The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0

[MilEME09]

Should the CAF lobby the government?

You mean we don't behind closed doors? Bit of apples to oranges. The CAF is directly employed by the federal government, with the exception of the RCMP, police forces around the country are not. They are the experts on law enforcement, not the GoC. I believe there input is very much needed, and there are no rules i am aware of preventing them from doing so, unlike rules around the CAF and commenting about the government.

 

[Jarnhamar]

You mean we don't behind closed doors? Bit of apples to oranges. The CAF is directly employed by the federal government, with the exception of the RCMP, police forces around the country are not. They are the experts on law enforcement, not the GoC. I believe there input is very much needed, and there are no rules i am aware of preventing them from doing so, unlike rules around the CAF and commenting about the government.

Personally I think citizens should decide what laws work and what laws don't. Keep what works, change what doesn't.

The government didn't seem to care much when the experts on law enforcement disagreed about legalizing pot.

 

[MilEME09]

Personally I think citizens should decide what laws work and what laws don't. Keep what works, change what doesn't.

The government didn't seem to care much when the experts on law enforcement disagreed about legalizing pot.

Problem is your average citizen doesn't know much about the law

 

[Haggis]

They are the experts on law enforcement, not the GoC.

  Ask a Liberal.  They will disagree.

The police serve the state and the state tells them what laws to enforce.  The police have to figure out how to do that, in concert with the Crown, so that when charges laid they are defensible in court.

Cannabis is a perfect example. Despite the misgivings of the LE community, the state decreed that cannabis was now legal and the police were left to figure out how to "make it work".

 

[Jarnhamar]

Problem is your average citizen doesn't know much about the law

I think you're right and I think that's an even better reason why laws shouldn't be left to the government and police to decide.

I agree that police are experts on how to enforce the law, I think them deciding laws (as an institution) is a conflict of interest.



Federal Court approves next $100M RCMP sexual harassment class-action lawsuit
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/rcmp-class-action-lawsuit-women-non-policing-roles-approval-order-1.5493266
Court clears $900M settlement for military and civilian victims of sexual misconduct
https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/national-defence-armed-forces-sexual-assault-settlement-1.5372919

Both of us are pretty shitty when it comes to how we treat people.

 

[RangerRay]

From the Alberta Game Warden Association Facebook page:

https://www.facebook.com/AlbertaGameWardenAssociation/

“On May 1, 2020, Prime Minister Trudeau and the Liberal government implemented a prohibition of over 1500 firearms through an Order in Council (OIC).

The Alberta Game Warden Association (AGWA) wishes to clearly state that they oppose the OIC Firearms Ban and believes that any such issues should be taken through the democratic processes which our officials have been elected and sworn to uphold.

The Alberta Game Warden Association consists of Fish and Wildlife officers who strive to conserve the natural resources of Alberta by ensuring compliance with resource related activities such as hunting, trapping and fishing and to provide public safety by managing dangerous wildlife. AGWA believes it is critically important to show support for their stakeholders, specifically lawful firearms owners in the hunting, trapping,  sport competition/target shooting and ranching community.

The OIC Firearm Ban lacks evidence-based decision making as shown in the following paragraphs.

The OIC claimed to be banning Military Grade Assault Weapons. That fundamental premise of the OIC is flawed as Military Grade Assault Weapons refers to fully automatic firearms with high capacity magazines, both of which were already prohibited in Canada in 1977 and 1992 respectively. None of the firearms that were banned are capable of firing in fully automatic mode (one depression of the trigger allowing for continuous firing) or legally able to contain more than five rounds in the magazine.

The Federal Liberal OIC further states that none of the firearms banned are commonly used for sporting or hunting purposes. However, the restricted firearms that are now prohibited, have been used for decades for sporting and competition purposes and were licensed by the Federal government for this very purpose.  The non-restricted firearms that were banned under the OIC are common hunting rifles for both predators and large game animals. This was demonstrated by the fact that an exemption was included in the OIC allowing Indigenous people to continue to hunt for subsistence purposes with these very same firearms.

In addition to banning 1,500 firearms by specific make and model, the firearm ban includes the banning of firearms with a bore of 20 mm or more. Most 10 and 12 gauge shotguns with a removable choke have a bore of 20 mm or more, and would therefore be banned under the new regulations imposed.  The intent of making these firearms may not be there at this moment.  However, we believe that this oversight is a key example why this issue should have gone through the Parliamentary process.  Instead, the lawful outdoor community members such as upland bird hunters or waterfowler’s have become criminals for possession of certain shotguns.

Statistics Canada figures show licenced gun owners are among the least likely citizens to commit a violent crime. New public safety measures should target the people responsible for criminal activity, tighten bail release conditions and address the socio-economic environments that give rise to violent life styles. Criminals who have illegally obtained firearms will not be impacted by this confiscation regime.

The Vancouver City Police Chief, who is the head of the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, was asked in 2019 whether he felt Canada needed further gun controls.  He said, “Canada already has strong firearms regulations and no other law is required. The firearms laws in Canada are actually very good right now. They’re very strict.”

The Alberta Game Warden Association urges the Federal Liberal Party to repeal the OIC Firearm Ban immediately to ensure Canadian citizens can continue to use these firearms responsibly and not face criminal prosecution for possessing lawfully acquired property. Limited government resources should be focused on taking action against the root causes of violent crime, such as gang violence, firearms obtained illegally or those which are illegally smuggled into Canada.“

 

[Eaglelord17]

Why not?  The police are part of the front line enforcing the laws, there should be feedback if laws are/aren't working as intended, or if things could be done better in some areas.

The statement also actually isn't even supporting the legislation, they are just saying they need to review it to see if it will actually do anything (which is pretty neutral, and the opposite of a ringing endorsement).

The police should not be providing feedback unless its related to equipment needed to do the job.

They are not parliament, they do not know the intent behind the laws and their job is simply to enforce the law to the letter. Anything else is a overreach of their jurisdiction. They also are not supposed to be involved in the political process, they are not elected and hold no authority in that regard. When unelected bureaucrats (basically what a police chief is) start dictating, supporting, or not supporting, the laws we as a nation have (especially when they are the ones to be enforcing said laws), there a issue with the democratic process.

If they have a issue with it, they should resign but most lack the fortitude to do so today.

 

[Navy_Pete]

The police should not be providing feedback unless its related to equipment needed to do the job.

They are not parliament, they do not know the intent behind the laws and their job is simply to enforce the law to the letter. Anything else is a overreach of their jurisdiction. They also are not supposed to be involved in the political process, they are not elected and hold no authority in that regard. When unelected bureaucrats (basically what a police chief is) start dictating, supporting, or not supporting, the laws we as a nation have (especially when they are the ones to be enforcing said laws), there a issue with the democratic process.

If they have a issue with it, they should resign but most lack the fortitude to do so today.

So the Big Giant Heads make a policy. People at the front end read the policy, and are looking at it to see if it's a workable policy. If the people at the front end have feedback, they should just lump it and do what the policy says (even if it's unworkable), or quit?  That's helpful, and the kind of forward thinking that has kept the CAF retention numbers sky high.

Typically this kind of order would have been rolled out under legislation, that would have involved all kinds of mechanisms for things like community input, feedback from different stakeholders (like the police departments, border agents, firearms groups etc). They did the run around on all that by doing it via an OIC, so how else are people like the frontline workers now responsible for enforcing the order supposed to provide input?

I agree that police may have a conflict of interest in some areas, but when you are creating top down policy like this and slap down something that could potentially turn a lot of Canadians into unwitting criminals, it's really stupid to not talk to people first. Also, if their intent is to take guns out of the hands of criminals, they should probably talk to the people that actually deal with criminals to see what would work, and there may be other options that would actually do that, while costing far less. There are lots of ways to balance that conflict of interest and take input from different sources into consideration, but they deliberately skipped that here.

The justice system is a team sport, and not considering how it will work at the coal face is just dumb. The fact that there are a bunch of shotguns being arbitrarily added on is a good example of something that could have been avoided, and also creates an obvious chink in the armour for a court challenge. Making good laws is hard, and virtually impossible to do from a bubble totally removed from the day to day application.

 

[lenaitch]

In my humble view, police leadership providing input on proposed legislation impacting law enforcement is no less valid and appropriate then the medical community providing input on medically-related legislation.  Bodies such as the CACP are means to focus the input from across the profession and draw input from provincial associations.  It is input, to be accepted in whole or part, or ignored, at the pleasure of the legislators.  Organizations such as the AGWA are not police leadership;  they are either an informal or formal organization representing the interests of its members, similar to police bargaining units.

 

[Jarnhamar]

[quote author=Navy_Pete]could potentially turn a lot of Canadians into unwitting criminals,
[/quote]

Aren't we criminals though? Over 100,000 Canadians are in possession of prohibited items without a license.  What's the difference between my prohibited AR15 and a prohibited 30 round magazine? Or switchblade? Or full auto Uzi? The amnesty letting us be criminals without punished for a little while? Still seems like we're technically criminals.

 

[Navy_Pete]

Aren't we criminals though? Over 100,000 Canadians are in possession of prohibited items without a license.  What's the difference between my prohibited AR15 and a prohibited 30 round magazine? Or switchblade? Or full auto Uzi? The amnesty letting us be criminals without punished for a little while? Still seems like we're technically criminals.

Yeah, I agree, it's BS.  I'm not in anyway affected personally, but still fundamentally disagree with the approach, as well as the breadth of the ban.  Maybe that was to prevent any additional sales and increase the buy-back cost?  Either way, should have been better handled given this has been on their radar since the Montreal mosque shooting, and some of those gun bans are based on incidents that happened 30 years ago (under a different rule set).

I think addressing the underlying issues of mental health, socio-economic disparity and others that lead to gun crime, as well as some real, concrete measures to beef up illegal guns from getting across the border would be more effective. Also, treating domestic abuse as a possible precusor to more serious crimes and putting more to addressing it(and providing social support for the victims) wouldn't hurt. Those are too hard though, and dont' win any shiny election line promises, so lets make scary tactical looking weapons illegal and ignore the real problem.

 

[Jarnhamar]

Yeah, I agree, it's BS.  I'm not in anyway affected personally, but still fundamentally disagree with the approach, as well as the breadth of the ban.

Yea man. Sorry for all the spam. I get I'm not a card carrying Liberal but still, the audacity of what they're doing creates a real sense of betrayal by the government.

*rephrased.

 

[Haggis]

The RCMP have posted an update regarding .10 and .12 ga shotguns.  It's interesting that it took them almost two weeks to figure out how to word this in order to save face for the Liberals.  It reads:

"Important notice: Update on 10 and 12 gauge shotgun classification under the new prohibition
On May 1st, 2020, the Government of Canada announced that it had made amendments to the Regulations Prescribing Certain Firearms and Other Weapons, Components and Parts of Weapons, Accessories, Cartridge Magazines, Ammunition and Projectiles as Prohibited, Restricted or Non-Restricted (SOR/98-462) [Classification Regulations] prescribing certain firearms as prohibited. One of the categories of the newly prohibited firearms include "Any firearm with a bore diameter of 20 mm or greater" (s. 95 of the Classification Regulations).

The Canadian Firearms Program (CFP) of the RCMP adheres to the Association of Firearm and Tool Mark Examiners' (AFTE) definition for bore diameter measurements. "The interior dimensions of the barrel forward of the chamber but before the choke." (Glossary of the Association of Firearm & Tool Mark Examiners by the AFTE Standardization Committee, 1st Ed. 1980). This is reflected in the RCMP's Firearms Reference Table (FRT) which clearly states that "...in shotguns, diameter of the barrel forward of the chamber but before the choke." The CFP also recognizes the Sporting Arms and Ammunition Manufacturers' Institute (SAAMI) standards regarding firearms and ammunition. The SAAMI chamber specifications for 10ga and 12ga shotguns do not include chokes therefore indicating that chokes are not part of the bore. Accordingly, it is the CFP's view that, in accordance with acceptable firearms industry standards for shotguns, the bore diameter measurement is considered to be at a point after the chamber, but before the choke.

Further, in making classification assessments of firearms which are reflected in the FRT, the CFP relies on recognized industry standard measurements. With respect to 10ga and 12ga shotguns, the CFP recognizes the SAAMI standard specifications which establish that the nominal (i.e. standard) bore diameter measurements for 10ga and 12ga shotguns are below the 20mm threshold (19.69mm for 10ga, 18.42mm for 12ga)."

 

[MilEME09]

Thats funny so what's with all the prohib shotguns then? Sounds like lip service to me.

 

[NavyShooter]

See, the thing about that, a notice on a website isn't actually what's written in the OIC...and until the OIC is changed or amended, I'll go by what's actually written in the OIC.

 

[Haggis]

See, the thing about that, a notice on a website isn't actually what's written in the OIC...and until the OIC is changed or amended, I'll go by what's actually written in the OIC.

The OIC only stipulates the prohibited bore diameter. The website update describes, in detail, how the bore will be measured to determine classification under the OIC. Now, it will be up to the LEA in the field to figure out how they will measure a shotgun's bore or will they just take it on faith that a nominal .10 or .12 ga is still good to go?  Or will they seize it and send it for detailed measuring for determination?

 

[ModlrMike]

It appears the challenge has been made:

https://tinyurl.com/ybjb78mz

 

[Colin Parkinson]

The RCMP have posted an update regarding .10 and .12 ga shotguns.  It's interesting that it took them almost two weeks to figure out how to word this in order to save face for the Liberals.  It reads:

"Important notice: Update on 10 and 12 gauge shotgun classification under the new prohibition
On May 1st, 2020, the Government of Canada announced that it had made amendments to the Regulations Prescribing Certain Firearms and Other Weapons, Components and Parts of Weapons, Accessories, Cartridge Magazines, Ammunition and Projectiles as Prohibited, Restricted or Non-Restricted (SOR/98-462) [Classification Regulations] prescribing certain firearms as prohibited. One of the categories of the newly prohibited firearms include "Any firearm with a bore diameter of 20 mm or greater" (s. 95 of the Classification Regulations).

The Canadian Firearms Program (CFP) of the RCMP adheres to the Association of Firearm and Tool Mark Examiners' (AFTE) definition for bore diameter measurements. "The interior dimensions of the barrel forward of the chamber but before the choke." (Glossary of the Association of Firearm & Tool Mark Examiners by the AFTE Standardization Committee, 1st Ed. 1980). This is reflected in the RCMP's Firearms Reference Table (FRT) which clearly states that "...in shotguns, diameter of the barrel forward of the chamber but before the choke." The CFP also recognizes the Sporting Arms and Ammunition Manufacturers' Institute (SAAMI) standards regarding firearms and ammunition. The SAAMI chamber specifications for 10ga and 12ga shotguns do not include chokes therefore indicating that chokes are not part of the bore. Accordingly, it is the CFP's view that, in accordance with acceptable firearms industry standards for shotguns, the bore diameter measurement is considered to be at a point after the chamber, but before the choke.

Further, in making classification assessments of firearms which are reflected in the FRT, the CFP relies on recognized industry standard measurements. With respect to 10ga and 12ga shotguns, the CFP recognizes the SAAMI standard specifications which establish that the nominal (i.e. standard) bore diameter measurements for 10ga and 12ga shotguns are below the 20mm threshold (19.69mm for 10ga, 18.42mm for 12ga)."

They had to go find something to give them an out, then get it cleared by DOJ and now if the choke is no longer part of the bore, is it still included when measuring barrel length? 

 

[Haggis]

They had to go find something to give them an out, then get it cleared by DOJ and now if the choke is no longer part of the bore, is it still included when measuring barrel length?

Probably not, but a good question for the here and now.  Under the old rules, it was not considered part of the barrel length if it was removable, same as flash hiders/flash suppressors.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

They were using the threaded portion of the barrel were the choke goes into as part of the barrel length (excluding the chamber), which is the part in question. This ruling may affect barrel measurements in the future.