The Great Gun Control Debate

[Colin Parkinson]

To create a new FRT # takes minimal effort, all that is involved is some pictures, measurements and some of the tombstone data of the firearm. New FRT' #'s are created regularally.

ps
You have to register a car, it is an offence not to.

No the RCMP create the FRT# and controls the database, it's up to them to issue the FRT#. Try that with a funky new black rifle, they will demand to inspect it before considering whether to give it an FRT#. Trying to import a firearm that not in the FRT will likely lead to seizure by customs who will send it to the RCMP for inspection, who may get around to it in 6 months and then tell you your firearm is prohibited because it's easily converted, but we refuse to explain how we came to that conclusion. 

 

[J.J]

No the RCMP create the FRT# and controls the database, it's up to them to issue the FRT#. Try that with a funky new black rifle, they will demand to inspect it before considering whether to give it an FRT#. Trying to import a firearm that not in the FRT will likely lead to seizure by customs who will send it to the RCMP for inspection, who may get around to it in 6 months and then tell you your firearm is prohibited because it's easily converted, but we refuse to explain how we came to that conclusion.

Its my job to use the FRT, I use it daily, I deal with the FRT section in Ottawa on a regular basis, but you know better.

 

[Jed]

Its my job to use the FRT, I use it daily, I deal with the FRT section in Ottawa on a regular basis, but you know better.

But WR ... You wouldn't perhaps be a bit biased would you?

 

[Fishbone Jones]

But WR ... You wouldn't perhaps be a bit biased would you?

Who here isn't?

Give that rhetoric a break.

Discuss the point(s), not the person.


edit - clarity

 

[J.J]

Absolutely no bias, I am not an employee of the RCMP.  I am at a user level for the FRT & occasionally submit new firearms for submission & classification. I understand the process how it usually works. Some people have such a skewed view on this issue that they can't see the forest for the trees.

 

[Jed]

Recce Guy, no personal attacks meant at all wrt WR, just an honest question. I have used the FRT process as well with run of the mill long guns and it seems pretty painless. I have not attempted to use it with scary black guns or even restricted wpns though.

As much as I respect the RCMP, and many of the extended family associated with that organization, I have run into situations that were borderline as to what was the legal or just plain 'correct call' thing to do.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

As much as I respect the RCMP, and many of the extended family associated with that organization, I have run into situations that were borderline as to what was the legal or just plain 'correct call' thing to do.

That's natural. It's been shown time and again. In many cases, it really isn't the fault of the LEO

PAL  & RPAL holders have been educated as to our starage, transport and usage laws. Even after taking the courses, and applying the regs, many find the laws cumbersome, confusing and sometimes, almost, contradictory.

Most LEOs carry their firearm as a condition of work and do not require the same courses that we do or the PAL or RPAL to carry said guns.

Many are not at all familiar with the firearms legislation and can only go with their 'gut' call. The Crown doesn't help with matters of clarity either.

Neither likes to be told by us laymen that what they are acting on is wrong and not part of the laws, even when we know those laws and they don't.

There are plenty of people that get arrested every hunting season and firearms confiscated because of this. What typically happens, is a hunter gets pulled over. The Officer sees the shotgun, unloaded, on the backseat in full view. They arrest the hunter and confiscate the gun because, they believe, that the gun has to be cased, trigger locked and in the trunk. All wrong. The hunter is perfectly legal with the way he was carrying the gun, but no matter what he says he's going to the station in the back of the cruiser. Most times, cooler, more educted heads prevail at that point and the hunter gets his gun back and sent on his way with an apology. At least the LEO now has some education on the subject.

 

[NavyShooter]

The problem with that scenario now is that the seemingly typical reaction to things involving guns is to OVERREACT.

Observe the "poptart" story....

Observe the "crayon picture" story...

The more likely course of action would be arrest, and more.

NS

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Absolutely no bias, I am not an employee of the RCMP.  I am at a user level for the FRT & occasionally submit new firearms for submission & classification. I understand the process how it usually works. Some people have such a skewed view on this issue that they can't see the forest for the trees.

My friends owns a well known firearms business which has been in the eye of the FRT issue before, I also get to see some very interesting FOI requests.

Perhaps you can educate me on what exactly what did I state is wrong or has never happened?

 

[ballz]

Splitting hairs and not part of the discussion

How is it splitting hairs? Keeping a vehicle on private property is not comparable to owning a firearm and keeping it in your home?

Is the difference between "criminal code offense" and "traffic violation" also splitting hairs?

The reason you have to register your car is it is a user fee, to pay for the infrastructure. Those who have more cars tend to use the road more, therefore they pay more for the roads. Those who have certain types of vehicles (heavier) wear out the roads more, so they pay higher registration fees, etc.

The reason to register a rifle is to pay for what? The crimes that the person obviously isn't committing or else they would not be allowed to own a rifle anyway?

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Not pointing any fingers, but let's try keep the discussion gentlemanly. We're all adults here.

 

[OldSolduer]

We're all adults here.

Except for me. I have no idea what I want to be when I mature.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Except for me. I have no idea what I want to be when I mature.

We always make allowances for you Jim

 

[GAP]

Government dumps gun enthusiasts from firearms committee
3 police leaders appointed to sit on Canadian Firearms Advisory Committee
CBC News Mar 11, 2013
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2013/03/11/firearms-committee-changes.html

The government has shaken up a committee that advises the public safety minister on firearms legislation in Canada, dumping three gun enthusiasts in favour of a trio of police leaders.

The Harper government had faced sharp criticism from gun control groups for allowing firearms experts and dealers on its Canadian Firearms Advisory Committee (CFAC).

On Monday, Public Safety Minister Vic Toews issued a news release stating Linda Baggaley, a firearms expert and dealer from Alberta, Gerry Gamble, of The Sporting Clubs of Niagara, and Kerry Higgins, a Saskatoon gunsmith, would be leaving the committee. Toews thanked all three for their service.

In their place, Toews has appointed the following to the committee: Calgary police Chief Rick Hanson, Winnipeg Police Association president Mike Sutherland, and Chief Const. Bob Rich from the Abbotsford, B.C., police force.

"I know that these individuals will be able to provide important suggestions and input,” Toews said in the release.

Gun control activists have repeatedly criticized the government for loading the CFAC with gun enthusiasts instead of police officers, victims of gun violence or people working to prevent suicide.

That criticism grew louder in December when the media published a list of recommendations from the CFAC that included further loosening restrictions on guns, including a reclassification of some assault weapons and other "prohibited" firearms.
more on link

 

[Jimmy_D]

Well, as long as their opinion does not emulate the CFO for NB.

 

[The Bread Guy]

Government dumps gun enthusiasts from firearms committee ....

As well as mental health folks....

Liberal Leader Bob Rae made the following statement today on the Conservative government’s decision to appoint new members to their Firearms Advisory Committee:

“Just three months ago, on December 6 – a day forever etched in the minds of Canadians following an act of horrific gun violence – I asked the Prime Minister whether the composition of his government’s firearms panel was appropriate given that it included no front line health workers, mental health professionals or domestic violence experts. He answered that he would take those suggestions under advisement.

Now we learn from media reports that while his government has added new law enforcement representatives to the committee, they chose only officers who share the Conservative Party’s views on weakening gun controls. Furthermore, they continue to actively exclude health professionals from the committee’s membership.

Given that 72% of firearms-related deaths are by suicide, how does the Prime Minister feel that the Firearms Advisory Committee can appropriately advise the government on these matters without the input of mental health experts; and will he rectify this glaring omission immediately?”

Liberal Party of Canada Info-machine, 12 Mar 13

 

[The_Falcon]

Yeah no spin or bias there  : 

Gun Enthusiast,  What calling them Gun/Firearms experts a little too much?  And heaven forbid that we have firearms experts, making decisions about firearms, no lets let people who have probably never touched a firearm in their lives, and assorted others who really only see negative aspects of firearms, making the decisions.....yeah that makes so much more sense.  :brickwall:

 

[Canadian.Trucker]

Yeah no spin or bias there  : 

Gun Enthusiast,  What calling them Gun/Firearms experts a little too much?  And heaven forbid that we have firearms experts, making decisions about firearms, no lets let people who have probably never touched a firearm in their lives, and assorted others who really only see negative aspects of firearms, making the decisions.....yeah that makes so much more sense.  :brickwall:

To add to your points, why would we want to have a balanced panel that brings in differing views and expert opinion?  That could lead to serious debate and wouldn't end up being a blow out on restrictions and potential crackdowns.  Fairness is not the name of the game.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Removing firearms from the suicide picture would just increase the percentages of suicides by poision, pills, carbon monoxide, etc. Putting mental health people on the firearms panel solves nothing.

Put the mental health workers on a mental health panel and file and solve THAT problem. That's the root of the suicides, mental health.

Not the delivery method of the suicide.

Friggin' liberals will never miss a chance to dance on someone's grave to further their own social engineering agenda. :facepalm:

 

[my72jeep]

Removing firearms from the suicide picture would just increase the percentages of suicides by poision, pills, carbon monoxide, etc. Putting mental health people on the firearms panel solves nothing.

Put the mental health workers on a mental health panel and file and solve THAT problem. That's the root of the suicides, mental health.

Not the delivery method of the suicide.

Friggin' liberals will never miss a chance to dance on someone's grave to further their own social engineering agenda. :facepalm:

:goodpost: :ditto: