My 12g shot gun is now prohibited for turkey and already got my tag

steamy teabag said:
Modern treaty obligations and Indigenous engagement and consultation
The Amnesty Order permits the use of any of the newly prohibited firearms, if previously non-restricted, to hunt for the purposes of sustenance or to exercise a right recognized and affirmed by section 35 of the Constitution. From fall 2018 to spring 2019, the Government held extensive engagement with Indigenous groups, provinces and territories, municipalities, law enforcement agencies, academics, victim groups and other key stakeholders on limiting access to assault-style firearms and handguns. Recognizing that some Indigenous and sustenance hunters could be using previously non-restricted firearms for their hunting and may be unable to replace these firearms immediately, the Amnesty Order includes provisions for the limited use of these firearms for such purposes. Following the publication of the Regulations, the Government will continue to engage with Indigenous groups to assess whether the prohibition of these firearms has a continued impact on the right to hunt affirmed by section 35 of the Constitution.
Click to expand...

Wrong section. Swing and a miss.
 
It’s prohibited by definition. Call it a stretch of the imagination if you like but still is prohibited.
I for one demand they enforce the law as I am subject to obey these stupid laws as well.
We are all in it now whether you like it or not.
Now go fight the good fight and stick together this time. Do not let these idiots divide a single one of us.
No matter how much you may disagree with each other remember that we need to realize who the real enemy is.
 
steamy teabag said:
Are you suggesting the wording of the OIC is incorrect or that I've manipulated, edited?
Click to expand...

I'm saying you're reading the wrong section. You're looking at the section that SPECIFICALLY calls out native treaty rights. However the word sustenance is used in two other sections as well.
 
Suther said:
I'm saying you're reading the wrong section. You're looking at the section that SPECIFICALLY calls out native treaty rights. However the word sustenance is used in two other sections as well.
Click to expand...

But not in the OIC moving SG's with a bore 20 or greater to prohibited.

I think you are talking about were it's mentioned on P 58.

"if previously non-restricted, to hunt for the purposes of sustenance or to exercise a right recognized and affirmed by section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982 (the Constitution).

Am I correct?
 
Last edited:
steamy teabag said:
But not in the OIC moving SG's with a bore 20 or greater to prohibited.
Click to expand...

Yes. In THAT OIC. In the sections "Description" and "Regulatory analysis". I even quoted one of those two sections in post 19 in this thread.

Just pull up the OIC and do a word search for "sustenance". You'll figure it out eventually.
 
GO9ttqb.png


QlxqZ7r.png
 
Christ wept; I've really tried hard to not get into this. Are people so mad at (real or oft imagined) Fudd's that they are ready to throw them under a bus?
That is pretty much why you use the term...then you do the same thing? WTF is wrong with us... notice the term 'us' BTW.
If this describes you... put on your big boy pants and start acting with some class.
I'm gonna go drop 100 $ on CCFR because even though they have been called a Fudd's Org...they are stepping up and getting something done. I'm beginning to think a contributing member group is a good idea.
Moving on then.
 
I just saw a video of someone saying that a gun ban will never happen in Canada. This was said by someone who now is contradicting himself and being one of the individuals responsible for the ban.

I hope you don't get in trouble hunting and wish you all the lucky. However, I don't feel it's right for me to make you believe that you should never expect surprises as I have seen the interpretation of people change, not based on facts, but on what ever they feel it's right.

Good luck, be safe.
 
Suther said:
No. Sustinence hunters, whether native or not, are allowed to use their guns through the amnesty. Read the damn thing before you start spouting racist bull####.

"In addition, 1.3 million Canadians participate in legal
hunting. These owners may also be affected if they have
been using a newly prohibited firearm that was previously
nonrestricted. If they have been using such a firearm for
sustenance hunting or to exercise a right affirmed in section 35 of the Constitution, they may continue to use their
firearm for the same purpose, until the end of the amnesty
period. "
Click to expand...

Now this is funny stuff. Do you even know what section 35 of the constitution is??? LOL
 
rkm456 said:
So will half this site. They'd rather shotguns be banned than be wrong.
Click to expand...

I believe that.
This issue has already been cleared up. It doesn't involve shotguns as it was badly written legislation however people are still just being ridiculous.\

This horsesh*t about FUD's and Black Rifles and every other category just tells you where we are as a firearm community, split.
We are doomed
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom