PDA

View Full Version : Gun GrabAmnesty



Rory McCanuck
03-03-2014, 02:16 PM
It would seem Blaney has announced in Parliament that there will be a five year amnesty.
Probably the best short term solution, allowing some time to truly fix the mess.

Prairie Dog
03-03-2014, 02:19 PM
....it's a start, but....

Does this mean that the Swiss Arms and 858s are still prohibs?

blacksmithden
03-03-2014, 02:38 PM
I'd have felt a lot better if he said one year. Its better than nothing, but pushing this forward past the next election is just more dangling the carrot in front of the horse...and this horse has had enough of the bull s---.

Steveo9mm
03-03-2014, 02:45 PM
Found this out just a few minutes ago.

Just announced on SunNewsNetwork's show Straight Talk with Jerry Agar and Faith Goldy.

A five year amnesty for owners of the Swiss Arms and CZ858 rifles, supposedly 'safe' from presecution for now.

talk about shoving it under the carpet. still trying to find links to confirm this.

BruceW
03-03-2014, 02:54 PM
This is a politician saying he's not going to do a damn thing but instead of saying that is pushing it down the road so a different politician will have to deal with it.

This is worse than just doing nothing about it, it's doing nothing about it while trying to look like the good guy. Apparently this blaney character think's we're stupid.

Haywire1
03-03-2014, 02:55 PM
What utter and complete chickensh!t. Keep up the letters. This time demanding changes to the act. Now anyone with the swiss or cz can only keep them in here safes? Is that what I am hearing? Utterly and completely disgusted right now

Canuck
03-03-2014, 02:55 PM
So the confiscation is delayed for five years? And in the meantime they have to sit in the safe? I don't think so.

Haywire1
03-03-2014, 02:57 PM
Like I said in the dupe thread. Keep up the letters. Utter and complete chickensh!t.

RobSmith
03-03-2014, 02:58 PM
Not so clever way for the CPC to shovel the problem into the next mandate AND hold gun owners by the gonads to keep voting for them.

Steveo9mm
03-03-2014, 03:00 PM
What utter and complete chickensh!t. Keep up the letters. This time demanding changes to the act. Now anyone with the swiss or cz can only keep them in here safes? Is that what I am hearing? Utterly and completely disgusted right now

OH SH!T i just realized, i dont have a safe. I only have 2 NR and they are trigger locked in a locked room..... :run: F%&K NOW IM BREAKING THE LAW AGAIN

lone-wolf
03-03-2014, 03:03 PM
I honestly thought the BS was over with, that the CPC may not be friends, but wouldn't turn hostile like they are now.

stevesummit
03-03-2014, 03:04 PM
So is there gonna be sap's issued ? Cause if not then they might as well of just took them now

Steveo9mm
03-03-2014, 03:06 PM
Unconfirmed but this is the word thats flying around

Able to shoot
Able to sell
Will be treated as per their previous status

lone-wolf
03-03-2014, 03:10 PM
Yea, cause everyone wants to buy a rifle that'll be prohib in a couple years.
The CPC must think we're "a little slow in the head, eh?"

Prairie Dog
03-03-2014, 03:19 PM
Just a thought, trying to stay positive. There was also an amnesty prior to the LGR was dealt with.

Steveo9mm
03-03-2014, 03:31 PM
http://o.canada.com/news/national/paulson-with-video/

FALover
03-03-2014, 03:39 PM
Not enough to keep my vote. Again I stress this. It will not matter who is governing the country, cons,libs,dips whatever. As long as the police are making the rules it is a police state. If the government can't or won't leash their dogs it might be time to put them down.(the dogs). Until then,the government will wash their hands of any responsibility, life will go on, they will collect their absurd pensions and we will be left to fight between ourselves.

Bullwhip
03-03-2014, 03:45 PM
Unconfirmed but this is the word thats flying around

Able to shoot
Able to sell
Will be treated as per their previous status

The Horse Thieves prohibited these guns. Only provision I know of being able to shoot prohibs is by allowing SAPs again, and that is not back to their previous status. Or are they or Conservatives magically making up some new bs bureaucratic "5 years of grace" ruling?

Steveo9mm
03-03-2014, 03:50 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r371Oc3dRqs#t=44

ilikemoose
03-03-2014, 03:51 PM
A five year amnesty would allow us to keep out rifles status quo, while giving the govt time to fix the system.

It's a sensible first step.

It's not the last step.

TV-PressPass
03-03-2014, 03:51 PM
Currently seems unconfirmed, but the internet is alive with rumours of a 5 year amnesty for Swiss Arms owners. Brought up during question period today by Blaney. Nothing more official than that. I haven't seen tape yet.

Personally, I'd call it unsatisfactory: a delay is not a fix.

Strewth
03-03-2014, 03:53 PM
If the rumour is real, I choose to see it as a stopgap in the face of the RCMP bureaucrats while the CPC figure out something more concrete.

Strewth
03-03-2014, 03:54 PM
A five year amnesty would allow us to keep out rifles status quo, while giving the govt time to fix the system.

It's a sensible first step.

It's not the last step.

x2. This is the way I see the rumoured amnesty as well.

Steveo9mm
03-03-2014, 03:55 PM
x2. This is the way I see the rumoured amnesty as well.

no longer rumor

coastal
03-03-2014, 03:59 PM
You could tell in Mr Blaney's tone it was a temporary measure to buy some time to fix this, and not put any firearms owners legal trouble.

Candychikita
03-03-2014, 04:01 PM
Combined all the gun amnesty threads together here - we don't need all the duplicates going.

Waynetheman
03-03-2014, 04:27 PM
He'd better make a real move soon. It's a decent if small first step.

Ben
03-03-2014, 04:41 PM
Currently seems unconfirmed, but the internet is alive with rumours of a 5 year amnesty for Swiss Arms owners. Brought up during question period today by Blaney. Nothing more official than that. I haven't seen tape yet.

