So where are we now?

[lintocs]

what do you mean by "there has never been a firearms seizure before"?
I seem to recall the Spaz-12 shotguns were seized from their owners.

Is that so? I guess I missed that. I'm googling but haven't found anything as yet.

Ok, I dug into this and although the Spaz 12 was prohibited (probably because of the removable folding stock) I can find no evidence it was seized from owners. It's *possible* that because it was prohibited (no import) that some units were seized by customs Canada.

Can anyone provide a link with regard to firearms being seized in Canada that is not related to the commission of a crime? Or can someone confirm that they own or owned a Spaz 12?

 

[shms]

I guess my question is what is included in a military style assault weapon ban. What does that actually mean. Also I agree that there probably be another election before anything is done.

 

[rangebob]

https://www.canadianjusticereviewboard.ca/reports-papers/civil-forfeiture-in-canada

The civil forfeiture laws are provincial, not federal, and you would still get your day in court.

That's civil forfeiture.
But that's not the only way things can get confiscated in Canada. There are several.

e.g.
Canada Consumer Product Safety Act
Allows the Health Minister, with a signature or delegated authority, to confiscate any consumer product. Can you think of anything that isn't a consumer product? The light switches and drywall in your home are a consumer product.
If the government decides to store it, it requires the citizen it was taken from to pay for storage, indefinitely, whatever the cost of the government building its stored in.
You may appeal the decision of the Minister, by sending a letter to the same Minister who made the decision. You may not appeal to court.

 

[lintocs]

That's civil forfeiture.
But that's not the only way things can get confiscated in Canada. There are several.

e.g.
Canada Consumer Product Safety Act
Allows the Health Minister, with a signature or delegated authority, to confiscate any consumer product. Can you think of anything that isn't a consumer product? The light switches and drywall in your home are a consumer product.
If the government decides to store it, it requires the citizen it was taken from to pay for storage, indefinitely, whatever the cost of the government building its stored in.
You may appeal the decision of the Minister, by sending a letter to the same Minister who made the decision. You may not appeal to court.

This law is to prohibit the sale and manufacture of unsafe goods. It could not be used to seize something from a consumer nor was it written that way.

The words "sell" "advertise" and "manufacture" feature throughout.

People should consider the possibility that activists or other malicious actors use forums like this to communicate falsehoods throughout the community. Please be skeptical, particularly of people who advise you to ignore the law.

 

[rangebob]

This law is to prohibit the sale and manufacture of unsafe goods. It could not be used to seize something from a consumer nor was it written that way.

There is no actual limit on its usage -- it's up to the whim of the Minister. It would be better to say that it would not be used, and has not been used to seize, except where a product has been believed to be unsafe with some evidence. There's a nice list at the end of the Act in Schedule 2 of things they have thought were unsafe. I think the most recent usage was with some sort of anti-acne cream. When it was passed by the Conservatives in 2010, there were lots of articles in the Toronto Star (and a couple CGN threads) about how draconian the possibilities were.

 

[rangebob]

Can anyone provide a link with regard to firearms being seized in Canada that is not related to the commission of a crime?

I'm a little vague on that too at the moment.
There were a bunch of civil lawsuits around the turn of the century, that I think got ended by Bill C-10 (or C-10A), clarifying and changing the wording of the Firearms Act. But I don't remember the details off hand.
I may have the wrong bill there. Bill C-10A was about firearms, and I think it included the end of the ability to take prohibited to the range.

Certainly lots of people exported firearms to avoid the forfeiture loss. A bunch went to England right before England seized them.

 

[rangebob]

Bill C-10A. 2003
https://www.parl.ca/Content/Bills/372/Government/C-10A/c-10a_4/c-10a_4.pdf
"providing that there is no forfeiture of goods that are the subject of a prohibition order made under section 515 of the Criminal Code, and"
...
"expanding the grandfathered class for certain prohibited firearms,"

 

[Dexter Morgan]

Is anyone thinking that perhaps they will just move some of the scary looking non-restricted rifles into the restricted category?

It would be an easy and cheap way to appease the anti-gun fanatics, at least for a while.

 

[45ACPKING]

First thank you for taking the time to read my post. There are people interested in all or parts of it but we can't seem to get the traction.

I agree that under specific conditions the courts are appropriate and maybe this is one of the times? I would certainly pitch in $$$ if I saw the roll out of a personal property rights class action that my lawyer thought we had a chance of winning.

The attraction of that approach that I saw in my research is that maybe we could get other groups to join in with us? There's much material to read on attempts to deal with expropriation and mineral rights - won't be hard to find those who are aggrieved in that bunch.

It's only the two minute warning because gun owners refused to recognize the obvious and push back by pulling together when there was time available.

seems everything you are preaching will be heavily dependant on a massive gun owner funded media campaign.
It's too late for all that.
Everything you suggest would take far more time than we have in the right here and now.
That and with the liberal controlled media, who is going to give your plan the air time in needs to reach and change the hearts and minds of everyone?
It all sounds good when you type it there's no question but my friend, it's far too late for the approach you suggest. There's no organization, there;s no mainstream media..... the plan won't amount to nothing but feel good writings on your favorite internet forum.

Well.... unless you have millions to throw into a philantopist like mission to see your suggestions thru to fruition.

 

[rangebob]

Is anyone thinking that perhaps they will just move some of the scary looking non-restricted rifles into the restricted category?

Buy back. Not reclassification.

A Liberal government also would create a buyback program for all semi-automatic assault rifles that were legally purchased, offering owners a fair market price for their weapons and giving law enforcement agencies resources to administer the program. A two-year amnesty would be put in place while the program is being set up.
-- https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/liberal-gun-control-trudeau-2019-1.5290950

“There are some weapons, quite frankly, in my opinion, that are so dangerous that there really is no place in a safe and civil society for them”
-- Bill Blair, https://globalnews.ca/news/5402803/bill-blair-assault-weapon-ban/
Blair repeated similar phrasing in his CCFR interview.


Liberal Election Platform explanation (details)
https://www.rangebob.com/election2019/LiberalGunControl2019.jpg

 

[lintocs]

There is no actual limit on its usage -- it's up to the whim of the Minister. It would be better to say that it would not be used, and has not been used to seize, except where a product has been believed to be unsafe with some evidence. There's a nice list at the end of the Act in Schedule 2 of things they have thought were unsafe. I think the most recent usage was with some sort of anti-acne cream. When it was passed by the Conservatives in 2010, there were lots of articles in the Toronto Star (and a couple CGN threads) about how draconian the possibilities were.

I don't think this is helpful. I doubt this law can be perverted to the ends you suggest. Reading the legislation makes that fairly clear. "Advertise" "Sell" "Manufacture". The Toronto Star was likely writing a hit piece on the conservatives and using some ridiculous fear mongering.

 

[rangebob]

I don't think this is helpful. I doubt the law can be perverted to the ends you suggest. Reading the legislation makes that fairly clear.

It's moot in the context of this thread. The Liberals are not going to use the "Canada Consumer Product Safety Act" on firearms.
The Liberals will pass a new Act.

Also, any money spent, requires the consent of Parliament somewhere. So a new Act.
(Again the "Canada Consumer Product Safety Act" doesn't cover buyback.)

My point was merely that there are several ways for our government to confiscate things. It's not a new thing.

 

[lintocs]

Buy back. Not reclassification.

A Liberal government also would create a buyback program for all semi-automatic assault rifles that were legally purchased, offering owners a fair market price for their weapons and giving law enforcement agencies resources to administer the program. A two-year amnesty would be put in place while the program is being set up.
-- https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/liberal-gun-control-trudeau-2019-1.5290950

“There are some weapons, quite frankly, in my opinion, that are so dangerous that there really is no place in a safe and civil society for them”
-- Bill Blair, https://globalnews.ca/news/5402803/bill-blair-assault-weapon-ban/
Blair repeated similar phrasing in his CCFR interview.


Liberal Election Platform explanation (details)
https://www.rangebob.com/election2019/LiberalGunControl2019.jpg

They used the term "assault weapon". That pretty much means AR-15, since the AK47 has been illegal for ages. Extending that to any semi-automatic is a stretch and would certainly affect Canadian hunters, which the government has pledged not to do.

The AR15 sits in a bad spot in part because of the .223 (5.56mm) round, which puts it below the minimum for deer hunting in a couple of provinces. The military look and feel doesn't help either, since we're dealing with the government.

 

[lintocs]

Bill C-10A. 2003
https://www.parl.ca/Content/Bills/372/Government/C-10A/c-10a_4/c-10a_4.pdf
"providing that there is no forfeiture of goods that are the subject of a prohibition order made under section 515 of the Criminal Code, and"
...
"expanding the grandfathered class for certain prohibited firearms,"

"Under s. 515(4.1), the court shall order a firearm prohibition on persons released for certain charges including: offences where violence is used, threatened, or attemtped. criminal harassment."

So no, that would be a seizure related to criminal offense.

 

[lintocs]

It's moot in the context of this thread. The Liberals are not going to use the "Canada Consumer Product Safety Act" on firearms.
The Liberals will pass a new Act.

Also, any money spent, requires the consent of Parliament somewhere. So a new Act.
(Again the "Canada Consumer Product Safety Act" doesn't cover buyback.)

My point was merely that there are several ways for our government to confiscate things. It's not a new thing.

Some laws supercede others. You can't just whip out a new act that removes rights granted previously or from higher law, like the Charter or Bill of Rights.

It's the same reason they can't lower the speed limit today and write you a speeding ticket for last week. The law doesn't work that way, so most existing cases are grandfathered to avoid legal challenges.

Yes, they did this in New Zealand. No, I'm not sure how. Without a doubt, though, court challenges will be necessary to avoid the same outcome.

 

[rangebob]

Bill C-10A. 2003
https://www.parl.ca/Content/Bills/372/Government/C-10A/c-10a_4/c-10a_4.pdf
"providing that there is no forfeiture of goods that are the subject of a prohibition order made under section 515 of the Criminal Code, and"
...
"expanding the grandfathered class for certain prohibited firearms,"

Bill C-10A
The effect of this amendment is to extend grandfathering status to include prohibited handguns that were registered to an individual for the first time in Canada between February 14, 1995 and December 1, 1998 (for example, new imports and handguns bought from a dealer), and to handguns that business still had in their inventory on December 1, 1998, the effective date that the handguns became prohibited.
If you already have 12(6) privileges on your firearms licence, the amendment enables you to keep prohibited handguns acquired during that time period provided you re-register them under the Firearms Act. It also enables you to sell or give these handguns to a properly licensed individual or business.
...
The amendment received Royal Assent too late (May 2003) to enable grandfathering privileges to be extended to you if your only prohibited firearms were acquired between February 14, 1995 and December 1, 1998.
-- http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/cfp-pcaf/faq/c10a-eng.htm

 

[cras111]

I came to work today.... There are over 40,000 employees in my company.
And, this is the „training” that everybody had to go through - showing the guy who does not even look like a gang criminal BUT, guess what....he holds an AR-15 in his hands !!
Here it is:
https://youtu.be/gWQ8OJcBwFg

Not bad brain washing isn’t it ?

 

[rangebob]

The AR15 sits in a bad spot in part because of the .223 (5.56mm) round, which puts it below the minimum for deer hunting in a couple of provinces. The military look and feel doesn't help either, since we're dealing with the government.

Yep.

The US Military is likely abandoning the .223/5.56 cartridge and the M4/M16 platforms, because it's not lethal enough, and moving to 6.8mm.

 

[rangebob]

https://youtu.be/gWQ8OJcBwFg

The original, from the USA, was Run Hide Fight.
England, turned that into Hide Tell Run.
Canada's is in between at Run Hide Defend.

Although everyone Run in every direction (preferably in covered routes where the bad guy is not based on where you hear the shots are) is a pretty good option in schools, they usually take the lockdown & stay put approach.

 

[lintocs]

I came to work today.... There are over 40,000 employees in my company.
And, this is the „training” that everybody had to go through - showing the guy who does not even look like a gang criminal BUT, guess what....he holds an AR-15 in his hands !!
Here it is:
https://youtu.be/gWQ8OJcBwFg

Not bad brain washing isn’t it ?

I also work for a large multinational. I was drafted on to the safety team for my floor and complained in a meeting about problems with the evacuation plan that put people in harm's way in the event of an active shooter situation.

Fend for yourself, nobody writing these plans has a clue.