Done !
I answered all questions with do nothing, as Canada does not have a firearm problem.
If you agree to even one step toward firearm action by the Gov. then they jump in whole hog against the law abiding.
As they define "assault weapons" have a "large magazine".... we don't have any Assault Rifles in Canada! unless you consider 5 rounds large!
deleted, do what you can do....
Responding to this consultation is about 100 times more important than any petitions or letter we can send to the public safety minister, or any of the online polls held endlessly by news sites.
This consultation is probably going to be the singular basis for whether or not the government embarks on a handgun band.
Be clear, and do not let yourself be constrained by their questions. Use the provided text boxes explain why you think a handgun ban is the wrong solution. Edit your stuff for typos and clarity. Support your claims with good references if you can.
Duplicate submission from the same IP address will likely be flagged and deleted.
It is vital we share this with as many gun owners as you know. Clubs, ranges, businesses, etc. Share the link on social media. encourage as much participation as possible.
Government is a broker in pillage, and every election is sort of an advance auction sale of stolen goods. HL Mencken. 1919.
Assault weapons don't have magazines. Property can not legally possess other property.
Firearms with removable magazines have an infinite capacity. Defining a firearm based on magazine capacity means the classification changes with the capacity of the magazine that is fitted. This is a problematic way to define a firearm.
Remember that the 1994 US assault weapon ban was drafted by Diane Feinstein, who thought that a barrel shroud was the "shoulder thing that goes up."
Government is a broker in pillage, and every election is sort of an advance auction sale of stolen goods. HL Mencken. 1919.