Canada - Stow All Guns in Local "Armory"?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Ironbarr

Member In Memoriam
Joined
Dec 24, 2002
Messages
1,221
Location
Virginia
Just what we need - another method of gun control.

Store guns in central depot
mayor: No reason to have a firearm at home, Miller says

James Cowan
National Post


Tuesday, August 16, 2005

Gun owners in Toronto may soon be prohibited from keeping their firearms at home even if they are properly licensed and registered, Mayor David Miller said yesterday.

"There's no reason to own a gun in Toronto -- collector or not. If you are a collector and you have a permit, the guns need to be stored in a way that they can't be stolen. And perhaps a centralized facility of some kind could accomplish that goal," Mr. Miller told the National Post. "The law requires gun owners to have proper storage, but obviously not everyone adheres to that."

Following a spate of shootings in Toronto, the Mayor has asked city lawyers and the police to determine whether the municipality has the "legal ability" to require individuals to store their weapons at a secure facility such as a gun club.

"It's a very serious issue and I don't have all the answers to it, but I've spoken to the [Police] Chief as well as our own legal department to see what we can do," Mr. Miller said.

The Mayor has repeatedly blamed lax gun laws in the United States for some of Toronto's violence, saying half of the firearms in the city originated in the United States.

While pressing the federal government to stem the smuggling of guns across the border, Mr. Miller said steps must also be taken steps to address domestic gun problems.

"I understand there was one theft from a collector two years ago, where some of the guns were recovered after being used in murders in Toronto," he said.

Police have also speculated a theft in June of 46 handguns, along with three rifles and ammunition, from a collector in Port Hope, 100 kilometres east of the city, has contributed to the recent increase in shootings.

Mr. Miller noted several U.S. cities such as Chicago have passed ordinances restricting handgun ownership. But legal gun owners argue the new rules would only make life simpler for criminals.

"It would just put all the firearms in one place so they could all be stolen at one time," said Eric Greer of the Ontario Arms Collectors Association. "That would be a wonderful thing."

Mr. Greer added the Mayor's proposal would not prevent criminals from acquiring weapons, noting Canada enacted its first handgun registry in 1934.

"It hasn't made one iota of difference. And the reason is the people that registered their handguns don't commit the crimes. The people who commit crimes don't register their guns. It's as simple as that," he said.

Other gun owners said they are tired of being conflated with murderers and thieves.

"There are legal gun owners all over Ontario who don't go around brandishing their guns, who go through the whole rigamarole to get licensed properly," said Bill, a member of the Maple Leaf Revolver Club, who asked his last name not be used citing safety concerns. "The Mayor's not thinking properly."

He added most gun owners would support tough sentences for individuals caught using firearms to commit a crime.

"At most of the clubs, you will hear people say, 'Arrest the guy, look at the law and if the law says to throw him away for five years or 10 years, do it,' " the gun owner said.

Mr. Miller agreed the courts must be more stringent, noting individuals caught with weapons currently are routinely released on bail.

"If somebody has a gun, that's illegal, whether or not they've shot it should be irrelevant. They should be treated like they've shot it and tried to kill somebody," he said. "So when they come to court, they shouldn't get out. They should be kept in court until they're tried."
http://www.canada.com/national/nati....html?id=6bd4b477-9334-4132-8181-e5bafead1b47
 
One has to wonder.

If the Canadian government has its way and finally disarms their citizens, I wonder how long it will be before the criminals in the US will realize that Canada is far more crime friendly and move north.

This is all very scary stuff, imo.
 
"If somebody has a gun, that's illegal, whether or not they've shot it should be irrelevant. They should be treated like they've shot it and tried to kill somebody,"


Whoaaa, be careful there, there are some in this country that think that way.
 
Canada as a nation isn't going to last long.


A nation torn apart

An exclusive Western Standard poll shows more than a third of westerners are thinking of separating from Canada. What’s dividing the country--and can anything be done to save it?

It wasn’t just what the bumper sticker said, but where it was placed and what it was stuck on. The white rectangle that read, "One hundred years is long enough," followed by the website address, www.separationalberta.com, was high up in the rear window of a shiny new, high-end SUV driving through supposedly Liberal downtown Edmonton-- not on a dusty old pickup truck in a small prairie town. And at the wheel was a smartly-dressed soccer mom, her two kids seated behind her, though obscured by the tinted side windows. These days, western independence has a new face. A movement that was once restricted to what central Canadians might call the redneck fringe, has managed to spread to westerners who are, in many cases, urbane, white collar and increasingly too young to be nursing any grudges over the National Energy Program. What’s more, sympathy for breaking up the country along east-west lines is no longer strictly something you’ll find in Alberta. More than ever, support for separation is growing all across the West.


That’s the conclusion of a Western Standard poll, which found that a record number of people in all four western provinces say they are willing to look at separating from the East. According to the poll, which was conducted in July, using random selection methods, 35.6 per cent of westerners agreed with the statement: "Western Canadians should begin to explore the idea of forming their own country." How serious is that? In Quebec, measures of separatist sentiment often find about 37 per cent of Quebecers endorsing independence (though, at times, the numbers have risen as high as 55 per cent, as was the case with a poll conducted by the newspaper La Presse in July).


The research, which was conducted by pollster Faron Ellis, a political science professor at the Lethbridge Community College, was commissioned by the Western Standard to determine how well the federal government under Prime Minister Paul Martin has been managing the issue of western alienation--something that Martin promised to reduce as part of his 2004 election campaign. It demonstrates the highest support level for separation ever recorded in any province. Historically, separatist sentiment has been estimated in Alberta to hover in the single digits. In fact, 42 per cent of Albertans now say they are willing to consider the idea of forming a new nation, independent of Ottawa. In Saskatchewan, 31.9 per cent expressed a willingness. Residents of B.C. and Manitoba were the least likely to say they would consider separation, but significant numbers in both provinces nevertheless expressed sympathy with the separatist cause: 30.8 per cent and 27.5 per cent, respectively. The poll was conducted around Canada Day, between June 29 and July 5, 2005, when sentiment for federation should have been running at its peak. It sampled 1,448 adults and had a margin of error of plus or minus 2.6 per cent, 19 times out of 20.


Remarkably, notes pollster Ellis, the greatest support for separation existed among young people, not the stereo-typical embittered Albertan codger. Thirty-seven per cent of those between the ages of 18 and 29 were open to the notion of breaking away from Canada. “Interestingly enough, in that age group, they haven’t had the major constitutional or federal touchstones like previous generations,” Ellis says. “Their psyche hasn’t been ingrained by major constitutional crises, such as the previous generations.” Thirty- and forty-year-olds witnessed the constitutional crises that were the Charlottetown and Meech Lake accords, and older groups will remember the NEP. “But with 10 years of relative constitutional peace, to have high numbers in that [youngest] generation . . . those youth numbers are surprising,” he adds.


Meanwhile, the baby boom generation (those between the ages of 45 and 64) expressed the lowest support for separation of all the age groups, at 33.7 per cent--likely because they worry that political instability could disrupt the comfortable lives many have established, speculates Ellis. “The Gen X and late boomer crowd is more entrepreneurial and less materialistic [than baby boomers] in a lot of ways,” he says. But Andrew Sullivan, vice-president of Ottawa-based EKOS Research Associates, which regularly polls Quebec for separatist sentiment, also notes that younger voters are typically the least likely to get mobilized. “That age group [18–29] may sound enthusiastic, but they are also the least likely to show up to the polls. In other words, they don’t walk the talk,” he says.


Darrel Stinson, Conservative MP for North Okanagan–Shuswap, says he’s not surprised by what appears to be an increasing trend toward pro-separatist politics in the West. Elected in the 1993 election as part of the first major wave of Reform Party politicians sent to Ottawa, Stinson says westerners are increasingly pessimistic that their voices are being heard federally. “When Reform first started, it was more of a movement than politics. When all that took place, there was a feeling that we were finally going to have a say in Ottawa, but we got shut out in a number of areas,” he says. A catalogue of recent outrages in Ottawa--the sponsorship scandal, the billion-dollar gun registry, Martin’s ability to cheat the non-confidence vote, including the implementation of a tax-and-spend budget to appease the NDP--has frustrated westerners further, especially since Liberal support continues to remain high elsewhere in Canada, according to public opinion polls. In the Western Standard survey, 38 per cent of respondents said that the details uncovered in the sponsorship scandal have contributed to their willingness to consider separation (27.2 per cent said it decreased it, and 34.8 per cent said it had no impact). Thirty-eight per cent said “the manner in which the Liberals won the budget confidence vote” (the question specifically mentioned Martin’s “securing [former Tory MP] Belinda Stronach’s defection to the Liberals and a budget deal with the NDP”) had the same inflammatory effect. A total of 25.9 per cent said the vote diminished their independent streak, and 36.6 per cent said it had no effect. “When you talk to people out here, they figure the East is going to keep putting in the crooks just to keep the West out,” says Stinson, who is battling cancer and has announced he will not run again in the next election. “And that just builds animosity. If the Liberals form another government, I think you’ll see it [separatist sentiment] come to the forefront. It will erupt.” When asked how a Liberal victory in the next federal election would impact their sympathies toward separation, 40.4 per cent of all westerners said it would make them more likely to support independence (24 per cent said it would make them less likely to consider it, with the remainder saying it would have no impact).


“There is a deep and troubling realization that all of the effort of the Reform Party--‘the West wants in,’ democratic reform, fiscal and social responsibility--all of that effort of the last 20 years appears to have achieved virtually nothing,” says Ted Morton, MLA for Calgary Foothills–Rockyview, on leave from his position as a professor of political science at the University of Calgary. “On fiscal responsibility they [the federal Liberals] just spent $28 billion in 28 days after the budget. On social responsibility they just enacted homosexual marriage against demonstrable opposition from the Canadian people. On democratic reform they just appointed three nobodies to the Senate despite the fact that we [Albertans] just elected three new senators,” Morton notes. Add to that the prospect that despite the revelations of corruption from Gomery and the kickbacks and lies, Morton says that voters in Ontario are prepared to re-elect them, and it’s no wonder people are asking, “What’s the point of sticking around?”


Though a majority of westerners--56.8 per cent--say the prime minister has done a “poor job” of fixing the democratic deficit (another of his main election campaign planks) and a whopping 64 per cent say he has done a “poor job” at ending western alienation, Ellis believes that the increasing attractiveness of the separation option is the result of a combination of factors. In addition to a disaffection with Martin in particular, westerners are coming to believe that other methods of effecting political change have been tried repeatedly with no success. “From Western leaders of federal parties like Joe Clark and the Conservatives, compromising on the leadership with Mulroney, that didn’t change anything,” says Ellis. “Having powerful ministers in the cabinet didn’t change anything. Having Lougheed--and then Klein, to a lesser extent--stand up for the province, that didn’t fix any fundamental injustices. Starting a Western party--well, you can’t succeed if you are regional. We’ve been through that. All conceivable options for many westerners that can be tried have been tried and seem to have failed. So you are left with no options,” Ellis says.

read the whole article here - http://www.westernstandard.ca/website/index.cfm?page=article&article_id=928
 
As a Canadian, I cannot believe how far this country has fallen.

I sent the mayor the following email (certainly, it does not express my true feelings about this man's comments - those comments would not be allowed by Art's Grammaw and probably wouldn't help cast us gun owners in a great light either :evil: )

Anyway, here is what I sent:

Mr. Miller:

I recently read an article in the National Post online, which quoted you as saying that there is no reason to own a gun in Toronto and that all guns should be locked away somewhere. I understand that you have been trying to deal with the severe problems that Toronto has been having with gun violence lately. I imagine that it is difficult to be the mayor in those conditions.

However, your comments seem (to me) to be a reflexive lashing-out at gun owners in general. As a group, I think you will find that Canadian gun owners are one of the most law-abiding and informed segments of our society. Gun owners in this country are already subjected to the worst kind of suspicion and ill-treatment from our government.

I wonder if you could tell me what proportion of the 30 plus murders committed with firearms in Toronto this year were committed with legally owned and properly registered firearms? I am willing to wager that it is close to zero. Murderers and gangsters are using illegal firearms to commit these acts - what impact do you think further restrictions on legal owners will have on the situation?

Your suggestion of further limiting our natural rights to property and self-defence are analogous to lowering the speed limit on a street to reduce the amount of illegal street racers. It is pure common sense to realize that someone who is willing to break the most sacred rules of our society by committing violence against an innocent is not going to worry about breaking a minor rule about firearms storage. The only people concerned with these rules are the law-abiding gun owners who are already in compliance with the existing law.

What Toronto needs is a greater police presence in the areas affected by this problem (which the police force has been addressing) and, most of all, punishment of violent offenders. Whether a gangster kills, robs, or rapes at gunpoint, knifepoint, or with the threat of a baseball bat, VIOLENCE IS VIOLENCE. The court system needs to help you and the city deal with these criminals by making a life of crime unattractive. This means longer sentences with less parole.

I hope you have taken the time to read this email. I know it is difficult to look at this type of problem from a detached viewpoint. It is all too easy to allow emotions to take over and force your focus onto an inanimate object such as a firearm. Objects are not the problem in our society. Sociopaths and criminals are.

Thank you for your time.
 
Do you get thoughts that the whole world is going snookers? Right, wrong, or indifferent, it appears that folks everywhere are dissatisfied with their lot in life.

Who was it said "A little revolution is good" - or words to that effect?

/IB
 
I think Canada can change in ways other countries only dream were possible. For the ultimate example, no other country in the world has formalized and accepted the method by which the country can be taken apart. If it's possible to draft legislation on how a province can secede, that means that there's a lot of room for maneuvre. In fact we have Quebec's drive for total freedom to thank for the increased rights that provinces currently have.

In Alberta people like firearms, it's not considered a basic 'right', but it's felt to be wrong for the government to meddle with them. However there is a case which might eventually reach the highest court where a BC man has an argument that firearms are protected by the charter or rights and freedoms.

Anyway it would be difficult to pass more federal firearms laws, the provinces would likely be prepared to block them immediately.
 
Let's change the words a bit here...

"I can see no reason for anyone to own a ballbat. All ballbats should be stored in a secure building at the ballpark."

Anyone think this would fly?
 
"I see no reason for anyone to own a word processor. They should all be stored at a government sponsored typing facility."

Of course the would-be Canadian dictactors don't have that pesky Bill of Rights to contend with.
 
No, Mayor Miller actually likes guns ...

If they're in the hands of American actors ...

The mayor of Toronto has NO problem with his city taking the millions and millions of U.S. dollars from Hollywood filmakers who shoot violent movies (using lots and lots of guns) in Toronto (which is usually substituting for my hometown, Detroit, in movies such as "Narc," "Assault on Precinct 13," and "Four Brothers") ...
 
good idea

Well, if you're a corrupt government, that is.

Store them all in a central location, makes them easier to collect later.

Worked for the brits.

C-
 
For our 'constitution' part of it is the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It doesn't give any mention of weapons, (it would be nice) but it doesn't have to either. That has been enshrined in commonlaw for centuries! I kind of think that the fact the government is willing to accept new limitations on it more than a hundred years after creation, well that makes me think that it can't be all bad. Most start off with limits and then spend every day thereafter trying to subvert them. If they made new firearm laws they can undo them too.

AIUI storage and transport of firearms is a provincial jurisdiction, so if Ontario is willing to do this to themselves, let 'em. In Alberta there's storage laws too, but they actually make exemptions for people who don't live in cities. http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y149/54919391/ARs/Res.jpg http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y149/54919391/ARs/Nonres.jpg

Note these following texts are from .gov sources.

http://www.gov.ab.ca/acn/200405/16488.html
"The federal government's proposed changes to the federal gun registry will do little to address the issues and concerns of law-abiding gun owners," said Justice Minister Dave Hancock. "Today's announcement contained no concrete solutions, only broad generalities. It was really about scoring political points with Canadians, not protecting them."

"The federal government's proposed tinkering with firearms regulation in Canada indicates either that it simply does not understand this issue or that it is trying to cover up an ineffective program plagued with drastic cost-overruns which it has created," said Jacobs. "Alberta doesn't want meaningless changes to this useless registry. We want this incredible waste of taxpayer's money, which is not reducing serious and violent crime, abolished. We are not fooled by a few empty promises."

http://www.gov.ab.ca/acn/200406/16557.html
"A few months ago, Justice Minister Dave Hancock and I met with Albina Guarnieri, Associate Minister of National Defence and Minister of State who conducted a review of the firearms regime and reported to Anne McLellan," stated Jacobs. "We clearly and emphatically put forward the Alberta position that the current system to register firearms must be dismantled."

http://www.solgen.gov.ab.ca/policing/firearms.aspx
"Common Questions:

-What does the Government of Alberta intend to do about the federal firearms legislation?
-Why doesn't Alberta use the notwithstanding clause in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms to revoke the firearms legislation?
Are police in Alberta enforcing the Firearms Act?
-What can I do to get the Registry shut down, since I believe it to be a waste of taxpayer's money?
-Why doesn't the Government of Alberta pass its own firearms legislation that would protect the rights of Albertans to own firearms?"
 
This is the British model of concentration prior to confiscation...

As I recall, this is precisely what the Brits did, after licensure/registration: require that they be locked up at the gun clubs.

This greatly facilitated their subsequent confiscation.

Locking them up on someone else's property is a line you dare not cross, unless you're intent on committing Alex Kozinski's "mistake you only get to make once".
 
Following a spate of shootings in Toronto, the Mayor has asked city lawyers and the police to determine whether the municipality has the "legal ability" to require individuals to store their weapons at a secure facility such as a gun club.

One wonders whether Toronto has the "legal ability" to round up the criminals who cause crime. One has one's doubts.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top