Bill to Abolish Gun Registry Passes 2nd Reading

[bobnoorduyn]

I believe in abiding by the law. You break a law, you are a criminal.

You have a troubling interpretation of the law and crime, as troubling as the Liberal party and many others of the tyrannical bent or their sympathisers. If you refuse to wear a helmet while riding a bicycle does this make you a criminal?

To be found guilty of a criminal code offense, normally two things have to be proven; Actus reus, or the criminal act, which may or may not be intentional and the offender may be found not guilty. But along with mens rea, or literally, the guilty mind, would indicate that the person committed the act with the intention of doing the act that did, or possibly would or could cause harm and would be found guilty. These would still have to be proven beyond reasonable doubt.

The problem with the firearms act as it pertains to the criminal code is that an act of omission, failing to either re-new a license, or failing to register a firearm, whether intentional or not, is considered an offense punishable by a custodial sentence in a federal institution.

The fact that neither actus reus, (because a non act that results in no harm, or even danger of harm, is not an act) nor mens rea need apply should disqualify this law from the Criminal Code. Not only that, the fact that even if no harm is done by these inactions covered in the CC, a person in violation is still guilty of an offense. These tests are the basis of criminal law but were ignored by the Liberal government and it was them that brought the law into disrepute, not those who disobeyed it.

 

[AnnaG]

The simple facts are that the registry did nothing that it was stated to do. It was continued as an expensive joke. The initial part of the joke was that it was supposed to have an effect on criminal activity, in spite of being told six ways from Sunday that the criminal element would ignore the registry, the Glibs continued. And it was further turned into a joke when ordinary guys (farmers, ranchers, competition shooters, hunters, etc) with senses of humor started registering their paint strippers, pellet guns, and anything else that sort of had the shape of a firearm, serial numbers were invented, and a great deal of the information on registrration documents was missing or was wrong.

 

[Niflmir]

You have a troubling interpretation of the law and crime, as troubling as the Liberal party and many others of the tyrannical bent or their sympathisers. If you refuse to wear a helmet while riding a bicycle does this make you a criminal?

To be found guilty of a criminal code offense, normally two things have to be proven; Actus reus, or the criminal act, which may or may not be intentional and the offender may be found not guilty. But along with mens rea, or literally, the guilty mind, would indicate that the person committed the act with the intention of doing the act that did, or possibly would or could cause harm and would be found guilty. These would still have to be proven beyond reasonable doubt.

The problem with the firearms act as it pertains to the criminal code is that an act of omission, failing to either re-new a license, or failing to register a firearm, whether intentional or not, is considered an offense punishable by a custodial sentence in a federal institution.

The fact that neither actus reus, (because a non act that results in no harm, or even danger of harm, is not an act) nor mens rea need apply should disqualify this law from the Criminal Code. Not only that, the fact that even if no harm is done by these inactions covered in the CC, a person in violation is still guilty of an offense. These tests are the basis of criminal law but were ignored by the Liberal government and it was them that brought the law into disrepute, not those who disobeyed it.

Of course what you are suggesting is a poor understanding of the legal concepts.

The very fact of the matter is that they intentionally are not registering and they automatically satisfy the mens rea or they are not fulfilling their civic duty to know the law which is wilful ignorance. Do you suggest that ignorance of the law be an excuse?

Further, harmful inaction--AKA neglect--is considered criminal in many laws: not insuring or registering your vehicle, not asking for ID when you serve alcohol, not leaving when the owner of property asks you to. A better (more extreme and criminal) example would be not attaching a seat belt to the child safety seat of your toddler and then getting into an accident. You would be held liable for criminal neglect.

 

[JLM]

The simple facts are that the registry did nothing that it was stated to do. It was continued as an expensive joke. The initial part of the joke was that it was supposed to have an effect on criminal activity, in spite of being told six ways from Sunday that the criminal element would ignore the registry, the Glibs continued. And it was further turned into a joke when ordinary guys (farmers, ranchers, competition shooters, hunters, etc) with senses of humor started registering their paint strippers, pellet guns, and anything else that sort of had the shape of a firearm, serial numbers were invented, and a great deal of the information on registrration documents was missing or was wrong.

