The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0

[Navy_Pete]

10 000 J is not quite 7400 lb f; from a cursory search didn't see much other then a .50 BMG that exceeds that.  Are those not already controlled/banned?

Also found some countries have minimum requirements for hunting purposes based on the size of the animal, which makes sense but never thought about it.

I don't think any of these bans are going to really do much when we live within driving distance of the world's biggest arms exporter, but generally speaking can't see any reason someone would need a grenade launcher or anti-material sniper rifle.

 

[Jarnhamar]

[quote author=Navy_Pete]but generally speaking can't see any reason someone would need a grenade launcher or anti-material sniper rifle.
[/quote]

Bears.



Looks like Cabellas yanked their Mini-14s.

 

[my72jeep]

Yep I'm going to lose 26 at least.

I won’t say numbers as some have met the Plummer or at least supply’s from his truck. But my wife and I are about to take a financial hit.

 

[Jarnhamar]

LILLEY: Trudeau lies and subverts democracy to push his anti-gun agenda
https://torontosun.com/opinion/columnists/lilley-trudeau-lies-and-subverts-democracy-to-push-his-anti-gun-agenda

LILLEY: Trudeau lies and subverts democracy to push his anti-gun agenda
Brian Lilley

Justin Trudeau is about to sell the confiscation of private property and the outlay of close to $1 billion to do it as a matter of public safety.

That’s nothing but an outright lie.

“We have long been committed to strengthening gun control in this country,” Trudeau said on Thursday.

“Including, banning military style assault weapons. There is no need in Canada for guns designed to kill the largest amount of people in the shortest amount of time.”

That statement is supposed to make you feel good, it is supposed to make you feel safe, that our political leaders are doing something to stop gun violence like the gang shootings in cities across the country or the massacre that just occurred in Nova Scotia.

Neither the Prime Minister’s words nor the actions he is about to take will help with any of that.

The massacre in Nova Scotia was carried out by a man who never had a gun licence but had a stash of illegal weapons — one traced to Canada, the others from the United States.

The gun violence we see in our streets is similarly carried out mostly by gang members who don’t follow the law, smuggle guns from the U.S. and don’t bother with things like licences.

So, what will the Trudeau government do? They are about to pass a government order, not even legislation but a simple order, banning a whole series of rifles that are currently legal in Canada.

“There is a large consensus by Canadians who want to see less violence and fewer deaths from gun violence in this country,” Trudeau said.

Nice words but the reality is these actions won’t do a thing to stop gun violence in Canada.

Taking rifles used for target shooting by licensed gun owners won’t stop the violence committed by gangs who used smuggled handguns to protect their drug trade.

That’s what these orders will be, a seizing of rifles, many without any history of use in crime in this country. There won’t be any move on taking guns away from criminals or stopping the smuggling at the border.

In fact, in the last election the Liberals pledged to spend $600 million to pay for the rifles they are going to confiscate, which is far more than the amount of money they are giving to the Canada Border Services Agency to deal with gun smuggling. The government’s multi-year guns and gang strategy allocated $86 million over five years to deal with the number one source of crime guns, the border.

The number of rifles that will fall under this ban would be difficult to estimate, but one industry source estimates there are more than 83,000 AR-15 type rifles in Canada. This is a rifle that has been legal in Canada for more than 40 years and, despite its notoriety in the U.S., has no history as a crime gun in Canada.

This is not about safety, it is the Trudeau Liberals using hundreds of millions of tax dollars to enact their agenda and they are doing it without Parliamentary oversight. There will be no bill to debate, no votes to be had.

According to the story planted with friendly media, the ban will happen through a cabinet order — in other words government fiat, no accountability.

Even if you are no fan of guns, every Canadian should be outraged that our democracy is being subverted and that their government is lying to them about what their actions will accomplish.


blilley@postmedia.com

 

[ballz]

but generally speaking can't see any reason someone would need a grenade launcher or anti-material sniper rifle.

Well, the government is coming to confiscate our weapons, we've been forced into segregating ourselves and it's basically illegal to protest this all across the country, and the media (who this government is constantly trying to control and recently gave boatloads of cash to which even they didn't want because of partisanship) is saying this decision is based around "science" ...

 

[PuckChaser]

Big cabinet press conference for Liberal gun grab: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WZSQHWUhpFo. Starts shortly.

Listening to the preamble, Rosemary Barton did her typical shilling for the Liberals by tying the gun list to foreign gun crime, but one of the other anchors actually brought up that the Nova Scotia shooting firearms are almost all illegally imported from the US and the shooter didn't have a firearms licence so she wasn't sure how the government would try to link the the legislation to the shooting.

 

[MilEME09]

https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/pm-trudeau-announces-federal-ban-on-assault-style-firearms-in-canada-1.4920528


And so it is offical, by decree of the grand po ba him self 1500 guns are now illigal.

 

[SeaKingTacco]

I think once the Liberals are done  dealing with gun crime, they should move on outlaw motorcycle gangs. They can apply the same template from guns.

It it obvious that outlaw motorcycle gangs exist because of motorcycles. It is also obvious that motorcycles kill people. According to Transport Canada, in 2017, 191 people were senselessly killed by motorcycles. Harley's are used alot by criminal gangs. And certainly nobody needs a bike with an engine exceeding 750 ccs.

Therefore, I propose that the next OIC the Liberals pass is to ban any make/model of Harley and every motorcycle over 750cc of engine displacement. The carnage on our streets and in our overworked Emergency Rooms would end. Motorcycle owners can apply to their local police department for a "fair market" buyback of their motorcycle (but, obviously, not their helmets, saddlebags and riding gear).

It doesn't matter if you follow the rules and are law abidding. This is what gun owners deal with every damned day in this country.

 

[blacktriangle]

Don't forget trucks. Trucks are bad for the environment. And they might have guns or conservatives in them.

 

[SeaKingTacco]

That is a great idea! Nobody living in a city "needs" a pickup truck. The Liberals can give municipalities the power to ban pickup trucks, if they like. I like the way you think!

 

[Stoker]

That is a great idea! Nobody living in a city "needs" a pickup truck. The Liberals can give municipalities the power to ban pickup trucks, if they like. I like the way you think!

At least there's grandfathering, try and wait it out until the next election.

 

[dapaterson]

Frankly, I think we should keep the Harleys, and just ban Harley owners.

 

[MilEME09]

At least there's grandfathering, try and wait it out until the next election.

Can an order in council be repealed easily? better question can parliament overturn it?

 

[SeaKingTacco]

Frankly, I think we should keep the Harleys, and just ban Harley owners.

No, the object itself is inherently evil and causes people to cause death. Nobody is inherently responsible for their own actions.

 

[Jarnhamar]

With 1500 models and variants I'm guessing it's essentially banning any semi-automatic rifle with a magazine?


edit- here's a list
http://www.gazette.gc.ca/rp-pr/p2/2020/2020-05-01-x3/html/sor-dors96-eng.html

 

[Jarnhamar]

They're even somehow banning upper receivers which you don't need a firearms license to buy.

 

[SeaKingTacco]

Can an order in council be repealed easily? better question can parliament overturn it?

Yes. OIC are overturned by a stroke of a pen as easily as they are passed by the same people who ordered it. It is not an act of Parliament but regulation, which I find profoundly undemocratic. This  is super interesting if they say there is a gun- buyback program (which is a money supply issue and the territory of Parliament not Cabinet) with no underlying legislation to back any of that up. If theLiberals had balls, they would at least introduce this in Parliament, but I guess they figure they don't have to since gun owners don't vote Liberal anyway.

Has anyone got an actual, government of Canada source for what has  been banned and what the way forward is for hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of gun owners who are now paper criminals?

It was too much to hope  for that anything would actually be posted to the Canadian Firearms Centre website.

Edit: i see the link above from Jarnhamer. Thanks!

 

[LittleBlackDevil]

At least there's grandfathering, try and wait it out until the next election.

There's currently a two-year amnesty, so the firearms community REALLY needs to pull together and get the CPC elected next election (hoping that this happens within two years due to minority government). I only say CPC because they are the one and only party who woulda actually rescind this "executive order".

As for amnesty, since they did this via order-in-council, there is grandfathering for all current owners per s. 12(8) of the Firearms Act. This really just delays confiscation, but delay = buying time to fight for this to be rescinded.

Grandfathered individuals — regulations

12(9) An individual is eligible to hold a licence authorizing the individual to possess prohibited firearms of a prescribed class if the individual

(a) possesses one or more firearms of that class on a day that is prescribed with respect to that class;

(b) holds a registration certificate for one or more firearms of that class in the circumstances prescribed with respect to that class; and

(c) was continuously the holder of a registration certificate for one or more firearms of that class beginning on the day that is prescribed — or that is determined under the regulations — with respect to that class.

Also, owners of registered, restricted firearms who are going to be hit by this may consider s. 72 of the Firearms Act:

72 (1) Subject to subsection (1.1), if a chief firearms officer decides to refuse to issue or to revoke a licence or authorization to transport or the Registrar decides to refuse to issue or to revoke a registration certificate, authorization to export or authorization to import, the chief firearms officer or Registrar shall give notice of the decision in the prescribed form to the applicant for or holder of the licence, registration certificate or authorization.

(1.1) Notice under subsection (1) need not be given in any of the following circumstances:
(a) if the holder has requested that the licence, registration certificate or authorization be revoked; or
(b) if the revocation is incidental to the issuance of a new licence, registration certificate or authorization.

(2) A notice given under subsection (1) must include reasons for the decision disclosing the nature of the information relied on for the decision and must be accompanied by a copy of sections 74 to 81.

(3) A chief firearms officer or the Registrar need not disclose any information the disclosure of which could, in the opinion of the chief firearms officer or the Registrar, endanger the safety of any person.

(4) A notice given under subsection (1) in respect of a licence must specify a reasonable period during which the applicant for or holder of the licence may deliver to a peace officer or a firearms officer or a chief firearms officer or otherwise lawfully dispose of any firearm, prohibited weapon, restricted weapon, prohibited device or prohibited ammunition that the applicant for or holder of the licence possesses and during which sections 91, 92 and 94 of the Criminal Code do not apply to the applicant or holder.

(5) A notice given under subsection (1) in respect of a registration certificate for a prohibited firearm or a restricted firearm must specify a reasonable period during which the applicant for or holder of the registration certificate may deliver to a peace officer or a firearms officer or a chief firearms officer or otherwise lawfully dispose of the firearm to which the registration certificate relates and during which sections 91, 92 and 94 of the Criminal Code do not apply to the applicant or holder.

(6) If the applicant for or holder of the licence or registration certificate refers the refusal to issue it or revocation of it to a provincial court judge under section 74, the reasonable period of time does not begin until after the reference is finally disposed of.

Imagine if all the owners of the firearms that have suddenly been prohibited filed appeals. With potentially thousands of review applications hitting each and every single provincial court in the country, it could take years to hear all of the review applications.

 

[Haggis]

There's currently a two-year amnesty, so the firearms community REALLY needs to pull together and get the CPC elected next election (hoping that this happens within two years due to minority government). I only say CPC because they are the one and only party who woulda actually rescind this "executive order".

I doubt there will be an election within two years because this pandemic will drag on for at least another year and no other party is going to want to tackle the mess left behind.

As for amnesty, since they did this via order-in-council, there is grandfathering for all current owners per s. 12(8) of the Firearms Act. This really just delays confiscation, but delay = buying time to fight for this to be rescinded.

  No other firearms OIC has ever been reversed by a subsequent government that I can recall.  The risk is too high.  The best we can hope for is that this becomes the "new normal" for firearms ownership and we face no further bans.  Sadly, I suspect the usual suspects will soon loudly declare that the PM didn't go nearly far enough and more is needed.

 

[NavyShooter]

I will be appealing.