"Canada Bans Assault Weapons; People 'Deserve More Than Thoughts and Prayers' ”

[Good-Ole-Rebel]

"military grade assault rifle" is not used in the regulation.
Nor is "military grade" or "assault rifle"

It was used in the OP by Skwim. And that was who I asked.

Good-Ole-Rebel

 

[Good-Ole-Rebel]

Exactly! Those terms that @Good-Ole-Rebel finds offensive were used by press organizations reporting what the government has done. For the government's part, it simply listed (actually, added to an existing list) a whole bunch of items that it didn't want the public to be able to possess.

So, Skwim gave a false report in the OP. I see.

What did the Canadian Government define as weapons that it didn't want the public to posses? There must be a definition.

Good-Ole-Rebel

 

[McBell]

So, Skwim gave a false report in the OP. I see.

No.
Skwim repeated what the article said.

What did the Canadian Government define as weapons that it didn't want the public to posses? There must be a definition.

Therefore, Her Excellency the Governor General in
Council, on the recommendation of the Minister of
Justice, pursuant to the definitions “non-restricted
firearm”1a, “prohibited device”2b, “prohibited firearm”b
and “restricted firearm”b in subsection 84(1) of the
Criminal Code 3c and to subsection 117.15(1)b of that
Act, makes the annexed Regulations Amending 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.
​

Canada Gazette, May 1, 2020 Part II​

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

So, Skwim gave a false report in the OP. I see.

What did the Canadian Government define as weapons that it didn't want the public to posses? There must be a definition.

Good-Ole-Rebel

No, @Skwim reported what the press said. The press, as always, chose language intended to make their point.

As to that definition that you continually ask for, it was not given, and as @Mestemia just posted (my thanks again), we presented instead as a list. Such a list, while not being a definition, is still definitive.

 

[Mock Turtle]

Didn't read the whole document? The law specifically recognizes that some do legitimately use these weapons for hunting and may not be able to immediately replace their legitimate hunting weapon with another legitimate hunting weapon that is not on the list. Consequently, provisions are made to that end.

However, merely declaring there is no legitimate reason for using them does not make it so. I could compose a document that says their is no legitimate reason for any number of things, that wouldn't make it so. This means we need to actually address the arguments and the why behind this reasoning. I am not so sure that there is any logical train of thought that will give good reason to ban all the weapons on that list.

I certainly know i haven't heard one proposed on RF.

I'm sure the weapons manufacturers will produce what they will in order to sell their weapons, whether they are intended for hunting or some other purpose, but even if it makes it easier to hunt with such weapons should they be using such, when we know they are also used so often to kill people. What happened to the old hunting saying - don't pull the trigger until you are sure of a clean kill? Surely they pose a bigger risk to life than they have a convenience for some hunter's ability to have easier kills?

 

[Mock Turtle]

Good thing the USA does not go by your notion of "legitimate".....

Now you need to define "assault weapon"...
Or perhaps instead you can list weapons that are not "assault"?

The reasons given for the Canadian ban, and the type of weapons is relatively clear - given the enormous range of such weapons - and obviously there are plenty who use them for hunting, as has been pointed out, but what is the priority - to save lives or to make sure many are not inconvenienced? Many countries have determined the former to be more sensible. I know the USA will probably not change as Canada has done over this - different culture and different mindset - but the argument made for their banning is the same.

 

[Mock Turtle]

Just trying to show how silly your statements and position are. Which by the way, doesn't take much.

Good-Ole-Rebel

Neither would it for your apparent philosophy of life, or religion as you call it. Like to think yourself moral? How reasonable is it for anyone to own a weapon that has the distinct possibility of ending the life of someone over some perceived threat or harm, when a reasonable approach would be a proportionate response to such. Who exactly gave you the right to be judge, jury, and executioner? Christ's teaching seems to have gone over your head - love thy neighbour and such.

 

[Good-Ole-Rebel]

Neither would it for your apparent philosophy of life, or religion as you call it. Like to think yourself moral? How reasonable is it for anyone to own a weapon that has the distinct possibility of ending the life of someone over some perceived threat or harm, when a reasonable approach would be a proportionate response to such. Who exactly gave you the right to be judge, jury, and executioner? Christ's teaching seems to have gone over your head - love thy neighbour and such.

The Second Amendment of our Constitution gave us the 'right'.

Ah yes. When I need to know anything about God and Jesus Christ in the Bible, I will surely come to you. Not.

Good-Ole-Rebel

 

[Good-Ole-Rebel]

No, @Skwim reported what the press said. The press, as always, chose language intended to make their point.

As to that definition that you continually ask for, it was not given, and as @Mestemia just posted (my thanks again), we presented instead as a list. Such a list, while not being a definition, is still definitive.

Well, he, Mestemia, also used the language of 'military grade assault rifle'. Post #(70).

In other words, without a definition, I can supposedly come upon a weapon not listed in the some 50 pages list and be perfectly legal.

Good-Ole-Rebel

 

[Mock Turtle]

The Second Amendment of our Constitution gave us the 'right'.

Ah yes. When I need to know anything about God and Jesus Christ in the Bible, I will surely come to you. Not.

Good-Ole-Rebel

Yes, a bit obvious that you would answer thus but they might just have got it wrong - what with all the excess deaths compared with many other similar nations. And hardly suspected that you would find any anomalies between your apparent beliefs and what your own country's laws allow, particular with such things and no doubt judicial executions too.

 

[Good-Ole-Rebel]

Yes, a bit obvious that you would answer thus but they might just have got it wrong - what with all the excess deaths compared with many other similar nations. And hardly suspected that you would find any anomalies between your apparent beliefs and what your own country's laws allow, particular with such things and no doubt judicial executions too.

No, they got it right.

I was wondering also, with that long list of guns that are illegal, how is the Canadian government going to confiscate all of them?

Good-Ole-Rebel

 

[Mock Turtle]

No, they got it right.

I was wondering also, with that long list of guns that are illegal, how is the Canadian government going to confiscate all of them?

Good-Ole-Rebel

Not my problem.

 

[Good-Ole-Rebel]

Not my problem.

Neither is my ownership of guns.

Is there going to be a confiscation of all these weapons in Canada? And, will Canada reimburse the owners the amount paid? And gun sellers who have purchased many of these weapons and have a large inventory, will they be reimbursed?

Good-Ole-Rebel

 

[Mock Turtle]

Neither is my ownership of guns.

Is there going to be a confiscation of all these weapons in Canada? And, will Canada reimburse the owners the amount paid? And gun sellers who have purchased many of these weapons and have a large inventory, will they be reimbursed?

Good-Ole-Rebel

I'd read the news if I was you, not asking such of a Brit.

 

[Good-Ole-Rebel]

From what I gather there are two years given for gun owners to turn in their now illegal weapons. And the Canadian government is still working out reimbursement. Which probably means they recognize the millions of dollars they must find to do this with.

But also, if I understand correctly, the gun owner doesn't have to give up his gun. He can have it 'grandfathered' in as having owned it prior to the new law. Which brings into question, can the gun dealer, who has a large inventory of these guns, have them grandfathered in and sell them?

No definition of 'assault style' of guns is given.

The determining factors were, are, semi-auto, large magazine, not suitable for sport or hunting. Pretty broad and subjective language. Are all three which are vague, need to exist in order to be illegal? Or, just any one of the three? So many questions here to be addressed.

I think Canada may have intended to remove any semi-automatic weapon, but have instead stepped into a mine field.

All the while Canadians now sit under a false sense of security that they have stopped mass shootings in their country.

Good-Ole-Rebel

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I think it is a stretch to suggest that the background and the contemporary commentary the record in enacting a law is not part of the regulation.

As @Mestemia pointed out, it's explicitly noted as not part of the regulation.

Indeed this is something to which courts look explicitly when interpreting laws and in determining whether a law exceeds legal authority.

What in Earth are you talking about? The regulation is just a list of firearm models. What "interpreting" are you expecting?

And the "legal authority" for this regulation is in the Firearms Act and the Charter, not the informational material that accompanied the regulation.

 

[Curious George]

I'm sure the weapons manufacturers will produce what they will in order to sell their weapons, whether they are intended for hunting or some other purpose, but even if it makes it easier to hunt with such weapons should they be using such, when we know they are also used so often to kill people. What happened to the old hunting saying - don't pull the trigger until you are sure of a clean kill? Surely they pose a bigger risk to life than they have a convenience for some hunter's ability to have easier kills?

None of that changes that they are being legitimately and reasonably used for hunting.

 

[metis]

Canada has a fraction of the homicide rate that we have in the States, thus I tend to think they've done somethings right along that line more than we have.

 

[Curious George]

As @Mestemia pointed out, it's explicitly noted as not part of the regulation.


What in Earth are you talking about? The regulation is just a list of firearm models. What "interpreting" are you expecting?

And the "legal authority" for this regulation is in the Firearms Act and the Charter, not the informational material that accompanied the regulation.

What is being discussed is whether commentary that is part of a legal record is part of the regulation despite a disclaimer in that commentary. Unless you would hold that courts cannot use such to to interpret laws or you hold that how courts interpret laws is not part of a regulation, then you are ignoring the reality of the law in order to make an argument of convenience.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

What is being discussed is whether commentary that is part of a legal record is part of the regulation despite a disclaimer in that commentary. Unless you would hold that courts cannot use such to to interpret laws or you hold that how courts interpret laws is not part of a regulation, then you are ignoring the reality of the law in order to make an argument of convenience.

I'm not making an argument; I'm just trying to figure out what point you're getting at with this weird tangent.