Every jurisdiction - state, province, federal government, the lot - needs this sort of legislation. There have been too many cases of parents and near relatives warning law enforcement of trouble looming only for their pleas to be ignored leading to avoidable tragedy.
While Canada may not have the level of mass death gunplay all too familiar in the States, we do have plenty of gun-related suicides and domestic killings. We certainly have enough to warrant a law like California's.
6 comments:
We already have that law. Only tougher, in that no court oversight is actually necessary to initially seize the firearms.
Every paper firearms application includes a 1-800(1 800 731-4000) number with the text, "If you have any safety concerns about this application, please call 1 800 731-4000." This is the direct line to the Canadian Firearms Program.
Making a report of a safety concern to the Canadian Firearms Program will almost certainly result in the Chief Firearms Officer immediately revoking the license of the person about whom the report is made. This is authorized by S. 70 of the Firearms Act, "(1) A chief firearms officer may revoke a licence, an authorization to carry or an authorization to transport for any good and sufficient reason including, without limiting the generality of the foregoing..." (emphasis added)
The point here is that we have had a law much like California since 1998.
That's certainly interesting even to a licence holder which I am. I wonder how many others even know those provisions exist, how many (or few) Canadians avail themselves of these protections and how well (or poorly) the Chief Firearms Officer responds. It does seem that the CFO has to be able to demonstrate "good cause", at least in the case of a licensed individual who has firearms. Those merely applying for a licence are, and can be, treated differently.
I wonder how many others even know those provisions exist, how many (or few) Canadians avail themselves of these protections and how well (or poorly) the Chief Firearms Officer responds.
Good question. I suspect it's a double-edged sword, because it's not as though certain parties don't sometimes have a vested interest in demonizing their opponents. For instance, knowing that you're a license holder, if I was an utterly unscrupulous person, I could make a complaint about yourself, and I suspect that since we in Canada are generally a nation of hoplophobes, the police would arrive in relatively short order. Then again, when someone is a creddible threat, that kind of intervention is justfied.
Since our existing culture can be used as a weapon against the politically incorrect, it would seem appropriate to me that knowledge of the CFP's contact information be widely publicized, but not widely available, lest legitimate authority be caught up in the persecution of the innocent. Or temporarily non-criminal by virtue of government dispensation.
It does seem that the CFO has to be able to demonstrate "good cause", at least in the case of a licensed individual who has firearms.
True. My remarks were intended to suggest that the initial seizure could be accomplished quickly, and I imagine that some manner of legal proceeding would follow after a complaint and seizure. As for CFO's, it varries by province. In Ontario, the CFO seems to enjoy persecuting firearms owners with a near religious zeal.
From what I understand, the CFO has become seriously underfunded and understaffed thanks to the current gun lobby/federal government. I wonder what sort of rapid response section they have for acting on complaints?
From what I understand, the CFO has become seriously underfunded and understaffed thanks to the current gun lobby/federal government.
That could be true of the Federally appointed CFO's. Do you have a source for that, or is it hearsay at this point? In Ontario at least, the CFO makes more work for himself by compelling people applying for ATT's, and license renewals to submit proof of range membership, thus causing delays and extra paperwork for his own office.
I wonder what sort of rapid response section they have for acting on complaints?
I honestly don't know, but whatever the case may be, I'm grateful that I've never been on the recieving end. What I do know is that the "inspections" are a very hostile and adversarial process. CBSA and the agents of the CFO seem to have a fetish for magazine capacity.
Where does the idea come from that the Canadian "gun lobby" is especially large or powerful? It's certainly true that the National Firearms Association and the Canadian Shooting Sports Association have been more successful with this government than others. However, that success has still been extremely limited. In fact, I'm reasonably sure that the NFA is going to condemn C-42, what the government is calling the "Common Sense Firearms Licensing Act" as insufficient, and I'm inclined to agree. C-42 really doesn't do very much - not so that you'd really know if you read the comments on the CBC. Based on that, you'd think rural Canada turned into some manner of warzone where everybody has crew-serviced weapons in their backyards the moment that the government killed the long-gun registry.
So, where does this idea come from? I think it's not grounded in reality.
"Since our existing culture can be used as a weapon against the politically incorrect"--
Indeed it can. Who do I apply to to get a dangerous culture taken away from Canadians?
Post a Comment