Petition
- Thread starter kevind
- Start date
- Status
Sotally Tober
Well-Known Member
Just an FYI- make sure you are not breaking the law.
https://nationalpost.com/news/liber...g-owners-unknowingly-on-wrong-side-of-the-law
https://nationalpost.com/news/liber...g-owners-unknowingly-on-wrong-side-of-the-law
IronNoggin
Well-Known Member
Petition closing in on 224,000...
Related Peer Reviewed & Published Canadian Study:
Effect of firearms legislation on suicide and homicide in Canada
No beneficial association was found between legislation and female or male homicide rates. There was no association found with firearm prevalence rates per province and provincial suicide rates, but an increased association with suicide rates was found with rates of low income, increased unemployment, and the percentage of aboriginals in the population. In conclusion, firearms legislation had no associated beneficial effect on overall suicide and homicide rates. Prevalence of firearms ownership was not associated with suicide rates. Multifaceted strategies to reduce mortality associated with firearms may be required such as steps to reduce youth gang membership and violence, community-based suicide prevention programs, and outreach to groups for which access to care may be a particular issue, such as Aboriginals.
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0234457
Related Peer Reviewed & Published Canadian Study:
Effect of firearms legislation on suicide and homicide in Canada
No beneficial association was found between legislation and female or male homicide rates. There was no association found with firearm prevalence rates per province and provincial suicide rates, but an increased association with suicide rates was found with rates of low income, increased unemployment, and the percentage of aboriginals in the population. In conclusion, firearms legislation had no associated beneficial effect on overall suicide and homicide rates. Prevalence of firearms ownership was not associated with suicide rates. Multifaceted strategies to reduce mortality associated with firearms may be required such as steps to reduce youth gang membership and violence, community-based suicide prevention programs, and outreach to groups for which access to care may be a particular issue, such as Aboriginals.
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0234457
IronNoggin
Well-Known Member
Lawsuit against Trudeau's gun grab will move forward
The Justice Centre announced that it will be moving forward in applying to challenge the constitutionality of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau's Cabinet Order of confiscating property that was legally acquired by Canadians, according to the Justice Centre's website.
https://thepostmillennial.com/justice-centre-to-try-and-stop-trudeaus-firearm-confiscation
The Justice Centre announced that it will be moving forward in applying to challenge the constitutionality of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau's Cabinet Order of confiscating property that was legally acquired by Canadians, according to the Justice Centre's website.
https://thepostmillennial.com/justice-centre-to-try-and-stop-trudeaus-firearm-confiscation
IronNoggin
Well-Known Member
Michael A. Loberg
Barrister & Solicitor
Loberg Law
In addition to practicing law in Canada I am also (among other things) a Solicitor of the Senior Courts of England and Wales (presently inactive). With that I am subscribed to the publications of the Law Society of England and Wales. Today they published a piece on the importance of judicial review as a check on the power of the government and its agencies and bodies, which process is under review in that jurisdiction.
Needless to say, I agree that this is a critical tool in ensuring that the government and its bodies use their powers in accordance with the law, and only that way.
This from the article:
"...‘Do not undermine a key route to challenging decisions by public bodies’ was the message from solicitors’ leaders to ministers and to the Independent Review of Administrative Law which will look at a vital component of the ability to check power – judicial review.
“Judicial review exists to determine whether public authorities are acting lawfully, whatever government is in power. It is a pillar of democracy that ensures the laws made by parliament remain supreme, that the state can be held to account and that people can assert their rights,” said Law Society of England and Wales president Simon Davis..."
Judicial review is presently available in Canada, but there is another challenge here: the question of whether the government will fully and fairly participate in judicial reviews of its action.
At present in the case of CCFR v Canada the government has taken the remarkable step of claiming cabinet privilege over the entirety of the materials behind a decision made by Order in Council to ban certain firearms, thereby wholly depriving the Court of the ability to conduct a meaningful judicial review of that decision. The CCFR is applying to the Court to change that result, and because it is now before the Court I will not comment further on that case.
I will say though that in general terms the ability of the Court to act as a check on the use, and potential abuse, of power by a government is critical, especially under a system of government like Canada's, where Orders in Council are assembled in secret and are not known until they are announced. There is no debate in Parliament about them, the Senate does not see them, and no committees of government are consulted in preparing them. The Prime Minister and cabinet simply bypass Parliament and declare what the law is, and that's the end of it. That is a remarkable event in any democracy or democratic republic, especially when it is a matter of substantive law that affects hundreds of thousands of people. That requires checks and balances, and those are in short supply in Canada.
Without an effective judicial review process, there is literally no check on the use of Order in Council powers, absent it going so wrong as to violate the Constitution such that it is struck down in (say) a criminal prosecution. That's not good enough. Removing judicial review as a check on government, or allowing its processes to be undermined, leads to a very dangerous state of affairs.
https://www.lawsociety.org.uk/conta...2020&sc_camp=5C0FE0D28B474F6BA2EE374CB3EE601B
Barrister & Solicitor
Loberg Law
In addition to practicing law in Canada I am also (among other things) a Solicitor of the Senior Courts of England and Wales (presently inactive). With that I am subscribed to the publications of the Law Society of England and Wales. Today they published a piece on the importance of judicial review as a check on the power of the government and its agencies and bodies, which process is under review in that jurisdiction.
Needless to say, I agree that this is a critical tool in ensuring that the government and its bodies use their powers in accordance with the law, and only that way.
This from the article:
"...‘Do not undermine a key route to challenging decisions by public bodies’ was the message from solicitors’ leaders to ministers and to the Independent Review of Administrative Law which will look at a vital component of the ability to check power – judicial review.
“Judicial review exists to determine whether public authorities are acting lawfully, whatever government is in power. It is a pillar of democracy that ensures the laws made by parliament remain supreme, that the state can be held to account and that people can assert their rights,” said Law Society of England and Wales president Simon Davis..."
Judicial review is presently available in Canada, but there is another challenge here: the question of whether the government will fully and fairly participate in judicial reviews of its action.
At present in the case of CCFR v Canada the government has taken the remarkable step of claiming cabinet privilege over the entirety of the materials behind a decision made by Order in Council to ban certain firearms, thereby wholly depriving the Court of the ability to conduct a meaningful judicial review of that decision. The CCFR is applying to the Court to change that result, and because it is now before the Court I will not comment further on that case.
I will say though that in general terms the ability of the Court to act as a check on the use, and potential abuse, of power by a government is critical, especially under a system of government like Canada's, where Orders in Council are assembled in secret and are not known until they are announced. There is no debate in Parliament about them, the Senate does not see them, and no committees of government are consulted in preparing them. The Prime Minister and cabinet simply bypass Parliament and declare what the law is, and that's the end of it. That is a remarkable event in any democracy or democratic republic, especially when it is a matter of substantive law that affects hundreds of thousands of people. That requires checks and balances, and those are in short supply in Canada.
Without an effective judicial review process, there is literally no check on the use of Order in Council powers, absent it going so wrong as to violate the Constitution such that it is struck down in (say) a criminal prosecution. That's not good enough. Removing judicial review as a check on government, or allowing its processes to be undermined, leads to a very dangerous state of affairs.
https://www.lawsociety.org.uk/conta...2020&sc_camp=5C0FE0D28B474F6BA2EE374CB3EE601B
IronNoggin
Well-Known Member
Record petition in support of gun rights presented before the House of Commons
Record petition in support of gun rights presented before the House of Commons
Conservative Party MP Michelle Rempel Garner presented the largest petition in parliamentary history before the House of Commons on Thursday.
tnc.news
IronNoggin
Well-Known Member
Bill c 21 Petition (new): https://petitions.ourcommons.ca/en/Petition/Sign/e-3201
IronNoggin
Well-Known Member
In an interesting turn of events, Bill Blair recently commissioned a study about banning hunting firearms. Anyone care to guess why?
"Public Safety Minister Bill Blair’s department commissioned pre-election polling on whether to ban hunting rifles and shotguns. More than a third of people favoured a ban, mainly those who were “not very or at all familiar” with firearms regulations.
...
“The objective of this research was to set benchmarks of Canadians’ knowledge of the potential risks they face, their perception of the issue, their current level of understanding as well as their willingness to participate in new government programs,” wrote Environics.
...
Cabinet to date has not proposed any outright ban on rifles, shotguns or handguns. No explanation was given as to why Minister Blair’s department polled the question.
https://www.blacklocks.ca/feds-polled-on-ntl-rifle-ban/
https://westernstandardonline.com/2021/09/ccfr-warns-trudeau-government-coming-for-your-guns/
Wendy Cukier, who is well known for providing advice to Bill Blair, Trudeau and Singh in gun control matters, had this tidbit to opine:
In general we have to be very attentive to the fact that hunting rifles and shotguns in the wrong hands are as lethal or more lethal than the handguns that seem to be attracting all of the attention lately.
Wendy Cukier
"Public Safety Minister Bill Blair’s department commissioned pre-election polling on whether to ban hunting rifles and shotguns. More than a third of people favoured a ban, mainly those who were “not very or at all familiar” with firearms regulations.
...
“The objective of this research was to set benchmarks of Canadians’ knowledge of the potential risks they face, their perception of the issue, their current level of understanding as well as their willingness to participate in new government programs,” wrote Environics.
...
Cabinet to date has not proposed any outright ban on rifles, shotguns or handguns. No explanation was given as to why Minister Blair’s department polled the question.
https://www.blacklocks.ca/feds-polled-on-ntl-rifle-ban/
https://westernstandardonline.com/2021/09/ccfr-warns-trudeau-government-coming-for-your-guns/
Wendy Cukier, who is well known for providing advice to Bill Blair, Trudeau and Singh in gun control matters, had this tidbit to opine:
In general we have to be very attentive to the fact that hunting rifles and shotguns in the wrong hands are as lethal or more lethal than the handguns that seem to be attracting all of the attention lately.
Wendy Cukier
I’m not surprised by this at all. I’m fact it’s already happened in small part. I know someone that has a .460 Weatherby (Africa rifle). That gun is now banned because it produces too much energy. Justin and his cronies are on a mission to appease the clueless urbanites, key word “clueless”
Saxe Point
Well-Known Member
Can you point to the legislation that bans this gun?
ILHG
Crew Member
The list is shorter on guns that haven't been banned. Honestly it's at 1500 models. I am now a criminal in Canada...
Saxe Point
Well-Known Member
That sounds like hyperbole to me. I expect there are more long guns that are permitted than prohibited. But in any event, there must many permitted long guns that will allow a hunter to safely and ethically hunt any animal in Canada?
Guns that generate over 10,000 Joules of energy are banned. Even though you’re more likely to be gored to death by a unicorn than shot by one of these rifles.
Saxe Point
Well-Known Member
Even if that hyperbole was true, but you didn’t answer the question I posed. And I read that the 10000 joule limitation was designed to take 50 calibre rifles out of circulation. Does anyone in Canada need a 50 caliber to hunt animals in this country?
Pretty sure I did answer the question. Guns over 10,000 joules (which includes the .460) are no longer legal. And yes, the .460 can be used to hunt larger critters. When’s the last time someone went on a shooting spree with a .460 Weatherby? When’s the last time on Canadian soil that someone went on a shooting spree with a 25 pound fully rigged out .50 BMG? Not exactly a gangbangers first choice methinks
- Status
Similar threads
