Hello /c/Canada
You know how there’s a 2nd amendment in the U.S. on the right to bear arms? I know that it was originally meant to allow people to form militias and defend their rights should the government become an authoritarian regime and stop following the constitution.
Is there anything similar in Canada in terms of laws or rights and freedoms?
You must log in or register to comment.
So I’m a licensed RPAL holder (and I got handguns before the 2022 freeze on handgun registration, which is bullshit and I pray it gets repealed, even if it takes several more years). Canadian firearms law right now has been hyperfocused on banning as many different models of firearms as possible. It actually wouldn’t be feasible to ban semi-automatic rifles and shotguns, but they’re doing it in such a way that they’re basically looking at every model made or being made and banning it by name. This is how we get lists of 15,000 individual rifle models and several thousand AR-15 variants (the AR-15 is basically banned in Canada right now. But they have barely collected any one of the rifles that have been prohibited).
In historic terms, gun laws were all about controlling ‘undesirable’ groups in society. That means minorities, First Nations, and any leftist/labor union. Despite what the Liberals would like to say, I seriously doubt Polytechnique was the real catalyst behind the current system passed in 1995, and was probably due to the Oka Crisis were First Nations people with AK-47s (which was likely made prob in 1995 very specifically because it was the main rifle they had in their arsenal). Polytechnique happening shortly before in 1989 was a great boon to that movement. BTW, despite it being decades ago it is STILL cited as the number one justification why continued restricted are necessary. I would go on about how much more dangerous it is to have ignored incel and incel culture (the Polytechnique shooter was a proto-incel), but that is beyond the scope of it.
Before the Oka Crisis, there was the October Crisis in the 1970s, which was the event that spurred the first law regarding the acquisition of long-guns. Before 1977, you could walk into any gun store in Canada and buy any rifle or shotgun you wanted with no licence whatsoever. And yes, machine guns were legal until then. We like to act like Canada somehow was always much stricter than the US when historically this wasn’t the case. Silencers weren’t illegal or controlled in any way until 1969, and there are mail order catalogs where you could buy fully-automatic WW2 surplus submachine guns through the mail. I need to mention that Machine guns were never available via mail order in the US, despite what some might claim. I should also mention that the 1977 laws only mandated the purchase of long-guns, not their ownership. So if you got a FAC (Firearms Acquisition Certificate) in 1980 and bought a dozen AR-15 or Mini-14 type rifles and shotguns, and your FAC expired in 1985, you could still legally possess and use your long-guns. Ammunition was entirely uncontrolled at the time, too. No permit was required to purchase ammunition and ammunition was available at any Canadian tire and many hardware stores.
Going back further, prior to the 70s the main gun laws were based on the 1892 and 1913 criminal codes that prohibited concealed carry of handguns without a permit (1892) and transporting handguns without a permit. The 1913 law was passed due to fear of immigrants and labor unionists arming themselves (which was common at the time) and police would literally just wait outside some gun stores to arrest people who came out with legally purchased guns if they thought they were part of a union. After WW1 they tried (and failed) to pass licensing laws for long-guns, but that law failed hard due to its unpopularity by just about everyone in the country. After WW1 the threat of socialist and communist uprisings was at an all-time high. It was the First Red Scare and in many ways it was worse than the second Red Scare of the 1950s. The origin of most modern gun laws in Europe (and commonwealth nations) originated in that time.
Long story short, it was always, always, always about controlling the population at large and a fear of an armed populace wanting change. They can ignore tons of unarmed protesters, but not if even a small amount of them are armed (I can cite more examples like the Black Panthers showing up armed basically resulted in California passing highly restrictive laws to combat them, even though the Black Panthers didn’t kill anyone). The modern fear of mass shooters got started in the 1980s and 90s. There were always multiple victim public shootings and Canada has had its fair share, but I do not believe that that was the main reason. Canada had multiple shootings leading up to the 2020 OIC ban, but I am quite confident that neither the Quebec Mosque shooting nor the Nova Scotia shooting (which was done with smuggled firearms from the US) had much to do with it. COVID-19 ushered in the era of increasing authoritarian control in most countries and tech giants going public with their disdain of democracy is making it so. More gun laws is just part of a greater package.
If you’re looking to have a pro-protester/leftist militia in Canada, you’re going to find yourself between a rock and a hard place. The entire system (and I don’t just mean the gun laws) are built specifically around to prevent anything like that from happening. The last time anything like that was remotely possible would have been the 1980s to early 90s when gun laws and surveillance weren’t as advanced as today. Meanwhile the RCMP has been trying to get ‘lawful access’ to people’s internet usage without warrants since 2001 (I think pre-9/11 2001) and the latest bill C-22 is their latest attempt. This means organising anything like that will be extremely difficult without the RCMP and local police going hard on your ass.
I’d focus on education and the arts rather than tools of death. Just look at how well it’s serving the US. Meanwhile places like Nepal are able to depose their government without widespread guns. Hearts and minds>toys and slogans.
They set their fucking parliament on fire. You think they did that with their hearts and minds?
From Wikipedia:
10 September
In the early morning, Nepali Army forces were seen patrolling neighborhoods in critical areas.[114] General Sigdel again encouraged protesters to remain peaceful as the government attempts to restore peace.[79][115] Between approximately 10:00 NPT on 9 September and 22:00 NPT on 10 September, the Army announced detention of 27 individuals on counts of looting, arson, and other “destructive and anarchic activities” and seizing weaponry.[116] Later reports counted 31 firearms.[101]
In some places, protestors continued raiding government buildings and politicians’ homes through the night, with one video showing a group of protestors taking firearms from homes, including what is believed to be a GSG-522 carbine and a bolt-action rifle.[101][117] The pace was slowed down by noon. A group of protestors started cleaning the street near the parliament building that was set on fire the previous day.[118] Many army weapons were captured by protesters. One video included armor vests, L1A1 SLR rifles, 37mm Webley & Scott “Schermuly” grenade launchers, INSAS 1B1 rifles, Lee–Enfield rifles, and Ishapore 1A1 rifles.[119]
Guns laws both in Canada (as I mentioned in my big-ass post) was entirely concerned with government opposition and not mass shooters. The polytechnique shooter came at the right time for the government to point to him and not the Oka Crisis as the main catalyst behind the modern gun law scheme in Canada.
Violence is never the answer unless you look at literally any social revolution in history. Also, you’re purposefully ignoring an entire civil war less than 30 years old. It was not bloodless.
For one to posses and acquire a firearm in Canada you must have a PAL (Possession and Acquisition license), the criminal code does not prevent citizens from open carrying firearms on public land however, you must not intimidate or threaten anyone otherwise that is a criminal act.
Really the only professions in Canada that are allowed to open carry firearms are usually Cops, Brink/Bank truckers, trappers and farmers other than that you must follow safe storage & transport laws or get an Authorization to Carry (ATC) from the RCMP and your local CFO which only 2 people have successfully done as I recall they were in fear for their lives.
You’re conflating firearms and handguns. Anyone can carry a rifle/shotgun, loaded even, in areas that aren’t explicitly forbidden, like cities. You can’t transport them loaded, but you can certainly carry one around on public or private land for plinking or hunting.
Handgun carry permits outside LEO and security are few and far between, and certainly not likely for personal protection against people, as you said.
And handguns have seen a lot of recent restrictions from even taking them to the range.
Yeah, I just didn’t want to get overly detailed and off topic otherwise I would’ve gone into the Non-Restricted, Restricted and Prohibited categories and their purposes.
Appreciate the added context.
Interesting. I’m going to give this a read.
I should mention while the criminal code doesn’t prohibit folks from open carrying on public land it is typically not recommended for PAL holders to open carry in cities where crown land may be, most Canadians are not familiar with the firearms laws and may take it the wrong way, as well as provinces may dictate their own policies regarding where it is acceptable.
Crown Land Maps Is a good way to depict where public land is but always double check provincial guidelines.
Hope this helps!
The goal is not to walk around with a gun on me for fun. I’m not talking about U.S. style gun culture where you walk in a store with an AR-15 on a strap.
I’m thinking organized militias to protect protesters and keep them safe from the police. That sort of thing.
No thanks, we don’t need that here. We have a stable governing system that while could use some improvements, militias aren’t necessary to accomplish them.
It may seem that way to the more privileged. But it’s really not. We’re only “allowed” to do certain things as long as it fits with the government’s objective. But, if you go against it, chances are you’ll get a visit from the police, and you might find yourself beaten by them too, and arrested, and harassed.
For things like, I dunno, protesting the construction of a pipeline through your land, or protecting critical drinking water sources, or for species of animals or plants that are endangered. Or it could even be for demanding better working conditions, better pay, preventing abuse from employers, etc.
When you cross them, they cross you with brutality.
Nope. Not in the slightest. The charter protects you’re right to only protest and that’s within limitations (speech laws, hate laws, nonviolence, public ordinance laws)…
While Canada has freedom of assembly, the federal and/or provincial government is also creating laws to dictate exactly where you can assemble (or can’t).
Historically, Canada has been very repressive of large worker movements and strikes. Forcefully breaking them and killing protestors.
Historically, Canada has been very repressive of large worker movements and strikes.
Oh, they’ve tried. We’ll give em that.
Well isn’t that just another argument in favour of the right to bear arms?
No. Because you don’t need to shoot people to prove a point.
That’s not what I want to do. Jeez.
Your argument here isn’t clear. You’re trying to make a case for Canadians to be armed, when realistically, you can go write your PAL, wait a week for the clearance and go buy a gun. This is obvious to people who really actually need guns, like hunters and farmers.
So we’re left with two possibilities: you don’t know what gun ownership actually means in Canada, or (and I don’t like this option), you’re trying to stir up sentiment in Canada because you’re a professional or an amateur troll.
So which one are you? Because if you really are that naive to not have asked any questions before coming to Lemmy with this, you should stop.
Maybe I’m not very clear.
And yeah my understanding of gun ownership is limited.
But I’m not a troll of any kind. And I’m not trying to stir anything. I think some people are jumping to conclusions really quick.
Well that blows.
We may make fun of Americans and their gun laws, but at least they have a plan B. Sometimes I feel we should have the same kind of right in Canada. The working class should have a right to bear arms and d’ébène itself against the tyranny of the business elite class, by which the government seems to be easily influenced to work against our best interests.
No, it really doesn’t.
Gun ownership is not and should not be a right. It is a responsibility, and a serious one at that. If you want a firearm, you need to train and prove yourself safe, responsible, and justified.
US gun laws have created the US gun culture, where people will accept
hundredsTENS OF THOUSANDS of deaths a year, for ‘freedom.’Also, let’s not forget that the 2nd amendment was brought in during a time of flintlocks. They were NOT protecting one’s freedom to walk into McDonald’s with a MAC-10 down their pants.
Perhaps most telling though, is that the US is currently NOT a free state, and the ‘well-regulated militia’ has not stood up to them. In fact, there has never been a well regulated militia in the US to stand up to government tyranny, just a bunch of doomsday preppers who delude themselves into believing their arsenal is spiritually annointed by James Madison and God, in that order.
So, no. No fucking second amendment in Canada,bthank you very much.
Mind you, I’m talking about the right to form organized armed militias to defend people against a tyrannical government.
Also, there are other countries in the world, like Switzerland, where everyone has a firearm at home. Heck, Switzerland even allows the possession of semi-automatic and fully automatic weapons. Source. But, you don’t hear about gun-related problems over there because their gun culture is completely different. They are much more responsible and they understand the responsibility.
As you mentioned, in the U.S. they have a “gun culture” which completely out of whack. That’s not the objective I’m suggesting.
And as I mentioned to others in this post, there’s been talk amongst democrats and liberals about arming themselves as things are turning pretty bad down south. I think they’re trying to avoid any violent conflict if possible. Maybe they’re just staying really quiet right now so to not stir any fear. But, I think the next presidential election might be a tipping point. Depending how bad it goes, things could blow up. Or maybe not. We’ll see.
I don’t think you’ve fully thought through the consequences of what you’re suggesting.
The user who commented just above me literally just said that governments are creating laws to dictate where and how we can use our freedom of assembly.
And the free speech laws that restrict what constitutes free speech? They’re being misused and abused against people protesting against human rights abuses.
Here’s an example:
Recently in Québec, during a May day demonstration for workers’ rights, a group of people made a scene with a guillotine and papier maché look-alike of the provincial minister of labour. They did a mock execution. This scene outraged the minister and a manhunt was initiated with the police to identify who did this to arrest them and put them in jail.
There has been protests for the protection of land and the environment that have been violently repressed by police. Some of the protesters where even labelled as potential terrorists.
There are also protesters who demand action from the government against Israel and its ongoing genocide of the Palestinian people and its agression against Lebanon that have been met with violent repression for the police as well and have been labelled as anti-semite.
Meanwhile, we had literal neo-nazis, calling for the deportation or death of immigrants in Québec, and more specifically the death of Jewish people and South-Asian people, creating active clubs across the province (which were unmasked and called out by a journalist), and marching with neo-nazi flags and anti-immigration banners in Shawinigan. Yet, not a peep from the government, authorities or law enforcement. These active clubs train for combat and even have shooting ranges where they learn how use and maintain firearms. Literal hate groups with hate speech, inciting people to violence against specific groups of people. And I didn’t even talk about groups like diagolon or other far-right and manosphere podcasts.
That worries me. It means fascism is growing and running rampant and is being tolerated while people voicing their concerns over the environment, people’s basic needs and basic human rights are being repressed.
Doesn’t that worry you?
The user who commented just above me literally just said that governments are creating laws to dictate where and how we can use our freedom of assembly.
Shooting people is not the only way to express civil disobedience. In fact it’s the worst possible thing you can do.
The fact that your immediate answer to “We’re being limited in where we can assemble” is to bring a gun rather than just “Hey…let’s assemble there anyway and bring the press with us”. Says a lot about you.
There’s a thousand ways to prove your point and affect change without resorting to guns, and that’s how we like it in Canada. The American “Guns as the first and only option in all things” is psychotic.
You’re making A LOT of assumptions about me over this. Chill.
You can still own guns in Canada, just a bit longer wait times and more robust vetting process.
You should read about the indigenous direct actions that took place when some company wanted to build a golf course on Mohawk territory a few decades back.
Oh I know all about la crise d’Oka.
Plan B appears to have failed miserably. The US government is not following the constitution and nothing is being done about it.
I dunno. New rifle associations have sprung since. Like the African American Rifle Association. And there’s an increasing number of democrats who are asking themselves.
Maybe plan B is not there yet, but it’s in the making.
Maybe look into the black panther party for self defense to get some context on the “new” ideas.
Good idea!
Americans lover their guns more than their children.
Yeah but that’s a cultural issue.
Well there’s an authoritarian regime in the US right now, frequently ignoring the Constitution in their actions. Look at what good their Second Amendment is doing currently in response to that - largely nothing outside of a handful of minor incidents and one pre-election close call in Butler, PA.
I think the tipping point might be the next presidential elections. They’re trying to avoid getting to that point, but if push comes to shove, I bet they’ll bear arms and start being more agressive.
I mean, some democrats and even some pastors have called for getting your testament papers in order and possibly get armed to defend yourself with how things are headed under Trump. So who knows.
I have heard that before. Once it does not happen then well you know the next tipping point will be X.
Trump has had an effect though, it even boosted Canadians applying for firearms licenses.
oh yeah. plenty of holding the gun but not so much pulling the trigger.
Until they get invaded
Fuck.
And
No.
Frankly, the overwhelming impetus in Canadian gun laws is to prevent threats against the police and government. It’s not even about civilians killing civilians, they couldn’t care less or we’d have some focus on mental health to prevent that sort of violence in any form, let alone firearms.
the overwhelming impetus in Canadian gun laws is to prevent threats against the police and government. It’s not even about civilians killing civilians,
So you agree? They just don’t want people to arm themselves against the forces that oppress them?
