OCTOBER 2016 AMNESTY - BC - Help spread the information!

[sewktbk]

Which is why I would tend to favour a certification system administered under Civillian law which is lifetime and permenant unless revoked by cause which simply says 'have you passed your safety training and a background check?" If so - here's your certification and we need not speak to you again. The gov't can then pass criminal law addressing USE of guns, etc. And if someone makes a complaint that a judge feels is serious enough you must be notified and it cannot be revoked without cause and you are provided with the details and given a chance to fight it, but unless a judge actually orders you to turn over your guns you're not a criminal for possessing them.

That sounds a lot more reasonnable than what I had innitially thought you were on board with. I wish you would have explained this system earlier and offered it as an alternative to current system. You had mentionned civillian law using a certain tone which lead me to believe you weren't willing to consider it for firearms possession regulations, but I'm now glad to hear that wasn't the interpretation that was meant.

Still not a fan of mandatory training because of my firm beliefs in property rights, but I could get behind this system for its improvement of not criminalizing mere possession.

 

[DanN]

We did? I was under the impression you still thought licensing was needed for acquisition since it would by default mean there was an intended use.
And about ammunition....are you suggesting then that perhaps only ammunition sales should be regulated? Because empty guns aren't really an issue?

Admittedly I struggle with this a little. The collecting of airplanes or cars wouldn't likely be abused in the way a "fake" and otherwise "legal" firearms collection could be. 9/11 not withstanding, it's pretty unlikely people would buy a plane as part of a collection without proper licensing and instruction with the intent of using it for crime, self protection or any other purpose beyond a true collection.

So the question becomes how you prevent people from creating fake collections without violating their rights? I can't see a way around treating a collection the same way any other form of firearm ownership should be treated, simply because of the likeliness of abuse.

You might ask why I think it would be abused; simply because of how many otherwise law-abiding people didn't bother to register their long guns what that act was put in place. "I bought this shotgun on a collector's permit, but really I just want it around in case TSHTF."

As to ammo, you currently need to show a PAL to buy. (But you can buy primers, powder, brass and projectiles without - that doesn't make sense either) If you had a collector's license as proposed, it shouldn't allow you to buy ammo. But what if your spouse has a PAL, and happens to own firearms in similar calibers? It would be tricky to limit access to a spouse. Maybe if your spouse has a PAL your not eligible for a collector's license. And we continue to circle the bowl. Seems to me a collectors license / permit wouldn't be worth the trouble.

So can you propose a government-controlled licensing system that doesn't criminalize mere possession of a firearm, all while taking into account the realities of our current criminal code legislation?

Based on my previous paragraphs, obviously I can't specifically single out firearms collections from normal ownership without it being regulated somehow. But as I said, it differs from other types of collections because of the potential for abuse.

On the other hand, if there was a "government-controlled licensing system" you'd probably end up with exactly what we have today: (RangeBob) "becoming a firearms collector requires a PAL, and requires you to give up your right to not have your dwelling searched."

I've come to know Rod on a first name basis over the years and I've had food and drinks with him too some years back. As you can see I have trouble with some of the mission statements from the CCFR and disagree with their training/licensing stance. I've also been shocked by some comments they have made in the media not too long ago, which argueably were a big no-no if the goal was to educate people. But although I might disagree with Rod and the CCFR and have different beliefs than them on certain aspects, I've always had very pleasant interactions with Rod, do appreciate his peoples + communications skills, and I do think the mission of educating the non-gun owners and fence-sitters is a widely important one (if done correctly, which might require some work). But if there's a man for that job in the activism branch of the gun community in Canada, its definitely him for the moment, even if I wished some of his views were different.

There was one interview with a CCFR director that was.. unfortunate. I remember who it was, but not exactly what it was ATM - 25 round 10/22 mags I think. Since then I have a new found appreciation for people who are able to speak on camera. Turns out I'm a bit of a crap interview when put on the spot. I can talk like this or in person just fine, but add a camera or a hot mic and allllll bets are off.

 

[DanN]

That sounds a lot more reasonnable than what I had innitially thought you were on board with. I wish you would have explained this system earlier and offer it as an alternative to current system. You had mentionned civillian law on a tone that hinted you were against it for regulating firearms, but glad to hear that wasn't the interpretation that was meant.

Agreed.

Still not a fan of mandatory training because of my firm beliefs in property rights, but I could get behind this system for its improvement of not criminalizing mere possession.

My only thought with this as a property right issue would be that the mandatory training or proven competency would be in the honor of protecting our other rights from those who would do harm, accidentally or intentionally, with firearms if left unchecked.

Seems to me though that as Canadians we don't actually HAVE any property rights, do we?

 

[sewktbk]

Agreed.

My only thought with this as a property right issue would be that the mandatory training or proven competency would be in the honor of protecting our other rights from those who would do harm, accidentally or intentionally, with firearms if left unchecked.

Well there is really no such thing as having a right to be 100% protected from accidents anyways, even with mandatory training. Its still going to happen, and it can't be proven that the training helped efficiently enough to reduce those numbers. Negligent people will always be around. You might feel safer when people have to have training because you get insurance they have been taught proper, safe handling. But that in no way guarantees that they won't just get home and store/handle their guns in an unsafe manner regardless. Mandatory training doesn't come with continous monitoring afterwards (thankfully).

So in the end, the people who are responsible enough to apply in everyday life what they've learned during training would've been responsible enough to seek that knowledge on their own anyways....and the careless and negligent folks by nature won't just magically become responsible, yet will still easily pass the tests before getting a gun....and go on to be negligent afterwards. Which is probably the very reason why stats show no improvement attributable to mandatory training.

As far as the intentional part, training doesn't solve the ill intent issue anyways.

Seems to me though that as Canadians we don't actually HAVE any property rights, do we?

We constitutionnally don't, you're correct. That is a real issue as far as i'm concerned. And one that extends to something bigger than just gun ownership.

 

[Foxer]

That sounds a lot more reasonnable than what I had innitially thought you were on board with. I wish you would have explained this system earlier and offer it as an alternative to current system.

Still not a fan of mandatory training because of my firm beliefs in property rights, but I could get behind this system for its improvement of not criminalizing mere possession.

Well we largely glossed over the whole 'licensing' discussion earlier and focused on whether or not safety training and background checks were reasonable and prudent in the first place.

I'm not a fan of simple posession being a crime. I'm also not a fan of safe storage violations being a crime. I'm ok if the gov't wants to make it a crime to acquire guns in certain ways - for example if it could be proven you stole a gun then I'm ok with theft AND illegal gun possession charges or the like, in concept anyway. Or for criminal charges if you're found with a gun after explicitly being prohibited from owning any by a judge. But not for simple posession. And I'm ok with them revoking your certification if you're constantly in violation of the rules.

But for things like storage I'm more along the lines of 'ok - you got caught storing your guns in an unsafe manner, so you get a 200 dollar fine and have to retake the safety course within the next 6 months". Or even "look - this is the third time, we're pulling your certification, you're clearly not getting the message'. But I don't see the need for criminal charges. I think if someone gets shot as a direct result of improper storage then we can always look at reckless endangerment charges.

And for the gangbanger with a loaded glock in his pants walking down the street, it's easy to craft laws that address that specific misuse of guns. "Posession of a concealed firearm in a public place without lawful excuse" or the like. Whatever - those details can be addressed over time. That guy probably had a weapons' prohibition anyway.

 

[Foxer]

Well there is really no such thing as having a right to be 100% protected from accidents anyways, even with mandatory training. Its still going to happen, and it can't be proven that the training helped efficiently enough to reduce those numbers. Negligent people will always be around. You might feel safer when people have to have training because you get insurance they have been taught proper, safe handling. But that in no way guarantees that they won't just get home and store/handle their guns in an unsafe manner regardless. Mandatory training doesn't come with continous monitoring afterwards (thankfully). So in the end, the people who are responsible enough to apply in everyday life what they've learned during training would've been responsible enough to seek that training anyways....and the careless and negligent folks by nature won't just magically become responsible, yet will still easily pass the tests before getting a gun....and go on to be negligent afterwards.

As far as the intentional part, training doesn't solve the ill intent issue anyways.



We constitutionnally don't, you're correct. That is a real issue as far as i'm concerned. And one that extends to something bigger than just gun ownership.

You're right on the constitutionality issue of property, so let's set that aside

as to the 100 percent thing - as I've mentioned the intent is NEVER to reduce things to 100 percent. The intent of any of these kinds of laws is (supposed to be) to take those actions reasonable and prudent to reduce risk.

Drivers licenses were never meant to reduce accidents to zero. Just to reduce them.

And it is possible to prove beyond any reasonable doubt that safety training does have the effect of reducing accidents. The evidence is pretty overwhelming and we can go thru all the various examples and experiments but it's long been established that for pretty much any activity, safety training reduces accidents. It won't eliminate them, but it reduces them. And that's kind of common sense - if you KNOW how to be safe, you are more likely to be safe than if you don't know.

So the REAL question becomes - is it reasonable? We know that that's an important part of the traditional legal criteria, is it reasonable to require this?

And that is something of a moving target. To answer that you have to answer the question 'how much training is required and how hard is it to get, and what benefit can reasonably be expected'?

If the govt' required a 2 month course for 8 hours a day costing 10 grand, and we could only reasonably expect a 1 percent drop in accidents... Most people would say that is not reasonable.

On the flip side, if 5 mins of training for free resulted in a 95 % drop in accidents - you'd kind of be silly to suggest that wasn't reasonable. And this is kind of the measure for everything, not just guns.

So what we're REALLY talking about is "is our current level of required training reasonable'. We know it will reduce accidents - but enough to justify what we're doing today? Would we be getting a better benefit with more training? Or could we get the same benefit with less? Does this strike a reasonable balance? And if not, what would.

One thing I will say and have said before, I think the test should be allowed to be challenged. I think that's a very very important thing, and I'm disappointed that was taken away.

 

[sewktbk]

If the training absolutely has to be part of the process (which I think is still up for debate), I'd be more in favor of an incentive-based training system. Where for example (and this is just off the top of my head, might require more in-depth thinking and tinkering), the law would state that if you haven't completed safety training from an approved trainer, you are legally required to obtain gun-accident insurance for a coverage of Xmillion, the omittance of which could result in a fine (like driving without insurance). And if you did obtain the one-time training/certification, you'd be exempt from that provision. You would then have to either provide certification or proof of insurance at time of purchase. And people who would cause gun accidents without either proper training or valid insurance would be subject to additiona legal charges and sanctions, provided they weren't the victim (charges would of course still exist for negligent people who did have training or insurance and still caused an accident just as it does now, but there would be a specific charge and sanction for causing an accident without either training or insurance).
This would be much closer to a system that respects and oversees property rights, is much more of an inclusive and positive approach, all while having the benefit of encouraging training enough that people would have a desire to responsibilize themselves, and that the vast majority of people would just go with the training for being easier and cheaper.

One thing I will say and have said before, I think the test should be allowed to be challenged. I think that's a very very important thing, and I'm disappointed that was taken away.

you're right, that is an important part.

 

[DanN]

Well there is really no such thing as having a right to be 100% protected from accidents anyways, even with mandatory training. Its still going to happen, and it can't be proven that the training helped efficiently enough to reduce those numbers. Negligent people will always be around. You might feel safer when people have to have training because you get insurance they have been taught proper, safe handling. But that in no way guarantees that they won't just get home and store/handle their guns in an unsafe manner regardless. Mandatory training doesn't come with continous monitoring afterwards (thankfully).

I spent some time looking for stats on firearms accidents vs rate of ownership in Canada. My hypothesis is that maybe accidents aren't climbing at the same rate as ownership, which may support the idea that safety training may be helpful. Perhaps. Maybe. Of course no one reports "I would have had an accident today, but thanks to my training I didn't" because that's just silly. I mean, I didn't get fired today because I remembered to put on pants again today! Hooray!

I did manage to find some info on accidental firearms deaths in BC:

Year and # of accidental deaths in BC
1996 8
1997 4
1668 4
1999 2
2000 3
2001 1
2002 4
2003 3
2004 4
2005 1
http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/pubs/fire-feu-eval/t2a-eng.htm

So the rate has been pretty steady, maybe even declining between '96 and '05. Not exactly recent stats, I know. And I couldn't find stats on the # of firearms owned in BC over that time period. And I got bored looking. But regardless, pretty safe bet that each year given there were more guns than the previous year, and the rate was pretty steady. However, there isn't really enough info to make more than a guess, so take it for what it's worth.

So in the end, the people who are responsible enough to apply in everyday life what they've learned during training would've been responsible enough to seek that knowledge on their own anyways....and the careless and negligent folks by nature won't just magically become responsible, yet will still easily pass the tests before getting a gun....and go on to be negligent afterwards. Which is probably the very reason why stats show no improvement attributable to mandatory training.

At least if someone had training and went on to cause harm due to negligence, they can't say "I didn't know any better!"

As far as the intentional part, training doesn't solve the ill intent issue anyways.

No laws do; we're agreed on that.

We constitutionnally don't, you're correct. That is a real issue as far as i'm concerned. And one that extends to something bigger than just gun ownership.

Someone should get on that.

 

[sewktbk]

I spent some time looking for stats on firearms accidents vs rate of ownership in Canada. My hypothesis is that maybe accidents aren't climbing at the same rate as ownership, which may support the idea that safety training may be helpful. Perhaps. Maybe. Of course no one reports "I would have had an accident today, but thanks to my training I didn't" because that's just silly. I mean, I didn't get fired today because I remembered to put on pants again today! Hooray!

I did manage to find some info on accidental firearms deaths in BC:

Year and # of accidental deaths in BC
1996 8
1997 4
1668 4
1999 2
2000 3
2001 1
2002 4
2003 3
2004 4
2005 1
http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/pubs/fire-feu-eval/t2a-eng.htm

So the rate has been pretty steady, maybe even declining between '96 and '05. Not exactly recent stats, I know. And I couldn't find stats on the # of firearms owned in BC over that time period. And I got bored looking. But regardless, pretty safe bet that each year given there were more guns than the previous year, and the rate was pretty steady. However, there isn't really enough info to make more than a guess, so take it for what it's worth.

Gun-related accidents have been steadily declining since the 30s, and that decline has continued at about the same rate (unimproved) in the past 2 decades of mandatory training. (the numbers did continue to improve, but the rate of decline hasn't)

At least if someone had training and went on to cause harm due to negligence, they can't say "I didn't know any better!"

but they can't say that anyways, because ignorance of the law is no excuse.

Someone should get on that.

I think there was a petition sponsored by MP Bob Zimmer to address this issue. Don't know where its at.

 

[DanN]

Gun-related accidents have been steadily declining since the 30s, and that decline has continued at about the same rate (unimproved) in the past 2 decades of mandatory training. (the numbers did continue to improve, but the rate of decline hasn't)

Agreed; I was just trying to find numbers that showed that, but I value my sanity enough to not look too long. Leave that to people who are better at at (Paging Dr. RangeBob)

but they can't say that anyways, because ignorance of the law is no excuse.

I didn't mean to imply their whining would do any good, I just hate listening to stupidity.

I think there was a petition sponsored by MP Bob Zimmer to address this issue. Don't know where its at.

There is / was. I signed it. Pretty sure it's closed by now.

So it feels like we are on pretty even ground now.


...and to think it happened on the INTERNET.

 

[sewktbk]

Agreed; I was just trying to find numbers that showed that, but I value my sanity enough to not look too long. Leave that to people who are better at at (Paging Dr. RangeBob)



I didn't mean to imply their whining would do any good, I just hate listening to stupidity.



There is / was. I signed it. Pretty sure it's closed by now.

So it feels like we are on pretty even ground now.


...and to think it happened on the INTERNET.

Incredible isn't it!

 

[DanN]

Incredible isn't it!

Well now what the heck are we supposed to do??

Range day?

 

[sewktbk]

Well now what the heck are we supposed to do??

Range day?

That would be nice...but seeing you're in BC, one of us would have to spend the equivalent of a LOT of ammo on a plane ticket

 

[DanN]

That would be nice...but seeing you're in BC, one of us would have to spend the equivalent of a LOT of ammo on a plane ticket

Yeah, and I can't miss the SA gun show this weekend, either.

 

[RangeBob]

Foxer

re post #137

You're asking questions and making statements/judgements that imply you don't understand how this works.
So I'll start by describing in more detail what I'm thinking of, so we're closer to the same page.



These databases would be maintained by the Canadian Firearms Program.
- Weapons Prohibition Order list (they do this today. All courts are required to notify the CFOs, and as of 2007 they've been doing that)
- Delayed Investigation Notes. (note that a court judge can order the most recent to be "approved", overriding a Canadian Firearms Program decision, same as today)
- PAL List (about 3000 persons)

These databases would be maintained by an Ottawa bureaucracy
- Training database (Canadian Firearms Program does this today. It's currently indexed by Name/Birthdate, because it has to work before a PAL# is issued). No age restriction on this course, may be taken by 10-year-olds.

These databases are maintained by front line police
- FIP (note that FIP is a trivial database, with Name, Birthdate, date of incident, link to CPIC incident report)
- Incident reports (these are the detailed notes recorded by officers). These are primarily in local police station databases (plural), with copies/summaries in provincial databases. They are mostly accessible via CPIC. Sometimes a phone call is required to get the information.

These databases are maintained by other parties, and contain photo, name, and current address
- Drivers Licence
- Provincial or Territorial ID card
- etc


I'll describe the store employee for posting brevity, although a gun owner private citizen seller, or police officer at a traffic stop where a firearm is noticed, would be similar. In the case of a police officer at a traffic stop, it would be tied into their console the same way that CFRO is today (automatic hits).
A citizen may also do a query on themselves, and have the response sent to their email, which could be carried on their phone, and shown to police on demand.

A store employee gathers {Buyer Name, Buyer Birth Date, Buyer ID (one of: driver's licence, provincial or territorial ID, PAL, etc)),
and either connects via the website, or makes a phone call to the Canadian Firearms Program to do the same.

I'll describe the website for posting brevity, although a phone call would be similar.

The employee enters {Buyer Name, Buyer Birth Date, Buyer ID, store id}
Optionally they can enter email address of store and buyer; in which case the response will be echoed to email.

If any of the databases are unavailable, then "delayed" is returned.

The website checks the store id. If it's invalid it returns "Unknown" and quits.

The website checks the {Buyer Name, Buyer Birth Date, Buyer ID}.
The way it does that is
- if Buyer ID is a PAL, it gets the record from the database "PAL List", and compares the name/birthdate there against what has been entered. If it's invalid it returns "Unknown" and quits.
- if Buyer ID is something else, such as driver's licence, it gets a record from the remote database (e.g. Provincial Driver's Licence database), and compares the name/birthdate there against what has been entered. If it's invalid it returns "Unknown" and quits.

At this point we've identified someone well enough to do a criminal record check.

The website checks the Weapons Prohibition Order list. If the person is there, then it returns "rejected" and quits.

The website checks the Delayed Investigation Notes. If the person is there and the most recent note says "reject", then it returns "rejected" and quits.

[optional] The website checks other CPIC databases for other convictions. If the person is there, then it returns "rejected" and quits.

The website gets the most recent Delayed Investigation Notes date.
The website gets FIP records that are more recent than the most recent Delayed Investigation Notes date. If any 'new' FIP are found, then it notifies a Canadian Firearms Program employee to begin an investigation into the FIP entry, and returns "delayed".
The investigation is the same as is done now, with the RCMP checking the CPIC incident reports referenced in the FIP for this person to see if there's anything serious enough to reject. In either result, the Delayed Investigation Notes are updated, and the seller is notified of the decision.
This handles the Gakhal situation.

Using the Buyer ID, the website gets the Photo and Address (so, for example, it might get the current photo and address from the provincial driver's licence database) and returns that to the store employee, along with a "approved", and an "approval code" (basically a short digital signature based upon data entered and some internal data).

because it tracks every purchase, it's basically a registry for the cops

It's not storing that a request has been made.
It's not even asking the firearm make/model/serial, let alone storing it.
There's no firearm registry.
There's no 'made a purchase' registry.
There's no licencing registry.
There's no "firearms tracing" information.

but yours doesn't handle the Gakhal situation.

It handles it exactly the same as yours. And no it's not really different than the current licensing system, it just guarantees that if you've bought a gun you own it for life without anything expiring, it firms up 'shall issue' a little, and removes the whole thing from the criminal code.

As near as I can tell, yours is based on the idea that if you have a card, you're good to go.
With mine, the purchase of a new firearm is stopped the moment the FIP entry is made. Most of the time it's "delayed" and then "approved" in a few days, although it may be "delayed" and then "rejected". Mine handles stolen ID instantly.
With yours, the purchase of a new firearm is stopped after the FIP investigation concludes and a police officer is sent out to collect the PAL Card, days later.

Your system requires the police to actually do the same thing as licensing, which is to make a determination that someone is 'accepted' or 'rejected', and has whatever other requirements the gov't has, just like our current licensing. The only difference is that it will be in one database instead of another.

Technically it's the website that makes the determination. (see above algorithm)
Unless police have made a note about you (police incident report), in which case a human officer evaluates it, according to the current rules :

"Bad temper is not sufficient grounds to deny somebody a firearms licence,"
-- Terry Hamilton, chief firearms officer for B.C., re Mitchell​

It does require that the address information be up to date just like our current requirements so that this information can be verified each time and given to whomever you're buying the gun from. A picture must be maintained now in this database that's up to date (presumably if you let it get older you wouldn't be allowed to buy a gun) so one way or another you have to make sure the gov't has a picture of you every few years, just like we do now.

Yep, but it's not the Canadian Firearms Program who's maintaining that.

And somewhere there has to be a training database but it won't be on the police system but if for some reason those two systems aren't talking then you can't even own a gun, because the police can't verify you're eligible.

Yes. If any of the networks are down, then the website fails, and "delayed" is returned.

And as far as the 'accepted' or 'rejected' thing goes, once again who decides that?

See above algorithm.

Because your statement that the only time anyone would access it would be when a gun is purchased or a cop checks you cannot be true - at some point whether there's a list of licensees OR a list of bad guys, someone had to create that list.

The lists are just the databases mentioned.
The police maintain multiple lists of bad guys. They do that today.
There is no list of licensees.

Unless you've explained it wrong and a cop basically has to actually check all the information and 'pass' you on the spot reading thru the reports himself. Which obviously will take hours.

Obviously it will take seconds. The traffic officer never would check FIP/Incident reports to make a determination.

I don't see any difference in costs at all.

Currently there are costs to maintain the licencing, registration databases. Those would be gone.
Currently FIP entries are investigated for anyone on the licencing list. These would be reduced to only checking FIP entries when someone meets a police officer with a gun, or makes a purchase. I'd guess this would be 25% less effort.
The entire PAL application and renewal process is gone. No 28 day to 45 day waiting period. No phone calls to friends and relatives.
etc

And to top it all off, now you've got the ADDED Complication that some people will be using a certificate, others will not, etc etc.

Same as the American NICS system. (if you get "delayed" a lot with the American system, you can apply for a card that differentiates you from whatever caused the "delayed". It's not pre-approve, because you can still commit a felony/offense and be "rejected" even with it.)
Also, you seem to prefer PAL card.

This is all basically some twisted effort attempting for reasons other than practical ones to 'track criminals not gun owners', even tho we'd still need to track who's actually bought guns and who had safety training etc etc.

There is no tracking of who's actually bought guns.

this doesn't make anything better for us, it sure as hell doesn't make us any safer, and it has a much higher potential for abuse by the cops.

There is no change in 'abuse by the cops' from what we have today.
It takes two cops (front line + Canadian Firearms Program), who don't know each other, to cause a "reject". The "reject" can be revoked by court judge.

It's a mess - and it would quickly become an expensive mess as they tried to 'fix' problems.

What problems.

And if for some reason a cop couldn't verify your info (system down, too far away from coverage, etc) they could seize your guns till it got 'sorted'.

If an individual thinks that's likely, they can apply for a PAL.
Note that target shooters are mostly in cities, so the cops are likely able to verify the info.
Note that hunters have hunting licences, which might only be issued if this system had been checked at the time, indicating that the person recently had been checked so no seizure had to be made.
Note that you may have a copy of a recent approval in email on your iPhone. (be that a firearm purchase, or a self check)

the problem you're going to run into is that right now they do 'references'. And people really like the idea of 'references' when it comes to gun owners.

No reference checks.
Good or bad, no reference checks.

just "have you passed your test" and "is their a background problem" (you tell me that can be found out in 'seconds'), there you go it's processed. 5 minutes tops. Print that card, get it in the mail.

Background check
- If there's nothing wrong with you, that can be determined in seconds.
- If there's something court ordered wrong with you, that takes seconds.
- If there's something that may be wrong with you (FIP), that takes days.

My system doesn't keep a list of licencees, whereas your card based system would.

But other than that all you've done is create a 'paperless' license system

My system doesn't keep a list of licencees.



NICS Process in Motion (heart firearms)
FBI, April 2013

 

[RangeBob]

Agreed; I was just trying to find numbers that showed that, but I value my sanity enough to not look too long. Leave that to people who are better at at (Paging Dr. RangeBob)

Is Post #59 what you're looking for?

 

[sewktbk]

Foxer, if your proposed solution is a system based on civilian law that doesn't involve licenses nor the criminalization of mere possession...then whats wrong with Rangebob's system since it achieves those things while still maintaining some levels of checks? And why are you trying to argue that the current PAL system is better? Seems contradictory.

 

[Foxer]

I think there was a petition sponsored by MP Bob Zimmer to address this issue. Don't know where its at.

Well - there's some special problems with that.

Even if the feds were for it (which the current batch isn't), many of the provinces are not. The first trudeau actually did try to include property rights in the Charter, and the provinces shut him down. And because it's a constitutional issue, you need the provinces on board to make it happen, or at least 7 of them representing at least 50 percent of the population.

On top of it - whenever anyone has opened up the constitution the provinces tend to jump up and say 'well we want this changed, and we won't support your proposal until we get it'. Suddenly you've got a hodge podge of other issues that have to be addressed or it wont' move forward.

It tends to be death to whatever gov't proposes the changes. And it's brutally psychotically hard to get anything changed, and if you do chances are it's not what you wanted in the first place. So... that might be an uphill battle in the near future

 

[RangeBob]

The first trudeau actually did try to include property rights in the Charter, and the provinces shut him down.

Those have been our (CGN/GoC) talking points for years, whenever this topic comes up.


Lately I've been adding :

Ango-Canadian jurisprudence has traditionally recognized, as a fundamental freedom, the right of the individual to the enjoyment of property and the right not to be deprived thereof, of any interest therein, save by due process of law.(
-- Supreme Court of Canada, 1976, Harrison v. Carswell

Diefenbaker's Bill Of Rights, which apparently is still in force in Canada, recognizes property rights.
The UN declaration of Universal Rights, also recognizes property rights.
Do municipalities have the power to restrict our right to do things on our own property, such as cut down a tree (or fortification)?
Bob Mackie, Mackie's Mountain Archery vs Niagara Escarpment Commission (unelected, arms length of provincial government), in 2002. Unlisted activity on agricultural land. 1798 transfer of crown land -- has property rights. Private property is controlled by letters patent. Contract with the crown, is still valid today. Public land vs private property, and unbroken chain of evidence of ownership contracts from 1798 until 2011.

Diefenbaker's Bill Of Rights, still in effect, applies only to federal laws and government actions because the requisite provincial consent was not obtained. It recognizes the rights of individuals to life, liberty, personal security and enjoyment of property. It does not recognize "possession" of property, since that is a matter of provincial jurisdiction. Being deprived of these rights is forbidden, "except by due process of law."
-- http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/canadian-bill-of-rights/

Property Rights Amendment, 1983
On April 18, 1983, Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau expressed support for entrenching property rights in the Constitution, but only if debate were limited to a single day. The debate became engulfed in partisan tactics and eleven days later the Progressive Conservative Opposition introduced a motion of non-confidence in the Canadian House of Commons that sought to entrench the right to the "enjoyment of property" in the Constitution. Trudeau's government was not prepared to support its own defeat by backing such a motion. In any case, its passing would dissolve the House and prevent the Senate from considering the proposed amendment. On May 2, 1983, the motion was defeated, with 88 votes in favour and 126 opposed.
-- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unsuccessful_attempts_to_amend_the_Canadian_Constitution

 

[DanN]

Is Post #59 what you're looking for?

That, overlaid with the rate of firearms ownership on Canada. Marks for when mandated training was req'd as well would be nice.

A 2nd overlay that showed the total number of guns owned could be interesting as well.

Sent from my HTC One M9 using Tapatalk