The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0

[SeaKingTacco]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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.

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]

[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]

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]

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".

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.