The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0

[Haggis]

I personally think letting kids sit at home playing violent video games is far more dangerous than any firearm ever will be. Or how about the stupid gangbanger culture that promotes violence, misogyny and anti-authoritarianism?

  You're channeling Grossman, aren't you?  He, for one, has been saying this for years.

Nobody is saying we should ban people playing GTA or listening to NWA.

  Firearms bans, as we all know, are easy and low hanging fruit.  They affect only a very small minority. If you ban violent video games you affect millions of "regular" people and their immediate families.  Remember, though, the Liberal's other campaign promise to "limit the glorification of violence by changing the way firearms are advertised, marketed and sold in Canada".  Will that legislation target violent video games and their "glorification of violence" that are sold in Canada?  Probably not.

 

[MilEME09]

There have been multiple studies that have not found a credible leak between video games and real world violence. While I think violence in games has desensitized people to violence, i don't believe its a root cause in society, goes goes for violence in tv and movies. Are we about to ban films that contain violence? I doubt that, and violence in film has been around a lot longer then video games, ditto for books.

 

[lenaitch]

I have only been pulled over by cops once when I had firearms. It was one of the most ignorant experiences of my life. Cops are sitting there attempting to lecture me on the 'law' and I was constantly having to correct there incorrect assertations. Remember ignorance of the law is no excuse for you as the citizen but cops who are paid to enforce the law aren't required to know it.

This is a big problem for the road warriors.  The Criminal Code is a really big book full of really important stuff.  Add to that the Controlled Drug and Substances Act and other federal statutes plus a plethora of provincial statutes and it's an awful lot to be an 'expert' on.  Layer on to that the evolving appellate court rulings that impact their enforcement. Obviously, the core stuff needs to be know by heart.  I would imagine most cops know the general law on what defines a restricted or prohibited weapons, but regulations often get into the weeds of particular weapons by name and model.  Up-to-date mobile data helps but only to a point, and often the up-to-date part is the challenge.

 

[Eaglelord17]

This is a big problem for the road warriors.  The Criminal Code is a really big book full of really important stuff.  Add to that the Controlled Drug and Substances Act and other federal statutes plus a plethora of provincial statutes and it's an awful lot to be an 'expert' on.  Layer on to that the evolving appellate court rulings that impact their enforcement. Obviously, the core stuff needs to be know by heart.  I would imagine most cops know the general law on what defines a restricted or prohibited weapons, but regulations often get into the weeds of particular weapons by name and model.  Up-to-date mobile data helps but only to a point, and often the up-to-date part is the challenge.

I'm not saying it isn't a issue for them, if I had my way Parliament would be going though every law on the books and ditching a lot of obsolete ones that aren't necessary, as well as updating them to make more sense. Personally I am a huge fan of rewriting the criminal code to be much more simplified in layman's terms, reduce the need for lawyers and help citizens follow the laws easier when they can understand what they mean.

Its just interesting how if I accidentally break the law, go to court saying I didn't know it was against the law, it isn't a defence. Yet police officers whose job is to enforce the law, ignorance of it is a defence?

In my case I was target shooting on Crown land with a 90 year old bolt action rifle. I had it trigger locked for transport (above and beyond the legal requirements) and the cop was arguing with me stating things like the action needs to be open for transport as well, and you can't be doing that here and can only target shoot at approved ranges (which is not a legal requirement).

I don't have a issue with cops not being 100% up to date on the law, there is too much there for one person to know at the moment. I do have a massive issue with when they take their ignorance and pretend it is the law. At that point it is essentially fraud, they are misrepresenting the law to the citizen and trying to force them to comply with their warped version of reality, with the threat of force behind their actions. Refuse to comply they might arrest you even though you are 100% in the right and all that shall happen to them is don't do that again.

 

[Humphrey Bogart]

The problem with all of these laws is the Government won't actually enforce them.  It will become yet another law on the books, psychopaths will still be able to get their guns as will criminals.

It makes no sense of course but at least the Government can put their hands up and say they did something  :rofl:

 

[CBH99]

Many of you have nailed it.

It's the appearance of doing something.  That's all.


Most of the general public is beyond ignorant of how things actually work, from a practical perspective.  The government can loudly decry "We've banned assault rifles!"  and most of the public will cheer them.  It's the appearance of doing something.

A 10 round magazine from a 22 rifle, legally obtained, will do just as much damage as 10 rounds from a 22 chambered AR-15 type weapon illegally obtained.  But the public doesn't think that way.


They want headlines, and to be reassured with a false sense of satisfaction that 'the government needs to do something'.  And, alas, the sheep are satisfied.

 

[Jarnhamar]

This is awesome.

Bill Blair stumbling through trying to explain why a 12 pound Cannon made in 1816 mounted on a pedestal in Stanley Park that's fired daily is now a prohibited firearm, is like a Grenade Launcher and likens it to mass shootings.

He sounds fucking clueless.

https://twitter.com/CCFR_CCDAF/status/1260628675504082947


Here is the assault weapon in action.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=duv2eYPP-t4&feature=youtu.be

 

[MilEME09]

This is awesome.

Bill Blair stumbling through trying to explain why a 12 pound Cannon made in 1816 mounted on a pedestal in Stanley Park that's fired daily is now a prohibited firearm, is like a Grenade Launcher and likens it to mass shootings.

He sounds ******* clueless.

https://twitter.com/CCFR_CCDAF/status/1260628675504082947


Here is the assault weapon in action.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=duv2eYPP-t4&feature=youtu.be

Funny too cause its a cannon, muzzle loaded and given its age would be considered an antique firearm and thus not require a PAL at all.

 

[Retired AF Guy]

Interesting article in the Halifax Examiner.
https://www.halifaxexaminer.ca/featured/he-was-a-psychopath/


The woman nicknamed "Boe" says she moved out of Portapique because of Nova Scotia shooter Gabriel Wortman. She alledges:

There was an article todays National Post that has additional details and actually names "Boe."

 

[lenaitch]

I'm not saying it isn't a issue for them, if I had my way Parliament would be going though every law on the books and ditching a lot of obsolete ones that aren't necessary, as well as updating them to make more sense. Personally I am a huge fan of rewriting the criminal code to be much more simplified in layman's terms, reduce the need for lawyers and help citizens follow the laws easier when they can understand what they mean.

Its just interesting how if I accidentally break the law, go to court saying I didn't know it was against the law, it isn't a defence. Yet police officers whose job is to enforce the law, ignorance of it is a defence?

In my case I was target shooting on Crown land with a 90 year old bolt action rifle. I had it trigger locked for transport (above and beyond the legal requirements) and the cop was arguing with me stating things like the action needs to be open for transport as well, and you can't be doing that here and can only target shoot at approved ranges (which is not a legal requirement).

I don't have a issue with cops not being 100% up to date on the law, there is too much there for one person to know at the moment. I do have a massive issue with when they take their ignorance and pretend it is the law. At that point it is essentially fraud, they are misrepresenting the law to the citizen and trying to force them to comply with their warped version of reality, with the threat of force behind their actions. Refuse to comply they might arrest you even though you are 100% in the right and all that shall happen to them is don't do that again.

I get what you are saying.  It's not unknown that some cops will take the 'it looks illegal so it probably is' approach.  An actual false arrest can have significant civil liability to a member and their department, but I understand what you are saying.  They thought what you were doing was illegal.  It seems you convinced them otherwise but it could have gone badly if heels were dug in.  There is always the recourse of recording all the information then consulting the Crown or doing research then serving a summons.  I have do that when I was uncertain.

Caveat - I'm not a lawyer, but I doubt we will ever see a 'Cole's Note' or 'Law for Dummies' level of legislative writing.  Legislators need to craft laws to speak to actions more than situations, so they have to be written in a certain way.  There is also a writing standard that has evolved over the years (I recall the SCOTUS deliberating on the Oxford Comma).  It's a lot better than it used to be.  There are almost no Latin terms anymore - primarily in the procedural law.  House-cleaning might sort out Witchcraft or Driving a Horse Furiously (Ontario Highway Traffic Act) but sections like those do little more than take up space these days.  A wholesale re-writing of criminal law might have the opposite effect of what you envision.  Most of the commonly-used sections of the Criminal Code have essentially been parsed word-by-word to the SCOC over the years.  A significant re-structuring of the sections would likely start that all over again and guarantee employment for litigators for years to come.

 

[Jarnhamar]

Open carry in Merica'

 

[Jarnhamar]

Strange we're not hearing anything about that shooting in Alberta. Especially the shooters name. Seems like things that are normally released are being kept secret. I wonder why that is?

 

[mariomike]

Open carry in Merica'

See also,

Gun Control: US and Global II 
https://army.ca/forums/threads/128785.0.html
7 pages.

 

[MilEME09]

Strange we're not hearing anything about that shooting in Alberta. Especially the shooters name. Seems like things that are normally released are being kept secret. I wonder why that is?

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/alberta-rcmp-shooting-blackfalds-1.5570254

27 year old Phillip Blair used a 12-gauge, semi-automatic shotgun. Given no criminal record I am willing to bed he was a PAL holder.

 

[Jarnhamar]

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/alberta-rcmp-shooting-blackfalds-1.5570254

27 year old Phillip Blair used a 12-gauge, semi-automatic shotgun. Given no criminal record I am willing to bed he was a PAL holder.

Thanks! I didn't see that come across my news feed this morning.

 

[Jarnhamar]

https://twitter.com/InfoCSAAA/status/1261314512428453890/photo/2

Looks like RCMP? decided to include a bunch more shotguns as prohibited yesterday.

With the OIC happening 15 days ago how can they keep adding guns to the list?

 

[FJAG]

https://twitter.com/InfoCSAAA/status/1261314512428453890/photo/2

Looks like RCMP? decided to include a bunch more shotguns as prohibited yesterday.

With the OIC happening 15 days ago how can they keep adding guns to the list?

Technically -- and legally-- they can't. The order in council speaks of an "annexed regulation" therefore only the regulation which formed the annex to the OiC is legally enforceable. If the RCMP (or whoever) amend the regulation then the amendment would be "ultra vires" (or done beyond the legal authority) and therefore could be challenged in court.

Any amendment to the "annexed regulation" would require a new OiC to give it proper force and effect.

For the RCMP (or whoever) to make a legal amendment would require a provision in the legislation itself delegating that power to the RCMP (or whoever). I must admit I have not read the legislation to the extent of some others on this thread, but I don't think that such a power is there.

:cheers:

 

[Halifax Tar]

https://twitter.com/InfoCSAAA/status/1261314512428453890/photo/2

Looks like RCMP? decided to include a bunch more shotguns as prohibited yesterday.

With the OIC happening 15 days ago how can they keep adding guns to the list?

Can you post the list here ?  Good ol DWAN...  Cant see twitter...

 

[Jarnhamar]

I'm still trying to decipher the list of what's being banned and what's not. I'll try and shore up a list.

 

[NavyShooter]

So here's the thing, the OIC gave the notation that 'other arms may be added' (words to that effect).

The problem is, they're adding guns that were previously determined by their own experts to not be variants of the AR-15, and are apparently now prohibiting them because they are a variant now. 

Some of the examples include a bolt action shotgun, as well as some of the Alberta Tactical rifles - the Modern Sporter, and Modern Hunter.  The Macabee Defence SLR is also on the list now.

I am wondering if there's a force afoot in the background which is unhappy with the way this has come and is doing this to give ammunition to the 'pro gun' side by deliberately over-reaching.

On the other hand, I see a list that's being deliberately expanded by a government that seems to be doubling down and doing their damndest to destroy the shooting industry.

I'm dismayed.