PDA

View Full Version : MP's roundtable targets firearms bill



Doug_M
04-11-2018, 05:50 AM
http://www.princegeorgecitizen.com/news/local-news/mp-s-roundtable-targets-firearms-bill-1.23261199

MP's roundtable targets firearms bill

The federal Liberals' new firearms bill was heavily criticized during a roundtable discussion Prince George-Peace River-Northern Rockies MP Bob Zimmer hosted Monday.

A major point of concern was the lack of a process for appealing the classification of a firearm. A section of Bill C-71 would take away cabinet's power to override RCMP's decisions on such matters.

A nonpartisan board that would include other stakeholders as well as the RCMP, should be given the responsibility, argued one of the 11 people who attended the meeting at the Conservative MP's Prince George office.

"I think that would be one thing that would make it a lot easier for the firearms community to accept," said Brock Bailey, the sporting clays director for the Prince George Rod and Gun Club.

Whether to classify a firearm as non-restricted, restricted or prohibited is often based on the ease with which it can be converted from semi-automatic to automatic. But what can be achieved in an RCMP laboratory may not be so straight forward for a regular person, Bailey contended.

"In the (RCMP) firearms lab, they have all the tools and machines, etcetera and work on those things for quite awhile and make things fit," he said.

It was one of a number of concerns raised during the meeting which drew other members of the PGRGC, a handful of guide outfitters, a gun-rights advocate and one non-gun owner.

Federal public safety minister Ralph Goodale pointed to a rise in gang-related homicides in which a gun was used as the reason the bill calls for extending background checks for criminal activity to a purchaser's entire life from five years. According to the ministry gun homicides doubled over four years, rising to 223 in 2016, with over half of them gang related.

Depending on how the provincial governments respond, the background checks could include an examination of the purchaser's mental-health history.

Looking back over a person's entire life raised questions for PGRGC secretary Roy Nagel, particularly when if it's applied to mental health.

"Do you go back to the point when Johnny was 14 and he used a slingshot to clear the cats off the front lawn and therefore he has the tendency to mistreat animals? Who knows where this can go?," he said.

"Five years I always thought was adequate. If they wanted to go 10, I suppose that might be a bargaining point. But going back over a person's entire life to find anything that could disqualify a person from owning and using a firearm is extreme and I don't believe it is necessary.

"We live in the present. Most of the things we do are dictated by our experiences over the past five years or so."

Gun retailers will also be required to keep records of firearms inventory and sales for at least 20 years and require the purchaser of a hunting rifle or shotgun to present a firearms licence, while the seller would have to ensure its validity. That move was roundly criticized as amounting to a "back-door registry" for long guns.

Charles Scott, who sits on a Conservative electoral district association, was the only person who does not own a gun who attended the meeting. He said the bill caters to a concern that "greater fire power equates to greater body count" and suggested there are more important priorities Zimmer could pursue.

Others suggested more thorough education on how Canada's gun laws work, along with a more assertive publicity campaign, would help clear the air.

"It will pull the fuse out of the people who are gun control crazy and make it more apparent to the public out there, especially the news coverage, to show that there are sensible, reasonable people from all walks of life who know how to smooth out the humps of this thing and how to make our society safer without threatening individual privileges," Nagel said. "And they're privileges not rights."

Zimmer said he hosted the event to get a sense of the direction he should take on the issue and had invited people in favour of tighter controls on firearms to attend but none took up his offer. He said the bill will be headed to committee when the House of Commons reconvenes next week.

Doug_M
04-11-2018, 05:51 AM
Comments are open. Mine:


QUOTE: Charles Scott, who sits on a Conservative electoral district association, was the only person who does not own a gun who attended the meeting. He said the bill caters to a concern that "greater fire power equates to greater body count" and suggested there are more important priorities Zimmer could pursue.

Can this admitted non-gun owner qualify "greater fire power"? Can he point to an existing problem with the "fire power" currently available to Canadians? Is he aware that 2013 was such an anomalous year in terms of homicide that it was lower than any year preceding it until you get to the mid 60s? Is he aware it was so anomalous that it was lower in firearms homicides for any year preceding it since such records were kept (1974)? Is he aware that C-71 does not change the definition of what constitutes a prohibited firearm under the Firearms Act but that the Liberals are proposing to eliminate their own ability to correct a mistake by the RCMP? Is he aware that the petition to scrap C-71 is currently sitting at 3rd place (that includes open AND ended petitions) in total signatures and that it achieved that position in just a week? Is he aware that C-71 does not address criminals or gun crime? Is he aware that the registrar/transfer system will require the same infrastructure as the boondoggle long gun registry? Has he read and understood the bill?

