OCTOBER 2016 AMNESTY - BC - Help spread the information!

[RangeBob]

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.

Yes he could flag her. And if he does it would fall into the "delayed" at which point an investigation could be initiated by Canadian Firearms Program to determine if it was revoked for cause or not.
But that would take days, not a year.

And if he didn't phone in a complaint, that the cops took seriously in the first place, then she'd experience no delay.

 

[RangeBob]

I edited post #97 a few times. I think I'm done now.

 

[Foxer]

The current Firearms Interest Police database lists everyone who "MIGHT be up to no good". If you're not in that, 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.

No, there are currently criteria for refusing a license that must be followed and there are laws around the whole concept of licensing anything that are part of our legal system. They can't deny you just because you 'might' be up to anything. Switch it to a Cpic based system and you open the door to messing with that. You KNOW the cops - they use ANY tool they can against us.

It's exactly as fast 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, it's up to the individual to apply for a PAL.

Well no, that's not as fast. THere's no 'approval', it would have to be considered every time. So if last night your neighbour called in that the though he heard you threaten his wife, a cop could say 'wait a minute - we're going to have to take your guns while we look into this." In the current system, the license is valid period. Unless it's been revoked.

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.

Except that it's very easy to fake that. It's still possible wiht a gun license but it's harder.

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.

They absolutely will. we saw this when the recent legislation passed - it said we could still verify licenses if we wanted, but the cops refused to unless we provided extra data and gun info even tho there was no law to do that.

Unless you're saying you trust the cops to follow the spirit of the law and be fair to gun owners.

I included in the returned information an authorization code. Any seller can write that down. Something around the size of a jsessionid.

And now we've got to carry that around too. Still a much bigger pain in the ass. And what if he wrote it down wrong? Now you give that code to a cop, it comes back invalid, and you've got a hassle.

Go back and read it again. I addressed the training issue.

What, the part where you said we could keep other databases about who's taken firearms safety training? So presumably we make that manditory and now we need new databases to track that, or go thru the expense of tying in different types of provincial databases. That is an order of magnitude more complex

It would not be horrible, or less secure.
It would be better, faster, cheaper, and more secure.

No, rangebob it would not. It would be more complex. VASTLY easer for the cops to screw with us, problematic in the extreme and far less secure.

And think about it - all you've really done with this is recreate the licensing system Anyway - background checks are donee and cross referenced with safety training and then someone is 'approved'. All you've done is take away the card.

 

[Foxer]

I edited post #97 a few times. I think I'm done now.

You're killing me I'll go back and look at the edits in a bit, ignore anything in my reply that may no longer be relevant based on your edits.

 

[RangeBob]

No, there are currently criteria for refusing a license that must be followed and there are laws around the whole concept of licensing anything that are part of our legal system. They can't deny you just because you 'might' be up to anything. Switch it to a Cpic based system and you open the door to messing with that. You KNOW the cops - they use ANY tool they can against us.

It's not a "rejected" ('deny'), it's a "delayed".
The criteria for "rejected" and "delayed" are EXACTLY what we have now. No change whatsoever.

Well no, that's not as fast. THere's no 'approval', it would have to be considered every time. So if last night your neighbour called in that the though he heard you threaten his wife, a cop could say 'wait a minute - we're going to have to take your guns while we look into this." In the current system, the license is valid period. Unless it's been revoked.

If no one has made any complaint, it's "approved".
If someone complained yesterday, then yes "delayed" while an investigation happens -- but that's the SAME as what happens now.
If there's a complaint then with either system (today or proposed) you don't lose your at home firearms while the investigation of the entry into Firearms Interest Police happens.
If you're purchasing a firearm with either system, you're not going to get an approval until the investigation into the Firearms Interest Police is finished.
No difference.

Except that it's very easy to fake that. It's still possible wiht a gun license but it's harder.

How do you fake the data (name and birthdate and photo and address) in the government database?
If you can fake that, you are probably high enough in the government that you can get any firearm you want anyway.

If you find someone who looks like you, and are buying in face-to-face (not on-line where this wouldn't work because it's shipped to the government database's address), you could steal their ID. And if you got to buying a firearm before that person reported the ID stolen, you would get a firearm. And if you were slower than the person reporting the stolen ID then you'd get a {delayed} while they investigate, and possibly get arrested.
But that's not much different in terms of frequency/numbers than someone who fakes a PAL today.

They absolutely will. we saw this when the recent legislation passed - it said we could still verify licenses if we wanted, but the cops refused to unless we provided extra data and gun info even tho there was no law to do that. Unless you're saying you trust the cops to follow the spirit of the law and be fair to gun owners.

A decent Minister Of Public Safety would take care of that.

Today, with restricted we have to provide lots of information to do a verify.
But for a non-restricted, we only have to provide information about the buyer, and a statement that you're selling a firearm. Occasionally they ask for other information, the seller's PAL, the make/model/serial of the firearm(s) being sold, but not always.

And now we've got to carry that around too. Still a much bigger pain in the ass. And what if he wrote it down wrong? Now you give that code to a cop, it comes back invalid, and you've got a hassle.

Print it out and file it.
Provide an optional email address, and the system could email it to you and you could keep it forever electronically.
Or throw it away if you want -- same as today.
When you sell a non-restricted today, do you keep the buyer's information forever?
When you buy a non-restricted today, do you keep the receipt forever? (I do, but I keep/file a lot of receipts)
No difference.

What, the part where you said we could keep other databases about who's taken firearms safety training? So presumably we make that manditory and now we need new databases to track that, or go thru the expense of tying in different types of provincial databases. That is an order of magnitude more complex

Yes, that part. I added it JUST FOR YOU. The first edit of that post had your name on it.
Currently the Canadian Firearms Program tracks who takes the CRSC. So no difference.
I added that instead of the CFSC, a hunter safety or other course would suffice. That would cost more, but again it's something YOU requested/approved earlier in this thread as an acceptable alternative.
In another thread months ago, you suggested that the government is really really good at keeping lists that people believe -- and would be the perfect place to keep track of who had been trained by any means.

No, rangebob it would not. It would be more complex. VASTLY easer for the cops to screw with us, problematic in the extreme and far less secure.

No it would not be more complex. It would track less data, making it simpler.
No change in the ability for the 'cops to screw with us'.
Not problematic.
It more secure because it's not tracking licencing and registration data. (no 'licencing leads to confiscation'. No one worrying about 'breaches' or organized crime getting a list of where all the guns are for targeted home invasions)

And think about it - all you've really done with this is recreate the licensing system Anyway - background checks are donee and cross referenced with safety training and then someone is 'approved'. All you've done is take away the card.

All I've done is recreate the American NICS system, without the NICS's system's flaws.
I've gotten rid of the problems of licencing as well (as a confiscation list, delays, taxpayer costs, compliance costs, criminal code penalties for paperwork offences, etc).

For example the {delayed} concept is from the NICS system. There it's 72 hours and if 'no news from the FBI' the seller can sell. I didn't include the '72 hour' limit.


Last but not least, when I described this to Garry Breitkreuz, he approved of it. Or at least he approved of it more than the current licencing/registration system. 'It' being an instant approval system based primarily upon the Weapons Prohibition Order list, rather than licencing.

 

[DanN]

To me it seems obvious that there are benefits to both systems; I'm sure the very best system lies somewhere in the middle.

But because my personal opinion (and I do recognize it as opinion alone) is that those who would be firearms owners should be vetted and certified as competent before purchasing their first firearm, some kind of licensing or certification scheme would have to be employed. And I would hope that certification would be for life unless revoked - just as it is (sorta) with the privilege of driving a motor vehicle. I'm not a fan of having to renew my (drivers / firearms) license every 5 years, but peoples looks do change over time; my 16 year old self pictured on my original license looks nothing like I do today - the picture should at least be reasonably current, and probably should be the main reason for renewal.

The thing that vehicles and firearms have in common though is that if misused accidentally they can cause grave harm to others. We have an inherent right to safety, and that right can be protected by ensuring that people who own and operate particularly dangerous objects have some proven level of competence to do so.

Granted, if people have bad intentions with either firearms or vehicles, there is sweet little we can really do about it; bad people will get what they need to do the deed they intend, regardless of any control scheme. This is the part I really struggle with because ANY law only effects those who would follow it. That said, I don't want to make it easier for some gangster to get a gun easily just because he hadn't been caught yet. At least with a licensing scheme he would have submitted to some process to have the ability to walk into his LGS and buy a gun. Perhaps that only generates a false sense of security because he's going to get a gun anyway.

I suppose a licensing scheme of some kind is a matter of being proactive rather than reactive.

 

[sewktbk]

The thing that vehicles and firearms have in common though is that if misused accidentally they can cause grave harm to others. We have an inherent right to safety, and that right can be protected by ensuring that people who own and operate particularly dangerous objects have some proven level of competence to do so.

But you see, you don't need licensing nor training to buy, own or possess a car...and I'm sure you're not outraged by that.
You need a license and training to use cars on public roads. Which is a different motive and serves a different purpose entirely.

Today I can go buy the most dangerous car that exists out there, bring it home on a flatbed, and never need any license/training at any time during the process. Does that scare you the same as if I bought a gun in the same manner? Because according to your example where cars have the same danger potential as guns when misused, it should. Do you see the contradiction in philosophy here?

If we want to have a licensing/training scheme for guns when those are used in public, like for conceal carry, hunting, or for use at ranges, then thats as reasonnable as the driver's license system. Because all of those pertain to safe usage.

But what we are talking about is ownership and possession, not usage. If you want mandatory training and licensing for gun ownership, then you'd have to be philosophically consistent and claim it would also be a good idea to have mandatory training and licensing for people who merely own car collections and never drive them, and pretend that they pose some sort of significant risk without it.

Granted, if people have bad intentions with either firearms or vehicles, there is sweet little we can really do about it; bad people will get what they need to do the deed they intend, regardless of any control scheme. This is the part I really struggle with because ANY law only effects those who would follow it.

Correct. Training and licensing do nothing to solve the issue of intentionnal misuse, so that point is moot and might as well not even be part of the debate.

That said, I don't want to make it easier for some gangster to get a gun easily just because he hadn't been caught yet. At least with a licensing scheme he would have submitted to some process to have the ability to walk into his LGS and buy a gun. Perhaps that only generates a false sense of security because he's going to get a gun anyway.

Absolutely. That is all it does. If he's a gangster who hasn't been caught yet...you can trust he's getting his gun without filling out any paperwork.
So again, a licensing system doesn't solve that issue at all.

I suppose a licensing scheme of some kind is a matter of being proactive rather than reactive.

Perhaps...but even yourself can articulate perfectly well how useless being proactive really is in terms of results. And if we're being proactive without any results, then we are just wasting time, money, and energy.

 

[sewktbk]

Another point is that with today's technology that allows one to build a gun at home without ever needing to purchase a single regulated part, the licensing/training argument becomes even less relevant. Guns are becoming as easy to come by as knives and forks. The sooner people understand that, the clearer it will be that mandatory training and licensing requirements are utterly useless.

 

[DanN]

But you see, you don't need licensing nor training to buy, own or possess a car and that doesn't seem to pose a problem.
You need a license and training to use it on public roads. Which serves a different purpose and is a different motive entirely.

Today I can go buy the most dangerous car that exists out there, bring it home on a flatbed, and never need any license/training at any time during the process. Does that scare you the same as if I bought a gun in the same manner? Because according to your example, it should.

If we want to have a licensing/training scheme for guns when those are used in public, like for conceal carry or for use at ranges, then thats as reasonnable as the driver's license system.

But what we are talking about is ownership and possession, not use in public. If you want mandatory training and licensing for gun ownership, then you'd have to be philosophically consistent and claim it would also be a good idea to have mandatory training and licensing for people who merely own car collections and never drive them, and pretend that they pose some sort of significant risk without it.

FALover gave an example where his brother owns/possesses/insures/and licenses a mobility van, even though he is incapable of driving it. The van is operated, to his benefit, by someone licensed to do so. That is a completely valid situation.

We aren't talking here about people simply collecting firearms; that is a completely different realm of discussion (if you're only a collector of firearms and intend to never use them, you should have no need for ammunition, for example).

We are talking about people obtaining firearms for some kind of use. And yes, because I don't trust you as far as I could throw you (arguably only because I don't really know you), I expect you should show competency for that purpose so you don't 'accidentally' load and discharge one of your collected firearms out of your house, across the street, through my wall and into my chest while I build Lego with my son. It is significantly more difficult to accidentally launch a car across the road and into my house than a bullet. In fact, the way my house is built, it would be nearly impossible to hit the place with a car even intentionally, but trivial to shoot into my living room. Bullets simply aren't limited to relatively flat roadways; they can fly.

 

[RangeBob]

We aren't talking here about people simply collecting firearms

a bit of trivia

Today, becoming a firearms collector requires a PAL, and requires you to give up your right to not have your dwelling searched.
(Regular hunting and target shooting PALers have to approve a firearms officer inspection visit unless there's a court order requiring them to do so; but the Firearms Act says that collectors wave that approval and consent to search at any time).

Gun collectors
30 The criteria referred to in subparagraph 28(b)(ii) are that the individual
(b) has consented to the periodic inspection, conducted in a reasonable manner, of the premises in which the restricted firearms or handguns are to be kept;

 

[DanN]

a bit of trivia

Today, becoming a firearms collector requires a PAL, and requires you to give up your right to not have your dwelling searched.
(Regular hunting and target shooting PALers have to approve a firearms officer inspection visit unless there's a court order requiring them to do so; but the Firearms Act says that collectors wave that approval and consent to search at any time).

Yeah, that's pretty messed up.

 

[DanN]

If I were to collect firearms or automobiles, I would want appropriate licensing to operate them; personally, I see little value in safe / trailer queen collections. As a pure sport shooter (I don't hunt, and not for any reason other than I just don't - I support hunters 100%), really my firearms are just a 'collection' that I enjoy using. And if you're going to be subject to the kinds of inspections RangeBob pointed out, that may be reason enough in itself to not just be a collector.

If I were disabled in some way that prevented me from using them then maybe I would only have a true 'collection'. But I'm not, so I use them.

 

[sewktbk]

FALover gave an example where his brother owns/possesses/insures/and licenses a mobility van, even though he is incapable of driving it. The van is operated, to his benefit, by someone licensed to do so. That is a completely valid situation.

We aren't talking here about people simply collecting firearms; that is a completely different realm of discussion (if you're only a collector of firearms and intend to never use them, you should have no need for ammunition, for example).

We are talking about people obtaining firearms for some kind of use. And yes, because I don't trust you as far as I could throw you (arguably only because I don't really know you), I expect you should show competency for that purpose so you don't 'accidentally' load and discharge one of your collected firearms out of your house, across the street, through my wall and into my chest while I build Lego with my son. It is significantly more difficult to accidentally launch a car across the road and into my house than a bullet. In fact, the way my house is built, it would be nearly impossible to hit the place with a car even intentionally, but trivial to shoot into my living room. Bullets simply aren't limited to relatively flat roadways; they can fly.

And such an example brings us back to the very same question, which is : can we mitigate those risks with mandatory licensing and training?
Statistics show that it doesn't work. And statistics are base on actual documented events, not hypotheticals.

Look for example at the one group that should be by definition the most negligent and prone to gun accidents of all ; criminals. Those people don't receive any training, and do not observe nor apply most of the safety measures that are taught in mandatory training. Yet do we hear about more gun accidents in the criminal community? We don't. And I'll actually research wether or not there is data on this (I admit I don't yet know), but I'd be willing to bet that if there is, it would support that their accidental gun misuse rates are about the same as the rest of the population. (and i'll of course retract that statement if the data exists and shows otherwise). Of course without any numbers this is just a guess at the moment, so i shouldn't really call it an example just yet.

We do however have to remember that those rates are already included in the overall rates, which means that even before I start searching for that data, we know that the numbers will already be statistically insignificant.

 

[sewktbk]

If I were to collect firearms or automobiles, I would want appropriate licensing to operate them

Well, I'm glad to see you're at least philosophically consistent, which is a rare thing these days. Good on you for that.
So I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.

And if you're going to be subject to the kinds of inspections RangeBob pointed out, that may be reason enough in itself to not just be a collector.

Except that the real lesson to remember here is that people's rights and freedoms are violated by a criminalizing system.
Its not that people shouldn't be collectors...but rather that the system shouldn't punish them and rid them of their rights for choosing to be collectors in a free country.

 

[DanN]

Look for example at the one group that should be by definition the most negligent and prone to gun accidents of all ; criminals.

I would think the woman in the earlier example (the one with the black eye who picks up a gun on her way home) would be more prone to accidents, because before that moment she has never handled a firearm at all and has only purchased it with the idea of self defense because she is afraid. So she'll keep it loaded in her purse and maybe shoot at the first thing she thinks might be her assaulter. That poor paper boy didn't have a clue what he was in for.

So if you believe that training is completely ineffective, what do you do if you take a noob to the range for the first time? Do you just hand them a loaded AR and turn your back on them? I assume you do because training is completely ineffective, right? You have to be philosophically consistent, too.

 

[sewktbk]

I would think the woman in the earlier example (the one with the black eye who picks up a gun on her way home) would be more prone to accidents, because before that moment she has never handled a firearm at all and has only purchased it with the idea of self defense because she is afraid. So she'll keep it loaded in her purse and maybe shoot at the first thing she thinks might be her assaulter. That poor paper boy didn't have a clue what he was in for.

I disagree. Anyone who purchases something they are unfamiliar with and intend on using by definition want and need to know how it operates. People damn well know that guns are dangerous, even more so people who've never handled them, so i would propose that the first thing that woman would do on her own is learn how the gun works and find safe handling litterature or instructions. If it becomes loaded at any point, then it means she informed herself on how thats done, it didn't just magically happen.
You and I both know that what is currently covered in the mandatory safety training classes is basic information that can be summed up in a pamphlet. Its not like we're training marksmen...people are merely introduced to how a gun works and should be handled.

So if you believe that training is completely ineffective, what do you do if you take a noob to the range for the first time? Do you just hand them a loaded AR and turn your back on them? I assume you do because training is completely ineffective, right? You have to be philosophically consistent, too.

Hold on there, I didn't say that training by itself was innefective. I said that making it mandatory was innefective, that it didn't increase people's ability to get the proper knowledge they need/want, and that it couldn't be proven to improve public safety in any factual, statistical way. Its the mandatory part I have a problem with, not the training.

I'm all for education. 100%. But I think trying to achieve that with coercive measures is counterproductive, unnecessary, and against fundamental freedom values.

I'd also venture a guess that when you yourself take a gun noob to the range, you show him proper handling because you and him understand its important, not because someone tells you you have to. And I can safely assume you'd have the exact same approach if you weren't by law required to supervise that person.

 

[DanN]

I disagree. Anyone who purchases something they are unfamiliar with and intend on using by definition want and need to know how it operates. People damn well know that guns are dangerous, even more so people who've never handled them, so i would propose that the first thing that woman would do on her own is learn how the gun works and find safe handling litterature or instructions. If it becomes loaded at any point, then it means she informed herself on how thats done, it didn't just magically happen.
You and I both know that what is currently covered in the mandatory safety training classes is basic information that can be summed up in a pamphlet. Its not like we're training marksmen...people are merely introduced to how a gun works and should be handled.

As would the criminal.

Hold on there, I didn't say that training by itself was innefective. I said that making it mandatory was innefective, that it didn't increase people's ability to get the proper knowledge they need/want, and that it couldn't be proven to improve public safety in any factual, statistical way. Its the mandatory part I have a problem with, not the training.

If training is effective, shouldn't it be mandatory?

I'm all for education. 100%. But I think trying to achieve that with coercive measures is counterproductive, unnecessary, and against fundamental freedom values.

How is it coercive?

I'd also venture a guess that when you yourself take a gun noob to the range, you show him proper handling because you and him understand its important, not because someone tells you you have to. And I can safely assume you'd have the exact same approach if you weren't by law required to supervise that person.

And thus enforcing my point that it should be mandatory. We understand it's important, and we need to ensure everyone understands that before they handle a loaded firearm for the first time. "Real men don't need instructions" is funny because we tend to really feel that way. Except Ikea furniture - instructions are mandatory for that, too. LoL.

 

[sewktbk]

As would the criminal.

Correct. Which is why I said gun accident rates are seemingly not higher within the criminal element.

If training is effective, shouldn't it be mandatory?

No. Since making it mandatory has proven to achieve nothing, contributes to a coercive system, and goes against basic freedom values.

How is it coercive?

Well if its mandatory, its coercive. Coerciveness is defined by the use of force, and making something mandatory is forcing people to do something.

And thus enforcing my point that it should be mandatory. We understand it's important, and we need to ensure everyone understands that before they handle a loaded firearm for the first time. "Real men don't need instructions" is funny because we tend to really feel that way. Except Ikea furniture - instructions are mandatory for that, too. LoL.

So in your opinion, anything that is both important and effective should by default be mandatory?
I'm sure you think training your kid to be careful around sharp objects is both important and effective...So should we turn that into a government-controlled, mandatory measure for both parent and child? Because of the important and effective aspects?

 

[DanN]

Correct. Which is why I said gun accident rates are seemingly not higher within the criminal element.

As I said, it's the people who think they don't need to read the instructions that are the most dangerous. "I know what I'm doing" isn't proof of competency.

No. Since making it mandatory has proven to achieve nothing, contributes to a coercive system, and goes against basic freedom values.

Respectfully disagree, largely because you label it coercive.

As to freedom value, I have the right to not be shot accidentally by someone handling a firearm who wasn't trained to handle it. It're really not a tall ask.

Well if its mandatory, its coercive. Coerciveness is defined by the use of force, and making something mandatory is forcing people to do something.

In the context of coercion, the term "use of force" means force in a threatening manner. Forcing someone to take training is not a form of coercion; telling someone to steal a car or you'll kill them is coercion. Do you consider grade school to be coercive? What about instruction on sky diving?

So in your opinion, anything that is both important and effective should by default be mandatory?

Without writing a full dissertation on the subject, when it comes to the ownership and use of equipment potentially deadly to the public with minimal misuse, yes.

I'm sure you think training your kid to be careful around sharp objects is both important and effective...So should we turn that into a government-controlled, mandatory measure for both parent and child? Because of the important and effective aspects?

As Foxer pointed out, children could injure themselves or each other with a "sharp object", but that misuse won't extend to my neighbour across the street or someone miles away, very much unlike a firearm can. And if I leave sharp objects around and a child was injured by it, I may be liable to child endangerment charges. As a parent I'm obligated to make sure the space I raise my children in is safe for that purpose. We have laws for that.

Try as hard as you want - you won't be able to throw that kitchen knife through your wall.

 

[DanN]

We are also glossing over another aspect of firearm training that is of equal importance to safe handling - and that is understanding the laws. Of course with our current laws that's damn near impossible..