Harper gun registry solution just a "shell game"

<i>Those who beat their swords into plowshares usually end up plowing for those who kept their swords.</i>--<b>Ben Franklin</b><br>
News and discussion about the Firearms Control Act, Bill C-68, and other
firearms related issues. No registration required. You don't even have to
show your PAL to join in.

Does C-21 fulfil CPC party policy &quot;promises&quot; as Minister Day contends

NO
15
75%
Yes
5
25%
 
Total votes : 20

Postby Akimoya » 07/ 30/ 06 9:55 pm

Jason Kauppinen wrote:
But if you perfer we could get rid of that very western principle and move towards something else.... like guilty until proven innocent for example.


Fallacy of the "False Dichotomy" - I guess you never studied the western principles of "logic".


:lol:

Let me get this straight, you're saying that the principle of placing the burden of proof upon those making a positive statement vs. the principle of placing the burden of proof upon those making a negative statement is a false dichotomy?

Go ahead and explain how.


Another logical fallacy, this time a straw man - you're batting 1000, buddy!

I'm saying that your statement which only allows for two disparate and unrelated "options" of choosing either "burden of proof" or "guilty until proven innocent" is a logical fallacy. You are, of course, attempting to "prove" that because nobody would advocate the latter, that makes choosing the former (your position) the only "logical" choice, when it is not.

:roll:

Sorry, you'll have to do much better than that.
"It's too late to work within the system, but it's too soon to shoot the bastards"
- Claire Wolfe, Author of "101 Things To Do Till The Revolution Comes"
User avatar
Akimoya
 
Posts: 907
Joined: 12/ 21/ 02 8:52 pm
Location: Hamilton, ON

Postby C.Morgan » 07/ 30/ 06 10:36 pm

I think we determined rather early that the CPC policies and promises are rather flexible now that they are government.

It was laughable in a sad sort of way watching the apologists falling over themselves in their lemming like support of Harper.

There is no reason why this "promise" can't be tabled at least. Those who want to retain the registry will have to explain their case and stand behind it. Even if the motion loses, we will have opened the door.

Liberal, Tory same old story.
Chlorine on why the working world owes him something:
Welcome to the future boomers, you''ll be lucky if we don''t euthanize you at 70. I am the voice of the coming generation, and you will be the subject of our righteous anger. You have destroyed the earth, now history will blame you, your generation will be as reviled as the Germans and Japanese who are in their eighties and nineties now.

http://tinyurl.com/3hkjvf :lol:
User avatar
C.Morgan
 
Posts: 3814
Joined: 05/ 28/ 04 1:35 pm
Location: Alberta

Postby Wlyonmackenzie » 07/ 31/ 06 10:16 am

I'm pleased to see that my commentary on the proposed CPC bill to scrap the registry has elicited such a passionate discussion.

However, there were 3 points I wanted to make secinctly which seem to have been missed. The discussion should not gravetate to whether the CPC can get this gun bill passes. the discussion should be about these now stark issues:

1) C-21 does NOT "scrap" a long gun registry. It retools the process and still requires all firearms sales to be officially checked against existing registry data and "approved"...under criminal liability for doing so. Essemtially the registry is now just a paperless affair which can further criminalize a firearms owner by a mistake or typo in a paperless system.

http://www.parl.gc.ca/39/1/parlbus/cham ... ver-E.html


2) Day is lying through his teeth about fulfilling"promises" to both the responsible firearms owners of the nation and the party membership. The party policy which was member proposed, amended and ratified by a 99% margin states that we ( CPC) want the registration "repealed" and the licencing system "repealed" and replaced with the 1995 styled FAC certification system...this essentially decriminalizes the non criminal possession and use of common sporting longarms. He has not delivered on this "promise" to "repeal and replace" as per party policy statements. C-21 accomplishes nothing in the party policy declaration... The licence and registry have not been "repealed" simply retained and retooled....and I might add, sucking up tax dollars to maintain.

http://www.conservative.ca/EN/2692/41655

3) Day is ignoring party policy protocal which submits party members and caucus to constitutional legislating and respecting the exclusive rights of the provines in licencing and regulating private chattel property as per section 92(13) of the constitution. Day now promotes retains the Liberal concepts of criminalizing non criminal acts and converting private property from its rightful owner's cintrol to federal bureaucratic control against the constitutional jurisdiction of provincial powers over regulating and licencing private property and its use.. Retaining both a criminalizing federal licening system and transaction registry violates the CPC principles of constitutional legislation, private property rights and the ratified policy directives om firearms....which atates that we respect the provinces rights to regulate firearms licencing and/or registering.

http://www.conservative.ca/EN/2692/41655....and a CPC founding principle.
http://www.conservative.ca/EN/2692/41593
http://www.conservative.ca/EN/2692/41617

4) Day has broken faith with the party accountability systems by rewriting party policy on firearms in a departmental/ministerial vacuum...this is the most disturbing element of this C-21 farce.....as someone here pointed out, there is a good indication this same watering down and rewriting of party policy by cabinet seems tio be a trend that extends to other "promises" such as Kyoto, SSM, substantive tax reform and democratic reform of house and senate....will thes coming bills on these items bee more of the superficial tinkering that leaves most of the constitutionally questionable Liberal statism directives in place?

To sum: the creation of C-21 as any type of "fulfilment of "promises" or even completion of party policy is a fraud which seems to be getting spin by CPC PR wonks as a done deal in delivering an election promise....when in fact it is not.

See for yourself if C-21 effectively carries out a total "repeal" of the long gun registry and licencing "systems" and returns the fed involvement in the non criminal posession and use of firearms to a constitutionally correct limits by allowing only the screeing for possible criminal applicants with effective police background check and certification for access to firearms.... this would recognise the provincial jurisdiction over private chattle property regulation (licencing, registering, taxing setting safety standards for users)...as per out party policy. Does C-21 accomplish this?

http://www.conservative.ca/EN/2692/41655

http://www.parl.gc.ca/39/1/parlbus/cham ... ver-E.html
Of all tyrannies a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive; those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. - C.S. Lewis, In Freedom .

Celebrate Hard Likker and Handgun week here at the Shadowy GroupTM <img src="http://www.projectalberta.com/board/images/smiles/071.gif"> :libnot:
User avatar
Wlyonmackenzie
 
Posts: 14732
Joined: 10/ 30/ 02 8:04 pm
Location: Knee deep in Progressivist BS

Postby Jason Kauppinen » 07/ 31/ 06 10:27 am

Akimoya wrote:
Jason Kauppinen wrote:The person making the positive statement "It's possible to axe it now in a vote in the HoC" has the burden of proof to provide evidence to back up their statement.


Who said that, and where? I can't find that anywhere in this thread to the point you posted your message.

Smells like herring in here.


Calling the CPCs actions to date on this issue a "sell out" pretty much defaults one to the position I outlined above, unless they have something concrete to add that wouldn't require a majority vote to accomplish.
Warren Kinsella is the Jar Jar Binks of Canadian Politics

1985 (OPC Minority)/1987 (Loss) /2003 (Loss)/2007 (Loss) --The OPC Red Tory record.

"Back in 1215, if you read Magna Carta Libertatum (my italics; I don’t think they had ’em back then), human rights meant the King was restrained by his subjects. Eight hundred years later, “human rights” CHRC-style means that the subjects get restrained by the Crown, in the form of Queen Jennifer. I liked it better the old way." -Mark Steyn
User avatar
Jason Kauppinen
 
Posts: 11954
Joined: 12/ 26/ 01 2:01 am
Location: Kingston, Ontario

Postby Jason Kauppinen » 07/ 31/ 06 10:32 am

Akimoya wrote:Another logical fallacy, this time a straw man - you're batting 1000, buddy!

I'm saying that your statement which only allows for two disparate and unrelated "options"


Wrong. They are related.

of choosing either "burden of proof" or "guilty until proven innocent" is a logical fallacy. You are, of course, attempting to "prove" that because nobody would advocate the latter, that makes choosing the former (your position) the only "logical" choice, when it is not.


Let me hold your hand through this: guilty until proven innocent is an example of the state applying the principle of shifting the burden of proof from the state to prove a positive statement: "Person X committed a crime and is legally accountable for said crime" to the citizen to prove a negative statement: "There is no way that person X committed a crime".

So basically what you are saying is that there are "other logical options" instead of putting the burden of proof on the person making a positive statement.

What are they?
Last edited by Jason Kauppinen on 07/ 31/ 06 10:39 am, edited 1 time in total.
Warren Kinsella is the Jar Jar Binks of Canadian Politics

1985 (OPC Minority)/1987 (Loss) /2003 (Loss)/2007 (Loss) --The OPC Red Tory record.

