Any time a firearms-related thread is created on FreeRepublic, please be sure to add the "banglist" keyword to it so that interested FReepers don't miss it. Just a suggestion.
Let Freedom Ring,
Posted on 11/28/2009 8:15:19 AM PST by StraitShooter
Firearms Marking Regulations Deferred
http://www.cdnshootingsports.org/2009/11/firearms_marking_media_release_20091127.html
Canadian Shooting Sports Association and the Canadian Institute for Legislative Action are pleased to announce a one year deferral in the implementation of the Firearms Marking Regulations. These regulations are loosely inspired from the United Nations Firearms Protocol and would require all firearms imported into Canada to be marked with the Country and Year of Import.
Currently, the marking scheme contained in the regulations would bankrupt many of Canada's firearms importers and drive the cost of purchasing a new firearm up by as much as $200.00 This would result in the loss of many jobs and businesses, something Canada does not need in these recessionary times.
CSSA/CILA and our industry partner, the Canadian Sporting Arms and Ammunition Association have been very involved on this file for the last six years. Last year, we conducted an exhaustive industry study to prove beyond doubt that the current system would have crippling effects on Canada's gun industry. We were able to demonstrate our concerns to the satisfaction of the government and the result is this deferral.
We look forward to working with the government of Canada to bring this issue to a satisfactory conclusion.
Which, of course, is the between-the-lines intent of the whole thing.
It's patently useless for any type of "safety" concern, but it would impose an onerous burden on firearms importers, distributors, and/or retailers.
Over and above the immense cost of laser-etching or other marking tools and machines, in many cases the after-sale addition of another serial number would constitute a modification to the firearm and would void the original warranty. That warranty burden would have to be borne by the seller -- and passed on to the buyer, of course.
The *purpose* of this scheme is to impose an onerous cost burden and drive firearms businesses out of business. It's being *sold* as a necessary safety measure.
Remember, the UN's goal is to have average citizens disarmed.
"Necessity is the excuse for every infringement of human freedom.
It is the argument of the tyrant and the creed of the slave." -- William Pitt, 1763
Not an anti-guinner-- I recently told a fellow FReeper I can't find a constitutional basis for denying him the right to a nuke-- just wonderin' about this one.
I live on the border. Most my Canadian friends just come over here, buy used guns, or have friends buy them for them. They claim everybody has lots of guns in Canada, just keep pistols & semis under cover but open in rural areas. I guess you can get a pistol permit through application in rural areas for bear protection ect. My friends have license cards that allows the to buy guns on the spot in Canada; no thank you I said.
Any time a firearms-related thread is created on FreeRepublic, please be sure to add the "banglist" keyword to it so that interested FReepers don't miss it. Just a suggestion.
Let Freedom Ring,
Yes, you are missing something.
They don't want a ‘made in——Nov 2009’ stamp on the gun, they want the gun to automatically stamp every fired cartridge casing with the serial number of the gun that it was fired in!
This is something that would likely double the price of guns, and likely outlaw reloads.
The fact that it would be an onerous imposition on the law-abiding, would drive various firearms-related businesses out of business, and thereby lead to less citizens being able to choose to defend themselves or their rights is the “bad thing.”
The pertinent question is, “what makes it a good thing?”
One does not judge a law by the potential good it might do, but by the abuse and harm it facilitates.
The addition of a *second* serial number to the frame of a firearm can have no beneficial effect — how can it?
The intent of the regulation is to facilitate the UN’s goal of citizen disarmament. That is not a “good” thing.
“they want the gun to automatically stamp every fired cartridge casing with the serial number of the gun that it was fired in!”
You must be thinking of something different, Beagle8U. This particular legislation deals with a 2nd serial number on a firearm. The SN would be in the form of Country Code, and Year. So, for Canada in 2009, the number would be “CA09”
Yes, it’s silly and useless. As a “safety” measure it’s wacky bureaucratic navel-gazing. But “safety” is just the palatable excuse being used to sell it. The actual intent is much more sinister: the disarmament of citizens.
The tinpot dictators and despots making up much of the UN would like nothing better than the UN’s help in ensuring that their citizens are incapable of resisting tyranny.
The serial number of every gun sold already has a number code that shows the year of manufacture.
This already exists and doesn't cost an extra dime. No, this is about stamping the cartridges like the stalled CA bill.
You’re mistaken, Beagle8U.
I’m been intimately involved in this particular battle for quite some time and I know whereof I speak. The CSSA, of which I’m part, has been working this particular file for over six years.
I’ve heard about the “bullet marking” scheme you refer to, but this isn’t it. Really.
Thanks for the “banglist” pointer, Joe.
In armes veritas.
I recently purchased a model 1934 Mauser pistol. The fact that it wasn't import marked was a selling point, and actually adds a bit to the value.
OK, I didn't see that in the linked story which says only
These regulations are loosely inspired from the United Nations Firearms Protocol and would require all firearms imported into Canada to be marked with the Country and Year of Import.
Yes, I know that there is some proposal for what you said, but this looks like it ain't it.
Period, Paragraph.
Nothing about cartridge marking or any other of the stupidities to which we've been exposed over the years.
The pertinent question is, “what makes it a good thing?”
OK...so the owner can loook at it and say "yup. Genuine Ruger. Says here it was made in 2009 for export to Canada."
Help! Help! I'm being oppressed! --Monty Python
‘OK...so the owner can loook at it and say “yup. Genuine Ruger. Says here it was made in 2009 for export to Canada.”’
Ok... :-) (I’m unsure if your tongue is in cheek or not.)
If not...
...then how is that such a crucial and compelling need that produces such obvious benefit that it outweighs the harm caused?
Toungue’s in the middle. What harm? (Again, referring only to what’s in the linked article— not the other stupid cartridge-stamping scheme.)
I’ve just been out to look at my car. It doesn’t say “Made in USA by General Motors, 1997” on it. (Unless you decode the VIN...)
Would I be harming the auto industry by requesting a law that says “somewhere on a car must be the name of the manufacturer, the country of (let’s make it easy) final assembly, the year of manufacture, and date of import into the country where it is being used, all in plain English”? I think not. Nor do I believe it would cost $200. $2.00, maybe. Or just add it to the text of the sticker in the doorframe.
I just looked at one of my guns. It says:
“O.F. Mossberg and Sons / New Haven, Conn / [model number, caliber] Pat. Pend.”
I have occasionally wondered exactly how old it is. I know my grandfather gave it to my father when my father was twelve years old, and I doubt it was new then.
Let’s pretend it’s 1930. Just ‘cuz.
It is my belief that, if the law referenced in the linked article had existed in 1930, and I lived in Ontario, and had somehow managed to keep it through all the other anti-gun crap that Canada has shovelled, it would say:
“O.F. Mossberg and Sons / New Haven, Conn / [model number - caliber] - Pat. Pend. / Mfd 1930 for Export to Canada”
What a travesty to my liberties that would be— and yes, my tongue just slipped into my cheek a little right there.
“What harm?”
Asked and answered. The harm it would cause has already been detailed in the linked article, and in posts 2 and 8, but here it is again:
“the marking scheme contained in the regulations would bankrupt many of Canada’s firearms importers”
” It’s patently useless for any type of “safety” concern, but it would impose an onerous burden on firearms importers, distributors, and/or retailers.
Over and above the immense cost of laser-etching or other marking tools and machines, in many cases the after-sale addition of another serial number would constitute a modification to the firearm and would void the original warranty. That warranty burden would have to be borne by the seller — and passed on to the buyer, of course. “
“Yes, it’s silly and useless. As a “safety” measure it’s wacky bureaucratic navel-gazing. But “safety” is just the palatable excuse being used to sell it. The actual intent is much more sinister: the disarmament of citizens.
The tinpot dictators and despots making up much of the UN would like nothing better than the UN’s help in ensuring that their citizens are incapable of resisting tyranny.”
There’s the harm it would cause.
You’re saying “why not.” I’ve answered that.
I’m asking “why?”
I hope you’ll let me know the crucial and compelling need that would be addressed by this plan, that would be accomplished so successfully and produce such obvious benefit, that it outweighs the harm caused and the onerous burden to decent citizens.
It has to be a very compelling reason to justify trampling on basic liberties.
I think we’re talking past each other.
I also think we’re talking about two different things.
I read the article.
I don’t see your problem.
Good night.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.