Layton pledges handgun ban (Canada)

[CHIMO]

Layton pledged to spend $625 million over the next four years on police officers and other crime prevention strategies while banning handguns and strengthening punishments for gang-related offences.

He would also target the selling of illegal weapons online.

http://www.thestar.com/FederalElection/article/503075#

Well maybe something will get done now.

[iverglas]

1. One just has to wonder

what Stephen Harper, the law&order prime minister, could find to disagree with there, doesn't one?

A tad unfortunate of Jack to refer to "the epidemic of gun violence". There may be a mild rash, but there isn't really an epidemic.

Now, we know that our comrades south of the border will be thrilled to hear what a genuine liberal-left / social-democrat party leader has to say about these things, don't we?

;)

[CHIMO]

2. Well

He was speaking to the Law and Order "folks."

Looking back at the last provincial election turnout there could be a surprise if enough concerned voters turn out to vote.

I would suggest playing everying low key. Not to hard here. Just get the turn out.
Heck, the only signs that one sees are the Conservatives and some Greens.

[SteveM]

18. Smells like more prohition to me (nt)

[iverglas]

19. and does this "prohition" have something to do with something I said?

Or did you just invent a new word and want to take it out for a walk?

Any and all elucidation will be read with fascination.

[SteveM]

20. "Genuine liberal-left/social-democrat party leader" thrills us with prohibition? (nt)

[iverglas]

21. yeah, it's amazing

NDP governments also prohibit speeding on the public highways. And federally, the party supports the prohibition on, oh, possession of child pornography.

If you have a point, you could always try making it. So far, you're making flatulent noises.

[SteveM]

22. It amazes me how "progressives" cling to prohibitionism as liberal (nt)

[iverglas]

23. it's amazing how you can keep typing

and accomplishing nothing but making flatulent noises.

When have you ever heard *me* claim to be "liberal"?

This thread is about Canadian politics. This "liberal" has nothing to do with anything here.

[SteveM]

27. I believe those flatulent noises emanate from your squeaky chair...

I would suggest oiling it, but that may be uncomfortable.

[kittyholmes2]

3. What are Layton's chances of being elected?

I read somewhere that the Conservatives could win a majority govmt. Right now there are not many NDP MPs.

[CHIMO]

13. He Should

Win his seat. Most party leaders do.

[one-eyed fat man]

4. What about C68?

What effect are the massive budget overruns and noncompliance with the current current gun registry going to have?

At least one of my uncles in Ontario and a couple of cousins in BC have mentioned LUFA. Last I heard Ottowa announced yet another "amnesty" and that non-compliance was still around 70%.

[iverglas]

5. join us in 2008, 'k?

The "massive budget overruns" were start-up costs and they became old news, oh, five years ago.

The "noncompliance with the current current gun registry" is the behaviour of a small minority of loud-mouthed right-wing asshole gun militants: yup, "LUFA". (Law-abiding folks whose apparent main goal in life is to break the law.) They are the natural constituency of the vile right-wing neo-con Conservative Party, which has pandered to them by implementing an "amnesty" on long arm registration by executive order, thus thwarting the will of Parliament and the people. LUFA's champion is Garry Breitkreuz, MP. You can find all sorts of fun stuff about him right here in this forum.

If you have something to substantiate your Last I heard ... non-compliance was still around 70%, do please come up with it. Maybe you can find evidence of the existence of the faeries at the bottom of my garden while you're at it.

And also while you're at it, maybe you could figure out how to spell the name of the capital city of Canada, your neighbour to the north, biggest trading partner, blah blah.

Hint: Woshington is not the capital of the US.

[iverglas]

6. btw -- what about C-68?

Did you want to tell us something about it?

[one-eyed fat man]

11. I was asking

because I have heard my cousins and uncles go on about it. But then it has been 4 years since I was last in Vancouver. Last July I was in Mississauga for one of the uncle's funeral. When the discussion turned to Canadian politics, I heard some heated words on the gun registry. I do remember mention of it costing much more than intended and that there were other problems. I didn't know much about it then and still don't. But if you're going to hiss and spit like a sore-tailed cat for my asking, then never mind.

[iverglas]

12. yeah

Bill C-68 was passed in 1995.

Time to move along now.

[Name removed]

14. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[iverglas]

15. perhaps it's you needs an enema, jody

Or maybe it's this forum that does.

The well-known rules governing posters' behaviour just don't seem to be doing the job.

[Tejas]

7. "strengthening punishments"

"strengthening punishments for gang-related offences"



Yay!

That should be more than enough to scare the criminals!

:sarcasm:

[iverglas]

8. one does wish you people would make up your minds

I keep hearing that throwing them in jail and throwing away the key is the key to everything ...

[Tejas]

9. You're more than welcome

to move them into your home. You could even dress them in aprons and have them fetch you glasses of wine. Tell them it's the new law, I'm sure they'll adhere to it.

[iverglas]

10. well

It sure does seem like somebody's been fetching you a few.

Coherent, ever?

[ManiacJoe]

16. Maybe not everything, but it is a good start.

Usually the problem is not the length of the sentences but the lack of prosecutions. Laws are meaningless if they are not enforced. Most of the time folks do not need more laws, they just need more enforcement of the current laws.

However, I do not know the Canadian system that well. Where do you see the system needing the most help, enforcement, sentencing, or more laws?

[iverglas]

17. that was Jack, not moi!

Having some reasonable experience in the field of criminology, I place length of sentence very low on the scale of deterrent values -- length of either potential or actual sentence, and either individual or general deterrence.

I do think that moves to tighten access to release on bail for plainly gang/firearm related offences are very much worth considering, but we run into constitutional problems there. The Conservatives proposed a reverse-onus rule -- that in some cases the onus would be on the accused to show cause why s/he should be released, rather than on the prosecution to show cause why s/he should be detained. I lost track, but it probably passed, and will probably be challenged. Innocent until, and all that.

To explain -- too often, notably in Toronto, further charges have been laid against people out on bail on these kinds of charges. There is a problem with uncooperative witnesses, and that is what really gives the offenders impunity.

Quite a lot of community development work has started in Toronto to improve neighbourhood-police relations and trust. The fact does remain, as oft pointed out here, that many of the victims are themselves involved in the same kinds of crimes, and have no interest in cooperating for that reason. The problem for the community is that other people are affected by the offences, whether directly (the small boy outside his home and teenaged girl shopping downtown and man outside a bar, all killed in crossfire in Toronto, come to mind) or indirectly (just general terrorizing of neighbourhoods, and occupation of neighbourhoods by criminals).

I gather that Jack's proposals included more services to and protection of witnesses, and while that's a good thing, it won't solve the problem of witnesses/victims who are themselves criminals not cooperating.

The certainty of punishment is known to be a better deterrent for many kinds of crimes/criminals than the harshness of the possible punishment. And inability to get convictions, including because witnesses don't cooperate, kills that deterrent.

Of course, you have to be dealing with a population that gives a shit about going to prison in the first place.

Frankly, the only way I see to reduce the use of firearms by gangs and organized crime participants is to attempt to eliminate their sources: lawful owners in Canada and smugglers from the US. Obviously smuggling will never be eliminated. However, there are some interesting aspects of it that can be addressed in various ways.

Small-time smugglers are often the kinds of people who are amenable to deterrent measures. Cross-border truck drivers, who will lose their livelihoods if caught, and who do tend to have something to lose if they go to jail. Prosecute in every case, and impose some prison time in every case, barring unusual circumstances.

Continued and increased cross-border cooperation, to identify sources of trafficked firearms and have them dealt with in the US. Hopefully, dealt with harshly.

But what it comes down to is that while we can take measures to address domestically-sourced firearms, we can't do anything directly to address US-sourced firearms. And as long as there is an essentially uncontrolled market in the US, some of the firearms traded on it are going to make their way into Canada, and we're left trying to close the barn door when it's too late.

Anyone who is put in prison for possessing firearms illegally / using firearms in crime here is just going to be replaced by someone else. And as long as the firearm is replaced by a shiny new one from south of the border ... well ... any suggestions?


edit: I should add, I see things here about failure to prosecute for firearms offences. That is very much not the case in Canada.

Criminal Code
PART III: FIREARMS AND OTHER WEAPONS
Use Offences

Using firearm in commission of offence

85. (1) Every person commits an offence who uses a firearm

(a) while committing an indictable offence, other than an offence under section 220 (criminal negligence causing death), 236 (manslaughter), 239 (attempted murder), 244 (causing bodily harm with intent — firearm), 272 (sexual assault with a weapon) or 273 (aggravated sexual assault), subsection 279(1) (kidnapping) or section 279.1 (hostage-taking), 344 (robbery) or 346 (extortion),

(b) while attempting to commit an indictable offence, or

(c) during flight after committing or attempting to commit an indictable offence,

whether or not the person causes or means to cause bodily harm to any person as a result of using the firearm.

... (3) Every person who commits an offence under subsection (1) or (2) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable

(a) in the case of a first offence, except as provided in paragraph (b), to imprisonment for a term not exceeding fourteen years and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of one year;

(b) in the case of a first offence committed by a person who, before January 1, 1978, was convicted of an indictable offence, or an attempt to commit an indictable offence, in the course of which or during flight after the commission or attempted commission of which the person used a firearm, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding fourteen years and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of three years; and

(c) in the case of a second or subsequent offence, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding fourteen years and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of three years.

Sentences to be served consecutively

(4) A sentence imposed on a person for an offence under subsection (1) or (2) shall be served consecutively to any other punishment imposed on the person for an offence arising out of the same event or series of events and to any other sentence to which the person is subject at the time the sentence is imposed on the person for an offence under subsection (1) or (2).

Both minimum terms and consecutive terms are very unusual in Canadian law.


and a further edit: I have no clue why the most serious criminal offences are excluded from that provision of the Code. There's obviously something I'm missing here, but I think you can rest assured that the use of a firearm in serious crimes isn't exactly overlooked. ;)


and another edit:

http://www.google.ca/search?num=30&hl=en&safe=off&q=site%3Awww.canlii.org+canlii+%22minimum+punishment+of+imprisonment+for+a+term+of%22+firearm&btnG=Search&meta=

Criminal Code provisions with minimum terms of imprisonment for offences involving firearms, e.g.:

Kidnapping

279. (1) Every person commits an offence who kidnaps a person with intent

(a) to cause the person to be confined or imprisoned against the person’s will;

(b) to cause the person to be unlawfully sent or transported out of Canada against the person’s will; or

(c) to hold the person for ransom or to service against the person’s will.

Punishment

(1.1) Every person who commits an offence under subsection (1) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable

(a) where a firearm is used in the commission of the offence, to imprisonment for life and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of four years; and

(b) in any other case, to imprisonment for life.

That makes more sense!

[old mark]

24. Isn't it already illegal in Canade to commit a crime with a gun?

I know it is pretty difficult to buy a legal handgun in Canada, and I know ther are a few around anyway.
Will $625 Million make handguns MORE illegal?

I guess they are following the DC/NYC/Philadelphia model of prohibitive handgun laws. They work so well here. Sort of like the prohibition on alcohol in the '20's and the "war on drugs".

I wonder if the Canadians who post here don't have similar gun issue sites in their own country and why are they here anyway?

mark

[jody]

25. Canadians are law-abiding, pacifists. All they need are more laws banning more guns, voila utopia nt

[iverglas]

26. what the fuck are you yammering about?

Do people who can't read not usually pretend they've forgotten their reading glasses, and get someone to read for them, to avoid feeling stupid in public?

Layton pledged to spend $625 million over the next four years on police officers and other crime prevention strategies while banning handguns and strengthening punishments for gang-related offences.

About which you say:

Will $625 Million make handguns MORE illegal?

Comment would be superfluous.


I know it is pretty difficult to buy a legal handgun in Canada, and I know ther are a few around anyway.

Actually, it's pretty fucking easy to buy a handgun legally in Canada, so one can only guess what you "know".

Join a gun club, take the course and get a PAL and bingo, you have all you need to get a handgun in Canada.


I wonder if the Canadians who post here don't have similar gun issue sites in their own country and why are they here anyway?

I dunno. Maybe some of the Canadians who post here just have greater respect for the truth than some of the USAmericans who post here? And are just generally more knowledgeable about everything under the sun? And are, like, genuine lefties?

Sounds like a reasonable theory to me.

[One_Life_To_Give]

28. We reading the same article?

I did not see where he proposed a Handgun Ban. Just legislation that would allow communities to enact one if so desired.

Not sure how that will stop drug users from paying for their habit with guns. Which is the case locally here in MA. Buy a gun, give it to the dealer in exchange for drugs and report the gun stolen. Maybe Canada has found a way crack down on this mechanism of putting guns in the hands of gangs?

[iverglas]

29. such confusion

Not sure how that will stop drug users from paying for their habit with guns. Which is the case locally here in MA. Buy a gun, give it to the dealer in exchange for drugs and report the gun stolen.

Buy a gun ... where, now?

Maybe Canada has found a way crack down on this mechanism of putting guns in the hands of gangs?

Uh, yeah. Getting them out of the hands of careless, anti-social morons who fail to store them securely so they don't fall into the hands of anyone else at all.

That's what the proposal is about. Well, as you point out, it isn't:

Layton said he enable provinces, cities and communities to choose to allow an 'absolute ban' on handguns

and I gotta say, Jack's my boy, but on this one he's a moron.

First, it's constitutionally off base. The field of firearms legislation is occupied by the federal government, which is constitutionally responsible for criminal law, and I very much doubt that it could be delegated to municipalities, which aren't creatures of the federal government.

Second, fuckin' duh, Jack, like people can't get guns in one place and take them to another? Look south.

Jack is pandering to the right wing of our party out west. Why they give a crap about handguns, I dunno. Having to register long arms is what they're always whining about. As we known, handgun possession is allowed for only holders of permits for restricted firearms who are (a) members of gun clubs (sports shooters) or (b) collectors. I doubt that Saskatchewan has a higher ratio of either of them than Ontario.

Of course, he's also doing an Obama -- the NDP is moving way up in the polls and the sands are shifting rapidly here, and he's doing a sashay to the right. If you ask me.


html fixed

[One_Life_To_Give]

32. Straw purchases in NH

Lawrence may be in MA. But the firearms are coming in from NH according to local police. Guess the gangs have no problem finding people to do it for them. Should the weapon ever get traced back to the purchaser they will just claim it was stolen.

Seems any local ordinance in Canada or anyplace else would have the same difficulty. You can restrict the movement of guns into the hands of the law abiding. But the lawless will be unaffected by a local ban. Unless perhaps Canada has a mechanism to track down and prosecute straw purchases.

[iverglas]

33. Oh, sigh

Lawrence may be in MA. But the firearms are coming in from NH according to local police. Guess the gangs have no problem finding people to do it for them. Should the weapon ever get traced back to the purchaser they will just claim it was stolen.

Seems any local ordinance in Canada or anyplace else would have the same difficulty.


I don't know. Does ANYBODY bother knowing what they're talking about before opening their mouths??

The authority that Jack proposes to delegate to municipalities is to ban the possession of handguns within their boundaries. This has NO effect on the federal laws that already govern the possession of handguns. Municipalities would NOT be given the authority to EXEMPT anyone from those laws.

