The liberals bring out the gun control dog whistle.

waldo · October 7, 2015

The United States hasn't implemented it, which would require approval by Congress.......I would expect, after the Second American Civil War, the new United States Government would reject said treaty

yes - of those 131 signatory nations (that includes the U.S.) 75 countries have ratified it. But... Harper Conservatives even refused to sign it! I note you don't offer comment in that regard, particularly as those markings meet the requirements of the United Nations Firearms Protocol and a convention of the Organization of American States.

Derek 2.0 · October 7, 2015

further disingenuous comment! You better update Public Safety Canada as, for example, one of their press releases seems to suggest otherwise!

Canadian Firearms Advisory Committee Meets to Discuss Progress on Repealing the Long-Gun Registry

Reread your link:

Comprised of 12 members who are civilian firearms users, some with extensive law enforcement experience and others with a background in public policy issues, the CFAC provides subject-specific advice and expertise to the Government of Canada on improving the effectiveness of firearms control in Canada. The CFAC was formed in 2006 as part of the Government's consultative process on firearms control measures.

Hence firearms classifications and the tossing of the LGR, and the recent changes made under C-42.

and yes, the committee shouldn't be skewed by a disproportionate number of 'gun enthusiasts'... this list of recommendations provided to former Harper Conservative Minister of Public Safety, Vic Toews speaks for itself. Reaction to that document was so negative by all stakeholders to the issue of gun related violence/death... so negative, Harper had no choice but to distance himself from it... “that document does not represent the government’s position”.

the CFAC should also include, for example, police officers, victims of gun violence, public policy experts, people working to prevent suicide, etc..

Public Health and the Canadian Firearms Advisory Committee

Yet, much to the ire of groups like the NFA:

The government shook up the committee In March, dropping three civilian gun owners and adding three police officers: Hanson, Rich and Mike Sutherland, who heads Winnipeg’s police union.

As I said, I fail to see what said groups would bring to the table?

Furthermore, by repealing C-42, so to go measures that require safety training and lifetime bans for violent persons...why would Trudeau be after that?

As I said, the Liberals policy is disjointed......I give both the NDP and Greens credit for suggesting actual effective measures.

PIK · October 7, 2015

For what gain? All the previous conditions of the LTATT are now included in ones license, nothing has changed in regards to conditions, other than going from a required license and permit, to a combined license/permit.

The CFAC already includes retired and serving police officers.......I don't understand what women's groups and public health advocates would bring to a forum encompassing technical aspects of new firearms requiring a FRT number.

What does that mean? What enhancements over the already existing background checks, as required by the Liberal's Firearms Act, will be required?

That is already a requirement, and not only for firearms, but also ammo sales.

All Imported guns are already marked with country of production (and even factory stamps) and either year of production or said year can be determined through the serial numbers, be they from the United States, Europe, Russia or China etc.

You mean a backdoor registry?

Vendors have been keeping records on guns since the 70's And all ammo is written down when purchased. by who and what type and when .

Derek 2.0 · October 7, 2015

yes - of those 131 signatory nations (that includes the U.S.) 75 countries have ratified it. But... Harper Conservatives even refused to sign it! I note you don't offer comment in that regard, particularly as those markings meet the requirements of the United Nations Firearms Protocol and a convention of the Organization of American States.

I did offer comment.......as I said, its an actual question of end user cost for the civilian firearms industry. Would a Trudeau Government, after signing said treaty, offer compensation to pay for said marking measures and retreating said firearms?

Derek 2.0 · October 7, 2015

Vendors have been keeping records on guns since the 70's And all ammo is written down when purchased. by who and what type and when .

We've already discussed this, and I won't restart this conversation, fore I don't have my tin-foil hat handy :rolleyes:

poochy · October 7, 2015

It's not a dog whistle when he just comes out and says, "we will institute new gun control measures."

Ok, perhaps I was wrong about that, maybe you can help, is there a different term used to describe a political promise that you know full well will not produce the result you hope people will beleive is possible?

