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

[waldo]

Weasel response? In both my Government links pertaining to the guns banned by the 1995 Liberal Firearms Act, the detailed list and criteria for then guns to be banned is clearly highlighted, including specific models and calibers of firearms, likewise both the date the legislation was tabled (1995) and when it came into force (1998)........

Now the onus is on you, if you want to continue, and cite just one model of firearm that was banned with legislation in 1969, 1977 and 1991 (feel free to include anytime in between, up to the Liberal's Firearms Act) versus my cited sources.........feel free to name just 3 specific firearms banned within the ~25 years prior to the Liberal's gun grabbing in the 1990s........

I'll save you the Google-Fu efforts, you won't be able to........

no - again, you specifically stated: "The prohibited class was created by the Liberal's Firearms Act" --- that is incorrect - you are wrong and refuse to admit. Again, the prohibited class was created in 1969 and revised (twice)... in 1977 and 1991. You refuse to even acknowledge the linked RCMP reference I provided that speaks to this. Yes, as I said, your reply was yet another of your weasel efforts.

I specifically asked you, repeatedly now: "did I miss the part in your link that designated all guns listed as prohibited in association with the 1995 act?... that none of the 3 prior initiatives (listed above) had any bearing on the history of prohibited guns?" Of course, you refuse to acknowledge and answer that most pointed question, hey!

the acts/related bills associated with those years (pre-2001) aren't currently a part of the archived grouping available online; e.g.; Bill C-51 in 1977, Bill C-17 in 1991. However, I trust you will accept a linked article coming from the prolific pro-gunner, "Gary Mauser":

geezaz! For the self-proclaimed MLW "gun guy"... you sure don't know what you're talking about!

[Derek 2.0]

the acts/related bills associated with those years (pre-2001) aren't currently a part of the archived grouping available online; e.g.; Bill C-51 in 1977, Bill C-17 in 1991. However, I trust you will accept a linked article coming from the prolific pro-gunner, "Gary Mauser":

Nice dodge on naming the three firearms banned prior to the 1995 firearms act.........as to your link from Mauser, one problem:

It became illegal to purchase or to sell a prohibited weapon, with the exception that those individuals who happened to own them before the introduction of the legislation.

The opinion piece is poorly researched and runs counter to fact........likewise, as I already cited from two Government sources which you refuse to address, from your own link:

Upon being elected in 1993 the Liberals proposed new gun laws. The government prohibited over half of all registered handguns in Canada and initiated plans to confiscate them. These handguns had not been misused. In 1993, the Auditor General of Canada reported that no evaluation of the 1991 firearm legislation had ever been undertaken (Auditor General, 1993, pp. 647-655). Bill C-68 became law on December 5, 1995.

12.6 handguns as I already cited, with supporting Government sources, to demonstrate that it wasn't until the Liberal 1995 Firearms Act did the gun grabbers start grabbing Canadian's guns........now once more, list just three models of firearms, as I already asked of you and you dodged, that were confiscated wholesale prior to the 1995 Liberal Firearms Act (In 1969, 1977 and 1991)........

Oh, and thanks for confirming my point with your source..........and yes, I do know what I'm talking about, just as I know that you will be unable to list three, let's make even easier, list one model of firearm that was confiscated wholesale prior to the 1995 Liberal Firearms Act.......just name one model Waldo....just one!!

[waldo]

Nice dodge

yes! Nice standard weasel dodge... from you! That latest source you claim is "poorly researched" corroborates the earlier RCMP source I provided... you know, the one you refuse to even acknowledge.

again, you claimed the prohibited class was created by the 95 act; again, you were wrong - and won't admit it. Those 2 sources of yours that you keep pumping say nothing specific about the existence of the prohibited class (with accompanying weapons prohibited per definition of each) through 3 separate Legislative rounds in 1969, 1977 and 1991. You've provided nothing to counter the specifics I've quoted from both the linked RCMP source as well as the latter Mauser details.

you can keep beaking off about "naming 3"... apparently, to you, there aren't any guns that fall within the respective iterative prohibited classes from 1969, on through to 1977, on through to 1991. But it gets better!!! You won't admit you're wrong, but you'll sure attempt to use my latest source (by quoting from it twice)... while at the same time declaring it "poorly researched"! Apparently, when you want to presume to leverage from that source, the research is fine... otherwise, it's your declared, "poorly researched" if I quote from it. Of course, while quoting from it you now weaselly shift to emphasize the "grandfathered" reference... which, of course, has you ignoring the very fact you deny! You know, that the prohibited class did exist before 1995 and that there were firearms in existence that met the definitions within those prohibited classes. Otherwise... what's grandfathered, hey?

what's this? A grandfathered aspect also exists within the 95 act... say it ain't so! But hey now, why haven't you mentioned that? Here, let me offer you the 1995 Firearms Act grandfathered particulars... let's see how you weasel out of this, quoting directing from your prior linked source:

Individuals are allowed to possess certain prohibited firearms if they had one registered in their name when it became prohibited, and they have continuously held a valid registration certificate for that type of prohibited firearm from December 1, 1998, onward.

but really, this is highly irregular! Your own linked source speaks to the existence of prohibited firearms prior to 1995! Winner, winner... chicken dinner! The waldo awaits, once again, your retraction/correction and admitting you were wrong... waiting, waiting, waiting..........

[Derek 2.0]

yes! Nice standard weasel dodge... from you! That latest source you claim is "poorly researched" corroborates the earlier RCMP source I provided... you know, the one you refuse to even acknowledge.

again, you claimed the prohibited class was created by the 95 act; again, you were wrong - and won't admit it. Those 2 sources of yours that you keep pumping say nothing specific about the existence of the prohibited class (with accompanying weapons prohibited per definition of each) through 3 separate Legislative rounds in 1969, 1977 and 1991. You've provided nothing to counter the specifics I've quoted from both the linked RCMP source as well as the latter Mauser details.

Not quite, the several linked Government sights do list specific models that were banned by name through the Liberals firearms act, likewise (as confirmed by your Mauser source), the Liberal's Firearms Act's new criteria that banned ~50% of prior legal handguns with a stroke of a legislative pen.............The Liberal's Firearms Act, at the time, by requiring handguns with no shorter than a 4.2" inch barrel, in addition to the Liberal's banning of all handguns in .25 & .32 ACP did ban a substantial number of handguns, handguns that were then on the cheaper side to purchase and operate, effectively then making handgun ownership cost prohibitive for most Canadians........

you can keep beaking off about "naming 3"... apparently, to you, there aren't any guns that fall within the respective iterative prohibited classes from 1969, on through to 1977, on through to 1991. But it gets better!!! You won't admit you're wrong, but you'll sure attempt to use my latest source (by quoting from it twice)... while at the same time declaring it "poorly researched"! Apparently, when you want to presume to leverage from that source, the research is fine... otherwise, it's your declared, "poorly researched" if I quote from it. Of course, while quoting from it you now weaselly shift to emphasize the "grandfathered" reference... which, of course, has you ignoring the very fact you deny! You know, that the prohibited class did exist before 1995 and that there were firearms in existence that met the definitions within those prohibited classes. Otherwise... what's grandfathered, hey?

It was a poorly researched document, as I demonstrated by linking to a Canadian online store that does sell such firearms (it states as no longer obtainable).....in the case of the two examples from said store, per the current definition of the Liberal Firearms Act of what constitutes a non-restricted and restricted semi-auto rifle (Semi-auto rifles with barrels shorter than 18.5" are deemed restricted), the FN FAL with a 21-22" inch barrel should be non-restricted, where as the H&K 91 with a barrel under 18.5" would be considered restricted.......yet both firearms are deemed Prohibited? Why one might ask, the reason is simple, the Liberal's Firearms Act, despite the classification criteria, Prohibited by firearms by name (as demonstrated in my prior Government sources) by name........there are countless other examples fostered by the Liberal's Firearms Act.

I'm not wrong Waldo, for if I were, you would have cited but one firearm (by model) that the Government of Canada confiscated from lawful owners prior to the Liberal's 1995 Firearms Act........forget three, name just one!!!

what's this? A grandfathered aspect also exists within the 95 act... say it ain't so! But hey now, why haven't you mentioned that? Here, let me offer you the 1995 Firearms Act grandfathered particulars... let's see how you weasel out of this, quoting directing from your prior linked source:

Individuals are allowed to possess certain prohibited firearms if they had one registered in their name when it became prohibited, and they have continuously held a valid registration certificate for that type of prohibited firearm from December 1, 1998, onward.

