So u have a conservative majority government with a hand picked firearms advisory counsel. This counsel recommends a 10 year PAL and the moving of prohibs to the restricted list. This gets out and the Prime Minister fears that this will make him look bad. So he says he will not be following his own advisory counsel's recommendation and he fires three members of that counsel and replaces them with three less gun friendly members and were are going to get CCW??? Really!!!
Concealed Carry in Canada....
- Thread starter Newfoundlandrover
- Start date
If concealed carry were to happen in Canada then I agree that there needs to be a means of confirming (I hate the word certified. I can't remember how many people are certified in whatever technique and test well but can't and don't actually use that training. I would hate to see how they would react in a stressful situation.) that the person carrying a firearm is "trained".
It is also important to ensure there is no criminal history. I would also want the punishment for a true criminal act with a concealed weapon to be much more severe.
However, I also don't feel the need to carry (open or concealed) - with open carry for back up when hunting being the only exception in my mind.
I was a security guard in the Market area of Ottawa in the 80s and on high-rise construction sites (graveyard shift - Bay at Lyon for the locals - above what is today the Bay Street Bistro) in other parts of town with only a flashlight. My only backup was calling in to the central office before I went on patrol and calling back to say it was completed. A longer then expected absence (minimum 1/2 hour) would result in a call to the site office to check up on me. Probably another 1/2 hour before someone drove by to see whether or not I had abandoned my post. I did this to pay my way through University. Was I ever nervous? Yes! Did I think I should have a firearm? No!
I visited friends in Texas in the mid to late 80s and the father of the family I stayed with was a County Sheriff. I remember his wife telling me that the biggest fear they had was that the state legislature was thinking of passing a concealed carry law. I asked her why as her husband left handguns lying around the house, the vehicles, hell even out on the patio overnight. They were obviously very comfortable around firearms. She told me that open carry was fine because you wouldn't get into an argument with someone who had a handgun visible. But if concealed, how would you know! I guess I missed the point of why you would get into an argument to begin with. Texas I believe finally passed the concealed carry law in the early 90s.
I would rather be able to protect my family (not even the belongings - it can all be replaced) without fear of reprisals. Home invasions have been on the rise in Ottawa the last few years.
My 2cents worth.
The only way I can see the Gov't allowing concealed carry, is if the fastest growing fanatical religious sect,
gets so out of hand, that it starts mass destruction of traditional Canadian values and lives.
Then, having armed citizens, will benifit politicians, by saving their a$$es from the inevitable fate.
gets so out of hand, that it starts mass destruction of traditional Canadian values and lives.
Then, having armed citizens, will benifit politicians, by saving their a$$es from the inevitable fate.
Its already happened! There is law that allows Canadians to carry.
It is the CFO's in interpreting the law that prevent canadians from full enjoyments of their rights under Canadian law. As an example, as of 2002 there were only something like 13 non-job related ATC permits issued in Ontario. But they were issued, my guess is to people of influence like judges, politicians, CFO's nephews etc...
Someone like Thomson who has stated he is looking to get the application form from the CFO, as I understand it you have to apply just to get the forms. He should get one under the current law. So if this goes to courts, it will not be to change the laws but rather to force bureaucrats to follow both the spirit of the law and not just the letter of the law as already on the books.
Though, it may also require the courts to instruct politicians to change the laws to force bureaucrats to, in this case, issue ATC's as per the current laws and in such a manor that comply with constitutional and quasi-constutional laws. Essentially keeping law making in the hands of elected law makers and not un-elected bureaucrats.
From the Firearms Act
PART 1
CIRCUMSTANCES IN WHICH AN INDIVIDUAL NEEDS RESTRICTED FIREARMS OR PROHIBITED HANDGUNS FOR THE PURPOSE OF SECTION 20 OF THE ACT
Protection of Life
2. For the purpose of section 20 of the Act, the circumstances in which an individual needs restricted firearms or prohibited handguns to protect the life of that individual or of other individuals are where
(a) the life of that individual, or other individuals, is in imminent danger from one or more other individuals;
(b) police protection is not sufficient in the circumstances; and
(c) the possession of a restricted firearm or prohibited handgun can reasonably be justified for protecting the individual or other individuals from death or grievous bodily harm.
So, I guess we can put you down as in favour of more deaths and injuries? John Lott has shown that any barriers to gun ownership by law abiding citizens costs lives. You have your fear of people and I have decades of statistics from the giant social lab to the south that show NONE of your fears come true with an armed population.
Second, NEED has nothing to do with this. The decision to carry should rest with each person and only with that person, not the government and not people like you who are afraid of their neighbours. If need is the only argument to be considered, you don't NEED a nice car/truck, you don't NEED alcohol, you don't NEED tobacco, you don't NEED fast food restaurants, you don't NEED a big house and so on. Nothing in a semi-free society should be decided on a basis of NEED, that is the hallmark of communism.
The fundamental question is why should I, a law abiding citizen with no criminal record for anything, be denied the right to carry a firearm for self defense if I wish to? I have broken no laws, shown no history of violent or aberrant behaviour or anything else remotely threatening. So why do you wish to deny me my ability to chose to defend myself with a firearm? Why do you assume you have the right to deny that to me?
That facility is so hard to get it is illusory. This is the same situation that led to the striking of Canada's abortion laws and should result in the same thing happening to our CCW provisions, but no court in the land is going to rule in favour of gun owners.
Mark
Did anyone else catch this. Lol. Pretty brave words. By the way, we have a rule about discussing illegal activities here; it's frowned upon. Oh, and I think the "good people" packing pistols illegally should be arrested, and have their PALS revoked, much as I would like to do so legally. Sadly, I do not think I am above the law, and the laws that I don't agree with have grave consequences should I decide to break them. What sort of an idiot would I be, if I took the chance on surrendering a life outside of prison, over the remote chance that I might be a victim of violence? Clowns. This is the kind of crap good cops have to deal with everyday. Some days, being a cop must feel like being an idiot herder.
- Location
- Fraser Valley BC
Most of us have just grown accustomed to ignoring that clown who, whenever given the chance tries to impress the forum's more gullible members with what a badass he is.
Ok, CCW is a long shot pipe dream in Canada. I would love to have it, but realistically it's not gonna happen anytime soon.
What I always thought was a reasonable step in that direction, was allowing wilderness carry. And not even automatics (Although that would be nice), I think it's a realistic suggestion for allowing revolver carry in the woods. Most wilderness carry guns are going to be large caliber revolvers anyways, which makes sense for what they are intended for: animal defence.
Tell them to allow revolvers, there would be no pistols with magazines or none of that high capacity jazz they are so scared of.
I think its reasonable. 1 step at a time.
I'm being realistic in a proposal, I would love nothign more to have pistols unrestricted as well, but am being realistic in what MAY be acceptable to the powers that be, since catering to unrealistic ideals is what has to be done.
What I always thought was a reasonable step in that direction, was allowing wilderness carry. And not even automatics (Although that would be nice), I think it's a realistic suggestion for allowing revolver carry in the woods. Most wilderness carry guns are going to be large caliber revolvers anyways, which makes sense for what they are intended for: animal defence.
Tell them to allow revolvers, there would be no pistols with magazines or none of that high capacity jazz they are so scared of.
I think its reasonable. 1 step at a time.
I'm being realistic in a proposal, I would love nothign more to have pistols unrestricted as well, but am being realistic in what MAY be acceptable to the powers that be, since catering to unrealistic ideals is what has to be done.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/government-dumps-gun-enthusiasts-from-firearms-committee-1.1367575
WTF
seriously
CPC has no hope of ever having meaningful gun reform.
"...topic of concealed carry has..." Generally in the dreams of those who think they're Stateside and/or watch far too much TV. Personally, I have no desire to live anywhere that I'd need to carry a firearm to go about my daily business.
Amen! I would only support updating restricted laws to be the same as non-restricted ... and lose the ATT. Really, who the hell needs a sidearm on their hip in their average everyday lives!??
6Gun
I don't think anyone desires to live where you need to carry, but many don't have a choice, here or stateside.
wayupnorth
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- Northern Alberta
ive course ive heard of him, but your talking about a armed guard shooting other armed guards, not someone walking up and trying to rob the armored car guys.
another way to look at this is you had 5 people all carrying guns, 1 walked away with the money, the bad guy, so in reality even having guns did the other 4 no good.
i know, its a ####ty example since they where all taken from behind, which is the reason that i dont consider this worth debating in the big picture of the debate for the simple fact that we gave him the gun (we as in the public good) and he turned and used it to do bad, so infact its kinda showing how we probably shouldnt be giving everyone pistols to carry!
(haha, ill have to come back and read that to make sure that makes sense.....)
wayupnorth
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- Northern Alberta
didnt they just do away with the long gun registry.....
wayupnorth
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- Northern Alberta
i have no fear of my neighbors.
i dont know anyone who is afraid to go outside and walk the streets.
YOUR the one saying you need to carry a gun because your to afraid of something happening to you.
your pointing us to a study from the states, which at last count has 130 million firearms - which is enough for each person in the states to have at least one.
but we arnt in the states my friend, we are in Canada.
if your gonna point out studies please use ones with our statistics, as soon as people start rolling american stats and studies into arguments i just turn them off and move onto the next post, thats like saying that we should all carry guns because the crime rate in West African is off the charts!
the right of your fist ends at the beginning of my nose.
