Canadian provinces refusing to confiscate banned rifles

[Roverguy]

In other words, the providences are saying give us more money then we'll take their guns. You see they're making it about funding, not about enforcing a draconian law.

That is incorrect. Just as legislation has been passed in some US states and counties prohibiting the use of state/county funds to enforce federal firearms legislation because that is arguably within their constitutional rights, so too the provinces in Canada. It is a case of opposing federal law within the constitution not a case of pleading for funding. As noted above, Alberta is in the process of going a step further and adopting legislation that it believes would allow it to reject federal legislation that it deems inimical to the province.

 

[hso]

In other words, the providences are saying give us more money then we'll take their guns. You see they're making it about funding, not about enforcing a draconian law.

Cynicism is unsurprisingly, but it is not always the correct response.

As I stated previously, several states have taken this approach and even have passed state laws codifying that no state funds or resources will be used to support federal authorities looking to confiscate firearms as part of a confiscation scheme.

These Provinces are following our established example.

 

[JERRY]

Cynicism is unsurprisingly, but it is not always the correct response.

As I stated previously, several states have taken this approach and even have passed state laws codifying that no state funds or resources will be used to support federal authorities looking to confiscate firearms as part of a confiscation scheme.

These Provinces are following our established example.

So it amounts to a quasi confiscation in a sense. If you use a banned firearm for self defense you get charged criminally in federal court regardless of how justifiable the use was?

 

[Telum Pisces]

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.
.

Most people that want control at the state levels hate the elected sheriffs of the states. They do not report to any state official other than the state constitution. They are locally elected people that report to the people that elect them. They are different than appointed police chiefs as well that are beholden to mayors or city governments etc...

Any state that tries to do away with their locally elected sheriffs only want one thing and that is more power!

Local Sheriffs are the backbone of our freedom in many cases across this country.

 

[hso]

So it amounts to a quasi confiscation in a sense. If you use a banned firearm for self defense you get charged criminally in federal court regardless of how justifiable the use was?

It is easy to spin the negative with infinite what-if fiction. It also has nothing to do with the OP or the various states' clearly stated intent to oppose anti 2A confiscation. Keep spinning the negative and we undermine our cause.

 

[tactikel]

All of us in the USA must follow this closely, we are about 10 years from this tyranny.

 

[hso]

legislation has been passed in some US states and counties prohibiting the use of state/county funds to enforce federal firearms legislation

The more we encourage our states and communities to pass legislation like this, the more it is made clear that opposition to Antis' confiscation dreams is normal. The more normal our opposition is the less normal their agenda appears.

 

[WestKentucky]

Efforts like this are generally carefully considered and walk a fine line to not start an uprising. Trudeau has been known to react to some situations somewhat rash and with emotion. This seems to be one of those cases where he pushed for legislation based upon the fear mongering following a shooting event. A few folks are wholeheartedly on board with that. A few are vehemently against it. The masses are somewhere in the middle. The trick here for both sides lies on the point of whether the masses feel that their rights are being eroded. Make them feel warm and cozy and this goes over well enough. Make them angry and you rile the hornets nest. The provinces mentioned seem to be pushing for the latter. Good for them.

 

[JTHunter]

Trudeau has been known to react to some situations somewhat rash and with emotion.

Isn't that because, with those types, it's all about the "feelings" and not the true facts?

 

[Old Hobo]

All of us in the USA must follow this closely, we are about 10 years from this tyranny.

Actually, I don't think so. Half of Americans are angry or overtly furious about how things are going FAR Left right now. Add to this, the spiraling-down economy. Long before 10 years, there will likely be a melt-down here in America. Chaos will toss legislative actions, the funding of government and government law enforcement agencies, and heaven only knows what else up in the air.

Not knowing personally how things are going in Canada, I cannot speak for that country.
.

 

[Old Hobo]

Most people that want control at the state levels hate the elected sheriffs of the states. They do not report to any state official other than the state constitution. They are locally elected people that report to the people that elect them. They are different than appointed police chiefs as well that are beholden to mayors or city governments etc...

Any state that tries to do away with their locally elected sheriffs only want one thing and that is more power!

Local Sheriffs are the backbone of our freedom in many cases across this country.

Yes and aren't they just great people! It takes great courage for an office-holder to stand up to Big Brother. Sure garners my highest respect.
.

 

[wbm]

Half of Americans are angry or overtly furious about how things are going FAR Left right now.

And that is the problem. Only half.

 

[hso]

The information and the focused posts are much appreciated, but we're beginning to wander again.