Return of Long Gun Registry

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gun Nut

Although this Bill was intended to target terrorist activities, the suspicions are that it could have broader applications affecting Charter rights and freedoms. However, the courts appear to have a final say, on any such applications. So I suspect that any concerns offered on the Left are really a tempest in a teapot, and an effort to make political hay.


You don;t stop hunting because you grow old. You grow old because you stop hunting.
- Gun Nut.

---

Changes to the CSE have a much larger implications to Canadians but I see almost nothing about it.... odd eh?
https://bcblue.wordpress.com/2015/10...rty-go-silent/
http://www.therebel.media/trudeau_co...liberals_would

VICE News originally reported that meant the Liberals intended to give the Communication Security Establishment (CSE) new powers, since the agency is currently prohibited from “directing” surveillance at Canadians for domestic purposes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by welsh

Actual Liberal platform on guns, as announced today:


https://www.liberal.ca/realchange/guns/?shownew=1

None of this seems radical, really, although some of it is irksome. Just how they plan to expand background checks, and why they feel this is necessary, is not clear.

Mixing up the membership of the firearms advisory community will irk people, but I see that as good. All stakeholders should be involved. If the committee is permanently deadlocked, that's fine.

---

Quote:

---

• repeal changes made by Bill C-42 that allow restricted and prohibited weapons to be freely transported without a permit, and we will put decision-making about weapons restrictions back in the hands of police, not politicians;

---

The first point in the gun policy section is a bit of a slap in the face.

I wonder how they plan on wresting the decision making power from politicians, when that is how the system was set up to begin with? Or perhaps they would write into new legislation that FRT assignments are legally binding on those firearms without Ministerial sign-off? Since the Act gives the Minister the ability to make regulations, and classifications can be make through regulations, it seems a non-starter.

It also looks like I wrongly assumed that the Liberal Party talking points on the ATT paperwork change were just grandstanding. It appears they might actually believe the 'terror of unregulated prohibited and restricted transport' lines they were repeating.

On the other hand, perhaps the whole first point is just pandering.

I will have to reserve my judgement on radical, irksome, or some other animal, until the how-to for all of this is revealed.

You are going to drive the left on this board crazy with those...uhmm...hard results/facts.lol

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mosquito

They are trying to convince the uninformed low info. voters of the "threat" of C-51, even the Liberals voted for it and now worse yet even said the Liberals wanted to change the CES to allow spying on Canadians.
https://bcblue.wordpress.com/2015/10...rty-go-silent/

Let's see the "freedom index"

NDP - track all guns -5
Liberals - UN treaty -5
Liberals - change CES -5
Liberals leader - favourite gov't dictatorship in China -10
C-51 - -1 if you advocate violence (both Liberals and Conservatives)


By my count NDP - negative 5, Liberals negative 21 and since I don't publish articles about committing violence and threats Conservative 0.

By my count on the freedom index stays unchanged as long as I vote Conservative, and I get to keep my tax cuts, I get to use the TFSA to save (I can use anytime and instead of the RRSP that is taxed) and Canada continues to stand up and try and protect those threatened by ISIL..... by my "wisdom count" that would make it:

Liberals -21
NDP -5
Conservatives 0 (+ 50 bonuses as above.)

That's where I would say the count is, two losers and one logical choice!

---

C-51.. if you not doing anything illegal...then no worries.

Oh you mean just like checking all people carrying a bow or gun.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fishermccann

Oh you mean just like checking all people carrying a bow or gun.

---

any LEO can do that already. Is there some reason you think LEO should not be able to do that?

The reason that C-51 came up, was that some on here, were-are upset the police would want people to report someone with a bow in the area where the shooting took place. They felt some of their freedom was being compromised because the police would dare check them out. Like being investigated because you dared to attend a rally against a pipeline, et al. How do you feel about carding? I guess you feel it is OK , but only if they check others, not you. You can't have it both ways.

If you really think you will be investigated for attending a protest then by all means vote Trudough. If due to softened security we have some extremist successfully perform some cowardly and savage act of violence on innocent people I hope you can square that circle personally. As for carding, go ahead card me. I have nothing to hide. But if carding assisted a cop in apprehending a known and wanted felon I guess that doesn't have any value to you because you know "you're a free man" right? I am personally ok with a little oversite if it prevents crime and cowardly terrorism.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by terrym

any LEO can do that already. Is there some reason you think LEO should not be able to do that?

---

No..... I am one of those who think it is completely acceptable. Others on here have said , it is legal to carry and have a bow, how dare you take away my freedom by checking me out. All those on here who said that, are the ones you should be preaching too. We likely won't be hearing back from them , as they feel it is only right to investigate the OTHER guy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mooboy76

It also looks like I wrongly assumed that the Liberal Party talking points on the ATT paperwork change were just grandstanding. It appears they might actually believe the 'terror of unregulated prohibited and restricted transport' lines they were repeating.

---

They're basically giving the police what they want.

The police look at this like police: they have a charge in the Criminal Code for possession in a place not authorized, and they need to have the necessary evidence. The ATT gives them that. They don't like the blanket ATT because the burden of proof is higher: they would have to show that a person possessed a gun in a place that was not reasonably between any two possible points that would be covered by the blanket ATT.

This is, obviously, a funny attitude. But that's what the motivation seems to be when you look carefully at what the cops say.

I'd like to know how many charges they've ever laid for possession in a place not authorized against a person with an RPAL. Not many, I'd wager.