Excellent.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/vote-to-kill-gun-registry-passes/article1351328/
QuoteBill Curry
Ottawa — Globe and Mail
Published on Wednesday, Nov. 04, 2009 6:08PM EST
Last updated on Wednesday, Nov. 04, 2009 7:58PM EST
The House of Commons dealt a major blow to the federal long-gun registry Wednesday night as 20 Liberal and NDP MPs broke ranks with their leaders to endorse a Conservative bill that would bring the program to an end.
The vote exposed clear splits among Liberals and New Democrats along rural and urban lines, as the 12 NDP MPs and eight Liberals who voted with the Conservatives were primarily from rural ridings.
Many of them had been the target of an aggressive Conservative lobbying campaign which flooded their ridings with anti-registry pamphlets from Tory MPs, as well as Conservative party radio ads.
"I was just blown away by the support we got," said Conservative MP Garry Breitkreuz, who led the battle against the registry in opposition. He helped write the private members bill that won approval Wednesday night to be studied by a committee. "I'm relieved after 15 years, finally we get some action on one of the biggest boondoggles in Canadian history."
Both Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff and NDP Leader Jack Layton allowed their MPs a free vote, even though both leaders officially support the registry.
Following the vote, the two parties were sharply criticized by Wendy Cukier, the President of the Coalition for Gun Control, who was in the House of Commons for the vote.
"It's appalling," she told reporters Wednesday evening. "It wasn't even close. You had urban MPs not stand up for gun control. ... Many Canadians are going to wake up [Thursday], I predict, and will be absolutely horrified."
Conservatives widely expected the vote would be very close. They were clearly surprised by the size of the 164 to 137 win.
Earlier in the day, Mr. Ignatieff said he supported decriminalizing the federal long gun registry.
In the highly polarized debate that has raged in Ottawa for years, Mr. Ignatieff said his party is working on a proposal that aims to find a middle ground.
The notion of decriminalizing the registry would be a response to one of the main criticisms of the registry's critics: that law-abiding hunters could, in theory, become criminals for failing to properly fill out the registry's paperwork.
Neither Mr. Ignatieff nor his staff would not offer further details, but past advocates of decriminalizing the registry have suggested the criminal provisions could be replaced with non-criminal fines.
"It's not the end of the registry tonight," said Mr. Ignatieff Wednesday, dismissing the vote as "mischief" on the part of the Conservatives. "The fundamental issue is to make sure that we get a system of gun control which works both for rural Canada and for urban Canada."
Wednesday's close vote was triggered by a private members' bill from backbench Conservative MP Candice Hoepnner, who took up measures proposed earlier by Mr. Breitkreuz. The bill is essentially the same as a Conservative government bill that was introduced in the Senate but never moved for debate.
If further debate on Ms. Hoepnner's bill moves quickly, the Conservatives' efforts to scrap the long gun registry could succeed before Parliament's summer recess in June. The bill's future will also depend on whether Prime Minister Stephen Harper fills upcoming vacancies in the Senate so that the Conservatives outnumber the opposition in 2010.
The Conservative bill, if passed, would completely eliminate the requirement to register hunting rifles but would maintain the registry for prohibited or restricted weapons such as hand guns.
Many rural opposition MPs bristled in recent weeks at the attacks they received from Conservatives in their ridings, but still voted for the Tory bill.
One Conservative flyer mailed in to the Timmins-James Bay riding held by Charlie Angus pictured Mr. Ignatieff, Mr. Layton and Bloc Québécois leader Gilles Duceppe above a heading in all capital letters stating: "Attacking farmers and hunters."
Mr. Angus has long been critical of the registry and was among the 12 NDP MPs who sided with the Conservatives Wednesday.
"Every day people bring [the flyers] into my office and say 'Tell these guys to stop using our taxpayers dollars' to lie to us," said Mr. Angus.
Critics of the system have long said the second step of registering a hunting rifle is a waste of time and money given that hunters are already required to obtain a hunting license.
Police organizations are split on the issue, with some insisting the registry remains a key database to help police while others say the money would be better spent on cops.
Toronto Police Chief William Blair, the President of the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, wrote in The Globe and Mail this week that the Tory bill would force the destruction of more than eight million firearms records.
Why is that "excellent"?
American/Hick Canadian Gun Fetishism. It's rampant.
What do you all think are the odds Tim's fired a gun before? 20%? Tim, don't answer yet.
less than
Going with 100% for airsoft/paintball, ~15% for real.
Excellent news BTW - I've never seen the long gun registry solve a single crime.
Odds of Timmay firing a gun :lol:
Quote from: katmai on November 05, 2009, 01:25:13 AM
Odds of Timmay firing a gun :lol:
My application to the Marine Corp was turned down due to childhood asthma (which had since gone away), so no.
Quote from: Barrister on November 05, 2009, 12:54:51 AM
Excellent news BTW - I've never seen the long gun registry solve a single crime.
Police are split and I imagine, so are Crown Prosecutors.
the real problem with the original bill was the database boondoggle it led to. If registration was simple and the execution had not been ... a billion dollar overrun, I don't think this would have had much of a political life. Instead it became a symbol of Ottawa waste.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 05, 2009, 03:52:08 AM
My application to the Marine Corp was turned down due to childhood asthma (which had since gone away), so no.
FUN FACT: You do not need to be in the armed forces to fire guns! :cool:
Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 04, 2009, 10:23:20 PM
Excellent.
Douchebag. Go shoot yourself in the face with a nail gun.
It's not exactly down. It's going to be voted on again, go thru an hearing/commission & still hasn't passed the Senate yet.
Never shot a real gun, I own 3 paintball marquers, 1 is worth more then buying a real M16. Pisses me off.
Quote from: Grey Fox on November 05, 2009, 07:09:35 AM
It's not exactly down. It's going to be voted on again, go thru an hearing/commission & still hasn't passed the Senate yet.
The Senate? That's not much of an impediment.
Quote from: Barrister on November 05, 2009, 12:54:51 AM
Excellent news BTW - I've never seen the long gun registry solve a single crime.
Most killings in the US aren't done with long arms.
If we register cars I don't see why we can't register guns. It makes sense.
Quote from: Neil on November 05, 2009, 07:32:51 AM
Quote from: Grey Fox on November 05, 2009, 07:09:35 AM
It's not exactly down. It's going to be voted on again, go thru an hearing/commission & still hasn't passed the Senate yet.
The Senate? That's not much of an impediment.
Well, they're old people. They don't all read fast. Especially now that Jacques Demers is one.
Quote from: Razgovory on November 05, 2009, 07:40:27 AM
If we register cars I don't see why we can't register guns. It makes sense.
This, in the eyes of the gun lobby, is the natural progression:
* register guns
* tax guns
* continually raise the tax on guns (i.e. 'sin tax' them)
* ban guns
Quote from: Caliga on November 05, 2009, 07:52:44 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on November 05, 2009, 07:40:27 AM
If we register cars I don't see why we can't register guns. It makes sense.
This, in the eyes of the gun lobby, is the natural progression:
* register guns
* tax guns
* continually raise the tax on guns (i.e. 'sin tax' them)
* ban guns
I don't think it'd be possible to ever ban guns. Farmers need them.
Have guns ever been banned anywhere? (genuinly unsure here, I can't think of any examples)
Quote from: Tyr on November 05, 2009, 07:55:45 AM
I don't think it'd be possible to ever ban guns. Farmers need them.
Have guns ever been banned anywhere? (genuinly unsure here, I can't think of any examples)
I agree, and I think the last point is unlikely. I do see there being an obvious progression from register -> tax, however.
Oh, and in answer to your other question, IIRC it was illegal to own a handgun in DC from like 1975 to a year ago. Amazingly, the murder rate did not: decline! :o
Quote from: Caliga on November 05, 2009, 08:01:20 AM
Oh, and in answer to your other question, IIRC it was illegal to own a handgun in DC from like 1975 to a year ago. Amazingly, the murder rate did not: decline! :o
Thats a horrible example against gun control, I'm sick of it being trotted out.
Banning guns in just one city surrounded by a gun crazy nation will of course have no effect. You'd need cops searching every car coming into the city.
I was speaking more of countries there though.
Quote from: Tyr on November 05, 2009, 08:21:11 AM
Banning guns in just one city surrounded by a gun crazy nation will of course have no effect. You'd need cops searching every car coming into the city.
But that's the point, really. Why did anyone think such a ban would be effective in the first place? Same reason why gun control will never work in the US if it doesn't happen on a federal level, which it never will thanks to our non-crazy Heartland. :)
Quote from: Tyr on November 05, 2009, 08:21:11 AM
...a gun crazy nation ...
Thank the gods that disturbing fetich isn't part of the canadian psyche - even less the quebecer psyche.
I've said it before and i'll repeat it again: only the agents of the State should have weapons; the citizenry is far too irrational to be allowed with firearms.
G.
Quote from: Grallon on November 05, 2009, 08:35:42 AM
I've said it before and i'll repeat it again: only the agents of the State should have weapons; the citizenry is far too irrational to be allowed with firearms.
Whoa, Blossom, that's like the very definition of tyranny. :blink:
Quote from: Caliga on November 05, 2009, 07:57:08 AM
Quote from: Tyr on November 05, 2009, 07:55:45 AM
I don't think it'd be possible to ever ban guns. Farmers need them.
Have guns ever been banned anywhere? (genuinly unsure here, I can't think of any examples)
I agree, and I think the last point is unlikely. I do see there being an obvious progression from register -> tax, however.
Guns aren't taxed? Slippery slope arguments are stupid.
I'm talking about an annual tax, like many people pay on their cars and land.
Time for a gun buying hijack. I'm thinking of getting a Mauser 98K. Time for some sweet bolt action fun.
Quote from: Caliga on November 05, 2009, 08:49:03 AM
I'm talking about an annual tax, like many people pay on their cars and land.
Guess it could happen but that doesn't seem likely.
Can you buy an UMP in my honor? :)
Quote from: Ed Anger on November 05, 2009, 08:49:43 AM
Time for a gun buying hijack. I'm thinking of getting a Mauser 98K. Time for some sweet bolt action fun.
Go for a Lebel 1886. Then go around and lance people with German last names.
Quote from: Grallon on November 05, 2009, 08:35:42 AM
I've said it before and i'll repeat it again: only the agents of the State should have weapons; the citizenry is far too irrational to be allowed with firearms.
Whatever makes you think the agents of the state are more rational? :blink:
Quote from: Caliga on November 05, 2009, 08:38:29 AM
Whoa, Blossom, that's like the very definition of tyranny. :blink:
Well he is in Canada, not the US. ;)
Quote from: Grallon on November 05, 2009, 08:35:42 AM
Thank the gods that disturbing fetich isn't part of the canadian psyche - even less the quebecer psyche.
I've said it before and i'll repeat it again: only the agents of the State should have weapons; the citizenry is far too irrational to be allowed with firearms.
Thanks for reminding me why I like our lax gun laws in spite of lacking said fetish. :)
Quote from: Caliga on November 05, 2009, 08:38:29 AM
Quote from: Grallon on November 05, 2009, 08:35:42 AM
I've said it before and i'll repeat it again: only the agents of the State should have weapons; the citizenry is far too irrational to be allowed with firearms.
Whoa, Blossom, that's like the very definition of tyranny. :blink:
No it isn't. A tyranny is a government, particularily an oppressive one, where all the power of the state is vested in a single individual.
Moreover, the effectiveness of an armed citizenry in resisting the power of the government is seriously overrated. Even the most backwards and gun-crazy area of the United States was not able to resist federal power when the feds decided to integrate the South.
In terms of public safety, long guns are essentially a wash. There is a slight degree of danger, but they also provide some small protection from property crime. It's not like we're talking about handguns here, which are entirely negative.
Quote from: Maximus on November 05, 2009, 09:25:52 AM
Whatever makes you think the agents of the state are more rational? :blink:
La Raison d'Etat of course. :P
G.
Quote from: Maximus on November 05, 2009, 09:25:52 AM
Whatever makes you think the agents of the state are more rational? :blink:
Bitch that was going to be followup post to whatever Grals responded with. :(
My family has lots of guns. I grew up with them.
Personally, they were far too casual about them - as a kid, I very nearly did my brothers in - their own fault I might add! Parents never knew, still don't to this day.
Carl will get introduced to real guns only when he's mature enough to understand and follow proper gun safety. Still, being able to shoot is a reasonable skill to have.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on November 04, 2009, 11:34:50 PM
What do you all think are the odds Tim's fired a gun before? 20%? Tim, don't answer yet.
He's still with us, for better or for worse, so I'd say 0%.
Quote from: Razgovory on November 05, 2009, 09:17:40 AM
Quote from: Ed Anger on November 05, 2009, 08:49:43 AM
Time for a gun buying hijack. I'm thinking of getting a Mauser 98K. Time for some sweet bolt action fun.
Go for a Lebel 1886. Then go around and lance people with German last names.
Should be in good condition, only dropped once.
Quote from: Ed Anger on November 05, 2009, 10:35:58 AM
Should be in good condition, only dropped once.
Perhaps only once used - against superiors, 1917.
Quote from: Caliga on November 05, 2009, 06:50:29 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 05, 2009, 03:52:08 AM
My application to the Marine Corp was turned down due to childhood asthma (which had since gone away), so no.
FUN FACT: You do not need to be in the armed forces to fire guns! :cool:
Yeah seriously Jimmy, don't you live around Providence or something? Just get a part time job with the mob captain for your ward.
Quote from: Grallon on November 05, 2009, 08:35:42 AM
Thank the gods that disturbing fetich isn't part of the canadian psyche - even less the quebecer psyche.
You should spend some time in rural/nrothern Quebec. You'll find plenty fo Quebeckers that own guns, and were quite perturbed by the gun registry.
Quote from: saskganesh on November 05, 2009, 05:39:17 AM
the real problem with the original bill was the database boondoggle it led to. If registration was simple and the execution had not been ... a billion dollar overrun, I don't think this would have had much of a political life. Instead it became a symbol of Ottawa waste.
Not quite. It was always a silly idea, and was never going to do a whole lot to help prevent crime.
But you are correct in that if the roll-out had gone smoothly, cheaply and on-budget it would be hard to get much traction to push for its repeal. It would be a sunk cost. But since it was horribly over-budget, and it still doesn't work very well (and to this day many, if not most, long guns are unregistered), opponents were able to overcome the political inertia and (maybe) get it repealed.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 05, 2009, 02:50:06 PM
Yeah seriously Jimmy, don't you live around Providence or something? Just get a part time job with the mob captain for your ward.
Right now he might get more opportunities working with the Yakuza or the tongs.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on November 05, 2009, 03:08:04 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 05, 2009, 02:50:06 PM
Yeah seriously Jimmy, don't you live around Providence or something? Just get a part time job with the mob captain for your ward.
Right now he might get more opportunities working with the Yakuza or the tongs.
No need for a gun there. Sonny Chiba movies clearly demonstrate that one should never bring a gun to a sword fight.
Quote from: Barrister on November 05, 2009, 12:54:51 AM
Excellent news BTW - I've never seen the long gun registry solve a single crime.
Montreal police says it did.
But in Laval, apparently it didn't work.
And in Quebec city, publicly, the cops are not speaking. In private, they say they never use the thing because it's unreliable.
Ah, I like politics.
The bill comes from a NDP MP, and the House of Commons has a tradition to allow free votes on private bills. So the bill passes, but the Conservatives are accused of scheming to get it approved!
Wow, Haper is da man. He can so easily manipulate the NPD and the other parties to do as he pleases. One hell of a politician! :D
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 05, 2009, 02:50:06 PM
Quote from: Caliga on November 05, 2009, 06:50:29 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 05, 2009, 03:52:08 AM
My application to the Marine Corp was turned down due to childhood asthma (which had since gone away), so no.
FUN FACT: You do not need to be in the armed forces to fire guns! :cool:
Yeah seriously Jimmy, don't you live around Providence or something? Just get a part time job with the mob captain for your ward.
All of RI is "around" Providence. Given the lack of wilderness there's not much hunting, so I haven't had an oppurtunity to fire a gun.