Gun Registry Dies Tomorrow!

[Colpy]

Re: RE: Gun Registry Dies Tomorrow!

I would suggest that this is a hasty initiative, and I would hope that the opposition parties do whatever is within their power in the House of Commons and the Senate to slow down this endeavour until a more thorough analysis of the consequences of this decision can be made.

I was waiting on you, Five!

One of the greatest sources of my joy is two-fold:

1. The duplicity, lies, and misrepresentations of the Liberal government, as revealed by the Auditor-General, are expected to raise enough of an outcry that the dismantling of this institutional assault on liberty and good sense will pass with only the slightest of protests from the weak-minded.

2. That same characteristic of the Liberal government, its duplicity and lack of back-bone, meant that it used the Firearms Law as a regulatory law. In other words, the Act, in many places, does not specify law, it merely empowers the government to enact regulations with all the force of law, without reference to Parliament. It can be UNDONE, in large part, by that same method embedded in the law by our previous masters. Hoisted on their own petard, so to speak.

Heh-heh.

On a more familiar note, I could spend the nextt 24 hours writing of the negative experiences that myself my friends, my fellow shooters have had with the system............ personally I have been seriously misinformed of process by the Firearms Centre, leading to me being in serious violation of the law......NOT a good thing in my profession. I have a friend who sent in his registrations.......but recieved no cards, and when he called to inquire was told there was NO WAY they could find out if his guns were registered or not.....despite the fact he had their serial numbers. (HUH?) The registry has been condemned as easily hacked by its own computer experts......and on and on. It had to go.

You want SENSIBLE gun control?

Vote Conservative next time.

 

[Jay]

So they will still be tracking semi-automatics?

All I want is a semi-auto .22 for small game.

I also want an over-under 12 guage, but the one I wanted is $2300....

 

[thecdn]

Re: RE: Gun Registry Dies Tomorrow!

If we don't live in a police state, one way to ensure that is to not make citizens register their weapons. Simple stuff really.

An arguement I hear from Americans all the time on another board I frequent. Ever notice how much gun violence there is in the US? I read the paper and watch the news daily, it really is staggering.

Yes, Jay and his buddies with their ar15 copies, shotguns and 22's are going to rise up and smite the evil govmint when it declares martial law and crushes democracy!! Such justification died off about 100 years ago with the rise of the modern professional army. I laugh at the Americans on the other board I mentioned who state the same drivel. Yeah, if the US army decides to take over, Bubba and the boys in the militia clubhouse are going to stop them :lol:

The majority of Canadians aren't politically smart enough to comment on these issues of rights etc and can just leave us normal people alone.

Oh, but you are politically smart enough!! From what I've read of your posts, labelling yourself as normal might be a bit of an exaggeration.

I haven't lived in Canada for 7 years now so haven't followed the gun registry stuff too much but it certainly seems to have not worked as designed and cost a lot of money.

Hunters, farmers, etc need their long guns and I've no problem with that. But watch the handguns. Please don't let Canada become like the shooting gallery that is much of the US these days.

 

[Jay]

Re: RE: Gun Registry Dies Tomorrow!

Oh, but you are politically smart enough!! From what I've read of your posts, labelling yourself as normal might be a bit of an exaggeration.

Why doesn't that *censored* 'n surprise me? :lol:

I haven't lived in Canada for 7 years now...

Don't hurry back!

 

[Colpy]

Re: RE: Gun Registry Dies Tomorrow!

So they will still be tracking semi-automatics?

All I want is a semi-auto .22 for small game.

I also want an over-under 12 guage, but the one I wanted is $2300....

Jay, although the newscasts say they will be tracking and still registering "handguns and semi-automatic weapons", I believe they mean handguns and other restricted long guns. The uninitiated are confused about the fact the vast majority of semi-autos are unrestricted, but some semi-auto long guns are classes as restricted, same as handguns (based mostly on APPEARANCE, believe it or not)

Anyway, you should easily be able to purchase a non-restricted, non-registered semi-auto .22 for bunny hunting.

DISCLAIMER - all the above is simply guesswork..........

BTW, you should be like me, develop a love of SxS shotguns..........decent ones run $5000 and up. I'll never have one.

 

[Jay]

I have a side by side shotgun (if that's what sxs means ) that I paid $500 for a few years ago. I love it, (it is a bit heavy though) but I have expensive tastes that I can rarely afford to meet. I want, I want, I want....It never ends!

 

[Jay]

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/story.html?id=7f744959-cd1a-4746-af84-53957b01a6a0&k=188

OTTAWA - The former Liberal government hid more than $60 million in unexpected costs from Parliament, left no written record of important decisions taken by officials, and may have broken numerous contracting rules in its handling of the controversial gun registry, Auditor General Sheila Fraser has found.

The Canadian Firearms Program, which the Conservatives are expected to start dismantling, perhaps as early as today, has incurred $87.3 million in startup costs since 2002 - three times the budgeted amount - for a computer system that does not yet work, Fraser revealed in her long-awaited report.

She found that Parliament was "misinformed" about the true costs of the registry. Of the computer startup costs, $60.8 million - $39 million in 2002-03 and $21.8 million in 2003-04 - was not brought to Parliament for proper approval in contravention of the government's own accounting policies.

"Had these costs been properly recorded, the Canadian Firearms Centre would have had to seek additional funds (from Parliament) or would have overspent the authorized cap on its spending," Fraser said in her opening remarks to reporters. "We consider this a serious matter for Parliament's attention, because the ability of the House of Commons to approve government spending is fundamental to Parliament's control of the public purse."

The hits just keep comming.


I say Sheila Fraser for PM!!

 

[FiveParadox]

Re: Appropriate Gun Restrictions

I would agree that the ultimate authority in terms of appropriating funds should come from the Commons (other than, of course, measures to decrease appropriations or taxation methods, which can originate from either House of the Parliament of Canada, as supported by the ruling of the Honourable Noël Kinsella, the Senator for Fredericton—York—Sunbury of New Brunswick and the Speaker of the Senate some days ago.

In terms of the report to be released by Sheila Fraser, the Auditor General of Canada (I note for the above member that Canada does not, in general, hyphenate terms such as this), I would agree that the previous Government of Canada should be condemned in relation to the management of the long-gun registry; there was a clear trend of wasted funds and unnecessary beaurocracy. However, the present Government of Canada could take the "higher road", so to speak, and re-organize the registry so as to keep its premise in tact, while ensuring that the registry is as effective as its charge on the Consolidated Revenue Fund of Canada would demand.

I would suggest that the Right Honourable Stephen Harper, P.C., M.P., the Member for Calgary Southwest and the Prime Minister of Canada, should respect the premise of the registry (as, in my opinion, the premise of the registry is quite sound, notwithstanding whatever defficiencies the implementation of the registry may have incurred to date), and to that end, I would suggest that his Government should consider a revised version of the registry, such as my suggestion below.

:arrow: My Recommendations for a Revised Registry

1. Every one in Canada who owns one or more firearms shall, before and upon the purchase of such firearms, register with the appropriate institution (to be herein deemed the "Registry") that the person owns that firearm, and that the firearm does not contravene the Restrictions on Firearms Ownership[/b].

2. (a) There is established a policy, to be styled the Restrictions on Firearms Ownership, to be updated and amended, from time to time by the Governor General on address of the Senate and the Commons for Canada, to determine which firearms may and may not be owned by any one in Canada.

(b) A question shall be put to both the Senate and the Commons, by the Leader of the Government in the Senate and the Government House Leader, respectively, to determine whether an entry should be added to or removed from the Restrictions on Firearms Ownership, if the Government comes into a good-faith belief that a certain type of firearm can not reasonably be owned for any purposes other than to engage in hunting.

3. (a) A firearm may be owned, even where that firearm would contravene the Restrictions on Firearms Ownership, provided that the owner of that firearm agrees to submit their self to an inspection, from time to time, to ensure that any such "contravening firearms" are stored in a safe manner, and if they are being stored for display or collection purposes, or are owned for the purpose of sport competitions.

(b) No one in Canada shall be subjected to more than one (1) inspection within the span of the same twelve months.

(c) No one in Canada shall be subject to more than three (3) inspections within the span of the same sixty months.

(d) If any one, in Canada, is subjected to a total of three (3) inspections in their lifetime, then that person shall be assumed, by the Government, to be responsible in affairs relating to gun ownership, and to be no longer subject to inspections commissioned by the Government.

(e) An inspection may be commissioned of one's ownership of firearms, notwithstanding anything in any Section, if the Government receives the signatures of five adult citizens, with the good-faith belief that someone has stored their firearms improperly, or is using their firearms for one or more unauthorized purposes.

(f) Only one (1) inspection may be commissioned pursuant to Section 3(e) within the span of three years.

4. Any one in Canada who owns a firearm in contravention of the Restrictions on Firearms Ownership, and which is not exempt under Section 3, is to have that firearm contravened (but not destroyed) until such time as that person agrees to store and use that firearm in keeping with Section 3.

Any thoughts?

 

[Jay]

Why would anyone in their right mind subject themselves to that?

 

[FiveParadox]

Why would anyone in their right mind give people the unlimited, unabridged and unrestricted right to purchase whatever weapons they wish, to store them in any matter they wish, and to use them for whatever purposes they wish?

 

[Jay]

It's hard to give that which isn't yours.

I have a child....perhaps I should subject myself to several inspections from some Liberal to make sure I'm doing everything correctly...you know, by the little Red Book.

Clearly my parents must have screwed up right royally for me to love freedom as I do...they needed to be inspected for sure.

 

[FiveParadox]

Once again, Jay, you are dismissing my entire post because you think I'm acting as some partisan spokesperson. Your reference to the Liberal Party of Canada is in some immature effort to invalidate my post without commenting on the content or the substance.

 

[Cosmo]

What I find interesting is the way the gun control was pushed forward without any real facts behind it. Looking at policies and stats in other countries like Switzerland, shows gun control is not the answer.

Here's an interesting take on that ...
http://www.ncpa.org/pi/crime/pd061099b.html

And here ...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/1566715.stm
In part:

Guns are deeply rooted within Swiss culture - but the gun crime rate is so low that statistics are not even kept.

The country has a population of six million, but there are estimated to be at least two million publicly-owned firearms, including about 600,000 automatic rifles and 500,000 pistols.

This is in a very large part due to Switzerland's unique system of national defence, developed over the centuries.

Instead of a standing, full-time army, the country requires every man to undergo some form of military training for a few days or weeks a year throughout most of their lives.

Between the ages of 21 and 32 men serve as frontline troops. They are given an M-57 assault rifle and 24 rounds of ammunition which they are required to keep at home.

Once discharged, men serve in the Swiss equivalent of the US National Guard, but still have to train occasionally and are given bolt rifles. Women do not have to own firearms, but are encouraged to.

And this one ...
http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/lott200310020833.asp

Other countries have experienced similar problems. In Canada from 1997 to 2001, only in 3 percent of handgun murders there was it even possible that the weapon might have been registered to the perpetrator and no evidence is available on how helpful registration was in any of those cases.

The difficulties are very simple to understand. Criminals very rarely leave their guns at the scene of the crime. In the few cases where guns have been left at the crime scene, they are not registered. It should come as no surprise that would-be criminals virtually never register their weapons. They are simply not that stupid, and try their best to keep away from authorities.

While tighter controls on purchasing guns may allay some people's fears, there is not a single academic study showing that background checks reduce violent crime. What really deters criminals are higher arrest and conviction rates and longer prison sentences for the crime, not increasing penalties for how the crime was committed.

There's just too much evidence to support the fact that firearm education and responsible ownership does more to solve gun problems than all the legislature in the world. So why did our government not see the obvious? Surely they could have Googled it like any of us can?? That means their motivation is NOT about guns, but about something else. And my guess is that motivation is money.

The government used a knee-jerk reaction to tap into the trough. Again. :roll:

 

[Hank C]

My Recommendations for a Revised Registry

1. Every one in Canada who owns one or more firearms shall, before and upon the purchase of such firearms, register with the appropriate institution (to be herein deemed the "Registry") that the person owns that firearm, and that the firearm does not contravene the Restrictions on Firearms Ownership[/b].

2. (a) There is established a policy, to be styled the Restrictions on Firearms Ownership, to be updated and amended, from time to time by the Governor General on address of the Senate and the Commons for Canada, to determine which firearms may and may not be owned by any one in Canada.

(b) A question shall be put to both the Senate and the Commons, by the Leader of the Government in the Senate and the Government House Leader, respectively, to determine whether an entry should be added to or removed from the Restrictions on Firearms Ownership, if the Government comes into a good-faith belief that a certain type of firearm can not reasonably be owned for any purposes other than to engage in hunting.

3. (a) A firearm may be owned, even where that firearm would contravene the Restrictions on Firearms Ownership, provided that the owner of that firearm agrees to submit their self to an inspection, from time to time, to ensure that any such "contravening firearms" are stored in a safe manner, and if they are being stored for display or collection purposes, or are owned for the purpose of sport competitions.

(b) No one in Canada shall be subjected to more than one (1) inspection within the span of the same twelve months.

(c) No one in Canada shall be subject to more than three (3) inspections within the span of the same sixty months.

(d) If any one, in Canada, is subjected to a total of three (3) inspections in their lifetime, then that person shall be assumed, by the Government, to be responsible in affairs relating to gun ownership, and to be no longer subject to inspections commissioned by the Government.

(e) An inspection may be commissioned of one's ownership of firearms, notwithstanding anything in any Section, if the Government receives the signatures of five adult citizens, with the good-faith belief that someone has stored their firearms improperly, or is using their firearms for one or more unauthorized purposes.

(f) Only one (1) inspection may be commissioned pursuant to Section 3(e) within the span of three years.

4. Any one in Canada who owns a firearm in contravention of the Restrictions on Firearms Ownership, and which is not exempt under Section 3, is to have that firearm contravened (but not destroyed) until such time as that person agrees to store and use that firearm in keeping with Section 3.

Any thoughts?

no offense but thats one of the stupidest ideas i have heard in a while.

 

[FiveParadox]

Apparently efforts for compromises are quite unwelcome.

Alright, whatever. Never mind.

 

[Cosmo]

RE: Gun Registry Dies Tom

Na, Five ... I just feel quite strongly about it. You know I rarely involve myself in politics. This is one of those issues that makes my blood boil.

I used to be absolutely against compromise ... I always saw it as neither parties getting what they really wanted. In my encroaching old age, however, I see that compromise is sometimes the right way to go. Unfortunately, though, gun control is one of those situations where you have to pick a side. Fence sitting only causes bruised genitals.

I really, really hate being told what to do. And when the stats back up what I have already learned from experience, I simply cannot in good faith compromise it.

I was raised with guns. I was shooting rifles when I was so small my father had to stand behind me to keep me from being knocked on my butt by the recoil. I've shot everything from black powder to hand guns to a Gatling gun. Until that absurd law, I owned a .22 handed down from my long dead grandfather.

And never once in my life have I seen anyone shot. Ever. Ok ... once I saw a richochet hit my brother, but that was an UNREGISTERED handgun used by someone who should never had have had access to a firearm anyway. The laws wouldn't have prevented that! I used to hang with a group that often carried weapons and the laws of the land had no bearing on their actions. Legislate away ... the criminals will do what they want. Always have.

I don't see how to make a compromise here. Either I can have my heirloom .22, or I can't. I'm not going to go to the time and expense of attending courses and classes to keep that piece of family history. I have more training in safe handling of guns than most people so why should I have to jump through those hoops? Easier to let go of a piece of family history and just be a little pissed off.

People see guns as something evil. It's not so. Way more people get killed by cars every day yet we don't vilify autos.

Anyway, that's why I speak up on this issue. It matters to me. Nothing personal

 

[Jay]

Re: RE: Gun Registry Dies Tomorrow!

Apparently efforts for compromises are quite unwelcome.

Alright, whatever. Never mind.

Your attempt at "compromises" would put even more regulation in place. I don't call that compromise.

 

[FiveParadox]

And your attempt at constructive debate and discussion, Jay, is "you're wrong, so stop trying."

 

[Toro]

Back on topic,

That bloody gun control sure as hell didn't have my approval. It was a stupid, knee jerk reaction to all those ladies being killed by that lunatic in Quebec. There was nothing wrong with the gun control we already had.

I agree. I have no problem with some gun control. What I have a problem with is a gun control program that has no effectiveness and costs billions of dollars.

 

[Lineman]

The joke is it was sold as crime prevention. In reality all it might do is tell you which law abiding citizen had his gun stolen and used in a crime. I support the requirement for possesion and acquisition certificates, proper storage, and even firearms safety courses. Prevention must deal in the "before", the registry was an "after" and did NOTHING to stop crime.