Gun Registry Super Thread (please thank your Liberal/NDP friends)

[32-40win]

This article from Don Martin of CTV, kinda warms the cockles o' me heart.
Mendecino has followed the same book as his predecessor, Billy, and seems to be arriving in the same place. He's arrogant enough to be obviously lying about policies, imtents, and not care if it is obvious.

https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/don-...cino-1.6382574

[FishOutOfWater]

What I'm having a hard time wrapping my head around is..

CSAAA took $700k for "11,000 firearms and parts". I'm guessing that includes lower AND upper receivers.

So they took a deal for an average of $63 per item..? $125 per receiver set !

Even completely stripped, that's about 1/2 of average dealer cost. What a joke.

I wonder if this will set any kind of precedent for future payouts ? Not that it will matter to me...

[glen moa]

The 700k is for paperwork. Not for buying anything.

[IronNoggin]

The stunning fall of the once-promising Marco Mendicino

The public safety minister is a bright and articulate former federal prosecutor who was determined and perhaps destined to be a rising star in the Justin Trudeau cabinet.

Recent antics underline what is becoming a stunning fall from grace for Mendicino as he stumbles and bumbles badly from issue to hot-button issue after just 18 months on the job.

Two-year-old revelations from Canada’s spy agency surfaced Monday which found that respected Conservative MP Michael Chong and his family in Hong Kong had endured Chinese state intimidation after his vote to condemn that country’s atrocious human rights record.

This refusal to answer the what-they-knew and when-they-knew-it question was repeated more than a dozen times Tuesday with Conservative, Bloc Quebecois and NDP MPs lining up as one to demand a clear response while, tellingly, the cheerleading Liberal MPs surrounding Mendicino mostly sat on their hands.

Then came Wednesday. Suddenly the entire Chong script changed.

After days of ignoring specific questions, the prime minister and Mendicino emerged to declare they learned about it on Monday.

Mendicino’s poor handling of this incendiary issue was just another hit on the soundtrack of his very bad year.

He was forced into a pride-swallow Tuesday by diluting his original assault-style firearms ban.

The new ban will only prohibit weapons manufactured in the future or those not even invented yet -- a jaw-dropping retreat for a minister who said banishing all these guns was essential to public safety just last year.

He recently declared that Chinese police stations in Canada had been closed by the RCMP, when they were not.

A two-year-old promise to set up a foreign agent registry in Canada, similar to what exists in the U.S. and other countries, has been spun off by Mendicino for pointless consultations without an end date.

His planned changes to allow crucial humanitarian assistance to flow into Afghanistan, where groups are holding back aid out of fear they’ll run afoul of Canada’s anti-terrorism laws, are moving forward in glacial slow-motion.

And lest we forget the notorious fib when he insisted police forces advised the government to invoke the Emergencies Act against the Ottawa convoy protest, a statement police deny.

There are many other missteps going back to the botched Afghanistan withdrawal when he was immigration minister, but space limits the list.

Sadly, Marco Mendicino’s once-bright future as a credible cabinet influencer has been hobbled by his so-many missteps.

He has clearly got to go.

That’s the bottom line..

https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/don-...cino-1.6382574

[IronNoggin]

Mass Casualty recommendations wouldn't have stopped N.S. massacre, and won't stop others

The government has renewed its push on Bill C-21, drawing on recommendations in the report by the Mass Casualty Commission (MCC), which had been tasked with investigating the causes of the 2020 mass killing in Nova Scotia. Yet if the commission was aiming to prevent another mass killing, it missed the target.

One recommended measure was identical to the proposed Liberal amendments banning semi-automatic firearms that were added without consultation into Bill C-21 and then removed following widespread opposition, only to be re-added in a slightly altered form earlier this week. Others include limiting the amount and type of ammunition an individual can purchase and store.

These proposed recommendations suffer from the same problems as the rest of the government’s post-2019 firearms policies: they are aimed at the wrong people, ignore Canadian research and would be almost impossible to implement in the Canadian context.

While tragic, mass shootings in Canada are so vanishingly rare, their frequency is actually marginally lower than non-firearm mass homicide rates. The strict vetting process that Canadian gun owners go through to enjoy the privilege of firearms ownership makes them less likely than the general population to commit murder.

Firearms smuggled from the United States are responsible for the overwhelming majority of gun crime in Canada’s major cities and illegal guns have been the weapons of choice for some recent mass murderers, whose violent histories often make getting a gun license impossible.

Policy is about making choices with limited resources. Continuing to pile irrelevant rules on licensed gun owners would be like fixating on a faucet that occasionally drips while ignoring the burst water main flooding your basement.

Canada’s focus should be on putting resources where they will help the most: securing the border, providing mental health support for Canadians and funding evidence-based community programs to divert at-risk youth from gangs. If the government seeks to prioritize public safety, it should not tilt at expensive windmills.

https://nationalpost.com/opinion/mas...nt-stop-others

[32-40win]

Originally Posted by FishOutOfWater

What I'm having a hard time wrapping my head around is..

CSAAA took $700k for "11,000 firearms and parts". I'm guessing that includes lower AND upper receivers.

So they took a deal for an average of $63 per item..? $125 per receiver set !

Even completely stripped, that's about 1/2 of average dealer cost. What a joke.

I wonder if this will set any kind of precedent for future payouts ? Not that it will matter to me...

THe 700K has nothing to do with the actual confiscation of the stock from the dealers, other than paying the CSAAA to get dealer inventory values and lists to provide to the gov't for analysis, to initiate the program for the buyback of the dealer inventory. One interesting point was the gov't wants to know what dealers do not want to participate in the gathering of the info, and the 4 store owners that were on the CSAAA board all resigned. Number of stores have been indicating they will not participate in it.

CCFR touched on this in a vid from today;

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WbGtHDGd82M&t=3001s

[32-40win]

Didn't think they were having any more meetings this week, but, I was wrong about that.

Today's session of the SECU meeting # 64. They did pass the clause regarding the reciever/mag combo amendmant today, so if all this goes thru, which it will, it will be up to the RCMP to determine if a new model semi auto that takes a mag will be legal to bring in and sell in Canada, Blaine Calkins gets into questioning on that one.

https://parlvu.parl.gc.ca/Harmony/en...V2?fk=12183883

[32-40win]

Interesting tidbit here. Public Safety, Doctors grp and Poly grp have been touting a poll, run by Environics, that said 77% of gun owners were in favour of various new gun laws. Thay got paid to participate.


Frédéric Meunier
@meunierfredz
·
5h
🚨🚨🚨
1/2
So, after several attempts I finally got a response from PS, regarding the
@EnvironicsMR
online survey. See screenshot, in French.

In short, respondents recruited by Environics (who still ignore me to this day) were paid $125 each, and no PAL/RPAL verified.
Frédéric Meunier
@meunierfredz
2/2

This means that anyone could complete it and that we did not think it necessary to ensure the integrity/credibility of the respondents.

This online survey cost taxpayers $225k, used extensively by #antigun lobbyists like
@Polysesouvient
to push a narrative.

Enough said.


Frédéric Meunier
@meunierfredz
·
4h
So a sample of 4,000 random respondents were paid to represent 2.5M gun owners, and have them say that 77% of them were in favor of a buy-back (confiscation) program.

Well well well…

@Docs4GunControl
have used this stat extensively too.

[32-40win]

More permanent version of the SECU meeting #64. They delete Parlvu after a while, hopefully this stays up for a few yrs.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=grVnRMOKwP4

[FishOutOfWater]

Originally Posted by 32-40win

THe 700K has nothing to do with the actual confiscation of the stock from the dealers, other than paying the CSAAA to get dealer inventory values and lists to provide to the gov't for analysis, to initiate the program for the buyback of the dealer inventory. One interesting point was the gov't wants to know what dealers do not want to participate in the gathering of the info, and the 4 store owners that were on the CSAAA board all resigned. Number of stores have been indicating they will not participate in it.

CCFR touched on this in a vid from today;

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WbGtHDGd82M&t=3001s

I can barely stand watching or listening to either one of those feckless snakes anymore...
I'm actually surprised they didn't facilitate this "deal".
CSAAA must've beat them to the punch or just got asked first.

This whole thing makes my blood boil...

[IronNoggin]

Have gun-control advocates finally had enough of Liberal abuse?

Last week I wrote about potentially serious threats to the federal Liberals’ well-worn schtick on abortion. PolySeSouvient, a gun-control advocacy group representing victims and survivors of the 1989 École Polytechnique massacre in Montreal, signalled another potential threat to traditional Liberal campaigning this week: The federal government’s latest gun-control push having collapsed in a heap of incompetence, overreach and cynicism — never forget the Liberals saw political gain to be had in the April 2020 Central Nova Scotia massacre — PolySeSouvient declared that Prime Minister Justin Trudeau would no longer be welcome at Polytechnique memorials.

Canada’s modern Conservatives certainly aren’t anti-gun control. Their advocacy for law-abiding gun owners usually takes the form of rolling back what they see as overreaching Liberal rules and regulations — almost all of which are nibbling around the edges, and that’s where most of this debate occurs nowadays. (Public safety does not hinge on how you can transport a weapon from A to B, for example.)

Marco Mendicino, the most useless public safety minister since his useless predecessor Bill Blair, tried to play gun-control advocates off each other, noting that Canadian Doctors for Protection from Guns and the Coalition for Gun Control both support the new proposed amendments. (So what’s wrong with you, PolySeSoouvient?) He said the new proposals came from the Nova Scotia Mass Casualty Commission’s recommendations, which is not true: That report suggested banning all weapons meeting a certain standard, not just ones invented in future.

Deny Trudeau his symbolic gestures, events and photo ops, and you hit him where it hurts. If the Liberals don’t have those, they don’t have much of anything. And it would be about bloody time.

https://nationalpost.com/opinion/hav...tes-had-enough

[IronNoggin]

[IronNoggin]

Three years after Trudeau's gun ban, nothing has changed

In the three years since his ban, Trudeau hasn't passed a single piece of gun control legislation or taken guns away from civilians.

It was three years ago that Justin Trudeau announced he was keeping Canadians safe by banning “military-grade assault weapons” for civilians. Strangely, three years after that promise, those guns he deemed too dangerous for civilian ownership are still sitting in the basements and gun safes of your neighbours.

We are no closer to the government launching the “buyback” they promised at the time, and that likely suits Trudeau. He’s not interested in public safety; he’s interested in using guns as a political weapon to win elections.

That may sound harsh but consider the facts. Whenever the Trudeau Liberals are in trouble, whenever they want good headlines, gun control is one of the issues they return to.

They may make announcements, they make promises, they hold photo-ops, and they accomplish precious little.

On May 1, 2020, they banned the so-called “military-grade assault weapons” using an order-in-council (OIC) — a kind of executive order passed by cabinet — but it’s not backed up by legislation. That OIC was the subject of a court challenge last month that has a good chance of winning, even according to the government’s own lawyers.

https://torontosun.com/opinion/colum...ng-has-changed

[IronNoggin]

The Bill C 21 Amendments which were forced to be pulled were subsequently reinvented and stuffed back into this handgun bill.

Topping that, the liberals have gone into full roar RUSH mode to get the bill passed asap and off to the Senate.

https://www.ourcommons.ca/DocumentVi...-notice/page-7

Typical...

[IronNoggin]

"Determining the legal effects of a law involves considering how the law will operate and how it will affect Canadians. "

"The Attorney General of Alberta states that the law [C-68] will not actually achieve its purpose.

Where the legislative scheme is relevant to a criminal law purpose, he says, it will be ineffective (e.g., criminals will not register their guns); where it is effective it will not advance the fight against crime (e.g., burdening rural farmers with pointless red tape).

These are concerns that were properly directed to and considered by Parliament.

Within its constitutional sphere, Parliament is the judge of whether a measure is likely to achieve its intended purposes; efficaciousness is not relevant to the Court."

-- Supreme Court of Canada (2000 SCC 31), Firearms Act Reference 2000

Parliament can decide what is reasonable. There are checks and balances that when used properly at least bring the problems to light. Committees are supposed to figure out if a law will do its intended purpose or if it needs tweaking or to be scrapped.

If the House has a majority, a balanced Senate is supposed to figure out if a law will do its intended purpose or if it needs tweaking or to be scrapped.

Checks and balances.

Trudeau has been abusing checks and balances almost every month. From Ethics to OICs to Liberal Convention to ...

The original post link shows tomorrow's abuse of checks and balances

https://www.ourcommons.ca/DocumentVi...-notice/page-7

Trudeau is changing the rules that the courts depend upon, for Bill C-21:

a) requiring the committee to rewrite an existing Bill beyond its original scope. Meaning it skips second reading debate and time for the public to digest/comment.

b) requiring the committee to have maximum 20 minutes to debate any change.

[Vantage Point]

From about the 6:50 min mark to 14:00 min mark is interview with CSAAA president about reasoning behind involvement with Feds on program. https://www.cpac.ca/episode?id=9ae46...c-2bdde3a5dd68

[32-40win]

Just to flesh out who is involved in the CSAAA board, not all the people in this pic are board members anymore, such as those involved in the OIC case, O'Dell, Wolverine, SFRC, they all resigned from the board. Who hid what from whom altogether, is a bit of a mystery still.

and also attached is a link to a copy of the contract;

https://www.docdroid.net/6zQse8Q/202...jljbR8AxUS6S6s

[4extreme]

Originally Posted by Vantage Point

From about the 6:50 min mark to 14:00 min mark is interview with CSAAA president about reasoning behind involvement with Feds on program. https://www.cpac.ca/episode?id=9ae46...c-2bdde3a5dd68

this will be the death of any business that gets involved with the feds. If the feds win and take all our guns there is no need for the CSAAA, If the feds lose and we keep all our guns, no gun owner will have anything to do with the business.

[32-40win]

Guess that boycott would have to include Savage firearms and Vista products then. I'm thinking that won't be happening any time soon.

Another wonder of wonders here;

Can someone explain to me how Poly gets the RCMP to answer a question in 41 minutes, but Canadian Firearms owners can't get feedback on queries such as ATT requests, or license renewals that keep them in line with their legal obligations?

[Mulehahn]

Originally Posted by IronNoggin

The Bill C 21 Amendments which were forced to be pulled were subsequently reinvented and stuffed back into this handgun bill.

Topping that, the liberals have gone into full roar RUSH mode to get the bill passed asap and off to the Senate.

https://www.ourcommons.ca/DocumentVi...-notice/page-7

Typical...

I emailed every possible MP I could and work tomorrow so won't be able to call; slipping this in on a Saturday they knew what they were doing. It will pass; Canadian firearm owners just don't care.

Can't help but think of all the firearms I will never get to shoot or own because of Canadian apathy. There a few i was looking at tonight that I just couldn't afford when I was younger and now just can't justify spending thousands on what will always a safe queen. I may or may not already have enough of those once this Bill passes.

[IronNoggin]

Liberal Motion Seeks to Limit C-21 Debate

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o0wS4AW3xqo

[IronNoggin]

'Nuclear option': Conservatives decry Liberal move to limit debate on gun bill

The federal government is trying to limit how much time MPs have left to consider changes and debate the Liberal gun control legislation Bill C-21.

Through what's known as a programming motion, the Liberals are trying to set in stone the House of Commons' plans related to this bill before voting to send it to the Senate, including issuing marching orders regarding the bill's scope and outstanding amendments to the committee currently studying it.

This move from Government House Leader Mark Holland, on a piece of legislation that has now been before the House for almost a year, comes just one week after Public Safety Minister Marco Mendicino put forward a series of revised amendments that seek to significantly expand the range of proposed gun control measures in the bill.

During a meeting last week, opposition MPs on the committee raised questions around whether they had the ability to, and what would happen if they passed the Liberal amendments and in effect expanded the scope of the bill considerably from what the House of Commons had signed off on when it passed the bill at second reading last June.

Defending moving to stitch in other firearm policies into Bill C-21 alongside accompanying regulatory plans, Mendicino has said the Liberals are committed to go further “than any government in the history of this country,” when it comes to gun control.

Questioning why the Liberals are feeling the urgency now after letting months go by with no movement on Bill C-21, Bloc Quebecois MP and vice-chair of the Public Safety and National Security Committee Kristina Michaud said this move shows the Liberals are "incapable of working together."

https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/libe...c-21-1.6389033

[IronNoggin]

MP Dancho Livid After Liberals Block Debate On Bill C 21: Firearms Ban Bill In House of Commons

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OYIP9IQyDJ0

[32-40win]

Not surprising at all, NDP was pushing for it, without outright calling for it, last week, accusing the Cons of filibustering. Totally predictable where the Libs can't get their way or get criticised and are proven to be in the wrong. The writing was on the wall on this one.

[IronNoggin]

Liberal-NDP Coalition KILLS DEBATE on C-21, will RAM gun control bill through House

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zHZaF4lwQW0

[32-40win]

This is SECU meeting #65 from Tues 5/9/23, of course the first thing heard is Peter Julian pleading for the Libs to limit debate, Michaud asking for a longer session to process more of the clause by clause amendments. And a bit of babble about filibustering. They added ghost gun related clauses for possession and distribution of 3D printer program data, "firearm parts" to up to 25 clauses in the criminal code and the firearms act. And the discussion on an amendment of red flag laws by Glen Motz on how bad the amendment is, that Poly Grp and the bulk of the women's groups are against it, and taking it out of C21, which did not happen, Motz's motion was not passed.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N1BDSuiFneI

[32-40win]

Runkle's comments on the red flag laws;

The amendment currently being discussed throws the presumption of innocence straight into the toilet, and will result in a tremendous taking of guns (and hunting rights) from groups targeted by police--particularly Indigenous Canadians. This is a travesty.

https://twitter.com/IanRunkle/status...437950976?s=20

[IronNoggin]

The NDP just betrayed every gun owner in Canada

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sQ4SqHlIOeI

[32-40win]

This is SECU meeting #66, pay attn to the preamble explainng the time allotment for debate. This is the change that was voted on in the HOC on Wed, to limit debate on C21.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6QoeNx2hUbM

And meeting 67 from Thurs

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pBESgPrcMTs&t=27s

[IronNoggin]

Our gun-control proposals have a very basic failure — garbage data

The Mass Casualty Commission’s firearm recommendations were, rightly, overlooked in the initial phase after the report’s release. They have become relevant these past weeks as gun control groups, the NDP, the Bloc, and the Liberals used them to advocate for sweeping changes to Bill C-21, the government’s controversial gun-control proposals.

The Mass Casualty Commission’s concluding recommendations on guns and homicide share a problem common to any data analysis. If you use the wrong data, you get a bad output.

Or, to be blunt: garbage in, garbage out.

R. Blake Brown, a professor who contributed a commissioned report to the MCC, suggested that the MCC got all the best research together and simply found the arguments made by gun control groups to be more convincing.

He’s wrong. While the MCC could have been a completely neutral panel objectively weighing the evidence before it, the nakedly selective choice of data inputs and slanted interpretation meant that no unbiased outcome was possible. Indeed, the MCC inputs seem heavily weighed to advance a pro-control agenda, and do so in such an obvious way that the resulting flaws should be immediately clear to those with even a passing knowledge of the study of firearms and firearm homicide.

https://theline.substack.com/p/tim-t...trol-proposals