

> Wait....what does that paragraph even mean???



I'll try to answer your questions.



> Are you saying they will?  Or they won't?  What will keep them on the side of a clear majority?



I'm saying that I don't think the Liberals will step beyond the boundary that maintains their support on gun control. They know that if they go too far they risk losing the support of most gun owners. 



> Your statement that "the pro-gun faction of Canadians must consider popular politics in their fight" means what?



It means that which I've said in my previous answer. And my own feeling is that doesn't include very much support for handguns and assault style weapons. This I judge by reports of them having 70-80% support.



> Pro-gun groups should just accept that the future of legal gun ownership and the legally conducted shooting sports in Canada is limited and just give up?



Pro-gun groups should in my opinion not show bad faith by pushing the envelope. That again is in my opinion what I've said in my last answer. modifying demands on some guns could show good faith and be beneficial.

[quoute]What are the Liberals going to do about illegal guns and the illegal shooting sports like drug hits, drive-bys and smuggling?[/quote]

I don't know what either party is going to do about those issues. That could be a good exercise to compare the Liberals' and the Conservatives'  and the NDP's proposals.

BTW, Donald H, I'm still waiting for your proposals on the qualifications you think are needed to regulate gun ownership in Canada. (see reply # 1436 from yesterday)
[/quote]

I'll get back on that.

edit: Sorry, I thought I answered that question but now I see that the reason why I didn't answer is because my comment wasn't about the regulation of gun ownership. 

It was me saying that I support shooting sports with some qualifications. Those qualifications are, not killing (socalled) varmints for fun, with the exception of rats. And not shooting wolves if they can be considered as varmints. I may have more qualifications that I couldn't include as part of my support.

Answer me the same question. Where do you stand on killing animals for fun?


----------



## Haggis (13 Sep 2020)

Donald H said:
			
		

> I'm saying that I don't think the Liberals will step beyond the boundary that maintains their support on gun control. They know that if they go too far they risk losing the support of most gun owners.


 I'd wager that they lost most of that support with the OIC in May. Now, even hunters and farmers don't trust them due to their initial ban on .10 and .12 ga shotguns.



			
				Donald H said:
			
		

> It means that which I've said in my previous answer. And my own feeling is that doesn't include very much support for handguns and assault style weapons. This I judge by reports of them having 70-80% support.


When those 1500 Canadians polled by Liberal friendly pollsters are all in urban areas and asked a loaded question, then, yes, support for an "assault weapons ban" and "handgun ban" are way up there.  So, why not ask this question:

"Do you support the confiscation of legally owned, properly stored and safely used firearms from lawful Canadian owners?"  or "Do you support the banning of lawfully owned handguns which are used only for sport shooting in Canada?"



			
				Donald H said:
			
		

> Pro-gun groups should in my opinion not show bad faith by pushing the envelope.


 How are pro-gun groups pushing the envelope?



			
				Donald H said:
			
		

> That again is in my opinion what I've said in my last answer. modifying demands on some guns could show good faith and be beneficial.


 The Liberals didn't act in good faith when passing the latest rounds of firearms legislation.  A case in point is the RCMP arbitrarily adding several hundred makes and models to the banned list *after* the OIC came into force without any oversight, consultation or notification to gun owners.  Why should the Liberals expect good faith in return?



> What are the Liberals going to do about illegal guns and the illegal shooting sports like drug hits, drive-bys and smuggling?





			
				Donald H said:
			
		

> I don't know what either party is going to do about those issues. That could be a good exercise to compare the Liberals' and the Conservatives'  and the NDP's proposals.



Would you think that consistently and diligently enforcing the existing firearms laws, including the Customs Act, and targeting criminals and criminal organizations would be a good start?



			
				Donald H said:
			
		

> edit: Sorry, I thought I answered that question but now I see that the reason why I didn't answer is because my comment wasn't about the regulation of gun ownership.


Far enough.  So you agree, then, that our current suite of firearms laws in Canada are sufficient to regulate civilian ownership?  Do you support the May 1st OIC?  Bill C-71?  Are they/will they be, in your opinion, reasonable and effective in combating the *criminal use* of firearms in Canada and why?



			
				Donald H said:
			
		

> It was me saying that I support shooting sports with some qualifications. Those qualifications are, not killing (socalled) varmints for fun, with the exception of rats. And not shooting wolves if they can be considered as varmints. I may have more qualifications that I couldn't include as part of my support.
> 
> Answer me the same question. Where do you stand on killing animals for fun?


I no longer sport hunt, not because I lost the thrill of it but because my current family and work life makes it very complicated to do so.  But, when I did, I ate what I killed.  

I live in a rural area.  Today I use my firearms primarily for sport shooting (IPSC, IDPA, skeet and sporting clays) and, when needed, for predator control.


----------



## shawn5o (14 Sep 2020)

Haggis said:
			
		

> A case in point is the potential buyback (compensated confiscation) regime which the Liberals may enact to collect up and destroy the lawfully owned newly banned 1800+ models of firearms. That buyback, if eventually offered, will only apply to lawfully owned guns. No incentive there for criminals to turn in theirs.



What would be the value of the buyback? How will the feds determine fair market value? Since owners cannot use or sell the now prohibited firearms, will it be .10 cents on the dollar? (Extreme but I think you get my drift)


----------



## Donald H (14 Sep 2020)

Haggis said:
			
		

> I'd wager that they lost most of that support with the OIC in May. Now, even hunters and farmers don't trust them due to their initial ban on .10 and .12 ga shotguns.



That could be true.



> When those 1500 Canadians polled by Liberal friendly pollsters are all in urban areas and asked a loaded question, then, yes, support for an "assault weapons ban" and "handgun ban" are way up there.  So, why not ask this question:
> 
> "Do you support the confiscation of legally owned, properly stored and safely used firearms from lawful Canadian owners?"  or "Do you support the banning of lawfully owned handguns which are used only for sport shooting in Canada?"



That's a hard one to answer but in good faith I'll try. They are unable to differentiate between the two is the only reason I can think of. If you are intent on carrying on a conversation in good faith then I'll try to answer your questions, in the interest of a fruitful discussion.



> How are pro-gun groups pushing the envelope?



I didn't say pro-gun groups are pushing the envelope, I said they shouldn't. Other countries have shown that as population density grows, certain changes need to be made to gun ownership and other gun related considerations. It's my opinion that if not then the current situation in the US is allowed to develop. How that pretains to Canada and Canadians is going to depend on public opinion.



> The Liberals didn't act in good faith when passing the latest rounds of firearms legislation.  A case in point is the RCMP arbitrarily adding several hundred makes and models to the banned list *after* the OIC came into force without any oversight, consultation or notification to gun owners.  Why should the Liberals expect good faith in return?



I'm not familiar with the RCMP's additions. But it's a good question because a police force could tend to be over-restrictive of guns and gun owner's rights. And certainly the politicians would trust them on their preferences.



> Would you think that consistently and diligently enforcing the existing firearms laws, including the Customs Act, and targeting criminals and criminal organizations would be a good start?



I won't attempt to answer that sort of question.



> Far enough.  So you agree, then, that our current suite of firearms laws in Canada are sufficient to regulate civilian ownership?  Do you support the May 1st OIC?  Bill C-71?  Are they/will they be, in your opinion, reasonable and effective in combating the *criminal use* of firearms in Canada and why?



That's a detailed question that would call for me to do a study of what the OIC contains. I think it's reasonable to ask you a question at this point. What are you envisioning my position to be? 
A person with a gun isn't a bad guy with a gun until he uses his/her gun for some illegal activity. This raises the issure of crime and punishment in which the liberal position is more focused on rehabilitation while the conservative position is almost always focused on punishment. The two extremes appear to me to be Norway and the US. How is Norway doing on gun violence?



> I no longer sport hunt, not because I lost the thrill of it but because my current family and work life makes it very complicated to do so.  But, when I did, I ate what I killed.



I don't know you and so I have no reason to not believe you. I've asked the same question quite a few times to gun owners and not once have I received an answer of them killing for fun. But I've been there Haggis and I killed for fun.   



> I live in a rural area.  Today I use my firearms primarily for sport shooting (IPSC, IDPA, skeet and sporting clays) and, when needed, for predator control.



I was heavily into gun sports too. Large animal hunting, bird hunting of all varieties, target shooting at a level of precision, Trap clays, reloading, machining cartricges, casting lead, and you name it, I've probably done it. 
[/quote]


----------



## Haggis (14 Sep 2020)

shawn5o said:
			
		

> What would be the value of the buyback? How will the feds determine fair market value? Since owners cannot use or sell the now prohibited firearms, will it be .10 cents on the dollar? (Extreme but I think you get my drift)



As a result of the OIC you cannot transfer/sell any banned firearm within Canada. Fair market value here is zero.  Also, you cannot sell to a foreign buyer if the buyer is in a country that will not allow importation, which even includes the US.  Again, this makes the fair market value zero.

Even if you receive compensation of $0.10 on the dollar, it will likely be deemed taxable.


----------



## Haggis (14 Sep 2020)

Donald H said:
			
		

> That's a hard one to answer but in good faith I'll try. They are unable to differentiate between the two is the only reason I can think of.


 No, they are *unwilling* to differentiate between the two because to do so would compromise the agenda that all guns are bad and only the police and military should have guns.



			
				Donald H said:
			
		

> If you are intent on carrying on a conversation in good faith then I'll try to answer your questions, in the interest of a fruitful discussion.


 I believe I have done so.



			
				Donald H said:
			
		

> I didn't say pro-gun groups are pushing the envelope, I said they shouldn't.


  Al that the mainstream firearms community in Canada wants from their government (blue or red) is to be left alone to practice their sport in peace.  They want the focus to be on *criminal* use.  Yes, like any community, there are fringe segments (i.e. the concealed carry crowd) but even they simply want to be allowed to legally use (and carry?) firearms responsibly.



			
				Donald H said:
			
		

> Other countries have shown that as population density grows, certain changes need to be made to gun ownership and other gun related considerations. It's my opinion that if not then the current situation in the US is allowed to develop.


  That's a hollow comparison as the US has vastly different laws and culture than Canada regarding firearms.



			
				Donald H said:
			
		

> I won't attempt to answer that sort of question.


  Why not?  It is central to the discussion over the past 59 pages of this thread.



			
				Donald H said:
			
		

> I think it's reasonable to ask you a question at this point. What are you envisioning my position to be?


You have framed my belief in your position with your statement, below, 


			
				Donald H said:
			
		

> A person with a gun isn't a bad guy with a gun until he uses his/her gun for some illegal activity.


which echoes that of two Liberal MPs who recently said "there is no such thing as a 'responsible gun owner'" and another who quipped "lawful gun owners are only law abiding until they are not".
  


			
				Donald H said:
			
		

> This raises the issue of crime and punishment in which the liberal position is more focused on rehabilitation while the conservative position is almost always focused on punishment. The two extremes appear to me to be Norway and the US. How is Norway doing on gun violence?



A comparison of  Norway and Canada would be more relevant to the discussion.  This shows almost equal rates of gun crimes with Norway taking a 2% lead.  Overlay the gun ownership rates and you will see that the rate of firearms ownership is lower (10%) than in Canada (18.5%) despite having a similar suite of firearms laws.  So, in essence, Canada is safer from gun violence than Norway.


----------



## Donald H (14 Sep 2020)

Haggis said:
			
		

> You have framed my belief in your position with your statement, below, which echoes that of two Liberal MPs who recently said "there is no such thing as a 'responsible gun owner'"



I find that very offensive because that in no way frames my position.



> and another who quipped "lawful gun owners are only law abiding until they are not".



That's not the way I would say it but by simple logic it's true. There's no room to debate that but I would guess that the MP who said it was more intent on being inflammatory as opposed to being helpful.
  


> A comparison of  Norway and Canada would be more relevant to the discussion.  This shows almost equal rates of gun crimes with Norway taking a 2% lead.  Overlay the gun ownership rates and you will see that the rate of firearms ownership is lower (10%) than in Canada (18.5%) despite having a similar suite of firearms laws.  So, in essence, Canada is safer from gun violence than Norway.



I used Norway because it's the extreme, in my understanding, on prison reform and rehabilitation of criminals, and it's success rate has been recorded as outstanding. 
I'm really not understanding your comparisons of Norway to Canada, but I can accept that Canada is safer from gun violence than Norway.

My understanding is that Canada has as many guns as America has, per capita. I'll check that out but I'll let it stand for now.

edit: I got it wrong. Apparently Canadians own about 20,000,000 guns and about 1 million handguns. Americans own more than one gun per person. I haven't been able to find out how many handguns Americans own?


----------



## Haggis (14 Sep 2020)

Donald H said:
			
		

> I find that very offensive because that in no way frames my position.


  You asked and I answered honestly.



			
				Donald H said:
			
		

> I'd guess that the MP who said it was more intent on being inflammatory as opposed to being helpful.


 Of course he was!  Why let facts get in the way of a bad policy?
  


			
				Donald H said:
			
		

> I used Norway because it's the extreme, in my understanding, on prison reform and rehabilitation of
> criminals, and it's success rate has been recorded as outstanding.


 Go back to the link I provided and check out their stats for violent sexual offences.  I'd rather be a woman in Canada.



			
				Donald H said:
			
		

> My understanding is that Canada has as many guns as America has, per capita. I'll check that out but I'll let it stand for now.



Canada:  34.7 known legal guns per 100 population.
USA: 120.5 known legal guns per 100 population.


----------



## Donald H (14 Sep 2020)

Haggis said:
			
		

> You asked and I answered honestly.



That which you have accused me of being representative of my position.


> "there is no such thing as a 'responsible gun owner'"



I don't find it productive to continue a discussion on those terms.


----------



## Jarnhamar (14 Sep 2020)

[quote author=Donald H]

My understanding is that Canada has as many guns as America has, per capita. I'll check that out but I'll let it stand for now.

[/quote]

I own 9 handguns.  What's your point?


----------



## Haggis (14 Sep 2020)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> I own 9 handguns.  What's your point?


That 99 other upstanding Canadians own the other 25.7 guns.


----------



## Eaglelord17 (14 Sep 2020)

Haggis said:
			
		

> Canada:  34.7 known legal guns per 100 population.
> USA: 120.5 known legal guns per 100 population.



I would question Canada numbers. Before the long gun registry went into effect they estimated there was 20-30 million firearms in Canada (in 1994), as soon as the long gun registry went into effect there was only 8 million firearms. I suspect there is roughly 1 gun per person in country simply due to the amount of people out there with guns kept in their family or at camps, etc. which were never recorded yet are still there. Plus when the long gun registry was abolished all those guns which were 'illegal' became legal again.


----------



## Weinie (14 Sep 2020)

Eaglelord17 said:
			
		

> I would question Canada numbers. Before the long gun registry went into effect they estimated there was 20-30 million firearms in Canada (in 1994), as soon as the long gun registry went into effect there was only 8 million firearms. I suspect there is roughly 1 gun per person in country simply due to the amount of people out there with guns kept in their family or at camps, etc. which were never recorded yet are still there. Plus when the long gun registry was abolished all those guns which were 'illegal' became legal again.



We had more than 20 rifles/shotguns "stored" at my grandfathers/grandmothers place in N.S. in the 70's/80's; any of which were available to the assorted uncles/cousins/grandkids on demand, depending on the season.  My grandfather, who died in the late 70's, would have resisted to his core any federal restrictions on his right to own a weapon; he was a salt of the earth farmer who hunted to feed his family, and killed foxes who got into his barn.


----------



## daftandbarmy (15 Sep 2020)

Weinie said:
			
		

> We had more than 20 rifles/shotguns "stored" at my grandfathers/grandmothers place in N.S. in the 70's/80's; any of which were available to the assorted uncles/cousins/grandkids on demand, depending on the season.  My grandfather, who died in the late 70's, would have resisted to his core any federal restrictions on his right to own a weapon; he was a salt of the earth farmer who hunted to feed his family, and killed foxes who got into his barn.




And yet, no one was killed or injured by any firearms. Typical Canadians, eh? 

Sadly, media coverage of US gun violence has made us afraid of something nasty that is much, much less likely to happen in Canada. And be careful out there.... like don't fall, or something really dangerous like that...

Gun violence by the numbers: How America, Canada and the world compare

"Overall, Americans are almost 70 per cent more likely to die at the end of a gun — shot by someone else, by themselves, by accident — than Canadians are to die in a car accident.

Thirty-five per cent more likely to be shot to death than Canadians are to die of a fall.

American firearm death rates are almost three times higher than Canadian death rates of ovarian cancer and Parkinson’s; 42 per cent higher than Canadian prostate cancer deaths; 10 per cent higher than pneumonia."

https://globalnews.ca/news/2378037/gun-violence-by-the-numbers-how-america-canada-and-the-world-compare/


----------



## Haggis (15 Sep 2020)

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> And yet, no one was killed or injured by any firearms. Typical Canadians, eh?
> 
> Sadly, media coverage of US gun violence has made us afraid of something nasty that is much, much less likely to happen in Canada. And be careful out there.... like don't fall, or something really dangerous like that...
> 
> ...



Why are you stating fact in what should be an emotionally driven discussion?  There's no room for the truth in the gun control debate.


----------



## Eaglelord17 (15 Sep 2020)

Haggis said:
			
		

> .25 and .32 calibre handguns were banned due to their being easily concealed.



Except they didn't need to ban it on caliber, their barrel length law would have included them anyways. It just goes to show how they didn't understand the legislation they were writing at the time. 



			
				daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> Gun violence by the numbers: How America, Canada and the world compare
> 
> "Overall, Americans are almost 70 per cent more likely to die at the end of a gun — shot by someone else, by themselves, by accident — than Canadians are to die in a car accident.
> 
> https://globalnews.ca/news/2378037/gun-violence-by-the-numbers-how-america-canada-and-the-world-compare/



And that argument gets vague and shifty. If you want to do equal comparisons you do a 1 for 1, not add it all together and look at how big the numbers are. 

When you remove suicide from the numbers for America you end up with 3.18 deaths per 100,000 which is lower than all the other Canadian causes of death listed. The long gun death rate (which include all those scary firearms like ARs and AKs) is basically the same per capita in the USA as it is in Canada. It is handgun deaths where the difference is. Most of those are in those specific urban gang filled areas.

The USA has a suicide rate of 10.1 per 100,000, which is the same as Canada. It is not a fair comparison to add the firearm murder rate to their numbers and not ours and say look it is higher. Again as I have said before, if you make it more controlled as to who has access to firearms/reduce the numbers available, the firearm suicide rate will go down. However the overall suicide rate stays the same as you haven't addressed why people are killing themselves. 

If that article was trying to be fair, based on how they were gathering their numbers for firearms deaths, they would have added together all the cancer deaths to one category as that is what they did for firearms. Cancer deaths would then be 23.8 per 100,000, which is over double the firearm numbers. Just remember there are lies, damned lies, and statistics.


----------



## Haggis (15 Sep 2020)

Eaglelord17 said:
			
		

> The USA has a suicide rate of 10.1 per 100,000, which is the same as Canada. It is not a fair comparison to add the firearm murder rate to their numbers and not ours and say look it is higher. Again as I have said before, if you make it more controlled as to who has access to firearms/reduce the numbers available, the firearm suicide rate will go down.



Access to firearms, particularly handguns, is far easier in the US where in many cases, handguns are kept loaded and easily accessed due to the fear of violent crime, the "right" to firearms and the patchwork of federal, state and local laws governing storage, use and transportation.  In Canada, it is far harder to access one's* legally stored* handgun on impulse, in a fit of anger or emotional turmoil.

The guns banned by OIC were not the ones being used in suicides in Canada. Someone wanting to get legal access to a firearms they don't already have to do themselves harm will most probably choose another means as the process takes a while.  The black market, although far more expensive, is an easier and quicker source.  Those contemplating suicide are not going to be too concerned by the cost of the means.  If it's immediately unaffordable, they will choose another means.


----------



## Donald H (15 Sep 2020)

Eaglelord17 said:
			
		

> I would question Canada numbers. Before the long gun registry went into effect they estimated there was 20-30 million firearms in Canada (in 1994), as soon as the long gun registry went into effect there was only 8 million firearms. I suspect there is roughly 1 gun per person in country simply due to the amount of people out there with guns kept in their family or at camps, etc. which were never recorded yet are still there. Plus when the long gun registry was abolished all those guns which were 'illegal' became legal again.



I think your estimate of 1 gun per person is pretty close to right. That's the reason I first said that America's guns closely equal Canada's guns, per capita. Somewhere along the line I also found stats that said 3,000,000 Canadians owned guns and the average was about 6 or 7 per gun owner.


----------



## Haggis (15 Sep 2020)

Donald H said:
			
		

> I think your estimate of 1 gun per person is pretty close to right. That's the reason I first said that America's guns closely equal Canada's guns, per capita. Somewhere along the line I also found stats that said 3,000,000 Canadians owned guns and the average was about 6 or 7 per gun owner.



The RCMP claims there are about 2.2 million PAL holders in Canada.  Those are legal gun owners.  You may assume that each owns at least one firearm.  Some I know have none, others several.  Include the estimated 750,000 to 1 million illegal guns in the hands of criminals of various sorts and that may be a fair estimate. 

But, the government is only going after *legal guns *with their OIC.  Specifically stated, any related compensated confiscation (AKA "buyback") will only be offered for *LEGAL* guns.  

Remember that.

You, a lawful, licensed, trained gun owner and your legally purchased, stored, transported and used guns are more dangerous and worthy of more government attention and money (<$600M)  than gang bangers, drug dealers, smugglers, snakeheads, outlaw bikers, sovereign citizens, homegrown radicals, antifa or indigenous groups and their guns ($327M).


----------



## suffolkowner (18 Sep 2020)

https://ipolitics.ca/2020/09/17/feds-uncertain-firearm-buy-back-will-start-before-amnesty-for-banned-guns-ends/

Hardly surprising, although you have to wonder how New Zealand pulled it off.


----------



## Haggis (18 Sep 2020)

suffolkowner said:
			
		

> Hardly surprising, although you have to wonder how New Zealand pulled it off.



Two possibilities I see:

NZ likely had a plan in place long before the Christchurch massacre and was waiting for a catalyst to implement it, or it was administered in-house without turning it into a vote pandering Liberal make-work project.

In our case the administrative costs of setting up and implementing the program will far exceed what might be paid to confiscate all the prohibited firearms.


----------



## Ostrozac (19 Sep 2020)

suffolkowner said:
			
		

> https://ipolitics.ca/2020/09/17/feds-uncertain-firearm-buy-back-will-start-before-amnesty-for-banned-guns-ends/
> 
> Hardly surprising, although you have to wonder how New Zealand pulled it off.



New Zealand conducted their gun buyback project in house, through their national police service. Canada wants to contract ours out, during a global pandemic, while the whole of government, including PWGSC and Treasury Board, as well as industry, are all running at somewhat reduced capacity. Add to that the fact that the Canadian government's start state for procurement and contracts wasn't that impressive to begin with, even without a global crisis.

New Zealand's gun buyback program also kind of didn't work. Estimates are that somewhere between only 1/4 and 1/3 of New Zealand's newly banned firearms were actually bought back -- the vast majority have gone underground or to the black market.

The RCMP would probably be just as capable of running an ineffective gun buyback program as New Zealand Police. But contracting it out? This year? That's a brave move, Prime Minister.


----------



## Haggis (19 Sep 2020)

Ostrozac said:
			
		

> The RCMP would probably be just as capable of running an ineffective gun buyback program as New Zealand Police. But contracting it out? This year? That's a brave move, Prime Minister.



That unspent $900M in WE money has to go somewhere.


----------



## Good2Golf (19 Sep 2020)

Haggis said:
			
		

> That unspent $900M in WE money has to go somewhere.



Don’t be surprised when the WE R Gunfree charity pops up and the ‘public servants’ recommend it as the only organization capable of running a gun buy-back program. :not-again:


----------



## Haggis (19 Sep 2020)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> Don’t be surprised when the WE R Gunfree charity pops up and the ‘public servants’ recommend it as the only organization capable of running a gun buy-back program. :not-again:



How did you get a copy of my tender documents?


----------



## blacktriangle (19 Sep 2020)

Gun buyback = LPC plan for CAF SARP II. 

 :nod:


----------



## Haggis (29 Sep 2020)

Buried in last Wednesday's Speech from the Throne was a restatement of the Liberal's promise to implement municipal handgun bans.  I'd expected they would use this speech to announce a national handgun ban. I'm glad I was wrong.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (29 Sep 2020)

An outright ban would force them to do something and spend monies they really don't have. They will likely announce a ban as an election promise.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (29 Sep 2020)

Complete ban might lose them a confidence vote right now, the moment when/if they have a majority, you'll see a semi-complete ban.


----------



## Remius (29 Sep 2020)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> Complete ban might lose them a confidence vote right now, the moment when/if they have a majority, you'll see a semi-complete ban.



How though?  The bloc and NDP would support.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (29 Sep 2020)

A complete ban?  The Bloc?   Hunting is huge there....and I'd say 60/40 NDP.   Even some rural Liberal's might break ranks....


EDIT:  wow, thought we were discussing a complete weapons ban, not just handguns.   My bad....


----------



## Retired AF Guy (29 Sep 2020)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> A complete ban?  The Bloc?   Hunting is huge there....and I'd say 60/40 NDP.   Even some rural Liberal's might break ranks....



You are supposing individual MPs would be allowed to vote according to their conscience or constituents wishes. In reality, they would be whipped into voting as a block and woe to those who voted against the party line.


----------



## Haggis (29 Sep 2020)

Retired AF Guy said:
			
		

> You are supposing individual MPs would be allowed to vote according to their conscience or constituents wishes. In reality, they would be whipped into voting as a block and woe to those who voted against the party line.



Exactly. 

It's also tellling that the RFP for a firm to design a buyback program has been cancelled effective 22 September.


----------



## suffolkowner (29 Sep 2020)

Haggis said:
			
		

> Exactly.
> 
> It's also tellling that the RFP for a firm to design a buyback program has been cancelled effective 22 September.



What the heck? I wonder what that means?


----------



## Good2Golf (29 Sep 2020)

suffolkowner said:
			
		

> What the heck? I wonder what that means?



Retracting it until ‘WE Want No Guns’ is incorporated in Canada.


----------



## suffolkowner (29 Sep 2020)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> Retracting it until ‘WE Want No Guns’ is incorporated in Canada.



Yeah I'm trying not to waste mental energy speculating


----------



## Haggis (29 Sep 2020)

suffolkowner said:
			
		

> What the heck? I wonder what that means?


According to the CSSA, who quoted Public Safety spokesperson Tim Warmington: “_The bid evaluation process did not yield to the selection of a successful bidder. A revised Request for Proposal will be introduced in the near future.”._......once WE can submit a $930M bid


----------



## Donald H (4 Oct 2020)

All guns are not going to be banned! LOL
I can express my views here on this topic because they're not views that run contrary to the CAF views that are dictated as being politically correct.

And my view is, an extremist and ridiculous position being taken is not in the best interests of those who enjoy gun related activities and sports. A moderate and rational position 'is' the correct approach because:

The socalled soccer moms are a part of the large voting bloc who don't give a fng lick about decent Canadians being allowed to own guns and use them in a responsible way. Alienate them at your own peril!

cheers!


----------



## SeaKingTacco (4 Oct 2020)

Donald H said:
			
		

> All guns are not going to be banned! LOL
> I can express my views here on this topic because they're not views that run contrary to the CAF views that are dictated as being politically correct.
> 
> And my view is, an extremist and ridiculous position being taken is not in the best interests of those who enjoy gun related activities and sports. A moderate and rational position 'is' the correct approach because:
> ...



Is it just me, or does this post make absolutely no logical sense?


----------



## Jarnhamar (4 Oct 2020)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> Is it just me, or does this post make absolutely no logical sense?



Seems Everclear to me..


----------



## Haggis (4 Oct 2020)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> Is it just me, or does this post make absolutely no logical sense?



It's not just you.  He's trolling.


----------



## Donald H (4 Oct 2020)

Haggis said:
			
		

> It's not just you.  He's trolling.



He got it wrong when he referred to my post as not making any logical sense. Then you got it wrong when you didn't refer to it as not making any tactical sense.

Because that's exactly what it was meant to do! So you better hope that the soccer moms and all the other mommies and daddies don't take the extremism being demonstrated here seriously.

Be careful you don't get caught trolling for the attention of the mommies and daddies! 

cheers haggis.


----------



## Haggis (17 Nov 2020)

Minister Blair's second attempt to find a private company to administer the OIC's proposed compensated confiscation regime ("buyback") has gone unanswered.

Now what?


----------



## Stoker (17 Nov 2020)

Haggis said:
			
		

> Minister Blair's second attempt to find a private company to administer the OIC's proposed compensated confiscation regime ("buyback") has gone unanswered.
> 
> Now what?



They're either put it out again with more favorable terms, give it to the public service to administer or go with grandfathering.


----------



## Haggis (17 Nov 2020)

Retired RCN said:
			
		

> They're either put it out again with more favorable terms, give it to the public service to administer or go with grandfathering.



The NDP and Bloc won't support a grandfathering. The Liberals need either one of them to survive the next confidence vote.


----------



## Kat Stevens (17 Nov 2020)

High River Flood, redux.


----------



## Stoker (17 Nov 2020)

Haggis said:
			
		

> The NDP and Bloc won't support a grandfathering. The Liberals need either one of them to survive the next confidence vote.



Have they taken that off the table officially though and its yet to be seen that this would go to a confidence vote, we're still almost 2 more years away from that.


----------



## Haggis (17 Nov 2020)

Retired RCN said:
			
		

> Have they taken that off the table officially though and its yet to be seen that this would go to a confidence vote, we're still almost 2 more years away from that.



In this article from early May (mere sitting days ago during a pandemic), the Bloc head stated he was “stupefied” to learn the government plans to introduce a “grandfather” option for gun owners. He said the Bloc will not support a gun control bill unless it is mandatory for gun owners to take part in a buyback program for the thousands of firearms now prohibited by law.

“We believe that the program should be mandatory because otherwise the actual effect of the law would be minimal and insufficient,” Blanchet said.


----------



## Stoker (17 Nov 2020)

Haggis said:
			
		

> In this article from early May (mere sitting days ago during a pandemic), the Bloc head stated he was “stupefied” to learn the government plans to introduce a “grandfather” option for gun owners. He said the Bloc will not support a gun control bill unless it is mandatory for gun owners to take part in a buyback program for the thousands of firearms now prohibited by law.
> 
> “We believe that the program should be mandatory because otherwise the actual effect of the law would be minimal and insufficient,” Blanchet said.



So a mention about it 7 months ago and nothing since the great covid cash giveaway.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (17 Nov 2020)

Retired RCN said:
			
		

> So a mention about it 7 months ago and nothing since the great covid cash giveaway.



They will milk it by banning more guns coming the next election, actually taking the guns is problematic and costs money, banning them and forcing legal gun owners to store them without being able to use them is cost-efficient and good political bang for the buck (for them).


----------



## Haggis (17 Nov 2020)

Retired RCN said:
			
		

> So a mention about it 7 months ago and nothing since the great covid cash giveaway.


  I wouldn't expect another mention by the BQ until the details of the "buyback" (compensated compensation TM) or any potential grandfathering are announced. The wording of the OIC does not entrench grandfathering so it would not surprise me if the Liberals abandoned it in order to gain support from the NDP and BQ in the future.



			
				Colin P said:
			
		

> They will milk it by banning more guns coming the next election.



They have banned an additional 300 or so models since the May OIC.  I don't think you'll have to wait much longer for the handgun legislation, either.



			
				Colin P said:
			
		

> ..actually taking the guns is problematic and costs money, banning them and forcing legal gun owners to store them without being able to use them is cost-efficient and good political bang for the buck (for them).



It's also quite a strategic play.  Any election proposal by Team Blue to do away with the bans because the "buyback" and grandfathering have yet to occur will be played as pandering to the gun lobby.   But that could backfire as it also could show Team Red wasn't really serious about getting scary guns off the street, because none have been turned in yet.


----------



## Eaglelord17 (17 Nov 2020)

I honestly don't see much political gain to the Liberals for these bans. Gun control doesn't gain votes but it does cost them, there isn't a huge following of rabid anti-gun people whose vote can be swayed. There are a few who are dead set against firearm ownership but they are the minority, most Canadians are more or less indifferent unless there is some big and scary event in the news (usually based in the USA). 

There is however a huge following of firearm owners though and attacking them has a significant effect on rural votes in particular. I just really don't understand what they are aiming for, it is non-sensical to me. I could understand if there was some huge political gain but I don't see one there. I only see political expenditure and effort to achieve a net zero state for them.


----------



## ballz (18 Nov 2020)

I'm curious to know the effect that the amount of shootings in Toronto is having on gun control voters. No doubt, there are still those who will insist on more gun control, but with the ban in place and shootings still happening in Toronto at a rising rate, and gun owners sitting there constantly saying "I told you so," I wonder how many centrist voters are starting to wonder why we're spending 10-fold on buying back guns rather than fighting gang activity / gun smuggling. I know Twitter is not a way to gauge anything in reality, but usually a shooting in Toronto leads to another Twitter war on Bill Blair's page... now it seems a lot of the pro gun control folk have gone a lot more silent.


----------



## Haggis (18 Nov 2020)

Eaglelord17 said:
			
		

> I honestly don't see much political gain to the Liberals for these bans. Gun control doesn't gain votes but it does cost them, there isn't a huge following of rabid anti-gun people whose vote can be swayed.


  Internal polling tells them otherwise.  Gun control is rabidly popular in urban areas where legal ownership rates are low. 



			
				Eaglelord17 said:
			
		

> There is however a huge following of firearm owners though and attacking them has a significant effect on rural votes in particular. I just really don't understand what they are aiming for, it is non-sensical to me. I could understand if there was some huge political gain but I don't see one there. I only see political expenditure and effort to achieve a net zero state for them.


  By being very selective in what they banned and stating that they will protect the "rights" of hunters and farmers (Why are they the only ones who have gun "rights"?) they have pretty much shielded themselves from the rural impacts of this and future bans.



			
				ballz said:
			
		

> I'm curious to know the effect that the amount of shootings in Toronto is having on gun control voters. No doubt, there are still those who will insist on more gun control


  The guns banned in May were not the ones being used in Toronto's shootings, which involve handguns for the most part. Those bans are coming soon.



			
				ballz said:
			
		

> I wonder how many centrist voters are starting to wonder why we're spending 10-fold on buying back guns rather than fighting gang activity / gun smuggling.


  Because the confiscation plan hasn't been announced (or even developed) no real money has been spent on this.  In fact, most, if not all, of the crime fighting money promised in the last election has yet to be disbursed.


----------



## Eaglelord17 (18 Nov 2020)

Haggis said:
			
		

> Internal polling tells them otherwise.  Gun control is rabidly popular in urban areas where legal ownership rates are low.
> By being very selective in what they banned and stating that they will protect the "rights" of hunters and farmers (Why are they the only ones who have gun "rights"?) they have pretty much shielded themselves from the rural impacts of this and future bans.



I wouldn't say its rabidly popular though. You ask your average person in a urban area if they are against handguns or 'assault weapons' they tend to say yes (despite not even knowing our laws or the definitions of those terms), however it isn't really a wedge issue for them. They get up in arms when something bad happens but overall its a short term anger which dies very quickly (generally a week or less). Its not like they aren't going to vote Liberal if they don't have this issue pushed. They are basically neutral on the subject with a preference for banning based off ignorance (mostly American based news). For every person who has this as a wedge issue for them on the banning side, there is likely 100 people who have this as a wedge issue the opposite direction. The pro-banning camp has no real skin in the game. They aren't losing anything so they don't have much incentive to be dead against it. 

They really haven't shielded themselves from the rural impacts of this. I live in a more rural area and I haven't met a single farmer, hunter, or firearms owner who isn't pissed off about this. One guy I know, about as hard core 'fudd' as you can be, is angry about this. Even though he is against the ownership of handguns and such he just so happens to have a wood stocked Mini-14 he can no longer use.


----------



## Haggis (18 Nov 2020)

Eaglelord17 said:
			
		

> I wouldn't say its rabidly popular though.


 Internal polling, conducted by the party and for the party shows the opposite.  In fact, Liberals see gun control as key to winning certain crime plagued urban centres.



			
				Eaglelord17 said:
			
		

> You ask your average person in a urban area if they are against handguns or 'assault weapons' they tend to say yes (despite not even knowing our laws or the definitions of those terms), however it isn't really a wedge issue for them. They get up in arms when something bad happens but overall its a short term anger which dies very quickly (generally a week or less). Its not like they aren't going to vote Liberal if they don't have this issue pushed.


 A Liberal-commissioned Angus Reid poll conducted in metro Toronto immediately prior to the May 1st OIC showed overwhelming support for the full ban of civilian ownership of "assault weapons" and a two thirds support for a full ban on legally owned handguns. 



			
				Eaglelord17 said:
			
		

> They really haven't shielded themselves from the rural impacts of this. I live in a more rural area and I haven't met a single farmer, hunter, or firearms owner who isn't pissed off about this.


  I also live in a rural area and know many farmers and hunters who support the ban entirely because they believe sacrificing sport shooters and handgunners, safeguards their 'rights' to own hunting rifles and shotguns.



			
				Eaglelord17 said:
			
		

> One guy I know, about as hard core 'fudd' as you can be, is angry about this. Even though he is against the ownership of handguns and such he just so happens to have a wood stocked Mini-14 he can no longer use.



He is a notable and admirable exception.  The Liberals categorically omitted sport shooters from their promise to respect the "rights" of Canadian gun owners in their 2019 policy statement.


----------



## Eaglelord17 (19 Nov 2020)

Haggis said:
			
		

> Internal polling, conducted by the party and for the party shows the opposite.  In fact, Liberals see gun control as key to winning certain crime plagued urban centres.
> A Liberal-commissioned Angus Reid poll conducted in metro Toronto immediately prior to the May 1st OIC showed overwhelming support for the full ban of civilian ownership of "assault weapons" and a two thirds support for a full ban on legally owned handguns.
> I also live in a rural area and know many farmers and hunters who support the ban entirely because they believe sacrificing sport shooters and handgunners, safeguards their 'rights' to own hunting rifles and shotguns.
> 
> He is a notable and admirable exception.  The Liberals categorically omitted sport shooters from their promise to respect the "rights" of Canadian gun owners in their 2019 policy statement.



Well then the Liberals are making policy on poorly thought out questions to ignorant people. I personally believe most Canadians don't really give much of a thought about our gun laws other than they are 'better than America'. Certainly not enough to change how they intend to vote, its not like marijuana. I just see it as a huge political cost to them with not much gain. Not only that the people they think they would 'gain' are likely already voting for them or the NDP to begin with, not really swing voters.

All the policies the Liberals have been adopting recently I think are going to push more people away then pull them in. They are moving farther and farther to the Left and the Centralists are more likely to be voting Conservative at this point than anything. I just hope they don't destroy the country first, last time a Trudeau had a spending spree like this it brought about the creation of GST to counter it.


----------



## Good2Golf (19 Nov 2020)

Eaglelord17 said:
			
		

> All the policies the Liberals have been adopting recently I think are going to push more people away then pull them in. They are moving farther and farther to the Left and the Centralists are more likely to be voting Conservative at this point than anything. I just hope they don't destroy the country first, last time a Trudeau had a spending spree like this it brought about the creation of GST to counter it.



It’s only a matter of time before the GST gets bumped back up to 7% if not 8%...


----------



## Fishbone Jones (19 Nov 2020)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> It’s only a matter of time before the GST gets bumped back up to 7% if not 8%...



Optimist 😆


----------



## SeaKingTacco (19 Nov 2020)

Fishbone Jones said:
			
		

> Optimist 😆



I agree- it will be at least 10%.

As an aside, there are worse ways to raise taxes. At least with a sales tax, you choose to buy things or not. Not so much with income tax.


----------



## Weinie (19 Nov 2020)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> I agree- it will be at least 10%.
> 
> As an aside, there are worse ways to raise taxes. _*At least with a sales tax, you choose to buy things or not.*_ Not so much with income tax.



Sure, but some things that are taxable are also close to essential: gas for the car, kids clothes are but two that come to mind, and I can't unchoose having to buy them (sans horse and buggy and a spinning wheel) There are a host of others that are also in this category; yes I can choose to avoid them, but at what social/psychological/incremental cost? 

Sin taxes may be another way to recoup, although it may push for even more black market sales.

I would prefer if gov'ts at all levels stopped buying votes with my money and running deficits. 

https://www.fraserinstitute.org/categories/tax-freedom-day

CPP deductions are scheduled to rise 5.9% on Jan 1 2021. With a population that now features more folks over 65 than under 16, these increases will only continue. Couple in the rising health care costs and the PST and Provincial Income tax portion is likely to rise as well.

Serenity now.


----------



## Good2Golf (19 Nov 2020)

Fishbone Jones said:
			
		

> Optimist 😆



Guilty as charged! ;D

Honestly, I’m with SKT, I’d rather have increased GST than increased income tax...at least I’d have control of how much of my money the Liberals would tax and spew...


----------



## suffolkowner (19 Nov 2020)

To continue with this slight derail. I am not against a GST increase, it remains one of my greatest disappointments that Harper followed through on that instead of other tax reforms. Of course it's a questionable bet that any increase in the GST would be offset by a reduction in income taxes


----------



## Good2Golf (19 Nov 2020)

suffolkowner said:
			
		

> To continue with this slight derail. I am not against a GST increase, it remains one of my greatest disappointments that Harper followed through on that instead of other tax reforms. Of course it's a questionable bet that any increase in the GST would be offset by a reduction in income taxes



Not expecting a reduction in income tax, would be happy with no change to income tax and a bump in GST. EuroVATs are in the high-teen/low-20s %, so a return of GST to 7 or even further to 8-10 would be in line with European VAT and would also be enough on all tax payers alike that even the base the Liberals pander to would feel enough pain to not just support them blindly like in times past.


----------



## Weinie (19 Nov 2020)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> _*Not expecting a reduction in income tax, would be happy with no change to income tax and a bump in GST.*_ EuroVATs are in the high-teen/low-20s %, so a return of GST to 7 or even further to 8-10 would be in line with European VAT and would also be enough on all tax payers alike that even the base the Liberals pander to would feel enough pain to not just support them blindly like in times past.



But that still has an impact on your disposable income. Income taxes are a hot button issue, consumption taxes, not so much, so easier to get buy-in. Add in an increase in deductions to CPP, EI etc, it is quacking and walking like a duck.

I would prefer some governmental spending restraints personally.


----------



## Good2Golf (19 Nov 2020)

Weinie said:
			
		

> I would prefer some governmental spending restraints personally.



You and me both, Weinie! :nod:   I just think the LPC needs to have the “enough virtue signalling is enough, you’re impacting our QOL” for their base, not just the evil center-to-right folks...


----------



## suffolkowner (19 Nov 2020)

Weinie said:
			
		

> But that still has an impact on your disposable income. Income taxes are a hot button issue, consumption taxes, not so much, so easier to get buy-in. Add in an increase in deductions to CPP, EI etc, it is quacking and walking like a duck.
> 
> I would prefer some governmental spending restraints personally.



I think that income taxes especially for the large proportion of Canadians are a negative drag on productivity. While some spending restraint would be appreciated especially for this government. I am not unduly concerned about the amount of Covid spending/stimulus but rather the manner in which the government has decided who gets what.

The problem with spending restraint is that it still requires competent management to exercise it something that is lacking across many institutions and corporations not just government. We will probably end up with our emergency supplies dumped in  the landfill again while the true waste remains untouched


----------



## Haggis (21 Nov 2020)

In a desperate attempt to steer this back on topic, the PM received a briefing note mere days after the shooting and before the May 1st OIC outlining that all the Nova Scotia shooter's firearms and magazines were illegally obtained.  Yet, the ban went ahead using this crime as one example of why it was needed. So much for evidence based governance.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (21 Nov 2020)

I didn't need evidence to know that any gun control enacted by the Liberals is not evidence based.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (22 Nov 2020)

Again, Blair has announced another initiative, Red Flag laws, that is already on the books. It sounds like the liberals may be running short on ideas to cater to their base. Rephrasing and rejigging what we already have. Unfortunately most people, unless they're owners, don't  know these laws already exist. It causes confusion and panic. What I see is a tightning. Will anonymous tips will be used for a reason to confiscate?


----------



## Haggis (23 Nov 2020)

The RCMP's new union, the National Police Federation, has just published it's policy statement on Gun Violence and Public Safety in Canada..

They policy clearly states:

_"Costly and current legislation, such as the Order in Council prohibiting various firearms and the
proposed “buy-back” program by the federal government targeted at legal firearm owners, does not address these current and emerging themes or urgent threats to public safety.

It also does not address:
• criminal activity,
• illegal firearms proliferation,
• gang crime,
• illegal guns crossing the border or
• the criminal use of firearms.

In fact, it diverts extremely important personnel, resources, and funding away from addressing the more immediate and growing threat of criminal use of illegal firearms."_

Even though he won't care, because the Liberals know better than front line LEOs, I doubt this will be well received in the Minister's office.


----------



## Ostrozac (23 Nov 2020)

Haggis said:
			
		

> Even though he won't care, because the Liberals know better than front line LEOs, I doubt this will be well received in the Minister's office.



It may not be well received by the Minister, but it may explain why the government has been fixated on trying to arrange an outsourced contract to run the buyback program, if the union and the rank and file of the RCMP are that convinced that it’s a dumb idea and a waste of resources.


----------



## Haggis (23 Nov 2020)

Ostrozac said:
			
		

> It may not be well received by the Minister, but it may explain why the government has been fixated on trying to arrange an outsourced contract to run the buyback program, if the union and the rank and file of the RCMP are that convinced that it’s a dumb idea and a waste of resources.



So far they have failed to find a scapegoat contractor to take on this project.


----------



## ballz (23 Nov 2020)

Haggis said:
			
		

> The RCMP's new union, the National Police Federation, has just published it's policy statement on Gun Violence and Public Safety in Canada..
> 
> They policy clearly states:
> 
> ...



Wow... I'm pretty surprised to see that. I know the RCMP have to execute what their told to execute, but it seems to me the RCMP has been enthusiastic about it... perhaps just their "leadership." To see that from their union is definitely a surprise for me.


----------



## brihard (24 Nov 2020)

ballz said:
			
		

> Wow... I'm pretty surprised to see that. I know the RCMP have to execute what their told to execute, but it seems to me the RCMP has been enthusiastic about it... perhaps just their "leadership." To see that from their union is definitely a surprise for me.



Why the surprise? It’s a union of 20,000 serving police officers from across the country, working in literally every aspect of policing from border integrity, organized crime, drugs and street gangs, forensics and weapons tracing, domestic violence investigations, and so on. Who better to have a no-BS picture of what works and what doesn’t in terms of trying to curb gun violence? Not to mention, having lost members in Mayerthorpe and Nova Scotia to illegally owned firearms.

I guess this also answers the question as to whether the Mounties’ new union will involve itself in politically contentious issues when it crosses their arcs.


----------



## Furniture (24 Nov 2020)

Brihard said:
			
		

> Why the surprise? It’s a union of 20,000 serving police officers from across the country, working in literally every aspect of policing from border integrity, organized crime, drugs and street gangs, forensics and weapons tracing, domestic violence investigations, and so on. Who better to have a no-BS picture of what works and what doesn’t in terms of trying to curb gun violence? Not to mention, having lost members in Mayerthorpe and Nova Scotia to illegally owned firearms.
> 
> I guess this also answers the question as to whether the Mounties’ new union will involve itself in politically contentious issues when it crosses their arcs.



Bad firearms laws have created a mistrust of police in the group who normally would be supporters... Anytime I'm transporting firearms I worry about an overzealous constable ruining my day, and potentially my finances.


----------



## ballz (25 Nov 2020)

Brihard said:
			
		

> Why the surprise?



Because when it comes to banning firearms and going after firearm owners 





> it seems to me the RCMP has been enthusiastic about it... perhaps just their "leadership."


----------



## brihard (25 Nov 2020)

I've not seen many actual cops out on the road doing police stuff who are enthused about the new gun laws. It does little to concretely impact crime, and that's blatantly obvious.

The laws as they already exist - flawed as they are - give sufficient legal tools to deal with firearms crime. The issue is investigative resourcing, and turnstile courts. Toronto police have been getting more active in publicizing cases of offenders released on bail after repeat firearms offences.


----------



## Haggis (25 Nov 2020)

Brihard said:
			
		

> Toronto police have been getting more active in publicizing cases of offenders released on bail after repeat firearms offences.



While Edmonton's Deputy Chief is blaming lawful gun owners and the Trudeau government for the rise firearms crime.  He "thinks" that with no compensated confiscation plan in place and likely nothing in the future, owners of newly prohibited firearms are selling them to criminals in order to see even a minimal profit for the loss of their property.  I'd love to see his evidence of this.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (1 Dec 2020)

https://firearmrights.ca/en/re-s-74-nullification-decision-alberta-new-decision/

The feds suffer a defeat in Alberta Court over S.74 “nullifications”.

To say that the Court took a dim view of the Federal submission in response to Mr Stark would be an understatement.

The OIC is looking more and more unconstitutional by the second...


----------



## Halifax Tar (1 Dec 2020)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> https://firearmrights.ca/en/re-s-74-nullification-decision-alberta-new-decision/
> 
> The feds suffer a defeat in Alberta Court over S.74 “nullifications”.
> 
> ...



Can you expand on this ?  I did read the article but I am simple storesman and there are allot of multi-syllable words there


----------



## SeaKingTacco (1 Dec 2020)

As I understand it, the Firearms Act allows the CFO to revoke firearms licenses for certain reasons, but, under s74, they must give you at least an opportunity to appeal.

When the OIC was issued on 01 May, they used the word “nullification” (which does not appear anywhere in the Firearm Act) probably in attempt to avoid thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of appeals which could tie up the courts well into the 2100s. 

The Alberta Judge said (basically) “not so fast, federal government. What you have done with this OiC offends natural justice and is frankly, a mess”.

Firearms owners do not get many wins in court. This was a win and starts to assemble a case 5hat this whole OiC was unconstitutional from the get go...IMHO.

If you go to youtube and look for Runkle of the Bailey, he has an excellent summary.


----------



## Halifax Tar (1 Dec 2020)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> As I understand it, the Firearms Act allows the CFO to revoke firearms licenses for certain reasons, but, under s74, they must give you at least an opportunity to appeal.
> 
> When the OIC was issued on 01 May, they used the word “nullification” (which does not appear anywhere in the Firearm Act) probably in attempt to avoid thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of appeals which could tie up the courts well into the 2100s.
> 
> ...



Thank you! I sure hope the OIC get cut down or scrapped, whatever.


----------



## Haggis (1 Dec 2020)

Brihard said:
			
		

> I've not seen many actual cops out on the road doing police stuff who are enthused about the new gun laws.



No worries.  On Nov 25, 2020, when being questioned by MP Glen Motz, Minister Blair said he does not intend to have law enforcement administer the confiscation program. So far, no one has put forth a response to two RFPs on this program.

I guess WE gets another shot at a sole-source government contract?


----------



## Jarnhamar (14 Dec 2020)

*Online abuse prompts firm to pull out of federal government's gun buyback program* 


> An Ottawa-based staffing company has cancelled a federal contract related to Ottawa’s proposed rifle buyback program after facing a barrage of social-media abuse from people opposed to the government’s gun policies.
> 
> The online fracas was condemned by Public Safety Minister Bill Blair, who is overseeing the government’s efforts to ban and take possession of tens of thousands of semi-automatic rifles in the hands of legal gun owners.
> 
> “It is unacceptable that the gun lobby has promoted threats, intimidation and harassment of people who are just trying to do their jobs,” said Mary-Liz Power, a spokeswoman for Mr. Blair. “This is reckless and completely unacceptable.”


https://www.theglobeandmail.com/canada/article-online-threats-prompt-firm-to-pull-out-of-federal-governments-gun-buy//

(could be a paywall)


I suspect Bill Blair and the Justin Trudeau will count on stories like this to argue they tried _really really really _hard to find companies to facilitate a by back program giving fair market value for firearms but now will just have to confiscate them without compensation.


----------



## RocketRichard (14 Dec 2020)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> *Online abuse prompts firm to pull out of federal government's gun buyback program* https://www.theglobeandmail.com/canada/article-online-threats-prompt-firm-to-pull-out-of-federal-governments-gun-buy//
> 
> (could be a paywall)
> 
> ...


Well it certainly is not a good look on CCFR. Will not help the ‘Firearms rights’ crowd. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Haggis (14 Dec 2020)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> I suspect Bill Blair and the Justin Trudeau will count on stories like this to argue they tried _really really really _hard to find companies to facilitate a by back program giving fair market value for firearms but now will just have to confiscate them without compensation.



Fair market value for a firearm you cannot sell, transfer or export is zero dollars.  Expect  no more than it's value as scrap/recyclable material to be paid out and that amount will probably be taxable.


----------



## Jarnhamar (14 Dec 2020)

RomeoJuliet said:
			
		

> Well it certainly is not a good look on CCFR. Will not help the ‘Firearms rights’ crowd.




Agreed people being dick heads online look bad, and I'm guessing neither side is above pretending to be someone from the other camp to try and make each other look even worse. 

I'm sure the lines are drawn in the sand already though and people's minds are made up. For, against and don't care. 

I read the original story said threats and it was changed to abuse since there weren't any actual threats being made. 

The abuse being leveled at Chinese and Chinese Canadians seems worse. 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/nationalpost.com/news/canada/vandalism-bad-reviews-threats-toronto-area-chinese-restaurant-feels-the-heat-from-beijing-loyalists/wcm/9b083ee6-b0f2-4241-8a3b-6278af2252d5/amp/


----------



## RocketRichard (14 Dec 2020)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Agrees people being dick heads online look bad, and I'm guessing neither side is above pretending to be someone from the other camp to try and make each other look even worse.
> 
> I'm sure the lines are drawn in the sand already though and people's minds are made up. For, against and don't care.
> 
> ...


We agree there dude that online can bring out the worst in people. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Haggis (2 Jan 2021)

IBM has been awarded a $1.2M contract to develop a potential buyback compensation scheme to support the May 1, 2020 OIC.  IBM has until Feb 8, 2021 to "consult with other federal agencies, possibly other levels of government and industry experts to devise options that include:

-- a compensation plan for each affected firearm;

-- analysis of benefits and risks associated with each compensation model; and

-- identification of "other considerations" that might affect the feasibility of each approach.

A second phase of the project will entail any necessary review and revision of the program design, as well as implementation of the selected options."

They spent more than double this on the RCMP's mass mailings to gun owners in mid 2020.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (2 Jan 2021)

RocketRichard said:


> Well it certainly is not a good look on CCFR. Will not help the ‘Firearms rights’ crowd.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


I doubt the Liberals care, they will confiscate them sooner or later. Stretching this out gives them something to throw out to their supporters next election.


----------



## Jarnhamar (2 Jan 2021)

I wonder if IBM Canada's suggestions will include gun owners being required to pre-register the firearms they will be turning for confiscation in order to qualify for compensation.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (2 Jan 2021)

IBM milking the cow that is Ottawa


----------



## dapaterson (2 Jan 2021)

IBM... McKinsey... Deloitte... KPMG... they're all the usual suspects.


----------



## Haggis (3 Jan 2021)

Jarnhamar said:


> I wonder if IBM Canada's suggestions will include gun owners being required to pre-register the firearms they will be turning for confiscation in order to qualify for compensation.


That's actually a great idea!  When did you start working for IBM?


----------



## Jarnhamar (3 Jan 2021)

Haggis said:


> That's actually a great idea!  When did you start working for IBM?


I'd like to take the credit but I think I came across that idea for the new Zealand gun ban. If I remember correctly they wanted people to register their guns on a site before bringing them to the police confiscation points to see what the government would offer them. They had armed guards at the door and once you walk in your gun is staying whether you like the price you're given or not. 

Great observation up thread about fair market value. Fair market value of a gun you can't sell is $0.


----------



## Eaglelord17 (4 Jan 2021)

I like how the tender is to include 3 potential compensation plans, basically the government actually acknowledging that they are likely going to screw people with the value and not give the fair price. I am just hoping this all ends up grandfathered and the Conservatives can reverse it when they get in next (as unfortunately they seem to be the only party willing to remotely come to bat for firearm owners).


----------



## Fishbone Jones (5 Jan 2021)

Jarnhamar said:


> Agreed people being dick heads online look bad, and I'm guessing neither side is above pretending to be someone from the other camp to try and make each other look even worse.
> 
> I'm sure the lines are drawn in the sand already though and people's minds are made up. For, against and don't care.
> 
> ...


People are scared, angry and feeling abandoned by their government and parties. They will move through the various steps of protest. Talking amongst themselves. Contacting local representatives. Contacting their national representatives. Turn to organized, like minded organizations for action. When none of those work, or seem to work, the frustration level boils over. At that point they will resort to almost anything, including online abuse of those they feel responsible. Especially when they see people like Blair being hypocritical with his slander against gun owners, then accusing them of the same thing he's doing himself. When backed into a corner, with all defences either ignored or removed,  they will either give up and capitulate or they will bare fang and claw and use whatever they have at their disposal to survive. Every party, save one, is flat out anti gun. Except the conservatives, who have shown zero support, leaving it all on the shoulders of our own home grown, grassroots organizations.


----------



## Haggis (5 Jan 2021)

Eaglelord17 said:


> I am just hoping this all ends up grandfathered and the Conservatives can reverse it when they get in next (as unfortunately they seem to be the only party willing to remotely come to bat for firearm owners).


The OIC has one mention of a potential grandfathering provision.  However, the usual ant-gun supporters of the Liberals, along with the Bloc and NDP opposed it.  The anti-gunners  want the core legislation (Firearms Act, Criminal Code) amended as quickly as possible to remove any possible current grandfathering and prevent future governments from easily reversing these changes.


----------



## Eaglelord17 (5 Jan 2021)

Haggis said:


> The OIC has one mention of a potential grandfathering provision.  However, the usual ant-gun supporters of the Liberals, along with the Bloc and NDP opposed it.  The anti-gunners  want the core legislation (Firearms Act, Criminal Code) amended as quickly as possible to remove any possible current grandfathering and prevent future governments from easily reversing these changes.


Oh I know, they want it all banned and destroyed as then even if reversed you still can't replace what is lost (and odds are it won't be reversed if that happens). 

Grandfathering however does happen to be the easiest choice for them. Reduced non-compliance (even New Zealand which they are all praising currently only has a 33% compliance rate), no risk of the police getting shot enforcing this, no gun owners getting shot for the audacity of owning these firearms, no huge expenditure of funds to purchase the firearms and less people are angry with you (or not as angry I should say). Long term it is also the easiest solution as the 'Highlander' method slowly works to the end like what is happening with all the current 12.x firearms owners.


----------



## Haggis (5 Jan 2021)

Eaglelord17 said:


> Oh I know, they want it all banned and destroyed as then even if reversed you still can't replace what is lost (and odds are it won't be reversed if that happens).
> 
> Grandfathering however does happen to be the easiest choice for them. Reduced non-compliance (even New Zealand which they are all praising currently only has a 33% compliance rate), no risk of the police getting shot enforcing this, no gun owners getting shot for the audacity of owning these firearms, no huge expenditure of funds to purchase the firearms and less people are angry with you (or not as angry I should say). Long term it is also the easiest solution as the 'Highlander' method slowly works to the end like what is happening with all the current 12.x firearms owners.


Reversal of a ban entrenched in legislation will be almost impossible with a Liberal dominated Senate.  The only hopes for those affected is either in the legal challenges being mounted (an extreme long shot) or a change of government prior to the legislation going through making this permanent. 

Personally, I expect the courts will refuse to hear any of the challenges.


----------



## blacktriangle (5 Jan 2021)

Retired AF Guy said:


> Passing the buck. If the Horseman start banning firearms and upsetting gun owners, the PM can say, "Out of my hands, its the RCMP making the decision."


Risk management!


----------



## Haggis (19 Jan 2021)

Yesterday, Federal Court Associate Chief Justice Jocelyne Gagné heard arguments from a number of appellants asking for an injunction against the Liberal's OIC ban of last May.  The judge stated that this was the highest attended judicial process in the history of the Federal Court, and that’s without letting everyone in.  (800 participated via Zoom).

During the late morning's proceedings, the anti-gun group Polysesouvient, posted a screenshot on Twitter of the judge, accompanied by disparaging remarks.  It was quickly removed in the early afternoon after the judge reminded everyone that such actions were illegal.

The hearing concluded late in the afternoon and the judge has reserved her decision.


----------



## Jarnhamar (19 Jan 2021)

Haggis said:


> the anti-gun group *Polysesouvient,* posted a screenshot on Twitter of the judge, accompanied by disparaging remarks.  It was quickly removed in the early afternoon after the judge reminded everyone that such actions were illegal.


The federal government gave them hundreds of thousands of dollars and told them good work. There's probably some heavy expectations going on and they're probably stressed out and upset that the injunction wasn't automatically denied.


----------



## Halifax Tar (20 Jan 2021)

I'm not sure the Liberals actually have the appetite or will to follow through on this OIC.  I expect they would welcome a judge striking it down and being able to shrug and blame the courts while expressing that they tried...


----------



## Colin Parkinson (20 Jan 2021)

It would certainly be politically perfect for them, lot`s of political capital, with minimal actual costs.


----------



## Jarnhamar (20 Jan 2021)

Colin Parkinson said:


> It would certainly be politically perfect for them, lot`s of political capital, with minimal actual costs.


And stop hearing the boating accident comments? Win win for everyone (even Polysesouvient who would probably get more donations for their trouble).


----------



## Haggis (20 Jan 2021)

Halifax Tar said:


> I'm not sure the Liberals actually have the appetite or will to follow through on this OIC. I expect they would welcome a judge striking it down and being able to shrug and blame the courts while expressing that they tried...


I don't think the PM's ego will allow for the acceptance of the defeat of another key plank in his platform.  In fact I expect that once the house sits again, he will forge ahead with the handgun ban and/or centralized storage and enabling legislation for his OIC.  He needs those to help win the GTA, Vancouver and urban Québec, which should keep him in power.


----------



## Eaglelord17 (28 Jan 2021)

Bill C238 just got voted down. Conservative sponsored initiative to make it so if you were in possession of a illegally imported firearm your first offence would be a minimum of 3 years in jail and 5 years for the second offence (up to 14 years in jail for both). 

Liberals and NDP voted against it. I really question the value of that, maybe it might help get rid of the shootings they seek to politicize.


----------



## Haggis (28 Jan 2021)

Eaglelord17 said:


> Bill C238 just got voted down. Conservative sponsored initiative to make it so if you were in possession of a illegally imported firearm your first offence would be a minimum of 3 years in jail and 5 years for the second offence (up to 14 years in jail for both).





Eaglelord17 said:


> Liberals and NDP voted against it. I really question the value of that, maybe it might help get rid of the shootings they seek to politicize.


With Bill C-68, in 1995, the Liberals enacted 19 firearms related offences with mandatory minimum sentences. While the intent of this CPC private member's bill was sound, the problem here is that this wasn't a Liberal bill.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (28 Jan 2021)

Even if it had passed, there'd be judges knocking it down and ignoring it for being anti Charter or because they just don't like it. Just like the last time.


----------



## Haggis (29 Jan 2021)

Fishbone Jones said:


> Even if it had passed, there'd be judges knocking it down and ignoring it for being anti Charter or because they just don't like it. Just like the last time.


In 2015 the Liberals had promised to review and possibly repeal mandatory minimum sentences, a promise which has gone unfulfilled so far. In 2016, Liberal government lawyers were in the SCC defending the use of mandatory minimums for some drug offences.  Opponents frequently quote Canadian and international studies which have shown that mandatory minimums, even in jurisdictions which have capital punishment, are generally ineffective as a deterrent.

In other gun-related news.....

Yesterday the co-founder of the Québec City Mosque where six members were killed on January 29, 2017 demanded, once again, that the Liberals ban the private ownerships of handguns in Canada.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (29 Jan 2021)

Well at least he wasn't wearing a suicide belt when he went in. That's seems to be the ultimate global solution to political/religious disputes in most of the mosques in the world.


----------



## Haggis (11 Feb 2021)

Haggis said:


> Yesterday, Federal Court Associate Chief Justice Jocelyne Gagné heard arguments from a number of appellants asking for an injunction against the Liberal's OIC ban of last May.  The judge stated that this was the highest attended judicial process in the history of the Federal Court, and that’s without letting everyone in.  (800 participated via Zoom).
> ...
> The hearing concluded late in the afternoon and the judge has reserved her decision.


The Judge has rendered her decision.  The injunction request was denied.  Not surprising, because the burden of proof is much higher than in normal litigation.

One portion of the Judge's decision is applicable to the member of this forum.

"Loss of Skill-Building Opportunities

[52] The Applicants argue that law enforcement officers or members of the Canadian Armed Forces will suffer a decline in their shooting skills without access to the firearms prohibited by the Regulations. They filed the affidavit evidence of Mr. Matthew Overton, President of Dominion of Canada Rifle Association [DCRA] and that of Mr. Ryan Steacy, Technical Director at International Barrels Inc., and a retired Corporal of the Canadian Armed Forces. They testified to the fact that civilian sport shooters develop techniques that they then teach to military personnel during competitions between members of military, police, and civilians, which are organized by DCRA.

However and as noted by Mr. Murray Smith (_COMMENT:_ _former head of the RCMP Specialized Firearms Support Services Section)_, also a former member of the military, the only individuals truly affected by the Regulations are the civilians competing with civilian versions of military or law enforcement service weapons. Law enforcement officers and members of the Canadian Armed Forces have prescribed training programs and they have access to ranges where they can train with their service weapons. The Court agrees with the Respondent that participation in civilian shooting competitions is not required for Canadian Armed Forces, or other law enforcement members.

[54] There is no compelling evidence that the shooting skills of Canadian Armed Forces members or law enforcement officers will decline as a result of the Regulations."

Despite that the firearms training given to the military is intended to impart a Minimum Level of Capabillty (MLOC), it is a standard attainable by the vast majority of CAF members.  Much like railing against the "low" standards of the FORCE test, folks fail to understand and accept that both are an _absolute minimum_ required in order to do your day-to-day job.  With no opportunities to train with an AR platform while "off the clock", it will be interesting to see if there is any quantifiable decrease in shooting skills across the LE and CAF communities in the coming years.


----------



## Retired AF Guy (13 Feb 2021)

Hot off the presses:



> Trudeau government poised to introduce new gun-control legislation
> By Jim Bronskill, The Canadian Press — Feb 12 2021
> 
> 
> ...



 Link


----------



## Haggis (13 Feb 2021)

I expect we will see stricter storage requirements that are ridiculously expensive for NRs and prohibitively so for the new prohibs, making it more attractive to surrender them for a pittance.  As for the remaining restricteds, including handguns, I don't think they will go as far as imposing centralized storage, this time.


----------



## Halifax Tar (13 Feb 2021)

Haggis said:


> I expect we will see stricter storage requirements that are ridiculously expensive for NRs and prohibitively so for the new prohibs, making it more attractive to surrender them for a pittance.  As for the remaining restricteds, including handguns, I don't think they will go as far as imposing centralized storage, this time.



I'm not sure how one would make storage requirements stricter.  Without going the central storage route. 

Hand guns are gone I would imagine.  

Maybe some details on the buy back ?

But truthfully I am not expecting much.  Some administrative stuff and perhaps the ability to create more paperwork criminals, i.e. bringing back the registry.  Or perhaps a limit on how many firearms and how much ammo you can own.  I will reiterate I think the LPC is happy going the OIC route. No debate required, and if its falls they can blame the courts and still claim they tried.


----------



## Haggis (13 Feb 2021)

Halifax Tar said:


> I'm not sure how one would make storage requirements stricter.  Without going the central storage route.


Requiring RCMP approved gun safes for NRs, maybe?  Instituting a storage inspection program?  


Halifax Tar said:


> Hand guns are gone I would imagine.


I doubt that will happen right now. That being said, they can propose almost anything, reasonable or otherwise.  There's an election coming, I'd guess by summer 2021, and this bill may likely die on the order paper and become an election promise instead.


----------



## Haggis (14 Feb 2021)

> The bill is expected to:...
> 
> — Maintain current firearm magazine limits, which are generally five bullets for hunting rifles and shotguns and 10 for handguns, but crack down on the sale of magazines that can be modified to hold more cartridges.



This tells me a handgun ban is off the table.... for now.  But the anti's will scream nonetheless because they want ALL magazines limited to five rounds or less.


----------



## Halifax Tar (16 Feb 2021)

Not seeing allot of substance here 



			https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/buy-back-gun-bill-1.5915166


----------



## dangerboy (16 Feb 2021)

Not a fan of passing the responsibility to municipalities. It should remain a federal responsibility, I think it will just get extremely complicated if every municipality in Canada suddenly had different laws. Of course, if they do make the responsibility a municipal affair then if it does not work the Federal government can just pass the blame on anything gun-related to them.


----------



## Kat Stevens (16 Feb 2021)

I especially love the "rat out a friend" portion, there's some good socialism right there.  Also, it's awfully nice of them to offer to buy my personal property with my own money, at pennies on the dollar. What a time to be alive!


----------



## Ostrozac (16 Feb 2021)

dangerboy said:


> Not a fan of passing the responsibility to municipalities. It should remain a federal responsibility, I think it will just get extremely complicated if every municipality in Canada suddenly had different laws. Of course, if they do make the responsibility a municipal affair then if it does not work the Federal government can just pass the blame on anything gun-related to them.


It’s a very sticky constitutional problem, as municipalities are entirely creatures of the provinces, and their authority and borders are determined, unilaterally if need be, by the provinces (remember the mega city craze of the late 1990’s?). Hell, provinces aren’t even required to establish municipalities. If the PEI legislature were to wake up tomorrow and say “our whole province has the population of Barrie — the provincial government hereby merges with the municipalities into one mega city, and the Premier is also the Mega Mayor” — that would be constitutional and legal.

One scenario would be if the City of Toronto Act act were to be amended by the province of Ontario to say that the the city was forbidden from banning firearms, while the Federal Firearms Act said any municipality has that power. It just doesn’t seem constitutional.


----------



## Haggis (16 Feb 2021)

It appears that Bill C-21 removes the possibility of exporting a firearm prohibited by the May OIC.  The only method of disposal is to surrender it for destruction and accept the compensation offered.


----------



## MilEME09 (16 Feb 2021)

Haggis said:


> It appears that Bill C-21 removes the possibility of exporting a firearm prohibited by the May OIC.  The only method of disposal is to surrender it for destruction and accept the compensation offered.


Good luck with retailers accepting that, this bill is setting it self up for court challages, assuming the ndp doesn't grow a spine and vote it down.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (16 Feb 2021)

MilEME09 said:


> Good luck with retailers accepting that, this bill is setting it self up for court challages, assuming the ndp doesn't grow a spine and vote it down.


Your one hell of an optimist


----------



## MilEME09 (16 Feb 2021)

Colin Parkinson said:


> Your one hell of an optimist


It's been a strange year, anything is possible


----------



## Colin Parkinson (16 Feb 2021)

I hope you are right


----------



## Haggis (16 Feb 2021)

I think the first amendment the NDP and Bloc will ask for is a national handgun ban.  BC's NDP government would like that, as Vancouver is already drafting the required by-laws and the Bloc would be seen as supporting Montréal's mayor.


----------



## Ostrozac (16 Feb 2021)

Haggis said:


> I think the first amendment the NDP and Bloc will ask for is a national handgun ban.  BC's NDP government would like that, as Vancouver is already drafting the required by-laws and the Bloc would be seen as supporting Montréal's mayor.


That‘s probably not in the cards. They’ve even backed away from the previously planned ban on AR15/M14/Mini14 et al, replacing it with an optional buyback and new category of grandfathered prohibs (to go with all the grandfathered FN FAL, etc that are still in people’s homes, not hurting anyone). If they didn’t even have the political capital to actually take away AR15s, they aren’t going to push for handguns. Not at this stage.


----------



## Weinie (16 Feb 2021)

Ostrozac said:


> That‘s probably not in the cards. They’ve even backed away from the previously planned ban on AR15/M14/Mini14 et al, replacing it with an optional buyback and new category of grandfathered prohibs (to go with all the grandfathered FN FAL, etc that are still in people’s homes, not hurting anyone). If they didn’t even have the political capital to actually take away AR15s, they aren’t going to push for handguns. Not at this stage.


Don't discount the power of local lobbies, especially now that they may be "empowered." Some people have waaaaaay too much time on their hands, and are seeking a "woke" cause. The ambiguity that this bill creates is troubling.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (16 Feb 2021)

I expect pushback on the municipal handgun ban. Jurisdiction of municipalities belongs to the provinces. The feds cannot just bypass the premiers and ignore their authority.


----------



## Haggis (16 Feb 2021)

Fishbone Jones said:


> I expect pushback on the municipal handgun ban. Jurisdiction of municipalities belongs to the provinces. The feds cannot just bypass the premiers and ignore their authority.


Well, they didn't really bypass the provinces. Municipalities have always had the power to make by-laws. The Liberals are simply making federal criminal penalties avaialbe for municipaliites to use instead of fines.


----------



## Ostrozac (16 Feb 2021)

Fishbone Jones said:


> I expect pushback on the municipal handgun ban. Jurisdiction of municipalities belongs to the provinces. The feds cannot just bypass the premiers and ignore their authority.


This is a key point. The only thing that might make the Bloc vote against more gun control is the thought of giving power to federalist Montreal at the expense of the provincial government in Quebec City.


----------



## Haggis (16 Feb 2021)

The Bloc head has stated his party will not support Bill C-21  because the buyback is not mandatory.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (16 Feb 2021)

Weinie said:


> Don't discount the power of local lobbies, especially now that they may be "empowered." Some people have waaaaaay too much time on their hands, and are seeking a "woke" cause. The ambiguity that this bill creates is troubling.


Exactly my fear, with municipal leader voted in by a tiny percentage of the people


----------



## Gunnar (16 Feb 2021)

I have heard of suggested amendments to this bill that have impact on airsoft, pellet, paintball and BB guns as well.  As the Canada.ca site is usually out of date, I have not been able to find a more recent source of this information.  Changes to these kinds of gun would likely have an impact on a number of programs currently offered to youth, and I an curious to know their proposed application.


----------



## Brad Sallows (17 Feb 2021)

A mandatory buyback of something that was never sold by the to-be-buyer in the first place is expropriation.  People should start calling it what it is.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (17 Feb 2021)

Gunnar said:


> I have heard of suggested amendments to this bill that have impact on airsoft, pellet, paintball and BB guns as well.  As the Canada.ca site is usually out of date, I have not been able to find a more recent source of this information.  Changes to these kinds of gun would likely have an impact on a number of programs currently offered to youth, and I an curious to know their proposed application.


Could end our popular range program at Navy League Cadets, but the Libs will be fine with that, they have us replace it with recycling resorting class.


----------



## Haggis (17 Feb 2021)

Remember, this is a bill only.  It had first reading yesterday.  The Bloc have already stood against it.  The costs are unknown.  The impact on businesses, which is believed to be significant, has yet to be determined.  And we are coming up to an expected early summer election.


----------



## brihard (17 Feb 2021)

Fishbone Jones said:


> I expect pushback on the municipal handgun ban. Jurisdiction of municipalities belongs to the provinces. The feds cannot just bypass the premiers and ignore their authority.


What authority, specifically? While constitutionally the provinces have the power over property and civil rights, the feds have constitutional authority over ‘peace, order, and good government’. There’s historical precedent (the Canada Temperance Act, and jurisprudence arising therefrom) for the feds pushing a prohibition power directly to municipalities, backed by federal law so long as they can articulate that the matter falls at least substantially under that head of constitutional power. I suspect the AG’s constitutional lawyers will have done their homework on this.

Now, that’s not to say that the proposed authority for municipalities objectively makes sense as a tool to fight gun crime. I don’t personally believe it does. It appears to be within Parliament’s legitimate constitutional powers, though.

They only need to get one other party on board... Which deal will be made?


----------



## lenaitch (17 Feb 2021)

From Saskatchewan's Municipalities Act, Section 8, new sub section added in 2020:

_(1.1) Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act or any other Act or law, a municipality has no power to pass any new bylaws respecting firearms, unless otherwise provided for by regulation._

I can really see Alberta, Ontario and Quebec (just cuz) doing similar.

It will be interesting to see how this plays out in light of the modern Constitution.


----------



## brihard (17 Feb 2021)

lenaitch said:


> From Saskatchewan's Municipalities Act, Section 8, new sub section added in 2020:
> 
> _(1.1) Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act or any other Act or law, a municipality has no power to pass any new bylaws respecting firearms, unless otherwise provided for by regulation._
> 
> ...


The modern constitution didn’t fundamentally change any of the heads of power under Ss. 91 and 92...  it basically imported them wholesale from prioriterations.

Municipalities get all of their power to pass bylaws from the provincial legislation that creates and empowers municipalities. I don’t know if the fight will happen in Manitoba, but if, say, Ontario were to pass such a restriction, then likely the matter would get pushed through court by impacted municipalities. I’ll be curious to see how this plays out.


----------



## lenaitch (17 Feb 2021)

Yes; I can see arguments under Sec. 91 and 92, as well Charter Sec 15 (equality).


----------



## ModlrMike (17 Feb 2021)

It bears keeping in mind that this is not about firearms. This is about the Liberals cultivating support in urban ridings at the expense of rural ridings which they could never hope to win.


----------



## Haggis (17 Feb 2021)

ModlrMike said:


> It bears keeping in mind that this is not about firearms. This is about the Liberals cultivating support in urban ridings at the expense of rural ridings which they could never hope to win.


Remember Catherine McKenna's lesson on how to sway the public:  If you say it often enough and loud enough then people will believe it.  Yesterday I watched five different Liberal politicians spew the exact same talking points one after another.  That's 90 minutes of my life I will never see again.


----------



## MilEME09 (17 Feb 2021)

So some are saying this particular part of the bill could be used to target movies, video games, etc... I think it's crazy but the wording is very vague.


----------



## Haggis (17 Feb 2021)

MilEME09 said:


> So some are saying this particular part of the bill could be used to target movies, video games, etc... I think it's crazy but the wording is very vague.
> View attachment 64551


It may change the way movies are advertised in print (e.g. posters) and video games are packaged and advertised but I doubt it will affect the content.


----------



## FJAG (18 Feb 2021)

Haggis said:


> Remember Catherine McKenna's lesson on how to sway the public:  If you say it often enough and loud enough then people will believe it.  Yesterday I watched five different Liberal politicians spew the exact same talking points one after another.  That's 90 minutes of my life I will never see again.


The Big Lie technique of propaganda is a long known and practiced one which predates McKenna.

🍻


----------



## OldSolduer (18 Feb 2021)

FJAG said:


> The Big Lie technique of propaganda is a long known and practiced one which predates McKenna.
> 
> 🍻


I reckon it goes back thousands of years.....


----------



## Haggis (18 Feb 2021)

FJAG said:


> The Big Lie technique of propaganda is a long known and practiced one which predates McKenna.
> 
> 🍻


True, but Goebbels never made it onto Twitter.


----------



## Haggis (24 Feb 2021)

Canada's National Firearms Association (NFA) has drawn the ire of the National Security and Public Safety Committee and has been censured for comments made during an NFA Podcast. This has prompted the Liberals to send an "all stations" call to supporters to alert them to the NFA's tactics.


----------



## Halifax Tar (24 Feb 2021)

Those were dumb comments.  I understand getting emotional about this topic, but we have to keep things civil.  Mr. Clare is a usually well spoken and usually articulate guy.  This seems out of character and will not win us support among the undecided.  It will also only give our opposition more squeals of horror which never make us look good, facts be damned.  

As well he, Mr. Clare, is incorrect we do not have freedom of speech we have freedom of expression and I do not believe that covers calls for violence and intimidation.


----------



## ModlrMike (24 Feb 2021)

Those comments were completely counter productive to the aims. You would think that an organization that understands target acquitistion, aim, and measured trigger pressure would apply the same discrimination to its words.


----------



## RangerRay (24 Feb 2021)

Comments like that do nothing but cement the stereotype of firearms owners as being a bunch of rednecks and extremists. 🤦‍♂️


----------



## Eaglelord17 (25 Feb 2021)

Halifax Tar said:


> Those were dumb comments.  I understand getting emotional about this topic, but we have to keep things civil.  Mr. Clare is a usually well spoken and usually articulate guy.  This seems out of character and will not win us support among the undecided.  It will also only give our opposition more squeals of horror which never make us look good, facts be damned.
> 
> As well he, Mr. Clare, is incorrect we do not have freedom of speech we have freedom of expression and I do not believe that covers calls for violence and intimidation.


Freedom of thought, opinion, and expression. That is much more substantial than freedom of speech as it covers the whole process and that includes the right to believe in violence as acceptable means to a end (considering every human interaction is ultimately based on violence, I don't see how the government can arbitrarily declare its unacceptable for others to use or consider the means it itself uses to squash resistance). 

Mr. Clare in my opinion is a terrible spokesperson for firearms owners. Lots of questionable things that have happened in his organization on top of actively fighting other firearms rights groups. The sooner he is out of the spotlight the better. The more moderate groups like the CSSA or CCFR are much better for convincing the Canadian public of this issue than the NFAs 'All or nothing' approach which will ultimately result in nothing.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (26 Feb 2021)

Given the way this government has demonized law abiding citizens who have broken no laws. And given the way it has lied, twisted and outright embarked on a campaign of convincing other Canadians we are a pariah, I'll  let it slide.
I'm not condoning it and I think they fucked up. I also think we should be praising our organizations for fighting the good fight. We are a bunch of novices going up against an aggressive, unfair, untruthful, professional deep pocketed PMO. Frustration is bound to get the better eventually. I'm  not ready to crucify our spokespeople just yet, over one slip up. These are civies, not lawyers, they get frustrated and stuff happens.

 And that MP is a joke. She's  acting like a leftist from down south. And the government just legitimized a new tool. Your free speech just turned out the lights on the way out of the door. Say something the sitting government doesn't like, and you are publicly cancelled by committee. Won't  be long, it'll be stepped up, to fines, then jail.


----------



## Haggis (28 Feb 2021)

I finally had an opportunity to watch the second reading of Bill C-21.  To say I was shocked by Minister Blair's response to Conservative MP Shannon Stubbs would be mild.  Shocked, but not surprised.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (28 Feb 2021)




----------



## Halifax Tar (28 Feb 2021)

Haggis said:


> I finally had an opportunity to watch the second reading of Bill C-21.  To say I was shocked by Minister Blair's response to Conservative MP Shannon Stubbs would be mild.  Shocked, but not surprised.


The wife has had me on honey do tasks all weekend... What did I miss ?


----------



## Haggis (28 Feb 2021)

Halifax Tar said:


> The wife has had me on honey do tasks all weekend... What did I miss ?


The debate in full is worth watching as Ms. Stubbs does an outstanding job.  The Minister's comments begin at the 49:50 point.  Viewer discretion is advised.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (28 Feb 2021)

Haggis, I hold you responsible: Now my head hurts .. . from banging it on the desk in disbelief.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (28 Feb 2021)

Stare at the camera and flat out lie to the country,  knowing your narrative is completely without truth. Someone should check on Blair. His house must be neck deep in bullshit. When your government cares so little as to go public with such a false, demeaning, divisive set of lies like this, they don't care about your opinion or rights. You are in the way of their socialist bulldozer. They intend on giving no quarter on their way to an autocratic leadership.


----------



## Haggis (28 Feb 2021)

This was a "win" for the Liberals. Minister Blair provoked an emotional response from Ms. Stubbs, who is now the easily angered face of the gun lobby. Blair got his message out in the public domain. Now the Conservatives are on the defensive and will have to rebut/refute Blair's claims which will keep his message alive. When the Conservatives do respond they stand to alienate the vocal far right gun crowd like the all-or-nothing NFA. Enter Mad Max with his 2A style proposals and the right vote is split again.


----------



## Jed (1 Mar 2021)

I disagree with this, Haggis. Splitting the vote is not even possible for this next round of elections. The battleground for the next government is almost all Ontario and East. In the West, there will not be enough Maverick candidates to cause any National problem. The NDP is now full blown Liberal closet votes. Max's party will not have enough traction because the Mainstream Media has it in for them.


----------



## HiTechComms (1 Mar 2021)

Haggis said:


> Not likely.  Victims of the Danforth shooting are suing S&W.  The last thing the Liberals want to see on the front page is "_Trudeau Government Buys New Military Pistol Made by Danforth Gun Manufacturer"_


Funny how a gun manufacturer is liable for a murderous, criminal scum bag.

So if some one wants to use a vehicle to commit mass murder will Car manufacturers be liable?

Better yet Gun Manufacturers should just sue the government in their failure to correctly.
1. Stop smuggling at the border
2. granting an RPAL
3. Granting an STATT or LTATT
4. RCMP failing to do a proper background check on the shooter.


----------



## brihard (1 Mar 2021)

HiTechComms said:


> Funny how a gun manufacturer is liable for a murderous, criminal scum bag.
> 
> So if some one wants to use a vehicle to commit mass murder will Car manufacturers be liable?
> 
> ...


Why would they have done a background check on him? He didn’t have a gun license, and the handgun he used was stolen here in Canada. His brother got busted with an apartment full of illegal firearms.

EDIT TO ADD: Mods, could the sidetrack be moved over to the gun debate thread so we keep this on pistols for CAF?


----------



## Jarnhamar (1 Mar 2021)

I'm curious why there's a requirement for
.40cal swapping.


----------



## Haggis (1 Mar 2021)

Jarnhamar said:


> I'm curious why there's a requirement for
> .40cal swapping.


For the same reason not everyone gets to wear Multicam?


----------



## HiTechComms (1 Mar 2021)

brihard said:


> Why would they have done a background check on him? He didn’t have a gun license, and the handgun he used was stolen here in Canada. His brother got busted with an apartment full of illegal firearms.
> 
> EDIT TO ADD: Mods, could the sidetrack be moved over to the gun debate thread so we keep this on pistols for CAF?


I was being facetious/sarcastic.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (1 Mar 2021)

Jarnhamar said:


> I'm curious why there's a requirement for
> .40cal swapping.


Very odd requirement as police forces are generally moving away from it to 9mm where they are allowed to. However .40cal ball will have more stopping power than 9mm ball, if that's all you are allowed to carry.


----------



## HiTechComms (2 Mar 2021)

Colin Parkinson said:


> Very odd requirement as police forces are generally moving away from it to 9mm where they are allowed to. However .40cal ball will have more stopping power than 9mm ball, if that's all you are allowed to carry.


Lots of PD still carry the Glock 22. Problem with the 40 cal is that people with smaller hands complain about holding a 2X4, 
I believe Edmonton and Calgary PD uses the 40. 

I shoot 40 cal myself and don't have giant mitts so I can see why they would want it. 

There are some guns that easily swap between 9mm and 40.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (2 Mar 2021)

Yea my Sig 229 can shoot .40cal, 357Sig and 9mm, also .22cal if I buy the subcal kit for it


----------



## Fishbone Jones (2 Mar 2021)

Colin Parkinson said:


> Yea my Sig 229 can shoot .40cal, 357Sig and 9mm, also .22cal if I buy the subcal kit for it


 Yes, but can it shoot 5.7x28 FN?😉

Another fly in the ointment, just as we're looking for a new sidearm.









						NATO Standardizes the FN 5.7x28mm Cartridge for Small Arms
					

FN recently announced a unique honor, one that puts the company in pretty select company. NATO standardized the FN 5.7x28mm




					www.tactical-life.com
				





MARCH 1, 2021
NATO Standardizes the FN 5.7x28mm Cartridge for Small Arms​JOINING THE 5.56X45 AND 7.62X51, THE FN 5.7X28MM GAINS ACCEPTANCE BY NATO FOR STANDARD SMALL CALIBER AMMUNITION FOR ALLIED FORCES.
By
TACTICAL LIFE​


----------



## Colin Parkinson (2 Mar 2021)

I can't afford to shoot 5.7x28!! Would love a P90, but with ammo expense and a pinned to 5 round mag what is the point.


----------



## LittleBlackDevil (6 Mar 2021)

Jed said:


> I disagree with this, Haggis. Splitting the vote is not even possible for this next round of elections. The battleground for the next government is almost all Ontario and East. In the West, there will not be enough Maverick candidates to cause any National problem. The NDP is now full blown Liberal closet votes. Max's party will not have enough traction because the Mainstream Media has it in for them.



I don't know about impossible, although I agree doubtful. It's true that the PPC will get little to no traction ... MSM indeed despises them, plus Scheer did a pretty good job of slandering them with the "racist" smear campaign during the 2019 election and this seems to have stuck. The fact that Max couldn't even hold his seat rendered the PPC DOA as any sort of serious threat.

However, that said, I think that there could be vote splitting in some very closely contested ridings where the margin between CPC and LPC is very tight. Disaffected traditionally CPC voters in places like Kitchener-Conestoga were the different in 2019 and could be the difference again. I live in that riding and I know that a large number of my "circle" of friends and people of similar political persuasion are not happy with what they perceive as a war on social conservatives and the nonexistent response to C-21 to name two examples that have people I know "fired up". I know this is anecdotal, but in a riding that was decided by fewer than 300 votes last time around, a further group of even 100 or so fed-up CPC supporters who decide to vote PPC as a protest vote could be the difference again.

Agreed that the West is largely settled and PPC won't gain traction out there. The LPC has successfully outmanoeuvred the NDP and are now to the left of that party. Really not sure what the point of the NDP is anymore and I suspect that they will bleed even more votes to the LPC next election and that will make much more of a difference than the small trickle of votes to the PPC.


P.S. - I recognize that the PPC isn't exactly social conservatives, they appear to be more libertarians, but my impression is that SoCons would rather be equally tolerated in a liberty-for-all "libertarian" environment than being considered "the enemy within" in the CPC. It seems that many CPC people who are not SoCons may be just as happy to see SoCons go but that will spell doom for the CPC ... in my view tolerance is the smarter approach.


----------



## Haggis (6 Mar 2021)

Minister Blair has begun a series of town halls with municipal leaders to bring them onside towards banning legal handgun ownership and possession in their jurisdictions.  The first, in Kitchener-Waterloo, didn't get as enthusiastic a reception as he'd hoped.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (6 Mar 2021)

Haggis said:


> Minister Blair has begun a series of town halls with municipal leaders to bring them onside towards banning legal handgun ownership and possession in their jurisdictions.  The first, in Kitchener-Waterloo, didn't get as enthusiastic a reception as he'd hoped.


Are these open to the public or are they in camera only?


----------



## Haggis (7 Mar 2021)

Fishbone Jones said:


> Are these open to the public or are they in camera only?


I suspect that they are being done virtually and by invitation.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (7 Mar 2021)

Haggis said:


> I suspect that they are being done virtually and by invitation.


Yes he does not reality to intrude into their alternate reality.


----------



## OldSolduer (7 Mar 2021)

Colin Parkinson said:


> Yes he does not reality to intrude into their alternate reality.


And this clown Blair was a cop? Really now. My grandkids dog would make a better minister than this idiot Blair.


----------



## ModlrMike (7 Mar 2021)

Haggis said:


> I suspect that they are being done virtually and by invitation.


I think the phrase you're looking for is echo chamber.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (10 Mar 2021)

Meanwhile a CBC "expert" weighs in


----------



## Fishbone Jones (10 Mar 2021)

I listened to this when it was on. The guy was completely  out to lunch. He made the CBC look like idiots, even more than most times. The callers made good salient points. Fortunately,  the interviewer didn't  have a clue about the file, so she wasn't  able to articulate any points or throw up any Blair strawmen.


----------



## Haggis (11 Mar 2021)

Fishbone Jones said:


> The guy was completely out to lunch. He made the CBC look like idiots, even more than most times.


This is the same guy who was quoted by the CBC deriding the Windsor (ON) Police Service for buying more C8 patrol carbines (police assault rifles).


----------



## Fishbone Jones (11 Mar 2021)

Haggis said:


> This is the same guy who was quoted by the CBC deriding the Windsor (ON) Police Service for buying more C8 patrol carbines (police assault rifles).


Yeah, I think all the patrol cars have one now. I'm checking on it now. I think the supervisor and patrol sgt SUVs still have the shotguns. I knew all this when we switched but I forget now.

Edit: all shotguns in patrol cars were replaced with C8s. That would be somewhere a little over a hundred for our little burg of South Detroit. Of course that doesn't  include the armoury. No idea how many are in there for emergencies.


----------



## lenaitch (18 Mar 2021)

Saw this online.  Clearly, they are shaking in their boots about the new firearms legislation:









						Massive OPP operation in southwestern Ontario nets firearms, explosives and drugs
					

Ten people are facing 268 charges after a massive operation that took place in southwestern Ontario carried out by Ontario Provincial Police.



					london.ctvnews.ca
				




Regarding some earlier posts, my former service (OPP), used to issue the Sig Sauer 229 in .40.  It was a fairly large weapon for 'smaller stature' members and not a great plain clothes weapon.  I switched to the 239 and it was indeed smaller (single stack mag) and lighter but for some reason I struggled to qualify with it every year so switched back.  Before Ontario police were generally allowed to switch to semi-auto I was with a unit that was authorized to carry the Heckler-Koch P7M8 9mm which was a very sweet plain clothes weapon but, alas, did not meet the Ontario s/a regulations.

In the last couple of years they have transitioned to the Glock M17 in 9mm with rail light.  I had heard that they were having ongoing problems sourcing .40 ammunition.  It would also streamline inventory with weapons carried by specialty teams.  And every patrol unit has carried a C8 for several years.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (18 Mar 2021)

In BC, the Police Act mandates .40cal for all police services, other than RCMP and the Sheriffs (who use old 5946's as well)


----------



## Haggis (18 Mar 2021)

lenaitch said:


> Saw this online.  Clearly, they are shaking in their boots about the new firearms legislation:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Hmmm, when I read that article I didn't see any gun clubs mentioned, just OMG.  That's a nice looking Walther P38 in the photo.

.40 cal has fallen out of favour due to the increasing terminal ballistic capability of 9mm and the lower wear and tear on the shooter. The FBI led the charge back to 9mm in the US and most major American agencies follow their lead.


----------



## lenaitch (18 Mar 2021)

Haggis said:


> Hmmm, when I read that article I didn't see any gun clubs mentioned, just OMG.


It was an attempt at snark; in that those who choose the criminal path will care little about any legislation.


----------



## Haggis (18 Mar 2021)

lenaitch said:


> It was an attempt at snark; in that those who choose the criminal path will care little about any legislation.


Oh, I know.  Try telling that to a Liberal (If we make a law everyone will obey it.  They have to or we'll make MORE laws!)


----------



## Haggis (19 Mar 2021)

Ostrozac said:


> That‘s probably not in the cards. They’ve even backed away from the previously planned ban on AR15/M14/Mini14 et al, replacing it with an optional buyback and new category of grandfathered prohibs (to go with all the grandfathered FN FAL, etc that are still in people’s homes, not hurting anyone). If they didn’t even have the political capital to actually take away AR15s, they aren’t going to push for handguns. Not at this stage.


It would appear the Liberals are caving to  immense pressure from 30 odd activists and are backing away from a optional buyback or grandfathering. This, and growing resistance from provincial and municipal leader, may also lead to the national handgun ban long demanded by this powerful lobby group.  That, of course, can be accomplished with another OIC.


----------



## Haggis (4 Apr 2021)

in the face of resistance from municipalities and gun control groups, Québec's La Presse reported yesterday that the Liberals may allow provincial governments to ban handguns, something Québec has said they will immediately act upon, if granted, but only if it comes with federal funding..  

For once, anti-gun Polysesouvient and pro-gun CCFR agree that MPs of all stripes should defeat Bill C-21, each for their own reasons.  The danger, of course, is that the replacement legislation will probably be far more draconian than Bill C-21 as the PM will (to paraphrase Minister Blair) "have been told by the anti-gun lobby what he will do and he has promised to do it for them".


----------



## Retired AF Guy (10 Apr 2021)

Not really gun control related _per se _but still an interesting read from the Vnacouver Sun.



> Daphne Bramham: Knife violence is increasing in B.C. It's time to do something about it
> 
> Opinion: Two homicides in two weeks as random stabbing attacks rise across Canada. It's knives that may be the greater risk in Canada than guns
> 
> ...



Link


----------



## Good2Golf (10 Apr 2021)

Dare one posit why civilians should continue to be allowed to possess excessively-long dangerously-sharp knives?


----------



## SeaKingTacco (10 Apr 2021)

Good2Golf said:


> Dare one posit why civilians should continue to be allowed to possess excessively-long dangerously-sharp knives?


Knife buy back.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (11 Apr 2021)

Good2Golf said:


> Dare one posit why civilians should continue to be allowed to possess excessively-long dangerously-sharp knives?


The reason the Irish carried shillelaghs and cudgels and turned it into a martial art. They were so fearsome in the proper hands that they were outlawed. The enterprising Irish simply turned them into Blackthorn walking canes. So never mind the Iron Age. There was a not so far off time that wooden sticks were outlawed. 🙂


----------



## MilEME09 (11 Apr 2021)

Green Party member hopeful to influence party's firearms policy - Calibremag.ca
					

One Green Party member from British Columbia has an online petition aimed at building support for sensible gun control policy in the GPC.




					calibremag.ca
				




And out of left field the green party with a common sense firearms approach


----------



## Haggis (29 Apr 2021)

This  documentary piece from Toronto's City TV pretty much destroys Minister Blair's contention that stolen and diverted legal guns are the problem and that police agree with him.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (30 Apr 2021)

It sounds like the liberals might be changing tactics. Adam Vaugh was on Twitter implying legal owners are loaning or renting their guns to gangbangers as the source of shootings.


----------



## Haggis (30 Apr 2021)

Fishbone Jones said:


> It sounds like the liberals might be changing tactics. Adam Vaugh was on Twitter implying legal owners are loaning or renting their guns to gangbangers as the source of shootings.View attachment 65038


There are so many holes in his theory that one could drive a rented white van through the centre.

LAGO rents their gun to a gang banger.  Gang banger gets shot by police.  Police recover the gun and match it to the LAGO who never reported it lost or stolen.   Wounded and in custody, the gang banger throws the (now former) LAGO under the bus.  

Hopefully the gang banger paid for the rental in advance.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (30 Apr 2021)

Fishbone Jones said:


> It sounds like the liberals might be changing tactics. Adam Vaugh was on Twitter implying legal owners are loaning or renting their guns to gangbangers as the source of shootings.View attachment 65038


Well, then, it should be super easy for various police forces to arrest and charge these ”legal gun owners.

Waiting...


----------



## Weinie (30 Apr 2021)

SeaKingTacco said:


> Well, then, it should be super easy for various police forces to arrest and charge these ”legal gun owners.
> 
> Waiting...


Adam Vaughn........................sigh.


----------



## Haggis (30 Apr 2021)

SeaKingTacco said:


> Well, then, it should be super easy for various police forces to arrest and charge these ”legal gun owners.


If there were a single charge laid that supported this narrative Vaughn, Minister Blair and the PM would be all over this like ugly on an ape.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (30 Apr 2021)

There was a gun shop in Burnaby that was importing guns and then selling them under the table (including handguns), they eventually got caught, how they imagined they were going to get away with it, I can't imagine. Went in their once and they were all excited to see me, I guess having a "real customer" was good cover. The place reeked of sketchy and never went back.
Now gun shops are under the direct review of the CFO, so some of the responsibility needs to rest there as well.


----------



## Haggis (1 May 2021)

Colin Parkinson said:


> There was a gun shop in Burnaby that was importing guns and then selling them under the table (including handguns), they eventually got caught, how they imagined they were going to get away with it, I can't imagine.


They count on not being scrutinized due to limited investigative resources the same way impaired drivers count on missing those two or three RIDE checks every weekend.

Imagine what a billion dollars in re-directed ban-and-buyback money could do for policing and border integrity....


----------



## Haggis (5 May 2021)

Oops!  

I know this is an opinion piece, but it appears that someone didn't really press the "delete" button on the Long Gun Registry.  Is this serious?  I think so, as it shows contempt for Parliament (and not the only time the RCMP has done so on the gun file).  Is Minister Blair next up to issue an apology, using the standard Liberal template?


----------



## Haggis (8 May 2021)

Further to my above post, Conservative MP Blaine Calkins is sponsoring another petition for the Liberals to ignore regarding the alleged RCMP retention of Long Gun Registry records, contrary to the will of Parliament.

I'm expecting the Liberal's reply to this petition, when tabled, will be to state something along the lines of "the RCMP knew that the Harper government was compromising public safety in order to pander to Canada's NRA, so they acted in the best interests of all Canadians.  This act is completely excusable and we commend the RCMP for taking a principled stand against flawed legislation".


----------



## Colin Parkinson (8 May 2021)

I signed the petition, no doubt you are right, but I do use it in arguments that the police broke the law and wilfully disobeyed Parliament to people when I debate with them about gun control.


----------



## OldSolduer (10 May 2021)

Haggis said:


> Oops!
> 
> I know this is an opinion piece, but it appears that someone didn't really press the "delete" button on the Long Gun Registry.  Is this serious?  I think so, as it shows contempt for Parliament (and not the only time the RCMP has done so on the gun file).  Is Minister Blair next up to issue an apology, using the standard Liberal template?


The RCMP is a bureaucracy like every  other department but more so. Bureaucracies don't toss out stuff like this at any time.


----------



## Haggis (10 May 2021)

OldSolduer said:


> The RCMP is a bureaucracy like every  other department but more so. Bureaucracies don't toss out stuff like this at any time.


Perhaps the RCMP should be made to suffer the indignity of a Somalia document style "Easter egg hunt" for LGR records..


----------



## Haggis (16 Jun 2021)

In May 2021, the CCFR was handed a small victory in that Associate Chief Justice (ACJ) Gagné ruled that the Trudeau government must provide the evidence used to support the May 2020 OIC gun ban to the CCFR for use in their court case against the OIC.  The Liberal's position was that the evidence was cabinet confidence and was exempt from disclosure.  ACJ Gagné ordered that the evidence was to be provided to her so she could weigh the public interest impact of disclosure. 

Of course, the Liberal government refused, citing Section 39 of the Canada Evidence Act which allows the Clerk of the Privy Council to "make secret" any document which is believed would seriously harm the national interest if released. 

The Liberal government is thereby saying that the evidence used to support the May 1, 2020 OIC is so damaging, so explosive, so shocking that it cannot be seen by anyone.

...or, maybe...

that the evidence cannot and must not be disclosed because it doesn't exist?


----------



## ModlrMike (16 Jun 2021)

Gotta love that open and transparent government we elected [/sarcasm]


----------



## OldSolduer (17 Jun 2021)

ModlrMike said:


> Gotta love that open and transparent government we elected [/sarcasm]


Its not about cold hard facts and evidence - its about "feelings". Nothing more than feelings.....


----------



## QV (17 Jun 2021)

ModlrMike said:


> Gotta love that open and transparent government we elected [/sarcasm]


Nobody is immune to bad judgement occasionally, however voting for the Trudeau Liberals was so obviously a poor choice if the voter had been paying any attention at all beyond CBCs top cover. The skewed narrative to justify unnecessary firearm bans is only one very small example.


----------



## Eaglelord17 (23 Jun 2021)

So looking at my local paper, one scumbag has been arrested on weapons charges 3 times in the last month, from waving around illegally acquired loaded pistols, to waving around bear spray. 

This is getting ridiculous, we have criminals essentially having a revolving door where there is no consequences for their actions so why would they stop committing crimes? They have no fear anymore. People I work with have caught people trying to go through their car and when they yell at them the only reaction from the criminal is to flip them off and walk across the street to try their neighbours doors. The Liberals are literally creating a crime crisis in our country, then using it to blame legal firearms owners as though we are somehow the problem. 

The cops are overloaded, my one friend is a dispatcher and the cops are literally going from one higher priority call to the next with no time to address the smaller stuff. Many murders recently, someone has become a firebug, etc. If you have a noise complaint it is never going to get answered at the moment, etc. It also must be so frustrating to constantly be arresting the same people for the same crimes and knowing your going to be arresting them again in a few days or weeks. Not only that but the public has turned on them, demanding they do something about the criminals, not realizing their is literally nothing they can do as when they arrest them they are immediately released.

I am amazed people haven't gone vigilante yet because if the government is failing to provide order, eventually people will take it on themselves to do so.


----------



## mariomike (23 Jun 2021)

Eaglelord17 said:


> I am amazed people haven't gone vigilante yet because if the government is failing to provide order, eventually people will take it on themselves to do so.


Citizen's Arrest, or full Bronson?


----------



## ModlrMike (23 Jun 2021)

So here's a question. If the government's decisions are challenged before at court, and the government refuses to present the evidence used to make the decision (even to the judge in chambers) should that not result in a judgment for the plaintiff?


----------



## Eaglelord17 (23 Jun 2021)

mariomike said:


> Citizen's Arrest, or full Bronson?


Bronson style, only so long people will take being robbed and cheated with no consequences before they have had enough.


----------



## Haggis (23 Jun 2021)

ModlrMike said:


> So here's a question. If the government's decisions are challenged before at court, and the government refuses to present the evidence used to make the decision (even to the judge in chambers) should that not result in a judgment for the plaintiff?


Not necessarily.  However, when the government goes to present it's case without evidence, the judge can make an "adverse inference", meaning that she can conclude that the government has no evidence or that the evidence is not strong enough to support the government's case.  The judge could then rule in favour of the plaintiff either wholly or partly.

My belief is that the AG or PMO will intervene in this case before that point.


----------



## mariomike (23 Jun 2021)

Eaglelord17 said:


> Bronson style, only so long people will take being robbed and cheated with no consequences before they have had enough.


Saw it at the show when it came out. Bronson put it this way, "It's like killing roaches - you have to kill 'em all. Otherwise, what's the use?"


----------



## Halifax Tar (24 Jun 2021)

Eaglelord17 said:


> I am amazed people haven't gone vigilante yet because if the government is failing to provide order, eventually people will take it on themselves to do so.


Its coming.  Look at the cases out west in the Prairies with farmers defending their property.  Canada is a slow burn.


----------



## Haggis (24 Jun 2021)

Back in February, Minister Blair and the PM said to the effect that "Canadians don't arm ourselves for protection from our fellow citizens".  That was meant to dissuade citizens from using firearms or other weapons for self-defence and for the police and courts to take a hard stance against those practices.


----------



## mariomike (24 Jun 2021)

Eaglelord17 said:


> People I work with have caught people trying to go through their car and when they yell at them the only reaction from the criminal is to flip them off and walk across the street to try their neighbours doors.


FJAG, Brihard and Lenaitch would be the SME's on legality. I'm a life long gun owner. But, I've only used them for hunting.



> The cops are overloaded, my one friend is a dispatcher and the cops are literally going from one higher priority call to the next with no time to address the smaller stuff.



YMMV on 9-1-1 response times. But, a Bronson response hardly seems necessary for "the smaller stuff".



> Bronson style, only so long people will take being robbed and cheated with no consequences before they have had enough.



Would you go Bronson for being "cheated"?

Pretty sure most police departments offer tips on what to do, and what not to do, for protection of property.


----------



## Haggis (24 Jun 2021)

mariomike said:


> Pretty sure most police departments offer tips on what to do, and what not to do, for protection of property.


One of those tips would be to not arm yourself solely for protection of property.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (24 Jun 2021)

When I was doing remote inspections of placer mines and other places, it was fairly common to be greeted by a person with a shotgun discreetly behind their back or close at hand. The Police were hours away, that's if they got a call at all. I would always knock and step back 20' and keep my hands visible. Once they establish who you are, then a coffee and chat continued. I certainly didn't mind and would want my wife to do the same in a similar situation.


----------



## mariomike (24 Jun 2021)

> When I was doing remote inspections of placer mines and other places, it was fairly common to be greeted by a person with a shotgun discreetly behind their back or close at hand.



In Toronto, male bank staff used to practice their marksmanship.

"( Bank manager ) Elwood  grabbed a fully loaded .38 calibre revolver that was kept in the teller's drawer and set off in pursuit. The robber attempted to commandeer a car parked in front of the bank. The manager charged out of the bank and emptied the five shot revolver at the robber, but all the bullets missed."
Toronto Star
May 19, 1955. Toronto Dominion Bank at Dundas and McCaul.

"Although the banks don't appear to have taken security very seriously, they did issue handguns to bank staff with the expectation that if there was a hold-up, they would shoot back. There was even a secret downtown firing range in the old Bank of Toronto building where managers and tellers were expected to practice regularly. This ended only in the late 1950s after a bank staff member was killed by a ricocheting shot meant for a robber."


			http://www.emcperth.ca/20110526/Lifestyle/Bank+robbers+riveted+Canada's+attention+in+the+'50s
		


I remember chatting with an armoured truck guard around the time they switched from the old flap style holster to the secure type with a snap. I noticed he had the snap held open with tape. I said that looked like a good idea for a faster draw. He said he started doing that after robbers got the drop on him. He put his hands up. The robbers tried to disarm him, but couldn't figure how to get his gun released. Thought they were going to kill him. So, after that, he kept the snap taped back, for their convenience, while his hands were reaching for the sky. 

Armoured truck guards in TO used to carry shotguns. Not just in the cab like now, but on the street too.

Not to say which times were better or worse. Just different.


----------



## Eaglelord17 (24 Jun 2021)

mariomike said:


> FJAG, Brihard and Lenaitch would be the SME's on legality. I'm a life long gun owner. But, I've only used them for hunting.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I am not saying I would personally, I am just surprised others haven't yet. Be it shoot someone, or even just beating them with a baseball bat. Not saying it is legal, just amazed it hasn't happened already. There is only so much BS people are willing to take before they have had enough.

Look at Afghanistan as a easy example. If you were wronged you could either try to go through the slow and corrupt court system we imposed on them or you could go to the Taliban and they would give you results fairly quickly. Guess which path many Afghanis took... Same thing for Canada where if the police, courts, and government are failing to impose order at some point individuals will start imposing their own. 

We are creating a crime crisis in our country, which might actually be the governments intent. From there they blame the firearms owners when crime skyrockets and use the misdirected anger of the voters to ban firearms in the mistaken belief it shall better the situation.


----------



## Haggis (24 Jun 2021)

Eaglelord17 said:


> We are creating a crime crisis in our country, which might actually be the governments intent. From there they blame the firearms owners when crime skyrockets and use the misdirected anger of the voters to ban firearms in the mistaken belief it shall better the situation.


Nailed it!


----------



## mariomike (24 Jun 2021)

Eaglelord17 said:


> We are creating a crime crisis in our country, which might actually be the governments intent.


That's an interesting theory. Do you have a source?


----------



## Eaglelord17 (28 Jun 2021)

mariomike said:


> That's an interesting theory. Do you have a source?


No formal source, just looking at what is happening and wondering why they would tolerating it. Hard to push fear based politics unless you have something to fear. 

Thanks to Bill C-75 that the Liberals passed in 2018 criminals are automatically given bail. If they violate those conditions or break the law again, they are again given bail. Right now the police are arresting the same people over and over again, and the criminals have no fear of retaliation as they know if they are caught they shall instantly be let out (don't even spend the night in jail). Just a simple example locally they arrested one guy 3 times in a month for illegal possession of firearms and prohibited devices. How many times does this need to happen before they are kept in prison? When they finally kill someone? 

The worst part is they shall use these statistics they are creating on increased gun crime and use it to target the 2 million law abiding citizens in the country. It is disgusting and there isn't much people can do about it. Locally the cops are just going from higher priority calls to higher priority calls, if you have a minor concern like a noise complaint they can't even show up anymore as they don't have the manning to keep up with the increase in calls due to the same criminals committing crimes non-stop. Its even more demoralizing for them as they feel like they are accomplishing nothing as they are making the same arrests over and over again.


----------



## ModlrMike (28 Jun 2021)

The irony is that gun owners are generally rural, where gun crime is generally urban. Taking guns away from farmers, hunters and trappers is not going to reduce the number of murders in our biggest cities. So the question is, if we outlawed all guns tomorrow, would the situation change in any meaningful way?


----------



## Haggis (28 Jun 2021)

Eaglelord17 said:


> It's even more demoralizing for them as they feel like they are accomplishing nothing as they are making the same arrests over and over again.


This is a common complaint among LEOs in small to medium sized communities.  Often they see the seriousness/violence of offences committed by these "frequent flyers" increasing over time.


----------



## mariomike (28 Jun 2021)

ModlrMike said:


> The irony is that gun owners are generally rural, where gun crime is generally urban.


Are you sure about that?

For Firearms Offences select: "Firearms Offences",









						Canada's Most Dangerous Places 2020 - Macleans.ca
					

Use this interactive tool to see the full ranking of Canada's most dangerous places. Rank cities by type of crime or see all the statistics for one city.




					www.macleans.ca


----------



## mariomike (28 Jun 2021)

Eaglelord17 said:


> Locally the cops are just going from higher priority calls to higher priority calls, if you have a minor concern like a noise complaint they can't even show up anymore as they don't have the manning to keep up with the increase in calls due to the same criminals committing crimes non-stop.



*I've always supported those politicians at City Hall who support our 9-1-1 operations .  

That includes, among other things like fair pay and benefits, maintaining safe staffing levels for acceptable Response Times.

Thankfully, party politics are not involved .  *


----------



## Brad Sallows (1 Jul 2021)

> That's an interesting theory. Do you have a source?



"Common sense" is the obvious one.  Politicians and bureaucrats and agencies don't accrue more power by solving problems; they do so by keeping the problems going and nudging people along.  Keeping people fearful and weak is a centuries-old playbook.

Real life isn't Game of Thrones, but it doesn't mean there isn't a little bit of Game of Thrones in real life.

We have a system of justice to forestall vigilantism, and this is preferable because while vigilantism sometimes delivers justice it also easily delivers injustice.  Colloquially, the police exist not to protect citizens from criminals, but to protect criminals from citizens.  We delegate authority to that system and agree not to be vigilantes, but that is conditional on the system achieving what we expect it to achieve.  Whether or not black letter law openly acknowledges that bargain is irrelevant.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (1 Jul 2021)

Self defense in Canada using lethal force is allowed, however your not allowed to prepare for that situation. If you do it, the Crown will try to destroy you, mentally and fiscally. Everything you say on social media will be used against you and expect that everything you say to that sympathetic police officer will be recorded and used by the Crown to prove you are a menace. If you plan on having a firearm handy for protection, don't talk about it, watch and read the very good articles on Youtube and print done by Canadian firearm lawyers so you will know what you are in for after the initial event and be partly mentally prepared.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (1 Jul 2021)

ModlrMike said:


> The irony is that gun owners are generally rural, where gun crime is generally urban. Taking guns away from farmers, hunters and trappers is not going to reduce the number of murders in our biggest cities. So the question is, if we outlawed all guns tomorrow, would the situation change in any meaningful way?


There used to be a government source we could check to see how many guns of type were located in individual postal codes. I ran most of my guns through it and was amazed at the amount of guns in a city. My postal code alone, ownership was huge. Much more than I would have ever guessed. And being more densely populated, urban areas hold way more owners than rural ones. Cities are full of hunters and target shooters.


----------



## ModlrMike (1 Jul 2021)

Maybe I should alter my comment by saying that the perception is that gun owners are mostly rural. Certainly the Liberals and the anti gun lobby frame the argument as such. Witness "nobody needs an AR-15 to hunt".


----------



## Jarnhamar (6 Jul 2021)

second thoughts


----------



## Good2Golf (12 Jul 2021)

‘Fear On Top Of Fear’: How 2020 Drove Anti-Gun Americans to Arm Themselves.

Interesting insight into how many previous anti-gun advocates changed, and armed themselves.

There are a few ‘Hunh?’ in there as well, like:


> Savannah Grace of Richmond had always hated guns but bought a Glock 45 after an officer pointed a rifle at her during a protest against police violence last summer.


----------



## ModlrMike (12 Jul 2021)

If you bring a firearm to a protest, there is a near zero chance of nothing bad happening.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (13 Jul 2021)

What a Clusterf**K


----------



## brihard (13 Jul 2021)

ModlrMike said:


> If you bring a firearm to a protest, there is a near zero chance of nothing bad happening.


It’s an offense under S.89(1) of the Criminal Code. R v Lacombe, a 2004 case out of Alberta, establishes the best case for how it goes for you, and that still includes a criminal conviction, loss of your firearm, and presumably loss of your privileges of having any other firearms. 2004 ABPC 90 (CanLII) | R. v. Lacombe | CanLII

That was was a very particular set of facts wherein the offender behaved specifically so as to make his protest as safe as possible with a wrapped up firearm with bolt removed, and with advance warning to police. Try showing up to a protest carrying/wearing a firearm in any way where it’s at all accessible to you for use, and the best case will probably look like you getting several guns pointed at you while you’re proned out and arrested. You’ll be in custody for several hours, criminally charged, lose your guns, etc. Not a good day.

So, FWIW, not recommended.


----------



## Haggis (13 Jul 2021)

Colin Parkinson said:


> What a Clusterf**K


Well, in reality all this does is revert the ATT process back to pre-Bill C42 (Common Sense Firearms laws) passed by the Conservatives.  The big missing piece is that the Liberals were to have rolled out an app to make ATTs available 24/7 through a quick, easy and instant portal.  That never happened.  Maybe it will be developed by IBM in concert with the compensated confiscation (TM)  plan. What's  a few more million tacked on to that contract?


----------



## Colin Parkinson (29 Jul 2021)

Came by email and letter. I should do an ATIP to see how much this is going to cost them in PY's


A change has recently come into force to the Firearms Act as part of Bill C-71, _An Act to amend certain Acts and Regulations in relation to firearms_. The change has resulted in the removal of the following conditions related to the transport of restricted/prohibited firearms from your licence:



Transport of restricted firearms and/or prohibited firearms to a port of exit, in order to take them outside Canada and from a port of entry.
Transport of restricted firearms and/or prohibited firearms to and from a gun show.
Transport of restricted firearms and/or prohibited firearms to and from a business that holds a licence authorizing it to repair or appraise prohibited or restricted firearms.
Transport of restricted firearms and/or prohibited firearms to and from any place a peace officer, firearms officer or chief firearms officer is located for verification, registration or disposal in accordance with the _Firearms Act_ and Part III of the _Criminal Code_.

If you wish to transport your restricted/prohibited firearm for one of the above purposes, you must apply for an Authorization to Transport to your Chief Firearms Officer. To contact your Chief Firearms Officer, please call 1 800 731-4000.

All affected licence holders will be mailed a formal notification of the changes to the Authorizations to Transport, including your current updated licence conditions.


----------



## Haggis (29 Jul 2021)

Colin Parkinson said:


> Came by email and letter. I should do an ATIP to see how much this is going to cost them in PY's.


I recall there being about 900,000 licensees with Restricted privileges and likely most have  ATT conditions attached to their licenses.


----------



## Eaglelord17 (2 Sep 2021)

Liberals have anounced they are going to be even harder on firearms owners with the following being in their platform. Ending Gun Violence | Liberal Party of Canada

'Our communities should be safe and peaceful places to live and raise children, but American-style gun violence is rising. 2019 saw the rate of firearm-related offences rise for the fifth straight year, and the homicide rate was the highest in a decade, with 40% of homicides involving firearms. That is why, in May 2020, we took action to put a ban on the use, sale, or import of assault weapons most used in mass shootings and implement a buyback program for owners.

At the same time, we are investing in prevention efforts and are providing $250 million directly to municipalities and Indigenous communities to give at-risk youth the opportunity to be engaged in activities to stop the spread of gang activity.

Conservatives vowed to repeal this ban with the support of the gun lobby, which would resume the proliferation of assault-style firearms in Canada. Liberals believe even stronger action is needed to get weapons designed for mass casualties off our streets and out of our communities.

*A re-elected Liberal government will:*


Toughen our laws on banned assault weapons by making it mandatory for owners to either sell the firearm back to the government for destruction and fair compensation or have it rendered fully and permanently inoperable at government expense.
Crack down on high-capacity magazines and require that long gun magazines capable of holding more than 5 rounds be permanently altered so that they can never hold more than 5 rounds
Ban the sale or transfer of magazines that could hold more than a legal number of bullets, regardless of how they were intended to be used by the manufacturer.
Set aside a minimum of $1 billion to support provinces or territories who implement a ban on handguns across their jurisdiction, to keep our cities and communities safe.
We would also continue to combat gender-based violence and fight gun smuggling with measures we have introduced such as:


Lifetime background checks to prevent those with a history of abuse against their spouse or partner from obtaining a firearms license.
“Red flag” laws that would allow immediate removal of firearms if that person is a threat to themselves or others, particularly to their spouse or partner.
Increased maximum penalties for firearms trafficking and smuggling from 10 to 14 years imprisonment.
Enhancing the capacity of the RCMP and the Canada Border Services Agency to combat the illegal importation of firearms.'
Remember when I said they were creating a crime crisis to use to their political advantage, well they are clearly starting to use it now. A simple example being locally we had one guy get arrested 3 times in one month for firearms offences (criminal scumbag with illegal firearms). Before that would have been one instance of crime to report and he would have been in jail for a bit. Now its 3 cases, and that was just for one month, likely did more after that.


----------



## Good2Golf (2 Sep 2021)

Noting that nowhere does their platform include tougher sentencing for *the use of *illegally procured weapons in the conduct of a criminal activity…


----------



## SeaKingTacco (2 Sep 2021)

Good2Golf said:


> Noting that nowhere does their platform include tougher sentencing for *the use of *illegally procured weapons in the conduct of a criminal activity…


Come on, now. The next thing you will suggest is that the Liberals use evidence as a basis for policy…


----------



## Haggis (2 Sep 2021)

I don't see anything new that would prevent another shooting at Jane and Finch.  And what happens to their core proposal of a mandatory buyback if the OIC gets overturned by the federal court?


----------



## SeaKingTacco (2 Sep 2021)

Haggis said:


> I don't see anything new that would prevent another shooting at Jane and Finch.  And what happens to their core proposal of a mandatory buyback if the OIC gets overturned by the federal court?


The LPC is not super interested in fixing any real problems, so much as they are interested in hammering a demographic (gun owners) which won’t vote for them anyway…


----------



## Halifax Tar (2 Sep 2021)

SeaKingTacco said:


> The LPC is not super interested in fixing any real problems, so much as they are interested in hammering a demographic (gun owners) which won’t vote for them anyway…


It's simple divisive politics


----------



## Haggis (2 Sep 2021)

Eaglelord17 said:


> *A re-elected Liberal government will:*
> 
> 
> Crack down on high-capacity magazines and require that long gun magazines capable of holding more than 5 rounds be permanently altered so that they can never hold more than 5 rounds


What do the Liberals define as a "long gun"?  Does it include bolt and pump action, too?  .22 cal as well?


----------



## Rick Goebel (2 Sep 2021)

Eaglelord17 said:


> Liberals have anounced they are going to be even harder on firearms owners with the following being in their platform. Ending Gun Violence | Liberal Party of Canada
> 
> 'Our communities should be safe and peaceful places to live and raise children, but American-style gun violence is rising. 2019 saw the rate of firearm-related offences rise for the fifth straight year, and the homicide rate was the highest in a decade, with 40% of homicides involving firearms. That is why, in May 2020, we took action to put a ban on the use, sale, or import of assault weapons most used in mass shootings and implement a buyback program for owners.
> 
> ...


Conspicuous by its absence is a line like “As a result of our actions of May 2020, gun crimes were reduced by x%”.


----------



## Haggis (2 Sep 2021)

Rick Goebel said:


> Conspicuous by its absence is a line like “As a result of our actions of May 2020, gun crimes were reduced by x%”.


Could that be for the same reason that they have refused to allow a federal court judge to see the "evidence" they used to justify this ban?


----------



## ModlrMike (2 Sep 2021)

That looks like a really good question to ask during a debate.


----------



## Good2Golf (2 Sep 2021)

Haggis said:


> What do the Liberals define as a "long gun"?  Does it include bolt and pump action, too?  .22 cal as well?


We know it doesn’t include anything substantively from the LPC’s international associates the CCP.  Otherwise the Norinco Type 93 NSR-G3 would no longer be approved by Team Trudeau…and it still is not on the prohibited list because….well…China.

Trudeau likes this (Chinese) gun…


----------



## suffolkowner (2 Sep 2021)

The guns go to jail but not the people that use them to commit crimes as that would be cruel


----------



## Eaglelord17 (2 Sep 2021)

The magazine thing alone would be a huge deal. Pretty much every rifle magazine in Canada with the exemption of a few hunting magazines originally held more than 5rds and were pinned. There is likely millions of magazines that would be impacted by this as well as virtually all firearms owners. 

The Liberals are extremely lucky that legal firearms owners aren't the violent murderous types they portray them as. Unfortunately the much of the public doesn't understand that.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (2 Sep 2021)

The good news is that even if the CPC gets a minority government, they do not have to go to Parliament to reverse the recent legislation by the Liberals.


----------



## Haggis (2 Sep 2021)

Colin Parkinson said:


> The good news is that even if the CPC gets a minority government, they do not have to go to Parliament to reverse the recent legislation by the Liberals.


To reverse the OIC, no. (Unless the federal court beats them to it, leaving nothing to reverse.🤞) Reversing C-71 will be a whole other story and a bigger fight. I wouldn't be surprised if the opposition turned that into a confidence vote.


----------



## suffolkowner (2 Sep 2021)

Colin Parkinson said:


> The good news is that even if the CPC gets a minority government, they do not have to go to Parliament to reverse the recent legislation by the Liberals.


I don't know about that. I don't think we'll see a CPC government unless it's a majority. Trudeau will have first chance to form the government as the PM. Maybe if the CPC gets a really big minority?


----------



## Jarnhamar (2 Sep 2021)

If Trudeau stays in power I hope all those protestors crank it up to 11.


----------



## Eaglelord17 (3 Sep 2021)

I am convinced at this point, nothing short of removing the firearms act and putting back in the pre-1994 restrictions will amount to anything. The OIC portion of the law is the most dangerous part as it allows them to outlaw any firearm (or all firearms) without even having to go through parliament. 

Can only hope the Liberals get rightfully kicked to the curb for the division, hate, and discrimination they have brought to Canada and do some serious self reflecting as to what their party stands for.


----------



## Halifax Tar (3 Sep 2021)

Lots of chatter on the Enfield forums about the sweeping magazine changes the Libs want.  

But its easier to ban things than actually try and improve society.


----------



## Haggis (3 Sep 2021)

Eaglelord17 said:


> I am convinced at this point, nothing short of removing the firearms act and putting back in the pre-1994 restrictions will amount to anything. The OIC portion of the law is the most dangerous part as it allows them to outlaw any firearm (or all firearms) without even having to go through parliament.


I'm honestly surprised they didn't propose a national handgun ban.


----------



## QV (3 Sep 2021)

Haggis said:


> I'm honestly surprised they didn't propose a national handgun ban.


Maybe they are saving a few announcements & promises for closer to election day.


----------



## Brad Sallows (3 Sep 2021)

> I'm honestly surprised they didn't propose a national handgun ban.



They're trying a detour by offering money to those who take up the burden.


----------



## Haggis (3 Sep 2021)

Brad Sallows said:


> They're trying a detour by offering money to those who take up the burden.


They didn't offer any funding for municipalities to enact bans under Bill C-21.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (3 Sep 2021)

They are now, $1b, to municipalities or provinces to enact hand gun bans.

Now, last time I checked, offering money to officials (elected or not) to enact legislation/by-laws favouring you (or in this case doing your dirty job for you) is called bribery. So, any other party noticed they can attack the Libs by attracting attention to that and then accusing them of not having the cahounas to do their own dirty work while claiming to be the GoC that "does something about guns on our street". Call them hypocrites all over again.


----------



## Haggis (3 Sep 2021)

Oldgateboatdriver said:


> They are now, $1b, to municipalities or provinces to enact hand gun bans.


Contrary to what I posted in another thread in error, that's $1B _total_ to be spread across all of Canada that elects to enact his ban.


> Now, last time I checked, offering money to officials (elected or not) to enact legislation/by-laws favouring you (or in this case doing your dirty job for you) is called bribery.


Now, that wouldn't be ethical.  Which is probably why they've chosen that COA.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (3 Sep 2021)

Pretty sure last time this came up, there was a discussion of jurisdiction. Kenney and Ford both said it wasn't happening, as the province regulates municipalities. Trudeau claims to have a work around, but as far as I know hasn't articulated it yet. I'm guessing he really doesn't have the workaround and is dangling the money as a carrot to places like Toronto and Quebec for votes. Once in, he'll just ignore it like so many other election promises he makes.


----------



## Remius (3 Sep 2021)

Colin Parkinson said:


> The good news is that even if the CPC gets a minority government, they do not have to go to Parliament to reverse the recent legislation by the Liberals.


Not sure how many saw the French debate but…









						O’Toole pledges to keep assault rifle ban. His platform says it’ll be gone. Here’s what we know - National | Globalnews.ca
					

The Conservative platform promises to repeal a Liberal executive order from May of last year, which banned 1,500 'military-style assault rifles.'




					globalnews.ca
				




when pressed, O’toole said he would keep the ban on “assault” style firearms.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (3 Sep 2021)

In other words he continue the ban on automatic rifles


----------



## Remius (3 Sep 2021)

I’m sure it will come up in the English debate.


----------



## Mills Bomb (3 Sep 2021)

That is very misleading news.

CBC just updated their story to clarify that he is talking about the 1977 ban, and NOT Trudeau's OIC.
O'Toole promises to repeal Liberal firearms changes while keeping ban on 'assault weapons'.

O'Toole's commitment to maintain the ban on "assault weapons" refers to a 1977 legislative change that classified fully automatic weapons as "prohibited" firearms — but he would still do away with the Liberal prohibition on "assault-style" firearms like the AR-15 and the Ruger Mini-14 rifle, among other models blacklisted last year.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/eri...pons-1.6163698

Regarding the Liberal's latest proposed infringements, it's not shocking, they will continue to use law-abiding gun owners as a scapegoat for their inability to actually curb gun violence. They always have and they always will, I suspect they will keep slowly banning something new over several more decades to keep this scam going with their base. They won't even present any evidence the OIC ban has improved anything or was justified in any way. They simply have never been or ever will be on the side of law-abiding gun owners.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (3 Sep 2021)

I notice the "National Observer" (very left wing) is bringing out the "Hidden agenda on abortion" as well, the Libs are desperately trying to get some sort of fear mongering to stick.


----------



## Mills Bomb (3 Sep 2021)

Colin Parkinson said:


> I notice the "National Observer" (very left wing) is bringing out the "Hidden agenda on abortion" as well, the Libs are desperately trying to get some sort of fear mongering to stick.



It seems more and more like the last days of the Trump administration. I mean even Twitter is flagging them for this kind of misinformation. I sure hope it's over soon.


----------



## Haggis (3 Sep 2021)

Fishbone Jones said:


> Pretty sure last time this came up, there was a discussion of jurisdiction. Kenney and Ford both said it wasn't happening, as the province regulates municipalities. Trudeau claims to have a work around, but as far as I know hasn't articulated it yet. I'm guessing he really doesn't have the workaround and is dangling the money as a carrot to places like Toronto and Quebec for votes. Once in, he'll just ignore it like so many other election promises he makes.


His workaround was likely the "Notwithstanding" clause.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (3 Sep 2021)

Haggis said:


> His workaround was likely the "Notwithstanding" clause.


I wonder if the provinces used the clause first, against federal encroachment, whether that would take the wind out of his sails.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (3 Sep 2021)

The notwithstanding clause is totally irrelevant here. It only applies to some of the Charter's individual rights and freedom being "infringed" by either a provincial or federal law (not by-law or regulation), it has no application whatsoever in the field of provincial vs. federal jurisdiction as defined in the constitution. And the problem with Ottawa "empowering" municipalities is that it is a provincial field, not  a federal one.

Municipalities can only exist if provinces "create" them, and then, can only legislate (by way of by-laws) on subjects they are granted the power to legislate in by the provincial enabling legislation - nothing else. Any by-law not supported by enabling legislation is considered "ultra-vires" of the municipal power and voidable by the courts.


----------



## Haggis (3 Sep 2021)

OGBD, you make it sound like laws, the Charter or ethics matter to Trudeau.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (3 Sep 2021)

I like the way OToole answered the question. It shows how disingenuous trudeau and blair are in their fear mongering vocabulary by correcting the 'assault rifle' definition. While trudeau says O'Toole is misleading Canadians with his wording, in reality it is trudeau himself. One more case of accusing your opponent of doing exactly what you are doing yourself. Something the liberals have been excelling at. And blair, well he's just still being completely over the top with his lies and absolute fabrications. People are calling him drunken bill blair and I'm tempted to believe they might be right.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (3 Sep 2021)

Haggis said:


> OGBD, you make it sound like laws, the Charter or ethics matter to Trudeau.



Oh, I know he doesn't. But they do to the various courts in every province. 

Say Montreal, at the behest of the Federal Libs, adopts a hand gun ban and someone is arrested under it. They go to court and the defence lawyer defends on the basis that the by-law is null and void as being outside the powers of Montreal to adopt  because neither their Charter nor the provincial municipal act applicable provides for the power to adopt such by-law and the Federal enabling legislation is  also null as a constitutional infringement in provincial constitutional powers. I am willing to bet the courts are much much more likely to come down on the side of the defence because the number of cases where the Supreme court confirmed municipal law as being a provincial jurisdiction is simply overwhelming. On the other hand, if the Feds try to argue that it is part of their criminal law power, then the court can say: "Fine, then don't delegate it illegally  to the municipalities or the provinces. Exercise your own powers yourself." Same result.


----------



## Haggis (3 Sep 2021)

Oldgateboatdriver said:


> Oh, I know he doesn't. But they do to the various courts in every province.
> 
> Say Montreal, at the behest of the Federal Libs, adopts a hand gun ban and someone is arrested under it. They go to court and the defence lawyer defends on the basis that the by-law is null and void as being outside the powers of Montreal to adopt  because neither their Charter nor the provincial municipal act applicable provides for the power to adopt such by-law and the Federal enabling legislation is  also null as a constitutional infringement in provincial constitutional powers. I am willing to bet the courts are much much more likely to come down on the side of the defence because the number of cases where the Supreme court confirmed municipal law as being a provincial jurisdiction is simply overwhelming. On the other hand, if the Feds try to argue that it is part of their criminal law power, then the court can say: "Fine, then don't delegate it illegally  to the municipalities or the provinces. Exercise your own powers yourself." Same result.


Which is why I'm surprised they didn't propose a national ban. They've threatened it in the past and it would appeal to their urban supporters and the antis in a big way.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (4 Sep 2021)

Haggis said:


> Which is why I'm surprised they didnt propose a national ban. They've threatened it in the past and it would appeal to their urban supporters and rhe antis in a big way.


The current offer to buy the OIC guns from owners will cost over a billion. The amount of handguns in private hands will cost the taxpayer quite a respectable bit more than that.


----------



## Jarnhamar (4 Sep 2021)

If that OIC is removed I'm going to have a hell of a time putting some guns back together so I'm not just handing in receivers lol


----------



## Haggis (4 Sep 2021)

Fishbone Jones said:


> The current offer to buy the OIC guns from owners will cost over a billion.


You are naively assuming that true fair market value will be paid.  You are also assuming that the amount paid out will not be partially recovered through making it a taxable benefit.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (4 Sep 2021)

Haggis said:


> You are naively assuming that true fair market value will be paid.  You are also assuming that the amount paid out will not be partially recovered through making it a taxable benefit.


I'm assuming nothing. Estimates are all over the map. Just going by their long gun registration estimate that were grossly underestimated. All I'm saying is that their estimate for the OIC gun payout is likely wrong, on the low end. In comparison to stealing every handgun in Canada, which is over a million, the cost to taxpayers will be extensively higher. If they buy them. Of course, we know that with the trudeau government, blatant theft with no return is always a real possibility. With the OIC AND a handgun ban, I stand to lose a highly substantial monetary sum in firearms and ancillary equipment, that would make the amount of tax on my government return laughable.


----------



## Halifax Tar (5 Sep 2021)

Fishbone Jones said:


> I'm assuming nothing. Estimates are all over the map. Just going by their long gun registration estimate that were grossly underestimated. All I'm saying is that their estimate for the OIC gun payout is likely wrong, on the low end. In comparison to stealing every handgun in Canada, which is over a million, the cost to taxpayers will be extensively higher. If they buy them. Of course, we know that with the trudeau government, blatant theft with no return is always a real possibility. With the OIC AND a handgun ban, I stand to lose a highly substantial monetary sum in firearms and ancillary equipment, that would make the amount of tax on my government return laughable.



I predict a sudden rise in boating accidents where firearms are "lost to sea" lol


----------



## Haggis (5 Sep 2021)

Followed by lots of magnet fishing by IBM subcontractors to recover those "lost to sea" firearms.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (5 Sep 2021)

Fishbone Jones said:


> I'm assuming nothing. Estimates are all over the map. Just going by their long gun registration estimate that were grossly underestimated. All I'm saying is that their estimate for the OIC gun payout is likely wrong, on the low end. In comparison to stealing every handgun in Canada, which is over a million, the cost to taxpayers will be extensively higher. If they buy them. Of course, we know that with the trudeau government, blatant theft with no return is always a real possibility. With the OIC AND a handgun ban, I stand to lose a highly substantial monetary sum in firearms and ancillary equipment, that would make the amount of tax on my government return laughable.


The estimates I have seen on legal guns, made or imported into Canada range from 17 million to 33 million. A lot of those will be .303's and .22cals


----------



## brihard (5 Sep 2021)

Oldgateboatdriver said:


> Oh, I know he doesn't. But they do to the various courts in every province.
> 
> Say Montreal, at the behest of the Federal Libs, adopts a hand gun ban and someone is arrested under it. They go to court and the defence lawyer defends on the basis that the by-law is null and void as being outside the powers of Montreal to adopt  because neither their Charter nor the provincial municipal act applicable provides for the power to adopt such by-law and the Federal enabling legislation is  also null as a constitutional infringement in provincial constitutional powers. I am willing to bet the courts are much much more likely to come down on the side of the defence because the number of cases where the Supreme court confirmed municipal law as being a provincial jurisdiction is simply overwhelming. On the other hand, if the Feds try to argue that it is part of their criminal law power, then the court can say: "Fine, then don't delegate it illegally  to the municipalities or the provinces. Exercise your own powers yourself." Same result.


This came up earlier in this thread. I’m curious, why do you believe the prior jurisprudence in Russell v The Queen, and Canadian Temperance Federation v Ontario wouldn’t apply? The feds sidestepped the provinces entirely and succesfully on that one, devolving a criminal law power to the municipalities. I don’t see anything enshrined constitutionally since that would prevent them doing it again.









						The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
					

Exactly.  The PM has said that he will pursue further measures once Parliament is back sitting again and the pandemic has eased or passed.  The votes on the the buyback spending bill and the amendments to the Firearms Act will be whipped, of course, and the NDP and Bloc will probably support...




					army.ca


----------



## brihard (5 Sep 2021)

Aaaand O’Toole just announced he’ll keep the 2020 restrictions in place, relying on his promised review of the firearms act to achieve any future policy changes.



			https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/gun-control-wedge-issue-1.6165532


----------



## MilEME09 (5 Sep 2021)

Smart move in a way, he is trying to prevent wedge issues in the 905.


----------



## brihard (5 Sep 2021)

MilEME09 said:


> Smart move in a way, he is trying to prevent wedge issues in the 905.


Yes. This could have been the wedge that killed his chances at election. He can’t do anything if he isn’t elected.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (5 Sep 2021)

The PPC supporters hate O'Toole more than they hate JT. I get that they are displeased with the CPC, but getting rid of JT and company would seem to be the bigger goal for the moment and then build up your party after a CPC win.


----------



## brihard (5 Sep 2021)

Colin Parkinson said:


> The PPC supporters hate O'Toole more than they hate JT. I get that they are displeased with the CPC, but getting rid of JT and company would seem to be the bigger goal for the moment and then build up your party after a CPC win.


Yes and no. A succesful CPC government would likely be the death knell for the PPC’s chances at relevance. They’re already unlikely to get any seats unless Bernier _maybe_ takes Beauce. Conversely, if the CPC fail to form government, PPC will likely continue to draw support, and will be able to scream and rant about the Liberals for a few more years.

PPC will never form government or hold the balance of power. Splitting themselves off from the CPC basically just dooms them to ceding whatever limited clout their wing of the Conservatives held in a potential future government anyway.

The only hope for gun owners to expand their privileges is with the CPC, however they’ll have to accept the reality that electability will remain a limitation.


----------



## Haggis (5 Sep 2021)

brihard said:


> Yes. This could have been the wedge that killed his chances at election. He can’t do anything if he isn’t elected.


His proposed simplified classification system would be a godsend for owners, dealers and LE alike.  No more having to call a verifier or the CFP/CFO to determine if X is in category Y.

However, once some bureaucrats realize that by tweaking the simplified classification system they can get a tick in the "leading change" bubble of their PMA, it's all over.


----------



## Remius (5 Sep 2021)

Haggis said:


> His proposed simplified classification system would be a godsend for owners, dealers and LE alike.  No more having to call a verifier or the CFP/CFO to determine if X is in category Y.
> 
> However, once some bureaucrats realize that by tweaking the simplified classification system they can get a tick in the "leading change" bubble of their PMA, it's all over.


The other thing is bureaucrats that may be inclined to politicize the process may just delay or slow the changes enough until a new government is elected.


----------



## Remius (5 Sep 2021)

brihard said:


> Yes and no. A succesful CPC government would likely be the death knell for the PPC’s chances at relevance. They’re already unlikely to get any seats unless Bernier _maybe_ takes Beauce. Conversely, if the CPC fail to form government, PPC will likely continue to draw support, and will be able to scream and rant about the Liberals for a few more years.
> 
> PPC will never form government or hold the balance of power. Splitting themselves off from the CPC basically just dooms them to ceding whatever limited clout their wing of the Conservatives held in a potential future government anyway.
> 
> The only hope for gun owners to expand their privileges is with the CPC, however they’ll have to accept the reality that electability will remain a limitation.


Agreed.  But I think if the CPC wins convincingly it may also spell the end of the more extreme SoCon element of the CPC.  The big tent may be getting smaller as the CPC move to appeal to centrists.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (5 Sep 2021)

Colin Parkinson said:


> The estimates I have seen on legal guns, made or imported into Canada range from 17 million to 33 million. A lot of those will be .303's and .22cals


I was speaking of handguns. Not rifles. I have no idea where you're going with this.








						Canada Gun Facts and Stats | TheGunBlog.ca
					

Canada Gun Facts and Stats answers your questions: How to buy a gun in Canada? How to get a gun licence? How many people have guns? How many guns in Canada?




					thegunblog.ca


----------



## Colin Parkinson (5 Sep 2021)

Just mentioning that there are a lot more legal guns out there, than the officials will admit to.


----------



## brihard (5 Sep 2021)

Remius said:


> Agreed.  But I think if the CPC wins convincingly it may also spell the end of the more extreme SoCon element of the CPC.  The big tent may be getting smaller as the CPC move to appeal to centrists.


Yup. There will always be a fringe, some of it of a lunatic bent. Right now a few disparate fringe elements have gravitated to the PPC because… I don’t know, a combination of realizing mainstream politics doesn’t want or need them, and Bernier’s fading but lingering name recognition? Anyway, CPC have gotten the pressure release valve that they’ve needed to shed some baggage and to become an electorally viable contender again, and O’Toole as a leader is capable of guiding transition and pulling votes from the centre instead of the extremes- better than I had anticipated, frankly. I was on team MacKay but I’m happy with how O’Toole is doing things. It’s healthy for the CPC and it’s healthy for Canada.

For gun owners, it’s the best electoral option that could actually bear real fruit.it will not represent an ideal outcome, but there is no ideal outcome that would actually be a thing.


----------



## Haggis (6 Sep 2021)

brihard said:


> For gun owners, it’s the best electoral option that could actually bear real fruit.it will not represent an ideal outcome, but there is no ideal outcome that would actually be a thing.


Brihard, while I will admit to an initial flash of panic at O'Toole's announcement today, on reflection I see it as a masterstroke. He has taken the wind out of the LPC's sails.  He can now say he shares a common goal with Trudeau, public safety.  Then the paths diverge towards the LPC's focus on the low hanging fruit of legal guns and licensed owners and the CPC's focus on the harder long game of illegal guns and criminals. Despite his statement that the OIC will remain in force (for now), he has given himself the soft landing of instituting a simplified classification system which will then nullify some if not all of the OIC.

All of that takes time, particularly if he wants to do it right.  Anyone who thought a CPC win would have ARs back on the range by Sept 21st is delusional.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (6 Sep 2021)

When they are in, then they can say, "We discovered that it is unworkable as currently worded and here is our replacement"


----------



## RangerRay (6 Sep 2021)

Unfortunately, there’s two maxims in politics that apply here: 1) Symbols matter and 2) If you’re explaining, you’re losing. If O’Toole has to explain the intricacies of the OIC and the original assault weapons ban, he is going to lose people he needs to win (I.e. suburban women) who view guns as an existential threat to their family’s well being. I don’t like it, but them’s the breaks. 🤷‍♂️


----------



## Fishbone Jones (6 Sep 2021)

O'Toole is playing the long game. He's nullified trudeau's attack. He left himself an out. He has parried, every stroke, poke and slash from the socialists. Trudeau on the other hand, is dehydrating his message(s) spitballing at any and every thing he thinks he can use as a wedge. Everytime trudeau thinks he has a gotcha, before he can repeat it O'Toole has already out maneuvered him. Singh has been steering clear. Nobody cares about the Bloc and Greens. However, watch for the PPC to go full apeshit on this. They are almost giving trudeau a pass, their real enemy is the CPC. They are playing just as dirty, or worse, than the grits.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (6 Sep 2021)

RangerRay said:


> Unfortunately, there’s two maxims in politics that apply here: 1) Symbols matter and 2) If you’re explaining, you’re losing. If O’Toole has to explain the intricacies of the OIC and the original assault weapons ban, he is going to lose people he needs to win (I.e. suburban women) who view guns as an existential threat to their family’s well being. I don’t like it, but them’s the breaks. 🤷‍♂️


But he's not really explaining anything. He's correcting trudeau. I'll paraphrase what he said today. "I'll uphold the assault gun ban of 1977, I'll uphold the OIC instituted by this government. We'll strike a committee to look at the classification system." The difference between the two is the over the top emotion, misinformation and theatrical rhetoric of the grits and the plain language, knowledgeable, business like tone of reason of the CPC.

" The facts ma'am, just the facts."
Sgt Joe Friday, Detective
LAPD


----------



## ballz (6 Sep 2021)

Colin Parkinson said:


> The good news is that even if the CPC gets a minority government, they do not have to go to Parliament to reverse the recent legislation by the Liberals.





Haggis said:


> To reverse the OIC, no. (Unless the federal court beats them to it, leaving nothing to reverse.🤞) Reversing C-71 will be a whole other story and a bigger fight. I wouldn't be surprised if the opposition turned that into a confidence vote.



They would have to go to Parliament.

The executive government always had the authority to re-classify firearms. It happened under PM Martin in 2014 when they turned a bunch of owners of the CZ858 and Swiss Arms Classic Green models into prohibited. Sure it was the RCMP that did it but anything the RCMP can do can be done by OIC. SWISS ARMS AND CZ RECLASSIFIED - Calibremag.ca

Then PM Harper reversed it, and the Liberals took note. Bill C-71 gives the executive government the authority to reclassify firearms in one direction... from Non-restricted ---> Restricted ---> Prohibited. It took away their authority to go in the other direction, Prohibited ---> Restricted ---> Non-restricted.

It was drafted this way on purpose to ensure the next government didn't just reverse it.

The only way to reclassify an AR back to restricted or (God willing) non-restricted is to amend the legislation, (or repeal it), or in other words, go to Parliament.


----------



## MilEME09 (6 Sep 2021)

Essentially we need a cpc majority for that as I doubt the ndp or BQ would back them up


----------



## Remius (6 Sep 2021)

MilEME09 said:


> Essentially we need a cpc majority for that as I doubt the ndp or BQ would back them up


That’s a good point.  I can’t see them get a majority at this point but it could happen.  But they might propose it early enough for the other parties to avoid another election on that issue.  Those parties could be absent for that vote.


----------



## Jarnhamar (6 Sep 2021)

Imagine if the government put even a fraction of this effort into dealing with the 35,000 yearly medical errors in Canadian hospitals


----------



## MilEME09 (6 Sep 2021)

Jarnhamar said:


> Imagine if the government put even a fraction of this effort into dealing with the 35,000 yearly medical errors in Canadian hospitals


Or clean water on FN, or our housing crisis...the list goes on


----------



## Colin Parkinson (6 Sep 2021)

ballz said:


> They would have to go to Parliament.
> 
> The executive government always had the authority to re-classify firearms. It happened under PM Martin in 2014 when they turned a bunch of owners of the CZ858 and Swiss Arms Classic Green models into prohibited. Sure it was the RCMP that did it but anything the RCMP can do can be done by OIC. SWISS ARMS AND CZ RECLASSIFIED - Calibremag.ca
> 
> ...


The current OIC can be rescinded, but the Act can't be changed without going to Parliament.


----------



## Haggis (6 Sep 2021)

Remember, the OIC is also the subject of ongoing federal court challenges.  It may be overturned no matter who forms the next government.


----------



## brihard (6 Sep 2021)

Haggis said:


> Remember, the OIC is also the subject of ongoing federal court challenges.  It may be overturned no matter who forms the next government.


Unlikely. There was nothing legally exceptional in what they did last year. They merry exercised - albeit quite broadly - powers explicitly provided for in legislation for years now, and which have been used plenty of times before. The OIC was not legally improper; Parliament chose to set that mechanism up that way, and courts will generally show considerable deference to the will of Parliament.


----------



## Remius (6 Sep 2021)

Haggis said:


> Brihard, while I will admit to an initial flash of panic at O'Toole's announcement today, on reflection I see it as a masterstroke. He has taken the wind out of the LPC's sails.  He can now say he shares a common goal with Trudeau, public safety.  Then the paths diverge towards the LPC's focus on the low hanging fruit of legal guns and licensed owners and the CPC's focus on the harder long game of illegal guns and criminals. Despite his statement that the OIC will remain in force (for now), he has given himself the soft landing of instituting a simplified classification system which will then nullify some if not all of the OIC.
> 
> All of that takes time, particularly if he wants to do it right.  Anyone who thought a CPC win would have ARs back on the range by Sept 21st is delusional.


I thought I agreed to an extent.  But more and more this may be the first misstep of his otherwise solid campaign.   He wasn’t clear during the debate, then made an attempt to clear it up but then completely contradicted his own platform document.  This may be the thing some will pounce on.  I think he’s on damage control mode but has ample time for Thursday’s debate to prepare as it will inevitably come up.


----------



## Haggis (6 Sep 2021)

Remius said:


> I think he’s on damage control mode but has ample time for Thursday’s debate to prepare as it will inevitably come up.


I don't think the damage is that severe.  If he sticks consistently to his position and highlights the differences between his approach of targeting criminals versus the LPC targeting lawful owners, he can recover.


----------



## Remius (6 Sep 2021)

Haggis said:


> I don't think the damage is that severe.  If he sticks consistently to his position and highlights the differences between his approach of targeting criminals versus the LPC targeting lawful owners, he can recover.


Agreed.  It’s not.  Just that it was his first misstep I think.  I’m certain that the “hidden agenda” attack will appear and this will be used as an example.  The key is to stay on topic with his message and not get pulled in.


----------



## Remius (6 Sep 2021)

Just saw this.



			https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/otoole-trudeau-gun-control-platform-change-1.6166354
		


Looks like the CPC has amended their platform to match what O’toole has been stating.  Interesting move.


----------



## Haggis (27 Sep 2021)

In a very bold move yesterday in the home of anti-gun activism in Canada, the Québec government has allotted $90M to combat illegal guns, gangs and smuggling through the creation of a multijurisdictional task force of municipal and provincial police to work with the RCMP, CBSA and US DHS.  Not a single mention of further restrictions on lawful gun ownership or licensed owners in that province.

Until the "usual suspects" start their letter writing campaigns and the focus is re-directed  - with federal money - to fulfil the Trudeau Liberal's campaign promises of no legal guns in Canada.


----------



## suffolkowner (27 Sep 2021)

an update on the court challenge 








						New schedule of gun ban’s court challenge upsets buyback plan
					

The court battle over the Liberal government’s ban of thousands of military-grade firearms last year has resumed, after temporarily adjourning for the 36-day election campaign. The delay caused by the election is partly to blame for a possible extension of the amnesty granted to gun owners whose...




					ipolitics.ca
				




interesting timing, I wonder how advanced the buyback plan is.


----------



## KevinB (27 Sep 2021)

suffolkowner said:


> an update on the court challenge
> 
> 
> 
> ...



_“The court case should not delay the enactment of the mandatory buyback that has been promised by the Liberals, nor any other gun-control measure, for that matter,” Rathjen said in reaction to the court schedule._

Heaven forbid due process be allowed 
   Apparently Rights only apply to people who think like her.


----------



## suffolkowner (27 Sep 2021)

I'm not counting on the court case at all, but it's only 8 months away. Where's the plan? Where's the money? What happens when the date passes?The number of actual semi-automatics out there has to be huge


----------



## Brad Sallows (27 Sep 2021)

Not sure what mandatory buyback is supposed to be.  There is confiscation, and there is expropriation.  Should be referred to properly as whichever one it is, rather than using euphemisms.


----------



## Jarnhamar (27 Sep 2021)

suffolkowner said:


> Where's the plan? Where's the money? What happens when the date passes?


Easy.
"Without a majority government" (read: bullshit excuse) the Liberal party can't put together a plan so the deadline will be extended again. Liberals don't have to worry about paying a billion dollars out and our guns sit and collect rust.


----------



## Haggis (27 Sep 2021)

Jarnhamar said:


> Easy.
> "Without a majority government" (read: bullshit excuse) the Liberal party can't put together a plan so the deadline will be extended again. Liberals don't have to worry about paying a billion dollars out and our guns sit and collect rust.


Or, they can claim that the fiscal realities no longer support compendation and go straight for confiscation.  Trudeau is used to having his way and this is a major plank in his campaign.


----------



## Haggis (27 Sep 2021)

Brad Sallows said:


> Not sure what mandatory buyback is supposed to be.  There is confiscation, and there is expropriation.  Should be referred to properly as whichever one it is, rather than using euphemisms.


The buyback plan, which Trudeau campaigned on costing at least $800 M, is supposed to pay owners of now-banned but previously legally owned firearms "fair market value" for thier guns or pay for permanent deactivation for those who choose to keep them as wall hangers.  The original pre-election estimate of the "compensated  confiscation (TM)" was $200 M, but a report by the PBO pegged the cost at closer to $785 M, a figure the Liberals disputed before the writs dropped.


----------



## Brad Sallows (28 Sep 2021)

I know; it's expropriation.  The point is that calling it "mandatory buyback" makes it sound nicer.  The people who will be the victims of it should stop going along with that.


----------



## Jarnhamar (28 Sep 2021)

Haggis said:


> Or, they can claim that the fiscal realities no longer support compendation and go straight for confiscation.  Trudeau is used to having his way and this is a major plank in his campaign.


I've seen comments elsewhere about a Jane and Finch amnesty bush.


----------



## Good2Golf (28 Sep 2021)

Jarnhamar said:


> I've seen comments elsewhere about a Jane and Finch amnesty bush.


Yup…I spent my early days living on Driftwood Ave, just SE of the Jane-Finch Mall.  It has continually gotten more dangerous as the years/decades have passed…


----------



## OldSolduer (28 Sep 2021)

Brad Sallows said:


> I know; it's expropriation.  The point is that calling it "mandatory buyback" makes it sound nicer.  The people who will be the victims of it should stop going along with that.


I prefer to call it legal theft because the market value will be determined by a bureaucrat with an agenda.


----------



## Haggis (28 Sep 2021)

Brad Sallows said:


> I know; it's expropriation.  The point is that calling it "mandatory buyback" makes it sound nicer.  The people who will be the victims of it should stop going along with that.


I prefer the term "Compensated Confiscation"(TM).  But, the recent announcement out of Québec is heartening in that the leaders in that province have realized and are focusing on where the problem really lies... and it's not gonna be found on shooting ranges or in gun clubs and hunting lodges.


----------



## brihard (28 Sep 2021)

Haggis said:


> In a very bold move yesterday in the home of anti-gun activism in Canada, the Québec government has allotted $90M to combat illegal guns, gangs and smuggling through the creation of a multijurisdictional task force of municipal and provincial police to work with the RCMP, CBSA and US DHS.  Not a single mention of further restrictions on lawful gun ownership or licensed owners in that province.
> 
> Until the "usual suspects" start their letter writing campaigns and the focus is re-directed  - with federal money - to fulfil the Trudeau Liberal's campaign promises of no legal guns in Canada.


Lots coming across the border out that way.


----------



## Haggis (28 Sep 2021)

brihard said:


> Lots coming across the border out that way.


Considering that there are only 6500 BSOs across Canada in all modes (air rail, marine, land border and inland), the RCMP patrol the border mostly as a secondary task and that just 5% of the maritime containers entering Canada actually get inspected, the chances of intercepting any contraband is remote.  You can buy a handgun in Florida, smuggle it across the border and sell it in Toronto for a 1000% profit.


----------



## Halifax Tar (29 Sep 2021)

Haggis said:


> Considering that there are only 6500 BSOs across Canada in all modes (air rail, marine, land border and inland), the RCMP patrol the border mostly as a secondary task and that just 5% of the maritime containers entering Canada actually get inspected, the chances of intercepting any contraband is remote.  You can buy a handgun in Florida, smuggle it across the border and sell it in Toronto for a 1000% profit.



Exactly.  But my Enfields are a big issue 

_Sarcasm off_


----------



## Haggis (29 Sep 2021)

Halifax Tar said:


> Exactly.  But my Enfields are a big issue
> 
> _Sarcasm off_


The Liberal government can control your Enfields because you obey the law and that's easy. They cannot control the gang banger's Glocks because that's hard and doesn't provide the immediate results they need to buy votes from terrified urban dwellers.  Québec seems to have figured that out and have decided to take the harder road less traveled. As I noted earlier, that's amazing in the home province of Polysesouvient and the Coalition for Gun Control, Canada's two largest anti-gun lobby groups dedicated to eradicating civilian ownership of firearms in Canada. Let's see how the Québec government follows through on it.


----------



## KevinB (29 Sep 2021)

Haggis said:


> Considering that there are only 6500 BSOs across Canada in all modes (air rail, marine, land border and inland), the RCMP patrol the border mostly as a secondary task and that just 5% of the maritime containers entering Canada actually get inspected, the chances of intercepting any contraband is remote.  You can buy a handgun in Florida, smuggle it across the border and sell it in Toronto for a 1000% profit.


So what can I bring you 

Anyone buying a gun in the US needs to fill out a 4473 these days - so there is a record at the FFL (at the very least) of who bought the gun.
   In Virginia there is also a State Police check - where the Manufacturer, Model, S/N are submitted to, and you need to wait for approval to transfer the gun (generally for most folks with a CHP it's 'cash and carry' - but a few times I've needed to wait a day or two - which always surprised me, as I have a State Concealed Handgun Permit - and carried a gun into the gun store to buy a new gun...)
**Technically not a registration list - but I strongly suspect the VSP does in fact retain those records.

The problem here is very little is done to folks who are straw purchasing guns for others - and laws on the books are not being followed.

Honestly I really don't understand the Anti-Gun mentality - maybe I am a realist and know that criminals don't care about the laws and thus will always have guns.


----------



## Haggis (29 Sep 2021)

KevinB said:


> So what can I bring you


I have a list of desired items but the wife says "no more guns until the Liberals are gone".  So, no more guns ever, it seems.


> Anyone _*legally*_ buying a gun in the US needs to fill out a 4473 these days - so there is a record at the FFL (at the very least) of who bought the gun.


FTFY  


> The problem here is very little is done to folks who are straw purchasing guns for others - and laws on the books are not being followed.


According to the Liberals, straw purchases are a huge problem in Canada, even though only one or two a year are prosecuted.


> Honestly I really don't understand the Anti-Gun mentality - maybe I am a realist and know that criminals don't care about the laws and thus will always have guns.


  My post above pretty much explains why the Liberals are frequently targeting their gun control efforts at legal firearms and licensed owners.  In short, it's the low-hanging fruit.


----------



## Brad Sallows (29 Sep 2021)

This is just one of the many political or social issues where people prefer to look for keys under the lamppost because the light is better there.  Throw in a large portion of culture war.


----------



## KevinB (29 Sep 2021)

Haggis said:


> FTFY


 Yes I should have been clear -- same issue we have down here, the majority of "problem" guns are not legally owned.
   Imagine that...



Haggis said:


> According to the Liberals, straw purchases are a huge problem in Canada, even though only one or two a year are prosecuted.
> My post above pretty much explains why the Liberals are frequently targeting their gun control efforts at legal firearms and licensed owners.  In short, it's the low-hanging fruit.


I don't see it as low hanging fruit - I see it as social re-engineering.   Generally people who take guns away from a populace - want to do something to the populace that the populace would not willingly accept if they had guns.
 See the PM's best buddy in China, or any other totalitarian regime for a solid example.

We have MANY laws and if the current laws aren't enforced the point to making new ones is? 
One of the many reasons I have a zero tolerance policy on new gun laws.


----------



## Haggis (29 Sep 2021)

KevinB said:


> We have MANY laws and if the current laws aren't enforced the point to making new ones is?
> One of the many reasons I have a zero tolerance policy on new gun laws.


Polysesouvient has already written to the PM asking that a new, more zealous Public Safety Minister be appointed to finalize the Liberal election promises and more as quickly as possible.


----------



## Good2Golf (29 Sep 2021)

Haggis said:


> Polysesouvient has already written to the PM asking that a new, more zealous Public Safety Minister be appointed to finalize the Liberal election promises and more as quickly as possible.


And yet they still haven’t put China’s Peoples Liberation Army’s standard-issue assault rifle, the Norinco Type 97, on the list of banned weapons. 

#DoubleStandardForChineseDictators 

#LiberalsSoftOnChineseAssaultRifles


----------



## Haggis (29 Sep 2021)

Good2Golf said:


> And yet they still haven’t put China’s Peoples Liberation Army’s standard-issue assault rifle, the Norinco Type 97, on the list of banned weapons.
> 
> #DoubleStandardForChineseDictators
> 
> #LiberalsSoftOnChineseAssaultRifles


The SKS and Tavors aren't on the list, either, yet.  I suspect when Bill C-21 redux is tabled, all semi-auto centrefire rifles will be bound for reclassification to prohibited.


----------



## Good2Golf (29 Sep 2021)

Haggis said:


> The SKS and Tavors aren't on the list, either, yet.  I suspect when Bill C-21 redux is tabled, all semi-auto centrefire rifles will be bound for reclassification to prohibited.


Probably.  Frankly, I think a campaigning opportunity was *missed by O’Toole not to point out the hypocrisy of Trudeau/Blair on the whole issue.


----------



## Eaglelord17 (29 Sep 2021)

They also missed the opportunity to point out how the Liberals own policies (Bill C75) is what is causing this explosion of crime in our cities.

The true irony is that most gun crime in Canada is drug related. Those same drug users and dealers the Left actively protects and even tries to decriminalize the usage of. Most people though can't understand how their usage of illegal drugs (including Marijuana before it was legal) was fueling the very crime they were most terrified of. 

Obviously there is no quick solution to drug usage, if there was it would be done by now, but it is our societies tolerance of it which is becoming a serious problem. Where I live there is druggies strung out on our main streets and all over the place now, it wasn't anything like this 10 years ago, still was lots of usage never this public. They go house to house at night stealing whatever isn't bolted down. Absolutely amazing there hasn't been any street justice administered yet. We are at least watching a social experiment in action, how long can we go without the government providing order before some other group steps in and creates it.


----------



## Haggis (30 Sep 2021)

Good2Golf said:


> Frankly, I think a campaigning opportunity was *missed by O’Toole not to point out the hypocrisy of Trudeau/Blair on the whole issue.


O'Toole bungled the gun file completely during the French debate and never recovered.  He could've skewered Trudeau and seized the initiative at that point by simply stating that "assault weapons have been banned for 43 years. All you did was plan to spend a billion or more tax dollars to ban sporting and hunting firearms owned by licensed Canadians while letting gangs with illegal guns off scot-free.".


----------



## Kirkhill (13 Oct 2021)

How many arrows in that quiver lad?

Is that bow registered? 

Is it a war bow or a hunting bow?









						Norway bow and arrow attack: At least five people killed in Kongsberg
					

Man in his 30s has been arrested and charged after incident. which began in a supermarket




					www.telegraph.co.uk


----------



## KevinB (13 Oct 2021)

Kirkhill said:


> How many arrows in that quiver lad?
> 
> Is that bow registered?
> 
> ...


Clearly an Assault Bow


----------



## Kirkhill (13 Oct 2021)

Too bad there is a minimum length restriction on bows.  Think how much less damage could be done with 6 feet of yew.


----------



## mariomike (14 Oct 2021)

LittleBlackDevil said:


> Just consider a few recent cases where people were acquitted:
> 
> R. v. Peter Khill - summary of facts from the Ontario Court of Appeal decision on his case: [6] Mr. Khill and his then girlfriend, now wife, Millie Benko, lived in a single-story house in a rural area near Hamilton, Ontario. Mr. Khill was asleep at about 3:00 a.m. on February 4, 2016 when Ms. Benko woke him up and told him she had heard a loud banging. Mr. Khill listened and heard two loud bangs. He went to the bedroom window. From the window, he could see his 2001 pickup truck parked in the driveway. The dashboard lights were on indicating, to Mr. Khill, that some person or persons were either in the truck or had been in the truck
> ...
> ...


In today's news.



			https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/hamilton/peter-khill-jon-styres-supreme-court-decision-1.6209230


----------



## OldSolduer (14 Oct 2021)

LittleBlackDevil said:


> In my view, it is actually very unlikely for someone to actually be convicted of defending themselves inside their own home. They will most likely be charged and have to pay a lawyer lots of money and go through the stress of the court process, but they will most likely be acquitted in the end. Just consider a few recent cases where people were acquitted:
> 
> R. v. Peter Khill - summary of facts from the Ontario Court of Appeal decision on his case: [6] Mr. Khill and his then girlfriend, now wife, Millie Benko, lived in a single-story house in a rural area near Hamilton, Ontario. Mr. Khill was asleep at about 3:00 a.m. on February 4, 2016 when Ms. Benko woke him up and told him she had heard a loud banging. Mr. Khill listened and heard two loud bangs. He went to the bedroom window. From the window, he could see his 2001 pickup truck parked in the driveway. The dashboard lights were on indicating, to Mr. Khill, that some person or persons were either in the truck or had been in the truck
> ...
> ...


You weren't there and neither was I. The SOB won't be robbing anyone else.


----------



## KevinB (14 Oct 2021)

mariomike said:


> In today's news.
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/hamilton/peter-khill-jon-styres-supreme-court-decision-1.6209230


Thats pretty Fucked Up.


----------



## ModlrMike (14 Oct 2021)

There are second order effects because of the unique characteristics of the participants.


----------



## Halifax Tar (14 Oct 2021)

KevinB said:


> Thats pretty Fucked Up.



Welcome to Canada.


----------



## KevinB (14 Oct 2021)

Halifax Tar said:


> Welcome to Canada.


Common Law across the world has always been based on the principles of Self Defense.



ModlrMike said:


> There are second order effects because of the unique characteristics of the participants.


Yes non White Guy shot non White guy...

The Ontario Court of Appeals has some interesting ideas on reasonableness - which if it plays out without an acquittal will really rock the Canada.


----------



## KevinB (14 Oct 2021)

KevinB said:


> Because the time for edit went by what I meant was:
> 
> The Ontario Court of Appeals has some interesting ideas on reasonableness - which if it plays out without an acquittal will really rock the Canada Criminal Code and how force is applied across the board.


----------



## Brad Sallows (14 Oct 2021)

"In this case, I am satisfied that a properly instructed jury could find that Mr. Khill's prior conduct, leading up to his use of lethal force, was excessive"

That's awesome.  "Excessive prior conduct".


----------



## Colin Parkinson (14 Oct 2021)

"We will keep going till we get a verdict we like" Same wankers that ran Thompson through the grinder.


----------



## KevinB (14 Oct 2021)

Brad Sallows said:


> "In this case, I am satisfied that a properly instructed jury could find that Mr. Khill's prior conduct, leading up to his use of lethal force, was excessive"
> 
> That's awesome.  "Excessive prior conduct".


So much for the moment in time that can't be looked at with the benefit of hindsight...

Honestly "Excessive prior conduct" - was it illegal? No, was it wise - maybe not, but it was within his rights as the homeowner.
  It was not illegal for him to attempt ascertain the intentions and identify of the deceased.
  It wasn't illegal for him to attempt to detain the deceased once he realized the deceased was trying to break into his home.

The Criminal Code of Canada provides everyone the right to use reasonable force up to and including deadly force to protect ones self and others  life.

Defence — use or threat of force


*34* (1) A person is not guilty of an offence if
(a) they believe on reasonable grounds that force is being used against them or another person or that a threat of force is being made against them or another person;
(b) the act that constitutes the offence is committed for the purpose of defending or protecting themselves or the other person from that use or threat of force; and
(c) the act committed is reasonable in the circumstances.



  That to me is the main issue at stake. 

 I believe that it is reasonable to believe that one would be open to being assaulted with deadly intent if when one confronts someone at gun point - and ordered them to raise their hands, that then the attempted detainee makes a sudden movement in low light for their body that the person means to do me harm.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (14 Oct 2021)

KevinB said:


> So much for the moment in time that can't be looked at with the benefit of hindsight...
> 
> Honestly "Excessive prior conduct" - was it illegal? No, was it wise - maybe not, but it was within his rights as the homeowner.
> It was not illegal for him to attempt ascertain the intentions and identify of the deceased.
> ...


The Crown will likely argue that this is Canada, not the US; people don’t carry guns therefore you should not reasonably expect someone breaking into your car at 3:00am in your driveway to hurt you, when confronted…


----------



## suffolkowner (14 Oct 2021)

SeaKingTacco said:


> The Crown will likely argue that this is Canada, not the US; people don’t carry guns therefore you should not reasonably expect someone breaking into your car at 3:00am in your driveway to hurt you, when confronted…


While I have no doubt that would be the Crown's position, I don't think it's a reasonable position at all. Why do we in Canada go to such extraordinary lengths to justify the actions of criminals? We're supposed to assume that they're just there to do property damage and are not a personal threat? I don't understand or accept this way of thinking. I don't think that the police should be charging people in half the cases we hear about nor should the Crown proceed with the case. But then I also don't think the life of an intruder on my property is worth anything either and am confident that if such a situation were to arise it would be found that the intruder had in his/their possesion a firearm that they had discharged.


----------



## KevinB (14 Oct 2021)

SeaKingTacco said:


> The Crown will likely argue that this is Canada, not the US; people don’t carry guns therefore you should not reasonably expect someone breaking into your car at 3:00am in your driveway to hurt you, when confronted…


Gun, Machete, knife, Baseball bat - he did not comply with the order to raise his hands and took what any reasonable person would assume to be a hostile aggressive action.

Criminals trying to force their way into your dwelling at 300am aren't generally reasonable people - thus expectations of threat would be higher than a nun knocking on your door in daylight...


----------



## Brad Sallows (14 Oct 2021)

Authorities would prefer you call them.  Then the question of response time arises.

Best way I can see to ensure quick response is to claim a white guy with really short hair is beating up a transsexual PoC.  Dealing with the false claim later is probably worth it if the situation is genuinely life/limb-threatening.


----------



## KevinB (15 Oct 2021)

Brad Sallows said:


> Authorities would prefer you call them.  Then the question of response time arises.
> 
> Best way I can see to ensure quick response is to claim a white guy with really short hair is beating up a transsexual PoC.  Dealing with the false claim later is probably worth it if the situation is genuinely life/limb-threatening.


Oh I am all for calling 911, don't get me wrong.
I think the actions that lead up to the shooting where down right irresponsible and put he and his family at risk.
   BUT his actions were not illegal.
 It sounds like he is being judge more on the actions that lead up to the shooting, than the shooting itself - and while the lead up can be relevant - in this case since nothing illegal was done, and he was on his own property - they really don't (or shouldn't) have a bearing on the legality of the shooting.  

Now if the Crown had gone for Manslaughter - it would be different IMHO - but I don't see how one could go (even in Canada) for a 2nd Degree Murder charge and think it would stick.


----------



## Haggis (15 Oct 2021)

KevinB said:


> I think the actions that lead up to the shooting where down right irresponsible and put he and his family at risk.


Indeed.  In LE circles this is called "officer induced jeopardy".  He knowingly escalated the situation and put himself, his family and the criminal at risk.  He is charged with murder.  The essential element of this is that he must have caused the death of the victim.  So, if he had not taken the steps that he did, would the end result have been the death of the victim?  The mens rea will be important for the Crown to prove.  Was his intent to stop the theft or to induce a lethal confrontation?


----------



## KevinB (15 Oct 2021)

Haggis said:


> Indeed.  In LE circles this is called "officer induced jeopardy".  He knowingly escalated the situation and put himself, his family and the criminal at risk.


He did have a right to ascertain the actions and the identify of the individual on his property.
   While it may have been dumb, it wasn't illegal.  
 As an individual as opposed to a trained LEO - he isn't judged to the same standard. 



Haggis said:


> He is charged with murder.  The essential element of this is that he must have caused the death of the victim.  So, if he had not taken the steps that he did, would the end result have been the death of the victim?


Causation needs to be looked from the immediate events.   Totality of the circumstance works for explaining the actions of the moment in time - Not necessarily everything that led up to the incident should be used.



Haggis said:


> The mens rea will be important for the Crown to prove.  Was his intent to stop the theft or to induce a lethal confrontation?


   Totally agree there as the onus is on the Crown to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt, that Khill would have gone down looking for a violent encounter.   
   I would argue that bringing a firearm is a wise precaution when confronting anyone in/around their home at night.


----------



## Haggis (15 Oct 2021)

KevinB said:


> He did have a right to ascertain the actions and the identify of the individual on his property.
> While it may have been dumb, it wasn't illegal.
> As an individual as opposed to a trained LEO - he isn't judged to the same standard.


In his original trial, he argued that it was his military training that guided his actions.  He was not, therefore, holding himself out to be simply a lay person.


KevinB said:


> I would argue that bringing a firearm is a wise precaution when confronting anyone in/around their home at night.


Was a confrontation necessary? Could the event have been deescalated by other means?


----------



## SeaKingTacco (15 Oct 2021)

Haggis said:


> In his original trial, he argued that it was his military training that guided his actions.  He was not, therefore, holding himself out to be simply a lay person.
> 
> Was a confrontation necessary? Could the event have been deescalated by other means?


Is the Crown position going to be that you do not have the right to confront a trespasser on your property?

That would have massive Common Law implications.


----------



## Haggis (15 Oct 2021)

SeaKingTacco said:


> Is the Crown position going to be that you do not have the right to confront a trespasser on your property?
> 
> That would have massive Common Law implications.


I have no idea and I agree that would be a bad road to go down if it results in case law that you do not have the right to defend property by any means. 

However, the Crown may argue that confronting the trespasser wasn't *necessary*, even if legal, and led to the escalation and eventual death of the trespasser.  Khill could have kept eyes on and called 9-1-1.  Or, he could've turned on a porch light (trespassers hate light) or yelled out a window. According to the SCC Case in Brief, Khill did none of these thing, but initiated an armed confrontation instead.  Was there a need for him to conduct an armed confrontation - even if legally allowed - will be key.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (15 Oct 2021)

Haggis said:


> I have no idea and I agree that would be a bad road to go down if it results in case law that you do not have the right to defend property by any means.
> 
> However, the Crown may argue that confronting the trespasser wasn't *necessary*, even if legal, and led to the escalation and eventual death of the trespasser.  Khill could have kept eyes on and called 9-1-1.  Or, he could've turned on a porch light (trespassers hate light) or yelled out a window. According to the SCC Case in Brief, Khill did none of these thing, but initiated an armed confrontation instead.  Was there a need for him to conduct an armed confrontation - even if legally allowed - will be key.


I am all for proportionality- one does not apply lethal force to stop somebody from stealing the change out of your car ashtray. 

But.

If the SCC gets this wrong, it could have the effect of forcing people to be mind readers when intruders are on their property/in their homes, especially at night. With perfect hindsight, in this case the intruder was unarmed. But, what if he wasn’t and did have a knife or gun? What if the vehicle robbery was just the appetizer to a home invasion?

There is also the frustration factor: if people are  subjected to an ongoing string of petty crime that the police forces/governments are unwilling to deal with in any meaningful way, at what point are they also culpable for what happens when that frustration boils over?

These are not easy issues. If the SCC wants to take self defence off of the table (I am not sure that will be the outcome of this case) in the face of crime, then the other side of the coin has to be massively increased police forces/enforcement, does it not? Is this mot the opposite of “defund the police”?


----------



## KevinB (15 Oct 2021)

Haggis said:


> I have no idea and I agree that would be a bad road to go down if it results in case law that you do not have the right to defend property by any means.


It will ripple through very many other things as well...



Haggis said:


> However, the Crown may argue that confronting the trespasser wasn't *necessary*, even if legal, and led to the escalation and eventual death of the trespasser.


Many things are not necessarily - but the end result is IF the deceased hadn't been trying to break in - none of this would have happened.



Haggis said:


> Khill could have kept eyes on and called 9-1-1.  Or, he could've turned on a porch light (trespassers hate light) or yelled out a window. According to the SCC Case in Brief, Khill did none of these thing, but initiated an armed confrontation instead.


 He definitely SHOULD have done some (or all) those things - but I'd argue that being a Reservist in the CF for a few years doesn't make one a tactical genius.
    He however did not initiate the confrontation - the deceased did when he tried to break into the accused's residence.


Haggis said:


> Was there a need for him to conduct an armed confrontation - even if legally allowed - will be key.


That really doesn't matter.  The fact was he was legally allowed to do so is the only factor (or should be).
   Also I would argue without being able to get a Positive ID, ll turning there porch light on would do is kick the scan down the road - and the next person would have been a victim when the deceased broke in.
 One could argue the moral imperative to ascertain ID to turn over to LE (yeah he should have called the cops first).

Let's face it the ONLY reason that this is getting play by the SCC is the fact the deceased was a FN.
   It's politically motivated - and short of a re-write to the Charter and Canadian Criminal Code, this is just a BS attempt to inflict "the sins of the parents on the child".

From the Canadian Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms.
    7. Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.


----------



## KevinB (15 Oct 2021)

SeaKingTacco said:


> I am all for proportionality- one does not apply lethal force to stop somebody from stealing the change out of your car ashtray.


I'd call that a Mathusian Check 

Same issue occurs here in Virginia - we don't have the same response options for defense of property as Texas or Florida does - there is no duty to retreat, but lethal force is not authorized for property offenses.
   That said - when things go bump in the night, I will look first before dialing 911 - and I am always armed, but I look first, because I know 1) LE response times for 'bump in the night' calls are fairly long - and if I can ascertain first if there is an issue that requires LE response or not, if I don't need LE - I free up a car to respond to something that needs to be responded too -- also if I do need LE response - I will be able to articulate that to the dispatch officer so a car arrives quickly.
  Given I have Night Vision and belt fed machine guns at my residence - I don't usually call 911 



SeaKingTacco said:


> But.
> 
> If the SCC gets this wrong, it could have the effect of forcing people to be mind readers when intruders are on their property/in their homes, especially at night. With perfect hindsight, in this case the intruder was unarmed. But, what if he wasn’t and did have a knife or gun? What if the vehicle robbery was just the appetizer to a home invasion?


It also won't stop at the individual - this will have massive issues for LE as well.



SeaKingTacco said:


> There is also the frustration factor: if people are  subjected to an ongoing string of petty crime that the police forces/governments are unwilling to deal with in any meaningful way, at what point are they also culpable for what happens when that frustration boils over?
> 
> These are not easy issues. If the SCC wants to take self defence off of the table (I am not sure that will be the outcome of this case) in the face of crime, then the other side of the coin has to be massively increased police forces/enforcement, does it not? Is this mot the opposite of “defund the police”?


If the SCC takes Self Defense off the table for Canadians  - that will also have Unintended Consequences - as it will overflow into the LE world - and how criminals are confronted, and what is reasonable force.
   People on both sides will use that - and the only winner will be the criminals.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (15 Oct 2021)

There has been quite a few successful self defense cases in Canada involving a firearm. People see this as a "petty crime" but how much crime is a home owner to endure? Theft of property and money in our society is actually a form of "Theft of time". We all have a finite amount of time to accumulate assets to provide for our families and our retirement. Theft depletes that amount always. At some point the victim can no longer recover from it.


----------



## KevinB (15 Oct 2021)

Colin Parkinson said:


> There has been quite a few successful self defense cases in Canada involving a firearm. People see this as a "petty crime" but how much crime is a home owner to endure? Theft of property and money in our society is actually a form of "Theft of time". We all have a finite amount of time to accumulate assets to provide for our families and our retirement. Theft depletes that amount always. At some point the victim can no longer recover from it.


I think you are viewing it wrong -- the issue isn't the theft itself -- it is the manner of theft - if there was violence or not involved in it.

 If someone comes up and says "give me your wallet" 
You have two COA's 1) Give the wallet 2) Refuse

 If you chose COA 1, you cannot then act with force - unless the robbery doesn't stop there.
   If you chose COA 2, the matter of what the robber does then relates to what you can do.

Civil society is based on the reasonableness of actions - and the minimum of force needed to accomplish a task.

Disparity of Force and Proportionality also dictate what levels of force can be used for Self Defense.
 Down here case law exists on Disparity of Force justify the use of deadly force in situations where one if either dealing with multiple assailants - or a physical strength difference.

As well Deadly Force is Deadly Force - if you are attacked by a knife - you can use any means necessary to defend ones self, you don't need to use a knife - you can use a firearm.
   *Again reasonableness - as an individual can't just shoot a guy at 100m because he had a knife and says 'I am going to kill you'.

Also if ones home is broken into when one is at home, most jurisdictions have found that a reasonable person would believe that harm up to and including the threat of death or gross bodily harm would befall them (or friends/family at the location) and deadly force can be used to defend ones self in those instances.
  *Some US States do have duty to retreat laws - that basically make one withdraw if one can before deadly force is authorized - while in Florida one can shoot someone who is trying to take the hubcaps off ones car in their driveway, and have full Castle Doctrine.
**Some states have provisions that also block civil suits in that case - but not all.

The end result is no one case is identical - but I can pretty much guarantee claiming theft of time isn't an affirmative defense for anything.


----------



## OldSolduer (15 Oct 2021)

Colin Parkinson said:


> There has been quite a few successful self defense cases in Canada involving a firearm. People see this as a "petty crime" but how much crime is a home owner to endure? Theft of property and money in our society is actually a form of "Theft of time". We all have a finite amount of time to accumulate assets to provide for our families and our retirement. Theft depletes that amount always. At some point the victim can no longer recover from it.


In 1986 we relocated to Calgary from NS. At the time a local businessman was on trial for murder. He shot an armed robber to death and then chased the co robber and beat the tar out of him. 
He was subsequently charged, tried and found not guilty. He had been robbed three times and IIRC it was the same robber every time.

The gutter skank girlfriend of the dead robber (he's not a victim) was upset as the robber was only looking for rent money.


----------



## QV (15 Oct 2021)

KevinB said:


> Gun, Machete, knife, Baseball bat - he did not comply with the order to raise his hands and took what any reasonable person would assume to be a hostile aggressive action.
> 
> Criminals trying to force their way into your dwelling at 300am aren't generally reasonable people - thus expectations of threat would be higher than a nun knocking on your door in daylight...


Criminals breaking into a home or vehicle usually use "break in tools" like crow bars, hammers, screw drivers, ect... any of which doubles as a weapon which can then present a threat of death or grievous bodily harm.


----------



## mariomike (15 Oct 2021)

OldSolduer said:


> In 1986 we relocated to Calgary from NS. At the time a local businessman was on trial for murder. He shot an armed robber to death and then chased the co robber and beat the tar out of him.
> He was subsequently charged, tried and found not guilty. He had been robbed three times and IIRC it was the same robber every time.
> 
> The gutter skank girlfriend of the dead robber (he's not a victim) was upset as the robber was only looking for rent money.


Steve Kesler.


----------



## OldSolduer (15 Oct 2021)

mariomike said:


> Steve Kesler.


Thank you I thought that was it. He actually offered a job to my wife.


----------



## LittleBlackDevil (16 Oct 2021)

OldSolduer said:


> You weren't there and neither was I. The SOB won't be robbing anyone else.


100% I was not there.

Upon further reflection, while the contents of my car are not worth my life or anyone's life, I would rather live in a country where a homeowner is given every benefit of a doubt than otherwise. So from that perspective the initial acquittal was right. 

Completely independent of the foregoing considerations, the repeated Crown appeals in this case are wrong. Appeals of acquittals should be extremely rare and reserved for actual scumbags, not honest citizens who (maybe, and at worst) went a bit too far in a highly stressful/potentially dangerous situation.


----------



## LittleBlackDevil (16 Oct 2021)

SeaKingTacco said:


> The Crown will likely argue that this is Canada, not the US; people don’t carry guns therefore you should not reasonably expect someone breaking into your car at 3:00am in your driveway to hurt you, when confronted…


More accurately, in Canada honest citizens don't carry guns because they're not allowed. But that in no way means that criminals don't.

Although your point is accurate, the Crown will no doubt make the claim.


----------



## brihard (16 Oct 2021)

Sorry guys, not to be a dick, but it’s pretty evident that little attention is being paid here to what the court was actually deciding on.

He was originally acquitted at trial court. This was a jury decision.

The crown appealed it to the Ontario Court of Appeal. That court held that the judge had fatally erred in their instruction to the jury. The SCC ruled affirming the same.

In a jury trial, it’s absolutely essential that the judge’s instructions to the jury accurately communicate all relevant points of law. In the case at bar, the judge failed to communicate the requirements of S.34(2)(c) of the Criminal Code. That is the section that requires the court to consider the person’s role in the incident. The jury, to make a legally correct and informed decision, needs to understand this point of law, but the judge failed to convey that to them

The courts have not held that Khill’s actions were inappropriate or illegal. Rather, they concluded from the evidence that a properly instructed jury _could_ (not would) reasonably reach the conclusion that Khill’s actions contributed sufficiently to the escalation in the use of force that a self defense claim is not satisfied.

The order for a new trial is intended to rectify this, and to allow a properly instructed jury to return a verdict based on the facts but also with a full and adequate understanding of how self defense law applies.

In a jury system, ensuring proper jury instruction is an important safeguard. The judge manifestly failed on this one, and an appeal by crown was appropriate. He absolutely deserves a fair trial, but along with that the public interest demands juries be instructed properly- particularly in cases of literal life and death.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (17 Oct 2021)

KevinB said:


> Given I have Night Vision and belt fed machine guns at my residence - I don't usually call 911


👍


----------



## KevinB (18 Oct 2021)

brihard said:


> Sorry guys, not to be a dick, but it’s pretty evident that little attention is being paid here to what the court was actually deciding on.
> 
> He was originally acquitted at trial court. This was a jury decision.
> 
> ...


This is where we really differ.
    The Jury is supposed to be random reasonable people without extensive knowledge of the law - and judge from what a reasonable person would do.

Furthermore some of the changes to the CCC are rathe rmindboggling.





						Self-Defence - Detailed Examination of New Section 34 of the Criminal Code - Bill C-26 (S.C. 2012 c. 9) Reforms to Self-Defence and Defence of Property: Technical Guide for Practitioners
					

Department of Justice Canada's Internet site




					www.justice.gc.ca
				




It is crucial to note that removal of the element of "unlawful assault" does not reflect Parliament's view that the facts surrounding the instigation of the assault are not relevant or that self-defence may regularly be invoked against lawful touchings. . Rather, the requirement was removed primarily to simplify the fact-finding process, and secondarily to allow for the defence to be raised in rare cases where this it might be appropriate, notwithstanding that the person was responding to force that might have been lawful.

There are very few situations in which an unwanted touching, which is by definition an assault, will not be unlawful. However, since the elimination of "unlawful assault" in principle permits a defensive response to lawful applications of force, a number of other features of the new law were introduced specifically to minimize the situations in which such conduct could be permitted: 

Paragraph 34(1)(b) – the defence now requires some evidence that the accused's purpose was defensive in nature (e.g. resisting an attempt by a shopkeeper to make a citizen's arrest after a theft in order to escape would not satisfy this requirement) 
Paragraph 34(2)(c) allows for consideration of the accused's role in the incident in determining whether their actions were reasonable (e.g. if the accused instigated the confrontation)
Paragraph 34(2)(h) allows for consideration of the accused's knowledge of the lawful nature of the force they are responding to in determining whether their actions were reasonable (e.g. orderlies in hospitals may have the authority under common law or provincial legislation to use force to restrain patients who pose a danger to themselves or others; the patient's knowledge that orderlies have this authority may be relevant to assessing the reasonableness of their defensive responses to such actions)
Paragraph 34(3) expressly limits the most likely scenario involving a claim to self defence against lawful conduct, i.e. cases involving the reactions against the use of force by the police.

But I believe Brihard is incorrect in this, as the intent of the change was to streamline the fact finding process. 
   Also when one looks at 34(1)(b) there clearly wasn't an intent to remove to the ability of the individual to attempt use force (Citizen's Arrest) in defence of person or property - and any 32(2)(c) was not intended to be used in the manner the Ontario Court of Appeal or SCC are attempting to suggest.





brihard said:


> The courts have not held that Khill’s actions were inappropriate or illegal. Rather, they concluded from the evidence that a properly instructed jury _could_ (not would) reasonably reach the conclusion that Khill’s actions contributed sufficiently to the escalation in the use of force that a self defense claim is not satisfied.
> 
> The order for a new trial is intended to rectify this, and to allow a properly instructed jury to return a verdict based on the facts but also with a full and adequate understanding of how self defense law applies.
> 
> In a jury system, ensuring proper jury instruction is an important safeguard. The judge manifestly failed on this one, and an appeal by crown was appropriate. He absolutely deserves a fair trial, but along with that the public interest demands juries be instructed properly- particularly in cases of literal life and death.


That isn't what is being done here --


----------



## brihard (18 Oct 2021)

The jury is to be comprised of our ‘peers’, yes, but they are also expected to return a legally defensible verdict. The _instruction_ to the jury of how to apply the law is absolutely essentially for the system to function properly. They aren’t legal experts and proper jury instruction by the judge don’t turn them into that, but it _does_ equip them to properly and knowledgeably apply the law pertaining to the case- to make sure that the law is applied the way Parliament intended. This is what both the Ontario Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court or Canada sided with.


----------



## KevinB (18 Oct 2021)

brihard said:


> The jury is to be comprised of our ‘peers’, yes, but they are also expected to return a legally defensible verdict. The _instruction_ to the jury of how to apply the law is absolutely essentially for the system to function properly. They aren’t legal experts and proper jury instruction by the judge don’t turn them into that, but it _does_ equip them to properly and knowledgeably apply the law pertaining to the case- to make sure that the law is applied the way Parliament intended. This is what both the Ontario Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court or Canada sided with.


Neither the OCOA or the SCC appear to have looked at the intent of both the amendments to the law, and the purpose to appeals.

-- one is only supposed to overturn a lower court IF a rule of law was violated that would cause a miscarriage of justice.

 - the problem is both of those Courts are looking at Paragraph 34(2)(c) in a vacuum - and not what the entire purpose of it was.
    Which was part of the streamlining process for the removal of the unlawful assault portion.  

 What they are doing in this case is effectively undoing the law by choosing to reimagine the reasonings behind the changes.
34(2)(c) the person's role in the incident;​This factor in part serves to bring into play considerations surrounding the accused's own role in instigating or escalating the incident. Under the old law, the distinction between section 34 and 35 was based on the defender's role in commencing the incident, creating higher thresholds for accessing the defence where the accused was the provoker of the incident, as opposed to an innocent victim. As the new law contains only one defence that does not distinguish between conflicts commenced by the accused and those commenced by the victim, this paragraph signals that, where the facts suggest the accused played a role in bringing the conflict about, that fact should be taken into account in deliberations about whether his or her ultimate response was reasonable in the circumstances.

The problem is that the OCOA and SCC are using that to change the narrative.
   Investigating on ones property isn't instigating - and neither is bringing a firearm on ones own property.


 There is a big difference in this case - and the Courts are not following any of the guidance in them.


----------



## KevinB (18 Oct 2021)

More food for thought before I grab lunch.

 Self Defense is an Affirmative Defense - meaning you use it at trial not before.

  In this way it is similar to HR 218 down here - the LEOSA (Law Enforcement Safety Officers Act).  Which allows non Federal LE to carry country wide - as well as retired members.  I carried all over the US, and generally it wasn't an issue - it could have been, as in theory I could have been arrested for carrying a gun in a state I did not have a carry permit for - I would then have needed to claim that at Trail as my defense.
  Most LEO - or at least the District Attorney's would kick those out well before trial - because upon seeing the facts, they where not going to get a conviction.

 The same happens for Self Defense - clearly the Crown believed there was a case, or it would have been dropped upon review by the Crown Prosecutors Office - they attempted to make one, and Khill was acquitted.


The OCOA missed the entire point of the 2012 changes to the Self Defence Law in Canada.


----------



## Halifax Tar (21 Oct 2021)

Affidavits and guns, as firearm ban still stuck in court​
A flood of affidavits from gun experts and sport shooters has risen to the forefront in the Federal Court battle over the Liberal gun ban, after the presiding judge in a 16-month legal battle laid out deadlines to a possible finish line next spring.

More at link:








						Affidavits and guns, as firearm ban still stuck in court
					

A flood of affidavits from gun experts and sport shooters has risen to the forefront in the Federal Court battle over the Liberal gun ban, after the presiding judge in a 16-month legal battle laid out deadlines to a possible finish line next spring. Following a case conference between Associate...




					ipolitics.ca


----------



## Halifax Tar (29 Oct 2021)

Another gun on the list... 





__ https://www.facebook.com/215496085497522/posts/1561985920848525


----------



## calculus (29 Oct 2021)

Halifax Tar said:


> Another gun on the list...
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Clearly, we need to start building AR-style rifles with wooden stocks. Less "scary" looking....


----------



## KevinB (29 Oct 2021)

Halifax Tar said:


> Another gun on the list...
> 
> 
> 
> ...


That is asinine - but it clearly shows the Liberals are coming for all guns in Canada.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (29 Oct 2021)

The only reason they didn't ban them all at once, is they want to milk the vote cow for as long as possible.


----------



## KevinB (29 Oct 2021)

Colin Parkinson said:


> The only reason they didn't ban them all at once, is they want to milk the vote cow for as long as possible.


Boiling Frog - turn the heat up gradually so it cooks in ignorance - as opposed to it jumping out of the boiling pot if dropped right in.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (29 Oct 2021)

nah for the most part this frog knows it's being cooked, even the Fudds are getting it for a change.


----------



## Eaglelord17 (30 Oct 2021)

If they ban all at once they lose their wedge issue. 

Politicians tend to be fairly simple, they act towards whatever issues they think will get them elected, and don't get rid or solve those issues because how would they get elected again. 

Firearms weren't a Liberal agenda for two decades until recently with polls indicating firearms owners basically won't vote Liberal, therefore they have no reason to appease them. 

The smartest thing firearms owners could do at the moment is all join the Liberal party and vote to change their party policy on firearms. If you convinced even 1/5 of firearms owners to do it, every political party in Canada would have a pro-firearms stance. But unfortunately I think that is just a pipe dream. That is how you bring about effective change for us, but it has to be a collective acting on it. Otherwise it basically looks like it will be a slow decay until someone finally bans them all.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (30 Oct 2021)

While the idea might work, the problem is the Liberal Party machine is adept to nullifying anything it does not like from the unwashed masses, so regardless of what the result of the vote, they will sideline it if they don't like the result.


----------



## OldSolduer (30 Oct 2021)

As others have more eloquently said, this "Liberal" Party is not the Liberal Party of the past. Its aggressive and elitist. And I don't think for one minute our current PM has the brains to put this all together. 

But as a past PM said IIRC "the Liberal party is just a means to an end".


----------



## Jarnhamar (10 Nov 2021)

Gotta love this guy. He puts a round into someone killing them due to him pointing a gun at someone and pulling the trigger for some reason, after series of failures leading up to that point, in an environment allegedly full of safety concerns and violations.  His answer is to have police on set to monitor safety.


Alec Baldwin calls for police to be on sets with guns​


			Alec Baldwin calls for police to be on sets with guns


----------



## Fishbone Jones (10 Nov 2021)

Jarnhamar said:


> Gotta love this guy. He puts a round into someone killing them due to him pointing a gun at someone and pulling the trigger for some reason, after series of failures leading up to that point, in an environment allegedly full of safety concerns and violations.  His answer is to have police on set to monitor safety.
> 
> 
> Alec Baldwin calls for police to be on sets with guns​
> ...


He keeps trying to get out ahead of it before the lawsuits start. His lawyer has told him a number of times to STFU, but being the typical liberal socialist, he just doesn't get it.


----------



## OldSolduer (10 Nov 2021)

Fishbone Jones said:


> He keeps trying to get out ahead of it before the lawsuits start. His lawyer has told him a number of times to STFU, but being the typical liberal socialist, he just doesn't get it.


No one said actors are smart.


----------



## Haggis (10 Nov 2021)

Jarnhamar said:


> Gotta love this guy. He puts a round into someone killing them due to him pointing a gun at someone and pulling the trigger for some reason, after series of failures leading up to that point, in an environment allegedly full of safety concerns and violations.  His answer is to have police on set to monitor safety.
> 
> 
> Alec Baldwin calls for police to be on sets with guns​
> ...


Sigh....

This podcast from Slamfire Radio features a Canadian movie armourer describing, in excruciating detail, the steps that he follows and what Baldwin's crew should've followed.

In short, after listening to this, any sane person would say the police on Baldwin's set should be arresting a few folks for criminal negligence causing death.


----------



## Haggis (8 Feb 2022)

It's been fascinating to watch the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security (SECU) hearings on illegal guns, gun smuggling and gang violence. The statements today (Feb 08) of the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, Toronto and Edmonton Police Services all completely undermine and destroy the Liberal's assertions that domestic guns are *the* major threat to Canadian safety. 

Media and government figures from 2018 showed that only about half of all crime guns are successfully traced.  The Deputy Chief of the TPS stated that of those that are successfully traced, 86% were sourced from the US.


----------



## Halifax Tar (8 Feb 2022)

Haggis said:


> It's been fascinating to watch the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security (SECU) hearings on illegal guns, gun smuggling and gang violence. The statements today (Feb 08) of the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, Toronto and Edmonton Police Services all completely undermine and destroy the Liberal's assertions that domestic guns are *the* major threat to Canadian safety.
> 
> Media and government figures from 2018 showed that only about half of all crime guns are successfully traced.  The Deputy Chief of the TPS stated that of those that are successfully traced, 86% were sourced from the US.



None of this matters to the shivering quivering liberals.  Guns are bad*. 

*Unless they are used to quell dissenting thoughts, movements, individuals or groups that's do not align with the Liberal Party of Canada.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (8 Feb 2022)

Haggis said:


> It's been fascinating to watch the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security (SECU) hearings on illegal guns, gun smuggling and gang violence. The statements today (Feb 08) of the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, Toronto and Edmonton Police Services all completely undermine and destroy the Liberal's assertions that domestic guns are *the* major threat to Canadian safety.
> 
> Media and government figures from 2018 showed that only about half of all crime guns are successfully traced.  The Deputy Chief of the TPS stated that of those that are successfully traced, 86% were sourced from the US.


is there a link to it, can't find anything on their website?


----------



## Haggis (8 Feb 2022)

Colin Parkinson said:


> is there a link to it, can't find anything on their website?


The ParlVu website contains links to all the televised/videoconferenced proceedings, both live and archived.  The next SECU hearing is on Thursday at 1100 EST.


----------



## suffolkowner (8 Feb 2022)

What's the latest rumours about the gun buyback/confiscation?


----------



## Haggis (8 Feb 2022)

suffolkowner said:


> What's the latest rumours about the gun buyback/confiscation?


Depends on who you ask. There are 81 days until the amnesty expires and no apparent plans  on the execution of the _Compensated Confiscation __(TM)_ scheme or to rescind the OIC or extend the amnesty.


----------



## Halifax Tar (8 Feb 2022)

Haggis said:


> Depends on who you ask. There are 81 days until the amnesty expires and no apparent plans  on the execution of the _Compensated Confiscation __(TM)_ scheme or to rescind the OIC or extend the amnesty.



So what happens when that 81 days expires ?


----------



## Haggis (8 Feb 2022)

Halifax Tar said:


> So what happens when that 81 days expires ?


Certain parties are insisting that confiscation proceed without compensation while the compensation planning continues.  In truth...I have no idea, something I probably have in common with the Liberals.


----------



## Halifax Tar (8 Feb 2022)

So if I have a rifle that's no longer welcome what should I be doing in the next 81 days ?


----------



## RedFive (8 Feb 2022)

double tap


----------



## RedFive (8 Feb 2022)

Halifax Tar said:


> So if I have a rifle that's no longer welcome what should I be doing in the next 81 days ?


Your thoughtcrime will have been detected by the Ministry of Love, and your agent will be on their way to seize you and your firearm to be introduced to Room 101.


----------



## Haggis (8 Feb 2022)

Halifax Tar said:


> So if I have a rifle that's no longer welcome what should I be doing in the next 81 days ?


My suggestion is to clean it and practice your manual of arms in the event the OIC is overturned in court.  ACTS and PROVE first, of course.


----------



## Halifax Tar (9 Feb 2022)

Haggis said:


> My suggestion is to clean it and practice your manual of arms in the event the OIC is overturned in court.  ACTS and PROVE first, of course.



I appreciate it.  The OIC came out and I was deployed and I've been very confused about what I'm a supposed to do.  

Should the OIC stand I can apply to keep her as a safe queen eh ?


----------



## KevinB (9 Feb 2022)

In the words of the immortal Ralph Klein - Shoot, Shovel, ShutUp


----------



## Haggis (9 Feb 2022)

Halifax Tar said:


> I appreciate it.  The OIC came out and I was deployed and I've been very confused about what I'm a supposed to do.
> 
> Should the OIC stand I can apply to keep her as a safe queen eh ?


Maybe.  

Based on the original wording of the OIC, yes, you could have kept it as a safe queen until you died at which time it would have to be turned in for destruction.  Then came Bill C-21, which amplified how the newly prohibited "assault-style" weapons would be disposed of.  You could surrender it for (possible eventual) compensation or you would be allowed to retain it as a wall-hanger/display piece following a permanent deactivation paid for by the GoC. 

Because Bill C-21 died on the order paper when the writ was dropped, only the Liberals know what the plan is/may be now and how much it will cost.  There are still court challenges to the OIC but they won't reach finality before the amnesty expires.  

The usual suspects are calling for the GoC to begin confiscation and destruction as quickly as possible after may 01, 2022 to ensure as many prohibs as possible are out of circulation before another election so a new government cannot reverse the ban.


----------



## Haggis (16 Feb 2022)

Yesterday's SECU hearing was interesting.  One of the witnesses was Marcell Wilson, founder of the One by One Movement in Toronto which aims to divert youth from the gang lifestyle.  He is a reformed gang-banger, a self described former violent criminal and recognized expert on gang culture.  In committee, he stated that "gun control should always be synonymous with illegal gun crime and illegal gun trafficking".

He was followed by Polsesouvient and the Coalition for Gun Control who spoke ONLY on the need to crack down on legal guns and owners, not gangs and illegal guns, the actual topic of the hearing.

When it was all over, Polsesouvient tweeted this.  Despite all the good that One X One has done, this proof positive that if you don't toe the Liberal funded anti-gun line, you will be vilified.


----------



## The Bread Guy (16 Feb 2022)

Haggis said:


> ... if you don't toe the Liberal funded anti-gun line, you will be vilified.


Like the Marxist-Leninists dinging the NDP for not being left _enough_.


----------



## OldSolduer (16 Feb 2022)

The Bread Guy said:


> Like the Marxist-Leninists dinging the NDP for not being left _enough_.


But the Proletariat wants gun control.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (16 Feb 2022)

suffolkowner said:


> What's the latest rumours about the gun buyback/confiscation?


CSSA says this was sent to firearm retailers


----------



## Halifax Tar (16 Feb 2022)

Colin Parkinson said:


> CSSA says this was sent to firearm retailers
> 
> View attachment 68736



Ya thats been all over my social media...  If I owned a business no way would I be willingly offering this information.


----------



## Remius (16 Feb 2022)

Halifax Tar said:


> Ya thats been all over my social media...  If I owned a business no way would I be willingly offering this information.


Matches up with all the gun control ads I’ve been seeing on tv of late.


----------



## The Bread Guy (16 Feb 2022)

OldSolduer said:


> But the Proletariat wants gun control.


Now* that *depends on who you ask/quote - this from Marx & Engels circa 1850 ... 


> ... Where the workers are employed by the state, they must arm and organize themselves into special corps with elected leaders, or as a part of the proletarian guard. Under no pretext should arms and ammunition be surrendered; any attempt to disarm the workers must be frustrated, by force if necessary ...


More on those who want to emphasize the "Red" in "redneck" here (2017, via UK media).


----------



## Haggis (16 Feb 2022)

Halifax Tar said:


> Ya that's been all over my social media...  If I owned a business no way would I be willingly offering this information.


It wouldn't surprise me at all if business that didn't reply or were found to be subverting the program were threatened with the loss of their Firearms Business License.


Remius said:


> Matches up with all the gun control ads I’ve been seeing on tv of late.


That's called "shaping the battlespace".

What I would love to see at tomorrow's hearing is Poly's tweet mentioned and that they be censured for it.  Wishful thinking, I know.


----------



## Eaglelord17 (8 Mar 2022)

Special Investigations Unit -- News Release
					

This is the News Release page of the SIU website.




					www.siu.on.ca
				




I strongly question if that is what happened or it was just the cops covering there tracks after shooting him. Lots of questions with this case as it doesn't seem to add up to me.


----------



## Halifax Tar (8 Mar 2022)

Eaglelord17 said:


> Special Investigations Unit -- News Release
> 
> 
> This is the News Release page of the SIU website.
> ...



Is it's anything like NS and an inquiry will be launched there is no doubt it will be transparent and provide an honest overview of the "what happened".


----------



## Haggis (8 Mar 2022)

Eaglelord17 said:


> Special Investigations Unit -- News Release
> 
> 
> This is the News Release page of the SIU website.
> ...


I've read the entire report. The big and never-to-be-answered question is what was going through Roger Kotanko's mind when the police showed up. Surprisingly, there were no security cameras in or outside the shop.


----------



## suffolkowner (8 Mar 2022)

Yeah I looked at the report a while ago and while I dont know Rodger well(always thought it was Roger), Ive met him a few times and have a few friends that he has done work for. We and they are having a hard time buying it. It doesn't make any sense to us at all. I dont understand why he would pick up the firearm. Who is the customer? Questionable on the whole warrant thing. Why didn't they contact him anyways he has done a ton of work with police forces as I understand it. 

I'm going to stop before I get myself in trouble


----------



## KevinB (9 Mar 2022)

One might think he didn’t think they where LE, but criminals there to rob him, or if he was partially deaf and/or blind.  

Very odd to have a gun shop without security cameras these days.  Most insurance companies demand them, both interior and exterior.


----------



## Haggis (16 Mar 2022)

Through another Order in Council, the Liberal Government has extended the amnesty period of the May 1st, 2020 gun ban OIC until October 30, 2023.


----------



## Booter (16 Mar 2022)

Eaglelord17 said:


> Special Investigations Unit -- News Release
> 
> 
> This is the News Release page of the SIU website.
> ...


The complete report is there. Where the person, the customer, when interviewed states they were shocked that Rodger retrieved the pistol like he did when police entered.






						Special Investigations Unit -- Director's Report Details, Case Number: 21-TFD-373
					

This is the [...] page of the SIU website.




					siu.on.ca
				




It’s possible that they didn’t have the full report linked when they released the synopsis


----------



## KevinB (16 Mar 2022)

Booter said:


> The complete report is there. Where the person, the customer, when interviewed states they were shocked that Rodger retrieved the pistol like he did when police entered.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


It didn't have it when I first looked at it.

  Unfortunate result - but one cannot fault the officer for shooting in the circumstances.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (16 Mar 2022)

I find it hard to believe that a competent gun smith would let bad guys use his guns without attempting to remove serial numbers and the like. Perhaps guns sold by the gunsmith?


----------



## KevinB (16 Mar 2022)

Colin Parkinson said:


> I find it hard to believe that a competent gun smith would let bad guys use his guns without attempting to remove serial numbers and the like. Perhaps guns sold by the gunsmith?


The Firearms were not logged out of the shop.
   Serial Numbers had been defaced - but where able to be determined on detailed exam (I won't get into what can be done and how to defeat it here).


----------



## Colin Parkinson (16 Mar 2022)

There is a way to do it, that a competent machinist could overcome the methodology used, but I won't mention it either. Possible the guns were sold but sloppy paperwork and/or his brain is getting fuzzy as he aged.


----------



## Halifax Tar (16 Mar 2022)

Haggis said:


> Through another Order in Council, the Liberal Government has extended the amnesty period of the May 1st, 2020 gun ban OIC until October 30, 2023.



I just want to apply to keep my Norinco M14 as a safe queen.  My fav deer gun I can't use anymore


----------



## KevinB (16 Mar 2022)

Halifax Tar said:


> I just want to apply to keep my Norinco M14 as a safe queen.  My fav deer gun I can't use anymore


Wait - the Norinco Type 97 Bullpup is fine, but the copy of the worst Battle Rifle ever is a prohib now?


----------



## Halifax Tar (16 Mar 2022)

KevinB said:


> Wait - the Norinco Type 97 Bullpup is fine, but the copy of the worst Battle Rifle ever is a prohib now?



Yup


----------



## Jarnhamar (16 Mar 2022)

Looks like the government extended the gun ban amnesty until 30 October, 2023.


----------



## Good2Golf (18 Mar 2022)

KevinB said:


> Wait - the Norinco Type 97 Bullpup is fine, but the copy of the worst Battle Rifle ever is a prohib now?


Cabela’s says so too!


----------



## KevinB (18 Mar 2022)

Good2Golf said:


> Cabela’s says so too!


Well I guess that means Norinco simply wasn't building anymore...


----------



## Jarnhamar (19 Apr 2022)

This guy Liberals.

Steven Del Duca Announces Liberals Will Ban Handguns Provincewide​


> TORONTO –  An Ontario Liberal government will ban handguns across the province in its first year in office, Ontario Liberal Leader Steven Del Duca announced today in his party’s latest platform plank release.
> 
> “I’ve had it with Doug Ford’s open for business policy for guns.” Del Duca said, “The Ford Conservatives are putting the interests of the gun lobby ahead of the Ontario victims of gun crime they swore an oath to protect.  The result is handgun violence is spiraling out of control. The choice on handguns is clear, more handguns and gun crime under the Ford Conservatives or a ban on handguns under the Ontario Liberals.”


----------



## Haggis (19 Apr 2022)

Jarnhamar said:


> This guy Liberals.
> 
> Steven Del Duca Announces Liberals Will Ban Handguns Provincewide​


Liberals Liberallling again.

This will be almost impossible to implement without federal enabling legislation.

And an election win.


----------



## Kat Stevens (19 Apr 2022)

Wouldn't it just be easier to make it illegal to be a gun toting gangster?


----------



## Booter (19 Apr 2022)

Kat Stevens said:


> Wouldn't it just be easier to make it illegal to be a gun toting gangster?


That’s actually apparently crazy hard.


----------



## OldSolduer (19 Apr 2022)

Kat Stevens said:


> Wouldn't it just be easier to make it illegal to be a gun toting gangster?


It already is but I am sure you all are aware what lawyers and judges can do to law.


----------



## Halifax Tar (10 May 2022)

Uh oh...


----------



## Jarnhamar (10 May 2022)

Register your firearms so the government can order you to turn them in. Don't worry, they'll give you fair market value 🤣


----------



## Haggis (11 May 2022)

This is part of C-71, which is being implemented in stages.  No surprises here.

What really scares me is the great unknown of the next gun control bill to be tabled.


----------



## suffolkowner (11 May 2022)

Seems like it would be rather easy to overload the RCMP with paperwork on this. Bob sells his firearm to Ted. Ted sells his firearm to Nick. Nick sells his firearm back to Bob. Repeat....

They can't even process license renewals before your license expires as it is now


----------



## Fishbone Jones (11 May 2022)

I'm on PAL 6 or 7 right now. I never had any long waits. About a two week turnaround. This year, my PAL expired while the application was in process. The whole thing took 6 or 7 months.

Savvy gun owners already see a way around this new registration. They are going to make a mockery of this new registry. They will get next to zero participation from gun owners on this. Even less than the last time they tried. There's millions of NR long guns out there that have never been captured. There will still be millions of unregistered NR long guns out there on the 14th of May and for years to come.

Registration = Confiscation

Socialist governments, like trudeau's, don't confiscate firearms to keep society safe. They confiscate firearms to keep themselves safe from society.


----------



## Eaglelord17 (11 May 2022)

suffolkowner said:


> Seems like it would be rather easy to overload the RCMP with paperwork on this. Bob sells his firearm to Ted. Ted sells his firearm to Nick. Nick sells his firearm back to Bob. Repeat....
> 
> They can't even process license renewals before your license expires as it is now


Its only overload if they actually cared about the result. It doesn’t matter to them if transfers take 2 hours, 2 days, or 2 years. 

If anything the less convenient the process is the better it is from the governments perspective as it discourages firearms ownership.


----------



## Haggis (12 May 2022)

I watched the Public Safety minister's announcement of the implementation of the "not-a-long-gun-registry" registry. It was nauseating to watch how he pandered to the special interest groups in the room who support the Liberal's disarmament agenda. It was also evident when he was talking about "assault-style" firearms that Le Dauphin has taught him well.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (12 May 2022)




----------



## Fishbone Jones (12 May 2022)

Haggis said:


> I watched the Public Safety minister's announcement of the implementation of the "not-a-long-gun-registry" registry. It was nauseating to watch how he pandered to the special interest groups in the room who support the Liberal's disarmament agenda. It was also evident when he was talking about "assault-style" firearms that Le Dauphin has taught him well.



"We've made this decision in conjunction with our stakeholders."

What stakeholders? Poly Souvent? Wendy Cukier? Coalition for Gun Control, Doctors 4 Gun Safety, Doctors For Protection from Guns? I'm pretty sure the CCFR and the CSSA weren't  invited to the table.


----------



## Haggis (12 May 2022)

Fishbone Jones said:


> I'm pretty sure the CCFR and the CSSA weren't  invited to the table.


You can take that to the bank.  Poly, CD4PG, CFGC number in the tens to maybe hundreds of members.  The radical fringe minority comprised of CCFR, CSSA, NFA, SFC, OFAH, IPSC Canada etc., number in the hundreds of thousands.  But who gets government money to work on gun issues? Not the fringe.


----------



## Dana381 (13 May 2022)

Haggis said:


> You can take that to the bank.  Poly, CD4PG, CFGC number in the tens to maybe hundreds of members.  The radical fringe minority comprised of CCFR, CSSA, NFA, SFC, OFAH, IPSC Canada etc., number in the hundreds of thousands.  But who gets government money to work on gun issues? Not the fringe.



The loudest ones, which are loudest because the media parrots them and gives legal gun owners no air time at all.


----------



## Jarnhamar (13 May 2022)

I agree with the premise of requiring sellers to confirm that a buyer has a valid firearms license. I would also support keeping records of whom firearms are sold to and who is in possession of them if it weren't for the threat of sweeping firearm confiscations.

I won't knock others for having a different opinion but personally I'd be more than happy to let the government know how many guns I have and what types if I was confident it wouldn't be used against me.


----------



## Dana381 (13 May 2022)

Jarnhamar said:


> I agree with the premise of requiring sellers to confirm that a buyer has a valid firearms license. I would also support keeping records of whom firearms are sold to and who is in possession of them if it weren't for the threat of sweeping firearm confiscations.
> 
> I won't knock others for having a different opinion but personally I'd be more than happy to let the government know how many guns I have and what types if I was confident it wouldn't be used against me.



That's precisely the problem. Not only do they expect regular joe gun owner to verify your pal is valid they also expect them to check your drivers license to verify you are who you say you are. 

If someone presents fake credentials how is regular joe gun owner to tell? Then when a crime is committed with that gun joe will be charged for improperly selling a firearm and his life ruined because he didn't notice the fake credentials.


----------



## Halifax Tar (13 May 2022)

Jarnhamar said:


> I agree with the premise of requiring sellers to confirm that a buyer has a valid firearms license. I would also support keeping records of whom firearms are sold to and who is in possession of them if it weren't for the threat of sweeping firearm confiscations.
> 
> I won't knock others for having a different opinion but personally I'd be more than happy to let the government know how many guns I have and what types if I was confident it wouldn't be used against me.



Exactly my feelings.  

But then I see what a certain sect of my fellow firearms owners post and and hear them express their positions and I shake my head. 

Some members of our community are our worst enemies.


----------



## Haggis (13 May 2022)

Halifax Tar said:


> Some members of our community are our worst enemies.


This right here.

You can't claim to be law abiding if you subscribe to the "cold, dead hands" mentality.


----------



## KevinB (13 May 2022)

I’d offer that the NICS down here offers pretty much was is needed in terms of a check.  
  4473 forms need to be filled out with new sales, and the dealer retains the record of that.  
  NICS is only aware you where checked - not what you may have bought (for non NFA weapons).  
   4473’s stay with the dealers unless the business surrenders it’s FFL, then the ATF gets it.   

Now in Virginia the VA State Police are also notified of what you are buying - many states have those sort of reporting/record keeping criteria.


----------



## Halifax Tar (13 May 2022)

I actually think our licensing should be more difficult.  And should incorporate practical competence for range safety and marksmanship. 

I also don't mind a registration as long as it's free and won't be used as a confiscation tool. 

Also punishments for dangerous misuse of a firearm should come with automatic life time bans of legal ownership.

All me and elitist if you want but I remember my PAL and RPAL courses... There were definitely some folks who I wouldn't want to share space with if there were firearms about.


----------



## KevinB (13 May 2022)

Halifax Tar said:


> I actually think our licensing should be more difficult.  And should incorporate practical competence for range safety and marksmanship.


I would not use the term difficult -- I would use the term safe, and practical...


Halifax Tar said:


> I also don't mind a registration as long as it's free and won't be used as a confiscation tool.


I don't mind registration in theory - however, generally it has been used poorly in most countries in the past.


Halifax Tar said:


> Also punishments for dangerous misuse of a firearm should come with automatic life time bans of legal ownership.


I think the punishment needs to fit the crime, the fact remains that Canada's Legal gun owners aren't the issue -- all the gun laws in Canada do is piss off law abiding owners.   Canada already lets some folks who shouldn't have guns, have guns for sustenance reasons, despite they are habitual offenders, and then the government uses those stats again the law abiding crowd.



Halifax Tar said:


> All me and elitist if you want but I remember my PAL and RPAL courses... There were definitely some folks who I wouldn't want to share space with if there were firearms about.


I can honestly say that about a majority of LE and Mil folks - who theoretically have passed an "intensive" firearms training course(s).


----------



## Halifax Tar (13 May 2022)

KevinB said:


> I would not use the term difficult -- I would use the term safe, and practical...
> 
> I don't mind registration in theory - however, generally it has been used poorly in most countries in the past.
> 
> ...



I like difficult.  I want only proven competent individuals with firearms.  I want a high failure rate on the course. Maybe even recerts at renewal time. 

Agreed. 

Thinks like dangerous use of firearm or poaching need to be life time bans.  Our laws are FUBAR I know. But we don't obey them we have no chance in hell in improving them.  And if that means sacrificing the boneheads who play fast and loose with them now then so be it.

Absolutely, it's why I have professed many times on here that our small arms training is a farce and should be strengthened so that failure to be successful at it should hold the same weight as failure to pass a fitness test.


----------



## suffolkowner (13 May 2022)

Eventually you are going to see all semi-autos banned and handguns as well that is just the way the wind is blowing. In theory registrations should be no big deal but in reality it will just be a tool used to confiscate.


----------



## Brad Sallows (13 May 2022)

"If".

Once information exists, there are no indefinitely enforceable limits governing its use.  There isn't even any foolproof way to prevent activists with access to data from sharing it.  The only way to forestall abuse of information is to not have it in the first place.


----------



## Weinie (13 May 2022)

Halifax Tar said:


> I like difficult.  I want only proven competent individuals with firearms.  I want a high failure rate on the course. Maybe even recerts at renewal time.
> 
> Agreed.
> 
> ...


Ummm.

Did you grow up in rural Canada?

The vast(read VAST) majority of Canadians who are gun owners *never* commit a firearms related offense. If a dickhead does something stupid, and then gets indicted, justice has been served. For perspective, how many people have been killed in vehicular accidents in the last twenty years, compared to firearms incidents? We do condemn the vehicle owner that was impaired/sped etc. But we do not seek to circumscribe vehicle ownership. So, as you prescribed,  *I want only proven competent individuals with vehicles.* I have four kids. They are currently much more likely to get killed by a vehicle than getting shot.


----------



## Halifax Tar (13 May 2022)

Weinie said:


> Ummm.
> 
> Did you grow up in rural Canada?
> 
> The vast(read VAST) majority of Canadians who are gun owners *never* commit a firearms related offense. If a dickhead does something stupid, and then gets indicted, justice has been served. For perspective, how many people have been killed in vehicular accidents in the last twenty years, compared to firearms incidents? We do condemn the vehicle owner that was impaired/sped etc. But we do not seek to circumscribe vehicle ownership. So, as you prescribed,  *I want only proven competent individuals with vehicles.* I have four kids. They are currently much more likely to get killed by a vehicle than getting shot.



I did.  My native soil lays between Verona and Tamworth Ontario. My grandfather drove cattle from there to Kingston and Ottawa for market.  I grew up on raising draft horses (Belgian Percherons) until I went rebel and joined the Navy. 

I love my firearms and the activities around them and I don't want that privilege to get spoiled by yokles who want to fire .22s at road signs or worse.  That's why I want better training and tighter control around who legally get access to them.


----------



## IKnowNothing (13 May 2022)

Weinie said:


> Ummm.
> 
> Did you grow up in rural Canada?
> 
> The vast(read VAST) majority of Canadians who are gun owners *never* commit a firearms related offense. If a dickhead does something stupid, and then gets indicted, justice has been served. For perspective, how many people have been killed in vehicular accidents in the last twenty years, compared to firearms incidents? We do condemn the vehicle owner that was impaired/sped etc. But we do not seek to circumscribe vehicle ownership. So, as you prescribed,  *I want only proven competent individuals with vehicles.* I have four kids. They are currently much more likely to get killed by a vehicle than getting shot.


Re- statistical risk- that's a function of volume, frequency, and proximity of use, not of risk inherent to operation.
Re- "not seeking to circumscribe vehicle ownership"   lol bullshit.  I can only speak to Ontario, but the process and threshold for driver licensing puts the firearms process to shame. I can only imagine the bloodbath on our roads if we were throwing drivers out there with a few hours of dry classroom learning and the equivalent of demonstrating the ability to do a circle check, pump gas, and turn on the ignition.

Let's flip the script.  PAL requires a written test, set length apprenticeship period, practical test involving live fire and supervised field use in real life scenarios, set length limited period, more stringent practical test involving live fire and supervised field use in real life scenarios.  Too onerous?


----------



## Weinie (13 May 2022)

IKnowNothing said:


> Re- statistical risk- that's a function of volume, frequency, and proximity of use, not of risk inherent to operation.
> Re- "not seeking to circumscribe vehicle ownership"   lol bullshit.  I can only speak to Ontario, but the process and threshold for driver licensing puts the firearms process to shame. I can only imagine the bloodbath on our roads if we were throwing drivers out there with a few hours of dry classroom learning and the equivalent of demonstrating the ability to do a circle check, pump gas, and turn on the ignition.
> 
> *Let's flip the script. * PAL requires a written test, set length apprenticeship period, practical test involving live fire and supervised field use in real life scenarios, set length limited period, more stringent practical test involving live fire and supervised field use in real life scenarios.  Too onerous?


Ok, lets flip the script. I grew up in the 60's  was taught gun handling by my relatives, and then joined the CAF.  Some relevant stats are below.









						2021 Driving Statistics: The Ultimate List of Canadian Driving Stats
					

Discover hundreds of Canadian driving statistics on road safety, driving fatalities, DUI, impaired driving, commercial driving, vehicle safety, and more.



					tests.ca
				









						G1 Test Ontario | Rules, Cost, Booking, Practice Test
					

Ready to get your G1? Learn about the G1 Written Test in Ontario. G1 knowledge test, requirements, how to book, costs, practice tests and FAQs.




					www.thinkinsure.ca
				




*Let's flip the script. * PAL requires a written test, set length apprenticeship period, practical test involving live fire and supervised field use in real life scenarios, set length limited period, more stringent practical test involving live fire and supervised field use in real life scenarios.  Too onerous?
Ummm see the second link for a G1 license. Relatisvm


----------



## Haggis (13 May 2022)

Halifax Tar said:


> I like difficult.  I want only proven competent individuals with firearms.  I want a high failure rate on the course. Maybe even recerts at renewal time.
> 
> Agreed.
> 
> ...


How would this approach to lawful gun ownership impact on those who criminally misuse guns?


----------



## mariomike (13 May 2022)

IKnowNothing said:


> I can only imagine the bloodbath on our roads if we were throwing drivers out there with a few hours of dry classroom learning and the equivalent of demonstrating the ability to do a circle check, pump gas, and turn on the ignition.



Not sure if drivers are any better trained now or then. But, they have more protection from each other than back in the day.

Air bags, laminated and tempered glass, crumple zones, side impact protection beams, collapsible steering columns and padded dashboards, seat belts etc. save lives. Car fires are also much less common, thanks to improved fuel system integrity and fire retardant materials.

In Toronto, most traffic fatalities are pedestrians.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (14 May 2022)

Dana381 said:


> That's precisely the problem. Not only do they expect regular joe gun owner to verify your pal is valid they also expect them to check your drivers license to verify you are who you say you are.
> 
> If someone presents fake credentials how is regular joe gun owner to tell? Then when a crime is committed with that gun joe will be charged for improperly selling a firearm and his life ruined because he didn't notice the fake credentials.



That'll only work for firearms purchased on or after 18 May 22. The RCMP will only be able to check on guns transferred after that date. Before this date, millions of guns have changed hands, some multiple times. Even if they had original store records, they can't charge the original owner. Too many legal transfers between different owners have made that near impossible. I have zero records for the dozens of NR firearms I have bought, sold and traded since the end of the long gun registry. 

There should be no invalid, unexpired PALs out there. If a person gets banned by the court, the court should collect it. Other than expired ones, there should be no invalid PALs out there or some government official isn't  doing their job.


----------



## Brad Sallows (14 May 2022)

> That's why I want better training and tighter control around who legally get access to them.



How much is enough?  Is there an epidemic of NDs?


----------



## Fishbone Jones (14 May 2022)

Halifax Tar said:


> I like difficult.  I want only proven competent individuals with firearms.  I want a high failure rate on the course. Maybe even recerts at renewal time.
> 
> Agreed.
> 
> ...


I can think of no better way to kill a sport. More cost, time and bureaucracy. Unrealistic expectations for training and qualification. Let's face it, there's people out there that will spend unlimited dollars and training and still won't be capable of passing a police pistol qual, but they shouldn't  have to. If they can keep it on a fig.11, that is good enough for me. They'll get better. What quals would be placed on rifles and shotguns? Do we make them do rundown starting at 400 meters? And shotgun, two perfect rounds of skeet and trap. Lastly, how are you going to get them shooting and qualifying as part of the course, when you have to succesfully pass the course before you can handle a firearm? We've spent many, many years trying to kill off the Fudd culture here, let's not try start it up again. When my grandson is old enough, I'll teach him to shoot and if he wants to continue, he can take his PAL course.


----------



## Halifax Tar (14 May 2022)

Fishbone Jones said:


> I can think of no better way to kill a sport. More cost, time and bureaucracy. Unrealistic expectations for training and qualification. Let's face it, there's people out there that will spend unlimited dollars and training and still won't be capable of passing a police pistol qual, but they shouldn't  have to. If they can keep it on a fig.11, that is good enough for me. They'll get better. What quals would be placed on rifles and shotguns? Do we make them do rundown starting at 400 meters? And shotgun, two perfect rounds of skeet and trap. Lastly, how are you going to get them shooting and qualifying as part of the course, when you have to succesfully pass the course before you can handle a firearm? We've spent many, many years trying to kill off the Fudd culture here, let's not try start it up again. When my grandson is old enough, I'll teach him to shoot and if he wants to continue, he can take his PAL course.



This has nothing to do with fudd culture.  

Simple static 100m range for rifles with a 5 round, 6in group to pass.  I would only allow open sights with optics for the elderly or those with medical need of them.  Same for pistol make it 25 to 50m.  Shotgun, trap is good idea.  Or maybe 20 to 50m range. 

Raise the cost for the course cover range rentals and ammo and extra compensation for the instructors. 

I have 2 rental properties for neighbors.  Know when the landlord's started getting good renters ?  When they attached standards to the people they rented too and added raised then rent to the properties.  Now they have had better success and their property isn't dump. Same logic applies here IMHO.

Nothing wrong with teaching your kids to shoot.  Ive been teaching my daughter.


----------



## Haggis (14 May 2022)

Halifax Tar said:


> This has nothing to do with fudd culture.


"Fudds" are not the only lawful gun owners.


Halifax Tar said:


> Same for pistol make it 25 to *50*m.


You're advocating for a standard that exceeds that of every LEA in Canada and is very rarely incorporated in sport shooting.  Very few agencies still shoot beyond 15 metres with a pistol.


Halifax Tar said:


> Raise the cost for the course cover range rentals and ammo and extra compensation for the instructors.


Sport shooting now becomes a pursuit for the well off?  Range memberships are already climbing yearly.


----------



## IKnowNothing (14 May 2022)

mariomike said:


> Not sure if drivers are any better trained now or then.


Wasn't talking about the time difference, but that it is relatively more difficult and requires a more stringent display of competency to get a drivers license than a PAL.


----------



## OldSolduer (14 May 2022)

What’s Fudd culture?


----------



## mariomike (14 May 2022)

OldSolduer said:


> What’s Fudd culture?



Just a guess, Elmer Fudd?


----------



## mariomike (14 May 2022)

IKnowNothing said:


> Wasn't talking about the time difference, but that it is relatively more difficult and requires a more stringent display of competency to get a drivers license than a PAL.



Got me there. Last time I did an MTO test was when I was 16.
The driver trainers where I worked had signing authority for the C Z.
Let it drop to a G after I retired.


----------



## Jarnhamar (14 May 2022)

There's some real idiots with guns but they seem to pale in comparison to other morons out here.
Throwing chairs off higher rise buildings, making young children run marathons,  getting out of moving cars. Firearms competency doesn't seem to be an issue.

Places like Toronto, Calgary, Vancouver are seeing more and more shoot outs. Gun battles between growing gangs in a growing gang culture.

It's easily the biggest issue with firearms  and the one that's getting the least attention it seems.


----------



## Eaglelord17 (14 May 2022)

Halifax Tar said:


> This has nothing to do with fudd culture.
> 
> Simple static 100m range for rifles with a 5 round, 6in group to pass.  I would only allow open sights with optics for the elderly or those with medical need of them.  Same for pistol make it 25 to 50m.  Shotgun, trap is good idea.  Or maybe 20 to 50m range.
> 
> ...


And since the statistics show all that your proposing is pointless and just a added cost to a already expensive sport, that's a hard pass from me. How about you do what you like with your firearms, and let everyone else do what they like. After a background check and ensuring there is no major mental issues, that should be the extent of the governments involvement. Have a non-expiring license, and let people carry on with their lives.

Just like registries, they always get used for confiscation. Doesn't have to be the government enacting the legislation to use it that way. The Nazis never enacted the firearm registry in Germany, but it sure did give them a good place to go and locate them.


OldSolduer said:


> What’s Fudd culture?


Generally a derogatory term referring basically to the guys who have their shotguns and .30-06's. They only care about themselves being able to hunt and are willing to throw all other firearms owners under the bus. Usually the Liberals or other groups will go and find a couple of these guys to make statements along the lines of 'I own firearms to hunt and there is no need for anyone to own a handgun or a assault weapon, they should be banned'.


Jarnhamar said:


> There's some real idiots with guns but they seem to pale in comparison to other morons out here.
> Throwing chairs off higher rise buildings, making young children run marathons,  getting out of moving cars. Firearms competency doesn't seem to be an issue.
> 
> Places like Toronto, Calgary, Vancouver are seeing more and more shoot outs. Gun battles between growing gangs in a growing gang culture.
> ...


The Liberals are the ones creating the gang culture and using it to their political advantage. Since they put in the stupid catch and release bill, crime has skyrocketed in my city, bringing it to now the 5th most dangerous in Canada when a decade ago there was crime but it wasn't anywhere near what its at now. The criminals have lost all fear of consequences, saw a guy walking down a main street in broad daylight with a catalytic converter over their shoulder, they simply don't care any more. Breaking and enters, murders, cops being shot (when we can't even recall the last time cops were in a firefight here), etc.

Unfortunately to fix the problem is a expensive, time consuming one, which partially requires admitting they made mistakes. As we know from politicians that is not how they think. Much easier to leverage a quick fix which is putting lipstick on a pig and wait until the next election to bring it up again. At the moment that claimed fix is banning handguns because that will somehow solve the illegally smuggled firearms from the states getting into gang hands. If they succeed with that the next round would be banning all firearms because somehow that will solve it from there. And eventually we will get to be like the UK with 'save a life, bin that knife' yet still having the same crime rates overall.


Haggis said:


> This right here.
> 
> You can't claim to be law abiding if you subscribe to the "cold, dead hands" mentality.


Well it can make them a better person that someone who simply abides by the law. Plenty of evil things have been legal in this country. Did you know that until the 1950s Natives couldn't retain a lawyer by law? Or that we committed genocide with the laws backing us?

It is the right of the governed to determine what is tolerable to them. In this case you have a group being ostracized, vilified, and constantly attacked for no fault of their own. If they give a small amount the opposing side takes a mile and just shifts the goal posts. When the government goes and states they are going to expropriate their property (i.e. legalized theft), after they have jumped through all the hoops required to own it in the first place, I completely get why they would get like that. Especially since the government is basically threatening you to either comply or be killed.


----------



## OldSolduer (14 May 2022)

mariomike said:


> Just a guess, Elmer Fudd?


Yeah I know but I guess Fudd culture is what urban Canadians in Toronto think of people who own guns


----------



## Jarnhamar (14 May 2022)

Eaglelord17 said:


> The Liberals are the ones creating the gang culture and using it to their political advantage. Since they put in the stupid catch and release bill, crime has skyrocketed in my city, bringing it to now the 5th most dangerous in Canada when a decade ago there was crime but it wasn't anywhere near what its at now. The criminals have lost all fear of consequences, saw a guy walking down a main street in broad daylight with a catalytic converter over their shoulder, they simply don't care any more. Breaking and enters, murders, cops being shot (when we can't even recall the last time cops were in a firefight here), etc.


I'm not sure if I would place the blame solely on the Liberals regarding the increase in gangs, gang activity, and gang violence.

Since 2015 the numbers of shootings and gang activity certainly seems to have increased though.

I don't have a source or anything but just taking a guess here I think our level of immigration could be a contributing factor to the rise in gang activity too.


----------



## Jarnhamar (14 May 2022)

mariomike said:


> Got me there. Last time I did an MTO test was when I was 16.


And the engine was 1 horse power.


----------



## Kat Stevens (14 May 2022)

Jarnhamar said:


> And the engine was 1 horse power.


----------



## mariomike (14 May 2022)

OldSolduer said:


> Yeah I know but I guess Fudd culture is what urban Canadians in Toronto think of people who own guns



I've been a gun owner all my life. I don't particularly care what strangers think.


----------



## Halifax Tar (14 May 2022)

Haggis said:


> "Fudds" are not the only lawful gun owners.
> 
> You're advocating for a standard that exceeds that of every LEA in Canada and is very rarely incorporated in sport shooting.  Very few agencies still shoot beyond 15 metres with a pistol.
> 
> Sport shooting now becomes a pursuit for the well off?  Range memberships are already climbing yearly.



I'm in agreement about "fudds" I don't know why this keeps coming up.  Firearms is more than hunting and all shooting sports need to be protected and preserved.  

Ok.  Then use a 20m range.  I'm not a hand gun guy so I will go with your SME ness.

The fact is our courses now are a joke.  And the fact there is no practical shooting aspect is laughable, to me.  Some simple standards with a displayed and recognized competence for safety and ability is all I want to see. 



Eaglelord17 said:


> And since the statistics show all that your proposing is pointless and just a added cost to a already expensive sport, that's a hard pass from me. How about you do what you like with your firearms, and let everyone else do what they like. After a background check and ensuring there is no major mental issues, that should be the extent of the governments involvement. Have a non-expiring license, and let people carry on with their lives.
> 
> Just like registries, they always get used for confiscation. Doesn't have to be the government enacting the legislation to use it that way. The Nazis never enacted the firearm registry in Germany, but it sure did give them a good place to go and locate them.
> 
> ...



Like it or not firearms ownership in Canada is a privilege not a right and the government has the power to ban them out right for civilian use if they so decide.  

And I don't want to lose my firearms in part because some people in my community can't control their emotions around this subject.  



Jarnhamar said:


> There's some real idiots with guns but they seem to pale in comparison to other morons out here.
> Throwing chairs off higher rise buildings, making young children run marathons,  getting out of moving cars. Firearms competency doesn't seem to be an issue.
> 
> Places like Toronto, Calgary, Vancouver are seeing more and more shoot outs. Gun battles between growing gangs in a growing gang culture.
> ...



Absolutely, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't try to rid ourselves of those who do damage from the inside.

I will say I have a higher chance getting popped on the opening day for the orange army than I do walking around any major city in Canada.  A lot of hunters shock me with how carelesss they are with their rifles and practices.


----------



## suffolkowner (14 May 2022)

Halifax Tar is there an actual problem with gun handling/proficiency though? Being better at handling a gun and putting rounds on target has nothing to do with whether you are an idiot or not in my experience. It's just a skill. I certainly dont think that private citizens should be held to a higher standard than LEO's


----------



## Jarnhamar (14 May 2022)

Halifax Tar said:


> I will say I have a higher chance getting popped on the opening day for the orange army than I do walking around any major city in Canada.  A lot of hunters shock me with how carelesss they are with their rifles and practices.



I hear you there. 
Complete rumor mill and not really related but I heard at work an OC out in Wainwright was shot on the calf on a live fire range. Heard some tanks got peppered too. Wonder if there's any truth to that.


----------



## Halifax Tar (14 May 2022)

Jarnhamar said:


> I hear you there.
> Complete rumor mill and not really related but I heard at work an OC out in Wainwright was shot on the calf on a live fire range. Heard some tanks got peppered too. Wonder if there's any truth to that.



I know you can hunt the training area in Wainwright but even when there is training going on ?  Sounds counter intuitive. 

I used to hunt the Borden training area for turkey.  Was very strict on where you could go.


----------



## Brad Sallows (14 May 2022)

FFS.  Firearm safety is about handling and storage, not 6 inch groups.


----------



## Halifax Tar (14 May 2022)

Brad Sallows said:


> FFS.  Firearm safety is about handling and storage, not 6 inch groups.



Calm down old boy.  It's a discussion forum you might bump into positions you disagree with.  If you want an echo chamber go elsewhere. 

Safe handling of a firearm should be more than identifying the right ammunition and how to cross a fence.  We are cutting ourselves shot IMHO.


----------



## Brad Sallows (14 May 2022)

Safety should end with handling and storage, except for those who want to open the tent up to another camel's nose for escalation of increasingly burdensome rules.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (14 May 2022)

Halifax Tar said:


> Calm down old boy.  It's a discussion forum you might bump into positions you disagree with.  If you want an echo chamber go elsewhere.
> 
> Safe handling of a firearm should be more than identifying the right ammunition and how to cross a fence.  We are cutting ourselves shot IMHO.


Brad is right.

You are the one conflating marksmanship and skill with firearms with firearms safety. Hitting a target should not be a governmental concern. A Government’s only concern should be that the right firearms are in the right people’s hands and that they are stored safely when not in use. Anything beyond that is over reach.


----------



## Eaglelord17 (14 May 2022)

Jarnhamar said:


> I'm not sure if I would place the blame solely on the Liberals regarding the increase in gangs, gang activity, and gang violence.
> 
> Since 2015 the numbers of shootings and gang activity certainly seems to have increased though.
> 
> I don't have a source or anything but just taking a guess here I think our level of immigration could be a contributing factor to the rise in gang activity too.


Catch and release is a significant part of that, these criminals are literally being caught committing crimes, immediately bailed, then go back to committing crimes again. Locally we had one guy get arrested for B&E taken to the station, and released. He proceeded to then hop on a bus, go up town, and break into 8 more houses in the next two hours. 

Or another guy who was arrested 3 times in a month possessing illegal firearms and prohibited weapons (twice firearms once brass knuckles). 

How are we supposed to keep our streets safe if we let criminals carry guns without any ramifications? 

Toronto also has had issues since they stopped carding people. Before they would card them, so criminals wouldn’t carry guns on them and would instead have drop points. So if they saw someone they wanted to shoot they had to go to the drop point, grab the gun, and come back. Once they got rid of carding they all started carrying so now they just pull out and shoot. 

Couple that all in with cops not wanting to be as engaged anymore thanks to movements like BLM and your other left leaning movements you have a recipe for disaster.



Halifax Tar said:


> Like it or not firearms ownership in Canada is a privilege not a right and the government has the power to ban them out right for civilian use if they so decide.
> 
> And I don't want to lose my firearms in part because some people in my community can't control their emotions around this subject.


There is legal rights and there is natural rights. Just because it isn’t a legal right doesn’t mean someone else doesn’t consider it their natural one. According to our laws property ownership isn’t a enshrined right either though if the government was to just declare it was going to seize everything you possess people would likely rebel.

You aren’t going to lose any firearms because people are emotional about them, you are going to lose them because we have governments which wish to have them banned for no valid reason other than politics.


----------



## Haggis (14 May 2022)

SeaKingTacco said:


> You are the one conflating marksmanship and skill with firearms with firearms safety. Hitting a target should not be a governmental concern. A Government’s only concern should be that the right firearms are in the right people’s hands and that they are stored safely when not in use. Anything beyond that is over reach.


Québec has "Anastasia's Law", AKA Law 9 which has a live fire component.  It stresses safe handling, not marksmanship.

I just returned home from a conducting a holster users training session at my club.  These were existing club members who wanted to enter the action shooting sports at a local level (IPSC and/or IDPA).  My focus was on safety, safety, then safety and technique.  We did some marksmanship coaching as well.  But, if you were unsafe, even in a minor way, you were gone.  Go home, practice and sign up for the next session.


----------



## Brad Sallows (14 May 2022)

> You aren’t going to lose any firearms because people are emotional about them, you are going to lose them because we have governments which wish to have them banned for no valid reason other than politics.



"Politics" is just a roundabout way of saying "people are emotional".

Broad-brush, the people most opposed to firearm ownership lean "progressive"; broad-brush, "progressives" claim to be data-driven science-based objective reasoning thinkers.  Except on firearms policy, which is hairs-on-the-back-of-the-neck-gut-feeling-something-every-reasonable-person-knows underpants gnome territory:
1. More burdensome rules on already customarily law-abiding peaceful firearm owners.
2. ???
3. Fewer criminals using firearms to commit property and violent crimes.


----------



## Haggis (14 May 2022)

Brad Sallows said:


> 1. More burdensome rules on already customarily law-abiding peaceful firearm owners.
> 2. ???
> 3. Fewer criminals using firearms to commit property and violent crimes.


Except that 1 doesn't result in 3 unless 2 is a complete ban on all posession and importation. That didn't work even in island nations like UK, AUS and NZ who don't live next door to the biggest gun store in the Milky Way which, by Toronto Police statistics, supplies 86%+ of the crime guns in the GTA.  That percentage is likely higher in regions of Canada with less police and CBSA enforcement.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (14 May 2022)

We just had a shooting on a reserve here in North Van, I will bet money neither the victims or the shooters had PAL's or could get one.


----------



## Haggis (14 May 2022)

Colin Parkinson said:


> We just had a shooting on a reserve here in North Van, I will bet money neither the victims or the shooters had PAL's or could get one.


They are exempt. Gang life has its privileges.


----------



## Halifax Tar (15 May 2022)

SeaKingTacco said:


> Brad is right.
> 
> You are the one conflating marksmanship and skill with firearms with firearms safety. Hitting a target should not be a governmental concern. A Government’s only concern should be that the right firearms are in the right people’s hands and that they are stored safely when not in use. Anything beyond that is over reach.



Sure, if that's how you see it.

A course in the safe use of a firearm should include safe operation and competence as well. 



Eaglelord17 said:


> There is legal rights and there is natural rights. Just because it isn’t a legal right doesn’t mean someone else doesn’t consider it their natural one. According to our laws property ownership isn’t a enshrined right either though if the government was to just declare it was going to seize everything you possess people would likely rebel.
> 
> You aren’t going to lose any firearms because people are emotional about them, you are going to lose them because we have governments which wish to have them banned for no valid reason other than politics.



If that the tac you want to take go for it. 

We are our own worst enemies.  A simple pass of over anything up for discussion on gun forums or social media and you will see it's ugly and doesn't give us a good look. 

A big part of this is a battle for perception.


----------



## OldSolduer (15 May 2022)

Colin Parkinson said:


> We just had a shooting on a reserve here in North Van, I will bet money neither the victims or the shooters had PAL's or could get one.


On the reservations here they stab. Black handle kitchen knife is the weapon of choice.

Indigenous people here in the north need guns to hunt - a traditional way of life - and to protect themselves from wildlife like bears.


----------



## KevinB (15 May 2022)

OldSolduer said:


> Indigenous people here in the north need guns to hunt - a traditional way of life - and to protect themselves from wildlife like bears.


The fact the Europeans brought guns to North America seems to be overlooked.    Firearm hunting in the Americas was pioneered by Europeans— not indigenous. 

Also PET was the weasel who removed the firearms rights provisions of the BNA with his ‘charter of rights and freedoms’ no shock the rotten apple didn’t fall far.


----------



## mariomike (15 May 2022)

Eaglelord17 said:


> Toronto also has had issues since they stopped carding people.



For readers perhaps - or perhaps not - unfamiliar with "carding" in the city.

"Carding" in Toronto dates back to 1957, when the Metro force was created.
Back then, they were given actual "Suspect Cards", to document and forward information about persons of interest to detectives.
Over the years they were called "forms", "reports", "street checks", "Community Engagements".


----------



## SeaKingTacco (15 May 2022)

Halifax Tar said:


> Sure, if that's how you see it.
> 
> A course in the safe use of a firearm should include safe operation and competence as well.
> 
> ...


But safe handling was not you proposed. You proposed a marksmanship test. What obtaining a certain grouping has to do with safe handling (especially for someone new getting into the sport who may have never owned or used a firearm previously is beyond me.

People here are being polite to you. It is my perception that you are the one being rude and making things personal when nobody agrees with your point of view.


----------



## Haggis (15 May 2022)

Halifax Tar said:


> A course in the safe use of a firearm should include safe operation and competence as well.


Agreed, as long as the standards are attainable and reasonable for the neophyte practitioner. 


Halifax Tar said:


> We are our own worst enemies.  A simple pass of over anything up for discussion on gun forums or social media and you will see it's ugly and doesn't give us a good look.


The same can be said for forums on any contentious or unpopular issue.  The difference is that in most other forums about lawful activities, the government isn't overtly trying to kill the activity or portray it as a massive public safety issue.


Halifax Tar said:


> A big part of this is a battle for perception.


We only control one side of the narrative.  Yes, the "mah guns!" and "cold, dead hands" elements don't do us any favours, but when the government paints me and my gun club with the same brush as the Five Point Generalz, we have already lost.


----------



## Halifax Tar (15 May 2022)

SeaKingTacco said:


> But safe handling was not you proposed. You proposed a marksmanship test. What obtaining a certain grouping has to do with safe handling (especially for someone new getting into the sport who may have never owned or used a firearm previously is beyond me.
> 
> People here are being polite to you. It is my perception that you are the one being rude and making things personal when nobody agrees with your point of view.



Can you give me examples of being rude or personal ?  All I have every done is recognized the opposite position and simply expressed mine. 

Back to the topic at hand, the difference is one of perception.  I see that safe handling should include some expression of competency of use.  We can debate the actual details of the exam, I just through out some numbers.  

We do the same thing to driving, for example.  If you want to be a fully accredited driver you have to pass the practical driving exam.


----------



## Halifax Tar (15 May 2022)

Haggis said:


> Agreed, as long as the standards are attainable and reasonable for the neophyte practitioner.
> 
> The same can be said for forums on any contentious or unpopular issue.  The difference is that in most other forums about lawful activities, the government isn't overtly trying to kill the activity or portray it as a massive public safety issue.
> 
> We only control one side of the narrative.  Yes, the "mah guns!" and "cold, dead hands" elements don't do us any favours, but when the government paints me and my gun club with the same brush as the Five Point Generalz, we have already lost.



Ya I mean if a practical exam was implemented, which I doubt would happen, I'm sure it wouldn't use the numbers I said earlier. 

The issue to me is those "mah guns" and "cold dead hands" folks provide the a subsequent means for politicians to attack us and paint us.  I feel if we could fix that segment and simply point to the real criminals as the problem we might sway more folks.


----------



## Brad Sallows (15 May 2022)

Firearms are used mostly in private areas (ranges) or well away from highly populated areas (hunting), not on roads in the middle of cities.  Apples/oranges comparisons don't make much sense.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (15 May 2022)

This subject has Psaki'd Back around three times, in as many pages.
One for, everyone else against.
I wonder if it's time to move on.


----------



## Halifax Tar (15 May 2022)

Fishbone Jones said:


> This subject has Psaki'd Back around three times, in as many pages.
> One for, everyone else against.
> I wonder if it's time to move on.



Probably.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (15 May 2022)

KevinB said:


> The fact the Europeans brought guns to North America seems to be overlooked.    Firearm hunting in the Americas was pioneered by Europeans— not indigenous.


Samuel de Champlain decided to side with one tribe and demonstrate the effectiveness of firearms on their enemies, that was the first demonstration in what became Canada.


----------



## Haggis (15 May 2022)

Halifax Tar said:


> Ya I mean if a practical exam was implemented, which I doubt would happen, I'm sure it wouldn't use the numbers I said earlier.


My club requires new members - who have already completed the CRFSC - to attend a one-day classroom safety course based on the CSSA curriculum.  This is followed by up to six live fire sessions supervised by a CSSA certified instructor, most of whom are veterans, active LEOs or competitive shooters.  During these sessions you are assessed on safe handling, and familiarization with the manual of arms for your firearm. Marksmanship is a secondary concern, but we will provide coaching as long as you are safely handling your firearm. If by visit 6, you are not deemed safe and competent, you are refunded.  Is that good enough in your eyes?


Halifax Tar said:


> The issue to me is those "mah guns" and "cold dead hands" folks provide the a subsequent means for politicians to attack us and paint us.  I feel if we could fix that segment and simply point to the real criminals as the problem we might sway more folks.


Substitute "mah guns" for  "mah rights" on any topic and you have the same problem.  Those communities can't silence their fringe element any better than the gun community can.  The MSM will always be drawn to those people because they make good sound bites and quotes.  But they shy away from Wendy Cukier when she spouts her sensationalistic vitriol.

If you have any solutions, please speak up!


----------



## Halifax Tar (15 May 2022)

Haggis said:


> My club requires new members - who have already completed the CRFSC - to attend a one-day classroom safety course based on the CSSA curriculum.  This is followed by up to six live fire sessions supervised by a CSSA certified instructor, most of whom are veterans, active LEOs or competitive shooters.  During these sessions you are assessed on safe handling, and familiarization with the manual of arms for your firearm. Marksmanship is a secondary concern, but we will provide coaching as long as you are safely handling your firearm. If by visit 6, you are not deemed safe and competent, you are refunded.  Is that good enough in your eyes?
> 
> Substitute "mah guns" for  "mah rights" on any topic and you have the same problem.  This communities can't silence their fringe element any better than the gun community can.  The MSM will always be drawn to those people because they make good sound bites and quotes.  But they shy away from Wendy Cukier when she spouts her sensationalistic vitriol.



Look this isn't up too me.  I have less than zero say on our federal firearms liscencing system.  I'm just of the opinion that our liscencing and requirements should be tougher and too a higher standard.  

As for you club, it sounds like a professional well run club.  As for if it's good enough in my eyes well I'm also not a member of your shooting club.  So you tell me is it good enough for you ?  I assume it is or you wouldn't be there. 

Pointing in the other direction when our own faults are pointed out isn't part of the solution.  Wendy Cukier is free to say what she wants and I don't pay her much attention.  Personally I think her antics have hurt her cause.  What I do care about is how we are portrayed and how we conduct ourselves.


----------



## Haggis (15 May 2022)

Halifax Tar said:


> Wendy Cukier is free to say what she wants and I don't pay her much attention.  Personally I think her antics have hurt her cause.


The  jointly GoC/NS funded Mass Casualty Commission (MCC) paid Wendy's organization $210,866.00 to continue their assault on lawful gun ownership using the MCC as the vehicle.  The CCFR, NFA, CSSA, SFC etc. didn't get a nickel from the MCC to counter her.  I think her "cause" is doing just fine.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (15 May 2022)

She has the fourth most punchable face in Canada.


----------



## Jarnhamar (15 May 2022)

What ever happened to that bullying probe where she was accused of fostering a toxic work environment with some employees feeling demeaned, overworked and disrespected (a real Julie Payette).

The one where she was supposed to take over as the first female president of Brock University but "mutually agreed to leave 3 days before" it happened.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (15 May 2022)

Do you think JT and company care?


----------



## Haggis (15 May 2022)

Colin Parkinson said:


> Do you think JT and company care?


She is useful to him for now.


----------



## Haggis (16 May 2022)

I did enjoy the question about the new registry from Calibre magazine. Minister Mendicino responded by crediting the old registry for tracking down Polytechniqie shooter Marc Lepine. This was despite the facts that Lepine killed himself at the scene, making him easy to find, and that the long gun registry would not be created for another nine years. 

Oops!


----------



## OldSolduer (18 May 2022)

Haggis said:


> I did enjoy the question about the new registry from Calibre magazine. Minister Mendicino responded by crediting the old registry for tracking down Polytechniqie shooter Marc Lepine. This was despite the facts that Lepine killed himself at the scene, making him easy to find, and that the long gun registry would not be created for another nine years.
> 
> Oops!


But people will accept that.


----------



## Haggis (27 May 2022)

Expect more proposed gun laws to be tabled on May 30th.  Looking forward to being demonized once again while the gang bangers drive on unfettered.


----------



## KevinB (27 May 2022)

OldSolduer said:


> But sheeple will accept that.


FIFY


----------



## Fishbone Jones (27 May 2022)

KevinB said:


> The fact the Europeans brought guns to North America seems to be overlooked.    Firearm hunting in the Americas was pioneered by Europeans— not indigenous.
> 
> Also PET was the weasel who removed the firearms rights provisions of the BNA with his ‘charter of rights and freedoms’ no shock the rotten apple didn’t fall far.


Including property rights also. The whole clan needs their genome bleached.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (28 May 2022)

A hint of what they are after.









						Trudeau signals new gun-control changes coming; here's what the Liberals have promised
					

In the wake of a horrific mass shooting at an elementary school in Texas, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has signalled that the Canadian government will be moving ahead on new gun-control measures 'in the coming weeks.' In previous Parliaments, the Liberals have made changes to Canada's gun laws...




					www.ctvnews.ca
				




"In the wake of a horrific mass shooting at an elementary school in Texas, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has signalled that the Canadian government will be moving ahead on new gun-control measures "in the coming weeks.""

More at link


----------



## Jarnhamar (28 May 2022)

Fishbone Jones said:


> Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has signalled



He's such a ghoul. Patiently waits for bodies to appear to get a few bites in.


----------



## Booter (28 May 2022)

Jarnhamar said:


> He's such a ghoul. Patiently waits for bodies to appear to get a few bites in.


If we look at Canadian data he’s not tracking anything relevant to us. I don’t understand why it’s successful for Canadian politicians to use American events in the absence of an issue. 

We are already miles away from Texas on gun control- how would
We ever make useful connections in policy?


----------



## Colin Parkinson (28 May 2022)

Booter said:


> If we look at Canadian data he’s not tracking anything relevant to us. I don’t understand why it’s successful for Canadian politicians to use American events in the absence of an issue.
> 
> We are already miles away from Texas on gun control- how would
> We ever make useful connections in policy?


Votes, that's all he cares about and the hopes the CPC impales itself while fighting the gun control issue. I rather the CPC not talk about specifics, other than "We will be using a rational fact based approach to gun control that is in line with Canadian law and culture. While focusing on the real issues of gang violence and gun smuggling from abroad"


----------



## Haggis (28 May 2022)

Booter said:


> If we look at Canadian data he’s not tracking anything relevant to us. I don’t understand why it’s successful for Canadian politicians to use American events in the absence of an issue.
> 
> We are already miles away from Texas on gun control- how would
> We ever make useful connections in policy?


You're new to the gun control debate in Canada, right?

Sound policy doesn't matter.
Results don't matter.
Evidence based governance doesn't matter.

Only votes matter.

And the Liberals manage to convince the GTA that the CPC "backed by the Canadian NRA" is out to allow machine guns in every neighbourhood and permit concealed carry in churches.

And, it works!

Every damned time.


----------



## Halifax Tar (30 May 2022)

Any news on today's announcement yet ?


----------



## Jarnhamar (30 May 2022)

Freeze on the buying, selling and transfer of handguns.


----------



## Halifax Tar (30 May 2022)

Jarnhamar said:


> Freeze on the buying, selling and transfer of handguns.



That should help curb gang violence.  I'm sure the Crips and the Bloods will be sure follow this one.


----------



## dangerboy (30 May 2022)

According to the CBC article: https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/handguns-liberal-bill-1.6470554



> The legislation, if passed, would also require magazines for long guns to be changed so they can't carry any more than five rounds. Sales of larger magazines would be banned.


Which I thought was already in place. 

Of course it has this statement which drives me crazy: 



> "We recognize that the vast majority of gun owners use them safely, and in accordance with the law," Trudeau said.
> 
> "But other than using firearms for sport shooting and for hunting, there is no reason anyone in Canada should need guns in their everyday lives."


----------



## FSTO (30 May 2022)

Jarnhamar said:


> Freeze on the buying, selling and transfer of handguns.


Brilliant! This party and its leaders are THE BEST!!!


----------



## Jarnhamar (30 May 2022)

dangerboy said:


> Which I thought was already in place.



There's a number of rifles which can use pistol magazines technically giving someone a loophole to _gasp_ use 10 round magazines instead of 5.


----------



## Booter (30 May 2022)

Halifax Tar said:


> That should help curb gang violence.  I'm sure the Crips and the Bloods will be sure follow this one.


----------



## Halifax Tar (30 May 2022)

Jarnhamar said:


> There's a number of rifles which can use pistol magazines technically giving someone a loophole to _gasp_ use 10 round magazines instead of 5.



Also Lee Enfields and Garands.  Although I am unsure if the enbloc clip is caught in this.


----------



## Halifax Tar (30 May 2022)

From CCFR General Counsel Michael Loberg.

They are:

1. Freezing all buying, selling, imports and transfers of handguns.  Trudeau says "The market for handguns in Canada is closed."  

2. They are freezing handgun transfers immediately by OIC
 (timing unclear but this can be fact).

2. Capping all long gun magazines at 5 rounds.

3. Domestic violence measure: Restraining Orders automatically revoke Firearm Licences.

4. Prior bans will be expanded to include new types of similar guns.

5. "Buyback" will happen this year.

6. The prior bans will be the subject of an amendment to this Bill.

5. All airgun replicas are being prohibited.


----------



## KevinB (30 May 2022)

I’m constantly amazed at the stupidity of Canadian Gun Laws, this one is no different. 

Handguns have been restricted and registered in Canada since 1935, guess how many crimes have occurred with Legally owned handguns in Canada… 

I cry for you folks.


----------



## Halifax Tar (30 May 2022)

KevinB said:


> I’m constantly amazed at the stupidity of Canadian Gun Laws, this one is no different.
> 
> Handguns have been restricted and registered in Canada since 1935, guess how many crimes have occurred with Legally owned handguns in Canada…
> 
> I cry for you folks.



I see a silver lining here.  Those magazine restrictions will really impact the Fudd community.  This might just be enough to swing them. 

I expect that just an optimistic idiot.


----------



## QV (30 May 2022)

I’m sure they had this all drafted up ready to go just waiting for the next shooting. 

But this is the Canada this country voted for so…


----------



## Brad Sallows (30 May 2022)

Between the EA invocation and this, arguing that the LPC/NDP is how we preserve civil liberties in Canada has become a difficult sell.


----------



## CBH99 (30 May 2022)

Brad Sallows said:


> Between the EA invocation and this, arguing that the LPC/NDP is how we preserve civil liberties in Canada has become a difficult sell.


The one scary thing is that (as far as I know) neither leader of either party has ever once stated that preserving or protecting freedom is a goal of theirs.  

Like not even a secondary goal, or a tertiary goal.  

Between previous attempts to pass additional gun control legislation, trying to pass Bill C-11 (I believe that was it anyway) on regulating what content Canadians can access online, this gun control legislation, and a ton of other sneaky moves….  

Regardless of whether I like either party or not, preserving freedom is _NOT_ something I think people will associate them with.


----------



## suffolkowner (30 May 2022)

So a persons handguns are theirs until they die and then you can turn them into the police?

A 10 rd "pistol" magazine is still a "pistol" magazine though right you just cant use it?


----------



## CBH99 (30 May 2022)

QV said:


> I’m sure they had this all drafted up ready to go just waiting for the next shooting.
> 
> But this is the Canada this country voted for so…


But it isn’t…

I mean it is, you’re right.  I’m not arguing your statement at all. 

But I don’t know a single person, regardless of where they are in the country, that doesn’t think JT is a joke.  (And that’s probably the nicest thing I’ve heard said about him.)

How he got re-elected beats me…  my sock could have done better than either of the other parties did


----------



## Halifax Tar (30 May 2022)

suffolkowner said:


> So a persons handguns are theirs until they die and then you can turn them into the police?
> 
> A 10 rd "pistol" magazine is still a "pistol" magazine though right you just cant use it?



That magazine restriction affects all long guns too.


----------



## suffolkowner (30 May 2022)

Halifax Tar said:


> That magazine restriction affects all long guns too.


Yes but its not a long gun magazine until its inserted into a long gun correct?


----------



## Jarnhamar (30 May 2022)

Don't forget this gem. Filed under "because Trudeau cares" from Feb 2021

LILLEY: Trudeau reduces sentence for serious gun crimes​


> On Tuesday, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau promised to crack down on gun crime, then on Thursday his government introduced legislation to reduce sentences for serious gun crimes including weapons trafficking and importing.
> 
> The Liberals are getting rid of a series of mandatory minimum sentences even for people convicted multiple times of gun offences.


----------



## Jarnhamar (30 May 2022)

suffolkowner said:


> Yes but its not a long gun magazine until its inserted into a long gun correct?


It's manufactured as a pistol magazine and under the law pistol magazines are limited to 10 rounds.

Using a 10 round pistol magazine in a rifle was a loophole but they can just wordsmith shit to close that loop. 

For example a .50 Beowolf magazine could fit 5x .50 Beowolf bullets (I think). It could also fit 15x 5.56mm bullets. People got away with using them for a while but then the gov and RCMP somehow had that loophole closed. Maybe something about not using bullets not intended for a magazine or something.


----------



## Halifax Tar (30 May 2022)

suffolkowner said:


> Yes but its not a long gun magazine until its inserted into a long gun correct?



Enfields, Garands, Levers,  Shotguns ect dont have that choice.


----------



## suffolkowner (30 May 2022)

Jarnhamar said:


> It's manufactured as a pistol magazine and under the law pistol magazines are limited to 10 rounds.
> 
> Using a 10 round pistol magazine in a rifle was a loophole but they can just wordsmith shit to close that loop.
> 
> ...


Yeah so probably a paperweight now


Halifax Tar said:


> Enfields, Garands, Levers,  Shotguns ect dont have that choice.


probably a lot more banned firearms coming


----------



## Halifax Tar (30 May 2022)

suffolkowner said:


> Yeah so probably a paperweight now
> 
> probably a lot more banned firearms coming



I see a new market opportunity for cheap Chinese manufacturing


----------



## Booter (30 May 2022)

Jarnhamar said:


> Don't forget this gem. Filed under "because Trudeau cares" from Feb 2021
> 
> LILLEY: Trudeau reduces sentence for serious gun crimes​


This is super important in my opinion. Where I am I deal with an astronomical amount of gun crime from gang bangers. They don’t go to jail On firearms offences. And when they do it’s a couple months. Until they commit a VIOLENT crime. 

Like hanging a rival gang member and bleeding them out. Then they get a couple years. 

But the firearms offences net me basically zero unless it’s in conjunction with something else.

So how are these laws impacting Canadian safety? It’s just impacting Canadians as far as I can tell in a practical and anecdotal way,

I don’t care for firearms much. But I am not concerned with my friends and family having them. 

It’s very weird


----------



## Kat Stevens (30 May 2022)

This country is all 50 shades of fucked up, Costa Rica is looking better and better.


----------



## Halifax Tar (30 May 2022)

Booter said:


> This is super important in my opinion. Where I am I deal with an astronomical amount of gun crime from gang bangers. They don’t go to jail On firearms offences. And when they do it’s a couple months. Until they commit a VIOLENT crime.
> 
> Like hanging a rival gang member and bleeding them out. Then they get a couple years.
> 
> ...



It's not that weird when you look it at as an extension of our polarization.  If gun ownership was big in the Liberal party they wouldn't propose such stupidity. 

This is isn't legislation for a safer Canada this is legislation to attack the other politcal side.


----------



## MilEME09 (30 May 2022)




----------



## Booter (30 May 2022)

Halifax Tar said:


> It's not that weird when you look it at as an extension of our polarization.  If gun ownership was big in the Liberal party they wouldn't propose such stupidity.
> 
> This is isn't legislation for a safer Canada this is legislation to attack the other politcal side.


I suppose. If you want safer Canadians, keep the ones abusing vulnerable people away from them.

Maybe if they were doing tough laws AND this it wouldn’t seem so hollow.


----------



## KevinB (30 May 2022)

Booter said:


> I suppose. If you want safer Canadians, keep the ones abusing vulnerable people away from them.
> 
> Maybe if they were doing tough laws AND this it wouldn’t seem so hollow.


But if Canada was safe, how could he fear-monger voters…


----------



## IKnowNothing (30 May 2022)

Halifax Tar said:


> It's not that weird when you look it at as an extension of our polarization.  If gun ownership was big in the Liberal party they wouldn't propose such stupidity.
> 
> This is isn't legislation for a safer Canada this is legislation to attack the other politcal side.


I see this very much as the follow up to the trucker vaccine thing.  Well calculated division.  Most Canadian's will either support or not care, and the vast majority of legal gun owners are left almost completely untouched.  5 rounds has been the long gun cap for what, 30 years?  Restricted licenses make up what, 1/6 of PAL's?  But the opposition has to fight it on principle, which distracts from winning at general.  In my opinion this is less about capitalizing on fear and more about capitalizing on apathy to generate localized anger.


----------



## Brad Sallows (30 May 2022)

My main objection is that the government claims the country has a bit of a problem with right-wing extremism, and this policy - at the margins - should be expected to move a bunch of people a little further to the right from wherever they were yesterday/last week/last month.  Extremists are "at fault" for what they do, but as with vehicle accidents, there are usually others who were in a position to reasonably prevent tragedy.

More coarsely, it's stupid to the fucking bone to unnecessarily piss people off.


----------



## IKnowNothing (30 May 2022)

Brad Sallows said:


> More coarsely, it's stupid to the fucking bone to unnecessarily piss people off.


Cynically: good politics, bad leadership.


----------



## Brad Sallows (30 May 2022)

Not bad leadership - bad policy.  There is no leadership involved; this is just weathervane politics.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (31 May 2022)

Booter said:


> This is super important in my opinion. Where I am I deal with an astronomical amount of gun crime from gang bangers. They don’t go to jail On firearms offences. And when they do it’s a couple months. Until they commit a VIOLENT crime.
> 
> Like hanging a rival gang member and bleeding them out. Then they get a couple years.
> 
> ...


I don't know any frontline officer who knows even a bit about civilian gun ownership that supports the attacks on civilian gun owners.


----------



## Eaglelord17 (31 May 2022)

The only good thing about this is it is likely going to die at the summer recess. Liberals will likely use it to blame the Conservatives and claim they are trying not to keep the public safe, well concurrently telling the anti-firearms people they are trying to implement legislation.


----------



## Remius (31 May 2022)

Eaglelord17 said:


> The only good thing about this is it is likely going to die at the summer recess. Liberals will likely use it to blame the Conservatives and claim they are trying not to keep the public safe, well concurrently telling the anti-firearms people they are trying to implement legislation.


It doesn’t die.  It gets postponed to the fall.


----------



## Eaglelord17 (31 May 2022)

Oh well thats a problem then, maybe its time to write to some senators and ask them to do their job and prevent this poor legislation from becoming a reality.


----------



## QV (31 May 2022)

Kat Stevens said:


> This country under the Trudeau LPC is all 50 shades of fucked up, Costa Rica is looking better and better.


Small but important amendment.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (1 Jun 2022)

Brad Sallows said:


> My main objection is that the government claims the country has a bit of a problem with right-wing extremism, and this policy - at the margins - should be expected to move a bunch of people a little further to the right from wherever they were yesterday/last week/last month.  Extremists are "at fault" for what they do, but as with vehicle accidents, there are usually others who were in a position to reasonably prevent tragedy.
> 
> More coarsely, it's stupid to the fucking bone to unnecessarily piss people off.


Same as the States. One only need look at the way trudeau and biden's goals, plans and policies are aligning, to catch the drift. Censorship, firearms, fossil fuels and more. Both are ramping up their right wing, white supremist, "biggest threat to the country today" rhetoric. Meanwhile, last month they caught 45 people that are on the terrorist watch list, at the southern border. No telling how many, from 151 other countries, have gotten through undetected. And how many have we had walk across Roxham Rd, illegal crossing point? The illegal point trudeau never closed during the pandemic, while locking you in your home, voluntarily of course.🙄


----------



## The Bread Guy (1 Jun 2022)

This from The Line on substack (archived link)


> ... There is no coherent rationale for this. Trudeau could start getting rid of handguns overnight. He has the power to immediately ban them and begin a buyback or confiscation process. Handguns are registered; he knows where they are, so it's not a logistical problem. He would have the support of the NDP in doing this, so it's not a political constraint, either. There's only one possible explanation for this proposal: if the Liberals aren't banning the guns, they're acknowledging the guns aren't the problem. It's the same for their "military style assault rifle" plan: they're banning some semi-automatic rifles that fire the various ammunition calibres, but not all semi-automatic rifles that fire the various ammunition calibres. Clearly, the rifles aren’t the problem. There's no way to read this without concluding that the purpose of the announcements is the announcements themselves.
> 
> (...)
> 
> ...


----------



## RangerRay (3 Jun 2022)

Opinion: On guns, Canada is once again busying itself with America’s problems
					

Claiming America’s crises as our own is a terrible way to make Canadian policy. And yet all our parties keep doing it




					www.theglobeandmail.com


----------



## Fishbone Jones (3 Jun 2022)

I mentioned in another post how the democrats and our grits policies and programs are aligning ever faster. Kill fossil fuels, create shortages, climate change, over the top demonizing of anyone not far left as themselves. Anyone white and conservative "is the greatest terrorist threat to our country." Racists, misoginists, knuckle dragging gun owners is their mantra. And now, not a week apart, is trudeau and biden bullishly pushing ahead with their ill thought out, garbage based evidence, laws to disarm the populations. Both policies are using some of the same rules and citing the same evidence. It used to be years apart when Trump upset the apple cart. It was supposed to be clinton and trudeau doing then what biden and trudeau are doing now. Aligning policies, programs, socialist ideals, industries. I don't mean to take this off on a tangent. Suffice to say, disarming us is at the top of both there agendas right now. There is a drive to get our guns.


----------



## KevinB (4 Jun 2022)

Politicians fearing their population…

Or rather fearing what their population might do if they enact all their policies?


----------



## Fishbone Jones (4 Jun 2022)




----------



## Haggis (5 Jun 2022)

Yesterday was the first National Range Day.  Gun ranges across Canada opened their doors to the public, some, for the very first time.

My little club had around 200 visitors.  Forty participated in a reservation-only live fire event where they were introduced to the shooting sports using handguns and long guns.  The "open house" showcased the facility as well as IPSC, Steel Challenge and Cowboy Action Shooting.

If your club/range did something similar, please sound off here.  Maybe we can share ideas to improve the event next year.


----------



## GR66 (5 Jun 2022)

Haggis said:


> Yesterday was the first National Range Day.  Gun ranges across Canada opened their doors to the public, some, for the very first time.
> 
> My little club had around 200 visitors.  Forty participated in a reservation-only live fire event where they were introduced to the shooting sports using handguns and long guns.  The "open house" showcased the facility as well as IPSC, Steel Challenge and Cowboy Action Shooting.
> 
> If your club/range did something similar, please sound off here.  Maybe we can share ideas to improve the event next year.


Shame there wasn't better advertising.  My son and I would have loved to have gone.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (5 Jun 2022)

The Bread Guy said:


> This from The Line on substack (archived link)


Because actually taking all our guns then ends our usefulness as a vote pinata to be beaten on as required. then once the shooting don't stop they then might actually have to focus on the true causes of firearm violence in this country. which will be hard, messy and political dangerous.


----------



## Navy_Pete (5 Jun 2022)

Fishbone Jones said:


> View attachment 71192


I like how there is really no middle ground here; either any idiot can buy any gun they want at any time, or you are Hitler/Mao etc.

I'm not a fan of the additional restrictions, but really no good reason that there shouldn't be some kind of licensing and limitations on buying/owning/operating them. If you look at all the things that do require a license to safely operate, it's simply irrational to not require that for guns, who only exist to kill sometime better.

Doesn't stop criminals, but really no reason someone needs an automatic weapon for hunting, and if you need a 30 round mag to hit a deer you should just learn to shoot.

I think needing to be licensed (and having tied to basic safety training) to buy guns and ammo, requiring safe storage and some other limitations are pretty reasonable. Things like cooling off periods also make sense. Personally thought our existing gun laws before some of the recent changes and these proposed restrictions were mostly pretty reasonable on the whole, with the exception of some of the fear mongering around 'assault style weapons'.


----------



## KevinB (5 Jun 2022)

Navy_Pete said:


> I like how there is really no middle ground here; either any idiot can buy any gun they want at any time, or you are Hitler/Mao etc.
> 
> I'm not a fan of the additional restrictions, but really no good reason that there shouldn't be some kind of licensing and limitations on buying/owning/operating them. If you look at all the things that do require a license to safely operate, it's simply irrational to not require that for guns, who only exist to kill sometime better.
> 
> ...


Mag laws are fairly pointless- it takes a fraction of a second for a criminal to drill out a rivet or remove a block.  

Most state and province have mag limits for hunting. - but action sports use normal capacity mags - so you’re just punishing the shooting sports with mag laws. 

Canadian Safe Storage laws are fairly ridiculous.  I have a pistol in a holster on my bed stand - my carry gun that I place there when I got to bed. You can’t do that in Canada because apparently at night that gun is going to jump up, grab your car keys and commit mayhem by itself?   

I agree that unattended guns should be secured - but some of the rules are just poorly thought out.


----------



## suffolkowner (5 Jun 2022)

KevinB said:


> Mag laws are fairly pointless- it takes a fraction of a second for a criminal to drill out a rivet or remove a block.
> 
> Most state and province have mag limits for hunting. - but action sports use normal capacity mags - so you’re just punishing the shooting sports with mag laws.
> 
> ...


I think the new laws are not going to accept pinned mags


----------



## Booter (5 Jun 2022)

I know more about the application of firearms than the manufacture of them.

If I wanted to kill a lot of people, using a “high capacity mag” is it really so hard to make one?
There was a time where I had to shoot an “emergency” series of shots frequently, on a specialized, but all commercial parts, Remington 700 that was all done without the mag at all. Individual rounds. We shot a pretty deadly volume at a pretty fast pace- simulating a couple emergencies. I wouldn’t want to be on the end of low capacity magazine on a motivated hunters bolt action anymore than some dude with a semi auto rifle, you’re splitting hairs in a lot of ways.

The answer is pursuing people who use guns criminally no matter the furniture on them. Any other way just makes a confusing mess of rules- in my very simple, uneducated opinion.


----------



## The Bread Guy (5 Jun 2022)

suffolkowner said:


> I think the new laws are not going to accept pinned mags


Especially if they keep that "permanently" bit in there.


----------



## KevinB (5 Jun 2022)

Booter said:


> I know more about the application of firearms than the manufacture of them.
> 
> If I wanted to kill a lot of people, using a “high capacity mag” is it really so hard to make one?
> There was a time where I had to shoot an “emergency” series of shots frequently, on a specialized, but all commercial parts, Remington 700 that was all done without the mag at all. Individual rounds. We shot a pretty deadly volume at a pretty fast pace- simulating a couple emergencies. I wouldn’t want to be on the end of low capacity magazine on a motivated hunters bolt action anymore than some dude with a semi auto rifle, you’re splitting hairs in a lot of ways.
> ...


A few years ago a buddy of mine at HRT did a video using 5 rds in a mag with three mags and reloading the mags after running to slide lock and an average police response time of 3 min 50 seconds in the VA Quantico area for a Code 3 response -- he got through 27 mags if I recall correctly - that includes the from the box reload and retrieving mags -- needless to say he wants a fan of mag loads actually doing anything.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (5 Jun 2022)

Navy_Pete said:


> I like how there is really no middle ground here; either any idiot can buy any gun they want at any time, or you are Hitler/Mao etc.
> 
> I'm not a fan of the additional restrictions, but really no good reason that there shouldn't be some kind of licensing and limitations on buying/owning/operating them. If you look at all the things that do require a license to safely operate, it's simply irrational to not require that for guns, who only exist to kill sometime better.
> 
> ...


I haven't  heard anyone complaining about having to obtain a license by taking a course. I'm all for courses, testing and licensing. Training and proof are a great thing before owning a firearm. Testing is not a problem.

Talking about full auto weapons and 30 rd mags, while hunting, is a canard. A fantasy that has no place in a serious firearms discussion. Careful when you channel Biden, some people might think it's really you.

Blame trudeau for the black and white divisiveness. There's  lots of middle ground and room for reasoned discussion, unless you're  dealing with red and orange liberals. Then there is none. Their whole platform is to demonise firearms and owners mercilessly, without fact, only emotion.


----------



## Brad Sallows (5 Jun 2022)

Learning to use firearms safely is not in the same universe as learning to operate automobiles and other equipment safely, nor will ordinary firearm owners be using them willy nilly in public areas.  Licencing should be about psychology, not mechanics.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (7 Jun 2022)

I give up. My country is a embarrassment. Or properly, our current, dystopian government. If you are a licensed, anglo, caucasian you will bear the full brunt of the law. If you're a drug dealing, illegal alien, gangbanging in a shopping centre, you get a reduced sentence for being 'racialized' because of systemic discrimination. Whatever the hell that is. This moves well beyond virtue signaling and will have severe, deadly and violent consequences for large urban areas. 

I'll catch flack for positing the following, but this is the same thing that blue state AG's are doing and soros funded the election of these AG's to the tune of about $40 million, this year alone. He paid to put violent criminals back on the street and the AG's are keeping the bargain. You don't need to believe me, just read the reports from the States.

Another biden/trudeau coincidence?



			https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/world/lilley-trudeau-reducing-sentencing-requirements-for-serious-gun-crimes/ar-AAY8a8U?bk=1&ocid=msedgdhp&pc=U531&cvid=e25e9c9850554b9b9496f00b150e4b7f


----------



## Brad Sallows (7 Jun 2022)

Yes, just coincidence.  There's plenty of political pressure from groups which measure the number of people incarcerated and divide them up into bins according to superficial characteristics like skin colour; it's reasonable that more than one government might respond to that pressure in the same ways.  (Never ascribe to conspiracy what can be abscribed to panicked expedient political self-preservation.)  The experiment is being tried; let it run its course.  The time taken to evolve from "defunding" through "shuffle funding" to "refunding" police, for example, was not that long.  If others want to be empirical horrible warnings, let them.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (7 Jun 2022)

It's not just guns Brad. Many other of their policies are aligning and faster than they used to. It seems one of them will announce and within a week or so, the other does the same.


----------



## Brad Sallows (7 Jun 2022)

It's self-organization, not conspiracy.  Observation and imitation, guided by preferences.

Remember: those people cannot keep secrets, not least because they enjoy bragging aloud how clever they are.  If they were co-ordinating things of which they're proud, we'd know it.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (7 Jun 2022)

Hope you're  right Brad. My scenario doesn't bode well.


----------



## Eaglelord17 (8 Jun 2022)

Colin Parkinson said:


> Because actually taking all our guns then ends our usefulness as a vote pinata to be beaten on as required. then once the shooting don't stop they then might actually have to focus on the true causes of firearm violence in this country. which will be hard, messy and political dangerous.


They shall just do what the UK does, blame knives as clearly it can’t be a individuals actions which are causing crime, it must be the object!


Navy_Pete said:


> I like how there is really no middle ground here; either any idiot can buy any gun they want at any time, or you are Hitler/Mao etc.
> 
> I'm not a fan of the additional restrictions, but really no good reason that there shouldn't be some kind of licensing and limitations on buying/owning/operating them. If you look at all the things that do require a license to safely operate, it's simply irrational to not require that for guns, who only exist to kill sometime better.
> 
> ...


Our gun laws have done basically nothing to keep us safer. Crime has been dropping for decades without any input from gun laws. I shall list the common laws and what actual effect they have.

Cooling off periods do nothing, if people are planning to kill someone with a firearm you really think waiting a extra day or two matters? The problem is someone intending to kill someone else, not their means. If you are dedicated enough to plan to kill someone with a gun does it matter if you get it today or a week from now? 

Banning firearms by type also does nothing, again the problem is if someone is intending to kill someone else, not what firearm they possess. Be it full auto, handgun or single shot all are deadly and it isn't what the gun is rather what they intend to do with it. Up until 1978 Canadians could just buy full autos and handguns with the only restriction being they had to be registered. Yet there wasn't blood in the streets. Some of the deadliest shootings in the US have been done with a shotgun and revolver. In fact most school shootings don't take place with a AR-15, it is usually a handgun is the weapon of choice (which makes sense as it is easily concealed). They center on the long guns when they are used but, for approximately 2/3 of them they use handguns only.

Licensing is one of the only things which can make a difference as it is one of the only measures which can keep the guns out of the wrong hands. However licensing needs to be changed in this country. It should never expire, and the firearms you possess should never become illegal to possess based off a simple lapse in licensing. 

Registration can actually be beneficial particularly in the case of handguns. Long guns it is useless, but for handguns it can actually hold value as it prevents straw buying for criminals (handguns being the obvious preferred choice due to concealability).

Magazine restrictions do nothing. Criminals get their hands on illegal magazines either way and all it does is create a confusing web of legislation which results in good citizens being turned into criminals. Again it isn't the size of the magazine, or the gun in the hand, rather what someone intends to do with it. 

Safe storage should be a personal choice, with personal liabilities if you make the wrong one. Right now in Canada there is plenty of rural houses which keep loaded rifles or shotguns in easy reach, yet there isn't tons of kids being killed from accidental usage. It is just another way for the government to screw over good citizens based off the loose definitions used by the law. Hell they wanted to charge Mike Hargreaves with unsafe storage after his vault in the basement was broken into over the course of two days well he was in Florida.

In summary a initial license can do a lot to keep criminals from legally acquiring a firearm. Registering a handgun prevents the straw buying of handguns. Otherwise basically every law we have on the books for them don't really do much of anything other than give the government reason to go against otherwise upstanding citizens. 

If we want to tackle 'gun crime' you need to target crime in general and why people are killing others. That isn't something easy, nor is it something which fits in a 4 year election cycle. Generally you need to target poverty, education, lack of opportunity, and criminals to make any sort of difference. But they won't. In fact I would argue the current government is purposely making the situation worse with the current bail laws, and actually creating the growing crime crisis we have increasing on a daily basis.


----------



## Brad Sallows (8 Jun 2022)

One thing about gradually implementing the list of less restrictive measures is that gradually the list of excuses for continued firearm violence wears out and it becomes obvious where problems really lie.


----------



## KevinB (8 Jun 2022)

Brad Sallows said:


> One thing about gradually implementing the list of less restrictive measures is that gradually the list of excuses for continued firearm violence wears out and it becomes an obvious lie.


FIFY


----------



## QV (21 Jun 2022)

RCMP Commissioner Brenda Lucki tried to 'jeopardize' mass murder investigation to advance Trudeau’s gun control efforts - Halifax Examiner
					

RCMP Commissioner Brenda Lucki “made a promise” to Public Safety Minister Bill Blair and the Prime Minister’s Office to leverage the mass murders of April 18/19, 2020 to get a gun control law passed.  A week after the murders, Lucki pressured RCMP in Nova Scotia to release details of the weapons...




					www.halifaxexaminer.ca


----------



## Halifax Tar (21 Jun 2022)

QV said:


> RCMP Commissioner Brenda Lucki tried to 'jeopardize' mass murder investigation to advance Trudeau’s gun control efforts - Halifax Examiner
> 
> 
> RCMP Commissioner Brenda Lucki “made a promise” to Public Safety Minister Bill Blair and the Prime Minister’s Office to leverage the mass murders of April 18/19, 2020 to get a gun control law passed.  A week after the murders, Lucki pressured RCMP in Nova Scotia to release details of the weapons...
> ...



I think we all knew this


----------



## Colin Parkinson (21 Jun 2022)

Political animal


----------



## calculus (21 Jun 2022)

QV said:


> RCMP Commissioner Brenda Lucki tried to 'jeopardize' mass murder investigation to advance Trudeau’s gun control efforts - Halifax Examiner
> 
> 
> RCMP Commissioner Brenda Lucki “made a promise” to Public Safety Minister Bill Blair and the Prime Minister’s Office to leverage the mass murders of April 18/19, 2020 to get a gun control law passed.  A week after the murders, Lucki pressured RCMP in Nova Scotia to release details of the weapons...
> ...


[insert expletive here] unbelievable! To add to this, I had a conversation with a senior member of the RCMP at a dinner party, who was telling everyone that Gabriel Wortman used "legal" guns in his killing spree. I challenged him on this, and he threw out the "your just a civilian without the facts" argument in an attempt to shut me up. So, it would appear the RCMP at senior levels is deliberately obfuscating the facts to support a political aim. _Politics before facts_ seems to be the rule at the RCMP.


----------



## Booter (21 Jun 2022)

calculus said:


> [insert expletive here] unbelievable! To add to this, I had a conversation with a senior member of the RCMP at a dinner party, who was telling everyone that Gabriel Wortman used "legal" guns in his killing spree. I challenged him on this, and he threw out the "your just a civilian without the facts" argument in an attempt to shut me up. So, it would appear the RCMP at senior levels is deliberately obfuscating the facts to support a political aim. _Politics before facts_ seems to be the rule at the RCMP.


Except of course it was senior Mounties in Nova scotia who stopped that narrative,

The CBC article on the same has some interesting stuff about the commissioners comments and her promises.

It is not a good look.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (21 Jun 2022)

Well, if there was any doubt trudeau has pulled an obama and weaponized our national police force, just like the FBI, it's a moot point now. One has to wonder what others, beside the RCMP,  have fallen. The BoC? Poliviere pointed out the collusion between the grits and bank and was called a liar, freeland said he didn't understand economics. Then we found out last week Poliviere was right. They printed excess billions to cover trudeaus promises, at his request knowing full well how it would affect our economy. And lied about it. I have zero doubt there are other ministries and offices that have been likewise infected.


----------



## Jarnhamar (21 Jun 2022)

RCMP commissioner pressures investigating officers to release information for political reasons, namely to support pending gun control legislation.

It sounds like she approached her people like a real asshole too. 

Professional RCMP officers refuse.


I'm sure this totally wasn't one of the reasons for the RCMP and government to try and stop the inquiry from taking place.


----------



## OldSolduer (22 Jun 2022)

calculus said:


> [insert expletive here] unbelievable! To add to this, I had a conversation with a senior member of the RCMP at a dinner party, who was telling everyone that Gabriel Wortman used "legal" guns in his killing spree. I challenged him on this, and he threw out the "your just a civilian without the facts" argument in an attempt to shut me up. So, it would appear the RCMP at senior levels is deliberately obfuscating the facts to support a political aim. _Politics before facts_ seems to be the rule at the RCMP.


FYI the Commissioner of the RCMP has been a political pawn for decades. It started many years ago with Norman Inkster. 

The ordinary constables I have no issues with. It is the opportunists and b@glickers like the current Commissioner I have issues with.

The civilian gentleman - can't remember his name - who ran the RCMP for a bit was not well regarded by the police - but they had issues trying to find a uniformed officer to fill the role.


----------



## Booter (22 Jun 2022)

OldSolduer said:


> FYI the Commissioner of the RCMP has been a political pawn for decades. It started many years ago with Norman Inkster.
> 
> The ordinary constables I have no issues with. It is the opportunists and b@glickers like the current Commissioner I have issues with.
> 
> The civilian gentleman - can't remember his name - who ran the RCMP for a bit was not well regarded by the police - but they had issues trying to find a uniformed officer to fill the role.


William Elliot. Different kindve awful,

Honestly any career Ottawa person, from any agency or federal government job would be the same. I await any proof to the contrary.


----------



## OldSolduer (22 Jun 2022)

Booter said:


> William Elliot. Different kindve awful,
> 
> Honestly any career Ottawa person, from any agency or federal government job would be the same. I await any proof to the contrary.


He pinned an RCMP decoration on me. 

I agree with your assessment btw.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (22 Jun 2022)

calculus said:


> _Politics before facts_ seems to be the rule at the RCMP.


Not just the RCMP. The whole red and orange grit party.


----------



## Halifax Tar (22 Jun 2022)

Booter said:


> Honestly any career Ottawa person, from any agency or federal government job would be the same. I await any proof to the contrary.



That's not an excuse.  And the people of this country need to wake up and demand better.


----------



## OldSolduer (22 Jun 2022)

Fishbone Jones said:


> Not just the RCMP. The whole red and orange grit party.


Agreed but there are bureaucrats in the works that need to either do their jobs properly or resign.


----------



## Booter (22 Jun 2022)

OldSolduer said:


> Agreed but there are bureaucrats in the works that need to either do their jobs properly or resign.


I agree with you before I say this but- do they actually need to? Or are they actually incentivized to do the opposite- there are virtually zero repercussions for not doing their jobs or in some cases there are actually bonuses to pursuing their own political causes.


----------



## OldSolduer (22 Jun 2022)

I read in the paper this morning that the Commissioner of the RCMP was "upset" over the decision not to release the types of weapons used in the Portapique massacre. The Staff Sergeant stood his ground and defended that decision - good for him. 

"Upset" in my mind meant the Commissioner was yelling, making veiled threats etc - but that is just me reading between the lines.

Add to the JWR debacle, the WE thing etc - how much more BS do we have to put up with?


----------



## QV (22 Jun 2022)

OldSolduer said:


> Add to the JWR debacle, the WE thing etc - how much more BS do we have to put up with?


As long as the electorate are allowing media spin/exaggeration/obfuscation and are picking fly shit out of pepper for viable candidates for the opposition, then forever.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (23 Jun 2022)

OldSolduer said:


> Agreed but there are bureaucrats in the works that need to either do their jobs properly or resign.


Those are the gatekeepers Poliviere speaks of.


----------



## Haggis (24 Jun 2022)

The Liberal's "let's kill handgun sport shooting and legal handgun ownership" Bill C-21 passed second reading yesterday.  It now goes for committee study.  Many are waiting to see how the definition of "authorized high performance sport shooting athletes" will be articulated, as they are the only citizens who will be allowed to legally own handguns in the future. 

The house has risen until September when the Bill will probably very quickly go to third reading and be passed into law. Somewhere between now and then the Liberals are expected to issue their anticipated OIC to "freeze" (ban) lawful handgun purchases, sales and transfers.


----------



## Brad Sallows (24 Jun 2022)

How do you become a sport shooting athlete without passing through various stages starting with "buy a handgun and become a sport shooting neophyte"?


----------



## daftandbarmy (24 Jun 2022)

Brad Sallows said:


> How do you become a sport shooting athlete without passing through various stages starting with "buy a handgun and become a sport shooting neophyte"?



Move to the States?









						Georgia state House passes bill allowing people to carry gun without license
					

Georgia House Republicans on Friday passed a bill that would allow Georgians to carry a concealed handgun without a permit.The 94-57 vote along party lines follows approval from Georgia’…




					thehill.com


----------



## Haggis (24 Jun 2022)

Brad Sallows said:


> How do you become a sport shooting athlete without passing through various stages starting with "buy a handgun and become a sport shooting neophyte"?


You don't, which causes the shooting sports to die off.

So, I can keep my guns for now. What happens if my gun breaks? Will I be allowed to purchase/import repair or replacement parts? C-21 is silent in that regard.  But if the May 2020 OIC is any indication, importation of handgun parts will probably be prohibited as were AR parts.


----------



## QV (24 Jun 2022)

Haggis said:


> You don't, which causes the shooting sports to die off.
> 
> So, I can keep my guns for now. What happens if my gun breaks? Will I be allowed to purchase/import repair or replacement parts? C-21 is silent in that regard.  But if the May 2020 OIC is any indication, importation of handgun parts will probably be prohibited as were AR parts.


It's obvious the intention is to slowly bleed the gun industry and firearms ownership to death.


----------



## IKnowNothing (24 Jun 2022)

Brad Sallows said:


> How do you become a sport shooting athlete without passing through various stages starting with "buy a handgun and become a sport shooting neophyte"?


Fudd thoughts:  
How do you become an Olympic bobsledder without buying a bobsled and building your own track?
How do you try skiing/snowboarding/paintball/ etc etc etc without buying all the gear up front?

There's enough reasons to be against this without going full informercial to manufacture one.


----------



## Brad Sallows (24 Jun 2022)

I suppose you start with a toboggan and hill and move on from there, toboggans and hills not being banned.  Etc.

The whole point is that there's a spectrum for almost any recreation or pastime ranging from "beginner" to "geek", usually not impeded by overbearing governments saying "Well, if you make it this far, we have an exception for you".


----------



## Haggis (24 Jun 2022)

Brad Sallows said:


> The whole point is that there's a spectrum for almost any recreation or pastime ranging from "beginner" to "geek", usually not impeded by overbearing governments saying "Well, if you make it this far, we have an exception for you".


Except that, in less than one generation, nobody will "make it this far" ever again.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (24 Jun 2022)

There's going to be tons of handguns and prohibited firearms that go missing when people die.


----------



## IKnowNothing (24 Jun 2022)

Brad Sallows said:


> I suppose you start with a toboggan and hill and move on from there, toboggans and hills not being banned.  Etc.
> 
> The whole point is that there's a spectrum for almost any recreation or pastime ranging from "beginner" to "geek", usually not impeded by overbearing governments saying "Well, if you make it this far, we have an exception for you".



Start with a air pistol and go from there, air guns not being banned.
Have ranges rent out guns likes skis, with long term leases for higher end competitors that don't want to share.  It's already illegal to shoot outside of licensed ranges. 
The spectrum has to change =/= the spectrum can't exist.


----------



## Remius (24 Jun 2022)

It’s bad legislation in my view with so many rabbit holes.


----------



## IKnowNothing (24 Jun 2022)

Remius said:


> It’s bad legislation in my view with so many rabbit holes.


Yup.   As I've said, plenty of arguments against.  "Can't learn to shoot without owning" isn't one of them, and the raw petulance of it detracts from the credibility of the others.


----------



## Remius (24 Jun 2022)

IKnowNothing said:


> Yup.   As I've said, plenty of arguments against.  "Can't learn to shoot without owning" isn't one of them, and the raw petulance of it detracts from the credibility of the others.


The questions though are valid because the answers are absent.  Instead it’s theory crafting. Without the law flushed out it demands questions.  I don’t see how the credibility of that question on sports shooting is petulance.  It’s concern.


----------



## Brad Sallows (24 Jun 2022)

> "Can't learn to shoot without owning" isn't one of them



Sure it is.  Contemporary political and social discourse is full of examples of how making something burdensome in law is a back-handed way of suppressing it.  For a change, though, it isn't progressives arguing that somehow some law that burdens people is unreasonable/unfair/unjust.


----------



## IKnowNothing (24 Jun 2022)

Remius said:


> *The questions though are valid because the answers are absent.*  Instead it’s theory crafting. Without the law flushed out it demands questions.  I don’t see how the credibility of that question on sports shooting is petulance.  It’s concern.


Valid.  Though under that line of thought the presentation and phrasing is all wrong.  As I'll get into below.


Brad Sallows said:


> Sure it is.  Contemporary political and social discourse is full of examples of how making something burdensome in law is a back-handed way of suppressing it.  For a change, though, it isn't progressives arguing that somehow some law that burdens people is unreasonable/unfair/unjust.


No it isn't.  Because, even under the status quo, it's unequivocally true that you CAN learn to shoot without purchasing and owning. Provided that ranges can still own, maintain, and provide equipment to participants there is no additional barrier to the sport.  As long as legislation doesn't block that the sport is protected, making the sport a redherring for ownership


----------



## Remius (24 Jun 2022)

IKnowNothing said:


> Valid.  Though under that line of thought the presentation and phrasing is all wrong.  As I'll get into below.
> 
> No it isn't.  Because, even under the status quo, it's unequivocally true that you CAN learn to shoot without purchasing and owning. Provided that ranges can still own, maintain, and provide equipment to participants there is no additional barrier to the sport.  As long as legislation doesn't block that the sport is protected, making the sport a redherring for ownership


Too many “ifs”.  There is a segment that would be all too happy to see sports shooting included in an outright ban. 

So I can see why it is questioned.


----------



## Brad Sallows (24 Jun 2022)

> As long as legislation doesn't block that the sport is protected, making the sport a redherring for ownership



It's not a red herring.  People without access to exactly the kind of facility you describe would be denied enjoyment of the sport.


----------



## QV (24 Jun 2022)

Adding barriers to anything will reduce it's participation and the level of success one could achieve in that field.


----------



## Remius (24 Jun 2022)

The fact that you have to go through many hoops to get a pistol in the first place is probably already discouraging people from getting into sports shooting.  I am sure this law will add more discouragement to that.


----------



## Eaglelord17 (24 Jun 2022)

It is kind of ironic one of the arguments for getting rid of the Restricted pistols is how many have been imported in the last two decades, when they created the conditions for it. When you think about it the Liberals banned about 50% of the firearms in Canadian hands in 1994. 'Short barrelled' handguns were extremely popular, particularly when a 4" barrel qualified as short. Most revolvers were 4" as it was a good balance between the larger sizes and the pocket pistols. Many other service pistols (notably the Luger among others) were also placed in the prohibited category, as well as any gun in .32 or .25 (which there are a ton of .32 pistols out there, some quite large). The result being anyone who got into pistol shooting after 1994 couldn't acquire many of the pistols in Canada and as such due to supply and demand resulted in a lot being imported to make up for it. 

I am willing to bet if they didn't create the 12.6 class there wouldn't have been nearly as many pistols imported as it would just have been a slow increase in purchases.


----------



## IKnowNothing (24 Jun 2022)

Brad Sallows said:


> It's not a red herring.  People without access to exactly the kind of facility you describe would be denied enjoyment of the sport.


People currently enjoying the sport without access to a licensed facility arent law abiding gun owners


----------



## Fishbone Jones (24 Jun 2022)

IKnowNothing said:


> People currently enjoying the sport without access to a licensed facility arent law abiding gun owners


A statement without a home. Thanks Capt Obvious. Why bring it up?


----------



## Brad Sallows (24 Jun 2022)

> People currently enjoying the sport without access to a licensed facility arent law abiding gun owners



Sure.  But the people currently enjoying the sport lawfully aren't limited by facilities that don't care to provide all the equipment.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (24 Jun 2022)

IKnowNothing said:


> Yup.   As I've said, plenty of arguments against.  "Can't learn to shoot without owning" isn't one of them, and the raw petulance of it detracts from the credibility of the others.


May I ask a few questions? There is no requirement to answer, of course.

How long have you had a PAL with Restricted or Prohibited as a condition?
Do you own restricted or prohibited firearms?
Do you belong to a sanctioned range?


----------



## Jarnhamar (24 Jun 2022)

IKnowNothing said:


> Yup.   As I've said, plenty of arguments against.  "Can't learn to shoot without owning" isn't one of them, and the raw petulance of it detracts from the credibility of the others.


What's the name of that NHL player that never owned skates or a stick and just rented them at the hockey rink?


----------



## Remius (24 Jun 2022)

IKnowNothing said:


> People currently enjoying the sport without access to a licensed facility arent law abiding gun owners


Imagine having to use hockey sticks and skates from a facility instead of your own to get into competitive hockey.


----------



## Brad Sallows (24 Jun 2022)

Now do swimsuits and swimming pools...


----------



## medicineman (24 Jun 2022)

Brad Sallows said:


> Now do swimsuits and swimming pools...


We do it with bowling shoes don't we?


----------



## IKnowNothing (24 Jun 2022)

Remius said:


> Imagine having to use hockey sticks and skates from a facility instead of your own to get into competitive hockey.



A-not the same scope of involvement
B-hygiene
C- you are legally allowed to use hockey equipment away from said facility
D- regular use at different facilities in short timespans (next day if not same day)  normal.

As long as ranges are allowed and willing to keep, maintain, and provide equipment on site, the ability to take the equipment from the only space youre allowed to use it to store it at home is not necessary for the viability of the sport.



Fishbone Jones said:


> May I ask a few questions? There is no requirement to answer, of course.
> 
> How long have you had a PAL with Restricted or Prohibited as a condition?
> Do you own restricted or prohibited firearms?
> Do you belong to a sanctioned range?


No no and no. Hence fudd.

I also dont own skis, am not and have not ever been a member of a ski club, and yet I can handle pretty much any black diamond in Ontario(not that that says much)


----------



## Haggis (24 Jun 2022)

IKnowNothing said:


> Start with a air pistol and go from there, air guns not being banned.
> Have ranges rent out guns likes skis, with long term leases for higher end competitors that don't want to share.  It's already illegal to shoot outside of licensed ranges.
> The spectrum has to change =/= the spectrum can't exist.


Do you shoot competitively?  I do.

One of the ways by which I learned to compete was by attending matches across the province/country, picking up tips and tricks by watching others run the courses of fire.

Under your construct, if I compete at another club with a short term rental gun I've never trained with (even if the same make and model as my "home club" gun) I'd be at a significant disadvantage while competing against a shooter from the host club using a long term rental gun s/he trains on constantly.  That shooter progresses faster than I do. Not all clubs have the all-volunteer staff or facilities to host the same number of matches per season.  Some have indoor and outdoor ranges, some only outdoor or indoor. This allows some shooters to train year round, while others cannot.  Many who cannot shoot live during the winter months will substitute live fire with dry firing at home, something your rental construct would disallow.  This would be another barrier to participation.  Yes, there are technological workarounds but they are expensive, another barrier to participation.

The logistics of all clubs managing their short and long term rental inventory, ensuring they have sufficient of each classification for upcoming matches while maintaining their inventory in serviceable condition would be enormous and another barrier to the success of the sport.


----------



## Remius (24 Jun 2022)

IKnowNothing said:


> A-not the same scope of involvement


Why?


IKnowNothing said:


> B-hygiene


Really?  Easily dealt with.


IKnowNothing said:


> C- you are legally allowed to use hockey equipment away from said facility


Again. I said Imagine.  Now imagine the impact on how player can improve. And if he had to draw equipment from different facilities.  That’s the impact on sports shooters.


IKnowNothing said:


> D- regular use at different facilities in short timespans (next day if not same day)  normal.


Not if trying to master one particular thing. 


IKnowNothing said:


> As long as ranges are allowed and willing to keep, maintain, and provide equipment on site, the ability to take the equipment from the only space youre allowed to use it to store it at home is not necessary for the viability of the sport.


Again, discouraging people reduces competition and improvement.  Lessening the viability of the sport.


IKnowNothing said:


> No no and no. Hence fudd.
> 
> I also dont own skis, am not and have not ever been a member of a ski club, and yet I can handle pretty much any black diamond in Ontario(not that that says much)


But you aren’t competing or intend to compete at higher levels.  Competitive skiers don’t rent their equipment.


----------



## IKnowNothing (24 Jun 2022)

Haggis said:


> Do you shoot competitively?  I do.
> 
> One of the ways by which I learned to compete was by attending matches across the province/country, picking up tips and tricks by watching others run the courses of fire.
> 
> ...


Thank you for this. I appreciate you taking the time to make an informative argument, rather than specious comparisons. 

Firstly, and somewhat callously, all sports have the advantaged and disadvantaged. It sucks but its reality.

Secondly, are there not fairly straight forward logistical and regulatory work arounds to those barriers? Licenced members being able to sign out range weapons for travel to another range, ranges organizing transport by "coach" for the unlicensed, etc?  The pure rental aspect was the entry level retort to the claim that it would be impossible to enter and practice the sport. Any actual solution would be far more involved. 

Thirdly- if such a system and its infrastructure were inplace, couldnt I make the argument that overall barrier to the sport (on an individual level) would be greatly reduced by normalizing non restricted pal, non owner members?


----------



## Brad Sallows (24 Jun 2022)

> We do it with bowling shoes don't we?



Force people not to have their own?


----------



## Remius (24 Jun 2022)

IKnowNothing said:


> Thank you for this. I appreciate you taking the time to make an informative argument, rather than specious comparisons.
> 
> Firstly, and somewhat callously, all sports have the advantaged and disadvantaged. It sucks but its reality.
> 
> ...


You went and made plenty of specious comparisons (skiing for one). 

Legal gun owners being lumped in a law meant to deter criminals is a specious comparison no?   

It’s not about the impossibility of entering the sport.  But it’s the barriers that discourage and make it improbable.  And the vague answers given by the government trying to reassure an already suspicious group in the face of bad legislation to begin with.


----------



## IKnowNothing (24 Jun 2022)

Remius said:


> You went and made plenty of specious comparisons (skiing for one).
> 
> Legal gun owners being lumped in a law meant to deter criminals is a specious comparison no?
> 
> It’s not about the impossibility of entering the sport.


The post I initially replied to was literally about buying being the first step and not being able to buy completely blocking grssroots entry.

Skiing is a perfect comparison for grassroots entry, familiarization, and skill development. Requires access to  3rd party facilities and specialized equipment. Plenty of people make do without owning.  Though as Haggis pointed out, definite logistical hurdles for travel competition


----------



## Remius (24 Jun 2022)

IKnowNothing said:


> The post I initially replied to was literally about buying being the first step and not being able to buy completely blocking grssroots entry.
> 
> Skiing is a perfect comparison for grassroots entry, familiarization, and skill development. Requires access to  3rd party facilities and specialized equipment. Plenty of people make do without owning.  Though as Haggis pointed out, definite logistical hurdles for travel competition


But are allowed to still own.  The option is there.  I am all for loaners and rentals and borrowing,  I am against restriction based on unfounded reasons.  Restrictions that reduce participation in a legal activity.


----------



## Haggis (24 Jun 2022)

IKnowNothing said:


> Thank you for this. I appreciate you taking the time to make an informative argument, rather than specious comparisons.
> 
> Firstly, and somewhat callously, all sports have the advantaged and disadvantaged. It sucks but its reality.


Your construct infers a government imposed disadvantage by design as a disincentive to participation.  


IKnowNothing said:


> Secondly, are there not fairly straight forward logistical and regulatory work arounds to those barriers? Licenced members being able to sign out range weapons for travel to another range, ranges organizing transport by "coach" for the unlicensed, etc?


Currently, no and unlikely in the future.  This would require a significant re-write of the Firearms Act and Shooting Club/Shooting Range Regulations.  History has shown that this government is not at all interested in doing anything permissive in these statutes.


IKnowNothing said:


> The pure rental aspect was the entry level retort to the claim that it would be impossible to enter and practice the sport. Any actual solution would be far more involved.


Indeed  it would.  At present, an unlicensed person cannot possess (in any way) or use a firearm unless under the direct and constant supervision of a person who holds the proper class of license.

Unless you're a criminal.


IKnowNothing said:


> Thirdly- if such a system and its infrastructure were in place, couldn't I make the argument that overall barrier to the sport (on an individual level) would be greatly reduced by normalizing non restricted pal, non owner members?


No, for two reasons.  

First, the cost of setting up that Infrastructure (secure and monitored centralized storage and acquiring the inventory) would be prohibitive to the vast majority of clubs in Canada, which are generally located in rural or remote areas due to the NIMBY mindset of urban Canadians.  Again, another barrier to participation to all but the wealthy (elite?).

Also, as past robberies of gun stores, police and military facilities around the world have shown centralized storage is a magnet for criminal activity.

Second, and I refer back to my above point, this government is not at all interested in doing anything that would encourage the growth or survival of shooting sports or lawful gun ownership.


----------



## IKnowNothing (24 Jun 2022)

Haggis said:


> Your construct infers a government imposed disadvantage by design as a disincentive to participation.
> 
> Currently, no and unlikely in the future.  This would require a significant re-write of the Firearms Act and Shooting Club/Shooting Range Regulations.  History has shown that this government is not at all interested in doing anything permissive in these statutes.
> 
> ...


Both those points are barriers to providing the infrastructure,  not a rebuttal that providing the infrastructure would reduce barrier to individual entry.

Hockey was brought up. I brought up skiing. Definitely elitist and dwindling sports, with the biggest downfall being cost, a large part of that cost being required personal ownership of equipment (all levels hockey, competitive skiiing. Sports that are thriving? Show up  and "play". Food for thought.  

I was wrong about how easy it would be to work around, and the day 1 impact to the sport the way things are.But one (imposed) change to the status quo should lead to empassioned discussion of whether the entire status quo can be improved. 

Again thank-you for the thoughtful responses.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (24 Jun 2022)

Haggis said:


> Your construct infers a government imposed disadvantage by design as a disincentive to participation.
> 
> Currently, no and unlikely in the future.  This would require a significant re-write of the Firearms Act and Shooting Club/Shooting Range Regulations.  History has shown that this government is not at all interested in doing anything permissive in these statutes.
> 
> ...


Basically, nothing this government does concerning firearms is in good faith to firearms owners.


----------



## Halifax Tar (24 Jun 2022)

SeaKingTacco said:


> Basically, nothing this government does concerning firearms is in good faith to firearms owners.



Not legal ones anyways.


----------



## QV (24 Jun 2022)

Worst government and PM in Canadian history.


----------



## Eaglelord17 (24 Jun 2022)

IKnowNothing said:


> People currently enjoying the sport without access to a licensed facility arent law abiding gun owners


You can have a range on your own property if it is approved. You can also shoot antique handguns anywhere you can shoot a non-restricted, thereby not requiring a licensed range to practice (or even a firearms license).


----------



## Jarnhamar (24 Jun 2022)

Arguing you can keep competitive sport shooting alive, or any kind of shooting alive, by a rental system is ridiculous.

The government continues to attack lawful gun owners because:
1. it's easier
2. it still get votes
3. Canadians are too selfish and short-sighted to care unless they're directly impacted in the moment.


Nova Scotia votes Liberal. Maybe they'll luck in and Lucki will retire from the RCMP an run for a nice Liberal MP spot out that way.


----------



## Jarnhamar (24 Jun 2022)

Justice Canada mum as N.S. shooting inquiry seeks 'explanation' for withheld pages​ 
A first cache of pages received in February did not contain Supt. Campbell’s description of the RCMP Commissioner’s attempts to publicly disclose the type of firearms used


> OTTAWA — Justice Canada is refusing to say why it withheld critical information from the inquiry looking into Canada’s worst mass shooting in history for nearly four months.
> 
> The Mass Casualty Commission confirmed on Friday that it did not receive both versions of RCMP Supt. Darren Campbell’s handwritten notes made in the days following the shooting at the same time and has asked the federal Department of Justice why that was the case.
> 
> ...











						Justice Canada mum as N.S. shooting inquiry seeks 'explanation' for withheld pages
					

A first cache of pages received in February did not contain Supt. Campbell’s description of the RCMP Commissioner’s attempts to publicly disclose the type of…




					nationalpost.com
				




Nothing suspicious about leaving out 4 pages of hand-written notes that question the integrity of the RCMP's top cop, right?


----------



## Haggis (24 Jun 2022)

IKnowNothing said:


> Both those points are barriers to providing the infrastructure,  not a rebuttal that providing the infrastructure would reduce barrier to individual entry.


The idea of centralized storage for handguns has been floated before. Ideas such as having local firearms businesses offer it as a pay-per-use service to having local law enforcement provide storage and even, in Ontario, having all handguns centrally stored at CFB Borden and accessible by appointment only.

You realize, of course, that shooting clubs are, by law, not-for-profit entities, right?  They don't carry scads of cash in their bank accounts to build secure storage facilities requiring alarms, security lighting and high tech access control systems in the middle of nowhere.  This is the level of security that the government will insist upon under it's upcoming strengthened storage regime.

As an aside, shooting clubs and shooting ranges are not the same things.  A shooting club is an organization, while a shooting range is a facility.  A shooting range could, in theory, host several shooting clubs.


IKnowNothing said:


> I was wrong about how easy it would be to work around, and the day 1 impact to the sport the way things are.


Those barriers are actually quite significant.  The current government would not allow public funds to be spent to secure  private firearms except as confiscated property. The pushback they are receiving about the government funded deactivation plan is substantial. Some gun control advocates still believe straight up confiscation is proper.  Remember, too, that there is no mention of compensation for any currently or future banned firearms in Bill C-21.  Not a single nickel.


IKnowNothing said:


> But one (imposed) change to the status quo should lead to empassioned discbaussion of whether the entire status quo can be improved.


The status quo is just fine.  Magazine capacity limits exist already.  "Red" and "yellow" flag laws exist already. Safe storage laws exist already.  The police, CBSA and the courts just have to enforce them diligently on those who cause the largest burden - criminals.


IKnowNothing said:


> Again thank-you for the thoughtful responses.


Not a problem.  This is an issue that shows me just how little our government really cares about it's citizens and their rights and privileges.  They are willing to demonize and eventually criminalize the most heavily vetted segment of Canadian society for votes.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (25 Jun 2022)

IKnowNothing said:


> No no and no. Hence fudd.
> 
> I also dont own skis, am not and have not ever been a member of a ski club, and yet I can handle pretty much any black diamond in Ontario(not that that says much)


How well you can ski is of absolutely zero interest to me. It is not in the same category. I don't even know what a black diamond is, unless you're speaking of cheese.

Thanks for being candid though. I just wanted to see how much skin you actually have in the game.

Cheers


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (25 Jun 2022)

Fishbone: A black diamond is (suposedly) the hardest slope to ski - the ones for advanced skiers.

In Quebec, Alberta and British Columbia, we consider an Ontario black diamond to be the kiddie slope fro beginners.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (25 Jun 2022)

Sorry, forgot to ask.

Who is going to pay for all these hardened storage areas, ongoing maintenance and staffing? Am I going to be required to centrally store my hunting and recreational long guns? Is whoever guards them going to be armed? What ROE's do you suggest they have? How and when will I be allowed to access my firearms? Who will be liable if there is a break in and things are gone? How many more laws is this initiative going to create? Whoever works there will be required to hold a PAL, with every classification available, in order to access and touch those guns, including

s.12(2): full automatics
s.12(3): converted automatics
s.12(4): firearms prohibited by former prohibition order No. 12
s.12(5): firearms prohibited by former prohibition order No. 13
s.12(6.1): handguns with a barrel length of 105 mm or less or that discharge .25 or .32 calibre ammunition.
s.12(7): inherited handguns made prior to 1946 that fall under the s. 12(6.1) category
Calling for central storage may be honourable, but unless we discuss all the repercussions, pitfalls and plans involved in that exercise, as a discussion points central storage is moot.

In completely, unrelated news:

There are people out there that have taken down military and police armouries and made off with the guns.

The police and the military are large contributors of illegal guns on the street. Who will watch the state?






						RCMP: 813 GUNS LOST BY AND STOLEN FROM POLICE AND PUBLIC AGENCIES, 2005-2019 – Dennis R Young
					






					dennisryoung.ca
				



RCMP: 813 GUNS LOST BY AND STOLEN FROM POLICE AND PUBLIC AGENCIES, 2005-2019​


----------



## KevinB (25 Jun 2022)

ABC - always be carrying 
I left Canada in 2005. So I’ve had several years now of freedoms down here, that make me absolutely incredulous about the stupidity of Canada gun laws.   

The AR was restricted by name in 1994, how many crimes have been committed by AR’s and other restricted/prohibited rifles that where lawfully owned since they point in time?  

I’ll wait…


Lawful firearm owners are not the problem
— but it’s simply a population control method, with the idea of creating a cultural genocide of the Canadian Gun Culture.


----------



## Brad Sallows (28 Jun 2022)

No-one who has nothing to hide could possibly object to registration, etc.

Oops.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (28 Jun 2022)

Our untouchable and completely private Registry was compromised how many times?

Nobody believes that it was totally destroyed either. A court case a couple of years ago showed the prosecution, when providing full disclosure, gave information that was only obtainable from the supposed extinct Registry. They were unable to explain why. Given what has cropped up lately about the RCMP, it would be no surprise if they still had copies. Much of it is now useless though.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (28 Jun 2022)

Poor old sleepy Joe.


----------



## Brad Sallows (28 Jun 2022)

Poor Trooper Favreau.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (28 Jun 2022)

Legal gun owners to be blamed in 5.....4....3....2.....1

(today in Victoria/Sannich)

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1541880271624015873


----------



## Jarnhamar (28 Jun 2022)

Colin Parkinson said:


> Legal gun owners to be blamed in 5.....4....3....2.....1
> 
> (today in Victoria/Sannich)
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1541880271624015873



Investigating officer: _You have 11 missed calls from B. Lucki_


----------



## Haggis (28 Jun 2022)

Colin Parkinson said:


> Legal gun owners to be blamed in 5.....4....3....2.....1


Six police officers suffered GSWs.  Clearly, this was not some gang banger, but rather a high performance sport shooter who qualifies for an exemption to handgun bans under Bill C-21. 

I, too, miss the sarcasm emoji.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (28 Jun 2022)

Haggis said:


> Six police officers suffered GSWs.  Clearly, this was not some gang banger, but rather a high performance sport shooter who qualifies for an exemption to handgun bans under Bill C-21.
> 
> I, too, miss the sarcasm emoji.


I don't know what this was, but it is walking distance from my old neighbourhood.


----------



## OldSolduer (28 Jun 2022)

Haggis said:


> Six police officers suffered GSWs.  Clearly, this was not some gang banger, but rather a high performance sport shooter who qualifies for an exemption to handgun bans under Bill C-21.
> 
> I, too, miss the sarcasm emoji.


Sarcasm notwithstanding perhaps the shooters had some military training of some sort. I have just learned of this about 10 minutes ago.


----------



## Haggis (29 Jun 2022)

OldSolduer said:


> Sarcasm notwithstanding perhaps the shooters had some military training of some sort. I have just learned of this about 10 minutes ago.


Or, maybe, they just got lucky. First person shooter games can teach anyone proper sight alignment.

Remember a couple of years ago when Wendy Cukier claimed lawful firearms owners were more dangerous because we went to the range and practiced?  Good times.


----------



## Retired AF Guy (29 Jun 2022)

Colin Parkinson said:


> Legal gun owners to be blamed in 5.....4....3....2.....1
> 
> (today in Victoria/Sannich)
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1541880271624015873


Note to self: When a large scale gunfight is taking place between ERT officers and bank robbers; don't stand around taping it - Take cover!!


----------



## KevinB (29 Jun 2022)

Retired AF Guy said:


> Note to self: When a large scale gunfight is taking place between ERT officers and bank robbers; don't stand around taping it - Take cover!!


But then how could you get thousands of views


----------



## Colin Parkinson (29 Jun 2022)

OldSolduer said:


> Sarcasm notwithstanding perhaps the shooters had some military training of some sort. I have just learned of this about 10 minutes ago.


Double -good, they can attack veterans and legal gun owners at the same time if this is the case.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (30 Jun 2022)

Gerald Butts speaking on behalf of liberals, I suppose. He's  always been a total wanker, that should've got on his bike ages ago. The disgust I feel for him after this Twitter post has only increased. After being banned from Russia, last week, gives me mind to think he is still working with telford in the PMO. He's always been trudeau's  most trusted advisor, you don't just walk away from a relationship like that.I thought they were trying to keep their involvment to a minimum and distancing themselves, dumping it on Lucki, hoping to miss the shitstorm coming their way. He just implied he knows what is happening inside the investigation to draw his conclusions. He has just, rightly, earned the ire of the rank and file, who should now fully investigate his allegations. Lucki is the one at fault here and butts is throwing shade at her subordinates. Nothing like sowing mistrust amongst Canadians. I'm guessing he won't be going to Nova Scotia anytime soon.

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1542146088529952769


----------



## Retired AF Guy (30 Jun 2022)

Fishbone Jones said:


> Fishbone Jones said:
> 
> 
> > Gerald Butts speaking because it can't be said by his boss, in public.
> ...


So, Butts is saying the RCMP in Nova Scotia are lying??


----------



## SeaKingTacco (30 Jun 2022)

Retired AF Guy said:


> So, Butts is saying the RCMP in Nova Scotia are lying??


No, they just experienced the truth, differently….


----------



## Fishbone Jones (30 Jun 2022)

Retired AF Guy said:


> So, Butts is saying the RCMP in Nova Scotia are lying??


That's the gist I got, maybe not liars but manipulators maybe?  He's good at his job. Saying things without saying things.
Is he saying we can't  trust the investigation or the unspecified brass(UB)?

It's better this way, he has people wondering, drawing their own conclusions based on their biases & lots of speculation. Starting by saying he knows nothing of Lucki's problems, dismisses her from the discussion to concentrate on the UB.

Whatever it is, it's a lie. This is trudeaus confidante, his confessor, his personal secretary in abstentia and a political analyst and consultant. Doesn't  know about Lucki? There's the test for buying swamp land. Is he lying or not?

I'm probably wrong, but the implication a civie, unconnected to government (sarcasm emoji), has enough information to draw that conclusion bothers me more than anything he's implying. Maybe I'm missing something?


----------



## Good2Golf (30 Jun 2022)

Frat boys never stop talking…

Anyone who believes he’s not in regular comms with his Uni bestie should be the one buying swamp land in Pictou.


----------



## Brad Sallows (1 Jul 2022)

Epistemic categorization: vague insinuation.

Epistemic weight: 0.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (8 Jul 2022)

Proof positive, if a criminal wants a gun they'll, get a gun. This is actually pretty sophisticated for a zip gun. One that works as well can be done without electronics, frigging Japanese and their electronics. Perhaps the lack of percussion methods to iniate the charge was the problem. Then there is the 3D crowd. There are clubs, not in Canada, where they shoot, compare and modify their 3D projects. Firearms are now a creature of the wild and like the feral pigs, it is only going to get worse. The propellant is simple. It looked similar to black powder. The ingredients are readily available and it's basic high school chemistry. Some of the most stringent firearms laws almost anywhere and Abe was still shot and killed


----------



## Skysix (8 Jul 2022)

OldSolduer said:


> Sarcasm notwithstanding perhaps the shooters had some military training of some sort. I have just learned of this about 10 minutes ago.


Since when is military training necessary to shoot semi-accurately?

I would argue the opposite. Very poor planning, inaccurate threat assssment, mediocre accuracy, poor preparation and use of cover or prepared positions, inadequate resources (people) for the task at hand etc etc.

It's almost like they only saw the tik-tok version of the Heat robbery or were just trying to go out in a blaze of glory and media.






Side note/opinion. 5.56 is great for suppressive /spray fire on a per pound carried basis but 7.62 gets the job done. If you can aim.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (8 Jul 2022)

I understand that clip has been praised by gun experts as the way it should be done. Whoever trained those actors better have been paid a lot.


----------



## Skysix (8 Jul 2022)

The John Wick movies too - even if a bit over the top.


----------



## RangerRay (9 Jul 2022)

Fishbone Jones said:


> I understand that clip has been praised by gun experts as the way it should be done. Whoever trained those actors better have been paid a lot.


I saw that movie In the theatre fresh off of my QL3 Infantry course. Up until then, I had never seen a gun battle in a movie that used fire and movement and stoppage drills like we were taught. I was completely transfixed during that scene.


----------



## Haggis (9 Jul 2022)

Fishbone Jones said:


> I understand that clip has been praised by gun experts as the way it should be done. Whoever trained those actors better have been paid a lot.


And then there's Alec Baldwin...


----------



## KevinB (9 Jul 2022)

Fishbone Jones said:


> I understand that clip has been praised by gun experts as the way it should be done. Whoever trained those actors better have been paid a lot.


Watch the Terminal List.   
    Chris Pratt really goes into that role and the weapons and tactics side.


----------



## Haggis (9 Jul 2022)

KevinB said:


> Watch the Terminal List.
> Chris Pratt really goes into that role and the weapons and tactics side.


Action stars can conentrate almost exclusively on slick weapons handling without the need to focus on their accuracy. It's easy to go fast when hits don't count.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (9 Jul 2022)

Skysix said:


> The John Wick movies too - even if a bit over the top.


Keanu Reeves is actually pretty good on his own.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (9 Jul 2022)

Fishbone Jones said:


> I understand that clip has been praised by gun experts as the way it should be done. Whoever trained those actors better have been paid a lot.


IIRC, they hired an ex-SAS guy to teach the fire and movement.


----------



## Brad Sallows (9 Jul 2022)

Kind of like sex scenes in non-adult films.


----------



## KevinB (9 Jul 2022)

Haggis said:


> Action stars can conentrate almost exclusively on slick weapons handling without the need to focus on their accuracy. It's easy to go fast when hits don't count.


I know a few folks who worked with him for it.   They did a lot of live fire to get him and the others ready for the parts.  



SeaKingTacco said:


> IIRC, they hired an ex-SAS guy to teach the fire and movement.


‘Andy NcNab’ the Bravo20 author— aka Stephen Billy Mitchell - did the weapons work for HEAT.   One of the first movies that put a lot of effort into weapons work.


----------



## Remius (9 Jul 2022)

KevinB said:


> I know a few folks who worked with him for it.   They did a lot of live fire to get him and the others ready for the parts.
> 
> 
> ‘Andy NcNab’ the Bravo20 author— aka Stephen Billy Mitchell - did the weapons work for HEAT.   One of the first movies that put a lot of effort into weapons work.


I thought the actual Bravo20 movie with Sean Bean had a good advance to contact scene as well.


----------



## Haggis (9 Jul 2022)

KevinB said:


> I know a few folks who worked with him for it.   They did a lot of live fire to get him and the others ready for the parts.


It's great that they do that and Keanu Reeves has always been extremely well prepared for his roles.  But he's still only using blanks and working in a very, *very* controlled setting.  All the live fire acquired accuracy takes a second place to camera angles and the director's vision. When the director says "go faster" you go faster, sight picture be damned.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (9 Jul 2022)

Haggis said:


> It's great that they do that and Keanu Reeves has always been extremely well prepared for his roles.  But he's still only using blanks and working in a very, *very* controlled setting.  All the live fire acquired accuracy takes a second place to camera angles and the director's vision. When the director says "go faster" you go faster, sight picture be damned.


Oh I don't  know. He's no Jerry Miculek on the range, but the clip is showing he's no slouch with live ammo and different  platforms either.


----------



## Haggis (9 Jul 2022)

Fishbone Jones said:


> Oh I don't  know. He's no Jerry Miculek on the range, but the clip is showing he's no slouch with live ammo and different  platforms either.


Agreed. He well trained and worked hard to develop the skills needed to play the part convincingly.  But that only partly tranlates to the cinematic business of angles, perspective and scene framing.

Hollywood has come a long way from the 1911 that never needs a reload.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (22 Jul 2022)

No military or police training. Taught by his grandfather and praised by the police for his tactics. I was sure the dems would charge him for carrying  in a no gun zone.









						New Details Emerge About The Impressive Response From The Good Samaritan Who Stopped Mall Shooting | The Daily Wire
					






					www.dailywire.com


----------



## Brad Sallows (22 Jul 2022)

Carrying in the mall apparently wouldn't be illegal (it's the mall's rule); refusing to leave if asked to do so would be against the law.


----------



## KevinB (23 Jul 2022)

Fishbone Jones said:


> No military or police training. Taught by his grandfather and praised by the police for his tactics. I was sure the dems would charge him for carrying  in a no gun zone.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 From the article. 
_The new survey found that more Americans believe that their best protection in a mass shooting situation is a nearby armed civilian, rather than police officers or federal agents. Respondents chose armed citizens as the best protection by 41.8% to 25.1% for local police and 10.3% for federal agents. About a fifth of people chose none of the above — 22.8%._


----------



## KevinB (23 Jul 2022)

Brad Sallows said:


> Carrying in the mall apparently wouldn't be illegal (it's the mall's rule); refusing to leave if asked to do so would be against the law.


Trespassing is the extent of that. 
   Some states even have laws that one can’t have no gun zones on non Government property.  

Some Federal Buildings don’t have secure lockers - so back when I had a badge they would often just have me carry my gun and sign in.  
  Now I need to lock it in my vehicle.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (23 Jul 2022)

KevinB said:


> Trespassing is the extent of that.
> Some states even have laws that one can’t have no gun zones on non Government property.
> 
> Some Federal Buildings don’t have secure lockers - so back when I had a badge they would often just have me carry my gun and sign in.
> Now I need to lock it in my vehicle.


Ram has a gun vault option for the console 🙂


----------



## KevinB (23 Jul 2022)

Fishbone Jones said:


> Ram has a gun vault option for the console 🙂


My new Suburban had the same option


----------



## Skysix (23 Jul 2022)

Maybe this is why JT is so anti gun



			https://euromaidanpress.com/2022/07/01/theology-professor-who-hunted-for-russian-invaders-near-kyiv-and-in-chornobyl-zone/


----------



## Fishbone Jones (23 Jul 2022)

Skysix said:


> Maybe this is why JT is so anti gun
> 
> 
> 
> https://euromaidanpress.com/2022/07/01/theology-professor-who-hunted-for-russian-invaders-near-kyiv-and-in-chornobyl-zone/


Good read.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (25 Jul 2022)

Apparently some nutbar went around Langley BC this morning shooting a number of homeless. No word on how many hurt or weapon used.


----------



## GR66 (25 Jul 2022)

From the CBC website:



Man arrested, RCMP say, after emergency alerts sent to public early Monday​


----------



## brihard (25 Jul 2022)

Colin Parkinson said:


> Apparently some nutbar went around Langley BC this morning shooting a number of homeless. No word on how many hurt or weapon used.


All of this from open source: Super messed up situation. There’s a photo of what looks like an RCMP unmarked SUV with eight bullet holes through the windshield on the driver’s side. Can’t tell if outgoing or incoming, but I do have reliable word that all police are OK. Either way it speaks to a desperate takedown.

Everything I’ve heard so far lines up with shooter targeting homeless. I don’t have anything reliable enough regarding number of victims.

Police confronted and stopped the shooter and he’s “in custody”. It’s not clear yet if he’s “in custody” as a prisoner or as an exhibit.

It’s only 10:30 there. Expect more updates later in the day. Very complex, multiple scenes.


----------



## Haggis (25 Jul 2022)

brihard said:


> Police confronted and stopped the shooter and he’s “in custody”. It’s not clear yet if he’s “in custody” as a prisoner or as an exhibit.


Some media outlets are reporting that the suspect was shot and killed by police *AND* is in custody.


----------



## Brad Sallows (25 Jul 2022)

Habemus corpus.


----------



## KevinB (25 Jul 2022)

Haggis said:


> Some media outlets are reporting that the suspect was shot and killed by police *AND* is in custody.


You can have a body in custody...


----------



## brihard (25 Jul 2022)

(Checks news to confirm OS) Dude’s super dead and it was a fantastic stop by a guy who was in the right place at the right time. Extremely clear and impressively skilled shoot.


----------



## Haggis (25 Jul 2022)

KevinB said:


> You can have a body in custody...


Yeah, I know.  But the original article - which has since been updated -  made it sound like he was shot and killed (pronounced dead on-scene), then arrested and taken to cells.


----------



## KevinB (25 Jul 2022)

Haggis said:


> Yeah, I know.  But the original article - which has since been updated -  made it sound like he was shot and killed (pronounced dead on-scene), then arrested and taken to cells.


That would make a mess...


----------



## Kat Stevens (25 Jul 2022)

KevinB said:


> That would make a mess...


Best to keep em locked up for 48 hours, the T Virus has a flexible germination period.


----------



## OldSolduer (25 Jul 2022)

Haggis said:


> Yeah, I know.  But the original article - which has since been updated -  made it sound like he was shot and killed (pronounced dead on-scene), then arrested and taken to cells.


Paul Newman (Judge Roy Bean) killed a cowboy for cheating at cards then held a trial and fined him eight dollars. I know I know before the earth cooled.


----------



## Retired AF Guy (25 Jul 2022)

The latest news that I could find is three dead including shooter:





__





						CityNews
					






					vancouver.citynews.ca
				



​


			https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/langley-shootings-emergency-alert-1.6530983


----------



## KevinB (26 Jul 2022)

Retired AF Guy said:


> The latest news that I could find is three dead including shooter:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Props to the responding officer.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (26 Jul 2022)

KevinB said:


> From the article.
> _The new survey found that more Americans believe that their best protection in a mass shooting situation is a nearby armed civilian, rather than police officers or federal agents. Respondents chose armed citizens as the best protection by 41.8% to 25.1% for local police and 10.3% for federal agents. About a fifth of people chose none of the above — 22.8%._


The Uvalde debacle has been the NRA's best publicity in decades.  

Everyone now thinks the Police are useless.


----------



## QV (26 Jul 2022)

Humphrey Bogart said:


> The Uvalde debacle has been the NRA's best publicity in decades. Everyone now thinks the Police are useless.



That followed by this makes it harder to argue.  Armed 'hero' stopped mass shooter at Indiana mall


----------



## KevinB (26 Jul 2022)

Humphrey Bogart said:


> The Uvalde debacle has been the NRA's best publicity in decades.
> 
> Everyone now thinks the Police are useless.


There have been a number of incidents that have eroded the publics faith in LE, Uvalde clown show was just the icing.
  Rule #1: ABC (Always be Carrying) for you can only count on yourself.

One tends not to get a lot of press when LE shows up quickly and does the job - like the below 


Retired AF Guy said:


> The latest news that I could find is three dead including shooter:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Halifax Tar (26 Jul 2022)

Humphrey Bogart said:


> The Uvalde debacle has been the NRA's best publicity in decades.
> 
> Everyone now thinks the Police are useless.



I don't think you're wrong.  I think the public, rightly, expects POs to move towards the danger or threat and take personal injury and death as a very real possibility of that employment.  And that sacrifice is expected to try and save the victims.  

I also think the vast majority of POs are willing to do that.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (26 Jul 2022)

KevinB said:


> There have been a number of incidents that have eroded the publics faith in LE, Uvalde clown show was just the icing.
> Rule #1: ABC (Always be Carrying) for you can only count on yourself.
> 
> One tends not to get a lot of press when LE shows up quickly and does the job - like the below


It's the classic "nobody needs a gun" .... that is.... "until they really do" and then they wish they had one 😉



Halifax Tar said:


> I don't think you're wrong.  I think the public, rightly, expects POs to move towards the danger or threat and take personal injury and death as a very real possibility of that employment.  And that sacrifice is expected to try and save the victims.
> 
> I also think the vast majority of POs are willing to do that.


That's why the Army has this clever little trick:

They historically have employed DYMs in junior leadership roles.  Otherwise known as Dumb Young Men.  It takes a special type of idiot to yell "follow me" when SHTF 😎


----------



## Halifax Tar (26 Jul 2022)

Humphrey Bogart said:


> It's the classic "nobody needs a gun" .... that is.... "until they really do" and then they wish they had one 😉
> 
> 
> That's why the Army has this clever little trick:
> ...



Some people are the sheepdog, some people are the sheep...


----------



## Colin Parkinson (26 Jul 2022)

I know it's a forlorn hope, but with Canada current PAL system, a CCW program under the current ATC's would be quite doable and the quality of successful candidates would be quite high. A number of years ago there was a big push to get the ATC for the protection of life (aka ATC 3) One of the requirement was "acceptable level of training". There was a lot of people writing their CFO's to lay out what that training standard was. The CFO's refused to divulge what they considered acceptable because they knew that a course would be developed and people would meet and exceed that requirement, removing yet another obstacle to the permit. At this point the ATC 3 is a "Illusionary permit" to borrow a phrase from another area of law.


----------



## Halifax Tar (26 Jul 2022)

Colin Parkinson said:


> I know it's a forlorn hope, but with Canada current PAL system, a CCW program under the current ATC's would be quite doable and the quality of successful candidates would be quite high. A number of years ago there was a big push to get the ATC for the protection of life (aka ATC 3) One of the requirement was "acceptable level of training". There was a lot of people writing their CFO's to lay out what that training standard was. The CFO's refused to divulge what they considered acceptable because they knew that a course would be developed and people would meet and exceed that requirement, removing yet another obstacle to the permit. At this point the ATC 3 is a "Illusionary permit" to borrow a phrase from another area of law.



My understanding is we do have citizens with CCW but its a small number and the RCMP/CFO wont divulge the number.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (26 Jul 2022)

Halifax Tar said:


> My understanding is we do have citizens with CCW but its a small number and the RCMP/CFO wont divulge the number.


Last I heard the number was less than 5 for all of Canada. Back in the 70's a lot of businessmen had permits and every bank was required to have a gun on the premise.


----------



## brihard (26 Jul 2022)

Colin Parkinson said:


> Last I heard the number was less than 5 for all of Canada. Back in the 70's a lot of businessmen had permits and every bank was required to have a gun on the premise.


As of 2019 there was a single ATC for personal protection issued in Canada. Not sure if it’s changed since. I have no idea the circumstances; I would guess it’s someone at extreme danger of violence from organized crime, and obviously who can qualify for a gun license, which rules out most people who would fit that first criteria. Pure speculation on my part but I wonder if it’s a former police officer who did some solid undercover work or something.


----------



## mariomike (26 Jul 2022)

Colin Parkinson said:


> Back in the 70's a lot of businessmen had permits and every bank was required to have a gun on the premise.




Norm Gardiner legally carried, and used it on Steeles Ave. W. in 1992.

Male bank staff used to practice their marksmanship at the old Bank of Toronto building.



> "( Bank manager ) Elwood grabbed a fully loaded .38 calibre revolver that was kept in the teller's drawer and set off in pursuit. The robber attempted to commandeer a car parked in front of the bank. The manager charged out of the bank and emptied the five shot revolver at the robber, but all the bullets missed.


Toronto Star
May 19, 1955. Toronto Dominion Bank at Dundas and McCaul.



> Although the banks don't appear to have taken security very seriously, they did issue handguns to bank staff with the expectation that if there was a hold-up, they would shoot back. There was even a secret downtown firing range in the old Bank of Toronto building where managers and tellers were expected to practice regularly. This ended only in the late 1950s after a bank staff member was killed by a ricocheting shot meant for a robber.


Edwin Alonzo Boyd: The Story of the Notorious Boyd Gang​


----------



## OldSolduer (27 Jul 2022)

Here is my take on CCW etc - I am the ONLY person I really trust with a firearm 100%.

The rest of y'all that have received the correct training and have experience are 99.9% .

I do not trust the back forty plinker.


----------



## Harris (28 Jul 2022)

Well, the shopping list with prices is apparently nearly complete: Feds propose to pay $1,337 for AR-15 under mandatory firearms buyback program

No mention of accessories.  I suspect your out of luck.


----------



## Halifax Tar (28 Jul 2022)

There is a way to apply and keep them a safe queen too isn't there ?


----------



## Harris (28 Jul 2022)

Not according to the article:

"It will be mandatory for owners to take part in the buyback program, have their designated firearms rendered inoperable at the government's expense or otherwise lawfully disposed of."

But until we see the actual price list and amplifying information who knows.


----------



## KevinB (28 Jul 2022)

Firearm is the receiver. 
   If I was in your shoes   I’d strip it of everything that I could and surrender any lowers that hadn’t been lost in my tragic boating accident


----------



## Haggis (28 Jul 2022)

Halifax Tar said:


> There is a way to apply and keep them a safe queen too isn't there ?


A permanently deactivated safe queen, yes.


----------



## Skysix (28 Jul 2022)

Buy an armorers tool and strip the lower to sell back. Advise the RCMP that you sold off the parts to replace the recent losses in your RRSP.


----------



## Skysix (28 Jul 2022)

What defines "permanently deactivated"? Weld in a barrel plug?


----------



## Haggis (28 Jul 2022)

KevinB said:


> Firearm is the receiver.
> If I was in your shoes   I’d strip it of everything that I could and surrender any lowers that hadn’t been lost in my tragic boating accident


Both the uppers and lowers were prohibited by OIC.  Both must be turned in along with any functional parts (bolts, bolt carriers, trigger groups etc.).

I suspect there will be no compensation for any accessories. I also would not put it past this government to deem the Compensated Confiscation (TM) payment as "taxable income" which must be reported when filing next year.


----------



## Good2Golf (28 Jul 2022)

Haggis said:


> I suspect there will be no compensation for any accessories. I also would not put it past this government to deem the Compensated Confiscation (TM) payment as "taxable income" which must be reported when filing next year.


----------



## Haggis (28 Jul 2022)

Skysix said:


> What defines "permanently deactivated"? Weld in a barrel plug?


See the CFR Deactivation Guide.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (28 Jul 2022)

If your registration says rifle, that's  the whole shebang. They'll want, at least, the upper and lower receiver.

Mine are all registered as stripped lower only. That's  all they get. That and an extra couple of thou out of each hole, just in case.😉


----------



## SeaKingTacco (28 Jul 2022)

Good luck finding a gunsmith to do the work of deactivating. All of the ones that I have spoken to are refusing to do deactivations as a result of this OIC, as a method of protest.


----------



## Harris (28 Jul 2022)

Here's the compensation list: Gun buyback: Here's how much the feds are proposing to pay for banned firearms


----------



## Haggis (28 Jul 2022)

Public safety has an on-line survey for owners to comment on the pricing scheme.  As soon as I found that it asks you what you own, I exited the survey without completing it.  You can probably bet that your IP address is being traced as a means of identifying potential owners of formerly non-restricteds.


----------



## suffolkowner (28 Jul 2022)

Harris said:


> Here's the compensation list: Gun buyback: Here's how much the feds are proposing to pay for banned firearms


what garbage, there must be more to it than that. I get $1337 for my BCL but $2612 for my norinco M14/305! $2819 for a 50 cal? Thats a joke. Good thing I didn't buy that Lahti L-39 a few years back its now worth $2684. Where do they get these numbers, its pretty sad that it took 2 yrs to come up with this. I know I can find someone that will pay more than the government


----------



## Fishbone Jones (28 Jul 2022)

Amnesty til October 2023. To early to get upset about anything yet. We can have parliament reconvene, lose a confidence vote and have an election before then.


----------



## Jarnhamar (28 Jul 2022)

Fishbone Jones said:


> Amnesty til October 2023.



I'm betting come October 2023 it gets extended again.

The LPC can just keep extending the buyback for <insert reason here> until they eventually lose an election.


----------



## calculus (29 Jul 2022)

All just practice for the handgun buyback program of 20xx...


----------



## Eaglelord17 (30 Jul 2022)

I absolutely hate the term 'buyback'. They aren't buying back anything. That implies they owned the property at one point. Which they did not. It is 'expropriation' and I think its important that everyone starts to use the proper terminology as words do have meaning, especially when used in the correct manner.


----------



## Weinie (30 Jul 2022)

Eaglelord17 said:


> I absolutely hate the term 'buyback'. They aren't buying back anything. That implies they owned the property at one point. Which they did not. It is 'expropriation' and I think its important that everyone starts to use the proper terminology as words do have meaning, especially when used in the correct manner.


Coercive confiscation, with some sugar stirred in to make it (at least in their minds) palatable.


----------



## Remius (30 Jul 2022)

Glad to see my tax dollar at work on stupid stuff…


----------



## Haggis (30 Jul 2022)

Remius said:


> Glad to see my tax dollar at work on stupid stuff…


A friend - former Inf O now in med school in the Caribbean - posted the following on another site:

"For every 60 AR-15s bought back we could have trained another doctor in Canada. There are enough AR-15s in Canada that we could have another 1500 new MDs. Something to think about when you hear your friends and family waiting for a surgery or to get a family doctor."


----------



## Halifax Tar (30 Jul 2022)

Haggis said:


> A friend - former Inf O now in med school in the Caribbean - posted the following on another site:
> 
> "For every 60 AR-15s bought back we could have trained another doctor in Canada. There are enough AR-15s in Canada that we could have another 1500 new MDs. Something to think about when you hear your friends and family waiting for a surgery or to get a family doctor."



Tell your friend I said thank you and I stole his quote and posted it my social Media.  Giving him full credit.


----------



## Skysix (30 Jul 2022)

Haggis said:


> A friend - former Inf O now in med school in the Caribbean - posted the following on another site:
> 
> "For every 60 AR-15s bought back we could have trained another doctor in Canada. There are enough AR-15s in Canada that we could have another 1500 new MDs. Something to think about when you hear your friends and family waiting for a surgery or to get a family doctor."


Sorry, but I call BS on your math. It costs a lot more than $75k or whatever to train an MD in Canada. Most of it also taxpayer dollars. The often quoted $100k is only the cost to the student for tuition, books, labs and supplies - not society.

Take the budget of all the faculties of medicine and divide by the graduates per year and add that to it. While you are at it the cost of funding the various programs where students get their 3 year pre-med or 4 year undergraduate degree normalised to the percentage of students annually that get accepted into med school.

Then add the cost of the years of internship and residency to the hospitals that employ them. And the simple cost of living and not working for many years that the student also pays.

I would not be surprised if an all up forensic accounting of the cost for a non boarded MD is in the 1 million dollar range.

(It costs about CDN$2 million to train a US army helicopter pilot)


----------



## CBH99 (31 Jul 2022)

Questions like this always boil down to perspective.  

Do we include the costs of instructors & teaching materials/labs/rooms?

Or do we measure that, but also include every penny the student doesn't earn and/or spends in that same time period to include 'opportunity cost?'


Regardless, I think we all agree that for a government that 'just can't give all Canadians tbey ask for'... they do seem to always have an abundance of money to pursue whatever dumb new idea they come up with.


----------



## CBH99 (31 Jul 2022)

Remius said:


> Glad to see my tax dollar at work on stupid stuff…


As always


----------



## Colin Parkinson (1 Aug 2022)

LOL


----------



## OldSolduer (1 Aug 2022)

I own one - yes one - firearm. A single shot .22 that was my dad's. Its about a 100 years old and still serviceable.

I'm with gun owners on this one. It's a scam and a way to get votes from the GTA and the anti gun people. I don't see any movement on gun crime using illegally imported firearms however.....


----------



## The Bread Guy (3 Aug 2022)

Colin Parkinson said:


> LOL
> 
> View attachment 72308


Heading this idea off at the pass here in Canada ....





						CBSA seizes “ghost guns” in British Columbia - Canada.ca
					

The Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA) fights organized crime by focusing on firearms-related offences at the border. Today, the CBSA in British Columbia (B.C.), announced that it has made two significant seizures of “ghost guns” in the B.C. Interior, following interceptions at international...




					www.canada.ca


----------



## Colin Parkinson (3 Aug 2022)

As I recall a there is no such thing as a "prohibited knife" in Canada, but there are knives that are prohibited from entry into Canada? Also not an expert on 3D printing laws, but other than the lower receiver, I don't think they can nail you for the rest. You can print a lower receiver if you apply to the CFO to have it registered first as I recall?


----------



## Eaglelord17 (3 Aug 2022)

Colin Parkinson said:


> As I recall a there is no such thing as a "prohibited knife" in Canada, but there are knives that are prohibited from entry into Canada? Also not an expert on 3D printing laws, but other than the lower receiver, I don't think they can nail you for the rest. You can print a lower receiver if you apply to the CFO to have it registered first as I recall?


If you think our gun laws are bad, our knife laws are actually worse. There is a few types of knives which are illegal. Off the top of my head, butterfly knives, switchblades, centrufugal knives, and knives that can be opened with one hand alone with no assistance. The reason that last one is stupid is because all it takes to make a folding knife illegal in many cases is a tightening or loosening of a screw.


----------



## mariomike (3 Aug 2022)

OldSolduer said:


> I own one - yes one - firearm. A single shot .22 that was my dad's. Its about a 100 years old and still serviceable.


Still got my old Cooey. Nice and light.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (3 Aug 2022)

Eaglelord17 said:


> If you think our gun laws are bad, our knife laws are actually worse. There is a few types of knives which are illegal. Off the top of my head, butterfly knives, switchblades, centrufugal knives, and knives that can be opened with one hand alone with no assistance. The reason that last one is stupid is because all it takes to make a folding knife illegal in many cases is a tightening or loosening of a screw.


There is confusion between what is illegal to posses and what is illegal to bring into the country. I am not sure one way or another if any particular type of knife is illegal to posses within the country, I let other with more experience speak on the issue. However I just word searched the CCC and the words "Blade" and "knife" do not appear.


----------



## Eaglelord17 (3 Aug 2022)

Colin Parkinson said:


> There is confusion between what is illegal to posses and what is illegal to bring into the country. I am not sure one way or another if any particular type of knife is illegal to posses within the country, I let other with more experience speak on the issue. However I just word searched the CCC and the words "Blade" and "knife" do not appear.


Section 84 Criminal Code

‘prohibited weapon means


(a) a knife that has a blade that opens automatically by gravity or centrifugal force or by hand pressure applied to a button, spring or other device in or attached to the handle of the knife, or
(b) any weapon, other than a firearm, that is prescribed to be a prohibited weapon; (arme prohibée)’

There is other bits sprinkled in various laws. I am not super up to date on knife laws, not really my thing. My friend who is tried explaining them to me and it had me confused.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (3 Aug 2022)

Thanks, really odd that it did not find it, must have goofed on something


----------



## QV (3 Aug 2022)

We've got some really bad laws. Why a folder that can be opened with one hand is illegal, but a fixed blade is fine.... so asinine.


----------



## OldSolduer (3 Aug 2022)

Eaglelord17 said:


> Section 84 Criminal Code
> 
> ‘prohibited weapon means
> 
> ...


We have knife laws?

Tell that to the assholes who stab refugees here in StabbyPeg


----------



## Skysix (3 Aug 2022)

The Bread Guy said:


> Heading this idea off at the pass here in Canada ....
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I wonder if that will stand a supreme court challenge. Until it is assembled into a firearm without a serial number it is simply a billet (if CNC) or printed blank.

Curious: what is the definition of a knife as opopsed to a machette or sword?


----------



## The Bread Guy (3 Aug 2022)

Skysix said:


> I wonder if that will stand a supreme court challenge. Until it is assembled into a firearm without a serial number it is simply a billet (if CNC) or printed blank.


Good point, but gotta find someone with the stomach and the funds to chase it all the way to the Supremes.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (4 Aug 2022)

Skysix said:


> I wonder if that will stand a supreme court challenge. Until it is assembled into a firearm without a serial number it is simply a billet (if CNC) or printed blank.
> 
> Curious: what is the definition of a knife as opopsed to a machette or sword?


The US plans on treating some billets as guns, mind you ATF declared a string as a part that made a gun a machine gun.


----------



## Haggis (5 Aug 2022)

Effective August 19, 2022, the importation of * any* handgun into Canads is banned. That should make a difference in the crime rate.


----------



## OldSolduer (5 Aug 2022)

Haggis said:


> Effective August 19, 2022, the importation of * any* handgun into Canads is banned. That should make a difference in the crime rate.


Ok that takes care of the legal areas.......


----------



## Jarnhamar (5 Aug 2022)

Skysix said:


> Curious: what is the definition of a knife as opopsed to a machette or sword?


_ Crocodile Dundee has entered the chat_


----------



## brihard (5 Aug 2022)

Jarnhamar said:


> _ Crocodile Dundee has entered the chat_


I see you’ve played Knifey Spooney before.


----------



## North Star (6 Aug 2022)

Haggis said:


> Effective August 19, 2022, the importation of * any* handgun into Canads is banned. That should make a difference in the crime rate.


I feel safer already. Eyeroll.
Oddly enough, the Norico Type 97 avoided the OIC ban and can still be imported. Weird. It's like this is just about the optics....


----------



## Good2Golf (6 Aug 2022)

North Star said:


> I feel safer already. Eyeroll.
> Oddly enough, the Norico Type 97 avoided the OIC ban and can still be imported. Weird. It's like this is just about the optics....


Our Dear Leader respects their Dear Leader so much that it would be a great insult to ban the Type 97…


----------



## Colin Parkinson (7 Aug 2022)

They need to save some bans for the next election, need to milk that cow....


----------



## Furniture (7 Aug 2022)

Colin Parkinson said:


> They need to save some bans for the next election, need to milk that cow....


I'm actually surprised they are going for handguns this early in their mandate, to me it indicates they are scared of their slide in the opinion polls.

Nothing is more certain to shore up urban/suburban votes that pretending you're doing something about "gun" violence.


----------



## Eaglelord17 (7 Aug 2022)

I wonder if the government can be sued for this permit system they are adopting. By publicly stating they intend to adopt it and then deny all permits based off a law they may or may not end up passing, they are truly dealing in bad faith. Basically making things illegal without making them illegal (which seems to be becoming the modus operandi for government at the moment).


----------



## Haggis (7 Aug 2022)

Furniture said:


> I'm actually surprised they are going for handguns this early in their mandate, to me it indicates they are scared of their slide in the opinion polls.
> 
> Nothing is more certain to shore up urban/suburban votes that pretending you're doing something about "gun" violence.


"New gun laws" are used as a distraction from other government ineptitude such as the Nova Scotia massacre, Nord Stream Turbine fiasco and the CAF senior leadership's ongoing inability to keep it's dick in it's pants.


----------



## Jarnhamar (7 Aug 2022)

Toronto and Vancouver/Victoria seem more like Grand Theft Auto V every day. The west coast is normalizing targeted killings.


----------



## The Bread Guy (7 Aug 2022)

Haggis said:


> "New gun laws" are used as a distraction from other government ineptitude such as the Nova Scotia massacre, Nord Stream Turbine fiasco and the CAF senior leadership's ongoing inability to keep it's dick in it's pants.


Yup ... more on that from The Line this weekend ....


> ... Late last week, the federal government announced that it intends to roll out via some kind of executive order a prohibition on the importation of handguns into Canada. Up until very recently (technically for two more weeks), handguns, though regulated, could be imported by gun stores and then sold to properly licensed individuals. As part of their so-called “freeze“ on handgun ownership in the country, the Liberals had said they plan to pass legislation effectively zeroing out those imports, with some very, very narrow exceptions. Rather than wait to pass the legislation through normal processes and methods, the Liberals now say they will be using an executive order, likely an order-in-council through the cabinet, to accomplish the same thing on a temporary basis, with full legislation to come later.
> 
> The first point, which we’ve made many times before — sigh, so many times — is that this is entirely political theatre aimed at shoring up Liberal political fortunes in key urban and suburban ridings. This will have negligible public safety benefits, at best. Gun crime in this country is overwhelmingly the fault of organized criminal groups and gangs, using firearms smuggled easily across the U.S. border. The Liberals know full well that what they are proposing will have no real impact on violent crime in Canada, which is why they’ve been so lackadaisical over the years about actually doing anything. The Liberals talk about guns a lot and trickle out announcements any time there’s some big high-profile disaster (their "military-style assault rifles ban" came right after the Nova Scotia massacre, the latest handgun announcement after the debacle in Uvalde, Texas). But nothing they are proposing today couldn’t have been done seven years ago. The Liberals' use of firearms policy as a political wedge, admittedly an effective one, has scaled up in direct line with their growing political woes anywhere outside their safest ridings in the biggest cities.
> 
> ...


----------



## mariomike (7 Aug 2022)

Jarnhamar said:


> Toronto and Vancouver/Victoria seem more like Grand Theft Auto V every day. The west coast is normalizing targeted killings.



For those keeping score,









						Canada's Most Dangerous Places 2020 - Macleans.ca
					

Use this interactive tool to see the full ranking of Canada's most dangerous places. Rank cities by type of crime or see all the statistics for one city.




					www.macleans.ca
				












						Homicide rate by metro area in Canada 2021 | Statista
					

This statistic shows the homicide rate in Canada in 2021, distinguished by metropolitan areas.




					www.statista.com


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (7 Aug 2022)

mariomike said:


> For those keeping score,
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Yah but this shows that there isn't necessarily a correlation between firearms and homicides.  

Look at the Macleans data, TBay and Kenora. Super high homicide rate but all the way down at #80 and #73 for firearms deaths.

Then again, Canadians don't care because it's mostly just indigenous killing each other.


----------



## Skysix (7 Aug 2022)

mariomike said:


> Homicide rate by metro area in Canada 2021 | Statista
> 
> 
> This statistic shows the homicide rate in Canada in 2021, distinguished by metropolitan areas.
> ...



For comparison



			Cities with Most Murders 2023
		


Marco Island FL, has 7/100k. Ocean City NJ 6/100k. Their safest city (Woodbury Town NY) has 3 murders per 100,000



			https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2019/crime-in-the-u.s.-2019/topic-pages/tables/table-6


----------



## Haggis (7 Aug 2022)

Eaglelord17 said:


> I wonder if the government can be sued for this permit system they are adopting. By publicly stating they intend to adopt it and then deny all permits based off a law they may or may not end up passing, they are truly dealing in bad faith. Basically making things illegal without making them illegal (which seems to be becoming the modus operandi for government at the moment).


To be fair, Minister Joly is completely within her authority to deny import permits for handguns - or any other item/commodity - for any justifiable reason.  We don't have to like that reason, it just has to exist so as to be defensible in court.  This likely wouldn't be, given no clear national security imperative, but the Liberals would just invoke Section 39 once again as they did in defence of the May 1, 2020 OIC.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (7 Aug 2022)

Jarnhamar said:


> Toronto and Vancouver/Victoria seem more like Grand Theft Auto V every day. The west coast is normalizing targeted killings.


So your saying that most of the urban voters are NPC's with a very limited AI and will forget that an incident and carry on as before? That explains so much......


----------



## Haggis (7 Aug 2022)

The CSAAA announced that any imported handguns that have cleared customs by August 19 will be allowed into Canada. Everything not cleared by that date will be refused entry.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (7 Aug 2022)

Gun Control is a big wedge issue for the lunatic left. I really can't envision them giving that up. There's  going to be shenanigans and fuckery afoot, but I can't see them banning everything and ending the controversy. It's  worth too many votes and PR points.


----------



## Ostrozac (7 Aug 2022)

Jarnhamar said:


> Toronto and Vancouver/Victoria seem more like Grand Theft Auto V every day. The west coast is normalizing targeted killings.


During Montreal’s gang war in the late 1990’s there were plenty of targeted killings (162 dead in all) — but the weapon of choice seemed to be explosives. Organized crime will always find a way — that’s why they are organized.


----------



## Jarnhamar (11 Aug 2022)

mariomike said:


> For those keeping score,
> 
> 
> 
> ...




GTA Toronto's trying hard to take top place, no doubt about it.

Axe and machette attack on a realtor. 








						Well-known Brampton, Ont. real estate agent, media personality savagely attacked outside home
					

A well-known real estate agent and media personality in Brampton, Ont. was viciously attacked in broad daylight in his own driveway by three men, two of whom appeared to be wielding an axe and a machete.




					toronto.ctvnews.ca
				




I'm surprised Torontonians aren't pushing for ATC handgun permits.


----------



## mariomike (11 Aug 2022)

I posted,









						Canada's Most Dangerous Places 2020 - Macleans.ca
					

Use this interactive tool to see the full ranking of Canada's most dangerous places. Rank cities by type of crime or see all the statistics for one city.




					www.macleans.ca
				












						Homicide rate by metro area in Canada 2021 | Statista
					

This statistic shows the homicide rate in Canada in 2021, distinguished by metropolitan areas.




					www.statista.com
				




Take it, or leave it. I'm not playing party politics with you today, Jarnhamar.  The weather is too nice.  Have a good one!


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (11 Aug 2022)

mariomike said:


> I posted,
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Some of these stats show there isn't necessarily a correlation between homicide rate and firearms deaths.

Look at Thunder Bay, Kenora, etc.  High up on Homicides (TBay being #1) but all the way down at #80 for firearms deaths.


----------



## Jarnhamar (11 Aug 2022)

mariomike said:


> Take it, or leave it. I'm not playing party politics with you today, Jarnhamar.  The weather is too nice.  Have a good one!



Hopefully the forecast doesn't call for more raining axes and machettes. Stay safe out there my friend.


----------



## mariomike (11 Aug 2022)

Jarnhamar said:


> Axe and machette attack on a realtor.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I don't know anything about Brampton, but reminds me of something someone said years ago.

"I would rather be a lamp post in Mississauga,  than mayor of Brampton."


----------



## Fishbone Jones (11 Aug 2022)

mariomike said:


> I don't know anything about Brampton, but reminds me of something someone said years ago.
> 
> "I would rather be a lamp post in Mississauga,  than mayor of Brampton."


That's a suckers bet!🤣


----------



## OldSolduer (11 Aug 2022)

Ostrozac said:


> During Montreal’s gang war in the late 1990’s there were plenty of targeted killings (162 dead in all) — but the weapon of choice seemed to be explosives. Organized crime will always find a way — that’s why they are organized.


No kidding - the HA and Rock Machine tore it up until a bomb killed a 12 year old kid.

None cares that gang bangers don't undergo extensive training to handle firearms or use explosives. As long as they only kill each other its ok is the attitude most of the public has.  

The issue is that eventually an innocent gets caught in the crossfire - or an explosion.


----------



## mariomike (11 Aug 2022)

OldSolduer said:


> As long as they only kill each other its ok is the attitude most of the public has.



Bugsy Siegal used to say, "We only kill each other."

As long as it's recidivists beating on each other, I doubt the public much cares one way or the other.


----------



## Halifax Tar (12 Aug 2022)

OldSolduer said:


> No kidding - the HA and Rock Machine tore it up until a bomb killed a 12 year old kid.
> 
> None cares that gang bangers don't undergo extensive training to handle firearms or use explosives. As long as they only kill each other its ok is the attitude most of the public has.
> 
> The issue is that eventually an innocent gets caught in the crossfire - or an explosion.



Exactly, I shed no tears nor lose sleep when criminals kill criminals.  And if they could keep it that way I would be perfectly fine with it.

But when the heathens stray and hurt the innocent the response from the civilized needs to be swift, violent and exact.

I always laugh when little Johnny Bad Ass is whacked and his momma cry's about how he was a good boy.  No, no he wasn't and momma you probably had a hand in making him that way; either directly or by being a shitty parent.


----------



## Haggis (19 Aug 2022)

Effective today, Canadian businesses and individuals are no longer permitted to legally import new handguns into Canada, with very limited exceptions as outlined in the proposed Bill C-21.  Handguns that are outside of Canada for which a registration certificate has already been issued in Canada will be allowed to return to Canada.

Foreign nationals are permitted to bring handguns into Canada temporarily (i.e. for competitions) as long as the requirement s of s. 35(1) of the Firearms Act are met.

No word on any new import restrictions for parts and/or accessories.


----------



## Kat Stevens (19 Aug 2022)

You better get one of these while you can, the loons are coming for them #ishityounot.
https://www.princessauto.com/en/36v-cordless-screwdriver-gun/product/PA0008972275








						'Novelty' screwdriver that looks like replica handgun raising concerns
					

Concerns are being raised about the sale of a screwdriver that looks like a replica handgun available at a popular auto retailer across Canada.




					toronto.ctvnews.ca
				



We have become a nation of pussweeds.


----------



## Kat Stevens (19 Aug 2022)

Kat Stevens said:


> You better get one of these while you can, the loons are coming for them #ishityounot.
> https://www.princessauto.com/en/36v-cordless-screwdriver-gun/product/PA0008972275
> 
> 
> ...


From the article;
"While a product that looks like a gun or toy guns could seem harmless, police say they pose a challenge because fakes look like real firearms and in a fast moving situation police need to treat them as real which could lead to tragic circumstances. "
  Then don't bring a screwdriver to a gunfight, duh.


----------



## CBH99 (19 Aug 2022)

Kat Stevens said:


> From the article;
> "While a product that looks like a gun or toy guns could seem harmless, police say they pose a challenge because fakes look like real firearms and in a fast moving situation police need to treat them as real which could lead to tragic circumstances. "
> Then don't bring a screwdriver to a gunfight, duh.


Actually, I DO hope they bring a screwdriver to a gunfight.  

Go try to rob a store or do something where the police respond to an incident & make contact with the suspect.  Wave the gun around, do something stupid that communicates a threat to the police or a nearby citizen.  


One less idiot.  No real potential harm to anybody other than himself.  

And a vast majority of the population would fully understand and support the officer’s actions as being reasonable.


----------



## Haggis (19 Aug 2022)

Kat Stevens said:


> From the article;
> "While a product that looks like a gun or toy guns could seem harmless, police say they pose a challenge because fakes look like real firearms and in a fast moving situation police need to treat them as real which could lead to tragic circumstances. "


That is very true.  Bad folks have been modifying their real guns to look like toys for some time.  They hope to gain a second or two advantage over their opponents (LEOs or other bad folks) by causing a hesitation in their OODA loop.


----------



## CBH99 (19 Aug 2022)

mariomike said:


> I don't know anything about Brampton, but reminds me of something someone said years ago.
> 
> "I would rather be a lamp post in Mississauga,  than mayor of Brampton."


Over the years, I’ve had more than my share of dealing with large groups of Indian males in their early 20’s to mid 30’s

A lot of bars & nightclubs won’t let in large groups of them anymore, just due to the dynamic it brings into the venue

A small group of like 2-4 friends, no problem.  But when 20-30 show up as a group, and you end up with 2 or more of those groups… almost guaranteed to have some problems as the night goes on.  

The crappy part is it’s usually 1 or 2 that are the trouble makers, while the rest are totally fine.  But when the trouble makers are asked to leave?  Then the whole group comes to their aid.  <Que eventual fisticuffs…>

That is UNTIL I DISCOVERED the secret weapon that has an instantly neutralizing effect on aggressive Indian males…their Mothers.  

Or any Indian mother it would seem, strikes the fear of God into them.  From brazen & aggressive to apologetic & leaving in about 20 seconds flat 😳


----------



## mariomike (19 Aug 2022)

Wasn't meant as a crack about anyplace in particular. 

Just something I remember from a long time ago. "I'd rather be a lamp post in ( insert town ), than mayor of ( insert town ).


----------



## Kat Stevens (19 Aug 2022)

CBH99 said:


> Actually, I DO hope they bring a screwdriver to a gunfight.
> 
> Go try to rob a store or do something where the police respond to an incident & make contact with the suspect.  Wave the gun around, do something stupid that communicates a threat to the police or a nearby citizen.
> 
> ...


Kinda where I was going. If you're idiot enough to bring a screwdriver that looks like a Who Framed Roger Rabbit prop gun into conflict with 5-O, well that's just idiot control, eventually they'll thin themselves out from the herd.


----------



## CBH99 (20 Aug 2022)

Kat Stevens said:


> Kinda where I was going. If you're idiot enough to bring a screwdriver that looks like a Who Framed Roger Rabbit prop gun into conflict with 5-O, well that's just idiot control, eventually they'll thin themselves out from the herd.


I keep waiting for all these stupid people to accidentally off themselves to society’s pleasant surprise, but they are _still_ around… 😕


----------



## Fishbone Jones (21 Aug 2022)

It hit the news. Princess Auto, here, sold out the next day.


----------



## Kat Stevens (21 Aug 2022)

Fishbone Jones said:


> It hit the news. Princess Auto, here, sold out the next day.


The ban monkeys never learn, do they?  The quickest way to sell a bazillion of something is tell people they can't have it. They'll be coming for my Bug-a-salt  ( Bug-A-Salt: The Original Salt Gun | Bug-A-Salt )  next.


----------



## Brad Sallows (22 Aug 2022)

"Raising concerns".  The last refuge of idiots.


----------



## Haggis (23 Aug 2022)

A friend who works in the Canadian firearms industry told me last week that the Ontario CFO is currently processing individual transfer requests received on June 1st, 2022.  Public Safety Canada has told the CSAAA that any transfer received but not process when the "freeze" drops will still go through.

Given the government's somewhat underhanded and unforecasted legal handgun import ban, what I expect to see is a reversal from Public Safety Canada.  I predict that when the freeze come into force is that any transfer not yet finalized will be voided, thus placing ownership into limbo. Those handguns will then be forfeited to the government as they no longer have a registered owner. They can the claim that the "freeze has already taken XXXX unregistered handguns off our streets". 

No, I don't trust them to act with integrity on this file.


----------



## Halifax Tar (23 Aug 2022)

Haggis said:


> No, I don't trust them to act with integrity on this file.



That should go without saying.


----------



## The Bread Guy (23 Aug 2022)

Haggis said:


> ... I predict that when the freeze come into force is that any transfer not yet finalized will be voided, thus placing ownership into limbo. Those handguns will then be forfeited to the government as they no longer have a registered owner. They can the claim that the "freeze has already taken XXXX unregistered handguns off our streets" ...


How at least part of the narrative gets made, right there.


----------



## CBH99 (24 Aug 2022)

That is one of the most sinisterly creative initiatives I’ve heard in quite some time - and I believe every darn word of it.

The only people currently on the streets with handguns are police officers & criminals.  Law abiding citizens don’t bring their firearms to the streets for the government to take off the streets, criminals do.

Someone did remember to tell the criminals that there is now a handgun ban, right?  Riiiggghhhtttt…?


----------



## The Bread Guy (24 Aug 2022)

Everyone feeling safer with these puppys out of the hands of bad guys?

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1561735577757704196


----------



## North Star (24 Aug 2022)

Octagonal barrel...nice!


----------



## Halifax Tar (24 Aug 2022)

The Bread Guy said:


> Everyone feeling safer with these puppys out of the hands of bad guys?
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1561735577757704196



I'm sure the soccer moms, and latte dads of Markham feel much safer now.


----------



## Haggis (24 Aug 2022)

North Star said:


> Octagonal barrel...nice!


Prohibited nonetheless.


----------



## KevinB (24 Aug 2022)

Haggis said:


> A friend who works in the Canadian firearms industry told me last week that the Ontario CFO is currently processing individual transfer requests received on June 1st, 2022.  Public Safety Canada has told the CSAAA that any transfer received but not process when the "freeze" drops will still go through.
> 
> Given the government's somewhat underhanded and unforecasted legal handgun import ban, what I expect to see is a reversal from Public Safety Canada.  I predict that when the freeze come into force is that any transfer not yet finalized will be voided, thus placing ownership into limbo. Those handguns will then be forfeited to the government as they no longer have a registered owner. They can the claim that the "freeze has already taken XXXX unregistered handguns off our streets".
> 
> No, I don't trust them to act with integrity on this file.


They did the same during 12.6 prohibition. 
  I bought a Glock23 that was transferred to me as I had a 12.6 handguns prior.   
  However it had come into the country after 12.6 was announced and the registration certificate was recinded - and I was given the option to turn the pistol in to the government or sell it to a business that could either use it as a prop gun, or deactivate it.


----------



## Haggis (24 Aug 2022)

Halifax Tar said:


> I'm sure the soccer moms, and latte dads of Markham feel much safer now.


A quick surf through the subject Twitter page shows that almost every handgun shown (and I only scrolled back to the end of May 2022) was already prohibited by regulation. The Twitter page doesn't identify if those not prohibited were illegally possessed. 

#wearenottheproblem


----------



## Haggis (24 Aug 2022)

KevinB said:


> They did the same during 12.6 prohibition.
> I bought a Glock23 that was transferred to me as I had a 12.6 handguns prior.
> However it had come into the country after 12.6 was announced and the registration certificate was rescinded - and I was given the option to turn the pistol in to the government or sell it to a business that could either use it as a prop gun, or deactivate it.


Old tricks are the best trick, eh?


----------



## Navy_Pete (25 Aug 2022)

Kind of an interesting one; some resident geniuses in Calgary 3D printing guns. I'm assuming they have some stock components for the barrels etc that are still metal.

Cue the reactionaries that want to further restrict things, vice simply enforcing existing laws that already make this illegal.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/calgary-police-3d-printed-guns-shootings-1.6562076



> 3D gun printing operation busted in Calgary, police lay dozens of charges​Social Sharing​
> 
> Officers have seized 1,229 firearms this year as city shooting incidents spike​CBC News  · Posted: Aug 25, 2022 12:38 PM MT | Last Updated: 2 hours ago
> 
> ...


----------



## Good2Golf (25 Aug 2022)

I must have missed the part in the article where the two suspects charged by police would have their PALs suspended by the CFO pending the outcome of their charges…


----------



## Haggis (31 Aug 2022)

Yesterday, IPSC Ontario sent out a good breakdown of what's required today to take your legally owned Canadian-registered handgun OUTCAN for competitions and, more importantly, to bring it back to Canada.  In short, you now need to jump through additional hoops to obtain an import permit to bring your handgun back into Canada.  The process is relatively easy and quick (for now) and will add about $20 to your overall match costs.  But, one must plan ahead and have all their ducks in a row before applying.


----------



## Eaglelord17 (31 Aug 2022)

Haggis said:


> Yesterday, IPSC Ontario sent out a good breakdown of what's required today to take your legally owned Canadian-registered handgun OUTCAN for competitions and, more importantly, to bring it back to Canada.  In short, you now need to jump through additional hoops to obtain an import permit to bring your handgun back into Canada.  The process is relatively easy and quick (for now) and will add about $20 to your overall match costs.  But, one must plan ahead and have all their ducks in a row before applying.


Death by 1000 cuts. I am still waiting for some handgun transfers from a few months ago. BS that a legally required process isn’t manned enough to be even remotely efficient.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (31 Aug 2022)

I don't know how many RCMP are in Alberta. Alberta is moving to a provincial force. Most of those RCMP should be enough to pump up the CFOs to where they are somewhat efficient and can move a file slightly faster than a glacier.🙄😁


----------



## AmmoTech90 (31 Aug 2022)

Fishbone Jones said:


> Alberta is moving to a provincial force.


No one but the UCP is suggesting that.  Even their rural supporters are against it.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (31 Aug 2022)

AmmoTech90 said:


> No one but the UCP is suggesting that.  Even their rural supporters are against it.


We read different articles then, but I'm not busting a nut over a little humour.


----------



## AmmoTech90 (31 Aug 2022)

Fishbone Jones said:


> We read different articles then, but I'm not busting a nut over a little humour.


I'm also living it.


----------



## RedFive (1 Sep 2022)

Fishbone Jones said:


> I don't know how many RCMP are in Alberta. Alberta is moving to a provincial force. Most of those RCMP should be enough to pump up the CFOs to where they are somewhat efficient and can move a file slightly faster than a glacier.🙄😁


The Firearms program is almost entirely divorced from the operational RCMP, and its a damned shame the RCMP allows such a wasteful and useless program tarnish its already fading reputation. The only real cross over is the National Weapons Enforcement Support Team, who assist investigators in firearms related investigations. A group of SME's if you will.

I can assure you even if every municipal and provincially employed Mountie in Alberta was reassigned to new duties tomorrow, none of them would end up processing paper in Miramichi. That's a Maritime welfare program run by the feds to prod along employment, and the RCMP is desperately short of actual cops in literally every other location.


----------



## QV (2 Sep 2022)

RedFive said:


> The Firearms program is almost entirely divorced from the operational RCMP, and its a damned shame the RCMP allows such a wasteful and useless program tarnish its already fading reputation. The only real cross over is the National Weapons Enforcement Support Team, who assist investigators in firearms related investigations. A group of SME's if you will.
> 
> I can assure you even if every municipal and provincially employed Mountie in Alberta was reassigned to new duties tomorrow, none of them would end up processing paper in Miramichi. That's a Maritime welfare program run by the feds to prod along employment, and the RCMP is desperately short of actual cops in literally every other location.


So it seems to me there are very good reasons to support the Surrey transition and the Alberta Provincial Police initiative. The Quebec and Ontario example seems to be functioning, so I don't understand why there is such opposition to that. The surplus RCMP from Surrey and Alberta who would rather remain mounties could then be used to backfill all of those understaffed GD locations wherever they may be. Seems like a win for everyone.  

Redfive, do you know the general feelings of the RCMP membership in Alberta about the APP initiative?


----------



## KevinB (2 Sep 2022)

Looked cool too.


----------



## Booter (2 Sep 2022)

QV said:


> So it seems to me there are very good reasons to support the Surrey transition and the Alberta Provincial Police initiative. The Quebec and Ontario example seems to be functioning, so I don't understand why there is such opposition to that. The surplus RCMP from Surrey and Alberta who would rather remain mounties could then be used to backfill all of those understaffed GD locations wherever they may be. Seems like a win for everyone.
> 
> Redfive, do you know the general feelings of the RCMP membership in Alberta about the APP initiative?


The Surete, OPP grew over time. That’s why it was successful, the Surrey transition is about 500 members behind and can’t get their own vehicles.

Replacing forces nowadays is a humongous undertaking, and the RNC is a good example- because they started trying to expand themselves in the 90s and kept hitting logistical walls- and they are orders of magnitude smaller,

Before I left Alberta I was on the outer periphery of the APP stuff you’re seeing in the news right now. I won’t say the governments stance then- but this “plan” was shown with some minor differences. At the time it was given back as a plan we had already explored- hubs etc- and was determined to be unworkable- we had tried it other places and other times and on a smaller scale it wasn’t working, so on a divisional scale it was absurd.

The Alberta governments “plan” relies on making people live places they don’t want to live, for longer periods- just because they say so.

They can’t even fill the sheriff seats in these places on a micro scale.

In the end- when they transition they ll take lots of Mounties that want to stay home, I’ll probably lateral in whatever scheme they propose for my position level. But it won’t survive contact as designed.

I would have the RCMP out of all contract policing. But it has to be done in phases. In my present province I deal with this on a smaller scale with some quasi-provincial agencies. When the bills start coming in the governments balk. Because we are way cheaper than the fix. WAY. Not even including salaries.

So, there are provinces where the RCMP does all court security and inter hospital mental health transport. So there are no systems ready to truly deal with the unintended consequence of the absence of Mounties- municipal and provincial agencies won’t take those tastings (rightfully) so right away there is a vacuum- as an example. There are numerous other federal functions and provincial functions that are written in provincial statutes that ask for Mounties- specifically. Not police officers. 

This can be changed- but the heads of other forces then renegotiate positions immediately. More cost. Or the creation of a new agency.

The Alberta plan also creates regional forces and municipal forces where they don’t want the APP, so there’s nuance there too, 

The plan, as presented to Albertans is juvenile. Like crayons on construction paper juvenile.


----------



## RedFive (2 Sep 2022)

QV said:


> So it seems to me there are very good reasons to support the Surrey transition and the Alberta Provincial Police initiative. The Quebec and Ontario example seems to be functioning, so I don't understand why there is such opposition to that. The surplus RCMP from Surrey and Alberta who would rather remain mounties could then be used to backfill all of those understaffed GD locations wherever they may be. Seems like a win for everyone.
> 
> Redfive, do you know the general feelings of the RCMP membership in Alberta about the APP initiative?



I can't speak personally to Alberta, but if its anything like Surrey there will be a large group who badges over immediately in order to preserve some semblance of certainty for their future, another group who make the decision once more facts are known, there will be the group that feels like they've been/are going to be screwed by the RCMP and badge over out of spite, and the people who want to stay with the RCMP. I cant say for sure because I don't have the official numbers but I would say a third of Surrey Detachment left, and likely a full 90-95% of SPS is former RCMP.

To bring that back to my comment, if you scale this up from a city to a Province, IE "ok well I can't work in this city when this is done but I can work in the next one over", moving an entire Province is not the same. I suspect were this to go through, the RCMP would not retain even a quarter of the members in the Province. Where the extra bodies would come from for the APP to make up that extra quarter plus all the extra positions that have been promised for rural policing? Good luck. Nobody can recruit these days because nobody wants to be a cop. Even when you're the highest paying and newest police force on the block.


----------



## Booter (2 Sep 2022)

This breakdown isnt bad-









						Surrey Police is now BC's third largest municipal police department | News
					

Over the span of just 18 months, Surrey Police Service (SPS) has grown from one employee to a total of 275 employees.




					dailyhive.com
				




This is years into the transition. They have 250 police officers.

And the transition will happen- there is a weird belief out there it won’t or it will collapse. I don’t believe that will be allowed. It would have policing repercussions across the country,


----------



## Colin Parkinson (2 Sep 2022)

Meanwhile, not looking good for JT's soft on crime, hard on gun owners stance









						Man released following Trudeau’s soft on gun crime policies kills woman - The Counter Signal
					

A man released following Justin Trudeau’s soft on gun crime policies has killed a woman and put her husband in the hospital.




					thecountersignal.com


----------



## Kat Stevens (2 Sep 2022)

Colin Parkinson said:


> Meanwhile, not looking good for JT's soft on crime, hard on gun owners stance
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Move along. Nothing to see here, bank accounts to freeze, etc.


----------



## OldSolduer (2 Sep 2022)

Colin Parkinson said:


> Meanwhile, not looking good for JT's soft on crime, hard on gun owners stance
> 
> 
> 
> ...


That will only add fuel to the anti gun dunderhead narrative. Facts don't matter. Feelings do.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (3 Sep 2022)

1 Million Guns Sold in US for Record-Setting 37th Consecutive Month​


			https://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/guns-sales-usa/2022/09/02/id/1085804/
		


It seems Creepy Joe is a better gun salesman than Barry Soetoro.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (3 Sep 2022)

B.C. Mountie charged with possessing restricted firearm while off duty​








						B.C. Mountie charged with possessing restricted firearm while off duty
					

An RCMP officer with the B.C. Highway Patrol is facing criminal charges after allegedly being found with a restricted firearm while off duty.




					bc.ctvnews.ca
				




Let's see how this goes.


----------



## Good2Golf (3 Sep 2022)

Fishbone Jones said:


> B.C. Mountie charged with possessing restricted firearm while off duty​
> 
> 
> 
> ...


They go down, while the multi-charged/sentenced/released gang banger walks free to bang/kill again? 🤷🏻‍♂️


----------



## Eaglelord17 (3 Sep 2022)

Good2Golf said:


> They go down, while the multi-charged/sentenced/released gang banger walks free to bang/kill again? 🤷🏻‍♂️


Both should be in jail. The law is the law, as much as I would like to concealed carry I don’t because the government has made it illegal. If he can’t follow the law himself, how can we expect him to enforce it?


----------



## Haggis (3 Sep 2022)

Good2Golf said:


> They go down, while the multi-charged/sentenced/released gang banger walks free to bang/kill again? 🤷🏻‍♂️


The article says nothing about the accused Mountie being retained in custody.

Gang banger gets arrested with a loaded restricted handgun in their car.  Gets charged with unauthorized possession etc.  Released to appear in court at a later date.

Off-duty Mountie gets arrested with a loaded restricted handgun in their car.  Gets charged with unauthorized possession etc.  Released to appear in court at a later date.

I would suspect that neither had a PAL (unauthorized possession).


----------



## KevinB (3 Sep 2022)

Haggis said:


> The article says nothing about the accused Mountie being retained in custody.
> 
> Gang banger gets arrested with a loaded restricted handgun in their car.  Gets charged with unauthorized possession etc.  Released to appear in court at a later date.
> 
> ...


Your off duty LE carry laws are retarded.
  If a LEO is allowed to carry on duty, and they want to carry off duty, they should simply be held to the same standard of behavior as on duty carry (no drinking etc).


----------



## Haggis (3 Sep 2022)

KevinB said:


> Your off duty LE carry   gun laws are retarded.


FTFY  


KevinB said:


> If a LEO is allowed to carry on duty, and they want to carry off duty, they should simply be held to the same standard of behavior as on duty carry (no drinking etc).


As should anyone who lawfully carries concealed.

I'm on the fence about the whole concealed carry concept. But it's a moot point as lawful handgun ownership will soon end up here anyways.


----------



## KevinB (3 Sep 2022)

Haggis said:


> FTFY


No disagreement here — the main reason my wife and I ruled Canada out as our home was the gun laws. 


Haggis said:


> As should anyone who lawfully carries concealed.
> 
> I'm on the fence about the whole concealed carry concept. But it's a moot point as lawful handgun ownership will soon end up here anyways.


Concealed Carry is a huge boogie man, that like the Boogie man, has no real grounds for concern.   

Law abiding gun owners aren’t an issue, the amount of crime that comes from this segment is significantly smaller than other populations.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (3 Sep 2022)

KevinB said:


> Your off duty LE carry laws are retarded.
> If a LEO is allowed to carry on duty, and they want to carry off duty, they should simply be held to the same standard of behavior as on duty carry (no drinking etc).


Nah I'm good with the laws as written, mostly because some Officers have shown that they are indeed retards:



			https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/rcmp-officer-sleeping-drunk-burger-king-1.6536799
		


They still have a job as well 🤣


----------



## Booter (3 Sep 2022)

🤷‍♀️


----------



## Haggis (3 Sep 2022)

KevinB said:


> Concealed Carry is a huge boogie man, that like the Boogie man, has no real grounds for concern.


Don't get me wrong. I'm not against concealed carry as long as the carrier has proper and professional  training/certification and liability insurance.


KevinB said:


> Law abiding gun owners aren’t an issue, the amount of crime that comes from this segment is significantly smaller than other populations.


In the words of a Liberal MP "legal gun owners are only law abiding until they are not".  Dumber words have rarely been spoken.


----------



## brihard (4 Sep 2022)

Fishbone Jones said:


> B.C. Mountie charged with possessing restricted firearm while off duty​
> 
> 
> 
> ...


RCMP issued sidearm is a prohib, so we can reasonably infer from that it wasn’t his issued handgun. I’m as curious as anyone to hear what comes out on this one. Weird that I heard about it here first.


----------



## Haggis (5 Sep 2022)

brihard said:


> RCMP issued sidearm is a prohib, so we can reasonably infer from that it wasn’t his issued handgun.


Loaded, restricted handgun in a vehicle and unauthorized possession.  More than one alleged offence here.  I`m surprised there were no unsafe storage/transportation charges laid.


brihard said:


> I’m as curious as anyone to hear what comes out on this one. Weird that I heard about it here first.


If the recent treatment by the courts of dumbass police officers doing stupid gun things is any indication, we will likely all be disappointed.


----------



## brihard (5 Sep 2022)

Haggis said:


> If the recent treatment by the courts of dumbass police officers doing stupid gun things is any indication, we will likely all be disappointed.


Which sentencing(s) are you referring to?


----------



## Haggis (5 Sep 2022)

brihard said:


> Which sentencing(s) are you referring to?


Not only sentencing in the criminal context, but generally.

The one referenced above by HB, for starters.  (Yes, I understand the second and third order career impacts of this decision.)

Female RCMP member pointing her duty firearm at a colleague. (Code of Conduct hearing.)

RCMP member arrested at a firing range. (Still before the courts?)

Edmonton Police officer firing a round towards his colleagues. (No charges laid.)


----------



## brihard (5 Sep 2022)

Haggis said:


> Not only sentencing in the criminal context, but generally.
> 
> The one referenced above by HB, for starters.
> 
> ...


Oh, ok. You said “the courts”. I was wondering if some disproportionately weak criminal verdicts had come down. The one HB referenced was a prosecutorial decision by crown.

IMHO, ALL firearms offences should attract significantly stiffer penalties, but that’s just me.


----------



## Haggis (5 Sep 2022)

brihard said:


> Oh, ok. You said “the courts”. I was wondering if some disproportionately weak criminal verdicts had come down.


Bad word choice on my part.


brihard said:


> IMHO, ALL firearms offences should attract significantly stiffer penalties, but that’s just me.


We are are at odds with our elected leaders.  I'm sure you are familiar with Bill C-5.  And, I'm with you to a degree, particularly if the offence puts anyone at risk.  Forgetting your paper ATT in the printer should not land you in prison and/or cause you to lose all your guns.

Mil/LE should be held to a higher standard as they have received professional and ongoing training in the safe use of firearms (we can argue about the quality and quantity of that training some other time).  At the same time, the public has to understand that rank does beget increased competency with firearms.  In fact, the inverse is true.


----------



## brihard (5 Sep 2022)

Haggis said:


> Bad word choice on my part.
> 
> We are are at odds with our elected leaders.  I'm sure you are familiar with Bill C-5.  And, I'm with you to a degree, particularly if the offence puts anyone at risk.  Forgetting your paper ATT in the printer should not land you in prison and/or cause you to lose all your guns.
> 
> Mil/LE should be held to a higher standard as they have received professional and ongoing training in the safe use of firearms (we can argue about the quality and quantity of that training some other time).  At the same time, the public has to understand that rank does beget increased competency with firearms.  In fact, the inverse is true.


I don’t think we would argue about the quantity and quality of the training at all.


----------



## QV (27 Sep 2022)

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/alberta-guns-federal-legislation-1.6596683
		


God bless Americ... I mean Alberta.


----------



## Lumber (27 Sep 2022)

QV said:


> https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/alberta-guns-federal-legislation-1.6596683
> 
> 
> 
> God bless Americ... I mean Alberta.


Hot air for public consumption.

The Alberta government may pay for RCMP, but they cannot order the RCMP to not enforce laws.


----------



## KevinB (27 Sep 2022)

Lumber said:


> Hot air for public consumption.
> 
> The Alberta government may pay for RCMP, but they cannot order the RCMP to not enforce laws.


No, but they can ensure that they aren’t tasked outside their purview.  

The RCMP/Fed Gov would need to pay for more members to do that, or pay overtime (which I’m not sure of the legality of that due to the contract arrangement).


----------



## Halifax Tar (27 Sep 2022)

QV said:


> https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/alberta-guns-federal-legislation-1.6596683
> 
> 
> 
> God bless Americ... I mean Alberta.



Using the RCMP as political pawn is wrong.  

And its probably going to put the safety of those officers in jeopardy.


----------



## Good2Golf (27 Sep 2022)

Halifax Tar said:


> Using the RCMP as political pawn is wrong.
> 
> And its probably going to put the safety of those officers in jeopardy.


One would think that the virtue-signaling appointee Commissioner would be mindful of the members’ safety and advise the PM accordingly, no?


----------



## Halifax Tar (27 Sep 2022)

Good2Golf said:


> One would think that the virtue-signaling appointee Commissioner would be mindful of the members’ safety and advise the PM accordingly, no?



Its gross politicking by the Alberta Gov. at the expense of the RCMP. 

The way to beat that legislation is through an electoral campaign and in the HOC and senate.  Not by furthering divisive politics. 

I would hate to be part of those detachments when I am then ordered to go recover now banned firearms.


----------



## Lumber (27 Sep 2022)

Halifax Tar said:


> Its gross politicking by the Alberta Gov. at the expense of the RCMP.
> 
> The way to beat that legislation is through an electoral campaign and in the HOC and senate.  Not by furthering divisive politics.
> 
> I would hate to be part of those detachments when I am then ordered to go recover now banned firearms.


Yea, most "law-abiding" gun owners will follow the law and give up their fire arms if requested by the RCMP.

However, there's always a few crazies out there, and the chance of those crazies doing stupid when the RCMP come along just went up.

(and to be clear, from what I've read, the RCMP won't be going around purposefully confiscating guns, but 1. confiscate them in the course of other duties, or 2. establish "turn in your gun" days/events type of things)


----------



## Halifax Tar (27 Sep 2022)

Lumber said:


> Yea, most "law-abiding" gun owners will follow the law and give up their fire arms if requested by the RCMP.



As much as I hate this legislation, and I despise it with my whole existence, you're right. 



Lumber said:


> However, there's always a few crazies out there, and the chance of those crazies doing stupid when the RCMP come along just went up.



And I truly hope this doesn't push the crazies further... 



Lumber said:


> (and to be clear, from what I've read, the RCMP won't be going around purposefully confiscating guns, but 1. confiscate them in the course of other duties, or 2. establish "turn in your gun" days/events type of things)



I don't have faith it will end there.


----------



## QV (27 Sep 2022)

Hmmm, BC has not enforced certain drug laws for years... did the world melt down over that? Maybe it did somewhat, perhaps the public safety crisis in Victoria could be attributed to this... 



Halifax Tar said:


> Using the RCMP as political pawn is wrong.
> 
> And its probably going to put the safety of those officers in jeopardy.



They're not a political pawn, nor are they in jeopardy. Alberta has decided not to participate in the gross federal government overreach of confiscating private property that was perfectly legal and fine before Trudeau. Much more to come on that front if Smith is elected and the UCP can hold onto power.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (27 Sep 2022)

Halifax Tar said:


> Using the RCMP as political pawn is wrong.
> 
> And its probably going to put the safety of those officers in jeopardy.


The confiscation process already does that. Some of the Liberals will be happy if a gun owner shoots a police officer, because it will further their agenda. This also means that the Feds will have cough up more money and it will likely be the nail in the coffin for the RCMP policing the Province in the long run.


----------



## Lumber (27 Sep 2022)

QV said:


> Hmmm, BC has not enforced certain drug laws for years... did the world melt down over that? Maybe it did somewhat, perhaps the public safety crisis in Victoria could be attributed to this...
> 
> 
> 
> They're not a political pawn, nor are they in jeopardy. Alberta has decided not to participate in the gross federal government overreach of confiscating private property that was perfectly legal and fine before Trudeau. Much more to come on that front if Smith is elected and the UCP can hold onto power.


By "much more", you mean more "hot air" and unenforceable legislation?


----------



## Colin Parkinson (27 Sep 2022)

Lumber said:


> Yea, most "law-abiding" gun owners will follow the law and give up their fire arms if requested by the RCMP.
> 
> However, there's always a few crazies out there, and the chance of those crazies doing stupid when the RCMP come along just went up.
> 
> (and to be clear, from what I've read, the RCMP won't be going around purposefully confiscating guns, but 1. confiscate them in the course of other duties, or 2. establish "turn in your gun" days/events type of things)


They will hand them over because the State will use everything up to deadly force to make it happen.

Eventually the Police will be used to round them up if people don't comply.


----------



## QV (27 Sep 2022)

Lumber said:


> By "much more", you mean more "hot air" and unenforceable legislation?


I mean by not enforcing federal dictates that are harmful to Alberta and Albertans. See the proposed Alberta Sovereignty Act for more information.


----------



## QV (27 Sep 2022)

Most Albertans support and love the RCMP. They want the RCMP to continue to be Canada's federal police service and at the same time they want an Alberta Provincial Police. Just like Que and Ont.


----------



## Lumber (27 Sep 2022)

QV said:


> I mean by not enforcing federal dictates that are harmful to Alberta and Albertans. See the proposed Alberta Sovereignty Act for more information.


Oh I've looked into the Alberta Sovereignty Act and read critiques of it. Similar to the recent announcement being a politicization of the RCMP to benefit the UCP by exciting their base, the Sovereignty Act is a politicization of the constitution.


----------



## Lumber (27 Sep 2022)

QV said:


> Most Albertans support and love the RCMP. They want the RCMP to continue to be Canada's federal police service and at the same time they want an Alberta Provincial Police. Just like Que and Ont.


I'm assuming the "most" in your first sentence also applies to your second sentence, in which case:



> An online survey conducted by Pollara Strategic Insights from July 6-19, 2022, shows that Albertans support the Alberta RCMP and do not support this expensive proposal:
> 
> 
> 84% want to keep the RCMP and only 9% of Albertans support this proposed transition.
> ...


----------



## QV (27 Sep 2022)

Yep, sure. I guess time will tell.


----------



## KevinB (27 Sep 2022)

Lumber said:


> By "much more", you mean more "hot air" and unenforceable legislation?


So in your view some Provinces can ignore Laws and others can’t?


----------



## Lumber (27 Sep 2022)

KevinB said:


> So in your view some Provinces can ignore Laws and others can’t?


No, they should all be required to follow laws, but I'm very much looking forward to your _gotcha_ moment!


----------



## KevinB (27 Sep 2022)

Lumber said:


> No, they should all be required to follow laws, but I'm very much looking forward to your _gotcha_ moment!


I’d argue in Alberta the Cdn Gun Laws are fairly unenforceable. 
   But I’m not tracking your previous response, as it seemed that you suggested BC’s non enforcement of Federal Drug laws was legitimate.


----------



## Remius (27 Sep 2022)

So a point of clarification. 

BC is not “ignoring” certain federal laws.  They made a successful application for exemptions with a detailed plan and got permission.  






						B.C. receives exemption to decriminalize possession of some illegal drugs for personal use - Canada.ca
					

The federal Minister of Mental Health and Addictions and Associate Minister of Health and BC Minister of Mental Health and Addictions are announcing the granting of a time-limited exemption for three years under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act (CDSA) so that adults in the province of...




					www.canada.ca
				




Alberta is just unilaterally declaring.


----------



## Haggis (27 Sep 2022)

KevinB said:


> I’d argue in Alberta the Cdn Gun Laws are fairly unenforceable.


All laws are enforceable if there is political will to do so.

On the other hand, former Public Safety Minister Blair stated in the HoC that police resources would not be used to administer the Compensated Confiscation (TM) scheme.


----------



## Lumber (27 Sep 2022)

KevinB said:


> I’d argue in Alberta the Cdn Gun Laws are fairly unenforceable.
> But I’m not tracking your previous response, as it seemed that you suggested BC’s non enforcement of Federal Drug laws was legitimate.


Ah, that's because I never made mention of BC's non-enforcement of Fed drug laws; the only person that brought up BC's drug law enforcement was I believe @QV.


----------



## QV (27 Sep 2022)

Remius said:


> So a point of clarification.
> 
> BC is not “ignoring” certain federal laws.  They made a successful application for exemptions with a detailed plan and got permission.
> 
> ...



So they recently got an exemption that will "be in effect from *Jan. 31, 2023 to Jan. 31, 2026*, throughout British Columbia" for something they've already been doing for years. They basically got top cover for something already in practice. 

_"This exemption is not legalization. These substances remain illegal, but adults who have 2.5 grams or less of the certain illicit substances for personal use will no longer be arrested, charged or have their drugs seized. Instead, police will offer information on available health and social supports and will help with referrals when requested."_


----------



## QV (27 Sep 2022)

You could argue that not participating in the confiscation plan now when a new PP government will abolish it is just being proactive and avoiding problems down the road.


----------



## Halifax Tar (27 Sep 2022)

QV said:


> You could argue that not participating in the confiscation plan now when a new PP government will abolish it is just being proactive and avoiding problems down the road.



You're getting ahead of yourself.  First PP has to win a majority national election.  Thats a tall order.


----------



## QV (27 Sep 2022)

I favor optimism and initiative over pessimism and being reactive.


----------



## Booter (27 Sep 2022)

QV said:


> https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/alberta-guns-federal-legislation-1.6596683
> 
> 
> 
> God bless Americ... I mean Alberta.


Weapons teams in Alberta are integrated with municipal investigators, unless they are ordering municipal agencies (I’ve seen nothing to say they are) to do the same you’re observing theatre,


----------



## QV (27 Sep 2022)

Booter said:


> Weapons teams in Alberta are integrated with municipal investigators, unless they are ordering municipal agencies (I’ve seen nothing to say they are) to do the same you’re observing theatre,


I'd like to think of it as a preview.


----------



## Booter (27 Sep 2022)

about two years ago- the firearm officers in Alberta became provincial employees moving away from the federal employees. Their program already isn’t ordering anyone to confiscate guns.

I also note he is inflating the number he says Alberta is paying for the RCMP- to be closer to the potential Alberta provincial police number that came out. 

It’s dishonest. But I guess it’s working.


----------



## QV (27 Sep 2022)

I know this doesn't mean a whole helluva lot, but reading through the comments to the articles on this Alberta not participating, there sure is a lot of support for Alberta even on the CBC comments shockingly.


----------



## Lumber (27 Sep 2022)

QV said:


> I know this doesn't mean a whole helluva lot, but reading through the comments to the articles on this Alberta not participating, there sure is a lot of support for Alberta even on the CBC comments shockingly.


Yes and if you went to Ottawa last January you'd think the entire country was REALLY mad about COVID health measures and ready to fight the government to the bitter end about it.

Turns out, 70% of Canadians weren't _that _mad.


----------



## QV (27 Sep 2022)

Lumber said:


> Yes and if you went to Ottawa last January you'd think the entire country was REALLY mad about COVID health measures and ready to fight the government to the bitter end about it.
> 
> Turns out, 70% of Canadians weren't _that _mad.


Don’t be so sure. The silent majority that don’t want to be called a racist for no reason act in other ways. Like moving money out of banks, voting, etc. Do you think it’s just a coincidence “Skippy”, to use your words, won decisively on the first ballot? How could a right wing maga lite like PP have any support at all in predominantly liberal Canada? 

The mandates were too far, the EA was too far, what’s next? Oh right, censorship and property confiscation. You good with all that?


----------



## OldSolduer (27 Sep 2022)

I recall the AG - Lametti - saying if your politics don't agree with ours we'll freeze your bank account. Or words to that effect.
Now I am not sure if this was an off the cuff remark but it sure does hit home.


----------



## QV (28 Sep 2022)

OldSolduer said:


> I recall the AG - Lametti - saying if your politics don't agree with ours we'll freeze your bank account. Or words to that effect.
> Now I am not sure if this was an off the cuff remark but it sure does hit home.


That was them just saying the quiet part out loud. I can't believe that in 2022 a democratically elected government is saying and doing things like that... in Canada! And half the country seems ok with it. I'm holding out a little hope that there will be a reckoning at the next federal election but I've been accustomed to disappointment now.


----------



## Lumber (28 Sep 2022)

QV said:


> Don’t be so sure. The silent majority that don’t want to be called a racist for no reason act in other ways. Like moving money out of banks, voting, etc. Do you think it’s just a coincidence “Skippy”, to use your words, won decisively on the first ballot? How could a right wing maga lite like PP have any support at all in predominantly liberal Canada?
> 
> The mandates were too far, the EA was too far, what’s next? Oh right, censorship and property confiscation. You good with all that?


The mandates did _not _go to far; they were based on public health information with a an additional buffer of conservatives safety. The EA did not go too far; it was specific, measured, and temporary. 

Why would I be for censorship and property confiscation? Actually, I'm not totally against property confiscation. You can't just universally say "I'm against property confiscation!" (well you can, but that'd be dumb). How can you say that there is absolutely no case where the government should be justified in confiscating your property? I can brain storm a whole bunch of scenarios, from realistic and likely, to possible but not likely, in which it would be reasonable for the government to confiscate your property.


----------



## QV (28 Sep 2022)

If you think the EA and the mandates were both ok given what we now know, then we are indeed at opposite spectrums and will never convince one another. Given that, chances are also exceedingly high we won't agree on censorship or private property confiscation, so no point in any further discussion.


----------



## KevinB (28 Sep 2022)

Lumber said:


> The mandates did _not _go to far; they were based on public health information with a an additional buffer of conservatives safety.


Canada ignored science for a long time, firstly waiting for ages for vaccine purchase, and then keeping mask requirements long past the point of sanity. 



Lumber said:


> The EA did not go too far; it was specific, measured, and temporary.


The EA made Canada look like a laughing stock.  It should have been solved long before with the powers LE had without the EA.  


Lumber said:


> Why would I be for censorship and property confiscation? Actually, I'm not totally against property confiscation. You can't just universally say "I'm against property confiscation!" (well you can, but that'd be dumb). How can you say that there is absolutely no case where the government should be justified in confiscating your property? I can brain storm a whole bunch of scenarios, from realistic and likely, to possible but not likely, in which it would be reasonable for the government to confiscate your property.


When you can own something one day, and then for no reason of your own doing the government decides to take it, that isn’t reasonable.  
   Confiscation after committing a crime, sure, but not if the only crime was legally purchasing something earlier.  

What if the Gov decided to Eminent Domain your house, how would you feel about that - especially if they decide to give you pennies on the dollar, or nothing at all?


----------



## Lumber (28 Sep 2022)

QV said:


> If you think the EA and the mandates were both ok given what we now know, then we are indeed at opposite spectrums and will never convince one another. Given that, chances are also exceedingly high we won't agree on censorship or private property confiscation, so no point in any further discussion.


 1. Legit question: what exactly is it "we now know"? I haven't learned anything new about these topics, so perhaps you _can _change my mind? 

2. It's _never pointless_ to debate and discuss. Even if you don't convince someone of your position, the mere act of brining your perspective can temper the actions of the other side, or help achieve a middle-ground/compromise. I, for example, may not change my mind and say that I disagree with the use of the EA, but I may, after hearing your side, may agree that the actual implantation of the EA went to far, and that further checks be put in place to safeguard abuse during future use. 

3. I said I was against censorship, so I'm not sure why you brought that up again, but I'm not sure why you're fighting so hard against the idea property confiscation. Let's take what-should-be-legal guns out of the equation. Let's say a person was caught numerous times driving an unregistered vehicle while under the influence of alcohol. Would you be against the government confiscating their vehicle? What about a business that was found to be a front for human trafficking? Would you appose the government seizing _that _property? What if bank records proved beyond a doubt that a mosque was using funds donated my members of the mosque under the guise of being for charity and/or mosque operations were instead being fueled to ISIS and ISIS affiliated in both Canada and the ME? Would you be against seizing those bank accounts?


----------



## CBH99 (28 Sep 2022)

Lumber said:


> The mandates did _not _go to far; they were based on public health information with a an additional buffer of conservatives safety. The EA did not go too far; it was specific, measured, and temporary.
> 
> Why would I be for censorship and property confiscation? Actually, I'm not totally against property confiscation. You can't just universally say "I'm against property confiscation!" (well you can, but that'd be dumb). How can you say that there is absolutely no case where the government should be justified in confiscating your property? I can brain storm a whole bunch of scenarios, from realistic and likely, to possible but not likely, in which it would be reasonable for the government to confiscate your property.


Care to share some of those scenarios, and clarify what you mean about the government has reasonable grounds to confiscate someone’s private property?

(I’m not trolling, I’m just trying to clearly understand your side of the debate)


EDIT - Nevermind, you clarified my question while I was writing it


----------



## Brad Sallows (28 Sep 2022)

Outrageous cases are easy.  Creative application of laws in order to advance political or even merely personal goals is the threat.  People are weak.  The only safeguard is to write down things as "Government shall not do X, ever, ever, ever, and we really mean it."


----------



## Lumber (28 Sep 2022)

KevinB said:


> Canada ignored science for a long time, firstly waiting for ages for vaccine purchase, and then keeping mask requirements long past the point of sanity.


It seems on this point you agree that at some point the health science warranted our COVID measures. So we agree on that. Where we disagree is on how drastic those measures should have been and how long those measures should have been in place. That's a matter of risk tolerance. It's a policy decision, and that's why we have elections. We don't need to have massive convoy protest over it. We're not going to agree on this one, though if you feel like being more specific in just how we went long past the point of sanity, I'm willing to listen. You probably won't convince me on mask and vaccine mandates, but wrt boarder crossing protocols and the ArriveCan app, I'm probably already on your side. 



KevinB said:


> The EA made Canada look like a laughing stock.  It should have been solved long before with the powers LE had without the EA.


You're right; LE should have been able to solve this problem long before the EA was needed, but in the end the EA _was _needed (at least that's my opinion). As to whether Canada was made to be a laughing stock as a result? I've not seen any indication of that.



KevinB said:


> When you can own something one day, and then for no reason of your own doing the government decides to take it, that isn’t reasonable.
> Confiscation after committing a crime, sure, but not if the only crime was legally purchasing something earlier.
> 
> What if the Gov decided to Eminent Domain your house, how would you feel about that - especially if they decide to give you pennies on the dollar, or nothing at all?


 Since @QV was not quantifying his stance on "property seizure", I was assuming he is taking the extreme view that "absolutely no property seizure should be allowed" (similar to how some gun right activists believe that there should be absolutely _no_ regulations what oever on guns). Maybe he doesn't actually believe in that extreme view, so I await his rebuttle.

And yes, Eminent Domaining my house would f****** suck.


----------



## Lumber (28 Sep 2022)

Brad Sallows said:


> Outrageous cases are easy.  Creative application of laws in order to advance political or even merely personal goals is the threat.  People are weak.  The only safeguard is to write down things as "Government shall not do X, ever, ever, ever, and we really mean it."


None of the cases I made up above were outrageous, and if we're still talking about the statement made by Lamentti, as far as I'm aware no one but convoy organizers had their bank accounts frozen (so it was specific and targeted to an actual "threat") and there accounts were unfrozen not long after (so, the measures were temporary). Do you think we shouldn't have an emergencies act? If you think we need one, what sort of things should be added that aren't already there?


----------



## Colin Parkinson (28 Sep 2022)

KevinB said:


> Canada ignored science for a long time, firstly waiting for ages for vaccine purchase, and then keeping mask requirements long past the point of sanity.
> 
> 
> The EA made Canada look like a laughing stock.  It should have been solved long before with the powers LE had without the EA.
> ...


Remember when they scoffed at masks and told people not to stockpile? Mainly as they realized they had FUBARed their stockpile of PPE and wanted to scoop it before the public did.


----------



## KevinB (28 Sep 2022)

Colin Parkinson said:


> Remember when they scoffed at masks and told people not to stockpile? Mainly as they realized they had FUBARed their stockpile of PPE and wanted to scoop it before the public did.


It was clearly airborne long before the CDC etc admitted it.  
   Frankly the PPE issue was worldwide.  Frankly I belief the first line workers in healthcare needed it vastly more than anyone else.   But also it’s a virus, the easiest solution would have been a 1 week warning followed by a utter lock down for two weeks. 

But as we as a species are too selfish that wasn’t done, and the dominos fell.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (28 Sep 2022)

Brad Sallows said:


> Outrageous cases are easy.  Creative application of laws in order to advance political or even merely personal goals is the threat.  People are weak.  The only safeguard is to write down things as "Government shall not do X, ever, ever, ever, and we really mean it."


When reviewing our Act , they wanted to give us very broad powers and had basically cut and paste stuff from another Act. It was pleasing that all of us frontline regulatory staff objected to the scope of the powers they wanted to give us as we felt they were excessive to our needs. There are people in government that are quite willing and happy to impose stuff on others and then others who are to lazy to carefully craft legislation and will erode the rights of citizenship via cut and paste regulations. Governments are like toddlers and require constant supervision to prevent them from doing something naughty.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (28 Sep 2022)

KevinB said:


> It was clearly airborne long before the CDC etc admitted it.
> Frankly the PPE issue was worldwide.  Frankly I belief the first line workers in healthcare needed it vastly more than anyone else.   But also it’s a virus, the easiest solution would have been a 1 week warning followed by a utter lock down for two weeks.
> 
> But as we as a species are too selfish that wasn’t done, and the dominos fell.


Along with shutting down all air travel for a few months


----------



## RedFive (28 Sep 2022)

Lumber said:


> The EA did not go too far; it was specific, measured, and temporary.



The Minister of Public Safety is on record as stating the Police did not ask for the EA. The Commissioner of the RCMP, whom many consider an appointed mouthpiece of the PM, is also on record as stating the RCMP did not ask for or consider necessary that the EA be invoked. The Ottawa Police have stated they didn't ask for it. Premiers of other Provinces where there were protests happening have stated they didn't ask for it. I personally took part in the response to a protest local to me that shut down a border crossing. No EA authorities were needed or used here.

The Government of Canada has been completely unwilling to articulate to Canadians why it was invoked, as the Police never asked for it and had ample authorities given by existing Legislation to deal with the protests across Canada. The Government has, in fact, contradicted themselves over and over and claimed there were misunderstandings and miscommunications after one of them tried to pin it on the Police and multiple agencies came out and stated it was not required or requested. The only people who thought it was necessary were the current Federal government, against the recommendations of the very same law enforcement agencies that were dealing with the protests themselves.

Considering we're talking about personal opinions, having been on the front lines of this one the EA was background noise, posturing and being seen to be doing something by an inept Government incapable of dealing with the reckoning their poor policy and divisive politics had brought to their front door. Turns out when you talk poorly about entire groups of people for years on end, they get kinda pissed off. Whooda thunk.


----------



## OldSolduer (28 Sep 2022)

Could I add "by a narcissistic PM and cabinet who blindly follow the Pied Piper's tune"?


----------



## Brad Sallows (28 Sep 2022)

By "outrageous" I meant the examples - driving drunk while uninsured, etc.  Likewise, "four hundred witnesses have cell-phone footage of the axe murderer killing three people, so let's have the death penalty".  But I am essentially unmoved by the egregiousness of crimes when considering the fences we put around governments.


----------



## Kat Stevens (28 Sep 2022)

Colin Parkinson said:


> Remember when they scoffed at masks and told people not to stockpile? Mainly as they realized they had FUBARed their stockpile of PPE and wanted to scoop it before the public did.


Remember when we refused to block flights from known covid hotspots early on, because somehow it was "racist"? Sunny ways and happy days.


----------



## Remius (28 Sep 2022)

Kat Stevens said:


> Remember when we refused to block flights from known covid hotspots early on, because somehow it was "racist"? Sunny ways and happy days.


Or when PP was calling on the government to close the border and get more vaccines.

Hindsight is 20/20 for everyone.


----------



## Jarnhamar (28 Sep 2022)

Remius said:


> Or when PP was calling on the government to close the border and get more vaccines.
> 
> Hindsight is 20/20 for everyone.


Hindsignt is 20/20 but following already established outbreak protocols isn't. When covid hit we ignored science, common sense, AND our own SOPs on outbreaks IOT appease the WHO and China.


----------



## CBH99 (29 Sep 2022)

Colin Parkinson said:


> Along with shutting down all air travel for a few months


That one irked me.  (I’m in agreement with you, btw.)

The fact that I couldn’t drive across a land border due to Covid concerns, but could be shoved in a flying tube with 200 other people all breathing the same recycled air & fly to the same destination was beyond stupid.  

No common sense once so ever.  

And that isn’t a hindsight is 20/20 thing.  It sounded just as dumb at the time as it does now.


----------



## Haggis (29 Sep 2022)

Back on topic, Saskatchewan has joined Alberta in denying provincially funded policing help in the Compensated Confiscation (TM) scheme which Minister Mendicino says will begin by years end.

However, the Calgary Police Service is supportive in principle to the Trudeau government's plan... if the price is right..


----------



## Halifax Tar (29 Sep 2022)

Hmmm how bad to I want a posting to Dundurn ?


----------



## Jarnhamar (29 Sep 2022)

Haggis said:


> However, the Calgary Police Service



These gentlemen?








						Calgary police officer spared jail for assaulting handcuffed woman who he body-slammed to the floor
					

Body-slamming a handcuffed woman face first to the floor has landed a Calgary police officer 15 days of house arrest.




					calgaryherald.com
				




Calgary gun owners better being a helmet to turn their firearms in.


----------



## OldSolduer (29 Sep 2022)

Halifax Tar said:


> Hmmm how bad to I want a posting to Dundurn ?


I don't know what your trade is but SKT can tell you what its like and its not all that bad.


----------



## Halifax Tar (29 Sep 2022)

OldSolduer said:


> I don't know what your trade is but SKT can tell you what its like and its not all that bad.



Im a Sup Tech. 

Ive heard its actually a good posting.


----------



## Good2Golf (29 Sep 2022)

Jarnhamar said:


> These gentlemen?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Sweet Lord, he rag-dolled her into the ground in a flash!  

She clearly ‘experienced things differently’ than he did…


----------



## CBH99 (29 Sep 2022)

Good2Golf said:


> View attachment 73920
> Sweet Lord, he rag-dolled her into the ground in a flash!
> 
> She clearly ‘experienced things differently’ than he did…


She sure did!  

What garbage.  As someone who grew up in Calgary, I was surprised when I first heard this…even more surprised at his punishment.  

Won’t get into it here, but I don’t think many people can think too highly of him.


----------



## Booter (29 Sep 2022)

Disgusting


----------



## Jarnhamar (29 Sep 2022)

Good2Golf said:


> View attachment 73920
> Sweet Lord, he rag-dolled her into the ground in a flash!
> 
> She clearly ‘experienced things differently’ than he did…



She's just trying to make the cop look bad. She didn't even put her hands out to catch herself..

At least the judge has some compassion.


> “I don’t think you’re a bad person,” Christopher told Dunn after finding jail wasn’t necessary for the constable, who is currently suspended with pay.
> 
> “As a police officer you just can’t lose your temper,” the judge said.
> 
> “I think you know that.”




Of course this isn't reflective of the whole police force I'm sure. The other two officers who approached the bleeding and  handcuffed woman were clearly surprised and concerned.



Good luck Calgary gun owners.


----------



## OldSolduer (30 Sep 2022)

Halifax Tar said:


> Im a Sup Tech.
> 
> Ive heard its actually a good posting.


Then after Dundurn you can head to 2 VP in Shilo since you’ll be out west….


----------



## Haggis (30 Sep 2022)

It appears that Manitoba may join AB and SK in prohibiting the use of provincially funded police resources to enforce the May 1, 2020 OIC gun ban and Compensated Confiscation (TM) plan. 

Pressure is building on ON to follow suit.  Michael Harrison, spokesperson for the ON Solicitor General said "“Ultimately, we encourage the federal government to focus on the measures needed to stop the root causes of gun violence, like stopping illegal guns from crossing the border and reducing the chances for repeat offenders to commit further crimes,”

The Liberals are desperate to get this plank in their platform underway before an election call. They are dropping in the polls and want something concrete to campaign on.

Op LENTUS 22-02 anyone?


----------



## Halifax Tar (30 Sep 2022)

OldSolduer said:


> Then after Dundurn you can head to 2 VP in Shilo since you’ll be out west….


----------



## OldSolduer (30 Sep 2022)

Halifax Tar said:


>


Well you could always go to 1RCHA Shilo - do you like dogs?


----------



## Halifax Tar (30 Sep 2022)

OldSolduer said:


> Well you could always go to 1RCHA Shilo - do you like dogs?


----------



## OldSolduer (30 Sep 2022)

Halifax Tar said:


>


Well played sir 👍🏻👍🏻


----------



## Halifax Tar (2 Oct 2022)

I see Manitoba has joined the resistance. 









						Two more provinces join in opposition to gun buyback program that 'unnecessarily targets lawful gun owners'
					

Ministers in Saskatchewan and Manitoba agree with Alberta's Tyler Shandro, who earlier this week called the program wasteful




					nationalpost.com


----------



## Booter (2 Oct 2022)

Manitobas firearms officers are federal employees. Not provincial. Alberta’s are provincial. If i recall correctly Saskatchewans is a provincial thing as well as of not too long ago.This isn’t a small distinction. If I remembering the conversation correctly with the federal ones training the provincial ones it was a
Move for the provinces to have more control over the way firearms were being dealt with, certain provinces had certain concerns that were unmet by federal priorities. Or they didn’t agree, so they were given autonomy to have their own workers. Alberta actually wanted theirs armed- my info is dated, but it was a “how do we do this” talk about that

So in Manitoba it would be federal assets doing the work so their stance isn’t the same despite the crowing.

Also- I have heard zero meaningful work on ANY enforcement related to this at all. Doesn’t mean it’s not happening- but it’s not on the practical radar.

Looking through the contact a firearms officer page you can see the difference- fed addresses on certain provinces- provincial addresses on Alberta and Sask


----------



## FSTO (2 Oct 2022)

So with the lack of officers to handle the amount of crime on the Prairies, I doubt that any head of detachment is going to waste time and resources to enforce a dumbass policy that will do not one iota to reduce crime.


----------



## Booter (2 Oct 2022)

FSTO said:


> So with the lack of officers to handle the amount of crime on the Prairies, I doubt that any head of detachment is going to waste time and resources to enforce a dumbass policy that will do not one iota to reduce crime.


All the handguns I’ve been getting off bangers lately must be them getting their rush purchases in before it’s illegal.


----------



## Haggis (2 Oct 2022)

Booter said:


> All the handguns I’ve been getting off bangers _*sport shooters*_ lately must be them getting their rush purchases in before it’s illegal.


FTFY to keep in line with the Liberal approach to gun ownership.


----------



## Kat Stevens (2 Oct 2022)

FSTO said:


> So with the lack of officers to handle the amount of crime on the Prairies, I doubt that any head of detachment is going to waste time and resources to enforce a dumbass policy that will do not one iota to reduce crime.


Yes, far too busy stopping the real crime out there, like window tints to bother with taking down known, established meth kitchens, etc. Priorities, man!


----------



## Booter (2 Oct 2022)

Kat Stevens said:


> Yes, far too busy stopping the real crime out there, like window tints to bother with taking down known, established meth kitchens, etc. Priorities, man!


I have literally never seen anyone but a traffic unit write a tint ticket. Not once in decades. 

And those units are supposed to be enforcing that stuff.


----------



## Kat Stevens (2 Oct 2022)

Booter said:


> I have literally never seen anyone but a traffic unit write a tint ticket. Not once in decades.
> 
> And those units are supposed to be enforcing that stuff.


----------



## Booter (2 Oct 2022)

Because the provincial government, the freedom loving Alberta government standing up to those stupid feds, pays specifically for traffic units and makes laws- provincial laws- that they want enforced. Like tint. 

I’m Also convinced if you could look at charges like that, especially in Alberta, they are written predominately by community peace officers. Not police officers. 

So while lying about the numbers they pay the rcmp and telling you they’re telling the feds what to do- when it’s actually provincial officers- they are also paying people to specifically enforce tint laws.


----------



## Booter (2 Oct 2022)

And before you say it- I AM FUN AT PARTIES


----------



## Kat Stevens (2 Oct 2022)

Booter said:


> Because the provincial government, the freedom loving Alberta government standing up to those stupid feds, pays specifically for traffic units and makes laws- provincial laws- that they want enforced. Like tint.
> 
> I’m Also convinced if you could look at charges like that, especially in Alberta, they are written predominately by community peace officers. Not police officers.
> 
> So while lying about the numbers they pay the rcmp and telling you they’re telling the feds what to do- when it’s actually provincial officers- they are also paying people to specifically enforce tint laws.


So they don’t make laws about meth labs and crack houses not being good things? Weird.


----------



## Booter (2 Oct 2022)

I’m not sure your point. We ve had several of the largest precursor chemical and drug seizures in Canadian history over the last couple years- by units that only deal with drugs. Not tint.

The province pays for provincially funded cars and people that are specialized in traffic PROVINCIAL only offences. They don’t do any criminal code offences. 

I didn’t suggest that the drug guys are writing tint tickets. You did. Then you suggested that they should be doing both- so they do neither well.

More people die in car wrecks than in “meth labs and crack houses”.


----------



## Kat Stevens (2 Oct 2022)

Booter said:


> I’m not sure your point. We ve had several of the largest precursor chemical and drug seizures in Canadian history over the last couple years- by units that only deal with drugs. Not tint.
> 
> The province pays for provincially funded cars and people that are specialized in traffic PROVINCIAL only offences. They don’t do any criminal code offences.
> 
> ...


Holy fuck, way to take a flippant remark and spin the shit out of it. You’re defensive of your line of work, I get it. I’d be pissed if you weren’t quite frankly, but Jesus lighten up Francis.  My daughter is a county peace officer and her spouse is RCMP btw. Good thing they can take a joke. Would your feelings have been less hurt if I put a little smiley guy after my first innocuous post?  Have a groovy rest of your life, and try to smile more, PSHCP covers stitches, i believe.


----------



## Booter (3 Oct 2022)

🤔 that’s cool I guess. Watch your blood pressure. I’m not defensive of traffic cops. Better your sister a whore than your brother a traffic cop. I was just trying to be semi accurate. I didn’t realize the funny part because it doesn’t make any sense from the inside.


----------



## RedFive (3 Oct 2022)

Booter said:


> Better your sister a whore than your brother a traffic cop.




I'm stealing this.

Also, I too share the disdain for traffic cops. I appreciate their use and desire to do the job so I don't have to, but still.


----------



## Jarnhamar (3 Oct 2022)

I'm not too familiar with what traffic cops are but if they have anything to do with catching those asshole fast and the furious wannabes that race around doing 200kph or run kids over in residential areas when they're street racing I say more power to them.


----------



## KevinB (3 Oct 2022)

Traffic Units would cite their mother…


----------



## Halifax Tar (3 Oct 2022)

Can we keep this about Canadian Gun Control ? 

Posturing or not, I am happy to see Prov Govs at least expressing their opposition to asinine legislation.


----------



## CBH99 (3 Oct 2022)

“We are dropping in the polls, big time!  What can we do to boost Canadians’ confidence in us, and get them to vote for us!??”
__

*I know sir!  You know that gun legislation we keep shoving down people’s throats?  The legislation that is mired in legal concerns?  Yes sir, that’s what I’m referring to…

if we push that through despite everybody objecting to it, and the police refusing to enforce it, and the average person is even aware it won’t do anything to affect gun crime (since the people legally purchasing firearms are not the ones committing the crimes) - if we continue to cram that stupid idea through, surely that will get people to vote for us again!”

__

“Fantastic idea!  I almost started to think about good governance, halting the yet even further tax hikes, putting the brakes on the final phase of the carbon tax, and reviewing our energy policy, etc were what people wanted.  Silly me!

Let’s spending lavishly on just bribing them all with $500, AND push ahead with the gun ban!  That’ll win them over!  Let’s just keep doing what we’re doing, but be even worse that it than we were before…”

_____________

Why the Liberals are so hell bent on pushing through legislation that will be disgarded as soon as someone else is voted in, I have no idea. 

They know it’s not legal gun owners out there being gangsters on the weekend & robbing 7-11’s.  They know it isn’t Bob from a ranch outside of Thompson, Manitoba that is driving to Winnipeg to do drive-by’s…

But hey.  Screw it.  Not applying common sense solutions has got them this far.  Why start now?  🤦🏼‍♂️


----------



## Quirky (3 Oct 2022)

CBH99 said:


> “Fantastic idea! I almost started to think about good governance, halting the yet even further tax hikes, putting the brakes on the final phase of the carbon tax, and reviewing our energy policy, etc were what people wanted. Silly me!



When you have the worst government in Canadian history driving the ship, don't be surprised when it hits the pier.


----------



## Weinie (3 Oct 2022)

CBH99 said:


> “We are dropping in the polls, big time!  What can we do to boost Canadians’ confidence in us, and get them to vote for us!??”
> __
> 
> *I know sir!  You know that gun legislation we keep shoving down people’s throats?  The legislation that is mired in legal concerns?  Yes sir, that’s what I’m referring to…
> ...


Because Toronto.


----------



## Furniture (3 Oct 2022)

Weinie said:


> Because Toronto.


Don't forget Montreal...


----------



## Haggis (3 Oct 2022)

Weinie said:


> Because Toronto.


Nailed it.

The police have not refused to participate in this scheme.  They just want to be properly funded to do it. Remember that Minister Blair's stated that police resources would not be used for this program, so this is a new requirement from Public Safety and likely unfunded.

Once that funding comes, the police will follow orders. I don't know any cop who will put their $100K+/year job on the line over a sport shooter's customized racing carbine.


----------



## Booter (3 Oct 2022)

I don’t have the time or resources to get involved in the administrative firearms realm. None of the detachments I touch presently do- I will take firearms associated to crime. Send licence reviews for domestic abusers and safety/storage where it comes to our attention. 

This isn’t a political or freedom thing- it is just 100% resources. Admin regulation stuff takes a back burner to public safety. 

I will use the laws to take guns from houses filled with criminals because the criminal side of the house is very poor at dealing with it. It’s a tool I can use. That’s all I see in this. 

I don’t ignore laws. But I have to prioritize. Of course not everything is about me and my anecdotes- but its a data point of some type. 

🤷‍♀️ Maybe I’ll get told to retire.


----------



## OldSolduer (3 Oct 2022)

Weinie said:


> Because Toronto.


Ecole Polytechnique has entered the chat


----------



## Colin Parkinson (3 Oct 2022)

OldSolduer said:


> Ecole Polytechnique has entered the chat


It's always on auto rewind


----------



## Colin Parkinson (3 Oct 2022)

Booter said:


> I don’t have the time or resources to get involved in the administrative firearms realm. None of the detachments I touch presently do- I will take firearms associated to crime. Send licence reviews for domestic abusers and safety/storage where it comes to our attention.
> 
> This isn’t a political or freedom thing- it is just 100% resources. Admin regulation stuff takes a back burner to public safety.
> 
> ...


You feel the pinch when money gets tight and funds for school resource officers and gang units gets funnelled into the political hot gun control file instead and the local street cop weeps as they see gangs recruiting in schools with no means to stop them.


----------



## Booter (3 Oct 2022)

That’s 


Colin Parkinson said:


> You feel the pinch when money gets tight and funds for school resource officers and gang units gets funnelled into the political hot gun control file instead and the local street cop weeps as they see gangs recruiting in schools with no means to stop them.


true that fed money can get funnelled out. Luckily I’m in have-not places where there is no money to take. But it’s true that they could reorg fed money spots like you’re saying. Especially the ones with low activity. It would be a bold political move- which appears to be the current style


----------



## Colin Parkinson (3 Oct 2022)

Booter said:


> That’s
> 
> true that fed money can get funnelled out. Luckily I’m in have-not places where there is no money to take. But it’s true that they could reorg fed money spots like you’re saying. Especially the ones with low activity. It would be a bold political move- which appears to be the current style


I am not hearing good things about the School Resource Officer situation, to many schools, to few officers.


----------



## Haggis (3 Oct 2022)

As I see it, QC and BC will put police forces towards the Compensated Confiscation (TM) plan. 

The money will flow to all participating police services from the big ATM known as Ottawa.

Once the BC RCMP takes on this task, I expect AB, SK and MB Mounties will be ordered to fall in line by the feds as firearms will be deemed a national security concern, thereby bypassing provincial contract policing arrangements by placing the plan squarely within the federal realm.

In QC, the ban and handgun freeze can't come fast enough to satisfy Montréal's mayor.  The CAQ is expected to win a strong majority and have already promised $90M now to fight guns and gangs (including $6.2M to the Akwesasne Mohawk Police for marine patrols in Smuggler's Alley) and  $250M over four years to hire 450 more Montréal police officers, which will barely meet attrition.


----------



## Retired AF Guy (3 Oct 2022)

Colin Parkinson said:


> I am not hearing good things about the School Resource Officer situation, to many schools, to few officers.


And from what I remember groups like BLM have been effective in getting them kicked out of schools because they might become "triggered" if they saw a police officer wandering down the school corridors.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (4 Oct 2022)

Try one police officer for 33 schools in one district.


----------



## CBH99 (4 Oct 2022)

Retired AF Guy said:


> And from what I remember groups like BLM have been effective in getting them kicked out of schools because they might become "triggered" if they saw a police officer wandering down the school corridors.


Am I the only one thinking there really does need to be some sort of "common sense formula" created & implemented in a variety of public domains to help reduce the amount of absurdly stupid shit that society has to put up with these days?  

Let's eliminate police from schools because it _may_ trigger students who see them?  Why would they be triggered?  And wtf does it even mean for an elementary aged kid to be triggered, anyway?

So instead of trusting the police & growing up building a good relationship and understanding of them, and vice versa, we should further alienate and separate a community from those who protect it?

I wish the people who suggest these things would just go disappear,  Thanos style.  FFS...


----------



## calculus (4 Oct 2022)

Interesting - Evan Solomon interviewing Marco Mendicino. He asks some good questions. Maybe Canadians are starting to see the hypocrisy of this "science-based" government...


----------



## Lumber (4 Oct 2022)

CBH99 said:


> Am I the only one thinking there really does need to be some sort of "common sense formula" created & implemented in a variety of public domains to help reduce the amount of absurdly stupid shit that society has to put up with these days?
> 
> Let's eliminate police from schools because it _may_ trigger students who see them?  Why would they be triggered?  And wtf does it even mean for an elementary aged kid to be triggered, anyway?
> 
> ...


Something something....privilege? What I mean is, you are demonstrating a textbook case where because YOU have never been traumatized by the  police, you can't understand how someone else could.

To the point in yellow/orange. If all you ever saw of the police was them breaking into you and your friends' homes, arresting or worse killing your fathers/brothers/uncles, then you would be terrified of police. It doesn't matter if any of the people I just mentioned were _actually_ criminals, because we're talking about the perception of children. Being triggered means seeing those cops wandering the halls and starting to feel symptoms such as terror, helplessness, or fear, as well as physiological reactions such as heart pounding, vomiting, or loss of bowel or bladder control.

If you believe soldier can have PTSD, and that certain circumstances/situations can "trigger" their PTSD symptoms, than you have everything you need to understand how certain people could find police "triggering" in their schools.

You don't "build relationships" by forcing trauma survivors to interact with the persons/things that cause their trauma in the first place.

Now, I do believe that there are places in Canada/US that are lower in crime and that the people and police do have a good relationship, but that SJWs are calling for police to be removed from schools/defunded because of what they have seen elsewhere in Canada/US, and in those cases, yes, those people don't understand the opportunity they are throwing away.


----------



## Halifax Tar (4 Oct 2022)

Lumber said:


> Something something....privilege? What I mean is, you are demonstrating a textbook case where because YOU have never been traumatized by the  police, you can't understand how someone else could.
> 
> To the point in yellow/orange. If all you ever saw of the police was them breaking into you and your friends' homes, arresting or worse killing your fathers/brothers/uncles, then you would be terrified of police. It doesn't matter if any of the people I just mentioned were _actually_ criminals, because we're talking about the perception of children. Being triggered means seeing those cops wandering the halls and starting to feel symptoms such as terror, helplessness, or fear, as well as physiological reactions such as heart pounding, vomiting, or loss of bowel or bladder control.
> 
> ...



The fact we need community police officers in our schools is the problem.  

My wife has spent most of her career as either a teacher or now the VP at three of Halifax's inner city schools with whole host of social issues effecting kids.  From 12 year old prostitutes', to parents assaulting each other on school grounds, to students attacking her.

You know who didn't cause these issues ?  The police.  You know who did ?  The shitty parents/family.  Blaming police, and trust me I am no fan of the police and I have be aware of that bias, is just a way to sluff off responsibility.


----------



## KevinB (4 Oct 2022)

In our county - we have both Sheriff and Police SRO’s (depending if your inside the town or not) and Security Officers (retired LEO’s).  Honestly the SRO’s and SO’s are super friendly to the kids, and I don’t think anyone could claim they are causing issues.  I used to volunteer at an elementary school (pre COVID) to help kids read - a lot of the kids I had did have family issues, but regardless they all thought Officer George (the SO) was their best friend regardless of race.   

I know a lot of Departments tend to put junk as SRO’s and you get what you put in to Community Policing.   

It’s upsetting to me that we need SRO’s, magnetic locking doors and bullet resistant glass in schools, but that’s a function of our rather dysfunctional society.


----------



## QV (4 Oct 2022)

calculus said:


> Interesting - Evan Solomon interviewing Marco Mendicino. He asks some good questions. Maybe Canadians are starting to see the hypocrisy of this "science-based" government...


TBH I can't recall where Evan Solomon stands on the media bias meter... But maybe the media is making an estimate who is going to butter their bread after the next election. I don't want the media on anyone's side, I want them to be the 4th estate but I think that ship sailed long ago.


----------



## Haggis (5 Oct 2022)

The legal handgun transfer freeze is set to drop on us any day now. The CSAAA has been told that it likely will not occur before the Thanksgiving weekend.

The Deputy Minister for Public Safety stated yesterday in SECU committee that lawful transfers in progress on the date the freeze is implemented will be finalized as per existing business rules.  I expected otherwise.

If you're transferring a smuggled handgun in a Toronto back alley between Five Point Generalz members, none of this applies to you.


----------



## Skysix (5 Oct 2022)

CBH99 said:


> Am I the only one thinking there really does need to be some sort of "common sense formula" created & implemented in a variety of public domains to help reduce the amount of absurdly stupid shit that society has to put up with these days?
> 
> Let's eliminate police from schools because it _may_ trigger students who see them?  Why would they be triggered?  And wtf does it even mean for an elementary aged kid to be triggered, anyway?
> 
> ...


Except that the resource officers are being used to enforce teachers discipline and often have little discretion over minor offenses, thus losing the opportunity to build relationships and trust and becoming even more the enemy


----------



## Booter (6 Oct 2022)

Skysix said:


> Except that the resource officers are being used to enforce teachers discipline and often have little discretion over minor offenses, thus losing the opportunity to build relationships and trust and becoming even more the enemy


Can you give me a Canadian example of this?


----------



## calculus (6 Oct 2022)

Haggis said:


> The legal handgun transfer freeze is set to drop on us any day now. The CSAAA has been told that it likely will not occur before the Thanksgiving weekend.
> 
> The Deputy Minister for Public Safety stated yesterday in SECU committee that lawful transfers in progress on the date the freeze is implemented will be finalized as per existing business rules.  I expected otherwise.
> 
> If you're transferring a smuggled handgun in a Toronto back alley between Five Point Generalz members, none of this applies to you.


I just got my Ruger 22/45 yesterday. Ordered May 31st. Still waiting for a Walther PDP, ordered 31 July. Update from the vendor is that it could be another 2-3 months before the CFO approves the transfer. I'm hoping transfers in progress will actually be honoured, but with this government, I will not be holding my breath...


----------



## Haggis (6 Oct 2022)

calculus said:


> I'm hoping transfers in progress will actually be honoured, but with this government, I will not be holding my breath...


At Tuesday's SECU session, the Public Safety ADM Talal Dakalbab stated that all transfers already in progress will be completed even after the freeze takes effect. Any transfer submitted after the freeze date will be denied.

But all it will take is one major incident to bring on a draconian overreaction, regardless of the license status of the perp.


----------



## GR66 (7 Oct 2022)

Are there any .22LR handguns that are exempted from the ban?  I've been thinking of getting a Ruger 10/22 to get back into shooting, but several members here have suggested that learning on a handgun is an excellent way to improve your marksmanship.  What about air pistols, are they included in the ban as well?


----------



## FJAG (13 Oct 2022)

Just thought I'd throw this piece of stupidity into the discussion.



> Fathers caught on bodycam footage after shooting each other's daughter
> 
> 
> The boisterous moment between two Florida fathers  going berserk while their injured daughters sought medical attention was captured on video by police.
> ...



😖


----------



## Fishbone Jones (13 Oct 2022)

Halifax Tar said:


> Using the RCMP as political pawn is wrong.
> 
> And its probably going to put the safety of those officers in jeopardy.


Make sure trudeau knows that, k?


----------



## Fishbone Jones (14 Oct 2022)

Haggis said:


> All laws are enforceable if there is political will to do so.
> 
> On the other hand, former Public Safety Minister Blair stated in the HoC that police resources would not be used to administer the Compensated Confiscation (TM) scheme.


Blair has been  moved. In accordance with current liebral governance, whatever promises, he made previous, are null and void.


Lumber said:


> The mandates did _not _go to far; they were based on public health information with a an additional buffer of conservatives safety. The EA did not go too far; it was specific, measured, and temporary.


A number of countries, many of the EU variety, don't agree.

"Thus it was that state-funded *CBC News* branded Trudeau-bashers in Europe as a gang of racists and anti-vaxxers. One MEP called out the prime minister for trampling on _“fundamental rights by criminalizing his own citizens as terrorists just because they dare to stand up to his *perverted concept of democracy.”

"*_With this in mind, we turn to commentary from the *EU Parliament:*

_“Canada, once a symbol of the modern world has become a symbol of civil rights violations, under your quasi-liberal boot in recent months. To you, these may be liberal methods, for many *citizens of the world,* it’s a dictatorship of the worst kind.”_


----------



## Fishbone Jones (14 Oct 2022)

CBH99 said:


> “We are dropping in the polls, big time!  What can we do to boost Canadians’ confidence in us, and get them to vote for us!??”
> __
> 
> *I know sir!  You know that gun legislation we keep shoving down people’s throats?  The legislation that is mired in legal concerns?  Yes sir, that’s what I’m referring to…
> ...





Lumber said:


> Something something....privilege? What I mean is, you are demonstrating a textbook case where because YOU have never been traumatized by the  police, you can't understand how someone else could.
> 
> To the point in yellow/orange. If all you ever saw of the police was them breaking into you and your friends' homes, arresting or worse killing your fathers/brothers/uncles, then you would be terrified of police. It doesn't matter if any of the people I just mentioned were _actually_ criminals, because we're talking about the perception of children. Being triggered means seeing those cops wandering the halls and starting to feel symptoms such as terror, helplessness, or fear, as well as physiological reactions such as heart pounding, vomiting, or loss of bowel or bladder control.
> 
> ...


You don't  prevent crime by taking police,out of the public eye. Perhaps, if they were more visible, those poor traumatized lambs would see them for what they are. An honourable profession. Sunlight and exposure is the way to deal with lying miscreants like blm and antifa. Not hiding our police from the public.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (14 Oct 2022)

Bets on when the SKS hits the ban list?


----------



## Zoomie (14 Oct 2022)

Fishbone Jones said:


> Bets on when the SKS hits the ban list?


$1,000 for my $200 trunk gun?   I can let them buy back the ChiCom POS and keep a Tula or two….


----------



## Lumber (14 Oct 2022)

Fishbone Jones said:


> You don't  prevent crime by taking police,out of the public eye. Perhaps, if they were more visible, those poor traumatized lambs would see them for what they are. An honourable profession. Sunlight and exposure is the way to deal with lying miscreants like blm and antifa. Not hiding our police from the public.


"traumatized lambs"? That's immensely disrespectful, and clearly shows you have no fucking clue what you are talking about when it comes to mental health and care for those dealing with trauma. You have no idea what it does to these young kids to see their fathers shot dead by police for seemingly no reason.

There are neighborhoods in Canada where I've seen signs put up around Canada day (and some other holidays) that say something to the effect that "combat veterans live around hear, fireworks can trigger their PTSD, please reconsider the use of fireworks." I guess since "sunlight and exposure" the way to deal with this, then these "traumatized lambs" should just suck it up and enjoy the fireworks, right?


----------



## Good2Golf (14 Oct 2022)

Fishbone Jones said:


> Bets on when the SKS hits the ban list?


Before the Norinco Type 97 does, I bet. 😉


----------



## KevinB (14 Oct 2022)

Lumber said:


> "traumatized lambs"? That's immensely disrespectful, and clearly shows you have no fucking clue what you are talking about when it comes to mental health and care for those dealing with trauma. You have no idea what it does to these young kids to see their fathers shot dead by police for seemingly no reason.
> 
> There are neighborhoods in Canada where I've seen signs put up around Canada day (and some other holidays) that say something to the effect that "combat veterans live around hear, fireworks can trigger their PTSD, please reconsider the use of fireworks." I guess since "sunlight and exposure" the way to deal with this, then these "traumatized lambs" should just suck it up and enjoy the fireworks, right?


Yes.  Fireworks and celebrations shouldn’t be curtailed because it can’t bother some people.


----------



## Lumber (14 Oct 2022)

Fishbone Jones said:


> "Thus it was that state-funded *CBC News* branded Trudeau-bashers in Europe as a gang of racists and anti-vaxxers. One MEP called out the prime minister for trampling on _“fundamental rights by criminalizing his own citizens as terrorists just because they dare to stand up to his *perverted concept of democracy.”*_



The person who said this is from a radical-right Islamophobic anti-vax populist party within Germany, but I don't suppose any of those things will dissuade you from lending credence to what she said.



Fishbone Jones said:


> _“Canada, once a symbol of the modern world has become a symbol of civil rights violations, under your quasi-liberal boot in recent months. To you, these may be liberal methods, for many *citizens of the world,* it’s a dictatorship of the worst kind.”_



You skipped the first part of what he said. The guy who said this also said Trudeau’s government is a “dictatorship of the worst kind.” If you actualyl believe that describing the current government of Canada as a "dictatorship" is anything close to the truth, then you are either a. ignorant of what the a dictatorship actually is, or b. being obtuse for the sake of feeding your base. Either way, once this guy that _this, _then there's no longer any point in lending weight to whatever comes after.


----------



## Lumber (14 Oct 2022)

KevinB said:


> Yes.  Fireworks and celebrations shouldn’t be curtailed because it can’t bother some people.


That's not the point. The point is you don't call those vets "traumatized lambs" and tell them that they should just go enjoy the fireworks as the solution to getting over their PTSD, same as it makes no sense to tell children who have been traumatized by police that the way to get over their trauma is to suck it up and go hug a cop.


----------



## KevinB (14 Oct 2022)

Lumber said:


> That's not the point. The point is you don't call those vets "traumatized lambs" and tell them that they should just go enjoy the fireworks as the solution to getting over their PTSD, same as it makes no sense to tell children who have been traumatized by police that the way to get over their trauma is to suck it up and go hug a cop.


I’m having a tough time believing that any significant amount of children are traumatized by LE in Canada.


----------



## Lumber (14 Oct 2022)

KevinB said:


> I’m having a tough time believing that any significant amount of children are traumatized by LE in Canada.


Ah. This was in relation to news stories about "woke" young Americans demanding LE LOs be removed from American schools.


----------



## QV (14 Oct 2022)

If your kids are scared of the cops, you're parenting wrong.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (14 Oct 2022)

Lumber said:


> That's not the point. The point is you don't call those vets "traumatized lambs" and tell them that they should just go enjoy the fireworks as the solution to getting over their PTSD, same as it makes no sense to tell children who have been traumatized by police that the way to get over their trauma is to suck it up and go hug a cop.


Nobody called Veterans anything. My response, was to your assertion that the sight of cops triggers people,  to the point of fear and escape.


Lumber said:


> "traumatized lambs"? That's immensely disrespectful, and clearly shows you have no fucking clue what you are talking about when it comes to mental health and care for those dealing with trauma. You have no idea what it does to these young kids to see their fathers shot dead by police for seemingly no reason.
> 
> There are neighborhoods in Canada where I've seen signs put up around Canada day (and some other holidays) that say something to the effect that "combat veterans live around hear, fireworks can trigger their PTSD, please reconsider the use of fireworks." I guess since "sunlight and exposure" the way to deal with this, then these "traumatized lambs" should just suck it up and enjoy the fireworks, right?


Quit being so sanctimonious. You've switched from kids in school, being triggered at the sight of RSO's to Veterans being afraid of fireworks. You're  all over the board. Quit throwing out shit and try bend it to your narrative. You don't  know the first thing about me.


Lumber said:


> Ah. This was in relation to news stories about "woke" young Americans demanding LE LOs be removed from American schools.


The same one I responded to, until you decided it didn't  fit your narrative and somehow switched to Veterans and fireworks in the same breath. Your concerns have been previously discussed in other threadss. I suggest you seek solace there.

This thread is for Gun Control.

Can a mod clean this tangent out and put it where it belongs?


----------



## Lumber (14 Oct 2022)

Fishbone Jones said:


> Nobody called Veterans anything. My response, was to your assertion that the sight of cops triggers people,  to the point of fear and escape.
> 
> Quit being so sanctimonious. You've switched from kids in school, being triggered at the sight of RSO's to Veterans being afraid of fireworks. You're  all over the board. Quit throwing out shit and try bend it to your narrative. You don't  know the first thing about me.


I really don't understand how you can't see the comparison, so I'll try and bring it all into one post.

I brought up the example of children suffering from PTSD because they had witnessed their fathers gunned down by police in one of the numerous cases of excessive use of force in the states. I opined that the sight of police in their school would trigger their PTSD. 

Instead of accepting that these children actually have PTSD and that the sight of police would trigger their PTSD symptoms, you referred to these children as "traumatized lambs" and said that instead of shielding them things that might trigger their PTSD symptoms and exacerbate their trauma, that they should instead embrace the police as a way of getting over their trauma and building a better community. 

Now, since I know that forcing people to suffer through situations that exacerbate their PTSD symptoms is not the way to address PTSD, I can only infer that either a. you don't know how PTSD should be dealt with or, b. you don't believe that these kids actually have PTSD from their parents being shot by police (or both).

So, this being a military forum, I brought in a more familiar example of veterans suffering from PTSD and how they should be treated. My hope was that a more familiar context would help you see the similarity between these two situations, and therefore would understand that your idea behind how children suffering from police-related PTSD should be dealt with, and how you should not refer to them as "traumatized lambs".


----------



## Lumber (14 Oct 2022)

QV said:


> If your kids are scared of the cops, you're parenting wrong.


Really? Is that seriously your universal belief? That there no situations where children witnessed police using excessive force, exceeding their mandate, or flat out breaking the law, leading the children to develop a fear and distrust of the police? It's all just "bad parenting"?


----------



## Fishbone Jones (14 Oct 2022)

Lumber said:


> I really don't understand how you can't see the comparison, so I'll try and bring it all into one post.
> 
> I brought up the example of children suffering from PTSD because they had witnessed their fathers gunned down by police in one of the numerous cases of excessive use of force in the states. I opined that the sight of police in their school would trigger their PTSD.
> 
> ...


Back your truck up buckwheat.

Like I said earlier, you don't  have a schmick who I am.

I have been diagnosed with PTSD due to my military service. Do not presume I'm ignorant of the facts and that your weekend, amatuer psychiatric gig, here, doesn't  qualify you to diagnose, determine, decide, speak for, or push your platitudes. Especially since those of us affected never asked for your opinion on our problems.

You should stick to what you know.

I like fireworks.


----------



## Lumber (14 Oct 2022)

Fishbone Jones said:


> Back your truck up buckwheat.
> 
> Like I said earlier, you don't  have a schmick who I am.
> 
> ...


If you actually have PTSD and know what it feels like, then you should be absolutely ashamed of yourself for referring to others suffering from PTSD as "traumatized lambs".


----------



## Fishbone Jones (14 Oct 2022)

Lumber said:


> The person who said this is from a radical-right Islamophobic anti-vax populist party within Germany, but I don't suppose any of those things will dissuade you from lending credence to what she said.
> 
> 
> 
> You skipped the first part of what he said. The guy who said this also said Trudeau’s government is a “dictatorship of the worst kind.” If you actualyl believe that describing the current government of Canada as a "dictatorship" is anything close to the truth, then you are either a. ignorant of what the a dictatorship actually is, or b. being obtuse for the sake of feeding your base. Either way, once this guy that _this, _then there's no longer any point in lending weight to whatever comes


I'm sure you left out a couple of descriptors there sunshine. Try concentrate on what the MEP members had to say.


Lumber said:


> If you actually have PTSD and know what it feels like, then you should be absolutely ashamed of yourself for referring to others suffering from PTSD as "traumatized lambs".


Again, Mr Weekend Doctor enters the chat, with his psuedo diagnoses. You are the ignorant shit who needs to delve into cause and effects. Do not ever, presume to know what my physical and mental problems are and how they manifest themselves. Sanctimonious, ignorant and utterly wrong. Your useless, hyperbolic messaging is no more than a manifestation of your out of touch reality. In the interest of trying to put this thread back on track about Gun Control, I'm going to ignore your wrong,  useless opinion of my condition, your self inflated import on the subject, your diagnoses without education, professional status or knowledge. In short, you are nothing more than an internet guy with an useless, conflated opinion that requires no more of my time.


----------



## Lumber (14 Oct 2022)

Fishbone Jones said:


> I'm sure you left out a couple of descriptors there sunshine. Try concentrate on what the MEP members had to say.
> 
> Again, Mr Weekend Doctor enters the chat, with his psuedo diagnoses. You are the ignorant shit who needs to delve into cause and effects. Do not ever, presume to know what my physical and mental problems are and how they manifest themselves. Sanctimonious, ignorant and utterly wrong. Your useless, hyperbolic messaging is no more than a manifestation of your out of touch reality. In the interest of trying to put this thread back on track about Gun Control, I'm going to ignore your wrong,  useless opinion of my condition, your self inflated import on the subject, your diagnoses without education, professional status or knowledge. In short, you are nothing more than an internet guy with an useless, conflated opinion that requires no more of my time.


I'm pretty sure didn't say anything about your diagnosis?  I simply derided your negative and hurtful stance toward those who appear to have, from your apparent point of view, a "lesser" form of PTSD, and said that it was an especially abhorrent position considering you should know exactly what they are going through.

But I agree we've belabored the point and neither of us is going to soon change our opinion of the other. 

Back on track, I was watching some youtube last night, and I was surprised to discover that Florida is one of the few states that does not allow open carry.


----------



## QV (14 Oct 2022)

Lumber said:


> Really? Is that seriously your universal belief? That there no situations where children witnessed police using excessive force, exceeding their mandate, or flat out breaking the law, leading the children to develop a fear and distrust of the police? It's all just "bad parenting"?


Yes. Your 0.001% example is irrelevant.


----------



## Booter (14 Oct 2022)

Large parts of the community have complicated relationships with uniforms. It’s a complex issue- with a part of it being the day to day poisoning at home by parents towards police or authority etc.and then the idea that the only time they see cops it’s them arresting family or during the worst day of their lives. 

It’s complex. I don’t think The answer is not having police seen. That makes them the boogeyman. But it’s something that seems to be the idea dujour 

I also recognize and see kids afraid of police. I had a young one wet themselves  when they saw me. It’s a real thing. The catalyst for the fear is debatable.


----------



## Lumber (14 Oct 2022)

Booter said:


> I had a young one wet themselves  when they saw me. It’s a real thing. The catalyst for the fear is debatable.


It's not debatable; that poor little lamb just isn't being parented right.


----------



## KevinB (14 Oct 2022)

Lumber said:


> It's not debatable; that poor little lamb just isn't being parented right.


Correct


----------



## Halifax Tar (14 Oct 2022)

And now NB joins the resistance









						New Brunswick joins prairie provinces to protest Trudeau government’s plan to use RCMP to seize legal guns
					

News release from Albeta Justice and Solicitor General Provinces oppose federal use of police resources Provinces joined together at the 2022 Meeting of Federal, Provincial and Territorial Minister…




					www.todayville.com


----------



## Halifax Tar (14 Oct 2022)

Lumber said:


> It's not debatable; that poor little lamb just isn't being parented right.



If that poor little lamb is scared of police because mommy and daddy are criminals then you're right they aren't being parented right.


----------



## Jarnhamar (14 Oct 2022)

Hopefully police in Ontario refuse to support Trudeau confiscating long guns. I'd hate for this to be me or one of my family members.



			https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/mona-wang-lacy-browning-kelowna-rcmp-wellness-check-assault-charge-1.6150736


----------



## Lumber (14 Oct 2022)

Halifax Tar said:


> If that poor little lamb is scared of police because mommy and daddy are criminals then you're right they aren't being parented right.


Absolutely! No argument there. I don't take issue with the specific idea, but the declaration that it is the sole reason possible.


----------



## Halifax Tar (14 Oct 2022)

Jarnhamar said:


> Hopefully police in Ontario refuse to support Trudeau confiscating long guns. I'd hate for this to be me or one of my family members.
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/mona-wang-lacy-browning-kelowna-rcmp-wellness-check-assault-charge-1.6150736



What ever happened to that LEO ? 



Lumber said:


> Absolutely! No argument there. I don't take issue with the specific idea, but the declaration that it is the sole reason possible.



Yes, yes there is always the exception to the rule.


----------



## Haggis (14 Oct 2022)

Halifax Tar said:


> What ever happened to that LEO ?


I believe the case is still before the courts. The last media article I could find was from January 2022, where it stated the accused intended to enter a plea of not guilty "in the future".


----------



## Haggis (14 Oct 2022)

Jarnhamar said:


> Hopefully police in Ontario refuse to support Trudeau confiscating long guns.


There is an ongoing letter writing campaign in Ontario to sway the Ford government to follow the examples of AB, MB, SK and NB.

However, the centre of the universe (the GTA) supports the ban, the confiscation regime - with or without compensation - and the upcoming elimination of lawful handgun ownership. I believe the Ford government will cave to public pressure in the GTA and join BC and QC in implementing Trudeau's plan.


----------



## mariomike (14 Oct 2022)

Jarnhamar said:


> https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/mona-wang-lacy-browning-kelowna-rcmp-wellness-check-assault-charge-1.6150736



Regarding the payout,









						RCMP settles civil lawsuit with UBCO student after violent wellness check - Kelowna News
					

A UBCO student at the centre of a violent wellness check that made national headlines last year has settled her lawsuit against the Kelowna RCMP.



					www.castanet.net
				






> Beyond confirming that a settlement was reached, RCMP declined to comment, noting details of the settlement are "covered under a confidentiality clause."


----------



## CBH99 (14 Oct 2022)

Haggis said:


> There is an ongoing letter writing campaign in Ontario to sway the Ford government to follow the examples of AB, MB, SK and NB.
> 
> However, the centre of the universe (the GTA) supports the ban, the confiscation regime - with or without compensation - and the upcoming elimination of lawful handgun ownership. I believe the Ford government will cave to public pressure in the GTA and join BC and QC in implementing Trudeau's plan.


If that’s where a majority of his voters are, and they overwhelmingly support one side of something, then as a politician he’d be foolish not to read the tea leaves.  

It’s a shame really, but are politics & politicians are elected to represent the wishes of their constituents.  Even if annoyingly misguided.


----------



## Haggis (15 Oct 2022)

On October 18, 2022, the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security (SECU) will hear witnesses regarding Bill C-21.  Scheduled to appear are:


Canadian Sporting Arms and Ammunition Association
Fédération sportive d’airsoft du Québec
Canadian Shooting Sports Association
Coalition for Gun Control
Canadian Doctors for Protection from Guns
Airsoft in Canada

That should be a painful session to watch.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (15 Oct 2022)

Haggis said:


> On October 18, 2022, the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security (SECU) will hear witnesses regarding Bill C-21.  Scheduled to appear are:
> 
> 
> Canadian Sporting Arms and Ammunition Association
> ...


Half the witnesses will talk facts. Half will talk feelings.

Guess which half will get listened to…


----------



## suffolkowner (15 Oct 2022)

Haggis said:


> On October 18, 2022, the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security (SECU) will hear witnesses regarding Bill C-21.  Scheduled to appear are:
> 
> 
> Canadian Sporting Arms and Ammunition Association
> ...


have they figured out what the compensation for the airsoft rifles are yet?


----------



## Haggis (15 Oct 2022)

suffolkowner said:


> have they figured out what the compensation for the airsoft rifles are yet?


If it's the ones banned in the "assault style weapons" OIC, no.  If it's those to be banned under C-21, don't hold your breath.


----------



## suffolkowner (15 Oct 2022)

Thank god most of my rifles are levers. They should stay unbanned for at least another 10yrs. 
Honestly I dont think most people know whats  going on. I think Im only going to lose a couple semi's but who knows I dont check the lists? The two cops murdered in Innisfil were shot with an SKS so I expect that to be added to the list as well


----------



## Fishbone Jones (15 Oct 2022)

I have a Derya mag fed shotgun. It wasn't on the list. Some miscreant out west decided to have a shootout with the RCMP with his. Banned, about a week later, supposedly for 'cosmetic' reasons. A mag and a collapsible stock made it LOOK too much like an AR-15 to let civilians have one. It is far from the only gun that was banned simply because Canada’s Firearms Expert, MurraynSmith, now retired to that new position from the RCMP, thought it looked scary. I am so looking forward to seeing Murray Smith on the stand being crossed by our lawyers.

Murray Smith - Smith retired from his position and was engaged instead as a consultant to the RCMP Canadian Firearms Program soon after the prohibition took effect last May 1. Smith’s affidavit says he’s now providing advice as a forensic scientist, and is drafting firearm protocols, among other services.


----------



## Haggis (21 Oct 2022)

It's Handgun Ban Day!

Effective at 12:01AM on October 21, 2022 no.pwrson or business may sell, transfer, buy or acquire a hand gun in Canada.

There are a very limited set of exemptions to this for "elite" sport shooters and others.  But, for the vast majority of Canadians, if you don't *legally* own a handgun already, you never will.

If you already are legally in posession of a handgun and it breaks beyond repair, you cannot replace it.  If you die, it will be surrendered to the government for destruction without compensation.

Now, we wait for the anti gun groups to be emboldened by this and demand full confiscation.


----------



## calculus (21 Oct 2022)

Haggis said:


> It's Handgun Ban Day!
> 
> Effective at 12:01AM on October 21, 2022 no.pwrson or business may sell, transfer, buy or acquire a hand gun in Canada.
> 
> ...


The latest from our "science-based" government...


----------



## Haggis (21 Oct 2022)

calculus said:


> The latest from our "science-based" government...


The "science" shows that bringing in more gun control while equating lawful firearms ownership with violent crime will result in urban voters supporting the Liberals.


----------



## Halifax Tar (21 Oct 2022)

Haggis said:


> The "science" shows that bringing in more gun control while equating lawful firearms ownership with violent crime will result in urban voters supporting the Liberals.



I was listening to talk radio on my way in from deer hunting today and I guess some polling is showing PP has a slight lead over JT in who Canadians would prefer as PM. 

Which is nice.  But I'm not sure if the efficiency of that when it comes to seats on in the HOC to reverse all this garbage.


----------



## Mills Bomb (21 Oct 2022)

Haggis said:


> It's Handgun Ban Day!
> 
> Effective at 12:01AM on October 21, 2022 no.pwrson or business may sell, transfer, buy or acquire a hand gun in Canada.
> 
> ...



The only option is exporting to the US, if you can. Many won't meet the US import requirements. There are lots of Canadian handgun owners who lost a lot of money today they will never be able to recover. 

I'm not surprised they are letting handgun owners keep their stuff, as noted this was never about crime and they are way too cheap to cover the money Canadians invested. This was the best option to totally and completely screw Canadian handgun owners.

There are Canadian gun collectors and enthusiasts who still own full-auto as well, because they never wanted to pay them out either. The so-called assault weapon "buy-back" has been a complete disaster as well.

If gun owners are lucky this will be undone by a future government, but that also never seems to actually happen.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (21 Oct 2022)

Fishbone Jones said:


> I have a Derya mag fed shotgun. It wasn't on the list. Some miscreant out west decided to have a shootout with the RCMP with his. Banned, about a week later, supposedly for 'cosmetic' reasons. A mag and a collapsible stock made it LOOK too much like an AR-15 to let civilians have one. It is far from the only gun that was banned simply because Canada’s Firearms Expert, MurraynSmith, now retired to that new position from the RCMP, thought it looked scary. I am so looking forward to seeing Murray Smith on the stand being crossed by our lawyers.
> 
> Murray Smith - Smith retired from his position and was engaged instead as a consultant to the RCMP Canadian Firearms Program soon after the prohibition took effect last May 1. Smith’s affidavit says he’s now providing advice as a forensic scientist, and is drafting firearm protocols, among other services.


Further.
The pics. The gray one is a BSM-12 by Balikli-Makarov is Non Restricted and available to own.

The red one is a Mk12 by Derya, it is banned for being a variant of an AR-15.

The only difference in the two is cosmetic. Barrel shroud, etc. Both shotguns were made in Turkey by the same parent company. Both shotguns are the same.

Murray Smith decided, all on his own to ban them. He is also the guy responsible for all the new additions to the FRT. He is the one who decided what would be on the list. The Derya was banned by his 'expert' opinion. You can look at both shotguns and tell me what kind of an expert he is. An expert hoplophobe maybe.

The article is dated, but it goes directly to this ban. Including the bafflegab by the RCMP spokesperson.








						RCMP Comments on Prohibiting Derya MK-12 Shotgun as AR-15 Variant | TheGunBlog.ca
					

RCMP Q&A on banning the Derya MK-12 shotgun.




					thegunblog.ca


----------



## Haggis (23 Oct 2022)

Mills Bomb said:


> The only option is exporting to the US, if you can. Many won't meet the US import requirements. There are lots of Canadian handgun owners who lost a lot of money today they will never be able to recover.
> 
> I'm not surprised they are letting handgun owners keep their stuff, as noted this was never about crime and they are way too cheap to cover the money Canadians invested. This was the best option to totally and completely screw Canadian handgun owners.


If they ban all handguns now, it takes away a potential election promise next time.
_"Despite our freeze on __(lawful)__ purchases, imports, and transfers of handguns, criminal use of handguns continues to be a problem across the country.  If we're re-elected, we will ban all handguns."_

But I am surprised they allowed pending transfers to go through.  That would've been an ideal BOHICA to licensees waiting to buy or sell handgun and the antis would've wet themselves in glee.


Mills Bomb said:


> There are Canadian gun collectors and enthusiasts who still own full-auto as well, because they never wanted to pay them out either. The so-called assault weapon "buy-back" has been a complete disaster as well.


The assault style buyback will be dragged out until the next writ is dropped and then used as wedge against the CPC ("we wanted to make Canada safer, but the gun lobby supported Conservatives stood in our way").  The price tag is too high and could result in a confidence vote when the cost is compared to other big ticket items the NDP wants from Trudeau.


Mills Bomb said:


> If gun owners are lucky this will be undone by a future government, but that also never seems to actually happen.


Not a chance unless the CPC win a majority. And then, it might cost them a second term as we all know gun violence won't decrease and we also know who will be blamed for that.


----------



## Eaglelord17 (23 Oct 2022)

This all leaves me with a few questions such as
1) does this impact antique handguns
2) does this impact 12.6 owners (i.e. could hypothetically 12.6 owners buy and sell 12.6 firearms amongst themselves?)



Haggis said:


> If they ban all handguns now, it takes away a potential election promise next time.
> _"Despite our freeze on __(lawful)__ purchases, imports, and transfers of handguns, criminal use of handguns continues to be a problem across the country.  If we're re-elected, we will ban all handguns."_
> 
> But I am surprised they allowed pending transfers to go through.  That would've been an ideal BOHICA to licensees waiting to buy or sell handgun and the antis would've wet themselves in glee.
> ...


I bet if they had banned the already started transfers they would have opened themselves up to lawsuits both on the government failing to due their duty in a reasonable timeframe (I am still waiting on a Webley revolver I purchased several months ago), and from people with the issue of refunds/failing to purchase.


----------



## Jarnhamar (23 Oct 2022)

It's almost like the Liberal government wants to push people towards extremism.


----------



## OldSolduer (23 Oct 2022)

Part of the issue is the leniency of the courts - letting known gun bearing criminals out on bail, and violent criminals on a promise to appear.


----------



## Remius (23 Oct 2022)

Jarnhamar said:


> It's almost like the Liberal government wants to push people towards extremism.


Nah.

I think that they believe that the only people that want guns are the extremists.

More so, it’s a winning issue for them.  A solid chunk of voting Canadians think guns are bad.  And they’ll use that against the CPC if they make it a campaign issue.


----------



## Jarnhamar (23 Oct 2022)

Remius said:


> Nah.
> 
> I think that they believe that the only people that want guns are the extremists.


The CCFR ran a very good campaign highlighting the multitude of different people (read not just white males) who are gun owners in Canada.
They just didn't have the numbers to mean anything.

The government absolutely benefits from pushing people towards extremism. They were practically begging for it during the "nazi's everywhere!" trucker protest. They want those morons out with their flags and signs. They want scared Canadians. Because scared people give up their rights (and common snese) for security. Can't have security issues to be afraid of without threats to security.



Remius said:


> More so, it’s a winning issue for them.  A solid chunk of voting Canadians think guns are bad.  And they’ll use that against the CPC if they make it a campaign issue.


Totally agree brother. Winning issue for them.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (23 Oct 2022)




----------



## Haggis (24 Oct 2022)

Eaglelord17 said:


> I bet if they had banned the already started transfers they would have opened themselves up to lawsuits both on the government failing to due their duty in a reasonable timeframe (I am still waiting on a Webley revolver I purchased several months ago), and from people with the issue of refunds/failing to purchase.


Not at all.  Once the ban was announced, it could have been implemented any day, and would have been in force back in May had the Conservatives in SECU supported it.  Buyers and sellers took a risk in initiating transfers knowing the ban was imminent.


----------



## Haggis (24 Oct 2022)

Remius said:


> More so, it’s a winning issue for them.  A solid chunk of voting Canadians think guns are bad.  And they’ll use that against the CPC if they make it a campaign issue.


If the CPC doesn't make it an election issue the Liberals surely will.  They know it's a weak spot in the CPC platform and they will play on Canadian's fear of gun violence  and ignorance of current laws.


----------



## Halifax Tar (24 Oct 2022)

Jarnhamar said:


> It's almost like the Liberal government wants to push people towards extremism.





Remius said:


> Nah.
> 
> I think that they believe that the only people that want guns are the extremists.
> 
> More so, it’s a winning issue for them.  A solid chunk of voting Canadians think guns are bad.  And they’ll use that against the CPC if they make it a campaign issue.



This is a simple attack on a politically opposing segment of the population.  If the Liberal party had skin to lose pissing off sport shooters and hunters this would be taking a very different track.  Its an easy horse to be drug out and beat for the enjoyment of the unwashed masses.  

The knock on, that JT and his ilk also enjoy, is it pushes us farther apart.


----------



## Good2Golf (24 Oct 2022)

Not a fan of Mike Moore at all, but Marilyn Manson, is a smart guy and nails it here about those who wish to instill fear and control. Lateral context of school shootings in the US, but the fear and control aspect is fully in line with how the Trudeau government is shaping the demonization of legal gun owners to instill fear in voters to further its own agenda.


----------



## Remius (24 Oct 2022)

Halifax Tar said:


> This is a simple attack on a politically opposing segment of the population.  If the Liberal party had skin to lose pissing off sport shooters and hunters this would be taking a very different track.  Its an easy horse to be drug out and beat for the enjoyment of the unwashed masses.
> 
> The knock on, that JT and his ilk also enjoy, is it pushes us farther apart.


Agree.  It’s low hanging fruit that makes people think something is being done. 

I’ve said it before.  It’s bad legislation that does nothing to solve the real problem.


----------



## FSTO (24 Oct 2022)

Marco Mendicino constantly displays absolute obtuseness when it comes to this initiative. As soon as he's asked to back up his claim of greater safety to Canadians with this legislation he falls to talking points that have nothing to do with legal gun owners.

He's actually more of no talent ass clown than his boss.


----------



## Remius (24 Oct 2022)

FSTO said:


> Marco Mendicino constantly displays absolute obtuseness when it comes to this initiative. As soon as he's asked to back up his claim of greater safety to Canadians with this legislation he falls to talking points that have nothing to do with legal gun owners.
> 
> He's actually more of no talent ass clown than his boss.


I saw that yesterday on CTV’s Question Period.  He launched into crime and such without addressing the question about this punishing legal gun owners. 

Also an interesting thing is « does this legislation go far enough? » vs « does this legislation go too far » and you can see what side the person asking is on.


----------



## Halifax Tar (24 Oct 2022)

Remius said:


> I saw that yesterday on CTV’s Question Period.  He launched into crime and such without addressing the question about this punishing legal gun owners.
> 
> Also an interesting thing is « does this legislation go far enough? » vs « does this legislation go too far » and you can see what side the person asking is on.



Isn't it up to the media to ask those questions when they make statements like that ? 

Ive heard it asked, then the Libs provide a talking point, then the reporter nods and moves on.  We need someone to hold their feet to the fire, and press them. 

But our MSM is unbiased and effective


----------



## Colin Parkinson (24 Oct 2022)

Not to mention this totally screws you from passing on a possibly sizeable chunk of your estate to your survivors, no more 12(7) for you.


----------



## Eaglelord17 (24 Oct 2022)

Colin Parkinson said:


> Not to mention this totally screws you from passing on a possibly sizeable chunk of your estate to your survivors, no more 12(7) for you.


Don’t forget loss of value for all restricted firearms too. Personally this government has through its indiscriminate attacks on me and my ilk, which it doesn’t even do through parliament and proper votes, has cost me at least 20k in value of property.


----------



## OldSolduer (24 Oct 2022)

Halifax Tar said:


> This is a simple attack on a politically opposing segment of the population.  If the Liberal party had skin to lose pissing off sport shooters and hunters this would be taking a very different track.  Its an easy horse to be drug out and beat for the enjoyment of the unwashed masses.
> 
> The knock on, that JT and his ilk also enjoy, is it pushes us farther apart.


The Liberal Party of the last 8 years is not the Liberal Party of the 60s and 70s. This party is petty, vindictive, tone deaf and caters only to one thing - The Liberal Party of Canada.


----------



## Haggis (24 Oct 2022)

Eaglelord17 said:


> Don’t forget loss of value for all restricted firearms too. Personally this government has through its indiscriminate attacks on me and my ilk, which it doesn’t even do through parliament and proper votes, has cost me at least 20k in value of property.


The government assumes that, as the regulations allow for exempted businesses and individuals to purchase your firearms and for the export of your firearms as a means of disposal, that you will not lose any value as those options are available to you and your estate.

They care not that you may have to accept pennies on the dollar when the time comes to sell.


----------



## Halifax Tar (25 Oct 2022)

OldSolduer said:


> The Liberal Party of the last 8 years is not the Liberal Party of the 60s and 70s. This party is petty, vindictive, tone deaf and caters only to one thing - The Liberal Party of Canada.



Your left out that it hates opposition.


----------



## OldSolduer (25 Oct 2022)

Halifax Tar said:


> Your left out that it hates opposition.


Vindictive covered that I think. But yes you are right.


----------



## Good2Golf (25 Oct 2022)

OldSolduer said:


> The Liberal Party of the last 8 years is not the Liberal Party of the 60s and 70s. This party is petty, vindictive, tone deaf and caters only to one thing - The Liberal Party of Canada.


Remember back in the day when the Liberals were the ones to work with Uncle Sam to station nukes on Canadian soil?  ‘Liberal’ in mis-used name only.  Maskarovkic Federal Socialists wouldn’t be a bad descriptor of what they are today…


----------



## Colin Parkinson (25 Oct 2022)

OldSolduer said:


> The Liberal Party of the last 8 years is not the Liberal Party of the 60s and 70s. This party is petty, vindictive, tone deaf and caters only to one thing - The Liberal Party of Canada.


I would be voting Liberal if they were the party from the 1960's


----------



## OldSolduer (25 Oct 2022)

Good2Golf said:


> Remember back in the day when the Liberals were the ones to work with Uncle Sam to station nukes on Canadian soil?  ‘Liberal’ in mis-used name only.  Maskarovkic Federal Socialists wouldn’t be a bad descriptor of what they are today…


Considering PET liked Castro and JT has an admiration for China then this is a perfect descriptor of the LPC - and they are far from "liberal".


----------



## Haggis (25 Oct 2022)

SECU is meeting today from 3:30 to 5:30 PM.  it is available to watch live on ParlVu.

Scheduled to appear are:
3:30 p.m. to 4:30 p.m.
As an individual
• LCol (Ret'd) John Schneiderbanger (by videoconference)

Alberta Mounted Shooters Association
• Julie Saretsky, President (by videoconference)

Coalition for Gun Control
• Dr. Wendy Cukier, President (by videoconference)

4:30 p.m. to 5:30 p.m.
As an individual
• Lynda Kiejko, Civil Engineer, Olympian (by videoconference)

International Practical Shooting Confederation
• James Smith, President of the National Range Officers Institute (by videoconference)
• Medha Russell, Athlete, Instructor and Official


----------



## Haggis (3 Nov 2022)

Two more SECU meetings today on Bill C-21.  The Liberals are eager to ram this through as fast as possible. Once they jump through all the procedural hoops of Committee and Senate reviews, their majority in the HoC will make this law likely by spring.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (3 Nov 2022)

Yup, he just shot big holes in my survivors inheritance


Colin Parkinson said:


> Not to mention this totally screws you from passing on a possibly sizeable chunk of your estate to your survivors, no more 12(7) for you.


There is going to be lots of deathbed giveaways. Then they'll really have a problem. Thousands of handguns will probably disappear into the air.


----------



## Jarnhamar (22 Nov 2022)

Looks like Trudeau and friends are going after the rest of semi-automatic firearms in Canada including all semi-auto's with removable magazines.



> On behalf of this coalition, the Liberals added a disastrous amendment to Bill C-21 effectively prohibiting several million additional, individual rifles and shotguns. These new prohibitions will include the SKS, Tavor, X-95, all AR180 and variants, Canuck bullpup shotguns, Crusader Arms, Kel-tek Sub2000, SU16, RDB, RFB, JR Carbine, Kriss Vector, Ruger PC Carbine, Norinco T97NSR, Benelli M4 and countless more.
> This amendment has been put forward by the Liberals and they have the votes to add it to Bill C-21. If Bill C-21 passes, and again they do have the votes, these firearms as well as all formerly prohibited firearms will be enshrined in legislation.
> Bill C-21 also now prohibits ALL CENTERFIRE SEMI-AUTOMATIC firearms with removable magazines.











						C21 amended to include semi auto ban - Canadian Coalition for Firearm Rights
					

BREAKING - New Massive Long Gun Bans Brought by the LiberalNDPBloc Coalition  Today the Liberal/NDP/Bloq coalition government broke the glass on a typical Liberal distraction tool – gun bans. With Canadians reeling from a failed economy, tripling of taxes looming, 1.5M Canadians using foodbanks...




					firearmrights.ca


----------



## Good2Golf (22 Nov 2022)

I think he only went with this to also now include the (People’s Republic of China’s) Norinco Type 97 NSR, only after Xi Jinping schooled his ass in public for being an indiscrete blabbermouth chatterbox…


----------



## Fishbone Jones (22 Nov 2022)

If people think this will stop with suspected criminals,  I have a Caribbean island in Hudsons Bay just waiting for you to hit the beach.

More rights removed in the name of social justice. It'll be the same when they come for our guns. Or your vehicles, in the name of the green gods, or your house, because you have to be equal with the illegal aliens and give them your digs.
Today they took your guns and the means to protect your family and property. Tomorrow, they'll  take whatever they want. I can't wait until all the sheep finally have that epiphany, that trudeau did have a plan. It just didn't include them.

*"Beware of fascists with slogans. "You will own nothing and you will be happy" is no different than "Arbeit Macht Frei."*









						B.C. to table legislation increasing ease of government to seize individuals’ assets without being charged
					

Provincial watchdog calls the legislation ‘an unnecessary expansion of government power and an unacceptable infringement of Canadians’ rights’




					www.theglobeandmail.com


----------



## Lumber (23 Nov 2022)

Fishbone Jones said:


> If people think this will stop with suspected criminals,  I have a Caribbean island in Hudsons Bay just waiting for you to hit the beach.
> 
> More rights removed in the name of social justice. It'll be the same when they come for our guns. Or your vehicles, in the name of the green gods, or your house, because you have to be equal with the illegal aliens and give them your digs.
> Today they took your guns and the means to protect your family and property. Tomorrow, they'll  take whatever they want. I can't wait until all the sheep finally have that epiphany, that trudeau did have a plan. It just didn't include them.


Not going to happen. Guns are an easy sell. Cars and homes? Not so much.


----------



## Halifax Tar (23 Nov 2022)

Lumber said:


> Not going to happen. Guns are an easy sell. Cars and homes? Not so much.



There has already been churn on vehicles.  Mostly from the howling left, but thats how all this starts.

Now add in the war on landlords and its not unfeasible.  I can see it, but I readily admit my bias.


----------



## Lumber (23 Nov 2022)

Halifax Tar said:


> There has already been churn on vehicles.  Mostly from the howling left, but thats how all this starts.
> 
> Now add in the war on landlords its not unfeasible.  I can see it, but I readily admit my bias.


I'm not saying that there won't be people on the left who legitimately believe in and support some of the actions/policies alluded to by @Fishbone. I've seen myself, from reading the comments on news stories about landlords, that even the most innocent "landlord" (say, a single mother renting out a basement apartment) is seen as a vile and deplorable leach for nothing more than being a "property owner". However, I believe that the vast majority of Canadians on both sides of the political binary would be against such measures, and therefore any government trying to push "car and home seizures" or something like it would soon find themselves out of the job.


----------



## Halifax Tar (23 Nov 2022)

Lumber said:


> I'm not saying that there won't be people on the left who legitimately believe in and support some of the actions/policies alluded to by @Fishbone. I've seen myself, from reading the comments on news stories about landlords, that even the most innocent "landlord" (say, a single mother renting out a basement apartment) is seen as a vile and deplorable leach for nothing more than being a "property owner". However, I believe that the vast majority of Canadians on both sides of the political binary would be against such measures, and therefore any government trying to push "car and home seizures" or something like it would soon find themselves out of the job.



I agree it does sound far fetched.  But I don't put it out of the realm of possibility.  The Canadian people are very quick to give up other peoples privilege's and possessions to protect their own. 

I can see restrictions and justifications required on things like housing and vehicles.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (23 Nov 2022)

Fishbone Jones said:


> If people think this will stop with suspected criminals,  I have a Caribbean island in Hudsons Bay just waiting for you to hit the beach.
> 
> More rights removed in the name of social justice. It'll be the same when they come for our guns. Or your vehicles, in the name of the green gods, or your house, because you have to be equal with the illegal aliens and give them your digs.
> Today they took your guns and the means to protect your family and property. Tomorrow, they'll  take whatever they want. I can't wait until all the sheep finally have that epiphany, that trudeau did have a plan. It just didn't include them.
> ...


He's too rich, take his stuff!!!


----------



## Remius (23 Nov 2022)

Halifax Tar said:


> I agree it does sound far fetched.  But I don't put it out of the realm of possibility.  The Canadian people are very quick to give up other peoples privilege's and possessions to protect their own.
> 
> I can see restrictions and justifications required on things like housing and vehicles.


Honestly I think the next thing to after is inheritances.  Lots of money will be passed down over two generations and the gvt will want its cut…


----------



## SeaKingTacco (23 Nov 2022)

Remius said:


> Honestly I think the next thing to after is inheritances.  Lots of money will be passed down over two generations and the gvt will want its cut…


I think you spelled “want all of it”, incorrectly…


----------



## Colin Parkinson (23 Nov 2022)

Lumber said:


> I'm not saying that there won't be people on the left who legitimately believe in and support some of the actions/policies alluded to by @Fishbone. I've seen myself, from reading the comments on news stories about landlords, that even the most innocent "landlord" (say, a single mother renting out a basement apartment) is seen as a vile and deplorable leach for nothing more than being a "property owner". However, I believe that the vast majority of Canadians on both sides of the political binary would be against such measures, and therefore any government trying to push "car and home seizures" or something like it would soon find themselves out of the job.


Back in the 1940-50's I suspect this is what the gun owners said.


----------



## Halifax Tar (23 Nov 2022)

Remius said:


> Honestly I think the next thing to after is inheritances.  Lots of money will be passed down over two generations and the gvt will want its cut…



Which is also wrong.  Where does this Canadian sense of entitlement to the fruits of other peoples efforts come from ?


----------



## Eaglelord17 (23 Nov 2022)

I sincerely hope this latest rumours of prohibition remain that (though I am not feeling that lucky today).

The only good thing is that level of prohibition would include substantially more firearms than any previous one, specifically ones held by a huge cross section of firearms owners, not just a very small number. The previous orders affected about 100k for the AR-15s, Swiss Arms, CZ 858s, AT/.50cal guns, and about 600k for handgun owners. There is substantially more variety of firearms owners who own SKS's than those other ones combined. About 80% of the firearms owners I know own one. That includes people who primarily hunt, people who target shoot, people that collect, etc. They were so cheap for so long they are basically as common as a Lee Enfield in firearm owning households, thinking about it I know more people with SKS's than Lee Enfields. 

Like most things Canadian we are willing to throw others under the bus to save ourselves. This time it might be a broad enough brush stroke to finally unite most firearms owners.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (23 Nov 2022)

No sense looking at individual types, SK's, etc. The prohibition is for semi auto centre fire rifles and shotguns that use a detachable magazine (per CCFR).
Like my 3 shot Remington 742 deer rifle.


(file pic)


----------



## Halifax Tar (23 Nov 2022)

Fishbone Jones said:


> No sense looking at individual types, SK's, etc. The prohibition is for semi auto centre fire rifles and shotguns that use a detachable magazine (per CCFR).
> Like my 3 shot Remington 742 deer rifle.
> 
> View attachment 75090
> (file pic)



Yup detachable mag semi-autos.  

As said above this may finally be enough to unite the whole of the firearms community.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (23 Nov 2022)

Lumber said:


> Not going to happen. Guns are an easy sell. Cars and homes? Not so much.


Never say never. That's how we got here. It's a slow creep. What happens when our eco terrorist Environment Minister decides your dryer uses too much  electricity?
It's not a gun issue, per say. It's a property issue. And there is no 'buy back' in the legislation, it's straight out confiscation. 
Can't fight it with a lawyer, if your trying to decide whether to heat or eat. Taxes will likely hit over 50% of gross by next summer.
Like I said, trudeau has a plan, it just doesn't include us, unless it's to be his bank.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (23 Nov 2022)

Eaglelord17 said:


> I sincerely hope this latest rumours of prohibition remain that (though I am not feeling that lucky today).
> 
> The only good thing is that level of prohibition would include substantially more firearms than any previous one, specifically ones held by a huge cross section of firearms owners, not just a very small number. The previous orders affected about 100k for the AR-15s, Swiss Arms, CZ 858s, AT/.50cal guns, and about 600k for handgun owners. There is substantially more variety of firearms owners who own SKS's than those other ones combined. About 80% of the firearms owners I know own one. That includes people who primarily hunt, people who target shoot, people that collect, etc. They were so cheap for so long they are basically as common as a Lee Enfield in firearm owning households, thinking about it I know more people with SKS's than Lee Enfields.
> 
> Like most things Canadian we are willing to throw others under the bus to save ourselves. This time it might be a broad enough brush stroke to finally unite most firearms owners.


It's not a rumour. They successfully passed this amendment to C-21, adding at  least another 400 firearms to the original Bill containing over 1500 others. These numbers also don't include the variants. Like I said anything semi auto, centrefire, with a box mag.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (23 Nov 2022)

Our only hope is that the Senate holds it up long enough for a successful election to oust the orange and red liberals.


----------



## Halifax Tar (23 Nov 2022)

Fishbone Jones said:


> Our only hope is that the Senate holds it up long enough for a successful election to oust the orange and red liberals.



I love your optimism or hope but the Cons will not win a majority.  And any attempt at a reversal to this legislation would probably topple a minority Con gov.  So they wont touch it.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (23 Nov 2022)

Remius said:


> Honestly I think the next thing to after is inheritances.  Lots of money will be passed down over two generations and the gvt will want its cut…


Forgivable loans to your family before you become worm food. I'm not a tax guy, but it sounds like a good alternative to avoid those taxes. Open to enlightenment.


----------



## Halifax Tar (23 Nov 2022)

Fishbone Jones said:


> Forgivable loans to your family before you become worm food. I'm not a tax guy, but it sounds like a good alternative to avoid those taxes. Open to enlightenment.



The taxation of inheritances disgusts me.  Probably as much as the Liberal firearms policies.


----------



## Jarnhamar (23 Nov 2022)

I hope Canadians who are now out thousands of dollars don't rip a page out of the BC eco terrorist book and start taking matters into their own hands.


----------



## Halifax Tar (23 Nov 2022)

Jarnhamar said:


> I hope Canadians who are now out thousands of dollars don't rip a page out of the BC eco terrorist book and start taking matters into their own hands.



I have been hearing rumors they have gotten around the compensation aspect now too.


----------



## Brad Sallows (23 Nov 2022)

Naw.  There are plenty of other ways to fight back.  Foremost among them is to remember that leisure time is not taxable.


----------



## Jarnhamar (23 Nov 2022)

Halifax Tar said:


> I have been hearing rumors they have gotten around the compensation aspect now too.


Whether it's due to the issue being tied up in courts for years or a work around we can expect to never see a dollar.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (23 Nov 2022)

Jarnhamar said:


> I hope Canadians who are now out thousands of dollars don't rip a page out of the BC eco terrorist book and start taking matters into their own hands.


For many it's tens of thousands of dollars. I know of half a dozen instances, right now, that will cost the owners $40,000 to $80,000 and maybe more.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (23 Nov 2022)

Halifax Tar said:


> I have been hearing rumors they have gotten around the compensation aspect now too.


There is no buy back in the bill. Just a straight prohibition and confiscation. (per Rod Giltaca)


----------



## Good2Golf (23 Nov 2022)

Brad Sallows said:


> Naw.  There are plenty of other ways to fight back.  Foremost among them is to remember that leisure time is not taxable.


…yet…


----------



## Fishbone Jones (23 Nov 2022)

Everything is taxable. Look at the carbon tax. They are literally taxing the air you breathe. You are being taxed for the water you drink, if you use that plastic, cardboard box, water bottle thingy. 

Air and water.

People are lazy and don't drill down far enough. Critical thinking is dying quickly.


----------



## Remius (23 Nov 2022)

Halifax Tar said:


> Which is also wrong.  Where does this Canadian sense of entitlement to the fruits of other peoples efforts come from ?


There is a loud segment (mostly from the NDP side) about how inheritances are unfair and promulgate the system of inequality…blah blah. 

I’m not a fan of gvt dictating how people can leave or not leave their estates to whoever.  I wonder how they would feel about passing on estates that are also in debt…

So while I think that seizing homes or cars is a far stretch, I’d be worried about this one.  And technically people inherit homes…so…maybe not so far fetched.


----------



## Brad Sallows (23 Nov 2022)

Carbon taxes are just fuel taxes.  Running (tap) water is a service, which people pay for.

Firearm confiscation ought to be seen for what it is - a "broken window".  To the extent compensation falls below market value (prior to any correction in markets for the fact that the commodity is being outlawed), it is basically wealth destruction.  I try to suppose that only stupid people destroy wealth, but there it is.  At the margins, some people undoubtedly would sell off collections to finance retirement or other consumption.  To the extent they can't do that, their consumption is reduced, which reduces velocity of money, which reduces (ultimately) government revenues.  Again at the margins, some people will fall to income levels at which they are wholly dependent on government-funded retirement and other support, which (ultimately) increases government expenses.

A lot of small wheels are coming off the government bus just now.  Whether the people in charge are smart enough to recognize the risk of the sum of all these things being dangerous and avoidable, is disputable.  But it is self-correcting, without any need for anyone to aggravate public disorder.


----------



## Brad Sallows (23 Nov 2022)

If governments go after inheritances, people will start thinking of ways to avoid leaving large inheritances.  The collective brainpower of "people" outweighs that of "politicians and bureaucrats" by several orders of magnitude.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (23 Nov 2022)

Australian semi auto ban only netted about 20% compliance.

A little dated but still relevant
_*"Other researchers agree. In a white paper on the results of gun control efforts around the world, Franz Csaszar, a professor of criminology at the University of Vienna, Austria, gives examples of large-scale non-compliance with the ban. He points out, "In Australia it is estimated that only about 20% of all banned self-loading rifles have been given up to the authorities."
*_
*But that defiance was mostly on the part of peaceful civilians who just didn't want to bend their knees to politicians, and it was 20 years ago. What about the bad actors supposedly targeted for disarmament by the government?"*









						Australia's Gun 'Buyback' Created a Violent Firearms Black Market. Why Should the U.S. Do the Same?
					

With years of increasing domestic peace behind us, Americans should avoid policies that seem designed to empower organized crime.




					reason.com


----------



## Halifax Tar (23 Nov 2022)

Remius said:


> There is a loud segment (mostly from the NDP side) about how inheritances are unfair and promulgate the system of inequality…blah blah.
> 
> I’m not a fan of gvt dictating how people can leave or not leave their estates to whoever.  I wonder how they would feel about passing on estates that are also in debt…
> 
> So while I think that seizing homes or cars is a far stretch, I’d be worried about this one.  And technically people inherit homes…so…maybe not so far fetched.



It absolutely disgusts me that someone thinks they or the government should decide or have influence on inheritance.  If a person works hard to leave the family a nest egg, then good for them.  No matter how big that nest egg is. 

Ya I don't see a confiscation of vehicles and houses, yet, but I do see a justification required to own a house with more rooms than people per say or to buy multiple homes.   Same with vehicles.  Want an F150 ?  Show proof of requirement.  No trailer to tow or construction base business, nope not for you.  But have you seen the new Lata ?


----------



## Jarnhamar (23 Nov 2022)

Halifax Tar said:


> Ya I don't see a confiscation of vehicles and houses, yet, but I do see a justification required to own a house with more rooms than people per say or to buy multiple homes.   Same with vehicles.  Want an F150 ?  Show proof of requirement.  No trailer to tow or construction base business, nope not for you.  But have you seen the new Lata ?



I can easily see that with the climate change mania.
Why does a hairdresser who lives 10 minutes away from the salon need a Hummer or pick-up truck?


----------



## Halifax Tar (23 Nov 2022)

Jarnhamar said:


> I can easily see that with the climate change mania.
> Why does a hairdresser who lives 10 minutes away from the salon need a Hummer or pick-up truck?



Not aiming this at you, but need has nothing to do with it.  It's their money and choice, if that's what the choose to buy and drive then that's their choice. 

The Gov and busy body folks can stay the F out of it as far as I am concerned.


----------



## Spencer100 (23 Nov 2022)

Jarnhamar said:


> I can easily see that with the climate change mania.
> Why does a hairdresser who lives 10 minutes away from the salon need a Hummer or pick-up truck?


don't give an ideas....

in realty I am sure thats in the plan somewhere.


----------



## Good2Golf (23 Nov 2022)

Halifax Tar said:


> Not aiming this at you, but need has nothing to do with it.  It's their money and choice, if that's what the choose to buy and drive then that's their choice.
> 
> The Gov and busy body folks can stay the F out of it as far as I am concerned.


I see what you’re saying HT, but I was confused by your earlier post like Jarnhamar was, and thought you were espousing control over what people chose to buy.  I see now you were meaning ‘that’s how far they’ll go and then some’ vice your own belief.

I’m concerned as are others, that the current government is on a high right now seeing how far it was able to push Canadians to accepting more and more control…and (reasonably) fearing for more grabbing of power and property to come…


----------



## Lumber (23 Nov 2022)

Halifax Tar said:


> It's their money and choice, if that's what the choose to buy and drive then that's their choice.


"I'll go check and see if it's in the the gun room."
"You have a room dedicated to just guns?"
"Yes."
"Why do you need so many guns that you need a whole room dedicated to them?"
"We're in America, right?"
"Yes..."
"Then I don't need to answer that question."


----------



## Halifax Tar (23 Nov 2022)

Lumber said:


> "I'll go check and see if it's in the the gun room."
> "You have a room dedicated to just guns?"
> "Yes."
> "Why do you need so many guns that you need a whole room dedicated to them?"
> ...



I have no issue with your post.

I'm also not the only person on this forum who has a gun room.


----------



## Halifax Tar (23 Nov 2022)

Good2Golf said:


> I see what you’re saying HT, but I was confused by your earlier post like Jarnhamar was, and thought you were espousing control over what people chose to buy.  I see now you were meaning ‘that’s how far they’ll go and then some’ vice your own belief.
> 
> I’m concerned as are others, that the current government is on a high right now seeing how far it was able to push Canadians to accepting more and more control…and (reasonably) fearing for more grabbing of power and property to come…



Oh!  Sorry for the confusion Mon Ami.


----------



## Jarnhamar (23 Nov 2022)

Halifax Tar said:


> Not aiming this at you, but need has nothing to do with it.  It's their money and choice, if that's what the choose to buy and drive then that's their choice.
> 
> The Gov and busy body folks can stay the F out of it as far as I am concerned.



Taking money and property from the rich and giving to the poor have-nots will be seriously popular with a lot of Canadians. Lots of votes.


----------



## Jarnhamar (23 Nov 2022)

Spencer100 said:


> don't give an ideas....
> 
> in realty I am sure thats in the plan somewhere.


It's an easily arguable stance when you ignore personal freedoms.


----------



## QV (23 Nov 2022)

Jarnhamar said:


> It's an easily arguable stance when you ignore personal freedoms.


Which is the cornerstone of this government as demonstrated.


----------



## Halifax Tar (23 Nov 2022)

Jarnhamar said:


> Taking money and property from the rich and giving to the poor have-nots will be seriously popular with a lot of Canadians. Lots of votes.



It's absolutely would.  Could be an election winner. 

Where do you draw the line between the haves and have nots ?  Would be interesting to see that articulated.


----------



## Brad Sallows (23 Nov 2022)

So how does this work?  They can demand it if you own it regardless where it is, or they can demand it only if you own it and it's stored in Canada?


----------



## suffolkowner (23 Nov 2022)

so has the whole buyback been cancelled or just for these new additions?


----------



## Jarnhamar (23 Nov 2022)

suffolkowner said:


> so has the whole buyback been cancelled or just for these new additions?


The potential buyback price tag (which some of us estimated in the $1B+ range) is going to triple. The buy back won't get canceled they will just leave it in limbo.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (23 Nov 2022)

Jarnhamar said:


> The potential buyback price tag (which some of us estimated in the $1B+ range) is going to triple. The buy back won't get canceled they will just leave it in limbo.


There is no buyback provision in Bill C-21. None. Not that I could find and Rod Giltaca (CCFR) has also stated there is no buy back provisions in the Bill.
The buy back was nothing but words spoken to appease. They haven't even been able to find a contractor to entertain it and have pushed the amnesty back to Oct 2023.






						Government Bill (House of Commons) C-21 (43-2) - First Reading - An Act to amend certain Acts and to make certain consequential amendments (firearms) - Parliament of Canada
					

Government Bill (House of Commons) C-21 (43-2) - First Reading - An Act to amend certain Acts and to make certain consequential amendments (firearms) - Parliament of Canada



					parl.ca


----------



## IKnowNothing (24 Nov 2022)

Unpopular thought:  This is an unintended but clear consequence of the lobby pushback on the "assault weapons" ban via arguments of "this is stupid, this ban is focused on form rather than function, that less scary looking gun is no different."

When your opponent is setting the bar the "x is too dangerous" the counter of "y is just as dangerous" is practically an invitation to ban y.

Not saying that I agree, just that they were handed a complete layup.


----------



## IKnowNothing (24 Nov 2022)

Halifax Tar said:


> Where do you draw the line between the haves and have nots ?  Would be interesting to see that articulated.


I agree with you in principle, but that line has kind of already been drawn for some of us with respect to certain lifestyles and functions. That there is currently no estate/inheritance tax is kind of a misnomer given deemed disposition laws.

Ex. 
Land over 1.25 acres being excluded from principal residence for capital gains exemption
Farms having a $1mm capital gains exemption cap


----------



## Haggis (24 Nov 2022)

IKnowNothing said:


> Unpopular thought:  This is an unintended but clear consequence of the lobby pushback on the "assault weapons" ban via arguments of "this is stupid, this ban is focused on form rather than function, that less scary looking gun is no different."
> 
> When your opponent is setting the bar the "x is too dangerous" the counter of "y is just as dangerous" is practically an invitation to ban y.
> 
> Not saying that I agree, just that they were handed a complete layup.


You're completely right.  I fully believe the May 2020 ban and now C-21 were written in such a way to close all the loopholes exposed on social media (e.g. the ban on upper receivers.)


----------



## Halifax Tar (24 Nov 2022)

IKnowNothing said:


> Unpopular thought:  This is an unintended but clear consequence of the lobby pushback on the "assault weapons" ban via arguments of "this is stupid, this ban is focused on form rather than function, that less scary looking gun is no different."
> 
> When your opponent is setting the bar the "x is too dangerous" the counter of "y is just as dangerous" is practically an invitation to ban y.
> 
> Not saying that I agree, just that they were handed a complete layup.



I disagree. I would wager this and further firearms legislation has always been the desired the end state.  I have no doubt in another couple months we will see lever and pump actions.  They wont be happy until they are all gone or all we are left with are single shot Cooey .410s.

Its a simple attack on 2 millions strong segment of the population that Liberals don't care about.



IKnowNothing said:


> I agree with you in principle, but that line has kind of already been drawn for some of us with respect to certain lifestyles and functions. That there is currently no estate/inheritance tax is kind of a misnomer given deemed disposition laws.
> 
> Ex.
> Land over 1.25 acres being excluded from principal residence for capital gains exemption
> Farms having a $1mm capital gains exemption cap



At some point the giant that is the Canadian population has to wake up and change direction.


----------



## Haggis (24 Nov 2022)

Halifax Tar said:


> I have no doubt in another couple months we will see lever and pump actions.


They need to keep something to campaign on next time. That's why handguns weren't banned outright.


Halifax Tar said:


> Its a simple attack on 2 millions strong segment of the population that Liberals don't care about.


And who wouldn't likey vote for them in any case.


----------



## Jarnhamar (24 Nov 2022)

Halifax Tar said:


> At some point the giant that is the Canadian population has to wake up and change direction.


Maybe they'll change their direction when they're facing down CAF tanks.


----------



## Halifax Tar (24 Nov 2022)

Jarnhamar said:


> Maybe they'll change their direction when they're facing down CAF tanks.



Doubtful.  They will just turn on their neighbors.


----------



## suffolkowner (24 Nov 2022)

IKnowNothing said:


> Unpopular thought:  This is an unintended but clear consequence of the lobby pushback on the "assault weapons" ban via arguments of "this is stupid, this ban is focused on form rather than function, that less scary looking gun is no different."
> 
> When your opponent is setting the bar the "x is too dangerous" the counter of "y is just as dangerous" is practically an invitation to ban y.
> 
> Not saying that I agree, just that they were handed a complete layup.


something I've long thought as well. The law is more consistent and logical now just not to my benefit


IKnowNothing said:


> I agree with you in principle, but that line has kind of already been drawn for some of us with respect to certain lifestyles and functions. That there is currently no estate/inheritance tax is kind of a misnomer given deemed disposition laws.
> 
> Ex.
> Land over 1.25 acres being excluded from principal residence for capital gains exemption
> Farms having a $1mm capital gains exemption cap


last time for me it was 5 acres I think and I have mostly managed to avoid capital gains but its not easy


----------



## KevinB (24 Nov 2022)

Halifax Tar said:


> I have no issue with your post.
> 
> I'm also not the only person on this forum who has a gun room.


Only one gun room?

Peasant


----------



## ueo (24 Nov 2022)

Jarnhamar said:


> Maybe they'll change their direction when they're facing down CAF tanks.


What tanks?


----------



## GR66 (24 Nov 2022)

ueo said:


> What tanks?


That's why the dropped the idea.  They couldn't find tow trucks to move the protesters...where were they going to find something to move a broken-down tank?


----------



## Halifax Tar (24 Nov 2022)

If the threat was enough that they could 'joke' about tanks being brought in, then how serious was the threat ?


----------



## Fishbone Jones (24 Nov 2022)

ueo said:


> What tanks?


The ones. In the street. With guns.


----------



## Jarnhamar (24 Nov 2022)

"it was just a joke"
"but he's a good guy"

Ripped from the CAF OP Honour manual.


----------



## Halifax Tar (24 Nov 2022)

I dont know what amazes me more. 

The fact the Liberals are still in power and have no real threat.  The fact that they can probably win at least another minority government.  Or that the opposition is incapable of presenting a viable alternative. 

I am really hoping on PP.  But without a majority none of this will get reversed.


----------



## Navy_Pete (24 Nov 2022)

Halifax Tar said:


> I dont know what amazes me more.
> 
> The fact the Liberals are still in power and have no real threat.  The fact that they can probably win at least another minority government.  Or that the opposition is incapable of presenting a viable alternative.
> 
> I am really hoping on PP.  But without a majority none of this will get reversed.


I think jumping on the cryptobro bandwagon was shortsighted and will come back to continually haunt him.

It's a giant ponzi scheme with no regulation, and no real value anyway, but the public implosion and ongoing bubble bursting on the house of cards on the exchanges will probably piss off the people that bought into the ponzi way too late and are now losing their shirts.

At least with the tulip bulb, pet rock or other fads you at least had something in your hands at the end of it.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (24 Nov 2022)

Navy_Pete said:


> I think jumping on the cryptobro bandwagon was shortsighted and will come back to continually haunt him.
> 
> It's a giant ponzi scheme with no regulation, and no real value anyway, but the public implosion and ongoing bubble bursting on the house of cards on the exchanges will probably piss off the people that bought into the ponzi way too late and are now losing their shirts.
> 
> At least with the tulip bulb, pet rock or other fads you at least had something in your hands at the end of it.


He should have just started pumping the South Sea Company   







The similarity in trend lines are amazing!


----------



## Fishbone Jones (24 Nov 2022)

Full list of banned firearms here:



			https://firearmrights.ca/wp-content/uploads/2022/11/the-list.pdf


----------



## QV (24 Nov 2022)

The majority of Canadians have been very accepting of the erosion of liberties and individual rights since Trudeau became PM. The government has the green light to push more control/more restrictions into all kinds of subject areas. They know they are only going to get about 30% pushback from any given group on any subject. 

There are folks ok with vaccine mandates and the recent invoking of the EA. There are folks ok with federal intrusion into provincial jurisdictions. 

All of these suspensions of liberty matter.


----------



## Halifax Tar (24 Nov 2022)

Navy_Pete said:


> I think jumping on the cryptobro bandwagon was shortsighted and will come back to continually haunt him.
> 
> It's a giant ponzi scheme with no regulation, and no real value anyway, but the public implosion and ongoing bubble bursting on the house of cards on the exchanges will probably piss off the people that bought into the ponzi way too late and are now losing their shirts.
> 
> At least with the tulip bulb, pet rock or other fads you at least had something in your hands at the end of it.



The irony is that may sink him.  And then look at everything out current PM has done.

It's amazing what Canadians will let people away with.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (24 Nov 2022)

Navy_Pete said:


> I think jumping on the cryptobro bandwagon was shortsighted and will come back to continually haunt him.
> 
> It's a giant ponzi scheme with no regulation, and no real value anyway, but the public implosion and ongoing bubble bursting on the house of cards on the exchanges will probably piss off the people that bought into the ponzi way too late and are now losing their shirts.
> 
> At least with the tulip bulb, pet rock or other fads you at least had something in your hands at the end of it.


Most people don't own or just don't really care about crypto. The red and orange liberals will try make hay with it, but I doubt it'll stick, let alone be understood by most voters. White noise.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (24 Nov 2022)

I know it'll be a pain, but maybe a mod could clear the non gun clag into another thread. Maybe something like The Effects of Bill C-21.

Tanks


----------



## Fishbone Jones (24 Nov 2022)

They still have websites in the banned firearms list. (z.085) AR15.Com ARFCOM; (z.086) AR15.Com AR15.Com;  

They haven't even checked their own list . They ran an algorithm, it spit out a list and they just added the results without technical examination. Or maybe they did and Murray Smith, their tech expert, isn't as 'expert' as they claim. They don't even know what guns are on there. Centrefire, semi auto, magazine became their reason. And yet, there are still .22 cal rimfire firearms listed. Cobbled together piece of shyte. Printed and applied without even a modicum of oversight.

The Bill also takes the classification of firearms away from government and give it to the RCMP, along with other things that were placed in legislation so no-one could act unilaterally. So now, someone like Smith can just log onto his computer and ban whatever the fuck he wants. Just like he/they did with the current list.

And trudeau washes his hands like Pontias Pilatus and let's his weaponized RCMP take the hit.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (24 Nov 2022)

Fishbone Jones said:


> Full list of banned firearms here:
> 
> 
> 
> https://firearmrights.ca/wp-content/uploads/2022/11/the-list.pdf


Basically they have banned 85% of my collection


----------



## Jarnhamar (24 Nov 2022)

Colin Parkinson said:


> Basically they have banned 85% of my collection


Same here. 

Liberals deleted a couple billion dollars worth of Canadians wealth/property.


----------



## Halifax Tar (24 Nov 2022)

Jarnhamar said:


> Same here.
> 
> Liberals deleted a couple billion dollars worth of Canadians wealth/property.



The fudds have been very quiet the last day or so.  I suspect they are in shock.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (24 Nov 2022)

Colin Parkinson said:


> Basically they have banned 85% of my collection


Yup, I'm out an absolute shitload. I could easily buy a fully decked out new Ram 2500, with what this government just stole from me.
Now I have to stop. My blood pressure just set of my alarm 😁


----------



## Brad Sallows (24 Nov 2022)

The best revenge is just living well on your own terms.

If that's not enough, there are hundreds of small legitimate ways to increase friction, particularly when you have ample spare time and other people do not - just drive the speed limit everywhere, for example.

If that's not enough, there is crushing your enemies, driving them before you, and hearing the lamentations of their women.


----------



## Halifax Tar (24 Nov 2022)

Fishbone Jones said:


> Yup, I'm out an absolute shitload. I could easily buy a fully decked out new Ram 2500, with what this government just stole from me.
> Now I have to stop. My blood pressure just set of my alarm 😁



Doges aren't worth much...  

I jest. 

Feel your pain brother.


----------



## Brad Sallows (24 Nov 2022)

I understood the Doges of Venice were quite wealthy.


----------



## Halifax Tar (24 Nov 2022)

Brad Sallows said:


> I understood the Doges of Venice were quite wealthy.



Lol I hate phone keyboards lol


----------



## Eaglelord17 (24 Nov 2022)

That list is stupid. The prohibited by name list has always been stupid. At least do it by characteristics i.e. something measurable. 

On that list includes many historical firearms. AG-42b, SKS, M1 Garand, G41s and G43s, M1 Carbines, etc.

I can’t recall the last time I was this frustrated. You literally work your ass off, pay your taxes, follow ridiculous laws that do nothing to protect anyone and are all about inconveniencing you, and this is the garbage they pull.


----------



## Mills Bomb (24 Nov 2022)

It's actually incredible to think anyone believed this was going to end any other way. This was always Canada's destiny, to join the ranks of other anti-gun countries like UK, Australia, NZ, etc. 

They essentially brought back a new form of registry in May. Every gun registry in history has lead to confiscation. The writing was on the wall for ages. Despite every clue, every signal that this was going to happen, most people just kept saying "They'll never do that" and now here we are, the final chapter, and they're closing in on the last of the guns that weren't already banned. Even if they don't get every variant this time, and a few are left, they'll eventually add them to list.

Anyone who is interested in gun ownership and the right to self-defence should know by now that the government is doing everything it can to ensure Canadians won't be allowed either. Believing otherwise is as foolish as all the people who said "But...They will never ban X..." only to see it in the following ban, it won't end until everything is gone except some highly regulated hunting rifles, and even then we can expect those laws will continue to get stricter and stricter because at the end of the day a bullet is a bullet and no amount of regulation will go far enough for the anti-gun crowd. 

That part of our freedom in this country is dead and gone, there's no convincing arguments to suggest we'll see that change, it only gets worse from here. This country doesn't have the 2nd amendment, so essentially the USA will be last place in the West that allows gun ownership and the right to adequately defend yourself in an increasingly violent society. 

Sorry to be so blunt, but honestly, who really thought this wasn't coming? It was only a matter of time for Canada. It was always only a matter of time.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (25 Nov 2022)

All the Weatherby rifles, from the Mk 1 to 5 are on the list. All are bolt action. Most have internal mags of two round capacity. These are hunting rifles that meet none of the stipulated criteria. Don't expect them to change it. They didn’t correct the previous mistakes.  This should get the fudds to start paying attention.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (25 Nov 2022)




----------



## calculus (25 Nov 2022)

Haggis said:


> The "science" shows that bringing in more gun control while equating lawful firearms ownership with violent crime will result in urban voters supporting the Libe





Eaglelord17 said:


> That list is stupid. The prohibited by name list has always been stupid. At least do it by characteristics i.e. something measurable.
> 
> On that list includes many historical firearms. AG-42b, SKS, M1 Garand, G41s and G43s, M1 Carbines, etc.
> 
> I can’t recall the last time I was this frustrated. You literally work your ass off, pay your taxes, follow ridiculous laws that do nothing to protect anyone and are all about inconveniencing you, and this is the garbage they pull.


Yep. I feel the same way. Super frustrating. I actually feel like I'm under attack by my own government. It's not a nice feeling, and I wrote my MP and expressed that sentiment to her. I offered to meet with her so she could get a perspective from a sport shooter. I very much doubt I will hear back, but it felt good to put it in writing. I encourage every gun owner on this forum to do the same.


----------



## ueo (25 Nov 2022)

Fishbone Jones said:


> The ones. In the street. With guns.


Still do not track this comment. Advocate for  governmental overthrow but by what/who?


----------



## Eaglelord17 (25 Nov 2022)

ueo said:


> Still do not track this comment. Advocate for  governmental overthrow but by what/who?


Two government ministers were seriously talking about using tanks on the convoy protesters, came to light as part of the investigation into it.


----------



## Good2Golf (25 Nov 2022)

Eaglelord17 said:


> Two government ministers were seriously talking about using tanks on the convoy protesters, came to light as part of the investigation into it.


Perhaps their (our 😠) Dear Leader admired the Tiananmen Square method?  After all, it is a policy subset of the more widely-admired PRC Social Protection Program? 🤔


----------



## Fishbone Jones (25 Nov 2022)

ueo said:


> Still do not track this comment. Advocate for  governmental overthrow but by what/who?


Paraphrase of Paul Martin Jr


----------



## Fishbone Jones (25 Nov 2022)

Good2Golf said:


> Perhaps their (our 😠) Dear Leader admired the Tiananmen Square method?  After all, it is a policy subset of the more widely-admired PRC Social Protection Program? 🤔


Save your breath G2G. I've been screaming about this guy and his stooges since 2015 and no one wants to listen. You'll get lots of 😏🤨😖and lots of 😂🤣🤫 while being labelled a conspiracy theorist.  

We have our own bar though, so there's that at least.🥴

😁


----------



## Brad Sallows (25 Nov 2022)

calculus said:


> I actually feel like I'm under attack by my own government.


You are.  This is culture war, not rational evidence-driven policy-making.


----------



## Halifax Tar (25 Nov 2022)

Brad Sallows said:


> You are.  This is culture war, not rational evidence-driven policy-making.



A few weeks ago I would have looked at you crooked for that statement. 

Now I am not so sure...


----------



## Brad Sallows (25 Nov 2022)

Not sure how it could be plainer.  The politicians are just going where the votes are; the votes are with people who have been quite plain that they don't like guns and they don't like the kinds of people who like guns.  Equally, the list of things a rational person might do to achieve the ostensible aims before proceeding to "confiscate everything" is long enough and promising enough, but very few items on it are attempted.


----------



## Good2Golf (25 Nov 2022)

Brad Sallows said:


> Not sure how it could be plainer.  The politicians are just going where the votes are; the votes are with people who have been quite plain that they don't like guns and they don't like the kinds of people who like guns.  Equally, the list of things a rational person might do to achieve the ostensible aims before proceeding to "confiscate everything" is long enough and promising enough, but very few items on it are attempted.


It’ll certainly make for one very sad game of “I told you so!” when there are no more legal guns but people are still dying by guns…guns that were never properly and responsibly targeted (through the criminals that used/use them) and a justice system that failed to prosecute those who committed the acts but were given a bye from being held accountable.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (25 Nov 2022)

Brad Sallows said:


> Not sure how it could be plainer.  The politicians are just going where the votes are; the votes are with people who have been quite plain that they don't like guns and they don't like the kinds of people who like guns.  Equally, the list of things a rational person might do to achieve the ostensible aims before proceeding to "confiscate everything" is long enough and promising enough, but very few items on it are attempted.



Sorry Brad, we'll have to agree to disagree.

It's more about disarming citizens, than votes. It's not about gun control, it's about gun eradication. It's not for public safety, but safety for politicians that push too far.

Again, once they take your guns, they can take whatever they want.

And it's happening in all countries where elitist global forces have placed their politicians, like Canada, US, Australia, New Zealand, etc. All working on the same time line, with the same tools and the same agenda. Go ahead, list them and mark the common denominators.

The trudeau's have never been liberals. They are communists, using the liberal party to attain control.
Trudeau Sr admitted as much and Jr has stated a number of times, that he learned his politics at his father's knee. The proof is in the pudding he's baking right now.

WEF is real, UN overreach is real as is WHO, and they are all doing massive damage to democracies.
Divisiveness is their biggest current tool. While everyone is arguing, they are sliding through massive unemployment, crashing the economies, controlling personal wealth and travel. Cutting supplies of medicine, food and fuel. Incremental removal of our rights. Pushing the limits of control to gauge reaction and implementation of constraints on the population.


Good2Golf said:


> It’ll certainly make for one very sad game of “I told you so!” when there are no more legal guns but people are still dying by guns…guns that were never properly and responsibly targeted (through the criminals that used/use them) and a justice system that failed to prosecute those who committed the acts but were given a bye from being held accountable.


It's called organized chaos. It's a tool. When you can't protect yourself, you'll ask the government to protect you.


We really need another thread . This stuff takes us away from the main topic too much.

I'm sticking to the topic from now on. My guns being stolen from me by a despotic government

If people want to discuss the whys and wherefores,  that resulted in this blatant theft and subterfuge, maybe start a thread for it?

My $00.002 based on inflation


----------



## Fishbone Jones (25 Nov 2022)

Mills Bomb said:


> Sorry to be so blunt, but honestly, who really thought this wasn't coming? It was only a matter of time for Canada. It was always only a matter of time.


Some of us knew it was coming. Some of us tried to sound the alarm. All of us ran out of breath trying to convince others. Your assessment of the gun confiscation it right on the money. My only point is they are already confiscating hunting rifles and shotguns.

Welcome to the club


----------



## Furniture (25 Nov 2022)

Brad Sallows said:


> Not sure how it could be plainer.  *The politicians are just going where the votes are; the votes are with people who have been quite plain that they don't like guns and they don't like the kinds of people who like guns.*  Equally, the list of things a rational person might do to achieve the ostensible aims before proceeding to "confiscate everything" is long enough and promising enough, but very few items on it are attempted.


This is the concerning part in my eyes, it ties into a lot of the political issues Canada and the USA are facing. 

Urban/suburban population is quite willing to inflict their ideology on the rural population, with no regard for the opinions or ideas of the rural.


----------



## Halifax Tar (25 Nov 2022)

Interesting little exchange









						Justin Trudeau violating Bill of Rights to seize Canadian property | 𝐓𝐫𝐮𝐝𝐞𝐚𝐮 𝐯𝐢𝐨𝐥𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐁𝐢𝐥𝐥 𝐨𝐟 𝐑𝐢𝐠𝐡𝐭𝐬 𝐭𝐨 𝐬𝐞𝐢𝐳𝐞 𝐂𝐚𝐧𝐚𝐝𝐢𝐚𝐧 𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐩𝐞𝐫𝐭𝐲 Conservatives Dane Lloyd and Glen Motz ask federally appointed council about the Canadian... | By Canadian Coalition for 
					

138K views, 2.5K likes, 27 loves, 1.6K comments, 4.8K shares, Facebook Watch Videos from Canadian Coalition for Firearm Rights: 𝐓𝐫𝐮𝐝𝐞𝐚𝐮 𝐯𝐢𝐨𝐥𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐁𝐢𝐥𝐥 𝐨𝐟 𝐑𝐢𝐠𝐡𝐭𝐬 𝐭𝐨 𝐬𝐞𝐢𝐳𝐞 𝐂𝐚𝐧𝐚𝐝𝐢𝐚𝐧 𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐩𝐞𝐫𝐭𝐲...




					fb.watch


----------



## Mills Bomb (25 Nov 2022)

Fishbone Jones said:


> Some of us knew it was coming. Some of us tried to sound the alarm. All of us ran out of breath trying to convince others. Your assessment of the gun confiscation it right on the money. My only point is they are already confiscating hunting rifles and shotguns.
> 
> Welcome to the club



I think everyone with half a brain knew it was coming, but literally nobody here cares. That's why this stuff keeps happening, the country is left-wing no matter what the Liberals do you can't really get rid of them. The Conservative's will make a big stink to get fundraising money from gun enthusiast who think they will be the saviours but they have no intent to change it, even O'Toole publicly stated he wouldn't undue the earlier bans, so that's a laughable alternative. 

 Canada wasn't going to ban more guns.... what a joke! Common, everyone knows now what kind of country Canada is these days. We literally love giving up freedoms here every time something bad is on the news.


----------



## OldSolduer (25 Nov 2022)

He who sacrifices freedom to security deserves neither- or words to that effect


----------



## Fishbone Jones (25 Nov 2022)

Halifax Tar said:


> Interesting little exchange
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Just watched it while you were posting. Typical liberal non response. They will not answer the question.  They can toss you a $20 bill for each firearm to satisfy the point. If they can do this with firearms, they can do it with whatever they want. Greasy, smarmy, authoritarian end run around the Bill of Rights. Every party voting for this is complicit in it and agrees your rights are worth nothing if they deem it so.


----------



## Halifax Tar (25 Nov 2022)

Fishbone Jones said:


> Just watched it while you were posting. Typical liberal non response. They will not answer the question.  They can toss you a $20 bill for each firearm to satisfy the point. If they can do this with firearms, they can do it with whatever they want. Greasy, smarmy, authoritarian end run around the Bill of Rights. Every party voting for this is complicit in it and agrees your rights are worth nothing if they deem it so. They can toss you a $20 bill for each firearm to satisfy the point.



What have we become ?


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (25 Nov 2022)

Halifax Tar said:


> What have we become ?


An Urban Champagne-Socialist paradise 😁.

This is why I moved to the middle of nowhere.  The Liberals wouldn't be able to find me because dear leader thinks Canadian Geography is Montreal, Toronto, Vancouver & Tofino 😆

I really want to leave Canada and move to the United States long term, preferably somewhere in the Mid-West.  There is just a lot more opportunity down there and I'm hoping I can eventually weasel my way in to a position down there.


----------



## Weinie (25 Nov 2022)

Fishbone Jones said:


> Again, once they take your guns, they can take whatever they want.
> 
> And it's happening in all countries where elitist global forces have placed their politicians, like Canada, US, Australia, New Zealand, etc. All working on the same time line, with the same tools and the same agenda. Go ahead, list them and mark the common denominators.
> 
> ...


Yup.


----------



## Mills Bomb (25 Nov 2022)

Humphrey Bogart said:


> An Urban Champagne-Socialist paradise 😁.
> 
> This is why I moved to the middle of nowhere.  The Liberals wouldn't be able to find me because dear leader thinks Canadian Geography is Montreal, Toronto, Vancouver & Tofino 😆
> 
> I really want to leave Canada and move to the United States long term, preferably somewhere in the Mid-West.  There is just a lot more opportunity down there and I'm hoping I can eventually weasel my way in to a position down there.



I think that's the biggest ironies of Canadians chirping on Americans, Canadians love pointing out problems in the USA, and the USA does have a lot of problems, but at the end of that day you can move around the very different states, find affordable housing, job opportunities, and live the life you actually want. If you want strict gun laws, no problem, go to New York or California, if you love guns, try Vermont or maybe Texas. You just don't get that kind of choice or freedom here because one way of thinking rules the entire country, and there's no escaping whatever it is JT's party are going to confiscate or ban from you next, or however it is they are going to screw you next. 

We are talking people literally loosing hundreds of thousands of dollars of investments, maybe millions in some cases.

Some of the guns on the ban list can be worth $10,000-$100,000+ and people were keeping them as investments to do things like send their kids to university and just like that JT is wiping out billions of dollars of Canadian's wealth. They were literally traded amongst legitimate collectors only. This is a huge problem with the handgun "freeze" also. JT literally wiped out massive amounts of savings from pro-gun Canadians and put many of them in really crappy financial situations.


----------



## Kat Stevens (25 Nov 2022)

Mills Bomb said:


> I think that's the biggest ironies of Canadians chirping on Americans, Canadians love pointing out problems in the USA, and the USA does have a lot of problems, but at the end of that day you can move around the very different states, find affordable housing, job opportunities, and live the life you actually want. If you want strict gun laws, no problem, go to New York or California, if you love guns, try Vermont or maybe Texas. You just don't get that kind of choice or freedom here because one way of thinking rules the entire country, and there's no escaping whatever it is JT's party are going to confiscate or ban from you next, or however it is they are going to screw you next.
> 
> We are talking people literally loosing hundreds of thousands of dollars of investments, maybe millions in some cases.
> 
> Some of the guns on the ban list can be worth $10,000-$100,000+ and people were keeping them as investments to do things like send their kids to university and just like that JT is wiping out billions of dollars of Canadian's wealth. They were literally traded amongst legitimate collectors only. This is a huge problem with the handgun "freeze" also. JT literally wiped out massive amounts of savings from pro-gun Canadians and put many of them in really crappy financial situations.


They're just experiencing things differently.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (25 Nov 2022)

Joe Biden just flipped his narrative. He moved off the 'assault weapons' to saying he was going to ban all semi-automatics. And if you own a semi-auto you are 'sick.'
Yeah, no commonality there at all

I'm not talking about his problems with owners or the 2nd Amendment.

It is the first time I've heard the gun grabbers down there say they are coming after semi autos.








						Biden vows to push ban on semiautomatic guns: ‘It’s just sick’
					

President Biden vowed Thursday to push a ban on “assault weapons” before the next Congress forms — as he decried the sale of semiautomatic weapons as “sick.”




					nypost.com


----------



## Stoker (25 Nov 2022)

I noticed that all the previously grandfathered firearms have been added to the new bill and word has it that they will be expected to be turned in as well.


----------



## OldSolduer (25 Nov 2022)

Fishbone Jones said:


> Joe Biden just flipped his narrative. He moved off the 'assault weapons' to saying he was going to ban all semi-automatics. And if you own a semi-auto you are 'sick.'
> Yeah, no commonality there at all
> 
> I'm not talking about his problems with owners or the 2nd Amendment.
> ...



And you can bet the NRA will take this to court.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (25 Nov 2022)

I expect that the court case there, will go as well as ours is going here.

They have the advantage of the 2nd Amendment though.


----------



## OldSolduer (25 Nov 2022)

Fishbone Jones said:


> I expect that the court case there, will go as well as ours is going here.
> 
> They have the advantage of the 2nd Amendment.


The difference being the NRA has shit tons of political clout.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (25 Nov 2022)

Stoker said:


> I noticed that all the previously grandfathered firearms have been added to the new bill and word has it that they will be expected to be turned in as well.


Lots of bolt action hunting rifles on there also. And .22 rimfires.


----------



## ModlrMike (26 Nov 2022)

How much do you want to bet that the next thing they try to confiscate won't be gas powered engines?


----------



## Weinie (26 Nov 2022)

ModlrMike said:


> How much do you want to bet that the next thing they try to confiscate won't be gas powered engines?


Leave my snowblower the fuck out of the equation.


----------



## singh1947 (26 Nov 2022)

Fishbone Jones said:


> Joe Biden just flipped his narrative. He moved off the 'assault weapons' to saying he was going to ban all semi-automatics. And if you own a semi-auto you are 'sick.'
> Yeah, no commonality there at all
> 
> I'm not talking about his problems with owners or the 2nd Amendment.
> ...


That Virginia rally that drew in the Reservist was about to do the same AFAIK.


----------



## ueo (26 Nov 2022)

Fishbone Jones said:


> Paraphrase of Paul Martin Jr


Sorry to be pedantic but... source please.


----------



## Quirky (26 Nov 2022)

Yay more rules!

So who’s job will it be to enforce these new rules, will the local PD or RCMP start going door to door?


----------



## OldSolduer (26 Nov 2022)

Canadian society is reaping what it has sown. This will not end with the taking of guns. 

We put one million people to war in WW2 - and now this. 

A nation led by sheep,


----------



## KevinB (26 Nov 2022)

Fishbone Jones said:


> Joe Biden just flipped his narrative. He moved off the 'assault weapons' to saying he was going to ban all semi-automatics. And if you own a semi-auto you are 'sick.'
> Yeah, no commonality there at all
> 
> I'm not talking about his problems with owners or the 2nd Amendment.
> ...


He can say anything he wants at this point it is just grandstanding. 

The USSC has already upheld the fact common use firearms cannot be banned. 

 He’s lost the House (and didn’t have enough anti gun dems anyway) and the Senate is notoriously less partisan when it comes to guns especially with southern democrats who want another term).


----------



## Fishbone Jones (26 Nov 2022)

ueo said:


> Sorry to be pedantic but... source please.


Martin Jr Election commercial

"There will be soldiers. In the street. With guns."
As I explained, I paraphrased this. To fit the liberals joking about bringing tanks to the protest.
Use your own googlefu to look it up.

Sorry to ruin your moment there, ueo.


----------



## Eaglelord17 (26 Nov 2022)

ModlrMike said:


> How much do you want to bet that the next thing they try to confiscate won't be gas powered engines?


No need, either stop selling gas, make it so expensive that it isn't affordable to have a gas powered engine (they are working on that currently), or simply prohibit the sale of new gas powered engines. Confiscation is costly, dangerous, and time consuming. Easier to simply cut off the supply and let it fade out.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (26 Nov 2022)

KevinB said:


> He can say anything he wants at this point it is just grandstanding.
> 
> The USSC has already upheld the fact common use firearms cannot be banned.
> 
> He’s lost the House (and didn’t have enough anti gun dems anyway) and the Senate is notoriously less partisan when it comes to guns especially with southern democrats who want another term).


I know he won't accomplish it Kev. 

With the last minute, too late to stop it, introduction of G-4 the liberals are moving off the 'assault style rifle' narrative, on to the broader term 'semiautomatic' ban.

I've never heard a US politician use the term 'semi automatic' as criteria for a ban. Until yesterday.

*“The idea we still allow semiautomatic weapons to be purchased is sick.* It’s just sick. It has no, no social redeeming value. Zero. None. Not a single, solitary rationale for it except profit for the gun manufacturers,” Biden argued.

From an 'assault rifle ban' to a 'semiautomatic ban.'

I just thought the timing of the switch odd.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (26 Nov 2022)

Eaglelord17 said:


> No need, either stop selling gas, make it so expensive that it isn't affordable to have a gas powered engine (they are working on that currently), or simply prohibit the sale of new gas powered engines. Confiscation is costly, dangerous, and time consuming. Easier to simply cut off the supply and let it fade out.


all small gas engines banned (for sale) in California. Jan 2024.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (26 Nov 2022)

The finalized list. 300 pages of banned firearms.



			https://firearmrights.ca/wp-content/uploads/2022/11/the-list.pdf


----------



## Brad Sallows (26 Nov 2022)

Continuing digression: my father has moved to all-electric (battery-powered mower and snowblower) and so far is quite satisfied.  Ditto a friend who has a battery-powered leafblower.  Stipulating that there might be some users who need the power of a gas engine, I don't think a move away from small gasoline engines is necessarily retrograde.


----------



## singh1947 (26 Nov 2022)

Mills Bomb said:


> It's actually incredible to think anyone believed this was going to end any other way. This was always Canada's destiny, to join the ranks of other anti-gun countries like UK, Australia, NZ, etc.
> 
> They essentially brought back a new form of registry in May. Every gun registry in history has lead to confiscation. The writing was on the wall for ages. Despite every clue, every signal that this was going to happen, most people just kept saying "They'll never do that" and now here we are, the final chapter, and they're closing in on the last of the guns that weren't already banned. Even if they don't get every variant this time, and a few are left, they'll eventually add them to list.
> 
> ...


American judges let tinder dates red-flag you & neither can felons vote.

Pre Trudeau you could get a PAL after your sentence was done.


OldSolduer said:


> The difference being the NRA has shit tons of political clout.


They've acceded to red flag laws & a whole bunch of stuff. I don't see them fighting the NFA or full auto ban either..
Full auto would ironically reduce mass shooting casualties - which aren't that many anyway it's like under 1500 or 1000 over close to 40 years..



Brad Sallows said:


> Continuing digression: my father has moved to all-electric (battery-powered mower and snowblower) and so far is quite satisfied.  Ditto a friend who has a battery-powered leafblower.  Stipulating that there might be some users who need the power of a gas engine, I don't think a move away from small gasoline engines is necessarily retrograde.


Battery mower, plug-in leaf blower, but 357cc snowblower here for my dad.
Battery in the cold or a tiny electric motor are both a no-go.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (26 Nov 2022)

Fishbone Jones said:


> The finalized list. 300 pages of banned firearms.
> 
> 
> 
> https://firearmrights.ca/wp-content/uploads/2022/11/the-list.pdf


I'll  try unpack this.
They did an end run around the Bill of Rights. Prohibited items can be seized by the government, with no compensation. The government, through this bill, can change the status of any firearm or device from non restricted to prohibited with a computer stroke, allowing them to legally change the status and seize it under the Criminal Code. Something can be good one minute and five minutes later, you are a criminal.
If future governments wish to undo this, they must use the full legislative process to do it. Something that wasn't done currently, to enact C-21.
The list is deeply flawed with firearms descriptions cut and pasted. They didn't research the models they are banning, for compliance to the OiC.
They banned hundreds of firearms by manufacturer. Winchester, Remington, Mossberg, etc capturing all kinds of hunting rifles and shotguns. Bolt actions, lever actions, break action and .22 rimfires
Liberal members of the SECU are saying the list is 'weapons of war' and 'sniper rifles'. Their descriptions and claims have shown a tremendous lack of understanding and ignorance about the subject they are pushing. They didn't answer questions, as per normal, and stood on solicitor/ client privilege when boxed in.
They removed the legislative process and government responsibility to change classification and gave it over to the RCMP to classify firearms and devices wholesale with no criteria. Someone like Murray Smith their firearms 'expert' can just say he doesn't like the look and flip it from non restricted to prohibited like he has done so far with thousands of firearms identified in the FRT.

I've likely missed something and all this is from watching the SECU hearings. I have just started to go through the Bill and have only spot read certain parts.

They found their loophole for classification and confiscation without compensation. I don't know why they couldn't be expected to use the same tactics on anything they want to remove from the people.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (26 Nov 2022)

singh1947 said:


> Full auto would ironically reduce mass shooting casualties - which aren't that many anyway it's like under 1500 or 1000 over close to 40 years..


Source?

Full autos have not been allowed in Canada for decades. So, a non starter here.


----------



## singh1947 (26 Nov 2022)

Fishbone Jones said:


> Source?


A database of mass shootings compiled by _Mother Jones_ going back to 1982 counts 123 such incidents in which at least three people were killed, not including the gunman. In that time, 952 people have been killed and 1,315 wounded.









						41 Years of Mass Shootings in the U.S. in One Chart
					

Hundreds of people have been killed in mass shootings since 1982




					time.com
				




The FBI collects data on “active shooter incidents,” which it defines as “one or more individuals actively engaged in killing or attempting to kill people in a populated area.” Using the FBI’s definition, 38 people – excluding the shooters – died in such incidents in 2020.









						What the data says about gun deaths in the U.S.
					

In 2020, the U.S. experienced a record number of gun murders, as well as a near-record number of gun suicides.




					www.pewresearch.org
				




What they've started to do in the last year or two is term gangland drive-by shootings as mass to increase the numbers.

----
Anti-gunners are making moral arguments, you can't beat them with statistics.
I stopped trying years ago,

"Weapons are sacred, and the physical form of the Goddess.
Speaking against weapons is blasphemy,
cease or you will be removed from the premises."

ਵਾਹਿਗੁਰੂਜੀਕਾਖਾਲਸਾਵਾਹਿਗੁਰੂਜੀਕੀਫਤਿਹ


----------



## Fishbone Jones (26 Nov 2022)

Mother Jones is far, far away from an unbiased opinion.

Registered guns v. criminal firearms.

So far, I find two instances where law abiding people used full autos. Both policemen and it appears they used department weapons. They now fall into the criminal category. However, it has only been a cursory search.

You're putting the onus of the firearm, instead of the person on the bang button. That's what the liberals are doing right now.
Using what is termed as 'assault style rifles' is hyperbole. A scare tactic, used by politicians to elicit fear. There is no definition of an assault style rifle. They use characteristics to define what they think it should be. A firearm that can fire a massive amount of ammo, in a short period of time, in order to kill the most amount of people.

Ironically, besides our military, the only use of true assault weapons and full auto firearms are buy our cops, armed with C8 carbines and 30 round magazines. They try to cover the fact that they carry these, for use, by calling them Patrol Carbines. And whatever the close protection guys use to protect the politicians that are taking our firearms.
Federal Conservation Officers have been issued AR-10 platforms (.308) for use in the field. All of these firearms are prohibited to civilian gun owners. 

We can't have them, because, remember, they are designed for only one purpose, they say, One Purpose. To kill as many people as possible in the least amount of time.

So why are our officers carrying them around. Who are these masses of people they are going to gun down in the least amount of time? With their full auto, 30 round magazine weapons?

I'm not besmirching LEOs, or their equipment. I know why they have them. 

I'm pointing out the blatant hypocrisy, subterfuge and dishonesty of this whole red and orange liberal misuse of legislation and law, to deprive and disarm Canada and it's citizens.


----------



## Booter (26 Nov 2022)

police carbines aren’t full auto.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (26 Nov 2022)

Booter said:


> police carbines aren’t full auto.


That is the first time I've ever gotten an answer to the question of if they are full auto. The usual response is a blank stare and walk away. And Ive asked lots. So they replaced the trigger group. It can be changed back in five minutes. I'll concede the point. It's still designated, by our adverse government description, 'to kill the most amount of people in the shortest amount of time' or does that not stand because police owned ones are called Patrol Carbines? What 'most amount of people' did the government forsee the police would need to 'kill in the least amount of time?'
Why are Conservation Officers issued AR-10 platforms? Because they need followup shots when dealing with dangerous game. But the liberals are happy to stick a hunter in the same situation without adequate firearm protection.

I'm not slagging cops, their job is hard enough.

I'm simple pointing out the ridiculousness and gas lighting by our current rulers in a blatant attempt to vilify firearms. Most of them couldn't even describe a hunting rifle let alone an assault rifle. Their platform is lies and deceit. The last day of the SECU hearings laid bare the absolute ignorance and inflammatory language used by lying liberals in power.


----------



## Booter (26 Nov 2022)

I agree with your premise. I get what you’re saying and I’m nodding along.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (26 Nov 2022)

Booter said:


> I agree with your premise. I get what you’re saying and I’m nodding along.


Cheers.


----------



## KevinB (26 Nov 2022)

Booter said:


> I agree with your premise. I get what you’re saying and I’m nodding along.


The two incidents of illegal killings with legal machine down here happen to have been LEO’s using Department guns on estranged lovers.  

Very few departments issue full auto carbines outside of Tac Teams these days, and more and more Tac Teams are opting for Semi only guns when they buy new ones.


----------



## Booter (26 Nov 2022)

It’s always hard to speak globally about equipment in the states- it’s like there is always a department that is an exception. In Canada no department or function has full auto.


----------



## OldSolduer (26 Nov 2022)

It’s not the Constable 👮‍♂️ on patrol that we need to worry about generally,

Their leadership is suspect though.


----------



## ueo (27 Nov 2022)

Fishbone Jones said:


> Martin Jr Election commercial
> 
> "There will be soldiers. In the street. With guns."
> As I explained, I paraphrased this. To fit the liberals joking about bringing tanks to the protest.
> ...


No moment desired, just wanted more than FOX level info.


----------



## Weinie (27 Nov 2022)

Booter said:


> It’s always hard to speak globally about equipment in the states- it’s like there is always a department that is an exception. *In Canada no department or function has full auto.*


C8 enters the chat.


----------



## QV (27 Nov 2022)

Booter said:


> police carbines aren’t full auto.


Military police carbines are full auto… but I suppose they aren’t considered “police“ anyway.


----------



## Booter (27 Nov 2022)

Booter said:


> It’s always hard to speak globally about equipment in the states- it’s like there is always a department that is an exception. In Canada no department or function has full auto.


Since this appears so controversial here- “no Canadian civilian police agency/department or function has full auto”

Even though that’s what we were discussing- civilian police and not military police officers who as military carry military things.

But since I used words like I did- and military police are police officers my initial statement is more correct this way.


----------



## KevinB (27 Nov 2022)

Booter said:


> Since this appears so controversial here- “no Canadian civilian police agency/department or function has full auto”
> 
> Even though that’s what we were discussing- civilian police and not military police officers who as military carry military things.
> 
> But since I used words like I did- and military police are police officers my initial statement is more correct this way.


How sure of that are you? 
  I know several Canadian LE departments that at least of 4-5 years ago still had a number of Select Fire systems on their books — mostly MP-5’s, but some M16 type variants as well.  
 I’ve also seen some select fire C8’s in RCMP hands over the years.


----------



## Booter (27 Nov 2022)

I know where the full autos were and they are no longer there. There are a number of full autos in several places in storage for units that used to have them. It’s not a thing- even in the mp5s. I carried both operationally and training others in the military and in civi police.

I’m sure you’re experience is true. It’s just not the present map of firearms. I’m sure there are a ton in armour shops around the country. It is not the accepted equipment. I suppose the caveat is “operational” currently.

There are areas where all types of thing are trained and evaluated

A few years ago there were full auto lower receivers in every training shop. It’s not that they don’t exist or we have them. It’s deployment of them.

They have historically existed- but not in patrol carbine which was the initiator of this conversation.

I suppose this is a miscommunication on my part by speaking in generalizations. Civilian police do not operationally deploy full auto firearms. There was a time where several units and teams had them- it is not the present reality that Canadian police use them. They are not the front line patrol carbine anywhere. I am not familiar with any team carrying them above the frontline operationally in Canada. As a guy who prepared expert testimony in court for police training/force I would be shocked that it would be accepted in Canada. But I do get shocked every week


----------



## Booter (27 Nov 2022)

Kev- are you infamous from a multiagency/military shoot outside Edmonton years ago? A full auto incident? 😬


----------



## KevinB (27 Nov 2022)

Booter said:


> Kev- are you infamous from a multiagency/military shoot outside Edmonton years ago? A full auto incident? 😬


I doubt it. 
   I’m infamous for a number of stunts over the years, but nothing in Canadian LE work.


----------



## Booter (27 Nov 2022)

Ah. It was a PPCLI out of Edmonton, a Kevin who’s last name started with B. It was an auto incident and some Canadian LEOs and auto rifles were involved- it was like 2004ish if I recall.

I am a dinosaur lol


----------



## KevinB (27 Nov 2022)

Booter said:


> Ah. It was a PPCLI out of Edmonton, a Kevin who’s last name started with B. It was an auto incident and some Canadian LEOs and auto rifles were involved- it was like 2004ish if I recall.
> 
> I am a dinosaur lol


Time frame sounds correct for me in Edmonton (my last year there) but alas no MG’s or auto incidents.


----------



## Halifax Tar (30 Nov 2022)

Liberals say they're not trying to ban hunting rifles. Here's why that's a lie
					

Bill C-21 bans dozens of low-powered, slow-to-fire guns only ever designed to shoot birds or skeet, despite what the Liberals say.




					nationalpost.com


----------



## Furniture (30 Nov 2022)

Halifax Tar said:


> Liberals say they're not trying to ban hunting rifles. Here's why that's a lie
> 
> 
> Bill C-21 bans dozens of low-powered, slow-to-fire guns only ever designed to shoot birds or skeet, despite what the Liberals say.
> ...


The Ruger No. 1 is prohibited by name... What a gong show.


----------



## Halifax Tar (30 Nov 2022)

Furniture said:


> The Ruger No. 1 is prohibited by name... What a gong show.



Honestly, guns aside, anyone who can still cast a vote for this party, in it's current make up, is either not paying attention and willfully ignorant or just an LPC NPC.


----------



## Furniture (30 Nov 2022)

Halifax Tar said:


> Honestly, guns aside, anyone who can still cast a vote for this party, in it's current make up, is either not paying attention and willfully ignorant or just an LPC NPC.







At 6:42 the relevant bit starts. Essentially, when people become attached to an ideology their intelligence gets used to make their beliefs seem correct, making them dumb in a smart way.


----------



## suffolkowner (30 Nov 2022)

Furniture said:


> The Ruger No. 1 is prohibited by name... What a gong show.


Yep Im pissed and if I hadnt lost my two in a boating accident Id be really upset


----------



## CBH99 (30 Nov 2022)

Halifax Tar said:


> Liberals say they're not trying to ban hunting rifles. Here's why that's a lie
> 
> 
> Bill C-21 bans dozens of low-powered, slow-to-fire guns only ever designed to shoot birds or skeet, despite what the Liberals say.
> ...


Some dictators stage a false flag coupe to push forward legislation that ensures their power for a long time.  

Some take that power by force, and defend it with force.  Censoring the internet, preemptively coming down on potential dissidents, freezing bank accounts (or just taking people’s money altogether), and using state-funded media to push an ideology in such a way that it isn’t meant to be obvious to its audience.  

(After all, if propaganda is obvious, you’re doing it wrong)

In the case of JT, he’s either done or has attempted to do most of the things someone who takes office by force would do.  

________


It’s a good thing with in Canada.  Truly.  

We are a country where we might be at our lowest point in a very long time, but it truly is good to have the institutions that we do.  

(Courts that order the government to pay millions to individuals it targets, a commission that has its sessions aired live, etc)

If we didn’t have these institutions, I could easily see JT easily becoming a dictator.  Maybe not a violent one, but an oppressive one indeed.  

Why push so hard to pass this gun ban, when the next party to get elected is just going to reverse it anyway?


________


When was the last time any of us saw our entire country unified in this unbelievably strong feeling that JT & Freeland are scumbags who need to go.  Like now.  

People don’t even argue about what political party they would vote for and why anymore… we are all extremely united in believing this government is the worst in our history.  

And that should say something.


----------



## Halifax Tar (30 Nov 2022)

CBH99 said:


> Some dictators stage a false flag coupe to push forward legislation that ensures their power for a long time.
> 
> Some take that power by force, and defend it with force.  Censoring the internet, preemptively coming down on potential dissidents, freezing bank accounts (or just taking people’s money altogether), and using state-funded media to push an ideology in such a way that it isn’t meant to be obvious to its audience.
> 
> ...



I'm not sure our country is as united you think. Even on this site we have some folks who stand behind JT and his government. 

I'm willing to be corrected.


----------



## CBH99 (30 Nov 2022)

QV said:


> Military police carbines are full auto… but I suppose they aren’t considered “police“ anyway.


Don’t let the MP’s hear you say that, they’ll go back to the guardhouse all sad.  Like, more sad than usual.


----------



## KevinB (30 Nov 2022)

CBH99 said:


> Don’t let the MP’s hear you say that, they’ll go back to the guardhouse all sad.  Like, more sad than usual.


Too gutless to be a real soldier and too stupid to be a real cop…


----------



## Brad Sallows (30 Nov 2022)

CBH99 said:


> When was the last time any of us saw our entire country unified in this unbelievably strong feeling that JT & Freeland are scumbags who need to go.  Like now.


Plenty of people love JT, some just because he makes people angry.  People will go out of their way to spite others.


----------



## Lumber (30 Nov 2022)

Halifax Tar said:


> I'm not sure our country is as united you think. Even on this site we have some folks who stand behind JT and his government.
> 
> I'm willing to be corrected.


Again, I so far have not seen a single person express their support for JT and the LPC (other than in specific circumstances, like me supporting the use of the EA).

But I agree with you that the country is definitely not :


CBH99 said:


> People don’t even argue about what political party they would vote for and why anymore… we are all extremely united in believing this government is the worst in our history.



 Of the 32.62% of the people who voted LPC in the last election, I betcha most of them will still vote LPC in the next one. Now, that's just the people who _voted, _but I bet that among all those who didn't vote, it's probably a similar  percentage that would notionally support the LPC/JT.


----------



## Lumber (30 Nov 2022)

Halifax Tar said:


> Liberals say they're not trying to ban hunting rifles. Here's why that's a lie
> 
> 
> Bill C-21 bans dozens of low-powered, slow-to-fire guns only ever designed to shoot birds or skeet, despite what the Liberals say.
> ...


This was hard to watch. I turned off the video before JT even finished saying "we're not going after shotguns And rifles, _we have banned military style-assault weapons._"

Here's the kicker; we can't really do anything to stop this. Non-gun owners don't care enough for this to be an issue that will sway there vote, and gun owners are primarily supporters of the CPC already.


----------



## Good2Golf (1 Dec 2022)

suffolkowner said:


> Yep Im pissed and if I hadnt lost my two in a boating accident Id be really upset


Didn’t you lose them in that MLVW that caught fire a few years back?


----------



## CBH99 (1 Dec 2022)

Good2Golf said:


> Didn’t you lose them in that MLVW that caught fire a few years back?


Which one?  

Was it sitting there, turned off, with nobody else around for hours, in the middle of the night, by itself...then caught fire all by itself?  If so, I still have to ask, which one?  😉


----------



## Halifax Tar (1 Dec 2022)

Lumber said:


> Again, I so far have not seen a single person express their support for JT and the LPC (other than in specific circumstances, like me supporting the use of the EA).
> 
> But I agree with you that the country is definitely not :
> 
> ...



Maybe you're right, maybe you're not.  We will never know for certain.  But I have my suspicions.

Which is why I think Alberta's move for more autonomy is probably the best way forward and should be copied by the other provinces. 



Lumber said:


> This was hard to watch. I turned off the video before JT even finished saying "we're not going after shotguns And rifles, _we have banned military style-assault weapons._"
> 
> Here's the kicker; we can't really do anything to stop this. Non-gun owners don't care enough for this to be an issue that will sway there vote, and gun owners are primarily supporters of the CPC already.



Ever since JT decided FPTP was the system we were keeping because anything else wouldn't suit him he's been hard to listen too.

Apparently something came out last night, from inside the LPC, and it instructed its MPs to fund raise hard and prepare for a spring election. 

I would like to see the LPC relegated to non official party status.  Then come back in 4 years as a strong center-left balance to the Cons.  I want a strong LPC that I don't think is working to subvert Canada and Canadians.


----------



## Eaglelord17 (1 Dec 2022)

Halifax Tar said:


> Maybe you're right, maybe you're not.  We will never know for certain.  But I have my suspicions.
> 
> Which is why I think Alberta's move for more autonomy is probably the best way forward and should be copied by the other provinces.
> 
> ...


Alberta's move is a terrible one for our democracy. The law they are trying to pass basically makes them less accountable to anyone and is a direct assault on our democracy. Just as JT and his goons are doing their best to make a mockery of our laws and systems, Alberta is doing the same, claiming to protect them. 

Looks a lot like something Mr Orban in Hungary would like for legislation.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (1 Dec 2022)

The thing I think is funny about this latest attempt at a gun grab is I'm willing to bet money that nothing actually gets done.  

The laws will be on the books of course but it won't be worth the paper it's printed on and no actual action will be taken.

The Police can't even deal with actual criminals smuggling guns, drugs and all sorts of other actual illegal activities, nevermind all the other social problems currently increasing their grip on our society.  I doubt they'll be able to muster resources to deal with all the irrate rural gun lover folk 😄.

As for JT being a dictator, he can't be a dictator because he is just too big of a pussy 😄.  They'll be sure to do lots of CONVENING though!  🤣


----------



## RangerRay (1 Dec 2022)

Halifax Tar said:


> Ever since JT decided FPTP was the system we were keeping because anything else wouldn't suit him he's been hard to listen too.


I found him hard to listen to since he first ran for MP.


----------



## QV (1 Dec 2022)

Eaglelord17 said:


> Alberta's move is a terrible one for our democracy. The law they are trying to pass basically makes them less accountable to anyone and is a direct assault on our democracy. Just as JT and his goons are doing their best to make a mockery of our laws and systems, Alberta is doing the same, claiming to protect them.
> 
> Looks a lot like something Mr Orban in Hungary would like for legislation.


A province creating tools to assert constitutional rights in areas of provincial jurisdiction "...is a terrible one for our democracy"? 

Why don't you wait for a real example where this new law is used before you criticize it's use. Then we'll see if democracy is on the verge of collapse or not.


----------



## QV (1 Dec 2022)

Humphrey Bogart said:


> The thing I think is funny about this latest attempt at a gun grab is I'm willing to bet money that nothing actually gets done.
> 
> The laws will be on the books of course but it won't be worth the paper it's printed on and no actual action will be taken.
> 
> ...


You're probably right... But it does make criminals out of hundreds of thousands of law-abiding property owners, and any encounter with LE afterwards could result in serious charges related to what was once legal property. I'm sure this would make JT and his fans/supporters very pleased. This is increasingly not a Country I am proud of.


----------



## Eaglelord17 (1 Dec 2022)

QV said:


> A province creating tools to assert constitutional rights in areas of provincial jurisdiction "...is a terrible one for our democracy"?
> 
> Why don't you wait for a real example where this new law is used before you criticize it's use. Then we'll see if democracy is on the verge of collapse or not.











						Nothing off the table when it comes to Alberta sovereignty act: PM Trudeau
					

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau says that while he's 'not looking for a fight' with Alberta, the federal government is not taking anything off the table when it comes to how it may respond to Alberta Premier Danielle Smith's new 'sovereignty act.'




					www.ctvnews.ca
				




 "proposing to give her cabinet new powers to rewrite provincial laws without passing legislation to do so"
"Introducing this legislation early in her tenure was a key commitment in Smith's leadership bid to replace former Alberta premier Jason Kenney, who resigned his seat in the legislature on Tuesday after expressing strong concerns that the proposal was a "full-frontal attack on the rule of law," that could lead to the province becoming a "banana republic.""

We have tools to assert constitutional rights, it is the court system and it works. Just because you don't always get the results you wish, if anything is a indication that it is working. I am very concerned when a province starts tabling laws which are both redundant as we already have a working system in place, as well as questionable from a protecting the rights of the citizenry perspective. We shall see how it turns out but it honestly at the moment it seems like something Viktor Orbán would pull out.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (1 Dec 2022)

Eaglelord17 said:


> Alberta's move is a terrible one for our democracy. The law they are trying to pass basically makes them less accountable to anyone and is a direct assault on our democracy. Just as JT and his goons are doing their best to make a mockery of our laws and systems, Alberta is doing the same, claiming to protect them.
> 
> Looks a lot like something Mr Orban in Hungary would like for legislation.


It seems that Alberta is just doing what Quebec has done for generations and she is being responsive to her voters desires.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (1 Dec 2022)

QV said:


> You're probably right... But it does make criminals out of hundreds of thousands of law-abiding property owners, and any encounter with LE afterwards could result in serious charges related to what was once legal property. I'm sure this would make JT and his fans/supporters very pleased. This is increasingly not a Country I am proud of.


Just start making the plan for 2025 when we can have the opportunity to kick Trudno and his kin to the curb.  Get rid of Jagmeet while we are at it as well.  I'd really love to do it earlier so he doesn't get a pension, which seems to be his overriding concern.


----------



## Remius (1 Dec 2022)

Halifax Tar said:


> I would like to see the LPC relegated to non official party status.  Then come back in 4 years as a strong center-left balance to the Cons.  I want a strong LPC that I don't think is working to subvert Canada and Canadians.


it needs a refocus towards the middle.  I don’t care if it’s slightly left.  I’d rather it not go full retard left.

Either way it can’t include JT anymore. 

Same with the CPC.  Slightly right works. 

But these gun laws are such a colossal waste of time and energy.  The LPC knows though that it’s a wedge issue and low hanging fruit.  It solves absolutely nothing and is bad legislation.  The moment the CPC talks guns though it will be turned around on them.


----------



## QV (1 Dec 2022)

Eaglelord17 said:


> Nothing off the table when it comes to Alberta sovereignty act: PM Trudeau
> 
> 
> Prime Minister Justin Trudeau says that while he's 'not looking for a fight' with Alberta, the federal government is not taking anything off the table when it comes to how it may respond to Alberta Premier Danielle Smith's new 'sovereignty act.'
> ...



You can find positive articles (surprisingly) about it too. I'm not going to do a back-and-forth media link war. Read both and decide how you feel. Articles that state "full frontal attack on the rule of law" or "banana republic" are pathetic fear mongering.  

Regarding courts, yes things often end up in court but in the past the province was forced to take the feds to court to overturn something imposed... this now just reverses the onus. Now when the feds intend to intrude on provincial jurisdiction the province won't allow it and the feds are forced to take the matter to court. The provinces are not subordinate to the federal government.

You should be more concerned about what Trudeau has done and will do to the country than what Daniel Smith might do to a province.


----------



## CBH99 (1 Dec 2022)

QV said:


> You can find positive articles (surprisingly) about it too. I'm not going to do a back-and-forth media link war. Read both and decide how you feel. Articles that state "full frontal attack on the rule of law" or "banana republic" are pathetic fear mongering.
> 
> Regarding courts, yes things often end up in court but in the past the province was forced to take the feds to court to overturn something imposed... this now just reverses the onus. Now when the feds intend to intrude on provincial jurisdiction the province won't allow it and the feds are forced to take the matter to court. The provinces are not subordinate to the federal government.
> 
> You should be more concerned about what Trudeau has done and will do to the country than what Daniel Smith might do to a province.


Exactly.  It doesn’t threaten democracy in the slightest, if anything I think it enhances it

If Ottawa starts to introduce laws or mandates that seem to be against the Charter or the best interest of Albertans, this gives the province the ability to disregard those until a court decides on the matter.  

It forces Ottawa to bring the matter to court - and the province would abide by whatever that ruling is.  


It’s a buffer so idiotic things like ‘banning all firearms’ or ‘can’t go out to dinner unless you’ve had all 12 of your Covid vaccines’ have to pass some sort of litany test before affecting the lives of Albertans.  

It also forces the federal government to explain to a court, and convince that court that their proposal is lawful, doesn’t violate the Charter, is sound, etc 


(I agree, let’s see how it gets used before we judge it too quickly)


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (1 Dec 2022)

CBH99 said:


> Exactly.  It doesn’t threaten democracy in the slightest, if anything I think it enhances it
> 
> If Ottawa starts to introduce laws or mandates that seem to be against the Charter or the best interest of Albertans, this gives the province the ability to disregard those until a court decides on the matter.
> 
> ...


I actually think it's a great idea and I'm hoping more Provinces adopt this tactic when dealing with the Federal Government.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (1 Dec 2022)

Remius said:


> But these gun laws are such a colossal waste of time and energy.  The LPC knows though that it’s a wedge issue and low hanging fruit.  It solves absolutely nothing and is bad legislation.  The moment the CPC talks guns though it will be turned around on them.


The CPC should just only talk crime anytime the LPC mentions guns, then when they get in, gut the Firearms Act right in the beginning of their term and introduce better legislation. By the time the next election rolls around and the world has not ended, the voters will be focused on something else.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (1 Dec 2022)

Humphrey Bogart said:


> Just start making the plan for 2025 when we can have the opportunity to kick Trudno and his kin to the curb.  Get rid of Jagmeet while we are at it as well.  I'd really love to do it earlier so he doesn't get a pension, which seems to be his overriding concern.


His pension is due in 2023. I expect he'll play coy for awhile so it doesn't appear he was just waiting for that. Then there's their war chest. They had nothing the last time and probably less this time. I don't see the current government making it to 25. I just hope Singh hangs around for the hit if his party loses official status. A canned response the orange liberals are sending out, says they support C-21 but won't vote for the inclusion of G-4. Trying to stay on both sides of the fence at once, doesn't usually work too well.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (1 Dec 2022)

QV said:


> You should be more concerned about what Trudeau has done and will do to the country than what Daniel Smith might do to a province.


This^^^


----------



## Good2Golf (1 Dec 2022)

QV said:


> You should be more concerned about what Trudeau has done and will do to the country than what Daniel Smith might do to a province.


You mean like he and his cabal threatening to sue Parliament because Parliament wanted to know the details of the Chinese foreign nationals working in Canada’s National Microbiology Laboratory in Winnipeg that has a redacted material transfer record between the NML and Wuhan Institute of Virology in 2019 just before COVID?  Apparently not only regular Canadians but Members of Parliament don’t need to know what shenanigans were happening between Trudeau’s and Xi Jinping’s governments…


----------



## QV (1 Dec 2022)

Good2Golf said:


> You mean like he and his cabal threatening to sue Parliament because Parliament wanted to know the details of the Chinese foreign nationals working in Canada’s National Microbiology Laboratory in Winnipeg that has a redacted material transfer record between the NML and Wuhan Institute of Virology in 2019 just before COVID?  Apparently not only regular Canadians but Members of Parliament don’t need to know what shenanigans were happening between Trudeau’s and Xi Jinping’s governments…



I mean... that would be one thing to be worried about, but the list is long.


----------



## Lumber (1 Dec 2022)

Good2Golf said:


> You mean like he and his cabal threatening to sue Parliament because Parliament wanted to know the details of the Chinese foreign nationals working in Canada’s National Microbiology Laboratory in Winnipeg that has a redacted material transfer record between the NML and Wuhan Institute of Virology in 2019 just before COVID?  Apparently not only regular Canadians but Members of Parliament don’t need to know what shenanigans were happening between Trudeau’s and Xi Jinping’s governments…


Well, they _dropped _that suit, yet the opposition parties have not re-taken up their effort to get the documents.

Maybe it's because the truth is as simple as it seems; the transfer of virus and information to Wuhan was done legally and appropriately within existing sharing of research arrangements, and the firing of the two scientists had everything to do with an administrative matter involving policy. PHAC is refusing to releasing documents because those scientists are protected by the privacy act, among other reasons. Now, parliament (the opposition parties) does have the prerogative to demand those documents despite any acts to the contrary, which is what they originally did, so why did they stop? Maybe it's because they realized through other means that the situation is not some grand conspiracy.


----------



## QV (1 Dec 2022)

An "administrative matter involving policy" that brought in CSIS and RCMP investigators? 

Do public servants usually get escorted away by the RCMP over administrative matters?


----------



## Halifax Tar (1 Dec 2022)

Eaglelord17 said:


> Alberta's move is a terrible one for our democracy. The law they are trying to pass basically makes them less accountable to anyone and is a direct assault on our democracy. Just as JT and his goons are doing their best to make a mockery of our laws and systems, Alberta is doing the same, claiming to protect them.
> 
> Looks a lot like something Mr Orban in Hungary would like for legislation.



The people of Alberta will decide how terrible this is for democracy.

Personally I would like to see all provinces start to go this route.


----------



## Lumber (1 Dec 2022)

QV said:


> An "administrative matter involving policy" that brought in CSIS and RCMP investigators?
> 
> Do public servants usually get escorted away by the RCMP over administrative matters?


1. Given the fact the two were involved in such sensitive work and that involved China, it makes perfect sense that CSIS and the RCMP would be called in to investigate whether any damage to national security had occurred. Just off the top of my head, perhaps they shared research data with China that was allowed to be shared but was first required to be vetted by someone higher up, but they sent the information before getting formal approval. Maybe it was nothing more than the results of a purely scientific test that was expected to be sent to China, but not until after the proper signatures had been applied. So, they broke the rules and got fired, but CSIS and the RCMP were called in to make sure it was no more than an administrative error, and not them actually spying for China.

2. It's the _National _Microbiology Lab, ergo, RCMP.


----------



## Lumber (1 Dec 2022)

Halifax Tar said:


> The people of Alberta will decide how terrible this is for democracy.
> 
> Personally I would like to see all provinces start to go this route.


I'll share this response from @Brad Swallow because he said it best:


Brad Sallows said:


> Just noting that if some of the powers the proposed legislation grants to the premier and some other strap-hangers are what I read them to be, the legislation needs to be rejected. No point railing against the problem of the power of the PMO federally and then defending similar fuckery at the provincial level.


----------



## Halifax Tar (1 Dec 2022)

Lumber said:


> I'll share this response from @Brad Swallow because he said it best:



Pushing for more provincial autonomy and the issues surrounding the PMO and its power aren't really the same thing. 

In fact I would argue the push for autonomy is a direct response to the PMO power trip.


----------



## QV (1 Dec 2022)

Lumber said:


> 1. Given the fact the two were involved in such sensitive work and that involved China, it makes perfect sense that CSIS and the RCMP would be called in to investigate whether any damage to national security had occurred. Just off the top of my head, perhaps they shared research data with China that was allowed to be shared but was first required to be vetted by someone higher up, but they sent the information before getting formal approval. Maybe it was nothing more than the results of a purely scientific test that was expected to be sent to China, but not until after the proper signatures had been applied. So, they broke the rules and got fired, but CSIS and the RCMP were called in to make sure it was no more than an administrative error, and not them actually spying for China.
> 
> 2. It's the _National _Microbiology Lab, ergo, RCMP.



1. And perhaps the data wasn't allowed to be shared. We're both entertaining hypotheticals. 

2. RCMP are not part of the public service administrative measures. Nor are they the police of jurisdiction in Winnipeg, unless it is a matter of national security. This does not support your hypothetical, which seems to be: "is everything is fine here they just broke a rule."


----------



## Jarnhamar (1 Dec 2022)

Halifax Tar said:


> The people of Alberta will decide how terrible this is for democracy.
> 
> Personally I would like to see all provinces start to go this route.


What's the gist of what they're trying to do?


----------



## Halifax Tar (1 Dec 2022)

Sask introduces Firearms Act to protect firearms owners from Trudeau’s gun grab
					

To protect the public, the Saskatchewan government supports policies going after firearms used by criminals.




					www.westernstandard.news


----------



## Halifax Tar (1 Dec 2022)

Jarnhamar said:


> What's the gist of what they're trying to do?



@QV posted it somewhere in here...


----------



## Fishbone Jones (1 Dec 2022)

I'm waiting for the findings of the POEC. If he and his party, get properly nailed to the cross, I _MAY_ start believing in the system again.

However, I expect the whole gang to be exonerated or mildly rebuked. If he doesn't shut down parliament before it's completed. The decision will be clogged with what ifs and reams of recommendations to revamp the Act. Nobody, except maybe the protestors, will be demonized or held to account. They will slap each other on the wrist while proclaiming, "Don't do that again. K?"

Either there will be a true finding of malfeasance.

Or as normal, he'll turn into a phoenix, burn himself down, then reappear, rejuvenated and ready with a whole new host of lies and offshore donations.


----------



## OldSolduer (2 Dec 2022)

Fishbone Jones said:


> Nobody, except maybe the protestors, will be demonized or held to account.


The protestors have been demonized to the extent that those that donated to the Freedom Convoy may be named in the lawsuit. 

I didn't like the convoy and I did not like the response to it by the OPS, the PM and his toadies.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (2 Dec 2022)

OldSolduer said:


> The protestors have been demonized to the extent that those that donated to the Freedom Convoy may be named in the lawsuit.


I'll be waiting for my summons then.🙂


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (2 Dec 2022)

__
		https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/comments/za8fog

Posting this thread from a subreddit I follow.  If you read reddit you'll note that this particular Sub is pretty hard left but it might be some comfort to some here to know that even the hard left seem to not like this new proposed law.

I was surprised to read the comments in that thread as normally I would expect the members of that sub to be extremely Pro-Lib/NDP and not break with the party line.


----------



## Halifax Tar (2 Dec 2022)

Humphrey Bogart said:


> __
> https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/comments/za8fog
> 
> Posting this thread from a subreddit I follow.  If you read reddit you'll note that this particular Sub is pretty hard left but it might be some comfort to some here to know that even the hard left seem to not like this new proposed law.
> ...



I hate the structure of the forums there.  I cant follow the discussion.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (2 Dec 2022)

Halifax Tar said:


> I hate the structure of the forums there.  I cant follow the discussion.


Same I really don't like the Reddit format.


----------



## Halifax Tar (5 Dec 2022)

Reading this amendment again, am I to understand Lee Enfield's are now bad boy guns ?

They are bolt action, but they can accept a detachable magazine that can hold up to 10 rounds.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (5 Dec 2022)

Halifax Tar said:


> Reading this amendment again, am I to understand Lee Enfield's are now bad boy guns ?
> 
> They are bolt action, but they can accept a detachable magazine that can hold up to 10 rounds.


Of course it is a bad boy gun.

All guns are bad.

There are a whole bunch of casual firearms owners who did not bother to defend hand gun/AR owners now waking up to the fact the Liberals are coming for everything.


----------



## Halifax Tar (5 Dec 2022)

SeaKingTacco said:


> Of course it is a bad boy gun.
> 
> All guns are bad.
> 
> There are a whole bunch of casual firearms owners who did not bother to defend hand gun/AR owners now waking up to the fact the Liberals are coming for everything.



I completely agree with you.  I already stand to lose a few rifles, not including my LE collection.  

We firearms owners are a terribly divided subculture.


----------



## Haggis (5 Dec 2022)

Halifax Tar said:


> Reading this amendment again, am I to understand Lee Enfield's are now bad boy guns ?
> 
> They are bolt action, but they can accept a detachable magazine that can hold up to 10 rounds.


Lee Enfields are not semiautomatic so they are safe until the Liberals come for the sniper rifles.


----------



## Halifax Tar (5 Dec 2022)

Haggis said:


> Lee Enfields are not semiautomatic so they are safe until the Liberals come for the sniper rifles.



You're kidding!  LEs aren't semi-auto ?  That explains so much!  

No, I get that, so the semi-auto requirement is the first step in the flow chart of confiscation ?  I didn't know know if it could start at the detachable magazine and magazine capacity points as well.


----------



## Haggis (5 Dec 2022)

Halifax Tar said:


> You're kidding!  LEs aren't semi-auto ?  That explains so much!


Yeah, news to me as well. The Liberals had me believing they were full auto assault style weapons. 


Halifax Tar said:


> No, I get that, so the semi-auto requirement is the first step in the flow chart of confiscation ?  I didn't know know if it could start at the detachable magazine and magazine capacity points as well.


So far....  No word on if they will confiscated or granparented.


----------



## Halifax Tar (5 Dec 2022)

I've noticed a whole different temperature around this this time and maybe JT has too ? 









						Trudeau listening to concerns assault-style gun definition covers hunting rifles
					

The Liberal government is listening to concerns that some of the firearms it's looking to ban are used primarily for hunting, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau said Monday.




					www.ctvnews.ca


----------



## daftandbarmy (6 Dec 2022)

oops.... own goal


----------



## Fishbone Jones (6 Dec 2022)

Halifax Tar said:


> I've noticed a whole different temperature around this this time and maybe JT has too ?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Considering the way this guy lies all the time, I doubt it. He has a schedule, and he needs this to push on with globalist agenda. He'll just spout some more condescending, talk in his quiet tone, that most reserve for talking to children. He's on a time-line and has very little wiggle room.  If he can't  get it done, they'll  put someone in there that can. Every indication is his support from the Laurentien Elites and old party directors is dissipating like smoke in the breeze. He's on his own with his new liberal party and is cultivating his own elitist group of friends. All the ones that recieved million or billions, in trudeau contracts. Well never know for sure,  as so much has disappeared, without a trace.
So yeah, he may notice a change in temperature, but I think he'll just crank up the heat, til he's comfortable again. He's getting hit from a number of sides and is hoping for a breather over Christmas break.  He may have a few days, but I think he's gonna be busy.


----------



## Halifax Tar (6 Dec 2022)

daftandbarmy said:


> oops.... own goal
> 
> View attachment 75324
> 
> View attachment 75325



It never ceases to boggle my mind what people will do.  The CCFR made a bonehead move.  Who in their right mind that that was the right thing to do ?

One also has to understand that the people like Wendy Cukier have exploited/used the Poytechnique massacre to push their agenda of total firearms ban.  She is persona non grata in the firearms community.  She has worked to criminalize many many hundreds of thousands Canadians.


----------



## OldSolduer (6 Dec 2022)

Halifax Tar said:


> It never ceases to boggle my mind what people will do.  The CCFR made a bonehead move.  Who in their right mind that that was the right thing to do ?
> 
> One also has to understand that the people like Wendy Cukier have exploited/used the Poytechnique massacre to push their agenda of total firearms ban.  She is persona non grata in the firearms community.  She has worked to criminalize many many hundreds of thousands Canadians.


Yet people still listen and worship her despite the evidence to the contrary.


----------



## Eaglelord17 (6 Dec 2022)

I like the one time she showed up to court and tried the same garbage she spouts in public. Didn’t go well for her because court has a actual requirement to prove your statements. 

The fact they need to keep beating the dead horse which is polytechnique says a lot about how unneeded these law changes are. I wasn’t even alive when it happened, the laws were drastically changed afterwards, and we haven’t had a worthwhile example since. Hell the internet wasn’t even a thing when it happened. Its like arguing for better car safety laws with a crash report from 1989. 

It was over 30 years ago, stop dancing on the graves of the dead (not forgetting that some pro-firearms people were also killed in that massacre). Just let it go already.


----------



## IKnowNothing (6 Dec 2022)

Halifax Tar said:


> I've noticed a whole different temperature around this this time and maybe JT has too ?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Given the hilarious and public incompetence of the amendment I'm left wondering if this was laziness/arrogance, Chiang gone rogue, or a pretty clever and low effort way of re-anchoring the discussion so that he (JT) can "consult," walk back "someone else's" incompetent and over reaching legislation, and try to appear understanding and magnanimous while the real target (let's say, semi-auto centre-fires with detachable box originally marketed after 1965) gets banned.


----------



## Halifax Tar (6 Dec 2022)

IKnowNothing said:


> Given the hilarious and public incompetence of the amendment I'm left wondering if this was laziness/arrogance, Chiang gone rogue, or a pretty clever and low effort way of re-anchoring the discussion so that he (JT) can "consult," walk back "someone else's" incompetent and over reaching legislation, and try to appear understanding and magnanimous while the real target (let's say, semi-auto centre-fires with detachable box originally marketed after 1965) gets banned.



Who knows.  JT isn't known for adjusting his arcs.


----------



## FSTO (6 Dec 2022)

My conspirator mind thinks that this was all designed to embarrass the conservatives due to the anniversary of the massacre at Polytechnique. The PMO couldn't be this Machiavellian could they?


----------



## Eaglelord17 (6 Dec 2022)

Halifax Tar said:


> Who knows.  JT isn't known for adjusting his arcs.


Maybe he is realizing what he has to lose. For example in my riding the Liberals beat out the Conservatives by 247 votes last election. A significant amount of people have firearms licenses or have firearms in the home in my riding. If I was my MP I wouldn't be counting on this being my job after next election because I don't know anyone who owns a firearm who isn't pissed. 

This isn't just going after scary guns like AR-15s, there is a lot of firearms affected, guns owned by people who are primarily hunters, etc. For example one guy I know has a AG-42b, he mainly hunts but he bought it back in the 80s. Plenty of other cases of older military semi-auto designs being owned by hunters, and that isn't even including the younger guys who tend to have more modern designs by choice.


----------



## Halifax Tar (6 Dec 2022)

Eaglelord17 said:


> Maybe he is realizing what he has to lose. For example in my riding the Liberals beat out the Conservatives by 247 votes last election. A significant amount of people have firearms licenses or have firearms in the home in my riding. If I was my MP I wouldn't be counting on this being my job after next election because I don't know anyone who owns a firearm who isn't pissed.
> 
> This isn't just going after scary guns like AR-15s, there is a lot of firearms affected, guns owned by people who are primarily hunters, etc. For example one guy I know has a AG-42b, he mainly hunts but he bought it back in the 80s. Plenty of other cases of older military semi-auto designs being owned by hunters, and that isn't even including the younger guys who tend to have more modern designs by choice.



I hear you.  He's made me a criminal twice now. 

The NDP seemingly balking on this have me surprised.


----------



## Eaglelord17 (6 Dec 2022)

Halifax Tar said:


> I hear you.  He's made me a criminal twice now.
> 
> The NDP seemingly balking on this have me surprised.


They get a lot of support from rural ridings. 

They supported the handgun ban, its been part of their platform for decades. Its the adding of all the extra bits as amendments not discussed initially they are balking on. I am curious if they genuinely didn’t know and this was a curve ball thrown their way.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (6 Dec 2022)

Halifax Tar said:


> It never ceases to boggle my mind what people will do.  The CCFR made a bonehead move.  Who in their right mind that that was the right thing to do ?
> 
> One also has to understand that the people like Wendy Cukier have exploited/used the Poytechnique massacre to push their agenda of total firearms ban.  She is persona non grata in the firearms community.  She has worked to criminalize many many hundreds of thousands Canadians.


Not to mention some interesting financing of her Coalition over the years.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (6 Dec 2022)

Eaglelord17 said:


> Maybe he is realizing what he has to lose. For example in my riding the Liberals beat out the Conservatives by 247 votes last election. A significant amount of people have firearms licenses or have firearms in the home in my riding. If I was my MP I wouldn't be counting on this being my job after next election because I don't know anyone who owns a firearm who isn't pissed.
> 
> This isn't just going after scary guns like AR-15s, there is a lot of firearms affected, guns owned by people who are primarily hunters, etc. For example one guy I know has a AG-42b, he mainly hunts but he bought it back in the 80s. Plenty of other cases of older military semi-auto designs being owned by hunters, and that isn't even including the younger guys who tend to have more modern designs by choice.


I had a AG-42b, loved it and wished I still had it.


----------



## Halifax Tar (6 Dec 2022)

Colin Parkinson said:


> Not to mention some interesting financing of her Coalition over the years.



Go on....


----------



## Colin Parkinson (6 Dec 2022)

Back in the Adscam years, money was funnelled through Group Action and funding to the Coalition whose Director at the time was a Big Wig in the LPC and likley a portion of that funding ended up in the LPC pockets. The Coalition was basically being paid to tell the liberals what they wanted to hear and is part of the propaganda arm of the LPC. There were other links between the Adscam characters and the Coalition, but can't recall all of it now.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (6 Dec 2022)

Trudeau miscalculated and is losing on this one. Too much, too fast. He's created a whole new class of firearms supporters, who used to agree with him but now don't. They're the ones that wouldn't stand up when it was just 'assault style rifles' now he wants their hunting guns and they are paying attention. Even if he rescinds it now, people know he'll be back with it as soon as it's re-written. This'll cost him votes. He's lost the trust of thousands who, now, recognize him for what he is. There is also the thousands that don't own guns, many who don't like them. They understand loss of freedom and theft of private property though and they don't like it.


----------



## Brad Sallows (6 Dec 2022)

The NDP used to be the "workers" party.  They aren't, really, anymore, but recent shifts in voter allegiances in the US might have the NDP thinking how to shift itself before it loses too much of that group.  That most likely requires not being hostile towards basic firearms.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (6 Dec 2022)

Brad Sallows said:


> The NDP used to be the "workers" party.  They aren't, really, anymore, but recent shifts in voter allegiances in the US might have the NDP thinking how to shift itself before it loses too much of that group.  That most likely requires not being hostile towards basic firearms.


those workers were worth their weight in gold, they are far more likely to vote, donate and volunteer than the new breed of NDP voters. The CPC should have done the divide and conquer thing with the union worker vs union management. Promising a lot of big project with a fair shake for union workers to get. It's mostly the union management that is far left types and the workers are more concerned about paychecks and jobs.


----------



## Good2Golf (6 Dec 2022)

Colin Parkinson said:


> the workers are more concerned about paychecks and jobs.


Well, when you’re ‘middle class’ in name only, providing a roof over head and food on the table becomes more than just a buzz-phrase to a trust fund beneficiary…


----------



## calculus (6 Dec 2022)

Halifax Tar said:


> It never ceases to boggle my mind what people will do.  The CCFR made a bonehead move.  Who in their right mind that that was the right thing to do ?


Did they though? Here is their statement on the "Poly" promo code:









						Statement on Promocode - Canadian Coalition for Firearm Rights
					

Concerning the discount code controversy: Our promocode was in no way a reference to the tragedy at Ecole Polytechnique. It was a two-week-old response to a Twitter account criticizing us for fundraising. Any suggestion to the contrary is blatantly false.




					firearmrights.ca


----------



## Weinie (6 Dec 2022)

Halifax Tar said:


> It never ceases to boggle my mind what people will do.  The CCFR made a bonehead move.  Who in their right mind that that was the right thing to do ?
> 
> One also has to understand that the people like Wendy Cukier have exploited/used the Poytechnique massacre to push their agenda of total firearms ban.  She is persona non grata in the firearms community.  She has worked to criminalize many many hundreds of thousands Canadians.


And plus, she has plenty of bucks left to do it. According to the Sunshine list, she made just less than 300K last year.


----------



## Weinie (6 Dec 2022)

calculus said:


> Did they though? Here is their statement on the "Poly" promo code:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


That is the right Jesus most pacifist/conciliatory statement that I have ever seen. Are you sure that is their true statement?


----------



## Booter (6 Dec 2022)

Why wouldn’t they explain a little more than that- like how “poly” fits into it.


----------



## Jarnhamar (6 Dec 2022)

Booter said:


> Why wouldn’t they explain a little more than that- like how “poly” fits into it.


The more you explain yourself and/or apologize on Twitter the more outraged people become and the more blood they demand.


----------



## Furniture (6 Dec 2022)

calculus said:


> Did they though? Here is their statement on the "Poly" promo code:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


It was boneheaded, because someone there should have been adult enough to realize getting into a Twitter spat was dumb to begin with, but using the shorthand for PolySeSouvient as a promocode was handing "Poly" a PR win.


----------



## Weinie (6 Dec 2022)

Furniture said:


> It was boneheaded, because someone there should have been adult enough to realize getting into a Twitter spat was dumb to begin with, but using the shorthand for PolySeSouvient as a promocode was handing "Poly" a PR win.


Or maybe they were trying to provoke an argument.


----------



## Halifax Tar (6 Dec 2022)

Jarnhamar said:


> The more you explain yourself and/or apologize on Twitter the more outraged people become and the more blood they demand.



Exactly.  Say nothing and move on.



Furniture said:


> It was boneheaded, because someone there should have been adult enough to realize getting into a Twitter spat was dumb to begin with, but using the shorthand for PolySeSouvient as a promocode was handing "Poly" a PR win.



Bingo.


----------



## Booter (6 Dec 2022)

Okay guys. They would have been better off not saying anything. A person like me- completely divorced from the entire thing and wanted to know the “real story” doesn’t get it. I am the target audience.

People involved don’t think anything of
It. Outraged people are going to be outraged. But the silent middle who wanted to understand can’t from that comment.

That’s not pandering. That’s communicating. If you want people to understand- you have to Try and communicate. That “statement” doesn’t communicate anything.


----------



## Furniture (6 Dec 2022)

Weinie said:


> Or maybe they were trying to provoke an argument.


It's an argument reason and facts can't win. 

If there is a master plan here I can't wait to see it, because right now this is just working against the CCFR and gun owners.


----------



## Kat Stevens (6 Dec 2022)

I have an Alberta veterans plate on my truck. The truck is not adorned with any "Fuck Anybody" stickers or anything political. It has a CHIMO plate on the front. The plate has three letters and two numbers on it. The two numbers are 88. Care to guess how many rabid weirdos have accosted me for it? I had to google it to figure out wtf they were blabbering about.  I laugh mightily every time. Rabid gonna rabid.


----------



## Kat Stevens (6 Dec 2022)

Food for Thought…
A history of gun control in Canada.
• In 1913, you required us to have a permit to carry a handgun.
We complied. There was no discernible reduction in violent crime.
• In 1920, you required us to have a permit to possess any firearm, regardless of where it was stored.
We complied. There was no discernible reduction in violent crime.
• In 1932, you required us to provide a reason (only two were permissible) for having a handgun.
We complied. There was no discernible reduction in violent crime.
• In 1934, you required us to locally register our handguns.
We complied. There was no discernible reduction in violent crime.
• In 1938, you required us to renew our registration every five years.
We complied. There was no discernible reduction in violent crime.
• In 1951, you required us to centrally register our handguns.
We complied. There was no discernible reduction in violent crime.
• In 1969, you designed the classification system so certain firearms could be prohibited on a whim.
We complied. There was no discernible reduction in violent crime.
• In 1977, you prohibited automatic firearms.
We complied. There was no discernible reduction in violent crime.
• In 1979, you introduced screening and safety courses.
We complied. There was no discernible reduction in violent crime.
• By 1994, you required a photo and two references to apply for a Firearms Acquisition Certificate, imposed a mandatory 28 day waiting period, made safety courses mandatory, expanded the background check and screening, reclassified certain firearms, introduced regulations for storage, transportation, and use, and prohibited standard capacity magazines.
We complied. There was no discernible reduction in violent crime.
• In 1995, you introduced licensing to have and buy firearms, and to buy ammunition.
We complied. There was no discernible reduction in violent crime.
• In 1996, you required us to get your Authorization to Transport certain firearms, and authorizations to carry certain firearms in very limited conditions.
We complied. There was no discernible reduction in violent crime.
• In 1997, you regulated shooting clubs, shooting ranges, and gun shows.
We complied. There was no discernible reduction in violent crime.
• In 2001, licensing became mandatory.
We complied. There was no discernible reduction in violent crime.
• In 2003, you required all firearms to be registered.
We complied. There was no discernible reduction in violent crime.
• In 2015, you introduced firearms prohibitions for those convicted of domestic violence.
We complied. There was no discernible reduction in violent crime.
• In 2019, you passed C-71, which would pave the way for circumventing parliament, and to ignore the experts' analyses (law enforcement, firearms functional experts, community groups, etc.)which you claimed to base policies on, in any further restrictions.
We complied. There was no discernible reduction in violent crime.
• In 2020, you prohibited some 1500 models of firearms for absolutely no reason than political pandering and cowardice in addressing escalating violent crime.
We complied. There was no discernible reduction in violent crime.
• In 2021, you reduced judicial consequences for those illegally using their illegally acquired and already prohibited firearms.
It didn't affect us, as it didn't apply to us, and violent crime rates continued to climb at an alarming rate.
• In 2022, you banned the sale, purchase, and transfer of handguns.
We complied. Violent crime rates continued to climb.
• Also in 2022, you proposed this latest piece of absolutely useless, enormously costly, and completely counter-productive measure of prohibiting even hunting rifles and shotguns, even though the statistical significance of them or their owners being involved in violent crime registered at the extreme right of the decimal place.
And yet violent crime continues to escalate.
So, what compromises or concessions are we willing to make at this point in what has been over a hundred years of faulty logic, intentionally deceptive public messaging, malicious and misdirected prosecution, and bad faith negotiations, while completely ignoring the contributing factors and root causes of those most at risk of violent behavioural trajectories, AND increasing your leniency for those who actually commit horrifically violent crimes?
Absolutely none.


----------



## KevinB (6 Dec 2022)

Kat Stevens said:


> Food for Thought…
> A history of gun control in Canada.
> • In 1913, you required us to have a permit to carry a handgun.
> We complied. There was no discernible reduction in violent crime.
> ...


But it's different this time...


----------



## ArmyRick (6 Dec 2022)

Jarnhamar said:


> Hopefully police in Ontario refuse to support Trudeau confiscating long guns. I'd hate for this to be me or one of my family members.
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/mona-wang-lacy-browning-kelowna-rcmp-wellness-check-assault-charge-1.6150736


I will pass on any "wellness" check that results in a mountie stepping on my head (not that it would make me any dumber, I pretty much hit rock bottom awhile ago). 

Say there, Das Fuhrer Trudeau, is this your Canada?


----------



## Weinie (6 Dec 2022)

Kat Stevens said:


> Food for Thought…
> A history of gun control in Canada.
> • In 1913, you required us to have a permit to carry a handgun.
> We complied. There was no discernible reduction in violent crime.
> ...


I think a convening of discussion on your post would be the next step.


----------



## Kat Stevens (6 Dec 2022)

Weinie said:


> I think a convening of discussion on your post would be the next step.


I pillaged that from elsewhere, but it's kind of an eye opener.


----------



## Dana381 (6 Dec 2022)

Trudeau has to get rid of ALL the guns in Canada so in the next pandemic he can follow hi idol Xi's example and weld people into their homes


			https://www.cbc.ca/player/play/1703503427818


----------



## Weinie (6 Dec 2022)

Kat Stevens said:


> I pillaged that from elsewhere, *but it's kind of an eye opener.*


YUP.


----------



## singh1947 (6 Dec 2022)

Kat Stevens said:


> Food for Thought…
> A history of gun control in Canada.
> • In 1913, you required us to have a permit to carry a handgun.


Try 6 months after Confederation & a decade later to go from Shall Issue to May Issue (_de facto) _for concealed carry. I'd make it all nice and point-form like yours, but I'm busy for the next few hours.
Sadly, edit limit.



> Just six months after Confederation, the renewed threat of Fenian-led invasion from the United States prompts the federal government to pass legislation on 21 December 1867 prohibiting the “. . . unlawful training of persons to the use of arms.”
> 
> In April of 1877, Liberal Justice Minister Edward Blake tells Parliament that the “. . . practice of carrying firearms is becoming too common . . . they were carried by two classes who ought not to carry them . . . the rowdy and reckless characters, and boys and young men.” His government responds by introducing legislation recognising the defence of self, family or property as the only legitimate reason for carrying a “pistol” or “air gun” upon the person.
> 
> ...












						A Brief History of Gun Control in Canada, 1867 to 1945
					






					cssa-cila.org


----------



## Good2Golf (6 Dec 2022)

Dana381 said:


> Trudeau has to get rid of ALL the guns in Canada so in the next pandemic he can follow hi idol Xi's example and weld *416/905* people into their homes *apartment buildings*.
> 
> 
> https://www.cbc.ca/player/play/1703503427818


There… 😉


----------



## MilEME09 (7 Dec 2022)

When the NDP, and Bloc have issues with C-21, looks like this will be dead.









						Yukon Liberal MP breaks ranks over gun bill, calling for clarification over which guns are targeted
					

'Even their own backbenchers are getting the message,' Pierre Poilievre said during question period. 'Will the government get the message?'




					nationalpost.com


----------



## Brad Sallows (7 Dec 2022)

Whichever way this goes, I'm wondering whether anyone bothered to take notes on who exactly promised, in past years, that they weren't coming for anyone's hunting rifles...


----------



## Halifax Tar (8 Dec 2022)

Brad Sallows said:


> Whichever way this goes, I'm wondering whether anyone bothered to take notes on who exactly promised, in past years, that they weren't coming for anyone's hunting rifles...



The fudds need to get onboard with the rest of the firearms community.  Their Marlin 336 and Rem 870 are next.


----------



## Halifax Tar (8 Dec 2022)

Looks like the cracks are getting bigger 









						Yukon Liberal MP breaks ranks over gun bill, calling for clarification over which guns are targeted
					

'Even their own backbenchers are getting the message,' Pierre Poilievre said during question period. 'Will the government get the message?'




					nationalpost.com


----------



## NavyShooter (8 Dec 2022)

Question is - with the addition of the guns to be banned with it - are they confiscating with no compensation...or is there a compensation part of it as well?

If there's a compensation part, then it becomes a money bill....which might make it a confidence vote from the Liberal perspective.  

NDP have agreed to vote with the Liberals to sustain the government.

Trudeau might have his election in the spring afterall...


----------



## Halifax Tar (8 Dec 2022)

NavyShooter said:


> Question is - with the addition of the guns to be banned with it - are they confiscating with no compensation...or is there a compensation part of it as well?
> 
> If there's a compensation part, then it becomes a money bill....which might make it a confidence vote from the Liberal perspective.
> 
> ...



I have said before.  There are rumors from within fortress LPC that their MPs have been told to fund raise and prepare for a spring election.


----------



## QV (8 Dec 2022)

Good2Golf said:


> There… 😉


Whew! At least Alberta has the sovereignty act to save us from this, what do y'all have?


----------



## Good2Golf (8 Dec 2022)

QV said:


> Whew! At least Alberta has the sovereignty act to save us from this, what do y'all have?


PP…he’s my MP and neighbour(hood peep). 😆


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (8 Dec 2022)

Good2Golf said:


> PP…he’s my MP and neighbour(hood peep). 😆


God I'd love to have a fence beside his place, his rants are highly entertaining.

Ben Shapiroesque almost 😄


----------



## Good2Golf (8 Dec 2022)

Humphrey Bogart said:


> God I'd love to have a fence beside his place, his rants are highly entertaining.
> 
> Ben Shapiroesque almost 😄


He’s actually a street and a small lake across from me, but I’m looking at the back of his house right now…no rant party on the deck at the moment. 😆


----------



## QV (8 Dec 2022)

Brad Sallows said:


> Whichever way this goes, I'm wondering whether anyone bothered to take notes on who exactly promised, in past years, that they weren't coming for anyone's hunting rifles...


How many times have predicting future outcomes of bad laws/polices been labelled conspiracy theory?


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (8 Dec 2022)

QV said:


> How many times have predicting future outcomes of bad laws/polices been labelled conspiracy theory?


----------



## Lumber (8 Dec 2022)

This is not a question designed to elicit a "gotcha" moment; as a non-hunter I am literally just ignorant:

How many of you and/or how often while hunting did you:
a. use a semi-auto rifle while hunting; and 
b. actually use the semi-auto function in the process of taking down the animal? (i.e. shoot 2-3 times in quick succession)

I have it in my mind that hunters only ever fire one bullet and one bullet only to take down a target, and I want to figure out if that's a wild and incorrect assumption or not.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (8 Dec 2022)

Lumber said:


> This is not a question designed to elicit a "gotcha" moment; as a non-hunter I am literally just ignorant:
> 
> How many of you and/or how often while hunting did you:
> a. use a semi-auto rifle while hunting; and
> ...


First question:  "what are you hunting?"

If you're varmint hunting, being able to quickly conduct what's called a "follow up shot" is pretty critical.






Ironically, the "black scary gun" people most associate with gun control is primarily used for smaller game.


----------



## Halifax Tar (8 Dec 2022)

Lumber said:


> This is not a question designed to elicit a "gotcha" moment; as a non-hunter I am literally just ignorant:
> 
> How many of you and/or how often while hunting did you:
> a. use a semi-auto rifle while hunting; and
> ...



Depends on what I'm hunting.  For migratory bird a semi is almost essential.

I've harvested deer with an M14.  I used an M1 Carbine this year.  Both semi auto center fire rifles. I really like the rotating bolt action on those rifles. It just feels smooth and ergonomic to me.  And the carbine is so light and easy to maneuver in the woods.

Generally if I'm stalking large game I like a semi. If I'm stand hunting I take a bolt gun.

Have I ever needed a follow on shot ?  No.  But I've  hunted with lots of folks who do.

One has to remember hunting isn't the only reason for one to want to own firearms.


----------



## Lumber (8 Dec 2022)

Halifax Tar said:


> One has to remember hunting isn't the only reason for one to want to own firearms.


Yea, no worries, I wasn't arguing against that. I was just contemplating the argument that people have made that "you don't need a semi-auto to hunt". To me it doesn't even matter if that's true, because there are other reasons to have a semi-auto (sport shooting), but then I realized I had no idea if the statement about hunting with semi-autos was true or not.


----------



## Weinie (8 Dec 2022)

Lumber said:


> This is not a question designed to elicit a "gotcha" moment; as a non-hunter I am literally just ignorant:
> 
> How many of you and/or how often while hunting did you:
> a. use a semi-auto rifle while hunting; and
> ...


I have taken down numerous game: ducks, geese, rabbits, deer. In all my time hunting, the only time I fired a second shot was when there were more than enough waterfowl to elicit a second shot, and that was through a 870 Wingmaster, which is a pump, rather than a semi. I didn't know of anyone who used a semi: bolt action check, single shot check, pump action check.


----------



## Halifax Tar (8 Dec 2022)

Lumber said:


> Yea, no worries, I wasn't arguing against that. I was just contemplating the argument that people have made that "you don't need a semi-auto to hunt". To me it doesn't even matter if that's true, because there are other reasons to have a semi-auto (sport shooting), but then I realized I had no idea if the statement about hunting with semi-autos was true or not.



I hear you.

I mean you can hunt just about anything with a single shot Cooey .12ga.  But there are much better tools out there.


----------



## IKnowNothing (8 Dec 2022)

Hypothetical here.  In an alternate universe an honestly well-meaning (as opposed to vote and fear mongering) LPC seeks to tighten gun control in a fair and effective way. In addition to measures expressly aimed at criminals committing firearms related offenses (harsher penalties, strict liability for unlawful possession, etc) they seek to reduce access to the guns that make mass shootings easier.  Instead of hysterical and nonsensical "assault weapon" and handgun bans,  they, in consultation with the CPC and firearms groups come up with a fair and clear definition of weapon to be added to the Restricted class (not banned).  Two year grace period for PAL holders to upgrade to RPAL, with expedited processing.

Example definition/ criteria: semi-auto, centrefire, commercially marketed after 19xx, designed with intent for reload via variable capacity detachable magazine (not an integral mag designed for reload via en bloc/stripper/ single round that happens to be detachable).

Tolerable? Reasonable?


----------



## Weinie (8 Dec 2022)

Halifax Tar said:


> I hear you.
> 
> I mean you can hunt just about anything with a single shot Cooey .12ga.  But there are much better tools out there.


I had a Cooey 22. But almost every time I would cock it to shoot, the sound would distract the target, to my dismay. I bought a Remington.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (8 Dec 2022)

IKnowNothing said:


> Hypothetical here.  In an alternate universe an honestly well-meaning (as opposed to vote and fear mongering) LPC seeks to tighten gun control in a fair and effective way. In addition to measures expressly aimed at criminals committing firearms related offenses (harsher penalties, strict liability for unlawful possession, etc) they seek to reduce access to the guns that make mass shootings easier.  Instead of hysterical and nonsensical "assault weapon" and handgun bans,  they, in consultation with the CPC and firearms groups come up with a fair and clear definition of weapon to be added to the Restricted class (not banned).  Two year grace period for PAL holders to upgrade to RPAL, with expedited processing.
> 
> Example definition/ criteria: semi-auto, centrefire, commercially marketed after 19xx, designed with intent for reload via variable capacity detachable magazine (not an integral mag designed for reload via en bloc/stripper/ single round that happens to be detachable).
> 
> Tolerable? Reasonable?


How about the government just enforce the rules that they already have on the books, instead of making new ones?


----------



## OldSolduer (8 Dec 2022)

SeaKingTacco said:


> How about the government just enforce the rules that they already have on the books, instead of making new ones?


Sacrilege!! Blasphemy!!! Dear Leader knows best what is for you!!

To the Gulag with you.....


----------



## calculus (8 Dec 2022)

Lumber said:


> This is not a question designed to elicit a "gotcha" moment; as a non-hunter I am literally just ignorant:
> 
> How many of you and/or how often while hunting did you:
> a. use a semi-auto rifle while hunting; and
> ...


I'll give you an example - pest control. I own a property about 100 kms West of Ottawa, and spend a fair bit of time walking it with our three dogs. The area that this property is in is practically overrun with Coyotes. So, I purchased a firearm (a Ruger PC Carbine, in 9mm) that is semi-automatic, specifically because when a Coyote comes out of the bush on a run, going for your animals, you very likely won't hit it with the first shot, and follow-up shots with a bolt gun, or even a lever gun, are slower than with a semi-auto. The reasons for this are: 1) it takes time to cycle the action, and 2) additional time to re-acquire the "target". By the time you are able to take a second shot, it could literally be too late. A running Coyote is a hard target to hit, and having to stop and load another round into the chamber "manually" makes the chances of a successful hit on a follow-up shot much much harder. This is where a semi-auto comes into its own - in situations where a fast follow up shot (or shots) is needed. I would add that even in standard hunting situations, sometimes having a quick follow-up shot is the difference between an ethical kill, and a wounded animal bolting after being hit and dying a painful death somewhere in the bush. There are many semi-auto rifles chambered in popular center-fire hunting cartridges like .308, .243, and .270. The Browning BAR  is a good example of a popular semi-auto rifle used quite extensively by hunters.

The annoying thing is I purchased that Ruger PC carbine after very careful consideration about what the government might at some point in the future try and ban as an "assault style" weapon. This is a pretty ordinary looking firearm, with non-tactical stocks, firing a low-power (by rifle standards) round. It fit the bill for me, as I'm only looking at distances of 50-75m, typically, and a 124 grain 9mm is more than adequate for Coyotes at those ranges. But, I see in the recent amendment to C-21 that this rifle is on the list, so I stand to lose it if this goes through. The irony of this is that for my particular "use case", an AR platform in .223 would be the ideal solution.


----------



## Dana381 (8 Dec 2022)

OldSolduer said:


> Sacrilege!! Blasphemy!!! Dear Leader knows best what is for you!!
> 
> To the Gulag with you.....


Sadly you are much closer than ALL the city folk will believe.


----------



## OldSolduer (8 Dec 2022)

calculus said:


> I'll give you an example - pest control. I own a property about 100 kms West of Ottawa, and spend a fair bit of time walking it with our three dogs. The area that this property is in is practically overrun with Coyotes. So, I purchased a firearm (a Ruger PC Carbine, in 9mm) that is semi-automatic, specifically because when a Coyote comes out of the bush on a run, going for your animals, you very likely won't hit it with the first shot, and follow-up shots with a bolt gun, or even a lever gun, are slower than with a semi-auto. The reasons for this are: 1) it takes time to cycle the action, and 2) additional time to re-acquire the "target". By the time you are able to take a second shot, it could literally be too late. A running Coyote is a hard target to hit, and having to stop and load another round into the chamber "manually" makes the chances of a successful hit on a follow-up shot much much harder. This is where a semi-auto comes into its own - in situations where a fast follow up shot (or shots) is needed. I would add that even in standard hunting situations, sometimes having a quick follow-up shot is the difference between an ethical kill, and a wounded animal bolting after being hit and dying a painful death somewhere in the bush. There are many semi-auto rifles chambered in popular center-fire hunting cartridges like .308, .243, and .270. The Browning BAR  is a good example of a popular semi-auto rifle used quite extensively by hunters.
> 
> The annoying thing is I purchased that Ruger PC carbine after very careful consideration about what the government might at some point in the future try and ban as an "assault style" weapon. This is a pretty ordinary looking firearm, with non-tactical stocks, firing a low-power (by rifle standards) round. It fit the bill for me, as I'm only looking at distances of 50-75m, typically, and a 124 grain 9mm is more than adequate for Coyotes at those ranges. But, I see in the recent amendment to C-21 that this rifle is on the list, so I stand to lose it if this goes through.


That is a good answer. Predators hit quick and hard and are often on the move. IF they decide you're their prey - this won't happen often - a semi auto is the answer.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (8 Dec 2022)

Wild Boar is an animal that I would not like to tangle with without a semi.

Since they are rampant in western Canada, it is getting to be a problem.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (8 Dec 2022)

OldSolduer said:


> Sacrilege!! Blasphemy!!! Dear Leader knows best what is for you!!
> 
> To the Gulag with you.....


Probably true…


----------



## OldSolduer (8 Dec 2022)

Dana381 said:


> Sadly you are much closer than ALL the city folk will believe.


If Windy Cukier had her way that is where gun owners would be - reeducation camps.


----------



## Brad Sallows (8 Dec 2022)

If you're carrying for defence against animals, a semi-automatic is prudent.  And there are definitely places where carrying for defence against animals is necessary (unless you're that guy who liked bears so much he said he'd be honoured to be bear scat one day - and he is).


----------



## Halifax Tar (8 Dec 2022)

IKnowNothing said:


> Hypothetical here.  In an alternate universe an honestly well-meaning (as opposed to vote and fear mongering) LPC seeks to tighten gun control in a fair and effective way. In addition to measures expressly aimed at criminals committing firearms related offenses (harsher penalties, strict liability for unlawful possession, etc) they seek to reduce access to the guns that make mass shootings easier.  Instead of hysterical and nonsensical "assault weapon" and handgun bans,  they, in consultation with the CPC and firearms groups come up with a fair and clear definition of weapon to be added to the Restricted class (not banned).  Two year grace period for PAL holders to upgrade to RPAL, with expedited processing.
> 
> Example definition/ criteria: semi-auto, centrefire, commercially marketed after 19xx, designed with intent for reload via variable capacity detachable magazine (not an integral mag designed for reload via en bloc/stripper/ single round that happens to be detachable).
> 
> Tolerable? Reasonable?



Only if you can convince me that further laws on the already law abiding is somehow going to curb criminal illegal ownership of firearms.

Gun control is the low hanging fruit.  It's the cheap way to make the perpetually scared feel like action is being taken.  When in reality what need is more and better trained police,  rock solid border control and a robust mental health.


----------



## IKnowNothing (8 Dec 2022)

Halifax Tar said:


> Only if you can convince me that further laws on the already law abiding is somehow going to* curb criminal illegal ownership of firearms*.
> 
> Gun control is the low hanging fruit.  It's the cheap way to make the perpetually scared feel like action is being taken.  When in reality what need is more and better trained police,  rock solid border control and a robust mental health.


I'm not going to be able to do that. But I can propose that "criminal illegal ownership of firearms" is one of three avenues to gun related (non-suicide) violence- particularly when homicide is the objection
A- criminal illegal ownership - gang bangers etc. Gun control laws have no effect, and the government is not doing near enough for political reasons.
B-person that desires to commit violence seeks legal ownership
C-person with legal ownership desires to commit violence

I'll fully concede that in Canada A is the greater issue (and even then not a big one in the National context),  but when we look to the South, we can see B and C become serious threats to public safety at the intersection of insufficient gun control and sufficient societal... angst?  That angst level is rising in Canada. I wholly admit to being a fudd, but have been around guns all my life.  6-10 years ago I'd be fully against the need for any further gun control in Canada, and am in no way in favour of Bill C21 or the "assault weapons" ban.   That being said, I can see the argument that  the PAL (which can be passed by a reasonably trained monkey) is not a high enough bar to be the only thing standing in between increasingly disgruntled/radicalized/ scared / disenfranchised people and a modded Ruger Mini with no purpose other than the planned or hypothetical taking of human life, hence musing about the RPAL as a compromise to raise the bar on who has high capacity semis without all this ban nonsense.


----------



## QV (8 Dec 2022)

calculus said:


> I'll give you an example - pest control. I own a property about 100 kms West of Ottawa, and spend a fair bit of time walking it with our three dogs. The area that this property is in is practically overrun with Coyotes. So, I purchased a firearm (a Ruger PC Carbine, in 9mm) that is semi-automatic, specifically because when a Coyote comes out of the bush on a run, going for your animals, you very likely won't hit it with the first shot, and follow-up shots with a bolt gun, or even a lever gun, are slower than with a semi-auto. The reasons for this are: 1) it takes time to cycle the action, and 2) additional time to re-acquire the "target". By the time you are able to take a second shot, it could literally be too late. A running Coyote is a hard target to hit, and having to stop and load another round into the chamber "manually" makes the chances of a successful hit on a follow-up shot much much harder. This is where a semi-auto comes into its own - in situations where a fast follow up shot (or shots) is needed. I would add that even in standard hunting situations, sometimes having a quick follow-up shot is the difference between an ethical kill, and a wounded animal bolting after being hit and dying a painful death somewhere in the bush. There are many semi-auto rifles chambered in popular center-fire hunting cartridges like .308, .243, and .270. The Browning BAR  is a good example of a popular semi-auto rifle used quite extensively by hunters.
> 
> The annoying thing is I purchased that Ruger PC carbine after very careful consideration about what the government might at some point in the future try and ban as an "assault style" weapon. This is a pretty ordinary looking firearm, with non-tactical stocks, firing a low-power (by rifle standards) round. It fit the bill for me, as I'm only looking at distances of 50-75m, typically, and a 124 grain 9mm is more than adequate for Coyotes at those ranges. But, I see in the recent amendment to C-21 that this rifle is on the list, so I stand to lose it if this goes through. The irony of this is that for my particular "use case", an AR platform in .223 would be the ideal solution.


You don't need the gun because:

1. You don't need the property, buy a condo instead;
2. You don't need to be walking on the property, go walk down the neighborhood sidewalk or a park trail;
3. You don't need to infringe on the rights of the coyote to attack a dog that's intruding on it's territory.

In fact, if you're buying property it's probably because you have too much money so taxes will increase for, you know, climate change.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (8 Dec 2022)

Brad Sallows said:


> If you're carrying for defence against animals, a semi-automatic is prudent.  And there are definitely places where carrying for defence against animals is necessary (unless you're that guy who liked bears so much he said he'd be honoured to be bear scat one day - and he is).


The fact that game wardens are now equipped with AR-10s is enough of a reason why hunters should be armed likewise.


----------



## Dana381 (8 Dec 2022)

IKnowNothing said:


> I'm not going to be able to do that. But I can propose that "criminal illegal ownership of firearms" is one of three avenues to gun related (non-suicide) violence- particularly when homicide is the objection
> A- criminal illegal ownership - gang bangers etc. Gun control laws have no effect, and the government is not doing near enough for political reasons.
> B-person that desires to commit violence seeks legal ownership
> C-person with legal ownership desires to commit violence
> ...



A- the argument I hear from my sister, A Toronto apartment dwelling semi-Liberal minded single lady is, If the people don't have guns than the criminals wont be able to steal them. The government helps this belief by ignoring the smuggling issue altogether. They let people guess where the illegal guns are coming from and no one likes to think our border is so porous. I read somewhere once that when the police seize guns from drug busts etc. if they don't know where they came from they are classed as unknown and presumed stolen. When in fact they almost always are smuggled guns. The Liberals removed the mandatory minimum sentence for gun crimes citing racism, this just made smuggling easier. Bill C-5: Mandatory Minimum Penalties to be repealed - Canada.ca
I guess gun lobbies aren't as big of Liberal party donors as organized crime.

B&C- Unfortunately there will always be a segment of the population that desires to commit violence, no amount of gun control will solve this. As HT said a robust mental health system is needed, this has been sorely lacking. The increase in societal angst is in large part to do with the current culture of cancelling/shaming people who don't think like you. Respect of your fellow mankind is sorely lacking and would go a long way to solving these issues. By this I mean all people even the ones that you disagree with.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (8 Dec 2022)

IKnowNothing said:


> I'm not going to be able to do that. But I can propose that "criminal illegal ownership of firearms" is one of three avenues to gun related (non-suicide) violence- particularly when homicide is the objection
> A- criminal illegal ownership - gang bangers etc. Gun control laws have no effect, and the government is not doing near enough for political reasons.
> B-person that desires to commit violence seeks legal ownership
> C-person with legal ownership desires to commit violence
> ...


I don't  agree. If someone want to kill a bunch of people they're going to find a way. Infringing on me, because of a hypothetical or what ifs is a useless excersize and unfairly categorizes me.
For interest sake and getting things right while speaking of classifications, there is no RPAL. There are only PALs with different categories. There are PALs with restricted classification and PALs with prohibited. And PALs with both. Just PALs. I don't  care myself, just putting that out there.
For decades, they have been putting more and more hoops in our way. We've  always complied. The constant, ever changing creep. Whatever they threw at us, we did.
Now because of our compliance and stupidity in believing our government would never force full confiscation on us, here we sit. Wondering what trudeau will steal from us next.
We have been more than generous following the government's edicts. And now they just want to steal everything and outlaw it. That's  the thanks we get for trying to play fair against a dishonest, agenda driven oligarcy.
No, I don't think there is any more room for compromise. They've finally tipped their hand and showed us their end state. They can't  be trusted. You don't compromise or even discuss with weasels.


----------



## Furniture (8 Dec 2022)

SeaKingTacco said:


> Wild Boar is an animal that I would not like to tangle with without a semi.
> 
> Since they are rampant in western Canada, it is getting to be a problem.


Until they are rampaging through the Quebec City-Windsor corridor they aren't really a "problem" in the eyes of many.


----------



## Halifax Tar (8 Dec 2022)

IKnowNothing said:


> I'm not going to be able to do that. But I can propose that "criminal illegal ownership of firearms" is one of three avenues to gun related (non-suicide) violence- particularly when homicide is the objection
> A- criminal illegal ownership - gang bangers etc. Gun control laws have no effect, and the government is not doing near enough for political reasons.
> B-person that desires to commit violence seeks legal ownership
> C-person with legal ownership desires to commit violence
> ...



I will never understand why suicide is in these talks.  That's a pure and simple mental health issue.  The fact uncle bob used his 870 to take his own life when his wife left has absolutely zero to do with the shotgun.  Instead it has everything to do with a hurting individual who couldn't handle it anymore.   If the gun wasn't the means, it was going to be the McKay bridge or a toaster in the tub.   I just do not comprehend how this is a firearms issue. 

First of all stop, looking south.  Jesus Canada, stop looking south.  The USA has a whole host of complicating issues that cause their violent crime. And guns themselves aren't the big issue.  But as Canada does we some how internalize the problems their problems.

Having said that, we do share some ground.  And I get roasted on here when I say this, I am all for tougher and more stringent testing, like you I think its too easy and I would incorporate a practical range portion. 

What makes no sense to me is our classification of firearms.  Its completely illogical, politically driven and arbitrary. 

Maybe we are more the same page than I thought...







I swear there is an Office .gif for everything.


----------



## Brad Sallows (8 Dec 2022)

Fishbone Jones said:


> The fact that game wardens are now equipped with AR-10s is enough of a reason why hunters should be armed likewise.


Hm.  I didn't know that game wardens are so dangerous.


----------



## Booter (8 Dec 2022)

Fishbone Jones said:


> The fact that game wardens are now equipped with AR-10s is enough of a reason why hunters should be armed likewise.


That’s because they are expanding their powers to be the first responders in the areas where they are so they can assist in emergencies as an authority. So because they may be the dispatched cop to
Something criminal, not hunting and fishing regulation related, they have to have the kit.

That’s the direction of the agencies out west anyways. You’ll see that drift continue. I did see an article about the Yukon game wardens and how the
Rifles were referred to in the context of bear encounters. So it seems a little disorganized in the messaging.


----------



## Good2Golf (9 Dec 2022)

PMJT need to up his reconciliation game it would seem.









						Morning Update: First Nations leaders vote against Ottawa’s gun-control legislation
					

Chiefs express concern about last-minute amendments, saying changes would criminalize guns First Nations people use for hunting




					www.theglobeandmail.com


----------



## Haggis (9 Dec 2022)

Good2Golf said:


> PMJT need to up his reconciliation game it would seem.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Expect an exemption clause to be added to the amendment for FN gun owners, similar to that proposed for Olympic handgun shoters.


----------



## KevinB (9 Dec 2022)

Booter said:


> That’s because they are expanding their powers to be the first responders in the areas where they are so they can assist in emergencies as an authority. So because they may be the dispatched cop to
> Something criminal, not hunting and fishing regulation related, they have to have the kit.
> 
> That’s the direction of the agencies out west anyways. You’ll see that drift continue. I did see an article about the Yukon game wardens and how the
> Rifles were referred to in the context of bear encounters. So it seems a little disorganized in the messaging.


The AR-10 would be around the last firearm I would recommend for that task.  
   There are a lot more effective 7.62 NATO gas guns than the AR-10, and with magazines that actually work.  

Even new Armalite AR-10 that use the SR-25 magazine are pretty awful guns (but at least it’s not a modified M-14 magazine anymore)


----------



## Fishbone Jones (9 Dec 2022)

Furniture said:


> Until they are rampaging through the Quebec City-Windsor corridor they aren't really a "problem" in the eyes of many.


They're already here.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (9 Dec 2022)

Booter said:


> That’s because they are expanding their powers to be the first responders in the areas where they are so they can assist in emergencies as an authority. So because they may be the dispatched cop to
> Something criminal, not hunting and fishing regulation related, they have to have the kit.
> 
> That’s the direction of the agencies out west anyways. You’ll see that drift continue. I did see an article about the Yukon game wardens and how the
> Rifles were referred to in the context of bear encounters. So it seems a little disorganized in the messaging.


You're only using 5.56 in your assault style rifles. Why are the Game Wardens carrying .308? Let's be serious, there's no children here. They weren't issued AR-10 style platforms to act as emergency police. They were issued these because they are effective against large, dangerous game. Your scenario leaps into the cavern of what if's. Like what happens when a bystander is hit with a .308 soft nosed hunting round? Do wardens go through the same course of fire annually that the RCMP do? I'm sure you get the point. We're not here to discuss wardens as cops.

The government says we don't need a semi auto to hunt, but that is what they provide their wardens. And for good reason. Why them and not us? Do we not deserve to use the same rifles the government experts picked for their own in case of attack?


----------



## Booter (9 Dec 2022)

KevinB said:


> The AR-10 would be around the last firearm I would recommend for that task.
> There are a lot more effective 7.62 NATO gas guns than the AR-10, and with magazines that actually work.
> 
> Even new Armalite AR-10 that use the SR-25 magazine are pretty awful guns (but at least it’s not a modified M-14 magazine anymore)


When has procurement worked on what’s effective for a task. The game wardens have evolving tasks- one of their hang ups was their equipment being unsuitable. So they started looking for kit that can be useful in a broad cross section of things- heavy leaned to the side of fish and wildlife stuff but also able to complete other tasks.

I don’t know enough about their requirements to speak beyond that. They are looking at two hats,

As for “no kids in the woods” they were the first responders at an active shooter at an oil and gas camp a while back. I’m not clear on their requirements beyond some talks about equipment and expanding roles.


----------



## Booter (9 Dec 2022)

Fishbone Jones said:


> You're only using 5.56 in your assault style rifles. Why are the Game Wardens carrying .308? Let's be serious, there's no children here. They weren't issued AR-10 style platforms to act as emergency police. They were issued these because they are effective against large, dangerous game. Your scenario leaps into the cavern of what if's. Like what happens when a bystander is hit with a .308 soft nosed hunting round? Do wardens go through the same course of fire annually that the RCMP do? I'm sure you get the point. We're not here to discuss wardens as cops.
> 
> The government says we don't need a semi auto to hunt, but that is what they provide their wardens. And for good reason. Why them and not us? Do we not deserve to use the same rifles the government experts picked for their own in case of attack?


There is nothing “whataboutism” about it- early discussions on carbine rifle replacements and upgrades discussed multiple roles- when they were discussing the enhanced peace officer responses. I’m sure they selected it for big dangerous game- there are a Series of factors im sure- so I’m sure you’re right. I’m also certain that it’s more complicated based off those equipment needs discussions and what was brought up- and the example of the work camp.

It’s not entirely on topic and I see your point. I don’t know anything beyond what I said here and it’s a derail
At best


----------



## Eaglelord17 (9 Dec 2022)

IKnowNothing said:


> I'm not going to be able to do that. But I can propose that "criminal illegal ownership of firearms" is one of three avenues to gun related (non-suicide) violence- particularly when homicide is the objection
> A- criminal illegal ownership - gang bangers etc. Gun control laws have no effect, and the government is not doing near enough for political reasons.
> B-person that desires to commit violence seeks legal ownership
> C-person with legal ownership desires to commit violence
> ...



A- is the only issue you can really control. We control that with the licensing system and it works quite effectively. Very few strawbuyers and those that do get caught quickly. Next step is cracking down on drug distribution and the criminals involved in that as they are the criminals shooting each other with guns. 

B- We have barriers to prevent people from getting licenses. believe it or not it is harder for a someone who wants to commit crimes to get a license than you think. Most who wish to commit that type of violence have a record and as such can't get a license. Most the recent shooting examples were done with guns smuggled from the US. Hell even things like the Nova Scotia shooter may have been prevented if the cops had done their job and followed up on the illegal firearms complaints. 

C- This happens, but it happens less than your average citizen desiring to commit violence. If there was no firearm they would use a knife, or a hammer, etc. 

Gun related violence is a red herring argument, you need to look at violence as a whole. Obviously if you take guns out of the picture the firearm suicide rate goes down, but the overall suicide rate does not. That means you didn't have a effect, yet this is the argument people choose to take because it is reductionist and easy to be communicated no matter how wrong it is. It is the same thing in domestic murders (most common type for legal firearms owners). Taking guns out of that picture doesn't change the fact those murders happen, just changes how, from gun to knife, to hammer. If anything your providing women less of a chance in those cases. 

The disenfranchised argument is a weak one. How about instead we stop disenfranchising people and making people get angry and violent through useless and discriminatory laws. I am more concerned about the government than it is of me, I can assure you. Considering this government has admitted it was committing genocide within the last 30 years, I don't think it has any moral authority to tell me I shouldn't own firearms for my safety.


----------



## KevinB (9 Dec 2022)

Booter said:


> When has procurement worked on what’s effective for a task.


Once in 1944, maybe  



Booter said:


> The game wardens have evolving tasks- one of their hang ups was their equipment being unsuitable. So they started looking for kit that can be useful in a broad cross section of things- heavy leaned to the side of fish and wildlife stuff but also able to complete other tasks.


I would have suggested the FN C1A1 but those had all been disposed of…



Booter said:


> I don’t know enough about their requirements to speak beyond that. They are looking at two hats,
> 
> As for “no kids in the woods” they were the first responders at an active shooter at an oil and gas camp a while back. I’m not clear on their requirements beyond some talks about equipment and expanding roles.


Honestly a decent 5.56mm load would be able to do both quite well, or a suppressed .300BlackOut.  

Then a 12ga with Slugs.


----------



## Halifax Tar (9 Dec 2022)

KevinB said:


> Once in 1944, maybe
> 
> 
> I would have suggested the FN C1A1 but those had all been disposed of…
> ...



I say with we give them Martini Henrys.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (9 Dec 2022)

Even the US suicide rate is not really out of line with other countries, despite the guns. Then there is SK and Japan, with almost no private gun ownership and massive suicide rate. A very red herring.


----------



## CBH99 (9 Dec 2022)

Good2Golf said:


> You mean like he and his cabal threatening to sue Parliament because Parliament wanted to know the details of the Chinese foreign nationals working in Canada’s National Microbiology Laboratory in Winnipeg that has a redacted material transfer record between the





Good2Golf said:


> PMJT need to up his reconciliation game it would seem.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Reconcilliation can wait until an election is called...

Funny how it was major national news when they found hundreds of bodies using ground penetrating radar, and that was just at one or two sites.  They were going to go to hundreds of sites across the country and use the same technology to discover the extent of such a nationally disgraceful problem.

It was all over the TV, radio, newspapers, etc 

Then voting day happened, and the election was over...and not one peep from a single news organization since.


So I have no doubt the LPC will amend it so FN users can continue to lawfully do so, but that amendment will come when it'll do the most good for the LPC. 

(Closer to spring if an election does indeed get called around then.)


----------



## Fishbone Jones (9 Dec 2022)

Booter said:


> As for “no kids in the woods” they were the first responders at an active shooter at an oil and gas camp a while back. I’m not clear on their requirements beyond some talks about equipment and expanding roles.


I said nothing about kids in the woods. I said there are no kids here, meaning the forum.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (9 Dec 2022)

CBH99 said:


> Funny how it was major national news when they found hundreds of bodies using ground penetrating radar, and that was just at one or two sites.  They were going to go to hundreds of sites across the country and use the same technology to discover the extent of such a nationally disgraceful problem.
> 
> It was all over the TV, radio, newspapers, etc


What they found was anomalies. They haven't uncovered a single body yet. And they don't want to. Partially because the majority would be found as having died from disease and not at the hands of their warders, which works against their narrative.


----------



## calculus (9 Dec 2022)

Well written article, from the Fraser Institute: BLOG: Trudeau government targets law-abiding gunowners, again


----------



## OldSolduer (9 Dec 2022)

Halifax Tar said:


> I say with we give them Martini Henrys.


I have one of those. It hangs on the wall - it looks better there.


----------



## Halifax Tar (9 Dec 2022)

OldSolduer said:


> I have one of those. It hangs on the wall - it looks better there.



I have a Martini Enfield carbine   Sadly I think its life is over and it will transition into a wall hanger as well.  I cant find someone to do a barrel swap on it


----------



## IKnowNothing (9 Dec 2022)

Halifax Tar said:


> I will never understand why suicide is in these talks.  That's a pure and simple mental health issue.  The fact uncle bob used his 870 to take his own life when his wife left has absolutely zero to do with the shotgun.  Instead it has everything to do with a hurting individual who couldn't handle it anymore.   If the gun wasn't the means, it was going to be the McKay bridge or a toaster in the tub.   I just do not comprehend how this is a firearms issue.
> 
> First of all stop, looking south.  Jesus Canada, stop looking south.  The USA has a whole host of complicating issues that cause their violent crime. And guns themselves aren't the big issue.  But as Canada does we some how internalize the problems their problems.
> 
> ...


I think we are. That being the case,  I have to point out that the only time I mentioned suicide was to explicitly exclude it as I'm in in complete agreement that its not germane to the conversation.

Re the bold, I also have to point out that the hypothetical that was initially presented was an aim to fix just that.  By definition it would only impact firearms that provide no added functional value to law abiding gun owners, many of which could avoid restriction via retrofit such as the Cross Armory Fixed mag.


----------



## calculus (9 Dec 2022)

calculus said:


> Did they though? Here is their statement on the "Poly" promo code:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


More on the "Poly" controversy:


----------



## Lumber (9 Dec 2022)

IKnowNothing said:


> I think we are. That being the case,  I have to point out that the only time I mentioned suicide was to explicitly exclude it as I'm in in complete agreement that its not germane to the conversation.
> 
> Re the bold, I also have to point out that the hypothetical that was initially presented was an aim to fix just that.  By definition it would only impact firearms that provide no added functional value to law abiding gun owners, many of which could avoid restriction via retrofit such as the Cross Armory Fixed mag.


I just watched the video on the Cross Armory Fixed Mag. That thing is so simple and ingenious. 

They should make the law this: all semi-auto center-fire rifles that are capable of accepting a detachable magazine with a greater than 5 round capacity must be modified to include a non-removable magazine with a 5-round capacity.

There, everyone is happy.


----------



## Eaglelord17 (9 Dec 2022)

How about we don't bother with any magazine restrictions and let law abiding citizens do as they please?

If you have no defensible argument as to the restrictions you want, then there is no need for them. California bothers with all that fixed magazine crap and all it does it frustrates the law abiding. 

Magazine restrictions mean nothing. You already have a firearm, if your intent is to do harm you will do so. Just as if you intend to do harm and have a truck you will do so. Welcome to society where you can't control everyones actions and must accept there are risks involved in being part of it.


----------



## IKnowNothing (9 Dec 2022)

Eaglelord17 said:


> How about we don't bother with any magazine restrictions and let law abiding citizens do as they please?


Law abiding citizens have no use for a centre-fire mag that exceeds 5 rounds.

Also, retrofit to a fixed mag isn't a "mag restriction", it changes the functional properties of the firearm


----------



## Eaglelord17 (9 Dec 2022)

IKnowNothing said:


> Law abiding citizens have no use for a mag that exceeds 5 rounds.


Based off what? Your judgement? Tell that to me when a criminal is firebombing my house with the intent to kill me (real world example, Ian Thompson).

Law abiding citizens also have no need for personal transportation, owning property, and frankly anything other than food, water, and shelter.

Technically no one has anymore need for a firearm beyond a muzzleloader, as you can hunt anything on the continent with it. 

Magazine restrictions do nothing to prevent crime, again you already have the firearm. If your intent is to do harm whether or not the magazine is 5rds, 10rds, or 30rds your going to do about the same amount of damage.


----------



## IKnowNothing (9 Dec 2022)

Eaglelord17 said:


> Based off what? Your judgement?


Canadian law.  You literally stop/stopped being a law abiding citizen when you exceed/exceeded it.


----------



## Eaglelord17 (9 Dec 2022)

IKnowNothing said:


> Canadian law.  You literally stop/stopped being a law abiding citizen when you exceed/exceeded it.


Wrong, you can have more than 5rds, my Lee Enfield or Swiss 1889 being examples. Semi-auto rifle magazines are currently limited to 5, but again I argue it is a indefensible position. 

It is based off the argument of someone deciding to go on a shooting spree having to reload more times with a 5rd magazine than a greater capacity magazine. I argue if we are at the point of a shooting spree our laws have already failed and it doesn't matter what capacity magazine we have, they are still going to do about equal amounts of damage. One of the deadliest school shootings in the States for example took place with a 6 shot revolver and a pump action shotgun. 

Generally people that do those types of events plan some sort of attack, it isn't spur of the moment. They will do what they can to maximize damage, be it driving a vehicle into people, or shooting someone. 

The magazine restriction is arbitrary and accomplishes nothing other than frustrating law abiding citizens. How many gangbangers caught in Toronto have pinned magazines?


----------



## IKnowNothing (9 Dec 2022)

Eaglelord17 said:


> Wrong, you can have more than 5rds, my Lee Enfield or Swiss 1889 being examples. *Semi-auto rifle magazines are* currently limited to 5, but again I argue it is a indefensible position.
> 
> It is based off the argument of someone deciding to go on a shooting spree having to reload more times with a 5rd magazine than a greater capacity magazine. I argue if we are at the point of a shooting spree our laws have already failed and it doesn't matter what capacity magazine we have, *they are still going to do about equal amounts of damage.* One of the deadliest school shootings in the States for example took place with a 6 shot revolver and a pump action shotgun.


Semi-auto rifle magazines... are the topic of discussion.

And that's nonsense .  Are you actually claiming, that all equal (shooter, planning, calibre, victim/LE response) shooter X with a 5 shot fixed that they have to top feed is "going to do equal amounts of damage" as shooter x (again same person) with a series of 30 round mags?


----------



## Lumber (9 Dec 2022)

Eaglelord17 said:


> The magazine restriction is arbitrary and accomplishes nothing other than frustrating law abiding citizens. How many gangbangers caught in Toronto have pinned magazines?


Are there really that many law abiding citizens that are frustrated that their semi auto only has a 5 round magazine?


----------



## KevinB (9 Dec 2022)

IKnowNothing said:


> I think we are. That being the case,  I have to point out that the only time I mentioned suicide was to explicitly exclude it as I'm in in complete agreement that its not germane to the conversation.
> 
> Re the bold, I also have to point out that the hypothetical that was initially presented was an aim to fix just that.  By definition it would only impact firearms that provide no added functional value to law abiding gun owners, many of which could avoid restriction via retrofit such as the Cross Armory Fixed mag.


Who defines functional value? 
   If I have a belt fed machine gun (I do) who’s to say it doesn’t have functional value as a law abiding shooter? 

Many shooting sports use semi automatic firearms with magazines that exceed Canada’s silly provisions.


----------



## Eaglelord17 (9 Dec 2022)

IKnowNothing said:


> Semi-auto rifle magazines... are the topic of discussion.
> 
> And that's nonsense .  Are you actually claiming, that all equal (shooter, planning, calibre, victim/LE response) shooter X with a 5 shot fixed that they have to top feed is "going to do equal amounts of damage" as shooter x (again same person) with a series of 30 round mags?


Yes because again they are going to plan out their attack. The reality of most mass shooting events is the casualties happen fairly fast. People run away quickly unless there is some other factor in play (such as the stadium shooting in the states which was a venue designed to restrict flow of people purposely). Usually the maximum casualties in these situations are around 10, with most being less than that. There are exemptions but they are the exemption not the rule.

If you have any knowledge of firearms, it is very easy to modify and adapt them in different ways. Why could they not just modify it to use a detachable magazine again? The SKS is a great example of a fixed magazine rifle which people have manufactured detachable magazines for it, be it by adapters or specialty magazines. Why should we inconvenience law abiding citizens who are the only ones effected by this, due to your irrational fears?


Lumber said:


> Are there really that many law abiding citizens that are frustrated that their semi auto only has a 5 round magazine?


Yes, everyone I know hates it and thinks it is stupid because it doesn't do anything. All you need to do is take a look at the efforts many will make to adopt pistol magazines into a rifle to understand how much we attempt to follow the law in spite of it being stupid. I personally hate it the most when using my SKS because those 10rd stripper clips usually drop a extra round in the first time loading the magazine (not 6 in the mag, 5 in the mag and one floating about in the action) and I then have to fish it out before I can use it. Or if there was no pin, it would simply be putting 10rds in and done.


----------



## Eaglelord17 (9 Dec 2022)

Lumber said:


> Are there really that many law abiding citizens that are frustrated that their semi auto only has a 5 round magazine?


Also another factor is range time and effort. Personally I mainly shoot bolt actions which I load with stripper clips, I just don't find semi-autos as fun. That being said I would enjoy it less if I had to individually load every round in the magazine every time I went to shoot, especially in the winter.

I like having my stripper clips loaded and ready to go when I head to the range. If I have a magazine fed semi-auto I also like to have those magazines loaded up before hand. With a 5rd capacity I either have to buy a ton of magazines, or be constantly reloading them at the range, which takes and fun out of what I am supposed to be doing there, shooting. It is also a lot more fumbling around at the range line, which where I am isn't busy but some ranges it is and you could be taking a spot away from someone else shooting.


----------



## Jarnhamar (9 Dec 2022)

Lumber said:


> I just watched the video on the Cross Armory Fixed Mag. That thing is so simple and ingenious.
> 
> They should make the law this: all semi-auto center-fire rifles that are capable of accepting a detachable magazine with a greater than 5 round capacity must be modified to include a non-removable magazine with a 5-round capacity.
> 
> There, everyone is happy.



A 12 GA from a double barrel shotgun will explode someone's head at close range (and be reloadable in a couple of seconds) and a "hunting rifle" commonly used for dropping 800lb to 1200lb moose is going to make a real mess of a human torso. Hunting rifles will outshoot and outhit police carbines.

After semi-autos are banned we're just a homicide away from having to take high-powered sniper rifles out of people's hands. Or devastating close-ranged weapons like the Remington 870. PolySeSouvient already posted (and deleted) a tweet about going after sniper rifles next.


----------



## IKnowNothing (9 Dec 2022)

Eaglelord17 said:


> Yes, everyone I know hates it and thinks it is stupid because it doesn't do anything. All you need to do is take a look at the efforts many will make to adopt pistol magazines into a rifle to understand how much we attempt to follow the law in spite of it being stupid. I personally hate it the most when using my SKS because those 10rd stripper clips usually drop a extra round in the first time loading the magazine (not 6 in the mag, 5 in the mag and one floating about in the action) and I then have to fish it out before I can use it. Or if there was no pin, it would simply be putting 10rds in and done.


Respectfully I don't think you and I are going to find common ground on the core of this. I'm just too fuddy. But...

A. I actually agree that imposing the 5 round limit historical/vintage types (SKS/Garand) with reasonably low but not 5 fixed capacity is silly.
B. I wholehearted agree that bolt's are more fun.  There's just something... satisfying? in the action and more rewarding at the practice required to get back on target quickly without compromising the 1st shot.


----------



## Booter (9 Dec 2022)

Jarnhamar said:


> A 12 GA from a double barrel shotgun will explode someone's head at close range (and be reloadable in a couple of seconds) and a "hunting rifle" commonly used for dropping 800lb to 1200lb moose is going to make a real mess of a human torso. Hunting rifles will outshoot and outhit police carbines.
> 
> After semi-autos are banned we're just a homicide away from having to take high-powered sniper rifles out of people's hands. Or devastating close-ranged weapons like the Remington 870. PolySeSouvient already posted (and deleted) a tweet about going after sniper rifles next.


This is actually really true- the idea that we walk past precision rifles is only temporary. They’ll be next.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (9 Dec 2022)

Halifax Tar said:


> I have a Martini Enfield carbine   Sadly I think its life is over and it will transition into a wall hanger as well.  I cant find someone to do a barrel swap on it


What did you want to rebarrel it to?


----------



## Fishbone Jones (9 Dec 2022)

calculus said:


> More on the "Poly" controversy:


The liberals will soak this for all of its worth. It's  not the first time they've, stood in front of the Canadian citizens and blatantly lied through their teeth to the entire population.
No one else even cares about this except firearms owners, polysouvient and lying liberals. Nobody else is tracking this.

It's all another tempest in a teacup created by the PMO spin factory. It has zero bearing on C-21. Anyone still bothered by this already had their minds made up prior to the incident.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (9 Dec 2022)

IKnowNothing said:


> Law abiding citizens have no use for a centre-fire mag that exceeds 5 rounds.
> 
> Also, retrofit to a fixed mag isn't a "mag restriction", it changes the functional properties of the firearm


May I ask? Are you even a PAL holder with firearms?

How many more arbitrary rules are you willing to be subjected to in order to enjoy your chosen sport?

I am a law abiding citizen and firearm owner. Do not presume to tell me what I need and what I don't need. You sound like trudeau.


----------



## Jarnhamar (9 Dec 2022)

IKnowNothing said:


> Semi-auto rifle magazines... are the topic of discussion.
> 
> And that's nonsense .  Are you actually claiming, that all equal (shooter, planning, calibre, victim/LE response) shooter X with a 5 shot fixed that they have to top feed is "going to do equal amounts of damage" as shooter x (again same person) with a series of 30 round mags?



The what's more dangerous game is always disingenuous when discussing banning firearms.

You ever see what a one-ounce 12GA slug can do to a head? I have. I have a couple of pump-action shotguns that hold 7 rounds and 15 rounds of 12 GA. That's a lot of lead out of the barrel in seconds. And each slug is 8x the weight of an AR15 bullet. 

Do you think those pump-action shotguns should have restrictions on their capacity?


----------



## Booter (9 Dec 2022)

I own no guns anymore. I just train what I use at work now. My problem with the mag capacity and “assault” firearm conversation is a Matter of no one “needing”.

That’s not a place I want the government coming at on anything. No One needs “junk food” or a vehicle that uses “too Much fuel” or “so much a year” for salary, it’s not a good place to have any conversation about government involvement in anything from. 

Sure it’s just guns- but there is a paternalistic tone to it from people I wouldn’t trust to move a couch without damaging the walls. They love to tell you what you need or when you have enough. Oddly it’s never squared at them, 

There isn’t a demonstrated goal for the legislation that actually results in dealing with crime or creating safety,
In the absence of demonstrated utility of legislation it’s an over reach and offends me at my libertarian core.

If someone wants to hurt school children they’ll fashion explosives if they have to. Will they then ban those items as well that can be used? 

There is a will to hurt people- you can make it happen. You deal with those
People and You don’t flock shoot your people for the illusion of safety, next it’s something else “unsafe”


----------



## Fishbone Jones (9 Dec 2022)

Jarnhamar said:


> The what's more dangerous game is always disingenuous when discussing banning firearms.
> 
> You ever see what a one-ounce 12GA slug can do to a head? I have. I have a couple of pump-action shotguns that hold 7 rounds and 15 rounds of 12 GA. That's a lot of lead out of the barrel in seconds. And each slug is 8x the weight of an AR15 bullet.
> 
> Do you think those pump-action shotguns should have restrictions on their capacity?


Jeez Jarn, you know everytime we mention something not on the list, it magically appears there a couple of weeks later. Stop it!😁

Just for shits and giggles, both of these were shot with Lee Enfield SMLE. 10 round mag and stripper clips. A mad minute is the amount of ammo you can accurately put down range in 60 seconds.

The first Mad Minute record was set by Sergeant Major Jesse Wallingford in 1908, scoring 36 hits on a 48-inch target at 300 yards (4.5 mils/ 15.3 moa).[1]

Another world record of 38 hits, all within the 24 inch target at 300 yards (2.25 mils/ 7.6 moa), is said to have been set in about 1914 by a Sergt.-Instructor Snoxall.[2] ‘Sergt.-Instructor Snoxall’ was probably Sergeant Frank Snoxell of the Loyal North Lancashire Regiment, 

You don't need a semi to lay down volumous fire. Speed, skill and training.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (9 Dec 2022)

I don't know FJ.

If you are suddenly and unexpectedly being charged by a fully grown up moose bull, I think you would prefer a semi-automatic to "speed, skill and training".


----------



## GK .Dundas (9 Dec 2022)

There was a reason that double rifles were popular in Africa.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (10 Dec 2022)

GK .Dundas said:


> There was a reason that double rifles were popular in Africa.


And the guide was carrying a .500 Nitro Express.


Oldgateboatdriver said:


> I don't know FJ.
> 
> If you are suddenly and unexpectedly being charged by a fully grown up moose bull, I think you would prefer a semi-automatic to "speed, skill and training".


I wasn't advocating that. I just posted it for interest. For those that think a five round mag limit will solve things.


----------



## Weinie (10 Dec 2022)

Fishbone Jones said:


> *And the guide was carrying a .500 Nitro Express.*
> 
> I wasn't advocating that. I just posted it for interest. For those that think a five round mag limit will solve things.


Oh yeah. Giddy-up.


----------



## KevinB (10 Dec 2022)

Fishbone Jones said:


> Jeez Jarn, you know everytime we mention something not on the list, it magically appears there a couple of weeks later. Stop it!😁
> 
> Just for shits and giggles, both of these were shot with Lee Enfield SMLE. 10 round mag and stripper clips. A mad minute is the amount of ammo you can accurately put down range in 60 seconds.
> 
> ...


Several years ago a now retired member of FBI’s HRT filmed a video (foolishly in their compound, as when he showed it to me I pointed out that it was pretty obvious where it was done ) showing how stupid mag capacity laws are.   
  He used 1 Glock mag loaded to 5 rounds. 
 He then would hand load 5 rounds into the magazine when he ran dry, reload and continue shooting targets  — he got through 103 rounds in the time of the average LE response to a a school shooting (and he bobbled one reload) 
  That was 20 different reloads each taking rounds from a box and loading them into the magazine.  

His point was like many, that people intent to do evil will do evil regardless of laws to the contrary.  

Mass Murders have been committed with explosives, vehicles, a hammer, and believe it or not a conch shell.


----------



## Good2Golf (10 Dec 2022)

And that’s assuming a baddy wouldn’t just pop the rivets in the mags…


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (10 Dec 2022)

https://www.cbc.ca/news/indigenous/afn-resolution-gun-control-legislation-1.6679444
		


Trudeau screwed the pooch with this one 🤣


I can't wait to see the stick handling!


----------



## FSTO (10 Dec 2022)

I was chatting with my lefty daughter yesterday about how razor thin our society is when it comes to the contract between the citizenry and the institutions that govern our lives. Basically we follow your rules as long as they are reasonable and you don’t make our lives miserable. Push the populace too far and the house of cards come down. Examples? Imperial Russia, the Balkans post soviet collapse, Iran today, and even China is starting to crack. Not saying we are close to that, but if the Convoy did anything it showed that the populace is frustrated and our Institutions need to be better at explaining why they do what they do. Once the institutions get the rep they are full of shit the population loses respect for the laid down rules and at best they just ignore them, at worst they rise up in rebellion.


----------



## GK .Dundas (10 Dec 2022)

FSTO said:


> I was chatting with my lefty daughter yesterday about how razor thin our society is when it comes to the contract between the citizenry and the institutions that govern our lives. Basically we follow your rules as long as they are reasonable and you don’t make our lives miserable. Push the populace too far and the house of cards come down. Examples? Imperial Russia, the Balkans post soviet collapse, Iran today, and even China is starting to crack. Not saying we are close to that, but if the Convoy did anything it showed that the populace is frustrated and our Institutions need to be better at explaining why they do what they do. Once the institutions get the rep they are full of shit the population loses respect for the laid down rules and at best they just ignore them, at worst they rise up in rebellion.


Absolutely..but that would require those institutions to actually... well talk to the peasants.


----------



## Brad Sallows (10 Dec 2022)

FSTO said:


> Once the institutions get the rep they are full of shit the population loses respect for the laid down rules and at best they just ignore them, at worst they rise up in rebellion.


It's a curious experiment - people with political and administrative power working hard to piss off the one part of the population that traditionally respected by default the people with political and administrative power.  The friction of millions of people finding tiny ways to "go Galt" - to be marginally less co-operative - will be considerable.


----------



## Eaglelord17 (10 Dec 2022)

I personally believe the citzenry have the right to rebel if the suituation demands it (we are no where near that at the moment, think USSR, Nazi Germany, China, etc.). Our democracy is actually based on it. 

People think that the US is the only one who lead a revolution but about 100 years prior we had the English civil war which established our constitutional monarchy. This also cemented the right to bear arms in what should be our legal system as per the 1689 Bill of Rights, which we should note was never repealed, even if the supreme court refuses to recognize that. We many not have the second amendment, but we do have the statute it was based on written into our laws. It is interesting how the court will ignore our legal rights when its in their favour.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (10 Dec 2022)

GK .Dundas said:


> Absolutely..but that would require those institutions to actually... well talk to the peasants.


I enforced Federal legislation in the Yukon and Northern BC. It helped very much that I had worked outside of government and I knew the purpose and the history of the legislation I was enforcing. (2nd oldest Act in Canada) If I did things up there the way many bureaucrats do it in the south, they would have found my body drifting down a river or shot full of holes. Often you had to take time to create a relationship and show some genuine care and understanding of the people and what they had to do to survive. I started my office career under some old school bosses where "Service to the People" was super important.


----------



## Lumber (11 Dec 2022)

FSTO said:


> I was chatting with my lefty daughter yesterday about how razor thin our society is when it comes to the contract between the citizenry and the institutions that govern our lives. Basically we follow your rules as long as they are reasonable and you don’t make our lives miserable. Push the populace too far and the house of cards come down. Examples? Imperial Russia, the Balkans post soviet collapse, Iran today, and even China is starting to crack. Not saying we are close to that, but if the Convoy did anything it showed that the populace is frustrated and our Institutions need to be better at explaining why they do what they do. Once the institutions get the rep they are full of shit the population loses respect for the laid down rules and at best they just ignore them, at worst they rise up in rebellion.


Oh dont be so dramatic. Our institutions, specifically health Canada and the regional health authorities, did a perfectly fine job explaining why mandates were important. All the convoy did was reveal that some of Canada's finest lack empathy, and some critical thinking skills.


----------



## Lumber (11 Dec 2022)

Eaglelord17 said:


> How about we don't bother with any magazine restrictions and let law abiding citizens do as they please?


Your argument basically boils down to "if I'm jot hurting any body else, there should be no law against it" which is an awfully naïve way of living in a society (or libertarian, which I guess is the same thing).


----------



## Lumber (11 Dec 2022)

Eaglelord17 said:


> People think that the US is the only one who lead a revolution but about 100 years prior we had the English civil war which established our constitutional monarchy. This also cemented the right to bear arms in what should be our legal system as per the 1689 Bill of Rights, which we should note was never repealed, even if the supreme court refuses to recognize that. We many not have the second amendment, but we do have the statute it was based on written into our laws. It is interesting how the court will ignore our legal rights when its in their favour.


Holy crap, are you THE Bruce Montague?


----------



## SeaKingTacco (11 Dec 2022)

Lumber said:


> Your argument basically boils down to "if I'm jot hurting any body else, there should be no law against it" which is an awfully naïve way of living in a society (or libertarian, which I guess is the same thing).


But that is literally the principle western society is based on.

Any law we do have should be the least amount required to do the job and infringe no more on personal freedoms than is absolutely necessary.

Which is where Canada’s current gun laws come into play. Some them are perfectly reasonable restrictions. Many of the rest are a patch work of often illogical and sometimes contradictory rules that are vexatious, at best and seem designed by people whose’s starting premise seems to be that governments have an inherent role to decide what a citizen ”needs” (often justified by the very paternalistic phrase “nobody in Canada needs xxxxxx”). That is a dangerous path to go down.


----------



## Furniture (11 Dec 2022)

Lumber said:


> Oh dont be so dramatic. Our institutions, specifically health Canada and the regional health authorities, did a perfectly fine job explaining why mandates were important. All the convoy did was reveal that some of Canada's finest lack empathy, and some critical thinking skills.


So it was reasonable, and scientifically defendable to close outside spaces like parks? Outside spaces with lots of UV light, the kind of light that destroys viruses? 

It wasn't Health Canada that did it, but Ontario did... Now, you being an obvious superior intellect might get that Ontario and Canada aren't the same, but to Jane/Jamal Public, government is government. 

You can be as indignant as you want about the pedantic points of governance in Canada as it pleases you to be, it doesn't change the reality that many Canadians have less time/respect for government interference in their lives that they previously had. People are only willing to have governments interfere with their lives to a point. Smart governments try to not come anywhere near that point... Governments in Canada weren't particularly smart.


----------



## Eaglelord17 (11 Dec 2022)

Lumber said:


> Your argument basically boils down to "if I'm jot hurting any body else, there should be no law against it" which is an awfully naïve way of living in a society (or libertarian, which I guess is the same thing).



Basically, which is how our society is designed and functions. Welcome to classical liberalism, the ideal of maximum personal freedoms with only having laws where necessary. It is naive to believe that isn’t how we should function. 

If a law does nothing to prevent or protect, and simply hinders someone else it shouldn’t be a law. I would argue at that point it becomes a violation of your right to life liberty and security of the person and as such should be struck down. 



Lumber said:


> Holy crap, are you THE Bruce Montague?


I am not, simply that it can be argued we do have a right to bear arms. 

I tend to view society as a series of violent interactions. We have laws, which if you refuse to follow we shall use force to make you comply up to and including killing you. I don’t like the idea of the government having a monopoly on that force, call it a check and balance. 

Odds are that balance is never needed, it simply being there helps keep them in line. There are groups in Canada that understand this, look at the Oka Crisis where armed natives stood up for what they considered their rights. If they weren’t armed they wouldn’t have been taken seriously at all. 

Venezuela is a excellent example of where gun control can lead, 2012 bans private ownership of firearms, by 2015 they have a dictatorship up and running.


----------



## FSTO (11 Dec 2022)

Lumber said:


> Oh dont be so dramatic. Our institutions, specifically health Canada and the regional health authorities, did a perfectly fine job explaining why mandates were important. All the convoy did was reveal that some of Canada's finest lack empathy, and some critical thinking skills.


Back when I was a wee lad (1970’s) and purchased a semi automatic .22, I had to take the hunter’s safety course and get a Firearms Acquisition Certificate from the RCMP before I could get my hands on the rifle. Perfectly reasonable requirements. 
Then the Liberals brought in gun control legislation and instead of modernizing the FAC they went full LPC and spent huge sums of money, created nothing, and pissed off everyone. Most folks at the time said they weren’t going to follow the legislation and I never heard about one inspection by the RCMP to see if anyone had registered their firearms. 
My old .22 is still at the farm, I’ve never bothered to register it, don’t know if my brother has. I’ll bet my pension that there are many many more non registered small arms out there. 
Our institutions need buy-in from the populace for legitimacy, slowly but surely they are losing it from the populace who are the most pro law and order cohort in the land.


----------



## Lumber (11 Dec 2022)

SeaKingTacco said:


> But that is literally the principle western society is based on.
> 
> Any law we do have should be the least amount required to do the job and infringe no more on personal freedoms than is absolutely necessary.
> 
> Which is where Canada’s current gun laws come into play. Some them are perfectly reasonable restrictions. Many of the rest are a patch work of often illogical and sometimes contradictory rules that are vexatious, at best and seem designed by people whose’s starting premise seems to be that governments have an inherent role to decide what a citizen ”needs” (often justified by the very paternalistic phrase “nobody in Canada needs xxxxxx”). That is a dangerous path to go down.


You and I don't disagree on this. 

The only thing I'm arguing against is the the overarching position Eagle Lord has (and if he actually doesn't, he's doing a good job of making it look like he does). It's the same one that I have seen taken by many of the more ardently pro-gun during the decade and a half that I've discussed/debated gun laws, which is this: if what _I'm_ doing isn't hurting anybody, it should not be illegal, period. It's overly simplistic and not taking into account the complexities and realities of human society and the potential consequences of unfettered individual liberty.


----------



## Lumber (11 Dec 2022)

Furniture said:


> So it was reasonable, and scientifically defendable to close outside spaces like parks? Outside spaces with lots of UV light, the kind of light that destroys viruses?


Yes. Part of the reason that parks (and travel to your own cottage even) were shut down was not because of the threat of disease transmission at those places, but because they wanted people to stop moving around as much, thus reducing accidents, and reducing the potential the strain on the health care system. They explained that very clearly. #staytheblazeshome


----------



## Lumber (11 Dec 2022)

Eaglelord17 said:


> If a law does nothing to prevent or protect, and simply hinders someone else it shouldn’t be a law. I would argue at that point it becomes a violation of your right to life liberty and security of the person and as such should be struck down.


While individual rights and freedoms are important, they must sometimes be balanced against the greater good of society.



Eaglelord17 said:


> I am not, simply that it can be argued we do have a right to bear arms.


You "could", but someone else already tried, and the supreme court made it very clear that the English Bill of Rights of 1689 was never meant to be included in any way whatsoever as an aspect, even in reference, of the constitution of Canada.


----------



## Eaglelord17 (11 Dec 2022)

Lumber said:


> While individual rights and freedoms are important, they must sometimes be balanced against the greater good of society.


There is no greater good than individual rights and freedoms. ‘Greater Good’ is how the communists justified cleansing their societies. ‘Greater Good’ is how we justified the residential schools. ‘Greater Good’ is a term used to justify wrong doings for a outcome someone considers desirable in spite of the harm it will do to some. 

Guaranteeing equal rights and treatment (i.e. individual rights and freedoms) is the best humanity can do.


----------



## Lumber (11 Dec 2022)

Eaglelord17 said:


> There is no greater good than individual rights and freedoms. ‘Greater Good’ is how the communists justified cleansing their societies. ‘Greater Good’ is how we justified the residential schools. ‘Greater Good’ is a term used to justify wrong doings for a outcome someone considers desirable in spite of the harm it will do to some.
> 
> Guaranteeing equal rights and treatment (i.e. individual rights and freedoms) is the best humanity can do.


I'd like to drive my car home after a few beers, and I'm usually safe to do it, but it's illegal for everyone to do it because of the greater good. 

I'd like to drive my car at 200kph on the highway, and as an experience race car driver, I can do it, but for the greater good of society, it's illegal. 

I want to be able to shoot toward a residential property at close range when hunting. I'm a really good shot and can ensure that I don't aim directly at a house, but for the greater good of society, that's illegal too. 

I think what a person consumes is a personal choice, so if they want to smoke, I should be allowed to smoke, but we've established that people, especially youth, are extremely impressionable, and smoking is harmful, so we've estbalished laws restricting  marketing cigarettes for the greater good of society. 

I could go on.


----------



## KevinB (11 Dec 2022)

Lumber said:


> I'd like to drive my car home after a few beers, and I'm usually safe to do it, but it's illegal for everyone to do it because of the greater good.
> 
> I'd like to drive my car at 200kph on the highway, and as an experience race car driver, I can do it, but for the greater good of society, it's illegal.
> 
> ...


All of those things you mentioned are dangerous to public safety in the manner you described.  

Lawful Firearms Ownership and Usage is not dangerous regardless of the Firearm.


----------



## Lumber (11 Dec 2022)

KevinB said:


> All of those things you mentioned are dangerous to public safety in the manner you described.
> 
> Lawful Firearms Ownership and Usage is not dangerous regardless of the Firearm.


Ok, I can see why this isn't entirely obvious becuase it is nuanced, and because well, we're in the gun laws thread, but, I'm not arguing here against gun rights, I'm arguing against eagle lord's libertarian viewpoint in general.

I also do not see any threat from lawful gun ownership.


----------



## suffolkowner (11 Dec 2022)

Libertarianism in its extreme isnt going to work in our large populations. We just bump up against each other too much. Reasonable people are just arguing over whats reasonable. The problem is most of the general population encouraged by the Liberal government doesnt have enough education on this topic to discuss it reasonably. That people still cannot differentiate between a semi-automatic and fully automatic is just one example. Its not just Eaglelord thats not harming anyone its all firearms owners. There has been no demonstrated public harm from legal firearms ownership in Canada. There also is no explanation on how the banning of these firearms will contribute to public safety. They cant because if the firearms are never confiscated or turned in like in Australia or New Zealand any downturn in gun homicides or mass murders must be due to some other factors. Personally the government can say I dont have the right to a firearm all they want, it doesnt pass the smell test with me. Are they going to limit me to bow and arrow? How long before they come for them? The mistake they made when they came for clearly hunting firearms was that it was obvious to the general population that uncle joe with his shotgun was being targetted


----------



## Jarnhamar (11 Dec 2022)

Lumber said:


> I also do not see any threat from lawful gun ownership.



Neither does the prime minister. Lawful gun owners just don't need semi automatics.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (11 Dec 2022)

KevinB said:


> Lawful Firearms Ownership and Usage is not dangerous regardless of the Firearm.



But for such ownership and usage to be lawful, doesn't there have to be rules on permissible ownership and permissible use for the greater public good, so that you can actually compare your personnal ownership and usage  and actually determine that it is lawful?

In the US, beause of the noise around the second amendment, many people say the answer is no.

In Canada, we tend (even lawful gun owners) to say the answer is yes, and therefore it becomes a political matter for debate by our elected representatives. The problem with the current governement's actions in this regard is that they are not debating, they are dictating, and doing so within a context where they do not even try to explain what their actual objective is for the law and how what they try to implement achieves this objective.

If they did, they would have to admit that what they are doing is not aimed at reducing gun violence but at making gun ownership so onerous that most people won't want to try, thus creating their wedge issue to win election. If they made that admission, they would get trounced. If they stated they want to redude gun violence, they would probably see most of what they propose be trounced by all proper experts on the subject (such as local police chiefs) because their proposed rules change nothing to the source of gun violence in Canada (mostly gangs and illegal black market gun acquisition).


----------



## KevinB (11 Dec 2022)

Oldgateboatdriver said:


> But for such ownership and usage to be lawful, doesn't there have to be rules on permissible ownership and permissible use for the greater public good, so that you can actually compare your personnal ownership and usage  and actually determine that it is lawful?
> 
> In the US, beause of the noise around the second amendment, many people say the answer is no.


Common Law is based on the the principle that everything is legal, unless it is illegal.
   We have was against Murder, Assault etc, as long as one isn't violating those, ones firearms usage should thus be lawful.
 Careless or Criminal Usage then has penalties.



Oldgateboatdriver said:


> In Canada, we tend (even lawful gun owners) to say the answer is yes, and therefore it becomes a political matter for debate by our elected representatives. The problem with the current governement's actions in this regard is that they are not debating, they are dictating, and doing so within a context where they do not even try to explain what their actual objective is for the law and how what they try to implement achieves this objective.
> 
> If they did, they would have to admit that what they are doing is not aimed at reducing gun violence but at making gun ownership so onerous that most people won't want to try, thus creating their wedge issue to win election. If they made that admission, they would get trounced. If they stated they want to redude gun violence, they would probably see most of what they propose be trounced by all proper experts on the subject (such as local police chiefs) because their proposed rules change nothing to the source of gun violence in Canada (mostly gangs and illegal black market gun acquisition).


Boiling Frogs...
   Unitended Consequences reference.


----------



## FSTO (11 Dec 2022)

Oldgateboatdriver said:


> But for such ownership and usage to be lawful, doesn't there have to be rules on permissible ownership and permissible use for the greater public good, so that you can actually compare your personnal ownership and usage  and actually determine that it is lawful?
> 
> In the US, beause of the noise around the second amendment, many people say the answer is no.
> 
> ...


Doesn’t help that the point man Mendicino is a lying sack of goat poo.


----------



## Brad Sallows (11 Dec 2022)

Lumber said:


> I could go on.


And a lot of people do, being cavalier with the pastimes of others, and that's a problem.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (11 Dec 2022)

Brad Sallows said:


> And a lot of people do, being cavalier with the pastimes of others, and that's a problem.


And livelihoods…


----------



## suffolkowner (11 Dec 2022)

Brad Sallows said:


> And a lot of people do, being cavalier with the pastimes of others, and that's a problem.


I dont consider my firearms to be a hobby. I guess I could put down a horse or cow with an arrow instead of a bullet or call the vet if time allows, but that is not as viable as it once was when vets were plentiful, not many vets for large animals anymore. For me they are tools. I can accept the governments right to regulate them reasonably. The OIC exceeded that IMO.


----------



## ArmyRick (11 Dec 2022)

Lumber said:


> This is not a question designed to elicit a "gotcha" moment; as a non-hunter I am literally just ignorant:
> 
> How many of you and/or how often while hunting did you:
> a. use a semi-auto rifle while hunting; and
> ...


Try euthanizing an injured bull. You really want a powerful and preferably semi-automatic firearm.

Get a clue. The Trudeau Liberals will not stop there. Its only a matter of time before ALL firearms are banned.


----------



## ArmyRick (11 Dec 2022)

It doesn't matter what goes on the list, what doesn't.

The Trudeau use gun violence to make a "score points" useless bill and disarm future protestors. 

The line really has to be drawn here. Trudeau won't stop at this. Eventually he wants ALL firearms banned. He said before he was PM on hunting "If people need meat, they can go to a grocery store..."

That is his mind set. End story. None of this will stop one ounce of gun crime. No metrics that make sense will be used to show the effectiveness of this nonsensical bill. 

@Lumber , I don't get you. Your like the abused wife who constantly defends an abusive husband. When are you (and people like you) going to call out the Trudeau Liberals for their complete lack of integrity, accountability and transparency?


----------



## Brad Sallows (11 Dec 2022)

ArmyRick said:


> Get a clue. The Trudeau Liberals will not stop there. Its only a matter of time before ALL firearms are banned.


At this point, bad faith by the Liberals has been established.  Foolish to expect restrictions to not increase in future.


----------



## Lumber (11 Dec 2022)

ArmyRick said:


> Try euthanizing an injured bull. You really want a powerful and preferably semi-automatic firearm.
> 
> Get a clue. The Trudeau Liberals will not stop there. Its only a matter of time before ALL firearms are banned.


Simmer down. There was literally NOTHING in my post other than a question: a non-hunter asking hunters for an elaboration on the frequency of use of certain fire arms and their function.


----------



## Lumber (11 Dec 2022)

ArmyRick said:


> @Lumber , I don't get you. Your like the abused wife who constantly defends an abusive husband. When are you (and people like you) going to call out the Trudeau Liberals for their complete lack of integrity, accountability and transparency?


Simmer down x2. You don't get me because you can't differentiate between what I actually wrote, and what the angry voice in your head says that I wrote. I haven't once defended Trudeau's gun policies.


----------



## ArmyRick (11 Dec 2022)

Dude, I am simmered down. 

This goes way beyond Trudeau's "gun policies". Or his handling of anything from relationships with China to How he handles protestors, Its the Trudeau Liberals and their mind set.


----------



## ArmyRick (11 Dec 2022)

My guess is this, Trudeau knows he looks really bad at the Trucker EA Inquiry. So he needs another distraction. Insert this ridicolous additional list of firearms to the bill at the 11th hour. 

Unacceptable governing. What really makes me sick, is the people of this country who keep supporting this bone headed, silver spoon fed rich boy and his clown band of Liberals.


----------



## Lumber (11 Dec 2022)

ArmyRick said:


> Dude, I am simmered down.
> 
> This goes way beyond Trudeau's "gun policies". Or his handling of anything from relationships with China to How he handles protestors, Its the Trudeau Liberals and their mind set.


No, it doesn't, and thank you for making my point. I'm discussing libertarianism vs collectivism as a potential justification for gun rights and gun laws, and you come out of nowhere drag me into the realm of being a Trudeau apologist.


----------



## ArmyRick (11 Dec 2022)




----------



## ArmyRick (11 Dec 2022)

Lumber said:


> No, it doesn't, and thank you for making my point. I'm discussing libertarianism vs collectivism as a potential justification for gun rights and gun laws, and you come out of nowhere drag me into the realm of being a Trudeau apologist.


So which are you?


----------



## Jarnhamar (11 Dec 2022)

Lumber said:


> Simmer down. There was literally NOTHING in my post other than a question: a non-hunter asking hunters for an elaboration on the frequency of use of certain fire arms and their function.


I respect you asking open minded questions about hunting. Like you I'm not a hunter.

Can I pick your brain and ask you why (or if you think) hunters having a semiautomatic firearm vs non-semiauto matters?

Or are you just curious about people's views on it?


----------



## Eaglelord17 (11 Dec 2022)

Lumber said:


> I'd like to drive my car home after a few beers, and I'm usually safe to do it, but it's illegal for everyone to do it because of the greater good.
> 
> I'd like to drive my car at 200kph on the highway, and as an experience race car driver, I can do it, but for the greater good of society, it's illegal.
> 
> ...


First off I am not a Libertarian, I am a Classical Liberal. What that means is maximum personal freedoms with only reasonable restrictions as required. That doesn’t mean I am against laws, just that you have to justify them all and they have to be applied evenly. 

It isn’t a greater good to restrict drinking and driving, there is clearly quantifiable cause and effect, I.E. beer messes up your mental state and therefore substantially increases the risk to all. You are guaranteeing the same treatment to everyone. There isn’t a greater good to speed limits, usually it is very quantifiable based off the roads which are designed, the speeds the vehicle is capable off and the ability of the average driver. There isn’t a greater good to ensure people are shooting in safe directions, again extremely quantifable and perfectly allowable under a classical liberal society like Canada. 

What isn’t reasonable is arbitrary restrictions such as we are going to ban all magazine fed semi-auto firearms when there isn’t even a problem with them. That we are going to ban the sale of handguns despite virtually all handgun crime is done with firearms smuggled from the USA by gang members the Liberals released from jail. That we have magazine restrictions which do nothing. 

There is only two parts to our firearms laws which have any sort of positive effect. 1) licensing because it keeps the crazies and criminals from getting access. And 2) regestration of full autos and handguns which prevents the strawbuying of firearms. 

You could literally remove basically every other part of the firearms act and you wouldn’t notice a increase in crime, danger to the public, or difference other than some legal gun owners would be happier.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (11 Dec 2022)

Lumber said:


> I'd like to drive my car at 200kph on the highway, and as an experience race car driver, I can do it, but for the greater good of society, it's illegal.
> 
> I could go on.


Yet I can go out right now and buy a car that goes 200  an hour.



Lumber said:


> I'd like to drive my car home after a few beers, and I'm usually safe to do it, but it's illegal for everyone to do it because of the greater good.
> 
> I could go on.


And yet we sell cars without built in breathalyzers to start them.


EDIT: ..and I'm not a gun guy even a little.  I think they should be registered since I have to register my cat.  I just know it's not legal guns that are in any way, shape, or form, the problem.


----------



## CBH99 (11 Dec 2022)

Eaglelord17 said:


> First off I am not a Libertarian, I am a Classical Liberal. What that means is maximum personal freedoms with only reasonable restrictions as required. That doesn’t mean I am against laws, just that you have to justify them all and they have to be applied evenly.
> 
> It isn’t a greater good to restrict drinking and driving, there is clearly quantifiable cause and effect, I.E. beer messes up your mental state and therefore substantially increases the risk to all. You are guaranteeing the same treatment to everyone. There isn’t a greater good to speed limits, usually it is very quantifiable based off the roads which are designed, the speeds the vehicle is capable off and the ability of the average driver. There isn’t a greater good to ensure people are shooting in safe directions, again extremely quantifable and perfectly allowable under a classical liberal society like Canada.


Sooooo…you’re a Conservative then?  😉

I had a post written, but then read your entire post because everything you said was 100% bang on.  

Summarized what I was going to say far, far better than what I had typed.


----------



## Booter (11 Dec 2022)

none of the examples provided were examples of things that only affect the individual. They were examples of selfish behaviour. If you demonize people you disagree with before you talk…


----------



## Lumber (11 Dec 2022)

Jarnhamar said:


> I respect you asking open minded questions about hunting. Like you I'm not a hunter.
> 
> Can I pick your brain and ask you why (or if you think) hunters having a semiautomatic firearm vs non-semiauto matters?
> 
> Or are you just curious about people's views on it?


I dont think it matters. Use whatever works best for the type of hunting you're doing. I just legitimately had no idea how common semi auto were in hunting.


ArmyRick said:


> So which are you?


Neither. It's a spectrum. If you claim to be wholly one or the other, you're wrong.


----------



## Lumber (11 Dec 2022)

Eaglelord17 said:


> There is only two parts to our firearms laws which have any sort of positive effect. 1) licensing because it keeps the crazies and criminals from getting access. And 2) regestration of full autos and handguns which prevents the strawbuying of firearms.
> 
> You could literally remove basically every other part of the firearms act and you wouldn’t notice a increase in crime, danger to the public, or difference other than some legal gun owners would be happier.


So, we're pretty much on the she same page you and I with regard to gun laws. Why are you so angry at me?

(I'm surprised by your stance btw. I had you pegged as one of those complete law-aboloshists who thinks we should have complete unregulated access to firearms)


----------



## Eaglelord17 (11 Dec 2022)

Lumber said:


> So, we're pretty much on the she same page you and I with regard to gun laws. Why are you so angry at me?
> 
> (I'm surprised by your stance btw. I had you pegged as one of those complete law-aboloshists who thinks we should have complete unregulated access to firearms)


Not angry at you specifically, angry at the government and the constant fight just to attempt to maintain where we are already at. It is frustrating to constantly be scapegoated for political purposes by people who don’t even believe what they are pushing, rather using it for political gain. 

Why would I be a law abolitionist? Laws are needed, just there is many which we could get rid of and society would be no worse off.

I have spent a lot of times studying firearms, both the historical and technical side (turned down a job at the firearms lab in Ottawa once, and am a machinist by trade). I have also looked at many countries laws and the effects they have had. 

Basically only laws controling who has access and the registering of handguns/full autos makes a difference. Controling who has access because it prevents criminals and the mentally ill from buying. Registration of handguns and full autos works because it prevents straw buying, i.e. how criminals circumvent the controlling who has access point. Beyond that everything else is just inconvenient and unnecessary. 

In Switzerland for example they keep their full auto service rifles at home and there isn’t a problem. They will have kids biking to the range with a converted auto on their back and no issue. They also don’t have the crime we have due to a very stable society with excellent education. 

Gun crime is related to regular crime. The roots of which are socioeconomic and difficult to solve. Banning handgun ownership for me doesn’t stop that gangbanger in toronto from using his illegally smuggled handgun for killing. Magazine restrictions for me doesn’t stop that hells angel member from having a 18rd mag in their illegal glock. 

But its frustrating to have to repeat the same mantra over and over again even with people like Gary Mauser proving all of this and disproving the anti-gun studies on the regular.


----------



## mariomike (11 Dec 2022)

Eaglelord17 said:


> In Switzerland for example they keep their full auto service rifles at home and there isn’t a problem.



See also, from 2018,









						The Great Gun Control Debate
					

https://www.google.ca/search?rls=com.microsoft%3Aen-CA%3AIE-Address&rlz=1I7GGHP_en-GBCA592&dcr=0&ei=h9eNWs-0MsOKjwTik5aICA&q=japan+crime&oq=japan+crime&gs_l=psy-ab.3..0l10.13362.16416.0.16714.13.13.0.0.0.0.191.2003.0j13.13.0....0...1c.1.64.psy-ab..0.13.1971...0i67k1j0i22i30k1j35i39k1j0i131i67k1j0...




					army.ca


----------



## Brad Sallows (11 Dec 2022)

Bruce Monkhouse said:


> EDIT: ..and I'm not a gun guy even a little.  I think they should be registered since I have to register my cat.  I just know it's not legal guns that are in any way, shape, or form, the problem.


I don't think you should have to register your cat.  But even though you do, it doesn't follow that anything else should necessarily be registered.


----------



## Brad Sallows (11 Dec 2022)

The pressure for gun control seems to largely stem from one (1) event over 30 years ago.  Not a rational response to an extremely low probability risk.


----------



## KevinB (11 Dec 2022)

Brad Sallows said:


> I don't think you should have to register your cat.  But even though you do, it doesn't follow that anything else should necessarily be registered.


But, it may be an Assault Cat…


----------



## Fishbone Jones (11 Dec 2022)

Assault 'style' cat.


----------



## Haggis (11 Dec 2022)

Brad Sallows said:


> The pressure for gun control seems to largely stem from one (1) event over 30 years ago.  Not a rational response to an extremely low probability risk.


The pressure for gun control has been the need for the LPC to win urban ridings. Team Trudeau has largely given up on using The Ecole Polytechniqie shooting. Recently they been using Mayerthorpe, Moncton, NS and the Québec mosque shootings as their new evidence. I'm surprised that Saanich hasn't been trotted out yet.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (11 Dec 2022)

I think I read something this week about Poly deciding to pack it in. Something about wasting time trying to get everything banned and if trudeau doesn't  do it this time they were finished with the fight.


----------



## Dana381 (11 Dec 2022)

We are arguing weather gun owners need semi-automatics or not, we are missing the bigger picture. Once the semi-automatics are banned then the rest of the guns will be banned also. 

I have suspected for a while now that when Trudeau gets defeated in an election he will refuse to step down and cite humanitarian grounds because he believes the Conservatives views are discriminatory, dangerous and draconian. If he wins the next election he will change the laws to keep him in power indefinitely. Whoever dosen't buy into the woke agenda is evil and MUST be stopped.  I truly believe he has 100% bought in to the communist ideal and that he really enjoyed the absolute power that he gave himself during covid. He seems to continue to run the government like he answers to no-one.

I expect if he is not stopped very soon that he will institute a dictatorship, he will likely call it something else and sell it on the greater good platform just like every communist leader before him. 

In order to achieve this he needs a completely unarmed populace. Hence the push now to get guns out of Canadians hands quickly. This explains why these rulings and OIC's don't seem to make any real sense. They keep citing a horrible gun crime that is 33 years old, They tried really hard to use the Portapique rampage to help their agenda but that failed. However they push on regardless. It is very hard to find the rate of gun crime in Canada that involved legally owned firearms, they suppress this information so they can push on with the disarming. Almost every news report of shootings involve gangs and street violence. This violence uses illegally acquired firearms almost exclusively. There are 2.2 million licensed gun owners and estimated to be 20 million guns in Canada. If legal gun owners were a problem then it would be much worse than we are seeing. However legal gun owners probably own more guns than the CAF

History of governments that have disarmed their populace is quite bleek.

1911: Turkey; citizens disarmed – 1.5 million Armenians were slaughtered
1929: Russia; citizens disarmed – 20 million Russians murdered
1935: China; citizens disarmed – 20 million Chinese killed, other source suggested 65 million dead.
1938: Germany; citizens disarmed – 6 million Jews murdered
1956: Cambodia; citizens disarmed – 1 million “intellectuals” killed
1964: Guatemala; citizens disarmed – 100,000 Mayan Indians massacred
1970: Uganda; citizens disarmed – 300,000 Christians put to death
All in the name of the Greater Good.

In order for Trudeau to have power like Xi, that he envies he must disarm Canadians. He needs this power to push his globalist agenda. Ushering in the "Great Reset". His buddy Hans at the WEF has also expressed admiration for Xi's way of controlling his people. This is precisely why the American founding fathers created the 2nd amendment.

I am very afraid for Canada's future.

You may think I am a tin foil hatter but he bought control of the media. He is disarming law abiding citizens. He is for a universal basic income. He is ignoring due process in government. He has frozen bank accounts of peaceful protesters and those that helped them. He has labeled those protesters and anyone who disagrees with him enemies of the state. Is there any part of the dictator playbook he isn't for or hasn't done yet?


----------



## Booter (12 Dec 2022)

You are a tin foil hatter.

I expect that if we ever have a PM that isn’t Trudeau again you will come and admit to having everything completely wrong,


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (12 Dec 2022)

Dana381 said:


> . Is there any part of the dictator playbook he isn't for or hasn't done yet?


The fact you're posting this???


----------



## Colin Parkinson (12 Dec 2022)

I have no doubt that JT likely imagines himself in that situation while alone in the bathroom doing things to himself. I don't see him achieving it despite efforts to that end. I do see the steady degradation of personal rights and privacy. Plus the increase of control by the State. The loaf of bread that represent our personal freedoms and rights is slowly being sliced away. We all willing give up a little of that loaf to be able to share in that gravy provided by the country. but these days it costs us more slices for less gravy and the trend is not promising.


----------



## Lumber (12 Dec 2022)

Colin Parkinson said:


> I have no doubt that JT likely imagines himself in that situation while alone in the bathroom doing things to himself. I don't see him achieving it despite efforts to that end. I do see the steady degradation of personal rights and privacy. Plus the increase of control by the State. The loaf of bread that represent our personal freedoms and rights is slowly being sliced away. We all willing give up a little of that loaf to be able to share in that gravy provided by the country. but these days it costs us more slices for less gravy and the trend is not promising.


And just which personal freedoms and rights have we lost since 2015 under the JT liberals?


----------



## Brad Sallows (12 Dec 2022)

The right to personally own arms is under a bit of a squeeze.


----------



## Lumber (12 Dec 2022)

Brad Sallows said:


> The right to personally own arms is under a bit of a squeeze.


Yes, absolutely, but, if that's all anyone here can think of, then I would categorize the statements "I see the steady degradation of personal rights and privacy" and "the loaf of bread that represent our personal freedoms and rights is slowly being sliced away" as pure hyperbole.


----------



## QV (12 Dec 2022)

Lumber said:


> And just which personal freedoms and rights have we lost since 2015 under the JT liberals?


"My body, my choice" seems to have a whole new meaning...


----------



## Lumber (12 Dec 2022)

QV said:


> "My body, my choice" seems to have a whole new meaning...


Cryptic digs are fine, but please, I'm actually looking for any actual examples you or anyone else might have where our rights and freedoms have been "slices away" since 2015, because by my count, we actually have _more_ freedoms than we did in 2015.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (12 Dec 2022)

Bruce Monkhouse said:


> The fact you're posting this???



Only until C-10 passes. Then it's only a matter of time until they find us here.😁


----------



## Colin Parkinson (12 Dec 2022)

Lumber said:


> And just which personal freedoms and rights have we lost since 2015 under the JT liberals?


Emergencies Act
Travel restrictions due to covid regulations
Gun control
Bill C-11 & 18 regarding content and streaming on the internet
Granting authority to FN to control access to traditional territories which removes access to all other Canadians
A number of other smaller measures through other means (policy, OIC)


----------



## Good2Golf (12 Dec 2022)

Colin Parkinson said:


> Emergencies Act
> Travel restrictions due to covid regulations
> Gun control
> Bill C-11 & 18 regarding content and streaming on the internet
> ...


System 2 thinking spanks System 1 thinking…









						What have the Romans ever done for us? - Wagestream
					

We all love Monthy Python, but there's also alot we can learn from the People's Front of Judea about how to change our perceptions of income streaming.




					wagestream.com


----------



## Dana381 (12 Dec 2022)

Colin Parkinson said:


> Emergencies Act
> Travel restrictions due to covid regulations
> Gun control
> Bill C-11 & 18 regarding content and streaming on the internet
> ...


And...
Right to due government process for the first three
Right to free media (not state controlled).
Free speech


----------



## Colin Parkinson (12 Dec 2022)

Yes the end run around due process on the gun control issue is astonishing just on it's own.


----------



## Dana381 (12 Dec 2022)

Colin Parkinson said:


> Yes the end run around due process on the gun control issue is astonishing just on it's own.


As well as the games played in cabinet to avoid answering for his actions invoking the emergencies Act and freezing bank accounts.


----------



## daftandbarmy (12 Dec 2022)

It's all about Freedom:


----------



## Lumber (12 Dec 2022)

Colin Parkinson said:


> Emergencies Act


This was both temporary and limited to a very specific group of people and places for a very specific purpose. It's over noe, the slice of bread has been put back.


Colin Parkinson said:


> Travel restrictions due to covid regulations


Again, this was temporary and in response to AN ACTUAL F**KING PANDEMIC. The slice of bread is back.



Colin Parkinson said:


> Bill C-11 & 18 regarding content and streaming on the internet


Don't know enough about these two. One sounds very administrative in nature, the other one sounds like it could be a real dick punch to small content creators. Sounds like they are trying to determine the price of a slice of bread, not actually take it away.



Colin Parkinson said:


> Granting authority to FN to control access to traditional territories which removes access to all other Canadians


I would argue this is giving some rights/freedoms back to the OG Canadians. Kind of like having two sacks of bread and taking a slice from one and giving it to the other. We already had separate sacks. 



Colin Parkinson said:


> Gun control


Yep, I disagree with this one, because I don't see an issue with safe and lawful and sensible gun ownership, but honestly... I wouldn't feel any less "free" in Canada if they outright banned all guns. Kind of like throwing away the crust from all the bread. I mean, I actually _like _the crust, and wanted to eat it, but am I butt hurt that it's gone? No.



Colin Parkinson said:


> A number of other smaller measures through other means (policy, OIC)


Clearly they weren't very significant if I've never heard of them and you weren't even bothered to list them. I guess all the slices are still there.

Do you want me to give you a list of things the liberals have done/enacted that have actually _increased_ the level of freedom in Canada?


----------



## Lumber (12 Dec 2022)

Dana381 said:


> And...
> Right to due government process for the first three


For the first two, it's literally the executive branches' mandate to take the sort of health measures that they did without having to go through parliament. They literally did their job. For the third, yea, that OIC was bullshit, but now they are passing a bill, which is also bullshit, but they are at least following the process.

Also, "right to due government process" doesn't even make sense from the perspective of government making laws. We're talking about indivudal rights here. If the government doesn't follow the proper process when making a law, _I_ haven't had my rights infringed as a result.



Dana381 said:


> Free speech


In what world would there be completely unregulated media? Even the CPC doesn't advocate that. Our media was ranked 14th most free in the world for 2021 (the most recent full year analysis).



Dana381 said:


> Free speech


The 2021 Human Freedom Index, which factors freedom of speech into its assessment, ranked Canada 6th in the world. Nothing the LPC has enacted has fundamentally limited that.


Where in the sam hell is it you people think you are living?


----------



## Colin Parkinson (13 Dec 2022)

Lumber said:


> This was both temporary and limited to a very specific group of people and places for a very specific purpose. It's over noe, the slice of bread has been put back.
> 
> Again, this was temporary and in response to AN ACTUAL F**KING PANDEMIC. The slice of bread is back.
> 
> ...


All of Canada is claimed by FN's, actually more than all, the consequences of that will come to haunt anyone that wants to go into the back country at some point.  Gun Control is nothing to do with public safety and everything to do with vote harvesting, turning a group of Canadians into 2nd class citizens for vote is immoral. There is nothing sensible about it, they just hate people like me and enjoy destroying us. They will also authorize deadly force to make it happen if anyone resists.
One example of creep of the State was to give us powers under the CNWA to enter anywhere to search for plans of structures into water. We at the field level objected to that level of power, they still left it in the Act. 
It's debatable if that slice needed to be taken in regards to Covid, as it was already clear any benefit from it had long since gone. There was no need for the Emergency Act or going after people livelihoods. It's clear that the use of exterme powers is their go to method of operation. For now they have their hands tied, but they will undermine those controls. 
For the Bills, they are all about controlling who sees what and that will end badly. 
There is a pattern to their thinking and it's not healthy for the country in the long term. The Liberal party needs to be burnt to the ground and then rebuilt back to something that benefits Canada.


----------



## KevinB (13 Dec 2022)

Lumber said:


> This was both temporary and limited to a very specific group of people and places for a very specific purpose. It's over noe, the slice of bread has been put back.


So what happens when the Gov targets you for whatever reason they feel? 



Lumber said:


> Again, this was temporary and in response to AN ACTUAL F**KING PANDEMIC. The slice of bread is back.


Once you slice a loaf, it is no longer whole.  Precedents set are there to stay. 



Lumber said:


> Don't know enough about these two. One sounds very administrative in nature, the other one sounds like it could be a real dick punch to small content creators. Sounds like they are trying to determine the price of a slice of bread, not actually take it away.
> 
> 
> I would argue this is giving some rights/freedoms back to the OG Canadians. Kind of like having two sacks of bread and taking a slice from one and giving it to the other. We already had separate sacks.
> ...


That is a you feeling.  What about the rights of other who feel differently? 



Lumber said:


> Clearly they weren't very significant if I've never heard of them and you weren't even bothered to list them. I guess all the slices are still there.
> 
> Do you want me to give you a list of things the liberals have done/enacted that have actually _increased_ the level of freedom in Canada?


Your comments above just show the divide going on.  

You personally feel more free, and so are not concerned with the plight of your fellow Canadians. 

Queue Martin Niemöller 

First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a socialist.

Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.


----------



## Lumber (13 Dec 2022)

Dana381 said:


> He is for a universal basic income.


Others have already addressed your post, but I wanted to target this point in particular.

First, how is universal basic income a bad thing? Every study so far has said it is a good idea that would effective at dealing with a slew of issues; and
Second, even if the results of UBI trials indicated it was a flawed idea that led to neutral or even worse outcomes for people, how in the hell does his support for it in any way support, indicate, or inform as to his position as a dictator in waiting?


----------



## Fishbone Jones (13 Dec 2022)

Gun Control is all politics
But not all politics is gun control.

There are other forums better suited to this sidetrack without pulling gun control along with it.


----------



## IKnowNothing (14 Dec 2022)

Anyone else following along with the SECU transcripts?  The more I read the more it becomes clear that (whether by arrogance/incompetence  or design (or both)) the communication and delivery  of the amendment has been undertaken in a manner that maximizes pushback. 

Noted failures:
Chiang failing to grow a set to field questions about why it was tabled the way it was
Failing to communicate that a large part of the list was codifying guns already captured by previous bans
Failing to create a carvout for historical and hunting guns within the 10kJ/ 20mm restriction (seriously- Parker Bro's shotguns are in the same section as Javelin ATGM)
Failing to communicate that not all versions of guns on the list are prohibited only the ones that are chambered such that they violate said restrictions  (would have been rendered moot by the carveout, but still- own goal)
Failing to communicate that the Benelli ban has a long long list of exemptions, including all of the models commercially available in Canada
Failing to properly follow their own damn definitions when compiling the list (I'm looking at you SKS and M1 Garand)
Failing to consult with well, anyone


----------



## IKnowNothing (14 Dec 2022)

Other tidbits via committee

-Chair pre-emptively ruled that the amendment was admissible, no debate allowed. Decision was challenged but lost the vote
-They had/have to tapdance around the list in G46 while discussing G4, because the amendments have to be dealt with in order and can't be discussed until moved
-The committee doesn't have the power to bring in a buyback amendment because of the financial ramifications
-Even if the Amendment fails nothing prevents the same measures being adopted as OIC


----------



## suffolkowner (14 Dec 2022)

Another problem with this bill and the OIC is how much is depending on which way the wind is blowing on Murray Smiths opinion. Another expert another opinion?


----------



## Skysix (16 Dec 2022)

KevinB said:


> Once in 1944, maybe
> 
> 
> I would have suggested the FN C1A1 but those had all been disposed of…
> ...


Suppressed FNC1A1 over a .300 Blackout for boars and bears


----------



## Skysix (16 Dec 2022)

IKnowNothing said:


> Law abiding citizens have no use for a centre-fire mag that exceeds 5 rounds.
> 
> Also, retrofit to a fixed mag isn't a "mag restriction", it changes the functional properties of the firearm


You are wrong on the first (competition) but right on the second.


----------



## CBH99 (16 Dec 2022)

Alberta’s Crown prosecutors to determine charges under federal Firearms Act: Shandro  | Globalnews.ca
					

Shandro's announcement comes after the province passed Bill 1, the Alberta Sovereignty Within a United Canada Act, on Dec. 8.




					globalnews.ca
				




Looks like Alberta is officially with Saskatchewan when it comes to tabled firearms legislation.


----------



## Halifax Tar (16 Dec 2022)

IKnowNothing said:


> Law abiding citizens have no use for a centre-fire mag that exceeds 5 rounds.



Not picking on you IKN just using this as an example. 

But that right there is the issue. Who gets to decide what's useful and what metrics are employed to come up with that equation ? 

No Law abiding citizen has a use for a car to go over 110, no law abiding citizen has a use for fast food, no law abiding citizen has a use for alcohol or tobacco.  Not one of those things hold a single bonified use or need for the law abiding citizen; and all of them, individually, kill vastly more Canadians than firearms.  Yet they are all available for purchase and consumption without limit of volume. 

If this was about public safety those would be tackled first.


----------



## IKnowNothing (16 Dec 2022)

Halifax Tar said:


> Not picking on you IKN just using this as an example.
> 
> But that right there is the issue. Who gets to decide what's useful and what metrics are employed to come up with that equation ?


No offense taken. But honestly, I did a bad job expressing the meaning of that post, and this is a great segue to come back to it.

The philosophical debate regarding who can decide what is "needed", and the technical debate about mag restrictions are both moot.  As they pertain to gun control in Canada both are settled law.

The line "Law abiding citizens have no use for a centre-fire mag that exceeds 5 rounds" was not an expression of personal belief.  It was a poorly worded attempt at a wakeup call- trying to expose the catch-22 posters and advocates are faced with when arguing against/ to change amendment G4. The centre-fire mag restrictions are law, therefore (with certain limited exceptions) the ability of a firearm to exceed that capacity is not legally usable, rendering that capability of no functional value to a law abiding citizen.  In my opinion, vehement arguments to the contrary (in the context of debate gun control advocates are either/both:
A- a waste of energy fighting a battle long lost
B- a misstep that weakens the "moral" authority/ credibility of the phrase "law abiding gun owner" via tacit admission that laws aren't followed/won't be followed if the need arises

Again, in my opinion, all effort needs to be devoted to the battles in front of us, and statements/arguments need to be carefully considered for maximum value within the context of the current regulatory reality.  Standing on a hill to protect capabilities that cannot legally be used isn't that- especially when it comes at the cost of providing the Cukier's of the world with soundbites/quotes that all guns are just as bad.  It's a bad strategic play.  We're past the point where guns will be protected by philosophy, but there are strong shields to be leveraged, namely - "reasonable use" hunting and rural firearms, Native rights, and said existing regulatory reality.

 The Liberal misstep in how they've tabled this amendment has but them on their backfoot and introduced a groundswell of support that *can be used. By* using their own definitions of reasonable use/ mag restrictions against them, and leveraging that pushback to carve out protections for historical weapons (SKS/Garand) and clear hunting rifles (Remington 742 etc), and even pushing farther into using Fixed Mag type retrofits to allow owners to pull their firearms off the 2020 OIC list.  They've invited a fight that is winnable- as long as the objective is chosen properly.  They've laid the ground rules that a given firearm can be prohibited (or more importantly- not) based on a strict application of their definitions, regardless of whether those properties could be altered by a competent individual.  That's an opportunity.


----------



## Halifax Tar (16 Dec 2022)

IKnowNothing said:


> No offense taken. But honestly, I did a bad job expressing the meaning of that post, and this is a great segue to come back to it.
> 
> The philosophical debate regarding who can decide what is "needed", and the technical debate about mag restrictions are both moot.  As they pertain to gun control in Canada both are settled law.
> 
> ...



Like I said I wasn't aiming that as you, just using you as the example. 

The 5 round limit is a stupid law.  Here are some other stupid laws in Canada. 









						Weirdest Laws and Regulations in Canada | Casita.com
					

Laws are put together to keep order in society. However, the following laws keep you wondering about the reason and the story behind them.




					www.casita.com


----------



## IKnowNothing (16 Dec 2022)

Halifax Tar said:


> Like I said I wasn't aiming that as you, just using you as the example.
> 
> *The 5 round limit is a stupid law.*  Here are some other stupid laws in Canada.


Regardless, it is law- going on 30 years. Harper majority didn't change that. Nor would a PP. It's Canadian reality, and political suicide to anyone that tries to change it.

Which comes to the point of the post- we can climb up on a hill and yell about things that aren't going to change, or accept those things and use them as both an anchor point to prevent more change and a lever to reverse changes that are less immutable.


----------



## Halifax Tar (16 Dec 2022)

IKnowNothing said:


> Regardless, it is law- going on 30 years. Harper majority didn't change that. Nor would a PP. It's Canadian reality, and political suicide to anyone that tries to change it.
> 
> Which comes to the point of the post- we can climb up on a hill and yell about things that aren't going to change, or accept those things and use them as both an anchor point to prevent more change and a lever to reverse changes that are less immutable.



You're probably right.  I really think we missed an opportunity with Harper to cement firearms regulations.


----------



## Lumber (16 Dec 2022)

Halifax Tar said:


> Who gets to decide what's useful and what metrics are employed to come up with that equation ?


That's simple; we do. There is no such thing as "universal" (meaning intrinsic) rights. Everything we do and decide upon is based on us getting together and (hopefully) coming up with well researched and reasoned opinion. There's no reason we can't do that with things like what's a reasonable "need" and what's a reasonable "want".


Halifax Tar said:


> No Law abiding citizen has a use for a car to go over 110, no law abiding citizen has a use for fast food, no law abiding citizen has a use for alcohol or tobacco.  Not one of those things hold a single bonified use or need for the law abiding citizen; and all of them, individually, kill vastly more Canadians than firearms.  Yet they are all available for purchase and consumption without limit of volume.
> 
> If this was about public safety those would be tackled first.


First off, this isn't a zero-sum game. Just because we may not have placed reasonable limits on all the things that need reasonable limits doesn't mean we give up and stop tryin to be reasonable limits on _some _things. So, yes, should the things you've listed be tackled? Absolutely. However, since we haven't done an adequate job of tackling them yet, does that mean we are morally obliged to stop trying to tackle guns until we are finished with fast food? No, we can do them in any order, and we can debate on what's more important.

Further, you focus on the 5-round limit and "volume limit" for the other things you mentioned, but fundamentally what we're talking about is "reasonable use" and "reasonable limits", and I absolutely DO think that we as humans and Canadians have the mental capacity to establish these reasonable limits, and I further believe the things you listed should have reasonable limits:

There _are _law abiding citizen that do have a use for cars going over 110kph: emergency services and race car drivers. As for your average citizen, I actually agree with your principle. The highest speed limit in Canada is 120kph, so let's make it a law that cars sold in Canada must have a governor that limits them to 120 (or maybe 130kph). That seems reasonable to me. Cars _are _dangerous. It's already illegal to go over the speed limit, and cars are extremely regulated in both production and use (registration), so why make cars that go that fast?

Law abiding citizens absolutely do "have a use" for fast food. It's extremely convenient in a pinch, and in many cases (sadly) the price of value meals can be cheaper (and far easier) than buying and preparing healthy options at home.  We have enacted laws to try and make people more aware of their unhealthy choices and to try and exclude certain harmful ingredients from food products, but it's really hard (and bordering on immoral) to go so far as to restrict people's access to the food.

Law abiding citizens absolutely do "have a use" for alcohol; it's entertaining, both as a social "tool" and for its direct effects on our mind. We have lots of laws regarding the use and consumption of alcohol. What more could we add that is reasonable? Maximum number of bottles purchased in one visit without an event permit or liquor license? Sure, as long we sit down and agree what that "reasonable amount" is, I'm game. 

I will give you one: no law abiding citizens have any meaningful use for tobacco, other than to de-stress by satiating a craving for tobacco brought on my the use of tobacco which was useless and stupid to start in the first place. I think the whole world should follow in NZ's footsteps and ban cigarettes for _future_ generations.


----------



## Halifax Tar (16 Dec 2022)

My Reponses are in yellow in the quote:



Lumber said:


> That's simple; we do. There is no such thing as "universal" (meaning intrinsic) rights. Everything we do and decide upon is based on us getting together and (hopefully) coming up with well researched and reasoned opinion. There's no reason we can't do that with things like what's a reasonable "need" and what's a reasonable "want".
> 
> If we were making these calls they wouldn't be done via OIC and amendment; adding in with very little consultation with the FA community.
> Also, firearms a simple mechanical devices.  Decisions on what is and isn't allowed should be sound and reason based using the mechanical function of the various firearms, that's currently not the case.
> ...


----------



## IKnowNothing (16 Dec 2022)

Halifax Tar said:


> You're probably right.  I really think we missed an opportunity with Harper to cement firearms regulations.


I think that opportunity is right here in front of us.  The Liberals messed up by picking this fight in a really clumsy way at a time that they are weak.


----------



## Halifax Tar (16 Dec 2022)

IKnowNothing said:


> I think that opportunity is right here in front of us.  The Liberals messed up by picking this fight in a really clumsy way at a time that they are weak.



The only thing you get from the current Gov is an ever moving set of goal posts that continually makes firearms ownership more and more difficult.


----------



## Lumber (16 Dec 2022)

Halifax Tar said:


> My Reponses are in yellow in the quote: Absolutely not. You don't need Alcohol to have fun or entertain. There fore it has no basic use.



See, I actually don't think you and I disagree as much as it seems, I just think you are confounding the meanings of "need" and "use for".

Using the example I picked above, you could argue that you don't _need _a gun to hunt or for use in "shooting" sport. We used other tools for those things for thousands and thousands of years. Therefore, it has no basic use. Ergo, lets ban or heavily restrict guns (more than we have). 

I don't agree with that statement I just made, but it demonstrates that we can't oversimplify the issue and argue things from the perspective of "most basic need". From that viewpoint, a personal car isn't a need, because you _can _walk somewhere, but in reality that's naive; our modern society requires the vast majority of people to have cars in order for it to function.


----------



## Halifax Tar (16 Dec 2022)

Lumber said:


> Using the example I picked above, you could argue that you don't _need _a gun to hunt or for use in "shooting" sport. We used other tools for those things for thousands and thousands of years. Therefore, it has no basic use. Ergo, lets ban or heavily restrict guns (more than we have).



Exactly, now do you see how stupid it all is ? 

I don't actually care if someone eats themselves to death with big macs, smokes or drinks themselves to death, or plows into a highway divider and becomes a blood stain at 200kph; so long as no one else is harmed in the process.  People can play fast an loose with their own life, I don't give a 💩.


----------



## Lumber (16 Dec 2022)

Halifax Tar said:


> Exactly, now do you see how stupid it all is ?
> 
> I don't actually care if someone eats themselves to death with big macs, smokes or drinks themselves to death, or plows into a highway divider and becomes a blood stain at 200kph; so long as no one else is harmed in the process.  People can play fast an loose with their own life, I don't give a 💩.


Ok, see there's where I disagree. 

More at 11.


----------



## Halifax Tar (16 Dec 2022)

Lumber said:


> Ok, see there's where I disagree.
> 
> More at 11.



lol You're gonna make me wait until 11 ?


----------



## Remius (16 Dec 2022)

Halifax Tar said:


> lol You're gonna make me wait until 11 ?


That was 25 mins ago here…


----------



## QV (16 Dec 2022)

Skysix said:


> You are wrong on the first (competition) but right on the second.


Not just competition. Just off the top of my head there is also varmint and invasive species control (this has serious ecological and economic implications - think wild hogs), dangerous predator control or large animal euthanasia (self defence/safety), or maintenance of skills on personal time (LEO/Mil).


----------



## Furniture (16 Dec 2022)

QV said:


> Not just competition. Just off the top of my head there is also varmint and invasive species control (this has serious ecological and economic implications - think wild hogs), dangerous predator control or large animal euthanasia (self defence/safety), or maintenance of skills on personal time (LEO/Mil).


I bought an XCR-L to practice my shooting outside of work without the hassle of getting a restricted. I was becoming a much better shot, because I was able to actually practice, rather than do 5 rounds warming before going straight into testing. 

Now, my shooting skills have atrophied because the CAF doesn't care about my proficiency, as long as I pass a test every few years, and the GoC decided to make me a criminal.


----------



## IKnowNothing (16 Dec 2022)

Halifax Tar said:


> The only thing you get from the current Gov is an *ever moving set of goal posts* that continually makes firearms ownership more and more difficult.


Until now.  Now we have a functional definition and a framework for it's application- a framework that sets precedent for both
-explicitly exempting firearms clearly designed for "traditional" uses (Benelli)
-implicitly exempting firearms that do not meet their functional definition, regardless of whether they are named

as well as
-an amendment procedure that forces the debate remain on the definitions (and allows for editing) before applying them to generate lists in a later amendment
-a tabled amendment attempting to codify an earlier OIC that would be subject to above edited definitions
-a debate happening under what passes for a microscope in this country, with public support for pro-firearm revisions


----------



## Lumber (16 Dec 2022)

Remius said:


> That was 25 mins ago here…


Tar and I live in Halifornia.


----------



## Halifax Tar (16 Dec 2022)

Lumber said:


> Tar and I live in Halifornia.



I'm figuring you meant 11pm... Lol 

You can always PM me.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (16 Dec 2022)

Furniture said:


> I bought an XCR-L to practice my shooting outside of work without the hassle of getting a restricted. I was becoming a much better shot, because I was able to actually practice, rather than do 5 rounds warming before going straight into testing.
> 
> Now, my shooting skills have atrophied because the CAF doesn't care about my proficiency, as long as I pass a test every few years, and the GoC decided to make me a criminal.


You didn't hear, the CAF is all about bare minimums these days 😄

It's the Canadian Way, peak mediocrity for all!


----------



## QV (16 Dec 2022)

Furniture said:


> I bought an XCR-L to practice my shooting outside of work without the hassle of getting a restricted. I was becoming a much better shot, because I was able to actually practice, rather than do 5 rounds warming before going straight into testing.
> 
> Now, my shooting skills have atrophied because the CAF doesn't care about my proficiency, as long as I pass a test every few years, and the GoC decided to make me a criminal.



With how risk adverse the CAF/GoC is... you would think they would want those who could potentially be shooting to be:

a. very good at shooting; and
b. able to account for their bullets. 

Good *quality* range time would also be a big moral improver... But here we are.


----------



## Jarnhamar (16 Dec 2022)

Furniture said:


> XCR-L


----------



## Dana381 (16 Dec 2022)

Lumber said:


> See, I actually don't think you and I disagree as much as it seems, I just think you are confounding the meanings of "need" and "use for".
> 
> Using the example I picked above, you could argue that you don't _need _a gun to hunt or for use in "shooting" sport. We used other tools for those things for thousands and thousands of years. Therefore, it has no basic use. Ergo, lets ban or heavily restrict guns (more than we have).
> 
> I don't agree with that statement I just made, but it demonstrates that we can't oversimplify the issue and argue things from the perspective of "most basic need". From that viewpoint, a personal car isn't a need, because you _can _walk somewhere, but in reality that's naive; our modern society requires the vast majority of people to have cars in order for it to function.



It's very dangerous to accept a law because you don't believe people need the item banned. Where does it stop? What freedoms do you hold deer? There are a lot of things that can be banned. 

Look at the U.K. Locking pocket knifes are illegal to carry no matter how small they are. Personally I only carry a locking pocket knife because I have cut myself on a Swiss army knife when it suddenly folded on my fingers. Why they made that law? who knows? I believe non-locking pocket knives should be banned.

With all the gun control laws enacted in the last 100 years none of them have had a significant impact on violent gun crime. The amount of time and money wasted by lawmakers on this issue and no results. Frankly people should be upset about the wastage. 

Laws should only be made and kept if they present a benefit to society. It has been shown repeatedly that tough gun control benefits no one and costs a ton to maintain. Just because a law doesn't hinder you doesn't mean you should support it. The government should have someone to go through old laws and see if they are still relevant and remove them if they no longer apply.


----------



## Good2Golf (17 Dec 2022)

Jarnhamar said:


>


“Once again, AirSofters bridging the gap…” 😂


----------



## singh1947 (17 Dec 2022)

IKnowNothing said:


> Semi-auto rifle magazines... are the topic of discussion.
> 
> And that's nonsense .  Are you actually claiming, that all equal (shooter, planning, calibre, victim/LE response) shooter X with a 5 shot fixed that they have to top feed is "going to do equal amounts of damage" as shooter x (again same person) with a series of 30 round mags?





IKnowNothing said:


> Law abiding citizens have no use for a centre-fire mag that exceeds 5 rounds.
> 
> Also, retrofit to a fixed mag isn't a "mag restriction", it changes the functional properties of the firearm


"If you need follow up shots you suck at hunting"
"If you need a disarmed populace to govern, you suck at governing"

Weapons are sacred.

/end

https://www.instagram com/p/Cl1FCvnhpyC/?hl=en

(big embed, remove space)


Dana381 said:


> It's very dangerous to accept a law because you don't believe people need the item banned. Where does it stop? What freedoms do you hold deer? There are a lot of things that can be banned.
> 
> Look at the U.K. Locking pocket knifes are illegal to carry no matter how small they are. Personally I only carry a locking pocket knife because I have cut myself on a Swiss army knife when it suddenly folded on my fingers. Why they made that law? who knows? I believe non-locking pocket knives should be banned.
> 
> ...


4/5 year terms with Parliamentary supremacy over the bureaucracy will lead to hysterical bills.
No one won an election going over the old, but by proposing something new.

Old laws aren't enforced anyway is the argument - unless you don't like the guy.
Kind of like the Army..


----------



## Halifax Tar (17 Dec 2022)

‘Free to go’: U.S. man acquitted in seizure of 56 handguns at border
					

A Florida man arrested more than a year ago at the Blue Water Bridge amid what officials said was one of the largest gun seizures at a Southwestern Ontario…




					windsorstar.com


----------



## Good2Golf (17 Dec 2022)

I wonder how many more Vivian Richards unknowingly pass through Canada with a trunk load of illegal handguns, and don’t get stopped by CBSA?  🤔


----------



## Dana381 (17 Dec 2022)

Good2Golf said:


> I wonder how many more Vivian Richards unknowingly pass through Canada with a trunk load of illegal handguns, and don’t get stopped by CBSA?  🤔


They will be glad to know that Trudaeu dropped the mandatory minimum sentence for gun smuggling.


----------



## CBH99 (18 Dec 2022)

Dana381 said:


> They will be glad to know that Trudaeu dropped the mandatory minimum sentence for gun smuggling.


Hold on a sec…But what the actual heck?

The dude who is trying to ban basically all firearms in Canada _is the same guy_ who dropped the mandatory minimum for gun smuggling?

Tell me that isn’t some deep-state bulls**t to keep the cycle going?  (crime/money/politics)


Which demographic’s voters did that win over again?


----------



## Haggis (18 Dec 2022)

CBH99 said:


> Hold on a sec…But what the actual heck?
> 
> The dude who is trying to ban basically all firearms in Canada _is the same guy_ who dropped the mandatory minimum for gun smuggling?


Yes, he did. You can read Bill C-5  here.


CBH99 said:


> Which demographic’s voters did that win over again?


Those who are over represented in the  criminal justice system.


----------



## Good2Golf (18 Dec 2022)

Yup.  

Minimum sentencing for gun smuggling apparently targeted a disadvantaged demographic unfairly.


----------



## Brad Sallows (18 Dec 2022)

Huh.  What happened to "it might save a life"?


----------



## Good2Golf (18 Dec 2022)

Brad Sallows said:


> Huh.  What happened to "it might save a *life*"?


I think you misspelled ‘vote’…


----------



## OldSolduer (19 Dec 2022)

OK there was a mass shooting in Toronto yesterday, Five killed.

Any bets that:

a. The firearms used were illegally smuggled in from the USA; and
b. The Trudeau government will use it to justify their gun control bill.


----------



## Lumber (19 Dec 2022)

OldSolduer said:


> OK there was a mass shooting in Toronto yesterday, Five killed.
> 
> Any bets that:
> 
> ...


For b: Absolutely. never turn down an opportunity.

For a: Not totally convinced. One article said there were victims in multiple flats, which, I dunno, for that kind of methodical rampage I picture a guy with a legal rifle going around looking for targets, not some guy with an illegal pistol who either got pissed off or was doing a hit. But, we'll see! I hope it was illegal weapons.


----------



## Halifax Tar (19 Dec 2022)

OldSolduer said:


> OK there was a mass shooting in Toronto yesterday, Five killed.
> 
> Any bets that:
> 
> ...



Well, that's convenient for the LPC.


----------



## Lumber (19 Dec 2022)

Halifax Tar said:


> Well, that's convenient for the LPC.


Yea, how much do you want to bet that if it's a legal weapon, we'll hear about it non-stop, but if it turns it out it was smuggled weapons, they'll avoid talking about it and just refer to it as "the murder weapon", or "the firearm", "the assault style weapon".


----------



## Halifax Tar (19 Dec 2022)

Lumber said:


> Yea, how much do you want to bet that if it's a legal weapon, we'll hear about it non-stop, but if it turns it out it was smuggled weapons, they'll avoid talking about it and just refer to it as "the murder weapon", or "the firearm", "the assault style weapon".



I'm not taking that bet.  One has to think like their enemy, and that's exactly what would I would do.


----------



## FSTO (19 Dec 2022)

I just heard on CBC the shooter was in his 70's.


----------



## Weinie (19 Dec 2022)

Halifax Tar said:


> I'm not taking that bet.  One has to think like their enemy, and that's exactly what would I would do.


Alleged shooter is a 73 year old man. I suspect that the firearm was legal.


----------



## Remius (19 Dec 2022)

Weinie said:


> Alleged shooter is a 73 year old man. I suspect that the firearm was legal.


Maybe.  But crazy will do crazy, legal firearm or not…


----------



## Lumber (19 Dec 2022)

Weinie said:


> Alleged shooter is a 73 year old man. I suspect that the firearm was legal.


Ooof. It was probably a legally obtained "assault style" rifle.

You guys are just going to HATE JT's inevitable press conference.


----------



## CBH99 (19 Dec 2022)

Good2Golf said:


> Yup.
> 
> Minimum sentencing for gun smuggling apparently targeted a disadvantaged demographic unfairly.


Who gives a shit... 🤦‍♂️

Knowingly smuggling a firearm into the country?  Especially for the purpose of selling it to a criminal/gang?  

Then it's off to jail you go!

(Or not...apparently.  Well maybe.  Who knows.  There isn't like a mandatory minimum punishment for it or anything...)




Haggis said:


> Yes, he did. You can read Bill C-5  here.
> 
> Those who are over represented in the  criminal justice system.


Do they even really vote?


----------



## OldSolduer (19 Dec 2022)

Weinie said:


> Alleged shooter is a 73 year old man. I suspect that the firearm was legal.


At the age of 73 I bet it was unregistered. Who really knows how many firearms were never registered and are on a gun rack or in a closet.


----------



## Jarnhamar (19 Dec 2022)

Lumber said:


> Ooof. It was probably a legally obtained "assault style" rifle.
> 
> You guys are just going to HATE JT's inevitable press conference.



It's sad our government brought this country to a state where we obsess over gun types and magazine sizes when there is a loss of life.


----------



## OldSolduer (19 Dec 2022)

Jarnhamar said:


> It's sad our government brought this country to a state where we obsess over gun types and magazine sizes when there is a loss of life.


Never let a crisis go to waste. At the age of 73 was his mental state degraded by dementia?

Blame mental health.


----------



## Good2Golf (19 Dec 2022)

OldSolduer said:


> Blame mental health.


In a somber, breathy moistly-speaking way, to let everyone know you truly care and want their vote to keep things like this from happening again…


----------



## Halifax Tar (19 Dec 2022)

At 73 could be someone who's has the gun for decades and never registered on kept up with their licences too.


----------



## Haggis (19 Dec 2022)

Halifax Tar said:


> At 73 could be someone who's has the gun for decades and never registered on kept up with their licences too.


Watch closely for another amendment to C-21 setting age limits on firearms ownership.


----------



## Lumber (19 Dec 2022)

Haggis said:


> Watch closely for another amendment to C-21 setting age limits on firearms ownership.


No weapons at all for those living in Condos/Apartments.


----------



## Jarnhamar (19 Dec 2022)

Lumber said:


> No weapons at all for those living in Condos/Apartments.



I'm sure this will be the Mayor of Toronto's approach rather than addressing mental health reporting and the insane issues with renting and landlords.


----------



## OldSolduer (19 Dec 2022)

Lumber said:


> No weapons at all for those living in Condos/Apartments.


Then stop selling lock blade knives at Canadian Tire, Cabelas etc. Hunting knives are scary looking so ban them now!!

A knife sitting on a table can't kill anyone. Same with a gun. Let's have human control.


----------



## ArmyRick (19 Dec 2022)

Ahem, lets not forget assault style vans.  Ban 'em






						2018 Toronto van attack - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org


----------



## GR66 (19 Dec 2022)

Talk radio in Toronto is saying it was a semi-automatic handgun.  No word on legal or not.


----------



## Remius (19 Dec 2022)

Looks like some or a good number of victims were members of the condo board.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (19 Dec 2022)

GR66 said:


> Talk radio in Toronto is saying it was a semi-automatic handgun.  No word on legal or not.


They are really playing up that semi automatic phrase. Much more so than I ever recall them using it before. It was simply handguns, until this incident. Now it's *semi automatic handguns*. Making it tie in nicely with the current liberal bullshit narrative. If it had been a revolver, they would have just said 'handgun'.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (19 Dec 2022)

Lumber said:


> No weapons at all for those living in Condos/Apartments.


Define 'weapon'.


----------



## Remius (19 Dec 2022)

Fishbone Jones said:


> They are really playing up that semi automatic phrase. Much more so than I ever recall them using it before. It was simply handguns, until this incident. Now it's *semi automatic handguns*. Making it tie in nicely with the current liberal bullshit narrative. If it had been a revolver, they would have just said 'handgun'.


Blame the Vaughn police spokesperson who said that.  The media is just quoting it.  I heard it on talk radio here as well and that station is hardly LPC friendly.


----------



## Dana381 (19 Dec 2022)

ArmyRick said:


> Ahem, lets not forget assault style vans.  Ban 'em
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Hard No, I need my van. It's the only thing my family fits in.


----------



## Haggis (19 Dec 2022)

Lumber said:


> No weapons at all for those living in Condos/Apartments.


Many condo and apartment complexes already have rules prohibiting the possession and storage of firearms and/or ammunition.


----------



## Remius (19 Dec 2022)

Haggis said:


> Many condo and apartment complexes already have rules prohibiting the possession and storage of firearms and/or ammunition.


Maybe that was the issue.  Looks like there was an ongoing dispute with the condo board.  If people think governments have rules and regulations they should look at condo rules and regulations….


----------



## mariomike (19 Dec 2022)

Remius said:


> Maybe that was the issue.  Looks like there was an ongoing dispute with the condo board.



It was a "torturing noise" complaint.



> “He wanted his unit repaired because it was above the electrical room, he said it was causing him to be very ill,” he said.
> He explained that Villi told him that he should have had a sub floor underneath his unit and that there was not one.



Politics aside, sounds like a neighbour "from Hell".



> Outside the condo a neighbour spoke to yorkregion.com about the troubles she’s been facing with Villi since he moved in about five years ago.
> Clutching her small white dog, she spoke while clearly traumatized about the incident that occurred just hours before.
> Heidi Popara, Villi’s direct neighbour, said he appeared "unwell" and was "constantly threatening" Tower 2’s condo board members.
> She said Villi’s behaviour became untenable more recently, prompting she and her husband to try and sell their condominium.
> ...


----------



## Weinie (19 Dec 2022)

Weinie said:


> Alleged shooter is a 73 year old man. I suspect that the firearm was legal.


----------



## Retired AF Guy (19 Dec 2022)

mariomike said:


> It was a "torturing noise" complaint.
> 
> 
> 
> Politics aside, sounds like a neighbour "from Hell".



Just watched Global News and they also mentioned "semi-automatic handgun" and during the police conference the York Police briefer was asked if it was registered handgun and he replied he didn't have that information.


----------



## Good2Golf (19 Dec 2022)

I mean, less the single/multiple chamber definition aspect, a revolver essentially is ‘semi-automatic’ as well, at least until all the chambers have been fired.


----------



## Lumber (19 Dec 2022)

Fishbone Jones said:


> Define 'weapon'.


*firearms


----------



## Halifax Tar (20 Dec 2022)

Remius said:


> Maybe that was the issue.  Looks like there was an ongoing dispute with the condo board.  If people think governments have rules and regulations they should look at condo rules and regulations….



That's the reason I only owned and live in a condo for a year.


----------



## OldSolduer (20 Dec 2022)

This was a tragedy in the making. A mentally unwell person with access to a firearm. It has happened many times before and this will not be the last.

People control is needed.


----------



## KevinB (20 Dec 2022)

OldSolduer said:


> This was a tragedy in the making. A mentally unwell person with access to a firearm. It has happened many times before and this will not be the last.
> 
> People control is needed.


Report to the Reeducation Camp…



But on a serious note. 
Honestly this seems to be yet another preventable tragedy due to Mental Health issues not addressed.


----------



## OldSolduer (20 Dec 2022)

KevinB said:


> Report to the Reeducation Camp…





KevinB said:


> Report to the Reeducation Camp…


Da Comrade!!! Oh I mean Yes Mr PM. LOL

The not so funny thing is EVERYONE knew this guy was a loose cannon on the deck - or in the condo.


----------



## Lumber (20 Dec 2022)

I'm surprised I'm the first with this:

Trudeau says firearms bill will go after 'some' hunting guns that are 'too dangerous in other contexts'



> "Our focus now is on saying okay, there are some guns, yes, that we're going to have to take away from people who were using them to hunt,"
> Trudeau said.
> "Our focus now is on saying okay, there are some guns, yes, that we're going to have to take away from people who were using them to hunt," Trudeau said.
> "There are some weapons that are used for hunting that unfortunately fall on the wrong side of the line. Not many, but there are some that are slightly overpowered or have too large a magazine capacity or technical reasons like that," Trudeau said. "Nobody wants assault-style weapons anywhere in this country. You don't use them for hunting, and you shouldn't have them for any other reason."


----------



## Jarnhamar (20 Dec 2022)

Lumber said:


> I'm surprised I'm the first with this:
> 
> Trudeau says firearms bill will go after 'some' hunting guns that are 'too dangerous in other contexts'



Thats just fake news and misinformation.

Trudeau isn't taking away* any *hunting rifles.


*The federal government’s reforms of gun-control laws won’t take away rifles used by hunters, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau said Tuesday as critics, including Montreal Canadiens player Carey Price, speak out against the proposed changes.*



Conservatives are 'fearmongering' over assault-style gun ban: public safety minister​


> Public Safety Minister Marco Mendicino is accusing the Conservatives of "whipping up fear" that the Liberal government is outlawing ordinary long guns and hunting rifles.
> 
> The government only wants to reinforce a regulatory ban on assault-style firearms such as the AR-15 by enshrining a definition in legislation, and it is prepared to work with MPs to get it right, Mendicino said in an interview.
> 
> ...


----------



## FSTO (20 Dec 2022)

Lumber said:


> I'm surprised I'm the first with this:
> 
> Trudeau says firearms bill will go after 'some' hunting guns that are 'too dangerous in other contexts'


Listening to the PM and Mendocino talk about rifles makes my ears bleed.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (20 Dec 2022)

Lumber said:


> This is not a question designed to elicit a "gotcha" moment; as a non-hunter I am literally just ignorant:
> 
> How many of you and/or how often while hunting did you:
> a. use a semi-auto rifle while hunting; and
> ...



Waterfowl hunters in high winds enter the chat…


----------



## Lumber (20 Dec 2022)

Eye In The Sky said:


> Waterfowl hunters in high winds enter the chat…


Don't ya'll use pump-action shotguns for that?


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (20 Dec 2022)

Lumber said:


> Don't ya'll use pump-action shotguns for that?


Semiautos actually.  Many traditional hunting shotguns for waterfowl, particularly break actions, are semi-automatic.






						Semi-Automatic | Cabela's Canada
					

Quality Shooting, Firearms, Shotguns, and Semi-Automatic at competitive prices.




					www.cabelas.ca
				




I'm talking about the classics you always see as well with some nice Italian and Turkish craftsmanship.

TBH, everything this Government does seems like an attack on some of my extended family's businesses and way of life.


----------



## Jarnhamar (20 Dec 2022)

Lumber said:


> Don't ya'll use pump-action shotguns for that?



What's the difference then?


----------



## Lumber (20 Dec 2022)

Jarnhamar said:


> What's the difference then?


I wouldn't consider a pump action semi-auto...


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (20 Dec 2022)

Lumber said:


> I wouldn't consider a pump action semi-auto...







I personally like these beauties.  Not "Black and Scary" they are sexy like an Italian racecar.  Design basically unchanged since 1925 😎

Also, Caesar Guerini makes a sexy gun as well!  They also show the love for the ladies:


----------



## Fishbone Jones (20 Dec 2022)

Trudeau moving the goalposts again. Now he's blurring the line between 'assault style weapons' and hunting guns. Still pushing the inevitable creep towards total confiscation. Especially if we let leftist politicians continue to define firearm types, instead of technical experts..



> "Our focus now is on saying okay, there are some guns, yes, that we're going to have to take away from people who were using them to hunt," Trudeau said.
> "There are some weapons that are used for hunting that unfortunately fall on the wrong side of the line. Not many, but there are some that are slightly overpowered or have too large a magazine capacity or technical reasons like that," Trudeau said. "Nobody wants assault-style weapons anywhere in this country. You don't use them for hunting, and you shouldn't have them for any other reason."



I wonder how long before people start putting a set screw and their lever guns again and how the miscreants will define those.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (20 Dec 2022)

Fishbone Jones said:


> Trudeau moving the goalposts again. Now he's blurring the line between 'assault style weapons' and hunting guns. Still pushing the inevitable creep towards total confiscation. Especially if we let leftist politicians continue to define firearm types, instead of technical experts..
> 
> 
> 
> I wonder how long before people start putting a set screw and their lever guns again and how the miscreants will define those.



But think of the children!?!


----------



## Jarnhamar (20 Dec 2022)

Lumber said:


> I wouldn't consider a pump action semi-auto...



My theory is, from a LPC public safety perspective if a pump action can be used in the same context as a semi-auto then maybe pump actions should be banned too?

Some pump action shotguns have high magazine capacities, like this assault-pump action fella.


----------



## Halifax Tar (20 Dec 2022)

Been out all morning with two kids and another adult hunting grouse.  Semi auto .12ga guns. 

No mass murders or illegal killings.  Weird.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (20 Dec 2022)

Halifax Tar said:


> Been out all morning with two kids and another adult hunting grouse.  Semi auto .12ga guns.
> 
> No mass murders or illegal killings.  Weird.









The grouse beg to differ!!!!


----------



## Halifax Tar (20 Dec 2022)

Humphrey Bogart said:


> The grouse beg to differ!!!!



The two noisy water buffalos for kids made sure no ammo was consumed lol 

But fun was had by all.  Their Daisy BB guns got a good workout lol


----------



## Eye In The Sky (20 Dec 2022)

Lumber said:


> Don't ya'll use pump-action shotguns for that?



Yes, I’m a pump 12ga guy myself.   But a semi is generally better and they usually have a recoil reduction system which makes them a better choice, IMO.  Semi’s can also be more accurate for older folks, which means more ethical harvests ( cleaner kills).

I can rack 5 shells out of my Winchester as fast as I could put them out of a semi, or pretty darn close.

I can also swing a shovel pretty fast, so I expect a bill to control dangerous garden tools to follow under this govts logic.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (20 Dec 2022)

One voice that seems missing from the discussion regarding the “semi auto” and “mag capacity” is what i will call the ethical hunter/amateur conservationist voice.

Those of us that fall into this category believe in things like ethical harvest, clean kill, limiting suffering, and game should become tablefare.  We care about wildlife and nature.  We want the proper tools for the job to be done.

Some of us are also unhappy with the “grocery store” selection of meat (and other products) as we’ve become more aware of the problems in our food supply.  And we want to reach back to when things were more natural and healthy.

Saying “if they want meat, they can get it at a grocery store” is now the government deciding what I should eat and where I should get it.

That isn’t the right of any government, IMO.  

Reasonable firearms control; sure we’ve had that for years.  The hunting firearms attempt is crossing a line.

Justification for semi auto and more than 5 round capacity firearms?  These animals are in Canada now and spreading rapidly.


----------



## KevinB (20 Dec 2022)

Clearly you need a Minigun.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (20 Dec 2022)

The Great Gonzo goes feral hog hunting with a helicopter and a machine gun.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (20 Dec 2022)

KevinB said:


> Clearly you need a Minigun.



I saw that video and thought “and now you know why I am a 00 buck fan”…


----------



## Haggis (21 Dec 2022)

If the current pressure on the provincial health care systems persists into February, I suspect Trudeau will tell the premiers that more health dollars will flow if they support and enable his assault weapons ban and Bill C-21.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (21 Dec 2022)

Haggis said:


> If the current pressure on the provincial health care systems persists into February, I suspect Trudeau will tell the premiers that more health dollars will flow if they support and enable his assault weapons ban and Bill C-21.



…and then, after the Bill gets done what he wants done, and they ask for their money…


----------



## Fishbone Jones (21 Dec 2022)

I don't think I've seen him keep a promise yet. Unless it's to make himself money or to ingratiate himself to his facist masters.


----------



## Jarnhamar (21 Dec 2022)

Eye In The Sky said:


> …and then, after the Bill gets done what he wants done, and they ask for their money…


Talk about channeling CAF career managers


----------



## OldSolduer (21 Dec 2022)

Fishbone Jones said:


> I don't think I've seen him keep a promise yet. Unless it's to make himself money or to ingratiate himself to his facist   communist masters.


China is ruled by Communists. FTFY


----------



## GK .Dundas (21 Dec 2022)

OldSolduer said:


> China is ruled by Communists. FTFY


I not sure you could even call them Communist any more. Best description I've heard for China these days is "Industrial Feudal state."


----------



## Halifax Tar (21 Dec 2022)

Eye In The Sky said:


> …and then, after the Bill gets done what he wants done, and they ask for their money…



And then another amendment to go after pump, leaver and bolt guns.


----------



## Lumber (21 Dec 2022)

Fishbone Jones said:


> I don't think I've seen him keep a promise yet. Unless it's to make himself money or to ingratiate himself to his facist masters.


Trudeau's Promises summary. I think There's a few in there that don't have anything to do with making himself money:


----------



## Eye In The Sky (21 Dec 2022)

Halifax Tar said:


> And then another amendment to go after pump, leaver and bolt the rest of the guns.



Squirt guns included…


----------



## KevinB (21 Dec 2022)

Lumber said:


> Trudeau's Promises summary. I think There's a few in there that don't have anything to do with making himself money:
> 
> View attachment 75557


How does one keep part of a promise?
  One could equally label that partially broken…

NR sounds a lot like ignored, and in progress sounds like on the way to being ignored.  

So 30% have been carried out.  A breakdown of that 30% would be nice.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (21 Dec 2022)

OldSolduer said:


> China is ruled by Communists. FTFY


I was speaking of Soros and Schwab OS.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (21 Dec 2022)

KevinB said:


> How does one keep part of a promise?
> One could equally label that partially broken…
> 
> NR sounds a lot like ignored, and in progress sounds like on the way to being ignored.
> ...


It's a single graphic. Doesn't count for much. Polls can be spun however the writer chooses. You could probably find in that 30%, many instances where his promise was kept, but only benefitted himself or his cronies. Solid promises that actually benefit the Canadian people and landscape, not so much.

Much like he told the 'truth' at SECU that he never called anyone names. Stared right at the camera and lied, under oath, about his own recorded and publicized words. That really wants to make you trust him.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (21 Dec 2022)

Lumber said:


> Trudeau's Promises summary. I think There's a few in there that don't have anything to do with making himself money:
> 
> View attachment 75557


----------



## Lumber (21 Dec 2022)

Fishbone Jones said:


> It's a single graphic. Doesn't count for much. Polls can be spun however the writer chooses. You could probably find in that 30%, many instances where his promise was kept, but only benefitted himself or his cronies. Solid promises that actually benefit the Canadian people and landscape, not so much.
> 
> Much like he told the 'truth' at SECU that he never called anyone names. Stared right at the camera and lied, under oath, about his own recorded and publicized words. That really wants to make you trust him.


1. It's not just a simple graphic. The website actually lists every single one of the 1274  promise with references explaining the promise and the assessment.

2. You said "I don't think I've seen him keep a promise yet. Unless it's to make himself money or to ingratiate himself to his facist masters." You can find plenty of promises in there that disprove your hyperbolic assertion.


----------



## Lumber (21 Dec 2022)

KevinB said:


> How does one keep part of a promise?
> One could equally label that partially broken…
> 
> NR sounds a lot like ignored, and in progress sounds like on the way to being ignored.
> ...


I can use the same example to explain both (part promise or in progress). In progress does not mean ignore. For example, Trudeau made promises WRT getting clean water on reserves. They are actually working on that so it's still in progress. 

I agree though that part kept could mean broken, but not always. If, for example, the liberals said "good enough" and stopped with the clean water on reserves project, you could say part kept, but also part broken, because they chose to jsut stop. However, some promises cannot be kept through no fault of the government. Perhaps a project that required international support fell through only partially realized, through no fault of the government. You could say it was part kept.


----------



## Lumber (21 Dec 2022)

Humphrey Bogart said:


>


This is a perfect example. Sure, you could make the tinfoil hat argument that he "only" did it because he or his friends had shares in pot companies, or you could accept reality, in the the whole God dman country wanted pot legalized, and the decision to make it part of their platform was grass roots. 

So, there, thank you @Humphrey Bogart foe providing the one example needed to disprove @Fishbone Jones assertion that JT hasn't kept a single promise that wasn't done solely to benefit him and his friends.


----------



## Lumber (21 Dec 2022)

I apologize to the whole for dedicating so many posts to calling BS on FJ as opposed to actually discussing, you know, gun laws.

I fear JT has timed this right. When we find out exactly what hunting rifles he's considering banning, there will be outrage, but it won't last until the spring election, at least not in a way that it could be a serious election issue.


----------



## Jarnhamar (21 Dec 2022)

Lumber said:


> I apologize to the whole for dedicating so many posts to calling BS on FJ as opposed to actually discussing, you know, gun laws.
> 
> I fear JT has timed this right. When we find out exactly what hunting rifles he's considering banning, there will be outrage, but it won't last until the spring election, at least not in a way that it could be a serious election issue.



The list is already out.

This is one of them. It's a single-shot rifle. Ruger No.1


----------



## Halifax Tar (21 Dec 2022)

There are many rifles on that list that hunting rifles.

They were simply jugged on their look and furniture and nothing else.

An absolute bonehead who has no understanding of firearms made that list.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (21 Dec 2022)

If the list goes after single shot firearms, this govt can no longer claim “it’s about gun control”.

It’s disarming the population (you believe votes against you).


----------



## IKnowNothing (21 Dec 2022)

Eye In The Sky said:


> If the list goes after single shot firearms, this govt can no longer claim “it’s about gun control”.
> 
> It’s disarming the population (you believe votes against you).


The Ruger No 1 is not banned.  Some bureaucrat found an example of a Ruger No 1 chambered in something that can exceed 10kJ at the muzzle, and any example of that specific Ruger No 1 is banned.

Communicated for maximum confusion to prevent well organized and articulated pushback and modification


----------



## Eye In The Sky (21 Dec 2022)

Lumber said:


> This is a perfect example. Sure, you could make the tinfoil hat argument that he "only" did it because he or his friends had shares in pot companies, or you could accept reality, in the the whole God dman country wanted pot legalized, and the decision to make it part of their platform was grass roots.
> 
> So, there, thank you @Humphrey Bogart foe providing the one example needed to disprove @Fishbone Jones assertion that JT hasn't kept a single promise that wasn't done solely to benefit him and his friends.



You’re far more trusting and forgiving of this govt than they deserve.  Do they REALLY deserve the benefit of the doubt on anything anymore?  Honestly. 

Making pot legal is also a way to pacify part of a population.

This govt has demonstrated a lack of ethics, honesty and integrity too many times…and gotten away with it.   So they will continue because there is no consequence to their ways.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (21 Dec 2022)

IKnowNothing said:


> The Ruger No 1 is not banned.  Some bureaucrat found an example of a Ruger No 1 chambered in something that can exceed 10kJ at the muzzle, and any example of that specific Ruger No 1 is banned.
> 
> Communicated for maximum confusion to prevent well organized and articulated pushback and modification



You’ll note I said any single shot firearms (to me includes Centre fire, rim fire or shotgun).

I was specific in my choice of words.


----------



## Jarnhamar (21 Dec 2022)

IKnowNothing said:


> The Ruger No 1 is not banned.  Some bureaucrat found an example of a Ruger No 1 chambered in something that can exceed 10kJ at the muzzle, and any example of that specific Ruger No 1 is banned.
> 
> Communicated for maximum confusion to prevent well organized and articulated pushback and modification



Fair point. It's just the 460 Wheherby Magnium that is prohibited. I thought it was more calibers than that.


The GSG-16 is on the list. It's a .22caliber semi-automatic rimfire rifle. Is that more dangerous than something used to hunt bear?


----------



## Eye In The Sky (21 Dec 2022)

It “looks scary”.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (22 Dec 2022)

Halifax Tar said:


> There are many rifles on that list that hunting rifles.
> 
> They were simply jugged on their look and furniture and nothing else.
> 
> An absolute bonehead who has no understanding of firearms made that list.


His name is Murray Smith. The government's top 'expert' on firearms. Ex RCMP.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (22 Dec 2022)

IKnowNothing said:


> The Ruger No 1 is not banned.  Some bureaucrat found an example of a Ruger No 1 chambered in something that can exceed 10kJ at the muzzle, and any example of that specific Ruger No 1 is banned.
> 
> Communicated for maximum confusion to prevent well organized and articulated pushback and modification


But it is the whole No 1 family, right now, though. The problem being is that one particular cartridge is not specified in the amendment. The list simply says Ruger No. 1 is prohibited. Not the Ruger No. 1 chambered on .458 African is prohibited. The Crown won't make that distinction, if you are using a No 1 chambered on .300 Win Mag. Their lack of firearms knowledge and their rush to push an unvetted list has produced lots of confusion.  It puts many firearms and owners unnecessarily at risk of having to spend thousands of dollars to fight a court battle against an overzealous Crown who is following a flawed list and definition. Once again, this vindictive government have almost succeeded in making many gun owners criminals over a piece of paper, lousy research and total ignorance of firearms. Meanwhile, the firearms owners did everything to follow the law and do what they were told to do to enjoy their sport, but are now backed up to the wall, again, through zero fault of their own. Watching, in some cases, tens of thousands of dollars of their personal private property just disappear from existence with zero recourse or compensation.


----------



## childs56 (22 Dec 2022)

Fishbone Jones said:


> But it is the whole No 1 family, right now, though. The problem being is that one particular cartridge is not specified in the amendment. The list simply says Ruger No. 1 is prohibited. Not the Ruger No. 1 chambered on .458 African is prohibited. The Crown won't make that distinction, if you are using a No 1 chambered on .300 Win Mag. Their lack of firearms knowledge and their rush to push an unvetted list has produced lots of confusion.  It puts many firearms and owners unnecessarily at risk of having to spend thousands of dollars to fight a court battle against an overzealous Crown who is following a flawed list and definition. Once again, this vindictive government have almost succeeded in making many gun owners criminals over a piece of paper, lousy research and total ignorance of firearms. Meanwhile, the firearms owners did everything to follow the law and do what they were told to do to enjoy their sport, but are now backed up to the wall, again, through zero fault of their own. Watching, in some cases, tens of thousands of dollars of their personal private property just disappear from existence with zero recourse or compensation.


Not to mention the few Canadian Firearm manufacturers including Colt Canada who designed got approval from the Federal government, then built and sold these firearms only to be told a couple years later nope we banned your fully approved firearm type.  The feds have used the term "circumvented" when talking around these manufactures. Who closely worked with the RCMP Firearms Group to ensure they complied with Canadian Firearms Laws so they could provide a safe reliable product for Canadian Law abiding Firearm Sport and Hunting shooters. All that money, all that R&D down the drain after a couple of years. It is sickening to see this for the family's of those companies and also the people who bought these firearms with the understanding they were not going to be confiscated under lawful use.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (22 Dec 2022)

Revamped Black Creek Labs is another. Chopped off at the knees just after rollout, with  zero chance to recoup a massive investment.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (22 Dec 2022)

Jarnhamar said:


> The list is already out.
> 
> This is one of them. It's a single-shot rifle. Ruger No.1
> 
> View attachment 75562


Can we get one of these in .22 Guage?


----------



## OldSolduer (22 Dec 2022)

Fishbone Jones said:


> Can we get one of these in .22 Guage?


I saw that somewhere too - what fucking idiot said that?

This Murray Smith guy is an expert at one thing and its not firearms. I will let you imagine what he's an expert at.


----------



## KevinB (22 Dec 2022)

OldSolduer said:


> I saw that somewhere too - what fucking idiot said that?
> 
> This Murray Smith guy is an expert at one thing and its not firearms. I will let you imagine what he's an expert at.


I knew Murray when he was still in the RCMP. 
    He’s pretty knowledgeable, the issue is at some point in time he became less interested in firearms and more in politics and growing an empire.   So he in my opinion has kicked his ethics to the ground and will do what ever is wished by the government (PMO).


----------



## Eye In The Sky (22 Dec 2022)

Not sure if this factors into the gun grab but I can’t imagine it doesn’t.






						Armed man who broke into Trudeau residence charged with threatening to kill or injure PM | Canada | The Guardian
					

Corey Hurren, 46, was carrying multiple firearms, police say, when he allegedly crashed his truck through the gate on the grounds where Trudeau lives




					amp.theguardian.com


----------



## Haggis (22 Dec 2022)

Eye In The Sky said:


> Not sure if this factors into the gun grab but I can’t imagine it doesn’t.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


No more than the NS massacre did. This is not Liberal ideology.  This is a campaign stunt.  Only votes matter and gun bans are an easy path to urban votes.


----------



## OldSolduer (22 Dec 2022)

KevinB said:


> I knew Murray when he was still in the RCMP.
> He’s pretty knowledgeable, the issue is at some point in time he became less interested in firearms and more in politics and growing an empire.   So he in my opinion has kicked his ethics to the ground and will do what ever is wished by the government (PMO).


Then I will leave it to your imagination what I think he's expert at.

Mind you several RCMP commissioners have cozied up to the PMO so why not him too?


----------



## Eye In The Sky (22 Dec 2022)

Haggis said:


> No more than the NS massacre did. This is not Liberal ideology.  This is a campaign stunt.  Only votes matter and gun bans are an easy path to urban votes.



Maybe, but the “drives truck thru gates” one was more personal, IMO.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (23 Dec 2022)

Since the original list came out, there has been accusations that it wasn't vetted, it wasn't researched and that it was mostly cut and paste from an algorithm result.

These two firearms have been on the list since April 2020, almost three years ago, and it hasn't been corrected. Even though it has been brought to their attention more than once. They obviously are ignoring us and think they know better..

On page 54, at lines z.085 and z.086

(z.085) AR15.Com ARFCOM;
(z.086) AR15.Com AR15.Com;

The expert that put these firearms on there never even checked their own work or insured the list was correct. Just banning stuff willy nilly.

There is no way possible that these firearms would harm anyone.

Simply because they are not firearms.

They are websites. They banned two websites as firearms, FFS.🤣


----------



## kkwd (23 Dec 2022)

The "Butt Master" made the list. It's a novelty gun made years ago as a joke. It is like an enhanced pen flare launcher, are they on the list as well?
Butt Master


----------



## Colin Parkinson (23 Dec 2022)

kkwd said:


> The "Butt Master" made the list. It's a novelty gun made years ago as a joke. It is like an enhanced pen flare launcher, are they on the list as well?
> Butt Master


----------



## Fishbone Jones (23 Dec 2022)




----------



## Fishbone Jones (24 Dec 2022)

There may be copies, but there is only one 'Butt Master'. It has never left the possession of the inventor and manufacture. It was never submitted to or registered by, the RCMP. The person is a licensed gunsmith. and is somewhat befuddled as to how his property made the list.






You have to love the trudeau graphic Carlson used in his introduction.🤣


----------



## singh1947 (25 Dec 2022)

Eye In The Sky said:


> Saying “if they want meat, they can get it at a grocery store” is now the government deciding what I should eat and where I should get it.
> 
> That isn’t the right of any.













Exactly.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (25 Dec 2022)

Fishbone Jones said:


> Since the original list came out, there has been accusations that it wasn't vetted, it wasn't researched and that it was mostly cut and paste from an algorithm result.
> 
> These two firearms have been on the list since April 2020, almost three years ago, and it hasn't been corrected. Even though it has been brought to their attention more than once. They obviously are ignoring us and think they know better..
> 
> ...


I'm not so much upset at the elected officials for this.  They are gonna do what they are gonna do but......

I'm more upset at the poor work and people who we call "the professional civil service" for putting out such a dogshit staffing effort.  This is what your tax dollars are paying for.

And they want to work from home 🤣

Nah, I think a pay cut is in order and the only billable hours are the ones spent at the office under max supervision.


----------



## Halifax Tar (25 Dec 2022)

Humphrey Bogart said:


> I'm not so much upset at the elected officials for this.  They are gonna do what they are gonna do but......
> 
> I'm more upset at the poor work and people who we call "the professional civil service" for putting out such a dogshit staffing effort.  This is what your tax dollars are paying for.
> 
> ...



That's what happens when you use people who have absolutely no knowledge or are oppositional to the subject matter of the legislation to write the legislation.


----------



## suffolkowner (25 Dec 2022)

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1606403114462060547
looks like the government might have had Poly draft the firearms list

Merry Christmas!


----------



## Halifax Tar (25 Dec 2022)

suffolkowner said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1606403114462060547
> looks like the government might have had Poly draft the firearms list
> 
> Merry Christmas!



This just continues to get worse and worse.  Any other mishandling of a file by any other Gov would have caused it's collapse.


----------



## suffolkowner (25 Dec 2022)

Halifax Tar said:


> This just continues to get worse and worse.  Any other mishandling of a file by any other Gov would have caused it's collapse.


Canada has diverged from the UK and Australia in this unfortunately. Im not sure why? Anyone?


----------



## Halifax Tar (25 Dec 2022)

suffolkowner said:


> Canada has diverged from the UK and Australia in this unfortunately. Im not sure why? Anyone?



Our Government hates a certain segment of our population.

On a more serious note, because our government cares more about optics and speaking points than actually creating useful legislation.


----------



## singh1947 (26 Dec 2022)

Halifax Tar said:


> Our Government hates a certain segment of our population.
> 
> On a more serious note, because our government cares more about optics and speaking points than actually creating useful legislation.


There's no ideologically motivated pro-gun lobby.

Our side refers to it as property and a hobby.
They refer to guns as demonic tools of destruction.

In a battle of passions obvious which side has the edge.


----------



## Eaglelord17 (26 Dec 2022)

suffolkowner said:


> Canada has diverged from the UK and Australia in this unfortunately. Im not sure why? Anyone?


Because Canadians are naturally unwilling to do much about the government? We are a extremely passive people who generally can't be bothered to do much about anything. 

The Trucker Convoy (support it or not) was the first real protest movement not run by professional protesters I have ever seen in this country. Every other serious protest I have seen has basically been around native rights, usually politically supported/run by the various native government/s and basically always in the summer time. 

Compare that to say France, where just a couple days ago there was rioting in the streets because someone shot 3 Kurds and they arrested the suspect. To put a compariable spin on it, imagine if Canadians had rioted after the Mosque shooting in Quebec in 2017. You just wouldn't see it. 

CERB repayment is another example of people being passive. In many countries there would be rioting over that and the government would just let them keep it. Here we tolerate it, maybe bitch a little, then go along with it.


----------



## Good2Golf (26 Dec 2022)

Eaglelord17 said:


> CERB repayment is another example of people being passive. In many countries there would be rioting over that and the government would just let them keep it. Here we tolerate it, maybe bitch a little, then go along with it.


Probably because on the whole, they know that the government will be pretty inept at recovering the majority of the over payments…


----------



## Eye In The Sky (26 Dec 2022)

singh1947 said:


> There's no ideologically motivated pro-gun lobby.
> 
> Our side refers to it as property and a hobby.
> They refer to guns as demonic tools of destruction.
> ...



Or the government doesn’t want citizens to outgun them.  It’s happened a few times in history.


----------



## KevinB (26 Dec 2022)

Eye In The Sky said:


> Or the government doesn’t want citizens to outgun them.  It’s happened a few times in history.


Staple of a stable democracy 
   The fourth pillar


----------



## Fishbone Jones (27 Dec 2022)

__ https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=5966692243362229


----------



## OldSolduer (27 Dec 2022)

Fishbone Jones said:


> __ https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=5966692243362229


The only misinformation and disinformation is coming from this government and the lapdogs that advise it. He’s not honest at all .


----------



## Colin Parkinson (29 Dec 2022)

Soon to be added to the List


----------



## Halifax Tar (29 Dec 2022)

Colin Parkinson said:


> Soon to be added to the List



Great video watched it yesterday.  

Interesting concept.


----------



## Good2Golf (30 Dec 2022)

30-06…. ❤️


----------



## Brad Sallows (30 Dec 2022)

I suppose the banners might be tracking the stories from the US about a handful of incidents in which transmission substations have been sabotaged by (rifle) gunfire.  Going to have to ban pretty much everything, now, before angry people start to retaliate in ways that could cost much more money than anyone can spare.


----------



## Good2Golf (30 Dec 2022)

Brad Sallows said:


> I suppose the banners might be tracking the stories from the US about a handful of incidents in which transmission substations have been sabotaged by (rifle) gunfire.  Going to have to ban pretty much everything, now, before angry people start to retaliate in ways that could cost much more money than anyone can spare.


…and continuing to look the opposite direction to all the illegal weapons users committing crimes and having bleeding hearts let them get out on bail and promise not to to things like have firearms…or murder police officers…but hey, unicorns and pixie dust will keep most Canadians safe…


----------



## Halifax Tar (30 Dec 2022)

Good2Golf said:


> …and continuing to look the opposite direction to all the illegal weapons users committing crimes and having bleeding hearts let them get out on bail and promise not to to things like have firearms…or murder police officers…but hey, unicorns and pixie dust will keep most Canadians safe…



Going after the illegal weapons is expensive, time consuming; and can lead politically sticky, hand wringing  situations.


----------



## Brad Sallows (30 Dec 2022)

Just another example of looking for the keys under the lamp where the light is better, instead of the dark alley where they were last seen.


----------



## OldSolduer (30 Dec 2022)

Halifax Tar said:


> Going after the illegal weapons is expensive, time consuming; and can lead politically sticky, hand wringing  situations.


Yes and its so hard I know.... the issue here is that most of the anti gun people have zero experience with firearms and to add zero street smarts.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (31 Dec 2022)

This old boy is saying what everyone is thinking. Good on him.


----------

