PDA

View Full Version : Amnesty Extension Confusion



Mad Hatter
08-01-2014, 11:58 PM
OK. Blaney says we can use them. But, read the actual document and well... Here it is in lay terms from Shawn Bevins:


DIFFICULT TO UNDERSTAND?
CZ & Swiss Arms are still prohibited and there are no approved ranges outside of military ranges. It clearly says in the amnesty that you can only transport to an approved range or club. Which means you cannot fire them on public or private property. The CFO's approve the ranges and there are none that you can fire prohibs at. Doing so would expose you to potential charges which will probably be thrown out of court (eventually) but you will be charged, your guns will be seized and you will need to pay for a lawyer. End of story.

So my question is: WTF?? Did Blaney screw up? Or was this intentional to make changes without actually making changes? Because he clearly said that they could be used "...as before." A scam? I'm really confused. Apparently when this question was posed over on the CSSA FB page, the poster was insulted, the thread deleted and the CSSA has gone silent on the whole issue.

Or, are we to take the spirit of the amnesty literally and use them? According to the BC CFO as per Civil Advantage, the answer is yes. According to the PQ CFO, the answer is no. And according to parliamentary privilege, Blaney can say anything and not be held accountable even if it is false, blatantly or otherwise.

ReignCzech
08-02-2014, 02:20 AM
I have had a couple NR 58 & 858 not long term preserved out, the sky didn't fall, no magick RCMP or bush fairies nor black helicopters.
No fines, confiscations, charges etc.

RobSmith
08-02-2014, 05:12 AM
As I understand it, it's actually worse than that. Even if the CFO wanted to approve a range for prohibited long guns, they can't. It's hardcoded in law that prohibited long guns can only be discharged at DND facilities. That's the reason why SAPs are no longer being issued (for the purpose of shooting prohibited long guns), because there are no ranges where such an activity is legal. Oh, and I don't believe in coincidences, Mr Blaney knew full well what he was doing ...


OK. Blaney says we can use them. But, read the actual document and well... Here it is in lay terms from Shawn Bevins:



So my question is: WTF?? Did Blaney screw up? Or was this intentional to make changes without actually making changes? Because he clearly said that they could be used "...as before." A scam? I'm really confused. Apparently when this question was posed over on the CSSA FB page, the poster was insulted, the thread deleted and the CSSA has gone silent on the whole issue.

Or, are we to take the spirit of the amnesty literally and use them? According to the BC CFO as per Civil Advantage, the answer is yes. According to the PQ CFO, the answer is no. And according to parliamentary privilege, Blaney can say anything and not be held accountable even if it is false, blatantly or otherwise.

stevesummit
08-02-2014, 06:42 AM
So who's the asshole that decided a FN can't be shot next to a XCR-M? That's a serious flaw in the whole inner workings of this mess .

Oh wait that's the idea for the guys with 12/x status if you can't shoot them you don't need them !! I forgot about that part of this whole agenda

Gaidheal
08-02-2014, 07:23 AM
So who's the asshole that decided a FN can't be shot next to a XCR-M? That's a serious flaw in the whole inner workings of this mess .

Oh wait that's the idea for the guys with 12/x status if you can't shoot them you don't need them !! I forgot about that part of this whole agenda

LIBERALS :mad1:

Strewth
08-02-2014, 08:34 AM
OK. Blaney says we can use them. But, read the actual document and well... Here it is in lay terms from Shawn Bevins:



So my question is: WTF?? Did Blaney screw up? Or was this intentional to make changes without actually making changes? Because he clearly said that they could be used "...as before." A scam? I'm really confused. Apparently when this question was posed over on the CSSA FB page, the poster was insulted, the thread deleted and the CSSA has gone silent on the whole issue.

Or, are we to take the spirit of the amnesty literally and use them? According to the BC CFO as per Civil Advantage, the answer is yes. According to the PQ CFO, the answer is no. And according to parliamentary privilege, Blaney can say anything and not be held accountable even if it is false, blatantly or otherwise.

I think we have to wait for a magic government stamp on a piece of paper or on a website before we'll know for sure; having said that I screencaptured and printed what Rod found on his Civil Advantage video, bought my 858 back from Mike in Canmore, and went to the range with some nice cheap corrosive ammo:). No three headed puppies were found imploded on the side of the road, and the Moon is still up there, so I'm assuming I'm good....

The preceding is not legal advice, although I've eaten bacon in a Holiday Inn. I'm also in Chilliwack, not downtown Toronto.

RangeBob
08-02-2014, 08:49 AM
from elsewhere


Always read the fine print. Let's look at what is really going on here.
The CZ & Swiss family of firearms are still prohibited. Meaning you cannot sell or buy these firearms. Unless licensed for prohibited firearms.

You cannot hunt or target shoot on private or public land with these rifles as the Order in council only allows for transport to approved ranges or sport shooting events.

CFO's control range approval and very few civilian clubs or ranges (reserved for mainly Military bases) are approved for prohibited firearms.

Quebec CFO ordered owners under threat of legal consequence not to transport or use these firearms under the premise that no Quebec Ranges have been approved for prohibited firearms. Will others Provinces follow suit?

This is not a fix.

There are 3 options for solutions. The first is an Order In Council to unilaterally Non-Restrict these rifles under the authority granted to the Minister in section 117.15 of the Criminal Code(not a permanent fix and could be changed by an opposing Minister)

Or second accept the modifications that were done on these firearms as they were accepted when legally imported into Canada. Similar to a rivet on a 30 round magazine. 117.14 (1) says (b) permitting alterations to be made to any prohibited firearm, prohibited weapon, prohibited device or prohibited ammunition to which the order relates so that it no longer qualifies as a prohibited firearm, a prohibited weapon, a prohibited device or prohibited ammunition, as the case may be.

Or third get rid of firearm classification all together (a more permanent fix which requires legislation to change. Meaning an unfriendly Minister alone could not reverse it)


https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/76918135/2014-881-page-001.jpg
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/76918135/2014-881-page-002.jpg

Mad Hatter
08-02-2014, 09:10 AM
I would not make that detail of your reacquirement a public fact as the extension still explicitely prohibits their sale or purchase, and we have trolls...

Haywire1
08-02-2014, 09:50 AM
"Mike from Canmore" is a running joke since the death of the lgr.
I.e. "where are your rifles?"
"Sold em to Mike from Canmore"
Its a character from the old Royal Canadian Air Farce show

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike,_from_Canmore

Mad Hatter
08-02-2014, 10:08 AM
"Mike from Canmore" is a running joke since the death of the lgr.
I.e. "where are your rifles?"
"Sold em to Mike from Canmore"
Its a character from the old Royal Canadian Air Farce show

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike,_from_Canmore

Where have I been?

http://i768.photobucket.com/albums/xx328/myakey/3stooges_face_palm_zps9a6c1eda.jpg

Mad Hatter
08-02-2014, 03:24 PM
This just in...



Robert Alexander‎CSSA - Canadian Shooting Sports Association
2 hrs
Well, there's understandable confusion with the wording of the current Amendment to the Amnesty. So, here's what we know so far.
Agreed that the wording is less than stellar, and is in fact actively confusing.
However the Minister's intent, as stated publicly, and made clear to us (CSSA) in meetings is, indeed, that you be able to use the guns just as you did before, AND the lawyers at Justice have assured the Minister's office that the current wording does accomplish that.
Well, though I'm personally inclined to believe them -- Blaney's a stand-up guy -- it remains that the current wording is _not_ clear and we have asked the Minister's office and the Justice lawyers for clarification.
The lawyers maintain that the comma before "under the auspices" is to be understood as an "or" not an "and," such as in a list of items separated by commas.
"What's for lunch?"
"Well, we've got soup or salad, burgers, the tuna plate, chili, and you get a coke."
This is the most current info we have, and I'm just passing it on. That's what they're saying. We're waiting on clarification because, obviously, it's not intuitively clear to a normal reader of English. (Of course, gov't legislative-speak is not "normal-English.")
I don't personally own either of the firearms affected, so I don't have a hard decision to make about taking them out of the house. You'll each have to make that call yourselves, given the info we currently have.

RangeBob
08-02-2014, 06:04 PM
Robert Alexander‎CSSA - Canadian Shooting Sports Association
2 hrs
Well, there's understandable confusion with the wording of the current Amendment to the Amnesty. So, here's what we know so far.
Agreed that the wording is less than stellar, and is in fact actively confusing.
However the Minister's intent, as stated publicly, and made clear to us (CSSA) in meetings is, indeed, that you be able to use the guns just as you did before, AND the lawyers at Justice have assured the Minister's office that the current wording does accomplish that.
Well, though I'm personally inclined to believe them -- Blaney's a stand-up guy -- it remains that the current wording is _not_ clear and we have asked the Minister's office and the Justice lawyers for clarification.
The lawyers maintain that the comma before "under the auspices" is to be understood as an "or" not an "and," such as in a list of items separated by commas.
"What's for lunch?"
"Well, we've got soup or salad, burgers, the tuna plate, chili, and you get a coke."
This is the most current info we have, and I'm just passing it on. That's what they're saying. We're waiting on clarification because, obviously, it's not intuitively clear to a normal reader of English. (Of course, gov't legislative-speak is not "normal-English.")
I don't personally own either of the firearms affected, so I don't have a hard decision to make about taking them out of the house. You'll each have to make that call yourselves, given the info we currently have.

That still doesn't include hunting.



(e) use the firearm in target practice or at a target shooting competition, under the auspices of a shooting club or shooting range that is approved under section 29 of the Firearms Act, and, for that purpose, transport the firearm in accordance with,

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/76918135/2014-881-page-002.jpg