“Furthermore,” he continued, “today, if you wish to have guns in the UK, you have to have them locked in a gun safe in the house, all the numbers registered with the police, every weapon in your possession.
“Every three or four years, the police come by and inspect your weapons to make sure you’re still in possession of the weapons registered to you.
“You’re not obliged to let them into your house. But if you don’t, they’ll revoke your firearms licenses.
“That’s what you’re faced with.
Following his preamble, he launched into the best part of the story.
“Ten years ago, I went home to see my mother,” he said.
“I went into the garden center to buy a new garden spade. I put it on the counter and paid for it. I went to pick it up, and the assistant said, ‘Sir, you cannot take that’. I said, ‘What do you mean? I paid for it.’
“I was going to take it out and put it in the back of the car.
“’Sir’, said the assistant, ‘that is classed as an offensive weapon. I’ve got to wrap it up’.”
Already the audience had caught on the absurdity and was consumed with laughter. The story-teller chortled through the rest of the tale.
“(The assistant) put a paper bag around the handle and tied it with a piece of tape and gave it back to me, making it a concealed weapon.”
“There were 60,000 flak jackets sold in the last two years,” I advanced. “So, I guess something good came out of their gun control.”
But the irony of gun-control was the proponents’ claims that the public would be safer, while indeed gun control brought on a rash of black-market guns used by career criminals and gangs, thus rendering the public less safe, to the point of having to wear flak jackets for personal protection, just as bikers or motorcyclists are required by law to wear helmets.
Sounds pretty shitty over there.
Thats going to happen here, not sure how Canada is doing with gun rights but they were heading down that path too awhile back.
Canada is at fifth for private ownership of firearms in the world, and as long as your right to bear arms exists my privilege will stand firm.
Even sillier is all the so called decommissioned weapons in the UK.
Apparently easily made to work again, with minimal effort.
Many of them full auto left from WW2.
Anyone know if this is still the case?
By BATF standards yes but done to the EU standards you have a bomb, the requirement is to render the pressuring bearing surfaces inoperable, as the part that is consider a firearm is the pressure bearing surfaces. One way is to perforate or distort the chamber and initial few inches of barrel than plug the barrel The firing pin is removed and prevented from being re-installed but this all depends where and when done.
We will most likely lose ours first , we are a much more dramatic dumbed down country that relies on emotional response to push laws threw.
It is no different - every mass killing in the US has a direct and immediate response on this side of the fence. There are more Trump haters here and the same rhetoric is being puked yet not a single puker can actual provide details to justify the puking.
Canada has an extensive modern mass killing that equal or exceed the US and had school based mass killing with firearms being used before the US.
Most of our gun laws are simplistic in definition and mimicked the US (NFA or GCA) but resulted from political assassination or attempts and civil unrest.
Remember that during US prohibition Canada was a major supplier but social and criminal happenings of the south did trickle north.
You guys dont seem quite as impulsive as us. Our laws are only slightly better because the NRA managed to get the sunset cluse put in effect with the AWB. I dont see that happening next time though. We will end up like the UK before too long, once they win the gun ban fight they will have enough support to open our borders even more including refugee programs and increase of taxes to fund welfare. Its going to be a domino effect, these are party politics a victory on one front pretty much ensures victories on others. Trump had the right rallied to fight then showed us his orange ass. I give us maybe a decade then we might as well rip up the constitution officially and bow to the crown once more. “The people” wants that kind of life, just give it to them, honestly.
Get non shooters to go to the range with you and usually once they have gone at least they think a little more about gun rights .
My wife gave me this for my office. It is kind of appropriate. It’s on the wall right next to my Dillon.
it is because we are impulsive (government) that we can not own AKs (average gun owner) period, and with a simple OIC (Order in Council) the privilege and ownership is enacted as a criminal offense. This happened to easily concealed, actual assault rifles and rendered the AR15 platform into the restricted (requires a special class of license)
Canadian gun laws - basic anything that fires a projectile is a firearm
Two Categories - Controlled and uncontrolled
uncontrolled - fires a project at less than 500FPS, made before 1899, was a deact.
controlled - fires over 500fps
it is than broken into three classification, Non-restricted, Restricted and Prohibited (not to be confused with Prohibited Device)
NR - anything not restricted or prohibited (long guns, shot guns, and cannons (we do not have a destructive Class)
Restricted - rifles shorter than 26", rifles with barrels shorter than 18" (we do not have a SBR calss), pistols and anything scary but not scary enough to be prohibited - AR platform (OIC)
Prohibited - pistols with barrels 4" or less, anything that shoots .32 or .25cal (7.65 is okay and the named exclusions), AKs, anything modern military with exceptions and named in OIC.
we are limited to 5 rounds for semi auto centerfire rifles/shotguns (excepted named in OIC - like the M1)
we are limited to 10 rounds for pistol - but if a ,40sw that fits a common frame and can hold 13 9mm that is okay, or a LAR 15 pistol mag marked (10) can be used in any rifle that accepts AR mags
shotguns and 22 are different with barrel length and might an over all length. Manual fed shotguns have no limit magazine wise while Self loading shotguns are limited to 5 unless fitted with a magazine made for a manual loading shotgun that has been marked.
There is no mag limit for 22 accept one that shared between pistol and rifle and than it is limited to 10
so I can have a 110 round drum for the GSG16 but am limited to only 10 on the ruger 10/22 becasuse those mags can be interchanged with the pistol.
The stupidity is even worse - the skorpion pistol that is in Canada when it is a 22 is what ever the mag holds, when .380 it is limited to 10 but as a .32acp it is a “rifle” and limited to 5 because as a pistol it would be a prohibited weapon. But we have real stocks on everything with no requirement for braces.because the “SBR” class doesn’t exist (brace or stock on/off by definition and overall length is the same).
the whole take away iis that a OIC (Order in Council) which is kind of like the presidential executive order, and not nasty term can remove a privilege with a simple swipe of a pen. There is requirement for a vote, does not have to pass debate in either the house or senate and can be rendered on the whims of the ruling government.
We have a constitution that creates obstacles for anti gunners and we dont aim to please the queen or look to the crown for advise on how to run our country so we have always been different in terms of laws. Where we are more impulsive is on our reaction to this stuff, we probably have our media to thank for this. We seem to get much more dramatic and stupid about this stuff. If there were no amendments “protecting” our rights we would be the same as the UK , if not worse in terms of firearm ownership.
And either do We nor have we in over 150 years. The Queen or Great Britain has nothing to do with any or all laws except having laid the foundation to our laws - just like yours.
The biggest thing that we have going for us is the fact we have a multi-party political system and a ruling party in essence could be voted out and into oblivion (rendered to a non-government status). Up here a law can be found unconstitutional and it is than removed for being and takes extraordinary actions for a similar law to be introduced. The law books have a lot of sections which are just a number/repealed/and the date. A OIC can taketh but it can also giveth depending on the whims of the ruling government.
The crown has influence up there in Canada even if its mostly superficial. We always have been and always will be traitors to the crown. Im not saying its better or worse just that the UKs laws and culture has more influence on Canada then the U.S. . We pretty much put some of our laws in the books just to spite the crown or at least it seems like it at times.
This I agree with you on big time, you guys seem much more willing to remove unconstitutional laws…we struggle to do this greatly but also the context of our constitution is slightly different than alot of countries. We are a big experiment really and our whole set up is hard to compare to anyone elses.
Nope not even close except for the requirement of the Royal Assent (law signed into existence by the Governor General).
And the fact that you guys still acknowledge the queen and the crown as some type of figure relevent to your culture. We are the problem children though, we dont have prime ministers or her majesty or tea parties.
Wasn’t there a republican tea party a few years back? Teabag and 3 corner hats
you might quite shocked to realize that your government shares more in common with a Constitutional Monarchy than Canada. Matter of fact it is based on and hasn’t changed where Canada’s has evolved away. A British Monarch nor the British Parliament can create or enact laws in Canada nor has there even been any “advisement”. The only thing Canada has in common is the Royal Figurehead.and the word Parliament and the way it is set up. Equate the Prime Minister to the speaker of the house (either England or Canada) and the president to the Crown (except that the president has far more governing control and the ability to make laws that the existing Monarchy doesn’t have). But that isn’t quite true except the levels of Government executive, legislative and judicial would be the same as the British Crown (Exec), House of Parliament (Leg.) and House of Lords (Jud.). The Canadian has combined in essence the Executive and Leg branch and that forms the Ruling Government (kind of like the leader of the which ever party has the majority of the Senate/Congress and they form the government).