February 23, 2016

Dear Media Party: Here's the difference between a "weapon" and a "firearm." You're welcome.

Todd BrownRebel Blogger
 

I would like to address something that all news media, most of our politicians, and a large part of the gun owning community does that is categorically wrong.

It is the use of the term "weapon" when referring to a gun.

First I would like you to see the definition of "weapon’" from the Criminal Code of Canada:

“weapon” means any thing used, designed to be used or intended for use
(a) in causing death or injury to any person, or
(b) for the purpose of threatening or intimidating any person and, without restricting the generality of the foregoing, includes a firearm;

Now, I do not know how many of you own guns, but I would like to categorically state that NONE of my guns fit the definition of "weapon." I use my guns to target shoot and hunt, not for the purpose of threatening or intimidating or causing death or injury to any person.

Keep in mind that anything can be used as a weapon: a knife, a pen, a spoon, a stick, a rock.

With the introduction of the Firearms Act( C-68), this definition was changed to include the following phrase:

“and, without restricting the generality of the foregoing, includes a firearm;”

This was done to legitimize the introduction of Section 91 and 92 of the Criminal Code of Canada (CCC), because now that a gun is legally defined as a "weapon," there is legal cause to control all guns.

Section 91 and 92 from the CCC state:

91. (1) Subject to subsection (4), every person commits an offence who possesses a firearm without being the holder of
(a) a licence under which the person may possess it; and
(b) in the case of a prohibited firearm or a restricted firearm, a registration certificate for it.

92. (1) Subject to subsection (4), every person commits an offence who possesses a firearm knowing that the person is not the holder of
(a) a licence under which the person may possess it; and
(b) in the case of a prohibited firearm or a restricted firearm, a registration certificate for it.

Now that simple possession of a gun is against the law, the next step is to create regulations to control the possession of any gun,…and the Firearms Act is legally born.

However, it was Bill C-68 that legislated the changes to make the Firearms Act legal. There is one more change that needed to be made to close any loopholes, and that is the definition of ‘firearm’. The current CCC definition:

“firearm” means a barrelled weapon from which any shot, bullet or other projectile can be discharged and that is capable of causing serious bodily injury or death to a person, and includes any frame or receiver of such a barrelled weapon and anything that can be adapted for use as a firearm;

This concretely defines a gun as a ’weapon’ in the first 4 words, “means a barrelled weapon”. As I stated at the beginning, none of my guns, and 99.9% of civilian guns in Canada are not used as weapons, and therefore cannot be defined as weapons.

The guns used in Canada that CAN be defined as weapons, are those that are used by our police forces and the military. The gun Ian Thompson used was a weapon when he scared off his attackers, then ceased to be a weapon when the threat was neutralized.

As a gun owner I would prefer to refer to my guns as "Firearms," but to do that, the word "weapon" in the definition of "firearm" would have to be changed to the word "device," so the definition would read:

“firearm” means a barrelled device from which any shot, bullet or other projectile can be discharged and that is capable of causing serious bodily injury or death to a person, and includes any frame or receiver of such a barrelled device and anything that can be adapted for use as a firearm;

I also recommend that the last phrase in the definition of "weapon" (“and, without restricting the generality of the foregoing, includes a firearm;”) be struck completely.

With these two definitions changed, there would be no reasonable need for sec.91 and 92 CCC, and in turn, most if not all, of the Liberal firearms act.

This is why I despise the term ‘weapon’ being used to described my, and all civilian guns.

It is deceitful at best, and a blatant lie at worst.

Comments
You must be logged in to comment. Click here to log in.
commented 2016-03-22 19:04:28 -0400
Another sleight of hand in the Liberal C-68 gun law was to convert the former firearms acquisition certificate into a possession licence – same process exactly but the resulting document changed the nature of the legality of firearms possession. Previously to the Liberal gun law POL/PAL we had an FAC control system.

A Firearms Acquisition Certificate (the FAC) was a certification by police that your training, background and police record prove you to be a law-abiding, peaceful, trustworthy responsible individual who poses no threat to public safety by purchasing a legally available firearm and/or ammunition – you were police certified as safe. An FAC was required to own a handgun or buy or trade any unrestricted gun and ammunition – IF you had already been in peaceful, lawful possession of an unrestricted firearm for a period of time prior to the FAC that was legal as the certification was required only for trading-buying arms and ammo not simple non-criminal possession of one.

The nature/status of noncriminal lawful possession changed when the Liberal C-68 gun law changed the requirement of a certification into the requirement of a “licence.”

The legal definition of a licence is : “A permission, accorded by a competent authority, conferring the right to do some act which without such authorization would be illegal” – you get that? In other words, a license allows the holder to engage in an outlawed activity.

So what previously lawful ”activity” did the C-68 POL/PAL outlaw which required a federal license to do? Why, the simple peaceful non-criminal responsible possession of a lawfully obtainable firearm – this was outlawed by implied mandatory licensing to possess. This is why a person who has been police screened, safety trained and issued a PAL and who has a long established record of peaceful, lawful, responsible firearms use/ownership , can be charged and loose his firearms the day his PAL expires and the new one is late and has not yet arrived to be in his possession – this has actually been done – pretty draconian eh?

– just one of many entrapment devices purposely written into the firearms act – these display the deep contempt and perfidy the drafters and enforcers have for lawful responsible firearms owning citizens.
commented 2016-02-25 07:26:45 -0500
Question!
How much of the oil that is being shiped from Saudi Arabia to eastern Canda is actually payment
For the Billions of dollars worth of weapons that the Canadian government is selling to the Saudi’s ??
commented 2016-02-24 19:49:29 -0500
To change laws, we first need to know how they work….
commented 2016-02-24 18:58:26 -0500
“Weapons, firearms, whatever – insert symbol for a Bronx Cheer here – If someone is kicking my door in, or whatever other kind of aggressive encroachment on my basic rights as a human being is happening in that moment – I don’t give a f**k who you are – I’m going to defend myself, my family, my home, my property, with whatever means is available to me – with a ‘weapon’ or otherwise…this established right in law goes back to the days of the Magna Carta – it is an unalienable right – Pierre Trudeau’s patriation of our Constitution from Britain and the so-called Charter of Rights and Freedoms BS he imposed on us without mandate, notwithstanding!
This is my right, it is inherent to ALL human beings. F**k your BS fascist political language…
If you go there – expect a double tap to center mass and one to the head…cause and effect!
”http://diarmani.com/Self%20Defence%20—%20A%20Pro-Gun%20Strategy.html">http://diarmani.com/Self%20Defence%20—%20A%20Pro-Gun%20Strategy.html
NO APOLOGIES
commented 2016-02-24 12:48:48 -0500
I still think we need an addition to the Charter.

When a Gov fails to protect it’s citizens, or puts them at risk, all laws referencing guns and ammunition are Null and Void.
commented 2016-02-23 21:47:59 -0500
Andrew.
Canucks can no longer buy ammo or scopes or powder or primers or bullets legally in the U.S. Those were the glory days but no longer. In the last year I have noticed that the US has an “exit” booth when you are leaving the US. It isn’t always in use but on several occasions it has been and the question always asked is, “did you buy any guns or ammunition during your stay in the US of A?”. The yanks don’t have much sense of humour about such things so I would not glibly tell people who may not know better to buy ammo in the US. Just saying.
commented 2016-02-23 20:36:04 -0500
ALEXANDRA NOVIKOVA, ANYTHING can be used as a weapon if used with intent to:
(a) in causing death or injury to any person, or
(b) for the purpose of threatening or intimidating any person
so, yes your hammers could be categorized as weapons if used for the purpose(s) above. I have a friend who is ex RCMP, and he has seen where a charge of ‘assault with a weapon’ charges were(or could have been) laid where the weapon was a glass eye, and another was false teeth. A firearm should only be categorized as a weapon when it is used for the purposes in (a) and (b). Farmers can write off a firearm as a ‘tool’ expense, and for me, a firearm is a tool.
commented 2016-02-23 18:32:42 -0500
ALEXANDRA NOVIKOVA commented 5 hours ago
Hey Todd, thanks for the insightful post. But common sense says that guns are clearly weapons, regardless of how Liberals modify definitions to fit their needs. Just like a sword or a tank are both weapons. So I think the point is that a firearm is a weapon, but not a “weapon”.

No, it becomes a weapon when it is used as such. By your logic the hammers in my workroom are all weapons.
commented 2016-02-23 17:58:31 -0500
We now live in a lawless society. It became that way when the government stopped protecting us and started to steal from us. RIP Canada.
commented 2016-02-23 17:46:29 -0500
This is a good an interesting report, however, I for one still think we are missing the point and making the issue entirely too complicated. Our age old policy of having “restricted” (handguns) weapons registered to lawful “qualified” Canadians and other lawful firearms (long-guns) available without restriction to those trained in their safe use worked well. It’s only the possession and use of unregistered handguns and altered firearms that has become a major problem which the government apparently does not wish to address. Crime by criminals is a problem and it must be taken seriously. Possession and use has to be dealt with extremely seriously and consecutive to any other crime committed. Legal owners are not a problem, but they are the ones being punished.
commented 2016-02-23 15:42:42 -0500
When was the last time you saw an individual or group of hunters or farmers have a shoot out dt Toronto like the one that killed Jane Kreba? Right, you haven’t. Yes, storage is an issue, as sometimes guns get stolen from homes. But let that be the focus.

Humans, like all other animals, have an inherent right to defend themselves. When the state says they’ll do it for you, then fails to do so, or worse, puts you at risk all laws regarding restrictions should become null and void. This way, a gal in Germany can protect herself from a rapist without going to jail for it!!!

What such a provision would do, is force government – or at least one for gun control – to be reasonable in their policies. So the Lefty’s would have to think twice about bringing rapefugees here if they don’t want us all going out and buying guns. When they take on the task of defending it’s citizens, they’re forced to take it seriously at all levels. I’d like to see Todd and such groups push for this law! Just pushing for a law would force Lefty’s to think twice!!
commented 2016-02-23 15:25:28 -0500
its very easy to understand, the government wants no civilians to have guns so that they can easily run right over top of us and rule us like a north Korean dictator would. this is all a part of the new world order agenda. they will be in for a surprise though, we will fight back one way or the other if this is there plan and we will win, they will hang.
commented 2016-02-23 14:57:48 -0500
The headline doesn’t match the content of the article.
commented 2016-02-23 13:54:30 -0500
Hey Todd, thanks for the insightful post. But common sense says that guns are clearly weapons, regardless of how Liberals modify definitions to fit their needs. Just like a sword or a tank are both weapons. So I think the point is that a firearm is a weapon, but not a “weapon”.
commented 2016-02-23 13:33:59 -0500
CANADIAN MONGREL commented 4 mins ago
I still predict that the March 22 budget will have a heavy tax on cartridges and shells. It is the easiest way to social engineer a reluctant population, similar to cigarettes.

Then the Mohawk will have a second revenue stream to their tax free cigarettes.

And then you purchase ammo in the USA.
commented 2016-02-23 13:33:33 -0500
It’s a wonderful thing that the “devil is in the details” is surfaced like this.

The media party has made a living for the last 50 years generalizing and pumping librano policies and rebranding them as Canadian values.

Each day a media party asshole gets fired or laid, it off brings joy to my life.
commented 2016-02-23 13:30:53 -0500
Well, hide your weapons, guns or firearms or anything else you want to call them

Be sure to have at least two boxes of ammunition for each one

Someday the libs will be coming for them
commented 2016-02-23 13:29:07 -0500
I still predict that the March 22 budget will have a heavy tax on cartridges and shells. It is the easiest way to social engineer a reluctant population, similar to cigarettes.

Then the Mohawk will have a second revenue stream to their tax free cigarettes.
commented 2016-02-23 13:21:19 -0500
Hahahahaha, And this is how they will take away your rights to own “firearms”.
Changing the definition of words and playing word games is the only way they can accomplish such tyrranical laws. And they will, because by the time the masses figure out the smoke and mirrors, it will be too late.
commented 2016-02-23 13:01:06 -0500
Dear Media Party,
in the combat arms wing of our military (soldiers), if you refer to your rifle or sidearm as a “gun” you may face prison time under section 119, an act of prejudice against the good order and discipline of her majesty’s troops.
under the law, it is illegal to own a gun and really, do you see anyone driving around towing a 155mm howitzer behind their suv.
so the whole media party has the definition of a ‘gun’ wrong to begin with.
and guns were around before the media party so lets not change the definition to suit your needs lest you become Liberals!
commented 2016-02-23 12:48:04 -0500
Remember the Third GodFather Movie ? Where Michael’s Body Guard Assassin Rocco, makes an Appointment with the Italian Politician ; and assassinates him with the Pen on his desk ! I guess according to the Canadian Criminal Code that Pen Is a WEAPON !!! And in that case THE PEN WAS DEFINITELY MIGHTIER THAN THE SWORD !!!
commented 2016-02-23 12:40:36 -0500
a ‘gun’ is a howitzer or cannon fired from a fixed carriage.
I believe todd is talking about rifles, handguns and yo’ daddies scattergun.
ask any gunner.
commented 2016-02-23 12:14:02 -0500
“This is why I despise the term ‘weapon’ being used to described my, and all civilian guns.
It is deceitful at best, and a blatant lie at worst.”

Well yeah, the definition of weapon was developed by the Liberal Party, so what else would it be but a lie. A lie developed to further their social engineering