5 comments

  1. C Broad Arrow says:

    We use our democracy to bring about a legal system that allows people to live together in a civil fashion. Knowing that certain actions are right and others are wrong and when there are transgressions there are remedies through an impartial third party. One of the major reasons why this works is that as Canadians we believe that the system, for the most part, works. It is this faith that binds a very large and diverse country together.
    The Parliament of Canada passed C-19 which amended the Firearms Act. These amendments were clear with regard to the collection of records pertaining to non-restircted firearms. For the last 17 years Canadians worked within the system to peacefully change the law. They protested, worked on campaigns, donated money, met with politicians, wrote letters and engaged in many other activities to bring about change.
    The CFO, who serves both the Federal and Provincial government as a servant of the people has decided to place his own personal interpretation on the law ahead of that of Parliament. Like a rogue sheriff of medieval England or Louisiana, the CFO believes by his action that he is a law onto himself. To enforce his interpretation he threatens to pull the business license of any Ontario Firearm Retailer, such as Canadian Tire, Bass Pro, Cabelas, Ellwood Epps, and others, who would have the timerity to follow the law as set out by Parliament. In the legal system this could be considered extortion at worst, protection at best.
    The words tyrant and bulley do not begin to describe the action of the CFO. We have witnessed historically what happens when people use the system to bring about change and then are denied that change by those that are in a position of power. Like everyone else, if the CFO does not like the law he can work to change it, but in the interim he has to abide with the law like those who dutifully registered their firearms with one hand while carrying a protest sign with the other. Time for the CFO to do the same.

  2. Bill Elder says:

    What has happened here amounts to a revolt against parliament and the government by civil servants – in particular senior police bureaucrats. Now the Harper administration has always been plagued by obstinate bureaucrats either ignoring or openly defying their policy changes. But this is different. This time they are defying the law and making statute interpretations which are the role of the courts and parliament.

    In short, the cops are way out of line. They enforce the law not make it up as they go.

    This should raise alarm bells with Canadians because it indicates that the police bureaucracies have grown so large and garnered so much insulation from discipline and oversight by government that they operate aside from ministerial protocol and act unilaterally even defying criminal statute changes they disagree with. This is the new buraucratic “us and them” mindset which will isolate the police function from those they serve – the public, the law and parliament.

    I found Wyatt’s defense of his insubordination to parliament quite offensive. He presumed to speak for the public, yet his Freudian use of personal pronouns (I,Me,My) was quite telling that it is personal bias he espouses – I suppose we can be thankful this policeman did not use the royal plural. Wyatt is in denial of popular will which spoke by giving Harper a mandate to dismantle the registry. Personally I think if the feds don’t replace insubordinate control bureaucrats the least they should do is cut fed firearms control funding to any province or police force that is non-compliant to the change in the law.

    Probably the saddest part about this rank subordination is the government’s non-reaction to correct/replace insubordinate bureaucrats. I guess that will be left to firearms owners to launch another class action in the void left by government oversight of their rogue bureaucrats.

  3. Freedom Lover says:

    Perhaps it’s time for a massive tax revolt in this country.

  4. Jason says:

    I don’t pretend to be an expert, but it seems to me that this is the problem you encounter when you farm out a federal responsibility to a person who owes their commission to the province! Chief firearms officers should be federally employed, and be solely responsible to the federal government! The Ontario CFO’s uniquely independent way of interpreting (or making up) the rules has annoyed me for some time now! In any other province, I can obtain an Authorization to Transport my restricted firearms to my gun club by simply faxing an application to the CFO. In Ontario, they will only accept an ATT that has been submitted on your behalf by your gun club. Since the gun club has been made responsible, many require you now to take a safety course which they both charge you for and which is usually identical to the course you already took to get your firearms license! Then, most will make you wait 6 months or a year to ensure you are a member in good standing! The ATT is supposed to be free of charge, but to get it through my club I have to pay?!? Why can federal law be interpreted one way in Ontario and a different way for the rest of the country!?!? UNACCEPTABLE! The CFO does not seem to have any accountability for his actions! It’s about time this happened! I can at least mitigate some of this misery by buying ALL of my long guns and ammunition from out of province!

  5. john s says:

    Have your friend buy the gun, then buy it from him. Not only will you not be on record, but the RCMP can waste their time recording the addresses of guns that are useless. Of course, it helps if you don’t really like that friend of yours, since the next time the mailman sees a toy gun in the house, unsafely stored, the cops will show up, pistols drawn, looking for a shoot-out.

Comments are closed.