Page 1 of 5 12345 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 45
  1. #1
    Senior Member XTracker5's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    263

    Private Bill - has this ever been considered

    Has the CSSA ever given consideration to using the Private Bill process (NOT a Private Members Bill) to obtain relief from the onerous provisions of C-68.
    This is a separate and distinct process from that of a Private Members Bill. It is usually introduced through the Senate and not the HofC. It appears (if successful) to permit relief from existing legislation or portions thereof for individuals or a group of individuals (such as firearms owners). Could this be used to obtain CCW, Wilderness Carry, interprovincial transport of restricteds, etc.
    Just an idea to throw out there to see if this could possibly be used for our benefit.

  2. #2
    Senior Member Foxer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Vancouver
    Posts
    17,799
    Quote Originally Posted by Roadapplered View Post
    Has the CSSA ever given consideration to using the Private Bill process (NOT a Private Members Bill) to obtain relief from the onerous provisions of C-68.
    This is a separate and distinct process from that of a Private Members Bill. It is usually introduced through the Senate and not the HofC. It appears (if successful) to permit relief from existing legislation or portions thereof for individuals or a group of individuals (such as firearms owners). Could this be used to obtain CCW, Wilderness Carry, interprovincial transport of restricteds, etc.
    Just an idea to throw out there to see if this could possibly be used for our benefit.
    That process is pretty much useless. It still has to go thru all the various processes as a normal bill - three in the house and three in the senate and the usual committes. The chances of that bill getting thru the house with a liberal gov't is zero. Generally speaking it's even less than zero because nobody wants to own it - if they did they'd have introduced it themselves.

    It's MORE likely to be successful if you can talk a member into putting it forward as a private member's bill - but that still is going nowhere at all with the libs in power.

    Also - the CSSA may not be able to do it, one of the primary premisis of a private bill is that it's "private" - it has to be put forward by the people that it directly benefits, not an org that 'represents' some of them.

    Good that you're thinking outside the box a little - but no, that's not a real option.

    Oh - and ditch the whole c-68 thing. We're way the hell beyond that. C-68 did not give us our classes of firearms - do you like our current class system? It did not give us mag limits? Do you like mag limits? Etc etc. So - we don't care about c-68. We care about what's wrong IN TOTAL with the current gun laws and what we need to change. You just confuse the issue by mentioning a 25 year old bill that doesn't even address half the stuff we want changed.

  3. #3
    Senior Member 3MTA3's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    45.635887,-78.367367
    Posts
    3,550
    "So much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot.." - George Orwell
    "Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves."-William Pitt the younger
    FTrudeau

  4. #4
    Senior Member Foxer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Vancouver
    Posts
    17,799
    And here's some reading on citizens' private bills:

    http://www.parl.gc.ca/procedure-book...guage=E&Mode=1

    Private member's bills have a better chance of success, they usually get 'buy in' from the party in power or the like before the process starts and they tend to be properly drafted having been gone over by actual gov't types before introduction. THey don't have the limits of private person bills which are many. Private bills are not really supposed to be for public policy.

    Even then - without support from the party holding power, they're going nowhere unless it's a minority gov't and they can get the other opposition parties to go along.

  5. #5
    Senior Member RealDeckard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Posts
    853
    It is true that C-68 built on the Conservatives' C-17. Both are wrong. Both should be gone but they aren't equal. The biggest caustic social engineering came from C-68. That's when the real chill came. That's when our enemies got emboldened.

    If I was fuddistic (I'm not) I'd say I can live with C-17 restrictions, but I can't stand for loss of rights embedded in C-68. We actually do care about C-68. We won't 'get over it' and it's not the place of others to define (and restrict) what we should care about.

  6. #6
    Senior Member XTracker5's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    263
    Sorry guys, I was not intending to cause a debate on what should happen to C-68 (we all know it is crap legislation), but just referencing it as an example of the possible targets of a Private Bill. I scanned the Private Bill procedures and purpose and thought it would not work but wanted to get it out there for discussion, just in case.
    I agree with Foxer's comments about it not being a possible route to getting our rights back.

