Cree hunter upset after Quebec police question if his guns are registered

stubblejumper said:
This guy is not making a fuss because he feels the law is wrong for all residents, he is making a fuss, because he feels natives such as himself , should not be bothered with such things. If the Quebec government simply made natives exempt, he wouldn't care if everyone else still had to comply. And an exemption for natives, would make it far less likely that the registry would be abolished.
Click to expand...

Right again...
 
Thomas D'Arcy McGee said:
Cree hunter upset after Quebec police question if his guns are registered

ht tps://ca.news.yahoo.com/cree-hunter-upset-quebec-police-110000643.html
Click to expand...



This man is a victim. He has been thoroughly oppressed. As an indigenous person, he should have the right to use unregistered long guns in Quebec, as penance for the decades of cultural genocide thrust upon him and his people. This right should be enshrined in law. Today!







...But tomorrow... Tomorrow the rest of Quebec files a complaint against this new racist law, and has the exemption extended to all persons in the province.


As Cam said, the “indigenous angle” is the most vulnerable chink in the registry’s armor (Paraphrased). We would do well to let others fight our battles for us, should they be willing.
 
kodiakjack said:
As Cam said, the “indigenous angle” is the most vulnerable chink in the registry’s armor (Paraphrased). We would do well to let others fight our battles for us, should they be willing.
Click to expand...

I don't care how it goes away, or if it goes away one piece at a time, as long as it goes away. And I won't be crying 'hang em high' if someone manages to escape its claws in the meantime.
 
When the government makes exemptions for one race or religion, it doesn't help the other people. Here in Alberta members of a certain religion are exempt from motorcycle helmet laws, but everyone else still has to comply.
 
stubblejumper said:
When the government makes exemptions for one race or religion, it doesn't help the other people. Here in Alberta members of a certain religion are exempt from motorcycle helmet laws, but everyone else still has to comply.
Click to expand...

And did anyone challenge it or are they continuing in quiet compliance? Obviously sitting on your hands and/or pointing at others' non-compliance will accomplish nothing.
 
1963beretta said:
no doubt the registry was useless...but are you suggesting that it was terminated because of non compliance and false information being provided?? It was terminated because of the costs it was incurring of running the program.....many multiples more then what was originally stated. The fact that the program sucked and didnt provide the benefits that politicians said it would certainly helped, but it wasnt because the vast number of people were intentionally non compliant
Click to expand...

Rates of non-compliance and lack of accuracy absolutely were part of the arguments made against the federal LGR. Low rates of compliance with the Quebec LGR are also at play now.
 
CV32 said:
And did anyone challenge it or are they continuing in quiet compliance? Obviously sitting on your hands and/or pointing at others' non-compliance will accomplish nothing.
Click to expand...

When you make exemptions for certain people, you reduce the odds of anyone challenging the law in court, especially when those people exempted, are the ones that would have their challenges paid for with the taxpayers money.
 
stubblejumper said:
When the government makes exemptions for one race or religion, it doesn't help the other people. Here in Alberta members of a certain religion are exempt from motorcycle helmet laws, but everyone else still has to comply.
Click to expand...

And if you go for a ride tomorrow with a spaghetti colander on your head, and go to court to defend your religious freedom, that exemption will be granted to you as well. It has to be.

How’s that saying from the 90’s go? “Hate the game, not the playa.” Or something? A bad law is being fought on multiple fronts by multiple parties for multiple reasons. Every bit helps.
 
stubblejumper said:
When you make exemptions for certain people, you reduce the odds of anyone challenging the law in court, especially when those people exempted, are the ones that would have their challenges paid for with the taxpayers money.
Click to expand...

Disagree. Exemptions tend to undermine the foundational philosophies for why the law was enacted in the first place. For example, why was the helmet law brought into being? Because safety. Does a Sikh's turban replace a helmet with respect to safety, and therefore fulfill the legislative purpose of that law? Nope.
 
Canada has already spoken for no more registry, and I thought firearms were a federal thing. So how can a province just deside to waste money on a registry again. Especially a province that is given billions every year from the rest of Canada. ???
 
wasagabeachboy said:
Canada has already spoken for no more registry, and I thought firearms were a federal thing. So how can a province just deside to waste money on a registry again. Especially a province that is given billions every year from the rest of Canada. ???
Click to expand...

Firearms are a bit of a shared jurisdiction issue between the federal government and the provinces. Criminal law, of course, is federal. All of the provinces and territories have legislation related to hunting and trapping which also includes some matters related to firearms. Some provinces have even more specific legislation aimed at firearms (like BC's Firearm Act.) Quebec, in its wisdom, decided it also wanted to get in on the ground floor of the asinine concept of gun registration.
 
CV32 said:
Disagree. Exemptions tend to undermine the foundational philosophies for why the law was enacted in the first place. For example, why was the helmet law brought into being? Because safety. Does a Sikh's turban replace a helmet with respect to safety, and therefore fulfill the legislative purpose of that law? Nope.
Click to expand...

Common sense doesn't matter to the courts, these days, the only things they seem to be willing to consider, is exemptions to satisfy certain races and religions, like no mandatory course for certain people for a PAL, or exemptions for a certain religion for motorcycle helmets. Those exemptions haven't led to the entire legislation being tossed out in any case that I am familiar with.
 
stubblejumper said:
Common sense doesn't matter to the courts, these days, the only things they seem to be willing to consider, is exemptions to satisfy certain races and religions.
Click to expand...

If you only pick and choose what court decisions to which you're paying attention, or only read the media articles that are attracted to drama, I suppose you might be led to believe that is true. But the bulk of the case law says otherwise.
 
CV32 said:
Rates of non-compliance and lack of accuracy absolutely were part of the arguments made against the federal LGR. Low rates of compliance with the Quebec LGR are also at play now.
Click to expand...

Part of the argument....yes
THE reason for abolishment....don't think so.

The Liberal government kept spending more than anticipated to fix the system, ballooning the program cost beyond any measurable expectations. The Conservatives eliminated it because it was fiscally prudent to do so. Would the LGR still exist if the costs remained as initially projected? I would certainly hope not for all the reasons many have already stated. But I wouldnt be surprised if it still did exist.
 
CV32 said:
If you only pick and choose what court decisions to which you're paying attention, or only read the media articles that are attracted to drama, I suppose you might be led to believe that is true. But the bulk of the case law says otherwise.
Click to expand...
Then how about giving us a few examples where exemptions for certain races or religions led to legislation being abolished altogether?
 
CV32 said:
If you only pick and choose what court decisions to which you're paying attention, or only read the media articles that are attracted to drama, I suppose you might be led to believe that is true. But the bulk of the case law says otherwise.
Click to expand...

My point exactly about anti’s reading this article
 
1963beretta said:
Part of the argument....yes THE reason for abolishment....don't think so. The Liberal government kept spending more than anticipated to fix the system, ballooning the program cost beyond any measurable expectations. The Conservatives eliminated it because it was fiscally prudent to do so. Would the LGR still exist if the costs remained as initially projected? I would certainly hope not for all the reasons many have already stated. But I wouldnt be surprised if it still did exist.
Click to expand...

There was no one reason for the abolition of the LGR, and it certainly was not purely because of fiscal concerns.
 
stubblejumper said:
Then how about giving us a few examples where exemptions for certain races or religions led to legislation being abolished altogether?
Click to expand...

I was speaking generally about your comment regarding 'common sense' in court decisions, but I am sure you have heard that Quebec's new secularism law will effectively remove some of the religious freedoms that its public servants previously enjoyed, and invoke the notwithstanding clause to keep the Charter (in many respects this country's most fundamental piece of legislation) from intervening.

Last summer the Supreme Court of Canada refused to recognize Trinity Western's religious requirements that it wanted to impose in a new law school.

Race or religion is not the free pass that you might think it is.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom