Comments on: Well said.

By: Ray

Ray — Thu, 03 Dec 2009 11:41:09 +0000

If you need specifics try

1) The Bill of Rights 1689

2) Constitution act 1867

If you go even further back you’ll find reference made to this being a RIGHT long before English common law was even thought of.

All this is incorporated into the Canadian Constitution by the pre-ambles to the various Bills and Acts

By: Ray

Ray — Wed, 02 Dec 2009 19:28:52 +0000

I appolgize if I was unclear….after eading my comment I see that how I worded it could be mistaken. When I said
“The Canadian Constitution incorporates all preivious English laws from the BNA as well as laws going back to the 1600’s. That’s where the right of Canadians to have arms comes from……again read the act and its in the pre-amble to the constitution”

I did not mean to imply it was actually stated in exact words….if you read the preamble it clearly indicates that all previous rights thatwere in place in Canada are included in our current constitution. These rights go as far back as the Magna Carta. If I’m not mistaken this is where Candian’s right to “Armes for their Defense” comes into play. Please research everything.

Secondly there is no FEAR MONGERING about this. That’s what’s written into Bill C-68. And as far as it not happening. It recently did in Toronto over a paperwork violation that took the police 13 years to discover

By: Mentarch

Mentarch — Wed, 02 Dec 2009 17:50:03 +0000

@Ray, how about pointing out to us your assertion, using the exact paragraphs and lines of the actual BNA. I just read it again and just can't find this "right to bear arms". Oh - and nor did I find anything to this effect in our 1982 Constitution Act, let alone in the preambule of our Canadian bill of rights ...

By: Big Winnie

Big Winnie — Wed, 02 Dec 2009 17:16:01 +0000

Ray, show me where in the constituion where it says people have the right to bear arms. Also, gun usage is governed by the criminal code, not the constitution. Also your statements about police searches, questioning without representation, property seizures, is nothing more than fear mongering.

By: Ray

Ray — Wed, 02 Dec 2009 16:01:46 +0000

Also you’ve not responded to the loss of the right of firearms owners to be searched without a warrant, the right against having to answer any questions the police ask without a lawyer, the ability of the police to seize your personnal property, etc, etc….all without being charge with any crime or guilty of any crime.

To put in the frame of infamous automobile argument. How would you feel if the police could enter your home (without a warrant) force you to answer any questions they have and seize your house and property when you’ve done nothing or nothing more than blocking a crosswalk with your vehicle

And please don’t say the police will not do this without reason……the way bill C68 is worded they don’t need to have a reason to do this

By: Ray

Ray — Wed, 02 Dec 2009 13:10:29 +0000

Scott,

The Canadian Constitution incorporates all preivious English laws from the BNA as well as laws going back to the 1600′s. That’s where the right of Canadians to have arms comes from……again read the act and its in the pre-amble to the constitution

By: Scott Tribe

Scott Tribe — Tue, 01 Dec 2009 23:28:09 +0000

@Ray, you show me the part where the Canadian Constitution allows you a right to bear arms. You're living in Canada, Ray.. not the US.

By: Ray

Ray — Tue, 01 Dec 2009 18:22:21 +0000

Scott, what you COMPLETELY FAIL to understand is that for a lot of owners of long guns it’s not just about having to register a firearm. It’s the blatant violation of the rights of any Canadian who owns a long gun.

Try reading the act and you’ll soon see anyone owning a long gun looses all the rights that other Canadians have under the law.

But then I guess that’s why you’re a liberal always wanting to deprive others of their legal rights and yes having arms for defense is part and parcel of our constitution…READ the LAWS of this Country and then make an informed case.

By: jimmyjim

jimmyjim — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 00:18:49 +0000

@Richard, Probably the person who actually read the legislation and realized that is what this arguement is about not the whole gun registry. Hand guns should be controlled and registered, where as long guns a simple licenses should be enough.

By: Richard

Richard — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 17:39:46 +0000

John – one word makes all the difference.
I’d be interested to know who paid the pollster to insert the word “long” in front of “gun registry”.