Bill C-21

[caddisguy]

And since you guys are likely more read up on “the list” than I am, where do muzzle loaders fall? Most are at or larger than .50 cal, so are they now prohibited? Can just see someone that owns one going on a rampage. They’d get at least 3 shots off per hour that might hit the side of a barn…

Does a .50 black powder make 10,000 joules? I highly doubt it.

It's not just about the list, it's about specs like bore diameter, joules, etc like you mention. There are more firearms that will be prohib by the wording in C21 than there are on the actual list. I think the list is a bit of a distraction from the catch-all language that catches way more. .50 black powder would have to check the bore diameter limit in the bill, but I think that is covered.

The bill seems to go as far as banning pump / lever / bolt actions that hold more than 5, even with tube mags. And in the case of pump action shotguns, anything that holds more than 3x 2 & 3/4" since 1 & 1/3" shorties are readily available and it would be able to hold more than 5 of those.

And then there is the term "variants" without any definition of what a "variant" is. They are leaving that open to later interpretation from the RCMP to decide what is a variant and such decisions would be decided by a judge at the expense of whoever gets charged and wants to fight it at their expense. We could find in the years to come that all bolt actions are banned because any bolt action is a variant of some other bolt action that happens to yield more than 10000 joules, or one that can accept a shorter barrel, or one that was marketed as "tactical", etc. The vague definitions are far more reaching than the list, which is very reaching in itself. So many backdoors open for mission creep to ban virtually any firearm.

This obviously isn't about public safety, so not much point trying to rationalize whether or not someone would / could feasibly use any of these firearms effectively to harm others. If you have been watching CPAC, every time an MP asks "You say you are not banning hunting rifles, then why are these SINGLE SHOT rifles being banned?" ... Minister of Public Safety always just jumps up and does his song and dance "We're taking these assault weapons designed to kill the most amount of people in the shortest amount of time and near the anniversary of the polytechnique massacre, how dare the conservatives disregard these victims in favor of the GUN LOBBY"

There is no logic what is being banned by this bill and definitely no logic when it comes to discourse in the house.

They just snuck in a last minute amendment to Bill C11 just like they did with C21 for total internet censorship. Seems to be a new tactic to completely change the scope of the bill before the final reading.

[Arctic Lake]

Yep I just don’t see where “You will own nothing and be happy “ is going to be a great place to live !
Sorry for the derail but I think it’s all connected .
Arctic Lake

Sooooo glad I don’t have kids. The world of the future is no place to live. I might take up smoking and go buy a pack of unfiltered Camels…

[Arctic Lake]

Caddis and others ! This whole Bill C21 is wrong ! It’s about disarmament ,no firearms in the hands of a countries citizens .The Liberal government are in the process of doing this . Anyone who has an ounce of active brain matter can see that the problem is not with what they banning and who owns them . It is individuals that are involved in crime and using illegally obtained firearms to commit crime that is the problem !
I detest this government !
Arctic Lake

It's not just about the list, it's about specs like bore diameter, joules, etc like you mention. There are more firearms that will be prohib by the wording in C21 than there are on the actual list. I think the list is a bit of a distraction from the catch-all language that catches way more. .50 black powder would have to check the bore diameter limit in the bill, but I think that is covered.

The bill seems to go as far as banning pump / lever / bolt actions that hold more than 5, even with tube mags. And in the case of pump action shotguns, anything that holds more than 3x 2 & 3/4" since 1 & 1/3" shorties are readily available and it would be able to hold more than 5 of those.

And then there is the term "variants" without any definition of what a "variant" is. They are leaving that open to later interpretation from the RCMP to decide what is a variant and such decisions would be decided by a judge at the expense of whoever gets charged and wants to fight it at their expense. We could find in the years to come that all bolt actions are banned because any bolt action is a variant of some other bolt action that happens to yield more than 10000 joules, or one that can accept a shorter barrel, or one that was marketed as "tactical", etc. The vague definitions are far more reaching than the list, which is very reaching in itself. So many backdoors open for mission creep to ban virtually any firearm.

This obviously isn't about public safety, so not much point trying to rationalize whether or not someone would / could feasibly use any of these firearms effectively to harm others. If you have been watching CPAC, every time an MP asks "You say you are not banning hunting rifles, then why are these SINGLE SHOT rifles being banned?" ... Minister of Public Safety always just jumps up and does his song and dance "We're taking these assault weapons designed to kill the most amount of people in the shortest amount of time and near the anniversary of the polytechnique massacre, how dare the conservatives disregard these victims in favor of the GUN LOBBY"

There is no logic what is being banned by this bill and definitely no logic when it comes to discourse in the house.

They just snuck in a last minute amendment to Bill C11 just like they did with C21 for total internet censorship. Seems to be a new tactic to completely change the scope of the bill before the final reading.

[Redthies]

I’m sure glad I sold every gun I had for huge profits back in the scare of 2019. I will fight for your rights my brothers!

[TheObserver]

Where is the gun clubs on this?

Wouldn't them communicating with each other nationwide, calling and or emailing members and organizing something be the most effective way to gather PAL holders that are against this? There is strength in numbers and voices

[tadpole]

copied from another forum

People say firearms owners should be willing to compromise.

Where has that got us? Or the general population?

Peaceful, responsible, and safety-conscious firearms owners:
Well, let's put some context around our answer first.

• In 1913, you required us to have a permit to carry a handgun.
We complied. There was no discernible reduction in violent crime.

• In 1920, you required us to have a permit to possess any firearm, regardless of where it was stored.
We complied. There was no discernible reduction in violent crime.

• In 1932, you required us to provide a reason (only two were permissible) for having a handgun.
We complied. There was no discernible reduction in violent crime.

• In 1934, you required us to locally register our handguns.
We complied. There was no discernible reduction in violent crime.

• In 1938, you required us to renew our registration every five years.
We complied. There was no discernible reduction in violent crime.

• In 1951, you required us to centrally register our handguns.
We complied. There was no discernible reduction in violent crime.

• In 1969, you designed the classification system so certain firearms could be prohibited on a whim.
We complied. There was no discernible reduction in violent crime.

• In 1977, you prohibited automatic firearms.
We complied. There was no discernible reduction in violent crime.

• In 1979, you introduced screening and safety courses.
We complied. There was no discernible reduction in violent crime.

• By 1994, you required a photo and two references to apply for a Firearms Acquisition Certificate, imposed a mandatory 28 day waiting period, made safety courses mandatory, expanded the background check and screening, reclassified certain firearms, introduced regulations for storage, transportation, and use, and prohibited standard capacity magazines.
We complied. There was no discernible reduction in violent crime.

• In 1995, you introduced licensing to have and buy firearms, and to buy ammunition.
We complied. There was no discernible reduction in violent crime.

• In 1996, you required us to get your Authorization to Transport certain firearms, and authorizations to carry certain firearms in very limited conditions.
We complied. There was no discernible reduction in violent crime.

• In 1997, you regulated shooting clubs, shooting ranges, and gun shows.
We complied. There was no discernible reduction in violent crime.

• In 2001, licensing became mandatory.
We complied. There was no discernible reduction in violent crime.

• In 2003, you required all firearms to be registered.
We complied. There was no discernible reduction in violent crime.

• In 2015, you introduced firearms prohibitions for those convicted of domestic violence.
We complied. There was no discernible reduction in violent crime.

• In 2019, you passed C-71, which would pave the way for circumventing parliament, and to ignore the experts' analyses (law enforcement, firearms functional experts, community groups, etc.)which you claimed to base policies on, in any further restrictions.
We complied. There was no discernible reduction in violent crime.

• In 2020, you prohibited some 1500 models of firearms for absolutely no reason than political pandering and cowardice in addressing escalating violent crime.
We complied. There was no discernible reduction in violent crime.

• In 2021, you reduced judicial consequences for those illegally using their illegally acquired and already prohibited firearms.
It didn't affect us, as it didn't apply to us, and violent crime rates continued to climb at an alarming rate.

• In 2022, you banned the sale, purchase, and transfer of handguns.
We complied. Violent crime rates continued to climb.

• Also in 2022, you proposed this latest piece of absolutely useless, enormously costly, and completely counter-productive measure of prohibiting even hunting rifles and shotguns, even though the statistical significance of them or their owners being involved in violent crime registered at the extreme right of the decimal place.

And yet violent crime continues to escalate.

So, what compromises or concessions are we willing to make at this point in what has been over a hundred years of faulty logic, intentionally deceptive public messaging, malicious and misdirected prosecution, and bad faith negotiations, while completely ignoring the contributing factors and root causes of those most at risk of violent behavioral trajectories, AND increasing your leniency for those who actually commit horrifically violent crimes?

Absolutely none...

[browningboy]

The answer is the same on many threads, “It’s a conspiracy theory, take off your tin hat”

[wideopenthrottle]

and if anyone had any doubt about ontario and its dreamy adoration of trudeau and his handouts look at the Mississauga byelection....disgusting is all i can say

[HarryToolips]

and if anyone had any doubt about ontario and its dreamy adoration of trudeau and his handouts look at the Mississauga byelection....disgusting is all i can say

Yup, dumb, lost sheep they are....as mentioned by another member in a different thread, we should all look to support the Maverick party and separate with Alberta, maybe Saskatchewan wants to join...problem is in BC we have too many Libtard-NDP supporters on the coast and Island...perhaps they can be the new Canadian version of Alaska if they don't want to join the rest of BC and the West that would most likely be proponents of separation..

[spock]

The issue isn't one between the provinces, most of ontario outside of toronto is solid blue, when my brother lived in rural ontario he said it wasn't much different culturally than Alberta. The real issue is Canada's population is one of the most urbanized in the world. Where I live in the Fraser Valley I hear gunshots almost everyday during waterfowl season, some of them not far from my workplace and I don't even bat an eye, in that context gunshots are not scary, if I lived in a dense urban area people would notice because it would be something bad happening, add to that we have ciities full of immigrants that have left countries that are quite violent. Do I agree with C-21? Absolutely not. Is this type of thing likely to shore up Liberal support in our 3 biggest cities? Yes do they need rural support to win elections? No they have won 3 without it.