Bill C-231

Introduced by Senate Liberal Celine Hervieux-Payette, (or is that Liberal Senator?) today.

I oppose the Conservative philosophy and the gun lobby’s belief that better access to firearms ensures better security. It's just the opposite. However, I respect the hunters and sports shooters. This bill promotes the activities of hunting and sport shooting while strengthening the security of Canadians.

Through my bill, titled “Strenghtening Canadians’ Security and Promoting Hunting and recreational Shooting Act”, I intend to accomplish the following:

• overhaul the current firearms program by prohibiting all firearms in Canada except hunting firearms;
• redefine the three classes of firearms by making all firearms illegal except hunting firearms and by localizing the prohibition of restricted firearms (circumscribed firearms);
• limit the definition of hunting firearms to the arms that really used for the purposes of hunting;
• replace restricted firearms class with a circumscribed firearms class and the arms of this class will be only usable at or in shooting clubs;
• replace the registration certificate with an inscription certificate;
• reinforce the role of the RCMP and the Commissioner of Firearms under a statutory provision.
• limit the transport of circumscribed firearms to transporters, thus controlling the movement of firearms in Canada; and
• undo all the provisions of Bill C-42, except for the prohibition on obtaining a licence to possess and acquire firearms following a domestic violence conviction.

In 2005, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled unanimously in R. v. Wiles that in Canada to acquire or possess a firearm is a "privilege" and not a right.


http://www.parl.gc.ca/HousePublicati...3166&File=41#4

http://www.parl.gc.ca/legisinfo/Bill...billId=8043165

Rubber boot time .

I saw this just the other day in ref to her...she's about as loonie as they come, she has no credibility writing firearms legislation with that kind of bias.

Quote:

---

The deployment of the submachine guns was specifically called for in the OPP report, which noted that officers on the Hill “need access to a long gun that has a multi-purpose capability.” Even so, this has not stopped some parliamentarians from publicly expressing their displeasure at the presence of the firearms. Liberal senator Céline Hervieux-Payette said that the guns made her feel afraid, and that she “hates to see someone with a machine gun.” Green Party leader Elizabeth May frets that the heavy firepower now visible around Parliament Hill has left it “an armed encampment as opposed to a house of democracy.”

from: http://news.nationalpost.com/full-co...able-democracy

---

Ya can't fix stupid!!!!! Where do these loonies come up with this crap ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rick_iles

Ya can't fix stupid!!!!! Where do these loonies come up with this crap ?

---

From the Liberal Party of Canada Handbook for Idiots.

I was at our monthly gun club meeting this week. And some new ATTS that had came in had an expiry date of July 15, 2015. Maybe something is going to change, hopefully for the better!

I'd like to introduce a private member's bill:

An Act for the Control of Legislative Horse Pucky

It will reduce the cost of Parliamentary bureaucracy, improve democratic participation, and ensure that important Parliamentary business is not delayed by nonsense by requiring that all bills presented to Parliament have some reasonable relation to public opinion. MPs and Senators found to be grandstanding or jumping on private soapboxes will be fined, or required to underwrite Mike Duffy's expenses, whichever is more punitive.

The number of people in Canada who are actually asking for measures like this is tiny. Even Wendy Cukier and the CGC are not asking for anything this extreme.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by welsh

Even Wendy Cukier and the CGC are not asking for anything this extreme.

---

Extreme? welsh, I normally like your choice of words but in this instance I really don't think extreme fits. It's use tends to lead one to believe that any of what she is proposing is connected to reality. Now... delusional... this is a good word! Given that her wording indicates that she clearly has no clue as to the types of firearms she is describing, one can only assume that her words are born of complete ignorance or insanity. Given her track record vis-a-vis American tourists and the seal hunt I am tending to believe the latter is true.

On the other hand I wholly agree with the concept of a punitive action to stop this type of nonsense. I am waiting for the next part of this story where she links this to the recent shooting in Edmonton.

The only good thing about Ms. Hervieux-Payette is that she turns 75 next April and that magic age will end her term in the Senate. But, as some of us know, she is not alone in her thinking. There are plenty of others up there in Ottawa with similar sentiments.

Great post Welsh .

Gilroy will deny this. This is just the start. Seems I was correct about everything I have said. Gilroy was wrong as usual.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wahoo

Introduced by Senate Liberal Celine Hervieux-Payette, (or is that Liberal Senator?) today.

I oppose the Conservative philosophy and the gun lobby’s belief that better access to firearms ensures better security. It's just the opposite. However, I respect the hunters and sports shooters. This bill promotes the activities of hunting and sport shooting while strengthening the security of Canadians.

Through my bill, titled “Strenghtening Canadians’ Security and Promoting Hunting and recreational Shooting Act”, I intend to accomplish the following:

• overhaul the current firearms program by prohibiting all firearms in Canada except hunting firearms;
• redefine the three classes of firearms by making all firearms illegal except hunting firearms and by localizing the prohibition of restricted firearms (circumscribed firearms);
• limit the definition of hunting firearms to the arms that really used for the purposes of hunting;
• replace restricted firearms class with a circumscribed firearms class and the arms of this class will be only usable at or in shooting clubs;
• replace the registration certificate with an inscription certificate;
• reinforce the role of the RCMP and the Commissioner of Firearms under a statutory provision.
• limit the transport of circumscribed firearms to transporters, thus controlling the movement of firearms in Canada; and
• undo all the provisions of Bill C-42, except for the prohibition on obtaining a licence to possess and acquire firearms following a domestic violence conviction.

In 2005, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled unanimously in R. v. Wiles that in Canada to acquire or possess a firearm is a "privilege" and not a right.


http://www.parl.gc.ca/HousePublicati...3166&File=41#4

http://www.parl.gc.ca/legisinfo/Bill...billId=8043165

---

I just noticed that the Bill,as tabled, has a nice 'Short Title"..who's she kidding :)

Quote:

---

An Act to amend the Firearms Act, the Criminal Code and the Defence Production Act


Short Title: Strengthening Canadians’ Security and Promoting Hunting and Recreational Shooting Act



Sponsor Sen. Céline Hervieux-Payette

http://www.parl.gc.ca/legisinfo/Bill...billId=8043165

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MikePal

I just noticed that the Bill,as tabled, has a nice 'Short Title";

---

That's typical Liberal bafflegab. An Act to everything,BUT.........

What part was promoting hunting and shooting?

So ban Lee-enfields, Spring fields. Do they mean Calibers or guns or what. This statements essentially mean almost every single firearm in existence would be banned.

"overhaul the current firearms program by prohibiting all firearms in Canada except hunting firearms;"

Who determines "hunting firearms"? If I choose to hunt with an AK-47 can that be a hunting firearm?

I also noticed references in the bill made to crossbows.

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fishy Wishy

Who determines "hunting firearms"? If I choose to hunt with an AK-47 can that be a hunting firearm?

I also noticed references in the bill made to crossbows.

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by terrym

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.

---

No doubt it is the million dollar question, 'What is he going to do?' It would (hopefully) insulate us from pie in the sky feel good legislation for the foreseeable future.

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.

Welsh your you know your stuff pretty good, sure wish you were telling us that there's nothing to worry about, but I don't see you saying that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by greatwhite

Welsh your you know your stuff pretty good, sure wish you were telling us that there's nothing to worry about, but I don't see you saying that.

---

In the short term,I believe there's nothing to worry about.........as long as the NDP or Liberals never get to form a coalition which I can't see happening,at all.

I have to respectively disagree with you there as I do believe at minimum we will have a coalition government of NDP and Liberals.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by trimmer21

In the short term,I believe there's nothing to worry about.........as long as the NDP or Liberals never get to form a coalition which I can't see happening,at all.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by greatwhite

I have to respectively disagree with you there as I do believe at minimum we will have a coalition government of NDP and Liberals.

---

I sure hope you're wrong on that count,greatwhite. The very last thing this country needs is a pie-in-the-sky socialist regime that tries to be all things to all people solely to garner votes. Gun control is only a small blip on the radar in the grand scheme of things. When you factor in Foreign Affairs,Defense,Health and Welfare and Commerce,these people are completely inept. We've only to look at Ontario for a glaring example and the jury is yet to be empanelled in Alberta,but,to quote the Late Mickey Mantle...."Boys,she don't look good."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by greatwhite

Welsh your you know your stuff pretty good, sure wish you were telling us that there's nothing to worry about, but I don't see you saying that.

---

Well, the good news is that this bill won't pass. But I do worry that this looks like a trial balloon.

I couldn't find a single media outlet, including the Opinion and Editorial sections, that made even a mention of it over the weekend.

It may have been a trial balloon, but so far it looks like it went over like a lead balloon.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MikePal

I couldn't find a single media outlet, including the Opinion and Editorial sections, that made even a mention of it over the weekend.

It may have been a trail balloon, but so far it looks like it went over like a lead balloon.

---

There's been a concerted effort by the left wing media to stifle all stories and articles regarding gun control,in particular,The Toronto Star which has been conspicuous by their editorial silence for the last two years. It's almost like they were told to STFU about it and hope it goes away so as not to become an issue at election time. Should there ever be a leftist majority government of any stripe elected,then,look out.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by trimmer21

There's been a concerted effort by the left wing media to stifle all stories and articles regarding gun control,in particular,The Toronto Star which has been conspicuous by their editorial silence for the last two years.

---

I dunno if that is completely true, when the Mayor of Saskatchewan misspoke last week and blamed gun control for the Officer being shot, that circled the news outlets fairly quickly and was well covered by the media. News of the reading of this bill on the same topic, in the same week and no one batted an eye.

I don't think gun control will be on anyone's agenda as long as the majority of the House is filled with Conservative Senators, it would be pointless of the Liberal/NDP party to alienate voters when there is no chance of a bill ever being passed/adopted.

Which is why Harper needs to stack the Senate with those 20 vacant seats.

I tend to think that this Bill is being ignored by the media because it is so blatantly flawed. I am guardedly optimistic that even the left-wing media has learned enough to understand the blurry definition of 'hunting rifles'.
Add to this her foolish comments Re: LEOs having guns at Parliament and that gaff she made with the seal hunt and her response to the American tourists.
If Wendy isn't jumping on this one it should be telling everyone that even Cukier thinks Hervieux-Payette has been eating too many boiled vegetables out of aluminum pots!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DGearyFTE

I tend to think that this Bill is being ignored by the media because it is so blatantly flawed. I am guardedly optimistic that even the left-wing media has learned enough to understand the blurry definition of 'hunting rifles'.
Add to this her foolish comments Re: LEOs having guns at Parliament and that gaff she made with the seal hunt and her response to the American tourists.
If Wendy isn't jumping on this one it should be telling everyone that even Cukier thinks Hervieux-Payette has been eating too many boiled vegetables out of aluminum pots!

---

I would agree along those lines,too. The lady is usually right off the wall at the best of times,anyway. It would be prudent to not discount the idea,completely,because with some minor tweaks,this idea could gain legs in short order should the Liberals or the NDP form the next government.

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.

---

This proposed bill would be a blessing! It would lift all restrictions on all guns. ;) Seriously though, there are a lot of really good points made in this thread. Welsh, you have the air of lawyerness about you, lol. I only fear that all these really great points just fall on deaf ears and don't get out to the people that need to hear them. We're obviously all into shooting and hunting if we're on this forum. I can't help but always feel like we're preaching to the choir.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MikePal

I couldn't find a single media outlet, including the Opinion and Editorial sections, that made even a mention of it over the weekend.

It may have been a trial balloon, but so far it looks like it went over like a lead balloon.

---

Only one covered it.


The Rebel.
Senator Crazy Pants....
http://www.therebel.media/now_senator_crazy_pants

LMAO... according to The Rebel... a walking one-woman argument for Senate Reform.

Crazy pants IS crazy for sure but don't be fooled , Many like her actually believe the crap she put forth in that bill.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hunter John

Crazy pants IS crazy for sure but don't be fooled , Many like her actually believe the crap she put forth in that bill.

---

Justin Trudeau has talked about the "need" to "reclassify firearms to make Canada safer".... think all semi-auto firearms (rifle or shotgun) in the same category as the AK-47....

and look at his comments on the changes to modernize the Authorization to Transport on C-42.

https://www.liberal.ca/lpc-opposes-cpc-gun-bill/

"“First, it eliminates the need for owners of prohibited and restricted firearms to have a transportation license to carry those guns in their vehicles. This means they could freely transport handguns or automatic weapons anywhere within their province, whether to a grocery store or a soccer field."
Fear mongering gone nutso!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MikePal

I don't think gun control will be on anyone's agenda as long as the majority of the House is filled with Conservative Senators, it would be pointless of the Liberal/NDP party to alienate voters when there is no chance of a bill ever being passed/adopted.

---

If the Liberals have a majority in the Commons, a Conservative-dominated Senate would be very unlikely to block any bill they passed ... it is very rare for the Senate to block a bill passed by the Commons for the simple reason that the Senate is well aware it is an unelected body.

When was the last time the Senate actually blocked government legislation?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DGearyFTE

If Wendy isn't jumping on this one it should be telling everyone that even Cukier thinks Hervieux-Payette has been eating too many boiled vegetables out of aluminum pots!

---

The Coalition for Gun Control has not even mentioned this bill ... they're too busy making a fuss about Bill C-42, which apparently the Conservatives intend to squeeze through Parliament before the election.

It could be this is not a trial balloon, but simply the anti-gunners in the Liberal party trying to advance their agenda: trying to make an issue of it so the party will have to make a stand. Because despite what everyone likes to think, the Liberals won't try to make any serious gun control changes unless the polls tell them there's an advantage to be gained.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by welsh

If the Liberals have a majority in the Commons, a Conservative-dominated Senate would be very unlikely to block any bill they passed ... it is very rare for the Senate to block a bill passed by the Commons for the simple reason that the Senate is well aware it is an unelected body.

When was the last time the Senate actually blocked government legislation?

Which is what makes me wonder. "What exactly is the Senate doing?" I have though ya sure the sober second thought thing is a good thing...then someone mentioned (what I already knew) these are mostly patronage posts, (and what I hadn't considered) it isn't like they have any special knowledge of constitutional law or.....

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by welsh

The Coalition for Gun Control has not even mentioned this bill ... they're too busy making a fuss about Bill C-42, which apparently the Conservatives intend to squeeze through Parliament before the election.

It could be this is not a trial balloon, but simply the anti-gunners in the Liberal party trying to advance their agenda: trying to make an issue of it so the party will have to make a stand. Because despite what everyone likes to think, the Liberals won't try to make any serious gun control changes unless the polls tell them there's an advantage to be gained.

---

Can I save this and bring it up next year, or whenever they make their move?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by welsh

If the Liberals have a majority in the Commons, a Conservative-dominated Senate would be very unlikely to block any bill they passed ... it is very rare for the Senate to block a bill passed by the Commons for the simple reason that the Senate is well aware it is an unelected body.

When was the last time the Senate actually blocked government legislation?

---

Because you asked...recent memory was the Union Disclosure Bill in 2013. Interestingly it was a Conservative bill too !!

Quote:

---

Conservative-dominated Senate blocks union disclosure bill


The Conservative-dominated Senate wrapped up one of its most difficult sittings in recent memory by flexing its legislative muscle, breaking ranks with the government to block a union-disclosure bill from becoming law.


http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/...ticle12826672/

---

Interesting link says there were 672 times the senators have stopped a bill for one reason or another.

http://www.parl.gc.ca/ParlInfo/compi...NotPassed.aspx

It will be interesting to see how the Senate evolves after this massive body blow the auditor just tabled. The SCC pretty well clipped Harper's wings on reform without a full Constitutional review so other than being more transparent and less entitled there really isn't anything Trudough or Mulcair can do if and when they take power. Mulcair being the loudest critic ( easy to be with no dogs in the race) could find himself in a position to appoint Senators something he has ranted against. Would NDP Senators be any more honorable? Jack LAyton and Olivia Chow are on record of using the budget at Stornaway to live large. Not sure how Mulcair uses tax payer money?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by welsh

If the Liberals have a majority in the Commons, a Conservative-dominated Senate would be very unlikely to block any bill they passed ... it is very rare for the Senate to block a bill passed by the Commons for the simple reason that the Senate is well aware it is an unelected body.

When was the last time the Senate actually blocked government legislation?

---

Not government legislation but PMB C-290 Single Game Betting. They've held it up - for years.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by terrym

Not sure how Mulcair uses tax payer money?

---

Well it sounds like the RCMP may soon be asked to find out ....he's skating on the issue for sure :)

Quote:

---

Police may yet be called in to investigate dozens of New Democrat MPs who used taxpayers' dollars to pay the salaries of aides working in satellite party offices.Well-placed sources say referring the matter to the police is an option that has been considered in the past by members of the board of internal economy, the multi-party committee that oversees House of Commons spending.
And they say it's still a "live" option that could be employed if the NDP continues to thumb its nose at the board, which has ordered 68 MPs to personally repay a total of $2.75 million.

Multiple sources spoke to The Canadian Press on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak for the ultra-secretive board.
The board ruled last August that New Democrat MPs improperly pooled money from their Commons office budgets to pay the salaries of 28 staffers working in satellite party offices in Montreal, Quebec City and Toronto.

---

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2015/02...n_6741498.html

Forgot about that little "misunderstanding"......LoL. Isn't Mulcairs response to this ruling the same damned thing as Duffy's lawyers are spinning? Funny that eh.......

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fishy Wishy

Which is what makes me wonder. "What exactly is the Senate doing?"

---

Finding creative ways to expense things, as far as I can tell.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fishy Wishy

Can I save this and bring it up next year, or whenever they make their move?

---

Go right ahead. If they make a move, it will be because the polls tell them there's political advantage to be gained.

That was ultimately why they brought in C-68.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MikePal

Because you asked...recent memory was the Union Disclosure Bill in 2013. Interestingly it was a Conservative bill too !!

---

Actually, the bill in question was amended and passed by the Senate. Because it was amended, it had to go back to the Commons. And it was a private member's bill.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MikePal

Interesting link says there were 672 times the senators have stopped a bill for one reason or another.

---

Actually, no. Read the link: those are Senate bills not passed by the Senate. That is, legislation originating in the Senate that was not passed by the Senate. Senate bills are numbered with an S (S-231), while bills originating in the House of Commons are numbered with a C.

You can find a list of bills referred to the other house that were not passed ... and there will be quite a few Commons bills that died in Senate committee when Parliament was prorogued -- which of course is controlled by the Prime Minister. All kinds of stuff dies in committee, thanks to all the nonsense bills clogging up the order paper, introduced by members riding their favourite hobby horses.

But finding a government bill passed in the Commons that was then rejected by the Senate? That's a rare occurrence. Especially if it's something the government had fought an election campaign on. If the Liberals do make gun control a campaign issue, then the Senate blocking their bill would give us a constitutional crisis.

Thanks Welsh, you are helping clear these convoluted waters we numpty's are trying to understand. I get the fact no party will run on drastic gun control unless they believe they will gain politically from them but I fear they will bring them in anyway and hope the public forgets before the next election. You know ( hidden agenda) lol.
So for arguments sake lets say Harper ekes out a minority, and the coalition of losers decide they want to run the show, how would the senate proceed with passing bills brought forth by an unelected government. Just thinking out loud here.?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by welsh

Actually, the bill in question was amended and passed by the Senate. Because it was amended, it had to go back to the Commons. And it was a private member's bill.

---

I missed that it finally made it thru the Senate back this past Apr....

But like you said..eventually, for the most part, they all do once amended: “As per Parliamentary convention, we expect that the Senate will respect the will of the House of Commons should the bill be returned to the Senate”

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hunter John

So for arguments sake lets say Harper ekes out a minority, and the coalition of losers decide they want to run the show,

---

It'll be interesting to see how a coalition will be formed ....this past week the pundits are toying with the concept that it may end up being the NDP sitting in the birds seat. The Liberals are sliding fast and the "Anything but Harper Vote" may go orange...would be a hoot !!!

It's ok for Muclair he's NDP. My understanding is Liberals / NDP and supporters are above the law. ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by terrym

Forgot about that little "misunderstanding"......LoL. Isn't Mulcairs response to this ruling the same damned thing as Duffy's lawyers are spinning? Funny that eh.......

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mosquito

Justin Trudeau has talked about the "need" to "reclassify firearms to make Canada safer".... think all semi-auto firearms (rifle or shotgun) in the same category as the AK-47....

and look at his comments on the changes to modernize the Authorization to Transport on C-42.

https://www.liberal.ca/lpc-opposes-cpc-gun-bill/

"“First, it eliminates the need for owners of prohibited and restricted firearms to have a transportation license to carry those guns in their vehicles. This means they could freely transport handguns or automatic weapons anywhere within their province, whether to a grocery store or a soccer field."
Fear mongering gone nutso!

---

I read this yesterday too. It's amazing that they can just flat out lie like this. I mean really, there's no bending the truth or embellishment. It's just a straight up lie. I said it in one of my previous posts and it's true. I feel like I've experienced an awakening. It scares me that I was so easily fooled in the past. To think that the other sheep of the world just swallow what they are fed is terrifying. Not just about guns, but with everything. I'm sure it's done on both sides too. All I have to say is that I'm going to be much for informed about things from now on before forming an opinion.

As for the gun registry... any bets it still exists in some form or another.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/...ticle24965632/

"Federal information commissioner Suzanne Legault is seeking a court order to preserve any remaining records from the now-defunct long gun registry, part of a wider court challenge contesting the RCMP’s handling of records under the Access to Information Act."

I will assure it does.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mosquito

As for the gun registry... any bets it still exists in some form or another.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/...ticle24965632/

"Federal information commissioner Suzanne Legault is seeking a court order to preserve any remaining records from the now-defunct long gun registry, part of a wider court challenge contesting the RCMP’s handling of records under the Access to Information Act."

---

Well the good news is that C-42 just passed 3rd Reading in the Senate today. Royal Assent by Friday?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mosquito

As for the gun registry... any bets it still exists in some form or another.

---

Does it really matter? Most folks I know have sold or gave away all their firearms that may have been previously registered? If they can find all my guns, then they deserve to have them.:p

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by greatwhite

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mosquito

As for the gun registry... any bets it still exists in some form or another.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/...ticle24965632/

"Federal information commissioner Suzanne Legault is seeking a court order to preserve any remaining records from the now-defunct long gun registry, part of a wider court challenge contesting the RCMP’s handling of records under the Access to Information Act."

---

I will assure it does.

---

Yep, about what I expected to see when I started looking into who Suzanne Legault is. Interesting, it looks like the anti's were using access to information requests to delay or retain the registry data..... the idea being they couldn't destroy the data while there were outstanding requests.... and of course if you keep making requests forever....

Suzanne Legault seeks court order to preserve Quebec gun data
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/suza...data-1.3099379
Suzanne Legault wants Public Safety Minister Steven Blaney to either hand over the remaining long-gun registry data from Quebec to the Federal Court or have the court prohibit its destruction.


RCMP may still have access to long-gun data after feds created ‘black hole’ of accountability: Info Commissioner
http://news.nationalpost.com/news/ca...o-commissioner
Legault filed a preservation order in Federal Court on Wednesday in an effort to keep the government from destroying more contested gun registry data.
...
Legault recommended two months ago that charges be laid against the Mounties for their role in withholding and later destroying registry records, which were subject to an active access-to-information request, before Parliament had passed the law ending the long-gun registry in April 2012.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bushmoose

Does it really matter? Most folks I know have sold or gave away all their firearms that may have been previously registered? If they can find all my guns, then they deserve to have them.http://www.oodmag.com/community/imag...ies/tongue.png

---

Don't worry.... they will... and the ones you have now too.
.

Too bad the morons wouldn't put the same effort, time and money into "something ". anything that might actually help and or improve public safety. Instead they go off on witch hunts,paper trails, etcetera looking for something that wouldn't amount to a berry seed in a bears -ss. I am getting so sick, tired and fed up with all this left wing, anti gun, politically correct , social engineering -ullshi- I could puke. When if ever , will people ever wake up and see these idiots for what they really are???????

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bushman

Too bad the morons wouldn't put the same effort, time and money into "something ". anything that might actually help and or improve public safety. Instead they go off on witch hunts,paper trails, etcetera looking for something that wouldn't amount to a berry seed in a bears -ss. I am getting so sick, tired and fed up with all this left wing, anti gun, politically correct , social engineering -ullshi- I could puke. When if ever , will people ever wake up and see these idiots for what they really are???????

---

Hilarious rant! lol!! I second that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Karl Marques

Hilarious rant! lol!! I second that.

---

Me too !!!!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bushman

Too bad the morons wouldn't put the same effort, time and money into "something ". anything that might actually help and or improve public safety. Instead they go off on witch hunts,paper trails, etcetera looking for something that wouldn't amount to a berry seed in a bears -ss. I am getting so sick, tired and fed up with all this left wing, anti gun, politically correct , social engineering -ullshi- I could puke. When if ever , will people ever wake up and see these idiots for what they really are???????

---

Me,three!

Here is Ms. Hervieux-Payette's speech at 2nd Reading of the Bill in the Senate: (it's a long read, in two parts because there is a max character limit on this forum, some parts are really head shaking)

(I also won't put the text in quotes as it makes it harder to read. Just don't quote my post to reply!)

************************************************** ****************************

Hon. Céline Hervieux-Payette moved second reading of Bill S-231, An Act to amend the Firearms Act, the Criminal Code and the Defence Production Act.

She said: Honourable senators, I would like to begin by putting this bill in context. It is not a response to the recently passed Bill C-42. I have been working on this for years. The research and consultations with experts that I have been carrying out with the help of my staff since last September resulted in my introducing this bill.

So far, the only thing in social media has been a single press release outlining the bill. I have received negative reactions and even some more or less threatening insults. However, never in my entire political career have I received so many compliments, including an outpouring of 3,250 "likes" in response to my article on the introduction of my bill. Never in my life have I been so liked.

That is why I want to remind you about the purpose of this bill and why it is called the Strengthening Canadians' Security and Promoting Hunting and Recreational Shooting Act. It purpose is threefold: first, to ensure security; second, to ensure that people who love hunting and recreational shooting have the opportunity to engage in those activities safely; third, to prohibit any firearm not used for security or for the activities I just mentioned.

Obviously, my bill is more nuanced than the summary that I just gave you. It upholds the four reasons for possessing and acquiring a firearms licence that are already set out in the legislation, namely, employment, self-defence, sport and collecting.

For example, firearm collectors will still be able to indulge their passion and keep the weapons that belonged to their grandfather or great-grandfather because, under this bill, those weapons will be rendered inoperative and people will therefore be able to display them in their dwelling-houses.


This bill provides for another exception, and that is that anyone who needs to protect himself or herself will still be able to apply for an exemption to keep a firearm at their home, as is the case in the existing legislation. In other words, and given the reactions that gun lobbyists have expressed on the Internet, I am telling you unequivocally that I am not against firearms. I want to say it a few times to make sure that everyone understands me. I am not against firearms.

The difference between my position, as reflected in my bill, and that of some lobby groups is where to draw the line between authorized firearms and those that should be prohibited or whose use should be limited to certain locations only, such as shooting clubs. That's it for my introduction.

I will defend the philosophy underlying my bill and provide more details about it later, but one thing is certain: I am not trying to make light of or put a spin on such a sensitive topic. Not everyone can say the same, especially not some of the lobby groups, which have formed impressions and made inferences from my press release that are not at all consistent with my bill.

Before getting to the heart of the matter, I would be pleased to share some of my fondest family memories with you. As most of you probably know, I am originally from a small town called l'Assomption, north of Montreal, in Quebec, in the Lanaudière region. Its proximity to the St. Lawrence River makes l'Assomption a great place for hunters to live because you can hunt for duck there, roam through all the various forests, and even make maple syrup.

My father was one of those people who would hunt for small and big game in the underbrush or along the river banks. When I say big game, I mean deer and moose. When it comes to hunting wildlife for its meat, such as venison, I know everything about storing, keeping, hanging, and even cooking it. If you're interested I would be glad to help you cook any rabbit, partridge, or duck you might hunt. Those are things my father said I was better at than my mother. That's not entirely true, but that is what he told me.


In the 1950s and 1960s, my father would hunt big game with a 303 Lee-Enfield rifle, a reliable weapon that came with a scope. We also had a 22, for small game, as well as the infamous 12 gauge shotgun where you really had to aim for the partridge's head or you wouldn't be eating any partridge because you would be left with a pile of pellets and feathers.

My father used these guns for sport, but also for putting excellent food on the table. Today, things are different. The animals my father brought home from the hunt were our food of choice. I don't think we could eat like that today, but I grew up eating wild game for more than half the year. I would add that fish would grace our table as a result of these adventures in the great outdoors as well. Over the decades, life became more urbanized and the utilitarian nature of firearms faded over time.

I am not denying the fact that some Aboriginal peoples have retained a way of life based on hunting and fishing, but overall, we are no longer living in pioneer days or even my father's time. My colleague Senator Watt has shared some caribou meat with me, and I have to say that it's delicious.

I also realize that hunting and fishing are part of Canadian culture and that outfitters, for one, help people participate in that culture. In Quebec, we have some very comfortable and pleasant ones. In fact, I would suggest that my colleagues go spend some time at one, maybe take a little vacation there in the fall during a week when we don't have to be here in the Senate.

I would like to go over some of the details of Bill S-231. I have identified six key points that will help me explain the measures in this bill, which is rational, sensible and in line with the values of most Canadians.

First of all, Bill S-231 overhauls the current firearms program by prohibiting all firearms in Canada except hunting firearms, firearms used at shooting clubs, and collectors' firearms, which receive special treatment.

Second, it redefines two of the three existing classes of firearms by making only hunting firearms legal and localizing the prohibition of restricted firearms.

Third, Bill S-231 limits the transport of circumscribed firearms to transporters — which have no interest other than providing secure transportation — thus controlling the movement of firearms in Canada.

Fourth, Bill S-231 replaces the registration certificate with an inscription certificate. You can appreciate that the terms "registration" and "registered" have been used so often that we simply thought that using the term "inscription" would eliminate some anxiety. I think that using the term inscription does not evoke feelings of fear.

Fifth, Bill S-231 strengthens the role of the RCMP with a statutory provision.

Sixth, Bill S-231 undoes all the provisions of Bill C-42, except for the prohibition on obtaining a licence to possess and acquire firearms following a domestic violence conviction.


Finally, I will explain how Bill S-231 will support hunting and sport shooting while helping maintain overall security.

First of all, we must change the current system in order to restrict the circulation of dangerous firearms in Canada. I am one of those people who believe that people don't kill people, guns do. Granted, that is the antithesis of the gun lobby's motto. However, unlike the gun lobby, I am not promoting an industry, or developing a market; I only want to ensure Canadians' safety. Therefore, I rely on the statistics.

Here they are. There are negative comments on social media, and some Canadians have said that gun control is pointless because very few deaths are caused by firearms in Canada. In other words, these people are using the statistics obtained as a result of previous Liberal gun control policies — and we are still feeling their positive effects — that basically were in place until 2012. You must admit, it takes some nerve to pervert the truth.

A simple comparison with our neighbours to the south brings home the stark reality. The firearm death rate in the United States, a country with very weak gun control laws, was 10.3 per 100,000 population in 2011. That amounts to 32,163 deaths in one year, according to the National Vital Statistic Reports from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. That would be the number of deaths if 20 towers, like those of the World Trade Center, were to collapse every year in the United States. There were 2,977 victims on September 11, 2001.

In Canada, firearm deaths for the same year, 2011, totalled 679, or 1.9 per 100,000 population; that's 1.9 in Canada and 10.3 in the U.S., and that was under a system that the Liberals developed.

Accordingly, to say that since we have a very low firearm death rate we can do without strict gun control would be ignorant at best, and perhaps even be misleading. In any case, this puts the lives of Canadians at risk, as demonstrated by the American example, where, in 2011, nearly four people were shot dead every hour of the day and night.

Unfortunately, honourable senators, last week, there was another massacre, this time in a church in Charleston, South Carolina. Six women and three men were killed. In other words, the easier it is for people to access firearms, the more people will die. In light of that fact, which is not an ideological position, but rather a fact of life in the United States, I thought it was important to follow through on this point.

To ensure the safety of Canadians, I developed Bill S-231 around the idea that all firearms should be prohibited except those used in sport shooting, in a controlled environment such as shooting clubs, as well as hunting firearms and those that are collectors' items. I therefore replaced the restricted firearms class with a circumscribed firearms class, and the arms in this class will be usable only in certain locations, specifically at or in shooting clubs. They must be stored at those clubs and transported by experts or specialized companies. Lastly, as I said at the beginning of my speech, I took the current reality into account in establishing some exceptions.

In other words, pursuant to the definition in the Criminal Code, all firearms are legal, except those classified as restricted or prohibited.

These types of legal definitions pose a risk to public safety in Canada, since they are catch-alls that make it possible for some very dangerous firearms to be classified in the category of unrestricted firearms. As you know, there are currently almost no conditions on unrestricted firearms.

Bill S-231 rectifies this problem by providing that all firearms are prohibited, with the exception of hunting firearms or firearms used exclusively at a shooting club. Think about it. Why would anyone have a firearm at home if not for hunting or collecting? In the case of a firearm that is part of a collection, Bill S-231 still requires the individual to make the firearm inoperative.

Based on what I hear from some opponents of Bill S-231, I can get a sense of their objectives. A number of them tell me about their so-called right to defend themselves against all kinds of attackers, ranging from a simple thief to a terrorist. The big American lobby spoke out after the massacre in Charleston and said that the gun did not kill those people; the person shooting it did.

On June 15, an online petition called on Minister Blaney to allow Canadians with appropriate firearms training to obtain an authorization to carry permit for the purposes of self-defence. The petition concludes with "Canada will be a safer place." That is pretty delusional. Since when is the United States, which has 32,000 gun deaths every year, safer than Canada? Canadian law does not give people the right to defend themselves with a firearm, and that is a good thing. No one should be taking justice into their own hands. As far as I know, Canada did not have a civil war, and our American neighbours still do not seem to understand that theirs ended more than a century ago.


Other gun lobbyists are simply asserting their right to own a firearm. However, in 2005, the Supreme Court of Canada clearly ruled that no one has the right to own a firearm in Canada and that the possession of a firearm is a privilege granted by the government.

I would therefore like to come back to my question, which is: Why would anyone have a firearm in their home if it is not for self-defence, if it is not suitable for hunting but for sport shooting, and if it is not part of a collection?

The answer is that the reason is not clear, it does not seem consistent with our laws and it is based on a myth about safety that is not borne out by reality.

This overhaul of the firearms regime brings me to the second key point of Bill S-231: the new definitions of the three categories of firearms.

Under Bill S-231, it is no longer a matter of non-restricted, restricted and prohibited firearms. Instead, firearms would be classified as hunting firearms, circumscribed firearms and prohibited firearms.

This major change to these definitions promotes a better dichotomy between firearms that can reasonably be used for hunting and thus kept at a dwelling-house in accordance with the regulations that apply to them and firearms that sport shooters use at shooting clubs and that must be stored at those clubs.

What are those definitions?

A hunting firearm is defined as any firearm with a smoothbore or striated barrel that is more than 470 mm long, in other words a shotgun or rifle. Semi-automatic weapons are not included in the definition of hunting firearm, with the exception of 22 calibre rim-fire semi-automatic rifles.

The restrictive definition of hunting firearms that I included in my bill is based on information from hunters and a Canadian Firearms Safety Course instructor. In fact, one of my employees who has a law degree took this course as he was examining the bill. Hunters and instructors alike strongly advised and even warned students not to use semi-automatic weapons for hunting because of the many accidents that have occurred.

Bill S-231 repeals the privilege of those with a possession and acquisition licence to keep at their dwelling-house any centre-fire calibre semiautomatic rifles. However, Bill S-231 does not prohibit the right to use such rifles. Those who are passionate about handling these rifles and would like to continue pursuing their passion can do so at shooting ranges where these rifles are stored and where courses are generally taught.

Again, why would anyone have firearms in their home, since they are not suitable for hunting and using firearms in self-defence is not advisable except in rare circumstances under the law?

As an aside, I can see where the firearms lobby wants to take us with this: toward a U.S.-style system with easy access to firearms where it is legal to use them to protect personal property. However, no one is fooled by this. This does not serve the interests of Canadians or keep them safe. This serves only the interests of the firearms lobby for selling more firearms. What is more, they must not be selling very many because gun maker Colt filed for bankruptcy last week.

Part 2 Below:

(Cont'd)

I understand that the statement Prime Minister Harper made on March 17, at the Saskatchewan Association of Rural Municipalities annual convention is yet another nod to the firearms lobby during this pre-election period.

The Prime Minister said the following: "My wife's from a rural area and obviously gun ownership wasn't just for the farm, but was for a certain level of security when you're a ways away from immediate police assistance."

The Prime Minister's statement in favour of armed self-defence drew a reaction from the Canadian Bar Association, which expressed grave concern about the message being sent to people. The Quebec provincial police association described the statement as "inappropriate."

Writing in L'Actualité on March 18, 2015, Manon Cornellier analyzed the message this way:

Only licensed peace and security officers can have a firearm for security reasons, in which case it would be loaded. Anyone else in possession of a firearm must store it securely and unloaded, with ammunition stored separately and also securely.

Such conditions make it impossible for one to defend oneself against a surprise attacker. When the Prime Minister talks about security, he is indirectly encouraging armed self-defence whether he means to or not.

The fact that the Conservative Party used that statement the very next day to raise funds suggests that it was not unplanned.

It is no longer a secret that the Conservative Party of Canada is in favour of firearms and provides regular guarantees to the firearms industry. What's new is that, for ideological and probably electoral reasons, it now wants to lead Canada down the slippery slope of armed self-defence, a principle in place among our neighbours to the south — perhaps not the best models with their 88 gun-related deaths per day in 2011.

I felt that my bill should protect us from that kind of problem. That's why, under Bill S-231, no firearms other than those defined as hunting firearms can be kept within a dwelling-house.

That is all I have to say about self-defence. I will be clear, honourable senators. Bill S-231 does not seek to prohibit the use of centre-fire semi-automatic rifles, but to ensure that they are only used and stored at shooting clubs.

Therefore, I am not against firearms, but I support their use in a safe manner and definitely not as weapons of self-defence.

Thus, with Bill S-231, any holder of a possession and acquisition licence will be able to acquire and own a centre-fire semi-automatic rifle and use it at a shooting club designated for that purpose. When the holder of the licence has finished his shooting practice, he will have to store his firearm at the shooting club.

The distinction between a 22 calibre rim-fire semi-automatic rifle and a centre-fire semi-automatic rifle is a vital aspect of Bill S-231.

The United Kingdom made that distinction after the terrible events in Hungerford. In 1987, a crazed gunman named Michael Ryan killed 16 people, including his own mother. Carrying a handgun and two semi-automatic rifles — a Type 56 assault rifle, which is a Chinese version of an AK-47, and an M1 Carbine — Ryan also injured 14 other people before taking his own life. According to the authorities, there was no motive for Ryan's murder spree. Another important fact is that Ryan had legal possession of all his firearms in accordance with the British laws at that time.

The following year, Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher — a woman not known for her liberalism and with whom some of you, I am sure, share a Conservative ideology — took drastic action in response to this horrible tragedy.

The Iron Lady's Conservative government completely banned all centre-fire semi-automatic firearms from the United Kingdom and restricted the use of hunting rifles to those with a maximum capacity of three shells. The only firearms that remain legal in the U.K. are semi-automatic 22 calibre rim-fire rifles.

Britain's commitment to strict firearms policies did not stop in 1988, however, because in 1996, some nine years after the Hungerford tragedy, Great Britain went through the shock of another shooting rampage.

A man named Thomas Hamilton walked into an elementary school in Dunblane, Scotland, and killed 16 children aged four and five, as well as their physical education teacher, before killing himself. Hamilton legally owned two hunting rifles and a handgun. The handgun used in the massacre had been properly registered.

In response to the massacre, the government called on Lord William Douglas Cullen to chair a royal commission to investigate the circumstances that could have caused Hamilton to commit such an act, and, more importantly, to make recommendations to prevent such a crime from ever happening again.

In his report, Lord Cullen recommended that the government introduce tighter controls on gun ownership. In response to the Cullen report, the British government passed the Firearms (Amendments) Act 1997. Thus, the law now prohibits all civilians from owning and storing most handguns in a private dwelling in Great Britain.

These gun control policies have had some impressive results. In 2011, there were just 38 gun deaths in Britain, while in the same year, Canada had 153 gun deaths, although its population less than half that of Britain. According to other 2011 data, the British homicide rate is apparently lower than Canada's, at 0.06 per 100,000 people, compared to 0.45 per 100,000 people in Canada. All of the measures taken by the United Kingdom in 1988 and 1997 prove once again that enforcing strict gun control and removing guns from homes helps lower the number of gun-related homicides. It has been proven that guns, not people, kill people, unlike what the gun lobby claims.

Bill S-231 is based on a proven model. I hear all of the criticisms of my bill. However, those that attack a proven model in favour of the American model, which is clearly a security failure, make no sense. All they do is serve the interests of an industry.

Bill S-231 replaces the existing category of restricted firearms with the category of circumscribed firearms. A circumscribed firearm is any firearm, other than a prohibited firearm, that has a barrel equal to or less than 470 millimetres, such as handguns or firearms that are capable of discharging centre-fire ammunition in a semi-automatic manner.

As the term implies, those who hold a possession and acquisition licence in such a category of firearm will only be able to use and store these weapons at a shooting club. I made sure that the term "circumscribed firearms" includes the notion of location.

Honourable senators, there is a reason why my bill classifies these weapons as circumscribed firearms. They have been used to commit thousands of murders in Canada. I am thinking of Marc Lépine, Kimveer Gill and Justin Bourque. The weapons in their arsenals all had something in common. They all complied with the provisions of the Firearms Act regarding centre-fire semi-automatic rifles.

These weapons are dangerous and are not useful for hunting. They therefore do not belong in a dwelling-house. I spoke with David Lutz, Justin Bourque's lawyer, and he said much the same thing. Just a few minutes after his client was sentenced, Mr. Lutz made an impassioned plea against firearms at the entrance of the Moncton courthouse on October 31, 2014. He told the CBC that:

Three police officers are dead in Moncton and another in Ottawa because the wrong people were in possession of firearms that should have been prohibited.

He went on to say, and I quote: No hunter needs a firearm like the one Bourque used. None.

Third, Bill S-231 increases control over the movement of these dangerous semi-automatic weapons. Owners of such firearms who need to move them, for example to store them at a different shooting club where they want to use them, will have to use an outside service or specialized carrier to transport them.

My office consulted a number of experts, including a former police officer. They all told us that centre-fire semi-automatic rifles are very dangerous. They stressed that there is no need to keep such a firearm in a dwelling-house. The U.S. model proves that the more firearms are circulating in a country, the higher the homicide rate is. Bill S-231 seeks to strengthen Canadians' security.

My fourth point has to do with replacing the registration certificate with an inscription certificate. To me, words have meaning. This is therefore a change in the spirit of the law. Bill S-231 acknowledges the disappearance of the Canadian firearms registry. I will not get into that. I am not happy about the disappearance of this registry — another Conservative measure to satisfy the firearms lobby — but I decided that my bill would not be about that measure so as not to sidetrack the debate on my bill. The key question is the one I asked at the beginning of my speech, namely what is the point of having a firearm at home that is not strictly meant for hunting. Consequently, I would like it if we stopped talking about registration certificates, as that evokes the idea of a registry. "Inscription certificate" is more neutral and doesn't have the same connotation as "registration certificate." I think the term "inscription certificate" is quite apt in the case of firearms, whether we are talking about hunting or being a member of a shooting club.

My fifth point is that Bill S-231 reinforces the role of the RCMP and the Commissioner of Firearms by setting out their responsibilities in the firearms classification process, which is not found in the existing legislation.

Under Bill S-231, and unlike Bill C-42, in making regulations, the Governor-in-Council will have to consider the recommendations of the Commissioner of Firearms when he uses his discretionary power to designate a hunting firearm. Furthermore, the Governor-in-Council will not have the discretionary power to designate a firearm other than a hunting firearm. That is an important addition to the existing law because, and I repeat, our laws are not explicitly clear about the role of these individuals in the classification of firearms.

Furthermore, Bill S-231, again unlike Bill C-42, does not enable the government to unilaterally decide to declassify a firearm or to overrule the RCMP, as Minister Blaney did in the committee where I worked on the Swiss Arms matter. The Conservative government once again yielded to the firearms lobby. This lobby has been fighting for years to get a number of firearms that have been deemed as dangerous by many experts and authorities onto the Canadian market.

In 2014, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police conducted an investigation after receiving complaints that these semi-automatic guns could be easily converted into automatic weapons. The RCMP therefore once again classified circumscribed firearms and Swiss Arms firearms. A number of gun lobbies were furious and pressured the Conservative government to overrule the RCMP's decision. Since the existing law does not allow for the declassification of a firearm, on March 13, 2014, Minister Blaney announced a two-year amnesty to protect owners of these firearms from the harsh penalties that his own government enacted through Bill C-10 in 2012, which seems absurd. The same minister who enacted that legislation went back on his own bill. Minister Blaney even announced the following in a press release dated February 28, 2014, and I quote:

. . . I was troubled to learn of a decision made by unelected bureaucrats to prohibit a number of rifles imported from Switzerland.

The bureaucrats at whom he turned up his nose are the RCMP experts whose job it is to protect Canadians' safety by means of the Canadian Firearms Program. The minister concluded with this statement: "I will also be taking steps to make sure this never happens again."

In other words, the minister does not like it when the people responsible for Canadians' safety take measures that conflict with the interests of the gun lobby. The minister therefore proposed measures in Bill C-42 to give cabinet the discretionary power to "declassify" firearms, even if that goes against the RCMP's recommendations.

The sixth point I would like to make about my bill is that I did not allow myself to be influenced by dogma or ideology when drafting it. I used facts, figures, and documented results of Canadian, American and British policies. Australia's policies are similar to England's. Where I agreed with a provision of Bill C-42, I included it in my bill. That is why Bill S-231 states that a person convicted of domestic violence can never receive a licence to possess or acquire a firearm. That same provision is in Bill C-42, and it makes perfect sense.

What I find shocking is that instead of showing real leadership to ensure public safety and tightening our gun controls in the wake of the tragic events at Dawson College in 2006 and Moncton in 2014, the Stephen Harper government went in the opposite direction and, unlike our British colleagues, passed less restrictive measures to govern the privilege of firearms possession.

Honourable senators, I would like to remind you that, after these terrible tragedies, the Harper government introduced Bills C-19 and C-42, the first to end the long-gun registry and the second to make it easier to obtain guns. These two pieces of legislation are contrary not only to Canadians' safety, but also to Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher's legislative intervention in 1988.

In contrast, following the 1989 Polytechnique massacre, a Liberal government tightened firearms possession and acquisition with Bill C-68. That is why we can boast that we have a lower firearms death rate. This is even an argument used today by the gun lobby. Thanks to the gun control policies of a former Liberal government, we can say that our odds of being killed by a gun are the same as the odds of being killed by lightning.

My bill is also inspired by the leadership of the Quebec government, which, after the Dawson College tragedy, introduced Bill 9, known as Anastasia's law in memory of one of Kimveer Gill's victims. This bill took effect on September 1, 2008, and banned the circulation of all restricted and prohibited firearms on the grounds of designated institutions, such as schools, as well as on means of public or school transportation.

What did Stephen Harper do following those tragedies? He gave in to the gun lobby and made Canada one of the few countries in the world to loosen gun control measures.

I will conclude my explanation of the text of my bill by repeating its title: the Strengthening Canadians' Security and Promoting Hunting and Recreational Shooting Act. I will not address the issue of security any further. I have already sufficiently explained how this bill will really benefit Canadians in that regard. However, what about promoting hunting and recreational shooting?

Bill S-231 narrows the definition of hunting firearms and makes them the only firearms that can legally be in users' possession in Canada. It confirms the legitimacy of hunting, granting these firearms a privilege that no other firearms possess. It does not restore the gun registry; in other words, this bill supports hunting and hunters, and I am delighted about that.

The restrictive definition of hunting firearm that I used in my bill is based on guidance I had from hunters and an instructor with the Canadian Firearms Safety Course and on the British model. Under this bill, any firearms owned by hunters must really be prescribed for hunting. The image of hunters should therefore be enhanced in the eyes of the public, which should please the owners of all outfitting companies in Canada.

As for shooting clubs, the new classification used in my bill, specifically the new category of circumscribed firearms, will make it possible to develop a market while ensuring safety. In fact, restricting the use of semi-automatic firearms other than 22 calibre to shooting clubs and requiring them to be stored at the club will automatically increase activity at those clubs, which, with some planning, could even become gun shops or could partner with them.

In closing, I would to thank the team of Senate lawyers, legal experts, law clerks and drafters who worked so hard to make this bill a reality. They worked with my own staff to quickly rewrite a complex piece of our legislation to make it progressive, innovative and bold. This bill respects fans of hunting and sport shooting while having a real, positive impact on Canadians' safety.

I introduced this bill because I believe that a progressive vision of Canada is not only desirable but possible. This bill can be used a starting point for any government or non-governmental organization that, tomorrow, may want to stop the Conservative government from blindly forging ahead and electioneering by constantly passing legislation to please the firearms industry.

The Conservatives are not going to make Canadians safer by relaxing controls, as they did with Bill C-19, or by making firearms more accessible, as they did with Bill C-42. Safety has only one number, and that number is S-231.


http://www.parl.gc.ca/Content/Sen/Ch...06-22-e.htm#27

The lady is truly, a certifiable "Wack-a-doodle" :)

I guess When I'm out for Moose I have no business being there, doing what I'm doing. My Remington 742 has no use as a hunting firearm. Because someone told her that semi-automatic guns are dangerous, and no one needs a semi automatic firearm.

Also notice, although not specifically called out, she didn't consider semi Shotguns as hunting firearms either.

Heck I would be more worried about lever action than a Semi Auto Jammaster.

And her Dad's .303 had a scope!

FW

I would like to here ole Gilroy's take on this as I do recall him stating in the past that they would not do anything like this. Oh Gilroy where are you please explain why as usual I am right and you are as always wrong!

The bigger question is how in da fack did this drivel make it to 2nd reading????

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hunter John

The bigger question is how in da fack did this drivel make it to 2nd reading????

---

Because all the conservative senators are stuck in court

I'm pulling back from my earlier feeling that this was a trial balloon. Parts of it, parts that I missed the first time around, are simply too off-the-wall to be serious policy proposals. Such as, for example, prohibiting any transportation of restricted guns except by professional gun transporters.

On closer examination this looks more like a deliberate poke in the eye, intended as political theatre. You said your duck guns and deer rifles shouldn't be picked on? Okay, only duck guns and deer rifles will be legal, then. You wanted the ATT paperwork burden eased? Okay, we'll take it off your hands completely by making it illegal for you to transport a gun, period. And so on. It seems designed to p*ss off gun owners. The speech works the same way, claiming she's strengthening sports shooting when she knows she's doing the exact opposite. It's Orwellian.

The most farcical aspect is, as FW pointed out already, telling hunters that guns people have hunted with for generations aren't genuine "hunting firearms." There is of course no legitimate public safety rationale for the distinctions she draws. As Franklin Zimring wrote back in 1968, handguns retailing for less then $50 are surely a public safety concern, but so are handguns selling for more than $50: when it comes to long gun murders, they're as likely to be done with bolt actions as semi-autos. What a joke.

I will guarantee you if Justin or Muclair form a government or a coalition you will see much more e rigid then the old registry. We are headed for the same rules as Australia and there will be out ride banning of every single type of semi auto and I would suspect pump rifles as well.

Hmmm makes you wonder why anyone wants the remaining copies anymore, I mean they should be of no use now right or are they.

Noticed how they also first demanded a copy for the rest of Canada when supposedly it shouldn't exist at all, were all the records actually deleted?

As I said before copies still exist just Jim Bo the DBA or some other person has shown his hand yet.

What a lieing liebreal the bull Sh##t that came out her yapper

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hunter John

The bigger question is how in da fack did this drivel make it to 2nd reading????

---

That's a more important question than you would think. I can see the attack ad,now. It would be a doozy if I wrote it. LOL

I wonder if her speech about her wild game and hunting experiences is true.
It kind of sounds like it was just a fairy tale written up.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Maximus44

I wonder if her speech about her wild game and hunting experiences is true.
It kind of sounds like it was just a fairy tale written up.

---

She said her father hunted and had owned guns, didn't say she was a hunter/shooter. She spoke with her aides who took a One stop hunting and firearms course (likely in Quebec but we'll lay that assumption aside) who's instructor told her no one needs a semi-automatic firearm for hunting because they are dangerous. Sounds like he was lead in a loaded line of questioning and some inferences were made.

She also believes that no one hunts to fill the table other than maybe some natives.

Hunters and legal gun owners are minority in Canada. JT and Angry Tom know that so they will think nothing of throwing us under the bus to cater to their predominantly anti gun base. They will be the next government here even if only a short lived coalition. Prepare for the worst.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fishy Wishy

She spoke with her aides who took a One stop hunting and firearms course (likely in Quebec but we'll lay that assumption aside) who's instructor told her no one needs a semi-automatic firearm for hunting because they are dangerous.

---

Two obvious points:
1. Talking to one instructor is not consulting the public.
2. Political speeches are full of lies, and this is likely one.

The bit about hunting no longer being necessary shows her true colours: "Your objections aren't important, anyway."

I don't know how much a bill introduced in the senate will carry as the senate has very little power. It will have to pass thru the HoC where the Conservatives will stomp on it. As well it will die on the table once an election is called.

Like it or not the Conservatives are the only option for firearms owners. At least until they finally get the registry put to bed.

Roe+

I suspect it is a trial balloon to test the public's reaction so that Muclair and Justin can understand what they will be able to get away with if the get elected. If one or the other wins the election or they form a coalition government this bill will be brought back and rushed through like the registry bill.

This is also the reason for trying to find the remaining copies of the registry, with the remaining registry local Police forces would actually be able to contact those who at one time semis.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Roe+

I don't know how much a bill introduced in the senate will carry as the senate has very little power. It will have to pass thru the HoC where the Conservatives will stomp on it. As well it will die on the table once an election is called.

Like it or not the Conservatives are the only option for firearms owners. At least until they finally get the registry put to bed.

Roe+

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by welsh

Two obvious points:
1. Talking to one instructor is not consulting the public.
2. Political speeches are full of lies, and this is likely one.

The bit about hunting no longer being necessary shows her true colours: "Your objections aren't important, anyway."

---

Quite correct. It would still need to go thru sub-committee and public consultation.

I believe that you were correct in your initial response that this is a trial balloon. I also believe that although not put forth by the Liberals in the HoC it has all the makings of things we have all warned/been warned about if the Liberals get to form a government.

Namely,
Making all firearms illegal
Disallowing semi automatics (they essentially are doing this)
Central storage for prohibited firearms (now being renamed).

What comes next? Pump action bans? Lever action bans? Bolt action bans? Scope power limits?

My gut instinct tells me they will ignore levers (just a hunch) most people associate levers with the old west movies. But pumps well some consider them to be the same as a semi.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fishy Wishy

Quite correct. It would still need to go thru sub-committee and public consultation.

I believe that you were correct in your initial response that this is a trial balloon. I also believe that although not put forth by the Liberals in the HoC it has all the makings of things we have all warned/been warned about if the Liberals get to form a government.

Namely,
Making all firearms illegal
Disallowing semi automatics (they essentially are doing this)
Central storage for prohibited firearms (now being renamed).

What comes next? Pump action bans? Lever action bans? Bolt action bans? Scope power limits?

---

But the natives might associate levers with the Wild West and buffalo hunters, and John Wayne killing injuns.

Pumps will be forever associated with Arnie and Terminator.

FW

One reason I now think this is not a trial balloon is there is no effort to publicize it. There has been not one peep on this from the CGC, Poly Se Souvient, or any of the usual suspects. This despite Hervieux-Payette's social media campaign for their support.

It seems to be out of left field.

Fargin Sneaky Bastages.

I'm not sure how many other social media sites offer "like".....but according to her she has had '1,000's ....well I scrolled thru her FB page and there are a whole lot less than she claims...

Quote:

---

So far, the only thing in social media has been a single press release outlining the bill. I have received negative reactions and even some more or less threatening insults. However, never in my entire political career have I received so many compliments, including an outpouring of 3,250 "likes" in response to my article on the introduction of my bill. Never in my life have I been so liked.


https://www.facebook.com/celinehervieuxpayette?fref=ts

---

Yikes, after trolling around her facebook page it seems like she is a nobody . I post re bills231 has 5 likes and the other has 3.. she is utterly full of crap and herself it would seem. Never the less she has a dangerous mindset and is no friend to hunters or sport shooters and I hope this bill is crushed.

She's a Liberal were you actually expecting her to tell the truth? ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MikePal

I'm not sure how many other social media sites offer "like".....but according to her she has had '1,000's ....well I scrolled thru her FB page and there are a whole lot less than she claims...

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hunter John

Yikes, after trolling around her facebook page it seems like she is a nobody . I post re bills231 has 5 likes and the other has 3.. she is utterly full of crap and herself it would seem. Never the less she has a dangerous mindset and is no friend to hunters or sport shooters and I hope this bill is crushed.

---

The left was furious when the registry was stopped. Everybody with a brain realized that even if they weren't legally allowed to keep it alive that it also had never been completely wiped out.Even if LEO had no more access to it off CPIQ it doesn't mean the database didn't exist anymore. I have no doubt a coalition government will attack us. If god help us either of those two parties actually pulled off a majority Canada would end up with gun laws similar to Australia.

The left was furious because as Allan Rock had admitted in the past it was never to keep the public safe, it was the beginning to slowly confiscate firearms over time. This is still the Liberals main goal.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by terrym

The left was furious when the registry was stopped. Everybody with a brain realized that even if they weren't legally allowed to keep it alive that it also had never been completely wiped out.Even if LEO had no more access to it off CPIQ it doesn't mean the database didn't exist anymore. I have no doubt a coalition government will attack us. If god help us either of those two parties actually pulled off a majority Canada would end up with gun laws similar to Australia.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by terrym

Even if LEO had no more access to it off CPIQ it doesn't mean the database didn't exist anymore.

---

C-19 didn't dictate that the police could no longer access the registry through CPIC. It dictated that the records were to be destroyed. The RCMP has confirmed that the records were destroyed, with the exception of the records for Quebec, which were retained by court order because of pending litigation, and which are still being retained by a different court order because of separate pending litigation.

Anyone who retained copies of the registry data committed a crime. That's going to make it a little difficult to use all those copies so many are convinced must still exist out there.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by greatwhite

The left was furious because as Allan Rock had admitted in the past it was never to keep the public safe, it was the beginning to slowly confiscate firearms over time.

---

When exactly did Rock admit that, and what exactly did he say?

I also forgot about ole Axeworthy.

"I came to Ottawa last year, with the firm belief that the only people in Canada who should have firearms are police officers and the military."
- former Justice Minister Alan Rock (currently the Health Minister of Canada)

---

"...disarming the Canadian public is part of the new humanitarian social agenda."
- Foreign Affairs Minister Lloyd Axeworthy at a Gun Control conference in Oslo, Norway in 1998.

So, will his new gun laws - aimed primarily at law-abiding firearms owners - reduce the crime rate even further? Rock is hesitant to give a conclusive answer: "I think it will help. (But) I don't want to overstate it. I don't want to give any guarantees."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by welsh

C-19 didn't dictate that the police could no longer access the registry through CPIC. It dictated that the records were to be destroyed. The RCMP has confirmed that the records were destroyed, with the exception of the records for Quebec, which were retained by court order because of pending litigation, and which are still being retained by a different court order because of separate pending litigation.

Anyone who retained copies of the registry data committed a crime. That's going to make it a little difficult to use all those copies so many are convinced must still exist out there.



When exactly did Rock admit that, and what exactly did he say?

---

I think Anne also made a few before the UN.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by welsh

C-19 didn't dictate that the police could no longer access the registry through CPIC. It dictated that the records were to be destroyed. The RCMP has confirmed that the records were destroyed, with the exception of the records for Quebec, which were retained by court order because of pending litigation, and which are still being retained by a different court order because of separate pending litigation.

Anyone who retained copies of the registry data committed a crime. That's going to make it a little difficult to use all those copies so many are convinced must still exist out there.



When exactly did Rock admit that, and what exactly did he say?

---

I know what the letter of the law says but i have no faith in that being what happened at all. I have many close friends in LE who confirmed that search function stopped working for them on CPIQ. As for the RCMP following the law, I have no doubt at all that they did not, who is going to investigate them and prosecute them? I would guess almost every Provincial police force made copies of that database somehow.

None of those quotations actually support the assertion you made. Rock never in fact "admitted ... it was the beginning to slowly confiscate firearms over time."

The oft quoted "I came to Ottawa" bit is questionable, too. It comes from a Maclean's piece where it was part of a larger interview. Rock is speaking in the past tense of his belief at some time in the past, and it is not clear whether he still held that belief at the time of the interview. The wording -- "I came to Ottawa last year with the belief that" instead of "I believe that" -- suggests otherwise. Hitting the microfiche to dig that one up and see if there is more context has been on my to-do list for about a year. Looks like I'll have to get around to it soon ... the fact is, most of the quotes we see floating around on this are gotcha quotes pulled out of context and then endlessly recirculated: political gamesmanship. The Axworthy quote, for example, isn't even a full sentence, but it is passed around as if it represents the entire content of his speech.

I can find the remainder later tonight still at work. If I recall the Quebec Liberal wing also wanted to ban almost all rifles.

Either way Welsh, this latest bill in the senate pretty much show the Liberals goal is to begin banning as many guns as possible if they win power. My point is this has long been the goal of the Liberals. Which is what I have shown.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by welsh

None of those quotations actually support the assertion you made. Rock never in fact "admitted ... it was the beginning to slowly confiscate firearms over time."

The oft quoted "I came to Ottawa" bit is questionable, too. It comes from a Maclean's piece where it was part of a larger interview. Rock is speaking in the past tense of his belief at some time in the past, and it is not clear whether he still held that belief at the time of the interview. The wording -- "I came to Ottawa last year with the belief that" instead of "I believe that" -- suggests otherwise. Hitting the microfiche to dig that one up and see if there is more context has been on my to-do list for about a year. Looks like I'll have to get around to it soon ... the fact is, most of the quotes we see floating around on this are gotcha quotes pulled out of context and then endlessly recirculated: political gamesmanship. The Axworthy quote, for example, isn't even a full sentence, but it is passed around as if it represents the entire content of his speech.

---

Actually, no. This bill in the Senate is just a bill in the Senate. What it actually may mean is a question of interpretation. We don't know if it is a trial balloon or just something out of left field. For the reasons I already gave, I've discarded the idea it was a trial balloon and think it is out of left field ... if it is a trial balloon, it has flopped, because it has failed to excite the interest of gun-control supporters even when they have been asked, in public, to take note of it.

You haven't shown this is the goal of the Liberals. All we ever get are the same recycled quotations, without context, some of them not even complete sentences, originating from people who have since retired from politics. This doesn't prove, or even credibly suggest, the existence of a master plan to slowly confiscate all firearms. Indeed, I have second-hand reports that half the Rock quote is missing -- the half where he says that he had changed his mind.

I'd like to see some respect for evidence here.

Come on Welsh your a smart Lad. I hope you don't think Rock isn't involved behind the scenes as a backroom boy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by welsh

None of those quotations actually support the assertion you made. Rock never in fact "admitted ... it was the beginning to slowly confiscate firearms over time."

The oft quoted "I came to Ottawa" bit is questionable, too. It comes from a Maclean's piece where it was part of a larger interview. Rock is speaking in the past tense of his belief at some time in the past, and it is not clear whether he still held that belief at the time of the interview. The wording -- "I came to Ottawa last year with the belief that" instead of "I believe that" -- suggests otherwise. Hitting the microfiche to dig that one up and see if there is more context has been on my to-do list for about a year. Looks like I'll have to get around to it soon ... the fact is, most of the quotes we see floating around on this are gotcha quotes pulled out of context and then endlessly recirculated: political gamesmanship. The Axworthy quote, for example, isn't even a full sentence, but it is passed around as if it represents the entire content of his speech.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by greatwhite

Come on Welsh your a smart Lad. I hope you don't think Rock isn't involved behind the scenes as a backroom boy.

---

Liberals may get beat in an election or step out of the limelight but they never really get off the tax funded payroll.

Terry Unless Harper gets a majority were sunk. Although this is just a gut instinct. If Harper gets a minority Muclair and Justin will form a coalition. I don't think Justin will get either, to be honest I'm more worried about Muclair and I trust both about as far as I can throw my lawn tractor (yeah I was just mowing the lawn).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by terrym

Liberals may get beat in an election or step out of the limelight but they never really get off the tax funded payroll.

---

I have said repeatedly on here that we will have a coalition government of NDP and Liberals. Prepare yourself for it would be my advice. Canadians are in "change" mode. Harper has been in for 3 mandates. That's about the shelf life for PM's. Mulcair is 10x brighter, hell 100x probably than JT. He will eat him alive in the debates and JT's support has trended down for months. I mean think about it. ALBERTA now has an NDP government. A government that is about to kick the oil industry in the nuts with increased carbon taxes and royalties. The chief of staff of the energy minister is an anti-oilsands activist/lobbyist. Quebec will never vote PC nor will the Maritimes. Ontario has proven itself to have imbeciles as voters. How else would you describe giving Liberals who turn everything they touch to poop a majority? I see very very bad times coming in this country. Get your credit obligations in order, dump your semiautos, the Left is about to invade..........:scream:

Terry totally agree with you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by terrym

I have said repeatedly on here that we will have a coalition government of NDP and Liberals. Prepare yourself for it would be my advice. Canadians are in "change" mode. Harper has been in for 3 mandates. That's about the shelf life for PM's. Mulcair is 10x brighter, hell 100x probably than JT. He will eat him alive in the debates and JT's support has trended down for months. I mean think about it. ALBERTA now has an NDP government. A government that is about to kick the oil industry in the nuts with increased carbon taxes and royalties. The chief of staff of the energy minister is an anti-oilsands activist/lobbyist. Quebec will never vote PC nor will the Maritimes. Ontario has proven itself to have imbeciles as voters. How else would you describe giving Liberals who turn everything they touch to poop a majority? I see very very bad times coming in this country. Get your credit obligations in order, dump your semiautos, the Left is about to invade..........:scream:

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by greatwhite

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by terrym

I have said repeatedly on here that we will have a coalition government of NDP and Liberals. Prepare yourself for it would be my advice. Canadians are in "change" mode. Harper has been in for 3 mandates. That's about the shelf life for PM's. Mulcair is 10x brighter, hell 100x probably than JT. He will eat him alive in the debates and JT's support has trended down for months. I mean think about it. ALBERTA now has an NDP government. A government that is about to kick the oil industry in the nuts with increased carbon taxes and royalties. The chief of staff of the energy minister is an anti-oilsands activist/lobbyist. Quebec will never vote PC nor will the Maritimes. Ontario has proven itself to have imbeciles as voters. How else would you describe giving Liberals who turn everything they touch to poop a majority? I see very very bad times coming in this country. Get your credit obligations in order, dump your semiautos, the Left is about to invade..........:scream:

---

Terry totally agree with you.

---

3X

Dump, no, BUT I've been looking into how to give/sell/donate whatever a couple firearms of my grandfather and dad to my cousin in the US. If you have a bunch of semi's (or maybe even pumps or after the attack in Ottawa levers) it might be time to talk to look into a gun store in the US about buying from you or trades. It looks like for several firearms using a gunstore to help with the paper work and ship to that is the best solution. I am wondering if Colt is thinking of coming out with a bolt action version using the AR template, they just got permission to sell the semi and now it looks like Canada is thinking of economic, social ... and I guess yes intellectual jumping off a cliff.

The NDP and the Liberals have some of you guys in full-blown panic mode,already. They're scaring the crap out of you like terrorists firing one shot and watching a million people run for cover. You're giving the leftists far too much credit and voters far too little. Relax,for chrissakes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by trimmer21

The NDP and the Liberals have some of you guys in full-blown panic mode,already. They're scaring the crap out of you like terrorists firing one shot and watching a million people run for cover. You're giving the leftists far too much credit and voters far too little. Relax,for chrissakes.

---

I'm starting to wonder who's more paranoid...those who fear guns or those with the guns ..LOL...

I always have my back up and it has worked well for me for 40 years.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by trimmer21

The NDP and the Liberals have some of you guys in full-blown panic mode,already. They're scaring the crap out of you like terrorists firing one shot and watching a million people run for cover. You're giving the leftists far too much credit and voters far too little. Relax,for chrissakes.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by trimmer21

You're giving the leftists far too much credit and voters far too little. Relax,for chrissakes.

---

Kathleen Wynne. Majority. Ontario, Enough said.......

I've always been a "glass half full" kind of guy and never run scared. No fear!

I like to always Plan ahead.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by trimmer21

The NDP and the Liberals have some of you guys in full-blown panic mode,already. They're scaring the crap out of you like terrorists firing one shot and watching a million people run for cover. You're giving the leftists far too much credit and voters far too little. Relax,for chrissakes.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by trimmer21

I've always been a "glass half full" kind of guy and never run scared. No fear!

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by greatwhite

I like to always Plan ahead.

---

First analyze the potential and the facts are the best steps...

Step 1.
C-231 to preserve existing data.

Step 2. Look at the parties and their stands
NDP
Tom Mulcair says NDP would give police tools to track all guns
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/tom-...guns-1.2859581

He did back track on it but also made comments about semi-autos/assault weapons and duck hunters not needing them.

Extrapolation of comments results: NDP - good bye to anything they view as an "assault weapon", read semi-auto rifles and shotguns.

Liberals
- comments on reclassification
- outright lies on C-42
https://www.liberal.ca/lpc-opposes-cpc-gun-bill/
“First, it eliminates the need for owners of prohibited and restricted firearms to have a transportation license to carry those guns in their vehicles. This means they could freely transport handguns or automatic weapons anywhere within their province, whether to a grocery store or a soccer field." - Justin Trudeau

Extrapolation of comments results: Liberals- reclassification that result in good bye to anything they view as an "assault weapon", read semi-auto rifles and shotguns as in the "Australian model" that include pump shotguns too.


examination of Voters:
Ontario - Wynne won....
Alberta - NDP won
Quebec.... it's Quebec no more needs to be said.
Most provided info. by CBC.
CBC - will gain hundreds of millions in funding from an NDP or Liberal gov't and has been seen to lie and mislead the public repeatedly while ignoring left issues with economy, integrity and common sense.





Second determine the outcomes and impact and plan

Results of analysis
NDP + Liberals + a gullible or just anti-austerity voters propagandized by media determined to additional funding = talk to my cousin, ATF Form 6...
http://www.losttarget.com/importing.htm
http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/cfp-pcaf/faq/im-ex-eng.htm#f2

A lot of Chicken Little going on here.

You do know there are still copies of the full registry, Right?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by welsh

A lot of Chicken Little going on here.

---

You can prove that assertion how?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by greatwhite

You do know there are still copies of the full registry, Right?

---

"Full" would be a gross exaggeration GW..the data is useless now, it's outdated/incomplete for what it was gathered for, so it's would serve nobody's purpose.

Like I said before, you'd have better info of who owns what from the Ammo book/log at Canadian tire. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by greatwhite

You do know there are still copies of the full registry, Right?

---

It really doesn't matter if some twit kept a copy,GW,because it's illegal to use it for anything. It's yesterday's news,old useless data. I don't understand why it's such a big deal that useless data is causing such childish temper tantrums other than for political revenge and some sort of retribution for making the Liberal s look like a bunch of whack job hairpins.........and that shoe really fits.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MikePal

"Full" would be a gross exaggeration GW..the data is useless now, it's outdated/incomplete for what it was gathered for, so it's would serve nobody's purpose.

Like I said before, you'd have better info of who owns what from the Ammo book/log at Canadian tire. :)

---

If C-231 was to be successful it could be atleast 50 to possibly 90% unchanged and Bill FGO (I'll leave the acronym to your imagination) would take care of that:

Article: 1.1
All holders of valid PAL and POL license must contact their local firearms officer or online confirm the firearms listed and update sold or purchased firearms in the registry records.

Article 1.2
Failure to complete the action defined in 1.1 by April 1, 2016 will result in a warning and 30 days notice before revocation of the PAL or POL and the confiscation of any firearms found during the inspection of associated residences and possible criminal charges.

Article 1.3
All Semi-automatic firearms (rimfire, centerfire and shotgun) will be reclassified blah blah.... failure to register as such will result in criminal charges.

Article 1.4
Failure to complete the action defined in 1.2 by July 1, 2016 will result in a warning and 30 days notice before revocation of the PAL or POL and the confiscation of any firearms found during the inspection of associated residences. Failure to qualify for a RPAL will allow for a 30 days transfer opportunity to a qualified RPAL possessor or seizure of illegally held firearms with criminal charges.


Bing... one login page, one confirmation page, one delete page, one add page, one reclassification page with your PAL/RPAL status.... BINGO up to date.




As per the Australian model of short notice and quick destruction.

"The proposals included a ban on all semi-automatic rifles and all semi-automatic and pump-action shotguns, and a tightly restrictive system of licensing and ownership controls.

Some discussion of measures to allow owners to undertake modifications to reduce the capacity of magazine-fed shotguns ("crimping") occurred, but the government refused to permit this.


The buyback purchased and destroyed more than 631,000 firearms, mostly semi-automatic .22 rimfires, semi-automatic shotguns and pump-action shotguns. Only Victoria provided a breakdown of types destroyed, and in that state less than 3% were military style semi-automatic rifles."

Trimmer believe me Data is always valuable which is why the NDP, Libs want it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by trimmer21

It really doesn't matter if some twit kept a copy,GW,because it's illegal to use it for anything. It's yesterday's news,old useless data. I don't understand why it's such a big deal that useless data is causing such childish temper tantrums other than for political revenge and some sort of retribution for making the Liberal s look like a bunch of whack job hairpins.........and that shoe really fits.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mosquito

Article: 1.1
All holders of valid PAL and POL license must contact their local firearms officer or online confirm the firearms listed and update sold or purchased firearms in the registry records.

---

What registry records ? They don't exist in accordance with Federal law....they can't just magically re-appear.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MikePal

What registry records ? They don't exist in accordance with Federal law....they can't just magically re-appear.

---

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/...ticle24965632/

Federal information commissioner Suzanne Legault is seeking a court order to preserve any remaining records from the now-defunct long gun registry, - June 15/2015

They have the PAL/POL list, we see the RCMP in Alberta knowing they got all the firearms at particular residences during the flood, Quebec and it's proclamation to create its own registry, etc.

http://montrealgazette.com/news/loca...g-gun-registry


It would appear that the RCMP probably has a large portion of the data in it's own databases due to requests for information and we can see Legault (and we can assume others) using freedom of information requests to obtain data. Given my experience with rebuilding databases and if there is as much as I would suspect in local and RCMP database I would say using logs and extracts from cooperative sources I would estimate a 2 to 4 month project to rebuild it into a form and with a parallel team working on GUI and mailings...November to April 1.... about right actually to start.

As for the data integrity, if the RCMP made requests to be updated on firearm owners and their firearms in some regions (like it looks like in Alberta), updates when there are renewals etc.... I see no problem technically saying 50% of the data is out there in various forms to grab, possibly alot more but the format and content may be an issue, parsing data strings can be problematic.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mosquito

Federal information commissioner Suzanne Legault is seeking a court order to preserve any remaining records from the now-defunct long gun registry, - June 15/2015

---

All the (legal) records were destroyed by the RCMP except for Que's....under Federal law.....just because GW has a copy hidden under his mattress, the data can never be revived legally.

Quote:

---

The Mounties did destroy the records in late October 2012 — following further pressure from the Privy Council Office, the bureaucracy that supports the prime minister and cabinet.

---

The RCMP may get their fingers slapped....but the data is destroyed. No resurrecting it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MikePal

All the (legal) records were destroyed by the RCMP except for Que's....under Federal law.....just because GW has a copy hidden under his mattress, the data can never be revived legally.



The RCMP may get their fingers slapped....but the data is destroyed. No resurrecting it.

---

Yes, we can assume it was, BUT in various databases there will be requests for information, local updates etc. and it will have names, addresses, PAL/POL infor., likely possessed firearms list and descriptions.... trust me, I have had to rebuild databases and by parsing the data transmitted in log files, transactions recorded on local databases etc. there is still a large portion of it readily available, hence Legaults actions to preserve what ever remains. Makes me wonder how much she alone has due to her freedom of information requests.

Piecing together 3 or 4 or more databases to join the data into one database is a pain in the a** but doable.

Heck, their goal might not even be to get the whole database, they might just want the semi and pump owners and a few RCMP requests and that data being recorded and attached to individuals in regional or local databases... easy!

Any provincial CFO making the simple request, say Ontario made the request "Send me, name, address and firearm details where region = "Ontario" and firearmtype = .... and a few minutes later in their local database they would have a list of all owners and their firearms by type. The database for the registry.... yes, probably all gone, the DATA.... nope.


Reminds me of a joke....:silly::silly:

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com...c7a0f740aa.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mosquito

. trust me, I have had to rebuild databases and by parsing the data transmitted in log files, transactions recorded on local databases etc.

Heck, their goal might not even be to get the whole database, they might just want the semi and pump owners and a few RCMP requests and that data being recorded and attached to individuals in regional or local databases... easy!

---

You don't seem to get the nuance...any remaining data from the registry is toxic..legally....no one can ever be found using it or any part of it. It can't be used. It was ordered destroyed by Federal Law and confirmed destroyed by the RCMP.

There are no 'legal' regional or local databases.....if a CFO was found to be using data illegally obtained from the now defunct Registry they would be charged.

You really have that much confidence and trust in the RCMP? Who is going to investigate them and or Lay charges?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by terrym

You really have that much confidence and trust in the RCMP? Who is going to investigate them and or Lay charges?

---

Yes I have trust in the Parliamentary system and the Law of our land. A Royal Commission has in the past and will always be available to hold the RCMP accountable.

I should hope I do; I spent 25 yrs wearing a Uniform, willing to give my life to defend that trust.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MikePal

You don't seem to get the nuance...any remaining data from the registry is toxic..legally....no one can ever be found using it or any part of it. It can't be used. It was ordered destroyed by Federal Law and confirmed destroyed by the RCMP.

There are no 'legal' regional or local databases.....if a CFO was found to be using data illegally obtained from the now defunct Registry they would be charged.

---

No, no.... you just can't get it can you.

1) at the point they are trying to rebuild it the laws will have changed.

2) any relevant data can be pulled from other sources due to the changed laws. Relevant data may have had the original source as the registry but it isn't the registry database anymore.

3) they won't say they are using the registry database, they will nuance it to say they are using existing PAL data, freedom of information requests etc. just like saying a "fee" isn't a "tax" the data accumulated will be coming from X but the fact X got it from the registry will be not spoken. It will be "the CFO database", not the reality that the CFO data came from the registry. In some ways it actually make sense that a provincial CFO would have that list too.... legality... when has that stopped a Liberal (or NDP) politician? Even many of the Conservative ones play it close to or over the line too much.



For example, It has been shown it exists by the RCMP searching houses until they got all the firearms (from radio logs).... how then did they know they got all the firearms. Legault was very upset it seems that her freedom of information requests didn't get filled and desperately wants to preserve any data left.... ??? what were the requests??? were they lists of owners of semi's and their firearms?:confused::confused:

We don't know? We don't know how much and what form the remaining data is in but we can be sure there is some and they already have the design and layout and screens etc. Making people register again... but an improved registry... say for anything not a single shot or double barrel? Who knows what their plans are.... but based on what they have admitted it isn't good for firearm ownership.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mosquito

We don't know? We don't know how much and what form the remaining data is in but we can be sure there is some and they already have the design and layout and screens etc. Making people register again... but an improved registry... say for anything not a single shot or double barrel? Who knows what their plans are.... but based on what they have admitted it isn't good for firearm ownership.

---

Come on...now your just floundering in the 'Tin Foil Hat' level of reality...LOL...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mosquito

They have the PAL/POL list, we see the RCMP in Alberta knowing they got all the firearms at particular residences during the flood, Quebec and it's proclamation to create its own registry, etc.

---

There has never been any credible evidence that the RCMP used a copy of the registry in High River -- only wild assumptions and accusations. The Commission for Public Complaints Against the RCMP looked into how the RCMP chose which houses to go into, etc., and nothing about the registry came to light.

As for Quebec, they can move ahead with their own registry, but they can't use the existing registry data. The courts have ruled on that and upheld the federal government's move to destroy the data under C-19.

The only reason Quebec data is still being retained is because of pending requests for information under FOI predating the earlier Supreme Court decision. Any use of that data would have to follow FOI rules, i.e., all personal identifying data would have to be redacted. So this hardly gets you a registry.

Assuming the matter remains tied up in the courts until after the election, could a future government use the Quebec data? Yes -- if they managed to draft a bill and get it through both houses, retroactively undoing the order to destroy the data, before the courts dealt with the FOI request. That's an unlikely scenario.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mosquito

It would appear that the RCMP probably has a large portion of the data in it's own databases due to requests for information....

---

Based on what? There is no evidence that the RCMP has any portion of the data in any other database. The only support for this claim is Legault suggesting that they could have this data without anyone knowing.

Privacy laws dictate that any information extracted from the registry for FOI purposes must have the personal identifying information redacted. If the RCMP has this data, they can hardly rebuild a registry from it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mosquito

Given my experience with rebuilding databases....

---

Given that experience, you would know that logs and extracts will only get you so far. You are making wild assumptions about which data is being kept in logs, and for how long. If a cop were to query the registry through CPIC, the transaction would presumably be logged, but that log might not contain any actual information about the data requested, and might not be retained. Also, logs and so forth would only be able to rebuild those records that had been queried, and we can safely assume that most registry records would not be queried.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mosquito

Yes, we can assume it was, BUT in various databases there will be requests for information, local updates etc. and it will have names, addresses, PAL/POL infor., likely possessed firearms list and descriptions....

---

Which various databases? Again, wild assumptions being made about what information is being retained, where, and in what form. You seem to be assuming that when an inquiry was made against the registry, some kind of local copy was made of the data returned. But given that the cops had access to query the registry itself, there would be no reason to have a local database. From a data integrity standpoint, you wouldn't want one.

Boy no point arguing with those that have no concept of computer environments, databases and logs.


http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/cfp-pcaf/index-eng.htm
CFRO is a check that officers can use prior to attending a call, and is currently being accessed more than 14,000 times a day.


No point arguing... you are right I am wrong if it makes you feel better... to think that those requests weren't retained in local databases, in local logs, in transaction lists on local machines etc.... OH I am sure they went through their local database of the requests and their transaction logs and deleted all that data....

after all Legault just seems like the type to get upset at anything and trying to preserve data that doesn't exist is just her way of copping.


and this article is just fiction...
http://globalnews.ca/news/1998184/wa...nload-it-here/

As far as we can make out, this version has less data than Clennett was looking for in his request – he also wanted the serial numbers of the firearms, for example.

The long gun registry, in its complete form, is gone, but the redacted version is the most complete data set about Canadians and their firearms which is ever likely to become public. It’s out of date, but there’s no better alternative.

Lots of insights are buried in the data:

• What kinds of guns are most attractive to thieves, relative to the number owned
• Roughly how many of a given type of controversialfirearms are owned across the country, and more or less where
• As Quebec seeks to establish a provincial long gun registry, how successful it will be. Measuring the provincial registry against the legacy data from the federal registry from Quebec is the most obvious test

Oh.... I made this up too....

Make Model Manufacturer Type Action Class Barrel length Calibre Shots Registration Date Province Postal Code Client Type Stolen Date Lost Date Recovered Date
RUGER 10-22 CARBINE UNKNOWN Rifle Semi-Automatic Non-restricted 22 LONG RIFLE Multi shots 22/09/2002 AB T4 Individual
COOEY 39 UNKNOWN Rifle Bolt Action Non-restricted 22 CALIBRE 1 25/02/2008 ON P7 Individual
WINCHESTER 72 UNKNOWN Rifle Bolt Action Non-restricted 22 Multi shots 20/11/2002 SK S7 Individual
RUGER M77 HAWKEYE STURM RUGER Rifle Bolt Action Non-restricted 610 204 RUGER 5 18/03/2011 ON L0 Individual
SAVAGE MODEL 29B UNKNOWN Rifle Pump Action Non-restricted .22 CAL Multi shots 29/12/2002 SK S4 Individual
MARLIN 36 A MARLIN FIREARMS Rifle Lever Action Non-restricted 508 30-30 WIN 4 29/04/2000 NF A5 Individual
LEE-ENFIELD NO 1 MARK 3* BIRMINGHAM SMALL ARMS (BSA) Rifle Bolt Action Non-restricted 640 303 BRITISH 10 07/12/2009 ON L6 Individual
BAIKAL IJ-18 UNKNOWN Shotgun Hinge Break Non-restricted 12 1 20/02/2002 QC J0 Individual
WINCHESTER RANGER 120 US REPEATING ARMS Shotgun Pump Action Non-restricted 762 12 GA X 3" 4 03/11/2001 QC G0 Individual
RUGER RUGER UNKNOWN Rifle Semi-Automatic Non-restricted 22 CAL Multi shots 08/02/2010 ON M4 Individual
SPECIAL GEWEHR LAVF STAHL SG1 UNKNOWN Shotgun Hinge Break Non-restricted 20 Multi shots 22/12/2001 ON K1 Individual
BROWNING BL-22 MIROKU FIREARMS MANUFACTURING Rifle Lever Action Non-restricted 508 22 LR 15 24/04/2002 AB T0 Individual
STOEGER P350 UNKNOWN Shotgun Pump Action Non-restricted 711 12 GA X 3 1/2" 4 20/07/2006 UN UN Business 01/03/2011
WINCHESTER 1200 WINCHESTER Shotgun Pump Action Non-restricted 762 12 GA X 2 3/4" 4 24/10/2011 MB R5 Individual
LAKEFIELD/MOSSBERG UNKNOWN MOSSBERG Shotgun Bolt Action Non-restricted 715 12 GA X 3" 2 04/02/2002 ON P6 Individual
RANGE UK UNKNOWN Rifle Bolt Action Non-restricted 22-S-L-LR 1 30/12/2002 NS B0 Individual
REMINGTON WOODMASTER 742 UNKNOWN Rifle Semi-Automatic Non-restricted 30-06 Multi shots 26/11/2002 BC V1 Individual
WINCHESTER UNKNOWN UNKNOWN Rifle Lever Action Non-restricted 508 30-30 WIN 30/04/2002 QC J0 Individual
BROWNING BROWNING PATENTS UNKNOWN Shotgun Semi-Automatic Non-restricted 629 7 MM REM MAG 4 09/05/2003 QC J9 Individual
REMINGTON 812 UNKNOWN Shotgun Hinge Break Non-restricted 410 1 17/08/2002 BC V1 Individual
WINCHESTER 1894 WINCHESTER Rifle Lever Action Non-restricted 660 32 WIN SPL 8 21/07/2006 ON K0 Individual
STAR F BONIFACIO ECHEVERRIA Handgun Semi-Automatic Restricted 108 22 LR 8 06/08/2002 ON P8 Individual
PARA-ORDNANCE 14 45 LIMITED PARA-ORDNANCE Handgun Semi-Automatic Restricted 127 45 AUTO 10 09/06/2006 ON M2 Business
THOMPSON/CENTER ENCORE ENDEAVOR THOMPSON/CENTER ARMS Rifle Single Shot Non-restricted 711 50 PERCUSSION 1 04/04/2011 SK S4 Individual
WINCHESTER 94 CHEROKEE COMMEMORATIVE WINCHESTER Rifle Lever Action Non-restricted 508 30-30 WIN 6 01/03/2005 SK S0 Individual
HARRINGTON & RICHARDSON 098 HARRINGTON & RICHARDSON Shotgun Single Shot Non-restricted 700 12 GA X 3" 1 23/05/2002 AB T0 Individual
SAVAGE 94C UNKNOWN Shotgun Hinge Break Non-restricted 12 1 28/06/2002 NF A1 Individual
RUGER MINI-14 STURM RUGER Rifle Semi-Automatic Non-restricted 470 223 REM 5 29/09/2006 AB T2 Individual
WINCHESTER 490 UNKNOWN Rifle Semi-Automatic Non-restricted 22 Multi shots 19/01/2002 ON L0 Individual
MIDLAND 2100 MIDLAND GUN COMPANY Rifle Bolt Action Non-restricted 559 30-06 SPRG 4 24/10/2011 SK S0 Individual
REMINGTON MODEL FOUR UNKNOWN Rifle Semi-Automatic Non-restricted 3006 Multi shots 20/02/2002 QC J8 Individual
BROWNING BPS FIELD MIROKU FIREARMS MANUFACTURING Shotgun Pump Action Non-restricted 711 12 GA X 3" 3 01/11/2010 QC G4 Individual
WINCHESTER 120 UNKNOWN Shotgun Pump Action Non-restricted 750 12 GA 2 04/11/2001 MB R0 Individual
SMITH & WESSON 10 SMITH & WESSON Handgun Revolver Prohibited 102 38 SPL 6 14/11/2002 ON K0 Individual
COOEY 600 UNKNOWN Rifle Semi-Automatic Non-restricted 22 Multi shots 17/11/2001 ON P8 Individual
MOSSBERG 500 FIELD MOSSBERG Shotgun Pump Action Non-restricted 610 410 GA X 3" 3 18/11/2010 QC G7 Individual
REMINGTON 742 WOODSMASTER UNKNOWN Rifle Semi-Automatic Non-restricted 308 Multi shots 14/02/2002 NB E1 Individual
MARLIN 39A UNKNOWN Rifle Lever Action Non-restricted 22 Multi shots 13/02/2002 QC G0 Individual
IVER JOHNSON CHAMPION UNKNOWN Shotgun Hinge Break Non-restricted 24 1 29/04/2003 NS B0 Individual
RUGER NEW MODEL SINGLE SIX UNKNOWN Handgun Revolver Restricted 165 22 24/10/2002 ON N/ Individual
SAVAGE 99F UNKNOWN Rifle Lever Action Non-restricted 308 Multi shots 21/12/2001 ON K4 Individual
BROWNING X-BOLT HUNTER MIROKU FIREARMS MANUFACTURING Rifle Bolt Action Non-restricted 660 7MM REM MAG 3 09/08/2010 QC J0 Individual
COOEY 39 UNKNOWN Rifle Bolt Action Non-restricted 22 1 14/02/2002 ON K9 Individual
CENTAURE 4 FABRIQUES D'ARMES UNIES DE LIEGE Shotgun Multi Barrel Non-restricted 762 12 GA X 2 3/4" 2 12/03/2001 QC H7 Individual
EATONIA UNKNOWN UNKNOWN Rifle Bolt Action Non-restricted 25 1 20/10/2001 NB E3 Individual
REMINGTON 870 EXPRESS UNKNOWN Shotgun Pump Action Non-restricted 12 Multi shots 21/03/2003 QC J0 Individual
MOSSBERG 500A MOSSBERG Shotgun Pump Action Non-restricted 711 12 GA X 3" 4 26/07/2001 QC G3 Business
HOPKINS & ALLEN FOREHAND MODEL 1901 HOPKINS & ALLEN Handgun Revolver Prohibited 76 32 S&W 5 06/07/2009 NS B0 Individual
MOSSBERG 400G UNKNOWN Shotgun Pump Action Non-restricted 12 Multi shots 19/04/2002 SK S0 Individual
RUGER M77 MARK II STURM RUGER Rifle Bolt Action Non-restricted 559 30-06 SPRG 4 12/03/2004 QC G0 Individual
WINCHESTER 12 UNKNOWN Shotgun Pump Action Non-restricted 12 Multi shots 14/11/2002 ON N0 Individual
WINCHESTER 94 UNKNOWN Rifle Lever Action Non-restricted 38-55 WIN Multi shots 01/04/2003 ON N8 Individual
VALTRO TACTICAL 98 VALTRO STOCCHETTA Shotgun Pump Action Non-restricted 356 12 GA X 2 3/4" 5 24/09/2008 BC V9 Individual
BROWNING BROWNING BAR UNKNOWN Rifle Semi-Automatic Non-restricted BAR 30-06 Multi shots 06/02/2009 WI N/ Individual 06/02/2009
BENELLI R1 BENELLI Rifle Semi-Automatic Non-restricted 610 270 WSM 3 17/09/2008 AB T8 Individual
BENELLI SUPER BLACK EAGLE II BENELLI Shotgun Semi-Automatic Non-restricted 711 12 GA X 3 1/2" 3 09/08/2010 ON L7 Individual
MOSSBERG 395 KA UNKNOWN Shotgun Bolt Action Non-restricted 12 Multi shots 08/11/2001 ON N9 Individual
REMINGTON 121 UNKNOWN Rifle Semi-Automatic Non-restricted 22 1 26/11/2001 QC G5 Individual
LAKEFEILD MARK II UNKNOWN Rifle Bolt Action Non-restricted 22 Multi shots 11/12/2001 NS B0 Individual
MARLIN 30AS UNKNOWN Rifle Lever Action Non-restricted 3030 Multi shots 16/02/2002 ON P0 Individual
WINCHESTER CIL 972-C UNKNOWN Rifle Bolt Action Non-restricted .270 Multi shots 24/11/2002 SK S0 Individual
CBC 151 COMPANHIA BRASILEIRA DE CARTUCHOS (CBC) Shotgun Single Shot Non-restricted 762 12 GA X 2 3/4" 1 28/03/2008 QC J1 Individual
CIL CIL MODEL 402 UNKNOWN Shotgun Hinge Break Non-restricted 20 03/05/2002 AB T0 Individual
NORINCO SKS CHINESE STATE ARSENALS Rifle Semi-Automatic Non-restricted 520 7.62X39 RUSSIAN 5 07/10/2011 UN UN Individual
SAVAGE 110 SAVAGE Rifle Bolt Action Non-restricted 559 300 WIN MAG 3 30/09/2011 UN UN Individual
NAMBU TYPE 14 JAPANESE STATE ARSENAL, NAGOYA Handgun Semi-Automatic Restricted 114 8MM NAMBU 8 27/11/2009 UN UN Individual
STOEGER X20 UNKNOWN Rifle Air, spring or gas Non-restricted 420 177 PELLET 1 31/07/2009 ON M4 Individual
MARLIN 925C MARLIN FIREARMS Rifle Bolt Action Non-restricted 559 22 LR 7 08/12/2010 NS B0 Individual
REMINGTON 788 UNKNOWN Rifle Bolt Action Non-restricted 222 1 25/02/2002 ON N0 Individual
JC HIGGINS 20 HIGH STANDARD Shotgun Pump Action Non-restricted 712 12 GA X 2 3/4" 5 26/04/2002 BC V7 Individual
WINCHESTER 120 UNKNOWN Shotgun Pump Action Non-restricted 12 Multi shots 30/10/2001 ON P1 Individual
COOEY 64B UNKNOWN Rifle Semi-Automatic Non-restricted .22 Multi shots 26/12/2002 SK S7 Individual
CARL GUSTAV 96 UNKNOWN Rifle Bolt Action Non-restricted 6.5X55MM. Multi shots 27/12/2002 BC V8 Individual
RUGER 10/22 CARBINE STURM RUGER Rifle Semi-Automatic Non-restricted 470 22 LR 10 07/04/2010 AB T0 Individual
UNKNOWN UNKNOWN UNKNOWN Rifle Bolt Action Non-restricted 30-06 1 08/04/2002 BC V0 Individual
SAVAGE UNKNOWN UNKNOWN Rifle Lever Action Non-restricted 30.30 Multi shots 30/06/2003 SK S4 Individual
WINCHESTER 94 CENTENNIAL 66 RIFLE WINCHESTER Rifle Lever Action Non-restricted 660 30-30 WIN 8 29/10/2009 SK S0 Individual
ITHACA MAG 10 ITHACA Shotgun Semi-Automatic Non-restricted 660 10 GA X 3 1/2" 3 03/04/2009 ON N0 Individual
BAIKAL IJ-18 UNKNOWN Shotgun Single Shot Non-restricted 686 20 GA 1 16/11/2001 QC J9 Individual
WINCHESTER MODEL 190 UNKNOWN Rifle Semi-Automatic Non-restricted 22 CALIBRE Multi shots 13/12/2002 ON L0 Individual


"It’s a very large .txt file of about eight million lines, about 141 MB zipped, and 876 MB unzipped."




Hmmmm.... I wonder if there is a version with more data.... nah..... your right... none of it exists anymore....... transaction logs and databases at local sited and server logs well they rarely contain the actual transaction and when they do... they are a pain to parse...those 14K requests a day... well they wouldn't include requests from CFO's to look at bigger numbers and types etc. Only individuals related to a police call and not requests for info. like transfers in my area etc. .... if that makes you feel better.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MikePal

Yes I have trust in the Parliamentary system and the Law of our land. A Royal Commission has in the past and will always be available to hold the RCMP accountable.

I should hope I do; I spent 25 yrs wearing a Uniform, willing to give my life to defend that trust.

---

And I have no doubt you served honorably as do most constables. Having said that , the RCMP has been exposed as being a rogue and secretive outfit that operates under it's own set of rules.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...Mounted_Police

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_...es_of_the_RCMP

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mosquito

and this article is just fiction...
http://globalnews.ca/news/1998184/wa...nload-it-here/

---

Useless, dated, meaningless data....

I think the majority of the comments in your link says it all...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by terrym

Having said that , the RCMP has been exposed as being a rogue and secretive outfit that operates under it's own set of rules.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...Mounted_Police

---

And they have been held accountable..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mosquito

Boy no point arguing with those that have no concept of computer environments, databases and logs.

---

I work for a major software company. I'll wager you don't go a day in your life without encountering something that's been managed by our software. I work with complex databases every day.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mosquito

No point arguing... you are right I am wrong if it makes you feel better... to think that those requests weren't retained in local databases, in local logs, in transaction lists on local machines etc....

---

A request against CFRO (the registry itself) will return data, but that data will not necessarily be stored in any log or retained in any local database.

Competently designed systems don't store redundant data, particularly where the data is sensitive. Logs will typically only tell you that a transaction was passed, with a key identifier for the transaction; they won't give you the data that was transmitted. And there is no reason to store data in a local database when you make an inquiry -- all you achieve by making a local copy is to give yourself a data integrity problem.

Even if you are storing that data somewhere, all you get by rebuilding your database is the records involved in those queries.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mosquito

OH I am sure they went through their local database of the requests....

---

What local database, specifically? How do you know local police forces kept databases of CFRO queries? Why would they build such a thing? What benefit would it provide to justify the cost? They would never inquire against that database, for data integrity reasons. They'd only want to go to CFRO. So why keep it?

There's no operational need for such a database. Yet you insist that it exists. This is tinfoil hat stuff.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mosquito

after all Legault just seems like the type to get upset at anything and trying to preserve data that doesn't exist is just her way of copping.

---

Legault is doing her job, as Information Commissioner. It is her job to see that FOI requests are filled, as the law requires. She caught the RCMP breaking the law, and then the government retroactively changed the law to make their law-breaking legal. That's grounds to be "upset."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mosquito

and this article is just fiction...
http://globalnews.ca/news/1998184/wa...nload-it-here/

---

That data includes no personal identifying information. It is just a list of guns. You can't use it to create a registry, because it doesn't identify who owns the guns.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MikePal

And they have been held accountable..

---

How many have been fired? Suspensions with pay more than likely. Doesn't undo the damage. Kind of like buying carbon credits. Doesn't reduce the carbon now does it?

Actually I did apply to work on the registry about 6 years ago, but I didn't get the contract. But no I don't have a copy of it under my bed. I do know people who worked on it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MikePal

Come on...now your just floundering in the 'Tin Foil Hat' level of reality...LOL...

---

I build mostly data warehouses and front end applications usually with SQL server and Visual Studio. But also work with SAP, Oracle, Maestro whatever. Have done some cutting edge development but mostly manage the systems I built now. Soon they will become legacy apps. We plan to install HANA within 2 years or less or I will begin setting up SAP FIROR (did I spell that right??)

All my stuff is custom and is more fun to build. I use to manage and MRP system at the last place that was pretty boring. I just need 10 more years and I am done this crap. Application, Databases and and any type of software development is very boring and no longer fun.

No I'm not going to say how, who, why I know if there may or may not be copies. But if you work at a software development company then you should know there is always a copy someplace.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by welsh

I work for a major software company. I'll wager you don't go a day in your life without encountering something that's been managed by our software. I work with complex databases every day.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by welsh

I work for a major software company. I'll wager you don't go a day in your life without encountering something that's been managed by our software. I work with complex databases every day.

A request against CFRO (the registry itself) will return data, but that data will not necessarily be stored in any log or retained in any local database.

Competently designed systems don't store redundant data, particularly where the data is sensitive. Logs will typically only tell you that a transaction was passed, with a key identifier for the transaction; they won't give you the data that was transmitted. And there is no reason to store data in a local database when you make an inquiry -- all you achieve by making a local copy is to give yourself a data integrity problem.

Even if you are storing that data somewhere, all you get by rebuilding your database is the records involved in those queries.



What local database, specifically? How do you know local police forces kept databases of CFRO queries? Why would they build such a thing? What benefit would it provide to justify the cost? They would never inquire against that database, for data integrity reasons. They'd only want to go to CFRO. So why keep it?

There's no operational need for such a database. Yet you insist that it exists. This is tinfoil hat stuff.



Legault is doing her job, as Information Commissioner. It is her job to see that FOI requests are filled, as the law requires. She caught the RCMP breaking the law, and then the government retroactively changed the law to make their law-breaking legal. That's grounds to be "upset."



That data includes no personal identifying information. It is just a list of guns. You can't use it to create a registry, because it doesn't identify who owns the guns.

---

OOOO WOW oh wise one..... I'm not going to get into a bragging contest and am sure like me you have designed databases, done coding, done system analysis and requirements and disaster recovery work like I have so no point in arguing....but your speculation and statements do seem to lack something.... so are you actually surprised a public request for information contained no confidential data? unlike the one they had on the National Post a few years ago they only used 2 digits of the postal code too which is an improvement .....BUT I wonder how many could make confidential requests? Yeah... I'm sure they all deleted the data and records and all files like these have been destroyed too..... but if they have why is Legault screaming, it seemed more like she was trying to delay the destruction of the data one last question and I am done with this thread....Now why is she yelling about preserving the data that is left if it is so useless?

Actually Welsh some RCMP Detachments have downloaded the data into local DB's in the past.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by terrym

How many have been fired?

---

Come on Terry a few minutes on google and you'll find lots...one was in the paper just a few day ago.

http://www.vancouversun.com/news/met...440/story.html

Even recent results from the Commission into RCMP wrong doings in High River;

https://www.crcc-ccetp.gc.ca/en/news...-river-alberta

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mosquito

I'm not going to get into a bragging contest....

---

Well, then you shouldn't have started one by suggesting I have "no concept of computer environments, databases and logs." If you want to make appeals to authority, you better make sure you have some.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mosquito

so are you actually surprised a public request for information contained no confidential data?

---

Uh, no. My point is that you will never get confidential data through FOI.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mosquito

BUT I wonder how many could make confidential requests?

---

Nobody can. That's the law. The Privacy Act prohibits disclosing that information, period.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mosquito

Now why is she yelling about preserving the data that is left if it is so useless?

---

Because FOI requests have been made for that data. She is the Information Commissioner. It is her duty under the Information Act to make sure those FOI requests are honoured.

This is the law of the land: if I request government records, then the government must give them to me, except for personal information and for national security reasons, etc. And the reason the government must give the information to me is that I pay taxes, and the information belongs to me, as a taxpayer.

Here is what happened: before C-19 passed, someone made FOI requests for registry data. The RCMP, knowing C-19 was going to pass, decided to stall the requests, and may even have destroyed data so they would not have to disclose it. This was illegal, and the Information Commissioner brought charges against the RCMP. So the government decided to pass a speedy law to retroactively give the RCMP permission to break the Access to Information Act with respect to LGR data.

The FOI requests still apply with respect to the Quebec portion of the data. By getting a court order to protect those records until a decision is made (legally) as to whether the FOI request needs to be fulfilled, Legault is simply doing the job she is mandated to do under the Access to Information Act.

I know you want to see her as an evil anti with an agenda to save the gun registry data, but that's not what's actually happening. Her obligations and duties exist regardless of whether you want that information destroyed. We live in a society of laws, or at least, we ought to.

I'd like you to try a little thought experiment. Let's suppose I made an FOI request when Paul Martin was PM, asking for information concerning the cost to implement and maintain the long gun registry. Lets suppose the Canadian Firearms Centre responded to that request by shredding documents and then telling me they couldn't find the records. Let's suppose they got caught, and Martin responded by rushing through a quick law making it legal for them to have done what they did just this one time. And then the Information Commissioner starts getting upset at Martin and the Canadian Firearms Centre.

You'd call the Information Commissioner a hero.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by greatwhite

Actually Welsh some RCMP Detachments have downloaded the data into local DB's in the past.

---

How do you know this?

Come on now you must know IT guy's? Aint going to say anymore then that. But come on now don't be so naive.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by welsh

Well, then you shouldn't have started one by suggesting I have "no concept of computer environments, databases and logs." If you want to make appeals to authority, you better make sure you have some.

Uh, no. My point is that you will never get confidential data through FOI.



Nobody can. That's the law. The Privacy Act prohibits disclosing that information, period.



Because FOI requests have been made for that data. She is the Information Commissioner. It is her duty under the Information Act to make sure those FOI requests are honoured.

This is the law of the land: if I request government records, then the government must give them to me, except for personal information and for national security reasons, etc. And the reason the government must give the information to me is that I pay taxes, and the information belongs to me, as a taxpayer.

Here is what happened: before C-19 passed, someone made FOI requests for registry data. The RCMP, knowing C-19 was going to pass, decided to stall the requests, and may even have destroyed data so they would not have to disclose it. This was illegal, and the Information Commissioner brought charges against the RCMP. So the government decided to pass a speedy law to retroactively give the RCMP permission to break the Access to Information Act with respect to LGR data.

The FOI requests still apply with respect to the Quebec portion of the data. By getting a court order to protect those records until a decision is made (legally) as to whether the FOI request needs to be fulfilled, Legault is simply doing the job she is mandated to do under the Access to Information Act.

I know you want to see her as an evil anti with an agenda to save the gun registry data, but that's not what's actually happening. Her obligations and duties exist regardless of whether you want that information destroyed. We live in a society of laws, or at least, we ought to.

I'd like you to try a little thought experiment. Let's suppose I made an FOI request when Paul Martin was PM, asking for information concerning the cost to implement and maintain the long gun registry. Lets suppose the Canadian Firearms Centre responded to that request by shredding documents and then telling me they couldn't find the records. Let's suppose they got caught, and Martin responded by rushing through a quick law making it legal for them to have done what they did just this one time. And then the Information Commissioner starts getting upset at Martin and the Canadian Firearms Centre.

You'd call the Information Commissioner a hero.



How do you know this?

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wahoo

Introduced by Senate Liberal Celine Hervieux-Payette, (or is that Liberal Senator?) today.

I oppose the Conservative philosophy and the gun lobby’s belief that better access to firearms ensures better security. It's just the opposite. However, I respect the hunters and sports shooters. This bill promotes the activities of hunting and sport shooting while strengthening the security of Canadians.

Through my bill, titled “Strenghtening Canadians’ Security and Promoting Hunting and recreational Shooting Act”, I intend to accomplish the following:

• overhaul the current firearms program by prohibiting all firearms in Canada except hunting firearms;
• redefine the three classes of firearms by making all firearms illegal except hunting firearms and by localizing the prohibition of restricted firearms (circumscribed firearms);
• limit the definition of hunting firearms to the arms that really used for the purposes of hunting;
• replace restricted firearms class with a circumscribed firearms class and the arms of this class will be only usable at or in shooting clubs;
• replace the registration certificate with an inscription certificate;
• reinforce the role of the RCMP and the Commissioner of Firearms under a statutory provision.
• limit the transport of circumscribed firearms to transporters, thus controlling the movement of firearms in Canada; and
• undo all the provisions of Bill C-42, except for the prohibition on obtaining a licence to possess and acquire firearms following a domestic violence conviction.

In 2005, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled unanimously in R. v. Wiles that in Canada to acquire or possess a firearm is a "privilege" and not a right.


http://www.parl.gc.ca/HousePublicati...3166&File=41#4

http://www.parl.gc.ca/legisinfo/Bill...billId=8043165

---

"In 2005, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled unanimously in R. v. Wiles that in Canada to acquire or possess a firearm is a "privilege" and not a right."

This is our biggest problem. Far worst then Senators that are not elected, we have Justices that are not elected.
A majority Liberal government hijacked our private property rights by licencing the right to own firearms. This has virtually turn every firearm into a piece of Crown property. Meanwhile our Supreme Court stacked with Liberal leaning Justices has supported their right to do so.

You don't stop hunting because you grow old. You grow old because you stop hunting.
-Gun Nut