So where are we now?

[lintocs]

The courts are there in my recipe (post 173) but only as a last resort, not the pointy end of the spear because they are slow, expensive and the outcome is uncertain.

I read just read your post. Thoughtful, but that's a second half plan when we're at the two minute warning. Elections have consequences and we lost, so we need the courts to protect our rights.

I think the odds of getting an injunction preventing seizure are low. The court challenges have to start the day the legislation passes so the Liberals can't claim victory on the issue.

While I agree a court case could *potentially* become expensive, the initial filings and registration of litigants (if it's class action) will have symbolic value. If we're really acting on behalf of hundreds of thousands of gun owners, though, I think raising a few million dollars should be easy, say 100$ per owner? Small money for people worried about losing thousands of dollars worth of firearms.

[lintocs]

QUOTE]

property rights? since when. property rights are not covered by our charter in a nut shell.

I've seen this claim (no property rights in Canada) before. It is a misinterpretation if not an outright misunderstanding of the law, usually promoted by people who were subject to land expropriation. Even that was subject to due process.

The Canadian Bill of Rights guarantees the right to enjoyment of property. Provincial laws and British common and French civil law cover the right to personal property. The government can't just decide to take your stuff. That's why we have to get them in to court.

[BlackVoid]

The Canadian Bill of Rights guarantees the right to enjoyment of property. Provincial laws and British common and French civil law cover the right to personal property. The government can't just decide to take your stuff. That's why we have to get them in to court.

The government can and it does. All the have to do is to pass the legislation.

In our particular case they will use civil forfeiture. As all guns are already illegal to posses and you are given the exemption through PAL and Reg.cert.

As soon as you start breaking the law, all you property will become connected to illegal activity. They can come and take anything they want. You car, your TV, your house, your watches, phones, whatever they want.

[lintocs]

The government can and it does. All the have to do is to pass the legislation.

In our particular case they will use civil forfeiture. As all guns are already illegal to posses and you are given the exemption through PAL and Reg.cert.

As soon as you start breaking the law, all you property will become connected to illegal activity. They can come and take anything they want. You car, your TV, your house, your watches, phones, whatever they want.

https://www.canadianjusticereviewboa...ture-in-canada

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

Further, the property would have to be implicated in the commission of or as the profits of a crime. I think creating the crime after the fact probably wouldn't fly.

The government isn't offering to buy these guns for no reason. There's also a reason previous governments didn't try to seize prohibited firearms. It isn't easy.

[Sylvertiger]

https://youtu.be/IbA6VjLTucc

Another recent news story framing gun owners. How is it possible they can demonize us at every turn but yet still turn around and call it unbiased reporting. That’s one thing Trump got right, “Fake News” is prevalent in today’s society.

[scout_289]

I've seen this claim (no property rights in Canada) before. It is a misinterpretation if not an outright misunderstanding of the law, usually promoted by people who were subject to land expropriation. Even that was subject to due process.

The Canadian Bill of Rights guarantees the right to enjoyment of property. Provincial laws and British common and French civil law cover the right to personal property. The government can't just decide to take your stuff. That's why we have to get them in to court.

If your premise is true then why hasn't our community and their orgs as well as Provincial governments used this argument successfully in the past? So many legal minds missing something so obvious for so long?

[scout_289]

https://youtu.be/IbA6VjLTucc

Another recent news story framing gun owners. How is it possible they can demonize us at every turn but yet still turn around and call it unbiased reporting. That’s one thing Trump got right, “Fake News” is prevalent in today’s society.

We don't have an effective, real time mechanism to challenge them. See point 1a of my seven point plan.

Ironheart has been doing a fantastic job of finding and posting anti gun stories - first step in the plan. Now all we need is a country wide web to do the same and a mechanism to fire back before the story can grow legs.

[lintocs]

There has never been a firearms seizure before. It will be *very* difficult to do so within our legal system, but the legislative attempts must be challenged in the courts.

[45ACPKING]

There has never been a firearms seizure before. It will be *very* difficult to do so within our legal system, but the legislative attempts must be challenged in the courts.

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.

[scout_289]

I read just read your post. Thoughtful, but that's a second half plan when we're at the two minute warning. Elections have consequences and we lost, so we need the courts to protect our rights.

I think the odds of getting an injunction preventing seizure are low. The court challenges have to start the day the legislation passes so the Liberals can't claim victory on the issue.

While I agree a court case could *potentially* become expensive, the initial filings and registration of litigants (if it's class action) will have symbolic value. If we're really acting on behalf of hundreds of thousands of gun owners, though, I think raising a few million dollars should be easy, say 100$ per owner? Small money for people worried about losing thousands of dollars worth of firearms.

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.