Page 11 of 13 FirstFirst ... 345678910111213 LastLast
Results 101 to 110 of 130

Thread: CCFRs big battle for our rights starts today..Please become a Member and Donate

  1. #101
    CGN Regular
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    507
    Quote Originally Posted by Cameron SS View Post
    Possibly. however given the case management it might be dealt with through a closed teleconference with the parties. The decision itself will be made public shortly after its delivered, regardless if there is a public appearance to deliver it.
    Hey Cameron,

    Are you to elaborate a little on the FRT part of the hearing?

  2. #102
    CGN Ultra frequent flyer
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Ground Zero
    Posts
    16,463
    Quote Originally Posted by Kaberday View Post
    Hey Cameron,

    Are you to elaborate a little on the FRT part of the hearing?
    Well the FRT in various respects was half the part of the hearing. Ask a more specific question.

    One cute highlight was that the applicants were suggesting that there was harm in complying with the OIC. The government argued there would be no harm if you complied with it. There is only harm in non compliance. The applicants argued that we can't comply with it because we don't know how, because variant is vague. The government countered with well its not vague because you can consult the FRT. The judge steps in and asks, thats the FRT that you have already argued is not law, but just your opinion? The AGC said yes. The Judge asked well why would they comply with your opinion? Shouldn't they comply with the actual law? If the FRT isn't the law, then how do they know how to comply? The AGC ruffles papers, stammers, chokes, "well the law is the law. And if they need help they can consult our opinion..."

    A central issue in the hearing was the meaning of variant, and whether it was vague. The government tried to argue that not only is it NOT vague, but vagueness is actually a good thing cause it allows to ensure we can prohibit whatever we want.

    The beautiful part, and Runkle already commented on this, the applicants spent more time ripping apart the testimony of Murray Smith than they did relying on their own evidence. In essence, Murray Smith was essentially the star witness for the applicants.

    Overall, the Firearms Lawyers were in top shape, speaking from the head and the heart, knew their material down cold, and presented in a very competent and passionate manner. The Government lawyers were disorganized, didn't understand their own materials, clearly didn't know the subject matter, were dispassionate and utterly unable to provide satisfactory answers to most of the judges questions. If this is a preview to the main hearing, the government is going to get destroyed.
    Government is a broker in pillage, and every election is sort of an advance auction sale of stolen goods. HL Mencken. 1919.

  3. #103
    CGN Regular
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    507
    Thx, great explanation. I was wondering if the judge and the crown agreed that the frt is not law, does this essentially mean that the firearms outside the OIC are on their way to freedom.

  4. #104
    CGN Regular douginont's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Location
    Coe Hill ON
    Posts
    373
    Dropped a brown note.
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC] Fully aware I'm Living the Dream.

  5. #105
    CGN Ultra frequent flyer
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Ground Zero
    Posts
    16,463
    Quote Originally Posted by Kaberday View Post
    Thx, great explanation. I was wondering if the judge and the crown agreed that the frt is not law, does this essentially mean that the firearms outside the OIC are on their way to freedom.
    Both parties agreed that the FRT is not law, and the judge seemed to understand that.

    I think its premature to conclude that the firearms outside the OiC are on their way to freedom. There is a chicken in the Egg problem here for the government. The government banned 'AR 15s, M4s, AR10s, etc. It then applied SOME definition of variant to determine over a thousand 'variants', and named those variants. But some how that application of the term didn't capture ALL the 'variants', and the RCMP later added more variants. As the definition of variant is in issue, its not just the unnamed variants that are suspect, but the named variants as well. If the term variant gets struck down as void for vagueness, than its possible that the whole OIC gets struck down, not just the unnamed variants. Further, one thing that has not yet been discussed, is the OiC in question is is just an amendment to preexisting regulations. Those previous regulations, the Classification Regulations in force since 1998, are issued under the same impugned regulatory authority, use the same vague terms, and are equally deficient in their factual and logical connection to the public safety purpose and infringe all the same rights as the amendments.

    At the main hearing, its going to be incredibly difficult for anyone to argue that the amendments could be strike down while allowing the rest of the regulations to stand. Its not unthinkable that one potential outcome is that the entire classification regulations get struck down entirely, or at least the part that prescribes prohibited firearms. Thats an issue that won't be settled on the injunction hearing though.

    To come back to your question, the government essentially argued today that the unnamed variants are either captured, or they aren't, but thats a matter of opinion that has not been ruled on by a judge. So technically despite the fact that the RCMP believe the unnamed variants are captured, they simultaneously maintain that they might not be, and that you are free to form your opinion. So if you believe the unnamed variants are not captured under the regulations, then you are free to act on that opinion which is just as legally binding as the FRT, which is not at all. And if you are wrong in that opinion, fear not, for a judge will tell you what it actually is at your criminal trial. No big deal, right?

    The government really embarassed themselves today. I just wish more people could have seen it. Any myth that the government knows what their doing or operates in good faith would have been destroyed.
    Government is a broker in pillage, and every election is sort of an advance auction sale of stolen goods. HL Mencken. 1919.

  6. #106
    CGN Regular trapoholic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Da swamp
    Posts
    948
    Quote Originally Posted by Cameron SS View Post
    There were over 8 hours of oral arguments given today. After several days of testimony and several thousand pages of written submissions. Do you actually want the judge to make a snap decision off the cuff?
    Should be a no brainer for the judge honestly.
    "People who have never owned or used one claim that the Remington pump guns are not as accurate as their bolt guns.

    And the people who own and shoot them just chuckle at those statements."

  7. #107
    CGN Regular
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    507
    Wow, really appreciate it you explaining and putting this into perspective to dum dum like me :-).

  8. #108
    CGN frequent flyer
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Victoria, B.C.
    Posts
    1,616
    This is absolutely a fight worth supporting, and I'll continue to donate to the CCFR and ATRS. Thanks very much to the commentators for their insight; it's certainly an encouraging start.

    One thing that has me concerned is what kind of retaliatory action the Liberals will take if their firearms policy (and the RCMP/CFP application there of) is discredited. In all that I've seen from Trudeau and Blair, there's no lack of modesty in their self-righteousness. I can only imagine what kind of "punitive" firearms laws they'll propose and ram down Parliament's throat, minority government be damned. That being said, I can't support bad laws out of fear of worse laws, and hope that any legal decision that supports firearms rights will somehow lesson the government's ability to enact further legislation.

    In general, from those that have the legal experience, would a positive decision in the CCFR suit (or others) have a lasting impact in curtailing the government's ability to continue their attack on firearms ownership in Canada?

  9. #109
    CGN Regular Chatrbaz84's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2017
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    658
    Can someone share the result today ?
    I mean any official results available?
    concealed carry will save lives.

  10. #110
    CGN Ultra frequent flyer
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Ground Zero
    Posts
    16,463
    Quote Originally Posted by stickhunter View Post
    This is absolutely a fight worth supporting, and I'll continue to donate to the CCFR and ATRS. Thanks very much to the commentators for their insight; it's certainly an encouraging start.

    One thing that has me concerned is what kind of retaliatory action the Liberals will take if their firearms policy (and the RCMP/CFP application there of) is discredited. In all that I've seen from Trudeau and Blair, there's no lack of modesty in their self-righteousness. I can only imagine what kind of "punitive" firearms laws they'll propose and ram down Parliament's throat, minority government be damned. That being said, I can't support bad laws out of fear of worse laws, and hope that any legal decision that supports firearms rights will somehow lesson the government's ability to enact further legislation.

    In general, from those that have the legal experience, would a positive decision in the CCFR suit (or others) have a lasting impact in curtailing the government's ability to continue their attack on firearms ownership in Canada?
    Well like all things it depends. The judge could rule for or against. In ruling for the applicants she could let the law stand and simply award monetary damages. She could rule that the legislation is valid but strike out any use of the word variant. Or she could strike the whole thing. The WHY that the judge gives in her ruling is just as important as the WHAT. Its premature to speculate.

    If she says the law is sort of ok, but minorly deficient, you can bet the liberals will move quick to correct such deficiencies. If the judge strikes it down entirely and issues a thorough rebuke of the very notion of classifying firearms by name makes and models in the regulations (as opposed to readily verifiable technical features), then the liberals will have to think long and hard before they try to do anything else.

    It seems to me that the liberals have unwittingly exposed the Canadian Firearms Program to much more scrutiny than they ever would have intended, and this case has the potential to knock down the whole house of cards. Or the judge may tread very lightly and take a surgeons approach and leave the majority of it intact. It really could go a lot of different ways.

    As for the injunction, she once again has broad latitude. If she grants an injunction the government would have the option of addressing the reasons quickly and reissuing new regulations, or waiting until the final outcome of the hearing. I don't really see the government doing much until the hearings are over. One thing that seems somewhat obvious is that the liberals aren't actually interested in doing anything quickly. I suspect that Trudeau would be perfectly happy for this to take five years doing the slow walk through the courts cause it gives him an excuse to put the whole file on the back burner.

    Quote Originally Posted by Chatrbaz84 View Post
    Can someone share the result today ?
    I mean any official results available?
    No result. Judge reserved her decision which means she needs ot think about it. She did not give a time line. The expectation is a few weeks at least.
    Government is a broker in pillage, and every election is sort of an advance auction sale of stolen goods. HL Mencken. 1919.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •