We will soon see the first step in dismantling of the Long Gun Registry. I among others are working towards the end of the firearms control program.
Bill C-68 which became our firearms control program was created out of hype and hysteria; furthermore it was an overt act of fraud when it was put through Parliament to ensure passage. It divided the Country along geographic and urban/rural lines. In short everyone took leave of their senses.
The net end result of the Firearms Control program; it is a criminal offence in Canada to possess a firearm bottom line; regardless whether you have owned them for years. Like all criminal offences in Canada the statute must provide a defence to the charge; it does so in the form of a licence; you must have a licence to possess firearms in Canada lest you face the full force of the statute. What is not commonly known though is that this defence provided must be available to the accused. Which presents an interesting proposition.
Say that I was a career criminal with a lengthy criminal record including assault. I am found in possession of a firearm; I would be undoubtedly be charged under section 91 and 92 of the criminal code of Canada. This would be the bare minimum the Crown usually uses a scatter gun approach to prosecution(pardon the pun) lay as many charges as possible in hopes of intimidating the accused into a plea bargain. Be that as it may however the main charge could be beaten and the net end result would be that section 91 and 92 become of no force or effect because they are unconstitutional (R. v. Morgentaler) provided that there was not a pre-existing court ordered prohibition for possession. I would wager that any charge where an authorization of some form that is dependant upon having a valid licence would be considered null and void. I believe it will be only a matter of time before a sharp ambitious criminal lawyer hits upon this and defends one of these thugs with this defence and wins.
I say thug only because no legitimate firearms owner would ever get a fair trial in Canada. This is why I haven't challenged the Criminal Code on this basis; though hypothetically I could obtain a black market prohibited firearm either handgun or other type of prohibited firearm like a sub machine gun and invite the authorities to arrest me. Not having the magic grandfathered status to have a licence for such I could not possibly ever have a valid licence for them; since the defence is a licence that I could not obtain the defence is "illusionary" the statute is invalid. Though I would not risk such a venture solely because the "good guys" don't play by the rules of fair play. I would find myself defending 50 charges stemming from the single offence. Given my activist activities on the internet this too would be used against me. This isn't paranoia I have been witness to such activities by our "good guys" I have also studied the case law over the past 4 years it never ends well for the challenger.
All this notwithstanding I put to you a question and an appeal to logic and reason. The cost of implementing the firearms control program has cost in excess of 2 billion dollars the true costs of the program will never be known because the Chretien Government made them Cabinet secrets; further more the cost of operating the program runs in the neighbourhood of 130 million dollars per year. It has stripped all firearms owners of their constitutional rights and safeguards simply because they complied with the program; whereas your average street thug has all his intact simply because he did not comply with the firearms program and is free to obtain whatever firearm their heart desires completely illegally and authorities would have to obtain a search warrant even to find their firearms. They can't get a search warrant for known drug houses why would they be able to get one for this? 2 million firearms owners out of 7 million complied; 7 million out of 21 million firearms were registered; this does not include criminals because criminals are not troubled by such things as obeying the Criminal Code.
So I put it to: The firearms act was intended to end all gun violence it has not. People still get shot whether the firearm is registered or the shooter has a licence or not. DEAD is DEAD this is one statistic that no one can argue with. The firearms Control Program has failed to end this; it has failed to save "one life" Therefore is it not time to scrap it and start from scratch?
Is it not time to really look at the real problems like organized gangs, rather than ordinary citizens who own firearms? Is it not time to put our tax dollars into effective community programs to eliminate criminality, rather than chasing honest people for paper crimes?
Saturday, November 12, 2011
The Demise of the Firearms Registry
At long last the bill to kill the long gun registry will soon be law. HIP HIP Huzzah.
It's only worth one cheer! The draconian Firearms Control Program will still be in full operation the day after C-19 becomes statutory. It will still be a criminal offence for ordinary Canadians to have lawful firearms without a licence. I would like at this time to assure all advocates of gun control that WE'RE NOT DONE YET!! We will not rest until this bad statute is finished, and become a memory.
As predicted by "we" "paranoid" "gun nuts" right on cue the Coalition For Gun Control have started their campaign of fear; they have started planting the idea that with the loss of the long gun registry it will mean "high powered" "deadly accurate up to a KM" sniper rifles will be de-registered.
Among the firearms community there is a divide those of us who figured out that if you can ban one type of firearm you can ban any type of firearm, and those who think that their firearm is safe just because they are hunters and none of their guns are a problem. We call these firearms owners "Fudds" after the Warner Brothers character Elmer Fudd. To say the least it is a very derogatory term. The Fudds have long held that their firearms are not the problem that they only hunt with them so on so forth; we have been telling the Fudds "yes you're right they won't come after your deer rifle, but they will come after your high powered sniper rifle". Well as if we had been watching a "future TV" it happens CCGC releases the fear campaign "High Powered Sniper Rifles Will Be De-registered." For the non firearms owner I will explain; any hunting rifle with a scope can be called a sniper rifle. Firearms manufacturers have spent thousands if not millions of dollars in research to develop hunting rifles that are more and more accurate for hunters, police and military. What is not commonly know by someone who has never shot a firearm is that the rifle is only one part of the equation; it might be of the perfect design and precision it still requires hundreds of hours and thousands of rounds of ammunition to become a consistent marksmen. It requires carefully controlled breathing an understanding of ballistic trajectory and the effects of wind to hit a target even at a hundred yards. No one can pick up a rifle and become an instant Hawkeye; even with the high tech rifles of today.
To put it succinctly it is pure Coalition for gun control propaganda.
It's only worth one cheer! The draconian Firearms Control Program will still be in full operation the day after C-19 becomes statutory. It will still be a criminal offence for ordinary Canadians to have lawful firearms without a licence. I would like at this time to assure all advocates of gun control that WE'RE NOT DONE YET!! We will not rest until this bad statute is finished, and become a memory.
As predicted by "we" "paranoid" "gun nuts" right on cue the Coalition For Gun Control have started their campaign of fear; they have started planting the idea that with the loss of the long gun registry it will mean "high powered" "deadly accurate up to a KM" sniper rifles will be de-registered.
Among the firearms community there is a divide those of us who figured out that if you can ban one type of firearm you can ban any type of firearm, and those who think that their firearm is safe just because they are hunters and none of their guns are a problem. We call these firearms owners "Fudds" after the Warner Brothers character Elmer Fudd. To say the least it is a very derogatory term. The Fudds have long held that their firearms are not the problem that they only hunt with them so on so forth; we have been telling the Fudds "yes you're right they won't come after your deer rifle, but they will come after your high powered sniper rifle". Well as if we had been watching a "future TV" it happens CCGC releases the fear campaign "High Powered Sniper Rifles Will Be De-registered." For the non firearms owner I will explain; any hunting rifle with a scope can be called a sniper rifle. Firearms manufacturers have spent thousands if not millions of dollars in research to develop hunting rifles that are more and more accurate for hunters, police and military. What is not commonly know by someone who has never shot a firearm is that the rifle is only one part of the equation; it might be of the perfect design and precision it still requires hundreds of hours and thousands of rounds of ammunition to become a consistent marksmen. It requires carefully controlled breathing an understanding of ballistic trajectory and the effects of wind to hit a target even at a hundred yards. No one can pick up a rifle and become an instant Hawkeye; even with the high tech rifles of today.
To put it succinctly it is pure Coalition for gun control propaganda.
Friday, June 17, 2011
It's Not A Law, The decline of rights and the rise of legalism
Firstly the devil is always in the details. We as a society are generally quite ignorant when it comes to defining differences between laws and legislation.
We are a Common Law jurisdiction. The Common Law is a law of consensus it is agreed upon. It is a law based in custom and tradition, which was applied by judges who articulated them into law. In the words of Peter Landry it is the fair haired child at societies table.
Legislation is the brutish ugly bastard child at the table. It is the embodiment of what government truly is, which is 'force'. Legislation is what causes our society to slip into 'legalism' where anyone can become a criminal. It is the forced control over behaviour, or put another way it is ad hoc social engineering. Unfortunately it is necessary in our modern world to keep things moving and in certain cases keeps fairness in society.
The law is designed to protect freedom and rights. Whereas legislation is aimed at taking away these things. The law applies to everyone including the Queen, whereas legislation does not always apply to everyone equally exemptions can be written into it. A Law cannot be repealed since it was not enacted by a parliament, legislation can.
Although both ours and England's Parliaments can limit the Law with legislation unfortunately.
Statutes and Acts of Parliament are not law. They are only given the force of law. It might be a stretch but you could say it is a polite form of mob rule, since it was enacted by our elected representatives of which a majority of them approved the Act before Parliament. Though I would not say that is true in every case. A NGO can lobby the government claiming to represent a majority of people which in reality they only represent an minority of like minded people. Squeaky wheel meet oil.
We all have rights both constitutional and Common Law. When we claim a right it also imposes a duty on us. A right cannot exist without the accompanying duty. Blackstone says that we have the right to our life and our limbs, therefore it imposes the duty of protecting them. The law allows the keeping of such tools to this end. However in Canada we are denied these tools, The firearms act says self protection is not a valid reason for owning firearms.
My goal in this is to demonstrate that there is a difference between a law and a statute. If we begin to make this fine distinction between the two perhaps we can start regaining what the law allows and begin to regain our rights and our freedoms. As we have seen with the firearms act which was supposed to stop criminals and the misuse of firearms but instead protects criminals and began turning law abiding citizens into criminals.
We are a Common Law jurisdiction. The Common Law is a law of consensus it is agreed upon. It is a law based in custom and tradition, which was applied by judges who articulated them into law. In the words of Peter Landry it is the fair haired child at societies table.
Legislation is the brutish ugly bastard child at the table. It is the embodiment of what government truly is, which is 'force'. Legislation is what causes our society to slip into 'legalism' where anyone can become a criminal. It is the forced control over behaviour, or put another way it is ad hoc social engineering. Unfortunately it is necessary in our modern world to keep things moving and in certain cases keeps fairness in society.
The law is designed to protect freedom and rights. Whereas legislation is aimed at taking away these things. The law applies to everyone including the Queen, whereas legislation does not always apply to everyone equally exemptions can be written into it. A Law cannot be repealed since it was not enacted by a parliament, legislation can.
Although both ours and England's Parliaments can limit the Law with legislation unfortunately.
Statutes and Acts of Parliament are not law. They are only given the force of law. It might be a stretch but you could say it is a polite form of mob rule, since it was enacted by our elected representatives of which a majority of them approved the Act before Parliament. Though I would not say that is true in every case. A NGO can lobby the government claiming to represent a majority of people which in reality they only represent an minority of like minded people. Squeaky wheel meet oil.
We all have rights both constitutional and Common Law. When we claim a right it also imposes a duty on us. A right cannot exist without the accompanying duty. Blackstone says that we have the right to our life and our limbs, therefore it imposes the duty of protecting them. The law allows the keeping of such tools to this end. However in Canada we are denied these tools, The firearms act says self protection is not a valid reason for owning firearms.
My goal in this is to demonstrate that there is a difference between a law and a statute. If we begin to make this fine distinction between the two perhaps we can start regaining what the law allows and begin to regain our rights and our freedoms. As we have seen with the firearms act which was supposed to stop criminals and the misuse of firearms but instead protects criminals and began turning law abiding citizens into criminals.
Wednesday, September 15, 2010
Such Hypocrisy!
You have to love the CBC and all the left lib media of Canada..They have been the House Orchestra for the liberal party of Canada for so long that they trip over themselves to look stupid.
Item- It seems one of Canada's pro firearms organizations has been conferring with SATAN. in laymen terms the NRA. About? Take a guess,,,if you guessed how to fight the gun control orgs and how to effectively lobby give yourself a cheroot..Imagine two pro firearms orgs comparing notes....Of course it has all the "we hate America " set aghast and are calling on the Ghost of Pierre T. to smite Stephan Harper...How dare they meddle in Canadian politics....
Of Course there is not mention of IANSA and the Canadian Coalition for Gun Controls long standing love affair..IANSA this org is just plain anti firearm and has been lobbying the U.N. to get everyone to sign a disarmament treaty..that is to say remove individual firearms ownership completely so that only police and military have guns...Just as an FYI they are well funded by the likes of George Soros..Another foreign National billionaire who happens to despise Capitalism, though it has been very kind to him.....but that is not his worse crime,
You see Mr Soros is/was a Jew. During WW II in order to survive he turned on his fellow Jews he turned them into the SS..worse still he feels no guilt about that...I would call him the most dangerous man on the planet..He is incredibly rich and has no conscience..
But hey instead of seeing things for what they are the lib left media will over look that. and keep howling at anyone that dare challenges their view
Item- It seems one of Canada's pro firearms organizations has been conferring with SATAN. in laymen terms the NRA. About? Take a guess,,,if you guessed how to fight the gun control orgs and how to effectively lobby give yourself a cheroot..Imagine two pro firearms orgs comparing notes....Of course it has all the "we hate America " set aghast and are calling on the Ghost of Pierre T. to smite Stephan Harper...How dare they meddle in Canadian politics....
Of Course there is not mention of IANSA and the Canadian Coalition for Gun Controls long standing love affair..IANSA this org is just plain anti firearm and has been lobbying the U.N. to get everyone to sign a disarmament treaty..that is to say remove individual firearms ownership completely so that only police and military have guns...Just as an FYI they are well funded by the likes of George Soros..Another foreign National billionaire who happens to despise Capitalism, though it has been very kind to him.....but that is not his worse crime,
You see Mr Soros is/was a Jew. During WW II in order to survive he turned on his fellow Jews he turned them into the SS..worse still he feels no guilt about that...I would call him the most dangerous man on the planet..He is incredibly rich and has no conscience..
But hey instead of seeing things for what they are the lib left media will over look that. and keep howling at anyone that dare challenges their view
Sunday, September 12, 2010
A Tale Of Two Registries
The debate rages two sides collide and a battle of words in the media. Among them we see the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police(CAPC)we are seeing public servants stepping across a boundary that arguably they are not supposed to cross. Be that as it may it still does not change the fact that this said same organization tried to stop Canadian politicians from enacting The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms citing that it would emasculate policing in Canada. Twenty eight years later they don't appear to be emasculated.
This is not the theme of this article just a little preface, to the main topic. We have two registries in Canada(there are more but for this we will stick with these two)The one registry is the Sex Offender Registry (I'll refer to it as SR for short) and the Gun Registry. One keeps track of convicted sex offenders the other keeps track of inanimate objects.
The SR is related to the gun registry simply because that is what the CAPC wanted in order to get it they had to give their approval and support to the long gun registry which when the gun registry was proposed the CAPC did not support it. As we can see the game of politics is in play the old you wash my hands I'll wash yours. So they traded their opposition to support in order to get what they really wanted, The Sex Offender Registry.
The SR was developed very inexpensively largely because the criminal records system meshed neatly with it. It did not require a ground up construction like the Gun Registry.
Now for the bones of contention, Firstly in order to be placed on the sex offender registry all you need do is commit a sex offence be convicted and a judge order you placed in the registry in the sentence he/she imposes sounds simple but plea bargains and such or a little absent mind-ism on the part of the court and no such order issued. Result no entry of a sex offender in the registry. However we must also recognize that the sex offender is given the benefit of what is called "due process of law", firearms owners were given no such benefit and never ever committed a crime guilt simply by possession.
The sex offender registry did not apply to people that were convicted before the enactment of the law indeed no. However the gun registry applies to all gun owners past and present, that is to mean not just new gun owners. I've owned firearms for 30 years and I was required to register even though I have never aimed a firearm at another living soul ever nor used them to commit a crime ever. It appears a sex offender has more rights than I.
It gets even better, a sex offender who registered is only required to update information once a year, and if they move they have to let the authorities know. If they bother to at all it is only a 6 month max. stint in the pokey if they don't. Me on the other hand have to tell the CFC in advance of a move for restricted firearms and immediately after the move for non restricted firearms. If I fail to it's 2 years in prison again with out ever committing a crime against society strictly just for a regulatory offence.
I am tired of being treated worse than people who have harmed society. Being a firearms owner has become no different than being on parole from prison, though I have not ever done anything to warrant such treatment. You might say that maybe I ought to just give up and turn in or sell my guns. I can't do that, not and live with myself. It is a right to keep arms in Canada, I am not one to give up a right on anything and I will challenge people that do try to take away a right that I hold.
I have proof beyond reasonable doubt that we in Canada have the Constitutional Right to keep arms in our defence. It wasn't easy to find but it does exist. The English Bill of Rights 1689 forms part of our Constitution there for Parliament has not have the right to legislate against it, it is ultra vires of Parliament or beyond their power, though it has not ever slowed a politician down in the past plenty of laws are enacted which are unconstitutional, it takes the Court to strike them down though.
I have also heard/read time and time again the same tripe about we register this that and the other, however no one goes to prison if they don't register this that or the other, a firearms owner will if he fails to register, this is a marked difference.
This is not the theme of this article just a little preface, to the main topic. We have two registries in Canada(there are more but for this we will stick with these two)The one registry is the Sex Offender Registry (I'll refer to it as SR for short) and the Gun Registry. One keeps track of convicted sex offenders the other keeps track of inanimate objects.
The SR is related to the gun registry simply because that is what the CAPC wanted in order to get it they had to give their approval and support to the long gun registry which when the gun registry was proposed the CAPC did not support it. As we can see the game of politics is in play the old you wash my hands I'll wash yours. So they traded their opposition to support in order to get what they really wanted, The Sex Offender Registry.
The SR was developed very inexpensively largely because the criminal records system meshed neatly with it. It did not require a ground up construction like the Gun Registry.
Now for the bones of contention, Firstly in order to be placed on the sex offender registry all you need do is commit a sex offence be convicted and a judge order you placed in the registry in the sentence he/she imposes sounds simple but plea bargains and such or a little absent mind-ism on the part of the court and no such order issued. Result no entry of a sex offender in the registry. However we must also recognize that the sex offender is given the benefit of what is called "due process of law", firearms owners were given no such benefit and never ever committed a crime guilt simply by possession.
The sex offender registry did not apply to people that were convicted before the enactment of the law indeed no. However the gun registry applies to all gun owners past and present, that is to mean not just new gun owners. I've owned firearms for 30 years and I was required to register even though I have never aimed a firearm at another living soul ever nor used them to commit a crime ever. It appears a sex offender has more rights than I.
It gets even better, a sex offender who registered is only required to update information once a year, and if they move they have to let the authorities know. If they bother to at all it is only a 6 month max. stint in the pokey if they don't. Me on the other hand have to tell the CFC in advance of a move for restricted firearms and immediately after the move for non restricted firearms. If I fail to it's 2 years in prison again with out ever committing a crime against society strictly just for a regulatory offence.
I am tired of being treated worse than people who have harmed society. Being a firearms owner has become no different than being on parole from prison, though I have not ever done anything to warrant such treatment. You might say that maybe I ought to just give up and turn in or sell my guns. I can't do that, not and live with myself. It is a right to keep arms in Canada, I am not one to give up a right on anything and I will challenge people that do try to take away a right that I hold.
I have proof beyond reasonable doubt that we in Canada have the Constitutional Right to keep arms in our defence. It wasn't easy to find but it does exist. The English Bill of Rights 1689 forms part of our Constitution there for Parliament has not have the right to legislate against it, it is ultra vires of Parliament or beyond their power, though it has not ever slowed a politician down in the past plenty of laws are enacted which are unconstitutional, it takes the Court to strike them down though.
I have also heard/read time and time again the same tripe about we register this that and the other, however no one goes to prison if they don't register this that or the other, a firearms owner will if he fails to register, this is a marked difference.
Thursday, August 12, 2010
Enough With The Rule Making Already
At long last a fellow with letters behind his name has finally come and said what myself and many like minded have been saying for some time "We don't need a rule for everything". That is to say that we don't need to pass a law every time a tragedy strikes.
"If a skeptic was to wonder why Canadian authorities seem to respond to every tragedy by proposing intrusive new rules that can have impacts far beyond the problems they purport to be addressing, Frank Furedi has the answer: Canada has a cultural "addiction to rule-making."" Joseph Brean, National Post • Saturday, Aug. 7, 2010
I have had the good fortune in my life to not have tragedies where a loved one has died as a result of it.(knock on wood) I've had a good number of close calls and have known people who have. However do we always need a law passed every time someone does?
We have fallen pray to a new brand of "legalism" I say new because the first Emperor of China had used such methods for obtaining slave labour basically by passing law after law that essentially you could not breath without breaking a law. Of course it carried dire consequences back then. Unlike today where many "rules" are just legal pick pocketing by the the authorities.
Indeed we are a rule happy society. We have somewhere in the neighbourhood of a million statutes. So in essence at some point in our daily lives we are breaking some rule or another,with little consequence since we don't have the authorities peeking in our windows and following us around..At least not yet anyway.
The single largest problem with this addiction is that it erodes personal liberty and freedom. It derogates our rights, not that our supreme court cares, they are on record saying that yes that rule does infringe your rights but it is a minor infringement. So go away and don't bother us. Nice of them to think so highly of rights and freedoms since it is their job to protect them. My opinion of that august body has fallen dramatically I now refer to them as Supreme Court Jesters.
Well since we have so many rules already could we not recycle them for other things? It would save printing costs and paper in our parliaments. What is more the pity though is these jokers in parliament like justifying their high salaries and want to show us they care beyond their fully indexed pensions. So they proposed legislation for this that and the other tragedy or crisis du jour. What is odd though is, I don't feel any safer for their efforts. In fact I feel poorer for it all because in the end I am less free.
"If a skeptic was to wonder why Canadian authorities seem to respond to every tragedy by proposing intrusive new rules that can have impacts far beyond the problems they purport to be addressing, Frank Furedi has the answer: Canada has a cultural "addiction to rule-making."" Joseph Brean, National Post • Saturday, Aug. 7, 2010
I have had the good fortune in my life to not have tragedies where a loved one has died as a result of it.(knock on wood) I've had a good number of close calls and have known people who have. However do we always need a law passed every time someone does?
We have fallen pray to a new brand of "legalism" I say new because the first Emperor of China had used such methods for obtaining slave labour basically by passing law after law that essentially you could not breath without breaking a law. Of course it carried dire consequences back then. Unlike today where many "rules" are just legal pick pocketing by the the authorities.
Indeed we are a rule happy society. We have somewhere in the neighbourhood of a million statutes. So in essence at some point in our daily lives we are breaking some rule or another,with little consequence since we don't have the authorities peeking in our windows and following us around..At least not yet anyway.
The single largest problem with this addiction is that it erodes personal liberty and freedom. It derogates our rights, not that our supreme court cares, they are on record saying that yes that rule does infringe your rights but it is a minor infringement. So go away and don't bother us. Nice of them to think so highly of rights and freedoms since it is their job to protect them. My opinion of that august body has fallen dramatically I now refer to them as Supreme Court Jesters.
Well since we have so many rules already could we not recycle them for other things? It would save printing costs and paper in our parliaments. What is more the pity though is these jokers in parliament like justifying their high salaries and want to show us they care beyond their fully indexed pensions. So they proposed legislation for this that and the other tragedy or crisis du jour. What is odd though is, I don't feel any safer for their efforts. In fact I feel poorer for it all because in the end I am less free.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)