Results 1 to 2 of 2
  1. #1
    Senior Member GTW's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    In a dictatorship ruled by PM Blackface
    Posts
    3,866

    Legal challenge over Ottawa's gun ban cleared for trial after taking a few bullets in court

    https://nationalpost.com/news/canada...llets-in-court

    Legal challenge over Ottawa's gun ban cleared for trial after taking a few bullets in court

    An Alberta gun maker claims the classification of his best-selling semi-automatic rifles was changed to align more with the Trudeau government’s public comments
    Author of the article:
    Adrian Humphreys
    Publishing date:
    Nov 09, 2021
    bullets.jpg

    Richard Timmins' suit is against the federal government as well as four specific government employees who handled the designations of firearms in Timmins’ case — two RCMP officers and two firearms officers Photo by Alberta Tactical Rifle

    A challenge by an Alberta rifle manufacturer over the federal gun ban — which made most of its inventory illegal — took a couple of bullets, so to speak, in a courtroom skirmish with government lawyers but none were kill shots.

    The lawsuit by Alberta Tactical Rifle Supply is headed for trial with accusations Ottawa and four federal employees are guilty of misfeasance in public office over the rollout of firearms restrictions.

    It challenges how RCMP and government firearm officials process and classify firearms — deciding which guns that are not specifically banned by name in the law will also be prohibited in Canada.

    The Calgary-based gun maker, owned by Richard Timmins, claims those decisions are smothering his business and wrongly based on politicized opinions, not legislation.

    He says the official government analysis of the design and character of his best-selling semi-automatic rifles was swiftly changed to align more with the Trudeau government’s public comments on guns.
    Timmins will not, however, be able to argue for compensation or rights breaches over alleged wrongful expropriation or confiscation of property because of the new gun laws, a Federal Court judge has ruled.

    “The action against the four individuals is maintained, the action against the government is maintained. That is important to see,” said Timmins’ lawyer, Ed Burlew, an Ontario lawyer specializing in firearms law.

    “The court is saying, let’s see what these guys did, what these four individuals did — what did they do, how did they do it. Misfeasance is a very powerful action.”
    Advertisement

    Misfeasance is the deliberate, wrongful exercise of authority by an official in their public capacity.

    Unlike a different challenge of the firearms law itself, being pursued by others, which continues to seek a judicial review of the legislation, the $70-million claim launched by Timmins complains of the way the federal bureaucracy interprets and acts on the law.

    His suit is against the federal government as well as four specific government employees who handled the designations of firearms in Timmins’ case — two RCMP officers and two firearms officers.

    The RCMP officers are accused of exceeding their authority by changing the assessments and re-designating three rifles as prohibited, after they were already cleared for manufacture and sale in Canada. The firearms officers are accused of exceeding their authority by ordering Timmins to stop making, advertising, and selling those guns, and demanding he turn over a list of his customers.

    None of the allegations have been tested in court. No statements of defence have yet been filed.

    Last year, the government’s gun legislation classified nine models of firearms as prohibited, as well as “any variant or modified version” of those guns.

    The RCMP’s Specialized Firearm Support Services then assessed guns to identify which will be classified as an unnamed variant of the banned models, making them prohibited weapons in Canada as well.

    Misfeasance is a very powerful action

    Timmins was relieved to see his best-selling products were not named in the government’s gun ban, Burlew said: Three five-shot, semi-automatic rifles called the Modern Hunter, Modern Sporter, and Modern Varmint. Other guns in his catalog were, and he stopped making and selling those, Burlew said.

    Timmins later learned his Modern series had been declared prohibited weapons, administratively, through a dense and weighty document called the Firearms Reference Table, after the RCMP decided they were variants of banned gun designs commonly known as the M16, AR-10 or AR-15 rifles.

    It was a devastating blow to Timmins’ business. The three models made up 80 per cent of his sales.

    The change meant his Modern series sales “virtually ceased,” putting his company in “grave jeopardy,” he says in his claim.

    Timmins derides public comments from Prime Minster Justin Trudeau and Bill Blair, then the minister of public safety, declaring the banned guns “were designed for one purpose and one purpose only, to kill the largest number of people in the shortest amount of time.”

    Timmins called that “ridiculous.”

    “These firearms were not so designed,” his suit says. The guns “were expressly designed for legal hunting of big game and varmints or for sport shooting as the designs attest to.”

    The RCMP and firearms officials used to agree with him, his claim says.

    When his Modem Sporter was assessed in 2018, Timmins told court, government examiners determined it “does not trace its design lineage directly or uniquely” to a prohibited or restricted gun and has a different receiver and frame from either the AR-10 or AR-15 rifles.

    The court is saying, let’s see what these guys did, what these four individuals did — what did they do, how did they do it

    That opinion was suddenly changed after the government’s push for a stricter gun ban, which is a breach of the government’s own Firearms Records Regulations, Timmins claims.

    His claim says the officials “overstep their boundaries … in a vindictive move under government sanction.”

    The rifles remain listed on Timmins’ company’s website, although he has added his own designation: “Temporarily out of stock.”

    Government lawyers moved to limit the lawsuit and Timmins also asked the court to not let the individual defendants continue using the same government lawyers as the federal government, calling it a conflict of interest.

    Timmins lost his conflict motion and the government successfully had some of his claims and causes of actions rejected, but gave a green light for his case to proceed.

    “At this stage, it is not important whether this argument is strong or accurate. In addition, the ongoing debate about the classification of the AR-10 before May 1, 2020, would be better suited to trial,” Associate Chief Justice Jocelyne Gagné said in her ruling, made on Oct. 21 but published this week.

    “Their claims of misfeasance should not be struck at this point,” Gagné ruled, but cautioned, “dismissing the (government’s) Motion to Strike is not an endorsement of the Plaintiffs’ claims.”

    Timmins’ GoFundMe campaign for his legal defence, meanwhile, climbed passed $68,000 Tuesday.
    Last edited by GTW; 11-09-2021 at 01:35 PM.
    Justin Trudeau - living proof that shit can step in itself.

  2. The Following 3 Users Like This Post By GTW

    Doug_M (11-09-2021), Northshore (11-09-2021), Rory McCanuck (11-10-2021)

  3. #2
    Senior Member M1917 Enfield's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    Eastern Ontario
    Posts
    13,195
    Quote Originally Posted by GTW View Post
    https://nationalpost.com/news/canada...llets-in-court

    The RCMP officers are accused of exceeding their authority by changing the assessments and re-designating three rifles as prohibited, after they were already cleared for manufacture and sale in Canada. The firearms officers are accused of exceeding their authority by ordering Timmins to stop making, advertising, and selling those guns, and demanding he turn over a list of his customers.

    I wonder why they are demanding to know who his customers were/are?



    I also remember reading this here - https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/...4.html#docCont


    Permission to view records

    28 The Commissioner of Firearms shall permit the Information Commissioner to view — for the purpose of settling the Federal Court proceeding Information Commissioner of Canada v. Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, bearing court file number T-785-15 — any record that was in the Canadian Firearms Registry on April 3, 2015.

    Marginal note:Copy to Government of Quebec

    29 (1) The Commissioner of Firearms shall — for the purpose of the administration and enforcement of the Firearms Registration Act, chapter 15 of the Statutes of Quebec, 2016 — provide the Quebec Minister with a copy of all records that were in the Canadian Firearms Registry on April 3, 2015 and that relate to firearms registered, as at that day, as non-restricted firearms, if the Quebec Minister provides the Commissioner with a written request to that effect before the end of the 120th day after the day on which the Commissioner sends written notice under subsection (2).




    This is confusing considering parliament made this law - the enactment of Bill C-19, the Ending the Long-gun Registry Act, which came into force on April 5, 2012. This enactment amends the Criminal Code and the Firearms Act to remove the requirement to register firearms that are neither prohibited nor restricted. It also provides for the destruction of all existing records, held in the Canadian Firearms Registry and under the control of chief firearms officers, that relate to the registration of all such firearms. “The national firearms centre which is run by the RCMP (Canadian Firearms Program) testified at a parliamentary committee back in 2015 that the information in the long gun registry was all destroyed,.



    A year after Liberal Prime Minister Justin Trudeau announced his sweeping ban on firearms, shocking new revelations have emerged concerning the repudiated long gun registry and the federal police agency responsible for implementing and enforcing Canada’s gun laws.

    According to reports by the Canadian Shooting Sports Association (CSSA) and news media, there is good reason to believe that the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) has retained the long gun registry records.

    The long gun registry, set up by the Liberal government in 1995, was an utter, complete and horribly expensive catastrophe. It was finally abolished by Stephen Harper’s Conservative government through the enactment of Bill C-19, the Ending the Long-gun Registry Act, which came into force on April 5, 2012.

    Section 29 directed the Commissioner of the RCMP (as the Commissioner of Firearms) to permanently delete the records for non-restricted guns from the registry database managed by the RCMP. Specifically, the statute required “the destruction as soon as feasible of all records in the Canadian Firearms Registry related to the registration of firearms that are neither prohibited firearms nor restricted firearms and all copies of those records under the Commissioner’s control.” A similar directive was imposed on chief firearm officers in each province and territory.

    In June 2015, Peter Henschel, the Deputy Commissioner responsible for the RCMP‘s Canadian Firearms Program, testified before a House of Commons Committee on compliance with the legislative mandate. “Consistent with the government-approved implementation plan,” he said, “the RCMP destroyed the records between October 26, 2012, and October 31, 2012, with the exception of the Quebec records, which were maintained pending the outcome of a Supreme Court decision.” After the Supreme Court of Canada upheld the federal law ending the registry, “the RCMP deleted the remaining Quebec records from the Canadian firearms information system between April 10 to April 12, 2015.” This destruction was also confirmed, unequivocally, in the 2013 and 2015 annual reports of the Commissioner of Firearms, and a 2015 audit released by the RCMP.

    Concern over the surreptitious and illegal retention of the records persisted. In 2017, after the Liberal government introduced C-52 (a bill to authorize the Commissioner of Firearms to provide the Quebec government with copies of all records of non-restricted firearms that were in the Canadian Firearms Registry as of April 3, 2015), the obvious question was asked: Hadn’t these records ceased to exist as of 2015?

    These concerns resurfaced more forcefully this month, after journalist Brian Lilley described new evidence that the long gun registry records are being used by the RCMP and are made available to other law enforcement agencies. If this is correct, not only did officials in the highest echelons of the RCMP mislead Parliament and all Canadians, but these records are being kept and used in violation of a clear federal law.

    The case against the RCMP centers on documents received by criminal defense lawyer Edward Burlew in 2019. In the course of his work, he’s made routine access to information (ATIP) requests to the RCMP Registrar of Firearms on behalf of his clients. Other documentation was provided to him by the Crown prosecutor as part of the standard disclosure made by the prosecution to the defense. In three cases, the documents Burlew received from the prosecution featured details of firearms registered to the accused, prepared by the Registrar and sent to the Ontario Provincial Police, including previously registered (pre-2012) non-restricted firearms. In contrast, the documents provided by the Registrar in response to the ATIP request lacked any references or records for non-restricted firearms, even though this information had been provided by the Registrar to the Ontario police. Burlew received permission from his client and the Ontario Attorney General to share the documents with Members of Parliament, and did so.

    As Ed Burlew explains in a video, “Now we have hard, black-letter proof that [the long gun registry data] is published, that it is distributed, and that it is kept secret from that licensed person.” Ordinary patrol police officers have access to the long gun registry data, he notes, and are currently using it for their investigations – if this was not useful information prior to 2012, why was it archived, and why are police using it today?

    The implications of this are frightening. Trudeau’s May 2020 firearm ban reclassified many formerly “non-restricted” long guns as “prohibited” firearms. SOR/2020-96, the regulation imposing the 2020 gun ban, noted that there “are 2.2 million individual firearms license holders in Canada. It is unknown how many exactly will be affected by the prohibition; however, there are approximately 90 000 restricted firearms that would be affected; and an unknown number of non-restricted firearms.” Once the amnesty for possession of these guns expires in 2022, it is not clear what prevents the police from relying on the registry data to enforce the ban.

    Moreover, by the time the amnesty expires the registry data will be at least ten years out of date. Anyone listed as the registered owner on record as of April 2012 could nonetheless face police action or potential prosecution for illegal possession, even if the gun had been lawfully sold or disposed of in the interim.
    Warning! some sarcasm, facetious and jovial behavior, satire, irony, dry humor, playful banter and more may or may not be involved in my postings. Please read anything I have written as being said in the most joyful and happy voice you can imagine.

    To whom it may concern: I hereby declare I am not responsible for the debts incurred by one Justin Trudeau!

Posting Permissions

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