Random Idea To Combat Straw Purchases

[Jameswak]

Well said. But even a rational well informed electorate has no real choice at the ballot box. Are gun owners the only group left in this country that notice, let alone object to, their rights being taken away??

 

[squidxm]

Death penalty to criminals, gang members and anyone who sells guns to them. That's how we fight crime and reduce our carbon emissions.

 

[sillymike]

Death penalty to criminals, gang members and anyone who sells guns to them. That's how we fight crime and reduce our carbon emissions.

Personally, I'd have a hard time giving the power of life and death to a government official.
- But we should let people defend themselves with as much force as necessary... Once a few thugs get blast to pieces, maybe they'll reconsider their career choices.

 

[Cameron SS]

Why not inspect the people with firearm prohibition orders instead?

Because convicted criminals have greater rights and procedural protections than innocent canadians who volunteer to hold a PAL.

 

[CLW .45]

How about... as a licenced and law abiding firearm owner who gets a criminal activity check everyday I get left alone with my firearms?

How about - we cut the crap, and stop supporting the tools that government is using to disarm you.

Neither the licence not the criminal activity check are a positive thing for you or the people of Canada.

Using the fact of licencing and checking as an argument against further restrictions actually provides support to the gun-grabbing.

 

[SomebodyTookMyName]

this government, if they get to remain in power long enough, will insure that we are all made criminals because we want to retain ownership of our personal property.

And that doesn't apply to just firearms. Once the guns are gone, they'll come for your vehicles next...

 

[CLW .45]

They could address crime instead of focusing on us. Bending over backwards even more is hardly a solution to anything. Straw purchases are also barely a problem in Canada. I think there have been half a dozen instances or so, at least that have received significant media exposure.

Firearms owners could get their craniums out of their rectums, and recognize that there is only one aspect of this entire situation that is actually about criminal violence.

Without a sidearm, you have little or no likelihood of surviving a vicious attack by an armed assailant.

The government is intent on ensuring that your assailant has no effective defence to overcome, that you die and he walks away unscathed.

When that is understood, and only when that is understood, we may succeed by mounting a strong assault on the disgusting agenda.

I say may, because we are already only a couple million in a nation of 30 million or more.

That qualifies as very nearly disarmed already.

Without firearms law/regulation the number would likely be closer to 10 million firearms owners.

 

[CLW .45]

I am talking within the framework of current laws.
I am a realist.
Handgun registration began in 1934 which is nearly 90 years ago.
It will never be abolished, so I will pick my battles.

New York City’s “May Issue” permit law has been in place since 1926!

The Supreme Court just ruled that it was unconstitutional.

I expect that the reason it took so long is - people like you with your “It will never be abolished, so I will pick my battles” attitude.

Their failure to choose that battle sooner set them up for an ever worsening situation for damned nearly a hundred years.

To paraphrase an old radio jingle, “Why wait for ‘34, do it now, when there are men who know how.”

 

[medvedqc]

If you want to test a theory about straw purchases, just go out and buy 2 or more handguns of all the same model with no variations and see what happens. I’m sure it won’t be long before you get a call.
Straw purchases although rare do happen.

done a few time buying 2 same hadnguns and never got anything strange happening to me from the cfo ...

 

[CZ Shooter]

One of the supposed bones the govt has to pick with us is the notion that licensed gun owners are turning around and selling guns to criminals.

Now, when I got licensed, it was made clear to me that the RCMP could come and inspect my collection with 24 hours notice if they ever desired. To date, that has never happened, and I doubt it's happened to you either. Hypothetically, I could probably have sold my entire collection and they'd never know it until after I'm dead. I'm guessing they just don't have the manpower for such activities, not that I was looking forward to it or anything.

So what about this: Once a year you get a notice from the CFO saying they want to verify a random handgun in your possession. You bring it to the range, to the gun store, to the police station, whatever is most practical for the region you live in, and the authorized representative just snaps a picture of it and verifies the presence of a serial number. Done.

They'll have verified you didn't sell it to a gang, and they can stop bellyaching about straw purchases when it comes time to ban guns.

None of this is necessary.
I shouldn't have to take time from my busy schedule, so I can go out of my way and prove to our overlords that I have done nothing wrong.
And in turn, they should not be wasting my tax dollars on stupid cat and mouse games either...they have real criminals to catch (at least one woud hope).

For this same reason I will not volunteer to let them search my vehicle for illegal contraband every so often and I will not grant them a permission to randomly access my bank account to make sure, that there are no signs of any illegal activity.

I should not have to go out of my way to prove to the authorities, that I'm innocent of whatever crimes they think that I might be guilty of.
If they have a reason to believe, that I broke the law, they know where to find me.

I know, that you likely meant well with your post, but you did not think this one through.

 

[sillymike]

If Mom-Boucher 's wife was able to get a PAL, I think it is safe to assume anybody can get a PAL...

 

[Sniffer]

How about... as a licenced and law abiding firearm owner who gets a criminal activity check everyday I get left alone with my firearms?

I'm with this ^^^^ guy!

 

[Cameron SS]

New York City’s “May Issue” permit law has been in place since 1926!

The Supreme Court just ruled that it was unconstitutional.

I expect that the reason it took so long is - people like you with your “It will never be abolished, so I will pick my battles” attitude.

Their failure to choose that battle sooner set them up for an ever worsening situation for damned nearly a hundred years.

To paraphrase an old radio jingle, “Why wait for ‘34, do it now, when there are men who know how.”

I think New York had only recently amended that legislation to make it far more difficult to meet the criteria, and it was on the basis of the recent amendments that the SCOTUS Struck the whole law down.

SCOTUS specifically acknowledged that despite the 2A, some regulations on the carrying of firearms for self defense could be constitutional, as long as they don't constitute a barrier to accessing the right.

SCOTUS did not provide opinion as to whether previous versions of the law might have passed constitution muster.

The point should be well taken that the politicians will keep piling on the crap until the 'mules' (the citizenry) decide their backs can't take it any more.

The sooner we decide to stop taking it, through political action, legal action, or social action (like civil disobedience), the sooner the politicians will stop trying.

Politicians only ever do what they think they can get away with. Our community is largely to blame, through our inaction, for how much politicians have gotten away with thus far.

Case in Point, look at how quickly the delays in issuing passports became a national scandal. Ordinary canadians waiting a day in line for a passport to take a vacation and they are blowing up the ministers phone, harassing the ombudsman, hounding their MPs, and finally complaining to media.

Meanwhile gun owners have waited patiently and quietly for months on end to renewal PAL, after providing significantly more intrusive personal information, all so they can continue to possess their own property without being criminalize.

If gun owners complained about 1% of the crap we had to deal with through all available channels, we wouldn't be in half as bad a state as we are in now.

 

[CLW .45]

I think New York had only recently amended that legislation to make it far more difficult to meet the criteria, and it was on the basis of the recent amendments that the SCOTUS Struck the whole law down.

SCOTUS specifically acknowledged that despite the 2A, some regulations on the carrying of firearms for self defense could be constitutional, as long as they don't constitute a barrier to accessing the right.

SCOTUS did not provide opinion as to whether previous versions of the law might have passed constitution muster.

The point should be well taken that the politicians will keep piling on the crap until the 'mules' (the citizenry) decide their backs can't take it any more.

The sooner we decide to stop taking it, through political action, legal action, or social action (like civil disobedience), the sooner the politicians will stop trying.

Politicians only ever do what they think they can get away with. Our community is largely to blame, through our inaction, for how much politicians have gotten away with thus far.

Case in Point, look at how quickly the delays in issuing passports became a national scandal. Ordinary canadians waiting a day in line for a passport to take a vacation and they are blowing up the ministers phone, harassing the ombudsman, hounding their MPs, and finally complaining to media.

Meanwhile gun owners have waited patiently and quietly for months on end to renewal PAL, after providing significantly more intrusive personal information, all so they can continue to possess their own property without being criminalize.

If gun owners complained about 1% of the crap we had to deal with through all available channels, we wouldn't be in half as bad a state as we are in now.

Actually, the New York City law has always been unconstitutional.

Unconstitutional on the basis that SCOTUS used for the ruling, and on the basis that the 2nd does dot allow for so much as an infringement.

SCOTUS has been wrong, every time they have ruled that some restriction was valid, just as they were wrong about Roe v Wade.

The Sullivan Act required demonstration of need.

Demonstration of need was accomplished by showing that you were not a supporter of Sullivan’s political opponents.

 

[Cameron SS]

Actually, the New York City law has always been unconstitutional.

Unconstitutional on the basis that SCOTUS used for the ruling, and on the basis that the 2nd does dot allow for so much as an infringement.

SCOTUS has been wrong, every time they have ruled that some restriction was valid, just as they were wrong about Roe v Wade.

The Sullivan Act required demonstration of need.

Demonstration of need was accomplished by showing that you were not a supporter of Sullivan’s political opponents.

I wasn't aware that New Yorks handgun laws had always been called the Sullivan Act.

Rereading certain parts of the SCOTUS ruling, I think we are both generally right, in that
A) there was a recent amendment to the Act (within the last ten years) that triggered gun owners to pluck up and finally take it to court, and
B) Applying the SCOTUS reasoning, it seems that the Sullivan Act would have been unconstitutional since its inception in 1911 or so.

Posting here for those who hadn't read it.

NEW YORK STATE RIFLE & PISTOL ASSOCIATION, INC., ET AL., PETITIONERS
v. KEVIN P. BRUEN, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS SUPERINTENDENT OF NEW YORK STATE POLICE, ET AL.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/20-843_7j80.pdf

To quote the Supreme Court:
Page 8, Section II, last paragraph. *Page 14 of the PDF. *

...we hold that when the Second Amendment’s plain text covers an individual’s conduct, the Constitution presumptively protects that conduct. To justify its regulation, the government may not simply posit that the regulation promotes an important interest. Rather, the government must demonstrate that the regulation is consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. Only if a firearm regulation is consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition may a court conclude that the individual’s conduct falls outside the Second Amendment’s “unqualified command.”

In describing that historical tradition, the Court lists different types of restrictions on public carry.

In sum, the historical evidence from antebellum America does demonstrate that the manner of public carry was subject to reasonable regulation, but none of these limitations on the right to bear arms operated to prevent law-abiding citizens with ordinary self-defense needs from carrying arms in public for that purpose

Without providing an exhaustive list, the court recognizes that there are 'some' regulations on the right to keep and bear that could be reasonable, but as long as they do not constitute a barrier to the practice.

In this ruling the Court did not suggest that any particular restriction was valid.

Whether or not the Supreme Court of the United states got it right or wrong is in the eye of the beholder. Stay classy.

 

[CLW .45]

I wasn't aware that New Yorks handgun laws had always been called the Sullivan Act.

The Sullivan Act was the first gun law in New York State, and was a New York City law.

 

[saphta]

Death penalty to criminals, gang members and anyone who sells guns to them. That's how we fight crime and reduce our carbon emissions.

And fight climate change.