Liberals invoke S.39, refuse to provide evidence

A good new for you guys, a CAQ PM have crossed the floor to the Quebec conservative, she is their first MP, Yves Duhaime is kind of a Rockstar in the Quebec region they may snatch a few ridings. JP.
 
CommonCents said:
Following that interpretation people would be barred from reloading, which we know they are not.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/firear...-information/firearms-law/explosives-act/amp/

Businesses may not create firearms for sale unlicensed, and PAL holders may not create firearms they are not licensed to possess.

If you're in doubt call your local CFO and ask.
Click to expand...

But the explosives act and it's associated regulations governs ammunition. Which is a different Act enacted by Parliament that authorizes (in the case of reloading the Explosives Act states authorization isn't needed)

Authorization Not Required
Marginal note:Exemption from authorization

25 Despite section 11, the following Footnote*activities involving an explosive may be carried out even though the Footnote*explosives are not authorized:

...

(e) the manufacture of Footnote*small arms cartridges or black powder cartouches for personal use;

...
Click to expand...

The only caveat is that you must follow the regulations on making ammo for yourself. Don't be drunk and don't have more than 1 kg of powder out at a time are the only 2 I remember offhand.

So there is no other Act that authorizes a PAL holder to manufacture a firearm just the firearms act which does not authorize you to manufacture a firearm, only businesses.

Edit: in fact show me which Act enacted by Parliament authorizes you to manufacture a firearm. Quote it for me.

I've showed you that it is illegal to manufacture a firearm unless you are authorized to. Show me where the PAL a possession and acquisition license authorizes you to make a gun
 
Last edited:
jiffx2781 said:
Is that you Bill?
Click to expand...

No. :) Actually I think it is a good thing when people can legally make guns for personal use. It seems like a fun area of engineering and research, if done safely. But, given the current fearmongering and crackdowns about 'ghost guns', we can expect gun builders to be prosecuted with extreme prejudice.


CommonCents said:
Following that interpretation people would be barred from reloading, which we know they are not.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/firear...-information/firearms-law/explosives-act/amp/
Click to expand...

Well, yes! Reloading would be illegal if not for the regulations in the Explosives act that actually authorize reloading.

Now, all that said, it's not exactly true that homemade guns are illegal in Canada:

  • Rather strangely, knowledge that you are not authorized is an explicit and essential element of the S.99 offence! This unusual requirement means that legitimate ignorance of law is an excuse for this narrow thing. Note however that legally, wilful blindness i.e. strong suspicions are counted as knowledge.
  • According to S.99 you can be authorized to manufacture under the Firearms Act or any other Act of Parliament or any regulations made under any Act of Parliament. Thus, as far as I can tell, you would need to read ALL those documents (ALL Canadian laws & ALL regulations) in order to gain firm knowledge about whether you're authorized. Personally I don't have the time to read them all, so I can't actually tell you that you're not authorized.
  • Even if you have a homemade firearm, it's not illegal to possess -- they have to prove you made it & you knew that you were not authorized. If it is non-restricted (thus unregistrable), and you don't own a 3D printer or blueprints, and you don't brag/admit making it, it seems hard for prosecution to prove. On the other hand, even if you jump through all the hoops and manage to possess a legal homemade gun, don't be surprised if you get charged anyway and you have to fight in court.
  • I'm not aware of any laws against manufacturing firearms components like barrels and such. If you have a receiver (which is already a firearm) that was made by someone else, it seems legal to build components that attach to it.
  • I'm not sure what "manufacture" even means, legally speaking. For example let's hypothetically say you could somehow obtain two already-manufactured parts which each on their own is not a firearm, but which trivially combine into a receiver (now a firearm). Does the mere act of combining them count as "manufacture"? Does a fun one-off actually count as 'manufacturing' or do you have to be really behaving like a factory?

If you're in doubt call your local CFO and ask.
Click to expand...

Definitely, this is worth doing. At least then if they say it's OK and you end up breaking law as a result, hopefully you can use the defence of "officially induced error". All that said, I'm not a lawyer!
 
Last edited:
Since when has making your own become illegal? Isn't that why lots of people bought 80% kits to finish on their own and call it in? It wasn't that long ago that you could order a 80% here on cgn and didn't even need to register at the time. Talk to the CFO, if your worried
 
The “secret evidence” will probably turn out to be along the lines of white nationalist or ‘Romana- Queen of Canada’ or Q or a nice hybrid of all the above had been buying the newly banned guns for bad purposes like an insurrection. Cue images of US Capital Hill debacle. They will someday produce internet chats of losers and idiots that are capable only of overeating and excessive masterbation and say its “evidence” of a real threat.
 
CommonCents said:
I apologize you are correct.

Upon my further reading it appears we have a white-list approach to firearm construction.

I still heavily advocate the possession of information that would enable people, should they legally acquire the proper licensing, to build their own firearms. I will amend my previous comments.
Click to expand...

You just can’t have that with such a diverse citizenry.
 
I suspect the Liberals either:

A) Have absolutely nothing to go on and hence S.39 hides their empty facts.

B) Don't want the public to know exactly what they want to do to disarm Canada against the will of the people.
Trudeau is a globalist and supporting the UN small arms stuff.
 
.



How can they implement the Great Reset if citizens are not stripped of their guns?

Laws are whatever they want to make or choose to ignore.

The only time there was a temporary wrench in the gun confiscation scheme in Canada is when Harper killed the L.G. registry.


Allan Rock circa 1995 "Only the police and military should have guns." which is what his masters at the UN dictated.

Judges, politicians, bureaucrats do as they are told.

This fighting small bits of law in the courts seems masturbatory to me.


.
 
rambones said:
Since when has making your own become illegal? Isn't that why lots of people bought 80% kits to finish on their own and call it in? It wasn't that long ago that you could order a 80% here on cgn and didn't even need to register at the time. Talk to the CFO, if your worried
Click to expand...

Having to register an incomplete receiver is NOT LAW
It is a threat made by the rcmp against businesses who sell or make incomplete receivers, who want to continue having the privilege of a firearm's business license.
The firearms act does not even come into play here.... it is made up bullsh!t by the rcmp and CFO's
 
Trimmer 905 said:
It's impossible to provide evidence that's never existed in the first place. By invoking Sect 39,the government "saves face" from being exposed as frauds that the entire matter has become.
Click to expand...

I think it's much more than saving face. Probably documents showing the government's involvement with NS shooter?
 
enen said:
on a similar note, tim Ball had a case against climate scientist micheal mann in canada
The judge asked the climate scientist for his proof. Mann failed to produce the proof. Judge ruled in favour of Ball
Click to expand...

Didn't the judge dismissed the carbon tax lawsuit against the turd saying climate change is real because government said so?
 
CommonCents said:
I apologize you are correct.

Upon my further reading it appears we have a white-list approach to firearm construction.

I still heavily advocate the possession of information that would enable people, should they legally acquire the proper licensing, to build their own firearms. I will amend my previous comments.
Click to expand...

We did not require a license at any time in the past, the registry used to be full of home made guns, and there are still many home made restricteds in it.

The new application of Section 99 that they just recently discovered is more RCMP made up BS.
 
saphta said:
Didn't the judge dismissed the carbon tax lawsuit against the turd saying climate change is real because government said so?
Click to expand...

I believer the ruling was that because the court believes climate change is important it's valid to override provincial jurisdiction using the peace order and good government clause.
 
canuckchap said:
i don't recall seeing this published in any paper...
Click to expand...

The nuance is inconvenient to the narrative.

The best argument to read is actually the dissenting supreme court opinion as it lays out the real problem which is using a catch-all clause to override provincial jurisdiction when it is politically convenient.

To be honest I think the way the carbon tax was implemented and the use of the clause when there are other ways to accomplish this was deliberate. The OIC is the same thing. It's a test of just how far they can go. The overriding goal of the Trudeau government is power centralization within the PMO. When you look at their actions with that lens everything they do makes sense.
 
Riflechair said:
Not a word from the Conservatives
Click to expand...

The word is they don't agree with the OIC and Bill C-21. Also its currently before the courts. Don't want to be accused of political interference of the judiciary I suppose. Until they are in the driver's seat, they cannot repeal.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom