Cheryl Gallant Petition

I say we sign the petition. It can be implemented quickly, signing it doesn't mean we can't contiue to fight to repeal bill c68, and its better than what we have now. And it'll save our friends who have SANs and CZ 858s. Once the confiscation letters go out, those guys will only have 30 days. If we put all our eggs now on repealment of bill C68, we are risking losing everything, and drastically increasing the chance that these guys will lose their guns. The sooner we sign this, the better.

I also say we write Gallant, the PMO's office, minister of public safety, minister of Justice and your MP, and tell them we think this is an inadequate band-aid solution, and that our continued support and votes are contingent upon true fixes to the firearms act. The end of the long gun registry was good, but not enough. Let them be scared to lose your vote, they are already scared of how they are polling right now. Let them be scared of losing their base.

I also think we should write the Liberals and NDP, regardless of how we are going to vote. All three parties stand on rocky ground for the next election. We should let other parties know there is no way we can consider supporting their platforms until they change their policies to protect the rights of gun owners. We need to make ALL parties think gun control is a way to lose elections in this country.

Jay's comment sums up well how I feel. But I also have alot of trust in the wisdom of the Wolverine's guys. I think we need to support this.

I'm not saying we settle for the petition. I'm saying we start with the petition.
 
Sounds like some not so cheerful news from MP's is starting to trickle in about the CPC doing what they can but their hands are tied? A couple of threads happening right now in the main forum. Anyhow, let's raise the heat as well as get this petition signed. It's not ideal ideal but it seems like one hell of a backup plan. Someone get Cheryl to amend her motion providing information on the number of representatives the RCMP and the forensic lab will have. She's specified the number of civilian representatives so it shouldn't be a problem? 'RCMP' is plural as far as my grasp of English goes.
 
This MP has been trying introduce the "privatization of the functions of the firearms registry" for months, as those that follow these things know.

I certainly agree with the stopping of reclassifications...but just a "moratorium" until such time as what? Until She gets her Private control of the registry? She doesn't want the END of the useless registry, she wants it in private hands. Sign if you wish, but with statements like THIS::""

c) prescribing the circumstances in which an individual does or does not need firearms
(i) to protect the life of that individual or of other individuals, or
(ii) for use in connection with his or her lawful profession or occupation;

Well, I don't "need" ANY firearms, I want them.
It doesn't sound like a darn thing will be changed, just that matters will be in private hands, like she has wanted all along. What government would prefer to wash its hands of gun confiscations and prohibitions and let a non-responsible group take over?

More clarification is need, I do not trust this MP. Is there anywhere that she explains more clearly what she is intending here?
 
I was told by my MP that the motion was brought forward today by Cheryl and he seconded it, has anyone else heard anything about this. He also told me the amnesty was brought in to protect us until they could have some time to work on this mess and they are trying to get the re-classifications reversed but he doesn't know at this point how that will work. I was also told that the MP's are all pissed with the RCMP and want to take control away from them. He said they are on it but things take time. This was all in a voice mail so I didn't get a chance to ask any questions. Lets keep up the pressure while being civil but we have to give them some time. Grumpy Wolverine is correct and it would be prudent to follow his advise as we need a concentrated effort, not everyone going off half cocked in different directions.
 
My letter to the MP and feelings on the topic:

Cheryl,

as much as I am thrilled to see the Federal Government take steps in the right direction, I can't help but feel as though this is just not enough. Bills M-439 and M-452 appear to be simply bandaids, trying to fix a mortally flawed wound. I would like to remind you of the words of Stephen Harper in January 2002:

I was and still am in total agreement with the statement made in the House of Commons by former Reform Leader Preston Manning on 13 June 1995:

Bill C-68, if passed into law will not be a good law. It will be a blight on the legislative record of the government, a law that fails the three great tests of constitutionality, of effectiveness and of democratic consent to f the governed. What should be the fate of a bad a law? It should be repealed ... .


Bill C-68 [The Firearms Act] has proven to be a bad law and has created a bureaucratic nightmare for both gun owners and the government. As Leader of the Official Opposition, I will use all powers afforded to me as Leader and continue our party’s fight to repeal Bill C-68 and replace it with a firearms control system that is cost effective and respects the rights of Canadians to own and use firearms responsibly.

I am in complete agreement that the re-classification that is resulting in confiscation of personal property and criminalization of over 10,000 Law-abiding citizens is absolutely intolerable. However, so long as the RCMP are involved in the framework that constitutes our firearms laws and freedoms, and continue to degrade the property rights and freedoms of law-abiding Canadian citizens, I will not support the Conservative government. If the Conservative Government is willing to take the necessary steps, as it has promised in the past, to abolish Bill C-68 and the Firearms Act, and uphold the constitutional values of Canadian firearm owners, I will not only support the Conservative Government with my vote but financially as well. Until that time, there will be no further support from myself.

I have signed the petitions for Bills M-439 and M-452, if only to support those individuals affected by the confiscation of personal property that is being attempted by the RCMP. However, the federal government will need to do more than patch the flawed, un-constitutional law that is C-68 if they are to win my vote and financial support for the next election.

If it is possible to introduce amendments to Bill M-452 before voting on it, I would ask that you clarify section v) of the bill, in which it states: shall be composed of the following members, 1) RCMP, 2) Ontario Forensic Centre, 3) four individuals appointed to the committee as civilian firearms experts.

To indicate on which basis the 4 individuals will be appointed would be helpful, to ensure that the firearms owners of Canada are represented accurately, and not just assigned seats from bureaucrats with underlying agendas, much as we have been subjected to for the past 19 years.


Sincerely,
 
^^ That's the most impressive letter I've seen today. Well done. Mind if I pick out some of the language for my own composition?
 
SnoPac said:
^^ That's the most impressive letter I've seen today. Well done. Mind if I pick out some of the language for my own composition?
Click to expand...
Go nutz, that's why I shared :)

BlairW said:
You arent at all worried it would end up :
1.RCMP
1.Forensic lab rat
1.Wendy
1.wendys minion
1.wendys minion
1.wendys minion
Click to expand...

Could it possibly be worse than:

1) RCMP

???

'Pick battles big enough to matter, small enough to win.'

We will take the next battle when the time is right. They didn't strip us of all our rights in one day.
 
Marcelm said:
Signed
Granted the proposed bill is far from perfect. But right now oversight is essentially RCMP. The proposed committee might still be mostly RCMP, but if we get even one civilian on it, its a step forward.
Evolution vs revolution.
And if the one civilian is John ...
Click to expand...

You mean johnone?
 
I know that she has been trying to help, but I keep thinking of the useless committee that actually had my hopes up...... Then they turfed the civvies and added the chiefs. This smells a lot like that to me. I just can't support it.
 
fenceline said:
I didn't say I was giving up. I said I wasn't about to jump on the band wagon of proposed change, especially if the band wagon is full of TNT driven by a pyro.

I want details. Not open ended non-specific, unplanned promises.
Click to expand...

Agree. It has to be precise with no room for interpretation other than what it is stated. Unlike the flawed FA....where 'variant' is anyone's interpretation and what has led to this mess.

The FA is flawed and need to be fixed. If the committee, however expert they maybe will be working with a flawed FA can be expected to wrangle with the definition of variant amongst themselves until it becomes analysis paralysis.

People need to right tool to work with so the results are consistent, predictable and fair.
 
Last edited:
Jay said:
Cheryl Gallant means well BUT her Private Member's Bill is not the answer. It leaves the whole classification & prohibition mess intact. I can NOT support it for this reason!

The ONLY solution to this whole mess is to repeal the Firearms Act and replace it with legislation that respects the rights of Canadians to own and use firearms responsibly! And it MUST be done BEFORE the next election, I will NOT allow this to be the promise in the next election to get my vote! The CPC is either going to fix this NOW or they will lose my support both financially AND at the ballot box! NO COMPROMISE!

Here is the letter I wrote the PM immediately after the amnesty announcement... Voice your opinion folks, it's the ONLY thing that will get their attention to fix this mess!

Dear Prime Minister Harper;

I think we can agree, the recent firearm reclassification fiasco has caused much embarrassment to the Conservative Government of Canada and damaged its loyal Conservative support base. Unbelievably, after the RCMP was publically admonished in the House of Commons by your Minister of Public Safety Steven Blaney, the RCMP turned around and DID IT AGAIN by prohibiting a second type of rifle! I honestly can not believe their audacity!

Initially, I was happy to see Minister Blaney announce an amnesty to begin to address this bureaucratic miscarriage of justice by the RCMP. And then I got to thinking what the term 'amnesty' actually means. Here is what I found;
Amnesty by definition
1. a general pardon for offenses, especially political offenses, against a government, often granted before any trial or conviction.
2. an act of forgiveness for past offenses, especially to a class of persons as a whole.
3. a forgetting or overlooking of any past offense.

Prime Minister Harper, how ironic is it that I need an amnesty to prevent the RCMP from seizing my private property and charging me with possession of a prohibited firearm, not to mention that I would face three years in prison, WHEN I HAVE DONE NOTHING WRONG!

I think it is abundantly clear to you now that there is only one acceptable fix for this situation, the Firearms Act must be rescinded BEFORE the next election. Nothing short of this will make me happy OR see me vote Conservative in the next election. Promises of future fixes will not cut it! Sweeping legislative changes must be enacted to recognize the rights of Canadians to own and use firearms responsibly.

There can be NO COMPROMISE!
Click to expand...

Totally agreed on all these points. Mailed + emailed my MP this afternoon regarding the same. I have had enough of this crap and the definitions of the word "amnesty" that Jay found sum it all up. Being granted an amnesty means that you are being pardoned or forgiven for a previously committed crime, but....

NO ONE HAS COMMITTED ANY FA@K!NK CRIME HERE! HOW CAN PEOPLE HERE BE FORGIVEN FOR A CRIME THEY NEVER COMMITTED?!

I may have sucked this up and forgotten about it if Blaney stepped in and overturned the RCMP's "ruling" right away, but now I'm pissed off and will not settle for anything less than the upper crust of the Mounties having shock collars placed around their necks and a complete scrapping of the Firearms Act.

As gun owners we've been "compromising" for the last 50+ years and look at the sh!te it has led to. It started at our toes and only now with the crap up to our eyeballs are we (still by far, not enough of us) thinking maybe we should do something.

Look at the extremely fierce fight people put up in the early '90s against the fascist forces of Kim Campbell, Allan Rock, Cretien, Anne McLellan, Martin, etc. - which, so far our little hissy fit here over the last few days doesn't even hold a candle to - and still LOST HARD! There are no excuses because here, 20 years later, we have so many more tools and channels at our disposal than the they did in the '90s, it isn't even funny.

Our goal now should be to make such a stink that it puts the hard-fought battles of past decades to shame. The coming days will set the course for firearms laws in this country until the end of time and WE will be the navigators. It up to us and no one else the way this goes.

I am right behind Jay and everyone else on the same train of thought:

NO MORE GODDAM COMPROMISING!!!
 
Guys. I see a lot of complaints about how this sucks. There are some really bright people here with a lot of experience. Why don't we make some solid demands on how this needs to be implemented to extract as much benefit for the community as possible. I agree that we have to make small advancements. Scrapping c68 isn't going to happen before the next election. If we go with all or nothing I see nothing as the most probable outcome.

Alternately if there are other short term solutions that can be concrete alternatives please share them and develop them together.
 
Siggy Stardust said:
Totally agreed on all these points. Mailed + emailed my MP this afternoon regarding the same. I have had enough of this crap and the definitions of the word "amnesty" that Jay found sum it all up. Being granted an amnesty means that you are being pardoned or forgiven for a previously committed crime, but....

NO ONE HAS COMMITTED ANY FA@K!NK CRIME HERE! HOW CAN PEOPLE HERE BE FORGIVEN FOR A CRIME THEY NEVER COMMITTED?!

I may have sucked this up and forgotten about it if Blaney stepped in and overturned the RCMP's "ruling" right away, but now I'm pissed off and will not settle for anything less than the upper crust of the Mounties having shock collars placed around their necks and a complete scrapping of the Firearms Act.

As gun owners we've been "compromising" for the last 50+ years and look at the sh!te it has led to. It started at our toes and only now with the crap up to our eyeballs are we (still by far, not enough of us) thinking maybe we should do something.

Look at the extremely fierce fight people put up in the early '90s against the fascist forces of Kim Campbell, Allan Rock, Cretien, Anne McLellan, Martin, etc. - which, so far our little hissy fit here over the last few days doesn't even hold a candle to - and still LOST HARD! There are no excuses because here, 20 years later, we have so many more tools and channels at our disposal than the they did in the '90s, it isn't even funny.

Our goal now should be to make such a stink that it puts the hard-fought battles of past decades to shame. The coming days will set the course for firearms laws in this country until the end of time and WE will be the navigators. It up to us and no one else the way this goes.

I am right behind Jay and everyone else on the same train of thought:

NO MORE GODDAM COMPROMISING!!!
Click to expand...

WE lost in the 90's because we threw each other under the bus. We lost because shooters said "well I don't own or use those kind of firearms, so it doesn't affect me", and they ignored it because their hunting guns etc weren't in the line of fire. We lost because the anti's were better organized, well spoken, and exploited our weaknesses and knew exactly which heart strings etc to play on, and it worked very well. We lost because the average rank non-gun owner and file person had gotten disillusioned with the Conservatives and didn't want to go as far right as the Reform party, so the right was split down the middle and allowed the liberals to walk right up to the podium for the thank you speech.

How do you know that Blaney isn't drafting up some well thought out legislation to over turn things and to make sure it doesn't happen again, instead of a quick knee jerk reaction immediately that would be easy fodder for another government down the road. I don't care what you want to call it or which definition you want to paint it with, but this amnesty may have saved a whole pile of the guns we are fighting for from being needlessly cut up or destroyed or TURNED IN. If it buys us some time then I am all for it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom