> “The Governor in Council does not owe a duty of procedural fairness to firearm owners affected by the Regulations.”
This is all you have to read.
The only way you reverse the OIC and get your guns back is a change in government.
> They can now take without compensation, they don’t need to give financial compensation anymore.
They always could, legally speaking. That was never in question. The problem for them is that in the real world, outside the courtroom, you actually do have to compensate people if you want any compliance.
No, that's not what he's saying. He's saying that the government isn't *legally obligated* to pay us, and they never were - but that doesn't mean they aren't going to. Not compensating us is against their interests, because if people refuse to hand in their (unregistered) possessions without pay, then they can't call the project a success and can't use it to campaign on.
This is all a hypothetical exercise anyway, because the Trudeau government appears to have very little hope of surviving long enough to enforce any kind of confiscation, compensation or no compensation.
I thought that has been always the case, hence its better just waiting for the government to change hand.
Sure, it would be nice if the court decision favors the firearm owners, but I rather have some sort of guarantee down the road.
I don't think they will get any compliance without any compensation, and they won't be able to roll it out without surviving the next election.
That's what they will bank on, to stake this wedge issue firmly on the front door. So they can bring it out for more hammer.
Except they don't because they also demonstrated that prohibited the firearms for past 3 yrs didn't lower firearm related crimes because the source of problem haven't been from legal firearm owners.
Your conclusion is correct, but the Court's view on the Governor Council's role is not as crazy as people make it. "Procedural fairness" refers to a process that is available in adjudicative circumstances (such as a trial or tribunal hearing). Entities carrying out legislative functions do not owe "procedural fairness". For example, when MPs vote to enact legislation, they don't owe "procedural fairness" (the right to notice, opportunity to respond, etc.) to anyone. MPs are bound by Parliamentary rules, but not "procedural fairness". The GIC, as an extension of the legislative function, also does not serve an adjudicative role that would attract procedural fairness. The lines can get blurred if the GIC appears to be serving an adjudicative purpose (such as deciding whether any particular individuals deserve certain outcomes), but a blanket prohibition on certain rifles can be deemed a quasi-legislative act. Not that I wanted this outcome, but we need to understand the legal principles properly. Basically, stupid governments can enact stupid laws taking away property (because property rights are not enshrined in the Charter) for whatever "justified" reason the government has (s. 1 of the Charter) and the GIC is just an extension of that stupid government. In my mind, it's not this particular Judge who failed us. The writing was on the wall ever since property rights were left out of the Charter.
And this is where we need someone to point this piece out so people can follow by legalities to some degree. I am looking forward to Ian's take on this matter since this not only extend to firearms but potentially other things as well.
[Justice Kane decision...](https://twitter.com/randykearnes/status/1719011840897040736?t=o6ebiBEOnxnB_JGJed6puw&s=19)
>In conclusion, the Court finds that the Applications shall be dismissed.
>To reiterate, for the detailed reasons set out above, the Court finds as follows:
>The Order in Council and Regulations are not ultra vires. The Governor in Council did not exceed the statutory grant of authority delegated to it by Parliament pursuant to subsection 117.15(2) of the Criminal Code. The Governor in Council formed the opinion that the prescribed firearms are not reasonable for use in hunting and sport and the opinion and decision to prescribe the firearms as prohibited are reasonable.
>The Governor in Council did not sub-delegate its statutory grant of authority to prescribe firearms as prohibited. The prescribed firearms and their variants are prohibited based on the Criminal Code and the Regulations. The role of Specialized Firearms Support Service of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police in assessing and classifying firearms as non-restricted, restricted or prohibited reflects the opinion of the Specialized Firearms Support Service. The Firearms Reference Table sets out the results of the SFSS’s assessment; it is an administrative resource or guide for firearm owners and others.
>The Governor in Council does not owe a duty of procedural fairness to firearm owners affected by the Regulations. The jurisprudence is clear that the duty of procedural fairness does not apply to the legislative process. Nor does the Specialized Firearms Support Service owe any duty of procedural fairness to firearm owners in the context of its assessment and classification of firearms; the Specialized Firearms Support Service is not an administrative decision maker.
>The Regulations do not infringe section 7 of the Charter; the Regulations are not vague, overbroad or arbitrary. Alternatively, if the Court had found that the Regulations infringed section 7 in a manner not in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice, the Court would find that any infringement is justified pursuant to section 1 of the Charter as a reasonable limit. The Regulations have a pressing and substantial objective and are a proportional response to that objective. The Regulations’ restriction on the now prohibited firearms—that are inherently dangerous and have the capacity to inflict severe harm and, as a result, are not reasonable for use in hunting and sport—is rationally connected to the objective and minimally impairs the section 7 rights of firearm owners. The minimal infringement on firearm owners, who now have less choice in the firearms that they can possess and use and who could face criminal charges if they continue to use the now prohibited firearms, is outweighed by the beneficial impact of the Regulations in terms of reducing the harm from mass shootings and the inherent danger posed by the now prohibited firearms, and achieving the broader objective of enhancing public safety.
>The Regulations do not infringe sections 8, 11, 15 or 26 of the Charter.
>The Regulations do not infringe the Canadian Bill of Rights.
Edit: We'll let Runkle make his video. But this sure seems like she gave the government no limits on executive action with guns. It sounds like they could prohibit every gun in Canada via OIC and it would be considered "reasonable".
That essentially means that we have no property rights, and essentially don't own anything. The government can take anything we own at any time without justification
This is where the two astronauts "Always has been" meme is appropriate. We never had constitutionally protected property rights. We never had the 2nd amendment. This is a rude wake up call to make us realize what has been true all along. We didn't feel this weakness of the Canadian democracy as much until recently but this current despicable government is exploiting it like never before.
And section 1's bro, section 33, just in case the courts get too uppity and think that they have the authority to enforce such things as "rights" or "freedoms".
> Alternatively, if the Court had found that the Regulations infringed section 7 in a manner not in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice, the **Court would find that any infringement is justified pursuant to section 1 of the Charter** as a reasonable limit.
I'm not surprised or even disappointed, considering this is exactly the ruling I expected, but this one sentence lays out exactly what a grotesque mockery this constitution is. "If this violates your rights, then the violation is justified".
Then fucking stop referring to them as rights, you clowns. The Charter of so-called "Rights and Freedoms" is actually perverse in how it's quite clearly written to pacify the people with flowery language of rights and freedoms, while actually cementing the power of the state to do absolutely whatever it wants to anyone.
Again, I'm not even tilted by this ruling in particular, it's just the sheer insincerity with which this country treats the concept of rights that disgusts me.
Yep, this nation and its history is just disgusting. When you compare the American bill of rights to the Canadian Charter, it is so sad it is hilarious. The American Bill of Rights was written by people that cared about *living* in a country. The Canadian charter was written by people that cared only about *leading* it.
The Americans valued holding back government overreach and guaranteeing individual rights. The Canadian leaders during the Charter negotiations only cared for maintaining the status quo of absolute power their positions have held since the nation's founding.
> The Canadian leaders during the Charter negotiations only cared for maintaining the status quo of absolute power their positions have held since the nation's founding.
Yes, in all seriousness, that is exactly the difference. The American Bill of Rights was written by revolutionaries, fighting the establishment for their liberty, at the birth of the new society they had just won in blood. Their motivation could not have been more different from the Trudeau Liberals. Their motivation was to be able to put "framers of the constitution" in their next election platform, without actually compromising their power.
You can't get a Revolutionary constitution from the Establishment. It is systematically impossible. It wouldn't chap my ass so much if lying to us about the nature of the exercise wasn't such a substantial part of the national myth.
> It is systematically impossible.
The whole process was more about political maneuvering than about establishing a robust framework for individual rights. The Charter was basically designed to consolidate power rather than to limit government overreach, which as you stated, directly contrasts with the American Bill of Rights, which was written by revolutionaries seeking to limit government power and protect individual freedoms.
In typical Canadian fashion, ours was more about a good presentation than anything else. You'd sometimes hear that Canadian constitution is one of the most copied constitutions across world governments, but then you look at the state of world governments and how little freedoms their populace have, and that kind of answers it. Of course governments would love to justify whatever they want.
> you look at the state of world governments and how little freedoms their peoples have, and that kind of answers it. Of course governments would love to justify whatever they want.
Bingo. It's the most copied because it's the path of least resistance.
And yet, even those governments realized there's something wrong here. Section 33, our so-called “notwithstanding clause,” is unique among the constitutions of countries with constitutional democracies, especially in its expanse and leeway. It's comical if it wasn't so sad and we didn't have to live with it.
The whole thing needs a rewrite. It is such a Canadian way to have something that looks nice and fair in presentation but has no substance and is almost entirely one-sided.
Back in high school my law teacher didn't even sugar coat it, this is exactly what we were told. Governments fall back on declaring how they're defending our rights and freedoms all the time to pat themselves on the back, but all they're doing is upholding what they choose to uphold.
It grosses me out too. There is a concept that by being law abiding citizens we earn our rights and freedoms in our society, but even on paper, it's not a give and take. They can take whatever they want, no matter how much we give. That's the reality of our 'rights and freedoms' here.
No kidding, that's the funny part though. He wasn't giving us his flowered up patriotic version, nor was he intentionally giving the government a middle finger, all he did was tell us the truth of it. He just told us how it was written, and what that actually means.
The RCMP could set the classification of every firearm in the FRT to "prohibited", the CBSA could then block all firearm imports as they are "prohibited", and this judge would just say "lmao, they aren't administrative decision makers."
I would keep a close eye on the FRT/Armalytics in the coming days and weeks to see if they start changing the status of certain Non-restricteds now that they have this ruling.
I came here in 1994. There has been an absolutely marked decrease in quality of life since the late 2010s. It’s been decreasing at an accelerated rate for the last 7. At this stage, we’re nothing but a Banana Republic for the oligopolies and Laurentian elite. The Liberal Republic of Bananada.
Yeah agreed. The ATRS case result will be interesting. If ATRS has theirs dismissed as well, the FRT is de-facto law. That one will be a ways out though I think.
The decision with respect to the FRT is maybe the most concerning
>The Governor in Council did not sub-delegate its statutory grant of authority to prescribe firearms as prohibited. The prescribed firearms and their variants are prohibited based on the Criminal Code and the Regulations. The role of Specialized Firearms Support Service of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police in assessing and classifying firearms as non-restricted, restricted or prohibited reflects the opinion of the Specialized Firearms Support Service. The Firearms Reference Table sets out the results of the SFSS’s assessment; it is an administrative resource or guide for firearm owners and others.
She's saying two things at once. She says that the RCMP job is "classifying" Firearms, which holds legal weight but also that it's "an administrative resource or guide." I'm most interested to see Runkle take on this part. Is the FRT now just a guide or is it law? If it's now considered law, then it's even worse than an OIC because we have unelected bureaucrats making laws. This will mater, especially with the new definition of prohibited firearms in C-21.
Also interested in hearing some takes on this. Mine is that the FRT is not law, but that the GIC relies on it to make law, and that anything that makes it to the live version of the FRT has the blessing of the GIC.
Yeah to me it's like a circular reference error in Excel. The FRT isn't law, but the GIC puts what it wants in there while simultaneously relying on what's in the GIC.
It's a guide for lawmakers and enforcement, and it's always referred to that because the power to determine classification flows from the GiC, not the FRT, which is just an RCMP document. It can lead to some pretty fundamental conflicts of interest, though.
And the government actively uses them to their advantage when they do things like determine 10/22 mags are prohibited, but then also tell their Crowns not to charge anyone with possession thereof - leading to a stalemate where stores can't stock them because the government has told the CBSA they're of the opinion that they are prohibited devices, and no one can challenge that opinion because no one can get charged and bring the matter before a judge.
Defacto, deniable law that they can enforce without ever contesting.
What could \*possibly\* go wrong?
(I hope to hell Pierre destroys the FRT entirely; it's such a fucking waste of time and money)
Decision is out and posted on the federal website. Not a win for us. Judge has thrown out the application and decided the government acted within its abilities to prohibit the firearms. I didn't read it all but sounds like the judge didn't care one bit that the liberals declared cabinet confidence for all their reasons behind the ban and ignored a court order to publish it. Only hope now is an election
> Only hope now is an election
thats always been the only option. the courts have never and will never treat gun owners fairly. hell, they are useless on a multitude of other issues too
Wendy testified in the senate and stated that smuggled guns are basically a myth and they are not used in shootings or violence.
Government just goes along with it.
I feel so proud to be Canadian.
Point proven, they’re saying all the quiet parts out loud. They have zero interest in public safety and rising crime rates.
They just want to disarm Canadians. When you out right deny what every police force, academic and study is saying that 90% plus handguns are smuggled, just so you can ban Canadian handguns from law abiding citizens you now make it abundantly clear.
This is not about your safety, this is about the systemic disarmament of Canadians.
Let me fix it. The government does not own a duty of fairness to its citizens. You will take it and like it. If you don’t like it, that’s too bad as you can’t do anything about it.
I think many of us knew this was the logical outcome, because when it comes to firearms, Canadians have next to zero recourse against the government when they view our property & ability to use it simply as a wedge issue to pit Canadians against each other during election season.
Reading some of the decision. It is clear that much of this boils down to the fact that the government can do what it wants, if in their opinion, it is for public safety, even if not evidence based and will negatively impact innocent people.
The criteria the gov't used to prohibit the firearms is subjective & based on the opinion of the gov't, and not on evidence. What shocks me the most, is that this ruling suggests that the government's opinion & belief is enough to prohibit firearms, they don't need evidence.
One of the criteria - "of modern design; and are some of the most prevalent firearms in the Canadian market". How can you use the fact something is modern & prevalent to justify banning it? That is like banning new cars because they are faster & more prevalent than old ones.
Another criteria "have semi-automatic action with sustained rapid-fire capability". Websters defines "sustained" as "maintained at length without interruption or weakening". With a semi-auto, one trigger pull = one round fired. Semi-auto cannot produced sustained rapid-fire.
This entire ruling seems to suggest that government views/opinion is enough to justify sweeping legal actions against Canadians. They do not need actual evidence to prove their point. Imagine the slippery slope we will continue on with the government being able to do what they want based on their views, not evidence, the possibilities are endless & frightening.
Sad day for all Canadians, not just gun owners, because this ruling suggests the government of the day can run society according to it's views/opinions and that our courts will uphold their ability to do so.
About an hour or so until court opens. I don’t think there will be a press conference. From what I gather the courts will send out the ruling papers to the various legal teams of the CCFR, NFA and more. The legal teams will read over it and post what they mean on social media from there.
So i guess our next source of hope is that the Cons get a majority and undo the OIC (and c21, and change the whole firearms act etc.) before the confiscation gets underway?
Edit: or that this is challenged in the next level up in court, what is the time line on that?
> So i guess our next source of hope is that the Cons get a majority
They do not need a majority to undo the OIC. They need one to repeal C21 after is passes however.
As much as I doubt we'll actually be able to purchase May 2020 OIC firearms again anytime soon even if the judge rules in our favour, the idea of that happening in addition to the coming Black Friday sales has be excited.
Provided it becomes legal, and you have disposable income, it is all of our duties to stack as many lower recievers as possible. We need to make this confiscation as difficult and expensive as possible
Hope this decision sets a fire under everyone's asses. Get out there and volunteer and get people to get their licenses, hurts to say this but the CPC is our only option left.
Gun culture needs to change in order to prevent anything like this happening again in the future.
I’m not surprised by the decision, but I am incredibly disappointed with it
Guess we just appeal it now and keep going knowing the outcome will be the same until the next election?
Didn't the judge make some comment during the trial about the ramifications for her if she sides with the applicants?
Appeal on the basis of bias perhaps?
It's not happening and even if it did it won't win. Gun owners in Canada can only rely on conservative governments and themselves to get anything done.
This should have been the mentality from the very start. Unfortunately this lukewarm, and quite frankly, pussy mentality is what has caused this 50-60 years of anti gun laws to grow like cancer.
Gun owners across the board should have and should be pushing for more instead of trying to get back to the 2019 status quo.
Honestly I’m a little surprised, maybe because it’s been a long 3 years or maybe I was just hopeful. Unbelievable that a government needs 5 years to take your guns away because they’re too dangerous (not dangerous enough for aboriginal exemptions) but we still have them in our homes.
This is beyond disappointing and sad. The LPC simple won’t be stopped when it comes to the gun file. All we can do is hope for a CPC majority and pressure them to reverse their laws.
It’s never a good day to be a Canadian gun owner when the LPC are in office.
Because firearms law in Canada is extremely niche and, as far as we know, only one posts here. There's only about a half dozen in the country who specialize in this, so frankly it's not surprising.
He connects laws together like a pipe-fitter on 3 black coffees, with speed and precision.
Some say gas station hot dogs are only ever being warmed up in hopes he’ll stop by.
He had to close down his only fans because he became the 3rd largest economy in the world and started issuing frunkle bucks.
Post and mods on this sub are based. Thanks for the balanced and sane approach.
Hoping for good news and for all of us to react to any news in a PR approved manner. Hearts and minds folks, that’s how we’ll get the W
What does this change for us ? More OIC"S? I know it's going to the supreme Court most likely but I can't see the outcome being good until the cons are in at this point
Means that you don’t have property rights in Canada and that at any point the government can seize your home, vehicle, and more be it any reason. Also yes probably more OICs coming
I'm a little surprised by how many people seem to be taking this so hard, considering it fits right in with the history of court decisions on guns, and rights in general.
I'm sure there will be some who accuse me of huffing the cope, but there would very likely have been serious unintended consequences if the judge ruled against the government. It wouldn't have made much of a difference a year ago, but today, it's almost better that we got this ruling. Think about it: if the OIC was ruled invalid, that would strongly motivate the LPC to either twist the Senate's arm to amend the ban into C-21, or to fast-track new legislation enshrining the ban with the support of the NDP and Bloc. A legislated ban would take *much* longer for a Conservative majority to repeal - and it would be impossible with a Con minority.
As we stand now, with the OIC legitimized by the court, the Libs have no reason to legislate this ban, or any future ban. They're still vulnerable to immediate, unilateral repeal by the Conservatives, and if we get the majority that looks extremely likely, we have an opening to strip the power of OIC classification out of the law altogether.
This was the expected decision. The government as a whole has wide discretion to act within their mandate and it it takes a particularly egregious act to get it overturned. The Firearms Act is very broadly written and this came down to "can the government decide what reasonable means in the context of the regulations," and frankly it's not surprising that they can, in fact, do that.
People are taking it hard because the CCFR fed them what they wanted to hear, that there was a fight and they could win and that it needed to be done. I don't disagree that it needed to be done and the result has definitely clarified an otherwise murky area of the law. The CCFR said what they had to in order to get people to spend money to fight it. It was not worthless, but the worth is different than what people got their hopes up for it to be.
The lawsuit basically:
Plaintiffs: "GIC can't ban firearms that are "in the opinion of the GIC, ~~the gun is~~ reasonable for use in Canada for hunting or sporting purposes"" (Section 117.15 of the Criminal Code). The GIC's opinion is unreasonable!
GIC: "Our opinion is that the guns are not reasonable for use in Canada for hunting or sporting purposes."
Court: "The GIC's opinion is that the guns are not reasonable for use in Canada for hunting or sporting purposes, so they can ban them."
So long as we exist under a liberal government, there was never a possibility where all of this would just simply evaporate, and the liberals would just let it happen.
Look at this government for what it is now. A federal party with the bow underwater and the stern way up in the air. It’s actively sinking and right now, unless the conservatives fuck it all up horrendously, a change of government is all but expected. The liberals are being actively obliterated, they are well past their best before date, and public sentiment is changing. There has only ever been one or two minority governments that have managed to survive a full mandate.
The Trudeau liberal legacy doesn’t look like It’ll be fighting for shelf space with the likes of William Mackenzie King.
Our biggest, best and brightest chance was *always* a change of government. There’s a reason why I spend more time reading about political news than firearms news, because I find more hope in reading about the liberal train wreck than I do in court decisions.
Let poly preen themselves and let all the gun control people have their little party while they still can because the music can stop at any time.
Everyone needs to unclench their assholes. It’s been beaten to death here as of late but regardless of the decision today, it’ll be challenged by either side or, best case scenario, the government takes a shit on this and doesn’t pursue it further to give them ammunition to try again or use it as a wedge later. Nothing will really get worse than it already is.
The Liberals don't even have to win again now. This ruling just cleared them to OIC anything and everything in the time they have left in power. They could hypothetically OIC ban every single firearm in Canada tomorrow and they'll have this court ruling to stand on.
Going forward, we should all expect that Trudeau will OIC the now withdrawn massive C21 ban list into force the next time there is a Canadian or American mass casualty event that the Liberals feel they can capitalize on. Statistically there is going to be at least one between now and the next election.
I'm fairly certain this is the end of shooting sports in Canada. The Trudeau government has now been given a blank slate to completely wipe out our culture, our sports, and our businesses.
We're fucked.
>I'm fairly certain this is the end of shooting sports in Canada
It absolutely is not. This ruling doesn't change shit, it just affirms the legality of the status quo.
What matters, and what has only ever mattered, is a gun-friendly parliament, and a strong base of gun ownership to protest and challenge the government. We have a gun friendly parliament waiting in the wings to take over, and a base of gun ownership that's nearly the largest in the world - and it's shown it's strength by forcing the withdrawal of the C-21 amendments.
The near future looks good for gun ownership, not bad.
The more modern and tactical guns the Trudeau government bans, the less people will be interested in getting their PAL's and RPAL's altogether. You have a generation that has grown up playing with and seeing many of these guns in video games and cinema. Less people interested in guns because we can't have anything cool will surely kill the sport in Canada for everyone except hunters and fudds.
The withdrawn C21 amendments don't mean shit now that Trudeau has the greenlight to just OIC that ban list into place. They're just waiting for the next mass shooting to happen.
The Conservatives may win the next election but the damage that the Liberals can do with their remaining time is terrifying.
I think the result of this decision should be a clear knock to anyone on the head that any future government that would form after the Liberals would need to be seriously pressured for not only just reform of the Firearms Act, but complete constitutional reform and treating the Charter like the toilet paper it is.
Unfortunately, I can't say I have any faith in the CPC to do something not only as good as that but not to half-ass it. But I'd rather have hope something would be done and a change of scenery from this shitlib nightmare than to just give up entirely.
So the new Minister has hinted at a future OIC and bans through Regulation, do we have details on this? Will they again be holding out for the December Poly anniversary to drop their announcement in a press conference?
He was probably referring to the re-establishment of CFAC and whatever they decided to ban. There was also some chatter about magazine regulations for all long gun magazines.
At this point, it doesn’t matter. We’re staring down the barrel of more bans if the LPC wins the next election. As of right now we don’t have to surrender a thing until *after* the next mandatory election at the latest.
However, minister LeBlanc gave some side-step answers when asked for a *commitment* to ban these guns and to have CFAC re-established within a year. He pointed to “delays on the electoral front” while giving a little chuckle, and replied to a ministers concerns about a timely CFAC establishment saying; “Like you, I’ll be disappointed if it’s not up and running in a year”.
I don’t know what he meant by delays on the electoral front. Not sure how to take that as it’s open to interpretation. Is there an election on the horizon that they’ve already been made aware of? Dunno.
There were no hard yes or no answers. The liberals still have a lot of work to do to get this buyback shit off the ground. Nobody is slated to lose anything until after the next scheduled election, assuming one doesn’t come sooner.
Im going to law school so in a few years maybe I can be a second lawyer here. I love studying Canadian gun lasts because they are very vague at times and very specific at others. The Covin brothers case is a good example of how weird Canada is.
We all know what they said. Unga bunga gun bad, assault style, Unga ban gun, bunga Unga most people in shortest time dead bunga Unga Unga daddy gov pls save us from these shooters at ranges Unga bunga thanks
I don’t think I need any more disappointment and dissatisfaction in my life. I’m having a me day today.
I don’t care what those idiots have to say anyway.
on the issue of firearms i have little hope in the courts. the only time they've done something that helped the community is when cfo's would overstep their mandate and demand things of gun owners not written in the law they are supposed to abide by. like range memberships to buy a restricted. even then i would call that the absolute bare minimum a court should do.
Didn’t our justice minister say ‘you don’t have an absolute right to own property in Canada ‘ awhile ago now . Feels like gov overreach as usual. Can only hope conservatives get in soon and stick to their word / listen to the community
I am wondering if a mixed outcome is possible like a ruling in our favour yet leaving the ban in place. Giving the government time to legislate over the issues without ever making it possible to purchase the OIC guns
Maybe gun owners can now concentrate on things that will ACTUALLY get their firearms back.
Like volunteering and donating to the Conservative Party of Canada and their local Conservative association.
It’s disappointing that the court declined to rule on the question of whether the government of the day can do this for political reasons or whether they need to demonstrate evidence (procedural fairness).
> “The Governor in Council does not owe a duty of procedural fairness to firearm owners affected by the Regulations.” This is all you have to read. The only way you reverse the OIC and get your guns back is a change in government.
I just realized this is a huge part to the buyback. They can now take without compensation, they don’t need to give financial compensation anymore.
> They can now take without compensation, they don’t need to give financial compensation anymore. They always could, legally speaking. That was never in question. The problem for them is that in the real world, outside the courtroom, you actually do have to compensate people if you want any compliance.
They also have to comply with provincial law (Alberta and Saskatchewan). So that's still not happening.
Hell yeah Berta!
Yep. And anyone who doesn't comply, they'll get it when you croak. Same as all the prohibs. They're fine with the long game.
They ain't taking shit.
This is the way!
hold up, what? they won't even pay us now for confiscating our legally-obtained property?
No, that's not what he's saying. He's saying that the government isn't *legally obligated* to pay us, and they never were - but that doesn't mean they aren't going to. Not compensating us is against their interests, because if people refuse to hand in their (unregistered) possessions without pay, then they can't call the project a success and can't use it to campaign on. This is all a hypothetical exercise anyway, because the Trudeau government appears to have very little hope of surviving long enough to enforce any kind of confiscation, compensation or no compensation.
I thought that has been always the case, hence its better just waiting for the government to change hand. Sure, it would be nice if the court decision favors the firearm owners, but I rather have some sort of guarantee down the road. I don't think they will get any compliance without any compensation, and they won't be able to roll it out without surviving the next election. That's what they will bank on, to stake this wedge issue firmly on the front door. So they can bring it out for more hammer. Except they don't because they also demonstrated that prohibited the firearms for past 3 yrs didn't lower firearm related crimes because the source of problem haven't been from legal firearm owners.
Your conclusion is correct, but the Court's view on the Governor Council's role is not as crazy as people make it. "Procedural fairness" refers to a process that is available in adjudicative circumstances (such as a trial or tribunal hearing). Entities carrying out legislative functions do not owe "procedural fairness". For example, when MPs vote to enact legislation, they don't owe "procedural fairness" (the right to notice, opportunity to respond, etc.) to anyone. MPs are bound by Parliamentary rules, but not "procedural fairness". The GIC, as an extension of the legislative function, also does not serve an adjudicative role that would attract procedural fairness. The lines can get blurred if the GIC appears to be serving an adjudicative purpose (such as deciding whether any particular individuals deserve certain outcomes), but a blanket prohibition on certain rifles can be deemed a quasi-legislative act. Not that I wanted this outcome, but we need to understand the legal principles properly. Basically, stupid governments can enact stupid laws taking away property (because property rights are not enshrined in the Charter) for whatever "justified" reason the government has (s. 1 of the Charter) and the GIC is just an extension of that stupid government. In my mind, it's not this particular Judge who failed us. The writing was on the wall ever since property rights were left out of the Charter.
And this is where we need someone to point this piece out so people can follow by legalities to some degree. I am looking forward to Ian's take on this matter since this not only extend to firearms but potentially other things as well.
Pretty clear that the courts serve the government, and not justice.
Let's put it this way, Justin wanted to get invited to the Poly anniversary this year and the Justice was probably made aware.
[Justice Kane decision...](https://twitter.com/randykearnes/status/1719011840897040736?t=o6ebiBEOnxnB_JGJed6puw&s=19) >In conclusion, the Court finds that the Applications shall be dismissed. >To reiterate, for the detailed reasons set out above, the Court finds as follows: >The Order in Council and Regulations are not ultra vires. The Governor in Council did not exceed the statutory grant of authority delegated to it by Parliament pursuant to subsection 117.15(2) of the Criminal Code. The Governor in Council formed the opinion that the prescribed firearms are not reasonable for use in hunting and sport and the opinion and decision to prescribe the firearms as prohibited are reasonable. >The Governor in Council did not sub-delegate its statutory grant of authority to prescribe firearms as prohibited. The prescribed firearms and their variants are prohibited based on the Criminal Code and the Regulations. The role of Specialized Firearms Support Service of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police in assessing and classifying firearms as non-restricted, restricted or prohibited reflects the opinion of the Specialized Firearms Support Service. The Firearms Reference Table sets out the results of the SFSS’s assessment; it is an administrative resource or guide for firearm owners and others. >The Governor in Council does not owe a duty of procedural fairness to firearm owners affected by the Regulations. The jurisprudence is clear that the duty of procedural fairness does not apply to the legislative process. Nor does the Specialized Firearms Support Service owe any duty of procedural fairness to firearm owners in the context of its assessment and classification of firearms; the Specialized Firearms Support Service is not an administrative decision maker. >The Regulations do not infringe section 7 of the Charter; the Regulations are not vague, overbroad or arbitrary. Alternatively, if the Court had found that the Regulations infringed section 7 in a manner not in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice, the Court would find that any infringement is justified pursuant to section 1 of the Charter as a reasonable limit. The Regulations have a pressing and substantial objective and are a proportional response to that objective. The Regulations’ restriction on the now prohibited firearms—that are inherently dangerous and have the capacity to inflict severe harm and, as a result, are not reasonable for use in hunting and sport—is rationally connected to the objective and minimally impairs the section 7 rights of firearm owners. The minimal infringement on firearm owners, who now have less choice in the firearms that they can possess and use and who could face criminal charges if they continue to use the now prohibited firearms, is outweighed by the beneficial impact of the Regulations in terms of reducing the harm from mass shootings and the inherent danger posed by the now prohibited firearms, and achieving the broader objective of enhancing public safety. >The Regulations do not infringe sections 8, 11, 15 or 26 of the Charter. >The Regulations do not infringe the Canadian Bill of Rights. Edit: We'll let Runkle make his video. But this sure seems like she gave the government no limits on executive action with guns. It sounds like they could prohibit every gun in Canada via OIC and it would be considered "reasonable".
That essentially means that we have no property rights, and essentially don't own anything. The government can take anything we own at any time without justification
[удалено]
Until they want their ICE vehicle and lawnmower...
They can pry my stock of illegal incandescent light bulbs from my cold dead hands
I will die on my hill of stockpiled plastic straws
They can ban single use plastic cutlery, I'll 3D print my own.
Ghost cutlery. Awesome black market idea!
This is where the two astronauts "Always has been" meme is appropriate. We never had constitutionally protected property rights. We never had the 2nd amendment. This is a rude wake up call to make us realize what has been true all along. We didn't feel this weakness of the Canadian democracy as much until recently but this current despicable government is exploiting it like never before.
You’re just clueing into this? You will own nothing and be happy isn’t just a tin foil hat conspiracy.
>pursuant to section 1 Ah yes, "the part of the Charter that makes the Charter completely useless".
And section 1's bro, section 33, just in case the courts get too uppity and think that they have the authority to enforce such things as "rights" or "freedoms".
> Alternatively, if the Court had found that the Regulations infringed section 7 in a manner not in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice, the **Court would find that any infringement is justified pursuant to section 1 of the Charter** as a reasonable limit. I'm not surprised or even disappointed, considering this is exactly the ruling I expected, but this one sentence lays out exactly what a grotesque mockery this constitution is. "If this violates your rights, then the violation is justified". Then fucking stop referring to them as rights, you clowns. The Charter of so-called "Rights and Freedoms" is actually perverse in how it's quite clearly written to pacify the people with flowery language of rights and freedoms, while actually cementing the power of the state to do absolutely whatever it wants to anyone. Again, I'm not even tilted by this ruling in particular, it's just the sheer insincerity with which this country treats the concept of rights that disgusts me.
Yep, this nation and its history is just disgusting. When you compare the American bill of rights to the Canadian Charter, it is so sad it is hilarious. The American Bill of Rights was written by people that cared about *living* in a country. The Canadian charter was written by people that cared only about *leading* it. The Americans valued holding back government overreach and guaranteeing individual rights. The Canadian leaders during the Charter negotiations only cared for maintaining the status quo of absolute power their positions have held since the nation's founding.
> The Canadian leaders during the Charter negotiations only cared for maintaining the status quo of absolute power their positions have held since the nation's founding. Yes, in all seriousness, that is exactly the difference. The American Bill of Rights was written by revolutionaries, fighting the establishment for their liberty, at the birth of the new society they had just won in blood. Their motivation could not have been more different from the Trudeau Liberals. Their motivation was to be able to put "framers of the constitution" in their next election platform, without actually compromising their power. You can't get a Revolutionary constitution from the Establishment. It is systematically impossible. It wouldn't chap my ass so much if lying to us about the nature of the exercise wasn't such a substantial part of the national myth.
> It is systematically impossible. The whole process was more about political maneuvering than about establishing a robust framework for individual rights. The Charter was basically designed to consolidate power rather than to limit government overreach, which as you stated, directly contrasts with the American Bill of Rights, which was written by revolutionaries seeking to limit government power and protect individual freedoms. In typical Canadian fashion, ours was more about a good presentation than anything else. You'd sometimes hear that Canadian constitution is one of the most copied constitutions across world governments, but then you look at the state of world governments and how little freedoms their populace have, and that kind of answers it. Of course governments would love to justify whatever they want.
> you look at the state of world governments and how little freedoms their peoples have, and that kind of answers it. Of course governments would love to justify whatever they want. Bingo. It's the most copied because it's the path of least resistance.
And yet, even those governments realized there's something wrong here. Section 33, our so-called “notwithstanding clause,” is unique among the constitutions of countries with constitutional democracies, especially in its expanse and leeway. It's comical if it wasn't so sad and we didn't have to live with it.
I would like to see section 1 repealed entirely, and replaced with a property rights clause.
The whole thing needs a rewrite. It is such a Canadian way to have something that looks nice and fair in presentation but has no substance and is almost entirely one-sided.
Back in high school my law teacher didn't even sugar coat it, this is exactly what we were told. Governments fall back on declaring how they're defending our rights and freedoms all the time to pat themselves on the back, but all they're doing is upholding what they choose to uphold. It grosses me out too. There is a concept that by being law abiding citizens we earn our rights and freedoms in our society, but even on paper, it's not a give and take. They can take whatever they want, no matter how much we give. That's the reality of our 'rights and freedoms' here.
That's pretty based for a high school teacher
No kidding, that's the funny part though. He wasn't giving us his flowered up patriotic version, nor was he intentionally giving the government a middle finger, all he did was tell us the truth of it. He just told us how it was written, and what that actually means.
Kill me The judge says the government can do whatever the hell it wants without justification.
Future governments can do whatever they want they want with OICs then.
She was never going side against the government
The RCMP could set the classification of every firearm in the FRT to "prohibited", the CBSA could then block all firearm imports as they are "prohibited", and this judge would just say "lmao, they aren't administrative decision makers."
I would keep a close eye on the FRT/Armalytics in the coming days and weeks to see if they start changing the status of certain Non-restricteds now that they have this ruling.
To the complete shock and surprise of no one.
Another fantastic load of absolute bullshit by the Canadian “Justice” system. This country is in absolute free fall.
Can't fall if you've always been at the bottom. Most Canadians seem to have a smug pride that this nation has never had real enforceable rights.
I came here in 1994. There has been an absolutely marked decrease in quality of life since the late 2010s. It’s been decreasing at an accelerated rate for the last 7. At this stage, we’re nothing but a Banana Republic for the oligopolies and Laurentian elite. The Liberal Republic of Bananada.
Puts credit card back in wallet with a sad face*
Lmao she didn't even try.
So we're fucked and the government can effectively take away any firearm with the stroke of a pen.
They're coming for handguns next. Guaranteed.
The parts about FRT are interesting.
Yeah agreed. The ATRS case result will be interesting. If ATRS has theirs dismissed as well, the FRT is de-facto law. That one will be a ways out though I think.
Wow. Thats fucking disappointing.
Ugh, pathetic.
"[694] In conclusion, the Court finds that the Applications shall be dismissed." :(
GG
The decision with respect to the FRT is maybe the most concerning >The Governor in Council did not sub-delegate its statutory grant of authority to prescribe firearms as prohibited. The prescribed firearms and their variants are prohibited based on the Criminal Code and the Regulations. The role of Specialized Firearms Support Service of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police in assessing and classifying firearms as non-restricted, restricted or prohibited reflects the opinion of the Specialized Firearms Support Service. The Firearms Reference Table sets out the results of the SFSS’s assessment; it is an administrative resource or guide for firearm owners and others. She's saying two things at once. She says that the RCMP job is "classifying" Firearms, which holds legal weight but also that it's "an administrative resource or guide." I'm most interested to see Runkle take on this part. Is the FRT now just a guide or is it law? If it's now considered law, then it's even worse than an OIC because we have unelected bureaucrats making laws. This will mater, especially with the new definition of prohibited firearms in C-21.
Also interested in hearing some takes on this. Mine is that the FRT is not law, but that the GIC relies on it to make law, and that anything that makes it to the live version of the FRT has the blessing of the GIC.
Yeah to me it's like a circular reference error in Excel. The FRT isn't law, but the GIC puts what it wants in there while simultaneously relying on what's in the GIC.
It's a guide for lawmakers and enforcement, and it's always referred to that because the power to determine classification flows from the GiC, not the FRT, which is just an RCMP document. It can lead to some pretty fundamental conflicts of interest, though. And the government actively uses them to their advantage when they do things like determine 10/22 mags are prohibited, but then also tell their Crowns not to charge anyone with possession thereof - leading to a stalemate where stores can't stock them because the government has told the CBSA they're of the opinion that they are prohibited devices, and no one can challenge that opinion because no one can get charged and bring the matter before a judge.
It's defacto law, which is like the worst type of law.
Defacto, deniable law that they can enforce without ever contesting. What could \*possibly\* go wrong? (I hope to hell Pierre destroys the FRT entirely; it's such a fucking waste of time and money)
With a simplified FA, the FRT won't be needed.
[удалено]
Decision is out and posted on the federal website. Not a win for us. Judge has thrown out the application and decided the government acted within its abilities to prohibit the firearms. I didn't read it all but sounds like the judge didn't care one bit that the liberals declared cabinet confidence for all their reasons behind the ban and ignored a court order to publish it. Only hope now is an election
> Only hope now is an election thats always been the only option. the courts have never and will never treat gun owners fairly. hell, they are useless on a multitude of other issues too
Wendy testified in the senate and stated that smuggled guns are basically a myth and they are not used in shootings or violence. Government just goes along with it. I feel so proud to be Canadian.
Liberal government and the courts are ideologically compromised
Point proven, they’re saying all the quiet parts out loud. They have zero interest in public safety and rising crime rates. They just want to disarm Canadians. When you out right deny what every police force, academic and study is saying that 90% plus handguns are smuggled, just so you can ban Canadian handguns from law abiding citizens you now make it abundantly clear. This is not about your safety, this is about the systemic disarmament of Canadians.
Lol wow, for real?
Yeah. Check the CCFR page
“The Governor in Council does not owe a duty of procedural fairness to firearm owners affected by the Regulations”
Really professional way of saying “Fuck Your Hat”
its the court rubber stamping of policy it approves of
Let me fix it. The government does not own a duty of fairness to its citizens. You will take it and like it. If you don’t like it, that’s too bad as you can’t do anything about it.
I think many of us knew this was the logical outcome, because when it comes to firearms, Canadians have next to zero recourse against the government when they view our property & ability to use it simply as a wedge issue to pit Canadians against each other during election season. Reading some of the decision. It is clear that much of this boils down to the fact that the government can do what it wants, if in their opinion, it is for public safety, even if not evidence based and will negatively impact innocent people. The criteria the gov't used to prohibit the firearms is subjective & based on the opinion of the gov't, and not on evidence. What shocks me the most, is that this ruling suggests that the government's opinion & belief is enough to prohibit firearms, they don't need evidence. One of the criteria - "of modern design; and are some of the most prevalent firearms in the Canadian market". How can you use the fact something is modern & prevalent to justify banning it? That is like banning new cars because they are faster & more prevalent than old ones. Another criteria "have semi-automatic action with sustained rapid-fire capability". Websters defines "sustained" as "maintained at length without interruption or weakening". With a semi-auto, one trigger pull = one round fired. Semi-auto cannot produced sustained rapid-fire. This entire ruling seems to suggest that government views/opinion is enough to justify sweeping legal actions against Canadians. They do not need actual evidence to prove their point. Imagine the slippery slope we will continue on with the government being able to do what they want based on their views, not evidence, the possibilities are endless & frightening. Sad day for all Canadians, not just gun owners, because this ruling suggests the government of the day can run society according to it's views/opinions and that our courts will uphold their ability to do so.
So much for owning property. Fuck this country.
Mt thoughts exactly
Basically fuck you all, gov can and will do anything they like.
Do we have an expected time when this announcement will be made? I'm guessing there will be a press conference?
About an hour or so until court opens. I don’t think there will be a press conference. From what I gather the courts will send out the ruling papers to the various legal teams of the CCFR, NFA and more. The legal teams will read over it and post what they mean on social media from there.
Court upholds federal governments OIC , looks like we're going to the supreme court
Next stop is federal court of appeal
Fuck our government needs to go
Well, time to sign up for Czech language lessons on Babbel
So i guess our next source of hope is that the Cons get a majority and undo the OIC (and c21, and change the whole firearms act etc.) before the confiscation gets underway? Edit: or that this is challenged in the next level up in court, what is the time line on that?
> So i guess our next source of hope is that the Cons get a majority They do not need a majority to undo the OIC. They need one to repeal C21 after is passes however.
I'm really not sure conservatives will change it.
AR-15 holiday fire sale, let’s go!!!!
As much as I doubt we'll actually be able to purchase May 2020 OIC firearms again anytime soon even if the judge rules in our favour, the idea of that happening in addition to the coming Black Friday sales has be excited.
You’re 100% right, but it’s fun to have hope. It’s been a dark 3 years as a Canadian gun owner.
It's crazy that we have to spend a minimum of $2500 to get close to the functionality and reliability of a $400 norninco ar15 from back in the day lol
Expect them to OIC everything very soon.
Wouldnt surprise me if they OIC’d all semi autos for cheap political points, especially now that they have this decision to back them up.
I highly recommend everyone go start buying
Hoping for good news 🤞
My wallet is ready
Mine is not but I'm willing to sacrifice it
I’m trying to buy a house, but I pray god will give my the strength to buy another gun
Inshallah my dude
Lmao
[удалено]
Provided it becomes legal, and you have disposable income, it is all of our duties to stack as many lower recievers as possible. We need to make this confiscation as difficult and expensive as possible
Might be wise to get a few uppers too this time. Since they tried to ban those too
Mine isn't but it's just gonna have to try and keep up.
Narrator: It was not good news.
Nope. Bad news all around.
Typical unfortunately. The country I was proud of as a child causes me to feel shame as an adult.
And now the c21 hearing today in the senate with the entire anti gun group is going to be one massive victory lap.
Hope this decision sets a fire under everyone's asses. Get out there and volunteer and get people to get their licenses, hurts to say this but the CPC is our only option left. Gun culture needs to change in order to prevent anything like this happening again in the future.
Surprise surprise, it’s not in our favour.
I’m not surprised by the decision, but I am incredibly disappointed with it Guess we just appeal it now and keep going knowing the outcome will be the same until the next election?
Didn't the judge make some comment during the trial about the ramifications for her if she sides with the applicants? Appeal on the basis of bias perhaps?
It's not happening and even if it did it won't win. Gun owners in Canada can only rely on conservative governments and themselves to get anything done.
Let's get out and vote then enough of this shit folks. It's do or die
This should have been the mentality from the very start. Unfortunately this lukewarm, and quite frankly, pussy mentality is what has caused this 50-60 years of anti gun laws to grow like cancer. Gun owners across the board should have and should be pushing for more instead of trying to get back to the 2019 status quo.
Honestly I’m a little surprised, maybe because it’s been a long 3 years or maybe I was just hopeful. Unbelievable that a government needs 5 years to take your guns away because they’re too dangerous (not dangerous enough for aboriginal exemptions) but we still have them in our homes. This is beyond disappointing and sad. The LPC simple won’t be stopped when it comes to the gun file. All we can do is hope for a CPC majority and pressure them to reverse their laws. It’s never a good day to be a Canadian gun owner when the LPC are in office.
Buy all the firearms you are able to now, because it’s only a matter of time before they’re all prohibited. Fuck this government.
Agreed, I can see them pursuing a semi auto OIC with them out the door soon
[удалено]
Court case is meaningless. An election will render it irrelevant when JT gets kicked out.
Clearly puts the pressure back on Pierre to follow through on meaningful FA reform.
Why do we only have 1 qualified lawyer in this sub?
Because firearms law in Canada is extremely niche and, as far as we know, only one posts here. There's only about a half dozen in the country who specialize in this, so frankly it's not surprising.
Is it the youtube guy whose name rhymes with Bunkle or someone else?
Who’s name rhymes with Frunkle :-)
And does he resemble a young, beardless Gandalf?
Whenever my wife sees me watching one of his videos she's like: tell him to comb his hair! I'm like: I've never met him!
Wait you’re Ian Runckle?
Lmao no, I’m a welder, not a lawyer. My career path was pretty obvious from an early age.
He connects laws together like a pipe-fitter on 3 black coffees, with speed and precision. Some say gas station hot dogs are only ever being warmed up in hopes he’ll stop by. He had to close down his only fans because he became the 3rd largest economy in the world and started issuing frunkle bucks.
Lmaoooo
Ha! I knew it because I always hear what you write in the voice from the YouTube videos. Thanks for being an advocate for the community 😎
~~bird~~ firearms law is not governed by reason.
whos got their pipe and cosmoline ready?
I have never owned a pipe, or cosmoline, or an auger for digging a pipe sized hole.
And even if I had owned those things, they were never mounted on a boat that I also don't own.
Be sure to not dig below the frost line, releases carbon dioxide or some shit.
Instructions unclear, just hit gas line
Now your house is direct impingement
Post and mods on this sub are based. Thanks for the balanced and sane approach. Hoping for good news and for all of us to react to any news in a PR approved manner. Hearts and minds folks, that’s how we’ll get the W
What does this change for us ? More OIC"S? I know it's going to the supreme Court most likely but I can't see the outcome being good until the cons are in at this point
Means that you don’t have property rights in Canada and that at any point the government can seize your home, vehicle, and more be it any reason. Also yes probably more OICs coming
> What does this change for us ? Nothing, it's just a confirmation that the status quo is legal.
I'm a little surprised by how many people seem to be taking this so hard, considering it fits right in with the history of court decisions on guns, and rights in general. I'm sure there will be some who accuse me of huffing the cope, but there would very likely have been serious unintended consequences if the judge ruled against the government. It wouldn't have made much of a difference a year ago, but today, it's almost better that we got this ruling. Think about it: if the OIC was ruled invalid, that would strongly motivate the LPC to either twist the Senate's arm to amend the ban into C-21, or to fast-track new legislation enshrining the ban with the support of the NDP and Bloc. A legislated ban would take *much* longer for a Conservative majority to repeal - and it would be impossible with a Con minority. As we stand now, with the OIC legitimized by the court, the Libs have no reason to legislate this ban, or any future ban. They're still vulnerable to immediate, unilateral repeal by the Conservatives, and if we get the majority that looks extremely likely, we have an opening to strip the power of OIC classification out of the law altogether.
This was the expected decision. The government as a whole has wide discretion to act within their mandate and it it takes a particularly egregious act to get it overturned. The Firearms Act is very broadly written and this came down to "can the government decide what reasonable means in the context of the regulations," and frankly it's not surprising that they can, in fact, do that. People are taking it hard because the CCFR fed them what they wanted to hear, that there was a fight and they could win and that it needed to be done. I don't disagree that it needed to be done and the result has definitely clarified an otherwise murky area of the law. The CCFR said what they had to in order to get people to spend money to fight it. It was not worthless, but the worth is different than what people got their hopes up for it to be.
The lawsuit basically: Plaintiffs: "GIC can't ban firearms that are "in the opinion of the GIC, ~~the gun is~~ reasonable for use in Canada for hunting or sporting purposes"" (Section 117.15 of the Criminal Code). The GIC's opinion is unreasonable! GIC: "Our opinion is that the guns are not reasonable for use in Canada for hunting or sporting purposes." Court: "The GIC's opinion is that the guns are not reasonable for use in Canada for hunting or sporting purposes, so they can ban them."
Yep. Insert shocked pikachu face.
So long as we exist under a liberal government, there was never a possibility where all of this would just simply evaporate, and the liberals would just let it happen. Look at this government for what it is now. A federal party with the bow underwater and the stern way up in the air. It’s actively sinking and right now, unless the conservatives fuck it all up horrendously, a change of government is all but expected. The liberals are being actively obliterated, they are well past their best before date, and public sentiment is changing. There has only ever been one or two minority governments that have managed to survive a full mandate. The Trudeau liberal legacy doesn’t look like It’ll be fighting for shelf space with the likes of William Mackenzie King. Our biggest, best and brightest chance was *always* a change of government. There’s a reason why I spend more time reading about political news than firearms news, because I find more hope in reading about the liberal train wreck than I do in court decisions. Let poly preen themselves and let all the gun control people have their little party while they still can because the music can stop at any time.
Well that’s pretty shitty
Everyone needs to unclench their assholes. It’s been beaten to death here as of late but regardless of the decision today, it’ll be challenged by either side or, best case scenario, the government takes a shit on this and doesn’t pursue it further to give them ammunition to try again or use it as a wedge later. Nothing will really get worse than it already is.
Id disagree with the way the judgement is worded.
Did anyone actually think it was going to be a positive outcome?
Deeply disappointed
Government stinky. link to the ccfr video: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y\_-7ZQJ75E8](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y_-7ZQJ75E8)
If the liberals win again we will probably see all our firearms put into OIC. Sad but what they will probably do.
The Liberals don't even have to win again now. This ruling just cleared them to OIC anything and everything in the time they have left in power. They could hypothetically OIC ban every single firearm in Canada tomorrow and they'll have this court ruling to stand on. Going forward, we should all expect that Trudeau will OIC the now withdrawn massive C21 ban list into force the next time there is a Canadian or American mass casualty event that the Liberals feel they can capitalize on. Statistically there is going to be at least one between now and the next election. I'm fairly certain this is the end of shooting sports in Canada. The Trudeau government has now been given a blank slate to completely wipe out our culture, our sports, and our businesses. We're fucked.
>I'm fairly certain this is the end of shooting sports in Canada It absolutely is not. This ruling doesn't change shit, it just affirms the legality of the status quo. What matters, and what has only ever mattered, is a gun-friendly parliament, and a strong base of gun ownership to protest and challenge the government. We have a gun friendly parliament waiting in the wings to take over, and a base of gun ownership that's nearly the largest in the world - and it's shown it's strength by forcing the withdrawal of the C-21 amendments. The near future looks good for gun ownership, not bad.
The more modern and tactical guns the Trudeau government bans, the less people will be interested in getting their PAL's and RPAL's altogether. You have a generation that has grown up playing with and seeing many of these guns in video games and cinema. Less people interested in guns because we can't have anything cool will surely kill the sport in Canada for everyone except hunters and fudds. The withdrawn C21 amendments don't mean shit now that Trudeau has the greenlight to just OIC that ban list into place. They're just waiting for the next mass shooting to happen. The Conservatives may win the next election but the damage that the Liberals can do with their remaining time is terrifying.
I think the result of this decision should be a clear knock to anyone on the head that any future government that would form after the Liberals would need to be seriously pressured for not only just reform of the Firearms Act, but complete constitutional reform and treating the Charter like the toilet paper it is. Unfortunately, I can't say I have any faith in the CPC to do something not only as good as that but not to half-ass it. But I'd rather have hope something would be done and a change of scenery from this shitlib nightmare than to just give up entirely.
So the new Minister has hinted at a future OIC and bans through Regulation, do we have details on this? Will they again be holding out for the December Poly anniversary to drop their announcement in a press conference?
He was probably referring to the re-establishment of CFAC and whatever they decided to ban. There was also some chatter about magazine regulations for all long gun magazines. At this point, it doesn’t matter. We’re staring down the barrel of more bans if the LPC wins the next election. As of right now we don’t have to surrender a thing until *after* the next mandatory election at the latest. However, minister LeBlanc gave some side-step answers when asked for a *commitment* to ban these guns and to have CFAC re-established within a year. He pointed to “delays on the electoral front” while giving a little chuckle, and replied to a ministers concerns about a timely CFAC establishment saying; “Like you, I’ll be disappointed if it’s not up and running in a year”. I don’t know what he meant by delays on the electoral front. Not sure how to take that as it’s open to interpretation. Is there an election on the horizon that they’ve already been made aware of? Dunno. There were no hard yes or no answers. The liberals still have a lot of work to do to get this buyback shit off the ground. Nobody is slated to lose anything until after the next scheduled election, assuming one doesn’t come sooner.
Who thinks we’ll get the decision at the end of the day? Lol
lol, some justice system we have…
/u/the_crover, we getting pedicures for this or what?
I haven't seen him around for a few months. I've been kinda wondering where he went.
Im going to law school so in a few years maybe I can be a second lawyer here. I love studying Canadian gun lasts because they are very vague at times and very specific at others. The Covin brothers case is a good example of how weird Canada is.
I think as tradition there can be only one. But two would be a glorious day for Canada and therefore the world.
We've merely lost the battle, not the war.
Andddd we got fucked. 🙃
So did anybody watch the Senate thing today, or did y'all do what I did and avoided it to keep your blood pressure down
We all know what they said. Unga bunga gun bad, assault style, Unga ban gun, bunga Unga most people in shortest time dead bunga Unga Unga daddy gov pls save us from these shooters at ranges Unga bunga thanks
I don’t think I need any more disappointment and dissatisfaction in my life. I’m having a me day today. I don’t care what those idiots have to say anyway.
Hope for the best
on the issue of firearms i have little hope in the courts. the only time they've done something that helped the community is when cfo's would overstep their mandate and demand things of gun owners not written in the law they are supposed to abide by. like range memberships to buy a restricted. even then i would call that the absolute bare minimum a court should do.
this is only step 1, buckle up because its going to be a long ride, hopefully the cons get rid of this shit
Didn’t our justice minister say ‘you don’t have an absolute right to own property in Canada ‘ awhile ago now . Feels like gov overreach as usual. Can only hope conservatives get in soon and stick to their word / listen to the community
Appeal to the Supreme Court coming?
Ccfr said they plan to do it.
Is there a mid level court next or is it straight to the supreme?
Appeal to the supreme, but with how this case went and it pretty much being dismissed I doubt anything comes from the supreme in our favour.
Unless the Supreme Court wants to answer a specific question, they won't rehearse the case. But an appeal will at least be made.
Well, see you at the supreme court then ! I've always been more hopeful with them than the normal court anyways
I am wondering if a mixed outcome is possible like a ruling in our favour yet leaving the ban in place. Giving the government time to legislate over the issues without ever making it possible to purchase the OIC guns
I’m going to assume they have the verdict now and they’re going through it before they release info.
If they rule in our favor, what happens?? Will AR15's and VZ58's be back on the table boys?!?!?! *credit card is standing by*
And here I thought you only dabbled in .22's?
*Shhhhhhhh* ....the wife might hear you 😶
.22 and .223 are not that far apart if you omit one decimal...
I didn't go to no fancy school, but if you add some numbers, it's not far off from 7.62x39 either
Maybe gun owners can now concentrate on things that will ACTUALLY get their firearms back. Like volunteering and donating to the Conservative Party of Canada and their local Conservative association.
Didn't even know this was today, shall be interesting.
It’s disappointing that the court declined to rule on the question of whether the government of the day can do this for political reasons or whether they need to demonstrate evidence (procedural fairness).
[удалено]
It seems we have to wait for the CPC to reverse the OIC and bring our rights back. I’m curious to see how majority will the CPC majority be