Being a politician can be hard work…
It takes hours of dedication and sorting through piles of paperwork to educate yourself on every little important detail of every bill that comes across your desk. In order to legitimately and responsibly make an informed decision on the important laws that will impact the society you have sworn to serve, you really have to dive in and know the facts.
That’s why politicans are paid the big bucks, right? You’d think, wouldn’t you…?
Now, before I begin, I want to elaborate that this is not a ‘gun article’, this article has nothing to do with Bill C42, new revisions to the firearms act or firearms in general.
This article has to do with incompetence, ignorance and the fact that our elected officials tend to coast through life with a six-figure income, paid for by Canadian taxpayers, with little to no worry of retaliatory action when they don’t follow through on their end of the bargain.
Before we get to the heart of the issue, there are a few things about Bill C42 that the reader needs to know in order to understand the bigger picture.
I will do my best to outline, without delving too heavy into the boring ‘gunnie’ side of things, but here are the bullet points. Keep in mind, both pro-gun and gun control activists have problems with the bill, so consider C42 an unbiased example in this article.
To keep it simple, the 3 key elements of the Bill, also known as the ‘Common Sense Firearms Act’ include:
1. Changes of ATT (authorization to transport) permits back to what the laws were prior to 2014 when the RCMP, without permission from government, changed the laws to be more complicated and involve more paperwork. Despite any changes to the ATT, any restricted firearm (i.e. a handgun or short barrel rifle), can only be transported to and from your home, to a range, gunsmith or other RCMP authorized area… nowhere else.
2. Merging of the 2 different types of license: the POL (Possession Only License) and the PAL (Purchase and Acquisition License). Truly, all this does is get rid of paperwork. Every POL and PAL license holder will still be on file and bar coded by the RCMP, they will just be lumped together for ease. POL Licenses are simply an outdated form of a PAL, intended for anyone who had owned a firearm for the last 20 years. It is simply updating the system.
3. A six Month Grace period after expiration of Firearms License.
This simply ensures that responsible firearms owners have more time to pay for and renew their licenses. Penalties for firearms owners in breach of conduct are extreme, and in life we all know personal situations arise. With the active length of a firearms license being 5 years, it is easily understandable how it might slip a firearms owner’s mind to renew their license on the exact date of expiration. This change in the Bill simply makes sure that CSIS and the RCMP don’t kick in your grandpa’s door and cart him off to a deep dark prison like a terrorist when he forgets to renew his R-PAL (that he only has so he can hold on to his World War 2 era Webley revolver).
There are many more changes, but these seem to be the ones that are most inflammatory. Thats about it. Consider yourself informed. You can find countless outlines, bullet point articles and infographs on private websites as well as government ones. And unlike many other prominent and controversial bills recently, this one is fairly straightforward, simple and easy to understand.
(For an even more detailed run-through, check out Rod Giltaca of Civil Advantage and his excellent video on proposed C42 changes here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nabb_mf4Xhs)
So, with that in mind, no “machine guns”, no greater ease of transport, no evil doers able to use this new bill to commit crimes and nothing in regards to greater numbers of weapons in our urban centers.
Let’s see what our politically elected (NDP) decision makers, the cream of the crop of our society, and the individuals who we trust to seal the verdict for us have to say in regards to Bill C-42:
Selected comments made by opposition members at C-42 3rd reading:
Alain Giguère, NDP, Marc-Aurele-Fortin
“Farmers who want to guard against foxes do not need a machine gun. We are talking about a fox. Could we agree that some firearms are dangerous, that they should not be owned by just anybody and that regulations are needed? Anyone who goes duck hunting with a machine gun capable of bringing down a MiG probably has a problem between the ears, and it is perhaps a good thing that they cannot get that type of weapon.”
Here we have talk of “machine guns”, which I am going to assume means ‘fully automatic’ weapons. No fully automatic weapons are remotely mentioned in the bill and no fully automatic “machine guns” are under the slightest question of the possibility of being made legal by any stretch of the imagination. Obviously this elected ‘official’ has yet to read the Bill, or even to take the time to skim it.
Adam Vaughan, Liberal, Trinity – Spadina
“How does making it easier to bring a gun into the city, easier to travel around a city with a gun, and easier to use a gun in a city, where no one is hunting ducks, no one is hunting raccoons, and no one is going after the squirrel population, make our cities safe?”
If the reader took the time to skim over the beginning of this article in regards to the ATT, they are obviously better informed than this Liberal elect who seems more interested in listing different types of cuddly creatures than doing his job.
Tyrone Benskin, NDP, Jeanne-Le Ber
“We expect people to register their cars. There are serial numbers on cars. Automobiles are things that are used for useful, peaceful purposes. Guns are made to kill. Whether they are made to kill animals in hunting for pleasure or they are made to kill humans, they are made to kill.”
Again, Bill C42 has nothing to do with eliminating firearm registration. Do your job Tyrone. Just showing up and spouting gibberish doesn’t cut it, or at least it shouldn’t.
Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt – Juan de Fuca
“What we are talking about here is that when the police stop someone, under Bill C-42 that person would not have to have an authorization to transport the weapon in the car, but they could automatically talk about five different categories of places they could be transporting that gun to. We are not talking about the law-abiding sport shooter. We are talking about the ability of the RCMP to enforce the laws against illegal transportation of guns on those who are in fact interested in gun violence and crime.”
Even under the new Bill C42 proposal, restricted owners would still need to carry authorization to transport, it would just be in the form of a card, not sheets of papers. If you had done your job and read the bill proposal Randall, you would know that. You CAN read, can’t you Randall?
Adam Vaughn, Liberal, Trinity – Spadina
“Do the Conservatives not believe that there should be restrictions on selling ammunition, particularly in urban centres where it is not used for any rational purpose? No one is hunting squirrels in downtown Toronto that I am aware of.”
Bill C42 will not change the policies regarding the sale of ammunition. You will still need to show a PAL to be able to purchase ammunition. Apparently squirrels are more important to Adam than details of the bill he is tasked on debating.
Pauline Ayala, NDP, Honore Mercier
“I am very concerned about that because there are so many weapons out there. On one hand, the government talks about national security, and on the other hand it allows weapons to be transported without much oversight.”
I am very concerned that Pauline is a position to make national policy and yet cannot take the time to even remotely begin to understand what she is talking about.
Robert Aubin, NDP, Trois Rivieres
“The main objective of this bill is to pander to a minority of firearms owners for whom safety is an afterthought. True to form, the Conservatives are driving a wedge between Canadians in different communities. I urge all members to vote against this dangerous and ineffective bill.”
Ladies and Gentlemen, I give you the voices of your elected officials…
Now, I dont know if this is blatant ignorance, sensationalization of the facts in an attempt to curry favour with the leftist population, a problem with literacy, auditory difficulties or just a laissez faire attitude (truly not giving a damn about understanding the proposed bill), but these comments are the equivalent of a grade school student answering a teacher’s math question with the word “purple’ – and sadly, to the applause of his peers and confederates.
You would think that possibly these leaders would have taken the time to earn their paycheques and actually know the proposal through and through. However, as indicated by Mulcair’s Twitter feed, he is just as in the dark and as prone to sensationalization as his flock. Not only does he vocalize a complete and total misinterpretation of the bill, but he then proceeds to deflect the realities of the scenario. He attempts to adopt a false ‘heroic’ stance that posits the ‘protection of women’ by throwing out a plethora of trigger words… what a farce.
The fact that he mentions ‘Ruger’ is so utterly laughable.
“Mr. Mulcair’s staff later acknowledged the transportation rule changes don’t apply to that gun, a Ruger Mini-14 semi-automatic rifle. The bill “has nothing to do with the firearm used during the tragic crime committed at Polytechnique,” argued Jean-Christophe de Le Rue, a spokesman for Mr. Blaney.” (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/conservative-reforms-to-gun-licensing-laws-widely-panned/article21965172/http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/conservative-reforms-to-gun-licensing-laws-widely-panned/article21965172/)
Again “Purple”. Well, at least he didn’t mention Pterodactyls this time.
And let’s not forget that Mulcair was the first to demand armed bodyguards after the fateful terror attack on parliament hill, he claiming at the time that he would hire his own armed men if the government did not provide them when he saw some ‘suspicious looking’ young men outside of his home. I guess this just implies that his family is more important than the average Canadian’s…
Strange but not surprising behavior from an egoist who initially tried to join the Conservative Party and was rejected in 2007 (http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/john-ivison-mulcair-asked-for-conservative-cabinet-post-before-joining-ndp-tory-insider), something he rarely tends to mention.
And not to mention Justin Trudeau’s ridiculous ad campaign gaffe that was caught by FactsCan and called out as sensationalist propaganda by Canada’s leading watchdog on false political claimances bordering on the illegal:(http://factscan.ca/justin-trudeau-bill-c-42-would-allow-handguns-and-assault-weapons-to-be-freely-transported-even-left-parked-outside-a-canadian-tire-or-local-hockey-arena/)
No Sir, no ‘House of Cards’ political intellect going on up here in the Great White North.
When was the last time you were at work, being paid to do your job, and you just decided you didn’t ‘feel’ like it? You suddenly were no longer inclined to perform your duties and decided to disregard your responsibilities. What would happen if you completely ignored your employer and simply sputtered out a string of peculiar and unrelated sentences when you were put on the spot about your conduct?
Well, the difference between You, I and these Members of Parliament and the Legislative Assembly is simple: you and I would be (rightfully) dismissed, whereas these government employees simply laugh it off and saunter on home with their six figure paycheques. Maybe instead of worrying about raising the minimum wage, the NDP should be more concerned with a disgruntled public decreasing their wage. Then and only then would these people actually show up to work and properly carry out their duties.
Another day, another dollar, another job well-done.
I think this photo, courtesy of the private facebook page of newly elected NDP MLA Deborah Drever of Calgary, Alberta just about sums it all up…
Does anyone else see a problem with this?
No…? Just me…? Alright then…