 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
Indeed, it would be a delicious irony if after 20 years of gun owners tolerating the restriction of the AR, that Trudeau was responsible for waking the neast and his action to prohibit the AR eventually results in its unrestriction.Originally Posted by kodiakjack
This is my wet dream:
Imagine 100,000 ARs going unregistered. That would be the last time that anyone ever registered an AR in Canada, and you see people buying bulk packs of AR receivers by the truck load.
Government is a broker in pillage, and every election is sort of an advance auction sale of stolen goods. HL Mencken. 1919.
if this happens they will just implement c71 in full specifically:
https://www.parl.ca/DocumentViewer/e...-assent#ID0EZCAuthorization to transfer non-restricted firearms
23 (1) A person may transfer one or more non-restricted firearms if, at the time of the transfer,
(a) the transferee holds a licence authorizing the transferee to acquire and possess a non-restricted firearm;
(b) the Registrar has, at the transferor’s request, issued a reference number for the transfer and provided it to the transferor; and
(c) the reference number is still valid.
Information — transferee’s licence
(2) The transferee shall provide to the transferor the prescribed information that relates to the transferee’s licence, for the purpose of enabling the transferor to request that the Registrar issue a reference number for the transfer.
Reference number
(3) The Registrar shall issue a reference number if he or she is satisfied that the transferee holds and is still eligible to hold a licence authorizing them to acquire and possess a non-restricted firearm.
Period of validity
(4) A reference number is valid for the prescribed period.
Registrar not satisfied
(5) If the Registrar is not satisfied as set out in subsection (3), he or she may so inform the transferor.
There are 7 lugs on an AR bolt. There should be 7 lawsuits. Whose gonna be lucky #7?
UNPROFOR 94/95, SFOR 2001
Member of the CCFR and CPC.
If you are not donating $20/month to the CPC then you are not serious about owning and keeping your guns.
If the liberals discover that they’ve ACCIDENTALLY unrestricted 100,000 AR-15s? They won’t touch gun legislation again for 100 years. They’ll need 10 years after that for their lawyers to vet the next piece of tripe they bring forward.
The Bee does not squander his time trying to explain to the Fly why honey is better than s**t. Each creature is content with the meal laid before them, so the Bee reserves his endeavor for those who know its worth.
This is would absolutely incredible, id literally buy a case of Dom Perignon in celebration, not to mention as many ARs 15s as money could buy
Whos judicial review is taking this angle?
All the ones stating it’s invalid due the “governor general’s opinion” not being even remotely informed on the issue.
The Bee does not squander his time trying to explain to the Fly why honey is better than s**t. Each creature is content with the meal laid before them, so the Bee reserves his endeavor for those who know its worth.
The AR-15 was non restricted before (1970;s and 90;s) so, aside from the fact you would need an att, the oic also makes it legal to hunt with an AR due to the wording.SOR/2020-96: "The Amnesty Order permits the use of any of the newly prohibited firearms, if previously non-restricted, to hunt for the purposes of sustenance..............".
from Ms. parkers suit:
The AR-15 if it is deemed reasonable for use it cannot be restriced either.The decision of the Governor in Council that in their opinion the weapons prohibited by
SOR/2020-96 are not reasonable for use in Canada for hunting or sporting purposes as referred
to in s. 117.15 (2) is justiciable. It is subject to review by this Court. And, if it is found to be
unreasonable, arbitrary or irrational, it cannot stand.
[snip]
Order in Council 2020-298 is ultra vires the Governor in Council in that it prescribes
firearms to be prohibited that are “reasonable for use in Canada for hunting or sporting
purposes” within the meaning of s. 117.15 (2) of the Criminal Code.
[snip]
The affected firearms are reasonable for use in Canada for hunting or sporting purposes.
[snip]
Indeed, the definition is, in and of itself, a circular one. In the government’s view,
“assault-style firearms” are not reasonable for use in Canada for hunting or sporting
purposes because they are “assault-style firearms”.
This is tautological and cannot be the basis for a reasonable and rational opinion by the
Governor in Council
so to answer your question any suit that argues the reasonableness of the AR-15 (which I believe is all of them)
Last edited by Big-boss-man; 06-09-2020 at 08:55 PM.
I have been listening to numerous interviews, podcasts etc. Recall hearing from a lawyer somewhere that the governor's opinion must be rational/reasonable. Therefore what was the decision based on?
The governor general's opinion was based on the same narrative that the Federal Liberals have provided to the public, which is simply that these assault type weapons were meant for the battlefield only and designed to kill the most amount of people in the least amount of time. I'm fairly certain the governor general is not a shooter and does not have an RPAL, so therefore she could only make a decision based on the information provided. In this case, she was given not even an opinion, but a pitch that any reasonable yet uninformed person would agree with.
If any of the legal actions are successful, I suspect that current and future governor generals will require far more information before they sign off on an IOC that they received this time. If I were Julie Payette, I'd be pissed at this whole ordeal when we reach all the conclusions. I'd also say the GG should have done her own due diligence instead of behaving like a brainless tool.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote