OCTOBER 2016 AMNESTY - BC - Help spread the information!
- Thread starter TheProudInterior
- Start date
This is the part I have the most trouble with.
I agree that it could be made to work, but I'm highly skeptical that it would be better or cost less than our current licensing scheme. That's not to say I'm in love with exactly what we do now for reasons that have been covered earlier.
But being on the internet is problematic. Store access ID could be easily stolen (memorized) and the system would be prone to hacks and DDoS attacks.
From a privacy and security point of view, I'm more comfortable providing a license and having them make a phone call.
In either case, you're still relying on the store clerk identifying you by some photo ID, whether it's on your drivers license, PAL or a photo on a computer. There is no security benefit there if the buyer and seller are intent on committing a crime with stolen ID.
That's what my PAL is for anyway.
I would prefer to prove that I can have firearms rather than have someone else try and prove that I can't. But I guess really it's the same thing if you're checking the license or record by phone or via a website anyway.
As a matter of simplicity, why wouldn't everyone want to have a card that shows pre-vetted, continuous eligibility, approval? I mean.. doesn't that sound easier in the first place? I would assume that this all would go hand-in-hand with eliminating firearms classifications and registrations, so you'd walk into the sore, flash your card, and walk out with your loot - no lookup required.
Basically, it seems like a pretty thin line between each method - and darn it, I'm proud of my RPAL.
Ah, that explains a lot.
We rely on a "innocent until proven guilty" principle. Thats part of the foundation of a free society.
If you wish to be treated the other way around and have to prove your innocence, and that the default be that you are guilty of being a potential danger, then thats your perogative. But that doesn't mean its fair, logical, or senseful.
In our world, the onus is always on the "accuser" to prove that the "accused" is guilty. What is in fact absurd is thinking it should be any different for gun ownership.
So that's a wash anyway.
Agreed, but who would manage the link between the Judicial system and the retailer? The RCMP! (HAHAHAHAHA.. I kill me) But seriously, I doubt the Judicial system would be up to the task because of the expense anyway. But that's just opinion, mine or yours.
If they have to look you up to see that you're prohibited from ownership, it's tantamount to gov't approval. The difference is only that you're approved until you are not. I wonder how and who will decide when you're no longer eligible.
Agreed, in the scheme Rangebob presented.
But this doesn't really provide any added security above what we do now.
Oh yes, I am fully aware. I fail to see how that would change with your proposed system; the Police would still have to investigate claims made by her, and while doing so would likely suspend your privilege. They aren't just going to ignore what she has to say.
Those risks exist for ANY system in place. Including the current one, or any other porpositions anyone could come up with.
Therefore, it cannot be used to claim one is better than the other, since the risks for both are equivalent.
It's not proving innocence or guilt, it's proving eligibility. And remember that I am in favor some level of safety training or proven competence (challenging the test, for example), which would be a large part of what a "PAL" would show.
Rangebob there's four major problems with that.
1 - as you know, Cpic doesnt' just contain judicial judgements. It contains 'opininos' and 'reports' and such. How long till the police use that to create a 'flag' against gun owners they don't like or think MIGHT be up to no good (because they did something like buy too many guns in too short a time in their opinion for example) ? A gun owner might go into a store to buy a gun only to find he's been 'denied' based on something he didn't even know about or something a neighbour said about him. At least the way it is now if they want to revoke your right to buy a gun they are forced to actually cancel your license and provide reason and you'd be notified and have a chance to fight it. And usually it requires a judge to do it, they cna't just do it on a whim.
2 - That wouldn't work for the situations we're taking about here. Guy's uncle dies - guy goes to the home to clean it out and finds a gun. Guy keeps gun. Cop finds guy with gun 2 days later. How does the cop know the guy has had a background check at all? Or do gun owners have to sit and wait every time a cop runs into them while they run a background check? And what if that cop decides there's something on the background check that concerns him more than the last cop who ran it and now you've got a problem. With the current system it's "here's my license" "ok - beep beep - license is valid, on your way". If they even bother with that.
3. Driver's licenses and that kind of ID are some of the easiest to fake that there are. Just about everybody drives and everybody has their driver's license with them at all times these days, so it's very easy to get the info on a 'valid' drivers license and copy it to make yourself LOOK like you're someone else. Heck, in many cases the picture is close enough that you can steal a drivers license from someone who's close to your looks and get away with it. It makes it very easy for those who want to bypass the system to do so. It is an order of magnitude harder with gun licenses because not everyone has one of those - so first you've got to find a gun owner somehow, then find one that's fairly close to your looks and who HAPPENS to have their gun license with them and steal that and hope it doesn't get reported before you use it. And you can't just make one up out of the phone book because there's no way to know if that person has a license or not. And with a license if there's any discrepency you can ask to see a driver's license, and now there's TWO bits of ID someone would have to fake. And not to mention online sales, where you could literally use anyone's driver's license. So the system is much LESS secure.
4 - and this is a biggie - you would be creating an instant gun registry. Every time we want to buy a gun, the fact that we were checked for a gun purchase would go into the Cpic system. You KNOW the cops will make it a 'reuirement' to mention which type of gun you're buying. You know - to make sure you're allowed to have one that's 'that dangerous' or isn't prohib'd. So now any cop can say "I see in 2008 you were authorized to purchase an 870, where is that gun? Or prove you didn't buy it or sell it - if you sold it there must be a search for the person you sold it to and I'm not seeing that here. If they find you with a gun that there's no background check for, then you have to explain how you got it. the potential for police abuse is HUGE. Like, really really huge. And what if someone screwed up entering the info - you could have a real legal mess on your hands even if you do things right.
The only way to avoid that would be to send people 'certificiates' to prove they got the background check done when they sold or bought. And now we're back to having to keep 'certs'. Not to mention the costs involved.
Not to mention it still wouldn't address the training issue - which would require a stand alone seperate system on top and that would radically increase costs.
It would be horrible for us. And it would be less secure. It just doens't make sense.
Currently we have a tight level of access control to the systems used; opening that up on the WWW seems a bit irresponsible to me.
absolutely correct. And thats precisely the benefit.
The system does. It would simply make automatic elligibility changes according to a predetermined list of offenses and criterias.
I never said I wanted more security than what we have now. It does provide the same level of it, which even you seem OK with.
Correct, and thats precisely the point. In my system, police would have to prove your wife is right trough proper investigative process.
In the current one, you never have to be proven guilty of anything...government just have the arbitrary power to deny you because someone said so.
Its already on the web. You can currently renew you license online, check the status of an application, initiate firearm transfers....
So yeah, its not any tighter than what my proposed system would be.
Furthermore, if information security is the only concern, I'm sure competent folks such as computer system engineers and security experts could offer solutions that would rid you of your worries.
Well - and of course it's insane to suggest that just because any system could be hacked that it's not worth considering which one is more secure. If you leave your front door open, someone can just walk in. If you put a deadbolt and alarm on your front door someone COULD still break in, but now it's much harder. Most people recognize it's better to make it harder
Most people wouldn't be foolish enough to say 'well - you COULD break in either way so there's no point in comparing no lock to locks"As we agree and I've demonstrated, safety training should be a requirement to possess guns. And background checks are a good idea (tho honestly I think a case could be made that it's the lesser of the two). The easiest and cheapest way to address that is some sort of certification system like our licensing system where the certification cannot be revoked except with cause. Now - I don't like our current system very much and it makes no sense whatsoever that the certification should 'expire', and it's madnes that they can't challenge the test, but you're correct that in principle it's the easiest way to track who has been shown to have the necessary knowledge and who's background doesn't prohibit the posession of guns.
As I mentioned before, my humble opinion is that people should be vetted before.
As straw man as it may be, if we don't need a license for that then we may as well toss our driver's licenses until we're no longer approved to drive. (I suppose that has been known to happen sometimes anyway where you can just go "buy" your license from some crook at the DMV).
The variables for a "predetermined list" would be much too vast. And who makes the list? Who manages it? Who amends it? What process is involved in that? It has to be case-by-case decision by a judge for each person or you may unjustly snare people who shouldn't be prohibited (or let slide some who should be).
If you can't prove a security benefit, you'll have a bear of a time getting it past the non-firearms owning community, which is still the majority.
Rest assured, they will retain that arbitrary power. At least until you prove your innocence (which I agree is bass-ackwards).
Right now we're paying about $70 million a year in federal taxation, and another $30 million in PAL licence/renewal fees, to maintain the licencing/registration system.
And we're paying a few hundred million dollars a year to maintain the prohibited weapons order system (I'm including the cost of trials and a chunk of enforcement).
Clearly it would cost less. The $70 million + $30 million would be dramatically reduced pretty much to zero, if instead of tracking both those who can't own firearms and those who can own firearms,
into a system where you track only those who can't own firearms.
What harm happens if the Store ID is stolen?
For hacks it's the same as it is now. The CFRO is also on the internet today, as is the ability to look up your PAL application status.
For DDOS, there's 1-800 telephone backup.
The big advantage of the proposed system over the existing, is that with the existing system it takes between 4 months and a year to get a restricted firearm (schedule CRFSC course, apply for PAL with mandatory 28 waiting day but 45 day average, weeks approval for restricted transfer, apply for a range membership and take their course, multiple snail mail delays at every stage, etc).
With the proposed system, someone who had never had a firearm before, could buy one on the way home.
So, for example, if a woman with a bruised face appears in court and gets a restraining order, the judge can tell her "Buy a gun on your way home". As opposed to today's she'd have to wait up to a year for a handgun.
I think you've called that one backwards.
Since the proposed system only tracks those who can not own a firearm,
there is no "licencing leads to confiscation".
Similarly, the Red Dawn scenario, where the Russians invade and grab a copy of everyone who owns a gun is summarily grabbed, is gone.
As is Kristallnacht.
Read mine again. The government database's photo and address are returned to the clerk -- so a stolen ID will be identified by the clerk because either the face or the address do not match.
And if buyer and seller are intent on committing a crime, how does today's PAL system protect against that? It is based upon the honor system.
Well they wouldn't of course. All they'd have to do is flag you. Then you'd have to fight it. And worse - you might not find out that there was an issue till some cop pulled you over and noticed you had guns in the car and decided to run a background check on you.
And as I've pointed out it's far easier to fake a driver's license than a gun license. Your system is far less secure and much easier to defeat.
But hey - I know you don't feel the need to let logic or common sense get in your way
or math or numbers or....The buyer, if caught with a gun, will still have to produce a license. It creates a second layer of protection - sure you might get a gun, you might even steal a gun today and bypass the whole process. But the moment you're asked to show you have a license to possess that gun, it all falls apart for you and you go to jail.
Your system would not have that level of protection built in. Unless of course the cops were going to run a background check on you every time they ran into you, and as discussed that presents a whole bunch of new problems.
Initiate, yes - but it's still completed by a live human in a bureaucratic office somewhere, and the details aren't readily available online.
Make it idiot proof, and they'll make a better idiot. Or more accurately, there still doesn't exist a 100% secure system because hackers get better. How many reports have we heard about China or Russia hacking federal networks over the last few years? Plunking it all on the WWW is just asking for trouble..
The current Firearms Interest Police database lists everyone who "MIGHT be up to no good". If you're not in that, and not in the other denial databases, you're "approved." Similarly, if you're in the tiny (~3000 members) current PAL list, you're "approved".
If you are in that, you can apply for a PAL -- and get a decision by police as to if you're legally denied or not, same as now. If revoked, you can go to Court for a hearing about that refusal.
Most (97%) Canadians who want to buy a gun, it would be much faster. But there would be a few, and I provided the workaround.
And there is no 'denied'. The return statuses are {approved, rejected, delayed, unknown}. If the neighbour said something about him, that would fall into the 'delayed' response, not the 'rejected' response.
Rejected requires a reason to revoke your privilege that's done by a judge or a Canadian Firearms Program officer -- same as now for rejections.
It's exactly as fast for a front line police officer as the current system. Currently they type in your PAL into CFRO, and also type in your driver's licence to see if you were ok to be driving a car.
In the new system they'd type in your driver's licence only, and then request a firearms check. If you're approved then no problem. If it's 'delayed' then the police officer may seize the gun and wait for the followup. If it's anything else {rejected, unknown}, it's up to the individual to apply for a PAL right quick or go to jail.
Since the response isn't a thousand words of text, but rather {approved, rejected, delayed, unknown}, how is some other cop going to have "concerns him more than the last cop who ran it" ?
Again, the system I proposed returns to the querier the photo and address that the government has on file for that ID.
This verifies the id is not fake.
Frankly it's better than what we have now. There are fake PALs out there. A big bunch of fake PALs were confiscated in BC last year.
Today, if you saw a fake PAL, you would sell someone a non-restricted.
Online sales could use two pieces of ID. But one would still be fine, because the system returns the address, and the on-line seller ships to that address.
Again, I didn't include the firearm make/model/serial in the query, so no opportunity for a registry.
I insisted that the query's for "approved" not be recorded, so no opportunity for a registry.
I included in the returned information an authorization code. Any seller can write that down. Something around the size of a jsessionid.
Go back and read it again. I addressed the training issue.
It would not be horrible, or less secure.Foxer said:
It would be better, faster, cheaper, and more secure.
Last edited:
So a woman who's emotionally tramatizerd and has no legal or firearms training can pick up a gun on the way home with the intent of getting into a gun fight with someone else... And that's an advantage?
That's probably pretty safe - hope she doesn't live in an apartment with too many neighbour's First off - There's far better ways to address that. Similar to the 'fast att' system we have now for domestic issues. And you know that NO system will allow for that till we address the whole firearms for self defense issues we have right now.
And second off - all it would take is the hubby to make a complaint and flag her in the system and she might go to buy that gun and find she cannot. And she'll find out about it in the store. With a certification system, it has to be revoked for cause and the person would be notified.