Go Back   Alberta Outdoorsmen Forum > Main Category > General Discussion

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 03-15-2012, 09:30 PM
canadiantdi's Avatar
canadiantdi canadiantdi is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: On top of sphagetti
Posts: 3,565
Default Province to regulate body armour

http://www.edmontonsun.com/2012/03/1...te-body-armour

Regulating body armour won’t stick, said retailers.

Starting June 15, Albertans who own or want body armour need a legitimate reason under the Body Armour Control Act, or a permit from the Solicitor General and Public Security office.

Officers will soon be able to charge people wearing bullet or stab-resistant vests, along with seizing the armour if they don’t have a permit. And those people can expect to pay a fine up to $10,000, along with serving six months in the clink.

“Police now have another resource in their fight against gangs in our communities,” said Jonathan Denis, Alberta’s Solicitor General and Minister of Public Safety.

“This initiative doesn’t penalize those with a legitimate reason to wear body armour, such as police or security personnel.”

Albertans with professions in policing, security or safety are exempt from the act, while everyone else needs to explain themselves to the solicitor general and public security office.

A body armour permit costs $50 per year and takes five days to process. Citizens have to pass a criminal background check in order to get a permit.

Gordon McGowan, president of rearmament distributor MilArm in downtown Edmonton, thinks the act is “a knee-jerk reaction to a nonexistent problem.”

Body armour vests are just an Internet search away from anyone who wishes to hide their purchase from the government, McGowan said.

“If I have a reason to own body armour and I want it, why is it up to the government to determine if my reason is legitimate or not?” McGowan asked.

Milarms carries around a dozen VestFriend stab-resistant vests and McGowan said they sell only a few each month. Their most common body armour buying customers are nightclub owners looking to equip their bouncers and doormen.

He has a strict store policy not to sell body armour to civilians, which keeps the gang-bangers from inquiring said McGowan.

matthew.dykstra@sunmedia.ca





This is stupid. Why should the government get to decide who can protect themselves? We already can't have a gun or knife for protection from criminals WHO HAVE GUNS AND KNIVES. Is this anything more than a money grab?
__________________
A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves money from the public treasure. From that moment on the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most money from the public treasury, with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy followed by a dictatorship.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 03-15-2012, 09:41 PM
elkhunter11 elkhunter11 is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Camrose
Posts: 37,109
Default

What a bunch of morons. First you can't carry a firearm to protect yourself, and now you can't even wear clothing that can help protect you from attackers without purchasing a permit. This stupidity should gain even more votes for the Wildrose party.
__________________
Only accurate guns are interesting.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 03-15-2012, 09:46 PM
rwm1273 rwm1273 is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Deadmonton
Posts: 6,384
Default

I don't see the need for the average citizen to have body armour. We do not live in a society where you risk your life walking to the store every day. There are very few incidents of gunfire, and those incidents that do happen are between known people.

When I bought my body armour, I had to produce a document showing that I needed it due to my job. I was heading to Kabul to work on a UN contract. No problem buying the armour. I don't wear it here. I was asked about it by customs but showed my UN id, and problem solved.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 03-15-2012, 09:48 PM
canadiantdi's Avatar
canadiantdi canadiantdi is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: On top of sphagetti
Posts: 3,565
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rwm1273 View Post
I don't see the need for the average citizen to have body armour. We do not live in a society where you risk your life walking to the store every day. There are very few incidents of gunfire, and those incidents that do happen are between known people.

When I bought my body armour, I had to produce a document showing that I needed it due to my job. I was heading to Kabul to work on a UN contract. No problem buying the armour. I don't wear it here. I was asked about it by customs but showed my UN id, and problem solved.
Why should the risk of injury/death have to be greater than it already is, for it to be ok for me to do something that doesn't put anyone else in ANY danger?
__________________
A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves money from the public treasure. From that moment on the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most money from the public treasury, with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy followed by a dictatorship.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 03-15-2012, 09:51 PM
rwm1273 rwm1273 is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Deadmonton
Posts: 6,384
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by canadiantdi View Post
Why should the risk of injury/death have to be greater than it already is, for it to be ok for me to do something that doesn't put anyone else in ANY danger?
The law is to protect the police from being put in harms way when they confront someone wearing body armour with the intent to do harm and they want to protect themselves from the police.

There is no reason for the average person to need to wear body armour.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 03-15-2012, 09:52 PM
canadiantdi's Avatar
canadiantdi canadiantdi is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: On top of sphagetti
Posts: 3,565
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rwm1273 View Post
The law is to protect the police from being put in harms way when they confront someone wearing body armour with the intent to do harm and they want to protect themselves from the police.

There is no reason for the average person to need to wear body armour.
You are assuming that criminals are law abiding.

The average law abiding citizen isn't going to go out, buy body armour, and then all of a sudden turn into a violent criminal because of the body armour.
__________________
A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves money from the public treasure. From that moment on the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most money from the public treasury, with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy followed by a dictatorship.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 03-15-2012, 09:55 PM
bloopbloob's Avatar
bloopbloob bloopbloob is offline
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Camrose
Posts: 2,337
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rwm1273 View Post
The law is to protect the police from being put in harms way when they confront someone wearing body armour with the intent to do harm and they want to protect themselves from the police.

There is no reason for the average person to need to wear body armour.
Exactly. Basically zero need for body armor (except hazardous jobs) unless you are planning some terrible act, or involved in some sort of illegal transactions and worried of being a target. Maybe preppers could be cut a break, but with background checks etc. Other than that, why else would you need it.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 08-14-2012, 02:47 PM
Hagalaz's Avatar
Hagalaz Hagalaz is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Central Alberta
Posts: 2,431
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rwm1273 View Post
The law is to protect the police from being put in harms way when they confront someone wearing body armour with the intent to do harm and they want to protect themselves from the police.
No it isn't.

Its not about protecting anyone, its all about plain old control.

Edit: Yikes. I didn't realize how old this thread actually was......

Last edited by Hagalaz; 08-14-2012 at 03:01 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 08-14-2012, 10:04 PM
rugatika rugatika is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 17,810
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rwm1273 View Post
The law is to protect the police from being put in harms way when they confront someone wearing body armour with the intent to do harm and they want to protect themselves from the police.

There is no reason for the average person to need to wear body armour.
If you want to protect yourself from the police a full face helmet would be more in order...

Drip, drip, drip....
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 03-15-2012, 09:53 PM
elkhunter11 elkhunter11 is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Camrose
Posts: 37,109
Default

Quote:
I don't see the need for the average citizen to have body armour.
I don't see the need for the government to regulate who wears body armor. If I choose to wear it, how does that harm anyone? There are many things that there is no "need" for the average citizen to possess, including firearms, tobacco products, alcohol, vehicles that can travel at twice the speed limit, etc.In fact tobacco products and alcohol result in more deaths than firearms in Canada, yet we are allowed to use these products, because we supposedly live in a free country. If we were only allowed to possess what we "need" to survive, I for one would not be living in Canada.
__________________
Only accurate guns are interesting.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 03-15-2012, 09:56 PM
canadiantdi's Avatar
canadiantdi canadiantdi is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: On top of sphagetti
Posts: 3,565
Default

It is a LITTLE ironic that Rwm1273 has his location as "deadmonton" and is against the general public having access to body armour.
__________________
A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves money from the public treasure. From that moment on the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most money from the public treasury, with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy followed by a dictatorship.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 03-15-2012, 10:07 PM
rwm1273 rwm1273 is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Deadmonton
Posts: 6,384
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by canadiantdi View Post
It is a LITTLE ironic that Rwm1273 has his location as "deadmonton" and is against the general public having access to body armour.
That is because I find Edmonton dead compared to other places such as Calgary.

It has nothing to do with it's high crime rate.

But thanks for showing your line of thought.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 03-15-2012, 09:56 PM
CaberTosser's Avatar
CaberTosser CaberTosser is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Calgary
Posts: 18,524
Default

RWM : Do you think that wanting to protect yourself from some of the amateurs in the next bay at the shooting range is sufficient reason to possess body armor? I sure do, and the yahoo in charge of distributing these permits had best think so as well. As a strictly defensive piece it's quite absurd to ban them, but the opposition will be small and will be easily muted, and the bureaucrats will think they accomplished something and congratulate themselves. This will stop crime like banning fire extinguishers will stop arson.
__________________
"The trouble with people idiot-proofing things, is the resulting evolution of the idiot." Me
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 03-15-2012, 10:16 PM
rwm1273 rwm1273 is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Deadmonton
Posts: 6,384
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CaberTosser View Post
RWM : Do you think that wanting to protect yourself from some of the amateurs in the next bay at the shooting range is sufficient reason to possess body armor? I sure do, and the yahoo in charge of distributing these permits had best think so as well. As a strictly defensive piece it's quite absurd to ban them, but the opposition will be small and will be easily muted, and the bureaucrats will think they accomplished something and congratulate themselves. This will stop crime like banning fire extinguishers will stop arson.
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.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 03-15-2012, 09:49 PM
bloopbloob's Avatar
bloopbloob bloopbloob is offline
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Camrose
Posts: 2,337
Default

Quote:
Albertans who own or want body armour need a legitimate reason under the Body Armour Control Act, or a permit from the Solicitor General and Public Security office.
sounds fair to me.... as long as you have a good reason for it who cares. not many valid reasons to have one unless job related...
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 03-15-2012, 10:02 PM
bloopbloob's Avatar
bloopbloob bloopbloob is offline
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Camrose
Posts: 2,337
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by canadiantdi View Post
Starting June 15, Albertans who own or want body armour need a legitimate reason
A legitimate reason!!!! that's it! not that much to ask for!!!! Geeze!
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 03-15-2012, 10:04 PM
Rocky7's Avatar
Rocky7 Rocky7 is offline
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Central Alberta
Posts: 5,060
Default

Another solution to a problem that doesn't exist.

What next? Legislation banning the use of land mines on Highway #2?
__________________
"If everything isn't black and white, I say, 'Why the hell not?'" - J.W.
God made man. Sam Colt made them equal.
Make Alberta a better place. Have your liberal spayed or neutered.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 03-15-2012, 10:06 PM
bloopbloob's Avatar
bloopbloob bloopbloob is offline
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Camrose
Posts: 2,337
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rocky7 View Post
Another solution to a problem that doesn't exist.

What next? Legislation banning the use of land mines on Highway #2?
preventative maintenance
change your tires BEFORE they explode?

I could see a total ban being uncalled for, but they just want a good reason as to why you want/have it. Give a good reason. Job. Gun range safety, etc. Whats the big deal. Its intended to restrict access to those with bad intent.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 03-15-2012, 10:07 PM
canadiantdi's Avatar
canadiantdi canadiantdi is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: On top of sphagetti
Posts: 3,565
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bloopbloob View Post
preventative maintenance
So would you be ok with a knife registry? Lot's of people get killed by knives every year.
__________________
A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves money from the public treasure. From that moment on the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most money from the public treasury, with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy followed by a dictatorship.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 03-15-2012, 10:10 PM
elkhunter11 elkhunter11 is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Camrose
Posts: 37,109
Default

Quote:
So would you be ok with a knife registry? Lot's of people get killed by knives every year.
Every year, many times more people die due to alcohol and tobacco use, yet you don't need a permit to use either.

Quote:
works for me. If you have a legitimate reason to feel targeted for retribution, sure!
Unfortunately, you don't get to decide if the reason is legitimate, the government does, and the senate hearing today, is proof of just how clueless many people that have a say in our laws are.
__________________
Only accurate guns are interesting.
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 03-15-2012, 10:42 PM
Rocky7's Avatar
Rocky7 Rocky7 is offline
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Central Alberta
Posts: 5,060
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bloopbloob View Post
Whats the big deal. Its intended to restrict access to those with bad intent.
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?



I'm too tired to lay it out any more intelligently than that tonight; but that's the gist of it.
__________________
"If everything isn't black and white, I say, 'Why the hell not?'" - J.W.
God made man. Sam Colt made them equal.
Make Alberta a better place. Have your liberal spayed or neutered.
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 03-15-2012, 10:51 PM
rwm1273 rwm1273 is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Deadmonton
Posts: 6,384
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rocky7 View Post
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?



I'm too tired to lay it out any more intelligently than that tonight; but that's the gist of it.
There are laws already that state if you commit a crime and wear body armour, then the crime is considered more sever.

Armour vests would be terrible at protecting you from bee stings. This is kind of a silly argument you put forth. Armour vests are for protection of bullets and bomb fragments. And depending on the vest, possibly knives. Does the average joe need protection from any of these things here in Canada?

What are you thoughts on hunting draws? Or do you think you should be able to hunt anything at any time? From your line of logic, you should be angry with hunting laws. They are restrictive too.

All this law is trying to do is limit the number of proper body armour from the open market.
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 03-15-2012, 10:05 PM
canadiantdi's Avatar
canadiantdi canadiantdi is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: On top of sphagetti
Posts: 3,565
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bloopbloob View Post
A legitimate reason!!!! that's it! not that much to ask for!!!! Geeze!
lol, why should the government get to decide if my reason is legitimate?

Is my point more valid if I make it huge?

Owning/using body armour doesn't hurt anyone else. Unless I am a criminal in which case, I don't follow the law anyways, and will have body armour!!

Gov fail
__________________
A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves money from the public treasure. From that moment on the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most money from the public treasury, with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy followed by a dictatorship.
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 03-15-2012, 10:06 PM
elkhunter11 elkhunter11 is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Camrose
Posts: 37,109
Default

Quote:
A legitimate reason!!!! that it! not that much to ask for!!!! Geeze!
It is a lot to ask for, if you let the government decide which reasons are legitimate.
__________________
Only accurate guns are interesting.
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 03-15-2012, 10:11 PM
bloopbloob's Avatar
bloopbloob bloopbloob is offline
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Camrose
Posts: 2,337
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by elkhunter11 View Post
It is a lot to ask for, if you let the government decide which reasons are legitimate.
ok, so what are some legitimate reasons you think would be turned down?
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 03-15-2012, 10:07 PM
darius darius is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 874
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bloopbloob View Post
A legitimate reason!!!! that's it! not that much to ask for!!!! Geeze!
if at one time in life i was a gang banger , got out of that life , but have a criminal record because of the ways in my past . I hung out with bad dudes and copped a deal because i snitched .

i did some time, and now a model citizen, but afraid for my life because of my past , does that work for a reason in your books ?
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 03-15-2012, 10:10 PM
bloopbloob's Avatar
bloopbloob bloopbloob is offline
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Camrose
Posts: 2,337
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by darius View Post
.

i did some time, and now a model citizen, but afraid for my life , does that work for a reason in your books ?
works for me. If you have a legitimate reason to feel targeted for retribution, sure!
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 03-15-2012, 10:12 PM
Lefty-Canuck's Avatar
Lefty-Canuck Lefty-Canuck is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Look behind you :)
Posts: 27,226
Default

I think its much to do about nothing honestly.....

Is there a rise in the number of gang members getting fully suited up in armour now???

You would think putting money and resources into something so small and insignificant would have stemmed from a recent event?

LC
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 03-15-2012, 10:12 PM
darius darius is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 874
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bloopbloob View Post
works for me. If you have a legitimate reason to feel targeted for retribution, sure!
well I live next door to the guy i described , and I look a bit like him . does that work for you ?

see where this is going . . .
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 03-15-2012, 10:16 PM
elkhunter11 elkhunter11 is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Camrose
Posts: 37,109
Default

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.
__________________
Only accurate guns are interesting.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 07:09 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.5
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.