Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1234
Results 31 to 38 of 38
  1. #31
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    4,702
    Quote Originally Posted by Big-Boss-Man View Post
    It is a fools errand. It will not clog up the courts 1 iota. I don't know what makes people think it will. For arguments sake, lets assume that there are 500 people in Calgary who apply for an s 74 hearing within the next 23ish days. All those applications
    "On receipt of a reference under section 74, the provincial court judge shall fix a date for the hearing of the reference and direct that notice of the hearing be given to the chief firearms officer, Registrar or provincial minister and to the applicant for or holder of the licence, registration certificate, authorization or approval, in such manner as the provincial court judge may specify."

    what makes you think they won't all be heard at the same time?
    Because that is not how our legal system works. Each applicant MUST have their individual case heard. This is a basic right. The law cannot just ignore these hearings and they cannot lump them all into one. Having been there and done that I can tell you it took at least 3 court visits over the period of 18 months.



    it makes sense to me that if the court receives a butt tonne of requests it will try to hear them all together saves on "court costs", the same as they do with traffic tickets.
    Have you ever actually fought a traffic ticket? Because I can assure you the courts do not lump together tickets from different people to save on court costs.


    Secondly that act says that the Judge may proceed ex parte (s 75(4)) [i may be understanding this wrong so it may or may not happen behind your back]

    so the prosecutor, minister, chief firearms officer can say "these registrations were all invalidated because sor 2020.198 changed their status and no firearms owner has an appropriate licence to have this class of firearm (lets say 12.9), we ask that you deny this request, as the applicant will be unable to provide evidence why their registration should not be invalidated, in the alternative we ask that you put this matter off until the lawfulness of 2020.198 is determined in the judicial review that is going on in the federal court [or queens bench in Alberta]" [if this happened behind every ones back all 500 done at once if not each one called up separately for the respondent to say the same thing]

    bing bang boom done 500 cases either turfed or set aside until after the determination of the oic battle. No court time wasted. 500 cases done in less than the time of a traffic offence. [or if called separately in the time it takes to call 500 names and say "the same your hononr" and the judge to say "so ordered" i would suggest less than an hour so no longer than 1 case would take to argue].
    IF cases get set aside until after the OIC battle then we get a further 18+ months reprieve to hear all the cases, which is more time in which to replace the current sh!te govt. This fight is not about winning, it is about delaying confiscation as long as possible so that we have a chance to replace the current fed govt.

    Not sure why I need to keep explaining the basics of this strategy? You guys want to give up right away, might as well just go find another hobby. Me, I'm gonna defend this hobby with all my strength and resources.

  2. #32
    Member awndray's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    National Capital Region
    Posts
    11,773
    Quote Originally Posted by Suputin View Post
    So what you are saying is we should just give up and roll over because gun owners are lazy and complacent? .......... without noticing the irony in your statement?

    MAYBE, just maybe we could act as leaders and show the way forward and other gun owners will see this action and join in? Or we could just give up and meekly hand our guns in?
    That's not at what I'm saying. I was merely making an observation. You do you. I'll do me. In the end, you'll likely notice that many of us here are correct in our assumption that this will lead to no good.

  3. #33
    Senior Member Gunrunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    3,616
    Quote Originally Posted by awndray View Post
    They're lazy and submissive.
    Scared and lazy ... you were right the first time.
    NFA member
    NRA Life Member
    OFAH member

  4. #34
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2016
    Posts
    751
    Quote Originally Posted by Suputin View Post
    Because that is not how our legal system works. Each applicant MUST have their individual case heard. This is a basic right. The law cannot just ignore these hearings and they cannot lump them all into one. Having been there and done that I can tell you it took at least 3 court visits over the period of 18 months.Have you ever actually fought a traffic ticket? Because I can assure you the courts do not lump together tickets from different people to save on court costs.
    I am not saying the clerk will stand up and say "Joe John George Walter" etc I am saying all 500 cases will scheduled for the same day at the same court the clerk "matter of Joe" "held over/dismissed" the clerk "John" "held over/dismissed" etc.


    IF cases get set aside until after the OIC battle then we get a further 18+ months reprieve to hear all the cases, which is more time in which to replace the current sh!te govt. This fight is not about winning, it is about delaying confiscation as long as possible so that we have a chance to replace the current fed govt.

    Not sure why I need to keep explaining the basics of this strategy? You guys want to give up right away, might as well just go find another hobby. Me, I'm gonna defend this hobby with all my strength and resources.
    WHEN the judicial reviews ask for the interlocutory injunctions the section 74 actions will be totally moot. They will all be set aside until after the Judicial review of the OIC because the injunction will make the OIC "of no force" so the interlocutory injunctions buy you time until the completion of the OIC challenge at which time the OIC will be turfed or not but your S74 is still pointless, In the unlikely event that the OIC challenges all lose, you say you get a further 18 months to possibly get a new government, but if the new government is elected to a majority in 6 months your assertion is patently wrong, and getting an extra 18 months is of no use if they haven't already over turned the oic. Again you say the whole point isn't to win but to cause caos in the court which I do not think will happen, I am sure the courts can handle a few extra cases a day (per court room even) so any 'backlog' could be cleared quickly. I can not speak for what happened in the 90's because I was not involved and haven't got the motivation to research it as it doesn't effect me at all. The basics of your strategy are flawed as I have already mentioned.

    I do not want to 'give up', I do not have any "skin in the game" and if I did, as I have already said, I would consider filing an S74 review for the sole purpose of getting it set aside until after the OIC action is complete, if the oic action failed I am unsure how I would carry on afterwards as there are a lot of factors to consider, a primary one being the cost , every day I have to take off work to be at court I could possibly lose $1000's in lost income alone. Yeah it might "cost virtually nothing" to file but you are not considering the factors such as lost income etc. Since I don't have any vested interest in an S 74 I will probably stop arguing but as I have said as a "protest" I think this is a foolish one and there are better ways to spend your time/money to protest what has been happening lately.
    Last edited by Big-Boss-Man; 07-27-2020 at 03:32 PM.

  5. #35
    Senior Member Two For Sure's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    769
    Quote Originally Posted by Suputin View Post
    IF cases get set aside until after the OIC battle then we get a further 18+ months reprieve to hear all the cases, which is more time in which to replace the current sh!te govt. This fight is not about winning, it is about delaying confiscation as long as possible so that we have a chance to replace the current fed govt.
    This is the gun owner's version of the "faint hope clause." It begins with the assumption that the Conservatives will form a majority government in the next election and they can be counted upon to roll the OIC back. The first part is far more possible than the second. None of the firearms prohibited in the 90's were reclassified by the Harper government.

    All of the Section 74 applications are the same and a judge could rule they can be heard as one. Every proud applicant gets his "day in court!" He just has to share it with a several thousand of his closest friends.

  6. #36
    Senior Member Gunrunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    3,616
    Quote Originally Posted by Two For Sure View Post
    This is the gun owner's version of the "faint hope clause." It begins with the assumption that the Conservatives will form a majority government in the next election and they can be counted upon to roll the OIC back. The first part is far more possible than the second. None of the firearms prohibited in the 90's were reclassified by the Harper government.

    All of the Section 74 applications are the same and a judge could rule they can be heard as one. Every proud applicant gets his "day in court!" He just has to share it with a several thousand of his closest friends.
    ... and Harper’s CPC was “gun tolerant”
    ... MacKays CPC will be closet anti-gun
    NFA member
    NRA Life Member
    OFAH member

  7. #37
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    4,702
    Quote Originally Posted by Two For Sure View Post
    This is the gun owner's version of the "faint hope clause." It begins with the assumption that the Conservatives will form a majority government in the next election and they can be counted upon to roll the OIC back. The first part is far more possible than the second. None of the firearms prohibited in the 90's were reclassified by the Harper government.

    All of the Section 74 applications are the same and a judge could rule they can be heard as one. Every proud applicant gets his "day in court!" He just has to share it with a several thousand of his closest friends.

    Faint hope is better than no hope.

    The legal system can't lump a bunch of cases together because that would violate basic principles. Each case has to be heard individually.

  8. #38
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    4,702
    Quote Originally Posted by Big-Boss-Man View Post
    I am not saying the clerk will stand up and say "Joe John George Walter" etc I am saying all 500 cases will scheduled for the same day at the same court the clerk "matter of Joe" "held over/dismissed" the clerk "John" "held over/dismissed" etc..
    You've clearly never been in a court room before. It doesn't work that way.

Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1234

Posting Permissions

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