Personally, I'd call it unsatisfactory: a delay is not a fix.

Couldn't agree more.

And what about those who want to purchase new or used SAN rifles? If the 5 year amnesty is good enough for them, it's good enough for everyone else. Current owners aren't more or less safer than future ones.

Boggles the mind that the prohibition order simply isn't canned.

Ben
03-03-2014, 04:43 PM
Oh and anyone wants to get rig of theirs in fear that things would change after 2016 (election), PM me as I'll be glad to take it off your hands.

TV-PressPass
03-03-2014, 05:05 PM
Here's the first article I've seen mentioning amnesty:

http://o.canada.com/news/national/paulson-with-video/

RobSmith
03-03-2014, 05:18 PM
Official release from the NFA that just came thru facebook :


GOVERNMENT TO INTRODUCE AMNESTY FOR SWISS ARMS RIFLES, OTHERS.

Minister of Public Safety Steven Blaney has announced an amnesty for owners of prohibited Swiss Arms (SAN) and post 2007 import CZ 858 Rifles.

With prohibited status, the use of these firearms would be severely limited and thus their owners would lose significant enjoyment of their property as prohibited long arms may not even be taken to the range. The classification of firearms as prohibited affects the possession, ownership and use of these firearms for activities such as hunting and target practice, and an amnesty does not change that at all.

The amnesty covers possession of these firearms by their owners for a five year period. It remains to be seen if the Minister believes that this is the end of the matter, or if he sees this as a temporary measure until significant changes can be made to the Firearms Act and Criminal Code.

The thousands of Canadians who own these rifles, representing millions of dollars in legally acquired and lawfully owned private property and the millions of other Canadians who believe that their property is next to be banned and confiscated demand answers as to why the Minister approved the RCMP recommendation to prohibit and confiscate thousands of rifles at a stroke of a pen.

Canada's National Firearms Association continues to advise Canadians to contact their Members of Parliament, the Minister of Public Safety and the Prime Minister and demand significant reform to Canadian firearms legislation.

It sure doesn't sound very good ...

Mad Hatter
03-03-2014, 05:40 PM
Here is what I understand from the CSSA: Amnesty is just the first step. It puts everything they did on hold until it is fixed. Like Robert Alexander of the CSSA has been trying to explain, read Blaney's original statement again, where he says there will be NO consequences, which I hope to mean a reversal. We don't know enough yet, the process is ongoing.

bettercallsaul
03-03-2014, 06:44 PM
Whoever thinks the amnesty is simply throwing this under the carpet, give your head a shake.

The RCMP totally embarrassed the CPC & Blaney. After publicly admonishing the RCMP for banning the Swiss Arms, they go ahead and ban the CZ858, and all this AFTER the CPC made it clear to the RCMP that they don't want any more guns banned.

The CPC has nearly 2 million votes riding on this, and luckily this went national, because all of Canada is on edge with the RCMP, and they are all watching.

harbl_the_cat
03-03-2014, 06:54 PM
Anyone up for a national Guy Fawkes mask 858 and Swiss Arms day at their local range? Make your presence known while remaining anonymous, since admitting you have one is tantamount to admitting in 5 years you will be breaking "the law"

Sabio
03-03-2014, 06:55 PM
The amnesty will prevent the RCMP from taking the restricted registry and going on a door kicking spree.
This temporarily removes any criminal wrong doing and the RCMP cannot do anything.

what would be better would be to remove ALL P.A.L restrictions from everyone. LOL
Make everyone be able to go out and buy an A.K and 2" snub nose .357.

RD777
03-03-2014, 07:01 PM
Amnesty? We don't need no stinking amnesty.

http://i372.photobucket.com/albums/oo168/IronOverlord/stinking-badges-e1351004026154_zps1b439591.jpg (http://s372.photobucket.com/user/IronOverlord/media/stinking-badges-e1351004026154_zps1b439591.jpg.html)

jokes :D

Code-Red
03-03-2014, 07:02 PM
Anyone up for a national Guy Fawkes mask 858 and Swiss Arms day at their local range? Make your presence known while remaining anonymous, since admitting you have one is tantamount to admitting in 5 years you will be breaking "the law"

Sorry, not interested in making the public believe we are in some way associated with 4chan, reddit, or the Occupy movements. They've ruined any significance that image once had.

RobSmith
03-03-2014, 07:23 PM
If there was going to be any "compromise" regarding prohibitions that would be something I would be open to. Essentially move to a US-styled formula where the guns themselves are deemed "prohibited" and no more of that "type" can be registered into the system but otherwise treat them like any other restricted firearm (that would allow the firearms affected to keep their value). Of course that would also mean that a regular ATT would be considered an SAP (until that useless bit of bureaucrazy goes the way of the Dodo)


what would be better would be to remove ALL P.A.L restrictions from everyone. LOL
Make everyone be able to go out and buy an A.K and 2" snub nose .357.

jwirecom109
03-03-2014, 07:27 PM
https://fbcdn-sphotos-g-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-frc1/t1/q71/s720x720/1966670_582501718508037_1043124689_n.jpg

No Compromise!

Doug_M
03-03-2014, 07:47 PM
Of course that would also mean that a regular ATT would be considered an SAP (until that useless bit of bureaucrazy goes the way of the Dodo)

What does SAP stand for?

jwirecom109
03-03-2014, 07:50 PM
Special Authority to Possess Regulations


POSSESSION OF CERTAIN PROHIBITED FIREARMS

13. An individual who holds a licence authorizing the possession of a prohibited firearm, other than a handgun referred to in subsection 12(6) of the Act, may be authorized by a chief firearms officer to possess such a firearm in the circumstances set out in subsection 14(1) or (2).
14. (1) The chief firearms officer of the province in which the following activities are to take place may, if the safety of any person will not be endangered, authorize the possession of a firearm referred to in section 13 at a shooting range and in the course of transporting the firearm by a route that is, in all the circumstances, reasonably direct between the place authorized under section 17 of the Act with respect to that firearm and the shooting range
(a) in the case of an automatic firearm, if it is being used for test firing or demonstration purposes on an occasional basis, at a shooting range maintained by the Minister of National Defence under the National Defence Act; and
(b) in the case of any other prohibited firearm, if it is being used for test firing or demonstration purposes or for target shooting or competitive events, on an occasional basis, at a shooting range approved under section 29 of the Act or maintained by the Minister of National Defence under the National Defence Act.
(2) The chief firearms officer of the province in which the individual referred to in section 13 resides may, if the safety of any person will not be endangered, authorize the possession of a firearm referred to in that section in the course of transporting the firearm by a route that, in all the circumstances, is reasonably direct between the place authorized under section 17 of the Act with respect to that firearm and a customs office if the firearm is being used on an occasional basis at an event outside of Canada.

Mad Hatter
03-03-2014, 09:13 PM
Unconfirmed but this is the word thats flying around

Able to shoot
Able to sell
Will be treated as per their previous status

This is what I am hearing as well. Everyone keeps speculating that the amnesty is the first and last step in this. It is not! It has been stated numerous times by those representing us at the table that it is the first step. They have to give amnesty to stop the confiscation. Then they fix the whole issue over the next while. It is not instant. This is government.

I have written my letters, sent my emails, encouraged others to join and now I have a massive headache. Mostly because the gun owners do not seem united enough even in this and someone may derail this whole thing simply because of the need for instant gratification. I'm going to go away now to a dark and quiet place and just see how it unfolds over the next while. Oh, and because of all of this, a GOC bumper sticker will be on my car this week. One finger salute to the Gun Gestapo.

ilikemoose
03-03-2014, 09:30 PM
RCMP ambushed the CPC with this last week.

Within a few working days, Blaney recinds the decision while allowing himself and his people enough room do come up with an acceptable solution. And lets face it, right now there are some pretty divided opinions within the firearms community on whats an acceptable solution.

For parliament, this is moving at lightning speed and it's probably the most impressive, pro gun move I have seen a government make in my lifetime (other than getting rid of the registry, which took over a decade to accomplish).

Anyone thinking of jumping ship on the CPC is simply not thinking rationally.

Grizz
03-03-2014, 09:52 PM
Holy crap, some of you guys need to give Blaney a chance to actually do something before you hang him and the CPC!!! If they're weren't going to do anything they would not have put the amnesty in place. Try to have a little optimism for once!!!!!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

stevesummit
03-03-2014, 11:21 PM
I hope this all comes to an end and works out as a positive thing , but I reserve judgement till I see it written down and the opposition complaining about it !

harbl_the_cat
03-04-2014, 12:07 AM
,
Holy crap, some of you guys need to give Blaney a chance to actually do something before you hang him and the CPC!!! If they're weren't going to do anything they would not have put the amnesty in place. Try to have a little optimism for once!!!!!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Price the Tories a chance? This should have never happened in the first place. That's like saying give a rapists' friend a chance to apologies for his friend.

If him and the Conservatives are serious, they would fire every bureaucrat in the RCMP and reduce their mandate to honour guard on Parliament hill (allowing rural municipalities hire private or provincial police to do the job the RCMP do already).


Sorry, not interested in making the public believe we are in some way associated with 4chan, reddit, or the Occupy movements. They've ruined any significance that image once had.

Ok... How about a black balaclava or bandana? Oh wait...

It would be pretty hard to get a good cheek weld with a Guy Fawkes mask on.

Steveo9mm
03-04-2014, 12:17 AM
I have written my letters, sent my emails, encouraged others to join and now I have a massive headache.

same

Mad Hatter
03-04-2014, 12:19 AM
,

Price the Tories a chance? This should have never happened in the first place. That's like saying give a rapists' friend a chance to apologies for his friend.

If him and the Conservatives are serious, they would fire every bureaucrat in the RCMP and reduce their mandate to honour guard on Parliament hill (allowing rural municipalities hire private or provincial police to do the job the RCMP do already).



Ok... How about a black balaclava or bandana? Oh wait...

It would be pretty hard to get a good cheek weld with a Guy Fawkes mask on.

Agreed. But what other choice do we have right now with the current issue at hand? We have to let this one run its course and play out. If at this point we jump ship, well, you may as well just turn all of your guns in right now. This is the type of thinking that will cause an action that will derail everything our advocacy groups are doing to help us right now with those who are currently in power. I am more afraid of this than the outcome of what is happening in Ottawa right now on this issue. Gun owners are failing to unite on this aspect. This will be our downfall. Yes the government caused it, but they, with our help can hopefully also fix it.

Foxer
03-04-2014, 12:23 AM
I have written my letters, sent my emails, encouraged others to join and now I have a massive headache. You're probably doing it right then.

ReignCzech
03-04-2014, 12:26 AM
You're probably doing it right then.

heh, heh.

+1

Edenchef
03-04-2014, 12:58 AM
I find a perverse political elegance to this. A 5 year amnesty, to work out the "solution"; granted by a government that must go to the polls in 2. Anyone else feel the muzzle at the back of your head. Vote CPC or....................JMHO.

Cheers!

Foxer
03-04-2014, 01:08 AM
This is what I am hearing as well. Everyone keeps speculating that the amnesty is the first and last step in this. It is not! It has been stated numerous times by those representing us at the table that it is the first step. They have to give amnesty to stop the confiscation. Then they fix the whole issue over the next while. It is not instant. This is government.


Truth. If they actually intend legislative changes, it will take them at least a year to come up with a plan, two years to pass the legislation, and if that legislation calls for moving the issue of classification to an independant body then there will likely have to be at LEAST a 1 - 2 year transition. And that's if all goes smoothly.

