Shootings and Knifings


Recommended Posts

11 minutes ago, st27 said:

Gee....a knife ban in London?? With an exemption for the kirpan, of course.

“ The bill had been amended late last year to ensure that it would not impact the right of the British Sikh community to possess and supply kirpans, or religious swords.”

https://www.business-standard.com/article/pti-stories/uk-gets-new-weapons-act-secures-sikh-right-to-carry-kirpans-119051800525_1.html

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 1.3k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Back to carding and minimum 5 years in jail if caught with a gun! 

Am I missing something ? The baggage retrieval area in most airports can be accessed by anyone in the general public, especially in the US. So anyone in the general public could have walked in, and in

Magic 94.9 Web Poll Do you think banning handguns in Canada would curb gun violence? Yes     (1.23%)

Posted Images

Oh the irony........safety of Canadians  or raciaiized Canadians...which will get the most votes??

 

Liberals introduce new bill to relax penalties for drug offences

Legislation also includes measures to reduce incarceration of Indigenous, Black Canadians

But it’s not just about petty drug charges:

 

Quote

On Tuesday, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau promised to crack down on gun crime, then on Thursday his government introduced legislation to reduce sentences for serious gun crimes including weapons trafficking and importing.

The Liberals are getting rid of a series of mandatory minimum sentences even for people convicted multiple times of gun offences.

It goes completely against what Trudeau said on Tuesday.

“In some of our cities, gun crimes are on the rise. This is unacceptable,” Trudeau said using sombre tones. “No one should be afraid of being a victim of a sniper or a stray bullet. As a parent, I know full well that our greatest fear is receiving a tragic call, telling us that the worst has happened.”

Mandatory minimum sentences are being removed for a long list of offences including:

– Use of firearm in commission of offence

– Possession of restricted or prohibited weapon knowing possession is unauthorized

– Possession of loaded handgun

– Possession of weapon obtained through crime

– Weapons trafficking

– Unauthorized import/export of firearm

– Illegal discharge of a firearm with intent

– Robbery with firearm

– Extortion with firearm

They got rid of carding and now these charges can be “bartered” in front of a judge??

Smiles all around the gangs and drug crowd. ...you da man, Justin. Our home boy.

  • Sad 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

When intelligent people (JT's no dummy) say things that flat out don't make sense, you have to know it's part of a plan that proceeds from an agenda and the agenda comes from narrative. Consider Bill Blair's actions a Chief of Police and compare them to the rhetoric of today.... 

https://www.torontosun.com/opinion/columnists/goldstein-trudeau-knows-handgun-ban-wont-work-blair-knows-what-will

Edited by Wolfhunter
Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Let me take back my compliment over the Liberal gun bill

 

  • Calgary Sun
  • 21 Feb 2021
  • LORNE GUNTER lgunter@postmedia.com @sunlornegunter
img?regionKey=E6jyFwo85HStT4wXwqjdJw%3d%3d  

No, I'm not making this up. In the gun control legislation the federal Liberals introduced Thursday, they are seeking to outlaw airsofts and pellet guns.

What's next, making it illegal to cock your thumb and point your index finger while making “pow, pow” sounds?

According to the zealous anti-gunners at Canadian Doctors for Protection from Guns, airsofts and pellet (or BB) guns are “gateway guns.”

Start with an airsoft (a compressed-air gun that fires a tiny plastic or resin ball) and soon you'll be handing over a wade of cash to some guy in a dimly lit alley for a Glock out of his trunk.

That makes about as much sense as the old argument that marijuana was a “gateway drug.” After a few puffs you'd be craving black tar heroin.

This will do nothing to curb gun crime in Canada, but it is a solid indication of just how obsessed the Liberal government is with forbidding ordinary Canadians anything that even remotely looks like a gun.

Last Tuesday, when the Liberals introduced the first part of their gun control legislation, I paid them a compliment. I am here today to take that back.

I originally wrote, “To be fair, there are some provisions in the new bill aimed at real gun criminals for once.”

On Tuesday, the Liberals claimed to be increasing prison sentences for gun trafficking, gun smuggling, possession of a loaded firearm while committing a crime and possession of a weapon obtained through a criminal act.

That made sense.

But by Thursday, when they introduced their amendments to the Criminal Code to put their new controls into law, they had removed the mandatory minimum sentences for most gun crimes.

Far from extending the sentences for trafficking, smuggling and possession of an illegal gun, the Liberals gutted the minimum sentences for those offences, as well as for use of a gun in a robbery or an extortion.

Why?

Every time the Liberals bring in more gun controls, their stated reason is always to reduce crime. But when you read their legislation, it's immediately obvious their only plan is to restrict the number of guns in the hand of law-abiding gun owners.

They never go after the gang members, smugglers and drug dealers who are the real source of gun crime.

So this time I was initially pleased that, in addition to once again picking on law-abiding owners (by making some 400,000 rifles and shotguns suddenly illegal), the Trudeau-ites were at least doing something to target gun criminals, too.

But it only took two days for the government to prove me wrong.

If they really, truly want to reduce gun crime in Canada, why would they eliminate mandatory minimum sentencing for gun crimes?

The simple answer is: The Libs have convinced themselves mandatory minimum sentences are racist.

If you check any of the Justice department material on MMSS, that's the one theme that repeats and repeats.

In public, the Liberals will claim they're against mandatory minimums because they unconstitutionally tie judges' hands – they don't allow trial judges any discretion in sentencing.

Or they'll claim mandatory minimums are ineffective. (Not true.)

But the real reason the Liberals dislike MMSS is minimums are not “woke.” The Liberals think minimums are systemically racist.

They're not. There are no mandatory minimums for first offences with gun, small minimums for second offences and only slightly longer ones for third offences and beyond.

Black and Indigenous Canadians are indeed more likely to be subjected to mandatory minimums, but not because of their race. Rather, it's because of their disproportionate involvement in gun crime.

Once again, the Liberals are opting for political correctness over public safety.

Last Tuesday, when the Liberals introduced the first part of their gun control legislation, I paid them a compliment.

I am here today to take that back

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Kargokings said:

If they really, truly want to reduce gun crime in Canada, why would they eliminate mandatory minimum sentencing for gun crimes?

“ Rights are not won, they are lost”
 

In the US..

“ You know why there’s a Second Amendment? In case the government fails to follow the first one.”

Edited by Jaydee
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Kargokings said:

I am here today to take that back

I'm quoting an author you quoted again.... relax, we all know you didn't write it.

This guy is looking for logic, he's yearning for a process, a means to an end, an incremental plan that's objective driven and subject to occasional quality assurance. If you fall into that camp, learn to deal with disappointment.

Lets turn the whole sh$# show around, stand it on it's head entirely. Propose to me a firearms rule that murderous gangbangers would actually follow. Take a moment, a deep cleansing breath.... and consider JT's nonsensical assertion....no one uses an AR15 for hunting but indigenous people can keep them for hunting purposes. Only a liberal can assert that something is both true and untrue at the same time within the same sentence.

Creating rules with the expectation that criminals will follow them is the domain of fools and liberals. Duck hunters from PEI will actually will follow the silly rules. So, if you are a complete moron and think it's PEI duck hunters shooting up the streets of Toronto, then stay the course... you're doing great.

 

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Kargokings said:

I wished I had but of course I would never have posted a compliment about the bill in the first place.  

Regarding 

Quote

Propose to me a firearms rule that murderous gangbangers would actually follow. 

The only one I can think of is one that results in their "TERMINATION".  

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Kargokings said:

The only one I can think of is one that results in their "TERMINATION".  

As I recall, that was your solution to the 80 MT (Paris Accord) carbon deficit too.

That was the only answer I have ever received to the question of  how do we achieve it BTW.

At the present rate of yearly incremental carbon increases, your idea may actually prove more effective than deicers's magic light bulb solution. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Wolfhunter said:

As I recall, that was your solution to the 80 MT (Paris Accord) carbon deficit too.

That was the only answer I have ever received to the question of  how do we achieve it BTW.

At the present rate of yearly incremental carbon increases, your idea may actually prove more effective than deicers's magic light bulb solution. 

Seems to me that there was an ancient solution to solving a problem: 

- War

- Disease

- Famine

- Death

Or as I guess all we can do is to  "Grin and Bear It" as we have no real control in the matter or indeed choice in the outcome of what politicians rule once elected.  ☹️

Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Kargokings said:

Seems to me that there was an ancient solution to solving a problem: 

- War

- Disease

- Famine

- Death

Canadians have revised this ancient solution and developed an updated model....  we call it liberalism.

They added an additional bullet to the list as well.... "all of the above."

Edited by Wolfhunter
  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Wolfhunter said:

Take a moment, a deep cleansing breath.... and consider JT's nonsensical assertion....no one uses an AR15 for hunting but indigenous people can keep them for hunting purposes. Only a liberal can assert that something is both true and untrue at the same time within the same sentence.

