Ten Paces then DRAW!

Canucklehead

Moderator
Apr 6, 2005
797
11
18
http://tinyurl.com/c5yrk (Toronto Star)

Ottawa may sue U.S. gun makers

SUSAN DELACOURT AND LES WHITTINGTON
OTTAWA BUREAU

OTTAWA—Canada is looking into ways to sue U.S. gun manufacturers for the spread of illegal weapons into this country, the Toronto Star has learned.

It's just one part of a multi-faceted crackdown on gun crime, due to be unveiled by the end of November.

The package will follow months of unusual violence in Toronto that came to be known as the Summer of the Gun.

Of the 61 homicides so far this year, 41 have involved firearms, a record number.

The policy will also be seen as another shot by Prime Minister Paul Martin's government across the bow of Canada-U.S. relations.

Government sources told the Star yesterday that Canada will be looking into "every legal option" to stem a tide of crimes involving weapons that make their way into this country illegally from the United States, whether they're sold through the Internet or smuggled across the border.

That includes possible suits against U.S. manufacturers, launched either in the United States or in this country if the firm has assets here as well, the sources said. Though no precise estimates are available, Toronto police have said repeatedly that almost half the gun crimes committed in Canada involved illegal, U.S. weapons.

The anti-gun-crime package will also include:

#
Tougher rules on sentencing and parole in gun crimes, including longer minimum sentence provisions and lifetime firearm-ownership bans on repeat offenders. Minimum sentences of one year in some firearms offences could be doubled to two years, and 10-year ownership bans would be extended to lifetime prohibitions, the source said. Details of just exactly which offences would get stricter sentences are now being worked out by justice department officials.

#
Expanded community and educational programs in areas where gun crimes have been particularly prevalent, notably in Toronto and in Vancouver. Again, the government is not ready to say how much extra is coming for these programs, only that the boost will involve more cash and more programs, developed in conjunction with the communities most affected by gun crime.

#
Improvements to the witness protection program, to encourage people coming forward to reveal and testify against acquaintances who commit gun crimes. This is something that Toronto MPs in particular have been pushing to expand since the city saw a rash of gun crimes last summer.

The proposed new measures are a response to calls for more support to fight crime from Toronto Mayor David Miller. Last month, he asked Ottawa to provide tens of millions of dollars to beef up anti-crime programs for low-income Toronto neighbourhoods.

Miller said the Ottawa should supply more cash for job training and social program for youth in areas like Jane-Finch and Lawrence Heights that has been troubled by gun violence.

Ontario Attorney General Michael Bryant has also pushed for action, sending a letter to federal Justice Minister Irwin Cotler demanding Ottawa introduce much tougher sentences for gun crimes and "zero tolerance" for illegal possession and use of a firearm. Bryant has also been lobbying his provincial counterparts in an effort to bring pressure to bear on Cotler.

Ironically, Ottawa's new push comes just after the U.S. Congress passed a bill this week that shields gun-makers from lawsuits launched by crime victims. The bill was heartily supported by U.S. President George W. Bush, so Canada's new legal push may well be interpreted as flying in the face of the White House's stand on guns.

Also coming on the heels of stepped-up rhetoric from Martin and his ministers in the softwood trade dispute, it appears the federal government is showing increasing willingness to provocatively wave the Canadian flag in the face of vested U.S. interests, whether it's lumber, oil or now, guns.

"This is not anti-U.S.," a highly placed government source said yesterday, arguing the bill does not make it impossible for Canada to pursue legal challenges to the U.S. gun industry, since it still permits legal action against importers or in cases of other criminal wrongdoing.

Some will see parallels in this legal push to the crusade against tobacco industries, many of whom are also based in the United States. Others will see it in the same vein as the U.S. push last summer to extradite Canadian marijuana activist Marc Emery for alleged cross-border violations of stricter American anti-drug laws. If the U.S. can attempt that kind of extra-territorial push to protect its laws, some Canadians argued at the time, why couldn't Canada reciprocate by similarly stretching its stricter, anti-gun attitude across the border?

Once signed by Bush, the legislation passed by Congress last Thursday is expected to put an end to a half-dozen pending lawsuits against gun manufacturers mounted by U.S. cities, including Los Angeles, San Francisco, Cleveland, Gary, Ind., and New York City.

The law to shield the gun industry from legal action has been long sought by the National Rifle Association. It was hailed by Bush as a means of stemming "frivolous lawsuits."

David Wilkins, the recently appointed U.S. ambassador to Canada, has said it is unfair for Canadians to blame his country for the upsurge in gun-related violence in Toronto. He said most guns coming into Canada from the United States are purchased by Canadian citizens in violation of U.S. laws at the state level and "smuggled back across the border in violation of your laws."

Promoting parts of Ottawa's get-tough package may require some fancy footwork by Cotler, who has been fending off calls for increased minimum sentences.

Manitoba Attorney General Gord Mackintosh recently urged Ottawa to raise the minimum sentence for people convicted of smuggling guns into Canada to four years in jail from one. He was supported by the Canadian Professional Police Association.

The association also favours a private member's bill brought in by Tory MP Daryl Kemp, which would hike minimum sentences for firearm-related crimes, including a 15-year sentence for crimes in which someone is shot.

It looks like the feds have finally figured out how to take on the Yanks. In "fight fire with fire" fashion the stereotypical U.S. rallying cry of SUE THEIR ASSES has been heard loud & clear in Ottawa.

This all seems well and good but really does appear to be more of a political statement than it does a solution. OTOH... Marc Emery may be a collateral winner in this lil battle.
 

MMMike

Council Member
Mar 21, 2005
1,410
1
38
Toronto
Though no precise estimates are available, Toronto police have said repeatedly that almost half the gun crimes committed in Canada involved illegal, U.S. weapons.

:lol: :lol: But I don't understand... how can we have a problem with illegal guns when we have our $2 billion gun registry?? Do you mean to tell me that the criminals are actually not registering their weapons? I'm shocked. :eek:
 

MMMike

Council Member
Mar 21, 2005
1,410
1
38
Toronto
On what basis are they going to sue the gun manufacturers?? I see nothing in the story that suggests that they are breaking US law, or Canadian law. Its the gun smugglers that are breaking the law.

The so called gun problem here in Toronto is only a problem if you are a gang member. The vast majority of shootings and murders are turf wars - gang on gang violence. I say let these guys kill each other.

You want to stop gun smuggling, and gun crime at the same time? Address the root cause (you lefties like that term, no?): our draconian drug laws. Legalize everything, and no more turf wars, no more shootings, no more gun smuggling.
 

Reverend Blair

Council Member
Apr 3, 2004
1,238
1
38
Winnipeg
That's a stupid argument, MMMike. Whether you agree with the registry or not, you have to acknowledge that requiring registration means that there is at least a way to get guns off the street before they are used.

We should be searching every car coming north until the US changes its laws, but you'd be screaming like a little girl if we did that too. Instead of of just bitching, why not suggest a realistic solution. Keep in mind that the majority of Canadians want gun control, so just getting rid of the registry and not replacing it with something is not a realistic solution.
 

missile

House Member
Dec 1, 2004
4,846
17
38
Saint John N.B.
I can understand the option of suing a manufacturer when a product fails to work properly,but,by all accounts,the products in question have done just what they were made for.
 

MMMike

Council Member
Mar 21, 2005
1,410
1
38
Toronto
Re: RE: Ten Paces then DRAW!

Reverend Blair said:
That's a stupid argument, MMMike. Whether you agree with the registry or not, you have to acknowledge that requiring registration means that there is at least a way to get guns off the street before they are used.

We should be searching every car coming north until the US changes its laws, but you'd be screaming like a little girl if we did that too. Instead of of just bitching, why not suggest a realistic solution. Keep in mind that the majority of Canadians want gun control, so just getting rid of the registry and not replacing it with something is not a realistic solution.

Your argument about the registry sound to me like: " because they have to follow the law they can't break the law". Like it or not, criminals don't register their guns.

The US could use the same argument back on us wrt marijuana: they should search every car coming south until Canada changes its drug laws.
 

Reverend Blair

Council Member
Apr 3, 2004
1,238
1
38
Winnipeg
Your argument about the registry sound to me like: " because they have to follow the law they can't break the law". Like it or not, criminals don't register their guns.

Not at all. Consider this...the police raid a house for drugs. They know that the occupants are dealing crack, but all they find is a little pot. They also find some unregistered guns. Right now they can confiscate those guns and press charges for possession of unregistered firearms. Under your system, or lack thereof, they could not press those charges and those guns, being kept for the purposes of crime, would remain on the street.

You are screaming for law and order, but you don't want to give the police the tools to work with.

The US could use the same argument back on us wrt marijuana: they should search every car coming south until Canada changes its drug laws.

Let them.
 

MMMike

Council Member
Mar 21, 2005
1,410
1
38
Toronto
And how many guns have been removed by the registry? How many lives saved? How many lived would have been saved if we poured $2 billion into cancer research or environmental protection? Its great that the registry makes some lefties sleep good at night but it is a poor use of precious money.
 

Nascar_James

Council Member
Jun 6, 2005
1,640
0
36
Oklahoma, USA
Re: RE: Ten Paces then DRAW!

Reverend Blair said:
That's a stupid argument, MMMike. Whether you agree with the registry or not, you have to acknowledge that requiring registration means that there is at least a way to get guns off the street before they are used.

2 billion dollars at the hands of taxpayers and at the inconvenience of law abiding gun owners and yet Canada still has criminals walking around with guns. What a waste of money.

Reverend Blair said:
We should be searching every car coming north until the US changes its laws, but you'd be screaming like a little girl if we did that too. Instead of of just bitching, why not suggest a realistic solution. Keep in mind that the majority of Canadians want gun control, so just getting rid of the registry and not replacing it with something is not a realistic solution.

US Congress very recently approved protecting gun makers from lawsuits (see link below). So if Americans can't sue the gunmakers, what on earth would make Canadian politicians think they have an edge? We should be going after those perpetrating the gun crimes, not the gun makers.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,172896,00.html
 

Canucklehead

Moderator
Apr 6, 2005
797
11
18
Re: RE: Ten Paces then DRAW!

US Congress very recently approved protecting gun makers from lawsuits (see link below). So if Americans can't sue the gunmakers, what on earth would make Canadian politicians think they have an edge? We should be going after those perpetrating the gun crimes, not the gun makers.

The Canadian government has taken a hands-off, relaxed view of drug laws(pot/hash/oil only), including the sale of naturally occuring plant seeds. What makes the U.S. think they can bully us into arresting our own citizens for something that is a crime in another country. This is tit-for-tat... and with the attitudes down south these days there will prolly be more of it coming down the pipe.
 

Reverend Blair

Council Member
Apr 3, 2004
1,238
1
38
Winnipeg
First of all, MMMike, "lefties" are split on registration. It's a Liberal plan and the Liberals are conservative. It is an issue that splits along urban/rural lines, not left/right lines.

MMMikey said:
And how many guns have been removed by the registry?

A lot, according to the police. Not only are unregistered and illegal guns removed, but stolen guns are more easily tracable leading to more criminals.

How many lives saved?

How many lives would be saved by doing nothing, which is the position your side takes.

How many lived would have been saved if we poured $2 billion into cancer research or environmental protection?

Let's pour $2 billion into each of those things and see.

Its great that the registry makes some lefties sleep good at night but it is a poor use of precious money.

It always comes down to money with you guys, doesn't it? If the registry has saved one life is that worth $2 billion? How about two lives? Does it matter if saved the life of a rich person or a poor person? Is a lawyer's life worth more than somebody on welfare? What about the life of a criminal? What is a human life worth to you, MMMikey?
 

Nascar_James

Council Member
Jun 6, 2005
1,640
0
36
Oklahoma, USA
Re: RE: Ten Paces then DRAW!

Canucklehead said:
US Congress very recently approved protecting gun makers from lawsuits (see link below). So if Americans can't sue the gunmakers, what on earth would make Canadian politicians think they have an edge? We should be going after those perpetrating the gun crimes, not the gun makers.

The Canadian government has taken a hands-off, relaxed view of drug laws(pot/hash/oil only), including the sale of naturally occuring plant seeds. What makes the U.S. think they can bully us into arresting our own citizens for something that is a crime in another country. This is tit-for-tat... and with the attitudes down south these days there will prolly be more of it coming down the pipe.

In case you forget Canucklehead, we are still living in a state of law. Guns are legal, drugs are not. We need to respect the law. I am a law abiding gun owner (own several guns) however, I do not engage in illegal drug activity.
 

Nascar_James

Council Member
Jun 6, 2005
1,640
0
36
Oklahoma, USA
Reverend Blair said:
and the Liberals are conservative.


 

Reverend Blair

Council Member
Apr 3, 2004
1,238
1
38
Winnipeg
You know nothing about politics, Nascar Nero.

It's too bad you don't engage in illegal drug activity...it'd give you an excuse for your lack of judgement.
 

Canucklehead

Moderator
Apr 6, 2005
797
11
18
MMMike,

I think most people, left, right & centre believe the gun registry is a joke. It does buggerall to reduce illegal weapons and causes undue expenses on farmers etc who actually use the things for a constructive purpose. People in cities don't need guns and these are the ones I'd agree need to register them. As for reducing gun crime... noone really believed the registry would have any effect on it outside of politcal circles.
I've said it before, been saying it for two decades and will parrot it once again...Canada should be searching each and every car coming into the country for weapons but the government was/is too f*cking concerned with the economics of it all. When it comes to ensuring a safe, respectful society, economics must come second.
 

Nascar_James

Council Member
Jun 6, 2005
1,640
0
36
Oklahoma, USA
Re: RE: Ten Paces then DRAW!

Canucklehead said:
MMMike,

People in cities don't need guns and these are the ones I'd agree need to register them.

I live in the city and take my guns to the indoor shooting range on week-ends. Does the government have a right in telling me to give up my hobby? What about the gun collectors?
 

Canucklehead

Moderator
Apr 6, 2005
797
11
18
Re: RE: Ten Paces then DRAW!

Nascar_James said:
Canucklehead said:
US Congress very recently approved protecting gun makers from lawsuits (see link below). So if Americans can't sue the gunmakers, what on earth would make Canadian politicians think they have an edge? We should be going after those perpetrating the gun crimes, not the gun makers.

The Canadian government has taken a hands-off, relaxed view of drug laws(pot/hash/oil only), including the sale of naturally occuring plant seeds. What makes the U.S. think they can bully us into arresting our own citizens for something that is a crime in another country. This is tit-for-tat... and with the attitudes down south these days there will prolly be more of it coming down the pipe.

In case you forget Canucklehead, we are still living in a state of law. Guns are legal, drugs are not. We need to respect the law. I am a law abiding gun owner (own several guns) however, I do not engage in illegal drug activity.


Perhaps you should reconsider that... it may help :p ;)

Guns are legal in the U.S., yes. Drugs are not... ok. Up here guns are completely illegal and drugs are only illegal on the books because of U.S. pressure. Again, I say drugs and mean it to be natural, not synthetic. There is no difference between the gun case and the drug case. Why can't you see that? Imposing Canada's views/laws on the U.S. or any country is wrong in so many ways but at this point it's the only thing we have left to do to make apoint since the U.S. consistently ignores our concerns when they don't fit into the U.S. grand scheme of things.
 

Nascar_James

Council Member
Jun 6, 2005
1,640
0
36
Oklahoma, USA
Re: RE: Ten Paces then DRAW!

Reverend Blair said:
You know nothing about politics, Nascar Nero.

It's too bad you don't engage in illegal drug activity...it'd give you an excuse for your lack of judgement.

tsk tsk ... in denial again, Rev. Too bad.
 

Canucklehead

Moderator
Apr 6, 2005
797
11
18
Re: RE: Ten Paces then DRAW!

Nascar_James said:
Canucklehead said:
MMMike,

People in cities don't need guns and these are the ones I'd agree need to register them.

I live in the city and take my guns to the indoor shooting range on week-ends. Does the governmet have a right in telling me to give up my hobby? What about the gun collectors?

Actually, yes they do, if it means a safer society as a whole. I suppose a good question at this point is what are the storage requirements for firearms in the U.S for city residents? Are any secure cases/racks required or is it basically as seen-on-tv where Joe-Paranoid leaves a loaded 44 in the nightstand drawer?
 

Nascar_James

Council Member
Jun 6, 2005
1,640
0
36
Oklahoma, USA
Re: RE: Ten Paces then DRAW!

Canucklehead said:
Nascar_James said:
Canucklehead said:
US Congress very recently approved protecting gun makers from lawsuits (see link below). So if Americans can't sue the gunmakers, what on earth would make Canadian politicians think they have an edge? We should be going after those perpetrating the gun crimes, not the gun makers.

The Canadian government has taken a hands-off, relaxed view of drug laws(pot/hash/oil only), including the sale of naturally occuring plant seeds. What makes the U.S. think they can bully us into arresting our own citizens for something that is a crime in another country. This is tit-for-tat... and with the attitudes down south these days there will prolly be more of it coming down the pipe.

In case you forget Canucklehead, we are still living in a state of law. Guns are legal, drugs are not. We need to respect the law. I am a law abiding gun owner (own several guns) however, I do not engage in illegal drug activity.


Perhaps you should reconsider that... it may help :p ;)

Guns are legal in the U.S., yes. Drugs are not... ok. Up here guns are completely illegal and drugs are only illegal on the books because of U.S. pressure. Again, I say drugs and mean it to be natural, not synthetic. There is no difference between the gun case and the drug case. Why can't you see that? Imposing Canada's views/laws on the U.S. or any country is wrong in so many ways but at this point it's the only thing we have left to do to make apoint since the U.S. consistently ignores our concerns when they don't fit into the U.S. grand scheme of things.

Not so, Canucklehead. When I was living in Montreal I owned a handgun since I was a member of a gun club (part of the shooting gallery I attended). It was a big hassle to get the gun license as I needed to get references and the police had to approve my permit, but got it nonetheless. It was ridiculous. I had to literally call up the police before I left my home with my gun to drive to the shooting range and had to fasten the unloaded gun on the back of my pickup truck. Not to mention having to travel only on specific streets. I could not take detours, say to have lunch along the way. It was way to much. However, I still had my hobby.