On the Buses

Our superior Greenie friends want us all on transit.  All the better to start the revolution , I guess.

Exploding Houses

That's the title.  It's the only reason I can posit for Natural Resources Canada to change the explosives act regulations regarding the storage of firearm ammunition.  After all, changing the regulations in such a drastic way could only be justified by serious problems in need of a fix, right?  So it must be all those exploding houses . . .

Gun owners decry 'monstrous' changes to ammunition rules

Hunters and shooters are up in arms about the federal government's proposed new explosives regulations, which they say will interfere with everything from big-game  hunting and ammunition storage, to re-enacting historic battles.

The changes require — for the first time in Canada — gun owners to lock away all ammunition.
......
The proposed regulations also seriously restrict the use of big-game rifles, since the regulations define "small-arms ammunition" as bullets no larger than .50 calibre. But in Canada, calibres larger than .50 — such as the .577 Snider and the .505 Gibbs rounds — are frequently used to hunt bears and other large or dangerous game.
Since these large bullets are not defined as small-arms ammunition in the proposed regulations, Arpin said, they will fall into a more general category of blasting explosives. As a result, shooters who use large calibres will have to acquire explosives licences — such as those needed for dynamite — to continue hunting with large-bore rifles.

It gets worse.  From CanadianGunNutz.com (account needed):

Shot Guns:

• 12 gauge is bigger than .50 calibre.  Do I need a blasting license now for a shotgun?
• Has anyone heard back about the shotgun slug issue? (Larger than 50 cal). Unless there's a special exception that might be a real issue. 

Ambiguous anti-theft regulation:

• Even better - if you DO add one more lock, some cop could say 'not good enough, you should have a BETTER lock' and send you to jail. It does not give any clear indication as to what's required to comply with the law. What's "good enough" to prevent theft? Only a judge can say for sure and you'll pay good money to hear his thoughts on the matter if a cop charges you.
• I remember someone saying that padlocks weren't good enough for firearms cabinet locks. I don't recall anything official on this topic.
• The regs require you PREVENT theft. Good luck with that, as long as it is still POSSIBLE to steal your ammo, you are a criminal.

It encourages dangerous storage:

• Lock your ammo in a sealed steel box? Can you say "pipe bomb" when the ammo cooks off inside if there is a fire?

What about transport, or use?

• How will the new regulations impact a person going from home to the shooting range or out hunting? Will a special transportation system be required? The way the proposed regulations are drafted, I could be charged when going out turkey hunting with 10 shells in my pocket.
• Wait 'til you get stopped in your truck and have a couple shotgun shells in the console or a loose .22 rolling around in the back seat somewhere....or have a few rounds from an earlier range/hunting outing in a jacket pocket.

Even the guy who wrote the rules isn't sure what constitutes safe storage:

• But Arpin said the safe storage requirements will not be as complicated as Bernardo suspects. He said any locking container — even those which can be easily removed from a house — likely will satisfy the incoming safe storage requirements.  

These new regs are ambiguous, onerous, dangerous and deceitful.  It's time for our government to stop this constant harassment of gun owners.  Write your MP today and tell them to stop making paper criminals of law abiding gun owners. 

update:  It looks like shotgun shells are specifically designated small arms and not affected by this.  Thank god for small mercies...

 

Mortality

Coyne nails it today.  Not that his subject matter is compelling.  A lifelong loser just arrested for drunk driving (note:  DRUNK driving, not MADD's new crime of drinking and driving) bursts into song, Bohemian Rhapsody, and he becomes an Internet sensation.  Who cares, really?  But this small passage is the nugget in the poop pile:

We're born, we work, we struggle, we suffer, and just when we are starting to figure it all out, we snuff it. In the Tragic View of the Universe, this is deeply unfair, fuel for a lifetime of resentment. In the Comic View of the Universe, it is sublimely funny, a great cosmic joke God plays on us all.

And that's life for you.  There is no great meaning to life except to live it.  That's the test we must pass every day and we all fail it at some point.

A New Era for Alberta

I was a little concerned a few months ago with the election of Allison Redford as PC leader and premiere in Alberta. My concern mainly came from the fawning coverage the eastern media was giving the "human rights lawyer" and "UN employee" Redford.  They fully expected that Redford was going to bring Alberta more into line with, you know, "Canada", or at least the Canada that Easterners believe in.  There was even talk about Alberta moderating the federal Conservatives as their base shifted to the the more moderate Redford-style.

Since then, Alberta has been led by more insular-minded leaders, happy to pit the province’s interests against those of the rest of the country.

That could well change after this election.

Since assuming the reins of the Conservatives last October, Ms. Redford has hinted at a more activist role in the national political agenda. She wasn’t in office a month before she was touring Central Canada talking up a national energy strategy – one that integrates the power dynamics of the entire country.

That is a decidedly different approach than the one taken by recent Alberta premiers Ed Stelmach and Ralph Klein who possessed more us-versus-them mindsets. And it is certainly a contrary vision to the one being offered up by Danielle Smith, leader of the Wildrose Party.

Oh well, I guess those rednecks will never learn...

A Reminder of Why I stopped Being a "Good" Cathoilc

 I went to mass last night for the first time in twenty years.  I have my reasons and I'll keep them to myself, but this is going to be hard.

The service reminded me, over and over again, why I stopped going.  It is the week before Easter, a long service, and one where the readings really drove home what the Church is trying to teach me:  I'm a worthless sinner and I need the priest to save me.  The reading of the passion was the perfect example of that.  The reader began but any line that was the crowd was spoken by the congregation in response.  We were the evil bastards that killed Christ.  The priest spoke all the lines that were Jesus', underlying that he was our eathly representative of Jesus.  Subtle.

I have met this man, this priest, and he strikes me as being no smarter, no better than me but somehow I have to go through him to receive the blessings of God.  Yup, this is going to be very hard.

Earth Hour... So What Do We Call the Other 8764?

So it's Earth Hour again and I have to decide whether it is worth lighting candles and risking a fire in my house to assuage the guilty consciences of the patrolling greeny vigilantes in my neighbourhood.

Decisions, decisions...

 

 Update:  Hahaaahaaaaa, that's funny!

Things that Never Happen to Me...

Hot teachers "abusing" teenage boys...

Reminds me of this episode of South Park...   Nice

Not Partisan At All...

This article by Jeff Davis shows just how gullible, how lazy, and how easily manipulated the mainstream media is. It unbelievable:

Saskatchewan Tory MP Garry Breitkreuz found himself in hot water Thursday after an Ottawa mother complained he told a Grade 10 class that everyone in Canada should be armed — especially girls.

Dianna Sakisheway wrote a scathing letter to Public Safety Minister Vic Toews this week. Her complaint stems from a speech Breitkreuz — known as the father of the legislation to repeal the long-gun registry — gave during a career day at Canterbury High School on March 7.

"I am outraged at the irresponsible conduct of the federal government in promoting gun violence to schoolchildren," she wrote. "You have gone much too far."

....

Sakisheway told Postmedia News that she is "just a mother" and has no political associations.

.... In her letter, Sakisheway says Breitkreuz clearly told the students that "it should be much easier for Canadians to attain and own a firearm because it is their duty and their right to engage in gun violence."

So let's just check a few things. First, Dianna Sakisheway is non-partisan? Uh huh...

From her Twitter feed:

Jack Layton:Tommy Douglas our 1st leader said Dream no little dreams. They said yes 2 a Cda where anything is possible. No 1 is left behind.

or

Cdn Boat “Tahrir” will sail 2 help end Israel’s illegal siege of #Gaza

But even if you are a moron and can't type a name into Google don't you think a real reporter with even an ounce of common sense would question if Gary Breitkreuz would actually say "it is their duty and their right to engage in gun violence."? Really? Would he call self-defence "gun violence" or is that the interpretation of a political activist? It would make me stop and think before I wrote an article based solely on her word that she is non-partisan and her account of what was said.

Truly another sad day in Canadian journalism.

Open Thread for James Morton's Anonymous Troll

Here ya go, dude, as promised,  prove me a Liberal.

The End Game of the War on Free Speech

Here it is, another couple of feet down the slope.

"A British university student was jailed for 56 days Tuesday after admitting inciting racial hatred by posting offensive comments on Twitter following the collapse of a professional soccer player on live television. ....

Sentencing the student, district judge John Charles said there was "no alternative" to an immediate prison sentence, as when Mr. Muamba collapsed "it was not the football world who was praying for him... everybody was praying for his life."

Stacey's remarks on Twitter as the footballer battled for his life were "vile and abhorrent," the judge added."

So there we have it. We've gone from fire in a theatre to banning racism to jailing drunk university students for a lack of sensitivity to a hurt footballer. Such a brave new world we live in.

Prostitution Laws Struck Down

From the ruling at the Ontario Court of Appeal:

[325] For the reasons set out above, we declare that ss. 210 and 212(1)(j) of the Criminal Code are unconstitutional.

[326] To remedy the constitutional problem posed by s. 210, we strike the word “prostitution” from the definition of “common bawdy-house” in s. 197(1) as it applies to s. 210. We suspend this declaration of invalidity for 12 months to give Parliament an opportunity to draft a Charter-compliant bawdy-house provision, should it elect to do so.

[327] To remedy the constitutional problem posed by s. 212(1)(j), we read in words of limitation to clarify that the prohibition on living on the avails of prostitution applies only to those who do so “in circumstances of exploitation”.

[328] We conclude that the communicating provision in s. 213(1)(c) does not offend the principles of fundamental justice. Accordingly, it does not infringe the respondents’ s. 7 Charter rights. We further conclude that the application judge was bound by the Prostitution Reference to hold that s. 213(1)(c) is a reasonable limit on the right to freedom of expression under s. 2(b) of the Charter. We allow the appeal on these issues.

[329] The stay of the application judge’s decision is extended for 30 days from the date of the release of these reasons so that all parties can consider their positions. The practical effect is:

· The declaration of invalidity in respect of the bawdy-house provisions is suspended for one year from the date of the release of these reasons.

· The amended living on the avails provision takes effect 30 days from the date of the release of these reasons.

· The communicating provision remains in full force.

[330] We thank all counsel, including counsel for the interveners, for their thorough and thoughtful submissions. This is not a case for costs.

Signed: “Doherty J.A.”

“M. Rosenberg J.A.”

“K. Feldman J.A."

I am no fan of the exploitation of women but neither do I believe that no woman can choose to sell sex without coercion and exploitation. No, I wouldn't choose this career for my daughter but then a lot of people would object to her joining the army or becoming a lawyer. It is HER choice. If she did decide to take up prostitution I would want her to do so in the safest environment possible, with the support of other prostitutes and with the ability to employ security, financial and HR staff, and even be employed by a company that facilitates those support functions. I am happy that women, and men by the way, have choices.

It's funny how the Feminists and the religious right agree on this one, though. At least the religious right is consistent in their moral objection. How does a feminist who insists on a woman's right to choose justify opposing this?

Monty Robinson is guilty!

Just wondering if some people's heads will explode when they realize Monty Robinson is entitled to Gladue consideration during sentencing...

Don't Ride Off into the Sunset Just yet...

C19 has passed the commons and will certainly pass the senate unamended. So yes, the fight over the registry is over. Still, it is with some sadness I read this:

Cowboys for Social Responsibility: Thanks for reading

Dude! The fight isn't over, Charlie Angus is right! We aren't done pushing back the badly written and ill thought out gun laws in Canada. We have many complaints:

1) The storage laws are almost indecipherable even for lawyers and judges.
2) The Authorization To Transport (ATT) system for restricted firearms is unwieldy and is being abused by provincial CFOs
3) The system of firearm classification is broken. An AR is restricted but a Tavor or Robinson XCR is not. A WWII vet bring back Luger is a prohibited gun, as are all .25 and .32 caliber hand guns. Are they really extra-special dangerous?
4) Despite constitutional and common law that supports firearms ownership as a right the present law criminalizes firearms ownership.
5) The ownership of firearms for self-defence is still prohibited. One cannot answer sefl-defence on the licensing forms and get a PAL.

I could go on but that's plenty for now. It's not that I don't respect CFSR, it's that I disagree vehemently, that's why I write this. I expect a fight but I also think that when the world doesn't end and blood does not flow in out streets, it would be nice to have CFSR around to see that.

Liberals Go to the Movies

I guess Kinsella and Gritchick went on a date last night and saw The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo. They were both outraged that a movie rated 18A was attended by children under 18. Even though 18A means 18 Accompaniment - Persons under 18 years of age must be accompanied by an adult, and Ontario hasn't followed the leads of Manitoba or the maritimes in banning outright children under 14 (Better get your homeboy, Dalton, on that, Warren!), and the parents therefore made a legal choice, both Kinsella and Gritchick felt more than justified complaining to management about other parents' choices. You see, their morality was better than the parents of those poor children.

That's the real story and the real difference between Liberals and, well, human beings. You see, most human beings just want to be left alone to live their lives as they wish but Liberals, ahhh, Liberals! they just know better than you and me and aren't afraid to tell anyone and everyone just that. And if you don't like what our Liberal betters believe they have no compunction about legislating it, or in the case of Kinsella, flashing whatever badge of authority he has. In the past he has used his influence with the McGunity government to intimidate a local school administration and in this case he used his 'journalistic credentials' to threaten the management of the theatre.

Liberals will tell you they believe in choice. What they mean is they believe you are allowed to make the same choices they do, the choices they approve. Don't choose to be a stay-at-home-mom and don't take your kids to a scary movie.

As a final note Gritchick titled her post "Some People Should not Have Children". Don't laugh, it's not a personal opinion, it's a threat. Child licensing and registration coming to a province near you!

A Question Regarding the Youth Criminal Justice System

I have a question regarding the youth criminal justice system. Do we treat youth differently because they may not be capable of fully understanding the law or their culpability or perhaps because they simply are not as capable of criminal intent as an adult?

I would agree that children under a certain age are not capable of understanding the consequences of their actions and that as children get older we can, and should, apply more responsibility for their actions. We say that once a child reaches eighteen years of age they are capable of taking full responsibility for their actions.

It seems reasonable that taking a teenager and putting him or her in prison with adults is a bad idea. I would agree that most young offenders have a greater chance of rehabilitation, as well. So coupling diminished capacity with lesser or alternate sentencing makes sense.

Where I grow concerned is when an adult is charged under the YCJA for crimes committed when they were underage. If a child is considered less culpable because they cannot fully understand their crime why do we not expect that child, when they reach an age where they do understand the consequences of their actions, to reflect on their crime and act in a manner consistent with that greater understanding?

To me, when a child becomes an adult there should be a limit on how long they have to come forward and accept responsibility for their actions. For serious crimes such as murder, sexual assault, or crimes involving violence or threats with weapons I think an adult should make the choice to come forward and deal with their actions. If they fail to accept, as an adult, that their actions as a child require some justice then I would put to you that an adult has made a decision and that they should be held to an adult standard.

Simply put, when a 35 year old man has his name protected and is prosecuted as if he were still a minor simply because the crimes were committed when he was a minor, I feel justice is perverted. What adult does not know that their actions as a minor were wrong?

I believe parliament should amend the YCJA or its successor legislation requiring adults who have committed serious offences as minors to come forward by their 22^nd birthday and take responsibility for those actions. If they fail to do so parliament should ensure that the law treats these people as the adults they are and require that they accept the consequences of their adult decisions. I think four years is enough to reasonably reflect on one’s actions as a child.

Federal Court Rules on the CWB

Apparently legislatures CAN restrict future legislatures in their ability to change laws.

From the Ruling:

At paragraph 34 of the Producer Car Shippers argument, attention
is directed to the following passages from Professor Hogg’s text, Constitutional Law of Canada, (Carswell, Toronto, 5th ed, 2007):

Would the Parliament or a Legislature be bound by self-imposed
rules as to the “manner and form” in which statutes were to be
enacted? The answer, in my view, is yes.
[…]
Thus, while the federal Parliament or a provincial Legislature cannot
bind itself as to the substance of future legislation, it can bind itself as
to the manner and form of future legislation.
[…]
It seems implausible that a legislative body should be disabled from
making changes to its present structure and procedures. Moreover,
the case-law, while not conclusive, tends to support the validity of
self-imposed manner and form requirements.

With this ruling in mind I propose the following amendment to Bill C-19 be moved in the Senate:

The Minister shall not cause to be introduced in Parliament a bill that would change the firearms act in whole or in part unless:

(a) the Minister has consulted with firearm owners about the amendments; and

(b) gun owners have voted in favour of the amendments, the voting process having been determined by the Minister.

Similar amendments should be made to every bill the government passes. Perhaps they could introduce a bill stating that no minister shall introduce any bill to amend anything without consulting me and getting me to vote in favour. It seems reasonable enough, it's not a restriction on what laws can be passed it's only a statement on the "manner and form" those changes need to take.

Kai Nagata Speaks

Here it is, the story Kai Nagata wanted to write, the truth he wanted to tell to power but couldn't. What a fucking pile of leftist symbol-crap. Ooo, he served what sounds like a few months in the reserves! Me too! What I don't understand and I guess I never will is why people like Kai think the military is some left wing hug club for peacekeepers? Or why he and other people like the first Canadian female combat soldier, Heather Erxleben, join up thinking it's the UN's private police force? This asshole , who accepted the pay and I can only assume took the oath, counseled another soldier not to go to Afghanistan! What a luxury to be a reservist where such service is voluntary. He and his fellow Montreal reservists were shocked, shocked I tell you, to find out that peacekeeping wasn't in the cards anymore. He appears even more shocked that the military has **gasp** tanks and fighter planes!

Kai Nagata is typical of the Liberal party's "love" of the military. They don't want a fighting force, they want unarmed peacekeepers who can do double duty on snow removal or sandbag duty. Well, Kai, this ex-reservist says fuck you and your leftist sensibilities. The Army is a fighting force and that's what I was proud to be part of.

Mt. Allison Fine Arts Building

It seems the Board at Mt. Allison College thinks tearing down a building commissioned as a war memorial in favour of a building for the fine and performing arts is a good idea. I wonder if these fellows would agree.

Castle Doctrine?

This post at James Morton’s blog has me both happy and terribly confused. It seems to say that if a person is attacked in their home they are under no obligation to retreat. That means they can defend themselves in their home but still must retreat before attack outside the home. That aside, what constitutes and assault in your house and what is allowed as defence?

If a burglar breaks into my home, is that an assault on me? I would guess probably not. What if the burglar announces “I’m non-violent, I’m just stealing your TV!” do I have to let him? If not, then what can I do to stop him? I am under the impression that I am allowed to use reasonable force to protect my property and that “reasonable force” means an escalation of force as necessary, but that it is not reasonable to use deadly force to defend property. So, must I start out with a verbal warning, then bare hands, then a baseball bat? If I attempt to stop the thief from stealing my stuff and he resists is that an assault on me? The problem with that is the thief is unlikely to use reasonable force himself; he would more likely use his most violent weapon immediately in order to win. I honestly believe that, so does that mean I reasonably believe my life is in danger and do I now have an obligation to retreat rather than stop a theft in my own home? Or can I still try to stop him from stealing my TV? If you think these are hypotheticals, read this.

And let’s talk about reasonable force. How can a citizen of Canada apply reasonable force when it would appear that the possession of any weapon intended for self-defence is illegal. If I carry a baseball bat in my car expressly for self-defense I am committing a crime. If I carry a baseball bat, glove and ball in my car and just happen to use the bat for self-defence it is perfectly legal. I cannot have pepper spray to protect me from humans but as long as I say it is for defense against dogs I am fine. As for guns, I am barred from owning a gun for self-defence but if I have one for hunting or target shooting I can then use it for self-defence just so long as that wasn’t its intended use. It’s crazy!

So the court of appeal in Ontario says I can defend myself from assault in my house without the obligation to retreat. It still bars most citizens from the means of that defense. It’s a good first step but I hope the Conservative government does come through with a revamp and clarification of self-defence, something more supportive of victims than burlglars.

This is what's wrong with our military...

When the "dedicated public servants" at DND get first billing and the deputy minister is the co-equal of the chief of the defence staff you must know why our military is so screwed up. At least they had the good grace not to picture Richard Warman working hard at his desk as an example to inspire young people to join up.