Page 1 of 13 1234511 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 128
  1. #1
    Senior Member Doug_M's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Nova Scotia
    Posts
    12,214

    CSSA promotes a simplified classification system

    This is something I can get behind and really believe we can achieve.

    CANADIAN SHOOTING SPORTS ASSOCIATION / CANADIAN INSTITUTE FOR LEGISLATIVE ACTION

    TEAM CSSA E-NEWS - August 26, 2014 ** Please share this E-news with your friends **



    COMMENTARY: GUN CLASSIFICATION NEEDS SURGERY, NOT MERE BAND-AID FIX

    The Harper government appears earnest in helping gun owners slay the classification dragon, but it needs to take the beast down hammer and tongs with legislation.

    The recent Swiss Arms and CZ-858 debacle dished up by the RCMP revealed the government's distaste for being dictated to by meddling civil servants. That's a good thing. With that said, segments of the general public (and even some gun owners) seem to believe that certain guns are inherently more evil than others and should be legislated accordingly. And so, the problem remains that the proposed fixes for classifying guns according to varying degrees of “dangerousness” plays to the foolish premise that some guns are good and some guns are bad.

    Gun owners have difficulty trying to find some consensus on this issue and opinions vary all over the map. Many believe that classifications need to exist if only to placate those who think the system keeps them safe. And as much as we try to educate them, we all know how some folks take to being lectured on a subject they think they understand.

    We also need to recognize that the Harper government has committed to eating this elephant one bite at a time. Like it or not, that is a political reality, and over the last several years we have seen several steps forward. And there will be more.

    So with all that in mind, let's try to envision some classification options that benefit firearms owners yet provide an adequate sense of security to the general public.

    Let's look at four possible options:

    Create a new section within Section 12 of the Firearms Act known as section 12(9.) It would create a special category for firearms that the RCMP deems prohibited. But, people can continue to own, possess and use the firearms listed in this category. But, this option could cause public unrest if firearms that are considered prohibited can continue to be used and possessed by their owners. The government could be accused of abdicating control over prohibited firearms by letting the general public use them. Additionally, the rules to Authorizations to Transport (ATT) would have to be changed to permit these Section 12(9) firearms to be taken to a shooting range. Without this ATT change, Section 12(9) firearms would be legal to possess, but owners couldn't use them. Even if all these changes were made, gun owners still couldn't shoot them anywhere but on a Section 29 shooting range. So, this is certainly not the best option.

    Declare that the firearms involved are indeed prohibited 12(3) firearms and create a provision in Section 12 to permit new firearms to be added to the 12(3) category. Additional changes would have to be made to Section 12 to permit the owners of these firearms to be grandfathered into section 12(3.) Unfortunately, this options shares the same questionable optics as the previous option. The Authorizations to Transport rules would still need amending to permit taking section 12(3) firearms to a shooting range. Without this amendment, 12(3) firearms would be permitted to own, but owners couldn't use them. If all these changes were made, the firearms would still not be able to be used anywhere but on a Section 29 shooting range. Still not the best option.
    Add a simple sentence to the Firearms Act that enables a Minister to declare any firearm to be non-restricted. This would add to the Minister's powers under Order-in-Council because the ability to restrict or prohibit firearms is already within the Minister's purview. Certainly, this is an easy fix for the CZ/Swiss Arms but it still leaves the gigantic classification mess unaddressed. And without repeal of the restrict/prohibit powers, any positive change could be easily undone by a future government.

    A plain language rewrite of Section 12 of the Firearms Act could retain the prohibited, restricted and non-restricted categories, but Section 84(1) of the Criminal Code firearms definitions would be amended to accomplish two goals. First, it would reverse the prohibition of the CZ-858 and Swiss Arms rifles as per the Minister's stated intention. Second, it would change Canada's classification system into a simple and easy format for both firearms owners and police officers to understand.

    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.

    This is far easier to understand than the confusing legalese used now.

    It is an essential part of the political process to offer solutions, not just criticism. It seems very likely that most Canadians will be satisfied with a restructured classification system that retains the terms they recognize, but is fair to responsible, trustworthy gun owners. Firearms owners could take some satisfaction in knowing that one of the biggest shortcomings in the Firearms Act will finally be addressed. The CSSA feels this goal is achievable but we need your help. Write or call your MP and discuss these positive changes. Emphasize how this is good for all parties and help them understand how this will not compromise public safety one iota. It is important to act quickly on this, Minister Blaney's promised bill is just around the corner.
    Pew pew pew

  2. #2
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    Leoville, SK
    Posts
    146
    Under restricted doesn't a make all firearms restricted?

    Maybe they meant a handgun that is not a prohibited firearm

  3. #3
    Senior Member Kane63's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    Ontario
    Posts
    1,330
    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.
    What is covered by "any other alteration"?

    I like that the barrel length and OIC provision are removed.

  4. #4
    Senior Member Kane63's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    Ontario
    Posts
    1,330
    Quote Originally Posted by GaryCaine View Post
    Under restricted doesn't a make all firearms restricted?

    Maybe they meant a handgun that is not a prohibited firearm
    Here is the current definition:

    According to the Criminal Code, a restricted firearm is:

    a) a handgun that is not a prohibited firearm,
    b) a firearm that
    is not a prohibited firearm,
    has a barrel less than 470 mm in length, and
    is capable of discharging centre-fire ammunition in a semi-automatic manner,
    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, or
    d) a firearm of any other kind that is prescribed to be a restricted firearm
    You might be right. The proposed one has 4 qualifiers for a firearm: not prohibited, barrel less than 470mm, semi-automatic, centre fire ammunition. You'd need all 4 of those present whereas the new one seems to just say not prohibited.

    If the firearm meets the proposed requirements for prohibited then I don't see why you would need to qualify a restricted as being "not a prohibited firearm".

  5. #5
    Senior Member Doug_M's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Nova Scotia
    Posts
    12,214
    We need ED and Soloman to write this!
    Pew pew pew

  6. #6
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    42
    Posts
    3,254
    Quote Originally Posted by Doug_M View Post
    We need ED and Soloman to write this!
    That would be a much better idea and given his position he would eliminate 'restricted" entirely right off the bat since it should have never existed.. and most likely would eliminate prohibited as well which also should have never existed.

    The entire idea of one firearm being "bad" vs another is such total BS it's beyond not funny.

  7. #7
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    74
    Want a simple classification system?

    Prohibited: fully automatic
    Restricted: handguns
    Non-restricted: long guns

    Everybody can understand that.

  8. #8
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    42
    Posts
    3,254
    Quote Originally Posted by Claidemore View Post
    Want a simple classification system?

    Prohibited: fully automatic
    Restricted: handguns
    Non-restricted: long guns

    Everybody can understand that.

    Everyone can understand this one as well:

    None of the above.. one firearm in the hands of the law abiding is no more a danger than a different firearm.

    Go pay attention to the criminals.

  9. #9
    Senior Member Foxer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Vancouver
    Posts
    17,799
    There's a lot of guns like the ranch hands which are closer to 24 inches. You'd kind of screw those owners with that law. I'd rather instead of 660 mm change it to 600. That's about 23.5 inches and that's a little more reasonable. 660 is an abritrary figure - there's no real 'point' to it other than you have to draw the line somewhere. Might as well draw it a little further back.

  10. #10
    Senior Member RangeBob's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Ontario
    Posts
    46,370
    Quote Originally Posted by Foxer View Post
    There's a lot of guns like the ranch hands which are closer to 24 inches. You'd kind of screw those owners with that law. I'd rather instead of 660 mm change it to 600. That's about 23.5 inches and that's a little more reasonable. 660 is an abritrary figure - there's no real 'point' to it other than you have to draw the line somewhere. Might as well draw it a little further back.
    Actually, you don't. You have to read it again.

    Quote Originally Posted by OriginalPost
    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.
    A ranch hand is not folding, not designed to be used by one hand (hand gun), not adapted or converted to less than 660mm, not automatic.
    Thus a ranch hand is not prohibited, and not restricted, leaving it non-restricted.

    The phrasing "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" is right out of the current law, which means that is an easy sell politically, because it represents status quo.
    Last edited by RangeBob; 08-27-2014 at 09:15 AM.

Page 1 of 13 1234511 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. New Classification System
    By TailBullet in forum Action Headquarters
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 03-18-2017, 09:05 PM
  2. Replies: 27
    Last Post: 08-02-2016, 09:48 AM
  3. Replies: 22
    Last Post: 04-07-2016, 12:37 PM
  4. Runner's World Promotes Handgun Ban
    By Mad Hatter in forum Canadian Firearms News, Headlines and Polls
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 11-18-2013, 07:57 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
  •