doublegunshop.com - home Forums General Discussion DoubleGun BBS @ doublegunshop.com Inside the FBI National Tracing Center

You are hopelessly full of misrepresentations about Canadian law. Canada abandoned its long gun registry, appropriately. Canada still maintains a registry for restricted and prohibited firearms. See: http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/cfp-pcaf/online_en-ligne/reg_enr-eng.htm



You don't speak for a nation of people. Many Canadians around this area would vehemently disagree with you.

Correct. The debate regarding the meaning of the Second Amendment was effectively settled at the time of the Heller decision. Heller is good law and along with McDonald currently being used effectively in dispositive trial court motions throughout the country. It is going to take a lot more than a Clinton presidency to reverse Heller.

Smoke, you seem like a pretty smart guy. However we disagree on what a Clinton Presidency would do to American gun rights. ALL it will take is a Clinton election to undo Heller and McDonald. The Supreme Court is the most important issue in this election. The next president will appoint at least two and maybe three new Justices. Hillary's appointments will be disastrous. I'm voting Trump and win or lose, at least I will cancel someone else's vote...Geo

No, of course I do not trust him, but he's the only choice for gun owners this time.

I think it's just about feelings.

Please do not misunderstand me. I think Clinton would be horrible for gun rights. She has no business receiving the vote of a person to whom the Second Amendment is dear, which includes me. I was speaking strictly from a legal perspective.

I said that she will not likely be able to reverseHeller. I never said she couldn't effectively erode Heller. Reversing a precedent is a herculean effort that can take lifetimes. Since the government cannot simply bring a case to the Supreme Court, the only method by which the precedent could be reversed is if a draconian handgun (it would have to be handgun, or very common weapon like a pump action shotgun) ban were passed. The law would have to survive trial court and intermediate appellate review, and then the Supreme Court would have to vote to reverse the precedent. It's unlikely. Some of the Justices who dissented from Heller recently voted unanimously to uphold the decision in Caetano.

Erosion is a separate issue altogether. Unlike reversal, Clinton could erode the Second Amendment right by signing laws into effect that violate what is outside the core of the right (the Court said the core is the right to possess commonly owned weapons, for traditionally lawful purposes such as self-defense, within the home). That could mean doing a lot of things that violate the Second Amendment without abolishing its core.

That's the distinction I'm talking about.

Federal legislation comprises all gun laws in Canada---in effect, one law---not a member-cited 20,000 laws in the United States depending on Second Amendment interpretations by myriad jurisdictions.

Canadians considering buying firearms/ammunition are required to pass a safety course. The federal government makes a background check and finding clean issues a Possession and Acquisition License.

Having a PAL is a no-fuss convenience for purchasing, buying or selling, gun owner or not. A granddaughter has PAL so I can pass on firearms to her in my will. She has no interest in using one now. She is not a registered gun owner.

Canada has no rigamarole over buying or selling at gun shows, from one to another, crossing state lines, shipping, FFLs, uncertainty of legality in myriad jurisdictions. What I do is my business, none else. No sham FBI tracing centre.

As most Canadians, I don't fear government confiscating my firearms. Under our parliamentary system, when they cross the line into unwarranted authoritarianism we always throw them out, as we did the registry and government with it.

But she does have a PAL. If you and your family were situated in the United States, you would be able to will your guns to your granddaughter without any license required. (And if you really wanted to be smart with the estate planning, you would gift her the firearms before you passed away. Of course, that cannot always be planned precisely.)



Canada did a good job with ending the long gun registry. Would you agree that the handgun registry should be ended as well?

Geo, the portents of Clinton are all you say and worse, looking at it solely from gun rights. Her win would settle gun control once and for all time. Making it more precarious is being caught between the devil and the deep blue sea. You know what Clinton will do but the newcomer owing no one . . .? I hate the notion of any electorate voting from fear, either way. Have faith and pursue.

No. The handgun fraternity is making nibbling inroads toward lifting restrictions and for now I'd like to see how that goes before agitating for an ending. The handgun registry and restrictions have been here for 80-some years. General public sentiment against firearms of any kind has reached a point that there are police call-outs weekly because of toy replicas in public places. Hunters are often so intimidated that they hustle from their transportation into the woods, not wanting to be as much as seen with uncased long guns. Lots of hunting, great opportunities, but responsible and discreet is observed. (I attend my gun club range with my Ruger .22, have another on my property.)

Dishonest misrepresentations are King Brown's favorite method of debate and discussion Smokeshot. It's nothing new to those of us who have been subjected to his Liberal Left anti-2nd Amendment rhetoric for years. Here's a link to a nearly 10 year old Thread where King Brown was still questioning the Individual Right to Keep and Bear Arms component of the 2nd Amendment. He still hasn't accepted the 2008 Heller or McDonald decisions, and still insists that the 2nd was intended by the Framers to only protect a collective right. But he calls himself pro-gun. What a fraud.

http://www.doublegunshop.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=38521&page=1

You are quite correct that Canada has a Registry of Restricted and Prohibited firearms. There was a National Long Gun Registry that was imposed in spite of the will of the people. It was the eventual will of the people that got it repealed, but as I stated earlier, Quebec still refuses to comply with the law and has not destroyed the records. So no matter what King Brown says, the Long Gun Registry still exists, even though it isn't 100% up to date. And what we see here on a regular basis, thanks to King Brown's behavior, is that Liberals simply cannot be trusted with any Registry. Since the entire registry could probably be stored on a couple hundred dollars worth of multi-terrabyte hard drive, you can bet that records that were ordered to be destroyed have been saved.

What you won't see is King Brown lobbying and fighting to make Quebec comply with the law. King is much too busy right here attempting to undermine our own 2nd Amendment. We cannot stop him from doing that. But we sure as hell can make certain that everyone here understands what he is doing, and that he is no friend to U.S. gun owners. Thanks for taking the time to point out his serial dishonesty. But don't make the mistake of thinking you can engage him in honest debate. When he provides "facts or figures", I have learned that it is always best to check them out before accepting them as true. More often than not, they are dishonest Liberal Left talking points and pure propaganda. Of course, I am ready, willing, and able to prove that statement.

No surprise that King does not wish to see an end to Canada's Handgun Registry. To date, he has never once said that he is even happy that Canadian gunners were able to get the Long Gun Registry repealed. He certainly had nothing to do with it or we'd never hear the end of it from the Great Bloviator.

King Brown describing himself as pro-gun is about as dishonest as David Duke describing himself as a Black Lives Matter spokesman.