Jump to content

Harper Gov't delays regulation that would help police track guns,


Recommended Posts

I can't see how marking would cost the government anything. It would certainly cost the gun importer, and ultimately their customer. If the customer doesn't want to pay for the cost of marking, they can buy Canadian.

This is a regulation that is already on the books. It's implementation has been delayed 5 years already by successive governments who are coddling the gun importers. We've given the gun importers more than enough time to get their act together.

You still haven't told me what use it would be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 92
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

You still haven't told me what use it would be.

From the article linked to in my original post:

The police leaders told Day that import marking helps police trace guns involved in crime even if their serial numbers are obliterated. The system can shorten firearm tracing times to "hours versus months," the letter said.

Edited by robert_viera
Link to comment
Share on other sites

From the article linked to in my original post:

The police leaders told Day that import marking helps police trace guns involved in crime even if their serial numbers are obliterated. The system can shorten firearm tracing times to "hours versus months," the letter said.

So there would be a data base.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is no demonstrated need for these regulations other than a Liberal anti-firearms agenda. How does the marking of country and date lead to a conviction? They don't. I expect government programs to be justified and costed beforehand - a chronic Liberal failing.

It would be technically possible to implement a couple different measures such as blast markings to trace rounds to a specific weapon - then trace that to a purchase registry, then to a registered owner. While this doesn't illiminate illegal weaposn usage - magnetic range scanners deployed on drone systems and police vehicles could differentiate between legal and illegal arms from a distance. I won't go into great detail on how this technology would work but anyone interested in knowing more or funding this never gonna happen anyway technology contact me with an offer.

Bear in mind it is a constrained effect and would only effect new firearms or those modified at low cost. Also those in the know could alter their blast markings. The same could be done for ammo production - however once again constrained effect. Although I think local ammo producers wouldn't be too upset with the higher requirements for domestic sale of ammo, but it could cause a lot of upset with rare weapon owners unable to get their ammo due to security markings not being in foreign production.

Intelligent organized crime won't be effected anyway - its really only those non aware or spur of the moment emotionally unstable criminals that would be nabbed through the process.

BTW the program was costed but the police services ran higher than expected costs to administer the program.

Edited by William Ashley
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is always amusing to see the political left trying to regain the moral high ground. Unfortunately the recent history of the Liberal governments makes it near impossible. Selective memory helps as well as a dogged belief in your party's mantra. The history of the long gun registry exposes the Liberal agenda and willingness to do whatever it takes to win - barring nothing! The Liberals ignored and continue to ignore the science connected with registration. Their whole history on the gun issue has turned me off them. Mr. Ignatieff offers nothing more than more of a failed program. That fact alone speaks volumes.

Gun control is actually right wing, not left wing if it is seen as a personal right. The public left could see gun control as leftist if it prevents the private bodies from depriving individual rights through force.

Fact is, it is right wing, although the "peace and nonviolence by any means crowd" has turned it into a leftist identity.

Fact is though all forms of control are right wing. All forms of protecting individual rights of the public are left wing.

Part of the reason why gun control can be seen as right wing is also because only a limited number of people have access to firearms in Canada, making it privately exclusive and not a public right.

It is sort of funny the right wing agenda goes left on the issue of guns rather than drugs - because they give up all their other public rights, they'd like a gun for when their own paranoia comes after them or inhibits their personal freedom - they have a gun.

Funny that the left on the other hands attempts to alter reality through drug use.

This may be the reason why moderates and centrists are dangerous people.

The right or freedom to anything is left wing.

Edited by William Ashley
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please explain how the law aiding sportsman has been demonized?

If you read the Firearms Act in detail you will note the regulations are framed assuming that citizens WILL offend. Hence a criminal record and confiscation of firearms for what amounts to a paper crime - not having or letting your license lapse. The penalties are similar to those given convicted felons the difference being there is no trial and action is at the whim of the police. The media and anti-gun lobby have been quick to pick up this thread.

Comments from Alan Rock and others describing our gun culture as a "hobby" are both ignorant of reality and amount to an attempt at cultural cleansing. Yes, we are late comers to lobbying but have been forced to lobby in defence of our historic rights.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Uh, why not just record the serial numbers of guns that are legally imported? Why do you need to mark them with something else? The serial number will give you the date of manufacture and if it isn't in the database of guns legally imported since that date, it could be regarded as illegally imported. I'm not sure what that knowledge would actually be good for but you would know.

With regard to handguns and other restricted weapons, the regulations regarding their ownership and possession makes the whole thing somewhat superfluous. If you are in possession of a weapon illegally, it shouldn't really matter how it was imported.

Look at it this way. The paper trail already exists from manufacturer to importer to retailer to buyer. We wish to dump the worthless long gun registry, not just switch the peons to creating new record systems that duplicate basic information.

Canada does not produce unmarked weapons for third world conflicts. Neither do our citizens acqire weapons without manufacturers marking and unique serial numbers. Therefore the only practical use of the marking legislation is to further harass Canadian firearms owners.

N.B. The world's largest suppliers of military hardware have already indicated they will ignore this UN initiative.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you mark guns that are legally imported, then you don't need to check a database to see if they were legally imported. Given the amount of hostility the anti-gun-control crowd has shown toward databases, I would think they'd be in favour of marking.

It matters to the people who are trying to cut off the supply of illegally imported guns.

CORRECTION. Canadian spotsmen/women recognise the value of reasonable gun control and support it individually and through our umbrella organisations. We recognise that vetting ownership through background checks, national firearms training and storage standards contributes to greater public safety. Where we bulk is at a program with no proven public safety worth that is a fiscal disgrace and an unfair burden to sportsmen. The anti-firearms lobby continually lumps the two programs, licensing and registration, together so the worth of one disguises the worthlessness of the other.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You don't need a database. That's the point.

Why not ask the police, who are in favour of this regulation.

Which group of police might that be? I suspect this is like the long gun registry. Police like the Chief's Assoc. tow the political line of their mayor's while front line police Stand against the registry as wasteful of scarce resources. I have yet to see a full and logical defence of the need for extra marking. I have seen the case against marking and it is difficult to dismiss unless of course one is simply anti-firearms.

Our police require independent oversight. Their opinion should ALWAYS be justified by the science as all too often it is politically based or influenced by large donations as in the case of the Assoc. of Chief's of Police.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The anti-gun-control crowd in Canada needs to wake-up to one important fact. Canada is not the U.S.A. You do not have a constitutional right to bear arms. If you're not willing to put up with a bit of paperwork and some other minor regulations like this one, then maybe you shouldn't be allowed to have a gun at all.

Here's another important fact. Canadians in favour of gun control are the majority in this country. If you don't like it, tough.

You should perhaps start your review of constitutional gun rights with the English Bill of Rights, 1689. You have been listening to the Liberal Party's view of history. There is more and you will be surprised by what you find. We are not the U.S. but we do have an ancient gun culture. Our Constitution and Bill of Rights do not bar us from individual firearms ownership. They are living documents and can be amended as it would seem is now appropriate to defend an ancient right. Rights like common law rely on precident and so it is with gun rights. You may not want a firearm but you do not have the right to deny another that opportunity.

It is all too obvious that you do not like guns, own a gun or even understand all the issues surrounding gun control. That is a poor basis for debate. The anti-gun position relies heavily on emotion, personal bias, a lack of knowledge of firearms, a lack of knowledge of Canadian gun culture, our history and our legal history and science. Quoting anti-gun groups or Liberal attitudes without a sound scientific basis is a fool's errand without worth so spare us that in reply.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can't see how marking would cost the government anything. It would certainly cost the gun importer, and ultimately their customer. If the customer doesn't want to pay for the cost of marking, they can buy Canadian.

This is a regulation that is already on the books. It's implementation has been delayed 5 years already by successive governments who are coddling the gun importers. We've given the gun importers more than enough time to get their act together.

You have not thought this through. There is an economic loss in the billions of dollars and the loss of thousands of jobs. The need still has not been shown or fully explained. There are NO Canadian made sporting arms save a handful of custom made pieces. Your rant is strictly emotional. Bad law is still bad law.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It would be technically possible to implement a couple different measures such as blast markings to trace rounds to a specific weapon - then trace that to a purchase registry, then to a registered owner. While this doesn't illiminate illegal weaposn usage - magnetic range scanners deployed on drone systems and police vehicles could differentiate between legal and illegal arms from a distance. I won't go into great detail on how this technology would work but anyone interested in knowing more or funding this never gonna happen anyway technology contact me with an offer.

Bear in mind it is a constrained effect and would only effect new firearms or those modified at low cost. Also those in the know could alter their blast markings. The same could be done for ammo production - however once again constrained effect. Although I think local ammo producers wouldn't be too upset with the higher requirements for domestic sale of ammo, but it could cause a lot of upset with rare weapon owners unable to get their ammo due to security markings not being in foreign production.

Intelligent organized crime won't be effected anyway - its really only those non aware or spur of the moment emotionally unstable criminals that would be nabbed through the process.

BTW the program was costed but the police services ran higher than expected costs to administer the program.

Would it not provide greater public safety by simply suppressing the gangs that create the demand for illegal firearms? That IS the basic problem with guns. Playing the technocrat game solves nothing but does waste resources.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From the article linked to in my original post:

The police leaders told Day that import marking helps police trace guns involved in crime even if their serial numbers are obliterated. The system can shorten firearm tracing times to "hours versus months," the letter said.

I would have to see the full proof on this statement by the police. They have a history of opinion often based on politics but NOT on science. It would be surprising if their letter contained a fully documented position as they would NOT be able to show the science supporting the position. American writers spend a good deal of effort debunking such statements. My position is 'prove it'. I am past taking Liberal legislation on faith.

Edited by zeister
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd like to know how the Canadian Left is causing the problem. "Supressing" the gangs isn't as easy as you seem to think it is. The cops here in Toronto run two or three programs a year and round up 150-250 people each time yet gangs are still a gigantic problem. Throwing people in jail isn't the solution, it's a band-aid on a broken leg. The conservative plan to fight crime doesn't address any social problems which cause crime. The biggest factor is poverty. What would a kid rather do for his life? Work at Macdonalds or be part of something more? I'm lifting this from the West Wing but one of the characters couldn't have put it better. He said that men will be men and men will seek pride. Gangs offer that. Gangs are something someone can be a part of, have loyalty in, be proud of. Not to mention it's a cash cow. How do we fight that?

Education is the silver bullet to pretty much every societal problem. Until we can educate everyone equally, get everyone involved in some kind of after school activity like sports, one of the solutions is to get as many guns off the street as possible. No one is demonising the Canadian Sportsman, they're just demonising the weapons. I don't care how long you have to wait, in the end if you want to hunt deer they'll be there after you go through 10 security checks.

Two billion $ wasted on a long gun registry that did NOT contribute to public safety. If we can't control the gangs then we had better arm the populace so they can defend themselves. See where this is going? No more feel good programs like the long gun registry. If you can't suppress the gangs in the short term then how do you expect to tackle the social problems?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you read the Firearms Act in detail you will note the regulations are framed assuming that citizens WILL offend. Hence a criminal record and confiscation of firearms for what amounts to a paper crime - not having or letting your license lapse. The penalties are similar to those given convicted felons the difference being there is no trial and action is at the whim of the police. The media and anti-gun lobby have been quick to pick up this thread.

All laws are framed with the assumption that people make break them.

You've been watching too many American TV shows. Canada does not have felonies and misdimeanors. We have summary offences and indictable offences, indictable offences being the more serious class of offences.

I read the Firearms Act and these are the offences that may be indictable offences:

Maximum sentence of five years:

- False statements to procure licences, etc.

- False statements to procure customs confirmations

- Tampering with licences, etc.

- Unauthorized possession of ammunition (businesses)

- Violations of regulations concerning: target practice/shooting competitions, guns clubs/shooting ranges, gun collections, gun shows, handling of prohibited weapons, restricted weapons, handling of firearms by police and federal employees, not keeping or destroying records, importing/exporting, removing or altering markings

Maximum sentence of two years:

- Every person commits an offence who, without lawful excuse, contravenes a condition of a licence, registration certificate or authorization held by the person.

- Refusing to assist a firearms inspector

Note that in the case of all of the above offences, the offence can also be a summary offence.

The following offences are summary offences:

- Failure to register certain firearms

- Non-compliance with demand to produce firearm

- Failure to deliver up revoked licence, etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Look at it this way. The paper trail already exists from manufacturer to importer to retailer to buyer. We wish to dump the worthless long gun registry, not just switch the peons to creating new record systems that duplicate basic information.

Canada does not produce unmarked weapons for third world conflicts. Neither do our citizens acqire weapons without manufacturers marking and unique serial numbers. Therefore the only practical use of the marking legislation is to further harass Canadian firearms owners.

N.B. The world's largest suppliers of military hardware have already indicated they will ignore this UN initiative.

This thread and this regulation aren't about the long gun registry and it's not about weapons produced in Canada. Nice try.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would have to see the full proof on this statement by the police. They have a history of opinion often based on politics but NOT on science. It would be surprising if their letter contained a fully documented position as they would NOT be able to show the science supporting the position. American writers spend a good deal of effort debunking such statements. My position is 'prove it'. I am past taking Liberal legislation on faith.

I would be much more inclined to believe that the Conservative's position on gun-control is based on politics than the position taken by police organizations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The police leaders told Day that import marking helps police trace guns involved in crime even if their serial numbers are obliterated. The system can shorten firearm tracing times to "hours versus months," the letter said.

And the gun registry is effective if criminals register their guns. The problem with the above statement is that it looks like import marks, in the States anyways, can be removed. So when the government says it's going to take some time to look at options, that might be the common sense thing to do.

http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1165896

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This thread and this regulation aren't about the long gun registry and it's not about weapons produced in Canada. Nice try.

Then what is it about? Handguns are already subject to strict regulation. How will marking a legally imported gun help trace an illegally imported gun? What kind of import mark could they put on it that would be more difficult to remove than a serial number which is stamped right into the weapon? Simple questions, yet to be answered.

Edited by Wilber
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The anti-gun-control crowd in Canada needs to wake-up to one important fact. Canada is not the U.S.A. You do not have a constitutional right to bear arms. If you're not willing to put up with a bit of paperwork and some other minor regulations like this one, then maybe you shouldn't be allowed to have a gun at all.

Here's another important fact. Canadians in favour of gun control are the majority in this country. If you don't like it, tough.

Aside from criminals, who constitutes the 'anti-gun-control crowd' in Canada? Sport shooters have been vocal in recognising the positive public safety contribution of licensing. We have no objection to vetting applicants on the basis of criminal convictions or mental problems. We have no objection to national level safety training and safe storage standards. What we do object to is the arrogant political agenda the Liberals used and their incompetence and unwillingness to negotiate standards and regulations that would have met the needs of ALL Canadians. Hence, the boondoggle of the long gun registry.

As a group we consistently put our money and volunteer time into supporting not only our sport but also fish and wildlife conservation programs. In that sense we are perhaps better citizens than those that deride our firearms culture. Our combined activities pump about ten billion $ per Year into the Canadian economy.

I see very little of substance coming from the anti-gun folks. Their misdirected anger continues to be part of the problem.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest TrueMetis

You should perhaps start your review of constitutional gun rights with the English Bill of Rights, 1689. You have been listening to the Liberal Party's view of history. There is more and you will be surprised by what you find. We are not the U.S. but we do have an ancient gun culture. Our Constitution and Bill of Rights do not bar us from individual firearms ownership. They are living documents and can be amended as it would seem is now appropriate to defend an ancient right. Rights like common law rely on precident and so it is with gun rights. You may not want a firearm but you do not have the right to deny another that opportunity.

If it does not say that individuals have the rights to own a firearm than it is entirely within the right of the government to make it illegal to own a gun. Could you site the part of the bill of rights were it says we have the right to own a firearm?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would be much more inclined to believe that the Conservative's position on gun-control is based on politics than the position taken by police organizations.

Yes, ANY government's position IS a political one. You can deny reality about the police all you like but that does not change the facts. If anything it confirms you as offering nothing more than a biased opinion by an outsider with no first hand knowledge of the issues and too dogmatic to even seek the truth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Which group of police might that be? I suspect this is like the long gun registry. Police like the Chief's Assoc. tow the political line of their mayor's while front line police Stand against the registry as wasteful of scarce resources. I have yet to see a full and logical defence of the need for extra marking. I have seen the case against marking and it is difficult to dismiss unless of course one is simply anti-firearms.

Our police require independent oversight. Their opinion should ALWAYS be justified by the science as all too often it is politically based or influenced by large donations as in the case of the Assoc. of Chief's of Police.

If you had read the article linked to in my original post, you wouldn't need to ask. Here's an excerpt:

The day after the cabinet decision, three national police groups wrote Public Safety Minister Stockwell Day, urging him to implement import marking as a way of helping investigators track down guns used at crime scenes.

The presidents of the Canadian Police Association, the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police and the Canadian Association of Police Boards said in the letter they were concerned the government was about to cave to the gun lobby.

It's not just the Chiefs. It's the front-line police (Police Association) and civilian oversight boards.

You speak about the case against marking, but you post no links and make no points yourself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You should perhaps start your review of constitutional gun rights with the English Bill of Rights, 1689. You have been listening to the Liberal Party's view of history. There is more and you will be surprised by what you find. We are not the U.S. but we do have an ancient gun culture. Our Constitution and Bill of Rights do not bar us from individual firearms ownership. They are living documents and can be amended as it would seem is now appropriate to defend an ancient right. Rights like common law rely on precident and so it is with gun rights. You may not want a firearm but you do not have the right to deny another that opportunity.

News flash: We're not in England. Canada has a Charter of Rights and Freedoms, not a Bill of Rights, and yes, we do as a nation have the right to pass laws to deny people the privilege (it's not a right) of owning a gun and to regulate those that we do allow to own guns.

It is all too obvious that you do not like guns, own a gun or even understand all the issues surrounding gun control. That is a poor basis for debate. The anti-gun position relies heavily on emotion, personal bias, a lack of knowledge of firearms, a lack of knowledge of Canadian gun culture, our history and our legal history and science. Quoting anti-gun groups or Liberal attitudes without a sound scientific basis is a fool's errand without worth so spare us that in reply.

That's right. I don't own a gun and I don't like them. I think most people who own guns without a very good reason are either anti-social or cowards who want to have a gun as a last resort for solving their problems. History is just that, history. Canada isn't the Wild West or a frontier anymore. Most Canadians live in cities.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You have not thought this through. There is an economic loss in the billions of dollars and the loss of thousands of jobs. The need still has not been shown or fully explained. There are NO Canadian made sporting arms save a handful of custom made pieces. Your rant is strictly emotional. Bad law is still bad law.

Where's you're source for the claim that marking will cost "billions of dollars and the loss of thousands of jobs"?

As for shooting being a sport, any activity that can be done competitively might be considered a sport. There are plenty of other choices out there that don't endanger society.

Edited by robert_viera
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,695
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    Linda Teskey
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • Yakuda went up a rank
      Experienced
    • QuebecOverCanada went up a rank
      Grand Master
    • Jeary went up a rank
      Rookie
    • Gator earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Jeary earned a badge
      Week One Done
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...