History of firearm laws in Canada

Controls on civilian use of firearms date from the early days of Confederation, when justices of the peace could impose penalties for carrying a handgun without reasonable cause.[7] Criminal Code of Canada amendments between the 1890s and the 1970s introduced a series of minor controls on firearms. In the late 1970s, controls of intermediate strength were introduced. In the mid 1990s, significant increases in controls occurred. A 1996 study showed that Canada was in the mid-range of firearm ownership when compared with eight other western nations. Nearly 22% of Canadian households had at least one firearm, including 2.3% of households possessing a handgun.[8] As of September 2010, the Canadian Firearms Program recorded a total of 1,831,327 valid firearm licences, which is roughly 5.4% of the Canadian population. The four most licensed provinces are Ontario, Quebec, Alberta and British Columbia.[9] In 2005 almost 3% of households in Canada possessed handguns, compared to 18% of U.S. households that possessed handguns.[10] In 2005 almost 16% of households in Canada possessed firearms of some kind.[10]

The following is a summary of the history of gun control laws in Canada:[11][12]

The federal Parliament instituted a system of gun control in the North-West Territories in 1885 to hinder the Red River Rebellion for Metis rights. Permission in writing from the territorial government was needed to possess any firearm (other than a smooth-bore shotgun), and also ammunition. Possession of a firearm or ammunition without the necessary permit was an offence, and could lead to the forfeiture of the firearm and ammunition.[13] These gun control provisions applied to all of what is now Alberta, Saskatchewan, parts of Manitoba, the current Northwest Territories, Yukon, and Nunavut.
The Criminal Code of Canada enacted in 1892, required individuals to have a permit to carry a pistol unless the owner had cause to fear assault or injury. Not until 1935 was it considered an offence to sell a pistol to anyone under 16. Vendors who sold handguns had to keep records, including purchaser's name, the date of sale and a description of the gun.
In the 1920s, permits became necessary for all firearms newly acquired by foreigners.
Legislation in 1934 required the registration of handguns with records identifying the owner, the owner's address and the firearm. Registration certificates were issued and records kept by the Commissioner of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) or by other police forces designated by provincial attorneys general.
In 1947, the offence of “constructive murder” was added to the Criminal Code for offences resulting in death, when the offender carried a firearm. This offence was struck down as unconstitutional by the Supreme Court of Canada in a 1987 case called R. v. Vaillancourt.
Automatic weapons were added to the category of firearms that had to be registered in 1951. The registry system was centralized under the Commissioner of the RCMP.
In 1969, Bill C-150 created categories of “non-restricted,” “restricted” and “prohibited” firearms. Police were also given preventive powers of search and seizure by judicial warrant if they had grounds to believe that firearms that belonged to an individual endangered the safety of society.
In 1977, Bill C-51 required firearms acquisition certificates (FACs) to purchase any firearm, and introduced controls on the selling of ammunition. Applicants were required to pass a basic criminal record check before receiving the FAC.
In 1991, Bill C-17 tightened up restrictions and established controls on numerous firearms with military background. Legislation also made changes to the FAC system. FAC applicants were now required to pass a firearms safety course, and a thorough background check, and wait a minimum of 28 days after applying for an FAC before being issued.

Finally, in addition to the above changes, laws were put into place that restricted ownership of high-capacity magazines: limiting handguns to ten rounds, and most semi-automatic centre-fire rifles to five rounds. Legislation was upheld by the Supreme Court in Reference re Firearms Act (2000). The FAC system was replaced with possession-only licences (POLs) and possession and acquisition licences (PALs). Referring to Bill C-68, John Dixon, a former advisor to Deputy Minister of Justice John C. Tait, stated that the Firearms Act was part of a policy exercise by the Liberal Party of Canada so as to appear to be "tougher" on guns than Prime Minister Kim Campbell, and thus defeat her in the 1993 election.[14]

In 2001, the registration portion of Bill C-68 was implemented. The government asks for all firearms, including long-guns (rifles and shotguns), to be registered.
In 2003, the registration of long-guns becomes mandatory. Failure to register a firearm now results in criminal charges.
As of 2006, while legislation is still in place, the government is no longer asking long gun owners for a registration fee and an amnesty (now extended until May 16, 2011) temporarily protects licensed owners of non-restricted firearms (or those whose licences have expired since January 1, 2004) from prosecution for the possession of unregistered long guns.[15]
In November 2009, Bill C-391 passed second reading in the House of Commons by a vote of 164 to 137. If passed through the entire parliamentary process by the House and Senate, the bill would have abolished the requirement to register non-restricted long guns. While the proposed legislation was a private member's bill, it had the support of the Conservative government. The bill was referred to the House of Commons Committee on Public Safety for further action. However, after several months of hearings, the Opposition majority on the committee recommended that no further action be taken to advance the bill. In September 2010 Bill C-391 failed to pass a third reading.
On October 25, 2011, Public Safety Minister Vic Toews introduced a bill to amend the Criminal Code and the Firearms Act, to abolish the long-gun registry and destroy all records.
On February 15, 2012, Bill C-19 passed third reading in the House of Commons; the motion to abolish the long-gun registry passed 159 to 130 and Bill C-19 became law.

Bwild:Laws and regulation

By law, a potential customer must be 18 years of age or older to purchase a firearm or legally maintain possession of one. Citizens of Canada under the age of 18 but over the age of 12 may procure a Minor’s Licence which does not allow them to purchase a firearm but allows them to borrow a firearm unsupervised and purchase ammunition. Children under the age of 12 that are found to need a firearm to hunt or trap may also be awarded the Minor's Licence. This is generally reserved for children in remote locations, primarily aboriginal communities that engage in subsistence hunting.[9]

Removable bullpup stocks are classified as prohibited devices. This regulation led to the RCMP classifying the stock of the Walther G22 rifle as prohibited while the internal components remained non-restricted. Purpose built bullpup firearms such as the PS-90 and IMI Tavor are not subject to this regulation since the stock is integral to their workings and is thus not removable.

By law, as of January 1, 2001, all firearms in Canada must legally be registered with the Canadian Firearms Registry. In early 2006 the Conservative Party of Canada formed the 39th Canadian government and announced an amnesty period of one year (later extended by a further year) in which licenced or previously licenced long gun owners would not be punished for not registering their long guns. The legal requirement to register as set forth by law has not been revoked; legislation to revoke the requirement to register long-guns was introduced by the Government during the 39th Parliament but was not brought to a vote. It was opposed by the Opposition parties who together have a majority of seats in the House of Commons. However, similar legislation may again be brought forward in the 40th Parliament since the Conservative Government remains committed to the abolition of long-gun registration.[10]

To purchase a handgun or other restricted firearm, a person must have a Possession and Acquisition Licence (PAL) for restricted firearms and be a member of a certified range. To use restricted firearms a person must also obtain long term authorization to transport (LTATT) from their provincial Chief Firearms Officer (CFO) to move the firearm to and from the range. Short term authorization to transport (STATT) is required in most cases to move a firearm from a business to the owner's home, or when the owner wishes to change the address where the firearm is stored. Firearms can be shipped without a STATT by a bonded courier directly to an owner's home.

Semi-automatic center-fire rifles and semi-automatic shotguns have a maximum magazine capacity of five rounds. Some rifles such as the M1 Garand are exempted from this requirement by name[11]. There is no restriction of magazine capacity for rimfire rifles or manual action rifles and shotguns. All handguns have a maximum capacity of ten rounds. The legal capacity of a specific magazine is determined by the firearm it was made for, not the firearm it is used in.

Canada's federal laws also restrict the ability of persons, including most security guards, to carry restricted or prohibited firearms in public, although generally carrying non-restricted firearms is permitted (although subject to other restrictions such breaching the peace if carried in manner that might alarm bystanders, such as in a city setting). For example, section 17 of the Firearms Act makes it an offence for anyone, including a security guard, to possess prohibited or restricted firearms (i.e. handguns) outside of his or her home. There are two exceptions to this prohibition found in sections 18 and 19 of the Act. Section 18 allows for persons to be issued an Authorization to Transport, or ATT, authorizing the transport of a firearm outside the home for certain purposes, such as going to and from a range, a training course or repair shop. Such firearms must be unloaded, stored in secure, locked containers and equipped with a trigger lock. Section 19 of the Act goes on to allow individuals to receive an Authorization to Carry, or ATC, granting permission to carry loaded restricted firearms on their persons for certain reasons specified in the Act. These reasons are as follows: if the person is a licensed trapper and carries the firearm while trapping, if the person is in a remote wilderness area and needs the firearm for protection against wildlife, if the person's work involves guarding or handling money or other items of substantial value, or if the person's life is in danger and police protection is inadequate to protect him or her. It should be noted that the authorities almost never issue an ATC for the last reason, that is to say, because a person's life is threatened and police protection is inadequate. Generally, the only Canadian security guards who receive authorization to carry firearms are those employed by armoured car companies.

Gun politics in Canada is controversial, though less contentious than it is in the United States. Civilian firearm owners in Canada mainly consist of citizens who want to keep their right to hunt for sport and subsitence, which is important for many First Nations peoples, as well as target shooting sports and collectors. As far as the Firearms Act of 1995 is concerned, self-defence is not a valid reason to acquire a firearm in Canada. Controls on civilian use of firearms date from the early days of Confederation, when Justices of the Peace could impose penalties for carrying a handgun without reasonable cause.[1] Criminal Code of Canada amendments between the 1890s and the 1970s introduced a series of minor controls on firearms. In the late 1970s, controls of intermediate strength were introduced. In the mid 1990s significant increases in controls occurred. A 1996 study showed that Canada was in the mid-range of firearm ownership when compared with eight other western nations. Nearly 22% of Canadian households had at least one firearm, including 2.3% of households possessing a handgun.[2]

As of December 2009, the Canadian Firearms Program recorded a total of 1,843,913 valid firearm licenses, roughly 5.4% of the population, with a total of 7,459,504 registered firearms (September 2009). The four most licensed provinces are Ontario, Quebec, Alberta and British Columbia.[3]

In Canada if your caught carrying a gun that is on you or in your home and not registered in your name with a safety on it and doesn't have a home as in a locked gun case ,your facing an automatic mandatory minimum 10 year sentence and incarceration period.

Artful Dodger: How about if his gut instincts are innocent and the jury says guilty.

Published: September 9, 2009

Following is the prepared text of President Obama’s speech to Congress on the need to overhaul health care in the United States, as released by the White House.
Skip to next paragraph
Prescriptions Blog

A blog from The New York Times that tracks the health care debate as it unfolds.

* More Health Care Overhaul News

Related
In Speech, Obama Will Not Insist on Public Option (September 10, 2009)
Blog
The Caucus
The Caucus

The latest on President Obama, the new administration and other news from Washington and around the nation. Join the discussion.

* More Politics News

Madame Speaker, Vice President Biden, Members of Congress, and the American people:

When I spoke here last winter, this nation was facing the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression. We were losing an average of 700,000 jobs per month. Credit was frozen. And our financial system was on the verge of collapse.

As any American who is still looking for work or a way to pay their bills will tell you, we are by no means out of the woods. A full and vibrant recovery is many months away. And I will not let up until those Americans who seek jobs can find them; until those businesses that seek capital and credit can thrive; until all responsible homeowners can stay in their homes. That is our ultimate goal. But thanks to the bold and decisive action we have taken since January, I can stand here with confidence and say that we have pulled this economy back from the brink.

I want to thank the members of this body for your efforts and your support in these last several months, and especially those who have taken the difficult votes that have put us on a path to recovery. I also want to thank the American people for their patience and resolve during this trying time for our nation.

But we did not come here just to clean up crises. We came to build a future. So tonight, I return to speak to all of you about an issue that is central to that future – and that is the issue of health care.

I am not the first President to take up this cause, but I am determined to be the last. It has now been nearly a century since Theodore Roosevelt first called for health care reform. And ever since, nearly every President and Congress, whether Democrat or Republican, has attempted to meet this challenge in some way. A bill for comprehensive health reform was first introduced by John Dingell Sr. in 1943. Sixty-five years later, his son continues to introduce that same bill at the beginning of each session.

Our collective failure to meet this challenge – year after year, decade after decade – has led us to a breaking point. Everyone understands the extraordinary hardships that are placed on the uninsured, who live every day just one accident or illness away from bankruptcy. These are not primarily people on welfare. These are middle-class Americans. Some can't get insurance on the job. Others are self-employed, and can't afford it, since buying insurance on your own costs you three times as much as the coverage you get from your employer. Many other Americans who are willing and able to pay are still denied insurance due to previous illnesses or conditions that insurance companies decide are too risky or expensive to cover.

We are the only advanced democracy on Earth – the only wealthy nation – that allows such hardships for millions of its people. There are now more than thirty million American citizens who cannot get coverage. In just a two year period, one in every three Americans goes without health care coverage at some point. And every day, 14,000 Americans lose their coverage. In other words, it can happen to anyone.

But the problem that plagues the health care system is not just a problem of the uninsured. Those who do have insurance have never had less security and stability than they do today. More and more Americans worry that if you move, lose your job, or change your job, you'll lose your health insurance too. More and more Americans pay their premiums, only to discover that their insurance company has dropped their coverage when they get sick, or won't pay the full cost of care. It happens every day.

One man from Illinois lost his coverage in the middle of chemotherapy because his insurer found that he hadn't reported gallstones that he didn't even know about. They delayed his treatment, and he died because of it. Another woman from Texas was about to get a double mastectomy when her insurance company canceled her policy because she forgot to declare a case of acne. By the time she had her insurance reinstated, her breast cancer more than doubled in size. That is heart-breaking, it is wrong, and no one should be treated that way in the United States of America.

(V): What about home care.Do you feel the same?

Czuch: That would be opening up the door for lawsuits.

Tuesday: I'm native Canadian yet I'm still supposedly covered for all medical and dental in the states.

Übergeek 바둑이: Well look at it this way if you die you can't be or are not responsible to pay for your health care so if they want to be paid they better not kill you.

Many people support the ideal of universal health care insurance coverage. The utopian heart beats strong and steady. But once the incision is made, there is no turning back. And without a clear understanding of economics, our experimental treatment may kill Uncle Sam.

The knee-jerk reaction of liberals to the rubber hammer of health care is the simplistic mantra, “Everyone should be covered,” or, “The government should pay for everyone.” Whether 46 million are uninsured or just one individual, anything less than universal coverage is simply unacceptable to them.

Conservatives, in contrast, whittle the number down. About 6.4 million people are on Medicaid or SCHIP (State Children’s Health Insurance Program) but tell the census taker they are uninsured. Another 4.3 million are eligible and would be automatically enrolled after visiting a clinic or emergency room. Both groups are protected from risk and do not need more coverage.

Another 9.3 million are not American citizens. The law currently covers them for emergency care while they are in the United States. Debate is ongoing whether they should qualify for full medical insurance even if they are undocumented and pay no taxes.

Another 10.1 million have incomes more than triple the federal poverty level. Even people at the poverty level live better than the average American did in 1960 and more comfortably than 90 percent of the world today. For a family of four, three times the poverty level is $66,150.

About 5 million are healthy adults with no dependent children between 18 and 34. They have ruled out health insurance coverage as too expensive. The current proposals limit how much insurers can set their premiums based on age. The limit is two times, which discriminates against younger adults. Nothing makes sense about charging a 19-year-old half as much as a 91-year-old. Well-intentioned statism steals from struggling young people and lines the coffers of the wealthy AARP lobby.

So we are left with 10.6 million uninsured U.S. citizens with children who live three times below the poverty level - for example, a family of four earning less than $66,150 a year.

These are the heart-wrenching stories. Imagine a young middle-class family without health insurance whose child suddenly needs tens or even hundreds of thousands of dollars of medical care. They can’t qualify for assistance, but their son’s or daughter’s future depends on getting expensive treatments immediately. That’s the poster child for universal coverage.

The compromise for conservatives is to agree as a society that we can afford to make catastrophic coverage mandatory. Americans are generally compassionate and will try to pay after the fact. But if America’s generosity insulates people from this risk, they won’t feel the need to buy insurance. So in fairness everyone must be required to buy coverage ahead of time.

The compromise for liberals is to agree that we are not going to provide an entitlement program for the first aspirin purchased. We are building a safety net, not a hammock.

Insurance only makes sense for extremely expensive and unlikely scenarios. It is never advisable for everyday events.

Here is the perfect analogy: compare insurance that tries to cover the first dollar of health care to the idea of grocery store insurance.

Imagine the average family of four spends $100 a week on groceries, $25 per person. Now think about implementing universal grocery insurance for everyone.

There is no way weekly premiums would be less than $25 per person. They would have to cover the cost of insurance administration and reimbursement. At checkout you would be obliged to show your card and have your insurance numbers recorded. Each item would need to be coded to qualify for reimbursement. Shaving cream would be disallowed. Organic vegetables would only be reimbursed at the generic rate. A dietician would have to certify the tuna is for human, not feline consumption.

Coverage for a week’s worth of groceries would quickly rise from $100 to $200 a week. Then $300. Then $500. Soon many people couldn’t afford grocery coverage and would drop out of the system. They would have to grow their own vegetables and raise chickens. Those who paid in cash would subsidize the collection costs of those with insurance.

Pressure would increase to lower grocery costs. The government would implement price controls. But you can’t reduce costs simply by refusing to pay. Shortages and rationing would ensue.

Those who regularly ate steak would be denied. Families who normally made do with hamburger would start eating the maximum reimbursable amount of filet mignon. Vegetarians would get the meat anyway and trade it for organic food on the black market. Parents of children with allergies would demand expensive gluten-free options. Grocery fraud would be rampant.

Grocery stores would no longer be able to price items. “It depends,” clerks would answer. “Ask your insurance company.” Shoppers wouldn’t care as long as lobster was covered once a quarter.

Older women who ate sparingly would subsidize teenage boys. The obese would take advantage of items that were unlimited allowances. All of the restraint imposed by economic forces would be lost.

Clearly, insurance never works for frequent events with moderate costs. But unfortunately it typifies the style of government-imposed health insurance on the industry. Hundreds of regular expenses are required by law. Each one comes with a nominal copayment that fails to deter its use.

Insurance should be used to limit catastrophic risk, not to pool everyday expenses. Affordable medical insurance should have a high deductible. Then out-of-pocket expenses below the deductible would provide sufficient negative feedback to prevent skyrocketing insurance costs. We have just such an economic trial right now that appears very promising.

If you support universal coverage, consider Health Savings Accounts (HSAs). Thus far, the results of HSAs are surprising and may actually be a miracle cure for America’s health-care crisis.

As long as funds are saved and spent on qualified medical expenses, all contributions, capital gains and withdrawals related to an HSA remain untaxed. And HSAs come complete with debit cards and checks.

To protect you against catastrophic medical expenses, HSAs are coupled with a High Deductible Health Plan (HDHP), a minimum of $1,150 for individuals and $2,300 for families. Once the deductible is met, HSA-eligible HDHP plans cover 100 percent of most medical expenses.

Of course, these deductibles are significant. The minimum deductible for a family is $2,300; the maximum is $11,600. That’s a lot of money for a struggling family, but it isn’t crippling. People hemorrhaging hundreds of thousands of dollars won’t mind losing a few pints of blood instead. They will consider themselves blessed.

Utopian liberals are willing to sacrifice the negative feedback of the first dollar coming out of pocket to fund that dollar for the truly needy. This is madness. Don’t break the system for the 80 percent of Americans who can afford to self-insure the deductible.

Utopians also suggest that automatically paying for routine health maintenance reduces the costs of health care. But annual checkups still cost more than they save. And if they are cost effective, let the insurance companies offer discounts on the cost of the HDHP if patients pay out of pocket for annual checkups. The less government tries to make those decisions, the better.

The good news is that HSA-eligible HDHP premiums are considerably less expensive than the cost of a traditional medical insurance plan. If you want universal coverage, demand Health Savings Accounts with high deductibles. Let’s agree we can solve the problem without a grand government takeover of health care.
Post a Comment

Czuch:joe shmo or joe the plummer?

Vikings:For Centuries the Native Indians have claimed to be able to make it rain,but as well they have been located to reserves where they live with nature and live off the land so there is a great better understanding of knowing what your losing,as in respect to global warming and being able to appreciate the planet as they say you are what you eat,therefor if you use something you better be able to replace it,as in if you cut a tree down plant another,but if you cut too many trees to build too many homes, where will you plant the next one,i guess space aviation is more important than our planet.