Ak-47

[zupermann]

3597515]Yes finding willing participants is very tough indeed! There seems to be only 1 in a million that are willing to go the extra mile , like the one man that refused to register his rifles

!

Regarding a mass banning/confiscation : The error many make is "they" come to confiscate your stuff, and then you have to take "them" to court to get it all back, which costs $$$$. Why not have things disappear, and "they" have to take you to court to find them. You then have what they want, and this strengthens your bargaining position should you get worn out. Refuse to get a lawyer and then one is provided to you by the court. This is all just theoretical of course.

I seem to remember alot of people talking about how they would never register thier long guns when the registry came into effect but that was all talk I guess!

Lots of airbags out there. I can't necessarily blame them. I certainly don't need a hassle in my life right now, but the idea of "test
case" keeps coming back to me. On the other hand, I recall stats from the mid 1990's saying that there are an estimated " 3 to 5 million" gun owners or something like that. There certainly aren't that many licenses issued. I suspect many people just dropped off the radar (passive noncompliance). So maybe it wasn't all just talk!

I think the major problem is that we as people just let the government and the special interest groups make the rules , we dont stand up for ourselves ,

Individually we are weak, collectively we can change the system. I fear it'll take a very heavy hand (and a lot of people will lose their property, etc) to motivate a passive non compliance campaign.

anyways , this is an ak thread isnt it

[/QUOTE]

You're right...this should be in the political forum. I will shut up now.

Fine print: The above is for informational/theoretical/entertainment purposes only, by someone who'll probably end up being just another "air bag", and shouldn't be construed as being a lawbreaking agitator

 

[enefgee]

I've been trying to do a bit of research, and still can't find what prevents a person from firing a 12.x rifle, if it is legally at a range or other place where any firearm my be legally discharged???
I realize a lot of this foolish legislation is a reverse thing, but I'm still stumped. It's probably in there, somewhere, but I can't find the authority to charge a person, under what section???

Gawd knows we have a plethora/cornucopia of CGN lawyers, so maybe some of them could get to work and do some digging for a positive benefit, rather than just a whine fest.

The CFOs are saying, "you can't do that". Well what is their legislative authority to say it, and enforce it???

It may very well be there, but I always like to be able to quote section number, etc., rather than just "cause I said so". I had enough of that when I was 6. I pay the bills for this country now, and I really don't like the thought of some condescending government employee dictating a "policy", just because they want it so.

Rant off.

The major issue with the firearms act is that it does, in fact, give the CFO's virtually unlimited power. I'd love to ba a CFO - give myself a carry permit and a 12.2/3/4/5/6 RPAL - all legally because if the CFO says it's so, it is. Must be nice, also the politicians aren't really tuned in so the oversight can't be huge, as long as the budget is in line, and you don't step on your pee-pee in public.

 

[TrevorW]

The major issue with the firearms act is that it does, in fact, give the CFO's virtually unlimited power. I'd love to ba a CFO - give myself a carry permit and a 12.2/3/4/5/6 RPAL - all legally because if the CFO says it's so, it is. Must be nice, also the politicians aren't really tuned in so the oversight can't be huge, as long as the budget is in line, and you don't step on your pee-pee in public.

If the CFO has unlimited power then could we all get together and go to the CFO , try to talk to him? I know this sounds dumb , but even though I am not a prohib owner I would help out any prohib owners in Alberta any way I could to talk to the CFO!Like start a group , it starts small maybe each province could get the CFO to issue the permits so people could start shooting thier prohibs than you never know what could happen next maybe getting those rivets in our mags moved down a notch!!

 

[zupermann]

The major issue with the firearms act is that it does, in fact, give the CFO's virtually unlimited power.

And absolute power corrupts absolutely! The CFO's collectively appear to have little or NO oversight from their current (Conservative) masters. I think this is why a lot of prohib owners (and their friends/allies) aren't happy with the Conservatives. The above practices/ harrassment from the CFO Office continues....are they (Conservatives)not aware of it, or do they just don't care? Yes, the unrestricted "bunch" is the largest grouop of firearms owners and seem to count the most with the CPC, but really they have the least (at this point) to lose. I've contributed a fair sum of $$ because my stuff is one step from the scrap pile. It would be nice to see some protection sprout from this.

 

[zupermann]

If the CFO has unlimited power then could we all get together and go to the CFO , try to talk to him? I know this sounds dumb , but even though I am not a prohib owner I would help out any prohib owners in Alberta any way I could to talk to the CFO

May be not dumb at all....I haven't heard of any group doing this, although I've talked to indivuduals (who spoke with their local CFO)who said that it's a waste of time. A group would have more influence for sure, if ONE CFO can be persuaded, they'll (other CFO's) will either make him back down or probably get the guy fired...but if he doesn't, then it'll open the door for change.

Yes Trevor, Just because the target is unlikely to be hit, doesn't mean we shouldn't take the shot....what else do we have to lose?

 

[10x]

May be not dumb at all....I haven't heard of any group doing this, although I've talked to indivuduals (who spoke with their local CFO)who said that it's a waste of time. A group would have more influence for sure, if ONE CFO can be persuaded, they'll (other CFO's) will either make him back down or probably get the guy fired...but if he doesn't, then it'll open the door for change.

Yes Trevor, Just because the target is unlikely to be hit, doesn't mean we shouldn't take the shot....what else do we have to lose?

The CSSA has stated they have talked to the C.F.O.s
I have talked to a provincial C.F.O. and have been told that they enforce what they are directed to enforce by those higher up.
After dealing with C.F.O.s I suspect there is NO WAY firearms owners can influence the C.F.O.
but go ahead and try if it makes you feel good.

 

[zupermann]

The CSSA has stated they have talked to the C.F.O.s
I have talked to a provincial C.F.O. and have been told that they enforce what they are directed to enforce by those higher up.
.

I thank you for your above efforts.

Interesting....the CFO's claim that they're merely following higher orders...sounds like the "Nuremburg defence"

It boils down to whether or not the CFO's participate in the enforcement of (although technically ?legal?), IMMORAL laws/regulations.

Is such the state of law enforcement in Kanada? Apparently so.

 

[10x]

I thank you for your above efforts.

Interesting....the CFO's claim that they're merely following higher orders...sounds like the "Nuremburg defence"

It boils down to whether or not the CFO's participate in the enforcement of (although technically ?legal?), IMMORAL laws/regulations.

Is such the state of law enforcement in Kanada? Apparently so.

The C.F.O.s have a great deal of latitude in how they enforce the firearms laws regarding the requests of those gun owners who wish to comply with the law.
The C.F.O.s tend to consider their role as restricting activities with firearms rather than encouraging legal - lawful activities. The C.F.O.s role in issuing transportation and use document ( or not issuing transportation and use documents) has neither a positive or negative on public safety or crime. They are just exercising their powers.

 

[TrevorW]

May be not dumb at all....I haven't heard of any group doing this, although I've talked to indivuduals (who spoke with their local CFO)who said that it's a waste of time. A group would have more influence for sure, if ONE CFO can be persuaded, they'll (other CFO's) will either make him back down or probably get the guy fired...but if he doesn't, then it'll open the door for change.

Yes Trevor, Just because the target is unlikely to be hit, doesn't mean we shouldn't take the shot....what else do we have to lose?

Thanks , its really nice when someone agress with you on something !

 

[zupermann]

Thanks , its really nice when someone agress with you on something !

I want to encourage you (and others) to do what you can to help your fellow men/women firearms owners. This is the decent thing to do in these uncertain times. I can only wonder how things would be if more of us foresaw (and were willing to act) how things turned out when this garbage (c-17 and then C-68)started back in 1989- ish. Remember my post on page 9, a "virtuous population" cannot be oppressed! And "virtuous" people within our civil service would NEVER think of making such regulations/laws in the first place. Unlike now, they would never punish whole groups of people for the actions of a few drug dealers/criminals who just happened to get a hold of a gun! Collective punishment is unconstitutional. Whether bureaucrats are merely "following orders", they are still participating in "pushing around" their fellow citizens, and have a choice to say NO. I can't say how bad I feel for those business owners who've imported perfectly legit stuff, only to have CFO/RCMP/customs reclassify or ban these items on arrival! Unbeleivable. If these same bureaucrats are "just exersizing their powers" (ref post #108), they should be even more ashamed (and need to be reined in or prosecuted).

There's only one good thing I can think of about living in a "everything's relative" (regarding values) society. Today's "badguys" can become tommorrow's good-guys (and vica-versa). So, in 10, 20, or 30 years maybe we'll see these same CFO's held accountable (trial) for their conduct/decisions! Just because something is deemed "legal" now, doesn't mean it's correct, moral or right. When these abuses come out, there will be more of a movement to do something about them.

If the Libs do comeback to power, or even if they don't, a series of "sit ins" or demonstrations at CFO offices accross the country would be an idea to publicize this plight.

Barring such public actions, as individuals we can use the more draconian sections/regulations of the firearms act in educating those around us. For instance, I work in health care (a female dominated enviroment), with it's share of "feministas" who have strong negative stereotypes of gun owners I frequently use the SAP issue as one of a series of examples of un justified regulatory heavy handedness......and guess what! I've ACTUALLY got some of them to admit that "they (government)shouldn't be allowed to do that". With those who will never see my points (due to their ideological prejudices), I have received unexpected (and was pleasantly surprised) help from some of my female co-workers, who have husbands/boyfriends/sons/daughters who are shooters!!!

By highlighting examples of such abuses, WE have the moral high ground, and can easliy shame and make our opponents look like the people that they are, and win people to our side. At one time, our opponents were at least partially sucessful in stealing the moral high ground by associating gun use (or classes of guns) with nuts and criminals. They did this by fearmongering, deception and taking advantage of Canadians' ignorance. A major triumph of ignorance and fear.

This is one thing Wendy C. ( et al) I'm sure didn't count on....by screwing us (big, bad, male firearms owners) over, they screwed FAMILIES (men, women and children) over by seizing/devaluing their property and future estates.