Ya lol, also mortars, would have been nice for those high flying geese
Printable View
Ya lol, also mortars, would have been nice for those high flying geese
I was watching the second reading on on YouTube last night over bill c21 I feel that liberal party were caught off guard with some of the guns that are in the list RCMP were the ones that added to the list of guns to the new amendment it seems to me the list was not properly reviewed…just my thought
All the Liberal MP's took it for granted that none of the firearms on the list fell into the hunting catagory,espousing as much to constituents. All of a sudden,they're finding they've been lied to,constituents are beginning to question them and they have no answers,looking like bald-faced liars. Some of them need to start to be concerned because,surely,they have a lot of trouble with being outright lied to,especially,the Liberal supporters who happen to be firearms owners and hunters. The lies are blatant and staring them right in the face.....undeniably. There must be,at least,a modicum of sense of betrayal. Let's hope it translates into lost votes.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fatfish949i
I wish that this were true and that this was actually an issue that enough cared about to make a difference. I believe the sad reality is that gun owners are low hanging fruit. The liberals can offend, piss off and alienate them and it does nothing to weaken their voter base. Unless there is a paradigm shift in this country we are all fooked.Quote:
Originally Posted by trimmer21
They will gradually ban every gun making it prohibited then they will come out with a strict expensive storage law that will make you want to red flag yourself just to get them off your propertyQuote:
Originally Posted by greatwhite
I think your correct here to a certain extent but I would put it to you that the Conservatives also consider the gun owners to be low hanging fruit.Quote:
Originally Posted by Species8472
Why are the Conservatives and all the gun supporting Provinces, Gun advocate groups, Hunter organisations not showing a UNITED FRONT and launching a massive public relations campaign for their cause. The public need to be educated about the NUMBER of hunters especially in the country, who we all are including Aboriginal Peoples and Liberal voters.
But what happens the Conservatives especially the far right only ATTACK Aboriginal Peoples who they really should be on their side in the hunting issue.
The Liberals sit back and play it smart and all they need to say at present is "The Conservatives want to give back assault rifles" the Conservatives let them do this.
To make it even worse Alberta with the Sovereignty Act will now go alone in their firearms fight which further weakens the gun lobby. Divided and conquered by themselves.
SUPPORT HUNTERS IN CANADA, THEY ARE YOUR NEIGHBOURS,YOUR LOCAL POLICE,YOUR LOCAL FIRE DEPARTMENT,YOUR MILITARY SERVING AND RETIRED,
LAWYERS,DOCTORS..........
Look back at my posts over the years. I’ve been saying roughly the same thing. We sit and squabble at each other over politics. We play defence way too much. Time to UNITE and EDUCATE!! Let’s go on the offence for a change.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gilroy
Regardless of our political views, more or less we are on the same page regarding firearms.
Gilroy
Yes some conservative members have been down with the agenda. Ford I believe is one of them. But most of the liberals cabinet are on the agenda.
The agenda has been decades in the making and the agenda is disarming the public as much as possible.
So yes some conservative are ok with disarming the public. The bigger picture is that's the plan the plan to eliminate as many guns from the public.
They planned for an angrier world wonder why lol. Guess it has nothing to do with controlling you and what you own do or say.
If the people were happy there wouldn't be an angrier world. They said it would be .
Did you also miss the memo from g20 and b20
Many will suffer from the agenda because that will happen in order to reshape society. To biuld back better. Aka equals less guns
Don't worry thought lots will be ok while many others will suffer from the cost to transition the world.
Sent from my SM-G975W using Tapatalk
It mainly depends who the person sides with. The WEF has been using public officials to implement policies for along time now.Quote:
Originally Posted by Birdbuff
This was the concern many had about Pierre running. People don't want him connected in any way. It seems like a conspiracy but if you do enough digging into the facts.
Shwab even spoke at both the g20 and b20 what country does he represent again? Oh all of them lol.
This is the problem that many have against Smith. She is a threat to them. She is standing up against them in an attempt to save your guns and much more.
Sent from my SM-G975W using Tapatalk
Montreal Canadiens goalie Carie Price posted on his Instagram account taking a stand against Bill C-21.
https://www.instagram.com/p/CltiUvFuwtE/
I spoke to a friend who saw the inside of a gunsafe at his 83 year old uncle’s house. Two Heym drills, one Rigby, and three Holland and Hollands (drills and side by sides). The H&H’s are still in the original velvet cases with tools, etc. They are all big African calibers like 540 nitro, 416 Rigby. One of the H&h’s ( 1920s man. Date) alone is appraised at $263,000 USD !!!!!! What is this guy able to do legally with these if the proposed changes go through ? This stuff is priceless art.
Since i am not impacted with this newest proposal......... do not really know the law if it can still be sold!Quote:
Originally Posted by Fenelon
BUT
If it is still OK to sell-Sell them before they will lose any value or it will be illegal to sell them at all.
Pretty much agree, I know back in the day, the auction houses on Queen Street in Toronto like Waddington's could sell these types of rifles all day long. Most of the big bore buyers were from places like Germany and bid's done online or over the phone. Prices fetched were always high and guns used for safari's I would imagine there would also be South African Buyers.Quote:
Originally Posted by gbk
Omg I didn’t realize that those Holland and Holland guns are worth that much. Some of them on Christies are over $350,000! His one Heym is probably worth at least $50,000.
And therein lies the problem with the current bill as written. These rifles have only one purpose - hunting big and dangerous game. And you can be sure that is all they would every by used for. Yet, legal today, banned tomorrow. I'm sure this guy isn't the only one with guns of this value.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fenelon
And that why all this ,what is happening around guns in Canada is totally -unfair, unjust and border line crime.Quote:
Originally Posted by delmer
Every LEGALLY purchased item has to be treated as-legal property of the owner, to be used legally as the product is intended for.
If the Government in their might decides to "limit"any previous acceptable "use"of a legally purchased firearm-they would need to pay up, pronto ,and the TOTALLY fair value.
Not vacillating,putting limits and roadblocks ,then waiting for the value of the legally purchased item to lose much of its value-then cough up some money few years "after" the law is made.
The legal owner should be able to sell to the same Governement -again ,for fair price(see above)all impacted AMMO for the "confiscated"item,with ALL acessories, which were legally bought to be used"exclusively "for the item.
Then-maybe then-they would think twice to expand the inventory of banned items.
Wait-maybe i am dreaming.
The feathers of the usual group were ruffled. When he posted on Instagram, it was as a private citizen. He wasn't wearing his uniform, or being interviewed during a game. Plus, being an aboriginal definitely stirs the pot. I see that the Montreal hockey club quickly went into damage control, making a donation and issuing an apology for Price's comments. And, since Price isn't playing and winning games for the team, the Montreal media has turned on him too.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam Menard
https://montrealgazette.com/opinion/...its-not-pretty
When the Montreal Gazette reporter can tell the difference between a shotgun and a rifle maybe we can take the article seriously.Quote:
Originally Posted by delmer
"It all started over the weekend, when Price posted a picture of himself to Instagram sporting camouflage and cradling a rifle?
Lol you got me cracking up Gilroy
Heck even a Liberal like me can tell the difference, but even at that it was black and scary. LOLQuote:
Originally Posted by hunter06
So according to the writer, Price offended the good citizens of Montreal and the fans of the Canadiens. These are the same clowns that gave Maurice “Mom” Boucher (late leader of the Hells Angels) a standing ovation at a hockey game.
What's wrong with that, we had Mel Lastman former Mayor of Toronto welcome the Hells Angels with open arms and after him Rob Ford shaking hands with another HA. LOLQuote:
Originally Posted by Sam Menard
I think all the mainstream said it lol. I noticed that in the first link.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gilroy
Sent from my SM-G975W using Tapatalk
He went against the narrative. Typical demonize him and put him in the wrong lol. He's the bad guy .Quote:
Originally Posted by delmer
Sent from my SM-G975W using Tapatalk
since trudeau owns the media the smear campaign begins on Price - how dare he speak out against the narrative of the United Nations and WEF who control our puppet trudeau...Quote:
Originally Posted by fishfood
Im glad Carey Price spoke out..hoping to see more individuals do the same...
They are doing it now with elon all mainstream bashing him . He is a threat to democracy they said lol. Now blasting him over the brain chips since his part 1 of the Twitter files being released. They blamed the reporter pr work for the richest man in the world they all said lol. The truth must be toldQuote:
Originally Posted by kokes
I don't even own a gun yet I stand and sign the bills because I know they are not the issue.
The issue is the illegal ones like the 65 they just found in Toronto. Good work on them for a good bust yet still just a small blip of what's really out there. That's probably coming in almost daily or the minimum weekly.
They are the ones causing the majority of crimes not the ones they are trying to take away. The one's they are taking was already planned to be taken away aka the agenda.
It's to help biuld back better
Sent from my SM-G975W using Tapatalk
I have another one for you. This should clear up the whole issue.Quote:
Originally Posted by hunter06
"Murray Smith, a technical specialist for the RCMP’s Canadian firearms program, explained the list is not an exhaustive one, as sections of the criminal code already prohibit firearms — whether on the list or not — of certain characteristics, like being fully automatic or a sawed-off barrel.
When asked by committee member Taleeb Noormohamed if, for example, the inclusion of the Ruger No. 1 rifle meant all Ruger 1s were prohibited, Smith said only those rifles chambered for calibres capable of producing muzzle energy greater than 10,000 joules.
“Other Ruger No. 1 rifles, which are chambered for different cables that do not produce that level of energy will remain in the existing category, which broadly speaking, is non-restricted,” Smith said"
https://nationalpost.com/news/commit...endent-experts
The unfortunate part to this is if we don’t stand up and challenge the government on this, then they would ban everything. Give an inch and they will take a mile.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gilroy
Here is a copy of MURRAY SMITH'S affidavit it contains some interesting information.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1lJr...GxvZp4kNl/view
It’s definitely not ok.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gilroy
Similar to the Ruger 1s, I have been saving for a Mark V Deluxe maybe continue to save for a Lasermark.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gilroy
Im thankful I hadn't purchased already. The lists I have seen speak nothing to calibre only brand and model.
This whole thing is a mess!
Spend the time and money on the border and enforcement in the cities.
Sent from my SM-S901W using Tapatalk
The whole thing is a mess because somebody decided to make Murray Smith GOD.Quote:
Originally Posted by chesapeake
Why is this guy deciding what comes and goes, they definitely need to get back to the drawing board or just leave things alone.
I wonder if Justine realises that if the Conservatives get back into power especially with a majority ALL THIS WILL GET REVERSED. Everybody will still have their guns, as there in not the police resources to find these guns.
You know when Harper finally got a majority government, I thought what you say might be the case, but instead of repealing the liberal 'Firearm Act.' His government merely added a few modifications . So don't expect that anything is likely to change much, with a change in government. The only radicals out there appear to be the CPP, that is if Max can be trusted, which I highly doubt.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gilroy
You don't stop hunting because you grow old. You grow old because you stop hunting.
- Gun Nut
The disbanding of the long gun registry was more than a "modification." By doing so Harper ended Liberal fantasies of civilian disarmament. If they can't find them and don't know who has them then they can't take them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gun Nut
That's only if you believe that registry was actually deleted...Quote:
Originally Posted by Badenoch
According to standard government data retention policies data is kept for 7 years, so those databases are still around. Won't be surprised, if they resurface just when moment is right
Sent from my moto g(8) power using Tapatalk
Even if there are illegal copies of the registry in existence the data in them is now over ten years old. Hardly enough to qualify for an investigation much less a search warrant.Quote:
Originally Posted by newbiehunter
Data was also down loaded into many databases by individual detachments where they had IT dept's. Not very hard would not take very long
Quote:
Originally Posted by newbiehunter
Well a funny paragraph appears at section 16 of the affidavitQuote:
Originally Posted by Badenoch
"Notice to the public about the Regulation
16. Between May 22 to June 5, 2020, a generic one-page information sheet titled,
“Announcement of a Firearms Prohibition” was mailed to 2.2 million individuals with a
valid firearms license. The information sheet provided information about the changes that
came about as a result of the Regulation, and where license holders could obtain more
information. Owners of firearms that were classified as restricted prior to May 1 2020,
and were prohibited by the Regulation, were also provided with individualized letters
advising them of the change.
I do not know about you but I never received any notice in the mail?
ANNOUNCEMENT OF A FIREARMS PROHIRITION
On May 1, 2020, the Government of Canada
reclassified the following firearms and
devices as prohibited:
• Nine (9) types of firearms by make and
model,and their variants;
• Firearms with a bore of 20 mm or greater,
and those capable of discharging a
projectile with a muzzle energy greater than
10,000 Joules;
• Upper receivers of M16, AR-10,AR-15 and
M4 pattern firearms.
WHAT THIS MEANS FOR YOU:
1. An amnesty has been introduced which
protects owners who were in legal
possession of one or more of these newly
prohibited firearms or devices on the day
the amendments to the Classification
Regulations came into force, May 1, 2020.
2. The Government intends to implement
a buy-back program and is looking at a
range of options. More information on the
buy-back program will be available at a
later date.
As the holder of a valid firearms licence,
you are being contacted by the Canadian
Firearms Program as you may be in
possession of one of these firearms.
WHAT ARE YOUR OPTIONS?
WHAT YOU SHOULD
KNOW ABOUT THESE
FIREARMS/DEVICES:
1. Wait for further instructions to participate in the
buy-back program.
2. Have your firearm deactivated by an approved
business.
3. Legally export your firearm, in which case
individuals can engage businesses with the
proper firearms privileges.
1. Owners of newly prohibited firearms are to keep
them securely stored in accordance with their
previous classification.
2. They cannot be sold or imported.
3. They may only be transported under limited
circumstances.
4. They cannot be legally used for hunting unless
allowed through the Amnesty Order.*
5. They cannot be used for sport shooting, either at
a range or elsewhere.
MORE INFORMATION:
For a list of newly prohibited firearms
and information about the
announcement or amnesty, go to the
Canadian Firearms Program website:
www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/en/firearms
*Exceptions are included under the Amnesty Order to allow for the continued
use of the newly prohibited firearms and/or devices (if previously non-
restricted) by individuals who hunt or trap to sustain themselves or their
families, and by Indigenous persons exercising Aboriginal or treaty rights to
hunt At the end of the amnesty period; all firearm owners must comply with
the new taw.
Canada
Not a single person I know has received this.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gilroy
To some degree it would still be quite useful. I doubt many people trade, sell their guns very often.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Badenoch
Any old information, is just that, old. People die, people inherit, people sell/give away. I don't really care if there are old copies of the registry stashed away somewhere, they mean nothing today.Quote:
Originally Posted by greatwhite
I agree. It is possible the police could know the information but couldn't act upon it because they would be acting upon information that was ordered destroyed by law. Getting caught with it would be put them into a mess of considerable proportions.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bushmoose
Actually I think that I did, but I didn’t own any firearms that would have been an issueQuote:
Originally Posted by greatwhite
https://youtu.be/9fcSICnavzI
Sent from my SM-G975W using Tapatalk
Mainstream has enough time for a apologies . But no time for the thousands of farm owners who will loose their land in the name of climate change.
https://youtu.be/Zkpcm_Ea_nU
Sent from my SM-G975W using Tapatalk
Now that you mention it, I do recall getting mail from the RCMP about this, but I didn't pay much attention to it because it was old news to me by the time I received it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gilroy
Sadly , the man who killed the condo board members yesterday used a semi automatic. That will definitely affect the citizens' feeling about the gun ban policy.
Was a handgun though so he either had a restricted license or it was an illegal gun.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sharon
Hopefully it doesn't effect the latest list since none of them would have played a roll.
Still a tragic event my condolences to the victims and family.
Sent from my SM-G975W using Tapatalk
He was 73 with a history of mental illness; if he was able to get a restricted license that speaks to the problem.
Especially with a history with the board I don't see how he would be able to keep it if police had been notified in the past problems.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sharon
Sent from my SM-G975W using Tapatalk
There’s no evidence to show it was a legal gun.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sharon
Edit, just noticed you said if he could get a license.
Unless I missed something, all i see is that he had legal issues with the Board. Nothing nafarious? The law can't just swoop in and take your guns because you may be involved in a court case of a civil nature?Quote:
Originally Posted by fishfood
No amount of law will prevent a person going off the deep end.
Agreed. Lots of legal wrangling but no threats or anything that would raise red flagsQuote:
Originally Posted by Bushmoose
I guess it would all depend on what alterations happened in past if any treats were made they can take them. This has been going on for years with this guyQuote:
Originally Posted by Bushmoose
I know a couple now trying to get their guns back from a dispute with a neighbor. Apparently cops told them if they keep the guns they would drop the charges they are in court now trying to get them back lol.
The way this guy says it at 2 20 minutes in he already knew it could get bad.
The community were saddened but not surprised.
https://youtu.be/r4pHOq2pWGI
Sent from my SM-G975W using Tapatalk
I waiting to hear if the pistol was registered or not. Since they have the gun they already should know if it was registered.
I'm guessing it wasn't.
Was pretty sad to see the media pushing the anti gun agenda. All they were saying at first is it was a semi- automatic gun that was used. No mention that it was a handgun.
Nothing from the media surprises me,anymore.............absolutely nothing.Quote:
Originally Posted by hunter06
https://apple.news/AzJ4SeYMVR6W18oyRTO4Dww
[emoji849]
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I think the same thing.Quote:
Originally Posted by greatwhite
Also on the news they said he was known in the past for being aggressive and threatened those people on the condo board
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Well that would be the better scenario for the Police as they could wash their hands of any responsibility. The gun and the guys use of it was illegal.Quote:
Originally Posted by greatwhite
But last night on the news coverage several people that lived in the condo and knew the suspect stated he had a "gun permit".
So lets go with that for just now and we can probably assume he had a PAL for a restricted weapon.
If that alone is true and if it was a registered handgun then the issue really becomes a big problem.
I believe this guy probably was licensed and the gun was registered in part because The Chief of Police could not/would not answer the reporters questions about both questions.
How Come? Very simple check on CPIC on the Firearms Registry would reveal both answers.
So the main question for me ASUMING I am right about the above IS HOW WAS THIS CLEARLY MENTALLY DISTURBED MAN STILL IN POSSESSION OF SAID LICENSE AND GUN.
The Police had been to his home on SEVERAL OCCASSIONS to speak to him about complaints from other tenants about his aggressive and unruly behaviour.
Did they not ever think to check if this guy had access to a firearm.
What about the suspects relatives, could they not have done something to help this man with his mental issues.
This case screams out for this fellow to have been FLAGGED BY THE SYSTEM, but it looks like he fell right through the cracks.
Nobody made a report that generated a hit on the 24 hr a day surveillance on CPIC of a gun owner that would indicate he was a danger to himself or others?
So just another case of societal breakdown where everybody is keeping in their lane and nobody is paying attention or caring about their fellow man. The cost of this apathy is bad for society and very bad for gun owners.
264 FRIENDS ON FACEBOOK AND NOBODY RECOGNIZED THIS GUY WAS mentally ill, HIS OWN POSTED PHOTOGRAPHS CLEARLY SHOW THIS.
https://www.facebook.com/francesco.villi.963/friends
https://www.facebook.com/francesco.v...41195074042359
I wonder what his lawyer is thinking now about this recorded phone call.
Exactly! I noted the same thing. The frustrating part is with almost every case where there's a mass shooting,people KNEW the shooter was severely troubled and/or mentally unbalanced,yet,they said nothing despite the fact we have laws on the books that law enforcement may use to remove firearms from the equation. What is the sense of having all these laws if nobody,especially,law enforcement who has access to ample data doesn't use them?Quote:
Originally Posted by Gilroy
Just wanted to add that there has been cases where good citizens have reported “troubled” people but the police really can’t do anything until a law has been broken. Additionally, getting treatment for mental health issues can be very difficult. The worst part is that people with mental health issues don’t realize, or accept that they are ill. Many think that everyone else is nuts.Quote:
Originally Posted by trimmer21
The minute police learn that a PAL/RPAL holder or an immediate family member has become ill with mental illness,there's provisions in The Firearms Act that give them the authority to remove firearms from the owner. It can be done the easy way by convincing the owner to move the firearms off the premises (in the case of an ill family member) or the hard way by immediately seizing them and dealing with the "i" dotting and "t" crossing later.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam Menard
I would think (hope) that the police need solid information before they seize firearms. It’s a double-edge sword… they need tools to protect the population, however Section 8 of the Charter protects us from unreasonable search and seizure.Quote:
Originally Posted by trimmer21
Yeh you right and I noted the same concern right away, but by the second MSM report CBC they said it was a semi auto handgun and CTO reporter openly asked the Chief of Police if the owner was licensed and gun registered and he said he did not know. To date they have not confirmed if he was licensed.Quote:
Originally Posted by hunter06
There is something fishy about this as its a ten second check on CPIC to confirm both or not.
It's such a shame.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ashes1
Only some hunting guns should be available to the public. What happens to the sport shooters who do not hunt guess they don't get a vote lol.
Sent from my SM-G975W using Tapatalk
The more important law and section is below and did this shooter fit into any of the section,s BUT even if he did an occurrence or incident report would need to have been generated to get the CPFO involved via a registry flag.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam Menard
5 (1) A person is not eligible to hold a licence if it is desirable, in the interests of the safety of that or any other person, that the person not possess a firearm, a cross-bow, a prohibited weapon, a restricted weapon, a prohibited device, ammunition or prohibited ammunition.
Marginal note:Criteria
(2) In determining whether a person is eligible to hold a licence under subsection (1), a chief firearms officer or, on a reference under section 74, a provincial court judge shall have regard to whether the person
(a) has been convicted or discharged under section 730 of the Criminal Code of
(i) an offence in the commission of which violence against another person was used, threatened or attempted,
(ii) an offence under this Act or Part III of the Criminal Code,
(iii) an offence under section 264 of the Criminal Code (criminal harassment),
(iv) an offence relating to the contravention of subsection 5(1) or (2), 6(1) or (2) or 7(1) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, or
(v) an offence relating to the contravention of subsection 9(1) or (2), 10(1) or (2), 11(1) or (2), 12(1), (4), (5), (6) or (7), 13(1) or 14(1) of the Cannabis Act;
(b) has been treated for a mental illness, whether in a hospital, mental institute, psychiatric clinic or otherwise and whether or not the person was confined to such a hospital, institute or clinic, that was associated with violence or threatened or attempted violence on the part of the person against any person;
(c) has a history of behaviour that includes violence or threatened or attempted violence or threatening conduct on the part of the person against any person;
(d) is or was previously prohibited by an order — made in the interests of the safety and security of any person — from communicating with an identified person or from being at a specified place or within a specified distance of that place, and presently poses a threat or risk to the safety and security of any person;
(e) in respect of an offence in the commission of which violence was used, threatened or attempted against the person’s intimate partner or former intimate partner, was previously prohibited by a prohibition order from possessing any firearm, cross-bow, prohibited weapon, restricted weapon, prohibited device or prohibited ammunition; or
(f) for any other reason, poses a risk of harm to any person.
The Police can only seize immediately if there are exigent circumstances 117.2 Criminal Code.
I'm sorry I took this thread off the rails. I know better. :)
A new thread on the condo incident should be starting up soon, or perhaps one of you could start up a new thread on the condo situation.
Let's get back to the original post here concerning the new federal gun laws please.
That was the case in NS, that person was reported numerous times to the RCMP and so was his RCMP car and that he had a uniform.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam Menard
Twenty dollar bet (Charity of losers choice) that the gun was not registered or they will never tell us (limit 2 months) as Gilroy said it would take a few minutes to check.
Who wants to bet against me.
Well I think I will take that bet.Quote:
Originally Posted by greatwhite
I believe that the gun was registered and that this shooter had a firearms license.
Now I think if they can get away with not telling us they will try that, however I do not think they will be successful.
I will take the bet, so must be released in two months. That would be let's say Feb 20, 2023 by Noon.
Agreed?
By the way up front if I lose I will donate to the Canadian Diabetes Association (I'm Diabetic)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gilroy
Done.Quote:
Originally Posted by greatwhite
Canadian Cancer Society for my donation. Oh course I am pretty confident I will win.
Seems this guy has quite the history if you win then the Police will have to answer many many questions as to how he could have gotten a License.
But so far nothing is being said. :)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gilroy
It's a distinct possibility that the man had the gun in his possession long before there was legislation. He may have been one of thousands of people that never had a FAC, a RPAL and the gun was never registered in the system. Police would have never known unless someone reported him. From what his estranged family is saying,this guy was a real piece of work.
Very possible, the designation for restricted firearms did not begin until 1973 (I think). If he had the gun prior and did not report / register it there would be no record of it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by trimmer21
Quote:
Originally Posted by trimmer21
Well York Chief of Police apparently stated that " we have to stop guns getting across the border", this would indicate they may have traced it back to the USA using tracking/police resources down there.Quote:
Originally Posted by greatwhite
In which case the bet is looking better for GW.
Interesting that the estranged daughters have made no mention of a gun ever in his possession if he had a handgun any length of time you would think they would have known.
I’m somewhat surprised that there hasn’t been any noise from the gun haters supporting more bans.
With all due respect to the victims and their families, hunters are fortunate that a hunting rifle wasn’t used in this tragedy.
Restricted designation started in 1969.Quote:
Originally Posted by greatwhite
Even prior to that though permits and registration of hand guns has been a legal requirement since 1934 - they just weren't restricted.
So essentially there was a legal requirement for registration/permit for his entire life.
You could be quite right I wasn't born until 69. I am pretty sure the actual registry did not begin until 73. I do know my Grandfathers had handguns and hunted with them after the war and I do know they never had any permits and none were require in NS to buy a handgun at least until the 60's, my dad carried a handgun working for the CIBC from 69 - 73. He said that banks stopped carrying them because the requirements of registration became more expensive and it didn't seem necessary for their employees to carry them anymore (Managers generally carried them).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Species8472
Before the "green slips" handguns had to be registered with the local police. The make, model and caliber of an owners restricted firearms were handwritten on a little white folding card that owners were supposed to carry with them when shooting or transporting their guns. This is before my time too but I've run into these cards a couple of times when helping families deal with estates.Quote:
Originally Posted by greatwhite
If his gun was registered, you better believe the CBC would be running with that tidbit of information.
The fact that they won't release this info tells me it was an illegal possession.
The very first gun handed over to me was actually by the Bank Of Nova Scotia HQ in Toronto for disposal. From what I remember it was a snub nosed SW.38 cal revolver in nice shape.Quote:
Originally Posted by greatwhite
Pierre said he would reverse the rifles and shotgun ban because they are not the guns causing the problems. Merry Xmas.
Sent from my SM-G975W using Tapatalk
So I texted my Dad and he had a few different ones but remembers he did have a 38 revolver that held 6 shots and a 45 semi auto pistol that held 6 plus one in the chamber. he could not remember the makes.
My Dad did not actually like carrying a handgun for protection. He has nothing against them personally and has seen my pistols.
when he was first promoted to be a manger they handed him a gun and said he would need to carry this. He asked what if he did not want to carry one and was told that the gun was a must for the position.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gilroy
So it sounds as if they will just push the fair compensation . As justin says you can buy other guns lol.
Where have we heard or seen this before?
"It's going to involve a number of critical stakeholders and partners, including law enforcement. But we're also working with other levels of government. We're working with industry leaders, we're working with potential third parties. So we are exploring all of these options."
They respect you so they will pay a fair compensation,no mention of sport shoots besides the beginning around the ar15 and mini ruger not the only sport guns.
"We respect law abiding gun owners, including hunters and farmers and Indigenous Peoples. And we will take a fair and equitable approach when it comes to compensating them for firearms which are ultimately determined to be prohibited under Bill C-21," he said.
As GW has said some guns the same guns but look different lol. Meaning looks kill not the gun. Same gun same caliber but kills less because because it's not dressed up.
There is debate over exactly what is included and what is not, because the definition applies only to some variations of certain models that actually meet the criteria — guns the government considers inappropriate for civilian use.
https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/feds...cino-1.6214546
Sent from my SM-G975W using Tapatalk
Just to buy the SKS back at FMV will cost 1/2 billion dollars for all guns if 100% were turned in, a rough guess 4 - 5 billion.
Imagine if the government put that money towards mental illness and smuggling. But in all honesty the Liberal government has zero interest in stopping criminals I would go as far as stating they encourage it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by fishfood
I'm sure the stakeholders will donate to the cause others have a charitable donation recipe. http://guncontrol.ca/donate-now/Quote:
Originally Posted by greatwhite
What's funny is they talk about preventing suicide while the government killed off 3.3% of all deaths in 2021 with maids.
I thought the government was to help prevent suicide not promote it to save money lol.
3.2 MAID Deaths as a Proportion of Overall "Deaths in Canada
MAID deaths accounted for 3.3% of all deaths in Canada in 2021"
https://www.canada.ca/en/health-cana...port-2021.html
This is how they fix the mental health issues .
"federal government’s intention to extend MAiD eligibility to people whose sole medical condition is mental illness" This is on pause but what they want new deals to be made this year.
Maybe all the money they save will go towards the buyback program.
Sent from my SM-G975W using Tapatalk
Apparently not a fan of maid?
In the right circumstances I’m all for it and glad I’ll have the option. Only need to watch one person with an incurable disease suffer for months to be in favour of it
It’s a far cry different than some teenager committing suicide due to some social media harassment
As for the buy back I will be shocked if anyone ever gets a penny. You might get a tax credit at best. So nice of them to pay you back some of your money for giving them your personal property
Oh ya I forgot when suicide was illegal no one broke the law.
Not when they push it .Quote:
Originally Posted by FishHog
Example
1. A man that's been in the hospital for years was being pressured into it as he was a burden on the system. Not ok he wants to live.
2
What about the vet who just wanted a wheel chair ramp lol. She wanted help not a death sentence
3 when it involves mature minors with mental health issues. Without parental rights is wrong.
Yes I would agree with some of it but when they drive it .
A guy was trying to get on the list because he was broke and didn't want to be homeless. Is that a good reason?
Loose your job inflation to high and Wamo make the list because life is ruff. Not acceptable.
Anyway about the banned semi's.
When the government talks to the Indigenous Peoples in court. What talking points will they use. Will they ask if a gun could kill a deer with a gun they propose to keep. If so the rest are gone. Will the defense individual's have a lawyer? Or just the government. ?
Remember removing the guns is just another goal to them.
Sent from my SM-G975W using Tapatalk
They will pay out for sure they will.
But I dout they will remove many of the proposed guns from the list.
Sent from my SM-G975W using Tapatalk
Absolutely right, the cost of a compensation program will be staggering. They've added more rifles to the prohibited lists and their initial estimates appeared to be for compensation only not the program costs. The cost of administration, record keeping, collection personnel costs and subcontractors will be massive particularly now that police agencies have made it clear they are not a pick up service for banned guns.Quote:
Originally Posted by greatwhite
I believe it will be a fast collection once they figure out the plan it could happen within a few months of a deal.
They will want them collected asap and will be partnered with many groups to make it happen.
Sent from my SM-G975W using Tapatalk
Interesting last comment but in reality how many groups will they recruit and will they be willing to actually do the task.Quote:
Originally Posted by fishfood
So to me: Firearms Verifiers, Firearms Instructors, Gun Shops, Gun Smiths. Probably the biggest would be auctioneers like Switzers.
The auctioneers would I believe be the best choice as they have storage facilities, alarmed premises.
If you were to look at say retired LEO,s many of them have only been trained on one gun, may would not know how to safety these guns.
So of all the above many of the folks being pro gun might not want to partake, save and except auction houses.
Maybe a voluntary drop off center they also mentioned a courier to pick them up. With less people than an election turnout it could be done swiftly over a few weeks with selected dates. Very little officers would be needed at each location for security purposes.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gilroy
They won't want to visit every household with a gun. So you take and drop and they will visit the rest who did not comply.
After dropping your guns off you will get a receipt and a cheque in the mail.
Just a guess I highly dout they would go to every gun owners home.
We are law abiding citizens we would be happy to deliver them to a local police department or another location. To either sell them or have them rendered usless for a wall piece.
Maybe a fine if you don't comply with the voluntary drop off to encourage people.
Do gun store's keep records of who purchased what and for how long? That would show who has what for the most part.
Sent from my SM-G975W using Tapatalk
If an auction house were planning never to have another gun auction they might participate. Those who do won't do it for free and because they have the government over a barrel they would charge accordingly. Retired LEOs or even paid duty officers might be recruited to run the program but it's very unlikely they will be going door to door. They too will very expensive.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gilroy
My expectation is restricted owners will get a notice and instructions where to bring their firearm accompanied by advice that failure to do so would result in the revocation of their PAL and potentially criminal charges.
Non-restricted owners would be given a limited window of opportunity to turn their firearms if they want to participate in the compensation/deactivation program.
After the window closes nothing much will happen. People who don't turn them in will be stuck with a prohibited firearm they can't legally use with the risk of a charge should they be caught with it. Governments have all the time in the world and will get most of the guns in the fullness of time.
I got caught in the second round of prohibitions. I'm taking the money.
Maybe they won't stick and a few changes will be made.Quote:
Originally Posted by Badenoch
I also agree with the rest ,you worded it well and it's simple.
Sent from my SM-G975W using Tapatalk
I suspect compliance will be less then 50% possibly as low as 10%.
Not trying to change the subject at all, honest, but this is 100% exactly the same problem the government caused when a few people thought they knew better then the majority and mandated lockdowns and forced vaccinations on the word of some "science experts" when said science was political and not medical.
This is another feel good-knee jerk reaction to try to solve a crime problem by directly affecting a law abiding part of society adversely and making no impact on the people causing the problem in the beginning.
How many law abiding hunters rent a gun and a few bullets from "Dave down at the corner" to go hunting for a few days??
If current regs are not solving the problem, how is making the crime more illegal going to solve the problem?
How about regulating maximum spoon sizes sold in Canada to fight obesity? They already have minimized food package sizing while raising the price, just the first baby step.
I'm going to work.
John
Right on the money but preaching to the choir I’m afraid.Quote:
Originally Posted by johnjyb
How do we get the message out to voters about this Liberal fraud ?? Tell people about it and join an advocacy group. All of us together.
First of all we need it taken off the government agenda program. That is the big problem.
Secondly we lowered gun deaths from the 90s to 2014 without taking guns away from law abiding citizens. Unfortunately it has only gone up since 2015 and this government. We are still below the 90s levels so what happened?
Rather than banning the guns we should be looking into what and why the levels dropped in the first place before our current government took charge. If we could get back on the downwards trend without the removal of legally owned and law abiding citizens firearms.
We say look at other places it dropped gun violence and death's yet we did and made the same progress before our current rise.
Can't find the other chart that goes back to the 90 before I head out but from 2009 you can clearly see a drop to 2014 and over double from 2013 and 2021 years.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/...ing-in-canada/
Get back to the 90s and it's a steady decline with a few years up but on a trend is downwards.
Sent from my SM-G975W using Tapatalk
The compliance rate will be much higher for restricted firearms as they are registered and the government knows who has them and where they are supposed to be located.Quote:
Originally Posted by greatwhite
Compliance rates for non-restricted and unregistered is anybody's guess. Mine will be turned in because I don't want to be stuck with a rifle I can't use and risks a criminal charge if found in my possession.
I think you'll find that when they stopped carding the crime rate and gun violence went up... just my guess...
Bingo! you got that right.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bo D
Not really, back in the day when we carded an officer still had to have a good reason to stop and investigate a citizen and card them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bo D
Career criminals, gang bangers included knew this was part of the game and played along and gave their details. The rookie officers
learned from mature officers who and when to card and under what circumstances. You have to remember this INFRINGEMENT OF FREEDOM
was recorded on a card with the officers details and suspects, opening the officer to self reported complaint as his details are recorded.
Then we lost all the senior guys within a very short period of time, especially in the GTA, as they were all hired when the two man car system came in to being in the mid seventies. So by the year 2000 give or take 5 years each way the bulk of the senior knowledgeable street wise cops were gone and we had a bunch of rookies almost immediately training themselves and other rookies after.
Also at this time seasoned officers who used to walk the projects (welfare housing) were retired and not replaced in those projects.
The result was that the gang bangers TOOK CONTROL of the projects and as there were no officers walking in there, very few who now knew them by SIGHT, the whole thing went to pot.
The now rookie untrained officers were CARDING non white/minorities by and large but were not differentiating between folks going about their lawful business and actual criminals.
Complaints soared, Black lives mattered, demonstrations, Politicians got involved and we are where we are.
BTW I have saved a few folks who were carded by me and subsequently were accused of a crime on the other end
of the City by officers who had got an identification wrong. I also managed to get a few folks locked up because they were carded by me and stated they were in places like L.A.
As you did manage to change the subject and wrote about the obesity problem, there was a very nice piece on last Sundays 60 minutes with two experienced obesity Doctors and researchers. Obesity is now found to be an INHERITED PROBLEM that is in your genetic DNA and no matter how much dieting , exercise, these suffers will undertake it will only have temporary results as is a BRAIN problem.Quote:
Originally Posted by johnjyb
https://www.cbs.com/shows/video/whMd...u6xnSXPRJHEzB/
An interesting perspective for sure. Effective old school police methods replaced by under-experienced cops and liberal thinking contributes to our current mess.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gilroy
Will it ever improve ?
So here we are today with this bill that is about to pass, and billions of dollars that they are about to be spent implimenting this ludicrous proceedure of getting rid of law abiding guns that will do absolutely nothing towards stopping the crimes that are being committed. Tell me Gilly, just what is his mandate. Could it be like father, like son....
Twas nice to read this morning John Tories remarks on boosting the number of Police officers and budget in the GTA.... To me that's a step in the right direction...
A large bulk of the shootings in Toronto at least are gang/drug related and occur with frequency in the same type of projects. Toronto housing for instance have their own UNARMED SPECIAL CONSTABLES so they do not stick their necks out and have no political backing.Quote:
Originally Posted by 73hunter
The Police service should invest in full time officers being in those projects and taking back full control.
Does not matter if you hire another thousand officers, the problem will not go away. Real time in jail, getting no bail, works pretty good.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bo D
Hiring officers and handcuffing them when they hit the streets is what is happening and when you wrong the Police enough times, they may decided when you need them they will act but will protect themselves first. Hence messes like the freedom convoy display.
YOU DONT BACK US UP, WE DONT BACK YOU UP.
Did you not take an oath to serve and protect when you joined up... I understand your plight, both of my kids, daughter and son were on the job, and I understand that something has to be done with the way our courts are. I still believe in an eye for an eye....
Agree with you again Gilroy, people are going to start wondering about me agreeing with you so much these days :moose:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gilroy
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gilroy
X2Quote:
Originally Posted by greatwhite
We need to get tougher on criminals.
Sent from my SM-G975W using Tapatalk
The fact that obesity is increasing in incidence proves that their scientific opinion is BS. If it was genetic it would not be on a sharp rise. Their "research" was probably funded by the junk food industry. Have you seen how busy your local Mc Donald's is these days?Quote:
Originally Posted by Gilroy
Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk
Had to look back to see what the subject was here. :)
Oh yes, Got it. "Thread: Bye Bye semi automatic rifles."
When speaking with friends still serving almost ready to retire (admittedly,much younger than I),there seems to be a general consensus that new recruits are being indoctrinated at the Police College with woke ideology to the point they're taking a second look at their career choice. When they graduate and are posted to their respective detachments and actually hit the streets,they're shocked to see what BS it all is and become very disillusioned quite quickly. Coach officers almost need to start the training process all over again. That can't be a good thing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gilroy
Oh,yeah,I got lost in the weeds,too. I'll just leave this here in case anyone would like to watch. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TyXcY7NJHFgQuote:
Originally Posted by Sharon
Yup always amazes me when they hold up the constitution as gospel. Heck even the bible was rewritten when the edict didn't fit the current social evolution.Quote:
Originally Posted by trimmer21
Well welll well the "perfectly reasonable" amendments that "would have left your hunting rifles alone" according so some members is now being shelved because it would ban too many hunting rifles.
Anyone got a good recipe for crow?
I wouldn't count this as a "win" by any stretch. The government will simply re-word it and slip it in the back door in some other form. The only way to handle this most draconian and anti-freedom and liberty garbage legislation is to repeal and remove The Firearms Act in it's entirety. It's a hot mess that needs to be gone.
The Firearms Act will remain. Get used to it...even our gun happy neighbors to the South have recognized that there is a certain amount of Public Safety tied to Gun Laws. The argument is what is reasonable.Quote:
Originally Posted by trimmer21
However. This is a "win" for the following reasons:
1. It proved that political will and campaigning works, when a bad law is being tabled.
2. It educated many non-gun owners as to how the gun laws worked, and in fact do exert a fair amount of control and responsibility.
3. It also sent a message to the Liberal Party ( Who have historically been the ones to table any gun laws), that they can go to far, and be held to account for it. And that even their own Caucus wont go along with wrong laws.
Agreed it's mostly a stay of execution however we live in the now not the future. Yes there is a 99.9% this foolishness is brought up again when political points are needed but for right now (obviously not right now because it isn't deer or bear season) I can hunt with my SKS and my Garand worry free. I'll take what I can get unfortunately.
Right,I should have added to replace it with more common sense,less restrictive regulations which could be written on one page,not on a three thousand page volume of technical legalese jargon and outright BS.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bluebulldog
Roger that.... ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by trimmer21
what about this
https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/ott...ium%3Dsharebar
Yes...Quote:
Originally Posted by sabmgb
That's what the last few posts have been about.....
These moves were an ELECTION LOSER for the Liberals and they quickly came to that conclusion by the numerous e mails sent to their offices on this issue by Hunters of ALL POLITICAL STRIPES. Message received loud and clear.
There's nothing like an imminent execution to get someone's attention. This won't save Trudeau this time. Too little,too late.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gilroy
LOL I would not bet money against him even at this stage. With PP nobody is to sure what we would be getting.Quote:
Originally Posted by trimmer21
This is coming down to a competency issue. A handgun ban that isn't a handgun ban. An "assault-style" rifle ban that has not taken a single one out of circulation and a huge list of guns that people interpreted as guns the government intended to ban.
Banning certain categories of guns is not rocket science particularly if they are registered. Other countries have done it successfully although it was wildly expensive for the taxpayer.
The people who should be the angriest are the gun banners. Trudeau promised them a ban and didn't deliver.
Rarely,does someone manage to have everyone agree with them. It's just a given that you can't please everyone. Equally rare,though,is that Mr.Trudeau and the Liberals have managed to PO everybody not only here in this country,but,everywhere else around the world. Now,that takes real effort and a very special kind of talent.Quote:
Originally Posted by Badenoch
When Aaron Wherry of the CBC writes an article that paints the Liberals in an unfavourable light that says something
Even their media arm can’t help but face the truth
Having everyone equally angry with you isn't a bad thing unless you've picked a side. Trudeau picked a side on guns and abandoned his supporters when the going got rockier than anticipated. It's never a good plan to betray your own side. The other side is happy but is not about to trust you.Quote:
Originally Posted by trimmer21
Quickly?!?.......hmmmm,i did not count the days,but quickly would be within a week of submitting the proposal.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gilroy
Then they could perhaps save face by throwing someone of their own under the bus ,as sacrifice and scape goat.
This way..........wow!
What a boondoggle.
We’re relieved that the hunting rifles are safe(r) for now, but there is still the handgun ban and freeze to contend with….
Just imagine if all the political energy and cost spent on this was directed at helping CANADA & Canadians.
There is no certainty hunting rifles will be safe for long. The list of firearms that the Liberals withdrew was intended to be part of the legislation. Expect that list to reappear in some form as part of the regulations to the new law.Quote:
Originally Posted by 73hunter
Yep. Anyone who thinks this will just go away hasn't been paying attention.Quote:
Originally Posted by Badenoch
Well the gun banners would have to make a choice in the next election, would they turn and vote Conservative , NO I think. Would they vote new Democrat maybe, I think.Quote:
Originally Posted by Badenoch
Liberals switching to the NDP helps the Conservatives. It's not as good as having them switch to you but it's a good alternative.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gilroy
Agreed, that why I added the safe(R) and “for now”. The writing’s on the wall and has been for 25 years.Quote:
Originally Posted by Badenoch