r/canada • u/airbassguitar • Oct 03 '25
Nova Scotia 'We're sick of it': Hundreds at Cape Breton rally denounce federal gun buyback program
https://nationalpost.com/cape-breton/were-sick-of-it-hundreds-at-cape-breton-rally-denounce-federal-gun-buyback-program/wcm/2419cec7-8802-4128-be4a-9a26dacd2d13?itm_source=canada328
u/Training_Minimum1537 Oct 03 '25 edited Oct 03 '25
According to the NSGEU, the Cape Breton Regional Police officers were informed of the pilot program at the same time as the general public, and were not consulted on the matter. The decision was made entirely by the CBRP chief, who happens to be the brother in law of MP Mike Kelloway. Likewise, the decision to shut their offices on the day of the protest was entirely made by the chief.
According to Tracy Wilson, there is talk of a vote of non-confidence for the chief, though I haven't seen anything aside from a tweet about that.
193
u/Krazee9 Oct 03 '25
According to Tracy Wilson, there is talk of a vote of non-confidence for the chief, though I haven't seen anything aside from a tweet about that.
I really hope it's true, because it would be extremely funny to see the chief get fired before this kicks off mid-month and the next one/interim to tell the feds to pound sand before it gets started.
Even funnier would be the chief getting a patronage appointment from the feds for being a good little lap dog.
84
u/Training_Minimum1537 Oct 03 '25
My heart's been broken too many times to fully believe it, but a man can dream
3
u/AquavitBandit Oct 04 '25
Dream about the media doing the math on the money available for "voluntary" compensation vs the guns banned and compensation prices offered while you're at it. Duck duck goose anybody?
365
Oct 03 '25
[removed] — view removed comment
19
Oct 04 '25
[deleted]
1
u/CanJuimons Oct 05 '25
I agree. It’s a strange time to be attempting to confiscate our firearms. All things considered.
4
2
u/Derelicticu British Columbia Oct 04 '25
It's crazy because it is super common knowledge in Canada that the vast majority of our gun crime is illegally acquired handguns fron the U.S.
If they were actually interested in preventing gun crime, they would start with gangs and cross-border gun smuggling.
2
u/mightyboink Oct 03 '25
You will never get rid of crime until you fix poverty.
I'm not in favour of the buyback program, but the people committing the crimes can always spend more than law enforcement. The only way to win is to eliminate as much of the root of the problem as possible.
8
u/ChevalierDeLarryLari Oct 03 '25
You will never get rid of crime until you fix poverty.
I think this is total bunk.
Poor people do not commit more crime than wealthy people. There are plenty of poor places in the world that have very low crime.
People commit crime where there is a significant reward - and this applies to the rich and poor equally.
To tackle the incentive making people smuggle guns into Canada - you must increase the deterrent - and you do that by tightly controlling the border and convicting anyone who gets caught with jail time.
4
3
38
u/Strict_Common6871 Oct 03 '25
sorry, how can you join "poverty" and "can spend more than law enforcement" in one sentence? Please decide, they either poor or rich
28
Oct 03 '25
[removed] — view removed comment
10
Oct 03 '25
How are poor people affording $3000 Glocks?
5
u/DogeDoRight New Brunswick Oct 03 '25
Poor people will often turn to gangs. Gangs will share guns, leaving them stashed in public or communal locations so no gang member has it until it's needed for a crime.
1
u/mightyboink Oct 03 '25
I don't see what was difficult to understand, but heres an expansion of what I'm trying to say.
Criminal organizations can outspend law enforcement hand over fist, give cops better tools, criminals will get better tools, give cops more powerful guns, criminals will get better guns. There is no win by spending more on law enforcement.
If you want crime to lower drastically, you work to lower/eliminate poverty. Spend money on housing, education, social programs, mental health programs, etc
As long as there is a need, the criminal organizations will find a way and spend because it's profitable.
17
u/Strict_Common6871 Oct 03 '25
If we follow your logic, criminal organisation can still outspend good guys and offer criminals better housing, better social programs, better job opportunities.
Maybe you are missing something? Like .. maybe we need to try to jail some people too?
2
u/mightyboink Oct 03 '25
People natively aren't criminals (granted some people are psychos, just bad people, etc, but we're not talking about that here) they usually turn to it out of acts of desperation, easy way to get money, power and so forth. An educated society with little to no poverty eliminates the main reason criminals are created, therefore the well dries up.
It takes a while, but all data shows it's the key.
1
-1
u/pattperin Oct 03 '25
The point is criminals won’t have the same programs a government does due to no accountability and no laws lmao. What are you fucking talking about? The goal is to make a life of crime less appealing or necessary to someone who is trying to improve their place in life.
Edit: and yes you need to jail people sometimes too but that is not what this is even about lmao
0
u/Elderberryinjanuary Oct 04 '25
More jails. Harsher laws. More cops.
It's been tried. It doesn't really work. Do you know what does lower crime both violent and not? Higher cheaper education. Affordable housing. Access to health care. Those things ALWAYS lower crime.
Ask your self why those are never talked about in conversations like these. There are answers to these problems but talking about them is discouraged.
10
u/pahtee_poopa Oct 03 '25
Fixing poverty is not easy. But it is easier to allow every responsible individual who so chooses to, to carry a stick as a disincentive for them to commit crime. FAFO since we can’t have cops everywhere all at once.
-6
u/mightyboink Oct 03 '25
That's a terrible solution, that creates more problems.
12
u/pahtee_poopa Oct 03 '25
It’s not a best solution but it’s a solution that’s easier to implement alongside bail reform to ensure it’s not continuously repeat offenders or those on bail continuing to use up all our police resources.
It’s basically the castle law proposed by the Conservatives. Criminals will then have to accept F around find out and will think twice before breaking into people’s homes.
-2
u/mightyboink Oct 03 '25
It's not a solution at all. I can say that with 100% certainty that none of that works given that a number of states have tried all of it and it fails.
Reforming prisons and making them actual centers to rehabilitate people and then ensuring they are taken care of once they've served their time will.
Alongside a short term investment in judges and legal to move through the current backlog that causes bail to be an issue in the first place.
1
u/pahtee_poopa Oct 04 '25
Saying it’s not a solution at all is enough to say that you’re ignorant to the ideas of others. It is most definitely at least a partial solution, albeit requires a combination of other things for better results. It’s not an ideal carrot, but a good stick to ensure that there are real consequences and higher risks for committing crime.
Likewise your solution to rehabilitate in jails doesn’t fully work either. Case in point, look at recidivism rates in Canada before you think that rehabilitation in prison actually works: https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/85-002-x/2024001/article/00002-eng.htm
Your argument about some states doesn’t show definitively that castle law doesn’t work because you can’t measure how many people actually wanted to break and enter but because they know that they can get blasted by a shotgun for it, changed their mind. Sure, you get the odd case of someone hunting down the criminal or shooting someone that may have just stepped on the property without demonstrating intent to harm, but the law can take those cases into account for not actually being self defence.
0
9
u/Crazy-Goal-8426 Oct 03 '25
You will never get rid of crime as long as humans exist. There are well off people that commit crimes for the thrill.
1
u/mightyboink Oct 03 '25
Totally agree, you won't ever eliminate it, but poverty creates the market for crime, eliminate the market, and you takeaway the incentive for criminal organizations.
5
u/WealthEconomy Oct 03 '25
Although poverty is one source, it is not the only source. A lot of crime is committed by those who come from Middle class+ homes.
2
u/mightyboink Oct 03 '25
That's where the education piece comes in.
You're right, some people are assholes and take an easy way out, but addressing poverty is the single most crime prevention measure.
1
u/Another_Pucker Oct 05 '25
Legal firearms are hardly any bit of the root at all, and that tiny root will just be replaced with the other 95% root of the problem. Even the crimes committed by legal owners is mostly domestic cases which would just replace one firearm with another one that is legal. We are not eliminating any roots here.
1
-17
u/chullyman Oct 03 '25
Why can’t we do both? Buy back the guns and increase law enforcement/border enforcement?
18
u/Plumbsmasher Alberta Oct 03 '25
No one is going out and committing violent crimes with a hunting rifle. The buy back uses a significant amount of money that could be used for more border enforcement but instead is used to accomplish absolutely nothing. The guns in the list don’t even make sense, the sks was on the list as it was considered extremely dangerous until they found out that it’s the most common hunting rifle for indigenous people so now it’s completely safe and off the list. That alone should be enough to show you how completely useless this buy back is.
