Canada's boy king Bans Firearms - List of 1500

[Hunter4752001]

The interpretation and enforcement of the Regulations will be based on the wording and definitions in any underpinning legislation, any definitions contained within the Regulations itself, and any relevant case law. Where there are no relevant definitions, the Regulations will be interpreted in accordance with the English language meaning of the words and phrases used. What the Minister tweeted, or thought he meant when approving the Regulations, has no bearing on their actual interpretation. Likewise the definitions of a foreign industry group such as SAAMI are of little value. We all know what we mean when we refer to 'bore' size, however how we interpret the term doesn't have legal standing. Nobody ever said that the law operated in a logical, sensible or informed fashion. (Note an old case from NSW in which Police charged a shotgun owner with possession of a machinegun because the legal definition had been newly changed to "able discharge multiple projectiles with a single press of the trigger". (Fortunately the law was quickly amended and the charges withdrawn).

 

[Tubby’s Canteen]

Thank you for posting this video @V.Veritas . It looks like a legal filing will be forthcoming and I wish CCFR and all my Canadian friends perseverance and success in getting this asinine, liberal overreach beat back.
In keeping with that, I’ve taken the 60 seconds it required and joined CCFR and sent a donation to help the cause. Lawsuits, especially against the government, are neither quick nor cheap so I hope all you Canadians will start beating the drum and building a war chest raising funds and strengthening your position. It seems like AH would be a great platform to reach gun owners / supporters worldwide to bolster your cause. Even though I am not Canadian I feel strongly compelled to support the cause north of the border and I bet many others do as well, regardless of their nationality. We are all brothers in arms! Let’s support the cause no matter where we call home!
God bless all you crazy Canadians

Thank you for your support

 

[DCN]

To find out that the RCMP were told well in advance that the Nova Scotia shooter had illegal guns and did NOTHING in response is driving me mad.

The police do NOTHING and the government reacts to the tragedy by swiftly taking aim at legal gun owners.

What a bunch of a$$ hats running this otherwise glorious country. I’m so ashamed of my government I could vomit.

Rather than taking this out on law abiding gun owners how about an inquiry into police negligence ?!?

Put that in your black face pipe and smoke it JT. What a disgrace.

 

[Areaonereal]

A diversion from reality and the factual truth of a situation to deprive the populace of what a governing body feels threatened by.....has been used for centuries by ruling bodies to strengthen their position and lessen any power of the populace.

 

[BRICKBURN]

The interpretation and enforcement of the Regulations will be based on the wording and definitions in any underpinning legislation, any definitions contained within the Regulations itself, and any relevant case law.

Certainly, and as this is a newly legislated regulation there is no case law, "Bore" was not defined within the OIC and we are therefore left with......

Where there are no relevant definitions, the Regulations will be interpreted in accordance with the English language meaning of the words and phrases used.

The use of the accepted standard in the industry that does provide a glossary of terms upon which to base any decision going forward for either the Crown or Defendant.

What the Minister tweeted, or thought he meant when approving the Regulations, has no bearing on their actual interpretation. ...........

This is where our opinions differ. I think the Minister will make an excellent witness for the defence to assist any Court in reaching a decision regarding "Bore" and the illegality of 10 and 12 gauge Shotguns. He will certainly be able to speak to the intent of Parliament.

"Driedger’s Modern Principle of Statutory Interpretation. As Driedger wrote:

Today there is only one principle or approach, namely, the words of an Act are to be read in their entire context, in their grammatical and ordinary sense harmoniously with the scheme of the Act, the object of the Act, and the intention of Parliament."​

We all know what we mean when we refer to 'bore' size, however how we interpret the term doesn't have legal standing. .........

Apparently many Canadian gun owners do not know what "Bore" means, hence the fearful confusion making the news around the world.

I'll certainly report back if there is ever a case on the matter.

 

[Hank2211]

"Driedger’s Modern Principle of Statutory Interpretation. As Driedger wrote:

Today there is only one principle or approach, namely, the words of an Act are to be read in their entire context, in their grammatical and ordinary sense harmoniously with the scheme of the Act, the object of the Act, and the intention of Parliament."

Here's where the lawyers do well @BRICKBURN. You'd think this means what it says - the intent of Parliament. And in fact it does. Except that it really doesn't.

What I mean is that the intent of Parliament is an important tool in statutory interpretation, but that intent is to be determined solely from the wording of the statute, without any reference to such things as Parliamentary debates, committee meetings and reports, etc. Usually even the "recitals" - the words before "Be it enacted" or similar language - are not admissible to help in interpretation. Only in cases of ambiguity, which is defined as where the words of the statute are not susceptible to any single (not necessarily a reasonable) interpretation, can reference be had to these external materials (subject to one exception, because there's always an exception). In effect, the "will of Parliament" is subsumed into the law they passed, even if the law leads to a stupid result. So generally, only if the law leads to no result, or can hold two or more interpretations equally, would you go behind the words of the statute itself.

So in this case, if the words of the regulation covered shotguns, then shotguns are banned, regardless of whether that was the intention of the drafter. Press releases and tweets are not admissible in interpreting the law.

Here endeth this lesson.

Happy you went back to the textbook?!

 

[Cam Moon]

So how does this play out when they are outright lying?

 

[BRICKBURN]

Here's where the lawyers do well @BRICKBURN. You'd think this means what it says - the intent of Parliament. And in fact it does. Except that it really doesn't.

What I mean is that the intent of Parliament is an important tool in statutory interpretation, but that intent is to be determined solely from the wording of the statute, without any reference to such things as Parliamentary debates, committee meetings and reports, etc. Usually even the "recitals" - the words before "Be it enacted" or similar language - are not admissible to help in interpretation. Only in cases of ambiguity, which is defined as where the words of the statute are not susceptible to any single (not necessarily a reasonable) interpretation, can reference be had to these external materials (subject to one exception, because there's always an exception). In effect, the "will of Parliament" is subsumed into the law they passed, even if the law leads to a stupid result. So generally, only if the law leads to no result, or can hold two or more interpretations equally, would you go behind the words of the statute itself.

So in this case, if the words of the regulation covered shotguns, then shotguns are banned, regardless of whether that was the intention of the drafter. Press releases and tweets are not admissible in interpreting the law.

Here endeth this lesson.

Happy you went back to the textbook?!

@Hank2211 I'll always take your help and lessons.

@Hunter4752001 Real lesson learned. My apologies, I should not be taking my frustrations out on others.

 

[BRICKBURN]

So how does this play out when they are outright lying?

Politics

 

[BRICKBURN]

Apparently the cops are not coming after my shotguns.
(I guess I won't be calling the Minister to appear in my defence.)

"Important notice: Update on 10 and 12 gauge shotgun classification under the new prohibition
On May 1st, 2020, the Government of Canada announced that it had made amendments to the Regulations Prescribing Certain Firearms and Other Weapons, Components and Parts of Weapons, Accessories, Cartridge Magazines, Ammunition and Projectiles as Prohibited, Restricted or Non-Restricted (SOR/98-462) [Classification Regulations] prescribing certain firearms as prohibited. One of the categories of the newly prohibited firearms include "Any firearm with a bore diameter of 20 mm or greater" (s. 95 of the Classification Regulations).

The Canadian Firearms Program (CFP) of the RCMP adheres to the Association of Firearm and Tool Mark Examiners' (AFTE) definition for bore diameter measurements. "The interior dimensions of the barrel forward of the chamber but before the choke." (Glossary of the Association of Firearm & Tool Mark Examiners by the AFTE Standardization Committee, 1st Ed. 1980).
This is reflected in the RCMP's Firearms Reference Table (FRT) which clearly states that "...in shotguns, diameter of the barrel forward of the chamber but before the choke." The CFP also recognizes the Sporting Arms and Ammunition Manufacturers' Institute (SAAMI) standards regarding firearms and ammunition. The SAAMI chamber specifications for 10ga and 12ga shotguns do not include chokes therefore indicating that chokes are not part of the bore. Accordingly, it is the CFP's view that, in accordance with acceptable firearms industry standards for shotguns, the bore diameter measurement is considered to be at a point after the chamber, but before the choke.

Further, in making classification assessments of firearms which are reflected in the FRT, the CFP relies on recognized industry standard measurements. With respect to 10ga and 12ga shotguns, the CFP recognizes the SAAMI standard specifications which establish that the nominal (i.e. standard) bore diameter measurements for 10ga and 12ga shotguns are below the 20mm threshold (19.69mm for 10ga, 18.42mm for 12ga)."


https://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/en/firea...-new-prohibition-certain-firearms-and-devices

 

[BRICKBURN]

Back to the politics.......

 

[BRICKBURN]

Given the current state of affairs with policing and paranoia about firearms in this country,
is anyone surprised the plastic replica carried by the Storm Trooper required this police response?

Maybe the police got confused and thought they were in Michigan at the legislature?

 

[CoElkHunter]

A diversion from reality and the factual truth of a situation to deprive the populace of what a governing body feels threatened by.....has been used for centuries by ruling bodies to strengthen their position and lessen any power of the populace.

Interesting thread? From what I've been reading about this issue is that a "sole" governing person (definition of a dictator?) passed this law while the country's elected people's representatives were in "recess" due to the Covid 19 virus? The law passed without the voters' or their representatives' input? In the U.S., this is the reason our forefathers saw fit to include the 2nd Amendment in our Constitution to protect the People from being disarmed (like the ruling British did) and thus their ability to "take up arms" against a unlawful and tyrannical "governing body" with no ability to vote or have representation for the people being ruled. Am I missing something here in my interpretation of this fiasco!

 

[CJW]

Given the current state of affairs with policing and paranoia about firearms in this country,
is anyone surprised the plastic replica carried by the Storm Trooper required this police response?

Maybe the police got confused and thought they were in Michigan at the legislature?

View attachment 347985

So what are you in for?

Wellllll.........

 

[BRICKBURN]

@Hank2211 I'll always take your help and lessons.

Very interesting article on interpretation and intent. That will aid my education.

Susan Barker and Erica Anderson, Cinderella at the Ball: Legislative Intent in Canadian Courts, 2015 38-2 Canadian Parliamentary Review 15, 2015 CanLIIDocs 299
2015 CanLIIDocs 299

 

[BRICKBURN]

............. Am I missing something here in my interpretation of this fiasco!

I hope this post will help make it clearer.

I really don't see this. Parliament is not being bypassed.

The existing legislation, enacted by Parliament well before the Covid-19 pandemic, clearly gives the Governor-in-Council (aka the federal cabinet) the power to enact regulations in this area. One power granted to the executive branch by the Parliament of Canada is to classify guns as non-restricted, restricted or prohibited. We have to stop saying that he didn't have the power to do this. He did, and he does.

Note as an aside, that this power has been exercised in the past, notably to reclassify a number of restricted weapons as prohibited weapons, on the sole basis that some guy at the RCMP determined that they could be converted to fully automatic "relatively easily" (whatever that means). So if the firearm is on the list, it is now a prohibited weapon. If you don't have a permit to hold prohibited weapons, you cannot lawfully own one of these any longer. That is why an amnesty has also been put in place until the government can figure out how to address the implications of making so many of us criminals by the stroke of a pen.

Gentlemen, he has the power. It was given to him by Parliament. I see no way to go after him on this aspect of the law.

 

[Tubby’s Canteen]

The easiest way out of this mess is vote @BRICKBURN in as prime minister, what say you BRICKBURN fancy running for office? Also sense I suggested you in the spirit of political favours I expect a cushy job I'm completely unqualified for as a thankyou.

 

[Hank2211]

The easiest way out of this mess is vote @BRICKBURN in as prime minister, what say you BRICKBURN fancy running for office? Also sense I suggested you in the spirit of political favours I expect a cushy job I'm completely unqualified for as a thankyou.

I would vote for @BRICKBURN. After all, I've often (in fact usually) voted for people who were utterly unqualified for the job they were running for, and they've gone on to hire their equally, if not actually less, qualified friends for jobs which paid as well or better. And I've never voted Liberal.

The only issue is that Wayne seems to have more common sense than any of the ones I've voted for, so we would have to keep that quiet.

 

[Tubby’s Canteen]

I would vote for @BRICKBURN. After all, I've often (in fact usually) voted for people who were utterly unqualified for the job they were running for, and they've gone on to hire their equally, if not actually less, qualified friends for jobs which paid as well or better. And I've never voted Liberal.

The only issue is that Wayne seems to have more common sense than any of the ones I've voted for, so we would have to keep that quiet.

It's a non issue as I bring the common sense level down to a more exceptable level.

 

[CoElkHunter]

I hope this post will help make it clearer.

Sorry. I guess I missed the part that this firearms ban was existing legislation passed by parliament and only signed into law during parliament’s recess during a national crisis with no ability to dissent by opposing members of parliament because they’re ALL AT HOME! What other legislation will get signed into law without debate?