The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0

[Haggis]

Conservative MP Glen Motz has sponsored another petition for the PM and Minister Blair to ignore. This one, unfortunately, asks only for a debate of the OIC/ban and associated costs, not for the abandonment of the plan.

 

[Haggis]

The handgun ban will likely take the form of legislated changes and regulation issued under the Firearms Act which allows for the creation of municipally defined restriction zones and prohibition zones for certain classes of firearms as defined under the Firearms Act.  Regulations will also be needed which allows the Canadian Firearms Program (CFP) to provide municipalities who establish such zones with the names  addresses and ownership particulars for all registered firearms within their restriction and prohibition zones. (You can bet that, at least in Québec, this will also include information from the long gun registry.) Those municipalities will now be empowered to issue confiscation orders and lay charges under the Firearms Act for non compliance.

And this article would seem to indicate that my quote above may be right on the money.  Trudeau WILL get his ban, whether the provinces support it or not.  It will be interesting to see which level of government by invokes the "notwithstanding clause" first.

 

[Jarnhamar]

"In some situations, we may have a province that is unwilling to do that despite the willingness of a city or cities to do that," he said. "At which point, I have been assured, there are other tools we can use that wouldn't be as ideal, because it would involve disagreements with the provinces at a time where we want to be collaborative."

Trudeau declined to elaborate on any alternative measure, "because it's something we hope to not have to use."

Classic Honourable Prime Minister Trudeau right there.


And when Toronto bans handguns and there's still shootings they'll simply say it's because the next city over didn't ban the-so better ban them everywhere.

 

[The Bread Guy]

Interesting letter a Liberal MP wrote to Minister Blair, attached - more here ...

Edited to add:  I suspect he & the whip (at least) got to know each other much better after this.

 

[Eaglelord17]

And this article would seem to indicate that my quote above may be right on the money.  Trudeau WILL get his ban, whether the provinces support it or not.  It will be interesting to see which level of government by invokes the "notwithstanding clause" first.

Notwithstanding clause I don't think would work. The ban will likely be struck down in the Supreme Court as it violates our constitution. There is a clear separation of powers in this country, and part of that is that cities gain their powers from the Provinces, not the other way around. The Federal government cannot give powers to a city, only to the Province.

No matter what happens it is going to be some interesting constitutional law happening.

 

[Haggis]

Notwithstanding clause I don't think would work. The ban will likely be struck down in the Supreme Court as it violates our constitution. There is a clear separation of powers in this country, and part of that is that cities gain their powers from the Provinces, not the other way around. The Federal government cannot give powers to a city, only to the Province.

Minister Blair was directed to "amend Canada's firearms laws" in order to fulfill the campaign promises of confiscation and municipal bans.  See my reply #690 which outlines how the municipal bans will likely come about which will make them constitutionally sound.

Another point to watch in the near therm is the upcoming initial ban on the sale of soon-to-be-banned/confiscated firearms.  You won't even be able to sell your AR platform, SKS, Mini-14, Garand etc. to an American/foreign buyer, driving the "fair market value" in Canada to near zero.  I suspect $500 will be the top end payout during the confiscation, thereby allowing the Liberals to stay within their $250M buyback budget.

 

[Eaglelord17]

I don't see the changes that you think they might propose as sound. Currently there is no prohibition in Canada as to where you can own a prohibited or restricted firearm, only where they can be used. Hypothetically I could live right next to parliament and if I was 12.2 licenced there is nothing that they could do to stop me from storing my property in my home. To try and argue that they can establish areas that you cannot possess legally acquired property on your legally owned property where you are legally required to store it (in the case of restricted firearms) is hopefully impossible under our current form of governance. I still see that as a violation of our separations of powers as it is still giving municipalities more powers than the province, just trying to word it differently. Hopefully the courts have enough sense and are impartial enough to see it that way.

 

[Haggis]

Eaglelord17, the PM has said that there are tools available to force recalcitrant provinces to comply.  He will use those.  He will not accept challenges to a key plank in his election platform.  If certain provinces fail to play along, then a national handgun ban will probably be imposed.

There are no property rights enshrined in our Constitution.  PM Trudeau senior made sure of that.

 

[Eaglelord17]

Eaglelord17, the PM has said that there are tools available to force recalcitrant provinces to comply.  He will use those.  He will not accept challenges to a key plank in his election platform.  If certain provinces fail to play along, then a national handgun ban will probably be imposed.

There are no property rights enshrined in our Constitution.  PM Trudeau senior made sure of that.

No property rights enshrined in our Charter, however I would argue that those are rights that existed prior to the 1867 Constitution, and should be enshrined in common law in this country. Property rights are also upheld in our Bill of rights even though that isn't nearly as binding as the Charter.

It could also be argued under the Charter that a handgun ban in your city or town is a violation of your right to life, liberty, and security of the person, as well as your right to not receive cruel and unusual punishment (which a arbitrary ban on ownership of property based off a geographic area is).

This city banning idea is the stupidest one I have heard of in a long time, because as much as I hate our current firearms act at least it is consistent across the country. This starts turning us into the States with there mishmash of laws depending on the states, and city you live in.

Its disgusting how this current government is acting. They want to bully and attack law abiding citizens who have done nothing to harm anyone, instead have been persecuted for decades simply based off of their decision to legally own and acquire certain property. If anything their aggressive and holier than thou attitude shows more of a reason why we shouldn't disarm ourselves.

 

[Haggis]

This city banning idea is the stupidest one I have heard of in a long time, because as much as I hate our current firearms act at least it is consistent across the country. This starts turning us into the States with there mishmash of laws depending on the states, and city you live in.

Which is why most anti-gun organizations are pushing for a full ban, which is where I think the current government will go when they see how unworkable local/regional bans are.

 

[Retired AF Guy]

There are no property rights enshrined in our Constitution.  PM Trudeau senior made sure of that.

Not entirely true.

CONSTITUTION ACT, 1867

92. In each Province the Legislature may exclusively make Laws in relation to Matters coming within the Classes of Subjects next hereinafter enumerated; that is to say,

13. Property and Civil Rights in the Province.

And while Trudeau gets the blame for not including property rights in CA 1982, the real guilty party was Roy Romanov, Premier of Saskatchewan who convinced him not to.

 

[Cloud Cover]

92(13) is a division of powers clause, it doesn’t create a right to any private individual to own property.

The only quasi constitutional document that creates some property ownership “rights” is the Diefenbaker era Canadian Bill of Rights, which is a federal statute and not part of the actual Constitution and certainly not part of the Charter. It’s called quasi constitutional because it has been used as an affirmative defence that has sometimes been accepted by the Supreme Court. If Justin Trudeau wanted to, he could repeal or amend the CBoR this afternoon.

 

[Jarnhamar]

Surprising insight from Toronto area mayors.

Toronto-area mayors calls for action at border following forum on gun violence

"Our provincial numbers show 84 per cent are illegal guns that come across the borders," she said. "We need to actually crack down on that because that ultimately will keep our community safer."

https://www.lillooetnews.net/toronto-area-mayors-calls-for-action-at-border-following-forum-on-gun-violence-1.24062834

Police and Border services communicating better and going after guns coming across the border? Good to hear.




Editing to add, it's interesting that classical Liberalism, including the most influential early thinkers like John Locke, believed that Liberalism included individual property rights.

 

[Haggis]

The petition asking for the Liberal government to actually debate any gun bans and compensated confiscations (AKA "buybacks") sponsored by Conservative MP Glen Motz is now the most signed parliamentary e-petition in Canadian history, closing in on 150,000 signatures as of today.

 

[Haggis]

The Liberals have proposed a "new" law (which pretty much already exists) to allow medical professionals and educators to call their local police to report persons at risk of harm to themselves or others and as that the police seize their legally owned firearms.  This "Red Flag Law" is already on the books, but those doctors and teachers must call their CFOs, not the local police.  Not even the most strident of the anti-gun groups thinks this law is needed.

 

[Jarnhamar]

Short of banning all guns in Canada, or a law that severely screws over gun owners, I don't think anti gun advocates will really support or care about this type of stuff.

They don't want connon sense laws they want all guns gone.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

It appears that Ducks Unlimited won't support the petition and are now shedding support from gun owners and hunters.

 

[Remius]

It appears that Ducks Unlimited won't support the petition and are now shedding support from gun owners and hunters.

I thought their primary mission was wetland conservation and advocacy.  They are not a firearms lobby group.  Seems to me they are being neutral and not taking a position on a policy matter that is outside of their mandate.

As a tax exempt not for profit group their status as such could be at threat if they started getting political. 

 

[NavyShooter]

They have a seat on the National Firearms Consultation board....so....yeah....guns are in their wheelhouse.

 

[Remius]

They have a seat on the National Firearms Consultation board....so....yeah....guns are in their wheelhouse.

Right so even more reason not to take a a side while they sit on that advisory board.  See the terms of reference.

https://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/cnt/cntrng-crm/cfac/tor-en.aspx