At 12:01 AM on April 6, our neighbors to the north (Canada, AKA America’s hat) finally did away with the long gun registry. After 1995 the RCMP decided that all firearms needed to be registered with the police, a process that allowed guns to be tied to citizens and vice versa. It was a gigantic pain in the ass, and generally considered ineffective in stopping crime. On April 6, the requirements were lifted and all registration documents for these “non-restricted” firearms were to begin being destroyed. One Canadian posted this picture on Reddit (used with permission) gleefully burning his registration card, much like our American ex-patriots burned their draft cards in the 1960’s. Hopefully this will be followed by a relaxation of import and export restrictions, because I really want to get my hands on a Tavor. Anyway, congratulations Canada and hopefully this means the “Restricted” registry will also be on its way out shortly. [Updated thanks to Donald]

Recommended For You

49 Responses to Canada Nixes Long Gun Registry: Gun Owners Rejoice

  1. Run that “burning draft cards” analogy by me again, I missed it.

    America’s Hat for the win!

    • America’s hat my ass. We’re on top. But seriously we are happy to have the long gun registry gone. Now if we can get our own version of the 2nd Amendment all would be good.

  2. When Canada nixes Labatt’s, then I’ll know that our northern neighbors have truly reached enlightenment.

  3. We still have restricted “scary guns” and pistols. The registry we scrapped was only for long guns, rifles and shotguns. We still have terrible laws and registration pertaining to handguns and Ar-type firearms.

    • Good luck and best wishes on dumping the rest of your anti- self-defense laws. One comment on the story: “… and all registration documents were to begin being destroyed…” Yeah, right, I am sure the ‘crats who supported the registry will destroy all of the records. And not keep ANY copies! We promise! [cynicism off]

  4. (Canada, AKA America’s hat)

    Shouldn’t that be “America’s Dry, Flaking Scalp”?

    Just kiddin’, all you Canucks out there!

    Todd

  5. “much like our American ex-patriots burned their draft cards in the 1960′s”

    It can take much moral courage to stand up to society even more so back in the ’60s than now. I consider anyone who burned their Vietnam draft card a patriot and hero for rebelling against the empire and its elitist rulers. Men’s lives are not those of plastic pawns on a chessboard.

    • +1, though I also consider most of those who served honorable, as well. Hard to keep those two thoughts in your head, but there it is. If my boys are ever conscripted for some overseas imperialist adventure, I’ll encourage them to run away. They won’t get to fly for the Air National Guard.

      • NCG,

        Thank you. As mentioned before, I don’t think many our politics are that far apart. Agreed, those who served and fought with good noble intentions were/are honorable. It is terrible how society has treated the Vietnam Vets. The won the fight. The politicians lost the game. Good for you to encourage your sons not to be cannon fodder for the economy and egos of the political power game players.

    • I’m sorry, conscription was a civic duty. It wasn’t patriotic at all to burn your draft card. I have a feeling that the posters here, although I cannot be certain, would’ve been outraged at draftees doing the same thing during WWII.

      • Sorry, but just because you were born in a particular location doesn’t give some wealthy octogenarian the right to order you to die.

        • Then you can always renounce your citizenship and move to a country that doesn’t have provisions for conscription. Problem solved.

          You accept certain things when you’re an American, among them are:

          1. You may be compelled to be a juror.
          2. You may be compelled to serve in the United States military if Congress decides that a draft is necessary.

          I’m against all war in principle and most wars in practice. If this country were to start conscripting during wartime and I felt the war was unjust I’d likely leave and renounce my citizenship because I’m well aware it’ll take years before the American public tires of the conflict.

          That would be the honorable route to take rather than breaking a pretty basic law.

        • Ya know, I just checked my copy of the U.S. Constitution…and I don’t see anything SPECIFICALLY about federal conscription in there. In fact, the only place I see it spell out something that directly affects duties or restrictions on an individual is the XIII Amendment, in which individuals are PROHIBITED from owning slaves.

          Congress might indeed have the implied power to impose conscription, but that, by itself, does not make it a basic civic duty etched in stone that all must accept as one of the cornerstones of being an American.

          I mean, would you also say that if you don’t like the way Congress mandates CAFE standards for automobiles, you should pack your bags for Canada, too?

        • Coming of age at the very end of Vietnam, I thought drafting young men to fight in totally pointless wars was probably unconstitutional and just made the military industrial legislative complex all the richer. I really think Ron Paul was right in that most wars we have fought in the last 60 years had little to do with the direct defense of the USA.

        • You seemed to have missed that Second Amendment thing about a militia. You do know that the militia was not a voluntary club where you got to shoot guns? It was the law that said you had to come when your country ordered you to the colors. Today, we would call that conscription aka the Draft.

          The only war in which the militia was used was the so-called War of 1812. (200th anniversary this year.) Except for the Civil War all the other 19th Century wars were fought with volunteers. Despite what you probably learned in school about the War of 1812, this war was not about American rights at sea. The British revoked the Orders in Council that we objected to just before Congress acted and we could have called the whole thing off. It was called completing the American Revolution, i.e., grabbing Canada. It was as dumb as any war we have fought and the Brits and Canadians kick our collective ass. The war was a complete disaster and only redeemed by the “extra innings” Battle of New Orleans.

          So if you don’t think the Constitution allows the government to compel military service then you don’t really believe in the Second Amendment.

        • “Except for the Civil War all the other 19th Century wars were fought with volunteers”

          Do you just make the stuff up as you go along? When you deviate from the NRA-prepared script you make mistakes.

        • Gee Mike what did make up? That the Militia Act 1792 had a firearms mandate and required quarterly drill with proscribed penalties for failure to meet your obligations?
          Or that after the War of 1812 the militia played no significant role in Wars of the 19th Century?

          FYI the Mexican War was fought with a mixture of US Volunteers and Regular troops. The Civil War was generally fought with US Volunteers until losses outstripped recruitment and the Federal Government resorted to conscription to fill the ranks. The Spanish American, like the Mexican War, was fought with a mix of US Volunteers and Regular forces.

          Had you done time for your admitted crimes perhaps you could have spend some time education yourself in between your cellmate using you as his bitch.

          JKP:

          The Militia Acts can be considered the implementing legislative for the Militia clause of the Second Amendment. The Militia Act laid out the requirements that the citizen must meet to satisfy a federal, and not a state, requirement. The Militia Act wasn’t written to empower the states, it was related to direct federal service. To say that the word “draft” is not in the Constitution does not mean that the concept would be foreign to the founding fathers. The concept of conscription is required military service. It doesn’t matter whether they pull lottery numbers or force your enrollment in a militia.

        • @tdiinva:

          You’re throwing out a lot of sound and fury, but so far have not said anything that establishes the central point you appear to be defending (established by MichaelB above:) namely, that Federal conscription to fight a foreign war of choice is something central to the responsibilities of all American citizens.

          I have stated that while Congress may indeed legitimately have the power to enact such conscription, to say that it is a cornerstone of the American experience is bullshit.

          The existence of the Militia Act does nothing to advance your point. Congress also has the power to enact tariffs (and did so under the current Constitution from the beginning.) Are paying tariffs so central to the American experience that if one disagrees with them, one should “leave and renounce [your] citizenship]”?

          That is nonsense.

        • @tdiinva:

          Please re-read my previous post. As you can see, I referred to the “U.S. Constitution”, “federal conscription” and the powers that the federal Congress has. At no time did I mention any powers that the several States have.

          The example of the War of 1812 is inapposite. If I recall correctly, several states (in New England, I believe,) declined to provide their respective state militias for federal use outside the state.

          So, I repeat: while the Congress may indeed have the legal authority to order conscription for the federal army and order its use in a foreign war of choice (as opposed to repelling an invasion of the homeland or suppressing a domestic rebellion,) to say that this is some sort of cornerstone of American citizenship is, in my judgment, just as foolish as saying the same about obeying EPA or OSHA regulations.

      • MB,

        The leadership lost the moral high ground and their right to command men (and probably the spirit of the Constitution) when they began treating any conflict any where in the world as a game of greed and ego they could spill human blood (foreign or American).

    • Aharon, I was a college student in the ’60s and knew a lot of the people you’re lionizing, including some of the most famous ones. I won’t debate with you whether they were right or wrong — even a broken watch is right twice a day — but I will say that they were the most selfish, self-absorbed and self-rightoeus group of scumbags ever assembled on this earth. I detested them now and still do. In comparison, the so-called “Generation X” has the work ethic of honeybees and the morals of Mother Theresa.

      There was nothing “heroic” about spitting on my brothers and sisters if they were fortunate enough to return from Vietnam, but that’s what your heroes did. F^ck ’em and may they rot in hell.

      • Ralph,

        I am disgusted with how the ’60s/’70s anti-war crowd and society since has treated Vietnam Veterans. It’s heartbreaking. My dad (rip) was a pharmacist (@30 years) at a Veteran’s Hospital and told me sad stories of how even other vets from previous US wars treated them.

        I found the Vietnam War an immoral one for Americans to be engaged in. Not every fight (or most) is one America must join. I respect those who followed their moral compass and refused to fight, and I respect those who fought and sacrificed believing in a noble cause whether it was the fight itself or simply their duty to serve.

        I think most (not all) people whether they are politicians/appointed officials, religious leaders, community activists, business leaders etc etc are often selfish, narcissistic, opportunistic, two-faced, self-absorbed, self-righteous, etc etc. Their lack of ethics and incompetence often stinks. History is filled with examples of the worst low life’s being idolized by the masses. Look at who America’s celebrities are. Those leadership comments aside, yes I realize many of the sheeple followers ie the masses of such movements are often as you described. The movement promises to provide them with things they don’t deserve. Feminism is a perfect example of immoral leaders and selfish self-righteous followers walking in bloody footsteps.

        Bottom line: I agree with much of what you say about the interpersonal behavior. While I was only a child at the time, I’m going to state that not all the draft doggers and those who refused to fight were such people. Some I believe were good people who saw evading the conflict in ethical terms and not rationalized selfish ones.

  6. A Tavor? No thanks.

    …Now one of Dominion Arms’ “Outlaw” model 12-gauge coachguns, on the other hand…

    …But that would probably also require a relaxing of federal barrel length restrictions along with the import and export regs, too…

  7. Its effectiveness is debatable. You guys naturally overlook the reports that point out the benefits.

    I wrote about one such report, but I hesitate to even reference it. Whenever you guys put links to support your arguments, they’re acceptable, whenever someone on the other side does, they’re not. That’s why I prefer to use my logic and argue from a deductive-reasoning kind of position. But you don’t like that either.

    http://mikeb302000.blogspot.it/2010/08/cbs-news-canada-reports-on-interesting.html

    • Logic? Try opinion. Your idea of logic is as hollow as an ass-umption can get. Backing up speculation with your own “special” brand of vitriol is hardly what any consenting adult would refer to as logic.
      FLAME DELETED

    • Mr. B,
      I am hardly the most qualified person to notice, but I will bring some points to consider. You post on this board as an antagonist (common troll) and demand that we respect your opinions as mandated facts without the benefit of credible sources. You insist on insulting others (would you like examples?) and whine about unfair treatment when you do not get your way. If a child acts like that, we call that immature being petulant. You, however, claim to be a 59 year old man of considerable experience and some worldly understanding. Allow me to correct that mistake…
      This board is dedicated to responsible and legal firearms owners that have not broken the laws. By choice and design these people have worked their whole lives and been good neighbors and citizens alike. By your own admission (on that hacked up mess you call a blog) you have failed in that respect. Who is the layman supposed to trust?
      I will put this in the kindest way my simple words can describe:
      Your ilk are the very reason that free men own weapons.
      If you believe, even for one horrible and misguided moment, that we will simply lay down and accept the brand of fertilizer that you are pushing, guess again.
      We pay our taxes. We do not douse our brains in chemicals that you would not spill on car parts. We do not abandon our country and run from the wreckage of a mis-spent life and then fling insults from afar whilst thinking some fairy tail about moral indignation was the cause of it all.
      Tell me, just so I can be clear, just what experience you have had that allows you to pontificate this great wisdom and scream for such unfair treatment?
      Evolution is a funny concept. I am certain that at some point there was a need for a common cockroach, but somewhere along the line those creatures seem to have fallen out of vogue. At what point in our social evolution has the idea of self reliance tumbled? Did it cascade towards perdition when some panty-waist decided to judge the innocent by the same glare as those who have practiced malice?
      Do tell me pseudo-Marine. Explain what makes a common criminal better than the law abiding?
      -Mike Taylor

      • That’s an unfair characterization of me and what I do. I comment on this board as one with a differing opinion. That doesn’t make me a troll. I complain when the personal attacks become off-topic and vicious.

        Yet, as many as they are and as often as I point them out they are not in the majority. Look at the comments on that post I wrote the other day. Most of them are thoughtful responses to what I had to say.

        Why does that bother you so much?

      • “I will put this in the kindest way my simple words can describe:
        Your ilk are the very reason that free men own weapons.”

        +1 Just as sure as there will always be tyrants and those who wish to oppress their fellow humans, so too must there be those willing to fight it.

    • “The report found that the cost of the program is in the range of $1.1 million to $3.6 million per year…”

      In what, postage costs? That isn’t enough to top up the PSAC (Public Service Alliance of Canada–pronounced “pee-sack”) defined benefits pensions. That report was a bureaucratic survival snow job by the RCMP.

      • Whoever wrote that “news report” for CBC News should be fired. The actual quote from the report is, “the gun registration portion of the CFP has been determined, by independent sources, in terms of cost savings to the CFP, at a range of $1.195-$3.65 million for the initial year…”

        Catch that? Cost SAVINGS. The comparison being made is this: “Expenditures on the CFP have decreased since it has come under the RCMP…”

        They’re talking about savings realized by moving the CFP under the umbrella of the RCMP.

        Actual COST in fiscal year 2008/2009 was $50.8 million.

        http://www.scribd.com/doc/36633614/En-Firearms-Evaluation-Report

  8. In the U.S., you can be sure that the Man is making lists, mostly of leftists and populist agitators, but also of gun owners, and right-wingers. They are taking names. Tell me it’s not true.

    Now might be a good time to contemplate J. Edgar Hoover’s crusade against MLK.

    Stick your neck out, Left or Right, it’s liable to be chopped. We should not pat ourselves on the back too hard.

  9. “Previously, firearms which the Royal Canadian mounted Police considered to be dangerous were “restricted” and needed to be registered with the police…”

    So-called ‘restricted’ (handguns, some long guns) firearms still need to be registered, and a Possession and Acquisition License is still needed. Getting rid of the entire, rotten Liberal ‘Firearms Act’ still has to be done, but…baby steps.

  10. “…our American ex-patriots burned their draft cards in the 1960’s”?

    So….you’re saying that these people were FORMERLY “patriots,” but then decided to not be one anymore?

    Or did you mean “expatriates”? (But what if they didn’t leave the country/formally renounce their allegiance, and were just doing it to protest this specific war?)

    http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/expatriate

    http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/patriot

    Pet peeve….

  11. Back to the thread…

    (OK one last gasp. I’m a strict Constitutionalist as it was written and intended.) That said, the elimination of the LGR is only a first step.
    Case in point: The person in Niagara region who fired warning shots at the guys who were firebombing his house at 6AM one morning. He’s still under charges: unsafe storage. Says the government: How could his revolver been safely stored if he had the time to unlock his safe, unlock his ammo, load his gun, get to the front door –his only exit–and fire warning shots.
    Other charges were dropped, but all his firearms and ammo have been confiscated. And, if the police do a check and find a loose round (think about that) he’s going to jail.
    And, if your neighbor thinks you looked at him the wrong way, he calls the police on you: one broken door, wrecked drywall, embarrassment, spouse furious, firearms confiscated, $30,000 legal bill. And they won’t prosecute the neighbor.
    So, as I said, lots still to be done.

  12. Quebec still has it for the next week because of a temporary injunction. Hopefully the judge is smart enough to not give a permanent injunction and have this go on for years.

  13. If they get rid of the restriction of the handgun barrels (no shorter than 4.2 inches), I’m moving up there

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *