Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 25

Thread: New Firearms LAW proposed in Canada westrifle.com

  1. #11
    CGN Regular theED's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Montreal
    Posts
    255
    This will not remove any oppression on gun owner and not make our life easier than before.
    We are sport shooter and if they want to make us fully enjoy practicing our sport they should think getting rid of magazine restriction and considering allowing shooting suppressed in order to reduce noise pollution while shooting in the bush or at the range.
    This would satisfy owner and non gun owner too.

  2. #12
    CGN Regular mobusten's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Central BC
    Posts
    448
    Lose the ATT's entirely and loosen if not remove mag limits. I should be able to shoot pistols anywhere I can shoot a rifle. The only thing that I don't have a problem with is the grace period for expired licenses.

  3. #13
    CGN Regular PPCLIGullyPlatoon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    298
    It's a start. I like the idea of being able to transport without an ATT, but the rest seems a little "fluffy" for my liking:

    1) "Mandatory safety courses for first-time gun owners:" This is already being done, so nothing has changed there, [I]unless[I] someone is proposing additional safety courses??

    2) "Gun owners convicted of domestic assault-related crimes would also be at greater risk of losing their guns, as judges would be given more discretion to remove guns in the case of certain offences:" Currently, in almost every case where a firearm owner is before the Courts for "domestic matters," the Crown Attorney is asking for a prohibition order, whether it's conviction or discharge. Another "touted" change which is already being done.

    3) "The RCMP previously reclassified the Swiss Arm Classic Green rifle as "prohibited," which essentially banned it:" In my books, the RCMP SHOULD NOT have the authority to arbitrarily and unilaterally reclassify any firearm --- it is my assertion the RCMP should focus on enforcement of laws and not creation of them. If the RCMP feels a particular weapon should be reclassified, then the matter should be presented and debated like any other legislation. Regardless of firearm, whatever the legal conditions are at the time the owner acquires that firearm should remain unchanged regardless of legislative change (ie "grandfathering"). Just a thought; no owner should have to be concerned about an uncompensated loss of their right to ownership because some future authority changes the status of the legality ---- I guess what I am saying is, if the "authorities" say such-and-such a firearm is now deemed "illegal," then that "authority" should compensate the owner fairly.
    "This is my country, there are many like it, but this one is mine---------"

  4. #14
    CGN Regular theED's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Montreal
    Posts
    255
    Quote Originally Posted by PPCLIGullyPlatoon View Post
    It's a start. I like the idea of being able to transport without an ATT, but the rest seems a little "fluffy" for my liking:

    1) "Mandatory safety courses for first-time gun owners:" This is already being done, so nothing has changed there, [I]unless[I] someone is proposing additional safety courses??

    2) "Gun owners convicted of domestic assault-related crimes would also be at greater risk of losing their guns, as judges would be given more discretion to remove guns in the case of certain offences:" Currently, in almost every case where a firearm owner is before the Courts for "domestic matters," the Crown Attorney is asking for a prohibition order, whether it's conviction or discharge. Another "touted" change which is already being done.

    3) "The RCMP previously reclassified the Swiss Arm Classic Green rifle as "prohibited," which essentially banned it:" In my books, the RCMP SHOULD NOT have the authority to arbitrarily and unilaterally reclassify any firearm --- it is my assertion the RCMP should focus on enforcement of laws and not creation of them. If the RCMP feels a particular weapon should be reclassified, then the matter should be presented and debated like any other legislation. Regardless of firearm, whatever the legal conditions are at the time the owner acquires that firearm should remain unchanged regardless of legislative change (ie "grandfathering"). Just a thought; no owner should have to be concerned about an uncompensated loss of their right to ownership because some future authority changes the status of the legality ---- I guess what I am saying is, if the "authorities" say such-and-such a firearm is now deemed "illegal," then that "authority" should compensate the owner fairly.


    Make sense !

  5. #15
    CGN frequent flyer tinbird's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    1,814
    [QUOTE=PPCLIGullyPlatoon;10312683]It's a start. I like the idea of being able to transport without an ATT, but the rest seems a little "fluffy" for my liking:

    1) "Mandatory safety courses for first-time gun owners:" This is already being done, so nothing has changed there, [I]unless[I] someone is proposing additional safety courses??

    1) I read this to include more practical training and I would like to know who will be authorized to conduct this training as it will likely involve live fire and qualification exercises requiring range time, also will the training going to require current instructors to take further training to upgrade?

    2) Agree with PPCLIGullyPlatoons statement

    3) The RCMP firearms section should only provide input and not dictate, further, in the case of some firearms that are convertible what is the definition of 'easily convertible', it would seem that some firearms can only be converted provided you have extensive machinist skills and and fully equipped shop and basically perform enough machining operations that it would probably be easier to machine a whole new receiver from scratch, in which case I would ask what is the concern all about?
    If it is a firearm that a hammer, dremel, gorilla tape and two beers worth of effort can easily convert to fully auto then I could at least see where the 'knickers in a twist' syndrome raised by the terrified masses arose from.

    Of concern to me as it has the potential to immediately affect all renewing applicants is the removal of the criminal status for expired PAL/RPAL. This situation in my mind occurred as a result of federal cutbacks and the elimination of employee positions. It's all fine and dandy to say we aren't going to paint you with the criminal brush because your PAL/RPAL has expired.
    What guarantees are being put into place on the maximum processing time the renewal process will take. In other words, will there be a policy as to the maximum length of time permitted by the government to issue the new permit? I got caught up in this one after submitting my renewal months in advance of expiration and only received my renewed RPAL almost 4 full months after it had expired (December to March) which prevented me from purchasing ammo/firearms or going to a range. Worse yet I only received it after calling my MP's office and complaining. So unless the government is going to put into place a policy similar to other agencies regarding the processing times and clearly stating that there is a maximum processing time, then it will make for an easy way to regulate without penalty. i.e. if the firearm owners don't have valid paperwork then they can't do a whole lot with their firearms.

  6. #16
    Newbie TurboTurtle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    2

    Proposed law, the RCMP & CFO's

    The RCMP is and all ways has been been a LE agency here in Canada. Law Enforcement agencies are just that, a group of people that Enforce the law, they do not nor should not be able to create law. A long hard look should be taken at the CFO's and the RCMP and ensure they no longer are able create laws even by byproduct of their decisions that effect Canada's citizens.
    While I agree that this new common sense bill that has been proposed would be a small step in the right direction further measures should be taken. My self and others have been screaming for a new body of true experts to be formed and review the weapons in Canada and how they are classed and reclassify where warranted. For to long the knee jerk reaction style classification of fire arms has prevailed, the news or some other ignorant group says "That fire arm is evil!" and it is suddenly on the Prohib for a invalid reason.
    Just my rant and two cents worth.

  7. #17
    Member notdeadyet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    Ontario
    Posts
    59
    Quote Originally Posted by PPCLIGullyPlatoon View Post
    It's a start. I like the idea of being able to transport without an ATT, but the rest seems a little "fluffy" for my liking:

    1) "Mandatory safety courses for first-time gun owners:" This is already being done, so nothing has changed there, [I]unless[I] someone is proposing additional safety courses??
    This change is about removing the ability to challenge so that new gun owners must complete the required "in class" hours of training with the CRFSC materials.

    Anyone can pass a challenge if they skimmed the manual but they may not obtain the same level of understanding provided in an interactive classroom setting where they and others can ask questions, etc. I don't think this is necessarily a bad idea. There have been questionable practices in the administration of challenge tests with some outfits offering $40-60 fees and guaranteed pass.

    Quote Originally Posted by PPCLIGullyPlatoon View Post
    2) "Gun owners convicted of domestic assault-related crimes would also be at greater risk of losing their guns, as judges would be given more discretion to remove guns in the case of certain offences:" Currently, in almost every case where a firearm owner is before the Courts for "domestic matters," the Crown Attorney is asking for a prohibition order, whether it's conviction or discharge. Another "touted" change which is already being done.
    This one seems just like optics. They already have the ability to pull a PAL/RPAL from someone if they are convicted at any time of a violent crime.

  8. #18
    Newbie Blancsanglier's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    29
    Thank you Conservative party.
    We do not have all the details but the bill looks promising, not everything that we may want but a good start.
    The promised reduction of the power of the RCMP and the CFO should go a long way to stop some of the silly rule changes that have troubled us.

    Although I may like more I do not find anything I disagree with.

    B.

  9. #19
    CGN Regular
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    249
    Everyone just needs to take a deep breath. This is a GOOD thing. Whether we like it or not, there is no government/party in Canada that could remove all regulations and still be in power. It's unfortunate that many Canadians are misinformed and fearful of firearms, but it's a reality, and the government is elected to support their opinion/kiss public ass so that they remain in power.

    Nobody thought the registry would end, and it did, now they are continuing to take practical and slow steps.

    We also need to be weary of RCMP interference, but realise that the fault is NOT the RCMP, it was the idiots who wrote the law. By the law, the RCMP actually did the correct thing- depending on interpretation, which is the problem.

    The law allows for interpretation and it should not. The Swiss Arms is the fault of whoever in the RCMP let it in without making sure it wasn't a "variant". I don't agree with anything to do with variants or converted autos being prohibited AT ALL- but that is what is in the law. The loophole is that there is no definition of variant, and that they are allowed to later reclassify. In fact, if whoever inspected the rifle found that it was a variant- they were bound by the CCoC to report it. That's not making policy or law- it's enforcing a disgustingly repressive, and staggeringly poorly written piece of legislation. The CZ858 issue is also not the fault of the RCMP, it's the fault of CZ. Following the law as it's written, substituting a reciever in production does not change the firearm- it creates a new firearm. This new firearm was not approved. The RCMP didn't go after all CZs, it didn't go after the CSA manufactured versions- they went after the new firearm which was made by CZ. Interpretation is an issue- but that's the fault of the legislators. Looking at what the RCMP did, they enforced the law as it is written- they didn't make a new one.

    Again, I don't agree with 90% of what is written into Canadian firearms law. However we need to take a collective breath- and push our elected officials by showing our approval. Gun control is a slippery slope- so is it's repeal. Lets get out there, make phone calls, send letters, and donate as necessary. KEEP THE PRESSURE UP!

  10. #20
    Expired Business Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Vancouver
    Posts
    1,829

    New Firearms LAW proposed in Canada westrifle.com

    Anyone knows what is going on with this matter? Any news? I can't find anything.

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •