Canadian provinces refusing to confiscate banned rifles

Canadian provinces telling their federal government that they will not be using provincial resources to implement the mandated confiscation of semiautomatic rifles from their citizens.

"Trudeau’s Gun Grab: More Jurisdictions Tell Feds, You’re On Your Own"

https://www.nraila.org/articles/202...ore-jurisdictions-tell-feds-youre-on-your-own

"Earlier, your NRA-ILA reported that Canada’s three prairie provinces have opposed the federal government’s “assault weapon” confiscation law and refused to allow provincial resources to be used in enforcing the gun ban and so-called “buyback” of legally acquired firearms.

"By the end of September, officials representing the Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba governments had notified Marco Mendicino, the federal minister responsible for implementing Prime Minister Trudeau’s gun ban and confiscation law, that they would not authorize the use of provincially-funded resources to implement the program within their jurisdictions.

"Since then, officials in Yukon and New Brunswick have likewise expressed the view that the federal gun grab should not be piggybacked on provincial resources.

"Soon after, New Brunswick became the latest province to tell the feds that they’d have to find the means elsewhere for seizing firearms from responsible Canadians. An October 14 press release from New Brunswick’s Department of Justice and Public Safety quoted Public Safety Minister Kris Austin. 'New Brunswick’s bottom line is this: RCMP resources are spread thin as it is. We have made it clear to the Government of Canada that we cannot condone any use of those limited resources, at all, in their planned buyback program.' In common with the prairie provinces, New Brunswick 'called on the federal government to halt plans to use scarce RCMP and municipal police resources to confiscate over 100,000 legally acquired firearms from Canadians,' and asked the federal government not to divert funding from any other public safety initiatives to make the confiscation program possible."
.
.

Bazoo said:

I don’t get it. They are saying they won’t fund it from their already stretched funds and manpower, not that they won’t comply, correct?

Click to expand...

I'm not a Canadian, but this is how I understand the situation. The provinces are saying that if their national government wishes to confiscate firearms, then the national government will have to supply both their own national police forces and use national monies to do so. The provinces are staying out of the entire affair.

Of course, the provincial authorities of Canada are NOT saying that they will actively prevent the confiscations.

We'll have to watch and see if Trudeau has another one of his adolescent tantrums about the provinces not kneeling before his royal wishes.

In Virginia, when the state legislators and former governor (current governor is conservative and would veto any such bill) were talking about banning semi-automatic rifles, over 90 county sheriffs (95ish, I think) said that they would not enforce any such law; PLUS, many of those sheriffs said that they would "deputize assault rifle owners", thus actively blocking the Virginia Commonwealth's actions. The state ("commonwealth", whichever nomenclature one prefers) would then have had to confiscate firearms from "county deputies" -- which would have been a MUCH larger issue. When Virginia's sheriffs stood up against Richmond, all of the liberal national news outlets went ballistic and made all manner of accusations along the line that the sheriffs were insurrectionists, enemies of civilized society, ... on and on. Me, I found it all quite delightful. I imagine that Thomas Jefferson and George Mason had a good laugh viewing all this from the spirit realm.
.

armoredman said:

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/alberta-premier-danielle-smith-sovereignty-act-1.6668175
I couldn't get through the link here at work, but if true, amen, brothers!

Click to expand...

I was able to open the link. Alberta is standing up and defending the rights of its citizens.

Excellent. Great to hear that some of our neighbors to the north have some backbone.

"Just say, NO!"
--------------------------

shafter said:

Most likely law enforcement won't go door to door or take any proactive steps, but I'm betting most departments will take enforcement action if the situation falls in their lap. Just like here in the US there are a lot of things law enforcement doesn't really care about but in a bodycamera and cell phone age, when things fall in your lap you gotta do something.

Click to expand...

I've utterly no idea of how Canadians would react if the RCMP began going door to door confiscating firearms. I'm not Canadian.

Being an American, I know that if the Feds began going door to door confiscating firearms, things would go sideways very rapidly. This is especially true in some states. They'll not sit on their hands and watch the Second Amendment get utterly stricken from the Constitution. "American Nature 101" Americans feel like they've been pushed too far as things stand now. Just an observation, not a recommendation.

shafter said:

Police confiscate guns all the time for red flag violations or when a restraining order or equivalent is served. People yell and complain but they hand them over, even when they are probably innocent. I suspect most would hand them over without incident rather than face death or prison. Some would resist but it would be a small minority. Law enforcement wouldn't like it but most would ultimately do what they are told. They won't risk their jobs and pensions and be stuck with no way to make a living. Not going to happen.

But I don't think that's how it would go down. All they have to do is pass a law that makes possession a felony with serious consequences. Most people won't risk a felony charge and risk their livelihood and freedom. They will be given grace periods to turn them in. Those that do keep them will have them so well hidden that they may as well be useless. They definitely won't be carrying them as they go about their lives.

Not to mention that if law enforcement was ever able to get a warrant for your phone they'll find every photo you ever took and every post you ever made.

Some states will probably hold out for a long time but things can change quickly. Many red states are being flooded with people moving from blue states. I hope we can reverse the trend and start moving in the right direction.

Click to expand...

As for America -- and there are big differences in culture between Canada and America:

A confiscation here then over there a few days later; no, I don't think this would trigger an uprising.

If however, this began to be a routine event and assuredly if this became a mass policy, rest assured things would go sideways. I am of Scots-Irish (a.k.a. Ulster-Scots) blood and a majority percentage of people here in Southern Appalachia are also. Truth be told, this bloodline cuts a wide swath through Heartland America. Some people don't just back down. Witness "The Troubles" in Northern Ireland. Inspire a region and you will rapidly witness pack formation -- much the same as is seen with wolves.

Add to this the increasing anger/fury that is occurring in America even as we speak. This time the divisions are not so much among states, but urban vs. rural America. In the latter case the political divide between Americans is WIDE.

https://www.brookings.edu/blog/fixgov/2021/09/16/is-the-us-headed-for-another-civil-war/

Could this American situation begin happening in Canada. I'll leave our Canadian members to speak to that.
.
.

Roverguy said:

Nearly 75% of Canadians live below the 49th parallel in Ontario and Quebec. Add in BC on the Left Coast, and that’s over 80% of the population. And that’s Trudeau’s base.

Alberta, Saskatchewan, and Manitoba in the West are decidedly not. New Brunswick and the Maritime provinces are full of great people, but they’re effectively welfare states dependent on federal handouts, so kudos to NB for telling Trudeau to stuff it.

Alberta is currently considering legislation that would codify the mechanisms whereby the provincial government could refuse to enforce federal laws that it deems damaging to the province. Saskatchewan’s premier is at daggers with Trudeau over virtually everything. Manitoba is a farming powerhouse and not at all enamored of the Feds’ climate cult inspired ag policies.

However, this is not mutiny or civil war. What these provinces are saying is that they will not use provincial funds or resources to enforce the latest federal gun grab. That’s arguably within their constitutional rights but it doesn’t mean all that much. It’s unlikely the feds will be going house to house grabbing guns in any event. But it is a good sign. The more that Trudeau’s agenda is thwarted and opposed, the more he is undermined and the more the provinces will seek further autonomy, which holds out some hope for Canadians living outside greater Torontopolis.

Click to expand...

Seems the Urban vs. Rural political divide is alive and well in Canada also. I know that your bad crime rates are pretty much restricted to Toronto and Quebec. When things go wrong in cities, career politicians want to create Liberty-restricting laws that apply to an entire nation -- not just to where the problems are occurring. They hope these band-aids will somehow make intractable cultural diseases magically go away. Oops!

I sincerely hope that you folk up north work things out. Some marriages just go bad. Horribly unfortunate. Sometimes divorce is the only way to prevent violence. Ask police about their having to deal with domestic violence issues with some couples ... over and over ... until the couple gets a divorce.
.