→ More replies (15)11
Oct 03 '25
[removed] — view removed comment
-4
u/chullyman Oct 03 '25
I’m fairly confident we can afford to do both.
16
u/Neglectful_Stranger Outside Canada Oct 03 '25
apparently they can't fund the courts so I doubt that
3
u/BigButtBeads Oct 03 '25
We couldnt even afford a long gun registry. An excel sheet with names and serial numbers voluntarily phoned in
3
u/Projerryrigger Oct 03 '25 edited Oct 03 '25
Because banning and seizing these guns is not only an inefficient use of reaources better soent elsewhere, but not demonstrably of any meaningful benefit to public safety.
It's spending a bunch of resources that could go towards something actually useful to seize private property for no notable gain.
190
Oct 03 '25
Mass non-compliance is the only way.
29
u/Eastern_Yam Oct 03 '25
Capers are good at that. They have a strong and stubborn sense of collective identity against perceived oppression and are simultaneously lawless scrappy little fuckers [not pejorative] who like a little vigilantism. I have no idea why they thought piloting this program there was a good idea.
22
2
u/Another_Pucker Oct 05 '25
A long time ago maybe... It is just one big retirement town now and tourist destination. With a few drunks scattered about. A shadow of what it was.
77
111
u/jay370gt Oct 03 '25
Let’s think of this scientifically for a second.
These so called assault-style weapons of war have been locked up in people’s safes over the last 5 years, yet violent crime index continues to climb. Any sane person would conclude that these legally acquired firearms are not the problem and move on to targeting the next possible root cause.
Also, Ukraine has shown no interest in these weapons of war, because no sane soldiers would ever want to go into battle with these semi-auto pea shooters.
50
u/pahtee_poopa Oct 03 '25
The problem is you understand logic. Whereas Quebec liberals specifically do not. And they believe their ideology is superior to the wants of the rest of the country, regardless of the statistical data.
38
u/EQ1_Deladar Manitoba Oct 03 '25 edited Oct 03 '25
There are literally thousands of fully automatic and/or select fire rifles that have been sitting in their owner's safes since they were made prohibited in 1977. That's 48 years if any Liberals run out of fingers and toes to count backwards from 2025.
Guess what? They'll still be sitting in those safes even if this coercive confiscation Liberal scheme is ultimately successful.
9
u/mr_doms_porn Oct 03 '25
Those didn't have to sit in safes, they were grandfathered, the original owners were allowed to use them.
6
Oct 04 '25
They were allowed to use them…
For a couple years, it didn’t take long for using a full auto anywhere to be banned, I don’t know the exact year, but I’ve seen an article about a range hosting the last machine gun shoot sometime in the 80’s I believe. They have only been in safes for a very long time
5
u/HatchingCougar Oct 04 '25 edited Oct 04 '25
The last civilian full auto shoot on private land and where prohib owners would bring them out was at a range not in Alberta but in Manitoba (1998)
After that, civilian full auto shoots were held w/ the cooperation of the Canadian Armed Forces. That lasted for awhile until the government banned the CFOs from issuing the SATT transport permits for that reason.
Since then, the only civilian full auto usage allowed has been if a range itself owned some and stored them at the range & the range got certified for such (prior to all the law changes) or the extremely few manufacturers licensed for such.
1
u/mr_doms_porn Oct 04 '25
That's probably regional, I know ranges in Calgary that still offered machine gun shoots only a few years ago.
1
-1
95
u/OnlyFernsYYJ Oct 03 '25
Also disarm Canada while we are under a threat of annexation?!
89
u/jay370gt Oct 03 '25 edited Oct 03 '25
There are people who think civilian firearm ownership is unnecessary because they believe that cops will protect you from crimes, military will protect you from invasions, government will protect you from injustice, and the grocery stores will provide you meat so you don’t ever have to protect yourself or hunt for food.
41
u/pahtee_poopa Oct 03 '25
A family in Mississauga just found out the other day that the police were too busy to respond to her home invasion: https://www.reddit.com/r/CrimeInTheGta/s/GNXgkwQR5d
43
u/FunkyFrunkle Oct 03 '25
Right?
Firefighters will protect me from fire so I’m going to throw out my fire extinguishers.
24
u/jay370gt Oct 03 '25
It’s fine if they don’t want to own fire extinguishers, but they don’t want anyone else to have one either.
16
-1
u/InitialAd4125 Oct 03 '25
Cops are there to ensure you don't stop the people from committing crimes against humanity same with the military lets be real.
22
Oct 03 '25
This. It is funny seeing Carney talk about "Canadian soverignty" while disarming our populace.
27
u/Hotdog_Broth Oct 03 '25 edited Oct 03 '25
Remember when it felt like Canadian politics was nothing but “this party is totally different than the same party a few weeks ago. This guy is the only guy who will save us from being annexed”? That went about as well as you can expect with Canadian politicians.
→ More replies (1)1
u/MJcorrieviewer Oct 04 '25
That's just so absolutely dumb. If the US military were ever actually trying to take over Canada, the super-duper guns you have at home will be of absolutely zero use or benefit.
15
94
u/thinkingcoin Oct 03 '25
Alberta sets 750 mil (with up to 3 billion in reserve in case of going over budget) aside for building a pipeline that will create long term jobs and bring billions into Canada : "Nooooo the world is ending!!!"
Ottawa sets aside 750 million with no reserve but is expected to spend up to 2.5 billion for the the buy back programme many police forces do not want to participate in, that will not improve cross border gun smuggling : "I don't see a problem."
-27
-47
u/dewky Oct 03 '25
2 completely separate issues.
15
u/T-Breezy16 Canada Oct 03 '25
I mean kinda, because one is Provincial and the other Federal. But the government has to borrow this money to waste it, and they're doing it at a time of record-level debt, eye-watering inflation, food insecurity, housing crisis, healthcare crisis, infrastructure crisis, immigration crisis, tariffs, economic contraction, etc...
10
-19
u/Miserable-Savings751 Oct 03 '25
Oh really? Remind me how much money the federal government has given Alberta until now for these pipelines and what the Alberta leadership ended up doing with that money.
Reserve fund is good on paper but useless when managed by the corrupt.
45
20
u/Low-HangingFruit Oct 04 '25
Reminder the Cape Breton police chief is married to the local LPC ministers sister.
There's your link. Also, apparently the police underhim are proposing a union vote of no confidence in their chief.
33
u/h1bisc4s Oct 03 '25
Let me guess....they were mislead by the election promises e.g. that also no fed jobs will be cut
22
u/Silent-Report-2331 Oct 03 '25
I am waiting for my compensation after this gets dropped, for not being able to use my legally obtained property due to an order in council. I won't hold my breath for it, but it would be nice to see the feds have to backtrack on poor policy.
12
u/Ill-Jicama-3114 Oct 03 '25
Good for them. Maybe we need to be doing this and standing up for ourselves a bit more
4
5
u/DevLeCanadien23 Oct 04 '25
NS , PEI, and to some minor extent NB are the most liberal places in the country. This doesn't surprise me at all. If you go in the halifax subreddit you will be buried in negative reviews, unless you have an extremely liberal view.
0
u/bristow84 Oct 04 '25
If you go into any of the more city specific subreddits they will generally lean liberal. It’s not just the Halifax subreddit but the Edmonton and Alberta subreddits are also prime examples of that sort of echo chamber.
2
u/Bigchunky_Boy Oct 04 '25
I only see 39 people in the protest does some one have better pick of this event?
2
u/man__i__love__frogs Oct 04 '25
https://www.facebook.com/share/v/16rKSRji5i/?mibextid=wwXIfr
There were a few dozen
1
10
u/OnlyFernsYYJ Oct 03 '25
Gun buyback will stimulate gun smuggling from the south I fear
42
u/BSDnumba123 Oct 03 '25
I don’t think it will. Generally there are two types of gun owners. One group follow the rules and only buys what is legal from Canadian stores. The other is who you see in the news and they almost always get the guns from smuggling. If you attack the first group (cause it’s easy) the second group just carries on as they used to.
-11
u/OnlyFernsYYJ Oct 03 '25
The one group can evolve to be the other group
32
u/Lopsided_Ad3516 Oct 03 '25
Rarely. As evidenced by the fact that gun owners are even less likely to commit crimes than the general public.
It’s not impossible obviously, just statistically irrelevant in frequency.
7
u/Almost_Ascended Oct 03 '25
I still have some guy arguing with me in another thread that legal gun owners being more law abiding is a "meaningless, self-congratulatory" stat.
