SCC Rules 5-4 to Scrap Gun Registry data

I haven't read the entire ruling,but,it appears to me that the SCC struck down Quebec's attempt to save the data to use in their own registry. If that's the case,then,Quebec must destroy all records making any attempt at starting their own registry null and void,given the previous Alberta ruling that everything pertaining to firearms is the sole domain and authority of the federal government. This is a huge victory for us. The data could have been used to backdoor another registry by another federal government. Now,they'll need to start from scratch. Given the political disaster of the last attempt by The Liberal Party of Canada,it would be sheer lunacy for them to try it again.

Ok... when you read this try not to laugh too hard. Quebec Minister is telling everyone that the registry will cost only $30 million!

Now then, according to several sources I have read there are some 500,000 gun owners in Quebec. So for just $60 each, they will create a registry. Is it just me or does that math not work?

If they are right, then the simple way to pay for the registry is to make all 500,00 gun owners pay $100 each to register their firearms. It might go over better if one was allowed to register multiple for a single tax of $100

Actually the registry had quite a bit of support in Quebec. Expect Harper's poor numbers to get worse over this which is why I find the timing of the ruling suspicious. Not unlike why Wynne didn't have to go into the election with the OPP investigation findings. Quebec can't afford a registry so I can't see it materializing until the next election as a carrot and only if polling pretty well guarantees a good return on it.

I honestly believe that if a provincial gun registry was a viable possibility,McGuinty-Wynne would have been all over it like a hound on a hamburger. Quebec has always been the Canadian "wild child",so,really,who knows what the idiots are capable of,but,there has to be some reason no other Liberal government has broached the idea,especially B.C. with their left wing weenies.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by terrym

Expect Harper's poor numbers to get worse over this which is why I find the timing of the ruling suspicious.

---

His numbers may get worse but as to being "suspicious," this makes no sense as 7 of the 9 current justices were appointed by Harper and if they are in anybody's pocket it would be his.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Species8472

His numbers may get worse but as to being "suspicious," this makes no sense as 7 of the 9 current justices were appointed by Harper and if they are in anybody's pocket it would be his.

---

Oh I'm aware of that. But he has been sparring with SC and they have kneecapped quite a bit of his bills so I don't think the court belongs to Harper even if he appointed them. I see them as thinking they are demigods who feel they can make laws not just interpret the charter.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by terrym

Oh I'm aware of that. But he has been sparring with SC and they have kneecapped quite a bit of his bills so I don't think the court belongs to Harper even if he appointed them. I see them as thinking they are demigods who feel they can make laws not just interpret the charter.

---

As long as they are not knee-capping based on political views I think this is fine (and the fact that they are willing to shoot down the bills of their appointer supports this) as they are supposed to be independent i.e. kneecap anything that is unjust regardless of where it comes from. As far as creating laws goes, this is one of their (and any judge's) roles as much of our system is largely based on case-law and not just interpreting the charter.

For the record I generally don't have a lot of use for lawyers (too many in the family) but think for the most the SCC does a good job.

I agree with the first part of your comment but not the part about judges making laws. The day they become elected and have to answer to the people every 4 years maybe but not until then.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by terrym

I agree with the first part of your comment but not the part about judges making laws. The day they become elected and have to answer to the people every 4 years maybe but not until then.

---

Not sure if elected judges are better or not as you than get into the circus that they have south of the border. Our system has been this way since before Canada was a country and goes back over 800 years in England. No system is perfect but on the balance I would say our system works pretty well when I look at what happens elsewhere.

Yup. I would like to see term limits though. At all levels. Municipal, Provincial and Federal. I would like to see the loopholes closed that the Working Families Coalition/Unions use to buy every election too. Not sure it being 800 years old makes it the best it can be in these times. They used to burn witches too.....