Bill 21 on role to disarming Canadians

by Maj (ret'd) CORNELIU. CHISU, CD, PMSC, FEC, CET, P. Eng. Former Member of Parliament Pickering-Scarborough East It is a fact and a reality now that the government of Canada is continuing its wrongful objectives in leading the nation out to rough seas. The newly proposed Bill 21 with its significant amendment is essentially directed against law-abiding citizens possessing firearms, instead of concentrating on how to enforce the law against illegally possessed firearms, their widespread availability, and crime generating environment. The significant amendments made to Bill C-21, a bill initially crafted to ban handguns, illustrates how determined the Liberals are to take away the rights of law-abiding citizens to posses firearms of their choice, as allowed by traditions and heritage. With the additional firearms to be banned, the bill is an attempt to revive, in new clothes, the most hated gun registry, the darling of Minister Bill Blair. Last month, the federal government proposed amending its gun control bill to define what an "assault-style" weapon is. It includes a clause that would ban any rifle or shotgun that could potentially accept a magazine with more than five rounds. It builds on a regulatory ban of more than 1,500 models of what the government considered "assault-style" firearms last year. The proposed reforms have reopened the debate about what firearms are to be prohibited, restricted or non-restricted in the country, and concerns about whether the criteria used to make those decisions are being applied consistently. The concerns arise because the definition applies only to some variations of certain models, depending on bore diameter and muzzle energy. So the proposed definition is essentially lawyer-generated wordsmithing with no basis in the real world. Let us assume for a moment that there is no hidden agenda, and the ultimate goal of the government is the protection of Canadian citizens. If that is the case, wouldn't it be more effective and economical to enforce the law and strengthen border control against illegal traffic of guns instead of establishing a new version of a useless and costly firearms registry? Indeed, we have the experience to realize that the cost of such a registry to taxpayers is millions of dollars, with zero results in reducing firearms related crimes. So here we have it: A Liberal amendment to Bill C-21, which is currently being studied to death (yet again), by members of Parliament, would set out a regulatory ban on what the government calls "assault-style weapons" by putting an evergreen definition for such firearms into law. The phrase "assault weapon" is not currently a legal term and the automatic weapons that the phrase typically refers to are already prohibited in Canada. The federal government, though, has frequently used the term assault or "assault-style" to describe weapons capable of firing more than one shot in quick succession, even if they are not automatic firearms. The amendment to define "assault-style" firearms in law has drawn criticism from firearms groups and some federal politicians, despite assurances made by Prime Minister Justin Trudeau that: "We're not going after rifles and shotguns used by hunters and others in a law-abiding way, but we are going against those guns that are designed to kill the largest number of people in the smallest amount of time," Trudeau said. "Those guns have no place in our communities across the country, and the federal government will continue to be strong on that as we move forward." Despite the assurances given by the PM, in view of his record in governing and making promises, it seems reasonable to have doubts about the intentions of this bill. I am personally afraid that there are other plans in the making, for a future for the nation that we are kept in the dark about. Maybe a new world order inspired by the World Economic Foundation (WEF)? It is clear that the firearms tragedies recorded in the past were due to the blatant lack of professionalism in those who were responsible for controlling the issuing of weapons permits. We have the example of Switzerland to look to. There, all kinds of weapons are present in the households of citizens, yet nothing like what happened in Canada has occurred there. Perhaps our parliamentarians should take a look at how the Swiss are dealing with the issue, or am I asking for too much? So, the government continues to beat the drum against possession of firearms, period. There is no clear definition of what they want to ban, as the real purpose of the ban is probably to exercise more control over the population. Considering how things are going in parliament today, Bill 21 will eventually be banning hunting guns too, despite assurances to the contrary. When we observe that the minister usually noted for his controversial remarks which border on misinformation, is making assurances that Bill 21 will not harm hunters, how can we help being suspicious? Here is what he declares in a loud voice, with full confidence. You be the judge: In an interview with CBC News Network's Power & Politics, Public Safety Minister Marco Mendicino also tried to allay fears that the government is targeting hunters. Mendicino noted that the bill is still being considered at committee and hasn't been finalized. He also said banning hunting models would be a "red line" for the government. "We're not going after guns that are commonly used for hunting. We are after the guns that exert the most lethal force in the shortest period of time," Mendicino told host David Cochrane. How about enforcing the law, Minister? As Public Safety Minister isn't it your role to go after criminals? Or are you capable of nothing but spouting the empty verbiage you are so famous for? Anyway, I think there are issues of far more immediate concern the Liberal Government should be working on, for the best interest of the nation. How about stopping the inordinate amount of government spending? How about doing something effective to get the economy rolling? Current practices, including the hiking of interest rates only exacerbate the problems. What do you think?