XPost: bc.politics, nb.general, ont.politics   
   XPost: can.politics, ab.politics   
   From: "@nyet.ca   
      
   On 6/10/2014 5:24 PM, Alan Baker wrote:   
   > "The transferor is nevertheless required to verify that the transferee   
   > has a valid PAL."   
   >   
   > "required to verify"   
   >   
   > Not optional... ...required.   
      
      
   NOT mandatory . . . optional.   
      
   I forgot - you do selective reading don't you, 'Baker'?  The Act and the   
   section 2.2.2 clearly says 'may'.  And the article in Macleans clearly   
   describes why it's an issue.   
      
   However, Bill C-19 goes far beyond simply repealing elements of C-68,   
   the 1995 legislation; it actually removes critical measures that have   
   been in place since 1977. Bill C-19:   
      
        Makes verifying a firearms purchaser’s licence voluntary, which   
   increases the chances unlicensed individuals will be sold rifles and   
   shotguns.   
   _____________________________________________   
      
   Legislative Summary of Bill C-19: An Act to amend the Criminal Code and   
   the Firearms Act *   
      
   2.2.2 Transferring, Lending, Importing and Exporting Firearms(Clauses 11–18)   
      
   Bill C-19 removes the need for a new registration certificate to be   
   issued upon the transfer of a non-restricted or a non-prohibited firearm   
   to an individual, and therefore the need for the transferor to inform   
   the Registrar of Firearms of the transfer (clause 11). However, new   
   section 23.1 provides that, in the case of a firearm that is neither   
   restricted nor prohibited, a transferor may request that the Registrar   
   of Firearms tell the transferor whether the transferee holds and is   
   still eligible to hold the required licence.   
   ____________________________________________   
      
   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   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)