Bill S-223

So far I've got myself and two others hand writing person specific letters to both MPs and Senators on this subject. I'm also working on several more people. At the end of the day, clearly printed or written physical letters have the most weight, however emails can be useful in bulk.

Just remember, be firm but polite; be clear and concise; be legible and with proper grammar and spelling. We've ultimately got the facts on our side, and unlike in 1994, we're decently organized. The gun community is also expanding by leaps and bounds, so get talking with people, gun owners and non-owners alike and explain the threat that laws like this pose to public rights as well as personal freedoms.
 
I just received a reply from Senator Tkachuk, re: stopping Bill S-223, Quote..."Dear......you can count on my support. Senator Tkachuk...just waiting for replies from other Senators and our local MP.
 
Don't want to come out sounding "politically incorrect", but taking guns away from private citizens is what Hitler did to Germany just before WWII broke out, so does this mean the senator Payett who wants this bill 223 introduced is a Communist? She shouldn't be
treading on law abiding citizens, and raping their civil legal rights away, she makes herself look like communist dictator which is supposed be politically unacceptable in the free world as we know it today in Canada. Is there a hidden agenda?
 
Last edited:
I would like to join you guys but I'm not really good at writing ! Did anyone did a letter that we can send to are senator?

Thanks
 
Mr Wolverine said:
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
Click to expand...

Everyone should read this^^^
The Liberals will certainly use this to gauge the reaction. And not just as to whether or not they try to introduce new gun control law NOW. They'll be strategizing for the future too.
It's time to be heard. I want the Liberals to know what the reaction of almost 6% of the population will be if they, unjustly and irrationally, trample our civil liberties.
And remember, the LGR was widely unpopular among the entire population. I don't care why. Cost? Principle? Whatever. We're not completely alone.
 
Last edited:
Letter to Senator

9mmGunGuy said:
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,
Click to expand...


Well said!

I'll send something similar to each and every Senator, and my MP.
 
My E-mail I just drafted. We all need to ensure our MP's and Senators are over whelmed with e-mails and letters against this "bill"

Dear Honourable Senators,

As a respected, law-abiding and responsible firearm owner in Mrs. Blaney'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 none of you personally proposed this bill however 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 "circumscribed" ( currently known as 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. Why are law abiding citizens being targeted instead of the criminals this bill purports to ?Where would these storage depots be ? Who would be responsible for their security ? What about those firearms owners in rural locations ? Indigenous people's in the far north who rely upon these firearms to simply survive ? The reality is it's an ill-conceived bill that does nothing at all to prevent criminals from accessing firearms, it only serves to burden law abiding firearms owners

.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.

As stated above our current regulations require the possession of a PAL / RPAL licence, safety training, strict storage policies and transport restrictions. An individual wishing to purchase a firearm or even ammunition for that matter is required to present their PAL / RPAL. If they do not have one neither of these items can be purchased. Law abiding firearms owner already have stringent guidelines in place but to no one's surprise criminals do not follow these policies, never have and never will thus the criminal designation.The money that would be wasted implementing this bill would be better spent on fighting the criminal element, stiffer penalties for crimes committed with firearms, and providing more funding to RCMP / Police agencies to combat crime. I am sure each and every one of you realize this.

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.

Thanks to other on this post whom I used some of their format to compose mine.
 
Tazz-AB
The only point I don't agree with is this one: "Every legally-registered firearm owner has already paid to install safes, alarms, and monitoring services in their own homes"
I don't feel it is a very accurate statement as it is not a legal requirement and I know of few people who have gone to that length.
 
How we elected a clueless Senator like Céline Hervieux-Payette? And pay hard earn money to allow her to seize our properties... After her retired, she can start enjoy our tax and we will keep suffering by her bill...
 
supernova said:
Tazz-AB
The only point I don't agree with is this one: "Every legally-registered firearm owner has already paid to install safes, alarms, and monitoring services in their own homes"
I don't feel it is a very accurate statement as it is not a legal requirement and I know of few people who have gone to that length.
Click to expand...

Good catch supernova, It should read Every legal..........has paid for cases, safes to ensure proper storage and some even have alarms / monitoring services on their homes". By monitoring services I mean ADT etc that folks have to reduce their home insurance. Thanks again
 
AtomLew said:
How we elected a clueless Senator like Céline Hervieux-Payette? And pay hard earn money to allow her to seize our properties... After her retired, she can start enjoy our tax and we will keep suffering by her bill...
Click to expand...

Senators in Canada are NOT elected. They are appointed friends of a Prime Minister. She was appointed by Jean Chretien 20 years ago and for that period of time did literally nothing. Just farting in her senatorial seat.
 
Storage, Display, Transportation and Handling of Firearms by Individuals Regulations
SOR/98-209

Storage of Non-Restricted Firearms
5 (1) An individual may store a non-restricted firearm only if
(a) it is unloaded;
(b) it is
(i) rendered inoperable by means of a secure locking device,
(ii) rendered inoperable by the removal of the bolt or bolt-carrier, or
(iii) stored in a container, receptacle or room that is kept securely locked and that is constructed so that it cannot readily be broken open or into; and​
(c) it is not readily accessible to ammunition, unless the ammunition is stored, together with or separately from the firearm, in a container or receptacle that is kept securely locked and that is constructed so that it cannot readily be broken open or into.

(2) Paragraph (1)(b) does not apply to any individual who stores a non-restricted firearm temporarily if the individual reasonably requires it for the control of predators or other animals in a place where it may be discharged in accordance with all applicable Acts of Parliament and of the legislature of a province, regulations made under such Acts, and municipal by-laws.

(3) Paragraphs (1)(b) and (c) do not apply to an individual who stores a non-restricted firearm in a location that is in a remote wilderness area that is not subject to any visible or otherwise reasonably ascertainable use incompatible with hunting.

-- http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/regulations/sor-98-209/page-1.html#h-3


---------------

It is an easy to fall into trap of thinking when everyone you know agrees with you all the time on a topic.
i.e. your friends agree with you therefore everyone agrees with you, and that everyone who disagrees with you must be a flat earther. They used to call this the Pauline Kael Syndrome. Pauline Kael was a columnist for new york magazine, who back in 1972 was writing about the George McGovern vs Nixon race, and she famously observed after Nixon blew out the governor, it was one of the great electoral landslides of American history, said "I have no clue how George McGovern could possibly have lost. How could that possibly have happened. Everyone I know voted against Nixon." Just because everyone you know agrees with you doesn't mean that what you know is actually fact.
-- Ben Shapiro
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom