Provincial Revenues, Federal Firearms Legislation
Freedom Party of Ontario
that purports to require the provinces to fund the gun registration
process. The Ontario provincial Tories under Mike Harris took a
relatively hard line against using provincial revenues to fund this
federal legislation. However, the leftward turn of the provincial
Tories under Ernie Eves, and the betrayal of all taxpayers in the 2002
budget, mean that we can no longer trust Mr. Eves to continue
opposition to provincial funding for federal gun registration.
In preparation for the 2003 Ontario provincial election, the Freedom
Party of Ontario Provincial Executive (http://www.freedomparty.on.ca)
is meeting on September 8, 2002 to finalize its statement of policies.
The draft policies can be found at
http://www.freedomparty.on.ca/policies.htm. Among the policies being
considered is a policy in respect of provincial funding for the
federal gun registration regime. The text of the policy is included
below. Fp welcomes your input and suggestions concerning its draft
policy (below) on the federal legislation in question, and on gun
control generally. You can post your responses to this newsgroup, or
you can contact FP directly:
e-mail: feed...@freedomparty.ca
telephone: 1-800-830-3301
The election of Ernie Eves as leader of the Ontario PCs has left
almost half of the provincial PCs without a home. As we see more and
more of Mr. Eves, we are seeing a premier that is a follower, not a
leader. With each squeak of the left, we are finding Mr. Eves running
to apply grease at the expense of Ontario taxpayers. To the outrage
of many Ontarians, Ernie Eves amended the Taxpayer Protection Act that
had been introduced by the Mike Harris PCs: this allowed him to avoid
the immediate implementation of education tax credits and tax cuts.
Jim Flaherty's pink panther and pink waffle are turning out to be very
accurate warnings of what the PC party has become under Ernie Eves.
In short, Ontarians are finding Mr. Eves to be indistinguishable from
a Liberal.
The Freedom Party of Ontario is working to ensure that all persons who
value the keeping of promises, choice in schools and tax relief
continue to have a voice and a political option in the voting booth in
2003. Part of that work is to encourage public input into the policy
development process. We look forward to hearing from you. The draft
policy on provincial funding for federal firearms registration
follows.
Regards,
Paul McKeever
Leader, Freedom Party of Ontario
===============================
" Federal Programs
No provincial revenues for federal registration program
The Freedom Party of Ontario objects to the federal
government's notion that a federal registration program
should be financed with provincial revenues. A Freedom
Party of Ontario government will refuse to fund
or enforce the federal government's firearms registraton
programs with provincial revenues. "
1...@canoemail.com
Ontario) wrote:
>The federal government has passed firearms registration legislation
>that purports to require the provinces to fund the gun registration
>process.
The BNA (Canada) Act reserves the right to charge a fee for a license
or registration of property to the provinces.....NOT the federal
government
jen...@homacjen.ab.ca
The Constitution Act, 1867 does reserve the power to issue "Shop,
Saloon, Tavern, Auctioneer, and other Licences in order to the
raising of a Revenue for Provincial, Local, or Municipal Purposes."
But the purpose of the Firearms Act is not to raise money for
provinicial or local purposes. Indeed, the fees raised go entirely
to the support of the firearms system, and do not raise money
for any other purpose.
In fact, the Firearms Act is a proper exercise of the criminal
law power, which is an exclusively federal one.
--
Best regards,
Stephen Jenuth
(jen...@homacjen.ab.ca)
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur.
pgp/gpg public key available at http://keyserver.pgp.com
sp...@controlq.com
On Thu, 5 Sep 2002 jen...@homacjen.ab.ca wrote:
> In fact, the Firearms Act is a proper exercise of the criminal
> law power, which is an exclusively federal one.
Stephen, this is not in fact, but rather in your opinion. The fact that
the Supreme court agrees with your opinion does not make it proper, just
lawful according to the legal interpretation of those same bad laws passed
by flawed legislators in a system with no checks and balances.
You know in your heart of hearts that the legislation is slanted,
arbitrary, and an inappropriate restriction on basic and fundamental
rights. Portions of it have already proven unconstitutional.
It could have been done differently, and the law could have been made both
effective and fair. As it is, written, it is neither fair nor effective.
Pity.
Rob.
Bruce Mills
>
> The federal government has passed firearms registration legislation
> that purports to require the provinces to fund the gun registration
> process. The Ontario provincial Tories under Mike Harris took a
> relatively hard line against using provincial revenues to fund this
> federal legislation. However, the leftward turn of the provincial
> Tories under Ernie Eves, and the betrayal of all taxpayers in the 2002
> budget, mean that we can no longer trust Mr. Eves to continue
> opposition to provincial funding for federal gun registration.
Mike Harris did not take a hard line at all - he just said he would! The
provincial government is still funding the Chief Provincial Firearms Officer's
department, and has done so since 1995. Eves is not to blame on this one.
> " Federal Programs
>
> No provincial revenues for federal registration program
>
> The Freedom Party of Ontario objects to the federal
> government's notion that a federal registration program
> should be financed with provincial revenues. A Freedom
> Party of Ontario government will refuse to fund
> or enforce the federal government's firearms registraton
> programs with provincial revenues. "
The Province should refuse to continue to fund this program, as Mike Harris
promised - the blame, and funding, for this draconian legislation should be
placed where it belongs - at the feet of the Federal Lieberal Party.
Bruce Mills
Better yet, how about a little something called "freedom", where one can do what
one wants until they commit a crime against another person?
Then there would be no need for these ridiculous and costly laws.
jen...@homacjen.ab.ca
> Better yet, how about a little something called "freedom", where one can do what
> one wants until they commit a crime against another person?
>
> Then there would be no need for these ridiculous and costly laws.
Some people are against crime prevention. I'm not one of those.
jen...@homacjen.ab.ca
>
> On Thu, 5 Sep 2002 jen...@homacjen.ab.ca wrote:
>
>> In fact, the Firearms Act is a proper exercise of the criminal
>> law power, which is an exclusively federal one.
>
> Stephen, this is not in fact, but rather in your opinion. The fact that
> the Supreme court agrees with your opinion does not make it proper, just
> lawful according to the legal interpretation of those same bad laws passed
> by flawed legislators in a system with no checks and balances.
I suppose that the fact that section 91 of the Constitution Act, 1867 says
that Criminal law is exclusively a federal power is just another mistake.
> You know in your heart of hearts that the legislation is slanted,
> arbitrary, and an inappropriate restriction on basic and fundamental
> rights. Portions of it have already proven unconstitutional.
I don't know which parts have been already proven unconstitutional.
sp...@controlq.com
>
> Some people are against crime prevention. I'm not one of those.
Perhaps a little deterrance? With cushy prisons and lenient sentencing,
the M.o. Justice has made a mockery of "doing time" in Canada. They have
some misguided sensibility concerning re-habilitation rather than keeping
the miscreants off the street.
I think Stephen you will find that if people realized that the
consequences to violent crime entailed a long hard stretch in prison as
the inevitable outcome, then crime might be prevented. Restricting the
rights of law abiding citizens is NOT crime prevention, but merely the
initial implementation of a police state.
I know that you subscribe to some twisted liberal ethic, but I also know
you to be a rational individual (mostly). Surely you must see that the
firearms act IN NO WAY prevents crime. Criminals do not obey the act.
Rob.
1...@canoemail.com
>In can.politics 1...@canoemail.com wrote:
>> On 4 Sep 2002 11:47:46 -0700, mcke...@ownlife.com (Freedom Party of
>> Ontario) wrote:
>>
>>>The federal government has passed firearms registration legislation
>>>that purports to require the provinces to fund the gun registration
>>>process.
>>
>> The BNA (Canada) Act reserves the right to charge a fee for a license
>> or registration of property to the provinces.....NOT the federal
>> government
>
>The Constitution Act, 1867 does reserve the power to issue "Shop,
>Saloon, Tavern, Auctioneer, and other Licences in order to the
>raising of a Revenue for Provincial, Local, or Municipal Purposes."
>
>But the purpose of the Firearms Act is not to raise money for
>provinicial or local purposes. Indeed, the fees raised go entirely
>to the support of the firearms system, and do not raise money
>for any other purpose.
>
>In fact, the Firearms Act is a proper exercise of the criminal
>law power, which is an exclusively federal one.
THe firearms act has cost almost a billion dollars since it's
inception.
And the firearms act has nothing to do with criminal law as it
regulates the activities of the millions of law abiding firearms
owners with NO reduction in crime rates or accidents.
THe firearms act is even enacted separate from the criminal code so it
can NOT be argued that it is a criminal matter.
Firearms are rarely used for crime in Canada.
There are over fifty five million shotshell fired in Canada every
year. There are very few crimes commited with shotguns.
Firearms are used on public gun ranges daily. There are no accidents
to date on these ranges nor is there any crime reported from these
ranges.
Firearms, on a per use basis, constitute one of the least used items
for crime in Canada.
And for your information, Alberta Hunter Education has had over
800,000 people attend their course since it's inception. Over four
million rounds have been fired without accident and without any crime.
What other acivity can claim this record.
To claim firearms are a criminal law matter is a lie.
A very small number of people who use firearms for crime are already
subject to criminal law without the firearms act.
There is already a law for murder, armed robbery, and threatening
other folks. THese laws make the firearms act redundant.
Even the federal government is ignoring the firearms act and how it's
officers are inforcing it.
Judges are also ignoring the firearms act as the mandatory four year
sentence for misuse of a firearm has yet to be used....
jen...@homacjen.ab.ca
> On Thu, 5 Sep 2002 jen...@homacjen.ab.ca wrote:
>
>>
>> Some people are against crime prevention. I'm not one of those.
>
> Perhaps a little deterrance?
Deterrence is just fine. But crime prevention is something else.
Some people really think that you deal with crimes before they happen,
and try to prevent them by something other than big penalties (which
seem not to work that well).
> With cushy prisons and lenient sentencing,
> the M.o. Justice has made a mockery of "doing time" in Canada. They have
> some misguided sensibility concerning re-habilitation rather than keeping
> the miscreants off the street.
Rehabilitation is also important. But it is something which happens after
the fact, and when it occurs in prisons, it is very difficult to hope
for success. Prison communities are really just too disfunctional for
rehabilitation to work effectively.
Prisons, notwithstanding what you suggest, are pretty brutal places.
I don't think you would like to spend even a weekend there.
> I think Stephen you will find that if people realized that the
> consequences to violent crime entailed a long hard stretch in prison as
> the inevitable outcome, then crime might be prevented. Restricting the
> rights of law abiding citizens is NOT crime prevention, but merely the
> initial implementation of a police state.
I don't think that requiring law abiding people to register their
guns and be licencedis any serious restriction of rights of anyone.
No more than getting a driver's licence or a pilot's licence is.
> I know that you subscribe to some twisted liberal ethic, but I also know
> you to be a rational individual (mostly). Surely you must see that the
> firearms act IN NO WAY prevents crime. Criminals do not obey the act.
That's one good reason why we want to take reasonable measures to prevent
them from getting firearms. It also allows firearms to be taken away from
those who have shown that they no longer qualify for firearms licences by,
for example, committing serious criminal offences.
Its not perfect.
jen...@homacjen.ab.ca
>
> And the firearms act has nothing to do with criminal law as it
> regulates the activities of the millions of law abiding firearms
> owners with NO reduction in crime rates or accidents.
It regulates the possession and use of weapons, which is traditionally
criminal law.
> THe firearms act is even enacted separate from the criminal code so it
> can NOT be argued that it is a criminal matter.
Criminal law is not limited to things in the criminal code. Just putting
it into the criminal code does not make it criminal law, and having it
in a separate statute outside of the criminal code does not mean its
not criminal law.
> Firearms are rarely used for crime in Canada.
So, its working. That's a good thing.
> There are over fifty five million shotshell fired in Canada every
> year. There are very few crimes commited with shotguns.
> Firearms are used on public gun ranges daily. There are no accidents
> to date on these ranges nor is there any crime reported from these
> ranges.
Good.
> Firearms, on a per use basis, constitute one of the least used items
> for crime in Canada.
Excellent.
> And for your information, Alberta Hunter Education has had over
> 800,000 people attend their course since it's inception. Over four
> million rounds have been fired without accident and without any crime.
> What other acivity can claim this record.
Lots of other things. However, there are still firearms "accidents" and
misuse of firearms by licenced people.
> To claim firearms are a criminal law matter is a lie.
Actually, its a fact which is now supported by decisions of courts
ranging from the Alberta Court of Appeal to the Supreme Court of
Canada.
> A very small number of people who use firearms for crime are already
> subject to criminal law without the firearms act.
> There is already a law for murder, armed robbery, and threatening
> other folks. THese laws make the firearms act redundant.
These laws deal with what we do after the fact. Crime prevention has
to do with safe homes and safe streets.
> Even the federal government is ignoring the firearms act and how it's
> officers are inforcing it.
> Judges are also ignoring the firearms act as the mandatory four year
> sentence for misuse of a firearm has yet to be used....
This is one of those lies, which we hear pretty often. R. v. Devylder,
[2001] A.J. No. 1291 is just one example.
1...@canoemail.com
>In can.politics 1...@canoemail.com wrote:
>>
>> And the firearms act has nothing to do with criminal law as it
>> regulates the activities of the millions of law abiding firearms
>> owners with NO reduction in crime rates or accidents.
jen...@homacjen.ab.ca wrote:
>It regulates the possession and use of weapons, which is traditionally
>criminal law.
An expensive exercise with no reduction in crime.
The firearms act is redundant. There are other laws covering criminal
acts that may or may not involve the use of a firearm.
>> THe firearms act is even enacted separate from the criminal code so it
>> can NOT be argued that it is a criminal matter.
jen...@homacjen.ab.ca wrote:
>Criminal law is not limited to things in the criminal code. Just putting
>it into the criminal code does not make it criminal law, and having it
>in a separate statute outside of the criminal code does not mean its
>not criminal law.
How so????
Criminal law is contained within the criminal code.
Firearms are not used in crime very often at all so the firearms act
is NOT part of the criminal code. The individuals regulated by the
act and subject to criminal sanction are those who obtained their
firearms legally and now face criminal penalties if they don't react
to the firearms act.
>> Firearms are rarely used for crime in Canada.
jen...@homacjen.ab.ca wrote:
>So, its working. That's a good thing.
The firearms act is NOT working as it has not changed the rate of
criminal firearms use in Canada. Quite lying Stephen!
>> There are over fifty five million shotshell fired in Canada every
>> year. There are very few crimes commited with shotguns.
>> Firearms are used on public gun ranges daily. There are no accidents
>> to date on these ranges nor is there any crime reported from these
>> ranges.
>
>Good.
>
>> Firearms, on a per use basis, constitute one of the least used items
>> for crime in Canada.
jen...@homacjen.ab.ca wrote:
>Excellent.
But not as a result of the firearms legislation passed since 1977.
>> And for your information, Alberta Hunter Education has had over
>> 800,000 people attend their course since it's inception. Over four
>> million rounds have been fired without accident and without any crime.
>> What other acivity can claim this record.
jen...@homacjen.ab.ca wrote:
>Lots of other things. However, there are still firearms "accidents" and
>misuse of firearms by licenced people.
These are incredibly rare.
Tell us why the firearms act has not stopped any of the criminal acts
or accidents we hear about and read about?
Why are criminals still using firearms to commit crimes??
Don't they know these acts are illegal?
The firearms act has failed miserable to reduce crime and increase
safety. It has cost the Federal government almost a billion dollars
and has NOT saved one life.
>> To claim firearms are a criminal law matter is a lie.
jen...@homacjen.ab.ca wrote:
>Actually, its a fact which is now supported by decisions of courts
>ranging from the Alberta Court of Appeal to the Supreme Court of
>Canada.
>
Only in the opinion of those judges, whom were once lawyers, and whom
have had very little experience with firearms, their use and misuse.
There was even misinformation presented to the Alberta Court of Appeal
that the judges accepted as fact. There was also a bias on the part
of the judges that indicates their decision was based on unfounded and
unsupported opinion rather than reality.
>> A very small number of people who use firearms for crime are already
>> subject to criminal law without the firearms act.
>> There is already a law for murder, armed robbery, and threatening
>> other folks. THese laws make the firearms act redundant.
jen...@homacjen.ab.ca wrote:
>These laws deal with what we do after the fact. Crime prevention has
>to do with safe homes and safe streets.
The firearms act has nothing to do with crime prevention. It has
everything to do with harrassing gun owners and making firearms too
expensive to own legally.
>> Even the federal government is ignoring the firearms act and how it's
>> officers are inforcing it.
>
>> Judges are also ignoring the firearms act as the mandatory four year
>> sentence for misuse of a firearm has yet to be used....
>
>This is one of those lies, which we hear pretty often. R. v. Devylder,
>[2001] A.J. No. 1291 is just one example.
It was NOT a lie up to the case you refer to.
Then it is the first one. Thank you for the reference. I was unaware
of this one.
What court was this sentence handed down in??
This provission in sentencing was used only once before in Nova Scotia
and then struck as not within charter rights.
BTW: I can find no internet reference to this one.
Sometimes I think you like to stretch the truth Stevie....
Also it is not a lie that Firearms officers are ignoring the firarms
act. They do so everytime they issue an athorization to transport
with a geographic limit on it.
The feds break the law everytime they allow an individual to take
possession of a firearm with out a registration certificate.
The feds have also told us there can be only one registration
certificate issued for each firearm. So far on certain firearms I
have had up to three or four registration certificates issued per
firearm since December 1, 1998.
The firearms act is not working Stephen!
Possibly as many as two million people in possession of firearms have
NOT gotten their firearms license.
The legislation has failed as it has not gained the compliance of the
people who have to comply.
1...@canoemail.com
>
>Deterrence is just fine. But crime prevention is something else.
>Some people really think that you deal with crimes before they happen,
>and try to prevent them by something other than big penalties (which
>seem not to work that well).
The firearms act does nothing to deter crime.
jen...@homacjen.ab.ca wrote about the Canadian Firearms Act:
>That's one good reason why we want to take reasonable measures to prevent
>them from getting firearms. It also allows firearms to be taken away from
>those who have shown that they no longer qualify for firearms licences by,
>for example, committing serious criminal offences.
Or even some rather inocuous offences. Crown prosecutors have
attempted to place firearms prohibitions on people as part of the
punishment rather than to protect society. Also there have been moves
to place prohibitions on folks who do not deserve the prohibition.
Many of the measures taken by the firearms act are unreasonable as
they are covered by other legislation.
jen...@homacjen.ab.ca wrote about the Canadian Firearms Act:
>Its not perfect.
Very true but grossly understated Stephen.
jen...@homacjen.ab.ca
> On Thu, 05 Sep 2002 16:32:47 GMT,
>
>>
>>Deterrence is just fine. But crime prevention is something else.
>>Some people really think that you deal with crimes before they happen,
>>and try to prevent them by something other than big penalties (which
>>seem not to work that well).
>
> The firearms act does nothing to deter crime.
Well, that's not entirely true. But I agree that increased penalties
do not do much to deter crime. There really is a law of deminishing
returns here. Increasing a penalty from 1 month to 1 year does not
make a big difference.
> jen...@homacjen.ab.ca wrote about the Canadian Firearms Act:
>>That's one good reason why we want to take reasonable measures to prevent
>>them from getting firearms. It also allows firearms to be taken away from
>>those who have shown that they no longer qualify for firearms licences by,
>>for example, committing serious criminal offences.
> Or even some rather inocuous offences. Crown prosecutors have
> attempted to place firearms prohibitions on people as part of the
> punishment rather than to protect society.
It seems to me that it is also part of punishment. But mostly it
is there to protect society.
> Also there have been moves
> to place prohibitions on folks who do not deserve the prohibition.
I oppose those moves.
> Many of the measures taken by the firearms act are unreasonable as
> they are covered by other legislation.
If its covered by other legislation, then there is really no
problem.
>>jen...@homacjen.ab.ca wrote about the Canadian Firearms Act:
>>Its not perfect.
>
> Very true but grossly understated Stephen.
But its better than the alternatives I have seen.
jen...@homacjen.ab.ca
> jen...@homacjen.ab.ca wrote:
>
>>It regulates the possession and use of weapons, which is traditionally
>>criminal law.
>
> An expensive exercise with no reduction in crime.
> The firearms act is redundant. There are other laws covering criminal
> acts that may or may not involve the use of a firearm.
Its impossible to prove whether the firearms act, or gun control in
general results in a reduction in crime. But it makes sense that it
does, and I am willing to go with simple logic.
>>> THe firearms act is even enacted separate from the criminal code so it
>>> can NOT be argued that it is a criminal matter.
> jen...@homacjen.ab.ca wrote:
>
>
>>Criminal law is not limited to things in the criminal code. Just putting
>>it into the criminal code does not make it criminal law, and having it
>>in a separate statute outside of the criminal code does not mean its
>>not criminal law.
>
> How so????
> Criminal law is contained within the criminal code.
No. Criminal law is contained in Acts passed by the federal parliament.
Some, like the Competition Act and the Tobacco Restrain Act, have been
upheld as valid exercises of the criminal law power. But these laws
are not in the Criminal Code.
> Firearms are not used in crime very often at all so the firearms act
> is NOT part of the criminal code.
I suppose Parliament could have put gun control in the Criminal Code,
where it used to be. But for organizational reasons, it was put in
a separate Act. Its just a matter of convenience.
> The individuals regulated by the
> act and subject to criminal sanction are those who obtained their
> firearms legally and now face criminal penalties if they don't react
> to the firearms act.
They certainly face such penalties should they choose not disregard the
firearms act.
>>> Firearms are rarely used for crime in Canada.
> jen...@homacjen.ab.ca wrote:
>
>>So, its working. That's a good thing.
>
> The firearms act is NOT working as it has not changed the rate of
> criminal firearms use in Canada. Quite lying Stephen!
It continues to work.
...
>>> Judges are also ignoring the firearms act as the mandatory four year
>>> sentence for misuse of a firearm has yet to be used....
>>This is one of those lies, which we hear pretty often. R. v. Devylder,
>>[2001] A.J. No. 1291 is just one example.
> It was NOT a lie up to the case you refer to.
> Then it is the first one. Thank you for the reference. I was unaware
> of this one.
I don't think it was the first one. It was just one example that I
pulled up on off my database. I would expect that there are other
unreported examples in Canada every week.
> What court was this sentence handed down in??
Provincial Court of Alberta
> This provission in sentencing was used only once before in Nova Scotia
> and then struck as not within charter rights.
> BTW: I can find no internet reference to this one.
I don't know. I suppose that like the 7 year minimum for importation
of drugs, it could be struck down. Minimum penalties have that problem,
particularly when they are applied to minor or technical violations
of the law.
> Sometimes I think you like to stretch the truth Stevie....
> Also it is not a lie that Firearms officers are ignoring the firarms
> act. They do so everytime they issue an athorization to transport
> with a geographic limit on it.
Someone should challenge this prohibition and see who is right.
Its an interesting argument, as I have noted earlier.
> The feds break the law everytime they allow an individual to take
> possession of a firearm without a registration certificate.
I don't think they break the law. But the law is always flexible
on these sorts of things, and it would not be in the public interest
to prosecute a person who takes possession in these circumstances.
> The feds have also told us there can be only one registration
> certificate issued for each firearm. So far on certain firearms I
> have had up to three or four registration certificates issued per
> firearm since December 1, 1998.
>
> The firearms act is not working Stephen!
I have said before that I don't think that the firm they hired to
implement the computer systems turned out to be very competent.
It strikes me that this is what happens when you hire one of those
global consulting firms. Big fees, and not very good work.
> Possibly as many as two million people in possession of firearms have
> NOT gotten their firearms license.
> The legislation has failed as it has not gained the compliance of the
> people who have to comply.
Lets hope that the glitches in the system get fixed.
sp...@controlq.com
> >
> > Perhaps a little deterrance?
>
> Deterrence is just fine. But crime prevention is something else.
> Some people really think that you deal with crimes before they happen,
> and try to prevent them by something other than big penalties (which
> seem not to work that well).
No, crime prevention is making the criminal element fear the punishment
more than the rewards of crime. Period.
> Rehabilitation is also important.
Not to me. Once a criminal, always a criminal. Hang 'Em!
> But it is something which happens after the fact, and when it occurs in
> prisons, it is very difficult to hope for success. Prison communities
> are really just too disfunctional for rehabilitation to work
> effectively.
So? They are effective at keeping brutal people out of the community of
civil human beings. That they are not nice places is just a benefit to
the community at large, in that it increases the deterrance factor.
>
> Prisons, notwithstanding what you suggest, are pretty brutal places.
> I don't think you would like to spend even a weekend there.
>
Good! What's your point?
> I don't think that requiring law abiding people to register their
> guns and be licencedis any serious restriction of rights of anyone.
You know full well that licensing and registration are not the
worst parts of this act, though the long gun registry is about
the dumbest boondoggle even the liberals have come up with.
I would say that the worst thing about the firearms act, is that most
Canadians feel that it is good and effective legislation. That is the
"Big Lie" that the big red propaganda machine is spinning.
>
> No more than getting a driver's licence or a pilot's licence is.
>
> > I know that you subscribe to some twisted liberal ethic, but I also know
> > you to be a rational individual (mostly). Surely you must see that the
> > firearms act IN NO WAY prevents crime. Criminals do not obey the act.
>
> That's one good reason why we want to take reasonable measures to prevent
> them from getting firearms. It also allows firearms to be taken away from
> those who have shown that they no longer qualify for firearms licences by,
> for example, committing serious criminal offences.
Reasonable measures? What reasonable measures?? The Firearms Act? Get
real Stephen! Stop spinning the "Big Lie".
Just this morning, several armed thugs broke into a sporting goods store
in Vaughn (a suburb of Toronto), critically injured an employee, and stole
about 70 firearms.
o Those guns will be on the street within days -- illegally
obtained, and by definition in the hands of criminals.
o The people who have those guns will have no problems in using
them unsafely, transporting them illegally, and storing them
carelessly. They will NOT be getting ATT's to pull armed
robberies, or to commit murder etc. etc.
How does the firearms act protect us against this? Would not the public
safety be better served by increasing Police budgets to help nab these
jerks? Would it not be better if they were off the streets --
permanently?
I am not interested in rehabilitating these criminals, and if they happen
to be shot dead resisting arrest -- good. Better value for the tax payer!
If the prisons are harsh -- tough!
>
> Its not perfect.
Its worse than imperfect. It is inappropriate, applied against the law
abiding rather than the criminal element and does NOTHING for the public
safety. It is truly -- A Big Lie!
R.
Bruce Mills
>
> In can.politics Bruce Mills <aki...@sprint.ca> wrote:
>
> > Better yet, how about a little something called "freedom", where one can do what
> > one wants until they commit a crime against another person?
> >
> > Then there would be no need for these ridiculous and costly laws.
>
> Some people are against crime prevention. I'm not one of those.
Name *one* crime that was prevented through the firearms act.
As a lawyer, Stephen, you of all people should know that "laws" do not "prevent"
crimes from happening - if they *did*, then there would be no murders, would
there?
Laws only serve to tell us what remedies are available to society for dealing
with people who *do* commit crimes.
Blackstone said that good people don't need the restraint of law to act in a
responsible manner.
I am 100% in favour of "crime prevention" through "truth in sentencing" laws,
and not plea bargaining serious crimes away in order to get a guilty plea so
they don't take up limited court time, and locking people up for their full
terms instead of letting them take a walk on mandatory parole, so they commit
even *more* crimes.
Saying that I am against "crime prevention" because I disagree with *your*
methods is a straw man.
Bruce Mills
>
> In can.politics sp...@controlq.com wrote:
> > On Thu, 5 Sep 2002 jen...@homacjen.ab.ca wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> Some people are against crime prevention. I'm not one of those.
> >
> > Perhaps a little deterrance?
>
> Deterrence is just fine. But crime prevention is something else.
> Some people really think that you deal with crimes before they happen,
> and try to prevent them by something other than big penalties (which
> seem not to work that well).
That is called "malum prohibitum" and "prior restraint" isn't it?
It is based on the lieberal and statist theory that "some people can't be
trusted", and since you can't tell in advance who *can*, that means that
*everyone* cannot be trusted, and must be "controlled" (excpet for the lieberals
and the statists, that is). For their own good, of course.
This is simply blaming the innocent for the criminal actions of others. That is
called "guilty until proven innocent". Then again, it is easier for the State
to assume that everyone is guilty to start with, isn't it?
The Restricted Weapon Registration System was not used to prevent or solve one
single crime in its entire 38 year history, and a cost of $650 million. In
fact, it was never designed to do so, since the RCMP didn't even keep such
statistics.
All it was designed to do was to restrict the rights of the law abiding.
> > With cushy prisons and lenient sentencing,
> > the M.o. Justice has made a mockery of "doing time" in Canada. They have
> > some misguided sensibility concerning re-habilitation rather than keeping
> > the miscreants off the street.
>
> Rehabilitation is also important. But it is something which happens after
> the fact,
Which is exactly what should happen in the matter of the law - proven guilty
after the fact, not assumed guilty beforehand. Punishing someone for what they
*might* do is abhorrent, and a perversionof justice.
> and when it occurs in prisons, it is very difficult to hope
> for success. Prison communities are really just too disfunctional for
> rehabilitation to work effectively.
Because of lieberal concepts that convicts have "rights". They forfeitted their
rights when they violated the rights of someone else when they committed their
crime.
> Prisons, notwithstanding what you suggest, are pretty brutal places.
> I don't think you would like to spend even a weekend there.
>
> > I think Stephen you will find that if people realized that the
> > consequences to violent crime entailed a long hard stretch in prison as
> > the inevitable outcome, then crime might be prevented. Restricting the
> > rights of law abiding citizens is NOT crime prevention, but merely the
> > initial implementation of a police state.
>
> I don't think that requiring law abiding people to register their
> guns and be licencedis any serious restriction of rights of anyone.
And just because *you* don't think so, doesn't make it true, nor is it any
justification for the infringement of the rights of others.
> No more than getting a driver's licence or a pilot's licence is.
I would think by now that you would be tired of that particular analogy, since
every time you bring it up, we bash you over the head with it.
But I guess that is the nature of the lieberal "big lie" - keep on repeating it
and maybe it will come true...
> > I know that you subscribe to some twisted liberal ethic, but I also know
> > you to be a rational individual (mostly). Surely you must see that the
> > firearms act IN NO WAY prevents crime. Criminals do not obey the act.
>
> That's one good reason why we want to take reasonable measures to prevent
> them from getting firearms. It also allows firearms to be taken away from
> those who have shown that they no longer qualify for firearms licences by,
> for example, committing serious criminal offences.
But these "measures" are not "reasonable" because they DO NOT WORK!
And if someone commits a crime (a *real* crime, not a paper one), then their
homes should be searched and their firearms should be confiscated. That is
called "good police work". No licencing scheme is going to guarantee that you
actually have all the guns a person owns.
And people are being "disqualified" for firearms licences, and having their
firearms confiscated simply because they fail to store their guns according to
the dictates of the State. Do you consider that to be a "serious criminal
offence"?
> Its not perfect.
It's nowhere near being justifiable, let alone perfect.
Then again, nothing is.
Alex Cunningham
> > jen...@homacjen.ab.ca wrote:
> Its impossible to prove whether the firearms act, or gun control in
> general results in a reduction in crime. But it makes sense that it
> does, and I am willing to go with simple logic.
The only simplicity that interest you Stephen, is how you can subserviently
toady up to your political masters in the Lieberal Party of Canada. As an
arbiter of civil rights law you are a cowardly disgrace. You promised Achim
that you would take up his cause with the courts in respect of his right to
carry a restricted firearm. You then shamelessly ignored and dodged all his
attempts to communicate with you to start this action. Any reasonable
person, is only left to form the assumption that your political bosses in
the Lieberal Party of Canada ordered you to back off like a good party
eunuch, which you did, with some alacrity, and in a most cowardly fashion.
Taurus Excretum as usual from you, eh Sthephen?
--
Cheers.
Alex C.
There are 12,000,000. sheep in Ontario.
Problem is 9,000,000. of them think they are people.
Jim Hinter
Surely, you are not suggesting that the costs of The Firearm Act are revenue
positive?
Heck if you took the 2.1 million firearm owners that the government feels
that there are, at $80 per person, the total revenue would be $168 million
dollars.
Now if you take a second and realise that many of the people only paid $10
for a POL licence, the revenue figures become especially terrible.
If public safety were really the concern of the government, the billion
dollars could have been far better spent.
Imagine how much better?
More police, rather than removing over 1000 police from our streets. Chasing
criminals stops and prevents crime, chasing paper on law-abiding Canadians
does not.
Healthcare, with the money spent/wasted on the Firearms Act, there could
have been more hospitals and doctors and nurses.
Heck there could even be more MRI machines.
Spousal Abuse, one of the apparent reasons we "need" a gun registry.
Education, not legislation reduces that problem, however with a billion
dollars, there could have been an awful lot of shelters built.
The firearm registry is already proving to be a failure, it is issuing
licences with the wrong pictures on them. I have a friend who has two
pictures on his licence.
It is losing track of firearms. I have personal experience with that. I
moved and requested an ATT for the transfer of my firearms, I was told that
I don't have any.
The real test comes when you ask a Police Officer, "If you call in a name
and address for a spousal abuse call, and they tell you over the radio that
there are no firearms in the house, do you take off your vest before you go
in?"
I have asked that question countless times and never received "Yes" as an
answer.
Why? Frontline police officers already know that the registry is a flawed
mess.
I would suggest Stephen that taking the revenue course on the Firearms Act
is not a great idea.
Now, as the Ontario Supreme Court ruled that the inspection provisions are
unconstitutional, do you want to talk about how the Firearms Act affects
personal freedoms?
;)
Jim Hinter
National President
National Firearms Association
The federal government has spent
<jen...@homacjen.ab.ca> wrote in message
news:pHyd9.250692$v53.13...@news3.calgary.shaw.ca...
1...@canoemail.com
>In can.politics 1...@canoemail.com wrote:
>> On Thu, 05 Sep 2002 16:32:47 GMT,
>>
>>>
>>>Deterrence is just fine. But crime prevention is something else.
>>>Some people really think that you deal with crimes before they happen,
>>>and try to prevent them by something other than big penalties (which
>>>seem not to work that well).
>>
>> The firearms act does nothing to deter crime.
>Well, that's not entirely true.
Tell us what part of the firearms act reduces crime please???
Then tell us how it has reduced crime please?
Then cite some statistics on how any firearms legislation has reduced
crime in any jurisdiction please?
jen...@homacjen.ab.ca wrote:
>But I agree that increased penalties
>do not do much to deter crime. There really is a law of deminishing
>returns here. Increasing a penalty from 1 month to 1 year does not
>make a big difference.
Please cite some support for this statement.
Please tell me why folks who get short sentences tend to reofend
offtener than folks who get longer sentences.
>> jen...@homacjen.ab.ca wrote about the Canadian Firearms Act:
>>>That's one good reason why we want to take reasonable measures to prevent
>>>them from getting firearms. It also allows firearms to be taken away from
>>>those who have shown that they no longer qualify for firearms licences by,
>>>for example, committing serious criminal offences.
>
>> Or even some rather inocuous offences. Crown prosecutors have
>> attempted to place firearms prohibitions on people as part of the
>> punishment rather than to protect society.
jen...@homacjen.ab.ca wrote:
>It seems to me that it is also part of punishment. But mostly it
>is there to protect society.
Why should a firearms prohibition be part of the punishment?
Other individual without firearms do not face the same penalty for the
same offences.
>> Also there have been moves
>> to place prohibitions on folks who do not deserve the prohibition.
jen...@homacjen.ab.ca wrote:
>I oppose those moves.
As do I Stephen. We do agree on some things....
>> Many of the measures taken by the firearms act are unreasonable as
>> they are covered by other legislation.
jen...@homacjen.ab.ca wrote:
>If its covered by other legislation, then there is really no
>problem.
It is a problem as it seems to diminish crimes commited with other
means than while using firearms. And firearms use in violent crime is
is extremely low. We want to deter all crime, not just firearms
crime. z
It is also a problem as the firearms act singles out gun owners as
being potentual criminals - even for a lapse in a license to possess
firearms.
>>>jen...@homacjen.ab.ca wrote about the Canadian Firearms Act:
>>>Its not perfect.
>>
>> Very true but grossly understated Stephen.
jen...@homacjen.ab.ca wrote:
>But its better than the alternatives I have seen.
Please name these alternatives.
Please show us how North Dakota with limited firearms legislaition, no
licensing, and no registration has a better or worse alternative.
1...@canoemail.com
>In can.politics 1...@canoemail.com wrote:
>> jen...@homacjen.ab.ca wrote:
>>
>>>It regulates the possession and use of weapons, which is traditionally
>>>criminal law.
>>
>> An expensive exercise with no reduction in crime.
>> The firearms act is redundant. There are other laws covering criminal
>> acts that may or may not involve the use of a firearm.
jen...@homacjen.ab.ca wrote:
>Its impossible to prove whether the firearms act, or gun control in
>general results in a reduction in crime. But it makes sense that it
>does, and I am willing to go with simple logic.
It is impossible to prove the firearms act reduces crime because it
does not. There are forms of gun control that show indications of
reducing crime but these forms are not nearly as draconian as the
firearms act.
GUNS DO NOT CAUSE CRIME!
I have watched gun control legislation in Canada, the U.S., the U.K.,
Australia, and New Zealand and have come to the the conclussion that
the firearms act in Canada is harrassement of firearms owners and has
nothing to do with commiting crime.
Why is the federal government requiring gun clubs to keep membership
records for seven years? how does this fight crime? How does it
prevent crime? How does it stop accidents?
The firearms act is directed at controlling those who hold their guns
legally, not those who use firearms in an illegal manner. It has also
created a great deal of ways for firearms owners to run afoul of the
law.
Your simple logic fails
>>>> THe firearms act is even enacted separate from the criminal code so it
>>>> can NOT be argued that it is a criminal matter.
>> jen...@homacjen.ab.ca wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Criminal law is not limited to things in the criminal code. Just putting
>>>it into the criminal code does not make it criminal law, and having it
>>>in a separate statute outside of the criminal code does not mean its
>>>not criminal law.
>>
>> How so????
>> Criminal law is contained within the criminal code.
jen...@homacjen.ab.ca wrote:
>No. Criminal law is contained in Acts passed by the federal parliament.
>Some, like the Competition Act and the Tobacco Restrain Act, have been
>upheld as valid exercises of the criminal law power. But these laws
>are not in the Criminal Code.
So how is federal regulation of gun clubs a criminal matter?
There has never been a robbery , murder, or charge laid at a shooting
range in Canada.
1...@canoemail.com
>
>I suppose Parliament could have put gun control in the Criminal Code,
>where it used to be. But for organizational reasons, it was put in
>a separate Act. Its just a matter of convenience.
The firearms act is a very great inconvenience to those who would
legaly own and posses firearms, not to those who would avoid the law
and obtain them illegally....
>> The individuals regulated by the
>> act and subject to criminal sanction are those who obtained their
>> firearms legally and now face criminal penalties if they don't react
>> to the firearms act.
jen...@homacjen.ab.ca wrote:
>They certainly face such penalties should they choose not disregard the
>firearms act.
Placing a burdon on 2.8 million or more Canadians who own guns
legally. Just immagine if 2.8 million Canadians did NOT renew their
firearms license.
>>>> Firearms are rarely used for crime in Canada.
>
>> jen...@homacjen.ab.ca wrote:
>>
>>>So, its working. That's a good thing.
>>
>> The firearms act is NOT working as it has not changed the rate of
>> criminal firearms use in Canada. Quite lying Stephen!
jen...@homacjen.ab.ca wrote:
>It continues to work.
This is a blatant LIE Stephen. There has been no reduction in crime
as a result of the firearms act. There may even be an increase as
citizens run afoul of the rather convoluted mess.
Show us any reduction in crime attributed to firearms legilsation in
Canada since 1960.
Show us any reduction in accidents attributed to firearms legislation
anywhere in the world.
1...@canoemail.com
<jhinter@"no-spam"shaw.ca> wrote:
>Stephen,
>
>Surely, you are not suggesting that the costs of The Firearm Act are revenue
>positive?
snip
>I would suggest Stephen that taking the revenue course on the Firearms Act
>is not a great idea.
>
>Now, as the Ontario Supreme Court ruled that the inspection provisions are
>unconstitutional, do you want to talk about how the Firearms Act affects
>personal freedoms?
Good on you Jim!
At on point Mr. Jenuth indicated he would take the Canadian Firearms
Saftey course and show us how easy it was to find and take. It has
been almost two years now. I don't believe he has done it yet.
Mr. Jenuth has no familiarity with firearms or firearms safety, and I
suspect very little familiarity on how the firearms act is being
abused by both the police and the several million gun owners who
didn't bother to get a firearms license.
Bruce Mills
> > You know in your heart of hearts that the legislation is slanted,
> > arbitrary, and an inappropriate restriction on basic and fundamental
> > rights. Portions of it have already proven unconstitutional.
>
> I don't know which parts have been already proven unconstitutional.
FA s. 117.04(1), R. v. Hurrell, C36968 Ontario Court of Appeal
http://www.ontariocourts.on.ca/decisions/2002/july/hurrellC36968.htm
[3] For reasons that follow, I am respectfully of the view that s.
117.04(1) is unconstitutional and that McGarry J. erred in failing to declare it
invalid. I believe that s. 117.04(1) violates s. 8 of the Charter because it
contains no requirement that the peace officer seeking the warrant have
reasonable grounds to believe that weapons or the other dangerous items
mentioned in the provision are likely to be found on the person or premises to
be searched [1] and no requirement that such grounds be presented to and
accepted by the issuing justice. These gaps, in my view, are serious because in
its present form, s. 117.04(1) allows for sweeping searches of persons and
private premises in
circumstances where the police may have no reason to suspect, let alone believe,
that the person of concern has any weapons or other dangerous items in his or
her possession.
jen...@homacjen.ab.ca
>>> The firearms act does nothing to deter crime.
> jen...@homacjen.ab.ca wrote:
>>Well, that's not entirely true.
> Tell us what part of the firearms act reduces crime please???
You suggest taht increased penalties are deter crime. The Firearms
Act did that with amendments to the Criminal Code.
But you are right when you suggest that greater penalties have a very
limited effect on reducing crime.
> Then tell us how it has reduced crime please?
Gun control in Canada has reduced crime, and other negative firearms
related activity, by taking reasonable measures to ensure a minimum
amount of screening for applicants for licences, the ability to take
away licences (and firearms) from those who are found not to qualify
(ie. because of dangerousness), from making it more difficult to
obtain guns by those without licences, and from safe use and storage
regulations.
> Then cite some statistics on how any firearms legislation has reduced
> crime in any jurisdiction please?
Compare the firearms crime statistics between any part of Canada and
any similar US jurisdiction. Especially compare our big cities,
for example Toronto with any similarly sized US city.
> jen...@homacjen.ab.ca wrote:
>
>>But I agree that increased penalties
>>do not do much to deter crime. There really is a law of deminishing
>>returns here. Increasing a penalty from 1 month to 1 year does not
>>make a big difference.
>
> Please cite some support for this statement.
> Please tell me why folks who get short sentences tend to reofend
> offtener than folks who get longer sentences.
Quite the opposite in my experience. Keeping someone in the community
(and outside of jail) does the most to prevent crime. Jail sentences
do not seem to have a positive effect. Often a longer sentence just
increases the likelihood of reoffending.
>>> jen...@homacjen.ab.ca wrote about the Canadian Firearms Act:
>>>>That's one good reason why we want to take reasonable measures to prevent
>>>>them from getting firearms. It also allows firearms to be taken away from
>>>>those who have shown that they no longer qualify for firearms licences by,
>>>>for example, committing serious criminal offences.
>>
>>> Or even some rather inocuous offences. Crown prosecutors have
>>> attempted to place firearms prohibitions on people as part of the
>>> punishment rather than to protect society.
> jen...@homacjen.ab.ca wrote:
>>It seems to me that it is also part of punishment. But mostly it
>>is there to protect society.
> Why should a firearms prohibition be part of the punishment?
> Other individual without firearms do not face the same penalty for the
> same offences.
Actually, everyone who commits certain crimes faces firearms prohibitions.
The only difference is that people without firearms do not have to turn
theirs in. They are simply prohibited from applying for licences.
...
> jen...@homacjen.ab.ca wrote:
>>If its covered by other legislation, then there is really no
>>problem.
>
>
> It is a problem as it seems to diminish crimes commited with other
> means than while using firearms. And firearms use in violent crime is
> is extremely low. We want to deter all crime, not just firearms
> crime.
I agree. But deterence is not enough. We have to prevent crime.
I suppose gun control, intervention for vulnerable groups like young
prostitutes (and older ones too), anti gambling programs, and a host
of other initiatives. Deterence is simply not enough, and in fact,
generally doesn't work.
> jen...@homacjen.ab.ca wrote:
>>But its better than the alternatives I have seen.
>
> Please name these alternatives.
No control, the previous gun control legislation, and the one proposed
by the Canadian Firearms Association people.
> Please show us how North Dakota with limited firearms legislaition, no
> licensing, and no registration has a better or worse alternative.
I haven't been able find crime statistics for Bismarck, ND., and compare
it to a similar Canadian city like Brandon, Manitoba. It would be
a good comparison, because the negative effects of the death penalty
can be excluded (neither have capital punishment, which tends to drive
up murder rates).
jen...@homacjen.ab.ca
>> Deterrence is just fine. But crime prevention is something else.
>> Some people really think that you deal with crimes before they happen,
>> and try to prevent them by something other than big penalties (which
>> seem not to work that well).
>
> That is called "malum prohibitum" and "prior restraint" isn't it?
No. I am not encouraging (and actually oppose) things like imprisoning
people to prevent them from committing crimes. However, I do support
modest things like licencing of firearm owners.
jen...@homacjen.ab.ca
>> I don't know which parts have been already proven unconstitutional.
>
> FA s. 117.04(1), R. v. Hurrell, C36968 Ontario Court of Appeal
>
> http://www.ontariocourts.on.ca/decisions/2002/july/hurrellC36968.htm
Yes, the Court rewrote the section 117.04 of the Criminal Code
slightly. As passed by Parliament it reads:
117.04 (1) Where, pursuant to an application made by a peace officer
with respect to any person, a justice is satisfied that there are
reasonable grounds to believe that it is not desirable
in the interests of the safety of the person, or of any other person, for
the person to possess any weapon, prohibited device, ammunition, prohibited
ammunition or explosive substance, the justice may issue a warrant
authorizing a peace officer to 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.
The Court required that it would read:
117.04(1) Where, pursuant to an application made by a peace officer
with respect to any person, a justice is satisfied _by information on oath_
that there are reasonable grounds to believe that _the person possesses
a weapon, prohibited device, ammunition, prohibited ammunition or
explosive device in a building, receptacle or place, and_ that it is not
desirable in the interests of the safety of the person, or of any
other person, for the person to possess the weapon, prohibited device,
ammunition, prohibited ammunition or explosive substance, the justice
may issue a warrant authorizing a peace officer to search _the building,
receptacle or place 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.
I'm not sure it is a major loss for the Crown.
The police were required to return the items seized, but were allowed to
apply for a new warrant on the revised rules. I don't know if they
did.
--
jen...@homacjen.ab.ca
> On Thu, 05 Sep 2002 18:26:16 GMT, jen...@homacjen.ab.ca wrote:
>>Its impossible to prove whether the firearms act, or gun control in
>>general results in a reduction in crime. But it makes sense that it
>>does, and I am willing to go with simple logic.
>
> It is impossible to prove the firearms act reduces crime because it
> does not.
No. Its impossible to prove because it is impossible to show that
someone has not committed a gun crime because the person was prevented
from getting a firearm. When a crime is prevented, it is impossible
to prove.
Nor can one say positively that someone who commits a crime with
an easily obtained firearms would not have obtained the firearm
with gun control in effect.
However, we are left to looking at statistics. Given the similarily
between Canada and the United States, we can look at statistics
in similarly sized Canadian and US cities. And the results are
quite different in terms of firearms crime.
>>Some, like the Competition Act and the Tobacco Restrain Act, have been
>>upheld as valid exercises of the criminal law power. But these laws
>>are not in the Criminal Code.
>
> So how is federal regulation of gun clubs a criminal matter?
Because it involves the regulation of weapons, which is criminal law.
> There has never been a robbery , murder, or charge laid at a shooting
> range in Canada.
I wouldn't know about this.
Norman
<jen...@homacjen.ab.ca> wrote in message
news:daoe9.270040$v53.14...@news3.calgary.shaw.ca...
> Gun control in Canada has reduced crime, and other negative firearms
> related activity, by taking reasonable measures to ensure a minimum
> amount of screening for applicants for licences, the ability to take
> away licences (and firearms) from those who are found not to qualify
> (ie. because of dangerousness), from making it more difficult to
> obtain guns by those without licences, and from safe use and storage
> regulations.
Having arrived in Canada in 1995 I have to say that the newspapers in
Edmonton do not support your theories.
There has been a substantial increase in gun related crimes, whether this is
because of the criminals knowledge that the victim can no longer carry or
the fact that criminals ignore gun laws I don't know.
Norman
<jen...@homacjen.ab.ca> wrote in message
news:0coe9.270053$v53.14...@news3.calgary.shaw.ca...
However, I do support
> modest things like licencing of firearm owners.
Why do you support the licencing of firearm owners?
Should that licence, in your opinion, be of the same scope as, say, one's
driving licence?
Bruce Mills
>
> In can.politics 1...@canoemail.com wrote:
>
> >>> The firearms act does nothing to deter crime.
> > jen...@homacjen.ab.ca wrote:
>
> >>Well, that's not entirely true.
>
> > Tell us what part of the firearms act reduces crime please???
>
> You suggest taht increased penalties are deter crime. The Firearms
> Act did that with amendments to the Criminal Code.
When are these imposed, as opposed to being plea bargained away, or not laid at
all? So far you've managed to produce *one* instance where it was.
BTW, where is "R. v. Devylder, [2001] A.J. No. 1291" from; I can't find it on
the Alberta Court database.
> But you are right when you suggest that greater penalties have a very
> limited effect on reducing crime.
You are twisting his words around to suit your purposes, Stephen.
> > Then tell us how it has reduced crime please?
>
> Gun control in Canada has reduced crime, and other negative firearms
> related activity, by taking reasonable measures to ensure a minimum
> amount of screening for applicants for licences, the ability to take
> away licences (and firearms) from those who are found not to qualify
> (ie. because of dangerousness), from making it more difficult to
> obtain guns by those without licences, and from safe use and storage
> regulations.
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
Blah blah blah, Stephen. Give us concrete examples of how many crimes have been
prevented, how many lives have been saved, etc, etc, etc. Don't just
regurgitate the anti-gun Liberal Party platform.
> > Then cite some statistics on how any firearms legislation has reduced
> > crime in any jurisdiction please?
>
> Compare the firearms crime statistics between any part of Canada and
> any similar US jurisdiction. Especially compare our big cities,
> for example Toronto with any similarly sized US city.
And this is due more to social conditions than any kind of gun control. And the
major cities of TO's size or greater, such as LA, NYC, DC, Chicago *all* have
extremely strict gun control provisions, if not prohibitions, and they *all*
have much higher crime rates than Toronto.
This is just more gun-grabbing big lie rhetoric.
> > jen...@homacjen.ab.ca wrote:
> >
> >>But I agree that increased penalties
> >>do not do much to deter crime. There really is a law of deminishing
> >>returns here. Increasing a penalty from 1 month to 1 year does not
> >>make a big difference.
> >
> > Please cite some support for this statement.
> > Please tell me why folks who get short sentences tend to reofend
> > offtener than folks who get longer sentences.
>
> Quite the opposite in my experience. Keeping someone in the community
> (and outside of jail) does the most to prevent crime. Jail sentences
> do not seem to have a positive effect. Often a longer sentence just
> increases the likelihood of reoffending.
Oh? Then why do we keep reading about people reoffending or absconding while on
parole/madatory release? More liberal coddle the criminal bullshit, Stephen.
> > Why should a firearms prohibition be part of the punishment?
> > Other individual without firearms do not face the same penalty for the
> > same offences.
>
> Actually, everyone who commits certain crimes faces firearms prohibitions.
> The only difference is that people without firearms do not have to turn
> theirs in. They are simply prohibited from applying for licences.
But there is nothing in an provision under the law that will prevent them from
acquiring a gun should they so choose.
> I agree. But deterence is not enough. We have to prevent crime.
The only way to do this is to lock *everyone* up. NO LAW CAN *PREVENT* A CRIME.
> I suppose gun control, intervention for vulnerable groups like young
> prostitutes (and older ones too), anti gambling programs, and a host
> of other initiatives. Deterence is simply not enough, and in fact,
> generally doesn't work.
No, but education does. Therefore, gun ownership, prostitution and gambling
should be de-criminalized, and the monies wasted on combatting these "problems"
should be devoted to education programs.
Simple, no?
Bruce Mills
>
> In can.politics Bruce Mills <aki...@sprint.ca> wrote:
> > jen...@homacjen.ab.ca wrote:
>
> >> Deterrence is just fine. But crime prevention is something else.
> >> Some people really think that you deal with crimes before they happen,
> >> and try to prevent them by something other than big penalties (which
> >> seem not to work that well).
> >
> > That is called "malum prohibitum" and "prior restraint" isn't it?
>
> No. I am not encouraging (and actually oppose) things like imprisoning
> people to prevent them from committing crimes. However, I do support
> modest things like licencing of firearm owners.
But that is "malum prohibitum", Stephen - it is against the law because it is
against the law, not because it is "malum per se">
And I didn't say "imprisoning people" now, did I? Stop putting words into
people's mouths.
Bruce Mills
> However, we are left to looking at statistics. Given the similarily
> between Canada and the United States, we can look at statistics
> in similarly sized Canadian and US cities. And the results are
> quite different in terms of firearms crime.
Then why do cities like LA, NYC, DC, and Chicago, *all* of which have strict gun
control laws, if not outright prohibitions, have vastly greater crime rates than
Toronto?
Gun control obviously does not work, by your own comparisons.
> >>Some, like the Competition Act and the Tobacco Restrain Act, have been
> >>upheld as valid exercises of the criminal law power. But these laws
> >>are not in the Criminal Code.
> >
> > So how is federal regulation of gun clubs a criminal matter?
>
> Because it involves the regulation of weapons, which is criminal law.
No, the regulation of the *criminal* *use* of "weapons" is criminal law. No one
that I know of has ever used a firearm in a criminal manner at a gun club.
> > There has never been a robbery , murder, or charge laid at a shooting
> > range in Canada.
>
> I wouldn't know about this.
That's because you prefer not to know, since it blows your whole argument out of
the water.
jen...@homacjen.ab.ca
There has been very little change in the laws since 1980. Firearms
licences were required to obtain guns for years (called FACs until
recently). The only real change to the Firearms Act was to require
registration of firearms. This is only just coming into effect.
What you would have to compare is not having a regulatory regime,
compared to having one.
jen...@homacjen.ab.ca
>
> BTW, where is "R. v. Devylder, [2001] A.J. No. 1291" from; I can't find it on
> the Alberta Court database.
I did a quick search using quicklaw, a gave you the first case which
came up.
Its one of those routine things that happens every day.
...
>> > Then cite some statistics on how any firearms legislation has reduced
>> > crime in any jurisdiction please?
>>
>> Compare the firearms crime statistics between any part of Canada and
>> any similar US jurisdiction. Especially compare our big cities,
>> for example Toronto with any similarly sized US city.
>
> And this is due more to social conditions than any kind of gun control. And the
> major cities of TO's size or greater, such as LA, NYC, DC, Chicago *all* have
> extremely strict gun control provisions, if not prohibitions, and they *all*
> have much higher crime rates than Toronto.
>
> This is just more gun-grabbing big lie rhetoric.
Pick a similarly sized US city.
And we know that gun control on a city level does not do very much. After
all, one can buy a gun just outside of town.
...
>> Quite the opposite in my experience. Keeping someone in the community
>> (and outside of jail) does the most to prevent crime. Jail sentences
>> do not seem to have a positive effect. Often a longer sentence just
>> increases the likelihood of reoffending.
>
> Oh? Then why do we keep reading about people reoffending or absconding while on
> parole/madatory release? More liberal coddle the criminal bullshit, Stephen.
Exactly my point. Long sentences result in a greater likelihood of
reoffending (Parole and mandatory release only apply to people with
sentences over 2 years).
Penitentiaries are brutal places, and don't do a lot of prevent crime.
What is surprising is how low the rates of re-offending are.
>> > Why should a firearms prohibition be part of the punishment?
>> > Other individual without firearms do not face the same penalty for the
>> > same offences.
>>
>> Actually, everyone who commits certain crimes faces firearms prohibitions.
>> The only difference is that people without firearms do not have to turn
>> theirs in. They are simply prohibited from applying for licences.
>
> But there is nothing in an provision under the law that will prevent them from
> acquiring a gun should they so choose.
They are prohibited from doing it legally, and licencing and registration
prevents them from doing that.
No doubt they can get an illegal gun. And that is prohibited and subject
to appropriate penalties.
>> I agree. But deterence is not enough. We have to prevent crime.
>
> The only way to do this is to lock *everyone* up. NO LAW CAN *PREVENT* A CRIME.
Laws can prevent or reduce crimes, but they can't prevent _every_ crime.
>> I suppose gun control, intervention for vulnerable groups like young
>> prostitutes (and older ones too), anti gambling programs, and a host
>> of other initiatives. Deterence is simply not enough, and in fact,
>> generally doesn't work.
> No, but education does. Therefore, gun ownership, prostitution and gambling
> should be de-criminalized, and the monies wasted on combatting these "problems"
> should be devoted to education programs.
>
> Simple, no?
Licening is part of an education program.
But it is not the only thing that should be done.
jen...@homacjen.ab.ca
My reasons would include requiring firearms owners to have a certain
amount of education and in particular, informing them of requirements
for the safe use and storage of firearms, screening them to ensure that
they do not have a propensity to violence on an initial and ongoing
basis (the latter to have licences and firearms removed from those who
subsequently become dangerous), and providing a licence which is required
for the purchase of firearms and ammunition.
Similar to my driver's licence, except designed for firearms rather than
for guns. In some ways the provisions are more onerous, others are
less.
jen...@homacjen.ab.ca
>> No. I am not encouraging (and actually oppose) things like imprisoning
>> people to prevent them from committing crimes. However, I do support
>> modest things like licencing of firearm owners.
> But that is "malum prohibitum", Stephen - it is against the law because it is
> against the law, not because it is "malum per se">
Somethings, like murder, are criminal just because they are.
But they are pretty rare.
And that doesn't mean we don't do harm prevention. Just like we prohibit
impaired driving, which is similarly "malum prohibitum".
> And I didn't say "imprisoning people" now, did I? Stop putting words into
> people's mouths.
I had trouble figuiring out what you meant by "prior restraint".
jen...@homacjen.ab.ca
> Then why do cities like LA, NYC, DC, and Chicago, *all* of which have strict gun
> control laws, if not outright prohibitions, have vastly greater crime rates than
> Toronto?
I don't know the firearms laws in any of these jurisdictions.
Is licencing required? Are businesses which sell firearms required to
check licences? Does that apply just outside of the city? What customs
controls are in effect to prevent illegal firearms from other jurisdictions
from being imported?
Norman
<jen...@homacjen.ab.ca> wrote in message
news:RYHe9.275834$v53.14...@news3.calgary.shaw.ca...
> In can.politics Norman <N...@dealwithit.com> wrote:
>
> > <jen...@homacjen.ab.ca> wrote in message
> > news:daoe9.270040$v53.14...@news3.calgary.shaw.ca...
> >> Gun control in Canada has reduced crime, and other negative firearms
> >> related activity, by taking reasonable measures to ensure a minimum
> >> amount of screening for applicants for licences, the ability to take
> >> away licences (and firearms) from those who are found not to qualify
> >> (ie. because of dangerousness), from making it more difficult to
> >> obtain guns by those without licences, and from safe use and storage
> >> regulations.
> >
> > Having arrived in Canada in 1995 I have to say that the newspapers in
> > Edmonton do not support your theories.
> > There has been a substantial increase in gun related crimes, whether
this is
> > because of the criminals knowledge that the victim can no longer carry
or
> > the fact that criminals ignore gun laws I don't know.
>
> There has been very little change in the laws since 1980.
Rubbish.
Firearms
> licences were required to obtain guns for years (called FACs until
> recently).
That, unless I'm mistaken, was a certificate of competance to own firearms.
Rather like a driving licence, to which I'm sure most reasonable gun owners
would object.
The only real change to the Firearms Act was to require
> registration of firearms. This is only just coming into effect.
Just coming into effect? Try buying a gun WITHOUT registering it.
>
> What you would have to compare is not having a regulatory regime,
> compared to having one.
Having lived all round the globe I have found nothing to support your
theories. That is why I am taking you up on your hypothesis. Unlike Bruce I
see nothing sinister in the governments action just a heavy handed (&
incompetant) piece of legislature to appease the anti-gun lobby.
Norman
<jen...@homacjen.ab.ca> wrote in message
news:EbIe9.275841$v53.14...@news3.calgary.shaw.ca...
> In can.politics Norman <N...@dealwithit.com> wrote:
> >
> > <jen...@homacjen.ab.ca> wrote in message
> > news:0coe9.270053$v53.14...@news3.calgary.shaw.ca...
> > However, I do support
> >> modest things like licencing of firearm owners.
> >
> > Why do you support the licencing of firearm owners?
> > Should that licence, in your opinion, be of the same scope as, say,
one's
> > driving licence?
>
> My reasons would include requiring firearms owners to have a certain
> amount of education and in particular, informing them of requirements
> for the safe use and storage of firearms,
Was already in force with the old FAC.
screening them to ensure that
> they do not have a propensity to violence on an initial and ongoing
> basis (the latter to have licences and firearms removed from those who
> subsequently become dangerous),
Was also in place with the old FAC
> and providing a licence which is required
> for the purchase of firearms and ammunition.
Was also in place with the old FAC.
>
> Similar to my driver's licence, except designed for firearms rather than
> for guns. In some ways the provisions are more onerous, others are
> less.
So why do you support the draconian measures of the new laws when the old
fitted your needs?
Norman
<jen...@homacjen.ab.ca> wrote in message
news:ZhIe9.290293$f05.15...@news1.calgary.shaw.ca...
> In can.politics Bruce Mills <aki...@sprint.ca> wrote:
>
> > Then why do cities like LA, NYC, DC, and Chicago, *all* of which have
strict gun
> > control laws, if not outright prohibitions, have vastly greater crime
rates than
> > Toronto?
>
> I don't know the firearms laws in any of these jurisdictions.
Then how can you argue that Canada needs strict gun control if you have no
knowledge of the effects thereof?
Bruce Mills
>
> In can.politics Norman <N...@dealwithit.com> wrote:
>
> > <jen...@homacjen.ab.ca> wrote in message
> > news:daoe9.270040$v53.14...@news3.calgary.shaw.ca...
> >> Gun control in Canada has reduced crime, and other negative firearms
> >> related activity, by taking reasonable measures to ensure a minimum
> >> amount of screening for applicants for licences, the ability to take
> >> away licences (and firearms) from those who are found not to qualify
> >> (ie. because of dangerousness), from making it more difficult to
> >> obtain guns by those without licences, and from safe use and storage
> >> regulations.
> >
> > Having arrived in Canada in 1995 I have to say that the newspapers in
> > Edmonton do not support your theories.
> > There has been a substantial increase in gun related crimes, whether this is
> > because of the criminals knowledge that the victim can no longer carry or
> > the fact that criminals ignore gun laws I don't know.
>
> There has been very little change in the laws since 1980. Firearms
> licences were required to obtain guns for years (called FACs until
> recently). The only real change to the Firearms Act was to require
> registration of firearms. This is only just coming into effect.
>
> What you would have to compare is not having a regulatory regime,
> compared to having one.
For *two* years previous to 1980, if that much. And just becaues it's been
"required for years" doesn't mean it is "right" - it was wrong and unjusified
then, and it still is now.
Licencing and registration has not been shown to be the least bit effective in
reducing crimes with guns, and actually prevents people from getting guns when
they have need of them.
Gun control does not work.
Bruce Mills
>
> In can.politics Bruce Mills <aki...@sprint.ca> wrote:
> > all? So far you've managed to produce *one* instance where it was.
> >
> > BTW, where is "R. v. Devylder, [2001] A.J. No. 1291" from; I can't find it on
> > the Alberta Court database.
>
> I did a quick search using quicklaw, a gave you the first case which
> came up.
And as interesting as this fact is, it still failed to answer my question...
> Its one of those routine things that happens every day.
Then I'm sure you would have no problem in present a few more, say 10 or so?
> > This is just more gun-grabbing big lie rhetoric.
>
> Pick a similarly sized US city.
Why? Is it because you know that the *real* test are the big cities with gun
prohibitions that don't work?
> And we know that gun control on a city level does not do very much. After
> all, one can buy a gun just outside of town.
Yeah, it's the State of Virgina's fault there are all those guns in DC, since
Virginia has such "lax gun laws".
It's not the criminals who *take* them there, now, is it?
You're starting to tap dance there, Stephen. If gun prohibitions actually
worked, there would be *no* gun crimes in cities that had gun prohibitions,
regardless of their size.
And why did crime drop in Kennesaw, Georgia, when they instituted a "must own"
statute for *their* city? Why does confrontational crime drop an average of 24%
in States that enact "shall issue" legislation, with no corresponding increase
in "shootouts in the streets" that gun grabbers keep wailing about?
> > Oh? Then why do we keep reading about people reoffending or absconding while on
> > parole/madatory release? More liberal coddle the criminal bullshit, Stephen.
>
> Exactly my point. Long sentences result in a greater likelihood of
> reoffending (Parole and mandatory release only apply to people with
> sentences over 2 years).
You think that 2 years in the slammer is a *long* sentence?
This only goes to show that criminals prone to violent offences (since sentences
over 2 years are usually reserved for these) are prone to offend again while on
parole.
Do you have any stats on the recidivism rates for those with sentences *under* 2
years?
> Penitentiaries are brutal places, and don't do a lot of prevent crime.
I am sure there is a lot of crime that goes on inside penitentiaries.
> What is surprising is how low the rates of re-offending are.
It would be even lower if they stayed locked up. Not out? Can't re-offend.
Simple, isn't it?
> They are prohibited from doing it legally, and licencing and registration
> prevents them from doing that.
Big whoop de dooo!
> No doubt they can get an illegal gun. And that is prohibited and subject
> to appropriate penalties.
But only after they are caught. You've just proven my point that laws do not
*prevent* crime, thank you very much.
> Laws can prevent or reduce crimes, but they can't prevent _every_ crime.
They may act as a certain *deterrent* because some people with borderline
criminal tendencies may think twice if the chance exists that they might get
caught. But that is all.
> Licening is part of an education program.
>
> But it is not the only thing that should be done.
Education does not require licencing.
Bruce Mills
>
> In can.politics Bruce Mills <aki...@sprint.ca> wrote:
> > jen...@homacjen.ab.ca wrote:
>
> >> No. I am not encouraging (and actually oppose) things like imprisoning
> >> people to prevent them from committing crimes. However, I do support
> >> modest things like licencing of firearm owners.
>
> > But that is "malum prohibitum", Stephen - it is against the law because it is
> > against the law, not because it is "malum per se">
>
> Somethings, like murder, are criminal just because they are.
>
> But they are pretty rare.
Really? I can think of several: theft, assault, extortion, fraud, theft,
trespass, kidnapping, threatening - and that's without really thinking about
it. If you add up all the subcategories these encompass, you've got quite a
mass of laws.
All of these are "malum per se" becaues they infringe upon someone else's
rights. They all entail the use of force against another, against their will.
That should be the *only* measure by which laws are enacted.
> And that doesn't mean we don't do harm prevention. Just like we prohibit
> impaired driving, which is similarly "malum prohibitum".
I would dispute that "harm prevention" should be the responsibility of the law.
That turns the police and the courts into "baby sitters" and not keepers of the
peace.
And I would disagree in principle with inpaired driving laws. Unless someone
was obviously driving dangerously while intoxicated should they be stopped.
> > And I didn't say "imprisoning people" now, did I? Stop putting words into
> > people's mouths.
>
> I had trouble figuiring out what you meant by "prior restraint".
I guess it must be a particular to the US.
Bruce Mills
>
> In can.politics Bruce Mills <aki...@sprint.ca> wrote:
>
> > Then why do cities like LA, NYC, DC, and Chicago, *all* of which have strict gun
> > control laws, if not outright prohibitions, have vastly greater crime rates than
> > Toronto?
>
> I don't know the firearms laws in any of these jurisdictions.
Then you must be living under a rock.
How can you argue comparisons between Canadian and US cities if you don't even
have the first clue about what laws they have there?
Bruce Mills
"I came to Ottawa in November with the firm belief that the only people in
this country who should have guns are police officers and soldiers."
— Allan Rock, Canada's Minister of Justice
Maclean's "Taking Aim on Guns", 1994 April 25, page 12.
"... protection of life is NOT a legitimate use for a firearm in this country
sir! Not! That is expressly ruled out!".
— Justice Minister Allan Rock
"Canadian justice issues, a town hall meeting"
Producer - Joanne Levy,
Shaw cable, Calgary (403) 250-2885
Taped at the Triwood community centre in Calgary, 1994 December.
"C-68 has little to do with gun control or crime control, but it is the first
step necessary to begin the social re-engineering of Canada."
— Quote by Senator Sharon Carstairs (Liberal),
1996 January 26 - 11th Annual CLEA Conference, Winnipeg, Manitoba
"Keep in mind that the Charter of Rights and Freedoms does not suggest for a
minute that any of the rights therein are absolute,"
- Anne McLellan, Minister of Justice
The Kingston Whig-Standard, October 16, 2001
jen...@homacjen.ab.ca
>> Firearms
>> licences were required to obtain guns for years (called FACs until
>> recently).
>
> That, unless I'm mistaken, was a certificate of competance to own firearms.
You're mistaken. It was simply a misnamed firearms licence, valid
throughout Canada, with no national database to see who had been
issued them.
> Rather like a driving licence, to which I'm sure most reasonable gun owners
> would object.
The new firearms licence is simply the old FAC renamed, together with
a national database.
> The only real change to the Firearms Act was to require
>> registration of firearms. This is only just coming into effect.
>
> Just coming into effect? Try buying a gun WITHOUT registering it.
That is correct. But there are lots of guns out there which have
only recently ecome subject to regulation.
jen...@homacjen.ab.ca
> "I came to Ottawa in November with the firm belief that the only people in
> this country who should have guns are police officers and soldiers."
> ? Allan Rock, Canada's Minister of Justice
> Maclean's "Taking Aim on Guns", 1994 April 25, page 12.
Of course, the quote continues with Mr. Rock saying that after a summer
of meeting members of the firearms community, and taking courses on the
subject, Mr. Rock had changed his mind. Firearms are used for sporting
and recreational purposes.
Its refreshing to hear a politician who admits he can make a mistake,
and learn.
> "... protection of life is NOT a legitimate use for a firearm in this country
> sir! Not! That is expressly ruled out!".
> ? Justice Minister Allan Rock
> "Canadian justice issues, a town hall meeting"
> Producer - Joanne Levy,
> Shaw cable, Calgary (403) 250-2885
> Taped at the Triwood community centre in Calgary, 1994 December.
I was there. And its true. We do not carry firearms (or hopefully
any weapons) in Canada for self protection.
Instead, we try and have safe homes and safe streets so we don't have to.
...
> "Keep in mind that the Charter of Rights and Freedoms does not suggest for a
> minute that any of the rights therein are absolute,"
> - Anne McLellan, Minister of Justice
> The Kingston Whig-Standard, October 16, 2001
She is a law professor, and would know this. Its quite true.
jen...@homacjen.ab.ca
>> > Having arrived in Canada in 1995 I have to say that the newspapers in
>> > Edmonton do not support your theories.
>> > There has been a substantial increase in gun related crimes, whether this is
>> > because of the criminals knowledge that the victim can no longer carry or
>> > the fact that criminals ignore gun laws I don't know.
>>
>> There has been very little change in the laws since 1980. Firearms
>> licences were required to obtain guns for years (called FACs until
>> recently). The only real change to the Firearms Act was to require
>> registration of firearms. This is only just coming into effect.
>>
>> What you would have to compare is not having a regulatory regime,
>> compared to having one.
>
> For *two* years previous to 1980, if that much. And just becaues it's been
> "required for years" doesn't mean it is "right" - it was wrong and unjusified
> then, and it still is now.
If I understand you correctly, you agree with the point which I made --
that firearms laws have not changed significantly since 1980 or so.
> Licencing and registration has not been shown to be the least bit effective in
> reducing crimes with guns, and actually prevents people from getting guns when
> they have need of them.
We disagree on this point.
jen...@homacjen.ab.ca
>
> <jen...@homacjen.ab.ca> wrote in message
>> In can.politics Norman <N...@dealwithit.com> wrote:
>> My reasons would include requiring firearms owners to have a certain
>> amount of education and in particular, informing them of requirements
>> for the safe use and storage of firearms,
>
> Was already in force with the old FAC.
This is true. To this extent, the new firearms licence is simply
the old FAC, with a more appropriate name.
>> screening them to ensure that
>> they do not have a propensity to violence on an initial and ongoing
>> basis (the latter to have licences and firearms removed from those who
>> subsequently become dangerous),
>
> Was also in place with the old FAC
Initial screening was also present.
However, the failure of the old FAC was that they were issued locally,
valid throughout the country, but without a national database. So a
licence issued in Cornerbrook, Nfld. was valid in Calgary. However,
if the holder was convicted of a serious violent criminal offence
in Calgary, he would be prohibited from owing firearms, and the
justice system would rely on the honour system to have the person
surrender the FAC.
This is the big change with licences under the Firearms Act, a national
database. And its what cost so much, putting the various databases and
paper records all across the country together.
>> and providing a licence which is required
>> for the purchase of firearms and ammunition.
>
> Was also in place with the old FAC.
True.
Like I said, the changes in licences under the Firearms Act are quite
minor, only having to do with creating a national database to make
licences enforcable.
>> Similar to my driver's licence, except designed for firearms rather than
>> for guns. In some ways the provisions are more onerous, others are
>> less.
>
> So why do you support the draconian measures of the new laws when the old
> fitted your needs?
There simply are no draconian measures.
The other change is that people are required to register all firearms, and
not just restricted and prohibited ones. This allows the system to
ensure that firearms are actually not transferred to people without
licences, and to take them away from people who's licences have been
revoked.
jen...@homacjen.ab.ca
> jen...@homacjen.ab.ca wrote:
>>
>> In can.politics Bruce Mills <aki...@sprint.ca> wrote:
>> > jen...@homacjen.ab.ca wrote:
>>
>> >> No. I am not encouraging (and actually oppose) things like imprisoning
>> >> people to prevent them from committing crimes. However, I do support
>> >> modest things like licencing of firearm owners.
>>
>> > But that is "malum prohibitum", Stephen - it is against the law because it is
>> > against the law, not because it is "malum per se">
>>
>> Somethings, like murder, are criminal just because they are.
>>
>> But they are pretty rare.
>
> Really? I can think of several: theft, assault, extortion, fraud, theft,
> trespass, kidnapping, threatening - and that's without really thinking about
> it. If you add up all the subcategories these encompass, you've got quite a
> mass of laws.
But really, they are pretty rare. Most offences do not fall into this
category.
> All of these are "malum per se" becaues they infringe upon someone else's
> rights. They all entail the use of force against another, against their will.
>
> That should be the *only* measure by which laws are enacted.
I suppose, and that would take away most criminal offences, and all
regulatory offences.
I don't think we would be better off to that.
>> And that doesn't mean we don't do harm prevention. Just like we prohibit
>> impaired driving, which is similarly "malum prohibitum".
>
> I would dispute that "harm prevention" should be the responsibility of the law.
> That turns the police and the courts into "baby sitters" and not keepers of the
> peace.
>
> And I would disagree in principle with inpaired driving laws. Unless someone
> was obviously driving dangerously while intoxicated should they be stopped.
But even being dangerously intoxicated would not meet your criteria for
an offence.
jen...@homacjen.ab.ca
>> > Then why do cities like LA, NYC, DC, and Chicago, *all* of which have strict gun
>> > control laws, if not outright prohibitions, have vastly greater crime rates than
>> > Toronto?
>>
>> I don't know the firearms laws in any of these jurisdictions.
>
> Then you must be living under a rock.
>
> How can you argue comparisons between Canadian and US cities if you don't even
> have the first clue about what laws they have there?
I know that it is easy in most of the United States to purchase firearms
legally without serious difficulty.
1...@canoemail.com
>
>Compare the firearms crime statistics between any part of Canada and
>any similar US jurisdiction. Especially compare our big cities,
>for example Toronto with any similarly sized US city.
Why not compare North Dakota with Saskatchewan, Or Minisota with
Ontario?
WHy not Compare rural Michigan with urban Michigan?
Why not compare rural Alberta with Rural Ontario?
IF the gun laws worked the firearms crime rate in downtown Toronto
would be the same as downtown Edmonton, or Nisku...
The firearms crime rate is not the same but the laws are the same.
Tell us how placing restrictions on law abiding handgun owners lowers
the crime rate?
1...@canoemail.com
>In can.politics Bruce Mills <aki...@sprint.ca> wrote:
>
>> "I came to Ottawa in November with the firm belief that the only people in
>> this country who should have guns are police officers and soldiers."
>> ? Allan Rock, Canada's Minister of Justice
>> Maclean's "Taking Aim on Guns", 1994 April 25, page 12.
>
>Of course, the quote continues with Mr. Rock saying that after a summer
>of meeting members of the firearms community, and taking courses on the
>subject, Mr. Rock had changed his mind. Firearms are used for sporting
>and recreational purposes.
>
>Its refreshing to hear a politician who admits he can make a mistake,
>and learn.
Then why didn't Mr. Rock take the ad\vice of the gun clubs consulted
and change the legislation so it was effective???
Mr. Rock also told us the legislation would be scrapped at $150
million dollars. They are way past that, approaching a million and
NOT ONE LIFE HAS BEEN SAVED YET!
1...@canoemail.com
>You're mistaken. It was simply a misnamed firearms licence, valid
>throughout Canada, with no national database to see who had been
>issued them.
Stephen, again you are mistaken. It was a certificate allowing an
individual to take possession of a firearm, not a license.
1...@canoemail.com
>In can.politics Bruce Mills <aki...@sprint.ca> wrote:
>> all? So far you've managed to produce *one* instance where it was.
>>
>> BTW, where is "R. v. Devylder, [2001] A.J. No. 1291" from; I can't find it on
>> the Alberta Court database.
>
>I did a quick search using quicklaw, a gave you the first case which
>came up.
>
>Its one of those routine things that happens every day.
>
Refering to the four year mandatory sentence for using a firearm in
the commission of a crime??
YOU LIE STEPHEN!
Name three other times this additonal sentence has been used in
Canada.
1...@canoemail.com
>No. I am not encouraging (and actually oppose) things like imprisoning
>people to prevent them from committing crimes. However, I do support
>modest things like licencing of firearm owners.
Tell us how licensing a firearms owner will stop a criminal from
commiting crimes.
1...@canoemail.com
>In can.politics Norman <N...@dealwithit.com> wrote:
>>
>> <jen...@homacjen.ab.ca> wrote in message
>> news:0coe9.270053$v53.14...@news3.calgary.shaw.ca...
>> However, I do support
>>> modest things like licencing of firearm owners.
>>
>> Why do you support the licencing of firearm owners?
>> Should that licence, in your opinion, be of the same scope as, say, one's
>> driving licence?
>
>My reasons would include requiring firearms owners to have a certain
>amount of education and in particular, informing them of requirements
>for the safe use and storage of firearms, screening them to ensure that
>they do not have a propensity to violence on an initial and ongoing
>basis (the latter to have licences and firearms removed from those who
>subsequently become dangerous), and providing a licence which is required
>for the purchase of firearms and ammunition.
>
>Similar to my driver's licence, except designed for firearms rather than
>for guns. In some ways the provisions are more onerous, others are
>less.
You don't face a criminal charge for letting your drivers license
expire. You don't loose your right to own automobiles for driving
without a license.
Your automoble isn't forfeit to the crown when you let your drivers
license lapse....
No not too onerous....
1...@canoemail.com
>This is true. To this extent, the new firearms licence is simply
>the old FAC, with a more appropriate name.
This is a lie Stephen. The old F.A.C. was a certificate to allow a
person to take legal possession of a firearm. You didn't have to
produce your F.A.C. when requested by anyone but a firearms vendor and
you could let your F.A.C. expire and still own firearms.
Let your firearm license lapse and you can face criminal charges.
There is no similarity whatsoever.
Ever had an F.A.C. Stephen?
A firearms license?
What every happened to you showing us how quick and easy it is to get
a firearms license??? What has it been almost three years now???
jen...@homacjen.ab.ca
> You don't face a criminal charge for letting your drivers license
> expire.
Actually, if you let this happen while driving you do. Just like if you
let your licence expire while you continue to possess firearms.
> You don't loose your right to own automobiles for driving
> without a license.
Actually, at least in Alberta, convictions can cause you to forfeit
your licence for a period of time. (it might even be automatic).
Bruce Mills
>
> In can.politics Bruce Mills <aki...@sprint.ca> wrote:
>
> > "I came to Ottawa in November with the firm belief that the only people in
> > this country who should have guns are police officers and soldiers."
> > ? Allan Rock, Canada's Minister of Justice
> > Maclean's "Taking Aim on Guns", 1994 April 25, page 12.
>
> Of course, the quote continues with Mr. Rock saying that after a summer
> of meeting members of the firearms community, and taking courses on the
> subject, Mr. Rock had changed his mind. Firearms are used for sporting
> and recreational purposes.
>
> Its refreshing to hear a politician who admits he can make a mistake,
> and learn.
And, of course, since you've been making this assertion for some years now, you
have the article in question, and can post the relevant sections of the text
that supports your claim, right?
>
> > "... protection of life is NOT a legitimate use for a firearm in this country
> > sir! Not! That is expressly ruled out!".
> > ? Justice Minister Allan Rock
> > "Canadian justice issues, a town hall meeting"
> > Producer - Joanne Levy,
> > Shaw cable, Calgary (403) 250-2885
> > Taped at the Triwood community centre in Calgary, 1994 December.
>
> I was there. And its true. We do not carry firearms (or hopefully
> any weapons) in Canada for self protection.
>
> Instead, we try and have safe homes and safe streets so we don't have to.
"Safety" is an illusion. It cannot be generated by law, or by Government. The
police are not mandated to keep *you* safe. The only person who can keep you
safe is *you*. And without the means to do so at your disposal, you are nothing
more than a victim waiting for a place to happen.
> ...
>
> > "Keep in mind that the Charter of Rights and Freedoms does not suggest for a
> > minute that any of the rights therein are absolute,"
> > - Anne McLellan, Minister of Justice
> > The Kingston Whig-Standard, October 16, 2001
>
> She is a law professor, and would know this. Its quite true.
True or not, it is *WRONG*. If rights are not de facto absolute, they should be
treated as being nearly such by the law and the legislature. The threshold for
infringing upon the rights of the citizens should be so high and hard to meet
that there must be an overwhelming and justifiable need to do so, not just the
ideological whims of some political party, or despotic tyrant.
Norman
<jen...@homacjen.ab.ca> wrote in message
news:ol9f9.294383$Ag2.14...@news2.calgary.shaw.ca...
> In can.talk.guns 1...@canoemail.com wrote:
>
> > You don't face a criminal charge for letting your drivers license
> > expire.
>
> Actually, if you let this happen while driving you do. Just like if you
> let your licence expire while you continue to possess firearms.
Good God Stephen stay focussed.
If I drive with an expired licence I face a fine & possibly the loss of the
right to hold a licence for a time. I am still in possession of my
vehicle(s). If I own (NB own not use) a firearm & allow my firearms licence
to expire I face a fine, loose the right to hold a licence forever & loose
all my firearms whether or not I used them with an expired licence. Surely
you can see the difference?
>
> > You don't loose your right to own automobiles for driving
> > without a license.
>
> Actually, at least in Alberta, convictions can cause you to forfeit
> your licence for a period of time. (it might even be automatic).
He said your automobiles Stephen. The loss of a licence while keeping the
object of that licencence is a slap on the wrist compared to loosing your
possesions as well as your licence.
I am beginning to think that trying to discuss this rationally with you is a
lost cause.
Alex Cunningham
"Norman" <N...@dealwithit.com> wrote in message
news:aEVe9.6163$HO4.6...@newsfeed.slurp.net...
> Was already in force with the old FAC.
>
> screening them to ensure that
> > they do not have a propensity to violence on an initial and ongoing
> > basis (the latter to have licences and firearms removed from those who
> > subsequently become dangerous),
>
> Was also in place with the old FAC
>
>
> Was also in place with the old FAC.
> > less.
>
> So why do you support the draconian measures of the new laws when the old
> fitted your needs?
Norman, I do not wish to appear as a rude interloper in your discussion with
Mr Jenuth. I feel however that you are not fully aware of Mr Jenuthe's "bona
fides"
I have locked horns with Stephen Jenuthe for a few years now in this forum
(can.talk.guns) along with several other people who are advocates of the
freedom to legally own property without fear of government confiscation.
Mr Jenuth who in another capacity is a mucky muck in the Alberta Civil
Rights Association is nothing more than a abject apologist and sycophant of
the Lieberal Party of Canada. He see's nothing wrong in the Lieberal Prime
Minister, coercing a civil servant in his capacity of a manager of a federal
government bank into giving a loan of half a million dollars to a business
associate who was also a friend of the prime minister. An associate who also
had a criminal record for fraud.
You will see over time if you continue your debates with Jenuth that there
is no low step that he will not stoop to in order to blindly support this
abomination of a dictatorial government that we have on our backs. This
activity on his part does not just relate to the firearms act.
--
Cheers.
Alex C.
There are 12,000,000. sheep in Ontario.
Problem is 9,000,000. of them think they are people.
Bruce Mills
>
> In can.politics Bruce Mills <aki...@sprint.ca> wrote:
> > jen...@homacjen.ab.ca wrote:
> >> In can.politics Norman <N...@dealwithit.com> wrote:
>
> >> > Having arrived in Canada in 1995 I have to say that the newspapers in
> >> > Edmonton do not support your theories.
> >> > There has been a substantial increase in gun related crimes, whether this is
> >> > because of the criminals knowledge that the victim can no longer carry or
> >> > the fact that criminals ignore gun laws I don't know.
> >>
> >> There has been very little change in the laws since 1980. Firearms
> >> licences were required to obtain guns for years (called FACs until
> >> recently). The only real change to the Firearms Act was to require
> >> registration of firearms. This is only just coming into effect.
> >>
> >> What you would have to compare is not having a regulatory regime,
> >> compared to having one.
> >
> > For *two* years previous to 1980, if that much. And just becaues it's been
> > "required for years" doesn't mean it is "right" - it was wrong and unjusified
> > then, and it still is now.
>
> If I understand you correctly, you agree with the point which I made --
> that firearms laws have not changed significantly since 1980 or so.
UH, no. I was disputing your timeframe, not agreeing with your statement.
Sheesh. Talk about putting words in to my mouth. The single biggest, and most
onerous, change in the firearms laws was amking the ownership of firerms against
the law, whereas prior to 1995, it was completely legal to own guns.
>
> > Licencing and registration has not been shown to be the least bit effective in
> > reducing crimes with guns, and actually prevents people from getting guns when
> > they have need of them.
>
> We disagree on this point.
No, you are wrong on this point. There is a difference.
1...@canoemail.com
>In can.talk.guns 1...@canoemail.com wrote:
>
>> You don't face a criminal charge for letting your drivers license
>> expire.
>Actually, if you let this happen while driving you do. Just like if you
>let your licence expire while you continue to possess firearms.
This is a lie Stephen. The automobile is not seized and forfeit to the
crown like firearms are if a license expires.
>> You don't loose your right to own automobiles for driving
>> without a license.
enu...@homacjen.ab.ca wrote:
>Actually, at least in Alberta, convictions can cause you to forfeit
>your licence for a period of time. (it might even be automatic).
How can a person driving without a license have it forfeited???
And the automobile is not forfeit to the crown...
And you still don't loose your right to own automobiles, nor do you
loose any automobiles you do own.
Bruce Mills
>
> In can.politics Norman <N...@dealwithit.com> wrote:
> >
> > <jen...@homacjen.ab.ca> wrote in message
> >> In can.politics Norman <N...@dealwithit.com> wrote:
>
> >> My reasons would include requiring firearms owners to have a certain
> >> amount of education and in particular, informing them of requirements
> >> for the safe use and storage of firearms,
> >
> > Was already in force with the old FAC.
>
> This is true. To this extent, the new firearms licence is simply
> the old FAC, with a more appropriate name.
>
> >> screening them to ensure that
> >> they do not have a propensity to violence on an initial and ongoing
> >> basis (the latter to have licences and firearms removed from those who
> >> subsequently become dangerous),
> >
> > Was also in place with the old FAC
>
> Initial screening was also present.
>
> However, the failure of the old FAC was that they were issued locally,
> valid throughout the country, but without a national database. So a
> licence issued in Cornerbrook, Nfld. was valid in Calgary. However,
> if the holder was convicted of a serious violent criminal offence
> in Calgary, he would be prohibited from owing firearms, and the
> justice system would rely on the honour system to have the person
> surrender the FAC.
Which is why persons who have had prohibition orders put against them, after
having been convicted of a crime, should have *their* houses searched, and
*their* guns and licences seized, and not law abiding citizens who haven't even
been charged with any infraction of the Firearms Act.
> This is the big change with licences under the Firearms Act, a national
> database. And its what cost so much, putting the various databases and
> paper records all across the country together.
So why was Rock so stupid as to say that it would cost $85 million over 5 years
to implement and that he would scrap it if it exceeeeeded $125 million? We're
still waiting for that to happen...
In any case the whole issue of licencing as crime control or prevention is bogus
to begin with. All licencing is is the State telling us that we can't be
trusted with our own property, so they have to "take care of us". For our own
good, of course.
> Like I said, the changes in licences under the Firearms Act are quite
> minor, only having to do with creating a national database to make
> licences enforcable.
Don't forget outlawing the ownership of firearms.
> >> Similar to my driver's licence, except designed for firearms rather than
> >> for guns. In some ways the provisions are more onerous, others are
> >> less.
> >
> > So why do you support the draconian measures of the new laws when the old
> > fitted your needs?
>
> There simply are no draconian measures.
BULLSHIT! BULLSHIT! BULLSHIT! BULLSHIT! BULLSHIT! BULLSHIT! BULLSHIT! BULLSHIT!
A THOUSAND TIMES BULLSHIT!
Just because *YOU* say there aren't doesn't mean that it isn't true. There are
at least 10 major individual civil rights that are contravened by the Firearms
Act, and often several contraventions of the same one, like the right to
privacy.
Intrusive searches and jail sentencece and confiscation of property without
compensation, all for having committed no REAL CRIME against another human being
is DRACONIAN!
This is "malum prohibitum" at its absolute worst. All for Federal Liebeal Party
dogma, all without any kind of substantive justification.
> The other change is that people are required to register all firearms, and
> not just restricted and prohibited ones. This allows the system to
> ensure that firearms are actually not transferred to people without
> licences, and to take them away from people who's licences have been
> revoked.
And allows for the State to confiscate all those firearms from people who are
stupid enough to register them, just like over HALF of all previously legally
owned and registered handguns, prohibited and slated for confiscation without
compensation, at the stroke of a pen, with absolutely no justification other
than Federal Lieberal Political dogma.
Bruce Mills
> >> Somethings, like murder, are criminal just because they are.
> >>
> >> But they are pretty rare.
> >
> > Really? I can think of several: theft, assault, extortion, fraud, theft,
> > trespass, kidnapping, threatening - and that's without really thinking about
> > it. If you add up all the subcategories these encompass, you've got quite a
> > mass of laws.
>
> But really, they are pretty rare. Most offences do not fall into this
> category.
To what offences do you refer, then?
The fact that such "malum per se" offences are rare is no reason to go out and
manufacture other kinds of offences so the criminal justice industry has
something to do...
> > All of these are "malum per se" becaues they infringe upon someone else's
> > rights. They all entail the use of force against another, against their will.
> >
> > That should be the *only* measure by which laws are enacted.
>
> I suppose, and that would take away most criminal offences, and all
> regulatory offences.
Quite likely. But it would depend on what kind of criminal offences you are
referring to.
> I don't think we would be better off to that.
Well, I think we would.
> >> And that doesn't mean we don't do harm prevention. Just like we prohibit
> >> impaired driving, which is similarly "malum prohibitum".
> >
> > I would dispute that "harm prevention" should be the responsibility of the law.
> > That turns the police and the courts into "baby sitters" and not keepers of the
> > peace.
> >
> > And I would disagree in principle with inpaired driving laws. Unless someone
> > was obviously driving dangerously while intoxicated should they be stopped.
>
> But even being dangerously intoxicated would not meet your criteria for
> an offence.
Not if they aren't driving, no.
If they are "dangerously intoxicated", then they are going to be driving
"dangerously", by definition, aren't they? Dangerous driving is already an
offence, isn't it? If they aren't "driving dangerously" then they aren't a
danger, are they?
Charge and convict people for what they actually *do*, not for what they *might*
do.
Simple, isn't it?
Bruce Mills
>
> In can.politics Bruce Mills <aki...@sprint.ca> wrote:
> > jen...@homacjen.ab.ca wrote:
>
> >> > Then why do cities like LA, NYC, DC, and Chicago, *all* of which have strict gun
> >> > control laws, if not outright prohibitions, have vastly greater crime rates than
> >> > Toronto?
> >>
> >> I don't know the firearms laws in any of these jurisdictions.
> >
> > Then you must be living under a rock.
> >
> > How can you argue comparisons between Canadian and US cities if you don't even
> > have the first clue about what laws they have there?
>
> I know that it is easy in most of the United States to purchase firearms
> legally without serious difficulty.
Then I'm sure you're aware that there are some 20,000 (or is it 200,000) Federal
laws regarding firearms ownership? And that doesn't include any State laws?
Bruce Mills
>
> In can.talk.guns 1...@canoemail.com wrote:
>
> > You don't face a criminal charge for letting your drivers license
> > expire.
>
> Actually, if you let this happen while driving you do. Just like if you
> let your licence expire while you continue to possess firearms.
A *criminal* charge, Stephen? Really? Which section of the Criminal Code does
this fall under?
> > You don't loose your right to own automobiles for driving
> > without a license.
>
> Actually, at least in Alberta, convictions can cause you to forfeit
> your licence for a period of time. (it might even be automatic).
You obviously are having a comprehension problem, Stephen:
He said "lose your right to OWN AUTOMOBILES", not "forfeit your licence".
Either you are being deliberately obtuse, or you are lying.
Freedom Party of Ontario
> The BNA (Canada) Act reserves the right to charge a fee for a license
> or registration of property to the provinces.....NOT the federal
> government
But surely the constitutional law issue is not whether the federal
Parliament/goverment can charge a fee, but whether it can, in effect,
require a province to raise a revenue for a federal purpose.
The political issue is relevant too: even if the law permits the
federal government in effect to require the province to raise a
revenue for a federal purpose, SHOULD the provincial government raise
that revenue/pay for that federal purpose? One must always remember
that the provincial and federal legislatures (and governments) are
sovereign within their own spheres: neither has the legal authority to
force the other to exercise discretion one way or another.
Alex Cunningham
>
> I am beginning to think that trying to discuss this rationally with you is
a
> lost cause.
I did try to warn you. :-)
Alex Cunningham
"> > jen...@homacjen.ab.ca wrote:
I don't know the firearms laws in any of these jurisdictions.
> > >Bruce Mills" <aki...@sprint.ca> wrote in message
> > > Then you must be living under a rock.
From under which he slithers on a regular basis to post his sycophantic
Lieberal party line on behalf of his darling but corrupt Prime Minister and
his equally corrupt performing seals in the House of Commons.
The man knows no shame.
As a so called champion of civil liberties, he is a disgrace.
Taurus Excretum as usual from you eh Stephen?
Norman
> jen...@homacjen.ab.ca wrote:
> >
> > In can.politics Bruce Mills <aki...@sprint.ca> wrote:
> >
> > > Then why do cities like LA, NYC, DC, and Chicago, *all* of which have
strict gun
> > > control laws, if not outright prohibitions, have vastly greater crime
rates than
> > > Toronto?
> >
>
Was that meant to be punny Bruce :-)
DeSpam
"> > jen...@homacjen.ab.ca wrote: I don't know the firearms laws in any of these jurisdictions.Bruce Mills" <aki...@sprint.ca> wrote in message Then you must be living under a rock.
Umm, as a "liberal" supporter, I do think Stephen "dost protest too much"....to post his sycophantic Lieberal party line on behalf of his darling but corrupt Prime Minister and his equally corrupt performing seals in the House of Commons.
Face it Stephen, for taking the liberty to get insubordinate with gun owners,
for "taking liberties" with the private property of Canadians, for corrupting
the judiciary, to the point where judges are held in the same level of
esteem as used car salesmen, the Liberal Party has pretty much
unceremoniously dumped the P.M.
As a "liberal" supporter, I hope the Liberal Party also dumps
some of the measures which have triggered such grievances
as the above documented ones. Just because the other parties
have the I.Q. of roaches doesn't mean people won't turn
away from the Liberal Party if forced/ dared/ insulted into
doing so...
1...@canoemail.com
Ontario) wrote:
Excellent questions. Thank you!
jen...@homacjen.ab.ca
> Sheesh. Talk about putting words in to my mouth. The single biggest, and most
> onerous, change in the firearms laws was amking the ownership of firerms against
> the law, whereas prior to 1995, it was completely legal to own guns.
Ownership of a firearm is not against the law.
>> > Licencing and registration has not been shown to be the least bit effective in
>> > reducing crimes with guns, and actually prevents people from getting guns when
>> > they have need of them.
>>
>> We disagree on this point.
>
> No, you are wrong on this point. There is a difference.
We also disagree on your omnipotence.
jen...@homacjen.ab.ca
> Which is why persons who have had prohibition orders put against them, after
> having been convicted of a crime, should have *their* houses searched, and
> *their* guns and licences seized, and not law abiding citizens who haven't even
> been charged with any infraction of the Firearms Act.
Without even getting into the idea of an actual search for such a reason,
don't you think it would be a huge waste of money to search people's
houses when they don't even have a gun, have never had a gun, and have
no intention to have a gun.
And even then, it wouldn't help when a person moves his gun to somewhere
else.
jen...@homacjen.ab.ca
> On Mon, 09 Sep 2002 22:33:56 GMT, j
>>In can.talk.guns 1...@canoemail.com wrote:
>>
>>> You don't face a criminal charge for letting your drivers license
>>> expire.
> enu...@homacjen.ab.ca wrote:
>
>>Actually, if you let this happen while driving you do. Just like if you
>>let your licence expire while you continue to possess firearms.
>
> This is a lie Stephen. The automobile is not seized and forfeit to the
> crown like firearms are if a license expires.
You automobile would not be forfeited, but if you continue to drive after
your licence expires you could be facing a charge. Just like of you
continue to possess a firearm after your licence expires.
>>> You don't loose your right to own automobiles for driving
>>> without a license.
>>Actually, at least in Alberta, convictions can cause you to forfeit
>>your licence for a period of time. (it might even be automatic).
And you are not allowed to drive.
> How can a person driving without a license have it forfeited???
You may have your right to apply suspended for a period of time.
jen...@homacjen.ab.ca
>> The BNA (Canada) Act reserves the right to charge a fee for a license
>> or registration of property to the provinces.....NOT the federal
>> government
No, the Constitution Act, 1867, reserves the right to charge a fee for a
_provincial_ purpose to the province. Nothing specific is said about
the raising of money be a licence fee for federal purposes, which is
what firearms registration is. However, is is specifically mentioned
that the federal government may raise money by any method of taxation.
> But surely the constitutional law issue is not whether the federal
> Parliament/goverment can charge a fee, but whether it can, in effect,
> require a province to raise a revenue for a federal purpose.
It seems pretty clear to me that provinces can only raise money for
their own purposes. The federal government can raise money for
any purpose, including paying those to the provinces (which they do).
But nothing in the firearms act requires the province to raise money
for the federal government.
> The political issue is relevant too: even if the law permits the
> federal government in effect to require the province to raise a
> revenue for a federal purpose, SHOULD the provincial government raise
> that revenue/pay for that federal purpose? One must always remember
> that the provincial and federal legislatures (and governments) are
> sovereign within their own spheres: neither has the legal authority to
> force the other to exercise discretion one way or another.
The first question is not engaged by this. And the second is true,
both provincial and federal governments are sovereign.
jen...@homacjen.ab.ca
> How can you argue comparisons between Canadian and US cities if you don't even
> have the first clue about what laws they have there?
I'm in Indianapolis right now. Interestingly, I could have bought
a firearm yesterday night at the grocery store. Its a different place.
--
1...@canoemail.com
>In can.politics Bruce Mills <aki...@sprint.ca> wrote:
>> jen...@homacjen.ab.ca wrote:
>
>> Sheesh. Talk about putting words in to my mouth. The single biggest, and most
>> onerous, change in the firearms laws was amking the ownership of firerms against
>> the law, whereas prior to 1995, it was completely legal to own guns.
jen...@homacjen.ab.ca wrote:
>Ownership of a firearm is not against the law.
-
Ownership and possession are diferent. There is nothing in the
legislation that tells us ownership is an offence. However section
91(1) of the criminal code tells us "every person commits an offence
who possesses a firearm..." Then the legislation gives a defence to
the offence. The defence is a license to possess firearms SOLD by the
federal government.
The liegislation confuses ownership, possession, and title.
>>> > Licencing and registration has not been shown to be the least bit effective in
>>> > reducing crimes with guns, and actually prevents people from getting guns when
>>> > they have need of them.
>>>
>>> We disagree on this point.
>>
>> No, you are wrong on this point. There is a difference.
jen...@homacjen.ab.ca wrote:
>We also disagree on your omnipotence.
We don't think you are omnipotent either Stephen, look at all of
those cases you have lost (low blow, I know, but...)
1...@canoemail.com
>In can.politics Bruce Mills <aki...@sprint.ca> wrote:
>
>> Which is why persons who have had prohibition orders put against them, after
>> having been convicted of a crime, should have *their* houses searched, and
>> *their* guns and licences seized, and not law abiding citizens who haven't even
>> been charged with any infraction of the Firearms Act.
>
>Without even getting into the idea of an actual search for such a reason,
>don't you think it would be a huge waste of money to search people's
>houses when they don't even have a gun, have never had a gun, and have
>no intention to have a gun.
>
>And even then, it wouldn't help when a person moves his gun to somewhere
>else.
Why inspect or search those houses where people have complied with the
licensinsing an registraiton laws to the letter. It is the firearms
that are held illegally that are of a concern, is it not.
Especially since possibly as many folks didn't bother to get firearms
licenses than did....
1...@canoemail.com
>In can.politics 1...@canoemail.com wrote:
>> On Mon, 09 Sep 2002 22:33:56 GMT, j
>>>In can.talk.guns 1...@canoemail.com wrote:
>>>
>>>> You don't face a criminal charge for letting your drivers license
>>>> expire.
>> enu...@homacjen.ab.ca wrote:
>>
>>>Actually, if you let this happen while driving you do. Just like if you
>>>let your licence expire while you continue to possess firearms.
>>
>> This is a lie Stephen. The automobile is not seized and forfeit to the
>> crown like firearms are if a license expires.
>
>You automobile would not be forfeited, but if you continue to drive after
>your licence expires you could be facing a charge. Just like of you
>continue to possess a firearm after your licence expires.
>
>>>> You don't loose your right to own automobiles for driving
>>>> without a license.
>
>>>Actually, at least in Alberta, convictions can cause you to forfeit
>>>your licence for a period of time. (it might even be automatic).
>
>And you are not allowed to drive.
>
>> How can a person driving without a license have it forfeited???
jen...@homacjen.ab.ca wrote:
>You may have your right to apply suspended for a period of time.
But your right to own your automobile and possess it is not suspended.
You do not face criminal charges that impede your travel out of
Canada.
You do not get a criminal record.
Quit misdirecting Stephen.
Remember too these posts are archived for all time. People do go back
and search them.
1...@canoemail.com
>In can.politics Freedom Party of Ontario <mcke...@ownlife.com> wrote:
>> 1...@canoemail.com wrote:
>
>>> The BNA (Canada) Act reserves the right to charge a fee for a license
>>> or registration of property to the provinces.....NOT the federal
>>> government
>
>No, the Constitution Act, 1867, reserves the right to charge a fee for a
>_provincial_ purpose to the province. Nothing specific is said about
>the raising of money be a licence fee for federal purposes, which is
>what firearms registration is. However, is is specifically mentioned
>that the federal government may raise money by any method of taxation.
Where????? Methinks you misdirect again Stephen. The feds have the
right to place tarrifs on imported goods and that is about all.
Firearms registration is neither a criminal or safety issue. Firearms
not registered are not used in the commission of crimes,
>> But surely the constitutional law issue is not whether the federal
>> Parliament/goverment can charge a fee, but whether it can, in effect,
>> require a province to raise a revenue for a federal purpose.
jen...@homacjen.ab.ca wrote:
>It seems pretty clear to me that provinces can only raise money for
>their own purposes. The federal government can raise money for
>any purpose, including paying those to the provinces (which they do).
Yes the feds can raise money. They just can NOT do it through fees
for registration.
jen...@homacjen.ab.ca wrote:
>But nothing in the firearms act requires the province to raise money
>for the federal government.
Very true. But the firearms act allows the feds to charge a fee for
registering property. Against the premise of the Canada act.
>> The political issue is relevant too: even if the law permits the
>> federal government in effect to require the province to raise a
>> revenue for a federal purpose, SHOULD the provincial government raise
>> that revenue/pay for that federal purpose? One must always remember
>> that the provincial and federal legislatures (and governments) are
>> sovereign within their own spheres: neither has the legal authority to
>> force the other to exercise discretion one way or another.
jen...@homacjen.ab.ca wrote:
>The first question is not engaged by this. And the second is true,
>both provincial and federal governments are sovereign.
So provincial governments had firearms use regulated long before the
feds came along. If both governments are sovereign, how could the
federal legislaiton supplant pre existing provincial legislation????
1...@canoemail.com
>In can.politics Bruce Mills <aki...@sprint.ca> wrote:
>> jen...@homacjen.ab.ca wrote:
>
>> How can you argue comparisons between Canadian and US cities if you don't even
>> have the first clue about what laws they have there?
jen...@homacjen.ab.ca wrote:
>I'm in Indianapolis right now. Interestingly, I could have bought
>a firearm yesterday night at the grocery store. Its a different place.
If you are implying the transaction would be legaly this is an out and
out lie Stephen!
On the same note you can buy a gun illegally just about anywhere in
Canada.
Norman
<1...@canoemail.com> wrote in message
news:3d7f83eb...@news.telusplanet.net...
I have come to realise that Stephen is a master of obfuscation. I have yet
to see him give a straight answer to any question.
jen...@homacjen.ab.ca
> Ownership and possession are diferent. There is nothing in the
> legislation that tells us ownership is an offence. However section
> 91(1) of the criminal code tells us "every person commits an offence
> who possesses a firearm..." Then the legislation gives a defence to
> the offence. The defence is a license to possess firearms SOLD by the
> federal government.
Its really a matter of symantics. I would say that it is an offence
to possess a firearm with a licence.
You would say that it is illegal of possess a firearm and that the licence
is a defence.
I can accept that as long as you agree that it is an offence to drive,
its an offence to sell a hamburger, its an offence to fly an airplane,
its an offence to pay for the flight which I just took to the US, etc.
> The liegislation confuses ownership, possession, and title.
I really don't think that it does anything regarding ownership or title.
>>We also disagree on your omnipotence.
> We don't think you are omnipotent either Stephen, look at all of
> those cases you have lost (low blow, I know, but...)
Lawyers don't make cases. Cases are generally about facts and law.
If people are arguing, then its probably because there are good
arguments on both sides. Someone has to loose.
jen...@homacjen.ab.ca
> On Wed, 11 Sep 2002 16:35:33 GMT, jen...@homacjen.ab.ca wrote:
>>>>> You don't face a criminal charge for letting your drivers license
>>>>> expire.
>>> jen...@homacjen.ab.ca wrote:
>>>
>>>>Actually, if you let this happen while driving you do. Just like if you
>>>>let your licence expire while you continue to possess firearms.
>>>
>>> This is a lie Stephen. The automobile is not seized and forfeit to the
>>> crown like firearms are if a license expires.
>>
>>You automobile would not be forfeited, but if you continue to drive after
>>your licence expires you could be facing a charge. Just like of you
>>continue to possess a firearm after your licence expires.
>>
>>>>> You don't loose your right to own automobiles for driving
>>>>> without a license.
>>
>>>>Actually, at least in Alberta, convictions can cause you to forfeit
>>>>your licence for a period of time. (it might even be automatic).
>>
>>And you are not allowed to drive.
>>
>>> How can a person driving without a license have it forfeited???
>
> jen...@homacjen.ab.ca wrote:
>>You may have your right to apply suspended for a period of time.
>
> But your right to own your automobile and possess it is not suspended.
> You do not face criminal charges that impede your travel out of
> Canada.
> You do not get a criminal record.
> Quit misdirecting Stephen.
>
I don't have I can be accused of redirecting.
After all, what I did was replied to a post which said that it was
no problem if your driver's licence expired. I replied directly
that it was a problem if it expired when you were doing what the
licence authorized you to do.
As far as whether firearms offences would impede you travel out
of Canada, that is not for Canada to say but for the country which
you are going to.
jen...@homacjen.ab.ca
> I have come to realise that Stephen is a master of obfuscation. I have yet
> to see him give a straight answer to any question.
The answers are pretty straight. But they do not agree with the
gun lobby party line.
jen...@homacjen.ab.ca
> jen...@homacjen.ab.ca wrote:
>>I'm in Indianapolis right now. Interestingly, I could have bought
>>a firearm yesterday night at the grocery store. Its a different place.
>
> If you are implying the transaction would be legaly this is an out and
> out lie Stephen!
I didn't check to see how the transaction would go. It seemed to me
that the firearms were open for purchase in the isle next to the
children's toys (which I was looking for). Maybe I would need a licence
to buy the gun. I don't know. Can anyone tell me?
jen...@homacjen.ab.ca
> On Wed, 11 Sep 2002 16:50:17 GMT, jen...@homacjen.ab.ca wrote:
>
>>In can.politics Freedom Party of Ontario <mcke...@ownlife.com> wrote:
>>> 1...@canoemail.com wrote:
>>
>>>> The BNA (Canada) Act reserves the right to charge a fee for a license
>>>> or registration of property to the provinces.....NOT the federal
>>>> government
>>
>>No, the Constitution Act, 1867, reserves the right to charge a fee for a
>>_provincial_ purpose to the province. Nothing specific is said about
>>the raising of money be a licence fee for federal purposes, which is
>>what firearms registration is. However, is is specifically mentioned
>>that the federal government may raise money by any method of taxation.
>
> Where????? Methinks you misdirect again Stephen.
Section 91, class 3 leaves to the federal government the "raising
of money by any method or mode of taxation".
> The feds have the
> right to place tarrifs on imported goods and that is about all.
Clearly they can do that. They can also impose fees for services,
and any other type of taxation including sales taxes, excise taxes,
and income taxes.
> Firearms registration is neither a criminal or safety issue. Firearms
> not registered are not used in the commission of crimes,
But the regulation of firearms has been conclusively determined to
be a part of the criminal law power, and thus is within the competence
of the federal government.
>>> But surely the constitutional law issue is not whether the federal
>>> Parliament/goverment can charge a fee, but whether it can, in effect,
>>> require a province to raise a revenue for a federal purpose.
>
> jen...@homacjen.ab.ca wrote:
>>It seems pretty clear to me that provinces can only raise money for
>>their own purposes. The federal government can raise money for
>>any purpose, including paying those to the provinces (which they do).
> Yes the feds can raise money. They just can NOT do it through fees
> for registration.
There is nothing in the Constitution which limits the power of the
federal government to raise money's by fees.
Provincial governments are limited to fees for provincial, local
and municipal purposes.
> jen...@homacjen.ab.ca wrote:
>>But nothing in the firearms act requires the province to raise money
>>for the federal government.
> Very true. But the firearms act allows the feds to charge a fee for
> registering property. Against the premise of the Canada act.
Nothing wrong with that.
>>> The political issue is relevant too: even if the law permits the
>>> federal government in effect to require the province to raise a
>>> revenue for a federal purpose, SHOULD the provincial government raise
>>> that revenue/pay for that federal purpose? One must always remember
>>> that the provincial and federal legislatures (and governments) are
>>> sovereign within their own spheres: neither has the legal authority to
>>> force the other to exercise discretion one way or another.
>
> jen...@homacjen.ab.ca wrote:
>>The first question is not engaged by this. And the second is true,
>>both provincial and federal governments are sovereign.
> So provincial governments had firearms use regulated long before the
> feds came along. If both governments are sovereign, how could the
> federal legislaiton supplant pre existing provincial legislation????
Where there is an inconsistency between federal and provincial law,
federal law prevails to the extend of the inconsistency. Its pretty
basic constitutional law.
--
1...@canoemail.com
>In can.politics 1...@canoemail.com wrote:
>> jen...@homacjen.ab.ca wrote:
>>>I'm in Indianapolis right now. Interestingly, I could have bought
>>>a firearm yesterday night at the grocery store. Its a different place.
>>
>> If you are implying the transaction would be legaly this is an out and
>> out lie Stephen!
>
>I didn't check to see how the transaction would go. It seemed to me
>that the firearms were open for purchase in the isle next to the
>children's toys (which I was looking for). Maybe I would need a licence
>to buy the gun. I don't know. Can anyone tell me?
There is an "instant check" where the vendor would submit your name to
a U.S. government agency. Because you are Canadian and not a resident
of that state it is very unlikey you would be allowed to take
possession of any firearm you purchased there. You would, at best,
have to have it shipped to a Canadian dealer or to yourself in Canada.
Most vendors are not willing to undergo the onerous paperwork to get
an export license for a firearm.
And then in order to take possession of the gun in Canada, you need to
be in possession of a valid firarms acquisition license (PAL).
Importing the gun without this basic possession license is a crime.
1...@canoemail.com
>In can.politics 1...@canoemail.com wrote:
>
>> Ownership and possession are diferent. There is nothing in the
>> legislation that tells us ownership is an offence. However section
>> 91(1) of the criminal code tells us "every person commits an offence
>> who possesses a firearm..." Then the legislation gives a defence to
>> the offence. The defence is a license to possess firearms SOLD by the
>> federal government.
>
>Its really a matter of symantics. I would say that it is an offence
>to possess a firearm with a licence.
>
>You would say that it is illegal of possess a firearm and that the licence
>is a defence.
>
>I can accept that as long as you agree that it is an offence to drive,
>its an offence to sell a hamburger, its an offence to fly an airplane,
>its an offence to pay for the flight which I just took to the US, etc.
I haven't read the legislation regarding those issues, only the
firearms act.
And you do not loose your car if your drivers license expires, you
still retain legal possession and ownership of said car. You can even
drive the car on private property.
When a firearms license expires you had better NOT be in possession of
a firearm. Pure and simple.
>> The legislation confuses ownership, possession, and title.
jen...@homacjen.ab.ca wrote:
>I really don't think that it does anything regarding ownership or title.
Just your opinion Stephen.
>>>We also disagree on your omnipotence.
>
>> We don't think you are omnipotent either Stephen, look at all of
>> those cases you have lost (low blow, I know, but...)
jen...@homacjen.ab.ca wrote:
>Lawyers don't make cases. Cases are generally about facts and law.
>If people are arguing, then its probably because there are good
>arguments on both sides. Someone has to loose.
In some of the cases I have followed, eg. the Alberta Court Challenge,
the case was decided on very few, if any fact, and just on personal
opinion. There was a great deal of misinformation presented by both
sides in the Alberta Court Challenge. If the facts were presented -
properly- the feds would have lost.
1...@canoemail.com
>In can.politics Norman <N...@dealwithit.com> wrote:
>
>> I have come to realise that Stephen is a master of obfuscation. I have yet
>> to see him give a straight answer to any question.
jen...@homacjen.ab.ca wrote:
>The answers are pretty straight. But they do not agree with the
>gun lobby party line.
The answers given by those who support the firearms act do NOT agree
with the facts.
1...@canoemail.com
>In can.politics 1...@canoemail.com wrote:
>> On Wed, 11 Sep 2002 16:50:17 GMT, jen...@homacjen.ab.ca wrote:
>>
>>>In can.politics Freedom Party of Ontario <mcke...@ownlife.com> wrote:
>>>> 1...@canoemail.com wrote:
>>>
>>>>> The BNA (Canada) Act reserves the right to charge a fee for a license
>>>>> or registration of property to the provinces.....NOT the federal
>>>>> government
>>>
>>>No, the Constitution Act, 1867, reserves the right to charge a fee for a
>>>_provincial_ purpose to the province. Nothing specific is said about
>>>the raising of money be a licence fee for federal purposes, which is
>>>what firearms registration is. However, is is specifically mentioned
>>>that the federal government may raise money by any method of taxation.
>>
>> Where????? Methinks you misdirect again Stephen.
>
>Section 91, class 3 leaves to the federal government the "raising
>of money by any method or mode of taxation".
>
>> The feds have the
>> right to place tarrifs on imported goods and that is about all.
>Clearly they can do that. They can also impose fees for services,
>and any other type of taxation including sales taxes, excise taxes,
>and income taxes.
Clearly the federal government believes it can.
>> Firearms registration is neither a criminal or safety issue. Firearms
>> not registered are not used in the commission of crimes,
>
>But the regulation of firearms has been conclusively determined to
>be a part of the criminal law power, and thus is within the competence
>of the federal government.
Repeating the lie does not make it true. Firearms are rarely used for
crime in Canada. People very rarely die of gunshot wounds in Canada.
And the federal government may not be competent. Look at how the
firearms act is worded, look at the liability placed on legally held
an purchased property with no benefit to Canadains.
Look at the cost of this fiasco.
Explain how the feds can regulate gun ranges and gun clubs when under
92 (16) they are clearly the juridiction of local governments.
16. Generally all Matters of a merely local or private Nature in the
Province.
And this was traditionally regulated by the province.
Bruce Mills
>
> In can.politics Bruce Mills <aki...@sprint.ca> wrote:
> > jen...@homacjen.ab.ca wrote:
>
> > Sheesh. Talk about putting words in to my mouth. The single biggest, and most
> > onerous, change in the firearms laws was amking the ownership of firerms against
> > the law, whereas prior to 1995, it was completely legal to own guns.
>
> Ownership of a firearm is not against the law.
Criminal Code of Canada, Part III
91. (1) Subject to subsections (4) and
(5) and section 98, every person commits an
offence who possesses a firearm,
[snipped government-mandated hoops needed to acquire permission to own a gun]
Where in any previous legislation was it made against the law simply to *own* a
gun, Stephen?
This law has transferred the ownership of firearms from "permitted" status to
"prhibitied" status. It doesn't matter how many hoops are available to you to
jump through, the fact remains that you cannot own a firearm without the State's
permission.
That makes doing so without it illegal.
> >> > Licencing and registration has not been shown to be the least bit effective in
> >> > reducing crimes with guns, and actually prevents people from getting guns when
> >> > they have need of them.
> >>
> >> We disagree on this point.
> >
> > No, you are wrong on this point. There is a difference.
>
> We also disagree on your omnipotence.
So, you are more omnipotent than me? Are you so omnipotent that you can make a
rock that you can't move?
I think you meant "omniscient", which shows where you lie on that scale...
Bruce Mills
>
> In can.politics Bruce Mills <aki...@sprint.ca> wrote:
>
> > Which is why persons who have had prohibition orders put against them, after
> > having been convicted of a crime, should have *their* houses searched, and
> > *their* guns and licences seized, and not law abiding citizens who haven't even
> > been charged with any infraction of the Firearms Act.
>
> Without even getting into the idea of an actual search for such a reason,
> don't you think it would be a huge waste of money to search people's
> houses when they don't even have a gun, have never had a gun, and have
> no intention to have a gun.
And you're just going to take his word on it that he doesn't have one? Aren't
you going to check and make sure?
It would certainly be a damn sight less expensive, not to mention intrusive, to
"inspect" the homes of law-abiding citizens, just because they own certain types
or amounts of property.
> And even then, it wouldn't help when a person moves his gun to somewhere
> else.
And how will the Firearms Act deter this? Do you honestly think that crims will
register their guns, or that everyone will register every gun they own?
Your naivety is showing
Bruce Mills
>
> In can.politics Bruce Mills <aki...@sprint.ca> wrote:
> > jen...@homacjen.ab.ca wrote:
>
> > How can you argue comparisons between Canadian and US cities if you don't even
> > have the first clue about what laws they have there?
>
> I'm in Indianapolis right now. Interestingly, I could have bought
> a firearm yesterday night at the grocery store. Its a different place.
Yeah, it's called "freedom". A concept that is foreign to you, I'm sure.
And Indianapolis is not NYC, DC, LA, or Chicago. What is their crime rate like
there?