Feds eyeing guns' designed to hunt people' as they ponder possible curbs

They want to overhaul the classification system in order to ban weapons that are designed to kill people.... some firearms being classified in a way that doesn't properly reflect the risk they pose says the group PolySeSouvient, which includes graduates of Montreal Ecole Polytechnique, where 14 women were gunned down in 1989 THE SHOW THAT WAS PERPETRATED WITH A MINI-14 AND BLAMED ON AN AK-47. What firearm won't kill people? They continue to seek to definite what characterizes an assault weapon. With the 75th anniversary of D-Day upon us, for any surviving old vets involved in that show. I image they could make quite a case for the old bolt action .303 Enfield being rated right up there with the best of assault weapons. IT'S NOT THE FIREARMS THAT ARE DESIGN TO KILL PEOPLE IT'S THE DESIGN OF THE TWISTED MINDS THAT STANDS BEHIND IT. Who might have framed the mind of the shooter of ECOLE OLYTECHNIQUE his mother or his father? You might not be surprised.

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

Post about Blair article and including the advocacy group "Doctors 4 protection from guns" posted in the Bill Blair in politics.... this will rapidly turn into political discussion so ...
https://www.oodmag.com/community/sho...=1#post1085637

Time to ban these bad boys.

Attachment 38482

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fox

Time to ban these bad boys.

Attachment 38482

---

Then we can move on to bows, knives, hammers, axes, cars, rope, sticks, chain, lamp cords.
Or maybe they should start with the first murder weapon ever used....a F'ing ROCK.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Snowwalker

Then we can move on to bows, knives, hammers, axes, cars, rope, sticks, chain, lamp cords.
Or maybe they should start with the first murder weapon ever used....a F'ing ROCK.

---

You forgot the fist, time to ban that too.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fox

You forgot the fist, time to ban that too.

---

First thing used to murder someone in recorded History was a "ROCK". I want to see them ban those.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Snowwalker

First thing used to murder someone in recorded History was a "ROCK". I want to see them ban those.

---

Depends on how it was registered...if it was a scary AR Rock....then they would just ban them and continue to let the commonly used Magnum Boulder or Semi Stone to be used for hunting. :)

Once they ban the AR15, they’ll figure out that a semi-auto is a semi-auto and then go after traditional-looking firearms! I’m sure the crooks and gang members are loosing sleep over this latest attack on legal firearm owners!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sam Menard

Once they ban the AR15, they’ll figure out that a semi-auto is a semi-auto and then go after traditional-looking firearms! I’m sure the crooks and gang members are loosing sleep over this latest attack on legal firearm owners!

---

They ARE losing sleep because they can't stop laughing. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MikePal

Depends on how it was registered...if it was a scary AR Rock....then they would just ban them and continue to let the commonly used Magnum Boulder or Semi Stone to be used for hunting. :)

---

I think I'll just stick with my single shot sling shot?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Snowwalker

Then we can move on to bows, knives, hammers, axes, cars, rope, sticks, chain, lamp cords.
Or maybe they should start with the first murder weapon ever used....a F'ing ROCK.

---

The only problem I see in your thinking is that it follows a pathway of deescalation towards violent behaviour. It would be better to leave firearms alone. They are more discriminatory and selective when it comes to doing injury and death, as opposed to the messes that comes through the employment IED and suicide bombs. The trouble with closing one door, is that it invariably opens another. You would think that the wise heads that attempt to run this country would have figured that out by now.

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Snowwalker

First thing used to murder someone in recorded History was a "ROCK". I want to see them ban those.

---

Sorry, what recorded history? I do not consider the bible a history text BTW.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gun Nut

The only problem I see in your thinking is that it follows a pathway of deescalation towards violent behaviour. It would be better to leave firearms alone. They are more discriminatory and selective when it comes to doing injury and death, as opposed to the messes that comes through the employment IED and suicide bombs. The trouble with closing one door, is that it invariably opens another. You would think that the wise heads that attempt to run this country would have figured that out by now.

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

---

The only problem with your idea, is you think they are wise.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gun Nut

The only problem I see in your thinking is that it follows a pathway of deescalation towards violent behaviour. It would be better to leave firearms alone. They are more discriminatory and selective when it comes to doing injury and death, as opposed to the messes that comes through the employment IED and suicide bombs. The trouble with closing one door, is that it invariably opens another. You would think that the wise heads that attempt to run this country would have figured that out by now.

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

---

That's what I have always said, the firearm is just a tool. Those inclined to use violence will use whatever tool is available and a firearm is one of the lesser evils in that case. TC

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Snowwalker

First thing used to murder someone in recorded History was a "ROCK". I want to see them ban those.

---

this made me laugh way to hard hahaha

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Snowwalker

First thing used to murder someone in recorded History was a "ROCK". I want to see them ban those.

---

Only the evil black rocks!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by trky chsr

Only the evil black rocks!

---

I think you can add "cammo 'd rocks also !

Talked with my cousin and he thinks semi automatics are doomed and anything that doesn't look "hunting". He also heard that Alberta may seperate from Canada.

Another scary thing he told me about is what they adopted in Norway, Sweden, and Denmark. They've gone to a gun ownership point system. Each person gets 10 points. He said double barrels are being dumped because they count as 6 points. Pumps are 3. I didn't get into it anymore because I needed to get back to working ground. Anybody else heard about this? My cousin frequents many gun shows, so I think that is where he gets his information, possibly from the one in Ancaster on Sunday.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cramadog2

Talked with my cousin and he thinks semi automatics are doomed and anything that doesn't look "hunting". He also heard that Alberta may seperate from Canada.

Another scary thing he told me about is what they adopted in Norway, Sweden, and Denmark. They've gone to a gun ownership point system. Each person gets 10 points. He said double barrels are being dumped because they count as 6 points. Pumps are 3. I didn't get into it anymore because I needed to get back to working ground. Anybody else heard about this? My cousin frequents many gun shows, so I think that is where he gets his information, possibly from the one in Ancaster on Sunday.

---

The sky is falling, the sky is falling.

If you stressed out about what people said may happen you would be twitching in a padded room.

The key here is to use your voice and use your vote.

I recommend everyone getting 2 friends, people that have never shot before and take them shooting. People need to realize what it is and not what the media says it is, education of our sport if key.

.... the ideologue speaks again... "assault" weapons .... I thought it was only a weapon if used for violence ... so much paranoia and misdirection....

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/poli...ther-than-ban/

definition assault WEAPON - any weapon ever used to assault someone.... rock to rocket.... ???

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mosquito

.... the ideologue speaks again... "assault" weapons .... I thought it was only a weapon if used for violence ... so much paranoia and misdirection....

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/poli...ther-than-ban/

definition assault WEAPON - any weapon ever used to assault someone.... rock to rocket.... ???

---

Don't forget
Horses
Cattle
Elephants
Dogs
Cats( yup used in a Military campaign)
Rats
Dolphins
Snakes( think tunnel rat/ bobby trap)
Scorpions( see above)
Dead:
Animals
Fish
Birds
Human bodies

Give me five minutes and I can likely come up with another hand full.

https://youtu.be/cj_J36Moq7U

Good video on the imaginary gun problem


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

So now handguns are off the table but they're still "looking" at what to do about the evil black and semi-auto rifles. TC

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ontariofarmer

https://youtu.be/cj_J36Moq7U

Good video on the imaginary gun problem

---

It must be hard for Bill Blair to hear those FACTs...the safety of Canadians is in jeopardy and it has little to do with his number one priority..Guns.

The video is interesting 30 thousands from doctors mistakes..
There was a lady in the paper last week from my area died from from an injection.

The last time my wife had her kidney stone blasted . She woke up through the in the middle of the procedure in a down town Toronto hospital. After leaving on the way home things went from bad to worse and half way home we had to stop at another hospital. There she stayed for a week cuz the messed up.

Sent from my SM-G960W using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ontariofarmer

https://youtu.be/cj_J36Moq7U

Good video on the imaginary gun problem


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

---

Maybe ? we should have a ban on Doctors as they have killed more people than the guns have . [ tongue in cheek]
I find this to be very hypocritical of them. getting together and calling for a gun ban, when according to stats their mistakes have killed more in one year [2017] than the guns did.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jaycee

I find this to be very hypocritical of them. getting together and calling for a gun ban, when according to stats their mistakes have killed more in one year [2017] than the guns did.

---

excellent point...you're right !!

Doctors save a lot of lives. Chemo saves lives and kills some
A clotting stroke or bleeding stroke
A fast choice is required or you die Different treatments
The treatment that kills some causes others to live

Doctors are not out to get us but they make difficult choices

My mother in law had a heart operation
The operation could kill you or save your life. If she did not have it she would die anyway
But she lives

Let’s not pick on doctors
The story and post is about guns not doctors. I am thankful for doctors when I need them
The 30,000 statistic is misleading. And the unnecessary worry about legal guns is ridiculous That is why I posted the Sun article

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MikePal

It must be hard for Bill Blair to hear those FACTs...the safety of Canadians is in jeopardy and it has little to do with his number one priority..Guns.

---

Sorry but his and all Liberals number one priority is votes, not guns (or public safety). TC

A bunch of interesting statistics in there, not just on doctors'
mistakes but also gang related and opioid overdose deaths.
I don't understand why some politicians jump on the bandwagon about
banning handguns when they don't really have a clue as to the whole
picture.
The bad guys are going to get handguns no matter what and besides,
gang related killings probably save taxpayers billions of dollars in
court costs, plus the cost of housing those that would have been
convicted and incarcerated.

Here are some figures published by The Office of The Parliamentary
Budget Officer in this document. "Update on Costs of Incarceration"
published on 22 March 2018.

Estimated cost per offender, 2016-17
Type of Inmate Annual Daily
Male Minimum $47,370 $130
Male Medium $75,077 $206
Male Maximum $92,740 $254
Female (all levels) $83,861 $230
Healing Lodge $122,796 $336
Youth $73,632 $202

The Healing Lodge cost in that list is particularly annoying with
regard to that that tortured and murdered Tori Stafford. At
least she's back in the women's prison in Kitchener where it's only
costing 84 grand a year to keep her :-(.
Those figures are 2 years old, what might the costs be now?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ontariofarmer

Doctors save a lot of lives. Chemo saves lives and kills some
A clotting stroke or bleeding stroke
A fast choice is required or you die Different treatments
The treatment that kills some causes others to live

Doctors are not out to get us but they make difficult choices

My mother in law had a heart operation
The operation could kill you or save your life. If she did not have it she would die anyway
But she lives

Let’s not pick on doctors
The story and post is about guns not doctors. I am thankful for doctors when I need them
The 30,000 statistic is misleading. And the unnecessary worry about legal guns is ridiculous That is why I posted the Sun article

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

---

I did say it [with tongue in cheek] , did you not see that ?
However I do find it being hypocritical of them, [some of them].
After all it is doctors, getting together and trying to force the gov. re. the ban on , [the issue, is guns ]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jaycee

I did say it [with tongue in cheek] , did you not see that ?
However I do find it being hypocritical of them, [some of them].
After all it is doctors, getting together and trying to force the gov. re. the ban on , [the issue guns ]

---

Yeah some doctors. Just like some cops

I know cops and doctors who hunt and have guns and think our gun control laws are fine




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

To add some fuel; Lets remember that the Opiod crisis finds it roots in Dr's over prescribing Oxy...

Quote:

---

In a county-by-county analysis, they found that when drug companies increased their opioid marketing budgets by just $5.29 per 1,000 population, the number of opioid prescriptions written by doctors went up by 82 percent and the opioid death rate was 9 percent higher a year later.

“It really doesn’t take much marketing to increase the number of deaths,” lead author Dr. Scott Hadland, a pediatrician and researcher at Boston Medical Center’s Grayken Center for Addiction, told Reuters Health by phone.

Nearly 4,000 Canadians die this year because of opioid-related deaths. Seventy-two per cent of these deaths involved fentanyl or fentanyl analogues. This is a 34 per cent jump from the death rates the year before. British Columbia experiences the highest rate, with 1,399 opioid-related deaths in 2017, compared to 974 in 2016.

The 2017 Canada Guideline for Opioids for Chronic Non-Cancer Pain is made, shedding light on physicians overprescribing opiates, with an aim to promote awareness to reduce over prescriptions of the drug.

---

Think about that,...72% were from illegal drugs....that means almost 30% were related to the legal prescription drugs...

That's a heck of a lot more than Gun violence deaths in this country....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MikePal

To add some fuel; Lets remember that the Opiod crisis finds it roots in Dr's over prescribing Oxy...



Think about that,...72% were from illegal drugs....that means almost 30% were related to the legal prescription drugs...

That's a heck of a lot more than Gun violence deaths in this country....

---

You can also look at the overdose all together in the bc area. 1399 deaths is only a small percentage that died. I remember hearing somewhere that like 10 percent of the 911 calls in Canada come from the overdose calls alone in bc . It could be more on that 10 percent, that's why the clinics are giving them legal heroin in Vancouver. Medical grade so they wont overdose and keep it safe the place is packed up like the local Walmart lol.

Not a good thing at all.

Sent from my SM-G960W using Tapatalk

Well this latest shooting in Toronto at the Raptor Parade doesn't help.

My opinion screw arresting and the courts. The cops know who these people are go in take them out for good.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by greatwhite

Well this latest shooting in Toronto at the Raptor Parade doesn't help.

My opinion screw arresting and the courts. The cops know who these people are go in take them out for good.

---

Now now .
They are already trigger happy in places they cant just go in blasting at all the bangers. Either way it's not the guns fault lol.

Sent from my SM-G960W using Tapatalk

I might sound silly, but I wonder if they ban Gangs they'd have a better chance to stop gun violence :)
Anybody in the Liberal party suggest that to Bill Blair or would that infringe on their rights (carding) ?

I know I'm carded which will make it easier for them to take my guns away ..HaHa..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by greatwhite

Well this latest shooting in Toronto at the Raptor Parade doesn't help.

My opinion screw arresting and the courts. The cops know who these people are go in take them out for good.

---

The cops won't deal with gangs, that could be dangerous. Take the guns away from law abiding citizens instead.

Heard on 680 news this morning that Bill Blair said there will be no legislation until after the next election.

Read..the Liberals don't want to risk bleeding anymore votes...

Quote:

---

When it comes to so-called assault weapons, the term is generally used to refer to firearms that are at least semi-automatic, can fire large amounts of ammunition and are designed for rapid fire.

Blair said there are a number of outstanding issues that still need to be addressed when it comes to how any ban, new safe-storage rules or municipal restrictions could work, but the minister said that work will not be done before the election.

The House of Commons is set to rise for the summer at the end of the week and will not return until after Canadians go to the polls.

“In order to consider putting additional weapons on the prohibited list, and then how we remove those weapons from society — whether they’re grandfathered or subject to a buyback — I think that merits careful consideration and discussion in Parliament,” he said.

“There’s no time to do that in the current session.”

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cramadog2

Heard on 680 news this morning that Bill Blair said there will be no legislation until after the next election.

---

This is clear. Remember, C-71 took over a year to wind its way through Parliament.

Sent from my SM-G930W8 using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by welsh

This is clear. Remember, C-71 took over a year to wind its way through Parliament.

Sent from my SM-G930W8 using Tapatalk

---

It looks like The Liberals are starting to get the message. Mess with the freedom and liberty of Canadians and kiss the election good-bye. The Libs need to get kicked back to the hinterlands like they did the last time,only this time permanently for being a very special kind of stupid that didn't learn their lesson when Paul Martin did the same thing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by trimmer21

It looks like The Liberals are starting to get the message. Mess with the freedom and liberty of Canadians and kiss the election good-bye.

---

They're planning to campaign on messing with the freedom and liberty of Canadians, so I'm note sure that's the case.

Sent from my SM-G930W8 using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by welsh

This is clear. Remember, C-71 took over a year to wind its way through Parliament.

Sent from my SM-G930W8 using Tapatalk

---

The sell will be that if they don't form the next government and pass gun control, some body will shoot all the kittens.

The real question could be when will the Prairie Provinces decide they have had enough and leave. They have a major share of Canada's resources, unlike Quebec.

Trudough has an 8% chance of winning another majority right now according to CBC polling. They have reached the critical point and will now do anything, say anything, pay off anybody to try and salvage power. This pipeline gong show won’t help them and I’m sure they didn’t want to risk seizing uncle Bob’s semi deer rifle. Take handguns away from registered owners with police background checks and safe handling training makes about as much sense as seizing my wife’s car because a guy down the street drove under the influence.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Snowwalker

The sell will be that if they don't form the next government and pass gun control, some body will shoot all the kittens.

The real question could be when will the Prairie Provinces decide they have had enough and leave. They have a major share of Canada's resources, unlike Quebec.

---

Yep,Quebec has a lot of natural resources,but,like Ontario,have been (up until Ford kicked the libtards to the curb) too dogmatically and politically inept to use them. Besides,Ontario (for now) and Quebec carry 80% of the national debt. The Americans will scoop Alberta and Saskatchewan for food and fuel. The rest of Canada,well,they can try to go it alone,but,it'll take no time for foreign entities to carve the rest up,piecemeal. One more Liberal government and we're screwed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by trimmer21

Yep,Quebec has a lot of natural resources,but,like Ontario,have been (up until Ford kicked the libtards to the curb) too dogmatically and politically inept to use them. Besides,Ontario (for now) and Quebec carry 80% of the national debt. The Americans will scoop Alberta and Saskatchewan for food and fuel. The rest of Canada,well,they can try to go it alone,but,it'll take no time for foreign entities to carve the rest up,piecemeal. One more Liberal government and we're screwed.

---

The resources in Quebec are mostly on Aboriginal lands. That is what really helped to kill Quebec's last separatist vote. The Natives wanted to stay in Canada and that would have taken most of the resources out of the hands of Quebec.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Snowwalker

The resources in Quebec are mostly on Aboriginal lands. That is what really help to kill Quebec last separatist vote. The Natives wanted to stay in Canada and that would have taken most of the resources out of the hands of Quebec.

---

Yes, It's laughable that Quebec would even think of separating without the First Nations approval. It will never happen and if it was tried, there would be bloodshed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bushmoose

Yes, It's laughable that Quebec would even think of separating without the First Nations approval. It will never happen and if it was tried, there would be bloodshed.

---

I think they also have control of the lands that produce most of Quebec's' power grid.

They are also the main reason for the huge non compliance rate with Quebec's new Gun Registry.

The only "curbs" the Liberals need to ponder is the one fed-up Canadians will kick them to in October.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by trimmer21

The only "curbs" the Liberals need to ponder is the one fed-up Canadians will kick them to in October.

---

Is there some way that we could skip /bypass the months of July, Aug.,and Sept.,--???

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jaycee

Is there some way that we could skip /bypass the months of July, Aug.,and Sept.,--???

---

I wish. It's not like the Liberals aren't the poster children for "recall" legislation,right?

Trimmer, Jaycee, I hate to be a downer, but I would not count Trudeau out just yet. Traditionally most Canadian governments get elected a second term. Trudeau is likely to be relected in October.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by greatwhite

Trimmer, Jaycee, I hate to be a downer, but I would not count Trudeau out just yet. Traditionally most Canadian governments get elected a second term. Trudeau is likely to be relected in October.

---

If that's the case (which,at this point,I really doubt),they'll likely only have a minority. That may dictate that C-71 never sees the light of day if it could result in a non-confidence vote leading to the defeat of the government. The one thing of which I'm absolutely convinced is that given half a chance,a Liberal majority will enact C-71 ++,not because they should,but,because they can with arrogant impunity,simply as a vindictive vendetta against dissent from the right firearms "lobby" ,effectively ending ALL civilian firearm ownership in this country.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by trimmer21

it could result in a non-confidence vote leading to the defeat of the government.

---

That may be the only hope for the Liberals....they keep party status, dump the albatross that's dragging them down, pick a new leader and lick their wounds.

Well Blair and Trudeau have pretty much admitted they will go Nuclear on gun laws if re-elected. Don't expect them to campaign on it. They want to keep it quiet. They can easily claim if they win that they have a mandate because everyone was aware of what they were planning to do.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by trimmer21

The one thing of which I'm absolutely convinced is that given half a chance,a Liberal majority will enact C-71 ++,not because they should,but,because they can with arrogant impunity,simply as a vindictive vendetta against dissent from the right firearms "lobby" ,effectively ending ALL civilian firearm ownership in this country.

---

Where does a person purchase cosmoline? It's not hard to get the ABS pipe. just not sure where to buy cosmoline?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by trimmer21

That may dictate that C-71 never sees the light of day if it could result in a non-confidence vote leading to the defeat of the government. The one thing of which I'm absolutely convinced is that given half a chance,a Liberal majority will enact C-71 .
..

---

Uh, C-71 has passed Third Reading in the Senate and is waiting only for Royal Assent.

So, C-71 will be enacted before the election. The Liberals don't need a majority to make it happen. For all intents and purposes, it already has.



Sent from my SM-G930W8 using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by welsh

Uh, C-71 has passed Third Reading in the Senate and is waiting only for Royal Assent.

So, C-71 will be enacted before the election. The Liberals don't need a majority to make it happen. For all intents and purposes, it already has.



Sent from my SM-G930W8 using Tapatalk

---

There's a story that was leaked that "the powers that be" may wait to send the bill to the GG until after the election because of such a nasty backlash hoping that it'll calm down (LOL,like that'll happen). Trudeau and Blair lit the fuse and the "back room gang" absolutely have to know that it's blowing up in their faces.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by trimmer21

There's a story that was leaked that "the powers that be" may wait to send the bill to the GG until after the election because of such a nasty backlash hoping that it'll calm down (LOL,like that'll happen). Trudeau and Blair lit the fuse and the "back room gang" absolutely have to know that it's blowing up in their faces.

---

What colour is the sky in your world?

The Liberals have already announced their intent to campaign on additional gun control. They obviously are not in fear of any backlash.

You need to distinguish between leaks and wild rumours started on gunnutz. The idea that the government could hold a bill back from royal assent -- thus frustrating the will of Parliament -- would raise eyebrows among constitutional scholars, for sure.

(Even if the government were to change before royal assent was given, which I din't think has ever happened, the succeeding govt would still be obligated to bring the bill forward for royal assent -- just as the Liberals were obligated to implement the final elements of C-42. A bill that has passed third reading in both houses represents the will of Parliament & can't be set aside without violating the fundamental constitutional principle of parliamentary supremacy.)

A more likely reason for the delay is that they're working out dates for coming into force.

Sent from my SM-G930W8 using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by greatwhite

Well Blair and Trudeau have pretty much admitted they will go Nuclear on gun laws if re-elected. Don't expect them to campaign on it. They want to keep it quiet. They can easily claim if they win that they have a mandate because everyone was aware of what they were planning to do.

---

A liberal minority would mean either the NDP or Greens holding the deciding votes. Ya think the libs are bad? Wait till Singh or May have a say in it.

So, uh, C-71 just received royal assent.

I wonder if this would be a good time to revisit the question of those OIC rumours, now that it's clear that they were rumours. And these "leaks" suggesting the Libs would improperly hold C-71 back from royal assent out of fear of a backlash.

Because, um, some of the people pushing these rumours keep saying I have no credibility, but so far....

Sent from my SM-G930W8 using Tapatalk

I can’t believe you dropped an “I told you so” post in an attempt to claim you have credibility…it’s not working Welsh ….HaHa…

1st off….it wasn’t a rumour…it was a leak..(planned to gauge voter impact ? ). The negative reaction it received confirmed it wasn’t the best time for the Liberals to follow thru with it at the planned event.

2nd; An OIC can happen any time before the election, so because it hasn’t happened yet doesn’t mean it won’t. You’re jumping the gun to say it won’t happen….but I agree it would be foolish if they continue to free fall in the polls over the summer.

3rd..Even Solomon asked the question point blank to Bill Blair during Question Period (at 5:13 in) 3 times if OIC is possible and Blair does not deny it is an option for Trudeau and even more telling, he never claims it to be false and in fact says quit clearly…it's still an option.

https://www.ctvnews.ca/video?clipId=1687011

Quote:

---

“Solomon: OK, so I just want to make sure I got this right. You’re not ruling out an Order in Council to institute some kind of gun ban, some kind of weapon ban, over the summer? You would not rule that out?

Blair: I want to be really clear. There is no measure that I think we can rule out that will legitimately contribute to greater safety for our citizens.”

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by welsh

So, uh, C-71 just received royal assent.

I wonder if this would be a good time to revisit the question of those OIC rumours, now that it's clear that they were rumours. And these "leaks" suggesting the Libs would improperly hold C-71 back from royal assent out of fear of a backlash.

Because, um, some of the people pushing these rumours keep saying I have no credibility, but so far....

Sent from my SM-G930W8 using Tapatalk

---

Yep,it seems we can't believe anything coming out of the Liberal camp,eh,welsh? Gee,whoda thunk that? Well,I'm just going to sit back and watch. We'll see. Conservatives are on record stating they'll repeal any Liberal legislation. I guess we'll see about that,too.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by welsh

So, uh, C-71 just received royal assent.

I wonder if this would be a good time to revisit the question of those OIC rumours, now that it's clear that they were rumours. And these "leaks" suggesting the Libs would improperly hold C-71 back from royal assent out of fear of a backlash.

Because, um, some of the people pushing these rumours keep saying I have no credibility, but so far....

Sent from my SM-G930W8 using Tapatalk

---

You are starting to um, uh talk like ahh that guy Justlied Trudope !

It's going to be just like Grande Prairie AB all over again.

Come home from a two day job out in the patch to find my safes had been opened by the Police and my Browning 9mm and FN C1 along with my Marlin rifle, and Remington 870 and Wingmaster gone.

They showed up scared the stuffing out of my Girlfriend, and had a locksmith open the safe because she did not know the combination. Even though I had all the right paperwork to possess everything in the safe.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jaycee

You are starting to um, uh talk like ahh that guy Justlied Trudope !

---

Now that is funny! I don't care who you are.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Snowwalker

It's going to be just like Grande Prairie AB all over again.

Come home from a two day job out in the patch to find my safes had been opened by the Police and my Browning 9mm and FN C1 along with my Marlin rifle, and Remington 870 and Wingmaster gone.

They showed up scared the stuffing out of my Girlfriend, and had a locksmith open the safe because she did not know the combination. Even though I had all the right paperwork to possess everything in the safe.

---

I think we better get used to that shyte. Freedom and liberty is a foreign concept to JT and the boys. Canada is rapidly going down the rabbit hole.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by trimmer21

I think we better get used to that shyte. Freedom and liberty is a foreign concept to JT and the boys. Canada is rapidly going down the rabbit hole.

---

About a year later my brother saw a cop at the range( where I had been a member) shooting an FN that he said had to be mine.

I had been told the FN had been destroyed because it was a prohibited.
Even thought I had a Prohibited license and the FIREARMS REGISTRATION records would have shown that.

Got told" Well since you had a license for it, we will not press charges for you having it. But because it was a prohibited and was seized it was destroyed. "

Now that Bill C-71 received royal ascent some rifles are now banned. TC

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by trky chsr

Now that Bill C-71 received royal ascent some rifles are now banned. TC

---

Last night, you went to sleep as a lawful citizen, this morning the police are raiding the house of criminal.

Too bad it's your's.

Ah, no. The provisions that lead to the ban on CZ-858 and Swiss Arms rifles have yet to come into force. Nothing happens overnight.

Sent from my SM-G930W8 using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by welsh

Ah, no. The provisions that lead to the ban on CZ-858 and Swiss Arms rifles have yet to come into force. Nothing happens overnight.

Sent from my SM-G930W8 using Tapatalk

---

OK,so,what do you think they're waiting for?

They will establish a future date for this to come into force so that people have an opportunity to get the appropriate prohib licences.

I haven't seen the coming-into-force dates for C-71 yet but presumably they'll be published soon.

Sent from my SM-G930W8 using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by welsh

They will establish a future date for this to come into force so that people have an opportunity to get the appropriate prohib licences.

I haven't seen the coming-into-force dates for C-71 yet but presumably they'll be published soon.

Sent from my SM-G930W8 using Tapatalk

---

Just like when I had all the right licenses and they still came to took my stuff. Called it a Clerical error. Hard to register prohibited and restricted firearms without the right licenses, but they still came and took them. Only way they knew they were there was because I got my Prohibited license and registered them.

Sure, Jan.

Sent from my SM-G930W8 using Tapatalk

A couple of worthy quotes from Bill Blair given during an interview last week...

Quote:

---

In an interview with the Globe and Mail, Blair explained why the government had decided against banning handguns. “I believe that would be potentially a very expensive proposition,” Blair said, referring to the potential costs of a massive buyback of almost a million lawfully owned guns and their related accessories. “But just as importantly,” he told the Globe, “it would not in my opinion be perhaps the most effective measure in restricting the access that criminals would have to such weapons, because we’d still have a problem with them being smuggled across the border.”

Later in the interview with the Globe, Blair said further, “It is not, in any way, my intention nor my recommendation that we would do anything to restrict the activities of hunters and farmers or sports shooters who follow the rules, who are obeying the law and don’t represent a risk themselves to public safety.”

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by welsh

Ah, no. The provisions that lead to the ban on CZ-858 and Swiss Arms rifles have yet to come into force. Nothing happens overnight.

Sent from my SM-G930W8 using Tapatalk

---

https://torontosun.com/opinion/colum...for-gun-owners

Then,again,there's always this. :moose:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by trimmer21

https://torontosun.com/opinion/colum...for-gun-owners

Then,again,there's always this. :moose:

---

Great article. Keep up the good work Mark Towhey. :thumbup:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MikePal

A couple of worthy quotes from Bill Blair given during an interview last week...

---

The talk now is that they would not ban anything but rather limit or remove ATTs. This was one part of C-71, it brings back the discretion of the CFO of the province to allow people to go to the range, this was the case before it was changed back with Harper as well. The concern is that the CFO can be directed to rescind or not issue ATTs or make it so that long term ATTs would not be allowed, you would have to call in and get one for every trip, this would potentially make it illegal for all use outside of being a safe queen, they would not ban or take them away but you would not be able to legally use them. I see this as an extreme interpretation of the ruling, I think having the ATT as part of the registration of the restricted making the most sense and being the least burden on the system (both the shooter and CFOs office) but the concern is that they can do whatever they want.

We have one time that we can make a real motion on this sort of thing and it comes in October.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fox

The talk now is that they would not ban anything but rather limit or remove ATTs. This was one part of C-71, it brings back the discretion of the CFO of the province to allow people to go to the range, this was the case before it was changed back with Harper as well. The concern is that the CFO can be directed to rescind or not issue ATTs or make it so that long term ATTs would not be allowed, you would have to call in and get one for every trip, this would potentially make it illegal for all use outside of being a safe queen, they would not ban or take them away but you would not be able to legally use them. I see this as an extreme interpretation of the ruling, I think having the ATT as part of the registration of the restricted making the most sense and being the least burden on the system (both the shooter and CFOs office) but the concern is that they can do whatever they want.

We have one time that we can make a real motion on this sort of thing and it comes in October.

---

You may be right Fox about October, I even went as far as to read up on each parties take on guns. Oddly enough the only statement that impress me at all came from the Peoples Party Of Canada. Unfortunately I don’t think they have much likelihood of forming the government.


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

[QUOTE=Fox;1086579]The talk now is that they would not ban anything but rather limit or remove ATTs. This was one part of C-71, it brings back the discretion of the CFO of the province to allow people to go to the range, this was the case before it was changed back with Harper as well.

Nothing changed with Harper. It was always up to the CFO to issue ATT's. The main change Harpers Bill did was change the ATT from a paper slip to part of your PAL, the conditions of the ATT did not change, that was propaganda from the Liberals. You still need to carry the paper stating those conditions which is silly. Just wait until they start prohibiting guns. The Liberals say you will still be able to take them to the range except that range approvals come from the CFO and if your range is not approved for the new prohibited classes created we're out of luck. TC

Limiting or removing ATTs would be a direct attack on licences legal gun owners. I can’t see that happening ! But then again.......

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by trky chsr

Nothing changed with Harper. It was always up to the CFO to issue ATT's. The main change Harpers Bill did was change the ATT from a paper slip to part of your PAL, the conditions of the ATT did not change, that was propaganda from the Liberals. You still need to carry the paper stating those conditions which is silly. Just wait until they start prohibiting guns. The Liberals say you will still be able to take them to the range except that range approvals come from the CFO and if your range is not approved for the new prohibited classes created we're out of luck. TC

---

Before the change you needed to have a Long Term Authorization To Transport to and from your approved range, any other trips you needed to make a call and get a Short Term Authorization To Transport. This was CHANGED to have a Long Term Authorization To Transport attached to your license (assuming you owned a restricted firearm, this was not included if you only had an RPAL but did not own a restricted). The ATT associated with your license now allows you to transport any restricted firearm to any authorized range you have permission to be at, any gun show, any gunsmith, any store dealing with restricted and home from any of those locations. This was a CHANGE and a significant one.

For example, if you were shooting in a competition at a gun range that was not your home range you would have to call in to the CFOs office and get a short term ATT for each and every gun that was going with you to that shoot, the time was limited to that discussed with the CFO and put on your short term ATT. The changes before C-71 would allow you to simply pack up your guns and head to the shoot as any and all restricted legal gun ranges would be included on your default ATT.

This does allow the CFO significantly more power to remove your ability to shoot.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rick_iles

Limiting or removing ATTs would be a direct attack on licences legal gun owners. I can’t see that happening ! But then again.......

---

Yes it would be, so it banning 25rd 10/22 mags, re-classifying non-restricted firearms and blanket prohibition of firearms based on zero evidence, but that has never happened before.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fox

Before the change you needed to have a Long Term Authorization To Transport to and from your approved range, any other trips you needed to make a call and get a Short Term Authorization To Transport. This was CHANGED to have a Long Term Authorization To Transport attached to your license (assuming you owned a restricted firearm, this was not included if you only had an RPAL but did not own a restricted). The ATT associated with your license now allows you to transport any restricted firearm to any authorized range you have permission to be at, any gun show, any gunsmith, any store dealing with restricted and home from any of those locations. This was a CHANGE and a significant one.

For example, if you were shooting in a competition at a gun range that was not your home range you would have to call in to the CFOs office and get a short term ATT for each and every gun that was going with you to that shoot, the time was limited to that discussed with the CFO and put on your short term ATT. The changes before C-71 would allow you to simply pack up your guns and head to the shoot as any and all restricted legal gun ranges would be included on your default ATT.

This does allow the CFO significantly more power to remove your ability to shoot.

---

That depended on the conditions attached to your ATT. I know some guys whose conditions said any approved range in Ontario but I have also seen others which mentioned the home range and required an invitation to go to another range. Why the discrepancy I don't know but I have seen the above conditions for various licence holders. TC

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by trky chsr

That depended on the conditions attached to your ATT. I know some guys whose conditions said any approved range in Ontario but I have also seen others which mentioned the home range and required an invitation to go to another range. Why the discrepancy I don't know but I have seen the above conditions for various licence holders. TC

---

If you got or renewed your RPAL after the changes made by the last Conservative Government the ATT allowing to transporting was part of the license, if you had an RPAL from before the changes the ATT was not part of the License and would not be till you renewed your RPAL. C-71 removed the ATT from your RPAL.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by trky chsr

That depended on the conditions attached to your ATT. I know some guys whose conditions said any approved range in Ontario but I have also seen others which mentioned the home range and required an invitation to go to another range. Why the discrepancy I don't know but I have seen the above conditions for various licence holders. TC

---

That is exactly what mine and all our "handgun section members of our club "read, as most of us belonged to "The Ontario Intercounty Handgun League " and we shot at competitions regularly at about 9 or 10 clubs throughout Ontario.
If I remember correctly, to have that condition attached to out ATT, our club had to be registered with the Ontario Intercounty Handgun League as a competing club.
And this allowed us to shoot at the Nationals in Sudbury or Kingston without any worries, several of us also traveled to matches in New York State without problems .
Those were the good old days, been there done that.

Fact: C-71 does not allow a CFO discretion re ATTs for transport to a range.

Sent from my SM-G930W8 using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by welsh

Fact: C-71 does not allow a CFO discretion re ATTs for transport to a range.

Sent from my SM-G930W8 using Tapatalk

---

So the CFO no longer issues ATT's or the ATT automatically allows transport to and from your range? Not trying to be argumentative I'm just trying to wrap my head around all of this. TC

The ATT changes in C-71 affect only transport to/from gunsmith, gun show, gun shop, and border point.

It's utterly senseless, as it was designed not to affect 99% of transportation (to/from range) ... so why?

Sent from my SM-G930W8 using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by trky chsr

So the CFO no longer issues ATT's or the ATT automatically allows transport to and from your range? Not trying to be argumentative I'm just trying to wrap my head around all of this. TC

---

Bill C-42 changed all that, your ATT is now incorporated in your PAL, if you have one for Restricted Firearms.

I should add that to get an ATT endorsement on your PAL, you have to be a member , active and in good standing of a handgun club, follow the clubs rules, the club then applies on your behalf for the ATT part of yoUr PAL.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by welsh

Fact: C-71 does not allow a CFO discretion re ATTs for transport to a range.

Sent from my SM-G930W8 using Tapatalk

---

I just looked up the actual legislation, not CBC or Gunblog, I see that the amendment did not reverse the gun range part, as long as you are in the same province. I was under the impression that this would be reversing as well, so did the people dealing with the old ATT system at our club, I have not been able to get out since it "passed", even though I do not think it has been put in place yet, not sure of timing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jaycee

Bill C-42 changed all that, your ATT is now incorporated in your PAL, if you have one for Restricted Firearms.

---

You do have to own a restricted gun though, an ATT does not end up on your RPAL automatically. It may seem weird but you can have an RPAL without having a restricted and you can borrow one for use at the range but you cannot bring it to and from the range, I asked about that specifically.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fox

I was under the impression that this would be reversing as well....

---

The Libs initially made noises about repealing C-42 but they stopped well short of that.

The restriction re home province is from C-42 & is because CFO is provincial.

Sent from my SM-G930W8 using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jaycee

Bill C-42 changed all that, your ATT is now incorporated in your PAL, if you have one for Restricted Firearms.

---

I am aware of that I was questioning this post from Welsh "Fact: C-71 does not allow a CFO discretion re ATTs for transport to a range." TC

Bill C-42 changed all that, your ATT is now incorporated in your PAL, if you have one for Restricted Firearms.

I should add that to get an ATT endorsement on your PAL, you have to be a member , active and in good standing of a handgun club, follow the clubs rules, the club then applies on your behalf for the ATT part of yoUr PAL.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by trky chsr

I am aware of that I was questioning this post from Welsh "Fact: C-71 does not allow a CFO discretion re ATTs for transport to a range." TC

---

At one time the CFO, did have that discretion, about 10 -12 years ago when a retired OPP was placed into the position of CFO [ he was against handguns ], but was removed from that position due to many complaints about his actions and authority.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jaycee

At one time the CFO, did have that discretion, about 10 -12 years ago when a retired OPP was placed into the position of CFO [ he was against handguns ], but was removed from that position due to many complaints about his actions and authority.

---

Ontario is still a tough one, apparently transfers take a lot longer here than do in other parts of the country, then again I have never had any personal issues with the CFO in Ontario, not as active as most though either.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jaycee

Bill C-42 changed all that, your ATT is now incorporated in your PAL, if you have one for Restricted Firearms.

I should add that to get an ATT endorsement on your PAL, you have to be a member , active and in good standing of a handgun club, follow the clubs rules, the club then applies on your behalf for the ATT part of yoUr PAL.

---

Not true. I work in the "business" and we transfer guns all the time. In Ontario the RCMP is satisfied if you just say the person plans to join club X. When they get their new PAL (for a first time restricted purchase) it will have the ATT endorsement on it whether they actually joined a club or not. I've had to update numerous PAL's in our system so I know. TC

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by trky chsr

Not true. I work in the "business" and we transfer guns all the time. In Ontario the RCMP is satisfied if you just say the person plans to join club X. When they get their new PAL (for a first time restricted purchase) it will have the ATT endorsement on it whether they actually joined a club or not. I've had to update numerous PAL's in our system so I know. TC

---

Maybe so. however there are a lot of clubs that will not accept you as a member unless you actively participate, which means showing up more than once or twice a year just to renew your membership and keep up your ATT.
I know of a couple of guys that have had their ATT's revoked due to lack of participation.
Most clubs require that you go through a period of guest membership , sometimes up to a year so that the regular members see how you react with other members, then they vote to either accept or decline your membership application.

This is done so that the club does not jeopardize their own relationship with the CFO's office, by accepting all applicants[willy/nilly] .

My neighbor, for one , has his restricted PAL, purchased a handgun, it did not automatically give him a ATT. ????

The Liberal lies and the plan to rifle ban (definition of assault rifle - TBD) and to allow handgun bans continues without a thought in their heads as usual...

Bans... without a definition...
https://www.westernstandardonline.co...e-not-a-right/

Handgun bans
https://calgary.ctvnews.ca/trudeau-p...work-1.4777395

The Reality!
https://www.thepostmillennial.com/wi...n-is-nonsense/


Solicitor General Sylvia Jones said the percentage of smuggled guns is even greater across Ontario.
"Our provincial numbers show 84 per cent are illegal guns that come across the borders,"
https://www.ottawamatters.com/nation...olence-2052409



So to sum it up.... Liberal's are ignoring the facts and acting like dictators even with a minority government... criminals ignored, terrorists funded, illegal immigrants welcomed, unskilled unemployed immigrants take by the 1/3 of a million, PM taking 3 week vacations paid for by tax payers... more lies/coverups (SNC, JWR, Budgets, taxes, China, 5G, ...) ... all while attacking the hard working and honest ... yep, that's the the leftist/Liberal way...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ZHUhfmlzXk

So how do you stop them from crossing the border? You cant really what will they do about it? You cant stop and search every vehicle its just not possible. If the drugs are still coming across in great numbers the guns will continue as well.

Sent from my SM-G960W using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fishfood

So how do you stop them from crossing the border?

---

HaHa....we can't even stop Families with luggage from walking across the border, even seen pictures of the RCMP carrying their suitcases. !!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MikePal

HaHa....we can't even stop Families with luggage from walking across the border, even seen pictures of the RCMP carrying their suitcases. !!

---

That's true .
But they are not the ones bringing the guns and drugs into Canada.

Cocaine one of the biggest heroin and fentanyl are all over the place . None of the originated from here it's all coming from over the boarder. It is every where if they cant stop this they surely don't have the power to stop the guns. It will continue and only continue as like mentioned they will always be crossing.

Does not matter how much money they think they can spent nothing will stop it from getting here. Just a thought. If it was that easy the drugs would be limited witch they are not.

Unless every vehicle is searched and dog sniffed they will continue to come across. That it not not feasible to do.

Sent from my SM-G960W using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fishfood

If it was that easy the drugs would be limited witch they are not.

---

You right...They can't even keep drugs out of the Penitentiaries....and think how many levels of security they have to go thru.

CBSA cannot stop the flow and the Police can't keep them out of the hands of gangs. So the politicians solution, go after the low hanging fruit. The licensed legal owners.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MikePal

You right...They can't even keep drugs out of the Penitentiaries....and think how many levels of security they have to go thru.

CBSA cannot stop the flow and the Police can't keep them out of the hands of gangs. So the politicians solution, go after the low hanging fruit. The licensed legal owners.

---

Weekends are the worst lol. There is what ever you want mostly personal use but when the guards have to check and wake you up in case you overdose that's an issue .

I traded some tobacco for a valium put me out for 20 hours the guards woke me once during that time. But it was something they had to do when they saw you sleeping to long. I saw everything from needles to cell phones.
My last weekend the guards asked it it was my last weekend I said yep. He said you better slow it down or it wont be lol. Smoked about 5 grams of weed in 2 hours lol the entire area was hot boxed [emoji23]. That was many moons ago but I doubt it has change much. From what I hear it's the same old. [emoji107]

When I was in the west end I got some ecstasy in there as it was cheaper then weed . Some folk in the holding cells at the newmarket court house had some fun [emoji23][emoji23] I shared the love to some people I knew in there.

Sent from my SM-G960W using Tapatalk

Wonder what the plan is to stop the guns from coming in?. I bet the plan will be to waste more money on something they cant control. The right to bare arms in the United states is not going anywhere. The guns will continue to flow into the streets . With new technology they are being built right in the basements all across Canada.

So they say close to 80 percent of the crime guns could be coming from across the boarders. That means they wont have to take the assault weapons away as they are not the problem right ?? Wrong . It's a lie filled promise to the people to keep them safer from the 1 percent of gun crimes. I dont feel any safer by taking away the assault rifles. Nore would I feel any safer with a handgun ban. .

Can any one person come up with a real solution to slow the shootings down. ??? Or how it will stop the flow from coming across our boarder??

Probably hard jail time for gun possession but then again our government would never do that Haha. Boot camp is good idea they do it Florida for some . It's called a second chance if they pass most no not pass the program.

I'm hearing 10 years now for some of the fentanyl dealers lol. Gun dealers just get slap on wrist and sent home.

Sent from my SM-G960W using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by greatwhite

Trimmer, Jaycee, I hate to be a downer, but I would not count Trudeau out just yet. Traditionally most Canadian governments get elected a second term. Trudeau is likely to be relected in October.

---

You sure nailed that one,didn't you?

Sorry:sad:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by trimmer21

You sure nailed that one,didn't you?

---

The mayor's want answers
Shooting at the police grants bail. Most cases are granted bail unless it is a serious crime involving murder. But then again if you got money there is no chance.




https://youtu.be/CE-E1lkefTI

Sent from my SM-G960W using Tapatalk

This pretty much sums it up.

There would be no need for a ban.

The boarder will be the toughest to crack down on.

https://youtu.be/Quf1SgCerE0

Sent from my SM-G960W using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fishfood

This pretty much sums it up.

There would be no need for a ban.

The boarder will be the toughest to crack down on.

https://youtu.be/Quf1SgCerE0

Sent from my SM-G960W using Tapatalk

---

All sounds pretty easy but if it was it would have been done already.Bad guys get out on bail and this has been going on for decades.Why,you are presumed innocent until proven guilty,so you cannot keep a suspect in jail on an unfounded allegation.
The Crown has the duty to SHOW CAUSE why an accused should be denied bail.If the investigating officer has not done his/her homework the bail will be granted.
Trying to stop and check every person at the border is not going to happen.
A bail enforcement unit is great but Mr Lilley makes a fool of himself when he states a knock on the door of a bailed person results in an arrest because he is not there.You will not be arresting a suspect who is not there.
The pleading down of gun charges cannot take place without the consent of the Crown attorney.IF they have a strong case the charges should not be plead down.You then have to ask why they do not have a strong case.Rookie investigator,firearm not being tested and proven to be a firearm (happens all the time).Proving possession is difficult and then the grounds for a stop even more difficult........

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gilroy

All sounds pretty easy but if it was it would have been done already.Bad guys get out on bail and this has been going on for decades.Why,you are presumed innocent until proven guilty,so you cannot keep a suspect in jail on an unfounded allegation.
The Crown has the duty to SHOW CAUSE why an accused should be denied bail.If the investigating officer has not done his/her homework the bail will be granted.
Trying to stop and check every person at the border is not going to happen.
A bail enforcement unit is great but Mr Lilley makes a fool of himself when he states a knock on the door of a bailed person results in an arrest because he is not there.You will not be arresting a suspect who is not there.
The pleading down of gun charges cannot take place without the consent of the Crown attorney.IF they have a strong case the charges should not be plead down.You then have to ask why they do not have a strong case.Rookie investigator,firearm not being tested and proven to be a firearm (happens all the time).Proving possession is difficult and then the grounds for a stop even more difficult........

---

Yep,all of this plus expediency to avoid drawn out cases heading for court clogging court dockets adding delays from remands. Along come "plea deals" and the revolving door continues. It's a vicious cycle that,at some point,has to be broken.

Interesting hearing all the opinions. I don't post much but read alot and I am following this closely . I know most of us people are busy and have jobs but in a worst case scenario maybe some kind of protest. What are the opinions on that?

Here is an interesting video

Moose kill more people in a year than legal guns.

The knife is neck and neck to the gun murderers.


https://youtu.be/a77R_Ld9InY

Sent from my SM-G960W using Tapatalk

Violent crime in Markham guns and knives used.
a 13 year old,15 and a 16 year old. Hijacking cars stabbing employees and kicking others in the face while robbing banks.

Yet the guns are a problem. Maybe it's time to step up and face the real problems. The guns are not the problem the problem is the people.

https://barrie.ctvnews.ca/mobile/thr...ital-1.4820248

Sent from my SM-G960W using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gilroy

All sounds pretty easy but if it was it would have been done already.Bad guys get out on bail and this has been going on for decades.Why,you are presumed innocent until proven guilty,so you cannot keep a suspect in jail on an unfounded allegation.
The Crown has the duty to SHOW CAUSE why an accused should be denied bail.If the investigating officer has not done his/her homework the bail will be granted.
Trying to stop and check every person at the border is not going to happen.
A bail enforcement unit is great but Mr Lilley makes a fool of himself when he states a knock on the door of a bailed person results in an arrest because he is not there.You will not be arresting a suspect who is not there.
The pleading down of gun charges cannot take place without the consent of the Crown attorney.IF they have a strong case the charges should not be plead down.You then have to ask why they do not have a strong case.Rookie investigator,firearm not being tested and proven to be a firearm (happens all the time).Proving possession is difficult and then the grounds for a stop even more difficult........

---

There was just a case with a prosecutor not bothering to show up, guy gets out for major charges.

They don't do their job and another guy out there committing crimes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fishfood

So how do you stop them from crossing the border? You cant really what will they do about it? You cant stop and search every vehicle its just not possible. If the drugs are still coming across in great numbers the guns will continue as well.

Sent from my SM-G960W using Tapatalk

---

Start by giving mandatory sentencing for gangbangers possessing illegal firearms for criminal purpose. The demand is there because theres no punishment for possession. 10 years for a loaded pistol might drive down demand and slow the flow across the border. Until then demand will continue to climb.

Yep the laws need to be changed a bit .
1.2 million in scams leads to 6 months in jail. Only in Canada the crooks win every time.

https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/canad...le/ar-BB10ckJ4


Wonder what these new cra scammers will get less then 2 years ? Scamming thousands out of hundreds of thousands of dollars. Maybe I wont recieve a call this month that says

I go to jail, or you will be arrested [emoji23][emoji23][emoji102]

Sent from my SM-G960W using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fishfood

Yep the laws need to be changed a bit .
1.2 million in scams leads to 6 months in jail. Only in Canada the crooks win every time.

Sent from my SM-G960W using Tapatalk

---

I would have no problem doing 6 months, for 1.2 mil.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by canadaman30

Start by giving mandatory sentencing for gangbangers possessing illegal firearms for criminal purpose. The demand is there because theres no punishment for possession. 10 years for a loaded pistol might drive down demand and slow the flow across the border. Until then demand will continue to climb.

---

Yep even push the 5 year back.
I heard of one guy loaded gun and cocaine out within in less than 2 .

Another guy 1 know in the fall again cocaine and a hand gun was easily out on bail.

When they get these guys and the proof is there ,right away there should be no bail.

10 years tho for having half oz of fentanyl tho. The sentences are becoming real because of all the junkies. But with a so called gun crisis they are walking with a slap on the wrist for having illegal loaded weapons. Make's no sence up the sentence plain and simple. If your caught red handed on your possession there should be no bail. With an automatic sentence the point will get across.

Sent from my SM-G960W using Tapatalk

Yep until or politicians get their head out of their azzez, the flow of guns will continue to grow

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by canadaman30

I would have no problem doing 6 months, for 1.2 mil.

---

No me neither even a year I'd be a happy guy [emoji23]. I'd be smarter tho and still have the coin [emoji106]

Have met a few people in my life that makes more in month than gilroy did all year [emoji54].

Canada is so nice to criminals it's no wonder why it's so popular . We are in the wrong careers ,paying taxes being told what to do ,more work life then home life lol.
That's what we do tho we live to die we work hard all our lives for a little piece at the end ,then you have to worry about your health. Many dont make it to the end just bust your whole life support your family to enjoy it in the ground sad. [emoji107]

Sent from my SM-G960W using Tapatalk

Way back when,I was assigned to a prisoner escort from Millhaven Pen to the old Lindsay Jail where the career criminal was to attend court for his part of a major commercial BE&T ring that netted many hundreds of thousands of dollars in heavy equipment ,vehicles and tools. I asked him if it ever troubled him that he was really affecting the victims. He looked me right straight in the eye saying "I go into a house where no one is home,I never hit anything that's not covered by insurance and in most cases,it takes home owners a week or two to even realize they've been broken into. I don't hurt anyone,never work armed and I made $2M in the last 10 years,I still have most of it,I'm no where near done,yet, and if you look for the next hundred years,you'll never find it and even if you do,I'll have served my time and be laying on a beach somewhere. Now,I'll ask you,how much money do you think you'll make before you retire,copper?" The conversation was pretty much over,right then and there.

If you have time watch this documentary. He was paid out after for his story works in the law department with his lawyer. Did his time but a brilliant man. How many can learn to fly on the run from the law in his teenage years.

Spent most of his money thought [emoji107]


https://youtu.be/144TR3ejIts

Sent from my SM-G960W using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by trimmer21

Way back when,I was assigned to a prisoner escort from Millhaven Pen to the old Lindsay Jail where the career criminal was to attend court for his part of a major commercial BE&T ring that netted many hundreds of thousands of dollars in heavy equipment ,vehicles and tools. I asked him if it ever troubled him that he was really affecting the victims. He looked me right straight in the eye saying "I go into a house where no one is home,I never hit anything that's not covered by insurance and in most cases,it takes home owners a week or two to even realize they've been broken into. I don't hurt anyone,never work armed and I made $2M in the last 10 years,I still have most of it,I'm no where near done,yet, and if you look for the next hundred years,you'll never find it and even if you do,I'll have served my time and be laying on a beach somewhere. Now,I'll ask you,how much money do you think you'll make before you retire,copper?" The conversation was pretty much over,right then and there.

---

And if he's is smart he could have 10 million by retirement [emoji1787][emoji1787].

I have always said if I could repeat my life over I would change nothing but saving the money. It sure was damn good money we could blow thousands a day not a care in the world.
Me and my buddy once bought all the weed in our high school one day for fun. We ended up will almost 30 bags of weed and like 19 different kinds lol. People were mad that we dried up the school we over paid everyone well just so we could have it . We paid the arcade to open the entire arcade for the day. We gave mister sub 100 tips to pay for the rest of the line behind us.

300 to thousands in a matter of hours or minutes. 20 years ago that was good money lol.
How could you not resist?
As a young offender and the way the court system was who was going stop us?
Weekly courts dates ment nothing but a extra expense lol[emoji1787][emoji1787][emoji54]..




Sent from my SM-G960W using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fishfood

And if he's is smart he could have 10 million by retirement [emoji1787][emoji1787].

I have always said if I could repeat my life over I would change nothing but saving the money. It sure was damn good money we could blow thousands a day not a care in the world.
Me and my buddy once bought all the weed in our high school one day for fun. We ended up will almost 30 bags of weed and like 19 different kinds lol. People were mad that we dried up the school we over paid everyone well just so we could have it . We paid the arcade to open the entire arcade for the day. We gave mister sub 100 tips to pay for the rest of the line behind us.

300 to thousands in a matter of hours or minutes. 20 years ago that was good money lol.
How could you not resist?
As a young offender and the way the court system was who was going stop us?
Weekly courts dates ment nothing but a extra expense lol[emoji1787][emoji1787][emoji54]..




Sent from my SM-G960W using Tapatalk

---

Well, that explains a lot !!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rick_iles

Well, that explains a lot !!

---

Hey I tell it as it is, not going to lie.
Why do you think I fight for stonger sentences, been there done that. Way to easy to beat.

There is no deterrent from it. You get arrested and know you will be back out soon. Unless its Friday then you are stuck till Monday. Same is happening with all the gun bust some are out hours after the incident.


Sent from my SM-G960W using Tapatalk

Crime does not pay,kinda....

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...aine-home.html

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gilroy

Crime does not pay,kinda....

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...aine-home.html

---

If it didn’t pay we wouldn’t have any.

Well past 70 now, born in Quebec,a good Irishman,played by the rules,paid my taxes,Always employed......have had firearms and hunted since age 10.........now I live on Vancouver Island,hunt and fish on a budget......upon seeing how criminals get away with serious crimes,and rollin $$$$$$$$$$$$$ ,
had I only known, I may have done things a little different !!!!!! old age and Canada pension does not go very far........my bad ,I guess...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rick_iles

Well, that explains a lot !!

---

Sure does. Most people do not commit crimes because they know it is wrong, not because of the punishment. Getting rich from crime does not change that. Just because you can does not mean you should.

Crime would never pay if the government ran it.

That's for sure. Only the government could lose money on dealing drugs. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by trimmer21

Crime would never pay if the government ran it.

---