U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > World Forums > Canada
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 06-18-2013, 02:20 PM
 
64 posts, read 72,985 times
Reputation: 49

Advertisements

So I recently stumbled across an article on CBC.

It went over what the Conservative governments upcoming goals are going to be in the next few years. One of them brought up was the current Firearms Act.

I'll post a quote and a link below:

"In the aftermath of the abolition of the the long-hated gun registry, Portage-Lisgar puts forward for consideration a proposal to tweak the existing text to make it clear the party's goal is now to prevent the resurrection of the registry, while adding a line that confirms the Conservative government "recognizes the legitimacy of private ownership of firearms and will resist any domestic or international pressure to the contrary." (RGTC 2-02-190)
A separate suggestion from Edmonton Spruce Grove would set out the party's belief in a "cautious approach to reclassifying firearms" while acknowledging that "the final decision... lies with the government." (RGTC 2-13-270)
The Cambridge riding association goes even further with a pitch to rescind the current Firearms Act, "which makes ownership illegal except under specific conditions of permission," in favour of one that "recognizes the right to own firearms unless that right is removed through due process of law on an individual basis."
The same resolution would also abolish the "prohibited" class, and restore restricted and non-restricted classes in its place. (RGTC 2-28-191)"

CBC Article is here: Tories to mull over gun laws, gender selection at upcoming convention - Inside Politics

They also go over some other concerns such as religious beliefs and the like.

My opinion is, I think it's good. Things like ATTs, Magazine caps, or even Licenses do nothing to stop criminals. They don't get ATTs, They unscew their rivets in their magazines with a screwdriver in 2 minutes(It's literally just a bolt), Same said for licenses. They don't bother.

The current Firearms Act has so many loopholes and screwed up legislations. Like not being able to own a .22 but You can own a 50 Caliber Rifle that is much more powerful. Or using pistol ammunition in a AR-15 Rifle.

And it'd be nice to have the right written into the Constitution, I have no idea why Firearms fell under the criminal code to begin with. That would scrap Licenses.

I agree with everything they are doing, The one thing I do disagree with is the "Prohibited Firearms" being scrapped and changed over to Non-Restricted-Restricted. This would basically mean that Canada will have more freedoms then Americans in the realms of Automatics. Unless they make an exception. I don't see much a point for law abiding Citizens to own Automatics.

What are Your thoughts on this? Do You think they should scrap what the Liberals introduced? Or keep in the current restrictions?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 06-18-2013, 04:00 PM
 
Location: Hougary, Texberta
8,602 posts, read 11,093,754 times
Reputation: 10316
There's no restriction in the U.S. on owning automatic weapons other than a tax stamp and paperwork. Same with short barreled rifles and silencers.

There is no sales of automatics manufactured after 1986 allowed to the general public, but zero prohibition on weapons made before that date.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-18-2013, 05:06 PM
 
64 posts, read 72,985 times
Reputation: 49
Quote:
Originally Posted by mikeyyc View Post
There's no restriction in the U.S. on owning automatic weapons other than a tax stamp and paperwork. Same with short barreled rifles and silencers.

There is no sales of automatics manufactured after 1986 allowed to the general public, but zero prohibition on weapons made before that date.
Really? I didn't know that. I knew there was some restriction on Automatics. But yeah I knew about the 1986 manufacture date.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-18-2013, 05:32 PM
 
363 posts, read 587,123 times
Reputation: 159
I think the conservatives should just make the right to bear arms clear in a law ideally constitutional amendment.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-19-2013, 03:53 AM
 
Location: Windsor, Ontario, Canada
11,265 posts, read 13,174,599 times
Reputation: 13467
Quote:
Originally Posted by Heinrich S View Post
Like not being able to own a .22 but You can own a 50 Caliber Rifle that is much more powerful. Or using pistol ammunition in a AR-15 Rifle.



Huh? You can own a .22. I mean, you can go pick one up at Canadian Tire for cryin' out loud lol

There are also no restrictions on how many rounds a .22 magazine can hold. I could walk around with it all day long slung over my shoulder, provided it wasn't loaded. Nobody is going to like it, and the cops will be called, but I can do it. Just like any other non-restricted firearm.


But yeah, I like the changes.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-19-2013, 06:20 AM
 
131 posts, read 438,367 times
Reputation: 134
The United States and Canada share 5,000 miles of open border. As long as guns can be purchased with no questions at U.S. gun shows, Canadian statutory prohibitions will be largely ineffective. The big issue in my mind is probable cause to stop individuals. Now that anyone with a pulse can get a Concealed Pistol License in most U.S. states, seeing that someone is carrying a firearm does not give the officer cause to investigate.

The U.S. Supreme Court has constitutionalized the right to gun ownership in the U.S. which means that this won't change easily. If President Obama could get the treaty ratified by the Senate, he could sign a treaty with Canada opening the border a little bit more in exchange for banning gun ownership. There is a case from the 1930s which immunizes treaties from constitutional challenges and that would be the ticket down here. When I went to U.S. law school in the 1990s, the argument that the U.S. Second Amendment invalidated anything was a crackpot argument relegated to the same status as tax protestor arguments. A conservative U.S. Supreme Court has obviously done a 180 degree, but this solution would help Canada, keep the issue out of the U.S. Courts, and bypass our House of Representatives. It sounds like a win-win.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-19-2013, 07:13 AM
 
Location: Toronto
1,580 posts, read 2,816,316 times
Reputation: 1602
I also like the proposed changes. One of the few things the Conservatives might ever do that I will agree with.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-19-2013, 10:15 AM
 
Location: Lethbridge, AB
1,132 posts, read 1,654,873 times
Reputation: 974
I'm in favour of them.

I would expect to see at least some of the proposals in their next election platform. The long gun registry issue was a huge money maker for them - they'll want to throw gun owners another bone next time around, I think.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-19-2013, 10:15 AM
 
Location: In a van down by the river
75 posts, read 146,514 times
Reputation: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Magnatomicflux View Post
Huh? You can own a .22. I mean, you can go pick one up at Canadian Tire for cryin' out loud lol

There are also no restrictions on how many rounds a .22 magazine can hold. I could walk around with it all day long slung over my shoulder, provided it wasn't loaded. Nobody is going to like it, and the cops will be called, but I can do it. Just like any other non-restricted firearm.


But yeah, I like the changes.
Hmmm, maybe referring to one of the AK-47 'look-alike' style rifles in .22. But yes, other .22 caliber rifles are readily available.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-19-2013, 04:52 PM
 
Location: Canada
4,699 posts, read 8,499,560 times
Reputation: 4893
Quote:
Originally Posted by scaramouchebluez View Post
I think the conservatives should just make the right to bear arms clear in a law ideally constitutional amendment.
You must be American if you don't know that the Conservatives would never open up the Pandora's Box of constitutional negociations. That, or you're just a Canadian who is somehow unaware of the period of Canadian history between 1979 and 1995.

I personally feel uncomfortable with the changes and only really see hunters and farmers as having a legitimate need for firearms. Handguns and automatic rifles, which are for killing people, belong in the hands of the military and law enforcement, we have no business letting our fear spread these killing machines all over the country as a criminal with a gun will almost always catch his victim off guard or without a weapon with them anyways. Having guns all over the place around will kill more people than it will save.

Last edited by BIMBAM; 06-19-2013 at 05:02 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > World Forums > Canada
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top