Go Back   Alberta Outdoorsmen Forum > Main Category > Guns & Ammo Discussion

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #331  
Old 04-12-2019, 03:11 AM
32-40win 32-40win is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Calgary
Posts: 4,879
Default

And how many more fell like this fella about talking to their doctor these days;

https://thegunblog.ca/2019/04/11/i-a...usuUV4u2Dhr0_g
__________________
You should also be a member;
CCFR
CSSA
Reply With Quote
  #332  
Old 04-26-2019, 01:02 PM
32-40win 32-40win is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Calgary
Posts: 4,879
Default

C71 goes to the Senate floor on Tues Apr 30. Marilou will try again to add her handgun ban, and we'll see if/how the amendments survive.

https://sencanada.ca/en/content/sen/...iw2AtEi2v6B0DA
__________________
You should also be a member;
CCFR
CSSA
Reply With Quote
  #333  
Old 05-08-2019, 01:01 PM
32-40win 32-40win is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Calgary
Posts: 4,879
Default

C71 will be sent to the Senate floor for 3rd reading today, without the amendments recommended by the SECD review committee, they were rejected in the vote yesterday. It will be sent back to Parliament after the vote, as was originally written. The only way to defeat it now, is to vote the Liberals out of office in October and hope the Conservatives actually live up to their promise of repealing it. And it is possible that could be defeated in the Senate, if it is presented to them. The "Independent Senators" group voted against the amendments.
Be very aware that if the Conservatives should wind up in a minority gov't, the Libs and NDP will push for a total handgun and autoloader ban, and it will include lever actions and shotguns of any type over 5 rd capacity. IF either the NDP or Libs wind up in power, it pure and simple, will happen in the next term.
__________________
You should also be a member;
CCFR
CSSA
Reply With Quote
  #334  
Old 05-09-2019, 02:09 PM
32-40win 32-40win is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Calgary
Posts: 4,879
Default

Senate adjourned before voting on C71. It will be on the next sitting agenda, likely next wk.
Wonder if there is something going on for plans once c71 is passed, it would give the Libs no accountability, they would do something like that;

Bob Zimmer is at Parliament West Block.
26 mins · Ottawa, ON ·
Very troubling information from colleague Tony Clement in Question Period today about alleged plans of the Lib Govt to implement gun bans through an order in council this summer. Most troubling is that Minister Blair when answering did not deny the allegation. Wow. #saynotoc71
__________________
You should also be a member;
CCFR
CSSA
Reply With Quote
  #335  
Old 05-09-2019, 02:47 PM
32-40win 32-40win is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Calgary
Posts: 4,879
Default

CSAAA adding a bit more info to Clement's questions;


Canadian Sporting Arms and Ammunition Association
28 mins ·
In Question Period today, Tony Clement rose to ask about the Liberal Government's secret plan to pass a sweeping firearms ban by Cabinet Directive, not by debatable legislation. Government point man Bill Blair did not deny. Clement speculated the PM is going to announce something in June at a joint conference in B.C. with the PM of New Zealand.

So, if Trudope stays in form, he would align himself with Jacinda as a cover and get a few selfies and do something really stupid.

This is from the Kiwi Gun Blog today;



Kiwi Gun Blog
11 hrs ·
This is appalling.
We were contacted by a reader who was just raided by 14 heavily armed police and a dog unit.
His crime? He purchased an AR15 sometime after the Christchurch attack.
That’s it. He was getting one for his birthday in a few months’ time from his wife. Didn’t want to miss out in the uncertainty and so purchased early.
The police first raided another home, believing it to be his. It wasn’t. It was his workers. They seized his phone and showed him the careful plans they had formulated to raid the incorrect dwelling.
Then they found our reader’s residence on the same property. Then performed a full tactical search. Then seized his AR. After separating him from his wife.
Then police asked his views on islam etc. Did he like Jacinda?
Then they left him with his license and several other guns.
Because he was NEVER A THREAT.
He was told not to expect to get what he paid for the seized rifle.
Is that ****ing right?
He was told that there was no compensation for the ammo. He could give that away.
The special storage case was his loss as well. Useless for other rifles.
We have advised the gentleman involved to make a complaint with the IPCA.
Here is a tip for any police reading this…
If you conduct a raid of a citizen, terrorizing his family with over a dozen armed police, in several vehicles and the end result is you simply saying “K bye” – Then you are a ****.
You need to ask yourself is THIS why you became a policeman?
Who are you serving?
This man’s only gang connection was the 6000 cows he manages. The gun seized was for pest control and destruction of injured stock.
No inciting incident.
No criminal record.
No flag on his name to suggest this family would ever be a problem.
But he is a vetted shooter. So **** that guy.
That is New Zealand now.
__________________
You should also be a member;
CCFR
CSSA
Reply With Quote
  #336  
Old 05-09-2019, 07:35 PM
JeanCretien JeanCretien is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Posts: 178
Default

There is rumbling on the Canadian gun blog that there will be some harsh action from Ottawa in June. Anyone on here hear anything interesting?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
__________________
NEVER FORGET:

"I came to Ottawa with the firm belief that the only people in this country who should have guns are police officers and soldiers."

— Allan Rock, Canada's Minister of Justice
Maclean's "Taking aim on guns", 1994 April 25, Vol.107 Issue 17, page 12.

"... protection of life is NOT a legitimate use for a firearm in this country sir! Not! That is expressly ruled out!".

— Justice Minister Allan Rock
Reply With Quote
  #337  
Old 05-09-2019, 07:48 PM
Twisted Canuck's Avatar
Twisted Canuck Twisted Canuck is online now
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Alberta
Posts: 11,002
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JeanCretien View Post
There is rumbling on the Canadian gun blog that there will be some harsh action from Ottawa in June. Anyone on here hear anything interesting?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I read their blog, saw MP Tony Clement during Question Period ask about bans and confiscation. Saw Blair give a 'think of the children' non-answer.....so sent a text to my MP Chris Warkentin for more info. Still waiting to hear back. He usually responds in minutes to 24 hours... but I did not like what I heard from Clement.
__________________
'Once the monkeys learn they can vote themselves a banana, they'll never climb another tree.'. Robert Heinlein

'You can accomplish a lot more with a kind word and a gun, than with a kind word alone.' Al Capone
Reply With Quote
  #338  
Old 05-09-2019, 08:54 PM
dgrimard dgrimard is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Edmonton
Posts: 73
Default got an email from the cpc

Cheryl Gallant


Today it was revealed Trudeau has a secret plan to ban all legal firearms.

It will be done by Cabinet Directive with no discussion, no debate in the house.

He plans to decree the ban at the “Woman Deliver Conference” in Vancouver BC (June 1 -3 2019).

New Zealand PM Ardern will be in attendance to offer Trudeau cover.

When the Liberal Minister responsible was asked about the plan to ban all legal firearms, he did not deny it.

As each day produces a new scandal, one more petal falls from the wilted rose of the Liberal leader.

Unpopular among more of his own party members, one Liberal MP after another announces intentions not to run for Parliament again.

Their party is desperately trying to change the channel as Canadians get closer and closer to a fall election.

The Liberals think they can manipulate the emotions of women by using sportsmen and farmers as scapegoats.

The conference is a convenient platform to attack law-abiding firearms owners, and try to make female voters, outraged over the “Kokanee Grope”, forget about it.

The conference is less than 25 days away.

That is all the time we have to fight Trudeau and the Liberal Party.

This fight is real.

We need to stop this plan now before it gets swept up in this fall’s election.

Don’t let Trudeau use you to cover up his failures.

Regards,

Cheryl Gallant
Reply With Quote
  #339  
Old 05-09-2019, 09:03 PM
Twisted Canuck's Avatar
Twisted Canuck Twisted Canuck is online now
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Alberta
Posts: 11,002
Default

Well, if they do that all I can suggest is good luck to them. That's a lot of angry voters/gun owners to seize private property from. Property rights are a thing. I suspect that the October election wouldn't be helped by such a knee jerk virtue signaling move. But, there does seem to be no end to the stupidity and style over substance of this government. Going to be watching closely. I hear theft of guns is rampant, could happen to everybody. Police could be flooded with reports of thefts of guns they were going to seize.
__________________
'Once the monkeys learn they can vote themselves a banana, they'll never climb another tree.'. Robert Heinlein

'You can accomplish a lot more with a kind word and a gun, than with a kind word alone.' Al Capone
Reply With Quote
  #340  
Old 05-11-2019, 01:20 AM
32-40win 32-40win is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Calgary
Posts: 4,879
Default

You know , I do find it strange, in that, Clement is actually a C71 supporter, is he a closet Lib, up to some shenanigans? His behavior at the SECU in the HOC was a bit weird, he is a gun owner, who is willing to toss other gun owners under the bus.
__________________
You should also be a member;
CCFR
CSSA
Reply With Quote
  #341  
Old 05-11-2019, 02:45 AM
32-40win 32-40win is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Calgary
Posts: 4,879
Default

Just to reiterate on the Kiwi gun blog post, this is a news article on the raid. The vid embedded in it explains some of what is legal vs prohibited by the NZ bans.


https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/chr...yPQXLmojfE-OU8
__________________
You should also be a member;
CCFR
CSSA
Reply With Quote
  #342  
Old 05-11-2019, 02:53 AM
32-40win 32-40win is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Calgary
Posts: 4,879
Default

CSSA has a bit more news on what Clement was talking about.

http://web-extract.constantcontact.c...-GR43ewHogelZo


An old warning from the CCFR, from the early days of C71;

The CCFR published this about C-71 back in the day.

"As a separate matter, and it is a separate and unrelated matter from the CZ and SAN rifles treatment, a new “mystery” class of prohibited licence is created under section 12(9) of the Firearms Act (the “12(9) Licence”). This class of licence authorizes an individual to possess prohibited firearms of a “prescribed class” under certain conditions, but nowhere is it disclosed as to what is going to be written into that “prescribed class” by way of future regulation.

Because the newly-created 12(9) Licence class is unrelated to the other amendments to the Firearms Act or the firearms specifically dealt with by these amendments, the fact that it exists is clear evidence of an intention that the RCMP and the government have the ability to grandfather further classes of newly-prohibited firearms."

The changes to the Criminal Code include removing subsections 3 and 4 of this.

"Regulations
117.15 (1) Subject to subsection (2), the Governor in Council may make regulations prescribing anything that by this Part is to be or may be prescribed.
Restriction
(2) In making regulations, the Governor in Council may not prescribe any thing to be a prohibited firearm, a restricted firearm, a prohibited weapon, a restricted weapon, a prohibited device or prohibited ammunition if, in the opinion of the Governor in Council, the thing to be prescribed is reasonable for use in Canada for hunting or sporting purposes.
Non-restricted firearm
(3) Despite the definitions prohibited firearm and restricted firearm in subsection 84(1), a firearm that is prescribed to be a non-restricted firearm is deemed not to be a prohibited firearm or a restricted firearm.
Restricted firearm
(4) Despite the definition prohibited firearm in subsection 84(1), a firearm that is prescribed to be a restricted firearm is deemed not to be a prohibited firearm."

When C-71 is law and number 4 is gone, an OIC should be able to prohibit ARs and put them into 12(9).
__________________
You should also be a member;
CCFR
CSSA
Reply With Quote
  #343  
Old 05-13-2019, 11:36 PM
32-40win 32-40win is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Calgary
Posts: 4,879
Default

Ok, this one is off the wall beyond stuck on stupid;

https://bc.ctvnews.ca/mobile/surrey-...PBc7S9b0_nFlWg
__________________
You should also be a member;
CCFR
CSSA
Reply With Quote
  #344  
Old 05-13-2019, 11:39 PM
32-40win 32-40win is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Calgary
Posts: 4,879
Default

By the way, Sen Plett is working hard in Ottawa at delaying C71, he got another day's delay going today. Libs are trying to add their own amendments also. See what Tues brings.

Today:

Senate resumed debate on C-71. Conservative Senator Paul McIntyre speaks about the need for transparency and introduces an amendment to C-71 requiring the federal gov't to provide an annual report on classifications and the reasons for them.

Senator Pratte agrees transparency is needed, but speaks against amendment. He says Goodale has reassured them the FRT will be made public "within a few months".

Senator Plett seeks to make disclosure mandatory rather than an option for the gov't. Plett goes on to discuss how reclassifications make criminals out of otherwise law abiding gun owners.

Senator Tony Dean thinks gun owners and advocacy groups just have a "relationship issue" with the regulator and wishes the RCMP would reach out to gun owners.

Vote on the motion for transparency is adjourned until tomorrow. Plett states there will be more amendments to discuss before a 3rd reading can be completed.
__________________
You should also be a member;
CCFR
CSSA

Last edited by 32-40win; 05-14-2019 at 12:01 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #345  
Old 05-15-2019, 02:16 PM
32-40win 32-40win is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Calgary
Posts: 4,879
Default

Appears the vote is set for Thursday now. Maybe Plett or someone else, will come up with something else, we'll see.
__________________
You should also be a member;
CCFR
CSSA
Reply With Quote
  #346  
Old 05-17-2019, 01:21 AM
32-40win 32-40win is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Calgary
Posts: 4,879
Default

I have no idea how they are doing this, but---keep it up!!!!!

From the CCFR;

Senate Update C-71

Senator Dagenais moves a motion to amend, defeated

Senator McPhedran refers to her colleagues as "gun Senators", discusses white supremacy, delivers rambling diatribe that includes a string of incoherent personal events and slanderous language towards gun owners, runs out her time, colleagues vote to not provide her extra time. Did not get to propose a handgun ban amendment as she has promised to.

Senator Sinclair speaks to the effects of the bill on Indigenous

Senator Tkachuk moves to amend the 5 yr background check

Senator Plett speaks in support of Tkachuk amendment, provides evidence of an over-burdened system

Senate to vote on Tkachuk amendment tomorrow.

Senate adjourns debate on C-71 (and the final vote) …. again, and again

And a bit of history on McPhedran;

https://christopherdiarmani.com/1320...yf6450mnIouVS0
__________________
You should also be a member;
CCFR
CSSA
Reply With Quote
  #347  
Old 05-17-2019, 08:09 AM
DLab DLab is offline
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Medicine Hat
Posts: 344
Default

Senator Tkachuk's 5 year Amendment motion is one of the 4 or 5 that were introduced during the Committee Hearings,this is the 4th. with the previous 3 voted against these past couple weeks.If I remember correctly there should be one more after this one is voted against adoption on May 27th.,the next sitting day.The next fixed sitting dates for the Senate are May 27,28,29 and 30th.then June 4-6th.
It should get final reading on May 28th. or 29th. and probably get Royal ascent rubber stamped immediately following. I expect the Coming into Force date to follow the same time line.
I commend the Con. Senators for their efforts ,but this will come to it's inevitable conclusion at the end of May.
If ,in fact the PM is going to make an announcement in Vancouver concerning changes he'll want this passed.
Either way the Libs will most certainly want this done before summer break June 21st.,Parliament usually resumes in Sept.but with an Election being called for Oct. they most likely wont convene till Nov.,hopefully with a Conservative majority.
I've been wrong before though....I remember this one other time.....
Reply With Quote
  #348  
Old 05-17-2019, 11:59 AM
32-40win 32-40win is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Calgary
Posts: 4,879
Default

There is always the hope that some true common sense will kick in somewhere, the background check regime is so flawed, it is a wreck waiting to happen. The gov't and the medical industry are not at all prepared, or actually capable of doing it.
__________________
You should also be a member;
CCFR
CSSA
Reply With Quote
  #349  
Old 05-22-2019, 12:59 PM
32-40win 32-40win is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Calgary
Posts: 4,879
Default

You can watch a clip of Sen Plett talking about the ATT amendment on his website;

http://www.donplett.ca/my-work/artic...8LPkSGlHpocdrI
__________________
You should also be a member;
CCFR
CSSA
Reply With Quote
  #350  
Old 05-23-2019, 01:14 AM
32-40win 32-40win is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Calgary
Posts: 4,879
Default

And his argument on the background checks, the gov't has nothing in place to do these checks, it is as bad as the registry, or worse;

http://www.donplett.ca/my-work/artic...R63Ju94UbERQvA
__________________
You should also be a member;
CCFR
CSSA
Reply With Quote
  #351  
Old 05-27-2019, 11:37 PM
32-40win 32-40win is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Calgary
Posts: 4,879
Default

The text of a speech today on C71, by Sen. Don Plett.

supplied by Canadian Coalition for Firearm Rights;


"Colleagues, this Bill was introduced in the Other Place just over a year ago, on March 20th. It came to this Chamber last fall and has been the subject of much debate and discussion.
At Second Reading, it was debated over 12 sittings by 18 senators who spoke to it, and by many others who asked questions.
At committee we sat for more than 30 hours and heard from 81 witnesses, including two cabinet ministers.
Report stage covered four more sittings, with four senators speaking to the report.
Today, we find ourselves at what is expected to be the last Third Reading speech, having heard from 14 Senators.
I say this not only to commend all senators for their participation, but to illustrate that we have covered a lot of ground with this Bill and have heard arguments from many different perspectives.
And yet in spite of the participation and rigorous examination, I admit that I am concerned.
I am concerned that we find ourselves exactly where we were before we began looking at this Bill.
I suspect that if we had voted on this Bill when it arrived in this Chamber, the outcome would have been exactly the same as it will be when we are finished tonight.
After all the time, research, debate, testimony, letters, emails, phone calls, discussions, questions, answers, and non-answers, we are finishing right where we began.
The Senate Committee on National Security did an outstanding its job examining this Bill and bringing in amendments to improve it. These were simply ignored by this Chamber. And when we sought to reintroduce these individually, they were again unceremoniously rejected without true consideration.
Colleagues, how is it possible that so many senators, who claim to be independent, consistently vote as a block in support of the Liberal party, and despite the evidence? How is this non-partisan?
If ISG senators were truly independent, we would at least see their votes proportionately reflect the views of Canadians. Maybe not all the time, but at least some of the time.
Yet that is far from what is happening. Instead, we are repeatedly seeing a wholesale endorsement of the government’s agenda.
I understand that there may be some concern amongst senators opposite that it is not the appropriate role of this Chamber to challenge the elected House. But I would remind you that amending legislation in this House in no way prevents the Other Place from rejecting those amendments. This has happened many times in this parliamentary session, and repeatedly throughout history.
Our job is to give sober second thought to the legislation that appears before us and – at times – this includes challenging the very premise of what is being proposed. If we repeatedly fail to do this, it brings into question the usefulness of this Chamber.
We have a responsibility to look beyond the talking points, to challenge assumptions, and to require evidence-based policy.
This has not happened with Bill C-71.
Colleagues, as the Bill stands right now, nobody is happy with it. Gun owners are not happy and gun control advocates are not happy.
On this side of the Chamber, we have at least acknowledged that fact, rather than making excuses for the government.
But on the other side, have you noticed how many times ISG senators claim to support this Bill while at the same time making soft apologies for it? They repeatedly say things like, this is no “silver bullet” or this is not a “magic bullet”. On the one hand you’re endorsing it and on the other hand you’re apologizing for it.
Right now, you have the opportunity to make a difference. And you are not.
So let me ask you this: If Bill C-71 were a term paper, what grade would you give it?
I would give it an “F”. The student has completely failed to address the objective of the assignment, which was to increase public safety.
But if you are not prepared to give it an “A-plus”, then where are the corrections? Where are the amendments? Why are you about to send this terrible Bill back to the Other Place, rubber-stamped and ready for implementation, if it’s broken or incomplete?
I’m not saying you must support our amendments if you don’t believe in them. But where are your amendments? I find it hard to believe that you cannot think of one way to make this Bill better.
You’ve rejected all of our efforts to improve this Bill, and yet you’ve made none of your own. What are Canadians supposed to make of this?
I know that every senator in this Chamber supports measures that increase public safety.
And yet instead of taking action to do so – ANY action – you quietly fall into line behind your leader.
Let’s be clear, we all know what is going on here. Either through ignorance, intimidation, or deference, you are acting like a government caucus while protesting loudly that you are not.
While claiming to be independent, your actions say the exact opposite.
Just last week, we saw Senator Woo telling the Hill Times that if there was no deal reached on Bill C-69 at committee, then senators on the committee would have voted on each amendment “along the lines of which group we belong to”.
How is that independent?
Now some of you may not recognize this, but what Senator Woo is describing is how a whipped caucus works. You are acting like the very thing you to tell us over and over again that you are not.
While calling yourselves independents, you will stand tonight and vote as a block – with only a handful of exceptions – to send this Bill back to the Other Place unamended.
And let there be no mistake, this is exactly what we are about to see. The ISG caucus has been summoned by their whip to be present in the Chamber tonight – in force – to pass the government’s legislation without amendment. And, your whip is taking attendance.
Senators, I am the whip of the Conservative caucus in the Senate. I understand the role of a whip. And when I see it, I recognize it. Well my friends, for the record, you are being whipped.
Your voting patterns on this legislation and on proposed amendments have not been based on the evidence or the arguments. They have clearly been based only on your loyalty to the government and the direction of your whip.
So I am not standing here trying to change your minds. I know that is an effort in futility. I am standing here because there are millions of Canadians who care about this legislation. They care about what it was supposed to do. They care about dealing with gun violence and gang violence.
They may have even believed the Liberal government’s campaign promises to do something about it, and they deserve to know the truth about this legislation – that it is a sham and a farce, and it will do absolutely NOTHING to increase public safety.
I would like to review the Liberal party’s election promise on the issue before us. What exactly did they promise, and does this Bill fulfill that promise or even move us closer toward it?
In their platform, on page 54, the Liberal party promised to do the following: (and I quote)
“GUNS: We will take action to get handguns and assault weapons off our streets… We will take pragmatic action to make it harder for criminals to get, and use, handguns and assault weapons.”
THAT was the promise.
And yet, if you look at Bill C-71, it has NOTHING to do with gangs.
It has NOTHING to do with getting handguns and assault weapons off our streets.
And it does NOTHING to make it harder for criminals to get, and use, handguns and assault weapons.
Instead, this Bill harasses law-abiding gun owners while giving gangs and criminals a pass.
Rather than fulfilling campaign promises, this Bill breaks them.
Colleagues, no one is denying that there are very real concerns about gun violence in Canada. But suggesting that we are going to deal with these concerns by developing policies which target licensed gun owners is nothing short of fantasy.
If the government wants to live in a make-believe world, there is little we can do to stop it, this side of the election. But I urge you not to play their game.
From the very beginning of this debate, the Trudeau government’s insincerity has been evident.
They have repeatedly claimed that this Bill “prioritizes public safety and effective police work.” And yet when you scratch the surface, you quickly find out that it does neither.
It reminds me of an old proverb which says, “Like clouds and wind without rain is a man who boasts of a gift he does not give.”
Justin Trudeau talks like he’s serious about dealing with gangs and crime, but his actions are little more than empty, fluffy promises which deliver nothing.
When Bill C-71was introduced in the Other Place, Minister Goodale began by painting a grim picture. He said:
“Crime rates generally in Canada have been on the decline for decades… However, offences involving firearms are bucking the positive trend.”
Minister Goodale repeated this assertion both at the House of Commons committee and at the Standing Senate Committee on National Security and Defence. There, he insisted that:
“While crime rates generally have been steadily falling in Canada for decades, we have seen a sharp increase in the number of criminal incidents involving firearms.”
Colleagues, the evidence says this assertion is nonsense. No matter which metric you look at – overall crime rates, the violent crime rate, or the crime severity index – the last 20 years of statistics clearly show that gun crime and overall crime rates follow the same arc:
When crime goes up, gun crime goes up with it. And when crime goes down, gun crime goes down as well.
The suggestion that gun crime is rising while overall crime is dropping is simply not true.
However, as I said earlier, this does not mean we don’t have a problem. We do. But if you look at the evidence, you will find that it has nothing to do with making sure law-abiding gun owners gets special permission to take their restricted firearms to the gunsmith. It has nothing to do with taking away their only real avenue of appeal when their firearms get reclassified and are rendered valueless. It has nothing to do with the fact that background checks currently cover 5 years instead of a lifetime.
It has nothing to do with any of these things. Bill C-71 is chock-full of feel-good, aspirational notions that are designed to leave the impression of taking action, while accomplishing absolutely nothing.
Colleagues, I encourage you to take a closer look at Statistics Canada’s reports on homicide by firearms. If you do, will see that at least three things stand out: Number one, there has been a failure to enforce our existing gun laws; number two, there is a disproportionate homicide rate by indigenous persons; and, number three, we are suffering from rising gang violence.
And yet Bill C-71 completely ignores every single one of these.
Consider the following:
Between 2014 and 2017, sixty-six percent of homicides by firearm were committed by people with criminal records. This tells us that up to two-thirds of gun homicides could be the consequence of a failure to properly enforce our current gun laws. Because in many cases, it is already illegal for someone with a criminal record to possess a firearm.
In every case where a gun homicide was committed by a person who was ineligible to possess that firearm, more regulation would have done nothing to save these lives. The problem was a lack of enforcement of our existing gun laws.
Secondly, over the same period (2014 to 2017), 68 percent of all homicides were committed with a restricted or prohibited weapon. And yet restricted and prohibited firearms already registered and tightly controlled.
This should be a red flag for anyone who is paying attention. If gun control measures for restricted firearms are not working, what makes us think that more regulations for non-restricted firearms will suddenly be effective?
Thirdly, according to Statistics Canada, 38 percent of all homicides in 2017 were committed by Indigenous persons. In the vast majority of these homicides, the victims were Indigenous as well.
When you consider this in context of the size of the Indigenous population, it means that across Canada, an Indigenous person is 12 times more likely to commit homicide than a non-Indigenous person. Broken down by province, it works out to 11 times more likely in Alberta, 13 times in Manitoba, and 43 times in Saskatchewan.
Minister Goodale has gone out of his way to point out that the problem with firearms violence is not just because of gangs in Toronto, noting that it’s also found in rural areas – especially in prairie provinces like Manitoba and Saskatchewan. But what he didn’t bother to tell you, is that in Manitoba, 67% of homicides with a firearm in rural areas are committed by Indigenous persons. In Saskatchewan the number is 77%.
Colleagues, if you haven’t looked at the evidence, then these numbers might shock you. But don’t misunderstand me. I am NOT blaming Indigenous people for firearms violence.
What I am doing, is pointing out that there is a tragedy unfolding in slow motion in Indigenous communities and families, right before our eyes. And yet the Liberal government is ignoring this tragedy, pretending to be oblivious to the fact that there are much deeper societal issues at play here that will NOT be addressed by simply piling on more gun laws.
Frankly, I am at a bit of a loss as to how my honourable colleagues Senator Sinclair or Senator McCallum believe this Bill addresses ANY of the root issues behind these tragic numbers. Why are not all the Indigenous senators opposite opposing this Bill and demanding real action and real answers which would actually help to reduce firearms crime and the resulting victimization? And if you are not going to oppose it, then where are the amendments? Where are the improvements?
Honourable Senators, the other thing we learn from Statistics Canada, is that between 1991 and 2017, ninety percent of homicides were solved.
But only if gangs were not involved.
When homicides are gang-related, the solve rate drops to 44 percent.
If we look at the years 2014 – 2017, this means that with an average of 206 homicides committed with a firearm each year, about 70 were left unsolved each and every year. Approximately 57 of these 70 unsolved homicides would have been gang-related.
In other words, between 2014 and 2017, approximately 280 murderers have been left to roam free on our streets. And the majority of these – 228 – are gang members.
You might want to let that sink in.
If the government was serious about preventing homicides by firearms and prioritizing public safety, getting known murderers off our streets would be their top priority.
But it’s not. This Bill will have zero impact on gangs and criminals.
Instead, Minister Goodale is busy making scapegoats out of law-abiding gun owners – saddling them with more paperwork, more hoops to jump, and more threats of criminal charges – all the while pretending that this will get criminals off our streets.
The assertion is absurd, and gun owners are tired of the charade.
Instead of taking substantive action to deal with real issues, the Liberal government is splashing around in the shallow end, pretending to be doing something important.
This is not the time to be playing politics. This is a time to understand what is really going on and take meaningful action to change the current trajectory and actually save lives!
Colleagues, facts, research, and statistics matter. But the problem we have seen in this debate is that it is too easy to simply quote a study that supports your position.
This is true on many subjects, but it is particularly true when it comes to the question of the effectiveness of gun control. One person will hold up a study that says gun control works. The next person will hold up a study that says it doesn’t work. People pick the one that best aligns with their view and use that to endorse their position. So how do you know what the truth is?
In 2016, the B.C. Centre for Public Safety and Criminal Justice Research did something different. Rather than simply producing another study on the matter, they undertook an extensive literature review of all the existing studies.
These were studies which had examined,
“the various strategies and processes that have been tried in Canada and internationally to reduce or remove illegal firearms from circulation, particularly from offenders.”
The focus of the review was on,
“research published in English that evaluates legislative attempts, police-led, and community-led programs, tactics, or interdictions designed to address the issue of illegal firearm possession and use.”
So instead of just producing one more study, the Centre took a step back and looked at all studies that had already been published, in order to review their findings. You cannot easily dismiss such an approach if you’re interested in the facts.
At the end of the review, they concluded the following:
“… the lack of reliable empirical data on firearms and violence, including suicides, makes it virtually impossible to undertake comparative analysis or the ability to develop more effective responses. In sum, the current evidence is generally inconclusive and suffers from a range of methodological challenges and limitations.”
If you’re one of those who like to argue for more gun control based on an isolated study here and there, this will not come as good news. But these are the facts:
“the current evidence is generally inconclusive”.
Now the good news is, that something CAN be done about gun violence. The review found the following:
“The research literature … demonstrates that gun violence can be reduced by the police when they engage in sustained, strategic, and intelligence-led enforcement practices that targets prolific offenders and gangs, and prolific locations where gun violence occurs.”
Colleagues, this is exactly what a Conservative government would do. Instead of fiddling on the margins with ineffective measures based on evidence that has been found to be “generally inconclusive”, a Conservative government would take clear and decisive action to deal with gangs, illegal guns and criminals.
Contrast this with Justin Trudeau who has softened Canada’s approach to tackling gang crime by reducing its penalties to as little as an administrative fine.
A Conservative government would end automatic bail for known gang members, making them prove to a court that they should be eligible for bail. It would deliver tougher sentences for ordering gang crime and new sentences for violent gang crime.
This is the kind of leadership Canadians need.
But instead, here’s where we find ourselves today: In just a few minutes we’re going to have a vote on Bill C-71. And in spite of the fact that this Bill is not supported by the facts, the evidence, or the research, the majority of Senators in this Chamber are going to vote in favour of it.
In spite of the fact that it ignores the real problems, fails to listen to either the gun owners or the victims of gun violence, this Chamber will send it back to the Other Place unamended.
This is a tragedy, colleagues. Because it’s not just law-abiding firearms owners who are not being heard. It’s also the communities being rocked by crime. It’s the families that have been torn apart. It’s the moms and dads, sisters and brothers, friends and acquaintances of victims of gun crime.
You, and this government, are failing them by passing this legislation.
Because although the Liberal promise was a good one: “We will take action to get handguns and assault weapons off our streets” – this Bill does not take even one tiny baby step toward fulfilling that promise.
But if that was not bad enough, it gets worse. This Bill implements a backdoor gun registry.
Now I know that there is a little clause in the Bill which says it’s not introducing a registry, but this, quite frankly, means nothing. In the words of committee witness Dr. Teri Bryant, “Is a duck a duck if you don’t call it a duck?”
Colleagues, it’s a duck.
Back on June 29, 2012, the Conservative government registered a regulation which stated the following:
“A person cannot be required, as a condition of a licence that is issued under the Firearms Act, (a) to collect information with respect to the transfer of a non-restricted firearm; (b) if they collect such information, to keep a record of it; or (c) if they keep such a record, to keep it in a form that combines information that identifies the transferee with information that identifies an individual firearm, links such information, or enables such information to be combined or linked.”
At the time, then-Minister Vic Toews appeared before the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee to explain why this regulation was necessary to ensure that such information should not be collected. This is what he said:
“The real purpose of this regulation is simply to clarify the effect of Bill C-19, that is, to prevent the establishment of another long-gun registry through other means, whether it is through information collected through CFOs or otherwise.”
Bill C-71 is specifically designed to override this regulation.
So how is it, that Minister Toews could clearly see that collecting information about the transfer of non-restricted firearms creates a long-gun registry by another means, and yet Minister Goodale claims to be oblivious to this fact?
Colleagues, this legislation fails on not one, but two counts:
Number one, it completely fails to implement the government’s promise to “take action to get handguns and assault weapons off our streets.” And number two, it cynically breaks the government’s promise to “not create a new national long-gun registry.”
There is only one appropriate response for this Chamber to take in such a situation: This Bill should be defeated.
In closing, I’d like to leave you with this thought:
Gun control advocates often like to use the expression, “If it saves one life, then it’s worth it.” But what they fail to recognize is, that if the same amount of effort and money utilized in a different manner would save ten lives, then refusing to do so and saving only one is criminal.
Yet this government has repeatedly refused to acknowledge what we all know to be true: Public resources are limited, and the budget will not balance itself.
Tax dollars should be allocated in the most efficient, effective manner possible in order to achieve the greatest possible impact and best public policy outcome.
Colleagues, it is indisputable that Bill C-71 utterly and tragically fails to do this, and it needs to be defeated.
Thank you."
Senator Don Plett
__________________
You should also be a member;
CCFR
CSSA
Reply With Quote
  #352  
Old 05-28-2019, 06:41 AM
bat119's Avatar
bat119 bat119 is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: On the border in Lloydminster
Posts: 6,073
Default True words

the Liberal party promised to do the following: (and I quote)
“GUNS: We will take action to get handguns and assault weapons off our streets… We will take pragmatic action to make it harder for criminals to get, and use, handguns and assault weapons.”
THAT was the promise.
And yet, if you look at Bill C-71, it has NOTHING to do with gangs.
It has NOTHING to do with getting handguns and assault weapons off our streets.
And it does NOTHING to make it harder for criminals to get, and use, handguns and assault weapons.
Instead, this Bill harasses law-abiding gun owners while giving gangs and criminals a pass.
Rather than fulfilling campaign promises, this Bill breaks them.
Reply With Quote
  #353  
Old 05-28-2019, 08:59 AM
DLab DLab is offline
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Medicine Hat
Posts: 344
Default

I watched this live yesterday , Senator Plett stated that he thought this would be the last third reading speech,but he had heard rumours of a possible Liberal amendment being proposed,no motions forwarded. I was expecting this to pass ,then they deferred final reading to today at 5:30 pm EST.
There were more than enough Liberal and ISG's there to pass with a majority,as they just struck down the proposed amendment.

Also the fact that Senator McPhedran didn't try for a third time to propose a gun ban amendment,she was so adamant in that regard.Perhaps a little bird whispered in her ear that there was some thing coming down the pipe.

We'll see how it progresses today.
Reply With Quote
  #354  
Old 05-28-2019, 12:02 PM
32-40win 32-40win is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Calgary
Posts: 4,879
Default

The Cons will not be able to repeal it without a majority in the HOC, as you can see, it will require them to reject any amendments to whatever they do from the Senate, and the Senate will do everything they can to block it. They will have to do exactly what the Libs are doing now, but will have to do it in the HOC, they will get no help from the Senate during the next gov't term, assuming they win.
This is where the voting for the fringe parties can hurt gun owners. Cons need a clear majority in the HOC to do it.
__________________
You should also be a member;
CCFR
CSSA
Reply With Quote
  #355  
Old 05-28-2019, 03:45 PM
DLab DLab is offline
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Medicine Hat
Posts: 344
Default

Bill C-71 passed third reading as written ,no amendments, on it's way to the HoC.
Reply With Quote
  #356  
Old 05-28-2019, 03:45 PM
bat119's Avatar
bat119 bat119 is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: On the border in Lloydminster
Posts: 6,073
Default

Passed

Yes: 55, No: 33, Abstained: 2.

The beginning of the end of freedom in this country
Reply With Quote
  #357  
Old 05-28-2019, 03:57 PM
elkhunter11 elkhunter11 is online now
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Camrose
Posts: 35,395
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bat119 View Post
Passed

Yes: 55, No: 33, Abstained: 2.

The beginning of the end of freedom in this country
That goes right along with the government taking away our right to free speech, and taking control of our media. We as a country are doomed, if we do not change governments in October.
__________________
Only accurate guns are interesting.
Reply With Quote
  #358  
Old 05-28-2019, 04:35 PM
qwert qwert is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 2,420
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bat119 View Post
Passed

Yes: 55, No: 33, Abstained: 2.

The beginning of the end of freedom in this country
Both tradition, and prudent strategic planning for any future unknowns,
suggests that a wise PM should fill all the Senate seats before leaving office.

Why didn't Harper?

Good Luck, YMMV.
Reply With Quote
  #359  
Old 05-28-2019, 04:35 PM
wes11 wes11 is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 41
Default

Referendum on Separation ASAP
Reply With Quote
  #360  
Old 05-29-2019, 02:09 PM
Athabasca1 Athabasca1 is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 199
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 32-40win View Post
The Cons will not be able to repeal it without a majority in the HOC, as you can see, it will require them to reject any amendments to whatever they do from the Senate, and the Senate will do everything they can to block it. They will have to do exactly what the Libs are doing now, but will have to do it in the HOC, they will get no help from the Senate during the next gov't term, assuming they win.
This is where the voting for the fringe parties can hurt gun owners. Cons need a clear majority in the HOC to do it.
Pro gun citizens will all get their final shot in the October election when they mark their ballot. Yes, the Cons need a majority in the HOC so vote accordingly if you want the legislation repealed.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 01:53 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.5
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.