26 Replies to “Sorry Quebec”

  1. The data was obsolete and useless anyways. Lets see if Quebec politicians can sell a multi billion dollar, Quebec only, gun registry to their taxpayers now.

  2. Why would 4 judges be led to believe that a federal institution that the court previously said was constitutional could not be killed by the government. Was this the Wheat Board argument all over again? I thought a previous government could not tie the hands of a succeeding government. It simply points that on any given day, the court is likely to give a political judgement.

  3. This is good news. However it is pathetic that four of the judges in a society that still has some semblance of a liberal democracy, as fragile as that has become, wanted to retain Lenin and Hitler’s firearm’s legislation.

  4. What is sobering is that the decision is split, as close a run thing as possible. This after the CPC campaigned specifically in 2011 to eliminate the registry and won a clear majority mandate to do exactly that.
    One wonders the point of winning majority federal mandates if a group of SC justices can still rule against legislation. At its most absurd, this argument would prevent any legislation being revoked no matter how out of date. It is the right decision, but not a great day for the SC and its Quebec justices.

  5. It wasn’t useless in High River. Case and point for the information to be destroyed.

  8. Yep, should have been 9-0 on the gun registry; criminal law has always been the purview of the feds.
    But instead you get 9-0 on how docs should be involved in ‘offing’ you via active euthanasia; even though health care is a provincial jurisdiction.
    Ermine lined robes of corruption…
    Cheers
    Hans Rupprecht, Commander in Chief
    1st Saint Nicolaas Army
    Army Group ‘True North’

  9. The seeds for this decision were written into the Supreme Court decision that originally led to its creation. This decision was a foregone conclusion. Oh sure, the Quebec judges (who are overrepresented on the SC) dissented, but that was theatre for the Quebec whiners.
    Quebec (and any other province for that matter) could always set up their own PERSONAL PROPERTY registry in regard to long guns, but not under the Criminal Code.

  10. *Yawn*
    Call me when they don’t coward out on hearing that C68 is unconstitutional.

  12. This isn’t really much of a win, as Harper stated, there is already a PAL registry in place,and where there’s a PAL,there’s guns! Government sleight of hand.
    So the RCMP can use that Registry,just as if the LGR was still in operation.
    With Prentice’s new plan for funding the Proceeds of Crime division, look for a lot more of the High River type gun and ammo seizures, possibly backed by property seizure to pay the department’s budget.

  14. It’s good that it resolved this way but I’m disturbed that the justices from quebec were in favour of Quebec’s position unanimously. This smells a bit and it seems that provincial bias is in full swing here.

  15. Lots of Liberal tears shed today at the Ceeb and Glob… I’ve been collecting them for gun oil.

  16. MikeG81 said: “Call me when they don’t coward out on hearing that C68 is unconstitutional.”
    Its not unconstitutional. That’s the problem, Mike. You not only don’t have any right to own a gun, you don’t have any right to own anything at all. Including your own body.
    Canadians don’t ever seem to get this. You don’t have any property rights. None. Zero. Nada. If Parliament passes a law tomorrow morning that MikeG81 has to report to the nearest hospital and give up his liver, you have no recourse. They can take it.
    They have done it before. Please see the Japanese Internment of WWII for elucidation. The Americans found their internment to be unconstitutional before the end of WWII. Ours in Canada did not end until 1946. They just f-ing TOOK it all, land, property, the lot. Then they tossed the Japanese Canadians in camps.
    Or C-68, for that matter. That stuff that was yours, it ain’t yours no more.
    That’s where you live, Mike. Canada. They can do it again. Any time they want. You don’t have rights. What you have are privileges, revocable at the whim of the Crown.
    That’s why its best not to spoil ballots or register protest votes. If the likes of Shiny Pony get into power, he can take your d@mn car, your house, your woodpile, your guns, ALL OF IT. And you’ve got f-all to say about it.
    Sucks, but that’s The Way It Is.

  17. The money could be used to help paint the Quebec City bridge. The estimates keep going up and up and the begging for further funding from the feds keeps going up. Part of the ridiculous cost is because not one iota of paint is allowed to fall into the water. CN is trying to offload the cost onto taxpayers.

  18. “Canadians don’t ever seem to get this. You don’t have any property rights.”
    We can repeat it until we’re blue in the face, Phantom. IT JUST WILL NOT SINK IN!
    Even rural landowners with hundreds or thousands of acres of land don’t get it.
    Well, they don’t get that is it until the Ministry of Snatch Your Resources or the Confiscation, woops, sorry, Conservation Authority tells them they can’t do anything with their back 40 except pay the taxes – because some bureaucrat has decided it is now significant wildlife habitat, designated wetlands, or an ANSI (area of natural and scientific interest).
    And, just in case any one is under the mistaken belief that Harper & Co. (or their Ontario provincial counterparts) are any more interested than Commie Tom or turdo la doo in property rights, let me assure you that the Conservatives are just as happy with the status quo as the Liberals and the NDP. And this, despite the fact that Property rights were one of the key points of Harper’s campaign way back in 2006. Since then, crickets.
    I have in my possession a letter from my Conservative MP, Pierre Lemieux, on that very subject. I wrote him last summer and asked him when his Government was going to bring forth property-rights-specific federal legislation – something along the lines of a “Property Rights Protection Act”. Then I said this: “Don’t even think about doing it by way of Constitutional Amendment; that would be doomed to eternal quicksand, and everyone knows it.”
    Within a week or so I got his answer. Evasion and finger-pointing.
    He regurgitated what I had said about the futility of proceeding via Constitutional amendment, while completely ducking the issue of developing property rights specific legislation. He ended up by absolving his Government of any responsibility for providing its citizens with property rights with this closing statement: “I believe that progress can be made on the provincial level as it does not require opening the Constitution.”
    The floor is now open for excuses.

  19. The M.P.’s response is correct.
    Property Rights are under provincial jurisdiction constitutionally.
    There is a formula for amending the provincial constitution which is far easier than amending the federal constitution.
    If you read the Constitution Acts, you will see that.
    Mind you, if I was the federal government, I’d go for the big score and have the Canadian people vote to add property rights to the Charter. They’d win in a landslide.
    But that takes courage which is in short supply among the Timid Conservative Party of Canada.
    That said, the provincial route is definitely the way to go. Look it up.

  20. Anyone care to guess how much this bun fight between Quebec and the ROC cost?
    The data would be all but useless years later and one presumes Quebec kept a copy. Imagine if it didn’t and the bureaucrat geniuses thought this was a good way to get the data back. It’s a pretty narrow point to take to the Supreme Court otherwise.

  21. It depends on what part of the law you are talking about. I would argue that having to surrender your protection against illegal search and seizure could be unconstitutional

  22. No, the MPs response is not “correct”.
    I am well aware that the BNA states property rights are the responsibility of the provinces.
    However, That does not prevent the feds from enshrining property rights in the Constitution, or, setting an example by bringing forth a Property Rights Protection Act that would protect and compensate landowners from and for federal incursions.
    Every federal party hides behind the bullshit that “Quebec would never go for that”, or, “The provinces would never agree.
    Yet none of the parties wants to throw it out as an open question in a referendum: “Should property rights be enshrined in the Constitution?” To suggest that anyone, even Quebecers, would be against property rights simply insults our intelligence.

  24. Quebec Gun Registry, We in Quebec will need an extra 1 billion dollars per year from equalization to run our registry. Will the Provinces of Sask., Alberta, and BC., please hand over the money. BTW, we in Quebec just hate your dirty oil and the jobs and prosperity that comes with it. KEEP SENDING MONEY.

  25. The registry was unconstitutional because it was not applied to Natives, you had to help the police search your house. You had to incriminate yourself by providing them any info they asked for. Refusal to allow a warrantless search was grounds for a warrant. Your former girlfriends could block your application. The onus was on you to prove you were innocent of registry errors. If your spouse was prohibited from owning firearms, so were you.
    And on and on. Property rights was the tip of the iceberg.

  26. If Quebec wants its own gun registry – they can have one……so long as they completely separate from TROC and promise to never want back in. Freeloading bunch of leaches.

Proudly powered by WordPress & Skyrocket Themes

MENU

Navigation