Jump to content

Welcome to canucks.com Vancouver Canucks homepage

Photo

Harper Rejects Recommendations to Loosen Restrictions on Firearms


  • Please log in to reply
31 replies to this topic

#1 Wetcoaster

Wetcoaster

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 40,454 posts
  • Joined: 26-April 04

Posted 07 December 2012 - 11:46 AM

It seems time that people need to listen when PM Harper speaks of government policy and what his government would do in future. We have seen it on the issue of abortion, the death penalty and now gun control laws.

The Canadian Firearms Advisory Committee (CFAC) recently recommended changes to the gun control laws including making some prohibited weapons, including handguns and assault rifles, by reclassifying them to make them more easily available. It also recommended making firearm licences good for at least 10 years, rather than the current five - a measure opposed by police who say the five-year renewals are a chance to weed out unstable gun owners.

When the recommendations were reported gun enthusiasts were ecstatic. "A shocking outbreak of common sense? What are they drinking in Ottawa these days?" said one poster on Outdoorsmenforum.ca. "This is great! I am so glad we have a government that has some common sense ... at least for now," wrote another.

Well not so fast gunpowder breath...

Back in January 2011 PM Harper did his famous interview with the CBC's Peter Mansbridge in which he re-affirmed that if re-elected his government had no intention of making changes to the current abortion laws nor re-opening the debate on the abolition of capital punishment.

During that interview he also spoke of the gun control laws. He re-affirmed the Tories intention to follow through and scrap the long gun gun registry if re-elected and that was done.

However it seems the pro-gun lobby overlooked that he also vowed to not loosen other rules, such as licensing of gun owners or restricting handguns. "The core of our gun laws are supported by most gun owners," he said.

The CFAC recommendations did precisely that and in the House of Commons PM Harper made it clear those changes are not going to be made by his government. Harper told the Commons Thursday that a firearms committee report doesn't reflect the views of the government and that he would consider Liberal leader Bob Rae's proposal to expand the advisory committee to include police chiefs, anti-domestic violence groups and suicide prevention officers.


“Let me be as clear as I can be,” the prime minister said in response to a question from NDP Leader Tom Mulcair.


“Prohibited weapons exist as a category under the law for essential reasons of public security. The government has absolutely no intention of weakening that category of protections.”


Mr. Harper stressed repeatedly that the recommendations contained in a March 2012 “memorandum for the minister” are not government policy.


And when interim Liberal Leader Bob Rae suggested the government’s advisory committee — which is dominated by sport shooting enthusiasts and those opposed to gun control — needed wider representation, including from police chiefs, those fighting domestic violence and groups dealing with suicide prevention, Mr. Harper all but agreed.


“I will take the advice of the leader of the Liberal party under consideration,” Mr. Harper responded.


“I’m obviously very concerned with some of the recommendations made in that report, and I think the committee does need some re-examination in that light.”


The prime minister’s comments will certainly be a come-down for gun enthusiasts who were cheering a Toronto Star report of the committee recommendations earlier Thursday.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/harper-rejects-committees-advice-to-relax-gun-laws/article6033474/

And the Canadian gun control regime seems to be working:


Both Harper and Toews stressed the Conservative government's firearm focus is now on tougher sentences for gun-related convictions.


"We've made it very clear that we see no benefit to the long-gun registry," Toews told the Commons.


"However, what we have indicated is that we must continue to implement measures that in fact target the criminal use of firearms."


The Public Safety minister also noted that firearms crime rates are at their lowest in 50 years.


The homicide rate from guns is down 30 per cent since 2008, Toews added, "because of the very strong measures that this government has taken against the criminal use of firearms."

http://www.montrealgazette.com/news/Changes+control+have+bearing+violence+against+women+says/7661235/story.html
  • 0
To err is human - but to really screw up you need a computer.

Always listen to experts. They'll tell you what can't be done and why. Then do it.

Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati

Illegitimi non carborundum.

Never try to teach a pig to sing - it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

#2 Special Ed

Special Ed

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,463 posts
  • Joined: 09-February 09

Posted 07 December 2012 - 11:49 AM

For all the hate Harper gets I actually have enjoyed all of his moves. Never voted for him but if I could vote again I just might.
  • 2

If you like looking at statistics to determine who's better, you're just a casual fan.

2.41 season GAA isn't very impressive. Let's not get into playoffs and his SV%.

Cory Schneider is the next Patrick Roy.


#3 Tearloch7

Tearloch7

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,404 posts
  • Joined: 15-July 10

Posted 07 December 2012 - 11:53 AM

Common sense prevails .. good policy .. if you throw enough darts you WILL eventually hit the target .. :rolleyes:
  • 1

"To Thine Own Self Be True"

 

"Always tell the Truth. That way, you don’t have to remember what you said"  ~ Mark Twain ~
 


#4 Ghostsof1915

Ghostsof1915

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 22,751 posts
  • Joined: 31-January 07

Posted 07 December 2012 - 11:58 AM

As a member of the "gunpowder breath" group. I have no problem with most of our firearms laws. I do have questions on why they chose 4.2" barrels as a restriction instead of just anything under 4" is prohibited (which would make sense). I mean do you really think .2" is enough to make a firearm that much easier to conceal? I get why .25 and .32 calibre's are prohibited to avoid the whole cheap firearm "Saturday Night Specials". Unlike others have no issues with non-restricted and restricted firearms being registered. My car and motorcycle are registered and I'm licensed to ride/drive both. Why should a firearm be any different?

As someone who goes to the range to shoot, I find it odd that you can have a .22LR rifle and have a 30 round clip, but buy a Finnish rifle in 9mm it's pinned to five rounds. Yet I can have a pistol in 9mm and I can have a 10 round magazine. The inconsistency of the rules seem odd.

But I'd rather have rules that are easy to follow, and I understand the rationale behind them, than just owning whatever the hell you want with no instruction like the Excited States of America. You mention anything about being logical and safe with firearms and just basic regulation, they go all psycho. As far as I'm concerned firearms like driving is a privilege not a right.

Posted Image

Edited by Ghostsof1915, 07 December 2012 - 12:05 PM.

  • 2
GO CANUCKS GO!
"The Canucks did not lose in 1994. They just ran out of time.." Barry MacDonald Team1040

Posted Image

#5 TOMapleLaughs

TOMapleLaughs

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 31,621 posts
  • Joined: 19-September 05

Posted 07 December 2012 - 12:01 PM

Dec. 3rd. Conservatives are calling Justin Trudeau a flip-flopper for first voting for the long gun registry and then recently admitting it was a failed policy. That's fine, but lest Conservatives forget, Stephen Harper did the exact same thing. This Conservative Prime Minister in 1995 voted in support of the long gun registry twice before opposing it all within the same year.

Conservatives might not support a gun registry, but perhaps they could at least support registering a memory or two.

Man, it's getting hard to track where the guy stands on firearms.

I think it depends on who he's talking to at the time. The need for politicians to pet Alberta's love for guns seems to be great.
  • 0
Posted Image

#6 Wetcoaster

Wetcoaster

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 40,454 posts
  • Joined: 26-April 04

Posted 07 December 2012 - 12:02 PM

Man, it's getting hard to track where the guy stands on firearms.

I think it depends on who he's talking to at the time. The need for politicians to pet Alberta's love for guns seems to be great.

Why is it hard to track? Like he said on abortion and the death penalty, it seems quite clear.
  • 0
To err is human - but to really screw up you need a computer.

Always listen to experts. They'll tell you what can't be done and why. Then do it.

Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati

Illegitimi non carborundum.

Never try to teach a pig to sing - it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

#7 inane

inane

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,693 posts
  • Joined: 06-July 07

Posted 07 December 2012 - 12:16 PM

Why is it hard to track? Like he said on abortion and the death penalty, it seems quite clear.


For now, when he's in power. When he was not, his position on many things was different. ie. flippy floppy.
  • 0

#8 Tearloch7

Tearloch7

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,404 posts
  • Joined: 15-July 10

Posted 07 December 2012 - 12:16 PM

Why is it hard to track? Like he said on abortion and the death penalty, it seems quite clear.


Unusually clear .. either someone cleaned his glasses or he is laying off the crack for Xmas? .. :rolleyes:
  • 1

"To Thine Own Self Be True"

 

"Always tell the Truth. That way, you don’t have to remember what you said"  ~ Mark Twain ~
 


#9 Shift-4

Shift-4

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 19,452 posts
  • Joined: 11-August 06

Posted 07 December 2012 - 12:18 PM

you suck at fear mongering Wet :lol:
  • 1
Hockey is the only sport, the rest are just games.

#10 Wetcoaster

Wetcoaster

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 40,454 posts
  • Joined: 26-April 04

Posted 07 December 2012 - 12:28 PM

you suck at fear mongering Wet :lol:

Just another example of Harper's hidden agenda, eh?

:)
  • 0
To err is human - but to really screw up you need a computer.

Always listen to experts. They'll tell you what can't be done and why. Then do it.

Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati

Illegitimi non carborundum.

Never try to teach a pig to sing - it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

#11 TOMapleLaughs

TOMapleLaughs

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 31,621 posts
  • Joined: 19-September 05

Posted 07 December 2012 - 12:29 PM

Harper flops on abortion:

Aug 23rd.Ottawa refuses to fund abortion in G8 plan

Canada is refusing to fund abortion services as part of a G8 initiative to improve the health of mothers in poor countries.

Just as G8 officials arrived in Halifax for talks on the maternal-health initiative on Monday, the Conservative government said that other Group of Eight nations can finance projects that include abortion services if they choose - but Canada won't.

However, the political stumbles and controversy over abortion in Canada, the host of this June's G8 summit, raised concerns that the position could lead to clashes with other countries and slow progress on the initiative, which is aimed at reducing childbirth and infant deaths through vaccinations, better nutrition, clean water and basic medical care.

The Harper government's flip-flops on whether it would provide aid to programs that include contraception, and its stand against abortion, have already caused tension.

Last month, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and British Foreign Secretary David Milliband said any maternal-health initiative must include family planning and access to safe abortions.

On Monday, International Co-operation Minister Bev Oda tried to smooth away those conflicts. The G8 talks in Halifax this week will include consideration of family-planning projects, but Canada won't fund abortions, she said, adding that other G8 countries can make that part of their contribution if they want.

"Within the scope of this G8 initiative, countries will be able to identify their own priorities," Ms. Oda told reporters in Halifax before meeting counterparts from other G8 countries for two days of talks.

"Canada's contribution to maternal and child health may involve various interventions, including family planning, which includes the use of contraceptive methods. The details remain to be determined, however, Canada's contribution will not include funding for abortion."

Her parliamentary secretary, Jim Abbott, echoed the statement in the House of Commons.

NDP Leader Jack Layton charged that Prime Minister Stephen Harper's government is now offside with the G8 consensus on the initiative, which was Canada's own idea. Liberal MP Bob Rae asked whether it meant Canada will cut off aid to governments of poor countries with family-planning programs that include abortion.

"Does that mean we're going to boycott governments that have a freedom of choice policy in their country?" he asked.

The question of whether family planning would be part of the G8 maternal-health initiative is deemed important by most experts because many of the estimated 500,000 childbirth deaths in developing countries each year are caused by complications from women becoming pregnant too young and too often in quick succession.

The inclusion of safe abortion services, where they are legal, is also promoted by many experts, because so many deaths are caused by complications from botched abortions.

"There isn't a division on what it includes or not includes. Canada's initiative, that [G8 countries]support, is saving the lives of mothers and children under the age of 5, and it does not mean supporting abortions," Ms. Oda said.

She argued that the U.S. development agency USAID also does not fund abortions - but experts noted that it finances family-planning organizations and government programs that include abortion.

Funding family planning but not abortions will be impractical in the real world, said Katherine McDonald, executive director of Action Canada for Population and Development. To cut off abortion funding, Canada must cut off all funding for any family-planning program that provides abortions.

"If Canada follows that model, it's a replica of the Bush-era global gag law. If they don't, how will we know that none of the money is used for abortion?" she said.


Harper flops on death penalty:

2007. Death-row flip-flop 'troubling': Arbour

Former supreme court justice. UN Rights Commissioner rebukes Ottawa for tacit support of death penalty

Louise Arbour, the former Supreme Court of Canada judge who serves as the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, has denounced as "very troubling" the Conservative government's new hands-off policy on death-row prisoners in the United States, and its plan to soften Canada's opposition to capital punishment in a coming vote at the UN General Assembly.

In a statement sent to CanWest News Service yesterday, Arbour's office in Geneva said: "The High Commissioner believes that not seeking clemency is very troubling, and so is the fact that Canada is not among the co-sponsors of the draft resolution before the UN General Assembly on a global moratorium on capital punishment."

The rebuke from Arbour adds a powerful international voice to the growing chorus of criticism over the federal government's abrupt reversal last week of long-standing foreign policy to seek clemency for any Canadian on death row around the world.

Instead, under a new directive first revealed last week by CanWest News Service, Canada will no longer fight for the lives of Canadians facing execution in "democratic countries, like the United States, where there has been a fair trial."

All federal opposition parties, Amnesty International-Canada, U.S.-based Human Rights Watch and a wide array of other critics have denounced the Conservative government for its new stance on clemency.

Accusations that Prime Minister Stephen Harper and his cabinet are now tacitly endorsing the death penalty were fuelled this week by news that Canada would not be co-sponsoring next week's UN resolution against state executions, abandoning a decade-long leadership role on the issue.

The uproar over clemency was prompted by the case of Ronald Smith - an Alberta man facing death by lethal injection in Montana for murdering two Americans during a drunken hitcRating 2 iking trip through the U.S. in 1982.

Foreign Affairs officials said on Oct. 26 that Canada was working to save Smith from execution. But Harper said last week his government would not seek commutation of Smith's death sentence from Montana Governor Brian Schweitzer because "it would very quickly become a question of whether we are prepared to repatriate a double-murderer to Canada."

In his first comments since Canada's about-face on his bid for clemency, Smith told CanWest News Service in a prison interview on Thursday that he still hopes to one day be transferred to a Canadian jail and, eventually, "hit the streets" in his home country.

He said he was "dumbstruck" by the federal government's reversal on his death sentence, arguing "if we are a civilized society, then we can't put forth the idea that it's okay to kill."

Arbour, who also served as chief UN prosecutor in trials over genocide in Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia, has led global efforts to abolish the death penalty.

Earlier this year, she commended Rwanda for ending capital punishment in that country.

"Abolition in Rwanda sends a very strong message," Arbour announced in July. "A country that has suffered the ultimate crime, and whose people's thirst for justice is still far from being quenched, has decided to forego a sanction that should have no place in any society that claims to value human rights and the inviolability of the person."

In his interview with CanWest News Service on Thursday in Montana, Smith said: "I appreciate the fact they're not arguing for me - they're arguing for an ideal. You have to take me out of the equation. I just happen to be a rallying point for the argument."


Sept. 9 Harper says Canada won’t abandon those on death-row in Iran

VLADIVOSTOK, Russia — Having severed all diplomatic ties with Iran, Canada will keep trying to aid Canadian citizens there, including three on death-row, with the help of its partners and allies, Prime Minister Stephen Harper said Sunday.

“The reality is our influence and that of our partners on Iran is minimal,” the prime minister said in French at the end of an Asia-Pacific Economic Co-operation summit in Russia.

Without elaborating, he said he was worried about “the potential for increasingly bad behaviour” from Iran.

This past week, the federal government announced it was closing the Canadian Embassy in Tehran and expelling Iran’s diplomats from Ottawa.

Repeating what he had said after Canada announced the measures Friday, the prime minister said it was necessary to bring Canadian diplomats home from Tehran because of the increasing possibility that they might face danger there.

Harper’s comments in Russia followed condemnation of his government’s moves and motivations from the Iranian regime this weekend.

“The current government of Canada under the leadership of Mr. Stephen Harper is known for extreme policies in the domain of foreign policy,” the Mehr news agency quoted Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Ramin Mehmanparast as saying.

“The hostile behaviour of the current racist government in Canada in reality follows the policies dictated by the Zionists (Israel) and the British.”

Canada’s decision to expel Iranian diplomats and sever all ties in Iran was the result of what he called “hostile behaviour” that had been encouraged by Israel and Britain.Iran was harshly condemned in Vladivostok by Harper for its position on developing a military nuclear capability, for its anti-Semitic and genocidal threats against Israel and for its arming of the Bashar Assad regime in Syria.

“Do I anticipate specific actions? No,” Harper said, when discussing possible Iranian recriminations against Canada for having cut diplomatic ties. “But we know this is a country that stops at nothing.”

Among the Canadians believed to be facing possible execution in Iran is Hamid Ghassemi-Shall. The 42-year-old was arrested in 2008 while visiting his family, and was later charged with espionage. He was sentenced to death in 2009. Foreign Affairs Minister John Baird publicly appealed to the Iranian government to grant clemency to Ghassemi-Shall as recently as April


Ah, but these aren't domestic rulings, where they might be widely noticed. Domestically, he is wise to avoid both issues altogether.

Harper says he personally favours death penalty
Published on Tuesday January 18, 2011

OTTAWA—Prime Minister Stephen Harper says he personally favours the death penalty in some instances.

But the prime minister says he has no plans to resurrect debate over capital punishment — at least not in the next Parliament.

In an interview with CBC News on Tuesday, Harper was even more categorical about abortion, indicating he has no interest in ever reopening debate on that hot potato.

He says the key to reducing the number of aborted pregnancies is changing attitudes, not laws.

Harper's views on the hot-button issues were probed by Peter Mansbridge, anchor of CBC's The National, who wanted to know what the prime minister would do should he manage to win a majority in the next election.

In past elections, opponents have issued dark warnings that Harper would use a majority to impose a socially conservative agenda. Among other things, Harper has been accused of harbouring a “hidden agenda” to recriminalize abortion, which has been without legal limit in Canada since 1988, and to reinstate capital punishment, which was abolished in 1976.

But Harper, who gave even odds on an election this year, dismissed suggestions Canadians still fear what he'd do if handed a majority blank cheque.

“My own sense is Canadians have gotten comfortable with this government,” he said.

“I think most Canadians understand that we're a government that is ... reasonably confident, focused on real issues, on trying to make the country better, not trying to enrich or glorify ourselves.”

He was resolute about leaving the abortion file firmly closed.

“Look, Peter, I have spent my political career trying to stay out of that issue. It's one on which people, including in my own party, have passionate views. They're all over the map,” he said.

“What I say to people (is) if you want to diminish the number of abortions, you've got to change hearts and not laws. And I'm not interested in having a debate over abortion law.”

On reinstating capital punishment, Harper said simply: “I don't see the country as wanting to do that.”

When Mansbridge pointed out that he seemed to be closing the door less firmly on that issue, Harper added, somewhat disjointedly: “Well, I personally think there are times when capital punishment is appropriate.

“But I've also committed that I'm not, you know, in the next Parliament, I'm not, no plans to bring that issue forward.”

PMO spokesman Dimitri Soudas later said in an email that the government “has absolutely no plans to reinstate capital punishment.”

Harper's minority government has studiously avoided coming anywhere near the abortion or capital punishment files — at least in terms of domestic law.

But it has reopened both issues as they apply to Canada's foreign policy.

Harper stoked controversy last spring when he refused to include funding for abortions in his G8 initiative to champion maternal and child health in the world's poorest countries.

And his government briefly initiated a new policy whereby Canada no longer automatically sought clemency for Canadians facing the death penalty in democratic countries like the United States.

A Supreme Court ruling forced the government to abandon the policy.

Opposition parties have been sabre rattling about triggering an election over the Harper government's next budget, expected in late February or early March. Harper said he's not sure if they're serious.

“My gut tells me I don't know. It's 50-50,” Harper said.

“We take the threats from the opposition very seriously. I don't think it's in the country's interest, I don't think it makes any sense to have one right now but, if we're forced into one, we'll be ready.”


If Harper stuck with his guns on these issues, he wouldn't have gained as much power. However, he seems fit to take it out on people in other countries.
  • 0
Posted Image

#12 key2thecup

key2thecup

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,805 posts
  • Joined: 28-November 07

Posted 07 December 2012 - 12:36 PM


Nice shootin'
  • 0

Dr. Ron Paul 2016!

 


#13 elvis15

elvis15

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 20,455 posts
  • Joined: 27-February 07

Posted 07 December 2012 - 01:07 PM

What did he have to say about the environment in his election promises?


Artists join opposition to water protection act changes


Musicians, including environmental activist Sarah Harmer, are joining those raising concerns about the Harper government's second omnibus budget legislation.

C-45 includes changes to the Navigable Waters Protection Act that limit federal protection for waterways to only 62 rivers, 97 lakes and three oceans that are specifically included in a list annexed to the bill. The government says it has chosen to protect only the busiest waterways in Canada that meet specific criteria for navigation.
...

Obviously more to read there, but the act itself was mainly to protect against anything that would effect navigation of any waterway large enough to float a canoe or any other bigger watercraft - which would include much more than 62 rivers, 97 lakes and 3 oceans that it's now been adjusted to. This is worrying in the sense that the bill was used as a basis for other environmental acts and now most of Canada's rivers and lakes aren't linked to those other environmental acts.
  • 0

c3c9e9.pnganimalhousesig.jpg

Tanev is going to EDM. I can put my life savings down on it

 


#14 Pineapples

Pineapples

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,618 posts
  • Joined: 15-June 10

Posted 07 December 2012 - 01:35 PM

Good. We need more gun control.
  • 0

Pineapple_jumps.gifPineapple_jumps.gif

 


#15 Ghostsof1915

Ghostsof1915

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 22,751 posts
  • Joined: 31-January 07

Posted 07 December 2012 - 07:01 PM

Nice shootin'


Thanks. Worked hard at it. It's a great way to blow off steam.
  • 0
GO CANUCKS GO!
"The Canucks did not lose in 1994. They just ran out of time.." Barry MacDonald Team1040

Posted Image

#16 Wetcoaster

Wetcoaster

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 40,454 posts
  • Joined: 26-April 04

Posted 19 December 2012 - 03:34 PM

Liberal leadership candidate Marc Garneau is calling for an outright ban on assault weapons.


Liberal Marc Garneau floats assault weapon ban


But party leadership candidate says he wouldn't revive long-gun registry


The Canadian Press Posted: Dec 18, 2012 4:52 PM ET Last Updated: Dec 19, 2012


There's no reason semi-automatic rifles like the one used to slaughter 20 young schoolchildren in Connecticut should be available in Canada, says Liberal leadership hopeful Marc Garneau.



The Montreal MP said Tuesday he'd look at banning semi-automatic weapons, like the military-style, .223-calibre Bushmaster used in last week's massacre.


"There is absolutely no reason that anybody can vote to say that that kind of weapon, that can fire off great numbers of rounds like that, is necessary," Garneau told The Canadian Press.


"That kind of weapon, to me, definitely — well, it is (already) a restricted weapon but one should look at not allowing those things."


Gunman Adam Lanza used a Bushmaster to mow down 20 Grade 1 students at a Newtown, Conn., elementary school last Friday. He also killed six educators and his mother before killing himself.


Garneau noted that almost exactly a year ago, a deranged man attacked students at a primary school in central China. Because he was wielding a knife, not a gun, the carnage was far less —22 children and one adult injured, but no deaths.


"This person had the same kind of intent as the person in Newtown but all of the kids today are still alive."


The Bushmaster is currently a restricted firearm in Canada but it is legal to own one under certain conditions.


A person must be 18 years of age, pass a restricted firearms safety course and obtain a firearms licence and registration certificate. A restricted weapon can be licensed for use in target practice or target shooting competitions or as part of a gun collection.


In limited circumstances, a restricted firearm may be allowed in pursuit of one's occupation or to protect life.


Semi-automatics in Canada are generally restricted to magazines holding only five cartridges.


Garneau proposes tighter gun controls


Several weeks ago, Garneau proposed a four-point plan for tightening gun control in Canada, including further limiting access to assault weapons. He went further Tuesday, suggesting an outright ban.


He said his aim is "putting them out of circulation, not allowing them to be used."


Garneau also said he'd go further than the Harper Conservatives in imposing "very severe" penalties on those who use guns in the commission of crimes.


He'd restrict ownership of guns by people with a history of domestic violence or involvement in gangs and he'd beef up interdiction of firearms flowing illegally across the border from the United States.


Garneau reiterated, however, that he would not revive the Liberal-created long-gun registry, which the Conservative government scrapped earlier this year.


"It was an initiative that had some strong points, in the sense that the police and the RCMP supported it, as did groups representing victims and others," he said.


"But it also had some bad points in that many Canadians, particularly in rural areas, were dead set against it. So it became a very, very divisive issue in this country.


"The Conservatives have killed it and I would not bring it back."


Justin Trudeau, the presumptive front-runner in the leadership contest, has similarly said the gun registry was a failed policy which he would not resurrect.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2012/12/18/pol-cp-marc-garneau-liberal-leadership-assault-rifle-ban.html
  • 0
To err is human - but to really screw up you need a computer.

Always listen to experts. They'll tell you what can't be done and why. Then do it.

Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati

Illegitimi non carborundum.

Never try to teach a pig to sing - it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

#17 Electro Rock

Electro Rock

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,633 posts
  • Joined: 17-March 04

Posted 19 December 2012 - 03:36 PM

1977 called, it wants its gun control measure back.
  • 0
"The American people will never knowingly adopt Socialism. But under the name of 'liberalism' they will adopt every fragment of the Socialist program, until one day America will be a Socialist nation, without knowing how it happened."

Norman Thomas

#18 Aleksandr Pistoletov

Aleksandr Pistoletov

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,099 posts
  • Joined: 07-April 03

Posted 19 December 2012 - 03:39 PM

^ Unnecessary hysteria that stems from south of the border. (edit: whoops, make that two posts up now)

Our restrictions work fine for us, no need to change them.

Edited by zaibatsu, 19 December 2012 - 03:39 PM.

  • 0

"When Jonah's agent called him and said Quentin Tarantino wanted to put him in a spaghetti western [Django Unchained], Jonah was like, 'You had me at spaghetti.'"

 

"Aziz has been charming audiences and snakes for years. And I guess you’re here tonight because now that Kanye had a real baby he doesn’t need you anymore."

 

 -- Jeff Ross

 

 


#19 key2thecup

key2thecup

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,805 posts
  • Joined: 28-November 07

Posted 19 December 2012 - 04:00 PM

"There is absolutely no reason that anybody can vote to say that that kind of weapon, that can fire off great numbers of rounds like that, is necessary," Garneau told The Canadian Press.


Someone needs to tell Marc Garneau that the magazines in Canada (under law) are only allowed to hold 5 rounds.
  • 0

Dr. Ron Paul 2016!

 


#20 Aleksandr Pistoletov

Aleksandr Pistoletov

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,099 posts
  • Joined: 07-April 03

Posted 19 December 2012 - 04:15 PM

Someone needs to tell Marc Garneau that the magazines in Canada (under law) are only allowed to hold 5 rounds.

Which makes all the sense in the world given how quickly one can reload magazines.
  • 0

"When Jonah's agent called him and said Quentin Tarantino wanted to put him in a spaghetti western [Django Unchained], Jonah was like, 'You had me at spaghetti.'"

 

"Aziz has been charming audiences and snakes for years. And I guess you’re here tonight because now that Kanye had a real baby he doesn’t need you anymore."

 

 -- Jeff Ross

 

 


#21 key2thecup

key2thecup

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,805 posts
  • Joined: 28-November 07

Posted 19 December 2012 - 04:21 PM

Which makes all the sense in the world given how quickly one can reload magazines.


ban all magazines and make only single shot rifles legal in Canada!
  • 0

Dr. Ron Paul 2016!

 


#22 Common sense

Common sense

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 21,674 posts
  • Joined: 08-January 06

Posted 20 December 2012 - 02:26 AM

ban all magazines and make only single shot rifles legal in Canada!


Followed by a 15-minute reloading phase where we clean out the muzzle.
  • 0

#23 Wetcoaster

Wetcoaster

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 40,454 posts
  • Joined: 26-April 04

Posted 21 December 2012 - 04:20 PM

To starkly illustrate the difference between the US and Canada in respect of gun control and the use of a firearm for self-defence this comparison may be instructive.

According to the US Supreme Court in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. __, 128 S. Ct. 2783, 171 L. Ed. 2d 637 (2008) the requirement that any lawful firearm in the home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock makes it impossible for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is therefore unconstitutional.
http://www.lawnix.co.../dc-heller.html

In Canada this letter from the Office of the Chief Firearms Officer of BC imposing further restrictions on license of the owner of a restricted weapon (a 9mm Beretta Model 92FS semi-automatic) after the owner misused the firearm is instructive. Here is the actual letter.
http://www.votecap.c...dRCMPletter.pdf


Canadian Firearms Program Programme Canadien des armes a feu

Royal Canadian Mounted Police Gendarmerie royale du Canada


Chief Firearms Officer for British Columbia

c/o West Shore RCMP Detachment

698 Atkins Avenue

Victoria, BC

V9B 3A4



Christopher R. Porter

4461 Arsens Place

Victoria, BC

V8N 3T7


May 17, 2011


Dear Sir:


RE: Firearms Licence # 12351461 — Licence Condition for alternate storage


On April 11, 2011 I was contacted by the Saanich Police Department regarding an incident that occurred on March 26, 2011 involving you. The police were concerned about your handgun access. The background is as follows: On March 26, 2011 you called 911 as you awoke to noise on your roof and your dog barking. You believed that someone was breaking into your home. While on the phone with 911 you said you possessed a 9mm handgun. You were contacted by Sergeant Stephens of the Saanich Police prior to the police attending your home, in order to confirm the location of the handgun. Sgt. Stephens learned from you that you had retrieved the handgun and were "going out to deal with it" and that "I will use the gun to protect myself and my family". Sgt. Stephens spoke with you for approximately 5-10 minutes directing you to put your handgun back in a locked case before police attended your home. You were initially resistive, but complied in the end. Police halted their attendance blocks away until you put your handgun away. When they did attend, they arrested an intoxicated University of Victoria student in a nearby yard.

As police were concerned about your access and stated use of your handgun in this situation, after receiving the above report I began my own review into the incident as it related to your firearms licence, and permitted purpose for possessing a restricted handgun. In this respect, I also interviewed you at our office on April 20, 2011. The following outlines my review:


By way of background, you completed the Canadian Firearms Safety Course and the Canadian Restricted Firearms Safety Course on February 14, 2009. You submitted an application for a Possession and Acquisition firearms licence, received by the Canadian Firearms Program on April 9, 2009. On May 25, 2009 Possession and Acquisition 12351461 was issued to you; expiring on September 27, 2014. This licence authorizes you to possess and acquire non¬restricted firearms and restricted firearms.


On December 19, 2009 you purchased a 9mm Beretta Model 92FS semi-automatic handgun, serial number M52670Z. When the transfer from the seller was initiated, the Chief Firearms Office for British Columbia confirmed with you the purpose for your possession of this handgun as target practice or target shooting, and that you were a member in good standing at the Victoria Fish and Game Protective Association. Registration certificate 13939834 was issued for the handgun. Confirmation of a permitted purpose by the Chief Firearms Officer is required by section 28 of the Firearms Act.


2

Your career background, pursuant to articles I found on-line, related to your time in the Solomon Islands and the purchase and sale of dolphins throughout the world from 2001 until 2010. A number of news reports and documentaries were produced that generated negative publicity for you, specifically the Daley Planet production entitled "Blood Dolphin".


At some point in 2010 the Vice President of Ocean Embassy, who was a former business associate of yours, forwarded information to the FBI that a threat had been posted on their web site that related to you and your family. The content of this threat indicated that a "contract" had been placed on you and members of your family. This information was subsequently passed on to Canadian law enforcement authorities and to the Saanich Police.


On November 16, 2010 Detective Constable Eassie of the Saanich Police attended your home and advised you about the threat. During Detective Eassie's visit, you spoke about your children and your plans to keep your family safe. You told him you were properly licenced, and had a registered handgun that you kept in your residence.


During our interview, you indicated that you did not have a security system, and did not employ any security personnel. However, the police have flagged your home in the police databases that there were threats to you and your family and that all calls for assistance be treated as the highest priority. This "red flag" system was in effect the night of March 26 and your 911 call resulted in all police units being dispatched to your location immediately. I was advised by both Sgt. Stephens and Detective Eassie that this additional protection is quite out of the ordinary and provides you with the highest level of emergency service.


We spoke about the night of March 26. You said you heard thumping noises on your roof and believed someone was breaking in. You called police and while on the phone, you retrieved your 9mm Beretta Model 92FS semi-automatic handgun. You also retrieved a cartridge magazine, full of live ammunition, and loaded your handgun. While on the phone with the 911 dispatcher, you said you had your handgun out. The dispatcher then transferred the call to Sgt. Stephens.


While on the phone with Sgt. Stephens, you told him you had retrieved the handgun and were "going out to deal with it" and "I will use the gun to protect myself and my family". Sgt. Stephens talked to you for approximately 5-10 minutes, directing you to put the gun away in a locked case before police arrived. Responding officers were told to stop and hold back a couple of blocks away until the risk of you with a firearm was resolved. You were initially resistive, but complied in the end. On police arrived they found an intoxicated University of Victoria student in a yard nearby. The student was temporarily detained for investigation, and later released to the care and custody of a friend.


You stated that you felt that the use of your handgun was acceptable for the March 26th situation; that having the handgun out was not a level of force. I advised you that your intention to use your handgun for protection was not a lawful purpose. To avoid the risk of an accidental shooting or an intentional shooting (of an intoxicated student or otherwise), I advised you that I would be adding a condition to your firearms licence which would not allow you to store your handgun at home, but that it must be stored at the range associated with the Victoria Fish and Game Protective Association.


I confirmed with the club in advance that it allows its members to store their firearms at the range. 1 should note that I spoke with both Sgt. Stephens and Detective Eassie regarding


- 3 -

alternate storage and they were in complete agreement, having initially suggested that your licence should be revoked outright. You should not underestimate how seriously the police or I regard you taking out your handgun on March 26th with respect to your own safety, public safety and officer safety.


I had prepared a letter outlining the conditions for you in anticipation that you would understand this alternate storage arrangement. During the interview on April 20, you did not agree to the condition. You did ask me for a copy of the letter, which I gave you as a courtesy.


Section 58 of the Firearms Act states: Conditions


58. (1) A chief firearms officer who issues a licence, an authorization to carry or an authorization to transport may attach any reasonable condition to it that the chief firearms officer considers desirable in the particular circumstances and in the interests of the safety of the holder or any other person.


I consider that alternate storage is a reasonable condition in these particular circumstances at this time. This condition can be revisited should circumstances change. As discussed with you during the interview, the following special condition is hereby added to your firearms licence:

You must not store firearms at your residence. You must store firearms at the Victoria Fish and Game Protective Association range facility, located at 700 Holker Place, Victoria, BC V8W 2M1.


This condition will be effective immediately, but you will have until close of business on Friday, June 3, 2011 to make arrangements and move your handgun to the range for storage. Please call me directly so I can issue you an Authorization to Transport to move the handgun from your home to the range; my phone # is listed below. Your existing Authorization to Transport 02000535783 which expires in tandem with your licence will also be changed to reflect the alternate storage condition.


Should you decide not to abide by this condition and keep your handgun at your residence (or any future firearms you acquire), this does give me grounds to revoke your firearms licence, and section 93 of the Criminal Code makes it an offence to possess a firearm at an unauthorized place.


If you have any questions, please contact me at 250-474-6202 or toll free at 1-800-731-4000 ext. 9524.


Jim Millington Firearms Officer


A completely different attitude and gun control regime in Canada
  • 0
To err is human - but to really screw up you need a computer.

Always listen to experts. They'll tell you what can't be done and why. Then do it.

Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati

Illegitimi non carborundum.

Never try to teach a pig to sing - it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

#24 Aleksandr Pistoletov

Aleksandr Pistoletov

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,099 posts
  • Joined: 07-April 03

Posted 21 December 2012 - 04:30 PM

^ I would also point out the differences of:

- US Constitution has a very explicit right to bear arms.

- Protection of individual rights is a well entrenched US mindset, whereas Canada has been more apt to sacrifice individual liberties to government, of which bearing arms weren't really considered much of to begin with and has a history of substantial regulation on.

Both seem to work just fine for each country.
  • 0

"When Jonah's agent called him and said Quentin Tarantino wanted to put him in a spaghetti western [Django Unchained], Jonah was like, 'You had me at spaghetti.'"

 

"Aziz has been charming audiences and snakes for years. And I guess you’re here tonight because now that Kanye had a real baby he doesn’t need you anymore."

 

 -- Jeff Ross

 

 


#25 key2thecup

key2thecup

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,805 posts
  • Joined: 28-November 07

Posted 21 December 2012 - 04:35 PM

A completely different attitude and gun control regime in Canada


That is definitely a stark contrast, so if you have a restricted firearm such as a handgun.

You are not allowed to use it to defend yourself or scare off the intruder in the event someone break and enters your home?

Even if you have the restricted weapon locked up, and the magazine & bullets locked separately?

.... Now what if its a non-restricted firearm?
  • 0

Dr. Ron Paul 2016!

 


#26 Aleksandr Pistoletov

Aleksandr Pistoletov

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,099 posts
  • Joined: 07-April 03

Posted 21 December 2012 - 04:39 PM

That is definitely a stark contrast, so if you have a restricted firearm such as a handgun.

You are not allowed to use it to defend yourself or scare off the intruder in the event someone break and enters your home?

Even if you have the restricted weapon locked up, and the magazine & bullets locked separately?

.... Now what if its a non-restricted firearm?

That's more akin to the castle doctrine in the US.. illegal in Canada.

One thing learned in training is in Canada must be equal force.. and in the case of using a gun, it's still hard to justify using a gun as equal force unless a person is actually shooting (continuously) at you or others.

Sucks, but that's the way it is.

I don't think it matters restricted or otherwise, force is force.

Edited by zaibatsu, 21 December 2012 - 04:40 PM.

  • 0

"When Jonah's agent called him and said Quentin Tarantino wanted to put him in a spaghetti western [Django Unchained], Jonah was like, 'You had me at spaghetti.'"

 

"Aziz has been charming audiences and snakes for years. And I guess you’re here tonight because now that Kanye had a real baby he doesn’t need you anymore."

 

 -- Jeff Ross

 

 


#27 key2thecup

key2thecup

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,805 posts
  • Joined: 28-November 07

Posted 21 December 2012 - 05:06 PM

That's more akin to the castle doctrine in the US.. illegal in Canada.

One thing learned in training is in Canada must be equal force.. and in the case of using a gun, it's still hard to justify using a gun as equal force unless a person is actually shooting (continuously) at you or others.

Sucks, but that's the way it is.

I don't think it matters restricted or otherwise, force is force.


I see, so a guy coming at you viciously with a knife wouldn't justify it?

I mean it is one thing to shoot the intruder, but how about using your firearm to scare the intruder, and then forcing him/her to stay in place (with the firearm pointed at them) until the police arrive?
  • 0

Dr. Ron Paul 2016!

 


#28 Aleksandr Pistoletov

Aleksandr Pistoletov

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,099 posts
  • Joined: 07-April 03

Posted 21 December 2012 - 05:18 PM

I see, so a guy coming at you viciously with a knife wouldn't justify it?

I mean it is one thing to shoot the intruder, but how about using your firearm to scare the intruder, and then forcing him/her to stay in place (with the firearm pointed at them) until the police arrive?

You would be amazed at how limited you are with a gun in Canada. In both cases, still very likely illegal.

Edited by zaibatsu, 21 December 2012 - 05:19 PM.

  • 0

"When Jonah's agent called him and said Quentin Tarantino wanted to put him in a spaghetti western [Django Unchained], Jonah was like, 'You had me at spaghetti.'"

 

"Aziz has been charming audiences and snakes for years. And I guess you’re here tonight because now that Kanye had a real baby he doesn’t need you anymore."

 

 -- Jeff Ross

 

 


#29 Wetcoaster

Wetcoaster

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 40,454 posts
  • Joined: 26-April 04

Posted 21 December 2012 - 05:31 PM

That is definitely a stark contrast, so if you have a restricted firearm such as a handgun.

You are not allowed to use it to defend yourself or scare off the intruder in the event someone break and enters your home?

Even if you have the restricted weapon locked up, and the magazine & bullets locked separately?

.... Now what if its a non-restricted firearm?

Although has been some recent changes the law on deadly force remains the same.


2. SELF-DEFENCE AND DEFENCE OF PROPERTY


Proposed Amendments:


New Criminal Code provisions are being proposed to clarify the laws on self-defence and defence of property so that Canadians – including the police, prosecutors and the courts – can more easily understand and apply the law. Clarifying the law and streamlining statutory defences may assist prosecutors and police in exercising their discretion not to lay a charge or proceed with a prosecution.


Amendments to the self-defence provisions would repeal the current complex self-defence provisions spread over four sections of the Criminal Code (s.34-37) and create one new self-defence provision. It would permit a person who reasonably believes themselves or others to be at risk of the threat of force, or of acts of force, to commit a reasonable act to protect themselves or others.


Amendments to the defence of property provisions would repeal the confusing defence of property language that is now spread over five sections of the Criminal Code (s.38-42). One new defence of property provision would be created, eliminating the many distinctions regarding acts a person can take in defence of different types of property. The new provision would permit a person in "peaceable possession" of a property to commit a reasonable act (including the use of force) for the purpose of protecting that property from being taken, damaged or trespassed upon.


The Current Laws:


Defence of Self and Defence of Others


Under sections 34 to 37 of the Criminal Code, distinct defences are provided for a person who uses force to protect themselves or another from attack depending on whether they provoked the attack or not and whether they intended to use deadly force.


Defence of Property


Under sections 38 to 42 of the Criminal Code, multiple defences for the "peaceable possessor" of property exist. Considerations of the type of property (either personal or real property), the possessory right of the possessor, and of the other person and proportionality between the threat to the property, and the amount of force used must be taken into account when the defence of property is raised.


Use of Deadly Force


The use of deadly force is only permitted in very exceptional circumstances — for example, where it is necessary to protect a person from death or grievous bodily harm. The courts have clearly stated that deadly force is never considered reasonable in defence of property alone. The legislative reforms currently being proposed do not make any change to the law relating to deadly force. Courts will therefore continue to make any necessary changes on a case-by-case basis, developing the common law if and where appropriate.

http://www.pm.gc.ca/eng/media.asp?id=3966
  • 0
To err is human - but to really screw up you need a computer.

Always listen to experts. They'll tell you what can't be done and why. Then do it.

Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati

Illegitimi non carborundum.

Never try to teach a pig to sing - it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

#30 Electro Rock

Electro Rock

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,633 posts
  • Joined: 17-March 04

Posted 21 December 2012 - 05:34 PM

In practice, "equal" force seems to to mean if the threat one is defending themselves against is lethal or not, not closely equivalent.

However, Canadian laws pertaining to both guns and self defence seem to have been deliberately written so that they are vague and open to interpretation.

Also, a lot of times the legalist system in Canada will slap on "unsafe storage" and other charges so that the person who defended themselves will still have legal issues even if the primary charges are stayed or beaten.
  • 0
"The American people will never knowingly adopt Socialism. But under the name of 'liberalism' they will adopt every fragment of the Socialist program, until one day America will be a Socialist nation, without knowing how it happened."

Norman Thomas




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Canucks.com is the official Web site of The Vancouver Canucks. The Vancouver Canucks and Canucks.com are trademarks of The Vancouver Canucks Limited Partnership.  NHL and the word mark and image of the Stanley Cup are registered trademarks and the NHL Shield and NHL Conference logos are trademarks of the National Hockey League. All NHL logos and marks and NHL team logos and marks as well as all other proprietary materials depicted herein are the property of the NHL and the respective NHL teams and may not be reproduced without the prior written consent of NHL Enterprises, L.P.  Copyright © 2009 The Vancouver Canucks Limited Partnership and the National Hockey League.  All Rights Reserved.