OCTOBER 2016 AMNESTY - BC - Help spread the information!

[TheProudInterior]

As most of you know – there is a province wide RCMP amnesty running from October 1st to October 31st, 2016.

There are a variety of ways that people can find themselves in possession of firearms; maybe you let your PAL expire, maybe your grandparents were hunters and left you an abundance of seasoned firearms that were used to provide food during dinners growing up, maybe you bought a house and discovered a hidden stash of guns. Whatever the reason, this is an opportunity to get rid of them.
This amnesty provides a chance to hand in your unwanted firearms, no questions asked – unless the firearm is linked to a crime.
However, a few issues arise within this amnesty.

First, there is no “hand in” or “drop off” portion to this initiative. The only accepted way is for you to call the RCMP, at which officers will show up at your home address and they will take any unwanted firearms and ammunition. Are you completely comfortable with this prospect? Additionally, firearms handed in will be destroyed, no matter the historical or cultural significance. There are other ways to hand in your unwanted firearms, but they are not being highlighted or even touched on by the Ministry of Public Safety. These locations are open year round, not just for a single month.

The drop off points I am referring to are your local gun shops like Wanstall’s, Reliable Gun, and Lever Arms in Vancouver – just to name a few. These businesses are home to professionals that can safely take the firearm off your hands. This would avoid the prospect of taking RCMP officers off our streets for a glorified pick up. There is also the possibility of making money off of your used firearms. The province led amnesty will not pay a dime for anything.
The firearms industry did reach out to the RCMP to suggest that that local shops be drop off points but this partnership was shunned by the Ministry of Public Safety and RCMP. It is safe to say that this cooperation would have led to greater quantities of firearms being turned in and potentially preserved due to historical significance.

We can all agree that firearms should not be in the hands of those who are not trained to handle them safely.

The benefits of taking these unwanted firearms to shops greatly outweigh the benefit of having an RCMP officer come into your home to retrieve them.

1. Hand in unwanted firearms (Check)
2. Make money (Check)
3. Preserve our history and culture (Check)

Please take a moment to research all of your options to hand in or drop off of unwanted firearms.

Listed below are a few locations – feel free to give them a call if you have any questions or concerns!

Lever Arms: 604.736.0004
2131 Burrard Street
Vancouver, BC
V6J 3H7

Reliable Gun: 604.874.4710
3227 Fraser Street
Vancouver, BC
V5V 4B8

Wanstall’s Hunting and Shooting: 604.467.9232
22338 Lougheed Highway
Maple Ridge, BC
V2X 2T4

Please "like" and subscribe to my Facebook page HERE for updated information and video's on engagement efforts linked to positive public relations campaigns tied to the firearms community in Canada.

 

[Foxer]

I will pass the word and know all three stores well and know them to be of good repute.

But - and I'm just throwing this out there - couldnt' we just go pick up the guns from people and find them good homes where maybe folks don't have a lot of money for new guns but are licensed and such?

 

[kennymo]

I will pass the word and know all three stores well and know them to be of good repute.

But - and I'm just throwing this out there - couldnt' we just go pick up the guns from people and find them good homes where maybe folks don't have a lot of money for new guns but are licensed and such?

Y'know, a 'help start a hunter' program could be a wonderful thing if done right.....

 

[RangeBob]

I will pass the word and know all three stores well and know them to be of good repute.

But - and I'm just throwing this out there - couldnt' we just go pick up the guns from people and find them good homes where maybe folks don't have a lot of money for new guns but are licensed and such?

You'd need to figure out the logistics on that.

Police coming to someone's door -- they're in uniform, and drive a car with big flashy lights on top.
Taking the firearm to a store -- bricks and mortar are gonna be there tomorrow if there's a problem.

But a random individual showing up at someone's house, wanting to take their firearm(s),
especially when the 'seller' might not want to contact the Canadian Firearms Program to verify a PAL with a gun they'd want amnesty over,

I don't know.
Needs more fleshing out fer sure.

From the point of view of
- the seller
- gangs
- Coalition For Gun Control complaining about it to the media
- the local police force

Other than that initial thought, so far I think it sounds good.


___________
It's clear that the Committee has agreed that your new policy is really an excellent plan. But in view of some of the doubts being expressed, may I propose that I recall that after careful consideration, the considered view of the Committee was that, while they considered that the proposal met with broad approval in principle, that some of the principles were sufficiently fundamental in principle, and some of the considerations so complex and finely balanced in practice that in principle it was proposed that the sensible and prudent practice would be to submit the proposal for more detailed consideration, laying stress on the essential continuity of the new proposal with existing principles, the principle of the principal arguments which the proposal proposes and propounds for their approval. In principle.
-- Sir Humphrey Appleby

 

[RangeBob]

I posted the original post at
http://www.canadiangunnutz.com/foru...ty-program?p=13067132&viewfull=1#post13067132

in a thread about a Halifax gun amnesty, when a CGNer asked "cant a fully licensed gun store step into the mix and offer a better deal to the same people".

They ended up gettting i believe it was 136 guns. There was a pic in the newspaper. They had a lee enfield on the bench. That makes me sad. I love them way too much.

 

[sewktbk]

We can all agree that firearms should not be in the hands of those who are not trained to handle them safely.

If like me some believe that firearm ownership is a matter of property rights, then no, we most definitely cannot all agree with that.
There is an array of deadly/dangerous objects we use and own in everyday lives, that require proper safe handling, and we all accept that common sense/proper education/autodidacticism/reading the instructions manual is all it takes. If I made a list of all these objects, that cause exponentially more injuries and deaths per year than guns, no one would ever dare suggest that people need some sort of formal training, let alone an ownership license managed by government. Why people still insist on treating guns any differently even within our community seems to be a matter of buying into some level of anti-gun beliefs and propaganda.

That being said. dropping guns off in gun stores is of course preferable to turning them into the RCMP.

 

[Foxer]

If like me some believe that firearm ownership is a matter of property rights, then no, we most definitely cannot all agree with that.
There is an array of deadly/dangerous objects we use and own in everyday lives, that require proper safe handling, and we all accept that common sense/proper education/autodidacticism/reading the instructions manual is all it takes. If I made a list of all these objects, that cause exponentially more injuries and deaths per year than guns, no one would ever dare suggest that people need some sort of formal training, let alone an ownership license managed by government. Why people still insist on treating guns any differently even within our community seems to be a matter of buying into some level of anti-gun beliefs and propaganda.

That being said. dropping guns off in gun stores is of course preferable to turning them into the RCMP.

Bullcrap. We require knowledge of safe handling of virtually everything that is as likely to cause harm to others as guns. Cars, planes, prescription drugs, etc etc etc. Things that are likely to just hurt YOU we tend to let slide, under the theory you're quite welcome to kill yourself. Just don't kill others.

And the reason there are so few injuries with guns is BECAUSE of reasonable training. We've been down this road before, more training means fewer accidents for whatever reason.

Now, I take great exception to the idea that somehow after 5 years you magically lose all that knowledge when your license expires and somehow become a criminal. THAT is wrong. And I prefer 'certification' to licensing. And there are elements of storage laws and such that I think should be a fine offense rather than a criminal one. But that's not what we're talking about here really.

If people don't really want the guns and they don't want to learn how to use them or at least store them safely, then they SHOULD indeed turn them into someone who is qualified to use and store them safely.

I just don't think that should necessarily be the police. I think you could set up an org or group that did this all the time and either helped people get a fair dollar for their loved one's guns or took them and made sure they were available to people who might not have a lot of money to buy guns but want to get into the hunting or shooting game. The cops will just destroy them.

 

[RangeBob]

Now, I take great exception to the idea that somehow after 5 years you magically lose all that knowledge when your license expires and somehow become a criminal. THAT is wrong.

Excellent, and totally agree.

We require knowledge of safe handling of virtually everything that is as likely to cause harm to others as guns. Cars, planes, prescription drugs, etc etc etc. Things that are likely to just hurt YOU we tend to let slide, under the theory you're quite welcome to kill yourself.

That one needs a little work. Probably good in theory, but in practice falls into what David Tomlinson said so many times before he passed away, "It doesn't have to make sense. It's government policy."
One of the arguments for legalizing drugs is that they just hurt YOU, not others (and as for the argument that we all pay for socialized medicine I guarantee that everyone would rather pay for someone else to be in the hospital rather than be in so much pain that there's no place but a hospital for you).
And of course it ignores the opposite side: gasoline (and any fuel), bleach & ammonia, poisons, knives (china), even little things like matches, and anything that can be made or the tools to make them, etc.

Similarly, the 22LR's that are prohibited on looks, and the recent Ruger 10/22 magazines, and . etc etc

And the reason there are so few injuries with guns is BECAUSE of reasonable training. We've been down this road before, more training means fewer accidents for whatever reason.

We've certainly been down this road before. There are a half dozen contributors for the decline in fatal accidents, from better emergency room technique, to ambulances, to independent coroner's rather than family doctors signing death certificates for Catholics who can't be buried for suicide, etc etc etc.
I certainly agree with your last phrase "training means fewer accidents for whatever reason" be that range training, or the four rules of firearms safety, or elder-peers-showing-younger-peers.

 

[sewktbk]

Bullcrap. We require knowledge of safe handling of virtually everything that is as likely to cause harm to others as guns. Cars, planes, prescription drugs, etc etc etc. Things that are likely to just hurt YOU we tend to let slide, under the theory you're quite welcome to kill yourself. Just don't kill others.

And the reason there are so few injuries with guns is BECAUSE of reasonable training. We've been down this road before, more training means fewer accidents for whatever reason.

Now, I take great exception to the idea that somehow after 5 years you magically lose all that knowledge when your license expires and somehow become a criminal. THAT is wrong. And I prefer 'certification' to licensing. And there are elements of storage laws and such that I think should be a fine offense rather than a criminal one. But that's not what we're talking about here really.

If people don't really want the guns and they don't want to learn how to use them or at least store them safely, then they SHOULD indeed turn them into someone who is qualified to use and store them safely.

I just don't think that should necessarily be the police. I think you could set up an org or group that did this all the time and either helped people get a fair dollar for their loved one's guns or took them and made sure they were available to people who might not have a lot of money to buy guns but want to get into the hunting or shooting game. The cops will just destroy them.

I see you belong to the group of people confused about the concepts I bring up.

Your first mistake was to assume that the objects I was talking about were necessarily cars and planes...and that assumption is wrong.
But for the sake of pointing out the flaw in your argument, I'll gladly play your game and use those examples.

So.
You don't need ANY training, let alone a license, to OWN a car or a plane and store it in your garage. You see, you and all the other guys i've heard make those comparisons fail to understand the difference between POSSESSION and USAGE. What you need a license for is to drive a car on public roads. Same for planes. That pertains to usage, and more specifically usage in public. NOT mere ownership.

Now if you were here argueing that people need training and licensing/certification for USING guns in public (like for conceal carry) or for shooting at ranges with other people around, then I could get behind that and agree with both your stance and comparisons. But the fact of the matter is I can't agree, because you are taking usage regulations examples to try and validate ownership regulations examples. They are two completely different things ; you cannot use the former as some sort of proof of concept for the latter.

Now, if you do require me to make a list of dangerous objects susceptible of causing harm like guns and for which we do not require any form of training/licensing/certification for their mere OWNERSHIP, I'd be glad to. But don't expect to make any sort of reasonable counter-argument if you don't first understand that you can't take an object (like a car) for which there is no ownership regulations, cite its usage regulations, and then claim its somehow a good example of why we should regulate ownership...

And on the subject of low acccidental injury/death rates being attributable to proper training...turns out those rates are also very low in countries where mandatory, government-imposed training doesn't exist. Most "gun-related" problems have to do with intentional misuse of the object, and that cannot be prevented with safety training, since ill-intent transcends that.

 

[Foxer]

I see you belong to the group of people confused about the concepts I bring up.

Sounds like you've got a communication problem then.

Your first mistake was to assume that the objects I was talking about were necessarily cars and planes...and that assumption is wrong. But for the sake of pointing out the flaw in your argument, I'll gladly play your game and use those examples.

No it wasn't. I never suggested you brought up cars or planes. I brought them up as examples of things that improperly used could harm others, and noted that they are regulated.

So.
You don't need ANY training, let alone a license, to OWN a car or a plane and store it in your garage. You see, you and all the other guys i've heard make those comparisons fail to understand the difference between POSSESSION and USAGE. What you need a license for is to drive a car on public roads. Same for planes. That pertains to usage, and more specifically usage in public. NOT mere ownership.

I did not address the issue of ownership at all. I addressed possession. I noted that there is a basic amount of knowledge necessary to use OR store a firearm in a safe manner.

Now if you were here argueing that people need training and licensing/certification for USING guns in public (like for conceal carry) or for shooting at ranges with other people around, then I could get behind that and agree with both your stance and comparisons. But the fact of the matter is I can't agree, because you are taking usage regulations examples to try and validate ownership regulations examples. They are two completely different things ; you cannot use the former as some sort of proof of concept for the latter.

Well sounds like we agree on at least usage, but again - ownership and posession are two different things. I dont' care who owns the gun but to possess it requires a certain amount of knowledge. And there are some people who should not be allowed to possess a firearm whether they own it or not.

Let's say I am a mental health patient with a history of violent outbursts and a criminal record. MY father, a gun owner, dies and leaves me his estate. Is it appropriate to allow me to take possession of those firearms? Highly questionable.

Now, if you do require me to make a list of dangerous objects susceptible of causing harm like guns and for which we do not require any form of training/licensing/certification for their mere OWNERSHIP, I'd be glad to. But don't expect to make any sort of reasonable counter-argument if you don't first understand that you can't take an object (like a car) for which there is no ownership regulations, cite its usage regulations, and then claim its somehow a good example of why we should regulate ownership...

Well go ahead and make your list, and remember to keep it to those items addressing the criteria I mentioned in my first response.

But I think you'll find that in most cases there is a difference. And there is a difference between ownership and posession.

And you'd be rather mistaken if you think there's much in the way of arguments to be put forward that I haven't heard or considered before I understand what you were saying perfectly fine, and did before your second post.

 

[sewktbk]

Although there might exist a theoretical and semantical difference between the words "possession" and "ownership", those differences are irrelevant for the sake of my argument.

Just like for posessing a car, or a plane in my garage, I should be able to posess a gun in my home without needing any type of training/licensing/certification. If you disagree with that concept, then not only would making that list I was talking about prove to be a waste of time, but you'd also have to be philosophically consistent and defend the idea that mere ownership/possession of a car in a garage should require training/licensing/certification. Is that what you are saying?

 

[RangeBob]

from cgn


-----------

Please SHARE this website with your loved ones.

With all the amnesties being run across the country by the RCMP, Please remind your family to NOT have your firearms destroyed due to lack of affairs planning. It's never a fun conversation to have but whether you give them the name of a friend that you wish for them to go to, or if you want to give them this resource where they can sell them. PLEASE do not have them destroyed.

FirearmsDisposal.ca

Was created to take away any stress involved in any situation where they need to be removed.


"When police run amnesties they destroy countless firearms with historical and sentimental value. Almost daily we hear stories about someone not knowing their options and in a time of grief a widow may be convinced by the police to have them take the firearm and destroy it. Later they wish that they could have passed along a loved ones hunting rifle to someone that would treasure it and use it to supply food for their family. Or firearms that have been cared for, and survived for nearly a century by their loved ones since war times that are still in museum or collector condition. These historical guns can be donated to museums or purchased by collectors and honoured for years to come instead of being crushed and rendered inoperable.

Did you know that instead of having the Police destroy your unwanted firearms/guns you can legally sell them or gift them?

We are a long standing firearms business with the legal licensing to allow us to purchase your unwanted firearms. Whether your FAC/PAL(Canadian Firearms Possession and Acquisition License) has expired or someone in the family has passed away leaving unwanted firearms behind. We can arrange to have them picked up or provide you with a pre-paid shipping label to facilitate removing them from the premises.

We offer removal services
We purchase firearms
We consign firearms
We donate firearms to youth hunting seminars
We trade firearms

and

Lately we have found a lot of interest in making a charitable donation in the name of your choosing for the amount the firearms yield. Use the form below to contact us, and schedule a free consultation to discuss your options.

Nicholas Chee,
Reliable Gun
Vancouver

 

[sewktbk]

Let's say I am a mental health patient with a history of violent outbursts and a criminal record. MY father, a gun owner, dies and leaves me his estate. Is it appropriate to allow me to take possession of those firearms? Highly questionable.

As appropriate or questionable as him leaving you his car, his bow, his rambo knife, his katana sword, or the contents of his shed in which there happens to be a gasoline canister, an empty glass bottle, a lighter and a piece of cloth. Are you advocating for training/licensing/certification for mere possession of all those objects? Because if you are philosophically consistent, you should.

The problem is not your hypothetical father's estate or what it contains. The problem is violent mental health patients being let back out in the world, and I fail to see how you're going to solve that problem with mandatory safety training and licensing for the possession of objects that become dangerous/deadly when misused.

 

[FALover]

Interesting fact, my brother owns/possesses/insures/and licenses a mobility van. He does not have a drivers license, or legs, or any vision whatsoever. Totally blind. He also plays darts on a regular basis (has his own darts) and once they wheel him to the foul line and squared to the board, he does quite well. He could not pass a PAL course as he can not see any diagrams. The lessons and tests are not available in braille or other means. How could he read a cartridge headstamp? The whole test is biased towards those who can see. His target acquisition skills may be lacking but he would still like to go out shooting. Why should he not be able to buy or even own a firearm? What about people who have a PAL and lose their vision? Do we allow the government to confiscate their property? I would gladly give him any one of mine, drive him to a local range and set him much like his dart nights. With some guidance and supervision (no pun intended) he would probably be as good as some folks with sight.

I wonder if there is a human rights/discrimination case here?

 

[Foxer]

Although there might exist a theoretical and semantical difference between the words "possession" and "ownership", those differences are irrelevant for the sake of my argument.

Just like for posessing a car, or a plane in my garage, I should be able to posess a gun in my home without needing any type of training/licensing/certification. If you disagree with that concept, then not only would making that list I was talking about prove to be a waste of time, but you'd also have to be philosophically consistent and defend the idea that mere ownership/possession of a car in a garage should require training/licensing/certification. Is that what you are saying?

Ahhh how typical "I can do this to prove my point" ok - do it "I'm not actually going to do that". Easy to spot those who prefer to baffle with bullcrap rather than actually have an argument.

The fundimental difference between a plane/car and a firearm is that a car/plane tends to self secure when not in use. If a 7 year old kid 'finds' your car, there's very little they can do to misuse it at that point. They'd need the keys for starters, and even if they could go and find those there's a number of acts they'd have to do to actually get the car to go anywhere that would be difficult for a short stature person. Topping it off, the vehicle would still be somewhat under their control if it did get moving.

Now - storage laws for guns just bring the gun basically to the same state a car is. They're locked, and the keys aren't kept in the same area. But the difference between a car loaded with gas and a gun loaded with bullets is that if you just leave the gun in the carport, very little needs to happen to make that gun go off. Presumably if the gun is loaded it might be as little as pulling the trigger. And once it goes off - that bullet is now out of anyone's control and is a threat to people for literally miles around depending on the the type of cartridge. A car doesn't to that - turning the ignition on won't kill a neighbor

The vast majority of accidental shootings where a youth kills someone else by accident happens with unsecured firearms. Safe storage is important and it does reduce deaths. People have to know how to store their gun, and how to safely check to see if the gun is empty. Without those basic skills, possessing the firearm is far far more dangerous than possessing a car or a plane.

So it's patently obvious that you gave this no thought. Maybe take a little bit to work the logic thru yourself next time instead of parroting what you've heard others say. I've little patience for weak thinking.

 

[Justice]

Amazing how the RCMP thinks they have the authority to enforce what laws they feel like on a whim. They have no right to declare an "amnesty" any more than Halifax did/does. No jurisdiction.
"...we just go pick up the guns..." A great deal would depend on the firearm. Nothing can be done about historically significant but prohibited or restricted stuff. Even though a restricted can be registered, you'd still be temporarily in possession of an unregistered restricted firearm.

 

[Foxer]

As appropriate or questionable as him leaving you his car, his bow, his rambo knife, his katana sword, or the contents of his shed in which there happens to be a gasoline canister, an empty glass bottle, a lighter and a piece of cloth. Are you advocating for training/licensing/certification for mere possession of all those objects? Because if you are philosophically consistent, you should.

The problem is not your hypothetical father's estate or what it contains. The problem is violent mental health patients being let back out in the world, and I fail to see how you're going to solve that problem with mandatory safety training and licensing for the possession of objects that become dangerous/deadly when misused.

Not really. While he could make a firebomb or the like, it's a hell of a lot easier to kill someone with a gun. And more specifically, lots of people such as in a school.

You seem to be suggesting that giving known violent mentally distressed or criminal individuals unrestricted access to firearms is a good and practical idea. I think you need to do a bit more research.

 

[Foxer]

Interesting fact, my brother owns/possesses/insures/and licenses a mobility van. He does not have a drivers license, or legs, or any vision whatsoever. Totally blind. He also plays darts on a regular basis (has his own darts) and once they wheel him to the foul line and squared to the board, he does quite well. He could not pass a PAL course as he can not see any diagrams. The lessons and tests are not available in braille or other means. How could he read a cartridge headstamp? The whole test is biased towards those who can see. His target acquisition skills may be lacking but he would still like to go out shooting. Why should he not be able to buy or even own a firearm? What about people who have a PAL and lose their vision? Do we allow the government to confiscate their property? I would gladly give him any one of mine, drive him to a local range and set him much like his dart nights. With some guidance and supervision (no pun intended) he would probably be as good as some folks with sight.

I wonder if there is a human rights/discrimination case here?

You might well be able to demand the material be provided in braille. But - that's not going to change the headstamp problem. If his vision is indeed so bad that he can't check to see if he's shooting the right ammo... well, other than talking to the ammo suppliers or something, that might just be one of those things he can't do without help.

 

[RangeBob]

He does not have a drivers license, or legs, or any vision whatsoever. Totally blind.

There have been a couple of cases of self defence with a firearm by the legally blind in the USA. They always make the news.

 

[sewktbk]

Ahhh how typical "I can do this to prove my point" ok - do it "I'm not actually going to do that". Easy to spot those who prefer to baffle with bullcrap rather than actually have an argument.

The fundimental difference between a plane/car and a firearm is that a car/plane tends to self secure when not in use. If a 7 year old kid 'finds' your car, there's very little they can do to misuse it at that point. They'd need the keys for starters, and even if they could go and find those there's a number of acts they'd have to do to actually get the car to go anywhere that would be difficult for a short stature person. Topping it off, the vehicle would still be somewhat under their control if it did get moving.

If a 7 year old fins a katana, or a bottle of drano under the sink? Or the prescription drugs in the cabinet? Do I really need to make you a lsit of things that don't "self secure", that are deadly to a child, as easy (or even easier) to use/handle as a gun, and that yet do not require us to receive mandatory training for posessing or storing?? Are you that thick?

Now - storage laws for guns just bring the gun basically to the same state a car is. They're locked, and the keys aren't kept in the same area. But the difference between a car loaded with gas and a gun loaded with bullets is that if you just leave the gun in the carport, very little needs to happen to make that gun go off. Presumably if the gun is loaded it might be as little as pulling the trigger. And once it goes off - that bullet is now out of anyone's control and is a threat to people for literally miles around depending on the the type of cartridge. A car doesn't to that - turning the ignition on won't kill a neighbor

The vast majority of accidental shootings where a youth kills someone else by accident happens with unsecured firearms. Safe storage is important and it does reduce deaths. People have to know how to store their gun, and how to safely check to see if the gun is empty. Without those basic skills, possessing the firearm is far far more dangerous than possessing a car or a plane.

The same basic storage principles need to be observed with MANY dangerous objects in your home. So, when are you going to push for mandatory training for all of those too? Philosophical consistence, right?

Proper storage is in fact important...but the idea that it can only be achieved with laws that restrict posession/ownership is just ridiculous.

So it's patently obvious that you gave this no thought. Maybe take a little bit to work the logic thru yourself next time instead of parroting what you've heard others say. I've little patience for weak thinking.

Oh I assure you, my logic is sound and complete. Yours on the other hand....we've now reached the point where you used specific examples like cars or planes to justify safety training for guns, and in the face of my counter argument, you're now doing everything you can to explain how they are so different from guns . Talk about weak thinking...Maybe take a minute to choose your own comparisons more wisely next time.