Politics

[steve white]

Regarding the Canada prohibited gun situation, anyone with an active PAL should have received the email from the Government. Note that contrary to what some have said, no one is asking anyone to list the firearms they currently own. The notice just says that if you own one of the prohibited weapons on the (extensive) list, you need to turn it in or have it permanently deactivated before the end of the amnesty period.

The notice also says that you have the option of turning the firearm into the Government, and you might be eligible for compensation in that case. (You can also choose to export or deactivate the firearm, in which case you can’t apply for compensation). If you do choose to submit a request for compensation, you can fill out the online form. The form was helpfully (!) pre-competed for me, since the now-prohibited weapon I own was formerly restricted, so the government has a record of my ownership. They have no record of any of the non-restricted rifles I own and, as I said, they are not asking me (or anyone else) to list those.

As for the Weatherby situation, things are a bit confusing. The government put an upper limit on the muzzle energy which can be produced by a rifle, beyond which the rifle is prohibited. Apparently the Weatherby .460 exceeds the limit (10,000 Joules, I believe). This was intended to prohibit guns such as the .50 BMG which the government determined weren’t ’hunting rifles’, but as usual, when you know nothing about your subject matter, you tend to get things a bit wrong, and other rifles, which are typically used for hunting, can be caught by the definition. But frankly, no one hunting any game we have in Canada would normally use anything capable of producing more than 10,000 Joules of energy, so I don’t see that as an issue for anyone contemplating a hunt in Canada. For example, a .375 H&H, loaded to the max, generally tops out at 6,500 Joules or below and a .505 Gibbs around 8,500 Joules (I think).

I would add one more thing.

Lots has been said in Canada about certain provinces refusing to work with the federal government on this issue, including Alberta, Saskatchewan, the NWT and Yukon, etc., as well as certain police forces saying they have no interest in dealing with these weapons. Statements like these, and the media coverage in Canada, may lead people who own now prohibited firearms to think they do not need to comply with the law.

Nothing could be further from the truth. There is no doubt that the criminal law in Canada is federal, and there is equally no doubt that regulating firearms ownership is part of the criminal law (as the Supreme Court of Canada has determined). So while owners of newly prohibited firearms may find that no one comes to their door to arrest them for refusing to turn in their weapons, they will still be in violation of the criminal law in Canada. If, like me, you owned a firearm which was previously restricted, the Government will know who you are and where to find you, now or later.

By definition, if you are in violation of the provisions of the Criminal Code and convicted, you are a ‘criminal’ and you have a criminal record, which is a particular status I have spent my life avoiding. If you choose to rely on assurances that your local police won’t come after you (for now), you run a serious risk. If, at some point down the road, the Government catches up with you one way or another (recall, for example, that the RCMP is a federal police force and takes its orders from Ottawa), you could find your ability to hold certain occupations, to own any firearms at all, or to travel (including to the US) are severely compromised.

This isn’t legal advice, but it might be something for Canadians to consider.

"No one hunting any game WE HAVE IN CANADA" is the only problem I have with their reasoning. Do they not give any consideration at all to hunting in Africa?

 

[Rocked and Loaded]

"No one hunting any game WE HAVE IN CANADA" is the only problem I have with their reasoning. Do they not give any consideration at all to hunting in Africa?

I suspect that the Venn diagram for people who favor strict firearm regulation and those who don’t want you to hunt “innocent endangered animals in Africa for trophies” has significant overlap.

I doubt many of them care whether their ban would effect your ability to hunt in Africa and for many it would be all the better.

 

[Tundra Tiger]

Comments from our Texans. Was this expected?

Dems score big in typically red Texas district that Trump easily won in 2024

Democrat Taylor Rehmet scores major upset in Texas special election, flipping longtime Republican stronghold by more than 14 points in Fort Worth-area district.

www.foxnews.com

I am still catching up on this morning's posts, and look forward to what our Texas members have to say.

I personally believe this is a harbinger of what November holds. I think Trump has pissed off and alienated enough people that he needs to get used to being impeached.

 

[John Wasmuth]

A lot of it has to do with transients coming from California, they sell their cracker box palaces for a truck load of money, move here and buy big property and vote to destroy here like they did there. You can swap California for Michigan or New York or anywhere that people are leaving in droves.

 

[Altitude sickness]

If Texas goes Blue. That means we are all screwed. It’s a bellwether state. So if Texas falls that means there are many other purple states that have already turned before Texas fell.

Societies tend to move left as they mature. So it will eventually happen. Hopefully later than sooner.

 

[Hank2211]

"No one hunting any game WE HAVE IN CANADA" is the only problem I have with their reasoning. Do they not give any consideration at all to hunting in Africa?

Those words were intentional on my part. Wanted to reassure any US hunters thinking of coming up to Canada to hunt that they'd continue to be most welcome, with any of what we'd call "standard" type firearms. I'd be surprised if anyone showed up at the border with a firearm capable of generating over 10,000 Jules of energy . . . (about 7,400 foot-pounds), thinking they needed it. I'd actually be surprised if anyone wants to fire such a (shoulder mounted) gun!

As for considering hunting in Africa, I doubt it entered into the government analysis to any great extent. Having said that, if you can take anything up to and beyond, say a .505, I think Canadians will still be pretty well covered in Africa. I've found a .375 ample for elephant (though am moving up to .404 this year), but even a .500 nitro express double is only about 8,000 Joules,

No disrespect intended, but I wonder what .460 Weatherby owners feel they have to prove? I for one am happy to admit I couldn't handle that recoil.

 

[Ontario Hunter]

I can fire 4 shots in half a second (my normal splits of 0.17s) and hit a target's A zone (chest) 7 yards away. At point blank range the splits can get down to .14 or so. If one practices the Bill drill (my best time is 1.8 seconds) where one draws and fires 6 shots to a target 7 yards away and it counts only if all shots are in the A zone then shooting that many shots accurately is no issue. Below is a video explanation of the Bill drill.

Now, I know you like revolvers and I am guessing your frame of reference is not Jerry Miculek who has fired 8 shots in a second.

But I would suggest not making assumptions on how fast someone can shoot their firearm without knowing their firearm proficiency.

I can hear on the videos how fast the rounds were fired. By the time the goon fired into her open window into the side of her head he was no longer in danger. And neither was anyone else. So who was more "reckless"? The paramilitary goon with a gun or the woman who was scared and trying to get away in her car? The woman who clearly did her best to avoid hitting him. Did he fire a warning shot? No. Did he shoot the car to disable it? No. But he could have. He was shooting to kill in a neighborhood full of houses and people. For what? For this? Come on. And you really think the lady was the reckless one? Man, THAT is a stretch. Her recklessness (if any) pales in comparison to that CITES agent's.

 

[John Wasmuth]

It’s called “Deadly Force” for a reason,,,, not car “Disabling Force”, not “warning Shot Force”, warning shots are never used by LEA’s for obvious reasons…….. do you know for a fact that she was frightened? Were you present during the altercation? You make a lot of assumptions. Bạn điên rồi.

 

[JimP]

I can hear on the videos how fast the rounds were fired. By the time the goon fired into her open window into the side of her head he was no longer in danger. And neither was anyone else. So who was more "reckless"? The paramilitary goon with a gun or the woman who was scared and trying to get away in her car? The woman who clearly did her best to avoid hitting him. Did he fire a warning shot? No. Did he shoot the car to disable it? No. But he could have. He was shooting to kill in a neighborhood full of houses and people. For what? For this? Come on. And you really think the lady was the reckless one? Man, THAT is a stretch. Her recklessness (if any) pales in comparison to that CITES agent's.

I think that someone has watched way too many movies or TV shows where they shoot the gun out of the perps hands or just wounds them in the leg.

It's funny but there are a lot of people who think that is all law enforcement need to do to win the day.

 

[Pheroze]

Trump has always been in the media and like splashy projects. I wonder whether his inclination to put on a big show has hampered the otherwise worthy policies of his administration.

 

[Roosterlund]

Those words were intentional on my part. Wanted to reassure any US hunters thinking of coming up to Canada to hunt that they'd continue to be most welcome, with any of what we'd call "standard" type firearms. I'd be surprised if anyone showed up at the border with a firearm capable of generating over 10,000 Jules of energy . . . (about 7,400 foot-pounds), thinking they needed it. I'd actually be surprised if anyone wants to fire such a (shoulder mounted) gun!

As for considering hunting in Africa, I doubt it entered into the government analysis to any great extent. Having said that, if you can take anything up to and beyond, say a .505, I think Canadians will still be pretty well covered in Africa. I've found a .375 ample for elephant (though am moving up to .404 this year), but even a .500 nitro express double is only about 8,000 Joules,

No disrespect intended, but I wonder what .460 Weatherby owners feel they have to prove? I for one am happy to admit I couldn't handle that recoil.

I live in New York. We are restricted here on magazine capacity, have hold special permit for semi automatic rifles. Ever Ruger 10/22 or a Remington 7400 not just AR’s. Very extensive conditions to own an AR and it being compliant. You also have to do a back ground check to purchase ammunition. This state is a Democrat stronghold. Only because of the densely populated areas like New York City. These changes have come over a period of time. They only really effect lawful gun owners but this is the Democrats plan.
They start with small changes and next thing you know you’re second amendment rights are slowly being taken away. Don’t understand people who own guns and love to hunt being democrats, my wife thinks people who live in states like Montana or Wyoming feel their gun rights will not be trifled on. But make no mistake the agenda is the same from sea to sea and beyond!!! So I don’t get Ontario Hunters left wing insane views. Makes no sense. Mental illness maybe?

 

[RLD]

Those words were intentional on my part. Wanted to reassure any US hunters thinking of coming up to Canada to hunt that they'd continue to be most welcome, with any of what we'd call "standard" type firearms. I'd be surprised if anyone showed up at the border with a firearm capable of generating over 10,000 Jules of energy . . . (about 7,400 foot-pounds), thinking they needed it. I'd actually be surprised if anyone wants to fire such a (shoulder mounted) gun!

As for considering hunting in Africa, I doubt it entered into the government analysis to any great extent. Having said that, if you can take anything up to and beyond, say a .505, I think Canadians will still be pretty well covered in Africa. I've found a .375 ample for elephant (though am moving up to .404 this year), but even a .500 nitro express double is only about 8,000 Joules,

No disrespect intended, but I wonder what .460 Weatherby owners feel they have to prove? I for one am happy to admit I couldn't handle that recoil.

I think you are quite right for visiting hunters at the moment. Unless you were dead set on using a .460 Weatherby you are fine bringing your hunting guns to Canada for a visit. These policies are not remotely directed at visiting hunters.

There are profoundly troubling aspects of Canada's current firearms regime for citizens and residents, but I can't see them having any impact on visiting sportsmen.

 

[RLD]

Conservatives are moving for a castle doctrine in Canada won’t pass without a change of government and a majority but nice to see regardless

To be honest with you, this is pretty much a political play rather than substantive.

To my eye the space between most versions of the Castle Doctrine, and the current Canadian law on self defense is paper thin.

 

[Roosterlund]

That’s what I’m saying it starts with not being able to use a .460 and next thing you know you won’t be able to use any rifle. Slow and steady taking your freedom away, little by little…….

 

[BJH65]

Did he fire a warning shot? No. Did he shoot the car to disable it?

No modern law enforcement agency in the U.S. authorizes “warning shots” nor do they authorize shooting into a car to disable it. To do so would not only be reckless and ineffective, but dangerous to the public as well. Referring to ICE agents as “goons” is really beneath you.

 

[skydiver386]

I can hear on the videos how fast the rounds were fired. By the time the Federal Officer fired into her open window into the side of her head he was no longer in danger. And neither was anyone else. So who was more "reckless"?

No matter how many times you teel the same lie, it won't make it true.

The paramilitary goon with a gun or the woman who was scared and trying to get away in her car?

Facts not in evidence. Moments before the shots were fired, both her and her goon spouse were taunting the agents. The emotional state of both was boldness and arrogance, not fear. You have to make up things for which you have ZERO proof in order to excuse her actions.

The woman who clearly did her best to avoid hitting him.

False again. She wouldn't accelerate forward if she were clearly doing her best to avoid him.

Did he fire a warning shot? No.

Fire a warning shot! Are you out of your mind?

Did he shoot the car to disable it? No.

Seriously? Next thing your going to suggest they should have shot her in the leg.

But he could have. He was shooting to kill in a neighborhood full of houses and people.

Yet in your mind he should fire half a mag of warning shots and shots to disable the vehicle. Do you even read the things you type before posting your reply?

For what? For this? Come on. And you really think the lady was the reckless one? Man, THAT is a stretch. Her recklessness (if any)

She was clearly reckless and irresponsible. You're the only one that won't admit it.

 

[John Wasmuth]

No matter how many times you teel the same lie, it won't make it true.

Facts not in evidence. Moments before the shots were fired, both her and her goon spouse were taunting the agents. The emotional state of both was boldness and arrogance, not fear. You have to make up things for which you have ZERO proof in order to excuse her actions.

False again. She wouldn't accelerate forward if she were clearly doing her best to avoid him.

Fire a warning shot! Are you out of your mind?

Seriously? Next thing your going to suggest they should have shot her in the leg.

Yet in your mind he should fire half a mag of warning shots and shots to disable the vehicle. Do you even read the things you type before posting your reply?

She was clearly reckless and irresponsible. You're the only one that won't admit it.

There’s that “intentionally and knowingly” part again………

 

[Tex .416]

I can hear on the videos how fast the rounds were fired. By the time the goon fired into her open window into the side of her head he was no longer in danger. And neither was anyone else. So who was more "reckless"? The paramilitary goon with a gun or the woman who was scared and trying to get away in her car? The woman who clearly did her best to avoid hitting him. Did he fire a warning shot? No. Did he shoot the car to disable it? No. But he could have. He was shooting to kill in a neighborhood full of houses and people. For what? For this? Come on. And you really think the lady was the reckless one? Man, THAT is a stretch. Her recklessness (if any) pales in comparison to that CITES agent's.

Someone that knows as much as you about use of force would do well to keep quiet other than to ask questions and take notes.

 

[LivingTheDream]

So I don’t get Ontario Hunters left wing insane views. Makes no sense. Mental illness maybe?

I honestly think he is just trolling in the politics forum, he is lonely/bored and there probably arent too many forums where he actually hasn't been kicked out. He make arguments for the sake of arguments, like talking about a warning shot or trying to disable the car, while claiming he was a police officer. Same thing with the church protests, saying they have a right to disrupt, etc.

Honestly he does this type of stuff all over the forum, talking about a cow buffalo hunt on a farm in South Africa makes his an expert in DG hunting and caliber.

Notice most of his stories, whether mountain hunting or upland hunting, he did something amazing had to help someone who knew nothing. His PhD story, look at all the things that went wrong for him, professor didnt like him, some type of medical issue, etc.

Its a pattern, I dont respond directly to him anymore, it is sad, and honestly takes away from a lot of the good insight people have here. Him arguing is the only way he can stay somewhat relevant. I would just ignore him.

 

[BJH65]

the optics surrounding ICE operations are as bad as several of us warned they could be a year or more ago.

I think the phrase, “If the only tool you have is a hammer, everything begins to look like a nail,” comes into play here. Let me state that ICE is simply doing their job which I have no issue with but figuring out a way utilizing more stealth to accomplish their operational goals is in order with less public awareness.