For those who don't do FB, the post was taken from the CCFR's action group, which is directly targeting the Lib's, NDP and Bloc MP's and of course the Dope and the Blank. The last time I looked, there are 2000+ members in the group now, that can be a very effective tool. For those who have FB, or Twitter, it is on both platforms, participation may well be part of the solution.
I do not post to Facebook often; However, today I am taking the time to show you and explain why I vehemently oppose the changes made on the first of this month to Canadian firearm laws. The above photo is my RPAL. My Restricted Possession and Acquisition License. This legal document is government-issued, the result of more than 16 hours of classroom teaching, two written, and two practical exams on firearm safety and laws, followed by a 3-4-month processing period. It required my spousal consent, personal references, and a photo guarantor. In addition, I was given a full criminal background check, and I will be given an additional criminal background check every single day for as long as I maintain this license. I was also required to apply for and maintain a membership at a nationally recognized gun range. At any point in this application process, a single red flag, failed reference, or extenuating circumstance would constitute the denial of my application. This license can be revoked for any reason at the discretion of the provincial chief firearms officer at any time. This document is necessary for the purchasing of any firearm OR ammunition in Canada. If you believe it is quick and easy to get a firearm legally in Canada you are mistaken. Canada has some of the most stringent gun laws in the world.
I open with the fact that I am an RPAL holder and user of Firearms to set the stage for what I am about to argue and to present myself as one of the 2.1 million firearm owners in Canada. To understand the topic of Gun control in Canada, I believe that it is necessary to understand both the reality of firearm legislation in Canada and the narrative surrounding guns and gun control. To begin, it is necessary for a bit of information relating to firearms, and the laws that govern their usage.
Put very simply firearms in Canada are broken into 3 categories:
Non-restricted: typically, long rifles and shotguns utilized for sport shooting, hunting, and hobby uses. These firearms are not registered and are legally able to be transported to and used in any area where firearms are legally able to be fired.
Restricted: Typically rifles which are derived from, or look like, military rifles despite their function being identical to many non-restricted rifles. An example of a restricted rifle is the oft mentioned AR-15 and its derivatives. ALL PISTOLS are at minimum restricted firearms. Restricted firearms are registered to their owner and forbidden to be transported to, or utilized in, any location other than a federally recognized shooting range (with very few specific exceptions). These firearms also have additional storage and transport requirements and require additional education and testing to qualify to own. Ownership of these firearms also requires active and continuous membership to a federally recognized range to qualify for the purchase of any restricted firearm.
Prohibited: Prohibited firearms are illegal to own, transport, purchase, sell, or use. These firearms include ALL fully automatic firearms, Pistols chambered in small calibers which are designed for concealment. And a myriad of others which are deemed to be prohibited for various undefined reasons.
With this basic breakdown of classifications, let us shift focus to the crux of the argument.
The ACTION of a firearm is the mechanism by which cartridges are loaded into the chamber to be fired and then removed from the chamber to allow a subsequent cartridge to be loaded.
There are several actions types, but the most important action in this discussion is the semi-automatic action. This action allows for the firing of the cartridge to cycle the action, thereby unloading the chamber of the spent casing and loading the subsequent cartridge from the magazine. The ultimate result of this action is that depressing the trigger fires one bullet, then loads the next. The subsequent round is not fired until the trigger is depressed again to cycle the rifle. This action type has existed for more than 100 years. Virtually all modern developed firearms utilize this action type.
Similarly named, but operating fundamentally differently, is the FULLY-automatic action (or automatic action) This type of action allows the rifle to cycle continuously so long as the trigger is depressed.
These weapons are unilaterally classified as prohibited firearms.
No firearms bought or sold legally in Canada has this action type.
The modification of a firearm from Semi-automatic to fully-automatic is a criminal offense to both the modifier and the owner of the firearm.
To be clear, Firearms that fit this classification are NOT LEGAL TO OWN in Canada.
Is this confusing? Absolutely. Is this necessary to understand this topic of discussion? Absolutely.
To the uninitiated, guns that look the same, operate the same. However, visual features alone are not sufficient to differentiate the function of a firearm. A semi-automatic firearm can, and do, look remarkably similar to fully-automatic rifles utilized by the Canadian and American military, yet operate fundamentally different.
Here we come to the beginning of the argument. Firearms occupy a space within the cultural landscape of our society. We all watch movies that feature firearms, we play games that utilize the mechanics of firearm usage, we all fundamentally understand what a “gun” is, and we all know that our police carry them. However, despite, or perhaps because of, this cultural basal understanding, the reality of firearms and their usage is often far beyond the experience of most people. To most, this cultural engagement is sufficient for their understanding of firearms and is utilized to inform their opinion. This is where the illusion of firearms and the reality of firearms collide. Media is not accountable to the reality of firearms, a character in film can utilize any firearm that suits the plot. More often than not, these firearms are portrayed as fully-automatic as the impact represented by these props are tangible to the audience. I am not against the use of firearms in media by any means; however, their presence in media informs the public opinion of firearms, how they work, and how they are used. It is this public opinion and the fundamental disconnect from the reality of firearms that is being utilized as justification for the removal of firearms rights in Canada and indeed doing so with tactics that violate the basic foundations of Canadian democracy.
May 1st, 2020 the Liberal government announced and made public their sweeping declaration for prohibiting “military-style assault weapons”. Over 1500 models of rifle were reclassified, without warning, as prohibited. Many of these firearms were once considered to be Non-restricted, all of these rifles were semi-automatic, all of these rifles had strict magazine restrictions limiting the number of cartridges in the magazine to 5. Within the modern discussion of firearms, the term “Assault rifle” is banded about often and defined precisely never. The term assault rifle refers specifically to rifles that are able to switch between fully-automatic and semi-automatic action. This designation does not describe ANY rifle sold or legally owned in Canada. Allow me to reiterate, firearms classified as “Assault rifles” are prohibited in Canada. Despite this clear-cut distinction, legally owned semi-automatic rifles, which operate fundamentally different from the description assault rifle, were deliberately labeled assault-style to connotatively suggest they had the same functional properties as Assault rifles, then cited as the justification for their reclassification to prohibited within the legislation itself. I quote from the document issued May 1st, 2020 (link provided)
“The Regulations have been amended to prescribe as prohibited approximately 1500 models of firearms. Of those, nine principal models of assault-style firearms are prohibited as they (1) have semi-automatic action with sustained rapid-fire capability (tactical/military design with large magazine capacity), (2) are of modern design, and (3) are present in large volumes in the Canadian market.”
This passage directly contradicts itself in the first numbered point, conflating rifle types and utilizing the inaccurate cultural understanding of firearms to justify further legislation to firearms that do not meet the criteria described. The second point is again contradictory as these action types have existed since before the turn of the previous century. Modern interpretations and style of firearms furniture do not impact their base function whatsoever. This second point is, in reality, a descriptor designed to single out modern polymer designs which are visual contrast to the hardwood designs of the prior century. The third point is entirely irrelevant and should rather be considered to be evidence against the reclassification of these firearms. The very fact that large numbers of these firearms are used regularly and without incident is an endorsement to legal gun ownership rather than justification to remove it. Many of the firearms mentioned in this document have been reclassified from non-restricted to prohibited, meaning many of these rifles have been bought, sold, used, and carried into areas of wilderness and legally utilized for hunting and sporting purposes without incident for decades or more.
The justifications for this sweeping firearm ban are based on a perceived reality of firearms which does not reflect the reality of gun ownership and gun owners in Canada. This conflict with reality is not a new phenomenon. Prior to this announcement, the Canadian government generated a survey to gauge public opinion in relation to further restricting gun ownership. The results of this census indicated that the majority of Canadians were not in favor of further legislation, rather they indicated that laws currently in place should be prioritized for greater enforcement. Despite this government-funded information, laboriously compiled and made public on the Canadian government website (link below), the Liberal government continued on with their plans to further restrict gun laws. This lack of credible information relating to public opinion, current legislation, and firearms themselves coupled with the hasty announcement of these sweeping changes without consideration for the process of the undertaking illustrates that this is not a decision made in the interest of public safety, but rather a political decision made based on ideology, in spite of their own publicly-funded evidence to the contrary.
Make no mistake, this announcement was deliberately made on the heels of a national tragedy to crassly exploit the emotional impact of the recent Nova Scotia tragedy in order to justify further firearm restrictions. Words do not rightly express my disgust towards the government's flagrant appeal to emotion in a time of national tragedy rather that this announcement constitutes. To not only exploit a tragic loss of life for political gain, to not only deliberately obfuscate the reality of firearms and firearm laws, but also to directly conflate legal gun owners in Canada with that of a mass murderer. A mass murderer who did not have a firearms license, did not legally own firearms, and did not obey firearms laws. The level of political duplicity on display is shocking, and yet despite this flagrant disregard for reality and observable fact, the actions taken during this announcement by the Prime minister and the minister for Public safety also constitutes a gross overreach of legal power.
Canada is a democratic country. Our laws and their making are matters of profound importance and this importance must weigh heavily on the shoulders of our lawmakers. For these reasons, legislation that impacts up to 2 million Canadians must be drafted with a firm commitment to reasonable action, supported with clear evidence, and rigorously debated by all sides in order to understand the impact and scope of the legislation. Precisely none of these actions were taken in the drafting of this firearm ban. no debate in the house of commons, no tangible support for the actions taken, no clear evidence in support, no clearly defined criteria for the actions taken, and most grievously, this entire process was conducted utilizing a motion known as an order in council or OIC. This motion is typically used to extend deadlines, appoint personnel, or allocate additional funding to projects and legislation that are currently being developed. The utilization of an OIC to legislate these massive changes to Canadian law is unprecedented and constitutes a bypassing of the legal system our elected officials are put in office to uphold. This is nothing short of total authoritarian action taken by a government that is not interested in being accountable to facts, debate, or opposition in the form of the other elected officials present within parliament.
Even now, as I continue to type these words I can hear the arguments swirling around the gun debate in favor of greater gun control. Indeed many of them mirror the language and words of the very instruments of its construction. Allow me to address some of the most common:
“Why should anyone be allowed to own a ‘military style assault weapon’?”
This argument again draws on the fundamental misunderstanding of the reality of firearms and is exacerbated by the deliberate conflation of fully-automatic and semi-automatic rifles constituted by the newly invented phrase “military style Assault weapon”. A phrase that even in its own legal description is self-contradictory. This I have fully elaborated, but the crux of this argument stems to: “Why should anyone be able to own a weapon”. It is not truly a discussion of weapon types, as that conversation would inevitably end once the reality of Canadian gun laws is understood. The question is, in reality, a question of why anyone should utilize weapons at all. This is an altogether less complicated question to answer technically, but one that delves more into the philosophical than the legal. Primarily, the fact that a person may fundamentally oppose the use of weapons for any reason, does not equate to any moral or technical justification to remove that right from others. Your personal opinion towards the use of firearms does not justify the removal of those rights from others. The only way this argument could be utilized to achieve this moral imperative is to morally grandstand that the user of a weapon is somehow a tangible threat to the public safety regardless of how the weapon is used. This is a baseless accusation easily addressed by Canada's own statistics and reality. Greater numbers of legal guns do not equate to greater levels of gun crime as legal gun owners in Canada are responsible for less than 4% of homicides annually as reported by Stats Canada. Gun violence in Canada is incredibly rare and when it does occur it is overwhelmingly committed by criminals who do not follow existing gun laws. Appealing to a greater sense of public safety is deliberately disingenuous as it assumes simply possessing something dangerous to another human being is sufficient moral justification to remove that right for the greater good of society. This is ludicrous, many products detrimental to our health and the safety of other Canadians are readily available and purchased without similar moral outrage. Cars that are designed to specifications well beyond the speed restrictions of Canadian highways. Legal to own? Absolutely, so long as you maintain the licensing and legal commitment owing that vehicle represents. Violation of the law in that vehicle is the responsibility of the operator not the vehicle in question. It would be absurd to ban transmission types or car brands in the interest of public safety. Yet this same argument occurs constantly.
“But guns were designed to KILL PEOPLE”
I have dedicated a significant portion of my adult life to the pursuit of weapons and their usages. The controlled use of weapons allows for the development of an emergent property beyond the design intent of the weapon. Utilized for sport, recreation, physical fitness, and personal development, weapon training is a fully legitimate usage for any weapon. The list of examples is near endless:
swords, spears, bow and arrows, crossbows, daggers, axes, polearms, darts, even yo-yos! let alone the empty-handed martial arts that describe personal combat. These are all legitimate uses of weapons and combat as a function of personal development, sport, and or recreation. Firearms and their legal usage constitute the natural progression of these ideas to the modern incarnation of the arms. These practices might not be your thing, but I happen to think hockey is an abject waste of time in every respect the practice of which constitutes a tremendous amount of personal injury annually. This distaste towards the activity does not make my opinion to its validity any more relevant.
“We don’t want to ban ALL guns just the ‘military style Assault weapons’”
This is another commonly cited argument. This argument is, again, an appeal to public safety conflating legal firearms function with illegal firearm function. Most often this argument is put forward without serious consideration of the shape of the argument and the refutation to this form of argumentation is simple using an analogy.
“We don’t want to ban all dogs, just the pit bulls”
If the above statement towards dogs seems absurd, I agree it is, and yet this same argument is presented as legitimate in regard to legal gun ownership. In this analogy, both parties are responsible and accountable for the actions conducted by the object in question with pit bulls constituting an animal traditionally bred for baiting and fighting. Presenting this argument towards firearms while believing “there is no bad dog only bad owners” is an example of cognitive dissonance and a clear lack of understanding of the topic.
To Mr. Trudeau’s statement: “you don’t need an AR-15 to hunt deer”
If our prime minister actually understood Canadian firearm laws he would have understood that restricted rifles such as the AR-15 platform are not legally able to be used for hunting and are utilized primarily in shooting sports and competition shooting exclusively at registered gun ranges. This statement by the Prime minister totally disregards the only legal utilization of the AR-15 in Canada to falsely conflate firearms ownership and usage as the exclusive domain of hunting. If this were not enough, the AR platform rifle is used extensively around the world for hunting purposes not only for deer but also wild hogs and pest control because of its availability, ubiquity, light weight construction, and reliable semi-automatic action making this statement both ignorant of the very Canadian law he is modifying and also factually inaccurate.
The ordered reclassification presented by the Liberal government May 1st 2020 constitutes a fundamental betrayal of legal gun owners like myself who would like nothing more than to continue to utilize our property legally and responsibly. The proposed legislation will not constitute a positive contribution to public safety as these laws will only be applied to legal gun owners. It is well known and understood that criminals do not follow Canadian laws no matter how draconian. Having additional laws describing a greater number of firearms that are illegal does not make the illegal possession of a firearm by a criminal more of a crime than it already is. This ordered reclassification will make hundreds of thousands of legal gun owners into criminals for using their own property, while simultaneously failing to make a significant contribution to mitigating gun violence in Canada. This action was taken without due process, utilizing the unprecedented levels of governmental overreach, by the current government deliberately exploiting a national tragedy to advance its own political agenda.
Punishing the most responsible and vetted members of our society for the actions of the deranged is fundamentally malicious.
This new reclassification must be repealed immediately to reflect reality rather than the fantasy presented.
This issue affects hundreds of thousands of firearms owners, thousands of businesses, and deserves to be carefully argued and, at minimum, opened to parliamentary debate.
These actions cannot be allowed to stand.
If you want to be a part of the discussion, be an educated part of the discussion.
If you would like to know more about Canadian firearms laws please follow the link to
https://gundebate.ca/ for more information.
If you have reached this point, I congratulate you.
Report - Reducing Violent Crime
https://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/…/201...index-en.aspx…
The complete reclassification list can be found on the government of Canada’s site: Canada Gazette
Fantastic Firearms Ban Facebook Post
Linear Mode
