The Great Gun Control Debate

[Fry]

Yeah but if it the vehicle doesn't pass inspection, would you be criminally charged? After all, a vehicle that's not fit to be on the road can endanger others.

Where are those cited sources to help your arguements?

You cited the firearms act? Are you nuts or something? It even says that an inspector may enter on reasonable notice? They shouldn't be able to enter period!

You're fighting a losing battle QV.

by reason of a possible danger to the safety of that person or any other person, it would not be practicable to obtain a warrant, search for and seize any such thing, and any authorization, licence or registration certificate relating to any such thing, that is held by or in the possession of the person.

You're only digging yourself deeper. That post certainly didn't help your arguement at all.

 

[QV]

I posted that because you guys have been saying that police can come and kick your door in at O'dark hundred without notice just to inspect your firearms.  When in fact that is NOT the case.  The inspector has to give you notice and have either consent or a warrant.

As far as the S. 117.04 (c) CCC goes, if you think that this is not a reasonable law then you are nuts.  This is to protect those people that have had death threats, victims of violent domestic disputes and so on.  In other words "the law abiding gun owner" has either committed a violent act, is about to, or has threatened to... and the seizure of his firearms are in order to protect himself and others...... tell me honestly that you don't think that is a reasonable law.

 

[QV]

Yeah but if it the vehicle doesn't pass inspection, would you be criminally charged? After all, a vehicle that's not fit to be on the road can endanger others.

Breaking a provincial statute is not a criminal offence (unfortunately  ;D)  ... breaking a federal statute is.

 

[Fry]

I posted that because you guys have been saying that police can come and kick your door in at O'dark hundred without notice just to inspect your firearms.  When in fact that is NOT the case.  The inspector has to give you notice and have either consent or a warrant.

As far as the S. 117.04 (c) CCC goes, if you think that this is not a reasonable law then you are nuts.  This is to protect those people that have had death threats, victims of violent domestic disputes and so on.  In other words "the law abiding gun owner" has either committed a violent act, is about to, or has threatened to... and the seizure of his firearms are in order to protect himself and others...... tell me honestly that you don't think that is a reasonable law.

I think it's been abused too many times. You get an anonymous tip of a firearms violation and move in, take everything... even if the guy is innocent, he has to go through 25 million hoops of BS, and isn't compensated for his troubles. If you think that's fine, then you my friend are nuts.

Now, do get back and answer my original question. Coming up with ways around answering it legitimately is no good... if you're the guy who firmly believes the registry is doing good, PROVE IT! Otherwise, what are you debating?

 

[QV]

I don't know if THIS registry is the answer, but I believe that some measure of control over who owns guns is needed.  I don't have any inside scoop on whether the registry is working or not, so you won't get ANY references for that broad question.  The registry is doing some good because it is a way for people to be held accountable and it is a tool for police. 

I have cited lots of references already regarding many of your posts.

Some of my references include the Criminal Code, Firearms Act, and a couple of provincial vehicle/traffic acts.  Why don't YOU cite a reference proving that these laws and the registry are a violation of your rights?  That seems to be the major dissatisfier here. 

 

[Fry]

I don't know if THIS registry is the answer, but I believe that some measure of control over who owns guns is needed.  I don't have any inside scoop on whether the registry is working or not, so you won't get ANY references for that broad question.  The registry is doing some good because it is a way for people to be held accountable and it is a tool for police. 

I have cited lots of references already regarding many of your posts.

Some of my references include the Criminal Code, Firearms Act, and a couple of provincial vehicle/traffic acts.  Why don't YOU cite a reference proving that these laws and the registry are a violation of your rights?  That seems to be the major dissatisfier here. 

Have you not read what I've posted? Have you not comprehended how our rights are violated by this bogus piece of crap?
Vehicle/traffic acts have nothing to do with control.
The firearms act is a total joke, hence why we have 50-60 pages here.
The criminal code is an even bigger joke.

Making people be held accountable? For what? What crimes have law abiding citizens committed?

A tool for police? Not this again. How is this a tool for police?


Here's a better question for you. What affect do my guns being registered have on crime?


Don't go on with the selling nonsense. The registry doesn't curb the selling of illegal firearms.

but I believe that some measure of control over who owns guns is needed. 

We both agree that  some measure of control over who owns firearms is needed. CRIMINALS shouldn't own them right? Right. People who obey the law should. Right? Right.

So tell me, how does spending billions on some idiotic registry, control criminals from obtaining illegal firearms? It doesn't. Period.

Don't you agree that the billions of dollars would be better spent in tightening our borders and adding more security to our coastlines? More to increase police presence and help curb crime at the core?

 

[QV]

Vehicle/traffic acts have nothing to do with control.

The "right" to drive, or should I say privelege, is heavily controlled by each province.  That is why the comparisons were made. 

The criminal code is an even bigger joke.

???? I guess we shouldn't have laws then.

Making people be held accountable? For what? What crimes have law abiding citizens committed?

None yet.  But if they sell or give the firearm away to someone that isn't allowed to own one because of past violent crimes ... or if they leave their loaded pistol under their pillow for their curious 12 yr old son to find.... do you not see the point?

A tool for police? Not this again. How is this a tool for police?

I already explained that.

Here's a better question for you. What affect do my guns being registered have on crime?

How would I know?

Don't you agree that the billions of dollars would be better spent in tightening our borders and adding more security to our coastlines? More to increase police presence and help curb crime at the core?

A registry of some sort is going to cost money one way or the other.  Billions of dollars?  Over a long period of time it would likely add up, but if I recall the registry had cost a couple billion within the first couple years (correct me if I am wrong).  So that high cost has me concerned because I agree with you and believe more money could have been spent on police, border, coastguard ect ect. (and Spec Pay 2 for MPs ......  >  joke)

BTW you have yet to show your reference for a charter violation because you have to abide by the Firearms Act and the Criminal Code. 

 

[Inch]

None yet.  But if they sell or give the firearm away to someone that isn't allowed to own one because of past violent crimes ... or if they leave their loaded pistol under their pillow for their curious 12 yr old son to find.... do you not see the point?

We've already gone over this. Read my post here. How on earth do over 4,400 guns reported stolen get re-registered to new owners? So selling or giving them away has no effect since under the current laws, all you have to do is report it stolen and it's no longer registered to you.

It is already illegal to sell a gun to an unlicensed buyer, the registry has nothing to do with it. Licensing is what you're pointing out (none of us are against licensing by the way), buying and selling amongst licensed owners is perfectly legal, but now we have to register them. As I've already said, handguns have been registered since the 1930s and it's done nothing to curb crimes committed with handguns. All the police and government need to know is that I'm a licensed gun owner, they have no need to know what I've got and how many.

As for leaving a loaded gun under the pillow, that's irresponsible gun ownership and none of us have said that's the way it should be.

And by the way, whether or not my guns are registered is not going to stop me from taking them out of my safe and shooting someone with them. Is the registry paper some kind of magical trigger lock that won't let me fire it unless I'm at a range?

 

[QV]

Inch,

Those are all moot points.  They can be argued against any law any where any time.  Like when I compared that argument to impaired driving halfway down page 62.  Or driving a vehicle.  Not having a licence isn't going to stop a criminal from driving.  That doesn't mean driving shouldn't be regulated in some fashion.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

QV
The government has already seized guns with no compensation and have advised that they will do so again if they decide a firearm is now prohibited.

So if I live in a area with minimal police protection and a response time of ½ hour or much more, according to you I should not be allowed to carry any protection? Can you personally guarantee the safety of my daughter? If I feel the possible threat is real enough why can’t I have that right?

Anyone with half a brain knows a gun is not the magic answer to every situation, I don’t wander around after dark in many places in this city and would not do so even if I was armed. Even if I had CCW, I am still required to exercise caution and good judgment. A wrongful shooting will still land me in a very deep pile of poop. Just read the story of an L.A, shop keeper who ended up shooting 11 people who tried to rob his store over the years, despite being wounded several times. Even during those shootings and while wounded he was able to discern threat from non-threat and would be robbers who turned and ran were not shot as they no longer posed a threat. Ordinary people can make those judgments also. If I understand the stats in the US correctly you are more likely to be accidentally shot by a police officer than a CCW holder.

I consider myself an average shooter, I will shoot 50 rds of centrefire a week, along with 1-200 .22cal and do a monthly Skills & Drills night using about 250 rds of centre fire per night. Plus as many matches I can get to. Sad to say but many police officers only shoot about 300 rds a year. I will agree that the average police officers gets an advantage from continually contact with bad guys which helps their awareness skills and close force on force skills. But how often do they get a chance to practice and upgrade those skills? Most police forces seem to constantly cutting back on training budgets and lack of staff limits the opportunities for members to take the time off to improve their skills. Also much of the PC environment nowdays seems hostile to any member who takes shooting seriously.

. I would love it if we treated firearm ownership the same way we treated car ownership. Considering the risk factors, the car is certainly more dangerous.

Why is it that the proponents of the registry with the backing of government resources never actually point to a case where the registry made the critical difference? Think of it this way, how much of your department’s budget are you willing to give up to keep the registry going? What resources would you give up for it? Overtime, fuel, computers, training, Employee assistance program, your radio, your sidearm or perhaps body armour?
QV, if you are Vancouver based or going through here, I will happily take you to the range with me and share a beer with you, I don’t have a hardon against LEO’s in fact I have met many great ones who I have admired and respected. The offer is open so send me a pm if you want.

 

[Inch]

Inch,

Those are all moot points.  They can be argued against any law any where any time.  Like when I compared that argument to impaired driving halfway down page 62.  Or driving a vehicle.  Not having a licence isn't going to stop a criminal from driving.  That doesn't mean driving shouldn't be regulated in some fashion.

Sigh...

Try registering a stolen car as your own, see how fast you're charged with possession of stolen property. Yet for some reason, that has happened with firearms which you seem to think the registry prevents. I'm just pointing out that it doesn't prevent that, it doesn't do what it was meant to do so why are people still supporting it and throwing money at it?

No one here has said that firearms owners shouldn't be licensed. In fact, the point we're all getting at is that instead of spending $2 Billion on a registry that is incomplete, inaccurate and doesn't even take into account that I can lend my guns out to a licensed buddy, we should be spending that money on LEO's and actual background checks for firearms license applicants.

 

[2 Cdo]

21 April 1991 - Regina.

Had the the MPs along with local police size:

a Cdn CAL 9mm SMG which was one of three legallly owned

a Cdn CAL FN C1A1 (8L), which is onew of several hundred legally owned  

a Cdn Inglis 9mm BHP, which was one of many thousand legally owned

All were owned and registered to me for many years before the 'raid'. All were stored securely well beyond even today's standard, and in an alarmed room, and alarmed house.

My entire gun collection was indeed siezed along with over 100 bayonets. All by an overzealous and IGNORANT combination of MP and City Police, who really thought you could not own such Canadian Forces 'issued' firearms.

Yes all at gunpoint in front of my home, in front of my neighbours, I was handcuffed, and ened up going to gaol becuse I could not be monitered and watched in my own home as it was torn a part.

It took me four weeks to get back my property (AND I HAD TO FIGHT TO GET IT, AND I MEAN FIGHT!), and many items came back damaged. I ended up being charged with counts of 'possession of a unregistered restricted weapon', which in reality was although they had been 'applied to be registered' with hard copy in writing forms, they were not in the system, nor did I have the green FRC's to back this up, as all was in the pipeline between Ottawa and Regina. Thats how phucked things were.

I had to go to court for that, cost me a total of *******$5900******* in legal fees to prove my innocence.

Yes I won, I had done nothing wrong, but I was always looked and treated with suspicion by the Regina Police after that, copping abuse even to register further pieces to my then collection. I dreaded any contact with them after this.

Hell to pay? One might think, but there was none. I was told I did not have a leg to stand on legally for any action against them. Now 16 yrs, I am still one pissed off bitter and twisted person. Ya, I was 110% legal, and I was still treated like a POS. That was the beginning of the end of my favourite hobby and passtime. That incident ruined things for me, and took the wind out of my sails for collecting. A$$holes!

On, for the record, I did get an 'oh sorry', and that was it.

To this day, I have little trust and faith in the firearms Cdn regisrtry, and the MP/ RCMP/ local Police's general knowledge of gun laws. Their behaviour was that of the Gestapo.

I realised that on that day, I had no rights, was treated poorly, spending a long night in cells for comitting no crime. Plus the fact I was out of pocket almost $6000, I consider that theft! Still do.

A billion dollars on the registry, what a waste of money!! 200 million spent on cancer research, what an embarassment. All to be PC and appease the Cukiers out there. Phuck em!

So QV, put that in your pipe and smoke it!


Wes

Wes, that is exactly the type of nonsense that QV, in his infinite wisdom, says will never happen but we know does happen. And a lot more often than I am comfortable with.

Remember the gun owner in Toronto who had his guns robbed from his safe (which was bolted to the floor) while he was on vacation and he was still charged with "unsafe storage" because the thiefs had days to complete their theft. Maybe he should have went to the local police station with his weapons and asked them to babysit them while he was on vacation.

Sorry QV but you are out of your depth on this subject.

 

[QV]

As far as quoting people in the media that have been charged with firearms offences, unless you know ALL the facts of that case don't bother.  Media puts too many spins on police related stories.  Police can't counter media BS stories because much of the information the police had gathered or learned cannot be disclosed (at the time of media releases anyway).

When someone comes on relates a personal story I tend to be skeptical because there are ALWAYs three sides to every story.  I have found that most people lie or at least tweak the facts slightly to their favour by ommitting some information or exagerating other stuff.  Joe Bloggins will complain about how his guns were seized and he is just a "law-abiding gun owner" who had his "rights" violated --- when if fact there was a spousal assault and he pointed a gun at her.  But Joe will say the police only came for a minor call. 


So in summary,
We agree that Billions of dollars is too much money to spend on a gun registry.
We agree that firearms need to be regulated in some manner, but the current registry is having problems.
We agree that people need to be licenced to buy/sell own a firearm
We agree that the justice system is messed up
We agree that the charter of rights and freedoms does not specifiy any "right to bear arms"


Well, now most of you (if you actually read my posts) will know that the police can't just arbitrarily come and kick your door in at any time to inspect your horde of guns and ammo.

And if you read and understood S. 117.04(2) of the CCC then you will also know that in exceptional circumstances police will only come get guns if a "law abiding gun owner" or anyone for that matter has done something or threatened to do something violent.  I am sure we can all agree this is reasonable.

If you read and understood S. 104(1) of the FA then you also now know that an inspector has to give you reasonable notice and can only enter with consent or a warrant.  Kind of like getting pulled over at a traffic stop so the police can make sure you are driving a vehicle fit for the road, except at a traffic stop police don't need a warrant or consent.  Again considering the nature of the hobbie I would hope we can agree that this is reasonable as well.

In closing, since there are no constitional rights to bear arms and the current laws appear to be reasonable there really is no violation of any rights.  What pisses people off is the registry, which also in itself does not violate a persons rights, it just appears to be a waste of money and energy. 

 

[Fry]

The "right" to drive, or should I say privelege, is heavily controlled by each province.  That is why the comparisons were made. 

But are firearms laws controlled by the provincial governments? No. So why in the hell are you arguing this?

???? I guess we shouldn't have laws then.

When someone can get in 500 times more crap for having 1 codfish over the limit, than someone dealing drugs, then yeah, the system's messed.

None yet.  But if they sell or give the firearm away to someone that isn't allowed to own one because of past violent crimes ... or if they leave their loaded pistol under their pillow for their curious 12 yr old son to find.... do you not see the point

No one's arguing storage laws. I wouldn't have a pistol lying around.

As for someone not being allowed to own because of past violent crimes, if they've committed crimes such as those, you think they don't know how to already obtain illegal firearms or other items that could be used as weapons? Are you sir really in law enforcement?

I already explained that.

No you never. You gave a bunch of bogus reasons and didn't respond when comments proved them wrong.

How would I know?

Exactly! You seem to know everything else, yet you cannot answer me on the registry question. How are my firearms being registered, going to stop criminals from smuggling and committing crimes with illegal firearms?

Unless they are very sneaky, come in at night and don't wake my family up (we're light sleepers), pick my locks, take my guns, go commit crimes, and are back before we wake in the morning... then my firearms will not be involved in any crimes.

A registry of some sort is going to cost money one way or the other.  Billions of dollars?  Over a long period of time it would likely add up, but if I recall the registry had cost a couple billion within the first couple years (correct me if I am wrong).  So that high cost has me concerned because I agree with you and believe more money could have been spent on police, border, coastguard ect ect. (and Spec Pay 2 for MPs ......  >  joke)

Yeah, billions, meaning 2 or more, not to mention the cost of maintaining it and it's still not even near completion. I'm glad we both agree that the money could be better spent on police, border and coast control methods other than some pos database that does jack.

BTW you have yet to show your reference for a charter violation because you have to abide by the Firearms Act and the Criminal Code. 

I've already explained myself, and your firearms act quotes have already proven my case here. The fact that anonymously someone can tip the police that I'm allegedly comitting crimes with firearms in my own home can warrant a raid regardless a warrant granted by a judge. After months of court battles, possible jail time, confiscation of firearms during that time, lawyer fees, etc... I will more than likely be found innocent, but with ZERO compensation to me. Image tarnished, funds depleted, weeks if not months wasted of my life for something that shouldn't be.

The government's ability to seize firearms, whether they be priceless heirlooms or just firearms of law abiding citizens is just wrong. QV go look up the list of firearms that are prohibited. The only one I agree with on there would be the SSS-1 Stinger or variants. No sporting or target purposes, highly concealable and it's purpose is to be a concealed weapon.

Banninng the Benelli M1 Super 90 shotgun and the Benelli M3 Super 90 shotgun because of it's ability to switch fire from semi to pump action is BS! One of the many examples that the firearms act is bogus.

The fact that criminal charges can be laid on this bogus crapola, yet someone can speed, illegally park blocking access for firetrucks to hydrants, causing a much more safety hazard than a properly stored unregistered firearm, will just get a ticket and be on their way.

You want an actual example? Read Wesley's post. Tell me that isn't a violation of his rights and freedoms.

An anonymous "firearms threat" tip from a personal opponent can lead to an unannounced police raid on your home. <-MAJOR VIOLATION

Some street punk can murder someone and his rights are the first to be considered. He's taken into custody, and IF convicted, faces years(sometimes) in luxurious home with free cable, food, gym priveliges and access to better himself by taking courses, etc... (this is jail?)

QV, your arguements lack depth. Your inability to explain why your arguements are correct is just a waste of space on these forums. You come on here first of all defending tolls, then you come on here and in your "oh so infinite wisdom" and your alleged police expertise and make bogus remarks and comments comments so ridiculous my little cousin wouldn't even make.

No one is against proper training and licensing. No one is against improper storage. But what we are against is the fact that crap that happens (such as in wes's post) happens and is a direct result from the magical gun registry and firearms act.

This whole topic is basically honest gun owners trying to defend themselves, when REALLY it should be about cutting down on actual ILLEGAL activities committed by CRIMINALS.

BTW you have yet to show your reference for a charter violation because you have to abide by the Firearms Act and the Criminal Code.

It's because we have to abide by the Firearms act, that it's a violation, haven't you been reading the posts? It's what's contained in that illogical act that we have a problem with. It's the fact that LEOs can waltz in on an anonymous tip and cause months of trouble, mentally and financially. It's the fact that firearms can be seized without compensation. It's the fact that because a firearm looks nasty, regardless of it's function, it's branded prohibited. It's the fact that the idiots who define a particular firearm as prohibited, do not realize that any firearm by definition is capable of shooting.

Gas is not regulated. An arsonist has direct access to as much gasoline, diesel and other combustables. It's so easy to make homemade explosives. Fertilizer isn't regulated. Ryder trucks aren't regulated. Timothy wasn't regulated and look at the Oaklahoma bombing, was he? Everyone who kills someone or themselves with an automobile wasn't regulated and they're even registered. Water isn't regultated, people drown all the time. Prescription drugs legally obtained aren't regulated and are sold on the street all the time. Knives aren't regulated. I've many knives, a machete, I think there's a sword downstairs in the basement too. Any lenth, sharpness, design. Knives are easy to conceal, make ZERO noise and are EXTREMELY LETHAL. They're not regulated.

QV, why jump on the bandwagon, stereotype firearms, support a bogus firearms act and registry and make yourself look like a total fool here for thousands if not millions to see?

  Sorry QV but you are out of your depth on this subject.

I think so as well. I know that the RCMP detachments here only have to qualify once a year, 50 rounds. Yes, 50 rounds.

I'm just curious, QV are you a firearms owner?

I've yet to meet one that loved the registry and firearms act as you do. I'm curious.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Interesting note: from my reading, it seems that a recent court decision in the US stated that that the “right to bear arms” does not flow from the 2nd amendment, but from common law. The 2nd amendment “protects” that existing right by trumping any attempts to infringe upon it.

 

[QV]

Colin your points seem more out of anger for a failing justice system.  Since I am an MP you seem to equate that failing justice system with me.  FYI most police out there think criminals get far too many breaks and that the justice system sucks too. 

I never said I knew everything nor have I ever alleged expertise in anything.  Quit jumping to conclusions.  And I am not going to respond to personal attacks or snide remarks that many of you seem to be able to get away with around here, and your post has a few. 

Using the argument that gasoline is not regulated is as foolhardy and moot as arguing that your car can't be seized if left unattended and not locked (which it can BTW in case you missed that).  Or saying that all knives should now be regulated.  Hell lets just throw out any law as soon as one interest group complains about it.  What do you think would happen then? 

I've already explained myself, and your firearms act quotes have already proven my case here.

No they havn't.  They prove that you are jumping to conclusions. 

The fact that anonymously someone can tip the police that I'm allegedly comitting crimes with firearms in my own home can warrant a raid regardless a warrant granted by a judge.

The police need reasonable grounds AND exingent circumstances for such a raid you are talking about.  An anonymous tip that Jack Remington keeps his older then dust 12 Ga unlocked hardley meets the reasonable grounds and exingent circumstances criteria.  So again you are jumping to conclusions.  Quit stating that the police, for no other reason then to bring down a "law abiding gun owner" will break into your home in the dead of night and steal all your prized firearms and cart you off to jail.  That is pure unfounded speculation on your part not backed up with PROVEN sources. 

QV, why jump on the bandwagon, stereotype firearms, support a bogus firearms act and registry and make yourself look like a total fool here for thousands if not millions to see?

Actually I would hazard a guess that the majority of Canadians support gun control.   

For all of you gun enthusiests arguing that you need guns for protection and how society is so dangerous and an "armed people" is the only thing stopping the government from becoming some dictatorship, and that you need CCW because the police only shoot 50 rnds a year and are too far away  ---- that is definately the wrong road to take.  Most people in this country do not think the same way as you, and when they hear arguments like that the average citizen (gun owner or not) would probably think that is coming from: 

a.  a crazy gun nut
b.  an anti government militia; or
c.  someone with deep seated fears of society that probably needs treatment.

