Thread by @Calibremag

Wondering what's going on in SECU?

Well, Murray Smith is answering questions from @Taleeb about what the Firearms Reference Table is and what role it fulfills.

I'll be keeping an eye on it as much as I can today and updating here as we go.

@Taleeb Now @Taleeb is asking Smith to explain what the 3 classifications of firearms are.

And now he's asking Smith how the classifications and the table may be used by CBSA to determine what firearms are permissible to enter the country.

Smith answers, but honestly, it's beyond the scope of his expertise as a technologist.

Smith's kinda coming apart, because @Taleeb is asking questions beyond the scope of Smith's expertise (CBSA, how FRT is legally used), or questions Smith doesn't seem able to answer, like how many models of guns have been prohibited (Answer: 800 in the 90s, 1900 now).

Well, that's interesting. @Taleeb is asking how these guns were added to the 2020 list. RCMP provides criteria for ban:

Semi-auto,
Sustained rapid fire,
Military/tactical design,
Capable of receiving a large capacity magazine,
Modern design (post WWII),
Market volume > 1000.

@Taleeb Unless this line of questioning comes together in a Columbo-esque surprising conclusion, this morning's line of questioning from the Liberal party on the Liberal government's own amendment gives a tremendous impression of gross incompetence.

I mean, they're basically asking "how does all this, any of this, and this part over here work?"

I went upstairs to make my tea, came back to the hearing, and now Smith is talking about gun licenses work.

This may provide a glimpse into how these experts have led this government astray:

@Taleeb: "What's a restricted firearm."

Smith: "It means you must get a special license, the gun must be registered, and you can only shoot it at a range."

Real answer: Handguns, basically.

@Taleeb Now Smith misinterpret's a question from CPC, and begins talking about FIP (firearms interest police), but the question was pertaining to CES, Continuous Eligibility Screening.

Smith ends his comment by saying gun owners are not checked daily.

Adding confusion, the other RCMP witness says all PAL and RPAL holders are run daily, but it runs in parallel or something? It's the least clear clarification ever.

@Taleeb: Why would anyone need an RPAL?

Smith: To get a restricted gun.

Gangsters: LOL

@Taleeb: "What is a prohibited firearm at this point"

Smith: A prohibited firearm is a firearm a Canadian is prohibited from possessing.

This is a tautology.

@Taleeb: What firearms can be used for hunting?

Smith: In Canada nearly all hunting is carried out with rifles and shotguns. The kind of rifle that can be used for hunting is regulated by provincial hunting regulations, in concert with the firearms act, which requires a n/r gun.

Now they're sorta circling this tautological point of whether or not restricted or prohibited guns could be used for hunting. Like @Taleeb says "if you own an N/R gun you have nothing to worry about," but to his credit Smith replies, basically, only if it STAYS N/R.

And then says whether or not it's a good idea for a gun to be N/R fall to "you guys," indicating @Taleeb.

Given Smith's appearance at this committee is based on, apparently, being the expert in charge of guns and classification, that's a surprisingly insightful comment.

@Taleeb Ah.

The meat and potatoes: What's a hunting gun?

Smith: A rifle designed for hunting probably. Tactical firearms however are not defined, and they're associated with military and police.

@Taleeb: "What are tactical rifles and shotguns used for?"

Smith: Police, to enforce the laws, and it could be used against people and animals as circumstances dictate in a police or military operation.

@Taleeb: "Do manufacturers and designers take our classifications into account?"

Smith: "Manufacturers design guns for markets. Those markets vary. There are all kinds of uses for firearms, from general use to specialty use. There's no general answer."

(Editors note: There is.)

@Taleeb: What's the difference between military and tactical?

Smith: Not much. Military guns are made for military use, like ordnance, fully-automatic firearms, and tactical firearms which are not full-auto but fulfill a tactical role on the battlefield.

Smith continues, saying "tactical" firearms are also used by teams that are not permitted use of fully automatic firearms.

He is then asked to clarify the point that tactical doesn't really have a practical definition, and Smith basically says, no it doesn't.

The line of questioning now pivots to why these things are so hard to define; tactical, hunting, military-style, etc.

Smith now says firearms manufacturing represents a continuum, and that there's no way to distinguish between a hunting and tactical firearm on that continuum.

Crucially that point completely refutes his earlier point that tactical firearms are indistinguishable from military arms, since I think we'd all agree an M60 is *not* a hunting firearm in any conventional thinking.

He also continued by saying that in many cases a hunting gun can be modified into a tactical gun very easily.

Taleeb asks why that's a problem for law enforcement, and Smith says he'd have to ask a cop.

I suspect most cops would say "it's not a concern I have."

@Taleeb: Will there be an explanation as to why these guns are being banned?

Justice witness: Nope. I mean, I guess there's the Hansard, and background work (but they didn't do any on the amendment) but otherwise... no.

@Taleeb: Will people be able to read this and know if their gun is illegal?

Justice: Not explicitly in an explanation, but they'll need to read the law and then sorta figure out if any of their guns are captured by these provisions.

@Taleeb @Taleeb (nice tie, by the way), asks what is required of someone who wants to get an RPAL or PAL.

Smith says he's not sure, he doesn't have it all in front of it, and then starts going through a rudimentary explanation of the process.

@Taleeb Honest to god this guy can talk forever without saying a damned thing. This whole answer was basically "you ask the CFO and the CFO decides," but somehow that took 5 minutes to say.

This doesn't appear to be the testimony of a forthright individual, but rather the careful testimony of someone that's been trained in testifying - he pauses too much, he doesn't answer in logical ways, and at times you can see where he's pausing to avoid saying something.

@RaquelDancho: Point of order, none of these actions are included in any component of Bill C-21 and this line of questioning is entirely irrelevant to the bill.

@RaquelDancho Now Murray Smith is basically reading amendment G4, but slowly.

I have no idea as to why.

Now Smith is being asked to explained what calibre is.

He gives some verbose answer about ammunition, which is clearly misleading; it's OBVIOUSLY A WICKED AWESOME MAGAZINE YOU SHOULD SUBSCRIBE TO
calibremag.ca/subscribe

Holy moly.

@Taleeb: What are some popular calibres?

Smith: 308, 223, 12 gauge, 20 gauge.

@Taleeb: How many are being banned by this law?

Smith, understandably:

Alrighty brief few-tweet interlude for commentary since/because the testimony is getting into the weeds: This is weird. This whole line of questioning has been weird.

It feels like a filibuster.

Which, when you consider the conflict in NDP/LPC and Bloc this has created...

... it's probably not that surprising that the Liberals might be eager to ensure these hearings are as boring and un-newsworthy as possible.

However, it's also demonstrating that we as a community have really failed at educating legislators on this stuff.

I don't know who's paying less attention to Smith's answers at this point, me or Taleeb.

"How are joules a firearm can generate measured?"

@RonMcKinnonLib COMING IN HARD WITH THE PHYSICS EQUATION!

Thank you for settling that.

@RonMcKinnonLib Not surprisingly, they're on the topic of the 10K joule limit, where Smith is saying those guns are reserved for large African game in general.

@Taleeb asks why we'd need that here, the obvious answer would be hunting Africa?

Smith, again to his credit, first replies with "for Canadians to hunt in Africa." He then continues with a second broad use for long-range hunting or target shooting.

@Taleeb: If I shot a deer with a 10K joule gun at 200M, what would happen?

Smith: Depends on where you hit the deer. If you hit the vital organs, it's likely the deer will be killed. There could be some destruction of the game meat, but it would depend heavily on the bullet.

For those keeping score at home, that *is indeed* Canada's government's foremost gun expert saying if you shoot a deer at 200M with a .50 BMG in the vitals, the deer might die.

What a time to be alive.

Taleeb now says are there smaller guns that could hunt a deer, Smith says yeah, deer need about 3,000 joules. He's not super eager to press that figure though - again, some of that testimony training he's done obviously tells hum hard figures he can't back up are scary.

Now Taleeb's asking about bullets; Smith had previous mentioned bullets come in different varieties.

Smith says some bullets are prohibited, but that generally when hunting it's a best practices situation, where you select the best bullet you can find basically.

Taleeb: What is a chamber or chambering?

Smith: It's the physical dimensions of the chamber and the amount of pressure the chamber is designed to withstand during discharge, and determines the kind of ammo that can be used in a firearm.

Taleeb: How big is .308?

Smith: About a third of an inch.

Your tax dollars at work.

Interesting point where @Taleeb is asking about "military calibres." Smith explains, and CPC member Glen Motz interjects saying no hunter would use military ammo, which causes Smith to clarify that army ammo is full metal jacketed, and thus not used for hunting.

On the topic of magazine size, Smith says hunting guns in Canada are commonly 3-4 rounds (I'd say it's 5 in my experience) while military rifles use much larger magazines and belts of unlimited length.

Smith now says there's no hunting applications he's aware of that requires 20 to 30 rounds, meaning he's never cull-hunted wild hogs.

Smith is now saying that, however, many hunting rifles DO have bigger magazines and he's reaching this conclusion in a circuitous route by saying that many hunting rifles simple ARE old military rifles like the Lee Enfield and it's 10 round magazine.

And now they've moved onto the subject of magazine capacity entirely, with Smith saying that while magazines are limited for semi-auto guns, other kinds of actions are unlimited.

And then they started to talk about the efficacy of how we block mags. Again... irrelevant to C-21.

Taleeb: "how many shots do you need to kill an elk or moose"

Smith: "Depends on how good a shot you are. The goal is one shot. That doesn't always occur. But most hunters would probably agree that emptying a 20 round mag isn't what they want to do."

Smith is continuing, explaining the migratory bird regs that limit shotguns to 3 rounds total, and that otherwise shotgun hunting regs limiting ammunition capacity are in provincial hunting regs.

Dancho interjects with a point of order asking Smith to add the utility of follow-up shots, or having rapid, multiple shots available for dangerous game hunting.

Smith's reply is that you shouldn't be alone, and have a second shooter with you on those hunts?

Taleeb: What laws prohibit people from having more than five rounds?

Smith: The regulations that limit magazine capacity.

Some discussion around the table as Taleeb begins by framing a question as going hunting with Doug Shipley, which leads to much laughter about who would and would not take Taleeb hunting.

Seems no one is too eager.

Taleeb asks how easy it is to modify a magazine that's been limited. Smith says it depends on how it was limited, but that most are easy to remove. Taleeb asks why that's problematic.

Smith: It's easy for someone to circumvent the reg's intent.

CPC member: That's illegal.

Now Taleeb is asking what black powder firearms are.

In 2022, with gun crime rising faster than any time in recent memory, our legislators are talking about what Captain Jack Sparrow used.

@Taleeb: And what would the impact of C-21 be on black powder firearms?

Smith: Broadly speaking there'd be no impact. I suppose someone could make a black powder variant of an AR-15, but that's unlikely.

(I am not making that up).

@Taleeb Taleeb is now asking what the difference between centrefire and rimfire is.

Smith: "...a flame front passes through the flash hole..."

Oh sweet mother of god we're still talking about centrefire vs rimfire.

This HAS to be a filibuster of some sort.

Taleeb: "What is the confidence you have, or your team has that everything on the list in Schedule 2 meets the criteria for May 1st?"

RCMP: That's a question for the firearms program. The only criteria that's changed is the minimum sales volume and post-WWII design criterial.

Now Taleeb is sensing that he's clearly completed the goal of wasting the entirety of the committee's time, and is wrapping up by saying everyone learned so much. Sounds like Mr. Motz might have commented that perhaps Taleeb learned more than others in the room.

Taleeb manages to waste the entire session, and Chair @RonMcKinnonLib applauds Smith's encyclopedic knowledge, again, highlighting how much work Canadian gun owners have to do with regards to educating legislators.