I don't know what range you belong to, but the ones I belong to monitor those who are doing silly things, and they are prevented from doing such again. Often it is other range members who do this monitoring and prevention, and is backed by the range officers.

I don't think there is any direction to ban the purchase of body armour, only to restrict who can purchase it and for specific reasons. I am sure you may be able to make a strong argument for wearing body armour if you claim you are scared of the idiots at the next shooting bay, but I would bet that there would be an investigation to the range, and it could face closure, then eliminating your need for body armour.

If it was really meant to protect society, or the police, they wouldn't be charging $50 per year for a permit, it would be worth doing for no charge.

I believe that law abiding citizens should be able to buy body armour if they want. If there is a problem with gang bangers/criminals using body armour while murdering police officers, then a background/criminal check would be ok with me. But not allowing ANYONE to buy body armour unless the government decides it's ok, is unacceptable to me.

That is your opinion. I don't agree, and that is fine with me. There are many other things to worry about. But then again I own body armour. So I guess I will need to pay for the right to own it now.

Charging someone $50 per year to allow them to protect themselves is unacceptable.

Once a permit is required to own one, it is no longer your right to own it, rather it has become a privilege, just like owning a firearm, or driving a motor vehicle.

And then raise taxes so everyone else can pay for the administration? The $50 fee is more of a user pay system from what I see.

You are right, there are TONS of things that someone can worry about and protect themselves from. I just don't know why someone would be ok with the government TELLING you what you can and can not protect yourself against.

Don't get me wrong, I don't own body armour and I can't see myself ever buying any, but I HATE the fact that I can't if I wanted or felt I needed to.

The government is the one that is legislating the permit, so they should accept the cost. They wasted over 2 billion dollars on the long gun registry because they legislated it into law, so why not waste even more on equally useless regulations?

And what is wrong with this? You are not being banned from owning it, just need to meet certain requirements to own it.

It is not like body armour is a fashion statement. It is heavy and intrusive. But if you need it, it is worth the trouble, and nobody is banning you from it. Just prove why you need it.

They are not telling you you can't have it. You just need to give a reason why you need it. There is a big difference.

Kind of like a handicapped sign.

This being put forth by the Provincial Government. Not the Federal Government.

while they are at it they should also ban all handguns , all the gang bangers are popping caps with hand guns . also ban cadilac escilades , they are rolling busting caps in escilades . ha

:snapoutofit:

same logic really

As previously posted, alcohol and tobacco kill thousands of Canadians every year, yet no permit is required to use either,so this new legislation certainly isn't about protecting Canadians. Perhaps we should have to prove why you need alcohol or tobacco in order to possess it? I would like to see what excuses the government would accept in that situation.

Do you think that you should have to prove to the government that you NEED a knife when you buy it? And have to PAY for the PRIVILEGE of owning said knife?

What about a baseball bat? I bet there are more baseball bats used during crimes in Alberta than bullet proof vests. Should we have to show that we are a part of a softball team and then PAY the government for the privilege?

There is no excuse....except from them they likey the tax dollars.....so they aren't going to stop selling one of their biggest sources of revenue.

LC

It's comparably stupid legislation, regardless of which government legislates it into law.

Exactly.You are allowed to endanger your own life, and the lives of other Canadians , as long asthe government profits from it, but you can't protect yourself if the government doesn't have a way to profit from it.

Ding Ding Ding! Winner Winner Chicken Dinner!! The Legacy of Laws from the Unelected, Lefty Feminist Premiere.......

I can't possibly imagine a scenario where I would ever want to buy or wear body armour, but why the heck should the government be deciding that?

Kinda weird to see so many people that are OK with the gov treating us all like criminals. Maybe if they did their job and put criminals in jail, they wouldn't have to come up with so many assinine excuses of laws pretending they are doing something to fight crime. Typical liberal BS.

I don't see it that way. Nothing is being banned.

Here is BC's law. Alberta wants to go to something similar.

Part 1 — Possession of Body Armour
Prohibition on possession of body armour

2 (1) In this section:

"armoured car guard" means an individual who performs the work of, or provides any aspect of the services provided by, an armoured car guard service, as defined in the Security Services Act;

"private investigator" has the same meaning as in the Security Services Act;

"security consultant" has the same meaning as in the Security Services Act;

"security guard" means an individual who performs the work of, or provides any aspect of the services provided by, a security guard service, as defined in the Security Services Act.

(2) A person must not possess body armour except under the authority of a valid body armour permit issued in the person's name.

(3) Subsection (2) does not apply to a person who

(a) holds a valid security worker licence authorizing the person to perform the work of

(i) an armoured car guard,

(ii) a private investigator,

(iii) a security consultant,

(iv) a security guard, or

(v) a body armour salesperson,

while the person is in the course of employment under the security worker licence,

(b) holds a valid security business licence for a security business described in paragraph (a), (c), (d), (e), (f) or (g) of the definition of "security business" in the Security Services Act, while the person is in the course of employment in relation to the security business licence, or

(c) is exempt under the regulations.

win

It is banned unless the government says you can have it, that's the issue.

User pay for a completely unnecessary program that would keep body armor out of gang bangers hands in the same way that gun control keeps them disarmed? Sorry, but you failed logic 101. They're criminals..... Who for a one red second honestly thinks that if these guys already get handguns and even full auto prohibs through black-market channels that they'd come to a full stop and reconsider their lifestyle choices because of a new body armor ban?

It's another Emperors New Clothes law; a tactic grab by the police that will also be treated just like our firearm laws: if it gets to court, the prosecution will have already pleaded out all the annoying little charges to get a plea on whatever meatier one looks best on their resume statistic chart. Except in Toronto, where the police will use it as a ruse to search your whole house and then sieze and destroy your property before your first court date.

Do you want your 14yr old son wearing body armour to school?

This is not about weapons. It is about body armour. There is no legitimate purpose for wearing body armour other than to protect yourself from being shot or stabbed.

Best post on the entire thread so far! The government chooses to treat all Canadians as criminals rather than deal with the real criminals.

There is no legitimate purpose for smoking or chewing tobacco products, yet you don't need a permit to possess them.

Freedom is the big deal!

This is just more of the same stupid, tyrannical, inane, dumb, ineffective, offensive, insulting, useless, distracting, bozo kind of placebo laws that take the blame for criminal behaviour away from the criminal and instead regulate the behaviour of the law-abiding in an attempt to prevent a criminal from committing a crime. (I assume we are not all in a knot about somebody who buys a BP vest to, say, gather honey from hives. I also assume it's about stopping crime. If not, we are all on a looney farm.)

Criminals don't obey laws. That's why they are called criminals. This does one thing, and one thing only - it requires obedience from the law-abiding. Criminal intent is thrown out the window - again. The law-abiding are regulated in a stupid attempt to make certain criminal conduct impossible, i.e., resisting arrest or robbing a bank with a vest on.

News flash: Resisting arrest and robbing banks are already illegal. If criminals don't obey a law that says: No Bank Robbing, why'n hell are they going to obey a law that says: No Bank Robbing While Wearing A BP Vest?

If it's about "bad intent", bloopbloop, (as it should be) they why doesn't the law say that? It SHOULD be about "bad intent", I agree with you that far. But that's not what is regulated, is it? We already have those laws on the books, don't we?

:angry3:

I'm too tired to lay it out any more intelligently than that tonight; but that's the gist of it.

what about bulletproof niqabs???

Why not just have a law that if you commit a crime and are wearing body armour and the police want to shoot at you, you have to stand still and let them catch up to you so they can have a good head shot. That law makes about as much sense as this one.

No law will stop gang bangers from doing what they do.

This is not a ban. Why does everyone here see this as a ban? It is just a restriction to have some control on body armour.

Now the article says that body armour is a internet search away. Yes if you want to buy old out dated body armour. I would not risk my life with an old surplus piece of body armour. I bought mine for a reason, and that reason is where I work some times I risk being shot or blown up. My body armour may only provide me marginal protection from this risk.

There is no reason for me to ever wear my body armour here in Canada, unless I become a security guard or bouncer.

with all due respect your out to lunch with this .

with the above law its like sayign you can only own a butcher knife if yur employed as a butcher , and so on , and so on . .

if this passes i think ill buy some body armor just because . abssolutely assenine

:sHa_shakeshout::sHa_shakeshout::sHa_shakeshout:

You've got a good grasp of the insanity of these emotion laws.:happy0180: