Long-gun registry to be shot down Thursday

[eyeball]

-Massive sums of money burning. $2 billion dollars, even if the bulk of it is already spent, why through bad money after bad? Why spend money on something that accomplishes nothing.

The registry plain sucks, the only thing it has every accomplished is to manufacture criminals where none exist.

Did you know our Dear Leader is poised to manufacture new criminals through the burning of even more massive piles of money even as we speak?

[Handsome Rob]

Did you know our Dear Leader is poised to manufacture new criminals through the burning of even more massive piles of money even as we speak?

The crime omnibus should go to the crematorium with the registry. There is some good stuff in there, but definitely not worth the cost.

[MiddleClassCentrist]

I know you’re weren’t directing the question at me, but I (A Card carrying Conservative) am, for much the same reasons I’m opposed to excessive Government control into my life………If people want to use drugs, use or be a prostitute, let them……none of my business……….And as long as they’re adults and I’m not subsidizing it, I really don’t give two shits.

So, you are a social progressive?

[eyeball]

The crime omnibus should go to the crematorium with the registry. There is some good stuff in there, but definitely not worth the cost.

How do you even explain its existence given all the conservatives like yourself that say much the same thing?

Isn't anyone else astounded that such an apparently small handful of social conservatives have managed to hijack your ideology and subvert it's most cherished principle of getting the state off the people's backs?

[Handsome Rob]

How do you even explain its existence given all the conservatives like yourself that say much the same thing?

Isn't anyone else astounded that such an apparently small handful of social conservatives have managed to hijack your ideology and subvert it's most cherished principle of getting the state off the people's backs?

I'm a conservative? Project much?

You don't need a political affiliation to realize that the gun registry sucks, and so does mandatory minimums. Debates go better when you don't make up positions for the person you're talking to.

[eyeball]

I'm a conservative? Project much?

You don't need a political affiliation to realize that the gun registry sucks, and so does mandatory minimums. Debates go better when you don't make up positions for the person you're talking to.

You're right, my bad.

[Guest Derek L]

So, you are a social progressive?

Nope. A big & small C Conservative or if you prefer, a classic liberal……..with a touch of Libertarian to keep thing interesting.

I suppose you could say I’m socially “progressive”, but truth be told, one of the few things PET ever said that I agree with, is that the state has no business in our bedrooms (Or homes).

If I were American……A Goldwater Conservative I suppose

[cybercoma]

Unsurprisingly, the Conservatives continue to show contempt for our institutions and democracy by insisting that they will go ahead and destroy the long-gun data even though Quebec has issued a court challenge. They're also showing complete disregard for Parliament by declaring that the registry has been scrapped, although the bill has not yet been passed. It's quite obvious that it will be; however, this goes to show that they will misinform the public and that they have absolutely no concern for parliamentary debate or the Senate. It won't be until at least February before it passes the House of Commons, since Parliament has adjourned.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Unsurprisingly, the Conservatives continue to show contempt for our institutions and democracy by insisting that they will go ahead and destroy the long-gun data even though Quebec has issued a court challenge. They're also showing complete disregard for Parliament by declaring that the registry has been scrapped, although the bill has not yet been passed. It's quite obvious that it will be; however, this goes to show that they will misinform the public and that they have absolutely no concern for parliamentary debate or the Senate. It won't be until at least February before it passes the House of Commons, since Parliament has adjourned.

This is a Conservative government, headed by Steven Harper, it was expected.

[Bryan]

Unsurprisingly, the Conservatives continue to show contempt for our institutions and democracy by insisting that they will go ahead and destroy the long-gun data even though Quebec has issued a court challenge. They're also showing complete disregard for Parliament by declaring that the registry has been scrapped, although the bill has not yet been passed. It's quite obvious that it will be; however, this goes to show that they will misinform the public and that they have absolutely no concern for parliamentary debate or the Senate. It won't be until at least February before it passes the House of Commons, since Parliament has adjourned.

It's called keeping their promise to the people who elected them. I know that's a foreign concept for the other parties.

[segnosaur]

Unsurprisingly, the Conservatives continue to show contempt for our institutions and democracy by insisting that they will go ahead and destroy the long-gun data even though Quebec has issued a court challenge.

Ummm... lets see...

Its rather ironic that you would criticize the conservatives for scrapping the gun registry while Quebec has issued a court challenge. After all, Alberta also had a court challenge regarding the constitutionality of the registry when the registry began, yet the Liberal government of the day proceeded to set up the registry even though the final supreme court ruling would not come until the summer of 2000 (years after the first guns were licensed.) If it's bad for the conservatives to change a law when a province is challenging it, wasn't it also bad for the Liberals to also bring in a law when a province was challenging it?

I'd also question exactly why Quebec is launching its challenge. The article didn't state what rational Quebec was using (indeed it said they were keeping the details for later). And others on the forum have pointed out that the "fine print" of the registry states that the data is owned by the feds (making transfer impossible/illegal). In my opinion, they aren't really counting on winning any sort of court challenge. Instead, its just crass politics. Their goal is either:

- To make themselves look serious about 'gun control' (even though they know they'll loose any court case regarding the registry). They can at least say they tried.

- They may be hoping that either the NDP or liberals might get back into power in the next election, and are just trying to keep the registry active until then.

Of course, lets consider just what that would cost... it took approximately 3.5-4 years from the time Alberta announced it would challenge the registration until final decision by the supreme court. Assuming any Quebec challenge takes the same length of time, they are basically demanding the federal government maintain a $66 million/year registry (costing around $250 million total).

[cybercoma]

If it's bad for the conservatives to change a law when a province is challenging it, wasn't it also bad for the Liberals to also bring in a law when a province was challenging it?

Yes.

And although it doesn't matter, the court also ended up unanimously ruling against Alberta. This article about the ruling also indicates that the judgment was not attributed to any one judge, which they claim is rare.

I'd also question exactly why Quebec is launching its challenge.

Does it matter? When you brought it up, you didn't question why Alberta challenged it.

its just crass politics.

That's your opinion.

[Quebec is] basically demanding [that] the federal government maintain a $66 million/year registry (costing around $250 million total).

No. They're demanding that the federal government not destroy data that taxpayers have collected. They're not challenging the government's decision to stop running the registry. It doesn't cost the government anything (very little anyway) to retain the information. As for whether Quebec has the right to use the information, I don't know. That's likely what the case is going to hinge on. If data funded by the public cannot be shared between levels of government due to "privacy" reasons, I would be very surprised. Edited December 20, 2011 by cybercoma

[segnosaur]

If it's bad for the conservatives to change a law when a province is challenging it, wasn't it also bad for the Liberals to also bring in a law when a province was challenging it?

Yes.

I see...

Assuming you're being honest (given the partisanship on this forum I have my doubts), does that mean that you think the federal government should always wait before implementing changes to the law lest some province challenges it? If Alberta doesn't like the federal budget, or Quebec doesn't like military purchases can they just launch lawsuits with no other purpose than to wreck havoc with the federal legislative process (even if such challenges have no chance in being effective)?

And although it doesn't matter, the court also ended up unanimously ruling against Alberta.

Irrelevant. The issue was not the end result of the case. It was "should the government act on legislation prior to having a case resolved".

I'd also question exactly why Quebec is launching its challenge.

Does it matter? When you brought it up, you didn't question why Alberta challenged it.

Well, Alberta gave reasons why it was challenging the law (because registration of things like land already fell under provincial jurisdiction then firearms should too.) And given the split-decisions of some of the lower courts, at least some judges felt that their claim had merit.

Quebec has not yet given any rational for challenging the law, and since (as others have stated in this forum) the federal government is supposedly the only legal "owner" of the information, its kind of hard to see how the Quebec government can be demanding the feds do something illegal.

its just crass politics.

That's your opinion.

Yup, that's why I actually said "in my opinion" in my earlier post.

No. They're demanding that the federal government not destroy data that taxpayers have collected.

Hmmm... just wondering, by using the word "taxpayers" are you trying to evoke an emotional response (as in "don't let taxpayer money get wasted!")

They're not challenging the government's decision to stop running the registry. It doesn't cost the government anything (very little anyway) to retain the information. As for whether Quebec has the right to use the information, I don't know. That's likely what the case is going to hinge on. If data funded by the public cannot be shared between levels of government due to "privacy" reasons, I would be very surprised.

Why would it be surprising? Our medical records are not a matter of public record (even if our health care is "taxpayer funded".) It would depend on whatever fine print exists on the long gun registration form, but if there's any language that specifies "this information is to be owned by..." then anyone submitting their form could legally challenge having the information passed to the province.

[guyser]

Well, Alberta gave reasons why it was challenging the law (because registration of things like land already fell under provincial jurisdiction then firearms should too.)

If that was the reasoning, then no wonder they lost.

The feds have jurisdiction over lots of things, boat registration for one, airplanes....and so on.

[sharkman]

Geez, when is this thing going to finally die? How many shots will it take?

[cybercoma]

I see...

Assuming you're being honest (given the partisanship on this forum I have my doubts), does that mean that you think the federal government should always wait before implementing changes to the law lest some province challenges it? If Alberta doesn't like the federal budget, or Quebec doesn't like military purchases can they just launch lawsuits with no other purpose than to wreck havoc with the federal legislative process (even if such challenges have no chance in being effective)?

I wouldn't say always. Off the top of my head, I could see there being a conflict if the hearings create a situation that causes imminent danger to people or the nation.

Irrelevant. The issue was not the end result of the case. It was "should the government act on legislation prior to having a case resolved".

I know it's irrelevant, which is why I said "it doesn't matter."

Well, Alberta gave reasons why it was challenging the law (because registration of things like land already fell under provincial jurisdiction then firearms should too.) And given the split-decisions of some of the lower courts, at least some judges felt that their claim had merit.

Sure, Alberta gave reasons, but you were ascribing intent to Quebec, rather than describing legitimate reasoning behind the challenge.

Quebec has not yet given any rational for challenging the law, and since (as others have stated in this forum) the federal government is supposedly the only legal "owner" of the information, its kind of hard to see how the Quebec government can be demanding the feds do something illegal.

The purpose of the court challenge is likely (we don't know because they won't give details about their arguments yet) to see if it would be illegal for them to destroy the information. You've already made a foregone conclusion that it's illegal, but that remains to be seen. In any event, the act being challenged can't refer to itself in support of its own legality, when it's legality is what's in question.

Hmmm... just wondering, by using the word "taxpayers" are you trying to evoke an emotional response (as in "don't let taxpayer money get wasted!")

I'm implying ownership.

Why would it be surprising? Our medical records are not a matter of public record (even if our health care is "taxpayer funded".) It would depend on whatever fine print exists on the long gun registration form, but if there's any language that specifies "this information is to be owned by..." then anyone submitting their form could legally challenge having the information passed to the province.

It's not an issue of making the registry public record. As you pointed out, the provincial government is bound to keep particularly records private. There's nothing to suggest that the same won't be done with the gun registry. Since the argument in the case will likely be about privacy, the courts will have to determine if the different levels of government can share information between each other without breaking privacy laws. Healthcare and education are both provincially run; however, the military and first nations have their healthcare paid for by the federal government. Education for First Nations is also overseen in a manner by the federal government. So, they already do share certain private information between each other. Moreover, your income taxes go to the same processing centre, which handles the federal and provincial portion. The portion that goes to the province is then forwarded. Your taxes go into the same account and CRA deals with the rest. That's another example of overlap between federal and provincial information that's private. More to the point, municipal police forces could access the gun registry in the course of their duties, same with provincial forces. So, I really don't see how privacy is the issue.

[cybercoma]

Geez, when is this thing going to finally die? How many shots will it take?

It's already on death row. The executioner is just on vacation.

[PIK]

Oh well, it's not like Harper won't have all sorts of new ways soon to keep tabs on who you are and what you do.

Be careful what you wish for.

LOL Sorry bud but this was a liberal/ police chiefs 's plan to know what you are doing in your house, not harpers doing.

[prairiechickin]

If Quebec wants a gun registry, let them finance one in their own jurisdiction. This has long been a sore spot with me, the entire registry was an ill-conceived reaction to several high profile shootings in Montreal, Ottawa, and Toronto. The Liberals saw an opportunity to appease a large segment of urbanites and women, especially after reneging on thier Red Book promise for universal daycare in Canada. Alan Rock saw a chance for political advancement with this registry -- in his mind the gun owners themselves would pay for this, and since they were mostly rednecks living outside the population centers in Ontario and Quebec and unlikely to vote Liberal, he could care less how they felt. His master plan hit a snag, however, when the vast majority of gun owners simply refused to pay whatever it was to register their weapons. As the deadline for registration loomed with very little compliance, the Liberals had to backpeddle in a hurry and wave the registration fees. That's why cost spiraled out of control, Rock miscalculated his ability to bully gun owners into paying for the system. And the Liberals vastly underestimated the backlash among not only gun owners, but many of those outside eastern population centers who resented such an intrusion into their lives to solve what was essentially a big city problem. The Conservatives tapped into that resentment and that's why they've kept this smouldering ember alive, its been pure electoral gold for them for fifteen years. So, if Quebec really feels the need to monitor guns that closely, let them set up their own registry at their own expense. That's how it should have been in the first place.

Edited December 21, 2011 by prairiechickin

[jbg]

If Quebec wants a gun registry, let them finance one in their own jurisdiction. This has long been a sore spot with me, the entire registry was an ill-conceived reaction to several high profile shootings in Montreal, Ottawa, and Toronto.

Here we disagree. As I noted elsewhere (link) "most murderers are very serious about complying with registry laws (and will) absolutely register all their guns before going on a rampage".

[Tilter]

Here we disagree. As I noted elsewhere (link) "most murderers are very serious about complying with registry laws (and will) absolutely register all their guns before going on a rampage".

In the past week Alberta saw a man shoot 3 people & himself with what I heard was 3 handguns.

Has anyone heard what the legal/illegal status of these guns?

[prairiechickin]

If I recall, a news report from Alberta claimed a 9mm handgun and two rifles, all registered to his father.

[Bryan]

If that was the reasoning, then no wonder they lost.

The feds have jurisdiction over lots of things, boat registration for one, airplanes....and so on.

By that token, no wonder the Feds don't care about the Quebec lawsuit... they already know that it's a federal jurisdiction. Whether Quebec likes it or not isn't relevant.

[eyeball]

If I recall, a news report from Alberta claimed a 9mm handgun and two rifles, all registered to his father.

And all inadequately stored it would seem.

Requiring arms to be stored at an armoury definitely would have gone a long way towards preventing these shootings.

Anyway, it's a good thing the registry is finally out of the way. Now the debate around guns can return to it's rightful place which is around the issue of how to control them.

Edited December 23, 2011 by eyeball

[prairiechickin]

And all inadequately stored it would seem.

Requiring arms to be stored at an armoury definitely would have gone a long way towards preventing these shootings.

Not necessarily, if the kid and his Dad hunted together the kid would have known where the key to the gun cabinet was. Handgun owners are subject to pretty strict regulations and subject to periodic unannouced visits from law enforcement. All the hangun owners I know are pretty careful about safe storage. As for your armoury idea, that's not going to happen. Are you suggesting I have to take my guns to some central warehouse somewhere? Where's that going to be, and whose going to be there when I wast to take off at four in the morning to go deer hunting? And how do I know some idiot didn't bang the scope on my rifle putting it away thus rendering it useless? That's an even dumber idea than the registry itself.