Long Gun Registry -Yes- No

[Goober]

The piece I saw stated the .300 had been stolen 4 months before.........which makes more sense to me, as it was illegally possessed by Henessey, as he was not the person it was registered to........

Unless Henessey had a firearms license, which I doubt.

And it was not used in the murders.........

Once again, the registry was useless. The .300 had no bearing on the murder of the Mounties.....it would have happened anyway, as Rozsko used the unregistered H&K rifle, NOT the .300....as for Henessey and Cheeseman, their convictions rested on the fact they aided Roszko in his return to the farm, knowing he was armed and outraged at the RCMP.

The registry had no bearing, before or after.

And the first article misidentifies a Beretta 9mm as a "Luger".

The weapon was registered as per the evidence - They gave it to Roszko - wiped down for prints etc - They then talked about reporting the weapon given to Roszco which was their grandfaters as stolen - So it had to be registered - It led to the 2 of them and the sting that followed.

Mr. Hennessey wiped down the rifle, and then handed the Winchester .300 Magnum rifle and a box of .300 Magnum ammunition over to Roszko;
Mr. Cheeseman provided Roszko with a pillow case, and some gloves from the basement of his residence, and placed the rifle in the pillow case. These articles were later seized as evidence at the scene of the four murders, along with a bed sheet, Bear Spray and a bottle of water;

Shawn Hennessey and his mother Sandy Hennessey discussed the fact that the Winchester.300 Magnum rifle was registered to Shawn’s grandfather, John Hennessey. The senior Hennessey was quite sure that it was his own suggestion that they all “story” to the police the notion that the rifle had been stolen from the back of John Hennessey’s welding truck;


Hennessey, meanwhile, was driving home from a business meeting in Edmonton when he heard the news on the radio: four Mounties down.
His thoughts went to the Winchester. He talked to his mother and grandfather, John Hennessey. He knew police could trace the gun and that soon they would be coming after him. At John's suggestion, they concocted a plan to say the gun had been stolen earlier from John's welding truck.

A few other should be in jail along side these 2 murderers.

 

[Colpy]

The weapon was registered as per the evidence - They gave it to Roszko - wiped down for prints etc - They then talked about reporting the weapon given to Roszco which was their grandfaters as stolen - So it had to be registered - It led to the 2 of them and the sting that followed.

Mr. Hennessey wiped down the rifle, and then handed the Winchester .300 Magnum rifle and a box of .300 Magnum ammunition over to Roszko;
Mr. Cheeseman provided Roszko with a pillow case, and some gloves from the basement of his residence, and placed the rifle in the pillow case. These articles were later seized as evidence at the scene of the four murders, along with a bed sheet, Bear Spray and a bottle of water;

Shawn Hennessey and his mother Sandy Hennessey discussed the fact that the Winchester.300 Magnum rifle was registered to Shawn’s grandfather, John Hennessey. The senior Hennessey was quite sure that it was his own suggestion that they all “story” to the police the notion that the rifle had been stolen from the back of John Hennessey’s welding truck;


Hennessey, meanwhile, was driving home from a business meeting in Edmonton when he heard the news on the radio: four Mounties down.
His thoughts went to the Winchester. He talked to his mother and grandfather, John Hennessey. He knew police could trace the gun and that soon they would be coming after him. At John's suggestion, they concocted a plan to say the gun had been stolen earlier from John's welding truck.

A few other should be in jail along side these 2 murderers.

So, Henessey held the weapon illegally.........it is only coincidence that it was his grandfather that was the registered owner.....

The weapon was NOT used in the murders.

The weapon was not a major factor in the charges against Hennessey...........driving Roszko to the farm was. Roszko was already armed with the 9mm Beretta, and obviously was going to fetch his H&K. The presence of the .300 was irrelevant.......

How did the registry make any difference?

It did not make any difference.

Which is the crux of the matter.

 

[Goober]

So, Henessey held the weapon illegally.........it is only coincidence that it was his grandfather that was the registered owner.....

The weapon was NOT used in the murders.

The weapon was not a major factor in the charges against Hennessey...........driving Roszko to the farm was. Roszko was already armed with the 9mm Beretta, and obviously was going to fetch his H&K. The presence of the .300 was irrelevant.......

How did the registry make any difference?

It did not make any difference.

Which is the crux of the matter.

The crux is - the weapon was traced - The people lied - The police realized that - the Police set up a sting and got the murderers. Does that not follow.

As to the weapon not being used - Fine I made an error on that - But they provided him with a Weapon that was Registered - But it was critical in solving the crimes by these men. That is part of the crux you avoided. They then concocted their story, with the assistance of others and in my opinion these people should be in jail with them. But that was probably part of the plea agreement -

My opinion they should never get out of jail. But that is off topic and no I do not want an answer on that.

 

[wulfie68]

The weapon was registered as per the evidence - They gave it to Roszko - wiped down for prints etc - They then talked about reporting the weapon given to Roszco which was their grandfaters as stolen - So it had to be registered - It led to the 2 of them and the sting that followed.

Mr. Hennessey wiped down the rifle, and then handed the Winchester .300 Magnum rifle and a box of .300 Magnum ammunition over to Roszko;
Mr. Cheeseman provided Roszko with a pillow case, and some gloves from the basement of his residence, and placed the rifle in the pillow case. These articles were later seized as evidence at the scene of the four murders, along with a bed sheet, Bear Spray and a bottle of water;

Shawn Hennessey and his mother Sandy Hennessey discussed the fact that the Winchester.300 Magnum rifle was registered to Shawn’s grandfather, John Hennessey. The senior Hennessey was quite sure that it was his own suggestion that they all “story” to the police the notion that the rifle had been stolen from the back of John Hennessey’s welding truck;


Hennessey, meanwhile, was driving home from a business meeting in Edmonton when he heard the news on the radio: four Mounties down.
His thoughts went to the Winchester. He talked to his mother and grandfather, John Hennessey. He knew police could trace the gun and that soon they would be coming after him. At John's suggestion, they concocted a plan to say the gun had been stolen earlier from John's welding truck.

A few other should be in jail along side these 2 murderers.

Maybe some others SHOULD be in jail but you seem unable to grasp that the entire affair, as well as that kid going beserk and shooting up the college in Montreal (thankfully he only killed one of the kids he hit), demonstrate that the registry is a failure at preventing the types of crimes it was supposed to fight. There is no evidence to say the registry did or does anything at all to reduce crime.

When I look at a combination of Tonington's chart and Colpy's, I see firearm-related homicides have trended down since long before the introduction of the registry while since its introduction the overall murder rate has gone up: to me the conclusion is that the registry is targeting the wrong type of weapon. On the whole, the process of requiring FACs/licenses to obtain a firearm may have worked in reducing (or helped to reduce) the number of firearms homicides but the registry doesn't appeared to have made an impact.

 

[Goober]

Maybe some others SHOULD be in jail but you seem unable to grasp that the entire affair, as well as that kid going beserk and shooting up the college in Montreal (thankfully he only killed one of the kids he hit), demonstrate that the registry is a failure at preventing the types of crimes it was supposed to fight. There is no evidence to say the registry did or does anything at all to reduce crime.

When I look at a combination of Tonington's chart and Colpy's, I see firearm-related homicides have trended down since long before the introduction of the registry while since its introduction the overall murder rate has gone up: to me the conclusion is that the registry is targeting the wrong type of weapon. On the whole, the process of requiring FACs/licenses to obtain a firearm may have worked in reducing (or helped to reduce) the number of firearms homicides but the registry doesn't appeared to have made an impact.

It is an information database for Police - I see that if a Doctor reports that a man or women is going off the deep end that they can contact Police and prevent a tragedy -

How can you track prevention - Fairly hard to

And yes a doctor can report a person that is going to commit a crime or has committed a crime - It happened in Edmonton a few years back - I do not recall all or even part of the facts meaning he had or was going to commit a serious crime and inflict or had inflicted harm. Arrested and convicted.

I see that this will eventually become a law - Just as Hospitals which for years did not have to report certain injuries to Police are now required to.

Should registration be free - Yes.

The cost of running it are so small it is not even funny - i have heard 4 mil - so if it was 10 mil and saved a few lives to me it is worth it.

People have this fear that the Govt will outlaw guns - I do not think so - It has happened in other countries but we are still a large country and guns are needed in many areas for protection of livestock, killing off coyotes etc.

So myself i am for it.

It is a tool, just like a camera is in a high crime area.

 

[Colpy]

The crux is - the weapon was traced - The people lied - The police realized that - the Police set up a sting and got the murderers. Does that not follow.

As to the weapon not being used - Fine I made an error on that - But they provided him with a Weapon that was Registered - But it was critical in solving the crimes by these men. That is part of the crux you avoided. They then concocted their story, with the assistance of others and in my opinion these people should be in jail with them. But that was probably part of the plea agreement -

My opinion they should never get out of jail. But that is off topic and no I do not want an answer on that.

Well, I wouldn't be quite so hard on them. They were terrified of the idiot, and they got long terms in prison, considering they not only did not pull the trigger, but they were not even there. I think justice has been done.

I do not think the registered weapon was crucial at all in proving the case....in fact, I think it was irrelevant. If it was the be all and end all, why was there an "undercover investigation"? The murder charges came about because they transported Roszko to the farm........THAT is what made them part of it...........The firearm (misidentified below as a shotgun) had very little to do with it.

The charges were the result of an undercover investigation and the two accused men appeared in court on July 12.[1][2] The murder charges against Mr. Hennessey and Cheeseman are controversial due to the fact that neither man was at the crime scene when the shootings took place. However they could still face murder charges if they transported James Roszko back to his farm. On January 19, 2009 Hennessey and Cheeseman pled guilty to a lesser charge of manslaughter. According to an agreed statement of facts, Hennessey and Cheeseman provided James Roszko with a shotgun from Hennessey's grandfather that was not used in the murders, and also gave Roszko a ride back to his farm. Later statements showed that both Hennessey and Cheeseman knew that Roszko was planning on murdering "as many RCMP officers as he could"(not cited) and although they contemplated on calling the police, they decided against it. On January 30, 2009 Hennessey and Cheeseman were sentenced to 15 and 12 years in prison respectively, with credit given for their early guilty plea and for time served. Hennessey will serve approximately 10 years for his role and Cheeseman will serve seven years.

They transported an armed man who had been issuing threats against the RCMP to a place where they knew the RCMP were..........Roszko was armed BEFORE he met them, and they would be in the same place (prison) had the .300 never existed. And the Mounties would still be dead.

And that is the crux of the matter.

 

[Goober]

Well, I wouldn't be quite so hard on them. They were terrified of the idiot, and they got long terms in prison, considering they not only did not pull the trigger, but they were not even there. I think justice has been done.

I do not think the registered weapon was crucial at all in proving the case....in fact, I think it was irrelevant. If it was the be all and end all, why was there an "undercover investigation"? The firearm (misidentified below as a shotgun) had very little to do with it. My emphasis below.


They transported an armed man who had been issuing threats against the RCMP to a place where they knew the RCMP were..........Roszko was armed BEFORE he met them, and they would be in the same place (prison) had the .300 never existed. And the Mounties would still be dead.

And that is the crux of the matter.

They supposed stolen rifle did not fit well with the Police - Hence the sting

If they had contacted the Police the 4 Officers would be alive - That is the crux as i see it.

 

[Colpy]

They supposed stolen rifle did not fit well with the Police - Hence the sting

If they had contacted the Police the 4 Officers would be alive - That is the crux as i see it.

I think the sting would have happened anyway.......

Now the last part of THAT I agree with.....a simple phone call would have saved four officers.

Myths & Facts
Myth #1:

In 2009, it cost $4.1 million to operate the long-gun registry.
Fact #1

Many different numbers have been thrown around. When appearing before the Standing Committee on Public Safety the Canadian Taxpayers Federation gave a number of $106 million per year. (House of Commons Public Safety Committee, May 25, 2010)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Myth #2:

Michael Ignatieff’s Liberal Proposal to Decriminalize the Long-Gun Registry will help farmers and hunters.
Fact #2

Ignatieff’s proposal to make first-time persons charged with possession of an unregistered firearm simply a summary non-criminal offence is not new. When Bill C-68 was brought forward by Allan Rock in 1995 the Canadian Police Association refused to support the bill without such a provision. Thus, Section 112 was entered into the Firearms Act, making it a “summary offence” to possess an unregistered firearm. (Toronto Star, March 31, 1995)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Myth #3:

The Canadian Police Association says their membership is totally supportive of the long-gun registry.
Fact #3:

During Parliamentary hearings into the long-gun registry, the President of the Canadian Police Association, Charles Momy, admitted that less than 1 per cent of his association’s membership responded to a survey on the long-gun registry. (House of Commons Public Safety Committee, May 13, 2010)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Myth #4

Virtually all police, including all Police Chiefs across Canada, support the long-gun registry.
Fact #4

Many police chiefs and front-line officers have spoken out against the long-gun registry. Rick Hanson, Calgary Police Chief, Evan Bray, Saskatchewan, Sgt/Det Murray Grismer Saskatoon, Sgt. Duane Rutledge – Active Police Officer, Dave Shipman, Mitch McCormick and Jack Tinsley – Winnipeg, retired, Bob Rich Chief of Police Abbotsford Police These are just witnesses, thousands more have supported with phone calls and emails. See Garry Breitkreuz’ s website for what police have said: http://www.garrybreitkreuz.com/publications/2010/978.pdf
--------------------------------------------------------------------

Myth #5

Police from across Canada access the long-gun registry over 11,000 times a day.
Fact#5

Computer activity does not denote usage. Of the 11,086 computer hits per day in 2009, 7,653 were for a name, 2,842 were for addresses, but a mere 19 were checking a registration certificate…of all types! The vast majority were due to hits automatically generated by a system designed to produce impressive statistics from irrelevant inquiries. (Source: Facts and Figures (January - March, 2010))

http://www.scraptheregistry.ca/myths-facts/

 

[Omicron]

The news keeps saying that most policing services want to keep the long-gun registry.

That means not all of them do.

Which ones do not?

 

[JLM]

The news keeps saying that most policing services want to keep the long-gun registry.

That means not all of them do.

Which ones do not?

I'm not sure whether the registry would be a detriment or a liability for the cops. Files can take awhile at times to get up dated and mistakes happen where misinformation gets filed (typical bureaucratical procedure) and the last thing would you want is a cop speeding off to a domestic with some hastily gleaned information off a computer screen.

 

[Ron in Regina]

The news keeps saying that most policing services want to keep the long-gun registry.

That means not all of them do.

Which ones do not?

Good Question!! My first reaction would be something sarcastic along the
lines of:

1) The ones that are being honest about this boondoggle.

or

2) The ones that are actually listening to the rank & file officers.

etc...

....but, that advances nothing. I believe that Police Chiefs in cities like
Calgary and Saskatoon that have spoken out against the Long Gun
Registry have been replaced by those that endorse it, but I'm too lazy
at this point to dive into that level of hunting. I could be wrong.

Anyway, Good Question!!

....and I was wrong. Here's my 5 minutes of hunting.

Former Ontario Provincial Police Commissioner Julian Fantino is agaist
this Registry, as are the the Saskatoon Police Association, the Saskatchewan
Federation of Police Officers and police services in Winnipeg and Calgary
as police organizations that support abolishing the registry.

YouTube - Police on the gun registry

 

[Goober]

Good Question!! My first reaction would be something sarcastic along the
lines of:

1) The ones that are being honest about this boondoggle.

or

2) The ones that are actually listening to the rank & file officers.

etc...

....but, that advances nothing. I believe that Police Chiefs in cities like
Calgary and Saskatoon that have spoken out against the Long Gun
Registry have been replaced by those that endorse it, but I'm too lazy
at this point to dive into that level of hunting. I could be wrong.

Anyway, Good Question!!

....and I was wrong. Here's my 5 minutes of hunting.

Former Ontario Provincial Police Commissioner Julian Fantino is agaist
this Registry, as are the the Saskatoon Police Association, the Saskatchewan
Federation of Police Officers and police services in Winnipeg and Calgary
as police organizations that support abolishing the registry.

YouTube - Police on the gun registry

Would having to enforce an unpopular law have a small little tad to do with it, maybe, possible, could be, never know. And Saskatoon - Now if I recall did they not leave a few people ( First Nations) out in the cold as a regular part of their job?

 

[Ron in Regina]

Watch the vid above. Explains their stance. It's 11 minutes long. You couldn't
have watched it in the 4 minutes between your post & mine.

 

[Goober]

Watch the vid above. Explains their stance. It's 11 minutes long. You couldn't
have watched it in the 4 minutes between your post & mine.

Watched a good portion of it - When anyone and I mean anyone give out stats like 70 years etc I wonder how accurate - Many did not register due to perosnal and strngly held beliefs -

Myself i am for it - It can be fixed - duplicates in numbers are easily and readily identifed on any compt data base -

From Ont east for it - Manitoba west against it

Wonder why that is?

 

[Ron in Regina]

I'm just try'n to help partially answer the question posed in post # 269 of this
Thread. Here's Calgary's Police Chief "Rick Hanson" on this issue:

CTV Calgary- Gun registry not working: Police Chief Rick Hanson - CTV News

 

[Goober]

I'm just try'n to help partially answer the question posed in post # 269 of this
Thread. Here's Calgary's Police Chief "Rick Hanson" on this issue:

CTV Calgary- Gun registry not working: Police Chief Rick Hanson - CTV News

We know that is does nothing for Gangs - We know that tougher sentences for Gang Members should be implemented - same as violent crimes and in particular using guns / knives etc.

Bu i believe the registry has it's place - I find it hard to believe that a Police Officer - Generally - has found no value in the registry - Then we have those normal law abiding citizens who have restraining orders issued - Should they have guns - should the Police and judge not be aware of this - Or the ones that are dangers to society?

The Chief brings nothing really new to the table.

 

[Tonington]

What do you think about him starting out saying he does not represent anyone but himself, and by minute two he's appointed himself to speak on behalf of thousands of police officers across the country, who in his opinion represent the silent majority?

What's more, if the cornerstone of safety is training, screening, and licensing of gun owners, that too will fail to prevent crimes by people who steal guns, or buy them illegally.

From the start I've said that I don't think the gun registry can prevent murders with guns, just as a motor vehicle registry ( a comparison that he makes, which ought to burn Colpy's craw) can't prevent someone from killing another using their vehicle.

I don't think the worth of this database is as a deterrent to crime. Using punishment to deter crime doesn't work. If 25 years won't stop someone from murdering, then the penalties under the Firearms Act won't either. It's worth comes from the fact that it can lead officers to secondary, and specific questions rather than general questions about the firearm itself. If you can answer where the murder weapon has been, then you can move on to more questions in an investigation. That information IS valuable, and it's something I have yet to see one proponent of this bill recognize publicly.

 

[Ron in Regina]

I was just try'n to answer the question posed in post #269. Someone else can
answer it instead of me. I'd be good with that. I'll leave that one to be answered
in someone elses hands. Anyone else want to take a stab at it?

From Ont east for it - Manitoba west against it

Wonder why that is?

No idea, but again, Good Question!! Maybe Colpy, if he feels up to it,
being in the East, can answer that one.

 

[Goober]

I was just try'n to answer the question posed in post #269. Someone else can
answer it instead of me. I'd be good with that. I'll leave that one to be answered
in someone elses hands. Anyone else want to take a stab at it?




No idea, but again, Good Question!! Maybe Colpy, if he feels up to it,
being in the East, can answer that one.

This is one of those issues where the Politicians on both sides try to play us - Why have we not seen an independent report on this. Harper has had enough time and I think that if they could show that the registry was useless with an independent report it would have become a non-issue -

Harper is using this again as another example of his I am going to divide - I will not make parliament work - Personally I am really tired of this man. And I am not the only one who has that opinion -

Harper makes more enemies than supporters just because of his all or nothing, going for the jugular attitude.

 

[Ron in Regina]

Who would you propose to do an "independant" report on this, & in what time frame?