Bill to Abolish Gun Registry Passes 2nd Reading

[Colpy]

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.

TOO NICE??????
Should be hefty fines????
You obviously don't know anything about the law. Failure to register can get you from 2 to five years in prison.
Same for selling ammo to anyone with out a licence....possible two years in jail.

And we defied them.........they couldn't be bastards, there is not enough prison space. And that's a fact Jack.

 

[JLM]

wow, That was a particularly poorly designed SPIN you put on what I actually DID say.

Yep, he had me completely baffled, I went back and forth over your posts and finally came to the conclusion perhaps he had an extra toddy he shouldn't have.

 

[bobnoorduyn]

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.

It is not a crime, and Massey's conviction was overturned, albeit on a "technicality". And yes, the word conviction is used in traffic court as well

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.

Many do, it depends on the cost of defense vs. conequenses. Massey lost, but won on appeal.

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.

Well let's see, Mr. Porter was convicted of counts 1 and 2 in regard to storage of firearms, even though police had to virtually break in and search the attic and pry open his "storage devices". He had not stored them in exact accordance to the law, a law no one understands anyway. He was aquitted on counts 3 and 5 of the indictment of posession of prohibited and restricted firearms without a licence to do so, even though it was in contrevention of a recognizance of bail. Count 4, obstruction, is irrelevent to our discussion.

The storage provisions are problematic, ovbiously more so than possession in this case, and where many people run afoul of the law, again a law no one understands that carries draconian punishment.

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.

You shouldn't throw stones in that glass house of yours, but I commend you for at least finding relevent examples. Calvin Martin, Q.C. is quite knowledgable when it comes to firearms law, and knows it is an ass. But if you look at the comments of Justice Maund at paragraph 18 you get the impression that he is applying a rather subjective view. It is not the judges' role to apply the law according to the zeitgeist. And constitutional argments have little success in the lower courts.

Just because laws can be written to hobble the defense of the accused doesn't make them right. That is the point I'm trying to make. Saddam Hussein said "the law is anything I put on paper". Judges are supposed to make judgements according to law, no matter if the law in an ass, and this one is.

 

[Mowich]

There are far more unregistered guns than registered in the area that I live in.

I have to agree with you. I can count on one hand the number of people who registered their long-guns. On the other hand, I don't have enough limbs and digits to count the number who opted out and simple hid theirs.

 

[Colpy]

The bloody thing is sooooo ridiculous.....expensive, unpopular, riddled with mistakes, incomplete, useless......so bad that here in New Brunswick game wardens announced they would not be enforcing the registration laws........the same year registration became mandatory......

 

[Spade]

I always get a kick out of the law-and-order jokers who opted out?

 

[Cannuck]

I always get a kick out of the law-and-order jokers who opted out?

I'm not sure why. The registry had nothing to do with law and order.

 

[AnnaG]

I always get a kick out of the law-and-order jokers who opted out?

It's generally called "civil disobedience" and happens when a large group of the population find something their gov't does to be objectionable, so they disobey it.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/civil-disobedience/

 

[Colpy]

From the CBC, a poll that strengthens my faith in democracy......

Gun registry favoured only by Quebecers: poll

Wednesday, November 11, 2009 | 4:06 PM ET

A poll suggests Quebecers are alone in wanting to save the long-gun registry, with most Canadians outside the province appearing content to abolish it.


The findings in the latest survey by The Canadian Press/Harris-Decima come a week after the House of Commons gave approval in principle to a private member's bill aimed at killing the controversial registry.
In Quebec, a majority of respondents say they're opposed to abolishing the registry, which was created after 14 women were killed at École Polytechnique in Montreal in 1989.
Fifty-six per cent of Quebecers polled said they oppose abolishing the registry, in contrast to the majority of people questioned in Atlantic Canada, British Columbia, Alberta and Manitoba-Saskatchewan, who support cancelling the registry.
Residents in Ontario who participated in the poll were split on the issue, according to Harris-Decima's results.
Quebecers also held distinctive views about the registry's role in public security, with more than half of respondents believing it has helped fight and prevent crime. That's about 19 per cent more respondents than the national average of the other provinces.
The poll comes as the debate over the long-gun registry slowly inches forward in the House of Commons. Last week a key vote was held on a private member's bill that would wipe out the registry.
Conservative MP Candice Hoeppner tabled the bill on the contentious registry.
The Bloc Québécois caucus voted against it, while 12 NDP and eight Liberal MPs backed the Conservative caucus in voting for the bill.
On the same day as the vote, Quebec's legislature, the national assembly, unanimously adopted a motion reiterating Quebecers' reliance and belief in the registry.
The Conservative government has wanted to abolish the registry on the basis that it is expensive and inefficient.
The Harris-Decima poll surveyed about 1,000 Canadians by telephone between Nov. 5 and 8. The poll's margin of error is 3.1 per cent, 19 times out of 20.
With files from the Canadian Press

And from the National Post, an article that shakes my faith in democracy, thanks (as usual) to the Liberal Party of Canada

The cagey MP sat back holding his glass of merlot and smirked at my naive assertion that the gun registry was indeed dead.

A private member's bill killing the billion-dollar registry was endorsed with surprising strength in the House of Commons on Wednesday and is heading off to committee for fine tuning and, in theory, a rubber stamping. ​

Not so fast, apparently.​

"It's going to the Public Safety committee," the sly Liberal MP cautioned. "Have you checked out the membership of that committee?"​

Um....I'll get right on it.​

Let's see. It's chaired by Garry Breitkreuz, a promising sign given the Saskatchewan Conservative MP has been the most tenacious anti-registry fighter throughout its costly history.​

Then come the vice-chairs. Two opposition party MPs, both supporting the registry. Uh-oh.​

Okay, down to the basic members who will propose amendments or oppose it outright. Yikes. Five anti-registry types. Four supporting it.​

Add it up and the 12-member committee is deadlocked at six votes on each side of the issue. But, but, but.... anti-registry chairman Breitkreuz won't vote unless there's a tie. And if all the regular members show up and vote their views, the pro-registry side has a 6-5 headlock over committee decision-making. Yikes again.​

What all this procedural mumbo-jumbo means is that the public safety committee can, and in this case likely will, rag the puck for the full 60 sitting days they are allowed to debate it. They can even request a 30-day extension, which the pro-registry six-pack will undoubtedly do. They can amend at will, which means the bill might not deliver a definitive death blow when it resurfaces in the Commons next year.​

There's always the prospect the committee will recommend the bill be killed outright, although that would not likely get support in the Commons if yesterday's voting holds.​

All this is to say that, sorry duck hunters of Canada, reports (including my babble) of the gun registry's imminent demise may be a tad premature.
National Post ​

 

[TenPenny]

From the CBC, a poll that strengthens my faith in democracy......

Didn't you suggest that the idea of ending the gun registry was one of the reasons for the Conservatives win in Quebec?

Just wondering how that all plays out.

 

[Colpy]

Didn't you suggest that the idea of ending the gun registry was one of the reasons for the Conservatives win in Quebec?

Just wondering how that all plays out.

The split between rural and urban in Quebec is, I believe, more pronounced than in the rest of the country........and the riding in question is about as rural as you can get. The BQ voted unanimously to retain the registry, then lost this rural riding......my guess is that is no coincidence....but that is only a guess.

 

[taxslave]

How about just cutting funding to the registry to the point where all they have is an answering machine and a post office box? The saved tax dollars could be used for health care. The bureaucrats employed in the registry will have to go back to regular welfare instead of the expensive kind called federal union pay.

 

[AnnaG]

How about just cutting funding to the registry to the point where all they have is an answering machine and a post office box? The saved tax dollars could be used for health care. The bureaucrats employed in the registry will have to go back to regular welfare instead of the expensive kind called federal union pay.

lol Fine idea.