RCMP make more gun owners criminal overnight

42 posts / 0 new
Last post
Paladin1
RCMP make more gun owners criminal overnight

I thought a number of people here would appreciate this, maybe rejoice.

The RCMP once again interpreted firearm laws in a wacky way and cosigned even more gun owners to criminalhood.

Now if you own one of these you could go to jail. It's an "80% lower reciever"

 

What that you ask? A block of aluminum that one day, with a lot of tools, machining, a bunch of pins and springs and a lot of skill, can be turned into the lower reciever frame a rifle or hand gun.  Which is then legal. 

 

 

In the unfinished metal form however it has the same prohibited classification as a machinegun now.

The weird thing though is that an "80% lower" is essentially a block of allumnium. Imagine going to jail for this.

 

 

 

By extention, anyone who owns a copper tube in their house like this could be a crimminal since you can turn it into a blow gun, which is illegal.

Quote:
http://www.cbsa-asfc.gc.ca/publications/dm-md/d19/d19-13-2-eng.html

Blowgun (Yaqua Blowgun)

34. The device commonly known as "Yaqua Blowgun", being a tube or pipe designed for the purpose of shooting arrows or darts by the breath, and any similar device. Blowguns are hollow tubes typically made of wood or plastic with an opening at each end. Darts or arrows are placed in one end, and forced out the other end using the force of the operator's breath. The darts used may be made of metal, plastic or wood, and can occasionally be made with poison tips.

 

Rev Pesky

I'm not sure where you dredged that drivel up from, but you might send them a note explaining the meaning of the phrase "designed for the purpose of".

Paladin1

Rev Pesky wrote:

I'm not sure where you dredged that drivel up from, but you might send them a note explaining the meaning of the phrase "designed for the purpose of".

 

Yea that doesn't fly. Sorry!

The AR15 has been available in Canada since around 1964. Since that time can you guess at how many times someone took one of these 80% lowers and drilled it out so it can painstakingly become an automatic weapon?

Zero times.

So the RCMP decided to change the law, making thousands of Canadians criminals over night (again) because of a block of alluminum that's been used illegally zero times in the last 50+ years.

 

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

To be fair, do you suppose the Reverend might have been talking about the "illegality" of copper tubing, and/or the criminality of owning such?

As a total aside, when there was some renovation going on at my school (20) years ago, I found a small length of grey ABS tubing that seemed to me exactly the diameter of a common plastic push-pin.  It pretty much was, and I found I could use that tube as a blow-gun and bury push-pins into corkboards in three-foot groups at ten yards.

 

Paladin1

I'm not sure. He might have. Hell of a lot easier to make a blowgun out of copper pipe than drill an AR15 recieverin any case.

Don't feel too criminal, Magoo.

After the RCMP made blowguns prohibited weapons the Canadian Prime Minister at the time got off a plane in which one of his sons exited and held aloft a blow gun he picked up as a souviner in Africa.

Sunny Days :)

contrarianna

Paladin1 wrote:

The RCMP once again interpreted firearm laws in a wacky way and cosigned even more gun owners to criminalhood .

Good grief, "gun owners"? Why "gun owners", I thought you were talking about a random, harmless blocks of metal?

That even licenced AR17 combat weapons are allowed in Canada is a disgrace.

Cheers to the RCMP if they are cracking down on that sleazy, very dangerous law dodge.

The only reason someone would buy an 80% finished lower receiver is to finish the other 20%--not to do house plumbing.

Here's the legal status of these in gun-nut-heaven USA:
===
"For the purposes of United States law, the receiver or frame is legally the firearm,[3] and as such it is the controlled part."
....
"Unfinished receivers

"Unfinished receivers", also called "80 percent receivers" or "blanks", are partially completed receivers with no serial numbers. Purchasers must perform their own finishing work in order to make the receiver usable. The finishing of receivers for sale or distribution by unlicensed persons is against US law.[7] Because an unfinished 80% receiver is not a firearm, purchasers do not need to pass a background check.[7] The resulting firearm is sometimes called a "ghost gun".[8] An AR-15 variant made from an 80% receiver was used in the 2013 Santa Monica shooting.[7]"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Receiver_(firearms)

HOW CRIMINALS ARE EXPLOITING A LEGAL LOOPHOLE THAT LETS YOU MAKE GUNS AT HOME

http://fusion.net/story/104761/how-criminals-are-exploiting-a-legal-loop...

 

 

Paladin1

contrarianna wrote:

Good grief, "gun owners"? Why "gun owners", I thought you were talking about a random, harmless blocks of metal?

Well it's gun owners that are in possession of these hunks of metal that are criminals now.

Let me ask you Contrarinna, do you think the RCMP should be responsible for making laws in Canada? Or do you think that should be done by elected politicians and officials? Or someone else?

Quote:

That even licenced AR17 combat weapons are allowed in Canada is a disgrace.

Do you mean for civilians to own or all together? The term combat weapon may be a double edged sword (get it?) because two of the most common hunting firearms in North America are also widely used by the police and military and could be considered combat weapons.

Quote:

Cheers to the RCMP if they are cracking down on that sleazy, very dangerous law dodge.

The only reason someone would buy an 80% finished lower receiver is to finish the other 20%--not to do house plumbing.

The RCMP justified making these 80% lower recievers illegal because of the possibility of turning them into fully automatic rifles (actual assault rifles per the historical criteria). Not because of someones ability to make a functioning firearm out of them.  Your average criminal (or gun owner) isn't going to have the expertise, resources or tools to mill these recievers so that they can be made into automatic rifles. 

Personally my biggest concern is the RCMP inturputing laws as they see fit and creating new ones based on supposition and lacking any sort of credible, statistically backed reasons. Firearms are polarizing of course it's quite easy to say who fucking cares,ban all guns.  That's fine but what if the RCMP pulled the same stuff with bicycles or driving cars, carrying ID, vehicle check points and searches?  Again the issue for me is whether or not the RCMP should have the power to make up laws.

Quote:

"Unfinished receivers", also called "80 percent receivers" or "blanks", are partially completed receivers with no serial numbers. Purchasers must perform their own finishing work in order to make the receiver usable. The finishing of receivers for sale or distribution by unlicensed persons is against US law.[7] Because an unfinished 80% receiver is not a firearm, purchasers do not need to pass a background check.[7] The resulting firearm is sometimes called a "ghost gun".[8] An AR-15 variant made from an 80% receiver was used in the 2013 Santa Monica shooting.[7]"

The US has been caught purposefully allowing firearms into the hands of drug dealers and criminals, Operation FASTA AND FURIOUS. It was a gunwalking scandal.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ATF_gunwalking_scandal 

One of those firearms was used in the terrorist shooting in France at the theater.

As far as the 80% lower being used in that shooting (after buying and assembling all the pieces),  there are 36 states where there are no legal requirements for gun registration, no permit needed and no license necessary to purchase and own a firearm such as a rifle, shotgun, or handgun. Getting a firearm doesn't seem to be too difficult a prospect in the US. Building your own gun would probably take more time and effort.

 

 

 

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
Your average criminal (or gun owner) isn't going to have the expertise, resources or tools to mill these recievers so that they can be made into automatic rifles.

OK.  Except that one would reasonably assume that anyone who DOES purchase or own one must have the expertise, resources and tools, though, yes?

Or else what on earth would they be buying them for?

Quote:
Getting a firearm doesn't seem to be too difficult a prospect in the US. Building your own gun would probably take more time and effort.

Sure.  But what are these being sold for if not to finish the last fifth of the work and get either:

a) an automatic weapon

b) a weapon without a serial number

c) a handcrafted, family heirloom gun, made with love

d) all of the above?

Paladin1

Mr. Magoo wrote:

OK.  Except that one would reasonably assume that anyone who DOES purchase or own one must have the expertise, resources and tools, though, yes?

Not necessarily. I should point out that some 80% lower recievers require cutting the metal out to fit the parts and some the parts can just be dropped in.   In the case of the latter you could simply watch a youtube video and follow along, no machines or expertise required.   To physically cut out the metal would require more stuff.

Quote:

Sure.  But what are these being sold for if not to finish the last fifth of the work and get either:

a) an automatic weapon

b) a weapon without a serial number

c) a handcrafted, family heirloom gun, made with love

d) all of the above?

Some people enjoy building firearms from scratch, the same way people put cars or laptops together.  Someone could put together one of these without a serial number but then it would be illegal since in Canada we're only allowed using AR variants at a range (although more advance rifles based off assault-rifle designs are allowed on crown land).

This isn't the first time the RCMP changed laws and blamed a firearms proposed ability to be made into an automatic weapon.   I'm not sure if they have an irational fear of automatic weapons or they are just using it as a means of getting more guns controlled and banned. 

Automatic weapons aren't very reliable, prone to jamming, not accurate and wastes ammunition. In a lone-gunman senario a hunting rifle is much deadlier IMO- as RCMP sadly discovered in Moncton.

I'm looking for examples of these 80% lowers being turned into automatic weapons in Canada but haven't found any.

 

https://canadianfirearmsblog.ca/rcmp-rules-ar-15-80-lower-receivers-proh...

Rev Pesky

From Magoo:

To be fair, do you suppose the Reverend might have been talking about the "illegality" of copper tubing, and/or the criminality of owning such?

That was it exactly. Paladin 1 posts a picture of copper pipe, and warns us that the RCMP are going to make this illegal. Pardon me for saying, but that is just plain ridiculous.

Strangely enough, back in the day, it wasn't copper pipe, but copper tubing that was watched by the police. My father owned a hardware store, and there were requirements about reporting large sales of copper tubing.

As far as the rest of it, I'll put Paladin 1's first post into "The sky is falling, the sky is falling!" category, as if Chicken Little didn't have enough to do...

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
Strangely enough, back in the day, it wasn't copper pipe, but copper tubing that was watched by the police. My father owned a hardware store, and there were requirements about reporting large sales of copper tubing.

Stills??

Anyway, I would surely agree with Paladin1 that solid, rectangular blocks of aluminum should be freely available for sale.  I used to have one myself (not sure what became of it, though; it was a doorstop, but Gord help you if you kicked one of those corners).

Rev Pesky

From Magoo:

Stills??

Yup. Although I have to say that this was many years ago and I don't really remember what the strictures were. It's more of less of a vague memory, rather than something concrete.

Timebandit Timebandit's picture

The difference between building your own laptop or car and building your own gun is that guns are made for killing things. They consequently need to be heavily regulated. If you have a problem with that, well.... I guess you're welcome to it. You won't get any sympathy from me or any other half-assed sensible human.

Sean in Ottawa

Regulation is about public safety and measures one value against another. If the sale of something is made available to those who need it and harder to get for those who would misuse it in illegal ways that is a legitimate purpose.

Part of the problem is the rush to get into absolutes to defend the indefensible.

Timebandit Timebandit's picture

The other point is the idea of "need". Nobody "needs" this thing. Some people want it, but that's their tough luck.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

I totally agree that these things seem to be a "Betty Crocker cake mix" for guns -- just add an egg and some water (or a bit of milling and a barrel).

But the "need" argument has never had legs.

I wish Skdadl were still here to remind us that we aren't granted those rights that we "need", we're born with all of them, and the state can only take them away from us with good reason.  This is why we defend our right to all sorts of things we don't "need" -- marijuana, cars, a bottle of wine, fidget spinners...

Sean in Ottawa

I would not invoke the advice of someone not here. I think it is also important to remember that many rights involve the infringement or risk of others and this is part of the discussion. Of course you do not infringe on the rights of a minority ot please a majority but you also do not infringe on the rights or put many at risk just to have a right of low value. Rights do not have equal value.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
I would not invoke the advice of someone not here.

If I can say "Hegel believed..." then I can say "Skdadl believed...".

They're both in the public record now.  And I think that they both enjoy some respect at babble, even if they're "not here".

Timebandit Timebandit's picture

Control of guns (or gun-making parts) is primarily a public health issue. So is control of alcohol and other substances. The risk of harm is more important than the individual's desire to engage in a recreational activity without certain limits. There is no specific right to firearm ownership in this country. 

6079_Smith_W

In a practical sense I disagree that the need argument is not valid. Fact is, it is a perfectly sensible tool for a lot of people, particularly those who keep animals, or have to deal with wild ones. I have said a number of times here that I think that in some cases it would be irresponsible not to have them. But if you want to get technical of course it isn't a right any more than having a car; think that one through.

Problem is that any reasonable argument has been clouded by the paranoid and power-hungry U.S. gun lobby. You don't see that degree of conspiracist rhetoric in other nations, and we probably wouldn't see it here if we didn't share a border with them.

This absurd block of aluminum argument is a perfect example.

 

Aristotleded24

6079_Smith_W wrote:
Problem is that any reasonable argument has been clouded by the paranoid and power-hungry U.S. gun lobby. You don't see that degree of conspiracist rhetoric in other nations, and we probably wouldn't see it here if we didn't share a border with them.

The heavy-handed approach of the Chretien government when they introduced their gun registry didn't help matters.

6079_Smith_W

Yes, I agree with you there completely; it was an arrogant and stupid move on his part. It definitely gave Harper something to point to as an excuse for ending the registry. And it was also something which clouded any attempt to deal with the issue reasonably.

But what we see now is driven far more by the American lobby.

 

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
In a practical sense I disagree that the need argument is not valid. Fact is, it is a perfectly sensible tool for a lot of people, particularly those who keep animals, or have to deal with wild ones.

I completely agree.  I didn't mean to suggest that if you need a gun, that need doesn't matter.  I meant to suggest that just because someone thinks you "don't need" a gun, that doesn't matter.  Our liberties aren't restricted to food, water and shelter.

That's not to say we should sell handguns from vending machines.  Just that "well, you don't *need* that, so you shouldn't have it" is not how rights are supposed to work.

6079_Smith_W

Though it really isn't a liberty or a rights issue either. Because we don't have an absolute right to it. Framing it that way is part of the problem.

My point is that just like cars, there is a good reason for some people to have them.

But the discussion would really be a lot easier it we weren't pushing the needle into the red. We don't scream about how you can tear our toilet paper from our cold dead hands, after all.

(okay, maybe plastic shopping bags or water bottles)

And for most reasonable people it is that way with firearms too.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
Though it really isn't a liberty or a rights issue either. Because we don't have an absolute right to it. Framing it that way is part of the problem.

I would never suggest that we have an absolute right to gun ownership.  I'm really only suggesting that we don't have some sort of "non-right" to gun ownership and then if we want one we have to earn it by proving to someone that we "need it".

The number of things we can accurately say we have an "absolute" right to is pretty small (like the number of things we "need").  But we generally assume that if we want something we don't need, we should be able to have it, unless there's a good and logical and reasonable reason why not.

I'm among those who believe that "well, others have used their guns for evil" falls short of being that reason.  Same as how we can keep issuing new driver's licences even when we know how many people have used theirs to drive drunk.

And the whole idea that, well, we have to accept that some people "need" a car gets me wondering whether those people would have died, car-less, if they'd lived in the nineteenth century.  Or else what's the "need"? 

"My kid has hockey practice... are we just supposed to take a BUS??".  Heck, why does your kid NEED hockey practice??

Timebandit Timebandit's picture

More hockey practice doesn't mean more dead people. Unrestricted gun access does. Public health issue. Especially in regard to handguns. Nobody needs a handgun. Few people actually require a long gun - and there are provisions for reasonable access. 

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
More hockey practice doesn't mean more dead people.

But evidently more cars do.  If you look, that's what I was referring to.  Not hockey... cars.

6079_Smith_W

But I wasn't talking about unrestricted access. I was talking about them having a practical and in some cases necessary purpose, which for much of our history was the case, and was not a big deal. Granted, there are fewer and fewer people for whom that is the case (it has been a couple of decades since I last had to use a gun) but it is really only in the context of the NRA lobby that this has turned into arguments of absolute rights and needs and abolition.

I just think the discussion would be a bit more productive if it didn't get dragged to those absolutes, because it doesn't actually help solve things.

 

 

 

Timebandit Timebandit's picture

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:
More hockey practice doesn't mean more dead people.

But evidently more cars do.  If you look, that's what I was referring to.  Not hockey... cars.

Okay. Cars are also regulated - what kind of vehicle is allowed on the road, who can operate them, etc, etc. Add to that the general purpose of a car is transportation, not killing things. Cars are not engineered specifically to kill humans, handguns are. So are assault weapons. The way we regulate guns in this country is fairly sensible, so I don't have a lot of patience with people whinging about restrictions on stuff they can't do that might lead to harming others.

I can also see that taking the bus to hockey practice can be problematic even in places where there is adequate public transportation - the amount of gear you have to carry can be daunting. I applaud people who do. However, not all of us live in Toronto and we may have limited options for public transit.

Shorter version - firearms are much more frivolous and unnecessary than cars.

This conversation is getting silly.

6079_Smith_W

Timebandit wrote:

Shorter version - firearms are much more frivolous and unnecessary than cars.

This conversation is getting silly.

Until you're dealing with an injured and dying animal, which I was the last time I made the choice to use one.

Silly would have been straining for any possible option to deal with the situation  that avoided the obvious one.

(whether that be crawling in there to get it and risking that it would run off and die slowly, or driving a car through the bushes in the hopes THAT might hit it and put it out of its misery)

Might seem like a rare exception to some here, but I have a number of friends who still use them. I had a conversation with someone in the last week about dealing with gophers.

It isn't that I don't agree with you about the main argument. It is just that framing this argument in absolutes is part of what screwed it up from day one. And that goes for Chretien's game-playing too, even if he isn't as much a guilty party as Harper, or the NRA. As I see it the Liberals bear some responsibility for the death of the registry.

So we wind up with truly silly arguments like this one about the right to buy blocks and tubes of metal rather than what are reasonable limits and precautions and reasonable uses.

As for Paladin's perennial arguments, I have weighed in on them before; the government wants to ban certain rifles or parts because of their colour or some other cosmetic aspect or some loophole? It is fine by me. Might piss off weekend warriors or gun nuts but it has no effect on people who actually need to use those tools.

 

 

Timebandit Timebandit's picture

For people who live in rural areas, that's a reasonable use - I totally agree with you. I grew up on the prairies, too, you know.  ;)

The fact is, though, those reasonable uses are allowed and accounted for, as are some recreational uses of firearms. It's not like anyone is talking about an all-out ban. And most Canadians aren't rural and won't ever need to put some poor creature out of its misery (I've had to do the same).

I have zero sympathy for the build your own or collector crowd. It's possible to buy a reasonably priced firearm in this country. It's even possible to buy some restricted firearms with certain licensing requirements. That it's not possible to own some varieties of firearm or firearm parts is in line with sensible public health and safety policies. If those policies leave some crying the blues, all I can say is "Suck it up, buttercup."

6079_Smith_W

Yup. I think we are in agreement. Twenty years ago when the new legislation came in I was living in the city already and the reasonable option was to just sell the family guns. Unless we decide to move out to the sticks I don't see myself ever buying one again, and even then there would have to be a compelling reason. There are ways to get pests like skunks to take off without killing them, after all.

Timebandit Timebandit's picture

I still have the shotgun my father bought me for bird hunting, but I haven't purchased ammunition in over 30 years. I don't intend to anytime soon, either. I should probably get rid of it - I certainly don't need it - but it's a pretty thing and a keepsake. It's carefully locked up for storage. If the laws changed and I needed to give it up, I would without argument.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
Okay. Cars are also regulated - what kind of vehicle is allowed on the road, who can operate them, etc, etc. Add to that the general purpose of a car is transportation, not killing things. Cars are not engineered specifically to kill humans, handguns are. So are assault weapons. The way we regulate guns in this country is fairly sensible, so I don't have a lot of patience with people whinging about restrictions on stuff they can't do that might lead to harming others.

I basically agree.  I don't wish to see Canada start relaxing any of the existing restrictions, but neither do I think the existing restrictions "need more teeth" -- you're not making that argument, but there are plenty of others who will.

I think that guns are kind of like cars in a lot of ways, at least one of which is that if you own a car (or a gun) then in some statistical sense, it (and you, I guess) represents a risk:  the risk that you'll use the gun to shoot people and the risk that you'll use the car to injure people (either intentionally, or by driving under the influence).

But in an individual sense, the statistics don't really apply.  Lots of people own and use a car their whole lives and never drive drunk, while a few individuals do it over and over again.  And yes, some people use their gun to shoot someone, but the vast majority shoot targets and tin cans and food.

If the state told you that you were no longer allowed to drive a car because too many people have killed others while driving drunk, would you surrender your car, based on the math, and the belief that saving even one life would be worth it? 

Or would you insist that as a safe driver who has never driven drunk, you should be allowed to drive a car?  At what point are you content to be lumped in with idiots when it comes to your own personal choices and responsibility?

Rev Pesky

From Mr. Magoo:

If the state told you that you were no longer allowed to drive a car because too many people have killed others while driving drunk, would you surrender your car, based on the math, and the belief that saving even one life would be worth it? 

Or would you insist that as a safe driver who has never driven drunk, you should be allowed to drive a car?  At what point are you content to be lumped in with idiots when it comes to your own personal choices and responsibility?

What the state does do is require all people that own a vehicle to have liability insurance, against the possibility that they may cause damage.

The other thing the state does, and this is world-wide, is require the registration of each vehicle's ID. All manufacturers of motor vehicles in the world are required to identify each individual vehicle with a VIN, and that VIN is tracked through all subsequent sales of the vehicle, accidents, owners, and states of registration. That VIN by the way, is not just the plate on the car door, or at the bottom of the windshield. Every major part on the vehicle has the VIN stamped into it (engine block, transmission, rear-end, frame, etc.).

Strangely enough, the USA, despite its unwillingness to impose strictures on firearms, has no problem imposing all the above strictures on motor vehicles.

Personally I wouldn't have a problem with imposing a regimen similar to motor vehicle owner's on firearm owners. I can tell you something else. The minute you require firearms owners to buy liability insurance, the insurance  companies would demand a central registry of all firearms. The other thing they would demand is that firearms owners store their firearms is such a way as to minimize the possibility of theft.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
What the state does do is require all people that own a vehicle to have liability insurance, against the possibility that they may cause damage.

Er, ok.  But if I kill someone with my car, this helps them how?

Quote:
The other thing the state does, and this is world-wide, is require the registration of each vehicle's ID. All manufacturers of motor vehicles in the world are required to identify each individual vehicle with a VIN, and that VIN is tracked through all subsequent sales of the vehicle, accidents, owners, and states of registration. That VIN by the way, is not just the plate on the car door, or at the bottom of the windshield. Every major part on the vehicle has the VIN stamped into it (engine block, transmission, rear-end, frame, etc.).

I have no problem with this, nor any problem with all guns being registered similarly.  What's the penalty, though, for owning or selling a car whose VIN has been sandblasted off?  What's the penalty for owning or selling a gun whose serial number has been filed off?  Because you won't hear ANY argument from me if someone caught with a gun whose serial number has been removed is sentenced to a mandatory minimum of five years or so.

Quote:
The other thing they would demand is that firearms owners store their firearms is such a way as to minimize the possibility of theft.

So... like the way they currently require car owners to keep their car in a tightly locked, theft-proof box, and the fuel for it locked in a different place?

Timebandit Timebandit's picture

Would I give up my car? Sure. If there was effective alternative transportation and a compelling public health argument (one could argue that there already is), I'd be happy to. In fact, when visiting large cities with public transit infrastructure, I don't drive. I doubt I'd own a car if I lived in TO or Montreal.

Rev Pesky

From Mr. Magoo:

Er, ok.  But if I kill someone with my car, this helps them how?

That's not the point. The point is the government requires car owners to have liability insurance, and that's that. If you don't have it, you can't drive.

 

...What's the penalty, though, for owning or selling a car whose VIN has been sandblasted off?  

You quite literally can't sell a car without a VIN. You can't get a plate for it, you can't get insurance for it, if you're caught with it it'll cost you your car and a whole lot of money. You might be able to find someone stupid enough to think they could drive around without a plate on their car, but even if you could, their hours of enjoying their vehicle would be short.

And as I pointed out earlier, the VIN is all over the car, stamped into places you would have to take the car apart to get at. And by the way, if you want to try it, you can sandblast the VIN off the frame, but it can still be read. There is literally no way to completely remove a VIN from a vehicle. If the car is stolen and dismembered, obviously the parts could be distributed to other vehicles, which would hide their true origin, and that is done in the so-called 'chop-shop'.

But of course a firearm has fewer parts than a car, so presumably it would be easier to identify the parts. 

The point about the storage was simply that if a private insurance company was responsible for the liability of your firearm, they would want proof that you made a reasonable attempt to prevent it from being stolen. They don't particularly care about ammunition, because ammunition can be bought. 

But you would lose your insurance if it was found that you hadn't made a reasonable attempt to prevent theft of your firearm. Which could leave you in a serious financial jam.

 

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
That's not the point. The point is the government requires car owners to have liability insurance, and that's that. If you don't have it, you can't drive.

OK then.  If gun owners need to purchase liability insurance against the possibility of them accidentally shooting someone, that shouldn't really cost too much, particularly if the government patterns it after the auto insurance you mention, and has a statutory cap on settlements.

I assume that, like auto insurance, there would be no insurance claim in the case of an intentional act (e.g. you choose to drive your car into another car/choose to shoot someone) or theft (e.g. someone steals your car and strikes a pedestrian/someone steals your gun and shoots another).

Rev Pesky

I think we could safely leave it to the private sector to determine the level of risk, and the level of payment required to meet the risk. They would presumably demand a firearms registry so they could keep track of the weapons they were responsible for. They could also determine who was an acceptable risk...

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
I think we could safely leave it to the private sector to determine the level of risk, and the level of payment required to meet the risk.

Of course.

Quote:
They would presumably demand a firearms registry so they could keep track of the weapons they were responsible for.

Why wouldn't the serial number on the gun be sufficient?

With regard to cars, Ontario (at least) says:

Quote:
You must show proof that you have insurance coverage before you can register a vehicle or renew your registration.

So presumably insurance coverage is possible PRIOR to registration.  You aren't just trying to sneak a new Gun Registry into place, are you??

Quote:
You must show proof that you have insurance coverage before you can register a vehicle or renew your registration.

I don't know the answer to this, but now I'm curious:  has there EVER been a case of a Canadian who could not legally drive because NO insurance company would insure him/her?  I get that if you've been a fuckup in the past, your premiums may be prohibitively expensive, but I can't remember ever hearing about a driver who was willing to pay the higher premiums but was summarily denied.

Timebandit Timebandit's picture

Generally the person in question would have lost their license before that would happen.