Go Back   Alberta Outdoorsmen Forum > Main Category > General Discussion

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 01-24-2014, 08:14 AM
hillbillyreefer's Avatar
hillbillyreefer hillbillyreefer is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 4,674
Default Greenparty Hoplophobe tables new firearms rule

New Firearms act rules proposed by an Ontario based Bruce Hyer. It's a private members bill from a dipper that crossed the floor to be a Greenie weenie, it doesn't stand a chance. It should be taken as a warning that these people are still in politics and still hate firearms and their owners.
*
1st Session, 41st Parliament,
1re session, 41e législature,
60-61 Elizabeth II, 2011-2012
60-61 Elizabeth II, 2011-2012
house of commons of canada
chambre des communes du canada
BILL C-440
PROJET DE LOI C-440
An Act to amend the Firearms Act (transfer)

Her Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate and House of Commons of Canada, enacts as follows:


1. The portion of section 23 of the Firearms Act before paragraph (a) is replaced by the following:

Authorization to transfer firearms neither prohibited nor restricted

23. A person may transfer a firearm that is neither a prohibited firearm nor a restricted firearm only if, at the time of the transfer,

2. Subsection 23.1(1) of the Act is replaced by the following:

23.1 (1) A transferor referred to in section 23 shall request that the Registrar inform the transferor as to whether the transferee, at the time of the transfer, holds and is still eligible to hold the licence referred to in paragraph 23(a), and the Registrar or his or her delegate, or any other person that the federal Minister may designate, shall so inform the transferor.

Published under authority of the Speaker of the House of Commons
Available from:
Publishing and Depository Services
Public Works and Government Services Canada

Home | Important Notices
__________________
Upset a Lefty, Fly a Drone!

"I find it interesting that some folk will pay to use a range, use a golf course, use a garage bay but think landowners should have to give permission for free. Do these same people think hookers should be treated like landowners?" pitw

Last edited by hillbillyreefer; 01-24-2014 at 08:27 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 01-24-2014, 08:29 AM
Matt L.'s Avatar
Matt L. Matt L. is offline
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Whitecourt
Posts: 5,818
Default

Um, can someone translate that into common English please?
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 01-24-2014, 08:31 AM
Donkey Oatey Donkey Oatey is online now
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 2,264
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Matt L. View Post
Um, can someone translate that into common English please?
Looks to me that they want the seller to check with CFC if the buyer actually has a PAL instead of the wording currently which is bluntly very vague.

I don't agree with it because small changes here and there cause bigger changes down the road.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by huntinstuff View Post
Attention Anti Hunters
Sit back
Pour yourself a tea

Watch us "sportsmen" attack each other and destroy ourselves from within.

From road hunters vs "real hunters" to bowhunters vs rifle hunters, long bows and recurves vs compound user to bow vs crossbow to white hunters vs Native hunters etc etc etc
.....

Enjoy the easy ride, anti hunters. Strange to me why we seem to be doing your job for you.

Excuse me while I go puke.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 01-24-2014, 08:34 AM
hillbillyreefer's Avatar
hillbillyreefer hillbillyreefer is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 4,674
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Matt L. View Post
Um, can someone translate that into common English please?
Good thing I edited most of the French out.

Basically if you are selling a firearm you are required not only to see the PAL/RPAL but you are obligated to phone it in and check it's validity.
__________________
Upset a Lefty, Fly a Drone!

"I find it interesting that some folk will pay to use a range, use a golf course, use a garage bay but think landowners should have to give permission for free. Do these same people think hookers should be treated like landowners?" pitw
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 01-24-2014, 08:54 AM
Matt L.'s Avatar
Matt L. Matt L. is offline
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Whitecourt
Posts: 5,818
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by hillbillyreefer View Post
Good thing I edited most of the French out.

Basically if you are selling a firearm you are required not only to see the PAL/RPAL but you are obligated to phone it in and check it's validity.
Thank you for that

Yeah, that bill can die in a hole, preferably an outhouse hole.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 01-24-2014, 09:36 AM
greylynx greylynx is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 12,078
Default

Or it could be snuck in through the back door by an OIC (Order in Council) without ever going to a vote.

That is what the Cretch and AR-Rock did with C-68.

Unfortunately, Mr. Harper does not want to wreck C-68 using the same OIC's

Not good.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 01-24-2014, 11:11 AM
Big Daddy Badger Big Daddy Badger is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 12,558
Default

Great...another registry.

The call will be documented along with everyones name as a requirement to provide proof that the check was made.

Just another way of trying to hang two people rather than just the one that actually did something wrong.
Also... yet another law that makes something where no harm is done... a crime.

I agree that people should understand that we have no reason to believe that a buyer can lawfully purchase unless we know them well or we see their license but.... there is already a law in place that can nab the seller if he does just assume.
All that needs to be established is what is considered reason to believe.

Why tighten the noose further?
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 01-24-2014, 03:25 PM
Roughneck12's Avatar
Roughneck12 Roughneck12 is offline
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Bonnyville Alberta
Posts: 2,356
Default

What does that say and who comes up with this baffle gab? Morons.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 01-24-2014, 06:19 PM
5Lgreenback 5Lgreenback is offline
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 353
Default

Has the selling of used/ privately owned firearms proven to be an issue? Total waste of time to even focus on this regulation.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 01-24-2014, 06:26 PM
Redfrog's Avatar
Redfrog Redfrog is offline
Gone Hunting
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Between Bodo and a hard place
Posts: 20,168
Default

I think is could be a great crime fighting bill.

Crooks would be so busy on the phone they won't have time for drive bys. Most have curfews as conditions of probation and have to be off the streets before the streetlights come on. I doubt they can sit on 'hold' all day and still get up to bad stuff.

They orobably need some of those illegal light bars on their rides just to get around at night.
__________________
I'm not lying!!! You are just experiencing it differently.


It isn't a question of who will allow me, but who will stop me.. Ayn Rand
Reply With Quote
Reply


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 -6. The time now is 09:08 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.5
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.