Order in Council - Updates and Information

[soldier506]

No. It is your responsibility to be follow the law, and ignorance of the law is no excuse.

However, your duly issued registration certificate is valid until revoked and is taken at face value as proof of legal status. The government has a duty now to revoke that certificate.until they do it is reasinable for you to believe your firearm is still restricted, but you will be on very thin ice and asking for trouble.

I assume this is only valid to previous restricted firearms like the ar15 ? Anything nonrestricted never had any type of paperwork

[Armed Hippie]

If they give me anything less than $20,000 for my AR, I’ll keep it past the deadline as I never intended to sell it. Market value doesn’t take into consideration sentimental value... so the jackboots can go F themselves.

[safetyfactorman]

ttps://www.sott.net/article/436775-RCMP-Whistleblowers-Leak-Evidence-That-Nova-Scotia-Shooter-Was-Undercover-POLICE-AGENT

[RK99]

ttps://www.sott.net/article/436775-RCMP-Whistleblowers-Leak-Evidence-That-Nova-Scotia-Shooter-Was-Undercover-POLICE-AGENT

Oh FFS, take your tinfoil hat off and get yourself some medication.

[2ndShotCanada]

Oh FFS, take your tinfoil hat off and get yourself some medication.

For posting an article, whose content was also made public by Macleans’s recently???

Who really needs the medication... the person offering a different point of view? Or the person attacking them with nonsense on an Internet forum ��

Not going to derail the wolverine thread... but that kind of attitude is why our community is so divided ������������

[Hamneggs]

I hear ya. The antis get uptight about home defense for some reason. "Putting property over lives". But we're not talking about a teenager stealing a can of gas out of the garage. I can't shoot someone if I am not home, and if I am home and they come in anyways, they're prob not some poor guy taking a couple cans of soup to feed his kids.

[Hamneggs]

We need to be able to openly say we use firearms for defence. Enough talking about it with terms like "Zombie Apocalypse" The truth is that guns are also meant for defence. The fact that we have to pretend otherwise is only hurting our cause. "Why do we need an AR-15?" To protect my family. Period. It doesn't have to be against tyrannical government. It can be against a wacked out meth head as well. This country has us pretending a bunch of things so they can also pretend a bunch of things.

I hear ya. The antis get uptight about home defense for some reason. "Putting property over lives". But we're not talking about a teenager stealing a can of gas out of the garage. I can't shoot someone if I am not home, and if I am home and they come in anyways, they're prob not some poor guy taking a couple cans of soup to feed his kids.

[rebelent]

I have herd that central gun storage is next though the grapevine. Won't be able to have any firearms in a personal dwelling.

We got to do all we can to stop and remove this goverment

Central storage , That’s awesome a one stop shopping for the criminals.

[Big-boss-man]

Actually what SOR/2020-96b says is that: "Also included are two new categories of firearms that exceed safe civilian use. These are characterized by the following physical attributes: a 20 mm bore or greater (e.g. grenade launcher) and the capacity to discharge a projectile with a muzzle energy greater than 10 000 joules (e.g. a .50 calibre BMG). These weapons are primarily designed to produce mass human casualties or cause significant property damage at long ranges, and the potential power of these weapons exceeds safe or legitimate civilian use".
First, a signalling device has never been designed to produce mass human casualties. Second, Sec. 84(3)CCC: "For the purposes of sections 91 to 95, 99 to 101, 103 to 107 and 117.03 of this Act and the provisions of the Firearms Act, the following weapons are deemed not to be firearms: b) any device that is
(i) designed exclusively for signalling, for notifying of distress, for firing blank cartridges or for firing stud cartridges, explosive-driven rivets or other industrial projectiles....etc.". So far, the Criminal Code of Canada is not changed neither the Firearms Act is.

A definition of a firearm is in the CCC Sec.2 p.6:“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 barreled weapon and anything that can be adapted for use as a firearm; “weapon” means anything 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;

IMO a flare gun/signalling device does not meet these definitions.

wonderful of you to quote all of that tripe in the OIC but you missed the most import part:

(This statement is not part of the Regulations or the Order.)

Second the regulation says "a firearm" and you've got the definition down so you can see a signalling device is a firearm.


That definitely DOES fit the description of a flare gun, if it didn't section 84 of the ccc would not specifically exempt them from being firearms for the purpose of possession without a licence, transportation and storage. It is irrelevant that a flare gun is exempted from certain parts of the FA and CCC, because it is a firearm and the OIC can regulate it as it refers to 'firearms', and there is no written "except for signalling devices" in the OIC (which there is for firearms designed to detonate explosives, so one could argue if they want to exempt them they would've written it in)
[/derail]

[RK99]

For posting an article, whose content was also made public by Macleans’s recently???

Who really needs the medication... the person offering a different point of view? Or the person attacking them with nonsense on an Internet forum ��

Not going to derail the wolverine thread... but that kind of attitude is why our community is so divided ������������

Both the linked article and the Mcleans one jump to unsubstantiated conclusions. All that is known is that the guy withdrew a large sum of money. Nobody knows where it was from. Just because it's a method the RCMP might use to pay off an informant doesn't mean anything. A drug cartel or bikers could have used the same method to send him money. Maybe he bought illegal guns for them too and that was his payment? See, I can play the wild speculation game too?

The problem is that many in this community (many of the more vocal ones anyhow) come across as radical right wingers or conspiracy nuts etc. All kinds of talk about burying your guns etc or even people spewing hatred about Trudeau or the Poly women (don't get me wrong, I don't like them and think they are misinformed at best and dishonest at worst). That's exactly the kind of stuff that makes non gun owners look at you askance and think you shouldn't have guns. Radical positions and talking nonsense only hurts the cause and will not get average non gun owning Canadians to think that they are safe with people like that owning guns. But hey, carry on with all the anger and conspiracy nonsense and it will only lead to more bans and regulations rather than assuring people that we are rational, reasonable, law abiding people who can safely own firearms.