Jump to content

A Proposal for Firearms Legislation in Canada


Recommended Posts

If you were to take the " law " for human rights off of the books, does that mean you would have no human rights? No, it does not. The original Declaration of Human Rights is a recognition of rights people already had, not legislation giving them those rights.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Since our government has secretly signed us away to become one with USA and Mexico under NAU then you better well have multiple arms.

All you need to watch is this to tell you why

who your real enemy is

wrong thread. Aluminium smelting is 4 doors to your left.

Oh....and spam somewhere else.....

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If anyone honestly buys the well armed people are a deterrent to government corrupt argument (it's not just the conspiracy theorists that argue this), I've really got to question how far out of the 1700's they've come.

Civilized people don't settle disputes with violence. It's the greatness of democracy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What a strange position for a lawyer to take.

As I have noted, the gun used at Dawson College was perfectly legal and properly registered. Given that fact, the public is saying that they want stronger restrictions on guns and stronger enforcement of the laws. These tragic events in Virginia have brought this issue to the forefront and the next shooting will do the same. Opinions are hardening.

In political terms - and this issue will be decided through politics - there is a distinct possibility that guns and the environment will not only deny the Tories a majority but will put Harper back into Stornoway. Then, PM Dion will pass even stricter gun controls and you counsellor will risk being disbarred because of a criminal record. At this point, you can complain all you want but I suspect you will give up your gun collection rather than your livelihood.

Will stricter gun laws and stricter enforcement reduce gun crimes? Yes, marginally but at what cost? I'd venture to argue (as you no doubt would too) that the costs will be greater than the benefits or IOW, we could achieve the same level of security at lower cost to society. But that's irrelevant in politics.

I would guess that about 80% of the population does not have a gun and sees no reason anyone should have one. They are about to impose the majority will on the minority. Nothing in the Charter of Rights protects anyone's right to have a gun.

----

As to your plea bargain argument, you should know better. Imagine if the gun legislation did not exist. What would the Crown have to negotiate then? Every count puts another card in the Crown's hand, to be played as the Crown sees fit.

If I'm not in error, it is the Tories that wanted to bolster penalties for crimes committed using guns. But the Tories have so badly bungled this gun file that this fact has now been lost in the shuffle.

I'm not sure what about my being a lawyer makes the position I took strange...

The argument I am making is one designed to simply try and educate the masses of fools who will be swayed by politicians looking to make points with meaningless notions of "tougher gun laws". I fully understand what you are saying about the political element of this issue.

As for the plea bargain argument, I can give an example to again try and educate the masses about why "tougher gun laws" will have absolutely no effect. I just resolved a file by a plea bargain where a client was charged with 13 Criminal Code firearms offences. The client had no license and no registration certificates for several handguns and long rifles, and also had a crossbow, tazer, mace, nunchukas, and knives in his home in urban Calgary. One of the rifles was loaded, none of the firearms was trigger-locked or otherwise safely stored and he had a pile of ammunition, some of which was even found in the front seat of his car (and Note, for those who don't know, the tazer, the mace, and one of the handguns were prohibited weapons...i.e. cannot lawfully be owned in Canada AT ALL...the other handguns, and one of the rifles and the crossbow were restricted weapons).

The weapons were discovered via search warrant after the same client was charged in a domestic scenario for having assaulted his adult daughter and threatened to harm her (editorial note...these charges were very weak and even suspect whether the daughter had manufactured the situation which is why the deal that was given for them).

The client had a criminal record, but nothing of a violent nature (all property related crime).

At the end of the day, without much wrangling, the Crown offered to drop the assault and threat charges and have the client sign a peace bond. Further, the Crown offered to reduce the 13 firearms counts to 4 and, in particular, dropped the charge for possession of a loaded firearm which carries a mandatory 1 year jail sentence.

The final damage to the client was $2,000.00 in fines (+15% Victim surcharge) and a 1 year weapons prohibition (oh, and the Crown keeps the illegal weapons).

Now, sure...some will blame me for this outcome. BUT, the fact is this is what the Crown offered in exchange for not having to suffer the burden of proving its case against my client in a trial.

My point is this...if the mandatory minimum sentence for illegal possession of a loaded firearm is raised to 100 years in jail, it doesn't matter when the charge gets dropped. Further, it doesn't matter if legal gun ownership is made more difficult than it currently is...this guy completely and utterly ignored the entire set of firearms ownership laws (and other weapons) even when Alberta just recently ran an amnesty program to allow people to turn in illegal weapons without fear of punishment.

And, to restate the obvious, this guy had no problem whatsoever getting his hands on a literal stockpile of illegal weapons.

So, it worked out great for my client, but one must ask...WHY when you have needed to have a gun license since 1977 to own ANY firearm lawfully in Canada would the Crown not take a zero tolerance approach to a guy like this who is showing complete contempt for the law? And until the Crown as directed by the Attorney General as directed by the PM decides to actually prosecute offenders with anything more than impotence, I will continue to state that additional gun legislation is MEANINGLESS.

FTA

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

BUT, the fact is this is what the Crown offered in exchange for not having to suffer the burden of proving its case against my client in a trial.

My point is this...if the mandatory minimum sentence for illegal possession of a loaded firearm is raised to 100 years in jail, it doesn't matter when the charge gets dropped.

I do not follow your logic.

If the Crown could easily prove the weapons charges, they could easily send him to jail for a minimum of 100 years -- something they can NOT do now -- without having to even consider the assault charges. No?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, it worked out great for my client, but one must ask...WHY when you have needed to have a gun license since 1977 to own ANY firearm lawfully in Canada would the Crown not take a zero tolerance approach to a guy like this who is showing complete contempt for the law?

Because a great number of people in Canada ignore the law, me included. I don't have contempt for the law, I simply treat that particular law as I would treat a fly...a minor annoyance, but largely irrelevant to me. I insist upon the right to bear arms, and I would no more register those arms than I would register my baseball bat or WW I German bayonet. That doesn't mean I disrespect all laws or in a larger sense the social contract, it's just that neither I nor a huge segment of the population is going to abide by this one. The crown simply can't put all of us in jail, so why should it try?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Go ahead, propose whatever you like for citizens who own guns., and I'll ignore it if it makes no sense.

I have no intention now or ever of registering myself or any guns I may own, whch consists of long guns and shotguns.. They are my private properrty, and are stored securely as I would store any device or substance that is potentially dangerous. I keep gasoline, propane and chemicals in a shed where they are unlikely to harm my family or others. I keep sharp objects out of the reach of toddlers. Guns are stored where it will take some considerable effort and determination to find or steal them. They will not be used for any crime, or to threaten or harm any individual.

Because they are my private property, I do not need to justify my ownership to anybody , for any reason.

I know numerous other people in the same situation, that are simply choosing to ignore the whole thing. I know one person who buys ammunition for all her hunting friends, about 25 of them. She isn't the only one by any means.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Should all guns be abolished? NO.

Should handguns be abolished? I think we need to think about it. The best way I have heard this described is as follows. "Rifles and shotguns are used to kill food and protect livestock. The only use for a handgun is to kill people." Not entirely accurate and most certainly dated but it brings up a valid point. What is the need for handguns? Other than police and military who really needs a handgun? Sure they maybe fun to fire at the shooting range and look cool in a nice display but they really only have one purpose and that is to shoot people. Call it self defense or protection of property if you want but the bottom line is if you buy a handgun you aren't planning on takng a shot at the wolves chasing the yearlings in the back 40. You plan on shooting whoever it is that is breakng into your house or stealing your car.

Should the long gun registry be discontinued? Well the police forces across the country use it thousands of times a day and they seem to like it. If the people charged with protecting the public feel it is a worthy tool then who am I to argue. They are the ones putting their life on the line for my safety, and if they want to keep it then as far as I'm concerned it should stay.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I insist upon the right to bear arms

The right? Gun ownership should be considered and treated as a privilege same as a driver's license. We have no "right" to drive; we must earn a license, and yes our driving is licensed. Why, when a guns only purpose is for killing should it be considered more of a right than other things we use daily in our society?

Guns don't kill people, people kill people

Stupid simpleton argument. Show me where guns kill without the people behind it. People can kill without guns but guns sure do make it easier.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The right? Gun ownership should be considered and treated as a privilege same as a driver's license. We have no "right" to drive;

Only on a public roadway. Anyone can drive on private property, just ask a farmer . But it is not a right either way(Licence to drive I mean)

Why, when a guns only purpose is for killing should it be considered more of a right than other things we use daily in our society?

I would think that Susan Natress might disagree. Guns are not just for killing.

Guns don't kill people, people kill people

Show me where guns kill without the people behind it. People can kill without guns but guns sure do make it easier.

Show you where guns kill w/o people behind it? I can't . Not even one case . So then .....?

People can kill using water, candy bars, lingerie , ................

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 years later...
  • 11 years later...

I'm not American and I happen to believe that the 2nd Amendment should be repealed:

"Where do you draw the line? An RPG? Tactical nuclear weapon? Be the first kid on your street to be the last kid on your street."

 

But for the US, given its 2nd Amendment, I would at least have a federal law restricting private individuals wearing body armor in public.

There is no reason that a "well-ordered militia" needs to wear body-armour in public.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

that being said, for Canadian non-Restricted class purposes

ain't nothing wrong with the 12 gauge slide action shotgun

it's actually prohibited for infantry use by the Hague Convention

because it is too devastating to use against lawful combatants

and it's much more versatile than a rifle

you can hand load to the breach, any type of shell, magazine capacity is whatever you can carry in your pockets

you can go from less lethal bird shot, through 00 Buck, all the way up to slug

for tactical purposes, it's got enough range, you're not going to be engaging man sized targets beyond 100m

and you if you meet a bear, it will put him down as necessary, first shot 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/16/2022 at 2:12 AM, August1991 said:

 

But for the US, given its 2nd Amendment, I would at least have a federal law restricting private individuals wearing body armor in public.

There is no reason that a "well-ordered militia" needs to wear body-armour in public.

I said the same thing with girls wearing yoga pants in public, very distracting, and someone is going to get killed, walking into traffic, or getting caught by your wife....then there is a strained neck...and now some of the heavier women are wearing them, leaving very little to the imagination... and when it gets stretched it gets see through...God please save us 

Just wondering how many lives has body armor taken to date... more than spandex?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/17/2022 at 5:53 PM, Army Guy said:

I said the same thing with girls wearing yoga pants in public, very distracting, and someone is going to get killed, walking into traffic, or getting caught by your wife....then there is a strained neck...and now some of the heavier women are wearing them, leaving very little to the imagination... and when it gets stretched it gets see through...God please save us 

Just wondering how many lives has body armor taken to date... more than spandex?

 

Army Guy,

The question is about a Constitutional Amendment. An amendment specifically allowing the government the right to restrict whether a person can wear body armor in public. Let the Supreme Court define "body armor".

I think such an amendment to the US Constitution would pass now.

IF I were a Democrat, I would favor such a new version of the 2nd Amendment rather than this crazy nonsense of the 6 Jan show-trials.

====

There is a confusion about the meaning of "rights". The US Constitution correctly restricts the State and its various governments.

Civil Rights? These are private affairs. The federal US Civil Rights Act of 1964 is a peculiar aspect of US history. In time, it will be repealed.

 

Edited by August1991
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here you go:

Section 1. After one year from the ratification of this article, the wearing of body armor in public is hereby prohibited.

Section 2. The Congress and the several States shall have concurrent power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

Section 3. This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of the several States, as provided in the Constitution, within seven years from the date of the submission hereof to the States by the Congress.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/18/2022 at 9:43 PM, August1991 said:

Army Guy,

The question is about a Constitutional Amendment. An amendment specifically allowing the government the right to restrict whether a person can wear body armor in public. Let the Supreme Court define "body armor".

I think such an amendment to the US Constitution would pass now.

IF I were a Democrat, I would favor such a new version of the 2nd Amendment rather than this crazy nonsense of the 6 Jan show-trials.

====

There is a confusion about the meaning of "rights". The US Constitution correctly restricts the State and its various governments.

Civil Rights? These are private affairs. The federal US Civil Rights Act of 1964 is a peculiar aspect of US history. In time, it will be repealed.

 

not happening

no amendment to prevent wearing body armor would pass

that's not even an issue remotely on the radar for any side

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Yzermandius19 said:

no amendment to prevent wearing body armor would pass

that's not even an issue remotely on the radar for any side

Agreed that it's not on the radar. Strongly disagree about the passage of a Constitutional amendment concerning body armor.

=====

The US Constitution - a wonderful document.

Example? It states how to change it (Article V?). Then, it changes itself with 13(?) critical amendments!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, August1991 said:

Agreed that it's not on the radar. Strongly disagree about the passage of a Constitutional amendment concerning body armor.

=====

The US Constitution - a wonderful document.

Example? It states how to change it (Article V?). Then, it changes itself with 13(?) critical amendments!

there is no way 2/3rds of the states and 2/3rds of the Senate sign off on that

you can strongly disagree all you want but you're not gonna get a bunch of red states and GOP senators on board with that

and that's a requirement

the Democrats don't even want to push that either, no one wants to do that except you

it'll never get proposed, let alone get ratified

total non-starter, you have no case, your disagreement is based on your feelings being projected on Americans, not reality

Edited by Yzermandius19
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Yzermandius19 said:

there is no way 2/3rds of the states and 2/3rds of the Senate sign off on that

you can strongly disagree all you want but your not gonna get a bunch of red states and GOP senators on board with that

and that's a requirement

total non-starter

An Amendment restricting "conceal/carry"? That likely would not pass.

But an Amendment restricting "body armor in public"? I think that could pass.

I can even count the red states to push it over 34. 

=====

Incidentally, I would prefer a repeal of the 2nd Amendment. But what do I know about America.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, August1991 said:

An Amendment restricting "conceal/carry"? That likely would not pass.

But an Amendment restricting "body armor in public"? I think that could pass.

I can even count the red states to push it over 34. 

=====

Incidentally, I would prefer a repeal of the 2nd Amendment. But what do I know about America.  

that couldn't pass

you just say you think it could and offer no explanation

no red state would ratify, no swing states would ratify

it wouldn't even get a majority in the senate, let alone a super majority

Democrats don't even want that

what you think has no bearing on what Americans think

why would anyone want to even restrict body armor in public?

that makes no sense

it will never be a constitutional amendment and it's a stupid idea

Edited by Yzermandius19
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

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

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

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

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

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

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


  • Tell a friend

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

    • Total Members
      10,712
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    nyralucas
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • Jeary earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Venandi went up a rank
      Apprentice
    • Gaétan earned a badge
      Very Popular
    • Dictatords earned a badge
      First Post
    • babetteteets earned a badge
      One Year In
  • Recently Browsing

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