Or are the leaders of the liberal party really that stupid?

waldo · October 7, 2015

Reread your link:

Hence firearms classifications and the tossing of the LGR, and the recent changes made under C-42.

nice! So you're going to extend upon your initial claim... that I called you on, hey! If you want to suggest a re-read, have a go at the linked CFAC document I put forward... the one it provided to Canada Public Safety/Harper Conservative Minister of Public Safety, Vic Toews - it would seem to suggest they believe they have a much broader mandate than you suggest, even after you've now extended upon your initial claim. I trust you will notice the note advising the document was released under the Access To Information Act! Essentially, the CFAC operates in secrecy; information about it's activities is subject to the filtered release of Harper Conservatives Public Safety Minister... or via Freedom of Information requests. Imagine that... and imagine it and gun enthusiasts so resistant to extending the membership of the committee to provide balance to the dominating 'gun enthusiasts' on the committee.

in any case, I'm done with you... once again. You refuse to accept you didn't actually know the complete/full mandate of the CFAC... while you extended on your initial claim without acknowledging your narrow limiting statement on gun classification was most incomplete.

.

waldo · October 7, 2015

Ok, perhaps I was wrong about that, maybe you can help, is there a different term used to describe a political promise that you know full well will not produce the result you hope people will beleive is possible?

you could use 'selective and self-serving' in regards your interpretation and applied understanding

Derek 2.0 · October 7, 2015

nice! So you're going to extend upon your initial claim... that I called you on, hey! If you want to suggest a re-read, have a go at the linked CFAC document I put forward... the one it provided to Canada Public Safety/Harper Conservative Minister of Public Safety, Vic Toews - it would seem to suggest they believe they have a much broader mandate than you suggest, even after you've now extended upon your initial claim. I trust you will notice the note advising the document was released under the Access To Information Act! Essentially, the CFAC operates in secrecy; information about it's activities is subject to the filtered release of Harper Conservatives Public Safety Minister... or via Freedom of Information requests. Imagine that... and imagine it and gun enthusiasts so resistant to extending the membership of the committee to provide balance to the dominating 'gun enthusiasts' on the committee.

in any case, I'm done with you... once again. You refuse to accept you didn't actually know the complete/full mandate of the CFAC... while you extended on your initial claim without acknowledging your narrow limiting statement on gun classification was most incomplete.

.

I clearly stated the purpose of CFAC, and your own cite confirmed it........in your link, what CFAC proposal did the Harper Government reject and stated as not being "Government policy"?

waldo · October 7, 2015

I clearly stated the purpose of CFAC, and your own cite confirmed it........in your link, what CFAC proposal did the Harper Government reject and stated as not being "Government policy"?

even though I said I was done with you :lol: ... I clearly made the mistake of taking you at your stated words, "firearms classification policy". You point to my link that speaks to "firearms control measures" as being equivalent to your verbiage, "firearms classification policy". How intellectually dishonest. And you somehow manage to ignore the full breadth of the FOI released CFAC document that goes well beyond "classification". As for your question, I suggest you ask Stephen Harper... it was he who distanced his government from that CFAC document... from the CFAC proposals... stating, "that document does not represent the government’s position".

again, I'm done with you... uhhh... well...

Argus · October 7, 2015

I trust prior examples of weasel word tactics will not rule here... did not realize that was the single sole domain of the CFAC? A reply like that is wholly disingenuous!

I'm still waiting, Waldo. As the ultimate party man surely you can explain to me how these measures are going to reduce gun crime.

Derek 2.0 · October 7, 2015

even though I said I was done with you ... I clearly made the mistake of taking you at your stated words, "firearms classification policy". You point to my link that speaks to "firearms control measures" as being equivalent to your verbiage, "firearms classification policy". How intellectually dishonest. And you somehow manage to ignore the full breadth of the FOI released CFAC document that goes well beyond "classification". As for your question, I suggest you ask Stephen Harper... it was he who distanced his government from that CFAC document... from the CFAC proposals... stating, "that document does not represent the government’s position".

again, I'm done with you... uhhh... well...

Not dishonest at all. Your linked to document included several recommendations put forth that have since been either adopted (Changes to the former POL license class, inclusion of the ATT into the RPAL, gun show regulations, easing penalties on lapsed licenses and to strengthen the list of those persons with lifetime firearms bans etc.) with legislation already adopted (namely C-42).

