Moose/Sentol

I am a hunter that have guns.. and I dont care about the registry...

there is no reason to fear it.. but I know that the problem here is not with the long guns, its with the owner, and having a registry of the OWNER of long guns is not useless..

RHC: As usual, you are way off the mark. There is every reason to fear the registry because of it's sweeping powers for search and seize without a warrant. Before you spout off, read the bloody Firearms Act.

For the purposes of policing, it is redundant, since the PAL owner licensing (which is good and useful legislation) does the same thing. However, that is NOT the issue here and never has been ! Nor would any police office rely on a registry to know if there are guns in the home since it is riddled with inaccuracy and non compliance. Any cop that relies on this nonsense is going into harms way without being prepared since the non presence of a gun in the registry doesn't mean there is not one in the home.

It's gun owners like you that contribute to the problem since you go along naively believing the government is working in your best efforts. Look at the history of gun control in Canada; listen to the last election speeches where candidates spouted to "ban all handguns in Canada". As gun owners, we hang together or we hang separately...after they get mine, they'll come for yours....its called divide and conquer !! We don't ever want to allow them those powers !!

I wonder why it is that Quebec MP's all voted for the registry and that gun control is so acceptable to Quebec voters

"tourman" a écrit dans le message de groupe de discussion : snipped-for-privacy@a9g2000yqg.googlegroups.com...

Less paranoia case in the population??

"Petem" a écrit dans le message de groupe de discussion : i7ud65$ssa$ snipped-for-privacy@petem001.eternal-september.org...

talking about hunting.. here's my setup for this year... half an hour drive from home..

;-))))))))

Gee they look like pets. No challenges there.

RHC: Possibly, however it is a mystery to most others in the country. But then Quebec never follows the rules of logic on a lot of things so who knows ?

ssion

de

RHC: You're obviously a bow hunter. When I hunted, I used a Remington semi-automatic .30-06 with a 16.5 inch barrel....2.5 inch flip over scope...a perfect combination for hunting in heavy Northern Ontario bush country. Over 45 years, I managed to get 38 moose which kept my family fed for years early in my life when I had no money. Well, the unelected bureaucrats that control the list of firearms deemed not suitable for sporting use (whatever the hell that means....) would put this model on the restricted list (which means it's considered the same as a handgun, and can't leave the place of registration except with permits to travel to a gun club only). So, it would be useless for any further hunting activities of any kind.

Where is the logic in that ? Their reasoning is the barrel is too close to the legal minimum of 16 inches ! These people don't have a whit of real world knowledge or common sense. They know nothing about the shooting sports and care even less ! They are not now and never have been looking out for your or my interests. They have been given the power to make arbitrary decisions, that are not bound by anything other than if "it looks bad"\ then ban it" !! What kind of reasoning is that ? And your Bloc Quebecois group would wholeheartedly support a government that would ban all semi-automatics from ownership, based on what ?

You don't have too look too far back in Canadian politics to realize that no one will ever care a damn about the shooting sports. We are political pawns to be used simply to advance the current government in power to appease urban interests. It's like sitting on a knife edge waiting for the next mass shooting, knowing when it happens (not if), you're going to be pushed off that cliff in the name of political appeasement !!

If that's paranoia, then I guess millions of people are !! You might want to wake up and smell the flowers !!!!!!!!!!!!!

My bad. I read that after making my post.

Not a problem I figured that to be the case.

BTW I am still waiting for approval.

Currently NO Fire Alarm System in the Fire Hall. Go figure.

Les

Thats the proof that we are different, It would be so simple to let us do what we want in our little place..

But they wont let us.. For what reason?? they love us? dont think so..

Bow hunter, black powder hunter and long fire arm hunter.. Any way I can use to go for a steak I will use.. ;-))

When I hunted, I used a Remington

That part is totally true, but they had to draw a line, you cant argue that this type of weapon can be hide easily and could be a treat to many poeple..

Like I said, that drew a line, where would they have it done to be ok for you?? 17 inch?? 18?? 22??

for you 16 is too short, then it will be 19 for another.. cant please every one and the others..

Shooting spor is not the sport that have the best support from the whole community, when people think of it, the see a bunch of red neck that kill nice animals.. Even in my family some think of me as a heartless man for hunting moose and deer..But they will kindly eat the large moose steak I am cooking fort them on my BBQ ;-))

Listen, It wont matter.. Its been too late 30 years ago.. It was too late when UK passed law on fire arms in 1920...

On Oct 1, 12:51=A0pm, "petem" wrote:

I don't think Robert is so much concerned about the size of the restricted firearm as much as he is about the fact that there is any restriction at all. I think you already know that.

The problem here, there and anywhere that the gun banners want to restrict the public from owning firearms is that it is written in history time and time again that an unarmed populace is subject to enslavement by the very government that passes these laws for the publics supposed protection. The government that passes the gun banning laws "knows" that it would never enslave the people but they don't ever think about the fact that they are preparing the way for some government in the futuer will do it. All of this is always in complete contradiction of the actual statistics that show that ( in the US anyway) that those states with the least restrictive firearms laws have the lowest crime rates. I know that in other countries with lesser stabilized governments that this does not occur, and, of course, the gun banners will use those statistics to justify more restrictions in our countries. Take a look at the long history in the United Nations to get a good view of where all of this misinformation comes from and what financially supported world wide organization are behind the gun banning in countries that have more stabilized governments. Fortunately here in the US, part of our bill of rights says that we have the right to be armed. In other countries with out this protection, gun banning is much easier. The UN gun banners know this and thus we have England and Austrailia as good examples of what can happen when you take firearms from the population. You should also look at how bad the crimes rates are in England and Austrailia since the citizens no longer have the same access to firearms but the criminals do. I posted a link to an article I just read, in one of my earlier posts about the misconceptions that people have about where the worst mass killings have occurred. Mostly in countries with the most restricive firearm laws.

RHC: With all due respect, you've completely missed the point again. The size of the gun, or the length of the barrel has squat to do with anything ! It's the guy behind it that makes it dangerous or not. Gun haters don't think rationally when it comes to sporting use for firearms. This may seem to some like splitting hairs, but even referring to a firearm as a "weapon" implies that it will be used for nefarious things ! A gun is a gun is a gun ! It's only a "weapon" if you choose to make it so (as is an automobile or any other potentially dangerous item). The real issue is as long as they continue to see firearms usage in negative connotations, we will have a problem! And since they will always do so, we will always have a problem !

RHC: So what do you do about their hypocracy? They eat your food but condemn they way you get it !! I think some of these urbanites think steak grows on trees !! I have never stood still for anyone condemning me for hunting for food; they get a polite but firm "earfull" when it happens......

RHC: No, it's never too late unless you let it be so. If you give up before you start, you are doomed to failure from the get go !!! There's a huge fund raising drive getting started across this country to raise money for the next election. It's targeted at eliminating those gutless MP's who flipflopped on the vote. It's also targeted at ending the long gun registry as an election issue. I've already given a lot of money; I hope all shooters will also...

This has been an interesting read. So are you restricted from owning a handgun in Canada? And your 30-.06 is illegal for hunting?! That is the preferred round for deer hunters in TX.

All you have to do in TX to buy any gun (besides class 3 - automatic rifles, silencers, and certain other parts) is fill out a form and the dealer makes a 5 minute phone call. The answer comes back "proceed, hold, or no".

It's also legal to own a fully automatic M-16, AR-15, or AK47 but that requires more paperwork.

RHC:No Graham, I am not restricted from owning a handgun. I just can't do anything with it unless I belong to a gun club, and have obtained an Authorization to Transport from my home to that gun club. Since I compete with a handgun (IPSC / USPSA), I have other permits that allow me to travel from my home to a border crossing point. After that, I have a US ATF Form 6 allowing me to transport to any sporting event in the USA, plus a North Dakota hunting license to allow me to possess ammunition in the US, plus invitations from the clubs where I shoot. All in all, they fill a binder about half an inch thick !!

In Canada, we have an overall gun license called a Possession Acquistion License, good for five years, requiring government sanctioned safety courses, police background check for criminal or mental health problems, plus a sign off by your spouse you represent no threat to her. Once cleared by the RCMP, you are permitted to buy firearms which fit in three different classes, unrestricted (long guns and shotguns), restricted (handguns, small short barrelled firearms of the military persuasion, plus any other gun that "looks bad" determined by bureaucrats; and prohibited firearms (guns with barrels less than 4 inches, certain calibres such as .380 and .25, and fully automatic firearms). These you can only possess (never shoot) only if you owned them before 1988....they are grandfathered and go to the scrap heap upon your death)

The PAL might seem onerous but overall it is a good piece of licensing that serves to ensure those who shouldn't have legal firearms are prevented from doing so, plus ensures all gun owners are trained in safe handling and storage etc. BUT THAT'S AS FAR AS IT SHOULD GO !!!!!!! Further registries do nothing to enhance public safety and only serve to control and restrict those guns that legitimate owners possess....

The point that some don't get is ....there is never enough gun control for many people - period !! If you allow those in power to erode rights and privileges little by little, you end up with nothing left. Any government in a free society should have to PROVE why they intend to take away any rights of honest people. In a free society, you don't have to prove the NEED for anything. As long as you obey the laws and harm no one else, you are free to do what you wish !! Not the other way around.....

There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that the ultimate end of all this registration BS is to abolish all firearms from the hands of private citizens, as per one of the UN mandates. They just have to do it in a multitude of little, less onerous ways....It's called "two steps forward, one back"..... Unfortunately, such an opinion is seen by many up here as "right wing", "paranoid" or "over the top". I'd rather be called any of those things so long as I can help prevent this from happening.!!!!

Well, if it is how you describe it I completely agree. Ever see the old 80's movie "Red Dawn"? It's about the Soviets invading US soil. The first thing they did was to round up all the registered gun owners and detain them.

It sounds like such a law like that 'could' be used to allow the RMCP to go around to every household and confiscate your guns, if the next piece of legislation comes around to banning them completely, as in the UK.

I'm not aware of that UN mandate. Will you provide a link? Since the US in the UN this matter now concerns me too. I don't think the American citizens will ever allow the government to take away our firearms. It would lead to a coup d'état.

Gun laws for the most part are not effective, the "bad" guys will always be able to get them. Just look at Mexico for that example.

It doesn't take the Soviets invading to do that, during Katrina the local police did the same thing

Blatantly against the law but they always apologize and admit fault after the fact when the population might have needed those weapons.

Yeah, I remember hearing about that. I would have told the cop I sold mine at a gun show. NOPD is known to ignore the Constitution though, I don't see that happening in Houston or Dallas/FW. Besides, I don't think they have the resources to do so.

RHC: Yes, I remember seeing on the news that local police in New Orleans were disarming citizens they found carrying firearms. I also remember reading stories of people almost randomly being shot along the highways while they were stuck in traffic, after being robbed. Chaotic scenarios like Katrina bring out the best and worst in people, and I think the cops probably honestly thought they were assisting the situation taking firearms that were being openly displayed, out of circulation. It was a bad time for all, and it's easy to find fault after the fact.

Personally, as a Canadian, I find it difficult to envisage a need to ever carry a concealed firearm. I know of no place in Canada - even the worst parts of Montreal, Toronto or Vancouver, where this would ever be necessary. One of the local Sherrifs I shoot with in Florida is always asking me why I don't apply for a CCW permit. I would never use a firearm under any circumstances against another person, so I don't see the need to ever have such a permit. He did say correctly though, that in travelling to Florida, if I am stopped by local cops along the way who don't happen to agree with the Safe Passage law in the US, a concealed weapon permit - even from out of state - would guarantee I could go on my way unimpeded (rather than having to spend the weekend in jail before the local judge throws the case out of court)

He may have a point there !! I guess I should have done so before since as of June of this year, Florida CCW's are no longer available to anyone from out of state.....

Traveling within Canada with firearms (especially restricted handguns) is SO difficult that permits are needed for every kind of movement, and this makes it pretty easy to know what permits are required. Requirements are clearly laid out in the law (other than in Quebec where they may or may not follow the Federal law...surprise, surprise !! ). Traveling within the US with firearms is so varied from state to state that it's almost impossible to guarantee yourself that you are always doing so legally. There are books available on the subject, it is so varied and complex !!!!

For example, even locked according to stringent Canadian standards on transportation of restricted weapons (trigger lock, barrel lock, two case locks, case locked to frame of the car, and concealed from view in the trunk), I still cannot travel through Chicago, New York City or Washington, DC. The only time I've ever been hassled is by one US Border Agent in New York who didn't know the law and refused to let me pass through because I wasn't law enforcement. One hour later with the assistance of the ATF in Virginia, they did let me through (with no apologies of course for holding me up needlessly, or because they obviously didn't know the law). Canadian Border Agents are always astounded when I cross with handguns; however, I usually bamboozle them with a huge binder full of permits, and after a cursory glance at them, they let me through....:)) They often use students at border crossing points during the summer months however, and since they don't know poop from paint about the gun laws, this always requires me to insist they send out their supervisor to clear the matter (Canadian society is absolutely paranoid about guns being smuggled in from the US.....)

It makes for some interesting times.....:))))