Tories rebuff pleas to keep gun registry (Canada)
Canadian Press ^ | May 31, 2006 | Jim Brown


Posted on 06/01/2006 11:23:13 AM PDT by neverdem


OTTAWA -- Montreal police, women's groups and gun-control advocates, backed by the Bloc Quebecois, are calling on the Conservative government to reverse course and maintain the federal long-gun registry.

But Tory cabinet ministers and backbenchers from Quebec rebuffed the appeal Wednesday, insisting the registry is a waste of money and isn't effective in fighting crime.

Public Safety Minister Stockwell Day, acting in the wake of a critical report by Auditor General Sheila Fraser, has announced a series of fee waivers and amnesties for rifle and shotgun owners as a prelude to abolishing the registry.

The program has been plagued by cost overruns, and critics say its computerized files are riddled with errors.

But Yves Francoeur, president of the union representing Montreal police officers, said the registry remains a useful tool.

For example, he told a news conference, offices routinely check it when responding to a domestic violence call to see whether anybody at the address is listed as a firearms owner.

It's true there are some errors in the computer files, Francoeur said, "But it's better for a police officer to work with incomplete and imperfect information than with no information at all.''

Serge Menard, the Bloc justice critic, said he is "scandalized'' like everyone else at the cost of the registry, which ballooned to nearly $1 billion over its first decade of operation.

He has gone so far as to demand a public inquiry into how the former Liberal government let spending get out of hand in the program's early years.

But that's no reason to kill the registry now that management practices have improved, said Menard.

He pointed to federal statistics that show a long-term decline in gun deaths and other firearms-related crime and concluded: "I don't know how you can say the registry isn't working now.''

Catherine Bergeron, whose sister was one of the female students gunned down in the infamous Ecole Polytechnique massacre, also voiced support for the program.

"I find it incredible this debate still persists,'' she said. "Possessing a gun is a privilege, not a right.''

Gun control has long been a popular issue in Quebec, where Prime Minister Stephen Harper hopes to make further inroads in the next election in his quest to secure a majority government.

But Public Works Minister Michael Fortier insisted Wednesday that Quebecers are onside with the Tory decision to get rid of the long-gun registry.

"I speak to all kinds of people in Montreal,'' Fortier said outside a party caucus meeting.

"People understand very well what we've done. . . . People realize a colossal sum was invested in a program that didn't work.''

Labour Minister Jean-Pierre Blackburn said that, as a hunter, he supports the move toward abolition.

Similar sentiments came from backbencher Sylvie Boucher, who said that in her riding of Beauport-Limoilou, near Quebec City, "all the hunters are happy. They agree with us.''

Fraser's report has prompted other Tory MPs to draw parallels with the sponsorship scandal that also erupted on the Liberal watch.

John Williamson, head of the right-leaning Canadian Taxpayers Federation, took up the same theme Wednesday, calling on Harper to appoint a Gomery-style inquiry into contracts let by the Canada Firearms Centre.

But the auditor general poured cold water on such comparisons when Garry Breitkreuz -- a longtime Conservative critic of the gun registry -- queried her at a Commons committee hearing Wednesday.

Fraser said her office is conducting further analysis of a handful of registry consulting contracts that appear to have been awarded without tender.

"I hesitate to make comparisons, though, with the sponsorship program, which I think was a very exceptional case.''



lets hope they kill it.

This is good news so far. The Conservatives do seem to be living up to their word even though they aren't in a majority position. Once in place the registry won't work and it will really just become another enormous tax burden as it is here in Germany.

Too many Canadians already live off the public tit. Need to reduce the bureaucarcy greatly. Not expand it.

VBR,


Ted Gorsline

Since more Canadians die every year by drowning than firearm deaths....it would have made more sense to use the money to buy every Canadian a life jacket. The feminests wouldn't have liked that one though

the chef

quote:

Originally posted by p dog shooter:

But Yves Francoeur, president of the union representing Montreal police officers, said the registry remains a useful tool.

For example, he told a news conference, offices routinely check it when responding to a domestic violence call to see whether anybody at the address is listed as a firearms owner.

This is such a complete and utter fucking misrepresentation and it's continually being done by the media and pro-registry cops and gun grabbers. The old FAC program and the current PAL program (which is in no danger of being shut down) give them exactly that information. The "gun" registry was and is intended to tell "who" has "what" guns, not "who has guns".

If the gov't and the cops want to know who has guns, and that only law-abiding citizens have them, fine. But it shouldn't matter what guns that law-abiding citizen has.

Chef, I got a great laugh out of this article. I think you will enjoy it too:

PUBLICATION: The Ottawa Citizen
DATE: 2006.06.02
EDITION: Final
SECTION: News
PNAME: Editorial
PAGE: A14
COLUMN: John Robson
BYLINE: John Robson
SOURCE: The Ottawa Citizen
WORD COUNT: 818

Letter to a foolish politician

To: The Hon. Michael Bryant, attorney general of Ontario

Dear Sir:
In a recent letter to my friend Dennis Young (reference #M06-01001) you explain that you asked the federal government to impose a total handgun ban because criminals may steal handguns from legitimate owners and, I quote you here, "No hobby is worth a life.'' I wonder if I might prevail upon you not to babble in this fashion.

Surely you realize many more people drown in Ontario than are fatally shot by criminals. And most drownings result from hobbies such as swimming and boating or (says a Canadian Institute for Health Information press release) "walking near water,'' whereas many firearms murders don't involve collectors' or sports shooters' stolen weapons. If you seriously believe "No hobby is worth a life,'' consistency requires that you seek a ban on these other recreational activities first. If not, why did you say it?

Cynics might claim that, as a politician, you were simply seeking a plausible formulation to seize the rhetorical high ground in defence of a policy you hadn't really thought through but it polled well and every cool person you knew instinctively supported it. Not me. I charitably grant that you are as confused as you sound. As Henry Hazlitt complained 60 years ago, government policy frequently lags behind Adam Smith.

So let me explain to you the concept of "tradeoffs.'' In life, including public policy, every course of action involves both benefits and costs. If nothing else, a decision to spend time doing something we enjoy means that same time cannot be spent doing something else we also enjoy. And most pleasant activities, even golf, not only consume valuable time and money but are also more risky than, say, cowering in our basements. Forget skydiving or white-water rafting. Do you have any idea what might happen if someone were hit in the head by a croquet ball? Or ran into a tree chasing a Frisbee?

Before banning all such reckless pastimes because "No hobby is worth a life,'' you might need to chat about tradeoffs with your colleague Jim Watson, the minister of health promotion. He may regard moderate physical activity not just as a pleasant diversion for persons under the care and supervision of the benevolent state, but also as useful in reducing premature death due to being a big fat slob, thus saving the public health system much lovely money. He may even mention the "jogger's dilemma" that while people who exercise tend to live longer, at any given moment the risk of death is higher while working out than not.

Possibly some state facility could be established at which low-risk aerobics could be conducted in close proximity to advanced medical equipment and far from lakes, ponds and other death traps. And there are plenty of hobbies that look safe. Like stamp collecting, where lethal paper cuts are rare. Or chess: Who ever choked on a rook? So it might seem that a ban on any hobbies mathematically shown to increase fatalities would not impose an undue burden of boredom on the good people of Ontario.

Alas, it is not that simple. Do you have any idea how many car accidents involve people travelling to and from chess clubs, yoga classes or smoke-free social gatherings, as well as really scary things like recreational softball where heart attacks, concussions and food poisoning from the potato salad cannot be ruled out entirely? And forget banning automobile travel for frivolous or alarming recreational purposes. Pedestrians can be run over, succumb to heat exhaustion, be stung by bees or otherwise perish on their way to art class. It's an abattoir out there.

Of course, if we take tradeoffs seriously, we might also have to ask Mr. Watson whether high tobacco taxes, which undermine border security by increasing smuggling, are worth the frisson of virtue from stamping out the sin of smoking. For regrettably one tradeoff in thinking more clearly about policy is realizing some cherished nostrums don't work. But a trade-off in avoiding clear thinking is doing and saying dumb stuff. Trade-offs are everywhere ... except in your letter.

Finally, stress is a significant factor in premature death. And the modern world has reduced previously significant sources of anxiety, such as frenzied Huns sweeping suddenly over the horizon, but has created others, from the frantic pace of work to people driving while cellphoning to politicians who meddle with law-abiding citizens because they can't control predatory thugs, then rationalize their conduct in foolish ways.

Even if silly statements are a traditional politicians' hobby, they are bad for my blood pressure. And remember: No hobby is worth a life.

John Robson's column appears weekly.

Robson's letter is hilarious

Being one of the police who they say use this registry daily I seldom comment on such things, however the way they misrepresent the facts and stats is incredible. There is no accountability on the Govt part nor on any of the journalists who freqeuntly comment on these things. They do not have to justify anything they say. Where are the actual numbers of crime being solved by the registry, actual number of registered guns being used in crimes etc. Seldom are they used accuratley even when mentioned. Most guns in the criminal world are still unregistered. The money would have been better used to fight crime, border security, keeping terrorists out of our country etc. About the only time the registry is really useful is when a law abiding person has his house broken into and all the guns stolen we can print the list off cpic. As to checking on the way to domestic disputes seldom is there time, we have no compters in car, so running back to the office and waiting 15 minutes to check it does not happen to much. As to having guns stolen, if a determined person has the time and means no guns are safe, they can break into most safes if they come prepared. Not to say all that you can do to keep them locked and safe isn't the best plan. More members on the street mean less criminals, that and putting them in jail for a real time period would do more to keep society safe. Kill the money sucking registry and put it into prisons to hold the scum that feed off a pathetic system, and cause true harm to our country. My 2 cents.

I've been trying to buy a pistol for 5 weeks now. It has prohibited status because of the barrel length .. but before anyone breaks into a cold sweat - it is a Luger from WW 1. Too cool and so much history. The person at the Firearms Registry said today that they are swamped .. cutbacks .. fogies with prohibited status passing away so a bit of a complicated mess with heirs who probably don't have 'prohibited' status. 5 weeks is silly, of course, but obviously the Federally imposed cutbacks is a good sign ...

quote:

As to checking on the way to domestic disputes seldom is there time, we have no compters in car, so running back to the office and waiting 15 minutes to check it does not happen to much.

FWIW, my Pa (ret RCMP) says that in his opinion the registry serves no useful purpose for checking prior to domestic disputes etc, anyway. You have to assume the possibility of firearms in the house regardless of what the registry says. Just because the registry says there is a shotgun in the house, doesn't mean there are not illegal handguns or full autos for that matter. And in the same vein, the fact no registered firearms are listed doesn't mean its safe to let your guard down.

It makes sense to me. I'd be curious to hear if you, as an active member, agree. I can appreciate if you don't want to say to much on the issue though!

Cheers,
Canuck

quote:

Originally posted by Canuck:
I can appreciate if you don't want to say to much on the issue though!

Sorry, Canuck, I don't agree. The Canadian Police Association kept their mouths shut for years, saying that they were "monitoring" the progress of the registry.

If the rank and file cops had spoken up about the fallacy of this program in the first place, it would have never gone as far as it did.

People trust cops - much more than politicians, anyway. And if the cops had blown the whistle on this, the Liberals wouldn't have gotten away with it.

Ordinary cops have been letting the politicians get away with the "5,000 checks a day" bullshit. I don't know why, except that maybe they've been promised more money for cops on the street, if they go along with it. But, like any promise from a politician, it's just smoke and mirrors.

Well part of the problem is ordinary cops have no say, the only ones talking are the upper managment, they are as much politicians as politicians, or they would not have been appointed to the upper ranks. No one cares what my opinion is, nor would I be allowed to say, bad career move per say. Canuck you are so right, seldom are registered firearms present, its the other ones that will get you. If you always treat the call as if they are possibley in the house you are better off. I have been at the worse case scenario, and you know where i am so you can guess what that was, last year. Interestingly as well about 5 years ago the RCMP refused to provide some stats to the fire arms registry because they were being misquoted and misused. The federation of police chiefs is not represented by any RCMP, they are the prov police and municipal police. As the national police force the RCMP are not a part of it. I am all for firearms licences and safety courses, safe storage and usage laws, but the amount it has cost is unbelievable. Not sure what computers cost in Ottawa but they must be alot more than in the west. The RCMP went to a new system that is infinitly larger than the gun registry for far cheaper, and that is nationally. Lets put the money back where it is useful, putting high risk offenders in jail. No one in custody has ever stolen anyones truck or sold drugs to kids, or worse.

What is disturbing about the whole thing is everybody knows the gun registry doesn't work and yet there are people out there like George Soros putting $millions into trying to put it in place.

And there are alleged journalist like Olivia Ward of the Toronto Star who are as obsessed with the pushing idea as if it were a religious belief.

They seem simply to want to centralize the potential power of violence in to the hands of a few and that is really scary.

These gun control advocates are not just stupid or well meaning. They are genuinely dangerous and I think fundamentally evil.

VBR,


Ted Gorsline

Fischer, I don't expect any individual to jeopardize their career to publicly speak up on an issue that they have no direct control over. Many times its better to be on the bus, quietly trying to steer it, rather than standing out in front of the bus waving your arms. If someone feels the gun registry is so important to them that they are willing to change careers over it and thereby give up on all of the other good they could do as an LEO, that's a personal call. While I agree with the root of your issue, I blame their leadership and association.

Jetboater, thanks for your comments. Sounds like you and I are on the same page, wrt to the registry (which I think is useless and a waste of funds that could be employed far more effectively), licensing (which I don't have an issue with on its face, as it isn't a bad idea to screen out criminals etc, although I do have an issue with its actual implementation) and safe use/storage (which I also agree with, but wish we didn't have to legislate...too bad we get stuck managing to the lowest common denominator).

One of my pet peeves is the incident in northern Alberta being used as justification for a long gun registry, because long guns were involved. I sincerely don't see how the registry would have assisted...the man was known to be potentially dangerous and a drug dealer (which implies an increased likelihood of violence) and I assume the situation was handled accordingly even though the result was tragic.

Enforcing the laws we already have would sure be great starting point, rather than further restrictions on the freedoms of law abiding citizens. I like your comment about no one in custody ever stealing, selling drugs, etc.

There are a couple other firearm related issues that continue to stick in my craw, though. I don't like the search and siezure rights provided by the firearms act. I think it is a violation of our basic rights. I also don't like the use restrictions placed on handguns. If you are trained and licenced, hunting and self protection (in the bush, I am not talking about concealed carry) should be a legitimate option.

I could go on, but should stop myself before I get too wound up.

Thanks again for your candor.

Cheers,
Canuck

quote:

Originally posted by Canuck:
Fischer, I don't expect any individual to jeopardize their career to publicly speak up on an issue that they have no direct control over. Many times its better to be on the bus, quietly trying to steer it, rather than standing out in front of the bus waving your arms. If someone feels the gun registry is so important to them that they are willing to change careers over it and thereby give up on all of the other good they could do as an LEO, that's a personal call. While I agree with the root of your issue, I blame their leadership and association.

Canuck, if you re-read my post, I mentioned the Canadian Police Association. They represent the cop on the street, not ranking officers or politically appointed police chiefs. The cop on the street elects their leadership. If they weren't properly communicating the message that the cop on the street was giving them, then they would have been voted out.

That tells me that the cop on the street, despite what he might say privately, wasn't putting his words to action with the association that represents him.

AFA the situation that Jetboater refers to, IIRC, the perp was a convicted criminal with a violent history who was prohibited from owning firearms. He used a prohibited firearm that was smuggled into Canada long before the registry was even conceived.

No gun registry in the world is going to stop someone like that. A bullet, a large adminstration of intravenous drugs, or making him the ground for an extremely high voltage power line would do the trick. Or, an appropriate length of a good quality rope would do it much more cheaply.

Interesting comment about the police association, while some street level cops may vote for the delegates on it, not RCMP members. It does not represent RCMP as far as I know. What percentage of small town police are non RCMP. As most of Canada is contracted to the RCMP, it really only represents city forces, and the 2 eastern provinces that are non contract RCMP. As members of the RCMP it is illegal to join any unions, or become polical at any level. So even there it misrepresents the numbers and statistics, easily done when the majority of the police are not represented in that way, and have no voice in national politics.
A determined killer is never stopped by the laws of the day, any gun registry, or the rules of society. A certain type of person cannot live amongst society safely, either through mental illness or what ever causes it, they will never live by rules, they live to cause harm and prey on people to weak to defend themselves. That is why we have murders and sensless acts of violence every day. The only thing is we are not accustomed to it in Canada. Case in point Toronto, when the terrorists do strike we are going to be very surprised at the willingness to take innocent lives, all for no real reason. They consider little kids and women being blown up the best message, due to its high shock value.
I think we live in a new era, one were we better start to take people like ROZSKO for what they are and can be, a danger to society. He is far from the only one around, there are people in every community with the same potential, who refuse to believe they cannot do what ever they want to who ever. I recall an incident in the southern US in the 80's, a man terrorised a small town for years, even to raping several women, every time he came out of jail he was much worse. The end result, the town shot him full of holes on main street in his pickup. No one ever charged for it.
Now not saying we should start the same, but if the general public started to demand reasons why Judges don't put convicted people in jail for real crime, maybe they would start to serve the communtiy better and lock the real bad guys up. Not give a guy a 40 month sentence for tying up and sexually assaulting a women over 9 hours, as in Edmonton this week. They get double time and even triple time for being in Edmonton Remand center, so they stay in for 6 months, plead guilty and get time served for 18 months. Does that even make sense to anyone reasonable.
I do hope the new federal Gov't is serios about the crime problem, so what if it costs money to build a prison, what is the total cost of not putting them in prison, I think much higher.

Jetboater. I got this stat from the 2005 Auditor General report:

http://www.oag-bvg.gc.ca/domino/reports.nsf/html/20051101ce.html

1.1 Effective policing is a fundamental requirement for a safe and secure society. Canada has close to 60,000 peace officers employed in municipal, provincial, and federal police organizations. The Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) is by far Canada's largest police force, and contract policing—providing policing services under contract to provinces, territories, municipalities, and First Nations reserves—is its largest activity, occupying almost 60 percent of its 18,471 peace officers.


So, it appears that 1/3 of Canada's cops are RCMP. I don't know how many of the other 2/3'rds the CPA represents, but I still resent the fact that the CPA executive chose to "monitor" the firearms registry for so long, despite (as I understand) repeated motions from their membership that they pass a resolution against the registry.

quote:

Originally posted by Fischer:

quote:

Originally posted by Canuck:
I can appreciate if you don't want to say to much on the issue though!

Sorry, Canuck, I don't agree. The Canadian Police Association .....

quote:

Originally posted by Fischer:
Canuck, if you re-read my post, I mentioned the Canadian Police Association.

I got that but you said you don't agree with me. What did I say that you don't agree with? I think it was pretty clear that I was referring to Jetboater individually (not the entire law enforcement community collectively) when I said I'd understand if he didn't want to comment further in a public forum.

(ps: although it may read that way, I am not trying to be argumentative....just not sure if you are?)


Canuck

Been following the ongoing dilemma with registration that you guys up north have had to deal with for so long. At least it seems that you are, hopefully, moving in the right direction.

We have the same type of panty wearing, limp wristed liberals who think guns are as bad as a pandemic...or worse! And George Soros is spending mega bucks down here also, to "educate" us on the evils of private gun ownership.

Our death by guns has fallen each year for several years, and with something like 95 million gun owners and 200+ million firearms in private hands, death by drowning in the U.S. far outstrips gun deaths. Hell, 40,000+ people are killed in traffic accidents, but the liberals aren't out there demanding a ban on cars!

Keep up the good fight up there and don't end up like Australia or Great Britain.

John

Canuck,

It appears that I misread you a bit. Apologies!

A little up date.

Canada: Tories move to kill gun registry, chances of success uncertain
Submitted by: News Director
There are no comments on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments


" Public Safety Minister Stockwell Day, declaring the federal long-gun registry a costly and inefficient nuisance to firearms owners, has introduced legislation to abolish it."

"But there won't be time to deal with the bill before Parliament breaks for the summer this week, meaning a vote will be delayed until the fall."

The conservatives have made their intentions clear. They deserve the support of every shooter in Canada next time around which won't be long.