David Raymond Amos @DavidRayAmos
Replying to @DavidRayAmos @alllibertynews and 49 others
https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/12-gauge-shotguns-firearms-charter-challenge-1.5559402
https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/trudeau-gun-control-measures-ban-1.5552131
Trudeau announces ban on 1,500 types of 'assault-style' firearms — effective immediately
Public safety minister has drafted a list of firearms to be banned — including weapons used in mass shootings
· CBC News · Posted: May 01, 2020 10:58 AM ET
Prime Minister Justin Trudeau listens as a speaker lists Canadian mass shootings during an announcement in Ottawa, Friday May 1, 2020. (Adrian Wyld/The Canadian Press)
Prime Minister Justin Trudeau today announced a ban on some 1,500 makes and models of military-grade "assault-style" weapons in Canada, effective immediately.
Starting today, licensed gun owners will no longer be allowed to sell, transport, import or use these sorts of weapons in this country.
"As of today, the market for assault weapons in Canada is closed," Public Safety Minister Bill Blair said. "Enough is enough. Banning these firearms will save Canadian lives."
Watch: Federal Public Safety Minister Bill Blair on banning assault weapons in Canada:
Federal Public Safety Minister Bill Blair spoke to reporters on Parliament Hill on Friday 3:01
Trudeau said there will be a two-year amnesty period to allow people who already own these firearms to comply with the ban. Trudeau promised to pass legislation in the coming months to provide "fair compensation" to people who own these firearms.
The Liberal Party promised some sort of buyback program in the last election, something that could cost taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars.
The ban will be enacted through regulations approved by an order-in-council from cabinet — not through legislation. Trudeau said the government was ready to enact this campaign promise months ago, before the COVID-19 pandemic disrupted the legislative agenda.
"These weapons were designed for one purpose and one purpose only: to kill the largest number of people in the shortest amount of time," Trudeau said. "There is no use and no place for such weapons in Canada."
While he acknowledged that most firearms owners are law-abiding citizens, he said hunters don't need this sort of firepower.
Watch: Conservative Leader Andrew Scheer reacts to Liberal government's new gun regulations:
'...doing it at a time when Canadians are very concerned about this pandemic, we believe, is completely unacceptable.' 0:43
"You don't need an AR-15 to bring down a deer," he said.
The term "assault-style" has no legal definition in Canada. The Firearms Act also does not currently classify firearms as "military-style" — that term would have to be defined in the new regulations.
Generally speaking, an assault-style weapon is a semi-automatic firearm with an ammunition magazine, built to fire quickly. There is already a legal limit — five rounds — on the maximum size of a magazine.
Criminal sanctions
All Canadians must be in compliance with the law by April 2022, Justice Minister David Lametti said, adding that gun owners who have not disposed of their banned firearms by that point could face sanctions under the Criminal Code.While there is an amnesty period, the firearms cannot be used anywhere as of today. Lametti said firearms owners may return the firearms to the manufacturer or export them as part of a sale between now and 2022.
A government official speaking on background at a technical briefing for journalists said the number of these now-banned firearms currently in circulation is unknown.
There are 105,000 firearms currently classified as "restricted" that will now be classified as "prohibited."
The principal models being prohibited:
- M16, AR-10, AR-15 rifles and M4 carbine
- Ruger Mini-14 rifle
- US Rifle M14
- Vz58 rifle and CZ858 rifle
- Robinson Armament XCR rifle
- CZ Scorpion EVO 3 carbine and pistol
- Beretta Cx4 Storm carbine
- SIG Sauer SIG MCX and SIG Sauer SIG MPX carbines and pistols
- Swiss Arms Classic Green and Four Seasons series rifles
The government official said that, at the end of the two-year amnesty, gun owners must dispose of the firearm or they may be able apply for the firearm to be "grandfathered." Details on the grandfather process would be released at a later date, the official said.
Today's ban does not cover handguns, the weapon of choice for gang members. Blair promised Friday to enact legislation down the line to give municipalities the power to ban these firearms.
"These tragedies reverberate still. They shape our identity, they stain our conscience, they make adults out of children and the heartbreaking truth is they're happening more often than they once did," Trudeau said of such mass shootings.
"Their families deserve more than thoughts and prayers. Canadians deserve more than thoughts and prayers."
Heidi Rathjen is a graduate of École Polytechnique in Montreal — scene of the Montreal massacre of 1989 — and coordinator of Poly Remembers, a gun control group. She applauded the government's ban.
"The Liberal government is finally delivering on its top gun control promise," she said. "The ban is comprehensive. The circulation and use of these weapons will be severely restricted during the two-year amnesty.
"We hope the Trudeau government will display the same political courage when it proceeds with the reform of the current flawed classification system in order to make such a ban permanent."
Coalition for Gun Control president Wendy Cukier said a ban like this has been a long time coming. She said many Canadians have lost their lives to gun violence while the country waited for this sort of prohibition to be enacted.
"It's been a long wait. This is a milestone for Canada and an important step forward. We are counting on all parliamentarians to support a mandatory buy back program and to keep this ban permanent," she said.
Nova Scotia shooter used illegal firearms
The RCMP has confirmed that the Nova Scotia shooter used firearms obtained illegally in Canada and from U.S. sources to carry out his crimes. He was not licensed to own firearms.Eyewitnesses have said he used a number of weapons during his attacks, including some sort of a long-barrelled rifle and a handgun. The RCMP has described at least one of his firearms as an "assault-style" weapon.
A woman pays her respects at a roadside memorial on Portapique Road in Portapique, N.S. on Friday, April 24, 2020. An armed man, who at one point wore a police uniform and drove a mock-up cruiser, went on a murder rampage in Portapique and several other Nova Scotia communities, killing 22 people. (Jonathan Villeneuve/Radio-Canada)
Critics maintain that these sort of bans target licensed gun owners rather than criminals, who often turn to the black market to procure firearms to commit crimes.
Rod Giltaca, CEO of the Canadian Coalition for Firearm Rights, said the firearms community is "devastated" by Friday's development.
"The only people that will lose their guns in this action are licensed gun owners. No criminals will register or turn in a single rifle," he said in a statement. "This move is viewed as entirely political."
Illegal firearms from U.S. sources are used in 70 to 90 per cent of all gun-related crimes.
Conservative Leader Andrew Scheer dismissed the government's ban as "symbolism over substance," saying it does nothing to target smugglers or those who illegally modify firearms.
"Doing this at a time when Canadians are very concerned about this pandemic is completely unacceptable. Now is not the time to make these major policy changes, especially when they've proven so ineffective."
When asked if the government would do more to police the border, Trudeau said other measures were in the works. Blair sidestepped the question when asked about CBC's reporting on the low number of firearms seized at the border.
The M16, M4, AR-10 and AR-15 rifles were used in the Sandy Hook, New Zealand, Las Vegas and Orlando mass shootings. There are an estimated 83,572 of them in Canada.
The Ruger Mini-14, the type of firearm used in the École Polytechnique shooting, is also on the list. There are an estimated 16,859 of them in Canada.
The M14 rifle, used in the Moncton shooting, is also expected to be banned. There are an estimated 5,229 of those in Canada.
The federal government has moved to ban the sale and import of several types of semi-automatic firearms in Canada. (CBC News)
Clarifications
- A graphic of banned firearms in this story has been updated from a previous version to note that the Ruger Mini-14 used in 1989's Ecole Polytechnique shooting was a variant of the one depicted.May 04, 2020 2:31 PM ET
About the Author
CBC's Journalistic Standards and Practices
23145 Comments
Commenting is now closed for this story."Most liked"
David Semple
'Banning these firearms will save Canadian lives'
No, it won't.
George Lewis
Reply to @David Semple:
1. An ineffective "feel good" move that will get some photo ops,.
2. But will have zero effect on criminals. Which equals a zero reduction in gun violence.
3. Innocent people will be hassled/made to feel like criminals. & will not be compensated for the full value of the guns they turn in. Some cost up to $ 5,000
4. & will cost a ridiculous amount of money to buy back guns only to destroy them.
( like The Gun Registry which ended up costing 2 Billion. & saved zero lives. How expensive will buying back these guns really be? Plus the cost of destroying them? We were also told The Gun Registry "wouldn't cost that much".)
1. An ineffective "feel good" move that will get some photo ops,.
2. But will have zero effect on criminals. Which equals a zero reduction in gun violence.
3. Innocent people will be hassled/made to feel like criminals. & will not be compensated for the full value of the guns they turn in. Some cost up to $ 5,000
4. & will cost a ridiculous amount of money to buy back guns only to destroy them.
( like The Gun Registry which ended up costing 2 Billion. & saved zero lives. How expensive will buying back these guns really be? Plus the cost of destroying them? We were also told The Gun Registry "wouldn't cost that much".)
Richard Sharp
Reply to @David Semple:
Your simpleton post deserves this simple question. Prove it, genius.
Your simpleton post deserves this simple question. Prove it, genius.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/new-brunswick/iron-sights-gun-ban-1.5553907
'This hurts a lot:' Ottawa's gun ban leaves N.B. business owner at a loss
Cary Baker said he has about $350,000 worth of stock that he won't be able to sell
· CBC News · Posted: May 03, 2020 12:02 PM AT
Cary Baker said he's left with hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of inventory that he can no longer sell. (Facebook/Cary Baker)
The owner of a firearms business in New Brunswick says a decision to ban some firearms in Canada will hurt him financially.
Cary Baker owns Iron Sights Training Center, in Hanwell, N.B., near Fredericton. He has about $350,000 worth of inventory that he can no longer sell following Prime Minister Justin Trudeau's move to ban some 1,500 makes and models of military-grade "assault-style" firearms.
As of Friday, licensed gun owners will no longer be allowed to sell, transport, import or use these sorts of firearms in Canada.
"This hurts a lot," Baker said. "I set this up as a nice retirement business. I run it legally."
Baker, a retired army major, opened his business in January 2018 by using his pension and investments.
He said the ban impacts up to 60 per cent of his overall sales.
"I have about $150,000 worth of AR-15-style sport carbines that I'm not allowed to sell anymore," Baker said, adding that he also has about $200,000 in accessories for those guns that people will no longer want.
Iron Sights Training Center owner Cary Baker said close to 60 per cent of his sales are impacted by Ottawa's new gun ban. (Facebook/Cary Baker)
"If they can't buy the rifle, they're not going to buy the accessories that go with them," he said.
Baker said his business follows 'the rule of law' when it comes to selling firearms.
"The people that come into my shop that buy these firearms are good Canadians," he said.
Trudeau said there will be a two-year amnesty period to allow people who already own the guns to comply with the ban. Trudeau promised to pass legislation in the coming months to provide "fair compensation" to people who own them.
Baker said he's unsure what's going to happen to the stock he can no longer sell. He's already contacted American suppliers to see if they'll take it back, but so far the answer has been no.
"Honestly, I am at a loss for words. I don't know what options right now I really have, other than to wait this out in the hopes that somehow it'll get reversed."
Baker said he's not holding out too much hope for compensation from Ottawa at this point because a buy-back program would have to go through the House of Commons.
Business impact
But Baker said he's not closing his doors.The other side of his business is geared toward military clothing and survival gear. He hopes that can keep him going.
"Since Day 1 of setting up this business, it's always been an uphill challenge all the time."
"I'm not going to close down," Baker said. "I'm certainly going to have a harder time each month now paying the bills, paying my employees."
About the Author
https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/12-gauge-shotguns-firearms-charter-challenge-1.5559402
Firearms group launches charter challenge of weapons ban as Blair clarifies rules for shotguns
Legal opinion suggested some 10, 12 gauge shotguns could now be banned — Ottawa says that isn't true
· CBC News · Posted: May 07, 2020 12:04 PM ET
A rifle owner checks the sight of his rifle at a hunting camp property in rural Ontario. (Sean Kilpatrick/Canadian Press)
A firearms rights group is launching a constitutional challenge of the government's ban on 'assault-style' weapons, saying the regulatory change threatens a fundamental charter right.
The government banned some 1,500 makes and models of firearms last Friday. The Canadian Coalition for Firearms Rights (CCFR) — citing the Charter of Rights guarantee under section 7 of the right to "life, liberty and security of the person" — said Thursday that prohibition is "fundamentally unjust" because it deprives them of their property.
The CCFR said only litigation can stop the government's "abusive process." It said it has retained a Calgary-based lawyer who specializes in constitutional challenges.
"The government, in an entirely arbitrary and irrational way, has created legislation that will deprive us of our property and our freedom to live as we wish, on pains of incarceration for failing to comply," said Rod Giltaca, CEO and executive director of the CCFR.
The group acknowledged it has "no guarantee of a win," given past legal rulings by the country's top court on firearms. In the 1993 R v. Hasselwander case, the court upheld the constitutionality of the firearms regime which banned automatic firearms.
"Canadians, unlike Americans, do not have a constitutional right to bear arms. Indeed, most Canadians prefer the peace of mind and sense of security derived from the knowledge that the possession of automatic weapons is prohibited," the court said.
Opposition to the firearms ban has been fierce in some circles. A parliamentary e-petition calling on the prime minister to scrap the "firearms confiscation regime" collected more than 115,000 signatures in just over 24 hours. The petition is sponsored by Conservative MP Michelle Rempel Garner.
Michelle Rempel Garner
@MichelleRempel
You’re blocked
You can’t follow or see @MichelleRempel’s Tweets. Learn more
But I can read them in CBC
Our petition to stop the Liberal confiscation plan that does nothing to stop the illegal use or importation of firearms has surpassed 100k signatures in just over 24 hours. petitions.ourcommons.ca/en/Petition/De
May 6, 2020 The constitutional challenge comes a day after Public Safety Minister Bill Blair clarified the rules on shotguns in response to firearms owners flagging what they saw as a gap in the law that could lead to legal troubles for hunters.
Blair said licensed firearm owners will still be allowed to own 10 and 12 gauge shotguns — even if the removal of a 'choke' means the bore diameter of the firearm exceeds 20 mm.
Another firearms rights group, the Canadian Sports Shooting Association, published a legal opinion that suggested the firearms ban enacted last Friday could prohibit popular hunting firearms based on the new size requirements.
An estimated 2 million of these sorts of shotguns are in circulation in Canada.
The bore is the inner diameter of a firearm's barrel.
The Canadian Sports Shooting Association's legal opinion, drafted by Thornhill, Ont. lawyer Edward Burlew, said the removal of a choke — a device added to a firearm to shape how a shot spreads after the trigger is pulled — could make the bore larger than 20 mm.
A firearms owner measures the bore diameter of a shotgun that has an adjustable choke. (CBC News)
"Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and minister Bill Blair looked Canadian gun owners in the eye last Friday and said they would not take guns suitable for hunting away from us. Minister Blair is either too inept to comprehend the scope of his regulation or he lied to the government and Canadians," the CSSA said after releasing the legal opinion.
The CSSA then cautioned retailers against selling these firearms to stay on the right side of the law.
But the government said the legal opinion doesn't reflect how police will be interpreting the new prohibitions. "The expert opinion is wrong," Blair said in the Commons Tuesday.
Earlier today, the @CSSA_CILA issued a statement alleging that our government is banning 12 and 10 gauge shotguns. This is absolutely incorrect and we will be reaching out to them to correct their misunderstanding. (1/2)
May 5, 2020
A spokesperson for Blair confirmed Wednesday that the choke will not be considered when measuring a firearm's bore diameter.
"The regulation introduced on May 1 does not prohibit 10 and 12 gauge shotguns. The regulation for 10 and 12 gauge is based on their standard size, both under 20 mm," the spokesperson said.
"In accordance with acceptable firearms industry standards, the definition for bore diameter explicitly states that is after the chamber, but before the choke in shotguns. Therefore, if the measurement is taken at any other location, it is not a factor that is being considered under amendment 95 of the Regulations."
But the minister's message wasn't well received by the Canadian Sporting Arms and Ammunition Association (CSAAA)
The group said "sophisticated manufacturers and distributors all over the world" are still concerned that the new regulations could render some shotguns prohibited, despite those reassurances from Blair.
"We are not satisfied with a tweet from the minister that everything is OK as the basis for our whole industry's future. There is lots of precedent in [Canadian] law and technical language in legal government documents our industry uses every day that conflicts with this tweeted response," Alison de Groot, the managing director of the CSAAA, told CBC.
"We are a $5.9 billion industry in Canada supporting 48,000 full time equivalent jobs. "So no, a Trump-like tweet is not going to cover it."
About the Author
8753 Comments
Commenting is now closed for this story."Most liked'
Don Cameron
Purely a political wedge issue on the part of Trudeau that will do nothing to reduce gun crime in Canada.
Aaron Morris
Reply to @Len Evans:
You think the ban will do some good? I went out, in good faith, and bought a new rifle that has the same specifications as the ones banned that was not listed so that I may continue to target shoot and do pest disposal on my own property as I always have.
That doesn't change the fact that taking property preemptively because I could commit a crime is completely unjust, especially when licensed firearm owners are actually LESS LIKELY to commit crime than unlicensed firearm owners. That is the sad truth.
The next step is obviously to arrest individuals in high crime areas because they could commit crimes too. Do you support that?
You think the ban will do some good? I went out, in good faith, and bought a new rifle that has the same specifications as the ones banned that was not listed so that I may continue to target shoot and do pest disposal on my own property as I always have.
That doesn't change the fact that taking property preemptively because I could commit a crime is completely unjust, especially when licensed firearm owners are actually LESS LIKELY to commit crime than unlicensed firearm owners. That is the sad truth.
The next step is obviously to arrest individuals in high crime areas because they could commit crimes too. Do you support that?
Neil Turv
Reply to @Aaron Morris:
Facts won't matter, this is a feel good bill to raise the PM's profile and generate popularity. If people were more concerned with facts, it is not hard to look into this and come to the conclusion that it will have a minimal (if any) effect on gun crime in Canada.
If the actual intent was to reduce violent gun crime in Canada it wouldn't be an arbitrary list of scary looking guns, they would focus on background checks and mental health. Our existing gun laws are more than sufficient, any further reduction in gun crime will have to focus on illegally obtained firearms and mental health.
But addressing mental health is tricky, and would take a lot longer, even though it would be more effective.
Facts won't matter, this is a feel good bill to raise the PM's profile and generate popularity. If people were more concerned with facts, it is not hard to look into this and come to the conclusion that it will have a minimal (if any) effect on gun crime in Canada.
If the actual intent was to reduce violent gun crime in Canada it wouldn't be an arbitrary list of scary looking guns, they would focus on background checks and mental health. Our existing gun laws are more than sufficient, any further reduction in gun crime will have to focus on illegally obtained firearms and mental health.
But addressing mental health is tricky, and would take a lot longer, even though it would be more effective.
Rick McCann
I like the idea to take this to court. Forces an explanation and will demonstrate the poor and disinformation that led to this unprecedented OIC.
Called democracy and accountability
Aaron Morris
Reply to @Sandy Gillis:
So you can see that a firearm that has limited utility for reasonable use makes sense to ban, correct?
Yep.
Why do you feel that it is reasonable to ban a firearm that has limited utility for reasonable use?
I don't think that it is reasonable since there's no public health reason to ban people like myself from owning them. I don't pretend to be reasonable though. Today we're fighting to keep any semblance of our historical property "privilege".
Interesting that you focus on these sort of hypotheticals that distract from what IS being banned.
Do you support this new ban that arbitrarily restricts specific semi-automatic rifles from being owned and prohibits collectors items, and horrendously expensive long-range marksmanship rifles? Why/why not?
So you can see that a firearm that has limited utility for reasonable use makes sense to ban, correct?
Yep.
Why do you feel that it is reasonable to ban a firearm that has limited utility for reasonable use?
I don't think that it is reasonable since there's no public health reason to ban people like myself from owning them. I don't pretend to be reasonable though. Today we're fighting to keep any semblance of our historical property "privilege".
Interesting that you focus on these sort of hypotheticals that distract from what IS being banned.
Do you support this new ban that arbitrarily restricts specific semi-automatic rifles from being owned and prohibits collectors items, and horrendously expensive long-range marksmanship rifles? Why/why not?
Sandy Gillis
Reply to @Aaron Morris:
You're contradicting yourself Aaron, you say that it makes sense to ban a firearm that has limited utility for reasonable purposes, but then immediately follow that by saying you don't think it's reasonable to ban any weapons.
I'm not focusing on a hypothetical at all. My point is that we can all see the sense of banning weapons which do not have a reasonable civilian purpose, we just differ on what constitutes a reasonable civilian purpose. I don't think getting some giggles poking holes in paper targets is enough reason to put the public at risk by making firearms with limited utility for hunting, but high utility for crime, available.
I come from a family with a long history of hunting. For a very long time it was a major means of feeding the family, and only in the last few decades has it become more recreational. I'm not one of those urban voters that knows nothing about firearms.
Straw purchasing is a serious problem in this country, as is gun thefts. Having a clean criminal record doesn't mean a person doesn't commit crimes, it just means they haven't been caught committing crimes. Having an abused spouse sign off on a license application is hardly protective as many abused spouses would be terrified of what might happen if their abusive spouse gets denied their license.
The more you can limit access to firearms which are more useful for killing people than anything else, the harder it makes it to get them.
You're contradicting yourself Aaron, you say that it makes sense to ban a firearm that has limited utility for reasonable purposes, but then immediately follow that by saying you don't think it's reasonable to ban any weapons.
I'm not focusing on a hypothetical at all. My point is that we can all see the sense of banning weapons which do not have a reasonable civilian purpose, we just differ on what constitutes a reasonable civilian purpose. I don't think getting some giggles poking holes in paper targets is enough reason to put the public at risk by making firearms with limited utility for hunting, but high utility for crime, available.
I come from a family with a long history of hunting. For a very long time it was a major means of feeding the family, and only in the last few decades has it become more recreational. I'm not one of those urban voters that knows nothing about firearms.
Straw purchasing is a serious problem in this country, as is gun thefts. Having a clean criminal record doesn't mean a person doesn't commit crimes, it just means they haven't been caught committing crimes. Having an abused spouse sign off on a license application is hardly protective as many abused spouses would be terrified of what might happen if their abusive spouse gets denied their license.
The more you can limit access to firearms which are more useful for killing people than anything else, the harder it makes it to get them.
Mike Aronson
Could some anti gun person please define what an assault rifle is? Thought not. Fear propaganda from Liberal PM who really does not know himself. If he would like to explain should be a laugh.
Robert Colpitts
Reply to @Leighton
Wensley: The magazine capacity in Canada is five. They were not
designed to "kill more than one thing at once". Their rate of fire is
exactly the same as any semi-auto sporting rifle, like those on the
market since 1903. High speed? Exactly the same as any other rifle
chambered in .223. And it is not a powerful cartridge, and would not be
used by most hunters for deer hunting, as it is not powerful enough to
ensure humane kills. It is good for coyote sized animals. Yes, they
look like selective fire (full auto) military rifles, but that is the
only thing you got right, the aesthetics. Big deal. You're batting 1
out of 5
Louis Balfour
Reply to @Van Collins:
If you "were in the military and know exactly what these are", you would realize that the public NEVER had access to assault rifles and the firearms that have been banned have no more than an aesthetic similarity to them.
If you "were in the military and know exactly what these are", you would realize that the public NEVER had access to assault rifles and the firearms that have been banned have no more than an aesthetic similarity to them.
Sally Ride
Way too many people on this board will to let Justin be King. No thanks.
Henry Scott
Reply to @Sally Ride: You lost two elections a row. Get over it.
Tony Belmore
Reply to @Sally Ride: And some even think they have a charter right to a firearm.
You don't, FYI
You don't, FYI
Don Cheer
Reply to @Henry Scott:
By the time they do they will have lost 3 elections in a row
By the time they do they will have lost 3 elections in a row
Margeurite Deschamps
Reply to @Sally Ride: And some long for a Trump king!
Allan Campbell
Reply to @Sally Ride:
Way too many who want to carry assault weapons and look like the toy soldiers in the u.s.
Way too many who want to carry assault weapons and look like the toy soldiers in the u.s.
Henry Scott
Reply to @Allan Campbell: Cosplay warriors.
Sally Ride
Reply to @Henry
Scott: it has nothing to do with election results. This guy is drunk
with power with a House minority. Doubtless his Christmas in April vote
buying cheques will cement a majority for him, in the next election,
then look out.
You ain't seen nothin' yet. And of course all taxpayers will foot the bill for his $250 billion largess.
You ain't seen nothin' yet. And of course all taxpayers will foot the bill for his $250 billion largess.
Andrew Brisbane
Reply to @Henry Scott: Too bad the electoral process wasn't changed..
Allan Campbell
Reply to @Sally Ride:
BS...
Sally Ride
Reply to @Allan Campbell: when in doubt use a insult?
No comments:
Post a Comment