Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Canada Hand gun band to be introduced by Trudeau gov.

... I was at a Town Hall meeting in Port Coquitlam recently where Conservative MP, Glen Motz (Opposition Deputy Shadow Minister for Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness) quoted a document from Mr. Goodale's office whicih stated "The vast majority of Canadian handgun owners are law-abiding." (I have e-mailed him for the exact source of this.)

If this is so, one has to ask why, in Bill C-71, there are to be further restrictions on the conditions of an ATT, and, further, why the Prime Minister has asked Mr. Goodale to "look into a handgun ban." Since Mr. Goodale is the Minister for Public Safety, one would be led to assume that this is being promoted as a public safety issue. And given that the government's PR firm, Hill & Knowlton, suggested taking advantage of the majority of Canadians' ignorance of guns, no doubt most people will blithely accept this without further thought.

However, I was recently reminded of MP Sharon Carstairs' comment from 1996 on the last "Firearms Owners' Harrassment Bill", ie Bill C-68, to wit: "C-68 has little to do with gun control or crime control, but it is the first step necessary to begin the social re-engineering of Canada." Has this leopard changed its spots? True, no one in the current government has actually come out and said anything like this explicitly, nor repeated the point-blank opinions of Allan Rock and Lloyd Axworthy that "only the militay and police should own firearms" but given the incongruity noted above, one has to wonder what is REALLY behind the current attack on those of us who, despite having what to some is an incomprehensible hobby, are apparently law-abiding- in fact, no different than the "vast majority" of other Canadians! We are being unfairly smeared merely because we pursue a hobby that is - what? Seen to be "socially unacceptable" in the Brave New Canada envisioned by Mr. Trudeau?

In addition, such disrespectful and prejuducial legislation also serves to drive an even deeper wedge between rural and urban interests in this country, although there are many gun owners in urban centres as well. What we need is a government that will seek to bring these two often-disparate sides closer together, not drive them further apart.

After 66 years, I still believe in a Canada "strong and free", where freedom includes being able to pursue activities without ill-designed or devious interference by a government in the name of "social re-engineering", whatever that blandly Utopian term might mean.

I regret that I have to agree with you -- your concerns about the Liberal government’s agenda are well-founded. There has been no evidence provided that the measures introduced in Bill C-71 will do anything to increase public safety or national security. The Bill is ideologically-based, politically-motivated, and emotionally-driven .

There are many, many examples which illustrate this reality, but one of the most obvious one is the fact that this Bill was promised to Canadians during the 2015 election, when the latest stats on gun crime were at their lowest level in almost 50 years. This clearly demonstrates that the motivation behind this Bill has absolutely nothing to do with public safety and everything to do with stoking the fears and anxieties of the Liberal’s base in order to try and garner votes.

Senate Conservatives plan to ‘gut’ Liberal gun bill, and they may have the numbers to

A 12-member Senate committee, composed of five Conservatives and at least one unaffiliated Senator who, like the Tories, has criticized Bill C-71, means some of those Conservative changes could make it through to the Upper Chamber as a whole.


The Liberals’ firearms legislation is going to get a rough ride in the Upper Chamber, according to the Conservative Senate critic, who says the opposition is planning a set of amendments to “gut” Bill C-71.

A 12-member Senate committee, composed of five Conservatives and at least one unaffiliated Senator who, like the Tories, has criticized the bill, means some of those Conservative changes could make it through to the whole Upper Chamber for approval. The bill would still have to go back to the House after third reading in the Senate, for discussion of any Senate amendments.

Introduced in Parliament on March 20, the bill arrived in the Senate on Sept. 25 and got through second reading on Dec. 11. The Senate’s National Security and Defence Committee will begin its study of C-71 on Feb. 18.

According to the government, the bill would improve public safety by expanding background check requirements, creating a database of reference numbers of privately sold non-restricted guns, and requiring transportation authorization to move restricted guns when not between home and an approved location, like a shooting range.

But the legislation’s critics say the bill imposes further burdens on legal gun owners, and doesn’t do anything to protect against criminal activity.

“We are hearing from stakeholders what I’ve said in the past: that this bill needs to be thrown in the garbage can,” said Conservative Senator Don Plett (Landmark, Man.). “It…will do nothing about what the government is saying they want to tackle.”

While he said his preference would be to fully scrap Bill C-71, Sen. Plett indicated that the committee process will be used to propose major changes to the legislation.

“We will be coming forward with a number of amendments that will do everything short of gutting this bill completely, because we cannot accept any of this,” he said.

One of the government’s most contentious pieces of legislation, opponents have said that Bill C-71 creates a backdoor long-gun registry—a charge the Liberals have denied. The government agreed to an amendment to the bill after a House committee study, adding language that nothing in it could be “construed so as to permit or require the registration of non-restricted firearms.”

Sen. Plett wants to see the bill’s “terrible transportation guidelines” changed, among other amendments, which he said members of the Independent Senators Group, which holds the majority of seats in the Upper Chamber, are receiving favourably.

With the exception of taking a gun home after buying it and taking it to a shooting range, owners of restricted and prohibited firearms (such as handguns) would have to get authorization to move the gun before doing so.

“It will help the police determine whether it’s being transported for a legitimate purpose. Getting authorization is…a matter of a simple phone call or logging into an online portal. It should not be an onerous burden,” Public Safety Minister Ralph Goodale (Regina-Wascana, Sask.) told the House Public Safety and National Security Committee last spring.

But this will create more unsafe situations, Sen. Plett told The Hill Times. For example, he said if someone is taking their gun to a gun show or a shooting range and it becomes damaged or jammed “you are not allowed to take that gun across the street to a gunsmith to have that gun checked. You have to take that gun home and then apply for transportation permits again to transfer that gun to a gunsmith.”

‘It’s going to be quite a debate’: ISG sponsor Sen. Pratte


The 12-member National Security and Defence Committee is composed of five ISG Senators, five Conservatives, and two non-affiliated Senators. One is former Liberal Mobina Jaffer (British Columbia), and the other is David Richards (New Brunswick), a former ISG member who expressed opposition to the bill during his second-reading speech on Dec. 11.

Sen. Plett said he’s looking forward to squaring off with Independent Senator André Pratte (De Salaberry, Que.)—both members of the Senate National Security Committee—on the bill.

One area where the pair may find common ground is on the way the bill affects Indigenous communities.

The government “did not do a lot of consultation with Indigenous communities” ahead of tabling C-71, said Sen. Pratte, which leaves them with a lot of uncertainty about the impact on their hunting and other constitutionally protected rights.
At their May special chiefs assembly, the Assembly of First Nations adopted a resolution calling for meaningful consultation on Bill C-71.

While he said he’s “quite convinced” the legislation doesn’t affect Indigenous rights, Sen. Pratte said perhaps “there’s a way that we can put something in the bill that will reassure them,” but that it’s too early to determine what that is.

“I expect it’s going to be quite a debate, I think, but an interesting debate, and an essential debate,” Sen. Pratte said about the bill’s future in the Red Chamber.

Appointed by Prime Minister Justin Trudeau (Papineau, Que.) in 2016, Sen. Pratte said he agreed to sponsor the bill because of a long-standing interest in gun control and a desire to see changes made to the “ill-advised measures” taken by the previous Conservative government in 2015.

Called the Common Sense Firearms Licensing Act, the legislation relaxed previous transportation rules, gave the cabinet decision-making power over how guns were classified (which is given to the RCMP under the Liberal bill), and created a six-month grace period for lapsed firearms licences.

There is some misunderstanding about the bill, said Sen. Pratte, adding that he hopes the committee’s study “will serve as a platform to provide more information on what the bill really says and not what some people say it is.”

The approach to a study on a bill with as much baggage as gun control is “really just to try to get as much of the facts out on the table as you can and work your way through the process,” said Independent Senator Gwen Boniface (Ontario), who chairs the committee.

She said in an interview last week that witness lists are still being firmed up for the committee’s study, which won’t begin until the Senate has moved into its new interim Chamber on Feb. 18. Senate Chamber proceedings were delayed from their planned 2019 return of Jan. 29 due to a design flaw in the temporary Chamber in the Government Conference Centre (renamed the Senate of Canada Building during the Centre Block renovation). Committees can meet in the two-week interim, but the National Security Committee won’t be. “We just tried to work around what best fit schedule-wise. So what you’ll see is some extended sitting,” said Sen. Boniface.

Handgun ban talks have created ‘confusion,’ Sen. Pratte says

Adding an extra layer to a discussion that’s already wrapped up in public safety, gangs, domestic violence, and property rights, is the Liberals’ ongoing consultation on banning handguns.

Border Security and Organized Crime Reduction Minister Bill Blair (Scarborough Southwest, Ont.) and his parliamentary secretary are still holding discussions relating to his mandated task to “lead an examination of a full ban on handguns and assault weapons in Canada, while not impeding the lawful use of firearms by Canadians.”

Although the results of the consultation won’t have a bearing on C-71 directly, Senators say its presence will be felt.

“I think it has created a little bit of confusion,” said Sen. Pratte, since some people think that the bill introduces a weapons ban. Sen. Boniface said she expects the issue to be raised during the committee’s study, as she’s “sure that individual Senators will have an interest in knowing how that fits into this bill.”

Mr. Blair’s consultation included an online questionnaire and in-person meetings with experts and stakeholders in rural and urban areas across Canada, press secretary Marie-Emmanuelle Cadieux said in an email.

“This includes Vancouver, Toronto, Montreal, and Moncton, and, at the request of local MPs, Whitehorse, Corner Brook, Red Deer, Edmonton, and Kenora, as well as forthcoming Bruce-Grey [Ont.],” Ms. Cadieux said. “The minister is hoping to complete his report of all engagement efforts, which will be made public in early 2019.”

On Jan. 18, Mr. Blair told reporters he was hoping to present his findings to cabinet “in the next two weeks,” according to a CBC report.

Wouldn't "The Sex Pistols" be a handgun band?

If you're talking about Trump I won't argue with you because I know he has a massive ego. He also can't keep his mouth shut. And he speaks like a third grader, repeating himself. In fact, even though I voted for him sometimes when he's speaking on TV I turn the channel because hearing him is like scraping fingernails on an old fashion chalk board.

But, I will say that I don't give a flying intercourse about his ego or any of these other things when it comes to choosing a president. I didn't vote for him for the way he talks or his ego or his motor mouth bragging. I voted for him to do just what he's trying to do. If he had any help at all think about what he would have already accomplished. I think his actions speak way louder than his words and not only did I vote for him in 2016, I'm going to vote for him in 2020. In my opinion he's the greatest president we've had in many a year. Just my not so humble opinion, LOL!!!