They dont really have to confiscate anything , just deny all ATT's for any particular item . That way no one can use there handgun or whatever else they want to ban . They can monitor ranges and see what people are shooting , then they are able to grab them if you are on a range with a banned firearm .
When they want to confiscate my ar-15
- Thread starter ricka2
- Start date
ricka2 said:
Sorry, I don't mean to offend you, but I really hate this stereotypical portrayal of the average AR-15 owner being angry and well armed. The general public (as well as Law Enforcement) has absolutely nothing to fear from law-abiding firearms owners and it is irresponsible to suggest otherwise. Leave that crap to the media.
I know you probably don't mean it that way, I'm just getting a little tired of seeing this #### posted on other threads here.
Last edited:
Throttle_monkey1
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
Krausb, at least we could show a little backbone though, that's why they walk all over us.
If they ban them, no one on this board should let them have their AR's or handguns, and then a couple hundred of us in each city could go to a range and use our banned firearms. If the cops want them then, they can come and take them from us at the range.
If they ban them, no one on this board should let them have their AR's or handguns, and then a couple hundred of us in each city could go to a range and use our banned firearms. If the cops want them then, they can come and take them from us at the range.
Show backbone? Absolutely. I'll never suggest otherwise. But many of the members here are working very, very hard to try and see to it that it never comes to that. And we can undo all of that hard work with just a few poorly chosen words. The lefty press creates a negative enough image of gun owners, we don'y need to help them out.
skeetgunner
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- Burlington
philchau said:
If they are at your door....they'll have a warrant. Hand them the stripped lower and send them packing. As soon as they turn to leave, arrest them for transporting a restricted without a case and trigger lock.
- Location
- West coast of Vancouver Island
X-man said:
+1, I agree with you
SW
skeetgunner
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- Burlington
HPL said:
Its probably better to find a JP and lay a charge (swear an information?) and then let the justice system take its course. But the law applies to everyone, including the government's minions.....and its a form of civil disobediance if it comes to that.
As far as confiscation goes ,lobby the province to opt out of the exsisting gun laws ,I phoned annies office as soon as I heard paul marto's garbage and they flat out said it was up to the provinces to opt out. Do you see a window of opertunity here. I honestly believe its time to stick it to the leftist u.n. anti-gunners and maybe get a bit of a relaxation of exsisting laws, after all if the provinces can opt out of an out right ban, maybe we can make a few other changes.
skeetgunner
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- Burlington
krausb said:
I'm not sure that they know themselves yet. BC, Ont and PQ are in. The others are out or in a wait and see mode.
Its just occured to me that if the Fed Lieberals may have shot themselves in the foot....twice. Once for the ban, which is just pure stupid Lieberal law. But also once for the constitutional mess surounding property rights and fed/prov jurisdiction.
Didn't half the provinces try to repeal c-68 at the supreme court level claiming that it interfered with property rights? Isn't delegating the handgun ban opt-out to the province confirming that the provinces DO have jurisdiction over property rights?
Better constitutional schollars than I are going to have a field day with this.
IDPACONVERT
CGN frequent flyer
- Location
- The Fringe(GTA)
I know that, I was there, and had many friends who lost $$$ on .50's also. My post was a statement, to those who would think that it was a good deal.
Merry Christmas!
skeetgunner said:
No, it doesn't (well, more correctly, it does, but LEO and military are exempted); simply put, if it's related to their duties, LEO and military are exempt from all of the posession / storage / transport portions of the FA and CC. Use offenses (pointing, etc) still apply.
It's not a form of civil disobedience either - you are still obeying the law (having handed over your firearm), but are just trying to challenge it in a way that will be unsuccessful. Refusing to hand over the firearm, having it seized and being arrested would be civil disobedience.
I'm not intending a flame here, but this idea simply won't work. No police officer will ever be arrested for transporting weapons they have come into posession of by operation of law or in the course of their duties.
Last edited:
Skeetgunner, where did you hear BC would be in on the ban? If one thing Gordo has done, is he has kept out of the election. The reason he is keeping a low profile? The Liberal Party of BC is quite unnlike the Liberal Party of Canada. They share a name, and little else. And if Gordo opted in, I am sure he knows he can write off all the votes the BC Libs get outside of the GVRD. He knows who fills his lunch pale.
And inside the GVRD too. Think of the areas affected by gang violence in the lower mainland and places like the downtown eastside. Implementing the ban will draw a lot of funds and resources away from other more real things like figuring out who is killing all the hookers and dealing with the drug problem on the streets.Oxblood said:
