We Know you Ride, But do you Shoot? | Page 141 | GTAMotorcycle.com

We Know you Ride, But do you Shoot?

Scuba Steve said:
Do you want to hunt or a gun? you need a PAL to get a gun no point in a RPAL anymore. The new proposed ban is any gun that is semi auto, centerfire and had a magazine. As any gun that has a magazine can hold a magazine that takes more than 5 bullets.
Click to expand...

what do you mean by the last line? No center-fire rifle detachable magazine is allowed to have more than 5 bullets already in Canada.
rimfire and pistols exempt.

Additionally, when the NDP and liberal MPs start speaking out against your bill amendment, you clearly went wrong.
 
killvino said:
what do you mean by the last line? No center-fire rifle detachable magazine is allowed to have more than 5 bullets already in Canada.
rimfire and pistols exempt.

Additionally, when the NDP and liberal MPs start speaking out against your bill amendment, you clearly went wrong.
Click to expand...
The draft law is "can accept". It doesn't matter how many fit in the magazine you are using. Even if it gets amended, I suspect he is going after pinned magazines and will confiscate and destroy any magazines that could possibly hold more than five as prohibited weapons of war.
 
killvino said:
what do you mean by the last line? No center-fire rifle detachable magazine is allowed to have more than 5 bullets already in Canada.
rimfire and pistols exempt.

Additionally, when the NDP and liberal MPs start speaking out against your bill amendment, you clearly went wrong.
Click to expand...
They are saying any rifle that can accept a magazine more than 5 rounds. So that is any rifle that can accept a magazine as the magazine can be made any size you please.

Sent from the future
 
Scuba Steve said:
They are saying any rifle that can accept a magazine more than 5 rounds. So that is any rifle that can accept a magazine as the magazine can be made any size you please.

Sent from the future
Click to expand...

I suspect what they really mean are LAR-15 mags and pistol caliber carbines.
 
jc100 said:
I suspect what they really mean are LAR-15 mags and pistol caliber carbines.
Click to expand...
Except that when you are enshrining a definition in law and you go with "(g) a firearm that is a rifle or shotgun, that is capable of discharging centre-fire ammunition in a semi-automatic manner and that is designed to accept a detachable cartridge magazine with a capacity greater than five cartridges of the type for which the firearm was originally designed," that is wildly broader than what you expected. This quote also addressed my shotgun question. Hell, could a tube magazine get drawn in as extension tubes are available and detachable? Morons.

Minutes - SECU (44-1) - No. 52 - House of Commons of Canada

Minutes - SECU (44-1) - No. 52 - House of Commons of Canada
www.ourcommons.ca
 
Ban vehicles over 5 horsepower. Yonge Street massacre, 11 dead, 15 critically injured, many more traumatized.

If the billions spent on the Liberal Chicken Little scare tactics were spent on mental health more people would be alive today.

Liberal logic:

Bank robberies can be stopped by lowering speed limits. The robbers wouldn't want to get speeding tickets.
 
the liberal MP the created the amendment clearky has no idea about what he was amending , I'm sure ( i hope) this thing gets a bit cleaned up before becoming law.
There are entire Brands and models being listed that pose a pretty small threat . Something about a rifle generating over 10,000jules of energy. I have no idea what that means , but a Weatherby .460 or .500 is about to be banned. The idea was apparently those are too close to sniper rifles (Barret .500) ? However the latest generation of sniper rifles are in the .300 range. Parker shotguns , they made a 10g in 1920 , so they are on the list. The saluting cannon at Fort York..... on the list.
Its a bit nutty to say the least.
 
crankcall said:
the liberal MP the created the amendment clearky has no idea about what he was amending , I'm sure ( i hope) this thing gets a bit cleaned up before becoming law.
There are entire Brands and models being listed that pose a pretty small threat . Something about a rifle generating over 10,000jules of energy. I have no idea what that means , but a Weatherby .460 or .500 is about to be banned. The idea was apparently those are too close to sniper rifles (Barret .500) ? However the latest generation of sniper rifles are in the .300 range. Parker shotguns , they made a 10g in 1920 , so they are on the list. The saluting cannon at Fort York..... on the list.
Its a bit nutty to say the least.
Click to expand...
What is bore diameter on the cannon? I assume almost everything you would call a cannon would fail on bore diameter. When was the last time someone in canada was killed by a cannon (or 460 or 50 cal or anything else on this list)?
 
crankcall said:
the liberal MP the created the amendment clearky has no idea about what he was amending , I'm sure ( i hope) this thing gets a bit cleaned up before becoming law.
There are entire Brands and models being listed that pose a pretty small threat . Something about a rifle generating over 10,000jules of energy. I have no idea what that means , but a Weatherby .460 or .500 is about to be banned. The idea was apparently those are too close to sniper rifles (Barret .500) ? However the latest generation of sniper rifles are in the .300 range. Parker shotguns , they made a 10g in 1920 , so they are on the list. The saluting cannon at Fort York..... on the list.
Its a bit nutty to say the least.
Click to expand...
To fix a problem you need to understand it first. The question should be "Why do you want to kill someone?" not "What kind of gun are you going to use?"
 
GreyGhost said:
What is bore diameter on the cannon? I assume almost everything you would call a cannon would fail on bore diameter. When was the last time someone in canada was killed by a cannon (or 460 or 50 cal or anything else on this list)?
Click to expand...
Talking to a Civil War reenactment supplier of cannons, I was told even firing a blank would kill, by percussion, anyone standing fifty feet in front of it.
 
GreyGhost said:
Except that when you are enshrining a definition in law and you go with "(g) a firearm that is a rifle or shotgun, that is capable of discharging centre-fire ammunition in a semi-automatic manner and that is designed to accept a detachable cartridge magazine with a capacity greater than five cartridges of the type for which the firearm was originally designed," that is wildly broader than what you expected. This quote also addressed my shotgun question. Hell, could a tube magazine get drawn in as extension tubes are available and detachable? Morons.

Minutes - SECU (44-1) - No. 52 - House of Commons of Canada

Minutes - SECU (44-1) - No. 52 - House of Commons of Canada
www.ourcommons.ca
Click to expand...

Exactly. It doesn't matter what the politicians meant, it's how the cops interpret it and what the prosecutors need to prove to convict you:

Is it a firearm that is either a rifle or shotgun?
Is it capable of discharging centre-fire ammunition in a semi-automatic manner?
Is it designed to accept a detachable cartridge magazine with a capacity greater than five cartridges of the type for which the firearm was originally designed?

Answer yes to all, and you're guilty, no if's, and's, or but's.

Much like the definition used in the stunting charge "Driving a motor vehicle while the driver is not sitting in the driver’s seat" was meant to prevent reckless/dangerous behaviour, but stand up on your pegs to get some knee/leg/butt relief to avoid a potential accident, and you broke the law.
 
What happens if a particular type of gun is banned and I still happen to have ownership of it in my safe?
Am I immediately a criminal? Or will they expect me to go surrender it someplace? Or is it ok if it is kept locked up at home?
 
POWERMAN said:
What happens if a particular type of gun is banned and I still happen to have ownership of it in my safe?
Am I immediately a criminal? Or will they expect me to go surrender it someplace? Or is it ok if it is kept locked up at home?
Click to expand...

If it’s like the AR15 thing you can keep it until they provide a solution or a stipulation for buyback/hand-in. You just can’t take it to a range, sell it or use it.
 
GreyGhost said:
They arent trying to fix a problem. They are scared children with a phobia and lashing out. Maybe he should ban spiders next.
Click to expand...
Not even this and not even the disarmed populace conspiracy theories.
None of them are that smart, they are literally doing the lowest effort action to appear like they are doing something to their uneducated and lazy voter pool. Pass a bill, make sure the media is doing what they've been paid to do. Simple, look we're 'doing' something about the crimes and gun violence.
Super easy to shoot down arguments against as well: 'You think people should have a Barrett 50 cal?'

Actually trying to solve issues takes money, time, planning and a damn BRAIN. Politics is the wrong place nowadays for this.
Now I don't even think they are planning to even follow through with buybacks at this point (leave it for the next govt).
 
killvino said:
Not even this and not even the disarmed populace conspiracy theories.
None of them are that smart, they are literally doing the lowest effort action to appear like they are doing something to their uneducated and lazy voter pool. Pass a bill, make sure the media is doing what they've been paid to do. Simple, look we're 'doing' something about the crimes and gun violence.
Super easy to shoot down arguments against as well: 'You think people should have a Barrett 50 cal?'

Actually trying to solve issues takes money, time, planning and a damn BRAIN. Politics is the wrong place nowadays for this.
Now I don't even think they are planning to even follow through with buybacks at this point (leave it for the next govt).
Click to expand...
Since their buyback estimates are out by at least an order of magnitude no government will do a buyback. I suspect they will make you register them using the threat of criminal prosecution and then they will basically end up locked up until the current owner dies and they are destroyed.
 
Last edited:
The truely frightening part for a few owners is some ( very few but enough) of these guns that may see potential ban (Westley Richards large bore ) are worth a couple hundred thousand dollars , There are a couple shoitguns in the mix well over 100k , whos going to value those and pay out?
 
crankcall said:
The truely frightening part for a few owners is some ( very few but enough) of these guns that may see potential ban (Westley Richards large bore ) are worth a couple hundred thousand dollars , There are a couple shoitguns in the mix well over 100k , whos going to value those and pay out?
Click to expand...
Nobody values and pays out. Casualty of bad policy.

If a future government can scrape a few brain cells together they may allow exporting of these newly banned guns. It wont help for more common/cheaper guns that had a big premium in canada but it would allow people to recover their money from the outliers.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom