Thread: Canada is confiscating certain rifles including some .22 rimfire.

Bureaucrats gunning for rifle owners | Columnists | Opinion | Toronto Sun

Bureaucrats gunning for rifle owners 49

BY BRIAN LILLEY ,PARLIAMENTARY BUREAU
FIRST POSTED: THURSDAY, JANUARY 12, 2012 08:44 PM EST | UPDATED: THURSDAY, JANUARY 12, 2012 08:49 PM EST

When Bill C-68, the gun registry bill, was being debated, opponents said registration of firearms would lead to their eventual confiscation.

Now that is happening.

Just before Christmas, owners of certain firearms were informed by letter that their rifles had been reclassified as prohibited weapons in Canada and they must be turned over to police officials.

Failure to comply would mean the weapons would be taken by force and the owners thrown in jail. The reason for the change: The rifle looks scary.

The Armi Jager AP-80 is a .22-calibre rimfire rifle that looks like the AK-47, the Soviet-era military rifle. The fact is the AP-80 doesn’t work like the AK-47, fires a vastly smaller round than the AK-47 and has no parts that are interchangeable with the AK-47.

This change appears to be based on looks.

The decision comes from the RCMP-run Canadian Firearms Centre. Bureaucrats at the centre made the decision to change the rifle’s classification from non-restricted to prohibited without any input from Parliament. A court upheld the decision, but the problem truly is that bureaucrats have been delegated this authority at all.

Hundreds of Canadians who followed the law and registered their legally purchased firearms with the gun registry are now seeing those very same rifles taken away by government order.

It seems odd this would happen just ahead of the gun registry’s demise. But lawyer Ed Burlew, who has represented many people in cases involving the registry, said on my show Byline that police forces across the country appear to be stepping up their raids on the homes of gun owners before they lose access to the registry.

Firearms that are reclassified and seized, like the AP-80, are surrendered without any compensation. When the government takes your personal property, don’t you think it should at least pay you for it?

There is also a problem with allowing the police to decide what is allowed and what is banned while they themselves are enforcing the laws.

We elect politicians to make law and it’s the role of police and judges to enforce the law. This system has it all messed up.

Would we allow this when it comes to traffic violations and let police forces set and change speed limits?

No.

Would we allow the police to decide which substances are considered narcotics and which ones Canadians are legally allowed to consume?

No, and if anyone tried you can bet the media would be up in arms over this.

“Harper government takes hard line against soft drugs,” would scream the headlines.

Where is the outrage over the government allowing police to confiscate private property? It doesn’t exist.

Instead they are chasing a story about a foreign lesbian couple who got married in Canada and are now complaining they can’t get divorced because they do not live here.

Public Safety Minister Vic Toews was asked about this gun registry mess on Sun News Network and defended the current situation.

“It is not a decision that I make as a politician, it’s something that the police and classification experts make,” Toews said.

I’m guessing people who backed the Conservatives over their promise to scrap the gun registry would have problems with this.

It’s time for Toews and the rest of the Harper government to wake up and fix this mess.

Keep a close eye on Washington DC. This could happen here. Of course this is for their safety right? Our politicians want to keep us from defending our selves and the voters keep re-electing them.

take out all the weaker nations first, turn them into Dhimmis to use in human wave assualts. The American Genocide is near.

Never trust a politician or give them the edge to be able to take away rights

canada sucks.

Same thing happened in the UK.

Started with "Assault Rifles", then pistols, then rifles, then shotguns. Anything that looks scary must be dangerous...play on those fears and the sheeple will line up to ban it.

BAH! Come on Canada, you're like the adopted step-brother of America...stand up for your rights!

austraila took all guns away from their slavely citizins because of the port arthur massacre.one man goes on a rampage with an ar15 and the millions of honest citizens should not be allowed to own firearms also?
would you punish all your kids because one was bad?
this was a bad massacre but still,one unstable man does not represent the whole nation.
like clinton did with his assult weapons ban in 1994 obama will do it again if he gets a second term and if hillary ever gets in there were gonna have a war on our hands over our guns.1994 was not that long ago and it expired in 2004 so it could happen again.
why do all the people say"you can have my gun when you pry it from my cold dead hands"or there gonna have to take them with the bullets first but i dont remember any shootouts over gun confiscation in 1994?...what am i missing about this?

Originally Posted by doubletap007

why do all the people say"you can have my gun when you pry it from my cold dead hands"or there gonna have to take them with the bullets first but i dont remember any shootouts over gun confiscation in 1994?...what am i missing about this?

Because there was no confiscation in 1994 because of the AWB. It outlawed the sale of guns with certain features, which included detachable magazines over 10 rounds, made after September 14th 94 . They didn't start going door to door in September 15th of 94 and taking the pre-ban guns. Not to mention there's no national registry (or I should say, no LEGAL national registry. The 4473's are a defacto reg, as is the NICS database).

They won't have an outright ban and door to door confiscation in this country, at least for a very long time. They will whittle away at our 2A rights. They'll get a more permanent AWB bill passed outlawing new sales and manufacture of military-style rifles and semi auto pistols. Then they'll push for a ban on semi-auto hunting rifles and shotguns, then try a handgun ban "you can still use your pump shotgun and bolt action hunting rifles for self defense." Or they won't even push for a ban on the guns - but they'll institute a TAX on ammunition and ammunition components that will make it so cost prohibitive that no one will bother buying guns, because they won't be able to afford the ammunition for them.

And once they get the guns - they'll turn their attention to knives and other weapons - don't forget, the 2nd doesn't say "right to bear guns" it says "right to bear arms" - "arms" includes all types of weapons - not just firearms. Knives, swords, clubs, etc. are covered also - how many states have bans on types of knives, or bans on the carrying of knives, daggers, clubs, saps, etc? yet we don't see many people complaining or lobbying for knife/club rights? Why do some states allow those weapons to be carried, but then we have places like Oregon - where we have Concealed Handgun Licenses, not Concealed Weapons Permits. The state says it's OK for me to carry all the handguns on me I can fit - but got forbid I carry an expandable baton, a sap, a dagger, an automatic knife, a sword, or a roll of quarters in a tube sock.

I hope our Canuck Cousins are able to stop this nonsense up there and get their guns back, and get rid of their stupid gun laws. I'd made the stereotypical "subjects" vs "citizens" argument, but there's not a lot of difference between us at this point.