Government invitation to Wolverine Supplies.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Good luck John - you will be a great ambassador for the shooting sports.

I don't know if it's helpful but I got into my reasons for opposing the proposed ban in another forum and articulated my position from the perspective of the "Oakes Test":

The Oakes test is the set of criteria that is used to determine if the impairment of a right is justified under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The Charter guarantees (under the heading of "Guarantee of Rights and Freedoms"): "the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society."

Ownership of various items (including firearms) would fall under the provisions of the legal rights of Canadians:

Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.

Everyone has the right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure.

Restricting ownership of a thing is a limitation on liberty and should be subject only to those that can be "demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society." The legal means to determine if a restriction is demonstrably justified is the Oakes test:

There must be a pressing and substantial objective
The means must be proportional:
The means must be rationally connected to the objective
There must be minimal impairment of rights
There must be proportionality between the infringement and objective

One can argue whether or not addressing a couple hundred homicides (223 in 2016, picking an abnormally high year, out of 611 homicides - source StatsCAn) in a country of 36 million people is a "pressing and substantial objective." To be clear: this includes all homicides committed using firearms - not just handguns and assault weapons. In fact, over the last five years of statistics for homicides in Canada, knives are responsible for more deaths (939 to 862 from 2012-2016 inclusive) than firearms. Firearms, of all types, are implicated in approximately 30% of homicides (again 2012-2016, a period that includes a spike in gang-related firearm homicides).

As a point of context, in 2002 there were 4,258 deaths related to alcohol abuse. For further context, in 2014 there were 1,273 deaths from motor vehicle accidents related to drug and/or alcohol use - roughly half the deaths were directly attributed to drugs alone and cannabis is attributed to roughly half the drug related motor vehicle deaths (before we've even made cannabis legal and more readily attainable). This information is provided to put the number of homicides in context with other controllable items common in our society and not intended as "whataboutism".

If it is accepted that a handgun/assault weapon ban is tied to a pressing and substantial objective (which I believe is a tenuous argument given the statistics), the one must show that such a ban would be proportional. This means showing that it is rationally connected to the objective, imposes a minimum impairment of rights, and that their is proportionality between the infringement and the objective. Given that there are more than 2 million licensed firearms owners in Canada (some estimates range as high as a quarter of all homes in Canada have a firearm and more than 3 million Canadians possess firearms), I would argue that the degree of impairment of their property rights and their rights to pursue lawful recreation would not be proportional to the arguable reduction in crime associated with guns sourced from lawful owners.

I personally believe that reducing the instances of violent crime, including gang violence and violence committed with firearms, requires addressing root causes in our society including social inequalities, education, and mental health. The political discussion around banning a subset of firearms is a distraction from the more pressing debates that need to drive action to address those issues.​
Click to expand...
 
As part of the round table you should provide all the attendees with your paper/electronic version (aka the actual/real) requirements for an individual to be able to legally purchase and own a handgun/firearm. If the committee will allow it send attendees a copy prior. If they want to discuss the Toronto crimes you can put the Liberal clowns back in their infinitely massive clown car. The Danforth shooting is a prime example of why this is needed. Minutes after the gunman was dead both the police and Goodale knew exactly who he was (they went to his residence immediately), his criminal record and connections, previous poor social interaction history and participation in extreme radical activities. The next day Goodale appeared on CBC Power and Politics and spoke nothing of this and only spoke of C-71 and other "future" restrictions on legal firearm owners giving no discernible difference between the gunman and legal firearm owners. How Goodale could sit there and spout garbage like that is beyond most of us. All of the other shootings in Toronto have been managed the same way from the feds. Since Blair was a cop and even in his current increasingly diminished mental capacity, he is well aware of these things. It truly looks like this is a puppet kangaroo court exercise that was once solely held by a dictatorship in 3rd world country.
 
Still alive said:
Regardless of what we think Blair will do or say, this is at least a positive step for us. John is knowledgeable, is a great spokesperson for our cause and he’s been in the fight from the beginning.

Gun orgs and owners have repeatedly asked for a dialogue with the Libs and not just token hunters and conservation groups. We finally get a chance here and naysayers are calling it a farce. It may or may not be, but let John speak his peace in our defense.

Damned if we do and damned if we don’t! No wonder us gun owners can’t fight our way out of a paper bag. We’re our own worst enemy.
Click to expand...

Truer words were seldom spoken.
 
SamM69 said:
Good luck John - you will be a great ambassador for the shooting sports.

I don't know if it's helpful but I got into my reasons for opposing the proposed ban in another forum and articulated my position from the perspective of the "Oakes Test":
Click to expand...

Excellent post!

It seems like rather then using the Oakes test, the liberals are trying to use lies and emotionally twisted poles to drum up artificial support.

A Charter based argument should trump an emotional one...... in theory.
 
At end of this consultation session, all I would like to know is who was invited and attended and John's honest view and summation of this short round-table meeting and to hear an audio recording of the proceedings.
 
I would bet they will not allow a audio recording. This liberal government simply inserts issue into their ideological generator. The proposed bans have nothing to do with public safety. They are simply following l8beral party docturn/ideology, with a side of stirring their base for the election. The charter is not worth the paper it's written on, C68 and C71 would not stand a charter challenge, the solution for extreme leftist governments and judges is to not let them be challenged in court.
 
I am confident Mr. Hipwell will be a valuable asset to our cause at this meeting, even though it certainly appears to be a bit of a sham.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom