1 May 2020 Canadian firearms legislation changes

[Ed Storey]

The incoherent and ambiguous fire arms ban brought in late last week was not unexpected by our current Liberal government. The confusion over the latest list was amplified by weak and uniformed reporting by the mainstream media who did little to look into the list and basically parroted what was said by the Prime Minister and Public Safety Minister Blair. Today the Ottawa Citizen published a column which went beyond the Liberal rhetoric and actually looked at some of the omissions, and absurdities of the 1500 ‘Assault Gun’ list. The Citizen even quoted some of the PM’s speaking points such as “all of the firearms included under the ban were designed to kill the largest amount of people in the shortest amount of time” and that “you don’t need an AR-15 to bring down a deer”.

Within the column the Citizen also reported that “the regulations prohibited certain firearms while allowing their competitors – based in foreign countries – to continue selling in Canada” and most likely alluded to the Chinese-made Norinco Type 97, which is not on the list. The column also highlighted just how partisan this whole ban is which panders to the masses of ill-informed voting Canadians who have never handled a firearm or know anything about them and quoted a spokesperson for Minister Blair who said “certain semi-automatic rifles were not included in the ban because they did not meet certain thresholds – primarily that they are not considered to be of “modern design” and not present in large volumes in the Canadian market”.

The balance of the current Liberal minority government’s power is based within urban Canada and specifically the GTA where gun crime is a hot button topic. As well, since most Canadians have no knowledge of weapons and even if the average person were inclined to look at the list, it is doubtful that he or she would be able to distinguish the difference between an American Tactical Imports Omni (even I had to look that one up) or a Recoilless Rifle M40A1. So based on a lack of accurate information from the government and little personal knowledge of firearms getting the average voter to not support this ban is perhaps wishful thinking.

[Bruce Parker (RIP)]

Originally Posted by Ed Storey

So based on a lack of accurate information from the government and little personal knowledge of firearms getting the average voter to not support this ban is perhaps wishful thinking.

The government absolutely knows this and is counting on it. All part of the plan I'm afraid. Sneaking in Boys rifle and vintage mortar bans was just opportunistic and may have been an insurance policy against criticism if it ever got too loud. All they'd have so say is "who needs a howitzer?" No amount of argument that they are historical, old, carefully and expensively restored, honour our war effort and soldiers and have been safely owned for multiple decades would do any good swaying the average urbanite's feelings.

Interesting, the minister pushing this (I shan't name him, you know who he is if you're from around here) was questioned yesterday why certain 'assault rifles' were banned when others weren't. His answer was something like "the ones not banned are older technology and are very few in Canada". Well ho-lee. If Boys rifles and 17 pounders don't fit that exactly I don't know what does. So why are they included in the ban?

[chris vickery]

Is it possible that the order was written in such a way that at face value it appears to be taking action but in reality it is so full of holes it won’t hold water?
Was it purposely written in such a convoluted manner that the door was left open to challenge the government on it?
With the inclusion of 10 and 12 gauge shotguns for example, whether by design or purposely, this has given lobbyists on our behalf at least some technicality to fight them with, or at the very least rile up all shooting sports enthusiasts.
I hope, that with the wording, perhaps having to be re-written, some items may be dropped.
Is an OIC a hard fast and permanent thing or can it be amended under Canadian Law?

[Bruce Parker (RIP)]

Originally Posted by chris vickery

Is it possible that the order was written in such a way that at face value it appears to be taking action but in reality it is so full of holes it won’t hold water?
Was it purposely written in such a convoluted manner that the door was left open to challenge the government on it?
With the inclusion of 10 and 12 gauge shotguns for example, whether by design or purposely, this has given lobbyists on our behalf at least some technicality to fight them with, or at the very least rile up all shooting sports enthusiasts.
I hope, that with the wording, perhaps having to be re-written, some items may be dropped.
Is an OIC a hard fast and permanent thing or can it be amended under Canadian Law?

An OIC can be revoked or replaced by another OIC very easily. It's whether there's political will to do it. I doubt the Liberals set themselves up to fail. They just lack experience with anything 'firearms'. The biggest thing would be the public's loss of faith in it enough to shame them into scrapping it. Or an election won by a party that is reasonable.

[rob love]

Looking at the latest firearms reference tables (FRT), it shows the PIAT and 2" mortars as being exempt from regulations. At this point, they seem to have just changed the firearms/rocket launcher, grenade launchers, and mortars that were specifically listed in the OIC. But the firearms center have a job to do so no doubt the "prohibited" status of the ones missed will be changed at a later date.


There is an FRT entry for the PIAT. Not sure how it meets the scrutiny of a firearm in the first place as it does not have a barrel. But the FRT does reference to the "trough" as a barrel.

[maple_leaf_eh]

Rob

I subscribe an online FRT lookup site by www dot armalytics dot ca. It is possible the PIAT was added as a "negative" placeholder so there would be no questions about its status.

Edited to add: https://www.armalytics.ca/?q=project...%5Btype%5D=all

[charlie fitton]

Originally Posted by maple_leaf_eh

I subscribe an online FRT lookup site by www dot armalytics dot ca.

thanks Rob

Just lost another hour of my life....enjoyably for a change..

Amazing what's banned..M 72(though they dont specify loaded or not) is, but the Turkish M72, made under licence is not..

2" Mortar is not, 4.2 in is...3 in doesn't exist...

[Bruce Parker (RIP)]

Originally Posted by rob love

But the FRT does reference to the "trough" as a barrel.

Dammit. Now my house is prohibited. Troughs all the way around. And the downspouts are way over 20mm.

[Bruce Parker (RIP)]

The ban was a response to a shooting (and an arson that killed almost as many people as the guns) yet goes after legal gun owners and types of firearms, and firearms looking things that really aren't, that the shooter didn't even come close to using. Needless to say the shooter/arsonist was not a licenced gun owner, had been banned from owning them and had a violent past.

The ban was supposed to leave legitimate hunters and sports shooters alone, yet goes after them precisely. Caught in the ban, but stated as not being subject to it yet are, are high end big game and target rifles, many historic antiques, modern muzzle loaders, sporting shotguns and even some industrial devices that shoot projectiles.

The question is whether these things were sloppily included in the government's haste (strike while the tragedy is still fresh I guess) or intended.

Regardless, if the ban isn't overturned it will be the end of many small businesses and the investments hundreds of thousands of people make to the economy, not to mention their own, safe enjoyment.

For this community it is a strong signal the Canadian government does not condone your enthusiasm for military history nor your 'fetish' (our Prime Minister's exact word) for wanting to own it. The group we have running Canada today has shown a distain for all things military, past and present so don't be looking at them to preserve anything.

[Ed Storey]

With the ongoing debate over stricter gun control in Canada it never hurts to provide the uneducated, non-firearm owning, voting masses with as much mis-information as possible. This was published in the 6 June edition of The Ottawa Citizen.

6 June, 2020 - Five-Bullet Limit Urged to Curb Mass Shootings - Ottawa Citizen.jpg

[Lynn Eades]

Over here a large tax company spent a whole 5 hours NOT listening to a few govt. selected notable firearms people to put together valuations for the whole gambit of firearms for the thing called "a buyback".