May 21, 2015

Murder's already illegal, but Hamilton mayor wants ban on guns

Andrew LawtonRebel Blogger

The mayor of Hamilton, Ontario is looking for a new law, but he’s due for a reality check.

Responding to a shooting that took place in downtown Hamilton over the weekend, Mayor Fred Eisenberger said in a city council meeting Wednesday that the city needed a ban on firearms altogether.

“I think we should really try to ban guns in this city,” he said. “I don’t know if we can do it…I haven’t fleshed out the constitutional issues.”

This came ahead of a formal request by the mayor to city staff, urging them to explore what could be done to limit gun ownership, use and procurement.

What Eisenberger forgets, however, is that he’s already got a few bans already available to him - and more importantly to police.

As a law-abiding firearms owner, I’d venture a guess to say that I’m more familiar with Canada’s gun laws than Eisenberger is.

To his credit, he did admit not knowing about the constitutionality of what he wants to do.

(What a comforting notion that lawmakers take the pass-laws-now-and-hope-they’re-constitutional-later approach.)

The aforementioned Hamilton gun-fight featured two men shooting at each other with handguns - firearms that are either restricted or prohibited under Canada’s firearms laws.

Let’s recap a few “bans” already in effect, shall we?

Canada essentially has a ban on carrying a loaded gun.

Canada has a ban on transporting a restricted or prohibited firearm not in a locked case.

Canada has a ban on transporting a restricted weapon without an authorization to transport (ATT), which allows gun owners to move their gun from home to a gun range or gun smith and back, with no route deviation.

Canada has a ban on pointing guns at people.

Canada has a ban on shooting people (and trying to kill/hurt/scare them too.)

So, by all means, let’s add a couple more to the mix. That will do the trick.

Let’s ban gunfights in the afternoon. Then we’ll ban them in the morning and evening. Those gangsters won’t know what hit them!

The fact is that bans - and any excessive restrictions, for that matter - do not work. In fact, some cities have shown them to have an inverse effect.

Notably, Chicago’s handgun ban has not managed to do much to eclipse Chicago’s notable place near the top of the murder rate list for North America.

A 30-year study published last year in the Applied Economics Letters journal saw stricter gun control actually results in more gun-related murders.

For that matter, there is also the simple question of how Eisenberg, Hamilton’s pansy-in-chief, proposes to enforce a city-wide ban.

Last time I drove through Hamilton (I’m not sure anyone actually stops there,) there was no border checkpoint, nor was I asked if I had anything to declare. So what’s to stop those from the enlightened nearby towns of Brantford and Burlington from bringing their guns - legal or otherwise - into the hallowed city limits of the Hammer?

Nothing but a strongly worded motion, I suspect.


Follow The Megaphone on Twitter.

JOIN for more news and commentary you won’t find anywhere else.

You must be logged in to comment. Click here to log in.
commented 2015-05-23 00:03:35 -0400
“Yeah, let’s ban guns altogether! That’ll keep the criminals from getting their hands on them…!”

Gotta love political “logic”…
commented 2015-05-22 18:13:20 -0400
He’d have better luck banning air.
commented 2015-05-22 00:46:39 -0400
Must be one of Wynn’s relatives!! Let’s get the geologists looking for a fault line on the Ontario/Manitoba border so that we can pray for an earthquake to cut this bunch of wack jobs loose.
commented 2015-05-21 19:37:42 -0400
Ah! Sounds like another degenerate has bee compromised, I guess we should crowd fund a payoff system to get folks that know dirt on these folks would come out of the shadows!
commented 2015-05-21 16:13:21 -0400
I guess you don’t remember, Deborah, that McGuinty was taken to court by the progressive conservatives after his FIRST TAX INCREASE and it was ruled at that time that politicians DO NOT HAVE TO BE ACCOUNTABLE FOR ANYTHING THEY SAY IN A POLITICAL RACE. This was after McGuinty signed, on television, a promise not to raise taxes. Then he was elected and raised the health tax (woops, premium). The public sector union took him to court because he expected them to pay the premium. The court said the EMPLOYER (us) must pay for the public servant as under their union contract, they did not have to pay.
commented 2015-05-21 09:55:09 -0400
Why don’t we put a ban on stupid politicians! There needs to be more focus on candidates running in any election, municipal, provincial and federal. They should have to pass some psych tests, to determine if they actually have a working brain, and some common sense, and to see where their loyalties really lie. Since lying to the electorate is so common place these days, let’s take some action to determine who we are really electing. I know some can pass lie detector tests, in spite of their guilt, but I think that is a small number, compared to those self-centered peons that think they can be leaders. I wonder how many would volunteer to being questioned this way? That would soon separate the losers from the real contenders, in my opinion.