My politic views are both conservative and liberal, but I am now ABL - Anything But Liberal. I'm done with them, I've been burned too many times.
Gun Control is Completely Useless.
- Thread starter Colpy
- Start date
I was pretty much through after John Turner but Cretien pushed me over the edge . Never again . The red Tories do not excite me at all . Sad .
Well, I giess that leaves the liberal consrvative party to vote for. But I doubt very much that they will get rid of the gun laws that have cost the taxpayer's of Canada hundred of billions of their tax dollars being wasted on some stupid liberal/socialist french Quebec gun laws. But you must know that it was the french socialists from Quebec that gave Canada it's gun laws, right? Matter of fact, everything that the socialists from french Quebec gave the rest of Canada has been totally useless and very costly to the rest of Canada's taxpayer's.
I heard that some conservative guy, I think is name was Sloan, said that he would get rid of the gun laws but implement some other forms of gun laws. Well, there you have it. The gun laws may change but gun laws will still be exist in some form or other. The liberal conservative party is no different than the french socialist liberal party. they just do things another way but it still ends up nearly all the same.
Wake up, you dumb ass real and true conservatives. Only the real and true conservative PPC party and Maxine Bernier will get rid of all gun laws which will save we the taxpayer's hundreds of thousands of our tax dollars every year. Wow, what a great deal for all of us law abiding gun owners, eh?
I don't know much about Maxine, i the last election debates he came across as a Quebec Party. I'll reconsider him at each election but he is going to have to change that image if he wants my vote.
July 23, 2020
Honourable Bill Blair
Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness
House of Commons
Ottawa, ON K1A 0A6
Dear Minister Blair,
I am seeking clarification from your office regarding letters the RCMP has recently sent to firearms owners nullifying certain restricted firearms registration certificates due to the firearms ban which was brought in by your government through Order in Council in May.
According to subsection 72(1) of the Firearms Act, “…if a chief firearms officer decides to refuse to issue or to revoke a licence or authorization to transport or the Registrar decides to refuse to issue or to revoke a registration certificate, authorization to export or authorization to import, the chief firearms officer or Registrar shall give notice of the decision in the prescribed form to the applicant for or holder of the licence, registration certificate or authorization.” In addition, subsection 72(2) states that “A notice given under subsection (1) must include reasons for the decision disclosing the nature of the information relied on for the decision and must be accompanied by a copy of sections 74 to 81.” The letters recently received by firearms owners did not follow this format and did not include a copy of sections 74 to 81.
Not only that but rather than being personally delivered, couriered, transmitted by electronic means, or sent by registered mail these letters were sent via regular mail. This seems to go against the Notice of Refusal or Revocation section of the Firearms Registration Certificates Regulations. These letters were also sent unsigned so there is no clear indication as to whether the person who issued the letter is the Registrar.
It is of the opinion of some legal experts that due to the fact that these letters failed to comply with above requirements they should not be considered revocation letters. Therefore, I am seeking clarification as to whether the RCMP considers these to be revocation letters, and if not, what was the purpose of sending a letter to firearms owners that could be confused as a revocation letter.
If these are revocations letters, by what means can Canadians exercise their legal right to a section 74 hearing and why is the section 74 process not spelled out as required by law?
I am also seeking answers to the following questions:
1) Why were these letters sent eighty one days after the firearms were banned on May 1st?
2) How many of these letters were sent out?
3) Was this same letter sent to the owners of the non-restricted firearms that were made prohibited? How will these owners be ascertained?
4) How many owners of the formerly non-restricted firearms are there?
Thank you in advance for your urgent attention to this matter.
Sincerely,
Bob Zimmer
Member of Parliament
Prince George-Peace River-Northern Rockies
Honourable Bill Blair
Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness
House of Commons
Ottawa, ON K1A 0A6
Dear Minister Blair,
I am seeking clarification from your office regarding letters the RCMP has recently sent to firearms owners nullifying certain restricted firearms registration certificates due to the firearms ban which was brought in by your government through Order in Council in May.
According to subsection 72(1) of the Firearms Act, “…if a chief firearms officer decides to refuse to issue or to revoke a licence or authorization to transport or the Registrar decides to refuse to issue or to revoke a registration certificate, authorization to export or authorization to import, the chief firearms officer or Registrar shall give notice of the decision in the prescribed form to the applicant for or holder of the licence, registration certificate or authorization.” In addition, subsection 72(2) states that “A notice given under subsection (1) must include reasons for the decision disclosing the nature of the information relied on for the decision and must be accompanied by a copy of sections 74 to 81.” The letters recently received by firearms owners did not follow this format and did not include a copy of sections 74 to 81.
Not only that but rather than being personally delivered, couriered, transmitted by electronic means, or sent by registered mail these letters were sent via regular mail. This seems to go against the Notice of Refusal or Revocation section of the Firearms Registration Certificates Regulations. These letters were also sent unsigned so there is no clear indication as to whether the person who issued the letter is the Registrar.
It is of the opinion of some legal experts that due to the fact that these letters failed to comply with above requirements they should not be considered revocation letters. Therefore, I am seeking clarification as to whether the RCMP considers these to be revocation letters, and if not, what was the purpose of sending a letter to firearms owners that could be confused as a revocation letter.
If these are revocations letters, by what means can Canadians exercise their legal right to a section 74 hearing and why is the section 74 process not spelled out as required by law?
I am also seeking answers to the following questions:
1) Why were these letters sent eighty one days after the firearms were banned on May 1st?
2) How many of these letters were sent out?
3) Was this same letter sent to the owners of the non-restricted firearms that were made prohibited? How will these owners be ascertained?
4) How many owners of the formerly non-restricted firearms are there?
Thank you in advance for your urgent attention to this matter.
Sincerely,
Bob Zimmer
Member of Parliament
Prince George-Peace River-Northern Rockies
Because Portland is run by the very same kind of people that are doing the protesting. Let them kill each other off. Nothing there worth saving.
A far better question would have been "has this letter been sent to the unlicensed owners of these firearms.
Because gun ownership preventing government abuse is a fairy tale.
Like the well-regulated militia.
Black armed protesters march in Kentucky demanding justice for Breonna Taylor
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...ding-justice-for-breonna-taylor-idUSKCN24R025
They also marched armed on July 4th to protest confederate statues.
That damn well-armed militia is a real thing but I guess not in Portland.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...ding-justice-for-breonna-taylor-idUSKCN24R025
They also marched armed on July 4th to protest confederate statues.
That damn well-armed militia is a real thing but I guess not in Portland.
They were there but your article only mentions them in passing to not give them any credit
Police release images of suspects in Mississauga shootout, carjacking
Clearly banned weapons and legal licensing is clearly working, with the defund the Police movement in full swing I wonder how come they didn't send in a mental health worker to deal with this situation?
Clearly banned weapons and legal licensing is clearly working, with the defund the Police movement in full swing I wonder how come they didn't send in a mental health worker to deal with this situation?
Nova Scotia gunman smuggled drugs and guns from U.S., newly released information says
Harry Sullivan
TRURO, N.S. — RCMP warrants reveal N.S. gunman had smuggled guns and large quantities of drugs for years from the U.S.
TRURO — Nova Scotia’s mass murderer who killed 22 people in late April smuggled guns and large quantities of drugs from the United States “for years” according to RCMP warrants released Monday, July 27.
The Halifax denturist who was fatally shot by an RCMP officer on April 19 was also described in the warrants by unnamed individuals interviewed by police as one who “… builds fires and burns bodies, is a sexual predator and supplies drugs in Portapique and Economy, Nova Scotia.”
The new information, which was unsealed by provincial court Judge Laurel Halfpenny MacQuarrie, said the shooter “… smuggled drugs from Maine and had a bag of 10,000 oxycontin and 15,000 Dilaudid from a reservation in New Brunswick.”
The 51-year-old shooter, whom SaltWire Network chooses not to name, carried out his killing spree over a 13-hour period that began in Portapique late on April 18 and ended in Enfield with his own death shortly before noon on April 19. He was driving a mocked-up RCMP vehicle and was wearing a police uniform during most of the rampage which resulted in Canada’s largest mass murders.
A statement from one informant in the newly unsealed information said the person was “was aware he (the gunman) had smuggled guns and drugs from Maine for years and had a stockpile of guns.”
The information also revealed that the shooter had a “false wall” in his Dartmouth residence and a “secret room” in his Dartmouth denturist clinic.
“People also talked about there being ‘secret hiding spots’ on his properties’ and ‘it is reported that there is a false wall in the garage…’ along with other ‘secret hiding spots… ,’ behind false walls,” the unsealed warrants say.
Previously unsealed information has revealed that the gunman would dress up as a police officer in a full uniform with hat, jacket, and vest, and would “role play.” He was also described as a “sociopath,” “controlling and paranoid” and that he was a funeral director and “licensed embalmer” who would speak of getting rid of bodies, burning, and chemicals.
“(The shooter) would tell (redacted) different ways to get rid of a body and had lime and muriatic acid on the property,” a previous warrant says. “The barrels for these would be underneath the deck.”
The shooter also burned a number of residential properties during his killing spree, including two of his own in Portapique.
https://www.thechronicleherald.ca/n...saAlQmSKkCaJK69ejJGXy8CVV8#Echobox=1595886027
Right.
The obvious solution to this activity is attacking licensed Canadian gun owners.
Harry Sullivan
TRURO, N.S. — RCMP warrants reveal N.S. gunman had smuggled guns and large quantities of drugs for years from the U.S.
TRURO — Nova Scotia’s mass murderer who killed 22 people in late April smuggled guns and large quantities of drugs from the United States “for years” according to RCMP warrants released Monday, July 27.
The Halifax denturist who was fatally shot by an RCMP officer on April 19 was also described in the warrants by unnamed individuals interviewed by police as one who “… builds fires and burns bodies, is a sexual predator and supplies drugs in Portapique and Economy, Nova Scotia.”
The new information, which was unsealed by provincial court Judge Laurel Halfpenny MacQuarrie, said the shooter “… smuggled drugs from Maine and had a bag of 10,000 oxycontin and 15,000 Dilaudid from a reservation in New Brunswick.”
The 51-year-old shooter, whom SaltWire Network chooses not to name, carried out his killing spree over a 13-hour period that began in Portapique late on April 18 and ended in Enfield with his own death shortly before noon on April 19. He was driving a mocked-up RCMP vehicle and was wearing a police uniform during most of the rampage which resulted in Canada’s largest mass murders.
A statement from one informant in the newly unsealed information said the person was “was aware he (the gunman) had smuggled guns and drugs from Maine for years and had a stockpile of guns.”
The information also revealed that the shooter had a “false wall” in his Dartmouth residence and a “secret room” in his Dartmouth denturist clinic.
“People also talked about there being ‘secret hiding spots’ on his properties’ and ‘it is reported that there is a false wall in the garage…’ along with other ‘secret hiding spots… ,’ behind false walls,” the unsealed warrants say.
Previously unsealed information has revealed that the gunman would dress up as a police officer in a full uniform with hat, jacket, and vest, and would “role play.” He was also described as a “sociopath,” “controlling and paranoid” and that he was a funeral director and “licensed embalmer” who would speak of getting rid of bodies, burning, and chemicals.
“(The shooter) would tell (redacted) different ways to get rid of a body and had lime and muriatic acid on the property,” a previous warrant says. “The barrels for these would be underneath the deck.”
The shooter also burned a number of residential properties during his killing spree, including two of his own in Portapique.
https://www.thechronicleherald.ca/n...saAlQmSKkCaJK69ejJGXy8CVV8#Echobox=1595886027
Right.
The obvious solution to this activity is attacking licensed Canadian gun owners.
Clearly.
We've been through this. I own this. . .
functionally identical to this:
Both are 5.56 x 45 mm, semi-automatic rifles with 16-inch barrels, capable of accepting box magazines of up to 40 rounds and drums of up to 100 rounds. They use the same magazines. Only difference is #2 has a flash suppressor and a pistol grip.
Maryland sharply limits what AR-15 types and models one can own, so I own an AR-10. Completely unrestricted, and as you know, at 7.62 x 51 mm, vastly more likely to kill with a single shot than the 5.56 x 45 mm AR-15.
It's very simple. Liberal politicians as a breed know little to nothing about guns, which is also true of their supporters. So they're comfortable with wooden-stock rifles of the type they see in old movies, and afraid of the scary black guns. They neither know nor are interested in finding out the real differences in rate of fire, speed of reloading, and deadliness of ammo. They can ban certain classes of guns, and crack down on legal, safe gun owners, and go back to their constituents claiming a "real victory against gun violence" that somehow fails to show up in the gun crime statistics.
I've laid out on a few occasions a set of gun restrictions that would seriously reduce gun harm by professional criminals, people who go nuts out of nowhere, and be a pretty serious inconvenience to responsible, legal gun owners. Nobody's interested because nobody cares. It's all a show. It neither has, nor is intended to have, any effect other than swaying the ignorant. It's a culture wars thing.
As such, it's not only a violation of the right of law-abiding, peaceful citizens to be left the hell alone, it won't do anything significant about gun violence.
BTW, I also own a bolt-action, two lever-actions, and two revolvers, anticipating the day Maryland gets enough hysteria to go after semi-autos as a class. With nine up the tube of my carbine and eight in the cylinder of my revolver, and speed-loaders, I could still kill a whole bunch of people if I was minded to.
You do good work here. I think you sway a few fence-sitters, and keep gun owners aware of the silliness of Canada's current gun control charade.
We've been through this. I own this. . .
functionally identical to this:
Both are 5.56 x 45 mm, semi-automatic rifles with 16-inch barrels, capable of accepting box magazines of up to 40 rounds and drums of up to 100 rounds. They use the same magazines. Only difference is #2 has a flash suppressor and a pistol grip.
Maryland sharply limits what AR-15 types and models one can own, so I own an AR-10. Completely unrestricted, and as you know, at 7.62 x 51 mm, vastly more likely to kill with a single shot than the 5.56 x 45 mm AR-15.
It's very simple. Liberal politicians as a breed know little to nothing about guns, which is also true of their supporters. So they're comfortable with wooden-stock rifles of the type they see in old movies, and afraid of the scary black guns. They neither know nor are interested in finding out the real differences in rate of fire, speed of reloading, and deadliness of ammo. They can ban certain classes of guns, and crack down on legal, safe gun owners, and go back to their constituents claiming a "real victory against gun violence" that somehow fails to show up in the gun crime statistics.
I've laid out on a few occasions a set of gun restrictions that would seriously reduce gun harm by professional criminals, people who go nuts out of nowhere, and be a pretty serious inconvenience to responsible, legal gun owners. Nobody's interested because nobody cares. It's all a show. It neither has, nor is intended to have, any effect other than swaying the ignorant. It's a culture wars thing.
As such, it's not only a violation of the right of law-abiding, peaceful citizens to be left the hell alone, it won't do anything significant about gun violence.
BTW, I also own a bolt-action, two lever-actions, and two revolvers, anticipating the day Maryland gets enough hysteria to go after semi-autos as a class. With nine up the tube of my carbine and eight in the cylinder of my revolver, and speed-loaders, I could still kill a whole bunch of people if I was minded to.
You do good work here. I think you sway a few fence-sitters, and keep gun owners aware of the silliness of Canada's current gun control charade.
Government that attacks licensed Canadian gun owners don't give a shit about the problem nor do they give a shit about creating a solution.
Last edited:
I mean, I just explained this above, but what is it about "Go hell-for-leather against the illegal guns" that's so damn hard to understand?
How is it not obvious that if you own a gun illegally (under sensible laws, I mean), you can't be trusted and you need to have it taken away from you and pay a heavy fine and/or do some time?
Sorry if I'm sticking my oar in where I have no business, but we have a similar problem down here, though admittedly on a smaller scale.