Guns. Lots of Guns.

[DuffMan]

Originally Posted by Flames_Gimp

It's actually a minuscule amount. Most gun crime is committed with illegal guns.

Originally Posted by btimbit

Don't try to answer the question seriously. For some reason, to Duffman, the fact that a gun is legal in Russia is somehow relevant to this discussion

Completely not relevant.

[Flames_Gimp]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Well, let’s break this down.

For one, I’m not sure where you’re getting the idea that I’m scared of guns. I’ve gone shooting, I have friends who hunt whom I fully respect, and while I don’t own any guns myself, it’s not a moral choice, I really just have no use for them.
I’m also not sure why you’re interested in my sexual activity.

Two, no law was pushed through. This law already existed and has existed for some time. What happened was that certain firearms were added to the list that already exists. This was done using an order-in-council, which not only is how that works, but is an extremely common tool. This law has had items added multiple times using this process. Adding items to a law (such as adding guns to a pre-existing list of restricted guns) does not require parliamentary approval. So while this is probably frustrating for gun owners, there’s nothing undemocratic about it. Trudeau uses OICs, Harper used OICs, for decades, OICs have been used both federally and provincially. Yes, this is a “major law” to you, but in the end it’s just an old law restricting firearms, which really doesn’t effect the majority of Canadians, and it had some new items added to it in a way that is acceptable until the law is amended, which neither Trudeau or Harper seemed all that interested in doing.

So, once again, characterising OICs as a Liberal issue, as “undemocratic,” or even suggesting a law was pushed through, just doesn’t line up with reality.



It was fairly tongue-in-cheek given the circumstances. If this is “circumventing the democratic process” then that has happened thousands of times across every government at both the federal and provincial level over the past however many decades.

As far as how I feel about it, as a non-gun owner who really doesn’t care about guns (the gun problem being select owners, not the items themselves of course) they could add or remove hundreds of items from the list every year and I don’t imagine it would impact my life at all.

Oh you're one of those guys lol The guy that is passionate about arguing about a topic and then says "I don't even care about it"

Like I said, you're ok with our government just adding or changing laws as they please, and considering that the largest petition in canadian history was to try stop this from happening, I'd say your oppinion isn't common.

[Flames_Gimp]

Thanks for convincing me, Duffman!

[MBates]

I posted this in another thread, but will repeat here because I find it quite frustrating when false talking points seem to become the accepted narrative on a topic.

The recent ban was not circumventing the democratic process - it was literally using the precise legal process put in place by our duly elected representatives in Parliament.

The Criminal Code is the legislation which expressly defines a prohibited firearm as any firearm prescribed by a regulation to be a prohibited firearm.

Parliament has expressly given authority to the federal cabinet to make a ban list as it sees fit. There is a limit, but it is pretty nonsensical.

This is the actual section:

Regulations

117.15 (1) Subject to subsection (2), the Governor in Council may make regulations prescribing anything that by this Part is to be or may be prescribed.

Restriction

(2) In making regulations, the Governor in Council may not prescribe any thing to be a prohibited firearm, a restricted firearm, a prohibited weapon, a restricted weapon, a prohibited device or prohibited ammunition if, in the opinion of the Governor in Council, the thing to be prescribed is reasonable for use in Canada for hunting or sporting purposes.

So, if the federal cabinet is of the opinion that a firearm is reasonable for use in Canada for hunting or sporting purposes, then they can't prohibit or even restrict it (which is silly because they wouldn't want to if they thought it was reasonable for hunting and sporting purposes in the first place).

But if the federal cabinet is of the view a firearm is not reasonable for hunting or sporting purposes in Canada, then by passing an OIC, they can prohibit it. As per the duly enacted legislation.

You may think this is a foolish way for Parliament to have set up firearm regulation in Canada, but it is what Parliament legislated. The timing of a pandemic and immediately after a mass shooting and the specific guns banned might be noteworthy for criticism, but it is wrong to claim the government has somehow gone rogue when what they did was use the legislated procedure.

[wookster]

Originally Posted by DuffMan

so were they legal when they left the production line, wherever that was?

In Canada...no they were not.

[DuffMan]

Am I not speaking English?

Do you need drawings?

Originally Posted by DuffMan

so were they legal when they left the production line, wherever that was?

Originally Posted by wookster

In Canada...no they were not.

[Flames_Gimp]

Originally Posted by DuffMan

Am I not speaking English?

Do you need drawings?

You're speaking english, but your post just makes zero sense.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Flames_Gimp

Oh you're one of those guys lol The guy that is passionate about arguing about a topic and then says "I don't even care about it"

Like I said, you're ok with our government just adding or changing laws as they please, and considering that the largest petition in canadian history was to try stop this from happening, I'd say your oppinion isn't common.

I’d suggest reading MBates’ post which said it much better than I could, but the simple fact is that they did not “add or change laws as they please.” They used the proper process. They also did it exactly how they said they would during the election, so your very important petition was much less significant than the actual voters who gave Trudeau power to do exactly this. Signing a petition really doesn’t have much weight compared to voting someone into power. Nice gesture, at most.

Also, I enjoy and care about discussing lots of aspects of this topic, which doesn’t mean I have to have a stake in which guns they add or remove from the list. Why so hostile?

[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

[PepsiFree]

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.

[Envitro]

No, the OIC is entirely the wrong mechanism for this and they're trying to use one phrase "in the opinion of" to push a political and idealogical agenda, which you so clearly agree with, to dispossess millions of Canadians of their rightfully acquired property under the pretence of "security for all Canadians", when there is no proof that this will make a single person safer or save a single life.

I could throw all sorts of stats your way but the facts clearly don't matter.

It is very clearly stated in the rest of the firerarms act that only legislation can explicitly make firearms prohibited or restricted, and OIC's are supposed to be used for minor administrative adjustments that were missed by legislation.

Are you telling me that something that's this disruptive, this expensive (probably going to cost $3-5 billion to administer, execute, and confiscate from legal gun owners) is not supposed to be legislated??

[CaptainCrunch]

Its going to be interesting, to me this is a strategic problem, and I see the current ban as next to useless in solving the issues of gun crime. A positive benefit will probably be a reduction of suicide by gun, however I don't think it will reduce suicide overall.


I can see where this thing is going to eventually cost massive amounts of money to no effect and end up leading to hugely expensive court challenges of the government.


I also think that the Nova Scotia shooting showed the holes in law enforcement against illegal guns that won't be solved by throwing money at it.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Envitro

No, the OIC is entirely the wrong mechanism for this and they're trying to use one phrase "in the opinion of" to push a political and idealogical agenda, which you so clearly agree with, to dispossess millions of Canadians of their rightfully acquired property under the pretence of "security for all Canadians", when there is no proof that this will make a single person safer or save a single life.

I could throw all sorts of stats your way but the facts clearly don't matter.

It is very clearly stated in the rest of the firerarms act that only legislation can explicitly make firearms prohibited or restricted, and OIC's are supposed to be used for minor administrative adjustments that were missed by legislation.

Are you telling me that something that's this disruptive, this expensive (probably going to cost $3-5 billion to administer, execute, and confiscate from legal gun owners) is not supposed to be legislated??

“The facts clearly don’t matter”.... right, the seems to be the view of yourself and Flames Gimp who are getting their information from obviously unbiased sources like the sport shooting association right? Right. Again, the OIC is the right tool for this, whether you agree with the process or not. Whether you have a problem with the fact that this decision can be made by the federal cabinet or not, it can be made by then.

Can you point us to the specific section or copy and paste the wording in the firearms act that leads you to believe individual models can only be prohibited through legislation?

Maybe I’m misunderstanding your last point, but items such as the buyback program which will cost the government money do need to come before parliament and go through the “typical” channels. Multiple parts of what Trudeau proposed will be legislated, but adding to the list of items won’t be, because it doesn’t have to be, regardless of your feelings on the matter.

Suggesting I agree with the ideological agenda might make you feel better, but at the end of the day there’s right and there’s wrong, and gun owners desperately want Trudeau to have gone about this the wrong way and it’s just.... not founded. You don’t have to be anti-gun to see that.

[DuffMan]

Too bad we don’t have a 2nd amendment when the tyrannical government comes overreaching.

I’d move to a country that does if I loved guhns so much.

[MBates]

Originally Posted by Envitro

No, the OIC is entirely the wrong mechanism for this and they're trying to use one phrase "in the opinion of" to push a political and idealogical agenda, which you so clearly agree with, to dispossess millions of Canadians of their rightfully acquired property under the pretence of "security for all Canadians", when there is no proof that this will make a single person safer or save a single life.

I could throw all sorts of stats your way but the facts clearly don't matter.

It is very clearly stated in the rest of the firerarms act that only legislation can explicitly make firearms prohibited or restricted, and OIC's are supposed to be used for minor administrative adjustments that were missed by legislation.

Are you telling me that something that's this disruptive, this expensive (probably going to cost $3-5 billion to administer, execute, and confiscate from legal gun owners) is not supposed to be legislated??

Sigh...

Thankfully, since you are very committed to 'clearly' posting facts, please post any single section of the Firearms Act that in any way says what you have claimed.

I can help you, here is the entire Firearms Act and you can tell us which ones you were referring to:

https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/f-11.6/

Of course, you might want to note from my earlier post that it is a section from the Criminal Code (which is not the Firearms Act) that gives the Governor in Council (aka Federal Cabinet) its power to prescribe restricted and prohibited firearms.

Not surprisingly, with specific reference to the process I have shown you, the OIC which is published as SOR 2020-96 is passed as a regulation under the Criminal Code, and leads with:

Whereas the Governor in Council is not of the opinion that any thing prescribed to be a prohibited firearm or a prohibited device, in the Annexed Regulations, is reasonable for use in Canada for hunting or sporting purposes...

https://firearmrights.ca/wp-content/...er-Weapons.pdf


The legal challenges that have a chance of succeeding will be ones arguing that the Cabinet has acted arbitrarily and in bad faith, contrary to the evidence etc. and seeking to overturn the substance behind the opinion as palpable and overriding error...not that the OIC is an unlawful mechanism for prescribing prohibited firearms.

Like this one:

https://ottawacitizen.com/news/court...deral-gun-ban/

It really would assist the opponents of the ban to stop arguing with feverish certainty things that are objectively wrong.

It does remain to be seen if all of the requirements of the Statutory Instruments Act and Federal Policy for making regulations was followed (stuff often referred variously as 'red tape') but that is its own issue.

If you read this page, you will learn more than you ever wanted to know, but should 'clearly' from this point on know that the Governor in Council exercises power to make regulation by way of OIC.

https://www.canada.ca/en/privy-counc...tions.html#pt3

Making or Approval of Regulations
A regulation is "made" when it is officially established by the regulation-making authority. This is usually done through a separate document called an executive order. The regulation is attached to the order as an annex.

If the authority is the Governor in Council, the executive order is an "order in council" and the regulation is made when the Governor General indicates that the order in council is made. If the authority is a minister, the executive order is a "ministerial order" and the regulation is made when the minister signs the ministerial order. In the case of an agency or other body, the executive order is usually a resolution or other document, depending on its decision-making process.

As an aside, I found this Canadian Government guide as the top hit to the Google search,

"how to make a regulation in Canada"

It has never been easier for citizens to be well informed on legal matters. Not saying in any way that everyone should be expected to have the training and experience of a lawyer, but if you are going to make statements of law like "the OIC is entirely the wrong mechanism for this" it really would make more sense to run the Google machine for 10 minutes first.

[OMG!WTF!]

I have a question about guns. You can buy an m-16 at auction but it's about 25k. That's not really what they cost is it? An m-60 is about 55k. An AK is around 15k. I assume you need something more than a paddle number to buy them? I assume they're somewhat collectable now and not legal to purchase en masse anymore? And the only difference between an AR and an M-16 is the auto feature? I'm starting to get all into this. But I want the war guns. Not the sissy versions.

[Flames_Gimp]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

I’d suggest reading MBates’ post which said it much better than I could, but the simple fact is that they did not “add or change laws as they please.” They used the proper process. They also did it exactly how they said they would during the election, so your very important petition was much less significant than the actual voters who gave Trudeau power to do exactly this. Signing a petition really doesn’t have much weight compared to voting someone into power. Nice gesture, at most.

Also, I enjoy and care about discussing lots of aspects of this topic, which doesn’t mean I have to have a stake in which guns they add or remove from the list. Why so hostile?

Technically yes they used a process they have the power to use, but order in council is meant for emergency law changes. There could have been question period or debates and votes on it. It was a dirty move and a lot of people are pissed, we did nothing wrong and there strategy was to punish law abiding citizens for acts committed by criminals (even though there is no history of an AR15 being used to commit crimes in canada except a criminal shooting off another criminals finger.

Why so hostile? you think you might be a little miffed if you had property confiscated and you paid $4000 for something that you now cannot use?

Are the idiot liberals going to buyback this special mount?

[DuffMan]

Originally Posted by stang

You’re the one who started a thread about nuts. Go to that one

You make me feel like I’m in a furry forum

Originally Posted by Flames_Gimp

Technically yes they used a process they have the power to use, but order in council is meant for emergency law changes. There could have been question period or debates and votes on it. It was a dirty move and a lot of people are pissed, we did nothing wrong and there strategy was to punish law abiding citizens for acts committed by criminals (even though there is no history of an AR15 being used to commit crimes in canada except a criminal shooting off another criminals finger.

Why so hostile? you think you might be a little miffed if you had property confiscated and you paid $4000 for something that you now cannot use?

Are the idiot liberals going to buyback this special mount?

“Their”

Debate what? It’s a done deal. Why do you think debating anything will change anything, it won’t. The fed.gov stepped up and did something most of the population that doesn’t waste $4,000 on extenz wants.

[CaptainCrunch]

This was an easy thread to kind of walk away from, it went from interesting to pretty much painful. Its too bad, because this is a topic that should be debated and a thread that should be informative. But I don't think it is anymore.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Flames_Gimp

Technically yes they used a process they have the power to use, but order in council is meant for emergency law changes. There could have been question period or debates and votes on it. It was a dirty move and a lot of people are pissed, we did nothing wrong and there strategy was to punish law abiding citizens for acts committed by criminals (even though there is no history of an AR15 being used to commit crimes in canada except a criminal shooting off another criminals finger.

Why so hostile? you think you might be a little miffed if you had property confiscated and you paid $4000 for something that you now cannot use?

Are the idiot liberals going to buyback this special mount?

I’ll leave it to MBates because he’s been explaining it better than I have, but no, the OIC is not “for emergencies.” It can be used in emergencies, but is much more often used otherwise.

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

This was an easy thread to kind of walk away from, it went from interesting to pretty much painful. Its too bad, because this is a topic that should be debated and a thread that should be informative. But I don't think it is anymore.

It’s all in perspective. I would hope at least some people learned something about what an Order in Council actually is. I think the non-contributors are being ignored, and the conversation seems to be just fine otherwise.