...There is apparently some dissension in the rural Liberal MP ranks, most especially the ones who were voted in by the slimmest margins. They know full well the precarious position this puts them in when the next election comes...
A few weeks ago I went to talk with my local MP (Jati Sidhu) here in Mission, who only narrowly sqeaked in in the last election and it was patently obvious that he was fully behind the Bill. He started answering questions even before I asked them ,ie had a prepared "script" for any such enquiries. He's in his mid-60s, having run a business in Abbotsford for many years so I doubt that he's worried about not being re-elected. If he were younger, perhaps he would have listened more carefully, but even so, I don't think there are many MPs who are risking contradicting the government on this.
When I went to see him I was expecting to make an appointment later in the week and returning with a clear list of questions, so wasn't fully prepared to actually talk to him at that point. One of the questions I did bring up was the proposed PAL-check when transferring non-restricted firearms. I
should have asked him point-blank (as it were) to confirm that the ONLY information being collected would be the status of the PAL for each party., which is what the Bill suggests, and the subject of this thread. But I did bring up the question of the increased delays getting a response from the CFO (familiar to those of us who own handguns) as this will add a lot of traffic to the CFO's offices- like back in the long gun registry days - and he told me that
"The phone lines willl be staffed 24-7". "When pigs fly" I thought to myself! (I read on Cdn. Gunnutz that the staff in the CFO offices are just as frustrated with the backlogs as we are; there just aren't enough of them to handle things expeditiously - and this is just for restricted transfers.)
I've signed the petitions etc. and belong to two of the organizations speaking on our behalf. There is a lot of opposition to this Bill, but the Government is clearly not interested in any discussion and only listens to its own circle of hoplophobes for advice.
There is just SO much wrong with this Bill. Very long on words, very hazy on details. (No doubt the fine details will be added later, after it's passed!) And largely targets the very people who are not the source of most of the problems it claims to address.
One of the real problems I think is that "Mr. Average Hunter" probably isn't too concerned. Most of the controversial stuff deals with so-called "assault rifles" and conditions attached to restricted firearms, so other than having to (possibly) register a new rifle, it won't make much difference to him.