The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0

[Haggis]

I am convinced at this point, nothing short of removing the firearms act and putting back in the pre-1994 restrictions will amount to anything. The OIC portion of the law is the most dangerous part as it allows them to outlaw any firearm (or all firearms) without even having to go through parliament.

I'm honestly surprised they didn't propose a national handgun ban.

 

[QV]

I'm honestly surprised they didn't propose a national handgun ban.

Maybe they are saving a few announcements & promises for closer to election day.

 

[Brad Sallows]

I'm honestly surprised they didn't propose a national handgun ban.

They're trying a detour by offering money to those who take up the burden.

 

[Haggis]

They're trying a detour by offering money to those who take up the burden.

They didn't offer any funding for municipalities to enact bans under Bill C-21.

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

They are now, $1b, to municipalities or provinces to enact hand gun bans.

Now, last time I checked, offering money to officials (elected or not) to enact legislation/by-laws favouring you (or in this case doing your dirty job for you) is called bribery. So, any other party noticed they can attack the Libs by attracting attention to that and then accusing them of not having the cahounas to do their own dirty work while claiming to be the GoC that "does something about guns on our street". Call them hypocrites all over again.

 

[Haggis]

They are now, $1b, to municipalities or provinces to enact hand gun bans.

Contrary to what I posted in another thread in error, that's $1B total to be spread across all of Canada that elects to enact his ban.

Now, last time I checked, offering money to officials (elected or not) to enact legislation/by-laws favouring you (or in this case doing your dirty job for you) is called bribery.

Now, that wouldn't be ethical. Which is probably why they've chosen that COA.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Pretty sure last time this came up, there was a discussion of jurisdiction. Kenney and Ford both said it wasn't happening, as the province regulates municipalities. Trudeau claims to have a work around, but as far as I know hasn't articulated it yet. I'm guessing he really doesn't have the workaround and is dangling the money as a carrot to places like Toronto and Quebec for votes. Once in, he'll just ignore it like so many other election promises he makes.

 

[Remius]

The good news is that even if the CPC gets a minority government, they do not have to go to Parliament to reverse the recent legislation by the Liberals.

Not sure how many saw the French debate but…

O’Toole pledges to keep assault rifle ban. His platform says it’ll be gone. Here’s what we know - National | Globalnews.ca

The Conservative platform promises to repeal a Liberal executive order from May of last year, which banned 1,500 'military-style assault rifles.'

globalnews.ca

when pressed, O’toole said he would keep the ban on “assault” style firearms.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

In other words he continue the ban on automatic rifles

 

[Remius]

I’m sure it will come up in the English debate.

 

[Mills Bomb]

That is very misleading news.

CBC just updated their story to clarify that he is talking about the 1977 ban, and NOT Trudeau's OIC.
O'Toole promises to repeal Liberal firearms changes while keeping ban on 'assault weapons'.

O'Toole's commitment to maintain the ban on "assault weapons" refers to a 1977 legislative change that classified fully automatic weapons as "prohibited" firearms — but he would still do away with the Liberal prohibition on "assault-style" firearms like the AR-15 and the Ruger Mini-14 rifle, among other models blacklisted last year.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/eri...pons-1.6163698

Regarding the Liberal's latest proposed infringements, it's not shocking, they will continue to use law-abiding gun owners as a scapegoat for their inability to actually curb gun violence. They always have and they always will, I suspect they will keep slowly banning something new over several more decades to keep this scam going with their base. They won't even present any evidence the OIC ban has improved anything or was justified in any way. They simply have never been or ever will be on the side of law-abiding gun owners.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

I notice the "National Observer" (very left wing) is bringing out the "Hidden agenda on abortion" as well, the Libs are desperately trying to get some sort of fear mongering to stick.

 

[Mills Bomb]

I notice the "National Observer" (very left wing) is bringing out the "Hidden agenda on abortion" as well, the Libs are desperately trying to get some sort of fear mongering to stick.

It seems more and more like the last days of the Trump administration. I mean even Twitter is flagging them for this kind of misinformation. I sure hope it's over soon.

 

[Haggis]

Pretty sure last time this came up, there was a discussion of jurisdiction. Kenney and Ford both said it wasn't happening, as the province regulates municipalities. Trudeau claims to have a work around, but as far as I know hasn't articulated it yet. I'm guessing he really doesn't have the workaround and is dangling the money as a carrot to places like Toronto and Quebec for votes. Once in, he'll just ignore it like so many other election promises he makes.

His workaround was likely the "Notwithstanding" clause.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

His workaround was likely the "Notwithstanding" clause.

I wonder if the provinces used the clause first, against federal encroachment, whether that would take the wind out of his sails.

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

The notwithstanding clause is totally irrelevant here. It only applies to some of the Charter's individual rights and freedom being "infringed" by either a provincial or federal law (not by-law or regulation), it has no application whatsoever in the field of provincial vs. federal jurisdiction as defined in the constitution. And the problem with Ottawa "empowering" municipalities is that it is a provincial field, not a federal one.

Municipalities can only exist if provinces "create" them, and then, can only legislate (by way of by-laws) on subjects they are granted the power to legislate in by the provincial enabling legislation - nothing else. Any by-law not supported by enabling legislation is considered "ultra-vires" of the municipal power and voidable by the courts.

 

[Haggis]

OGBD, you make it sound like laws, the Charter or ethics matter to Trudeau.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

I like the way OToole answered the question. It shows how disingenuous trudeau and blair are in their fear mongering vocabulary by correcting the 'assault rifle' definition. While trudeau says O'Toole is misleading Canadians with his wording, in reality it is trudeau himself. One more case of accusing your opponent of doing exactly what you are doing yourself. Something the liberals have been excelling at. And blair, well he's just still being completely over the top with his lies and absolute fabrications. People are calling him drunken bill blair and I'm tempted to believe they might be right.

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

OGBD, you make it sound like laws, the Charter or ethics matter to Trudeau.

Oh, I know he doesn't. But they do to the various courts in every province.

Say Montreal, at the behest of the Federal Libs, adopts a hand gun ban and someone is arrested under it. They go to court and the defence lawyer defends on the basis that the by-law is null and void as being outside the powers of Montreal to adopt because neither their Charter nor the provincial municipal act applicable provides for the power to adopt such by-law and the Federal enabling legislation is also null as a constitutional infringement in provincial constitutional powers. I am willing to bet the courts are much much more likely to come down on the side of the defence because the number of cases where the Supreme court confirmed municipal law as being a provincial jurisdiction is simply overwhelming. On the other hand, if the Feds try to argue that it is part of their criminal law power, then the court can say: "Fine, then don't delegate it illegally to the municipalities or the provinces. Exercise your own powers yourself." Same result.

 

[Haggis]

Oh, I know he doesn't. But they do to the various courts in every province.

Say Montreal, at the behest of the Federal Libs, adopts a hand gun ban and someone is arrested under it. They go to court and the defence lawyer defends on the basis that the by-law is null and void as being outside the powers of Montreal to adopt because neither their Charter nor the provincial municipal act applicable provides for the power to adopt such by-law and the Federal enabling legislation is also null as a constitutional infringement in provincial constitutional powers. I am willing to bet the courts are much much more likely to come down on the side of the defence because the number of cases where the Supreme court confirmed municipal law as being a provincial jurisdiction is simply overwhelming. On the other hand, if the Feds try to argue that it is part of their criminal law power, then the court can say: "Fine, then don't delegate it illegally to the municipalities or the provinces. Exercise your own powers yourself." Same result.

Which is why I'm surprised they didn't propose a national ban. They've threatened it in the past and it would appeal to their urban supporters and the antis in a big way.