The Great Gun Control Debate

[x_para76]

I was recently on a business trip to the U.K. While I was there they took us for an afternoon of clay pigeon and rifle shooting. Something I was surprised to learn while there was that they allow for the use of suppressors. It was certainly something I hadn't expected from a country with such strict gun laws.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Almost every civilized country allows the use of supressors so the noise doesn't bother non shooters. Only our gun hating governments don't allow them based on misinformation from old gangster movies. There is no scientific evidence to deny the same thing here, only emotion, which is the last thing you want to base laws on.

 

[Jarnhamar]

RCMP move to make the streets safer by banning (or trying to?)  high capacity .22 caliber  Ruger 10/22 magazines.

one of many links
http://nncfb.ca/rcmp-bulletin-classifies-1022-magazines-prohibited-devices/

According to the RCMP this is because of the similarity between the Ruger 10/22 rifles and the Charger pistols the magazines are “inherently designed” to work with the pistols and thus are regulated to a maximum capacity of 10 rounds. The logic of this decision is glaringly poor. Not only were the affected magazines designed and largely in distribution before the Charger pistols were designed, but this decision directly contradicts the RCMP’s own Special Bulletin #72 where it is explicitly stated that “that the maximum permitted capacity of a magazine is determined by the physical characteristics of the firearm it is designed or manufactured for.”

Probably not very funny but the collective reaction from gun owners seems to be "piss off".  Those high capacity 10/22 mags also seem to be flying off the shelves and not because store owners are taking them down.


Not too long ago I called the chief firearms office to get clarification on a firearm rule. They forwarded me to the RCMP firearm lab ( I think it was called) to get a more accurate answer except the RCMP employees I spoke with in their own firearm department couldn't even give me a straight answer. Seems like it's own world over there.

 

[mrcpu]

The problem is they are misinterpretation the law on 2 fronts.  Firstly the mag was designed for the rifle years ago.  Then subsequently the handgun was designed around the mag etc.  In other words they are WRONG.

Secondly, even if it were the case the regulations state "commonly available".  The discontinued handguns that take this make number in the range of 300 in Canada so again, the magazine does NOT fall into a prohibited category. 

Sent from my SM-G900W8 using Tapatalk

 

[Lightguns]

RCMP move to make the streets safer by banning (or trying to?)  high capacity .22 caliber  Ruger 10/22 magazines.

one of many links
http://nncfb.ca/rcmp-bulletin-classifies-1022-magazines-prohibited-devices/
Probably not very funny but the collective reaction from gun owners seems to be "piss off".  Those high capacity 10/22 mags also seem to be flying off the shelves and not because store owners are taking them down.


Not too long ago I called the chief firearms office to get clarification on a firearm rule. They forwarded me to the RCMP firearm lab ( I think it was called) to get a more accurate answer except the RCMP employees I spoke with in their own firearm department couldn't even give me a straight answer. Seems like it's own world over there.

I doubt much will happen, this government has a huge trust in the RCMP when it comes to gun owners.  Gun owners are a fractured lot with the majority of them are liberal voting 3-week a year gun owners (deer and duck hunters).  Around here in my FUDD country most just shrug your shoulders and say they don't need magazines larger than 10 rounds on a 22 to shot a rabbit.  The CSSA law suit will prove interesting and provide a great distraction for the Liberals to work on their next gun control law. 

 

[SeaKingTacco]

The problem with this (and I have pointed this out to my member of parliament and the Minister of Public Safety) is that you have the RCMP issuing technical rulings which can result in Criminal Code sanctions against firearms owners. In effect, the Liberal Government has outsourced what used to be Parliament's domain of law making to bureaucrats.

And to make matters work, the RCMP does not even appear to even have a basic working understanding of the regulations, since 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!

Whether you are a gun owner or not, this is the part about this episode that should have everyone in Canada deeply concerned.

If you are not a gun owner and figure "meh, doesn't affect me", I can assure you that eventually some bureaucrat or Government down the road (of what ever political party) will get an idea to meddle with something that you hold dearly and it will have by then become a habit to just "administratively" make a rule and you won't get a say. I am honestly not trying to make this a partisan issue. I believe it is just how a certain class of people in Ottawa think- they "know better than you".

 

[Jake138]

Police officers need a warrant to enter a known drug dealers house.
If you register your guns with the police they can legally enter your house with out a warrant to see if it‘s propperly stored and secured.

i find that a little a$$ backwards

Agreed. However, even though sect. 102 of the firearms act states they can enter your home or whever they feel you may be storing yours guns, sect. 52 of the charter states that any law inconsistent with the charter is of no force or effect. Sect 8 of the charter says we have the right against unreasonable search and seizure, (which is where the drug dealer would get his protection) 

Sent from my LG-D852 using Tapatalk

 

[Retired AF Guy]

"The CSSA law suit"    ???

 

[Retired AF Guy]

Agreed. However, even though sect. 102 of the firearms act states they can enter your home or whever they feel you may be storing yours guns,

Correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding is that they you can say NO!! Then the police officer has to obtain a search warrant (which isn't that hard these days as the LEO can now get them over a phone).

 

[mrcpu]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding is that they you can say NO!! Then the police officer has to obtain a search warrant (which isn't that hard these days as the LEO can now get them over a phone).

You can't say no but you can arrange a mutually convenient time.  It's also only if you have 10 firearms or more as far as I know.

Sent from my SM-G900W8 using Tapatalk

 

[Jake138]

Until someone fights it, they will enforce it. But it is an unconstitutional law...

Sent from my LG-D852 using Tapatalk

 

[Jake138]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding is that they you can say NO!! Then the police officer has to obtain a search warrant (which isn't that hard these days as the LEO can now get them over a phone).

You can say no. But you'll be charged. And no, they can't just go get a warrant without probabal cause... Which is our protection under section 8 of the charter.

Sent from my LG-D852 using Tapatalk

 

[Fishbone Jones]

You can also argue their lack of probable cause, in front of the JP, while they consider signing the warrant.

 

[Lightguns]

You can't say no but you can arrange a mutually convenient time.  It's also only if you have 10 firearms or more as far as I know.

Sent from my SM-G900W8 using Tapatalk

10 or more restricted firearms and/or be a registered "collector", everyone else is still covered by the probable cause thing. 

 

[mrcpu]

10 or more restricted firearms and/or be a registered "collector", everyone else is still covered by the probable cause thing.

I'm not sure they have to be registered per se.  Being registered just means they know 100% that you have 10+  I'll go back and have a look.

Sent from my SM-G900W8 using Tapatalk

 

[Lightguns]

I'm not sure they have to be registered per se.  Being registered just means they know 100% that you have 10+  I'll go back and have a look.

Sent from my SM-G900W8 using Tapatalk

I am sure!  How would they know if you have 10 or more non-restricted?  Anyway; http://www.cdnshootingsports.org/inspections_and_warrants.html

http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/cfp-pcaf/fs-fd/restr-eng.htm

Having a PAL or RPAL holder in a location where firearms related offences are suspected does lower the probable cause bar but the actual inspections are for restricteds and collectors.

 

[mrcpu]

I am sure!  How would they know if you have 10 or more non-restricted? 

What I'm saying is that the law does not strictly state "10 or more REGISTERED" firearms. 

any place in which the inspector believes on reasonable grounds there is a gun collection or a record in relation to a gun collection or any place in which the inspector believes on reasonable grounds there is a prohibited firearm or there are more than 10 firearms

So, while we both agree that the mostly likely reasonable grounds for an inspector is that you have 10 handguns registered to your home address, the reality is that if you were to, for example, post a picture of your "arsenal" of non-restricted firearms on social media and this info made it's way to the CFO or an inspector they could legally request access to your home for inspection.

I'm glad it's limited to 10 simply because I'm looking to get my first restricted and expect to own a couple before I stop buying!

 

[Lightguns]

What I'm saying is that the law does not strictly state "10 or more REGISTERED" firearms. 

So, while we both agree that the mostly likely reasonable grounds for an inspector is that you have 10 handguns registered to your home address, the reality is that if you were to, for example, post a picture of your "arsenal" of non-restricted firearms on social media and this info made it's way to the CFO or an inspector they could legally request access to your home for inspection.

I'm glad it's limited to 10 simply because I'm looking to get my first restricted and expect to own a couple before I stop buying!

Delete, I believe I am wrong.  I likely confused restricteds with prohibiteds. 

 

[mrcpu]

Delete, I believe I am wrong.  I likely confused restricteds with prohibiteds.

I think you are right in principle.  The chances of an inspection if you have 20 long guns is slim to none! 

I did see a video on youtube that I guy took while he was being inspected.  He was in the habit of buying restricted firearms and then selling them again, flipping and trading etc.  The officers made comments about him "being on their radar" while they inspected his stuff, most of it in boxes.

The truth is that a real issue that police have faced in the past is "legal" gun owners buying in the front door and selling out the back door to their gang member friends.  To make it worse, there have been cases of private sellers getting a victims DOB and City of birth and address etc and using it to do a change of address on the R/PAL.... then buying legal guns shipped to the "new" address, and selling them illegally to gang members... all on the record of some innocent victim!

 

[Jarnhamar]

I did see a video on youtube that I guy took while he was being inspected.  He was in the habit of buying restricted firearms and then selling them again, flipping and trading etc.  The officers made comments about him "being on their radar" while they inspected his stuff, most of it in boxes.

I believe I seen the same video. if it's the one I'm thinking of then it was a very sad example of police using intimidation and strong-arm tactics on the guy. The sort of "If you're not guilty then why are you exercising your rights?" angle. Total horse shit.

The truth is that a real issue that police have faced in the past is "legal" gun owners buying in the front door and selling out the back door to their gang member friends.

 
I've read of a few cases about that. Those legal gun owners deserve a punch in the nose.