The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0

[AbdullahD]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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,
        .
        .
        13. Property and Civil Rights in the Province.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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)
-90,000. Canadians (mainly police, law-enforcement and military) allowed or required to carry loaded guns in daily life for personal and public safety.
-10,000. Canadian youth aged 12-17 with licences to use, but not buy, firearms.
-4,500. Firearm and ammunition businesses in Canada. (Roughly 1,500 are licensed to sell firearms.)
-1,400. Target-shooting ranges in Canada. About the same as the number of hospitals.
-1,000. New firearms legally bought in Canada each day. (Plus about 1,000 used firearms.)
-1,000. New handguns, AR-15 rifles and other “Restricted” firearms bought in Canada each week.

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]

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: