Except for returning the ATT bureaucracy BS,all this is already law on the books. Again,the Liberals are trying to make it look like it's their idea,you know,like it doesn't already exist. Typical electioneering.
Printable View
People keep saying this, but it isn't true. Skipping over funding proposals and the two provisions of C-42 they plan to repeal:
require enhanced background checks for anyone seeking to purchase a handgun or other restricted firearm
Saying that "enhanced" background checks are already on the books is like saying, "I don't understand the meaning of the word 'enhanced.'" The proposal here appears to be to make the background check for an RPAL still more stringent -- that's what "enhanced" means.
require purchasers of firearms to show a license when they buy a gun, and require all sellers of firearms to confirm that the license is valid before completing the sale
There are two provisions here, and neither is already on the books:
- change the Criminal Code and Firearms Act to explicitly require that a seller check a licence, something that is arguably not required now. The abolition of the long gun registry changed the wording of S. 23 of the Firearms Act and left the actual requirement ambiguous; the Quebec bar association and Ontario CFO have both advanced the notion that the only requirement is that the seller have no reason to believe the buyer is not authorized. There has been all kinds of discussion of this point, which everyone seems to have suddenly & conveniently forgotten in their rush to condemn the Liberal proposals. The Liberals apparently intend to remove the confusion regarding the actual standard of care, which is a good thing.
- require that the seller check the licence is valid -- that is, not simply to look at it, but to validate it by calling the Canadian Firearms Centre.
require firearms vendors to keep records of all firearms inventory and sales to assist police in investigating firearms trafficking and other gun crimes
This is not on the books. In fact, the Conservatives enacted a regulation explicitly forbidding CFOs to impose such a condition on dealers. This proposal would bring Canada in line with the status quo in the United States. And this point, as well, has been much discussed by people who have suddenly and conveniently forgotten it.
Your principles? Principles such as respect for the democratic process and for the law?
Your desire to own a gun -- something that is not even threatened by the proposed changes -- is not a lofty, high-minded principle. Don't confuse it for one.
As far as "forbidding CFO's to impose such conditions on dealers" it was done because the CFO has ZERO authority to make laws/rules arbitrarily which,quite clearly,they had been doing without lawful authority. Slippery slope,here,welsh. That can never be left to continue in a democratic society. Without a ridiculous discussion of the meaning of the word "enhanced",please enlighten us as to how this "enhanced" background check is different from how a background check is supposed to be conducted,now.
Would to God your principals should reflect the actual high mind state for democratic rule: a Government of the people of Canada, by the people of Canada, for the people of Canada. However representative democracy has proven over and over again to render quite a different state for democratic rule, which I liken to: a Government of the people of Canada, by the people of Canada, in spite of the people of Canada. Hence the eagerness for political change, that from time to time, happens over and over again.
You don't stop hunting because you grown old. You grow old because you stop hunting.
- Gun Nut
OK OK OK folks. Let's just calm down a little. Let's all be nice. Attachment 31162
Why it was done doesn't matter. It was done. And so to require dealers to keep such records would be a change in the law, contrary to your earlier statement that these things were already on the books.
We don't know that, because the details are not available. It's one of the big fishy questions hanging over that platform.
But again, that doesn't matter. The point is that you are saying this is already on the books. But to enhance what we have means to change what's on the books, by definition.
Wow! Over 400 posts and still growing.... Who woulda thunk?
And it's not even a real issue..
yeah, how long did the conservatives tell us to fix the issue with the stupid registry, and when exactly did they do something about it? all major parties are driven by elections, rarely by real issues! and this is not a real issue for the general public (unlike for us).
so we might see something (hopefully minor in nature) in regard to "stricter gun controls", which they promised.
However, I would be surprised if they would go full steam ahead right now, which can significantly hurt them come re-election time. They can do that with less risk of having unpleasant statistics circulated and, more importantly, remind everyone just before the election how much they "care" about us law-abiding cash-cows.
On the other hand, this topic has absolutely nothing to do with logic, but with radical left ideology.
Here's my guess.
There's more than one way for Pierre's pup and the old crew to skin our cats. I'm predicting ever more firearms classified as restricted and prohibited with moratoria on ownership transfers and re-sales. Most of that can be done without new legislation - just leave it up to the office of the RCMP Commissioner. Semi-autos will take the first hits.
It will be "saleable" to a gullible public that is largely ignorant about firearms and hunting but pretty well agree that both are bad things, and, it likely won't invoke coast to coast resistance from gun owners because a lot of them will shrug and say, "Oh well, Idon't have that type of gun, so it doesn't affect me".
That's how things are done...be slow, be sneaky, do things incrementally.
Don't you mean the National Liberal republic of Ontario will give him 3 or 4 terms? The Republic of Western Canada is smart enough to not have that happen and Le Nation de Quebec will be the Bloc.
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-R9MrJ3mOdD...anada+hat.jpeg
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-ZDn8ICKcO4...da+divided.jpg
Remember these are the Liberals we are talking about... as for firearms by the time them kiss butt with the UN tracking, store trackings buyers and reclassifications who says anyone but the muzzle loader and single shot owners will still have an unrestricted firearms... and most of the muzzle loader and single shots will have turned them in due to the cost of complying with the UN treaty.
A bit of history...
"I came to Ottawa with the firm belief that the only people in this country who should have guns are police officers and soldiers."
Liberal Allan Rock
You're probably right. If he doesn't step on his pecker he's guaranteed to see 2 terms or more. That's the usual pattern in Canadian politics.
Actually, I don't think the general public is that opposed to guns and hunting on principle. Gun control is a pretty weak issue these days, which is why the NDP didn't campaign on it and the Liberals barely mentioned it. The CPC, meanwhile, tried to use it to attract votes in the territories, to little avail.
Gun owners are used to getting picked on, though, so we tend to expect it.
Well with the Liberal party we can soon all smoke dope till our eyes are red, retire earlier and if you live in the Maritimes draw more pogey. :silly: Can't wait to seed that vacant field down the road. :joker:
Why? You will be able to by the best quality stuff at the CCBO store down the road.:cool::cool: Unless you want to grow hemp to make into cloth.
Doesn't say anything about that. :
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/trudea...rado-1.3287747
Another area Canada will need to study is drug-impaired driving. While fatal crashes in Washington only increased slightly after legalization, the percentage of drivers involved in those crashes who tested positive for THC doubled — to 12 per cent in 2014 from 6 per cent in 2010.
There is no approved breath or saliva test in the U.S. or Canada to determine if someone recently consumed marijuana. In Washington, a blood test is the best available method to measure THC levels. The state's maximum is five nanograms of THC per millilitre of blood.
If you do not make your own beer and -or wine ,why would you grow your own? Same deal.
I use to make beer & wine. Moved to Ottawa with a backpack, typewriter and beer kit. At my peak production I was brewing 180 bottles a week. And it isn't the same deal you can toss seeds in soil and they will grow. you cannot just toss your ingredients into a bucket, obviously you have never made beer, wine or grown any vegetables.