Beyond The Commons

Beyond The Commons

Aaron Wherry covers all the goings-on in and around Parliament Hill. Follow Aaron on Twitter: @aaronwherry

Gun registry math

by Aaron Wherry on Monday, August 23, 2010 12:32pm - 0 Comments

When Bill c-391, an act to repeal the long-gun registry, came to a vote on second reading last November, it was passed by a count of 164-137. Those 164 votes in favour included 143 Conservatives, 12 New Democrats, eight Liberals and one independent.

C-391 is now due to return to the House for a final vote when the House returns this fall and the vote seems set to be very close.

How close? Well, let’s see.

At present, the party standings in the House are as follows: Conservatives 144, Liberal 77, BQ 48, NDP 36, Independents 2. For the purposes of a vote though, Speaker Peter Milliken’s seat would only be in play in the event of a tie.

One seat, Winnipeg-North, is already vacant, owing to the resignation of the NDP’s Judy Wasylycia-Leis. She voted against Bill C-391 on second reading. Two other seats could be vacant by the time a vote is held—those belonging to Conservative Inky Mark and Liberal Maurizio Bevilacqua respectively. The former has already announced he will seek municipal office, the latter is expected to do likewise any minute now. Mr. Mark voted in favour of c-391, Mr. Bevilacqua against.

There are at least two other developments of note since that second reading vote. First, Helena Guergis has been expelled from the Conservative caucus. Her vote in favour of C-391 though seems safe. Second, after proposing three changes to the gun registry, Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff said all Liberals will be required to vote against C-391. That conceivably moves eight votes from yes to no and adds two who had abstained into the no column.

Joe Comartin, the NDP’s justice critic, has speculated that nine of the dozen New Democrats who voted for C-391 are prepared to do so again. Conceivably, the other three are leaning towards no.

So. Let us attempt some math (and I’ll ask readers here to point out any errors in my addition).

1) If Mr. Bevilacqua and Mr. Mark’s seats are vacant at the time of the vote, nine New Democrats vote in favour and if all other MPs are present and vote as expected, C-391 would pass 154-150.

2) If only Mr. Mark’s seat is vacant and the above is the same, C-391 would pass 154-151.

3) If only Mr. Bevilacqua’s seat is vacant and the above is the same, C-391 would pass 155-150.

4) If neither are vacant and the above is the same, C-391 would pass 155-151.

In scenarios 1, 3 and 4, the no side needs three more votes. In scenario 2, it needs two more votes.

In scenarios 1 and 4, two more no votes would result in a tie, leaving Speaker Peter Milliken to cast the deciding vote.

Bookmark and Share
  • DBM

    Any of those scenarios would be a huge win for Ignatieff because it would mean he got all of his MPs, including those 8 who previously voted in favour, to attend and vote against.

    • Cats

      That's the real test isn't it ?

      Why put your own seat at risk, break election promises, and flip flop on your previous votes to satisfy Michael Ignatieff who probably won't even be Liberal leader for much longer.

      Very, very interesting to see whether his caucus has confidence in him or not.

      Cats out!

      • pte. doberman

        But what about Harper? He won't be pm and pistol-whipper for much longer, so perhaps a few of those Cons with a conscious who once thought for themselves are thinking again — not just about the impending con leadership race but also if they get rid of the gun registry, what will they whip their voters with? Unreported crimes and boats of terrorists can only go so far in a fearsome nation…

        ruf!

        • Cats

          Ok sure.

          If anyone on Harper's team breaks with him and votes to save the registry then you're on to something.

          If not everything you just said was absolute nonsense.

          DEAL MAKING CATS.

          • MarionKl

            It would not surprise me if a few CPC MPs missed the vote and the bill was defeated.

            If you consider the possiblity of a spring election, killing the registry now is not an advantage for the Conservatives. They wouldn't be able to keep people interested in the issue until the Spring if the registry is dead.

    • DBM

      Wayne Easter – likely the most prominent and influential of 'the eight' – committed to switch his vote today.

    • Jacob

      Since the inception of the gun registry, rural seats have gone mostly blue, some orange and no looking back. Ignatieff had a chance to rech out to rural Canadians. Instead, after the next election there will be barely any rural Liberal seats left in Canada.

  • JamesHalifax

    The gun registry is a waste of money and effort. Trying to talk actual logic to someone in favour of it is next to useless.

    C-68 was brought in by the Liberals for no other reason than to capitalize on the murder of 14 women by a lone muslim madman who hated women. That's it.

    Prior to C-68 you had everything in place to ensure proper handling and licensing was complete prior to acquisition of a firearm.

    Only the folks who don't know which end of a gun is dangerous are supporting the registry, along with some senior police officers who want to keep it as an informational database.

    Get pulled over for speeding……your name goes through the gun registry.

    Charged with J-walking? Gun registry…

    And that, is how the proponents of this useless law try to sell it. By claiming that it is accessed thousands of times a day.

    Colossal waste.

    • Emily

      The idea of a gun registry is to prevent a 'gun culture' in our country.

      Americans, who have a gun culture, show us the best reason to keep it.

      • Neil from Calgary

        Actually, Canada already has a "gun culture", but it's just not as mobilized nor enshrined in the revolutionary spirit that characterizes America's gun fascination. I think that, fundamentally, Canadians are different enough from Americans by nature that we can live without a long-gun registry and not become the U.S. If you think that a long-gun registry is the only thing keeping us from killing each other at a similar rate as Americans gun down each other, then you must feel really insecure about Canada's personality and cynical about human nature. Over two hundred years of history are what made America such an overtly gun-loving country. We wouldn't become America overnight, registry or no-registry.

      • JamesHalifax

        Emily nloted:
        "The idea of a gun registry is to prevent a 'gun culture' in our country. "

        Thereby proving my point. Those in favour of the registry, have neither thought about the issue critically, or are blindlingly naive and shallow.

        Emily, when the Gun registry was born…..it was claimed to be a tool to protect Canadians. It said nothing of preventing a gun culture.

        By the way Emily, please provide a list of what gun club the gang-bangers in Toronto belong to. You will note, that an awful lot of young black men end up dead in the streets of toronto, and that most of those dead young men were put there by other young black men.

        I'm pretty sure that most of the weapons used are pistols or revolvers.

        And Emily…a point you may consider (but doubtlessly will not understand)

        A gun registry targets the wrong group of people. The registry could do EXACTLY what it was designed to do and we'd still have gang-bangars knocking each other off in our big cities.

        • Michael

          Well, I think we see what happens when a gun culture goes rampant. Stopping a gun culture is protecting Canadians.

    • LeftWingTeaBagger

      And of course you know better than the police chiefs, the police union, victims right groups….. Cons have trouble accepting facts.

      • hollinm

        LeftWing…….that's the whole point it is the police leadership that is advocating its retention. The rank and file do not rely on it because it is now outdated and crooks do not register their guns. Any policeman worth his salt who walks into a potentially dangerous situation relying on the information contained in the gun registry is asking for trouble big time. They know it and therefore do not count on the gun registry and probably could care less if it is eliminated.

        • Gayle

          I see.

          Have you spoken to all the rank and file police officers in the country?

          If not, then stop making stuff up. It does not make your argument persuasive.

          • hollinm

            Gayle…..I am sure you have talked to the rank and file policemen/women and know what they think. My guess is as good as yours.

            Look who's making things up.

          • Blacktop

            The numbers of a poll were on the news alst night. I forget the exact count but it was a few hundred for vs 1400 and something against. Civil service rule no. 1 – ÿou never give away anything that keeps your empire safe.

          • DBM

            Gayle might not have spoken to them, but I have to believe their Chief's and union reps hear from them on occasion.

          • Gayle

            Maybe clarify your statements are guesses then, though it is nice to know that all your claims of facts are actually just guesses.

            In any event, I must have missed the part where I said I knew what the rank and file were thinking. Could you be so kind as to point out where I said that?

    • CAPS

      The gun registry is part of sond policing and safety policies. Trying to talk actual logic to someone against it is next to useless.

      C-68 was brought in by the Liberals after the murder of 14 women by a lone muslim madman who hated women. As an additional tool to help control and track a potentially lethal weapon.

      Prior to C-68 you had everything in place to ensure proper handling and licensing was complete prior to acquisition of a firearm but there wasn't a way to determine if firearms were at a specific location or to whom they might be registered.

      Only the folks who don't like anything a government does are against the registry, along with some senior PMO ideologues who want to eliminate knowedged and fact-based decision making from everything.

      It is accessed thousands of times a day.

      After some serious and unacceptable cost overruns at the beggining it now cost only about $4 million a year to run the "costly" registry.

      • JamesHalifax

        Caps noted:
        "The gun registry is part of sond policing and safety policies. Trying to talk actual logic to someone against it is next to useless. "

        Thereby once again proving my point. People who have never owned guns, fired guns, or even taken the time to learn anything about them are the most strident supporters of the gun registry.

        As for Logic CAPS….sorry, I will not waste my time explaining it to you. You refuse to let logic or common sense cloud your argument…..let alone enter it.

    • Richard_S_Argent

      "C-68 was brought in by the Liberals for no other reason than to capitalize on the murder of 14 women by a lone muslim madman who hated women. That's it."

      Um, Marc Lepine was baptized as a Roman Catholic, but was an avowed atheist. Highlighting the religion of his father (non-practicing as well by the way) who seperated from his mother at the age of 6 and ceased having contact with Marc after he was 7 or so serves no purpose except to tar a religion you apparently loathe with a horrific act that it (the religion) had nothing to do with.
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marc_L%C3%A9pine

      You stay classy there James.

      ————

      after doing a little googling I see that this "Lepine was a Muslim" line is quite popular with the SDA crowd and Mark Steyn…how bloody predictable.

      • JamesHalifax

        It's not predictable Richard….it's true.

        ANd it was not his father's religion that caused mark Lepine (changed from his Muslim name) to go on the rampage, it was what his father taught him about women. Add the two together.

        Lepine was a weakling and a failure. He needed someone to blame for his weakness and failure. He had a ready made target.

        • Richard_S_Argent

          Ah, but now you're saying that what caused Lepine (ne Gharbi) to kill those women was the fact that his dad was a misogynist. Not that he was Algerian.

          Sounds to me like you're now making the argument that feminists have been making since 1989.

          p.s. I'm not sure how Lepine (ne Gharbi) being baptized as a Roman Catholic, and self-describing as an Atheist, makes him a "muslim madman". Perhaps you could enlighten us?

          • Halo_Override

            Perhaps you could enlighten us?

            Hope shines eternal.

        • Dave

          What's a "Muslim name"?

    • Gayle

      Heh. The guy who complains about the lack of logic on these boards also somehow thinks whether or not Lepine was a Muslim is relevant.

      Your argument boils down to this:

      "People who disagree with me are illogical. As soon as they disagree with me my point will be proven, for how can anyone disagree with me and not be illogical".

      Maybe go learn what "logic" means and get back to us.You clearly need some guidance in that area.

  • Stewart_Smith

    I think Jack Layton has run through the same numbers Aaron and does not like the result.

    • sean

      at least jack is not whipping the vote and making his MPs break promises made to their constituants. i vote conservative but jack gained a lot of respect in my book over this one.

  • PeteTong

    Methinks the Speaker would, in the event of a tie, would allow the bill to continue to the Senate for futher debate. What do the numbers in the senate look like?

    • CAPS

      I'm not a procedure geek but I believe the Speaker breaks a tie in favour of the staus quo which I think would mean that the gun registry would stay.

      I could be completely wrong on this.

      • LeftWingTeaBagger

        Or completely right.

        • CAPS

          Hooray!

      • JamesHalifax

        Actually, the speaker traditionally sides with the Government during a tie vote.

        However, Miliken is a Liberal, so it's a toss-up what he may do. Though he is strongly in favour of the registry.

        • Holly Stick

          Isn't it a private member's bill? Isn't the Harper Goverbnebt pretending it is not a government bill?

        • madeyoulook

          I just figured the Speaker traditionally sides with the government because the Speaker usually came from the government caucus. Such is not the case here.

          • MarionKl

            Traditionally, the Speaker will vote in whichever way will continue the debate. So, theoretically, he would be voting in favour of the bill to allow it to go to the Senate.

  • Kyle

    There's no way Mr. Harper will let this Bill pass all stages of parliament before he calls the next election. Why risk losing the single biggest fundraising mechanism that your party has at its disposal?

    Call an election. Kill the Bill. Send out fundraising letters that say "We were so close this time, with your help we'll finally succeed next time." Bang… 15% of your campaign is paid for.

    • Geiseric

      bingo

    • Joe

      they already have the election paid for and this bill is going through.

    • Gayle

      I doubt they want to kill it. They want the opposition to kill it. That is what is going to get the donors motivated.

    • s_c_f

      You don't inspire people to donate by failing to deliver.

  • Anon 001

    Oh, I'm sure some of those "yes" NDP votes will get the flu or something. C391 will not pass, which will be great news for Harper.

  • http://farnwide.blogspot.com/ Steve V

    Good post, although I know the word "math" is generally a red flag for my conservative friends. Same goes for "empirical evidence", "fact", etc. Just a tip to hold a wider audience.

  • Darrell

    If the gun registry were to remain, all guns would have to be classed as restricted to make the registry effective.

    • Andrew E

      hence the CACP endorsing a "National Firearms Policing Strategy" at their meeting in Edmonton…. can you say double-plus-ungood"? This reeks of more infringement on our freedoms, not less.

  • Jim

    This is a government bill, regardless of it technically being a private member's bill, and has big implications for Harper's base. If the bill loses, it's a HUGE loss for Harper. If the bill passes, the Conservatives and NDP will need to explain to Canadians why they ignored the wishes of the Police Chiefs who want to keep the registry.

    • Cats

      If it passes does that mean its a HUGE win for Harper ?

      Or when something doesn't happen in bad for Harper and when something does happen its ALSO bad for Harper in your world ??

      Cats away!

      • J.D. Lees

        So the Police Chiefs support the long gun registry? Big deal. I'm sure they'd also support fingerprinting every Canadian at birth, and having everyone's DNA in a database. But does that make it right? Of course the police chiefs support it. Why would they not? They forget that they are supposed to be the servants of the people, not the masters.

    • albertaclipper

      The police chiefs hold about as much sway as the 30 clowns that tumble out of a mini car…and about as important. At this point I would like to apologize to all the clowns for equating them to the police chiefs.

    • Chain

      The Police Chiefs are political appointees therefore their opinions are not really relevant. The opinions of the policemen who actually patrol their communities are much more valued. The vast majority of these men say the registry is useless and a danger in itself. In other words a complete waste of money and resources. These policemen say they are being muzzled by their chiefs. One can only hope that Liberal MPs who are about to change their votes are soundly defeated come next election putting a Conservative majority within reach.

  • michaeltripper

    Layton needs to be held accountable on this and stop bobbing and weaving that it's not his or his party's fault.

    Oh and complaining that Ignatieff liberals are in league with the CPC will be off the table and hypocritical if he continues.

  • JSC

    I would think the best way to solve this problem would be for City dwellers to have to register their guns, while country folks don't.

    Pick a population number, or leave it up to cities themselves to decide if they want their guns to be registered.

    • Halo_Override

      I don't know if there's any variance (re: gun laws in Canada) between rural and urban areas, but as someone who grew up in a small town and has lived in cities ever since, I've always felt that there should be. That idea seldom comes up in the public discussions of the issue, though, which is really puzzling to me.

  • Mulletaur

    I can't wait to see the campaign advertising pointing out how the NDP killed the gun registry. It should really play well among their own supporters in urban centres. Can't wait.

    • albertaclipper

      Won't happen. Dippers are in it for the long haul.

  • Richard_S_Argent

    What actually are the reasons for opposing the long-gun registry? As far as I can tell the objections broadly fall under three categories

    1) Long guns aren't used in crimes, so registering them is a waste of time
    2) It costs too much money
    3) It's another example of Big Brother Government.

    Is that pretty much it?

    • Gaunilon

      I've never heard anyone claim (1).

      (2) and (3) are common objections, as also is (4) It is useless, since illegal firearms will not be on it, and (5) It is worse than useless, since police may trust it rather than assuming that every household they enter contains firearms as they're supposed to.

      • Richard_S_Argent

        Really? You've never heard anyone claim #1? That's pretty much the only one I hear – "These are farmer's shotguns we're talking about here, not handguns. A criminal won't use a rifle in a robbery" etc etc etc.

        I forgot about argument #4, thanks.

        • Gaunilon

          Well, not in the extreme form in which you phrased it. I've heard the objection that long guns are not generally used in crimes and that therefore the crackdown is unwarranted – maybe that's the one you meant.

      • s_c_f

        (6) it is even more useless, because it does nothing whatsoever to stop criminals – someone interested in gun crime is not the slightest bit interested in registering their guns

    • Sean

      A few more:

      It's the first step in a longer term plan to remove all firearms from citizens. A completely unarmed populace is thus rendered powerless to mobilize against internal or external powers.

      It's an attack on the privacy and values of mostly rural Canadians, largely to satisfy the visceral dislike of guns by urban Canadians.

      At some point, the cumulative effect of multiple, seemingly benign intrusions adds up to a qualitative shift in the rights and autonomy of the individual citizen.

      • Richard_S_Argent

        Yeah, I get the feeling that there's a strong undercurrent of libertarian-style distrust of government in this debate.

        • Sean

          The Registry has certainly provided ample evidence that such distrust isn't always as nutty as it seems on first gloss.

          • Richard_S_Argent

            How so? I must admit that I never did follow this story all that closely. I remember it running over cost by an absurd level to start up, what are you referring to?

          • Sean

            The registry was tied into a larger bill of Chretien's to deal with gun crimes, the sum of which – if I recall – was to make Canada safer (That sounds oddly familiar…)

            Right from the get-go, there was never any substantial evidence put forward to explain how registering long guns would make us safer. Many rural Canadians went ballistic, and only grew more enraged as the defense of the program seemed to amount to little more than suggesting opposition to it was as silly as opposing the registration of automobiles. That registering shotguns on farms would prevent gun crimes in Toronto no more than registering pitchforks on farms, seemed unimportant to the Liberals.

            I think it had more to do with the forcing of urban values onto rural Canadians (guns=bad, in short), but the result was the provocation of libertarian sensibilities amongst folks who were otherwise quite docile, rule abiding members of society. It led many folks to question why the registry was really being created in the first place. Unlike the sometimes babyish alienation the West affects for various reasons, the registry served to both symbolically and tangibly divide many non-urban Canadians from their government.

            Anyway, I don't care much for the knee-jerk anti government perspective, but I do think the registry has served to justify a healthy skepticism toward nanny-state initiatives, and certainly shows the 'left' isn't immune from privileging ideology over evidence. The entire cost debate has been unfortunate, because it prevented the country from calmly discussing the motives and values of both sides.

          • s_c_f

            Well said. Both comments. I agree with all of it, except the part about costs, for two reasons:
            1 – a billion dollars is a lot of money. A lot. Therefore it needs to be part of the debate. Even if the money is gone, the continued existence of the program that caused such waster is a stick-in-the-eye. It basically tells the taxpayers that no matter how much money is wasted, no change in direction is necessary. No amount of your money wasted will make us do anything differently.

            2- Even if it pays for itself these days, supporting itself on the fees being paid by gun owners, that is still a lot of money. Taxpayers are nickel-and-dimed all the time with one fee after another. It adds up. The fees provide no tangible benefit in quality of life, to pay someone to hold onto something that you already own so that they can add your name to yet another database, which is essentially useless to you. When you pay $60, that is $60 you don't have to buy a new pair of shoes, to pay your phone bill or to use for any other tangible benefit. For many people in rural areas, ownership of a gun is important. For someone making minimum wage, you have to work at least a full day or more for the after-tax income you need just to register a gun, after you have already spent a lot of time working to pay for the gun itself.

        • hollinm

          Richard …..didn't Alan Rock say only policeman and the military should carry guns?

    • JamesHalifax

      Richard S Argent asked:
      "What actually are the reasons for opposing the long-gun registry? As far as I can tell the objections broadly fall under three categories"

      There are more reasons than that. I'll explain briefly. Pay attention.

      You note:
      "1) Long guns aren't used in crimes, so registering them is a waste of time "

      Not true. Some long guns are used in crime, but the vast majority of these times the guns are in the hands of criminals, so a registry would be ineffective in any event.

      You then ask:
      "2) It costs too much money "
      True. If the registry actually performed as advertised then perhaps some costs would be acceptable. However, what the current registry does is infringe upon the law-abiding, and neglect the criminal. In effect, if it is useless, then ANY amount of money spent on it is defined as a waste.

      • JamesHalifax

        You ask:
        "3) It's another example of Big Brother Government."

        This is one aspect of it. C-68 gives the police the right to enter your house without a warrant. You could have an argument with a spiteful neightbour, they could call the police and claim you were waving a gun around the house, and they would be knocking down your door in short order.
        Again, the law targets the wrong people.

        You finish with:
        "Is that pretty much it? "

        Not even close Richard S Argent, but I won't hassle you with complexity as clearly it is not your strength.

  • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N2x6Pn6k3ak Stocky

    [youtube rCQlTP37uas http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rCQlTP37uas youtube]

    • Mulletaur

      Well, that would be one way for Jack to eliminate a potential leadership rival.

  • Sean

    If someone can show me evidence that the registry makes our society safer – or even makes a cop's life measurably safer on the job – I'd likely be for it.

    I wasn't very clear above (what else is new!) but I'm not even convinced that it makes cities any safer. My whole urban-rural thing was more to point out that there are some significant differences in values and perspectives to be found along that divide (significant similarities too, I hasten to add). I think the Liberals were approaching it from a purely ideological perspective – one that happened to be more urban in origin than rural.

    I don't think anti-governmentalism is warranted as a starting point, but I do think it's reasonable to demand any government program be justified by more than vague appeals to security. The way the gun registry was created and defended amounted (in the eyes of many) to a government expanding its powers "because it could" – which I can't blame folks for resisting. And the Liberal tendency toward nanny-statism isn't something all Canadians want or like – for reasons including cost, privacy, and so forth. In that respect, I do understand and generally subscribe to a healthy skepticism toward government initiatives.

    Should the registry be scrapped? Not in the way the Cons are going about it. It should be done in a way that tries to bridge the rural-urban divide it so deepened.

    • Richard_S_Argent

      I think I see your point. As for whether the registry makes cities any safer, I was under the impression that the police chiefs and the recently french-remedialized RCMP officer were preparing to make that argument in the coming days.

      I think you're spot on with the Liberal perspective in this regard being more urban than rural. I suspect they didn't think registering your firearm would be all that onorous a duty on people (I'm not sure how it was in 1998, but I see now that one can register their firearm online – that doesn't seem like too difficult a process) and that the rural voters would see that while they weren't the problem, they should do their part to make Canada safer. The Liberals didn't seem to anticipate how this program exposed long simmering distaste for urban Canada amongst rural Canadians. This distrust was ably exploited by the right wing (Reform and PC) and I think we're still living with result of that (Conservatives tend to do far better in rural/exurban ridings than Liberals, who excel in urban/suburban ones).

      How to bridge this divide? Man, I got nuthin' :)

      cheers!

    • s_c_f

      Not in the way the Cons are going about it. It should be done in a way that tries to bridge the rural-urban divide it so deepened.

      I don't buy this argument. I don't see any other way. Many conservatives have yearned to get rid of it for years and years, and nothing happened. Then the Conservatives won an election, and then another, and four years later it's still there. I think it's disingenuous to say this could have been done any other way, and in fact, I'll have to see it to believe it, nothing has changed so far, there's still another vote.

  • Margaret

    Kill the gun registry. Let everyone buy guns whenever and wherever they want to. Whatever kind they want – and how many they want.

    Then, in 5 or 10 years, after a few mass murders, opening fire in a shopping malls in Calgary, or picking people off at random on highways — and Canadians will be screaming for gun control.

    If they want to be stupid; let them be stupid. Find out the hard way that it's a good idea to know who has the guns.

    • hollinm

      Margaret……are you actually feeling ok today. What a rant! Talk about acting like a hysterical school girl.

      The fact is the gun registry has not been around all that long. Did we have murders before that and were we shooting up shopping malls. Get control of yourself.

      • JSC

        The mentality has changed.
        When I was a kid, people just used their fists.
        Now it seems that everyone is shooting each other, certainly on a grander scale then years ago.

        If everyone was allowed to buy any firearm they wanted. I would NOT bet money on the Murder Rate not raising.

        Violent video games maybe, or more violence on TV and Movies? Who knows?

    • albertaclipper

      Didn't that already happen in kwebek with on of the gus registered and the other licensed??

    • escotty77

      Sorry Marget
      Seems like you are a little mixed up. For many years it has been required that one must have a valid Firearms Acquisition License (F.A.C.) to purchase a firearm. As far as I can remember this was only possible to get if you have taken a Canadian Firearm Safety Course (CFSC). But that still does not entitle one to purchase a restricted weapon. For that one would need to take the Restricted Canadian Firearms Safety Course after the completion of the CFSC. Then when one wants to use a restricted firearm there are very specific rules and regulations that must be followed.
      You see the problem is that the criminals don't go through all these steps. And if someone is crazy and they want to go "postal" they will do it regardless of the law or restriction. Tell you what Margaret, you start the legal process now to buy a handgun and get back to us and tell us how easy it is and how much it cost.
      Hope I help you understand the system.

  • Margaret

    I really despise Jack Layton. All the talk about who wants power — it's Layton who is the most vain, the most hungry for power; he wants to be Prime Minister, and this bitterness towards Ignatieff has reached epic proportions.

    • Halo_Override

      Jack Layton has always struck me as perfectly aware that, barring some utterly unpredictable and dire turn of events, he will never be the prime minister of Canada. Not that I expect you to stop despising him.

  • http://stumblingabordeaux.blogspot.com Pato31

    I hope that the MPs decide to vote against Bill C-391 because I am in favour of the gun registry and do believe it to be an essential tool for police officers.

    However, I also hope that all MPs vote based on their own convictions and/or the prevailing thoughts in their communities. We've whined enough about the whipped conservative caucus, where no MP has a mind of his/her own, let's let democracy work for once.

  • WRFC

    Even the frontline police know the long gun registry is a useless tool. It is only honest people registering legal guns.

  • sean

    The writer forgot the right leaning independent member from quebec

  • s_c_f

    This vote could not come soon enough. It should have come a long time ago. Get rid of the registry. Now.

  • Stu Strickler

    How many billion dollars must Canadians waste on this worthless gun registry?
    Registering guns have never stopped or even slowed crime down
    Gun control is a loser and the people that support are losers. Let freedom ring!.

  • http://www.lethbridgerealestateblog.com lethbridge realtor

    while the math is pretty fuzzy, your point is made. It will be interesting to see what happens.

  • allan

    I have a story to tell..i am a gun owner and not a thief or a crook..OK. I have lots of guns and one day decided to sell one that i did not use. When i did it was red flagged by the gun registry as stolen the local police did not even call me but the folks that wanted to by it were approached and warned about it. I called the registry and was told it was under investigation…i called the local police and finally was told that the gun was reported stolen and could i provide them with information..i told them the the gun was bought at Canada's largest chain store (name withheld take a guess) and that i was being investigated…here is the problem..i had this gun for over 20 years and it was registered with the gun registry..the local police ad a boll o on this gun as being stolen….why didn't the registry contact the local police and say hey we know who has this gun??? Multi millions later this registry is in place for what???to make some folks who know nothing feel safe!!!!! What a joke.. I have the letters and gun registry numbers and correspondence to ascertain my story..plus the witnesses of the folks that wanted to buy my legitimate owned gun!

  • wascally wabbit

    There wil actually be TWO votes. The first is a procedural one – resulting from a motion raised by Mark Holland – to simply not move forward with the Bill.
    Looks like this will have the best chance of killing this game that Harper is playing – because it got their attention when it was first passed in Committee – Jay Hill had to do some rescheduling of bills in order to have THAT vote delayed until September.
    It's not all cut and dried by any means.
    The NDP Neophyte MP in this riding Carol Hughes – is very much on the defensive with this. got stampeded by a bunch of Tenpercenters sent into the riding from Alberta – but Candice's buddies can't do that again!

  • http://www.JimsFishing.com Sushihunter

    I think there will be a number of Liberals who get the 24 hour flu when this vote comes up.

    Most likely of them being Keith Martin from Vancouver Island – Keith is a former Reformer and a populist who knows where his bread is buttered. He also has a long history of being a maverick who goes against his leader.

    I just can't see Martin buckling under to the demands of a lame duck leader when his own fortunes are close to being dumped in the next election.

    End the Failed Liberal Gun Registry. End. It. Now.

  • tedbetts

    Once upon a time, there was lone Member of Parliament from the West who stood up and voted against his party policy and in favour of the implementing the gun registry. He said he was upholding certain of his principles, namely it is what his constituents wanted and it was what the police wanted.

    Well, hell hath no fury like an ideologue scorned, and this lonely policy-wonk of an MP faced a barrage of pressure from his caucus, angry and even threathening letters from people outside his riding calling him a Chretien-patsy, liberal in conservative clothing, etc.

    When the gun registry bill came up for 2nd reading, the lonely MP somberly stood and quietly said "Nay" on the vote.

    Now Mr. Say Anything Know Nothing is our Prime Minister leading the charge against the gun registry.

  • tedbetts

    Or not leading as the case may be. A leader would have taken the gun registry on. Harper prefers deceit, misdirection and sneakiness. Has his government introduced any legislation on the gun registry? No. Instead they starve it of funds, grant amnesties, get a "private members bill" to move it forward.

    Just like with the census, or Rights and Democracy, or foreign maternal aid… if he ever tried to get his views passed or if supported by the public, they would fail. So he has to find "alternative" routes.

  • Bryan

    I don't have strong feelings about the gun registry one way or the other, but this idea that it shows a lack of "leadership" to let your members vote how they want, or that "the NDP" will kill the registry when the majority of the caucus will vote to keep it, is just idiotic. Heaven forbid we should elect people to Ottawa to think for themselves!

  • Cats

    ALERT THE PRESSES!

    Somebody changed a position from 15 years ago !!

    Flip Floppers !

    (Droll. Eyes rolled out. Face ground Palm. Birdless mice, rotting fish.)

  • hollinm

    tedbetts…..as OntarioTown likes to say you are whining again.

    There is no secret that the Conservatives have wanted to eliminate the gun registry. Full stop. There is no deception etc etc. Knowing they have a bunch of soft on crime opposition parties they face in a minority parliament they are doing exactly what they need to do to get rid of this wasteful use of taxpayer money.

  • Dave

    Heaven forbid we should elect people to Ottawa to think for themselves!

    Indeed! There used to be this party called the Reform Party that advocated this. A bunch of them got elected to the House of Commons, and proceeded to start voting en bloc on just about every vote.

    Meanwhile, the government (and then opposition) Liberals, who had frequent large number of dissenting votes on many many measures, were vilified by the bloc-voting Reformers as "trained seals".

  • Jan

    I had always wondered why Harper was putting this through as a privtate members bill. Somebody on another site said that PMB's survive prorogation. Anybody know if that's true?

  • Gayle

    I believe it is, however they get bumped down the list.

  • MarionKl

    Yes, they do (which is why this bill and all the others didn't have to be retabled).

    Also, PMBs are traditionally not whipped, and cannot be made a confidence matter.

From Macleans