Any possible agreement on the long-gun registry?

[Machjo]

What ideas might be acceptable to a broader range of Canadians?

Among some ideas I could come up with might be:

1. Require education in the handling of firearms before being allowed to get a licence, and still require a licence to get a firearm. The licence could be for life once the test is passed unless revoked for valid reasons.

2. Decentralize the Federal firearms registry whereby the Federal Government could provide no more than a voluntary national registry available for the use of any local government, while leaving it up to the local government to decide whether to make it compulsory within its own local borders and, if so, to fund the registration process in its own local community and to type the information into the federal registry.

3. Grant federal powers to prosecute those who violate local firearms bylaws as per the current registry.

Essentially, such a policy would simply bring the current registry down to the local level, leaving it up to each local government to decide whether or not to enforce it, and to provide the necessary funding to enforce it within its local borders. This would mean that those cities that want the registry could have it, while those that don't wouldn't.

Any other possible ideas to bring both sides together on this?

 

[taxslave]

What do you define as local? Provincial, regional district, town?
Provincial level perhaps but people move around too much to go much lower than that or conflicting rules would make it unworkable.
You still run into the real problem that criminals do not register their guns so any laws that are imposed will only make criminals out of law abiding taxpayers when they fail to follow the multitudes of gun laws.
Those of us that grew up with guns do not need any education on how to handle them. That would be as dumb as the current laws on boat operation which was imposed on us by non boating bureaucrats in response to a few rich kids creating problems with PWCs.
I'm not against licensing and education in schools but the real emphasis must be on criminal activity, not making criminals by producing bad laws. It would be far more productive for the courts to impose real penalties for using guns to commit a crime. Like 20 years for using a gun, no time off for good behavior and death if you kill someone with a gun during a crime.

 

[Machjo]

What do you define as local? Provincial, regional district, town?
Provincial level perhaps but people move around too much to go much lower than that or conflicting rules would make it unworkable.
You still run into the real problem that criminals do not register their guns so any laws that are imposed will only make criminals out of law abiding taxpayers when they fail to follow the multitudes of gun laws.
Those of us that grew up with guns do not need any education on how to handle them. That would be as dumb as the current laws on boat operation which was imposed on us by non boating bureaucrats in response to a few rich kids creating problems with PWCs.
I'm not against licensing and education in schools but the real emphasis must be on criminal activity, not making criminals by producing bad laws. It would be far more productive for the courts to impose real penalties for using guns to commit a crime. Like 20 years for using a gun, no time off for good behavior and death if you kill someone with a gun during a crime.

You bring up some good points here. I think the intent of the registry was to prevent crime, not simply deter it after the fact. Tougher penalties could be a solution for deterrence at least as long as it's implemented thoughtfully. For instance, for murder, death unless extenuating circumstances warrant life in prison, in which case it's a life of hard labour contributing to the economy.

As for prevention, beyond just making sure the person knows how to use the weapon properly, it's so unpredictable who will snap some day that unless we ban rifles altogether, I doubt the registry is useful in most cases. Politically though, how do we get around scrapping the registry without opposition from those who think we need to protect the vulnerable? Who knows, maybe transferring it to provincial jurisdiction might be a solution, letting each province decide for itself.

I could go for that, but then the question is will some then accuse the government of passing the buck to the provinces? Who knows, but I still think it could be worth a shot to scrap the registry while offering to pass the information on to any province that wants to introduce its own.

 

[Colpy]

Here comes the radical!!!

There is no middle ground.

The simple fact is that Bill c-68, which became the Firearms Act, of which the long gun registry is a part, was not an attempt to control the criminal use of firearms.

It was a blatant attempt to change the character of Canada and Canadians by destroying a segment of their culture. It is simple robbery and harassment. It was intended to put gun sellers out of business, gun clubs out of existence, and to begin in one giant step the elimination of gun ownership as a viable option for the citizens of Canada.

Nothing less.

Look at the law. They claimed that for reasons of public safety, they had to ban .25 and .32 caliber handguns. These are the LEAST powerful centre-fire handguns in existence.....and .32s are the choice of olympic shooters.....so now the gang-bangers carry .357 magnums, or .38 specials, or 9mms, or .40 cals.....at least twice as powerful as the guns banned.

The real reason? There were a heck of a lot of .32s and .25s out there.....

Likewise the ban on firearms with less than 105mm barrels, touted by the Liberals as needed to eliminate concealable handguns. Notice the length....why 105mm??? Why not the logical round number of 100mm, the 5mm difference being absolutely insignificant in the concealability factor of a firearm.....

Simple answer. Most handguns are made with 4 inch barrels....101.6mm.....and the Liberals were out to get as many as possible.

And, as I've pointed out, the Firearms Act is a clear violation of the Charter.......

Canada's Firearms Act Violates Charter Rights & Freedoms

In short, the Act is simple harassment. IMHO, the destruction of the long gun registry completely is merely the first step in a campaign to destroy the Firearms Act that needs to be fought on both the political front and in the courts.

Never tolerate nor surrender to social engineering.

 

[Omicron]

Shooting from the hip:

1) Every gun in the country has a serial number. If a gun is found with a serial-number not in the database, or with no serial number, then the cops can presume it's here illegally and can confiscate it, but that serial number is *not* associated with any particular owner; it's just saying that the weapon is known to exist (somewhere) in Canada.

2) Everyone carrying a firing-pin enabled gun must have a shooter's license, which, like a driver's license, states that he's qualified to be using something like that.

But no registration associating any person to a particular weapon, unless a gun owner *asks* for his weapons' serial numbers to be entered as addendums to his shooter's license so he can get his weapons back if they're lost and found, or if the cops confiscate them on reason of suspicion for something that turns out to be invalid (this is a problem with some city police forces, who will confiscate weapons on grounds of suspicion, but when it's determined that the person was falsely suspected, the cops still won't give them their guns back).

With that, cops can check the serial numbers on weapons and start sweeping out the ones that came in illegally, and we can have some assurance (with the shooting license) that people carrying arms are qualified to be responsible, and if the shooter *chooses* for there to be an association between himself and his weapons, he can *choose* to register his weapon's serial numbers with his shooter's license for stuff like getting them back if they're lost or stolen.

 

[ironsides]

Not sure what answer your looking for, you either have a gun registry or you don't. It is either yes or no for what ever reasons you like. For me I prefer you register the individual using all kinds of background checks.

 

[Colpy]

Shooting from the hip:

1) Every gun in the country has a serial number. If a gun is found with a serial-number not in the database, or with no serial number, then the cops can presume it's here illegally and can confiscate it, but that serial number is *not* associated with any particular owner; it's just saying that the weapon is known to exist (somewhere) in Canada.

2) Everyone carrying a firing-pin enabled gun must have a shooter's license, which, like a driver's license, states that he's qualified to be using something like that.

But no registration associating any person to a particular weapon, unless a gun owner *asks* for his weapons' serial numbers to be entered as addendums to his shooter's license so he can get his weapons back if they're lost and found, or if the cops confiscate them on reason of suspicion for something that turns out to be invalid (this is a problem with some city police forces, who will confiscate weapons on grounds of suspicion, but when it's determined that the person was falsely suspected, the cops still won't give them their guns back).

With that, cops can check the serial numbers on weapons and start sweeping out the ones that came in illegally, and we can have some assurance (with the shooting license) that people carrying arms are qualified to be responsible, and if the shooter *chooses* for there to be an association between himself and his weapons, he can *choose* to register his weapon's serial numbers with his shooter's license for stuff like getting them back if they're lost or stolen.

First of all, not every gun has a serial number. I have two that do not. Each was assigned a FIN (Firearms Identification Number) when I registered them, and I was sent a magic stick-on tag with that number to be applied to the receiver. I had heard that there were problems with these, so I prepared the firearm (A Marlin bolt action .22 LR) carefully, and applied the tag.

Which promptly fell off, making the firearm illegal.

So I chucked the ****ing things out. (The tags, not the firearm)

So, even though they appear on my list of registered guns, they are not, because the FIN is not attached...........they are illegal.

Second....there are several firearms with the same serial numbers. Back in the day, some companies (especially those making military arms) ran serial numbers through a specific set, or for a year, and then started the series again...........so two guns, or three or four could have the same numbers...........some have no serial numbers. Some serial numbers are shared between models or companies...........it ain't as easy as it looks.

Third.....the numbers are often not recorded properly....my late brother had the police check the serial numbers on his pistols (3) and require as to their registration....two came back as not registered.....because the police had written down the numbers incorrectly. 19 Walther PP pistols were registered under the same serial number....because it wasn't the serial number, it was the patent number.

Starting to get the idea?

The registry, both for handguns and rifles, is so confused it is NOT admissible as evidence in court.

Says it all.

Regristries are a ludicrous waste of time and money.

 

[Machjo]

Here comes the radical!!!

There is no middle ground.

The simple fact is that Bill c-68, which became the Firearms Act, of which the long gun registry is a part, was not an attempt to control the criminal use of firearms.

It was a blatant attempt to change the character of Canada and Canadians by destroying a segment of their culture. It is simple robbery and harassment. It was intended to put gun sellers out of business, gun clubs out of existence, and to begin in one giant step the elimination of gun ownership as a viable option for the citizens of Canada.

Nothing less.

Look at the law. They claimed that for reasons of public safety, they had to ban .25 and .32 caliber handguns. These are the LEAST powerful centre-fire handguns in existence.....and .32s are the choice of olympic shooters.....so now the gang-bangers carry .357 magnums, or .38 specials, or 9mms, or .40 cals.....at least twice as powerful as the guns banned.

The real reason? There were a heck of a lot of .32s and .25s out there.....

Likewise the ban on firearms with less than 105mm barrels, touted by the Liberals as needed to eliminate concealable handguns. Notice the length....why 105mm??? Why not the logical round number of 100mm, the 5mm difference being absolutely insignificant in the concealability factor of a firearm.....

Simple answer. Most handguns are made with 4 inch barrels....101.6mm.....and the Liberals were out to get as many as possible.

And, as I've pointed out, the Firearms Act is a clear violation of the Charter.......

Canada's Firearms Act Violates Charter Rights & Freedoms

In short, the Act is simple harassment. IMHO, the destruction of the long gun registry completely is merely the first step in a campaign to destroy the Firearms Act that needs to be fought on both the political front and in the courts.

Never tolerate nor surrender to social engineering.

Hmmm... a few ideas just jumped into my head as I was reading this. I have a strong belief in government leading by example (i.e. what applies to us, applies to the government). Following that belief to it logical conclusion is that:

1. If we can trust a government employee (e.g. a soldier or a police officer) with a firearm, and a government employee is a citizen like you and me, then we can also trust any citizen with a firearm.

2. If we cannot trust a citizen with a firearm, and a government employee is a citizen, then we cannot trust the government employee with a firearm either.

If we follow the logic above, then either none is allowed to carry a firearm, or all are allowed. Take your pick.

Another idea has to do with the imposition of values. If I'm a pacifist opposed to firearms (hypothetically speaking of course, since I'm not really a pacifist, even if I am pacific in my beliefs), and you buy a firearm with your own money, then I cannot say that the government has somehow forced me to contribute financially to the firearms industry.

If the government spends my tax dollars on the military, then I can argue, at least to a degree, that I have been forced to subsidize the firearms industry against my will. Looking at it that way, private firearms ownership is actually much less offensive and intrusive compared to police and military spending. So, along this spectrum, we should be more offended at taxpayer-funded firearms purchases over private firearms purchases.

In fact, taking this logic further, we should reduce tax spending on firearms acquisitions along with restrictions on private firearms ownership.

So in conclusion, if we cannot trust a man with a firearm, then it should not matter whether he's a government employee or not. And if we can trust a man with a firearm, then it should not matter whether he's a government employee or not. And if the concern is with the imposition of values, then tax spending on firearms is far more intrusive than private spending on firearms.

How would those who support the gun registry defend the idea that somehow a government employee is more trustworthy than another citizen? Just think Russell Williams, or soldiers charged with murder in Afghansitan.

Some might take more powerful weapons such as tanks as examples. Again, who's to say a soldier will use a tank more responsibly than a private citizen would? Just think of vigilante tank drivers:

YouTube - US Tank crushes Iraqi civilian's car 1

Or this Oops! moment:

YouTube - US Tank crushes Iraqi civilian's car 2

They're regular citizens like anyone else, and so are neither more nor less responsible than any other citizen.

Taking this to its logical conclusion, any weapon the government is entitled to, so should we. And any weapon we are not entitled to, neither should the government.

The only way I can see us defending such a double standard would be by suggesting that a government employee is somehow morally superior to the average citizen, which would be anathema to equality before the law.

Any thoughts on this?

Actually, looking at it that way, I think I'm more decidedly in favour of scrapping the legislation than I was previously, unless of course there is a flaw in my logic here?

Of course one might argue that the tank operator has undergone training and a security check. OK, then what about the average citizen who also undergoes training and a security check?

 

[Sparrow]

I don't like guns but that is me! As far as I am concerned this registry is a farce and as some say makes criminals out of law-abiding owners as well as being a waste of money. Since when do we go after honest people to catch criminals?

 

[Nuggler]

8O..........So you register your guns and here's what happens:

CBC News - Toronto - 2,000 guns seized in Toronto safety program

I don't know about you, but when I buy new tags for the car, the ownership and insurance papers go in the console, and I just don't think of them again............till I get the next notice.

If I didn't get a notice, I'd most likely forget to buy the tags.

Guess I'd better find my "registration forms" or PAL or whatever, and make sure I'm legal.

There's just too much shyte to think about to worry about shyte.

Confiscating guns from law abiding citizens wasn't supposed to happen, was it?!! course, it yer not legal, yer not law abiding are ya??!!

Guess "they" gotcha by the short and curlies.

Ditch the registry. Changed my mind. Flip flop. Ditch it.!:sad4:

Quoting Colpy: ""Second....there are several firearms with the same serial numbers. Back in the day, some companies (especially those making military arms) ran serial numbers through a specific set, or for a year, and then started the series again...........so two guns, or three or four could have the same numbers...........some have no serial numbers. Some serial numbers are shared between models or companies...........it ain't as easy as it looks."""

I have one of those. FN .22................same serial number as someone else's, somewhere. Caused the ArseyMP a great deal of consternation when the gun dealer tried to register it for me. It got ironed out. How?? Dunno. I found a number on the rifle, dealer called it in, and they called it the serial number. :lol:

Good luck to us.

 

[wulfie68]

Shooting from the hip:

1) Every gun in the country has a serial number. If a gun is found with a serial-number not in the database, or with no serial number, then the cops can presume it's here illegally and can confiscate it, but that serial number is *not* associated with any particular owner; it's just saying that the weapon is known to exist (somewhere) in Canada.

2) Everyone carrying a firing-pin enabled gun must have a shooter's license, which, like a driver's license, states that he's qualified to be using something like that.

But no registration associating any person to a particular weapon, unless a gun owner *asks* for his weapons' serial numbers to be entered as addendums to his shooter's license so he can get his weapons back if they're lost and found, or if the cops confiscate them on reason of suspicion for something that turns out to be invalid (this is a problem with some city police forces, who will confiscate weapons on grounds of suspicion, but when it's determined that the person was falsely suspected, the cops still won't give them their guns back).

With that, cops can check the serial numbers on weapons and start sweeping out the ones that came in illegally, and we can have some assurance (with the shooting license) that people carrying arms are qualified to be responsible, and if the shooter *chooses* for there to be an association between himself and his weapons, he can *choose* to register his weapon's serial numbers with his shooter's license for stuff like getting them back if they're lost or stolen.

Your first statement is still a form of the registry and isn't going to fly unless you make owners tell you their serial numbers (if like Colpy and Nuggler pointed out you can even find them).

The second idea, a form of licensing, is pretty much something that has been endorsed across the board: a process that does background checks, ensures safe handling procedures have been taught to the user and I would also say something that is renewable (every 5 yrs like the FAC seems reasonable).

 

[TenPenny]

I think that some form of licensing makes more sense.

I'm not convinced that the registry has actually accomplished anything.

 

[Liberalman]

I think that some form of licensing makes more sense.

I'm not convinced that the registry has actually accomplished anything.

The police associations are for the gun registry and the money has already been spent and to maintain it wouldn't cost that much.

And I wrote my MP to support it.

 

[TenPenny]

to maintain it wouldn't cost that much.

If only that were true.

 

[Colpy]

The police associations are for the gun registry and the money has already been spent and to maintain it wouldn't cost that much.

And I wrote my MP to support it.

Yep. Another bunch of Liberal Men told me it would cost at most $2 million to st up.

That was S2 BILLION dollars ago.

Now they say it cost at most $5 million a year.

While the Canadian Taxpayers Association say it cost $100 Million.

Guess who I believe?

 

[Ron in Regina]

Using the logic above, and factoring out the superfluous inquiries tied to CPIC, or tripled
up due to system redundancy, etc...I've seen posted something along the lines of there
being about 25 real & legitimate inquiries into this Long Gun Registry daily.

Working with the 25 legitimate inquiries per day average, and 365 days in a year, and
a $100 Million a year cost to continue this thing...

Each legitimate inquiry would cost about $11,000 each. How's my math?

{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: http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/cfp-pcaf/facts-faits/archives/quick_facts/2010/mar-eng.htm) }

I guess I was wrong...as I was doing off the top of my head stat's. $11,000 per legitimate
hit on this Long Gun Registry was low-balling the cost, assuming 25 and not 19 legitimate
hits each day on average. My bad.

 

[JLM]

The police associations are for the gun registry and the money has already been spent and to maintain it wouldn't cost that much.

And I wrote my MP to support it.

Typical thinking by you Liberal guys, add to the bureaucracy. :lol::lol::lol:

 

[DaSleeper]

A liberal is a person whose interests aren't at stake at the moment.

The only thing worse than a knee-jerk liberal is a knee-pad conservative.

 

[JLM]

Using the logic above, and factoring out the superfluous inquiries tied to CPIC, or tripled
up due to system redundancy, etc...I've seen posted something along the lines of there
being about 25 real & legitimate inquiries into this Long Gun Registry daily.

Working with the 25 legitimate inquiries per day average, and 365 days in a year, and
a $100 Million a year cost to continue this thing...

Each legitimate inquiry would cost about $11,000 each. How's my math?

I don't know if it's any good or not Ron, but it's the same as mine. :lol: Kind of fits in with what I've been saying about bureaucracy. How's my reasoning? :lol:

 

[relic]

JLM,do you still leave milk and cookies for Santa ? There are a lot better,more productive ways to waste my money than this BS.