Also - think of this: If they DO lose the next election, it will cover the time between when the libs get in and the CPC can try again. Unless the libs are personally willing to set it aside and risk the wrath of gun owners, they`ll be able to ride out a lib victory should that happen.

Yeah, it`s also a shot across our bow warning of what could happen if the libs win, but you know what - THAT`S THE REALITY OF IT. Either we put the CPC back in, or we face gun grabs. And that`s true no matter what unless significant changes are made.

It`s a good opening move. But - we do need to keep the pressure on. One thing is for sure - blaney won`t be signing any more papers for the RCMP about classifications without reading them Veeerrry carefully :) And that`s a good start too.

Foxer
03-04-2014, 01:10 AM
Anyone else feel the muzzle at the back of your head.

Dude, we`ve had a muzzle at the back of our heads since 72 and that`s just the way it is. That ain`t going to change in the near future regardless of what the CPC does. Sorry if you don`t like it, but that`s the lay of the land.

Sabio
03-04-2014, 01:38 AM
https://fbcdn-sphotos-g-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-frc1/t1/q71/s720x720/1966670_582501718508037_1043124689_n.jpg

No Compromise!

No one would get that.
Maybe some gun owners after a second look.

I like the Red metal background and white leaf / AR15 combo the best.

http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y226/sabio7/nfa_zpse6e1293e.png

Ben
03-04-2014, 05:01 AM
^
I bed to differ. Its pretty clear what it is.

Well perhaps duck hunters won't, that I can agree too.

Ben
03-04-2014, 05:03 AM
Truth. If they actually intend legislative changes, it will take them at least a year to come up with a plan, two years to pass the legislation, and if that legislation calls for moving the issue of classification to an independant body then there will likely have to be at LEAST a 1 - 2 year transition. And that's if all goes smoothly.

Also - think of this: If they DO lose the next election, it will cover the time between when the libs get in and the CPC can try again. Unless the libs are personally willing to set it aside and risk the wrath of gun owners, they`ll be able to ride out a lib victory should that happen.

Yeah, it`s also a shot across our bow warning of what could happen if the libs win, but you know what - THAT`S THE REALITY OF IT. Either we put the CPC back in, or we face gun grabs. And that`s true no matter what unless significant changes are made.

It`s a good opening move. But - we do need to keep the pressure on. One thing is for sure - blaney won`t be signing any more papers for the RCMP about classifications without reading them Veeerrry carefully :) And that`s a good start too.

I guess Cheryl Gallant's suggestion to move all of the above to an independent body last year, the same suggestion that most threw a fit over it (especially on CGN, folks like 10x and the likes), wasn't such a bad idea after all...!

RobSmith
03-04-2014, 06:28 AM
Sadly that has always been the case with the CPC ... "vote for us or else".


I find a perverse political elegance to this. A 5 year amnesty, to work out the "solution"; granted by a government that must go to the polls in 2. Anyone else feel the muzzle at the back of your head. Vote CPC or....................JMHO.

Cheers!

Doug_M
03-04-2014, 07:28 AM
Special Authority to Possess Regulations


POSSESSION OF CERTAIN PROHIBITED FIREARMS

13. An individual who holds a licence authorizing the possession of a prohibited firearm, other than a handgun referred to in subsection 12(6) of the Act, may be authorized by a chief firearms officer to possess such a firearm in the circumstances set out in subsection 14(1) or (2).
14. (1) The chief firearms officer of the province in which the following activities are to take place may, if the safety of any person will not be endangered, authorize the possession of a firearm referred to in section 13 at a shooting range and in the course of transporting the firearm by a route that is, in all the circumstances, reasonably direct between the place authorized under section 17 of the Act with respect to that firearm and the shooting range
(a) in the case of an automatic firearm, if it is being used for test firing or demonstration purposes on an occasional basis, at a shooting range maintained by the Minister of National Defence under the National Defence Act; and
(b) in the case of any other prohibited firearm, if it is being used for test firing or demonstration purposes or for target shooting or competitive events, on an occasional basis, at a shooting range approved under section 29 of the Act or maintained by the Minister of National Defence under the National Defence Act.
(2) The chief firearms officer of the province in which the individual referred to in section 13 resides may, if the safety of any person will not be endangered, authorize the possession of a firearm referred to in that section in the course of transporting the firearm by a route that, in all the circumstances, is reasonably direct between the place authorized under section 17 of the Act with respect to that firearm and a customs office if the firearm is being used on an occasional basis at an event outside of Canada.


Given the above and the possibility that the announced amnesty includes the ability to shoot SA and 858's, do you think there is a possibility I will be able to shoot my 12.5 FAL again in the next few years? ;D Before this SA/858 BS came down I was considering harassing my CFO to put my FAL on my LTATT. You know, try and force them to provide a legal reason why not.

stevesummit
03-04-2014, 07:49 AM
Given the above and the possibility that the announced amnesty includes the ability to shoot SA and 858's, do you think there is a possibility I will be able to shoot my 12.5 FAL again in the next few years? ;D Before this SA/858 BS came down I was considering harassing my CFO to put my FAL on my LTATT. You know, try and force them to provide a legal reason why not.

This is where I see the problem. , there are lots of ak's and fn's out there that have been collecting dust over the last how many years! If they open it up for a sap for San and 858 owners then they admit there is no issues with having a prohib out in the real world and shooting it ! So if they word this properly all the rifles that were put away when the dark ages started should be able to enjoy them once more !!!!!!

Foxer
03-04-2014, 09:28 AM
I guess Cheryl Gallant's suggestion to move all of the above to an independent body last year, the same suggestion that most threw a fit over it (especially on CGN, folks like 10x and the likes), wasn't such a bad idea after all...!

The devil, as always, is in the details of course. But the concept of an independent body doing the classifications and such is a good concept. It's all in the execution tho. For a while people suggested an 'independant body' made up of people appointed by the gov't. Well that works fine while we have a sympathetic gov't, but what happens when eventually the libs get in and THEY get to appoint? You can see the problem.

