The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0

[Haggis]

This is a few days old, but the Liberals have said that the "Assault Style Firearms" amnesty will be extended until 30 October, 2025, which is beyond the next fixed election date. The proposed extension notice was posted on the RCMP's website. The extension has not be published in the Canada Gazette yet.

The "so what" of this is that the Liberals can once again use lawful gun owners as their campaign boogeyman in the run up to October 2025. They can blame the delays in implementation on the CPC and the "gun lobby". They will promise to completely follow through on this program if we would just kindly re-elect them.

 

[Halifax Tar]

This is a few days old, but the Liberals have said that the "Assault Style Firearms" amnesty will be extended until 30 October, 2025, which is beyond the next fixed election date. The proposed extension notice was posted on the RCMP's website. The extension has not be published in the Canada Gazette yet.

The "so what" of this is that the Liberals can once again use lawful gun owners as their campaign boogeyman in the run up to October 2025. They can blame the delays in implementation on the CPC and the "gun lobby". They will promise to completely follow through on this program if we would just kindly re-elect them.

I think this really shows this isn't a public safety issue. This is a political attack on a segment of Canadians that the LPC finds deplorable.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

and this misleading article, inferring that automatic weapons were sold here. The guns are semi-auto, altered from full auto.

RCMP tells owners to turn in guns after banned fully automatic model sold in Canada | CityNews Vancouver

 

[Kirkhill]

This is a few days old, but the Liberals have said that the "Assault Style Firearms" amnesty will be extended until 30 October, 2025, which is beyond the next fixed election date. The proposed extension notice was posted on the RCMP's website. The extension has not be published in the Canada Gazette yet.

The "so what" of this is that the Liberals can once again use lawful gun owners as their campaign boogeyman in the run up to October 2025. They can blame the delays in implementation on the CPC and the "gun lobby". They will promise to completely follow through on this program if we would just kindly re-elect them.

But this

Chris Selley: Have gun-control advocates finally had enough of Liberal abuse?

PolySeSouvient disinviting Justin Trudeau from Montreal Massacre memorials hits him where it hurts

nationalpost.com

Disinvitation from Ãcole Polytechnique group sent Trudeau government into damage control mode: emails

The Trudeau government adjusted its policy so the initial voluntary gun buy back became the mandatory confiscation PolySeSouvient demanded

nationalpost.com

How many times can anybody cry "Wolf!"?

 

[Haggis]

As a gun owner, I always get nervous when Trudeau or his ministers speak publicly on certain anniversaries, like December 6 or April 19. Liberals never let a tragedy go to waste politically, so I'm always expecting the next gun ban to drop on those dates.

 

[calculus]

and this misleading article, inferring that automatic weapons were sold here. The guns are semi-auto, altered from full auto.

RCMP tells owners to turn in guns after banned fully automatic model sold in Canada | CityNews Vancouver

Runkle of the Bailey did a piece on this, which is kind of interesting:

 

[KJK]

I found Calibre Magazine's take on things quite interesting. I am not as optimistic as he is but time will tell.

 

[Haggis]

I found Calibre Magazine's take on things quite interesting. I am not as optimistic as he is but time will tell.

Justice Kane has said she will release her decision on the OIC challenge lawsuit (CCFR et al vs Canada) by the end of October. This could kill the OIC, but the Liberals likely have a replacement OIC ready to go.

If they don't have a new OIC, Bill C-21, which is now with the Senate, has provisions to ban all the same firearms and many, many more on a 'go forward' basis through the "Firearms Advisory Committee" which will be stacked in the Liberal's favour. So, the court challenge, if favourable to the gun community, means nothing in the big scheme of things. Bill C-21 will pass. Trudeau's pseudo majority has the votes to do it.

 

[Spencer100]

As with a great many problems in this country stem from the lack of private property rights in this country as a basic right written in the constitution. Polls would stop doing many things with they had to really fund them. Buybacks, landowners being paid for the many different things done, etc.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

I think this really shows this isn't a public safety issue. This is a political attack on a segment of Canadians that the LPC finds deplorable.

I’m happy to be a member of that deplorable group.

 

[KJK]

Justice Kane has said she will release her decision on the OIC challenge lawsuit (CCFR et al vs Canada) by the end of October. This could kill the OIC, but the Liberals likely have a replacement OIC ready to go.

If they don't have a new OIC, Bill C-21, which is now with the Senate, has provisions to ban all the same firearms and many, many more on a 'go forward' basis through the "Firearms Advisory Committee" which will be stacked in the Liberal's favour. So, the court challenge, if favourable to the gun community, means nothing in the big scheme of things. Bill C-21 will pass. Trudeau's pseudo majority has the votes to do it.

I can't disagree with anything you said. At this point I am just hoping things go better than we expect.

 

[Halifax Tar]

I’m happy to be a member of that deplorable group.

Me too, we have some pretty sweet company

 

[Fishbone Jones]

I said here months ago that the liberals would never kill this election wedge. They've likely made more votes on this than any other issue. The whole shebang dies on the table when the election writ is dropped. Some more reprieve for gun owners until the libs take over again.

 

[Good2Golf]

I said here months ago that the liberals would never kill this election wedge. They've likely made more votes on this than any other issue. The whole shebang dies on the table when the election writ is dropped. Some more reprieve for gun owners until the libs take over again.

Some reporter should grab a pair and challenge the PM.

“So why are you delaying taking action to safeguard Canadians by 1/5 of a decade? Don’t they deserve to be protected, and not endangered by an attempt to win the next election? “

 

[Haggis]

Justice Kane of the Federal Court has released her ruling on the CCFR vs Canada regarding challenges to the May 2020 OIC banning about 2,000 models of "Assault Style Firearms".

The ruling is in favour of the Government. The OIC stands. Appeals may follow.

 

[Stoker]

Justice Kane of the Federal Court has released her ruling on the CCFR vs Canada regarding challenges to the May 2020 OIC banning about 2,000 models of "Assault Style Firearms".

The ruling is in favour of the Government. The OIC stands. Appeals may follow.

You expect anything different? No judge was going to rule against the OIC . It will be appeals now.

 

[Fabius]

Justice Kane of the Federal Court has released her ruling on the CCFR vs Canada regarding challenges to the May 2020 OIC banning about 2,000 models of "Assault Style Firearms".

The ruling is in favour of the Government. The OIC stands. Appeals may follow.

I read through a significant amount of the decision.
To me the decision boils down to a few items.

1. The government is within its legal authority to regulate via OICs. This in of itself seems okay, assuming those in government are logical and rational.

2. The opinions of those in the government, opinions which formed the base for the ban, matter more than anyone else’s no matter how irrational or illogical they may be.

3. Government experts are better experts than non government ones because they are the government and unbiased.

4. Private experts and complainants are biased because they are affected by the government actions.

Not surprising just disappointing.

 

[Haggis]

I read through a significant amount of the decision.
To me the decision boils down to a few items.

1. The government is within its legal authority to regulate via OICs. This in of itself seems okay, assuming those in government are logical and rational.

2. The opinions of those in the government, opinions which formed the base for the ban, matter more than anyone else’s no matter how irrational or illogical they may be.

In that the Government refused to provide evidence supporting the imposition of the ban by invoking Cabinet privilege, the judge had little choice but to take the government's assertions at face value.

3. Government experts are better experts than non government ones because they are the government and unbiased.

4. Private experts and complainants are biased because they are affected by the government actions.

Not surprising just disappointing.

That sums it up pretty well, actually.

 

[Halifax Tar]

In that the Government refused to provide evidence supporting the imposition of the ban by invoking Cabinet privilege, the judge had little choice but to take the government's assertions at face value.

Is this correct ? Shouldn't the judge be making decisions based on evidence and its correlation the OIC ?

 

[Fabius]

Is this correct ? Shouldn't the judge be making decisions based on evidence and its correlation the OIC ?

Page 67 of the decision states that the failure of the AGC to produce the information considered by the Governor in Council and the assertion of cabinet confidence does not thwart the court’s ability to conduct a judicial review.

Bottom line I think is it doesn’t matter what they considered or not, as the governor in council their opinion is all that matters not now they arrived at said opinion nor how logical or rational the opinion is.