babble-intro-img
babble is rabble.ca's discussion board but it's much more than that: it's an online community for folks who just won't shut up. It's a place to tell each other — and the world — what's up with our work and campaigns.

Gun Registry Continued

Farmpunk
Offline
Joined: Jul 25 2006

Comments

RedRover
Offline
Joined: Feb 23 2006

This could be challenging for Jack et. al. given the diversity in caucus, and specifically the rural/urban divide.  This divide, in geography not ideologly,  doesn't seem to flare up much (at all?) outside of this issue.

All the same, the issue must be handled delicately with such a exagerated divide between urban and rural ridings (26-11).  It would be hard to discipline a large number of MPs - on either side - if they decide to break the whip or otherwise not fall into line with the Leader's decision.


Fidel
Offline
Joined: Apr 29 2004

Why does an asshole-deluxe like Iggy who supported the fascist invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan want to keep tabs on my long one? He's very good with US business. Why can't he mind his own though?


Aristotleded24
Offline
Joined: May 24 2005

RedRover wrote:
This could be challenging for Jack et. al. given the diversity in caucus, and specifically the rural/urban divide.  This divide, in geography not ideologly,  doesn't seem to flare up much (at all?) outside of this issue.

Where's the divide? Regardless of arguing the merits of the gun registry itself, I don't see that members of the NDP Caucus can do anything other than agree to disagree and move onto other areas.


RedRover
Offline
Joined: Feb 23 2006

You don't think voting different ways on the same bill is a divide on that bill? 

Put another way, you disagree that the caucus is divided on the issue of the LGR?

There is quite a body of evidence that says otherwise, but thankfully the divide is limited to one government policy (LGR) and not ideology, competing interests, or personal animosity - which frankly create more numerous and severe divides in the other parties (particularly the Libs).


Augustus
Offline
Joined: Jan 4 2010

It will certainly be interesting to see the NDP explain it to the anti-gun voters in their ridings in the big cities if the Conservative bill ends up passing because of NDP support.  Will it harm the NDP with the pro-gun control voters in their constituents? 


Aristotleded24
Offline
Joined: May 24 2005

Augustus wrote:
It will certainly be interesting to see the NDP explain it to the anti-gun voters in their ridings in the big cities if the Conservative bill ends up passing because of NDP support.  Will it harm the NDP with the pro-gun control voters in their constituents?

I doubt it. All they have to do is say, "as your MP, I voted to keep the registry but some of my colleagues respectfully disagree."


Augustus
Offline
Joined: Jan 4 2010

But it will still mean that it was the NDP' support of the gun registry that led to its abolition.


Sean in Ottawa
Offline
Joined: Jun 3 2003

I think this is an important issue and the caucus should not be divided at this point -- it does not look good at all.

The issue of it being a private members bill is a red herring.

The final vote could leave the party divided because that is a more specific thing out of the control of the party but the party should be able to unite behind a position including any required amendments-- if those amendments are not passed then there could be splits but at this point when the bill can be amended I think there is far to much space where the party ought to be able to find common ground. To not do so is a cop-out.


Unionist
Offline
Joined: Dec 11 2005

Aristotleded24 wrote:

Augustus wrote:
It will certainly be interesting to see the NDP explain it to the anti-gun voters in their ridings in the big cities if the Conservative bill ends up passing because of NDP support.  Will it harm the NDP with the pro-gun control voters in their constituents?

I doubt it. All they have to do is say, "as your MP, I voted to keep the registry but some of my colleagues respectfully disagree."

And in the anti-control ridings, all they have to say is, "as your MP, I voted with the Conservatives to scuttle the registry, although some of my colleagues who pander to urban voters respectfully disagreed".

It does make for unity of a kind.


KenS
Offline
Joined: Aug 6 2001

Unless something has changing or changing, then I think that all or most of the NDP MPs who voted against the registry will do it again this time.

I'm only guessing and reading tea leaves, but both from what has been said and not said, I suspect that Stoffer and some others have said ahead of time they will not vote for it, period. Then it becomes a question for Jack and others how much damage you are willing to take to have unity on the issue.

For discipline, all that could be done to Stoffer is throw him out of Caucus. His House roles were already pared so far that he has little to lose from having those taken away.

The number of Liberals ill disposed to the registry is a much smaller proportion withing their Caucus. And all or most were around when the registry was brought in by their government- so if they never liked it they had to make their peace long ago. So that with preparation this time around, its feasible for Iggy and Cuzner to enforce discipline without creating the kind of nasty consequences you would get within the NDP Caucus.


Sean in Ottawa
Offline
Joined: Jun 3 2003

However, the party ought to be able to find enough common ground to imagine an amended version they could support-- only when those amendments fail does the disunity come. The party should not be all over the road without some unifying amendments.

BTW, I understand there are New Dems who want amendments and a smaller number who want to kill it regardless. This might get enough votes to defeat the Cons attempt at killing it while securing some important amendments-- even if a few New Dems either don't vote or even vote against in the end.


RANGER
Offline
Joined: Dec 7 2004

Everything Ignatieff touches turns into shit, Jack's best bet is to get as far away from this idiot as possible. 


Fidel
Offline
Joined: Apr 29 2004

When the 95% large majority realize that they far outnumber the elite handful few comprising the oppressor class, there will be sweeping changes to the political landscape in Canada and USA.


Boom Boom
Offline
Joined: Dec 29 2004

Geez, Fidel, there you go again! Laughing


Farmpunk
Offline
Joined: Jul 25 2006

If there's sweeping to be done, I'll lend out all my brooms and keep a gun for myself.

Iggy has whipped the Libs.  Does this affect the NDP and Layton who have left it as a private member issue?

I like Layton's approach better.  I think politically interested people enjoy free votes.  I know I do. 

It seems silly to scrap something that is established and currently running economically.  As a gun owner, I had no problem with the registry. 

 

 


Augustus
Offline
Joined: Jan 4 2010

Chantal Hebert said tonight that this situation puts the NDP in the crosshairs and puts Layton in a difficult position.  If the bill passes, the anti-gun voters will be angry with the NDP.


Chester Drawers
Offline
Joined: Oct 17 2008

I'm impressed with Jacks decision to let his caucus vote un-whipped.  Leadership is tough. 

However!  He was on John Gormley Live in Sask. today and either he was being patrinizing to Western Canadians or was caught up in the debate.  He said he remembered taking the family 22 out on the farm and shooting ducks.  Now he just admitted to breaking the law.  You can not shoot water fowl with anything other than a shotgun.  So he was either mistaken on the type of gun he used or he was trying to endear himself to the Western Voter with a manufactured story.  That was unfortunate. It reinforces the belief skeptics have that politicians will say anything to get votes whether it is the truth or manufactured.


Life, the unive...
Offline
Joined: Mar 23 2007

No fan of the long gun registry.  HOWEVER, anyone who thinks that this is the biggest issue facing rural and small town Canada, is either just plain stupid, playing polititcs, or not paying attention or a combination thereof.


RedRover
Offline
Joined: Feb 23 2006

It's funny, but the party could be strenghtened by allowing a free vote.

Rural MPs and candidates can say I did/will vote to get rid of it, while urban candidates can say I did/will vote to keep it. 

The same applies in reverse for the other parties though.  Can urban Cons say anything different than what Dear Leader has decreed they say?  The Cons stance may not go over well in urban BC, Ottawa, or even the 905. What could Iggy say when stumping in Saskatchewan or rural Manitoba or Ontario?

I think allowing a free vote for MPs is the right move democratically and electorally and respects the different cultures of rural and urban Canada equally.


Sean in Ottawa
Offline
Joined: Jun 3 2003

Problem is this is being played as something for the police in order to get law and order types on line. In reality it is also about domestic violence.

If you register your guns and then have mental health issues, a history of abuse against your family or make threats the fact that they are registered would make it easy to take them away.

It comes, therefore, to a question of whether you consider safety of women and children to come before the inconvenience of the registry and right to own guns. Some will also argue that the right to own a gun should not be compromised based on a threat or spousal violence. Instead some people are trying to defend the registry based on police use alone.

We work based on some collective desire when it comes to law. Perhaps the law should be amended to require the registry of guns in highly populated areas since in those places most want it. I'd rather not make such a compromise but perhaps if the cause is lost for keeping it nationally there should be an option allowed for the parts of the country who want it to have it.


Snert
Offline
Joined: Nov 4 2008

Quote:
It comes, therefore, to a question of whether you consider safety of women and children to come before the inconvenience of the registry and right to own guns.

 

That sounds remarkably similar to, say, right wing arguments for why we shouldn't get too upset over police profiling. "What's more important? A little inconvenience being pulled over, or THE PUBLIC SAFETY???"


Augustus
Offline
Joined: Jan 4 2010

Chester Drawers wrote:

I'm impressed with Jacks decision to let his caucus vote un-whipped.  Leadership is tough. 

However!  He was on John Gormley Live in Sask. today and either he was being patrinizing to Western Canadians or was caught up in the debate.  He said he remembered taking the family 22 out on the farm and shooting ducks.  Now he just admitted to breaking the law.  You can not shoot water fowl with anything other than a shotgun.  So he was either mistaken on the type of gun he used or he was trying to endear himself to the Western Voter with a manufactured story.  That was unfortunate. It reinforces the belief skeptics have that politicians will say anything to get votes whether it is the truth or manufactured.

What are the animal lovers going to think of Jack Layton?


RedRover
Offline
Joined: Feb 23 2006

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

If you register your guns and then have mental health issues, a history of abuse against your family or make threats the fact that they are registered would make it easy to take them away.

Correct me if I am wrong, but they don't open your health records before you are allowed to purchase a long gun.  Nor do they for driving a vehicle which could be just as deadly.  I may be wrong, but I don't think any government has the right to pry into health records for anything.

Also, I think if someone is found guilty of domestic violence or using a firearm illegally in the commission of crime then a judge can ban ownership of such weapons.  Even with that though, if someone really wants to own a gun then will simply buy it, store it, and use it without registering it.

I get what you are saying, but I don't see how keeping the registry (at least in its current form) helps in the situations you describe.


Farmpunk
Offline
Joined: Jul 25 2006

The registry still has resonance in my circles. 

I like free votes because they introduce a chance for elected reps to step outside party boundaries.   


West Coast Lefty
Offline
Joined: Feb 6 2003

Aristotleded24 wrote:

Where's the divide? Regardless of arguing the merits of the gun registry itself, I don't see that members of the NDP Caucus can do anything other than agree to disagree and move onto other areas.

That would be an acceptable position if Jack Layton and the 36 other NDP MPs had run for the national debating club in October 2008. In fact, they were elected to Parliament to make decisions on legislation.  There is no such thing as "having no position" or "agreeing to disagree" on bills before the House of Commons.  The NDP caucus will either save the gun registry or kill the registry, it is entirely in their hands assuming Iggy is able to whip his caucus this time. More specifically, Jack will either permit his caucus to let the Harper bill pass or he will lead them in defeating it (which is Jack's personal position and that of the majority of the caucus). 

When Iggy's Liberal MPs couldn't support their own bill on maternal and reproductive health, and those who voted against the bill were not punished in any way, it proved that the Liberals are not a pro-choice party and that voters outside Quebec can only count on the NDP to defend a women's right to choose.  It's the same principle on the registry - if Jack allows a free vote again on 3rd reading with no consequences to those MPs who vote to kill the registry, it means Jack can live with that outcome and the NDP doesn't support gun registration.  Period.  You can argue the merits of the registry, but please, let's dispense with the "NDP has no position" and "we'll just move on to other issues" fantasies.  Voters won't buy that crap for one second and rightly so.

I will post separately on why I'm convinced the NDP will not allow the Harper bill to pass, and why that is the correct strategy substantively and politically.


West Coast Lefty
Offline
Joined: Feb 6 2003

KenS wrote:

Unless something has changing or changing, then I think that all or most of the NDP MPs who voted against the registry will do it again this time.

I disagree and I'm quite convinced that Layton will either issue a formal whip to defeat the Harper bill, or through negotation, ensure that enough of the 12 anti-registry MPs switch their vote so that the bill is defeated.  If the Liberals were still divided, Layton might have stayed with a free vote but there is simply no way politically that the NDP can allow themselves to be the sole reason why Harper will get his way and kill the gun registry.  For starters, they would be ensuring Mulcair's defeat in Outremont and killing any chance of winning other Quebec seats as the BQ and Libs would be slamming the NDP on gun control every day in Quebec.  It would be a huge vulnerability for every NDP candidate in urban ridings outside of Alberta and Saskatchewan and would result in many female voters switching to the Liberals. 

Most important, Layton is personally supportive of the registry and helped to found the White Ribbon campaign for men to speak out against violence against women in the wake of Polytechnique - he is not going to preside over a caucus vote that kills the registry.  As for the 12 anti-registry MPs, I saw both Gravelle and Cullen on Power Play this week and neither of them committed to voting the same way on 3rd reading.  Gravelle said his vote was to send the bill to committee only and Cullen said he was looking for a compromise solution on the issue.  Cullen has been particularly adamant about hating the registry so his change of tone was striking.  Apart from Stoffer and maybe 1-2 others, the rest of the 12 will go with Layton's directive on this bill if Jack takes a strong position. As for Layton, he has not said there will be a free vote on 3rd reading:

NDP Leader Jack Layton had allowed his MPs to vote their conscience on this issue - 12 of them did just that last November. Yesterday, however, he would not commit to allowing a free vote again when the Hoeppner bill comes back to the House. "Well that's a big if. I'll address it then," he told reporters when asked if the NDP MPs who voted against it were not satisfied with the changes to the registry that he wants to bring in.

Having another caucus split on the gun registry won't help the NDP with urban voters or pro-registry voters in general, obviously.  But it won't help the 12 NDP MPs either - the Conservative attack machine will still say that you can't count on the NDP to kill the registry and the Cons will take credit for pressuring the NDP members to split with their leader.  Apart from a rabid but small core group that not only wants to kill the registry but also votes on this issue alone,  and they vote massively Conservative, most voters just don't care about this issue.  The Cons used the PMB to try to revive interest in the registry to fire up their base and the NDP fell for it hook, line and sinker.  Remember, every Ontario NDP MP who voted to kill the registry is from a riding the Liberals won in 1997 and 2000 when the registry controversy was at its peak. 

Let's defeat this bill and kill the issue for good, and let's not let the Conservative attack machine scare a third of our caucus into betraying our values again.  If the registry is flawed, let's fix it but we don't want the NDP to help usher in an NRA-type agenda into Canadian politics.

 


Augustus
Offline
Joined: Jan 4 2010

I agree with West Coast Lefty.

And I think that if the NDP remains divided over this bill that it could hurt their image with the public and in the media.

In fact, over the past few days I can already see the media getting ready to go after the NDP as being divided on this issue.


Sean in Ottawa
Offline
Joined: Jun 3 2003

RedRover wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

If you register your guns and then have mental health issues, a history of abuse against your family or make threats the fact that they are registered would make it easy to take them away.

Correct me if I am wrong, but they don't open your health records before you are allowed to purchase a long gun.  Nor do they for driving a vehicle which could be just as deadly.  I may be wrong, but I don't think any government has the right to pry into health records for anything.

Also, I think if someone is found guilty of domestic violence or using a firearm illegally in the commission of crime then a judge can ban ownership of such weapons.  Even with that though, if someone really wants to own a gun then will simply buy it, store it, and use it without registering it.

I get what you are saying, but I don't see how keeping the registry (at least in its current form) helps in the situations you describe.

Actually you only have half the process. Your health professional can take action to remove a license for your safety and others and in the case of guns can have them removed.

If you have a registered gun, for example and you start discussing suicide your medical professional can take steps to ensure the removal of the gun.

There are criminals who have sources for unregistered guns but to pretend that this is the only source of gun violence is dishonest on the part of gun advocates. Many people who might want a gun and should not have one do not have such connections to unregistered guns.These include otherwise law-abiding people with no contact to the criminal element but who are distressed and who are not safe with them -- including some teens. For gun shops it does make it harder to deal illegally on the side so it makes it more likely that all over the counter sales are legitimate. Sure the criminal importer will still be in business but at least the market most can see will have to do things correctly. People forget about that angle. Who here thinks that under the table transactions do not occur by so-called legitimate businesses. A registry makes that much harder for those who legally sell guns to let one go under the table to someone who does not have a license-- and it does so without great inconvenience to the other vendors.

Registered guns is about knowing where they are, protecting them and about authorities knowing you have them. For the paranoid this is threatening but it is a necessary part of licensing. Just like with a car you have to have a license and you then register what you have.

Those who register a gun are also legally committed to the safekeeping of that gun. This provides some extra responsibility in terms of what happens with that gun. Weapons used by the criminal element in our society may have been once owned by legal licensees or imported legally. The registry makes it somewhat harder for domestic legal weapons to fall in to the hands of those who are not licensed.

No it is not a catch all policy but few are.

The majority of gun deaths of women have time and again been proven to be from weapons that the registry covers. Let us never, ever, forget the purpose of the registry which is to reduce violence against women in particular. It was not as some claim some pointless venture. And it does not have to be perfectly effective in all instances to be worth while. How many lives must it save to be worth it?

Interestingly one of the chief arguments against its effectiveness has been a lack of full compliance-- from the same government that has discouraged compliance-- can't be too cynical.

Another post suggested I was using the right wing argument about convenience. To compare the national security threats to deaths of women is ridiculous. How many women were killed by guns last year? How many due to threats to national security that were acted on? The rights people talk about setting aside-- like security of the person, freedom from torture -- how do these compare to having to register a gun? The argument is one of balance. In both cases the right wing have it wrong-- for even the vaguest national security threat (or read excuse half the time) we are to upend a persons entire civil rights to their freedoms, to their body and excuse crimes like torture, but it would be considered too much to ask legal, law-abiding gun owners to register them like they would a car. If you can't see the gulf of difference between these two then you are not looking.

The registry does not take guns away arbitrarily it does make it easier to remove them if there is cause to do so and it does provide a tracking onus on whomever has them that they need to keep them safe and safely. The idea that this is too much for the law and order crowd boggles the mind.

The role in the added cost of the sabotage to the effort initiated by the current government is not small either. And mistakes in spending were made. Now of course the right wing wishes to pretend that the registry is an ongoing boondoggle which it is not. Once set up its maintenance costs are quite low. That argument is a little like arguing to tear down the parliament buildings because it cost too much to put them up.


Boom Boom
Offline
Joined: Dec 29 2004

The optics of the NDP having a few (is it 12?) MPs who could help the Cons defeat the long gun registry are simply untenable. I doubt the party would ever live it down.


Aristotleded24
Offline
Joined: May 24 2005

West Coast Lefty wrote:
I disagree and I'm quite convinced that Layton will either issue a formal whip to defeat the Harper bill, or through negotation, ensure that enough of the 12 anti-registry MPs switch their vote so that the bill is defeated.  If the Liberals were still divided, Layton might have stayed with a free vote but there is simply no way politically that the NDP can allow themselves to be the sole reason why Harper will get his way and kill the gun registry.  For starters, they would be ensuring Mulcair's defeat in Outremont and killing any chance of winning other Quebec seats as the BQ and Libs would be slamming the NDP on gun control every day in Quebec.  It would be a huge vulnerability for every NDP candidate in urban ridings outside of Alberta and Saskatchewan and would result in many female voters switching to the Liberals.

Yet somehow the pro-gun Conservatives took a seat from the anti-gun BQ in the latest round of by-elections? As for the point that the Ontario NDP MPs represent seats the Liberals had when the gun registry was a hot item, remember that even some Liberals broke with their party on the issue.


Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Login or register to post comments