Author Topic: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0  (Read 80790 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Haggis

  • "There ain't no hat badge on a helmet!"
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 68,030
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,831
  • "Oh, what a glorious sight, Warm-reekin, rich!"
Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
« Reply #625 on: October 23, 2019, 17:46:33 »
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.
« Last Edit: October 23, 2019, 18:19:08 by Haggis »
Train like your life depends on it.  Some day, it may.

Offline Eaglelord17

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 16,855
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 314
Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
« Reply #626 on: October 24, 2019, 06:24:01 »
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.

Offline Jarnhamar

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 304,736
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 11,176
Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
« Reply #627 on: November 02, 2019, 09:47:25 »
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.
« Last Edit: November 02, 2019, 09:50:00 by Jarnhamar »
There are no wolves on Fenris

Offline Jonezy76

  • This Space Available
  • New Member
  • **
  • 3,240
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 34
Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
« Reply #628 on: November 02, 2019, 11:10:36 »
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.

"Only the Police and Military should be trusted with guns"  ;D
The gene pool could use a little chlorine.

Offline Eaglelord17

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 16,855
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 314
Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
« Reply #629 on: November 06, 2019, 06:05:09 »

Offline Jarnhamar

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 304,736
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 11,176
Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
« Reply #630 on: November 06, 2019, 07:54:29 »
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.
« Last Edit: November 06, 2019, 08:03:47 by Jarnhamar »
There are no wolves on Fenris

Offline Cloud Cover

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 43,985
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 4,264
Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
« Reply #631 on: November 06, 2019, 23:11:38 »
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
+300
Living the lean life

Offline Eaglelord17

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 16,855
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 314
Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
« Reply #632 on: November 07, 2019, 06:03:29 »
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.

Offline Jarnhamar

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 304,736
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 11,176
Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
« Reply #633 on: November 07, 2019, 08:35:11 »
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.


Quote
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?

There are no wolves on Fenris

Offline NavyShooter

    Boaty McBoatface!

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 187,671
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,121
  • Death from a Bar.....one shot, one Tequilla
Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
« Reply #634 on: November 07, 2019, 09:15:13 »
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.

Insert disclaimer statement here....

:panzer:

Offline Cloud Cover

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 43,985
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 4,264
Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
« Reply #635 on: November 07, 2019, 13:20:00 »
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.
Living the lean life

Offline Colin P

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 147,715
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 9,678
  • Civilian
    • http://www.pacific.ccg-gcc.gc.ca
Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
« Reply #636 on: November 07, 2019, 14:52:13 »
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.   

Offline Cloud Cover

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 43,985
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 4,264
Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
« Reply #637 on: November 07, 2019, 15:08:58 »
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).
Living the lean life

Offline Colin P

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 147,715
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 9,678
  • Civilian
    • http://www.pacific.ccg-gcc.gc.ca
Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
« Reply #638 on: November 07, 2019, 16:21:45 »
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. 

Offline Haggis

  • "There ain't no hat badge on a helmet!"
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 68,030
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,831
  • "Oh, what a glorious sight, Warm-reekin, rich!"
Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
« Reply #639 on: November 07, 2019, 18:39:06 »
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.
Train like your life depends on it.  Some day, it may.

Offline Loachman

  • Former Army Pilot in Drag
  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *
  • 218,992
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 7,491
Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
« Reply #640 on: November 07, 2019, 21:15:19 »
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/

Offline Jarnhamar

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 304,736
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 11,176
Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
« Reply #641 on: November 07, 2019, 21:27:59 »
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.
« Last Edit: November 08, 2019, 05:45:21 by Jarnhamar »
There are no wolves on Fenris

Offline Good2Golf

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 222,495
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 11,316
  • Dammit! I lost my sand-wedge on that last jump!
Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
« Reply #642 on: November 07, 2019, 22:57:19 »
And yet a Member can lose their service S&W from a Satchel..in a mall....le sigh...
+300 « Last Edit: November 08, 2019, 07:15:13 by Good2Golf »

Offline Eaglelord17

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 16,855
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 314
Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
« Reply #643 on: November 08, 2019, 06:02:47 »
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.
« Last Edit: November 08, 2019, 06:05:32 by Eaglelord17 »

Online Remius

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 122,285
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,633
Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
« Reply #644 on: November 08, 2019, 08:42:55 »
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?     
Optio

Offline Jarnhamar

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 304,736
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 11,176
Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
« Reply #645 on: November 08, 2019, 15:47:41 »
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?
There are no wolves on Fenris

Offline Jarnhamar

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 304,736
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 11,176
Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
« Reply #646 on: November 08, 2019, 16:11:18 »
I can't tell if this is a legitimate website or not.

Quote
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.

Police have met with more than 50 gang leaders in an effort to get them to comply with firearm law changes before an amnesty ends.

But it's proving to be fruitless, as the patched members remain "very reluctant", Police Commissioner Mike Bush told the Justice Select Committee on Thursday.

https://i.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/117242736/police-meet-with-gang-leaders-to-try-and-convince-them-to-surrender-guns-during-amnesty?fbclid=IwAR1u_aV6jSuq6XIVBmbg0OIjtXr7irk0adzBn3UaATmHgPopFkgDNZu1xXI

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.
There are no wolves on Fenris

Online milnews.ca

  • Info Curator, Baker & Food Slut
  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Relic
  • *
  • 434,850
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 22,406
    • MILNEWS.ca-Military News for Canadians
“The risk of insult is the price of clarity.” -- Roy H. Williams

The words I share here are my own, not those of anyone else or anybody I may be affiliated with.

Tony Prudori
MILNEWS.ca - Twitter

Offline Eaglelord17

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 16,855
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 314
Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
« Reply #648 on: November 09, 2019, 01:29:38 »
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.

Online GR66

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 57,040
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 632
Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
« Reply #649 on: November 09, 2019, 08:18:29 »
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: