Death of Canada's Gun Registry, Except Quebec (for now)

[Janke 1st MRB]

Copying this post from another place I posted it, so if you see it elsewhere, I posted it there too.

On the same day that legislation to destroy the federal long-gun registry received royal assent, a Quebec court has stepped in and stopped the federal government from deleting all data involving the province.

Superior Court Judge Jean-François de Grandpré sided with the Quebec government and ordered Ottawa to not only temporarily safeguard the data but to allow the province the right to access the information contained in the registry. The ruling also requires that all new non-restricted firearms such as rifles and shotguns continue to be registered in the province.

Why end the gun registry?

The order issued on Thursday took effect immediately, just hours before the bill abolishing the gun registry was given royal assent. The interim ruling will be enforced for a week, until further motions for an injunction can be argued next week.

In Ottawa, the Conservatives celebrated the demise of the registry, with one MP paraphrasing Martin Luther King to the cheers of his colleagues in the House of Commons.

“Free at last, free at last,” said New Brunswick MP John Williamson. “God almighty, Canadians are finally free at last [of the gun registry].”

The U.S. civil-rights leader was killed 44 years ago this week by a bullet from a long gun.

The Quebec government hopes to receive a temporary injunction to protect the data until a permanent ruling, which could take months, can be obtained.

“So for a week it [the gun registry] is still there. Of course it’s good news but it’s just a first step,” Quebec Justice Minister Jean-Marc Fournier said. “There is no destruction of the data. The registry is still in operation. We are going to go back in front of the judge in a week for another hearing and we’ll see what happens.”

In its brief to the court, Quebec argued that the registry helped reduce gun-related crimes, suicides and homicides. Police in Quebec consulted the registry an average of 700 times a day, the province argued, making the registry an instrumental tool in investigations.

The federal government made it clear from the outset that it would destroy the data as soon as it could in accordance with a provision in the newly passed law.

“As soon as the legislation is passed, there is a requirement to destroy the data. If there’s no legal impediment to destroying the data, that process continues,” said federal Minister of Public Safety Vic Toews.

In statement released by his office, Mr. Toews said that the court ruling was temporary and in no way “diminished our commitment to ending the long-gun registry once and for all.”

The minister expressed disappointment with the court decision, saying it went against the “will of Canadians and of Parliament.”

Rather than battling in court, Quebec urged Ottawa to help the province set up its own gun registry, using the data collected in Quebec since 1998.

“The federal government can still change its mind and accept to co-operate. The victims of firearms and their families are making the same request,” Mr. Fournier said.

Quebec was at the forefront of the movement to set up the gun registry after the deaths of 14 women during the 1989 shooting rampage at Montreal’s École Polytechnique.

Heidi Rathjen, a student at the École Polytechnique at the time, now heads a group that supports maintaining the gun registry in Quebec.

“The Conservatives in Ottawa want nothing to do with the gun registry. Our group appeared before the Senate committee last week. It was a real joke. It was nothing more than a political spectacle,” Ms. Rathjen said on Thursday.

She said that the registry works and it would be ridiculous for Ottawa to abolish the data and impede Quebec’s will to maintain it.

With a report from Carys Mills in Ottawa and The Canadian Press

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politi...article2392983/

Honestly, why the fuck is Quebec doing this? Licenses and registries didn't stop any of the 3 shootings that happened in Montreal, nor did they help catch or identify the individuals, apparently Rathjen herself said the Dawson shooter was identified by his CAR'S LICENSE PLATE rather than the serial numbers of his guns. I also don't see how Quebec, who is apparently the most debt of any province, thinks this will work better, cheaper, and/or more efficiently provincially than federally, when the exact reason the federal registry is being scrapped is because it's wasteful, inefficient, ineffective, incomplete, and does NOTING to stop, deter, or solve crimes. If anything, a provincial registry will cost more, be less effective, more incomplete and have an even lower compliance rate than the federal one, whose compliance is estimated to be anywhere between 30% and 80%, and end up screwing over hunters from other provinces wanting to go hunting in Quebec, as no other province needs registration as of right now.

Moreover, when Alberta tried to opt-out of the registry when it was created, the Supreme Court ruled gun registration is a criminal matter, and therefore the responsibility of the federal government. The good thing is there's a team of 5 lawyers from across all areas of expertise prepared to challenge Quebec's attempt to preserve the registry that, based on the Supreme Court's ruling, they have no right to.

Oh well, at least this wasteful piece of criminalizing garbage is over for the rest of us.

[Marsden 1st MRB]

Why would you have to register a hunting rifle? My American sensibilities have been shattered as that impedes my right to bear arms. Handguns should be registered, they were designed and are used for one thing, killing people/dueling people.

[Janke 1st MRB]

Why would you have to register a hunting rifle? My American sensibilities have been shattered as that impedes my right to bear arms. Handguns should be registered, they were designed and are used for one thing, killing people/dueling people.

Handgun hunting is actually quite popular in some states, and is only disallowed here because the government shits a brick at the thought of a gun that can be easily fired with one hand.

[Holland 1st MRB]

Because politicians generally refuse to acknowledge that rising gun related crime rates are not related to lack of documentation on the firearms, and more based on the fundamentals of the country.

Canada prides itself with its multiculturalism (which is fantastic), though it is also its own downfall. People don't get along anywhere. Many of the problems we face are brought on by those who refuse to compromise and see past their prejudices. Also, the lack of understanding that though Canada allows all to practice any belief they want to, it does not, however, allow people to act outside of Canadian law. (ie. recent honor killings)

My opinion - politicians continue to search for the quick solution to large problems, which ends up costing more money, wasting more time, and effectively accomplishing nothing to the end problem.

[Kirkendall 1st MRB]

I thought the canucks were our warm-hearted cold-living neighbors up north. They don't get along with someone?

[Gooderham 1st MRB]

I disagree with you entirely Janke.

The ownership of a gun is, in Canada, a privilege not a right. If you want to own a hunting rifle, then you must apply to purchase it; and it the past system register.

Society, not the government, has every right to know if you have access to a firearm that could be used to fatally wound or maim someone. If a police officer, responding to a domestic dispute call, is shot at because he isn't legally allowed to know if the perpetrator owns a gun, what value do we put on the life of someone trying to protect society? No one wants the government knowing everything about ourselves, but how can we value that privacy over the safety of all members of the community?

Holland:

True, there is an issue with the acceptance of Canadian Law and expectations over personal beliefs (honour killings, etc.) but this does not mean that immigration is the sole issue. What you have said is essentially prejudice. The failure of the Canadian system to "assimilate" new-Canadians into the community is only responsible for a small portion of the problem.

Kirkendall:

Mainly ourselves.

[Marsden 1st MRB]

Well see there in lies my confusion, it my right to buy a rifle if i want it, I can understand why there would be a registry somewhere that it is considered a privelege, and it seems right to me. Same concept as a car here, you have the right to be ABLE to purchase it, but in order to use the privilage of driving and what not you have to register ur car and apply for the privlige of a license, don't see why it would be any different for gun ownership, mind you still totally backwards to my way of thinking but i can see the logic in a registry program there, not here, you can register my rifles when you peel them from my cold dead hands.

[Bryant 1st MRB]

and this is why i live in 'merica... we get dem turrists

[Janke 1st MRB]

I disagree with you entirely Janke.

The ownership of a gun is, in Canada, a privilege not a right. If you want to own a hunting rifle, then you must apply to purchase it; and it the past system register.

Society, not the government, has every right to know if you have access to a firearm that could be used to fatally wound or maim someone. If a police officer, responding to a domestic dispute call, is shot at because he isn't legally allowed to know if the perpetrator owns a gun, what value do we put on the life of someone trying to protect society? No one wants the government knowing everything about ourselves, but how can we value that privacy over the safety of all members of the community?

The issue is police are supposed to treat EVERY SITUATION as if there is a gun there, several cases have happened over the years of police putting too much trust in a registry that is estimated to contain records on only 30%-80% of the firearms in Canada, and the police went into a house thinking there was no gun there, and they got shot. The registry actually cost police their lives by having them put too much trust in its accuracy. As a matter of fact, despite the Association of Chiefs of Police supporting it, of 2500 frontline officers polled, 92% said they don't support the registry, or trust the validity of its data. The registry was advertised as being a deterrent and a means to solve crimes, and it has done neither, it has not made an impact on crime, and has not helped solve A SINGLE CRIME. This registry has solved no crime. It has, however, been used to take people's property WITHOUT COMPENSATION from them. When the government have confiscated various guns from people, no matter the reason, but especially due to reclassification, they did not compensate the people for taking their property, and in some cases, people lost THOUSANDS of dollars in property and got NOTHING for it.

You also seem to be misinterpreting registration and licensing, which is unfortunately all too common a misunderstanding. You still need a license to own a gun, that hasn't changed, what has is the government tracking each of your guns, which facilitates only making it easier to confiscate them in the future. Moreover, society has no access to the firearms registry, that's private data, the only people with access are police and the government. Society has no right to know if you own a knife, a sword, a crossbow, a television, or anything else, it's your property and what you own is private unless YOU decide otherwise, nobody else has any "right" to know what you own, even if it is a gun. There are over 1.8 million people with a firearms license in Canada, and throughout them they own almost 8 million guns, and some people estimate that for every licensed gun owner, there is one without, and for every previously registered gun, there was one that was not. But I can tell you one thing, 1.8 million legal gun owners committed no crime in this country yesterday, I can't say the same about a gang-banger with no license or registration papers for his pistol. The whole registry hinged on assuming crimes were committed with registered guns, but of course, they're not, so it was ineffective and only wasted money.

Firearm legislation in this country makes no sense, the entire Firearms Act was enacted by a man who thought that the only people who should have guns are the police and the military, and rather than focus on crime, and what to do when a crime is committed, it sought to make owning a gun overly difficult and confusing, and arbitrarily banning guns based off nothing else than looks. There have been instances where someone charged with a violation of the firearms act required that for their trial a judge, lawyer, and police officer all had to get together and argue about the meaning of a piece of legislation. At that point, I think it's time for legislation that makes sense. C-68 did nothing but try to make criminals of law abiding firearms owners, and some people believe it actually treats them worse than sex offenders, the application for for a gun license is the single most invasive form one will ever have to fill out in their lifetime.

If there should be any kind of registry related to guns, it should be a registry of individuals prohibited from owning them, but as it stands now no such thing exists, and it's considered a privacy violation to release if someone is barred from gun ownership, yet hypocritically it's perfectly okay to keep tabs on every gun the government possibly can.

I can support gun control that works, but attacking gun owners who do nothing wrong is bad gun control. Rather than making it a confusing mess to own a gun, we should impose stricter penalties for firearms offences, and allow properly licensed and trained individuals the ability to conceal-carry, as every US State that has made Concealed Carry of Weapons more accessible to law-abiding citizens has seen a notable drop in crime rates, because criminals think twice when their life is on the line, and individuals with CCW permits are actually far less likely to shoot someone who has committed no crime, 2% likely to shoot an innocent versus 14% likely for police. Moreover, as this act was put in place by someone who thought only the police and military should have guns, I find it astounding that police are held to such a lower standard in terms of firearms safety than the public at large. As a chief was announcing that 2 shotguns and some body armour was stolen from his department, an investigation in the station revealed that an officer has left a loaded gun under the seat of his squad car. If a civilian had done that, he'd be carted off to jail, but the cop just got a figurative slap on the wrist. Another case appeared where a cop in BC left his gun at a ferry terminal on a table. Once again, normally off to jail, but it's likely this cop will get off Scott-free. If they are to protect us, they should be held to a higher standard in my opinion, an officer found to be this negligent with his firearm should be charged and arrested, just as a civilian would have been, not merely warned and told "don't do it again..."

Disarming law-abiding people is not done for the benefit of society, only for the benefit of a government with ill-intent and criminals, who will get firearms no matter the law, and who prefer restrictive laws, as it means they will have more easy, defenceless victims to choose from. The 1.8 million legal gun owners are of little to no threat to the public, yet they're treated as if they're all sociopaths, and the media has only perpetuated this falsity. If anything, these are the 1.8 million people in the country least likely to commit a violent crime.

TL;DR: The registry didn't do what it said it would, did not make cops or the public any safer, facilitated the confiscation of property without reimbursement, did not deter, prevent, or help solve crime, has wasted money, and was the largest registry of law-abiding citizens that existed in this country. The Firearms Act on a whole is legislation that is confusing and aimed at the wrong objective, and should be abolished and re-written to focus on crime rather than preventing property ownership. Nobody has any "right" to know what property you own, especially a gun, and especially given how paranoid 20 years of anti-gun bias in the media has made people here.

To quote Benjamin Franklin, "He who sacrifices freedom for security deserves neither."

[Holland 1st MRB]

The ownership of a gun is, in Canada, a privilege not a right. If you want to own a hunting rifle, then you must apply to purchase it; and it the past system register.

Society, not the government, has every right to know if you have access to a firearm that could be used to fatally wound or maim someone. If a police officer, responding to a domestic dispute call, is shot at because he isn't legally allowed to know if the perpetrator owns a gun, what value do we put on the life of someone trying to protect society? No one wants the government knowing everything about ourselves, but how can we value that privacy over the safety of all members of the community?

Holland:

True, there is an issue with the acceptance of Canadian Law and expectations over personal beliefs (honour killings, etc.) but this does not mean that immigration is the sole issue. What you have said is essentially prejudice. The failure of the Canadian system to "assimilate" new-Canadians into the community is only responsible for a small portion of the problem.

Firstly, my post was based off of no form of prejudice. I made no comment on immigration being a bad thing, or the want to assimilate people into one of a same. My comment was solely focused on the fact that beliefs collide, and occasionally do so violently. This is the result of either a lack of respect and acceptance towards each other, or the lack of knowledge on the people around us. Despite what we would like to think of our society, this does account for a decent portion of Canada's yearly homicides.

Secondly, a large portion of weapons used in serious crimes where the weapon was obtained, were not registered within the system. Therefore, there would have been no warning regardless.

Though I agree completely with your points about society having the right to be aware if you are in possession of a firearm, as well as it being a privilege to own one.

In most eyes it is another hassle for hunters and farmers, whom use their firearms for anything from making a living, to protecting their property (from various wildlife). It hasn't proven to sway any crime.

I myself, live near Winnipeg, Manitoba, with a population of under 500,000 with an average of 25-30 homicides per year. Charges for possession of an unregistered weapon occur almost daily. How effectively is the registry actually protecting our cities?

Edited April 7, 2012 by Holland 1st MRB

[Janke 1st MRB]

Society has no right to know what property you own, even, and especially, if it's a firearm.

I don't think you realize that a man was taken-down in his parent's house by SWAT because a neighbour though his car's steering wheel lock was a shotgun. (Because I expected you to find this hard to believe, I included a source) The cops had nothing but hearsay to go off of, and they sent in SWAT.

If even one neighbour doesn't like someone and if the gun owner's privacy was invaded, unconstitutionally I may add, to the point where everyone was required to be informed that he had guns, that neighbour would just need to tell the cops, in a blatant lie, that he was scared/thought he saw a prohibited gun/was threatened by the person, and SWAT would barge in, arrest him for no good reason, take his guns away, and charge him with a load of crap that he, again unconstitutionally, is required to prove he DIDN'T do, rather than require the crown prove he DID do it, and I can guarantee one of those charges will be unsafe storage, even if he has all his guns locked up in a safe, because that's a charge that cops just slap onto everything, and it's also a charge and set of regulations that's being constitutionally challenged in Ontario right now as violating sections 7, 11(a) and 11(d) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, because it's so vague and gets slapped onto everyone and everything that has to do with legally owned guns. People who've been on vacation and had their safe broken into, one person even had a VAULT broken into, and had guns stolen were charged with unsafe storage, despite having them stored in a safe, which is legally above and beyond what is required for storage or display of most guns.

The above also happens in spousal abuse scenarios, though not the kind you think. I've hard stories from people who were at a point just before a divorce in their relationship who had their soon-to-be-former wives calling police and BLATANTLY LYING about being abused by their soon-to-be-former husband and having him threaten her with his guns. In most cases, the men had removed the guns from the home, so the police told the wife she was full of shit, but in some cases men have had their lives ruined by a spiteful bitch because when it comes to guns, due process goes out the window, and you're unconstitutionally treated as guilty until proven innocent, and in such a case as this, the jury and courts are more likely to believe the woman's lies than the man's truth that he did nothing wrong.

Nobody has the right to know what property you own, and nobody but you should, especially guns, because crap like the above happens far too often than it should, and by that, I mean the fact that it happens at all, and if a gun owner were required to make public he owns guns, how many, and of what type, I practically guarantee this kind of crap would happen more often. And before you assume that's what the registry did, let the public know who had guns and what guns they were, the public had no access to that registry, only police and the government, except for the 300-some-odd times someone hacked into the registry.

Making known publicly someone legally possesses guns and/or how many will not make the public safer, it just invades the privacy of that individual and actually has been known to make them a target for robbery, as criminals have been known to break into houses to try and steal people's guns if they know they're there. The law-abiding gun owner is not going to commit a crime with his guns, so knowing he has them makes you no safer, and since he will be arrested if he tries to defend his home and family with those guns, it actually puts him in a situation of unconstitutional privacy violation and at a higher risk of robbery, making him less safe, which is completely counter-intuitive to the point of it. This is much like our gun laws, focusing on the law-abiding will not stop the criminal, it will only detriment the law-abiding.

[Captain Giraffe BAR]

To quote Benjamin Franklin, "He who sacrifices freedom for security deserves neither."

I just want to pick on this silly little quote. To be a member of any society one must give up certain freedoms in exchange of certain securities, that's the founding principle of the social survival of the human race. If you want to live out in the wilderness, alone, fine you can do what you want. But I'm guessing we've all ready (maybe) Locke and Rousseau in high school, and hopefully most of us can identify the fault in Franklin's logic there.

It's a pretty sounding statement, but it's a little too absolute to be even slightly realistic.

[Janke 1st MRB]

I just want to pick on this silly little quote. To be a member of any society one must give up certain freedoms in exchange of certain securities, that's the founding principle of the social survival of the human race. If you want to live out in the wilderness, alone, fine you can do what you want. But I'm guessing we've all ready (maybe) Locke and Rousseau in high school, and hopefully most of us can identify the fault in Franklin's logic there.

It's a pretty sounding statement, but it's a little too absolute to be even slightly realistic.

It seems you're taking it literally. Seldom does it seem quotes from the old and wise were meant to be taken in a truly literal sense, and especially from Ben, a founding father, you can't take a quote advocating anarchy literally, such a thing would be absurd. Granted, I've heard a better wording to it used more in the modern day, "Those who sacrifice freedom for security get neither," and when not taken literally I say I've observed a few cases of this quote being rather true.

Now I can't claim to be an expert on, or even have studied the founding fathers, they're not even MY founding fathers, but every time I see a quote from them, or hear about them, I can't help but think they were very wise men, more wise than I think some people realize, and I think in a sense a lot of what they said, did, and put in place, was because they worried about America becoming what it is today, and worried about it going down the path it's going down now. They worried that if the government had too much power, they would abuse it, that they'd fall out of line with the desires of the American people, and I believe they feared corporate lobbying before it was even a though-of threat.

Indeed, looking at this quote, it seems to me that it's meant not to be taken literally, that anarchy is what we should strive for, but that it's meant to be interpreted as that we should be wary of laws that promise security if they put freedoms at risk, and that we need to seriously weight the benefits and detriments with a level head, and unfortunately, emotion usually plays very far into enacting bad or oppressive laws, making it difficult to analyze potentially freedom-threatening laws with a level head to decide if they're truly worth it.

To cite the examples I see in the modern day of freedom being sacrificed for false security, there's the TSA, the NDAA, and the PATRIOT Act, to name just a few in the US, that impede dangerously on freedom while promising security, but failing to deliver the security promised, though still sacrificing the freedom. Unfortunately, all of these have been passed on emotion in the wake of the "War on terror" and 9/11, in a time when level-headed thinking, especially in the government, is a rarity. The same can be said about Canada's firearms law, the Firearms Act of 1995/98, it was enacted in response to the 1989 shooting of 14 women at Montreal's Ecole Polytechnique by a single man who did actually legally own his gun. Despite being enacted 6 years later, drive for gun control was strengthened after a second Montreal shooting by a professor using handguns to kill 4 others in 1992 at Concorida University. The actions of 2 individuals affected approximately 4 million Canadians, as laws were enacted off emotion that sought to detriment gun owners, likely in hopes to stop shootings such as these. Personally, I feel the 2006 shooting at Montreal's Dawson College to be a demonstration of how that failed. The gun laws were advertised that they'd reduce crime, reduce homicide, reduce violence, reduce shootings, and make the public safer. Since its enactment, Canada's managed to make, if I'm not mistaken, the top 10 on the lists of rape and kidnapping, and while a downward trend in gun crime was noted before C-68, that downward trend did not accelerate after its passing, and I believe handgun crime started going up, demonstrating its lack of effectiveness. Moreover, if I'm not mistaken, every gun used in all 3 of these shootings is still legal here, despite all the arbitrary prohibitions of guns based off only aesthetics.

Bad and/or oppressive laws are made often when emotion prevails over logic, what I feel this quote is meant to do is emphasize the need for logical thinking when enacting laws, and not letting emotion overwhelm your decision, because at that such a point is when you will fail to see how little security your sacrifice of freedom will truly bring to the public. If logic prevails, then laws that find the balance between effective security and freedom can be made, but if emotion prevails, the laws will promise security in exchange for freedom, but will fail to deliver as promised. It is these laws I believe this quote warns about, not an advocation of anarchy, but a warning to always be wary of a law that promises security if it will detriment freedom, and to ensure the sacrifices and benefits are looked at and weighed with a logical level head, and not through emotionally clouded glasses.

[Gooderham 1st MRB]

The problem is, Janke, that we will never know how many crimes the registry has prevented. You can talk about all the gun crimes that have been committed anyways, but you are not able to show statistics to validate your claims.

Your data about whether cops support the registry also included that little clause that they "didn't trust the validity of the data." Just because your name doesn't show up on the registry doesn't mean you don't own a rifle, and cops will treat every situation in the same way.

I see no reason why people who have a legitimate use for a rifle should have a worry about the registry. A hunter or farmer with a rifle used to hunt or protect livestock isn't the problem; it's the urbanite with 5 rifles, a couple shotguns and a handgun for the range.

[Janke 1st MRB]

No firearms owner who makes themselves legally known to the government through the acquisition of a license is a "problem" as you say, and I suggest you

in which he uses Statscan data to prove that yes, you can actually show how few crimes the registry truthfully prevented. No matter if they're a hunter, farmer, trapper or a target shooter, if they live in the boonies or in the middle of downtown Toronto, few if any legal firearms owners are of any problem or threat, regardless of where they live or why they own their guns.

And the fact that cops treat every situation the same way means that this registry data makes them no safer in the end, because they have to treat each locale as if it has a firearm therein, even before this abolition. A waste for the police force as it provides no benefits for them anyways due to the volume of unregistered firearms in Canada, and the volume of crimes committed with unregistered firearms.

This registry is was the largest collection of data on individuals who've done nothing wrong, and I'm going to quote/paraphrase Gary Mauser, who testified before the Senate, that "If this was a registry of people based on their religious beliefs or ethnicity, the country would be up in arms about it. This registry is wasteful and discriminatory." And indeed his words are true, it discriminated against a section of Canadians looking to do any number of things, from preserve one of our country's oldest, proudest, and founding traditions, to wanting to preserve valuable pieces of history, to wanting to compete for our country on the world stage. This was a collection of data on personal property owned by law abiding citizens who have done nothing wrong. Dr. Langmann was able to prove, through hard facts from Statscan, that this registry has had no significant impact on crime rates, and was therefore a complete waste of money, because it failed to do what it said it would.

Moreover, how was one slip of paper supposed to stop a person committing a crime with a gun anyways? It's not like someone thinking of killing anyone would think "Oh, this gun's registered, better not use it then." The registry never could have stopped crime, it's not like that piece of paper was some magic morality barrier that stopped people with ill-intent from touching the gun, all it could have ever hoped to do was be an afterthought, a device to supposedly help police solve crimes, and to my knowledge I have NEVER once hard the phrase "The murder was solved thanks to data collected in the Gun Registry," whether it be the long gun registry or the pistol registry, which has been ineffective since 1934, neither has actually been instrumental in solving a murder. The only crime I recall the registry helping solve was the individual who was going through the process of transferring 159 guns to his name from his work's name, only to then sell them to LICENSED INDIVIDUALS, he wasn't even selling these on the street, and as several of them were restricted anyways even without the long gun registry he would have been caught at it, and truthfully the only thing the registry did was help get back those 159 guns, all without compensating the individuals who purchased them, yet again leaving gun owners at a loss of money because the government doesn't feel it's THEIR problem when they take something from you to reimburse you for it, this was also true with the arbitrary reclassification of the Norinco T97, the Armi Jager AP-80, and many of the guns that were confiscated in the '70s when automatics were banned, 1991 when the first arbitrary prohibitions based on aesthetics took place, and in 1998 when the Firearms Act came into force.

To state, "I see no reason why people who have a legitimate use for a rifle should have a worry about the registry." Can be exactly equated to, "I see no reason why people who don't pirate should have to worry about sacrificing some of their online privacy." It's a violation of one's privacy rights either way, which will truthfully not prevent the issue it attempts to tackle, and in the end ends up taking away one's freedoms in the name of a security that was never needed, nor could possibly hope to do what it intended, and in the case of the registry where it keeps tabs on individuals who have done nothing wrong, many feel it treats them as second-class citizens, who are being discriminated against for wanting to have a hobby, for wanting to preserve a tradition, and/or for wanting to preserve pieces of art and/or pieces of history.

[S. Burn]

Bravo Janke

[Gooderham 1st MRB]

I would suggest that if you are going to bump an old topic and not add constructively to the discussion, you do it respectfully.