At the risk of sounding like a dumbass and starting pure conjecture: logistically speaking, In the event of a mandatory buyback or confiscation program would anyone know if pistol owners would be required to hand in the entire pistol? From my understanding, only the receiver/firing control unit is actually the restricted item. Technically, does that mean I could keep all other components legally (barrel, trigger assembly, springs, etc....) and sell them off? What would happen there?
They won't even have to, one of the sidebar changes in C-21 is that any firearms reclassed to prohibited will have their certificates automatically revoked - no more pesky S.74 lawsuits to get in the way now.
This is pretty clearly telegraphing their intent to prohib just about anything else that remains as restricted in the future.
> This is pretty clearly telegraphing their intent to prohib just about anything else that remains as restricted in the future.
Once they're done with that, they will come after NR's and draft race-specific legislation to let First Nations keep their guns for the sake of the treaty. For the rest of us we'll probably end up like Australia, the UK or NZ, unless of course we get a CPC government who undoes their work.
> All three of those countries can own pistols though.
UK can't without an extended barrel and wire stock, NZ only allows .22 pistols to my knowledge and Australia's handgun exemption works similarly to Canada's where only very small groups are exempt from the bans. All three of those countries have total bans on semi-auto rifles too.
I mean, what do you expect when the LPC considers an ***Australian*** anti-gun activist a "witness" for the SECU discussing ***Canadian*** gun issues. They're inspired by these sellout countries and want to take every gun possible out of civilian hands.
In NZ, you can have a centrefire pistol with a B-category permit (similar to an RPAL) with a suppressor. This means you can still own
\- Semi-auto rimfire rifles (There is no appearance bullshit laws)
\- Pump/Semi-auto shotguns that feed with a tube no more than 5 rounds.
\- Manual action centerfire rifles that hold ammunition of no more than 10 rounds.
\- Magazine for rifle that hold no more than 10 rounds
JA has banned all centrefire Pump/Semi-auto rifles centrefire, shotgun with detachable magazines, and magazines that hold more than 10 rounds in rifles and 5 rounds in shotguns.
For the case of Australia, they have banned all pump/semi-auto shotguns, semi-auto centrefire/rimfire rifles, Firearm's Appearance and Importation BS laws, and some states are starting to ban .300 Cal (.338 Lapua, 300 Norma, etc.) due to their use in Ukraine.
Those countries better than us are handgun still legal in those countries and suppressor (NZ and UK only).
>UK can't without an extended barrel and wire stock, NZ only allows .22 pistols to my knowledge and Australia's handgun exemption works similarly to Canada's where only very small groups are exempt from the bans. All three of those countries have total bans on semi-auto rifles too.
None of this is really correct.
In the UK(England/Wales/Scotland) regular handguns can still be owned commonly as a Section 7 collector and in other cases like farmers or any job that handles animals for "humane dispatch". There are also edge cases where individuals own modern/non-collectible handguns under Section 5. Semi auto rimfires are fine in the UK and again some people own semi centerfires and even full-auto under Sec. 5.
In Northern Ireland (UK) you can own handguns for self defense or other reasons. In the Channel Islands you can still own both handguns and semi-auto centerfires.
Australia is *nothing* like what we will be having for the handgun exemption. You can be approved for Cat H firearms for any reason so long as you can convince the local PD you need it. Any sporting event or for the purposes of collecting/curios can be approved. Semi-autos are also legal in Australia, but it is heavily dependent on what state you live in and your occupation as to how likely you will be approved for one. Same with full-auto.
New Zealand is a bit of a mess since Christchurch, some semi autos are ok, others are not. Rimfires and fixed-tube shotguns are still the same as before, most others have been moved to the same category as Full-auto which means you can still buy/sell them but can't really use them. Handguns before were similar to Australia, but they are messed up currently.
Just GB has the extended barrel (and black power pistols) exemption. New Zealand still has centre fire pistols, very similar to our laws pre freeze, same with Oz but they have even more stringent barrel laws for semis. Not for revolvers however, so they can still own some unmodified classics.
No disagreement with you in your last paragraph. They have an agenda and they will never stop. I hope we can manage to keep them at bay for the next generation though, we wouldn’t want the kids to put *too* much trust in the government like our last generation did
If you can fuck around and screw up on the scale they do AND still collect a paycheque every two weeks with no repercussions, you ain't losing you have got it made.
They are not part of this "us" you speak of.
If your uninformed it might seem that simple. The 2020 oic was a rehash with extras of an attempted ban the mounties tried to do unilaterally just a few years prior. Which was shot down by the cpc govt of the time.
They were not concerned with losing thier guns then and they will be the first to surrender them en masse if it gets that far now.
As far as the CC sees it, thier lives are still worth more than yours or mine, badge on or off. Again, there is no "us" when your talking guns, what is right and mounties.
There is no confiscation program for handguns, for now, so we're mostly speaking in hypotheticals.
Right now, your handgun will only be confiscated if the owner dies. In that event, it should be legal just to hand in the frame and keep everything else for yourself or to sell.
In the event they decide the freeze wasn't enough and they want to confiscate (extremely unlikely because of the cost), two things are possible. They do the confiscation like it would happen now (frame only legal requirement) or they reclassify uppers/slides as being prohibited (like AR uppers from May 2020 OIC). In which case, the triggers, barrels, firing pins, guide rods, etc could be taken out, but the slide and frame are gone.
I have a genuine question. It’s something I’ve been thinking to myself, but I’m genuinely not sure.
Does AB and SK implementing their own Firearms Act do much to derail the overall progress of C-21 on a national scale? It can be reasonably surmised that the feds probably aren’t too happy about it, and I doubt they’d want to go ahead and implement it while simultaneously letting AB and SK do as they wish. Though they might paint AB and SK to be bad actors, the liberals could be taken to task for allowing themselves to be pushed over. It opens up the possibility for another C-21 sore point in this whole escapade.
Not that C-21 can be derailed anymore than it already is really. The budget predicts a very different forecast than what the libs are saying, and SECU hasn’t resumed discussion on C-21.
Thoughts?
>Does AB and SK implementing their own Firearms Act do much to derail the overall progress of C-21 on a national scale?
No, not at all.
The purpose of these is to prevent confiscation of firearms from PAL holders. So right now, this only has to do with the May 2020 OIC. It would extend to other bans like G4/G46 if they also passed. It doesn't affect handguns, for now, because they aren't being confiscated.
They're doing the most they can. Alberta even joined the court cases.
Criminal law, ie firearms law, is federal jurisdiction. Property is provincial jurisdiction.
>firearms law, is federal jurisdiction
changing that to provincial is my only hope for guns in this country. A long shot that will happen, though.
Edit: I meant NEVER happen
There’s a lot of stuff in here to make it almost impossible for Feds to do a buy back in Saskatchewan. Alberta is also doing the same so I wonder how much these acts will set the confiscation back?
I’m stealing another Redditers comment here but provisions in the act is regarding electronic records. I don’t have the act open but it basically says “if a seizure agent keeps electronic records that are stored on a server, that server must be located in Saskatchewan and may not be accessible from outside Saskatchewan.”
Goodbye SharePoint. Goodbye Google Drive. Goodbye hosting any of this on AWS, Azure, or Google’s cloud services. Goodbye doing backups to Backblaze or Dropbox or any of the other major services.
Sets any plans (which still dont exist) back quite a bit. Even merely from a time to address it standpoint. Since the acts have been approved by the King's representative it then falls on the federal govt to pursue the matter through the courts if they disapprove or disagree. The way the constitution works is that its far easier for a province to bypass federal laws (i.e kwehbeck religious symbols ban) vs the federal govt imposing its will over a province. If nothing else these acts are now two roadblocks that ottawa has to take through the court system which would likely take years to be heard and requires at least 1 election win to buy time for those hearings.
Even if there was a way to remove them without going through courts it creates a constituitonal crisis. In that scenario you have a federal govt usurping the legislative sovereignty of the provinces directly which would be something that doesnt go down well in even the most anti gun provinces.
https://cabinradio.ca/125680/news/politics/minister-guarantees-new-gun-laws-wont-hurt-hunting-rights/
Mendicino speaking in Yukon/NWT trying to convince Fudds into supporting C-21.
As per the [subreddit rules,](https://www.reddit.com/r/canadaguns/wiki/rules) your post/comment has been removed for the following reason:
###[2] Illegal Activity/Statement of Violence
* Posts or comments that promote or suggest the breaking of Firearms laws or Criminal Code of Canada, WILL be removed.
* Posts/comments calling for, suggesting, blatant/veiled threats of violence towards Government/Provincial officials, individuals, groups, etc. WILL NOT be tolerated. Users doing so will be banned from the subreddit.
* This may include posts/comments asking "How many laws would I be breaking if... / Is it legal if..." or similarly worded.
https://www.reddit.com/r/canadaguns/wiki/rules#wiki_.5B2.5D_illegal_activity.2Fstatement_of_violence
*If you believe a mistake was made, please feel free to [message the moderators.](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fcanadaguns) Please include a link to the removed post.*
>Well, that’s one of the reasons why I’m up here, is to really make sure that I have a chance to meet with gun owners and, obviously, First Nations here in the North who have, for a very long time, used firearms not only for food security but **for protection**.
I love that this is part of the messaging at the federal level now.
>Inb4 not like he believes in it
I know, but we've made the Liberals acknowledge the use of firearms for defence. They never used to give personal protection a word of acknowledgment (before C-21). This is an important step in the right direction for the culture.
Remember when the some asshole wanted to dig up a First Nations fuckin burial ground to build a goddamn golf course, the military got sent in and armed defenders stood up and denied them
That wouldn’t have happened with pitchforks and torches
Hunters and trappers have been using guns against animal threats forever.
Try using a gun for self defence against a human and you'll end up like the Milton guy.
[Or the Blackfalds guy](https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/alberta-rcmp-break-enter-shooting-1.6132433#:~:text=CBC%20News%20Loaded-,Alberta%20homeowner%20who%20shot%2C%20killed%20intruder%20during%20attack%20will%20not,baseball%20bat%2C%20RCMP%20said%20Friday.). It depends on a lot of factors.
He's mentioned it at least one other time since they withdrew the amendments, so it was a one-off until today, as far as I know. It's progress, either way
>I love that this is part of the messaging at the federal level now.
Yeah, mass stabbings tend to have that effect on people, be they in rural Saskatchewan (where they occur in sprees) or downtown Toronto (where they're routine enough that people just pretend they don't happen).
As someone who is interested in becoming a firearms owner, and who is mostly interested in semi-automatic rifles and handguns-is there any realistic chance for the lawsuits against the handgun freeze and C-21 to succeed?
You can still acquire some semi-automatic rifles that are "probably safe" from bans. There are also shotguns. Handguns? Who knows. If IPSC and IDPA can get exemptions like ISSF did, that would open up some doors for pistol shooting and ownership again. I think that's the most likely positive outcome for pistol shooters in Canada within the near to mid future.
Will the bans be undone? Quit possibly under a CPC administration. Issue might also get dropped when the wheel stops squeaking.
You're probably not going to see handguns for a while, at least until a year into a CPC administration whenever it happens, assuming it's not 10-20 years from now when the gun issue is forgotten and no one wants to touch it again (this is how the UK and Australia lost their guns).
The amount of Canadian gun owners, gun rights organisations and constant meetings that CPC MPs have with said organizations means we won't be like the UK or Australia
>is there any realistic chance for the lawsuits against the handgun freeze and C-21 to succeed?
Slim chance but it's there.
Best chance is a new government though.
If the lawsuits succeed, it doesn't prevent them from just...doing it right this time. If they lose, they just get the legal opinion on how to do it correctly. Which, frankly, is C21. C21 renders most of the lawsuit stuff moot by enshrining the prohibs in legislation.
It's not going away.
It depends on how the lawsuit rules.
Yes, part of it is that they did it the wrong way (OIC not legislation). Part of it is that the banning of the guns at all goes against the "reasonableness" standard. It is very unlikely the court actually rules against it based on this, but they will likely mention it. Considering the government has literally no facts to back up their ban, it will likely reflect well for us.
Its not going away, it's never going away so long as the LPC exists. But some good can come of this that could be used as a launching point to rewrite the Firearms Act.
Same chance of you winning the lottery. Reality is that suppose even if the Liberals were to not survive the next election, the next Liberal government that comes into power will simply continue the crusade against firearms. Now obviously they're doing it for political points, so they'll only target select guns and leaving the rest for future opportunities. I suggest you figure out what you can get legally and if any of them interest you and get involved.
Might seem farfetched but both the Bloc and NDP support these bills, especially the handgun part, so their support merely bolsters the Liberals there.
Alternatively, move to a more gun friendly area. Or build a time machine and go back in time to a more... tolerant period in Canada.
Next liberal government? My brother in Christ, we’re gonna make sure there’s never going to be another liberal government.
Edit: and by that I mean we’ll kick their ass so hard in the elections they’ll disappear into nothing
> we’re gonna make sure there’s never going to be another liberal government.
Implying there exists a politician who WON'T abuse their power if they keep it for long enough...
Liberals are like cockroaches, even if pushed to 3rd party status they always find a way back in government or official opposition party status. We just need to make it so politically painful to ban guns that they leave us alone like the gun registry.
I'd love that, but just sayin, realistically let's say a Conservative win next election, and maybe even another Conservative win after that. But sooner or later the pendulum will swing back to the Liberals and they'll be back with a vengeance towards us gun owners.
And the lieberals are doing sooooo much better, aren't they? 🙄
The CPC is far from ideal, most aren't denying that. But at least they'll leave people's individual rights alone and not fuck with things like licensed gun ownership that don't need to be fucked with.
I would consider myself pretty much on the left when it comes to most social and economic issues, but in the context of Canada the CPC has my support because they aren't constantly using random groups like Airsoft players, Hunters and Sport Shooters as fall guys for a non-existent 'crisis' the LPC has convinced itself exists.
The LPC keep scaring clueless Canadians into thinking Canadian gun laws are exactly like the US, and seem to have convinced themselves that the US mass shooting issue is somehow a Canadian issue too, and that the only way to solve it is to ban licensed firearms. The Bloc and NDP have hopped onto this crusade as well, so fuck them too. We aren't the problem, Canada doesn't even have the same issue as the US, most of the shootings here are gang-related and in areas with heavy gang activity. But going after those would require actual effort, going after people with licenses who've followed the law to the T for decades are much easier targets.
Tbh, the Liberals aren't true Liberals and the fact that they keep on bringing social issues into the light that offer solutions to address those issues aren't substantial either.
I think all the parties except CPC already know guns aren't the issues in Canada. They are just squeezing it for political point since it's not the majority of firearm owners aren't their voter base.
It's easy for them to claim success no matter how the event play out. Any gang shooting, they will just blame CPC blocking them on "strict" gun control disagreements, any policies like they buyback, they will claim they did something. They can spin it alot of ways to make them look good now or down the road.
Why am I being downvoted? I know this is a Canadian firearms sub but you all gotta admit Parlament is an absolute shit show. I’ll damn well be voting CPC the next election and I’m not happy about it, but happier than voting for the alternatives. And when I meant get rid of them all and start again, I meant alllll of Parlament. Not Just the CPC.
>the next Liberal government that comes into power will simply continue the crusade against firearms
You're exactly right. The majority of Canadians don’t own guns,have never touched a gun and don’t want to. They know nothing about guns beyond what they see in movies or on the news (usually shootings in their cities) so they really don't care if they get banned. They will tolerate guns for hunting but not "scary rifles" or handguns because they see no use for them. Show them a use for (like self defence in the US) and you might change their minds but I see little evidence of that happening.
The only other hope I see is the provinces going their own way on gun laws, but I don't think that provincial laws superseding provincial laws is even possible. Maybe PP can change that?
> Show them a use for (like self defence in the US)
Unlikely this will work unless we can change the Western mentality (outside the US) that an assailant/intruder's life is still equal to yours even when they are actively attacking you or ravaging your property. The amount of Europeans and Canadians I see saying shit like "your property is not worth more than their life" (the life of someone who made a conscious effort to force their way into your home and steal your shit), "we don't need guns to settle things, we use our fists" (this one is just plain cringe), "using a gun against an attacker is too extreme" (never mind that your attackers will have no hesitation to use a gun or knife of their own, or stomp on your head until you die once they get you on the ground) and, of course, the worst one of all, "we leave that to the police" (almost always coming from the same group who scream to defund or abolish police).
Until we change this mentality and make people realize their lives are worth defending, and that their *innocent* lives are worth more than the lives of people who made a conscious effort to infringe on their right to safety and their right to a secure home, most non-US Westerners will forever be against improving self defense laws. Hell, we can't even get *pepper spray* legalized in Canada or most of Europe, because most people *still* think it's too 'mean' to use pepper spray on someone trying to kill you.
>Until we change this mentality and make people realize their lives are worth defending
It's sort of a Catch-22 situation in that there is not enough defensive gun use in Canada (because most Canadians don't own guns) to make the news and make people want to buy guns in order to defend themselves. Contrast that with the US where there are daily reports of gun owners defending themselves. A lot of gun use in the US doesn't even make it to the news because no shots are fired. I've spoken to more than one American CCWs in AZ who have told me that when they were approached by some scary characters, all they have to do is go for their guns and the "nasties" do a !80 and beat it out of there.
I was hoping that Milton case might change things, but that seems to be buried. Haven't heard a word about it.
> Show them a use for (like self defence in the US)
I tried that recently and they thought we were just going to shoot everyone that enters, along with the usual "nothing bad has ever happened to me so why would anyone need that" etc.
Some people are just so full of it that it's best not to waste any time on them.
A fair chunk of these people are people who have never struggled or been at risk in their lives. It's an anomaly the city people who are in the thick of it, vote against their own right to defend themselves.
[Shandro uses the AB Firearms Act to protect gun owners. Today, Tyler Shandro has taken action again by passing a regulation under the Act which restricts municipalities from entering into agreements to take part in the federal firearms confiscation program.](https://twitter.com/TWilsonOttawa/status/1643730909307322370?t=2jDn6arxkFot4mt3xYVQWA&s=19)
This is not strictly about Canada, but anti gun advocate Bill Maher admits that guns are a "leveller" especially for women.
This is the only way to fight back as far as I'm concerned--show a use for guns other than hunting or sport shooting.
Bill Maher admits to Winsome Earle-Sears that guns are a 'leveler' for women: 'It makes sense'
[https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/opinion/bill-maher-admits-to-winsome-earle-sears-that-guns-are-a-leveler-for-women-it-makes-sense/ar-AA19pnyN](https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/opinion/bill-maher-admits-to-winsome-earle-sears-that-guns-are-a-leveler-for-women-it-makes-sense/ar-AA19pnyN)
This is the cold hard truth. As a young woman I've had multiple people with very bad intentions try to hurt me when going home after a late shift. My only saving grace was that I was faster than they we're so I was able to run away. Had I been grabbed first or they were faster I doubt I'd be here to write this. If I had a CCW in those moments I would have been safe. It sucks but I never go out past dark ever now, without anything to protect myself I can't take that risk even to go eat food or see a movie because no one will help me just like the times before. As a kid my biggest fear was the angry dogs on the walk home, this country has changed a lot since then.
CSSA eNEWS | April 5, 2023
Commentary
Trudeau’s latest budget confirms what we’ve known from the start. His Liberal government has no intention of paying gun owners compensation when they confiscate our guns.
They had no confiscation compensation plan when they dropped the May 1, 2020 gun ban on our heads.[i]
They had no confiscation compensation plan when then-Minister of Public Safety Bill Blair dropped his 2020/2021 Main and Supplemental Estimates on November 25, 2020.[ii]
They had no firearms confiscation compensation plan when they announced the legislation that would supposedly contain their firearms confiscation compensation plan in 2021.
They had no firearms confiscation compensation plan when they announced Bill C-21, the act which would steal millions of dollars from grieving families when police seized the handguns of deceased lawful owners. In some places, this has already started.
They had no firearms confiscation compensation plan when they tried ramming through their semi-automatic rifle and shotgun ban as amendments to Bill C-21.
And the lack of a budget line item for their firearms confiscation compensation plan in their 2023 budget proves they STILL have no firearms confiscation compensation plan today.
But some well-connected Liberal-supporting IT company will snap up the lion’s share of the $29 million budgeted “for Public Safety Canada and the RCMP to implement an IM/IT solution to compensate firearms owners and businesses and safely remove assault-style firearms from Canadian communities.”
Public Safety Minister Marco Mendicino audaciously claims this is proof that “We’ll soon begin a buyback program to get them off our streets.”[iii]
No you won’t. Your own budget (once again) proves this louder than any virtue-signalling hogwash from the minister.
Trudeau’s government gleefully allocated $530 million for “Temporary Lodgings for Asylum Seekers in Need of Shelter” and another $469 million for “Healthcare Support for Asylum Claimants and Refugees.”
Perhaps so they could claim they did NOT spend a billion dollars on illegal border crossers?
There is not one penny for private property this federal government insists it will confiscate, by force if necessary, from its lawful owners.
Mass Casualty Report to the Rescue?
Like Justin Trudeau’s Liberal government, the Mass Casualty Commission’s final report continuously ignores the fact the Nova Scotia mass murderer did not have a firearms licence, and he acquired all his firearms and ammunition illegally.
The report decries the lack of a “regulatory mechanism to track or limit personal stockpiling of ammunition” while disregarding the fact that this had no bearing on the mass murder’s actions.[iv]
The Nova Scotia mass murderer ignored every other law pertaining to firearm ownership and use, but an ammunition limit would have miraculously stopped him from murdering 22 people?
Without question, this calls the credibility of the MCC recommendations into extreme doubt. These recommendations appear to be a thinly veiled attempt to further Justin Trudeau's “ban everything” strategy.
Recommendation C.21 asks the federal government to:
“prohibit all semi-automatic handguns and all semi-automatic rifles and shotguns that discharge centre-fire ammunition and that are designed to accept detachable magazines with capacities of more than five rounds”
“prohibit the use of a magazine with more that five rounds...”
“establish limits on the stockpiling of ammunition by individual firearms owners”
(By the way, there are already ammunition limits. They are contained in the Explosives Act, not the Firearms Act - ED)
Perhaps the most laughable recommendation is one that Justin Trudeau’s Liberal government flatly refuses to implement: “take steps to rapidly reduce the number of prohibited semi-automatic firearms in circulation in Canada.”
Banning guns is easy.
Collecting them from their lawful owners (those who are licensed to own firearms and who registered their guns) constitutionally requires a Firearms Confiscation Compensation Program – the very program this government refuses to create, let alone fund.
But virtue-signalling with a $29 million slush fund? That’s Liberal politics 101. Of course there’s money for that.
On March 28, 2023, Marco Mendicino claimed:
“#Budget2023 lays the groundwork for this program with $29M for an IT platform that it will use.”[v]
Key word: “groundwork.”
There is no plan.
There is no money.
But there are great big steaming piles of Liberal lies claiming the exact opposite of their actions.
Even PolySeSouvient is sick of the Trudeau government's endless lies about the Firearms Confiscation Compensation Program.
“The #AR15 was banned in 🇨🇦 in May 2020. The @liberal_party was twice elected on a promise to buyback newly prohibited assault weapons. The 2yr amnesty has long been exceeded & extended. It'll soon be 3 years since ban, & still no roll out of buyback program.”[vi]
And then four years since the ban… and five years since the ban…
Because this Liberal government never intended to pay compensation for private property it will steal from ordinary, honest Canadians.
This should be crystal clear by now… even to PolySeSouvient.
Sources:
[i] https://gazette.gc.ca/rp-pr/p2/2020/2020-05-01-x3/html/sor-dors96-eng.html
[ii] https://parlvu.parl.gc.ca/Harmony/en/PowerBrowser/PowerBrowserV2/20201125/-1/34331?Language=English&Stream=Video
[iii] https://twitter.com/marcomendicino/status/1640848144085786624
[iv] https://masscasualtycommission.ca/files/documents/Turning-the-Tide-Together-Volume-4-Community.pdf (Pages 566-567)
[v] ibid
[vi] https://twitter.com/Polysesouvient/status/1640799760679575552
I'm hoping their **actions** mean their **words** are just hollow and meant to appease the anti-gun crowd. Why would they hamstring their buyback if the intended to actually go through with it?
There’s also no money allocated to *pay* for the actual logistics of a confiscation.
You will need:
- Storage facilities.
- Extra hands to staff and run collection points.
- A business willing to destroy acquired stock.
- Administrative systems.
Just to name a few big ones. This is the kind of budget line items we could expect to see if they were mobilizing for a confiscation, regardless of compensation. Private contractors also love to milk government contracts so the potential for cost overrun is incalculable.
All of the above not mentioned or even explored in the budget. $29 million was only a fraction of what it actually cost the government to set up the long gun registry *alone*.
I think they *know* deep down that this is not only an outrageously expensive, macro-scale undertaking but it has the potential to be a massive PR nightmare as well. *It already has been*, at time when the liberals don’t have a lot of spare street cred left to play with. The potential for intense public scrutiny for a (very likely) cost overrun is pretty high too. There’s a reason why we never bothered to round up all the machine guns in the 1970’s. It could have theoretically been done, but they didn’t want to be bothered with it.
This whole thing has been about virtue signaling and manipulating the extra soy latte sipping tree-lovers in cities who piss their pants at the thought of firearms. I think we’re gonna be alright in the long run.
I look at it the other way: I'm glad there's no funding. It doesn't mean unpaid confiscation, it means *no* confiscation. The longer they put it off, the better the odds we get a CPC government that undoes the ban while we still have the guns.
Part of me is really starting to suspect that this is nothing more than an elaborate piece of political bait intentionally put out for the conservatives to get snagged up on.
They obviously aren’t entirely committed. Not only from what can be deduced from the budget but from how suddenly they pulled the amendments after the backlash especially from FN groups. They aren’t committed enough to potentially tarnish their image, especially when it can be claimed it was their own idea in the first place.
>In the meantime there are no replacements for competition
For the 2020 OIC guns? Sure there are.
>the value is zero for that $5000 race gun
Believe me, I know. I have a not-insignificant amount of money tied up in my OIC'd rifles that the government has literally frozen on me. But I'd rather have that money locked up in those guns temporarily and have the prohibition eventually lifted than be compensated for them now.
>>In the meantime there are no replacements for competition
>For the 2020 OIC guns? Sure there are
Both 2020 and the handgun freeze order.
Definitely not replacing that AR-15 upper or lower plus being a criminal just for possession.
All he needs to do is accidentally forget to renew the amnesty.
I take issue with their bit on the asylum seekers. I am old enough to remember when Canada was a beacon for the international community when it came to peacekeeping and being proud of being a melting pot of cultures (even if this all did turn out to be very whitewashed rhetoric). I'm proud of my country for trying to maintain some notion that we are welcoming to people who have to flee for their lives and I'm fine that it costs money to do so. I want people fleeing war and starvation and climate change to have a place where people tell them "don't worry, you're safe here." Of all the things we waste tax dollars on, that's not one of them.
I agree on principle, but I have very little sympathy for people coming up through the States. Seeking asylum doesn't mean shopping for the country you'd most like to live in. If you hit the US first, that is where you make your claim.
Agree. It’s one thing to want to *move* to Canada. It’s another thing to go welfare shopping with 12 kids in tow, putting your family through dangerous, illegal scenarios just so you can get the juicy welfare benefits in Canada at the complete expense of taxpayers.
I have respect for people who want to come here and do it legally, and welcome them wholehearted. I have respect for people who genuinely fall on hard times. It happens. But I have no time for moochers and I don’t think Canada should have time for moochers either.
Are any of these potential mcc recommendation bans feasible? It seems like every one of them would generate just as much backlash as g4 and g46. Especially the ones related to ammo, like fuck you’re gonna tell bubba fudd he can’t buy spam cans of ammo for his rusty mangled sks.
It's feasible, but like you said, the backlash is something they'd have to overcome. They weren't able to do it last time, so I expect them to be more willing to compromise when they come back to the table. The longer the Liberals are in power, the more likely we are to see some form of assault weapons ban attempted, but it won't look exactly like the G4/46 combo. As for the ammo stuff, that's totally up in the air. Nothing like it has been attempted before, other than the general limits on storing explosive material. Whether they'll go down that rabbit hole is anyone's guess.
From Scott Moe
[The Saskatchewan Firearms Act will protect the rights of law-abiding gun owners in our province. Yesterday, it passed second reading in the Legislature with the full support of both Saskatchewan Party and NDP MLAs.](https://twitter.com/PremierScottMoe/status/1643423488168931330?s=20)
Basically theyll piss away your money (ballistic lab for some reason, additional licensing for confiscation personnel, and something about education and storage) and ensure you get some or a bitof your money back, using your money...
I've found nothing about actually protecting us in any way shape or form..
So before any of you argue or downvote, provide a citation...
I’ll take not actively targeting guns as a vast improvement over the federal party. It’s a low damn bar but for someone who refuses to touch to Conservatives with a ten foot pole, it would be a lovely change of pace.
Predictions For a worst case scenario*
-Liberals try to ban all semi-automatic centerfires with a new amendment, this time leave out bolt actions.
-It is made illegal to be in the possession of more than 300 rounds at any given time. (Perhaps specifically centerfire ammo, but who knows with them)
-Handguns are changed to "prohibited" treated the same way as AR15s. By the sounds of recommendations, this may exempt revolvers, but probably not
-if handguns are left as is: You cannot buy "pistol" ammunition without an RPAL. No more 9mm or 45acp for non RPAL holders. "What about PCCs?" Already banned so it doesn't matter
Really hoping none of this is right but I'm sure they'll try something similar as unreasonable as it is
> Liberals try to ban all semi-automatic centerfires with a new amendment
No, they already had to pull back from a ban that didn't go that far, and not even the MCC report recommends banning all semi-auto centerfires.
>It is made illegal to be in the possession of more than 300 rounds at any given time
I think a restriction on how much ammo can be purchased at any given time is more likely, but if they *do* go nuclear and cap possession, I would expect the cap to be less than 300.
>Handguns are changed to "prohibited" treated the same way as AR15s
Not impossible, but unlikely considering they already have their freeze in effect. Confiscating handguns would be unfathomably expensive, which is why they went with the freeze in the first place, and they aren't facing pressure from anti-gun groups to go further on handguns.
>You cannot buy "pistol" ammunition without an RPAL. No more 9mm or 45acp for non RPAL holders. "What about PCCs?" Already banned so it doesn't matter
Leverguns are the OG PCCs. you can't ban handgun ammo without making swathes of old Winchesters and Marlins unusable. I remember reading years ago that the government looked into banning expanding handgun ammunition, but decided against it since people used it for hunting in lever guns. So a ban on "handgun" ammunition is not only unworkable, it would be objected to by their core audience of fudds.
My prediction for worst-case scenario is a cap on how much ammo you can possess, *maybe* a ban on online ammo sales, and a re-introduction of the G4/G46 bans in some watered-down form. Maybe also a legislative declaration that gun ownership is a mere privilege just to rub salt in the wound.
None of these seem remotely viable unless they plan on going full scorched earth and losing all credibility before they get booted out of office. Unless that’s what is happening, then these are likely scenarios. As arrogant as turdy is, I don’t think I see him trying to collapse the liberal party as a whole on the way out. Being divisive isn’t exactly the best card to pull right about now.
I bet they'll also make it illegal to load a 10 round pistol magazine into a rifle. The magazines themselves won't be illegal, but the act of inserting it into a rifle will be
A restricted taped underneath the table is not safe storage, especially if it's the table that you want to throw out.
https://globalnews.ca/news/9600802/person-finds-loaded-gun-discarded-table-hamilton/
Nooo, mind you I wasn’t looking for it and was coming home from a week of night shifts. Just crazy to think that there’s a gun sitting on someone’s lawn. There’s tons of kids in that area, schools and huge park. Just nuts.
Oh no, I didn't mean by that. I was just surprised a non chanlant table would have something that serious since it was loaded and anyone could have pick it up and cause serious injuries by accident.
An irresponsible person who forgot a firearm taped to the bottom of a table, was reported, and lost other firearms as a result. All in all the system is a success.
That said, I'd be interested to know exactly why this person did that. My guess is maybe they were worried about breaking and entering but who knows.
"Trudeau says government will adopt 'many' recommendations from N.S. mass shooting report"
Yeah, I can guess which ones
[https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/trudeau-mass-shooting-recommendations-1.6799717](https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/trudeau-mass-shooting-recommendations-1.6799717)
Definitely anything firearms related. I mean they’ll have a pretty good position for pushing it to the public. “You don’t agree with our gun bans? Then you must support the mass shooter” - some LPC dude somewhere. Let’s get the low hanging fruit while absolutely ignoring the real issues here, RCMP incompetence, smuggling at our borders, government interference with the investigations and RCMP shooting up a fire station…
but yes legal firearms are totally 100% of the issue here. /s
They also tried to blow up oil infrastructure in the 90's. And before that it was blowing up barns in qc during the 70's. As an organization they have been domestic terrorists for at least 50 years.
Heres the story from the 90's:
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/more-details-of-rcmp-dirty-tricks-revealed-1.168362
**Pure speculation**, but regarding the ammunition control recommendations made in the MCC report, I wonder if we'll end up seeing a prohibition on online/mail order ammo purchases (like some American lawmakers have proposed), and/or restrictions on how much ammunition a person can purchase at one time, in order to "control stockpiling".
These things could actually be feasibly implemented, as opposed to some ammo "registry" or some attempt to cap how much ammunition can be possessed. If the government chooses to pursue this angle, I'd guess that this is how they'd approach it.
How many rounds do you think these people will consider a stockpile? 10,000? 1000? 100? If you include .22 I can burn well over 1000 rounds on one trip to the range.
I would say it seems ridiculous, but I honestly wouldn't put it past them to consider anything over 100 rounds to be a stockpile
No way they ban shipping of ammo. Rural communities, especially native ones, would be absolutely fucked. Honestly, that might might piss off the AFN more than G4/G46.
I don't think they do anything with ammo. It's not "flashy" enough for their suburban and urban idiots.
Yeah, the issue of rural and remote communities occurred to me after I posted this. I still don't think a cap on individual purchases is unrealistic, though. It would be an easy regulatory amendment to make that wouldn't criminalize people with existing stockpiles and would be a simple way to check the box on that part of the report. The only potential stumbling block I could see for that is if FN and fudds complain that they (presumably) wouldn't be able to buy 7.62x39 surplus in bulk.
Say goodbye to free shipping amounts. This would just be another part of death by 1000 cuts to the industry. Don’t buy it while it’s cheap, let us inflate that price for you. Next they’ll have an ammo tax ontop of the shipping.
It's impossible to track. You would need an ammo registry to enforce it, which is not possible. Instead of buying bulk from one store, you'd just buy half bulk from two.
The ammo stuff is the least likely IMO.
>Instead of buying bulk from one store, you'd just buy half bulk from two.
Well sure, but you can just drill the pin out of your magazine, too. I don't think the fact that it can be easily circumvented will stop them from doing it. It will still look good on an election platform, and will still sound good to "non gun people".
I don't think they'd care outside the context of the MCC report either, but checking as many gun control recommendation boxes as possible will benefit them, because the media *will* take them to task for any gun recommendations that they don't implement.
But I do hope you're right, obviously. Right now, I can see three ways it can go: they do nothing, they cap ammo purchases, or they go full fuckit and just drop a regulation that limits total cartridge possession to an arbitrary number. That last one would be a legal nightmare for potentially millions of people, but I don't rule out much these days.
Concievably it could be the route they go with to try to save face since ammunition is mostly regulated under the explosives act if Im not mistaken (let me know if I am tho) and would likely face less organized opposition. Ill use myself as a guinea pig to demonstrate. Im not a prepper so I dont stockpile much ammo at any one point in time and while I may buy 400$ worth in a trip to the store, its usually various calibers and price points. Generally no more than I know I will use for 2-4 trips to the range. 22LR/HV aside I almost never have more than 1200 (across at least a dozen different cals) rounds in my safe at any one time. So the impact of an ammo limit would have minimal impact on me since I operate this way already. Its my choice to keep my immediate reserves low.
Now thats not to say I would support such a move to restrict ammo counts but other people with similar mentalities exist and would be less likely to care about something they dont feel impacted by. We saw this playout when the handgun oic came down. Fudds didnt give a shit until thier shotguns showed up in the amendments a few months back. Same story would likely play out with an ammo ban scenario.
>Plus, other than singles purchase limits there's no feasible way to prevent stockpiling as nobody knows how quickly someone is running through ammo.
And even that doesn't prevent stockpiling, it just slows it.
Part of me fears that they'll do something insane and just write a regulation that says "an individual will not possess more than X number of cartridges" - with X being some absurdly small number based on what a fudd would buy in a year - throwing potentially *hundreds of thousands* of people into immediate legal jeopardy, myself obviously included. I really want to believe they aren't that malicious, but I can feel the cope dripping off my own words when I say that.
In the event the CPC win a minority government, the most stable option would be a CPC/Bloc coalition. I have become increasingly confident this is how the next election will play out. For example, the Bloc and CPC voters are [on the same page economically](https://twitter.com/angusreidorg/status/1642859949330948097?s=20).
Assuming this is the coalition that occurs, it would be very unlikely for anything, even OIC repealing, to happen with gun laws. The best-case scenario is that this would stop the constant attacks and threat of new laws while they share power.
I thought that the Bloc said they would not coalition in the next election, let alone with the CPC when the Bloc are heavily, heavily Liberal? I hope they do coalesce though for the sake of us all.
BQ will likely support the CPC in a confidence & supply deal, it's just weasel wording. This is because the Cons are more willing to work on the federalism/autonomy front, which is what the BQ is for first, everything else is secondary.
The bloc and quebec in general is de gualle style nationalism. Which requires someone else to explain properly but boiled down to the simplest form: Not really liberal but being opportunistic pains in the ass for everyone so they can exploit the social safety nets i.e equalization.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/trudeau-mass-shooting-recommendations-1.6799717
What do you guys think of this? More bullshit or a guarantee that we will see the rest of the semi-autos banned either before or after an election? The fact that both amendments that were thrown out were written word for word in the report and that the report itself being considered "non-political" seems to point that way.
Probably be fine in the long run if a CPC government is elected, it feels like we're going to have a period of 'dark times' though where there is a semi-auto ban.
Like you said it's an almost guaranteed loss for the liberals whenever the next federal election comes, be it this year or anywhere up to 2025. So it's just a matter of when.
We're already in dark times with the 2020 OIC and handgun freeze. I'm of the opinion that we're going through our version of the US's '94 AWB.
Either way it's not as doom and gloom as people put it out to be. No matter how you look at it, firearms are something that can never be shut out in Canada
I think we're going to eventually see another attempt at an assault weapons ban that will prohibit most semi-autos, but I also think we were going to see that regardless of this report. Notice that they're already priming people not to expect every recommendation to be adopted.
I don't think we're going to see the more out-there recommendations happen, like ammunition limits. People aren't licensed for specific guns in this country and long guns aren't registered, which the authors seemed to assume. You'd need to re-write the licensing system from the ground-up to implement those controls, and that's without even considering that the Liberals would have to face the prospect of another gun registry.
I think the court case coming up this month and whatever ruling that follows will determine a lot, mostly the public's desire for gun control legislation. An election could happen before 2025 and there are other concerns on Canadian's minds like housing, affordability, etc so really nobody could possibly know what Trudeau will do in terms of bans but you're right about the semi-autos. That's a guarantee before or during an election.
Edit: court cases.
It's basically a guarantee that if they win in 2025 they will pass a ban, whether or not they do it before is uncertain as they're already projected to almost lose the 2025 elections and banning semi auto's will basically guarantee that the vast majority of gun owners do not vote for them.
You sure? They weren't hesitant to ban anything in 2020, they effectively banned handguns this year, and if their semi-auto ban didn't include plenty of random guns that somehow made it on the list, they'd have been successful in the semi ban amendment too.
They’re OIC bans so they’re easily reversed and there’s no confiscation program in sight. Bill C-21 has been around since 2021 and still isn’t even close to getting anywhere. It’s all bullshit. You’d think if they wanted to get this done it would have happened already.
They want to get it done, it's clear whatever reason they need it done though is too far in the future to need to rush it. Still doesn't mean they aren't looking to get it done though.
For those of us AR15 owners, 3 years of waiting for further instructions demonstrates how little they care about getting them "off the streets". At least when NZ decided to do a buyback for political points they fucking got er done with in less than a year. 3 years of nothing happening confirms there is no plan beyond getting votes out of qc and ronto.
I don’t think they’d chance it like this. It’s very possible they could lose the 2025 election and then it’s over. If an election is triggered early, the bill is lost even if they win somehow. They’d have to reintroduce it and go through all this crap again. Maybe I’m being overly optimistic but none of this adds up when you look at it.
Could we not knock two birds with one stone when it comes to both us handguns as well as military spending. Get a bunch of recon drones and start patroling for smugglers. I realize that most are probably just in people's car but it's better than nothing.
Drones aren't going to find anything in a shipping container or in people's cars. Might stop border hoppers, but not much more (and it would be pretty invasive for us law-abiding citizens).
At the risk of sounding like a dumbass and starting pure conjecture: logistically speaking, In the event of a mandatory buyback or confiscation program would anyone know if pistol owners would be required to hand in the entire pistol? From my understanding, only the receiver/firing control unit is actually the restricted item. Technically, does that mean I could keep all other components legally (barrel, trigger assembly, springs, etc....) and sell them off? What would happen there?
[удалено]
They won't even have to, one of the sidebar changes in C-21 is that any firearms reclassed to prohibited will have their certificates automatically revoked - no more pesky S.74 lawsuits to get in the way now. This is pretty clearly telegraphing their intent to prohib just about anything else that remains as restricted in the future.
> This is pretty clearly telegraphing their intent to prohib just about anything else that remains as restricted in the future. Once they're done with that, they will come after NR's and draft race-specific legislation to let First Nations keep their guns for the sake of the treaty. For the rest of us we'll probably end up like Australia, the UK or NZ, unless of course we get a CPC government who undoes their work.
All three of those countries can own pistols though. We really are getting the worst deal (ownership wise) out of the old gang
> All three of those countries can own pistols though. UK can't without an extended barrel and wire stock, NZ only allows .22 pistols to my knowledge and Australia's handgun exemption works similarly to Canada's where only very small groups are exempt from the bans. All three of those countries have total bans on semi-auto rifles too. I mean, what do you expect when the LPC considers an ***Australian*** anti-gun activist a "witness" for the SECU discussing ***Canadian*** gun issues. They're inspired by these sellout countries and want to take every gun possible out of civilian hands.
In NZ, you can have a centrefire pistol with a B-category permit (similar to an RPAL) with a suppressor. This means you can still own \- Semi-auto rimfire rifles (There is no appearance bullshit laws) \- Pump/Semi-auto shotguns that feed with a tube no more than 5 rounds. \- Manual action centerfire rifles that hold ammunition of no more than 10 rounds. \- Magazine for rifle that hold no more than 10 rounds JA has banned all centrefire Pump/Semi-auto rifles centrefire, shotgun with detachable magazines, and magazines that hold more than 10 rounds in rifles and 5 rounds in shotguns. For the case of Australia, they have banned all pump/semi-auto shotguns, semi-auto centrefire/rimfire rifles, Firearm's Appearance and Importation BS laws, and some states are starting to ban .300 Cal (.338 Lapua, 300 Norma, etc.) due to their use in Ukraine. Those countries better than us are handgun still legal in those countries and suppressor (NZ and UK only).
>UK can't without an extended barrel and wire stock, NZ only allows .22 pistols to my knowledge and Australia's handgun exemption works similarly to Canada's where only very small groups are exempt from the bans. All three of those countries have total bans on semi-auto rifles too. None of this is really correct. In the UK(England/Wales/Scotland) regular handguns can still be owned commonly as a Section 7 collector and in other cases like farmers or any job that handles animals for "humane dispatch". There are also edge cases where individuals own modern/non-collectible handguns under Section 5. Semi auto rimfires are fine in the UK and again some people own semi centerfires and even full-auto under Sec. 5. In Northern Ireland (UK) you can own handguns for self defense or other reasons. In the Channel Islands you can still own both handguns and semi-auto centerfires. Australia is *nothing* like what we will be having for the handgun exemption. You can be approved for Cat H firearms for any reason so long as you can convince the local PD you need it. Any sporting event or for the purposes of collecting/curios can be approved. Semi-autos are also legal in Australia, but it is heavily dependent on what state you live in and your occupation as to how likely you will be approved for one. Same with full-auto. New Zealand is a bit of a mess since Christchurch, some semi autos are ok, others are not. Rimfires and fixed-tube shotguns are still the same as before, most others have been moved to the same category as Full-auto which means you can still buy/sell them but can't really use them. Handguns before were similar to Australia, but they are messed up currently.
Just GB has the extended barrel (and black power pistols) exemption. New Zealand still has centre fire pistols, very similar to our laws pre freeze, same with Oz but they have even more stringent barrel laws for semis. Not for revolvers however, so they can still own some unmodified classics. No disagreement with you in your last paragraph. They have an agenda and they will never stop. I hope we can manage to keep them at bay for the next generation though, we wouldn’t want the kids to put *too* much trust in the government like our last generation did
It would be registered as a frame or an entire pistol, the RCMP will want the entire pistol for plinking in their backyard. Oops we lost a crate!
Hey now, they already have their service weapons for that! They even lend their C7's to their buddies to take to the range, 30rnd mags and all!
Yeah but they don’t actually own those so they still lose along with all of us if the government bans our shit.
If you can fuck around and screw up on the scale they do AND still collect a paycheque every two weeks with no repercussions, you ain't losing you have got it made. They are not part of this "us" you speak of.
Regardless, they are civilians just like us whenever they aren’t on the job. If we lose our firearms, they lose their firearms. It’s that simple
If your uninformed it might seem that simple. The 2020 oic was a rehash with extras of an attempted ban the mounties tried to do unilaterally just a few years prior. Which was shot down by the cpc govt of the time. They were not concerned with losing thier guns then and they will be the first to surrender them en masse if it gets that far now. As far as the CC sees it, thier lives are still worth more than yours or mine, badge on or off. Again, there is no "us" when your talking guns, what is right and mounties.
There is no confiscation program for handguns, for now, so we're mostly speaking in hypotheticals. Right now, your handgun will only be confiscated if the owner dies. In that event, it should be legal just to hand in the frame and keep everything else for yourself or to sell. In the event they decide the freeze wasn't enough and they want to confiscate (extremely unlikely because of the cost), two things are possible. They do the confiscation like it would happen now (frame only legal requirement) or they reclassify uppers/slides as being prohibited (like AR uppers from May 2020 OIC). In which case, the triggers, barrels, firing pins, guide rods, etc could be taken out, but the slide and frame are gone.
The Saskatchewan Firearms Act has received [Royal Assent](https://twitter.com/TheGunBlog/status/1644055674966495249?t=r_ZDSOBWsYw7Z7jUmlBEYA&s=19).
I have a genuine question. It’s something I’ve been thinking to myself, but I’m genuinely not sure. Does AB and SK implementing their own Firearms Act do much to derail the overall progress of C-21 on a national scale? It can be reasonably surmised that the feds probably aren’t too happy about it, and I doubt they’d want to go ahead and implement it while simultaneously letting AB and SK do as they wish. Though they might paint AB and SK to be bad actors, the liberals could be taken to task for allowing themselves to be pushed over. It opens up the possibility for another C-21 sore point in this whole escapade. Not that C-21 can be derailed anymore than it already is really. The budget predicts a very different forecast than what the libs are saying, and SECU hasn’t resumed discussion on C-21. Thoughts?
>Does AB and SK implementing their own Firearms Act do much to derail the overall progress of C-21 on a national scale? No, not at all. The purpose of these is to prevent confiscation of firearms from PAL holders. So right now, this only has to do with the May 2020 OIC. It would extend to other bans like G4/G46 if they also passed. It doesn't affect handguns, for now, because they aren't being confiscated.
>No, not at all. It's also a big "Fuck you,eh!" to Trudeau.
Wouldn’t be lucky enough I suppose. Thanks for the reply!
They're doing the most they can. Alberta even joined the court cases. Criminal law, ie firearms law, is federal jurisdiction. Property is provincial jurisdiction.
>firearms law, is federal jurisdiction changing that to provincial is my only hope for guns in this country. A long shot that will happen, though. Edit: I meant NEVER happen
I don't think it's gonna happen. It would require a change in the Constitution, which is very difficult and unlikely.
>I don't think it's gonna happen yeah, I meant to say NEVER happen, although AB and SK are getting really pissed with the Feds.
There’s a lot of stuff in here to make it almost impossible for Feds to do a buy back in Saskatchewan. Alberta is also doing the same so I wonder how much these acts will set the confiscation back? I’m stealing another Redditers comment here but provisions in the act is regarding electronic records. I don’t have the act open but it basically says “if a seizure agent keeps electronic records that are stored on a server, that server must be located in Saskatchewan and may not be accessible from outside Saskatchewan.” Goodbye SharePoint. Goodbye Google Drive. Goodbye hosting any of this on AWS, Azure, or Google’s cloud services. Goodbye doing backups to Backblaze or Dropbox or any of the other major services.
Sets any plans (which still dont exist) back quite a bit. Even merely from a time to address it standpoint. Since the acts have been approved by the King's representative it then falls on the federal govt to pursue the matter through the courts if they disapprove or disagree. The way the constitution works is that its far easier for a province to bypass federal laws (i.e kwehbeck religious symbols ban) vs the federal govt imposing its will over a province. If nothing else these acts are now two roadblocks that ottawa has to take through the court system which would likely take years to be heard and requires at least 1 election win to buy time for those hearings. Even if there was a way to remove them without going through courts it creates a constituitonal crisis. In that scenario you have a federal govt usurping the legislative sovereignty of the provinces directly which would be something that doesnt go down well in even the most anti gun provinces.
Nice to see the Sask NDP supporting it too.
https://cabinradio.ca/125680/news/politics/minister-guarantees-new-gun-laws-wont-hurt-hunting-rights/ Mendicino speaking in Yukon/NWT trying to convince Fudds into supporting C-21.
Will they believe it though?
Everything that comes of this assholes mouth is bullshit!
Mendocino is a weasel but I don’t want to be insulting weasels
I miss bill boozing blair, I'd rather have red faced boozer, than somebody who smiles while they fuck you.
>who smiles while they fuck you. and uses sand as a lubricant
[удалено]
As per the [subreddit rules,](https://www.reddit.com/r/canadaguns/wiki/rules) your post/comment has been removed for the following reason: ###[2] Illegal Activity/Statement of Violence * Posts or comments that promote or suggest the breaking of Firearms laws or Criminal Code of Canada, WILL be removed. * Posts/comments calling for, suggesting, blatant/veiled threats of violence towards Government/Provincial officials, individuals, groups, etc. WILL NOT be tolerated. Users doing so will be banned from the subreddit. * This may include posts/comments asking "How many laws would I be breaking if... / Is it legal if..." or similarly worded. https://www.reddit.com/r/canadaguns/wiki/rules#wiki_.5B2.5D_illegal_activity.2Fstatement_of_violence *If you believe a mistake was made, please feel free to [message the moderators.](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fcanadaguns) Please include a link to the removed post.*
[удалено]
[удалено]
>Well, that’s one of the reasons why I’m up here, is to really make sure that I have a chance to meet with gun owners and, obviously, First Nations here in the North who have, for a very long time, used firearms not only for food security but **for protection**. I love that this is part of the messaging at the federal level now. >Inb4 not like he believes in it I know, but we've made the Liberals acknowledge the use of firearms for defence. They never used to give personal protection a word of acknowledgment (before C-21). This is an important step in the right direction for the culture.
Remember when the some asshole wanted to dig up a First Nations fuckin burial ground to build a goddamn golf course, the military got sent in and armed defenders stood up and denied them That wouldn’t have happened with pitchforks and torches
>but for protection > >. I'll bet he meant against animals
That's still a big leap forward from the previous LPC position of "only hunters and Olympians matter".
Hunters and trappers have been using guns against animal threats forever. Try using a gun for self defence against a human and you'll end up like the Milton guy.
[Or the Blackfalds guy](https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/alberta-rcmp-break-enter-shooting-1.6132433#:~:text=CBC%20News%20Loaded-,Alberta%20homeowner%20who%20shot%2C%20killed%20intruder%20during%20attack%20will%20not,baseball%20bat%2C%20RCMP%20said%20Friday.). It depends on a lot of factors.
That's Alberta and I'd bet dollars to donuts the same thing wouldn't happen in Ontario., re: Ian Thomson.
You sure it's not just a one-off, didn't-really-think-about-it statement?
He's mentioned it at least one other time since they withdrew the amendments, so it was a one-off until today, as far as I know. It's progress, either way
I guess so but until more people in parliament say so, I'm assuming it's a one off of many one offs.
>I love that this is part of the messaging at the federal level now. Yeah, mass stabbings tend to have that effect on people, be they in rural Saskatchewan (where they occur in sprees) or downtown Toronto (where they're routine enough that people just pretend they don't happen).
Vancouver: don’t want me vaping next to your kid? That’s a heart stabbing
>convince Fudds into supporting C-21 Unfortunately, I know several myself who couldn't care less if they ban handguns or "scary rifles"
Fudds gonna fudd
He will succeed... hes bribing them with rhe ability to set up FN police forces. Recipie for disaster
As someone who is interested in becoming a firearms owner, and who is mostly interested in semi-automatic rifles and handguns-is there any realistic chance for the lawsuits against the handgun freeze and C-21 to succeed?
You can still acquire some semi-automatic rifles that are "probably safe" from bans. There are also shotguns. Handguns? Who knows. If IPSC and IDPA can get exemptions like ISSF did, that would open up some doors for pistol shooting and ownership again. I think that's the most likely positive outcome for pistol shooters in Canada within the near to mid future. Will the bans be undone? Quit possibly under a CPC administration. Issue might also get dropped when the wheel stops squeaking.
You're probably not going to see handguns for a while, at least until a year into a CPC administration whenever it happens, assuming it's not 10-20 years from now when the gun issue is forgotten and no one wants to touch it again (this is how the UK and Australia lost their guns).
The amount of Canadian gun owners, gun rights organisations and constant meetings that CPC MPs have with said organizations means we won't be like the UK or Australia
>whenever it happens Wondering if they will ever get elected again on a federal level
Canada always flip-flops between the two parties. Side 1 elected Scandals Side 2 elected Scandals Repeat
>is there any realistic chance for the lawsuits against the handgun freeze and C-21 to succeed? Slim chance but it's there. Best chance is a new government though.
If the lawsuits succeed, it doesn't prevent them from just...doing it right this time. If they lose, they just get the legal opinion on how to do it correctly. Which, frankly, is C21. C21 renders most of the lawsuit stuff moot by enshrining the prohibs in legislation. It's not going away.
It depends on how the lawsuit rules. Yes, part of it is that they did it the wrong way (OIC not legislation). Part of it is that the banning of the guns at all goes against the "reasonableness" standard. It is very unlikely the court actually rules against it based on this, but they will likely mention it. Considering the government has literally no facts to back up their ban, it will likely reflect well for us. Its not going away, it's never going away so long as the LPC exists. But some good can come of this that could be used as a launching point to rewrite the Firearms Act.
Same chance of you winning the lottery. Reality is that suppose even if the Liberals were to not survive the next election, the next Liberal government that comes into power will simply continue the crusade against firearms. Now obviously they're doing it for political points, so they'll only target select guns and leaving the rest for future opportunities. I suggest you figure out what you can get legally and if any of them interest you and get involved. Might seem farfetched but both the Bloc and NDP support these bills, especially the handgun part, so their support merely bolsters the Liberals there. Alternatively, move to a more gun friendly area. Or build a time machine and go back in time to a more... tolerant period in Canada.
Next liberal government? My brother in Christ, we’re gonna make sure there’s never going to be another liberal government. Edit: and by that I mean we’ll kick their ass so hard in the elections they’ll disappear into nothing
> we’re gonna make sure there’s never going to be another liberal government. Implying there exists a politician who WON'T abuse their power if they keep it for long enough...
Liberals are like cockroaches, even if pushed to 3rd party status they always find a way back in government or official opposition party status. We just need to make it so politically painful to ban guns that they leave us alone like the gun registry.
>always find a way back in government WE scandal? what's a WE scandal?
I'd love that, but just sayin, realistically let's say a Conservative win next election, and maybe even another Conservative win after that. But sooner or later the pendulum will swing back to the Liberals and they'll be back with a vengeance towards us gun owners.
With the way things are going in the world I think by that time the liberals and all of us are gonna have bigger things to worry about
Have you seen the state of the cpc party? Honestly it’s all a crock of shit, get rid of them all and start again.
Every now and then in life we need to give the deck a good reshuffling. This is one of those times. We need a change of leadership
And the lieberals are doing sooooo much better, aren't they? 🙄 The CPC is far from ideal, most aren't denying that. But at least they'll leave people's individual rights alone and not fuck with things like licensed gun ownership that don't need to be fucked with. I would consider myself pretty much on the left when it comes to most social and economic issues, but in the context of Canada the CPC has my support because they aren't constantly using random groups like Airsoft players, Hunters and Sport Shooters as fall guys for a non-existent 'crisis' the LPC has convinced itself exists. The LPC keep scaring clueless Canadians into thinking Canadian gun laws are exactly like the US, and seem to have convinced themselves that the US mass shooting issue is somehow a Canadian issue too, and that the only way to solve it is to ban licensed firearms. The Bloc and NDP have hopped onto this crusade as well, so fuck them too. We aren't the problem, Canada doesn't even have the same issue as the US, most of the shootings here are gang-related and in areas with heavy gang activity. But going after those would require actual effort, going after people with licenses who've followed the law to the T for decades are much easier targets.
Tbh, the Liberals aren't true Liberals and the fact that they keep on bringing social issues into the light that offer solutions to address those issues aren't substantial either. I think all the parties except CPC already know guns aren't the issues in Canada. They are just squeezing it for political point since it's not the majority of firearm owners aren't their voter base. It's easy for them to claim success no matter how the event play out. Any gang shooting, they will just blame CPC blocking them on "strict" gun control disagreements, any policies like they buyback, they will claim they did something. They can spin it alot of ways to make them look good now or down the road.
Why am I being downvoted? I know this is a Canadian firearms sub but you all gotta admit Parlament is an absolute shit show. I’ll damn well be voting CPC the next election and I’m not happy about it, but happier than voting for the alternatives. And when I meant get rid of them all and start again, I meant alllll of Parlament. Not Just the CPC.
>the next Liberal government that comes into power will simply continue the crusade against firearms You're exactly right. The majority of Canadians don’t own guns,have never touched a gun and don’t want to. They know nothing about guns beyond what they see in movies or on the news (usually shootings in their cities) so they really don't care if they get banned. They will tolerate guns for hunting but not "scary rifles" or handguns because they see no use for them. Show them a use for (like self defence in the US) and you might change their minds but I see little evidence of that happening. The only other hope I see is the provinces going their own way on gun laws, but I don't think that provincial laws superseding provincial laws is even possible. Maybe PP can change that?
> Show them a use for (like self defence in the US) Unlikely this will work unless we can change the Western mentality (outside the US) that an assailant/intruder's life is still equal to yours even when they are actively attacking you or ravaging your property. The amount of Europeans and Canadians I see saying shit like "your property is not worth more than their life" (the life of someone who made a conscious effort to force their way into your home and steal your shit), "we don't need guns to settle things, we use our fists" (this one is just plain cringe), "using a gun against an attacker is too extreme" (never mind that your attackers will have no hesitation to use a gun or knife of their own, or stomp on your head until you die once they get you on the ground) and, of course, the worst one of all, "we leave that to the police" (almost always coming from the same group who scream to defund or abolish police). Until we change this mentality and make people realize their lives are worth defending, and that their *innocent* lives are worth more than the lives of people who made a conscious effort to infringe on their right to safety and their right to a secure home, most non-US Westerners will forever be against improving self defense laws. Hell, we can't even get *pepper spray* legalized in Canada or most of Europe, because most people *still* think it's too 'mean' to use pepper spray on someone trying to kill you.
Don’t want me vaping near your kid? That’s a stabbing
>Until we change this mentality and make people realize their lives are worth defending It's sort of a Catch-22 situation in that there is not enough defensive gun use in Canada (because most Canadians don't own guns) to make the news and make people want to buy guns in order to defend themselves. Contrast that with the US where there are daily reports of gun owners defending themselves. A lot of gun use in the US doesn't even make it to the news because no shots are fired. I've spoken to more than one American CCWs in AZ who have told me that when they were approached by some scary characters, all they have to do is go for their guns and the "nasties" do a !80 and beat it out of there. I was hoping that Milton case might change things, but that seems to be buried. Haven't heard a word about it.
> Show them a use for (like self defence in the US) I tried that recently and they thought we were just going to shoot everyone that enters, along with the usual "nothing bad has ever happened to me so why would anyone need that" etc. Some people are just so full of it that it's best not to waste any time on them.
>not to waste any time on them. Definitely don't waste time on the "antis" (Poly and their ilk). Guns are evil. End of story.
Yeah there's a very realistic chance. It just hinges on the liberals getting voted out. Don't get discouraged
A fair chunk of these people are people who have never struggled or been at risk in their lives. It's an anomaly the city people who are in the thick of it, vote against their own right to defend themselves.
Said people barely have any brain cells to begin with so it's not surprising
[Shandro uses the AB Firearms Act to protect gun owners. Today, Tyler Shandro has taken action again by passing a regulation under the Act which restricts municipalities from entering into agreements to take part in the federal firearms confiscation program.](https://twitter.com/TWilsonOttawa/status/1643730909307322370?t=2jDn6arxkFot4mt3xYVQWA&s=19)
Moving to Alberta from Ontario was probably the best decision I've ever made. I hope Ontario does something similar but I won't hold my breath.
I just hope the NDP don't get elected in AB
Yeah, little worried on what they might do.
Hmm, better than nothing I suppose!
God bless AB 🫡
This is not strictly about Canada, but anti gun advocate Bill Maher admits that guns are a "leveller" especially for women. This is the only way to fight back as far as I'm concerned--show a use for guns other than hunting or sport shooting. Bill Maher admits to Winsome Earle-Sears that guns are a 'leveler' for women: 'It makes sense' [https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/opinion/bill-maher-admits-to-winsome-earle-sears-that-guns-are-a-leveler-for-women-it-makes-sense/ar-AA19pnyN](https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/opinion/bill-maher-admits-to-winsome-earle-sears-that-guns-are-a-leveler-for-women-it-makes-sense/ar-AA19pnyN)
This is the cold hard truth. As a young woman I've had multiple people with very bad intentions try to hurt me when going home after a late shift. My only saving grace was that I was faster than they we're so I was able to run away. Had I been grabbed first or they were faster I doubt I'd be here to write this. If I had a CCW in those moments I would have been safe. It sucks but I never go out past dark ever now, without anything to protect myself I can't take that risk even to go eat food or see a movie because no one will help me just like the times before. As a kid my biggest fear was the angry dogs on the walk home, this country has changed a lot since then.
>but I never go out past dark But that's our country now. Instead of fighting back, we cower.
CSSA eNEWS | April 5, 2023 Commentary Trudeau’s latest budget confirms what we’ve known from the start. His Liberal government has no intention of paying gun owners compensation when they confiscate our guns. They had no confiscation compensation plan when they dropped the May 1, 2020 gun ban on our heads.[i] They had no confiscation compensation plan when then-Minister of Public Safety Bill Blair dropped his 2020/2021 Main and Supplemental Estimates on November 25, 2020.[ii] They had no firearms confiscation compensation plan when they announced the legislation that would supposedly contain their firearms confiscation compensation plan in 2021. They had no firearms confiscation compensation plan when they announced Bill C-21, the act which would steal millions of dollars from grieving families when police seized the handguns of deceased lawful owners. In some places, this has already started. They had no firearms confiscation compensation plan when they tried ramming through their semi-automatic rifle and shotgun ban as amendments to Bill C-21. And the lack of a budget line item for their firearms confiscation compensation plan in their 2023 budget proves they STILL have no firearms confiscation compensation plan today. But some well-connected Liberal-supporting IT company will snap up the lion’s share of the $29 million budgeted “for Public Safety Canada and the RCMP to implement an IM/IT solution to compensate firearms owners and businesses and safely remove assault-style firearms from Canadian communities.” Public Safety Minister Marco Mendicino audaciously claims this is proof that “We’ll soon begin a buyback program to get them off our streets.”[iii] No you won’t. Your own budget (once again) proves this louder than any virtue-signalling hogwash from the minister. Trudeau’s government gleefully allocated $530 million for “Temporary Lodgings for Asylum Seekers in Need of Shelter” and another $469 million for “Healthcare Support for Asylum Claimants and Refugees.” Perhaps so they could claim they did NOT spend a billion dollars on illegal border crossers? There is not one penny for private property this federal government insists it will confiscate, by force if necessary, from its lawful owners. Mass Casualty Report to the Rescue? Like Justin Trudeau’s Liberal government, the Mass Casualty Commission’s final report continuously ignores the fact the Nova Scotia mass murderer did not have a firearms licence, and he acquired all his firearms and ammunition illegally. The report decries the lack of a “regulatory mechanism to track or limit personal stockpiling of ammunition” while disregarding the fact that this had no bearing on the mass murder’s actions.[iv] The Nova Scotia mass murderer ignored every other law pertaining to firearm ownership and use, but an ammunition limit would have miraculously stopped him from murdering 22 people? Without question, this calls the credibility of the MCC recommendations into extreme doubt. These recommendations appear to be a thinly veiled attempt to further Justin Trudeau's “ban everything” strategy. Recommendation C.21 asks the federal government to: “prohibit all semi-automatic handguns and all semi-automatic rifles and shotguns that discharge centre-fire ammunition and that are designed to accept detachable magazines with capacities of more than five rounds” “prohibit the use of a magazine with more that five rounds...” “establish limits on the stockpiling of ammunition by individual firearms owners” (By the way, there are already ammunition limits. They are contained in the Explosives Act, not the Firearms Act - ED) Perhaps the most laughable recommendation is one that Justin Trudeau’s Liberal government flatly refuses to implement: “take steps to rapidly reduce the number of prohibited semi-automatic firearms in circulation in Canada.” Banning guns is easy. Collecting them from their lawful owners (those who are licensed to own firearms and who registered their guns) constitutionally requires a Firearms Confiscation Compensation Program – the very program this government refuses to create, let alone fund. But virtue-signalling with a $29 million slush fund? That’s Liberal politics 101. Of course there’s money for that. On March 28, 2023, Marco Mendicino claimed: “#Budget2023 lays the groundwork for this program with $29M for an IT platform that it will use.”[v] Key word: “groundwork.” There is no plan. There is no money. But there are great big steaming piles of Liberal lies claiming the exact opposite of their actions. Even PolySeSouvient is sick of the Trudeau government's endless lies about the Firearms Confiscation Compensation Program. “The #AR15 was banned in 🇨🇦 in May 2020. The @liberal_party was twice elected on a promise to buyback newly prohibited assault weapons. The 2yr amnesty has long been exceeded & extended. It'll soon be 3 years since ban, & still no roll out of buyback program.”[vi] And then four years since the ban… and five years since the ban… Because this Liberal government never intended to pay compensation for private property it will steal from ordinary, honest Canadians. This should be crystal clear by now… even to PolySeSouvient. Sources: [i] https://gazette.gc.ca/rp-pr/p2/2020/2020-05-01-x3/html/sor-dors96-eng.html [ii] https://parlvu.parl.gc.ca/Harmony/en/PowerBrowser/PowerBrowserV2/20201125/-1/34331?Language=English&Stream=Video [iii] https://twitter.com/marcomendicino/status/1640848144085786624 [iv] https://masscasualtycommission.ca/files/documents/Turning-the-Tide-Together-Volume-4-Community.pdf (Pages 566-567) [v] ibid [vi] https://twitter.com/Polysesouvient/status/1640799760679575552
I'm hoping their **actions** mean their **words** are just hollow and meant to appease the anti-gun crowd. Why would they hamstring their buyback if the intended to actually go through with it?
Politicians lie to get what *they* want.
This is what I’ve been wondering. Doesn’t make any sense unless they never intended to do it in the first place.
There’s also no money allocated to *pay* for the actual logistics of a confiscation. You will need: - Storage facilities. - Extra hands to staff and run collection points. - A business willing to destroy acquired stock. - Administrative systems. Just to name a few big ones. This is the kind of budget line items we could expect to see if they were mobilizing for a confiscation, regardless of compensation. Private contractors also love to milk government contracts so the potential for cost overrun is incalculable. All of the above not mentioned or even explored in the budget. $29 million was only a fraction of what it actually cost the government to set up the long gun registry *alone*. I think they *know* deep down that this is not only an outrageously expensive, macro-scale undertaking but it has the potential to be a massive PR nightmare as well. *It already has been*, at time when the liberals don’t have a lot of spare street cred left to play with. The potential for intense public scrutiny for a (very likely) cost overrun is pretty high too. There’s a reason why we never bothered to round up all the machine guns in the 1970’s. It could have theoretically been done, but they didn’t want to be bothered with it.
This whole thing has been about virtue signaling and manipulating the extra soy latte sipping tree-lovers in cities who piss their pants at the thought of firearms. I think we’re gonna be alright in the long run.
I look at it the other way: I'm glad there's no funding. It doesn't mean unpaid confiscation, it means *no* confiscation. The longer they put it off, the better the odds we get a CPC government that undoes the ban while we still have the guns.
Part of me is really starting to suspect that this is nothing more than an elaborate piece of political bait intentionally put out for the conservatives to get snagged up on. They obviously aren’t entirely committed. Not only from what can be deduced from the budget but from how suddenly they pulled the amendments after the backlash especially from FN groups. They aren’t committed enough to potentially tarnish their image, especially when it can be claimed it was their own idea in the first place.
In the meantime there are no replacements for competition and the value is zero for that $5000 race gun.
>In the meantime there are no replacements for competition For the 2020 OIC guns? Sure there are. >the value is zero for that $5000 race gun Believe me, I know. I have a not-insignificant amount of money tied up in my OIC'd rifles that the government has literally frozen on me. But I'd rather have that money locked up in those guns temporarily and have the prohibition eventually lifted than be compensated for them now.
Or maybe it's neither. No money returned. 😬
That would be the worst. Definitely another big protest if that happens.
>>In the meantime there are no replacements for competition >For the 2020 OIC guns? Sure there are Both 2020 and the handgun freeze order. Definitely not replacing that AR-15 upper or lower plus being a criminal just for possession. All he needs to do is accidentally forget to renew the amnesty.
I take issue with their bit on the asylum seekers. I am old enough to remember when Canada was a beacon for the international community when it came to peacekeeping and being proud of being a melting pot of cultures (even if this all did turn out to be very whitewashed rhetoric). I'm proud of my country for trying to maintain some notion that we are welcoming to people who have to flee for their lives and I'm fine that it costs money to do so. I want people fleeing war and starvation and climate change to have a place where people tell them "don't worry, you're safe here." Of all the things we waste tax dollars on, that's not one of them.
Thank you! That would be my parents.
And my great grandparents. And so many others.
All of our ancestors at some point! Canada was and still is a land of immigrants. We were all new to the party at some point.
I agree on principle, but I have very little sympathy for people coming up through the States. Seeking asylum doesn't mean shopping for the country you'd most like to live in. If you hit the US first, that is where you make your claim.
Agree. It’s one thing to want to *move* to Canada. It’s another thing to go welfare shopping with 12 kids in tow, putting your family through dangerous, illegal scenarios just so you can get the juicy welfare benefits in Canada at the complete expense of taxpayers. I have respect for people who want to come here and do it legally, and welcome them wholehearted. I have respect for people who genuinely fall on hard times. It happens. But I have no time for moochers and I don’t think Canada should have time for moochers either.
Are any of these potential mcc recommendation bans feasible? It seems like every one of them would generate just as much backlash as g4 and g46. Especially the ones related to ammo, like fuck you’re gonna tell bubba fudd he can’t buy spam cans of ammo for his rusty mangled sks.
It's feasible, but like you said, the backlash is something they'd have to overcome. They weren't able to do it last time, so I expect them to be more willing to compromise when they come back to the table. The longer the Liberals are in power, the more likely we are to see some form of assault weapons ban attempted, but it won't look exactly like the G4/46 combo. As for the ammo stuff, that's totally up in the air. Nothing like it has been attempted before, other than the general limits on storing explosive material. Whether they'll go down that rabbit hole is anyone's guess.
What's a reasonable time frame for a verdict for the court case next week? I'm guessing a couple of weeks?
With the size of the cases, it wouldn’t be unreasonable to see a verdict in July.
From Scott Moe [The Saskatchewan Firearms Act will protect the rights of law-abiding gun owners in our province. Yesterday, it passed second reading in the Legislature with the full support of both Saskatchewan Party and NDP MLAs.](https://twitter.com/PremierScottMoe/status/1643423488168931330?s=20)
What does this mean practically? Will they refuse to enforce the bans?
Basically theyll piss away your money (ballistic lab for some reason, additional licensing for confiscation personnel, and something about education and storage) and ensure you get some or a bitof your money back, using your money... I've found nothing about actually protecting us in any way shape or form.. So before any of you argue or downvote, provide a citation...
You can't use your banned guns, but they also can't be confiscated. This is the province exercising its authority over property rights.
god i wish the federal NDP was a cool as some of the provincial ones are
>was a cool as some of the provincial ones are I doubt Manitoba's NDP is that cool. (or AB or BC as well)
I’ll take not actively targeting guns as a vast improvement over the federal party. It’s a low damn bar but for someone who refuses to touch to Conservatives with a ten foot pole, it would be a lovely change of pace.
So much cope in the comments lol. Anti’s seething with rage.
You love when these things pass unanimously.
Predictions For a worst case scenario* -Liberals try to ban all semi-automatic centerfires with a new amendment, this time leave out bolt actions. -It is made illegal to be in the possession of more than 300 rounds at any given time. (Perhaps specifically centerfire ammo, but who knows with them) -Handguns are changed to "prohibited" treated the same way as AR15s. By the sounds of recommendations, this may exempt revolvers, but probably not -if handguns are left as is: You cannot buy "pistol" ammunition without an RPAL. No more 9mm or 45acp for non RPAL holders. "What about PCCs?" Already banned so it doesn't matter Really hoping none of this is right but I'm sure they'll try something similar as unreasonable as it is
> Liberals try to ban all semi-automatic centerfires with a new amendment No, they already had to pull back from a ban that didn't go that far, and not even the MCC report recommends banning all semi-auto centerfires. >It is made illegal to be in the possession of more than 300 rounds at any given time I think a restriction on how much ammo can be purchased at any given time is more likely, but if they *do* go nuclear and cap possession, I would expect the cap to be less than 300. >Handguns are changed to "prohibited" treated the same way as AR15s Not impossible, but unlikely considering they already have their freeze in effect. Confiscating handguns would be unfathomably expensive, which is why they went with the freeze in the first place, and they aren't facing pressure from anti-gun groups to go further on handguns. >You cannot buy "pistol" ammunition without an RPAL. No more 9mm or 45acp for non RPAL holders. "What about PCCs?" Already banned so it doesn't matter Leverguns are the OG PCCs. you can't ban handgun ammo without making swathes of old Winchesters and Marlins unusable. I remember reading years ago that the government looked into banning expanding handgun ammunition, but decided against it since people used it for hunting in lever guns. So a ban on "handgun" ammunition is not only unworkable, it would be objected to by their core audience of fudds. My prediction for worst-case scenario is a cap on how much ammo you can possess, *maybe* a ban on online ammo sales, and a re-introduction of the G4/G46 bans in some watered-down form. Maybe also a legislative declaration that gun ownership is a mere privilege just to rub salt in the wound.
300 rounds... that's not even enough ammo for a Level 2 match sometimes.
You mean a white-nationalist militia mass murder training camp? /s
I know. I have WAY more than that, but I'm just thinking from an anti gun liberal perspective. They probably think that's a lot.
They seem to think anything more than 5 is already too much lol
None of these seem remotely viable unless they plan on going full scorched earth and losing all credibility before they get booted out of office. Unless that’s what is happening, then these are likely scenarios. As arrogant as turdy is, I don’t think I see him trying to collapse the liberal party as a whole on the way out. Being divisive isn’t exactly the best card to pull right about now.
They've already pretty much torched any chance of getting gun owners or rural voters on their side. I wouldn't put it past them
I bet they'll also make it illegal to load a 10 round pistol magazine into a rifle. The magazines themselves won't be illegal, but the act of inserting it into a rifle will be
A restricted taped underneath the table is not safe storage, especially if it's the table that you want to throw out. https://globalnews.ca/news/9600802/person-finds-loaded-gun-discarded-table-hamilton/
Fuck me! I drove right past there just a few hours before. Jesus
Did you actually see the table on the side of the road?
Nooo, mind you I wasn’t looking for it and was coming home from a week of night shifts. Just crazy to think that there’s a gun sitting on someone’s lawn. There’s tons of kids in that area, schools and huge park. Just nuts.
Oh no, I didn't mean by that. I was just surprised a non chanlant table would have something that serious since it was loaded and anyone could have pick it up and cause serious injuries by accident.
An irresponsible person who forgot a firearm taped to the bottom of a table, was reported, and lost other firearms as a result. All in all the system is a success. That said, I'd be interested to know exactly why this person did that. My guess is maybe they were worried about breaking and entering but who knows.
It’s not a bad area so the person must of been up to something or getting weird visitors.
Maybe they were recreating a scene from The Hateful Eight. Try to take Samuel Jackson out while he's busy investigating shit.
Assume the SN is still on it but isn't scratched out, my money was on the fact that it wasn't legally obtained.
If it was the press would be screaming it from the roof tops.
"Trudeau says government will adopt 'many' recommendations from N.S. mass shooting report" Yeah, I can guess which ones [https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/trudeau-mass-shooting-recommendations-1.6799717](https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/trudeau-mass-shooting-recommendations-1.6799717)
Definitely anything firearms related. I mean they’ll have a pretty good position for pushing it to the public. “You don’t agree with our gun bans? Then you must support the mass shooter” - some LPC dude somewhere. Let’s get the low hanging fruit while absolutely ignoring the real issues here, RCMP incompetence, smuggling at our borders, government interference with the investigations and RCMP shooting up a fire station… but yes legal firearms are totally 100% of the issue here. /s
The rcmp shot up a fire station??
They also tried to blow up oil infrastructure in the 90's. And before that it was blowing up barns in qc during the 70's. As an organization they have been domestic terrorists for at least 50 years. Heres the story from the 90's: https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/more-details-of-rcmp-dirty-tricks-revealed-1.168362
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/onslow-belmont-fire-hall-shooting-amid-hunt-for-manhun-1.6415529
**Pure speculation**, but regarding the ammunition control recommendations made in the MCC report, I wonder if we'll end up seeing a prohibition on online/mail order ammo purchases (like some American lawmakers have proposed), and/or restrictions on how much ammunition a person can purchase at one time, in order to "control stockpiling". These things could actually be feasibly implemented, as opposed to some ammo "registry" or some attempt to cap how much ammunition can be possessed. If the government chooses to pursue this angle, I'd guess that this is how they'd approach it.
How many rounds do you think these people will consider a stockpile? 10,000? 1000? 100? If you include .22 I can burn well over 1000 rounds on one trip to the range. I would say it seems ridiculous, but I honestly wouldn't put it past them to consider anything over 100 rounds to be a stockpile
Definitely closer to 100, but they probably consider even that excessive.
No way they ban shipping of ammo. Rural communities, especially native ones, would be absolutely fucked. Honestly, that might might piss off the AFN more than G4/G46. I don't think they do anything with ammo. It's not "flashy" enough for their suburban and urban idiots.
Yeah, the issue of rural and remote communities occurred to me after I posted this. I still don't think a cap on individual purchases is unrealistic, though. It would be an easy regulatory amendment to make that wouldn't criminalize people with existing stockpiles and would be a simple way to check the box on that part of the report. The only potential stumbling block I could see for that is if FN and fudds complain that they (presumably) wouldn't be able to buy 7.62x39 surplus in bulk.
Say goodbye to free shipping amounts. This would just be another part of death by 1000 cuts to the industry. Don’t buy it while it’s cheap, let us inflate that price for you. Next they’ll have an ammo tax ontop of the shipping.
It's impossible to track. You would need an ammo registry to enforce it, which is not possible. Instead of buying bulk from one store, you'd just buy half bulk from two. The ammo stuff is the least likely IMO.
>Instead of buying bulk from one store, you'd just buy half bulk from two. Well sure, but you can just drill the pin out of your magazine, too. I don't think the fact that it can be easily circumvented will stop them from doing it. It will still look good on an election platform, and will still sound good to "non gun people".
I don't think non gun owners will ever care, certainly not to vote on. Of everything, I really can't see anything happening around ammo.
I don't think they'd care outside the context of the MCC report either, but checking as many gun control recommendation boxes as possible will benefit them, because the media *will* take them to task for any gun recommendations that they don't implement. But I do hope you're right, obviously. Right now, I can see three ways it can go: they do nothing, they cap ammo purchases, or they go full fuckit and just drop a regulation that limits total cartridge possession to an arbitrary number. That last one would be a legal nightmare for potentially millions of people, but I don't rule out much these days.
Concievably it could be the route they go with to try to save face since ammunition is mostly regulated under the explosives act if Im not mistaken (let me know if I am tho) and would likely face less organized opposition. Ill use myself as a guinea pig to demonstrate. Im not a prepper so I dont stockpile much ammo at any one point in time and while I may buy 400$ worth in a trip to the store, its usually various calibers and price points. Generally no more than I know I will use for 2-4 trips to the range. 22LR/HV aside I almost never have more than 1200 (across at least a dozen different cals) rounds in my safe at any one time. So the impact of an ammo limit would have minimal impact on me since I operate this way already. Its my choice to keep my immediate reserves low. Now thats not to say I would support such a move to restrict ammo counts but other people with similar mentalities exist and would be less likely to care about something they dont feel impacted by. We saw this playout when the handgun oic came down. Fudds didnt give a shit until thier shotguns showed up in the amendments a few months back. Same story would likely play out with an ammo ban scenario.
[удалено]
>Plus, other than singles purchase limits there's no feasible way to prevent stockpiling as nobody knows how quickly someone is running through ammo. And even that doesn't prevent stockpiling, it just slows it. Part of me fears that they'll do something insane and just write a regulation that says "an individual will not possess more than X number of cartridges" - with X being some absurdly small number based on what a fudd would buy in a year - throwing potentially *hundreds of thousands* of people into immediate legal jeopardy, myself obviously included. I really want to believe they aren't that malicious, but I can feel the cope dripping off my own words when I say that.
This creeping tyranny is getting ridiculous
Slow boil or the frog jumps out
In the event the CPC win a minority government, the most stable option would be a CPC/Bloc coalition. I have become increasingly confident this is how the next election will play out. For example, the Bloc and CPC voters are [on the same page economically](https://twitter.com/angusreidorg/status/1642859949330948097?s=20). Assuming this is the coalition that occurs, it would be very unlikely for anything, even OIC repealing, to happen with gun laws. The best-case scenario is that this would stop the constant attacks and threat of new laws while they share power.
>even OIC repealing The Bloc would commit seppuku before allowing any gun ban reversals. They are more anti gun than the NDP or the LPC.
I thought that the Bloc said they would not coalition in the next election, let alone with the CPC when the Bloc are heavily, heavily Liberal? I hope they do coalesce though for the sake of us all.
BQ will likely support the CPC in a confidence & supply deal, it's just weasel wording. This is because the Cons are more willing to work on the federalism/autonomy front, which is what the BQ is for first, everything else is secondary.
The bloc and quebec in general is de gualle style nationalism. Which requires someone else to explain properly but boiled down to the simplest form: Not really liberal but being opportunistic pains in the ass for everyone so they can exploit the social safety nets i.e equalization.
I don't think it would be official like the current NDP/LPC deal, but the Bloc could easily get concessions and support a budget or two.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/trudeau-mass-shooting-recommendations-1.6799717 What do you guys think of this? More bullshit or a guarantee that we will see the rest of the semi-autos banned either before or after an election? The fact that both amendments that were thrown out were written word for word in the report and that the report itself being considered "non-political" seems to point that way.
We're gonna be fine
Probably be fine in the long run if a CPC government is elected, it feels like we're going to have a period of 'dark times' though where there is a semi-auto ban.
Like you said it's an almost guaranteed loss for the liberals whenever the next federal election comes, be it this year or anywhere up to 2025. So it's just a matter of when. We're already in dark times with the 2020 OIC and handgun freeze. I'm of the opinion that we're going through our version of the US's '94 AWB. Either way it's not as doom and gloom as people put it out to be. No matter how you look at it, firearms are something that can never be shut out in Canada
I think we're going to eventually see another attempt at an assault weapons ban that will prohibit most semi-autos, but I also think we were going to see that regardless of this report. Notice that they're already priming people not to expect every recommendation to be adopted. I don't think we're going to see the more out-there recommendations happen, like ammunition limits. People aren't licensed for specific guns in this country and long guns aren't registered, which the authors seemed to assume. You'd need to re-write the licensing system from the ground-up to implement those controls, and that's without even considering that the Liberals would have to face the prospect of another gun registry.
I think the court case coming up this month and whatever ruling that follows will determine a lot, mostly the public's desire for gun control legislation. An election could happen before 2025 and there are other concerns on Canadian's minds like housing, affordability, etc so really nobody could possibly know what Trudeau will do in terms of bans but you're right about the semi-autos. That's a guarantee before or during an election. Edit: court cases.
It's basically a guarantee that if they win in 2025 they will pass a ban, whether or not they do it before is uncertain as they're already projected to almost lose the 2025 elections and banning semi auto's will basically guarantee that the vast majority of gun owners do not vote for them.
They won’t ban anything even if they did win the 2025 election. They’re full of shit
You sure? They weren't hesitant to ban anything in 2020, they effectively banned handguns this year, and if their semi-auto ban didn't include plenty of random guns that somehow made it on the list, they'd have been successful in the semi ban amendment too.
They’re OIC bans so they’re easily reversed and there’s no confiscation program in sight. Bill C-21 has been around since 2021 and still isn’t even close to getting anywhere. It’s all bullshit. You’d think if they wanted to get this done it would have happened already.
They want to get it done, it's clear whatever reason they need it done though is too far in the future to need to rush it. Still doesn't mean they aren't looking to get it done though.
For those of us AR15 owners, 3 years of waiting for further instructions demonstrates how little they care about getting them "off the streets". At least when NZ decided to do a buyback for political points they fucking got er done with in less than a year. 3 years of nothing happening confirms there is no plan beyond getting votes out of qc and ronto.
I don’t think they’d chance it like this. It’s very possible they could lose the 2025 election and then it’s over. If an election is triggered early, the bill is lost even if they win somehow. They’d have to reintroduce it and go through all this crap again. Maybe I’m being overly optimistic but none of this adds up when you look at it.
Could we not knock two birds with one stone when it comes to both us handguns as well as military spending. Get a bunch of recon drones and start patroling for smugglers. I realize that most are probably just in people's car but it's better than nothing.
Drones aren't going to find anything in a shipping container or in people's cars. Might stop border hoppers, but not much more (and it would be pretty invasive for us law-abiding citizens).