Firearms in Canada are so entrenched in our culture that it is a de facto right of ownership.Quote:
Originally Posted by fishermccann
With the millions in circulation good luck with that statement.
Printable View
Firearms in Canada are so entrenched in our culture that it is a de facto right of ownership.Quote:
Originally Posted by fishermccann
With the millions in circulation good luck with that statement.
Okay, they won't be 'gone', just put into hiding and unable to use. De facto , does not work in a court of law.
Only a trolls anti firearm wish.....lolQuote:
Originally Posted by fishermccann
Even your leader JT said he had no intention of touching "deer hunters firearms"
It would be political suicide for any party.
Why do you even speculate and bring it up except to once again troll firearms threads.
Why ? Because a poster said it was his 'right' to have firearms. I was just correcting him. In Canada it is not a 'right'. It is incorrect to say so. I have many firearms, I am not an anti.
Well your contradicting yourself. In a previous post you said you had no firearms. Let me dig that one up for you to refresh your memory.Quote:
Originally Posted by fishermccann
Please do.....I have never , ever, said that I have no firearms. As many on here can attest, I have always said that I am a multiple firearms owner. Plus Excal and Bear bows. It is a privilege to have my guns, not my right.
In Canada you have the right to own property...that includes a Firearm. You are however required to follow the rules as laid out in the Firearms Act..ie be Licensed etc..Quote:
Originally Posted by impact
Quote:
In one significant development after 1983, on 15 October 1987, Mr. John Reimer M.P. introduced a motion in the House of Commons to amend the Constitution Act, 1982 so as to include property rights within the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Mr. Reimer’s motion was amended so that it expressed support in principle for a property rights amendment, rather than proposing such a specific amendment itself. The motion, as amended, was adopted by a 108 to 16 vote, and thus became a resolution of the House, as follows:
That in the opinion of this House, the Constitution Act, 1982 should be amended in order to recognize the right to enjoyment of property, and the right not to be deprived thereof, except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice, and in keeping with the tradition of the usual federal-provincial consultative process.
MP....Try to tell that to someone, who had that 'right', revoked. Maybe by an upset ex -wife. 'He threatened me',...... privilege gone... but you have the 'right' , to go to court.
I dug one up to refresh YOUR MEMORY https://www.oodmag.com/community/sho...-Problem/page2Quote:
Originally Posted by impact
Post # 12
G. Don't worry about it....... Impact has been around here long enough, to know what he stated was untrue.