  7. The Following User Liked This Post By XTracker5

    Edenchef (11-03-2015)

  8. #7
    Senior Member Doug_M's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Nova Scotia
    Posts
    12,519
    Quote Originally Posted by RealDeckard View Post
    It is true that C-68 built on the Conservatives' C-17. Both are wrong. Both should be gone but they aren't equal. The biggest caustic social engineering came from C-68. That's when the real chill came. That's when our enemies got emboldened.

    If I was fuddistic (I'm not) I'd say I can live with C-17 restrictions, but I can't stand for loss of rights embedded in C-68. We actually do care about C-68. We won't 'get over it' and it's not the place of others to define (and restrict) what we should care about.
    Perhaps you are missing Foxer's point. I don't believe he intended for you to believe that we should be "okay" with what C-68 did/is. Rather, his is a technical argument. One can't "repeal" C-68. One needs to dismantle it instead. Same end-point goal but the former makes no sense. C-68 intertwines with the Criminal Code of Canada and is large and complicated. Infrastructure, both private and public, are entrenched around the Firearms Act and has been for decades now. Saying "I want the government to repeal C-68" is like saying "I want the government to wave a magic wand and get rid of C-68". Both are fantasy.

    But it can be torn down. Egregious items removed or changed, good things added, etc. This give the beast that is infrastructure, public opinion, political capital, etc etc the ability to conform/adapt/accept these changes. This is the only path to success for gun owners. Otherwise we are just tilting at windmills while pissing in the wind.
    Liberate Hong Kong, revolution of our times [#uc# you CCP!]

  9. #8
    Senior Member Foxer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Vancouver
    Posts
    17,799
    Sorry guys, I was not intending to cause a debate on what should happen to C-68 (we all know it is crap legislation), but just referencing it as an example of the possible targets of a Private Bill. I scanned the Private Bill procedures and purpose and thought it would not work but wanted to get it out there for discussion, just in case.
    I agree with Foxer's comments about it not being a possible route to getting our rights back.
    Hey, like i said - at least you're thinking outside the box and putting ideas forward That's good! We should all be looking at whatever options are available and considering them - both governmental and otherwise. It was a good question.

  10. The Following 2 Users Like This Post By Foxer

    greywolf67nt (11-03-2015), Kane63 (11-03-2015)

  11. #9
    Senior Member Foxer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Vancouver
    Posts
    17,799
    But it can be torn down. Egregious items removed or changed, good things added, etc. This give the beast that is infrastructure, public opinion, political capital, etc etc the ability to conform/adapt/accept these changes. This is the only path to success for gun owners. Otherwise we are just tilting at windmills while pissing in the wind.
    Yeah. And while RealDekard may be ok with things like mag restrictions or happy with our classifications systems I'm sure not and I suspect there might be a few others that aren't as well

    C-68 build on c-19 which built on c-51 which built on etc etc etc. The only really new thing in c-68 was the firearms registry, and it's gone. Harping about 25 year old legislation is of no value to us.

    We need to look at all firearms laws, in the act, in the criminal code, in other acts such as the explosives act, and we need to decide what needs to go. And then we make those things go. Which act brought them in is a useless argument. We do NOT care in the slightest about c-68, we would still be criminals for owning guns if it were repealed and that's just not good enough.

  12. #10
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    SWOntario
    Posts
    2,546
    Not a chance in Hades a private bill would ever be applied to firearms owners. Certainly not with a Liberal Majority.
    "The purpose of a private bill is to confer special powers or benefits (in excess of or in conflict with the general law) upon one or more person or group of persons (including corporate entities) or to exempt them from the application of a statute."
    http://www.parl.gc.ca/procedure-book...6d0a6&sbpidx=3

Page 1 of 5 12345 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 38
    Last Post: 07-12-2018, 10:42 AM
  2. Private member s bill c 346
    By triq in forum Canadian Firearms News, Headlines and Polls
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 06-10-2017, 07:25 AM
  3. Senate Private Bill S-231 Link to text
    By RangeBob in forum Canadian Firearms News, Headlines and Polls
    Replies: 28
    Last Post: 06-22-2015, 08:15 AM
  4. Bill Gates backs Washington initiative that would end private gun sales
    By Mad Hatter in forum Canadian Firearms News, Headlines and Polls
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 11-17-2013, 11:47 PM
  5. .22LR - What would be considered precision?
    By YukonLeftie in forum Precision & Target Rifles
    Replies: 42
    Last Post: 08-04-2013, 12:15 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
  •