That was without a doubt the stupidest and costliest thing the Liberals did. IT's effectiveness is very evident on the lower mainland, like they are rounding up these gang killers and their guns every day tee hee.....:lol::lol:

 

[JLM]

The simple facts are that the registry did nothing that it was stated to do. It was continued as an expensive joke. The initial part of the joke was that it was supposed to have an effect on criminal activity, in spite of being told six ways from Sunday that the criminal element would ignore the registry, the Glibs continued. And it was further turned into a joke when ordinary guys (farmers, ranchers, competition shooters, hunters, etc) with senses of humor started registering their paint strippers, pellet guns, and anything else that sort of had the shape of a firearm, serial numbers were invented, and a great deal of the information on registrration documents was missing or was wrong.

That was without a doubt the stupidest and costliest thing the Liberals did. IT's effectiveness is very evident on the lower mainland, like they are rounding up these gang killers and their guns every day tee hee.....:lol::lol:

 

[TenPenny]

I cannot believe that the gun registry, as implemented, was anything more than a way to hire 'consultants' on large contracts and funnel millions of dollars to FOTL (friends of the Liberals), (see also the Ontatio eHealth initiative).

A group of community college programming students could have taken the code used by every province in Canada to register vehicles and track drivers' licences, and made simple modifications to the data formatting, to allow registration of long guns. It would likely have taken about 3 months to do.

 

[Niflmir]

I cannot believe that the gun registry, as implemented, was anything more than a way to hire 'consultants' on large contracts and funnel millions of dollars to FOTL (friends of the Liberals), (see also the Ontatio eHealth initiative).

A group of community college programming students could have taken the code used by every province in Canada to register vehicles and track drivers' licences, and made simple modifications to the data formatting, to allow registration of long guns. It would likely have taken about 3 months to do.

To me this sort of conspiracy theory is the same as saying the Jew's did 9/11.

It is always more likely that the answer is ignorance than malevolence. It is not so hard to believe that the beginnings were good intentions and the follow through was just ignorant.

Scrapping it entirely could have a very disastrous consequence: what happens when some government decides we need a registry?

As for the whole police chiefs nonsense, why would we ever listen to them? If we were trying to take away the right to do random strip searches(hypothetically), they would complain that it would hurt their efforts to catch criminals. They are typically in a conflict of interest in these matters.

 

[TenPenny]

To me this sort of conspiracy theory is the same as saying the Jew's did 9/11.

That's ridiculous.

I'm not suggesting that the original idea was a conspiracy, what I am suggesting is that the moment the government decided to proceed, instead of using common sense, every senior civl servant simply decided to outsource every thing possible, and those contracts all went to the usual suspects.

Exactly the same as the Ontario eHealth mess.

Exactly the same thought process - give big contracts to your friends to do what?

 

[TenPenny]

A Public Works spokesman confirmed a deal was ironed out with CGI, the company developing
the new software for the gun registry, that saw the contract cancelled for $10 million.
Since 2002, CGI, a Montreal-based IT outsourcing firm, was the key contractor that had been
developing a computer system to replace the original federal arms registry software, which is
becoming obsolete.
The price tag of the new system was criticized in the 2006 auditor general's report.
Following the report, the government decided to suspend contracts related to the computer​

programs.

 

[bobnoorduyn]

Of course what you are suggesting is a poor understanding of the legal concepts.

The very fact of the matter is that they intentionally are not registering and they automatically satisfy the mens rea or they are not fulfilling their civic duty to know the law which is wilful ignorance. Do you suggest that ignorance of the law be an excuse?

Further, harmful inaction--AKA neglect--is considered criminal in many laws: not insuring or registering your vehicle, not asking for ID when you serve alcohol, not leaving when the owner of property asks you to. A better (more extreme and criminal) example would be not attaching a seat belt to the child safety seat of your toddler and then getting into an accident. You would be held liable for criminal neglect.

Are you having some trouble with the concept of criminality and criminal law? We've had this discussion before, nowhere in the Criminal Code is it an offense to not register a vehicle or insure it, even if you drive the thing. Not asking for ID is a liquor code violation. which is provincial. Trespass is a generally a civil dispute, criminal trespass which, which is different, does have the tests of actus reus, mens rea, and harm . Your last example falls under the highway traffic act, not the Criminal Code, negligence is not always criminal. Criminal negligence has far more hurdles to clear for a conviction; the negligence has to be be beyond reason where it would basically take an idiot to not take action to prevent HARM or the obvious potential for it. For instance, leaving a loaded shotgun unattended on the kitchen table during a childrens' birthday party would be a negligent act. If that firearm were used by a child and caused harm, there could be a case made for criminal negligence.

Offenses under the Firearms Act, along with Part III of the Criminal Code may be in the absense of mens rea, actus reus, and harm, not something we should allow for such a big stick.

 

[Niflmir]

Are you having some trouble with the concept of criminality and criminal law? We've had this discussion before, nowhere in the Criminal Code is it an offense to not register a vehicle or insure it, even if you drive the thing. Not asking for ID is a liquor code violation. which is provincial. Trespass is a generally a civil dispute, criminal trespass which, which is different, does have the tests of actus reus, mens rea, and harm . Your last example falls under the highway traffic act, not the Criminal Code, negligence is not always criminal. Criminal negligence has far more hurdles to clear for a conviction; the negligence has to be be beyond reason where it would basically take an idiot to not take action to prevent HARM or the obvious potential for it. For instance, leaving a loaded shotgun unattended on the kitchen table during a childrens' birthday party would be a negligent act. If that firearm were used by a child and caused harm, there could be a case made for criminal negligence.

Offenses under the Firearms Act, along with Part III of the Criminal Code may be in the absense of mens rea, actus reus, and harm, not something we should allow for such a big stick.

It is illegal to drive an unregistered car. Point. End of story. You should let it go--our past conversation, I did--anybody else would have implicitly understood the claim.

You also give another example, but mine still were examples of crimes by omission. Maybe you also do not understand the difference between summary conviction and indictment? A crime is a crime either way, you seem to want to censor people from calling those acts crimes which only carry summary conviction.

Since you seem to be having trouble understanding criminal negligence, here is the definition of criminal negligence, from the horse's mouth:

219. (1) Every one is criminally negligent who
(a) in doing anything, or
(b) in omitting to do anything that it is his duty to do,
shows wanton or reckless disregard for the lives or safety of other persons.

Why I do say! Omitting to do anything that is in his duty. Seems my last example was clear cut. Omitting to fasten a seatbelt leading to the death of a child, hmm?

As I pointed out, your idea of mens and actus rea is terribly uniformed. The harm issue is another question, and not what I was pointing out. Omission can be an actus rea and the wanton disregard the mens rea.

 

[Cannuck]

...and speaking of not understanding the law...

Of course what you are suggesting is a poor understanding of the legal concepts.

The very fact of the matter is that they intentionally are not registering and they ...

You claim that you know the intent of every person that has failed to register a rifle? Would your claim stand up in court?

Further, harmful inaction--AKA neglect--is considered criminal in many laws: not insuring or registering your vehicle, not asking for ID when you serve alcohol, not leaving when the owner of property asks you to.

Neglect is not a crime is there is no loss or damage. Unless and until it is shown how not registering a rifle could cause loss or damage there is no "harmful inaction". Serving somebody alcohol without asking for ID is not a criminal act nor is leaving a manhole lid off. Until these actions cause loss or damage, there would be no criminal negligence.

A better (more extreme and criminal) example would be not attaching a seat belt to the child safety seat of your toddler and then getting into an accident. You would be held liable for criminal neglect.

Yes, because damage has occurred. If caught by the police before the accident occurred, a ticket would be most likely issued....a ticket that does not attach a criminal record to the individual cited and convicted.

 

[Niflmir]

You claim that you know the intent of every person that has failed to register a rifle? Would your claim stand up in court?

Uh, what?

My claim is that you do not need to prove intent. Either they did it on purpose which is bad intent or their defense is ignorance of the law which is no defense.

What is your point, exactly?

 

[Cannuck]

What is your point, exactly?

You don't know the law. I thought that was pretty clear.

 

[Cannuck]

I am not a lawyer, nor do I claim to have legal expertise. My understanding of criminal law comes mostly from my professional positions and as a Fire Officer. I am quite familiar with Bill C-45 which, in essence, created a criminal code duty much like the duty already found in OH&S.

In the words of Mervyn F. White, B.A., LL.B., Criminal liability is "An offence that requires proof of intent, knowledge, or recklessness, as well as violation of the Criminal Code.

In order to be convicted under the criminal code for not registering a rifle, the crown should have to prove intent, knowledge or recklessness. I seriously doubt they could and that is why many provinces have simply refused to pursue people.

 

[bobnoorduyn]

It is illegal to drive an unregistered car. Point. End of story. You should let it go--our past conversation, I did--anybody else would have implicitly understood the claim.

You also give another example, but mine still were examples of crimes by omission. Maybe you also do not understand the difference between summary conviction and indictment? A crime is a crime either way, you seem to want to censor people from calling those acts crimes which only carry summary conviction.

I think it is you who doesn't understand, a criminal conviction is a big deal, a summary conviction not so much, (which is why they have such things). Watch folks trying to cross the border or get security clearance with criminal convictions as opposed to summary ones.

Why I do say! Omitting to do anything that is in his duty. Seems my last example was clear cut. Omitting to fasten a seatbelt leading to the death of a child, hmm?

As I pointed out, your idea of mens and actus rea is terribly uniformed. The harm issue is another question, and not what I was pointing out. Omission can be an actus rea and the wanton disregard the mens rea.

Maybe you should re-read that, you have to show wanton or reckless disregard for the lives or safety of others, either by action or omission, or what I alluded to before, and it still has to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. It would take a herculean stretch of the imagination to attach this to failing to register a firearm.

 

[Niflmir]

You don't know the law. I thought that was pretty clear.

That is an opinion. Not a point. A point would be, "You do not understand the law because ... " that ellipsis being the point. What is your point? The following seems to suggest you believe that the crown must always prove mens rea:

I am not a lawyer, nor do I claim to have legal expertise. My understanding of criminal law comes mostly from my professional positions and as a Fire Officer. I am quite familiar with Bill C-45 which, in essence, created a criminal code duty much like the duty already found in OH&S.

In the words of Mervyn F. White, B.A., LL.B., Criminal liability is "An offence that requires proof of intent, knowledge, or recklessness, as well as violation of the Criminal Code.

In order to be convicted under the criminal code for not registering a rifle, the crown should have to prove intent, knowledge or recklessness. I seriously doubt they could and that is why many provinces have simply refused to pursue people.

The statement "An offence that requires proof of intent,..." clearly implies that not all offences require proof of intent--otherwise it would be redundant. So you are merely furthering my point: it is not always necessary to prove intent, especially when the guilty act is by omission of a legal duty.

I took as an example, criminal negligence; precisely one law that does not require proof of intent, the mens rea is prima facie (taken at face value): either they were wilful in their disregard, they were ignorant of the law. The defendant could however argue that, "No! My situation is novel, I could not fulfill my duty because of...."

The government is free to create other such liabilities and has done so.

Go here and read the section, "Is mens rea always required?" Google other sources, go to CanLii and look up the supreme court cases where people argue that the crown should have to prove their intent, so on.

 

[Niflmir]

I think it is you who doesn't understand, a criminal conviction is a big deal, a summary conviction not so much, (which is why they have such things). Watch folks trying to cross the border or get security clearance with criminal convictions as opposed to summary ones.

Maybe you should re-read that, you have to show wanton or reckless disregard for the lives or safety of others, either by action or omission, or what I alluded to before, and it still has to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. It would take a herculean stretch of the imagination to attach this to failing to register a firearm.

Oh I understand, but my point is that there are both summary conviction offences which do not require mens rea be proven and indictable offenses which do not require mens rea be proven.

I have provided you with examples of both summary offences and indictable offences where the actus rea is through non-action and the mens rea need not be proven by the crown--because it is prima facie.

The questions of law--like proving harm which is only necessary for criminal negligence--I don't care about: they are case and law dependent and cannot be settled without a case in front of us.

You said, in so many words, "Inaction is not action and therefore can never be actus rea," following it with "No intent is ever present with inaction and therefore there is no mens rea." Both are wrong. I have provided counterexamples for both.

 

[Cannuck]

The following seems to suggest you believe that the crown must always prove mens rea:...

Not quite sure how you arrived at that conclusion. Perhaps you may want to read it again...take your time. I'll wait.

 

[Niflmir]

Not quite sure how you arrived at that conclusion. Perhaps you may want to read it again...take your time. I'll wait.

If that's not the case, then what do you possibly have to say that I care about?