The Nova Scotia shooting massacre

[greatgreeker]

Classic Jack Reacher. Research the victims and find the one that was the target.

 

[Billiam]

Whether or not SSRSP writing above is right or not the public doesn't have enough info to say and may not ever. The news so far has been saying "the officer rammed the suspect vehicle" and it was a head-on collision. Whoa. Really? I can't imagine an officer intentionally ramming a fleeing vehicle head-on under any circumstances except below, say, 5 or 10 kmh.

Also, both cars were of the same weight and type. Why was she killed and he walked away?

She was killed when he shot her to death after they collided - what vehicles they were driving would have nothing to do with the result of a crash anyways. WTF?

 

[appleomac]

Any piece of reasonably well written legislation has a section dealing with definitions for terminology included within. If a term is considered so common as to not need definition, then fine it may be excluded - but, in the case of the Barnes case it was decided by a police officer that the storage was lacking, and this was agreed upon by a Crown Prosecutor; hence the charge of unsafe storage. Appleomac, you may very well be alright paying tens of thousands in legal fees to go to court and fight a charge like unsafe storage because you "feel" that your storage is safe - and in the case of Mr. Barnes it was decided by a judge that the charges would be dismissed. But, what happens if the judge decides otherwise? Do you fight the charges all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada? Do you have the funds in place for that sort of multi-year legal challenge? All because a "simple" term wasn't defined in any way under the Firearms Act... The Barnes case set a legal precedent, which is nice for everyone who follows after Barnes and ends up charged with unsafe storage (or the Crown Prosecutor considers a charge) because the judge can refer to the aforementioned case.

Sorry mate, you really just don't get it. No amount of perfect/precise definitions will stop a motivated LEO/Prosecutor from finagling a bogus charge. When it comes to bogus/questionable charge, the flaw is the person (i.e. the LEO/Prosecutor) not the legislation/regulation. Just like motivated criminals will find a way to buy illegal guns, a motivated enough LEO/Prosecutor who wants to "find a way" to charge you with something will "find a way." That's why we have courts/judges, because the courts will ultimately decide. And the example you keep bringing up shows that reason and logic does prevail when it comes to the question "what is a safe?" Honestly, you worry too much while at the same time knowing too little.

 

[uncleg]

Sorry mate, you really just don't get it. No amount of perfect/precise definitions will stop a motivated LEO/Prosecutor from finagling a bogus charge. When it comes to bogus/questionable charge, the flaw is the person (i.e. the LEO/Prosecutor) not the legislation/regulation. Just like motivated criminals will find a way to buy illegal guns, a motivated enough LEO/Prosecutor who wants to "find a way" to charge you with something will "find a way." That's why we have courts/judges, because the courts will ultimately decide. And the example you keep bringing up shows that reason and logic does prevail when it comes to the question "what is a safe?" Honestly, you worry too much while at the same time knowing too little.

....motivated by....?????

 

[appleomac]

....motivated by....?????

The motivation really doesn't matter now does it? Bogus is bogus whether one's motivations are pure or not.

 

[Quarter Mile'r]

Any piece of reasonably well written legislation has a section dealing with definitions for terminology included within. If a term is considered so common as to not need definition, then fine it may be excluded - but, in the case of the Barnes case it was decided by a police officer that the storage was lacking, and this was agreed upon by a Crown Prosecutor; hence the charge of unsafe storage. Appleomac, you may very well be alright paying tens of thousands in legal fees to go to court and fight a charge like unsafe storage because you "feel" that your storage is safe - and in the case of Mr. Barnes it was decided by a judge that the charges would be dismissed. But, what happens if the judge decides otherwise? Do you fight the charges all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada? Do you have the funds in place for that sort of multi-year legal challenge? All because a "simple" term wasn't defined in any way under the Firearms Act... The Barnes case set a legal precedent, which is nice for everyone who follows after Barnes and ends up charged with unsafe storage (or the Crown Prosecutor considers a charge) because the judge can refer to the aforementioned case.

Q.M., calling the Canadian Firearms Program number in Mirimichi, NB, is going to get you connected with a call centre worker. The "answer" is going to be the opinion of a call centre worker. Sort of like asking a local cop a question, you'll get their opinion. Opinions are not the law, the same way that the RCMP's "interpretations" that they give on the CFP's website are not the law either. Remember, the RCMP via the CFP have said that you cannot use a so-called "large capacity magazine" in a 10/22 rimfire rifle (even though there is no law in place limiting the magazine capacity of rimfire rifles)...

You're also mixing up your terminology. The Canadian Firearms Program (CFP) is run by the RCMP, it is based in Mirimichi, New Brunswick, and has the call centre you call when you want to inquire about licensing, transfers, etc. The Provincial Chief Firearms Officer (CFO) is a provincial or territorial office that handles specific licence applications (after being vetted by the CFP) as well as transfers, licence concerns, etc on the more "local" level. It's a convoluted system at best, because (for example) you call the CFP to deal with a transfer and they get the ball rolling - but it is ultimately the CFO who handles the transfer and either approves or denies it...

First off I don't give a crap how well written the legislation is. That's not my problem or my job.
I just call who I need to call when I want to make sure I'm within the law. Then I'm good to go.
If you wanna read a thousand ways to sunday into all the different ways THIS could be interpreted or
THAT can be interpreted..............You bloody well go ahead and waste your time and energy.

Theirs an old saying dude. It's called the KISS theory. I'm sure you know what that is.
If not, look it up as it may save you a ton of aggrevation which it seems you're getting from the way
you write about these different things like the CFP getting the ball rolling and such but the CFO
who handles the transfer. That's right, it's all convoluted into the same office.
I'm not here to try and disect all this shit okay. So who gives a fuck??

I call the number find out what I need to do. Bob's my uncle. Oh yah one other thing.
That pamphlet you talk about that the rcmp put out on safe transportation of firearms while
traveling is completely to do with traveling while carrying firearms to a NEW address or location
to where the firearms are going to be stored or used, like at a weekend shoot for instance
in Kamloops where they have an annual blackpowder shoot that I attend each year
at Heffley Creek.

Please note the 2 underlined words I used above. This will help explain my reference.
I hope.

You have to phone and get a new permit to transfer said restricted firearms LEGALLY
to that shoot and back. In that regard, yes you can stop and have a timmys or burger joint
meal, whatever.
Are you with me so far? That is all that pamphlet is about.

When you talk about the DIRECT route involving the ATT and so on going to your local range
that is Exactly what it implies........A direct route. No stopping for timmy, starbucks, gas
or blowjobs. Obviously you didn't even try to call the number I posted as you yourself
said I'm going to get someones opinion of the rules.

FINE!!! At least I got the info I needed regarding my being within the law or not.
If I'm pulled over and ask what's up??? I have all my ducks in a row and can show the permits
I need to show so that I can have a great weekend and am within the law and I can
carry on.

Smoke, if you're not an rpal or pal carrying firearms owner and not involved in the shooting sports I
suggest you get involved somehow so you can whittle down all that nonsense you boiled up into a
froth for nothing. It may even relax you and help you unwind when you get to blow the shit
outta of targets and spinners and silhouettes and such with a black powder pistol or other.

You know, it's a bit of pain in the ass to get all the ducks in a row but for fucks sakes man
leave all the political opinionating of who's right and who's wrong horseshit to those with egg on their face.
Get your licensing, join a range and buy your guns and make the appropriate calls and require
all the appropriate docs. Travel legally and have a hell of a good time.

What could be more fun? jawing about all this shit with you definitely isn't anywhere near as fun
as all that.

Try it.........you'll like it!!!!

If one is not allowed to "ever stop" with a restricted or prohibited class firearm in ones vehicle, then why has the RCMP gone and put out a pamphlet on storage/transportation of firearms that includes a section on storing an R/P firearm in an unattended vehicle? Of course you can stop on the way to/from the range - the ATT document does not say "to/from the range by the most direct route ONLY, with no intermediate stops"; it says to/from any range by a reasonably direct route (or words to that effect).

......................QM'r

 

[uncleg]

Sorry mate, you really just don't get it. No amount of perfect/precise definitions will stop a motivated LEO/Prosecutor from finagling a bogus charge. When it comes to bogus/questionable charge, the flaw is the person (i.e. the LEO/Prosecutor) not the legislation/regulation. Just like motivated criminals will find a way to buy illegal guns, a motivated enough LEO/Prosecutor who wants to "find a way" to charge you with something will "find a way." That's why we have courts/judges, because the courts will ultimately decide. And the example you keep bringing up shows that reason and logic does prevail when it comes to the question "what is a safe?" Honestly, you worry too much while at the same time knowing too little.

The motivation really doesn't matter now does it? Bogus is bogus whether one's motivations are pure or not.

So why emphasize motive in the first place ????? After all you brought it up.

 

[appleomac]

So why emphasize motive in the first place ????? After all you brought it up.

LOL! It was an example used in context of the Harry Barnes case, which another poster was continually referencing. I'll try and draw a line to the point for you. Another poster is asserting that certain aspects of firearms legislation is BS. Said poster specifically cited the lack of a definition of a "safe" as evidence of aforementioned BS. Poster further cites the Harry Barnes case: Barnes was an innocent man charged with a crime (unsafe storage of a firearm). Poster further implies that such a dubious charge (i.e. an injustice) would not be possible if "safe" was precisely defined in the particular legislation/regulation in question. At which point I replied with...

"Sorry mate, you really just don't get it. No amount of perfect/precise definitions will stop a motivated LEO/Prosecutor from finagling a bogus charge. When it comes to bogus/questionable charge, the flaw is the person (i.e. the LEO/Prosecutor) not the legislation/regulation. Just like motivated criminals will find a way to buy illegal guns, a motivated enough LEO/Prosecutor who wants to "find a way" to charge you with something will "find a way." That's why we have courts/judges, because the courts will ultimately decide. And the example you keep bringing up shows that reason and logic does prevail when it comes to the question "what is a safe?" Honestly, you worry too much while at the same time knowing too little."

Now, I'll grant you that you are correct - I brought up the idea of motivation. What you can't seem to understand, that it was in an example in the context of the broader discussion that was occurring. Congrats! You successfully narrowed in on a word, and in doing so ignored the broader discussion that was going on - in other words, you saw a word and missed the actual relevant point (concept) altogether. You get a good grade for being able to read words - comprehension, that's a different story

 

[storm rider]

So much back and forth posturing and rhetoric over this it only makes think of the arguement over what to do with the ONE RING from The Fellowship Of The Rings.

My intention on this thread was to shed light on how the current Federal Government is grandstanding on this sad tragic event that was well planned by a nutcase to bring in harsher gun legislation that will impact law abiding firearm owners who KNOW that their firearms are granted as a privilege and not a RIGHT.

Per what was revealed today the POS that killed all of those people had not purchased 1 but 4 ex RCMP cars and multiple uniforms.He had a plethora of RCMP memorabilia in fact.He did not have an RPAL nor a PAL and the weapons he bagan with were illegally obtained.The automatic pistol he had on him was taken from the RCMP officer he killed.

These are NOT the actions of legal law abiding firearm owners in Canada who KNOW that firearms are a privilege and not a RIGHT.

The inaction of the RCMP in Nova Scotia to send out a public warning when it started is inexcusable.The action by the Lieberals in the aftermath of this tragedy is represensible.Law abiding legal gun owners do not do these things or commit these atrocities But they are made into the mindset that they are the ones to blame by the media and the left wing nut jobs.

SR

 

[storm rider]

RCMP officers do not carry automatic pistols, they carry the Smith & Wesson 5946 which is a Double-Action Only Semi-Automatic pistol in 9mm. Most cops you talk to don't particularly like the 5946, it's bulky, has a terrible trigger, and is just a pain in the ass when there are much newer and more refined options available.

There is a possibility that Cst. Stevenson may have been carrying the Smith & Wesson 3953 - an alternate pistol available for those whom have smaller hands. I don't believe it's a particularly common duty weapon, though.

There's also been the question tossed around about the possibility that the lunatic may have been able to "procure" the other weapons carried in patrol cars, including the Remington 870 12 gauge, or even more frightening the C7 or C8 "Patrol Carbine". Rumour has it some specialty units have been issued the carbines with select-fire capability...

As an aside, a completely ironic fact of the RCMP controlling firearms classification in this country is that they've classified the Smith & Wesson 5946 as a Named Prohibited firearm.

Wow split the hairs just for the sake of doing so and also come out looking like an idiot.A "double action" pistol refers to the "ACTION" meaning that you can cock it...lock it...and fire it by squeezing the trigger and the pistol would be a revolver or "wheel gun".That was an upgrade from the Single Action revolver patented by Samuel Colt.With the "Single Action" to fire the pistol you had to pull the hammer back for all four "clicks".

For the "automatic" all you do is pull the trigger if a round is chambered it will fire and the "automatic" function of that firearm will reload a fresh cartridge to be fired.The destinction between semi-auto and full-auto is a weak arguement and quite pathetic with regards to the actual engineering of the action of the firearm.

I guess the intent of my last post went right over your head.

SR

 

[Quarter Mile'r]

Again, no where on the LTATT/ATT document you receive with your licence does it say "direct route" - feel free to post a photo of your ATT where it states that, because it doesn't. It simply states "...reasonably direct route...", and feel free (anyone) to find a court case in which someone was charged with breaching their ATT conditions by taking a route that was deemed less than "reasonably direct" or whom stopped en-route.

Q.M., could you find me a reference in the Firearms Act, or the Criminal Code, that shows PAL holders must hold a range membership to possess R/P firearms?

It seems that you are taking the word "reasonably" to mean you are able to stop somewhere to take a leak or do whatever.

WHY?? Where does that word or how does that word relate to stopping anywhere? Please explain.

The word DIRECT is in there. Where does that confuse you on your route. Direct in my opinion means
straight there as told to me by CFO officers.
What does direct mean to you? The reasonably does no infer you can stop, it means
as reasonable a direct route as possible taking into account closed roads, washed out bridges, etc.

Also, as I stated in so less an amount of words I'm not getting into a pissing match with you about dissection of
the reasoning behind the CFO, CFP. rcmp, whatever.
I don't give a shit.

You go ahead. I'm within my legal means and that's all that matters. But I will look up somewhere where I can
lay my hands on that reference you query in the firearms act that shows rpal holders must have a range membership
to possess Restricted or Prohibited weapons. Tell you what though, in the meantime if you so feel free to do so.
Call up any sporting goods store, gunshop, shooting range or even the CFO that I posted the number to
AND ASK THEM!!!!! Don't be lazy and ask other people to do it for you.
Oh yes, if you value the opinion of others why not join the canadian gun nutz website and
ask them? You have a ton of interesting questions they would gladly help you with.

Wanstalls in maple ridge is a member there on that site and I'm sure they would
be happy to help you with your question of being a member at a range to possess a restricted
or prohibited weapon. Better yet, call them and ask for the owner there.
He'll let you know man.

Get on with it lad.

Oh and btw, as you posted above, Pal holders can not possess restricted or prohibited weapons in any province in Canada. It must be an Rpal for restricted and a 12(6) for prohibited which is
grandfathered in now.




........................QM'r