PDA

View Full Version : Senator McPhedran - Bill C71 amendment to Prohibit Handguns



RangeBob
04-08-2019, 09:12 AM
News Release / Communiqué de presse (Le français suit.) Senator McPhedran to move Bill C-71 amendment to “prohibit” handguns in Canada For immediate release Ottawa, April 8, 2019 – Today at the Standing Senate Committee on National Security and Defence’s (SECD) clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-71, An Act to amend certain Acts and Regulations in relation to firearms, Senator Marilou McPhedran, an independent Senator for Manitoba, will move to amend clause 16 that already proposes to amend subsection 84(1) of the Criminal Code – exactly the subsection that could also be amended to add handguns to the “prohibited firearm” list in the Code. “Looking at how swiftly the New Zealand government is moving to prohibit the weapons used in the mass killings of Muslims in their places of worship, and looking realistically at the Canadian parliamentary agenda, the Government of Canada has run out of time unless the bill currently before the Senate is used for a new initiative to deal more effectively with the proliferation of handguns in Canada.” – Hon. Marilou McPhedran, Independent Senator for Manitoba During their appearance at SECD on February 18th, 2019, Doctors for Protection from Guns advised that: “A now abundant and international body of medical evidence shows that reducing access to guns through regulations saves lives and decreases the burden of injury.” The Coalition for Gun Control expanded on the link between access to firearms and death, submitting that: “About one in five (21%) firearm-related deaths in Canada is the result of a criminal offence, while the majority (79%) are the result of suicide, accident, or legal intervention.” Making it harder to access killing weapons can reduce occurrence and lethality. A handgun killed Colton Boushie of the Red Pheasant First Nation in Saskatchewan. In Toronto, Police Chief Saunders reported that 514 handguns were seized in 2018 - 222 more than in 2017 and 172 more than in 2016. This amendment is being introduced in light of extensive testimony with factually accurate evidence heard by the SECD committee from groups such as Doctors for Protection from Guns, the Coalition for Gun Control, and the Centre culturel islamique de Québec that illustrate the need for decisive action in combating firearm violence against women, children, and Canadians at large. “Prohibition of handguns would strengthen Canada’s leadership internationally, including Canada’s commitment to the 2030 UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), with SDG 16 on significant reductions in homicides and SDG 5 on reducing violence against women and girls,” notes Senator Marilou McPhedran. - 30 -
-- https://www.canadiangunnutz.com/forum/showthread.php/1855675-Ottawa-my-talk-with-Anti-Gun-Doctors-on-parliament-Hill?p=15860668#post15860668

The actual release is here
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1fDmkIOdrI6bgVVUcxnXdQmmWsFAtPJX6/view

from this tweet by Marilou McPhedran
https://twitter.com/SenMarilou/status/1115258056978444289

RangeBob
04-08-2019, 09:15 AM
[Same]

Plan to modify C-71 to Prohibit Hand firearms

News Release / Press Release

Senator McPhedran will propose the amendment of Bill C-71 to "ban" handguns in Canada

For immediate release

Ottawa, April 8, 2019 - Today, clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-71, An Act to amend
Certain Firearms Acts and Regulations of the Standing Senate Committee on Security
Defense Minister (SECD), Senator Marilou McPhedran, an independent Senator from
Manitoba, will propose to amend section 16, which already proposes to amend subsection 84 (1) of the Code.
criminal. This paragraph could also be amended to add handguns to the list of
"Prohibited firearms" of the Code.

"By examining the speed with which the New Zealand government is moving things to
to prohibit the weapons used in the massive massacres against Muslims in their places of worship,
and by realistically examining the Canadian parliamentary agenda, the Government of Canada
Canada is out of time unless the bill before the Senate is used for a new initiative
to combat the proliferation of handguns in Canada more effectively. - Hon.
Marilou McPhedran, Independent Senator for Manitoba
During their presentation to the Committee on 18 February 2019, the Physicians for the protection against
firearms said: "A now abundant and international number of medical data
shows that reducing access to firearms through regulation saves lives and decreases
the burden of injury ". The Coalition for Gun Control has developed the link between
access to firearms and death, stating that: "In Canada, about one gun death on
five (21%) is the result of a criminal offense, while the majority (79%) are the result of a
suicide, accident or legal intervention ". Make it more difficult to access weapons of
Mass destruction can reduce the occurrence and lethality.
A handgun killed Colton Boushie of the Red Pheasant First Nation in Saskatchewan. AT
Toronto, Police Chief Saunders reported that 514 handguns were seized in 2018 - 222
more than in 2017 and 172 more than in 2016. This amendment was introduced in light of many
testimony and factual evidence heard by the SECD Committee from groups such as
Doctors for the Protection against Firearms, the Coalition for Gun Control and the
Center culturel islamique de Québec, which illustrates the need to take decisive action in
the fight against gun violence against women, children and all
Canadian.

"The ban on handguns would strengthen Canada's leadership on the international stage,
commitment to achieving the 2030 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)
United Nations, with Target 16 on the significant reduction of homicides and Objective 5
on reducing violence against women and girls, "notes Senator Marilou
McPhedran.

- 30 -
For more information, please contact:
Katrina Leclerc
Parliamentary Affairs Advisor
Office of the Honorable Marilou McPhedran

-- https://www.canadiangunnutz.com/forum/showthread.php/1857009-CPAC-Firearms-legislation-discussion-tomorrow-April-8th-at-11am?p=15860662&viewfull=1#post15860662

RangeBob
04-08-2019, 09:17 AM
Does't that not substantially change the original intent of the Bill? Does this not mean the Bill has to be reintroduced starting at step one?

I think that's true.

The committee clerk will say it's an out-of-scope amendment, and the committee chair will likely throw it out without a vote.

JustBen
04-08-2019, 09:38 AM
Virtue signaling.

When you outlaw handguns, only outlaws will have handguns. And those with access to precision machining equipment.

play.soccer
04-08-2019, 09:51 AM
I think that's true.

The committee clerk will say it's an out-of-scope amendment, and the committee chair will likely throw it out without a vote.

You think so? We are talking about the liberals.

Neil Burke
04-08-2019, 09:52 AM
Any other amendments being proposed?

Doug_M
04-08-2019, 09:58 AM
They're taking a break but you can watch it live here: http://senparlvu.parl.gc.ca/XRender/en/PowerBrowser/PowerBrowserV2?fk=516887&globalStreamId=3

They're going through it clause by clause and there have been a few amendments already. #1 being to remove the clause for lifetime background checks. Yes you read that right, they passed an amendment to remove the lifetime background checks. They also passed an amendment to add to/from gun smith back into the automatic ATT, but defeated a motion to remove the ATT clause altogether.

Zinilin
04-08-2019, 10:02 AM
This is simply 'Changing the Channel' away from the SNC Liberal scandal to a controversial wedge issue that may play better for the Liberals.
The purpose of the amendment is to occupy the front page for a few days.

From Yesterday on CTV News, the man who was the media arranger for Jean Chretien: (Starting at 7:41)
https://www.ctvnews.ca/video?clipId=1654790

RangeBob
04-08-2019, 10:04 AM
Did they get rid of Liberal MP Pam Damoff's amendments? (That force/restrict what the CFO does when investigating a licence?)

Doug_M
04-08-2019, 10:17 AM
Did they get rid of Liberal MP Pam Damoff's amendments? (That force/restrict what the CFO does when investigating a licence?)

Don't know. Missed the first half hour.

Senator Plett added an amendment that passed which would require the CFP to produce an annual report to Parliament (by a specific date) that would list and explain all the classification changes made that year including estimated costs to those affected.

Doug_M
04-08-2019, 10:19 AM
Related: CFP official Robert MacKinnon stated the Firearms Reference Table will be made public and steps are currently being taken by the CFP to make that happen.

Doug_M
04-08-2019, 10:24 AM
Totally unrelated: GLOCK just announced that Chuck Norris is their new spokesperson!

RangeBob
04-08-2019, 10:27 AM
Senator Plett added an amendment that passed which would require the CFP to produce an annual report to Parliament (by a specific date) that would list and explain all the classification changes made that year including estimated costs to those affected.

Senator Pratte is trying to "gut" the idea that the anticipated cost of a firearm category-reclassification should be disclosed?...
Man, but that Senator is one slimy piece of work...
-- cyclone;15860920

RangeBob
04-08-2019, 10:29 AM
[Yes, THAT Mike Hargreaves]

An old Gent, a member of my Old Gun Club. TRC Toronto Revolver Club. Ex-head of the Ontario Handgun Assc.
Was a member of the Canadian Intelligence Corp. Prior to being demobbed in 1946 just after the end of WW11 was called to a meeting in Ottawa.
Ways and means were discussed on how to take firearms from the Civilian population! It died on the vine, seemed like it was leaked? Oh for a second Ammendment, yes?
-- MIKE HARGREAVES;15860931

Doug_M
04-08-2019, 10:39 AM
Senator Pratte is trying to "gut" the idea that the anticipated cost of a firearm category-reclassification should be disclosed?...
Man, but that Senator is one slimy piece of work...
-- cyclone;15860920

Even slimier his reason given was because "this government" does not pay compensation but rather grandfathers "that is the mechanism we use".

RangeBob
04-08-2019, 10:42 AM
Even slimier his reason given was because "this government" does not pay compensation but rather grandfathers "that is the mechanism we use".

The reason that's slimier is, even with grandfathering,
a) the value of the firearm drops instantly, and diminishes to zero
b) the utility of the firearm drops considerably
c) the value of the accessories drop instantly
d) the value of whatever training & muscle memory, the year or so it takes to find an ammunition load that works with it, the hand tuning of parts, the replacement with better parts, are all trashed.

RangeBob
04-08-2019, 10:46 AM
[re McPhedran's ammendment]

This is a major change to the criminal code defining handguns as prohibited under CCC S 84 - a section of the criminal code that is NOT part of the original bill
This does not fall under the powers of a committee that is not allowed to change the spirit and purpose of the bill but is allowed to make minor amendments
The debate over this should be interesting.
-- 10x;15860872

Petamocto
04-08-2019, 10:56 AM
Unfortunately, it just goes to show that far too many people with their hands in this pie have no idea what the laws already are.

So you take 800,000 people who have their RPAL and handguns now, after all of the steps they've had to go through in order to get their RPAL, and converting those licenses to prohibited licenses is going to save what exactly?

Good job, you would have removed the ability for a law-abiding person to go shoot at a range, hooray for public safety.

Unless of course they're actually not proposing a grandfathering of those already in possession, ie if you have the RPAL your guns get moved to Prohib but you don't get the license to go along with that.

Then we're talking about a whole different issue; only taking guns away from trust-worthy people and not criminals.

Doug_M
04-08-2019, 10:58 AM
Plett just proposed 16.1 clause amendment to NOT eliminate the gov's ability to down classify via OIC.

McPhedran is counter proposing her own 16.1 amendment to ban handguns (except for "recognized competitive shooting") as I type this.

Mark-II
04-08-2019, 11:01 AM
I'm disgusted at the idea that our liberties should be trodden on because of some event that occurred elsewhere in the "white western world" (said because none of these politicians acknowledge third world massacres that occur daily nor draw conclusion from those).

Collective Guilt is fascist to the core

RangeBob
04-08-2019, 11:04 AM
Plett just proposed 16.1 clause amendment to NOT eliminate the gov's ability to down classify via OIC.

If that happens, then would that override the Bill's CZ858/Swiss reclassification? i.e. could the Conservatives via OIC move them back in Nov 2019?

Also isn't that significantly against the intent of the legislation? (i.e. out-of-bounds similar to McPhedran's)

Doug_M
04-08-2019, 11:08 AM
Plett is giving a good (and obviously prepared for this) rebuttal. I doubt McPhedran's motion will pass. But I will be pleasantly surprised if Plett's own amendment is passed.

RangeBob
04-08-2019, 11:13 AM
Senator Don Plett is now eviscerating Sen. Marilou McPhedran's assertion that her amendment is "in scope"... :yingyang:

Also Senator André Pratte is against it, at this time. Thinks a handgun ban is a good idea, but Bill Blair's recent study should drive it, not Bill C-71.

I'm surprised it went to a vote, but it did. It shouldn't have.
The Vote is: yes 2, no 6, abstention 3.
Motion is defeated.

Doug_M
04-08-2019, 11:14 AM
McPhedran's handgun ban defeated by 6 no's. There were 2 yes's and 3 abstentions.

EDIT: McPhedran has now left the meeting (replaced by another colleague) and will no doubt go on a publicity campaign for her CGC friends.

RangeBob
04-08-2019, 11:15 AM
Senator McPhedran is leaving for the rest of the meeting.

RangeBob
04-08-2019, 11:18 AM
They're debating allowing the movement from prohibited/restricted to non-restricted,
but not by OIC, but rather by the Commissioner of the RCMP, so that it's out of the hands of the politicians.

Two examples where the law was an ass were given (e.g. deactivated flintlock restricted for movies),
Pratte said it's wrong to have anyone have the ability to override the law, and that the commissioner of the RCMP would never override her own staff anyway.

vote: yes 7, no 5, motion carried.

defeat clause vote
vote: yes 5, no 5, but the clause is defeated.
I'm unsure if that just defeated the previous vote.

kennymo
04-08-2019, 11:23 AM
They're debating allowing the movement from prohibited/restricted to non-restricted,
but not by OIC, but rather by the Commissioner of the RCMP, so that it's out of the hands of the politicians.

That could be in our favour IF Scheer takes the next election AND if the Conservatives bring in the simplified classification system they have promised. RCMP would be legally bound to reclassify many prohibited by name firearms and some of the recent botch jobs (Mossberg Blaze prohibited by looking like an AK, standard version non-restricted).

TJSpeller
04-08-2019, 11:30 AM
McPhedran's handgun ban defeated by 6 no's. There were 2 yes's and 3 abstentions.

EDIT: McPhedran has now left the meeting (replaced by another colleague) and will no doubt go on a publicity campaign for her CGC friends.

This was a minor committee issue that would never get any media play. However, if this gets now multiple newspaper articles, it's because it's being set up by the Liberals for an orchestrated release of their handgun ban plan.

Zinilin
04-08-2019, 11:32 AM
That could be in our favour IF Scheer takes the next election AND if the Conservatives bring in the simplified classification system they have promised. RCMP would be legally bound to reclassify many prohibited by name firearms and some of the recent botch jobs (Mossberg Blaze prohibited by looking like an AK, standard version non-restricted).

Actually with the simplified classification system in place the only people involved in the classification would be the people that designed the firearms.

Classified based on how it works and how you hold it. Not what it has been used for and how it looks.

There would be no role for the RCMP or anyone else.

RangeBob
04-08-2019, 11:36 AM
Actually with the simplified classification system in place the only people involved in the classification would be the people that designed the firearms.

Yes.
The intent was/is that anyone, any civilian, any cop, any border services guard, any judge, any vendor, would be able to to tell the classification.


There would be no role for the RCMP or anyone else.
Somehow, someone, will determine that the RCMP are the only ones who can interpret the simple plain-language system.

Doug_M
04-08-2019, 11:43 AM
If that happens, then would that override the Bill's CZ858/Swiss reclassification? i.e. could the Conservatives via OIC move them back in Nov 2019?

Also isn't that significantly against the intent of the legislation? (i.e. out-of-bounds similar to McPhedran's)

Well I don't no honestly. But what confuses me is Plett introduces his 16.1 motion, then McPhedran introduces her 16.1 motion. They vote and defeat McPhedran's 16.1 motion and move on to the next one, skipping Plett's. How did that happen?

RangeBob
04-08-2019, 11:44 AM
They're back.

Petamocto
04-08-2019, 11:45 AM
I'm still very curious to see how the Conservatives can possibly come through with the simplified classification system.

I know it's the right thing to do, but once the media starts framing it that even a 10" barrel AR would now be non-restricted, I can't see the Cons winning public support.

People who actually understand guns and gun laws will be fine with it, but there are 30 million Canadians who don't know the laws already in place to have a PAL.

Zinilin
04-08-2019, 11:52 AM
I'm still very curious to see how the Conservatives can possibly come through with the simplified classification system.....

Take a page from the Liberals.

Or as Norman Schwarzkopf put it: When in charge take command.

Doug_M
04-08-2019, 11:52 AM
The SCS would not make a 10" AR non-restricted. It still retains minimum barrel length of 18.5 inches (specified in mm of course).

EDIT: not that I would want them to of course, but the CPC could also implement the SCS with legislation that does NOT remove the OIC's currently in effect. For any of the OIC prohibs/restricteds to revert to their "natural" classification, SCS legislation would have to repeal the OIC's.

Doug_M
04-08-2019, 11:56 AM
Take a page from the Liberals.

Or as Norman Schwarzkopf put it: When in charge take command.

If they get a majority they will have to do it at the beginning of their first term, not the middle or end. And we will have to push them to do so in "one clear voice" (groan) lol.

Doug_M
04-08-2019, 12:02 PM
Clause by clause meeting is now adjourned.

Grimlock
04-08-2019, 12:04 PM
The SCS would not make a 10" AR non-restricted. It still retains minimum barrel length of 18.5 inches (specified in mm of course).

EDIT: not that I would want them to of course, but the CPC could also implement the SCS with legislation that does NOT remove the OIC's currently in effect. For any of the OIC prohibs/restricteds to revert to their "natural" classification, SCS legislation would have to repeal the OIC's.

Getting rid of the OIC tables, "variants" etc is the whole point of it. I'd be pretty mad if it didn't, and you would probably be more mad. From what I remember barrel length didn't come into it as proposed, just OAL. I already have a coyote load worked up for the 10" AR.

RangeBob
04-08-2019, 12:05 PM
They are adjourned.

I think they did three things:
- got rid of lifetime
- added one thing back to auto-ATT (gunsmith)
- I think Pamela Goode said that because clause 18 was defeated, that clauses 19-21 were of no effect. Clause 18 is the part that removes "non-restricted may be prescribed" by OIC.


Bill C-71
https://www.parl.ca/DocumentViewer/en/42-1/bill/C-71/third-reading

Criminal Code
https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/PDF/C-46.pdf

Petamocto
04-08-2019, 12:21 PM
The SCS would not make a 10" AR non-restricted. It still retains minimum barrel length of 18.5 inches (specified in mm of course).

Are you sure about that?

I thought that it only had to do with overall length?

I remember reading that overall length at the time and then going to measure my Mk18, which was even above the minimum required length when the stock was collapsed.

I will go re-check to see if there was a barrel length in the SCS...

Edit:

Doug, this is from your post here on GOC in 2014 stating the Conservatives will adopt it, quoting the CSSA:

The CSSA feels that rewriting Section 12 is the best of the four solutions for a number of reasons. The problem of overnight RCMP classifications that have plagued the Harper government would be eliminated.
These changes would also prevent the arbitrary reclassification of firearms into restricted/prohibited categories after Canadians have legally purchased them. It solves the second problem by simplifying the classification system so firearms owners, police officers and other public officials can finally understand them.
The first category, covered under Section 12, is the "prohibited firearm."
Our proposal defines a prohibited firearm as
(a) an automatic firearm,
(b) a firearm that is adapted from a rifle or shotgun, whether by sawing, cutting or any other alteration, and that, as so adapted, is less than 660 mm in length,
It defines a “restricted firearm” as
(a) a firearm that is not a prohibited firearm,
(b) a handgun
(c) a firearm that is designed or adapted to be fired when reduced to a length of less than 660 mm by folding, telescoping or otherwise.
It defines a "non-restricted firearm” as a firearm that is not a prohibited or restricted firearm.

There's nothing about barrel length, just overall length, so unless I'm missing something, yes a 10" barrel AR would be non-restricted because it's still longer than 660mm.

Doug_M
04-08-2019, 12:33 PM
You're correct, barrel length is not part of it. For reference here is the CSSA "announcement"of it from an old e-news: https://cssa-cila.org/2016/05/team-cssa-e-news-may-29-2016/

Grimlock, yeah getting rid of the OIC's is what we want, but it is not in the SCS as currently written. It is simply implied because the idea is to replace the current classification system which people like us assume means the OIC's. But again, if/when the CPC win a majority we will need to push for exactly what we want and immediately. Our only opportunity will be at the beginning. The Senate could screw us over too of course.

Grimlock
04-08-2019, 12:35 PM
They are adjourned.

I think they did three things:
- got rid of lifetime
- added one thing back to auto-ATT (gunsmith)
- I think Pamela Goode said that because clause 18 was defeated, that clauses 19-21 were of no effect. Clause 18 is the part that removes "non-restricted may be prescribed" by OIC.


Bill C-71
https://www.parl.ca/DocumentViewer/en/42-1/bill/C-71/third-reading

Criminal Code
https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/PDF/C-46.pdf

After looking through this and the regs, this is very interesting if true. I trust no one until this is all finished and passed.

Grimlock
04-08-2019, 12:37 PM
You're correct, barrel length is not part of it. For reference here is the CSSA "announcement"of it from an old e-news: https://cssa-cila.org/2016/05/team-cssa-e-news-may-29-2016/

Grimlock, yeah getting rid of the OIC's is what we want, but it is not in the SCS as currently written. It is simply implied because the idea is to replace the current classification system which people like us assume means the OIC's. But again, if/when the CPC win a majority we will need to push for exactly what we want and immediately. Our only opportunity will be at the beginning. The Senate could screw us over too of course.

I agree that this is what we have to push. We'll have only one chance ever. If the mechanism to call one rifle prohib arbitrarily is still in place, it's not simplified at all.

RangeBob
04-08-2019, 12:44 PM
from Calibre Magazine


Clause 16 was just defeated, meaning the Senate's report on C-71 will ask the House of Commons to remove it from the bill. This is the clause that disposes with the Harper-added definition of non-restricted firearms, meaning that this clause's defeat in the HoC would ensure that firearms are able to be reclassified back down into the non-restricted category. If Clause 16 remains, no restricted nor prohibited firearms will be able to be re-classified as non-restricted regardless of the merits of that re-classification.

shortandlong
04-08-2019, 12:44 PM
I think that's true.

The committee clerk will say it's an out-of-scope amendment, and the committee chair will likely throw it out without a vote.
I hope your right but this is Canada

Or was that the clause that was defeated? If so I am surprised

RangeBob
04-08-2019, 12:53 PM
The senate will vote to adopt or reject the committee's comments.
Report Stage allows senators (not necessarily in the committee, any senator) to propose amendments.
If there are any changes adopted due to the committee, or amendments adopted during Report Stage, then debate.
Then the senate will third reading vote on the Bill.
If changed the changed Bill will go back to the House Of Commons.


The Senate often makes amendments to bills, some of which involve corrections to drafting errors or improvements to administrative aspects. The House normally accepts such amendments.

If the House does not agree with the Senate amendments, it adopts a motion stating the reasons for its disagreement, which it communicates in a message to the Senate. If the Senate wishes the amendments to stand nonetheless, it sends a message back to the House, which then accepts or rejects the proposed changes. If an agreement cannot be reached by exchanging messages, the House that has possession of the bill may ask that a conference be held, although this practice has fallen into disuse.

-- https://www.ourcommons.ca/About/Compendium/LegislativeProcess/c_g_legislativeprocess-e.htm

RangeBob
04-08-2019, 12:54 PM
I hope your right but this is Canada

I was wrong. One of the senators, Senator Gold?, said it was in scope, so it got the full debate before being voted down.

Doug_M
04-08-2019, 12:54 PM
13999

RangeBob
04-08-2019, 01:07 PM
13999

link for that at
https://twitter.com/TheGunBlog/status/1115324468388356104

shortandlong
04-08-2019, 02:45 PM
Good? Another pos that needs to be chastised

joe6167
04-08-2019, 03:27 PM
My god, why are people still wasting time over firearms classification. Here in Poland, a gun is a gun. If it shoots semi-auto only it's good to go. Doesn't even matter if its open bolt. And you know what, there are like no shootings here. No blood in the streets. Nothing.

Doug_M
04-08-2019, 03:39 PM
My god, why are people still wasting time over firearms classification. Here in Poland...

Because the Poles were invaded by the Germans and then the Russians. Canada has not suffered the same.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

GeoTrekr
04-08-2019, 10:44 PM
My god, why are people still wasting time over firearms classification. Here in Poland, a gun is a gun. If it shoots semi-auto only it's good to go. Doesn't even matter if its open bolt. And you know what, there are like no shootings here. No blood in the streets. Nothing.

A lot of people can't wrap their heads around the dry streets following the demise of the long gun registry. A gun is a gun? That's just crazy talk...

Swingerguy
04-09-2019, 02:34 AM
My god, why are people still wasting time over firearms classification. Here in Poland, a gun is a gun. If it shoots semi-auto only it's good to go. Doesn't even matter if its open bolt. And you know what, there are like no shootings here. No blood in the streets. Nothing.

If we had no classification system, and liberal majority governments, all firearms would be the same; prohibited.

RangeBob
04-09-2019, 08:11 AM
At #SECD clause-by-clause of #C71 (#firearms), I moved to amend clause 16 to amend Criminal Code – to add handguns to prohibited firearm list.
Although defeated in Committee, I will propose it at 3rd Reading because this is about public safety: http://bit.ly/2Z7JtxU
-- Senator Marilou McPhedran, April 9 2019, https://twitter.com/SenMarilou/status/1115433324036517888

Because being told it’s outside the scope of the bill by both Ministers Goodale and Blair and the committee still doesn’t make it clear for you ... any chance you’re ever going to work on crime? Happy to continue to attach gun owners?
-- Tracey Wilson, replying to above tweet, https://twitter.com/TWilsonOttawa/status/1115558227020636160

GTW
04-09-2019, 08:17 AM
Well, at least the crybaby who took her ball and went home after the senate voted against her back door ban proposal is getting pounded in her Twitter feed.