Page 1 of 18 1234511 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 173
  1. #1
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    42
    Posts
    3,254

    EDWARD L. BURLEW LL.B. ON THE ORDER AMENDING THE ORDER ...

    EDWARD L. BURLEW LL.B. ON THE ORDER AMENDING THE ORDER ......DECLARING AN AMNESTY PERIOD (2014)


    NOTE: Posted with permission of the author.

    EDWARD L. BURLEW LL.B. ON THE ORDER AMENDING THE ORDER DECLARING AN AMNESTY
    PERIOD (2014)

    I have been asked to make comment on to the new regulation regarding
    amending the records of the Registrar of Firearms

    I will first make the assumption that the Firearms Registration Table is a
    determination under the Firearms Act and is a record of determinations kept
    by the Registrar of Firearms

    Based on that, this regulation creates a moving date of one year beginning
    August 15, 2014 and then moving forward whereby the determinations as exist
    in the FRT are cast in stone once a year has passed. The effective date of
    an unchangeable determination begins August 15,2013 and moves forward each
    day.

    To clarify: a determination made before August 15 2013 cannot be changed by
    the Registrar of Firearms. That day will progress forward each day from now
    on.

    For instance the Tavor 21 was determined to be non-restricted more than a
    year ago and that cannot be changed.

    This same logic applies to all firearms on the FRT

    Where there has not yet been a determination the Registrar may make one and
    then has a year from that date to make a change if needed.

    For clarification if the Registrar makes a determination today then the
    Registrar has one year from today to change that determination.

    The different classes are not changed. There are still, non-restricted,
    restricted, the various prohibited and antiques. As well there is still the
    Section 84(3) exemption for a firearm that is under the 500fps limit and of
    course the joules limit.

    This however begs the question of who makes the determinations? The
    regulation states that the determinations of the Registrar will stand. Of
    course those are obvious where a registration certificate has been issued.
    Therefore it is important to keep the original registration certificate to
    show when the determination was made.

    The FRT is not a public document and only specified persons such as police
    and verifiers can access that set of documents. Each entry in the FRT is
    dated and that creates the time mark for which the year is counted.

    In respect of the changes made in February of this year changing the CZ858
    and the Swiss Arms to prohibited status there is still time for those
    determinations to be changed by the Registrar of Firearms.

    This regulation does not limit the discretion of the Governor General in
    Council to determine the classification of a firearm. The power of the GGiC
    is set out in section 117.15 of the Criminal Code. In that the GGiC may
    prescribe a firearm to be restricted or prohibited , but may not do so where
    the the thing to be prescribed is reasonable for use in Canada for a
    sporting or hunting purpose.

    The opinion on that process is much more complex and not part of this
    opinion.

    So even if the Registrar of Firearms has determined that the gun is
    non-restricted the GGiC may still prescribe the gun to be restricted or
    prohibited and is not affected by the new regulation.

    This allows the GGiC to pass further regulations from time to time and add
    firearms to the present Orders in Council. That has not been changed
    presently since 1998.

    There is also still room for the method of determining the classification of
    a firearm to be changed. Presently the Registrar relies upon the RCMP
    forensic lab. There could be a change to that. Time will tell.

    A further point is that the RCMP forensic lab will likely be more careful
    and thorough in making an opinion for the Registrar to make his or her
    determination.

    In light of that the RCMP forensic lab has been requiring samples of newly
    manufactured or newly imported firearms to be physically delivered for
    opinion since about 2009.

    I expect the RCMP will be slower to process such new firearms. That begs the
    question of whether such opinions should be made by the RCMP forensic lab or
    some other body and procedures and time limits be set for standard
    commercial purposes.

    As can be seen this new regulation is a first step and more issues have to
    be dealt with.

    No doubt further issues will arise as this regulation is implemented. For
    sure the present determination should be archived as a total document as of
    August 15, 2014 and then another document of new determination should be
    kept to assure that those determinations as existed on the date of the
    regulation cannot be lost or altered.

    Yours in Freedom

    EDWARD L. BURLEW, LL.B.
    Barrister & Solicitor
    16 John Street
    Thornhill, Ontario
    L3T1X8
    Tel: 905-882-2422
    Fax: 905-882-2431

    -----Original Message-----
    From: Dennis Young [mailto:]
    Sent: August-19-14 2:30 PM
    To: FIREARMS DIGEST ()
    Subject: CANADA GAZETTE: ORDER AMENDING THE ORDER DECLARING AN AMNESTY
    PERIOD (2014)

    CANADA GAZETTER - Vol. 148, No. 17 - August 13, 2014 Registration
    SOR/2014-182 July 23, 2014
    http://canadagazette.gc.ca/rp-pr/p2/...ors182-eng.php


    CRIMINAL CODE
    Order Amending the Order Declaring an Amnesty Period (2014) P.C. 2014-881
    July 22, 2014

    His Excellency the Governor General in Council, on the recommendation of the
    Minister of Justice, pursuant to subsection 117.14(1) (see footnote a) of
    the Criminal Code (see footnote b), makes the annexed Order Amending the
    Order Declaring an Amnesty Period (2014).

