Candian long-gun registry elimination bill tabled (presented)

[Atypical Liberal]

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2011/10/25/pol-gun-registry.html

"The Conservative government tabled its bill Tuesday that would not only eliminate the long-gun registry, but all of the information currently contained in it.

The proposed legislation was introduced in the House of Commons by Public Safety Minister Vic Toews, who will hold an event later in the day to talk about the government's latest attempt to kill the registry. He will be joined by Tory MP Candice Hoeppner, whose private member's bill to eliminate the registry failed to pass in the last session of Parliament."

[ileus]

1. Let's hope our neighbors to the North get a little taste of freedom.

[mahigan]

3. Just sayin'

It may come as a surprise to you but most Canadian firearms owners - including this 50 year plus firearms owner and former gunsmith and my friends - do not equate firearms ownership with freedom. That is a peculiarly American conflation only adopted by the far right wing fringe in Canada. It also might come as a surprise to you that most Canadians also aren't interested in freedom lessons from Americans or any one else.

[DrDan]

6. can't say I blame the Canadians one bit - we are not the best of role models in this regard

[rl6214]

10. "freedom lessons"

So rather than accept the encouragement from a neighbor or politely decline you would rather insult him and be a jerk.

Very neighborly.

[mahigan]

14. Not at all

I was simply replying to what I considered a very patronizing comment.

[Atypical Liberal]

13. Then you just aren't paying attention.

It may come as a surprise to you but most Canadian firearms owners - including this 50 year plus firearms owner and former gunsmith and my friends - do not equate firearms ownership with freedom.

Any time you have to get government permission to do something, it is a freedom issue. If you don't recognize this, then you just aren't paying attention.

[DanTex]

15. Even in America, this "guns=freedom" thing is mostly a right-wing phenomenon.

Most Americans, even most US firearm enthusiasts, aren't part of the extremist "gun culture", who spend days and nights fantasizing about the day the Commies take over and the armed citizenry gets to fight back.

And, lecturing other countries about freedom is also mostly a right-wing thing. Things like universal healthcare and rational gun control laws, which have been adopted by pretty much the rest of the industrialized world, are mocked by US conservatives as "anti-freedom". Meanwhile, tens of thousands of Americans die from guns every year, and the consequences of our healthcare system are even worse.

The thing is, most Americans favor policies that more closely resemble those of Canada or Western Europe on many fronts, including healthcare and gun control. While we may not, as a nation, favor a ban on handguns, or a full single-payer healthcare system, polls consistently find majorities of Americans would favor significantly more progressive policies than are currently in place (e.g. public option in healthcare, a national handgun registry). The thing is, right-wing special interests hold a lot of influence in the government, so the policies we get are to the right of public opinion.

[gejohnston]

17. let me rephrase the title for you

Even in the US, this "guns=freedom" thing is mostly a right-wing phenomenon. We are all Americans.

[pipoman]

33. How about pointing me to

"polls consistently find majorities of Americans would favor significantly more progressive policies than are currently in place"?

[Callisto32]

59. The point....

it doesn't matter WHAT the thing is. If you can buy/own/use something that you could not before, by definition you have greater freedom.

Is this really so damn hard?

[iverglas]

64. I can buy codeine over the counter!

I am freeeeeeeer than you.

[Callisto32]

71. When it comes to buying codeine, sure.

Yes, this is an argument from definition. I won't argue with sound logic. Also, thanks for agreeing with me, though I think your misspelled pronouncement is a bit over-broad.

Edit: Actually, I'm not sure. If I wanted codeine, I would buy it. Neither you nor my government could really stop me. I guess we are all as free as we live. I for one live my life like a free person. I do what I want, when I want, for the reasons I want. People leave me alone because I don't harm anybody in the process.

Freedom really is a simple concept, and it has nothing to do with what your local force monopoly "allows" you to do.

[RSillsbee]

34. Which is why you still have some one else's queen on your money

Just Sayin'

[iverglas]

38. "Just Sayin'" ignorant bullshit

But what does one expect, eh?

You've got a slave-owner on some of yours, I believe.

Congratulations.

[RSillsbee]

40. We have a couple of slave owners on ours

but they're our slave owners

[iverglas]

41. snork

Actually, I believe they were born British subjects. As, apparently, was your current President. Unlike my current Prime Minister.

:rofl:

You seem to be labouring under a misconception that you could easily dispel.

The Constitution of CANADA is the instrument that appoints the head of state of Canada.

You got a problem with self-determination?

A lot of us here have no problem with a head of state who shuts the fuck up and stays out of our business and we just go along democratically running our affairs as we please. A nice little symbol, kind of like a musty parchment.

Parliamentary democracies / constitutional monarchies consistently rank highest in the world on scales like the freedom index, etc. etc. Here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=441559&mesg_id=443085

We constitutional monarchies beat you hands down on every important indicator.

We don't want your form of government. You don't want ours (although that's only meaningful if you actually know what ours is, which you plainly don't). Everybody's happy.

Except that you and yours seem to have this deep-seated need to disparage other people's choices. I wonder what that's symptomatic of?

[gejohnston]

56. His dad was born a British subject

and was still one when the President was born.
The President was born in Hawaii. Even if he wasn't, his mother was from Kansas, making him a native born US no matter where he was born. Is the same true of UK colonial subjects or is this some birther bullshit?

[iverglas]

57. you've heard of dual citizenship?

Maybe not ...

[Tuesday Afternoon]

55. my my

aren't you just a ray of sunshine

[iverglas]

58. I certainly thought so!

I'd missed this thread while I was off working or something.

To run across it by accident and see that someone had replied to this garbage:

Let's hope our neighbors to the North get a little taste of freedom.

with such a pithy and perfect put-down -- just made my day, it did!

[DrDan]

2. Lets hope our neighbors to the north demonstrate some rational thought

[dtexdem]

4. If only our idiots to the south would learn from the rational people to the north.

But, no, our idiots have had their brains sucked out by the NRA.

[DrDan]

5. couldn't agree more

they are more advanced in several areas - no doubt about that

[spin]

8. I agree. Canadians learn from their mistakes. That's why the registration system ...

will soon the history.

[iverglas]

43. in point of fact, fewer than 40% of Canadians voted for the far right-wing government

that is shoving this legislation through Parliament against the wishes of all of the opposition parties and the 60+% of the voting electorate that they represent.

Hopefully you will be right, and Canadians will learn from the mistake that a minority of us made when they voted for the Conservative Party.

You did notice that it's the Conservative Party shoving this legislation, right? And it's the centre-right Liberal Party and Green Party and centre-left NDP and Bloc Québécois opposing it?

politicalcompass.org

Canada 2011 Election


US Presidential Election 2008


You are applauding the policy of a government that is equivalent to John McCain.

The far right advancing the gun militant agenda in Canada. And the denizens of the dungeon applauding it. Just another one of those funny little coincidences.

:rofl:

[friendly_iconoclast]

45. But is it as funny as finding common ground with Michael Bloomberg?

Strange how one of the leading lights of the gun control movement has suddenly become an unperson to certain posters.

Then again, perhaps they've realized that a top-down authoritarian remains a top-down authoritarian despite one or two acceptable
political stances.

Kind of like Dick Cheney and his support of marriage equality...

[iverglas]

47. here's the really strange thing

I haven't said a fucking thing about Michael Bloomberg, to my recollection.

And yet here are all these, uh, uninformed foreigners chattering away in praise of the extreme right-wing government that a quirk of the electoral system has saddled Canadians with.

I'd be expecting tea and sympathy from PROGRESSIVES, myself.

Not praise for the ugly rotten corrupt immoral vicious pieces of shit squatting in my Parliament at the moment.

Oh well.

[Remmah2]

51. ZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

nt

[Name removed]

53. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[friendly_iconoclast]

62. I am aware that you've never supported Bloomberg here, and Harper *is* a POS.

I was merely pointing out that even a rotter can hold a good idea now and again, hence the Cheney reference.

Bloomie, despite a good idea or three, remains a "kinder, gentler" plutocrat. At heart, he's another Bismarck.

[iverglas]

63. and the difference is that those aren't stopped clocks

They didn't just randomly come up with one strange thing to be "right" on.

They're right on something that there is widespread agreement on outside their natural habitat.

The opposition to the Canadian firearms registry was fomented from the beginning by the very far right wing, was carried over the years on the strength of the lies of one particular extreme piece of the right wing, and is being given effect in legislation by a particularly ugly manifestation of the right wing.

Yes, there are dissenters on the other side of the aisle. Two NDP MPs have been disciplined internally for breaking ranks, and two others declined to vote on second reading or whichever it was last week. If they break discipline on final reading, what does the party do? Expel two or four members from caucus at the beginning of four long dark years? Not likely.

But would they have broken ranks if they had not faced the agitating and propaganda from the right wing, and been vulnerable to it in their ridings? The NDP has a western contingent of "fiscally left / socially right" voters, the ones who made sure we didn't get a gay party leader a few years ago. So the national party panders to them ... when our current base is actually in Quebec where support for the registry is overwhelming.

NO ONE in Canada on the real left, the progressive left and not just the ones who are NDP in name only, opposes the long-gun registry. It is massively, overwhelmingly supported by ALL progressive elements of Canadian society. Unions -- not just public sector unions, but the autoworkers; women's organizations; university faculty; student unions; ... look at the lists:

http://www.guncontrol.ca/English/Home/Home.htm
http://www.guncontrol.ca/English/Home/Supporters/Supporters.htm

(Maybe if somebody put together a slide show of real victims of firearms violence for the US like you see at the main page there the message might sink in better.)

The victims of campus mass murders aren't demanding guns on campus; they are demanding the gun registry.

It makes me nuts that so much of CGC's stuff is pdf ... but check the Ipsos poll here (October 2010):

http://www.guncontrol.ca/English/Home/News/clioct52010_poll.pdf

The new poll finds that support for the registry is highest in Quebec (81%), followed by Ontario (66%) British Columbia (61%), Atlantic Canada (59%) and Saskatchewan/Manitoba (57%).

In Alberta, the only place where the majority oppose the registry, the public is split — with half (53%) in opposition and the other half (47%) in support.

Here’s what people think of the registry, broken down by their voting intentions:

• Conservative voters: 47% support; 53% oppose.
• Liberal voters: 78% support; 22% oppose.
• NDP voters: 67% support; 33% oppose.
• Bloc Quebecois voters: 88% support; 12% oppose.
• Green party voters: 68% support; 32% oppose.

How clear is that picture?

What it's really about, and you'll recognize this:

Wright said the poll’s message is simple: Canadians strongly support the registry, but there are enough pockets of discontent in places like the West for Harper to use the issue as a “political wedge” and chip away at the NDP’s voter support.

“The Tories are reinforcing their base but they’re not opening it up,” he said. “If anything, what they’re doing is destabilizing other parties and they’re hoping to gain from that advantage.”

And with their less than 40% plurality of the popular vote, they are going to remake Canada in their image.

Will everybody here be applauding when they go after our health care system? Women's reproductive rights? Don't forget that the same piece of shit MP who single-handedly kept the firearms registry fire alive for a decade has repeatedly tried to have legislation passed to do that already.

There is a fence, and there are sides, and everybody where I'm at knows exactly which side gun militants are on.

[RC]

9. I whole hardly agree with you.

Canadians are much saner than us USA'ns.

[Callisto32]

61. "Whole-heartedly?"

[rl6214]

11. It's gonna pass

[rl6214]

22. Our idiots to the south =mexico

[Callisto32]

60. Do you even understand.....

the humor of backing up a call for rational thought with an ad hominem?

