Gun Registry Part 6

106 posts / 0 new
Last post
KenS

Interesting twist on Peter Stoffer.

He had a news conference as soon as he came back from Regina, in his constituency office, which is in the middle of nowhere for the media. [But calling it a news conference in the context of all the attention this gets means you'll get the word out.]

Then he says "'I've always opposed the registry. I will continue to do so. But regarding the vote, I will tell everyone on Monday."

All he would say beyond that is that he promised everyone he wouldnt say. Which is consistent with my guess that with maybe only an exception to make a point to the media- the rest of the 12 MPs that have not already said they were switching will not be saying what they will do, even if they have already decided to switch.

My guess- just as the only one that makes sense- is that there was an agreement for the rest to not say. So Peter being Peter, he sticks to the formailty that he does not strictly speaking say how he was going to vote; but he cant stand not giving a heads up explanation, so he calls in enough media to make sure its reported and delivers the enigma: I have not changed my mind at all about the registry, but I will not be voting the same as I did before.... you are drawing that conclusion you just made, I didnt say that, I will speak my intentions on Monday.

[Monday being back in Ottawa and not certain he can be picked up by local media.]

And implicitly, it would seem this means that Monday is the agreed day, closer to the Wednesday vote, when some of the MPs may announce they are switching.

I think that agrred delay in announcing more switches is a last insurance touch to providing cover to the MPs that have decided to switch; but are still worried about the repercusions to come, or like Stoffer have decided to go with the consensus even though they have not changed their substantive opinion about the registry, and dont relish explaining that [for essentially personal reasons rather than calculation of consequences for them].

Because there are going to be MPs who dont want to talk about their vote until they have to, and other MPs continuing one by one to announce will have the media pushing them for an answer... with even "you will see" answers will put attention on their vote they dont want. That kind of pressure on reluctant MPs could even mean one of them changes their mind.

KenS

Going over this kind of dynamic of handling appearances no doubt revolts a lot of people around here. But its my surmise of the finishing touches to what starts with Jacks determination to do this the way he thinks best.

If it was just political calculation of what loses you the fewest votes, the NDP probably would have just left it as a laissez faire free vote and let the registry die.

Some think that the only reason it did not end like that was because of the hue and cry from pro-registry forces. [Even though we all agree that was expected, therefore would have been part of a cynical calculation, and could not be "oh gee, we're going to have to do something about this."]

I think its because Jack Layton could not possibly have taken the easy way of just letting the registry die with a laissez faire free vote. A whipped vote was out of the question, so of course even Jack resolving that he was going to switch enough MPs votes risked failure. So, risking the registry going down, yes. But calulating that you are best off letting it die under your watch- I dont think that was possible for Jack Layton. Not possible because he believes in the importance and usefulness of the registry, and unpalatable on top of that because the opinions of that part of the base does matter to him persoanly as well as politically.

So he resolved that he was going to changeMPs votes, and he did it.

 

Is there proof that's what it was, and not just cynical calculation with a last minute change of course because of the supposedly unexpected reaction of pro-registry forces?

Of course there cannot be proof.

But everything we have seen is consistent with the explanation that it was Layton's determination and savvy at getting people to move [running back to his Council days], and for the pure cynicism explanation there is nothing except motive. A last minute reactive scramble by Jack Layton could never have pulled this off.

KenS

Candice Hoeppner is doing a Northern Ontario tour.

Here is an example of in this instance of the Conservatives doing the advance work to pick off a Liberal MP- Anthony Rota.

The Conservatives are closer in a lot more contests between Conservatives and New Democrats. But this is a pretty good example. They were second to Rota by 5,000 votes last time. Not close, but quite doable. And going after Rota is a win-win anyway. Even if they dont get the seat, that is more resources the Liberals have to put there, which means that much less available for close races in the 905 belt.

Same thing where the NDP are the main opponents. And not just going after NDP incumbents, it is eating away at the gains the NDP continually makes on the Conservative incumbents. [Plus poaching a few more Liberal votes also helps in holding off the NDP in the ground campaigns.]

In the partisan politics side of this issue Layton has "only" got agreement from his Caucus that things will work out OK for them individually and the NDP as a whole, with Jack's strategy. How well it works is no done deal.

KenS

While Rota and other incumbents are thrown under the wheels of the Liberal bus. Not to mention the slew of Liberal candidates across Canada whose already uphill battles in the hinterlands are further written off. 

Expendable.

Stockholm

Carol Hughes just announced she will vote to keep the registry now

KenS

Throw Liberals up against Conservatives under the bus.

Publicize Save the Registry where it matters to the Liberal Party: picking up some seats now held by the NDP [or in the process, at least throw some wrenches into the NDP election campaign].

Winnipeg: Liberals head to city to boost gun registry

 

KenS

And her intention already being pretty well known. If my surmise is correct, plan is that will be that last we hear until Monday of any additional NDP MPs saying or indicating how they will vote.

I forget, what is the roll call order for voice votes in the House? The Liberals are now saying everyone will vote, and I expect that is true. But when in the roll call would it emerge if that is not true?

ottawaobserver

Since you asked about the At Issue folks ...

Andrew Coyne on Twitter wrote:

@acoyne: Layton's handling of this has been adroit. 2nd time in a year Grits thought they had him boxed in, and didn't. http://tinyurl.com/2g4mw8a

... there's more ...

Andrew Coyne on Twitter wrote:

@acoyne: @marcellam Not only adroit, but also adept. Indeed I would go so far as to say he has shown élan, or even éclat. #elitethis

ottawaobserver

KenS wrote:

I forget, what is the roll call order for voice votes in the House? The Liberals are now saying everyone will vote, and I expect that is true. But when in the roll call would it emerge if that is not true?

It's a private member's bill, so it goes row by row.

Stockholm

KenS wrote:

Throw Liberals up against Conservatives under the bus.

Publicize Save the Registry where it matters to the Liberal Party: picking up some seats now held by the NDP [or in the process, at least throw some wrenches into the NDP election campaign].

Winnipeg: Liberals head to city to boost gun registry

 

You have to pity gthe poor Liberals - all dressed up with no place to go!

Stockholm

BTW, I see that John Baird of all people is now denouncing Jack Layton and Michael Ignatieff as "Toronto elites" who are responsible for keeping the gun registry.

What do you call a rather effeminate gay Tory cabinet minister who has lived his entire life in the middle of Ottawa, has never had a private secor job of any kind and is unlikely to have touched a gun in his life? I guess he's not a Toronto elite - just an Ottawa elite!

KenS

Follow up to the House roll call order:

Which means one side of the House, then the other?

And if so, is it government side first?

Ultimately: who goes first, Libs or NDP?

Or is it side by side: so that its some Libs/NDP, then some of the other; with the same thing repeated each row, so that the two parties are mixed together in the order?

6079_Smith_W

@ Stockholm #61

Being "citified" is one thing, but orientation and one's personal style don't really have any bearing on this issues (the registry or elitism). There are plenty of people who disprove these stereotype.

(and for that matter, plenty of people in cities do too)

Stockholm

I agree - but i just find it amusing that the Tories would have John Baird of all people denouncing "Toronto elitists". He is about as urban and elitist as they come.

I'd love to see Jack Layton and John Baird work the room at a rural Tim Horton's and see who makes a better impression - "Everyman Jack" or Little Lord Fauntleroy from Ottawa West-Nepean??

peterjcassidy peterjcassidy's picture

KenS wrote:

Follow up to the House roll call order:

Which means one side of the House, then the other?

And if so, is it government side first?

Ultimately: who goes first, Libs or NDP?

Or is it side by side: so that its some Libs/NDP, then some of the other; with the same thing repeated each row, so that the two parties are mixed together in the order?

 

My sense is they first ask for the Yes vote and start on the government side, so if it was  a vote on the bill itself to scrap the registry ,  Stephen Harper and John Baird stand up , their names are called out and they are counted yes.  all the way through the Conservative caucus all voting yes, then goes to the official opposiiton   they skip over Ignatieff, who is sitting down, not votng for the bill, and work their way though any Liberals refusing the whip and voting t0oscrap the long gun registry, ,  then through  the Bloc, who should all be sitting down and not counted as yes,  and the big excitement of do any NDP MP's vote yes for the bill.  Lastly the independents Helene G. voting yes.. then all those Nay are called , skipping over the government side as no one there  opposes scrapping the registry, then to the Liberals who showed up to vote no, the Bloc, and more excitement  the NDP votes not to scrap the registry but to fix the it..In case of a tie the speaker votes yes to move the bill along nd it goes to the Senate.

Howver if it is a vote on the motion to kill the bill the yes side would have no Conservativem members voting yes, only Liberals and Bloc and NDP voting yes kill the bill, .then the call for nays is  when Conservatives stand up and are counted against the motion to scrap the bill , followd by and Liberals, Bloc or NDP voting against the motion to scrap the bill. InnocentBut I could be wrong.

 

Maysie Maysie's picture

Stockholm, stop the bullshit homophobic talk about John Baird. Now.

One more time and you get a few days off from babble.

al-Qa'bong

Little Lord Fautleroy is gay?  Who knew?

Geez, six threads and I haven't posted on this topic.  As one of those western hayseeds who is supposedly the object of all these political machinations, I suppose it's my duty to state my opinion on the rifle and shotgun registry.

I don't care one way or the other. 

So a guy has to register his .306 or .22?  Big deal, I have to register my car. 

 

So nobody will have to register firearms?  Big deal, I don't register my bike.

 

 

KenS

So do people agree with how Peter said the roll call goes?

Meaning, that all the Liberals votes are identified before any of the NDP votes have been identified?

Any Yeses on the Liberal side, then any NDP yeses?

And on the go through of the No's the any abstainers among the Liberals showing before the NDP abstainers?

ottawaobserver

KenS wrote:

Follow up to the House roll call order:

Which means one side of the House, then the other?

And if so, is it government side first?

Ultimately: who goes first, Libs or NDP?

Or is it side by side: so that its some Libs/NDP, then some of the other; with the same thing repeated each row, so that the two parties are mixed together in the order?

It goes row-by-row on a private member's bill, starting if I'm not mistaken on the side of the MP whose bill it is.  In this case it would start on the government side, then, but go all the way down to and including the Dippers at the far end.  Then after all the rows to the Speaker's right have voted, he would call the rows to his left, in turn, and yes mix in all the parties one after the other.

Peter's method is correct for government bills and opposition day motions, but not for private members' business.

peterjcassidy peterjcassidy's picture

ottawaobserver wrote:

KenS wrote:

Follow up to the House roll call order:

Which means one side of the House, then the other?

And if so, is it government side first?

Ultimately: who goes first, Libs or NDP?

Or is it side by side: so that its some Libs/NDP, then some of the other; with the same thing repeated each row, so that the two parties are mixed together in the order?

It goes row-by-row on a private member's bill, starting if I'm not mistaken on the side of the MP whose bill it is.  In this case it would start on the government side, then, but go all the way down to and including the Dippers at the far end.  Then after all the rows to the Speaker's right have voted, he would call the rows to his left, in turn, and yes mix in all the parties one after the other.

Peter's method is correct for government bills and opposition day motions, but not for private members' business.

But is the vote on an opposition motion to kill the bill and so....?Frown

jrootham

It's a vote on a committee report about what to do with a private member's bill.  So I would assume it's the voting procedure used for private member's bills.

 

6079_Smith_W

Hey, the discussion has actually turned to procedure. Is there a chance this is winding down?

KenS

My guess is, only a pause.

The procedure question was wondering if there was a chance for voting drama, beyond tallying it up. If it was all ofone party's members, before another voted... some chance for manouvering. But if all the oppostion members are mixed in order- some Dippers even in order with the Conservatives, then that is unlikely.

6079_Smith_W

Yeah, I have no doubt the joint will be jumping Tuesday night.

KenS

I was thinking a much more temporary pause than that.

peterjcassidy peterjcassidy's picture

we could always start a few more threads-one in how we could improve the registry, another how Jack has done good though a good process, another one on the drama of the vote . No limit to where we can go Cool 

The registry should be saved and it should be fixed. We must reject wedge issues,urban and rural divides  Amazing how the Tories and Liberals can whip their MPs, expecting them to  vote the party line,regardless of the wishes of their constituents and how the NDP can allow members to vote their conscience, and how  when Jack and the caucus  talk together they can come up with some good way to work through the system and do good. GO JACK GO!!!

George Victor

Jack Layton did a wonderful job of answering Baird's charge of Toronto "elite" at work, "forcing" members to conform.  He also pointed to Baird's billion dollar propaganda regarding cost of maintenance of the registry...it would actually  cost each Canadian about 10 cents a year.  He was also able to spell out the changes to the registry that he's proposing, while explaining "wedge issues" and their use by Steve.

Great Gaia it was so nice listening to a reasonable voice. 

Life, the unive...

I got to see Layton address this issue first hand last night in a very rural riding at the nomination of Grant Robertson in Huron-Bruce.  He was direct and very respectful of the views of rural Canada.  He won a lot of people over with the tone and straightforwardness of his comments.  Huron-Bruce is one of the most rural ridings in southern Ontario so if Layton can build bridges there- he has shown a real way forward.  As he said addressing the concerns of both rural and urban Canada and fixing the registry won't please everyone, but it is the best way to put this divisivness behind us.  First time I have seen Layton in person and I was really, really impressed with his common touch, his humour, his willingness to be very direct and his energy.

By the way the NDP had no fewer than 3 MPs, including Layton, in the riding in support of Robertson's nomination.  If you wonder about the NDP's committment to rural Canada you need look no farther than that! 

George Victor

You have to go back a few years, but Grey County was once. with Bruce, a very, very progressive rural riding of indignant Scots:

 

"(born March 24, 1890, Grey county, Ont., Can. - died Feb. 13, 1954, Toronto) Canadian politician. Originally a schoolteacher, she entered politics to represent the farmers in her region. In 1921, the first year women could vote in national elections in Canada, she was elected to the Canadian House of Commons as its first female member; she served until 1940. She advocated prison reform and women's rights as well as a protective tariff. She was the first female Canadian delegate to the League of Nations. Elected to the Ontario legislature (1943 - 45, 1948 - 51), she sponsored the province's first equal-pay legislation."

 

For more information on Agnes Campbell Macphail, visit Britannica.com.

George Victor

Yes, the bastard dropped out of the U of T and went to Calgary for his BA in 1985.  And google tells me he got to attend the Bilderberg Group session in 2003.   Nothing elite or aspirations to elite status about this chap, of course.. :)

6079_Smith_W

Caissa wrote:

AIH poined out that the high school from which Stephen Harper graduated is in Toronto.

Yes, Terry Milewski also pointed that (plus the irony of Baird's statement) out on the National last night with a definite smirk. They also ran a high school photo of Harper with a really bad haircut.

I think the Cons' stonewalling of the media may be coming back to haunt them.

 

nope

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2010/09/17/kevin-libin-insulted-elit...

This guy gets it, it is impossible to debate with pro registry people, simply because they have convinced themselves of thier own right righteousness without ever actually looking at real numbers, real facts.  Liscensing is constantly confused with registration, the lie of 9000-14000 hits a day never stops making the rounds, the facts don't matter, some of you are simply convinced you know better, the truth not withstanding, it may not be elitism, but it is ignorance certainly borne out of urban group think and yes maybe some of that E word.  I know some of you look down at hunters and guns owners, to you we are all neanderthals one step away from spousal murder or worse, check your bias, and then check some facts, it likely won't change anything, like all of us your just a creature of your environment no matter how enlightened you think you are.  Enlightenment comes from education and the truth, there is very little of that here and elsewhere on the pro registry side, when it comes to firearms most of you are reading and regurgitating at a grade 2 level.

writer writer's picture

"He has a chauffeur! He's beating people up for being elite?"

"You wanna know what elite is? It's John Baird in a tuxedo, going to the National Arts Centre with the Prime Minister's wife on his arm, complaining that the food is not good enough. That's John Baird right there in a nutshell."

— Rick Mercer, CBC News, Thursday September 16, 2010

Life, the unive...

I am neither urban, or elite.  I am a hunter and a gun owner.  I understand the concerns of both rural and urban Canadians on this issue.  If you think for one moment gun violence or the threats of violence are only an urban phenomena chances are you have never spent a second in rural Canada other than on your way to the cottage.

I see the points most are making in this debate -minus the extreme's on both sides, and that is why I really like the approach I heard Jack Layton take, in person, last night, in a rural riding, where there were all kinds of farmers, hunters and gun owners.  It didn't make everyone happy, but it addresses the concerns of the vast bulk of people who are, like me, in the middle on this issue.

Pogo Pogo's picture

@ #83

hmm...  I think the reason this has gone for six threads is because we have a good cross-section of opinions.   I am sure we have people on both sides who have some level of blinkers, but I have seen lots of movement and understanding from most participants.  I think your characterization is very unfair.

Caissa

AIH pointed out that the high school from which Stephen Harper graduated is in Toronto.

KenS

I think the ambivalence and sympathy a lot of us feel for both sides tends to get chalked up areound here to being NDP supporters or defenders.

But take away the NDP and its the same for me. Since I have the most in common with acivists who passionately want the registry, on whatever terms, I want them to have it regardless of the fact I have never been convinced it has or ever will do what is claimed for it. I would deferr to people wanting it.

BUT- that wasnt my first reaction. Like my neighbours, I was seriously offended by the whole thing. Never mind I have neither guns nor have hunt for a long time back.

Moving forward in time, I hear things around me about the registry and its supporters that I dont agree with. But I dont go there, because I think that their fears are not unreasonable [I dont know any of the wackos], and because the discussion is certain to lead to what is the registry suppossed to do. And I cant argue what I dont beleive in, and agree with my neighbours about what their resentment is grounded in, even if I dont agree with the ultimate expression.

So not wanting to go there has nothing to do with the NDP. Among people I am around, where the NDP fits into this never even comes up. Its just something I have way too much ambivalence about to be going down the road with people about it.

So yes, just in a visceral sense, I'm glad that for once there is somewhere in the 'main discussion' I feel comfortable, and where I see people I respect on both sides feeling that even if they dont agree, this is a step in the right direction. Hertofore there has been none of that, so people appreciate it.

Sounds really Pollyanish, but now that there is something concrete to hang my hopes on, I can see that I always wanted it both ways. I wanted people to have the registry- which even if I dont see it doing anything, I dont think when it comes down to it that it is an imposition. And I wanted to see my neighbours- and by extension/solidarity myself- to feel respected. And there has been none of that. Reflected here in spades, but the part that really mattered was the larger public stage.

ETA: Ceoss-posted with Pogo. Therefore not meant to disagree. But as to whether there has been a lot of understanding and movement in these threads. Id put it more as 'some'. Which is better than the none in the past when this has come up. But I think it was from some individuals, and that the tone didnt make me feel that me and my neighbours were being respected. I get that unexpected pleasure from what has happened on the public stage.

People here may have more broadly moved how they look at the issue, and maybe that is why its quieter now [exhaustion alone never stops thes most passionate tiffs on Babble]. But thats just a possibility, I havent seen much explicit yet.

 

6079_Smith_W

I've been consciously staying out of this discussion, partly because I don't think there is anything to discuss, since Jack Layton made his decision some time ago, so the question of whether he should have or not is academic.

I do want to say something about KenS's good post at #87. I'm not an NDP supporter, actually. For me it is strictly the issue.

While I am frustrated by some of the misrepresentations I have seen here, that at least comes from ignorance. While members of the public are entitled to their opinions, I expect a higher standard from the government.

What really angers me is that the worst ravings about "taking everyone's guns away" were not just said by these people we call wackos. It is exactly what was said by Liberal ministers at the time they brought in C-68. And the fine points of C-68 show the same arrogance and callous disregard for people. I doubt Chretien seriously thought he could take away everyone's guns, but letting his ministers get away with saying things like that is just as irresponsible an act.

Yet the Liberals are now trying to portray themselves as the voice of reason, and most people engaging in this debate seem to not notice that they are the first ones who voiced these "wacko" opinions.

For the record, I do not agree with those hard-liners. On the other hand, they say it's not paranoia if someone actually is out to get you, so I lay most of the blame for our current situation squarely at the feet of the Liberals.  So far as this vote is concerned, I think they have all the credibility of someone who smacks a hive with a stick, and then tries to blame the bees.

Speaking of which, I don't want to stir up any hives with my comment. It's not my intention to insult, but to put the question of wackos and fringe ideas into a bit of perspective.

No Yards No Yards's picture

nope wrote:

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2010/09/17/kevin-libin-insulted-elit...

This guy gets it, it is impossible to debate with pro registry people, simply because they have convinced themselves of thier own right righteousness without ever actually looking at real numbers, real facts.  Liscensing is constantly confused with registration, the lie of 9000-14000 hits a day never stops making the rounds, the facts don't matter, some of you are simply convinced you know better, the truth not withstanding, it may not be elitism, but it is ignorance certainly borne out of urban group think and yes maybe some of that E word.  I know some of you look down at hunters and guns owners, to you we are all neanderthals one step away from spousal murder or worse, check your bias, and then check some facts, it likely won't change anything, like all of us your just a creature of your environment no matter how enlightened you think you are.  Enlightenment comes from education and the truth, there is very little of that here and elsewhere on the pro registry side, when it comes to firearms most of you are reading and regurgitating at a grade 2 level.

I was born and bread in small town Cape Breton. I did lots of hunting, fishing, and camping ... I've also had a friend point a rifle at me, run the sights up and down my body from head to toe, then when he had just moved the rifle just in front of my feet the rifle went off  ... he was sure he had the safety on!!!

I have three friends I went to school with from that small town (less than 1000 people) who committed suicide with rifles .. no, sorry, only two of them committed suicide, one of them failed and now has part of his lower face missing.

I have no problem with people wanting to hunt .. I personally have no need for it anymore, but I understand that others may appreciate the sport.

But just because I now live in the city has no bearing on my opinion on the need for strong firearm licensing and regulation laws ... yeah, maybe todays' youth and hunters are more responsible than they were back in my day, but if they are that is because since then there are much better licensing and registration requirements and enforcement... I see no need to go back to the "good old days" of my youth when "firearm responsibility" meant trying to stay as far from the woods as possible during hunting season.

Citizens take responsibility for their actions only after they are "trained" in what to "DO" in order to take responsibility,  "KNOW" what will happen if they don't, and even then only if there is a system in place that keeps an eye on them to make sure that they are doing what they have been trained to KNOW and DO.

I think some people who have grown up in the "new world" of PAL and the registry simply believe that the responsibility they rightfully claim to exercise is simply a "natural fact of life" that would take place whether there were firearm laws or not ... this is NOT the case, I, and anyone else who was brought up before the 70's and 80's can probably easily attest to that.

Yes, there is some confusion between licensing and the registry .. but both sides are guilty of that confusion.  Some on the pro-registry side might believe that killing the registry means there will be no training or background checks for licensing .. some on the anti-registry side might believe that the registry is only there so the government can kick down their doors and steal their weapons ... but I don't think it's a valid claim to simply put all the blame for lack of reasonableness on the pro-registry side ... the anti-registry side seem to pretty good at missing the point themselves..

Wilf Day

In this long-running discussion, I'm somewhat puzzled that no one has responded to my little essay, either to agree or disagree. How did I manage to silence everyone?

6079_Smith_W

Wilf, there are a number of us who have put things out there that have been left unanswered. I think it speaks to the nature of this discussion.

Life, the unive...

maybe becuase it was as offensive and full of stereotypes as nope's post above.

Cueball Cueball's picture

al-Qa'bong wrote:

Little Lord Fautleroy is gay?  Who knew?

Geez, six threads and I haven't posted on this topic.  As one of those western hayseeds who is supposedly the object of all these political machinations, I suppose it's my duty to state my opinion on the rifle and shotgun registry.

I don't care one way or the other. 

So a guy has to register his .306 or .22?  Big deal, I have to register my car. 

 

So nobody will have to register firearms?  Big deal, I don't register my bike.

As one of those city slicker elitists. I am really having trouble getting worked up over this as well. To me, I instinctively have an aversion to greater regulation, particularly anything to do with the police having increased powers of regulation and surveiliance. Mostly this seems like a great way for the parties to play at politics without having the threat of actually making the government fall, or anything dangerous like that.

Come to think of it, I haven't heard a single person raise this issue in public except on this board. A bit of a fake issue, as far as I can tell.

Again, I ask those who are suggesting this is a Feminist issue, is it the fact that the registry has reduced violence against women, or has it just reduced gun crimes against women? I am looking for a significant reduction in the mortality rate here, for example.

Hunky_Monkey

Please don't jump on me when I ask this question... Innocent 

I support gun control.  I support bans on specific types of guns.  I support background checks and required gun safety courses before someone is allowed to purchase a rifle.  But when it comes to public safety and crime prevention (which is why the registry was created), does the registry work?  Does having a registry increase public safety and prevent crime? 

If so, how? 

I don't see a big deal with people taking some time to register their firearms.  We do so for other things.  So the whole "attack" on rural and aborignal people doesn't wash with me.  But do people support the registry in the name of "gun control" when it may do little to actually prevent crime or keep people safe?

I'm not trying to be facetious but I haven't heard an actual answer as to how a registry makes our communities safer.

peterjcassidy peterjcassidy's picture

On the assumption that the bill to kill the long gun registry is defeated, what steps shculd be taken to fix the registyr? Jack had some comments about using ticketing rather than criminal charges, recogniizng aboriginal and first nations people, some slack for inherited weapons etc.. What may be a seoparet dicussion is imprving the wy the licensing, PAL and all, could work better.For example theres eems to be a lot of problems with the requirment to indicate if you have a "spouse" when you get a PAL  

Then, what are the links betwen a PAL and the  firearms registry?  It would seem  there is a legal obligation on whoever transfers a fiream to someone -a gun shop owner who sells a firewarm to a customer, a parent  gifting a child (who is a presuambly a mature adult) - to ensure the new owner has a PAL, is prperly trained and licencsed and it shoudl be doable and mandatory  to have a record of the transfer and the license. So if a gun shop owner sells 100 guns  there should be a relativey decent record of each transaction = Hank with PAL xxx bought two shotguns, make and model xxx, Maria with PAL xyz bought a  handgun male and model xyz,  and those transaction records  could go into the registry or some agency  at minimal cost and paperwork to the parties.  If Hank then gives one of the shotguns, registered to him , to his daughter, Sue,  he should be required  to provide the registry or some agency with a record of the transfer, including the PAL of the new owner, his daugther. Such registrtion, tranfer records, should be cheap and simple, a minimum of paperwork and delay-something like an on-line or over the counter form saying I Hank PAL #xxx tranfered ownership of the shot gun make and model...to Sue, PAL xyz. here's ten bucks. 

There coudl be some minor penalties, say a fine, if someone is in posession of an unregistered firearm, and perhaps s more seveer penalty for the previous owner who  did not register the transfer - e,g, if Hank did not register the tranfser to Sue, both Sue and Hank would face a fine, when Sue is found in posession of a gun , if the gun shop owner did not register the sale to Hank, the gun shop owner and Hank would face penalties.perhaps even to the point of the gun shop owner no longer being allowed to sell firearms. Side discussion onthe rpoblemof gusn smuggled across the border.

Then, our criminal code has penlties for use of a  firearm in the commission of a crime. One of the factors in sentencing should be whether or not this is an unregistered firearm or illegally acquired firearm and penlties for the provider of a firearm used in a crime , who did not properly  register the tranfer or provided the gn to an unlicensed user. So if Sue uses the shotgun her dad Hank gave her to hold up a convenience store she would face a penalty for use of the firearm in a crime, an extra penalty fo Sue if the firearm ws not registerd to her and a penalty for Hank, the registered owner of the firearm, if he did not register the transfer to Sue.

Anything to discuss here?

Cueball Cueball's picture

So what we are saying here is that when the police go to someones home who has a registered fire-arm the police come prepared on the premise that the occupant is armed and dangerous? Has there been any survey on the number of unarmed people who have been shot by police responding to complaints against people who have registered fire-arms?

nope

Life, the universe, everything wrote:

maybe becuase it was as offensive and full of stereotypes as nope's post above.

 

What do you find offensive? The truth is not offensive, and if you bothered to look you look you would find that many of the pro registry arguments are tainted and some are outright lies, but yet some of you lap them right up.  I find it strange that someone so eager to believe the lies that politicians tell could be offended that easily, I don't suppose you believe chief blair on the registry but were calling him a pig after the g20? I know some here were, btw he represents the same organization the was at one time against enshrining the charter of rights and freedoms in the constitution, and there is no possible way that most of them being in liberal cities could ever be politiaclly tainted on the current issue either..or maybe the just want all the power they can get.  You don't want to here the truth, and yea, that is offensive.

6079_Smith_W

@ peterjcassidy

Removing and altering some of the questions in 16 d) and f) of the PAL form would take care of my main concerns.

I have posted that in more detail elsewhere, I wouldn't want to offend or stereotype anyone by repeating that here. (PMed you)

 

Other than that, I believe there is still a provision in C-68 that makes it a crime to not assist a firearms inspection officer (in effect making refusal to self-incriminate a crime). I don't have the details on that in front of me. If it is still on the books it is certainly something that would fall in a charter challenge, but since it is something that some opponents make a big deal about, it might be something the government would want to be pro-active about and correct.

Stockholm

This is just too juicy for words...I can just imagine the scene at Liberal HQ when Jack Layton announced that he had the votes to prevent the gun registry from being scrapped - the tears, the people dejectedly kicking the wall, the cries of "Curses! Foiled again!", people punching the wall in frustration that yet again a Liberal scheme to go after the NDP has crashed and burned. It just isn't fair is it...

http://www.cbc.ca/politics/insidepolitics/2010/09/gunvotewatch-hey-remem...

"Well, the NDP leader's Toronto staff can cancel any plans they might've had to serve coffee and muffins to all those GTA-area Young Liberals this afternoon, as today's event -- which was featured in OotD -- has been called off due to .. lack of interest? Not exactly -- more like a change in tactics -- and, more importantly, target -- at least according to YLC national director Keith Torrie, who says that they've decided to "shift [their] energy and fight to save the gun registry.  "

...

"

6079_Smith_W

And in other news....

Personally I won't crack the champagne until Wednesday night (as I said already) but perhaps some in Ottawa know something we do not, because it seems like the proverbial prima donna has sung:

http://www.cbc.ca/politics/story/2010/09/17/harper-long-gun-registry.html

I remember a few years ago he made a similar menacing threat about people (presumably CWB board members) he felt were preventing his getting rid of the Wheat Board; he said "anyone who stands in the way is going to get walked over" (I have a recording of it somewhere).

Pages

Topic locked