The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0

[Jarnhamar]

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]

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]

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]

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]

When's Erin getting me back on the range with my AR15?

 

[stellarpanther]

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]

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]

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”.

Is it possible for you to respond to a post without the ******* insults and sarcasm?

 

[Stoker]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Stellarpanther did not call for hunting rifles to be banned. He is correct.

Made the change, he's still dead wrong though...

 

[stellarpanther]

Made the change, he's still dead wrong though...

 

[Jarnhamar]

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]

Can you elaborate on what I am dead wrong on? 

Sure.

https://army.ca/forums/threads/127924.1225.html

 

[Humphrey Bogart]

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.