Gun-registry math frustrates NDP justice critic

Well, I'll answer your direct question, Unionist.  I believe your construction of the "purely political problem" is too narrow.  You've focused solely on 12 MPs from out of a caucus of 36, as the source of the 3 apparently needed votes.

There are several other solutions:

 * reduce the number of MPs who will vote to continue the bill (either by voting to stop it, or by abstaining)
 * look to other caucuses as the source of the reportedly 3 needed votes to stop the bill as well (including urban and suburban Conservative MPs)

I remember the votes on capital punishment and the abortion law during the Mulroney government.  People conducted a cross-party lobby of MPs on all sides of the House on both those issues.  This time, for some reason, people have accepted the Liberals' and Conservatives' spin that the focus should turn onto only the NDP.

Why-ever would we accept that limitation, when it reduces the chances for success?

NorthReport wrote:

Unfortuately enraged gun killers are NOT pretending. What's not to understand here.

The whole car/drunk driver thing is cliche but it fits.

You buy a gun and register it after. You CAN technically own a gun without registering it.

You buy a car and insure it after. You CAN technically own a car without having car insurence. Following?

Having car insurence [or not] will not stop someone from physically getting behind the wheel of a car while drunk.

Identifying a chronic drunk driver and not allowing them to purchase a car in the first place will lessen the chance of them getting behind a wheel of a car while drunk.

Thhey can choose to steal one but that's a whole different thing.

How exactly will registering a firearm stoped your enraged killer from murdering someone?

Sticking my toe in the door before this gets shut.

(edit)

@ Sean #56

I wrote pretty quickly on my way out the door, which might account for my short tone. Excuse me. What I mean to say is I am making my points from the perspective of someone who supports the registry and wants it to work. I respect it enough that I got rid of the firearms I had rather than sign up; I didn't stash them or refuse to register.

All I am trying to point out is things in the law which I think don't work, and harm the law because they are questions which many people will either lie about, or which most people are not really qualified to answer in a self-assessment. How many drunks are going to admit  to having a problem with alcohol? One might as well have the question "Do you intend to go on a murderous rampage" on the form. And aside from not being effective questions, they are a lightning rod for people who are alarmed by what they perceive as invasiveness.

We will likely never deal with concerns which may be legitimate, because it is a war between "you can't invade my privacy" and "If you oppose this you are helping criminals murder innocent people".

Again, I support the law in principle, and forced to make a hard choice I have already supported the law as it stands. Nevertheless, I am sure it is a question which is causing some sleepless nights for politicians who actually have to vote on it because despite the hard battle lines it is not a clear issue.

Depends whether Helena Guergis is well enough to travel to Ottawa and vote.  So, I think we're likely two-for-two in those cases.

GUN CONTROL
Timeline
Implementing the Firearms Act

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2009/10/06/f-gun-registry.html

Quote:

Police chiefs and police organizations across Canada have voiced their support for the beleaguered registry, saying it is a valuable tool in assisting officers in doing their job.

I'm not disagreeing that the gun registry is helpful to police investigating crimes after they have been committed.

I'm just against misleading grieving parents or trying to scare people into thinking this will protect them from violent crime.

And speaking from personal experience, the system is STILL messed up.  I recently reordered all my registration paperwork [at $10 per 4 firearm] because my stuff was ruined in a flooded basement.   My various information STILL isn't 100% correct.  Twice I've called them with the correct information regarding my personal information and more importantly the specifics about my firearms [serial numbers, make, model, caliber].  The shit is STILL wrong.

Jack's statement is one of damage control, in case he doesn't succeed in bringing his caucus into line.

It would be better, I think, if he publicly outlined what exactly he means by "good gun control" and "good registration systems". Do you know what he means by that? Or if he announced those details, would it divide the caucus even more?

It would be a serious setback if the registry were killed without anything more effective even being on the table.

Quote:

"For me, the credibility of the NDP depends on this, because it would be the NDP that would be responsible for the dismantling of the gun-control registry if the bill goes through. Because they can stop it," said Heidi Rathjen, who regularly speaks on behalf of the student and graduates of Ecole Polytechnique, where 14 women were killed with a long gun in 1989.

I have a lot of respect for Heidi Rathjen, but I disagree with her political reading of the situation.  The NDP are not the only ones who can stop it.  She may choose to blame the NDP for it, and that's her right, but equally blameworthy will be anyone who doesn't vote to halt proceedings on the bill ... FROM ANY PARTY.  In fact, other political parties have a mathematically greater chance of stopping the bill, so it's unfortunate Ms. Rathjen would limit herself in that way.