    ORDER AMENDING THE ORDER DECLARING AN AMNESTY PERIOD (2014)

    AMENDMENT

    1. Subsection 2(2) of the Order Declaring an Amnesty Period (2014) (see
    footnote 1) is amended by adding the following after paragraph (d):
    (e) use the firearm in target practice or at a target shooting competition,
    under the auspices of a shooting club or shooting range that is approved
    under section 29 of the Firearms Act, and, for that purpose, transport the
    firearm in accordance with, (i) in the case of a firearm referred to in any
    of paragraphs 1(a), (b), (e), (h) and (k) to (o), the requirements set out
    in section 10 of the Storage, Display, Transportation and Handling of
    Firearms by Individuals Regulations or section 11 of the Storage, Display
    and Transportation of Firearms and Other Weapons by Businesses Regulations,
    as applicable, or
    (ii) in the case of a firearm referred to in any of paragraphs 1(c), (d),
    (f), (g), (i) and (j), the requirements set out in section 11 of the
    Storage, Display, Transportation and Handling of Firearms by Individuals
    Regulations or section 12 of the Storage, Display and Transportation of
    Firearms and Other Weapons by Businesses Regulations, as applicable.


    COMING INTO FORCE

    2. This Order comes into force on the day on which it is registered.

    REGULATORY IMPACT ANALYSIS STATEMENT
    (This statement is not part of the Order.)

    READ THE REST:
    http://canadagazette.gc.ca/rp-pr/p2/...ors182-eng.php





    #1 problem Ed.

    That still leaves this in the paws of the asshats @ the rcmp and since they have a "limited time" they may very well be far more likely to declare X as prohibited right off the bat especially as retailiation for the "bitchslap" this is in essence. It has happened before so best learn from past mistakes

    Simply put the rcmp cannot be trusted period.
    Last edited by Shalimar; 08-21-2014 at 09:45 PM.

  2. #2
    Senior Member Foxer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Vancouver
    Posts
    17,799
    Basically exactly as I said. The gov't can make changes by legislation or amendment to regulation (oic's), the police cannot. The police control the frt, and that's where we've been running into trouble.

    I suspect and blaney has strongly hinted that there will be significant changes to that process when the new legislation is put forward next fall. We don't want the cops making determinations of class. Or we need the classes so simplified that there's no real room for them to 'interpret' anything.

    Solomon has some interesting ideas and thoughts on that whole process, pointing out that currently there's not even any way to challenge a finding once it goes into the FRT. It's like it's gospel and the gov't doesn't even get a say.

  3. #3
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    42
    Posts
    3,254
    Quote Originally Posted by Foxer View Post
    Basically exactly as I said. The gov't can make changes by legislation or amendment to regulation (oic's), the police cannot. The police control the frt, and that's where we've been running into trouble.

    I suspect and blaney has strongly hinted that there will be significant changes to that process when the new legislation is put forward next fall. We don't want the cops making determinations of class. Or we need the classes so simplified that there's no real room for them to 'interpret' anything.

    Solomon has some interesting ideas and thoughts on that whole process, pointing out that currently there's not even any way to challenge a finding once it goes into the FRT. It's like it's gospel and the gov't doesn't even get a say.


    Once again yet more proof Harper needs to be held to the fire to keep his promise and abolish all of this bullshit in one move.. no more "crumbs" crap.

    that would have eliminated a huge % of the crap we are forced to deal with.

  4. #4
    Senior Member Foxer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Vancouver
    Posts
    17,799
    Once again yet more proof Harper needs to be held to the fire to keep his promise and abolish all of this bullshit in one move.. no more "crumbs" crap.
    Ahhh, nooooo... once again it demonstrates that this is substantial, and that some people's concerns that it would prevent the gov't from making positive changes down the road were unfounded.

    It's a very good step. It'll help protect us until the legislation can be brought in later. And according to Ed - it'll do the job. It'll prevent the RCMP from being able to 're classify' guns like they have in the past.

    If this had been in place last year - the Swiss arms and CZ's could not have been reclassified. I'm sure that those owners would agree - that would be a big deal.

  5. #5
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    42
    Posts
    3,254
    Quote Originally Posted by Foxer View Post
    Ahhh, nooooo... once again it demonstrates that this is substantial, and that some people's concerns that it would prevent the gov't from making positive changes down the road were unfounded.

    It's a very good step. It'll help protect us until the legislation can be brought in later. And according to Ed - it'll do the job. It'll prevent the RCMP from being able to 're classify' guns like they have in the past.

    If this had been in place last year - the Swiss arms and CZ's could not have been reclassified. I'm sure that those owners would agree - that would be a big deal.

    OMG Foxer it is not.. the most heinous parts still exist!!!!!! They are not being removed.. the CPC is trying to placate us with crumbs.

    If they had done as harper promised period.. end of all of the above problems.. it is that simple

    Then protections could have been drafted using all of the wasted resources (on crumbs) so as to prevent the sme BS from being done again regardless of party.

    It is that simple.

  6. #6
    Senior Member Foxer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Vancouver
    Posts
    17,799
    OMG Foxer it is not.. the most heinous parts still exist!!!!!!
    Of course. We're talking about one change to the regulation here, there's only so much that can do This is just one part of a much larger picture, but the rest of that picture will require legislation and that takes time. This will help protect us between now and then.

    it's not like this is the only thing the CPC is doing after all. Yeash.

    They are not being removed.. the CPC is trying to placate us with crumbs.
    A number of the most henious parts of the legislation sound like they're on the chopping block. Probably not all but a goodly number (more if we can work with him between now and when it's introduced).

    And these aren't crumbs. These are substantial major components of the act that are mostly designed to harass owners and discourage ownership. They're big deals. It isn't ALL that we want but it's excellent progress.

    And this little regulation change is just one part of that, and it's a very good part. It'll keep us much safer till more can be done in the fall.

    it's also very very encouraging - it's not something we asked for really. He came up with this without a lot of egging on from us. It's strong evidence Blaney is learning to distrust the police on the firearms issue and look at how the law can be abused and take action to prevent it. That is a very comforting sign

    Have a little faith, and take this for what it is. Nobody intended it to be the final step, not even Blaney. It just keeps the cops from messing with classifications till permanent changes can be brought in.

  7. #7
    Senior Member Strewth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Chilliwack BC
    Posts
    8,526
    Quote Originally Posted by Foxer View Post
    Have a little faith, and take this for what it is. Nobody intended it to be the final step, not even Blaney. It just keeps the cops from messing with classifications till permanent changes can be brought in.
    This is what I got from it too; this is putting a halt to that list of firearms the RCMP lab had their eyes on...I don't have the document on this computer, anyone else? I think it's on GOC somewhere...Mini-14, Tavor, some blackscary .22...wasn't the AR on there?...
    CSSA CCFR

  8. #8
    Senior Member Doug_M's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Nova Scotia
    Posts
    10,581
    Quote Originally Posted by Strewth View Post
    This is what I got from it too; this is putting a halt to that list of firearms the RCMP lab had their eyes on...I don't have the document on this computer, anyone else? I think it's on GOC somewhere...Mini-14, Tavor, some blackscary .22...wasn't the AR on there?...
    Exactly, and that is huge. Sure, I'm greatly disappointed that the CPC didn't start work on replacing C-68 three years ago. But that ship has sailed. Now is the time to take advantage of what opportunities we currently have. It is quite clear to me that the CPC are willing to work with us now on some of our issues. There is momentum. Let's capitalize on that and push for what changes we can get, changes that are realistically (i.e. politically) within our reach. That doesn't mean we give up on C-68, but you don't rail against the only party that is moving forward on gun control reform, even if it is baby steps. Maybe we can build on this momentum and get bigger steps? Time to stop the whining and start being productive.
    Make the Afghanistan War Memorial publicly accessible https://afghanistanwarmemorial.ca/
    Don't let the public forget about #LAVSCAM https://lavscam.info

  9. #9
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    517
    Quote Originally Posted by Foxer View Post
    Ahhh, nooooo... once again it demonstrates that this is substantial, and that some people's concerns that it would prevent the gov't from making positive changes down the road were unfounded.

    It's a very good step. It'll help protect us until the legislation can be brought in later. And according to Ed - it'll do the job. It'll prevent the RCMP from being able to 're classify' guns like they have in the past.

    If this had been in place last year - the Swiss arms and CZ's could not have been reclassified. I'm sure that those owners would agree - that would be a big deal.
    If we had this much earlier, the BD38 and BD3008 guys would still have their firearms.

  10. #10
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    BC
    Posts
    159
    It isn't substantial when the substance is pixie dust.

    The RCMP are still in charge of classifying firearms.

    The CPC has yet to earn my vote.

Page 1 of 18 1234511 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Roy Green Show: Tony Bernardo and Edward Burlew
    By RangeBob in forum Canadian Firearms News, Headlines and Polls
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: 03-19-2018, 11:58 AM
  2. US order help
    By CF_Smith in forum General Firearms Discussion
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 04-03-2014, 08:07 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •