PDA

View Full Version : Section 5 of the Firearms Act



RangeBob
06-12-2018, 01:56 PM
[by Cameron SS;14979855 ]

Here is the proposed amendment to be adopted at 3rd reading. The amendment deals with eligibility to hold a license, as determined by Section 5 of the Firearms Act.

The Firearms act as it currently reads:


Public safety
5 (1) A person is not eligible to hold a licence if it is desirable, in the interests of the safety of that or any other person, that the person not possess a firearm, a cross-bow, a prohibited weapon, a restricted weapon, a prohibited device, ammunition or prohibited ammunition.

(2) In determining whether a person is eligible to hold a licence under subsection (1), a chief firearms officer or, on a reference under section 74, a provincial court judge shall have regard to whether the person, within the previous five years,

(a) has been convicted or discharged under section 730 of the Criminal Code of
(i) an offence in the commission of which violence against another person was used, threatened or attempted,
(ii) an offence under this Act or Part III of the Criminal Code,
(iii) an offence under section 264 of the Criminal Code (criminal harassment), or
(iv) an offence relating to the contravention of subsection 5(1) or (2), 6(1) or (2) or 7(1) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act;

(b) has been treated for a mental illness, whether in a hospital, mental institute, psychiatric clinic or otherwise and whether or not the person was confined to such a hospital, institute or clinic, that was associated with violence or threatened or attempted violence on the part of the person against any person; or

(c) has a history of behaviour that includes violence or threatened or attempted violence on the part of the person against any person.


This is what the Firearms Act S5 will look like if C71 comes into force with the adopted amendment. Changes are underlined.


5 (1) A person is not eligible to hold a licence if it is desirable, in the interests of the safety of that or any other person, that the person not possess a firearm, a cross-bow, a prohibited weapon, a restricted weapon, a prohibited device, ammunition or prohibited ammunition.

(2) In determining whether a person is eligible to hold a licence under subsection (1), a chief firearms officer or, on a reference under section 74, a provincial court judge shall have regard to whether the person, (within the previous five years, Deleted)
(a) has been convicted or discharged under section 730 of the Criminal Code of
(i) an offence in the commission of which violence against another person was used, threatened or attempted,
(ii) an offence under this Act or Part III of the Criminal Code,
(iii) an offence under section 264 of the Criminal Code (criminal harassment), or
(iv) an offence relating to the contravention of subsection 5(1) or (2), 6(1) or (2) or 7(1) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act;

(b) has been treated for a mental illness, whether in a hospital, mental institute, psychiatric clinic or otherwise and whether or not the person was confined to such a hospital, institute or clinic, that was associated with violence or threatened or attempted violence on the part of the person against any person; (or Deleted)

(c) has a history of behaviour that includes violence or threatened or attempted violence or threatening conduct on the part of the person against any person;

(d) is or was previously prohibited by an order — made in the interests of the safety and security of any person — from communicating with an identified person or from being at a specified place or within a specified distance of that place, and presently poses a threat or risk to the safety and security of any person;

(e) in respect of an offence in the commission of which violence was used, threatened or attempted against the person’s intimate partner or former intimate partner, was previously prohibited by a prohibition order from possessing any firearm, cross-bow, prohibited weapon, restricted weapon, prohibited device or prohibited ammunition; or

(f) for any other reason, poses a risk of harm to any person.

(2.1) For greater certainty, for the purposes of paragraph (2)(c), threatened violence and threatening conduct include threats or conduct communicated by the person to a person by means of the Internet or other digital network.



This bill doesn't actually change anything significant. This is what many people don't understand.

Currently the CFO can look back MORE than five years already. Five years is only the minimum he must consider. This bill requires them to consider the whole life as the new minimum.

If there was anything relevant in a persons history, the CFO can already consider it, and use it as the basis of a refusal to issue. All this bill does is cause the CFO to consider irrelevant information that they would otherwise not have considered, and as a result the only effect it could possibly have is to make licensing approval decisions take longer, while not having any effect and outcomes.

Lastly, nothing is automatic. CFO can issue or refuse for just about any reason, or no reasons, and there is very little that constrains them. Licenses can be issued to murderers.

Despite the eligibility criteria specified in the firearms act, CFOs can and in many cases actually have issued licenses to people who were statutorily ineligible, and while the Firearms Act states that CFOs shall refuse to issue a license to ineligible people, there is no offence that CFOs can be charged with if they make a mistake, which in all honesty is probably a good thing.

Shoe
06-12-2018, 04:18 PM
Well shit.
My license has been renewed twice since an issue I had - over 10 years ago.
Under this proposal, a spiteful party could make a call and have my license revoked.
This is nice.

Billythreefeathers
06-12-2018, 07:08 PM
well shit I was at Oca does that count,,

AIboy
06-12-2018, 08:08 PM
Ya guess what .....all people who had issues in the past for what ever reasons ....ie went to court faught it and won ...or have charges withdrawn or any stupid little b.s thing ...now are on the fence of kissing our licence good by

I wish people and other parties would vote these corn holes out

Joshua13
06-12-2018, 08:31 PM
So basically if you post something on the internet and someone else doesn't like it, that could be grounds to not have your licence renewed...wow

Sent from my E6560T using Tapatalk

Doug_M
06-13-2018, 05:15 AM
Well this isn't surprising coming from the party of bill C-16. We do not have freedom of speech codified in our constitution. We could end up like Britain where the police show up at your door because of something you said online. I think most Canadians believe we have freedom of speech and would be appalled at measures to make certain speech illegal with real criminal punishment. But probably a good 20% are in favour of it (and they'r in power right now).

Jay.ec
06-13-2018, 06:47 AM
This is not a welcome development. Of course it makes sense they'd try to slide it in though. Look at what's happening. People are protesting this bill using the internet to organize (through projects like OneClearVoice - Thanks again Doug). Their inboxes (email and voicemail) are flooded thanks to this bill. So now they're looking for a way to turn that against us. All those emails we sent, those voicemails... How long until that becomes harassment? Enough to justify a removal of PAL according to the revised 2.1 condition?

Though even without the above issues, this addition is way too slippery a slope to add. People, these days, take offence to everything. Even the mere disagreement with some people is tantamount to rape. They're the first to scream harassment and will try abusing laws just like this if given the chance. They see no issue with crying wolf over perceived slights. And from the sounds of things there's no avenue of appeal. So they scream harassment, someone's license/guns get taken and then it turns out the person crying faked it all... what happens then? Probably nothing.
Imagine the Gregory Allan Elliot case all over again this time add firearms to the mix.