PDA

View Full Version : UPDATE SWISS ARMS/CZ GUN GRAB



Shawn.Bevins
03-26-2014, 08:40 AM
What do you think about MP Gary Brietkreutz's 25th of March 2014 address?

Fast forward to 55.42


http://www.cpac.ca/en/programs/question-period/episodes/90003087

coastal
03-26-2014, 08:43 AM
Thanks for the link Shawn! That's a good start Gary for Prez!

riderrick
03-26-2014, 08:50 AM
another patch to bad legislation. not good enough to get my vote back

awndray
03-26-2014, 10:24 AM
Too little. Too late.

Strewth
03-26-2014, 10:34 AM
Not very strong? I've heard all this before? Is this a push to get M-439 into law?
I'm not expecting MP Brietkreutz to demand the repeal of C-68 and C-17, but I'd like to see a more aggressive stance than this.
I'll have to watch it again.

A corrupted individual
03-26-2014, 11:59 AM
How will this stop reclassifications in the future? Another bandaid solution, and definitely not good enough for my vote.

3MTA3
03-26-2014, 12:12 PM
You say that like there is a alternative?

blacksmithden
03-26-2014, 12:21 PM
Doesn't come up on my phone. Can somebody give us the condensed version of what was said please???

coastal
03-26-2014, 12:28 PM
They are going to try to take the classifying away from the RCMP and have people from the civilian gun industry and other experts on the panel...or something like that.

RobSmith
03-26-2014, 12:34 PM
|The danger is that whatever party is in power will be able to stack up that "panel" with whoever they want (a bunch of rabid antis), potentially making things much worse and giving the politicians a perfect excuse to claim that "experts agree".

blacksmithden
03-26-2014, 12:45 PM
Sounds like another non-fix. Then again, its not like the current set up isn't bias as hell. I wonder if I could get on this new panel. "No problem with this one...NEXT!! All good....NEXT !!!! Good...NEXT!!!!.........."

Strewth
03-26-2014, 12:56 PM
IF the panel has actual experts, as in, someone that has a working knowledge of firearms, or works specifically with firearms, and has nothing to do with the RCMP, then it could be better than what we have now. Random political appointments are a non-starter.
I want to see the criteria for the panel?

BSD for Panel President.

blacksmithden
03-26-2014, 05:48 PM
IF the panel has actual experts, as in, someone that has a working knowledge of firearms, or works specifically with firearms, and has nothing to do with the RCMP, then it could be better than what we have now. Random political appointments are a non-starter.
I want to see the criteria for the panel?

BSD for Panel President.

Thanks Strewth ! You know....short pistols are less lethal because they're smaller.....big handguns can't be concealed very easily, so they're good too. Nothing fires full auto unless you actually put ammunition in it, so, AK's of any flavor, mini-guns, and such...they're good now too.

The courts still seem to think people will tell the truth if they swear under oath. I say we make a provision in the new firearms act that as long as you swear an oath in front of a judge that you will never harm anyone or commit a crime with a firearm, then you should be able to own AND SHOOT whatever you want at a range.

I'd also vote for anyone who commits an intentional crime using a firearm such as committing a robbery or murdering someone on the street.....then GOD help your soul, because your butt is NEVER getting out of that prison.

BrotherRockeye
03-26-2014, 06:10 PM
I like that Den, but I'd opt for another method of dealing with the intentional lawbreakers...something that doesn't have them on the tax payers teet til they grow old.

Haywire1
03-26-2014, 06:37 PM
tow rope, pickup and a long gravel road works for me

Petamocto
03-26-2014, 06:56 PM
Some of you "too little too late for my vote" types are out of touch with reality.

Guess what, this is the best option there is for gun futures. I'm not saying we should accept it and stop fighting, but nobody else is presenting anything that isn't completely anti-gun.

You may be living in a fantasy world where your expectations are never going to be met, unless you give up your passport and move to selected states.

Fight for more, but accept the best choice that you can get.

I am very happy that the MP is saying what he is. Rome wasn't built in a day, and adding bricks is better than removing bricks.

blacksmithden
03-26-2014, 07:34 PM
Petamocto......What happens when Wendy Cukier and Beverly Ackerman are appointed to the board as the two "civilian" experts.....two are ex rcmp from the lab, and the last person is a sport shooter ?

BrotherRockeye
03-26-2014, 07:50 PM
why,we're fawked of course... :(

Petamocto
03-26-2014, 07:57 PM
I can not choose sides politically, but I believe one party has a well-publicized track record for hand-picking their own people.

blacksmithden
03-26-2014, 09:06 PM
All I know is, Harper didn't like the existing firearms committee recommendations when they came out and said there needed to be a lot less restriction on things. He then said maybe the people on the board weren't the right people, and rejected all their recommendations. I don't know what ever came of the whole thing.....I never heard another thing about it. Don't get me wrong....I have nothing but the utmost respect for Gary Brietkreutz. The man is a true champion of our cause. The fact of the matter is, Harper calls the shots, and we got a glimpse of what happens when the people he picked didn't come back with the answers he wanted. To put it bluntly, I don't trust the man at all. When I see Gary put into the public safety ministers position (fat chance)...I'll believe Harper is actually interested in doing whats right...not just what's right for the conservative party.

One thing I'm certain of. We need to get rid of C-68 before all of us old farts that remember a time before the liberal witch hunt, are gone, and all the new shooters just accept that it's always been the way it is now and roll over.

stevesummit
03-26-2014, 09:56 PM
The problem of the young guys not knowing any different are here already Den that the real sad part of this !! To many don't know what an ounce of firearms freedom is !!

BrotherRockeye
03-26-2014, 10:05 PM
One thing I'm certain of. We need to get rid of C-68 before all of us old farts that remember a time before the liberal witch hunt, are gone, and all the new shooters just accept that it's always been the way it is now and roll over.

Jeez Den, that is an ominous truth...

blacksmithden
03-26-2014, 10:35 PM
The problem of the young guys not knowing any different are here already Den that the real sad part of this !! To many don't know what an ounce of firearms freedom is !!

Firearms freedom to me is this. First, my dad and my grandfather teaching me how to handle them safely....not some government sanctioned firearms instructor. I grew up right on the edge of a small town in northern Ontario. At the age of 10 or so, at lease 2 nights a week after school through out the fall, grabbing dad's 12 gauge out of the not locked closest, walking down a public road to my favorite trail into the bush, hunting grouse and ducks until dark....then coming home with whatever I got. Saturdays were spent walking/hunting the 7 miles of railway tracks from my grandfathers house into town. Everybody knew everybody, including the local cops. There were zero problems.

Then....and I remember this as clear as day, one of the town cops pulled up beside me as I was walking down the road with dad's 1200 Winchester pump action over my shoulder. I was 12 years old. He'd seen me hunting many times before, and never said a word. He got out of the car and said "Den...does your dad know you have his gun out ?" I said "No Buck...he's at work". I thought to myself that him even talking to me was strange. He said "I think you'd better take it home until he can come out with you." I was a bit ticked off, and he saw that. Then he did what grown ups did back then...he gave me "that" look...the look grown ups gave kids and the kids knew that the next words out of their mouths had better be "yes sir" or "ok". I begrudgingly went home. THAT was the day the witch hunt started for me and our freedom started skidding off into the ditch.

The thing that really breaks my heart is my son. At 13, if he was seen today, doing what I took for granted then, and he didn't drop the gun fast enough, there is a very high probability that he would be killed by a police officer. We, our government, and our police forces, have robbed our kids of the freedom we had.

Foxer
03-26-2014, 11:34 PM
The thing that really breaks my heart is my son. At 13, if he was seen today, doing what I took for granted then, and he didn't drop the gun fast enough, there is a very high probability that he would be killed by a police officer. We, our government, and our police forces, have robbed our kids of the freedom we had.

Yeah, i know. And it was the same for me growing up.

The reality is tho that this is a different canada and we're not going back to that, and even if we could we would have more problems than we used to because too many parents dont know anything about guns to teach their kids and too many kids don't respect 'that look' anymore, and too many police would feel compelled to pull their gun at the sight of it.

What we can do is restore as much of that freedom as our current reality allows, and maybe one day in the future we'll get back to that more simple concept. We have a lot of room for improvement even if we can't rewind the clock all the way, and sometimes all you can do is build what you can for the future and pass it along for them to improve after we've gone on. To them, from failing hands we'll throw the torch.

Your son may not have the freedoms we did, but with hard work we can get pretty close, and his son may be able to enjoy even more. Have faith :)

But - as i say, we sure as heck can improve a lot today and that's where our focus will have to be. If we can knock back even 70-80 percent of the laws effect on gun owners i'd say our generation redeemed itself and set the next one up for even more.

Waterloomike
03-27-2014, 07:16 AM
We, our government, and our police forces, have robbed our kids of the freedom we had.

Agreed. And the only way to get it back is to take it back.

I disagree with foxer's assessment that we will have more problems.

How many more can we have than we have now?

You shot grouse with a 12 gauge?

stevebc
03-27-2014, 07:52 AM
I think Breitkreuz doesn't get it, because the Harper Conservatives don't get it.
They really seem to think that diddling about on the reclassifications is all that's needed.

No vote from me until there's a new FA.

Foxer
03-27-2014, 09:00 AM
I disagree with foxer's assessment that we will have more problems.

How many more can we have than we have now?

A lot. The fact is we don't have much of a "gun problem" in Canada right now. Most shootings are gangs (which isn't affected by what we're talking about) or suicides (which also really isn't affected by what we're talking about, as we know people determined to kill themselves will usually find a way).

The number of accidents we have from lawfully owned firearms is tiny. The number of lawful gun owners who kill people with guns is almost zero. The number of accidents with kids finding guns and shooting themselves with lawfully owned firearms is very small and almost always involves a breech of the storage laws.

It could be much much much much worse - right now despite having more guns in country than ever before in history we've got the lowest rate of problems with lawfully owned guns than we've ever had.

The thing of it is - we could scrap about 80 percent of our gun laws (or more) and still have the same result.


You shot grouse with a 12 gauge?

Well - 16 gauge mostly :) It was my Grandad's first shotgun when he was a boy and I've always enjoyed hunting with it. but sure, sometimes with a 12. Or a .22 if we were just zapping 'em for lunch while we were deer/moose hunting. Why did you bring that up? (Actually, how did you know, i didn't mention that in the original post)

You shot grouse with a 12 gauge?

Foxer
03-27-2014, 09:02 AM
I think Breitkreuz doesn't get it, because the Harper Conservatives don't get it.
They really seem to think that diddling about on the reclassifications is all that's needed.


Really? Breitkreuz 'doesn't get it'? after all the fights that guy's been in for us, you're going with gary doesn't understand firearms and firearms law issues?
Wow.

No vote from me until there's a new FA.

Justin Trudeau appreciates your support.

Waterloomike
03-27-2014, 09:08 AM
A lot. The fact is we don't have much of a "gun problem" in Canada right now. Most shootings are gangs (which isn't affected by what we're talking about) or suicides (which also really isn't affected by what we're talking about, as we know people determined to kill themselves will usually find a way).

The number of accidents we have from lawfully owned firearms is tiny. The number of lawful gun owners who kill people with guns is almost zero. The number of accidents with kids finding guns and shooting themselves with lawfully owned firearms is very small and almost always involves a breech of the storage laws.

It could be much much much much worse - right now despite having more guns in country than ever before in history we've got the lowest rate of problems with lawfully owned guns than we've ever had.

The thing of it is - we could scrap about 80 percent of our gun laws (or more) and still have the same result.



Well - 16 gauge mostly :) It was my Grandad's first shotgun when he was a boy and I've always enjoyed hunting with it. but sure, sometimes with a 12. Or a .22 if we were just zapping 'em for lunch while we were deer/moose hunting. Why did you bring that up? (Actually, how did you know, i didn't mention that in the original post)

You shot grouse with a 12 gauge?

The 12 gauge question was at BSD. I've used a .410 and picked out buckshot. so I went to a .22.

We might see a spike in accidents, but it would be short lived. And if it went from where it is, back to where it was, it would be a much shorter time to educate than waiting on government and well intentioned bubble wrapping.

You're attributing the low gun crime to the gun laws aimed specifically at law abiding gun owners and there is no proven correlation.

I do agree that we could easily scrap 80% of the laws or more and have no problem at all. which would prove that the laws didn't really have any effect.

Foxer
03-27-2014, 09:34 AM
The 12 gauge question was at BSD. I've used a .410 and picked out buckshot. so I went to a .22.


Ahh :)


We might see a spike in accidents, but it would be short lived. You mean all the incompetent people would kill themselves off early on? :) :) Unfortunately it wouldn't be short lived. The fact is when we were kids parents mostly knew about guns. My mom was a great shot, my dad a hunter, my friends mostly had parents who either did or had used firearms. Parents taught their kids and that was that. But today - the vast majority of people getting into the sport have very limited childhood training, and a large number come from families with no history or tradition of firearms use. It's a different world.


And if it went from where it is, back to where it was, it would be a much shorter time to educate than waiting on government and well intentioned bubble wrapping.

If it went from where it is to where it was, the antis' would use it to pass laws as bad as what we have or worse. But - if what you mean is that we could educate people without quite the same rigamarole we have now, then sure. As I said - most of our laws could be dumped without changing the result. Or simplified dramatically. So - we could have way fewer laws and much more simple ones, but i think going back to the late 60's is probably not practical for several reasons.


You're attributing the low gun crime to the gun laws aimed specifically at law abiding gun owners and there is no proven correlation.


Hey now - be fair and read what I said. I SPECIFICALLY said that gun crimes and the number of suicides are NOT impacted by what we're talking about here. Your statement is entirely unfair.


I do agree that we could easily scrap 80% of the laws or more and have no problem at all. which would prove that the laws didn't really have any effect.
80 - 90 percent of our laws (depending on how you measure 'percent' of a law :) ) Do NOT really have any effect. We know that. In fact - there are research studies to show that they don't.

Which is why I say we could scrap 80-90 percent and not notice any real difference. Does ANYONE who has knowledge of firearms believe for one second that an ATT somehow prevents accidents or crime? That a person willing to kill will say "hold on, i don't have an ATT to take my gun to the murder scene"? It changes nothing - scrapping att's would have ZERO impact on crime or accidents. Any sane person could see that. Is it even possible to make an argument that somehow if we allowed hunting with an ar-15 for size appropriate animals (yotes, rabbits, gophers whatever) would lead to more injury, crime or death than we have now? I play devils' advocate hard and even I can't make any kind of case for that. Etc etc.

most of our gun laws are useless. WE could scrap them and notice NO difference at all. And we should. But - it's probably not likely we could go back to pretty much zero gun laws without an impact and then the anti's will eat us for breakfast a second time.

Waterloomike
03-27-2014, 10:09 AM
Your statement is entirely unfair.

Maybe. I'll read it again later.

BrotherRockeye
03-27-2014, 11:00 AM
You mean all the incompetent people would kill themselves off early on? Unfortunately it wouldn't be short lived. The fact is when we were kids parents mostly knew about guns. My mom was a great shot, my dad a hunter, my friends mostly had parents who either did or had used firearms. Parents taught their kids and that was that. But today - the vast majority of people getting into the sport have very limited childhood training, and a large number come from families with no history or tradition of firearms use. It's a different world.

Population density has shifted dramatically from rural routes to urban centers too.
The number of kids going to GrandDads farm on weekends for their firearms initiation has plummeted because the family farm is almost non existent in the traditional sense. There is no longer a family on every other 1/4 section. The economics of farming demand that fewer farmers farm huge amounts of land. It's the Government way. Easier to control a few as opposed to many and easier to control the many if they are all in one place.

Foxer
03-27-2014, 11:19 AM
Population density has shifted dramatically from rural routes to urban centers too.

True - and WORSE there has been a real effort to discourage urban folk from going out in the country. Carbon taxes on fuel. New restrictions in the back countries. Focus on mass transit and bikes which means people don't have the vehicles to go out into the country - vancouver is now allowing buildings to be built in the core without any parking spaces at all. That, combined with an active effort to discourage or shut down gun ranges means shooting is not on a lot of people's radar.

Edenchef
03-27-2014, 11:56 AM
True - and WORSE there has been a real effort to discourage urban folk from going out in the country. Carbon taxes on fuel. New restrictions in the back countries. Focus on mass transit and bikes which means people don't have the vehicles to go out into the country - vancouver is now allowing buildings to be built in the core without any parking spaces at all. That, combined with an active effort to discourage or shut down gun ranges means shooting is not on a lot of people's radar.

All part of the insidious "social re-engineering" started by TurdoI and the other Liebtards; that is now completely ingrained into the real, true enemies of freedom......the bureaucrats. The nameless, faceless, unelected, unaccountable..... "civil service". Building their little power empires at the cost of our freedoms and tax dollars. Until we "decimate" this group; we are fighting a battle we cannot win, unfortunately.

In another, very emotional thread, on this forum. Someone got raked over the coals for suggesting that they would not defend this Canada. I most certainly feel their pain and frustration; this is most certainly NOT the same Canada I grew up in and swore to defend to the death. I have never stopped defending that former "Canada" and will not ever stop, till I stop or am stopped. Would I take up arms against those that are the enemies of Canada if necessary....in a heartbeat, but there are enemies both "without and within". The enemy is not at the gate, anymore....they are well inside and running the country, straight to hell. Just the ramblings of another "silly old fart", who remembers better times..

Cheers!

Waterloomike
03-27-2014, 12:00 PM
Yeah, nobody has to invade Canada to take it over, they just have to buy the libturds.

awndray
03-27-2014, 12:18 PM
Canada has already been "invaded". If anybody tries to do so in a military capacity, they would have to fight the US and China.

BrotherRockeye
03-27-2014, 01:13 PM
I would love to be a patriot again...

blacksmithden
03-27-2014, 05:21 PM
Agreed. And the only way to get it back is to take it back.

I disagree with foxer's assessment that we will have more problems.

How many more can we have than we have now?

You shot grouse with a 12 gauge?

Yep....didn't have a 410....used 7 1/2 or lighter shot. That's what I used mostly for hunting partridge/grouse/chickens/whatever you want to call them. The breasts are so small, you can see where any pellets went in and can easily pick them out if they didn't go right through. Try not to blast them when they're sitting on the ground 6 feet from you. :)

Waterloomike
03-27-2014, 06:25 PM
Yep....didn't have a 410....used 7 1/2 or lighter shot. That's what I used mostly for hunting partridge/grouse/chickens/whatever you want to call them. The breasts are so small, you can see where any pellets went in and can easily pick them out if they didn't go right through. Try not to blast them when they're sitting on the ground 6 feet from you. :)

That reminds me, I think I'll thaw some out.

mmmmmmmmmm.........................

leibermuster
03-28-2014, 10:34 AM
All part of the insidious "social re-engineering" started by TurdoI and the other Liebtards; that is now completely ingrained into the real, true enemies of freedom......the bureaucrats. The nameless, faceless, unelected, unaccountable..... "civil service". Building their little power empires at the cost of our freedoms and tax dollars. Until we "decimate" this group; we are fighting a battle we cannot win, unfortunately.

In another, very emotional thread, on this forum. Someone got raked over the coals for suggesting that they would not defend this Canada. I most certainly feel their pain and frustration; this is most certainly NOT the same Canada I grew up in and swore to defend to the death. I have never stopped defending that former "Canada" and will not ever stop, till I stop or am stopped. Would I take up arms against those that are the enemies of Canada if necessary....in a heartbeat, but there are enemies both "without and within". The enemy is not at the gate, anymore....they are well inside and running the country, straight to hell. Just the ramblings of another "silly old fart", who remembers better times..

Cheers!

Exactly...

But do they not own CPC as well?

With the $80 license fee now it seems that the old intentions of tax us to death is slowly starting again, and was that not the old rhino agenda of the conservatives during the 80's on this issue? It seems to me we are inching along at a slower pace but the direction is the same! Even if Blaney takes away the power of classification and gives it to some other government body it might actually turn out being worse. I guess I'm just skeptical of this whole thing, it just seems fixed!

jparcjr
03-29-2014, 06:10 PM
Honestly the only people who should be on a pannel like this should be members of either the NFA or the CSSA and have the knowledge, law enforcement should be allowed one representative from front line officers and thats it.

Foxer
03-29-2014, 06:34 PM
Honestly the only people who should be on a pannel like this should be members of either the NFA or the CSSA and have the knowledge, law enforcement should be allowed one representative from front line officers and thats it.

I'm not even a little comfortable with a 'panel' per se. Any panel can change over time and at the end of the day they're at the mercy of whomever is providing them with data. Currently that's the rcmp.

I'd rather see it move into the hands of experienced gunsmiths who can make recommendations based on practical knowledge and industry standards based observations.

Petamocto
03-29-2014, 07:05 PM
Honestly the only people who should be on a panel like this should be members of either the NFA or the CSSA and have the knowledge, law enforcement should be allowed one representative from front line officers and that's it.

I don't think that NFA/CSSA are any less biased than RCMP. In fact, if looked at objectively, it could be argued that they are even less credible as experts because they are basically a lobbying organization on behalf of gun owners who want the least amount of restrictions as possible.

The fairest solution is to get people who know the most about firearms, who also understand that they have more skills/knowledge than the average person, and who aren't tied to any conflicts of interest like Police forces that want less guns, or clubs that want more guns.

We can't cherry pick the people we get on this panel. If this is the bed we're making we have to lay in it.


I'd rather see it move into the hands of experienced gunsmiths who can make recommendations based on practical knowledge and industry standards based observations.

That.

Sabio
03-30-2014, 04:03 PM
Of course we can cherry pick. I want someone who will never prohibit a firearm and would fight to gets current firearms wrongly prohibited back on store shelves.

Absolutely No Reason to not allow a firearm into Canada to be allowed for Retail Sale. NONE NADA ZIP!

Petamocto
03-30-2014, 04:11 PM
Of course we can cherry pick. I want someone who will never prohibit a firearm and would fight to gets current firearms wrongly prohibited back on store shelves

That's a non-starter way to look at a discussion where you have polarized views. Do you not see how the other side of the fence is just going to say "Of course we can cherry pick. I want someone who is going to prohibit every firearm...". That's dumb.

We don't want irrational people with an agenda from either side on this panel. We don't need to cherry pick, we have the stats on our side, and the less-bias and more-credible the panel is, the more their recommendations will matter.

Any objective person who puts emotions aside is going to look at the hard data and see that licensed legal responsible people have posed practically no threat to anyone. If that panel lets us have guns it will shut up the antis a lot more than a panel made up of Charlton Heston, Uncle Hillbilly, and AR Jones.

Foxer
03-30-2014, 04:56 PM
Of course we can cherry pick. I want someone who will never prohibit a firearm and would fight to gets current firearms wrongly prohibited back on store shelves.
Who's "we"? You mean the CPC? Sure - we can likely pressure them into getting someone decent, but they're not going to be interested in someone who'll allow full auto or anything.

The BIGGER problem tho is - what happens when the libs get back in? they or someone like them will eventually win an election. If the system is set up to allow 'cherry picking' of people, guess what happens to us then?

What we want is a selection method that requires experience in the industry as a gunsmith in the private sector and an independant group that can't be replaced on a whim.

Waterloomike
03-31-2014, 06:56 AM
The rcmp are far more biased.

They are a lobby group, a law making bureaucracy and part of the government with a stated and vested interest in banning guns and any behaviour they don't much care for.

Petamocto
03-31-2014, 07:38 AM
The rcmp are far more biased.

You think the RCMP is more of a lobby group than the NFA and CSSA?

They have a core function to provide public security, so at most, there may be a perception that they "mission creep" into lobying against guns, but the NFA and CSSA have as their core function union-like lobying.

Waterloomike
03-31-2014, 07:47 AM
You think the RCMP is more of a lobby group than the NFA and CSSA?

They have a core function to provide public security, so at most, there may be a perception that they "mission creep" into lobying against guns, but the NFA and CSSA have as their core function union-like lobying.

I certainly do.

They get free press, get government's ear whenever they want it and they did lobby against guns when they supported the lgr among other anti gun related issues.

The rcmp is a union, not simply 'union like'.

If the cssa and nfa was a union that is state and cbc approved, they would get free press and little to no negative press.

I can't buy into your assertion.

Can the cssa and nfa kick in doors? The two aren't even close in any way.

Petamocto
03-31-2014, 10:01 AM
Call me an idealist, but something tells me your average RCMP officer may spend more of their time on keeping us safe than lobying government.

Waterloomike
03-31-2014, 10:08 AM
Call me an idealist, but something tells me your average RCMP officer may spend more of their time on keeping us safe than lobying government.

You've switched your position from the power of the organisation of the rcmp to what rank and file members do.

They don't necessarily have anything to do with each other.

Do keep in mind however, that it was rank and file members that kicked in doors in the sacking of High River.

We weren't talking about rank and file members, we were talking about what the rcmp hierarchy does as a political entity.

Petamocto
03-31-2014, 10:18 AM
No, we're talking about organizations as a whole.

You're saying the RCMP's main function is being a lobying agency against gun owners.

I am saying that the RCMP is not as biased as the NFA/CSSA, which are directly funded by people who want one thing.

Waterloomike
03-31-2014, 10:37 AM
No, we're talking about organizations as a whole. no we were not. You claimed the nfa and the cssa were a lobby group with more power than the lobby of the rcmp because they're dedicated to one issue.


You're saying the RCMP's main function is being a lobying agency against gun owners. Point out where I said any such thing. You're putting words in my mouth that I never uttered.


I am saying that the RCMP is not as biased as the NFA/CSSA, which are directly funded by people who want one thing.

You're free to believe that when it comes to guns. the rcmp has more irons in the fire, of course. simply because there is more than gun laws for the rcmp to enforce.

But saying they aren't more biased carries no water at all.

That in no way diminishes the power they can exert on public and government opinion on any single subject. Neither does it increase the power of the gun lobby by the cssa or the nfa as a greater political lobby than the rcmp.

Let's see the cssa,nfa silence the press when they do something the public doesn't like, or in any way influence political opinion even remotely the way the rcmp can and does on anything at all.

harbl_the_cat
03-31-2014, 11:36 AM
I'm in the "no-panel" camp, period. If the NFA or CSSA can be put in it, so can the CACP, CFGC, and CPA.

I'm also in the RCMP brass as political lobbyist camps - that said, I think membership and active involvement of those above stated organizations is a pretty clear indicator of which bureaucrats in the force make their living as political lobbyists as opposed to actually serving the public.

It's the brass who has to make administrative and financial decisions, not the front line officers who just follow orders. That said - I think it's at the very senior most levels that there is institutional corruption.

Petamocto
03-31-2014, 12:07 PM
Mike,

I'm not sure I said they had more power to influence things than the RCMP, but if I gave that impression I am sorry.

What I am trying to state is that if we look at purely what the functions of the organizations are (not the persuasive power they have), the NFA and CSSA are biased lobby groups; that's their purpose. The RCMP is not a lobby group, it is a Police organization, that as I mentioned is being accused of "mission creep" into lobying.

To find some common ground here, if I understand you correctly, you are stating that even if it is not the RCMP's main purpose for existence, they can actually accomplish more to lobby for something even if it s secondary or tertiary intent of theirs (or even if unintentional) than the NFA or CSSA is able to accomplish.

If so, that may be the case. The RCMP may be able to influence decisions even accidentally than the NFA or CSSA can intentionally, but that does not make them more biased, as you said. It makes them more powerful, but they are still at their core a Police organization, where as lobby groups that accept funding are practically the definition of biased.

Waterloomike
03-31-2014, 12:15 PM
Mike,

To find some common ground here, if I understand you correctly, you are stating that even if it is not the RCMP's main purpose for existence, they can actually accomplish more to lobby for something even if it s secondary or tertiary intent of theirs (or even if unintentional) than the NFA or CSSA is able to accomplish. then we do have that common ground. :)


If so, that may be the case. The RCMP may be able to influence decisions even accidentally than the NFA or CSSA can intentionally, but that does not make them more biased, as you said. It makes them more powerful, but they are still at their core a Police organization, where as lobby groups that accept funding are practically the definition of biased.

Well, I would say that when freedom is at stake, and it is, the greater bias will always be in the hands of those able to legally wield guns at your head, which can only be the rcmp.

The only thing the cssa and nfa has on it's side, are the contributions and peaceful members. Which pales considerably when compared to the resources and political power the rcmp has at it's command.

the rcmp has guns, money and lawyers.

Petamocto
03-31-2014, 12:21 PM
I think what has confused me is your use of the word "bias", where as what I think you are actually explaining is "power", which is the ability to influence something.

Think of it like a scale from 0-10, 0 being "No guns", 10 being "Nothing but guns", and 5 being neutral. What I am saying is that the NFA and CSSA are 10/10, ie they are far from neutral, and completely opinionated to one side.

I think what you are stating is that even if the RCMP leans left at all (even 3-4), they can influence more than the NFA and CSSA can at 10.

And if so, that is very possible and probable. However, to be more biased than the NFA and CSSA, they would have to devote entirely all of their efforts to the cause, which would make them a 0 (or negative).

They don't do that, though, so they are more powerful, but not more biased.

Waterloomike
03-31-2014, 12:30 PM
I think what has confused me is your use of the word "bias", where as what I think you are actually explaining is "power", which is the ability to influence something.

Think of it like a scale from 0-10, 0 being "No guns", 10 being "Nothing but guns", and 5 being neutral. What I am saying is that the NFA and CSSA are 10/10, ie they are far from neutral, and completely opinionated to one side.

I think what you are stating is that even if the RCMP leans left at all (even 3-4), they can influence more than the NFA and CSSA can at 10.

And if so, that is very possible and probable. However, to be more biased than the NFA and CSSA, they would have to devote entirely all of their efforts to the cause, which would make them a 0 (or negative).

They don't do that, though, so they are more powerful, but not more biased.

I see your point.

And the cssa and nfa are single or two or maybe three issue orgs. No doubt.

And the rcmp has more than one law to enforce. No doubt.

But the rcmp can dedicate more resources in an afternoon, without spending a cent of their budget, than both the cssa and nfa can all year by spending all of their budget.

But the cssa and nfa are in parallel campaigning for property rights as well.

I was getting the impression you were saying that greater bias meant greater power.

blacksmithden
03-31-2014, 07:40 PM
There is NO need for a panel to classify firearms in Canada. What is needed is the courts holding criminals accountable. There is no reason in the world somebody shouldn't be allowed to own full auto firearms or small pistols. The tool doesn't commit the crime....the person using it does. If somebody is caught shooting up a paper target at a range at 800 rounds/minute...vs....some guy robs a store with a single shot Cooey. Who was hurt more....the store clerk, or the paper target ? Somebody is shooting paper targets on his farm with a 2" Derringer vs some gang banger shooting a 1911 on a street corner. Who commits the bigger crime that hurts society ?

I'm still a firm believer in personal responsibility and accountability. If somebody is shooting a full auto Howitzer on a range.....no problem. If some punk shoots somebody for whatever reason, then their a-- needs to rot in prison for a good long time...and yes, I do believe it's ok to send a 13 year old to prison if they're threatening, or ending someone's life with a gun.

The entire firearms act in Canada is a raging joke and an insult to the intelligence of anyone who knows anything about firearms. It has to go ! No compromise !

Foxer
03-31-2014, 08:00 PM
There is NO need for a panel to classify firearms in Canada. What is needed is the courts holding criminals accountable. There is no reason in the world somebody shouldn't be allowed to own full auto firearms or small pistols. very true as far as it goes, but the reality of the law is what it is for now. We don't want the cops to steal all our guns while we're waiting on a perfect world.

Petamocto
03-31-2014, 08:09 PM
I am all for the us-vs-them mentality, and when I say "them" I do not mean antis, but criminals with guns.

That to me is one of the ways that the licensing system could be put to good use, but it just isn't being applied that way. As I have said earlier, I would be more than happy to put up with a front-heavy licensing system if it meant that once I got over those obstacles I could get whatever I wanted, and not have to be bothered with classes or ATTs.

That is the best way to go after illegal gun owners, ie having massive punishments for anyone caught with a firearm without a license.

The problem, though, is that I still feel like I am not getting my share of this bargain as the system exists now. I played the game, I took the courses, passed the tests, waited the time, and paid the money, yet I still have restrictions put on me even though I have done everything I possibly can to prove that I'm responsible.

Back to the point though, I completely agree that it has to be about punishing the act. Licensing could help with that, but certainly not the way it exists now. Nobody who has jumped through those hoops should have to worry about things again, yet we have a constant worry about "what's next?"

Foxer
03-31-2014, 09:32 PM
The problem, though, is that I still feel like I am not getting my share of this bargain as the system exists now. I played the game, I took the courses, passed the tests, waited the time, and paid the money, yet I still have restrictions put on me even though I have done everything I possibly can to prove that I'm responsible.


Even worse - if we don't fill out our paperwork every 5 years then it's as if you never took the courses, passed the tests, waited the time OR paid the money - you're just an insta-criminal. It should be one time lifetime certification, not 'licensing'.

Rory McCanuck
03-31-2014, 09:39 PM
...I completely agree that it has to be about punishing the act. Licensing could help with that...
You realise you contradicted yourself completely there?
Unless the crime you want to punish is the mere possession of a firearm, how could a license possibly help?

Once you eliminate the absolute nonsense that is Sec 91

91. (1) Subject to subsection (4), every person commits an offence who possesses a firearm without being the holder of

(a) a licence under which the person may possess it; and

(b) in the case of a prohibited firearm or a restricted firearm, a registration certificate for it.
Blah, blah, legal gobbledygook gunz r bad...
is there a single crime you can think of that isn't covered by some other law already?
That's a serious question, btw.

Foxer
03-31-2014, 09:51 PM
is there a single crime you can think of that isn't covered by some other law already?

Depends on how you look at it. Is it a crime to drive drunk even if you didn't hit or kill anyone? Some people believe it should not be because no harm was done, others would argue that by doing so you recklessly place others at a much greater (and unacceptable) risk of injury or death and that in and of itself is a violation of their rights, and therefore a crime.

If you subscribe to the second school of thought, then yes, there can be a crime in being in possession of a firearm depending on the circumstances. If I'm completely untrained, handling a firearm can very easily result in an accident. If i stuff that gun down my pants and head off to the local club, or start waving the gun around joking while it's loaded, or pointing it at people (although that last one is covered by a specific law i believe) then i'm probably doing something at least VERY wrong, and probably criminal (tho probably small 'c' criminal rather than capital C)

Given how easy it is for someone who has no understanding of the basics of safety to have an accident, and given that an ignorance of those other laws you mentioned can result in someone committing a crime perhaps without intent, it's reasonable and prudent to say that anyone who wishes to own and operate (or at least operate) a firearm should be required to provide evidence of knowledge of basic safety and laws.

Rory McCanuck
03-31-2014, 10:27 PM
I think there's a pretty big gap between drunk driving and the possession of a firearm.
Like, nailing someone to the cross for possession of car keys while sober kind of difference.

A person possessing a set of car keys has the same potential for harm as a person possessing a firearm.

Foxer
03-31-2014, 10:43 PM
I think there's a pretty big gap between drunk driving and the possession of a firearm.
Like, nailing someone to the cross for possession of car keys while sober kind of difference.

Well there isn't. A person who is sober and trained driving a vehicle is little threat to anyone (most of the time :) ) provided they choose to follow the rules. A person with a firearm who is trained is likewise not a threat - arguably less than the driver in fact. But - an untrained person handling a firearm can be very dangerous, even tho that is not their intent.

However - you miss the point. The point is "Is it a crime to endanger others beyond what a reasonable or prudent person would do". IN the case of the drunk driver - he hasn't harmed anyone. Yet. So - has he committed a crime by acting in a fashion that a reasonable person might consider to be dangerous? If so - it might well be argued that any use of a firearm by those who don't know what they're doing is likewise endangering others.

There's no point in splitting hairs over HOW MUCH of a crime each one is compared to another. If we accept that it's not ok to place others in needless danger, then both are a crime to one degree or another and that was the question asked.


A person possessing a set of car keys has the same potential for harm as a person possessing a firearm.

Well car keys are not a car, and a firearm is a firearm. One might argue that if by 'possession' you mean they own one and it's stored within the law, then arguably you're right. But the moment that they use the gun OR the car, then they are indeed putting others at risk if they don't know how to operate them safely. We DO require licenses to drive on public roads after all, and for good reason.

Lets face it - a set of car keys isn't going to go off and put a hole in the neighbor's house :)

I don't think you could argue that a person who's otherwise following the law and has a firearm they legally acquired (left to them in a will perhaps?) stored safely is putting others at risk. Any more than a person who owns a car in a garage is putting others at risk. But in both cases, the moment you start to use the items you need to have an understanding of safety and the rules in order to keep the risk to others at a minimum. And in both cases it's arguably a crime to do so without that knowledge. I'd say it's fair to argue that given that we already have storage laws it should only be a 'crime' to USE a firearm without a license (or more accurately, some proof of safety knowledge), provided that it's stored in compliance with the law.

Having said all that - our current version of 'licensing' is a complete joke.

Rory McCanuck
03-31-2014, 11:36 PM
No, the hair I'm splitting, is the law/punishment is more onerous for the possession of a firearm, than it is for the operation of a vehicle while drunk and prohibited from driving.
You could be drunk as a lord, drive into a school bus and kill everyone on it, and you still aren't subject to a three year mandatory minimum sentence.

Foxer
03-31-2014, 11:50 PM
No, the hair I'm splitting, is the law/punishment is more onerous for the possession of a firearm, than it is for the operation of a vehicle while drunk and prohibited from driving.
You could be drunk as a lord, drive into a school bus and kill everyone on it, and you still aren't subject to a three year mandatory minimum sentence.well, no - in such a case you would likely face a lot more than three years, with reckless endangerment causing death charges and others (tho i suppose one might claim mental illness in our canada) and i believe that does carry a minimum sentance.

However, you're correct that the punishment for the crime can easily be bananas. A guy who let his license lapse and doesn't touch his guns which are stored safely can be in for the same punishment as a gang banger with a glock stuffed down his pants at a night club. That is patently insane. The first shouldn't even be a crime (he DID prove his knowledge of safety ) and the second is obviously much more serious.

However - the question wasn't "are the current laws fair and sane" (they're not) but rather "is there any crime that isn't covered by the current law if you removed this section." I didn't suggest what the punishment should be - only that using a firearm without knowing how to do so safely could indeed be considered a crime.

Waterloomike
04-01-2014, 03:09 AM
I think there's a pretty big gap between drunk driving and the possession of a firearm.
Like, nailing someone to the cross for possession of car keys while sober kind of difference.

A person possessing a set of car keys has the same potential for harm as a person possessing a firearm.

Excellent point.

awndray
04-01-2014, 05:57 AM
well, no - in such a case you would likely face a lot more than three years, with reckless endangerment causing death charges and others (tho i suppose one might claim mental illness in our canada) and i believe that does carry a minimum sentance.
I've read countless stories of a drunk driver killing someone in an accident, and though some charges stick, they haven't spent a second in jail. It's quite common.

Foxer
04-01-2014, 09:02 AM
I've read countless stories of a drunk driver killing someone in an accident, and though some charges stick, they haven't spent a second in jail. It's quite common.

Not exactly uncommon for people to get off killing someone with a knife or gun either. Heck - the greyhound cannibal never saw a day in jail and is currently getting out for day trips. Same with that lunatic in merritt who killed his children. He never went to jail and wasn't even in hospital for three years before he was scheduled to be out for day trips. I haven't heard of anyone yet actually spending 3 years in jail for the gun possession minimum. Welcome to the land of liberal judges :)

However - i'm pretty sure if you kill a schoolbus full of kids due to being 'drunk as a lord', you're probably going to face a little time behind bars. :)

Here's a recent case for you from my neck of the woods:

Feb 25, 2014

A Richmond man who blamed his cousin for being behind the wheel of a fatal car crash in 2010 is going to jail for two years.

Juan Alvarez was sentenced to two years in prison and given a five year driving ban Tuesday morning in B.C. Provincial Court for dangerous driving and impaired driving related to the May 6, 2010 crash that killed his cousin, Juan Carlos Quijanos Flores.

For three years, Alvarez told police Quijanos Flores had been in the driver's seat when the vehicle slammed into a median on the Knight Street Bridge. It wasn't until DNA evidence proved he was lying that he plead guilty to impaired driving and dangerous driving.

The story continues but you get the point. And he just killed the passenger with him, not a busload of kids

harbl_the_cat
04-01-2014, 11:50 AM
Quite honestly, I think the "criminal vs law-abiding" mentality needs to be seriously rethought.

Everyone on this board is a criminal if the definition of criminal is having broken a law that's on the books - whether you intended to or not, whether you were caught and punished or not, whether you hurt anyone or not.

No one can claim to be a "law abiding" person, because in the country we live in - almost EVERYTHING is illegal.

It is now impossible to go about your daily business without breaking SOME law and there is no indication that it's getting any better.

Don't say you're not a criminal if you've ever driven 1km above the speed limit - because technically, you are.

Foxer
04-01-2014, 08:11 PM
Quite honestly, I think the "criminal vs law-abiding" mentality needs to be seriously rethought.


Don't say you're not a criminal if you've ever driven 1km above the speed limit - because technically, you are.Breaking a law and 'crime' are two very different things. There is no criminal code punishment I'm aware of for going 1 km over the speed limit. It may offend an act of provincial parliament, but that's not the same as an indictable offense. I agree with you that virtually all people will offend some law somewhere at some point, probably without meaning to, and that many will violate some law somewhere with intent that they just don't think they should follow at the moment (like speeding perhaps). But that isn't the same as criminal intent. A person going 1 km over the limit may receive a ticket, but they aren't going to jail. Even if they hit someone, it won't be considered reckless driving or the like.

You do indirectly raise the question however of whether or not firearms law really belongs under the criminal code. Some of it may, for example using a firearm in the commission of a crime, but I seriously question whether or not as much of it should be.

I think however we can safely define 'law abiding' as those who attempt to live within the laws and give them weight and consideration, where as non law abiding would be those who disregard significant laws intentionally and give them little or no consideration. Most gun owners attempt to live within the law (certainly with regards to guns) or at least the spirit of the law, and if they commit infractions it's by accident rather than deliberate intent. Another way to phrase it is that if a lawful person breaks a law, it is without 'mens rea', the so called 'guilty mind'.

As an example - a person who walks up to a car that looks just like theirs in a parking lot absentmindedly and tries their key is technically breaking a law (attempting to enter and drive off with a vehicle not their own). THis is very different than a person who deliberately tries to break in to a vehicle knowing it is not theirs.

At any rate - I think from a common sense point of view we all understand the difference between someone who's 'lawful' and someone who's a 'criminal'.

Waterloomike
04-02-2014, 03:17 AM
misdemeanor

mis·de·mean·or noun \-di-ˈmē-nər\
law : a crime that is not very serious : a crime that is less serious than a felony

3MTA3
04-02-2014, 04:29 AM
Show me that the mere possession of an ordinary firearm without a licence or registration certificate is a significant social problem, let alone one leading to an increase in firearm-related crime, suicide or accidents.

Foxer
04-02-2014, 09:35 AM
misdemeanor

mis·de·mean·or noun \-di-ˈmē-nər\
law : a crime that is not very serious : a crime that is less serious than a felony

Yea. That's american. We don't have felonies or misdemeanors in canada. We have indictable and non-indictable. It's a slightly different system.

3MTA3
04-02-2014, 10:04 AM
(1) purely summary offences
(2) purely indictable offences
(3) hybrid offences.

Rory McCanuck
04-02-2014, 11:47 AM
Show me that the mere possession of an ordinary firearm without a licence or registration certificate is a significant social problem, let alone one leading to an increase in firearm-related crime, suicide or accidents.
It is nothing more than one of the pellets in the blunderbuss blast of charges that the police hit somone with.
Gun related charges never come one at a time, it's usually 6 or 7 at a time, per firearm.
Throw enough s**t at the wall, and something should stick.
Five or 6 of the charges are there simply to be thrown/bargained away, nothing more than bargaining chips.

Just talking out my a**, but I think most of these charges were invented to give the Bulls something to nail a bad guy with when they couldn't find anything else. Kick in the door of a crack house, and only one person is home, and no drugs to be found, but buddy has a magazine with a rivet fallen out, "A ha! Gotcha!" The cops know he's a sh**rat, the neighbours know he's a sh**rat, he knows he's a sh**rat, but the only thing they can find is BS.

Remember, Capone was busted with tax evasion. Everybody and their dog knew who he was and what he was doing, but he was never busted for smuggling, prostitution, blackmail, extortion or murder, but he was brought down for not giving the gov't their cut.

CLW .45
06-20-2014, 11:18 PM
It is nothing more than one of the pellets in the blunderbuss blast of charges that the police hit somone with.
Gun related charges never come one at a time, it's usually 6 or 7 at a time, per firearm.
Throw enough s**t at the wall, and something should stick.
Five or 6 of the charges are there simply to be thrown/bargained away, nothing more than bargaining chips.

Just talking out my a**, but I think most of these charges were invented to give the Bulls something to nail a bad guy with when they couldn't find anything else. Kick in the door of a crack house, and only one person is home, and no drugs to be found, but buddy has a magazine with a rivet fallen out, "A ha! Gotcha!" The cops know he's a sh**rat, the neighbours know he's a sh**rat, he knows he's a sh**rat, but the only thing they can find is BS.

Remember, Capone was busted with tax evasion. Everybody and their dog knew who he was and what he was doing, but he was never busted for smuggling, prostitution, blackmail, extortion or murder, but he was brought down for not giving the gov't their cut.

That is one of the justifications for bad law, but it is still bad law.

Only an idiot supports restrictions on the responsible, as a way to affect the actions of the irresponsible.