Trudeau announces ban on 1500 types of 'assault-style' firearms-effective immediatley

[randomuser]

The sad part is that the courts have allowed these violations as being in the best interests of the state.

Rob.

Sent from my SM-T380 using Tapatalk

This part is why I laugh when people say that it will get straightened out in the courts. How did that work out for ny recently? And even if it did, it would be the overturn of just one of many infringements still in place that the people will never get back once lost. Thinking that enough judges and lawyers are "on our side" to have change is the joke. Even so it would take fortunes that the people don't have to play "their game" in the system of the courts.

 

[Pale Ryder]

I like the Iranian style using those mobile cranes, make it slow and painful.

I kinda like NorK style too. Pack of hungry dogs. “Here Fido”. Maybe test a couple anti tank rounds, etc.

 

[777GSOTB]

Oooops, they missed one...K&M M17S-C

 

[Doco Overboard]

Last I checked, no state in the US was able to pass a law deemed counter to the US constitution.

If we believe that our rights as Americans derive not from a piece of parchment penned by man, but rather derive from God, then it matters not what country a person lives in. All humans have the same right of self defense and self determination. If you don't believe that, you aren't truly a disciple of the American concept of freedom.

 

[MaxVO2]

*****Do the Canadians have any recourse over this? Does this just mean this is the law for them, period and end of story?

 

[slsc98]

*****Do the Canadians have any recourse over this? Does this just mean this is the law for them, period and end of story?

Oui.

 

[Decoy]

*****Do the Canadians have any recourse over this? Does this just mean this is the law for them, period and end of story?

Not really, they can only vote for another party in the next election and hope the new government changes the law. However the way Canada is spread out geographically the provinces of Quebec and Ontario run the whole country. So they pretty much just have to bend over and take it. In fact I would not be surprised if they pass a total ban in the next few years.

They also have no recourse in court because they have no "Right to bear arms". Sadly even if Canada did have a Second Amendment they also have what is called the "Oakes Test" which is a Supreme Court decision that allows the Canadian government to limit constitutional rights as long as they do so for a pressing objective with minimal impairment to the right in question.

 

[rob]

This part is why I laugh when people say that it will get straightened out in the courts. How did that work out for ny recently? And even if it did, it would be the overturn of just one of many infringements still in place that the people will never get back once lost. Thinking that enough judges and lawyers are "on our side" to have change is the joke. Even so it would take fortunes that the people don't have to play "their game" in the system of the courts.

Exactly. If you violate an unconstitutional (thereby invalid) law you still have to spend your fortune defending yourself. Nobody wants to be the one to risk everything fighting the state. The unconstitutional law stands and we are violated by default.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

 

[rambling_one]

Exactly. If you violate an unconstitutional (thereby invalid) law you still have to spend your fortune defending yourself. Nobody wants to be the one to risk everything fighting the state. The unconstitutional law stands and we are violated by default.

What a dismal prospect!

 

[Arcamm]

Not really, they can only vote for another party in the next election and hope the new government changes the law. However the way Canada is spread out geographically the provinces of Quebec and Ontario run the whole country. So they pretty much just have to bend over and take it. In fact I would not be surprised if they pass a total ban in the next few years.

They also have no recourse in court because they have no "Right to bear arms". Sadly even if Canada did have a Second Amendment they also have what is called the "Oakes Test" which is a Supreme Court decision that allows the Canadian government to limit constitutional rights as long as they do so for a pressing objective with minimal impairment to the right in question.

This is it. The perfect example of why we can never let the electoral college go away.

My friend from Canada called me today. He said he just found out that he's now a criminal. His semi-auto shotgun has a removable choke and is now banned. He's pissed!

 

[ted76]

They need to join the "WWNC" movement, It may be time for RacknRoll to make a road trip.

 

[whistlersmother]

Maybe Alberta would like to be annexed...

 

[ted76]

Maybe Alberta would like to be annexed...

To the new "UNITED FREE STATES OF AMERICA " as apposed to the "USSA"?

as HE11

 

[randomuser]

*****Do the Canadians have any recourse over this? Does this just mean this is the law for them, period and end of story?

Not, they do have recourse. Hint, it's not the courts.

Not really, they can only vote for another party in the next election and hope the new government changes the law. However the way Canada is spread out geographically the provinces of Quebec and Ontario run the whole country. So they pretty much just have to bend over and take it. In fact I would not be surprised if they pass a total ban in the next few years.

They also have no recourse in court because they have no "Right to bear arms". Sadly even if Canada did have a Second Amendment they also have what is called the "Oakes Test" which is a Supreme Court decision that allows the Canadian government to limit constitutional rights as long as they do so for a pressing objective with minimal impairment to the right in question.

You miss out on the other option. *If the number of people who have guns are willing to forcefully resist the number who are willing to forcefully take then the guns dont get taken. The side who is willing to resist the others will the most wins. That's really how it works in it's simplest form.

It's pretty much how one country tells another what to do. If the country doing the telling is willing to send more troops than the country doing the listening then the country doing the telling is going to get their way. It is how the world seems to work.

The F'ed up part is that the ones who do the determining are politicians who for the most part are out of touch and have no personal risk/skin in the game as they are sending young men into battle. I always thought wars would be fought much less if every politician had to send every child they had to the front lines anytime they decided there was going to be a way/occupation.


Wrote:
"Originally Posted by rob View Post
Exactly. If you violate an unconstitutional (thereby invalid) law you still have to spend your fortune defending yourself. Nobody wants to be the one to risk everything fighting the state. The unconstitutional law stands and we are violated by default."
Responded to:

What a dismal prospect!

Sometimes the truth sounds dismal because it is. Those who say let it play out in the courts are not paying the lawyer bills. You can't beat a lawyer at lawyering when you have to pay your legal bills of your opposition.

 

[ericahls]

Is it any surprise? Canadians have French culture, and we saw how the French dealt with WW2.

 

[cornstalk]

I don't hunt and I realize that a .223 round isn't the preferred round for large game but I doubt very seriously that a Grizzly is going to take 20 or 30 rounds of .223 and be in fighting shape.

Actually I heard a story of a guy who tried that on a polar bear, and ended up being food for the bear. It may have died eventually, but not until after he killed the shooter. Also I heard it was tried on tigers in Viet Nam, and rarely did it stop them.

On the other hand, there was this story of a guy who killed a grizzly with 7 shots from a 9mm, having 1 round leftover "just in case." So you should be fine with just a 9 ;-)

https://www.americanhunter.org/arti...ishermen-from-raging-grizzly-with-9mm-pistol/

 

[777GSOTB]

Actually I heard a story of a guy who tried that on a polar bear, and ended up being food for the bear. It may have died eventually, but not until after he killed the shooter. Also I heard it was tried on tigers in Viet Nam, and rarely did it stop them.

On the other hand, there was this story of a guy who killed a grizzly with 7 shots from a 9mm, having 1 round leftover "just in case." So you should be fine with just a 9 ;-)

https://www.americanhunter.org/arti...ishermen-from-raging-grizzly-with-9mm-pistol/

What happened to grabbing the bears tongue and gagging it out...Old Comanche trick.

 

[ralph.mclean]

From talking to relatives in the Great White North, many of the folks are pretty PO'ed. Problem is. ALL of their guns are registered, and in many places, have to be kept in, "Safe Storage," at their Gun or Hunt Clubs. Makes it REALLY easy for the government to locate and confiscate them... So now, the fun begins...

 

[lazarus]

From talking to relatives in the Great White North, many of the folks are pretty PO'ed. Problem is. ALL of their guns are registered, and in many places, have to be kept in, "Safe Storage," at their Gun or Hunt Clubs. Makes it REALLY easy for the government to locate and confiscate them... So now, the fun begins...

Only recently bought ones. Their compliance with mandatory registration was similarly dismal as the US experience with the same.

 

[TangoSierra27]

I don't see this type action happening here in the USA. I understand there are multiple groups that would love to see this happen here, but it would trigger a civil war of unseen proportions. We too have groups that are strongly against any form of gun control or government confiscation. Once they would try such an effort it would trigger every group to take action. Just my thoughts. Gbwy