The Great Gun Control Debate

[Lightguns]

This goes back to my point a while back that government officials should be held accountable when they charge someone falsely.  Is it fair to lose your guns and $10,000 plus your personal freedom (pre-trial or bail conditions) only to have the crown drop the charges?

Nope. 

People in this situation should get their lawyers fees, guns, and compensation for damages.



Sent from my SM-G900W8 using Tapatalk

I have a lot of hope for the class action WRT the Butler Creek magazines.  The law is quite specific on those in that after market is classed as made and marked for not what it can fit.  The fact is if we lose, here, then all the LAR mags on ARs are now illegal as well.  There is likely 7 to 8 million dollars in property the government is trying to steal from Canadians.  Yes, they stole way more in 95 but we are less angry and better organized now.  I have no dog in the fight, owning neither the Ruger nor an AR but I contribute for the wider cause of property rights. 

 

[SeaKingTacco]

I own neither, as well.

But I will not sell out my fellow firearms owners. I have and will continue to contribute to this fight, too. Next time, it could be something that I own.

 

[Lumber]

Just doing their job, except some of the money from property forfeitures go into the pockets of the police and they're apparently not too forthcoming in where that money goes.

Well, I don't entirely see a problem with that, in principle. You make it sound much more nefarious than it is. The money doesn't go into the "pockets" of individual policeman, rather it is redistributed via grants to those departments that need it most, and it goes directly to their operating budgets. Second of all, the seizure of their property is not initiated by the police, but by the Attorney General of Ontario, who's ministry does not benefit financially form these seizures. So I'm not really sure where the financial incentive to stretch the rules is here.

I have nothing to back this up, I feel like in these seizure cases, meaning the ones that seem completely inappropriate, are the result of ignorance. Like it or not, some people really hate guns and really hate gun owners and don't understand gun laws. These aren't all bad people. In their ignorant minds, the people at the Ontario Civil Remedies for Illicit Activities Office probably had asinine ideas like "only a criminal would need that many guns", or "only a criminal would illegally modify assault rifles making them automatic, make silencers and store dynamite". We're they wrong? Hells yes! They were ignorant as all hell to go after his home as a "proceed of crime". But I believe it was the result of ignorance than either vindictiveness or a desire to "reap the benefits" of the seizure.

So if you're a landlord and I sell drugs out of the house I'm renting from you you can lose the rental property. I can take money I earned from selling drugs and hire a defense lawyer to defend me. Even if I'm found guilty he still keeps the tens of thousands of dollars.  Nope nothing wrong with that.

If you new that the tenant was selling drugs and you did nothing about it, then you are an accessory to the crime. Should you have your entire house taken? I think that should be a possibility, but it should be much more difficult than it seems to be.

As for the lawyer part, it's very shift, and it does seem to set a double standard, but I don't think we should even scratch the surface of that debate, because you are not ever going to change the rules regarding attorney-client privilege. 

 

[Lumber]

As an aside, and partially contradictory to what I've said above, I've been reading through a bunch of civil forfeiture cases to have a better understanding of what happened, and all I can think is, "Jesus Christ, the AGO is total dick." Conversely, the Ontario Court of Appeals judges seem to be the kind of people I hoped they would be.

 

[Lightguns]

As an aside, and partially contradictory to what I've said above, I've been reading through a bunch of civil forfeiture cases to have a better understanding of what happened, and all I can think is, "Jesus Christ, the AGO is total dick." Conversely, the Ontario Court of Appeals judges seem to be the kind of people I hoped they would be.

The original AG was Byrant (AKA the SAAB cyclist killer) who got a nice job as spokesman for the Canadian Coalition for Gun Control, after his road rage ruined his political career.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

The authorities don't have to confiscate property for it to become monetarily cumbersome to the private citizen.

By arbitrarily outlawing certain components or firearms, the owner of these items lose the monetary equivalent of the cash they cost or are worth.

Say a person collects a specific type of firearm and variants (there are many such collectors out there). Next, say that collection is worth  $100,000.

Along comes a fanatical RCMP type, in the right spot, that doesn't like the look of that rifle and puts it on the Prohibited list and that owner is, potentially, lost at least $100,000 at current market value.

They now have to turn in all their stuff with no recourse or be a criminal until they are turned in.

Firearms charges typically carry a three year sentence, when found guilty. It might not be applied much, but the potential is there. All it takes is a rabid, vindictive anti gun Crown (and yes, they are out there) who might try each individual instance separately, or a judge, of the same ilk, to run the sentence consecutively instead of concurrently.

The lawful collection owner, through no fault of their's, loses the value of the collection, has to pay court costs, fines and is looking at a potentially, lengthy sentence.

That would leave most people destitute, with a criminal record.

Why? Because some bureaucrat, not a politician or parliament, decides he wishes to change the law to better suit his sensibilities.

 

[ModlrMike]

Why? Because some bureaucrat, not a politician or parliament, decides he wishes to change the law to better suit his sensibilities.

Which takes us back to the root of a bigger problem, namely government by regulation not legislation.

To see what I mean you only have to look at agencies like the EPA in the US to see how far the reach extends. I remember reading an article several years ago, which I sadly can't find now, that commented on 1500 regulations being put into force in Britain in a single year. Not one came from Parliament, rather all were a result of various official agencies. How is anyone to stay on the right side of the law in that kind of atmosphere?

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

Which takes us back to the root of a bigger problem, namely government by regulation not legislation.

To see what I mean you only have to look at agencies like the EPA in the US to see how far the reach extends. I remember reading an article several years ago, which I sadly can't find now, that commented on 1500 regulations being put into force in Britain in a single year. Not one came from Parliament, rather all were a result of various official agencies. How is anyone to stay on the right side of the law in that kind of atmosphere?

Concerning the part I underlined in yellow, ModlrMike, that is the very definition of what constitutes regulation as opposed to statutes.

In our British Parliamentary system, Parliament always and only passes legislation in the form of statutes. Regulations are what is known as "delegated legislation", that is the true legislators - in Parliament - adopt a statute (known as the enabling legislation) were Parliament delegates to a specific authority (a Minister, or his department, or a specific Official, or a specific Agency) the power to adopt regulations to give effect to the statute's intent.

Now, for many things, it makes perfect sense: For instance, you would probably not want the Parliament to spend it's time determining by statute what speed on any given road in the Province should be set at. So delegating such thing to Department of Transportation regulations make sense.

However, one of the unfortunate fact of life in our British system is that the executive, to whom the power to regulate is delegated most of the time by the statutes, is the same as the party with the majority in Parliament that one requires to adopt statutes. The result, of course is that the governing party then has a vested interest in adopting as many statutes as possible with broad delegation of regulating powers, so they can "govern" without the tedium of putting it in a bill and offering it for attack by the opposition and from the public though parliamentary debate - or sober second look by the Senate . The Officials in those departments certainly do nothing to discourage such practice by their political masters - but rather the contrary.

When the delegation is to an official (as is the case for firearms regulation) then, IMHO, the government and Parliament should be even more careful to make sure it selects an official that has a basis for exercising such power with competence and who does not have his/her own vested interest from his/her official function.

You can see that IMO, this would eliminate police officers from being the ones adopting regulation on firearms: First of all, there is nothing in their training that gives them any competence in armoury work and thus firearms, and they clearly have a vested interest in reducing access to firearms to everyone not a cop. In fact, IMHO, police officers or organization should never, ever be delegated any regulating power whatsoever. As the authority for law enforcement - they are always and by definition- in conflict of interest if they are the ones also deciding what the law is to be.

To my mind, the reform that is needed in Canada at least, is a new framework for delegated legislation, whereby any new regulation must be brought before Parliament for review and adoption prior to enactment, instead of just being decreed after adoption by the governor general in council. This would permit both Parliament, with its official opposition, and the public at large (through good journalists, if any) to have a much greater influence on this delegated legislation and to make sure it conforms with the intent of the enabling statute.

The actual drafting and preparation of the regulation would remain delegated to the Minister/Department/Official, but final adoption would be Parliamentary, which I believe would certainly help in restoring the image and respect for MP's in the public's eyes.
 

 

[Lumber]

The lawful collection owner, through no fault of their's, loses the value of the collection, has to pay court costs, fines and is looking at a potentially, lengthy sentence.

That would leave most people destitute, with a criminal record.

Why? Because some bureaucrat, not a politician or parliament, decides he wishes to change the law to better suit his sensibilities.

There are only two reasons why anyone would end up destitute in this scenario. 1. They are making a political statement (like Bruce Montague did) or 2. They are idiots.

The people is this scenario would only have to pay fines and court fees, and only face jail time, if they refuse to follow the laws of the land.

Since, you're not making any money off the guns you own, at least not enough to subsist off of, then the "$100,000" money spent on the guns is a sunk cost. We're you planning on selling some of those guns as a retirement plan? Or to pay for your kids university tuition? That's just silly planning.

If the law changes and your guns become illegal, a smart person would turn those guns in as required. Ergo, no fine and no jail time.

Now, use your money and freedom, that you now still have, to petition the government to change these stupid laws and make it more difficult for bureaucrats to subvert laws.

 

[Lumber]

To my mind, the reform that is needed in Canada at least, is a new framework for delegated legislation, whereby any new regulation must be brought before Parliament for review and adoption prior to enactment, instead of just being decreed after adoption by the governor general in council. This would permit both Parliament, with its official opposition, and the public at large (through good journalists, if any) to have a much greater influence on this delegated legislation and to make sure it conforms with the intent of the enabling statute.

The actual drafting and preparation of the regulation would remain delegated to the Minister/Department/Official, but final adoption would be Parliamentary, which I believe would certainly help in restoring the image and respect for MP's in the public's eyes.

Noble idea, but as they say:

 

[Lightguns]

There are only two reasons why anyone would end up destitute in this scenario. 1. They are making a political statement (like Bruce Montague did) or 2. They are idiots.

The people is this scenario would only have to pay fines and court fees, and only face jail time, if they refuse to follow the laws of the land.

Since, you're not making any money off the guns you own, at least not enough to subsist off of, then the "$100,000" money spent on the guns is a sunk cost. We're you planning on selling some of those guns as a retirement plan? Or to pay for your kids university tuition? That's just silly planning.

If the law changes and your guns become illegal, a smart person would turn those guns in as required. Ergo, no fine and no jail time.

Now, use your money and freedom, that you now still have, to petition the government to change these stupid laws and make it more difficult for bureaucrats to subvert laws.

You don't know much about firearms collections and prohibited class firearms do you? There are many individuals who collected historically important firearms, the value of which appreciated quite a bit over the years.  Then came bill C68.  Now firearms valued at 2000 bucks in 1990 sell on Gunnutz for 300 or 400 bucks to the limited number of people who have a license to buy them.  The same firearms can sell for 3 and 4000 bucks in the US.  The Canadian government destroyed the value of gun collections with their laws and yes there were folks who collected large collections with the intent of turning them into retirement money.  One gentlemen I know had a value of $100,000 in firearms.  Today we can't sell 'em because there are so few people left with the license buy. 

So you are saying that if you had $100,000 in property and the government declared it illegal, you would pony up like a good subject?  Or is that just a trolling attempt?

Do you understand how the regulations around prohibited firearms work?

 

[Colin Parkinson]

the CPC to their credit did create a system, where each new regulation required the removal of an old one. It was a step in the right direction.

 

[mrcpu]

Do you understand how the regulations around prohibited firearms work?

I'm sure they do. But if you go back and re-read the post he never said $100,000 of prohibited firearms. 

The CZ-858 and Swiss Arms rifles along with the 10/22 mags are a perfect examples.  There was no provision to be grandfathered.

http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/government-reversed-rcmps-ban-on-two-rifle-brands-on-eve-of-election

 

[Lumber]

You don't know much about firearms collections and prohibited class firearms do you? There are many individuals who collected historically important firearms, the value of which appreciated quite a bit over the years.  Then came bill C68.  Now firearms valued at 2000 bucks in 1990 sell on Gunnutz for 300 or 400 bucks to the limited number of people who have a license to buy them.  The same firearms can sell for 3 and 4000 bucks in the US.  The Canadian government destroyed the value of gun collections with their laws and yes there were folks who collected large collections with the intent of turning them into retirement money.  One gentlemen I know had a value of $100,000 in firearms.  Today we can't sell 'em because there are so few people left with the license buy. 

I'm sorry, but ff you placed your nest egg into guns hoping to cash them in as a retirement plan, then I'm sorry, you're foolish. This statement has nothing to do with guns in particular. I'd consider you equally foolish if you put all of your money in material objects, like Cars, stamp or coin collections, etc. So I shed no tears for people who did so. The one exception I would make would be gold, but even then I'd recommend gold bouillon or shares in gold, not going out and buying collectable gold jewellery.

So you are saying that if you had $100,000 in property and the government declared it illegal, you would pony up like a good subject?  Or is that just a trolling attempt?

Do you understand how the regulations around prohibited firearms work?

Hmm.. let's see. Let's say I put $100,000 into a collection line of motorcycles, lets say Honda CBR 1000s. Then let's say the government makes 1000cc bikes illegal, and that they must all be turned over to the government, or else we face steep fines and possible jail time.

So if my choices are
1. not having $100,000, because I already spent it on motorcycles, and being free; or
2. not having $100,000, because I already spent it on motorcycles, and being in jail.

Then yes! I'd pony up and give the government my f***ing motorcycles.

I'd then petition the sh*t out of my local members of government to change this asinine new law and probably try and sue the province to at least give me the value of my motorcycles back.

What's the alternative? Bury my motorcycles in the backyard or hide them in the basement so that I can dust them off ride them out into the sunset when the government finally comes?!

 

[Jarnhamar]

Well, I don't entirely see a problem with that, in principle. You make it sound much more nefarious than it is.

I think you're making a bit of a strawman argument and moving the goal posts a little.  I originally said the story shows you how vindictive the government can be. Not dudly do right the cop who arrested was out to get the guy specifically.

If you've spent any time in the CF you'll know that there exists a capability for the chain of command to be vindictive while under the ageis of good order and discipline. It's not right or honourable but there's ways to work the system to get a point across.

This property forfeiture  is the same way. When someone chooses to stand up to the government and/or make things harder for them this is an effective way for the government to say "oh ya, well watch this". It's a devastating tactic.
I think you'd be hard pressed to find people that feel sorry for hardcore criminals who have their property taken away. The problem is when it's cases like the one above, or even innocent people as this has happened too.

When people square off against the government and this tactic and have a solid case the government tries to bribe them down. Instead of $80'000 how about $50'000.  No? How about $20'000 to make it all go away, if not we'll tie you up in court good luck paying for a lawyer. Also you're forbidden to talk about it. That's shady.

With regards to being a landlord and having property taken away if it's used for illegal purposes the problem is no one has to prove you knew about it. You can have your property taken away just as easily when you had no idea whatsoever that it was being used that way.

The money doesn't go into the "pockets" of individual policeman, rather it is redistributed via grants to those departments that need it most, and it goes directly to their operating budgets.
Second of all, the seizure of their property is not initiated by the police, but by the Attorney General of Ontario, who's ministry does not benefit financially form these seizures. So I'm not really sure where the financial incentive to stretch the rules is here.

Uh huh. Few years back Toronto police initiated a gun amnesty. Turn in your guns to be destroyed in the name of public safety, no questions asked.
People turned in guns and guess what happened. Toronto police took those guns citizens turned in to be destroyed and got caught selling them back to the public. Their excuse was they were selling the guns to raise funds for their department, you know, to increase public safety.

No the money doesn't go into the wallet of constable so and so but if it's buying all kinds of new toys, gear and amenities for the department then it's still giving the police some pretty good incentive. It could also very well make the police lean towards reporting something a certain way, like the guy who sold his house and had over $20'000 cash tied up in the system and unaccessable for 2 years. Think he got interest on that? How much did he spend on lawyer fees you think?

I have nothing to back this up, I feel like in these seizure cases, meaning the ones that seem completely inappropriate, are the result of ignorance.

Fair enough, you see ignorance I see the government being vindictive to make a point. Maybe I'm wrong but the way you're explaining yourself makes me think you're suggesting a clerk accidentally checked the wrong box on a form and poof someone lost their house. To me making someone lose their home because they let a license expire on purpose seems pretty specific. There's pedophiles who rape children in their home, I don't recall hearing many stories of them losing their house.

 

[Jarnhamar]

Since, you're not making any money off the guns you own, at least not enough to subsist off of, then the "$100,000" money spent on the guns is a sunk cost. We're you planning on selling some of those guns as a retirement plan? Or to pay for your kids university tuition? That's just silly planning.

If the law changes and your guns become illegal, a smart person would turn those guns in as required. Ergo, no fine and no jail time.

Now, use your money and freedom, that you now still have, to petition the government to change these stupid laws and make it more difficult for bureaucrats to subvert laws.

Sorry but this is ridiculous.

If I spend $10'000 on a rifle because it's my money and I want to, and the RCMP decide it should be illegal and make it illegal to possess I should just turn that rifle in to be "destroyed" (I can insert a few examples here of firearms going missing from police lockups) and say oh well to losing $10'000? Be happy they don't take more of my property?

Is it  really anyone's business if I want a $10'000 rifle just to look at it or turn around and legally sell it for school money? Firearms can hold their value pretty well, or increase in value. Just because someone else might not feel it's a wise investment doesn't mean much.

You're starting to sound like a typical "I don't have anything against firearms or firearm owners..... but here's all the reasons why they're bad".

 

[Lumber]

Sorry but this is ridiculous.

1. If I spend $10'000 on a rifle because it's my money and I want to, and the RCMP decide it should be illegal and make it illegal to possess I should just turn that rifle in to be "destroyed" (I can insert a few examples here of firearms going missing from police lockups) and say oh well to losing $10'000?

2. Is it  really anyone's business if I want a $10'000 rifle just to look at it or turn around and legally sell it for school money? Firearms can hold their value pretty well, or increase in value. I have a beat up old lever action rifle that probably cost $18 when my great grandfather bought it, I've been offered over 160 times that amount for it.

3. I can have $100'000 worth of my little ponies which I'm going to sell for retirement. You might think it's silly but really it's none of your business.

4. You're starting to sound like a typical "I don't have anything against firearms or firearm owners, but here's all the reasons why they're bad".

1. More or less, yes! You don't get to pick and choose which laws you do and do not follow. Do I care if you have a couple illegal rifles alongside your legal ones that you keep locked up in an appropriate container because you don't want the RCMP to destroy (or sell) your $10,000 rifle? No. But if you keep taking it to the range or go to a gun show with it slung over your back and you get busted, then you brought the consequences on yourself.

2. No, it's not anyone's business, and I never said it was. If think spending large amounts of money on anything collectable is stupid, but that's just my opinion and I wouldn't force my opinion on you! So fill your boots!

3. You're right, it's not my business, but I still think it's silly, especially when YOU ALL KNOW that the system we have is f***ed and that tomorrow your retirement savings good become illegal. Forget your political statement; don't put all your eggs into a basket that the government/RCMP could make illegal tomorrow on a whim.

4. I've never said guns were bad at any point in this...

 

[Lumber]

I think you're making a bit of a strawman argument and moving the goal posts a little.  I originally said the story shows you how vindictive the government can be. Not dudly do right the cop who arrested was out to get the guy specifically.

My apologies. When you're the only guy on one side of an argument, and there's half a dozen on the other, you tend to get your arguments and counter-arguments mixed up...

Fair enough, you see ignorance I see the government being vindictive to make a point. Maybe I'm wrong but the way you're explaining yourself makes me think you're suggesting a clerk accidentally checked the wrong box on a form and poof someone lost their house. To me making someone lose their home because they let a license expire on purpose seems pretty specific. There's pedophiles who rape children in their home, I don't recall hearing many stories of them losing their house.

No no no... let me try and be more clear. I don't mean a clerk checks a wrong box. Ignorance might be too mild a term...

There are people out there who don't see good facts and good arguments even when they hit them in the face. Thucydides's favourite SJWs are a perfect example of the extreme case. When you here that a man (Bruce Montague) has over 200 guns (some modified to be automatic) silences, dynamite, night vision goggles, and books on infantry tactics, there are a LOT of people in Canada who would 100% believe that such a person is up to no good, that he is a criminal, that he has something to hide, that he is a paranoid excentric, etc. We know this isn't true, and we know that really, it's none of their business! (well, except maybe the illegal weapons modifications... see my post on the law is the law). But they don't see it the same way we do, and so they believe they are justified in going after his house because they actually believe that what they are doing is for the betterment of society.

Or maybe they are just being vindictive pricks.

 

[Loachman]

If the law changes and your guns become illegal, a smart person would turn those guns in as required.

This is, essentially, theft via legislative whim. There is no difference between a common thief breaking into your house and taking your valuable property and a government agent doing it. Either way, the property owner is left with nothing but an immense sense of violation.

Tell me how stealing an honest citizen's property can ever be considered fair and right?

As for "petition(ing) the sh*t out of my local members of government to change this asinine new law and probably try and sue the province to at least give me the value of my motorcycles back", good luck with that. I ALMOST hope that you experience something like that in your life, just to see how it feels.

Governments are SUPPOSED to protect their citizenry, not prey upon them.

 

[Jarnhamar]

1. More or less, yes! You don't get to pick and choose which laws you do and do not follow. Do I care if you have a couple illegal rifles alongside your legal ones that you keep locked up in an appropriate container because you don't want the RCMP to destroy (or sell) your $10,000 rifle? No. But if you keep taking it to the range or go to a gun show with it slung over your back and you get busted, then you brought the consequences on yourself.

The issue was you insinuating people who have their firearms reclassified over night turning them into criminals should just be happy to turn their firearms in to comply with the over night law. Instead of expecting to be reimbursed for their property they should use other money they have to try and change the law.  In the case of the SwissArms rifle being reclassified the rifle was not used in the commission of a single recorded crime in Canada.

3. You're right, it's not my business, but I still think it's silly, especially when YOU ALL KNOW that the system we have is f***ed and that tomorrow your retirement savings good become illegal. Forget your political statement; don't put all your eggs into a basket that the government/RCMP could make illegal tomorrow on a whim.

Didn't that happen to the Canada pension plan or something like that?
The fact that the RCMP could make something illegal tomorrow on a "whim" should be a pretty big issue, no? Police shouldn't make the laws and the military shouldn't decide who to go to war with kinda thing.

My apologies. When you're the only guy on one side of an argument, and there's half a dozen on the other, you tend to get your arguments and counter-arguments mixed up...

Kinda like you're the only one in step 

When you here that a man (Bruce Montague) has over 200 guns (some modified to be automatic) silences, dynamite, night vision goggles, and books on infantry tactics, there are a LOT of people in Canada who would 100% believe that such a person is up to no good, that he is a criminal, that he has something to hide, that he is a paranoid excentric, etc. We know this is true, and we know that really, it's none of their business! (well, except maybe the illegal weapons modifications... see my post on the law is the law). But they don't see it the same way we do, and so they believe they are justified in going after his house because they actually believe that what they are doing is for the betterment of society.

Some Canadians are legally allowed to possess Automatic weapons.

Or maybe they are just being vindictive pricks.

Someone feels justified in going after Mr Montague's house because they feel he is up to no good and a criminal with something to hide and it's a way to punish him because of what they think? Maybe because they don't think a fine or jail time is enough?  I'd say vindictive too but now we're talking in circles  :nod: