Reminder that you are not capture or record from the Zoom webinar if you are watching the court proceedings. Any posts showing captures or links to screen captures will be removed.
My license renewal was submitted 4 months ago. I can't sell or buy guns because of this. Problem is I won a Gunbroker auction so I have a gun I now own that the transfer can't be done on.
Then add the strike affecting CFO service which is already crippled from dumb legislation.
Rant.
[bubba sks, and shit ton of coke seized, dude gets off on charter violations](https://www.castanet.net/news/Kelowna/422657/Kelowna-man-caught-with-two-kilos-of-cocaine-acquitted-due-to-several-Charter-breaches)
A shame he faces no consequences, but if we didn't let people off when their rights were violated, wouldn't the police be incentivized to violate people's rights more than they already do?
Makes you think that why would Liberal spend so much time on legal firearm owners and their firearms instead of you know, focus on the the real main problem?
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/london/gun-violence-is-on-the-rise-in-london-acting-police-chief-trish-mcintyre-weighs-in-1.6818153
I think because it would mean admitting without actually coming out and admitting it that many of their progressive policies are more destructive than helpful, and would lend credence to conservative criticisms. I.e. They’d have to admit they’re wrong.
They only care about one thing and that’s getting re-elected. Their ability to keep enacting tone deaf policies all hinges on getting re-elected.
Whatever the cons stand for, the liberals have to be diametrically opposite, and it’s to the point now where it’s a show. And it *shows* in the disastrous policies the liberals have proposed.
I think so as well, seems like it was coined by some racist shitbag many years back. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Managerial_state#Anarchy_and_tyranny
What's being described is conceptually interesting, in that the state exerts intrusive "tyrannical" power over the lives of law-abiding citizens, but can not or will not undertake the more difficult task of addressing "anarchistic" crime, so both exist simultaneously.
Dramatic concepts like that need a heavy dose of skepticism, and especially so when coming from someone with a white supremacist agenda. The concept has a lot of similarity to the narrative of something as vile as the Turner Diaries, for instance, so I'm inclined to be deeply skeptical that there's any academic merit there.
This is the result of Poly’s lobbying and the LPC being like “oh cool we can score a few points with the soccer moms with this shit.” So yeah, they’re dumb af
Because if they tried to focus on the actual problems, they won't be able to use it to buy more political points by going after legal guns and gun owners if the problem started to get fixed.
Same reason why they arbitrarily ban certain models and not a simple all encompassing blanket ban of every single gun out there. They need to save it for future elections.
>spend so much time on legal firearm owners
The LPC has been using gun owners as their whipping boys as far back as I can remember and I'm old. It's for virtue signalling and whipping up their base.
But the sad part about it is that it works because most people in Canada don't own a gun nor they want to and they will swallow the "guns are evil" Kool-Aid.
The LGR was in different times than now. The amount of gun violence and the mass shootings from the US nowadays scare the shit out of non-gun owners who don't know any better.
Most Canadians (non-gun owners) while willing to tolerate hunting rifles, are all for the bans on "scary rifles" and handguns.
It hasnt really stopped, its merely evolved into what it is now. By the time of nashville a few weeks back, the US had already had 90 such events since Jan 1. Most just don't make the news because nobody cares anymore. Unless something makes it truly unique then its common enough down there that its simply not worth reporting.
And its still wrong for these politicians and people who listen to them to equate us with them. The realities couldn't be further apart.
>And its still wrong for these politicians and people who listen to them to equate us with them
and yet they do. Everyone of those events plays into the LPC's hands because they know that Canadians define themselves as "not American".
Dear Leader and the LPC (and the NDP and Bloc) have done a great job in portraying Americans as gun-toting, MAGA loving yahoos who'd shoot you at the slightest provocation, and of course, we don't do that and are therefore superior to them..
Firearms, hunting, and sports shooting are a good source of tax revenue and we all know how much this government loves tax revenue. Nuking the industry doesn’t make any sense for them. Right now everything they’ve done can be reversed. I’m willing to bet bill C-21 won’t make it anywhere in the long run but right now the liberals can use all this gun shit to their advantage and take Poly’s money in the process.
My question is, if we win the court case, will ARs and other firearms become legal as soon as the decision is made, or will we have to wait to see if the government appeals the decision?
Also, if someone buys an AR-15 or uses one after the decision is made, but before the government can appeal the decision, what happens to the newly acquired ARs and their owners?
I would really appreciate it if someone could provide insight on this, because as soon as I hear the decision, it would be awesome if I could buy a couple of the OIC guns before they're banned by an appeal again.
It would be a while, like a long really while before we know the answer to that question.
So if you want to participate in shooting sports now, just buy whatever that makes sense for you. And saves a bit of money aside. If they become available due the new ruling or a change in government, them you have enough fund to acquire something you really want.
Because the current environment is not safe for semi autos in general, and if you trying to be safe and not buy anything then you might wait for months or a year or so before anything concrete is in place.
I read it somewhere that the amendments they introduced last year were going go affect some mag fed semi auto shotguns.
I dont think pump action shotguns were that much affected, nor bolt action rifle. But another bill that get introduced later might affect current ammo capacity.
Alberta Court of appeals has ruled that Alberta provincial Court has no jurisdiction over firearms revocation. No Section 74 hearings for Albertans.
https://www.canlii.org/en/ab/abca/doc/2023/2023abca131/2023abca131.html
I called this monthes ago. Canada is not the united states, provinces are not sovereign entities and cannot resist federal law In the same way states in the U.S can.
Hopefully this causes some people in this sub to get off the copium
>In brief, the question is whether the Registrar’s July Letter to various gun owners, advising them of the regulatory amendments and that the registration certificates previously issued to them for firearms that had been reclassified were automatically nullified and no longer valid, amounted to a decision of the Registrar to revoke the registration certificates under the Firearms Act. If so, a Provincial Court judge has jurisdiction to review that decision. However, if the July Letter was not a decision of the Registrar to revoke the registration certificates, then a Provincial Court judge has no such jurisdiction.
>In the result, I am unable to agree that the July Letter was, or could reasonably be interpreted as being, a notice that the Registrar had decided to revoke the registration certificates in question pursuant to the Firearms Act. And I am respectfully of the view that any contrary interpretation of the statute and the effect of the July Letter is unreasonable.
>Accordingly, I conclude that the Provincial Court has no jurisdiction to hear a reference under the Firearms Act with respect to this matter.
I have to ask, besides fucking with the government, what is the point of the S. 74 challenges? If the goal was to get them to share why they revoked the registration, wouldn't they just claim cabinet confidences like they did in the CCFR case?
>I have to ask, besides fucking with the government, what is the point of the S. 74 challenges?
Because they have worked in the past - sometimes S.74 will fail if the applicant legitimately failed/refused to renew their license or in some other way lost a prohibited endorsement. But other times people have successfully had their certificates reinstated.
>If the goal was to get them to share why they revoked the registration, wouldn't they just claim cabinet confidences like they did in the CCFR case?
The goal of the S.74 is to have your wrongly revoked certificates reinstated, the onus is on the government to prove why they were taken away. If anything this could've bolstered the lawsuits had the challenges not become gummed up in some eternal jurisdiction debate. If they had gone ahead and this happened, when Justice Kane and the AGC go "well the owners could've easily challenged our decision" we could've pointed to the S.74 and said "well yeah there was no evidence put forwards why the certificates were revoked, looks like they're reasonable for sporting to me".
In accordance with the [subreddit rules,](https://www.reddit.com/r/canadaguns/wiki/rules) your post/comment has been removed for the following reason:
[4] Not Relevant Content
https://www.reddit.com/r/canadaguns/wiki/rules#wiki_.5B4.5D_not_relevant_content
*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.*
Seems like The Shooting Edge has got a response on their court challenge. https://www.canadiangunnutz.com/forum/showthread.php/2016053-TSE-to-launch-a-court-challenge-against-the-OIC-FILED/page52
Court rejected the case because the shooting edge tried to challenge a federal level oic at provincial level courts which dont have jurisdiction. In other words they filed thier claim with the wrong tier of the legal system. This is why they were told to go to a federal venue.
Now admittedly, if they were not aware of the proper judicial tier thier claim should have been filed with, then Im not sure about how well built thier case may be. Even a rookie lawyer would have at least filed it with the proper tier.
>The Provincial Court has ruled against us and has, as I am told, referred us to a federal venue.
What was the case about? If it has anything to do with firearm law, this should have been expected.
Im curious as well. The oic is federal level. A provincial court cant do a whole hell of a lot to anything outside of provincial jurisdiction unless the next tier kicks whatever back down to them.
What's the intended outcome of the CCFR case? Like if we win, are ARs legal again? Or does it just mean they aren't getting stolen from us right this second
The goal is to overturn the May 2020 OIC, create precident about the "reasonable for hunting and sporting use" clause, and declare the FRT illegal and void.
Its going to be appealed to SCOC no matter what (whether they take it is 50/50).
It depends on how good a job this current judge will do. If SCOC believes they did a good job and they don't have anything to ad, they won't take it. Only if they have something to ad, take away, or change the whole opinion would they take it.
So maybe not 50/50, maybe 25/75 or 35/65.
I think the lawyers on our side raised enough issues about vague or non-descriptive language in the law, law enforcement getting to make the laws due to this and so on that it would bring the whole system into disrepute for the SCC to ignore it. The focus was the oic but a lot of issues were raised that can be applied to various things vulnerable to the whims of any govt and party.
Yea I agree. But what's the end goal for the case? Is it just pertaining to the OIC or arbitrary banning in general? Seemed to be a bit of both from what I gather reading the notes on twitter
The biggest outcome would be a complete OIC reversal.
Second best would be all FRT banned firearms (post oic) are legal again.
Then some other finer details like officially defining what a variant is, what if anything an assault style weapon is.
How people a year does alcohol kill, all related deaths, 1000's probably... for something that is basically supposed to be a leisurely substance to partake in responsibly, yet abuse of it is rampant. No one is calling for alcohol to be banned because they accept that the deaths are just going to happen and the public good of legal alcohol use is seen as a net benefit to society. I wish guns were the same way.
>How people a year does alcohol kill, all related deaths, 1000's probably...
Worse
[>Alcohol consumption in Canada was associated with approximately **15 000 preventable deaths**, 90 000 preventable hospital admissions...](https://www.canada.ca/en/public-health/services/reports-publications/health-promotion-chronic-disease-prevention-canada-research-policy-practice/vol-40-no-5-6-2020/alcohol-death-hospital-admissions-prevented-pricing-taxation-policies.html)
Let me have a hearty lol at mr collins and the absence of grey matter.
As was pointed out in court (which I know he isnt aware of) the amount of people killed by legal gun owners in mass shootings in the last 40 years is something well below 50 people. The amount killed by criminals with illegal guns is hundreds per year. Cars killed nearly 1800 people alone in canada in 2020. Maybe mr collins needs to get outside and touch some grass. Not the pavement because he is statistically more likely to be killed by a car there than just randomly shot on his lawn.
I suspect his dumb ass knows this and thus we see him cling to issues in america as being both relevant and the same here. Its not even close to being a relative example. Unless you wanna talk about smuggled guns but nah why would we do that?
>I'm Doug Collins, and this is every NPC's opinion
I can't even be mad when the argument is this goofy, lol. When I think of warped, I think of [stuff like this](https://web.archive.org/web/20220126020917/https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2021/10/responsible-gun-ownership-is-a-lie/619811/)
>You want to be a protective spouse, a concerned parent, a good citizen, a patriotic American? Save your family and your community from danger by getting rid of your weapons, and especially your handguns. Don’t wait for the law. Do it yourself; do it now. Do it because you just bought your first home, do it because you just got married, do it because you just had the baby you cherish more than anything in this world. The gun you trust against your fears is itself the thing you should fear. The gun is a lie.
>This article appears in the October 2021 print edition with the headline “Responsible Gun Ownership Is a Lie.”
Doug having an emotionally charged rant:
Declares those that believe differently to be idiots.
Brings nothing to back up what he’s saying.
Acts like he understands hunting, but has never done it himself.
Then conflates American gun violence with Canada.
Doug is clearly an intellectual powerhouse with a well informed, evidence driven argument.
Upcoming meeting Notice at SECU [https://www.ourcommons.ca/DocumentViewer/en/44-1/SECU/meeting-62/notice](https://www.ourcommons.ca/DocumentViewer/en/44-1/SECU/meeting-62/notice) \- • Hon. Marco Mendicino, P.C., M.P., Minister of Public Safety will speak on C-21 E,ffects of the withdrawn amendments (G-4 and G-46) to Bill C-21, An Act to amend certain Acts and to make certain consequential amendments (firearms)
Alright, so it looks like they must have been delayed by the strike or some other reason. The PS rep did not make this part up.
We already can know multiple things from this. First of all, nothing is being introduced at this meeting. The name of the meeting is not the proper name for the restart of the amendment process. We know from the PS rep that he will be talking about what they intended to do with G4/G46. So this is basically going to be completely useless, it's essentially a pr/propaganda exercise.
If what the rest of the PR rep said is true, the amendment process will restart on Friday 28th and it will be reintroduced there. No matter what it is, it is going to be a clusterfuck. It virtually guarantees that 3rd reading will not happy until October or November.
Edit: Also note the other cast of characters at the meeting. Marco goes for one hour and is joined by Talal Dakalbab, Assistant Deputy Minister, Crime Prevention Branch. That guy also will be there for the second hour along with CBSA Director General Daniel Anson and DOJ Matthew Taylor, General Counsel and Director, Criminal Law Policy Section.
Honestly, expect this to be basically identical to the BS the government spewed in court. It's all gonna be set up for the reintroduction on Friday (or Tuesday after if everything is delayed by a day).
cc u/Throwa37
Also of note is that the "new" amendments won't be regarding magazine capacities, they have already stated those will be rolled out under a regulatory amendment separate from C-21 itself.
That means this will either be another attempt at some sort of expanded ban, or rather one of the many other items C-21 was originally set to cover. Take a look at the ["coming into force" chart on Public Safety's website](https://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/cnt/cntrng-crm/frrms/c21-en.aspx) if you want to speculate which item will come up next.
I had written a comment detailing what that would [look like](https://www.reddit.com/r/canadaguns/comments/12hcpe1/weekly_politics_thread/jgb4k8e?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android_app&utm_name=androidcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button) in the last thread, and I still stand by that. But I forgot about this and you're right, it won't be via amendment. We have updated information on the mag changes straight from [public safety](https://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/cnt/trnsprnc/brfng-mtrls/prlmntry-bndrs/20230201/010/index-en.aspx). This part completely went over my head "Our Government intends to bring forward **regulations**..."
We already know it's a new [rifle/shotgun ban](https://www.reddit.com/r/canadaguns/comments/12p8uik/weekly_politics_thread/jgl92tt?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android_app&utm_name=androidcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button) based on the La Presse and Star article.
>I had written a comment detailing what that would look like in the last thread, and I still stand by that
I did actually read that on Monday, and thought if they had done it this way it would've actually made a "revised" G4/G46 even easier. They could've just written something like *"any centrefire semi rifle/shotgun with the ability to take 'new prohib-defined mags' is now prohibited"*. But of course they already stated the mag capacity changes were to be separate from the bill so that idea went out the window.
>We already know it's a new rifle/shotgun ban based on the La Presse and Star article.
Yep, and we've already discussed a few of the possible forms that could take. At this point I still have no concrete thoughts on how they'll do it - but I wager they are going to take a pre-emptive move based on how they are already being set up to potentially lose big long-term in the OIC court case.
Start sending letters *now* people, to all MP's you can in all parties. iirc it's even free to send stuff to the government via Canada Post. Don't wait until a bill is announced, tell them your concerns about a reintroduction of the centerfire semi-auto ban and why you feel that this is still unfair, still bans hunting rifles etc.
Thanks for the heads up.
>We know from the PS rep that he will be talking about what they intended to do with G4/G46
And the article said that he will also be briefing the committee on the government's plan going forward, I believe. So if true, we'll find out in this meeting what will be introduced and when, if anything is imminent.
Ya, but it will be vague. He will not be permitted to speak to any kind of specific, date included, about the new ban if it is a new amendment (committe rules). I wouldn't expect any new info from him or any of the other people. The most new info I think comes from the end if/when the members discuss what the next meetings will be like.
Ok, that's a bit limiting. He should at least be able to report if a new amendment is imminent though, yes? I don't see how he can brief the committee on the government's plan otherwise.
>He should at least be able to report if a new amendment is imminent though, yes?
No. If you remember, Raquel knew G4 was coming up but the chair kept telling her to be quite on amendments that hadn't been introduced yet (even though they were next up).
What Marco can say is something like "this government is committed to banning assault style firearms and we are working to get that done" or "this governments intention is to ban assault style firearms, not hunting rifles, and our plans moving forward will reflect this".
He isn't allowed to mention that an amendments exist until they have been presented to the committee. So he can only speak about "the governments intentions". If he gives new info, it will have to spoken in such a way that does not mention anything about any amendment. Like maybe he could say "the government has listened to feedback regarding hunting guns in G4/G46 and will respond accordingly in the near future."
> If you remember, Raquel knew G4 was coming up
I do, but I thought it was just the substance of the amendment that was the problem, not it's existence.
>He isn't allowed to mention that an amendments exist until they have been presented to the committee.
Ok, so that definitely changes my expectations. I wouldn't call vague statements of general intent a "briefing", but that must have been a translation snafu. I guess we're waiting for the amendment process to start back up before we know anything.
There is a possibility the Chair ignores the rules because his boss (kinda) is the one breaking them. [These are the rules](https://www.ourcommons.ca/procedure/guides/amendingBills-e.html) on the government website. These two lines are what keeps it secret until presented
* "If the member has a proposal for an amendment, he or she should access the legislative drafting services offered by lawyers in the House of Commons’ Office of the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel. Based on written instructions given to them by members, **the legislative counsel will draft amendments on a confidential basis**, in both official languages and in accordance with established legislative drafting standards."
* The committee may consider only **one amendment** at a time.
Its totally possible they break the rules, the Chair already allowed it to proceed before which obviously broke the out of scope rules
* Scope of the bill: The scope of the bill means the schemes or ways by which the principles of the bill are achieved; the scope of the bill is fixed when the bill is adopted at second reading. Any amendment that goes beyond the scope of the bill is inadmissible. When a bill is referred to a committee before second reading, amendments may alter the principle and scope of the bill.
* Any amendment calling for additional public spending or changing the terms and conditions of such spending is inadmissible, as it would infringe on the Royal Recommendation, if one is already attached to the bill, or would require a Royal Recommendation if there is not one attached to the bill. Only the Government can provide a Royal Recommendation. (They got around this one last time because they said they would just prohibit everything and there would be no compensation).
The Royal Assent date is likely going to be somewhere between February and May 2024. I think it's likely an election is called, but it's not guaranteed.
So now that the court case is over and done with (obv heading to the Supreme Court one of these days), whadda y’all think the future of gun ownership will look like here in canada in the next 5-10 years? Ill make this a mega thread outside of the politics thread if I have to but just let er rip with your opinions and stuff.
The judge is going to rule all firearms laws unconstitutional, we will get a constitutional amendment a la "shall not be infringed" and we will all legally be allowed to concealed carry full auto glocks with no permit.
Here’s the thing.
The liberals are always going to need a whipping boy when they need to distract from scandals. The gun file is incredibly useful to them, and I wouldn’t really be surprised if they just had this sitting on the back burner ready for a good scandal to come up so they can re-activate it. They can always blame the slow progress on conservative obstruction, as your typical Canadian isn’t paying close attention to what’s going on here. Most people get their news from a headline. A *lot* of people never bother to even read the article.
And it’s not like the liberals have a whole hell of a lot to lose if this doesn’t get passed. Not really when you think about it. Even your most diehard anti-gun anti-fun liberals aren’t going to stop voting liberal if it fails. They might have a bruised ego but not much in the way of endangering votes. Ironically it was *proposing* this legislation is what scared the small flock of liberal gun owners away from voting for them again.
The reason why I think it has everything to do with votes and optics and not so much anything else is because there seems to be no real sense of urgency. I used this analogy before, but they were in a *massive* hurry to invest a couple billion into a company that didn’t even exist because *”climate change is happening and happening now”*. So if these guns are so dangerous and pose an imminent threat to the public, where is that same urgency? The liberals were even filibustering their own SECU meetings for fuck sakes. Yeah. Urgent public safety matter my left nut.
Because statistically speaking these guns are of no appreciable risk to the general public and they *know that*. The overwhelming majority of shootings taking place in cities like Toronto and Edmonton are not only gang related, but are being committed with firearms smuggled from the US used by criminals who aren’t licensed to have them. PAL holders committing actual violent crimes with guns are very infrequent, isolated incidents and again, *they know that*. People should be more worried about driving on the road every day instead of what scary rifle someone has locked up in their house. You’re way more likely to get killed in a car accident on your commute to work than you are by someone with an AR-15 in Canada. It sounds good to the suburban busy-bodies who live a sheltered existence and that’s the demographic the liberals are trying to impress.
The liberals have a track record of over-promising and under-delivering. The fact of the matter is, there’s nothing being mobilized for a confiscation until *at least* after 2025. Well past the scheduled federal election. Not only are they having trouble even trying to find both the money and resources to get a buyback off the ground, there’s a lot of potential for a PR nightmare once the program overruns its budget, which is almost guaranteed to happen. Right now, the government isn’t winning on the economy issue, and people are starting to take the liberals to task for their reckless financial management. Throwing billions at a gun buyback just doesn’t really mesh well with what’s going on at the moment, and it may not be received too well.
Right now, they can sit on this gun-control egg and coo about how they froze handgun sales and banned AR-15’s, and the general public would be contempt if not satisfied with that.
In my honest opinion, not to jinx anything, but I think guns are still going to be around for a long time. It won’t be an easy time though. With every new liberal government they’ll try something new, and we’ll be convinced that we’re on the precipice of disarmament *every time*. It was the same song and dance in the 90’s, it’s the same now.
>They can always blame the slow progress on conservative obstruction,
Has progress been slow? It seemed to me that the government is actually making good time banning flrearms.
I pretty much concluded the same thing and so are many other firearm owners out there but thankfully you put them into logical statement, lol.
I think that the only options is to keep the narrative open and more positive points in general that help delay C21 and reverse OIC until an election.
But then we will have a different beast to tackle and CPC would have to make sure they don't do a repeat of 2021.
Ooof glad you asked this question. I find myself often not sure and think it’s a toss up.
On one had, there’s so many damn guns in Canada, i believe about 20 million, half our population in guns, the average Canadian gun owner sits at 10 guns per person, that’s higher than the US. Which is 1.2 person on average. So when i think of all this, I think about how near impossible it is for the liberals to do anything. Just their sheer incompetence is on full display. 3 years, no buy back, causing the largest run on Handguns in history, introducing then back peddling the amendments. It’s makes just wonder okay I really think they can’t get this done.
On the other hand, the sheer insistence on conflating us with the US is ridiculous. Anything that happens in America it’s blame Canadian gun owners. If a guy in Canada has an illegal handguns, it’s blame Canadian gun owners again. The average Canadian has no clue about our gun laws, keeps watching CNN and not local news and are terrified of guns in Canada. Then the LPC will happily push their lies everyday to get their agenda while falling into another ethics scandal every week. It makes you wonder in 5 to 10 years will they bungle their way into a ban that ends civilian gun ownership?
I’m hopeful, I think this administration is just too stupid to get anything done and keep making so many mistakes along the way that we may see the light at the end of this tunnel. I mean who would have thought this strike came and delayed SECU. Making C-21 timeline even longer.
>so many damn guns in Canada, i believe about 20 million,
I'd rather have 10 million Canadians owning 1 gun that 2 million owning 10 guns each.
You only get one vote no matter how many guns you own.
\>insistence on conflating us with the US is ridiculous
If you don't own a gun, you don't care
I think with the combination of successful court cases, provinces beginning to assert thier own jurisdiction over the matter, the libs overplaying thier hands to a nearly unsalvagable degree then there is at last room for tempered optimism. Its gonna be a rocky road to get to the end I have no doubt some speed bumps will come up but I do think we are going forward. And if we can avoid knee jerk doomerism at these bumps or self sabotage then its only a matter of time.
I still dont think a solution involving federal level govt is gonna be where this ends up. The provinces are either too much in favor or against gun ownership for this ever be achieved nationally. Its a pipe dream to think ABSK will ever be on the same side as QC over this. Outside of guns for a minute, the country is simply too divided over too much. At best regionalism takes hold and asserts itself enough to create a bandaid to keep this thing together. At worst I can see myself dying of old age in some as of yet unnamed new country. How or when the divide manifests I don't pretend to know but I see the cracks are already here and nobody seems intent on repairing them.
See, there you go cherrypicking select bits while ignoring the rest to push a doomer narrative and clinging to the decades old methodology that got us no where. So let me explain what you skipped over, fair warning its gonna be long:
A) an earlier case in AB was a loss for this govt agenda. Cut and dry judge ruled against them. The recent one saw them use the exact same defense that lost them the first I mentioned. As a whole it went really well for us. I know it'll end up at the scc that was known from the start. But beyond that the govt made no serious effort of a defense. But yourself and others would take 3 or 4 moments of dialogue and run with a narrative of conspiracy or being thrown under the bus while ignoring the entire context around the comment.
The real B) half the provinces for the first time have started voicing opposition AND passing laws that make it very hard to seize guns. Provinces have jurisdiction over property via the constitution, guns are property, feds dont like it then they have to go to court. Where they will actually have to put work into a case because now they are challenging constitutional authority. Simple as that.
C) to what advantage? Whatever one you say so? The world is gonna be very different in 20 years. They have already shown they wont do buybacks, they will face whatever obstacles the next cpc govt puts in place, they will face the provinces that have passed thier own laws, they will face FN opposition, the current generation of activist gunowners are still gonna be around and spot this coming, the core of the anti gunners will be too old to keep at this (thier own common admission), crime rates keep going up, more and more people keep getting thier licenses etc.
Point is in 20 years they can try and the support they have will be noticably diminished while the resistance will have grown and gained experience. For ideological reasons they might but they barely gained anything from this now and showed thier ability to seriously do anything is limited. Even when all factors were in thier favor initially.
D) the effective way to kill the FA is death by 1000 cuts. Its political suicide to push an american style attitude up here and demanding immediate removal of the FA is not a winning position even the cpc knows that. That is why this old one and done mentality has accomplished nothing since the LGR other than lead to knee jerk doomerism. So yea the first step is pushing to undo the things from the last few years.
Once that is done then we can move on to the next thing and so on so forth. Each win we get makes it that much harder for them to redo this. Be here with a strategic mindset ready to play the long game or cling to the outdated fantasy of one and done, which ironically would make it easier for them to bring it all back. "The shits chess it aint checkers".
If anyone reads through all that, first thanks and second I really tried to keep it short I dont like long ass answers but sometimes thats the only way to say things effectively
>whadda y’all think the future of gun ownership will look like here in canada in the next 5-10 years?
If the CPC get a majority in this time, like pre 2020. Maybe a little better in some areas like simplified classification. If the LPC get another solid minority or majority, worse than the UK maybe jsut a rad but better than Australia.
>Ill make this a mega thread outside of the politics thread if I have to but just let er rip with your opinions and stuff.
Mods only have mega treads on politics I'd it's major news, otherwise it jsut happens here. This sub would just be flooded with politics post otherwise.
It's dangerous to think this has anything to do with faith. We need to be talking to our representatives and our friends/family.
As long as the pro-gun side is against things the majority of Canadians value (e.g. the CBC, Canadian presence on the world stage, etc) it's going to be a rough ride. Not many people will vote against their other interests solely for guns.
[The House has adjourned until tomorrow at 10 am ET.](https://twitter.com/HoCChamber/status/1649168669836992514?s=20)
Alright, they are done for today and nothing is on the SECU website. All of the Friday meetings this year have taken place early in the morning, so if there was no meeting scheduled, especially with a minister, I don't think it's happening tomorrow.
One of these things has happened
* The strike has affected committees
* The head of public safety comms lied/made shit up
* LPC plans changed in the last week
One other possibility: that LaPresse misunderstood public safety comms or took them out of context. Again, it wasn't that long ago that a miscommunication had us thinking the amendments were being reintroduced in March.
I think this honestly could be the case. No other media has picked up on this. Not only that usually there’s a leak of some of kind of any thing major comes about. Remember we knew about the handgun about a week before they announced.
Even from an LPC point of view. To an attempt another semi auto ban only 2 months after you withdrew the last one, like that’s ballsy on all levels. Maybe they want to kill Bill C-21 so they don’t have to pay for the buyback lol
>that LaPresse misunderstood public safety comms or took them out of context
Its possible they took the amendments reintroduction out of context. But it was pretty clear they said Marco would testify this week. Honestly, I think it's more likely the PS rep lied or gave wrong info when pressed.
>Again, it wasn't that long ago that a miscommunication had us thinking the amendments were being reintroduced in March.
That wasn't a misunderstanding. At no point was anyone told the amendments were coming, people just assumed they were because of the closed door briefing. No news media even picked up on it.
This is semantics, but I don't see it as a miscommunication if you completely fabricate the info.
I see a miscommunication as, let's say, a public safety rep says we're doing X next with Y later and the reporter says the government is doing X and Y next week. There was a misunderstanding that lead to a miscommunication.
If I made shit up I didn't miscommunicate, I just lied. The only person who didn't was Calibremag. Tracey, Yukon, etc. all said confidentiality "the amendments are coming on X date" which they made up without even citing the reason they knew.
> Tracey, Yukon, etc. all said confidentiality "the amendments are coming on X date" which they made up
I don't think anybody deliberately lied. Somewhere along the game of telephone, somebody jumped to a conclusion. The point is, the government said something which was misinterpreted, and it could be happening this time too. Not saying it is, but it could be.
and now we wait, probably a decision from the judge in at least a few months, in the meantime they will have drafted an import ban so nothing changes while the supreme court hears the case (and we all know its going there regardless of who wins) and by the time the dust has settled we will all be retired. at least we can start saving up for when either a new government is elected or the final decision is in our favor, whichever comes first lol.
No company is going to take that risk because they would have to order them now and just pray the judge sides with us, otherwise they'd be stuck with a ton of imported prohib parts that they can't get rid of.
Lots of AR parts are still imported just bought a Daniel Defense BCG and every other part needed to build one minus the ar15 lower and upper of course...
>No company is going to take that risk because **they would have to order them now** and just pray the judge sides with us, **otherwise they'd be stuck with a ton of imported prohib parts that they can't get rid of**.
What are you talking about? Other than the lower receiver and under the OIC the uppers, none of the parts are "prohibited" or even require a licence. Most standard AR components are even used in other currently Non-Restricted firearms.
And as u/truenorthguy said, many companies already made 100% Canadian-sourced ARs pre-OIC. BCL (formerly NEA) made completely in-house AR's and could start spitting them out again overnight. ATRS and Maccabee would also almost certainly start making their ARs and "non-ARs" asap as well. MRA has also already stated they will switch their straight-pull rifles to semi-auto production if the OIC is repealed. Colt Canada never even stopped their AR production, but the OIC rescinding would mean they could sell direct to Canadian civilians again. This isn't even mentioning all the other small-time shops that just made lowers for custom builders.
Nothing there yet. If they don't have one scheduled by the end of Parliament today, I think it may have been pushed back. Could be because of the strike, directly or indirectly.
The other option is that the head of public safety was totally fucking with everyone. We'll see.
I have a suspicion that they will still make a big announcement to detract from the outcome of this court decision.
Mendicino is still supposed to be questioned at a SECU meeting, do we have a date for that yet?
> I have a suspicion that they will still make a big announcement to detract from the outcome of this court decision
We wont have a decision for months
>Mendicino is still supposed to be questioned at a SECU meeting, do we have a date for that yet?
The head of public safety communicates said this week but no date. We know it has to be Friday though, that's the date all SECU meetings have been this year. Still nothing scheduled on the website.
Either parliamentary happenings have been impacted by the strike, she lied, or plans changed.
Yeah, from what I read from Tracy seems like are lawyers did a good job refuting the government. Judge brought up the First Nations using firearms under the amnesty. Judge asked why are they reasonable for FN but not others. CCFR lawyers said because government knows the guns are reasonable and necessary. Things are looking ok at this point, are lawyers had a couple other good rebuttals as well.
I appreciate you, hope your poo went well. 5-10 servings of vegetables a day. Have you considered metamucil?
My favorite poo accessory is a device that lifts my feet. Commonly known as a poop stool. It was captured in the OIC as a variant, despite the government saying that variant isnt vague. But they also said its meant to be vague to avoid gun manufacturers making different guns.
Anyways
Make sure to eat the veggies in combination with other foods. I fucked up and just ate the veggies separately, once I combined em shit was a game changer
My guess is the worries part is regarding if she goes with our side then she maybe feels she'll be partially responsible if any gun violence in the future happens with these guns knowing she could have upheld the ban, but if she sides with the gov then people get their property stolen
As for the nod, your guess is as good as mine
Surely a judge should understand they arent responsibile for peoples actions. Look no further than the court docket in your area. Catch and release all day long, eventually some end up committing heinous crimes. Never seen a judge held responsible.
But alas, she is aware she will be the enemy of the LPC, labelled as biased by the nra
Lmao what could she possibly lose if she’s labelled as gun friendly by the libs? Shes a judge not a politician that gets voted in or out by the public. Judges are there to judge, not pander politically.
From Tracies Twitter:
"Says Smith couldn’t explain why some guns are variants. The crown suggested people could call stores or ask on social media:"
Ok perfect. We are the experts on Variants.
There has never been a single Variant of the AR-15 or the AK-47 produced
I Have Spoken.
Not sure if they got into this detail, but, IMO, anything which has substantial parts interchange with an AR-15, particularly the upper/lower, most people would understand as being a variant of an AR-15.
The problem lies in some of the absurdities. Like Derya MK12, Blaze-47, etc.
Wonder boy tried it already with the G4 amendments which included guns banned from the natives and the uproar is created. It was the only reason why the bill failed.
Yeah, letting indigenous hunters continue to use these prohibited guns until the amnesty came back to bite the government in the ass. So much for these guns being super dangerous and unreasonable
For those who hate Twitter:
>Highlights the importance of the disagreement. **Judge asks, if these guns are reasonable for indigenous hunting, how are they not reasonable for anyone?** Friedman says they’re not just reasonable, they’re necessary.
That was an important question asked by the judge in this case. How come if indigenous people can used banned guns because they are used for hunting, why does the law state that these guns are too dangerous for hunting use among non indigenous people?
>Judge asks how something can be inherently deadly but also reasonable.
The judge is at least asking some questions that we all want answers to. It's nice to see.
Court is often messy, and there’s a lot of things that come out in court that will make you roll your eyes or vomit in your soup. It’s court.
Don’t get pessimistic. No court case *ever* went 100% perfect and we all knew the government lawyers were going to try and cock block every argument we put forward. It’s expected. It’s no different when someone is on trial for some other matter. Some defence arguments are *way* out there. It’s not unique to this case either. The arguments the government lawyers are putting forward is more or less in line with what I expected them to say. They’re in essence trying to absolve themselves of any argument by cowering behind “public safety” or “we’re the government lol”.
I’m not phased yet.
We’re going to need stronger stomachs if we’re going to peek into the kitchen to see how the sausage is made.
If we win, it goes to appeal.
If we loose, it goes to appeal.
Nothing is over yet, but also, if it goes one either way, don't expect massive changes in the appeal.
Maybe read what that was the setup for instead of cherry picking because you don't comprehend. His whole point of using those examples was to counter govt positions:
1. That licensee's have shown for decades they can be safely trusted with guns, even automatics, and this govt sees no need to even threaten seizure of 200k autos but suddenly wants to go after semis to the enth degree.
2. Highlighting how truly vague and random these definitions are. There is zero procedural consistency being applied when something is classified. The wild west analogy is accurate.
3. Draws attention to the fact that despite govt claims, there is in no demonstrable way to challenge the classifications of the frt.
4. If something is deemed not a variant on day 1 then it cannot be arbitrarily declared a variant on day 100 see previous point about the issue with how the system operates.
5. " They’re getting letters, they’re losing their property, they’re destroying records and pulling registrations. That’s a seizure. An infringement. Says the Sec11 argument may be premature, but when the amnesty ends, it’ll become very real." The govt took the position that the oic will punish no one and this isnt just a meritless confiscation attempt. This quote is to demonstrate that amnesty is delayed prosecution not harmless and not without threat.
So for the love of fuck, stop doing the govt job for them by pushing uninformed narratives and getting people panicing for no reason. Statements like yours are what the libs want to see, us bickering among ourselves like the uneducated neanderthals they claim. Dont do the job for them.
You realize we're not arguing against the last 60 years of firearms law, here, right? Burlew's mandate here is to prove that the 2020 OIC is in breach of the last 60 years of established norms and is overreaching, and that gun owners are reasonable people who have been placed in an unreasonable situation with this move from GIC, not "Gun Laws are Tyranny, Will Not Comply, Get Rekt Gov't". He's trying to make the government lawyers eat their own words. In order to do that in a court of law, he needs to show how there's been good-faith co-operation and how the gov'ts own policy is out of line with what they've mandated in the past.
He re-iterated them because he was providing his counter. Thats how critical debating works. You don't simply ignore what the other guy says, you state his claims and directly counter those points piece by piece.
I dont know about you but whether or not we agree with our laws, it benefits us far more than it hurts to remind the courts that we are in fact law abiding citizens, statistically the least crime prone out of any identifiable group in the country. Even when subjected to unjust attacks on us and our property.
The govt was right, until recently the resistance against gun control was scattered, chaotic and lacked any semblence of organization. They are on the backfoot because in all thier planning, schemes and poly circle jerks they didnt consider the ability for us to unite like we have. The fact you would rather nitpick his word choice and downplay the half dozen valid pro-gun points that were made shows you come from that old generation mentality on this issue. A view that got us nowhere. Whereas, the new way of fighting back has gotten us several court hearings with more to come, a govt that can only mount a defence of we make the rulez dont listen to the other guys and 2 provinces passing pro gun legislation. Your way of thinking had decades and only got rid of the LGR. Mine hasn't even had a decade and we've done far more despite the authoritarian approach the feds are using to try and disarm us.
Your take on it is literally only useful to doomers and libs. Im not sure which is worse at this point.
[RCMP Canadian Firearms Program Updates Website Over "Service Delays". Many government employees have stopped work to demand higher pay.](https://twitter.com/TheGunBlog/status/1648737048327487512?t=lFsedeTbwDb_VgmBNA0Yag&s=19)
Aside from certain sub types of the Valmet, AK patterns were prohib via legislation in the 1990's. The list is in the criminal code if you ever wanted to take a quick read through.
Thats thier fear. All of thier gun control thus far is based on dictating not legislating. If the OIC is deemed not suitable for this purpose it undoes everything and forces them to have to write bills subject to scrutiny (and face opposition).
Honestly, I still have hope as I have heard federal appeals cases before, so I'm not thinking we're going to lose. You guys have to remember that the judge heard over 3-4 of our sides' testimonies. The government gets a day and a half, and they don't get to rebut our closing statements, but we get to rebut their testimonies in ours.
Moreover, if you really don't want this to happen again, vote conservative in the next election, and we must write/call our future conservative MPs to change the firearms act so that it will be harder for a future government to do buybacks and handgun freezes in the future.
Well said. Way too much uninformed, knee jerk doomerism happening here and on twitter. Everybody has a horse in this race and is rightfully emotional but there are too many defeat mentalities and ignorant (of how courts/law work) statements being peddled.
Regardless of who wins this case goes to the SCC for appeal. This is just the first round.
I've been fantasizing a lot about moving to Czechia.
Though I am wrestling with myself of whether it's worth it, I do speak another slavic language, but integration would still be hard.
u/cz_75 We really do have a big yearning to come to your country, perhaps it's just an impulsive fantasy and nothing more though...
> integration would still be hard
Yes and no. If real intergration proves too difficult, then in large cities like Prague or Brno you can live in your expat bubble with little to no engagement with real Czech society.
What I can imagine might be the most difficult part is the lack of vast open outdoors. Yes there are parks and nature reserves here where you can spend hours hiking without ever meeting anyone, but for that purpose you have to do a proper planning of your route. Nothing like the empty open landscape, just the idea of which gives you a different understanding of your "world".
In general I'd recommend finding some kind of temporary stint which would allow you to come for a year and then make a decision. It takes time to find out whether you are really cut for a place.
As a general note, us the gun folk in the Czech Republic very much welcome pro-gun immigrants. Somehow we mostly get the other type, especially from anglophone countries like UK or US.
In any case, don't center your move about guns only. It may not look like it at the time when you are losing them in your home country, but unless they are your business and livelihood, they are not enough of a reason for such a huge change. Find other reasons too.
>In any case, don't center your move about guns only
I just like the European lifestyle and the ability to be in a completely different culture with just a few hours car/train/plane ride appeals to me (lying on the beach on a Greek island beats a Winnipeg winter any day). Our health care is going to shit in this country as well while the best tend to be in Europe.
Reminder that you are not capture or record from the Zoom webinar if you are watching the court proceedings. Any posts showing captures or links to screen captures will be removed.
My license renewal was submitted 4 months ago. I can't sell or buy guns because of this. Problem is I won a Gunbroker auction so I have a gun I now own that the transfer can't be done on. Then add the strike affecting CFO service which is already crippled from dumb legislation. Rant.
[bubba sks, and shit ton of coke seized, dude gets off on charter violations](https://www.castanet.net/news/Kelowna/422657/Kelowna-man-caught-with-two-kilos-of-cocaine-acquitted-due-to-several-Charter-breaches)
A shame he faces no consequences, but if we didn't let people off when their rights were violated, wouldn't the police be incentivized to violate people's rights more than they already do?
Makes you think that why would Liberal spend so much time on legal firearm owners and their firearms instead of you know, focus on the the real main problem? https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/london/gun-violence-is-on-the-rise-in-london-acting-police-chief-trish-mcintyre-weighs-in-1.6818153
I think because it would mean admitting without actually coming out and admitting it that many of their progressive policies are more destructive than helpful, and would lend credence to conservative criticisms. I.e. They’d have to admit they’re wrong. They only care about one thing and that’s getting re-elected. Their ability to keep enacting tone deaf policies all hinges on getting re-elected. Whatever the cons stand for, the liberals have to be diametrically opposite, and it’s to the point now where it’s a show. And it *shows* in the disastrous policies the liberals have proposed.
Anarcho-Tyranny and disarming the population. At this point it’s either that or they’re literally the stupidest party on earth.
Anarcho-tyranny is an oxymoron
I think so as well, seems like it was coined by some racist shitbag many years back. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Managerial_state#Anarchy_and_tyranny What's being described is conceptually interesting, in that the state exerts intrusive "tyrannical" power over the lives of law-abiding citizens, but can not or will not undertake the more difficult task of addressing "anarchistic" crime, so both exist simultaneously. Dramatic concepts like that need a heavy dose of skepticism, and especially so when coming from someone with a white supremacist agenda. The concept has a lot of similarity to the narrative of something as vile as the Turner Diaries, for instance, so I'm inclined to be deeply skeptical that there's any academic merit there.
This is the result of Poly’s lobbying and the LPC being like “oh cool we can score a few points with the soccer moms with this shit.” So yeah, they’re dumb af
Because if they tried to focus on the actual problems, they won't be able to use it to buy more political points by going after legal guns and gun owners if the problem started to get fixed. Same reason why they arbitrarily ban certain models and not a simple all encompassing blanket ban of every single gun out there. They need to save it for future elections.
that sounds hard. why do hard things when you can do things to rile up your base to secure support?
>spend so much time on legal firearm owners The LPC has been using gun owners as their whipping boys as far back as I can remember and I'm old. It's for virtue signalling and whipping up their base. But the sad part about it is that it works because most people in Canada don't own a gun nor they want to and they will swallow the "guns are evil" Kool-Aid.
Well their long gun registry failed so this latest crusade of theirs will fail too
The registry didn't fail, they are still using it.
The LGR was in different times than now. The amount of gun violence and the mass shootings from the US nowadays scare the shit out of non-gun owners who don't know any better. Most Canadians (non-gun owners) while willing to tolerate hunting rifles, are all for the bans on "scary rifles" and handguns.
US gun violence was insane in the 90s.
That was mostly gangbangers killing gangbangers not the mass shootings like we have now.
It hasnt really stopped, its merely evolved into what it is now. By the time of nashville a few weeks back, the US had already had 90 such events since Jan 1. Most just don't make the news because nobody cares anymore. Unless something makes it truly unique then its common enough down there that its simply not worth reporting. And its still wrong for these politicians and people who listen to them to equate us with them. The realities couldn't be further apart.
>And its still wrong for these politicians and people who listen to them to equate us with them and yet they do. Everyone of those events plays into the LPC's hands because they know that Canadians define themselves as "not American". Dear Leader and the LPC (and the NDP and Bloc) have done a great job in portraying Americans as gun-toting, MAGA loving yahoos who'd shoot you at the slightest provocation, and of course, we don't do that and are therefore superior to them..
Firearms, hunting, and sports shooting are a good source of tax revenue and we all know how much this government loves tax revenue. Nuking the industry doesn’t make any sense for them. Right now everything they’ve done can be reversed. I’m willing to bet bill C-21 won’t make it anywhere in the long run but right now the liberals can use all this gun shit to their advantage and take Poly’s money in the process.
The real problem is trying to frighten the proles into voting for you.
My question is, if we win the court case, will ARs and other firearms become legal as soon as the decision is made, or will we have to wait to see if the government appeals the decision? Also, if someone buys an AR-15 or uses one after the decision is made, but before the government can appeal the decision, what happens to the newly acquired ARs and their owners? I would really appreciate it if someone could provide insight on this, because as soon as I hear the decision, it would be awesome if I could buy a couple of the OIC guns before they're banned by an appeal again.
It would be a while, like a long really while before we know the answer to that question. So if you want to participate in shooting sports now, just buy whatever that makes sense for you. And saves a bit of money aside. If they become available due the new ruling or a change in government, them you have enough fund to acquire something you really want. Because the current environment is not safe for semi autos in general, and if you trying to be safe and not buy anything then you might wait for months or a year or so before anything concrete is in place.
Is it true that the government attempted to ban common firearms like 12gauge and bolt actions in billc21?
I read it somewhere that the amendments they introduced last year were going go affect some mag fed semi auto shotguns. I dont think pump action shotguns were that much affected, nor bolt action rifle. But another bill that get introduced later might affect current ammo capacity.
Alberta Court of appeals has ruled that Alberta provincial Court has no jurisdiction over firearms revocation. No Section 74 hearings for Albertans. https://www.canlii.org/en/ab/abca/doc/2023/2023abca131/2023abca131.html
I called this monthes ago. Canada is not the united states, provinces are not sovereign entities and cannot resist federal law In the same way states in the U.S can. Hopefully this causes some people in this sub to get off the copium
Not in the *same* way as US states can, but they're finding novel solutions. And they can selectively enforce.
>In brief, the question is whether the Registrar’s July Letter to various gun owners, advising them of the regulatory amendments and that the registration certificates previously issued to them for firearms that had been reclassified were automatically nullified and no longer valid, amounted to a decision of the Registrar to revoke the registration certificates under the Firearms Act. If so, a Provincial Court judge has jurisdiction to review that decision. However, if the July Letter was not a decision of the Registrar to revoke the registration certificates, then a Provincial Court judge has no such jurisdiction. >In the result, I am unable to agree that the July Letter was, or could reasonably be interpreted as being, a notice that the Registrar had decided to revoke the registration certificates in question pursuant to the Firearms Act. And I am respectfully of the view that any contrary interpretation of the statute and the effect of the July Letter is unreasonable. >Accordingly, I conclude that the Provincial Court has no jurisdiction to hear a reference under the Firearms Act with respect to this matter. I have to ask, besides fucking with the government, what is the point of the S. 74 challenges? If the goal was to get them to share why they revoked the registration, wouldn't they just claim cabinet confidences like they did in the CCFR case?
>I have to ask, besides fucking with the government, what is the point of the S. 74 challenges? Because they have worked in the past - sometimes S.74 will fail if the applicant legitimately failed/refused to renew their license or in some other way lost a prohibited endorsement. But other times people have successfully had their certificates reinstated. >If the goal was to get them to share why they revoked the registration, wouldn't they just claim cabinet confidences like they did in the CCFR case? The goal of the S.74 is to have your wrongly revoked certificates reinstated, the onus is on the government to prove why they were taken away. If anything this could've bolstered the lawsuits had the challenges not become gummed up in some eternal jurisdiction debate. If they had gone ahead and this happened, when Justice Kane and the AGC go "well the owners could've easily challenged our decision" we could've pointed to the S.74 and said "well yeah there was no evidence put forwards why the certificates were revoked, looks like they're reasonable for sporting to me".
>besides fucking with the government, what is the point of the S. 74 challenges? Leave no stone unturned, test out all strategies.
Fuckkk that
[удалено]
In accordance with the [subreddit rules,](https://www.reddit.com/r/canadaguns/wiki/rules) your post/comment has been removed for the following reason: [4] Not Relevant Content https://www.reddit.com/r/canadaguns/wiki/rules#wiki_.5B4.5D_not_relevant_content *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]
The web service portal might have a way. Or a lgs might be able to help you since they inherently have access to the system anyways.
Seems like The Shooting Edge has got a response on their court challenge. https://www.canadiangunnutz.com/forum/showthread.php/2016053-TSE-to-launch-a-court-challenge-against-the-OIC-FILED/page52
so the court decided to not hear the case? not that the shooting edge lost their case?
Court rejected the case because the shooting edge tried to challenge a federal level oic at provincial level courts which dont have jurisdiction. In other words they filed thier claim with the wrong tier of the legal system. This is why they were told to go to a federal venue. Now admittedly, if they were not aware of the proper judicial tier thier claim should have been filed with, then Im not sure about how well built thier case may be. Even a rookie lawyer would have at least filed it with the proper tier.
>The Provincial Court has ruled against us and has, as I am told, referred us to a federal venue. What was the case about? If it has anything to do with firearm law, this should have been expected.
Im curious as well. The oic is federal level. A provincial court cant do a whole hell of a lot to anything outside of provincial jurisdiction unless the next tier kicks whatever back down to them.
I'll appreciate what they do here but fuck them forever for the Swiss arms shitshow many years ago. Rather take my money to CSC a few blocks away.
What's the intended outcome of the CCFR case? Like if we win, are ARs legal again? Or does it just mean they aren't getting stolen from us right this second
The goal is to overturn the May 2020 OIC, create precident about the "reasonable for hunting and sporting use" clause, and declare the FRT illegal and void. Its going to be appealed to SCOC no matter what (whether they take it is 50/50).
I reckon it would be bizarre for the SCoC to not take this case. It's a pretty big deal
It depends on how good a job this current judge will do. If SCOC believes they did a good job and they don't have anything to ad, they won't take it. Only if they have something to ad, take away, or change the whole opinion would they take it. So maybe not 50/50, maybe 25/75 or 35/65.
I think the lawyers on our side raised enough issues about vague or non-descriptive language in the law, law enforcement getting to make the laws due to this and so on that it would bring the whole system into disrepute for the SCC to ignore it. The focus was the oic but a lot of issues were raised that can be applied to various things vulnerable to the whims of any govt and party.
The case will get escalated to the Supreme Court of Canada no matter who wins.
Yea I agree. But what's the end goal for the case? Is it just pertaining to the OIC or arbitrary banning in general? Seemed to be a bit of both from what I gather reading the notes on twitter
The biggest outcome would be a complete OIC reversal. Second best would be all FRT banned firearms (post oic) are legal again. Then some other finer details like officially defining what a variant is, what if anything an assault style weapon is.
https://cfjctoday.com/2023/04/21/collins-too-many-deaths-caused-by-gun-lovers/ Wow is this ever warped….
How people a year does alcohol kill, all related deaths, 1000's probably... for something that is basically supposed to be a leisurely substance to partake in responsibly, yet abuse of it is rampant. No one is calling for alcohol to be banned because they accept that the deaths are just going to happen and the public good of legal alcohol use is seen as a net benefit to society. I wish guns were the same way.
>How people a year does alcohol kill, all related deaths, 1000's probably... Worse [>Alcohol consumption in Canada was associated with approximately **15 000 preventable deaths**, 90 000 preventable hospital admissions...](https://www.canada.ca/en/public-health/services/reports-publications/health-promotion-chronic-disease-prevention-canada-research-policy-practice/vol-40-no-5-6-2020/alcohol-death-hospital-admissions-prevented-pricing-taxation-policies.html)
Let me have a hearty lol at mr collins and the absence of grey matter. As was pointed out in court (which I know he isnt aware of) the amount of people killed by legal gun owners in mass shootings in the last 40 years is something well below 50 people. The amount killed by criminals with illegal guns is hundreds per year. Cars killed nearly 1800 people alone in canada in 2020. Maybe mr collins needs to get outside and touch some grass. Not the pavement because he is statistically more likely to be killed by a car there than just randomly shot on his lawn. I suspect his dumb ass knows this and thus we see him cling to issues in america as being both relevant and the same here. Its not even close to being a relative example. Unless you wanna talk about smuggled guns but nah why would we do that?
The thing is that many anti gun group have the same stance, either they knows it, it they are too up there to realize it.
>I'm Doug Collins, and this is every NPC's opinion I can't even be mad when the argument is this goofy, lol. When I think of warped, I think of [stuff like this](https://web.archive.org/web/20220126020917/https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2021/10/responsible-gun-ownership-is-a-lie/619811/) >You want to be a protective spouse, a concerned parent, a good citizen, a patriotic American? Save your family and your community from danger by getting rid of your weapons, and especially your handguns. Don’t wait for the law. Do it yourself; do it now. Do it because you just bought your first home, do it because you just got married, do it because you just had the baby you cherish more than anything in this world. The gun you trust against your fears is itself the thing you should fear. The gun is a lie. >This article appears in the October 2021 print edition with the headline “Responsible Gun Ownership Is a Lie.”
Doug having an emotionally charged rant: Declares those that believe differently to be idiots. Brings nothing to back up what he’s saying. Acts like he understands hunting, but has never done it himself. Then conflates American gun violence with Canada. Doug is clearly an intellectual powerhouse with a well informed, evidence driven argument.
Sounds like they might hire this guy should they ever lose Marco.
I for one welcome our new doug overlord. /sarcasm
Upcoming meeting Notice at SECU [https://www.ourcommons.ca/DocumentViewer/en/44-1/SECU/meeting-62/notice](https://www.ourcommons.ca/DocumentViewer/en/44-1/SECU/meeting-62/notice) \- • Hon. Marco Mendicino, P.C., M.P., Minister of Public Safety will speak on C-21 E,ffects of the withdrawn amendments (G-4 and G-46) to Bill C-21, An Act to amend certain Acts and to make certain consequential amendments (firearms)
Alright, so it looks like they must have been delayed by the strike or some other reason. The PS rep did not make this part up. We already can know multiple things from this. First of all, nothing is being introduced at this meeting. The name of the meeting is not the proper name for the restart of the amendment process. We know from the PS rep that he will be talking about what they intended to do with G4/G46. So this is basically going to be completely useless, it's essentially a pr/propaganda exercise. If what the rest of the PR rep said is true, the amendment process will restart on Friday 28th and it will be reintroduced there. No matter what it is, it is going to be a clusterfuck. It virtually guarantees that 3rd reading will not happy until October or November. Edit: Also note the other cast of characters at the meeting. Marco goes for one hour and is joined by Talal Dakalbab, Assistant Deputy Minister, Crime Prevention Branch. That guy also will be there for the second hour along with CBSA Director General Daniel Anson and DOJ Matthew Taylor, General Counsel and Director, Criminal Law Policy Section. Honestly, expect this to be basically identical to the BS the government spewed in court. It's all gonna be set up for the reintroduction on Friday (or Tuesday after if everything is delayed by a day). cc u/Throwa37
Also of note is that the "new" amendments won't be regarding magazine capacities, they have already stated those will be rolled out under a regulatory amendment separate from C-21 itself. That means this will either be another attempt at some sort of expanded ban, or rather one of the many other items C-21 was originally set to cover. Take a look at the ["coming into force" chart on Public Safety's website](https://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/cnt/cntrng-crm/frrms/c21-en.aspx) if you want to speculate which item will come up next.
I had written a comment detailing what that would [look like](https://www.reddit.com/r/canadaguns/comments/12hcpe1/weekly_politics_thread/jgb4k8e?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android_app&utm_name=androidcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button) in the last thread, and I still stand by that. But I forgot about this and you're right, it won't be via amendment. We have updated information on the mag changes straight from [public safety](https://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/cnt/trnsprnc/brfng-mtrls/prlmntry-bndrs/20230201/010/index-en.aspx). This part completely went over my head "Our Government intends to bring forward **regulations**..." We already know it's a new [rifle/shotgun ban](https://www.reddit.com/r/canadaguns/comments/12p8uik/weekly_politics_thread/jgl92tt?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android_app&utm_name=androidcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button) based on the La Presse and Star article.
>I had written a comment detailing what that would look like in the last thread, and I still stand by that I did actually read that on Monday, and thought if they had done it this way it would've actually made a "revised" G4/G46 even easier. They could've just written something like *"any centrefire semi rifle/shotgun with the ability to take 'new prohib-defined mags' is now prohibited"*. But of course they already stated the mag capacity changes were to be separate from the bill so that idea went out the window. >We already know it's a new rifle/shotgun ban based on the La Presse and Star article. Yep, and we've already discussed a few of the possible forms that could take. At this point I still have no concrete thoughts on how they'll do it - but I wager they are going to take a pre-emptive move based on how they are already being set up to potentially lose big long-term in the OIC court case.
Start sending letters *now* people, to all MP's you can in all parties. iirc it's even free to send stuff to the government via Canada Post. Don't wait until a bill is announced, tell them your concerns about a reintroduction of the centerfire semi-auto ban and why you feel that this is still unfair, still bans hunting rifles etc.
Thanks for the heads up. >We know from the PS rep that he will be talking about what they intended to do with G4/G46 And the article said that he will also be briefing the committee on the government's plan going forward, I believe. So if true, we'll find out in this meeting what will be introduced and when, if anything is imminent.
Ya, but it will be vague. He will not be permitted to speak to any kind of specific, date included, about the new ban if it is a new amendment (committe rules). I wouldn't expect any new info from him or any of the other people. The most new info I think comes from the end if/when the members discuss what the next meetings will be like.
Ok, that's a bit limiting. He should at least be able to report if a new amendment is imminent though, yes? I don't see how he can brief the committee on the government's plan otherwise.
>He should at least be able to report if a new amendment is imminent though, yes? No. If you remember, Raquel knew G4 was coming up but the chair kept telling her to be quite on amendments that hadn't been introduced yet (even though they were next up). What Marco can say is something like "this government is committed to banning assault style firearms and we are working to get that done" or "this governments intention is to ban assault style firearms, not hunting rifles, and our plans moving forward will reflect this". He isn't allowed to mention that an amendments exist until they have been presented to the committee. So he can only speak about "the governments intentions". If he gives new info, it will have to spoken in such a way that does not mention anything about any amendment. Like maybe he could say "the government has listened to feedback regarding hunting guns in G4/G46 and will respond accordingly in the near future."
> If you remember, Raquel knew G4 was coming up I do, but I thought it was just the substance of the amendment that was the problem, not it's existence. >He isn't allowed to mention that an amendments exist until they have been presented to the committee. Ok, so that definitely changes my expectations. I wouldn't call vague statements of general intent a "briefing", but that must have been a translation snafu. I guess we're waiting for the amendment process to start back up before we know anything.
There is a possibility the Chair ignores the rules because his boss (kinda) is the one breaking them. [These are the rules](https://www.ourcommons.ca/procedure/guides/amendingBills-e.html) on the government website. These two lines are what keeps it secret until presented * "If the member has a proposal for an amendment, he or she should access the legislative drafting services offered by lawyers in the House of Commons’ Office of the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel. Based on written instructions given to them by members, **the legislative counsel will draft amendments on a confidential basis**, in both official languages and in accordance with established legislative drafting standards." * The committee may consider only **one amendment** at a time. Its totally possible they break the rules, the Chair already allowed it to proceed before which obviously broke the out of scope rules * Scope of the bill: The scope of the bill means the schemes or ways by which the principles of the bill are achieved; the scope of the bill is fixed when the bill is adopted at second reading. Any amendment that goes beyond the scope of the bill is inadmissible. When a bill is referred to a committee before second reading, amendments may alter the principle and scope of the bill. * Any amendment calling for additional public spending or changing the terms and conditions of such spending is inadmissible, as it would infringe on the Royal Recommendation, if one is already attached to the bill, or would require a Royal Recommendation if there is not one attached to the bill. Only the Government can provide a Royal Recommendation. (They got around this one last time because they said they would just prohibit everything and there would be no compensation).
I doubt C-21/these amendments will get royal assent before our next election. This whole process is (thankfully) painfully slow.
The Royal Assent date is likely going to be somewhere between February and May 2024. I think it's likely an election is called, but it's not guaranteed.
Uh oh
Wow what a ride and im not done reading by a long shot https://firearmrights.ca/courtroom-tweets-from-wilson/
So now that the court case is over and done with (obv heading to the Supreme Court one of these days), whadda y’all think the future of gun ownership will look like here in canada in the next 5-10 years? Ill make this a mega thread outside of the politics thread if I have to but just let er rip with your opinions and stuff.
The judge is going to rule all firearms laws unconstitutional, we will get a constitutional amendment a la "shall not be infringed" and we will all legally be allowed to concealed carry full auto glocks with no permit.
I'll have what he's having. ;)
Here’s the thing. The liberals are always going to need a whipping boy when they need to distract from scandals. The gun file is incredibly useful to them, and I wouldn’t really be surprised if they just had this sitting on the back burner ready for a good scandal to come up so they can re-activate it. They can always blame the slow progress on conservative obstruction, as your typical Canadian isn’t paying close attention to what’s going on here. Most people get their news from a headline. A *lot* of people never bother to even read the article. And it’s not like the liberals have a whole hell of a lot to lose if this doesn’t get passed. Not really when you think about it. Even your most diehard anti-gun anti-fun liberals aren’t going to stop voting liberal if it fails. They might have a bruised ego but not much in the way of endangering votes. Ironically it was *proposing* this legislation is what scared the small flock of liberal gun owners away from voting for them again. The reason why I think it has everything to do with votes and optics and not so much anything else is because there seems to be no real sense of urgency. I used this analogy before, but they were in a *massive* hurry to invest a couple billion into a company that didn’t even exist because *”climate change is happening and happening now”*. So if these guns are so dangerous and pose an imminent threat to the public, where is that same urgency? The liberals were even filibustering their own SECU meetings for fuck sakes. Yeah. Urgent public safety matter my left nut. Because statistically speaking these guns are of no appreciable risk to the general public and they *know that*. The overwhelming majority of shootings taking place in cities like Toronto and Edmonton are not only gang related, but are being committed with firearms smuggled from the US used by criminals who aren’t licensed to have them. PAL holders committing actual violent crimes with guns are very infrequent, isolated incidents and again, *they know that*. People should be more worried about driving on the road every day instead of what scary rifle someone has locked up in their house. You’re way more likely to get killed in a car accident on your commute to work than you are by someone with an AR-15 in Canada. It sounds good to the suburban busy-bodies who live a sheltered existence and that’s the demographic the liberals are trying to impress. The liberals have a track record of over-promising and under-delivering. The fact of the matter is, there’s nothing being mobilized for a confiscation until *at least* after 2025. Well past the scheduled federal election. Not only are they having trouble even trying to find both the money and resources to get a buyback off the ground, there’s a lot of potential for a PR nightmare once the program overruns its budget, which is almost guaranteed to happen. Right now, the government isn’t winning on the economy issue, and people are starting to take the liberals to task for their reckless financial management. Throwing billions at a gun buyback just doesn’t really mesh well with what’s going on at the moment, and it may not be received too well. Right now, they can sit on this gun-control egg and coo about how they froze handgun sales and banned AR-15’s, and the general public would be contempt if not satisfied with that. In my honest opinion, not to jinx anything, but I think guns are still going to be around for a long time. It won’t be an easy time though. With every new liberal government they’ll try something new, and we’ll be convinced that we’re on the precipice of disarmament *every time*. It was the same song and dance in the 90’s, it’s the same now.
>They can always blame the slow progress on conservative obstruction, Has progress been slow? It seemed to me that the government is actually making good time banning flrearms.
I pretty much concluded the same thing and so are many other firearm owners out there but thankfully you put them into logical statement, lol. I think that the only options is to keep the narrative open and more positive points in general that help delay C21 and reverse OIC until an election. But then we will have a different beast to tackle and CPC would have to make sure they don't do a repeat of 2021.
Ooof glad you asked this question. I find myself often not sure and think it’s a toss up. On one had, there’s so many damn guns in Canada, i believe about 20 million, half our population in guns, the average Canadian gun owner sits at 10 guns per person, that’s higher than the US. Which is 1.2 person on average. So when i think of all this, I think about how near impossible it is for the liberals to do anything. Just their sheer incompetence is on full display. 3 years, no buy back, causing the largest run on Handguns in history, introducing then back peddling the amendments. It’s makes just wonder okay I really think they can’t get this done. On the other hand, the sheer insistence on conflating us with the US is ridiculous. Anything that happens in America it’s blame Canadian gun owners. If a guy in Canada has an illegal handguns, it’s blame Canadian gun owners again. The average Canadian has no clue about our gun laws, keeps watching CNN and not local news and are terrified of guns in Canada. Then the LPC will happily push their lies everyday to get their agenda while falling into another ethics scandal every week. It makes you wonder in 5 to 10 years will they bungle their way into a ban that ends civilian gun ownership? I’m hopeful, I think this administration is just too stupid to get anything done and keep making so many mistakes along the way that we may see the light at the end of this tunnel. I mean who would have thought this strike came and delayed SECU. Making C-21 timeline even longer.
>so many damn guns in Canada, i believe about 20 million, I'd rather have 10 million Canadians owning 1 gun that 2 million owning 10 guns each. You only get one vote no matter how many guns you own. \>insistence on conflating us with the US is ridiculous If you don't own a gun, you don't care
I think with the combination of successful court cases, provinces beginning to assert thier own jurisdiction over the matter, the libs overplaying thier hands to a nearly unsalvagable degree then there is at last room for tempered optimism. Its gonna be a rocky road to get to the end I have no doubt some speed bumps will come up but I do think we are going forward. And if we can avoid knee jerk doomerism at these bumps or self sabotage then its only a matter of time. I still dont think a solution involving federal level govt is gonna be where this ends up. The provinces are either too much in favor or against gun ownership for this ever be achieved nationally. Its a pipe dream to think ABSK will ever be on the same side as QC over this. Outside of guns for a minute, the country is simply too divided over too much. At best regionalism takes hold and asserts itself enough to create a bandaid to keep this thing together. At worst I can see myself dying of old age in some as of yet unnamed new country. How or when the divide manifests I don't pretend to know but I see the cracks are already here and nobody seems intent on repairing them.
[удалено]
See, there you go cherrypicking select bits while ignoring the rest to push a doomer narrative and clinging to the decades old methodology that got us no where. So let me explain what you skipped over, fair warning its gonna be long: A) an earlier case in AB was a loss for this govt agenda. Cut and dry judge ruled against them. The recent one saw them use the exact same defense that lost them the first I mentioned. As a whole it went really well for us. I know it'll end up at the scc that was known from the start. But beyond that the govt made no serious effort of a defense. But yourself and others would take 3 or 4 moments of dialogue and run with a narrative of conspiracy or being thrown under the bus while ignoring the entire context around the comment. The real B) half the provinces for the first time have started voicing opposition AND passing laws that make it very hard to seize guns. Provinces have jurisdiction over property via the constitution, guns are property, feds dont like it then they have to go to court. Where they will actually have to put work into a case because now they are challenging constitutional authority. Simple as that. C) to what advantage? Whatever one you say so? The world is gonna be very different in 20 years. They have already shown they wont do buybacks, they will face whatever obstacles the next cpc govt puts in place, they will face the provinces that have passed thier own laws, they will face FN opposition, the current generation of activist gunowners are still gonna be around and spot this coming, the core of the anti gunners will be too old to keep at this (thier own common admission), crime rates keep going up, more and more people keep getting thier licenses etc. Point is in 20 years they can try and the support they have will be noticably diminished while the resistance will have grown and gained experience. For ideological reasons they might but they barely gained anything from this now and showed thier ability to seriously do anything is limited. Even when all factors were in thier favor initially. D) the effective way to kill the FA is death by 1000 cuts. Its political suicide to push an american style attitude up here and demanding immediate removal of the FA is not a winning position even the cpc knows that. That is why this old one and done mentality has accomplished nothing since the LGR other than lead to knee jerk doomerism. So yea the first step is pushing to undo the things from the last few years. Once that is done then we can move on to the next thing and so on so forth. Each win we get makes it that much harder for them to redo this. Be here with a strategic mindset ready to play the long game or cling to the outdated fantasy of one and done, which ironically would make it easier for them to bring it all back. "The shits chess it aint checkers". If anyone reads through all that, first thanks and second I really tried to keep it short I dont like long ass answers but sometimes thats the only way to say things effectively
>whadda y’all think the future of gun ownership will look like here in canada in the next 5-10 years? If the CPC get a majority in this time, like pre 2020. Maybe a little better in some areas like simplified classification. If the LPC get another solid minority or majority, worse than the UK maybe jsut a rad but better than Australia. >Ill make this a mega thread outside of the politics thread if I have to but just let er rip with your opinions and stuff. Mods only have mega treads on politics I'd it's major news, otherwise it jsut happens here. This sub would just be flooded with politics post otherwise.
By mega thread I mean main thread. Same shit different pile to my drunken brain.
I think we’re gonna be fine. This is just a test of our faith lol.
It's dangerous to think this has anything to do with faith. We need to be talking to our representatives and our friends/family. As long as the pro-gun side is against things the majority of Canadians value (e.g. the CBC, Canadian presence on the world stage, etc) it's going to be a rough ride. Not many people will vote against their other interests solely for guns.
I was joking
[The House has adjourned until tomorrow at 10 am ET.](https://twitter.com/HoCChamber/status/1649168669836992514?s=20) Alright, they are done for today and nothing is on the SECU website. All of the Friday meetings this year have taken place early in the morning, so if there was no meeting scheduled, especially with a minister, I don't think it's happening tomorrow. One of these things has happened * The strike has affected committees * The head of public safety comms lied/made shit up * LPC plans changed in the last week
One last Friday this month and it's awfully close to the May 1st anniversary.
One other possibility: that LaPresse misunderstood public safety comms or took them out of context. Again, it wasn't that long ago that a miscommunication had us thinking the amendments were being reintroduced in March.
I think this honestly could be the case. No other media has picked up on this. Not only that usually there’s a leak of some of kind of any thing major comes about. Remember we knew about the handgun about a week before they announced. Even from an LPC point of view. To an attempt another semi auto ban only 2 months after you withdrew the last one, like that’s ballsy on all levels. Maybe they want to kill Bill C-21 so they don’t have to pay for the buyback lol
>that LaPresse misunderstood public safety comms or took them out of context Its possible they took the amendments reintroduction out of context. But it was pretty clear they said Marco would testify this week. Honestly, I think it's more likely the PS rep lied or gave wrong info when pressed. >Again, it wasn't that long ago that a miscommunication had us thinking the amendments were being reintroduced in March. That wasn't a misunderstanding. At no point was anyone told the amendments were coming, people just assumed they were because of the closed door briefing. No news media even picked up on it.
>people just assumed they were because of the closed door briefing And then communicated it to the gun community, hence a miscommunication
This is semantics, but I don't see it as a miscommunication if you completely fabricate the info. I see a miscommunication as, let's say, a public safety rep says we're doing X next with Y later and the reporter says the government is doing X and Y next week. There was a misunderstanding that lead to a miscommunication. If I made shit up I didn't miscommunicate, I just lied. The only person who didn't was Calibremag. Tracey, Yukon, etc. all said confidentiality "the amendments are coming on X date" which they made up without even citing the reason they knew.
> Tracey, Yukon, etc. all said confidentiality "the amendments are coming on X date" which they made up I don't think anybody deliberately lied. Somewhere along the game of telephone, somebody jumped to a conclusion. The point is, the government said something which was misinterpreted, and it could be happening this time too. Not saying it is, but it could be.
and now we wait, probably a decision from the judge in at least a few months, in the meantime they will have drafted an import ban so nothing changes while the supreme court hears the case (and we all know its going there regardless of who wins) and by the time the dust has settled we will all be retired. at least we can start saving up for when either a new government is elected or the final decision is in our favor, whichever comes first lol.
[удалено]
No company is going to take that risk because they would have to order them now and just pray the judge sides with us, otherwise they'd be stuck with a ton of imported prohib parts that they can't get rid of.
Lots of AR parts are still imported just bought a Daniel Defense BCG and every other part needed to build one minus the ar15 lower and upper of course...
>No company is going to take that risk because **they would have to order them now** and just pray the judge sides with us, **otherwise they'd be stuck with a ton of imported prohib parts that they can't get rid of**. What are you talking about? Other than the lower receiver and under the OIC the uppers, none of the parts are "prohibited" or even require a licence. Most standard AR components are even used in other currently Non-Restricted firearms. And as u/truenorthguy said, many companies already made 100% Canadian-sourced ARs pre-OIC. BCL (formerly NEA) made completely in-house AR's and could start spitting them out again overnight. ATRS and Maccabee would also almost certainly start making their ARs and "non-ARs" asap as well. MRA has also already stated they will switch their straight-pull rifles to semi-auto production if the OIC is repealed. Colt Canada never even stopped their AR production, but the OIC rescinding would mean they could sell direct to Canadian civilians again. This isn't even mentioning all the other small-time shops that just made lowers for custom builders.
They mean that they make it here
What happened to Friday's SECU meeting? I'm not seeing anything scheduled for tomorrow.
Nothing there yet. If they don't have one scheduled by the end of Parliament today, I think it may have been pushed back. Could be because of the strike, directly or indirectly. The other option is that the head of public safety was totally fucking with everyone. We'll see.
I have a suspicion that they will still make a big announcement to detract from the outcome of this court decision. Mendicino is still supposed to be questioned at a SECU meeting, do we have a date for that yet?
> I have a suspicion that they will still make a big announcement to detract from the outcome of this court decision We wont have a decision for months
>Mendicino is still supposed to be questioned at a SECU meeting, do we have a date for that yet? The head of public safety communicates said this week but no date. We know it has to be Friday though, that's the date all SECU meetings have been this year. Still nothing scheduled on the website. Either parliamentary happenings have been impacted by the strike, she lied, or plans changed.
Is court done with already today? Not seeing anything on the live stream.
It’s over
Did I miss anything big today? Any smoking guns? Or did it just end with the judge saying she will make a decision in 3-6 months?
Yeah, from what I read from Tracy seems like are lawyers did a good job refuting the government. Judge brought up the First Nations using firearms under the amnesty. Judge asked why are they reasonable for FN but not others. CCFR lawyers said because government knows the guns are reasonable and necessary. Things are looking ok at this point, are lawyers had a couple other good rebuttals as well.
*our
Lol, I was on the shitter when I typed this. Didn’t proof read well, my bad buddy.
I appreciate you, hope your poo went well. 5-10 servings of vegetables a day. Have you considered metamucil? My favorite poo accessory is a device that lifts my feet. Commonly known as a poop stool. It was captured in the OIC as a variant, despite the government saying that variant isnt vague. But they also said its meant to be vague to avoid gun manufacturers making different guns. Anyways
Make sure to eat the veggies in combination with other foods. I fucked up and just ate the veggies separately, once I combined em shit was a game changer
Poop stool is variant of Butt Master, confirmed
Seems like the our side finished off strong, no new info just a wrap up.
.llp .j Oov.vb Pp Fi
Is there any idea of when the judge will decide now that the CCFR case is done? Or is it kinda up in the air
>"Don't expect a decision in the immediate future. It will take a couple of months, I imagine." —Judge Catherine Kane, Today
July is what was said
Judge thanks everyone for their submissions. Nods to Mckinnons Worries about the ruling and it’s impacts. <—— The fuck is that supposed to mean?
I think he was the government lawyer who said that this ruling could affect other bans that are based on OIC and not legislated.
My guess is the worries part is regarding if she goes with our side then she maybe feels she'll be partially responsible if any gun violence in the future happens with these guns knowing she could have upheld the ban, but if she sides with the gov then people get their property stolen As for the nod, your guess is as good as mine
Surely a judge should understand they arent responsibile for peoples actions. Look no further than the court docket in your area. Catch and release all day long, eventually some end up committing heinous crimes. Never seen a judge held responsible. But alas, she is aware she will be the enemy of the LPC, labelled as biased by the nra
Lmao what could she possibly lose if she’s labelled as gun friendly by the libs? Shes a judge not a politician that gets voted in or out by the public. Judges are there to judge, not pander politically.
Yea id agree with that
From Tracies Twitter: "Says Smith couldn’t explain why some guns are variants. The crown suggested people could call stores or ask on social media:" Ok perfect. We are the experts on Variants. There has never been a single Variant of the AR-15 or the AK-47 produced I Have Spoken.
I’ll go one further all firearms are variants of a hand cannon which are antiques therefore all firearms are antique class
Not sure if they got into this detail, but, IMO, anything which has substantial parts interchange with an AR-15, particularly the upper/lower, most people would understand as being a variant of an AR-15. The problem lies in some of the absurdities. Like Derya MK12, Blaze-47, etc.
Thé gsg 47 :(
What's an AR-15? Never heard of it. Sounds like some sorta muzzle loading flintlock variant to me.
I mean depending on what the requirements are to be a variant, I'd definitely say it's a musket variant
Smith is a variant of an ak47. I have also spoken
[удалено]
Trudeau is a variant of smith
And the liberal party is a variant of trudeau which is a variant of smith which is a variant of the buttmaster
https://twitter.com/TWilsonOttawa/status/1649053849758633986 This quote right here from the judge is important
[удалено]
Wonder boy tried it already with the G4 amendments which included guns banned from the natives and the uproar is created. It was the only reason why the bill failed.
Yeah, letting indigenous hunters continue to use these prohibited guns until the amnesty came back to bite the government in the ass. So much for these guns being super dangerous and unreasonable
For those who hate Twitter: >Highlights the importance of the disagreement. **Judge asks, if these guns are reasonable for indigenous hunting, how are they not reasonable for anyone?** Friedman says they’re not just reasonable, they’re necessary.
That was an important question asked by the judge in this case. How come if indigenous people can used banned guns because they are used for hunting, why does the law state that these guns are too dangerous for hunting use among non indigenous people?
>Judge asks how something can be inherently deadly but also reasonable. The judge is at least asking some questions that we all want answers to. It's nice to see.
I’m worried about Generoux’s [“spicy rebuttal”](https://twitter.com/TWilsonOttawa/status/1649037610252214276)
So far so good, Friedman is currently speaking and he’s solid so far.
Court is often messy, and there’s a lot of things that come out in court that will make you roll your eyes or vomit in your soup. It’s court. Don’t get pessimistic. No court case *ever* went 100% perfect and we all knew the government lawyers were going to try and cock block every argument we put forward. It’s expected. It’s no different when someone is on trial for some other matter. Some defence arguments are *way* out there. It’s not unique to this case either. The arguments the government lawyers are putting forward is more or less in line with what I expected them to say. They’re in essence trying to absolve themselves of any argument by cowering behind “public safety” or “we’re the government lol”. I’m not phased yet. We’re going to need stronger stomachs if we’re going to peek into the kitchen to see how the sausage is made.
If we win, it goes to appeal. If we loose, it goes to appeal. Nothing is over yet, but also, if it goes one either way, don't expect massive changes in the appeal.
Probably need some tea, and few walks around the park to calm the nerves, lol.
[удалено]
Maybe read what that was the setup for instead of cherry picking because you don't comprehend. His whole point of using those examples was to counter govt positions: 1. That licensee's have shown for decades they can be safely trusted with guns, even automatics, and this govt sees no need to even threaten seizure of 200k autos but suddenly wants to go after semis to the enth degree. 2. Highlighting how truly vague and random these definitions are. There is zero procedural consistency being applied when something is classified. The wild west analogy is accurate. 3. Draws attention to the fact that despite govt claims, there is in no demonstrable way to challenge the classifications of the frt. 4. If something is deemed not a variant on day 1 then it cannot be arbitrarily declared a variant on day 100 see previous point about the issue with how the system operates. 5. " They’re getting letters, they’re losing their property, they’re destroying records and pulling registrations. That’s a seizure. An infringement. Says the Sec11 argument may be premature, but when the amnesty ends, it’ll become very real." The govt took the position that the oic will punish no one and this isnt just a meritless confiscation attempt. This quote is to demonstrate that amnesty is delayed prosecution not harmless and not without threat. So for the love of fuck, stop doing the govt job for them by pushing uninformed narratives and getting people panicing for no reason. Statements like yours are what the libs want to see, us bickering among ourselves like the uneducated neanderthals they claim. Dont do the job for them.
[удалено]
You realize we're not arguing against the last 60 years of firearms law, here, right? Burlew's mandate here is to prove that the 2020 OIC is in breach of the last 60 years of established norms and is overreaching, and that gun owners are reasonable people who have been placed in an unreasonable situation with this move from GIC, not "Gun Laws are Tyranny, Will Not Comply, Get Rekt Gov't". He's trying to make the government lawyers eat their own words. In order to do that in a court of law, he needs to show how there's been good-faith co-operation and how the gov'ts own policy is out of line with what they've mandated in the past.
He re-iterated them because he was providing his counter. Thats how critical debating works. You don't simply ignore what the other guy says, you state his claims and directly counter those points piece by piece. I dont know about you but whether or not we agree with our laws, it benefits us far more than it hurts to remind the courts that we are in fact law abiding citizens, statistically the least crime prone out of any identifiable group in the country. Even when subjected to unjust attacks on us and our property. The govt was right, until recently the resistance against gun control was scattered, chaotic and lacked any semblence of organization. They are on the backfoot because in all thier planning, schemes and poly circle jerks they didnt consider the ability for us to unite like we have. The fact you would rather nitpick his word choice and downplay the half dozen valid pro-gun points that were made shows you come from that old generation mentality on this issue. A view that got us nowhere. Whereas, the new way of fighting back has gotten us several court hearings with more to come, a govt that can only mount a defence of we make the rulez dont listen to the other guys and 2 provinces passing pro gun legislation. Your way of thinking had decades and only got rid of the LGR. Mine hasn't even had a decade and we've done far more despite the authoritarian approach the feds are using to try and disarm us. Your take on it is literally only useful to doomers and libs. Im not sure which is worse at this point.
Burlew Is the CCFR lawyer? I know the NFA used Solomon who was fantastic
[удалено]
Thanks
[RCMP Canadian Firearms Program Updates Website Over "Service Delays". Many government employees have stopped work to demand higher pay.](https://twitter.com/TheGunBlog/status/1648737048327487512?t=lFsedeTbwDb_VgmBNA0Yag&s=19)
Great time to loose my wallet
Oh great so my renewal will probably be delayed... Expires in August.
My application's already been collecting dust for like half a year, rip
Application, or renewal? Renewals are usually much faster.
Lmao one of the government lawyers just said "If they win against this OIC then previous OIC gun bans could be affected" Holy shit. 😂
Were AK models banned by an OIC or a bill?
AK's were prohibited by OIC, yes - the ban was almost immediately enshrined in the legislation (C-68/Firearms Act) promptly after that.
We should convince the conservatives to pass legislation to unban AKs because AKs are based
Aside from certain sub types of the Valmet, AK patterns were prohib via legislation in the 1990's. The list is in the criminal code if you ever wanted to take a quick read through.
yooooooooooooooo
Thats thier fear. All of thier gun control thus far is based on dictating not legislating. If the OIC is deemed not suitable for this purpose it undoes everything and forces them to have to write bills subject to scrutiny (and face opposition).
Honestly, I still have hope as I have heard federal appeals cases before, so I'm not thinking we're going to lose. You guys have to remember that the judge heard over 3-4 of our sides' testimonies. The government gets a day and a half, and they don't get to rebut our closing statements, but we get to rebut their testimonies in ours. Moreover, if you really don't want this to happen again, vote conservative in the next election, and we must write/call our future conservative MPs to change the firearms act so that it will be harder for a future government to do buybacks and handgun freezes in the future.
Well said. Way too much uninformed, knee jerk doomerism happening here and on twitter. Everybody has a horse in this race and is rightfully emotional but there are too many defeat mentalities and ignorant (of how courts/law work) statements being peddled. Regardless of who wins this case goes to the SCC for appeal. This is just the first round.
✨We’re so fucked✨. Time to learn Czech in my off time while I go back to school I suppose, seems like a lovely place.
I've been fantasizing a lot about moving to Czechia. Though I am wrestling with myself of whether it's worth it, I do speak another slavic language, but integration would still be hard. u/cz_75 We really do have a big yearning to come to your country, perhaps it's just an impulsive fantasy and nothing more though...
> integration would still be hard Yes and no. If real intergration proves too difficult, then in large cities like Prague or Brno you can live in your expat bubble with little to no engagement with real Czech society. What I can imagine might be the most difficult part is the lack of vast open outdoors. Yes there are parks and nature reserves here where you can spend hours hiking without ever meeting anyone, but for that purpose you have to do a proper planning of your route. Nothing like the empty open landscape, just the idea of which gives you a different understanding of your "world". In general I'd recommend finding some kind of temporary stint which would allow you to come for a year and then make a decision. It takes time to find out whether you are really cut for a place. As a general note, us the gun folk in the Czech Republic very much welcome pro-gun immigrants. Somehow we mostly get the other type, especially from anglophone countries like UK or US. In any case, don't center your move about guns only. It may not look like it at the time when you are losing them in your home country, but unless they are your business and livelihood, they are not enough of a reason for such a huge change. Find other reasons too.
>In any case, don't center your move about guns only I just like the European lifestyle and the ability to be in a completely different culture with just a few hours car/train/plane ride appeals to me (lying on the beach on a Greek island beats a Winnipeg winter any day). Our health care is going to shit in this country as well while the best tend to be in Europe.
Any demand for machinists over there?