- Reaction score
- 6,080
- Points
- 1,160
I think, when it comes to education, everyone involved in firearms investigations, from the lowly constable to the judge and lawyers should be required to take and pass a PAL Restricted course.
The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
- Thread starter Jarnhamar
- Start date
North Star
Member
- Reaction score
- 41
- Points
- 330
Further to my last...a thought. Fluffy pablum, but also an excuse to make C-21 a confidence motion? Perhaps get the NDP to trigger an election on a issue the LPC will want to fight in the suburbs of Toronto, Montreal, and Vancouver?
Eaglelord17
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 2,071
- Points
- 1,040
You find some .22 rounds on the ground and you lack a firearms license. Do you deserve to go to jail?
Again its seeking a problem where there is none with the sole intent being to inconvenience firearms owners.
Your strawbuying example can be applied to many more things, which happens quite often like cigerettes, vapes, alcohol, etc.
Eye In The Sky
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 3,780
- Points
- 1,160
In EITS-land? No.
In future Liberal-Canada? Ammunition?
Oh, I am not “for” this, just providing an example of where they might be trying to go.
“Damn. It’s tough being a criminal. First they stopped us from buying guns at Bass Pro and now we can’t buy ammo? That’s it fellas. Im going straight. Those politicians are just too crafty”.
- Reaction score
- 6,080
- Points
- 1,160
Lots of times, when caught, the mags the criminals have are loaded with mismatched brands and aren't full. Ammo is harder to get than the guns.
Haggis
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 3,140
- Points
- 1,140
They are bought-and-paid-for recommendations. Gun control groups received funding from the MCC for their "expert testimony". Gun ownership advocacy groups (CCFR, NFA, CSSA) received nothing.
Some well-informed sources are starting to believe that the GoC will lose the May 2020 OIC court challenge, which begins in 10 days. I suspect a replacement OIC is ready to be dropped on or about April 19th.
- Reaction score
- 17,084
- Points
- 1,010
Of course not. It is far easier to scapegoat legal gun owners than admit you made bad decisions that probably made a bad situation worse.
Being very clear- Wortman is 100% responsible for all of the loss of life.
OldSolduer
Army.ca Relic
- Reaction score
- 15,557
- Points
- 1,260
Fully agree - and no one should be trotting out excuses for him.
- Reaction score
- 6,080
- Points
- 1,160
You didn't think sparkle sox was going to just quit his demonization and utter contempt for firearms owners did you? You can expect a full court press to implement his plan before an election do you? At least after changing it, it'll have to go back to the Senate where they can hold it up for a bit.
- Reaction score
- 1,674
- Points
- 1,060
dont know if everyone is aware but there is a court case going on right now with regards to the governments attempts to restrict access to firearms
"There was never any instructions or directions given to the RCMP to create the FRT. Mr Smith did it of his own volition. Now it’s the standard for cops. Points to Smith testimony - he single-handedly oversaw the entire FRT on his own."
Eye In The Sky
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 3,780
- Points
- 1,160
Yup there is and I made sure I renewed my membership with no renewal gift so they could use my pennies for the greater good.
Colin Parkinson
Army.ca Myth
- Reaction score
- 11,934
- Points
- 1,160
I have met Solomon, interesting guy. Some nifty talking points on gun facts between 2:10-3:40 to entertain your party guests with.
daftandbarmy
Army.ca Dinosaur
- Reaction score
- 32,234
- Points
- 1,160
Tec-9 door to door salesmen?
Haggis
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 3,140
- Points
- 1,140
The CCFR et al vs Canada trial ended yesterday. The CCFR's Tracey Wilson did an awesome job of providing a play-by-play on Twitter for the entire trial. She has now turned her Twitter thread into a web story.
This is a complex case and the judge can rule differently on each segment. My gut tells me it will not go in favour of gun owners. Even if I'm wrong and the GoC loses, in whole or in part, there will be more bans or promises of bans as we run up to the next election.
This is a complex case and the judge can rule differently on each segment. My gut tells me it will not go in favour of gun owners. Even if I'm wrong and the GoC loses, in whole or in part, there will be more bans or promises of bans as we run up to the next election.
- Reaction score
- 6,080
- Points
- 1,160
The whole Team CCFR did an awesome job. Now we wait for the wheels of justice to turn.
OldSolduer
Army.ca Relic
- Reaction score
- 15,557
- Points
- 1,260
And they may turn slowly.
Haggis
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 3,140
- Points
- 1,140
I hope they have a decision by the time the amnesty extension ends in October 2023.
Eye In The Sky
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 3,780
- Points
- 1,160
Election - that is the opportunity I am hoping Canadians embrace and steer Canada off its current course. Not just for the gun grab but for many other reasons as well.
Respectfully, I don't understand why this is a complex case in the slightest.
If someone takes the PAL course, completes the exams, grabs the application package, fills it out, submits it with everything it requires & pays the fee...
Assuming the person is successful and receives their license a few months down the road, and they go to an authorized retailer, legally purchase a firearm, and obey the laws of transporting/storing/using it...I just don't see how buying those firearms back is doing anything to effect some scumbag who got his hands on an illegal gun & is going to use it in a criminal offense
The government came up with this out of nowhere. One day, poof the government wants further firearm restrictions...but only to fulfill their promise of ridding the streets of assault rifles
Then at the last minute, in their constantly sneaky ways, they try to expand the list of subject firearms to ALL OF THEM...
And when the opposition suggests they want to take away hunting rifles from law abiding Canadians that aren't the gangbangers with pistols, the government says "No that isn't what we are doing!" when it's actually exactly what they are doing...
To me, it screams of government overreach. To me its blatantly confiscating people's personal property when those people haven't done anything to deserve it - heck the whole bill is targeting law abiding citizens. (Criminals get their guns confiscated pretty darn quick once caught with one...)
None of this is meant as argumentative towards you Haggis.
I just don't understand what is complex about this matter, or why/how the government even has a leg to stand on after they blatantly lied about their intentions.
Let people who legally own guns to keep their property. Let the police confiscate the guns that aren't legally owned or used for a lawful purpose...
I just don't see what makes this issue complex
Similar threads
