Cheryl Gallant Petition

I think some gently worded letters to Cheryl that the whole classification system and prohibited class must go are in order instead. Be nice, the woman is trying to help us out after all, and I do appreciate that fact. We cannot just let ourselves get set up for more problems down the road.
 
Granted that it might not be perfect, but if the committee is made up of 4 industry members with actual firearms knowledge and understanding, it has to be better than what we have. Could be used as part of the checks and balance. I'm not even saying it will go through, but it does show people want change and won't live with the status quo. Cheryl has not proposed that this bill take precedent over a complete firearms act revamp as well.

While I agree that a complete rewrite of the firearms act is needed, they don't have time to get that accomplished before the next election. It's easy to sit back and demand it, but I for one damn sure want to make sure that if they do it, they do it right, and it is well thought out, well worded and exactly what WE want. I don't want a rushed job on something as important to our future shooting as this.
 
This is certainly not the ideal solution, but short term it might help. The long term ideal would be a completely new system, even if there was the will it would take years.
 
SnoPac said:
Rather than the RCMP and the Ontario Forensic department, I would prefer to see a national statistician or even an actuary who could shed light on projected safety concerns based on collected data. IE. incident reports, crimes committed, etc. I would guess that with current Canadian data, there would be little to support the restriction of most if not all firearms.
Click to expand...

According to Wendy, those stats prove that the firearms act prevents some 600 cases of domestic firearm homicide against women annually. Yes, I know she's a lying ####, but who would appoint the person in charge of spinning said data?
 
Grumpy Wolverine said:
Granted that it might not be perfect, but if the committee is made up of 4 industry members with actual firearms knowledge and understanding, it has to be better than what we have. Could be used as part of the checks and balance. I'm not even saying it will go through, but it does show people want change and won't live with the status quo. Cheryl has not proposed that this bill take precedent over a complete firearms act revamp as well.

While I agree that a complete rewrite of the firearms act is needed, they don't have time to get that accomplished before the next election. It's easy to sit back and demand it, but I for one damn sure want to make sure that if they do it, they do it right, and it is well thought out, well worded and exactly what WE want. I don't want a rushed job on something as important to our future shooting as this.
Click to expand...

You mean like the Firearms Advisory Committee? The one the CPC kicked out civilian experts in favor of 3 police chiefs?

How is making another committee better when that is how they treat the first?
 
fenceline said:
You mean like the Firearms Advisory Committee? The one the CPC kicked out industry experts in favor of 3 police chiefs?

How is making another committee better when that is how they treat the first?
Click to expand...

If it's worded properly in a Bill, that option wouldn't be there. Beats having the RCMP do it all. Just because something fails the first time doesn't mean it shouldn't be attempted again with a few changes to make things better. We'd still be using stone axes and pointy sticks if everyone just quit after something didn't work right the first attempt.
 
fenceline said:
You mean like the Firearms Advisory Committee? The one the CPC kicked out civilian experts in favor of 3 police chiefs?

How is making another committee better when that is how they treat the first?
Click to expand...

That would depend how it was set up, what their Mandate was and if they were allowed to have real teeth. No teeth equals an empty gesture only. After the current screw up maybe they would be allowed teeth?
 
Mr Wolverine said:
That would depend how it was set up, what their Mandate was and if they were allowed to have real teeth. No teeth equals an empty gesture only. After the current screw up maybe they would be allowed teeth?
Click to expand...

Either way, I'm not likely to sign onto something unless there is a substantial plan and framework proposed. It's a wide open suggestion, lots of what they will do, but no how it will be done.
 
Grumpy Wolverine said:
Geez then I guess guys like Mr. Wolverine and myself should have stopped fighting for this 25 years ago if that is the case
Click to expand...

I didn't say I was giving up. I said I wasn't about to jump on the band wagon of proposed change, especially if the band wagon is full of TNT driven by a pyro.

I want details. Not open ended non-specific, unplanned promises.
 
Just so long as it is recognized that the propagandists of the Coalition are not in any way "civilian firearms experts".
 
Mark-II said:
Just so long as it is recognized that the propagandists of the Coalition are not in any way "civilian firearms experts".
Click to expand...

I think the civilian firearms experts would be valuable in risk assessment...and that's really all this should be about when it comes to public safety. Of course the RCMP can't objectively make a judgement on risk, they are putting themselves in harms way everyday whether it involves firearms or not.

1) Replace the RCMP with a national statistician to review real data on incidents reports, crimes, theft, etc.
2) Replace the Ontario Forensic Center with an actuary to take the statistician data and convert it to risk assessment. (not necessary but could be seen as due diligence to opponents)

Civilian Firearms experts should be able to appoint their own successor and must transparently answer to their decisions by releasing the statistical data and risk assessment gathered by the other two departments.
 
I read through Mrs Gallant's email and the content of her motion, and although maybe the good intention is there, it's some of the details I don't like. For instance there are a few points that keep making reference to the registry and long arms sales, and dealers and such, ignoring the fact that we have now abolished the long arms registry. Is this hinting that they may be allowed to resurrect the long arms registry under the auspices of this motion? There's a lot of wording that should now be removed from that proposal. I was tempted to sign the petition, as she seems to be trying to help the our community, but I can't in conscience put my name on that petition the way the motion is currently worded. Needs some serious revision, to reflect the removal of the LAR, as a starting point.

Besides the fact that, first and foremost, this motion does NOT address the fact that right now there are countless numbers of our brethren out there who are now considered criminals overnight becuase of the Swiss Arms and CZ issue. Who knows when this motion would actually come into effect, IF it did pass? What we need RIGHT NOW is that ridiculous recent reclassification to be rescinded and canceled immediately, before those rifle owners incur any property losses or expenses to have to defend themselves against the ban. This motion does not address that immedaite help that is required. What are these people supposed to do in the meantime? A message has to be sent to the misguided (polite term) bureaucrats who made this happen, so that they are made to answer to our elected members of parliament, and should not be making up rules at their whim, simply to create new criminals out of thin air, according to their flavour of the week gun ban inclinations.
If she removed any reference (or even inferred reference to) the long arms registry from that proposal, AND included an immediate remedy in the way of a cancellation of any recent reclassifications, then I would be inclined to sign it.
Otherwise, IMHO it's too iffy the way it's worded. Just my take on it.
 
fenceline said:
(v) shall be composed of the following members, 1) RCMP, 2) Ontario Forensic Centre, 3) four individuals appointed to the committee as civilian firearms experts.

Appointed by who??? For a term of how long? Requirements for being an expert?

Is this the same motion that was rejected by the NFA? This motion was put forth originally on October 16, 2013 and got considerable push back here. Everyone cheered at first, thinking change was good. Then people started reading it and trying to decipher it.

It wasn't what was needed then, and still isn't the solution we need now. Another band aid fix to a broken firearms act.
Click to expand...

I Agree with fenceline. The concept isn't bad at the core but what is promised is not what we need. She needs to review the objectives and re-submit the proposal. most of the FA needs to go, the list of existing Prohibs needs to reviewed, most of the currently exclude purpose built semis need to be put back in with no exceptions. Gun mag capacity restrictions must go, etc... none of that is clearly addressed in her memorandum. She will get my vote once these main points are introduced and discussed. No band aid. if they need help they should ask for our assistance, we have lots of good people with valuable insight that could be leverage for this.
 
Gallant's motion 1) smells bad, and 2) deflects attention away from real legal reform.
I don't like it.
 
(v) shall be composed of the following members, 1) RCMP, 2) Ontario Forensic Centre, 3) four individuals appointed to the committee as civilian firearms experts.
Click to expand...

Why are the RCMP still in there? Have they not fully demonstrated their anti gun agenda? Why should they get to advise?
 
El_Monty457 said:
Besides the fact that, first and foremost, this motion does NOT address the fact that right now there are countless numbers of our brethren out there who are now considered criminals overnight becuase of the Swiss Arms and CZ issue. Who knows when this motion would actually come into effect, IF it did pass? What we need RIGHT NOW is that ridiculous recent reclassification to be rescinded and canceled immediately, before those rifle owners incur any property losses or expenses to have to defend themselves against the ban. This motion does not address that immedaite help that is required. What are these people supposed to do in the meantime? A message has to be sent to the misguided (polite term) bureaucrats who made this happen, so that they are made to answer to our elected members of parliament, and should not be making up rules at their whim, simply to create new criminals out of thin air, according to their flavour of the week gun ban inclinations.
If she removed any reference (or even inferred reference to) the long arms registry from that proposal, AND included an immediate remedy in the way of a cancellation of any recent reclassifications, then I would be inclined to sign it.
Otherwise, IMHO it's too iffy the way it's worded. Just my take on it.
Click to expand...

The amnesty is a first step to prevent anyone from incurring charges and losing their property. This has stopped anyone from turning in or destroying their firearm. This is hopefully going to allow the government a little time to provide a more permanent stop gap for these and future reclassifications. I don't believe they will stop at an amnesty only situation. In over 30 years of fighting the gun law fight I haven't seen as much positive reaction come out from one government ever before. They reacted fast to this and have let it be known they aren't finished. I am hoping that after the next federal election they will then continue onto the revamp of the FA.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom