• 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.

SeaKingTacco

Army.ca Fixture
Donor
Reaction score
1,847
Points
910
Oldgateboatdriver said:
I would add one further small step to what SKT proposes: The independent expert agency would do the research and classification of firearms based on the criteria laid down in the law by Parliament, but it would be for the purpose of advising the Government, with the coming into force of any classification for any given firearm still requiring adoption through regulation - duly published, publicized and entering into force according to the law applicable to adoption of regulations.

Absolutely. There is an annoyingly dangerous trend of elected governments outsourcing lawmaking to bureaucrats- either because they want the political cover or find it too bothersome to make the in the first place. This is not confined to areas of gun law in Canada.
 

Jarnhamar

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
1,309
Points
1,060
Our firearm classification system serves no other purpose than to give the illusion of levels of safety to anti-firearm voters.

The RCMP will soon be playing games picking which non-restricted rifles you can use on crown land and your property and force you to use them only on a CFO approved range. (If you can afford the often expensive membership cost and if there isn't a long waiting list).

IF you own a gun and hypothetically decide tomorrow you want to go shoot up your work or school is the fact you are only legally allowed to use a restricted gun on a range going to stop you?  Are you going to call the CFO for an authorization to transport your gun to a school address?

It doesn't save lives. It doesn't prevent shootings. There's no evidence in statistics of magazine restrictions mitigating the number of wounded or killed.

The last mass shooting in Canada the killer used a rifle that's either restricted or non-restricted, and a restricted pistol.
Second last mass shooter used a crossbow.
Third last a non-restricted shotgun- I've read pump action and also break-open (so single shot)
Fourth Last restricted handgun (stolen)
Fifth a non-restricted rifle; and
Sixth a knife.

The majority of gang-related shootings are with restricted pistols.

When a .22LR caliber gun is restricted because of looks (AR15, AK47) and looks alone you know the system isn't logical.
 

FJAG

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
1,863
Points
1,040
SeaKingTacco said:
The RCMP having complete and final control of firearms classification, without any appeal or oversight mechanism is my largest complaint with C71. . . .

Not being argumentative here but honestly looking for information as I too think such a provision would be problematic.

I've read C71 and don't see that provision, just one that restricts GiC from downgrading a classification. What specific provision(s) of C71 or existing legislation are you relying on when you say that the "RCMP having complete and final control . . . without any appeal"?

:cheers:
 

Furniture

Sr. Member
Reaction score
142
Points
480
FJAG said:
I've read C71 and don't see that provision, just one that restricts GiC from downgrading a classification.  :cheers:

Not to derail from your question, but this in and of itself is troublesome. It's a direct shot at the people that supported the conservatives last time around. It's playing games of politics with hundreds of thousands of dollars of Canadian citizens private property. It serves no public safety purpose, but appeals to the anti-gun voters so they appear to be getting tough on crime.

To go to the opposite extreme this is like the conservatives making all beard combs and skinny jeans illegal, and those in possession liable for criminal charges. It's a cheap shot at the personal property of people that most likely voted the other way, and has no place in Canadian politics. 
 

SeaKingTacco

Army.ca Fixture
Donor
Reaction score
1,847
Points
910
FJAG said:
Not being argumentative here but honestly looking for information as I too think such a provision would be problematic.

I've read C71 and don't see that provision, just one that restricts GiC from downgrading a classification. What specific provision(s) of C71 or existing legislation are you relying on when you say that the "RCMP having complete and final control . . . without any appeal"?

:cheers:

So, the summary of the Bill affirms that the Governor in Counsel (GIC) will no longer have the authority to down classify firearms. In other words, once the RCMP makes something Restricted or Prohibitted for whatever reason, it cannot be backed down, by anyone, ever. It is a one way trip.

The Press release on this bill at the Canadian Firearms Centre affirms that this Government intends to allow the RCMP the final say in all firearms classifications. One could view this as a positive, I suppose- in theory, this ends political interference in the classification process.  I do not for the reasons I have already I do not like putting the RCMP in the position of judging firearms, then enforcing their own judgements. In my mind, it should be a separate agency doing the classification work, with another independent body as an appeal authority, should gun owners disagree with a classification decision.
 

FJAG

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
1,863
Points
1,040
I've got that. I also know that the basic definition of the classes of firearms comes from s 84 of the CCC and that  SOR/98-462 deems certain firearms to be prohibited/restricted but so far I have not found where the RCMP has a non appealable power to classify firearms.

I am aware from a past case that I was involved in that the RCMP can make judgements on certain firearms but that was always something you could take to court as part of a confiscation hearing. If that right has gone can you point me to the specific sections that do that.

Again. I'm not arguing with you I just don't know and want to see the law for myself for interest sake.

:cheers:
 

Fishbone Jones

Army.ca Myth
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
278
Points
910
Fox in the hen house.

It's such a glaring anomaly in Canadas political history, that no one should be missuing this..

It's a Catch 22. The RCMP has been given the law making ability of the GiC, comprised of our legislators.  The government has removed the power and ability of Canadians and thier duly elected representatives to reverse the RCMP decision.

The current government has abrogated it's duty and responsibility to Canadians an handed lawful tax paying citizens to a police state

If I'm wrong, convince me.

We're on a cusp, methinks.  Indulge my fantasy. This is going to pass. I believe you're going to see the Trudeau government table a bill to limit debate. This will get voted in by the majority party against all wishes of every other Canadian taxpayer represtative. It will race through the senate, pass all subsequent reading and it's law.

Here comes the gun bill. A day or two of typical non answers, debate is finished the grits win. Big shock.

Think about it, he's been getting us ready by not providing a single relevant answer since being in power. He'll come into the house once a week as the table and vote in whatever they want. We have no checks and balances. They've been stolen, like our rights, from beneath our noses. Debate and votes are a simply formality for the masses that listen to CBC. Theater dress up.

He did say, that this was the last election under our current system. Might just be our last election period.

Looks like the left elected a mad king for us.

Fantasy. I'm just thinking of a story line for a book.  8)

Sorry and it'll seem unfair, but please don't go down a political rabbit hole here. I had to use those hypothetical situations to make my point. If you think it's good for discussion take it to Canadian Politics. Quote my whole post over there so you've got a touchstone for the base of it. Tanks!
 

SeaKingTacco

Army.ca Fixture
Donor
Reaction score
1,847
Points
910
FJAG said:
I've got that. I also know that the basic definition of the classes of firearms comes from s 84 of the CCC and that there are SOR/98-462 deems certain firearms to be prohibited/restricted but so far I have not found where the RCMP has a non appealable power to classify firearms.

I am aware from a past case that I was involved in that the RCMP can make judgements on certain firearms but that was always something you could take to court as part of a confiscation hearing. If that right has gone can you point me to the specific sections that do that.

Again. I'm not arguing with you I just don't know and want to see the law for myself for interest sake.

:cheers:

I am not arguing that you can just go before a judge, after you have been charged, to argue a classification issue.

But why should it have to come to a charge being layed? Tell me, in the proposed system, who you appeal a classification decision taken by the RCMP, too? The GiC will be out of play on this. Does that not place the RCMP in the position as the final authority on firearms matters in Canada? Not trolling- asking a question. You have far more experience than me in judicial matters.

The
 

Colin Parkinson

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
1,773
Points
940
FJAG said:
Not being argumentative here but honestly looking for information as I too think such a provision would be problematic.

I've read C71 and don't see that provision, just one that restricts GiC from downgrading a classification. What specific provision(s) of C71 or existing legislation are you relying on when you say that the "RCMP having complete and final control . . . without any appeal"?

:cheers:

The bill is explicit from what I have seen, guns can be determined by the RCMP or politicians (by OIC) as restricted or prohibited and the ability to reverse a decision by the RCMP by OIC would be prohibited. So the regulations will only allow for the increase in restrictions and no form of appeal for the affected citizen.
 

Retired AF Guy

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
55
Points
530
Colin P said:
The bill is explicit from what I have seen, guns can be determined by the RCMP or politicians (by OIC) as restricted or prohibited and the ability to reverse a decision by the RCMP by OIC would be prohibited. So the regulations will only allow for the increase in restrictions and no form of appeal for the affected citizen.

Not a lawyer, but my understanding is that any law/regulation that removes your right to appeal is, in effect, unconstitutional.
 

ballz

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Reaction score
274
Points
910
Retired AF Guy said:
Not a lawyer, but my understanding is that any law/regulation that removes your right to appeal is, in effect, unconstitutional.

I don't think he meant an actual legal appeal.... as stated earlier, yes, you can still get charged and have your day in court. But that's insane... who would ever agree to creating legislation that can only be changed by a citizen who 1. gets charged and 2. has the resources to actually fight the government all the way up to the SCC... how many people will literally go to jail as a criminal before that happens?

We have three branches of government for a reason. What is the point of the legislative branch if it's just going to hand over its power to the executive branch? Would we ever let police decide the definition of murder, of assault, of sexual assault? Would we ever let police write the Criminal Code? What is so special about firearms that we throw out all principles of good governance?

I happen to think it's not constitutional but as a citizen I have no way to challenge that except getting charged and running the legal gauntlet. It kind of blows my mind... I feel like the judicial branch, if faced with this issue in court, would have to rule that the legislation can't just handover it's power to the executive... if not, we have a very big oversight in our constitution that essentially allows us to slip into a dictatorship.

EDIT: In Switzerland, the closest thing we have to a direct democracy, after a few failed attempts at a constitution which required an armed revolution to rectify, they now have it so that *any* law can be challenged by getting 100,000 signatures on a petition. If you can do that, then their legislative branch has to draft an updated version/draft of the law. The citizens then have a referendum... keep the old law, adopt the new proposed law, or repeal the old law altogether.

In Canada, we are moving in the opposite direction.
 

kkwd

Sr. Member
Reaction score
14
Points
230
I can't figure out what "13 firearms without functionality classification" category.

As of October 2017, according the division’s inventory system, there were 476 firearms in the inventory. That number included 158 functional firearms, 294 non-functional firearms (used for educational courses throughout the province), 13 firearms without functionality classification and 11 firearms listed as being lost.

http://www.thetelegram.com/news/local/firearms-missing-from-nl-wildlife-division-ag-reports-199425/
 

Fishbone Jones

Army.ca Myth
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
278
Points
910
ballz said:
I happen to think it's not constitutional but as a citizen I have no way to challenge that except getting charged and running the legal gauntlet. It kind of blows my mind... I feel like the judicial branch, if faced with this issue in court, would have to rule that the legislation can't just handover it's power to the executive... if not, we have a very big oversight in our constitution that essentially allows us to slip into a dictatorship.

EDIT: In Switzerland, the closest thing we have to a direct democracy, after a few failed attempts at a constitution which required an armed revolution to rectify, they now have it so that *any* law can be challenged by getting 100,000 signatures on a petition. If you can do that, then their legislative branch has to draft an updated version/draft of the law. The citizens then have a referendum... keep the old law, adopt the new proposed law, or repeal the old law altogether.

In Canada, we are moving in the opposite direction.

Careful with statements like that here. The last time I mentioned that, some people here said I needed my head examined. ;)
 

Jarnhamar

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
1,309
Points
1,060
Campaign #9 - Conflict of Interest and Ethics Violations

In accepting the position of Vice Chair of the Canadian Firearms Advisory Committee, Ms Provost signed terms of reference agreeing not to lobby government in areas related to firearms. Ten months later, in her capacity as a spokesperson for PolySeSouvient, she sent a detailed letter to Members of Parliament and Public Safety Canada asking for specific gun control measures to be legislated. Four months after that the Minister of Public Safety introduced bill C-71 in the House of Commons, a bill that contains five of PolySeSouvient's requests and uses passages from the letter as justification. Campaign 9 is addressed to the Ethics Commissioner and the Lobbying Commissioner as well members of the media. It aims to expose this conflict of interest and ethical violations.

http://oneclearvoice.ca
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top