Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 49
  1. #31
    Senior Member Mark-II's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Winnipeg
    Posts
    4,242
    I don't like the conservatives white knighting for us when they passed the buck to begin with.

    Seriously, what's the UN going to do if we withdraw from the treaty, and why should we care?

    Conservative virtue signalling. It's so damned hollow...
    Schrödinger's Gat - The logical paradox which posits that a firearm, stored safe in the home, is at the same time On The Streets

  2. The Following 4 Users Like This Post By Mark-II

    Booletsnotreactwell (05-20-2017), Marcel (05-21-2017), Swampdonkey (05-18-2017), Waynetheman (05-19-2017)

  3. #32
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    Toronto
    Posts
    6,248
    Quote Originally Posted by Mark-II View Post
    I don't like the conservatives white knighting for us when they passed the buck to begin with.

    Seriously, what's the UN going to do if we withdraw from the treaty, and why should we care?

    Conservative virtue signalling. It's so damned hollow...
    We'll find out how the UN reacts to countries pulling out of/ignoring treaties shortly. The Liberals have to pull out of/ignore 3 to get weed legal.

  4. The Following 2 Users Like This Post By soulchaser

    killer kane (05-19-2017), speedloader (05-19-2017)

  5. #33
    Senior Member speedloader's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Alberta
    Posts
    2,257
    why what ever do you mean soulchaser as long as our guns are marked
    we can walk around stoned......great Liberal thinking as usual
    the whole thing is a complete waste of time and our money kinda like the UN......

  6. #34
    Senior Member RangeBob's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Ontario
    Posts
    15,622
    from CGN on 2017-05-08
    and 10 days later "UN marking" became "un-marking".

    Quote Originally Posted by r_wpg_rif
    So I wrote to my Jim Carr, my MP. First (after a couple of weeks) I got the standard text from his aid. Then I told them that the response was off point and basically made me feel as though he didn't care what I have to say. I know he doesn't because I'm disagreeing with the party line. So a few weeks later I get this:

    Good afternoon Mr. Brown,

    I apologize for my previous email – It did not respond to the points that you had raised about marking of firearms and changes to their oversight in Canada. Thank you for responding to my email and giving me an opportunity to listen to what you have to say and to provide information that I have related to this issue. I have taken the points that you have raised in this regard forward with Minister Carr, as well as with his colleagues in the Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, which are the lead officials on this portfolio.

    I understand the concerns that you have about the control of firearms markings being made by police, rather than elected officials. Our government believes that the most effective method of evaluating the levels of control and safety requirements for firearms is best made by law enforcement – this is not limited to law enforcement only. Decisions that are made by police can be influenced by key stakeholders, such as constituents and leading firearms organizations, who can contact their elected officials with organized opposition to changes that are proposed. This government is committed to working with Canadians to reduce gun violence in Canada, and we believe that this is best achieved with the leadership of enforcement officials, who directly influence this objective and experience it daily.

    In regards to the markings of firearms, your concern about their applicability to reducing gun violence does not provide a claim that can be made as opposed to those supported by law enforcement. Law enforcement officials in Canada believe through their role as the key stakeholder in public safety that markings help police to better investigate the criminal use of firearms. Marking will not only help to better identify firearms that are being registered and used in Canada, but are also part of our continuing efforts to get illegal guns off of Canada’s streets.

    I understand if you would like to provide some further information in regard to the claims that you have raised about new policy regarding the markings of firearms. I would be happy to answer any questions that you may have or to take your comments forward with the Minister again in the future.

    Kindest Regards,

    Shawn Singh

    Constituency Assistant | Adjoint de circonscription Hon. Jim Carr, MP/député

    Winnipeg South Centre | Winnipeg-Centre-Sud

    T: (204) 983-1355

    F: (204) 984-3979

    [email protected]
    Twitter: @jimcarr_wpg
    Facebook: /jim.carr.lib

  7. #35
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Location
    Lloyd, Alberta
    Posts
    222
    ^^ More political double speak that really means nothing but is designed to make anti gun people feel good.
    Make Trudeau a drama teacher again (www.spreadshirt. com)

  8. The Following User Liked This Post By Swingerguy

    glockfan (05-20-2017)

  9. #36
    Senior Member CLW .45's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    1,261
    My email to Ralph Goodale.


    Sir,

    I am pleased that you have decided to delay implementation of those regulations. Please make use of the extra time to understand the requirement to forever remove those regulations from the Canadian scene.

    There is no benefit to be had from them, only much harm.

    Thank you for this stay of execution.

    CLW .45
    Two vicious lies undergird that stinking pile of excrement that passes for firearms law and regulation in Canada.

    Some guns are too dangerous for you to have, and you don't "need" guns because you have police to protect you.

  10. The Following 2 Users Like This Post By CLW .45

    glockfan (05-21-2017), RangeBob (05-20-2017)

  11. #37
    Senior Member wolver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    North Bay area, ON
    Posts
    1,857
    Quote Originally Posted by Swingerguy View Post
    ^^ More political double speak that really means nothing but is designed to make anti gun people feel good.
    It worked on me. Lot better than the alternative. At least we have a fighting chance, so let's not give up the fight.

  12. #38
    Senior Member Waterloomike's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    Bantario
    Posts
    4,810
    They don't do anything to enhance safety, unless it's their own. And they can do that by using more guns.

    They bring in people by the thousands that they have no idea if they're criminals or ISIS operatives.

    They make us pay for all of it and they claim it's for our own good.

    The would be useless if they weren't so destructive.

    As it is, they're useful for someone, but not us.
    NFA, CSSA, NRA,

    Ama-gi, the earliest known written form of Liberty or Freedom

    I do not believe that a majority can vote a person's life, property or freedom away from them.

  13. #39
    Senior Member RangeBob's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Ontario
    Posts
    15,622

    Trudeau Liberals delay gun-marking regulations despite election promise

    May 19, 2017
    Ottawa, Ontario

    Regulations were delayed on seven previous occasions going back to 2006

    The Trudeau government is delaying implementation of firearm-marking regulations intended to help police trace guns used in crimes — despite a 2015 campaign pledge to immediately enact them.

    The government announced Friday it will defer the regulations, which were slated to come into force June 1, until the beginning of December 2018.

    It said the deferral will provide time needed to propose amendments to the regulations, first drafted in 2004, adding that details would be made available later this month.

    The firearms community has long opposed the regulations and continues to "advocate against their coming into force," says an internal note to Public Safety Minister Ralph Goodale, recently obtained by The Canadian Press through the Access to Information law.

    The regulations would require domestically manufactured firearms to bear the name of the manufacturer, serial number, and "Canada" or "CA," while imported guns would have to carry the "Canada" or "CA" designation along with the last two digits of the year of import.

    The measures would help Canada meet the requirements of the United Nations Firearms Protocol and a convention of the Organization of American States.

    "In addition to the treaty imperatives, firearms markings have value for domestic and international law enforcement as they, in conjunction with firearms records, can be used to trace crime guns," says the memo to Goodale from deputy minister Malcolm Brown.

    Brown's ultimate recommendation to Goodale on the markings was stripped from the memo before release.

    The previous Conservative government delayed the regulations several times.

    In their election platform, the Liberals said they would "immediately" implement gun-marking regulations. The party also promised other, longer-term measures aimed at making it harder for criminals to get and use handguns and assault weapons.

    In addition, the marking-regulation promise was included in a briefing book document prepared for the prime minister entitled "Key Commitments for Action in First 100 Days."

    Some firearms advocates have argued the obligation to mark imported guns would mean acquiring marking technology or making arrangements for another company to apply markings, with an estimated cost of $200 per gun, according to a federal notice published in 2015.

    However, an independent study commissioned by the government said the cost to stamp or engrave markings for Canadian manufacturers and large importers would range from nothing at all to $25 per firearm. It was not possible to gauge the impact on individuals and small importers.

    Brown's memo to Goodale says many Canadian gun manufacturers exporting to the United States already mark their firearms in a manner that would meet or exceed requirements set out in the regulations to meet U.S. standards and at least one importer has voluntarily applied import marks.

    Regardless, the memo says, the majority of firearms advocates and businesses are "strongly opposed" to the regulations due to the perception they would saddle manufacturers and importers with additional costs, while providing little public safety benefit.

    hxxp://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/liberals-delay-firearm-marking-1.4124247

  14. #40
    Senior Member RangeBob's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Ontario
    Posts
    15,622
    Obviously the 2004 Liberals never brought it into force, but did they also gazette a delayed ?
    Or were the only gazetted delays, by Conservative and then justin ?
    What was the original Act's coming into force date?

    Harper became Prime Minster, January 23, 2006

    Does anyone have a copy of the "independent study was undertaken by Government Consulting Services"?

    Canada signed the UN Firearms Protocol in 2002 and the CIFTA in 1997, but has not ratified either of the treaties.
    In response to requests by firearms businesses for additional preparatory time, the coming into force of the Regulations was amended to April 1, 2006, deferred to December 1, 2007, and deferred again to December 1, 2009. During the 2007–2009 deferral period, an independent study was undertaken by Government Consulting Services to look at the utility of markings from a law enforcement perspective, the various marking technologies available, and the implications for the Canadian firearms industry and users. The study found that markings help to expedite law enforcement tracing efforts by focusing investigations to the last legal owner of the firearm or the most recent country of import, rather than to the manufacturer.
    -- Gazette 20150730
    -------

    When this shows up in the Gazette, I wonder if it will still say
    “One-for-One” Rule and small business lens: The “One-for-One” Rule does not apply to this proposal, since there is no change in the administrative costs to business. The small business lens does not apply to this proposal, as there are no costs to small business.
    Last edited by RangeBob; 05-20-2017 at 07:51 PM.

Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •