FAC = Firearms Acquisition Certificate
Gun-registry math frustrates NDP justice critic
Fri, 2010-08-20 16:09
#52
Fri, 2010-08-20 16:23
#53
Actually we are using old terminology (which most of us old fogies still use) The proper term is actually PAL or Possession and Aquisition Licence. But then I still call it the Skydome.
The PAL covers the acquisition, possession, sale (including personal sales), storage and transportation, importing or exporting, lending, borrowing, display and usage of firearms and its ammunition. You will note this is all done under the FAC or PAL and not the long gun registry.
Fri, 2010-08-20 16:35
#54
Here's a scenario where the registry works and the FAC doesn't.
GunShop sells gun to GoodGuy, with FAC. GoodGuy sells gun to Careless, with FAC. Careless sells gun to Don'tCare, with FAC. Don'tCare sells gun to NoGoodnik, without FAC. NoGoodnik uses gun and dumps it.
Police find gun, GunShop says talk to GoodGuy, GoodGuy says talk to Careless, Careless says I don't remember. Police are beat and have nothing on Careless.
With the registry Careless gets nailed for not reporting a transfer. The expectation being, with the registry Careless reports it, so the trail continues, and Don'tCare doesn't do the deal, for fear of getting nailed for not reporting.
The registry is about traceability. Everybody knowing that traceability is enforced will improve the care with which things get done.
Fri, 2010-08-20 16:40
#55
Get the acronyms straight. The FAC no longer exists. It is now the PAL, or "posession and aquistion license." PAL replaced the FAC. Some people were grandfathered into the PAL process by having acquired a PA, or "possession only" license which meant they could only purchase ammo and not buy, sell, or trade firearms.
ETA, cross posted with Life.
And, if memory serves, the reason why the FAC was turned into the PAL was because of the registry and the need to update the system... or at least give the appearance of updating the system.
Firearm owners were supposed to register their firearms after the creation of the registry. But the OPP said they would not enforce any rules, because they were given no funds to enforce with. So there was really no issue surrounding registering all the firearms simply because the law\registry had no teeth. Hunters were\are supposed to carry a little card around with them, the registry numbers, to show officials when they stop you whilst hunting. But I have never been checked, and no one I have has, either.
This is what burned me about the creation of the registry. It has never been enforced. There are all kinds of unregistered weapons out there, being bought, sold, traded. The weapons are likely in the system in some way (because all firearms are tracked) but many firearms from the past have changed hands so many times that the original purchaser is unlikely to still own the weapon.
Fri, 2010-08-20 16:41
#56
Oh relax farmpunk. Some of us old folks have trouble keeping up with all the changes and still use terms we are familar with. Like I said I still call it Skydome, my grandkids giggle when I say Freshie, it was only recently I discovered I don't have Starchoice but Shaw Direct satelite tv. Give us old folks a bit of a break. Besides I beat you to it.
And jrootham your scenario is ridiculous and ignores the way the PAL actually works. As I pointed out the PAL actually covers most of what people think the registry does, including deciding who can and can't buy guns, transport guns, or purchase ammo. This is the stuff that drives me crazy about this debate. The true believers on both sides are so ill-informed and leave no room for fixing problems and dealing with the real issues which is violence in our society especially in regards to male violence against women and children.
Fri, 2010-08-20 16:56
#57
While a gun is a gun, is a gun [What does that even mean anyways?] why not register "evil" guns such as assault rifles and other 'restricted' weapons including handguns while leaving traditional hunting rifles and shotguns registration free.
We might say "hey, a bolt action rifle can kill just as easily as an AK47, just from farther away" but it may be a good compromise.
Fri, 2010-08-20 17:03
#58
6079... There is a huge problem with your interpretation of the form and the disclosure on it-- especially since you seem to have the greatest problem with that part.
You said you have to list who you have had sex with. The form absolutely does not require that.
Here is what it says:
"Conjugal partner includes spouses and common law
partners and all other persons with whom you live or have
lived in a similar relationship within the last 2 years.
A spouse is a person to whom you are legally married. A
common-law partner is a person who is cohabiting with you
in a conjugal relationship, having so cohabited for a period of
at least one year."
This is only interested in spouse, common law spouse (which has a specific definition for an amount of time) and others with like relationship. Others with like relationship would mean those that you lived with in a similar relationship but perhaps did not live with long enough to meet the legal definition of common law.
Essentially, it requires that anyone you have lived with in an acknowledged sexual relationship for the last two years to be notified that you are getting a gun.
I am sorry but this is a weapon and I can't understand the problem with this on balance. This does not include anyone you dated or even had an ongoing sexual relationship with that you did not live with. It does not even include those who lived with but never socially acknowledged as partners (so no there is no outing required).
These are acknowledged relationships where you live with the person. Conjugal relationships are not by definition secret (they are more than cohabitation)
The idea that it is too intrusive also does not meet the sniff test: the income tax act requires almost the same thing--
According to the Canada Revenue Agency, as of 2007, a common-law relationship is true if at least one of the following applies:
a) the couple have been living in a conjugal relationship for at least 12 continuous months;
b) the couple are parents of a child by birth or adoption; or
c) one of the couple has custody and control of the other partner's child (or had custody and control immediately before the child turned 19 years of age) and the child is wholly dependent on that person for support.
For a full, up to date CRA description go here: Marital Status
Now the definition of conjugal legally is not sex-- (People love sex and emphasize it but that is not the legal definition) -- it means with like marriage-- the test includes holding yourself out as together so secret relationships are not by definition conjugal in law. But if you announce the relationship as common law-like socially then you also have to annouce to Revenue Canada and the Gun Registry.
So in this context we are not talking about many people and we are talking about people who have a significant and publicly recognized stake in your life-- and they have more rights than just the gun registry.
I am not questioning your honesty in your interpretation and I wonder how many others have the same problem where they think they are being asked to declare secret relationships or exhaustive lists of sexual partners who are not "life partners." Both concerns are false.
Since the debate over the Registry is so close, if the government had honestly discussed what these mean and not led so many to be ill-informed then people would not be so opposed.
Given the seriousness of owning a weapon, I don't think this is going too far. There is a section about yourself that is clearly designed to protect you as much as others relating to mental health. And the conjugal relationship test does not seem that bad either. The form itself is not terribly long or complicated unless you think registering a gun is trivial. Given the seriousness of owning a weapon like this I have trouble with this.
Put another way, it is a social balance-- we accept some inconvenience for public good -- just to get on an airplane. There are enough suicides and murders from people this Registry might identify to justify it. As well the registry allows the Police to access it and review these same facts with new information.
Fri, 2010-08-20 17:06
#59
With the registry Careless gets nailed for not reporting a transfer.
Why can't Careless get nailed anyway for selling to NoGoodnik who doesn't have an FAC? Just increase the penalties and enforce the existing law a little. And besides, in order to sell a weapon you're supposed to get another licence to sell your rifle in addition to having an FAC.
A gun registry is worthless if they aren't checking for illegal weapons coming in over the borders from guns 'n ammo central south of us. Hire some border feds and more cops to enforce existing laws. It's like Pierre Trudeau once said about sex and gun registries, The feds have no business snooping our bedrooms and measuring our longfellows.
Fri, 2010-08-20 17:06
#60
@ Sean in Ottawa
Actually I am aware of the fineries, and I still think there is enough grey area that if someone seems to think there was a "conjugal relationship" when you do not there could be criminal consequences. For a number of reasons I think it is personal information that the government does not necessarily have a right to ask - especially with no criminal record or complaint having been made. Plus this is only one of a number of points which I think are invasive, vague and ineffective (since they apply only to the time at which the person applies for the license, and are not updated).
I will say again, I support the principle of a firearms registry, but I do maintain there are problems with the law. You asked my concerns, and I told you.
Fri, 2010-08-20 17:07
#61
Actually they are not false Sean. That is how the rules have been sometimes been interpreted under the spousal notification portion, but again this is done under the auspices of the PAL, not the registry itself.
Also we should note that any refusal by those deemed to be a spouse to sign the declaration can and will result in the applicant being investigated, friends, co-workers and family potentially interviewed. No reasons need be given for refusal to sign so even just vindictiveness in a seperation can launch this investigation. I understand why it is there, but the process is open to abuse and potential great embarrassment. Pretending otherwise helps nothing.
Fri, 2010-08-20 17:16
#62
Point being you already have this requirement just to file your taxes.
And no, the grey area is pretty small:
It is restricted to those people you have actually lived with-- and that is crystal clear and not open to interpretation.
Of those, only those where there could be evidence that you have actually had a relationship with, where you ahve held out that you were together-- and that it would be like common law which is 12 months -- so obviously not somethign like a month but arguably after a few months there is the grey area. Just how many of those can you ahve in a previous 2 year period.
Again -- sure a bit of a pain but in light of the social benefit of the registry I have trouble with this being taken as onerous.
And it is barely more than what you already have to do for income tax! Income tax you can cut off at the 12 month rule but for this if it is a bit under you need to include it as well.
Pelase if you ahve actual evidence of an alternative interpretation please share because in law there is not much room to play with there.
Fri, 2010-08-20 18:27
#63
Sean, if I thought these measures were necessary to implement the law I wouldn't have as much of a problem.
But in order to fill out my income tax I don't necessarily have to reveal my sexual orientation (remember, the firearms form goes back two years). Nor do I have to reveal if I have addiction or emotional problems,bankruptcy, or have contemplated suicide (and that legal form does not restrict the definition to diagnosed conditions). It is far too personal, and it is just there to give the appearance of casting a net to weed out people who might potentially snap and go on a rampage, IMO. Frankly, I don't think such an invasion is warranted on the basis of pop psychology.
I think it would also be a different matter if we were talking about something that only affected people using firearms for pleasure. Guns may be deadly weapons in cities, but they are a necessary tool for many people in rural areas. Personally, I think it is (edit) not a good idea to have animals out in the country and NOT have a gun, unless one is prepared to deal with an emergency situation using a hammer.
You asked my concerns and I told you. I don't want to get off topic so as far as this thread is concerned we are done.
Fri, 2010-08-20 18:36
#64
With the registry Careless gets nailed for not reporting a transfer.Why can't Careless get nailed anyway for selling to NoGoodnik who doesn't have an FAC? Just increase the penalties and enforce the existing law a little. And besides, in order to sell a weapon you're supposed to get another licence to sell your rifle in addition to having an FAC.
A gun registry is worthless if they aren't checking for illegal weapons coming in over the borders from guns 'n ammo central south of us. Hire some border feds and more cops to enforce existing laws. It's like Pierre Trudeau once said about sex and gun registries, The feds have no business snooping our bedrooms and measuring our longfellows.
Careless doesn't sell to NoGoodnik. He sells to Don'tCare, and then forgets who Don'tCare is. Don'tCare has a FAC. Without a registry there is too much plausible deniability in the chain.
Fri, 2010-08-20 18:47
#65
Sean, if I thought these measures were necessary to implement the law I wouldn't have as much of a problem.
But in order to fill out my income tax I don't necessarily have to reveal my sexual orientation (remember, the firearms form goes back two years). Nor do I have to reveal if I have addiction or emotional problems,bankruptcy, or have contemplated suicide (and that legal form does not restrict the definition to diagnosed conditions). It is far too personal, and it is just there to give the appearance of casting a net to weed out people who might potentially snap and go on a rampage, IMO. Frankly, I don't think such an invasion is warranted on the basis of pop psychology.
I think it would also be a different matter if we were talking about something that only affected people using firearms for pleasure. Guns may be deadly weapons in cities, but they are a necessary tool for many people in rural areas. Personally, I think it is irresponsible to have animals out in the country and NOT have a gun, unless one is prepared to deal with an emergency situation using a hammer.
You asked my concerns and I told you. I don't want to get off topic so as far as this thread is concerned we are done.
thank you for answering.
Unfortunately I am still unable to reconcile the concerns with the form and balance the concerns with what seems to me to be a valuable purpose. If you don't want to continue perhaps someone else can.
On the income tax form you have to declare a person for the last year -- this goes back two-- ok so a bit more but other than the time covered not much of a difference though in principle. Your partner must sign -- I suppose in some cases the government can tell gender from the name but that is not certain-- it is not recorded or asked for. A bureaucrat will see that there is a signature there or not. With compliance there is little reason anyone would remark or notice and there is no place to record the information which is private/not public in any event. You are disclosing private information to a person whose job it is to perform a function and keep your information private. that person lives in most cases thousands of kilometres from you unless you live in the same town in Nova Scotia.This is not public.
I am still left with the bulk of the argument coming back to whether the Registry has value because if it does then the personal cost to being in it does not sound too much.
I wish you could have acknowledged at least the difference between what you said was the requirement (everyone you had sex with over two years) and the reality of only those you lived-as-married with which is very different.
I think it may be important to have a gun but what the registry is looking at in terms of risk factors is pretty specific and obvious. And those are important as well. Those complaining about the Registry in some cases seem to misapprehend what is being asked, in some cases there are politicians playing fast and loose with the facts. but the bottom line is there is a cost to compliance with the registry. Some believe it is worth it and others don't. Those that believe it is not worth it-- in the end seem as much motivated by the perception that it has little value than by that cost-- because when we get a close look the cost seems fairly reasonable and rational.
Sure it is something to declare who you have lived with as married in the last two years (and the tax system keeps this information going back 6 years and has you declare it each year) but the benefit and purpose makes that worth it. Sure it is a pain having to go through security at an airport but most believe that the added safety is worth it (although there are reports that not much is achieved there).
There simply is not enough of a difference in the intrusiveness of this form when compared to income tax alone to justify not having the registry unless you think the registry serves no purpose. And the questions asked are directly related to the benfits the registry provides.
Put a little more bluntly-- other people than the gun owner are affected by gun ownership and if the registry makes them safer at a fairly marginal cost to the gun owner, then how is that not unreasonable? If my life is going to have an added risk by having more guns in the community any benefit in safety I get through the compliance of those who get the guns seem like a trade-off-- in the end I still have some extra risk but it is reduced and they still get the gun they wanted without too much trouble.
But then you have people saying well nobody should ask me questions when I go and buy my killing machine-- nobody should ask those closest to me who could be at the greatest risk, nobody should expect me to give personal details about my life to some bureaucrat in order to minimize the risk to myself and my community.
I get why a real right winger would choose that balance-- after all nobody should stop them from doing anything they want because personal rights trump not only group rights but other people's personal rights. But I can't understand why someone who acknowledges communal rights and safety would not see the balance of this trade-off or that we need to have such a balance at times.
Fri, 2010-08-20 19:01
#66
I should not be talking about this without recognizing this is a gender issue.
It seems to me it is mostly women who get killed by guns when they have done nothing themselves to raise their security risks.
It is mostly men who want guns.
Sure there are some exceptions but there is no balance there.
I also should not speak about this if it was not a mental health issue:
The greatest number of gun deaths are self-inflicted. Now sure, they have raised their security risks by getting a gun but they do deserve some diligence on the part of society to see if they should have had a gun.
If a friend of mine was mentally ill and was able to go out and buy a gun and off himself and society had not even tried (no system will catch all cases) to limit the danger through a registry I'd be quite angry.
I'd even like to think that if I had a mental health crisis that society would not be ok with me just going out and getting a gun. At least I am not so delusional to think that mental illness can't happen to anyone-- self included. I am just as grateful that I am not suffering from a mental illness as I am that I do not suffer from a physical one but neither type of health is guaranteed.
What makes gun ownership so sacred that safety is not a question unless we guarantee that nobody is inconvenienced or limited information shared in exchange for the privilege of being able to have a gun.
Fri, 2010-08-20 19:03
#67
But then you have people saying well nobody should ask me questions when I go and buy my killing machine-- nobody should ask those closest to me who could be at the greatest risk, nobody should expect me to give personal details about my life to some bureaucrat in order to minimize the risk to myself and my community.
I get why a real right winger would choose that balance-- after all nobody should stop them from doing anything they want because personal rights trump not only group rights but other people's personal rights. But I can't understand why someone who acknowledges communal rights and safety would not see the balance of this trade-off or that we need to have such a balance at times.
Very well said, Sean.
I also find it sad that we need to return to debate the basics here. The only party that supports abolishment of the long-gun registry is Harper's Conservatives. Jack Layton and Joe Comartin - with the support of women's, trade union, and many other organizations - are trying to convince a handful of dissenting MPs to do the right thing. How did this thread get back to debating whether or not the registry should be abolished or amended? It is disingenuous to think that there is any debate anywhere right now about correcting it. The issue today is keep it or do what Harper wants, whether we like it or not.
Fri, 2010-08-20 19:16
#68
Yeah, good luck with that, Sean.
And no, I sure don't want to be mistaken for one of those right wingers. I don't suppose it's worth saying for a third of fourth time that I support the registry and hope it is upheld.
As I said in my first point, this issue is painted a nice black-and-white with a hard line down the middle. Woe betide anyone should point out any of the spots that get missed.
I'm off for the evening.
Fri, 2010-08-20 19:29
#69
remind
Actually 6089_smith you live with someone for 6 months, or more, and you have to report it on your income tax as a cohabitation. So yes you would have to indicate your sexual orientation.
ETA: I agree absolutely with jrootham's scenario, seen "it" happen time and again. No way charges can be held, as plausible deniability is at work and there would be a reasonable doubt.
Fri, 2010-08-20 19:46
#70
remind
I should not be talking about this without recognizing this is a gender issue.
Thank you Sean for stating this. Many do not recognize it as such.
What makes gun ownership so sacred that safety is not a question unless we guarantee that nobody is inconvenienced or limited information shared in exchange for the privilege of being able to have a gun.
This is the critical view in my mind, and I carry it over into my beliefs in respect to legalizing sex work.
Sexually transmitted diseases kill women in the majority not men. It is much easier for a man to give Aids to a woman than it is for a woman to give it to a man, also women die from cervical cancer caused by genital warts, also given to them by a man, then we have all the rest of the Hep family besides (not ignoring the others but these are the most serious). But yet some think that unregulated selling of sex should be legal like the act is sacred, just as you have noted with guns, so the safety of a woman is not an issue to be considered.
A clear gender weighted bias is occuring, just as is the case with guns.
Fri, 2010-08-20 20:59
#71
With the registry Careless gets nailed for not reporting a transfer.Why can't Careless get nailed anyway for selling to NoGoodnik who doesn't have an FAC? Just increase the penalties and enforce the existing law a little. And besides, in order to sell a weapon you're supposed to get another licence to sell your rifle in addition to having an FAC.
A gun registry is worthless if they aren't checking for illegal weapons coming in over the borders from guns 'n ammo central south of us. Hire some border feds and more cops to enforce existing laws. It's like Pierre Trudeau once said about sex and gun registries, The feds have no business snooping our bedrooms and measuring our longfellows.
Careless doesn't sell to NoGoodnik. He sells to Don'tCare, and then forgets who Don'tCare is. Don'tCare has a FAC. Without a registry there is too much plausible deniability in the chain.
Okay, but at some point someone could be breaking an existing law by selling without a licence/permit to sell a firearm. Enforce it and problem solved. Hire more cops if necessary. No need to NSA/Able Danger everyone and their dog. There has been no mention of a federal database to track corporate tax evaders and the like. They tell us that money can be wired out of country almost at the speed of light and all that. It's futile to even try to catch them, so why make rules that will ultimately be violated anyway? Apparently technology comes in handy for the feds only some of the time.
Fri, 2010-08-20 21:28
#72
I also find it sad that we need to return to debate the basics here. The only party that supports abolishment of the long-gun registry is Harper's Conservatives. Jack Layton and Joe Comartin - with the support of women's, trade union, and many other organizations - are trying to convince a handful of dissenting MPs to do the right thing. How did this thread get back to debating whether or not the registry should be abolished or amended? It is disingenuous to think that there is any debate anywhere right now about correcting it. The issue today is keep it or do what Harper wants, whether we like it or not.
Because people asked genuine questions, and are interested in the answers. And everytime we're talking about and learning about this issue, is time we're not contributing to the ramping up of stupid rhetoric, and insisting that the issue be solved on its merits rather than as a wedge issue. Which I count as pretty important right now.
I appreciate all the comments that are being made here, as I'm learning a lot.
Fri, 2010-08-20 21:35
#73
Remind-- while with guns the role of gender is not obscure, in many other issues it is, at least to me. I like to think of myself as reasonably aware and open-minded, even capable of turning something around to look at it from different points of view, but there are quite a few issues that I can be involved in for some time before I recognize a gender bias at the heart of it. I am not sure if this is just because I am a man or because with many issues it is just hard to see from any angle until you think of it and process it that way.
I suspect it is in part an illustration why all the good will in the world and all the openemindedness we can feel does not replace the actual perspective of another (in this case the other gender). In that sense, the confidence that we can see the other point of view just because we want to and can count on our outlook to do the job, actually works against us. It pays to be less confident and more questioning.
However, this is one good reason among many to be very concerned about a parliament that is not only lopsided in gender now but has always been so not only are there problems with a single gender focus on current policies but also all those that have been inherited have the same bias.
As much as some may think that this is a thread drift-- I think this is the REAL issue at the heart of the whole discussion-- especially when people indignantly say that this effort at providing greater security for them and others is not worth it when in fact to many of the others it is indeed worth it. If we do not have that perspective, in numbers, central to the debate we cannot represent any kind of public will. One more reason why a parliament that is not representative in some critical respects lacks legitimacy.
I recognize that those who live in the rural areas can look to me and say this same applies but I want to hear them acknowledge that this is not just an urban rural divide.
Fri, 2010-08-20 21:50
#74
Yeah, good luck with that, Sean.
And no, I sure don't want to be mistaken for one of those right wingers. I don't suppose it's worth saying for a third of fourth time that I support the registry and hope it is upheld.
As I said in my first point, this issue is painted a nice black-and-white with a hard line down the middle. Woe betide anyone should point out any of the spots that get missed.
I'm off for the evening.
I am deeply sorry that I seem to have offended you in this and I never assumed that you were right wing. These are important issues and I need some convincing to see the rural point of view on this. I am only being honest not trying to be nasty in observing that you presented a reason that upon examination lead me even more to the opposite point of view as it was clear that you saw a requirement to disclose much more than the registry actually requires. I do remember that others have said the same thing and perhaps this interpretation is being pushed in order to kill the registry but it is not supported by any fair reading and I am sure such an interpretation would not hold up in law. The fear as you say though is significant but for that we only have the government's heavy bias against truth and in favour of political expediency to blame.
The form itself could go further in alaying those fears as well by providing clearer definitions for conjugal.
Anyway, I do respect your point of view and the measured, thoughtful way you have presented it here, I just remain unable to agree with you. I would have preferred if you had been able to be specific about how you would change the registry and how the form could be less intrusive while still performing its function. So far, it seems to me that making the form less intrusive would be to the same extent make it less effective meanign that I can't see an alternative to the degree of intrusiveness it has and on balance I'd rather keep the benefit the registry has. The form is somewhat intrusive by necessity I think.
Fri, 2010-08-20 22:38
#75
remind
Well, I am currently rural, and the family owns some guns. All registered. Have been since the beginning, with no wasting of tax payers dollars on the foolishness that drove the costs up.
Have waivered back and forth on this, not fully decided where I was at with it, even yet. Not sure I am so firmly tied to any part of it still, as a matter of fact, as I primarily believe that the safety of women must come in a broad way from society, through ideological change, not gun laws.
Though there is no doubt better gun laws, even if only by perception, are saving women, and families, as I know of 1 family for sure that it has. So I am sure there are others.
Having said that, I am not sure how I would be voting if I were an MP, perhaps according to my constituents on this issue. Even though I have a nasty memory of a women being killed right in front of me by a long gun.
Perhaps not though, if I weighted it more towards conscience, rather than a representative of a democratic voting body call ed a constituent.
Fri, 2010-08-20 22:45
#76
I'd be all in favour of a gun registry if the feds could demonstrate they are serious about creating some semblance of transparency and accountability in Ottawa. But they are not, and so first things first. Firstly, I think they should go screw themselves as an indication that they are actually listening to what Canadians want from them. The problem is that they just don't respect my rights to private property, and so therefore they are not free market capitalists and are not to be trusted. Crooks and liars and crooked-liars they are.
Fri, 2010-08-20 23:31
#77
Well, I would not be looking for them to respect private property rights as a first step even if they were not hypocritical on that now.
Sat, 2010-08-21 00:14
#78
Okay, but at some point someone could be breaking an existing law by selling without a licence/permit to sell a firearm. Enforce it and problem solved. Hire more cops if necessary. No need to NSA/Able Danger everyone and their dog. There has been no mention of a federal database to track corporate tax evaders and the like. They tell us that money can be wired out of country almost at the speed of light and all that. It's futile to even try to catch them, so why make rules that will ultimately be violated anyway? Apparently technology comes in handy for the feds only some of the time.
Yes, someone is breaking an existing law, but you can't tell who it is without a reporting requirement. The registry is what requires reporting.
Sat, 2010-08-21 01:18
#79
How is it possible that anyone from the NDP is agianst the gun registry. The whole reason the gun registry is even happening is because of some moms that lost their children to gun violence pushed for it.
Whats the big deal about owning a gun.
If you want one, register the fucking thing already. I really don't give a fuck if "you " thinks its invading your fucking privacy. It's a fucking defice spacificly designed to kill living beings. You should feel lucky just to have one in your posession, let alone have it at free will.
Wheres the big fan fare about registering cars and getting insurance? How about registering your house? Or any of a number of things you have to register.
As far as Im concerned, the manufacturing of guns should be outlawed.
Sat, 2010-08-21 04:40
#80
Okay, but at some point someone could be breaking an existing law by selling without a licence/permit to sell a firearm. Enforce it and problem solved. Hire more cops if necessary. No need to NSA/Able Danger everyone and their dog. There has been no mention of a federal database to track corporate tax evaders and the like. They tell us that money can be wired out of country almost at the speed of light and all that. It's futile to even try to catch them, so why make rules that will ultimately be violated anyway? Apparently technology comes in handy for the feds only some of the time.
Yes, someone is breaking an existing law, but you can't tell who it is without a reporting requirement. The registry is what requires reporting.
I don't know one gun owner who's sold a rifle to anyone without themselves having first bought a license to sell, or sold a rifle to someone without an FAC. What they will end up doing is charging a few people for first time offenses. Those few charges would not justify a billion dollar gun registry boondoggle IMO. Criminals will still not register firearms, and the cops will still not rely on a flawed database before entering someone's home. The cops have already stated that it's bad policing to place an officer's life in the hands of an expensive database that surely does not tell them if they are about to encounter a criminal with a stolen or ill-gotten weapon. They don't trust anyone, Not even upstanding citizen X who may have just discovered his wife in bed with the furnace repair guy.
What they need to do is take the money from the deeply flawed gun registry and invest it in social programs and skills training for the unemployed. And we won't even mention how the feds could use high tech to track untaxed profits leaving the country. That's if they were even interested in strengthening our social democracy, which they aren't.
Sat, 2010-08-21 09:19
#81
This thread is an indication of how stupid this issue has become. And I do mean stupid. People are using out-moded terms, clearly confused about what the registry does and doesn't actually do, and make all kinds of grandiose statements about the intent or lack of courage of people. Yet, when other posters point out corrections, misstatements, or misunderstandings people on both sides just go on their merry way repeating the same stuff as if nothing counter to it was ever stated.
Here are some facts;
-The registry does not control guns
-Registering a rifle/shotgun is not difficult
-Spousal relations has been interpreted more broadly than the income tax definition to include regular sexual partners. (not everyone you have ever slept with, but not just someone you co-habit with either)
-Voting for or against the registry is a legitimate vote- however most politicians and their supporters are not voting for or against the actual reality of the registry, but rather they are voting for or against things they think the registry does- mostly none of which is true.
-We are doing nothing to address violence in our society. While we argue over something that does not do what we think it does (on both sides) women are still under threat of violence in their own homes, children are growing up expecting to be hit for real or imagined wrong-doing -or just being there, and we are becoming a more violent, not less violent society.
-The gun registry is not a defining issue. If you really think the gun registry (for or against) is the most important issue facing Canada I've got news for you- it isn't. It has, thanks to political game playing on both sides, become a symbolic issue where critical faculties are thrown out the window. That's all.
In the end stupid is as stupid does I guess.
But please do carry on.
Sat, 2010-08-21 09:56
#82
The issue today is keep it or do what Harper wants, whether we like it or not.
Sometimes I wonder whether votes in the H of C even matter any more under this government.
Sat, 2010-08-21 13:17
#83
I made an error with my "ignore" function and had the displeasure of reading #80. I flagged it for the mods' attention. The reason I'm posting this here is that there have been too many personal attacks going by lately without intervention. That may be because mods have been taking deserved leave from this thankless job, or whatever. But babble policy has to be enforced, whether we care or not.
Sat, 2010-08-21 14:17
#84
Let's never mind quoting this billion dollar silliness as that was years ago - but just out of curiousity, how much has the gun lobby spent?
But let's live in the present:
How much will registry actually cost us annually in 2010? What did it cost in 2009? Tell the truth now, as it probably is a mere pittance, compared to the good it does.
The good police support and use the registry, apparently hundreds of times, on a daily basis, across Canada
This attack on on the gun registry just shows how a few people with unlimited amounts of cash can impose their will on the majority of Canadians. Democracy and protecting innocent victims be dammed, eh! We have seen way too many times what a sick society in terms of gun killings the USA has become. Is that what people want for Canada as well. I certainly don't.
Sat, 2010-08-21 14:41
#85
The gun registry costs Canadians a measly $4 million annually.
That means here in Canada the costs for each of us is about 12 cents annually for the gun registry.
What kind of society are we creating in Canada that will not shell out 12 cents annaully to help protect innocent victims, which way too often are women, from killings by guns?
Does anyone actually believe this "Liberals whipped" croc for a second. That's just cannon fodder for the masses.
For example, where will Yukon Liberal MP Larry Bagnell be hiding during the vote?
Sat, 2010-08-21 15:11
#86
The gun registry costs Canadians a measly $4 million annually.
Has anyone done an audit to find out how much money has been spent on the gun registry? The feds are very good at telling us they have to slash social spending since 1995. We know that Denis Desautels was not fan of Liberal government accounting methods for a number of years and even threatened them with non-compliance.
Sat, 2010-08-21 15:14
#87
In a Canada Firearms Centre (CAFC) survey, 74% of general duty police officers stated that the registry "query results have proven beneficial during major operations.".
Sat, 2010-08-21 15:40
#88
What about a national daycare program in Canada? Or a national dental officer to track(with a computerized database of some kind) and report on the dental health of Canadians? Universal prescription drugs and eye care for Canadians? There are other rich capitalist countries that provide these things for their citizens. Apparently Canadians are worth only a bloated gun registry bureaucracy?
Has anyone taken their family camping in a provincial park anywhere lately and noticed the cost compared to 10 or 15 years ago? And never mind a hunting expedition. When hunters go out in the bush, we've got so much paper work and licenses to carry with us that it's a wonder we don't forget to bring the damn rifles!
Sat, 2010-08-21 15:50
#89
I don't mean to hijack this thread, but there is so much misinformation in here about firearms law that I have to jump in:
1) The FAC (Firearms Acquisition Certificate) hasn't existed for 15 years
2) A firearms license is known as a PAL (Possession and Acquisition License) or RPAL (Restricted Possession and Acquisition License). To own most rifles and shotguns only a PAL is needed. To own handguns and some rifles an RPAL is required.
3) In order to get a license you must fill out the form mentioned earlier in this thread, pass a firearms safety course and undergo a police background check.
4) To buy/sell firearms or ammunition you must have a PAL. There is no "special" license for selling firearms privately - this is covered under the PAL.
5) A registration certificate ties a specific firearm to a specific person. It records things like make, model and serial number.
Without the registry, in order to buy/sell a firearm or ammunition you will still need to have a PAL. The only thing that changes is that you will no longer need to provide the make, model and serial number information to the Canadian Firearms Centre.
It is correct that the firearms database is accessed 14,000 times per day. However only 325 of those hits are for registration certificate information. The rest have to do with licensing (http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/cfp-pcaf/facts-faits/index-eng.htm).
Someone asked about audits. Auditor-General Sheila Fraser has performed two audits on the Canadian Firearms Program, in 2002 and then again in 2006. The program failed miserably both times. It has cost at least $2 billion, but nobody knows for sure because a lot of that money is untraceable due to poor accounting.
NOBODY knows how much the registry portion of the Canadian Firearms Program costs to run. All the numbers you have seen in the press are either made up or best guess estimates. It could cost anywhere from $4-100 million per year. Nobody really knows because of the piss poor accounting mentioned above.
As to the survey of police officers, check out this article in the Toronto Sun if you would like a recent result. 92% of front line officers are in favour of scrapping the registry.
http://www.torontosun.com/news/canada/2010/08/21/15095571.html
Again, apologies for the hijack. I just don't like to see people forming opinions and making decisions based on incorrect information.
Sat, 2010-08-21 15:55
#90
Quelle domage!
What a burden some people have to carry, eh Fidel. 
Sat, 2010-08-21 16:04
#91
I agree. The Toronto Sun is one of the most left-leaning media outlets in the country. I was surprised to see them post anything even remotely pro-gun 
Sat, 2010-08-21 16:05
#92
LibertyJayde - thanks for sharing.
The Tornto Sun. now that's a real unbiased authority.
What a croc of NRA propaganda!!!
As I have already stated, and which you have confirmed, the good police use the Registry hundres of times a day, and the Registry costs taxpayers, wait for it now, a paultry $4 million a year presently, which translates into 12 friggin' cents a year per Canadian citizen.
Now apart from our usual group of angry white males, who would refuse to have to pay 12 cents a year for our Canadian government to help protect innocent victims of killins by guns.
Sat, 2010-08-21 16:06
#93
He's not saying that you can run out in the bush without required papers to carry a firearm. And that's besides moose or deer tags or small game license to show the paramilitaries should they be around. And they usually are. Fishing? Ha! You need a license for that, too, and you'd better not be a few pan-size ciscos over the limit. Don't light a small camp fire in the park, because the bastards will be down on you like you're an eco-terrorist. You can't take a dump in the bush nowadays for the bastards wanting to know what you ate for lunch.
Sat, 2010-08-21 16:08
#94
In a Canada Firearms Centre (CAFC) survey, 74% of general duty police officers stated that the registry "query results have proven beneficial during major operations.".
Beneficial to the investigation after the crime has been committed. Registering a firearm will not stop someone from shooting someone.
I have firearms in my house. My wife has the combination to the gun vault, I do not.
Lets pretend I have the combo though for sake of argument and I am going to shoot someone. Whether or not my shotgun is registered, if I were intent on committing a crime I would have access to the gun and be able to carry out whatever I want to do with it.
Afterwards if the police were to come to my house [Or just come across my firearm anywhere] they could take the registered firearm and see that it belongs to me.
I'm actually fine with registering my firearms [police respond MUCH sooner when there are guns at a residence that calls 911]. My issue is that advocates of gun registration try and sell it as an immediate means of protecting and saving lives. Money spent on gun registration would be better spent on a system that weeds out allowing criminals and violent people from getting a guy licence in the first place. I believe THAT would save more lives.
A counter argument is that police respond to residences with registered firearms however I don't think that makes a big enough difference [We need more than a speedy response we need to avoid these situations int he first place]
Sat, 2010-08-21 16:12
#95
Unfortuately enraged gun killers are NOT pretending. What's not to understand here.
Sat, 2010-08-21 16:34
#96
Unfortuately enraged gun killers are NOT pretending. What's not to understand here.
I'm not sure either. But the case for a bloated gun registry bureaucracy is a weak one. Hunters and indigenous people, Inuit Rangers etc in Canada are already loaded to the gills with firearms license requirements in addition to game licenses, provincial camping regulations and fees up the wazoo etc ad nauseum. Canadians may have the "best backyard in the world", but it's getting so as only rich Americans and Canadians can afford to enjoy it.
Sat, 2010-08-21 16:55
#97
I made an error with my "ignore" function and had the displeasure of reading #80. I flagged it for the mods' attention. The reason I'm posting this here is that there have been too many personal attacks going by lately without intervention. That may be because mods have been taking deserved leave from this thankless job, or whatever. But babble policy has to be enforced, whether we care or not.
If my memory is correct I have posted on babble exactly 4 times in the last several months. I have visited rabble/babble a grand total of about 10 times in that same period.
I posted a general reaction to an issue I know a very great deal about. I have read, publicy written about and researched the registry since it was first proposed. I was not singling out any babbler in particular, or even a side. I did observe that a lot of people in this thread, ON BOTH SIDES, don't have the foggiest idea what they are talking about. The continued use of the terms gun control and FAC in relation to the Canadian Long-gun Registry demonstrates this. If find it enourmously frustrating that the issue of violence, particularly male violence against women and children, in our society has been reduced to a competely meaningless discussion about something the majority of people-ON BOTH SIDES- do not actually know very much about beyond half-truths, myths and misconceptions.
If you feel going on about something you don't have the foggiest idea about in a way that demonstrates your ingnorance is a personal attack against you than perhaps you should examine your actions or reading skills not mine or anyone eles.
Sat, 2010-08-21 17:02
#98
I agree with Unionist.
I thought your comments were in very poor taste myself as well BA.
Be a class act, apologise, and retract them.
And then for goodness sakes, let's move on.
Sat, 2010-08-21 17:13
#99
I agree with Unionist.
I thought your comments were in very poor taste myself as well BA.
Be a class act, apologise, and retract them.
And then for goodness sakes, let's move on.
This is the kind of stuff that has made me give up on babble.
There is no personal attack of any kind in my post. None. I was very clear that BOTH sides of the issue are engaged in a stupid discussion. This thread represents the general nature of the discussion in the broader Canadain society and as such is reflective of the profound ignorance found in the public sphere on this topic by BOTH sides. People are talking past each other, pontificating when the very terms they are using demonstrates their ignorance, they are ignorning the alarming and growing problem of violence in our society all so they can defend or attack something they know very little about or have much actual involvement with because the Canadain Long-gun Registry has become a political symbol and tool for a bunch of politicians, most of who could give a rat's behind about the real issues.
Stupid might be a harsh word, but what else do you call that kind of behaviour by BOTH sides?
I might be blunt borne of profound frustration but I have nothing to apologize for.
Sat, 2010-08-21 17:15
#100
I agree with BA, both sides are acting silly.
Sat, 2010-08-21 17:15
#101
Actually, I might as well go first and apologize to BA. On reflection, his post was not a personal attack as it first appeared, but an expression of opinion and frustration, whether one agrees with his view or not. I wish I knew how to withdraw the "flag" I put on it... And as long as we all stay civil, I'd like to see him around here more often.
Back on topic: I have said nothing about the efficacity of the registry, and I pleaded upthread for this thread not to turn into another debate on the issue (we've had zillions and can continue elsewhere). This thread is about a purely political problem - how and whether we (the movement!) can help Jack Layton and Joe Comartin win over the dissidents in caucus, even if they won't take the (IMO) preferred step of whipping the vote.
Why? because whether the registry is good, bad, or neutral - and whether as BA says (which I don't share) the debate has shoved aside any other meaningful debate about ending violence against women - this fact is very very simple: If the registry is abolished, it will be a symbolic, if not real, kick in the gut to al the women's organizations (plus trade union and others) that have lobbied so hard to achieve and now preserve it. And be sure of this: Not one single MP who votes to kill the registry will get up and say: "We need far more intrusive and effective means of controlling firearms and ending violence against women" as their motive. Or if they do, they will be embarrassingly bereft of any alternate proposal. So, it will be a defeat.