Chair, Vice-Chairs named for Canadian Firearms Advisory Committee

[The Bread Guy]

I thought I'd start this separate from the existing gun control thread just to get back-and-forth just on this panel first,  and merge it all in later if necessary.

From the Public Safety Canada Info-machine:

Appointments of Chair and Vice-Chairs of the Canadian Firearms Advisory Committee

OTTAWA, February 10, 2017 – To protect our diverse communities across the country, the Government of Canada must strive for the most appropriate firearms policies, laws and regulations.  A new Canadian Firearms Advisory Committee (CFAC) will help achieve that objective.

Today, the Honourable Ralph Goodale, Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, announced the appointment of three new CFAC members, in an effort to make a refreshed committee more inclusive and representative.

A retired justice of the Supreme Court of Canada, the Honourable John C. (Jack) Major, will serve as Chair.  He brings a wealth of legal and judicial expertise and stature, and will offer helpful guidance on complex issues.

Two Vice-Chairs will also provide important regional views and diverse backgrounds for CFAC to draw upon.  Lynda Kiejko of Calgary is a Canadian Olympian and medaled sport shooter.  Nathalie Provost of Montreal is a survivor of the Polytechnique shootings and spokesperson for PolySeSouvient.

Additional CFAC members will be announced shortly.  The modified committee will help the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness receive sound advice from a wide range of community perspectives, including civilian firearms users, farmers, law enforcement officers, public health advocates and women's organizations.

Quotes

    “The government is hard at work on our commitments to reduce gun violence through balanced, effective firearms measures that prioritize public safety while ensuring we do not unfairly impact law-abiding Canadians. Because decisions about firearms affect all Canadians, the Government of Canada is renewing the membership of the Canadian Firearms Advisory Committee to be representative of a broad range of interests. I am very pleased these three distinguished Canadians have agreed to serve on CFAC with more to come.”

    - Ralph Goodale, Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness

Quick Facts

    The CFAC was originally established in July 2006 to provide advice to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness on the reform of Canadian firearms laws and regulations.
    The CFAC will advise the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness on measures to reform Canada’s firearms policies, laws and regulations as required, to ensure a modernized firearms regime that will keep Canadians safe ...

Terms of Reference and bios of the members attached.

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

I won't comment on the Chair/vice-chairs appointment because we still have to see the make up of the whole committee before seeing where it might lead, I will, however comment on a specific aspects of the terms of reference.

The Terms state that the committee will be made up of (1) civilian firearm users - that seems appropriate; (2) Knowledgeable L.E.O.s - again, that makes sense as you are advising on regulation of firearms; (3) public health advocate - again it's ok as there is a public health aspect to this; (4) members of the legal community - again makes perfect sense as the advice is on legislation.

What I don't get is the fifth group: "representatives of women's group". Are there aspects to firearm legislation that are gender specific (and if so, then why not LBGT representatives - it must affect them differently if there is a gender component) ?  I mean, aren't the other four groups already inclusive of both men and women, it is 2017 after all! And if so, why do women groups, in a time of legal equality, have a greater and separate input not otherwise offered to "representatives of men groups"?

Just saying!

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Nor do the Stats support such inclusions

 

[Flavus101]

oldgateboatdriver, because you aren't "equal" until you are "superior". It's 2017 after all!

In all seriousness you hit the nail right on the head. There are no significant differences in how this will affect women compared to men and vice versa. Although this is pure speculation I think that people are now so scared to not include an "oppressed" segment of society in their committee, cabinet, group, etc. due to the negative publicity that inevitably gets spun up.

There are "elections" being held right now at the university I go to. One of the students running to be elected (to what is basically a student union/student government) has campaigned hard on more funding for women only events. I personally am not a large fan of creating events that segregate people into defined "groups". Especially when those "groups" have a tendency to not allow you to associate with people or ideas that are not part of the "group".

Reading this post back over I'm not really sure what the university story has to do with this all, other than if you aren't pledging to support or be seen to support "oppressed" groups than you face a very good chance of being deemed "sexist", "racist", "bigoted", etc.

 

[captloadie]

Maybe they were concerned all the individuals in the first 4 groups were going to be males  ???

 

[The Bread Guy]

... Although this is pure speculation I think that people are now so scared to not include an "oppressed" segment of society in their committee, cabinet, group, etc. due to the negative publicity that inevitably gets spun up ...

GBA+ - it's for all bits of government ...

Nor do the Stats support such inclusions

Heretic! 

 

[Lumber]

Nor do the Stats support such inclusions

That's what alternative facts are for...

 

[Flavus101]

Maybe they were concerned all the individuals in the first 4 groups were going to be males  ???

Keep in mind that this post is not meant to attack you, simply the point that you made.

And so what if the Committee is all male? At what point in time did that become a problem?

I would think the decisions made by the Committee will affect Muslims, Christians, rural and urban folk, etc. etc. Should everyone receive their own special representation? Or should we trust that these people will work for the betterment of Canadian society as a whole? If the decisions reached by the Committee do not uphold this unspoken promise then we take them to task for it.

The interesting thing about this whole gender identity is that the education is focused on having people look past what people "identify" as and to not show bias towards them. Yet, the biggest proponents of this cause make the focus of all issues on gender identity.

milnews, thanks for bringing up that GBA+ program. I had completely forgotten about it since the last time I had a few soldiers ask me about it in regards to their PLQ. I think my initial response to the program was along the lines of "well let's give it a chance even though it has all the popular catchphrases of the times and is delivered by the Status of Women department". The very first "Mythbuster" on the page situates the estimate quite well. I actually did take the program as I was curious, what I found was something that could have been excellent. Instead it focused on "re-educating" the student and delved into the rabbit hole of gender identity with questionable "facts" being stated.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Polytechnic is a tune the liberals have used to criminalize and demonize gun owners from the time it happened. It's the liberals way of mobilizing women against gun ownership while they dance on the graves of victims of gun violence to push their agenda. I fully expect the libs to reappoint Cukier from the Coalition for Gun Control back to the panel. What I also expect is that the civilian members of the NFA, CSSA or any other pro firearm org being asked to return. They already know the actions they are going to take with new laws. The Committee will ask the canned questions. The libs, fudds and and the SJW will discuss and placate each other while we once more, for the millionth time relive the shootings by Gamil Gharbi. The liberals are going to go full tilt and try take us out once and for all. No matter who forms the next government, I expect if the conservatives (like Bernier) win, they will finally set the rules and lock them in. If the libs haven't outlawed and confiscated our guns before the election, they will finish us for good after.

 

[Lumber]

Polytechnic is a tune the liberals have used to criminalize and demonize gun owners from the time it happened. It's the liberals way of mobilizing women against gun ownership while they dance on the graves of victims of gun violence to push their agenda. I fully expect the libs to reappoint Cukier from the Coalition for Gun Control back to the panel. What I also expect is that the civilian members of the NFA, CSSA or any other pro firearm org being asked to return. They already know the actions they are going to take with new laws. The Committee will ask the canned questions. The libs, fudds and and the SJW will discuss and placate each other while we once more, for the millionth time relive the shootings by Gamil Gharbi. The liberals are going to go full tilt and try take us out once and for all. No matter who forms the next government, I expect if the conservatives (like Bernier) win, they will finally set the rules and lock them in. If the libs haven't outlawed and confiscated our guns before the election, they will finish us for good after.

I agree that there will probably be a lot of empty showman ship, and some new rules that gun owners will not like. However, I think given the track record of Liberal gun control measures, there just isn't much appetite for a recreation of the gun registry, let alone something worse. So, my gut feeling is you won't like it, but you're not going to have your gun's taken away à la books from 1984.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

I agree that there will probably be a lot of empty showman ship, and some new rules that gun owners will not like. However, I think given the track record of Liberal gun control measures, there just isn't much appetite for a recreation of the gun registry, let alone something worse. So, my gut feeling is you won't like it, but you're not going to have your gun's taken away à la books from 1984.

It's hard enough on a good day to try figure out what the liberals are going to come up with. While I don't see full confiscation yet, I'll bet there is a flurry of handguns and rifles, like the AR-15, that will become prohibited. The Swiss Green is definitely going back on the banned list. If you aren't 12.6, you will probably have to give them up or sell them. You cannot get 12.6 anymore. It will be a buyers market. The RCMP is back in charge of making laws on what we can have and how. We'll see more idiocy like prohibiting mags over 10 rounds for the 10-22. All conjecture, but I've been in the game for over 50 years and have watched the political machinations of Canadian governments fuck around gun owners. Far from when I was 14 and bought my first shotgun and centre fire rifle. Walked in the door, put down my cash, said I'll take those two. No bullshit or paperwork. Walked home three miles through the city with both uncovered over my shoulders. It's been downhill since.


BTW, I'm 12.6, so if anyone wants to get rid of prohibs PM me! We'll see if we can make a deal. [

edit - for gratuitous self promotion.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

I foresee death of a thousand cuts, more rifles added to the restricted/banned list by name

 

[Jarnhamar]

I may be out to lunch but I have a theory.

While the Liberals are virtue signalling by putting women on a pedestal when it comes to being represented in gun control talks(which doesn't make any sense) I don't think the Liberals are going to bother gun owners very much, if at all. I also don't think guns will be placed on the banned list either.

For the most part I find the conservatives screwed-off gun owners over their decade in power.  Sure they got rid of the long gun registry but I honestly believe that has more to do with what the LGR was costing the government to keep alive every year rather than any sense of supporting gun owners. Aside from that they didn't really do shit to change our stupid gun laws, that is until the end when it looked like they had a chance of losing the election. Then all of a sudden gun owners were at the forefront of their concerns again and they finally made it easier to transport restricted firearms(which crimianls obviously don't give a shit about anyways).  Yes they got involved with the Swiss arms stupidity by the RCMP but with the amount of outrage going on they didn't have a choice.

For years the conservatives could have addressed the stupid magazine limit, helped us shooters save our hearing by allowing suppressors (which some of the countries with the strictest of gun control supports) or change the dumb non-restricted/restricted system, but they didn't.

The Liberals came to power and our fears of sweeping confiscations and bannings haven't manifested yet. For as elitist as the Liberals are I don't think they're stupid. I think they're quite savvy when it comes to manipulating voters. If the Liberals start banning shit they'll be kicking another hornets nest to deal with. Why bother? If they leave things as are then the firearm community will pretty much stay quiet and just live in fear of making noise and being noticed. They have us right where they need us.  Meanwhile Liberal voters are busy worrying about a bunch of other issues and firearms seems to have largely fallen off the plate.

I may be wrong but I think the Liberals will kick this can down the road as long as they can.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

I hope you are right, but there is a group within that is pushing for more gun control, one can only hope that world events keep the Cabinet to busy to worry about it.

 

[The Bread Guy]

I hope you are right, but there is a group within that is pushing for more gun control, one can only hope that world events keep the Cabinet to busy to worry about it.

And my understanding of Team Red's base doesn't include a whole lot of rural gun owners, so I think you'd be right to worry.

 

[Jarnhamar]

I'm really hesitant to give props to the RCMP when it comes to firearms but by the sounds of it there are some pretty cool (read scary) looking firearms that are apparently pretty close to getting non-restricted status. That includes a .308 Ar15 simulacrum. I'll throw some info in the gun control thread.

And my understanding of Team Red's base doesn't include a whole lot of rural gun owners, so I think you'd be right to worry.

That's true but it's all about the votes right? Liberal voters aren't going to stop voting Liberal if the government doesn't start banning firearms, their votes are basically locked in. I know quite a few conservatives who refuse to support the conservative party financially because of how firearm owners were treated.

 

[The Bread Guy]

... Liberal voters aren't going to stop voting Liberal if the government doesn't start banning firearms, their votes are basically locked in ...

Seen.  I'd still bet a loonie that the "redder" members of the team might squeeze harder as the mandate unfolds - especially if there's some gun-related "event" to bring that onto the radar.

 

[Eaglelord17]

The reality is that firearms owners when firearms are not a issue vote the same as the regular population.

The Liberals weren't stupid when they made the firearms act. Many parts of the law were dumb but overall the way they did it has a hint of genius. They didn't take away anyone's property, which is what would have caused a huge uproar. Instead they prohibited some from owning unless you already possessed it, in which case you could continue to own it but are unable to use it. When these people die there will be no one left to complain about those firearms as everyone else will have never had the chance to own it.

I really doubt the Liberals will extend the prohibited by name category. As it stands if they do so those firearms become forfeit without the need to recompense the owners and they cannot be legally grandfathered (unless you re-write the laws). Even if someone owned a 12.x licence they wouldn't be able to be grandfathered as it is illegal to import a prohibited firearm after the laws changed for ownership by civilians which also means it could not be registered for those individuals to own. This is also how you really piss people off as nothing makes people angrier than taking away their property, especially without compensation.

As I imagine they see it, there is no real gain to do so but a fair bit to lose. Of course you are always going to have that very small minority who want all firearms banned (which is also much smaller than the amount of people who actually own firearms), but the reality is appeasing them will do next to nothing as they already have their vote (much like how for the Conservatives they didn't have to do much to get the vast majority of firearms owners votes as the alternatives were worse).

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Good read Eaglelord,


Some clarification:

As a 12.6 holder, I can use mine. I can take them to a CFO approved range and make brass all day, if I wish.

My daughter meets the regs and is eligible to receive my prohibs upon my death. The Executor gives permission and the CFO will issue her the appropriate 12.x code.

Prohibited Firearms

Prohibited firearms can be transferred to an individual who has a Possession and Acquisition Licence (PAL) which includes the appropriate prohibited licence privilege.

If the deceased individual had prohibited privileges on his or her licence, prohibited firearms in the estate can be transferred to certain family members even if they do not have grandfathered privileges, providing:
the prohibited firearm is a grandfathered handgun described in subsection 12(6.1) of the Firearms Act, with a barrel equal to or less than 105 mm in length or designed or adapted to discharge .25 or .32 caliber cartridges; and
the prohibited handgun was manufactured before 1946;
and
the individual is the spouse, common-law partner, brother, sister, child or grandchild of the deceased registered owner;
and
the handgun is used for a permitted purpose such as target shooting or as part of a collection.


Cheers :cheers:

 

[Jed]

Good read Eaglelord,


Some clarification:

As a 12.6 holder, I can use mine. I can take them to a CFO approved range and make brass all day, if I wish.

My daughter meets the regs and is eligible to receive my prohibs upon my death. The Executor gives permission and the CFO will issue her the appropriate 12.x code.

Prohibited Firearms

Prohibited firearms can be transferred to an individual who has a Possession and Acquisition Licence (PAL) which includes the appropriate prohibited licence privilege.

If the deceased individual had prohibited privileges on his or her licence, prohibited firearms in the estate can be transferred to certain family members even if they do not have grandfathered privileges, providing:
the prohibited firearm is a grandfathered handgun described in subsection 12(6.1) of the Firearms Act, with a barrel equal to or less than 105 mm in length or designed or adapted to discharge .25 or .32 caliber cartridges; and
the prohibited handgun was manufactured before 1946;
and
the individual is the spouse, common-law partner, brother, sister, child or grandchild of the deceased registered owner;
and
the handgun is used for a permitted purpose such as target shooting or as part of a collection.


Cheers :cheers:

So, a S&W 39-2  4 in. barrel prohib can not be transferred?