PDA

View Full Version : Response from my local MP



Jay.ec
03-29-2018, 10:42 PM
Around noon (on the 29th) I received this response from my local MP from OCV campaign 1. (I'm not going to say which one, just because it kinda narrows down where I live to a point that I'm not comfortable with.) I suspect it's a generic email response anyway so I'm not sure if it's worth my time to reply again. (Perhaps I'm wrong here? Maybe it is an actual response? Has anyone else gotten similar replies?) But still might be worth a share anyway.



Dear <My Name>

Thank you for writing to me regarding the government’s proposed Bill C-71, An Act to amend certain Acts and Regulations in relation to Firearms. I appreciate you taking the time to apprise me of your concerns on this issue. Prior to drafting this bill, our government consulted gun owners and businesses extensively and heard their priorities and concerns. One of our key objectives was to not create an undue burden on law-abiding gun owners and businesses. I believe this bill strikes the correct balance between respect for gun owners and safety measures.

As you know, Canada is one of the safest countries in the world. However, we are still seeing an increase in gun crimes, which are taking too many lives from our communities. 2016 alone saw 223 firearms-related homicides in Canada, a 23 percent increase from the year before.


To combat this growing problem, we are providing $327 million over five years — and $100 million per year after that — in new funding for initiatives to reduce criminal gang activities and associated gun crimes. Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, Ralph Goodale, also recently convened a National Summit on Guns and Gangs to hear from provinces and territories, municipalities, police, border officials, and community groups who are at the forefront of efforts to fight against violence, particularly domestic violence.


To complement this work, our government is proposing a series of measures that represent a reasonable and practical approach to firearms policy that will help make our communities less vulnerable to violence from firearms. We consulted widely before drafting Bill C-71, and as a result, we are putting forward a bill that will enhance public safety while maintaining a fair and manageable framework for law-abiding firearms owners and businesses.


First, I want to be clear that this bill does not re-create a federal long-gun registry. We are not bringing it back, and we will never bring it back.


What the bill does propose is to require firearms retailers to maintain a record of firearms sales, something that is already a common practice throughout the industry and is the law in all 50 U.S. states. The information would not be shared with the government, but would be accessible to law enforcement in cases where there are reasonable grounds to do so, and judicial authorization as required.

With respect to license validations, the proposed approach would require the buyer’s license to be verified at the time of sale for all firearms purchases. For private sales between individuals, the seller would simply be required to verify that the buyer’s license is valid, but would not be required to maintain any record following the transaction. No information about any non-restricted firearms being purchased is sought or recorded.

Importantly, we are also proposing to enhance background checks on those seeking to acquire firearms. Currently, only the previous five years may be taken into account when applying for a firearms license. We are proposing to take into account an individual’s full life history, including any history of mental illness associated with violence, or a history of violent offences. We are only proposing changes to the timeline taken into account, and are not otherwise changing the criteria or parameters that are considered.

Bill C-71 also proposes some changes to the cases in which an authorization to transport (ATT) will be required in order to transport restricted or prohibited firearms. Under our proposed rules, an ATT will not be required for transportation of these firearms between the owner’s residence and an approved shooting range, or between the retailer and the owner’s home directly following the purchase of a firearm. This accounts for over 90 percent of all travel with restricted and prohibited weapons. The process for acquiring an ATT will be simple, there will be no fee, and they will be available electronically. For firearms such as shotguns and hunting rifles, the rules will not change.

Lastly, the bill proposes to ensure the impartial, professional, accurate and consistent classification of firearms by restoring the system in which Parliament defines the classes of firearms and their parameters, and experts in the RCMP make the technical determination about the class into which a particular firearm falls. This will keep technical decisions on firearm classification free from political influence.

As a government, we have no greater responsibility than keeping Canadians safe. I believe this can be done while still respecting law-abiding gun owners and businesses. These proposed measures are fair, effective, and practical, and will help us do just that.

Thank you again for writing to me on this important issue. I encourage you to continue sharing your views going forward so that I can best represent you in Ottawa.

Sincerely,
<MP's name>

Ingots
03-29-2018, 11:20 PM
Email him back. Tell him you don't want to be safe. Tell him you want to be free.

RangeBob
03-30-2018, 12:20 AM
On the topic of safe, you could use the No Duty To Protect, Violent Crime Stats, CFO ATC3 refusal, Locke body -> right to life -> weapon, Stalked women rights, John Lott most effective weapon, arguments.

For most of the rest, you could use the arguments posted here
http://www.gunownersofcanada.ca/showthread.php?46882-C71-Up-for-Second-Reading-March-26

For the 'firearm classification free from political influence' note that they are retaining the power for the minister to move firearms into the restricted and prohibited categories, at political whim, overriding RCMP decisions. That this Bill C71, about to be voted upon by politicians, overrides the current RCMP Firearms Reference Table classification entries, for Swiss Arms and CZ858. That the Firearms Act contains this list of named firearms, again overriding the Criminal Code definitions, by politicians (and give the entire several page list of them).

Doug_M
03-30-2018, 08:05 AM
Starting to see what must be talking points distributed to Liberal MP's. If you reply make sure you mention that despite some recent upticks in homicides with firearms, statistically (over a ten year period minimum) the trend is still downwards. And 2013, which the Minister of Public Safety has mentioned many times, cannot be used as a base of comparison as it is extremely anomalous such that even the CBC called him out on it.

Sent from my SM-T350 using Tapatalk

Magi
03-30-2018, 08:48 AM
...I'm not sure if it's worth my time to reply again.

I am also not entirely sure it's worth the effort but if you do, be sure to thank him for regurgitating C-71, the content's of which you were already familiar with, hence your original e-mail to him!

greywolf67nt
03-30-2018, 09:15 AM
Hardly a response from your "local MP". We literally live on opposite sides of the country and the response from mine was the exact same letter except there was one line about him being a hunter.
These are just a Liberal form letter so we know our MPs are not even trying to think for themselves.

CLW .45
03-30-2018, 10:56 AM
What is the text of the letter he responded to?

Your response, and yes it is worth responding, should be informed by that.

Dmytro Bryushkov
03-30-2018, 12:02 PM
The gun control in Canada is already unreasonably tough. The worst point- is a spousal consent. Very few wifes would permit their husbands to have guns for hunting, as it means their absence from home. Try to guess, how many tackle stores will stay to operate in 2 years, if a spousal consent is required for fishing license. Probably, very few!
How many diverse women want to give permission for their former husbands to own even a long gun? I will be not mistaken, telling- none!
I can tell that parliament members want to reduce number of the gun crimes, based on conclusion: no guns- no crimes. If to follow the same logic, we may be able to reduce number of motor- vehicle accidents to 0, if car ownership is banned.

Rory McCanuck
03-30-2018, 12:39 PM
The gun control in Canada is already unreasonably tough. The worst point- is a spousal consent. Very few wifes would permit their husbands to have guns for hunting, as it means their absence from home. Try to guess, how many tackle stores will stay to operate in 2 years, if a spousal consent is required for fishing license. Probably, very few!
How many diverse women want to give permission for their former husbands to own even a long gun? I will be not mistaken, telling- none!
I can tell that parliament members want to reduce number of the gun crimes, based on conclusion: no guns- no crimes. If to follow the same logic, we may be able to reduce number of motor- vehicle accidents to 0, if car ownership is banned.
I can say with absolute certainty that at least one has.
In fact, when the CFO's office talked to her, she made a point of saying she wanted me to have guns, as she quite likes getting the care packages of venison.
Not everyone that ends a relationship turns petty and vindictive to the person that at one point they decided to spend the rest of their lives with.