PDA

View Full Version : Canada’s gun owners shouldn’t expect much help from Ottawa



jwirecom109
05-28-2012, 03:46 PM
Gun owners who thought they had a friend in the Conservative government in Ottawa are in for a nasty surprise. It would seem that, having delivered on its promise to scrap the long-gun registry, the federal Tories feel that they’ve paid their dues to Canada’s lawful firearms owners. From here on in, the Conservatives won’t be doing gun owners any favours.

The federal government recently quietly announced that, effective this September, it will begin charging firearms licence holders to renew their licences. The licences are required to possess a firearm, or to purchase ammunition, and must be renewed every five years. As of September, those who hold a licence for restricted or prohibited firearms will need to plunk down $80 for the paperwork. By next May, those seeking to renew a licence for non-restricted firearms — hunting rifles and most shotguns — will have to fork over $60.

This isn’t a lot of money, and will only raise about $15-million in revenue a year. But it’s enough to anger many of Canada’s gun owners, who view any gun control measure with suspicion and dislike. There’s probably a lot of Conservative MPs who would agree with that philosophically … but politics is politics. The Tories felt comfortable scrapping the long-gun registry because it was unpopular with many Canadians, not just gun owners, largely due to its wastefulness. But that doesn’t mean Prime Minister Stephen Harper is going to let his party be seen by moderates, particularly urban voters, as pro-gun.

The money raised from the licensing fees supports the federal government’s program of licensing firearms, and also sustains the registries for restricted and prohibited firearms, which were not affected by the recent scrapping of the long-gun registry. The fees were also part of the original licensing system, but have been waived by the Tories since they took office in 2006. The waivers were always intended to be time-limited, and the Tories extended them twice, for political purposes — waiving the fees associated with lawful gun ownership was a gesture intended to placate Canada’s gun owners until such time that the Tories had enough support in Parliament to scrap the long-gun registry.

But that’s done. Gun owners no longer need to register their hunting rifles and shotguns. The Tories are no doubt betting that that will be enough to buy continued support, both financial and electoral, from Canada’s gun owners. They’re probably right. Those who don’t own firearms simply cannot comprehend how utterly reviled the long-gun registry was. It was enough to make single-issue-voters out of many gun owners. They will want to reward the party that ultimately delivered on their promise to kill it.

And the Tories know it. Eliminating the long-gun registry was politically clever — to gun owners, it was interpreted as a dislike of gun control, to everyone else, it was eliminating a wasteful boondoggle. But Canada’s firearms owners still have many legitimate grievances concerning the restrictive, overly broad and at times unclear provisions of the Firearms Act. They want it substantially revised or scrapped altogether.

That won’t happen. While the Conservatives felt comfortable getting rid of the long-gun registry, that’s as far as they’re likely to go. To go much further risks being slammed as being pro-gun, forced to respond defensively after every incident of gun violence anywhere in the country (but particularly in the cities). The Tories are having their cake and eating it to — having scrapped the registry, they can still point to the fact that they still require gun owners to be licenced, and register handguns and military-style rifles. And now, they’re making the gun owners pay the cost of the gun control regime again.

In other words, the Tories are saying we’re not against gun control. We’re all for it. It was simply the registry that we didn’t like.

This will leave the gun owners who cheered the end of the long-gun registry, and hoped for more progress, with a bad taste in their mouth. Some will probably even stop donating or stay home on the next election day. The Tories know this. But they know that having all the gun owners in the country behind them won’t matter if they can’t hold Toronto and its suburbs. It’s smart politics. Canada’s gun owners will just have to content themselves with the fact that the long-gun registry is no more. That’s all they’re likely to get.

National Post
mgurney@nationalpost.com

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2012/05/28/matt-gurney-canadas-gun-owners-shouldnt-expect-much-help-from-ottawa/

hillbillyr
05-28-2012, 04:04 PM
Surprised?

Sadly I am not at all.

Gary's bill was kyboshed early on, his bill had some actual changes that benefited gun owners. Removing the registry was symbolic, nothing has really changed.

blacksmithden
05-28-2012, 04:25 PM
It's one opinion, and nothing more. I'm not impressed with the Cons reintroducing fees, but I'm not ready to throw them out just yet. Sometimes, just being left alone is better than the alternatives.

RobSmith
05-28-2012, 05:35 PM
So let me get this straight, are the fees for non-restricted back in place ? Or not ? (will have to send my renewal within the next few weeks).

Tbolt
05-29-2012, 08:43 AM
If you're sending it in within the next few weeks you are ok.

Jim
05-30-2012, 08:19 AM
I just had mine renewed.Res. and pro-hib. , no chrge and only two weeks, but the five years kind of makes me mad.

killer kane
05-30-2012, 06:00 PM
And we just got an envelope with a plea for more money to fight the evil dippers.......

FightingShiba's
05-30-2012, 08:51 PM
Just need to keep on them, join the CSSA or the NFA and keep up the fight for our rights. Can't say as I am surprised though.

lone-wolf
05-30-2012, 10:04 PM
I paid $30 the other day for a trout fishing license! No wonder I don't see people trout fishing anymore.

Ridiculous the fees we pay.

jrcbecher
05-31-2012, 12:47 AM
Sad but its beginning to look that way Harper has done nothing to bring the arrogant CFO'S into line and obey a bill passed in Parliament.Ques he needs a lesson in leadership or something.The Cons called today for money and I told them to go pound salt and finish what they started then we would think about it.

Slice
05-31-2012, 04:31 AM
Harper has no buisness trying to bring the CFO's into line. Politicians shouldn't be dictationg terms to law enforcement officials in any circumstances. Let's face it, politicians are bad enough at writting laws, the last thing you should be hoping for is that they dictate how those laws are enforced.

hillbillyr
05-31-2012, 07:33 AM
Harper has no buisness trying to bring the CFO's into line. Politicians shouldn't be dictationg terms to law enforcement officials in any circumstances. Let's face it, politicians are bad enough at writting laws, the last thing you should be hoping for is that they dictate how those laws are enforced.

So let the bueocrats continue to run amok then? Your concept is very scary, it is up to Parlemant if nessicary to put down treason and defiance of the spirit and intent of the law when it is not being upheld.

The last thing I want is for any policing organization to decide in what way it interpret the law and then to use those laws as a way to pursue personal and social re-engineering agendas, ohhh wait paging Bill Blair and the Ontario crown

Slice
05-31-2012, 01:36 PM
I'd perfer that the courts handle interpretation of law. If police are defying the spirit and intent of the law, it is up to the judiciary, not the legislature, to decide what to do about it.

If law enforcement policy is decided by people whose concept of reality is based on starting every sentence with "Mr. Speaker...", law enforcement would quickly become ineffective. We can already see this kind of political tampering taking it's toll on police forces... excuse me, police services across the country.

If the police are prusuing social re-engineering agendas, it's because the politicians have been telling them to do it.

RobSmith
05-31-2012, 02:31 PM
On the other hand it leads to "Al Dente" policing and prosecution ie: Let's see if it'll stick. Not really an acceptable situation in my mind. Elected officials are "people's representatives" first and foremost (and therefore best suited to represent what the people want to see happening), police and prosecutors are not.


I'd perfer that the courts handle interpretation of law. If police are defying the spirit and intent of the law, it is up to the judiciary, not the legislature, to decide what to do about it.

If law enforcement policy is decided by people whose concept of reality is based on starting every sentence with "Mr. Speaker...", law enforcement would quickly become ineffective. We can already see this kind of political tampering taking it's toll on police forces... excuse me, police services across the country.

If the police are prusuing social re-engineering agendas, it's because the politicians have been telling them to do it.

hillbillyr
05-31-2012, 06:05 PM
I'd perfer that the courts handle interpretation of law. If police are defying the spirit and intent of the law, it is up to the judiciary, not the legislature, to decide what to do about it.

If law enforcement policy is decided by people whose concept of reality is based on starting every sentence with "Mr. Speaker...", law enforcement would quickly become ineffective. We can already see this kind of political tampering taking it's toll on police forces... excuse me, police services across the country.

If the police are prusuing social re-engineering agendas, it's because the politicians have been telling them to do it.

I would argue we are seeing negative influences on the police services via out of control unelected bureaucrats that do NOT answer to the courts, Canadian tax payers or anyone else for that matter. Look at Chris Wyatt, he is abusing his position as an unelected quasi political to defy the spirit of the law becuase he is 100% unaccountable. He does not have to answer to the Courts, tax payers or voters. The only group left is the MP's, like it or not.

The system that has been created has gone far past the courts sorting it out, look at the Samsone case and worse yet, the Thompson debacle. Europe is already so far gone it is unsalvageable and perhaps North America is as well, Eric Holder comes to mind.

I will give you one more example. The head of the RCMP has had to ask the CPC to change the laws to allow him to more easily fire officers guilty of discracefull conduct, the courts are not an option

stevebc
06-01-2012, 10:56 AM
I'd perfer that the courts handle interpretation of law. If police are defying the spirit and intent of the law, it is up to the judiciary, not the legislature, to decide what to do about it.

If law enforcement policy is decided by people whose concept of reality is based on starting every sentence with "Mr. Speaker...", law enforcement would quickly become ineffective. We can already see this kind of political tampering taking it's toll on police forces... excuse me, police services across the country.

If the police are prusuing social re-engineering agendas, it's because the politicians have been telling them to do it.

In your system, gov't must go cap in hand to ask "pretty please, Supreme Court, may we enact these laws and have them enforced?" In other words, the judiciary are running the country. Since we don't elect the judiciary... where does that leave us?

Prince Jimmy
06-01-2012, 12:36 PM
Do sustenance hunters still get the fee waiver? :-)

no2fembots
06-01-2012, 01:24 PM
I'm concerned that a Fed that distances itself from the legitimate concerns of firearms owners will turn a blind eye toward the evil gun grabbing NDP gummit that may be the order of the day in one year.

Other than leaving the province, what could we do?

jrcbecher
06-02-2012, 06:07 PM
If Harper has to take the CFO to court whats he waitting for or he can make one phone call to Dalton spend all and tell him to clear this matter up or else.