The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0

[Jarnhamar]

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/firearm-reclassification-after-ban-anounced-1.5589519

RCMP sure are having a field day.

 

[dangerboy]

Just waiting for the SKS to be added to the list.

 

[Haggis]

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]

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]

[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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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=

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.

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]

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]

I think you would be looking at serious charter issues if a federal government withheld entitlements without a court order.

 

[blacktriangle]

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]

Yes but they need to put the authority into the enforcement provisions as regulations of the firearms act.

 

[Haggis]

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.

...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]

According to Wikipedia the Temperance Act was repealed in 1984.