Bill C-231

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by terrym

This Senator is a politician but she doesn't have to worry about being reelected so she can say anything she wants. Having said that let's not kid ourselves here. The very real possibility of having a coalition government soon with the Libs & Dippers as a government will impact law abiding gun owners and shooters swiftly and negatively. Trudough and Mulcair are anti gun. The Liberal party has been on a quiet mission to disarm private citizens for years now. If they were to have the backup of the NDP voting base it would be a very real problem.
In the end given what has been exposed recently about the Senate this body has no legitimate right to even think about proposing legislation. I don't think that is their mandate in the first place but even if it was they have proven to be corrupt , ineffective and nothing but a constitutional leftover that has no actual use. The Somber second thought is ridiculous as most have no real legal expertise and little to none constitutional law credentials. They are nothing but party hacks and fundraisers who exist because of an outdated system. Senate power fluctuates with the time in power by parties and retirement rate. Right now Harper could appoint 20 senators and slant power for years regardless of who is in government. Hopefully he fills those vacant seats before the election as he is almost sure to be removed. If not by vote then by coalition non confidence.

---

For that reason,alone,this private members bill will never see the light of day,for now,unless there's a catastrophic political upset in the next federal election like The Conservatives are soundly defeated and a majority Liberal or NDP government takes over. At the very worst,we may be faced with another Conservative minority government,but,at this time,I can't even see that happening. Canadians are taking a lesson from the Ontario fiasco,not likely to make the same mistake twice.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by terrym

Pretty sure an AK47 is not legal to hunt with already. It's either restricted or prohibited as I think they can be switched to full auto bursts.

---

The last I looked,the AK-47,M-16,C-7 and C-8 were all prohibited from ownership,let alone allowed for hunting.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by terrym

Pretty sure an AK47 is not legal to hunt with already. It's either restricted or prohibited as I think they can be switched to full auto bursts.

---

Th AK-47 comment was tongue-in-cheek. The point was - What constitutes a "hunting firearm"? Who makes the distinction?

You don't need a semi for, moose, deer or bear. One shot one kill right? Heck you don't even need a repeater. So since only one shot is needed for hunting does that mean repeaters are not hunting firearms but "assault weapons" or high powered sniper rifles?

Also, does that mean that the guy with a $14k Kreighoff who is a competitive trap shooter but doesn't hunt now has a firearm deemed "non hunting"? There are all kinds of little technical twists with real repercussions these idiots know nothing about. For example a double shotgun with inertia triggers is actually self arming so could fall under the same rulings as a semi auto. And leaving regulations up to the RCMP is like letting the NDP make rules.

Well, I have been reading the text of the bill with some dismay.

I was curious, given that this will die on the order paper, why it would be introduced. And why in the Senate? Well, because doing it in the Senate allows them to float it as a trial balloon. This does not look like a Senator's private hobby horse. It's the Liberal firearms platform, introduced now because they want to gauge public reaction with an eye to their election platform.

The good news is that it isn't what they're advertising it as. It doesn't ban everything. The bad news is that it's bad.

It will rename non-restricted firearms as "hunting firearms," and restricted as "circumscribed." This seemingly minor change of wording actually means that only guns used for hunting (by their rules) are non-restricted.

The French wording suggests that circumscribed firearms may be locally prohibited but I haven't found the provision for that in my quick skim. They will have to be stored at a range or approved storage facility, unless you qualify as a collector (and of course, they can easily make regulations that will disqualify just about everyone). ATTs will continue, of course.

All centrefire semi-autos will be circumscribed. "Hunting firearms" will include only shotguns with barrels over 470 mm (18.5 inches), semi-auto .22 rifles, and certain guns with folding stocks ... presumably it is intended to include centrefire repeating rifles, but this was omitted from the definition. One important note: a hunting firearm only qualifies as such if it is "prescribed to be a hunting firearm." So everything is circumscribed unless they specifically name it as something you can have.

Registration is replaced by "inscription" of circumscribed and prohib firearms. There is no reason for such a change unless, of course, you consider expanding "inscription" to include "hunting firearms" in the future, and want to avoid that "registry" word.

There is also a requirement for Parliamentary committees to do a comprehensive review of the Firearms Act every five years, and recommend changes. Obviously, the Liberals anticipate that those changes will march in only one direction.

If what Welsh just explained were to happen and a government change is quite likely then this would lead to massive confiscation of legally owned firearms. This is why I just sold my semiauto center fire.

Please oh Please Stephen, stack the Senate with 20 new, young Senators. If you choose me I promise I'll be OK with the salary and only legal, reasonable, expenses.

I'm ok with broken crackers and cold brie.

Welsh I too noticed that all firearms would be prohibited (circumscribed) except those designated as "Hunting firearms". I didn't get into it enough to see how a "hunting firearm" is defined. Did you note the reference to crossbows?

I didn't even clue in that this might be more than a crazy old lady's idea

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by terrym

If what Welsh just explained were to happen and a government change is quite likely then this would lead to massive confiscation of legally owned firearms.

---

This is actually worse. A large-scale ban would lead to demands for a buy-back, which of course would be very expensive and deters bans. But by turning every semi-auto duck gun in the country into a "circumscribed" firearm that can only be shot on the range and has to be stored there unless you're a collector, they encourage people to simply surrender their guns to the cops. Buy-back? Why? It's your decision to give up your gun, bub, not the government's demand....

Another pernicious effect will be that gun clubs will have to build storage facilities, or that new businesses will spring up to store firearms. Either way, that's going to cost money and that money will of course be recovered from gun owners. Now, why would I hang onto my SKS if it costs more to store it than it's worth?

No confiscations here, just voluntary surrender.

The stink of hidden motives is all over this one.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fishy Wishy

Please oh Please Stephen, stack the Senate with 20 new, young Senators. If you choose me I promise I'll be OK with the salary and only legal, reasonable, expenses.

I'm ok with broken crackers and cold brie.

Welsh I too noticed that all firearms would be prohibited (circumscribed) except those designated as "Hunting firearms". I didn't get into it enough to see how a "hunting firearm" is defined. Did you note the reference to crossbows?

---

Doesn't matter how many Senators you appoint if the Liberals win a majority....


“hunting firearm” means a firearm — other than a prohibited firearm or a circumscribed firearm — that is prescribed to be a hunting firearm and that
(a) has a smoothbore barrel that is more than 470 mm long,
(b) has a striated barrel that is more than 470 mm long and that can discharge 22-calibre centre-fire ammunition in a semi-automatic manner; or
(c) is designed or adapted to be fired when reduced to a length of less than 660 mm by folding, telescoping or otherwise;

So: "Hunting firearm" means a gun that the government says is a hunting firearm, and that is also a smoothbore or semi-auto .22 with > 18.5 inch barrel, or (c).

The most important part of this is "prescribed to be." This is huge. Previously, all guns were non-restricted unless they met certain criteria or were listed as restricted / prohibited. Now, all guns are considered prohibs unless they meet the criteria of "circumscribed" or are specifically listed as permissible "hunting firearms." So although at first blush it looks like they are just renaming classes, the changes to the definitions of those classes is a sweeping change to the Firearms Act.

I have to think possibly (c) is an error, and definitely the omission of centrefire repeating rifles is an oversight.

Re crossbows, there is actually no change. Those references are changes to existing paragraphs that already refer to crossbows, and the crossbow bits are in the existing paragraphs. The fact that they are changing "registration" to "inscription" and changing "restricted" and "non-restricted" to "circumscribed" and "hunting" means there are tons of paragraphs being changed only to change those words. This makes the bill very difficult to read: it is hard to tell the substantive changes from the cosmetic.

To me, the most stunning feature of this bill is professional politicians announcing to hunters that the semi-autos they actually hunt with are not legitimate "hunting firearms."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by welsh

Well, I have been reading the text of the bill with some dismay.

I was curious, given that this will die on the order paper, why it would be introduced. And why in the Senate? Well, because doing it in the Senate allows them to float it as a trial balloon. This does not look like a Senator's private hobby horse. It's the Liberal firearms platform, introduced now because they want to gauge public reaction with an eye to their election platform.

.

---

BINGO!! You just hit the nail right on the head. This way,individual MP's don't assume any accountability,this Senator can't be touched and Justin can just shrug his shoulders and claim it's a Senate matter. Sweet,eh? Shovel copious amounts of poop and not deal with the smell. We need to re-ignite the anti-firearm agenda of the Liberal Party of Canada as an election issue,especially,after this concerted effort to bury it in the media and quietly re-introduce an even worse scenario through a back-door Senate attempt. This will be even worse than the Long Gun Registry ever was. The Liberals were greatly embarrassed by the election defeat of some of their "star" MP's over this issue in the last election and,without any doubt,in light of this,they're looking for a BIG payback.

Sometimes it seems difficult to when even on a site like this there are supposed hunters and firearms owners on here who pretty much identify themselves as anti gun.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by trimmer21

BINGO!! You just hit the nail right on the head. This way,individual MP's don't assume any accountability,this Senator can't be touched and Justin can just shrug his shoulders and claim it's a Senate matter. Sweet,eh? Shovel copious amounts of poop and not deal with the smell. We need to re-ignite the anti-firearm agenda of the Liberal Party of Canada as an election issue,especially,after this concerted effort to bury it in the media and quietly re-introduce an even worse scenario through a back-door Senate attempt. This will be even worse than the Long Gun Registry ever was. The Liberals were greatly embarrassed by the election defeat of some of their "star" MP's over this issue in the last election and,without any doubt,in light of this,they're looking for a BIG payback.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by trimmer21

Here's another golden opportunity to peg the gun control agenda squarely on the shoulders of The Liberal Party of Canada. This should shut the mouths of the Liberal supporters that often state that there isn't a gun control agenda as a matter of party policy. This proves that they're dead wrong. Every time a Liberal opens their mouth,they stick their feet in it....both of them.....sideways.....boots and all. It also proves that the Liberal are totally unfit to govern.....still.

---

Trimmer, a true lieberal never admits they are wrong. They lie,point fingers,and knowingly make false and misleading accusations.Then the "MEDIA PARTY" picks it up and runs with it,printing,broadcasting and shouting from the roof tops how good and smart lieberals are and how stupid and bad conservatives are. It happens here all the time.