- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
When it comes to Canada’s often tense debate around gun laws, most Canadians likely will not have heard of an RCMP database called the Firearms Reference Table, or FRT.
The FRT is a database used by the RCMP to help classify firearms. That classification determines whether a gun is non-restricted, restricted or prohibited.
Technically, the FRT isn’t a legal instrument, but instead just an internal RCMP tool based on definitions set out in the Criminal Code and Firearms Act. But in practice?
“It’s both the law and not the law,” said A.J. Somerset, the author of Arms: The Culture and Credo of the Gun.
You must log in or # to comment.
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? Or is this more gun nut, trying not to sound like a gun nut, bullshit?
Last time I checked, the charter provides you with no guarantees to buy AR-15 mock military rifles that you don’t need for hunting.
“There’s nothing we can do. What sucks is that [the R9 MK1] was kind of the last hope for [pistol-calibre carbine shooting] in Canada.”
Yeah, cause pistol-calibre carbine shooting it not for hunting deer, it’s for killing as many human beings as possible as quickly as possible. It’s a fucking joke that gun nuts think anyone should give one rats ass about this. Because, let’s be clear, the problem here is not with banning this gun, and not with the RCMP being the agency banning this gun, the only problem is that manufacturers are allowed to start manufacturing and selling new guns without oversight or regulation:
“The problem of manufacturers introducing new models to the market based on their own interpretations is at the root of this kind of problematic situation, where the RCMP has to play catch-up after the models start being sold to Canadians,” reads a release attributed to PolySeSouvient, sent to CBC News.
The group said there were many examples of industry misclassifications, including labelling prohibited guns as legal.
“Which is a huge public safety concern in addition to the inconvenience this causes those who purchased them,” the group said. "The Liberals have repeatedly promised to change the process so that the RCMP vets and classifies new models before they hit the Canadian market.
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 swear there was a short video discussing it, I can’t seem to find it anymore. If I see it I’ll link it.
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.
So, you basically think that when Canadians broadly elected Trudeau on a platform of reigning in gun crime and banning assault style firearms, they were mistaken in their choice?
You’re nitpicking a procedural issue, not grossly violating a charter right.
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.
“You know it’s bad when a conservative idiot panders to his base?”
“You know it’s bad when Canada Post doesn’t want to take on the responsibility of collecting and storing mass amounts of firearms, something they’ve never done before, have no training or expertise in doing, and would make them obvious targets for violent criminals?”
LMFAO. What the fuck are you talking about?
Yeah, cause pistol-calibre carbine shooting it not for hunting deer, it’s for killing as many human beings as possible as quickly as possible
You forget about sports shooters and that the International Practial Shooting Confederation exists, which rely on these firearms being accessible to practice and participate.
No, I didn’t. I explicitly asked why anyone should give two shits about gun nuts participating in fake sports. Buy a big buck machine, or take up darts, they’re cheaper and more fun.
So, you basically think that when Canadians broadly elected Trudeau on a platform of reigning in gun crime and banning assault style firearms, they were mistaken in their choice?
Trudeau never reigned in gun crime which ruined his credibility, he had 10 whole years to accomplish that task, the statistics are public knowledge.
- In Toronto, Canada’s largest census metropolitan area (CMA), the proportion of violent crimes that were firearm-related (4.7%) was the second-highest among CMAs. Its rate of firearm-related violent crime (43.2 incidents per 100,000 population) rose 36% from 2021 and 93% since a low in 2013.
- Canada’s other two largest CMAs also saw their rate of firearm-related violent crime increase in 2022. In Montréal, the rate (28.0 incidents per 100,000 population) increased slightly (+0.4%) from 2021, following a 12% increase from 2020 to 2021. In Vancouver, the rate (23.6 incidents per 100,000 population) increased 24% from 2021.
No, I didn’t. I explicitly asked why anyone should give two shits about gun nuts participating in fake sports. Buy a big buck machine, or take up darts, they’re cheaper and more fun.
You call people who own firearms gun nuts but it’s a hobby just like any other, it’s like if I called people who like to knit sewing-freaks.
Frankly quite insulting and unnecessary.
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.
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.
Out of curiosity, in a perfect world and existing regulations excepted, what sort of firearm regulations would you like to see in Canada?
I just love that picture of the gun-control advocates that typifies the “scary black rifle” bullshit that they use all the time.
Legal firearms and licensed firearm owners are not the problem in Canada and never have been; smuggling weapons out of the US to known criminals is where the issue lies, and where the violence comes from. But hunters, collectors and competitors get to pay the price for these groups to keep the gravy train going that keeps them employed. If they ever managed to get all firearms banned, they’d have a very bad day.
Fun fact: this is all political theater
Indeed.
People keep being surprised by Liberal corruption, how often do you need to see the same story play out before you change your vote?
Legal firearms and licensed firearm owners are not the problem in Canada and never have been; smuggling weapons out of the US to known criminals is where the issue lies, and where the violence comes from.
What causes you to believe that Legal Firearms are never used by a Licensed firearm owner in a problematic way?
Do you believe that 100% of illegal firearms in Canada are smuggled?
But hunters, collectors and competitors get to pay the price for these groups to keep the gravy train going that keeps them employed.
Have you considered that we do not need firearms for hunting, do not need to collect very dangerous weapons, and that firearm competitions are incredibly wasteful because of the resources needed to create firearms, bullets, targets, and the like?
If they ever managed to get all firearms banned, they’d have a very bad day.
What do you mean by this?
Never said “never”. 13% of handgun homicides and 12% of rifle/shotgun homicides were by licensed individuals for known incidents.
from https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/85-002-x/2024001/article/00001-eng.htmMaybe I mispoke about the source, but a large amount are American and a much larger amount are “unknown”. Where would you figure these come through, given who our neighbor is and their level of firearms traceability?
What do you mean by this?
Did you take it as a threat? I obviously meant they’d have to go find a job instead.
I responded to your last comment, and if you wish to continue the conversation I expect you to respond to my questions and the points in good faith without deleting and editing your posts.
deleted by creator
Never said “never” but it’s certainly not a very large amount compared to illegal weapons.
Legal firearms and licensed firearm owners are not the problem in Canada and never have been; smuggling weapons out of the US to known criminals is where the issue lies, and where the violence comes from.
I would recommend a rephrase of your argument then, because you clearly said legal weapons and owners are not the problem and never have been.
My suggestion:
“Legal firearms and licensed firearm owners make up a small percentage of violent crimes using firearms in Canada; Smuggling illegal weapons into Canada makes up a larger percentage of violent crimes using firearms, and the priority should be increased border enforcement.”
I’ve bowhunted, it’s a pain in the ass for providing food and frankly, I’m not in it for the thrill of the chase. I’m feeding myself and my family.
There are ways to feed your family without hunting. I don’t find “I am not good at bow hunting” to be a solid argument in support of firearms being necessary. This is because hunting isn’t necessary.
And if they got them banned, they’d have to actually find a productive job.
Who is they?
"“Legal firearms and licensed firearm owners make up a small percentage of violent crimes using firearms in Canada; Smuggling illegal weapons into Canada makes up a larger percentage of violent crimes using firearms, and the priority should be increased border enforcement.”
13%, i.e. 3 out of every 25 guns is not a small percentage.
A small percentage that is not worth talking about is less than 5% to fractional percentages. 13% is rather significant.
Not my argument to defend so I won’t.
13% of gun crimes in Toronto come from domestic guns that were purchased legally at one point in Canada.
So yes, you are in fact part of the fucking problem. Learn how to take some personal responsibility for your actions instead of crying victim.
The only issue here is that a gun manufacturer was allowed to sell a new gun without having it assessed by regulators first.
