Liberal Party of Canada's misinformation on Bill C-42

[On Guard for Thee]

Ahhh wrong again, currently you need an ATT to transport a restricted firearm......under C-42, you'll still need an ATT to transport a restricted firearm, but your ATT will be incorporated into your RPAL...........like I've been saying since the OP

And no, the current rules and regulations encompassed in ones ATT will still apply under C-42.....It is obvious that you can't comprehend this, nothing changes other than the ATT and RPAL will be one.

The differences in the requirements to xport a restricted weapon are subtle, but could have an impact in certain scenarios. Perhaps they differences are too subtle for you to understand.

[Derek 2.0]

The differences in the requirements to xport a restricted weapon are subtle, but could have an impact in certain scenarios. Perhaps they differences are too subtle for you to understand.

Again you don't have a clue what it is you're talking about......The ATT as current will be combined with the RPAL... nothing changes, and that is one of the major complaints of the pro-gun NFA, in that nothing changes with the ATT. A RPAL holder's ATT will now be a condition of their license.

The current Firearms Act

Bill C-42

Above is quite clear, nothing changes with regards to rules and regulations for transport.

[PIK]

You do not need to tell anyone ,when moving a restricted gun, but you have to take the shortest route between A& B no exceptions. And if you get caught taking a longer route you are screwed.

[Derek 2.0]

You do not need to tell anyone ,when moving a restricted gun, but you have to take the shortest route between A& B no exceptions. And if you get caught taking a longer route you are screwed.

And the same rules will apply under Bill C-42 (as outlined in the above links) when moving a restricted and 12.6 Prohibited.....nothing changes other then ones ATT permit now being a condition of ones RPAL.

[On Guard for Thee]

And the same rules will apply under Bill C-42 (as outlined in the above links) when moving a restricted and 12.6 Prohibited.....nothing changes other then ones ATT permit now being a condition of ones RPAL.

PIK get's it.

[Derek 2.0]

PIK get's it.

Get's what? That you don't know what you're talking about with regards to the rules and regulations encompassed by a RPAL holders ATT?

[On Guard for Thee]

Get's what? That you don't know what you're talking about with regards to the rules and regulations encompassed by a RPAL holders ATT?

Well yeah, I've read it, I understand it, but let's just leave it alone.

[Derek 2.0]

Well yeah, I've read it, I understand it, but let's just leave it alone.

If you disagree with my "claims" on the transport rules and regulations remaining the same, by all means, using the two links (to the Firearms Act and Bill C-42) I provided, highlight the differences, no mater how subtle.........if you understand it, like how you understood the requirement to contact the RCMP each time one transports a restricted firearm, you should have no problem highlighting your claimed "changes" to ones ATT.

[PrimeNumber]

Ahhh wrong again, currently you need an ATT to transport a restricted firearm......under C-42, you'll still need an ATT to transport a restricted firearm, but your ATT will be incorporated into your RPAL...........like I've been saying since the OP

And no, the current rules and regulations encompassed in ones ATT will still apply under C-42.....It is obvious that you can't comprehend this, nothing changes other than the ATT and RPAL will be one.

The only difference is that you used to have tell them a specific place you would be taking the firearm to when you acquired the ATT now according to the bill you only need to acquire an ATT and can now take it to any one of these five places;

A shooting club or sporting range,

to a police station or any place an officer may be located,

to and from any business authorized to repair or appraise prohibited and restricted firearms,

to and from a gun show,

or to a port of exit or port of entry.

Basically all I need to do is say I'm on my way to any one of the following when pulled over by a police officer with a restricted firearm in my vehicle and an ATT. Essentially I can transport it anywhere in the given time frame so long as I say I'm heading to one of these 5 locations and i make it believable.

The bill actually tightens some criminal charges related to all firearms as well. I like certain portions of it. You can see why many gun owners oppose it though. It doesn't give them what they want which is full control over all aspects of handling, transporting and using any and all firearms. Which of course would be irresponsible.

[On Guard for Thee]

The only difference is that you used to have tell them a specific place you would be taking the firearm to when you acquired the ATT now according to the bill you only need to acquire an ATT and can now take it to any one of these five places;

A shooting club or sporting range,

to a police station or any place an officer may be located,

to and from any business authorized to repair or appraise prohibited and restricted firearms,

to and from a gun show,

or to a port of exit or port of entry.

Basically all I need to do is say I'm on my way to any one of the following when pulled over by a police officer with a restricted firearm in my vehicle and an ATT. Essentially I can transport it anywhere in the given time frame so long as I say I'm heading to one of these 5 locations and i make it believable.

The bill actually tightens some criminal charges related to all firearms as well. I like certain portions of it. You can see why many gun owners oppose it though. It doesn't give them what they want which is full control over all aspects of handling, transporting and using any and all firearms. Which of course would be irresponsible.

Maybe he'll believe you.

[poochy]

The only difference is that you used to have tell them a specific place you would be taking the firearm to when you acquired the ATT now according to the bill you only need to acquire an ATT and can now take it to any one of these five places;

A shooting club or sporting range,

to a police station or any place an officer may be located,

to and from any business authorized to repair or appraise prohibited and restricted firearms,

to and from a gun show,

or to a port of exit or port of entry.

Basically all I need to do is say I'm on my way to any one of the following when pulled over by a police officer with a restricted firearm in my vehicle and an ATT. Essentially I can transport it anywhere in the given time frame so long as I say I'm heading to one of these 5 locations and i make it believable.

The bill actually tightens some criminal charges related to all firearms as well. I like certain portions of it. You can see why many gun owners oppose it though. It doesn't give them what they want which is full control over all aspects of handling, transporting and using any and all firearms. Which of course would be irresponsible.

Frankly none of that matters. It is all a paper work formality, all the new law does is take that away, now you get a blanket ATT if you are legally allowed to own the firearm and trained in it's use, which of course makes complete sense. Just how was i going to make use of the legally owned firearm if i couldn't take it to the place I was allowed to shoot it, or to have it maintained, and the law changes nothing in terms of how it can be transported.

Again, an ATT is redundant paperwork, no reasonable person would believe that these changes could affect public safety. No piece of paper will prevent someone from using their firearm in an illegal way, whether it be as innocuous as taking a longer route to the range or as bad as shooting someone with it. It would be really nice if people could accept that reality, but some are clearly too wrapped up in their ideology to accept basic fact.

How does any piece of paper change the function of a firearm or the mental state of the owner? If an the ATT did not exist what exactly could firearms owners do, legally or illegally, that they couldn't already do with it now? The change in ATT requirements of C42 does not change the state of gun control in Canada, not one iota.

[On Guard for Thee]

Frankly none of that matters. It is all a paper work formality, all the new law does is take that away, now you get a blanket ATT if you are legally allowed to own the firearm and trained in it's use, which of course makes complete sense. Just how was i going to make use of the legally owned firearm if i couldn't take it to the place I was allowed to shoot it, or to have it maintained, and the law changes nothing in terms of how it can be transported.

Again, an ATT is redundant paperwork, no reasonable person would believe that these changes could affect public safety. No piece of paper will prevent someone from using their firearm in an illegal way, whether it be as innocuous as taking a longer route to the range or as bad as shooting someone with it. It would be really nice if people could accept that reality, but some are clearly too wrapped up in their ideology to accept basic fact.

How does any piece of paper change the function of a firearm or the mental state of the owner? If an the ATT did not exist what exactly could firearms owners do, legally or illegally, that they couldn't already do with it now? The change in ATT requirements of C42 does not change the state of gun control in Canada, not one iota.

Just maybe one small iota, but yes not much. Just a cheapy way for Harper to try and suck up a few votes, again.

[Derek 2.0]

The only difference is that you used to have tell them a specific place you would be taking the firearm to when you acquired the ATT now according to the bill you only need to acquire an ATT and can now take it to any one of these five places;

A shooting club or sporting range,

to a police station or any place an officer may be located,

to and from any business authorized to repair or appraise prohibited and restricted firearms,

to and from a gun show,

or to a port of exit or port of entry.

Ahhh not quite........that too does not change, my current BC gun club(s) and in turn ATT entitles me to go to any legal range with the Province. None the less, the specific ranges and clubs within ones (current) ATT are determined by said holders Provincial Chief Firearms Officer......A person can belong to as many gun clubs/ranges and they like..........

What you suggest, is already legal and is not changed by C-42.

[PIK]

I threw that in because that has always been the law, I sold handguns at one time. But derek is right.

[Spiderfish]

I've no idea why the Liberals (or NDP) oppose it, nor what they hope to gain by lying about its intent.

The NDP doesn't give a rats rosy rear end about it's content, with a bit of spin it makes a good headline that Harper is "loosening the gun laws". Trudeau can't support it because of the way it's been framed by the NDP, and because he can't be seen as supporting anything Harper introduces. But he can't reject it on it's content either, so he has little choice but to mis-represent it as well.

Edited December 9, 2014 by Spiderfish

[Derek 2.0]

The NDP doesn't give a rats rosy rear end about it's content, with a bit of spin it makes a good headline that Harper is "loosening the gun laws". Trudeau can't support it because of the way it's been framed by the NDP, and because he can't be seen as supporting anything Harper introduces. But he can't reject it on it's content either, so he has little choice but to mis-represent it as well.

Thats exactly it, and a clear signal that the Liberals have abandoned Trudeau's promise not to campaign on fear and divisiveness......can't say I'm surprised though.

[Derek 2.0]

Today Mulcair was asked if he'd bring back the gun registry:

After the announcement, I asked Mulcair if an NDP government would make farmers and hunters register their shotguns.

“We have no intention of bringing back a gun registry,” he said. “The failure of the last gun registry, its phenomenal cost of $1 billion, and the fact that is was so inflexible — you know, a grandfather hunting with his grandson, and the slightest glitch in his papers and the only option was a criminal prosecution. The police have never asked for that. Now, I do want to make sure our police have the tools necessary . . . but the NDP has no intention whatsoever of bringing back the gun registry.”

And what tools would those be?

NDP Leader Tom Mulcair said Wednesday he wants to give police the ability to track every firearm in Canada through some form of a gun registry – just not the one the country had under the Liberals.

Mulcair said he wouldn’t reconstitute the long-gun registry, which the Tories did away with in 2012. He said the registry, brought in by the previous Liberal government, had serious problems that needed to be addressed.

Mulcair didn’t say exactly what an NDP gun registry would look like, but said the party was working with “teams” and “people who are in the field” to design an effective tracking system.

“There has to be a way to get this done in a way that assures public protection without going overboard, which is what the other one did,” Mulcair told reporters.

“We are starting with a definition of what I’m calling an obligation of result. For the NDP, the obligation of result is that the police are able to track every gun. That has to be there both for public protection and for the protection of the police themselves.”

And within an hour, from the Tories:

The attack adds are writing themselves........one can take to the bank that in the weeks ahead, the NDP will be pressed on the topic....or allow the Tories to define the NDP's position for them.......there are now over 2 million PAL holders in Canada (and growing), which do vote, representing nearly 10% of total potential voters across Canada or (based on the last elections numbers) 13% of likely voters......over 25% of gun owners reside in British Columbia and Alberta, of which the NDP are hoping to see some sort of breakthrough.

As Liberal MP Wayne Easter said last year, the Liberal's past support of the LGR cost them upwards of 60 potential seats across Canada........

----

From this older policy document:

Stopping the smuggling of illegal firearms and enable all municipalities, provinces, and territories to implement a ban on handguns

So the Federal NDP will devolve Federal Law (Canadian Firearms Act) out to municipalities, provinces and territories? How does that work........So one city could ban handguns, but the city next to it can maintain current Federal law? And in doing so, how does the Federal NDP see this as a way to reduce the ~100 annual homicides committed with handguns in Canada, of which, the majority of said handguns are smuggled into Canada anyways..........

So, what does Mulcair mean by an obligation of result?

[Argus]

So the Federal NDP will devolve Federal Law (Canadian Firearms Act) out to municipalities, provinces and territories? How does that work........So one city could ban handguns, but the city next to it can maintain current Federal law? And in doing so, how does the Federal NDP see this as a way to reduce the ~100 annual homicides committed with handguns in Canada, of which, the majority of said handguns are smuggled into Canada anyways..........

I don't happen to own a handgun, but what happens if you live in a city and that city decides to ban handguns? These things are not cheap, I assume. Do you have to then get rid of it? Throw it away?

[Derek 2.0]

I don't happen to own a handgun, but what happens if you live in a city and that city decides to ban handguns? These things are not cheap, I assume. Do you have to then get rid of it? Throw it away?

A city, or Province, can't ban handguns, that is the sole purview of the Federal Government, afforded under the Canadian Firearms Act........A city could revoke the business license of ranges, clubs and stores, but that has zero legal effect on ownership (as long as said owner complies with the Federal laws).

[Argus]

A city, or Province, can't ban handguns, that is the sole purview of the Federal Government, afforded under the Canadian Firearms Act........A city could revoke the business license of ranges, clubs and stores, but that has zero legal effect on ownership (as long as said owner complies with the Federal laws).

Don't you have to be a member of a range and visit it regularly in order to comply with federal licensing laws on handguns?

[Smallc]

Don't you have to be a member of a range and visit it regularly in order to comply with federal licensing laws on handguns?

It doesn't matter where the range is, as long as you're a member.

[Argus]

It doesn't matter where the range is, as long as you're a member.

Maybe, but if you have to drive for a long ways to get there and back that's certainly going to discourage gun ownership.

[Smallc]

Maybe, but if you have to drive for a long ways to get there and back that's certainly going to discourage gun ownership.

You don't have to visit all that often.

[Derek 2.0]

Don't you have to be a member of a range and visit it regularly in order to comply with federal licensing laws on handguns?

Yes and no, likewise there is no measure of frequency of use, furthermore one can belong to as many ranges as they wish. For example, I belong to a gun club (and several ranges) that is Province wide, which allows me to go to any open-to-public range in the Province and pay a drop-in fee.

[Derek 2.0]

Maybe, but if you have to drive for a long ways to get there and back that's certainly going to discourage gun ownership.

Not at all......most gun ranges are in the boonies anyways (noise), one of my old ranges when I lived in Metro Vancouver was an 1 1/2 hour drive each way from home, even though there was an indoor range 10 minutes away.