You can restrict the movement of guns into the hands of the law abiding. But the lawless will be unaffected by a local ban. Unless perhaps Canada has a mechanism to track down and prosecute straw purchases.

I'm sorry, but: fucking duh -- yes, Canada has a mechanism for tracking down and prosecuting straw purchases.

It's called the Firearms Registry. Only those in possession of a PAL (possession and acquisition licence) and specifically a restricted firearms licence (available to people who qualify as sports shooters or collectors) may acquire a handgun legally (some types of handguns). Anyone who acquires a handgun legally and transfers it without registering the transfer is breaking the law.

And anyone whose handgun is stolen is required by law to report the theft. So anyone whose handgun was tracked back from a crime, who had not reported that handgun stolen, would be having some pretty serious explaining to do.

And any unusual firearms purchases -- like multiple handguns -- would pop up a red flag in the Firearms Registry. Not just more than once every five days. Making any serious straw purchasing unlikely. I've never heard of a straw purchasing problem here, except the foiled plan to buy up quite a large number of Garand things and ship them illegally into the US, apparently, I'm told, for collectors, because they are somehow regulated in the US. Foiled because the anomalous purchases, in small numbers all across Canada, popped up on the Firearms Registry radar.

Layton's proposed measure to allow municipalities to prohibit the possession of handguns within their boundaries is meant to address the problem of lawful owners allowing their handguns to be stolen, whence they end up being used in crimes. Also, of course, to address the problem of lawful owners gunning down bystanders on the street, as happened to a bystander on Toronto's main commercial street earlier this year.


So your silly talking points really, really do not apply here.

Just as they would not apply in the US, in this regard, if there were uniform, stringent regulation of handgun acquisition. You just wouldn't be able to say Oh well, they'll go buy their handguns in X place and take them back to Y place. Because X place just wouldn't be a free-for-all anymore.

Handguns do not fall from the sky. They start out being lawfully owned by someone. Every single one of them. The point at which they are stolen or trafficked into the illegal market is the point that anyone who is serious about preventing criminals from having guns needs to direct his/her attention to.

That's what Canadian laws do.

[Endangered Specie]

30. Too bad the NDP is about as big a joke as the Bloc

[iverglas]

31. too bad you don't have a clue

Oh well. But what does one expect??

The joke this year is the Liberal Party. Somewhat unfortunately for all of us, but nobody's fault but their own.

------------------------------------------------

http://www.thestar.com/News/Canada/article/507597

The New Democratic Party has reached a new high in voter support,
a poll released Saturday suggests.
Sep 27, 2008 03:17 PM

The four-day Canadian Press/Harris-Decima polI shows the party with 19 per cent, up from 14 per cent when the election was called.

The Conservatives are still leading with 38 per cent, followed by the Liberals with 23 per cent. The Green party and the Bloc Québécois each has nine per cent.

"The gains for the NDP appear to be coming largely at the expense of the Green party and the Liberals," Harris-Decima president Bruce Anderson told CBC News.


------------------------------------------------

http://www.canada.com/victoriatimescolonist/news/story.html?id=65765c39-dcb0-4ed1-83f5-399ce2c232b7

Liberal lose ground, NDP creep closer to official Opposition: Poll
David Akin, Canwest News Service
Published: Friday, September 26, 2008

OTTAWA - Support for the federal Liberal party is crumbling, so much so that the New Democratic Party appears to have a realistic chance of forming the official Opposition, according to a new poll commissioned for Canwest News Service and Global National.

The poll, by Ipsos Reid, indicates that the Conservatives are cruising toward victory and, barring a significant stumble by Stephen Harper during next week's debates or some other cataclysm by the Tories, the only question appears to be whether Harper will have a majority or a stronger minority government.

"What's happening right now is that both the Conservatives and the NDP have given voters very good, affirmative reasons for voting for them," said Darrell Bricker, Ipsos CEO. "People who are opposed to the agenda Stephen Harper is eventually going to bring to Canada are finding a very happy home in the NDP. For the Conservatives, it's not that they're growing so much, it's that the Liberals are falling apart."

Thirty-nine per cent of the respondents said they would vote Conservative, about the same number as a similar poll a week ago. Just 23 per cent of respondents said they would vote Liberal, a drop of four percentage points in a week while 18 per cent would pick the NDP, a gain for that party of three percentage points.


------------------------------------------------

http://netnewsledger.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1434&Itemid=26

Only 34 per cent of respondents express “complete confidence” or “a lot of confidence” in Conservative leader Stephen Harper to help Ontario. He is followed by New Democratic Party (NDP) leader Jack Layton with 28 per cent, Liberal leader Stéphane Dion with 20 per cent, and Green Party leader Elizabeth May with 19 per cent.

Ontarians trust Harper much more than his rivals to handle Canada’s economy (38%), but a majority of respondents (55%) doubts his ability to do so. Roughly one-in-five respondents express confidence in both Layton and Dion to deal with the national economy, while only 12 per cent think that May would do a good job in this area.

Notably, NDP leader Layton is seen as the most capable leader amongst the five to create new jobs in Ontario (27%), followed closely by Harper (25%). Neither Dion (18%) nor May (11%) could clear the 20-point threshold on this question.


------------------------------------------------

http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/view/31871/tories_near_majority_grits_and_ndp_tied_in_canada

Angus Reid Global Monitor : Polls & Research
Tories Near Majority, Grits and NDP Tied in Canada
September 28, 2008

The Conservative party has extended its lead in Canada, according to a poll by Angus Reid Strategies released by the Toronto Star. 40 per cent of respondents would vote for the Tories in next month’s election to the House of Commons, up two points in a week.

The Liberal party and the New Democratic Party (NDP) are tied for second with 21 per cent each, followed by the Bloc Québécois with 10 per cent, and the Green party with seven per cent. Support for the Grits fell by three points, while backing for the NDP increased by two points.


-----------------------------------------------

http://canadianpress.google.com/article/ALeqM5jMMGbPC4Nk3gxTeNKXa1MjljHN2A

Turn to NDP to stop Harper, resurgent Layton says after NDP poll gains
20 hours ago

Layton's soaring optimism comes after a new Canadian Press Harris-Decima put the NDP at 19 per cent in popular support, up five points from the start of the campaign - and within striking distance of the Liberals, who remained stagnant at 23 per cent.


-----------------------------------------------

http://www.thestar.com/Canada/Columnist/article/507339

NDP dream scenario a Liberal nightmare
Harper edges closer to majority
The Conservatives have a tenuous grasp on a majority government, while the Liberals and New Democrats are in a dead heat for second place, a new poll shows.
Sep 27, 2008 04:30 AM

The poll estimates that 40 per cent of voters now favour Harper's Conservatives, enough to give them a majority in Parliament if this trend holds until Oct. 14.

But more interesting are Reid's second-place results. These show that the sinking Liberals are now tied with the New Democrats at 21 per cent nationally.

... But it's not widely off other surveys based on telephone polls. Yesterday's Nanos Research tracking poll, for instance, also shows the Liberals and the NDP in a statistical tie for second place.

As well, both polls fit with events on the ground. Senior Liberals have taken to sniping publicly at their own campaign, a sure sign of sinking morale. In British Columbia, Harper is shifting his focus of attack from the Liberals to the NDP, an indication (backed up by today's Star poll) that Layton is overtaking Dion.

In Quebec, traditionally a wasteland for the NDP, Layton is receiving an unusual amount of favourable attention. Today's Star poll suggests that the Liberals and New Democrats are now in a statistical tie there for third place (after the Bloc Québécois and the Conservatives).


------------------------------------------------



Now ... any time you need a clue, you just ask!