For example, why isn't she targetting the two Conservative women MPs in the Quebec City area: Josée Verner in Louis-St-Laurent and Sylvia Boucher in Beauport-Limoilou?  What about Conservative MP Joy Smith from Kildonan-St. Paul in Winnipeg?

Is she so sure that Scott Andrews of the Liberal party (from Avalon, Nfld) is going to vote the way she wants, because he's told the local media his vote hasn't changed, as has I believe Todd Russell from Labrador.

I hope Ms. Rathjen and the group she represents aren't allowing themselves to be manipulated by the Liberal Party for their own partisan reasons, because there is more than one path to reach their goal, and they shouldn't be limiting themselves just to suit the Liberal Party's agenda.

Why is no one asking what penalty Ignatieff going to impose on Liberal Caucus members if they don't support their whip?

Will it probably be a little slap on the wrists (figure-of-speech)?

So Liberals, come clean, and tell us what it is going to be Ignatieff's penalty for those Liberals that don't show up for the vote, or Liberals who vote against the whip? 

Again, with respect:

 * I believe Ms. Rathjen will be disappointed to learn that the Liberal whip is not being respected everywhere in that caucus, and she should not put all her strategic eggs in that basket.

 * I disagree with placing whips on votes on private members' bills, and

 * I would encourage her to look for her votes on ALL sides of the House, for the greatest chance at success.

It is a strategic mistake to look for 3 votes from amongst only 12 MPs.

Unionist wrote:

Anyway, I guess I understand the importance of focusing on NDP votes, and so do Layton and Comartin, so we'll agree to have slightly different approaches to this problem.

Layton and Comartin are focusing on NDP votes. What a novelty!! Did you think Layton's time would be better spent phoning Tory backbenchers and asking them to vote against the bill as a personal favour to the him?

The  thing is that the pro-gun registry lobby groups you refer to tend to be almost exclusively made up of people who live in inner city ridings - places where if people have an NDP (or a Liberal) incumbent as their MP - that person is already 100% in favour of keeping the registry. If you want to get NDP MPs from northern Ontario and Western Arctic and northern BC etc... to switch their votes and vote to keep the registry - you won't have any impact on them by telling them that a women in downtown Montreal wants them to vote that way - you need to get people IN THEIR RIDINGS to give them that message.

That being said, there are some Conservative MPs from places like Quebec City and suburban Vancouver and the 905 'burbs of Toronto - they probably have a problem because they are actually voting against the wishes of their constituents and they might be vulnerable to pressure. A concerted pro-gun registry campaign could put the fear of God into Josee Verner in her Quebec City riding - but quite frankly, someone that Nikki Ashton from northern Manitoba doesn't care what a few activists in downtown Toronto think because she assumes that in her riding - public opinion is 99% against the registry. I think we shoujld lobby MPs who actually represent ridings where an anti-gun registry stance could be politically damaging.

Stockholm wrote:

A concerted pro-gun registry campaign could put the fear of God into Josee Verner in her Quebec City riding - but quite frankly, someone that Nikki Ashton from northern Manitoba doesn't care what a few activists in downtown Toronto think because she assumes that in her riding - public opinion is 99% against the registry. I think we shoujld lobby MPs who actually represent ridings where an anti-gun registry stance could be politically damaging.

Ok, Stock. Let me know the next time a Conservative MP votes against Harper's wishes. Our lines are open, ready to receive your call.

If public opinion in Quebec actually is as pro-gun lobby as we are led to believe - then Josee Verner faces a stark choice - vote aganst the PMB or face political DEATH! So far no one seem to be putting any pressure on ner so she is whistling a happy tune secure in the knowledge that if she votes to scrap the registry there will be no political consequences at all for her in Louis St. laurent. She makes that assumption because no one seems to be bothering her about it.

I'm looking at the opening post of this thread, so I know there are Liberal supporters around here, so why is no one answering this question?

NorthReport wrote:

Why is no one asking what penalty Ignatieff going to impose on Liberal Caucus members if they don't support their whip?

Will it probably be a little slap on the wrists (figure-of-speech)?

So Liberals, come clean, and tell us what it is going to be Ignatieff's penalty for those Liberals that don't show up for the vote, or Liberals who vote against the whip? 

Anyways, it looks from the news tonight that the Canadian Police Association is going all-out to save the registry, which will put some pressure on the urban Conservative MPs.

I realize some people don't believe this is truly a private member's bill, and that's a fair point.  But the result will be much stronger (and the issue have a greater likelihood of going away) if it's not a whipped vote, in my opinion.

BTW, we know there are some urban Conservative MPs who want to support the registry because of a blogpost that Liberal MP Glen Pearson wrote last spring, where he overhead them saying so in the hallway.  I'll see if I can dig up the link.

Ack, closing for length.