Thread by @Calibremag

WHEEEEEEEEE #SECU! Skipped the last one because it was pretty political, but Murray Smith is coming to this one, so here come the live-Tweets...

Zimmer opens the meeting by asking if there are hunting rifles on the prohib list. Justice officials clarify they cannot say if a gun is a hunting gun or not, just if it's prohib. Zimmer redirects the question then to Daly and Smith; witnesses appearing from the RCMP.

Chair @RonMcKinnonLib intercedes, saying that everyone should remember the list could change.

Interesting note to make.

Murray Smith now says the first rifle Zimmer asked about, the Benelli R1, is not included on Schedule 1 or 2.

@RonMcKinnonLib Zimmer now holds up a picture of a Remington 742, but the Liberal members jump on what's a pretty obvious attempt to get a screengrab, so he defers back to just asking. Justice witnesses basically ask back, "does it appear on the list?" Things getting heated...

@RonMcKinnonLib Zimmer getting a little frustrated with Justice witnesses that honestly, even as a viewer, just aren't very useful or forthright.

Taleeb steps in to cool things down.

@RonMcKinnonLib Murray Smith eventually gets around to a couple questions, clarifying that the Remington 742 isn't on Schedule 1 or 2 while the M1 Ordnance rifle is.

Justice witness now says Bob should include the section where these guns are listed in his questions to help them answer.

@RonMcKinnonLib Now Chair McKinnon's kinda taking Zimmer to task for not helping the witnesses find these guns on the list.

Zimmer rightly points out, basically, maybe the experts should know better.

@RonMcKinnonLib AH HA.

We arrive at the BAR Mk 3.

Smith says it's not on the list. Zimmer asks for clarity, Smith says whether or not that gun's banned is a policy decision. Zimmer comes back saying it IS on the list.

Overall, I wish people would stop talking about lists.

@RonMcKinnonLib And now Smith is inviting further confusion by invoking the M1918 BAR machine gun.

Zimmer goes immediately to Amendment G4 (the one that prohibs all semi-guns that can take 5+ mags) and says he's asking about G4.

I suspect this is what Smith was referring to as "policy."

Smith FINALLY PROVIDES THE CLARITY I'VE BEEN HOPING SOMEONE WOULD by saying the Schedule 1 & 2 lists are NOT CONNECTED to the Amendment G4. Totally different.

Ah, interesting insight there... Smith states that Schedule 1 and 2 are hand-curated collections of guns to be prohibited. Manually selected, I believe he states. So a hit list.

He ALSO crucially states that his previous answers did not account for Amendment G4.

So basically Smith said the R1 and BAR aren't on Schedule 1 & 2, but that doesn't mean they aren't prohibited.

They just weren't manually selected and put on those lists, but "could" (ie, will) still be prohibited by G4.

Now Zimmer asks about the Ruger R1 single shot, which Smith says yes, that's still prohib but adds that it's only those Ruger #1s chambered in big calibres.

Zimmer says it's a hunting rifle and it'll be prohib.

Smith says that's not correct.

The Ruger #1:

Oh, ah. A complete weasel reply.

"Not ALL Ruger #1s will be prohibited."

Even children see through that kind of logic.

Zimmer asks about more guns. Mossberg Plinkster. Westley Richards. Stuff that is pretty deep in the gun file that honestly I suspect everyone reading this already knows.

More point of order talk about who can talk when, basically, and responses and whatnot.

Smith finally provides a comprehensive answer by saying that one of the guns Zimmer broaches is not listed in the schedules but "may be impacted by G4."

This line of questioning is beginning to get tired.

Smith sees the feint Zimmer's been setting up by trying to get Smith to say "this hunting gun is banned," and pivots to say that it's only small volumes of the guns in question being prohibited (ie; 10-gauge shotguns, not 12-gauge, etc).

Smith points out that among shotguns, detachable mags are still relatively rare.

However, as someone that's in the industry, I'd say that while most shotguns still use tube mags, detachable mag semi-auto shotguns have been some of the most popular long guns in Canada recently.

@TonyVanBynen says Zimmer should propose amendments and fixes.

Zimmer says ezpz, repeal C-21.

@TonyVanBynen Jiminy Christmas.

@RonMcKinnonLib steps on Zimmer's question about another gun by saying that given Amendment G4 doesn't have a list, and there are so many amendments proposed it would be hard for anyone to answer questions about whether any given gun would be prohibited.

Gee Ron, it's almost like that's exactly why there are NORMALLY rules about introducing massive sweeping amendments to commensurately tinier bills.

So there you have it: The Liberals will vote to ban guns and they don't even expect anyone to know what guns they're banning.

Smith now, when asked about the Ruger PC Carbine, claims it's not a hunting carbine by claiming the name stands for "Police Carbine." He then says it'll be prohibited.

Also, it stands for Pistol Caliber.

Q: Howa 1500 rifle, another of the 10k joule limit rifles, is in G46.

Smith repeats his claim that it'll only be prohib in the big calibres.

Q: Weatherby Mark 1 / 2 / 5?

Expect same answer.

Yup.

And again, Smith gets an opportunity to testify that MOST of the Weatherbys won't be prohibited.

Zimmer now turns to the variant question, asking for clarify on if smaller calibre Weatherby Mark V rifles could be variants of the big one.

Smith says that there is no clause in the component of law that bans the big Weatherby rifles that ALSO bans variants thereof, so smaller calibre versions of those rifles would not be prohibited.

Confusion reigns supreme when the FNAR is invoked!

Smith hears FAL, answers thusly, Zimmer clarifies FNAR and Smith now needs time. It's clear he doesn't know what the FNAR is. Zimmer gets him there, and Smith does say yes, it'll be a G4 prohib.

Then he misquotes the mag cap.

Unrelated: Man these people have a lot of paper in front of them. I couldn't work like that.

Zimmer now broaches one of probably hundreds of articles by now that quotes police questioning these gun bans, this one quoting Regina police officials. Zimmer is cut off by Van Bynan.

Interesting to note that @TonyVanBynen very clearly refers to an article wherein police are cited addressing the sourcing of crime guns as "political," and not expert testimony.

He literally made a point of order to make that claim.

Zimmer continues with another article that speaks to the same issue: That the problem is illegally smuggled guns, that police say so, that CBSA is saying they're catching more and more guns, etc.

Zimmer now turning to the cost.

Brings up the long gun registry and the gross overage seen there.

Points of order being raised around cost. Both the Chair and now Taleeb are raising the claim that cost isn't germaine to the discussion of Amendment G4.

Apparently costs of laws shouldn't be considered?

Zimmer seems to be wrapping up saying the program will cost $5-10 billion depending on the estimate, and that crime has only risen under this government.

He's now moving onto what $5-10 billion could otherwise do if allocated elsewhere: 10K LEO/CBSAs for 4 years.

Basically Zimmer pitches what 5K more CBSA agents and improved border infrastructure could do to reduce gun crime rates versus this expenditure, which will have zero effect.

Now @BlaineFCalkins steps up, after being introduced by Chair McKinnon as the MP for his own hometown.

He begins with an homage to Canada's heritage as a hardy, rough nation that was not overly hospitable, and that has a long history with firearms, basically.

He now draws attention to both the split among Canadians around guns, and the diversity - raising the issue of how widespread firearms are in rural areas versus urban areas but also bringing up how diverse the hunting and gun community are in Canada.

Honestly, this is quite eloquently written. It probably deserves a better stage and a teleprompter. But I suspect quoting Locke to this crowd is not going to work, even if @Taleeb has an education that would seemingly demand otherwise.

Calkins now bites into C-21 by saying both G4 and G46 are arbitrary, and that the amendments will absolutely ban firearms that were expressly designed for the purposes of hunting.

He's now also moving onto the difficulty in replacing these firearms...

... saying that already extant ammunition shortages suffered in the north are indicative of how hard it will be for remote hunters (most likely to be subsistence hunters) to replace these guns the Liberals are considering banning, and that that could have REAL consequences.

And he continues on this point of necessity, bringing up the issue of firearms for self-defence, specifically of those working and touring remote and northern areas. It is often required by insurance companies that there be an armed security component for predator protection.

Calkins states that the evergreening clause and G46 will absolutely capture guns that people use for this reason. He brings up a beekeeper he knows who works his hives with a Tavor in .308 because it's fast, easy to use, and effective against the bears he might encounter.

Calkins brings up his EXTENSIVELY history outdoors both professionally with parks and of course as a hunter, and brings up that semi-auto black guns called "Defenders" are often the BEST tools to protect people working in risky situations alongside wildlife.

Now onto bowhunting, he informs the committee that during bowhunting season you sit in a tree and try and sound like prey, so it's not uncommon for bowhunters to bring guns the Liberals are trying to ban for protection.

@TonyVanBynen getting educated on basic committee operation after again interrupting Mr. Calkin's excellent testimony.

Calkins gets right back to it, finally addressing the matter of hunters losing their property. But he quickly moves from that to the issue of cost, very adroitly pointing out that the gov could buy 10 container scanners for every port of entry for what this ban costs.

Calkins points out that 1% of all containers are scanned.

The mind boggles.

I need a minute.

... has anyone checked on @TonyVanBynen? His short term memory seems to be failing, as he interrupts again asking when Calkins is going to ask one of the expert witnesses a question, and is again told that Calkins doesn't need to.

@TonyVanBynen Calkins returns to the issue of cost, broaching the subjects of underfunded mental health supports, and then pivots to how licensed gun owners are not the perpetrators of most crime. Overall, it's coming together to form a comprehensive argument.

He's now citing a McMaster University study that shows gun laws passed from the 70s to 2008 in Canada had minimal effect.

Bookmarking that; gonna have to find a copy.

"We are spending so much time and so much money on something so insignificant it's not even funny."

Could. Not. Agree. More.

Calkins now satisfies Van Bynen's deep curiosity with questions.

Q: Is it illegal to hunt with a firearm that produces more than 10K joules?

A: No.

Q: The Weatherby Mk V in .460 Weatherby will be prohibited. Weatherby says this calibre is good for animals around 2,000 lbs. Has there been any consultation with those that hunt animals that size?

Point of order: Experts are here to talk about guns not animals.

Q: I'm asking if there has been any consultation with those that hunt large aquatic and land animals.

A: They were already prohibited by the OIC, so there would be no change if this were to pass.

Q: My question was if the government has anything that says people shouldn't hunt with guns that make more than 10k joules?

@Taleeb kinda speaking out of both sides of his mouth with a point of order claiming that rifles that produce 10K joules "obliterate animals" but are also irrelevant to matter of aquatic hunting since 10K joule rifles aren't powerful enough for that.

@Taleeb Committee goes around the table a bit, but comes back to Calkin who wraps up by saying obviously the gov't doesn't have any evidence that hunting with 10K joule guns is bad.

Then my stream paused.

Back with Smith talking about the Ruger and Weatherby, saying the guns aren't modular.

Now Calkins says what if someone has a .460 barrel and a .30-06 barrel, how would the law interpret that.

Smith says the firearm has to be "chambered."

Calkins then says "but you're not banning the barrel. You're banning the firearm."

He brings up the matter of changeable barrels. Smith replies that barrels are not regulated. Calkins says the barrels is responsible for the calibre the gun can shoot. Smith says it's one part.

Smith says the bolt is another part. The entire matter it moot since bolts aren't regulated either.

Smith now says if you change a Weatherby to .460 Wby you'd need a bolt too.

So what?

Calkins gets back to the question: What happens to an owner of a gun who can change the barrel of a firearm and who has a barrel that's chambered in a +10K joule round.

Smith says that the firearm would be considered prohibited when the big barrel was screwed on, and says this is directly parallel to the matter of barrel length of a rifle determining classification.

Calkins: What will you do when Weatherby loads the .460 by down to 9,999 j.

Smith then says it wouldn't matter because the term is "capable of over 10K joules."

Calkins springs the trap and asks how broad the term in G4 is when it says "any firearm capable of accepting a magazine over 5 rounds."

Smith admits the definition does constitute a change in how things are done and Calkins recoils, exclaiming "Oh, I'd say so."

But, the Liberal committee springs to action, and just as I was thinking "Smith is on his back foot here," Taleeb gives him respite by interrupting.

HOLY SHIT.

Justice is stepping in it. Paging @IanRunkle.

Justice just claimed that the wording of the G4 amendment only includes guns that were originally designed with magazines greater than five rounds.

Calkins doesn't buy it. It also just seems entirely backwards?

@IanRunkle The committee is moving on with Calkins again asking about consultations but that last point NEEDS TO BE DISCUSSED MORE.

Calkins now bringing up the Benelli reverse exemption. This would be the Benelli Super 90, where one version is prohib, but a bunch of other models aren't. They're all hunting/sporting guns.

Calkins now says that Benelli would need an act of parliament to introduce a new model.

That would be because the Benellis are all illegal unless named, in which case the named Benellis are legal.

Smith says it's been this way since '92, Calkins points out that it isn't; previous models could be OIC'ed into legality. This moves those guns beyond that scope.

I know it's a whole culture unto itself and I know testifying as something the public sector feels very conflicted about, but I must say, I do not appreciate these Justice witnesses unwillingness to provide any insight beyond what ABSOLUTELY MUST BE disclosed.

Back to self-defence with Calkins, invoking the Tavor-toting beekeeper (who if you're reading this, email me), asking if there are any exemptions or permitting path for people that use these guns for protection to continue to do so.

A: No.

... but in her answer, the Justice witness seems a bit prejudicial, ironically. She claims that prohib firearms cannot be used in Canada, but that's just not true, prohib firearms in Canada appear on your TV and movie screens every day?

Calkins wraps up by saying this law is going to have a huge impact, and most importantly, it's actually going to make people less safe. Hunters, people that work and live in remote areas, people that need the best tools possible simply won't have access to them.

And now he moves onto the impact the law could have among hunting guides and outfitters. He states 95% of inbound hunters bring their own guns, and asks if an inbound hunter could bring one of these prohibited guns into Canada for a temporary hunt?

Answer (from Justice): The prohibited classification of firearms applies to everyone in Canada.

Calkins: So... I guess its up to inbound hunters to know those laws, and how would border agents handle that, if someone is coming here to hunt with one of those guns?

A: The CBSA process for prohibited firearms would apply.

Calkins: That will have an adverse impact.

Witness: Just to clarify the prohibition is on the gun not the person, the person could still enter Canada.

Calkins: But if 95% of hunters want their own gun, they're not coming.

Then Calkins wraps up formally by saying he sees the writing on the wall, this is all political, and he gives his time to others.

Hard to argue.

But big props to @BlaineFCalkins for an erudite effort.

@BlaineFCalkins And the meeting now wraps up with a bunch of debate about scheduling you needn't hear about, but Mr. Ruff specifically asks if these witnesses can return. Chair does say they will invite these witnesses back.

Meeting adjourns.