Canada's 'NRA' going to be feeling the heat after Moncton . . . .

[{~_~}Раиса]

Canada's version of the g-damn NRA of the U.S. is going to be under
scrutiny, big time, after the Moncton shootings. Here they are . . .
saying that government should be ferreting out "people with mental
issues" instead of examining people with guns.

I'd be really interested in how this would be done, considering they
have pushed their Harper Con government into disallowing even the
registration of many firearms.
Should Canadians all line up at their local mental health clinics to
take tests that would qualify or disqualify them from gun ownership? Or
should gun owners, as well as prospective gun owners, be made to
undertake tests which prove they do not have mental issues.

Hey! I have an idea . . . force all gun owners and prospective gun
owners to REGISTER THEIR FIREARMS, so that police can check to see if
those persons do not have a history of violence or mental issues - or
maybe have a facebook page in which they've proclaimed their hatred for
police, authority, and their right to use their weapons to prevent
anyone attempting to take them away from said person.

Canada . . . we've got some 'adjusting' to do under the next government:
REGISTRATION of all firearms. BACKGROUND CHECKS on all firearms owners
- and sellers. NO ADMITTANCE TO NATIONAL FIREARMS ASSOCIATION LOBBYISTS
signs posted at the Parliament buildings in Ottawa and all MP offices
around the country.
____________________________________________________


CBC News Posted: Jun 07, 2014


Moncton shootings: National Firearms Association response 'premature'


The killing of three RCMP officers in Moncton, N.B., and the capture of
the rifle-toting suspect has stirred emotions across the country and
led, perhaps inevitably, to a renewed discussion about firearms
regulation in Canada.

But anti-gun supporters, as well as a gun advocacy group, are taking
issue with the timing and message of a statement by the National
Firearms Association saying the shootings proved the futility of gun
control.

"I thought it was pretty premature," said Tony Bernardo, executive
director of the Canadian Sport Shooting Association, adding that
discussions about the causes of the Moncton shootings should "not [be]
about gun control."

He said the focus has to be "on identifying people who have mental
health issues."

On Thursday afternoon, while the manhunt for suspect Justin Bourque was
still in progress, the NFA released a statement saying that while it
"deplores the terrible actions by a clearly deranged individual," the
killings demonstrated that "Canada's excessive firearms control system
has failed again."

A number of people on social media reacted negatively. One Twitter user
wrote, "NFA decide to make political statement on gun laws in Canada
before the blood on the streets of Moncton has even dried, stay classy!"

Canadian crime novelist Michael McCann tweeted, "Once the Moncton
situation is resolved, the spotlight must go on the NFA & their
ill-timed, insensitive statement."

Sheldon Clare, president of the NFA, anticipated that the group might be
"pilloried" for the statement. But he said that as soon as the shooting
happened on Wednesday night, his organization started to see comments on
social media about the need for greater gun control — what he called
"a lot of grave-dancing happening from the typical gun-grabbing groups."

Clare also said that a number of politicians mused aloud about the need
to revisit the issue of gun control.

On Thursday afternoon, for example, NDP MP Alexandre Boulerice told the
CBC, "I think that the gun registry was a good idea and maybe we have to
go back to the table and think what kind of rules we should have to
protect people."

Clare called the comments "opportunistic and offensive."

When asked whether the NFA's statement could be construed as equally
opportunistic, Clare said, "I don't see this as taking an opportunistic
stand."

He said the NFA did not take the decision to make a statement lightly.

"We thought, well, we can be criticized for being quiet about this, or
we can be criticized for speaking out and taking a leadership role and
being proactive – and we decided to be proactive and speak up," he said.

"There are millions of Canadian gun owners who didn't do anything bad
yesterday, and they shouldn't have to pay the price for one madman."


'It's too early to have this discussion'

While the NFA felt the need to speak out, some gun control advocates
felt that the timing was indeed premature. When CBC contacted the
Coalition for Gun Control, the organization responded with an email
saying, "The Coalition feels it's too early to have this discussion. We
will not participate at this point."

Blake Brown, author of the book Arming and Disarming: A History of Gun
Control in Canada, said he was "surprised" by the quickness of the NFA's
reaction.

"It did strike me as different from the recent approach taken by the NRA
in the United States, which after Sandy Hook went quiet for a while
until it could figure out what's going on, what its stance should be,"
Brown says.

"But here, the NFA very quickly got out of the gate with a very radical
message."

Brown believes the NFA has been amplifying its language in recent years
to stay relevant since the gutting of the federal long gun registry,
which was implemented by the Liberal government in 1995 and effectively
dismantled by the current government in 2012.

Since the abolishing of the long gun registry, Brown said "the NFA needs
a reason to exist, and the reason now is to push for more rollbacks in
federal gun regulations."

The NFA's Clare said his group feels rollbacks are indeed needed,
because the existing regulations punish law-abiding gun owners by
imposing a large number of restrictions on the purchase and use of firearms.

Bernardo cited the numerous penalties "for seemingly innocuous things."
For example, stopping "for a donut and a coffee on the way to the
[shooting] range" could be a violation of the authorization to transport
a firearm, and carries a mandatory minimum jail term of three years, he
said.


Talk of regulation inevitable

Despite his misgivings about the timing of the NFA statement, Bernardo
said that shooting rampages, which happen more frequently in the U.S.,
always result in finger-pointing at the gun lobby.

"When this kind of thing happens and the immediate talk is, 'Let's put
more regulations on the law-abiding,' you can understand why the NFA
might be feeling a little twitchy here," said Bernardo.

Jennifer Carlson, a sociology professor at the University of Toronto
with an expertise in gun culture, said that given the high emotion
surrounding events like these, it's inevitable that talk will quickly
turn to regulation.

"Part of the reason for why this debate is reproduced ad infinitum in
the U.S. is because shootings have no intrinsic pro-gun or anti-gun
meaning: both sides see them as vindication of their own perspectives,"
said Carlson.

"Unfortunately, it seems like this same deadlock is also at work in Canada."

[Uncle Steve]

Post by {~_~}Раиса
Canada's version of the g-damn NRA of the U.S. is going to be under
scrutiny, big time, after the Moncton shootings. Here they are . . .
saying that government should be ferreting out "people with mental
issues" instead of examining people with guns.
I'd be really interested in how this would be done, considering they
have pushed their Harper Con government into disallowing even the
registration of many firearms.

It's really very simple. All of the electroninc Internet snooping
carried out by Canada's military and spy agencies will be filtered and
scanned to identify those who do not conform to the narrow, and
childish values associated with mainstream media propaganda. On the
basis of insane criterion, certain citizens will be singled out for
special treatment. This is where the RCMP dirty-tricks squads and
their analogous counterparts withinin CSIS and the military will
undertake highly illegal but deniable counter-civilian operations
designed to provoke actionable reactions by those who are illegally
targeted. In this way, activists, dissidents, and intellectuals
opposed to the insane contemporary regime of corrupt police and
politicians will be neutralized.

This is not to say that the whole Five-Eyes intelligence community
will not engage in reciprocal offensive operations along the lines of
what is described above so as to decouple certain hostile actions from
the domestic agencies, who will merely move in on the victims of
hostilities after the harassment and provocation operations have
elicited the desired effect.

Anyone who thinks there aren't enough Useful Idiots employed by or
employed at arms-length from government to prosecute this sort of
warfare against civilians is living in a naive dreamworld.


Regards,

Uncle Steve
--
Do not confuse "duty" with what other people expect of you; they
are utterly different. Duty is a debt you owe to yourself to fifull
obligations you have assumed voluntarily. Paying that debt can entail
anything from years of patient work to instant willingness to die.
Difficult it may be, but the reward is self-respect.
But there is no reward for doing what other people expect of you,
and to do so is not merely difficult, but impossible. It is easier to
deal with a footpad than it is with the leech who wants "just a few
minutes of your time, please -- this won't take long." Time is your
total capital, and the minutes of your life are painfully few. If you
allow yourself to fall into the vice of agreeing to such requests,
they quickly snowball to the point where these parasites will use up
100 percent of your time -- and squawk for more!
So learn to say No -- and be rude about it when necessary.
Otherwise you will not have time to carry out your dity, or to do your
own work, and certainly no time for love and happiness. The termites
will nibble away your life and leave none of it for you.
(This rule does not mean you must not do a favor for a friend, or even
a stranger. But let the choice be /yours/. Don't do it becuause it
is "expected" of you.)
-- R.A.H. in a brief interlude of nominal lucidity and sanity,
but nevertheless evidencing subtle signs of the onset of dementia.

[Chom Noamksy]

Post by {~_~}Раиса
Canada's version of the g-damn NRA of the U.S. is going to be under
scrutiny, big time, after the Moncton shootings. Here they are . . .
saying that government should be ferreting out "people with mental
issues" instead of examining people with guns.
I'd be really interested in how this would be done, considering they
have pushed their Harper Con government into disallowing even the
registration of many firearms.
Should Canadians all line up at their local mental health clinics to
take tests that would qualify or disqualify them from gun ownership? Or
should gun owners, as well as prospective gun owners, be made to
undertake tests which prove they do not have mental issues.
Hey! I have an idea . . . force all gun owners and prospective gun
owners to REGISTER THEIR FIREARMS, so that police can check to see if
those persons do not have a history of violence or mental issues - or
maybe have a facebook page in which they've proclaimed their hatred for
police, authority, and their right to use their weapons to prevent
anyone attempting to take them away from said person.

At some point, Kewen, you're going to have to accept your stinging,
utterly humiliating defeat and give up. The long-gun registry was
political HIV which progressed to full blown AIDS and finally succumbed
to the policy pestilence that it was.

Post by {~_~}Раиса
REGISTRATION of all firearms. BACKGROUND CHECKS on all firearms owners
- and sellers. NO ADMITTANCE TO NATIONAL FIREARMS ASSOCIATION LOBBYISTS
signs posted at the Parliament buildings in Ottawa and all MP offices
around the country.

Or, just ignore noisy womyn like you and carry on, which is precisely
what Canada will do.

[{~_~}Раиса]

Post by Chom Noamksy
At some point, Kewen, you're going to have to accept your stinging,
utterly humiliating defeat and give up. The long-gun registry was
political HIV which progressed to full blown AIDS and finally succumbed
to the policy pestilence that it was.

"What government taketh away, the next government can giveth".
(^o^)

[M.I.Wakefield]

Post by {~_~}Раиса
Hey! I have an idea . . . force all gun owners and prospective gun
owners to REGISTER THEIR FIREARMS, so that police can check to see if
those persons do not have a history of violence or mental issues - or
maybe have a facebook page in which they've proclaimed their hatred for
police, authority, and their right to use their weapons to prevent anyone
attempting to take them away from said person.

Since people who want to legally own firearms already have to go through a
registration and evaluation process before they can get a Possession and
Acquisition Licence, how does that help?

[{~_~}Раиса]

Post by M.I.Wakefield

Post by {~_~}Раиса
Hey! I have an idea . . . force all gun owners and prospective gun
owners to REGISTER THEIR FIREARMS, so that police can check to see if
those persons do not have a history of violence or mental issues - or
maybe have a facebook page in which they've proclaimed their hatred
for police, authority, and their right to use their weapons to prevent
anyone attempting to take them away from said person.

Since people who want to legally own firearms already have to go through
a registration and evaluation process before they can get a Possession
and Acquisition Licence, how does that help?

You've been told this before, and you purposely pretend you don't see
the response.
Do it as much as you want, Dobranski . . . but it doesn't change the
fact that the new Act regarding non-restricted firearms made this
country a whole lot less safe.

The initial purchaser of a firearm should be doing it with a licence,
but if that owner decides to sell it to someone else, or even give it to
someone else, there is no legal requirement for him to check that the
person buying the weapon is: licensed . . . not someone restricted from
owning a firearm . . . is mentally deranged . . . or is a minor.

Therefore, that firearm just went to an unknown person who is also not
required to register it.

Take a look at any of the official sites online that deal with the rules
for 'tranferring' a firearm. There is a key word that you may want to
find with regards the above.
And until you get smarter, you might as well give up arguing this over
and over and over again. Firearms are getting loose in our society
because Harper and his god-damned Cons were bought and paid for by the
National Firearms Association and other gun-hugging lobbyists. No
different than what happened in the U.S. by the NRA.

I hope the heat is on the gun issue big time after Moncton. We need to
kill this monster before it spreads to the size of the pernicious one we
see in the United States.

[M.I.Wakefield]

Post by M.I.Wakefield

Post by {~_~}Раиса
Hey! I have an idea . . . force all gun owners and prospective gun
owners to REGISTER THEIR FIREARMS, so that police can check to see if
those persons do not have a history of violence or mental issues - or
maybe have a facebook page in which they've proclaimed their hatred
for police, authority, and their right to use their weapons to prevent
anyone attempting to take them away from said person.

Since people who want to legally own firearms already have to go through
a registration and evaluation process before they can get a Possession
and Acquisition Licence, how does that help?

You've been told this before, and you purposely pretend you don't see the
response.

Translation: "I got nothin'".

Do it as much as you want, Dobranski

"No, it's always YOU or Schild that take it to this 'identity disclosing'
subject."
- {~_~}Раиса

The initial purchaser of a firearm should be doing it with a licence, but
if that owner decides to sell it to someone else, or even give it to
someone else, there is no legal requirement for him to check that the
person buying the weapon is: licensed . . . not someone restricted from
owning a firearm . . . is mentally deranged . . . or is a minor.
Therefore, that firearm just went to an unknown person who is also not
required to register it.
Take a look at any of the official sites online that deal with the rules
for 'tranferring' a firearm. There is a key word that you may want to
find with regards the above.

From: http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/cfp-pcaf/fs-fd/sell-vendre-eng.htm

Transfers of non-restricted firearms ... can be conducted without
contacting the CFP, as registration is no longer required for this class of
firearm. The transferor is nevertheless required to verify that the
transferee has a valid PAL. The transferor can call the CFP toll-free number
(1-800-731-4000) to confirm the validity of the transferee's licence before
making a sale.


Keyword: "required".


From The Firearms Act

33. Subject to section 34, a person may lend a firearm only if
(a) the person
(i) has reasonable grounds to believe that the borrower holds a licence
authorizing the borrower to possess that kind of firearm, and
(ii) in the case of a prohibited firearm or a restricted firearm, lends
the registration certificate for it to the borrower; or
(b) the borrower uses the firearm under the direct and immediate supervision
of the person in the same manner in which the person may lawfully use it.


Keywords: "reasonable grounds", "direct and immediate supervision".

Delusional rantings snipped.

[{~_~}Раиса]

Post by M.I.Wakefield

Post by {~_~}Раиса
The initial purchaser of a firearm should be doing it with a licence,
but if that owner decides to sell it to someone else, or even give it
to someone else, there is no legal requirement for him to check that
the person buying the weapon is: licensed . . . not someone restricted
from owning a firearm . . . is mentally deranged . . . or is a minor.
Therefore, that firearm just went to an unknown person who is also not
required to register it.
Take a look at any of the official sites online that deal with the
rules for 'tranferring' a firearm. There is a key word that you may
want to find with regards the above.

From: http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/cfp-pcaf/fs-fd/sell-vendre-eng.htm
Transfers of non-restricted firearms ... can be conducted without
contacting the CFP, as registration is no longer required for this class
of firearm. The transferor is nevertheless required to verify that the
transferee has a valid PAL. The transferor can call the CFP toll-free
number (1-800-731-4000) to confirm the validity of the transferee's
licence before making a sale.
Keyword: "required".

Nope. Wrong keyword. "May" and "can" are the keywords.
And here's what they have effectively done to the transfer of firearms
to people who shouldn't have them:

http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/selling-guns-without-mandatory-checks-on-new-owners/

[M.I.Wakefield]

Post by {~_~}Раиса

Post by M.I.Wakefield
From: http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/cfp-pcaf/fs-fd/sell-vendre-eng.htm
Transfers of non-restricted firearms ... can be conducted without
contacting the CFP, as registration is no longer required for this class
of firearm. The transferor is nevertheless required to verify that the
transferee has a valid PAL. The transferor can call the CFP toll-free
number (1-800-731-4000) to confirm the validity of the transferee's
licence before making a sale.
Keyword: "required".

Nope. Wrong keyword. "May" and "can" are the keywords.

Wrong again: "The transferor is nevertheless required to verify ..."

"Required" ... "verify".

[{~_~}Раиса]

Post by M.I.Wakefield

Post by {~_~}Раиса

Post by M.I.Wakefield
From: http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/cfp-pcaf/fs-fd/sell-vendre-eng.htm
Transfers of non-restricted firearms ... can be conducted without
contacting the CFP, as registration is no longer required for this class
of firearm. The transferor is nevertheless required to verify that the
transferee has a valid PAL. The transferor can call the CFP toll-free
number (1-800-731-4000) to confirm the validity of the transferee's
licence before making a sale.
Keyword: "required".

Nope. Wrong keyword. "May" and "can" are the keywords.

Wrong again: "The transferor is nevertheless required to verify ..."
"Required" ... "verify".

Wrong again, Dobranski. Read the Macleans article and get smarter.

[Alan Baker]

Post by {~_~}Раиса

Post by M.I.Wakefield

Post by {~_~}Раиса

Post by M.I.Wakefield
From: http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/cfp-pcaf/fs-fd/sell-vendre-eng.htm
Transfers of non-restricted firearms ... can be conducted without
contacting the CFP, as registration is no longer required for this class
of firearm. The transferor is nevertheless required to verify that the
transferee has a valid PAL. The transferor can call the CFP toll-free
number (1-800-731-4000) to confirm the validity of the transferee's
licence before making a sale.
Keyword: "required".

Nope. Wrong keyword. "May" and "can" are the keywords.

Wrong again: "The transferor is nevertheless required to verify ..."
"Required" ... "verify".

Wrong again, Dobranski. Read the Macleans article and get smarter.

"Transfers of non-restricted firearms (where both residents are outside
Quebec) can be conducted without contacting the CFP, as registration is
no longer required for this class of firearm. The transferor is
nevertheless required to verify that the transferee has a valid PAL.
The transferor can call the CFP toll-free number (1-800-731-4000) to
confirm the validity of the transferee's licence before making a sale."

Let me pick out the salient sentence (and I'll wait while you look up
"salient"):

"The transferor is nevertheless required to verify that the transferee
has a valid PAL."

"required to verify"

Not optional... ...required.

[{~_~}Раиса]

Post by Alan Baker
"The transferor is nevertheless required to verify that the transferee
has a valid PAL."
"required to verify"
Not optional... ...required.

NOT mandatory . . . optional.

I forgot - you do selective reading don't you, 'Baker'? The Act and the
section 2.2.2 clearly says 'may'. And the article in Macleans clearly
describes why it's an issue.

However, Bill C-19 goes far beyond simply repealing elements of C-68,
the 1995 legislation; it actually removes critical measures that have
been in place since 1977. Bill C-19:

Makes verifying a firearms purchaser’s licence voluntary, which
increases the chances unlicensed individuals will be sold rifles and
shotguns.
_____________________________________________

Legislative Summary of Bill C-19: An Act to amend the Criminal Code and
the Firearms Act *

2.2.2 Transferring, Lending, Importing and Exporting Firearms(Clauses 11–18)

Bill C-19 removes the need for a new registration certificate to be
issued upon the transfer of a non-restricted or a non-prohibited firearm
to an individual, and therefore the need for the transferor to inform
the Registrar of Firearms of the transfer (clause 11). However, new
section 23.1 provides that, in the case of a firearm that is neither
restricted nor prohibited, a transferor may request that the Registrar
of Firearms tell the transferor whether the transferee holds and is
still eligible to hold the required licence.
____________________________________________

John Geddes - February 15, 2012 - Macleans

Selling guns without mandatory checks on new owners [UPDATED]

There’s not much point prolonging the argument about the government’s
determination to scrap the registry for rifles and shotguns. But as
Bill C-19, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Firearms Act, comes
up this evening for a final vote in the House—its passage assured by the
Conservative majority—Canadians on both sides of this bitter debate
should consider the practical implications of the outcome.

One important matter is what will now happen when guns are bought and
sold by individuals. After the gun registry’s introduction in 2003, any
transfer of a gun’s ownership had to be approved by the federal firearms
registrar, since the gun changing hands had to be registered by its new
owner.

When the Tories shred the registry, of course, that obligation will
disappear with it.

There will still, thankfully, be mandatory licencing of gun owners. So I
had guessed that an individual selling a gun would, at least, have to
make sure the buyer is duly licenced. When Bill C-19 was tabled last
fall, I looked for this new mechanism, and was surprised to find that
the legislation only stipulates the seller of a gun must have “no reason
to believe” the buyer “is not authorized to acquire and possess that
kind of firearm.”

Why such a weak obligation? Why not specify that the seller must make
sure the buyer has a licence? I’ve asked the Public Safety department
that question and I will post the answer when I get it.
[UPDATED BELOW]

It’s not as if there isn’t an obvious way for a seller to check up on
the buyer. After all, there will still be a federal firearms registrar.
Indeed, the new law says that a seller of a gun “may request”
information from the registrar about whether the prospective buyer
“holds and is still eligible to hold” a gun licence. Again, then, why
not specify that the seller must request that verification?

It seems to me that leaving this up to the discretion of the seller is
an obvious flaw. Public Safety Minister Vic Toews doesn’t see it that
way. When I asked Toews about it at his news conference this morning, he
said, “It is very clear that there is a legal prohibition against the
individual from selling to firearm a person who is not licenced. So that
it would be a criminal breach for the person to do that.”

To me, it seems clear only that I’d be prohibited from selling my rifle
to a person I “have reason to believe” isn’t authorized to buy. But how
exactly would I have reason to believe one way or the other? It’s not as
if I’m obligated to call the registrar and ask.

Toews also said, in exasperated tones, that getting rid of the registry
will not make any difference at all when it comes to buying and selling
guns. His words: “I think many people forget that the registry has
nothing to do with the licencing and the transfer of firearms from a
licenced owner to another licenced owner.”

Actually, the registry fundamentally changed the process of transferring
guns between licenced owners. Licencing includes no mechanism under
which the federal authorities must be alerted to the private sale of a
gun. Their approval became a requirement only when every firearm
required a separate registration certificate, valid only for a given
owner, and thus a new certificate had to be issued when any gun was sold.

That’s not to say licencing has not been a key part of the buying and
selling of registered guns. It’s the licencing of owners—not the
registering of weapons—that involves the most background checks. And the
licence is revoked when a court finds a gun owner to be a public safety
risk. But it was the moment of registration that brought the seller and
buyer into contact with the registrar, who would then check to see if
the buyer’s licence status had changed.

A final, broader observation here. The licencing of gun owners is the
more useful and, frankly, intrusive part of federal gun-control
regulations. It has always seemed to me nonsensical for the
Conservatives to argue that forcing honest duck hunters and farmers to
register their guns is a grievous affront, but requiring them to get an
owner’s licence is entirely benign.

In fact, licencing and registration regulations are closely related and
grew from the same public policy concerns, albeit decades apart. When it
came to the buying and selling of guns, at least, they made sense
together. I don’t see what principle is served by eliminating one while
leaving the other in place. I only see a system made less effective.

UPDATE:

On my question about why sellers aren’t simply required to check on the
prospective buyer’s licence with the firearms registrar, I received an
emailed answer from the media relations officers at the Public Safety
department.^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

It begins: “This government remains committed to reducing the
administrative burdens for law abiding gun owners.” So I take it that
the first and cardinal reason for not making it mandatory for sellers to
check up on buyers is merely to make transferring the gun easier.

The answer goes on to note that a seller might “physically inspect” the
buyer’s licence or might “have personal knowledge” of the buyer’s
licence status. Well, sure. But I think anybody can see that it would be
better to check the system to be certain. Just in case the guy’s been in
court lately or something.

Indeed, the department reminds me that the seller, when in doubt, is
supposed to pick up the phone and verify the buyer’s licence with the
RCMP Canadian Firearms Program: “Bill C-19 ensures that the transferor
has a legal right to request and receive that information.”

That’s a good thing. So I ask again, Why not make that check mandatory?
Oh, wait—my note from Public Safety reasserts the government’s
reasoning: “We do not support additional burdens placed up law abiding,
licenced gun owners.”^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

It’s not very persuasive. I find it hard to believe even most opponents
of the gun registry would very vigorously object to being asked to pick
up the phone and make a simple inquiry before they go to sell a gun.


http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/selling-guns-without-mandatory-checks-on-new-owners/