Quote:
Originally Posted by Envitro
Actually the section of the firearms act that MBates quoted 117.15 is in fact the thing that precisely prohibits them from doing what they did. Legal challenges are coming on those grounds, and here's why.
They're saying that now they've decided that they are not suitable for hunting or sporting purposes, but their argument falls apart on two points:
1. If they have been legitimately used for hunting (like in the case of most of the firearms banned, i.e. non-restricted classification) for decades, how can they all of the sudden no longer be OK?
In the case of sporting use, all of them, including the restricteds, are considered "modern sporting rifles" since they're designed for sporting use only (i.e. competitive shooting sports or service-style rifle competitions). Saying that they're no longer "suitable" for that use is a nonsensical statement.
2. Saying that they can no longer be used for hunting but allowing an exemption for First Nations hunters to continue to use them for hunting is the silliest way to disprove your own argument
|
No, it doesn’t prohibit them at all from doing that. It’s based on the opinion of the Governor in Council, not whether they’ve been used for that before.
And the question is not whether they’re “suitable” for that purpose, but whether they’re “reasonable.” Based on the information they have even as that information changes, the Governor in Council is consider a specific firearm no-longer reasonable, which is what happened.
I understand the frustration from sport shooters here, but categorising this as government overreach or some “prohibited” move is silly. They used the tools freely at their disposal that many governments have used before to do what they said they were going to do 9 months ago at election time. Why is this surprising.