PGW Timberwolf made the C-21 Prohib List

The biggest issue we have with C-21, is the AFTER HOURS AMMENDMENTS.
This is NOT legal.
They cannot introduce a bill as "X,Y,Z" , and then substantially change the bill to "A,B,C,D,E,F,G,X,Y,Z" without debate. THIS IS CRIMINAL BEHAVIOR from the libs.
 
Junction said:
The biggest issue we have with C-21, is the AFTER HOURS AMMENDMENTS.
This is NOT legal.
They cannot introduce a bill as "X,Y,Z" , and then substantially change the bill to "A,B,C,D,E,F,G,X,Y,Z" without debate. THIS IS CRIMINAL BEHAVIOR from the libs.
Click to expand...

Bahahaha ALL behaviour from the Liberals is criminal, they have never done a legal or moral act in their miserable existence, Liberalism is a disgusting mental illness and your fellow Canadians condone this behaviour because they are also mentally ill.
 
ATRS Shaun said:
You stated previously, the beginning sentence of the amendment and capitalized and made bold certain phrases.... I think you missed the most important words in that statement.




Now... If we take this context and this new introduction of the terms into Canadian law... The "Capable Of" issue which it seems no one really seems to be losing their #### over it except me...


Are you capable of assault or homicide? Should we not authorize surveillance or allow warrantless searches based on this capacity?

Are you capable of ###ual assault? Should you be registered as a ### offender ? The only thing stopping you is electrical signals bouncing around your brain. That seems a whole lot less complex than changing a barrel.


Introducing 'capable of' in law is a terrifying proposition. Just look to modern history to see what humanity has demonstrated they are 'capable of'.

Some of you are saying the people writing this are either malicious or incompetent. I assure you, they are not incompetent. You are just underestimating their utter contempt and disdain for you.
Click to expand...

Shaun, thanks for making this obvious to me. Agree 100% about “capable of.” Begs the question of how that is defined. Many things are “capable of” once. Damn, that is an ugly. Really ugly.
 
They cannot introduce a bill as "X,Y,Z" , and then substantially change the bill to "A,B,C,D,E,F,G,X,Y,Z" without debate. THIS IS CRIMINAL BEHAVIOR from the libs.
Click to expand...

Did you see when the guy in committee specifically asked how this came to be?

He asked if this so-called "amendment" was planned from day 1, back when they first introduced C-21 as a handgun freeze?

Her actual answer was; "It's a secret".
 
WetCoast said:
Shaun, thanks for making this obvious to me. Agree 100% about “capable of.” Begs the question of how that is defined. Many things are “capable of” once. Damn, that is an ugly. Really ugly.
Click to expand...

The Supreme Court of Canada defined 'capable of being easily convertible' which has the same general intent as 'capable of', they decided that it was the ability to change the firearm at home with simple tools. So, in rebarrelling a rifle those tools would be a bench mounted vice and a pipe wrench, and an uncontrolled part (a barrel). It does not have to be pretty, and it doesn't have to work more than once, it just has to go bang and have a projectile exit the barrel. Fun, huh?

Incidentally, the entire No 1 family is being banned because of what the FRT lists as a "non-commercial customization" meaning that there may only be 1 example anywhere in the world, or that 1 custom gun maker offered, but never actually performed the customization, and even then, not necessarily in Canada.
 
Last edited:
enefgee said:
The Supreme Court of Canada defined 'capable of being easily convertible' which has the same general intent as 'capable of', they decided that it was the ability to change the firearm at home with simple tools. So, in rebarrelling a rifle that would be a bench mounted vice and a pipe wrench, and an uncontrolled part (a barrel). It does not have to be pretty, and it doesn't have to work more than once, it just has to go bang and have a projectile exit the barrel. Fun, huh?
Click to expand...

The law is so vague that they can easily use it to ban .338LM bolt faced rifles if they wanted, for example.

I can order a barrel in 41XC for my .300NM, and easily with the tools I have at home change the barrel out in a manner of minutes to have a rifle that now is no longer compliant under Canadian law.

These law could easily be used to ban further guns. It's abhorred.
 
enefgee said:
The Supreme Court of Canada defined 'capable of being easily convertible' which has the same general intent as 'capable of', they decided that it was the ability to change the firearm at home with simple tools. So, in rebarrelling a rifle those tools would be a bench mounted vice and a pipe wrench, and an uncontrolled part (a barrel). It does not have to be pretty, and it doesn't have to work more than once, it just has to go bang and have a projectile exit the barrel. Fun, huh?

Incidentally, the entire No 1 family is being banned because of what the FRT lists as a "non-commercial customization" meaning that there may only be 1 example anywhere in the world, or that 1 custom gun maker offered, but never actually performed the customization, and even then, not necessarily in Canada.
Click to expand...

Thanks! I had forgotten about that def’n. And I’d have to add, without disagreement at all, “capable of” is even more broad than “capable of being easily convertible.” Those “easily convertible” would be a subset of “capable of.”

The No. 1 prohib is almost as alarming as I infer from what you said it’s based on the same absurd premise. It’s like property seizure for “pre-crime:” what may happen. Actually, it’s worse than “pre-crime” as that was assumed to have a high probability of occurring. This is occurring even with low probability. This whole mess is chilling as hell. Those with any respect left for the rule of law should be very alarmed.
 
Recce21 said:
Unbelievable.
Click to expand...

Why? The tactical macmillans have been on the ban list since the 90s.

Virtually every sniper rifle the CAF has ever used, except for maybe the .308 parker hales, have been prohibited.

Liberal gun banners have a hard on for 'military sniper rifles'.

Ask a marine about the M24 and the Remington 700 becomes a banned sniper rifle.

The real question here is whether anyone in government wondered whether the CAF might have a hard time buying their next sniper rifles if industry knows that selling a firearm to CAF means forfeiting the civilian market.

hend238 said:
The No.1 is listed under the 10,000 joules category. The 460 Weatherby for example. Not all number ones. At least that’s how I interpret it.
Click to expand...

You are interpreting it wrong. But don't worry, your interpretation is consistent with the RCMP for the time being. Murray Smith lied under oath to peddle that nonsense in public, but as we know the RCMP aren't committed to doing anything and change their mind with the shifting political winds in Ottawa.

LordEvilPepper said:
under the OIC it was clear that it was the chambering banned not the whole gun... C21 just says "this gun is banned"
Click to expand...

Incorrect. The OiC did not ban 'chamberings'. It does not even mention them. The OiC banned FIREARMS ... CAPABLE of FIRING a shot in excess of 10,000 J.

Section 2 of the Criminal code defines a firearm as 'any barrelled weapon', AND includes 'any frame or receiver'.

The receiver on its own is a 'firearm'. The whole device is also a 'firearm'.

If the 'receiver' is capable of firing a shot in excess of 10,000 J, regardless of what barrel or chambering happens to be installed at the moment, then the receiver is prohibited.

Additionally, case law also informs the statutory rules, and the Hasselwander doctrine of readily convertible must also be applied when dealing with 'capable', and so any firearm that can be adapted or modified to fire in excess of 10 KJE in a relatively short period of time with relative ease, is also prohibited, regarless of whether the person possession the firearm has the tools materials or expertise to perform the modification.

Make no mistake, the vaguesness and overbreadth of the 10kje ban, fit within its proper legal context read harmoniously with the other provisions of our firearms law, means that probably most, if not all, centre fire firearms could easily be captured under the 10 KJE ban.

Not to mention the technical and forensic issues with actually conclusively determining whether or not any given receiver is actually capable of producing such a shot, which your average gun owner would have no idea how to go about investigating, and even if they did, would not possess a suitably safe location to conduct such an examination.

I suspect not even the RCMP national forensic firearm lab is rated for 10 KJE. Very few indoor ranges in Canada would have such a rating on their backstop, and I doubt any outdoor ranges south of the 50th parallel would either.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom