The Year of the magazine, RCMP Info sheet
- Thread starter Mr Wolverine
- Start date
A better idea would be if they would stop making up twisted, nonsensical interpretations of the law that are contradicted by a plain reading of said law and instead focus their energy and resources on combating things like organized crime, drug trafficking, human trafficking, child ####ography, child molestation, gun smuggling between ports by criminals, etc. etc. etc.
Letter written, signed and will be delivered today, probably by hand to the local MP's office.
Would that not be throwing one group to the lions to save another?
See post #163 for a picture of a PALed Charger owner under a bus.
In any event its almost a decade moot, and unlikely the Liberals would reclassify it using Bill C42's powers.
Today's battle lines have been drawn.
BTW, greentips and I had a bit of a discussion about something like this a few days back. About what could have happened had it been classified as a rifle in Canada, and the pointlessness of that as an argument now.
Posts #1072, #1073, and #1087
http://www.canadiangunnutz.com/foru...ads-Merged?p=12833359&viewfull=1#post12833359
http://www.canadiangunnutz.com/foru...ads-Merged?p=12833387&viewfull=1#post12833387
http://www.canadiangunnutz.com/foru...ads-Merged?p=12833553&viewfull=1#post12833553
Last edited:
To me, this is it in a nut shell..."Infringement of Charter of Rights and Freedoms" and because of the below does not pass the justified objective or means test. And do the RCMP actually have the legal authority to do this?
The way laws are written is that in general terms laws are vague and always refer to the regulation for the details, and the regulations always refer to the law as the basis for which it is written. Laws are changed by an act of Parliment and regulations are changed by a Parlimental Committees mandated to review regulations either at governmental request of on a schedule, The RCMP are the messengers in this situation and have no doubt some say but not the final say, firearms owners need to find out who is on this committee and write to them, there is always an MP who is responsible for this committee.
I believe the 'committee' for Orders In Council is actually the Cabinet; and not a public Parliamentary Committee meeting nor public Senate Committee meeting.
https://www.collectionscanada.gc.ca/executive-decree/023004-3010-e.html
And that the Cabinet is basically a rubber stamp for what the responsible minister and/or prime minister present, unless the responsible minister and/or prime minister wants opinions expressed there that day.
Indeed that was one of the complaints about the C68 1995's Firearms Act, that a whole lot of things were 'prescribed', so MPs who were voting on it had no idea what they were voting on, and never would be able to, because the regulations would not be debated in Parliament nor necessarily reviewed in Committee.
I appreciate that, because there are aspects of this bill I know absolutely nothing about; and I'll tell you why. Under the definition clause, clause 2, which deals with the definition, it defines the word "prescribed.''. If you look at page 3, "prescribed'' means, in the case of a form or the information to be included on a form, prescribed by the federal minister, and in any other case prescribed by the regulations. In this bill there are 75 places where the word "prescribed'' appears, which means regulations will be made in 75 areas of this bill; regulations we have no idea about. They're not before us.
So I share with all witnesses who have appeared before this committee that same kind of feeling, that I do not know what this bill is eventually going to look like. If I support this bill, I am, in a sense and to a certain degree, supporting a pig in a poke, because the minister has enormous powers to pass regulations that are not as yet described for this committee.
-- May 17, 1995, MP Mr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot, Reform): http://www.lowe.ca/Rick/FirearmsLegislation/CLCAttacksCivilRights.htm
So I share with all witnesses who have appeared before this committee that same kind of feeling, that I do not know what this bill is eventually going to look like. If I support this bill, I am, in a sense and to a certain degree, supporting a pig in a poke, because the minister has enormous powers to pass regulations that are not as yet described for this committee.
-- May 17, 1995, MP Mr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot, Reform): http://www.lowe.ca/Rick/FirearmsLegislation/CLCAttacksCivilRights.htm
bcbravo2zero
CGN Regular
This isn't my area of practice...at all...but, again, getting rid of the Charger "pistol" should not be where our efforts are concentrated. There is an FRT, and I can't see that changing.
What ultimately defeated the LGR?
The general answer is "public opposition", IE/ vote cost
Public opposition grew for two main reasons IMO:
1) it was seen to be kinda useless; but moreover
2) IT GOT EXPENSIVE for the tax paying public.
The average person's passion for more so-called "gun control" wanes surprisingly fast when it gets costly...especially when it's costly AND ineffective.
There is the added bonus that the public has a fairly low opinion of the RCMP these days, so painting them as heavy-handed, ineffectual bullies might not be too difficult.
SUPPORT THE CLASS ACTION.
Make them pay for every inch of ground they try to take from us.
bcbravo2zero
CGN Regular
blackkramer
New member
- Location
- Calgary, AB
Voting Liberal is NOT what brought this on. Voting for one party over another should not remove your rights as a Canadian citizen. Never blindly follow one party, or blindly hate on another due to its name.
I am going to be writing my MP in regards to this, and donating some money to the cause to fight this. Give them an inch and they will take a mile.
So I was thinking...
"paragraph 3 (1)(b) of the Regulations prohibit a cartridge magazine that is capable of containing more than 10 cartridges of the type for which the magazine was originally designed and that is designed or manufactured for use in a semi-automatic handgun that is commonly available in Canada."
I believe the 10/22 Charger handgun was not introduced or available until ~2007. A 10/22 magazine over 10 rounds manufactured between 1964 and 2006, would by definition "NOT be originally designed for a handgun" because the 10/22 Charger handgun simply did not exist unless you could time travel.
Would this mean that there exists a class of pre-2007 magazines that might still be legal based on the RCMP's own semantics? Or are they saying that formerly law abiding people become criminals instantly with the addition of a pistol variant to the FRT? This is so ripe to get tested in court!
"paragraph 3 (1)(b) of the Regulations prohibit a cartridge magazine that is capable of containing more than 10 cartridges of the type for which the magazine was originally designed and that is designed or manufactured for use in a semi-automatic handgun that is commonly available in Canada."
I believe the 10/22 Charger handgun was not introduced or available until ~2007. A 10/22 magazine over 10 rounds manufactured between 1964 and 2006, would by definition "NOT be originally designed for a handgun" because the 10/22 Charger handgun simply did not exist unless you could time travel.
Would this mean that there exists a class of pre-2007 magazines that might still be legal based on the RCMP's own semantics? Or are they saying that formerly law abiding people become criminals instantly with the addition of a pistol variant to the FRT? This is so ripe to get tested in court!
It would still be a pistol that accepts a detachable magazine, Just prohibited... Nothing would change for rifle magazines.
Liberals said they would give decision making ability to the RCMP "professionals" regarding firearms even before the were elected... Therefore voting liberal IS what caused this garbage.
if the RCMP would spend as much time as they are persecuting legal gun owners to get illegal guns off the streets, the world would be safer.. and alot of legal gun owners happier.
But no they dont.. instead of doing their job, they are treating us like criminals And the bad guys runaway with illegal guns that wont be used to shoot paper.
But no they dont.. instead of doing their job, they are treating us like criminals And the bad guys runaway with illegal guns that wont be used to shoot paper.
Leaving the mechanism for harassment intact (C-68) is tge biggest factor. It's like Socialists. They're okay in theory until they build gulags and their true nature comes out. Our long, long, long anticipated replacement Firearms Act will be a vote magnet.
