Former Liberal senator not set on gun bill: C71 news

[Future303]

Forgive my ignorance but what are these two organization you mention. If they help support our gun rights through unified efforts, I want to be a part.

You know it's so sad that we're been basically harping about our Canadian Gun Orgs for like a decade, and there's gun owners that are completely oblivious to their existence!

[nowarningshot]

Indeed. I encourage everyone to write to her. be courteous and non-threatening. Don't focus on our "rights" because that's a non-starter. Instead focus on the poor structure and the pointlessness of C-71 itself. She may remain a proponent of gun control while still being enlightened to the major flaws within the bill's wording.

Note: the government style guide recommends letters to Senators be addressed "Dear Senator (last name)" and closing with "Yours sincerely".

My letter to the Senator (with certain parts removed for privacy's sake):

Dear Senator Jaffer,

My name is (BCReserveMP). I am a resident of Victoria BC, a first-generation immigrant, and a member of the Canadian Forces where I serve at Her Majesty's pleasure as a Military Police patrolman...

...I am a gun owner. I do not hunt, however. My interest in shooting comes as a result of maintaining my skill-set for my job, and from an affinity for competitive target shooting. I, along with every gun owner I know, practice storage, transport, and handling safety which exceeds even the requirements of the Firearms Act. We take the privilege - and the responsibility - of gun ownership very seriously.

I understand you have received many letters from Canadians critical of Bill C-71. I will not bore you with the same points hundreds of others have no doubt already expressed.

However, having attended crime scenes in the course of my duties, and having interactions with individuals prohibited from firearms possession due to criminal activity and/or orders related to the Mental Health Act, I believe I can offer a unique perspective on the shortcomings of the bill.

We know the current Firearms Act - coupled with the authority of the CFO - works. The incidence of lawfully-owned firearms used in crimes is low. The incidence of firearms used in acts of self-harm by owners is also low. The vast majority of acts of violence involving firearms in this country occurs with firearms unlawfully obtained, and very often using those smuggled in from a neighbouring nation we don't need to identify. I know this. You know this. We all know this to be true.

Despite not even addressing gangs, or failings in border security, C-71 was originally tabled as a solution to gun violence in our cities. When that argument fell apart, the reason behind the bill was reworked until the bill was ostensibly about reducing acts of self-harm. Statistically-speaking this argument also falls-apart. Contrary to the claims of our ill-informed Prime Minister and to the Right Honourable Mr. Goodale, in light of over 20 million firearms (including well over a million so-called "assault weapons") lawfully-owned by private citizens, our relatively low gun violence statistics are something for which we should be proud, not ashamed. They reflect our national personae as respectful, rational, and law-abiding.

Canadian gun owners are statistically the most law-abiding and monitored segment of the population, and every one of us has, in the course of obtaining our PALs, agreed to submit to extensive but reasonable background checks. Those of us who have taken the extra steps necessary to obtain the "restricted" and/or "prohibited" endorsements on our PALs are subject to daily checks on CPIC. The system is already thorough, and statistics on violence involving firearms reflects this. And, because we are generally speaking a respectful and lawful bunch, gun owners are content to submit to a somewhat invasive process in order to keep Canada relatively free from gun violence. We have done enough. C-71 is too much.

C-71 fails to address the root causes of firearm violence. I am in favour of sensible and effective gun-control which will make our society safer. Bill C-71 is neither sensible nor effective. Its only effect will be to further inconvenience the law abiding. The criminal element and the mentally-ill will continue to circumvent the law, as they have since the dawn of time.

It should also be considered that the bill will negatively impact a multi-million dollar segment of the Canadian manufacturing and retail sales industries.

The spurious argument about so-called "assault weapons" fails to acknowledge that these firearms are the least likely - by a wide margin - to be used in crime. In fact, despite over 50,000 AR-15 variants lawfully-owned by Canadians, not one has been used in a criminal act. Not one lawfully-owned AR-15. The only one we know of which has was smuggled from another country, and used by a gang member already prohibited from firearm ownership. Prohibiting these firearms will have absolutely no effect on public safety.

My biggest concern, however, is that C-71 contains language of a de facto registry, but does not contain any language regarding the security of that registry's data. Any seller of firearms will be required to maintain a database of those transactions, including the buyers' address. It does not take a genius to conclude that these databases will become very valuable commodities for the criminal element. Anyone taking the time to steal a ledger, hard-drive, or hack data from a gun store will have a shopping list of who owns what guns in any community. These gun owners will have an increased likelihood of being targeted by criminals intent on stealing guns. It removes the traditionally discreet nature of gun ownership in favour of basically advertising it to those who would exploit it. As it is right now, the only people who know I own guns - even those who have been inside my home - are those whom I want to know I own guns.

I believe C-71 should not pass without addressing the security flaws fails to address by not defining the nature of retaining these databases. I understand your background in public safety and the protection of women will have bearing on your opinion, but it should be noted that the vast majority of individuals on the receiving end of gun violence are men. Specifically young men. Even more specifically, young men involved in criminal activity to some degree. Gun violence should not be dragged into gender-based political discussion.

Senator Jaffer, I offer my testimony in-person if you wish. I understand you are on the fence regarding the bill, and I believe the bill must not pass as it is written. It is too flawed and does not offer any solutions to gun violence. Please continue to be critical of this bill while you consider your options.

Yours sincerely,

Well said. The thing someone else mentioned was the lifetime background check. Women appling open themselves up to ancient and potentially violent partners.

[Cameron SS]

Well said. The thing someone else mentioned was the lifetime background check. Women appling open themselves up to ancient and potentially violent partners.

The thing that needs to be understood about the life time background check is that it is simply requiring CFOs to consider useless information.

CFOs already have the ability to investigate a persons entire lifetime if they see fit. Five years is only the minimum they must consider. If they find anything in the last five years concerning, they can dig more.

All C71 does is forces the CFO to consider information that they would otherwise have deemed irrelevant. This will necessarily increase the amount of time it takes to get a PAL, with no discernable benefit.

If you want to drive this point home to the liberals, then we need to ask them one simple question, again and again and again.

HOw many of the PAL holders who have committed serious violent crimes in the last twenty years would have been denied their PAL by a lifetime background check, but managed to squeak through and get a PAL because of the 5 year background check? How many? How Many? How Many?

Because if the answer is Zero, which it probably is, then whats this all about? And if the answer is zero, what possible evidence or motivation can there be to support this regulatory change?

[BCreserveMP]

T...

CFOs already have the ability to investigate a persons entire lifetime if they see fit. Five years is only the minimum they must consider. If they find anything in the last five years concerning, they can dig more. ....

This. And I know people who have been investigated beyond five years.

Not to get too tinfoil-hatty but I think part of the point of C-71 is to discourage people from obtaining their PAL for the first time. I can't think of too many people who don't have *something* in their past they believe could be a red flag, like even a speeding ticket or a former girlfriend/boyfriend from 15 years ago who's still pissed about being dumped. As a rule, people don't like the idea of being investigated. It's intimidating.

[Grizzloonly]

Not to get too tinfoil-hatty but I think part of the point of C-71 is to discourage people from obtaining their PAL for the first time.

These are the people who will be impacted the most by going further back in checks. Anyone renewing will essentially already have been checked for 10, 15 or more years, depending on how many times they have renewed. Isn't the specific question about spousal or conjugal partner thing only two years? Will that change?

[Mac5587]

That’s a good read.

[Blintok57]

This. And I know people who have been investigated beyond five years.

Not to get too tinfoil-hatty but I think part of the point of C-71 is to discourage people from obtaining their PAL for the first time. I can't think of too many people who don't have *something* in their past they believe could be a red flag, like even a speeding ticket or a former girlfriend/boyfriend from 15 years ago who's still pissed about being dumped. As a rule, people don't like the idea of being investigated. It's intimidating.

Greetings all. i am new here. I had been considering getting a pal/rpal for over a year now. But there is some truth in the above quote. This C71 business did delay my decision to starting this whole process.
I am 61y old. Never had any violence issues. In my whole life never even had a physical fight (excluding martial arts). So there is nothing in my past that should affect my acceptance to the pal/rpal club.
I have been in BC since 1991 and have not had any negative contact with the laws. Not even any traffic violations, not even a parking ticket.

A few weeks ago i discovered the CCFR. I joined a few weeks ago. I then heard about the NFA and also joined. I sent a letter to Andrew Scheer and the conservatives. I also joined the CPC for 5 years.
I decided to go ahead to start the process to get my pal. I take the course on March 09 and the rpal on March 16. One of my reverences has an pal/rpal. He mentioned this forum the other day. I had
a look and liked what i saw so i signed up.

I really hope this C71 dies. It has gone too far. It is like penalizing all car drivers because some drive drunk, all the while not punishing the ones that are driving drunk.

[hughsc]

Bill C71 Amendment: It has been rumored that Ralph Goodall & Bill Blair are petitioning the Senate for a panic amendment to Bill C71. In the name of "Liberal" public safety, Tommy-Hawks will now be classified as a prohibitive dangerous weapon. Also rumored is that the Minister of Indigenous Services, Seamus O'Regan objected, but has since been hushed by the PMO. Do as I say without question or else.... is the Canadian democracy model!

[Cameron SS]

Bill C71 Amendment: It has been rumored that Ralph Goodall & Bill Blair are petitioning the Senate for a panic amendment to Bill C71. In the name of "Liberal" public safety, Tommy-Hawks will now be classified as a prohibitive dangerous weapon. Also rumored is that the Minister of Indigenous Services, Seamus O'Regan objected, but has since been hushed by the PMO. Do as I say without question or else.... is the Canadian democracy model!

Breathe. Chin up. Shoulders back. and Breeeeathe. There are only about 14 different issues with what you just said.

But in the interest of fairness, please feel free to provide any kind of a source or reference to this rumours, in the highly implausible event that this rumour actually exists.

[Keebler750]

Good find, hopefully this will motivate some Libs to open their eyes

Perhaps you didn't hear the Liberal secret code for "get writing letters of support" hidden in that interview...?