Sunday, December 20, 2009
As you can see with every bit of progress we gained something we did not have before. In fact we have a great deal more than we ever did. While we did loose on the physical activity end of it. We gained in the fact we didn't work ourselves to early permanent retirement(death).
We at one time were a civilization organized into what is known as feudalism. Simply put we lived on land that a powerful lord owned. We paid rent to him which was a portion of our labour and or military service. Lest we be kicked off his land. The Lordship had last word on everything, while he didn't sully himself with our day to day lives if he caught wind of something that could directly affect his income or ability to field a regiment of men at arms he would have his men put a stop to it.
For the most part that is ancient history we discovered Constitutional democracy. We decided that their ought to be limits on what the powers that be could do. There were these fellows in the early days before the idea of Constitutional democracy, they were a radical bunch, they had the nerve to think people ought to get paid for a days work and individuals had rights. They were the progressives of their time they were radical in their beliefs.
Imagine rights for common people! That was enough to get a person hung back then, no member of the aristocracy wanted one of these radicals in their town. They would make people discontented with the order of things...Rights for common people how absurd.
The idea of rights and freedom caught on like a house on fire, there was no putting that genie back in the bottle. The tighter the tyrants squeezed the more people slipped through their fingers. Freedom came at a very high cost in some lands. People died for it.
Today in our century progressive liberals are common place, sadly they are not what they used to be. Today their idea of progress is to take away freedom and democracy, the common people are just too common to enjoy it. They over indulge in food and drink, they waste their money on frivolities. They indulge in unhealthy things and become burdensome to others. So our once libertine philosophers that fought for the common man, have turned over a new leaf. They now lobby for restrictive laws to limit our freedom and try to stack democratic governments to favour them.
It would appear that our erstwhile liberators have decided that they know what is best for us, and have become the feudal lords. While they won't evict you from your home directly they will tax you out of it. They have even bandied about the idea of taking away your health care if you do things they disapprove of, like smoke tobacco or eat too many burgers.
It is a sad day indeed, for it seems that progress today is to regress to yesterday.
Friday, December 18, 2009
The measure of CO2 is done in parts per million currently we are at aprox. 395 ppm presently, among the falling sky set(the disciples of Chicken of Little) we are already over the tipping point and disaster is immanent. There will be floods, crop failures, disease, famine, sea levels will rise and the polar bears are dieing. The environmental protection agency in the United States has officially declared CO2 a pollutant. OH MY GOG. Anyone who denies this will be rubbished,and vilified by the the Green Shirts, the band of enviro-fascists stormtroopers leading the charge in a new world order.
There is just one problem with that, there has been no warming over the last decade. In fact there has been a cooling trend. That notwithstanding, I would first like to know how CO2 became the villain? I would also point out that Methane is another greenhouse gas CH4, in fact it is 22 times the greenhouse gas CO2 is. It's belched into the atmosphere from natural sources as well, bogs, volcanic activity, every living creature that produces flatulence, and good ol mother earth when she shifts and causes a pocket of hydro-carbonates to belch. But lets get back to CO2 every plant and tree on this planet is dependant upon CO2. CO2 to them is what oxygen is us. Where we breath oxygen and produce CO2 they breath CO2 and exhale oxygen. Remember the cause celeb of the eighties "Save the Rain forests" the lungs of the planet.
Indeed if trees could march they would march on the EPA office in Washington D.C.. I would like to point out a few things that seems to get missed in all the hoopla and rhetoric. We need green house gases lest we become a ball of ice and life perishes on this rock in space. We as a species evolved at the equator where it is always hot, we evolved in a period in time when the CO2 levels were much higher than they are today (some 3000 ppm). Life for us began in an incubator not a refrigerator. When we expanded outwards from the warmth of our equatorial home we found we had to adapt, make or find shelter, fashion clothing to protect our frail bodies from the cold. We were not meant to live on an ice sheet. It is a matter fact that we have had several ice ages. The last one was called the mini ice age it ended in the mid eighteen hundreds, it began at the end of the middle ages and witches were blamed for the cold weather. We know how that turned out, funny though, the witch hunts were started by the intellectuals of the day,,hmmm anyone see a trend there?
Today there is now evidence that some scientist have lied about it, fudged figures and bad data. I am of the firm belief that if something is supposed to be of such great concern and import, that all of humanity's existence is in the balance why is there a need to lie about it? Saving face has never served anyone well, ever! For me their is no debate, our climate changes all the time. There is only one factor that can drive an entire planets climate that force is the sun. We happen to be in a solar minimum, lack of sun spots and solar flares. Oddly enough in the nineties we were in a solar maximum, abundant sun spots and solar flares. We have no control of that.
We need to stop behaving like sheep and taking the word of agenda driven organizations and take a hard look at the long history of this planet. It has been warming and cooling for millenniums with out us. It will continue to do so long after us. It is our egocentric nature that leads us to believe we actually make a difference in this.
Sunday, December 6, 2009
I would like to take some time to speak of "EMOTION" This event generates emotions, however it was emotion that created the tragedy to begin with. Indeed Gamil Gharbi(aka Marc Lepine) was a seriously emotionally disturbed young man, with a hatred of feminists. He took this hatred to its ultimate conclusion and committed the heinous act he did. In the end he took his own life leaving no one to be culpable for the crime, no one to stand trial and be held responsible.
I believe this created a vacuum in the psyche of the nation, and nature abhors a vacuum. To replace Gharbi we turned to the only tangible thing left behind, his gun. Guns became the focus of our outrage, emotion created a storm. The rational was if there were no guns in private hands this would not happen again. If only there had been laws in place controlling firearms this would not have happened.
There is a large problem with this, emotions are irrational, emotions get people into trouble more often than not. Spur of the moment emotional responses always have dire consequence. It causes people to do things that in sober rational second thought to say things like "I wish I hadn't done that" or "I should of thought before I acted.".
In this instance in light of the events of L'Ecole Polytechnique cause the then Government of Kim Campbell to amend existing law. Only one act of these amendments made any rational sense, the requirement for safety training. The rest were mere feel good accomplish nothing regulations. Enter Wendy Cukier and the Coalitions for Gun Control. They were behind the scenes lobbying, their ideas were given fertile ground with the emerging reorganized Liberal Party under Jean Chretien.
The opportunity not being lost on him campaigned on a strong gun control platform. Using L'Ecole Polytechnique to their advantage and the public disgust in the Mulroney Governance of the Country. This was enough to cause women and feminist not to vote for and elect Canada's first woman Prime Minister.
Moving on to ethics and morality. In a nutshell is the difference between right and wrong and knowing it. In a rational objective way using reason and logic. Is it right to punish someone who has committed no crime or done no wrong? .. Is it right to push your beliefs on others? ... Is it right to continually support something that you know has not solved the problem but if you admit you are wrong you will look bad? tougher question eh? Is is right to lie in order to support this, is it right to lie to others? If you have answered "Yes" to any of those questions, it is a safe bet you slither rather than walk upright.
It is immoral to punish people that have done no wrong, it is equally immoral to blame them for something they did not do or had anything to do with. It is immoral to cast a wide disparaging opinion on a community because you disagree with their lawful past times and pursuits. It is most immoral to lie to people who have put their trust in you in order to save face.
That is pretty much what the Liberal Government of Jean Chretien and CFGC did when they enacted the Firearms Act(c-68). In fact the Liberals knew it was their 1977 law that made sure no one could stop Gharbi. They(the Liberal Party) and the CFGC continue to lie about it. You would have to be lying to say that a mere law can stop an insane act. Worse still the law they enacted guaranteed it would happen again..Another emotionally disturbed fellow did attempt to repeat L'Ecole Polytechnique.
Kimveer Gill went to Dawson College he had a licence and he had registered firearms. He then broke every regulation in the firearms act and opened fire on students there. What stopped the repeat of Polytechnique was 2 ARMED Police officers who just happen to be there. That is correct it requires a gun to stop a gunman. Dawson College is positive proof of the failure of Gun Control. I notice it is rarely mentioned..
Sunday, November 15, 2009
According to the latest round the doomsday prophets the clock is set for December 21, 2012. This date is taken from the Mayans, a stone age civilization of pre-Columbian North America. The Maya were advanced for their time they developed a system of mathematics and conceived of numbers less than zero. However they built everything out of stone and obsidian they were not the most technologically advanced. They believed in a Pantheon of Gods which resembled animals natural to their environment and fed these gods with an endless line of human sacrifice. Not exactly a civilization I would hang any predictions on.
According to those who have studied the Maya they did not predict the end of the world. The mystery if you will is around the question of why the calendar ends when it does. If they were the great predictors as they are made out to be why didn’t it end when their civilization ended in 900 ce. Guess they didn’t see it coming.
They were the top tribe in the area if you will, if you were Mayan you were tops. Not likely to be the sacrifice. Perhaps it was their arrogance that produced a calendar that went so far into the future, more years than anyone could count was impressive. Perhaps being the regions master race they like our modern Nazis types(the thousand year Reich) were showing their superiority by stating that they would be around forever. In any case I haven’t met any ancient Mayans to ask them.
The truth is the world has ended thousands of times in our recorded and unrecorded history. We modern types seem to view the world as being the whole planet since we have knowledge of its totality. However many ancients only had concept of the world as what existed in the area that they could walk. What existed beyond that was terra incognita and was left to the imagination of what lay beyond that. A devastating earth quake or volcano could end the world they knew. So why would it be any different for the Maya.
So I will be bold and make a prediction, December 21st 2012 will come and go like every other 21st of December. Maybe with a little more fan fare than others. We also need to realize that a calendar running out is not cause for doom it just means its creators were not around to update it.
Thursday, November 12, 2009
Our rebuttals are confined to the limited number of words that can be published in a letter to the editor. With no guarantee the entire letter will be published as is or published at all. Indeed we are kept a vocal minority.
To address this in a rational fashion we need to put a wee bit of background into the public’s view. In Canada for over a hundred years no citizen has had to have either a licence nor register a shotgun nor a rifle. Up until 1977 anyone could walk into a gun shop pick out a rifle or shotgun pay for it and leave. The sale was recorded at the shop that was the end of it. After 1977 a firearms acquisition certificate (FAC) was required in order to purchase a rifle or shotgun. This was not a licence part of getting an FAC was a criminal background check however the long guns already owned by an individual were still legal. AG Kim Campbell enacted the requirement of a safety course to obtain a FAC. Bill C-68 changed all that, as of 1995 it was illegal to own any firearm, unless you were the holder of a licence and all firearms in your possession were registered. Imagine a Government granting a licence to break the law? A tad absurd if you ask me.
What is the big deal? We register vehicles and licence their drivers. This is both true and false, the more correct way of putting it would be, we licence drivers and register vehicles for use on public roads. No requirement of either is required if the driver and vehicle do not leave private property. Nor is it a criminal offence if you drive without a licence or registered said vehicle. Nor does the emergency response team from your local constabulary kick in your door in the wee smalls of the morning to seize all your vehicles and lay criminal charges either. The MTOs are also very efficient at sending out renewal papers and there are numerous locations to visit to renew your licence and vehicle registrations. For firearms owners there is only one method via Canada Post. So it is only true up to the point that they are licences and registrations after that the similarity ends. I would also add that an individual may own any vehicle they wish to, no restrictions are placed on the type of vehicle nor does one receive a visit from law enforcement to inspect said vehicles.
It is a valuable tool. I might just be too simple to understand but I have always been of the opinion that a tool actually achieves something. Whether that is a shovel to dig a hole or a DNA profile to prove the presence of a person at a crime scene or to exclude them. It is said that the registry connects an individual to a firearm and holds them accountable. Of course this is only true if a person is foolish enough to commit a crime with a registered firearm and hang on to it. Even so it is irrelevant because in law it makes little difference if a person is shot with a registered firearm or an unregistered firearm. For that matter even if it is a borrowed registered firearm. The registry is also inaccurate so inaccurate that it cannot be used as evidence in a court of law. If a patrol officer responding to a call queries the registry and finds no guns at the location should he believe that and let his guard down? Police in the United States do not have the luxury of universal registry of firearms yet they seem to function quite effectively. In the UK where registration is mandatory and quite onerous, so much so that many Britains have in fact turned in their firearms rather than go through the red tape to keep them. Further to that handguns have banned since 1998, have had to start arming their police because crimes involving firearms has increased not declined as one would think. The UK is the most violent country in the EU with 2034 violent crimes per population of 100 000. We in Canada have nothing to be smug about we ranked in at #6 on that survey. Whereas our gun toting neighbours to the south who are often held up as the example of why guns are evil didn’t even make the top ten in that survey. We were promised by Mr Alan Rock that crime would plummet with the registry in place. So where is this efficacy?
The Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police are strong supporters of the registry. In a Globe and Mail article last April it was reported that their ethics officer resigned over their associations practice of receiving corporate donations Taser International was a large contributor, low and behold the use of their product received their ringing endorsement for use in law enforcement despite the fatalities directly attributed to their use. Oddly enough CGI group another large contributor to the association which coincidently are also contractors for the registry, now receive a ringing endorsement viz their support of the registry. This moves them out of the realm of professional organization to political lobby. It could be also said that a Police Chief is long removed from a patrol car and out of touch with his frontline officers. Further the hiring of a Chief is done by the local politicians, the renewal of one’s contract could be tied more to politics than performance.
It prevents gun crime, Again I must be too simple because I am not seeing the Emperor’s new clothes on this. How does having a piece of paper (the registration slip) stop a crime? The bad guys could steal a registered rifle, file the serial number off and the registry is defeated. In theory anyone could commit a crime today and report their firearm stolen yesterday. Again where is the rational connection to prevention? Kimveer Gil used registered firearms at the Dawson College shooting, the only thing the registry did was confirm they were his. That is cold comfort for his victim’s family. Gamil Gharbi of the Polytechnique shooting, if his rifle had been registered would the registration slip have sounded an alarm alerting people to his presence? Would it have sprung to life and barred him from leaving his home that day? No it could not. So where is its utility?
If it saves one life is it not worth the money spent? I don’t think that this is the correct question. I think the question is, has it saved one life? With the true costs hidden in Cabinet secrecy we will never know its true costs. Though 2 billion dollars is the figure often cited. Another fair question becomes how many more lives could have been saved by allocating those funds elsewhere? Two billion dollars could have funded many programs with direct and tangible results in crime reduction. Youth recovery programs come to mind. It has been cited that it costs $24 000 per youth to recover them from gangs, which translates out to 83 000 lives saved from a violent life and possible death. Every shelter for women in the country could have been funded for 15 years. Though perhaps the money would be better spent trying to eliminate the need for such shelters. How about an MRI in every hospital? Thousands of lives could be saved with that annually. Thus far to date the money spent on the registry remains squandered resources with 0 results.
Wednesday, October 7, 2009
-- Lyndon B. Johnson
Justice Minister Nichols (CPC) Is currently kicking around a piece of legislation that if enacted would give Police unprecedented powers. Why is are they unprecedented? Chiefly because this legislation would allow police to pull over any car and its occupants for absolutely no reason to administer a breathalyzer.
This is a practise that is currently taking place in a few European jurisdictions, the Netherlands to name one. I cannot speak for or to the laws of European countries as I am unfamiliar with them, nay ignorant of them. However I am very familiar with the laws of Canada. To be perfectly honest I really don't care what they are doing in Europe, Europe was a place not too long ago that rounded people up at the behest of a certain occupier of their countries. A place where identity cards had to be carried at all times and presented when commanded.
I have grown up with a belief that in Europe the powers that be were omnipotent and people do as they are told. Right or wrong that is my impression of Europe. Where there is a trust in their legislators and a belief in "It's all for our own good". I have this belief largely because of WW II and that democracy is a relatively new idea in many European Countries. Call it a bit of English snobbery where democracy is not so new an idea and there is a long tradition of Liberty.
In Countries where Roman Law or Civil Code are the basis of their legal tradition view things differently than Countries with a Common Law tradition. But enough said of this. As I have said I only care about Canadian Law which as it so happens is founded upon the Common Law tradition except in Quebec which the Civil Code is still used in a BiJural system.
We in Canada have the written guarantee of certain rights. Sadly many of my fellow Canadians take their freedom and their rights for granted, more is the pity many can't even name 3 rights they hold under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms (Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms). I am of the opinion some days that my fellow countrymen place little value upon their rights and will allow their Government to pass legislation that slices away at their rights and in the end their freedoms.
For the "Greater Good" or for "Public Safety" seem to be acceptable reasons for "waiving" your civil rights. Many of us who go on about rights and speak of the "thin end of the edge" or the "slippery slope", always sound annoying, preachy, and worst of all BORING. Well my fellow citizens welcome to the bottom of the slippery slope.
This law if enacted will give every police officer the right to pull us over when ever they feel like it, demand that we blow into a tube whether we have had a drink or not. They do not require probable cause anymore.
Of course many people are saying "So? They are looking for drivers who have been drinking, I have nothing to hide and nothing to fear.". Thats fair, I hope their cough syrup is alcohol free or their mouth wash is. With the lower thresholds that some Provincial Governments have introduced you may blow a false positive. Now we are no longer talking about a minor inconvenience. You will then be commanded to accompany them to the station for the proper test conducted by the certified technician, or possibly a court ordered blood test. (of course they will give you a lift in the back of their car)
Did I mention that while all of this was happening you were technically under arrest? Indeed you were, in fact arbitrarily detained. Which by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms is not supposed to happen. Ah heck, it isn't supposed to happen in a free and democratic society with or without a charter of rights.
A small part of me wishes this law to pass, not because I think it is right, heck no,, This small part me is the "wise acre" that wants to say I told you so, when the knock comes at your door one day and its the local constabulary wanting to come in and look around and make sure no laws are being broken. You can't protest because you have already waived your rights, you waived them long ago. With each passage of a law that took away a slice of your rights. When you just nodded in silent agreement with every law that was enacted for the "public good". I hope we all wake up sooner than later for it will be too late if our democracy will have gave way to a police state.
Monday, September 21, 2009
I am from a Crown Loyalist Family, that is to say my ancestors left the newly formed Republic of The United States of America because we had to. We fought against the revolution, thus we wore out our welcome. I am of the opinion that my ancestors felt that it was an act of treason to raise arms against the King. We settled in Upper Canada and have lived there ever since. As such I think I am more than qualified to speak on this topic.
Canada is a Constitutional Monarchy with a Parliamentary democracy. This all good but there are problems within this Country that cannot be addressed under the current state of affairs.
The first and largest problem is; we are a democracy. Which is the rule of the majority, therefore the minority always suffers. So it's no great shakes being in the minority, however if you happen to be from the most populous region of Canada you get to dictate to everyone else. Ontario is the most populous Province in Canada with 12 000 000 souls and counting, Quebec is second. In years gone by before the Bloq Quebecoise Quebec was a key Province to carry for our National Parties therefore appeasing Quebec was job one. Many of our Prime Ministers were from La Belle Province. Since the formation of the Bloq, the voters of Quebec have in essence thrown their vote away by electing Bloq party members to Parliament. I say thrown away because the BQ will never form the Government.
Which leaves Ontario and its 106 seats in the House of Commons which when compared to the rest of Canada's 107 seats (excepting Quebec and the Territories) it requires 8 provinces to surpass Ontario's representation in Government. While it might be representative democracy it is hardly fair. But then when has democracy been about fairness? This in essence gives one province the ability to drive the national agenda. It would require 1 party to sweep all of Ontario and 2 more in other regions to run the slate. Conversely it would require one party to sweep every other region in Canada to negate Ontario.
While overly simplistic and not our present reality it is not outside the realm of possibility. Strange things happen in Politics all the time.
There is also the undemocratic side of our system. Constitutionally speaking Parliament is OMNIPOTENT. Nothing stands in the way of a majority Government. We do not have the checks and balances our neighbour to the south has built into their system. In fact we actually have Parliaments supremacy built into ours.
Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely. That is why we need to reform our Constitution and make Canada a Republic. While it's nice to be able to have the appendage "Royal" attached to our institutions the world won't come to an end if over the next 20 odd years became entirely severed from the Crown.
As it is today we have an unelected head of State, The Queen and her representative the Governor General. Which the latter is appointed. Our Prime Minister is merely the leader of the Party that got enough seats to form the Government. However the Prime Minister is actually more powerful than the President of the United States. He does wield supreme executive power but was not ever directly elected.
But the single greatest argument for a republic is The authority of the Government comes from the PEOPLE. As it stands today we in Canada only elect our dictators who's authority is derived from The Crown of England. The English Parliament enacted the Statute the created the super colony of Canada in 1867. In 1982 the final act of the English Parliament was to grant our Parliament its autonomy and to enable Parliament to amend the Constitution. We as Canadians gained nothing and we still pay for the privilege of have the "Royal" appendage.
It is no wonder that Quebec did not sign onto this. Why would they nothing changed for them. However by them not signing the Constitution, they made it de facto law not de jure.
We need now more than ever to unite our Country under a republic with reforms that will equalize the electorate stabilize and moot Quebec separatist. and bring our Western Provinces in out of the Cold.
Friday, July 24, 2009
The SCC deemed that the cocaine was to be excluded as evidence, as it would bring the administration of justice into disrepute. Net result Crown's case collapses and the guy skates on the charges. Our other fellow is not given the same interpretation of the Charter and the firearm is admitted as evidence. He goes to jail. The circumstances in my view are neither here nor there, it is the application of our supreme law that is at issue. One fellow's abrogation of his rights was deemed serious and the other's was considered minor. Both men are criminals either way you put it but each was treated differently. It seems 6 million dollars worth of misery is less of a crime than having a gun. While many would agree that this decision of our High Court is a,ok, I would and will argue that any infringement of an individuals rights is serious and always brings the administration of Justice into disrepute.
We must consider the purpose of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It is supposed to be a limit on the state including the police. In its capacity as the supreme law of the land it is supposed to level the playing field. Consider that the Crown has a very deep pockets it can hire all kinds of lawyers to prosecute, it can hire and use experts in given fields to testify on their behalf. They have the ability to take your freedom away.
What does an ordinary person have? for the most part only what he has in his bank account, for many of us that is a bleak prospect. So our Charter puts limits and rules on the state as to how they may conduct themselves. Evidence obtained through breaking the Supreme Law of the Land is still breaking the law, the police are supposed to be the good guys and always obey the law. In breaking the law by illegally detaining a person can only ever bring the course of justice into disrepute.
The United States has some very sticky laws concerning this, with sanctions against those who violate a persons civil rights. Evidence obtained by breaking the law is forbidden yet they manage to put bad guys away. The Police there have found how to work within the law. Why do our Police require such remedial measures?
Of course when considering this one is tempted to look at worse case scenario. The "What if" scenario. What if there was a body in the trunk of a car? Unfortunately that is the one downside of the rules. The question then arises what if you have a bunch of kinky sex toys in your trunk? Would you want a cop discovering them? Is your personal dignity not worth something to you? The concept is Innocence, we are all innocent until proven otherwise. Whether we are walking down the street or driving cross country in a rented car we are not to be impeded by anyone working for the state. If you think this was an isolated incident Police detained a letter carrier who was filling in for the regular postman on a route, they didn't take him at his word either, turned out he was just what he said he was. Oh did I mention he was black as well. Just because the police are of the opinion that your behaviour is suspicious is not probable cause to stop someone..If you are of the opinion the police were just doing their jobs and you would rather they do that for your sense of security then you deserve neither security or freedom and you will loose both.
I was listening to a radio show in the car while driving, the topic was "Helmut Laws" and the nanny state. Have we become sooooo silly to think that the government has to pass laws to make sure we stay safe? It is cited that the cost of health care dictates that this is necessary. One caller even went so far as to say that if you injure yourself while riding your bike without a helmet OHIP should not pay for it. His reasoning is that why should he have to foot the bill for someone's stupidity. When it was suggested that maybe fat people should suffer the same fate when they have a heart attack his opinion was different all of a sudden rights came into play. Hmmm maybe he is a little chubby or likes his RonnieMacks to much?..
The point is we all pay into the health care system. it is there when we need it, or at least we hope so, We do not need laws to dictate individual behaviour we cannot allow the government to micro manage our lives for us. We have to accept the risks we take and the risks others take. To ensure our freedom is the widest it can be. I cannot believe how quickly some people are willing to give up their freedoms and the freedoms of others in the name of the "Greater Good" The old Soviet Union was a state that was based on that principle where is it today? Freedom prevailed, though it is having its troubles today.
Monday, May 11, 2009
POWERS OF THE PARLIAMENT
Legislative Authority of Parliament of Canada 91. It shall be lawful for the Queen, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate and House of Commons, to make Laws for the Peace, Order, and good Government of Canada, in relation to all Matters not coming within the Classes of Subjects by this Act assigned exclusively to the Legislatures of the Provinces; and for greater Certainty, but not so as to restrict the Generality of the foregoing Terms of this Section, it is hereby declared that (notwithstanding anything in this Act) the exclusive Legislative Authority of the Parliament of Canada extends to all Matters coming within the Classes of Subjects next hereinafter enumerated; that is to say,
That section of the Constitution says it all they can pass any law that they desire. They can also over ride the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. So what does this mean? Very simply put, our legislators could enact a law that allows slavery if they had a mind to, there is nothing in our constitution that can prevent it. An infringement of our rights only need be prescribed by LAW. And in the interest of peace, order, and good government. The icing on that cake is the supreme court has stated time and time again that only Parliament knows what is best. More is the Pity, even if the supreme court disagreed all Parliament need do is invoke the NOTWITHSTANDING CLAUSE....Welcome to Canada......notwithstanding.
Tuesday, April 28, 2009
movement born on a factory floor. At present it is a loose association of people who
share some common ideas. We believe now is the time to bring these ideas to the
public. Form a lobby to liberate the people of Ontario and Canada from the status quo
“state of affairs”. Of an antiquated Parliamentary System, an unelected Senate, and an
unelected Head of State. While we understand and realize that many hold the
Monarchy in high esteem. We believe a hybrid form of Republican system can be
established. In time this can give way to full independence from the Crown.
To this end it is the goal of the O.R.C. to establish a Constitution for the Province of
Ontario. As well as a Charter of Rights to curb the omnipotence of its Government.
To bring about Constitutional change and reform For Canada to facilitate a Republican
system of Governance. That is made of the People, by the People, and for the People.
To preserve and protect our inherent rights that were brought to us by our forefathers
when this great land was settled. Though our ties to the Crown fade in time, the
We The People of Canada are the true power of this Country and as such all rights belong to the individual
Citizen. The Parliament and the Senate shall only Govern by the consent of the people and shall pass no Law or Act
that abrogates nor abridges the Rights of the People. Nor shall the Prime Minister sign in to law any Act that is
injurious to our Rights or the National interest. Unless it can be so justified in a free and democratic society, it shall
impinge our Rights in the least possible manner.
We also hold that certain Rights have existed within this land that were brought to by those that settled here. They
shall continue to exist unhindered. though they are not so enumerated within this Charter. The Freedoms that these
rights enshrined and guaranteed shall stand protected by this Charter.
It is further said that it is the solemn duty of The Government of Canada to maintain and provide for a Standing
Army, Navy and Air force. To defend this land from all enemies. And to defend this Charter and the People of
Canada. Never shall their guns be turned on the lawful citizens of this land. Parliament is to provide for the veterans
of foreign wars and conflicts. And shall retrain personnel who have completed their service and duty to Our
Queen Elizabeth II of Great Britain and her heir The Prince of Wales. Shall remain our titular Head of State. As
long as the latter lives. The Office of Governor General shall be replaced by an elected Prime Minister.
The Office of Lieutenant Governor shall be replaced by an elected Premier in each Province. The legislative
Assemblies or Parliaments of each Province shall function like the House of Commons. The Premier shall form the
Executive Branch of the Government of the Province and the Assemblies the legislative branch of the Government.
In accordance with the democratic rights enumerated herein.
This Constitution and Charter of Rights is and shall be the supreme Law of the Land. We also hither to
decree that no law shall stand that is not in keeping with this Charter. Or conflicts with the guarantee of the Rights of
The People contained herein. We acknowledge that in time of War or National disaster, certain rights made be
infringed but shall be restored in full upon the end of such circumstances.
It is the solemn duty of each member of Government to uphold and protect the Rights
of the Citizens. That this Charter stands and places limits upon the power of
Governments not the Citizen. The People of Canada and her Provinces are a free
people and shall ever remain so. It is the reserved Right of the Citizens to recall any
Government which is seen not do its solemn duty.
Friday, April 17, 2009
As for CCW I support it frankly I support open carry as well. with minimal conditions. one of which is an affordable use of force and the law course.
When all is said and done we little people have nothing but our rights. These rights are not granted privileges of the government to be denied at a whim or when it is politically expedient to do so. What is fundamental to both our right to defend ourselves and to our justice system is the presumption of innocence. We cannot assume evil intent on anyones part. (save but the government's because they have powers we don't).
I realize the police see more crap in a day than many of us see in a life time. I know that it is difficult to not become jaded and see everyone through the same lens but some how the police need to be able to discern the difference between a law abiding citizen and a citizen that just hasn't been caught yet.
From my/our perspective the firearms act itself has done more damage to good relations than any other act of parliament, because it criminalized 7 million people's lawful property at a stroke of a pen. A breach of any regulation leads to the confiscation all firearms and criminal sanctions against the owner. Unsafe/improper storage has become the catch all charge. Because of reverse onus it places the burden of proof upon the person charged to prove a negative. the case that comes to mind is Peter Sedge 130 registered firearms only one was not "stored properly"?
Consider. Every animal on this planet has the ability to defend itself one way or another. Every human can defend themselves in a state of nature by the use of implements. This is our right to do so, or our survival imperative if you will. Faced by an aggressor you yourself would do what ever you had to do, to survive the encounter. If you reason for a moment about this you might come to realize that all the platitudes and rhetoric are moot. That as a human being you have the right to exist and the imperative to survive. If you come to that same conclusion then it follows that No government has the right to tell me/us how or with what I/we may defend ourself with. It does how ever have the right to say where the line is between defence and aggression. Until an act is committed with the intent to cross that line everything else is just conjecture and theory.
Tuesday, April 14, 2009
What would you call an organization that is highly respected in the public view? Uses this respect to influence public policy and law. They are professionals individually they have been hired to manage an essential service in our communities that we put a great deal of trust in. We were taught as children to respect and look up to these people. In a nutshell they command a great deal of respect.
A story broke a week or so ago about an employee of this organization. This employee resigned from his job. His job was to watchdog the "ETHICS" of this organization. To ensure that their actions were always above board and earnest. His decision to resign came when he brought a concern to the board of directors of this organization, the board dismissed his concern as silly and a non issue. So he tendered his resignation and has let the proverbial " cat out of the bag". More on this in a moment.
The Organization I speak of is the The Canadian Association of Police Chiefs. It sounds innocuous and only stands to reason that they exist no differently than the society of engineers. However there is a marked difference. CAPC is not a mere professional organization but is indeed a lobby group with its own agenda. Like any lobby group they lobby the Government for policies that are favourable to their cause. A lobby group that receives public funds as well as private funds in the form of sponsorships. Among the private bennifactors is the Power Corporation a company that is tied to the liberal party of Canada viz campaign contributions and the Chretien family. CGI the computer company that supplied the computer system to the 2 billion dollar boondoggle gun registry. But most telling is the company that manufactures "TASERS".
CAPC has come out with unanimous support for the use of tasers on we little people even though people have died from their use. 20 or so in the past five years. Now remember this is supposed to be a non leathal implement. CAPC has also come out in support of the Gun Registry even though when bill c-68 was first proposed they did not support it. It appears that the Chiefs and their endorsements are for sale and once bought remain bought.
Knowing that "hundreds" of "thousands" of dollars have been given to this association by the very people who benifit most from their support and endorsement in the knowlege of the weight their opinion carries with the Government and the public at large constitutes a "Conflict of Interest" They are no longer impartial judges of policy they now have a stake in the outcome.
Like the Canadian Coalition For Gun Control who lost their tax exempt non profit status and reclassified as a "lobby group". So too should the Canadian Association of Police Chiefs. They have crossed that line. Indeed given their conflicts of interest can we still trust their endorsements? I know I don't. In fact all this has shown the Chiefs to be nothing more than "DouceBags".
Link to the Globe and Mail editorial
Monday, April 6, 2009
People in Canada have had firearms for their use and protection for 400 years, this includes the period that it was part of New France. Individuals have had all different types of firearms for their use and protection since confederation. We in Canada own as many firearms as our neighbours to the south on a per capita basis. Yet as it has been pointed out by the likes of Michael Moore(rightly or wrongly) we do not suffer from as much firearms violence. Not that I wish to debate the merits of what Michael Moore has said in one of his films, his observation is valid. Bit of Canadian pride speaking here, but we are a nice group of people. I have often spoke of our sense of fair play and pragmatism.
So I put it to you my fellow Canadian is it logical to criminalize 7 million of our citizens who have enjoyed a right for 400 years? Is it fair to punish 7 million people for the actions of a handful of people who lack the ability to know right from wrong? I say a handful because the parties responsible for our pernicious firearms act amounts to at the very least 6 individuals that took their frustrations in life out on their fellow man. We read in the bold headlines of our news papers about another shooting in one of our neighbourhoods in one of our major cities quite regularly. But again this amounts to a small number of individuals engaged in criminal activity. Is not logical to punish the innocent rather than those who have committed criminal acts?
Is it logical to criminalize people before they commit a criminal act? Do we as Canadians round up people because we think they might be a risk to commit a crime? No we don't, such a notion is repugnant to us. We believe in the concept of innocent until proved guilty, do we not?
Do we think rocks,sticks, our cars possess the ability to reason and form thought? No of course not. Do we think any of the above have the ability to control our thoughts? I should hope not. Would we believe someone that said "The rock told me to break your window."? Would you consider such a statement to be rational or logical. No of course not, we would say "Grow up and take responsibility for your actions." Would we not?
If you have followed this argument thus far you see that their is a logic in play. It is individual people who cause harm to society not inanimate objects. I know perhaps what you might be thinking, " We get it guns don't hurt people yah yah blah blah". but only if, only if they could not have gotten that gun. Well that is a debate on its own, however should we begin to hold people who have had their cars stolen by thieves responsible for the actions of the thieves? Is it logical to outlaw cars because someone might steal one and use it as a get away car?
This concludes the exercise for today. Our laws should always reflect sober second thought as opposed to emotional knee jerk reactions. Laws carefully reasoned, aimed at the people who do break the law.
Friday, March 27, 2009
We have had 6 mass shootings in Canada in 34 years. Six people out of 32 million people in Canada had their trolleys slip their rails and obtained guns and decided to shoot people. Of the six three happened before our draconian gun laws were enacted. They are the reason that the Liberal Government of Jean Chretien decided to spend $2 billion creating the firearms act and the infrastructure to implement it. We will never know the true dollar amount because much of the documented expenses were declared cabinet secrets and sealed forever. I think our great grand children will be able to unseal them. We have had three since, under the strictest laws we have ever seen regarding firearms. Proving that the idea of trying to legislate against insanity is, well, insane.
It just doesn't work. The odd thing is that the shooters were seen as deteriorating emotionally by friends and family, or were known to have psychological troubles long before they found a gun.
If we are serious about keeping firearms out of the wrong hands then what we need to do is "Register Criminals". it would certainly be more cost effective. Simply because we have the infrastructure in place already and criminals are a small segment of our population. A registry of "Prohibited Persons" anyone convicted of a crime will be prohibited from owning firearms. With the addition of a stiff prison term if found in possession of a firearm. Even those persons that are on bail could be on the list temporarily, that is until their case is disposed of by the courts. Then whether that is temporary or not will depend on the outcome of course. Police already know about criminal records of individuals when they check the information data bank. It would be remarkably easy to figure out whether the person they just stopped for running a red light has a) a criminal record and b) whether they should just check to make sure they don't have guns in the car. Without fear of the race card being played. "Checked your licence you have a record for _____ I think I will take a look inside your vehicle. Checking for guns in the car of a known criminal is reasonable is it not? If not, why then is it okay to look in a vehicle of a citizen with no record what so ever? that does happen by the way, only because the citizen has a firearms licence.
From the time I started this entry much has happened I will now show you a news item
Police described Operation Salvo, which led to the arrests of 57 people across the country, as the largest child porn sweep in Canadian history.
CBC News has learned one of the people caught in the net was Hank Johnston, 71, a former RCMP officer who was stationed for a time in central Newfoundland. He was arrested and charged with possession of child pornography.
Last Thursday, the RCMP executed a search warrant at a residence in Gander, and seized computers and associated storage devices.
Johnston was released after he promised to appear in court.
CBC News contacted people who know Johnston, but none were willing to be interviewed. One, however, told CBC News that Johnston is a fine man.
Johnston is scheduled to appear in provincial court on June 16.
In all fairness to the RCMP this individual is retired. However what is probative is that he was a member. How on earth could this happen? The truth is it does, through no fault of the force's even with rigorous back ground checks how can anyone expect the force to be all knowing and all seeing? We can't, can we. No more than the firearms act can. This does demonstrate though what is wrong with the logic that Gun Control orgs, the MSM, and the Government follow. If you notice no one is saying that computers should be banned because "someone might" commit a crime with them. Nor is anyone calling for the internet to be dismantled. No that would not be fair to everyone who uses them without committing a crime. No indeed, once again correctly the person that committed the crime is being held responsible not the inanimate object. But some reason this is okay when it comes to firearms? Someone gets shot we hear nary a word about the shooter but we do hear about how guns should be outlawed because "someone might" commit a crime with one. It just defies explanation....
Thursday, March 26, 2009
and the Firearms Act If you are seriously worried compare the changes proposed against the old laws and regs. It does boil down to common sense. And when you come down to it is a piece a paper an obstacle for someone committing a crime? If they were worried about that they would not be planning to break the law in the first place.
PRIVATE MEMBERS BILL
MP: Garry Breitkreuz Party: Conservative
Date: Monday, 09 February 2009
An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Firearms Act (registration of firearms)
This enactment amends Criminal Code and the Firearms Act to modify the conditions required to obtain a registration certificate for firearms. It also directs the Auditor General to conduct a cost-benefit analysis once every five years to determine whether existing firearms control measures have been effective at improving public safety, reducing violent crime and keeping firearms out of the hands of criminals.
Her Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate and House of Commons of Canada, enacts as follows:
1. (1) Subsections 91(1) and (2) of the Criminal Code are replaced by the following
Unauthorized possession of firearm
91. (1) Subject to subsection (4), every person commits an offence who possesses a firearm without being the holder of
(a) a licence under which the person may possess it; and
(b) in the case of a prohibited firearm or a restricted firearm, a registration certificate for it.
Unauthorized possession of prohibited weapon or restricted weapon
(2) Subject to subsection (4), every person commits an offence who possesses a prohibited weapon, a restricted weapon, a prohibited device, other than a replica firearm, or any prohibited ammunition, without being the holder of a licence under which the person may possess it.
(2) Subparagraph 91(4)(b)(ii) of the Act is replaced by the following:
(ii) obtains a licence under which the person may possess it and, in the case of a prohibited firearm or a restricted firearm, a registration certificate for it.
(3) Subsection 91(5) of the Act is repealed.
2. (1) Subsections 92(1) and (2) of the Act are replaced by the following:
92. (1) Subject to subsection (4), every person commits an offence who possesses a firearm knowing that the person is not the holder of
(a) a licence under which the person may possess it; and
(b) in the case of a prohibited firearm or a restricted firearm, a registration certificate for it.
Possession of prohibited weapon, device or ammunition knowing its possession is unauthorized
(2) Subject to subsection (4), every person commits an offence who possesses a prohibited weapon, a restricted weapon, a prohibited device, other than a replica firearm, or any prohibited ammunition knowing that the person is not the holder of a licence under which the person may possess it.
(2) Subparagraph 92(4)(b)(ii) of the Act is replaced by the following:
(ii) obtains a licence under which the person may possess it and, in the case of a prohibited firearm or a restricted firearm, a registration certificate for it.
(3) Subsections 92(5) and (6) of the Act are repealed.
3. The portion of subsection 93(1) of the Act before paragraph (a) is replaced by the following:
Possession at unauthorized place
93. (1) Subject to subsection (3), every person commits an offence who, being the holder of an authorization or a licence under which the person may possess a firearm, a prohibited weapon, a restricted weapon, a prohibited device or prohibited ammunition, possesses the firearm, prohibited weapon, restricted weapon, prohibited device or prohibited ammunition at a place that is
4. (1) The portion of subsection 94(1) of the Act before paragraph (a) is replaced by the following:
Unauthorized possession in motor vehicle
94. (1) Subject to subsections (3) and (4), every person commits an offence who is an occupant of a motor vehicle in which the person knows there is a firearm, a prohibited weapon, a restricted weapon, a prohibited device, other than a replica firearm, or any prohibited ammunition, unless
(2) Subparagraphs 94(1)(a)(i) and (ii) of the Act are replaced by the following:
(i) the person or any other occupant of the motor vehicle is the holder of
(A) a licence under which the person or other occupant may possess the firearm, and
(B) in the case of a prohibited firearm or a restricted firearm, an authorization and a registration certificate for it,
(ii) the person had reasonable grounds to believe that any other occupant of the motor vehicle was the holder of
(A) a licence under which that other occupant may possess the firearm, and
(B) in the case of a prohibited firearm or a restricted firearm, an authorization and a registration certificate for it.
(3) Subsection 94(5) of the Act is repealed.
5. The portion of subsection 95(1) of the Act before paragraph (a) is replaced by the following:
Possession of prohibited or restricted firearm with ammunition
95. (1) Subject to subsection (3), every person commits an offence who, in any place, possesses a loaded prohibited firearm or restricted firearm, or an unloaded prohibited firearm or restricted firearm together with readily accessible ammunition that is capable of being discharged in the firearm, without being the holder of
6. Subsections 117.03(1) and (2) of the Act are replaced by the following:
Seizure on failure to produce authorization
117.03 (1) Despite section 117.02, a peace officer who finds
(a) a person in possession of a firearm who fails, on demand, to produce, for inspection by the peace officer, an authorization or a licence under which the person may lawfully possess the firearm and, in the case of a prohibited firearm or a restricted firearm, a registration certificate for it, or
(b) a person in possession of a prohibited weapon, a restricted weapon, a prohibited device or any prohibited ammunition who fails, on demand, to produce, for inspection by the peace officer, an authorization or a licence under which the person may lawfully possess it,
may seize the firearm, prohibited weapon, restricted weapon, prohibited device or prohibited ammunition unless its possession by the person in the circumstances in which it is found is authorized by any provision of this Part, or the person is under the direct and immediate supervision of another person who may lawfully possess it.
Return of seized thing on production of authorization
(2) If a person from whom anything is seized under subsection (1) claims the thing within fourteen days after the seizure and produces for inspection by the peace officer by whom it was seized, or any other peace officer having custody of it,
(a) a licence under which the person is lawfully entitled to possess it, and
(b) in the case of a prohibited firearm or a restricted firearm, an authorization and registration certificate for it,
the thing shall without delay be returned to that person.
7. Subparagraph 4(a)(i) of the Firearms Act is replaced by the following:
(i) licences for firearms and authorizations and registration certificates for prohibited firearms or restricted firearms, under which persons may possess firearms in circumstances that would otherwise constitute an offence under subsection 91(1), 92(1), 93(1) or 95(1) of the Criminal Code,
8. (1) Subsection 7(1) of the Act is amended by adding the following after paragraph (d)
(e) is or was in possession of a non-restricted license and possesses one or more firearms and does not require a licence to acquire other firearms
(2) Subsection 7(2) of the Act is amended by adding the following after paragraph (b)
(c) is or was in possession of a restricted license and possesses one or more firearms and does not require a licence to acquire other firearms
9. Section 12 of the Act is amended by adding the following after subsection (6):
(6.01) A particular individual is eligible to hold a licence authorizing that particular individual to possess a handgun referred to in subsection (6.1) if that individual had applied for a registration certificate on or before December 31, 2002.
10. (1) The portion of subsection 19(1) before paragraph (a) is replaced by the following:
19.(1) An individual who holds a licence authorizing the individual to possess prohibited firearms or restricted firearms shall be authorized to transport a prohibited firearm or restricted firearm between two or more places for any lawful purpose, including,
11. (2) Subsection 19(2) of the Act is repealed.
12. (1) Paragraph 23(1)(b) of the English version of the Act is replaced by the following:
(b) the transferor has no reason to believe that the transferee is not authorized to acquire and possess that kind of firearm;
(2) Paragraphs 23(1)(c) to (f) of the Act are replaced by the following:
(c) in the case of a transfer to an individual, the transferor verifies the validity of the transferees Firearms Licence with the Canada Firearms Centre, and obtains a reference number for the inquiry;
(d) in the case of a prohibited firearm or a restricted firearm, the transferor informs the Registrar of the transfer and a new registration certificate is issued in accordance with this Act; and;
(e) the prescribed conditions are met.
13. Subparagraph 33(a)(ii) of the Act is replaced by the following:
(ii) in the case of a prohibited firearm or a restricted firearm, lends the registration certificate for it to the borrower; or
14. Paragraph 34(a) of the Act is replaced by the following:
(a) in the case of a prohibited firearm or a restricted firearm, the transferor lends the registration certificate for it to the borrower; and
15. Paragraph 35.1(1)(b) of the Act, as enacted by section 27 of chapter 8 of the Statutes of Canada, 2003, is replaced by the following:
(b) the individual produces a licence authorizing him or her to acquire and possess that kind of firearm and, in the case of a restricted firearm, satisfies the customs officer that the individual holds a registration certificate for the firearm;
16. Subsection 36(1) of the Act is replaced by the following:
Temporary licence and registration certificate
36. (1) A declaration that is confirmed under paragraph 35(1)(b) has the same effect after the importation of the firearm as a licence authorizing the non-resident to possess only that firearm and, in the case of a restricted firearm, as a registration certificate for the firearm until
(a) the expiry of sixty days after the importation, in the case of a firearm that is neither a prohibited firearm nor a restricted firearm; or
(b) the earlier of the expiry of sixty days after the importation and the expiry of the authorization to transport, in the case of a restricted firearm.
17. Subparagraph 38(1)(a)(ii) of the Act is replaced by the following:
(ii) produces his or her licence and, in the case of a prohibited firearm or a restricted firearm, the registration certificate for the firearm; and
18. Paragraphs 40(1)(b) and (c) of the Act, as enacted by section 30 of chapter 8 of the Statutes of Canada, 2003, are replaced by the following:
(b) the individual produces a licence authorizing him or her to possess that kind of firearm;
(c) in the case of a prohibited firearm or a restricted firearm, the individual satisfies the customs officer that the individual holds a registration certificate for the firearm; and
19. Section 41 of the Act, as enacted by section 31 of chapter 8 of the Statutes of Canada, 2003, is replaced by the following:
Temporary registration certificate
41. An authorization that is confirmed in accordance with paragraph 40(2)(e) has the same effect as a registration certificate for a restricted firearm until a registration certificate is issued for it.
20. Paragraph 44(a) of the Act is replaced by the following:
(a) in the case of a prohibited firearm or a restricted firearm, holds the registration certificate for the firearm;
21. Section 60 of the Act is replaced by the following:
Registration certificates and authorizations to export or import
60. The Registrar is responsible for issuing registration certificates for prohibited firearms and restricted firearms and assigning firearms identification numbers to them and for issuing authorizations to export and authorizations to import firearms.
22.(1) Paragraph 64(1)(a) of the Act is replaced by the following:
(a) ten years after the birthday of the holder next following the day on which it is issued, and
(2) Section 64 of the Act is amended by adding the following after subsection (1)
(1.01) Despite subsection (1), an individual who has not applied to renew a license by the expiration of the period for which it is expressed to be issued shall receive an automatic extension of the period for which the licence is expressed to be issued by an additional period of up to two years in order to permit the individual to apply for a renewal
Conditions of extension
(1.02) An individual who receives an extension under subsection (1.01) may not acquire any new firearms or ammunition until his or her license has been renewed.
23. Subsections 65(1) to (3) are replaced by the following:
Term of authorizations
65. (1) Subject to subsection (4), an authorization expires on the expiration of the period for which it is expressed to be issued
24. The portion of section 66 of the Act before paragraph (a) is replaced by the following:
Term of registration certificates
66. A registration certificate for a prohibited firearm or a restricted firearm expires when
25. Paragraph 71(1)(a) of the Act is replaced by the following:
(a) may revoke a registration certificate for a prohibited firearm or a restricted firearm for any good and sufficient reason; and
26. Subsection 72(5) of the Act is replaced by the following:
Disposal of firearms — registration certificate
(5) A notice given under subsection (1) in respect of a registration certificate for a prohibited firearm or a restricted firearm must specify a reasonable period during which the applicant for or holder of the registration certificate may deliver to a peace officer or a firearms officer or a chief firearms officer or otherwise lawfully dispose of the firearm to which the registration certificate relates and during which sections 91, 92 and 94 of the Criminal Code do not apply to the applicant or holder.
27. Paragraphs 83(1)(a) and (b) of the Act are replaced by the following:
(a) every licence, every registration certificate for a prohibited firearm or a restricted firearm and every authorization that is issued or revoked by the Registrar;
(b) every application for a licence, a registration certificate for a prohibited firearm or a restricted firearm or an authorization that is refused by the Registrar;
28. The Act is amended by adding the following after section 97:
97.1 The Auditor General shall be directed, every five years, to conduct a cost-benefit analysis on each existing firearms control measure to determine its effectiveness at improving public safety, reducing violent crime and keeping firearms out of the hands of criminals
29. Section 105 of the Act is replaced by the following:
Demand to produce firearm
105. An inspector who believes on reasonable grounds that a person possesses a firearm may, by demand made to that person, require that person, within a reasonable time after the demand is made, to produce the firearm in the manner specified by the inspector for the purpose of verifying the serial number or other identifying features of the firearm and of ensuring that, in the case of a prohibited firearm or a restricted firearm, the person is the holder of the registration certificate for it.
30. The portion of section 109 of the Act before paragraph (a) is replaced by the following:
109. Every person who commits an offence under section 106, 107 or 108, who contravenes subsection 29(1) or who contravenes a regulation made under paragraph 117(d), (e), (f), (g), (i), (j), (l), (m), (m.1) or (n) the contravention of which has been made an offence under paragraph 117(o)
31. Section 112 of the Act is repealed.
32. Sections 114 and 115 of the Act are replaced by the following:
Failure to deliver up revoked licence, etc.
114. Every person commits an offence who, being the holder of a licence, a registration certificate for a prohibited firearm or a restricted firearm or an authorization that is revoked, does not deliver it up to a peace officer or firearms officer without delay after the revocation.
115. Every person who commits an offence under section 113 or 114 is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.
33. (1) Section 117 of the Act is amended by adding the following after paragraph (m):
(m.1) regulating the keeping and destruction of records by businesses in relation to firearms that are neither prohibited firearms nor restricted firearms;
(2) Paragraph 117(o) of the Act is replaced by the following:
(o) creating offences consisting of contraventions of the regulations made under paragraph (d), (e), (f), (g), (i), (j), (k.1), (k.2), (l), (m), (m.1) or (n);
34. Subsection 119(3) of the Act is replaced by the following:
Exception — urgency
(3) A regulation made under paragraph 117(i), (l), (m), (m.1), (n), (o), (q), (s) or (t) may be made without being laid before either House of Parliament if the federal Minister is of the opinion that the making of the regulation is so urgent that section 118 should not be applicable in the circumstances.
35. (1) In this section, the “other Act” means An Act to amend the Criminal Code (firearms) and the Firearms Act, being chapter 8 of the Statutes of Canada, 2003.
(2) On the later of the day on which section 13 of this Act comes into force and the day on which section 28 of the other Act comes into force — or, if those days are the same day, then on that day — subsection 36(1) of the Firearms Act is replaced by the following:
Temporary licence and registration certificate
36. (1) A declaration that is confirmed under paragraph 35(1)(d) has the same effect after the importation of the firearm as a licence authorizing the non-resident to possess that kind of firearm, and in the case of a restricted firearm, as a registration certificate for the firearm, for a period of
(a) in the case of a declaration where a report referred to in subparagraph 35(1)(b)(i) was produced, one year after the importation; or
(b) in the case of any other declaration, 60 days after the importation.
(3) On the later of the day on which section 14 of this Act comes into force and the day on which section 29 of the other Act comes into force — or, if those days are the same day, then on that day — paragraph 38(1)(a) of the Firearms Act is replaced by the following:
(a) holds a licence to possess that kind of firearm and, in the case of a prohibited firearm or a restricted firearm, a registration certificate and an authorization to transport the firearm; and
Wednesday, March 25, 2009
The trouble with many columnists they get to put theirs in everyones home. Some can be quite insightful others are merely the "house orchestra" for the editorial policy which in some cases is the politics of the publisher. Which is fine,,,,really,,,. I just take exception when they are used to pontificate about issues that they truly know nothing about. The journalist on the other hand wants to be a columnist, he's the weasel in the hen house so to speak. He has something to prove, he wants to show his employer he has the right stuff to be one(a columnist). We live in a world of competition he has to get noticed so they will write or present a news story as though it is earth shattering news they have uncovered. Have I mentioned they needn't get the facts straight. noooo,,,they are not writing for your sake but for their own. After all they want the promotion.
I think of this as freedom of the press run amok. The problem is they have forgotten about the responsibility that the right carries with it. They could care less about every other right they might trample in producing their story, the only right that matters is their right. Maybe if they truly championed individual rights from time to time rather than looking out for their self interest we peons would actually be able to make an informed choice about something. It would be nice for a change to get a news report that is unvarnished and unbiased, one that is in fact a report. A tennis star once said when asked by a journalist about her sexuality she said "In my Country (Czechoslovakia) there is no freedom of the press, here in the west there is no freedom from the press".
Friday, March 20, 2009
Bellow is a letter to the Prime Minister written by Wendy Cukier of the Coalition for Gun Control. I have read the proposed bill c301 and have to ask did Ms Cukier even read the bill? Or is it the usual modus oporendi of the Coalition for Gun Control to make it up as they go along. To be frank and honest about the proposed bill it doesn't even come close to dismantling gun control in Canada. As usual there is a great deal of rhetoric and little real substance to the CCGC position. The proposed bill would only eliminate the registry of shotguns and rifles. It would still require one to have the proper licence and background checks.
There are some other inclusions into the bill that fall under what a normal person would regard as "Common Sense" issues. Whether you realize it or not some people have a licence for what are known as 12(x)s or prohibited firearms. They have these because the law has allowed them viz a grandfathering clause in the law. They are in lawful possession of these firearms. The previous Liberal Government pulled their special authorizations to shoot these on a licenced range. In pulling this authorization they effectively made having these firearms pointless. They did this for no other reason than they could but could not lawfully suspend their licences without just cause.
The goal of the firearms act is disarmament of the civilian population one class at a time. Bill 301 would restore what was already lawful before it would not create anything new. Another item to be streamlined was the registering of pistols, revolvers, and short barrelled long guns known as the restricted class. Instead of having a piece of paper for each it would be reduced to one piece of paper for all of them you own. Another item was the authorization to transport again each individual firearm in the restricted class has to have an ATT for each this was to be streamlined into one for all. No different than your automobile insurance you get one slip with all the cars you have insured on one pink slip.
These are only reductions in the amount of paper work that must be processed. It is premised in the fact that if you have a valid licence for the class of firearm it is logical that you are qualified to possess it and transport to the range, the gunsmith, and home. No where in the bill does it do away with the registration of the restricted or prohibited classes of firearms. Nor does the bill do away with the rigorous screening process in order to be licenced.
To have a restricted licence you must pass three levels of screening and have no criminal record. The first is local the second is cross Canada the third is with Interpol. To purchase and register a firearm in this class you must be a member in good standing of an approved gun club. So contrary to popular belief that any person can walk into Walmart or the corner gun shop and buy a gun and walk out with it. It is very strictly controlled and will remain so.
Now if you take for gospel what is being said about firearms in the Mainstream Media and the various gun control orgs you would be lead to believe that blood is running in the streets and guns need to be removed from society. However if you look at the actual numbers that statscan compiled you will actually be amazed. In all of Canada there were 594 homicides, this includes all methods. 188 shootings, 190 stabbings 116 beatings, 50 strangulations, 4 burnings/suffocations, 19 other methods, 27 not known, in 2007. 188 people shot sounds like a great deal but when you compare the total of the other categories 406 in total 188 isn't even half of the others and and is not even a third of total homicides. Putting it into perspective 406 people were murdered without guns.
I will not get into a battle of the sexes and who hurts who more. That is just childish and places a higher value of one human being over another. To me violence is violence and that is not acceptable in a civil society. It is no more acceptable than what a feminist of note suggested some years ago. That all males between the ages of 15-45 ought to be incarcerated in order to prevent violence against women. Yet these humanitarians fail to mention anything about violent women.
The one thing the statscan report makes clear about domestic homicide is the perpetrator has a long history of spousal abuse. By law they would be prohibited from owning a firearm. However it does not seem to impair their ability to kill the one they claim to love. It seems by Ms Cukier it is better they be beaten, stabbed or strangled than shot the sad fact of the statscan study is domestic violence has remained steady and unchanged 7% of all crime. Another sad fact is among suicides, her gun law hasn't changed that number either in the absence of a gun they chose another method. I really wonder where this woman's gets her sensibilities. Personally I would rather take a bullet than being beaten to death.
Friday, March 6, 2009
The Right Honourable Stephen Harper
Prime Minister of Canada
House of Commons
Re : Do not dismantle gun control. Defeat Bill C-301 on April 1, 2009 Dear Sir,
The signatories to this letter are deeply concerned about Conservative MP Garry Breitkreuz’s Private Member Bill C-301, which will relax controls on restricted and prohibited guns (including handguns, assault weapons and machine guns) as well as eliminate the registration of rifles and shotguns. Please ensure your party defeats this proposed legislation at second reading on April 1, 2009.
You have stated your commitment to ending violence against women, most recently in the letter many of us received on December 6th 2008. Our gun law is not only a monument to those who were killed on December 6, 1989 at l’École Polytechnique, but is recognized worldwide as an effective tool for reducing gun violence targeting women. Commitment to ending violence against women requires more than wearing a white ribbon on December 6th. As the 20th anniversary of the Montreal massacre approaches, it would be a travesty if the party you lead helps dismantle the gun law we all worked so hard to pass.
Our laws have made Canada safer.
· In 1991, more than 1400 Canadians were killed with guns. Now it is fewer than 800.
· The 2007 rate of murders with rifles and shotguns has dropped by more than 78% from 1991.
· Murders of women with guns have plummeted from 85 in 1991 to 32 in
2004 (the numbers of
murders without guns have not dropped as significantly).
· Suicide rates, particularly among youth, have also declined.
Policing, public health and victims’ organizations across Canada – including those from Polytechnique and Dawson College - support sensible gun control. On behalf of millions of women in Canada, so do we. As the Alberta Court of Appeal noted, gun control is a women’s
issue: women represent a small
percentage of Canada’s 2 million gun owners. But they account for a high percentage of the victims of gun violence.
Mandatory screening, licensing and renewal for all firearm owners as well as registration of all firearms are important measures for protecting the safety of women.
Renewable licenses reduce
the risk that individuals with a history of domestic violence will have access to firearms.
Registration ensures that the police can take preventative action. The proposed law extends the licensing period for 10 years for all gun owners (including those who own handguns and assault weapons), reducing the opportunities for review and ensuring that information is up to date. Canada’s licensing system, with spousal renewal, is essential for the safety of women.
Do not help undermine it and jeopardize our safety and the safety of our children.
Continued from page 1
Rifles and shotguns are the firearms most often used to kill women and children in domestic violence. Access to a firearm is the fifth leading predictor of female homicide in domestic violence. The proposed law also eliminates the requirement to register rifles and shotguns. The Supreme Court underscored the importance of registration as a means of enforcing the licensing provisions of the law. If a licensed owner can buy as many guns as they want without having their name associated with the guns through the registry, there is little to prevent them from giving those guns to individuals without licenses.
Information about the guns
individuals owns is essential to enforcing prohibition orders and supporting preventative action by Canada’s police agencies; they currently use the registry 9400 times per day. There are many powerful semi-automatic firearms currently classified as unrestricted firearms, including the Ruger Mini-14 used at Polytechnique. Repeatedly, inquests into the murders of women and children recommended the licensing of gun owners and registration of guns to prevent further tragedies.
There is no place for military and tactical weapons in the hands of civilians. Almost 400,000 Canadians signed a petition calling for a ban on these weapons and most countries in the world prohibit civilian possession of fully automatic and semi automatic weapons. The shooting at Dawson college taught us a bitter lesson =E
2 that the lists of prohibited
firearms have not been
updated since the law passed in 1995. We want more control on these weapons, not less. Bill
C-301 relaxes controls allowing fully automatic weapons to be taken to shooting ranges.
Canadian women continue to support overwhelmingly the licensing of gun owners and registration of all firearms. Polls have shown that while half of gun owners opposed the law, 77% of people living with a gun owner supported it. Women are rightly concerned about access to rifles and shotguns in cases of domestic violence and suicide:
· 88% of Canadian women killed with guns are killed with a shotgun or rifle, the very guns that opponents of the law say are not the cause of gun violence;
·Access to guns is the fifth highest of 18 risk factors in spousal homicides; · 50% of family homicides end in the suicide of the murderer, indicating that the key to protecting women and children is thorough screening in licensing and licence renewals for gun owners; ·When guns are used there are more likely to be multiple victims, often children; ·Although opposition to gun control is stronger where rates of gun ownership are higher (particularly in rural and western communities), women and children are particularly at risk from guns in the home in these areas.
Let us be clear: the stakes could not be higher for Canadian women.
Ending violence against women
requires more than talk. It requires action. We urge you to lead your party to reduce violence and suicide in our families and our communities, by defeating Bill C-301 on April 1.
Signatories listed on attached page.
Thursday, March 12, 2009
'No' to gun ban support
On Monday, March 9th Gina Barber of London Ontario's Board of Control tabled a motion to help pressure the Federal government for a nationwide ban of legally owned handguns. The motion was in support of Toronto's Mayor David Miller, who blames legal owners and Americans for the problems of violence with guns in his city. Several council meetings were held with advice from legal owners who wanted a more effective crime prevention strategy without affecting legitimate sportsmen and women. Council also heard commentary from the police chief, deciding with a vote of 12 to 5 against supporting a ban, as it would have no useful effect on criminals.
Ms. Barber noted in council that she had recieved very little community support for a ban, but a large volume of mail against it. Even the city's Police Chief, Murray Faulkner has said, "Those who choose to break the law will do so, regardless of bans."
Responsible owners across Canada have been pushing for changes to firearms law that would put more public money into enforcement and reduction strategies, instead of money-wasters such as a Long Gun Registry or handgun bans. The debate about effective crime control has continued to be one of the most talked about topics in Canada next to the economy.
The bumper sticker reads:Only Crooked Politicians Fear Armed Citizens.
Indeed one has to question their motives, after all why would a politician support a law that disarms the law abiding while leaving the criminal elements of society to carry on business as usual. I think I would have to agree that only a crooked politician could support such a law one that would support this in the name of "Public Safety". If anyone is interested Britain banned handguns back in 1998, since then they have been awash with gun crimes. And they are an Island State.
Now on YouTube 1000 Words