|
|
03-22-2018, 12:58 PM
|
|
|
Join Date: Apr 2017
Posts: 21
|
|
They better kill this bill somehow man.
|
03-22-2018, 08:16 PM
|
|
|
|
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Alberta
Posts: 413
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by beerhunter
There will no way to regulate private to private sales/transfers even in the future for non restricted (restricted yes). There is no history on any non restricted firearms as the previous registry was abolished and all records destroyed (supposedly). How will anyone know who owns what anyway?
|
Read Bill C-71, not only they weren't destroyed but this new bill just gave the RCMP the right to retain and use the data from the defunct long gun registry.
|
03-23-2018, 06:07 AM
|
|
|
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Okotoks
Posts: 3,033
|
|
No surprise here. At all. The RCMP have been operating as their own entity and seem to take orders from nobody but themselves. After the High River Gun Grab, how anyone could have any trust in them is beyond me. They never did
destroy the data from the registry which just shows that they never cared what the Taxpayers wanted.
The Liberals stated emphatically that they would not reintroduce a Gun Registry. Liberals lie? Say it ain't so. Well, no one ever accused Liberals of having their priorities in order. Thousands of people dying from drug overdose and they are more worried about imposing more legislation and more laws against law-abiding citizens; even though common sense proves that these measures will do absolutely nothing and have ZERO effect on crime.
|
03-23-2018, 06:20 AM
|
|
|
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: onoway, Ab
Posts: 6,993
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by New Hunter Okotoks
No surprise here. At all. The RCMP have been operating as their own entity and seem to take orders from nobody but themselves. After the High River Gun Grab, how anyone could have any trust in them is beyond me. They never did
destroy the data from the registry which just shows that they never cared what the Taxpayers wanted.
The Liberals stated emphatically that they would not reintroduce a Gun Registry. Liberals lie? Say it ain't so. Well, no one ever accused Liberals of having their priorities in order. Thousands of people dying from drug overdose and they are more worried about imposing more legislation and more laws against law-abiding citizens; even though common sense proves that these measures will do absolutely nothing and have ZERO effect on crime.
|
This is absolutely right. In the election campaign Mr Dressup said they were going to take assault rifles and handguns out of the hands of criminals and gangs. This did absolutely zero, zilch, nada to reduce guns in the hands of gang bangers and criminals.
As far as the registry it never was destroyed and was still being used by the RCMP. I know a fellow that was broke into and had a rifle stolen. The drunk thief passed out on the side of the highway in a stolen vehicle. The RCMP phoned him and asked him if he owned such and such rifle. The phone call was on the answering machine when he came home to find his house broke into and didn’t even know the rifle was missing yet.
|
03-23-2018, 09:21 PM
|
|
|
|
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: My House
Posts: 13,464
|
|
Bill C71 News & Discussion
All C71 discussion is being localized on this thread...
|
03-23-2018, 10:01 PM
|
|
|
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 679
|
|
Not sure if anyone caught Global National yesterday but one of their reporters put a negative spin on the Conservatives for what they called untrue attack ads.
https://globalnews.ca/video/4102197/...ional-mar-22-7
It was the first story but around the 4 minute mark the guy says the conservatives accused the liberals of attempting to introduce a back door registry. Then makes this bold statement that "clearly its not" and its just an attempt by the conservatives to stir up fear by the gun owners.
Goes on further to say that they can now call out ads like that for being untrue.
Maybe it's me but I didn't see it as unbiased and it sure sounded like the guy had a bone to pick with the statement.
|
03-23-2018, 10:51 PM
|
|
|
|
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Blackfalds
Posts: 6,949
|
|
This is 3/4 of a registry. They will have to build and staff some infrastructure, the same infrastructure that cost 2 billion dollars. There is also nothing in the legislation that stops the provincial CFO’s from overstepping and asking for the firearm serial numbers.
This bill also opens up the floor for the RCMP to prohibit any firearms they wish and put them in the 12(9) class. Bye bye AR15’s if they wanted.
No oversight from elected officials. Can you say police state?
|
03-23-2018, 11:02 PM
|
Banned
|
|
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 5,326
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by ATF
Not sure if anyone caught Global National yesterday but one of their reporters put a negative spin on the Conservatives for what they called untrue attack ads.
https://globalnews.ca/video/4102197/...ional-mar-22-7
It was the first story but around the 4 minute mark the guy says the conservatives accused the liberals of attempting to introduce a back door registry. Then makes this bold statement that "clearly its not" and its just an attempt by the conservatives to stir up fear by the gun owners.
Goes on further to say that they can now call out ads like that for being untrue.
Maybe it's me but I didn't see it as unbiased and it sure sounded like the guy had a bone to pick with the statement.
|
Well, I think you need to learn to extrapolate.
If this isn't a watered down registry what is?
They make no bones about the requirement to call in a transfer, so what is the point of that?
If nothing is registered, what is the value of calling in the transfer of an unregistered firearm?
|
03-24-2018, 03:55 AM
|
|
|
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Near Drumheller
Posts: 6,759
|
|
One interesting note on the CCFR releases tonite was that the Justice dept is saying that there are parts of the bill which may conflict with the Charter of Rights in some way. Which also brought up the question as to why they didn't say anything, at the time the registry was created. Issue was about privacy to do with the records in the stores. I didn't quite understand it, but, it did raise a question that some of this may possibly have to be tested against the Charter for being improper legislation.
|
03-24-2018, 07:15 AM
|
|
|
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Camrose
Posts: 45,142
|
|
This is a registry , just as the carbon tax is a sales tax. I am just glad that I very recently sold the firearms that I no longer use, and upgraded the ones that I do use. As such, my name will not likely be showing up in their stupid registry anytime soon. I predict that this will convince more and more people to purchase used firearms from private individuals, and the government will have no way of knowing whether the transactions took place before or after the registry was enacted.
__________________
Only accurate guns are interesting.
|
03-24-2018, 08:49 AM
|
|
|
|
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: New Beijing, Canada
Posts: 1,470
|
|
For private sales, what information will they actually require?
This seems to be an important part of the whole process that is lacking and vaguely written
Does the seller just call in and give the purchaser's Pal number and type of firearm? ( ie restricted vs non restricted)
If they ask for anymore than this it seems like a registry.
Last edited by CMichaud; 03-24-2018 at 09:16 AM.
|
03-24-2018, 09:35 AM
|
|
|
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 679
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Newview01
Well, I think you need to learn to extrapolate.
If this isn't a watered down registry what is?
They make no bones about the requirement to call in a transfer, so what is the point of that?
If nothing is registered, what is the value of calling in the transfer of an unregistered firearm?
|
I 100 percent agree its a registry.
I'm just saying I didn't like the reporter STATING on national TV that it's not and the Conservatives are lying.
David Akin was the reporter and his liberal views are clear and he is obviously not covering a story by being impartial.
|
03-24-2018, 09:41 AM
|
|
|
|
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Blackfalds
Posts: 6,949
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by CMichaud
For private sales, what information will they actually require?
This seems to be an important part of the whole process that is lacking and vaguely written
Does the seller just call in and give the purchaser's Pal number and type of firearm? ( ie restricted vs non restricted)
If they ask for anymore than this it seems like a registry.
|
The bill says that you must provide the sellers PAL # and the buyers PAL #. Then you will be given PERMISSION to sell your firearm, along with a reference number.
There is nothing in the bill that stops the CFO’s from overstepping and asking for the model and make of firearm.
|
03-24-2018, 12:14 PM
|
|
|
|
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: New Beijing, Canada
Posts: 1,470
|
|
OK...so why do they need the seller's PAL # though...
Rhetorical I suppose...if it quacks like a duck...
|
03-24-2018, 04:31 PM
|
|
|
|
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: New Beijing, Canada
Posts: 1,470
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by DiabeticKripple
The bill says that you must provide the sellers PAL # and the buyers PAL #. Then you will be given PERMISSION to sell your firearm, along with a reference number.
|
OK so went through the bill. I do not see where it says the seller must provide his/her PAL.
Are you able to provide this part?
Thanks
|
03-24-2018, 04:44 PM
|
|
|
|
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Dreadful Valley
Posts: 14,620
|
|
It’s a government Bill that’s all.
By the time it goes through 2 readings, and a committee in Parilment, and 2 readings and committee in the Senate, it may look better or it may look worse, and all the finer details about how, and when, will be decided behind closed doors by bureuocrats who have never been elected.
Write your letter to the politicos, donate your moneyed as you see fit.....
Pontificating upon the finer details is like trying to see shapes in the clouds.
The bottom line is the Bill doesn’t do anything about gangs and crime, it just puts another dozen or so cuts into the lowest hanging fruit, legal gun owners.
Where those cuts will be and how deep is kinda like a continued till next season season finale.
__________________
There are no absolutes
|
03-24-2018, 04:53 PM
|
|
|
Join Date: Feb 2016
Posts: 675
|
|
I will bet anyone $100 that when under the new Law, you call to get authorisation to transfer a non-restricted, that as well as the buyer's PAL you will have to give make model and serial number.
So there will be then be a record of that information in the Firearms bureaucracy.
They will also have a record of all non-restricted new purchases via the same means with redundancy provided by the dealer's sales ledger.
They also have the old data.
So unless you turned over your whole inventory between the end of the old registry and now, by the end of a couple of years, all the info that used to be in the LGR will be in the "this isn't an LGR" database.
|
03-24-2018, 05:04 PM
|
|
|
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Camrose
Posts: 45,142
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sundog57
I will bet anyone $100 that when under the new Law, you call to get authorisation to transfer a non-restricted, that as well as the buyer's PAL you will have to give make model and serial number.
So there will be then be a record of that information in the Firearms bureaucracy.
They will also have a record of all non-restricted new purchases via the same means with redundancy provided by the dealer's sales ledger.
They also have the old data.
So unless you turned over your whole inventory between the end of the old registry and now, by the end of a couple of years, all the info that used to be in the LGR will be in the "this isn't an LGR" database.
|
It just so happens that I have exactly one firearm that was registered to me in the LGR, and I have no plans on buying anything new for quite some time, so they won't have a clue what I own as far as firearms go.
__________________
Only accurate guns are interesting.
|
03-24-2018, 05:44 PM
|
|
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Sylvan Lake
Posts: 3,426
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by elkhunter11
It just so happens that I have exactly one firearm that was registered to me in the LGR, and I have no plans on buying anything new for quite some time, so they won't have a clue what I own as far as firearms go.
|
Let's say, hypothetically, that a firearm that was once registered to me is involved in a crime. Buddy is caught, but rather than admit he has stole it or that he has stolen property, he says he bought it on line.
Police call me and want to talk about the gun I sold to a person with no PAL and a history of mental instability. I tell them that I sold it, perhaps on line, but have no records as to who I sold it to.
Even if i sold it to a PAL holder, without proof I have little defense if charged. If the gun was never reported stolen, I might very well be convicted.
|
03-24-2018, 06:06 PM
|
|
|
|
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Dreadful Valley
Posts: 14,620
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by MK2750
Let's say, hypothetically, that a firearm that was once registered to me is involved in a crime. Buddy is caught, but rather than admit he has stole it or that he has stolen property, he says he bought it on line.
Police call me and want to talk about the gun I sold to a person with no PAL and a history of mental instability. I tell them that I sold it, perhaps on line, but have no records as to who I sold it to.
Even if i sold it to a PAL holder, without proof I have little defense if charged. If the gun was never reported stolen, I might very well be convicted.
|
The day said person acquired said firearm, the laws that were in place on that day are what count.
Yes I saw a PAL, it looked legit and valid, I had no reason to believe said person didn’t hold an in valid PAL. There were no requirements beyond this. Boom it’s done, because that’s all you needed to do, as of today.
If laws were retroactive there would be a pile of folks who got DUI’s in the 80’s in a world of trouble today.
Quite dreaming up far fetched stuff.
Write letters to the politicos, explain the inconsistencies, let the opposition know your beefs, hopefully when it goes to committee, it gets straightened out.
In no way am I supportive of this Bill, and no I’m not taking it laying down, but quite jumping at every crack of a twig.
__________________
There are no absolutes
|
03-24-2018, 06:12 PM
|
|
|
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Camrose
Posts: 45,142
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by MK2750
Let's say, hypothetically, that a firearm that was once registered to me is involved in a crime. Buddy is caught, but rather than admit he has stole it or that he has stolen property, he says he bought it on line.
Police call me and want to talk about the gun I sold to a person with no PAL and a history of mental instability. I tell them that I sold it, perhaps on line, but have no records as to who I sold it to.
Even if i sold it to a PAL holder, without proof I have little defense if charged. If the gun was never reported stolen, I might very well be convicted.
|
It would be up to the prosecution to prove that I sold the firearm to the person with no PAL, it wouldn't be up to me to prove that I didn't.
__________________
Only accurate guns are interesting.
|
03-24-2018, 06:18 PM
|
|
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: In the middle of nowhere
Posts: 117
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by ATF
Not sure if anyone caught Global National yesterday but one of their reporters put a negative spin on the Conservatives for what they called untrue attack ads.
https://globalnews.ca/video/4102197/...ional-mar-22-7
It was the first story but around the 4 minute mark the guy says the conservatives accused the liberals of attempting to introduce a back door registry. Then makes this bold statement that "clearly its not" and its just an attempt by the conservatives to stir up fear by the gun owners.
Goes on further to say that they can now call out ads like that for being untrue.
Maybe it's me but I didn't see it as unbiased and it sure sounded like the guy had a bone to pick with the statement.
|
Global..... The CNN of the north
__________________
tac driver
|
03-24-2018, 07:26 PM
|
|
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Sylvan Lake
Posts: 3,426
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick284
The day said person acquired said firearm, the laws that were in place on that day are what count.
Yes I saw a PAL, it looked legit and valid, I had no reason to believe said person didn’t hold an in valid PAL. There were no requirements beyond this. Boom it’s done, because that’s all you needed to do, as of today.
If laws were retroactive there would be a pile of folks who got DUI’s in the 80’s in a world of trouble today.
Quite dreaming up far fetched stuff.
Write letters to the politicos, explain the inconsistencies, let the opposition know your beefs, hopefully when it goes to committee, it gets straightened out.
In no way am I supportive of this Bill, and no I’m not taking it laying down, but quite jumping at every crack of a twig.
|
No dreaming here Dick. The RCMP asked for and received access to the existing gun registry. If they had no intention of using it or if they thought that it was useless, why would they bother?
There is only one reason to allow access to this information and that is to use said information. You tell me what other use there is for it other than to track firearms and use this information against us in court.
If they just wanted to look at it, there is no doubt that they already have access. They want useful information.
I know who I sold my firearms to but would still not want any gun connected to a murder or violent crime connected to me via this registry that is AGAIN ACTIVE AND LEGAL TO USE. If the RCMP find a stash of firearms that use to be yours and are registered in the old system, you had better hope they were reported stolen or remember who bought them.
You might also notice exemption of the privacy act is this legislation. That means that once they start down this rabbit hole, they can use any means they feel necessary including what is considered private by law.
|
03-24-2018, 07:36 PM
|
|
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Sylvan Lake
Posts: 3,426
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by elkhunter11
It would be up to the prosecution to prove that I sold the firearm to the person with no PAL, it wouldn't be up to me to prove that I didn't.
|
You may prevail in court but after what inconvenience and at what legal cost. To charge you they only need reasonable chance at a conviction. If a non PAL holder kills someone with a gun registered to you it could make for a really bad experience.
A friend of mine blew the tranny on his truck and literally gave it away in small town Alberta. A few years later he was taken in for questioning and spent a night in jail. Apparently the vehicle or one matching the description was used in a violent abduction of a child.
|
03-24-2018, 07:55 PM
|
|
|
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Camrose
Posts: 45,142
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by MK2750
You may prevail in court but after what inconvenience and at what legal cost. To charge you they only need reasonable chance at a conviction. If a non PAL holder kills someone with a gun registered to you it could make for a really bad experience.
A friend of mine blew the tranny on his truck and literally gave it away in small town Alberta. A few years later he was taken in for questioning and spent a night in jail. Apparently the vehicle or one matching the description was used in a violent abduction of a child.
|
A paranoid person with an inflated imagination might worry about this, but I don't, because every person that I sold a firearm to produced a valid PAL. It would take a truly asinine prosecutor to lay charges based on the simple fact that a firearm was registered to you several years ago, unless they have some proof that you sold the firearm to someone illegally. And if it didn't happen, they can't have any proof. Furthermore, the government ordered the records to be destroyed, so if the records were not destroyed, would those records even be admissible in a court of law? I for one, don't think that the RCMP wants any proof to exist that they didn't destroy the records when ordered to by the government, so while they may still look at those records, I don't see them being entered as evidence.
__________________
Only accurate guns are interesting.
Last edited by elkhunter11; 03-24-2018 at 08:03 PM.
|
03-24-2018, 08:41 PM
|
|
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Sylvan Lake
Posts: 3,426
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by elkhunter11
A paranoid person with an inflated imagination might worry about this, but I don't, because every person that I sold a firearm to produced a valid PAL. It would take a truly asinine prosecutor to lay charges based on the simple fact that a firearm was registered to you several years ago, unless they have some proof that you sold the firearm to someone illegally. And if it didn't happen, they can't have any proof. Furthermore, the government ordered the records to be destroyed, so if the records were not destroyed, would those records even be admissible in a court of law? I for one, don't think that the RCMP wants any proof to exist that they didn't destroy the records when ordered to by the government, so while they may still look at those records, I don't see them being entered as evidence.
|
The records were not destroyed and this legislation states that it can again be used by the RCMP and the Province of Quebec.
You obviously have never been on the wrong side of the law. It's nothing like TV. I have been threatened, beat up, left in the middle of no where and spent nights in jail with never a charge filed.
The folks affected by the floods know how they operate.
If they find a gun, make no mistake about it, they will use any means at their disposal to tie it to someone.
|
03-24-2018, 08:55 PM
|
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Fox Creek
Posts: 3,315
|
|
I don't know how anybody is surprised by this.
Doubtless it will grow, and spread it's tentacles.
__________________
Profanity and name calling are poor substitutes for education and logic.
Survivor of the dread covid
Pureblood!
|
03-24-2018, 08:56 PM
|
|
|
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Camrose
Posts: 45,142
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by MK2750
The records were not destroyed and this legislation states that it can again be used by the RCMP and the Province of Quebec.
You obviously have never been on the wrong side of the law. It's nothing like TV. I have been threatened, beat up, left in the middle of no where and spent nights in jail with never a charge filed.
The folks affected by the floods know how they operate.
If they find a gun, make no mistake about it, they will use any means at their disposal to tie it to someone.
|
If I had a history of being on the wrong side of the law, I might have a reason to be paranoid. However, I am not foolish enough to go around giving the authorities a reason to threaten me, or beat me up, or leave me in the middle of nowhere, so I am not worried about this.
As to the old data, Quebec is allowed to access the data concerning Quebec, not all of the data.
__________________
Only accurate guns are interesting.
Last edited by elkhunter11; 03-24-2018 at 09:03 PM.
|
03-24-2018, 09:11 PM
|
|
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Sylvan Lake
Posts: 3,426
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by elkhunter11
If I had a history of being on the wrong side of the law, I might have a reason to be paranoid. However, I am not foolish enough to go around giving the authorities a reason to threaten me, or beat me up, or leave me in the middle of nowhere, so I am not worried about this.
As to the old data, Quebec is allowed to access the data concerning Quebec, not all of the data.
|
If a gun you owned and registered gets picked up by police, you will be getting at least a phone call.
It is clearly written in the bill that the information in the old registry will be shared with Quebec and readily available to the RCMP.
BTW I have no record of any kind and am not paranoid. I gave the police no reason to harass me except living in my community, neither did the people who had their firearms seized during the floods.
|
03-24-2018, 09:26 PM
|
|
|
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Camrose
Posts: 45,142
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by MK2750
If a gun you owned and registered gets picked up by police, you will be getting at least a phone call.
It is clearly written in the bill that the information in the old registry will be shared with Quebec and readily available to the RCMP.
BTW I have no record of any kind and am not paranoid. I gave the police no reason to harass me except living in my community, neither did the people who had their firearms seized during the floods.
|
So now it's down to a phone call. Well let them call, having owned a couple hundred firearms over the years, I may even remember owning the firearm they are asking about. Then again, I may not. What I do know, is that everyone that purchased a firearm from me, produced a PAL
__________________
Only accurate guns are interesting.
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 11:42 AM.
|