 

 

In the interest of fairness I don't believe he actually said Indigenous hunters could use AR15s.  I think  what he said was Indigenous hunters could continue to use whatever they were using now (as of May 2020) that had become newly prohibited (such as BCL-102, Mini-14, Mini-Thirty, M305, etc).  I think the intent was that newly prohibited firearms that were legal to hunt with before May 1st could continue to be used by Indigenous hunters not that AR-15s which were not legal to hunt with before May 1st became legal.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe you are right about the AR,  here's one of the many articles on the subject. 

https://www.aptnnews.ca/national-news/indigenous-hunters-excluded-from-ottawas-assault-weapons-ban-under-section-35/

Essentially, indigenous hunters were exempt from the ban on the 1500 (or so) variants. This applied to rifles which were previously non-restricted prior to the ban. I'm not an AR guy (don't have much use for them) but I believe they were restricted prior to the ban being implemented although some articles still suggested they were covered by the exemption.  

In any case, I recall him in  one of the scrums defending the the new OIC by asserting that no one uses the newly banned weapons for hunting..... immediately following up with the indigenous exemption for hunting.

Edited by Wolfhunter
Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, Wolfhunter said:

In any case, I recall him in  one of the scrums defending the the new OIC by asserting that no one uses the newly banned weapons for hunting..... immediately following up with the indigenous exemption for hunting.

Yes, you're right.  You must follow along very closely to make any sense out the words he strings together.

Regarding the AR15 - you've missed out - as a tool for making little holes in paper from long distances, there's nothing better.  Nobody used the AR15 for hunting (in Canada) because they were forbidden - the AR15 is used quite successfully for hunting in the USA.

Think of the logic there;  first ban them from hunting and then after a few years ban them alltogether because "nobody uses them for hunting anyway."  Yeah, nobody uses them for hunting because you said they couldn't, not because there's any reason not to use them.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Canadian police chiefs won't back handgun ban, say it wouldn't stop flow of guns into the country 

'The firearms laws in Canada are actually very good right now. They're very strict,' said Vancouver police chief Adam Palmer


 

CALGARY — The Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police won’t be supporting a call for a ban on handguns despite concerns about gun violence in a number of major cities including Toronto.

Vancouver police chief Adam Palmer, who heads the organization, says Canada already has strong firearms regulations and no other law is required.

Toronto Mayor John Tory is asking the federal government for a handgun ban and Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has said he will consider additional gun-control measures.

There were 14 separate shootings recorded in Toronto over the August long weekend alone.

Palmer says in the majority of cases involving gun violence, the handguns being used are already illegal and it makes no sense to ban something that is already prohibited.

“In every single case there are already offences for that. They’re already breaking the law and the criminal law in Canada addresses all of those circumstances,” Palmer said Wednesday at the conclusion of the association’s annual conference.

The firearms laws in Canada are actually very good right now. They’re very strict.”

The prime minister has highlighted recently passed gun-control legislation that extends the scope of background checks and strengthens record-keeping requirements for gun retailers.

 

buyback.jpg?quality=90&strip=all&w=288 Toronto Police Insp. Chris Boddy addresses media following a Gun Buyback Program, during a press conference at police headquarters in Toronto, Ont., on Thursday June 20, 2019. PHOTO BY ERNEST DOROSZUK/TORONTO SUN/POSTMEDIA

Earlier this week, he said Canadians will learn more about Liberal plans for gun control during the upcoming campaign.

“I very much look forward to the election campaign in which we will be able to share with Canadians our vision for how to keep Canadians safer,” Trudeau said.

“That involves, yes, strengthening gun control but it also involves investments that … are so deeply needed in community infrastructure.”

Palmer suggested that handguns would still be around, even with a ban, because of Canada’s proximity to the United States.

“People can’t be naive to the realities of how it works with organized crime and smuggling,” he said.

“There will always be an influx of guns from the United States into Canada,” said Palmer. “Heroin is illegal in Canada, too, but we have heroin in Canada.

The association also discussed harassment and bullying in the workplace and the importance of making sure there are mental-health supports for those in policing.

“We have had suicides in Canada. I’ve had an officer die by suicide in my own department this year. It’s a very terrible thing to go through for the police service and there have been other services that have gone through this across Canada as well.

“They’re dealing with sexual assaults and child abuse, car chases, people with guns, people who have been shot and stabbed, exposure to blood and people spitting on them, swearing at them, assaulting them and they come back the next day and do it all over again.

https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/naive-police-chiefs-say-handgun-ban-wont-stop-flow-of-weapons-into-canada

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/16/2021 at 9:58 PM, st27 said:

Fwiw.....listening to talk radio today....the view by a pro gun lobbyist was that if the municipality passed a bylaw affecting handgun possession/storage, it would be approved by the provincial CFO, and attract penalties under the criminal code. So, under this bill, a contravention of municipal bylaw would result in a federal criminal charge and criminal penalty.

 

the situation you describe here is akin to creating a Criminal law without due process.  That would never pass the smell test and get tossed out in short order.  In order to be charged as a criminal you would need to contravene the Criminal code which this would not.  you would simply be fined for the transgression and sent on your way.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, boestar said:

the situation you describe here is akin to creating a Criminal law without due process.  That would never pass the smell test and get tossed out in short order.  In order to be charged as a criminal you would need to contravene the Criminal code which this would not.  you would simply be fined for the transgression and sent on your way.

That has been discussed at some length in other circles (not here). I don't know the answer but your point is valid and sufficiently obvious that I have trouble believing it wasn't accounted for. 

Can federal law (with criminal code penalties) be delegated to municipalities and applied at the discretion of the municipality even though it doesn't apply elsewhere. I would offer up DND trespass regulations and the QR&Os (disciplinary) as a examples of different laws applicable to "different people" right down the street and right next door.

Maybe a bad example, I don't know but striking superiors would just be common assault if not for a different set of rules. Way beyond my pay grade though... perhaps a legal mind might have mercy on us.

Edited by Wolfhunter
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Wolfhunter said:

That has been discussed at some length in other circles (not here). I don't know the answer but your point is valid and sufficiently obvious that I have trouble believing it wasn't accounted for. 

Can federal law (with criminal code penalties) be delegated to municipalities and applied at the discretion of the municipality even though it doesn't apply elsewhere. I would offer up DND trespass regulations and the QR&Os (disciplinary) as a examples of different laws applicable to "different people" right down the street and right next door.

Maybe a bad example, I don't know but striking superiors would just be common assault if not for a different set of rules. Way beyond my pay grade though... perhaps a legal mind might take mercy on us.

No.  in order to be charged for a crime under the criminal code you have to violate the criminal code.  in this instance if you have done your due dillignece and filed for a Transport permit and had it approved and are abiding by its conditions then there is no way you can be charged under the code.  That would require an amendment to the code which would need to go through due process.

If you could pass a bylaw that allowed you to criminally charge someone then that process would be running rampant in every municipality because a bylaw just needs a bunch of local yokels to vote yes on it in a  council meeting.  This violates all kinds of constitutional laws.

This is the most ill advised idea I have ever heard of.  Go to a local council meeting and ask the chads and karens  questions about guns and gun laws and then form an opinion as to whether they have the mental capacity to manage something more serious than the illegal dumping on farmer bobs property.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, boestar said:

No.  in order to be charged for a crime under the criminal code you have to violate the criminal code.  in this instance if you have done your due dillignece and filed for a Transport permit and had it approved and are abiding by its conditions then there is no way you can be charged under the code.  That would require an amendment to the code which would need to go through due process.

I'm rooting for you here...

Provincial firearms restrictions can be more restrictive than federal firearm laws but are still governing and enforceable. As I understand it, that's because provincial law can apply as long as it's more restrictive than the federal version it replaces.

In some cases (for instance) transport rules vary a bit and non-restricted weapons need to be locked in transport. Under federal law (I think) they don't have to be. I'm simply not smart enough to remember it all... I take the most restrictive rule and add another lock, metal case, or what ever. The reason I don't know all the rules is because I exceed the minimum requirements by huge margins as a matter of SOP. 

The Highway Traffic Act is provincial but still contains indictable offences (like impaired and dangerous driving). The legal alcohol limit may vary from province to province though. 

Edited by Wolfhunter
Link to post
Share on other sites

Certain offences under the HTA actually are supported under the criminal code. Dangerous driving for one is a criminal offence and not an HTA offence although it is referenced.  Provincial LAWS may be more restrictive than federal laws I agree however those provincial LAWS have to go through due process to become LAW.  Municipal BYLAWS do not have the same process or scrutiny. (this is why, in my home town, I am not allowed to back into OR out of my driveway) a Bylaw simply cannot impose anything greater than a fine as punishment. It also cannot be considered a "Crime" under the criminal code.  If we were to allow that to happen then we set a dangerous precedent which would allow for criminal charges for parking violations as an example.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, boestar said:

(this is why, in my home town, I am not allowed to back into OR out of my driveway)

My goodness, talk about a dangerous precedent.

I could never live in such a place, hats off to you... far greater tolerance than I could ever muster. I need a minimum of 5 acres, septic system, drilled well, wood stove and a generator pony panel hook up. I want to be able to back my car on my own land anywhere I want to anytime I want to. 

If you can't back in (to drive out) and you can't drive in (to back out) what do y'all do? Is hover taxi an option there? 

I'm surprised people put up with such things. I'm always amazed by some of the stories in the US about home owner associations and the arbitrary power they project.... it's a form of oppression IMO.

Edited by Wolfhunter
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.