Quote:
Originally Posted by HoytCRX32
He is referring to the legal definition, not arbitrary opinion
|
Oh I get that the Code definition of "weapon" is worded poorly, but by the end of the article, it seems the author is basically saying that firearms shouldn't be considered weapons at all, which I have to disagree with.
Quote:
|
This was done to legitimize the introduction of Section 91 and 92 of the Criminal Code of Canada (CCC), because now that a gun is legally defined as a "weapon," there is legal cause to control all guns.
|
Maybe, but that doesn't mean these two sections would fall apart if firearms weren't previously defined as weapons, since they refer directly to "firearms".
This is the existing Firearms Act we're talking about, not Trudeau's (largely pointless) proposed changes. There's legit criticisms, like the way it's worded to allow for arbitrary reclassification. But this author is trying to use a half-baked semantics argument about a single paragraph in the separate Criminal Code to generally advocate that firearms aren't weapons and the Firearms Act shouldn't exist. As a gun owner, neither strikes me as useful and reasonable debate on gun control.