Forums before death by AOL, social media and spammers... "We can't have nice things"
|    mtl.general    |    Ahh Montreal, home of good strip joints    |    39,416 messages    |
[   << oldest   |   < older   |   list   |   newer >   |   newest >>   ]
|    Message 38,659 of 39,416    |
|    =?UTF-8?B?e35ffn3QoNCw0LjRgdCw?= <" to All    |
|    Why firearms are getting into the wrong     |
|    09 Jun 14 20:18:20    |
      XPost: can.politics, ont.politics, bc.politics       From: "@nyet.ca              John Geddes - February 15, 2012 - Macleans                     Selling guns without mandatory checks on new owners [UPDATED]                            There’s not much point prolonging the argument about the government’s       determination to scrap the registry for rifles and shotguns. But as       Bill C-19, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Firearms Act, comes       up this evening for a final vote in the House—its passage assured by the       Conservative majority—Canadians on both sides of this bitter debate       should consider the practical implications of the outcome.              One important matter is what will now happen when guns are bought and       sold by individuals. After the gun registry’s introduction in 2003, any       transfer of a gun’s ownership had to be approved by the federal firearms       registrar, since the gun changing hands had to be registered by its new       owner.              When the Tories shred the registry, of course, that obligation will       disappear with it.              There will still, thankfully, be mandatory licencing of gun owners. So I       had guessed that an individual selling a gun would, at least, have to       make sure the buyer is duly licenced. When Bill C-19 was tabled last       fall, I looked for this new mechanism, and was surprised to find that       the legislation only stipulates the seller of a gun must have “no reason       to believe” the buyer “is not authorized to acquire and possess that       kind of firearm.”              Why such a weak obligation? Why not specify that the seller must make       sure the buyer has a licence? I’ve asked the Public Safety department       that question and I will post the answer when I get it. [UPDATED BELOW]              It’s not as if there isn’t an obvious way for a seller to check up on       the buyer. After all, there will still be a federal firearms registrar.        Indeed, the new law says that a seller of a gun “may request”       information from the registrar about whether the prospective buyer       “holds and is still eligible to hold” a gun licence. Again, then, why       not specify that the seller must request that verification?              It seems to me that leaving this up to the discretion of the seller is       an obvious flaw. Public Safety Minister Vic Toews doesn’t see it that       way. When I asked Toews about it at his news conference this morning, he       said, “It is very clear that there is a legal prohibition against the       individual from selling to firearm a person who is not licenced. So that       it would be a criminal breach for the person to do that.”              To me, it seems clear only that I’d be prohibited from selling my rifle       to a person I “have reason to believe” isn’t authorized to buy. But how       exactly would I have reason to believe one way or the other? It’s not as       if I’m obligated to call the registrar and ask.              Toews also said, in exasperated tones, that getting rid of the registry       will not make any difference at all when it comes to buying and selling       guns. His words: “I think many people forget that the registry has       nothing to do with the licencing and the transfer of firearms from a       licenced owner to another licenced owner.”              Actually, the registry fundamentally changed the process of transferring       guns between licenced owners. Licencing includes no mechanism under       which the federal authorities must be alerted to the private sale of a       gun. Their approval became a requirement only when every firearm       required a separate registration certificate, valid only for a given       owner, and thus a new certificate had to be issued when any gun was sold.              That’s not to say licencing has not been a key part of the buying and       selling of registered guns. It’s the licencing of owners—not the       registering of weapons—that involves the most background checks. And       the licence is revoked when a court finds a gun owner to be a public       safety risk. But it was the moment of registration that brought the       seller and buyer into contact with the registrar, who would then check       to see if the buyer’s licence status had changed.              A final, broader observation here. The licencing of gun owners is the       more useful and, frankly, intrusive part of federal gun-control       regulations. It has always seemed to me nonsensical for the       Conservatives to argue that forcing honest duck hunters and farmers to       register their guns is a grievous affront, but requiring them to get an       owner’s licence is entirely benign.              In fact, licencing and registration regulations are closely related and       grew from the same public policy concerns, albeit decades apart. When it       came to the buying and selling of guns, at least, they made sense       together. I don’t see what principle is served by eliminating one while       leaving the other in place. I only see a system made less effective.              UPDATE:              On my question about why sellers aren’t simply required to check on the       prospective buyer’s licence with the firearms registrar, I received an       emailed answer from the media relations officers at the Public Safety       department.              It begins: “This government remains committed to reducing the       administrative burdens for law abiding gun owners.” So I take it that       the first and cardinal reason for not making it mandatory for sellers to       check up on buyers is merely to make transferring the gun easier.              The answer goes on to note that a seller might “physically inspect” the       buyer’s licence or might “have personal knowledge” of the buyer’s       licence status. Well, sure. But I think anybody can see that it would       be better to check the system to be certain. Just in case the guy’s       been in court lately or something.              Indeed, the department reminds me that the seller, when in doubt, is       supposed to pick up the phone and verify the buyer’s licence with the       RCMP Canadian Firearms Program: “Bill C-19 ensures that the transferor       has a legal right to request and receive that information.”              That’s a good thing. So I ask again, Why not make that check mandatory?        Oh, wait—my note from Public Safety reasserts the government’s       reasoning: “We do not support additional burdens placed up law abiding,       licenced gun owners.”              It’s not very persuasive. I find it hard to believe even most opponents       of the gun registry would very vigorously object to being asked to pick       up the phone and make a simple inquiry before they go to sell a gun.              --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05        * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)    |
[   << oldest   |   < older   |   list   |   newer >   |   newest >>   ]
(c) 1994, bbs@darkrealms.ca