Team Hipwell Scores a WIN. - Ed Burlew
- Thread starter Wolverine .303
- Start date
Cdnhunter117
CGN Regular
- Location
- Northern Ontario
When injustice becomes law, resistance becomes duty.
I am not a lawyer, but my limited understanding of the constitution requires that in order for parliament to limit a right, the government must meet two conditions to satisfy the test: 1 there must be a real issue at question, and 2 limiting the right in question must be reasonably seen to have an impact on the issue.
So, limiting my rights because criminals do crimes seems to beg the question: what chance does the OIC have of impacting criminal use of illegal firearms?
So, limiting my rights because criminals do crimes seems to beg the question: what chance does the OIC have of impacting criminal use of illegal firearms?
Potentially not, but they did do it from a public safety standpoint so there may be some avenue associated with this determination considering they are not used in the vast majority of shootings and are widely owned and hunted with....
Well if they used firearms registry data that was ordered by parliament to be destroyed then:
1. The PM may have knowingly used "illegal" data to create laws which would enormously undermine the sovreignity of parliament
2. As above but for an MP and Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness
3. As above for numerous other governmental ministers, RCMP officers etc
So there's a whole wealth of clusterbomb there
Then if it turns out there's no data to base a spending plan on then the liberals will have created a budget based on nothing, which given their history with the $2 billion long gun registry is going to look very bad.
Then if there is data it opens up many doors to contradict it, highlight how poor the data is and more.
Whatever documents the government provides will be under seal for the eyes of the judge only.
The contents may or may not be revealed.
But the documents could reveal to the judge that the Government's justification for the OiC is superficial. If the justification for the OiC is discredited in the eyes of the judge, the case will be substantially strengthened.
The contents may or may not be revealed.
But the documents could reveal to the judge that the Government's justification for the OiC is superficial. If the justification for the OiC is discredited in the eyes of the judge, the case will be substantially strengthened.
CZ Shooter
CGN frequent flyer
So basically if the government does not respond within the 30 days as per their reasons to the gun ban, the OIC get's automatically reversed?
Not sure how this works exactly and I'm not very good with lawyer stuff, but common sense would dictate that if someone on taxpayers dime (all politicians) can't provide a good reason for their actions in a court of law, then those actions should then be declared a waste of resources and subsequently neutralized?
Not sure how this works exactly and I'm not very good with lawyer stuff, but common sense would dictate that if someone on taxpayers dime (all politicians) can't provide a good reason for their actions in a court of law, then those actions should then be declared a waste of resources and subsequently neutralized?
No, this just means that the plaintiff can file a motion of contempt of court if the respondent does not present the documents. i am not sure what remedy or punishment can the court leverages on the government if the government chooses to ignore, the government definitely doesn't care about fines or money at al. After that, more hearings and my guess is that it will weaken the respondent case.
Who knows, the government may just ignore the order instead of producing the juicy documents.
We wish. If that were the case most our our governments' actions would get rescinded. Good luck to this challenge, but in reality Trudeau doesn't need any reasons, and certainly none that pass a court's test for adequacy. Yea maybe it'll look a bit arbitrary, but he'll doubtless have many supporters in any event.
The Conservatives do not challenge the Liberal party in any substantive way. The government and opposition are like a panel of your ex’s choosing your life decisions. They won’t always agree on everything, except you don’t matter much.
If the majority of Canadians agree with the government passing legislation I doubt reason and evidence have a huge bearing on the final outcome. Unfortunately, as owning a firearm is not a constitutional right in Canada but rather a privilege we may be SOL.
tenringbound
CGN frequent flyer
- Location
- Atlantic Canada
Agree 100%. It’s absolutely black and white, not everyone will agree on this course of action but it’s the only way to react to an unjust, unfair, and completely bs “law”.
