[MrMatt]

Okay, I understand the political value of annoucing gun control in Canada, but they're announcing "new measures" that already exist.

Canada introduces new firearm regulations to ensure gun buyers have valid licence - National | Globalnews.ca

In addition, the legislation expands background checks that would determine eligibility for a firearms licence to a person's entire life, not just the last five years.

globalnews.ca

"Effective May 18, individuals and businesses transferring or selling a non-restricted firearm will need to confirm the recipient’s identity and check the validity of their firearms licence with the registrar beforehand, providing the recipient’s licence number and any other information requested. "

But we've already had this requirement for years.

Buying and selling (transferring) firearms | Royal Canadian Mounted Police

www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca

• Non-restricted
  You do not need to register non-restricted firearms. That means you can transfer a non-restricted firearm without contacting the Canadian Firearms Program (CFP). However, the transferor (seller, giver) must make sure that the transferee (buyer, recipient) has a valid PAL. Call the CFP at 1-800-731-4000 to confirm the validity of the transferee's licence before you transfer the firearm.

Do people in Canada think you can just walk into a store and buy a gun?
To legally sell a gun you must ensure the person you are giving it to has a valid license, it's been this way for years.

I know people in the US think you can. (Hint you can't, you need to pass a background check in both Canada AND the US to buy a gun)

 

[Gator13]

What a complete waste of tax payers money. This will be the second time the Liberals go down the registry path.

 

[Beaver101]

^Reply to post #1: I guess politicians can always find some "work" to do. These aren't "new measures" but closing of loopholes on the existing Bill-71.

Based on article you linked, it specifically says:

... The measures announced Wednesday by Public Safety Minister Marco Mendicino represent the latest steps toward fully implementing Bill C-71, which received royal assent in 2019.

At the time, the government said it would require sellers to verify the validity of a firearms licence before selling a non-restricted firearm, such as a basic rifle or shotgun.

However, proposed regulations published last year included no obligation on the part of a seller to check with the federal firearms registrar to see if a prospective gun buyer had a valid licence _ an omission that sparked criticism from gun-control advocates. ...

... ie. there were "loopholes" all around the regulations and they're now tightening it. Anyhow, I think it's useless if these "new" measures are never enforced. Lip-service typical of politicians (and those who * loves * playing with politics.

I think the bigger problem is illegal handguns that's running amok on our streets - in every city (small and big). What's the solution?

 

[ian]

This is all about the 116 urban seats in Montreal, Toronto, and Vancouver. These seats will decide the next election just as they decided the last election and the one before it.

Each of these cities are having serious issues with shootings.

The politicos believe this will play well with the voters and cause some angst of the CPC leadership candidates. And it will.

 

[Gator13]

^Reply to post #1: I guess politicians can always find some "work" to do. These aren't "new measures" but closing of loopholes on the existing Bill-71.

Based on article you linked, it specifically says:

... ie. there were "loopholes" all around the regulations and they're now tightening it. Anyhow, I think it's useless if these "new" measures are never enforced. Lip-service typical of politicians (and those who * loves * playing with politics.

I think the bigger problem is illegal handguns that's running amok on our streets - in every city (small and big). What's the solution?

There was already regulations in place that required a seller to verify a buyers license. The new regulation go well beyond that requirement and include registration and providing additional personal to the RCMP.

It does nothing to address the illegal movement (smuggling) of firearms. The politicians are too scared to address the real source of the illegal activities.

 

[MrMatt]

There was already regulations in place that required a seller to verify a buyers license. The new regulation go well beyond that requirement and include registration and providing additional personal to the RCMP.

It does nothing to address the illegal movement (smuggling) of firearms. The politicians are too scared to address the real source of the illegal activities.

The thing is they KNOW the problem is illegal guns smuggled from the US.
Even in the US they know the problem is illegal guns.

Law abiding gun owners aren't much of a danger.

 

[sags]

The Liberals want to show the public they are the party of anti-gun violence.

As long as the Conservatives completely dismiss any regulation on guns, the Liberals have the field all to themselves.

 

[MrMatt]

The Liberals want to show the public they are the party of anti-gun violence.

As long as the Conservatives completely dismiss any regulation on guns, the Liberals have the field all to themselves.

What do you mean dismiss any regulation on guns?

Everyone needs to pass a training course, get a license, get regular background checks, agree to warrantless storage inspections, and we have "red flag laws".
Plus you can't have a loaded firearm anywhere except at a shooting range, or while out hunting.

Gun owners actually want proper regulation.

I don't want people who haven't been trained to have a gun. I actually think it would be a good idea to require police and other law enforcement to pass the firearms license test, in addition to their organizations requirements.
I want background checks to maintain your license.

Things I disagree with.
1. Banning guns because of appearance.
2. Restricting law abiding citizens from the peaceful enjoyment of their hobby/sport.

 

[gardner]

But we've already had this requirement for years.

The last change to that RCMP page was a few weeks after C-71 came into force. I don't know if you can see what was changed, but it would not be surprised if it were the C-71 measures. There is a C-71 timeline page:

Former Bill C-71 - What you need to know | Royal Canadian Mounted Police

www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca

From what I can see, it looks like maybe rolling out of the reference number system is new. The Sep 2019 requirement was to call and verify, but it was not clear if the CFP maintained a system for tracking the calls to know that a call had been made and a check actually done, after the fact. There's an automated web service, which is likely new too. As of18-May-2022 the seller gets a receipt for making that check so they can prove that they did it properly -- and, I guess, the RCMP can have reasonable grounds to know that they didn't, if they fail to.

 

[MrMatt]

The last change to that RCMP page was a few weeks after C-71 came into force. I don't know if you can see what was changed, but it would not be surprised if it were the C-71 measures. There is a C-71 timeline page:

Former Bill C-71 - What you need to know | Royal Canadian Mounted Police

www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca

From what I can see, it looks like maybe rolling out of the reference number system is new. The Sep 2019 requirement was to call and verify, but it was not clear if the CFP maintained a system for tracking the calls to know that a call had been made and a check actually done, after the fact. There's an automated web service, which is likely new too. As of18-May-2022 the seller gets a receipt for making that check so they can prove that they did it properly -- and, I guess, the RCMP can have reasonable grounds to know that they didn't, if they fail to.

Yeah, it's really just a back door gun registry.
The thing is a gun registry doesn't actually improve anything.

Lets say I'm called to a situation, I check and they say the registry shows no legal guns at that location.
I still should treat it like there might be a gun there anyway.

Having registry info doesn't change the approach of police.

The only reason to have a list of all the guns is if you want to take away all the guns.

 

[Tostig]

Most every car on the road has been registered. Collisions, injuries and road fatalities are a real problem everywhere. Yet, nobody has ever suggested licensing and registration will eventually lead to confiscation. The only people complaining about stricter traffic enforcement are bad drivers.

 

[MrMatt]

Most every car on the road has been registered. Collisions, injuries and road fatalities are a real problem everywhere. Yet, nobody has ever suggested licensing and registration will eventually lead to confiscation. The only people complaining about stricter traffic enforcement are bad drivers.

You see, you're joining licensing and tracking, they're different.
Gun owners are generally for licensing, and training and stricter enforcement.

But they're fearful of confiscation, because that's literally the plan.
They want to have a shopping list of what guns to get from who.

There is really no other reason for a gun registry, we already track every handgun in the country.
But more than half of all gun homicides were handguns.

Number and percentage of homicide victims, by type of firearm used to commit the homicide, inactive

Number and percentage of homicide victims, by type of firearm used to commit the homicide (total firearms; handgun; rifle or shotgun; fully automatic firearm; sawed-off rifle or shotgun; firearm-like weapons; other firearms, type unknown), Canada, 1974 to 2018.

www150.statcan.gc.ca

How does the registry help? It doesn't.
Really what benefit does the registry have?

Even if they find one of these guns, do you know what they find?
The vast majority of guns used in crime in Canada were smuggled into the country

The problem is criminals, not guns.

 

[KaeJS]

As a gun owner, the gun laws in this country are ridiculous.

The safest, most reliable and trustworthy citizens in this country are the only ones that legally can own them - and yet, they are so severely restricted and constantly battered as omen children.

Guns are safe if all checks have been done (training, licensing, background checks, mental health checks, references, etc.)

 

[andrewf]

The thing is they KNOW the problem is illegal guns smuggled from the US.
Even in the US they know the problem is illegal guns.

Law abiding gun owners aren't much of a danger.

This is kind of the LPC version of mandatory minimum sentencing. Ineffective policy that the government can use to say they are 'doing a thing'.

 

[MrMatt]

This is kind of the LPC version of mandatory minimum sentencing. Ineffective policy that the government can use to say they are 'doing a thing'.

I understand that mandatory minimum sentencing doesn't "work" by some standards, just as consecutive sentencing doesn't "work", but there is a number of factors there.

I don't really support mandatory minimums, but I also don't support serious criminals being let off with limited repercussions and protection of the public.

Mandatory minimums are a poor solution to a problem, but I don't think anyone is really promoting alternatives to our catch and release justice system.

 

[sags]

The gun violence problem is "criminals with guns"....imported guns, legal guns stolen from legal gun owners, or legal guns owned by legal owners who never should have been allowed to have a gun.

Guns should be legal for hunting, protection against predators, target practice, or some other lawful reasons, but the guns don't have to be weapons produced for the military to inflict the most possible damage and casualties.

Anyone needing a semi-automatic weapon to hunt deer or moose.....probably shouldn't be hunting.

There should be stiff penalties for any gun crimes, but that will require much more than just changing a law or two.

When punitive mandatory sentences are the law, accused criminals will not plead guilty and demand a full trial by jury......as is their right.

The Crown would be forced to offer lesser offenses in a plea bargain, because the court system is overtaxed already.

To avoid the public appearance that criminals are "getting off easy" every case would have to go to full trial before a jury. To conduct all those trials would require a massive spending of capital to increase detention holding cells, new courthouses, more Crown prosecutors and court staff.

Criminal cases involving full trials already take several years to conclude.

Anyone found "not guilty" after spending years in a detention center would have their lives ruined and have grounds to sue for compensation.

As usual in most things, it isn't as simple as some would make it out to be.

 

[MrMatt]

The gun violence problem is "criminals with guns"....imported guns, legal guns stolen from legal gun owners, or legal guns owned by legal owners who never should have been allowed to have a gun.

Guns should be legal for hunting, protection against predators, target practice, or some other lawful reasons, but the guns don't have to be weapons produced for the military to inflict the most possible damage and casualties.

Yes, and you can't buy automatic weapons anyway so it's a non issue.
The fact that modern firearms "look" military is because the composite ergonomic designs are simply better.

Older surplus military rifles were simply good quality, and available, that's why there are so many in use
98K's are quite popular, while the Lee Enfields & M1 Garands are also well regarded.

The thing that makes a good hunting rifle is the Exact same thing that makes a good military rifle.
Other military weapons aren't really useful for hunting, which is why we don't use them.

That's why automatic rifles and machineguns are prohibited.

Anyone needing a semi-automatic weapon to hunt deer or moose.....probably shouldn't be hunting.

You don't need one, but it's better, particularly for duck and small game hunting.

There should be stiff penalties for any gun crimes, but that will require much more than just changing a law or two.

Yes, it would require the judges to actually sentence them to the time that the legislation calls for.

When punitive mandatory sentences are the law, accused criminals will not plead guilty and demand a full trial by jury......as is their right.

The Crown would be forced to offer lesser offenses in a plea bargain, because the court system is overtaxed already.

They already do that.

To avoid the public appearance that criminals are "getting off easy" every case would have to go to full trial before a jury. To conduct all those trials would require a massive spending of capital to increase detention holding cells, new courthouses, more Crown prosecutors and court staff.

That's not the problem, even when the jury convicts, the judges still don't sentence them.

Criminal cases involving full trials already take several years to conclude.

Anyone found "not guilty" after spending years in a detention center would have their lives ruined and have grounds to sue for compensation.

As usual in most things, it isn't as simple as some would make it out to be.

They should speed up trials, but there is a HUGE incentive to delay trials, so they do.
They need to adequately fund it so that innocent people aren't held, and also so guilty people dont' get off.
If the defence can delay the trial long enough, they can get their clients off of ANY crime, including murder.

Alberta murder case thrown out over trial delays; experts warn system on verge of collapse | Globalnews.ca

A shortage of judges and legal aid funding is "choking" Alberta’s court system, a defence lawyer said after a judge threw out a first-degree murder case because it took too long to get to trial.

globalnews.ca

 

[HappilyRetired]

Anyone needing a semi-automatic weapon to hunt deer or moose.....probably shouldn't be hunting.

The law is based on rights, not what you decide is a need.

 

[sags]

There is no right to gun ownership in Canada.

With no rights as the starting point of negotiation, people should be thankful they are allowed to own any guns at all.

 

[Gator13]

^ How do you unlike? I DO NOT like the abovei dislike the above.

Figured it out. But happy to leave my post that I dislike the post above.