Anyone still harbouring doubts about whose interests the Harper regime is governing on behalf of would be well-advised to read this story in today's Star. Entitled RCMP concerned as Conservatives consider loosening firearms restrictions, it reveals the latest legislative considerations of a government that claims to be tough on crime, but sees little reason to reduce the opportunity to commit crime.
Co-chaired by Steve Torino of the Canadian Shooting Sports Association, the Canadian Firearms Advisory Committee met with Public Safety Minister Vic Toews and other senior government officials in Ottawa in late March, after the bill to kill the long-gun registry had cleared the Commons and was on the verge of Senate approval.
The committee, comprised almost exclusively of lads who love their guns, has made a series of recommendation to the Harper regime. Amongst the gems are the following:
- getting rid of the “prohibited” category of firearms
- reclassifying weapons such as certain handguns and assault weapons (for example, the AK-47, shown in the picture at the top of this post) as “restricted” only
- removing the requirement on gun owners to get an “authorization to transport” firearms
- making seized firearms — which by law must now be destroyed — legally available for public sale or trade
- making [f]irearms licences ... valid for at least 10 years “or longer,”, a move strongly opposed by the RCMP, since it would impede their “ability to monitor, on a timely basis, any changes to an individual’s mental health status”
The entire breadth of the committee's recommendations can be read here, but surely even the brief overview I have included in this post should be sufficient to lead right-thinking people to realize that whoever the Harper regime is governing on behalf of, it surely isn't the majority of Canadians.
Do you even understand what any of the above terminology actually means?
ReplyDeleteDo you not realize that these recommendations were made in March? How long do you think that the Toronto Star has been sitting on this non-story? Any particular reason that they maybe chose today to print this?
I believe I understand both the terminology and the implications of the Harper thrust to appeal almost exclusively to its constituency, Anon.
ReplyDeleteAs to why The Star chose to print the story today, I would think the answer is obvious: to show the absolute hypocrisy of a government that claims to be hard on crime while at the same time making it easier to acquire and maintain the weapons that would facilitate crime.
I hope I have answered your questions to your satisfaction.
The police seize firearms all the time, for simple things like a claim of domestic violence (claim, need not be true), or a guy is depressed, or got in a fist fight. Having these guns ordered destroyed instead of transffered to a LEGAL and law abiding gun owner is theft of property, outright. They take your property worth thousands of dollars and destroy it, not letting you GIVE it to your brother, father, or a friend in a gun club. Why not? Unless the ultimate goal of the RCMP is to destroy all guns from all law abiding citizens then it should reason that they would not have a problem letting legal firearms license holding gun owners have these guns. Many are family heirlooms, in the family for generations, and the police destroy them even when families do their best to save them- good citizens, legal gun owners, denied access to their famlies firearms for no damn reason. They are NOT a threat to public safety, dont even go there.
DeleteI won't say that your suggestions are without merit Anon; however, I think that were the transfers you suggest be allowed, they would have to be done under the strictest of protocols and precautions so that the weapons don't find their way back to the person from whom they were seized. If safety could be satisfied, this is an idea worth entertaining.
DeleteNot even close.
ReplyDeleteThe government is probably finished with firearms. The only recommendations that might be examined is the merging ATT's with licenses, if only because it won't cost the government much. There's the merger of the POL and PAL, which you don't mention. Beyond that...
It's unlikely that the government would choose to reclassify prohibited weapons as restricted. At best, the government could remove the OiC prohibitions on named weapons like the AK-47, or more likely it's semi-auto only equivalent. The tories aren't stupid enough to change automatics as an class from prohibited to restricted. At best, the civilian variant of the AK, semi-auto only could be taken off the prohibited-by-name list. Consider: http://www.wolverinesupplies.com/details/3426/CZ-858-2-Canadian-Model-762-x-39-19-Barrel.aspx. It's not an AK, it's a CZ-858. It LOOKS a bit like an AK. It's in the same caliber as the AK. It has roughly equivalent capabilites as a semi-auto only AK. That firearm is non-restricted. This is a Saiga semi-automatic rifle: http://www.jgsales.com/saiga-7.62x39-ak47-style-semi-automatic-rifle.-imported-and-converted-by-cai.-new.-p-7043.html. Same caliber as the CZ-858. Basically the same capabilities as the CZ-858. It's prohibited because it's an AK "variant." What kind of sense does this make, and what does it do for Canadians?
You obviously don't know what an authorization to transport is. An authorization to transport is a piece of paper issued by a provincial CFO which allows the owner of a restricted firearm to transport their trigger-locked, unloaded and encased firearm to a shooting range, and home again, by the shortest possible route, making no stops in between. Presently, an authorization to transport must be obtained separately to being licensed. It's a needless duplication of paperwork, and does nothing to enhance public safety. I don't see how that would stop the police one iota from laying criminal charges upon an offending individual whether or not the ATT was separate.
Fourth, allowing police forces to sell firearms to the public. The sales of siezed firearms used to be a significant contributor to police budgets. Since C-68, the police have had to make do without that income, further increasing the strain on municipal and provincial budgets, with no effect on public safety.
Finally, making firearms licenses last 10 years does not in fact strip the RCMP of its ability to stop licenses, "the form must be verified by another person."
That's an outright lie. This is the actual form that an individual must fill out to renew their firearms license: http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/cfp-pcaf/form-formulaire/pdfs/979-eng.pdf. Note that there is no section for verrification by a third party, except a person's spouse, or former spouse. They are only expected to declare that they are aware of the applicant's application for renewal not verrify its authenticity.
As to why the Star chose to publish such an obviously loaded article today, it's clearly to spread irrational fear and provoke knee-jerk reactions among those who share your political bias. And, you fell for it. Why wouldn't the Star publish this in say, June, or August? They did it quite deliberately.
The Star's piece has had the opposite of its intended effect, as several members of the so-called gun-lobby wouldn't actually know about the recommendations if the Star had just kept quiet. In fact, I have personally witnessed several people announce that they'll be making donations to the CPC in ditrec response to the committee's recommendations, even if the government does nothing.
When is your side ever going to learn that in order to win this particular fight, it must either become educated about firearms, and how they are regulated in Canada, OR, it must learn to keep quiet when it comes to guns, because ignorance, and blatant pandering are just going to keep fueling your enemy's coffers?
I hate it when I'm right: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/harper-rejects-committees-advice-to-relax-gun-laws/article6033474/
ReplyDeleteThank you for your detailed response, Anon. You obviously feel as passionate about your perspective as I do about mine. Before I offer a more detailed reply to your comments, I shall check out the links that you have provided. Unfortunately, I probably will not be able to get to those until later, so please stay tuned!
ReplyDeleteAnon, if you check out my latest blog post, I have made an effort to respond to your commentary.
ReplyDeletethis whole subject presupposes that a human has less right to self defensethan a baboon
ReplyDelete