However - if it were a truly independant lab similar to how we handle dna evidence and such and was arms length from the gov't and made up of industry professionals - that would likely work out ok for us.

But we also do need to make a few changes to the law, like a definition of 'variant' that makes some sense or removing the word from the regulation altogether.

awndray
03-04-2014, 09:48 AM
I guess Cheryl Gallant's suggestion to move all of the above to an independent body last year, the same suggestion that most threw a fit over it (especially on CGN, folks like 10x and the likes), wasn't such a bad idea after all...!
I still think it's a bad idea. Conceptually, it's wonderful. The problem I have with it, other than the fact that it's essentially C-68 administered by a different governing body, is what Foxer is saying. He who appoints, controls the new committee.

Repeal; not repeat.

Foxer
03-04-2014, 11:14 AM
is what Foxer is saying. He who appoints, controls the new committee.

Repeal; not repeat.

Well - it would work a lot better if it were a genuinely independant (non gov't) agency, like a civillian authority staffed by experienced gunsmiths. Or should work. Again it's all in how you set it up. It would most likely be better than what we've got, the RCMP are coming after us pretty hard right now. What would also have to happen to make it work properly is changes to the laws which clarifies and simplifies classification, and ends the whole 'variant' issue.

The fact is we're not going to see all the gun laws repealed in Canada. Even the CPC didn't promise that, they just promised to rewrite them. The public won't go for no laws at all. So we have to look at what we CAN do and figure out a way to make it work. That's the practical reality that we face.

webster
03-04-2014, 04:02 PM
RCMP ambushed the CPC with this last week.

Within a few working days, Blaney recinds the decision while allowing himself and his people enough room do come up with an acceptable solution. And lets face it, right now there are some pretty divided opinions within the firearms community on whats an acceptable solution.

For parliament, this is moving at lightning speed and it's probably the most impressive, pro gun move I have seen a government make in my lifetime (other than getting rid of the registry, which took over a decade to accomplish).

Anyone thinking of jumping ship on the CPC is simply not thinking rationally.

I second this.

Oh, and f--- those Guy Fawkes masks. I refuse to take anyone seriously while they are wearing one of those things. Sorry, Harbl. :p

webster
03-04-2014, 04:16 PM
I find a perverse political elegance to this. A 5 year amnesty, to work out the "solution"; granted by a government that must go to the polls in 2. Anyone else feel the muzzle at the back of your head. Vote CPC or....................JMHO.

Cheers!

That's exactly what we'll be hearing in two years. Vote for us or the Liberal boogiemen will get your guns! Rahh!

Strewth
03-04-2014, 05:24 PM
That's exactly what we'll be hearing in two years. Vote for us or the Liberal boogiemen will get your guns! Rahh!

It does have the advantage of truth.....

webster
03-04-2014, 05:45 PM
It does have the advantage of truth.....

Yeah, I'm just tired of hearing it like it's somehow new information.

lone-wolf
03-04-2014, 06:09 PM
Maybe the CPC will realize that sitting on their hands after the lgr was demolished, was a bad play

Edenchef
03-04-2014, 06:34 PM
So, my question is.........Does this mean that the entire ArrrCMP gun grabbing program (confiscation by reclassification) is on hold for 5 years or is it just for the Swiss Arms and VZ858? Also where does this leave the antique caliber conversion issues? Typical vague, election type promise.....plays great in the media, but once you get past the headlines; useless and empty, when applied in the real world. It's taken 10 years to deliver the illusion of dismantling the LGR and that was so much less entrenched than C68. When will Mr.Harper deliver on the promise he made as leader of the opposition....to rescind or rewrite C68? That was how many years ago? Or do his promises "time out"?

Cheers!

Satain
03-04-2014, 10:00 PM
So this is just a prelude to what Turdo has planned for us?

mavrik9
03-04-2014, 10:17 PM
So this is just a prelude to what Turdo has planned for us?

Does Australian style gun control sound familiar. The RCMP are acting on a liberal gun law (C-68). Being liberal themselves, they are taking it on themselves to see it through.

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk

Foxer
03-05-2014, 12:03 AM
So this is just a prelude to what Turdo has planned for us?

tip of the iceberg i'm afraid. You can expect further 'reclassifications' but also expect more red tape in getting your license, selling a gun, etc. They will likely at the very least bring back the requirement to check a license with the CFC before selling, and the CFC will essentially say 'we won't give you clearance until you answer the following 10 invasive questions".

stevesummit
03-06-2014, 09:50 AM
tip of the iceberg i'm afraid. You can expect further 'reclassifications' but also expect more red tape in getting your license, selling a gun, etc. They will likely at the very least bring back the requirement to check a license with the CFC before selling, and the CFC will essentially say 'we won't give you clearance until you answer the following 10 invasive questions".

Well I guess everything just moves under ground again can't regulate what you don't see !

Prairie Dog
03-06-2014, 01:19 PM
PARDON!? I thought it was a done deal the moment he first announced it?


OTTAWA - Owners of newly prohibited rifles who worry police may come to take away their property will have to wait a little longer for a promised government amnesty.

"We're working on that," Public Safety Minister Steven Blaney said Thursday when asked how soon the amnesty would be in place.

Blaney promised Monday that he'd impose an amnesty to protect the owners of Swiss Arms Classic Green carbines and CZ-858 rifles, which the Mounties suddenly reclassified last week as "prohibited."

The firearms had been legal in Canada for more than a decade and it's estimated more than 10,000 of them have been sold, leaving their owners with the possibility of losing their property without compensation, or facing prison.

Blaney has criticized the RCMP's "bureaucratic" decision to reclassify the rifles, but he won't say if the Mounties are co-operating with him on an amnesty.

"This is a public safety issue," he said before stepping into an elevator that whisked him away.

Even while Blaney's disagreement with the Mounties drags on, the minister sat beside RCMP Deputy Commissioner Janice Armstrong at an Ottawa event to honour women involved in public safety.

Armstrong declined to comment on Blaney's reaction to the RCMP's reclassification decision.

"I'm certainly aware of the weapons reclassification, but again, it's not my area of expertise so I'd be hesitant to speak with you about it," Armstrong said.

RCMP Commissioner Bob Paulson is taking time off to be with his newborn son.

http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/sunnews/politics/archives/2014/03/20140306-123452.html

RobSmith
03-06-2014, 01:28 PM
Setting themselves up either for some olympic-level backpedaling (after the "legal beagles" tell them it can't be done) or to just plain let the "amnesty" expire.


PARDON!? I thought it was a done deal the moment he first announced it?

Foxer
03-07-2014, 02:58 AM
PARDON!? I thought it was a done deal the moment he first announced it?

Of course not. You still have to actually get around to writing it and such :) There's still a process :)

It's not that bad a process tho and i'm sure it'll be done shortly. But you don't just remake law by making a statement.

Don't panic, this is nothing.

killer kane
03-07-2014, 08:10 AM
What guns?

Strewth
03-07-2014, 11:48 AM
Of course not. You still have to actually get around to writing it and such :) There's still a process :)

It's not that bad a process tho and i'm sure it'll be done shortly. But you don't just remake law by making a statement.

Don't panic, this is nothing.


Not arguing, questioning, is re-writing the FRT law, or a regulation, or...? I haven't seen anything official that tells me things have changed with any of my guns, I realize that records pulled would show me on GOC, and I've sighed my name to quite a few letter and emails regarding the subject, but if neither of these were true, where is the responsibility of the citizen to know the changes to the FRT? First traffic stop? CO in the bush?
I've seen nothing official regarding re-classification in the first place?

Foxer
03-07-2014, 12:06 PM
Not arguing, questioning, is re-writing the FRT law, or a regulation, or...?

Not law, more regulation. Remember - it's the regulation that allowed it to be classified, therefore it's the regulation that must be adjusted. There's no 'law' saying that gun is banned, the law just enables the regulation.

This is much like the 'amnesty' for firearms licenses we had for many years to prevent the cops from seizing guns just because someone forgot to send in their renewal.

So we don't have to go thru the whole 'three readings' thing, there won't be a 'vote' in the house, etc, but there is a process and it'll have to be followed.


but if neither of these were true, where is the responsibility of the citizen to know the changes to the FRT? First traffic stop? CO in the bush?
I've seen nothing official regarding re-classification in the first place?

Good question :) Assuming you were an owner before the change A judge may well accept that you didn't know the change happened and not proceed with criminal charges, and most cops probably would let it slide if they felt you were sincere (but would seize the gun), but I doubt that 'ignorance of the law' would be an iron clad defense if a judge felt pissy. And if you bought after you would have been expected to know the status of the firearm. I'd have to do a little research but.. at the end of the day if you're in possession of a prohib and the cops and judges want to be jerks about it, you could find yourself in trouble. Probably not tho if you were an original owner and could convincingly demonstrate that.

Ben
03-09-2014, 04:33 AM
PARDON!? I thought it was a done deal the moment he first announced it?

A reversal such as this as a) never been done before, so b) the mechanism in place isn't set up, so c) expect it to take a little longer than just a Minister's verbal comment on the floor for it to become law.

YES it should only take another stroke of a pen to reverse this, but unfortunately it isn't the case. I'm as pissed as you, don't get me wrong, but I understand how the bureaucratic machine works and you should too, if only to lower the ol' blood pressure from time to time !

3MTA3
03-09-2014, 07:54 AM
..but at the end of the day if you're in possession of a prohib and the cops and judges want to be jerks about it, you could find yourself in trouble. Probably not tho if you were an original owner and could convincingly demonstrate that.

I am -just check the NR registry..like in High River.

Regulations are a form of law, with binding legal effect, however they are made by bodies with authority delegated by Parliament, through an Act.

killer kane
03-09-2014, 02:20 PM
Yup, in a free society this wouldn't be happening.

Foxer
03-09-2014, 04:14 PM
I am -just check the NR registry..like in High River.


MMmm. Wonder if 'former registered owners' will be getting a letter? Bit of a giveaway if they do :)


Regulations are a form of law, with binding legal effect, however they are made by bodies with authority delegated by Parliament, through an Act.

Regulation is just regulation, they're not a form of law. They have no power - EXCEPT where there is a law which says "do what that regulation says or you offend this law". The idea behind regulations is to allow for frequent changes without the need to go thru the parliamentary legal process (or provincial or municipal or strata or what have you). This is often necessary - for example the hunting regs change every year to reflect the latest intel on what the animal populations are. It would be a royal pain to have to pass a new law every bloody year. So - they have a law that says "you can hunt whatever the regulations say you can", and then they change the regulations.

Some gov'ts use this to create little pockets of 'law' that they can change at a whim that really should be actual laws. The firearms act suffered from that a fair bit. But - it CAN be used against them as well.

Foxer
03-09-2014, 04:17 PM
Yup, in a free society this wouldn't be happening.

Well - you'd have to come up with a definition of 'free' first, but I think you'll find this kind of thing happens in just about every type of society there is. People historically tend to either use the rule of law OR the ABSENCE of law to push their will on others. IT's hard to strike that balance. It's always a case of quis custodiet ipsos custodes - who will guard the guards themselves?

Mad Hatter
03-09-2014, 06:08 PM
Well - you'd have to come up with a definition of 'free' first, but I think you'll find this kind of thing happens in just about every type of society there is. People historically tend to either use the rule of law OR the ABSENCE of law to push their will on others. IT's hard to strike that balance. It's always a case of quis custodiet ipsos custodes - who will guard the guards themselves?

Aka the presumption of law through which all you have to do is work your way back refuting the presumptions one by one...

3MTA3
03-09-2014, 07:53 PM
Regulation is just regulation, they're not a form of law. They have no power - EXCEPT where there is a law which says "do what that regulation says or you offend this law".

That may well be true in the USA, but in Canada, pretty sure they are a form of Law. Statutes and Regulations define the "Law" of Canada.

Foxer
03-09-2014, 08:33 PM
That may well be true in the USA, but in Canada, pretty sure they are a form of Law. Statutes and Regulations define the "Law" of Canada.

Well technically there aren't "Laws" per say, there are 'acts' of parliament (or the province). Those are our versions of laws. And regulations don't define the act - the act just empowers or 'enables' the regulation. You can't have 'regulation' that has the weight of an act (law) unless there's an act which gives it that weight.

THat's why we have acts and regulation - otherwise they'd just all be 'laws' in general. For a regulation to have any legal weight there must be an act somewhere that enables it.

The main difference between an act and regulation is that an act must go thru the legislative process - it must be enacted by parliament or province with the usual debate and discussion in both houses etc etc. Regulation does not need to go thru parliament like that - it just needs an act (Which obviously did pass parliament and the senate). It is the proverbial 'stroke of a pen' we often hear about. There is usually a committee or the like, but it won't face parliamentary debate because it is not in and of itself a 'law' - it just supports the law.

To make a 'law' in Canada (act) there must be an 'act' of parliament or the appropriate provincial authority under the constitution. If that doesn't happen, it is NOT a law but a regulation which only has legal weight under the act that enables it.

Which is why if I wanted to ban a lot of guns in Canada over time, i'd pass an act making guns "specificed in the regulation" illegal, then i can change the regulation over time as I wanted to eliminate more and more guns. Which is precisely what the libs did, and is precisely the mechanism the cops are using now. And parliament doesn't even see the changes till they're in force.

3MTA3
03-09-2014, 09:01 PM
Oh I see-Regulations are a form of law, with binding legal effect, however they are made by bodies with authority delegated by Parliament, through an Act.

Foxer
03-09-2014, 09:46 PM
Oh I see-Regulations are a form of law, with binding legal effect, however they are made by bodies with authority delegated by Parliament, through an Act.

Close enough :) THey're a form of law IF enabled by an act which IS law and only in and as much as the act allows regulation to change or add to the meaning of the enabling act which is law, kind of a sort of 'supporting' document. They have no binding legal effect in and of themselves, except where an act says they do. They're sort of an 'addendum' if you will. It's kind of like 'borrowing' the legal authority of the act which enables them. The act has legal weight, the act enables the regulation, therefore the regulation has legal weight. You can't have regulation that isn't specifically enabled by an act (law). Sort of like a 'sub-law'.

And the bodies themselves may be delegated authority by parliament or province, but sometimes they're delegated by some one/group who is delegated by Parliament or province or even by a process that is. so it's even possible to get regulation which is binding via the act from not only an unelected person/group, but an unelected person/group appointed by an unelected person/group or created in some fashion without direct input from the parliament. Which is why they're supposed to be used somewhat sparingly in those cases only where relatively frequent specialized changes are likely to occur. But - if misuesd they can become a way for authorities to back-door things that they know would be a problem passing into law on their own.

Only acts are laws as the term is commonly applied, but regulations can "act" like laws if enabled by an Act :)

awndray
03-14-2014, 11:45 AM
According to some posts on the NFA Facebook:


Please find below my statement announcing the coming into force of the amnesty for owners of affected firearms. Our Government will continue to stand up for law-abiding firearms owners.

“Our Government has always stood up for law-abiding hunters, farmers and sport-shooters.

Recent decisions made by the Canadian Firearms Program have had the effect of exposing thousands of law-abiding Canadians to potential criminal sanctions. Owners of the affected firearms can rest assured that they will face no sanctions as a result of the continued possession of their private property.

Furthermore, our Government is committed to building on the amnesty that has been introduced to protect law-abiding gun owners from criminal sanction until a permanent fix is in place. It is our intention to bring forward measures in the coming weeks to protect all law-abiding firearms owners from these types of retroactive and unpredictable decisions.”

Rory McCanuck
03-14-2014, 01:36 PM
You'll notice,
continued possession of their private property studiously avoids any mention of taking it out of a gun safe or even actually *Gasp!* using it?
Hmm, Sun just said two year amnesty.
Misspoken, or shrewd can kicking to immediately after the next election???
Maybe I'm just a doubting Thomas?

Ben
03-17-2014, 06:35 AM
You'll notice,

continued possession of their private property

studiously avoids any mention of taking it out of a gun safe or even actually *Gasp!* using it?
Hmm, Sun just said two year amnesty.
Misspoken, or shrewd can kicking to immediately after the next election???
Maybe I'm just a doubting Thomas?

IMO - we can all continue as it was before this sh!t show, being owning, selling, buying AND using both SAN and CZ-58.

If you can possess it, you may also use it. Under which Criminal Law may you be prosecuted for doing so if the question you should be asking yourself.

And yes, a bit of doubting thomas indeed ;)

awndray
03-17-2014, 07:01 AM
Owners of two lines of rifles that the RCMP recently reclassified as prohibited will be shielded from criminal sanction for possessing them under an amnesty that took effect late last week and that will last for two years.

Public Safety Minister Steven Blaney, whose office has maintained that he was not consulted on the decision to reclassify the guns, has also vowed to introduce longer-term measures in coming weeks that will protect gun owners from any future “retroactive and unpredictable decisions.”

The Conservative government, which brands itself as a champion of gun owners’ rights, has faced a barrage of criticism from gun enthusiasts after the RCMP firearms program quietly changed the status of a family of Swiss Arms-brand rifles, as well as certain Czech-made CZ-858 rifles, to prohibited from non-restricted or restricted.

So far, the RCMP has remained silent on its decision to reclassify the guns. But according to the RCMP website, officials may change their opinions about a firearms’ status if they determine that information initially provided by the importer was wrong or incomplete or if they feel a firearm can too easily be modified or converted from semi-automatic to full-automatic.

The temporary amnesty announced by Blaney was made through an order in council, which is expected to be published on the Privy Council Office website in the coming days.

“Recent decisions made by the Canadian Firearms Program have had the effect of exposing thousands of law-abiding Canadians to potential criminal sanctions. Owners of the affected firearms can rest assured that they will face no sanctions as a result of the continued possession of their private property,” Blaney said in a statement released Friday.

Blaney said the amnesty was intended as a short-term measure until a “permanent fix” is in place.

“It is our intention to bring forward measures in the coming weeks to protect all law-abiding firearms owners from these types of retroactive and unpredictable decisions,” he said.

The National Firearms Association has been encouraging gun owners to write to the prime minister to replace the Firearms Act and end the “arbitrary” reclassification of firearms.

“Gun owners should not have to worry about being made a paper criminal by bureaucratic fiat or whim,” according to a proposed letter posted on the association’s website.
http://www.canada.com/news/Canadian+owners+reclassified+rifles+year+amnesty/9623806/story.html

Haywire1
03-17-2014, 07:35 AM
Hmm. Ok but I am still writing letters and arguing with Foxer

Sent from my SGH-T989D using Tapatalk

Steveo9mm
03-17-2014, 09:08 AM
Blaney said the amnesty was intended as a short-term measure until a “permanent fix” is in place.

“It is our intention to bring forward measures in the coming weeks to protect all law-abiding firearms owners from these types of retroactive and unpredictable decisions,” he said.

Im still in the fight.

3strokes
03-17-2014, 10:00 AM
Changing the "Amnesty" from five to two years was a brilliant coup
from the CPC calling our bluff that we would vote somebody else if
they didn't give us what we want.
Now they're telling us that we're covered until they get re-elected
and that we'd better get them back in with a Majority, otherwise
the new Government doesn't even have to repeal the Amnesty but let it
run its course until sunsetted and send the SWAT teams out to collect.

Rory McCanuck
03-17-2014, 10:43 AM
IMO - we can all continue as it was before this sh!t show, being owning, selling, buying AND using both SAN and CZ-58.

If you can possess it, you may also use it. Under which Criminal Law may you be prosecuted for doing so if the question you should be asking yourself.

And yes, a bit of doubting thomas indeed ;)

Except, you'd be owning, selling, buying AND using a prohib. That part still hasn't changed.
All the amnesty does is prevent the Crown from a**-**ping you for having an inoperable prohib in your gun safe, so long as you already had the prohib and still have a PAL.
There's nothing in the amnesty that says someone without a prohib license can possess a prohib.
There's nothing in the amnesty that says someone can store a prohib that isn't locked and inoperable.
There's nothing in the amnesty that says someone can buy and sell prohibs without a license.
There's nothing in the amnesty that says someone can take a prohib to the bush and shoot tin cans.
All the amnesty says, is WHEN the bulls come and kick in your door and take your toys, you won't be charged for their troubles.

Puts it all in a slightly different light, no?

Haywire1
03-17-2014, 10:52 AM
Yup. Rory is right. Lots of people have prohib licenses who cannot sell, buy or use theirs, and they are not amnestied, all this covers is the actual possession of it. Read closer, permit to take to gunsmith etc etc same as the wording for any other prohib

awndray
03-17-2014, 11:08 AM
For those who haven't read it, here it is. http://gunownersofcanada.ca/showthread.php?12762-How-do-you-feel-about-Government-deciding-on-the-status-of-your-private-property

Nowhere does it say you can take it to the range or a to a gunsmith. It's essentially a paperweight, awaiting confiscation.

Haywire1
03-17-2014, 11:59 AM
I was mistaken. It clearly stated the amnesty covers possession, taking it to the cops, sell or give to a business licensed to have prohibs, or to a photoshoot (da fuq?)

No selling privately, no shooting etc. Doing so would be a fast trip to jail

Sent from my SGH-T989D using Tapatalk

Rory McCanuck
03-17-2014, 12:14 PM
Museums too, don't forget the museums. :rolleyes:

lone-wolf
03-17-2014, 02:04 PM
I was mistaken. It clearly stated the amnesty covers possession, taking it to the cops, sell or give to a business licensed to have prohibs, or to a photoshoot (da fuq?)

I'm just going to assume TvPP asked for that part :p

harbl_the_cat
03-17-2014, 02:15 PM
I don't see this "photograph" section.

Is everyone mis-reading "paragraph" as "photograph" in section 2d?

Oddly enough, the range I'm a member of I'm pretty confident is authorized to sell and receive prohibited firearms...

When pulled over and asked by a police officer why one is transporting an 858, I believe the correct response to have their lawyer say to him is: "my client was transporting it to a business that is authorized to receive prohibited devices."

lone-wolf
03-17-2014, 02:23 PM
I don't see this "photograph" section.

Is everyone mis-reading "paragraph" as "photograph" in section 2d?

Me thinks so

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/76918135/81000-2-2002%2013%20mars%202014/81000-2-2002%2013%20mars%202014-page-003.jpg

Haywire1
03-17-2014, 02:26 PM
Damn your right harbl. I shouldnt read govt paperwork when under the influence of the plaque

Sent from my SGH-T989D using Tapatalk

Candychikita
03-17-2014, 03:26 PM
under the influence of the plaque

plaque? a dentist can help with that ;) if you meant plague, feel better cj :D

Haywire1
03-17-2014, 03:36 PM
First a feller has to have teeth to have plaque. Yes I meant the plague. Achy joints, overactive guts, and a total disinterest in bacon. The only possible thing it could be is the plague

Sent from my SGH-T989D using Tapatalk

Daniel_250r
03-17-2014, 04:20 PM
The fact that they didnt include rights to shooting the now prohibs says to me they will be rendered safe queens. I could be wrong and hopefully i am