The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0

Jarnhamar

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
188
Points
680
the anti-gun group Polysesouvient, posted a screenshot on Twitter of the judge, accompanied by disparaging remarks. It was quickly removed in the early afternoon after the judge reminded everyone that such actions were illegal.
The federal government gave them hundreds of thousands of dollars and told them good work. There's probably some heavy expectations going on and they're probably stressed out and upset that the injunction wasn't automatically denied.
 

Halifax Tar

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
28
Points
530
I'm not sure the Liberals actually have the appetite or will to follow through on this OIC. I expect they would welcome a judge striking it down and being able to shrug and blame the courts while expressing that they tried...
 

Colin Parkinson

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
197
Points
680
It would certainly be politically perfect for them, lot`s of political capital, with minimal actual costs.
 

Jarnhamar

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
188
Points
680
It would certainly be politically perfect for them, lot`s of political capital, with minimal actual costs.
And stop hearing the boating accident comments? Win win for everyone (even Polysesouvient who would probably get more donations for their trouble).
 

Haggis

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
68
Points
530
I'm not sure the Liberals actually have the appetite or will to follow through on this OIC. I expect they would welcome a judge striking it down and being able to shrug and blame the courts while expressing that they tried...
I don't think the PM's ego will allow for the acceptance of the defeat of another key plank in his platform. In fact I expect that once the house sits again, he will forge ahead with the handgun ban and/or centralized storage and enabling legislation for his OIC. He needs those to help win the GTA, Vancouver and urban Québec, which should keep him in power.
 

Eaglelord17

Full Member
Reaction score
38
Points
330
Bill C238 just got voted down. Conservative sponsored initiative to make it so if you were in possession of a illegally imported firearm your first offence would be a minimum of 3 years in jail and 5 years for the second offence (up to 14 years in jail for both).

Liberals and NDP voted against it. I really question the value of that, maybe it might help get rid of the shootings they seek to politicize.
 

Haggis

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
68
Points
530
Bill C238 just got voted down. Conservative sponsored initiative to make it so if you were in possession of a illegally imported firearm your first offence would be a minimum of 3 years in jail and 5 years for the second offence (up to 14 years in jail for both).

Liberals and NDP voted against it. I really question the value of that, maybe it might help get rid of the shootings they seek to politicize.
With Bill C-68, in 1995, the Liberals enacted 19 firearms related offences with mandatory minimum sentences. While the intent of this CPC private member's bill was sound, the problem here is that this wasn't a Liberal bill.
 

Fishbone Jones

Army.ca Myth
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
31
Points
530
Even if it had passed, there'd be judges knocking it down and ignoring it for being anti Charter or because they just don't like it. Just like the last time.
 

Haggis

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
68
Points
530
Even if it had passed, there'd be judges knocking it down and ignoring it for being anti Charter or because they just don't like it. Just like the last time.
In 2015 the Liberals had promised to review and possibly repeal mandatory minimum sentences, a promise which has gone unfulfilled so far. In 2016, Liberal government lawyers were in the SCC defending the use of mandatory minimums for some drug offences. Opponents frequently quote Canadian and international studies which have shown that mandatory minimums, even in jurisdictions which have capital punishment, are generally ineffective as a deterrent.

In other gun-related news.....

Yesterday the co-founder of the Québec City Mosque where six members were killed on January 29, 2017 demanded, once again, that the Liberals ban the private ownerships of handguns in Canada.
 

Colin Parkinson

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
197
Points
680
Well at least he wasn't wearing a suicide belt when he went in. That's seems to be the ultimate global solution to political/religious disputes in most of the mosques in the world.
 

Haggis

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
68
Points
530
Yesterday, Federal Court Associate Chief Justice Jocelyne Gagné heard arguments from a number of appellants asking for an injunction against the Liberal's OIC ban of last May. The judge stated that this was the highest attended judicial process in the history of the Federal Court, and that’s without letting everyone in. (800 participated via Zoom).
...
The hearing concluded late in the afternoon and the judge has reserved her decision.
The Judge has rendered her decision. The injunction request was denied. Not surprising, because the burden of proof is much higher than in normal litigation.

One portion of the Judge's decision is applicable to the member of this forum.

"Loss of Skill-Building Opportunities

[52] The Applicants argue that law enforcement officers or members of the Canadian Armed Forces will suffer a decline in their shooting skills without access to the firearms prohibited by the Regulations. They filed the affidavit evidence of Mr. Matthew Overton, President of Dominion of Canada Rifle Association [DCRA] and that of Mr. Ryan Steacy, Technical Director at International Barrels Inc., and a retired Corporal of the Canadian Armed Forces. They testified to the fact that civilian sport shooters develop techniques that they then teach to military personnel during competitions between members of military, police, and civilians, which are organized by DCRA.

However and as noted by Mr. Murray Smith (
COMMENT: former head of the RCMP Specialized Firearms Support Services Section), also a former member of the military, the only individuals truly affected by the Regulations are the civilians competing with civilian versions of military or law enforcement service weapons. Law enforcement officers and members of the Canadian Armed Forces have prescribed training programs and they have access to ranges where they can train with their service weapons. The Court agrees with the Respondent that participation in civilian shooting competitions is not required for Canadian Armed Forces, or other law enforcement members.

[54] There is no compelling evidence that the shooting skills of Canadian Armed Forces members or law enforcement officers will decline as a result of the Regulations."


Despite that the firearms training given to the military is intended to impart a Minimum Level of Capabillty (MLOC), it is a standard attainable by the vast majority of CAF members. Much like railing against the "low" standards of the FORCE test, folks fail to understand and accept that both are an absolute minimum required in order to do your day-to-day job. With no opportunities to train with an AR platform while "off the clock", it will be interesting to see if there is any quantifiable decrease in shooting skills across the LE and CAF communities in the coming years.
 

Attachments

  • T-577-20, T-677-20 & T-735-20.pdf
    225.1 KB · Views: 0

Retired AF Guy

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
9
Points
430
Hot off the presses:

Trudeau government poised to introduce new gun-control legislation
By Jim Bronskill, The Canadian Press — Feb 12 2021


OTTAWA — The Liberal government is poised to introduce legislation as early as next week aimed at strengthening gun control.

The long-promised bill would flesh out last spring's ban of many firearms, propose stricter storage provisions and target gun smuggling.

The government outlawed a variety of firearms by cabinet order in May, saying they were built for the battlefield, not hunting or sport-shooting.

The ban covers some 1,500 models and variants of what the government considers assault-style weapons, meaning they can no longer be legally used, sold or imported.

The bill is expected to propose a program to buy back these firearms at fair market value, but allow owners to keep them with strict conditions.

Such a move would alarm gun-control advocates who have been imploring the Liberals for months to make the buyback mandatory to ensure firearms that remain with owners cannot be misused or stolen.

"The families of victims of mass shootings that have been fighting for years for a total ban on semi-automatic, military-style guns would be devastated and angry if the Liberals were to renege on their election promise to buy back all newly prohibited assault weapons," said the group PolySeSouvient.

"We will not support half measures that compromise public safety and that can be easily reversed by a future Conservative government."

The Liberal government has long signalled its intention to empower municipalities to manage the storage and use of handguns within their individual jurisdictions, given that they have different needs and concerns.

Critics of the plan have urged the government to avoid off-loading handgun restrictions onto municipalities, saying local bans create an ineffective patchwork of regulations.

The Danforth Families for Safe Communities, whose members have pressed for a ban on private ownership of handguns, said gun violence in Toronto has only got worse since the tragic 2018 shooting.

"We cannot understand why assault rifles and handguns will remain part of the assortment of guns that ordinary citizens are legally allowed to own, knowing that our system regularly results in violent individuals falling through the cracks," the group said.

"Relying on fines, law-abiding behaviour and bureaucratic oversight is not enough to eliminate the possibility for individuals to use their weapons to commit mass murder."

Toronto Liberal MP Nathaniel Erskine-Smith advocates national restrictions on handguns that allow municipalities to opt out if they choose.

"It should be the elected officials in city councils and municipal bodies that are ultimately responsible for changing a really strong standard," he said.

The bill is expected to:

— Include provisions allowing police, doctors, victims of domestic abuse and families to be able to raise a red flag on those with guns who pose a risk to themselves or an identifiable group;

— Introduce stricter secure storage laws to help prevent the theft of firearms;

— Open the door to more resources and stronger penalties for police and border services officers to help stop the flow of weapons over borders and target the illegal trafficking of firearms;

— Include new penalties for gun purchases by a licensed buyer on behalf of an unlicensed one;

— Maintain current firearm magazine limits, which are generally five bullets for hunting rifles and shotguns and 10 for handguns, but crack down on the sale of magazines that can be modified to hold more cartridges.

Toronto-area Liberal MP Pam Damoff said legislation to tighten firearm restrictions is a priority.

"I'm hopeful we see it soon, because we don't know how much runway we have when we're in a minority government and I'd like to see it passed."

This report by The Canadian Press was first published Feb. 12, 2021.

Jim Bronskill, The Canadian Press

Link
 

Haggis

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
68
Points
530
I expect we will see stricter storage requirements that are ridiculously expensive for NRs and prohibitively so for the new prohibs, making it more attractive to surrender them for a pittance. As for the remaining restricteds, including handguns, I don't think they will go as far as imposing centralized storage, this time.
 

Halifax Tar

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
28
Points
530
I expect we will see stricter storage requirements that are ridiculously expensive for NRs and prohibitively so for the new prohibs, making it more attractive to surrender them for a pittance. As for the remaining restricteds, including handguns, I don't think they will go as far as imposing centralized storage, this time.

I'm not sure how one would make storage requirements stricter. Without going the central storage route.

Hand guns are gone I would imagine.

Maybe some details on the buy back ?

But truthfully I am not expecting much. Some administrative stuff and perhaps the ability to create more paperwork criminals, i.e. bringing back the registry. Or perhaps a limit on how many firearms and how much ammo you can own. I will reiterate I think the LPC is happy going the OIC route. No debate required, and if its falls they can blame the courts and still claim they tried.
 

Haggis

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
68
Points
530
I'm not sure how one would make storage requirements stricter. Without going the central storage route.
Requiring RCMP approved gun safes for NRs, maybe? Instituting a storage inspection program?
Hand guns are gone I would imagine.
I doubt that will happen right now. That being said, they can propose almost anything, reasonable or otherwise. There's an election coming, I'd guess by summer 2021, and this bill may likely die on the order paper and become an election promise instead.
 

Haggis

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
68
Points
530
The bill is expected to:...

— Maintain current firearm magazine limits, which are generally five bullets for hunting rifles and shotguns and 10 for handguns, but crack down on the sale of magazines that can be modified to hold more cartridges.

This tells me a handgun ban is off the table.... for now. But the anti's will scream nonetheless because they want ALL magazines limited to five rounds or less.
 

dangerboy

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Mentor
Reaction score
28
Points
530
Not a fan of passing the responsibility to municipalities. It should remain a federal responsibility, I think it will just get extremely complicated if every municipality in Canada suddenly had different laws. Of course, if they do make the responsibility a municipal affair then if it does not work the Federal government can just pass the blame on anything gun-related to them.
 

Kat Stevens

Army.ca Fixture
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
88
Points
530
I especially love the "rat out a friend" portion, there's some good socialism right there. Also, it's awfully nice of them to offer to buy my personal property with my own money, at pennies on the dollar. What a time to be alive!
 
Last edited:

Ostrozac

Sr. Member
Reaction score
24
Points
180
Not a fan of passing the responsibility to municipalities. It should remain a federal responsibility, I think it will just get extremely complicated if every municipality in Canada suddenly had different laws. Of course, if they do make the responsibility a municipal affair then if it does not work the Federal government can just pass the blame on anything gun-related to them.
It’s a very sticky constitutional problem, as municipalities are entirely creatures of the provinces, and their authority and borders are determined, unilaterally if need be, by the provinces (remember the mega city craze of the late 1990’s?). Hell, provinces aren’t even required to establish municipalities. If the PEI legislature were to wake up tomorrow and say “our whole province has the population of Barrie — the provincial government hereby merges with the municipalities into one mega city, and the Premier is also the Mega Mayor” — that would be constitutional and legal.

One scenario would be if the City of Toronto Act act were to be amended by the province of Ontario to say that the the city was forbidden from banning firearms, while the Federal Firearms Act said any municipality has that power. It just doesn’t seem constitutional.
 
Top