-
December 7th, 2015, 03:49 PM
#61
The optimist in me hopes that "..get handguns and assault weapons off our streets..." means that there will be an effort to get illegal guns off our streets. The pessimist thinks it means less legal guns for us. In typical political fashion vagueness is the theme in parliament. That way you can do a lot more or do nothing at all and still say that you stuck to what you promised.
-
December 7th, 2015 03:49 PM
# ADS
-
December 7th, 2015, 03:55 PM
#62
In this Mandate to the Public Safety Minister there is a directed task to repeal some elements of C-42. I suspect that the automatic ATT element will go if it is not strongly opposed. It would be too bad given that it does save paperwork and money.
http://pm.gc.ca/eng/minister-public-...mandate-letter
There is room for all God's creatures - right next to the mashed potatoes!
-
December 7th, 2015, 04:09 PM
#63

Originally Posted by
DGearyFTE
The recent announcement to add members to the Canadian Firearms Advisory Committee is concerning.
This was an election promise.

Originally Posted by
DGearyFTE
In this Mandate to the Public Safety Minister there is a directed task to repeal some elements of C-42. I suspect that the automatic ATT element will go....
This was also an election promise. The two elements of C-42 that they pledged to repeal were the automatic ATT and taking classification away from the RCMP.
"The language of dogs and birds teaches you your own language."
-- Jim Harrison (1937 - 2016)
-
December 7th, 2015, 04:24 PM
#64
Yup, they were and both of those issues would be regressive if they are passed. In both instances there is a direct impact to gun owners and to the taxpayers. Let's hope that Goodale is not directed to overturn good advice from the committee.
There is room for all God's creatures - right next to the mashed potatoes!
-
December 7th, 2015, 04:47 PM
#65

Originally Posted by
Huntingwithyour
It will be interesting to see if they actually keep their promise of not having the long-gun control. It is upsetting that one government goes ahead with a planned action and then the next government reverses that action and on and on it goes, a big waste of time money and effort.
My guess is JT just creates favorable conditions whereby the Provinces create their own registry. Quebec is proceeding with it and I guarantee you Wynne will also. That way JT can say he didn't bring back a registry. Wynne can merely spin it as a tax on firearms owners but to collect taxes she needs a database to ensure compliance. Voila, another registry by another name. It allows her to hire more liberal voting civil servants. She knows that gun owners are spread out thin and don't have the electoral clout to put a particular riding at risk for her.
I’m suspicious of people who don't like dogs, but I trust a dog who doesn't like a person.
-
December 7th, 2015, 07:30 PM
#66

Originally Posted by
terrym
My guess is JT just creates favorable conditions whereby the Provinces create their own registry. Quebec is proceeding with it and I guarantee you Wynne will also. That way JT can say he didn't bring back a registry. Wynne can merely spin it as a tax on firearms owners but to collect taxes she needs a database to ensure compliance. Voila, another registry by another name. It allows her to hire more liberal voting civil servants. She knows that gun owners are spread out thin and don't have the electoral clout to put a particular riding at risk for her.
Quebec is the only province which has a "notwithstanding clause" as a "distinct society" which no other province had granted under The Charter. I'm fairly certain that if Ontario had the authority under The Charter to enact gun control legislation,all our guns would have been gone decades ago.
Last edited by trimmer21; December 7th, 2015 at 09:16 PM.
Reason: sp
-
December 7th, 2015, 07:32 PM
#67

Originally Posted by
DGearyFTE
Yup, they were and both of those issues would be regressive if they are passed. In both instances there is a direct impact to gun owners and to the taxpayers. Let's hope that Goodale is not directed to overturn good advice from the committee.
The committee can only make suggestions. The CPC ignored advice from the committee when they were in power. In fact, when the committee suggested getting rid of the Firearms Act, Harper fired half of them. I don't think we need to worry too much about the committee.
As for classification, there is no good option. Would you rather have it be in the hands of the RCMP, with no accountability, or in the hands of Liberal cabinet ministers, subject to the direction of the political breeze? Neither option is good.

Originally Posted by
terrym
My guess is JT just creates favorable conditions whereby the Provinces create their own registry.
But none of the provinces, other than Quebec, has demonstrated any interest in creating their own registry.
"The language of dogs and birds teaches you your own language."
-- Jim Harrison (1937 - 2016)
-
December 7th, 2015, 08:59 PM
#68

Originally Posted by
welsh
But none of the provinces, other than Quebec, has demonstrated any interest in creating their own registry.
Do you honestly think Wynne wouldn't jump at the chance to target gun owners and suck money out of them? Do you honestly think JT won't give her anything she asks for?
I’m suspicious of people who don't like dogs, but I trust a dog who doesn't like a person.
-
December 7th, 2015, 09:18 PM
#69

Originally Posted by
terrym
Do you honestly think Wynne wouldn't jump at the chance to target gun owners and suck money out of them? Do you honestly think JT won't give her anything she asks for?
I don't think provinces can do it. The federal government has the sole authority when it comes to fiearms and criminal law.
-
December 7th, 2015, 09:45 PM
#70
Has too much time on their hands
Interesting interview Brian Lilley and Tony Bernardo of the Canadian Sport Shooting Association.
http://www.therebel.media/firearms_e...ian_gun_owners
"assault WEAPON.... anything the Liberals don't like."