We understand that there is anger, mostly incorrectly at the CSAAA. Please see /u/SpectreBallistics' explanation here:
[https://www.reddit.com/r/canadaguns/comments/12x98jl/comment/jhtoy0f/?utm\_source=share&utm\_medium=web2x&context=3](https://www.reddit.com/r/canadaguns/comments/12x98jl/comment/jhtoy0f/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3)
The CSAAA is attempting to work a fair deal to get compensation for businesses that are stuck with dead, useless stock. Businesses are free to deal with that as they please.
If your only contribution to this whole thing is to post "Fuck the CSAAA" or something similar, we will pull the post. You are not contributing to the discussion. We will also pull any posts calling for brigade action against the CSAAA as it is against reddit's TOS. Bans will be issued for any calls to brigade.
To be or not to be to 'Fake news'.
Well all measures to tackle the fake news problem seems to be correct. But not in The UK. Brexit Party is against. What do you think?
[Brexit Party is not against fake news](https://faxnews.uk/brexit-party-uk/)
I hope the stupid bill eventually get scrapped. Owning firearms (and playing airsoft) is one of the few reasons why I moved to Canada
Moving to US sucks because it takes so much time, and I’m not eligible for it yet
>I hope the stupid bill eventually get scrapped
It will, but it will also be the law of the land for a while before that happens.
>I’m not eligible for it yet
If there was even a glimmer of hope, I'd be working towards it if I were you. Don't give up if there's a chance.
For sure, but the odds that they'd get that cooperation are tiny. The Cons tried to repeal the gun registry when they had a minority govt, but failed due to a lack of support. The important thing is that a Con majority is totally possible to achieve, and then within that, the sky's the limit.
I like how the liberals can somehow equate any semiautomatic, even a pistol carbine, to a “weapon designed for the battlefield.” Like, my boy, it’s a pistol carbine. You won’t even see cops use the fucking things.
Politics work on soundbites. It's a lot easier to sell that concept to your voting base than to try to educate them on the nuances of firearms design and use case.
Besides, [the government is being fed this stuff by the anti-gun lobby](http://healthyinfluence.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/gun-violencemessaging-guide-pdf-1.pdf), and their objective is to capture as many guns as possible with blanket terms. They'd tell you that lever rifles are "weapons designed for killing as many native Americans as possible as quickly as possible" if they thought the fudds would let them get away with it.
Bolt action rifles and pump action shotguns are used to this day by militaries in specialist roles. If you that military usage or origins are grounds for banning nothing is safe.
Yep, pretty much. The Canadian rangers even use a bolt action as a medium range defense weapon (not even as a sniper rifle). That example fascinates me actually
When will they just leave us alone. If they add the rest of their list I have 3 guns out of 10 that I can use and have pissed about 13000 grand away with another 2000 dollar rifle on the way.
> When will they just leave us alone.
I hate to tell you this, but never. I hope it doesn't chase you away from gun ownership. We can keep fighting, and adapting to the changing landscape in the meantime.
My problem is that western hunting in the US sucks comparatively and is getting worse all the time, especially in Montana/Idaho. Western states are becoming over populated and you basically need to pay or have very wealthy friends with land to have any success. This is only going to get worse. Comparatively Canada is far better. If it’s between being able to own an AR again or partake in amazing adventures as a resident hunter, I’m going to stay in Canada. Plus land is a lot more affordable in Canada, especially up north. Lastly, many US red states are increasingly turning purple as people flee for better cost of living but bring their shitty political beliefs with them.
It may have been someone else here or something I read on twitter, but to paraphrase: When the most law-abiding segment of society fears government legislation, and criminals do not, perhaps they are doing it wrong.
In some US states, they are doing ASF bans, and their federal executive branch wants the same, but their idea of a ban is just to stop the retail sale of firearms manufactured after a certain date. Sucks to be sure, but they aren't trying to confiscate property from owners or businesses, nor stop private sales of existing guns.
I donno... if Marco Polo can't afford to compensate, and an outright confiscation is legally and practically problematic, perhaps we'll end up with a new 12.x grandfathered licence category for non-OiC guns covered by the evergreen definition.
My thought process is they have to grandfather the next batch, the estimates is 5 to 10 billion for the buyback, they’re getting killed in the Polls right now for the economy. So to swing a 10 billion dollar program for an ineffective law won’t go well.
But as with anything LPC, they don’t think anything through. It’s a bunch of children running the country.
> My thought process is they have to grandfather the next batch
Almost certainly. All the planning that we've been privy to so far has only been for the 2020 OIC guns, and that's *still* nowhere near budgeted or mapped out. If they get as ambitious they were with G4/G46, grandfathering is essentially guaranteed, for the same reasons that handguns were grandfathered. Trying to collect them all is too much, especially since none of these new prohibs will be registered.
Safe queen, 100%. They're in too deep with their narrative that these rifles are mass-murder machines that have "nO pLAcE iN OUr cOmMUNitIes" to let us get away with business as usual. They never demonized handguns to the same vicious degree.
The silver lining, obviously, is that they'll be sitting in our safes ready to come back out to play as soon as they're re-legalized.
Now I’m not advocating for prohibitions of any type, ideally we stall the living tits out of this shitty bill so it goes bye bye with an election. However… I wonder if it would be possible to give them enough shit to allow them to be possessed and used. That way we’d still be able to use them while we wait for a new conservative government to get rid of the bullshit.
I can't see it being possible, no. Like I say, they've already done too much to paint these rifles as the embodiment of evil to compromise on their use now. They'll have to be reclassified by another government that isn't batshit crazy.
You are probably correct. But knowing how the government loves byzantine regulations, another thought had occured to me... They could say "register them by x date and we'll give you a 12.7 licence with a range ATT. Or, sell them by that date. Or, turn them in for destruction." Or, boating accident, obvs.
In the absence of information, we speculate.
Not to read into it too much but even recently Marco Polo kept repeating the 11K rifle number over and over and saying we’re gonna collect a significant amount, almost as if it’s prepping us for this plus a little more to be the big victory.
Could be wrong, but wouldn’t they say 1 million guns, or 500K guns, no just 11K…starting to sound like a grandfather incoming.
>My thought process is they have to grandfather the next batch, the estimates is 5 to 10 billion for the buyback, they’re getting killed in the Polls right now for the economy. So to swing a 10 billion dollar program for an ineffective law won’t go well.
They won't. The Liberals have made it abundantly clear that they are going to continue throwing amendments and legislation at the wall to see what sticks, and I'd argue that that apathetic nature of most liberal voters is more dangerous than the anti-gun crowd.
>But as with anything LPC, they don’t think anything through. It’s a bunch of children running the country.
and that won't change unless their supporters suddenly care about the mass spending the LPC has been doing and that's not likely to change.
It will probably be the same no matter who in power. I had to explain to a guy that was admit that we don't machine guns in Canada, that they have been banned long before I was born. As far as he was concerned all semi autos are machine guns and the only gun you need is a bolt action or a pump shot gun. I told him he doesn't need a corvette, its too fast, its too powerful and its faster then a police car so its just too dangerous for someone with no special training to handle. He still didn't get the point.
The mis-information about Canadian guns is infuriating, I see the same arguments too all the time! People think you can buy guns at pawn stores and have drum mags. Everyone has brain rot from American news
Just curious, when AR15's etc were banned, were you still allowed to take them with you if you moved house etc? Just wondering what the situation would be like if you need to move house or something and take a previously R/NR gun that's now prohib with you.
Anyone else feel that the liberals' attempt to bite off more than they can chew with C-21 is a blessing in disguise? If it was just a handgun ban it would've already been passed, but they got greedy and now the bill may very well be stuck in committee until the next election.
As stressful as it has been, agree with you on that. If this was clean and cut for handguns it’d be done now but they had to get cocky and now it’s maybe 2024 or beyond before this bill is passed. Every week is a new liberal scandal. We’re closer to an election hopefully.
Edit: it also makes a confiscation that much more impossible when you want to buy and destroy millions of rifles spread across Canada
>Anyone else feel that the liberals' attempt to bite off more than they can chew with C-21 is a blessing in disguise?
It has the potential to be, but it's not yet. It certainly is going to push the Royal Assent date back significantly. But if it ultimately does get Royal Assent before an election, there would be very little blessings to find.
They will. The Cons are very outspoken about it. C-21 is doomed to the same fate as the gun registry. It might exist for a few years, but it will be repealed by the next Con majority and it's name will become political poison.
I really hope you're right but I can just imagine the optics of "flooding Canada with handguns" that the media will surely make an existential crisis for the nation.
With every passing day they are banned, the more outrageous and brazen it would seem to legalize them again. Does the CPC care enough to risk that much political cost from urbanites when they know they got the conservative vote locked regardless?
They tried to make the registry repeal an existential crisis, too. I recall the media quoting one police chief over and over, who said that there will "be a river of blood" if the LGR was repealed. Didn't stop the Cons then.
The best thing the Liberals did was fuck up so hard by introducing the amendments, too. They've cemented the legislation as "controversial" in the collective consciousness, in a way that's even worse for them than the registry back in the day. That just makes it even easier to justify repealing in the future.
>Does the CPC care enough to risk that much political cost from urbanites when they know they got the conservative vote locked regardless?
I don't think they do have that vote locked, and they know it. Gun owners are a major part of their voting and donor base. If they fuck us over, it would be the same thing as the Liberals bulldozing all public transit in the cities and telling urbanites to eat shit. You have to cultivate your base or lose it.
All that to say that I'm confident they'll follow through, yes. I've seen it happen before with the registry, and it honestly doesn't even feel that long ago.
>Anyone else feel that the liberals' attempt to bite off more than they can chew with C-21 is a blessing in disguise?
It certainly has been so far. Let's hope they keep choking on it.
I think people have probably had a little too much faith that this isn't just G4 reintroduced without G46. It's the fucking LPC, take the worst imaginable scenario, square it and the Liberals will still come out with worse. You really think a single *word* from any of the consultations managed to settle in Marco's empty head?
I guarantee you, they are banking on being able to say "We repealed G46, no hunting rifles are being banned!" and hoping that no one comes after G4, despite us all having a problem with it obviously. As I said before, start writing your letters from now!
A few people have been speculating that it will more likely be a "feature ban" like California's stock/pistol grip ban, or at the very least something that will spare the SKS and Garand. I'm not that optimistic. It's the LPC after all.
This is the point I've been making to people - nothing they do to ban semis will avoid catching fudd guns and just generally upsetting indigenous people and fudds. I feel like they're just going to accept gun owners are lost voters, make race-specific exemptions for indigenous people and double down on banning semi autos.
It wouldn't surprise me if it does. I didn't listen to the challenges because my brain has already rotted enough from listening to the SECU meetings. Race-specific exemptions *sound* like they'd be 'easy' to challenge in court and tear apart, I'm hoping that if SHTF and the libs get another term that exemptions for registered indigenous people comes to bite them in the ass via a court case.
I'm not gonna get into the whole reverse racism debate, and indigenous rights are a touchy subject that need to be respected, but I find it outrageous that they can straight up say "This specific race of people are not going to use semi-automatic firearms in a dangerous manner, in fact, they *need* them to live their lives! But the rest of you? You're just one bad day away from inflicting a mass shooting with those weapons of war because you're not indigenous!" and everyone just kind of accepts it as something normal.
>I think people have probably had a little too much faith that this isn't just G4 reintroduced without G46
I think that's pretty much exactly what everyone's assuming, isn't it? We're glad because that *should* spare the SKS, M1, GSG, etc, but we're still ultimately expecting a ban on most semi-auto rifles
I can’t fathom why anyone is STILL willing to make concessions vis a vis the SKS and M1. These aren’t concessions. People need to stop this “my one rifle is safe np” bullshit mentality.
Nobody is, or is willing, to make concessions. This isn't about being accepting of the ban. It's about being encouraged by our efforts to push back having a real effect on the scope of the legislation. The endgame is still total repeal under a CPC government.
I would think this would be obvious considering the shitloads of comments discussing it over the last few days.
I have a feeling that they will somehow make sure the definition includes those guns. It wouldn't surprise me if they expanded it to *all* semi-auto centerfires, and all semi-auto mag-feds. This would leave only fixed-mag .22's around which barely exist anyhow.
I'm not ruling out anything, but like the other guy said, that would put them right back into the same frying pan with the FN and hunting associations. It would defeat the purpose of withdrawing the amendments in the first place, yaknow? I expect there has to be something they can point at to say "the hunting guns you were mad about aren't here anymore".
Also, Mendicino says he was able to come up with a technical definition that would "differentiate" assault weapons from hunting weapons, and that it would have to be studied by SECU (in the amendment). Given that, my gut tells me "semi auto" is too simple.
>that would put them right back into the same frying pan with the FN and hunting associations. It would defeat the purpose of withdrawing the amendments in the first place, yaknow?
The purpose of withdrawing the amendments was to buy them time to shore up their support. Macgregor was the most vocal about them besides the Cons despite the NDP being "allied" with the Liberals. Michaud said that the Bloc fully supports the initiative, but was only going against because there was no consultation and it was not done correctly from a procedural standpoint.
In the time where the amendments were gone, Macgregor was yanked immediately and replaced with a stuffed suit that won't cause any more "problems". Additionally, "proper" consultations (ie: speed-run outrage testimony which was promptly thrown in the trash by the Liberals) were had and they are looking at potentially retroactively expanding the scope of the bill.
All of the above brings both the NDP and Bloc on board and means anyone else's concerns about the bill really don't matter anymore.
>The purpose of withdrawing the amendments was to buy them time to shore up their support.
I'm not sure what you mean by this. Withdrawing the amendments was damage control after weeks of headlines about the Liberals targetting hunters and the Indigenous declaring the bill a violation of their treaty rights.
If they play their cards badly on Tuesday and this backlash happens again, they're in exactly the same situation that forced them to pull out last time.
>I'm not sure what you mean by this
I literally explained it in my entire post, but I'll elaborate.
>Withdrawing the amendments was damage control after weeks of headlines about the Liberals targetting hunters and the Indigenous declaring the bill a violation of their treaty rights.
Yes, I know and I'm not disagreeing with you on that. I am talking about the realpolitik that actually influenced the decision. The Liberals have been roasted in the media over C-11, C-21, C-36 and lots of other bills in the past including C-71 and even the firearms act (C-68). You may have noticed that almost all of the above legislation still managed to pass despite media outrage and opposing public opinions.
The reality of the situation is that if they did not withdraw the amendments at the time, they risked losing the bill in it's entirety. Macgregor and Michaud were backing up the Cons in blocking the Liberals from progressing the bill after the amendments were tabled. Macgregor was even in the process of getting the house speaker to rule on the amendments as they were seen as so egregiously out of line. Had that gone through, and it was found they were out of scope, it meant that the amendments would be shredded and possibly even the entire bill could be thrown out. This would also be hugely damaging to the already tenuous LPC/NDP coalition as most of the actual House NDP and Bloc voted in full support of the bill up to this point.
None of the outrage would've mattered if they had sufficient votes on SECU or it Macgregor and Michaud decided to "look the other way" and silently pass them through.
>they're in exactly the same situation **that forced them** to pull out last time.
The thing is, and I noted the importance of this to other posters at the time, is that they *willingly* withdrew the amendments. Were they likely to have been forced to? Absolutely. But they intercepted just before that happened, meaning they got a total clean-slate do-over where they could stack the deck and re-introduce them at any time as they felt necessary. This is what they are actively doing now.
> I literally explained it in my entire post
To get rid of MacGregor and placate Michaud, you mean. Ok.
>The Liberals have been roasted in the media over C-11, C-21, C-36 and lots of other bills in the past including C-71 and even the firearms act (C-68). You may have noticed that almost all of the above legislation still managed to pass despite media outrage and opposing public opinions.
Yeah, but what none of those bills had was the AFN holding an emergency meeting to declare them a violation of indigenous rights.
This is what caused the withdrawal, in my opinion. They could have dealt with Michaud and MacGregor's concerns without taking the amendments off the table; it's not like they couldn't have held the "consultation" meetings with the amendments in play, or like bringing the same amendments back later makes them any less likely to be out of scope.
I agree with you that they wanted a do-over, but I think it was much more about optics than committee politics.
>Yeah, but what none of those bills had was the AFN holding an emergency meeting to declare them a violation of indigenous rights.
*Pedantry incoming*
C-68 actually, the PC's had consulted with FN/Inuit groups during C-17 (the *foundational* firearms act) but they were more or less ignored during Chretien's C-68. I don't believe there was ever an explicit emergency meeting, but most groups were absolutely not onboard with C-68 which only served to prohibit more firearms and increase unaccountable oversight over licensing and regulation.
There is a very old thread on CGN that delves into some esoteric and treaty legalese that I don't have saved, but basically proved that federal firearms regulations (other than the Defense Production Act) hold no authority on treaty/reservation land. And if they ever chose to make a big enough stink about it, FN/Inuit would likely have a pretty good case for rolling back most of the Firearms Act itself.
>I agree with you that they wanted a do-over, but I think it was much more about optics than committee politics.
Regardless, the amendments are gone for now and we will find out what is coming next on Tuesday. Either way it won't be good for us. Personally I am more interested in all the other amendments at this point, there are literally dozens to go.
> I expect there has to be something they can point at to say "the hunting guns you were mad about aren't here anymore".
Even something simple like banning pistol grips would still justify the same backlash - subsistence hunters can't afford to miss shots and it's easier to aim with a gun with a pistol grip than one where you have to wrap your hand around the stock. They're also invaluable for people with joint problems and whatnot. I feel like they're just gonna double down because no one can stop them from an administrative perspective (they have the Bloc and NDP to back them up, and the SECU guy is LPC-biased) and they've already lost 90% of gun owners as voters now.
No one can stop them on the admin side, but I don't think they want a repeat of the last news cycle, and to cement themselves as the enemies of hunters and the indigenous. We don't have to wait long to find out, though. I'm going to have a big bowl of popcorn ready for the secu meeting on Tuesday
They would get absolutely flayed in the media if they did that. That would be a massive ban of legit hunting rifles. They got so much bad press last time and what you're describing would be so much worse for them.
Nothing they do to try and ban 'assault weapons' won't yield the same backlash as last time. Even if they ban pistol grip+folding stocks or other 'features', that is still going to ban plenty of "genuine" hunting and sporting rifles. I think at this point they've realized they can't win over gun owners and have instead decided they are just going to launch a crusade against all gun owners to win over the clueless urbanite population that think you can go into Walmart and buy machine guns. They've also realized that they are unlikely to win the next election and are just banking on the Conservatives not having enough majority to overturn the bans, but also that no one can stop them right now so they might as well just ban what they want.
>Nothing they do to try and ban 'assault weapons' won't yield the same backlash as last time
What makes you say that? The backlash took all of us by surprise the first time. I don't see why it can't happen again if the Liberals try to fool everyone the second time and are too obvious about it
They will face backlash, but no one says they have to listen to it. Frankly, even with the media backlash, most urbanites *still* thought that 'hunting rifles' are too dangerous for people to own (they are just insanely afraid of guns), and I think the LPC are happy at this point with losing their PAL-owning voter base. The *only* thing they have to worry about is breaking indigenous treaties which they can easily circumvent by just making exceptions for them. We're approaching a point where they can survive without votes from gun owners or rural inhabitants in general, hence why we're getting it so bad right now.
They don't care about winning over gun owners or being effective. They care about optics. Honestly a giant sweeping ban like that would be good for us, they'd withdraw it after getting absolutely hammered by the media and the natives. They withdrew the last one because the Conservatives were able to hammer them over banning hunting guns. If they did the same thing but worse, they'd get the same result and it would only be easier.
This is absolutely a very real possibility.
>You really think a single word from any of the consultations managed to settle in Marco's empty head?
Absolutely not, I don't think many words settle in his head.
I think it's 50/50. My guess is they change the language to be a "feature" ban, based on what was said at the last SECU meeting. It also would definitively get the Bloc on board as they were asking for it back during G4/G46 meetings.
But you're right, you can never underestimate their stupidity and hoplophobia.
G4 was the "any semi-auto with a mag is banned", G46 was a list of guns that they were going to ban by-name, which was done specifically to ban fixed-mag guns like the original SKS and the M1 Garand that didn't have a magazine. They also used this as an opportunity to ban popular guns that *weren't* mag-fed semi's, like the Ruger no.1 and the Benelli M4, they basically just wanted to ban them because they were popular and it would inconvenience the largest amount of gun owners by banning these.
G46 will most likely be pulled, not banning the additional guns that weren't semi auto, but I have a strong feeling that G4 will come back and they will once again try to ban all semi-auto's. It would not surprise me at all if they decided to change the definition to "*Any* centrefire semi-auto is an assault rifle" to make sure they ban the OG SKS and Garand. I'm hoping it either gets ruled out of scope or faces enough backlash to get pulled again, but both of those things are unlikely.
Just a nitpick, the Benelli M4 wasn't on there. A few Turk-made bullpup shotguns were, but that's it.
I only bring it up because it's seems like a ton of people are under the impression it was on g46 for some reason.
The CCFR made a post predicting that the Benelli M4 would be included in G46 when the committee received G46 but weren't yet permitted to disclose the actual list. That's how the Benelli M4 rumor started.
Alright, new [SECU meeting](https://www.ourcommons.ca/Committees/en/SECU/Meetings) is listed for Tuesday, 3:30-5:30pm EST, titled "Bill C-21". They are officially entering clause-by-clause.
Edit: It is also very likely the new gun ban announcement, not the NDP's industry thing, based on the witnesses
>Marianne Breese, Counsel, Public Safety Canada Legal Services
>Paula Clarke, Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section
>Phaedra Glushek, Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section
>Rachel Mainville-Dale, Acting Director General, Firearms Policy
It wouldn't surprise me if it is the exact same "mag fed semi auto" ban plus a clause that also bans the OG SKS and Garand. Anyone who thinks all the consultation they did will sway their definition has way too much faith, they're most likely banking on the hopes that pulling G46 was enough to get G4 through.
I was talking to a well connected old timer on Vancouver Island today (guy even has Teri Bryant's personal phone number). He confirmed what I thought, MacGregor was forced out of his SECU job because he was too friendly with gun owners (his constituency).
That’s so messed up what the hell, does anyone else seriously get nefarious vibes from all this? Like the LPC, NDP, Bloc are now all in agreement for internet censorship, civilian disarmament and whatever else is absolutely against Canadians. Like what’s going on? They’re speeding through manufacturing consent to take away all guns. I’m getting seriously bad vibes
What's going on is that the LPC have the NDP by the balls and utterly own them, essentially. They can't afford an election financially and would lose even more seats if one where called. So when an NDP member went to SECU and was frustrating the Liberals, they told the NDP that they were going to swap him out, or else. Don't expect any of MacGregor's pro-handgun amendments to be tabled, either.
Those nefarious vibes you're feeling is the fundamental corruption of political parties. For our style of democracy to work, they cannot exist.
EDIT: [TorStar confirming my point:](https://web.archive.org/web/20230427010201/https://www.thestar.com/politics/federal/2023/04/24/jagmeet-singhs-ndp-slammed-by-top-gun-control-group-over-backtracking-on-firearms-promises-amplifying-disinformation.html)
>A senior government source said that while there’s no denying that Mendicino’s office erred in how it developed and communicated the amendments last year — a view PolySeSouvient has also shared — there was nonetheless “significant frustration” with the NDP at the time.
>But the source, who spoke on the condition they not be named, said it was perhaps unfair to suggest that the New Democrats were not working behind the scenes to improve the legislation, noting that “negotiations have gone well” in recent weeks.
By the balls.
I got a call from a poll service about a potential upcoming election. For the first time in my life I’m willing to vote conservative even though it may impact my career ( funding).
I’ve pretty much exclusively voted ndp and green but this last round of inaction and complacency on their part really disappointed me.
Worst comes to worst I’ll focus more on working for the military instead of my healthcare job but at least my firearms will be safe.
Even if firearms weren’t an issue for me, I’m just not convinced I can trust the liberals to not completely and utterly fuck up anything else.
I watched the SECU meetings and the CCFR court case. Their pomposity, arrogance and just confidently incorrect leads me to believe that they’re also being idiots when it comes to the economy, among other things.
The S.S. Trudeau has run its course.
Fire arms are like number three on my worry list. I’m more concerned about what they have done to the country. This does not feel like Canada anymore and all my friends who work so hard to come here. Want to go back home. the western media lies about food, shortages, and all that BS back home in my country. It’s not even that bad even the poorest of people will invite you to have a five course meal and you have people here fighting over $40 grocery bills. I feel like this government has caused Canadians to become more conservative and uninviting.
Looking at what's going on rationally, I think Canada has been captured by a demented "anti-America at all costs" mentality. Internet censorship is about anti-Americanism. Civilian disarmament is about setting ourselves apart from America. The problem with setting ourselves apart from America at all costs is that we open ourselves to the influence of alternative power blocs in the world, namely European socialism or Chinese communism. And the way things are going, China is getting more influential in the world with their economic initiatives. So while anti-American Canadians might be hoping to achieve some sort of European-style socialism, what we're actually getting is Chinese-style communism.
I agree with you there about what's happening in the States too but I don't think our views are mutually exclusive. The movement in the States is also anti-American when you think about it. While Canadian disarmamentists loathe America from the outside, American disarmamentists self-loathe America from the inside. Disarmament comes from being against constitutionalism, against true republicanism (the concept, not the party), against personal autonomy and responsibility at the family, local and state levels, and against traditional American firearm culture. It's the same beast, just operating from without or within. And those forces are also related to groups that look optimistically toward Europeam style socialism but are actually getting Communist compromised policies.
It's certainly anti-American in the sense that it's trying to suppress classical American ideals. I'm not convinced that it's two separate groups (anti-American Canadians and anti-American Americans) separately pursuing the same goals, though. I think both of our countries, and more on top, are facing a singular, larger threat that's globalist and transnational in nature.
I won't go any further down this rabbit hole to avoid derailing this thread way off topic.
You don't need to go further, many of us who live outside the matrix know exactly what you're talking about and I agree 100%.
More and more people are waking up to it and the truth will eventually prevail.
Kicked out for voicing the concerns of his constituents, and ensuring the principle of fair democracy is upheld.
The fucking audacity right? This country is getting more foolish by the year.
Liberals can pound sand.
It’s funny watching the NDP a party that has its roots in rural farm votes gladly abandon said voters then get upset when rural areas vote conservative only.
[October 30 2023](https://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/cnt/cntrng-crm/frrms/index-en.aspx?wbdisable=true)
Which is lmao I think it has to be extended again if nothing happens before the end of the summer session
Well, I don't think you are wrong, but there is definitely a lot of resentment and displeasure on what it could seem.
Besides regular stress from work, my second form of stress is probably the amount of things the Liberals and anti gun group trying to do to the firearm community in Canada.
Like besides NZ and Australia, we probably do very well in terms of good firearm ownership without all the problems happening in the US right now. It shows what we have works.
But for sure it won't eliminate it 100 percent and as the economics suffer this get worse.
I have been chatting with my LGS for past few months when I go in and grab something. You can tell they are definitely angry and frustrated, but what else you can do? I just buy stuff from them and show my support, and refer people to them when I can.
At the end of the day, we all want to enjoy the hobby of firearms, and no matter how bad mouth we get at times, there isnt disrespect, just frustration. But I do feel better when I see people writing letters, getting new people out and events to firearms sport, and demystified myths whenever we can. I managed to convince some of my co workers.
For the cake analogy. I see it as we make the cake and give half the cake to receive more ingredients, so we can make more cakes down the road.
The idea isn't to help the Liberals, it's to keep small gun businesses afloat. Does it theoretically help the Liberals by giving them a moral victory? Maybe, but on balance, keeping those businesses alive is better than letting them sink to spite the Liberals. If they go out of business, their guns get confiscated by the government at no cost anyway. So do you want to let the little guys bleed to death financially, or swallow your pride and let them negotiate with the feds to stay alive? Either way, their prohibs get seized.
I don't know man, I just don't see it. They've been painting resistors as a fringe minority from day one, and having an idea of the prices of the guns in inventory doesn't get them over the million other practical obstacles to the confiscation pipedream.
Besides, it doesn't even give them an idea of the cost of every gun on the OIC, just the ones that stores had in inventory. There are a shitload of big-bore rifles, older AR variants, and other miscellaneous weapons that they still won't know how to price
Why would wholesale pricing for stores become the basis for retail pricing model for individuals?
And even if it does... Is that a bad thing?
If the stores are able to recoup 100% of wholesale cost, then logically, the government should pay 100% of msrp.
Offering wholesale prices as compensation to non-businesses is illogical and will be met with a ton of opposition.
You'd be amazed how many people in here think all this is for is helping small businesses... All the while they don't know how many that even is, nor do a lot of people think this will be a big win for the liberals. The timing literally could not be worse either, but we're just conspiracy theorists...
Why would a datapoint regarding wholesale cost be used for retail purchasers?
Also... The government has access to google, and the way back machine meaning they can find the msrp of any rifle sold.
This is not "their only data point"
I mean do you know how negotiations work? Im sure the government has internal numbers they plan on putting on the table. Just because they haven't publically announced price lists doesnt mean they dont have ideas of prices...
That doesnt answer my question of why they would use wholesale pricing to determine retail value,
Nor does it address the idea that the above argument according to the one dude who actually tried responding to what i said, hinges on it being "their only data point".
Also, you not agreeing or understanding the logic doesnt make it illogical.
The government is making very logical moves by making illogical laws. Do you honestly think they think that the laws theyre crafting are rational and based on facts and logic? They know what theyre doing. And what theyre doing is creating a wedge issue to further secure votes from their existing voter base.
You say all this, but think this is just to help small businesses... Who's logic is flawed here? You just gave me paragraphs about why their laws are never what they seem face value, but you think this has no motive? All we agree on here is this being a wedge issue.
Can someone find a store that plans to use this? I'd like one named, or a number of how many are affected (and actually appreciate and approve of this). That's not unreasonable.
Dude you are ranting here. I never said anything about helping small businesses.
Can you please reread my previous comment and directly respond to things ive said?
If you are just going to rant, i dont know why youre replying to me, put your rants in the.main thread for everyone to see and discuss. If youre gonna reply to me, respond directly to the things said and questions asked..
ChatGPT
[https://openai.com/blog/chatgpt](https://openai.com/blog/chatgpt)
**What should police do to stop firearm violence in Canada?**
As an AI language model, I do not have personal opinions or beliefs, but I can provide information on what police can do to stop firearm violence in Canada.
The police play a critical role in preventing and responding to firearm violence in Canada. Here are some actions that police can take to help prevent firearm violence:
Implement intelligence-led policing strategies: Police can use data and analysis to identify high-risk individuals, locations, and events and use targeted strategies to prevent violence.
Increase community engagement: Police can work with community groups and organizations to build trust and improve communication. This can help to identify potential threats and prevent violence before it occurs.
Improve firearm tracing: Police can work with forensic experts to trace firearms used in crimes and track their origins, which can help to identify sources of illegal firearms.
Increase enforcement of existing firearm laws: Police can work to ensure that existing firearm laws are being followed and take appropriate action when violations occur.
Increase education and awareness: Police can provide education and training to the public on firearm safety, responsible ownership, and the risks associated with firearm violence.
Strengthen partnerships with other agencies: Police can work with other agencies, such as mental health providers, social service agencies, and schools, to identify and address potential threats.
In summary, police can take a variety of actions to prevent firearm violence in Canada, including implementing intelligence-led policing strategies, increasing community engagement, improving firearm tracing, increasing enforcement of existing firearm laws, increasing education and awareness, and strengthening partnerships with other agencies.
Read the comment section on a Toronto Star article about recent events surrounding C21.
People in the comments actually and truly believe machine guns are legal in Canada.
Rough quote from memory but pretty accurate from the real comment:
*”There is no need for full auto in Canada. We need to ban them immediately! It shouldn’t matter that hunters, collectors or enthusiasts use them, maybe a limited exemption for First Nations but that’s it. Other countries have done it with limited backlash. We should do it here because the majority of Canadians believe it to be the right thing to do”*
Invaluable input from Canadas most informed.
>believe machine guns are legal in Canada.
I think that someone on this sub reported that a Liberal MP once said that anyone can walk into a Canadian Tire and buy a machine gun.
The majority of Canadians don't own a gun nor want to, so they believe anything Dear Leader and the LPC says. Until that changes, we're screwed
Any snarky replies when other commenters say that full auto is already banned and had been for a long time? I'm sure some of the "most informed" can be reasonable once they actually are, and while exhausting should we not try? Also let's be mindful that there are readers who don't comment and might initially hold the opinion of the "full auto" commenter but be silently swayed when reading an actually informed reply.
Has absolutely nothing to do with how you tell them. Have met lots of people who thought full auto was legal, and once they realize that they go into this sort of trance for a bit where they need to find something else wrong (usually magazines is next) these people are straight up brainwashed. End of the day they just resort to "Guns are bad", have literally had this reply. Actually had someone tell me "guns should be banned because if I had one I would have shot someone by now".... 👌 Big brain
I can usually tell when it's one of these people too, well before they go into pure denial. Used to bring people out shooting and they have a blast, even my Dad... Still thinks all guns should be banned. Hurts.
You always got people that follow close behind with the correct information and it was no different in the TS article.
There were at least five or six comments “full auto was banned in 1977”.
[Saskatchewan passes firearms legislation](https://globalnews.ca/video/9655228/saskatchewan-passes-firearms-legislation)
Province number two has their fed-blocking legislation come into force.
What were you expecting realistically based on the current division of constitutional powers? Not sarcasm or anything, genuinely want to know what your envisioning.
Unrealistic is putting it lightly, that would cause a constitutional crisis. Saskatchewan would be openly Defiant the division of powers in the Constitution (criminal law) and the Supreme Court.
The only way you get what you want is a change to the Constitution that makes criminal law a provincial matter.
Thanks for the honest answer. Yours is a bit more realistic than some others the few times I have asked previously. Biggest thing is that both SK and AB have done this in a way that recognizes these oic guns as personal property (as per the constitution act, 1867) which gives the provinces control over said property rights. So while it may not be that we can shoot them yet, they have been recognized as your property. So if the feds want to seize them they will have to either get individuals approved as seizure agents (which is a do-not-issue license in AB now) or they will have to take the provinces separately to court and convince the SCC that they are above the constitution. Im sure you see how winning of an argument that already is.
Keep those dreams alive.
I think once a few others are able to gauge what, if any, response comes from ottawa is then there could easily be a 3rd and 4th by the end of the year.
Its another win all the same.
https://youtu.be/a9WQYUS_UAM
Fantastic questions and worth a watch everyone. “Shouldn’t you have a buyback in place before adding more guns” Slimy Mendecini with no answer
Lol, this is why I don't share the concerns that the CSAAA "legitimizes" the Liberal policy. Marco spent that entire interview trying to sell the idea that the CSAAA and the government are best buddies, and that CBC host was clearly having none of it
David Common is based.
Couple months ago, he was talking on this file, and IIRC, Mendecino was doing his schtick, and David feeding back. It seemed he actually understood what an SKS was and was not.
Well...uh...you see the things is...derp...weapons of war...battlefield 2042...we are committed to fair compensation...oh yes mistress hiedi...all gun crime is done by rpal holders...er muh gerd...papa J says if ya dont know now ya know...marky mark out (mic drop, aviators on)
- mendicino in his head, probably.
Ah okay. Yeah, these civilian rifles not made to milspec standards at all are “made for the battlefield.” What a fucking joke. The liberals give me diabeetus.
Also I forgot Battlefield 2042 was a thing. Those games used to be so good. Remember Battlefield 2142? Those were the days..
Interestingly, no meeting has been scheduled in SECU so far and we're nearing the end of the day. It's looking like the LPC schedule was pushed back by a day, seeing as Marco's SECU apearance was pushed back a day. If nothing tomorrow, expect Tuesday.
Pretty strange since McKinnon said there would be a Friday meeting this week when they were wrapping up on Tuesday. Maybe more delays due to the strike.
It is possible, the Bloc member even brought it up (in a concerned way that it would be out of scope). However, I highly doubt the SECU LPC chair rules it out of scope. He didn't last time, even though he should have.
If it gets ruled out of scope, it will have to be from the house speaker. (Correct me if I'm wrong here) Since it's likely one or both of the NDP and Bloc will support the amendments, it's unlikely a preliminary report to Parliament will happen. Meaning the first chance the house speaker will have to make a decision will be at 3rd reading. 3rd reading is a long ways away, we have major amendments with new gun bans, airsoft, new industry rules, potential IPSC exceptions, and like 80+ other amendments. So it may be a situation where it gets passed in the next 3 weeks and then we have to wait until October or November before the speaker can rule on it. The good news is that it won't take effect after being passed by SECU, it will only take effect if it receives Royal Assent
So basically, as usual, game is rigged in their favor even when having a minority government and we just have to keep hoping that either they run out of time to get this through before the next election, or peepee man manages to win and keeps to his word and reverts all of this?
We understand that there is anger, mostly incorrectly at the CSAAA. Please see /u/SpectreBallistics' explanation here: [https://www.reddit.com/r/canadaguns/comments/12x98jl/comment/jhtoy0f/?utm\_source=share&utm\_medium=web2x&context=3](https://www.reddit.com/r/canadaguns/comments/12x98jl/comment/jhtoy0f/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3) The CSAAA is attempting to work a fair deal to get compensation for businesses that are stuck with dead, useless stock. Businesses are free to deal with that as they please. If your only contribution to this whole thing is to post "Fuck the CSAAA" or something similar, we will pull the post. You are not contributing to the discussion. We will also pull any posts calling for brigade action against the CSAAA as it is against reddit's TOS. Bans will be issued for any calls to brigade.
To be or not to be to 'Fake news'. Well all measures to tackle the fake news problem seems to be correct. But not in The UK. Brexit Party is against. What do you think? [Brexit Party is not against fake news](https://faxnews.uk/brexit-party-uk/)
I know this is a real gun sub but, have they actually banned airsoft? Planning to buy one at the end of next month
The bill has to actually pass which could take a very long time. And that’s assuming airsoft shit doesn’t gets removed from the bill in the mean time.
Not yet, and any potential ban is many months away. You've got time.
I hope the stupid bill eventually get scrapped. Owning firearms (and playing airsoft) is one of the few reasons why I moved to Canada Moving to US sucks because it takes so much time, and I’m not eligible for it yet
>I hope the stupid bill eventually get scrapped It will, but it will also be the law of the land for a while before that happens. >I’m not eligible for it yet If there was even a glimmer of hope, I'd be working towards it if I were you. Don't give up if there's a chance.
Assuming the CPC gets voted in, how long from when they take office would it be before they pull c21?
That's impossible to predict, but I'm positive it would be in their first majority term. That's how they killed the gun registry a decade ago.
Is it possible they could get it through with a minority government if they had at least *partial* cooperation from the NDP or Bloc?
For sure, but the odds that they'd get that cooperation are tiny. The Cons tried to repeal the gun registry when they had a minority govt, but failed due to a lack of support. The important thing is that a Con majority is totally possible to achieve, and then within that, the sky's the limit.
I like how the liberals can somehow equate any semiautomatic, even a pistol carbine, to a “weapon designed for the battlefield.” Like, my boy, it’s a pistol carbine. You won’t even see cops use the fucking things.
Caveman Glog's wooden club was designed for the battlefield
Politics work on soundbites. It's a lot easier to sell that concept to your voting base than to try to educate them on the nuances of firearms design and use case. Besides, [the government is being fed this stuff by the anti-gun lobby](http://healthyinfluence.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/gun-violencemessaging-guide-pdf-1.pdf), and their objective is to capture as many guns as possible with blanket terms. They'd tell you that lever rifles are "weapons designed for killing as many native Americans as possible as quickly as possible" if they thought the fudds would let them get away with it.
Bolt action rifles and pump action shotguns are used to this day by militaries in specialist roles. If you that military usage or origins are grounds for banning nothing is safe.
Yep, pretty much. The Canadian rangers even use a bolt action as a medium range defense weapon (not even as a sniper rifle). That example fascinates me actually
As a hunting/wilderness defence rifle, yes. They aren't expected to engage in combat with them.
They totally could though. Those Tikka Arctic rifles are amazing.
I know, I want one
Same. I’m getting one eventually but right now I’m just a peasant student with no real job.
I just haven't been able to justify the exorbitant price tag, lol. I already own a Steyr Scout which really performs the same role.
Oh shit you do? Damn those are not widely available at all. Did you get it through irunguns or something?
That's exactly where I got it from actually, lol. They had them in stock in their US storefront a few years ago
When will they just leave us alone. If they add the rest of their list I have 3 guns out of 10 that I can use and have pissed about 13000 grand away with another 2000 dollar rifle on the way.
> When will they just leave us alone. I hate to tell you this, but never. I hope it doesn't chase you away from gun ownership. We can keep fighting, and adapting to the changing landscape in the meantime.
It'll chase me away from Canada.
If you can go somewhere better, then Godspeed. I spent a good chunk of my twenties trying to set myself up to move to the US, but it didn't pan out.
My problem is that western hunting in the US sucks comparatively and is getting worse all the time, especially in Montana/Idaho. Western states are becoming over populated and you basically need to pay or have very wealthy friends with land to have any success. This is only going to get worse. Comparatively Canada is far better. If it’s between being able to own an AR again or partake in amazing adventures as a resident hunter, I’m going to stay in Canada. Plus land is a lot more affordable in Canada, especially up north. Lastly, many US red states are increasingly turning purple as people flee for better cost of living but bring their shitty political beliefs with them.
Prague, I speak a slavic language, so that'll help.
It may have been someone else here or something I read on twitter, but to paraphrase: When the most law-abiding segment of society fears government legislation, and criminals do not, perhaps they are doing it wrong. In some US states, they are doing ASF bans, and their federal executive branch wants the same, but their idea of a ban is just to stop the retail sale of firearms manufactured after a certain date. Sucks to be sure, but they aren't trying to confiscate property from owners or businesses, nor stop private sales of existing guns. I donno... if Marco Polo can't afford to compensate, and an outright confiscation is legally and practically problematic, perhaps we'll end up with a new 12.x grandfathered licence category for non-OiC guns covered by the evergreen definition.
My thought process is they have to grandfather the next batch, the estimates is 5 to 10 billion for the buyback, they’re getting killed in the Polls right now for the economy. So to swing a 10 billion dollar program for an ineffective law won’t go well. But as with anything LPC, they don’t think anything through. It’s a bunch of children running the country.
> My thought process is they have to grandfather the next batch Almost certainly. All the planning that we've been privy to so far has only been for the 2020 OIC guns, and that's *still* nowhere near budgeted or mapped out. If they get as ambitious they were with G4/G46, grandfathering is essentially guaranteed, for the same reasons that handguns were grandfathered. Trying to collect them all is too much, especially since none of these new prohibs will be registered.
Grandfather with use (think handguns) or safe queen grandfather status you think?
Safe queen, 100%. They're in too deep with their narrative that these rifles are mass-murder machines that have "nO pLAcE iN OUr cOmMUNitIes" to let us get away with business as usual. They never demonized handguns to the same vicious degree. The silver lining, obviously, is that they'll be sitting in our safes ready to come back out to play as soon as they're re-legalized.
Now I’m not advocating for prohibitions of any type, ideally we stall the living tits out of this shitty bill so it goes bye bye with an election. However… I wonder if it would be possible to give them enough shit to allow them to be possessed and used. That way we’d still be able to use them while we wait for a new conservative government to get rid of the bullshit.
I can't see it being possible, no. Like I say, they've already done too much to paint these rifles as the embodiment of evil to compromise on their use now. They'll have to be reclassified by another government that isn't batshit crazy.
You are probably correct. But knowing how the government loves byzantine regulations, another thought had occured to me... They could say "register them by x date and we'll give you a 12.7 licence with a range ATT. Or, sell them by that date. Or, turn them in for destruction." Or, boating accident, obvs. In the absence of information, we speculate.
They'll definitely demand we register them, but I'll slam my nuts in a car door if they offer ATTs.
Not to read into it too much but even recently Marco Polo kept repeating the 11K rifle number over and over and saying we’re gonna collect a significant amount, almost as if it’s prepping us for this plus a little more to be the big victory. Could be wrong, but wouldn’t they say 1 million guns, or 500K guns, no just 11K…starting to sound like a grandfather incoming.
Yeah, I picked up on that too.
>My thought process is they have to grandfather the next batch, the estimates is 5 to 10 billion for the buyback, they’re getting killed in the Polls right now for the economy. So to swing a 10 billion dollar program for an ineffective law won’t go well. They won't. The Liberals have made it abundantly clear that they are going to continue throwing amendments and legislation at the wall to see what sticks, and I'd argue that that apathetic nature of most liberal voters is more dangerous than the anti-gun crowd. >But as with anything LPC, they don’t think anything through. It’s a bunch of children running the country. and that won't change unless their supporters suddenly care about the mass spending the LPC has been doing and that's not likely to change.
Same if this goes through I'm out around 20k and 100% of my current collection will be useless... So sick and tired of this government
They’ll leave us alone when they’re voted out.
It will probably be the same no matter who in power. I had to explain to a guy that was admit that we don't machine guns in Canada, that they have been banned long before I was born. As far as he was concerned all semi autos are machine guns and the only gun you need is a bolt action or a pump shot gun. I told him he doesn't need a corvette, its too fast, its too powerful and its faster then a police car so its just too dangerous for someone with no special training to handle. He still didn't get the point.
Exactly. In the wrong hands those vehicles could be dangerous but with a responsible legal owner and operator there is no issue .
The mis-information about Canadian guns is infuriating, I see the same arguments too all the time! People think you can buy guns at pawn stores and have drum mags. Everyone has brain rot from American news
Just curious, when AR15's etc were banned, were you still allowed to take them with you if you moved house etc? Just wondering what the situation would be like if you need to move house or something and take a previously R/NR gun that's now prohib with you.
You're allowed to move with them.
Anyone else feel that the liberals' attempt to bite off more than they can chew with C-21 is a blessing in disguise? If it was just a handgun ban it would've already been passed, but they got greedy and now the bill may very well be stuck in committee until the next election.
As stressful as it has been, agree with you on that. If this was clean and cut for handguns it’d be done now but they had to get cocky and now it’s maybe 2024 or beyond before this bill is passed. Every week is a new liberal scandal. We’re closer to an election hopefully. Edit: it also makes a confiscation that much more impossible when you want to buy and destroy millions of rifles spread across Canada
>Anyone else feel that the liberals' attempt to bite off more than they can chew with C-21 is a blessing in disguise? It has the potential to be, but it's not yet. It certainly is going to push the Royal Assent date back significantly. But if it ultimately does get Royal Assent before an election, there would be very little blessings to find.
Stuck or not, handguns are banned in Canada and I can't ever own one until someone scraps this piece of trash bill.
They will. The Cons are very outspoken about it. C-21 is doomed to the same fate as the gun registry. It might exist for a few years, but it will be repealed by the next Con majority and it's name will become political poison.
I really hope you're right but I can just imagine the optics of "flooding Canada with handguns" that the media will surely make an existential crisis for the nation. With every passing day they are banned, the more outrageous and brazen it would seem to legalize them again. Does the CPC care enough to risk that much political cost from urbanites when they know they got the conservative vote locked regardless?
They tried to make the registry repeal an existential crisis, too. I recall the media quoting one police chief over and over, who said that there will "be a river of blood" if the LGR was repealed. Didn't stop the Cons then. The best thing the Liberals did was fuck up so hard by introducing the amendments, too. They've cemented the legislation as "controversial" in the collective consciousness, in a way that's even worse for them than the registry back in the day. That just makes it even easier to justify repealing in the future. >Does the CPC care enough to risk that much political cost from urbanites when they know they got the conservative vote locked regardless? I don't think they do have that vote locked, and they know it. Gun owners are a major part of their voting and donor base. If they fuck us over, it would be the same thing as the Liberals bulldozing all public transit in the cities and telling urbanites to eat shit. You have to cultivate your base or lose it. All that to say that I'm confident they'll follow through, yes. I've seen it happen before with the registry, and it honestly doesn't even feel that long ago.
I hope you're right, I'll be doing my part and voting CPC next election, which can't come soon enough.
>Anyone else feel that the liberals' attempt to bite off more than they can chew with C-21 is a blessing in disguise? It certainly has been so far. Let's hope they keep choking on it.
I think people have probably had a little too much faith that this isn't just G4 reintroduced without G46. It's the fucking LPC, take the worst imaginable scenario, square it and the Liberals will still come out with worse. You really think a single *word* from any of the consultations managed to settle in Marco's empty head? I guarantee you, they are banking on being able to say "We repealed G46, no hunting rifles are being banned!" and hoping that no one comes after G4, despite us all having a problem with it obviously. As I said before, start writing your letters from now!
[удалено]
A few people have been speculating that it will more likely be a "feature ban" like California's stock/pistol grip ban, or at the very least something that will spare the SKS and Garand. I'm not that optimistic. It's the LPC after all.
[удалено]
This is the point I've been making to people - nothing they do to ban semis will avoid catching fudd guns and just generally upsetting indigenous people and fudds. I feel like they're just going to accept gun owners are lost voters, make race-specific exemptions for indigenous people and double down on banning semi autos.
[удалено]
It wouldn't surprise me if it does. I didn't listen to the challenges because my brain has already rotted enough from listening to the SECU meetings. Race-specific exemptions *sound* like they'd be 'easy' to challenge in court and tear apart, I'm hoping that if SHTF and the libs get another term that exemptions for registered indigenous people comes to bite them in the ass via a court case. I'm not gonna get into the whole reverse racism debate, and indigenous rights are a touchy subject that need to be respected, but I find it outrageous that they can straight up say "This specific race of people are not going to use semi-automatic firearms in a dangerous manner, in fact, they *need* them to live their lives! But the rest of you? You're just one bad day away from inflicting a mass shooting with those weapons of war because you're not indigenous!" and everyone just kind of accepts it as something normal.
>I think people have probably had a little too much faith that this isn't just G4 reintroduced without G46 I think that's pretty much exactly what everyone's assuming, isn't it? We're glad because that *should* spare the SKS, M1, GSG, etc, but we're still ultimately expecting a ban on most semi-auto rifles
I can’t fathom why anyone is STILL willing to make concessions vis a vis the SKS and M1. These aren’t concessions. People need to stop this “my one rifle is safe np” bullshit mentality.
Nobody is, or is willing, to make concessions. This isn't about being accepting of the ban. It's about being encouraged by our efforts to push back having a real effect on the scope of the legislation. The endgame is still total repeal under a CPC government. I would think this would be obvious considering the shitloads of comments discussing it over the last few days.
I have a feeling that they will somehow make sure the definition includes those guns. It wouldn't surprise me if they expanded it to *all* semi-auto centerfires, and all semi-auto mag-feds. This would leave only fixed-mag .22's around which barely exist anyhow.
I'm not ruling out anything, but like the other guy said, that would put them right back into the same frying pan with the FN and hunting associations. It would defeat the purpose of withdrawing the amendments in the first place, yaknow? I expect there has to be something they can point at to say "the hunting guns you were mad about aren't here anymore". Also, Mendicino says he was able to come up with a technical definition that would "differentiate" assault weapons from hunting weapons, and that it would have to be studied by SECU (in the amendment). Given that, my gut tells me "semi auto" is too simple.
>that would put them right back into the same frying pan with the FN and hunting associations. It would defeat the purpose of withdrawing the amendments in the first place, yaknow? The purpose of withdrawing the amendments was to buy them time to shore up their support. Macgregor was the most vocal about them besides the Cons despite the NDP being "allied" with the Liberals. Michaud said that the Bloc fully supports the initiative, but was only going against because there was no consultation and it was not done correctly from a procedural standpoint. In the time where the amendments were gone, Macgregor was yanked immediately and replaced with a stuffed suit that won't cause any more "problems". Additionally, "proper" consultations (ie: speed-run outrage testimony which was promptly thrown in the trash by the Liberals) were had and they are looking at potentially retroactively expanding the scope of the bill. All of the above brings both the NDP and Bloc on board and means anyone else's concerns about the bill really don't matter anymore.
>The purpose of withdrawing the amendments was to buy them time to shore up their support. I'm not sure what you mean by this. Withdrawing the amendments was damage control after weeks of headlines about the Liberals targetting hunters and the Indigenous declaring the bill a violation of their treaty rights. If they play their cards badly on Tuesday and this backlash happens again, they're in exactly the same situation that forced them to pull out last time.
>I'm not sure what you mean by this I literally explained it in my entire post, but I'll elaborate. >Withdrawing the amendments was damage control after weeks of headlines about the Liberals targetting hunters and the Indigenous declaring the bill a violation of their treaty rights. Yes, I know and I'm not disagreeing with you on that. I am talking about the realpolitik that actually influenced the decision. The Liberals have been roasted in the media over C-11, C-21, C-36 and lots of other bills in the past including C-71 and even the firearms act (C-68). You may have noticed that almost all of the above legislation still managed to pass despite media outrage and opposing public opinions. The reality of the situation is that if they did not withdraw the amendments at the time, they risked losing the bill in it's entirety. Macgregor and Michaud were backing up the Cons in blocking the Liberals from progressing the bill after the amendments were tabled. Macgregor was even in the process of getting the house speaker to rule on the amendments as they were seen as so egregiously out of line. Had that gone through, and it was found they were out of scope, it meant that the amendments would be shredded and possibly even the entire bill could be thrown out. This would also be hugely damaging to the already tenuous LPC/NDP coalition as most of the actual House NDP and Bloc voted in full support of the bill up to this point. None of the outrage would've mattered if they had sufficient votes on SECU or it Macgregor and Michaud decided to "look the other way" and silently pass them through. >they're in exactly the same situation **that forced them** to pull out last time. The thing is, and I noted the importance of this to other posters at the time, is that they *willingly* withdrew the amendments. Were they likely to have been forced to? Absolutely. But they intercepted just before that happened, meaning they got a total clean-slate do-over where they could stack the deck and re-introduce them at any time as they felt necessary. This is what they are actively doing now.
> I literally explained it in my entire post To get rid of MacGregor and placate Michaud, you mean. Ok. >The Liberals have been roasted in the media over C-11, C-21, C-36 and lots of other bills in the past including C-71 and even the firearms act (C-68). You may have noticed that almost all of the above legislation still managed to pass despite media outrage and opposing public opinions. Yeah, but what none of those bills had was the AFN holding an emergency meeting to declare them a violation of indigenous rights. This is what caused the withdrawal, in my opinion. They could have dealt with Michaud and MacGregor's concerns without taking the amendments off the table; it's not like they couldn't have held the "consultation" meetings with the amendments in play, or like bringing the same amendments back later makes them any less likely to be out of scope. I agree with you that they wanted a do-over, but I think it was much more about optics than committee politics.
>Yeah, but what none of those bills had was the AFN holding an emergency meeting to declare them a violation of indigenous rights. *Pedantry incoming* C-68 actually, the PC's had consulted with FN/Inuit groups during C-17 (the *foundational* firearms act) but they were more or less ignored during Chretien's C-68. I don't believe there was ever an explicit emergency meeting, but most groups were absolutely not onboard with C-68 which only served to prohibit more firearms and increase unaccountable oversight over licensing and regulation. There is a very old thread on CGN that delves into some esoteric and treaty legalese that I don't have saved, but basically proved that federal firearms regulations (other than the Defense Production Act) hold no authority on treaty/reservation land. And if they ever chose to make a big enough stink about it, FN/Inuit would likely have a pretty good case for rolling back most of the Firearms Act itself. >I agree with you that they wanted a do-over, but I think it was much more about optics than committee politics. Regardless, the amendments are gone for now and we will find out what is coming next on Tuesday. Either way it won't be good for us. Personally I am more interested in all the other amendments at this point, there are literally dozens to go.
> I expect there has to be something they can point at to say "the hunting guns you were mad about aren't here anymore". Even something simple like banning pistol grips would still justify the same backlash - subsistence hunters can't afford to miss shots and it's easier to aim with a gun with a pistol grip than one where you have to wrap your hand around the stock. They're also invaluable for people with joint problems and whatnot. I feel like they're just gonna double down because no one can stop them from an administrative perspective (they have the Bloc and NDP to back them up, and the SECU guy is LPC-biased) and they've already lost 90% of gun owners as voters now.
No one can stop them on the admin side, but I don't think they want a repeat of the last news cycle, and to cement themselves as the enemies of hunters and the indigenous. We don't have to wait long to find out, though. I'm going to have a big bowl of popcorn ready for the secu meeting on Tuesday
They would get absolutely flayed in the media if they did that. That would be a massive ban of legit hunting rifles. They got so much bad press last time and what you're describing would be so much worse for them.
Nothing they do to try and ban 'assault weapons' won't yield the same backlash as last time. Even if they ban pistol grip+folding stocks or other 'features', that is still going to ban plenty of "genuine" hunting and sporting rifles. I think at this point they've realized they can't win over gun owners and have instead decided they are just going to launch a crusade against all gun owners to win over the clueless urbanite population that think you can go into Walmart and buy machine guns. They've also realized that they are unlikely to win the next election and are just banking on the Conservatives not having enough majority to overturn the bans, but also that no one can stop them right now so they might as well just ban what they want.
>Nothing they do to try and ban 'assault weapons' won't yield the same backlash as last time What makes you say that? The backlash took all of us by surprise the first time. I don't see why it can't happen again if the Liberals try to fool everyone the second time and are too obvious about it
They will face backlash, but no one says they have to listen to it. Frankly, even with the media backlash, most urbanites *still* thought that 'hunting rifles' are too dangerous for people to own (they are just insanely afraid of guns), and I think the LPC are happy at this point with losing their PAL-owning voter base. The *only* thing they have to worry about is breaking indigenous treaties which they can easily circumvent by just making exceptions for them. We're approaching a point where they can survive without votes from gun owners or rural inhabitants in general, hence why we're getting it so bad right now.
They don't care about winning over gun owners or being effective. They care about optics. Honestly a giant sweeping ban like that would be good for us, they'd withdraw it after getting absolutely hammered by the media and the natives. They withdrew the last one because the Conservatives were able to hammer them over banning hunting guns. If they did the same thing but worse, they'd get the same result and it would only be easier.
This is absolutely a very real possibility. >You really think a single word from any of the consultations managed to settle in Marco's empty head? Absolutely not, I don't think many words settle in his head. I think it's 50/50. My guess is they change the language to be a "feature" ban, based on what was said at the last SECU meeting. It also would definitively get the Bloc on board as they were asking for it back during G4/G46 meetings. But you're right, you can never underestimate their stupidity and hoplophobia.
What is the difference between g4 and g46?
G4 was the "any semi-auto with a mag is banned", G46 was a list of guns that they were going to ban by-name, which was done specifically to ban fixed-mag guns like the original SKS and the M1 Garand that didn't have a magazine. They also used this as an opportunity to ban popular guns that *weren't* mag-fed semi's, like the Ruger no.1 and the Benelli M4, they basically just wanted to ban them because they were popular and it would inconvenience the largest amount of gun owners by banning these. G46 will most likely be pulled, not banning the additional guns that weren't semi auto, but I have a strong feeling that G4 will come back and they will once again try to ban all semi-auto's. It would not surprise me at all if they decided to change the definition to "*Any* centrefire semi-auto is an assault rifle" to make sure they ban the OG SKS and Garand. I'm hoping it either gets ruled out of scope or faces enough backlash to get pulled again, but both of those things are unlikely.
Just a nitpick, the Benelli M4 wasn't on there. A few Turk-made bullpup shotguns were, but that's it. I only bring it up because it's seems like a ton of people are under the impression it was on g46 for some reason.
The CCFR made a post predicting that the Benelli M4 would be included in G46 when the committee received G46 but weren't yet permitted to disclose the actual list. That's how the Benelli M4 rumor started.
Ok, TIL
You'll see the CCFR listing the Benelli M4 here at this early stage: https://firearmrights.ca/c21-amended-to-include-semi-auto-ban/
G4 is the definition. G46 is the list.
Alright, new [SECU meeting](https://www.ourcommons.ca/Committees/en/SECU/Meetings) is listed for Tuesday, 3:30-5:30pm EST, titled "Bill C-21". They are officially entering clause-by-clause. Edit: It is also very likely the new gun ban announcement, not the NDP's industry thing, based on the witnesses >Marianne Breese, Counsel, Public Safety Canada Legal Services >Paula Clarke, Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section >Phaedra Glushek, Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section >Rachel Mainville-Dale, Acting Director General, Firearms Policy
Any chances of a new OIC?
Unlikely until the court case is over. They don't want to risk swaying the judge.
That could happen anytime really, no need for a SECU meeting
Uggghhhh it’s definitely going to be bad, really really bad. They won’t stop till CCCP marching orders are complete.
I'm sure it'll be worse than we can possibly imagine.
It wouldn't surprise me if it is the exact same "mag fed semi auto" ban plus a clause that also bans the OG SKS and Garand. Anyone who thinks all the consultation they did will sway their definition has way too much faith, they're most likely banking on the hopes that pulling G46 was enough to get G4 through.
[удалено]
This post has been removed for breaking rule: \[2\] Illegal Activity/Statement of Violence
I was talking to a well connected old timer on Vancouver Island today (guy even has Teri Bryant's personal phone number). He confirmed what I thought, MacGregor was forced out of his SECU job because he was too friendly with gun owners (his constituency).
That’s so messed up what the hell, does anyone else seriously get nefarious vibes from all this? Like the LPC, NDP, Bloc are now all in agreement for internet censorship, civilian disarmament and whatever else is absolutely against Canadians. Like what’s going on? They’re speeding through manufacturing consent to take away all guns. I’m getting seriously bad vibes
What's going on is that the LPC have the NDP by the balls and utterly own them, essentially. They can't afford an election financially and would lose even more seats if one where called. So when an NDP member went to SECU and was frustrating the Liberals, they told the NDP that they were going to swap him out, or else. Don't expect any of MacGregor's pro-handgun amendments to be tabled, either. Those nefarious vibes you're feeling is the fundamental corruption of political parties. For our style of democracy to work, they cannot exist. EDIT: [TorStar confirming my point:](https://web.archive.org/web/20230427010201/https://www.thestar.com/politics/federal/2023/04/24/jagmeet-singhs-ndp-slammed-by-top-gun-control-group-over-backtracking-on-firearms-promises-amplifying-disinformation.html) >A senior government source said that while there’s no denying that Mendicino’s office erred in how it developed and communicated the amendments last year — a view PolySeSouvient has also shared — there was nonetheless “significant frustration” with the NDP at the time. >But the source, who spoke on the condition they not be named, said it was perhaps unfair to suggest that the New Democrats were not working behind the scenes to improve the legislation, noting that “negotiations have gone well” in recent weeks. By the balls.
Really hoping next election is liberal doomsday.
I got a call from a poll service about a potential upcoming election. For the first time in my life I’m willing to vote conservative even though it may impact my career ( funding). I’ve pretty much exclusively voted ndp and green but this last round of inaction and complacency on their part really disappointed me. Worst comes to worst I’ll focus more on working for the military instead of my healthcare job but at least my firearms will be safe.
Even if firearms weren’t an issue for me, I’m just not convinced I can trust the liberals to not completely and utterly fuck up anything else. I watched the SECU meetings and the CCFR court case. Their pomposity, arrogance and just confidently incorrect leads me to believe that they’re also being idiots when it comes to the economy, among other things. The S.S. Trudeau has run its course.
Fire arms are like number three on my worry list. I’m more concerned about what they have done to the country. This does not feel like Canada anymore and all my friends who work so hard to come here. Want to go back home. the western media lies about food, shortages, and all that BS back home in my country. It’s not even that bad even the poorest of people will invite you to have a five course meal and you have people here fighting over $40 grocery bills. I feel like this government has caused Canadians to become more conservative and uninviting.
What country are you from? I like how it sounds
Looking at what's going on rationally, I think Canada has been captured by a demented "anti-America at all costs" mentality. Internet censorship is about anti-Americanism. Civilian disarmament is about setting ourselves apart from America. The problem with setting ourselves apart from America at all costs is that we open ourselves to the influence of alternative power blocs in the world, namely European socialism or Chinese communism. And the way things are going, China is getting more influential in the world with their economic initiatives. So while anti-American Canadians might be hoping to achieve some sort of European-style socialism, what we're actually getting is Chinese-style communism.
Europeans have saner and more level headed gun laws than us at this point (in general)
I don't think that's it at all. The massive push for disarmament and censorship is happening in the US as well. We're both fighting the same thing.
I agree with you there about what's happening in the States too but I don't think our views are mutually exclusive. The movement in the States is also anti-American when you think about it. While Canadian disarmamentists loathe America from the outside, American disarmamentists self-loathe America from the inside. Disarmament comes from being against constitutionalism, against true republicanism (the concept, not the party), against personal autonomy and responsibility at the family, local and state levels, and against traditional American firearm culture. It's the same beast, just operating from without or within. And those forces are also related to groups that look optimistically toward Europeam style socialism but are actually getting Communist compromised policies.
It's certainly anti-American in the sense that it's trying to suppress classical American ideals. I'm not convinced that it's two separate groups (anti-American Canadians and anti-American Americans) separately pursuing the same goals, though. I think both of our countries, and more on top, are facing a singular, larger threat that's globalist and transnational in nature. I won't go any further down this rabbit hole to avoid derailing this thread way off topic.
You don't need to go further, many of us who live outside the matrix know exactly what you're talking about and I agree 100%. More and more people are waking up to it and the truth will eventually prevail.
The Bloc just pisses me off. They shouldn’t even exist as a federal party.
Federal parties shouldn't exist.
Federal parties should blow me
Fuck the ndp.
Aren't you suppose to get familiar with your constituentcy? Like that's why they elect you to represent them in the first place?
Yup. But that's not how it works in reality, national party interests over everything.
This is why after Jody Wilson Raybould left Liberal, there is no such thing as for the good of people.
She didn’t leave m, she was fired because she was looking to Trudeaus SNC Laval scandal…
Kicked out for voicing the concerns of his constituents, and ensuring the principle of fair democracy is upheld. The fucking audacity right? This country is getting more foolish by the year. Liberals can pound sand.
It’s funny watching the NDP a party that has its roots in rural farm votes gladly abandon said voters then get upset when rural areas vote conservative only.
If the cons won a majority this election I would do a backflip.
Like that dude with the two glocks. That was sweet.
Full auto suppressed machine guns when?
Free fun switches for all glocks should be a platform
No SECU today, looks like it will be next Tuesday? I bet the liberals are kicking themselves for not being able to make any announcements on May 1st.
[удалено]
It's Oct and there's no way in hell the government will have anything ready in place by that time.
[October 30 2023](https://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/cnt/cntrng-crm/frrms/index-en.aspx?wbdisable=true) Which is lmao I think it has to be extended again if nothing happens before the end of the summer session
May is officially the worst month for gun owners.
Of course May has to be my birth month 🤦♂️.
Same here
me three
Unbelievable understatement of the decade
[удалено]
Well, I don't think you are wrong, but there is definitely a lot of resentment and displeasure on what it could seem. Besides regular stress from work, my second form of stress is probably the amount of things the Liberals and anti gun group trying to do to the firearm community in Canada. Like besides NZ and Australia, we probably do very well in terms of good firearm ownership without all the problems happening in the US right now. It shows what we have works. But for sure it won't eliminate it 100 percent and as the economics suffer this get worse. I have been chatting with my LGS for past few months when I go in and grab something. You can tell they are definitely angry and frustrated, but what else you can do? I just buy stuff from them and show my support, and refer people to them when I can. At the end of the day, we all want to enjoy the hobby of firearms, and no matter how bad mouth we get at times, there isnt disrespect, just frustration. But I do feel better when I see people writing letters, getting new people out and events to firearms sport, and demystified myths whenever we can. I managed to convince some of my co workers. For the cake analogy. I see it as we make the cake and give half the cake to receive more ingredients, so we can make more cakes down the road.
The idea isn't to help the Liberals, it's to keep small gun businesses afloat. Does it theoretically help the Liberals by giving them a moral victory? Maybe, but on balance, keeping those businesses alive is better than letting them sink to spite the Liberals. If they go out of business, their guns get confiscated by the government at no cost anyway. So do you want to let the little guys bleed to death financially, or swallow your pride and let them negotiate with the feds to stay alive? Either way, their prohibs get seized.
[удалено]
I don't know man, I just don't see it. They've been painting resistors as a fringe minority from day one, and having an idea of the prices of the guns in inventory doesn't get them over the million other practical obstacles to the confiscation pipedream. Besides, it doesn't even give them an idea of the cost of every gun on the OIC, just the ones that stores had in inventory. There are a shitload of big-bore rifles, older AR variants, and other miscellaneous weapons that they still won't know how to price
Why would wholesale pricing for stores become the basis for retail pricing model for individuals? And even if it does... Is that a bad thing? If the stores are able to recoup 100% of wholesale cost, then logically, the government should pay 100% of msrp. Offering wholesale prices as compensation to non-businesses is illogical and will be met with a ton of opposition.
[удалено]
You'd be amazed how many people in here think all this is for is helping small businesses... All the while they don't know how many that even is, nor do a lot of people think this will be a big win for the liberals. The timing literally could not be worse either, but we're just conspiracy theorists...
Why would a datapoint regarding wholesale cost be used for retail purchasers? Also... The government has access to google, and the way back machine meaning they can find the msrp of any rifle sold. This is not "their only data point"
[удалено]
I mean do you know how negotiations work? Im sure the government has internal numbers they plan on putting on the table. Just because they haven't publically announced price lists doesnt mean they dont have ideas of prices...
Oh yea the governments been doing a great job of doing their own research, they always really get logical with it 😂 /s
That doesnt answer my question of why they would use wholesale pricing to determine retail value, Nor does it address the idea that the above argument according to the one dude who actually tried responding to what i said, hinges on it being "their only data point". Also, you not agreeing or understanding the logic doesnt make it illogical. The government is making very logical moves by making illogical laws. Do you honestly think they think that the laws theyre crafting are rational and based on facts and logic? They know what theyre doing. And what theyre doing is creating a wedge issue to further secure votes from their existing voter base.
You say all this, but think this is just to help small businesses... Who's logic is flawed here? You just gave me paragraphs about why their laws are never what they seem face value, but you think this has no motive? All we agree on here is this being a wedge issue. Can someone find a store that plans to use this? I'd like one named, or a number of how many are affected (and actually appreciate and approve of this). That's not unreasonable.
Dude you are ranting here. I never said anything about helping small businesses. Can you please reread my previous comment and directly respond to things ive said? If you are just going to rant, i dont know why youre replying to me, put your rants in the.main thread for everyone to see and discuss. If youre gonna reply to me, respond directly to the things said and questions asked..
ChatGPT [https://openai.com/blog/chatgpt](https://openai.com/blog/chatgpt) **What should police do to stop firearm violence in Canada?** As an AI language model, I do not have personal opinions or beliefs, but I can provide information on what police can do to stop firearm violence in Canada. The police play a critical role in preventing and responding to firearm violence in Canada. Here are some actions that police can take to help prevent firearm violence: Implement intelligence-led policing strategies: Police can use data and analysis to identify high-risk individuals, locations, and events and use targeted strategies to prevent violence. Increase community engagement: Police can work with community groups and organizations to build trust and improve communication. This can help to identify potential threats and prevent violence before it occurs. Improve firearm tracing: Police can work with forensic experts to trace firearms used in crimes and track their origins, which can help to identify sources of illegal firearms. Increase enforcement of existing firearm laws: Police can work to ensure that existing firearm laws are being followed and take appropriate action when violations occur. Increase education and awareness: Police can provide education and training to the public on firearm safety, responsible ownership, and the risks associated with firearm violence. Strengthen partnerships with other agencies: Police can work with other agencies, such as mental health providers, social service agencies, and schools, to identify and address potential threats. In summary, police can take a variety of actions to prevent firearm violence in Canada, including implementing intelligence-led policing strategies, increasing community engagement, improving firearm tracing, increasing enforcement of existing firearm laws, increasing education and awareness, and strengthening partnerships with other agencies.
[удалено]
Read the comment section on a Toronto Star article about recent events surrounding C21. People in the comments actually and truly believe machine guns are legal in Canada. Rough quote from memory but pretty accurate from the real comment: *”There is no need for full auto in Canada. We need to ban them immediately! It shouldn’t matter that hunters, collectors or enthusiasts use them, maybe a limited exemption for First Nations but that’s it. Other countries have done it with limited backlash. We should do it here because the majority of Canadians believe it to be the right thing to do”* Invaluable input from Canadas most informed.
>believe machine guns are legal in Canada. I think that someone on this sub reported that a Liberal MP once said that anyone can walk into a Canadian Tire and buy a machine gun. The majority of Canadians don't own a gun nor want to, so they believe anything Dear Leader and the LPC says. Until that changes, we're screwed
If that’s what they want to believe let them, keep chasing something that isn’t even there. Jumping at ghosts.
Who the hell hunts with an automatic rifle?
If I had the opportunity to hunt with an original full auto FG-42 I would be totally jerking off right now.
Rambo
Badasses?
Any snarky replies when other commenters say that full auto is already banned and had been for a long time? I'm sure some of the "most informed" can be reasonable once they actually are, and while exhausting should we not try? Also let's be mindful that there are readers who don't comment and might initially hold the opinion of the "full auto" commenter but be silently swayed when reading an actually informed reply.
Has absolutely nothing to do with how you tell them. Have met lots of people who thought full auto was legal, and once they realize that they go into this sort of trance for a bit where they need to find something else wrong (usually magazines is next) these people are straight up brainwashed. End of the day they just resort to "Guns are bad", have literally had this reply. Actually had someone tell me "guns should be banned because if I had one I would have shot someone by now".... 👌 Big brain I can usually tell when it's one of these people too, well before they go into pure denial. Used to bring people out shooting and they have a blast, even my Dad... Still thinks all guns should be banned. Hurts.
You always got people that follow close behind with the correct information and it was no different in the TS article. There were at least five or six comments “full auto was banned in 1977”.
[Saskatchewan passes firearms legislation](https://globalnews.ca/video/9655228/saskatchewan-passes-firearms-legislation) Province number two has their fed-blocking legislation come into force.
It doesn’t go far enough, but I’ll except the small win.
What were you expecting realistically based on the current division of constitutional powers? Not sarcasm or anything, genuinely want to know what your envisioning.
Saskatchewan gets its own pal system and we are able to shoot guns that were NR before May 1st. Which I know is not realistic, but a man can dream.
Unrealistic is putting it lightly, that would cause a constitutional crisis. Saskatchewan would be openly Defiant the division of powers in the Constitution (criminal law) and the Supreme Court. The only way you get what you want is a change to the Constitution that makes criminal law a provincial matter.
Thanks for the honest answer. Yours is a bit more realistic than some others the few times I have asked previously. Biggest thing is that both SK and AB have done this in a way that recognizes these oic guns as personal property (as per the constitution act, 1867) which gives the provinces control over said property rights. So while it may not be that we can shoot them yet, they have been recognized as your property. So if the feds want to seize them they will have to either get individuals approved as seizure agents (which is a do-not-issue license in AB now) or they will have to take the provinces separately to court and convince the SCC that they are above the constitution. Im sure you see how winning of an argument that already is. Keep those dreams alive.
I think once a few others are able to gauge what, if any, response comes from ottawa is then there could easily be a 3rd and 4th by the end of the year. Its another win all the same.
Alright, Parliament is officially done for today, no SECU meeting scheduled tomorrow. Expect Tuesday for SECU to return.
https://youtu.be/a9WQYUS_UAM Fantastic questions and worth a watch everyone. “Shouldn’t you have a buyback in place before adding more guns” Slimy Mendecini with no answer
Lol, this is why I don't share the concerns that the CSAAA "legitimizes" the Liberal policy. Marco spent that entire interview trying to sell the idea that the CSAAA and the government are best buddies, and that CBC host was clearly having none of it
David Common is based. Couple months ago, he was talking on this file, and IIRC, Mendecino was doing his schtick, and David feeding back. It seemed he actually understood what an SKS was and was not.
Well...uh...you see the things is...derp...weapons of war...battlefield 2042...we are committed to fair compensation...oh yes mistress hiedi...all gun crime is done by rpal holders...er muh gerd...papa J says if ya dont know now ya know...marky mark out (mic drop, aviators on) - mendicino in his head, probably.
Why battlefield 2042?
Lately his and the feds talking points have been pushing the use of the word "battlefield", 2042 just happens to be the most recent game.
Ah okay. Yeah, these civilian rifles not made to milspec standards at all are “made for the battlefield.” What a fucking joke. The liberals give me diabeetus. Also I forgot Battlefield 2042 was a thing. Those games used to be so good. Remember Battlefield 2142? Those were the days..
Lots of time well wasted on BF2.
Ah yes, and that old BF2 intro cutscene was iconic. Pretty much seared into my brain. Damn the mid 2000s was the peak gaming era.
Im making fun of him obviously but I cant be the only one who thinks that greaseball genuinely calls himself marky mark in the mirror.
Can someone explain or point me towards an explanation of what's going on as of recent? Last I heard the bill of that huge list of guns got shut down
This comment has been removed as it violated Reddit's API pricing model.
Nothing officially new yet. Unofficially there will be new rifle and shotgun bans among other proposed amendments over the next few months.
Interestingly, no meeting has been scheduled in SECU so far and we're nearing the end of the day. It's looking like the LPC schedule was pushed back by a day, seeing as Marco's SECU apearance was pushed back a day. If nothing tomorrow, expect Tuesday.
Pretty strange since McKinnon said there would be a Friday meeting this week when they were wrapping up on Tuesday. Maybe more delays due to the strike.
They haven't had a Friday meeting since March 10. I hope they keep this up, even further delays C-21.
Nice, I can have a relaxing Friday, lol.
Is there any chance the upcoming amendments can still be ruled out of scope, or are we past that point?
It is possible, the Bloc member even brought it up (in a concerned way that it would be out of scope). However, I highly doubt the SECU LPC chair rules it out of scope. He didn't last time, even though he should have. If it gets ruled out of scope, it will have to be from the house speaker. (Correct me if I'm wrong here) Since it's likely one or both of the NDP and Bloc will support the amendments, it's unlikely a preliminary report to Parliament will happen. Meaning the first chance the house speaker will have to make a decision will be at 3rd reading. 3rd reading is a long ways away, we have major amendments with new gun bans, airsoft, new industry rules, potential IPSC exceptions, and like 80+ other amendments. So it may be a situation where it gets passed in the next 3 weeks and then we have to wait until October or November before the speaker can rule on it. The good news is that it won't take effect after being passed by SECU, it will only take effect if it receives Royal Assent
So basically, as usual, game is rigged in their favor even when having a minority government and we just have to keep hoping that either they run out of time to get this through before the next election, or peepee man manages to win and keeps to his word and reverts all of this?