Discussions

I have already signed this Petition and told everyone I could about it. I heard the CCFR has a lawyer and they are going to court on behalf of not just the gun owners but the people to fight for section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Feerdoms. Provides that “everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice. They would like to see Bill Blair removed. They have more information on their website but like you said this is not just about guns it’s to to with the Charter of Rights and abusing their powers. They have a airsoft gun on the list. Bolt actions and to top it off they have shotguns with chokes on it because when the choke is removed the bore is larger then 20mm on most 10 gauge and 12 gauge shot guns does not matter the action. Bill Blair tweeted that he did not mean to have shot guns on the list but the lawyers say it’s on the list and you do not want to be the first one they make an example of. In the House of Commons it was said to Bill Blair that the RCMP and police will go by what is written in the law not by what Bill Blair tweeted. To use the Nova Scotia tragedy to push their agenda is disgusting. This was not an emergency and was not well thought out. Just a political opportunity to pass through their law as part of their agenda during a time of crisis. Shame on them.  
 
Edited by ryan2193, 2020-05-10 00:21:16

We the lawful firearm owners of Canada would like to call on The Right Honorable Justin Trudeau, as a show of solidarity and understanding in relation to the May 1, 2020 “assault style” rifle ban to hereby relinquish and consider as banned the 1960 Mercedes Benz 300SL owned by Mr. Trudeau and passed down to Mr. Trudeau by his late father Mr. Pierre Trudeau.  
We feel that Mr. Trudeau should surrender this vehicle for the following reasons:  
1. The maximum speed limit anywhere in Canada is 120 KM/h (74.57 Mph), a Mercedes Benz 300SL can achieve 257 KM/h (160 Mph) far in excess of the legal limit. We believe that no one needs a race car to go buy milk.  
2. This vehicle looks like it will go very fast and looks like it was made to serve no other purpose than to participate in illegal street racing. Street racing has cost many lives in Canada and there is no place in Canada for a vehicle who’s only purpose is to street race.  
3. Drinking and driving as well as impaired driving under the influence of drugs is a major issue in Canada and in particular the use of race car style vehicles has been shown to be a major factor on Canada’s roads.  
We understand that Mr. Trudeau may have a reluctance to surrender his privately owned property and may site such reasons as:  
• I’m a lawful driver  
• I have a driver’s license  
• My vehicle is registered  
• Only criminals drive over the speed limit  
• Only criminals drink and drive  
• Only criminals drive under the influence of drugs  
• Only criminals street race  
• The appearance of my vehicle has nothing to do with its operational capabilities  
• My vehicle is very expensive  
• My vehicle was lawfully acquired  
• My vehicle is a family heirloom  
• Confiscation of my vehicle will not stop street racing, drinking and driving or driving under the influence of drugs.  
We, the lawful firearms owner’s of Canada understand and appreciate Mr. Trudeau’s possible concerns and as such, we believe that there should be options for Mr. Trudeau, these can i:nclude:  
• A buy back program (we call on the Canadian government to buy back Mr’ Trudeau’s Mercedes Benz 300 SL and offer him a price to be decided by a low level bureaucrat who knows nothing about vehicles, perhaps someone from Fisheries and Oceans)  
• Surrender without compensation.  
• Grandfathering (no use, transport, sale of the vehicle to be permitted, the vehicle must remain locked in a sea can at all times until Mr. Trudeau passes or decides to surrender the vehicle with no compensation).  
• Deactivation (The engine compartment to be encased in concrete, door and trunk welded shut “Boots” applied to all wheels and welded closed.)  
We thank Mr. Trudeau and fully believe that he will want to participate in the banning and confiscation of his beloved family heirloom for the safety of all Canadians and as a show of solidarity with the lawful firearms owners whom he lords over.

Why: http://angusreid.org/assault-weapons-ban/  
 
and  
 
Why not: http://www.mywestman.ca/opinion/8810-editorial-new-gun-law-targets-law-abiding-citizens  
 
and a link to the petition : https://petitions.ourcommons.ca/en/Petition/Details?Petition=e-2574

We, the undersigned unwilling potential victims of gun crime, ask Mr. Trudeau to fully commit to his regulatory prohibition and give it the force of legislation. The force it deserves  
 
We believe that if you require 5 rapid-fire shots to fell a deer then it is your ability and not your equipment you need to address. For centuries hunters managed to bag their prey with a single shot rifle and we would suggest that, in spite the prevalance of the Canadian super deer.  
 
We recognize that responsible gun owners are responsible. Each parent of a gun firearm death of a toddler, each former owner of a stolen gun and each mass shooter would have bled responsibility the day before the deed.  
 
There is a notion that the existence of shooting sports is sufficient justification to allow for the possession of these weapons. We feel that this is a weak rationale. Sports evolve, adapt and die, it was always thus and always thus will be.  
If the sport and irs participants are so fragile as to be incapable of adaptation then perhaps extinction is appropriate.  
 
We know that gun owners are responsible  
We further know that everyone is responsible - until they aren't. We see the consequences of irresponsibity as being to high to justify indulging this frivolous hobby.  
 
We are aware and eternally grateful that Canadians do not suffer under a 2nd amendment and thus, thankfully, have no right to own guns.  
 
Mr. Trudeau, we ask that you codify and expand this ban in the joint interests of common sense and continuing Canada's progress on the path of civilization.

Agreed.  
 
But I am not unreasonable. Non-functional models have the benefit of being publicly displayable without the risk. And if you must have a live model, then storage in a locked room at a gun club is a great location.  
 
I know that such a suggestion didn't bode well last time I brought it up. However, last I checked, bank vaults were fairly safe from such thefts.  
 
It can be done.

Ryan2193 what you posted is so accurate. I have signed the petition.

...when there is a drunk driving accident we blame the driver not the car?? When there is a bombing we blame the bomber and not the bomb?? Yet....when there is a shooting we blame the gun and not the shooter? It’s like dog attacks...don’t blame the breed blame the deed. I do feel there are some guns that do not need to be so accessible but this i:ncludes shot guns for heavens sake!

I am a legal owner of restricted firearms and I support the proposed legislation. Obtaining a license to own restricted firearms is easier than becoming fully licensed to drive a vehicle in many Canadian jurisdictions. Most Canadians do not realize how easy it is to acquire and own either non-restricted or restricted firearms. To acquire and own my restricted firearms, I spent two days in a classroom - you don't need to know anything about how to shoot - you just have to be capable of safely handling firearms. Then I applied for the license. That's it. To obtain a driver's license I had to go through a graduated licensing program. I also spent a week in classroom and several hours in a vehicle with an instructor so that I could cut a few months off of my graduated licensing and lower my insurance costs. (This wasn't in Manitoba).  
 
For the pleasure of owning a vehicle, I also have to pay yearly license costs, vehicle registration costs, and insurance in case I hurt someone with it. For my firearms? Just the 5 year license renewal costs.  
 
It's ludicrous to compare vehicle ownership with firearm ownership. Vehicles have a very valid purpose, but we also are more stringent in allowing people to acquire and own them.  
 
There is no reason anyone needs the firearms that would be banned under the legislation, and that's coming from a legal gun owner.

Unknown3710 said:  
 
"stand up with us as one against the government to preserver our fundamental God given rights. If we don’t speak up now in time we will lose our charter of rights and our freedoms."  
 
God given rights? Are you following U.S. politics and mistaking their 2nd Amendment with the Canadian Charter of Rights? How can you claim that gun ownership is a 'God Given Right'?  
---------  
 
"Canadians, unlike Americans, do not have a constitutional right to bear arms," the high court (Supreme Court) stated in 1993, in a decision over the possession of convertible semi-automatic weapons.  
 
"Most Canadians prefer the peace of mind and sense of security derived from the knowledge that the possession of automatic weapons is prohibited," said the court.  
 
Source: https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/is-gun-ownership-a-legal-right-in-canada-1.2723893  
 
Have you ever had or known a family who has lost a family member due to gun violence? Ask those families about their stance on it. A local family just wrote a heartwrenching and touching letter to the editor posted in the local newspaper about guns regarding their beloved daughter (Mom of small children) who was an unfortunate victim at a Vegas concert due to rapid fire gun violence. Everyone should read that and put themselves in those shoes.  
 
I support the Canadian Government in their proactive stance that differentiates us from the massive, daily gun violence in the States.  
 
https://www.latimes.com/politics/story/2019-08-06/is-there-something-wrong-with-us-new-story  
 
If anything, please think about it.

I absolutely signed the petition and I can give two reasons why I believed it was important to do so:  
 
1. There was absolutely no democracy to this. It was a heavy handed dictatorial action thrown into a pandemic following a tragedy where the new controls would have made no difference whatsoever.  
 
2. It was a move driven by fear and misinformation. "Assault Style" and "Military Grade" are terms developed to cause fear and panic. There was no logic to this.  
 
Whether you like guns or don't, this gun ban is an attack on democracy and fact based decision making. It is this attack that warranted the signing of this petition, in my opinion.

I feel for all those that have been effected from gun violence drunk drivers stabbings and many other ways we have lost loved ones. This legislation is a slap in the face to many and those that have posted in-favor for it also. I am shocked of your opinions. You have 2 neighbors one on each side of you and you are a strong supporter of this bill? One neighbor has their guns taken away and the other neighbor due to this law can lawfully have the very same weapon? I hope you feel safer today as you are the problem to allow this to happen.

I feel like you have grossly oversimplified the license process. Yes as a law abiding citizen there is easy access to the PAL process. But you are wrong on many parts. For one you have to attend a 5-6 hour course to get your PAL and then another 5-6 course to get your restricted. If you have an issue (didn’t follow that process) you should report the instructor. During the course the instructor should be assessing if they believe you are responsible enough before passing you. Then after that you must pay $60 on top of the course to have your criminal history checked by the RCMP before obtaining your license.  
 
You do realize the Bill has already noted plans to ban 12 guage shotguns (based on barrel calibre). If you truly appreciated the privilege to own and fire any firearm you would oppose the bill.

there is a lot of naive people on here. If you think the government will stop at this latest grab, think again.

As a non owner, other than an .77 airgun, (vermin use) I see both sides of the argument.  
I do not think the ban will reduce violence from those who commit same. They will obtain weapons illegally as they do currently.  
What seems to need to be done is to increase the traceabiity of weapons, better checks at borders, yes it will take longer to cross, x raying of all vehicles and possibly even railcars.  
Combined with an annual, unannounced, home check on registered owners to ensure that gun safes are being used and fit for the purpose.  
Ultimately guns will drop out of fashion if the generations now achieving adulthood choose not to be owners.  
I accept that responsible, properly licensed owners should still have the right to hold weapons providing they fulfil all the regulations.  
This law will not stop criminals or others obtaining weapons if they really want them, but we can make it much more difficult for them by taking proper storage options.

My caveat is that I support limited gun ownership. I grew up hunters and farmers in the family, and I support that type of ownership.  
 
My question to those who oppose the ban - what is the purpose of a gun?  
 
Is a collectable? Is it tool? Is it a sport? What is the purpose of a gun?  
 
If it's a collectable, just because it's "collectable" doesn't make it safe. You can collect hand grenades and land mines, but that would be a foolish thing to do. Reasonableness must become part of the equation.  
 
If it's a tool, what purpose does the type of weapon this ban target? What is the general purpose of a gun? (I'll give you a hint - it's to kill things.) Does banning the type of weapon that is now banned diminish the ability of people to do their jobs or tasks with this important tool?  
 
If it's for sport, again there needs to be a degree of reasonableness, like collectability. Shooting is a legitimate sport (skeet shooting is actually pretty fun), but like another poster said, adapt or die. Many things are prohibited as "sport", like dog fighting, because they're dangerous, inhumane, or any other myriad of reasons.  
 
Also, this isn't an either/or proposition. It's not like we're going to ban these weapons, but then throw our hands up and say we don't need to do enforcement now. It simply becomes another tool in the enforcement tool box.  
 
The reality is that something like 80-90% of our illegal guns come from the US. Besides border enforcement, there's not a lot we can do about that. But we *can* do something about that 10-20% that originates within Canada. Pretty much every illegal gun starts it's life as a legal gun somewhere, somehow. The less legal guns there are, the less illegal guns there will be. It's math.

I own several of the banned guns. One of them is a Mini-14 .223 rifle. Its limited to 5 round magazines the same as every center fire rifle in Canada. I use it to shoot coyotes and ground hogs (animals that often require quick followup shots), what I would consider to be a legitimate use. It looks and functions like many other guns complete with a wood stock. The public has been shown this model of rifle and many other like it with a black synthetic stock with various cosmetic differences to make it look like something you see in your favorite action film. Lets also not forget they always like remind us that it was used in the Montreal shooting in the 1980's before the magazine restrictions were in place. That shooting could not be completed in 2020.  
 
I also have a semiautomatic rifle used for deer hunting that was passed down to me by my grandfather. Its served a valid purpose for longer then I have been alive but now I am unable to even legally transport it to a new home if I purchased one all because Trudeau has determined it has no legitimate use unless you are aboriginal and use it for hunting. The value to me of this gun exceeds anything the government would ever offer in a buy back.  
 
This has all come about because of the Nova Scotia shooting which took place over a very extended period of time, The shooter could have done the same deeds with a bolt action rifle. Lets not forget how many people died in fires, I haven't seen any ban the matches legislation yet.

The why link is complete BS  
 
They surveyed 1500 people total in all of Canada and none in rural areas where people are more likely to own and use firearms as part of a lifestyle.

You can E petition all you want. Your can jump up and down all you want. You can demonstrate in the streets all you want but you will still be on the wrong side of public opinion that clearly shows 2/3 s of Canadians want more gun control and a consistently high number of 80% favour outright banning of any type of assault rifle.  
During the last election the Conservative Party was the only party against further gun restrictions in their campaign platform and again they only received 34% of the popular vote.  
Don't "shoot" the messenger here whether you like it or not that is how Democracy works.

To all the people who support bans like this, just remember your arguments used here when the government bans your pointy kitchen knives and uses the same bull against you.  
 
FWIW, I fully supported the legalization of weed, as much as I hate the smell I always felt people should have the freedom to enjoy it, regardless of the health or safety aspects of it, I had hoped people would be as forgiving of me regarding my hobby, but alas it is not to be.  
 
Edited by hutchster, 2020-05-10 14:39:11

This ban was brought in by an "order in council" which is a process used to change laws, make appointments, etc., by a government since 1867.  
Actually over 21000 such orders have been issued since 2004.  
The government of the day can choose to publish them as the Liberals did or not! Fact is that there are still 25 orders in council hidden from the days of the previous Conservative government.  
So to suggest this process is undemocratic is simply wrong.  
 
Edited by DarMar, 2020-05-10 14:48:48

Just my thoughts on this, and I could be way out to lunch here, but this ban has nothing to do with safety, and everything to do with politics...  
So, the areas of Canada that people own the firearms on the ban are mostly in the prairie provinces, in which the Liberals don't really have a chance of having popularity no matter what they do. So, making gun owners mad in areas that he doesn't have a chance really doesn't effect his chances of re-election. However, the population out east that is more likely to be either liberal or undecided, may favour a gun ban when brought in during the emotional time after this tragic shooting. I would take a guess that this gun ban was drafted years ago and they were waiting for the right time to put it in place.  
Some handguns, that could be much more dangerous than most of the firearms on the list, happen to not have made the list. Just happens those are popular at gun clubs out east....

You could be right on many of your thoughts but to suggest that everyone east is a Liberal or undecided is a problem.  
Outside of Alberta and Saskatchewan the people are Not undecided. They are actually represented by the Libs, Ndp, Greens and the Bloc. ALL of those parties favour more gun control so yes they are all governing according to the wishes of their people which just happens to be the majority of Canadians.  
 
Edited by DarMar, 2020-05-10 15:07:45

If I'm not sure which side of an issue I'm on and in this case, I do know which side I'm on, I always ask myself which side is the side of freedom. In other words, whenever I'm not sure, I always choose the side of freedom. This is just another case where people who have done absolutely nothing wrong are going to be forced to give up another freedom. Instead of blaming the killer, blame the gun he used and the car he was driving and then ban both. Complete stupidity, but then what would you expect?

in the petition is that the addition of these weapons needs to go though the law making and House of Commons vote and what was done is illegal. But this is just an amendment to an existing regulation (Orders in Council) in the Criminal Code. Something that happens often, Harper made many changes without going through the process that Conservatives seem to think Trudeau should of gone through.  
 
You can search through all the Orders in Council.  
https://orders-in-council.canada.ca/  
 
The PC number for the recent changes are 2020-0299 and 2020-0298.  
 
So this is not the road to dictatorship or anything illegal. Orders in Council is legal and has been used in the past by many Prime Ministers including Harper. Harper never had to go through legislation to make changes using the Orders in Council.  
 
Edited by Trevor B, 2020-05-10 16:33:22

a search for the time during Harper's stint as PM (Feb. 6 2006 to Nov. 4 2015), over 17,000 orders were made. While not all are specifically changes Harper as PM did.  
 
So ya, nothing illegal. No need to go through the full legislative process since it's not a new law. It's been in effect since 1867.  
 
Guess in a way it's similar to Executive Orders that the US Presidents can make. They can make these orders to change things without going through the House and Senate.  
 
Sadly many will just ignore these facts and just continue on the political rants.

I have not said that this ban is illegal despite my views that it is somewhat dictatorial. My main concern is there is no common sense involved. Banning a weapon based on how it looks rather than how it operates is ludicrous at best.

What actually is an assault rifle?  
 
Anyone?  
 
It’s a made up gun classification that really scares people. Especially Canadians, most of them, have no idea about current gun laws.  
 
This fact is the liberals greatest tool.  
 
When 3/4’s of the population of the country has no idea about current gun laws or even which end the the bullet exits, this chit happens.  
 
U don’t need to own one, but u should know a little bit about them and the laws sorrounding firearms in Canada. Then u would see how pathetic this move is.

process is still perfectly legal despite what you think the addition of these weapons to the banned list may be. This petition is claiming that these changes to add these weapons should of gone through the full legislative process. And require debate and vote in the House of Commons, it does not. The Orders in Council is not a dictatorial process.  
 
A future Conservative PM can do an Orders in Council to remove those weapons from the banned list. And they can do it without going through the House of Commons debate and vote.

Absolutely correct, any future Gov't has the ability to amend this OIC.  
 
However, don't hold your breath for that to happen as any of the current Conservative policies and thinking are blatantly on the wrong side of majority of Canadians. Just 2 items: gun control and climate action come to mind.  
 
Like it or not we ultimately say we want the government to listen to the people that elected them, so this is OIC is the result.