worry about licensing

[Blades]

Getting rid of the registry is all well and good, but do you guys(gals) realize that the LICENSING aspect is what we need to worry about!? Under sec 91 of the criminal code, firearms ownership is ILLEGAL 'unless' you are in possession of a license to own firearms. Any gov't in the future could, at will, revoke ALL firearms licenses and start the confiscations. No parlamentary approval required. We need to have this removed from the criminal code to even have a hope of keeping our guns well into the future. BTW, the registry will only become paperless under C-21, as all dealers will still have to report transactions to the gov't....so the lists will still be compiled, you just will not have to have that little piece of paper next to every gun....is this what was promised?I don't think so
The very most I would want to see is a return to the cetification system....provincially controlled. Firearms ownership is a right, not a privilege.

[osterb]

Before you worry about licensing there are still things about c-21 that are iffy including how transfers must all go through the provincial cfo :eek

[Dylan]

Actually Blades, Firearms ownership is not a "right" under our constitution. You are perhaps thinking of the "Second Amendment" in the Constitution of the Unites States of America? Perhaps you could point out to me what statute in Canada grants the "right" for people to own firearms?

Now I am 100% opposed to the registration of firearms, and I know as well as most of you do that the third piece of ordinance that Adolf Hitler enacted after becoming German Chancellor was the individual piece-registration of all firearms held in the German nation. I also agree that you're right in theory, the gov't could revoke all licenses and thus seize all firearms in the land, however I find that quite unlikely to ever occur (especially given the recent change of command in Ottawa).

My own theory no firearms ownership and government involvement is the following:

Owning/using/possessing a gun is no different that owning/driving/possessing a motor vehicle. In the same way some some people are medically incapable, intellectually incapable or have past history (ie: criminal convictions) prohibitive to them being able to safely operate a motor vehicle, the same applies to firearms. Some people are not smart enough, have criminal pasts or medical (mental) conditions that would prevent them from being able to safely operate/use/carry firearms. I have no issue in proving to the "powers that may be" that I'm competent and don't pose a risk to the greater society by owning and using firearms. I see nothing but parallels between the two.

However I believe that in the same fashion that Driver's Licensing allows for different categories (classes) and different restrictions/priveleges. Like yourself, I would like to see the provinces (Alberta in particular) exercise their rights under the Constitution. For example, one could have a restricted and non-restricted licence which a condition/privelege code "Z" which would allow this person to carry a restricted firearm for civil/ self defense purposes.

Another category could be endorsement "Q" which would allow a person to carry a restricted firearm in the bush for predator protection. ie: Not hunting, just hiking or camping, you could pack a revolver for defense against bear/ cougar etc.

For any of these endorsements or restrictions one might have to pass a concealed carry course and use of force. Or demonstrate previous LEO experience. The same as now, you'd have the option to either take the course or challenge the exam.

I'm sure this will spark debate, which is exactly what this board is for. These are just ideas and my own personal approach. It seem unusual that I'm seeking MORE Gov't involvement (or interference) but I think if the approach is reasonable and logical (ie: It opens up more opportunities for the firearms community) and has the proper safeguards to keep responsible citizens armed (which automatically stems the flow of illegally armed punks) I think it's worth considering.

The notwithstanding clause would allow Alberta to venture into this territory legally, and it'd be just another example of an Alberta-born initiative that leaves the rest of Canada following in our footsteps. Anyone who wants to debate the pros and cons of concealed carry laws, please reference the felony offense crime statistics for Texas (and/or Florida) (the most conservative and "reasonable" firearms laws) vs. California (the most restrictive and liberal weapons regulations). The hard, cold numbers speak more than any gun-control rhetoric.

Aequitas/Veritas

-Dylan