[spin]

7. Of course you want this ineffective and costly program to continue ...

because it harasses honest Canadian gun owners and may discourage gun ownership in Canada. You probably would also love to see our government waste money on setting up a similar system in our nation for the same reason.

[Atypical Liberal]

12. Looks like they are. They are spending billions for no reason.

Looks like their registry, which was touted as only costing a couple of million, has now cost over a couple of billion. And they are no doubt finding out that most of the people they are keeping tabs on for long arms don't commit any crimes with their guns.

In the United States, about 300 people are killed every year with rifles. Can you really justify a 2 billion dollar expense trying to prevent the deaths of fewer people than die from hands and feet every year? I'm sure even fewer people are killed with long arms in Canada every year.

[Name removed]

29. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

36. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[AzWorker]

39. making demands

interesting

[iverglas]

44. SUBSTANTIATE

Looks like their registry, which was touted as only costing a couple of million, has now cost over a couple of billion. And they are no doubt finding out that most of the people they are keeping tabs on for long arms don't commit any crimes with their guns.

In the United States, about 300 people are killed every year with rifles. Can you really justify a 2 billion dollar expense trying to prevent the deaths of fewer people than die from hands and feet every year? I'm sure even fewer people are killed with long arms in Canada every year.

YOU have alleged that the Canadian Firearms registry has "cost over a couple of billion".

Prove it.

The statement is false, and I have proved its falsehood at this website repeatedly.

It is a fabrication by an extreme right-wing politician who has admitted that it has no basis in reality, that you have for some reason decided to smear around at Democratic Underground.

I don't ordinarily expect to see the lies told by extreme right-wing piece of shit politicians quoted at this website as if they were fact.

I'm sure you did this entirely innocently, having read this claim somewhere ... well, somewhere so credible that it didn't occur to you to investigate it before repeating it here.

So I'm sure you will want to take this opportunity to withdraw and apologize.

[gejohnston]

16. for the registry supporters,

Do you even know what the law in question entails? It seems not. To the best of my knowledge, the repeal only applies to 1995 law, which includes registering long guns that require a "unrestricted" license. It has nothing to do with the handgun registry and licensing passed in 1934, machine gun registry passed in 1953, licensing scheme (including machine gun ban, but are grandfathered and require a "prohibited" license to own) in 1977.
The only thing that will change is that they will not have to register their skeet shotguns, but will still need a licence to buy it or ammunition for it.


With that in mind, please explain to me how is this sane:
massive cost over runs along with
no evidence of crime prevention
no evidence of it helping solve crimes
allows warrentless searches
most of the provences refuse to enforce it

Would it be more sane to use the money squandered on such theater for things that matter such as more funding for social programs that work and more women's shelters?

Edit to add explanation of 1977 licensing scheme that will remain in place.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Possession_and_Acquisition_Licence

[Hoyt]

18. Canadians and Australians are tough folks, mostly living without guns in public.

A gun registry is a smart idea too -- Sure would stop some of the back alley trafficking of guns and solving a lot of crimes.

Most American gun owners would shit -- and probably stay home -- if we had Canadian, Australian, etc., gun laws.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

19. You think?

Lets see...Canada's registry has cost thousands of times more than expected, has had less than 1% compliance in 10 years and hasnt stopped a single crime.

Maryland's registry has likewise cost billions, had minimal compliance and not solved a single crime.

So, how is it you figure a registry is a good idea?

[Hoyt]

20. Keeps gunners honest. How about their other gun laws?

[We_Have_A_Problem]

21. Gun owners typically are honest

It is criminals who aren't.

Incidentally, are you aware a registry would specifically NOT include criminals and could not be used to capture them? Yep - would be a direct violation of the 5th Amendment - and yes, there is precedence on this.

Thanks for playing though - you're always good for a laugh.

[rl6214]

24. Do you understand anything you read?

"Canada's registry has cost thousands of times more than expected, has had less than 1% compliance in 10 years and hasnt stopped a single crime."

Less than 1% compliance. Less than 1 %

So how again is this keeping anyone honest?

"How about their other gun laws?"
How about their other gun laws what? Keeping criminals honest because we know these are the ones that aren't honest. If they aren't following the laws, how many more laws are we going to enact that the criminals aren't going to follow?

[Hoyt]

25. Apparently they've decided to keep it. I've also read that Canada's health system sucks too.

But, we'd be a lot better off with their system.

Canadians, Australians, and most other civilized countries do fine without allowing most people to pack guns in public. Maybe you guys could learn from that.

[gejohnston]

27. umm no

high cost, most of the provinces refuse to enforce or prosecute violations, endless amnesty period hoping for more compliance. I would not call that keeping it.

[iverglas]

32. do you BELIEVE anytthing you read?

"Canada's registry has cost thousands of times more than expected, has had less than 1% compliance in 10 years and hasnt stopped a single crime."

Less than 1% compliance. Less than 1 %

You actually believed this totally false garbage ...

Amazing. Need a bridge?

[iverglas]

30. OMG, it just gets worser and worser ...

Canada's registry has cost thousands of times more than expected, has had less than 1% compliance in 10 years and hasnt stopped a single crime.

(a) "thousands of times" ... I'm gobsmacked, not just at your nonsense but at the fact that you would want to look so foolish in public

(b) "1% compliance" ... and you just compound it ... is it possible for anyone to BELIEVE this bullshit??

(c) "hasn't stopped a single crime" ... I guess this one comes from that device you have that peers into the alternate timeline ...

One thinks one has seen the most fantabulous crap one could ever see, and then along comes you.

Yes, you do indeed have a problem.

[iverglas]

48. SUBSTANTIATE

Lets see...Canada's registry has cost thousands of times more than expected, has had less than 1% compliance in 10 years and hasnt stopped a single crime.

Mouth, meet money, please.

Or you can just explain why you chose to post these, er, false facts in this forum.

[iverglas]

49. I just happen to have spent the night working on this stuff ...

Lets see...Canada's registry has cost thousands of times more than expected, has had less than 1% compliance in 10 years and hasnt stopped a single crime.

So let's see ... what the truth is. I have it in an open tab right here.

The long guns that are to be deregistered are all "non-restricted firearms", see below.
Restricted firearms include most semi-automatic rifles and all handguns (restricted and registered for decades).
Prohibited firearms are grandfathered things like automatic weapons and non-conforming handguns.

http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/cfp-pcaf/facts-faits/index-eng.htm

Facts and Figures (July - September 2011)

Canadian Firearms Program

Valid Licences as of September 2011

... Total ... 1,886,057

Firearms Registered as of September 2011

Non-restricted firearms 7,137,386
Restricted firearms 528,323
Prohibited firearms 200,285
Total 7,865,994

It is impossible to buy any firearm from a licensed dealer without having the validity of your license to possess firearms verified and without the transfer being registered. The licence has been required for long gun possession since 1995, and registration was required for new sales from 1995 with a longer period allowed for long guns already possessed to be registered.

Canada has a population of roughly 33 MILLION.
There are fewer than 2 MILLION people licensed to possess firearms.
(It is estimated that about 1/4 of households have one or more firearms.)
There are over 7 MILLION non-restricted firearms (long guns) registered.

Does someone actually BELIEVE that this represents ONE PERCENT of the long guns in Canada???

That would mean there were 700 MILLION long guns in Canada, in a population of 33 million.

There aren't half that many long guns in the US. I doubt there are a lot more 1/10 that many, in a population not far off 10 times the size.

Where do people come up with this total and complete fabricated bullshit??

And what possesses them to BELIEVE it??? There's no explanation that could make sense to a rational person.



Now imagine how credible the claim that the registry cost "thousands of times more than expected" is.

:eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes:

[rl6214]

23. "Canadians and Australians are tough folks, mostly living without guns in public."

Yeah, you really see a lot of Americans walking around in public with long guns, DUH.

"Sure would stop some of the back alley trafficking of guns and solving a lot of crimes.

Most American gun owners would shit -- and probably stay home -- if we had Canadian, Australian, etc., gun laws."

These are just flat out stupid statements.

[Hoyt]

26. Canadians, Australians and most civilized countries restrict guns in public. They do fine.

[gejohnston]

28. so do we

and the harshest laws were mostly in the least civilized parts of the country. Or are you saying Vermont is less civilized than Georgia? The Czech Republic is less civilized than Mexico or Brazil?

[iverglas]

31. we don't restrict guns in public

We prohibit them, unless they are being transported from one place to another in accordance with the rules that apply to transportation of firearms.

Unless one counts areas where hunting is permitted, say, as public ...

[TPaine7]

65. Is Wikipedia wrong? (I know they can be.)

The practice of CCW is technically legal in many jurisdictions in Canada; however, in practice, it is often not permitted through the refusal to issue permits. This is the legal situation for Canadians, where an Authorization to Carry (ATC) exists, but the Provincial Chief Firearm Officers have agreed not to issue such licenses. Concealment of the firearm is only permitted if specifically stipulated in the terms of the ATC (thus this would then be a specific class of ATC, specifically an ATC-3 or type 3) and is in practice nearly impossible to obtain.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concealed_carry

Reading this, I would assume that the bar is higher than in New York; I would read it to mean that you would have to be really connected--not just a garden variety billionaire or first rate movie star or mayor's mistress--to get authorization.

[oneshooter]

66. Sounds to me more like Hawaii, they have a CHL system, but is has never been used.

[iverglas]

67. you can read Wikipedia to mean whatever you like

You could try reading the Revised Statutes of Canada and the regulations made under those statutes if you feel like not making an ass out of yourself.

Hell, you could even read one of my numerous posts on the subject in this very forum.

Both Google and your extensive card catalogue seem to have failed you here.

[iverglas]

69. update the card catalogue, now

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x95920

iverglas Donating Member
Thu Dec-16-04 03:21 PM
Response to Reply #10
11. I don't have to


Criminal Code
PART III FIREARMS AND OTHER WEAPONS

Possession Offences

Carrying concealed weapon

90. (1) Every person commits an offence who carries a weapon, a prohibited device or any prohibited ammunition concealed, unless the person is authorized under the Firearms Act to carry it concealed.

Punishment

(2) Every person who commits an offence under subsection (1)

(a) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years; or

(b) is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.


Firearms Act
AUTHORIZED TRANSPORTATION OF FIREARMS

Carrying restricted firearms and pre-February 14, 1995 handguns

20. An individual who holds a licence authorizing the individual to possess restricted firearms or handguns referred to in subsection 12(6) (pre-February 14, 1995 handguns) may be authorized to possess a particular restricted firearm or handgun at a place other than the place at which it is authorized to be possessed if the individual needs the particular restricted firearm or handgun

(a) to protect the life of that individual or of other individuals; or

(b) for use in connection with his or her lawful profession or occupation.


FIREARMS ACT
Authorizations to Carry Restricted Firearms and Certain Handguns Regulations

PART 1
CIRCUMSTANCES IN WHICH AN INDIVIDUAL NEEDS RESTRICTED FIREARMS OR PROHIBITED HANDGUNS FOR THE PURPOSE OF SECTION 20 OF THE ACT

Protection of Life

2. For the purpose of section 20 of the Act, the circumstances in which an individual needs restricted firearms or prohibited handguns to protect the life of that individual or of other individuals are where

(a) the life of that individual, or other individuals, is in imminent danger from one or more other individuals;

(b) police protection is not sufficient in the circumstances; and

(c) the possession of a restricted firearm or prohibited handgun can reasonably be justified for protecting the individual or other individuals from death or grievous bodily harm.

Lawful Profession or Occupation

3. For the purpose of section 20 of the Act, the circumstances in which an individual needs restricted firearms or prohibited handguns for use in connection with his or her lawful profession or occupation are where

(a) the individual's principal activity is the handling, transportation or protection of cash, negotiable instruments or other goods of substantial value, and firearms are required for the purpose of protecting his or her life or the lives of other individuals in the course of that handling, transportation or protection activity;

(b) the individual is working in a remote wilderness area and firearms are required for the protection of the life of that individual or of other individuals from wild animals; or

(c) the individual is engaged in the occupation of trapping in a province and is licensed or authorized and trained as required by the laws of the province.

PART 2
AUTHORIZATIONS TO CARRY

Issuance

4. A chief firearms officer shall not issue to an individual an authorization to carry a particular restricted firearm or prohibited handgun that is required in the circumstances described in section 2 or for the purpose described in paragraph 3(a) unless

(a) the individual has successfully completed training in firearms proficiency and the use of force; and

(b) the chief firearms officer determines that the particular restricted firearm or prohibited handgun is appropriate in those circumstances or for that purpose.

Oops, I see that last bit was amended just before I posted that and the version I was using hadn't been updated yet:

http://www.gazette.gc.ca/archives/p2/2004/2004-12-15/html/sor-dors267-eng.html

4. A chief firearms officer shall not issue to an individual an authorization to carry a particular restricted firearm or prohibited handgun that is needed in the circumstances described in section 2 or paragraph 3(a) unless the chief firearms officer determines that

(a) the individual has successfully completed training in firearms proficiency and the use of force that is appropriate for using the firearm in those circumstances; and

(b) the firearm is appropriate in those circumstances.

That all seems to be the current version:

http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/laws/regu/sor-98-207/latest/sor-98-207.html

To summarize, individuals at special risk because of their occupation are indeed issued permits to carry concealed weapons in the course of their occupation under section 3.

I have never seen any indication of anyone being issued such a permit under section 2, and a search at google.ca for
"section 2" regulations "authorizations to carry"
finds nothing of interest.

So your decision to claim to "read" that odd source of yours in the distaseful way you claim to have read it was just unfortunate for you, leaving you looking the way it left you looking.

Otherwise, one might expect that then PM Jean Chrétien's wife would have had something other than an Inuit soapstone carving at hand to ward off the intruder at their official residence.

[Remmah2]

35. Way overdue. nt

nt

[Name removed]

37. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[friendly_iconoclast]

42. Not at all. We've had supporters of Michael Bloomberg here, as well

The group he founded and leads, Mayors Against Illegal Guns, was quite popular with certain persons here.

Curiously, they've had very little to say about MAIG in the past, oh, two months or so. I suspect that has something to do
with Mayor Mike's day job...

[Name removed]

46. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Remmah2]

50. Right wing my ass.

Blue collar labor democrats have a long history of being pro 2A. Lot of them are life long union people as well. Auto manufacturers, steel workers, miners, farmers........

Take a trip to Michigan, Pennsylvania, Upstate New York, Ohio, Indiana.

[iverglas]

52. uh, check the thread you are in

Lots of "blue collar labor democrats" living in Canada, are there?

Yeesh.

[Remmah2]

54. huh?

And I typed that real slow so you'd comprehend it.

[iverglas]

68. I'm so confused

It is a fact that the legislation being praised to the skies in this thread is an initiative of a far right-wing government, governing Canada with a mandate produced by less than 40% of the popular vote, and legislating contrary to the known wishes of a majority of Canadians, and contrary to the wishes of every single progressive organization in Canada.

So it is a fact that the posters in this thread are praising the actions of a far right-wing government of a foreign country that many in that country, especially the members of DU from that country, consider to be legitimate only in the most technical sense.

And it is a fact that praise for right-wing governments is a very common phenomenon here in this Guns forum; I offer Wisconsin and its governor as one small example.

Somebody here doesn't like facts? :headscratch:

[gejohnston]

70. praise, if you want to call it that

on one issue and one issue only.
If the Tories did something you liked, would you glad or pissed?