No need to attempt to verse me in it, I've spoken to the grandfathered licenses in numerous firearms threads, my father currently has a 12.6 endorsement and my late uncle held a 12.2-6 license..........What you fail to mention, prior to the Liberal's Firearms Act, there was no license classes, and that owners of said firearms could use said firearms lawfully and transfer ownership among family and other lawful owners.

Likewise, and more pointedly, you;ve failed to mention what happens to said firearms once the current owner no longer maintains said license (dies).......they are confiscated (sans 12.6 firearms produced prior to 1949 that can be transferred to a blood relative with a restricted license) by the RCMP and deposited into a smelter.....without a cent of financial compensation to the prior owner's estate........

By all means, continue to highlight another negative aspect of the Liberal's 1995 Firearms Act.....the generational confiscation of lawfully obtained firearms through "grandfathered" licenses.

but really, this is highly irregular! Your own linked source speaks to the existence of prohibited firearms prior to 1995! Winner, winner... chicken dinner! The waldo awaits, once again, your retraction/correction and admitting you were wrong... waiting, waiting, waiting..........

Which one(s)? By all means highlight, just one, firearm prior to the Liberal's 1995 Firearm Act, that was confiscated by Government......just one Waldo!!!!!

[waldo]

I'm not wrong Waldo

sure you are - you simply won't admit it! You categorically stated the 95 act created the prohibited class - that's false. Admit it! In your weasel mode, after seeing the error of your way, you goal-post shifted into this 'banning' focus of yours. Of course, you natter on about a prior grandfathered clause... but who knows what it associates to, cause... according to you, no firearms were prohibited prior to the 95 act! My pointing out to you the grandfathered clause in the 95 act was pure gold... if licensing of those associated firearms was intact, owners could keep their firearms; a most significant point you somehow refuse to acknowledge/accept. And here I thought you were the guy all about licensing - the pro-licensing guy! Apparently not, hey. Apparently not when it messes with your goal-post shifting!

[Derek 2.0]

blah blah blah

You going to name one model of firearm that was banned prior to the Liberal's Firearms Act? Likewise acknowledge, as stated in your own link, the Liberal's 1995 Firearm Act did ban guns, including half of all lawful firearms within the country.

[waldo]

You going to name one model of firearm that was banned prior to the Liberal's Firearms Act? Likewise acknowledge, as stated in your own link, the Liberal's 1995 Firearm Act did ban guns, including half of all lawful firearms within the country.

standard D2.0 weasel move... shift from prohibited to "banned"... why not provide the distinction you're making between prohibited and banned - sure you can!

again, sorry to burst your gunner talking point... per the 95 act, so long as a gun was licensed, owners could keep their guns. Admit it - sure you can! ... again, I thought you were the self-proclaimed MLW gun-guy! You were the guy forever decrying the registry while at the same time championing licensing... that was you, right?

admit the 95 act did not create the prohibited class; admit you were wrong - sure you can!

admit there were guns in Canada that fit the prohibited definitions through the respective iterative federal legislative phases from 1969, on through to 1977, on through to 1991; admit you were wrong - sure you can!

in regards the prohibited classes/definitions through the respective iterative federal legislative phases from 1969, on through to 1977, on through to 1991, is it your position that these prior prohibited classes/definitions had no bearing, had no influence, in shaping the 1995 act prohibited class/definition?

[Derek 2.0]

standard D2.0 weasel move... shift from prohibited to "banned"... why not provide the distinction you're making between prohibited and banned - sure you can!

I didn't shift, the Liberal Firearms Act shifted firearms to banned....

again, sorry to burst your gunner talking point... per the 95 act, so long as a gun was licensed, owners could keep their guns. Admit it - sure you can! ... again, I thought you were the self-proclaimed MLW gun-guy! You were the guy forever decrying the registry while at the same time championing licensing... that was you, right?

Where did I say different?

admit the 95 act did not create the prohibited class; admit you were wrong - sure you can!

No, the 95 Act did create the the current prohibited class, likewise the grandfathered license, to ban the ownership of such guns.

admit there were guns in Canada that fit the prohibited definitions through the respective iterative federal legislative phases from 1969, on through to 1977, on through to 1991; admit you were wrong - sure you can!

The present prohibited definitions were defined in the 1995 legislation, as already cited.

in regards the prohibited classes/definitions through the respective iterative federal legislative phases from 1969, on through to 1977, on through to 1991, is it your position that these prior prohibited classes/definitions had no bearing, had no influence, in shaping the 1995 act prohibited class/definition?

That depends with which definition, for which firearm, defined by its model or action type. With the vast majority of the current prohibited list, 12.6 class of firearms, prior definitions had zero influence, as prior to the 1995 Firearms Act, the current 12.6 handguns were not prohibited. Likewise, the majority of the 12.4 and 12.5 firearms (firearms such as my prior examples) that were banned by name only, despite the new definitions for non-restricted and restricted that would counter such moves.......That leaves the 12.2 (Machine guns, and select fire types) and 12.3 (former select fire types converted to semi-auto only), long since legal to own, likewise registered for decades prior (like handguns) that any prior legislation would have any bearing on the 1995 Liberal ban.

[waldo]

I didn't shift, the Liberal Firearms Act shifted firearms to banned.... [waldo: quote either the words 'banned' or 'ban' within the 1995 Firearms Act]

Where did I say different? [waldo: you didn't say... at all! That's the point. You blustered on... and on... and on... about "gun-grabbers". Yet until I highlighted the grandfathered clause your nonsense continued! Wait, it still continues! Being the self-proclaimed MLW 'gun guy', is this you claiming you weren't aware of the grandfathered clause? What kind of "gun grabbing" are you referring to... you mean where guns aren't licensed? Oh my, surely not from you... surely not from the prolific champion of gun licensing!

In the face of the 95 grandfathered clause, how do dare to rationalize the following statement you made:

This of course rung true in the later 90s as newly registered firearms were then banned, and in most cases said owners, that obtained them lawfully, and then lawfully registered them, were then forced to then hand them in after said guns being made illegal after the fact, without even so much as compensation.

explain weasel that one, hey!]

No, the 95 Act did create the the current prohibited class, likewise the grandfathered license, to ban the ownership of such guns. [waldo: oh my! Now the weasel emphasis on "current" trundles forward. You never stated current and all through my repeated references to the earlier creation/iterative changes of the prohibited class, you kept denying their existence. Now you finally admit they exist... although not directly; instead, you weasel move to now use the word "current"... for the first time!]

The present prohibited definitions were defined in the 1995 legislation, as already cited. [waldo: who cares; other than you in previously denying the prior existence and iterative legislative changes to the prohibited class from 1969, on through to 1977, on through to 1991]

That depends with which definition, for which firearm, defined by its model or action type. With the vast majority of the current prohibited list, 12.6 class of firearms, prior definitions had zero influence, as prior to the 1995 Firearms Act, the current 12.6 handguns were not prohibited. Likewise, the majority of the 12.4 and 12.5 firearms (firearms such as my prior examples) that were banned by name only, despite the new definitions for non-restricted and restricted that would counter such moves.......That leaves the 12.2 (Machine guns, and select fire types) and 12.3 (former select fire types converted to semi-auto only), long since legal to own, likewise registered for decades prior (like handguns) that any prior legislation would have any bearing on the 1995 Liberal ban. [waldo: talk about your, as you say, blah, blah, blah.]

[Derek 2.0]

That's the point. You blustered on... and on... and on... about "gun-grabbers". Yet until I highlighted the grandfathered clause your nonsense continued! Wait, it still continues! Being the self-proclaimed MLW 'gun guy', is this you claiming you weren't aware of the grandfathered clause? What kind of "gun grabbing" are you referring to... you mean where guns aren't licensed? Oh my, surely not from you... surely not from the prolific champion of gun licensing!

Guns aren't licensed, gun owners are, and weren't required a PAL/RPAL (with 12.x endorsement) prior to the 1995 legislation.........no, I'm well aware of the clause, likewise its intention.

In the face of the 95 grandfathered clause, how do dare to rationalize the following statement you made:

Gun owners that purchased firearms, post (your cited) 1977-78 legislation, likewise gun owners that purchased firearms that were made prohib despite not falling into the new definitions post 1995 (i.e. the firearms I provided as an example), yet were listed (in 1995) as prohib by name and model.....aka guilt by association.

waldo: oh my! Now the weasel emphasis on "current" trundles forward. You never stated current and all through my repeated references to the earlier creation/iterative changes of the prohibited class, you kept denying their existence. Now you finally admit they exist... although not directly; instead, you weasel move to now use the word "current"... for the first time!

You're unhinged.......my usage of past, present and future tense, prior to your windmill.

waldo: who cares; other than you in previously denying the prior existence and iterative legislative changes to the prohibited class from 1969, on through to 1977, on through to 1991

What legislative change, prior to 1995, required Canadian gun owners to cede lawfully obtained firearms to the Federal Government?

talk about your, as you say, blah, blah, blah.

And yet you're unable to refute that the Liberal Firearms Act was a legislated gun grab writ-large......Of course, it will be nothing, when contrasted with what the Federal NDP would attempt........

[waldo]

And yet you're unable to refute that the Liberal Firearms Act was a legislated gun grab writ-large......Of course, it will be nothing, when contrasted with what the Federal NDP would attempt........

you're just toooooooo easy! If a gun/owner was licensed... where's the, as you label it, "gun grabbing"?

[Derek 2.0]

you're just toooooooo easy! If a gun/owner was licensed... where's the, as you label it, "gun grabbing"?

In death, likewise the gun owner that purchased a now prohib, prior to 1995 that was not granted a grandfathered license.

[waldo]

You're unhinged.......my usage of past, present and future tense, prior to your windmill.

BS! You've always spoken of the 95 prohibited class in terms of it being THE ONLY EVER prohibited class... your very link in this ongoing nonsense of yours states: "The prohibited class was created by the Liberal's Firearms Act". It's only now that, while refusing to admit the prohibited class/definitions existed prior to 1995, you weasel about and now refer to it as "the current prohibited". Why did you so vehemently deny the prior existence of the initial creation/definition of prohibited (in 1969) and the iterative changes of the prohibited definition (in 1977 and 1991)?

.

[waldo]

In death, likewise the gun owner that purchased a now prohib, prior to 1995 that was not granted a grandfathered license.

there it is! Through all this weaselly bluster of yours, your claimed "gun-grabbing" reflects upon the forfeiture to law enforcement after a firearms owner dies. What's the problem... did you miss out on a real gem from your grandpappy?

[Derek 2.0]

BS! You've always spoken of the 95 prohibited class in terms of it being THE ONLY EVER prohibited class... your very link in this ongoing nonsense of yours states: "The prohibited class was created by the Liberal's Firearms Act". It's only now that, while refusing to admit the prohibited class/definitions existed prior to 1995, you weasel about and now refer to it as "the current prohibited". Why did you so vehemently deny the prior existence of the initial creation/definition of prohibited (in 1969) and the iterative changes of the prohibited definition (in 1977 and 1991)?

.

I've cited several times the criteria of what is within the prohibited class, the laws governing the class and the required endorsement on ones license, as created by the 1995 Liberal Firearms Act........your unwillingness to contrast the 1995 law, versus prior laws, and the result confiscation of firearms..........as I asked of you, name but one firearm model that was confiscated prior to the 1995 law......just one Waldo, your refusal to do so is noted!!!

[Derek 2.0]

there it is! Through all this weaselly bluster of yours, your claimed "gun-grabbing" reflects upon the forfeiture to law enforcement after a firearms owner dies. What's the problem... did you miss out on a real gem from your grandpappy?

That and those that had numerous firearms confiscated prior to their own demise.....My issue, as stated numerous times, is the political dishonesty of people like you that refuse to acknowledge the intent of such laws.......Your own cited source indicated that ~50% of owned handguns were banned, representing upwards of ~70% of handguns then in production by barrel length...........

What's with all the political cloak and dagger? Why don't the Liberals and NDP own it? Highlight in detail their hidden agenda........

As stated, if they don't, the CPC will for them...........

[waldo]

In death, likewise the gun owner that purchased a now prohib, prior to 1995 that was not granted a grandfathered license.

if it was licensed, per the 95 grandfathered clause, no problemo - right? Given your past pro-licensing statements/position, surely this can't be you concerned about unlicensed firearms! Say it ain't so... say it ain't so!

[waldo]

..........as I asked of you, name but one firearm model that was confiscated prior to the 1995 law......just one Waldo, your refusal to do so is noted!!!

again, per SFU's Professor Mauser:

The Conservative government decided there should be new firearm legislation. The 1991 legislation (Bill C-17), among other things, expanded the list of prohibited weapons, to include “converted full automatics” and a large number of semi-automatic military style rifles and shotguns. A major focus of the new legislation was “semi-automatic military-style” guns. The class of prohibited weapons was expanded to include semi-automatic firearms that had been converted from full-automatic. Owners of the newly prohibited firearms were faced with eventual confiscation without compensation.

[waldo]

That and those that had numerous firearms confiscated prior to their own demise.....My issue, as stated numerous times, is the political dishonesty of people like you that refuse to acknowledge the intent of such laws.......Your own cited source indicated that ~50% of owned handguns were banned, representing upwards of ~70% of handguns then in production by barrel length........... [waldo: "confiscated prior to their demise"??? You mean if the guns were unlicensed? Why would you be concerned about unlicensed firearms? By the by, in your unsubstantiated statement on this (made several times now), who would register an unlicensed firearm? Just how many owners/guns were in this category of your claimed (and unsubstantiated) confiscation? For once through all your weasel-speak, substantiate your repeated statements on confiscation... put up some numbers; again, how many owners/guns were confiscated... and why?]

What's with all the political cloak and dagger? Why don't the Liberals and NDP own it? Highlight in detail their hidden agenda........ [waldo: you're deluded... probably from breathing in too much spent gunpowder! Why don't you own the 1991 prohibition/confiscation per the Conservative Bill C-17... hidden agenda or what, hey!]

As stated, if they don't, the CPC will for them........... [waldo: a refreshing change for you... numerous times previously, you referred to "you and the party" doing it for them!]

[Derek 2.0]

if it was licensed, per the 95 grandfathered clause, no problemo - right? Given your past pro-licensing statements/position, surely this can't be you concerned about unlicensed firearms! Say it ain't so... say it ain't so!

Guns aren't licensed, I assume you mean registered. As said already, both handguns and automatics had been registered for decades prior to the 1995 legislation.

[waldo]

pedantic much! ... licensed in terms of class designation association within a PALicense

[Derek 2.0]

again, per SFU's Professor Mauser:

Are you using creative licensing with your quoting of the article Waldo? A little too much cutting and pasting?

[waldo]

Are you using creative licensing with your quoting of the article Waldo? A little too much cutting and pasting?

creative licensing? And here it was you who declared that article "poorly researched"... as you proceeded to leverage/quote from it to suit your agenda! As I said earlier, poorly researched if I choose to quote from it - otherwise, it's just A-OK for you to do so! Of course, the avenue is certainly there for you to dispute anything I've referenced from that article! You know, actually put something behind your continued unsubstantiated statements/claims.

[Derek 2.0]

[waldo: "confiscated prior to their demise"??? You mean if the guns were unlicensed? Why would you be concerned about unlicensed firearms? By the by, in your unsubstantiated statement on this (made several times now), who would register an unlicensed firearm? Just how many owners/guns were in this category of your claimed (and unsubstantiated) confiscation? For once through all your weasel-speak, substantiate your repeated statements on confiscation... put up some numbers; again, how many owners/guns were confiscated... and why?]

Again, guns aren't licensed, as I said above, I think you meant registered, of which, prior to the Liberal Firearms Act, handguns and automatics, including former automatics, were registered.

waldo: you're deluded... probably from breathing in too much spent gunpowder! Why don't you own the 1991 prohibition/confiscation per the Conservative Bill C-17... hidden agenda or what, hey!]

I and other gun owners did/do hold the prior PC Tories to account.......after the passage of C-17, the cause of much of the outrage being the banning of standard capacity mags, we migrated to Manning's Reform Party.....and the result of the following election?????

As we spoke in the prior NFA themed thread, Peter Mackay and the Red Tories weren't considered friends of gun owners either.

waldo: a refreshing change for you... numerous times previously, you referred to "you and the party" doing it for them!

Why does it mater how I reference the CPC? I'm an active member, and the party is its membership, as such, referencing an opinion shared by both myself and the party as one is a problem for you why?