Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 20 of 20
  1. #11
    Senior Member RangeBob's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Ontario
    Posts
    39,686
    The Simplified Classification System passed in the Policy Convention.

    Conservative Party of Canada POLICY DECLARATION
    May 28th, 2016

    99. Firearms
    A Conservative Government is committed to cost-effective gun control programs designed to keep
    guns out of the hands of criminals while respecting the rights of law-abiding Canadians to own
    and use firearms responsibly.
    Measures will include: mandatory minimum sentences for the criminal use of firearms; strict
    monitoring of high-risk individuals; increased enforcement and prosecution of smuggling; safe
    storage provisions; firearms safety training; a certification screening system for all those wishing
    to acquire firearms legally; and putting more law enforcement officers on our streets.
    We recognize the legitimacy of private ownership of firearms and will resist any domestic or
    international pressure to the contrary.
    A Conservative Government will not deprive Canadian Citizens of legally owned firearms.
    A Conservative Government recognizes that civilian firearms ownership is a Canadian Heritage.
    A Conservative Government would streamline Firearms classification by adopting the Simplified
    Classification System.

    A Conservative government would order a review of firearms related laws to identify parts of those
    Acts that have no public safety value.


    JRW(QOR) aka Richard Wakefield posted at
    https://www.canadiangunnutz.com/foru...8#post13349298

    Quote Originally Posted by JRW (QOR) View Post

    2017-01-02

    One year ago I wrote the four policy statements for the CPC convention, which passed at 99.99%.

    Any changes will follow those four statements.

    Policy statements:

    1-- A Conservative Government will not deprive Canadian Citizens of their legally acquired firearms.
    2-- A Conservative Government recognizes that civilian firearms ownership is a Canadian Heritage.
    3-- A Conservative Government would streamline Firearms classification by adopting the Simplified Classification System.
    4 - A Conservative government would order a review of firearms related laws to identify parts of those Acts that have no public safety value.




    As I recall the CSSA's Simplified Classification System is
    • A prohibited firearm is
      (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,
    • A restricted firearm is
      (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.
    • A non-restricted firearm is
      a firearm that is not a prohibited or restricted firearm.

    Whereas the pamphlet that Richard Wakefield handed around to all the delegates at the policy convention said it was
    • A prohibited firearm is
      (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,
    • A restricted firearm is
      (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.
    • A non-restricted firearm is
      a firearm that is not a prohibited or restricted firearm.
    • A historical firearm is
      a firearm that was made before 1946
    Last edited by RangeBob; 06-18-2019 at 06:33 PM.

  2. #12
    Senior Member RangeBob's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Ontario
    Posts
    39,686
    I posted the previous because I've had a couple of discussions about that Policy Convention & Simplified Classification System lately.

    A strong CSSA supporter said that it didn't matter what the exact wording was in the policy convention pamphlet, because that's merely the intent, and lawyers will draft the Bill and that's what we'll have to look at anyway.

    A long time Conservative supporter said that the policy that was passed merely said "A Conservative Government would streamline Firearms classification by adopting the Simplified Classification System." but because the policy didn't define it anywhere that left the Conservatives completely free to define it as anything they liked, and they would do so as depending upon their mood at the time. (It may continue to have Named and Variants for example -- which is precisely the opposite of the intent)

    I suspect if they might try to get that passed at the last year of a Conservative majority government, so as to have a hope of having enough Conservative Senators and Neutral-Support-the-Government Senators to vote in favour of it. Note that there will not be a clear majority of Conservative senators even the last weeks of the next 4 year term. There's a good chance it will fail in the senate. At least until 2024 sometime, if the Conservatives get a second majority government it will probably pass then.
    If there's a minority Conservative government, they probably won't even bother because it will waste their time that could be spent doing something productive -- even though a few CGNers will scream "see they didn't help us!" even though it was a political impossibility in that environment.

  3. The Following 4 Users Like This Post By RangeBob

    awndray (06-20-2019), Grizz (06-19-2019), Rory McCanuck (06-18-2019), Zinilin (06-18-2019)

  4. #13
    Senior Member Zinilin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    3,325
    The session was well attended with all the seats occupied and only a few people standing. A good turnout. A huge thank you to Lynn Holmes and others at the Grenville Fish & Game Club for their assistance and the use of their facilities.

    Michael Barrett (MP for Leeds - Grenville - Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes) outlined the general position of the Conservative party with respect to the firearms file and how the party will respond to C-71 (repeal) and any related OIC’s (revert them) when they assume government in October. He reiterated that firearms are a part of Canadian Heritage and this should be clearly recognized.

    Glen Motz (MP for Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner) expanded on Michael’s points and also provided specific information on the data available with respect to violent crime in Canada (it continues to decrease) and firearms offences by licensed firearms owners (so small as to be statistically immeasurable, less than a handful of convictions in the population of millions of licensees). Glen also provided information on the sources of firearms used by criminals in Canada (smuggling) and indicated that if a firearm cannot be traced as to its origin it is classified as ‘domestically sourced’ even if the type of firearm is prohibited in Canada and was never manufactured before the prohibition was in effect, and is not used by any government sanctioned security force (police, military, etc.); i.e. it could only be in Canada as a result of smuggling; and that the level of smuggling is increasing and increased border protection is required to address the problem. Glen illustrated multiple specific examples of where the media story line differs from the official statistical data.

    Bob Zimmer (MP for Prince George—Peace River) discussed the specific details of C-71 and how and where the text of the bill differs significantly from what is being uttered by the Liberals and repeated without checking by taxpayer funded, and other media organizations. Bob also outlined how the text of the bill would manifest itself in practice and how it will, for example, effectively end the ability to have restricted firearms at gun shows, and how it will significantly impede the sale of non-restricted firearms during government working hours, and how it will prevent the sale of non-restricted firearms when the government is not answering their (few) phone lines. Bob also explained that each of the firearms retailers’ registries of non-restricted transfers will be practically linked into web (distributed) database (national registry) and how the cost of implementation and maintenance and the burden of correctness will be borne by the retailer, without compensation.

    Tracey Wilson (Vice President of Public relation for the Canadian Center for Firearm Rights) outlined her role as the only federally registered in-house firearms lobbyist in Canada (what the media refers to as the ‘powerful firearms lobby’, is just her) and how she has been working constantly on the C-71 file since the bill was first being drafted. She explained how she has been representing firearms owners and testifying before the different house and senate committees that had some oversight on the bill. She indicated that the recent sale of 22,000 AR-15 style rifles many have given pause to the government plans for a short term to move via Order in Council (OIC) ‘assault-style weapons’ in to the prohibited class, without grandfathering (immediate confiscation). Tracey also informed us about how feedback from Liberal members in (vulnerable) rural areas has also put any handgun OIC ‘ban’ on hold.

    There were many and varied questions asked and answered after the speakers had completed briefing the attendees. These included a firearms retailer explaining how the Liberal C-71 is going to affect his business; a discussion of the Rugger 10-22 mag ‘prohibition’ overreach by the RCMP; what actions need to be taken about smuggling; what can be done to address, prevent or provide support for people undergoing ‘punishment by process’; how the printing of Outdoors card and Tags in the United States has (and continues to) transfer personal information on firearms owners beyond the jurisdiction of Canadian privacy laws; and what can be done to defeat the Liberals in the upcoming federal election.

    All in all a very good session of information exchange. It was neither a fundraiser nor a ‘Kumbaya’ session, no memberships were sold and no donations received. Just elected officials putting their ear to the ground to understand the concerns of the voters.

    I strongly encourage people in other ridings to reach out to their MP or Candidate in the upcoming federal election and put together a similar session.

    Get involved, make a difference.

  5. The Following 3 Users Like This Post By Zinilin

    awndray (06-20-2019), Rory McCanuck (06-20-2019), SIR VEYOR (06-20-2019)

  6. #14
    Senior Member RangeBob's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Ontario
    Posts
    39,686
    Most of that sounds familiar.

    In retrospect given that AR-15's are being transfered at a rate near 1800 a day, limited by stock, that it's gone up from 20,000 a few days ago to 22,000 seems obvious in 20-20 hindsight.


    What's this one about ?

    Quote Originally Posted by Zinilin View Post
    [Bill C-71] effectively end the ability to have restricted firearms at gun shows
    I assume that's that the ATTs will be issued by CFOs for gunsmiths, gunshows and ports.
    Being ATTs they can be issued for any time interval up to the 5-year expiry of the PAL, but presumably these would be limited to 2 weeks or some short interval that roughly corresponds to the issue involved (going to the USA for a month, then 6 weeks. Getting a repair done that has to wait for parts that'll take two weeks to arrive, then four weeks, etc).
    Is there a suggestion that the CFO will simply refuse to allow restricteds to go to a gun show? Or is this about something else?

  7. #15
    Senior Member Zinilin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    3,325
    Quote Originally Posted by RangeBob View Post
    Most of that sounds familiar.



    What's this one about ?



    I assume that's that the ATTs will be issued by CFOs for gunsmiths, gunshows and ports.
    Being ATTs they can be issued for any time interval up to the 5-year expiry of the PAL, but presumably these would be limited to 2 weeks or some short interval that roughly corresponds to the issue involved (going to the USA for a month, then 6 weeks. Getting a repair done that has to wait for parts that'll take two weeks to arrive, then four weeks, etc).
    Is there a suggestion that the CFO will simply refuse to allow restricteds to go to a gun show? Or is this about something else?
    It is about the one-time point-to-point ATT from the place of storage of the restricted to the place of display at the gun show. The potential lead time for these ATT's is expected it be long and that the hassles and uncertainty will dissuade people from going through the hoops in the hope that they complete the obstacle course before they have to leave for the show. Prevention by process.

  8. #16
    Senior Member RangeBob's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Ontario
    Posts
    39,686
    Quote Originally Posted by Zinilin View Post
    It is about the one-time point-to-point ATT from the place of storage of the restricted to the place of display at the gun show. The potential lead time for these ATT's is expected it be long and that the hassles and uncertainty will dissuade people from going through the hoops in the hope that they complete the obstacle course before they have to leave for the show. Prevention by process.
    But wasn't that the case 2000-2014 ?

  9. #17
    Senior Member Zinilin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    3,325
    Bob;
    C-71 strikes sections 19(2.1) thru 19(2.3), which indicates the rules that take effect upon your next renewal.
    The effect is to change this:

    Capture1.JPG

    to this:

    Capture2.JPG

    Eliminating automatic transport to everything except approved shooting ranges.
    Even transport to a CFO, or surrender to the Police is not part of the automatic ATT.

    Just from your registered dwelling house to a registered range in the same province.

  10. #18
    Senior Member RangeBob's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Ontario
    Posts
    39,686
    Yes.
    But for gun shows, it's a return to the way it was 2000-2014
    Is it not?

  11. #19
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Ontario
    Posts
    1,105
    Sorry if I missed it in the text, but any discussion about changes further than just reversing C71 and any new OIC? ie Move towards simplified classification etc?
    Remember High River!

  12. #20
    Senior Member Zinilin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    3,325
    Quote Originally Posted by Neil Burke View Post
    Sorry if I missed it in the text, but any discussion about changes further than just reversing C71 and any new OIC? ie Move towards simplified classification etc?
    There was some discussion on the simplified classification system.

    The evidence (measured statistics from Canada) and science (ballistics, action engineering) based classification system for firearms is part of the Conservative Party policy voted on and approved by its members.

    This science based policy will be part of the election platform for the Conservative Party.

    Like the elimination of the useless long gun registry the passage of enabling legislation for science based firearms classification may require a majority in both the house and the senate. It may take more than one mandate to convert the senate from its current role as a feelings based virtue signaling enabler and back to an evidence based legislative body. In the meantime the CPC will pursue the policy and will not shy away from mentioning or discussing it.

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Posting Permissions

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