Skip to comments.Goodbye and good riddance to long gun registry
Posted on 11/06/2011 3:12:27 AM PST by Clive
One sunny afternoon in early fall, a bunch of my neighbours were standing around watching a sick raccoon die on somebodys front lawn.
In the old pre-gun registry days, someone would have gone home, got a shotgun or .22 and put the poor creature out of its misery.
But, as one said to me, his gun wasnt registered and he didnt want to be seen with it. Someone might call the cops or a cruiser might happen by.
That, in a nutshell, is whats wrong with the gun registry: It makes criminals out of perfectly ordinary people doing nothing wrong, while it makes near-criminals out of those who have registered.
And, in the eyes of Canadas urban elites, Neanderthals out of all of them.
Theres a good reason why the long gun registrys supporters still dont get why it needs to end, with its data destroyed.
Its simple: Their names arent on it.
If your name was on a list that made you look like the next thing to a criminal, youd want it destroyed, too.
And if your name isnt on that list and youre one of the hundreds of thousands who refused to register your weapon, making you a criminal waiting to be caught, youd want it destroyed so in case some future government decides to reinstate it, your absence isnt noticed.
Thanks to the Conservative majority the registrys days are finally numbered, but right to the bitter end the whining continues.
Even as federal legislation to end it passed second reading in the Commons 156-123 (with two Northern Ontario New Democrats voting with the government) and went to committee last week, the registrys defenders were still at it.
The debate was so toxic, youd think this argument had just started.
New Democrat MP Jack Harris said the government is making it easier for dangerous firearms to fall into the wrong hands.
How, exactly, well never know. He didnt say.
When people get up on their feet and they say that no crimes have been prevented by the registry, that is just absolute crap, Interim Liberal Leader Bob Rae told reporters. Lives have been saved.
Which lives, he didnt mention. They never do.
And so it dragged on the same old tired arguments, the same old empty rhetoric backed by no evidence at all.
There was even one last new argument dragged through Parliament: Destroying the data itself is somehow wrong.
Archivists claim it will set a dangerous precedent.
How? By preserving information that was wrongly collected in the first place and is known to be full of errors and omissions? Meanwhile, Quebec wants to use the data to establish its own long gun registry.
The fact remains after all these years, there is still no evidence the long gun registry has prevented one death.
It would not have prevented the infamous Montreal massacre at lEcole Polytechnique to which it was a response.
It didnt stop the Dawson College incident. That weapon was registered.
A similar registry did nothing to prevent the mass slaughter in Norway earlier this year.
Urban elites may mourn its loss but theyre still as wrong as ever. If you cant understand whats wrong with it, perhaps you wont get it when government cuts back your freedom of speech, or bans your favourite food, or controls you in some other way.
You dont miss a freedom until its gone, and then its usually too late.
For people like me, of course, the gun registry has been the gift that keeps on giving, providing column after column for years.
In that sense, Im going to miss it.
It well be very nice when the registry is very very dead and gone.
Does any body kown the statis of the registry now.
Nice to see that NIGHTMARE ending up there. Hopefully it’s the start of a trend.
I live 4 miles from the border and except at the highway checkpoint (for the tourists) it is a non-existent border which is how it should be. We should have an open border with Canada. Not about terrorists, it's about control & money. Locals come & go as they please and rarely even check in. In rural areas, people on both sides are often related; they hunt, visit, fish both sides together and like it that way. Locals don't see any difference on ether side, only the crooks in D.C see a problem with the way it is.
My Canadian friends all have pistol permits for hand guns for bear protection at their EX. Gold Claims. Canadians all buy their guns in USA as they are cheaper and usually unregistered, but they can buy new guns just as easily as we can. They all have this license, like drivers license, no waiting period or call in check when they have the license in their wallet. MOst Canadians I know are just like us and could care less about what their govt has to say about gun control and that's the reality of the situation. Only the liberals worry & fret about guns in Canada.
Only difference I see is that I buy Leupolds, my Canadian friends buy Diavari's, we all just luv Weatherbys, Brownings, Savages, and Winchesters.
At first, I thought they were talking about Jesse Ventura.
Are Francophones more likely to favor gun control?
My Canadian friends are mostly Indians & half breeds, they hate the French for some reason, kinda traditional mindset by the Indians that are in my area.
The long gun registry was aimed at farmers, hunters and sportsmen. It was not aimed at dangerous criminals. That is why Canada’s Conservative government is finally abolishing it.
Canada has gun control. The government bill being passed by Parliament won’t change it.
"[...] Does any body kown the statis of the registry now."Bill C-19 - An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Firearms Act (Short Title - Ending the Long-gun Registry Act) received Second Reading on 2011-11-01 and was referred for study to the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security.
It is interesting that two Northern Ontario NDP members broke party ranks and voted for the Bill.
The bill is passing through the normal stages in a very expeditious manner.
Committee deliberations in the parliamentary system are less dramatic than what we are used to seeing on TV in the US congressional system. Proceedings tend to be business-like and low key with all sides looking for flaws and possible improvements.
The real drama takes place in the full House rather than ib committee. In the House, debate can take on the quality of an argument in a pub. Not so, usually, in committee.
OTOH, there could be more drama than usual in consideration of this Bill because, from the viewpoint of the opposition parties, the government is slaughtering a Sacred Cow.
So do have any idea of a time line as to when it might be done away with.
GUN REGISTRATION IS GUN CONFISCATION (old but good)
The Prospector ^ | 27 December, 2000 | Dean Weingarten
Posted on Sat 16 Oct 2010 10:36:12 AM MST by marktwain
The holy grail of the anti self defense and anti rights special interest groups is gun registration. This is because once your gun is required to be registered, it is in effect, already confiscated. Only a little thought will reveal to you why this is so. The Government will know who has legal possession of each firearm. They will know where the firearm is stored. When physical possession of the gun is desired, they can order you to turn it in. This has happened repeatedly. The historical examples include NAZI Germany, Soviet Russia, Red China, and Cambodia. Recent examples include Kosovo, Great Britian, Australia, New York, and California. Not having possession of the firearm registered to you can be grounds for criminal action. If you have reported the gun stolen, and it is then found in your possession, you can be charged with obstruction of justice.
It is a truism that once all guns are required to be registered, the only people who will legally possess guns will be those who have registered them. If you choose to follow the course of civil disobedience, and not register your firearms, mere possession of an unregistered gun can put you at grave legal risk. Civil disobedience has been the most common course of action in California and Canada, where it has proven impossible to enforce the laws requiring registration. If you choose this course of action, you would now be at the mercy of any informant who discovers that you possess a gun illegally. Children in the public schools are already being trained to tell the police if there is a gun in the house. Doctors are being urged to ask children if there are guns in their home. A warrant was issued in California for a SWAT raid based on the mere picture of people holding unidentified guns which were legal. The picture had been sent to the police by an informant in the film developing company. If you are not on the list of those who have registered, you have become a criminal. If you are forced to use the gun for self defense, you will have committed a serious crime. It will become extremely difficult to train your children in firearms safety or to bring friends or relatives into the gun culture. In a few years, the number of people with personal knowledge of guns will be much smaller. The people who urge gradual or immediate gun registration are attempting cultural genocide of the gun culture.
The common practice, once guns are required to be registered, is to gradually tighten the requirements of registration to reduce the number of gun owners. When the number is low enough to limit effective political action by the members of the gun culture affected, the remaining guns can be confiscated with little effort.
Gun registration has proven to be universally ineffective in reducing crime. In fact, crime is likely to increase because of the transfer of police resources from crime fighting to administer and police the political requirements of the gun registration scheme, and because of the reduced number of people willing or able to use their firearms for self defense. Self defense is never acknowledged by the anti rights special interest groups because it trumps their arguments for disarming the people. The primary purpose of gun registration has always been to reduce the political power of the people rather than reduce the crime rate.
The current attempt at requiring gun registration started in 1968, when congress required gun dealers to obtain a federal license, and purchasers of guns from federally licensed dealers were required to fill out a form 4473 to take possession. Congress forbid the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms from constructing any national gun registration list from this data, although a registration scheme of purchasers of more than one handgun within a week has been kept on the grounds that it was started before the congressional action forbidding such, and is therefore “grandfathered”. In 1994, Congress passed the Brady bill, which required handgun purchasers to undergo an instant check or a five day wait to purchase a handgun. While parts of this act were ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court, a little known part of the bill went into effect in 1998, requiring all purchasers of firearms from licensed dealers to undergo an “instant check” before taking possession. Two safeguards had been built into the bill to insure that it would not be used to develop a national registration of firearms. First, the FBI was forbidden to keep any records of instant checks that allow purchase. Second, the instant checks only applied to dealers, not to private sales. Since any gun owner could sell their firearm whenever they wished, without government permission, no registration list could effectively be developed, and effective gun confiscation was prevented.
During the last year, both of these safeguards have been under attack. The FBI has refused to immediately destroy the instant check information, although required to do so by law. Recently a three judge panel in Washington, D. C. has voted two to one to uphold their ability to do so. Both judges voting for gun registration are Clinton appointees. The Clinton administration has been vociferously promoting the elimination of the other safeguard, private sales, which they call the “gun show loophole”. Once private parties are forbidden from selling guns without government permission, it is only a matter of time before all guns and gun owners who are not registered are illegal.
I find particularly troubling the emphasis during the last decade on guns that are seldom used in crime, but are quite useful in military service. The same people who stated that they were only interested in limiting handguns, now call for limiting the ownership of military style rifles. Many models of guns which are almost never used in crime, are now illegal for people to own in some locations. The latest outrageous attempt to remove power from the people is to place severe restrictions on the sale of .50 caliber rifles. The authors of this bill don’t even claim that these guns are used in crime. They want to ban them because they have a military purpose! The clearest reason for the Second Amendment to the Constitution is to insure that the people retain a large measure of military power, to balance the power of the government. The republic is in grave danger when congressmen openly state that they fear military power in the hands of the people.
The only purpose of gun registration is gun confiscation, whether it is done individually and piecemeal, as the legal requirements to own a gun become more and more difficult, or en mass, when the government feels the necessity to disarm its citizens in order to further its control.
Governments that push for gun registration distrust their people, and have earned the people’s distrust.
The bill has to go through three readings in the House of Commons and three readings in the Senate. Then it goes to the Governor General for Royal Assent.
The tough part is getting it through the Commons. The Canadian Senate is appointed, and will not vote down government legislation, though they might slow it down a bit.
The last step, Royal Assent, is pro forma. The Queen (or in this case the Governor General) must follow the advice of the Prime Minister. The PM will advise the GG to sign the bill.
Us Americans seem to think the Canadians have to keep their guns at storage facilities and pick them up when they go hunting. The Canadians I know have all the same guns we do, including semi-autos & pistols; they seem to think gun control in Canada has softened and has become a law that is not really enforced where they live. They tell me that it's different back east in Ontario & Quebec.
I don't live in Calif, I live in a very conservative state that refuses to enforce many federal laws, so we still retain more freedoms; at least it works that way on the everyday level.
If your Canuck buddies buy firearms in the States then they open themselves up for trouble.
A “Verfier” may show up at his door and demand to see firearm, no warrant required. Failure to allow entry into his home and he violates the law.
This is STILL part of the law, so are licensees, for ANY firearm and crossbows.
The birg”repeal” was a meager timid babystep. Laughable by most of us in the know.
“One sunny afternoon in early fall, a bunch of my neighbours were standing around watching a sick raccoon die on somebodys front lawn.
In the old pre-gun registry days, someone would have gone home, got a shotgun or .22 and put the poor creature out of its misery.”
In the new post gun-registry days, THAT IS STILL ILLEGAL !
You can shoot within 400 meters of a dwelling even if a burglar is trying to kill you.
* You CANNOT *
THAT IS STILL ILLEGAL
I’m from old pre registry days , can’t find any reference to a 400 meter rule in Ontario and given the Toronto Sun is in Ontario , we’ll take our chances and put the poor creature out of its misery anyway.
Might vary from Province to Province.
Nevertheless, if you try protect you or your property or are hunting and discharge a firearm close to a dwelling, you become the criminal.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.