Alberta Provincial Legislature Passed Motion to Support Firearms Ownership

[lapua001]

In a direct rebut to the Liberals Federal Government Toronto centric anti-firearm owners platforms, Alberta provincial legislature passed a motion to support Firearms Ownership.

Link to facebook video page of Jason Nixon, who moved the motion to support Alberta Firearms Ownership

Will embed once this is up on youtube.

How do we get a written transcript of the motion to include in our letters?

Its not just Western Alienation ; its Canadian alienation and the popular vote in Canada in October was over 6.9 million won by the conservatives. Firearms owners are at least 7 million ( I personally think that is low-ball propaganda to minimize our voting impact) in Canada out of a population of 37 Million plus (stats can 2019)

This should have an effect unless the liberals like to play bull moose and walk in front of a truck

Question for you all. What is the actual population of firearms owners in Canada for what year and source reference ?

[WannaBeSpurdo]

How do we get a written transcript of the motion to include in our letters?

Its not just Western Alienation ; its Canadian alienation and the popular vote in Canada in October was over 6.9 million won by the conservatives. Firearms owners are at least 7 million ( I personally think that is low-ball propaganda to minimize our voting impact) in Canada out of a population of 37 Million plus (stats can 2019)

This should have an effect unless the liberals like to play bull moose and walk in front of a truck

Question for you all. What is the actual population of firearms owners in Canada for what year and source reference ?

What is the actual population? According to the RCMP, approximately 2.2 million PALs of all kinds are active. FOIA request, those are 2018 numbers(?)

[B]

A major issue, with the recreational firearms community in particular and shooters in general, is an almost pathological ignorance of the basics of law and regulation.

A good example of that is you two talking about using the notwithstanding clause against a criminal code issue which is not possible...

[CLW .45]

You're not wrong, but at the same time, our laws will only get worse over time with compromise and governments that are never willing to dramatically repeal unnecessary legislation. AB and SK should, at the very least, throw a finger up to the feds and be selective with what portions of the Firearms Act they will comply with, much in the same way that "2A Sanctuaries" are popping up in the States. Allow for provinces to show why the prohib list is ridiculous, how prohibited devices (aside from automatics?) aren't inherently dangerous, etc. Add in a caveat where persons from out-of-province can only purchase firearms that have reciprocated ownership status in their home province. Crackdown on straw purchases. People will 100% try to pass firearms across the border; apply the same criminal sanctions to people who participate in straw purchases. Force a registration of otherwise-prohib firearms so that people who let their firearms exit the province are punished. Is this realistic? Hell no. There's a lot of issues with this proposal. It's far from perfect. It's just a very conceptual starting point.

In my very fictional scenario, this keeps guns federal while also applying pressure to the federal government's firearms legislation. It prevents the constant whittling away of firearms ownership via compromise. It limits the strangle-hold that anyone has on the gun community. And, with any luck, it helps to drive prices down as manufacturers won't be concerned with their entire market evaporating overnight.

Unfortunately, unless we have some miraculous push from a million people, we won't get anywhere. Getting an increasingly large list of 12.Xs on our licenses will continue until nothing is left, if we do nothing.

First, automatics are not prohibited devices, they are prohibited firearms.

Silencers and certain magazines are prohibited devices.

Second, automatics are firearms, and just like every other firearm it is the fact that their projectiles may cause death that is their defining characteristic.

And, like all other firearms, they are entirely suitable for Canadians to use, carry, and possess.

[Cameron SS]

AB and SK should, at the very least, throw a finger up to the feds and be selective with what portions of the Firearms Act they will comply with, much in the same way that "2A Sanctuaries" are popping up in the States.

What 2A sanctuaries? There is no such legal mechanism known as a 2a sanctuary. Even so called constitutional carry states still have laws and regulations that violate the 2nd amendment.

Allow for provinces to show why the prohib list is ridiculous, how prohibited devices (aside from automatics?) aren't inherently dangerous, etc.

The provinces are free to engage in a public education campaign at any time to educate the public on the ridiculously of the prohibited list, on how prohibited devices like full capacity magazines and suppressors actually enhance public safety, and how automatics are not inherently dangerous.

Add in a caveat where persons from out-of-province can only purchase firearms that have reciprocated ownership status in their home province.

Whats this about? Firearms licenses are issued by the federal government and valid everywhere in Canada already. There is no such thing as a province reciprocating anything.

[quote]Crackdown on straw purchases. People will 100% try to pass firearms across the border; apply the same criminal sanctions to people who participate in straw purchases. [quote]

Strawpurchasing is not an offence in Canada. People who are found in possession of firearms with the intent to sell to an unlicensed person are charged the same whether they used a license to obtain the firearms or smuggled them. The charge is called Trafficking.

Force a registration of otherwise-prohib firearms so that people who let their firearms exit the province are punished.

Otherwise prohib? What does that mean? Now provinces should be forcing people to keep their firearms in their home province, or forcing them to register firearms they no longer have? Did that make sense to you when you wrote it, because it reads as being horribly more restrictive than what we have now.

Is this realistic? Hell no. There's a lot of issues with this proposal. It's far from perfect. It's just a very conceptual starting point.

Right you are. Your heart is in the right place, surely. But writing good laws is hard.

If you want to have a stab at rewriting the firearms act and criminal code, have at it. It will be a fun and educational experience. Here's a tip. Writing down a few guiding principles of what you believe, and then go line by line through every section of the code and firearms act that mentions firearm, and apply your guiding principle.

For me, one of my guiding principles is "Its about controlling people, not guns".
Another guiding principle is simply "the presumption of innocence".

Lets see how this works in practice. Section 2 of the criminal code, definition of weapon.

weapon means any thing used, designed to be used or intended for use

(a) in causing death or injury to any person, or

(b) for the purpose of threatening or intimidating any person

and, without restricting the generality of the foregoing, includes a firearm and, for the purposes of sections 88, 267 and 272, any thing used, designed to be used or intended for use in binding or tying up a person against their will.

So a weapon means anything used, designed to be used or intended to be used. I kind of like this. THe used or intended to be used means the person with the weapon has intent to harm. If it can be proven, then he can be punished in relation to the weapon. The problematic part here is the "designed to be used". Guy A designs a thing for a reason. He sells the thing to Guy B but doesnt tell him the reason why he designed it. Guy B uses the thing for some OTHER non harmful purpose, but police know something about the thing that Guy B doesn't, and charge him with possession of a weapon. Despite a lack of intent or even knowledge of the thing he peacefully owns, he now has a 'weapon'. That doesn't sit well with me.

Having demonstrated actual harm or intent, I'm good for punishing someone for the use of that weapon.

Now the second part, includes a firearm... No mention of intent. just includes firearm. SO what is a firearm.

firearm means a barrelled weapon from which any shot, bullet or other projectile can be discharged and that is capable of causing serious bodily injury or death to a person, and includes any frame or receiver of such a barrelled weapon and anything that can be adapted for use as a firearm

Thing from which bullets can be fired, capable of harm, includes just the receiver, and anything that can be adapted.

Potatoes at high velocity can cause harm. Potato guns meet the definition of firearm. PVC pipe can be adapted for use as a potato gun. Therefore all PVC pipe is a firearm and therefore a weapon? So a plumber with PVC pipe and no knowledge of potato guns, and no intent to shoot them possesses a weapon? That doesn't make sense. And while I am sure no one has ever gone to trial over possession of PVC pipe, a law that suggests this could be possible is bad law.

I would rewrite the definition of weapon to be as follows.

weapon means any thing used, or intended for used, by the person in possession of that thing, without lawful excuse

(a) in causing death or injury to any person, or

(b) for the purpose of threatening or intimidating any person, or

(c) any thing used, or intended for use in binding or tying up a person against their will.

With this as the definition of weapon, there is no need to define firearm at all, because all of the laws that address crime with weapons will immediately apply to any firearm used or possessed for that purpose. You can then delete every section of law that references firearm at all.

Presumption of innocence respected. Focus is on criminal intent to do harm, not the objects with which harm is done. Even in writing those few lines I had to refer back to my guiding principles several times to ensure I was being consistent. That's why I added the bit about "without lawful excuse", because the presumption of innocence still applies to people acting in self defense, and none of the laws intended to punish criminals for using weapons should be applied to a person who acts lawfully in self defense.

All of your above suggestions violate at least one if not both of those guiding principles, so while I appreciate your spirit, I can't agree on the details. And the devil is always in the details.

Unfortunately, unless we have some miraculous push from a million people, we won't get anywhere. Getting an increasingly large list of 12.Xs on our licenses will continue until nothing is left, if we do nothing.

Sadly, this is true. Its likewise sad how many people seem to think that having a 12.x mark on your license is something to be coveted, like membership in an exclusive club.

[WannaBeSpurdo]

<Snip>

I did mess up my wording, I didn't re-read it to ensure that it was 100% good to go, especially in the case of prohib devices vs prohib weapons. My mistake.

I agree with you. I'm only saying aside from automatics because, realistically, anyone who tries to bring autos back will experience political crucifixion. I personally think that there is no firearm to dangerous for a safe owner, and we should be allowed to own them. But for now, we have to be realistic.

<Snip>

I'll break this down line by line, unfortunately I'll probably end up over word limits if I included all the quotes.

2A sanctuaries in the sense that there are places that will stop complying with laws to confiscate firearms beyond an arbitrary point. True sanctuary? No (aside from Alaska, maybe?), but it's the colloquial term.

They are free to educate, but there is nothing that proves a point like tangible results. Everything looks good on paper, but seeing it work in reality really makes the point come together.

When I say reciprocated, I'm talking about it in the context of loose firearms legislation in one province and stricter/federal legislation in another. For example, if AB tossed the prohib list, AB residents could own whatever slavic arms they want, but someone in PEI, for example, couldn't. On the other hand, a generic bolt-action from AB would still be good to go in PEI. The latter is an example of the reciprocity I envisioned.

"Straw purchases" are again just a commonly used term for trafficking. While not the exact legal definition, people would know what I meant. Either way, it works.

Otherwise-prohibited arms, when I was thinking about it, was again based in the context of a province having no prohibited firearms list. It would require registration of federally-prohibited firearms, but they would be available for ownership in "free" provinces. Again, as a (politically correct) method of identifying traffickers. There would be no need to register anything else.

I like your guiding principles, and I definitely like their application better than my suggestions. It's a shame we can't have people like you writing our laws because that definition is far more succinct than what we have. I don't take offence to my suggestions violating any of those principles, because it was just me throwing a mass of crap against a wall and seeing what stuck. That's also how most brainstorming happens.

I would like to see what other suggestions you can table to unscuff our laws, because you seem like you've done a lot of research into the semantics and legal consequences of such changes. Thanks for the reply.

[CLW .45]

I did mess up my wording, I didn't re-read it to ensure that it was 100% good to go, especially in the case of prohib devices vs prohib weapons. My mistake.

I agree with you. I'm only saying aside from automatics because, realistically, anyone who tries to bring autos back will experience political crucifixion. I personally think that there is no firearm to dangerous for a safe owner, and we should be allowed to own them. But for now, we have to be realistic.



I'll break this down line by line, unfortunately I'll probably end up over word limits if I included all the quotes.

2A sanctuaries in the sense that there are places that will stop complying with laws to confiscate firearms beyond an arbitrary point. True sanctuary? No (aside from Alaska, maybe?), but it's the colloquial term.

They are free to educate, but there is nothing that proves a point like tangible results. Everything looks good on paper, but seeing it work in reality really makes the point come together.

When I say reciprocated, I'm talking about it in the context of loose firearms legislation in one province and stricter/federal legislation in another. For example, if AB tossed the prohib list, AB residents could own whatever slavic arms they want, but someone in PEI, for example, couldn't. On the other hand, a generic bolt-action from AB would still be good to go in PEI. The latter is an example of the reciprocity I envisioned.

"Straw purchases" are again just a commonly used term for trafficking. While not the exact legal definition, people would know what I meant. Either way, it works.

Otherwise-prohibited arms, when I was thinking about it, was again based in the context of a province having no prohibited firearms list. It would require registration of federally-prohibited firearms, but they would be available for ownership in "free" provinces. Again, as a (politically correct) method of identifying traffickers. There would be no need to register anything else.

I like your guiding principles, and I definitely like their application better than my suggestions. It's a shame we can't have people like you writing our laws because that definition is far more succinct than what we have. I don't take offence to my suggestions violating any of those principles, because it was just me throwing a mass of crap against a wall and seeing what stuck. That's also how most brainstorming happens.

I would like to see what other suggestions you can table to unscuff our laws, because you seem like you've done a lot of research into the semantics and legal consequences of such changes. Thanks for the reply.

Here is a little realism for you.

The only reason anyone believes that bringing up autos as being legit firearms for you is a problem, is that people have been cringing in the corners and not bringing them up - for forty years.

And worse yet, when we fail to include autos in our demands for repeal of prohibition - we are seen as supporting that daft idea that some firearms are just too dangerous for you to have.

And that, my friend, supports the demonization of all firearms as being too dangerous.

Which has brought us step by step to the very brink, leaving only a couple more steps until the ultimate goal of civil disarmament is achieved.

Call me an incurable optimist, I’ve certainly been called worse, but I believe there is still time to take our freedom back - but only if we end the flannel mouthed avoidance of demanding what we actually need.

We must stop avoiding carry to protect life and the legitimacy of full autos - or we will most assuredly lose everything!

[CLW .45]

The following was my response to an email from the CPC asking for money, and citing Trudeau’s lates gaff in a long series of international embarrassments as reason for me to cough up.

All very minor issues, in comparison to his continuation of his father’s civil disarmament agenda.

Something your efforts have been less than stellar about resolving.

Understand this:

Criminalization of the use, carriage, and possession of firearms must be repealed; prohibition and restriction of firearms must be repealed; and the requirement to demonstrate need, for individuals who desire handguns with which to defend their very lives, must be repealed!

[Patt08]

This motion is all well and good, but what exactly is it besides fluff? What steps are they actually prepared to take now that the liberals intentions are known?

[frabill]

Email the AB justice minister along with your MP in the same email. I've been doing that for a while now. The AB justice minister responds fairly quickly in my experience. Unrelated to guns but the harvesting of the muskox in AB.