Bill C-42, Royal Assent and Coming Into Force
Another late story from TPF Online and a continuation from a previous entry!
Bill C-42
An Act to amend the Firearms Act and the Criminal Code and to make a related amendment and a consequential amendment to other Acts
AKA: The Common Sense Firearms Licensing Act or CSFL Act
Slow to start, but a mad dash to the finish….
The First Reading of this bill was introduced back on the 7th of October, 2014. And the bill itself generated much controversy even among the firearms community and we at TPF gave our opinion on the Bill way back then in October 2014, soon after it’s first reading in the House of Commons. Second reading was originally supposed to be done on October 22nd, 2014. However that morning Parliament hill was assaulted by a gunman armed with a hunting rifle and Bill C-42 sat in hiatus. That is until April 20th 2015, nearly 6 months after the first reading. What followed was a political whirlwind in terms of speed with which this bill made it’s way through the legal system.
House of Commons
- First Reading 2014-10-07
- Second Reading 2015-04-20
- Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security
Committee Reporting the Bill with an Amendment 2015-05-06 - Report Stage 2015-05-25
- Third Reading 2015-05-29
Senate
- First Reading 2015-06-02
- Second Reading 2015-06-04
- Referral to Committee 2015-06-04
- Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs
Committee Report Presented without Amendment 2015-06-15 - Third Reading 2015-06-16
Royal Assent 2015-06-18
WOW. Two months from 2nd reading in the HoC until receiving Royal Assent. That is faster than the speed of light in Political terms… Some portions of the act were to be effective immediately and others were to be enacted in the several months after the bill was passed.
IMMEDIATE PROVISIONS: (as of June 18, 2015)
- Mandatory classroom participation in firearms safety courses for first time applicants (aka no more test challenges for new people whom have never had a POL/PAL)
- Chief Firearms Officer’s authority is subject to regulations (of which there are no regulations at this time, so no allowed changes)
- Increasing penalties for convictions of domestic violence (firearms prohibitions)
- Provide the Governor in Council the ability to classify a firearm as non-restricted (Previously only able to classify as restricted and prohibited)
The first point of these is one of the most contentious as it is a technical increase in “gun control” legislation by removing a method of which to enable individuals to acquire a firearms license. This is wholly true, but from a familiarity standpoint, it also means that every single new firearms applicant will be familiarized with a common knowledge set regarding firearm ownership and utilization. From a numbers game, 95+% of all new licensees took the full Canadian Firearms Safety Course , aka CFSC (and restricted version, CRFSC) versus those that challenged the test. The numbers of those who challenged the test has been continuously dwindling over the last decade.
The CFSC supposedly includes information regarding the following topics (The CRFSC is focused towards restricted firearms):
- the evolution of firearms, major parts, types and actions;
- basic firearms safety practices;
- ammunition;
- operating firearm actions;
- safe handling and carry procedures;
- firing techniques and procedures;
- care of non-restricted firearms;
- responsibilities of the firearms owner/user; and,
- safe storage, display, transportation and handling of non-restricted firearms.
The second point is a good thing as it ensures that CFO’s cannot just make up stuff on the fly and force conditions on firearms owners regarding licensing and authorizations to transport.
Point three is a good thing in theory, but to be given a possible lifetime prohibition would hopefully be dependent on the severity of domestic abuse charges. No the author is not being soft on domestic abuse, but take this example; A yelling match regarding finances by a couple that is reported by neighbours and police arrive amid the yelling with no physical violence involved. Police Charge someone with domestic violence as yelling at another is a form of abuse/violence. In that scenario is a lifetime firearms prohibition warranted?
Allowing the government to reclassify firearms as non-restricted, and the fourth and final immediate provision enacted by C-42. Two words, Hot Damned! Since the introduction of C-68 back twenty years ago, the only direction available to government bodies was to be able to classify firearms to Restricted and/or Prohibited classification. This was used extensively back then to make sure that the scary black guns back then were not easily available to firearms owners. Twenty years later, the ability to classify to non-restricted is now an option. If only there was a couple firearms that they could start using this with….
Classified back from prohibited!
WHAT FOLLOWED! (as of July 31, 2015)
The next activity that occurred was the re-classification of the CZ858’s and Swiss Arms rifles from prohibited status to their original status. The FIRST time that any firearm has been reclassified to a “lesser” classification in over 20 years. The models that were targeted?
- Ceská Zbrojovka (CZ) Model CZ858 Tactical-2P rifle
- Ceská Zbrojovka (CZ) Model CZ858 Tactical-2V rifle
- Ceská Zbrojovka (CZ) Model CZ858 Tactical-4P rifle
- Ceská Zbrojovka (CZ) Model CZ858 Tactical-4V rifle
- SAN Swiss Arms Model Classic Green rifle
- SAN Swiss Arms Model Classic Green carbine
- SAN Swiss Arms Model Classic Green CQB rifle
- SAN Swiss Arms Model Black Special rifle
- SAN Swiss Arms Model Black Special carbine
- SAN Swiss Arms Model Black Special CQB rifle
- SAN Swiss Arms Model Black Special Target rifle
- SAN Swiss Arms Model Blue Star rifle
- SAN Swiss Arms Model Heavy Metal rifle
- SAN Swiss Arms Model Red Devil rifle
- SAN Swiss Arms Model Swiss Arms Edition rifle
These fifteen rifle models had been re-designated as converted automatics back in Spring of 2014, and affected roughly 12,500 firearms owned by Canadians to a retail value of over $13,000,000. These rifles were previously classified as non-restricted and restricted due to their barrel length according to the standard classification system enshrined in law. These rifles, on July 31, were reclassified back to their former statuses, yet they are still technically converted automatics. Huh? A WTF!? may spring to our reader’s mind. The FRT, Firearms Reference Table, currently lists the above firearms as converted automatics whose classification is set as non-restricted or restricted by an Order in Council. They are now Prohibited devices that have been government granted non-prohibited status. Not quite the same as being fully reclassified, but it is a start, and since that also means they can be used fully and wholly akin to over 2 years prior, it is a very good start!
Bill C-42. It is here and being implemented in steps…
The next part to the evolution and implementation of Bill C-42 will soon follow!
P.S. Images stolen from the internet as the crew of TPF does not own either of these fine rifles. Thank you Firearms Blog!
The Common Sense Firearms Licensing Act. More good than bad? Or the opposite?
You don’t even have to be a firearms owner to be even remotely interested in the laws regarding firearms ownership and usage in Canada, but it cannot hurt to be counted as one. There are roughly two million (2,000,000) adult citizens of Canada who have a firearm license of some sort. Most are likely the hunters and long distance shooters having a Possession and Acquisition License, aka PAL, for non-restricted firearms. Those who practice action shooting, whom are more tactical firearms enthusiasts and handgun owners, have a PAL for both restricted and non-restricted firearms, affectionately known as an RPAL. There are also PALs which are for firearms designated for one or more of the several prohibited classes that exist. Currently however there are Possession Only versions of the aforementioned licenses as well, and these are short formed to POL holders.
Now some of you may have heard about the introduction of the Common Sense Firearms Licensing Act. The new agencies were very tight lipped it seemed about the proposed legislation tabled by the current government as very little news made it into the mainstream media. Perhaps there was too much bad news for firearms owners as good news in the bill to make it unable to bash the CPC government with? The Minister of Public Safety, Mr. Steven Blaney, made the announcement on October 7th, 2014, in the House Of Commons. It has been given the Bill number of C-42 and has passed first reading.
On October 7th, Minister Blaney announced the CSFL Act
The bill in itself has many sections and covers a fair range of sections and we at TPF will go into the nitty, gritty summations for both good and bad for those who do not want to wade through legalese of a bill. TPF will discuss each of the points and rate them appropriately, but obviously it is the opinion of the author and please feel free to agree and, or, disagree; aka comment. Please recall that this is the first iteration and the bill itself may change during subsequent readings and from committee recommendations. Also note that the intent of the bill cannot be changed over it’s travels through the procedural system, otherwise the bill becomes null and void.
The following are the main points that are contained in the current iteration of Bill C-42, An Act to amend the Firearms Act and the Criminal Code and to make a related amendment and a consequential amendment to other Acts; whose short title is the Common Sense Firearms Licensing Act.
- Create a six-month grace period at the end of the five-year license period to stop people from immediately becoming criminalized for paperwork delays around license renewals;
- Streamline the licensing system by eliminating the Possession Only License (POL) and converting all existing POLs to Possession and Acquisition Licenses (PALs);
- Make classroom participation in firearms safety training mandatory for first-time license applicants;
- Amend the Criminal Code to strengthen the provisions relating to orders prohibiting the possession of firearms where a person is convicted of an offense involving domestic violence;
- End needless paperwork around Authorizations to Transport by making them a condition of a license for certain routine and lawful activities;
- Provide for the discretionary authority of Chief Firearms Officers to be subject to limit by regulation;
- Authorize firearms import information sharing when restricted and prohibited firearms are imported into Canada by businesses; and,
- Allow the Government to have the final say on classification decisions, following the receipt of independent expert advice.
Truthseeker Section:
Lets start with #1. Currently the instant your license expires, all you are in illegal possession of every single firearm you own. ALL OF THEM. This also means that for those with a prohibited class firearm license will instantly lose that status and not be able to renew them as one of the conditions is to have a continuous ownership status. Expired license means a break in that requirement. By including a 6 month grace period, it gives those forgetful individuals time to renew and not be caught by any sudden changes. This is a good thing. No real downsides to this. 3 of 5 stars
#2 is converting the existing POLs into PALs. Back in the original legislation which introduced the possession only aspect of firearms, only those who already had a firearm were able to get a POL. The idea is that for nearly 20 years, these POL holders have not had any sort of notable record of criminal activity or misuse of firearms. Plus it only makes sense to reduce the number of license types and cutting the license types in half is a good way to reduce bureaucratic exercises. There are nearly six hundred thousand (600,000) POL holders in the system. This is a huge added benefit to the firearms industry as it opens up an additional 40% more consumer market for firearms sales. That is a huge step forward. 5 of 5 stars
Mandatory safety training is the third point and is a contentious one. Removing the ability to challenge the Canadian Firearms Safety Course, aka CFSC, is not making it easier to own a firearm. For urban areas and nearby rural areas the ability to schedule and attend a CFSC is not a difficult task… And for extremely remote locations such as those found in the Territories, instructors are flown into those areas just as they do today. The problem is that you are now forced to take safety training which has never been a means to eliminate irresponsible and accidental misuse of a firearm. The biggest complaint would be that prospective individuals now need to pay more money and more time dedicated to firearms safety training. Where a CFSC challenge was merely $50 and roughly an hour of your time, the course is 8-12 hours and now also has to pay for books and instructor times which elevate the costs to $75 or more. More of an inconvenience than a negative, but still… 3 of 5 stars
Domestic violence is one of those nasty occurrences that many people to not care to mention. Point four introduces the option for a lifetime firearms ban for those who commit domestic violence on spouses, kin, parents and other household residents. On the surface this sounds like a good addition, but recall that these prohibition can occur to any individual charged with an indictable offense but has not been cleared of wrongdoing. An unconditional discharge will still net you a possible firearms/weapons prohibition order! So don’t be one of those idiots who would intentionally cause grief and damage to others, let alone to family and children. The issue in this case is the duration, as a lifetime sentence for incarceration may still allow the individual to leave prison on parole, which is never ending with a life sentence. It is obviously situational however, an example being if a drunken, stupid nineteen year old and his father have a fight; the teenager subsequently receives an assault charge and an unconditional pardon to it, is it reasonable to punish him for life with some form of restriction, be it a firearm or whatnot, forever? Either make it lifetime ban upon a conviction, or a sensible number that works with our current laws. 1 of 5 stars
Combining ATT’s for common purposes instead of having several individual requests on a recurring basis sounds like pretty common sense. With this portion of the bill, your long term ATT will now be good for border crossings, guns smiths, gun stores, and gun shows and all approved ranges in the license holder’s province or territory. They are also must issue instead of shall issue. That’s a pretty big change for the better. However it is tempered with some changes that have negative effects on some firearms owners. Some provinces already have multi-province long term Authorizations to Transport to various ranges, this bill in it’s current form would curtail the ability of those firearms owners to participate in events and competitions in neighboring regions. So far this is good in scope but limits others. The biggest hurdle is the fact that non-handgun prohibited firearms will NOT be issued any authorizations to transport to approved ranges. Despite CFOs not issuing a Special Authority to Possess, aka SAP, for the last decade; which means all prohibited rifles have been safe queens for that duration. Bill C-42 states clearly that prohibited rifles will remain safe queens. Great for restricted rifles and hand-gunners in general, but imposes definite territorial limitations and misses two important issues. For transport to and from a post office, plus how it deals with people who travel across a provincial boundary to shoot at their primary range. 4 of 5 stars
Point six is simple yet confusing in nature. Provide for the discretionary authority of Chief Firearms Officers to be subject to limit by regulation. What this means is that the Chief Firearms Officer may only impose any additional requirements on a license/ATT/etc… that are specifically allowed in legislation. This means that the CFO cannot attach a condition to an ATT or license such as requiring an invitation in order to attend an compete in matches hosted by another club. Anything that restricts arbitrarily imposed conditions is a good thing. Again however, many provinces have decent CFO. 4 of 5 stars
The data sharing mentioned in the seventh point is a very interesting one and has zero effect on the average firearms owner. The current problem is that the RCMP and the Canadian Border Services Agency (CBSA) are not authorize to communicate with other for the purposes of data sharing. When CBSA gets firearms imports it needs to ask the RCMP for clarification and data through convoluted channels and the formatting of the information is less than “easily manipulated” to perform customs work. This section is to create a frame work of communication that is easily accessed by customs to expedite information required to process restricted and prohibited firearms. There has been mention of a new undefined form being utilized, which has not been created, nor determined if it replaces the existing customs form. This proposal is both good and bad as anything that helps get firearms through customs faster is good, but additional paperwork is not fun for businesses. 3 of 5 stars
The final point, number 8, is one that is the least explained and the most feared for some reason. If you read all the changes in the proposed bill, the definition of non-restricted is defined and introduced throughout the bill and also creates the ability of a government to reclassify restricted and prohibited firearms into non-restricted classifications. That is HUGE! This becomes the means with which firearms like the newly prohibited Swiss Arms series of rifles can be classified as non-restricted. This is the first step towards reclassifying firearms which should be non-restricted by the current definition of firearms as set out in law. This is a huge plus. 5 of 5 stars
Total rating out of 40 possible points? 28 out of 40. It is a passing grade but only a C overall regarding the proposed changes contained in the Bill.
“Is the CSFL Act a good bill in it’s own? That is for you to decide!
Naysayer section:
There are still issues with the CSFL act in that it does not address the multitude of other issues that are significantly deeper and more fundamentally wrong with the firearms act and it’s associated regulations. These are the more commonly stated naysayer lines that are floating around the online Canadian firearm forums CGN and GoC being the two largest.
- It is still a criminal offense to possess a firearm, in that firearms are illegal to possess UNLESS you have a POL or PAL of the appropriate class.
- ATTs should be worded to cover any and all legal purposes.
- Licenses should be lifetime in duration.
- Classifications should not exist!
- CFOs should be abolished entirely or made to assist shooters/businesses
- It is small little tweaks instead of wholesale change
Unfortunately as the old quote states,
“It’s easier to take than to give.”
Expecting politics to not be about compromise is pretty foolhardy. If there was no such thing as compromise, C-68 would have ended all civilian gun ownership. An additional tidbit of information is as follows.
As part of Mr. Peter VanLoan’s, the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, statement recently:
“Starting on Wednesday, October 22, the House will consider Bill C-42, the common sense firearms licensing act at second reading. This bill would cut red tape for law-abiding firearms owners and provide safe and simple firearms policies. I would note that this legislation has already been endorsed by a number of key groups, such as the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters, the Saskatchewan Wildlife Federation, the New Brunswick Wildlife Federation, the Canadian Shooting Sports Association, la Fédération québécoise des chasseurs et pêcheurs, the Manitoba Wildlife Federation, and the Nova Scotia Federation of Anglers and Hunters, among others.”
That is extremely fast paced for a Bill in the House of Commons. Remember that this write-up is about the legislation as written itself, not as a grand overall status of the Firearms Act and the infamous Bill C-68/etc…
As this is a political review of a newly introduced bill, it is hard to give definite evaluations as the bill’s content may indeed change. We can hope that some wording and content will be improved in the future…So, instead of the usual TPF options, we ask if you the reader believe the contents of the bill are beneficial, superficial, or detrimental to firearms owners in the context of the bill.
Banning guns – Abuse and idiocy….
For anyone in Canada who is remotely interested in both firearms and politics, the actions of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police have not been stellar, and their image of fair, and honourable representatives of Canada’s national law enforcement has been drawn and quartered.
One needs only look at recent firearm seizures during the 2013 High River crisis to know that legal firearms owners were targeted specifically by the RCMP upper echelons. Seizing firearms in the name of public safety, by breaking down the locked doors of homes of the victims of this natural disaster. Tracks of mud from the front door, straight to closets, all under the guise of looking for survivors. Videos with audio which mentions firearms at the location, no rescue equipment present in the boats going to addresses. Gun owners are targets, and unfortunately it appears that the RCMP has declared open season on us all.
http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/video/3272438235001
The Swiss PE90, called the Rolex of rifles
So for those who are not caring about politics in general, well have a timeline and breakdown for you regarding the Two primary re-classifications which impact legal firearms owners across Canada.
- 13 March 2013 – A Swiss Arms PE90, “Classic Green” was submitted to the RCMP by a firearms dealer under the reasoning that it was manufactured as a converted automatic firearm which is prohibited. Other “Classic green” rifles were sent to show the differences.
- 24 May 2013 – RCMP “discover” that some rifles have questionable characteristics
- 16 July 2013 – A 38 page report originating from Swiss Arms itself regarding the design lineage and characteristics of the firearms are submitted to the RCMP
- 26 February 2014 – RCMP reclassify ALL PE/90’s as a variant of the prohibited (SIG 550). Firearms which have been sold in Canada for nearly 13 years, with an average price of roughly $4000, and were all non-restricted. Total affected numbers? 1,800-2,000 firearms. Did we mention NO compensation was offered to owners of this firearm.
- 27 February 2014 -The Firearms Reference Table (FRT) has all PE-90 classifications shifted to Prohibited status. Firearms owners across Canada complain loudly. Emotional outrage is fanned and given no direction.
- 28 February 2014 – (first thing in the morning) Minister of Public Safety, Mr. Steven Blaney, released this statement
“I am upset by this unacceptable decision regarding Swiss Arms rifles. This decision was made by bureaucrats, not elected officials. I have therefore ordered an urgent review of this unfortunate situation. All options are on the table to ensure that no firearms owner who acted in good faith suffers any consequence as a result of this situation. All options are being explored on an urgent basis. We will continue to take steps to make our country one of the safest places in the world, without penalizing honest citizens.”
- 28 February 2014 – (afternoon) The RCMP reclassify another firearm, the CZ-858, imported after 2006 as converted automatic, aka another rifle switched to prohibited class. Because these rifles were much cheaper to purchase and ammunition was also plentiful and relatively inexpensive, the decision effect roughly 10,000-12,000 rifles currently in the hands of Canadian firearms owners.
- 03 March 2014 – Mr. Steven Blaney, initiates a 5 year amnesty from prosecution for owners of firearms that were reclassified. That is a good beginning, except that NO prohibited rifles owned by an individual has been allowed to be taken to a range to be actually used since mid-2005 (That is another story…).
So what we currently have is the following situation.
- Somewhere around 10,000-13,000 individuals who are instant criminals due to the RCMP’s inept classification abilities. They, the RCMP, either are wrong now, or were inept a decade ago, both of which are unacceptable.
- An amnesty is a general pardon for offenses, especially political offenses, against a government, often granted before any trial or conviction. All these individuals effected by these re-classifications had followed all the required laws and regulations regarding firearms ownership and purchased these firearms legally! Literally they were legal firearms owners at 11:59 pm, and at 12:00 am (midnight) there were criminals. The amnesty prevents being charged with possession of illegal property for 5 years.
- These guns are now no longer usable for the most part. They can no longer be taken to the range or to hunt with as they were on February 25th 2014. They cannot be transferred legally. They are safe queens.
This is wholly unacceptable. Now some of TPF’s readers may be wondering what they can do. It is very simple and can be done in many ways.
- Do NOT Email. Email is worth the paper it is printed on, meaning nothing. It is like arguing on the internet, it may feel good, but does absolutely nothing.
- Call/meet with your local MP regardless of political affiliation (If you do not know who that is, click HERE)
- Write a letter/fax to Prime Minister Stephen Harper, and Minister of Public Safety Steven Blaney and your MP. Thank them for showing some initiative at protecting responsible Canadian firearms owners regarding the reclassification and the abuse at the hands of the RCMP. The amnesty is a good first step, but more must be done to correct these attacks against those whose only crime is following all the rules set forth by the Firearms Act. Tell them that compensation is NOT an acceptable solution.
- Join the CSSA or another pro-firearm organization and bolster their numbers to work for change.
What to say or ask for is simple? Always use a multiple-step approach. Address the issue, praise the efforts, note that more must be done. Do not threaten. When you threaten something you force people to react defensively. Now people may say they need to force politicians to react defensively, but the secret is continuous pressure which guides the opinion/attitude of politicians. Demanding government action or issuing ultimatums without being civil has two major flaws. It usually comes over as being equivalent to a child having a temper tantrum, and secondly, if you don’t have the ability to significantly follow through with your ultimatum, it is worthless.
Now the authors of TPF do look at Facebook pages and web-forums and sees that many firearms owners are irate at the situation and are demanding the repeal of C-17/C-68. They proudly display “No Compromise” and state that anyone who is not suggesting the same level of commitment is compromising or acting like a sheep. This author has a question to those who continually spout “No Compromise” in this endeavour. We know that the collective efforts of firearms enthusiasts are impacting the current government to do something beneficial for firearms owners. So lets say they actually change only some portions of the act.
We’ll use Rob Anders’ petition as a basis and say they remove classifications & mag capacities, decriminalize (removing S91 & S92 from the CC), eliminate CFO’s (S 58.1), and remove safe storage and transport sections as well. However licensing will still exist….
It that a win? According to the basic statement of “No Compromise”, it is not. So will those people who spout “No Compromise” right now, later say it was due to their efforts that changes were completed, despite not repealing the entirety of C-17/C-68? Time will tell.
Until we find out the outcome, which could be weeks or even months down the road; Tactical, Practical, and Fantastical urges you to continue to write/call/meet your MP’s and do so on an ongoing basis (reasonable, not daily) and continue to press for change which benefits the firearms owners of Canada.
Tactical, Practical & Fantastical 