Conserviatives to Scrap Gun Registry??

[jks]

From CTV Toronto:

gun registry
Harper's comments on gun registry spark debate

Updated: Sun Mar. 22 2009 7:06:16 PM

ctvtoronto.ca

Gun owners and gun control advocates are speaking out about the prime minister's idea to scrap the long-gun registry.

Stephen Harper, who does not have a bill in Parliament that would abolish the registry, urged members of the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters on Saturday to contact opposition MPs and pressure them to support legislation that would end the six year old program.

Long guns, which are typically used by farmers and hunters and not criminals, are not adding to the city's crime problem, said one women attending the Toronto Sportsmen's Show on Sunday.

"It's not the people that have got legal guns that are the problem," she said. "It's the people that don't have licences."

Michael Thompson, a city councillor in Toronto's Scarborough region, said he would like to see the federal government get rid of the expensive program and use that money to fight crime in at-risk communities.

However, Harper's suggestion did not go over well with gun control advocates who argued that a registry helps authorities keep an eye on the weapons floating around the country.

"Even in Toronto, a substantial proportion of the guns recovered in crime are rifles and shotguns," said Wendy Cukier, with the Coalition for Gun Control.

Even at the Sportsmen show, participants were split on whether the registry is worth maintaining.

"I believe the registry is important to keep track of all the firearms in Canada and be used for law enforcement use," said Larry Brownridge, a gun owner who lives in the Greater Toronto Area.

The Conservatives always voiced their displeasure with the registry, a Liberal initiative that has been criticized for being too costly and for punishing law-abiding gun owners rather than criminals.

While a lack of support from opposition parties have stopped the Tories from attempting to pass legislation to get rid of the registry, the Conservatives have reduced the registry's budge and have waived fees for gun owners.

However, a Conservative backbencher has introduced a private member's bill on scrapping the registry. During Harper's speech on Saturday, the Prime Minister said he would like to see the matter put before a free vote in the House of Commons.

Opposition Leader Michael Ignatieff said Sunday on CTV's Question Period that he wants to see the "fine print" of what the Tories are proposing before making a decision.

Nonetheless, he was quick to say that he would not support a bill that proposes getting rid of the registry altogether, saying it does the police a great service.

"We've got to keep control of these firearms," he said.

"I'm not going to vote for anything that guts the gun registry, because I think when I look at my own riding in Toronto and I talk to my police superintendent, he uses the gun registry every day," Ignatieff said. "He checks out every address he sends his cops to, to make sure that there are no guns in that house. In other words, the gun registry plays a crucial role in making our police safer."

"And I think Canadians don't want to gut any registry that makes our cops safer and makes, I think, on balance, makes our streets safer," he added.

 

[jks]

From Yesterday (March 21)

PM tries to enlist Ont. gun owners to scrap gun registry

Updated: Sat Mar. 21 2009 10:52:17 PM

The Canadian Press

MISSISSAUGA, Ont. — Prime Minister Stephen Harper set his sights on the federal long gun registry Saturday, asking a meeting of recreational sportsmen to help him build enough support in Parliament to scrap the registry.

Harper urged members of the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters to contact opposition MPs and pressure them to support legislation that would target the six year old program.

"We are looking to unite a majority of MPs in repealing the long gun registry," Harper told the group in a speech.

"The leaders of the opposition parties continue to be against this. But there are MPs in all these parties that know what we know, that law-abiding hunters and farmers are not part of the crime problem."

"I challenge you to press these MPs to follow their consciences."

In its entire lifetime, Harper's minority government has never brought a bill to abolish the registry to a vote, fearing there would not be enough support in the House of Commons.

Instead, the Tories have reduced the registry's budget and brought in fee waivers and amnesty for gun owners who haven't registered.

After Harper's plea to gunowners to get more involved, an official with the Prime Minister's Office frantically contacted the media to point out there is no government legislation currently before the House of Commons.

Dimitri Soudas would not say if the bill from the Tories' first mandate that died on the order paper would ever be re-introduced.

"We urge opposition MPs to work with the government in order to put an end to a wasteful program that did nothing to prevent crime," Soudas said in an email.

"(The registry) really should be abolished. He (Harper) is absolutely correct," said Frank DiRocco, an avid hunter and angler from Woodbridge, Ont., who was attending the Federation's 81st annual general meeting where Harper spoke.

"Hunters are not the ones on the streets breaking the law -- they're enjoying the sport and the country," he said, adding he wants to teach his 12-year-old son to understand nature and respect the nation's resources, but feels the registry makes this very difficult.

Jim Magee, a cattle farmer from Drumbo, Ont., near Woodstock, called the registry "aggravation."

He said wild animals, like coyotes, will sometimes kill his livestock.

"As soon as I get my gun out and get my ammunition that's locked away, the coyote is a mile away," Magee said, who is also a former police officer.

"But if I keep (my gun) out and it gets stolen, I'm in trouble."

The registry was brought in by the former Liberal administration and has been constantly derided by the Conservatives for being a source of cost overruns and unnecessary red tape.

Harper told those gathered the registry was a prime example of how the previous government's approach to criminal justice was flawed.

"Instead of action on crime, we got the federal long gun registry, which became a bloated bureaucratic nightmare to responsible hunters, farmers and rural Canadians," he said.

"It cost taxpayers some $2 billion and it hasn't done a thing to reduce gun crime."

Magee said he was upset when the long gun registry was put in place for that very reason.