Thusly only leaving CFAC’s several recommendations on firearms classifications on the proverbial table as its intended purpose. Furthermore, to its recommendation of a technical advisory committee (the would classify new and existing firearms based on technical information, obtained from industry and confirmed or denied by the RCMP firearms lab), I offered my own opinion, in that the entire process should now be handled by Industry Canada and the RCMP.

So, since the demise of the LGR and the recommendations implemented (in your link) by legislation, only firearms classifications remains as to the purview of CFAC………unless you can put forward what other subject it might be currently advising the Government on?????

bush_cheney2004 · October 7, 2015

I'm still waiting, Waldo. As the ultimate party man surely you can explain to me how these measures are going to reduce gun crime.

I'm sure another liberal gun control study is readily available....from the USA. Blow that whistle !

Derek 2.0 · October 7, 2015

I'm still waiting, Waldo. As the ultimate party man surely you can explain to me how these measures are going to reduce gun crime.

He can't, the only policy (that wasn't mentioned) is the proposed increase in funds to guns and gangs police task forces across the country aimed at reducing gang violence and the current black market for guns.......of that, I'm not opposed and feel is common sense.

Edited October 7, 2015 by Derek 2.0

waldo · October 7, 2015

I'm sure another liberal gun control study is readily available....from the USA. Blow that whistle !

already made that reference... good to know you're on the job! Ever diligent... ever ensuring no reference to a U.S. source squeezes through your strident overseeing measures!

waldo · October 7, 2015

………unless you can put forward what other subject it might be currently advising the Government on?????

your own goal had you improperly equating "classification" with "control". Your statements are simply your interpretation... unsubstantiated. If you feel so confident in stating the mandate of the CFAC, why not link to something from the CFAC (or Public Safety Canada) that speaks directly to its mandate. If you had any integrity in this issue you would not presume to suggest that this CFAC document (as provided previously) is strictly "firearms classification" related.

.

waldo · October 7, 2015

I have no interest in getting sucked into another long drawn out discussion with pro-gunners who refuse to accept cited study analysis or the results of, for example, cited U.S. gun-control advocacy groups analysis that draws 'degrees of association' between U.S. states with stronger gun laws and lower gun related deaths.

What the hell are you talking about? I'm not asking for studies on whether gun control reduces murder or whatnot. I'm specifically asking on whether the things he's mentioned have any chance of reducing gun crime.

I'm still waiting, Waldo. As the ultimate party man surely you can explain to me how these measures are going to reduce gun crime.

did not realize you didn't consider gun related violence and gun related deaths as... gun crime. Or that studies/analysis correlating stronger gun laws with lower gun related violence/death didn't factor as an explanation towards reducing... gun crime.

.

Derek 2.0 · October 7, 2015

your own goal had you improperly equating "classification" with "control". Your statements are simply your interpretation... unsubstantiated. If you feel so confident in stating the mandate of the CFAC, why not link to something from the CFAC (or Public Safety Canada) that speaks directly to its mandate. If you had any integrity in this issue you would not presume to suggest that this CFAC document (as provided previously) is strictly "firearms classification" related.

.

Waldo, integrity is not an issue, you’re speaking to a dated document putting forth recommendations that are already law, absent it recommendations entailing reclassifications of firearms……….If you feel said group is looking at other proposals, absent its intended reclassifications, by all means, put them forward (I’d be very interested).

Absent your forth coming declarations of CFAC’s hidden agenda, what would Women’s groups and mental health organizations have to offer on its remaining (as you cited) agenda on firearms classifications?

Likewise, I still await your explanation as to how new firearms entering Canada being required to have “CA” stamped on their receiver, to comply with the UN small arms treaty, will benefit Canadian law enforcement investigations? What do the initials “CA” offer to law enforcement over and above already engraved serial numbers, make, model, country of origin (and in most cases, State/City/Factory of manufacture) and calibre of the firearm?

waldo · October 7, 2015

Waldo, integrity is not an issue [waldo: says you, the guy trying to draw an equivalency between "classification" and "control"]

you’re speaking to a dated document putting forth recommendations that are already law, absent it recommendations entailing reclassifications of firearms……….If you feel said group is looking at other proposals, absent its intended reclassifications, by all means, put them forward (I’d be very interested). [waldo: huh! 2012 datedness? The document is dated 2012... but, as I said, it was only released, relatively recently, following an Access to Information request. Is this your way of deflecting from my request asking you to link to something from the CFAC (or Public Safety Canada) that speaks directly to CFAC's mandate?]

.

Absent your forth coming declarations of CFAC’s hidden agenda, what would Women’s groups and mental health organizations have to offer on its remaining (as you cited) agenda on firearms classifications?

good on ya! You're not at all off the mark with your suggestion of a hidden agenda! Lot's of raised concerns about the makeup of the committee... enough legitimate criticism to have forced former Harper Conservative Minister of Public Safety, Vic Toews, to remove 3 'gun enthusiasts' and replace them with police officers... for Harper to distance himself from policy related recommendations put forth by CFAC. And yes... per that linked document I put forward... there are policy recommendations there... going well beyond your unsubstantiated claim that CFAC is simply "firearms classification" focused.

according to the Canadian Public Health Association (CPHA) document I linked to previously, the CPHA states, "The {CFAC } committee, established in 2006, advises the Minister of Public Safety on ways and means to “improve efficiency and effectiveness of gun control laws and regulations, eliminate waste in the current system and eliminate rules and regulations that fail to enhance public safety.”" You know... more than just your repeated unsubstantiated claims that the mandate of the CFAC is simply "firearms classification".

.

Likewise, I still await your explanation as to how new firearms entering Canada being required to have “CA” stamped on their receiver, to comply with the UN small arms treaty, will benefit Canadian law enforcement investigations? What do the initials “CA” offer to law enforcement over and above already engraved serial numbers, make, model, country of origin (and in most cases, State/City/Factory of manufacture) and calibre of the firearm?

likewise I await our explanation of why Harper Conservatives refused... and continue to refuse... signing the UN Small Arms Treaty. Why would all NATO nations other than Canada sign it? In any case:

- marking measures would help Canada meet the requirements of the United Nations Firearms Protocol and a convention of the Organization of American States.

- per a Canada Public Safety notice, there is support among police for the marking scheme to expedite investigations into gun crimes and detect firearms trafficking, smuggling and stockpiling. The import markings can also help law enforcement determine whether to focus on a smuggling operation.

- per the Coalition for Gun Control, marking is an essential tool for enforcement, helping states in their efforts to trace weapon flows and preventing the diversion of legal guns to the illegal market.

and, per the related Canada Public Safety notice, the {latest marking implementation} delay until mid-2017, could allow the government to seek the views of industry, police, victims' groups and the international tracing centres of Interpol and the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. "During the deferral period, a marking scheme could be determined that will enable law enforcement to trace crime guns and permit Canada to assist international investigations, without imposing unnecessary burdens on firearms businesses."

.

Derek 2.0 · October 7, 2015

.

good on ya! You're not at all off the mark with your suggestion of a hidden agenda! Lot's of raised concerns about the makeup of the committee... enough legitimate criticism to have forced former Harper Conservative Minister of Public Safety, Vic Toews, to remove 3 'gun enthusiasts' and replace them with police officers... for Harper to distance himself from policy related recommendations put forth by CFAC. And yes... per that linked document I put forward... there are policy recommendations there... going well beyond your unsubstantiated claim that CFAC is simply "firearms classification" focused.

I already linked to the Harper Governments addition of police officers to CFAC.

according to the Canadian Public Health Association (CPHA) document I linked to previously, the CPHA states, "The {CFAC } committee, established in 2006, advises the Minister of Public Safety on ways and means to “improve efficiency and effectiveness of gun control laws and regulations, eliminate waste in the current system and eliminate rules and regulations that fail to enhance public safety.”" You know... more than just your repeated unsubstantiated claims that the mandate of the CFAC is simply "firearms classification".

Again dated sources, as such "ways and means" have already been made law through changes to the Firearms Act, absent CFAC recommendations on current firearms classifications.

likewise I await our explanation of why Harper Conservatives refused... and continue to refuse... signing the UN Small Arms Treaty. Why would all NATO nations other than Canada sign it? In any case:

I already provided you with an answer.

- marking measures would help Canada meet the requirements of the United Nations Firearms Protocol and a convention of the Organization of American States.

- per a Canada Public Safety notice, there is support among police for the marking scheme to expedite investigations into gun crimes and detect firearms trafficking, smuggling and stockpiling. The import markings can also help law enforcement determine whether to focus on a smuggling operation.

- per the Coalition for Gun Control, marking is an essential tool for enforcement, helping states in their efforts to trace weapon flows and preventing the diversion of legal guns to the illegal market.

So marking a "CA" on firearms will do all that? :lol:

and, per the related Canada Public Safety notice, the {latest marking implementation} delay until mid-2017, could allow the government to seek the views of industry, police, victims' groups and the international tracing centres of Interpol and the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. "During the deferral period, a marking scheme could be determined that will enable law enforcement to trace crime guns and permit Canada to assist international investigations, without imposing unnecessary burdens on firearms businesses."

Again, how does "CA" stamped on newly imported firearms:

enable law enforcement to trace crime guns and permit Canada to assist international investigations, without imposing unnecessary burdens on firearms businesses

What you’re failing to mention is the actual intent of the end user specific country markings, which is to help identify the source countries of firearms that are later found in conflict zones, in a bid to determine to whom is providing arms to who. Perhaps a lofty goal for small arms source countries (USA, China, Russia, Israel, Germany etc.) to have their wares identified, for many of the World’s ongoing and future conflicts are fought with arms produced in these nations. Likewise, in the past, many of said nations have manufactured “ghost guns” (guns without State arsenal marks) and provided said arms to varying combatants through convoluted, cloak & dagger schemes to avoid National embarrassment, well still attempting to accomplish one’s own political goals and interests.

Inversely, Canada has but one relatively small domestic firearms manufacturer (Colt Canada) that supplies the Canadian Forces, RCMP and other policing agencies in Canada, and as of late, small numbers of (extremely expensive) firearms for the domestic civilian market. Absent several small orders of Canadian produced firearms for several NATO allies special forces services (several decades ago), no Canadian manufacturer has mass produced firearms for export since the Second World War. Likewise, since the 1970s, the Government of Canada doesn’t release Government surplus arms for sale, instead said firearms go to the smelter……..As such, Canada isn’t providing small arms (or even ammo) to the World’s conflict zones.

This returns us to the useless (and costly) requirement to stamp firearms imported into Canada. Since said firearms are either earmarked for the GoC (and it doesn’t pass along said firearms when they become surplus) or the civilian market, the UN’s intent isn’t applicable. Hence, unless someone is to suggest retailers like Canadian Tire or Wholesale Sports are playing third party to Third World Dictators or Terrorists groups by importing arms from around the World, and then, passing them along at wholesale prices, it is a solution looking for a problem for Canada.

As stated “CA” stamped on a new imported firearm to Canada won’t help law enforcement any more than already existing serial numbers/manufacturer details/calibers etc that are already stamped during production, followed by said firearm being treated for corrosion. As such, the requirement is a useless burden, that won’t address crime or overseas conflicts, and only cost Canadian retailers, and in turn, gun owners, money.

Bryan · October 8, 2015

It's not technically a dog whistle, but it still falls into the same category: saying something that is not quite what those listening to the words will think you meant. It's to court people farther left who want to think that he said "ban all guns". It's not dissimilar to the conversation we had earlier regarding legalizing vs decriminalizing marijuana.

cybercoma · October 8, 2015

Some of these are very good ideas. I question why "women's groups"

Because a number of these women's groups were formed after the Ecole Polytechnique massacre in Montreal. They're the only ones consistently doing a lot of work on domestic violence and homicide research.

Smallc · October 8, 2015

Because a number of these women's groups were formed after the Ecole Polytechnique massacre in Montreal. They're the only ones consistently doing a lot of work on domestic violence and homicide research.

I question how that qualifies them on this issue.