• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

The Great Gun Control Debate

Status
Not open for further replies.
BernDawg said:
I can understand a retailer keeping a ledger of their sales however I don't see why they have to record anything but the PAL # associated with the sale. Once the police have the PAL# they have all the other information anyway.

There is no reason to record the PAL#, only that the vendor is satisfied the recipient has a valid one. That can be done by simply showing it to them.

Long guns no longer require registration. Registration is anything that shows what that firearm is or who has it and where.
 
BernDawg said:
Just off the top of my head, no. I don't believe it's illegal to posses ammunition. It's just that you cannot buy it without a PAL/POL.

I thought this was a provincial regulation, (E.G. Ontario and a couple of other provinces) requiring shooters to produce a PAL/POL before buying ammo, not a Federal regulation.
 
Retired AF Guy said:
I thought this was a provincial regulation, (E.G. Ontario and a couple of other provinces) requiring shooters to produce a PAL/POL before buying ammo, not a Federal regulation.
True, you can import ammo without a PAL in every province.
 
recceguy said:
There is no reason to record the PAL#, only that the vendor is satisfied the recipient has a valid one. That can be done by simply showing it to them.

Long guns no longer require registration. Registration is anything that shows what that firearm is or who has it and where.
Don't get me wrong, I don't agree with what they're doing but  to record all the extra information is irrelevant as it stands, that's all I was trying to say. The simple fact that a person has a PAL (or RPAL) means that the individual is registered so in my mind it's shouldn't matter what or how many firearms they own.
 
Logic, rationale thought and public safety has never been the strong suite or the motivator behind the Firearms Act. Applying any of the above to it will cause your head to explode.
 
Colin P said:
Logic, rationale thought and public safety has never been the strong suite or the motivator behind the Firearms Act. Applying any of the above to it will cause your head to explode.
:goodpost:
 
Colin P said:
Logic, rationale thought and public safety has never been the strong suite or the motivator behind the Firearms Act. Applying any of the above to it will cause your head to explode.

"If it saves JUST ONE LIFE......"  :crybaby:
 
http://www.torontosun.com/2012/05/09/holster-back-door-gun-registries

Unless public sentiment has been misread, police forces across Canada have a tough slog ahead if they hope to restore both their collective image and the confidence of those they serve and protect.

Obeying legislation would be a start.

The police, regardless of what they may think, are not a law unto themselves, and so when the public sees them defying not only the law but the lawmakers, there is no upside for them.

We are referring, of course, to provincial chief firearms officers (CFOs) who are giving the finger to the Harper government following the democratic death of the long-gun registry.

As Sun Media first reported, CFOs in at least five provinces -- B.C., Alberta, Manitoba, Ontario and New Brunswick -- have taken it upon themselves to demand gun shop owners create an unofficial registry to mirror the polarizing registry recently dismantled by Bill C-19.

Public Safety Minister Vic Toews was quick to respond to Sun Media's expose of provincial CFOs setting up back-door registries and fired off a letter to RCMP Commissioner Robert Paulson, asking him to advise him personally of any provincial police force whose CFO is discovered thumbing a nose at this legislation.

No need. Ontario's CFO just did.

"Our response would be business as usual," said Ontario Provincial Police Acting Insp. Steve Rideout, a spokesman for Ontario's CFO. "We'll wait and see what position the RCMP takes on Mr. Toews' direction and then we'll consider our options." Toews, of course, is spitting bullets.

"It's a quite a disturbing response," he told Sun News Network.

Let's be blunt. Such CFOs are "breaking the law" -- which were Toews' exact words.

"The CFOs are not to engage in the collection of information of that nature," Toews said. "That runs contrary to (the bill).

"I am prepared to consider all legislative and regulatory measures necessary to give effect to the will of Canadians." In other words, here's the riot act.

Now cease and desist, or else.

Let's hope Insp. Rideout starts listening.

When the Liberals brought in the long-gun registry, they painted every law-abiding hunter and farmer with a varmint rifle as criminals.

That insanity should have stopped with Bill C-19.

But it didn't.

The sheer arrogance and attitude on display from the CFO's (and specifically the comments from the OPP CFO) is quite disturbing.  The Minister in his very swift rebuke is quite clear, stop doing what you are doing.  The question will be if the CFO's continue to thumb there noses at the lawmakers, will there be consequences?
 
The office of the Provincial CFO's should be abolished. Replace them with RCMP and make them fully responsible to the Feds only. ATT's and such can be handled through the CFC.
 
What I don't understand is why or how it came to be that the clubs do ATT's for Ontario? Do they get paid to do that work? If not, they should transfer the responsbilty back to the CFO or demand money for doing them. We will see how smart the Wyatt is when his workload doubles and his budget does not. Then bombard the Premier and MLA's with letters complain about the bad service and backlog.
 
Hatchet Man said:
http://www.torontosun.com/2012/05/09/holster-back-door-gun-registries

The sheer arrogance and attitude on display from the CFO's (and specifically the comments from the OPP CFO) is quite disturbing.  The Minister in his very swift rebuke is quite clear, stop doing what you are doing.  The question will be if the CFO's continue to thumb there noses at the lawmakers, will there be consequences?
I'm far from being a legal expert (and am happy to be educated by those who know this stuff far better), but I can't find any reference in my layman's read of C-19 to changing S.58 of the Firearms Act, which says:
A chief firearms officer who issues a licence, an authorization to carry or an authorization to transport may attach any reasonable condition to it that the chief firearms officer considers desirable in the particular circumstances and in the interests of the safety of the holder or any other person.
This appears to be the tack being taken by Ontario's Community Safety Minister (for whom, at one level, the OPP works for).  While CFO's may be thumbing their noses at lawmakers, they're following the law of the land as it appears to stand (admittedly, as they read it).

Dumb question:  how did this get missed through all the discussion/debate on C-19 before it was passed and given Royal Assent?

recceguy said:
The office of the Provincial CFO's should be abolished. Replace them with RCMP and make them fully responsible to the Feds only. ATT's and such can be handled through the CFC.
This would certainly make things less patchwork-y across Canada.
 
Is it a reasonable condition when it has already been removed from law for being unreasonable and an invasion of privacy? How is a store holding a list of who bought firearms there in the interest of safety? In fact, I would argue that if the store every had an unscrupulous employee, they could sell the list to a criminal enterprise and now they'd know where to find legally owned guns in private residences to steal.
 
PuckChaser said:
Is it a reasonable condition when it has already been removed from law for being unreasonable and an invasion of privacy?
C-19 only seems to address records held centrally or those held by CFO's:
.... This enactment amends the Criminal Code and the Firearms Act to remove the requirement to register firearms that are neither prohibited nor restricted. It also provides for the destruction of existing records, held in the Canadian Firearms Registry and under the control of chief firearms officers, that relate to the registration of such firearms.

(....)

29. (1) The Commissioner of Firearms shall ensure the destruction as soon as feasible of all records in the Canadian Firearms Registry related to the registration of firearms that are neither prohibited firearms nor restricted firearms and all copies of those records under the Commissioner’s
control.

(2) Each chief firearms officer shall ensure the destruction as soon as feasible of all records under their control related to the registration of firearms that are neither prohibited firearms nor restricted firearms and all copies of those records under their control.

PuckChaser said:
How is a store holding a list of who bought firearms there in the interest of safety? In fact, I would argue that if the store every had an unscrupulous employee, they could sell the list to a criminal enterprise and now they'd know where to find legally owned guns in private residences to steal.
Agreed - this is a hugely worrying reason why the "every store has its own books" system isn't the way forward.
 
PuckChaser said:
Is it a reasonable condition when it has already been removed from law for being unreasonable and an invasion of privacy? How is a store holding a list of who bought firearms there in the interest of safety? In fact, I would argue that if the store every had an unscrupulous employee, they could sell the list to a criminal enterprise and now they'd know where to find legally owned guns in private residences to steal.

Exactly.

An anecdote: I had my home invaded several decades ago and various firearms stolen simply because I was targeted from a list of pistol club members. These illegal lists cause more harm than good.
 
The letter's apparently gone out....
RCMP Commissioner Bob Paulson has sent a letter to all chief firearms officers in the country warning them not to create any semblance of a long-gun registry in their jurisdictions.

The letter comes just days after Public Safety Minister Vic Toews sent a letter to Paulson saying the RCMP and the Canadian Firearms Program were to provide “no assistance or direction” to any province that may be undertaking measures to create a provincial long-gun registry.

“The coming into force of the Ending the Long-Gun Registry Act leaves no doubt that Parliament has sought to eliminate any form of a long-gun registry,” Paulson wrote in the letter.

Officials with the Chief Firearms Office of the Ontario Provincial Police have previously said the OPP would continue to maintain records of all firearms sales and who bought them.

While they have insisted this is not an attempt to create a provincial long-gun registry, some observers have complained that Ontario police are flouting the will of Parliament, and creating a new provincial gun registry “by the backdoor.”

Toews said the collection of point-of-sale data is no longer authorized under the Firearms Act.

Paulson reiterated this point in his letter.

“I instruct all Chief Firearms Officers to ensure that the licensing conditions you impose on business records pursuant to the Firearms Act do not facilitate the creation of long-gun registries in your jurisdictions,” he said.
Postmedia News, 11 May 12
Re:  the bit in yellow, do Ontario gov't lawyers think (if this line is quoted correctly) that OPP holding the records isn't the same as CFO's holding the records?!?!  Holy legalese, Batman!
 
milnews.ca said:
The letter's apparently gone out....Postmedia News, 11 May 12
Re:  the bit in yellow, do Ontario gov't lawyers think (if this line is quoted correctly) that OPP holding the records isn't the same as CFO's holding the records?!?!  Holy legalese, Batman!

The CFO office in Ontario is run by the OPP. They are one in the same.
 
recceguy said:
The CFO office in Ontario is run by the OPP. They are one in the same.
I knew that - I was just wondering if they're trying to sneak it by via having some other part of the OPP hold the records to follow the letter of C-19.
 
recceguy said:
The CFO office in Ontario is run by the OPP. They are one in the same.

This smacks of police state action. My trust and faith in the OPP has been greatly eroded.
 
While they are at, someone should be looking into Ontario's ammunition registry law.  The one where the store owners are mandated to record your info at purchase (of ammo), in usually nothing more than a ledger.
 
Canada’s gun owners shouldn’t expect much help from Ottawa
Matt Gurney  May 28, 2012 May 28, 2012
Article Link

Gun owners who thought they had a friend in the Conservative government in Ottawa are in for a nasty surprise. It would seem that, having delivered on its promise to scrap the long-gun registry, the federal Tories feel that they’ve paid their dues to Canada’s lawful firearms owners. From here on in, the Conservatives won’t be doing gun owners any favours.

The federal government recently quietly announced that, effective this September, it will begin charging firearms licence holders to renew their licences. The licences are required to possess a firearm, or to purchase ammunition, and must be renewed every five years. As of September, those who hold a licence for restricted or prohibited firearms will need to plunk down $80 for the paperwork. By next May, those seeking to renew a licence for non-restricted firearms — hunting rifles and most shotguns — will have to fork over $60.

This isn’t a lot of money, and will only raise about $15-million in revenue a year. But it’s enough to anger many of Canada’s gun owners, who view any gun control measure with suspicion and dislike. There’s probably a lot of Conservative MPs who would agree with that philosophically … but politics is politics. The Tories felt comfortable scrapping the long-gun registry because it was unpopular with many Canadians, not just gun owners, largely due to its wastefulness. But that doesn’t mean Prime Minister Stephen Harper is going to let his party be seen by moderates, particularly urban voters, as pro-gun.

The money raised from the licensing fees supports the federal government’s program of licensing firearms, and also sustains the registries for restricted and prohibited firearms, which were not affected by the recent scrapping of the long-gun registry. The fees were also part of the original licensing system, but have been waived by the Tories since they took office in 2006. The waivers were always intended to be time-limited, and the Tories extended them twice, for political purposes — waiving the fees associated with lawful gun ownership was a gesture intended to placate Canada’s gun owners until such time that the Tories had enough support in Parliament to scrap the long-gun registry.

But that’s done. Gun owners no longer need to register their hunting rifles and shotguns. The Tories are no doubt betting that that will be enough to buy continued support, both financial and electoral, from Canada’s gun owners. They’re probably right. Those who don’t own firearms simply cannot comprehend how utterly reviled the long-gun registry was. It was enough to make single-issue-voters out of many gun owners. They will want to reward the party that ultimately delivered on their promise to kill it.

And the Tories know it. Eliminating the long-gun registry was politically clever — to gun owners, it was interpreted as a dislike of gun control, to everyone else, it was eliminating a wasteful boondoggle. But Canada’s firearms owners still have many legitimate grievances concerning the restrictive, overly broad and at times unclear provisions of the Firearms Act. They want it substantially revised or scrapped altogether.

That won’t happen. While the Conservatives felt comfortable getting rid of the long-gun registry, that’s as far as they’re likely to go. To go much further risks being slammed as being pro-gun, forced to respond defensively after every incident of gun violence anywhere in the country (but particularly in the cities). The Tories are having their cake and eating it too — having scrapped the registry, they can still point to the fact that they still require gun owners to be licenced, and register handguns and military-style rifles. And now, they’re making the gun owners pay the cost of the gun control regime again.

In other words, the Tories are saying we’re not against gun control. We’re all for it. It was simply the registry that we didn’t like.

This will leave the gun owners who cheered the end of the long-gun registry, and hoped for more progress, with a bad taste in their mouth. Some will probably even stop donating or stay home on the next election day. The Tories know this. But they know that having all the gun owners in the country behind them won’t matter if they can’t hold Toronto and its suburbs. It’s smart politics. Canada’s gun owners will just have to content themselves with the fact that the long-gun registry is no more. That’s all they’re likely to get.
end
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top