If you focused on shooting sports and totally left out the whole "society is out to get me" argument you might get a lot further.

I'm just curious, QV are you a firearms owner?

Why?  If not, can't I debate about laws in the country that I live? 

 

[Inch]

You know QV, it's interesting that you quote part 104 (1) of the Firearms Act, yet you leave out part 104 (2). Allow me to add it to the discussion.

Inspection of dwelling-house

104. (1) An inspector may not enter a dwelling-house under section 102 except

(a) on reasonable notice to the owner or occupant, except where a business is being carried on in the dwelling-house; and

(b) with the consent of the occupant or under a warrant.

Authority to issue warrant

(2) A justice who on ex parte application is satisfied by information on oath
(a) that the conditions for entry described in section 102 exist in relation to a dwelling-house,

(b) that entry to the dwelling-house is necessary for any purpose relating to the enforcement of this Act or the regulations, and

(c) that entry to the dwelling-house has been refused or that there are reasonable grounds for believing that entry will be refused

may issue a warrant authorizing the inspector named in it to enter that dwelling-house subject to any conditions that may be specified in the warrant.

So, yes, while you're correct in saying that they cannot enter without consent or a warrant, part 2 states that if we refuse entry, they have grounds to get a warrant. Kind of "damned if you do and damned if you don't"

If you allow them in, they can search for firearms wherever they want. If you deny them entry or they think you'll deny them entry, they'll get a warrant to search for firearms wherever they want.

How are our rights not infringed on again? How about Section 8 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms... Everyone has the right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure. They can come and inspect me based on an anonymous tip, if I refuse inspection, they can get a warrant to search anywhere in my house that they have reasonable grounds to believe there are firearms or ammunition.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

QV
I don’t remember slinging a personal insult at you, unless you consider an invite for shooting or a beer an insult?

Re my post about the 2nd amendment was brought about by your statement:

In closing, since there are no constitional rights to bear arms and the current laws appear to be reasonable there really is no violation of any rights.

You will notice the US courts belief that the right to bear arms flows from common law which we happen to share the same historical source as they do. So it might prove to be interesting to see if that common law right has been cast aside up here, although by looking at recent Canadian court cases I suspect that it may still exist. Certainly they proved the right of self defense is alive and well in Canada.  

 

[QV]

Inch,

The charter protects against unreasonable searches.  A search authorized by a statute (like the Firearms Act) is deemed to be reasonable, hence no charter violation.  So there goes your charter defence. 

About sub section 2, so what?  You still have notice of the inspection.  If your firearms are locked up and legal, your good.  Even if they aren't locked up you have time to do it while the inspector goes for a warrant.  If you have illegal firearms or keep your loaded pistol where a kid can get at it, then you are screwed.  You are screwed because you broke federal statutes.  Breaking federal statutes are considered crimes - which would make someone who committed them a criminal.  How is this hurting the average "law abiding gun owner"?

 

[QV]

QV
I don’t remember slinging a personal insult at you, unless you consider an invite for shooting or a beer an insult?

Re my post about the 2nd amendment was brought about by your statement:


You will notice the US courts belief that the right to bear arms flows from common law which we happen to share the same historical source as they do. So it might prove to be interesting to see if that common law right has been cast aside up here, although by looking at recent Canadian court cases I suspect that it may still exist. Certainly they proved the right of self defense is alive and well in Canada.  

And it will be interesting to see what, if anything, happens when some of this firearms stuff makes it to the Supreme Court of Canada.  Canadian judges also take into consideration rulings from the USA and vice versa. 


BTW, thanks for the range invite but I have my own collection.  I am also a member of a local range.  I am also a member of the National Firearms Association.  Maybe we can go together sometime?  8)