The Great Gun Control Debate

[Rocky Mountains]

The troubling thing about the Supreme Court decision is that 4 judges were on the side of Quebec.  It is simply unfathomable that the federal government would not have the power to repeal any legislation under any circumstances yet 4 judges said nyet or is that nein.  If judges like politics, they are free to resign and run for office.

 

[Halifax Tar]

It was never of any "good" anyway, as a crime solving/prevention tool.

There were five to seven million firearms owners in Canada during the lead-up to Bil C-68 of 1995, by a number of credible estimates. Only three million bothered to get licences.

There were fifteen to twenty-one million firearms in their hands by the same estimates. Only seven million were ever registered.

This was the largest example of civil disobedience in this Country, ever.

The registry, and the legislation of which it was a part, just like the previous waves, achieved nothing beyond scapegoating and persecuting a sizeable portion of our Citizenry, and at great cost - in both financial and social terms.

I understand.  I am not questioning the LGR's existance, more its validity for use now as it has not been updated or used in 3 years.  Why any government would want too keep a database, that out of date in the first place is beyond me.  Unless the government that wants to keep it has an anti-fiream owner slant.

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

The troubling thing about the Supreme Court decision is that 4 judges were on the side of Quebec.  It is simply unfathomable that the federal government would not have the power to repeal any legislation under any circumstances yet 4 judges said nyet or is that nein.  If judges like politics, they are free to resign and run for office.

Don't get me started........

 

[Remius]

So now they are just going to create their own.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/quebec-vows-to-create-its-own-long-gun-registry-despite-supreme-court-ruling-1.3011843

 

[Rocky Mountains]

So now they are just going to create their own.

All the more power to them.  Really useful - a list of hunting rifles belonging to all the honest people in Quebec.  That should save ....?.... lives - well maybe some life some time.

 

[Spartan]

Thinking out loud, what is limiting any of these rulings in being applied to the restricted registry? I mean besides the political will to do so.

Follow-up question: if the supreme court has already ruled that federal government has charge on Criminal vice property, how does this ruling jive with that?

 

[Jed]

I understand.  I am not questioning the LGR's existance, more its validity for use now as it has not been updated or used in 3 years.  Why any government would want too keep a database, that out of date in the first place is beyond me.  Unless the government that wants to keep it has an anti-fiream owner slant.

For only one reason; to identify most of the citizens who own firearms. You just never know when this information may come in handy.

 

[cupper]

For only one reason; to identify most of the citizens who own firearms. You just never know when this information may come in handy.

'cause when Obama is finished rounding up all the guns in America, he's coming for all those to the North.

 

[The_Falcon]

The troubling thing about the Supreme Court decision is that 4 judges were on the side of Quebec.  It is simply unfathomable that the federal government would not have the power to repeal any legislation under any circumstances yet 4 judges said nyet or is that nein.  If judges like politics, they are free to resign and run for office.

3 of those 4 judges are from Quebec.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

So now they are just going to create their own.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/quebec-vows-to-create-its-own-long-gun-registry-despite-supreme-court-ruling-1.3011843

So if I buy a gun from a guy in Quebec, they will have no legal right to keep that information, the database might be a real source of headaches for them.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Likewise, if I sell a long gun to a guy in Quebec, I do not have to inform anyone, including Quebec's nanny police.

 

[Halifax Tar]

I read over the weekend the estimated cost for this Que LGR is roughly 30 million. 

Watch that balloon.  I really don't see Que being successful with this.  I think its just chest pounding and temper tantrums because the rest of Canada didn't give them what they wanted, and will blow away when the next issue to exasperated about shows up.

 

[TCBF]

- The FRT (Firearms Reference Table) is still operational, so they will not have to invent the wheel there.

- Transfer payments from TROC will cover the rest of the bill.

 

[stealthylizard]

At least they might be accurate than the national registry that was only supposed to cost $1 million which ballooned to $2 billion.

 

[TCBF]

At least they might be accurate than the national registry that was only supposed to cost $1 million which ballooned to $2 billion.

- Not sure how much of that was the LGR, how much was the FRT and how much was Licensing. It would be interesting to know how much money is being saved right now.

 

[McG]

http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/new-anti-terror-bill-might-avert-shootings-like-edmonton-steven-blaney-1.2413990

I see the police shooting in Edmonton has renewed discussion on this, with the city's mayor commenting that continued existence of the long gun registry might have prevented the tragedy.  At the same time, the government offers a counterpoint that it's anti-terror legislation might have provided the tools, had it already been in place, to have prevented the situation based on the shooter's known associations.

... I can't imagine gun owners being happy with either side of that debate.

 

[Eaglelord17]

I am really curious how they feel that the Registry might have prevented this? Saying that it let police know where every firearm in the city was is a complete lie as even if your firearm was registered it still doesn't have to be at your house, this also doesn't even include the illegal firearms which were never registered in the first place.  :

 

[Haggis]

Folks, I stumbled across this earlier today:

https://www.change.org/p/steven-harper-allow-canadian-forces-members-authorization-to-carry-concealed-firearms-on-and-off-duty-2?recruiter=346470880&utm_source=share_petition&utm_medium=facebook&utm_campaign=share_page&utm_term=des-lg-no_src-no_msg&fb_ref=Default

The text of the petition is:

"In light of recent events involving the murder of two Canadian Forces members, millions of Canadian citizens are realizing what members of the military have always known - military personnel are routinely unarmed and are highly vulnerable to violent attack.

Section 117 of the Criminal Code of Canada permits Canadian Forces Members to carry a firearm in the course of their duties.

I am petitioning you and your government to do everything in your power to change the law to allow trained Canadian Armed Forces members to carry a concealed firearm on AND off duty. Military personnel have a right to life and the right to defend themselves against unlawful attack. It is clear as of late that the desire for our military to carry concealed firearms is not unwarranted and is completely justified.

This could still follow existing federal rules of two year permits which could also be coupled with a long and rigorous course on personal defensive shooting, an extremely thorough background check, a yearly range shooting requalification, and an immediate and instant revocation of their ATC permit and restricted license if someone is found to have unlawfully or unreasonably drawn their firearm from their holster.

Show that you are willing to do more than pay lip service. Please allow our brave men and women in the military to be issued ATC permits, before any more of our troops are murdered without the opportunity of being able to defend themselves."

What are your thoughts on this?  I have my own opinions, which I will keep close hold for now.

 

[PuckChaser]

Who pays for the long and rigorous course on defensive shooting? Who's pistols do we carry? Good luck getting on a pistol range once a year.

It smacks of someone thinking they're doing the right thing, but really doesn't understand the realities of the situation. This is also likely a grey area of QR&O 19.10, as it technically isn't petitioning changes in CAF policy, but could be justified as such. I'm seeing a lot of military members posting it on their Facebook profiles, and although the likelihood of anyone being charged is slim, common sense says its not appropriate for us to sign on.

 

[mariomike]

This is also likely a grey area of QR&O 19.10, as it technically isn't petitioning changes in CAF policy, but could be justified as such. I'm seeing a lot of military members posting it on their Facebook profiles, and although the likelihood of anyone being charged is slim, common sense says its not appropriate for us to sign on.

More on that,

Signing a Petition? Go or No Go?
http://army.ca/forums/threads/109788.0