Canada's boy king Bans Firearms - List of 1500

V.Veritas said:

12 Ga Beretta Urika without the choke measures 0.8200” (20.8 mm).

Click to expand...

Pheroze said:

I saw that too and thought it was safe. But the actual Gazette regulation says "bore size" which creates an issue I think

Click to expand...

Tam Dl said:

The AR 15 massacre aside. This restriction introduces a new category, which is an energy limitation designed to eliminate the 50 BMG level of cartridge. It will affect cartridges in the 460 weatherby and up range, such as the 500 Jefferey, or the 500 A-square I was working on.

This might be a mistake as while I don't understand the order in council process, I do understand the regulatory process, and you can't bypass parliament. You have to stay within existing rules. There is no president for this except in air rifles, as far as I know. Be interesting to see if it causes a hiccup.

Click to expand...

Hank2211 said:

I really don't see this. Parliament is not being bypassed.

The existing legislation, enacted by Parliament well before the Covid-19 pandemic, clearly gives the Governor-in-Council (aka the federal cabinet) the power to enact regulations in this area. One power granted to the executive branch by the Parliament of Canada is to classify guns as non-restricted, restricted or prohibited. We have to stop saying that he didn't have the power to do this. He did, and he does.

Note as an aside, that this power has been exercised in the past, notably to reclassify a number of restricted weapons as prohibited weapons, on the sole basis that some guy at the RCMP determined that they could be converted to fully automatic "relatively easily" (whatever that means). So if the firearm is on the list, it is now a prohibited weapon. If you don't have a permit to hold prohibited weapons, you cannot lawfully own one of these any longer. That is why an amnesty has also been put in place until the government can figure out how to address the implications of making so many of us criminals by the stroke of a pen.

Gentlemen, he has the power. It was given to him by Parliament. I see no way to go after him on this aspect of the law.

Click to expand...

Hank2211 said:

I really don't see this. Parliament is not being bypassed.

The existing legislation, enacted by Parliament well before the Covid-19 pandemic, clearly gives the Governor-in-Council (aka the federal cabinet) the power to enact regulations in this area. One power granted to the executive branch by the Parliament of Canada is to classify guns as non-restricted, restricted or prohibited. We have to stop saying that he didn't have the power to do this. He did, and he does.

Note as an aside, that this power has been exercised in the past, notably to reclassify a number of restricted weapons as prohibited weapons, on the sole basis that some guy at the RCMP determined that they could be converted to fully automatic "relatively easily" (whatever that means). So if the firearm is on the list, it is now a prohibited weapon. If you don't have a permit to hold prohibited weapons, you cannot lawfully own one of these any longer. That is why an amnesty has also been put in place until the government can figure out how to address the implications of making so many of us criminals by the stroke of a pen.

Gentlemen, he has the power. It was given to him by Parliament. I see no way to go after him on this aspect of the law.

Click to expand...

Skinnersblade said:

So does that lead to a secound batch of prohibited licenses being issued? If so I may go find one on the list just to get the prohibited variance. I've been unable to gain one by other means.

Click to expand...

Hank2211 said:

It's not clear (a lot isn't), but I'd say no. If at the end of the amnesty period (April 30, 2022) you haven't turned in the firearm, and you don't already have a prohibited license, you no longer have the benefit of the amnesty and you are a criminal. There is one other choice - you can render the prohibited weapon not a weapon by "deactivating" it, that is, rendering it impossible of firing, permanently. In that case, you can hang on to it, but only because it's not a weapon anymore.

I don't believe there is an expectation that any new prohibited licenses will be issued. That book is long closed.

I also think, by the way, that it would be hard to "find one on the list" if you don't already have one. The regulatory analysis prepared in connection with the new regulation (they do think of everything) says:

The Amnesty Order has been made to protect affected individuals who (1) were in legal possession of a newly prohibited firearm or prohibited device at the time the Regulations came into force, and, (2) continue to hold a valid licence during the amnesty period, from criminal liability for unlawful possession of a prohibited firearm​

So if you don't have one now, you really have no legal option to get one. If you can read the minds of politicians, you can always try to find what they plan on banning next, and get one of those before they do ban them. The regulatory analysis to the new regulation further says:

There is also a risk that affected firearms owners may elect to replace their firearms with models unaffected by the ban, causing a market displacement. This risk may be mitigated by adding additional makes and models to the list of prohibited firearms in the future.
​

This goes to my earlier point that the government can add any firearms to the list any time it wants, without any further authority from Parliament, because Parliament gave it that authority.

If it will help you to rest more peacefully, you should know that the government performed a "gender-based analysis +" as part of this. Boy, (or maybe girl?), do I feel better.

Click to expand...

Hank2211 said:

It's not clear (a lot isn't), but I'd say no. If at the end of the amnesty period (April 30, 2022) you haven't turned in the firearm, and you don't already have a prohibited license, you no longer have the benefit of the amnesty and you are a criminal. There is one other choice - you can render the prohibited weapon not a weapon by "deactivating" it, that is, rendering it impossible of firing, permanently. In that case, you can hang on to it, but only because it's not a weapon anymore.

I don't believe there is an expectation that any new prohibited licenses will be issued. That book is long closed.

I also think, by the way, that it would be hard to "find one on the list" if you don't already have one. The regulatory analysis prepared in connection with the new regulation (they do think of everything) says:

The Amnesty Order has been made to protect affected individuals who (1) were in legal possession of a newly prohibited firearm or prohibited device at the time the Regulations came into force, and, (2) continue to hold a valid licence during the amnesty period, from criminal liability for unlawful possession of a prohibited firearm​

So if you don't have one now, you really have no legal option to get one. If you can read the minds of politicians, you can always try to find what they plan on banning next, and get one of those before they do ban them. The regulatory analysis to the new regulation further says:

There is also a risk that affected firearms owners may elect to replace their firearms with models unaffected by the ban, causing a market displacement. This risk may be mitigated by adding additional makes and models to the list of prohibited firearms in the future.
​

This goes to my earlier point that the government can add any firearms to the list any time it wants, without any further authority from Parliament, because Parliament gave it that authority.

If it will help you to rest more peacefully, you should know that the government performed a "gender-based analysis +" as part of this. Boy, (or maybe girl?), do I feel better.

Click to expand...

Hunter4752001 said:

I don't want to rain on anyone's parade, but why would you think that the opinion of a group of US manufacturers would have any impact on the interpretation of legal instruments especially in proceedings outside of the US.

Click to expand...

Cam Moon said:

Can they explain to me how it "protects" Canadians?

Click to expand...

BRICKBURN said:

Just to put some sunshine in your rainy day.

Because the MINISTER responsible for drafting this OIC was using INDUSTRY STANDARDS.
SAAMI just happens to be one of these groups setting those standards.


View attachment 346726


View attachment 346727

Click to expand...

Cam Moon said:

Can they explain to me how it "protects" Canadians?

Click to expand...

V.Veritas said:

Our turn!

Watch "The CCFR's Biggest Announcement Since the Ban" on YouTub.

Click to expand...