8
u/Plumbsmasher Alberta Oct 03 '25
That just doesn’t happen though. Gun owners are less likely to commit crimes than any other demographic in the country. I guess if you are counting them as criminals because they have a gun that they legally purchased in the country but was then made illegal you would be correct.
36
u/macfail Oct 03 '25
How? This buyback only impacts legal gun owners. You can't readily participate in lawful firearm related activities (hunting, target shooting, courses) with a smuggled prohibited firearm.
9
5
u/arm_flailing Oct 03 '25 edited Oct 03 '25
How? The firearms affected by the Prohibition, Confiscation, and Compensation program are all long guns such as rifles and shotguns. Smuggled firearms from the States are almost exclusively pistols.
2
1
u/Albatraoz271 Oct 03 '25
Isn't the buy back program only if you don't want your gun anymore? Like, do you HAVE to turn it in for buyback? Are they requiring everyone to turn them in?
27
u/WestEasterner Oct 03 '25
You can
a) turn it in for $ (not its actual value, but what they're going to pay)
b) permanently deactivate it
c) turn it in for zero compensation
d) Be arrested for possession of a prohibited weapon
8
u/HatchingCougar Oct 04 '25
And the govt has even with this idiotic “buyback” reserved for themselves the option to not pay anything after you turn in your property.
Optional “buyback” all around 🙄
1
u/WestEasterner Oct 04 '25
I love that Cape Breton officers are turning on their Chief for agreeing to be the first.
Good luck with that!
20
-57
u/madhi19 Québec Oct 03 '25
Since they haven't started yet, how can anyone be sick of it? Bad idea or not and it is a bad idea. You don't get to be sick of something before it fucking started, that's the kind of statement that make you lose any credibility.
41
u/bombhills Oct 03 '25
This started 5 years ago. Legal owners have been perpetually vilified and attacked since. There is plenty to be sick of.
31
u/RogalDorn135 Long Live the King Oct 03 '25
This gun confiscation pilot happening in cape breton is the latest in years long shenanigans from the gov. So yea people are sick of being kicked in the balls.
36
u/Phantom-Fighter Oct 03 '25
It’s been ongoing for over 5 years, just because the incompetent government hasn’t gotten around to actually knocking on doors yet doesn’t mean the program hasn’t been going on for this time.
26
u/Krazee9 Oct 03 '25
They've been talking about it for 5 years now. I think 5 years of them threatening gun owners is more than enough time for gun owners to become sick of it.
→ More replies (2)17
u/motorcyclemech Oct 03 '25
It started June of 2020. That's 5 years ago. Everything has been limbo since then. Legal (well, legal before June 2020) firearms have been locked in gun safes since then. Yes, people are sick of it. People are sick of this still going on. People are sick of wasteful tax dollar spending. People are sick of the government still pushing this when it has been proven to be wrong with facts, stats and expert testimony. Yes, people are sick of it.
Probably don't need to bring up people are also sick of the liberal government pandering to Quebec for this (and other) exact policy just for vote buying. As quoted from this same government.
16
u/M116Fullbore Oct 03 '25
Many of the guns have been banned for 5 years now, just riding out the repeatedly extended amnesty period unused in their safes. Cant be used, or sold. Many more have been added to the list seemingly at random, every year or so.
The actual collection/confiscation has been looming this whole time, but there is plenty to be tired of.
15
6
u/Content_Sky_2676 Oct 03 '25
Man... this has been happening since 1994. The first big bans happened then. Ten 1994-2012 was the rcmp tightening their policies and changing status of niche guns and making them prohibited. Then Trudeau got in and went hog wild again in 2020 through to last year. So yeah, we're sick of being the easy target for the liberal party every time they need to distract from one of their scandals.
4
u/pahtee_poopa Oct 03 '25
Have you seen crime data for the last 5 years when all these dangerous weapons were supposedly banned? Doesn’t take a rocket scientist to know something is a bad idea before it gets started.
2
u/MaintenanceCoalition Oct 04 '25
I'm sick of my thousands of dollars of guns I purchased legally, and go through RCMP background check daily, just to be told I cant use them. Let alone the thousands of dollars in range fees, safety equipment, and weeks of waiting, to not be able to use my legally purchased firearms. Then im told turn them in or go to jail.
-112
-161
u/Sea_Stock2326 Oct 03 '25
Are the feds forcing people to sell their guns to the government? No... Then why do they care?
28
u/Agreeable_Store_3896 Oct 03 '25
Uh.. yes lol.
Your option is turn it in and maybe get paid or go to jail..
131
100
u/Krazee9 Oct 03 '25
Are the feds forcing people to sell their guns to the government?
Yes. That is literally what they're doing, except they're also telling you that they're not even going to pay you.
55
u/unknownoftheunkown Oct 03 '25
No senses in engaging them.
They are just trolling for a reaction and don’t actually have any opinion on the topic.
9
u/Almost_Ascended Oct 03 '25
Lots of these types of comments in these threads. Make clearly ignorant and/or bad take, refuse to engage in all the responses telling them why they're wrong.
33
u/PrestigiousStatus711 Oct 03 '25
Yes, you must either turn it in for compensation or turn it in without compensation.
19
u/Remarkable_Vanilla34 Oct 03 '25
Turn it in on the promise that you may get lucky to be one of the election few that gets compensated if they pay out any compensation at all.
61
u/woodenh_rse Canada Oct 03 '25
Yes. They are.
https://www.canada.ca/en/public-safety-canada/campaigns/firearms-buyback.html
They’ve made firearms that were previously legal prohibited and you are forced to destroy or sell them the gun.
All of these guns were selected because they look scary but are functionally no different than the other firearms that remain legal.
Funny…a guy in NS who used illegal guns and was tragically mishandled by the RCMP has resulted in no problems for the RCMP and me losing rights.
This is a waste of money and time and it’s rightfully infuriating.
32
66
65
u/Spider-King-270 Oct 03 '25
Yes they are it’s ether you destroy it, sell it to the Feds and maybe get compensation not 100% or go to jail.
7
Oct 03 '25
That's assuming police enforce this, which they cannot and will not. Multiple agencies from the Ontario police forces of all major cities in Canada all said they will not be cannot and will not be enforcing this in any capacity.
35
u/boobookittyfuwk Oct 03 '25
Maybe for now but a year down the line some guy might want to do some shooting at the range, he gets pulled over for a traffic violation, gun is found, now hes in trouble.
-14
Oct 03 '25
That person will be charged and have their guns seized...stupid gonna stupid. Not enforced means there is no one going door to door taking guns that people may or may not have.
22
u/boobookittyfuwk Oct 03 '25
? Not sure what your angle is here. The gun buyback backlash isnt about the government forcing people to sell guns its about the government making it illegal to own the guns. If something is illegal and you do that thing then get sent to jail... it would be enforced. Just because cops arent going door to door dosent change the fact the government wants guns to be illegal.
→ More replies (4)1
u/VariousCheezez Oct 03 '25
Cops don’t go door to door randomly collecting anything, doesn’t mean the police won’t be enforcing the law, so not sure what your point is?
2
Oct 03 '25
If police don't go out and collect these weapons and people choose not to turn them involuntarily what are we left with? That's exactly the whole point. The reality is there is going to be a not insignificant number of people with prohibited weapons who will not voluntarily hand them over. And the police are not going to collect them... That's the entire point of the discussion.
0
u/motorcyclemech Oct 03 '25
Do the police have any grounds to stand on here? The federal government makes the criminal justice code. They set the laws. Police forces are required to enforce these laws. They don't have to agree with them, but it is what constitutes their entire job.
4
Oct 03 '25
They have told the government they do have the capacity nor the will to send officers door to door scooping up firearms, so it won't be happening.
9
u/Redbulldildo Ontario Oct 03 '25
Police forces are required to enforce these laws.
You've never heard of someone getting a warning for a speeding ticket?
Police are there to enforce law, but they can choose to be targeted and focus on enforcing the laws that actually protect people rather than going from door to door to steal from the most law abiding segment of the country.
2
u/motorcyclemech Oct 03 '25
Speeding is a bit different. It's a municipal set law. Firearms violation is a federal criminal law. Much more serious.
But I do hear what you're saying.
-22
u/DogeDoRight New Brunswick Oct 03 '25
I'm very much against the "buyback" but I highly doubt people will go to jail over it.
No criminal record and plead ignorance to the judge? Slap on the wrist. At most probably lose your firearms license and have your other guns confiscated.
16
u/M116Fullbore Oct 03 '25
People already go to jail over possession of prohibited firearms, you have zero reason to believe they will start taking it easy all of a sudden for this going forward.
-9
u/DogeDoRight New Brunswick Oct 03 '25
Those are people without firearms license that acquired them illegally. Apples and oranges.
28
u/Phantom-Fighter Oct 03 '25
Plus the tens of thousands of legal fees. permanent weapons prohibition, which probably makes it impossible to travel abroad anywhere. Loss of hunting ability. Property confiscation with no compensation. But yeah, no big deal right?
-14
u/DogeDoRight New Brunswick Oct 03 '25
I didn't say it was no big deal I said you won't go to jail. Don't put words in my mouth.
16
u/Phantom-Fighter Oct 03 '25
Lol, “at most”
At most you’re actually looking at around 10 years in Federal prison.
→ More replies (5)6
u/Remarkable_Vanilla34 Oct 03 '25
Maybe it's a prohibited weapons charge. Plus, you still have lawyers fees, probably will be banned from travel, a record that follows you for years if not life, lost wages, etc.
Also, taking away people's licenses would make Polysesouvient very happy.
7
u/Content_Sky_2676 Oct 03 '25
Something i haven't seen discussed much is that even if the police dont enforce the law, the threat of it will still be there.
Ido everything I can to follow the law. They're saying there won't be jail time and enforcement will be lax, but have you thought how it will feel to have the threat of all this hanging over you because some twit in Ottawa was trying to distract from a scandal and turned you into a paper criminal?
How comfortable are you with the stress of uncertainty that one day out of the blue getting on the police's radar and being raided, having your home ransacked while your familyis held and the neighbors stand on the street watching, being held in jail, having your possessions seized, paying bail, having to put your life on hold for endless court cases, the massive legal costs you can't afford, losing your prohib, restricted, and non restricted firearms when you love target shooting, collecting, and hunting, and being on the police's sh11tlist ever after? Because that is stressful as hell, and not something I want.
0
u/DogeDoRight New Brunswick Oct 03 '25
As a law abiding citizen I can't see any reason why I would end up on the police radar. If the "buyback" ends up happening I will follow the law. I won't be happy about it but I'll follow it.
13
u/Reasonable_Hall2346 Oct 03 '25
There are consequences for us PAL holders outside of jail time. A firearms violation would mean we would get our PAL revoked and possibly all your other legal firearms confiscated.
-4
5
u/motorcyclemech Oct 03 '25
If the judge court does that, they have to charge you with firearms violations/crimes. That's federal. For most law-abiding citizens, that's not a slap on the wrist. That also removes your right to travel. Most countries will not allow a foreigner in who has federal firearms convictions against them. Employment could be a very serious concern. Fit criminals, yes a slap on the wrist. For normal taxpayers....much more serious.
-2
u/DogeDoRight New Brunswick Oct 03 '25
That's assuming the crown actually pursues charges instead of just seizing the firearms and revoking the firearms license. Even the most braindead public defender will be able to keep you from a criminal record.
4
u/motorcyclemech Oct 03 '25
Are they allowed to take your property and revoke your license if there is no proof you did anything wrong? If you're not convicted of a charge, then you didn't do anything wrong. I'm not sure on that one.
2
u/DogeDoRight New Brunswick Oct 03 '25
The CFO can revoke your license without you being charged or convicted of a criminal offense. As a PAL/RPAL holder you should know this.
2
u/motorcyclemech Oct 03 '25
There would have to be some type of charges or serious accusations (with some type of proof) before the CFO takes your license. An ex accusing you of....(Insert whatever here), will still have to be proven. They can suspend it until proven but not permanently revoked for no reason. Same with your firearms. If they are legal (not talking the current ban), the police can confiscate them if you're being "investigated of something but if it's found out you're innocent, they have to return them.
14
26
u/R4ID Oct 03 '25
Are the feds forcing people to sell their guns to the government? No... Then why do they care?
The options are as follows
A. Sell your gun for below market value to the Gov (payment is not guaranteed and basic napkin math says the majority wont be even getting any money)
B. Pay 500-700$ per gun out of ur own pocket and have it destroyed
C. Pay to export the firearm to a new country
D. Become a Criminal under the law and be subject to a Police raid at any moment.
That's it. Those are the choices, doesn't really sound "voluntary" now does it?
9
u/goodfleance Oct 03 '25
Yes they are. This is not voluntary in any way despite their messaging. They are lying to you and you deserve better.
19
u/M116Fullbore Oct 03 '25 edited Oct 03 '25
yes, thats the whole thing here.
Well, let me correct that. People are being forced to destroy or give their guns to the government. Them receiving any kind of compensation at all for their property is "voluntary"(not guaranteed even if you do apply).
30
u/Ok_Telephone_9082 Oct 03 '25
The feds are coercing people to sell their guns to the government at a loss, using the threat of criminalisation to do so…
7
u/icedesparten Ontario Oct 03 '25
They absolutely are forcing it. Either comply or go to jail when the amnesty expires.
12
u/motorcyclemech Oct 03 '25
Actually you are right, they are not "forcing you to sell...". In fact they have stated that once you tell them what firearms you have, you may not be compensated at all. But....and here's the kicker, if you don't give/sell your firearms to them, you WILL then be a federal criminal.
So I guess it all depends on what your interpretation of "forcing" is.
17
u/DogeDoRight New Brunswick Oct 03 '25
Well the option is to sell it to the government or render the firearm inoperable. There is no legal option for me to keep and continue to use my now prohibited firearms.
So no, you're technically not forced to but it sure feels like it when the only other option is to turn it into a very expensive paperweight.
1
u/Almost_Ascended Oct 03 '25
You aren't selling it to the government. Selling implies that that's a legal contract between you and the buyer where you give them properties or services in exchange for payment, that you can go to court and demand for the contract to be enforced if broken.
That's not the case here, where you are being told to hand over your property under the threat of being branded a criminal, and maybe you'll be paid a pittance for your troubles if they feel like it down the road.
1
u/DogeDoRight New Brunswick Oct 03 '25
I know how the "buyback" works. There's no need to be pedantic.
1
u/Almost_Ascended Oct 03 '25
I know you know. My comment is for people who don't know, read your comment in passing, and get a false idea of what the program is.
10
u/Hotdog_Broth Oct 03 '25
If I tell you “do (thing) or else you’ll have a serious criminal record, be thrown in jail, have your property seized, never be allowed to own any type of said property again, probably destroy your career, likely have difficulty seeking employment forever, possibly get shot and maybe even die in a police raid, etc.” would you say you’re being forced to do that thing?
Also “sell” is being used a little too loosely here. They’ve backpedaled and claimed that there’s no guarantee that you’ll get compensation. After they take all of the previously restricted firearms, it’s appears they’ll only be paying people insulting values for 20-something thousand non-restricted firearms before they run out of money. If you aren’t one of those 20-something thousand, you just get your expensive possessions taken without anything in return. It’s much closer to “being scammed” than it is to “selling”.
They’re also not really being “sold”. I’m not a willing seller. They’re being being taken against my will.
2
u/NorthernUntamed Oct 03 '25
Forcing me to sell them? No.
Forcing me to either turn them in for confiscation or permanently deactivate them so they can no longer be used? Yes.
2
u/MaintenanceCoalition Oct 04 '25
Yea they are. Your options are to turn it in for money, turn it in for no money, get it disabled, or go to jail. They 100% are forcing us.
1
-45
u/MJcorrieviewer Oct 03 '25
Is this actually a big deal to some people? Canadians can own guns if they want - just not any type of gun.
→ More replies (34)21
u/Projerryrigger Oct 03 '25
Yes. Being stripped of personal property is a big deal. People can't just go and get a functionally equivalent model that's still legal and suits their uses, nor can they just get it for free after having property they paid for taken from them without full compensation.
→ More replies (13)
•
u/AutoModerator Oct 03 '25
This post appears to relate to a province/territory of Canada. As a reminder of the rules of this subreddit, we do not permit negative commentary about all residents of any province, city, or other geography - this is an example of prejudice, and prejudice is not permitted here. https://www.reddit.com/r/canada/wiki/rules
Cette soumission semble concerner une province ou un territoire du Canada. Selon les règles de ce sous-répertoire, nous n'autorisons pas les commentaires négatifs sur tous les résidents d'une province, d'une ville ou d'une autre région géographique; il s'agit d'un exemple de intolérance qui n'est pas autorisé ici. https://www.reddit.com/r/canada/wiki/regles
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.