"It was a useless exercise to appease an urban population," he said.

"I don't have a problem with reasonable precautions -- safe storage, and having an acquisition license."

Harper received applause as he told the group Ottawa is currently reviewing the Federation's "positive" proposal for legislation that recognizes Canada's recreational hunting and angling heritage enshrines their rights and responsibilities.

Harper made his comments as Vancouver has seen an recent upswing in gangland related firearm murders, although he never touched on the issue in his Saturday speech.

"(The registry cost is) huge money that could have been used in a lot of other areas instead of a falsehood -- letting people believe it's going to solve crime," said Todd Orton, from Midland, Ont.

"That's not what the records are showing."

Harper also used the speech to convey condolences and make note of the "sacrifices" Canadian soldiers have made a day after four were killed in Afghanistan.

"We stand in awe and will stand in eternal remembrance of their devotion to their fellow human beings and to our country," he said.

 

[nfitz]

What a barmy idea. The money spent getting the registry going is gone - it's in the past. The program itself was making money (not much, but it was in the black) when Harper became PM. He has since slashed the rates, so it now runs in the red.

Why the Conservatives are more concerned about the convenience of their rural base, than the lives of Canadians confounds me.

Why do so many Conservative policies kill so many people?

 

[Brian69]

The gun registry was a boondoggle, yet another massive waste of taxpayer money done to appease rather than have an effect. $2 billion (1000 times the original $2 million estimate), no effect on gun crime and done for all the wrong reasons. It was argued against by justice ministers in a number of provinces, Toronto's own police chief (Fantino) and eventually some of Chretien's own backbenchers start revolting against it and were threatened into towing the party line.

The issue in urban centres has been handguns, not long guns, and handguns have been and will continue to be restricted and registered. No change in policy there (and no change in gun violence, I might add, because oddly enough criminals just won't play along and register their guns).

It also surprises me to hear that the registry program was in the black when last I heard operating costs were still in the neighbourhood of $85 million a year and registration fees were cut by the liberals even before Harper's government came to power. Where would this money be coming from?

 

[Dilla]

Why the Conservatives are more concerned about the convenience of their rural base, than the lives of Canadians confounds me.

Why do so many Conservative policies kill so many people?

I can't think of one instance where the gun registry saved a life, or the lack of one led to the loss of life. It's all to make it look like something is being done, when in fact we're no safer for it than we were. Having your FAC means you're registered, anyway.

 

[kEiThZ]

I can't see why having a registry of firearms is a big deal. If I was a cop about to enter a building, I'd like to know if there's a possibility that there are firearms in there.

Saying it hasn't saved any lives is something that's hard to judge. Who knows how many times a police officer on the ground has been a little more cautious or altered his/hert tactics because he/she knows there's a gun in the building they are entering. An absence of evidence does not necessarily equate to evidence of absence.

I would equate it to intelligence. Would we ever send soldiers into battle without giving them as much info as possible? Why would we send our cops into a situation without arming them with as much information as possible?

 

[nfitz]

I just can't fathom why anyone is opposed to a registry of guns. Should we do away with our registry of cars?

 

[Brian69]

I can't see why having a registry of firearms is a big deal. If I was a cop about to enter a building, I'd like to know if there's a possibility that there are firearms in there.

Saying it hasn't saved any lives is something that's hard to judge. Who knows how many times a police officer on the ground has been a little more cautious or altered his/hert tactics because he/she knows there's a gun in the building they are entering. An absence of evidence does not necessarily equate to evidence of absence.

I would equate it to intelligence. Would we ever send soldiers into battle without giving them as much info as possible? Why would we send our cops into a situation without arming them with as much information as possible?

I'm wouldn't go so far as to compare it with intelligence. Given the number of unregistered and illegal guns out there, wouldn't it make sense for law enforcement to always enter buildings and units under the assumption that a firearm (or other weapon) might be present? I would think that easing up because a computer check of the registry didn't come up with a hit might be a deadly mistake.

 

[kEiThZ]

I'm wouldn't go so far as to compare it with intelligence. Given the number of unregistered and illegal guns out there, wouldn't it make sense for law enforcement to always enter buildings and units under the assumption that a firearm (or other weapon) might be present? I would think that easing up because a computer check of the registry didn't come up with a hit might be a deadly mistake.

I doubt they don't take precautions. But information is always useful. I have never met a soldier who didn't want or couldn't use more intelligence. And I doubt that a police officer would be any different.

It's not necessarily criminal scenarios. Imagine entering a home during a domestic dispute. It would be nice to know if there are legally owned weapons in the house.

 

[Prometheus The Supremo]

I doubt they don't take precautions. But information is always useful. I have never met a soldier who didn't want or couldn't use more intelligence. And I doubt that a police officer would be any different.

It's not necessarily criminal scenarios. Imagine entering a home during a domestic dispute. It would be nice to know if there are legally owned weapons in the house.

i know. i don't think officers can just automatically draw their weapons without cause. they need to know of a threat to do that and that's where the registry comes in. of course someone can have an illegal weapon but knowing some of the time is better than not knowing at all.

also, every bit of red tape makes it harder to acquire weapons for the wrong reasons. the fact that alot of the weapons used in crimes are illegally owned and come from the US shows that at least the registry is keeping our guns from falling in the wrong hands to some degree.

we spent soo much already, why abandon it now?

 

[jks]

Er could the mods please change the typo in the title of the thred please??