Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 12
  1. #1
    Senior Member DanN's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Location
    Shuswap
    Posts
    1,887

    BILL C-359 An Act to amend the Criminal Code (firearms)

    Via FB:

    Tracey Wilson

    Ok guys, we need to stop sitting on our hands and deal with this. I just got a text from Michelle Rempel. This bill is slated to be read at #121 and they're at #77 right now. Think about the implications here ... do you know the entire historical of every firearm you own? Who decides what "ought to have known" means? Does this double the sentence of an expired licensee since that will also be a "crime" ... get up, wake up, speak up. E-mail your MP right now and ask them to help get this clarified.
    Her Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate and House of Commons of Canada, enacts as follows:

    1 The Criminal Code is amended by adding the following after section 98.*1:

    Firearm Used in the Commission of an Offence

    Use, carrying or possession

    98.2 (1) Every person who uses, carries or possesses a firearm that he or she knows or ought to know was used in the commission of an offence under this Part is guilty of an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years.

    Sentences to be served consecutively
    (2) A sentence imposed on a person for an offence under subsection (1) shall be served consecutively to any other punishment imposed on the person for an offence arising out of the same event or series of events and to any other sentence to which the person is subject at the time the sentence is imposed on the person for an offence under that subsection.
    http://www.parl.ca/DocumentViewer/en.../first-reading
    I don't have a firearms problem; they all work perfectly well.
    Membership: CCFR, SAF&G

  2. #2
    Senior Member labradort's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Location
    Nova Scotia
    Posts
    813
    Are they concerned with Magical Contagion? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_contagion
    I thought these guys said they were all scientific and stuff. What was the term? Oh yeah "evidence based decision making". Or is this one of the changes that helps middle class families and those working hard to join them?

  3. The Following 2 Users Like This Post By labradort

    Doug_M (06-19-2017), Hidyn (06-17-2017)

  4. #3
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    231
    Ridiculous bill

  5. The Following 2 Users Like This Post By hawk-i

    firemachine69 (06-17-2017), glockfan (06-16-2017)

  6. #4
    Go Canucks Go! lone-wolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Isle Saint-Jean
    Posts
    11,010
    I have no idea what the point of government is anymore
    the wild still lingered in him and the wolf in him merely slept

    Liberty is not a thing for the great masses of men. It is the exclusive possession of a small and disreputable minority, like knowledge, courage and honor. It takes a special sort of man to understand and enjoy liberty and he is usually an outlaw in democratic societies. - H.L. Mencken

  7. The Following 4 Users Like This Post By lone-wolf

    glockfan (06-16-2017), infidel29 (06-19-2017), Sinbad (06-19-2017), Swampdonkey (06-16-2017)

  8. #5
    Senior Member RangeBob's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Ontario
    Posts
    17,496
    At the moment police have to destroy seized firearms due to a regulation.
    A minor change to the regulation and they could sell them again.
    The above law would get rid of that possibility.

    Speaking of which, is there an exception for police? Or are police officers in the commission of their duties guilty of an indictable offence for seizing a firearm that was used in the commission of an offence. If a police officer is charged with a crime, does their service pistol have to be destroyed, or can it be reassigned? I'm suggesting the law is poorly drafted.
    Data does not equal information, and information does not equal understanding.

  9. The Following User Liked This Post By RangeBob

    Waterloomike (06-17-2017)

  10. #6
    Senior Member DanN's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Location
    Shuswap
    Posts
    1,887
    Quote Originally Posted by RangeBob View Post
    ...the law is poorly drafted.
    Wee bit of an understatement.

    I read that this MP (Chan) is terminally ill, and wants this to be his legacy.
    I don't have a firearms problem; they all work perfectly well.
    Membership: CCFR, SAF&G

  11. The Following User Liked This Post By DanN

    Smc (06-16-2017)

  12. #7
    Senior Member killer kane's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    REDmonton
    Posts
    4,168
    Legacy of a self impressed, uninformed lieb f(T)ool.
    Green is the new Red

  13. The Following 2 Users Like This Post By killer kane

    glockfan (06-16-2017), infidel29 (06-19-2017)

  14. #8
    Senior Member linung's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2017
    Location
    Scarborough
    Posts
    1,543
    Buy new or NIB and that doesn't apply.

    It is the Americans again. Trying to kill the secondary market so they can make more money.

    Memeber of CSSA, OFAH



    More Shooting! Less Posting!

  15. #9
    Senior Member labradort's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Location
    Nova Scotia
    Posts
    813
    From the openparliament.ca page:

    Arnold Chan Scarborough—Agincourt, ON

    moved for leave to introduce Bill C-359, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (firearms).

    Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to table an act to amend the Criminal Code of Canada in respect of firearms in order to create a new aggravated penalty for the selling, trading, renting, or loaning of a firearm that had been previously used in the commission of an offence and is subsequently used in a subsequent offence.

    The purpose of this legislation is to give law enforcement officials, prosecutors, and jurists a new optional, consecutive penalty of up to five years to deter trafficking in these illegal firearms. This bill, however, is in no way intended to compromise or target legitimate, responsible gun owners. This bill would instead require criminal intent and purpose.

    In particular, I want to give a very quick shout-out to Sergeant Derek Byers of division 42 and the community safety response team and the major crimes unit that service northern and central Scarborough for the concept behind this proposed legislation.
    There is a disconnect between the intent and the law's wording. Intent of law, according to Arnold Chan's speech, is about selling, while the bill states possession. If I buy a used rifle that was used to poach a deer, and a cop thinks I ought to know because it was in the papers, could I be charged?

    The Conservatives previous bill about breaking the law while in possession of a firearm was also too vague. These MPs are thinking bad guys on Spiderman, whereas the law breaker could be guilty of something non-violent like taking rocks from a public beach, smoking in a car with kids present, or not checking an underground fuel tank known to be empty every 6 months (yes, all these things are illegal, in NS).

  16. The Following User Liked This Post By labradort

    Doug_M (06-17-2017)

  17. #10
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    SW Ontario
    Posts
    827
    Quote Originally Posted by linung View Post
    Buy new or NIB and that doesn't apply.

    It is the Americans again. Trying to kill the secondary market so they can make more money.

    What if the gun was smuggled into Canada and you bought it via classified ad? Is smuggling an offense? Could be, if they want it to be, the bill doesn't say. So, go to jail.

Page 1 of 2 12 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
  •