'It's a paperweight now': Why the Mounties' ban of popular rifle led to so much pushback
-
Trudeau never reigned in gun crime which ruined his credibility, he had 10 whole years to accomplish that task, the statistics are public knowledge.
That has literally nothing to do with the constitutionality of his mandate.
You call people who own firearms gun nuts but it’s a hobby just like any other
No, it’s fucking not. It’s a hobby that requires the mass manufacture and ownership of instant, point and click, murder tools.
Trudeau having a mandated doesn’t mean he has carte blanche to violate the constitution. Unconstitutional laws have been passed, and struck down, before, and doubtless will be again. I’m not saying this particular situation is violating the constitution, but saying someone is elected prime minister means they can do whatever they want, or that it’s legal to do so, is demonstrably false.
-
Trudeau having a mandated doesn’t mean he has carte blanche to violate the constitution. Unconstitutional laws have been passed, and struck down, before, and doubtless will be again. I’m not saying this particular situation is violating the constitution, but saying someone is elected prime minister means they can do whatever they want, or that it’s legal to do so, is demonstrably false.
My response wasn’t made in a vacuum, it was made in response to someone claiming that the issue was that he can’t delegate authority to the RCMP.
-
My issue with this is the RCMP have moved into de facto position of making rules/laws about what is legal and illegal … AND THAT’S NOT THEIR FUCKING JOB.
When LEOs are given those kinds of responsibilities, without oversight, it is in direct violation of our Charter and Constitution.
I’m not saying we shouldn’t have limits on some weapons. I’m saying the cops shouldn’t be setting those limits.
Might want to see what Runkle of the Bailey has to say about this. He’s a Canadian Firearms lawyer with a YouTube channel
Edit: NM he’s cited two comments down the other comment chain in this thread.
-
Can you cite exactly which part of the charter and constitution it violates?
Criminal Defence lawyer & Firearms lawyer - Ian Runkle (YouTuber: Runkle Of The Bailey) has made a request to the Supreme Court challenging for procedural fairness in regard to the firearm confiscation fiasco, given that Justin Trudeau bypassed the House of Commons and Parliament with his OIC, it’s fair to say Canadians are expected a proper judicial due-process especially when it comes to confiscating people’s private property.
It’s not a “buyback”, the Canadian Government never owned these firearms to begin with, it’s a forced confiscation with a monetary compensation. You know it’s bad when the Ontario Government won’t divert RCMP resources to assist in this confiscation and that Canada Post won’t assist either.
Yeah, cause pistol-calibre carbine shooting it not for hunting deer,
You forget about sports shooters and that the International Practial Shooting Confederation exists, which rely on these firearms being accessible to practice and participate.
Just recently Wes Steven’s had to borrow a firearm from an American competitor just to participate in the competition.
I don’t suppose he has made a video about his request on his YouTube channel?
-
I don’t suppose he has made a video about his request on his YouTube channel?
I swear there was a short video discussing it, I can’t seem to find it anymore. If I see it I’ll link it.
-
My response wasn’t made in a vacuum, it was made in response to someone claiming that the issue was that he can’t delegate authority to the RCMP.
I never said that Trudeau couldn’t delegate authority. I said that the RCMP alone should not be designating which guns are legal or illegal.
In fact the Governor-in-Council (aka the Governor General) and the Privy Council have been doing this for years (https://www.securitepublique.gc.ca/cnt/trnsprnc/brfng-mtrls/prlmntry-bndrs/20200930/005/index-en.aspx and https://www.constitutionalstudies.ca/2019/07/governor-in-council/).