Order in Council - Updates and Information

[05RAV]

I just watched the Turd and Blair tell me that there is no need for these rifles in Canada for hunting and are only used to kill the most people in a short period of time, but natives hunt with them HMMMMM

You are absolutely right. But what to expect? Both are idiots!
As a remark in passing they prohibited a begnin Smith and Wesson M&P15-22 (http://www.gazette.gc.ca/rp-pr/p2/20...NhRwPSHcri8Ng; (z.781) Smith & Wesson M&P 15-22) as a one of the most dangerous "miltary style assault weapons''!

[FreedomIsn'tFree]

(http://www.gazette.gc.ca/rp-pr/p2/20...hRwPSHcri8Ng):
In addition, 1.3 million Canadians participate in legal hunting. These owners may also be affected if they have been using a newly prohibited firearm that was previously nonrestricted. If they have been using such a firearm for sustenance hunting or to exercise a right affirmed in section 35 of the Constitution, they may continue to use their firearm for the same purpose, until the end of the amnesty period. Hunting contributes an estimated $4.1 billion to Canada’s GDP as well as $2 billion in labour income, and supports about 33 313 full-time equivalent jobs.

This needs to be sent to all MP's that if Natives hunt with them why are Turd and Blair saying the only use for these rifles is to kill people and need to be prohibited. I'm calling Glen Motz Monday to talk to him about this. Get on it and send this out to everyone to debunk the LIB Bullshyt.

[vancouverbc]

It doesnt appear to apply to natives only. Read the wording carefully. Could easily be interpreted as applying to hunters.

Youza.

An interesting interpretation and the way I read that as well. It makes sense that if you are using one of the guns on the list to hunt for food, that you be allowed to continue to do so, indigenous person or not.

[Chargerguy]

I just watched the Turd and Blair tell me that there is no need for these rifles in Canada for hunting and are only used to kill the most people in a short period of time, but natives hunt with them HMMMMM

Such a messed up situation.

[H2000]

You are absolutely right. But what to expect? Both are idiots!
As a remark in passing they prohibited a begnin Smith and Wesson M&P15-22 (http://www.gazette.gc.ca/rp-pr/p2/20...NhRwPSHcri8Ng; (z.781) Smith & Wesson M&P 15-22) as a one of the most dangerous "miltary style assault weapons''!

I saw that too. What a crock of you know what...

[squidxm]

I just watched the Turd and Blair tell me that there is no need for these rifles in Canada for hunting and are only used to kill the most people in a short period of time, but natives hunt with them HMMMMM

I'm guessing you're referring to AR's? Key wording is "...if they have been using a newly prohibited firearm that was previously nonrestricted". Therefore, natives are still not allowed to hunt with AR's. As for native vs non-native, it applies to anyone who depends on the firearms for sustenance. However, when Blair was speaking about this part during the conference he said "until they find a reasonable alternative".

[madpat]

Gazette pg65: The Government intends to implement a buy-back program which would allow affected owners to declare their intent to participate in the program in order to be eligible for compensation once the owner turns in the firearm. A grandfathering regime would also be made available for owners of the newly prohibited firearms...

I'm kinda curious about this line.

[squidxm]

I'm kinda curious about this line.

My guess is you get to keep it, but as a safe queen. No buy back money, no selling, no shooting, just own it until you die. If so, I'm going this route in case there is a sudden spill of a certain substance in the water supply that causes people to come to their ####ing senses and this is overturned.

[Guard]

I'm interpreting it that way too!
"In addition, 1.3 million Canadians participate in legal hunting. These owners [all hunters] may also be affected if they have been using a newly prohibited firearm that was previously nonrestricted [so, any firearm which was used for hunting with]. If they have been using such a firearm for sustenance hunting or to exercise a right affirmed in section 35 of the Constitution [it says or not and], they may continue to use their firearm for the same purpose ... "
So, if anyone has been using a previously legal firearm for hunting, then it seems that person may continue to due so according to this excerpt if I am interpreting it correctly.

However upon further reflecting on the wording, I can interpret it another way.
"In addition, 1.3 million Canadians participate in legal hunting. These owners may also be affected [yes, these owners may likely be affected] if they have been using a newly prohibited firearm that was previously nonrestricted. [HOWEVER] If they have been using such a firearm for sustenance hunting [if you are a trapper in the boonies] or to exercise a right affirmed in section 35 of the Constitution [or if this applies to you], they may continue to use their firearm for the same purpose ... "
Gotosay I'm confused as I can honestly interpret it both ways.

[1-2-2]

Depressing.

Will oil the babies up and put-em into storage.

He’s causing the depression. When there is one, Trudeau is the cause.