Bill to Abolish Gun Registry Passes 2nd Reading
- Thread starter FiveParadox
- Start date
One reason I dutifully re-registered all registered handguns I had when the new bill came in effect, was because I could see it coming that someone in the future would cross-check the old data base against the new one to see if all handgun owners were complying.....This is happening now....
Now....all the rifles I may possess that were not store bought???????;-)
Now....all the rifles I may possess that were not store bought???????;-)
From the judge's mouth:
It doesn't matter what you want to call it, the fact of the matter is, the motive is irrelevant.
The same is true of failing to register your guns. The government is free to pass a bill which makes the failure to register a crime, a penal violation, or whatever you want to call it. That it is in "inaction" in no way fails to satisfy the principle of actus rea. Further, since it is a crime by omission the mens rea is automatically satisfied.
Not only are we not singing from the same songbook, you aren't even singing from yours. Nor does case you presented have anything to do with what we're discussing, and you are using a case that defeats your argument. Read it carefully, Massey's barrister used a section of the CC to successfully argue that the Crown had not presented the indictment properly and limited the appellants avenues of defense. Massey's conviction of what you consider a criminal act was overturned. Kind of makes the rest of your post a bit of a non sequitur, but thanks for playing.
Game over...Insert coin
Massey got off because he was not driving the car. Otherwise he would have been "convicted." This case illustrates two things: 1. It is a crime to drive an unregistered vehicle, 2. it is correct to use the word conviction.
That you are too dense to understand this just underlines the fact that you shouldn't be arguing about legal principles. Nobody fights a summary conviction that they are going to lose, most of the case law for such a law are examples where they get off.
That is what you originally said. What I have said is, the principles of actus rea and mens rea in no way forbid the government from enacting laws like section 92 of the criminal code, because inaction is still an action and in those cases the mens rea is easy to satisfy. Your strawman quibbling over examples of such laws notwithstanding.
Here is a case in point. Failure to be in possession of a license: actus rea under section 92. The mens rea never comes up: he knew he had a gun, he should know it needed to be registerd, what is there to prove? He instead has the burden of proof: to prove that he had a license.
The burden of proof is on you, after all, to show that such a law can never satisfy either elements of a crime. I am just trying to help you out of your ignorance by providing examples. You cannot simply say, "Your examples do not apply, and therefore I am right." Read this for the relation of the mens rea in relation to section 95 of the criminal code, it might help you apply it.
From the conclusions of R. v. Raglon [2001], the only way the mens rea could fail to be met is if somehow, the accused was unaware of the fact that they possessed a firearm, e.g. if someone had hidden it in their home or property without their awareness. The alternative is that the accused knows they have a gun, but doesn't know it needs to be registered, a mistake of law which is not a defense.
That establishes your mens rea defense: "I did not know it was a gun." Good luck with that.
One of my neighbors doesn't eat green peas.
The long gun resitry is a waste of resources.
If so at a cost of several $billion dollars. I'll bet there's 10 long guns out there for every criminal- much cheaper just to register the criminals and easier to put them away where we can keep tabs on them.
I have a problem with that. I just don't see how this is any different than most other legislation. "Facts" usually have little to do with anything. It had little to do with the original bill.
The problem is, they were too nice. That's right, they were too nice.
If they really wanted it to work they should have said: "Total cost will be zero. It will pay for itself." Then all those spurious registrations, you can be assured they wouldn't have arisen. Given the hefty registration fee people would have to pay.
Then all those people who don't register their firearms? Another hefty fine, to pay for the registry of course. You want bullets? Show a registration certificate for the corresponding firearm. Caught selling bullets without requesting certificate? Bloody, enormous fine in that case. Force people to register firearms the minute they buy them, etc.
If they really wanted a registry they should have been total bastards. Not just the half-arsed bastards they were. Give me the power to be a real tyrant, I'll get you a working gun registry, and people will hate me, but it will be there.
Having everyone register guns except the ones that don't want to (crooks) was a good idea?
I already do blame the liberals for their stupidity.
NO Risus- Anna has it right. Stupidest idea the Liberals came up with (since choosing Trudeau as their leader)
wow, That was a particularly poorly designed SPIN you put on what I actually DID say.
Last edited by a moderator: