;;
Gun Registry - back in the news (thread #2)
Thu, 2012-05-10 14:38
#1
Gun Registry - back in the news (thread #2)
Thu, 2012-05-10 14:44
#2
Toews is losing it. His excesses will help do the Cons in.
Holster 'back-door' gun registries
http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/sunnews/straighttalk/archives/2012/05/20120...
Thu, 2012-05-10 16:48
#3
Fri, 2012-05-11 13:57
#4
[Just repeating my post from the other obsolete thread - let's use this one for continuity...]
[url=http://www.torontosun.com/2012/05/09/council-demands-gun-registry-data]T... City Council demands Ontario registry data be preserved[/url]
Councillors voted 39-5 to urge the province to ask the federal government for the data in the registry before it is scrapped.
Councillors also reaffirmed their long-standing support for the gun registry and directed city lawyers to look for ways to intervene to stop the deletion of data on the nearly 290,000 non-restricted firearms which are registered in the Greater Toronto Area.
Mayor Rob Ford, Deputy Mayor Doug Holyday and Councillors Giorgio Mammoliti, Denzil Minnan-Wong and John Parker registered the five votes against the motion brought forward by Councillor Kristyn Wong-Tam.
Doug Ford voted with the majority against Rob Ford. Luckily Council regulations bar handguns from meetings.
Mon, 2012-09-10 13:12
#5
Court grants Québec's injunction request, and gives feds 30 days to hand over the data!
And here's an English language story:
[url=http://www.montrealgazette.com/news/montreal/Ottawa+ordered+hand+over+lo... ordered to hand over long-gun registry data collected in Quebec[/url]
Mon, 2012-09-10 14:11
#6
Court grants Québec's injunction request, and gives feds 30 days to hand over the data!
And here's an English language story:
[url=http://www.montrealgazette.com/news/montreal/Ottawa+ordered+hand+over+lo... ordered to hand over long-gun registry data collected in Quebec[/url]
A gutsy decision (that I wholeheartedly support) that will in all likelihood go all the way up to the Supreme Court.
EDIT: BTW, the Canadian Press story is incorrect. The court did not grant an injunction. It declared the provision of the Act to abolish the long-gun registry that provided for destruction of registry data to be of no force and effect as far as it relates to Quebec (to keep things simple).
Mon, 2012-09-10 21:34
#7
Thanks, Bärlüer. Meanwhile, Harper continues to stroke the gun-fetishists:
[url=http://www.calgaryherald.com/news/Conservatives+repeal+longdeferred+guns... repeal long-deferred gun-show regulations aimed at sponsors [/url]
Tue, 2012-09-11 08:30
#8
For those who are interested, here is the [url=http://www.jugements.qc.ca/ID=26A2A56D3D79FC0108F0AC039E8DB834]full text[/url] of the court decision (en français).
Mon, 2012-09-17 22:41
#9
[url=http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-will-appeal-quebec-c... will appeal Quebec court ruling on the long-gun registry[/url]
I'll simply adopt one of the comments following the article:
Did not see that one coming at all... And in other news, the earth continues to rotate though with a slight lean to the right north of the 49th.
Sun, 2012-10-28 14:49
#10
[url=http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/mounties-cant-explain-proje... can’t explain projected savings of scrapping the long-gun registry[/url]
Fri, 2012-11-02 20:03
#11
Yeah I'm not wild about the gun registry as it is. But I do agree with someone who said that the registry belongs to all Canadians and not the "Harper Government of Canada." Hands off, eh.
Sat, 2012-11-03 07:48
#12
Vic Toews quote::The savings of scrapping the long gun registry are north of a billion dollars!
TOTAL BS!!!! An audit was done in march of 2005 at that point the total 10 year cost of the WHOLE gun control program was 946 million.
The long gun registry"" PART "" of the gun control program DID NOT COST A BILLION GD DOLLARS!! THAT IS A TOTAL BAREFACED GD LIE!!!
Wed, 2012-11-07 16:29
#13
Most police I've dealt with don't even understand Canadian firearm laws and regulations.
Thu, 2012-12-06 15:25
#14
[url=http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/on-anniversary-of-shooting-... anniversary of shooting, Quebec vows to create its own gun registry[/url]
The Quebec government is pushing ahead with its plan to set up its own a gun registry in the province after a unanimous support from the National Assembly.
The announcement was made on the anniversary of the 1989 mass shooting at the University of Montreal’s École Polytechnique when gunman Marc Lépine killed 14 women before taking his own life.
Thu, 2012-12-06 16:31
#15
In August 1989, Lépine picked up an application for a firearms-acquisition certificate and he received his permit in mid-October.[36] On November 21, 1989, Lépine purchased a Ruger Mini-14 semi-automatic rifle at a local sporting goods store.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marc_L%C3%A9pine[/quote]
Forgive me for using wikipedia as a quick reference but I believe it will still illustrate my point.
Marc Lepine aquired a licence and legally bought a firearm. He could have very well registered this firearm.
A firearm registery will not stop someone from committing a henious act such as this. What needs to happen is a more indepth look into someone applying for the firearm licence itself- the act of being allowed to buy firearms in the first place. This way people with a criminal history, history of violence and abuse or any other red flags will be stopped before legally buying firearms and not just sending the information away to tell the government that they did indeed buy it.
We need to make the act of buying a firearm come under better review and remove licences and firearms from criminals with violent histories.
Sadly I do not think there is anything we can really do to stop someone with no red flags from purchasing a weapon and then using it.
Thu, 2012-12-06 16:40
#16
Thanks for your input, Serviam6. You're quite right, a registry is far from being enough. But if you think that's why the federal government and all provinces except Québec kissed it goodbye - because they are looking for more effective gun control - I've got news for you.
The use, possession, and storage of all firearms in appropriately defined municipal areas should be banned. That will be a good start. No? And, of course, the registry should be kept as well.
In any event, we Quebecers are more or less unanimous on the need to keep guns under very strict control. We will continue in that direction. Whether others follow is naturally their business.
Thu, 2012-12-06 16:50
#17
Thanks for your input, Serviam6. You're quite right, a registry is far from being enough.
Thank you Unionist. I actually never had a problem with registering my firearms. I was happy to do so. My only two points of contention with it is the security risk it poses to me and my family should a criminal hack into the polices computers and the fact that over the dozen plus firearms I registered not a single registry card of mine was without some sort of mistake. Some fairly small, others gaping- including wrong make/model numbers and wrong serial numbers. At one point I was told it would cost me $10 for each new (hopefulyl correct?) cards..
But if you think that's why the federal government and all provinces except Québec kissed it goodbye - because they are looking for more effective gun control - I've got news for you.
Why do you think they kissed it goodbye? I honestly never stopped to consider it.
The use, possession, and storage of all firearms in appropriately defined municipal areas should be banned. That will be a good start. No?
I disagree here.
I think it's pretty cool that Quebec decided they want to keep it to the point where they are doing their own thing. Good on them for sure.In any event, we Quebecers are more or less unanimous on the need to keep guns under very strict control. We will continue in that direction. Whether others follow is naturally their business.
Thu, 2012-12-06 17:08
#18
The use, possession, and storage of all firearms in appropriately defined municipal areas should be banned. That will be a good start. No?I disagree here.
Because... ?
Thu, 2012-12-06 17:21
#19
The use, possession, and storage of all firearms in appropriately defined municipal areas should be banned. That will be a good start. No?I disagree here.
Because... ?
How come you didn't respond to any of my other questionsor comments?
Thu, 2012-12-06 17:40
#20
On this of all days, I really have no stomach for picking over this issue.
Good on Quebec for building a registry of their own.
Thu, 2012-12-06 17:42
#21
How come you didn't respond to any of my other questionsor comments?
Your only question:
Why do you think they kissed it goodbye?
1. The gun lobby - extremely powerful and wealthy.
2. The politics of division - playing to the Harperite base by telling them that urbanites and Frenchies want to disarm them.
3. In the case of the provinces - fear, cowardice, and see #1 and #2.
If there was something else you wanted me to respond to, let me know.
Now, if you would kindly explain why you think citizens need to have guns in cities, I'd appreciate pursuing that discussion.
Fri, 2012-12-07 09:22
#22
How come you didn't respond to any of my other questionsor comments?
Your only question:
Why do you think they kissed it goodbye?1. The gun lobby - extremely powerful and wealthy.
2. The politics of division - playing to the Harperite base by telling them that urbanites and Frenchies want to disarm them.
3. In the case of the provinces - fear, cowardice, and see #1 and #2.
If there was something else you wanted me to respond to, let me know.
Now, if you would kindly explain why you think citizens need to have guns in cities, I'd appreciate pursuing that discussion.
Appreciate that thank you.
To answer your question why I think citizens should have guns in cities it's basically for the same reason citizens have guns outside the city.
Citizens in cities, like those not in cities, use firearms for;
Hunting game which provides their family food or a source of income if they sell the food.
For the enjoyment of target practice.
Competition shooting.
Collecting.
A hobby (buying firearms, modifying them and possibly reselling at a higher cost)
The only additional reason I can phatom for citizens to have firearms outside of cities is protection from wild animals.
Why do you think citizens in cities shouldn't have firearms?
Fri, 2012-12-07 09:58
#23
Because they are dangerous and there is no hunting allowed in any city or exurban area. That leaves no reason to have a gun of any kind in an urban area. You want to target shoot then pay for a locker at a shooting range and leave your deadly toys there.
Fri, 2012-12-07 10:13
#24
I see the point on the urban rule, but I don't see it as a priority, or even workable and on the whole I don't agree.
Never mind that there are a whole range of storage and registry regulations what would probably be of higher priority, I can hardly think of a tastier target for thieves or abuse than a huge (and probably private) armoury sitting out in the middle of nowhere.
And Serviam6, not just protection from wild animals, but controlling pests and injured and sick animals.
Fri, 2012-12-07 10:18
#25
I see the point on the urban rule, but I don't see it as a priority, or even workable and on the whole I don't agree.
Well, I see it as a priority, and workable, and I agree.
Never mind that there are a whole range of storage and registry regulations what would probably be of higher priority, I can hardly think of a tastier target for thieves or abuse than a huge (and probably private) armoury sitting out in the middle of nowhere.
I see your point. We shouldn't store weapons at police stations or military bases either, for the same reason. Or money at the mint or banknote companies. There must be a way to decentralize all that.
And Serviam6, not just protection from wild animals, but controlling pests and injured and sick animals.
Yeah, I didn't get that wild animal thing. Lots of domesticated animals can be dangerous as well. And calling the authorities to help with pest control is just a waste of public funds. I think firearm ownership should be mandatory for all households within a certain radius (say, 100 km) of animals.
[/quote]
Fri, 2012-12-07 10:58
#26
Unionist, I know we have had this discussion before, and probably talked it to death. And I am a supporter of registration as you are. I also see your position, even if I consider it unworkable, which is why I'm not making similar comments about registering kitchen cutlery, or serving bar pints in saran baggies. And I have already given you more detailed reasons for my informed position WRT animals.
More importantly, I think that sort of ban would probably make any new legislation just as much of a lightning rod as the Liberals' handling of it. And as I have told you already, I consider the Liberals just as responsible for the dismantling of the registry as the Harperites and the gun lobby.
It would be different if a city ban would mean absolute prevention, but it is not that. A woman was killed here just a few months ago by an assassin who came from out of town and tragically had the wrong address.
Fri, 2012-12-07 11:09
#27
Because they are dangerous and there is no hunting allowed in any city or exurban area. That leaves no reason to have a gun of any kind in an urban area. You want to target shoot then pay for a locker at a shooting range and leave your deadly toys there.
Word.
Fri, 2012-12-07 11:09
#28
Because they are dangerous and there is no hunting allowed in any city or exurban area. That leaves no reason to have a gun of any kind in an urban area. You want to target shoot then pay for a locker at a shooting range and leave your deadly toys there.
Word.
Fri, 2012-12-07 11:09
#29
Because they are dangerous and there is no hunting allowed in any city or exurban area. That leaves no reason to have a gun of any kind in an urban area. You want to target shoot then pay for a locker at a shooting range and leave your deadly toys there.
Word.
Fri, 2012-12-07 11:34
#30
Because they are dangerous and there is no hunting allowed in any city or exurban area. That leaves no reason to have a gun of any kind in an urban area. You want to target shoot then pay for a locker at a shooting range and leave your deadly toys there.
I don't think this is a practical idea at all. I think you underestimate the amount of citizens that own firearms.
You want to store thousands and thousands of firearms at local shooting ranges? It would take millions of dollars to renovate the facilities in order to acomodate this, not that the facilities would even HAVE the room in the first place. They wouldn't.
It would make these shooting ranges a prime target for thieves and criminals. My range has no security, it's a wooden building. To get to it you hop over a little fence walk up the path and it's not locked.
And what about collectors? Their firearms are often investments unto themselves, getting them to store their prized collections (often kept in a strict climate controled environment) at a firearm range would be a pretty big fight.
It's not a practical or fesable plan at all.
Fri, 2012-12-07 14:22
#31
We don't let people own certain breeds of dogs in my city. Somethings are inherently dangerous and should be avoided. I am just saying what I think. Seems to me that if you ban home storage of guns in urban areas then someone will build the proper facilities to store weapons and rent out lockers at a profit.
Fri, 2012-12-07 15:14
#32
We don't let people own certain breeds of dogs in my city.
What about people who like to collect dogs - say, one of each breed?
Or race them? And make book?
Freedom. It's becoming a scarce commodity.
Fri, 2012-12-07 16:43
#33
Because they are dangerous and there is no hunting allowed in any city or exurban area. That leaves no reason to have a gun of any kind in an urban area. You want to target shoot then pay for a locker at a shooting range and leave your deadly toys there.
Well unless you are a hunter who lives in a urban area, then you would store your guns at home no?
Fri, 2012-12-07 17:01
#34
Because they are dangerous and there is no hunting allowed in any city or exurban area. That leaves no reason to have a gun of any kind in an urban area. You want to target shoot then pay for a locker at a shooting range and leave your deadly toys there.
Well unless you are a hunter who lives in a urban area, then you would store your guns at home no?
No. We need to get guns out of cities. It's not impossible.
Fri, 2012-12-07 19:23
#35
Yeah, I didn't get that wild animal thing. Lots of domesticated animals can be dangerous as well. And calling the authorities to help with pest control is just a waste of public funds. I think firearm ownership should be mandatory for all households within a certain radius (say, 100 km) of animals.
I'm confused. You argued that citizens in cities should not have firearms but then changed your mind and now think every house hold within 100KM of an animal, which is every Canadian house hold, should have a gun?
Wait I think I know where you're going.
What about having a system where there all firearms are locked up at a central location and anyone who wants to use their firearm has to sign them out, BUT, in order to do so they need to pass a polygraph test about why they want to use their firearm?
Fri, 2012-12-07 20:05
#36
that is a very effective debating technique. You disapprove of my suggestion and instead of trying to debate it you attack to an outrageous position that no one has advocated.
Its always easier to fight a straw man than a reasoned argumetn so I understand why you would go there.
Fri, 2012-12-07 20:16
#37
I read it as a proposal.
Fri, 2012-12-07 21:19
#38
Not that we haven't already crossed the line into hyperbolae, but the "polygraph" is already built into the firearms acquisition certificate - the part where applicants have to fess up to everything from academic faliure to relationship troubles to bankruptcy, as well as self-diagnose whether they suffer from substance abuse or depression.
Fri, 2012-12-07 22:47
#39
Not that we haven't already crossed the line into hyperbolae, but the "polygraph" is already built into the firearms acquisition certificate - the part where applicants have to fess up to everything from academic faliure to relationship troubles to bankruptcy, as well as self-diagnose whether they suffer from substance abuse or depression.
I would like to see a robust background check when someone applies for a firearms licence.
I would like to see someones firearms licence suspended when they are charged and found guilty of a crime related to violence.
Ideally someone who has been redflagged will not be able to purchase a firearm for a predetermined amount of time.
I would like to see this extended to ammunition as well.
Fri, 2012-12-07 22:48
#40
In Canada you can't even open a savings account at a bank without filling out a form telling the government the intended use of the money in the account. Polygraphs are inherently unreliable so I would not want to include it in any regulatory system but having to record the specific reason for taking out your firearms from the locker seems reasonable..
Fri, 2012-12-14 12:01
#41
The US is confused. The right to bare arms applies to the use of t-shirts.
Fri, 2012-12-14 12:04
#42
Firearms. Forearms. Got it.
Fri, 2012-12-14 12:05
#43
Speaking of which, did you see the story about the GOP proposing the use of animal troops in combat to help reduce human casualties?
The headline read: "The Right to Arm Bears".
Sat, 2012-12-15 06:22
#44
Sadly I do not think there is anything we can really do to stop someone with no red flags from purchasing a weapon and then using it.
So do you think making firearms easier to get would be the solution????
WOW!
Sat, 2012-12-15 06:25
#45
And the response to yesterdays shooting of 28 people 20 of them young children the NRA says we need MORE guns!!!!
Talk about mental midgets.
Sat, 2012-12-15 06:50
#46
A lot of people do not understand how the gun registry forces people to be responsible for their guns. All they can talk about is it has saved no lives. That is just an opinion like seat belts have also saved no lives????
Well the gun registry sure as hell didn't take any lives!!
If you have all the legal paperwork to own a gun you go buy a gun AND that gun is ((WAS)) registered in your name. Now if that gun ends up at a crime scene you have a few questions to answer.
First police question: How did your gun end up at the crime scene.
IF you answer it was stolen question two would follow this way: Why did you not report it stolen and can you show us your gun case where it was broken into.
So if you don't want to face such questioning from the police you'll make damn sure of two things #1. Your guns are locked away safely AND #2. if they are stolen you'll report it right away.
NOW if you tell the police you sold that gun this question will follow: Why didn't you check out your buyer to make sure he had a license to own a firearm (if the buyer had a license to own a firearm you then already know he had a background check done) and part of this question would be why didn't you have the registration transferred into the new owners name.
All the above scenerios forces you to be responsible for that gun that is registered to you BECAUSE if not you could be charged!!!
NOW without any gun registry you can sell that gun to anybody you want no questions asked EVEN A CRIMINAL BECOMES a potential buyer for your gun.
Lets not forget one other good use for a gun registry IF YOUR GUN GETS STOLEN and the police recover it THEN IT CAN BE RETURNED TO YOU.
What mental midget would say:: OH NO OFFICER I DON'T WANT MY THOUSAND DOLLAR RIFLE BACK YOU CAN KEEP IT SIR!!!
UNBELIEVEABLE!!
Sat, 2012-12-15 09:55
#47
Maysie
Sat, 2012-12-15 10:11
#48
I guess humour is in the eye of the beholder.
Sat, 2012-12-15 10:29
#49
Sadly I do not think there is anything we can really do to stop someone with no red flags from purchasing a weapon and then using it.
So do you think making firearms easier to get would be the solution????
WOW!
Uhhhh, no Sandy I don't. I'm not sure how you came to that conclsion.
I think background searches for people applying for firearms licences should be more indepth and more difficult to obtain. Punishments for violent offenders should be harsher.
A lot of people do not understand how the gun registry forces people to be responsible for their guns. All they can talk about is it has saved no lives. That is just an opinion like seat belts have also saved no lives????
Well the gun registry sure as hell didn't take any lives!!
I'm okay with registering my firearms. Among the reasons police respond to house holds with firearms present MUCH faster when you call them.
Money and program accuracy is a big deal for it. It was supposed to cost under 2 million and it was over 2 billion. As I mentioned previously also the rampant inaccuricies when registering firearms was a joke. What's the point of registing a firearm when the government screws up all the information?
If you have all the legal paperwork to own a gun you go buy a gun AND that gun is ((WAS)) registered in your name. Now if that gun ends up at a crime scene you have a few questions to answer.
First police question: How did your gun end up at the crime scene.
IF you answer it was stolen question two would follow this way: Why did you not report it stolen and can you show us your gun case where it was broken into.
So if you don't want to face such questioning from the police you'll make damn sure of two things #1. Your guns are locked away safely AND #2. if they are stolen you'll report it right away.
NOW if you tell the police you sold that gun this question will follow: Why didn't you check out your buyer to make sure he had a license to own a firearm (if the buyer had a license to own a firearm you then already know he had a background check done) and part of this question would be why didn't you have the registration transferred into the new owners name.
All the above scenerios forces you to be responsible for that gun that is registered to you BECAUSE if not you could be charged!!!
NOW without any gun registry you can sell that gun to anybody you want no questions asked EVEN A CRIMINAL BECOMES a potential buyer for your gun.
Lets not forget one other good use for a gun registry IF YOUR GUN GETS STOLEN and the police recover it THEN IT CAN BE RETURNED TO YOU.
Good points Sandy
Sat, 2012-12-15 10:32
#50
And they should ban advertising for handguns down there, too. I remember one ad for berretta handguns: Beretta! Easy to fire - Easy to acquire - Hard to beat!
And Obama's crocodile tears over the children murdered is dificult for many of us too. Meanwhile he and his foreign policies are directly and indirectly responsible for the drone bombings/murders of innocents in Pakistan, Afghanistan, Yemen, Palestine, Libya, Syria etc.
Sat, 2012-12-15 15:39
#51
RE:: Serviam6 quote::Money and program accuracy is a big deal for it. It was supposed to cost under 2 million and it was over 2 billion.
In March of 2005 the Auditor General filed a report that stated up til that date the whole gun control program ( not just the registry) had cost 946 million.
SO THERE IS NO WAY JUST THE REGISTRY PART OF THE GUN CONTROL PROGRAM COST 2 BILLION.
That is not true!!