The Great Gun Control Debate

[Fishbone Jones]

Pot is legal, with a license. Every MMJ user has a card saying that they are allowed possession. Without that card, issued by the provider, you can't order anymore MMJ. When your card expires, so does your prescription.

 

[Lumber]

Pot is legal, with a license. Every MMJ user has a card saying that they are allowed possession. Without that card, issued by the provider, you can't order anymore MMJ. When your card expires, so does your prescription.

I'm not trying to draw parallels to MMJ. All I was getting at was that bureaucrats in the justice system got overzealous in applying laws. No one was being cruel or vindictive. The people involved were likely good natured people just trying to do their jobs. It takes more than a few people for something like this to go this far, so to suggest anything else is to suggest a level of collusion on their part that I see no basis for.

As far as I'm concerned, I see this as a success story, where actual leadership stepped in (finally) to shut down a case that had gone way too far.

Suggesting that those involved be "sued" into poverty for doing their jobs is the only thing cruel and vindictive I've so far seen in this thread.

 

[mrcpu]

Suggesting that those involved be "sued" into poverty for doing their jobs is the only thing cruel and vindictive I've so far seen in this thread.

Fair enough.  The whole idea of people being punished into poverty, as happens in our society, without recourse just really gets my goat!

 

[Fishbone Jones]

I'm not trying to draw parallels to MMJ. All I was getting at was that bureaucrats in the justice system got overzealous in applying laws. No one was being cruel or vindictive. The people involved were likely good natured people just trying to do their jobs. It takes more than a few people for something like this to go this far, so to suggest anything else is to suggest a level of collusion on their part that I see no basis for.

As far as I'm concerned, I see this as a success story, where actual leadership stepped in (finally) to shut down a case that had gone way too far.

Suggesting that those involved be "sued" into poverty for doing their jobs is the only thing cruel and vindictive I've so far seen in this thread.

I wasn't talking to you. I was simply explaining the facts of licensed marijuana to Jarnhammer, based off his last statement.

 

[Lumber]

I wasn't talking to you. I was simply explaining the facts of licensed marijuana to Jarnhammer, based off his last statement.

 

[Loachman]

All I was getting at was that bureaucrats in the justice system got overzealous in applying laws. No one was being cruel or vindictive. The people involved were likely good natured people just trying to do their jobs. It takes more than a few people for something like this to go this far, so to suggest anything else is to suggest a level of collusion on their part that I see no basis for.

There is more than adequate basis for suggesting collusion - a lengthy pattern of similar unjustified persecutions. Charges are often laid against firearms owners, based upon a Firearms Act that is designed for no other purpose than harassing firearms owners, for a variety of non-crimes. Even when the firearms owner wins, he/she is out thousands of dollars in legal fees. He/she is punished regardless of the finding of the court, and it would be nice indeed if government agents were occasionally held accountable.

The loser in civil cases usually foots the bill. The loser in criminal cases should, too.

Suggesting that those involved be "sued" into poverty for doing their jobs is the only thing cruel and vindictive I've so far seen in this thread.

When people lay frivolous charges against honest citizens with no moral justification for doing so, and when that often pushes them into poverty, no, it's not.

 

[Bzzliteyr]

So... how about that new 10/22 magazine capacity ruling?

What do we feel about that?

 

[mrcpu]

So... how about that new 10/22 magazine capacity ruling?

What do we feel about that?

On one hand it stinks.  The RCMP have mis-interpreted the law in such a way as to instantly make tens of thousands or even hundreds of thousands of law abiding and PEACEFUL Canadians into criminals.

On the other hand the whole magazine limit thing is a mess.  If I was writing the law, and had no limit was not an option I would simply make it 10 rounds across the board, regardless of firearm action or cartridge type.  This would suck for the 10/22 people but be great for the rest.  It would actually IMPROVE public safety overall because it would make it simpler and easier for citizens to obey the law and police to enforce it.  As for the "loopholes" such as the Beowulf magazine, I'd outlaw them by way of ACTION and not OBJECT.  It would simply be illegal to use a Beowulf or similar magazine with more than 10 cartridges in it.  If you had one with 14 5.56 cartridges you'd be breaking the law but the simple ownership of it for use with .50 would be fine.

 

[Jarnhamar]

On one hand it stinks.  The RCMP have mis-interpreted the law in such a way as to instantly make tens of thousands or even hundreds of thousands of law abiding and PEACEFUL Canadians into criminals.

On the other hand the whole magazine limit thing is a mess.  If I was writing the law, and had no limit was not an option I would simply make it 10 rounds across the board, regardless of firearm action or cartridge type.  This would suck for the 10/22 people but be great for the rest.  It would actually IMPROVE public safety overall because it would make it simpler and easier for citizens to obey the law and police to enforce it.  As for the "loopholes" such as the Beowulf magazine, I'd outlaw them by way of ACTION and not OBJECT.  It would simply be illegal to use a Beowulf or similar magazine with more than 10 cartridges in it.  If you had one with 14 5.56 cartridges you'd be breaking the law but the simple ownership of it for use with .50 would be fine.

How does this improve public safety?  You're going to tell someone they're only allowed to use 10 rounds in the magazine instead of 14, what if they are going to go on a shooting rampage and commit suicide by cop? Do you think they're going to load 10 rounds in the mag or 14? Or pop the 3 cent rivet out of a P-mag and use 30?  Same chance as an AR15 being restricted will prevent someone from using it in a shooting rampage I'd say.


The pistol the RCMP is using to justify banning the 10/22 magazine was made after the magazines were. I think something like 600 of the pistols were made and I've seen estimates of over a million 30rd 10/22 mags.

 

[Jarnhamar]

[quote author=Loachman]
There is more than adequate basis for suggesting collusion - a lengthy pattern of similar unjustified persecutions. Charges are often laid against firearms owners, based upon a Firearms Act that is designed for no other purpose than harassing firearms owners, for a variety of non-crimes. Even when the firearms owner wins, he/she is out thousands of dollars in legal fees. He/she is punished regardless of the finding of the court, and it would be nice indeed if government agents were occasionally held accountable.
[/quote]

To me the gag order is particularly troubling.  Lose your house and face further punishment if you talk about it? Crazy.

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

Cops not abiding by the law, but rather by the rules they would like to see apply to them: Unheard of.


I had some fun just last week with police friends in the town nearby. There is an important lake and navigable river going through it and they got themselves large police Rhib with shiny radars and even sonar, then with a couple of  sergeant who have their pleasure craft operators certificates, they go around doing safety patrols and give tickets for all sorts of things.

I pointed out to them that their Ribs actually weighs seven tons, and is not used for pleasure - thus they need to have one of them hold a Master Limited Certificate  from Transport Canada: Blank stares !!!!

 

[Haggis]

I pointed out to them that their Ribs actually weighs seven tons, and is not used for pleasure - thus they need to have one of them hold a Master Limited Certificate  from Transport Canada: Blank stares !!!!

You don't plan to boat on that lake, do you?

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

It's OK. They are friends.

Besides, they already know I have all the papers in order, and more qualification certificates coming out the yang-yang that they have ever seen. Also: They have been using my boat and I for years to show people how they are supposed to be equipped and how to train of emergencies.  ;D

When they got their new police boat, I just couldn't resist since it is over 5 GT.

 

[Lightguns]

On one hand it stinks.  The RCMP have mis-interpreted the law in such a way as to instantly make tens of thousands or even hundreds of thousands of law abiding and PEACEFUL Canadians into criminals.

On the other hand the whole magazine limit thing is a mess.  If I was writing the law, and had no limit was not an option I would simply make it 10 rounds across the board, regardless of firearm action or cartridge type.  This would suck for the 10/22 people but be great for the rest.  It would actually IMPROVE public safety overall because it would make it simpler and easier for citizens to obey the law and police to enforce it.  As for the "loopholes" such as the Beowulf magazine, I'd outlaw them by way of ACTION and not OBJECT.  It would simply be illegal to use a Beowulf or similar magazine with more than 10 cartridges in it.  If you had one with 14 5.56 cartridges you'd be breaking the law but the simple ownership of it for use with .50 would be fine.

They haven't misinterpreted anything.  They have lost in court a dozen or more times on the this law, yet they still try.  The law is punishment by process and they are the chief punishers.  They are betting the liberals let do what they want as long as it's gun owners they go after.  I am betting they are right.

Sent from my XT1563 using Tapatalk

 

[Fishbone Jones]

:goodpost:

 

[Jarnhamar]

SeaKingTacco brought up a great point.

they quote a paragraph of the firearms regulations to to ban magazines over 10 rounds, when in the very next paragraph rimfire rifles are specifically exempted from that regulation

CSSA and CSAAA started a class action lawsuit against it.

 

[mrcpu]

How does this improve public safety?  You're going to tell someone they're only allowed to use 10 rounds in the magazine instead of 14, what if they are going to go on a shooting rampage and commit suicide by cop? Do you think they're going to load 10 rounds in the mag or 14? Or pop the 3 cent rivet out of a P-mag and use 30?  Same chance as an AR15 being restricted will prevent someone from using it in a shooting rampage I'd say.


The pistol the RCMP is using to justify banning the 10/22 magazine was made after the magazines were. I think something like 600 of the pistols were made and I've seen estimates of over a million 30rd 10/22 mags.

As I alluded to, I don't agree with mag limits in the first place.  That said, a simple and end easy 10 rounds across the board improves "public safety" by making it easier for the public to follow the law and stay safe from a mistaken criminal act.  Also any time laws are simple it makes it easier for police to enforce correctly. 

One other comment.  When discussing firearms laws or laws in general I strongly urge people to leave the "a criminal can just _____" argument off the table.  Once that argument is proposed, NO LAWS of any kind make sense.  Example: We shouldn't have drivers license because criminals will just drive without a license anyway."...see what I mean?

Sent from my SM-G900W8 using Tapatalk

 

[mrcpu]

The law is punishment by process and they are the chief punishers.

Sent from my XT1563 using Tapatalk

This goes back to my point a while back that government officials should be held accountable when they charge someone falsely.  Is it fair to lose your guns and $10,000 plus your personal freedom (pre-trial or bail conditions) only to have the crown drop the charges?

Nope. 

People in this situation should get their lawyers fees, guns, and compensation for damages.



Sent from my SM-G900W8 using Tapatalk

 

[Jarnhamar]

I'm not trying to draw parallels to MMJ. All I was getting at was that bureaucrats in the justice system got overzealous in applying laws. No one was being cruel or vindictive. The people involved were likely good natured people just trying to do their jobs.

Just doing their job, except some of the money from property forfeitures go into the pockets of the police and they're apparently not too forthcoming in where that money goes.


http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/provinces-civil-forfeiture-targets-1.3599363

Some highlights from the article on civil forfeiture.

Canada's provincial governments, it appears, are now well into the wonderfully lucrative business model of grabbing private property.

The bureaucrats in charge of it prefer the term "civil forfeiture," but the reality is crude and effective: Seize people's property or money, declare that it's probably the proceeds or instrument of illegal activity, and force the targets to hire lawyers and prove their innocence in court even though they often don't face any criminal charge.

Landlords whose properties may have been used for drug transactions

And in some cases, provinces are providing police and Crown agents with an irresistible lure: they get to keep some of the take.

Stories of police seizing money from clearly innocent people, then offering to return some of it if the mark agrees to sign a waiver promising not to sue, have made headlines in the U.S.

Chad Squire, the motorist pulled over in Brooks, Alta., by a traffic cop who proceeded to relieve him of $27,000 cash. It took Squire two years of fighting in court to have his money returned. It was legally acquired from the sale of his home, something the province's forfeiture agents must have known very well.

Ontario forfeiture agents often offer a settlement, but those can come with a demand that a target agree to a gag order, promising never to discuss it publicly.
"That's extortion," says From. "'Give me $50,000 and shut up forever, and the case goes away.'"

There was the case of Robert Murray, whose house in Nelson, B.C., was searched by the Mounties in 2012. They found marijuana plants, but laid no charges. Instead, the province went after his home.

The forfeiture office initially demanded 80 per cent of his equity, about $65,000. Then, when Murray fought, it kept lowering its demand. Eventually he received a final offer: pay $10,000 now, or we'll force it into court and the costs will bankrupt you. Murray didn't flinch. The province dropped the case.

Ontario and B.C. deny they are "incentivizing" police with people's money. While police can apply for "grants," provincial officials say much of the money also goes to charities and victims rights groups.

From, though, says forfeiture offices refuse to provide documentation of how the money is spent.

"They deliberately don't keep track of money in, money out, so we can't access it."

There is one group, though, that enjoys near-total immunity from forfeiture: lawyers.

So if you're a landlord and I sell drugs out of the house I'm renting from you you can lose the rental property. I can take money I earned from selling drugs and hire a defense lawyer to defend me. Even if I'm found guilty he still keeps the tens of thousands of dollars.  Nope nothing wrong with that.

 

[Brad Sallows]

"Just doing their job."

I've dealt with people at city hall before.  Public employees can be very civil, reasonable, and flexible when they want to.

Rigid zealousness tends to be an indicator of axe-grinding.

Wannabe axe-grinders should be taught to fear axe-grinding.  The power of the state isn't there for people to use to pursue their own agendas, and the people who gravitate towards state employment because they like the idea of wielding power to pursue their own agendas need to be driven out.