More importantly, conservatives in this region need to join the EDA so that they outnumber Mr. Scott. It is cheap and easy to do.

And that last bit is very important. If you live in this region and you do not join that EDA to outnumber Scott then you are NOT in the fight against gun control.

RangeBob
04-11-2018, 06:53 AM
At first read, I thought the reporter had sought out the only person there who agreed with the Bill and then devoted a paragraph to him. (In the style of Suzanna Gratia Hupp's "hic Guns Is Good" In Camo observation.)
But Roy Nagel's last sentence confirms Doug_m's observation -- we not only have to outnumber Scott, but also Nagel.

It's a Quashed Right.

Grimlock
04-11-2018, 07:41 AM
"It will pull the fuse out of the people who are gun control crazy and make it more apparent to the public out there, especially the news coverage, to show that there are sensible, reasonable people from all walks of life who know how to smooth out the humps of this thing and how to make our society safer without threatening individual privileges," Nagel said. "And they're privileges not rights."

Sounds like PGRGC needs a new secretary.

chuckbuster
04-11-2018, 09:09 AM
Huh...I read Charles Scott's statement to mean that there are more important things to pursue than what is being rammed through in C-71. Granted, he could have worded it better in regards to the "firepower" reference, but still, I took his statement to mean that C-71 was misguided. Have I misread or missed something...?

Doug_M
04-11-2018, 11:30 AM
I never thought of it that way. You could be right.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

Magi
04-11-2018, 02:15 PM
We need to fight the "And they're privileges not rights." myth with everything we can muster. Gun ownership is not a privilege it is a right and has been for hundreds of years. A privilege is what a higher power grants, our government is not a higher a power, our elected officials are not a higher power, they are elected to serve the people. The servant can't grant the master privileges any more than the tail can wag the dog.

Of course the way we're going it wont be long before our kids start granting us parent privileges too!

RangeBob
04-11-2018, 02:43 PM
We need to fight the "And they're privileges not rights." myth with everything we can muster. Gun ownership is not a privilege it is a right and has been for hundreds of years. A privilege is what a higher power grants, our government is not a higher a power, our elected officials are not a higher power, they are elected to serve the people. The servant can't grant the master privileges any more than the tail can wag the dog.

Of course the way we're going it wont be long before our kids start granting us parent privileges too!

In Canada you have to start with the Supreme Court's statement on the topic


the fact that possession and use of firearms is not a right or freedom guaranteed under the Charter, but a privilege. It is also a heavily regulated activity, requiring potential gun-owners to obtain a licence before they can legally purchase one.
-- R. v. Wiles 2005 http://canlii.ca/t/1m7f5

and work your way out. It was a case where the supreme court didn't want to give the defendant a firearm, and they found a way.


S.C.C. ruled firearms ownership is a privilege a couple of years ago.
I personally do not agree with that decision and am always looking for a case to take up to S.C.C. to challenge that idea.
The case was: R. v. Wiles 2005 S.C.J. No.53. The issue was the mandatory firearms prohibition affecting a person's job.
-- Mouthpiece http://www.canadiangunnutz.com/forum/showthread.php?t=499954

I start with that it's a Quashed Right. Which is to say that it was a right before 1995, asserted by the Constitution's adoption of previous bills of rights as binding, several Canadian MPs and Prime Ministers in the House of Commons stating it was a right, "Commentaries on the Laws of England" by Sir William Blackstone, the reasoning & history behind the US Second Amendment (beyond the militia bit) as acknowledged by the US supreme court, the works of historian Dr. Joyce Lee Malcolm (which were accepted by the US Supreme Court), and Dr. Edward B. Hudson's arguments to the Canadian court (unfortunately after R. v. Wiles 2005 so the lower court couldn't consider them).

And then make the same extension that the US Founding Fathers did. We have a right to life asserted by natural laws as described in detail by Locke, and affirmed by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Statistically, according to Kleck's analysis of National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) which does a detailed questionnaire of 250,000 households every year it's run, a firearm is the only weapon that improves your odds of surviving, reduces your odds of injury. Therefore, your right to life covers your right to own a firearm, and to use it defensively.
I tie that in with a series of stunning court cases, where police have not protected, or judges have asserted police don't 100% protect, and even a comment about how restraining orders aren't worth the paper they're printed on and how many mothers let their daughters wander about at night alone, and thus the ownership of firearms for protection is a right, a natural right, a real right. You don't often need your rights, but when you do and they're denied to you by your government, by your CFO denying you your ATC3, by police effectively denying you your ability to live and thus your right to life, making it a privilege is a violation of your charter right.

Bruce Montague's attorney gave the Right a bit of a try in 2014 before the Supreme Court, but really didn't do a good job at it. The supreme court ended up complying with it's own 2005 ruling, that it's a privilege.

CLW .45
04-11-2018, 04:44 PM
Neither the Supreme Court, Parliament, nor the individual has the authority to quash a right and turn it into a privilege.

Only a slave requires permission to go armed.

That is the primary difference between a free man and a slave.

When did chains become so light that we don’t notice them?

Gunrunner
04-12-2018, 05:01 AM
Neither the Supreme Court, Parliament, nor the individual has the authority to quash a right and turn it into a privilege.

Only a slave requires permission to go armed.

That is the primary difference between a free man and a slave.

When did chains become so light that we don’t notice them?

We Canadians are actually subjects.
A subject is a slave who thinks he's a free citizen.

Gunrunner
04-12-2018, 05:04 AM
A right is a freedom that we are willing to stand up and fight to defend.
No fight. No right.

RangeBob
04-12-2018, 09:06 AM
Self Defense: Is There a Right to Own a Gun?
April 2003
by Professor Michael Huemer PhD, University of Colorado-Boulder

Rights function to guard individuals’ autonomy, that is, their ability to pursue their plans for their own lives,

The main argument on the gun rights side goes like this:

1. The right of self-defense is an important right.

2. A firearms prohibition would be a significant violation of the right of self-defense.

3. Therefore, a firearms prohibition would be a serious rights-violation.

Violations of the right of self-defense are morally comparable to murder (and) serve to show that the right of self-defense must be a very weighty right.

Since gun prohibition is a significant violation of an extremely weighty right, we must conclude that it is a very serious rights-violation.

One cannot claim justified belief that gun prohibition would be overall beneficial.

The Benefits of Guns:

The number of lives saved by guns each year would exceed the number of gun homicides and suicides.

John Lott’s study strongly corroborates the theory that:
increased availability of guns to the general public results in decreased violent crime.

There is no case for overriding ... self-defense rights.

All mentally competent, noncriminal adults should therefore be allowed to own firearms.

The fewer impediments or costs are placed in the way of their doing so, the better, since any such impediments can be expected to decrease the rate at which victims defend themselves.

http://www.cufoa.ca/articles/must_read/must_read_article_april_2003.html
which in turn links to
http://www.owl232.net/papers/guncontrol.htm

Gunrunner
04-12-2018, 12:38 PM
Self Defense: Is There a Right to Own a Gun?
April 2003
by Professor Michael Huemer PhD, University of Colorado-Boulder

Rights function to guard individuals’ autonomy, that is, their ability to pursue their plans for their own lives,

The main argument on the gun rights side goes like this:

1. The right of self-defense is an important right.

2. A firearms prohibition would be a significant violation of the right of self-defense.

3. Therefore, a firearms prohibition would be a serious rights-violation.

Violations of the right of self-defense are morally comparable to murder (and) serve to show that the right of self-defense must be a very weighty right.

Since gun prohibition is a significant violation of an extremely weighty right, we must conclude that it is a very serious rights-violation.

One cannot claim justified belief that gun prohibition would be overall beneficial.

The Benefits of Guns:

The number of lives saved by guns each year would exceed the number of gun homicides and suicides.

John Lott’s study strongly corroborates the theory that:
increased availability of guns to the general public results in decreased violent crime.

There is no case for overriding ... self-defense rights.

All mentally competent, noncriminal adults should therefore be allowed to own firearms.

The fewer impediments or costs are placed in the way of their doing so, the better, since any such impediments can be expected to decrease the rate at which victims defend themselves.

http://www.cufoa.ca/articles/must_read/must_read_article_april_2003.html
which in turn links to
http://www.owl232.net/papers/guncontrol.htm

Many refuse to accept the fact that rights are not absolute or free.
If we are not willing to stand up and fight for our rights then we don’t have any rights.
There is a direct relationship between our vigilance and diligence in this regards and the continued existence of our rights.
Rights aren’t automatic or integral (built in) like our eyes, noses, hands and feet.
We all presume to have the right to security of our persons as in the sanctity of our homes.
Gun owners don’t realize that we lost that presumed right when the RCMP breached the homes of gun owners using illegally retained data from the c68 LGR to do so.
Nothing is more essential to a persons dignity and self respect than the sanctuary of their homes.
Our response - squat diddly except a bit of squawking on anonymous gun forums.
And yet here we are again whining to each other about another upcoming loss of our presumed rights.
Hope nobody is surprised that the Liberals and RCMP are very unconcerned about any meaningful recourse on our part.

Gunrunner
04-12-2018, 12:54 PM
If only the solution was as easy as posting gripes on the gunnie forums, plugging our information into a mass emailing program or an electronic petition and then having a snooze on the sofa with a newspaper draped over our faces hoping it will all go away by the time we wake up.

FallisCowboy
04-12-2018, 01:09 PM
Many refuse to accept the fact that rights are not absolute or free.
If we are not willing to stand up and fight for our rights then we donít have any rights.
There is a direct relationship between our vigilance and diligence in this regards and the continued existence of our rights.
Rights arenít automatic or integral (built in) like our eyes, noses, hands and feet.
We all presume to have the right to security of our persons as in the sanctity of our homes.
Gun owners donít realize that we lost that presumed right when the RCMP breached the homes of gun owners using illegally retained data from the c68 LGR to do so.
Nothing is more essential to a persons dignity and self respect than the sanctuary of their homes.
Our response - squat diddly except a bit of squawking on anonymous gun forums.
And yet here we are again whining to each other about another upcoming loss of our presumed rights.
Hope nobody is surprised that the Liberals and RCMP are very unconcerned about any meaningful recourse on our part.

I do agree with you about rights not being absolute or free. As the quote "the tree of liberty needs to be watered occasionally with the blood of patriots and tyrants" means. Our response has been much more than squawking and whining, however, the large, and indeterminate percentage of non-compliance with the former LGR was a passive response. Continued massive non-compliance with the new regulations is a continuous ongoing passive response. Even the High River incident was a passive test of our resolve by the other side. The real proof will happen when and if something escalates things from passive to active; when the first round of midnight visits to round up our guns happens; that will be the true test of whether this is a "right" or not. That will be point where "the rubber meets the road" for us each, as gun owners. Will you stand up and go "all in" in defense of this "right", for yourself and other gun owners; or quietly "fold" and live as a slave.

Gunrunner
04-12-2018, 02:27 PM
:agree:

Hypothetical situation:

When it's mid 2019 and they have TWO (2) CZ858s registered somebody in Ottawa might realize that there is a 'trust issue' between gun owners and the government/firearms control bureaucracy.

The c68 LGR data trust breach removed the scales off the eyes of even the most fervent fact deniers. The crassly stupid however might continue to believe in the integrity and good intentions of the Liberals & dudley do-right.

Gunrunner
04-12-2018, 03:37 PM
The posters who presume that c71 is a done deal because the Liberals have a majority and have made enough patronage deals to buy off any opposition in the senate need to realize this is true only if a majority of MPs vote ‘yea’ on 3rd reading.
We need to make it abundantly clear to ‘vulnerable’ incumbent MPs that it isn’t Trudeau they will be accounting to in 2019 it will be their constituents.
This is no time to bog down in the quagmire of eternal apathy and pessimism and resign ourselves to our fate like the Liberals are counting on us doing.
We have to put the pressure on our MPs and keep it on like the fate of our sport and guns depend on it because they do.
There is no ‘next time’ to wait for.
Next time is now.
It isn’t over until it’s over.

shortandlong
04-12-2018, 05:10 PM
Neither the Supreme Court, Parliament, nor the individual has the authority to quash a right and turn it into a privilege.

Only a slave requires permission to go armed.

That is the primary difference between a free man and a slave.

When did chains become so light that we donít notice them?

Yep thatís exactly the way it always has been , right back to Roman times

TomC
04-12-2018, 06:54 PM
We can harp all we want...we are outnumbered by the goodies...Never shy away from a sensible gun conversation...Never ever even hint that we may stray from the rules of our license...Be an active member of your local club, range, organization...don't wear gunny bumperstickers...they are tacky and invite unwanted confrontation...be smart about where you shoot...never ever brandish in public...take a noob out for a shoot...no touchin till you can recite the rules...no trigger time till you demonstrate that you actually understand...sign the petitions...be vocal to your MPs...yadda, yadda, yadda...all the stuff we do all the time anyways...Responsible gun owners and shooters are never in the news...we mind our manners and let the antis get the press time...We ARE a good bit of the population that pays our own way and ask nothing in return other than to be left alone...I'm startin to get a little pissed about all this...What social justice terminator who feels threatened by me minding my own business needs his or her name in the paper? Surely there must be bigger fish to fry...Sadly, our dilemma gets a bit more visible every time some fruitcake gets an itchy finger or figures he\she missed out on the hugs...What else can I do? I am an active member, I email the MP, I sign all the petitions, I slam JT every chance I get, yet still some goodie wants to take away what is rightfully, and so far legally, mine just because some banger got a deserved one in the noggin...Am fightin for this one!!

TomC

CLW .45
04-12-2018, 08:13 PM
We can harp all we want...we are outnumbered by the goodies...Never shy away from a sensible gun conversation...Never ever even hint that we may stray from the rules of our license...Be an active member of your local club, range, organization...don't wear gunny bumperstickers...they are tacky and invite unwanted confrontation...be smart about where you shoot...never ever brandish in public...take a noob out for a shoot...no touchin till you can recite the rules...no trigger time till you demonstrate that you actually understand...sign the petitions...be vocal to your MPs...yadda, yadda, yadda...all the stuff we do all the time anyways...Responsible gun owners and shooters are never in the news...we mind our manners and let the antis get the press time...We ARE a good bit of the population that pays our own way and ask nothing in return other than to be left alone...I'm startin to get a little pissed about all this...What social justice terminator who feels threatened by me minding my own business needs his or her name in the paper? Surely there must be bigger fish to fry...Sadly, our dilemma gets a bit more visible every time some fruitcake gets an itchy finger or figures he\she missed out on the hugs...What else can I do? I am an active member, I email the MP, I sign all the petitions, I slam JT every chance I get, yet still some goodie wants to take away what is rightfully, and so far legally, mine just because some banger got a deserved one in the noggin...Am fightin for this one!!

TomC

It has nothing to do with ďsome banger.Ē

In the seventies the gun grabbers set a goal.

Take all of your weapons by approximately 2050.

Then, humouring the ďRecreational Firearms Community,Ē they passed that Basfor of a Bill C-51 and changed weapon to firearm wherever appropriate in the Criminal Code.

You see, the RFC had this bright idea.

Call them firearms instead of weapons, and the boogeyman would leave us alone.

Our hobby would be safe.

But, Trudeau the elder decided to give us all the finger.

C-51 added a new classification.

No longer would there just be a prohibited weapons class with switchblades and brass knuckles and such in it.

There would henceforth be a prohibited firearms class.

Full autos would be first among equals.

First, because there were no other inhabitants in the class.

Among equals, because they have been joined by examples of every kind of firearm and every type of action, in every calibre and every gauge, including single shot muzzle loaders.

Yep, the gun grabbers consider all firearms to equal.

They arenít like the snowflakes among us who think some firearms are just too dangerous for us to have.

Who scurry off to their safe spaces, whimpering that their firearms arenít weapons.

Who gleefully sell their fellows down the river, if they think it will protect their hobby.

No, it isnít about ďsome bangerĒ or some school shooting in the nineties or some massacre at a concert in Las Vegas.

It is much more mundane.

The collectivist, anti-rights, gun grabbing dirtbags just want you disarmed.

You pose an existential threat to them.

Therefore, you must be disarmed.

TomC
04-12-2018, 10:39 PM
I get the agenda that has been in place for a long time....it is the visibility that is either negative or spun that way that drags us down...People in the news get noticed...and they are usually not good...who is it that gleefully sells us down some river? We all know the slogans about people and guns and cars and booze and we can spout that off to the end of time... We will get no where with it until there is some kind of good that gets recognized by the average citizen...We will never sway the goodies but the folks on the fence, and I think there are a lot of them, could be had with the right motive...I just don't know what that is. I guess I will continue being the peaceful, law abiding gunny who is always willing to try and help but am frustrated by the deaf ears that we have to preach to...hmmmmm maybe that is the agenda

TomC

TomC
04-12-2018, 11:18 PM
When a friend calls and says...Hey, lets go out and burn off some gunpowder and maybe after support a brewery...I am all in...This is my spare time...not anyone elses..No one gets hurt and everyone is happy...I should not have to peruse the rules and regs to see if it is OK ...I know the Fu***n rules and I abide. Cases,check...locks,check...direct route,check...What else could they want from us? These are their rules that we have to follow and nothing goes wrong...Soooo.they have to fix something because someone who shouldn't matter says so, with an expense that is not necessary...When |I request an ATT does that sacrifice a desk at a public school? Does it mean that somewhere, someone goes hungry? Sounds to me like this bill is going to cost a good sum and unfortunately the ones affected will be the least able to and should not have to pay...As usual.

LB303
04-12-2018, 11:38 PM
When did chains become so light that we don’t notice them?

When they started making them out of paper.
Hercules can't break them now.

TomC
04-13-2018, 12:00 AM
I was around in the 70's as you say, also the 60s...probably a little blending in those days, I also remember my first rifle (came in the mail with 2 boxes of ammo) a win 94 30-30. I still have it as well as my fathers old 303. My son will have these when I am done with this life...There were people that didn't like guns even back then...we had the Kennedy's and MLK, the Reagan attempt and lots of others that were not quite as public but the focus then was on the person and not the gun...Back then, they just shot em.....nowadays we seem to find out where it was made, how it got to him/her, who touched it recently, kind of ammo, where the bullets came from and most importantly where we went wrong with the killer...How could we have failed him/her so badly...Dammit, just slipped through the cracks I guess...Bad people do bad things...They always will...End of story...

TomC

Gunrunner
04-13-2018, 12:10 AM
It has nothing to do with “some banger.”

In the seventies the gun grabbers set a goal.

Take all of your weapons by approximately 2050.

In spite of c19 they're ahead of schedule.
By 2030 it will be done.

In the UK the sheep were lined up for miles in front of the cop shops flashlights in hand and guns in shopping carts at 4:00AM to beat the rush the morning the bans took effect.
If only they realized how disgustingly pathetic they looked.

It's said we're from the same stock.
Hope we prove them wrong.

Gunrunner
04-13-2018, 12:38 AM
Lots of doom & gloom wailing and 'woe is me' whining but nowhere do you read the word 'NO' or any hint of an action plan.
Like the Britts I don't think the DNA code for 'NO' or a single 'FK YOU' is written anywhere in their genome.

The Peter Finch (Howard Beale) character from the movie Network had the answer.
'I'm mad as hell and I'm not going to take this any more'

Doug_M
04-13-2018, 04:06 AM
This was suggested by Bob Zimmer. Rod Giltaca suggested we each do it once a week. The goal being to flood his office with 1000 calls a day. Just a short call opposing the bill. He backed down on the UN marking (punted it down the road yet again) and the Liberals backed down on their tax change. It can be done.

https://farm1.staticflickr.com/877/40713086204_bfe722fa33_b.jpg

Gunrunner
04-13-2018, 02:08 PM
Even some non-gun owners must be thinking after the conspiratory charade with the clandestinely retained c68 LGR data that this government and federal police force are capable of some really dastardly deceit and vindictiveness and are wondering how secure their confidential information is and what future uses it might be put to should the government get 'mad' at them at some point in the future.
Hopefully they are starting to grasp the 1984ish fascist track this country will be heading down if this government is allowed to stand.
These are the same thoughts a lot of them were thinking in 2006.