Canada bans 1,500 types of assault firearms YES!

[bpm57]

Despite your verbal diarrhea, you accidentally hit on something there. Yes, society is beginning to hold legal gun owners responsible for gun carnage which speaks to my earlier point about y'all avoiding your responsibility.

Amazing how it doesn't seem to apply to anything else.

 

[Steam Flyer]

Provide a cite.

Maybe you missed it, there was no process.

It was a decree from the throne.

...    ...

I am amazed at your grasp of the Canadian constitution.  There is no law allowing access to firearms.  There are laws allowing the ability to provide for oneself and one's family.  This over-rides the law on hunting.  Without a law on the provision of firearms, there is no reason to take it to parliament.  Do you get a say in regulations given by the state on the type of personal protective equipment for a jobsite?  Not within statutory law. Same thing.  Actual equipment goes down at least one level.  In the Canadian system, process has been followed.  Not from a US perspective mind you. Different culture.

I'm not sure Beepers57 understands that Canada is a different country.

- DSK

 

[Ishmael]

I'm not sure Beepers57 understands that Canada is a different country.

- DSK

Hell, we're on a different planet entirely from his.

 

[Ease the sheet.]

I'm not sure Beepers57 understands that Canada is a different country.

- DSK

Being a different country is a thing.

No doubt bpm doesn't understand it.

 

[dfw_sailor]

Maybe you missed it, there was no process.

It was a decree from the throne

I think you are missing a fundamental difference regarding  democratic checks and balances between the US constitution / election process and a parliamentary system. 

In the US, the parties pick their own presidential candidates,  and the electoral college,  voted in by the population,  then vote for the party,  and that party's prior presidential candidate choice becomes Potus.

It is a fixed 4 year term.  There can be no change of president until end of term (except for death,  resignation,  impeachment e.t.c).

Supply bills either pass or fail.  If necessary the government will shut down,  absent funding.  

In this way the Potus is basically ruler for 4 years. The only restraint is by federal court,  and its determination of the constitution. 

A parliamentary system is very different.  The parties elect their own leader.  Voters vote for the party they want (btw first past the post vs preferential voting doesn't have an impact on procedural checks and balances).

In a majority win,  the winning party federal politicians elect from themselves the new prime minister.

Those federal politicians from the winning party can at almost anytime decide they hate the current prime minister, and elect someone else from their group instead. This is not always good... Australia had made an artform of partys removing prime ministers during their term.... but it is an important check.  If you get an idiot prime minister. The pm will get chucked mid term because the other politicians in his party don't want to lose the next election. 

It's a little different in a minority situation, but the end result is the same.

Above the prime minister is the governor general. Largely ceremonial,  is a government appointee but usually mostly apolitical, a citizen of outstanding character and public works. 

Arguably the most important power of the governor general is the ability to temporarily appoint a different (minority) party while a new election is run...... in the case where the current government cannot get supply bills passed. So in this system it is basically impossible to have a government shutdown due to no money. 

Because of this,  the prime minister of the day is highly sensitive to immediate voter sentiment, not just 3 years in the future.  If the prime minister makes a crazy call,  he/she won't stay in power for more than a month or two, before being voted out at party level and the new policy reversed.

A noted above a minority government is a little different. You have to maintain support from the other coalition parties (which in canadas case are for gun regulation).

I suggest your claim of ruling from the throne is far more applicable to the US than Canada.

I think the fundamental challenge for you is the majority of voters in Canada are for the changes. If they weren't Trudeau wouldn't survive his decision and therefore would not have made policy. 

Imo these checks and balances generally result in a much more attuned and electorate responsive government,  but at the potential cost of leadership instability. 

Apologies to canadians if I got something not quite right. 

Aussie expat in Dallas TX.

 

[Ishmael]

I think you are missing a fundamental difference regarding  democratic checks and balances between the US constitution / election process and a parliamentary system. 

In the US, the parties pick their own presidential candidates,  and the electoral college,  voted in by the population,  then vote for the party,  and that party's prior presidential candidate choice becomes Potus.

It is a fixed 4 year term.  There can be no change of president until end of term (except for death,  resignation,  impeachment e.t.c).

Supply bills either pass or fail.  If necessary the government will shut down,  absent funding.  

In this way the Potus is basically ruler for 4 years. The only restraint is by federal court,  and its determination of the constitution. 

A parliamentary system is very different.  The parties elect their own leader.  Voters vote for the party they want (btw first past the post vs preferential voting doesn't have an impact on procedural checks and balances).

In a majority win,  the winning party federal politicians elect from themselves the new prime minister.

Those federal politicians from the winning party can at almost anytime decide they hate the current prime minister, and elect someone else from their group instead. This is not always good... Australia had made an artform of partys removing prime ministers during their term.... but it is an important check.  If you get an idiot prime minister. The pm will get chucked mid term because the other politicians in his party don't want to lose the next election. 

It's a little different in a minority situation, but the end result is the same.

Above the prime minister is the governor general. Largely ceremonial,  is a government appointee but usually mostly apolitical, a citizen of outstanding character and public works. 

Arguably the most important power of the governor general is the ability to temporarily appoint a different (minority) party while a new election is run...... in the case where the current government cannot get supply bills passed. So in this system it is basically impossible to have a government shutdown due to no money. 

Because of this,  the prime minister of the day is highly sensitive to immediate voter sentiment, not just 3 years in the future.  If the prime minister makes a crazy call,  he/she won't stay in power for more than a month or two, before being voted out at party level and the new policy reversed.

A noted above a minority government is a little different. You have to maintain support from the other coalition parties (which in canadas case are for gun regulation).

I suggest your claim of ruling from the throne is far more applicable to the US than Canada.

I think the fundamental challenge for you is the majority of voters in Canada are for the changes. If they weren't Trudeau wouldn't survive his decision and therefore would not have made policy. 

Imo these checks and balances generally result in a much more attuned and electorate responsive government,  but at the potential cost of leadership instability. 

Apologies to canadians if I got something not quite right. 

Aussie expat in Dallas TX.

The only fundamental thing I would correct is that in Canada, the PM is the leader of the party which gets the most votes and is known beforehand. The party can, at any time, select a different leader and then he would be the PM. It is not necessary for the PM to have been elected to a seat, but it's considered good form. There is always someone who will step aside in a safe riding so that's a non-problem.

 

[frenchie]

I'm not lecturing them on firearm regs, Reichista Olliver - I'm talking to them about basic democracy and fairness.  There is a difference.  

Provide a cite.

Maybe you missed it, there was no process.

It was a decree from the throne.

They followed the mechanism as laid out in Canada's Criminal Code.  That's been the mechanism, since... forever. 

I didn't see you guys bitching when the Conservatives got rid of the Long Gun Registry... guess what?  Same process.

Cite?  Canada's Criminal Code:

RSC, 1985, c. C-46

PART III

Firearms and Other Weapons

Interpretation

Definitions

84 (1) In this Part,

(...)

prescribed means prescribed by the regulations  (Version anglaise seulement)

(...)

prohibited firearm means

(a) a handgun that

(i) has a barrel equal to or less than 105 mm in length, or

(ii) is designed or adapted to discharge a 25 or 32 calibre cartridge, but does not include any such handgun that is prescribed, where the handgun is for use in international sporting competitions governed by the rules of the International Shooting Union,

(b) a firearm that is adapted from a rifle or shotgun, whether by sawing, cutting or any other alteration, and that, as so adapted,

(i) is less than 660 mm in length, or

(ii) is 660 mm or greater in length and has a barrel less than 457 mm in length,

(c) an automatic firearm, whether or not it has been altered to discharge only one projectile with one pressure of the trigger, or

(d) any firearm that is prescribed to be a prohibited firearm; (arme à feu prohibée)

https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-46/page-20.html#docCont

117.15 

(1) Subject to subsection (2), the Governor in Council may make regulations prescribing anything that by this Part is to be or may be prescribed.

(2) In making regulations, the Governor in Council may not prescribe any thing to be a prohibited firearm, a restricted firearm, a prohibited weapon, a restricted weapon, a prohibited device or prohibited ammunition if, in the opinion of the Governor in Council, the thing to be prescribed is reasonable for use in Canada for hunting or sporting purposes.

https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-46/page-29.html#docCont

It's not from Trudeau; it's not even from his Dad.  It's how that section of the Criminal Code's been written since... I dunno, exactly, but a long-ass time. 

Even the old 1953 version, which is structured quite differently (and doesn't allow handguns at all, by the way), has words to the same effect:

(e) "prohibited weapon" means

(i) any device or contrivance de- signed or intended to muffle or stop the sound or report of a firearm,

(ii) any knife that has a blade that opens automatically by gravity or centrifugal force or by hand pressure applied to a button, spring or other device in or attached to the handle of the knife, or

(iii) a weapon of any kind, not being a restricted weapon or a shotgun or rifle of a kind commonly used in Canada for hunting or sporting purposes, that is declared by order of the Governor in Council to be a prohibited weapon

(...)

(g) "restricted weapon" means

(i) any firearm designed, altered or intended to be aimed and fired by the action of one hand,

(ii) any firearm that is capable of firing bullets in rapid succession during one pressure of the trigger,

(iii) any firearm that is less than twenty-six inches in length or that is designed or adapted to be fired when reduced to a length of less than twenty-six inches by folding, telescoping or otherwise, or

(iv) a weapon of any kind, not being a shotgun or rifle of a kind commonly used in Canada for hunting or sporting purposes, that is declared by order of the Governor in Council to be a restricted weapon.

https://archive.org/details/actsofparl196869v0102cana/page/852/mode/2up

You guys are freaking out about Canadians doing things the way they do things in Canada. 

Pro-tip:  it's a different system. 

They don't have as many "safeguards" against "tyranny", because they don't grant the government tyrannical power in the first place.  It's not like here.  Governments can be recalled at the drop of a hat.  That's why they never have shut-downs, and are so bemused when we have one.

edit: I spent too long on that... got beat to the punch by dfw.

 

[Laker]

Both DFW and Frenchie have said it better than I have.  The important thing is that "they don't grant the government tyrannical power in the first place." It is a large difference and why I prefer constitutional monarchies for good governance.  It is difficult for me to live with the head of state and the head of government as the same person.  This does lead to tyranny. The US is living it at the moment.

 

[Ishmael]

Both DFW and Frenchie have said it better than I have.  The important thing is that "they don't grant the government tyrannical power in the first place." It is a large difference and why I prefer constitutional monarchies for good governance.  It is difficult for me to live with the head of state and the head of government as the same person.  This does lead to tyranny. The US is living it at the moment.

Closer to Idiocracy than Tyranny at the moment, but they are trying. Thankfully, they are largely incompetent so it's taking longer than expected. Unfortuntely, the US public is dumber than expected.

 

[Ease the sheet.]

Both DFW and Frenchie have said it better than I have.  The important thing is that "they don't grant the government tyrannical power in the first place." It is a large difference and why I prefer constitutional monarchies for good governance.  It is difficult for me to live with the head of state and the head of government as the same person.  This does lead to tyranny. The US is living it at the moment.

Closer to Idiocracy than Tyranny at the moment, but they are trying. Thankfully, they are largely incompetent so it's taking longer than expected. Unfortuntely, the US public is dumber than expected.

Don't confuse a system of government with its corrupt participants..

 

[Burning Man]

He did not ban firearms.  He banned specific examples, which can be done for many reasons.  This does not affect the basic law which affords the ability to hunt and provide for life. There is no inherent right in this case.  The restriction of arms "law" could be a regulation enacted at the ministerial level.  The optics would be wrong though for all the people who believe their right is for unrestricted use.  The rights, laws and processes are being followed.

BS!  Then why didn't it go before parliament to be enacted?  I wasn't aware that the PM was a King that ruled by decree.  

 

[Ease the sheet.]

BS!  Then why didn't it go before parliament to be enacted?  I wasn't aware that the PM was a King that ruled by decree.  

Because it's regulation not legislation?

You do know the difference, don't you?

Maybe your new screen name could have an intellectual reference to it? "Dumbass" sounds appropriate.

 

[frenchie]

BS!  Then why didn't it go before parliament to be enacted?  I wasn't aware that the PM was a King that ruled by decree.  

Dude.  See my post up-thread. 

The LAW passed by Parliament in 1985 SAYS that an Order by the Governor in Council is HOW THIS WORKS. 

It didn't go before parliament because THAT"S NOT HOW THEIR GUN LAW WORKS. 

It's nothing new; the law before this one, passed in 1953, didn't work that way, either.  That law ALSO worked this way.  

 

[Rok Dog]

We already have an existing tight licensing and transportation system for firearms in Canada.

So those don’t work?

 

[Pertinacious Tom]

Tom, the second word is 'off'.

You may choose your own first word.

Is this your normal response when asked what issues museum collections caused? Does the mere appearance of a semiauto firearm cause murders?

Hah! No, his previous response was to make up the notion that the collectors would not sell their guns overseas, despite the article under discussion saying that's exactly what they intended to do. He seems pretty sure that whatever he makes up must be right, then doesn't wish to talk to me when I prove it wrong. Happened in the asset forfeiture thread too. When an ignoramus who doesn't read what we're discussing and makes stuff up gets irritated with me for reading and proving him wrong again, I'm pretty sure I am on the right track.

 

[Steam Flyer]

BS!  Then why didn't it go before parliament to be enacted?  I wasn't aware that the PM was a King that ruled by decree.  

I wasn't aware the other countries had to meet your approval in their governing practices

- DSK

 

[bpm57]

I wasn't aware the other countries had to meet your approval in their governing practices

Funny how you don't seem to have that issue in threads where all of the Aussie, NZ, canada, uk, etc experts weigh in on everything the US is doing wrong. Especially on the firearm topic.

 

[Steam Flyer]

I wasn't aware the other countries had to meet your approval in their governing practices

Funny how you don't seem to have that issue in threads where all of the Aussie, NZ, canada, uk, etc experts weigh in on everything the US is doing wrong. Especially on the firearm topic.

That's cuz you don't look. It's true that I don't lead the pack in telling furriners to fuck off and die, but for the most part very few of them try to demand that we follow -their- laws.

- DSK

 

[Laker]

BS!  Then why didn't it go before parliament to be enacted?  I wasn't aware that the PM was a King that ruled by decree.  

Because it did not need to be, either by law or culture. It was not the PM that determined this.  He alone does not hold the power to do so.  He can lead the issue, but it is the Counsel that does so.  This means other people are involved.

 

[Laker]

Don't confuse a system of government with its corrupt participants..

We can go into a discussion of moral hazard, the requirement of gentlemanly behaviour and the role of equity in governance, all of which are not handled well by a republic, especially one that has been reduced to only two participants in government due to the solidarity of the polarization.  The checks and balances are not effectively in place.