New Alberta Firearms Autonomy.

[CNP]

Originally Posted by 3blade

At least Danielle isn’t hiding behind closed doors like shiny pony did with SNC. She would announce it at a press conference.

An OIC should be used for catering, not making up laws without debate
The royal gestapo do NOT have legislative powers
Sparkle socks shut down the House for how long? And ruled as a dictator
There is no constitutional basis for a coalition government

So if the province shuts down the enforcement of non democratic, unconstitutional policy I don’t really care how they do it.

What is unconstitutional lol? The Firearms Act. Because we don't like it, we'll call it policy? The CFO administers the Firearms Act. Prosecutors are bound to charge those who fail to comply and the po po enforce it. If you think Danielle has a magic way of transporting us out of Kansas into a gun owners heaven you're dreamin' or smokin'. Danielle talks alot about non-compliance in her fairy tale called the Sovereignty Act, but that's what it is, a fairy tale. The Firearms Act is the gospel whether we like it or not.....and we don't like it, I know, I'm with you. A Federal Conservative government is our only ally in this that can make change........if they deem it politically sound to do anything for us. Danielle is not even part of the solution.

[morinj]

Does anybody know if we will still be able to make person to person transfers after this all goes to court in October?

[Mulehahn]

Originally Posted by morinj

Does anybody know if we will still be able to make person to person transfers after this all goes to court in October?

All private transfer of firearms will end; whatever someone has after this is passed is theirs until they turn them over to police or until they die and are then turned over to police. The only transfers or imports that will be allowed for non military or police use are for recognized sports (Olympic competition for example), armoured security, or movies.

[Pathfinder76]

Originally Posted by Mulehahn

All private transfer of firearms will end; whatever someone has after this is passed is theirs until they turn them over to police or until they die and are then turned over to police. The only transfers or imports that will be allowed for non military or police use are for recognized sports (Olympic competition for example), armoured security, or movies.

What firearms are you talking about here?

[morinj]

Originally Posted by Mulehahn

All private transfer of firearms will end; whatever someone has after this is passed is theirs until they turn them over to police or until they die and are then turned over to police. The only transfers or imports that will be allowed for non military or police use are for recognized sports (Olympic competition for example), armoured security, or movies.

That’s ridiculous, I wonder what the logic is behind this, what purpose, it’s really quite frustrating!

[wack99]

Originally Posted by morinj

That’s ridiculous, I wonder what the logic is behind this, what purpose, it’s really quite frustrating!

It makes it look like their doing something but in all reality it could take upto seventy"ish years for the last one to get handed in.

Jason

[Twisted Canuck]

Originally Posted by wack99

It makes it look like their doing something but in all reality it could take upto seventy"ish years for the last one to get handed in.

Jason

I would be very surprised if even the majority get 'handed in' never mind the last one. When a person dies, and they crack open the safe, and all the restricted guns have disappeared (returned to the wild, so to speak), who are they gonna charge? The dead guy? And how does this improve public safety?

It is all so much nonsense, and worse.

[morinj]

Originally Posted by Twisted Canuck

I would be very surprised if even the majority get 'handed in' never mind the last one. When a person dies, and they crack open the safe, and all the restricted guns have disappeared (returned to the wild, so to speak), who are they gonna charge? The dead guy? And how does this improve public safety?

It is all so much nonsense, and worse.

So I guess there will be a lot of buried firearms, it would be neither here or there for me, but this could lead to an even bigger problem!

[Pathfinder76]

Originally Posted by Pathfinder76

What firearms are you talking about here?

Asking again.

[morinj]

Originally Posted by Pathfinder76

Asking again.

Handguns

[IR_mike]

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

[slopeshunter]

Thanks for the link. Patch and parrot - I like that one!

[elkhunter11]

Originally Posted by IR_mike

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

This would put the RCMP in a difficult position, good!

[Dylan15]

And this is why some of us would prefer a provincial police force. After watching the video, does anyone believe that despite our provincial governments right and authority to prevent the RCMP to confiscate firearms pending a court challenge, that the RCMP and federal government will abide with that?

The head of RCMP out east and federal government likely will proceed, despite this court challenge. If we had a provincial force, it would be more local, and I fail to understand how anyone could argue against that? Even with the same officers, with different authority, we would have much more autonomy here, and atleast a bit more strength behind our push for our rights.

[cody j]

Originally Posted by IR_mike

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

They want help with confiscation? Who could have imagined? I guess all the actual crime has been fixed in Canada

[Smokinyotes]

Very interesting. You know dam well if we had a dipper government they wouldn’t stand up to the federal gov or the RCMP.

[elkhunter11]

Originally Posted by Dylan15

And this is why some of us would prefer a provincial police force. After watching the video, does anyone believe that despite our provincial governments right and authority to prevent the RCMP to confiscate firearms pending a court challenge, that the RCMP and federal government will abide with that?

The head of RCMP out east and federal government likely will proceed, despite this court challenge. If we had a provincial force, it would be more local, and I fail to understand how anyone could argue against that? Even with the same officers, with different authority, we would have much more autonomy here, and atleast a bit more strength behind our push for our rights.

Given that the RCMP in Alberta work for Alberta, who pays 70% of their wages, can they really ignore directions from their employer? If they are directed to work traffic or criminal cases, can they ignore those orders to go out and confiscate firearms?

[Dylan15]

Originally Posted by elkhunter11

Given that the RCMP in Alberta work for Alberta, who pays 70% of their wages, can they really ignore directions from their employer? If they are directed to work traffic or criminal cases, can they ignore those orders to go out and confiscate firearms?

Given that the RCMP commissioner has already worked around the frameworks in place to support the narrative Trudeau has put in place with Portapique, do you expect the rules to be followed? I’d like to have faith in the process, but with some recent RCMP scandals that have centred around firearms (above, and High River), I find it difficult

[elkhunter11]

Originally Posted by Dylan15

Given that the RCMP commissioner has already worked around the frameworks in place to support the narrative Trudeau has put in place with Portapique, do you expect the rules to be followed? I’d like to have faith in the process, but with some recent RCMP scandals that have centred around firearms (above, and High River), I find it difficult

In this case , Alberta does have some leverage, the fact that we pay 70% of the wages, and we could withhold cash, if the officers don't do the work we order them to do.

[silvertip]

Liberals are running scared

So, pick on the firearms owner. Why not, good politics to some!



As for who gives the orders to the fellas on the ground aka your community,

It's the white shirts in Ottawa. Not the province.

The officers on the ground are brain washed to a certain line of thinking.

The white shirts have been to politicize,

and they don't want to lose their pensions and other entitlements.

Pay attention to what happened in the Mass Casualty report.

What the heck do you think High River was about. It was a test!

And more to come......

[Dewey Cox]

What happens if we kick the rcmp out of the province?
Everyone drives a little faster, and crime rate doesn't change at all?

[morinj]

Is there a chance that the rcmp is stuck between a rock and a hard place? After all, they and others close to them also also own some of these firearms that fall under the confiscation, and many of them are absolutely against it!

[Dylan15]

Originally Posted by elkhunter11

In this case , Alberta does have some leverage, the fact that we pay 70% of the wages, and we could withhold cash, if the officers don't do the work we order them to do.

Why do you think withholding cash from a federal agency will do anything? Do you not see it as feasible that Trudeau tells Lucki to enforce his bidding, and he will pull the funding from wherever he wants? Maybe they ironically cut federal health spending to compensate the RCMP any loss of provincial funds. Or maybe they just put it on my kids tax plan, like everything else.

Your scenario works in a country where checks and balances actually hold people accountable, and the Federal government respects the division of provincial and federal powers. Ours doesn’t, and that system is broken. The scandal between Lucki and Trudeau on the NS response confirms it

[roper1]

Originally Posted by morinj

Is there a chance that the rcmp is stuck between a rock and a hard place? After all, they and others close to them also also own some of these firearms that fall under the confiscation, and many of them are absolutely against it!

RC's had been applying their judgement forever, from DUI to Speeding to Assault & more. It's recent history when they pass the buck on common sense they've gotten off-side. Look the other way if the black rifle owner isn't negligent.

[elkhunter11]

Originally Posted by Dylan15

Why do you think withholding cash from a federal agency will do anything? Do you not see it as feasible that Trudeau tells Lucki to enforce his bidding, and he will pull the funding from wherever he wants? Maybe they ironically cut federal health spending to compensate the RCMP any loss of provincial funds. Or maybe they just put it on my kids tax plan, like everything else.

Your scenario works in a country where checks and balances actually hold people accountable, and the Federal government respects the division of provincial and federal powers. Ours doesn’t, and that system is broken. The scandal between Lucki and Trudeau on the NS response confirms it

If Trudeau pulls funding from the wrong place, it will cost him votes in the next election , and right now, that is something that he can't afford.
And if the RCMP refuses to obey the province, it will turn people against them, and could lead to Alberta replacing them with a provincial force, and that is something that Trudeau really doesn't want.

[silvertip]

If Trudeau pulls funding from the wrong place, it will cost him votes in the next election, and right now, that is something that he can't afford.

Correct

So.....

"Intimidation" comes to mind

[Dylan15]

Originally Posted by elkhunter11

If Trudeau pulls funding from the wrong place, it will cost him votes in the next election , and right now, that is something that he can't afford.
And if the RCMP refuses to obey the province, it will turn people against them, and could lead to Alberta replacing them with a provincial force, and that is something that Trudeau really doesn't want.

I agree with this sentiment about the votes somewhat, but 1 billion is a fairly easy number to add to the deficit, as has been seen for hundreds of millions in NEW spending on foreign countries being announced by tweets. Forgotten out east in minutes. Also will the media report it as:

Alberta refuses to make Canada safer through gun laws, Federal government forced to send RCMP (or UN?) from other jurisdictions to keep law and order and remove dangerous rocket launchers from streets (Similar to Coutts blockade, where protestors were allegedly brandishing at anyone on the hood team)

Or:

Alberta stands up for rights of citizens, Federal government overreaches on property confiscation

We have a pretty poor track record from the media in this country when it comes to rational reporting on some issues. We are not as well liked in this province as we have been in the past. Pretty sure most of trudeau’s base that believes he can do no wrong would be thrilled by the idea of us ‘far right extremists’ being too ‘extreme’ for the RCMP

[elkhunter11]

Originally Posted by Dylan15

I agree with this sentiment about the votes somewhat, but 1 billion is a fairly easy number to add to the deficit, as has been seen for hundreds of millions in NEW spending on foreign countries being announced by tweets. Forgotten out east in minutes. Also will the media report it as:

Alberta refuses to make Canada safer through gun laws, Federal government forced to send RCMP (or UN?) from other jurisdictions to keep law and order and remove dangerous rocket launchers from streets (Similar to Coutts blockade, where protestors were allegedly brandishing at anyone on the hood team)

Or:

Alberta stands up for rights of citizens, Federal government overreaches on property confiscation

We have a pretty poor track record from the media in this country when it comes to rational reporting on some issues. We are not as well liked in this province as we have been in the past. Pretty sure most of trudeau’s base that believes he can do no wrong would be thrilled by the idea of us ‘far right extremists’ being too ‘extreme’ for the RCMP

Trudeau can't win with just his extremist base , he needs some of the less extreme voters as well, and more and more of them are no longer enamored with him, since they don't
have enough cash left over at the end of the month, to pay their bills. And if the RCMP are tossed out of Alberta, it would greatly reduce his control over us.

[32-40win]

As much as I like what he said there, AB gov't has little or no say in it overall. There is a pretty good vid from Runkle in the last few weeks, explaining how the court rejected the application for intervenor status to the OIC case by Wendy Cukier under what ever name she applied under. If AB gov't doesn't offer a new viewpoint or input to what is already being expressed in the case, their application could conceivably be rejected also.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YnpB8IvfJzM

At this point it is a bunch of posturing and blather, but, sure it'll raise a chuckle from Trudope and an absolutely assenine response from he and Mendicino, and some debate in the HOC where the Libs will beat on the AB MP's and the Cons over it.

[ctd]

The Ab Solicitor General has the ability to instruct that any Police Force in Ab is not to focus on firearm confiscation under the Federal Govs. Similar to Bc having their Police not focus on small possession of Cannabis.

If you break another law and they have to investigate fathers then that's on you.

It is simple they not be looking, but if you bring it to their attention through something else, we'll thats on you.