I encourage you to read this post first before continuing. It may help put things into perspective.
Below are some excerpts from the letter written by the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police to Prime Minister Harper.
At first glance it appears to be solid.
Unless you knew the information otherwise…
If I were a business owner and one of my employees tried to pawn off something like this on me? They would be kicking stones down the street five minutes later.
There are no “attachments” or “appendices” for reference to support the statements.
It is blatant fear-mongering and misinformation.
Pretty self-explanatory there. They oppose good legislation that cuts government waste, respects decent and responsible Canadians, disrespects inalienable rights such a those under Section 7 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, takes away money from being focused at the street level, requires further digging into taxpayers pockets and cuts into their “turf” by removing a tool in the Registry and licensing that hasn’t saved many lives. It’s existence has even cost them the lives of their front-line “beat cops”.
As an aside, one of the good cops that I know mentioned to me that the post-911 Liberal promises of better and proper personal protective equipment never materialized. Where is the CACP on that? Why aren’t they screaming about that for their men? Loudly seeking public support through the media for their people. Our policemen. Are they too busy bloating the bureaucracy and seeking further power and control grabs?
Anything, under laws that existed before the Firearms Act, used as a weapon were already prohibited for being used as a weapon. The Criminal Code already covered the matter. There was no need for more laws. All that was needed was for existing laws to be enforced. Which falls under the Chiefs of Police.
Why broaden the definition of something that is already prohibited? More control. With control comes power. Power over others. Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Power to impose more controls.
No sign of respect for the respectable there. Is there? No sign of respect for the human desire for freedom and the independence that is in our nature. When a child matures? Part of that maturity is the desire for independence. Eventually a child leaves home to make their way in the world. No longer dependant on their parents to provide the necessities for their survival. But the Chiefs of Police seem to indicate they want to “replace” the role of parents. Removing personal responsibility and independence of the individual. Instead of encouraging it.
The Chiefs are fixated an inanimate object, instead of dealing with the real issue. A people problem. People are harder to deal with than a piece of wood and steel. It’s easier to make issue of and fear-monger over a thing and control it than deal with the true nature of the problem.
People. That’s hard. Nobody likes to do the hard thing. Even if the hard thing is the right answer and the proper solution to the problem. Just ignore the rights of the decent and responsible people and impose a blanket control over everyone. Punish everyone instead of those who either need to be punished or corrected.
Mandatory sentences for unlawful possession of a firearm. Mandatory sentences for unlawful possession in the commission of an offence. By imposing paper controls and onerous regulation? An “administrative error” can occur. That “error” has the implications that a responsible and lawful person can, at the stroke of a pen or lack thereof, be instantly made a criminal.
That “instant criminal” sure does justify bigger budgets and helps pad the statistics to ensure a large budget and have job security. Why manufacture more criminals? Aren’t there enough real criminals that the Chiefs of Police are supposed to be focusing on? Like murderers, pedophiles, thieves, etc.
Have I mentioned that bigger budgets and more power are “status symbols” in some circles? It’s not the measure of real accomplishments but how big your budget is.
I could turn that into a comparison that has been levied at responsible firearms owners by the anti-gun groups as a “phallic symbol”. “My “budget” is bigger than your “budget”. I won’t though. That would be disrespectful to them as persons…
Incidentally, after 1970 rumblings of gun control began in the Trudeau Government. Gun Control Measures similar to the Gun Control Act of 1968 in the US. Co-incidentally, are you aware that the GCA is pretty much a mimic of the Gun Control laws of pre-1945 Germany? Historically, that didn’t work out to well for people that were rendered defenseless against the actions and agenda of the National Socialist Party.
In 1973 the CACP indicates it began it’s call for more gun control. Fits neatly within the earlier rumblings and the later installed system of the FAC and prohibition of fully automatic firearms by Canadian citizens. The FAC being an incremental step towards the current license.
I do find it interesting that each increment was spurred by a “crisis”. The Firearms issue isn’t alone for incremental impositions on Canada. It’s just the most pronounced to everyone. Incrementally, autonomy taken away from an individual and put in the hands of others in the mistaken belief that they “know better” and can “save you”. A “raison d’etre”, if you will, for bloating, expansion and intrusion. Some things are indeed beneficial. Some things are far from it.
WOW. Bill C-301 has a regular renewal period in it. 10 years. It’s a piece of photographic ID. Most people’s facial characteristics don’t change much quickly. Aging occurs, but a period of 10 years is reasonable for marked differences in appearance. Maybe a disfiguring accident might be a sufficient reason to renew sooner, but less than 10 years is simply wasteful in terms of resources and manpower.
Currently there is a computer program in the RCMP that reviews all licensed firearms owners EVERY DAY for any record of offences with the previous 24 hours that would require a suspension and review of their license. If a responsible firearm owner was suspended, they couldn’t lawfully transport or possess their firearms.
Licensing does have some benefits. Bill C-301 was NOT going to eliminate that “safety valve”. The daily check system doesn’t get any better without totally disrespecting the rights of a responsible person. Anything sought further by the Chiefs of Police is disrespectful to the rights of decent citizens and pretty much a power grab.
Sadly, all I can say to this is the Registry and licensing failed the RCMP Members killed at Mayerthorpe by a criminal with a firearm already prohibited in Canada from unlawful possession. The system was part of the failure to prevent their deaths. Why are the CACP opposed getting rid of a system that failed front-line policemen?
Also, again sadly, I will mention Cst Gignac from Quebec. She was shot and killed by a criminal that should not have had his firearms ordered returned to him by a judge. Have the Chiefs of Police screamed loudly for the judge’s removal for playing a role in her death? Apparently not. Instead of dealing with the people problem and a problem judge, they simply seek to take the easy way out and punish everyone for another person’s misdeeds.
I take no pleasure in digging this up except to make a point. While the Chiefs of Police Mention domestic situations and the use of shotguns and rifles…what about policemen, who are human as well, that have circumstances in their lives? Sadly, it’s not an isolated thing.
I don’t see the Chief’s of Police including that in their letter to the Prime Minister. Error of omission? Or misleading? As I said I don’t take pleasure in bringing that up, but facts are facts and the Chief’s of Police careers are based upon using facts. It would be interesting to see if those police incidents are included in the stats the Chiefs may have used. I can’t be sure as the letter indicates that there were no attachments to substantiate their assertions.
No argument there. Firearms can be dangerous. So can cars. Licensing provides proof that a person has received EDUCATION and TRAINING in the proper use of some of the more potentially dangerous things in our lives.
Funny thing there. Responsible firearms owners are already accountable for their firearms. It’s called maturity and personal responsibility. It’s the criminal element that misuse firearms. Responsible firearms owners never were and are not the problem.
Seeking to punish them is not a solution. Having civilian firearms ownership, use and firearms education is a benefit to society.
It’s just problematic for those who lust after power and control. It seems to evoke reactions of lashing out when their “status quo” and intentions are rightfully challenged.
Funny thing that. Since Bill C-301 was introduced, there has been a lashing out, from inside the buracracy and outside it, against the truth that has been seen by those who make the decisions on the proper direction of our country and lives of Canadians.
Why are they not screaming for things that would actually work instead of keeping a system that has been breached a few hundred times and many of those breaches remain unsolved. Information they are supposed to have kept secured and unbreachable. The Liberals promised it. Their contractors didn’t deliver. Millions wasted. Lives and personal possessions put at risk by the Registry’s existence.
“Preserve and protect life.”
The Chiefs of Police should be intimately familiar with that phrase. They should be acknowledging it and taking steps, such as pulling the plug on the Registry, in order to live up to that phrase. To do so though would admit a mistake. Egos won’t allow that. Egos get in the way when you have power and influence. I wouldn’t cast such a critical eye on them if they admitted a mistake, took the lumps and set about to push for something workable, respectful, conscious to individual Canadians rights and in Canadians best interests.
Yet they are pushing to scrap Bill C-301. In it’s entirety it is a good start to fixing what’s wasteful and broken. What would they have to gain by maintaining a liability? If the government was proven liable for it’s existence and use? That could be costly. Currently that could be hung on PM Harper’s head. More political ambush? More tax money out of Canadians pockets to pay for the award? Remember the government is self-insured. We taxpayers pay for those costs.
Civil servants influenced by Trudeau, a political association (CACP) openly associated with a non-governmental organization (CGC) that received money from the Liberal government to lobby the Liberal government to enact a bad law (Firearms Act) that gives power, control and influence to a political association.
Strange bedfellows indeed.
It still makes me wonder if the Conservative Party of Canada and PM Harper are being mislead into a political ambush.
…to be continued.
I am going for a long walk.
Wendy, CAPC and others are wrong…and I know it.