"Back in 1215, if you read Magna Carta Libertatum (my italics; I don’t think they had ’em back then), human rights meant the King was restrained by his subjects. Eight hundred years later, “human rights” CHRC-style means that the subjects get restrained by the Crown, in the form of Queen Jennifer. I liked it better the old way." -Mark Steyn
User avatar
Jason Kauppinen
 
Posts: 11954
Joined: 12/ 26/ 01 2:01 am
Location: Kingston, Ontario

Postby Jason Kauppinen » 07/ 31/ 06 10:35 am

Wlyonmackenzie wrote:I'm pleased to see that my commentary on the proposed CPC bill to scrap the registry has elicited such a passionate discussion.

However, there were 3 points I wanted to make secinctly which seem to have been missed. The discussion should not gravetate to whether the CPC can get this gun bill passes.


Sure it should. Otherwise the discussion is pointless.

We know you're unsatisfied. Fine.

What do you want done differently, and how can it be accomplished? And how can it be accomplished without showing contempt for the democratic process of parliament?
Warren Kinsella is the Jar Jar Binks of Canadian Politics

1985 (OPC Minority)/1987 (Loss) /2003 (Loss)/2007 (Loss) --The OPC Red Tory record.

"Back in 1215, if you read Magna Carta Libertatum (my italics; I don’t think they had ’em back then), human rights meant the King was restrained by his subjects. Eight hundred years later, “human rights” CHRC-style means that the subjects get restrained by the Crown, in the form of Queen Jennifer. I liked it better the old way." -Mark Steyn
User avatar
Jason Kauppinen
 
Posts: 11954
Joined: 12/ 26/ 01 2:01 am
Location: Kingston, Ontario

Postby Abe » 07/ 31/ 06 11:17 am

Wlyonmackenzie wrote:I'm pleased to see that my commentary on the proposed CPC bill to scrap the registry has elicited such a passionate discussion.

However, there were 3 points I wanted to make secinctly which seem to have been missed. The discussion should not gravetate to whether the CPC can get this gun bill passes. the discussion should be about these now stark issues ...


I think the main reason your issues have not been addressed in discussion is that the Conservative Party base has already fractured into two camps: (i) the realists, and (ii) the blind loyalists and party apparatchiks. Neither group is all that interested in discussion, but for different reasons.

The realists already understand that the Conservative Party has become an almost completely useless political tool in terms of addressing issues - including the gun registry. Their total incompetence on the Kyoto file is proof of that. As such, further discussion is really a waste of time.

The blind loyalists and party apparatchiks do what such people always do. The fact that the blind loyalists will support a party no matter what policy flip flops and betrayals of the membership take place make them as irrelevant to present discussions as the Conservative Party will become in future elections. The party apparatchiks are only interested in possible appointments and payoffs for their fealty. They will only participate in policy discussions when absolutely necessary, and never in a way that would be critical of their own party as that may compromise a possible seat on a future gravy train.

What's to discuss? The fact that Stockwell Day - a former Reformer - is now rewriting the policies overwhelmingly supported by the membership says it all.

The only thing I can add in terms of your overall approach is that perhaps a delegation of party members from the firearms lobby should try to meet in an off-the-record chat with Garry Breitkreuz. He is about the only Conservative Party MP from western Canada worth talking to at this point because all you'll get from the others is sycophantic babbling about how great the current policies are and the necessity of appealing to the voters in Quebec. As long as the meeting was on the QT you might get a lot of candour from Garry Breitkreuz about what could be done.

Also, I note that you have indicated you will be supporting somebody who will be running in the next election as an Independent. A more effective plan may be to participate in the setting up of a constituency association for the United West Party which is in the process of forming. This is a new separatist party. I honestly don't know how prepared they are, but the mere formation of EDA's will begin sending a message to the Conservative Party a lot earlier than an independent candidate would.
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act. - George Orwell
User avatar
Abe
 
Posts: 398
Joined: 12/ 12/ 05 5:30 pm
Location: Red Deer County, AB

Postby Jason Kauppinen » 07/ 31/ 06 11:33 am

Abe wrote:The blind loyalists and party apparatchiks do what such people always do. The fact that the blind loyalists will support a party no matter what policy flip flops and betrayals of the membership take place make them as irrelevant to present discussions as the Conservative Party will become in future elections. The party apparatchiks are only interested in possible appointments and payoffs for their fealty. They will only participate in policy discussions when absolutely necessary, and never in a way that would be critical of their own party as that may compromise a possible seat on a future gravy train.


What a wonderfully neat evasion of the issue at hand. And from a separatist no less.

Yet again absolutely no mention of HOW they would do things better.

I keep asking for means and alternatives from people bitching about how they are unhappy.....

and have been met with nothing specific.

Now WHO here is neglecting to participate in policy discussion?

It's not me.
Warren Kinsella is the Jar Jar Binks of Canadian Politics

1985 (OPC Minority)/1987 (Loss) /2003 (Loss)/2007 (Loss) --The OPC Red Tory record.

"Back in 1215, if you read Magna Carta Libertatum (my italics; I don’t think they had ’em back then), human rights meant the King was restrained by his subjects. Eight hundred years later, “human rights” CHRC-style means that the subjects get restrained by the Crown, in the form of Queen Jennifer. I liked it better the old way." -Mark Steyn
User avatar
Jason Kauppinen
 
Posts: 11954
Joined: 12/ 26/ 01 2:01 am
Location: Kingston, Ontario

Postby Abe » 07/ 31/ 06 12:08 pm

Jason, I for one agree with you that the Conservative Party likely cannot get any legislation through to scrap the registry. However, if you read Wlyonmackenzie's post, he is saying that Stockwell Day has said that Bill C-21 fulfills a promise to scrap the registry when it doesn't.

The problems of governing with a minority do not excuse outright lies and unilateral amendments to party policy. The Conservative Party runs the government with all of the executive powers that entails. I fail to see any reason why they couldn't transfer all the staff out of the gun registry, delete all the data, auction everything off on eBay, etc. That would effectively end the registry, although the legal framework would remain and some future Liberal government may then resurrect the thing using the same executive powers. The fact that money has been budgeted for something doesn't mean it has to be spent. A department can lapse program dollars and return them to the treasury.

People are concerned about this because they detect that the mucky mucks running the party no longer want to scrap the registry - and I agree with them. The party elites have decided some sort of compromise registry should remain in place to appease the nincompoops who are responsible for this disastrous and wasteful policy to begin with, while making false claims about how they are in fact fulfilling the democratically voted on policies of the party members.

This is how the Conservatives are governing on not only this, but the other major issues as well.
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act. - George Orwell
User avatar
Abe
 
Posts: 398
Joined: 12/ 12/ 05 5:30 pm
Location: Red Deer County, AB

well

Postby Denner » 07/ 31/ 06 2:33 pm

Well guys-I have only read Bill c-21 once, (thanks here to Wm. Lyon for providing the link!) so I might have missed something, but I fail to see where the new bill requires or demands that a long-gun registry be kept. Rather the reverse is indicated at the start. Most of the bill is about the retention of the "restricted' and "prohibited" firearms (read 'handguns')
Even Tony Bernardo calls it a 'babystep in the right direction'.

They talk about a 'licence' being needed for ordinary 'firearms' as well, but we've had to have that in forms of 'F.A.C's' and P.O.L.'s anyway-which is NOT 'registration' of the guns themselves.

However this part concerns me; "105. An inspector who believes on reasonable grounds that a person possesses a firearm may, by demand made to that person, require that person, within a reasonable time after the demand is made, to produce the firearm in the manner specified by the inspector for the purpose of verifying the serial number or other identifying features of the firearm and of ensuring that, in the case of a prohibited firearm or a restricted firearm, the person is the holder of the registration certificate for it."

Now, I do NOT see Jason denying Wm. Lyon's assertations about the bill being a 'shell game' or a "paperless" ploy-but, if it WEAKENS the present registry in any way-I think perhaps we should 'go for it'? (Just reword-or put PRESSURE on-that #105 clause as it appears to DEMAND that the inspector 'verify the serial number' of ALL firearms!)

And Jason, I too am becoming more and more interested in this 'proposed' United West 'campaign'...

But for one thing, what I see here is a 'DIVISION'-a 'division' amongst us and amonst the Conservative Party and; "United we stand-divided we FALL!"
Denner
 
Posts: 179
Joined: 01/ 02/ 03 3:49 am

Postby Wlyonmackenzie » 07/ 31/ 06 2:34 pm

C.Morgan wrote:I think we determined rather early that the CPC policies and promises are rather flexible now that they are government.

It was laughable in a sad sort of way watching the apologists falling over themselves in their lemming like support of Harper.

There is no reason why this "promise" can't be tabled at least. Those who want to retain the registry will have to explain their case and stand behind it. Even if the motion loses, we will have opened the door.

Liberal, Tory same old story.


Well this is the frustrating thing isn't it...particularly for party members who sponsored and got this firearms policy submitted anf ratified and the stake holders the policy affects....there is a total black out on communication and inflo flow to these supporters!

In this case the CPC may very well fully intend for this bill to be just a small "start" to a longer term plan to fully dismantle the constitutional and civilly contentious portions of the firearms act.....and they may fully heroic be making a large gamble with this bill to do as much as they can for those they made a promise to "scrap" the registry....and they my be doing as much as possible in a minority situation that is not condusive to then "doing the right thing" to relieve the "criminal burden" from the nation's legally besieged duck hunters and target shooters.....BUT you would never know it by the abject secrecy, exclusivity and lack of communications from cabinet and the Ministers in charge!...Likewise, the ridiculous mixed messages in public statements from Day that indicate that this is as far as they intend to go with the contentious CC S(91 and S92) which continues to criminalize non criminal acts is here to stay...very mixed messaging and silence on clarification.

This is the thing that is most dangerous!...allowing rumor- speculation and feelings of betrayal fester in their core supporters...bloody stupid policy that will certainly send repercussions through the party membership and supporters.

It will be very hard to regain these people's trust once it is lost...and it is TRUST that holds the CPC organization and voter base together.

The current top-down secrecy in Cabinet/caucus is destroying trust within the party and its core support base in the west.
Of all tyrannies a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive; those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. - C.S. Lewis, In Freedom .

Celebrate Hard Likker and Handgun week here at the Shadowy GroupTM <img src="http://www.projectalberta.com/board/images/smiles/071.gif"> :libnot:
User avatar
Wlyonmackenzie
 
Posts: 14732
Joined: 10/ 30/ 02 8:04 pm
Location: Knee deep in Progressivist BS

Re: well

Postby Wlyonmackenzie » 07/ 31/ 06 3:05 pm

Denner wrote:Well guys-I have only read Bill c-21 once, (thanks here to Wm. Lyon for providing the link!) so I might have missed something, but I fail to see where the new bill requires or demands that a long-gun registry be kept. Rather the reverse is indicated at the start. Most of the bill is about the retention of the "restricted' and "prohibited" firearms (read 'handguns')
Even Tony Bernardo calls it a 'babystep in the right direction'.


Please re-read it with understanding....when a pice of legislations says "must" it means this is an administrative demand which carries criminal penalty for default. In the case of the retooled CC S92 no longer requires a registration certificat...however retooled S8 p(23) requires yo to report all long gun "transfers" and the details of same ( serial#, type of action etc?) to a federal firearms officer for an authorization to trnasfer...what do they check this gainst? The registry data of course ...otherwise it's redundency with criminal penaties for failing to comply.....SO in essence you may not be required to have a registry certificate with your long gun but you still need to report a sale or purchade or any transfer of ownership by unique detail....no verification and no required paper trail to prove you complied with "registering" your transaction...it's a paperless registry of all property transfers involving long guns that now makes you criminally liable for a groos propensity this system will have to make types or omission mistakes.

In pith and substance you still must "register" a sale or purchase or transfer of a long gun...just as you did before except you no longer are criminally liable for not having the registration papers on you.

They talk about a 'licence' being needed for ordinary 'firearms' as well, but we've had to have that in forms of 'F.A.C's' and P.O.L.'s anyway-which is NOT 'registration' of the guns themselves.


This is a dangerous assumption...the FAC was NOT a "licence" which implied criminal liability to simple ownership. The FAC was NOT mandatory to stay out of jail for simple possession of guns you already own...it was only required if you wanted to buy a new gun...ir was a screeing and certification that you were trustworthy with no criminal record.....a licence as introduced in CC S(91&92) essentially "outlaws" civilian possession of arms without the court prescribed "excuse" of a "licence"...which is a specifically tailored permission to break the law...and the law being broken under CC S(91) is simple non criminal possession of your rightful property ( firearms)

NEVER confuse licencing with certification...one outlaws property and activities and one recognizes non criminal use and ownership and certifies fitness to have access...day and night difference...one indemnifies criminal behaviour the other decriminalizes posession but recognized the need for reasonable fitness requirements to USE a firearm.


However this part concerns me; "105. An inspector who believes on reasonable grounds that a person possesses a firearm may, by demand made to that person, require that person, within a reasonable time after the demand is made, to produce the firearm in the manner specified by the inspector for the purpose of verifying the serial number or other identifying features of the firearm and of ensuring that, in the case of a prohibited firearm or a restricted firearm, the person is the holder of the registration certificate for it."


Well the onerous portions of the Firearms act that allow unilateral cancelation of a licence and reverse onus in challenge of the system, arbitrary reclassification that can ban all guns by sinple ministarial fait by moving a class of civilian arm to "prohibited" staus....unwarrantes search and siezure...it's all still intact.

Now, I do NOT see Jason denying Wm. Lyon's assertations about the bill being a 'shell game' or a "paperless" ploy-but, if it WEAKENS the present registry in any way-I think perhaps we should 'go for it'? (Just reword-or put PRESSURE on-that #105 clause as it appears to DEMAND that the inspector 'verify the serial number' of ALL firearms!)


Well it only appear to "weaken" the power of firearms bureaucrats or a future hostile government to abuse the systems sweeping powers but remember as long as sections 91, 92, 117 are intact and the minister and his police bureaucrats who run the system can decide what the criteria is for licencing or cancelling licences or which types of guns are restricted or prohibited....the gun bans that Martin attempeted to pull off in his election bid are totally possible without a vote in parliement.

Also remember that the hand gun registry and classifications remain the same making them a vulnerable to an arbitrary ministarial order in council Ban....simply by chaning their "calsss" to "prohibited"....just as was done with section 12(6) handguns.....there will also be no government compensation paid to the owners of the now banned and devalued property for their losses due to legislative caprice.


Don't get all warm and mushy about C-21 it is not a substantive change that decriminalizes non criminal ownership and use of common sporting arms.


But for one thing, what I see here is a 'DIVISION'-a 'division' amongst us and amonst the Conservative Party and; "United we stand-divided we FALL!"


Well I don't know about you but my loyalty to ANY government or party or any institution is CONDITIONAL...it is on the condition that I am dealt with fairly and honestly and in complience with constitutional and commonlaw rights....my loyalty is NOT lockstep.....repect me I respect you...respect my property and individual rights and I respect your authority to run POGG. Assault my rights and freedoms or defraud me and you lose my loyalty and my consent to be governed.
Of all tyrannies a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive; those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. - C.S. Lewis, In Freedom .

Celebrate Hard Likker and Handgun week here at the Shadowy GroupTM <img src="http://www.projectalberta.com/board/images/smiles/071.gif"> :libnot:
User avatar
Wlyonmackenzie
 
Posts: 14732
Joined: 10/ 30/ 02 8:04 pm
Location: Knee deep in Progressivist BS

Postby Wlyonmackenzie » 07/ 31/ 06 3:37 pm

Further analysis of C-21:

National Firearms Association

Canada's Most Effective Firearms Owners Association
http://www.nfa.ca


TRANSFERRING A RIFLE OR SHOTGUN UNDER THE NEW BILL C-21:



Underlining is for the purposes of this paper, and is not the same as in the Bill.



Section 8, page 5, creates this wording:



23(1) A person may transfer a firearm if, at the time of the transfer…



Note that the above wording includes an ordinary rifle or shotgun ("a firearm").



(b) the transferor [a dealer or an individual] has no reason to believe that the transferee is not authorized to acquire and possess that kind of firearm;



Note that this concatenates with the items below to prevent the transfer until a formal authorization is issued by a CFO, and prevents the transferor from transferring any firearm until he knows that a CFO's authorization has been issued.

(c) In the case of a transfer to an individual [by a dealer or another individual], the transferor informs a chief firearms officer and ­obtains the authorization of the chief firearms officer for the transfer…and

(e) the prescribed conditions are met.

Now: how is the authorization obtained?

Section 9, page 5, creates this wording:



27. On being informed of a proposed transfer of a firearm under section 23, a chief firearms officer shall

Note that the above wording includes an ordinary rifle or shotgun, and that the actions below are mandatory ("shall").



verify



Note the power of the word "verify." Verify means "To confirm or substantiate by oath or affidavit" (Black's law dictionary, 6th Edition) or "make sure that something is true, accurate, or justified; swear to or support (a statement) by affidavit" (Concise Oxford Dictionary). It requires the CFO to search records and computer files to find the information listed below, and to be certain enough to make an affidavit certifying the correctness of his analysis:



whether the transferee holds a licence [that requires a licence record check],


whether the transferee is still eligible to hold that licence [that requires a criminal record check, and a complete check to make sure that the transferee has not fallen into ineligibility under FA s. 5(2)(a)(I), (a)(ii), (a)(iii), (b), or (c) in the interval since he was issued his firearms licence], and



Note that the inclusion of FA s. 5(c) in the above list makes this a very complex investigation, and not just a CPIC check or check of recent criminal records--and that it must be done for every transfer.



whether the licence authorizes the transferee to acquire that kind of a firearm…



decide whether to approve the transfer… [That gives a lot of unjustifiable power to the CFO.]



Note that there is no requirement for the CFO to notify either the transferor or the transferee of his decision, which is a recipe for inability to determine the cause of a delay in authorization.



ANALYSIS and RED WARNING:



This wording sets up a very complex method of transferring an ordinary rifle or shotgun, and creates very real problems.



Obviously, the CFO has to do a lot before he can "authorize" such a transfer. What he "shall" do requires complex analysis of a human being, and the presence or absence of a licence is clearly not enough for him to be able to "verify" the things he is required to "verify."



The additional workload will require more staff in the office of each CFO. Probably more extra staff will have to be added to the CFO offices than the number of staff persons released from the current central processing site.



I submit that the bureaucrats who drafted the changes to FA s. 23 and 27 have produced a nightmare. For example, is the "authorization" by the CFO to be verbal or in writing? Is the "notification" of the CFO to be verbal or in writing? If either is to be verbal, what will happen in a court case involving a transfer that may not have been done to the standard, " the prescribed conditions are met" [FA s. 27(a)(iii)]?



This pattern, if adopted, leads inevitably into a system in which all the "notification" and "authorization" is done in writing, in order to provide the necessary records. Instead of a simple transfer of registration done at one national central processing sites (RCMP), transfers of ordinary rifles and shotguns will be done at each CFO's office, and there will be confusion when a rifle or shotgun is transferred from the jurisdiction of one CFO's office to the jurisdiction of another CFO's office. The confusion will probably be worse than a registration transfer, which does not require so much CFO activity. The transfer of a "restricted" or "prohibited firearm" requires an equivalent amount of activity in the Registrar's office, so the cost of transferring such a firearm will be approximately double the cost of transferring a non-restricted ordinary rifle or shotgun. The cost of transferring an ordinary rifle or shotgun will be higher than the current cost.


So there we are we are still "registering" long gun ( allegedly unrestricted arms) transfers by unique identifiers like the info on your registry form....how will they determine this gun is a legitimate fiream and not stolen? By referencing the current long gun registration data base...and of course up dating it accordingly along with all the costs of keeping the long gun data base entails...is this "scrapping" or "repealing: long gun rgistration? Not really if you are required to register sales, purchases or transfers.

Critique of Bill C-21 by Michael Martinoff ( a large Canadian sporting arms dealer)

It seems that the bureaucrats who wrote Bill C-21 slipped in a trap, at section 8(2), amending section 23 of the Firearms Act:

(c) in the case of a transfer to an individual, the transferor informs a chief firearms officer of the transfer and obtains the authorization of the chief firearms officer for the transfer;

That is back-door registration. It is totally unacceptable. It is one thing to require a licensed dealer to keep a record of his sales of firearms, but to impose that requirement on a private seller, leaving him vulnerable to criminal prosecution many years after a transfer if he lost the papers with which to prove that he "informed" a chief firearms officer and "obtained the authorization", is outrageous.

It seems that it can be defeated by "lending" a firearm to a person who is the holder of a firearms license with sufficient cash deposit to cover the loss if the borrower fails to return it, but failure to remove that provision would bring the government into disrepute.

Another odious provision of Bill C-21 is Firearms Act section:



27. On being informed of a proposed transfer of a firearm under section 23, a chief firearms officer shall



(a) verify



(i) whether the transferee holds a licence,



(ii) whether the transferee is still eligible to hold that licence, and



(iii) whether the licence authorizes the transferee to acquire that kind of firearm;



(b) in the case of a proposed transfer of a restricted firearm or a handgun referred to in subsection 12(6.1) (pre-December 1, 1998 handguns), verify the purpose for which the transferee wishes to acquire the restricted firearm or handgun and determine whether the particular restricted firearm or handgun is appropriate for that purpose;



(c) decide whether to approve the transfer and, in the case of a prohibited firearm or a restricted firearm, inform the Registrar of that decision; and



Provisions (b) and (c) must be deleted.

It is true that such provisions already exist, but let's not re-instate them. A person who has paid money and jumped through all the hoops to obtain a license should therefore be legally entitled to registration, period. Otherwise, why was he issued a license?

Under the rule of law, there is no place for arbitrary, bureaucratic interference in a person's exercise of his rights. The SCC said in the Firearms Act Reference that Ottawa may interfere in property rights in firearms but only to the extent necessary to conduct licensing and registration in the interest of public safety.

Either a person can be denied a license in the interest of public safety or he cannot. If he cannot be denied his license, then it is very important that he not be victimized by arbitrary, bureaucratic power after he obtains his license.

Why spend money on a license if a bureaucrat can withhold approval of a transfer?

Either we have the rule of law or we have bureaucratic despotism - which will it be?

If Bill C-21 is not amended, it hardly seems worth wasting time on it.

As pointed out earlier, the government can kill the registry by order-in-council, by declaring all firearms to be "antique firearms". (Section 84(1) "antique firearm" (b) of the Criminal Code)



Critique of Bill C-21 by
the Responsible Firearms Owners of BC

It is impossible to correctly analyze Bill C-21 until the accompanying Regulations are published. (Regulations are usually published after the passage of a Bill.)

The requirement to obtain permission to transfer a firearm is contained within the Bill - see: Section 8(2)(c), amending section 23 of the Firearms Act: (c) in the case of a transfer to an individual, the transferor informs a chief firearms officer of the transfer and obtains the authorization of the chief firearms officer for the transfer.

If the Regulation require identifying information - especially unique information - about the gun being transferred, then registration would still exist, albeit paperless registration. Only if NO firearms identification is required could the gun being transferred be considered to be 'not registered'.


Comparison of C-21 with existing Liberal legislation, by Bruce Mills:
http://www.diarmani.com/Action/C-21_Com ... Mills.html
Last edited by Wlyonmackenzie on 07/ 31/ 06 4:06 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Of all tyrannies a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive; those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. - C.S. Lewis, In Freedom .

Celebrate Hard Likker and Handgun week here at the Shadowy GroupTM <img src="http://www.projectalberta.com/board/images/smiles/071.gif"> :libnot:
User avatar
Wlyonmackenzie
 
Posts: 14732
Joined: 10/ 30/ 02 8:04 pm
Location: Knee deep in Progressivist BS

billc21

Postby Denner » 07/ 31/ 06 4:02 pm

"This pattern, if adopted, leads inevitably into a system in which all the "notification" and "authorization" is done in writing, in order to provide the necessary records. Instead of a simple transfer of registration done at one national central processing sites (RCMP), transfers of ordinary rifles and shotguns will be done at each CFO's office, and there will be confusion when a rifle or shotgun is transferred from the jurisdiction of one CFO's office to the jurisdiction of another CFO's office. The confusion will probably be worse than a registration transfer, which does not require so much CFO activity. The transfer of a "restricted" or "prohibited firearm" requires an equivalent amount of activity in the Registrar's office, so the cost of transferring such a firearm will be approximately double the cost of transferring a non-restricted ordinary rifle or shotgun. The cost of transferring an ordinary rifle or shotgun will be higher than the current cost."

Well I for one-am VERY compatible with the idea of "CONFUSION". It is what SAVED ME from 5 years in jail due to lost certificates, besides; "BullshIt baffles brains"! SO it COULD be our greatest ally!
If I could have MY way, the ONLY 'registry' would be a 'green card' which people would show that would require them to be LEFT ALONE (by the authorities) as they would have shown to be 'clean'. I'd PREFER to scrap the WHOLE thing-and START OVER working with NEW laws, or studying the ones/few that really work! (IF any such exist!)

Where did in C21 did it bring up 'cost'? (to a 'transferee' that is? I know it COSTS to run the whole d4mn thing-but that SHOULD work in our favor too-in short-the more money they LOSE/Spend on it-d4mnifies it even more, does it not? (choke...."2 billion dollar boondoggle"...cough...)

"requires yo to report all long gun "transfers" and the details of same ( serial#, type of action etc?) to a federal firearms officer for an authorization to trnasfer...what do they check this gainst? The registry data of course ..."

On NEW long-guns there wouldn't/shouldn't BE a registry to check this against. (and,. if the OLD registry isn't supposed to exist/be legal-once c-21 passes, what are they going to check other transfers against?)

And, I know that the 'pistol registry' is no better-but for now, we are JUST concerned with taking down the 'long-gun registry'. (I'm a pistol shooter.)
Denner
 
Posts: 179
Joined: 01/ 02/ 03 3:49 am

Postby littleharbour » 07/ 31/ 06 4:51 pm

The question I'd like to have answered is why so-cons should be willing to go to the wall on the gun control issue, when we get little support on our issues? Yes, there are some who are both strongly so-con and strongly opposed to gun control, but there are others who are ambivalent about gun control. Personally, I doubt that I will ever own a gun again given the cost of ownership and storage, so I oppose gun control from a more philosophical perspective. But it certainly isn't one of my top 10 issues.
User avatar
littleharbour
 
Posts: 19006
Joined: 11/ 01/ 03 3:00 pm

PreviousNext

Return to The Gun Room

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests