Quote:
Originally Posted by Rocky7
No, I don't agree with that. I/we need to convince a lot of ordinary people to put pressure on their elected representatives to get real, stop passing laws based on fear and repeal the ones they already have.
How can a police officer "pass" a new criminal law? In what country is that permitted?
Failing to read the fine print on their paperwork could land Ontario gun owners in prison.
Ontario's top gun cop made a major change to the rules regarding restricted firearms in the province - and owners are are taking the government appointee to court.
Legal handgun owners must now carry an "invitation" at all times if they are moving firearms between their homes and provincially approved shooting ranges.
This is an addition to making target-shooters move their guns unloaded, with trigger locks and placed in locked boxes in their vehicles with permits.
Those who don't comply face a minimum three-year sentence.
"(The chief firearms officer) has created a new document that is not specified in the Firearms Act and has bestowed criminal arrest powers on that document," said Tony Bernardo, spokesman for the Canadian Shooting Sports Association (CSSA), one of the groups fighting the change in court. "His job is to administer the law, not to create the law. That's what we supposedly elect politicians to do."
The chief firearms officer said the decision was his to make and gun owners can comply with ease.
"Most of the time, obtaining a written invitation will be easy," chief firearms officer, Ontario Provincial Police Supt. Chris Wyatt, told QMI Agency. "The invitation may simply be a print-out of an e-mail from the member of the host club who has invited the authorization-holder to attend, or it might be a copy of a notice of a competition generated by the host club that invites members of other clubs to attend."
Wyatt said he was "mindful" of the recent killings in Newtown, Conn., when making the change .....
http://www.torontosun.com/2013/01/28...fend-new-rules
I don't care what he was "mindful" of! He's a cop who's been promoted to a cushy job as a firearms bureaucrat!
When you look at the entire scene, it's absolutely bizarre. Most of us would criticize other countries where the police made laws by fiat.
Good intentions don't matter in this. It's just plain wrong. |
I don't disagree with you. If you think that somehow firearms owners can put enough pressure on elected officials to change things, that is cool by me. I was just responding to a comment (possibly not made by you - I can't remember) that we had a "right" to firearms due to S.26 of the charter. I just pointed out that the SCC doesn't feel that way and has ruled that the Court feels it reasonable to curtail what S.26 grants us in view of keeping the public safe. When they use the term "heavily regulated priveldge" it indicates to me that unless something, somewhere is written that we do have a 'right' to firearms, then we don't have it.
I don't feel they were right in that decision, but unless you can get a government to be elected and put a right to bear arms type amendment in the charter, and have 7 out of 10 provinces agree, who represent a vast majority of the population, then the firearms rights movement is dead in the water.
Don't get me wrong, I like the fact that there are people out there who fight the good fight, I just don't like the (un?)intentional misinformation that goes around out there.
If things like judges and CFOs continue to be plum appointments for the sitting government to make, I don't think that there is a chance of much of this changing anyway.