sda2.jpg

August 26, 2010

Operation Zero Tolerance

Canada's National Firearms Association announces Operation Zero Tolerance;

It has come to the attention of Canada's National Firearms Association that the political police chief heads of law enforcement associations are planning a nation wide blitz against licensed firearms owners, as retribution for the political action of the Canadian firearms community that has resulted in the final vote in parliament of Manitoba MP Candice Hoeppner's Bill C-391.

The Canadian Association of Police Chiefs (CACP) has formed a "National Firearms Policy" in order to coordinate enforcement initiatives against licensed firearms owners with registered firearms. Canada's National Firearms Association has information that CACP will be directing their members to clamp down on licensed firearms owners with registered firearms as punishment for their political action to reform bad firearms control laws.


Details and contact information at the link.

Posted by Kate at August 26, 2010 1:24 AM
Comments

As our Auditor General noted the $2 BILLION gun registry has been a big old slush fund for the police chiefs association.

It appears the police chiefs don't like losing their lolly. If Bill is so concerned about officer safety, pointing out that 14 officers were killed by long guns, hardly speaks to the efficacy of the registry.

Rather it shows how abysmally the long gun registry has failed. Not to mention the billions squandered down the proverbial financial rat hole.
There are better ways to spend this money.

This policy should have been shot down in flames long ago. Maybe the new F-35 Lightning CF fighter can ventilate this policy adequately with about 180 rounds from the GAU-22/A four-barrel 25mm cannon.

Should do the trick.


Cheers

Hans-Christian Georg Rupprecht, Commander in Chief

1st Saint Nicolaas Army
Army Group "True North"

Posted by: Hans Rupprecht at August 26, 2010 4:40 AM

So let's be clear:

Because law abiding citizens have exercised their freedom of expression, via the legal process and have voiced their opinions about legislated law:

The public service sector (Canadian Police Chiefs) have independently decided that they are going to bully, harass and punish these same law abiding, tax-paying citizens?

*Anyone in Canada with a gun licence and registered guns is a proven law abiding citizen by default. Otherwise they would not have passed the background checks, nor would they have registered their firearms to begin with.

Now these "public servants" will use that same registry to attack these citizens. It only goes to prove how wrong the Registry was to begin with.

Every Canadian, gun owner or non gun owner should be very worried about these Stalanist tactics. They do after all have other information at their disposal about YOU - registered guns aside.


Am I really hearing this?

Posted by: Knight 99 at August 26, 2010 4:42 AM


Also read MP Candice Hoeppner Aug 23/10 press release:

http://candicehoeppner.com/pg_news/details.asp?ID=181

"....Edmonton police officer Randy Kuntz’s national survey of Canadian police officers revealed that 92 percent of police officers in Canada want Members of Parliament to vote in favour of scrapping the long-gun registry."

Posted by: Knight 99 at August 26, 2010 5:14 AM

Candice Hoeppner MP

New Website - "Scrap the Registry"

http://www.scraptheregistry.ca/

Includes online counter "Countdown To The Vote = 27 days, 1 hour, 6 minutes, 31 seconds".......

Posted by: Knight 99 at August 26, 2010 5:29 AM

A Police Chief may be fired for malfeasance, it would be reasonable for a City Council to weigh the liability issues…

Posted by: Slap Shot at August 26, 2010 6:03 AM

Always have at least two guns.

A registered one for shooting intruders,

and an unregistered one for placing in the hand of dead intruders to justify self-defense.

Posted by: pok at August 26, 2010 7:01 AM

Kate:

Thanks for your visit into North Carolina,
we are better for having you.

A woman can stand on the side of the road with hands on her hips in NC,
staring at a flat tire.

3 NC men will stop
and bust their knuckles trying to fix it-

Southern Chivalry!

Anyway...

Old North Carolina bumper sticker-

"When guns are outlawed,
only outlaws will carry guns."

"Gun control is better with both hands."

Posted by: Fearless Leader at August 26, 2010 7:21 AM

Thanks, Kate. I'll be sure to update my post at The Politic.

Posted by: Mark Peters at August 26, 2010 7:40 AM

police chiefs who want to play politics in the open should be taught the foolishness of this idea !fire them all!

Posted by: royalist at August 26, 2010 7:42 AM

The registry was always about social re-engineering, ultimately leading to confiscation. That's why most people never registered their guns. Maybe its time we elected police chiefs after we fire every damn one of the present ones.

Posted by: Terry Anderson at August 26, 2010 7:51 AM

Long guns in the possession of law abiding Taxpayers are all licensed
Long guns in the possession of criminals are not licensed
the registry exposes the personal information of the owners of long guns to organizations such as the Toronto Star and criminals
home invasions will then be a source of criminals obtaining long guns should their smuggling of guns be inhibited
as a law abiding taxpayer I am tired of my money being wasted
I do not own a gun but as a young person I used to hunt with my Father
Guns do not kill people criminals kill people
We need to direct our Tax dollars to police protection
we need to have more police officers not a usless registry of long guns
fh

Posted by: fh at August 26, 2010 7:53 AM

I tried to make the point at the CBC the Chief is a political position. If the Chief wants to move up to a bigger city they cannot be seen to be against the registry. It is self interest. They have a chauffeur with a gun. You don't. Tried being the key word.

Posted by: Speedy at August 26, 2010 8:01 AM

To all Leftists;

You feared the right would turn the world into "big brother" as in the book "1984"... well congratulation, it is actually happening at the hands of leftists.

Dear leftists,

You are the person your mother warned you about.

Posted by: Friend of USA at August 26, 2010 8:14 AM

fh at August 26, 2010 7:53 AM
“home invasions will then be a source of criminals obtaining long guns should their smuggling of guns be inhibited”

Not will be are. I was such a victim about 5 years back.......they had a list.....

Posted by: sasquatch at August 26, 2010 8:50 AM

The Canadian Association of Police Chiefs (CACP) are the financiers of Wendy Cukier's Coalition for Firearms......

Posted by: sasquatch at August 26, 2010 8:53 AM

Well I am sure glad the CoPs have figured out where all the crime & violence is coming from and will target the source.

About time. Now that they have solved the problems with Organized Crime, neutered the Hell's Angels & The Triads, stopped the drug trade and busted all the illegal native's selling poisonous tobacco, they can divert their attention and our tax dollars where the real crimes are.


The expression "Stuck on Stupid" comes to mind.

Maybe it is true what my constable cop friends . . . you don't make Chief 'caaue your smart, but having big lips & not minding the taste of shit helps a lot"


Posted by: Fred at August 26, 2010 8:56 AM

It is always helpful to remember that most "associations" representing the heads of any organizations which depend on tax revenues collected by other entities aren't in the business of telling senior levels of government "Please stop wasting taxpayers money".

Go along to get along.

Posted by: Sgt Lejaune at August 26, 2010 8:56 AM

If the police show up at your door (without a warrant) and demand that they show you your guns RIGHT NOW, send them packing. Only the CFO can conduct inspections and only upon agreeing upon a time to do so beforehand. Ask to see the CFOs identification, and videotape everything or have a lawyer present.

Posted by: grok at August 26, 2010 8:58 AM

With this latest terrorism bust now playing out in our capital city I'd be more concerned with zero tolerance for any more immigration from countries that breed them, than to worry about registering freaking long guns.

Posted by: Liz J at August 26, 2010 9:01 AM

If our police chiefs want to act like politicians maybe they should be elected as well...

Posted by: Custom10 at August 26, 2010 9:05 AM

Cops can lay all the charges they want - federal justice department decides whether to prosecute. If the chiefs go wacky with this maybe PMSH can instruct Justice to not proceed with the prosecution.

Just a thought.

Posted by: a different bob at August 26, 2010 9:41 AM

The images of how the professional progressive cabal works is becoming more clear and it is critical that we understand this game. The Chiefs rose to their positions because they are political butt kissers. They now have to back their progressive Bosses, the Mayors, or they will be relegated to the basement tagging stolen bicycles. Even though the cops on the street are against the squirrel gun registry as a waste of time and money, the Chiefs back their progressive bosses because it is in their self-interest to keep the “Bosses” happy. Therefore we need to change the “Bosses”.

We have been run by progressive creep for decades which can be seen in this Zero Tolerance plot, the Obamarx gang that has hijacked America and now we see it in the mutiny forming at Socialist Silly Hall in Toronto where :

Councillors Kyle Rae along with Howard Moscoe are de facto saying that if Rob Ford gets elected the rest of council will have to caucus and choose their own Mayor from within and ignore Ford. Now isn’t that mutiny of Ford before he even gets elected by “we the people”? Are we in a democracy or not?

Therefore in order to get our Police Chiefs aligned with the cops who serve and protect, we need to change the Bosses and Rob Ford has become the enfant terrible because the professional progressives know that if Toronto can game change, then the whole country can. Sue-Ann Levy of the Toronto Sun explains what is going on:
“These puffed up, self-important champagne socialists are positively apoplectic that council’s enfant terrible (Rob Ford) is leading in the most recent polls. They would never admit that they and their beloved leader, the man I’ve called His Blondness, drove taxpayers to this point with their complete disdain for anyone who didn’t see the world their way and for their blatant disregard of the bottom line.”

Posted by: nomdeblog at August 26, 2010 9:54 AM

There was a big announcement a few weeks ago by Harper of how the 200, (or 250), jobs that will be lost when the registry is shut down will be replaced.

Blair claims the registry costs $4 million a year, the recent registry report claims the costs are between $1.1 and 3.6 million a year.

Even at $4 million a year, how do you hire 200 civil servants for that let alone pay the other expenses?

I dunno what's happening, but on it's face it doesn't add up.

As for the number of times the registry is accessed per day, that ranges from 7,400 to several bazillion per day depending on which gullible journalist is reporting it.

Posted by: Stan at August 26, 2010 9:56 AM

Yup...and they don't have the staff or the time to catch crooks???

Posted by: melwilde at August 26, 2010 10:01 AM

Snivel Servants behaving badly appears to be a epidemic in this nation? Perhaps we should publish said list of the Chiefs so we can call their political masters and demand the forkers be fired for shaking down lawabiding legal gun owners. Time to give said politicians an earful, we could also remind said politicians that their job are dependant upon the electorate and that electorate expects our law enforcement leaders to enforce the law not alledgedly coordinate a program to harass citizens out of spite, malice and revenge.

Posted by: rose at August 26, 2010 10:12 AM

"Dr. Jones and the members of the ethics committee were in Montreal in August for two days of meetings around the CACP’s annual conference when they learned about Taser’s sponsorship and that of others, including a joint Bell Mobility-CGI-Group Techna donation of $115,000, which went toward the purchase of 1,000 tickets at $215 each to a Celine Dion concert on Aug. 25."
Bell mobility and CGI hmm communication systems? Gun registry? Spidey senses?

Posted by: Speedy at August 26, 2010 10:17 AM

It funny in that the report states that the Canadian police chiefs (against the will of 92% of officers) want to really nail taxpayers who own more than ten (10) guns.

What's up with that?

The fact that they actually have 10 registered guns must mean something really bad.

Are there any case studies of a criminal walking into a bank with ten guns or more strapped to themselves? Could they walk? Why 10 guns and not homes with one or two, must be some sort of liberal super Rambo fantasy where middle aged Canadian men (who can afford ten guns) run around like cartoon he-men with guns sticking out everywhere like a porcupine. Libs are so gay.

Posted by: Knight 99 at August 26, 2010 10:23 AM

If they succeed with gunowners?

Who's next? You?

For what?

"Give us a name. We will find the crime."
-KGB

Oh. When Blair speaks? Stand back 5 metres. It's a law dontcha know.

Posted by: Curious at August 26, 2010 10:29 AM

Gun control has always been about punishing Conservatives. OPP riot squads face away from armed Mohawk "protesters" and toward unarmed Caledonia townies. The also beat up and arrest the townies, while taking rocks and bottles in the back of the head from the Mohawks.

Sometimes I wish I was just paranoid about it, because then a shot of medicine would make it go away.

Might be a good time to call up your CPC MP. Again. For the two hundredth f-ing time. And scream down the phone at him to FIX THIS.

Maybe firing a few top cops and Crown attorneys wouldn't hurt either.

Posted by: The Phantom at August 26, 2010 10:47 AM

Told ya.

Feel stupid for registering your weapons? Good. You should.

Bad law should be disobeyed.

Posted by: mojo at August 26, 2010 10:56 AM

"Might be a good time to call up your CPC MP"

Phantom, I wish!

Living in what will hopefully become Ford City but meanwhile Toronto the good doesn’t have a single CPC MP. My Liberal MP got elected on the erudite campaign strategy of being “A Force for Good”, that’s all she (maybe he, hard to tell) wrote. Ergo the successful Liberal campaign thrust has been “about punishing Conservatives” for being a force for bad.

Posted by: nomdeblog at August 26, 2010 11:10 AM

Kevin Gaudet of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation says that the registry costs three levels of government $106 million a year.

I don't know if that is accurate or not, but I really wonder about Blair's claims you can hire 200 civil servants and pay all the expenses of the registry for $4 million a year.

Which is the bigger threat to Canada, a few law abiding duck hunters or lying police chiefs like Blair and those who lied to us about the Taser killings in Vancouver?
Or lied about the fence at the G20?

The RCMP report says the registry costs between $1.1 and $3.6 million a year.
The liberals also lied about this registry every step of the way.

Again, I don't think a few law abiding duck hunters are a threat to us but a police force that routinely lies to us is.

Robert Dziekański was killed by the RCMP, then they lied about it, that pissed the public off more than anything.
Then Blair lies about the weapons seized at the G20 and about the fence law.
Now the police are lying again about this.

People don't like being lied to.

I think the way you win this one is by reminding people that the police are lying to us once again and it seems to have become a habit.

Posted by: Stan at August 26, 2010 11:14 AM

Nomdeblog >

Your liberal MP then sounds like the perfect person to call or write!

If anything libs will flip their "values" 180 degrees, faster than Mike Tyson flips a burger these days, if they feel politically threatened.

Posted by: Knight 99 at August 26, 2010 11:17 AM

Here's the link to the Gaudet story on the registry cost in the Sun:

http://www.ottawasun.com/comment/2010/08/25/15141726.html#/comment/2010/08/25/pf-15141731.html

Posted by: Stan at August 26, 2010 11:17 AM

Does anyone really know the full story on the registry? Do police officers really use it? What is the actual cost to taxpayers?

Mark Pugash, a member of the Toronto Police Service, talked with John Gormley on Tuesday and aggressively defended the registry. Pugash stated that the survey showing 92% of rank and file officers wanting to scrap the registry was inaccurate, inconclusive and probably rigged. Was the survey accurate? Who knows? Pugash also pointed out that the registry was accessed thousands of times per day by police officers. On this point, Gormley challenged him that it was CPIC that was being accessed, not the registry itself. Pugash vehemently denied this and stated unequivocally that the registry was a completely separate data base and was being utilized often. What's the real story? How many times is the registry being assessed on a daily basis? Pugash went on to add that any opposition to the registry was based on dogma and political leanings .... a poorly-disguised swipe at the right side of the political spectrum. Finally, Pugash cavalierly dismissed the $4 million annual cost as money well spent.

Where is the media on this subject? Surely some journalist with a modicum of investigative skills can come up with the real story and set things straight once and for all.

Personally, I'm inclined to take a position in opposition to the police chiefs. They are, after all, more politician than police officer.

Posted by: biffjr. at August 26, 2010 11:44 AM

K99 , right! Will do and will use Stan’s “amo”

Posted by: nomdeblog at August 26, 2010 11:46 AM

On a news sound bite one of the police chiefs stated that the police access the registry 11,000 times each and every day.

When do the police use this? Me thinks every time a private residence response to see if there are any guns registered to the homeowner. The cops want to know if there is a potential of a gun being pointed there way.

Only the beginning of the confiscation process.

Posted by: glacierman at August 26, 2010 12:04 PM

Always have at least two guns.

A registered one for shooting intruders,

and an unregistered one for placing in the hand of dead intruders to justify self-defense.

======================================

Wow.

Posted by: David at August 26, 2010 12:09 PM

Obviuosly the time and place for some retaliatory action. Too bad they're so stupid that they don't realize they need public co-operation to do their job properly.

Maybe the National Firearms Association can put together an on-line declaration that all law-abiding gun-owners can sign on to.

Something along the lines of: We the undersigned will (a) stop providing the cops with tips and information; (b) not allow police on our propery for any reason unless they have a warant; (c) boycott and stop funding all events that police associations support (Special Olympics, etc.)(d) etc., etc.

Posted by: Jamie MacMaster at August 26, 2010 12:31 PM

Police Chiefs are bureaucrats in terminal career positions who are incentivized to top up their last few years of benefits to translate into pensions. If they use stats to do so, what easier way than to make criminals out of law abiding citizens who have resisted the long gun registry. Sure beats going after real criminals. Also as mentioned above, what interests their political bossed intrigues the hell out of them. All those years of canine sex and consumption of Timmy's Canadian Maples hasn't made them totally oblivious to motivation.

Posted by: John Chittick at August 26, 2010 12:42 PM

Simple solution - take the costs of the gun registry out of the police chief's office budget (or better yet, their salary).

Posted by: OddSox at August 26, 2010 12:45 PM

What do you mean "wow" David? They just charged a guy for merely discharging a pistol in the general direction of three men armed with molotov cocktails, trying to set fire to his house.

Its a bad idea though. The authorities will chuck you in jail anyway, no matter if the intruder is armed or not. So there's really no point to it.

They're "sending a message" to all the other gun owners when they do things like this. The charge will most likely be defeated in court, but by the time that happens the defendant will have been put through utter hell and broken financially by the lawyers fees.

Message from the Canadian government: it is better to DIE than to dare defend yourself with a firearm.

Everybody got that?

Posted by: The Phantom at August 26, 2010 12:54 PM

I just wish these fools would look at how well confiscation of firearms has worked out for Australia and the not so Great Britain.
How well did it work out for Germany in the 1930's.

mike

Posted by: mie at August 26, 2010 12:58 PM

Wait, is this the good kind of civil liberties violations by police (the G20) or the bad kind (harassing Caledonia protestors in Ontario)? I can't keep the partisan angle straight. I particularly enjoy how the left is all of a sudden now pro-police.

In any case, if this is the tipping point that finally gets conservatives to recognize that the police aren't on our side and aren't anything more than petty, officious functionnaries of the state then it is all worth it.

Posted by: slaw at August 26, 2010 12:59 PM

Wait, is this the good kind of civil liberties violations by police (the G20) or the bad kind (harassing Caledonia protestors in Ontario)? I can't keep the partisan angle straight. I particularly enjoy how the left is all of a sudden now pro-police.

In any case, if this is the tipping point that finally gets conservatives to recognize that the police aren't on our side and aren't anything more than petty, officious functionnaries of the state then it is all worth it.

Posted by: slaw at August 26, 2010 12:59 PM

I've noticed a few Leftist trolls on SDA trying to assert that the views of the [highly political] police chiefs represent the views of police officers across the country. I don't know if this is deliberate deception on the part of the Leftists or just their regular ignorance at work, but the statement is absolutely FALSE.

If you'd like to hear how average police officers feel about the Gun Registry then listen to this segment from Roy Green hosting Adler's show on Tuesday. It will shed more than a little light on this entire subject!

Posted by: Robert W. (Vancouver) at August 26, 2010 1:03 PM

bffjr, here are the facts. TPS PC Mark Pugash didn't know, or hid the fact, that the police computers are rigged to check the gun registry automatically every time any check of any kind is made. This is how they run the numbers up. Since half the guns aren't even in the system, and most of the entries have errors, most police do not trust the system. Any police trainer who tells his students to trust the registry will eventually have blood on his hands. The police do willfully check the registry for gun info, but that is only a few times a day, not thousands.

Finally, did Officer Pugash voice out that CFRO check results are voice out on an unencrypted radio system? A wrongdoer can monitor the system (not difficult) and within an afternoon and evening, he will probably have a few addresses that contain legal firearms. It's a shopping list for criminals.

Finally, it's on the public record that the registry has been hacked over 300 times.

Funny that immediately after PM Martin announced his plan to ban handguns, there were some high-profile legal handgun thefts. Odd, eh?

Posted by: V4Fan at August 26, 2010 1:03 PM

I've noticed a few Leftist trolls on SDA trying to assert that the views of the [highly political] police chiefs represent the views of police officers across the country. I don't know if this is deliberate deception on the part of the Leftists or just their regular ignorance at work, but the statement is absolutely FALSE.

If you'd like to hear how average police officers feel about the Gun Registry then listen to this segment from Roy Green hosting Adler's show on Tuesday. It will shed more than a little light on this entire subject!

Posted by: Robert W. (Vancouver) at August 26, 2010 1:05 PM

Because the Conservatives have never had guts to get on private property rights, it is everybody's business what you own or what you don't. The latests gang association praising long gun registry are ER doctors.

Posted by: xiat at August 26, 2010 1:13 PM

There's nothing like pissing off the people who would otherwise be your biggest supporters.

Posted by: grok at August 26, 2010 1:15 PM

According to gun control advocates, gun owners are unnecessarily paranoid about the emergence of a police state in the absence of an armed populace. Concern confirmed.

Posted by: Gus at August 26, 2010 1:16 PM

biffjr., you must be new to Canada and this site as most of us here are aware that the journalists in Canada have been in the Liberals back pocket for the last fifty or so years. 'Investigative journalism' as with 'journalistic integrity' are somewhat oxymoronic in Canada. When police departments cannot keep track of their own guns they shouldn't be allowed access to ours. A few years ago the Victoria Police department "misplaced" twenty service revolvers and didn't realize it until one of them appeared at a crime scene. So much for registering firearms!!!

Posted by: Antenor at August 26, 2010 1:34 PM

slaw said: "Wait, is this the good kind of civil liberties violations by police (the G20) or the bad kind (harassing Caledonia protestors in Ontario)? I can't keep the partisan angle straight."

slaw, you just cited two examples of the same thing. Police letting violent protesters do whatever they want, then cracking down on whoever happens to be standing around doing nothing.

What's your point?


Posted by: The Phantom at August 26, 2010 1:58 PM

"* Registered firearms will be seized despite their legal use or status, with the onus put on their owners to navigate the firearms bureaucracy and legal system in order to retrieve them."

WTF, isn't this a form of theft, if they're legally registered how can they take them??

Will the police be confiscating service revolvers from each others homes so they can "navigate them back" or are they the protected class?

I have a friend with a shiny new criminal record: "Person Of Interest, Guns Found" under the mental health act section something or other, no court no judge no nothing.

He found out because he ordered a background check on himself. He and his wife are trying to adopt and the criminal record check is mandatory, their adoption councillor will not submit their application (after taking his $5000 of course) with this on his record. He is otherwise a police supporting clean as a whistle do-gooder who doesn't even speed.

He mistakenly allowed the paper work to lapse on his hunting hardware and the cops came a knockin last year and confiscated all of them.
He has them back now and most have been registered twice by the bright lights at HQ.

This is an evil force we're dealing with here, whether you're legal or not you're going to get harassed and victimized by the pointy end of the State.
These fat bureaucrat statist pricks need to be taught a lesson.

Posted by: richfisher at August 26, 2010 1:58 PM

richfisher, we have always known this was coming. Registration then confiscation is an invariable historic fact and everybody said so 'waaaaay back in the 1990's when all this crap started. I'm surprised it took them this long.

You have no property rights generally, but with guns your continued possession is a -privilege- that is granted to you by government and can be revoked at any time.

That's what a gun license means. The gun is not yours, its something you are allowed to keep on sufferance unless or until some bureaucrat decides otherwise. They don't really need a reason.

Lets not be confused about where we stand here, shall we?

Posted by: The Phantom at August 26, 2010 2:09 PM

"biffjr., you must be new to Canada and this site"

Actually it's "no" on both counts. I'm just naive enough to believe that there exists a journalist somewhere in Canada who is ambitious enough to dig up the truth and an editor possessing the intestinal fortitude to print it. Wishful thinking on my part I suppose.

I strongly suspect that Mr. Pugash, largely due to his belligerent and defensive attitude, was lying. Seeing him publicly called on it would be very entertaining.

Posted by: biffjr. at August 26, 2010 2:15 PM

I hope everyone here who is annoyed and complaining about this new round of social engineering stupidity is:

-donating to the NFA and CSSA or buying memberships
-writing editorials to the newspapers expressing your displeasure

Posted by: langmann at August 26, 2010 2:20 PM

The recent court ruling that the government has to pony up cash payments to those who've had their "Chartered Rights" violated could come into play. If the police are being ordered to shake down lawful gun owners by the Chiefs I'd say that crosses an ethical and moral line and could make them financially liable for pain and suffering awards.

Posted by: rose at August 26, 2010 2:41 PM

I know that police are at arms lengths from the government, but since the Chiefs of Police have jumped waaay over the line, I'm anxious to see how far Harper can shove his boot up their asses! I hope he starts by charging individual police departments $1 for every inquiry to the registry and see how fast the Chiefs of Police want to get rid of the thing.

Then keep the registry around for another year so that they really get the point not to abuse their powers and mess with law abiding citizens!

Posted by: Dan S at August 26, 2010 2:59 PM

In his position, with his knowledge, it is certain that Pugash was lying.All queries are made via CPIC.The whole point of the system is integrated information access, so that you don't have to go to disparate data bases to access the information that you want.

Registration was always about eventual confiscation.Remember that Liberal Alan Rock's stated goal was the disarming of the Canadian populace.

Posted by: Kursk at August 26, 2010 3:55 PM

With the Conservatives gun law of C-17 1991 and the Liberals gun law of C-68 1995, millions of ordinary Canadian citizens found themselves the target of arbitrary political repression, raids, seizures, even thrown in jail under threat of further charges and destruction of their property, homes unless they gave up their Charter Rights to due process. From Case law many citizens have been subject to this repression.

Then Reform and Canadian Alliance party members critiqued these unjustified, arbitrary measures, often citing the Auditor General's Reports which reviewed C-17 and later C-68.

Those reports found there was no evidence that such legislation and regulations would increase public safety.

Early Conservative Party policy was that the Firearms Act should be scraped and replaced. That stopped with the 'new' Conservative Party being elected.

The present Harper Conservative Party government has 'endorsed' retaining 98% of Mulroney/Campbell C-17 and Chretien/Rock C-68. Millions of Canadians(perhaps 30% of gun owners) licenced/registered themselves and
their firearms. This is the result.

Now those who attempted to comply with the law are the most vulnerable to a Police Chief campaign of political repression.

Unlike the latter half of the Twentieth Century the citizenry didn't need to fear either the police nor violent criminals. Now both are a clear and present danger to our once 'Free and Democratic Society".

The current Harper Conservative government appeasement policy has brought us to this situation.

Only a provincial government can protect it's citizens from this persecution.

Posted by: Larry at August 26, 2010 4:12 PM

This time Chiefs are dictating political policy by using their enforcement powers.

Very dangerous in any democratic country.

Posted by: Curious at August 26, 2010 4:56 PM

Stan:

Blair thinks $4 million will pay for 200 civil servants? That's $20,000 per year each in salary - and zero for computers, offices, heat, electricity, etc. Sounds like Blair's been smoking some of the confiscated dope.

And, of course, there's the usual 800-lb gorilla that the MSM never mentions: if the gun registry is so useful, can they point to a single crime that was solved (let alone prevented) by the registry, without spouting the bogus "we consult it 10,000 times a day!" nonsense?

Posted by: KevinB at August 26, 2010 5:04 PM

A few words about Pugash. He is a UK import (explains a lot) and corporate communications director for the TPS. He reports directly to Bliar (explains the rest). Needless to say he's slicker than a carnival barker pimping on the side. Of course he was lieing, he's known for it.

Posted by: Turfman Jones at August 26, 2010 5:36 PM

This is why many people are not registering. Once you do, you become an easy target for harassment.

It would seem that you are safer (from government) by not complying.

Our government is our worst enemy.

Posted by: Abe 'Swine' Froman at August 26, 2010 5:37 PM

Those thugs need to watch this video, and then hang their farking heads if shame the arseholes the lot of them.

Video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KTb6qdPu8JE&feature=player_embedded

Posted by: rose at August 26, 2010 5:47 PM

The real Question is why we are allowing Police in politics to begin with? Its a direct conflict of interest.
Time to put the brakes on a Government that would countenance this. If harper has any brains he will go after these guys like a falling mountain.
JMO

Posted by: Revnant Dream at August 26, 2010 5:48 PM

As I have said before, the RCMP are dedicated to the protection of the Crown.

They have a mandate to make sure the Royal Subjects (that's you & me - the taxpayer) are kept in line and do the sheeple thing. When the sheeple get restless from test runs like the G20, to watch how the "subjects" are responding, they come out with propaganda like the police chiefs and MD's and a whole pile of other public servants who rely on all our sheeple tax dollars to fund their pet projects.

It will not be long before the backlash starts and then the enforcement and confiscation begins.

Bad sheeple!! Bad!!!

Posted by: glacierman at August 26, 2010 6:52 PM

glacierman, shouldn't that be "Baaaaad sheeple! Baaaaad!"?

Posted by: The Phantom at August 26, 2010 7:02 PM

Just a thought experiment:

What if every registered gun owner reported that all his/her guns were stolen, preferably on the same day (say, November 5, 2010)? How many man-hours would Billy Blair and his pals put into investigation? What use would the registry be then, if every gun in it would then obviously be in the hands of criminals who haven't registered them?

Just wondering...

Posted by: KevinB at August 26, 2010 7:05 PM

This truly sucks. I made the (apparent) mistake of registering just in time to comply. So much for being a good, law abiding dude. I guess the only good thing is that in the last couple of years - for a variety of reasons - my guns have acquired that ole' travellin' Jones and never seem to be in the same place for very long. Catch me if you can.

Posted by: Brian M. at August 26, 2010 7:05 PM

Posted by: Knight 99 at August 26, 2010 4:42 AM

Nicely put. The Police have become thugs to those they can control, & cowards as Caledonia proved. To much pandering to Islamists or other "Identity" groups.
Every civilization needs a police force, but usually its strictly none political.
If not its only a matter of time before they become the enforcement arm of a tyranny.
This is Canada's infant police state starting teething. Soon it will haver fangs.
JMO

Posted by: Revnant Dream at August 26, 2010 8:00 PM

I sent an email to Mr.Hagen asking if there was any more information - I'd like to pass it around, and do some rabble-rousing, but a little more proof would be nice. Not that I don't think it's plausible the CACP would do something like this...

Posted by: RL at August 26, 2010 8:11 PM

...and the physicians support the registry because..?

What possible connection is there between what they do for a living and the oppression of law abiding gun owners?

How would one less or one more registered rifle make a difference to what they do?

I'll bet downtown surgeons treat more gunshot wounds from illegally procured handguns than registered rifles..

Any physicians here want to explain the correlation between a long gun registry and physicians who support it?

Please explain the rationale..

Posted by: Kursk at August 26, 2010 8:22 PM

If we had actual journalists in this country, and not progressive mouthpieces, questions like this would actually get asked of the police:

How many crimes have you solved using information available in the gun registry? Was that information available only in the gun registry or was it available in another police database or as a product of an investigation?

How accurate is the information in the gun registry, in your view? How many police resources have you expended on registry information that turned out to be incorrect? How many false negatives have you encountered - people who own firearms despite the gun registry stating they do not?

You say the gun registry saves lives. How many lives do you estimate it has saved? What is your methodology for this estimate? What studies have you done that support this methodology and estimate? Have you done any studies that cast doubt on this?

You frequently state the gun registry is accessed thousands of times per day. What information are you accessing when you do this? Is that information relevant to the investigation(s) taking place and how often is it so?

And that's just off the top of my head. I'm sure real journalists could follow up with dozens more. If we had any in this country.

Posted by: Ian in NS at August 26, 2010 8:49 PM

a good rule of thumb is not believe a single word a pig says. Pigs are politicized pathological liars.

Posted by: reg dunlop at August 26, 2010 9:19 PM

Kursk asks: "Any physicians here want to explain the correlation between a long gun registry and physicians who support it?"

I'm not a physician, but I'll have a go.

Two things about doctors and gun control. First, the medical journals have been the main vehicle for anti-gun propaganda since the 1970's. The Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), Canadian Medical Association Journal (CMAJ), The Lancet in England, the British Medical Journal (BMJ) and of course my favorite, the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) have been publishing one or two major anti-gun papers every year since about 1980 or so. Doctors pretty well have to read these journals, so they see these papers. Hundreds of them. No rebuttal allowed in the journals, of course.

Second, there are many doctors out there whose primary occupation is Professional Leftist. These are Ruling Class apparatchiks who grease the wheels of the gravy train for a living.

Most Canadian doctors are -far- too busy to even develop an opinion on the issue, they just parrot whatever the PC party line is this week in an effort to get along. Doctors that don't do this burn out pretty quick in the Ontario medical system. PC party line is set by Liberal Party operatives and bureaucrats, among whom are medical educators in university, nurse's union thugs, hospital management weenies, social workers, OHIP and the OMA licensing board.

The pressure to shut the f- up and go along is really quite remarkable. Its amazing any doctor comes out -against- gun control, frankly.

Posted by: The Phantom at August 26, 2010 9:41 PM

The name "reg dunlop" is associated with defending cops vehemently on other sites.

agent provocateur...?

Posted by: Curious at August 26, 2010 10:27 PM

I thought we left the Cheka policies behind in 1926.

Posted by: Ken (Kulak) at August 27, 2010 12:31 AM

It sounds like the chiefs really do want to make Canada a police state. This combined with the "sensitivity training" from left-wing extremists that leaves the cops intolerant of protests against marching crazies (which we saw a few times in 2009 in Toronto and Calgary) do not bode well for the future of the country.

Meanwhile, it would help if the PM would stop hiding his light under a bushel. Start explaining why your policies are good instead of just trying to plow ahead in silence.

Posted by: nv53 at August 27, 2010 1:45 AM

92% of Canadian police officers get it, 70% of the general public gets it, 99% of SDA commenter’s gets it.

What part of this issue is it that a few of our “tax funded public servants” don't get?

Medical bureaucrats and Police Chief’s alike.

This is not a matter of wishful desires by a few law abiding gun owners. This is based on overwhelming evidence through comprehensive studies and statistical data from Canada, the US and around the world on the Crime Deterrent and Costs associated with Gun Registry.

Simply put, that dog don’t hunt, and the few bureaucratic dissenters are pissing in the wind and all over themselves.

Posted by: Knight 99 at August 27, 2010 2:37 AM

One of the things that I've noted since I've been a doctor is that there are very few Libertarian physicians in Canada. Not sure why this is the case and the rationale given for totalitarian solutions proposed by physicians is "public health". There seems to be incredibly myopia on that part of many physicians that their "public health" positions result in severe erosions of civil liberties.

In med school I first encountered this idiotic attitude when I seemed to shock instructors when I mentioned that I didn't wear a seat belt and saw no use for bicycle helmets and was opposed to any laws which required me to do so (this was before the push for firearms elimination in Canada).

The same process that is happening with the chiefs of police happens with medical associations in that people who are more concerned with pushing a political agenda than doing the work they're supposed to be doing end up in positions of "leadership". I don't know why these individuals are in favor of statist solutions and my response to this is to not be a member of either the BCMA or CMA and I've let these organizations know why I refuse to join them.

In cities there are very few doctors that hunt or shoot. A lot of them are terrified of firearms and want to make them go away. The worst offenders among medical specialties are pediatricians who seem to want the world to be totally "child safe" and seem to have no conception of the notion of individual freedom which includes the right to do stupid and even fatal things.

Where I practice now a lot of doctors hunt and most people have guns. There's very little support for anti-gun positions.

Unfortunately most doctors don't look at the big picture and think for themselves. While not dealing directly with firearms, it illustrates how totalitarian laws get through. I was at a dinner meeting one night in Vancouver and the discussion at the table was about the dangers of "crystal meth". One fellow seemed to be obsessed with the extreme toxicity of "crystal meth" and was supporting more totalitarian laws to prevent it's production. I then asked him if he prescribed dexedrine in his practice at which point he answered in the affirmative. I then asked him how the N-methylation of dexedrine suddenly created this brain-rotting drug that he was ranting about and realized he was ignorant about amphetamine pharmacology. He also had no idea that methamphetamine was available as a prescription drug in the US as Desoxyn, or of the periodic occurrences of methamphetamine abuse that occur every 10-20 years or so, or that the Wehrmacht consumed methamphetamine in industrial doses during WWII.

This is an example of how event the presumably intelligent can be duped by statist propaganda which relies on the ignorance of the population to create artificial crises. The solution to this problem is to research things oneself and, failing that, instill an attitude in people that anything emanating from government should be instinctively distrusted. At least in the US the 2nd Amendment provides constitutional protection for the RKBA. The fight is harder in Canada, but maintenance of the firearms registry is not a high priority with the vast majority of people.

Where PMSH really screwed up was in not decriminalizing cannabis. Most firearms violence is now between various groups of drug dealers settling differences; decriminalize their highest cash value drug and suddenly the cost plummets and the only result is that one has a large number of unemployed drug dealers, narcs and crown prosecutors. Nothing else will change as those people who smoke cannabis will continue to do so and those who don't will continue to do so. I'm sure the chiefs of police are opposed to decriminalization also as this would mean there would be fewer police needed and they'd actually have to go after real criminals.

Posted by: loki at August 27, 2010 5:18 AM

Very well said Loki!

A summary point would be city dwelling Liberal doctors, who only see guns as impliments of crime.

I also think there is big merit in Phantom's comments about where the gravey comes from in a socialist run medical system - to paraphrase.

I agree with most of your points about street drug legalization. A problem I've always had with that (sensible) theory, is that criminals will always be criminals. I believe you just shift the produce of one flavor of crime to a other. What that would be who knows? Criminals are inventive, and violence will always follow. I would agree it should help reduce addicts.

Posted by: Knight 99 at August 27, 2010 6:49 AM

I am an ER physician.

I have to agree with Loki, its pretty much a group of political minded epidemiology obsessed groupies who run the organizations and pretend to speak for all of us. They have a fascist view of how society should be run. Quite honestly if it were up to them we'd all be wearing helmets and body armour.

They base their opinion of really bad evidence and correlations.

I have written articles in the National Post refuting all their pseudo evidence. Their favorite is to claim gun deaths have declined since the laws were enacted but they fail to mention that gun deaths were declining long before these laws.

If you go against them, as a physician believe me you end up hearing about it, and they'll try and ridicule your mental capabilities instead of debating the evidence.

The are a large number of physicians who shoot for hunting or sport reasons and are against the registry because it serves no purpose and has no evidence to support it. Of course our voices will not get heard...

Posted by: langmann at August 27, 2010 11:38 AM

langmann

Body armour is presently in the process of being banned/illegal in some provinces.

Perhaps bubble wrap?

All Hail Emperor William of Blair the First!

Posted by: Curious at August 27, 2010 1:13 PM

Bill Blair, David Miller and Dalton McGuinty... a triumvirate of Toronto politicians who need and deserve a lesson in where the boundaries of their domain end.

Posted by: OMMAG at August 27, 2010 7:05 PM

btw Curious, I don't own the trademark to "reg dunlop", its just a handle.

Posted by: reg dunlop at August 27, 2010 7:10 PM

Body armor banned!

That's halariois. If true the Liberals are almost 100% guaranteed to hand over Canadian streets to the criminals.

Who needs comspiricey theories when you have Libs around? They just make it so.

Posted by: Knight 99 at August 27, 2010 9:06 PM
Site
Meter