PDA

View Full Version : Interesting thread on Brand X



hercster
06-16-2014, 06:32 PM
"Got a Sneak Preview of the Upcoming Changes"

Strewth
06-16-2014, 06:36 PM
Saw that, very interesting indeed.

Canuck
06-16-2014, 06:39 PM
Strangeday says there is some thing in the works as well. Swiss and CZ858 owners may be happy. Remains to be seen. We've been down this road before but apparently the court case and the CPC's need for money is working in our favor. Keep the pressure up, everyone.

hercster
06-16-2014, 06:42 PM
Anyother inside trackers in the wild west?

Strewth
06-16-2014, 08:38 PM
Well I asked the OP over there for permission to do this, here's his post:


Got a Sneak Preview of the Upcoming Changes
So I can't go into too much detail right at this moment but I can tell you that most reasonable people should be pleased.

Owners of Swiss Arms and 858s can breath a sigh of relief, we will be taken care of.

Owners of restricted firearms will be pleased, restrictions will be significantly loosened.

Those displeased with the RCMP overreaches will be pleased.

If you are expecting a CCW permit and free AKs you can keep on dreaming.

As for when, JRW's comments in another thread are accurate, announced in the summer sometime (likely on a Friday afternoon), introduced in the fall and receiving Royal Assent before the next election.

Personally I'm fairly satisfied and quite excited, gonna be able to have a lot of fun that has been near impossible in the last 20 years in this country.

CanuckWR
06-16-2014, 08:49 PM
There have been a few "leaks", all are pretty much the same. It gives a guy hope.

hercster
06-16-2014, 08:55 PM
Thank you for doing that Mr. Strewth and thanks to the OP on Brand for his kindness! After a prolonged period of negativity and actions that I believe are dysfunctional, this is a nice breath of fresh air even if we don't have the details. It will be interesting to see how we respond to more news as and when it breaks. I would like the firearms community to be good people to do business with; not passive or compliant pushovers "cowering" as some have put it but good, honest and sound people who can manage reality and make progress without aggression and grandstanding. I'm feeling more optimistic today than I did yesterday.

Strewth
06-16-2014, 09:04 PM
You're welcome Mr Hercster, as you say, it's a breath of fresh air in an uncertain time. I can appreciate the lack of details, here's hoping the anti's get a bit blindsided by this. My gun fund is ready to be dumped into my CPC donation fund,and hopefully I'm back to normal at work one day soon to co-ordinate volunteer hours.

Foxer
06-16-2014, 09:30 PM
As I mentioned to you guys when everyone was screaming murder about how fast this would or should go - after a few months there will be 'trial balloons' (leaks) which allow the CPC to guage public reaction while still being able to say "woah, we never said that" if the reaction is negative.

Then - by fall they'd introduce it, and we'd see it pass the following year - i'd guess they may try to include it in an omnibus.

And for all those who doubted me..... PTHBBYBYBYBYBBYYB :tounge::tounge::tounge: :)

hercster
06-16-2014, 09:44 PM
Doubted you Mr. Foxer! Say it ain't so. IMO youse is one of da men here.

Foxer
06-16-2014, 09:52 PM
Doubted you Mr. Foxer! Say it ain't so. IMO youse is one of da men here.

And a handsome young stallion of a man at that! (my mommy told me so!)

Rory McCanuck
06-17-2014, 12:06 AM
Has anyone seen anything written in stone yet?
I'll save my party balloons for when Blaney comes down from atop the mount...

Foxer
06-17-2014, 12:43 AM
Has anyone seen anything written in stone yet?
I'll save my party balloons for when Blaney comes down from atop the mount...
No, and you won't for a while. As I said - they'll float balloons, and not party ones. They haven't decided what to do precisely yet. Don't worry about partying just now, now is the time to send them more letters and encouragement to do the right thing and let them know there will be a very positive response if there's a very positive solution.

For 'cast in stone' - you'll have to wait till fall. But - by then their minds WILL be made up so now's the time to jump on the opportunity.

Forbes/Hutton
06-17-2014, 01:04 AM
STR :bananna: EET

RangeBob
06-17-2014, 10:42 AM
I'm a bit of a pessimist today.
Just because a couple MPs or government insiders say one thing, doesn't make it effective or long term.

e.g. MP 'eh' stands up and says "This is just a bit of paperwork, we'd never do such and such", and then years later
- MP "bee" stands up and says "For the sake of the children, we have to do such and such" or
- Police/CrownCouncil/CFO stand up and say "We interpret the law to mean". It didn't mean this for the past two decades, the wording was never changed, it was never meant to mean this, it was specifically promised by an MP or two that spoke on behalf of the government that it wouldn't ever mean this, but it will from now on.

bettercallsaul
06-17-2014, 11:01 AM
I don't doubt you guys here on GOC, but I remain skeptical. I'll remain skeptical until I actually hear it announced by the government.

After the incident in Moncton, I'm not expecting the government to do much.

Foxer
06-17-2014, 11:32 AM
I'm a bit of a pessimist today.
Just because a couple MPs or government insiders say one thing, doesn't make it effective or long term.

e.g. MP 'eh' stands up and says "This is just a bit of paperwork, we'd never do such and such", and then years later
- MP "bee" stands up and says "For the sake of the children, we have to do such and such" or
- Police/CrownCouncil/CFO stand up and say "We interpret the law to mean". It didn't mean this for the past two decades, the wording was never changed, it was never meant to mean this, it was specifically promised by an MP or two that spoke on behalf of the government that it wouldn't ever mean this, but it will from now on.

Well that's always a very real problem, and again not just for the firearms community but pretty much everyone when it comes to law. That's why it takes such a long time to craft laws, and even then you still run into this issue. It is often referred to as the 'law of unintended consequences' these days.

Don't let that hold you back or discourage you. Things will never be perfect - all we can do is keep improving and addressing the unintended negatives that pop up. It's like gardening - there's always going to be weeding to be done. That's ok.

Foxer
06-17-2014, 11:35 AM
I don't doubt you guys here on GOC, but I remain skeptical. I'll remain skeptical until I actually hear it announced by the government.

After the incident in Moncton, I'm not expecting the government to do much.
Be skeptical - but write some letters anyway. "I have heard you are close to a permanent solution that will erase this kind of problem in the future. That would be the kind of action I expect from the CPC and why i've supported them in the past, and i look forward to your solution and supporting the CPC again in the future.'. That kind of thing. "you're on the right track, don't screw it up".

Nothing is decided yet and you can bet the anti's are hearing the same rumours and THEY will be writing and lobbying FOR SURE - so lets make sure the gov't hears from us that we will be there for them if they get this right.

webster
06-17-2014, 01:59 PM
Be skeptical - but write some letters anyway. "I have heard you are close to a permanent solution that will erase this kind of problem in the future. That would be the kind of action I expect from the CPC and why i've supported them in the past, and i look forward to your solution and supporting the CPC again in the future.'. That kind of thing. "you're on the right track, don't screw it up".

Nothing is decided yet and you can bet the anti's are hearing the same rumours and THEY will be writing and lobbying FOR SURE - so lets make sure the gov't hears from us that we will be there for them if they get this right.

Any chance we can get a few more details for our letter writing? What issues are they addressing specifically? I saw Strewth's post, but it's pretty vague, likely of necessity. I'd like to be able to commend the CPC on something specific, if I can. I'm completely out of the loop here. :p

Foxer
06-17-2014, 02:50 PM
I doubt there are a lot more in the way of details just yet, things will be still be up in the air. The important thing to do is remind them we're watching, and there will be rewards for good behavior.

webster
06-17-2014, 03:16 PM
Got it. :)

speedloader
06-17-2014, 04:02 PM
I doubt there are a lot more in the way of details just yet, things will be still be up in the air. The important thing to do is remind them we're watching, and there will be rewards for good behavior.

will do Foxer
thankyou! for teaching the rules of the game over and over again :cool1:
this is some good news for a change!

hercster
06-17-2014, 05:46 PM
I just wrote Cheryl Gallant and the P.M. thanking them for the rumoured progress.

Malus
06-17-2014, 06:05 PM
I don't think it should have been "leaked" at all. It does nobody any good. It makes the anti's even more determined and it provides a bit of relief(?) (whether warranted or not) for all the upset firearms owners (maybe to try and curb all the attention and forward momentum because of the re-classification). This is a very sensitive and important subject and I'm suspicious of any so called "leaks". I'm kinda ignoring the "leak" and sticking to the old adage of "don't count your chickens till they hatch" and reserve my joy (or anger) when something is written in stone.......

Rory McCanuck
06-17-2014, 06:26 PM
^^^
Where's that dang like button again?

RangeBob
06-17-2014, 07:57 PM
rumors rumors rumors


"don't count your chickens till they hatch"

So you wouldn't be willing to bet a paycheque on the veracity of:


CZ858/SA Grandfathered with new 12x designation, allowing them to be used;
Provincial CFO's and ATT system eliminated;
Mag limits for Restricted firearms are lifted (range use only);
RCMP cannot reclassify any firearms after initial ruling, only can be done by OIC
-- by a fella on the internet, who writes that they are paraphrasing someone attributed as "Says a guy"

Foxer
06-17-2014, 08:10 PM
I don't think it should have been "leaked" at all. It does nobody any good. It makes the anti's even more determinedThey don't do US any good but they do good from the gov'ts position. The gov't is going to face blowback from this - and any time any gov't is doing something they know there's going to be 'resistance' about they like to get a feel for what they're going to face while there's still 'plausible denyability'.

Hey. They're gov'ts. This is how they do it. You might as well say you don't like the fact that political parties raise money - it's what they do.

It'll get to the anti's, they'll try to raise some interest in fighting back, the gov't will be able to gauge the level of pushback and what kinds of things they'll say.

It also has some effect of getting people a little numb to the issue - they hear rumours now, then more later then they hear about it from the gov't, etc etc. They kind of write it off over time.


As to 'not counting your chickens' - don't sit around counting anything - grab a shotgun and lets make sure WE bag our limits :) This is the time to convince the gov't to see things our way. They're saying they are willing to - we have to convince them it's in their best interest to do so.

Seriously. This is how the game is played. If we do the right thing now we get what we want. If we don't we might not. So... worry about how you'd like the world to be later and lets get our chickens cooked :)

hercster
06-17-2014, 11:04 PM
Of necessity I was vague in the emails I sent. Essentially I expressed gratitude for the rumoured changes that apparently will focus on effectiveness, fairness and the elimination of waste freeing up taxpayer funds for legitimate purposes. I'll write more tomorrow and followup when it makes sense to do so. I welcomed the changes as being good for Canada.

Foxer
06-18-2014, 12:00 AM
Well done - the most important thing is that they know we're still paying attention, it's not forgotten, and we will stand by them if they do the right thing (in the face of the anti's who will obviously be threatening to hurt them in the next election if they change anything).

RangeBob
06-18-2014, 04:30 PM
You demand the whole loaf and settle for a few slices. Then you demand the loaf again ...

http://i.imgur.com/bqPzfQM.png

Malus
06-18-2014, 06:04 PM
They don't do US any good but they do good from the gov'ts position. The gov't is going to face blowback from this - and any time any gov't is doing something they know there's going to be 'resistance' about they like to get a feel for what they're going to face while there's still 'plausible denyability'.

Thanks for the info, but, I'm quite aware of the "why they do it". Doesn't mean I have to like it or support it.


Hey. They're gov'ts. This is how they do it. You might as well say you don't like the fact that political parties raise money - it's what they do.

No, thats not what I'm saying. Any group that wants political recognition needs to fundraise, thats a given.


It'll get to the anti's, they'll try to raise some interest in fighting back, the gov't will be able to gauge the level of pushback and what kinds of things they'll say.

It also has some effect of getting people a little numb to the issue - they hear rumours now, then more later then they hear about it from the gov't, etc etc. They kind of write it off over time.

Refer to the first response above



As to 'not counting your chickens' - don't sit around counting anything - grab a shotgun and lets make sure WE bag our limits :) This is the time to convince the gov't to see things our way. They're saying they are willing to - we have to convince them it's in their best interest to do so.

Seriously. This is how the game is played. If we do the right thing now we get what we want. If we don't we might not. So... worry about how you'd like the world to be later and lets get our chickens cooked :)


Who's sitting around? You keep implying that notion when referring to others that don't follow your reasoning on matters of state. Worry more about what your doing and put that amount of effort into the "antis" or the uninformed. You don't like my comments, put me on ignore.......

bettercallsaul
06-18-2014, 07:18 PM
Let's all get along.

http://static2.fjcdn.com/thumbnails/comments/I+don+t+care+what+you+believe+let+s+all+just+get+_ e281c8ede0891f8e7178d8c30a029745.gif

Gunexpert007
06-18-2014, 09:56 PM
Hmmmm....very interesting....

Foxer
06-18-2014, 10:47 PM
Thanks for the info, but, I'm quite aware of the "why they do it". Doesn't mean I have to like it or support it.
It means you don't have to like it. "support' doesn't enter into it.


No, thats not what I'm saying. Any group that wants political recognition needs to fundraise, thats a given.

And any gov't that wants to survive needs to gauge the reaction of their policies before they put them forward. That's a given too. It's just the way it is.


Who's sitting around? You keep implying that notion when referring to others that don't follow your reasoning on matters of state.
Settle down there sparky. The point was simple - worrying less about what we 'like' and 'don't like' and worrying more about what we can do now within the realities we face is going to get us farther. You made the 'counting chickens' comment - i simply addressed that.

And take your own advice. I'll say what I like - don't like it don't read it. Pretty simple.

CLW .45
06-20-2014, 09:41 PM
On June 10 I wrote to Scott Reid, MP and Steven Blaney, Stephen Harper, Mike Lake, and Sheldon Clare were copied.


Subject: Firearms Law

Scott

In May I wrote to Steven Blaney.

"This situation is not just about the reclassification of two rifles.

Canadian firearms law has only one purpose - to disarm you.

Two wicked lies form the basis for that endeavour.

- Some guns are just too dangerous for you to have.

- You have police to protect you.

The legislation you are about to bring forward must be very clear in refuting those lies.

It must send a clear message that:

THE PEOPLE OF CANADA MUST NOT BE DISARMED.

That YOU must not be disarmed."

A few days ago three members of the RCMP were killed, and two injured, by an armed assassin.

As I watched the initial news coverage, I remembered a conversation with a member some twenty five years ago. Two armoured car guards had been shot down, on an escalator in a department store, and we were discussing the role of a citizen with a permit to carry a pistol to protect life. Canada has always had provision for that.

I pointed out some of the concerns about intervening.

His response, "If I were being attacked, I would hope that you would not hesitate to stop the assailant."

It seems that a person in a position to take pictures and video would be in a position to stop a killer.

It is not possible, through legislation, to prevent killers from acting. At the same time, it does not take a badge and a gun to stop an assassin - a gun will suffice.

Swampdonkey
06-21-2014, 09:59 PM
The CPC has much to gain from another meaningful repeal of firearms laws. Once is never, but twice is a pattern. They'll own us.

Joe549
06-22-2014, 11:14 AM
What the hell is Brand X???

hercster
06-22-2014, 11:30 AM
What the hell is Brand X???

Brand X = CGN..... it's a play on the old advertising phrase

Foxer
06-22-2014, 04:02 PM
The CPC has much to gain from another meaningful repeal of firearms laws. Once is never, but twice is a pattern. They'll own us.
well - i don't know about 'owning' :) but it will indeed show that when we speak with one voice and demand something we can get results with them. We won't get that from the libs or ndp.

Billythreefeathers
06-22-2014, 04:19 PM
I'm in for a couple more letters

conger
06-22-2014, 09:14 PM
Same here.

Sent from my SGH-I747M using Tapatalk

CLW .45
07-07-2014, 06:59 PM
Nice little list, but nothing that actually changes the essential nature of the law. Some may be happy with that.

I want something more substantial.

Before I get into what kind of change that would be, let's try to put one thing to rest.

I'm not concerned, nor should you be, about the response it would get from the general public.

Why?

If the change is in place six months before the election, it just won't be an issue.

As for the antis, they will whine and moan whether the only change is allowing the Swiss Arms/CZ858 owners to keep their rifles and shoot them on the range, or the entire law and regulations are repealed.

That said, what do we want?

I want to be able to use, carry, and possess firearms for whatever purpose I deem appropriate, wherever and whenever I deem appropriate, with no government agent looking over my shoulder. That means I must accept you doing the same.

Now, to our current situation. Two rifles were reclassified to prohibited, and many who were sleeping awoke.

We have an opportunity to have changes made because of that. It is my understanding that the government wants the changes made before the election.


Realistically, that limits the number of changes. What has been mentioned in trial balloons?

- The Swiss Arms/CZ858 status

- Restrictions on the use, carriage and possession of restricted firearms.

- RCMP overreach.

Taken one at a time, what constitutes substantial change in each case? Minor changes to regulation and policy, that don't materially change the nature of the law, just don't qualify.


Let's deal with the issue of the RCMP/CFO first.

Their overreach is designed into the law. What follows goes a long way toward resolving that issue.

Now, the Swiss Arms/CZ858 owners must be made whole.


The best way to accomplish that is to repeal the prohibited class. It is a simple change, many more people benefit, and it signals a change in the nature of firearms regulation.

What other substantial change can be made so simply, with such an impact, and virtually no potential for a nasty surprise when the legislation is passed?

Now to the restricted classification. Aside from the existence of the classification, what is the major issue?

May I suggest that it is the discretion conferred upon the CFO with regard to obtaining, carrying, and transporting?


Substantial change would remove the requirement to be "convinced" of "need" to possess to protect life, or for use in connection with lawful profession or occupation, or the validity of one's "wish" to possess for target practice or a collection - from section 28 of the firearms act.

Substantial change would remove the limitation that an authorization to carry may only be issued if the individual "needs" the firearm or handgun to protect life, or for use in connection with lawful profession or occupation - from section 20 of the firearms act and regulations pursuant to section 20.

Substantial change would remove the requirement for an authorization to transport restricted firearms, leaving you to determine what constitutes "good and sufficient reason" - as you comply with the requirements of the transport of restricted firearms regulations with which we are all familiar.

Again, I could go on.

Let's go for substantial change.

Those are the areas of change that were mentioned.

It behooves us to advise Mssrs Blaney, Harper, MacKay, our MP, the CSSA, and the NFA that we are satisfied with the above as an appropriate show of good faith, to be enacted prior to the election, but that the changes must be done in the specified manner.

killer kane
07-08-2014, 12:29 AM
On June 10 I wrote to Scott Reid, MP and Steven Blaney, Stephen Harper, Mike Lake, and Sheldon Clare were copied.

Hmmmm, seems pretty true to me, lets see if our overlords feel the same.