Bill S-223

Can few people here post their letters as an example? This is for people who have never written to government officials.
 
Hooray for those who voted for liberal and own lots of gun higher than .22 and also for those gun clubs who don't want any new member to make stronger gun owners group.
 
Here's my letter, slightly adapted from the one posted earlier -- feel free to adapt/change:

Dear Honourable Senator,

As a respected, law-abiding and responsible firearm owner in Mr. Chong’s riding I felt it my responsibility to write with my concerns regarding Bill S-223.

The content and legal implications of this bill are absolutely ridiculous, I know you personally didn’t propose it but it must be stopped. This bill will only serve to cause hardship, frustration, and problems for law-abiding firearm owners, hunters, aboriginals, and target shooters. It will not deter criminals and will do nothing to enhance public safety. Current firearms laws are sufficient in the opinion of knowledgeable firearms legal experts as witnessed by the continued decline each year of crime and firearms-related deaths—even with the abolished long gun registry.

Bill S-223 has so many unrealistic proposals contained in it such as the storage of restricted and prohibited firearms at a range or approved place instead of the registered owner’s home. Imagine putting large numbers of firearms in one storage location which is known to everyone—including criminals. It’s a disaster waiting to happen, a perfect opportunity for thieves who hunger for guns. Nothing in this bill keeps firearms out of the hands of criminals and may actually increase the risk of theft from the centralized storage depots.

The costs of implementing this bill would be enormous because there currently do not exist any facilities in Canada that could safely store and secure the many millions of firearms that are affected. Every legally-registered firearm owner has already paid to install safes, alarms, and monitoring services in their own homes—so why does this storage need to be centralized at tremendous additional cost with no discernible benefit? In addition, an entire new cadre of civil workers would need to be trained and financed to provide the transport services required by this bill.

Many firearms owners have a substantial investment tied up in their collection and some of these firearms, which are non-restricted at present, would be reclassified or their use limited under this proposed bill. It would be unconstitutional to take Canadians’ property and/or deprive them of the free use of their property.

In conclusion, Bill S-223 would be a political and legal disaster, an incredible hardship for law-abiding firearms owners, and an onerous financial burden for everyone. It would do nothing to enhance public safety, and instead, actually would make it easier for one-stop shopping by criminals. Please ensure this bill is not passed. Thank you very much for your time and consideration.

Sincerely yours,
 
rougesmurf said:
Somehow a facepalm seems to little...
Click to expand...

Indeed, double facepalm is more like it... Don't the senators have anything better to do? Hopefully, it's her last kick at the can. I understand that she is nearing mandatory retirement. I cannot wait.
 
This is what I e-mailed. I sent a batch to Ontario senators, a batch to other senators (my e-mail host barfed after a few of these mass e-mails, so some may have been lost :(, and I sent a batch to the Trudeau, Blaney, Jody Wilson-Raybould (justice minister), Rona Ambrose and Tom Mulcair).

Feel free to use material from here, but please edit so that it's not a verbatim copy.
Honourable Senators,

I am writing about the proposed Bill S-223, also known as “Strengthening Canadians’ Security and Promoting Hunting and Recreational Shooting Act”. The aim of this legislation is to improve public safety, but I am 100% certain that it will have the opposite effect.

First of all, the central storage provisions will turn every shooting club into an easy target for petty and organized criminals. A single location with hundreds of firearms would be an irresistible place for any wrongdoer or terrorist intent on stealing them. Many countries around the world investigated centralized storage, and determined that it is a major security risk.

Secondly, this bill will devastate the shooting and hunting hobbies, and will destroy the hunting tourism industry. This will result in a loss of many jobs and hundreds of millions of economic activity. Not to mention the wildlife management efforts that will become underfunded.

Finally, this bill is unnecessary and must be rejected in its entirety. Canada is experiencing a steady decline in crimes and murders, with firearms-related crime dropping faster than others. This is not an empty statement. This is confirmed by StatCan year over year. It is, frankly, divisive legislation that accomplishes nothing, with Orwellian language and overreach worthy of the former Soviet Union. We are better than this. We do not need to run roughshod over honest Canadians for the mere appearance of safety.

Thank you,
Click to expand...
 
How come its Mr. Wolverine banging on the pots and pans, why doesnt the NFA come here and tell us this stuff!! Anyone know if they are even doing anything?
 
Also reposted from another thread:

Rightly or wrongly this is the email I sent to all of them. My emails are tracked so I can confirm it has been read by 78 out of the 85 it got sent to so far

Honorable Senators

I would hereby like to express my deep concern about the proposed new firearms bill that Senator Hervieux-Payette is currently putting forward. Even though the entire bill is incredibly misdirected, I will attempt to address some of the aspects of it below:

1. Reclassification of firearms:

Canada’s current system of classifying firearms on looks instead of function is flawed, I agree. The notion of prohibiting all semi-auto firearms is a serious concern. Semi-automatic firearms are an integral part of hunting and sport shooting in Canada and by prohibiting or limiting the use of these firearms, the Senator will not only alienate and enrage over 2 million firearms owners in Canada but also seriously infringe on their property rights. Semi-automatic firearms (firearms that shoot one bullet with every pull of the trigger) owned by legal and law abiding gun owners have never been a cause for concern in regards to being used in the commission of a crime. A good example is the blatant fear mongering around the Armalite Rifle 15 (AR-15). This rifle is the most popular sporting rifle in the world since it is affordable, comfortable, uses the latest technology to enhance the ease of use and it is perfect for predator control and small to medium game hunting. Yet, this firearm is restricted due to having the appearance of a military rifle. This is similar to restricting the use of Jeeps due to its appearance (military style vehicle).The reclassification and prohibition of semi-automatic rifles is a clear infringement on property rights and is extremely divisive. It seems like an attack on the Canadian way of life and the enjoyment of the Canadian heritage of hunting and sport shooting.

2. Centralized Storage.

The idea of centrally storing firearms at ranges had obviously not been thought through at all. Consider not only that yet again it infringes on Canadian property rights, but the immense cost involved in this. Ranges and shooting clubs will not be prepared to store millions of firearms. They will therefore close and lose their livelihood. Needless to say having “hubs” with millions of firearms around the country would make an extremely attractive target for criminals and terrorists alike. What about our first nations communities and people in outlying areas that do not have access to these facilities? The idea is dangerous and irresponsible to say the least.

3. Public safety

It has been proven time and time again that targeting law abiding firearms owners does nothing to increase public safety. The honorable Senator in her bill claims that gun control and gun bans have been positive for the UK and Australia. This is false. It is well documented that violent crime dramatically increased in those countries post firearms bans. In the case of those countries, only criminals now have firearms and they have created nations of victims. She also sites that firearm related suicides have declined. While this may have some truth to it, suicides in general have remained the same and other means are being employed by those committing suicide. The notion that semi-automatic firearms in the hands of law abiding Canadians are a risk to public safety is preposterous. There is not one documented case of the AR-15 for example being used in the commission of a crime in Canada and yet it is restricted and law abiding citizens are not allowed to use them for hunting. The honorable Senator also mentions gun crime in the United States. Again the research is lacking in this area of the bill. It is well documented that the highest crime rates and gun related crimes are committed in cities like Chicago where gun laws are the strictest. It goes back to only the criminals having firearms. The opposite is true where violent crimes are almost non-existent. A good example is Plano, Texas with the highest number of legal gun owners and more relaxed gun laws have made criminals think twice about victimizing citizens. Legal firearms owners in Canada are vetted thoroughly before a license is issued. They are therefore the Canadians most unlikely to commit a crime and yet this bill is targeting them exclusively as criminals by definition ignore laws. They will not comply with any of the terms of this bill and therefore only law abiding gun owners will be affected.

Conclusion:
I would urge you not to support this divisive bill that targets over 2 million law abiding citizens and rather look at the real causes of violent crime in Canada. Resources would be better spent on job creation, mental health assistance and eradicating gang violence in high population cities.

I thank you for your time

Respectfully yours
 
Just got a response from the executive assistant of Sen. Nancy Greene Raine (BC Conservative Senator). They say they have been flooded with emails. But lets see where this takes us. Here is the response, which is pretty generic:


"Hello and thank you for e-mail. Rest assured that Senator Greene Raine will review your e-mail but due to the high volume of e-mails received is unable to respond personally to each one.

Thank you for taking the time to let Senator Greene Raine know your concerns about this issue.

Sincerely,

Dorothy Caldwell
Executive Assistant/Adjointe exécutive
Senator Nancy Greene Raine
903 Victoria Building
Tel: 613 947-4052
Fax: 613 947-4054"
 
inky said:
If the liberals let this happen, Justin is dumber than dumb, putting his re election at great risk
Click to expand...

Unlike the early 90's when the mess of C-68 happened the Liberals have a good amount of rural MPs' and the Conservative party is unified. This bill - if passed - will cost him the election.

Let says it passes 2nd reading goes to commity, get voted on and passes. The HOC would have to do the same all the readings, committees and it becomes law. The bill calls for a 1 year period for implementation. The bill would get inforced right at the time of the next election or shortly before.

If anything this is a blessing for the Conservatives. They won't need to mobilize the conservative electorate, it'll be mobilized already.
 
Last edited:
Weekend Gunslingers said:
Also reposted from another thread:

Rightly or wrongly this is the email I sent to all of them. My emails are tracked so I can confirm it has been read by 78 out of the 85 it got sent to so far

Honorable Senators

I would hereby like to express my deep concern about the proposed new firearms bill that Senator Hervieux-Payette is currently putting forward. Even though the entire bill is incredibly misdirected, I will attempt to address some of the aspects of it below:

1. Reclassification of firearms:

Canada’s current system of classifying firearms on looks instead of function is flawed, I agree. The notion of prohibiting all semi-auto firearms is a serious concern. Semi-automatic firearms are an integral part of hunting and sport shooting in Canada and by prohibiting or limiting the use of these firearms, the Senator will not only alienate and enrage over 2 million firearms owners in Canada but also seriously infringe on their property rights. Semi-automatic firearms (firearms that shoot one bullet with every pull of the trigger) owned by legal and law abiding gun owners have never been a cause for concern in regards to being used in the commission of a crime. A good example is the blatant fear mongering around the Armalite Rifle 15 (AR-15). This rifle is the most popular sporting rifle in the world since it is affordable, comfortable, uses the latest technology to enhance the ease of use and it is perfect for predator control and small to medium game hunting. Yet, this firearm is restricted due to having the appearance of a military rifle. This is similar to restricting the use of Jeeps due to its appearance (military style vehicle).The reclassification and prohibition of semi-automatic rifles is a clear infringement on property rights and is extremely divisive. It seems like an attack on the Canadian way of life and the enjoyment of the Canadian heritage of hunting and sport shooting.

2. Centralized Storage.

The idea of centrally storing firearms at ranges had obviously not been thought through at all. Consider not only that yet again it infringes on Canadian property rights, but the immense cost involved in this. Ranges and shooting clubs will not be prepared to store millions of firearms. They will therefore close and lose their livelihood. Needless to say having “hubs” with millions of firearms around the country would make an extremely attractive target for criminals and terrorists alike. What about our first nations communities and people in outlying areas that do not have access to these facilities? The idea is dangerous and irresponsible to say the least.

3. Public safety

It has been proven time and time again that targeting law abiding firearms owners does nothing to increase public safety. The honorable Senator in her bill claims that gun control and gun bans have been positive for the UK and Australia. This is false. It is well documented that violent crime dramatically increased in those countries post firearms bans. In the case of those countries, only criminals now have firearms and they have created nations of victims. She also sites that firearm related suicides have declined. While this may have some truth to it, suicides in general have remained the same and other means are being employed by those committing suicide. The notion that semi-automatic firearms in the hands of law abiding Canadians are a risk to public safety is preposterous. There is not one documented case of the AR-15 for example being used in the commission of a crime in Canada and yet it is restricted and law abiding citizens are not allowed to use them for hunting. The honorable Senator also mentions gun crime in the United States. Again the research is lacking in this area of the bill. It is well documented that the highest crime rates and gun related crimes are committed in cities like Chicago where gun laws are the strictest. It goes back to only the criminals having firearms. The opposite is true where violent crimes are almost non-existent. A good example is Plano, Texas with the highest number of legal gun owners and more relaxed gun laws have made criminals think twice about victimizing citizens. Legal firearms owners in Canada are vetted thoroughly before a license is issued. They are therefore the Canadians most unlikely to commit a crime and yet this bill is targeting them exclusively as criminals by definition ignore laws. They will not comply with any of the terms of this bill and therefore only law abiding gun owners will be affected.

Conclusion:
I would urge you not to support this divisive bill that targets over 2 million law abiding citizens and rather look at the real causes of violent crime in Canada. Resources would be better spent on job creation, mental health assistance and eradicating gang violence in high population cities.

I thank you for your time

Respectfully yours
Click to expand...

I like it! Well done!
 
NavalSniper said:
The fact that she is soon to retire means nothing as the bill was introduced already. Therefore the bill will either be defeated, adopted or adopted with amendments.
Click to expand...

I don't think that's true.

If she isn't there for second reading, I think the bill gets set aside.
For example, that was the parliamentary procedure technique that Garry Breitkreuz used to withdraw his 2009 Bill C-301. He simply didn't show up for second reading, and that was that.

So it's a bit of a race: will it make it to second reading, before she retires on the 22nd.
 
Parents in Ontario were outraged when Sandals tried to change the daycare system in Ontario. Parents sounded off their anger and concerns, and Sandals backed off.

We can do it as well as gun owners. We are family people, doctor, lawyer, business owner, student, senior citizen, ### /lesbian, and etc.
This is how we need to present ourselves. Just ordinary people with hobby.
I wish we can organize social not for profit events such as food drives to make ourselves more visible in the public. Sopeople know that we are not scary people.
 
Last edited:
bacardi said:
Parents in Ontario were outraged when Sandals tried to change the daycare system in Ontario. Parents spunded off their anger and concerns, and Sandals backed off.

We can do it as well as gun owners. We are family people, doctor, lawyer, business owner, student, senior citizen, ### /lesbian, and etc.
This is how we need to present ourselves. Just ordinary people with hobby.
I wish we can organize social not for profit events such as food drives to make ourselves more visible in the public. Sopeople know that we are not scary people.
Click to expand...

I don't mean to sound pessimistic, but the liberals don't care. To them, we are all potential criminals waiting to happen.. no matter what degrees and professional affiliations we have. We're all ticking time bombs to them.

Disarming us is in their very DNA, it's built in.
 
Courtesy of CSSA

GUNTER: Departing senator's bill looks to give restrictive gun registration

BY LORNE GUNTER , EDMONTON SUN


FIRST POSTED: MONDAY, APRIL 18, 2016 08:58 AM MDT

Is Senate Private Bill S-223 a parting shot by a retiring Liberal senator or a trial balloon being launched by the Trudeau government to see whether there is any taste for a new gun registry?

Hard to say. What is clear is that if S-223 ever became law, it would be even more restrictive than the 1995 long-gun registration bill, C-68.

Introduced earlier this month by Quebec Liberal Senator Céline Hervieux-Payette, the bill may die when Hervieux-Payette retires from the Senate at the end of this week. The former Pierre Trudeau cabinet minister turns 75 - the mandatory Senate retirement age - on Friday.

The bill also faces some significant procedural hurdles. For one, to get past first reading the bill requires both the Liberals and the Conservatives to speak to it. While the Liberals have scheduled their statements for as early as Tuesday, the Conservatives have no plans yet to address the bill. And since the Tories still hold the majority in the upper chamber, S-223 could languish on the order paper a long, long time.

So maybe this is just Hervieux-Payette's last kick at the can; one more chance to make a clattering commotion on her way out the door.

Hervieux-Payette, who was secretary of state for fitness and amateur sport back in the early '80s, has long been a fierce opponent of private gun ownership. She is also rabidly anti-American.

A decade ago when an American tourist wrote Canadian senators to tell them she and her family would not be coming to Canada out of protest for the seal hunt, Hervieux-Payette told the woman "the daily massacre of innocent people in Iraq, the execution of prisoners - mainly blacks - in American prisons, the massive sale of handguns to Americans, and the destabilization of the entire world by the American government's aggressive foreign policy," was far worse than the seal hunt.

But there is also some reason to think the bill is more than just the fading dream of a radically anti-gun senator.

For one thing, it's more than 70 pages long and appears to be the work of several, professional lawyers and legislation drafters. Tony Bernardo, executive director of the Canadian Shooting Sports Association, says S-223 looks as if "it took a number of Department of Justice lawyers a few months of work to create."

If Justice lawyers did help in the bill's creation, that would indication S-223 is a stalking horse - a false front the Trudeau government is hiding behind to gauge reaction and see whether they could get away with new gun controls.

The key provisions include the reclassification of all firearms, except "hunting firearms" as "circumscribed firearms."

Firearms in this new category - close to half of all firearms in the country - could not be stored in private homes. They would have to be kept locked up in government-approved vaults at authorized gun clubs or even police stations.

And they could only be removed from these facilities by licensed "transporters." No word yet whether individual owners could get license to transport their own guns.

And while guns would not have to be "registered," they would have to be "inscribed."

Explaining the difference, Hervieux-Payette said, "We simply thought that using the term 'inscription' would eliminate some anxiety. I think that using the term inscription does not evoke feelings of fear" that a new registry is on the way.

Let's hope when the good senator packs up her office this week, she packs up this dangerous bill along with her paperweight and letter opener.

http://www.edmontonsun.com/2016/04/...ll-looks-to-give-restrictive-gun-registration
 
JordanA said:
The CPC still has a majority in the Senate, yes?
Click to expand...

That's kind of debatable.

justin recently appointed 7 senators, which is just enough, by one, to get over the threshold.
Assuming the previously Liberal senators act loyally to justin's requests.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom