No vote scheduled on Tory bill to kill gun registry

[jdobbin]

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/621526

From the Canadian Press:

Asked why the government would introduce a bill it had no intention of pushing to a vote, Schuster abruptly ended the conversation.

His boss later sent an email saying the bill would be sponsored by a Tory senator, would spawn a number of Senate speeches, and likely hearings with witnesses.

"All this to say it will probably be some time before it gets back to the Senate for third reading," wrote Senator LeBreton.

Think the Tories are realizing that they are running into unexpected opposition.

The Canadian Police Association added that C-301, a private member's bill proposed by Tory MP Garry Breitkreuz, is even worse.

"We ... consider the licensing of firearms owners and the registration of firearms to be a valuable public-safety tool for front-line police officers," CPA president Charles Momy says in a letter to Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff.

"It would be irresponsible to suspend or abandon any element of this program now that it is starting to deliver the intended results. ... Bill S-5 and Bill C-301 will compromise public safety."

Moreover...

For instance, Momy said a registered rifle found at the scene of the 2005 murder of four RCMP officers in Mayerthorpe, Alta., was part of the evidence that ultimately led to the arrest and conviction of two men for manslaughter.

So if the Tories kill the registry the police are prepared to say that it will jeopardize safety and make it harder to convict RCMP killers.

[Shakeyhands]

I think the RCMP should lay charges against anyone that hasn't registered their long guns and that the Crown should give hefty sentences to the first few for their disobedience of the law.

[Molly]

Ooooh, Shakeyhands....

Something in me thinks that the day they raid some outback farmer who doesn't ever hunt but who has held onto the 22 his Grandpa gave him, so he can pick off problem varments or kill a pig for butchering-- and throw him into jail-- is the day the poo will REALLY hit the fan over the registry.

[Shakeyhands]

I dunno... why can't these people just obey the law? We expect others to, are they above the law?

[jdobbin]

Something in me thinks that the day they raid some outback farmer who doesn't ever hunt but who has held onto the 22 his Grandpa gave him, so he can pick off problem varments or kill a pig for butchering-- and throw him into jail-- is the day the poo will REALLY hit the fan over the registry.

I think it is the RCMP's contention that it was some rural folk who gave a gun to a man who eventually used it to kill four of their officers. It was because the gun was registered that they knew this happened.

If the Tories kill the bill, I think it will be the police who are the most vocal. They have come out swinging since Monday.

[Alta4ever]

I dunno... why can't these people just obey the law? We expect others to, are they above the law?

It was a law passed for toronto, montreal and vancouver. It is all about the regionalism of poltics and what works in the city doesn't work in rural Canada. Why can't the pot smokers just stop and obey the law?

[Alta4ever]

I think it is the RCMP's contention that it was some rural folk who gave a gun to a man who eventually used it to kill four of their officers. It was because the gun was registered that they knew this happened.

If the Tories kill the bill, I think it will be the police who are the most vocal. They have come out swinging since Monday.

And how would the registry have stopped him from getting a an illegal gun Dobbin, How would a the registry have helped? It would not have saved those officer's lives. I know you think you know the situation from Winnipeg but you don't. I know the mayerthorpe area very well the people in and those that were affected by this. The man laid in wait and had set up an ambush the officers didn't even know he was there. How does the registry correct this? It doesn't. What the situation did prove was that a lone person who has the will can find a weapon (illegal) and kill Innocent victims, given a little fore thought and planning.

In Edmonton the problem isn't gun violence its knives, and I kid you not the Mayor wants to have a registry on knives. Registries do not provide security or reduce crime. Its just another way big brother has to look over the shoulder of law abiding citizens.

[Savant]

I dunno... why can't these people just obey the law? We expect others to, are they above the law?

The law was capricious and arbitrary. Just because the government creates a law, does that mean people are expected to blindly follow it? Would you be following any laws that restrict your ability to download music & movies off the net? Something tells me there would be a significant backlash if that happened.

What about laws that require you to get a LICENSE to access the internet? With all the child porn out there it only stands to reason that law enforcement will want to license people to use the internet. So will you just obey that law? You're not above the law, right...?

The problem with this so-called gun registry is that it only applies to legal owners of guns. You can't control illegal guns with a gun registry any more than you can control child porn pervs by forcing internet users to be licensed. Laws that target honest citizens will NEVER impact illegal activities.

Edited April 22, 2009 by Savant

[segnosaur]

I dunno... why can't these people just obey the law? We expect others to, are they above the law?

Well, I suppose it depends on whether the people involved consider it a 'bad' law. Here in the western world we do have a history of ignoring laws that are either unenforcable or in some way "wrong".

Look at the number of people who are regular users of pot, even though its technically illegal. Drug laws are ignored by many people because they consider them A: silly, B: a waste of time, and/or C: an unnecessary intrusion into their lives. Some people feel the same way regarding the firearm registry.

[segnosaur]

I think it is the RCMP's contention that it was some rural folk who gave a gun to a man who eventually used it to kill four of their officers. It was because the gun was registered that they knew this happened.

You know, I'm quite sure that there probably have been some crimes that have been prevented/solved with the help of the registry. But that doesn't necessarily mean the registry is a "good thing".

You have to look at costs vs. reward. The registry has cost over a billion dollars to set up, and continues to require millions of dollars to administer. Whatever benefit the registry has shown since then, its possible that we could have had a greater number of solved/prevented crimes if the money were spent in other ways (additoinal police officers, more equipment, DNA data bank, etc.)

Then you also have the other issue: Even IF the police were happy with the gun registry, does their happiness outweigh the loss of freedom that individuals in society feel over the gun registry? (For example, I'm sure the cops could solve a lot of crimes if they didn't have to bother getting search warrants; however, most people probably feel that the risk of allowing warrantless searches isn't justified by the reduction of crime that would result.) The gun registry is a case where the government is interferrng with our rights (right to privacy among them), even if you think such an invasion is minor.

If the Tories kill the bill, I think it will be the police who are the most vocal.

Keep in mind that much of the 'vocalization' is not necessarily coming from the rank-and-file (who may or may not support the bill), but from various organizations who may not be accuratly representing the views of the citizens.

[myata]

Ooooh, Shakeyhands....

Something in me thinks that the day they raid some outback farmer who doesn't ever hunt but who has held onto the 22 his Grandpa gave him, so he can pick off problem varments or kill a pig for butchering-- and throw him into jail-- is the day the poo will REALLY hit the fan over the registry.

Why go to such pains? Just slam a couple of hundred fine, with interest, and court charges, if necessary, for disobeying the law. You register you car and there's no reason whatsoever why it couldn't (and shouldn't) be done with the guns.

[jdobbin]

And how would the registry have stopped him from getting a an illegal gun Dobbin, How would a the registry have helped?

Didn't say that it would have stopped it. I said it led to the conviction of those who assisted in the killing.

It would not have saved those officer's lives. I know you think you know the situation from Winnipeg but you don't. I know the mayerthorpe area very well the people in and those that were affected by this. The man laid in wait and had set up an ambush the officers didn't even know he was there. How does the registry correct this? It doesn't. What the situation did prove was that a lone person who has the will can find a weapon (illegal) and kill Innocent victims, given a little fore thought and planning.

I don't think you are getting the point that the RCMP are making: They were able to convict two others for aiding and abetting because of the gun registry.

In Edmonton the problem isn't gun violence its knives, and I kid you not the Mayor wants to have a registry on knives. Registries do not provide security or reduce crime. Its just another way big brother has to look over the shoulder of law abiding citizens.

The Police Association is quite clear on why they support the registry. The Conservatives are on the opposite side of the issue of the police. I don't think you can deny that.

[Borg]

I think it is the RCMP's contention that it was some rural folk who gave a gun to a man who eventually used it to kill four of their officers. It was because the gun was registered that they knew this happened.

If the Tories kill the bill, I think it will be the police who are the most vocal. They have come out swinging since Monday.

I think the RCMP need to mend their own image before they take on Joe Farmer and his firearms.

Swing as they want - for sure you better lay down if they show up at your door - taser happy and quick to hide the truth - unless you figure you can beat the odds when they zap you - and they do not always seem to need a real strong reason to do this..

I no longer have the respect for their uniform that I did as a young man.

Borg

Edited April 22, 2009 by Borg

[ToadBrother]

I don't think you are getting the point that the RCMP are making: They were able to convict two others for aiding and abetting because of the gun registry.

Yes, we have this one particular (and well-publicized case). I want to know, statistically, how many serious crimes have been solved via the long gun registry.

[jdobbin]

You know, I'm quite sure that there probably have been some crimes that have been prevented/solved with the help of the registry. But that doesn't necessarily mean the registry is a "good thing".

I think you will have an argument with the police about that.

You have to look at costs vs. reward. The registry has cost over a billion dollars to set up, and continues to require millions of dollars to administer. Whatever benefit the registry has shown since then, its possible that we could have had a greater number of solved/prevented crimes if the money were spent in other ways (additoinal police officers, more equipment, DNA data bank, etc.)

I don't disagree that it cost a lot a lot to set up. I was opposed to the registry for that reason and believed that arms should be listed on the Firearms Certificate and kept on the gunowner's person to be presented when asked for.

Having said that, the registry is now in place and the costs, according to the Auditor, are now manageable for the program.

The Tories want to close the barn door after the horses are left.

There is no recovering the money used to set up the program. Criticize the Liberals for incompetence but end the program now and go against the police.

Then you also have the other issue: Even IF the police were happy with the gun registry, does their happiness outweigh the loss of freedom that individuals in society feel over the gun registry? (For example, I'm sure the cops could solve a lot of crimes if they didn't have to bother getting search warrants; however, most people probably feel that the risk of allowing warrantless searches isn't justified by the reduction of crime that would result.) The gun registry is a case where the government is interferrng with our rights (right to privacy among them), even if you think such an invasion is minor.

I don't see police arguing to end search warrants.

Robert Peel was the one that said that the ability of the police to operate successfully was built on trust. Search warrants are part of that trust. It ensures that police act according to guidelines and that arbitrariness is removed.

The gun registry is not arbitrary when it affects a whole category of things that the government wants to monitor and regulate. In terms of provinces in Canada, it means that cars face registration and licensing.

I don't see gun registry opponents also opposing car registration so the privacy argument seems a little overstated.

Keep in mind that much of the 'vocalization' is not necessarily coming from the rank-and-file (who may or may not support the bill), but from various organizations who may not be accuratly representing the views of the citizens.

If Conservatives feel the rank and file officers have a different point of view, I'm sure they will kill the registry but when both union and management of the forces say they support the registry, I tend to think that the view on not killing the registry is shared by a large chunk of the police.

[jdobbin]

Yes, we have this one particular (and well-publicized case). I want to know, statistically, how many serious crimes have been solved via the long gun registry.

I have no idea. The police association said they would present more evidence if the Tories pressed the case. The fact four RCMP murders were solved with the registry probably speaks volumes though.

[eyeball]

Well, I suppose it depends on whether the people involved consider it a 'bad' law. Here in the western world we do have a history of ignoring laws that are either unenforcable or in some way "wrong".

Look at the number of people who are regular users of pot, even though its technically illegal. Drug laws are ignored by many people because they consider them A: silly, B: a waste of time, and/or C: an unnecessary intrusion into their lives. Some people feel the same way regarding the firearm registry.

Something I find both ironic and hilarious is how often the people that are driven nuts by the gun registry are also driven nuts by the idea of letting people smoke pot.

[jdobbin]

I think the RCMP need to mend their own image before they take on Joe Farmer and his firearms.

I don't deny the RCMP needs reforms. However, I don't advocate killing four of them and denying police in general the means to track who might bear responsibility for it.

[jdobbin]

Drug laws are ignored by many people because they consider them A: silly, B: a waste of time, and/or C: an unnecessary intrusion into their lives. Some people feel the same way regarding the firearm registry.

Yet the government pursues drug users and ignores unregistered guns.

[Alta4ever]

I don't think you are getting the point that the RCMP are making: They were able to convict two others for aiding and abetting because of the gun registry.

Sorry the weren't convicted for aiding they were brought up on manslaughter charges, nor were all the facts explored, not to mention the Mr. Big aspect to the case. These two weren't convicted with out reasonable doubt. The RMCP were on a witch hunt.

[Alta4ever]

Yet the government pursues drug users and ignores unregistered guns.

The gun registry is a provincial jursidiction adn it is up tot the provincial governmetns if they will prosecute for registry infractions, it is not the place of the federal government.

[segnosaur]

Drug laws are ignored by many people because they consider them A: silly, B: a waste of time, and/or C: an unnecessary intrusion into their lives. Some people feel the same way regarding the firearm registry.

Yet the government pursues drug users and ignores unregistered guns.

If you want to argue that enforcement of drug laws under the Conservatives is an invasion of our rights, fine. I might even agree with you.

But you (and the other parties in the House of Commons), by wanting to keep the gun registry, are substituting one form of government interference in our lives with another form. (If you really cared about freedom, maybe you should consider supporting the Libertarian party...)

[Shakeyhands]

Something I find both ironic and hilarious is how often the people that are driven nuts by the gun registry are also driven nuts by the idea of letting people smoke pot.

and they also seem to be the ones that defend the Patriot Act in the US saying that if you haven't done anything, you've got nothing to sorry about...

[segnosaur]

You have to look at costs vs. reward. The registry has cost over a billion dollars to set up, and continues to require millions of dollars to administer. Whatever benefit the registry has shown since then, its possible that we could have had a greater number of solved/prevented crimes if the money were spent in other ways (additoinal police officers, more equipment, DNA data bank, etc.)

Having said that, the registry is now in place and the costs, according to the Auditor, are now manageable for the program.

Well, I guess it all depends on how you see the word 'managable'. It is true that the Liberals instituted a cap of around $25 million per year, and hey, that is 'managable'. I have no reason to believe future costs will escalate more than that.

But wht the Auditor general does is examines how money is spend. Even they will admit that it is not in their mandate to examine public policy.

So, lets say that costs ARE $25 million/year. The salary of a provincial police officer in Ontario is between 44 and $81,000/year. Assuming police cost around the same in other provinces, the money spent on the registry could be used to hire over 300 police across the country. Personally, I'd feel a little safer with those extra police than with a list of guns that may or may not be up to date, most of which will never be used in a crime. (And for which much of the same benefit could be obtained by simply handling FACs better.)

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/Life/Ontario+...5470/story.html

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor...?hub=TopStories

http://www.garrybreitkreuz.com/publications/2006/812.pdf

Heck, if you really wanted to save lives, if the money for maitaining the registry were put into health care, they could double the number of MRIs in the country in less than a decade.

I don't see police arguing to end search warrants.

I never said they were. (Although who knows how many cops would be happy to see them go, but just won't say so because they know it would never fly.)

I used that as just an example of how we, as a society, are willing to give up a little of our potential security because we do not want to give up certain freedoms to the police.

The gun registry is not arbitrary when it affects a whole category of things that the government wants to monitor and regulate. In terms of provinces in Canada, it means that cars face registration and licensing.

I don't see gun registry opponents also opposing car registration so the privacy argument seems a little overstated.

There is a major difference between cars and guns: A: If someone has a firearm, very few people if any will ever see it (compare that to the average automobile, where I will encounter hundreds of drivers on a daily commute.. the fact that I encounter more people means that more control is needed), B: there are a lot more crimes committed using cars (especially if you count traffic offences) than with guns. MOST gun owners will never use their firearm to commit a crime. Many (probably even a majority) of drivers will, at some point, break the law with their cars (even if its just a speeding ticket.)

If Conservatives feel the rank and file officers have a different point of view, I'm sure they will kill the registry but when both union and management of the forces say they support the registry, I tend to think that the view on not killing the registry is shared by a large chunk of the police.

Well, here's a suggestion... why don't you do what I do, and actually wait for any evidence to be provided?

Now, Garry Breitkreuz (the MP most eager to scrap the gun registry) has some stats on his site suggesting that he does have polling information suggesting 'rank and file' cops are against the registry. (Granted, I can't blame you for being skeptical, given his bias and the fact that some of the data is fairly old.)

http://www.garrybreitkreuz.com/breitkreuzgpress/990628.html

Of course, something else to consider... if there IS a poll asking police about the gun registry, will the question simply be a "gun registry, yes or no", or will it be along the lines of "gun registry yes, or more funding for other police programs". After all, I'm sure some police might support the gun registry if its the only option, but if they thought the registry could be removed and the money spent on other law enforcement options.

[segnosaur]

Something I find both ironic and hilarious is how often the people that are driven nuts by the gun registry are also driven nuts by the idea of letting people smoke pot.

and they also seem to be the ones that defend the Patriot Act in the US saying that if you haven't done anything, you've got nothing to sorry about...

Isn't it also ironic that you're criticizing "conservatives" who would defend the patriot act, but seem to be supporting the gun registry which runs on pretty much the same principle? ("Register your guns, and if you haven't done anything, you've got nothing to worry about")