Avatar

Please consider registering
guest

Register | Lost password?
Advanced Search

— Forum Scope —






— Match —





— Forum Options —





Minimum search word length is 3 characters - maximum search word length is 84 characters




sp_Feed Topic RSS sp_Print sp_TopicIcon
AR’s banned in Canada
May 2, 2020
1:53 pm
Avatar
Northwestern Ontario
WACA Member
Forum Posts: 244
Member Since:
December 14, 2009
sp_UserOnlineSmall Online

Back to WINCHESTERS. I thought it odd that no talking heads mention the Model 94 used by the cowardly gunman who shot a defenceless soldier standing guard at the National War Memorial and stormed the Parliament buildings.

I was concerned that the magazine capacity would be a bigger issue than it was and that Trudeau would mimic the New Zealand legislation banning tubular magazine rifles holding more that ten shots e.g. Winchester 1873, 1892 standard rifles and shotguns with mag capacity holding more than 5 shots. My 1897's would just get under the wire. I  would personally be satisfied if this was the final word on gun control in this country if it pacified the "antis" but I strongly suspect this is not the case and the Liberal agenda is to move towards further confiscations and prohibitions (with handguns being the next likely target) stricter storage requirements and a return to the Firearms Registry. 

May 2, 2020
2:16 pm
Avatar
WACA Member
Forum Posts: 569
Member Since:
March 23, 2010
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Dave K. said
Back to WINCHESTERS. I thought it odd that no talking heads mention the Model 94 used by the cowardly gunman who shot a defenceless soldier standing guard at the National War Memorial and stormed the Parliament buildings.

I was concerned that the magazine capacity would be a bigger issue than it was and that Trudeau would mimic the New Zealand legislation banning tubular magazine rifles holding more that ten shots e.g. Winchester 1873, 1892 standard rifles and shotguns with mag capacity holding more than 5 shots. My 1897's would just get under the wire. I  would personally be satisfied if this was the final word on gun control in this country if it pacified the "antis" but I strongly suspect this is not the case and the Liberal agenda is to move towards further confiscations and prohibitions (with handguns being the next likely target) stricter storage requirements and a return to the Firearms Registry.   

 The Model 94 shooting at the War Memorial has been talked bout earlier in this thread.

 As long as the majority of the people in the country want more gun laws,which at present time they do,then any government that wants get elected will listen to them.If things some how changed and the majority wanted no more or less gun laws, then any government that wanted to get elected would listen to them.

 Its not an agenda so to speak,but to get the votes of the majority who want more gun laws,you keep giving the majority what it wants and you get elected.A I believe, if the people who wanted less gun laws were in the majority  ,then the government who wanted to get elected would listen to them and the anti gun owners would be saying ,the government has an agenda to have less gun laws.What many do not seem to see is that" a government listens to the majority, if it wants to get elected" and the majority at present time, wants more gun laws.

 We as gun owners, have to work to try to change the views of some who are against firearms at present, to a more moderate view.

 

 Just my thoughts on the subject.Smile

May 2, 2020
2:36 pm
Avatar
Northwestern Ontario
WACA Member
Forum Posts: 244
Member Since:
December 14, 2009
sp_UserOnlineSmall Online

28 gauge, My reference to "talking heads" was a reference to the news announcers not a comment made on this forum of which I was aware. Political discourse unless it pertains to Winchester arms is not the purpose or intent of this forum. 

May 2, 2020
2:48 pm
Avatar
WACA Member
Forum Posts: 569
Member Since:
March 23, 2010
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Dave K. said
28 gauge, My reference to "talking heads" was a reference to the news announcers not a comment made on this forum of which I was aware. Political discourse unless it pertains to Winchester arms is not the purpose or intent of this forum.   

 Sorry about the mix up.You are very right about the purpose and intent  of this forum.SmileLets all get back to talking about Winchesters.

May 2, 2020
3:04 pm
Avatar
WACA Member
Forum Posts: 1163
Member Since:
March 6, 2019
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

David McNab said

28 gauge said
 Yes I remember the shoot up.Even the police said, the Model 94 would not  be the first weapon of choice ,for some one out to inflect mass damage.The rifle has a limited capacity ,   7 shots and is very slow to reload.Not saying it could not be done,but there are far better choices for some one out to do mass damage Smile.  

Well, in Canada the Maximum Allowable Magazine Capacity in Semi-Auto Rifles is 5 shots.

They (The Gov't.) consider anything above that "High Capacity".

What we think doesn't matter - Yesterdays announcement indicates that.  

Might be a good idea to acquire button mags in the future.

WACA Member
CFM Member
NSCA Member

Don’t get the water for the coffee downstream from the herd

May 2, 2020
4:02 pm
Avatar
CANADA
WACA Member
Forum Posts: 91
Member Since:
September 22, 2019
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

AND one more thing,

The CANADIAN MEDIA (90% LEFT-WING) are already running online polls to see who's in favour of a COMPLETE NATIONAL FIREARMS BAN.

May 2, 2020
4:44 pm
Avatar
WACA Member
Forum Posts: 569
Member Since:
March 23, 2010
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

David McNab said
AND one more thing,

The CANADIAN MEDIA (90% LEFT-WING) are already running online polls to see who's in favour of a COMPLETE NATIONAL FIREARMS BAN.  

 Do not know if the Canadian media is left,right or centre.SmileOnly know at present time ,that the responders  to one poll  I saw ,show that almost half the people in urban areas are in favour of a complete firearms ban.

 Just wanted to add.I guess the only bright spot to that poll, is that at present time, just over half are against a total firearms ban.Smile

May 2, 2020
11:38 pm
Avatar
Northwestern Ontario
WACA Member
Forum Posts: 244
Member Since:
December 14, 2009
sp_UserOnlineSmall Online

Here's the latest news on the AR etc. ban. Still no mention of Winchester but interesting nontheless. Looks like many mistakes made.

https://firearmrights.ca/en/ccfr-calls-for-blairs-removal/

May 3, 2020
3:08 am
Avatar
Northern edge of the D/FW Metromess
WACA Member
Forum Posts: 2794
Member Since:
November 7, 2015
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Back to Winchesters indeed.....but if you think this is about AR’s or MSR’s or whatever label we care to affix you’re WRONG! It’s about all guns, they’re just starting with an easy target. But yes, I’d rather be reading posts about Winchesters.

 

Mike

Life Member TSRA, Endowment Member NRA
BBHC Member, TGCA Member
Smokeless powder is a passing fad! -Steve Garbe
I hate rude behavior in a man. I won't tolerate it. -Woodrow F. Call, Lonesome Dove
Some of my favorite recipes start out with a handful of depleted counterbalance devices.-TXGunNut
Presbyopia be damned, I'm going to shoot this thing! -TXGunNut
May 3, 2020
5:36 pm
Avatar
WACA Member
Forum Posts: 2351
Member Since:
March 31, 2009
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Mike I totally agree.  Gun rights pertain to all guns including Winchesters. If you don't think so ask some of the WACA guys that live in New Zealand, Australia and Europe.  For those that would rather not read about this, don't or maybe make a Forum section for this kind of issues.

May 3, 2020
6:00 pm
Avatar
WACA Member
Forum Posts: 1163
Member Since:
March 6, 2019
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Not to be taken sarcastically but personally I would just move on to the next thread.

AG

WACA Member
CFM Member
NSCA Member

Don’t get the water for the coffee downstream from the herd

May 3, 2020
7:17 pm
Avatar
WACA Member
Forum Posts: 2372
Member Since:
November 1, 2013
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Chuck said 
For those that would rather not read about this, don't or maybe make a Forum section for this kind of issues.  

You mean the ones who prefer to keep their heads in the sand?  Not a small group.

May 3, 2020
8:00 pm
Avatar
WACA Member
Forum Posts: 451
Member Since:
January 19, 2017
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Every animal has the right to keep and bear arms.  It's just that some animals conspire to prevent others from exercising the right.  The real question is, what will the victims do about it, and when?

Some will roll with whatever the majority has to say.  Others will write, speak, join, spend, vote, sue, march, fight.  Some will do something earlier; some later.

Me?  I'm old.  And I don't see much in the way of youth these days worth fighting for.  If they won't stand up on their own hind legs, then why should I do it for them?  Some lessons have to be larn't on their own to mean anything.  Some lessons are larn't too late.  

Water plays the long game.  Beware the water.  You can only keep your powder dry so long.

May 4, 2020
12:41 am
Avatar
WACA Member
Forum Posts: 91
Member Since:
June 11, 2014
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

I am a Canadian, but I say that with embarrassment given what sort of Prime Minister we are afflicted with at the moment. I would say the majority of Canadians can hardly wait until the next election so that we can rid ourselves of this individual who obviously does not have the skill set to run a country. I have never owned a semi-auto rifle, preferring the old Winchesters, but I am dead-set against this ban. As everyone already knows, it attacks the law abiding citizens while doing absolutely nothing about the real criminal networks. If banning things helped, then we could simply ban illegal drugs .... wait a sec .... we already did that with no detectable effect on the street. As history shows, first they come for the AR's, tomorrow for the old Winchesters.

May 4, 2020
1:26 am
Avatar
WACA Member
Forum Posts: 2372
Member Since:
November 1, 2013
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Kirk Durston said
I would say the majority of Canadians can hardly wait until the next election so that we can rid ourselves of this individual who obviously does not have the skill set to run a country.

Hope you're right...but he's got the vote of every dope head in the country!

May 4, 2020
1:33 pm
Avatar
Northwestern Ontario
WACA Member
Forum Posts: 244
Member Since:
December 14, 2009
sp_UserOnlineSmall Online

clarence said

Kirk Durston said
I would say the majority of Canadians can hardly wait until the next election so that we can rid ourselves of this individual who obviously does not have the skill set to run a country.

Hope you're right...but he's got the vote of every dope head in the country!  

Marijuana users did vote for Trudeau at least the few who bother to vote anymore but hardly enough for a majority. For the  purposes of political power the urban centres (Toronto, Montreal, Winnipeg, Vancouver) are the only voters that matter and the vast majority of those voters don't hunt or shoot and many are recent immigrants from countries where guns are only possessed by military or police . The rest of us farmers, ranchers, loggers , miners  etc.living in the sparsely populated areas no longer have any voice except the First Nation peoples who have Treaty and Constitution protections but more importantly the sympathy of the urban voters  . The Liberals only won 11 of their 157 seats west of Manitoba in the last federal election and all of those in B.C. ( the leftist coast if you will)  but still tweaked out a minority government. As the country continues to urbanize and new immigrant population grows nothing  is going to change the fact that most Canadians have no interest in gun ownership or the shooting sports and gun ownership will continually become more restrictive. Handguns with barrels of 4" or less are already prohibited except by current owners so a total ban on handguns will likely be the next target and from then  who knows? There are only about 2 million gun owners in the entire country of 32 million and No 2nd Amendment protection for us. Sorry for straying away from Winchesters.

May 4, 2020
6:47 pm
Avatar
South Texas
WACA Member
Forum Posts: 1015
Member Since:
March 20, 2010
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Chuck said
Gun rights pertain to all guns including Winchesters. If you don't think so ask some of the WACA guys that live in New Zealand, Australia and Europe. 

Couldnt agree more.  Its important to take notice of whats currently happening or has happened in Canada, New Zealand, Australia, England, etc., and to discuss and voice an opinion, because those means and methods utilized by others provide a roadmap for what the anti-gunners here will attempt to do or have already been successful in implementing and accomplishing. These folks would love to play the short game by tipping the balance in the Supreme Court.  However, theyve got a great long game taking things incrementally, slowly chipping away towards their goal in the lower courts, legislation, or attempted fiat.  For every new door down that path that is opened legislatively or via activist judges, there are consequences and the opportunity for advancing their goalpost just a little bit further, setting precedents, changing mindsets and culture over time, and steaming towards the end game.   Its not about black, silver, blue or brown guns, it affects them all, and IMHO, is as relevant here as anywhere else. 

DSC_0245-Copy-3.JPG1892takedown @sbcglobal.net ......NRA Endowment Life Member.....WACA Member

"God is great.....beer is good.....and people are crazy"... Billy Currington

May 4, 2020
7:47 pm
Avatar
WACA Member
Forum Posts: 451
Member Since:
January 19, 2017
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

1892takedown said
For every new door down that path that is opened legislatively or via activist judges, there are consequences and the opportunity for advancing their goalpost just a little bit further, setting precedents, changing mindsets and culture over time, and steaming towards the end game.   

When it comes to precedents, there needs to be a re-set.  I think that even pro-gun precedents have ignored procedural precedents which allow them to then be read too narrowly (Heller, for example).

Is there a long-standing canon of Constitutional interpretation that precludes a search for ambiguity or conflict when a provision can be read as clear and consistent?

If so, is there a Supreme Court case that says as much?

If so, shouldn’t counsel “force” the Supreme Court to specifically distinguish or over-turn that case, and articulate the reasons why, prior to entertaining arguments in support of ambiguity or conflict?

Is there a long-standing canon of Constitutional interpretation that demands a struggle to find (presumes) clarity and consistency whenever possible?

If so, is there a Supreme Court case that says as much?

If so, shouldn’t counsel “force” the Supreme Court to specifically distinguish or over-turn that case, and articulated reasons why, prior to the court giving up on that struggle?

Is there a long-standing canon of Constitutional interpretation that precludes looking outside the plain language of a provision, absent ambiguity or conflict?

If so, is there a Supreme Court case that says as much?

If so, shouldn’t counsel “force” the Supreme Court to specifically distinguish or over-turn that case, and articulate the reasons why, prior to considering secondary authority?

Is there a long-standing canon of Constitutional interpretation that requires each word in a given provision be presumed to be intentionally placed and to have meaning?

If so, is there a Supreme Court case that says as much?

If so, shouldn’t counsel “force” the Supreme Court to specifically distinguish or over-turn that case, and articulate the reasons why, prior to reading a word out of the Constitution, or relegating it to mere surplusage?

The purpose of the Second Amendment is to aid in the security of a free state.  A well-regulated militia is necessary thereto.  The word “well” distinguishes the necessary militia from all other militias.  No other militias are necessary to the security of a free state.  To ensure a militia is well regulated, the right of the people to keep and bear arms cannot not be infringed.

The “people” collectively are a militia.  A militia, even and especially a highly regulated militia, presents a substantial, credible threat to the security of a free state.  (Historical examples are legion, but beyond the four corners of the SA and they are not needed.)  To be well-regulated, each individual member is the regulator of her or himself.  It is the individual that makes a militia well.  In fact, it is the individual that necessitates that militias be well regulated.  It is individual self-regulation that makes a militia well-regulated.  It is the individual that secures a free state.  The Bill of Rights is about the individual.  The Second Amendment is not exempt.

Only when the exercise of the right presents a substantial, credible threat to the security of a free state, can the right be infringed.

If one group is exercising the right to the exclusion of another, then there could be a substantial, credible threat to the security of a free state.

If an individual or group possesses Nuclear, Biological or Chemical weapons, then there could be a substantial, credible threat to the security of a free state.

Short of those conditions, and a finding thereof (under strict scrutiny, narrowly tailored, compelling state interest, burden on state, etc.) the right shall not be infringed.

No greater demonstration of trust can exist, among individuals or groups of people, than where one refrains from preemptively disarming the other.

I fully understand how intelligent men and women (judges) can slip and slime their way, in and around arguments, in ways that the best attorney cannot anticipate.  However, for counsel to let a robed individual off the hook without explaining him or herself, would be malpractice.  Force those robed SOBs to distinguish, or over-rule their own precedence.  If that means, that in a brief or pleading, they are specifically called out and poked in the chest, then so be it.  If an issue is not delineated in such a way they cannot escape it, then they will gladly escape it with their twistifications on the way to a pre-determined, prejudicial end.

Any time anyone raises any argument about any “intent” of the Framers which comes from anywhere outside of the four corners, they should be slapped down, unless and until precedent has been distinguished over overturned.  No one should be allowed to muddy clear waters, or even search for ambiguity or conflict, especially with all the historical crap that lies outside of the Second Amendment. 

A stupid child could stir a pot, if given a ladle.  No ladles!  Indeed, all prior cases on the Second Amendment, including Heller, are irrelevant unless and until even older and more long-standing procedural canons have been distinguished or overturned.  All those other Second Amendment cases are ladles from outside the pot, tossed in and mucking things up in violation of the canons which I think used to exist, but which have been ignored.

Finally, why the word “well”?  Why?  There is no conflict.  The Second Amendment, articulating an individual right not only dovetails with the First Amendment and all others, it is absolutely necessary for them to have any meaning.  They are simply words without it.

I get angry when I read courts talking about precedent.  Like it actually means something.  BAH!  If it meant anything at all, there would be no Second Amendment cases.  The Second Amendment is clear as a bell and it speaks for itself.  Even and especially the two allegedly separate parts thereof. 

Alleged ambiguity is manufactured by hacks, and allowed in by dupes.  Maybe it’s time to view the court as the enemy unless and until it starts to honor itself (precedent).  If I’m wrong, I’m wrong, but please spell that out.  Explain it to me like I’m in Kindergarten.

There was a day when the word “regulated” was not the sole province of government, or even a collective. There was a day when people were not only deemed capable of regulating themselves, but they were deemed the best at it.  Hacks and dupes have steered us away from this history, to where the individual is lost, and deemed incapable of regulating him or herself.

The individual, the group, and government, can all have their tyrannies, yes, but the individual is the least scary, and most trustworthy of all three in a free state.  Let him or her be.  It is him or her who best provides a check on scary things, such as a not-free-state.  Plutocrats fear him and her, because of the individual potential to join; not because they have joined and by joining are then regulated.

End rant. 

May 4, 2020
8:21 pm
Avatar
WACA Member
Forum Posts: 1163
Member Since:
March 6, 2019
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

You’re hired Huck. If you’re not a lawyer you should be. Great post.

AG

WACA Member
CFM Member
NSCA Member

Don’t get the water for the coffee downstream from the herd

May 4, 2020
8:33 pm
Avatar
WACA Member
Forum Posts: 451
Member Since:
January 19, 2017
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

AG said
You’re hired Huck. If you’re not a lawyer you should be. Great post.

AG  

Thanks, AG.  22 years ago, but wasn't for me. Laugh

Forum Timezone: UTC 0

Most Users Ever Online: 628

Currently Online: steve004, Dave K., mrcvs, JWA, rogertherelic, TR, Big Mac
66 Guest(s)

Currently Browsing this Page:
1 Guest(s)


Forum Stats:

Groups: 1

Forums: 16

Topics: 8190

Posts: 69607


Member Stats:

Guest Posters: 1108

Members: 9852

Moderators: 4

Admins: 3


Top Posters:

1873man: 4647

TXGunNut: 2794

twobit: 2629

clarence: 2372

Chuck: 2351

steve004: 1754

Maverick: 1675

Big Larry: 1486

JWA: 1466

jwm94: 1230