CCFR court case day 2/2 live stream starting at 9:30 EST!https://www.scc-csc.ca/cases-dossiers/hearings-audiences/live-endirect/This court case is about the government's 2020 gun ban, which banned over 1500 different models (and all "variants" thereof) of firearms, including the AR-15, the process about which it banned these guns (Order In Council, Canada's equivalent to an American Executive Order), the procedures that were supposed to be followed for it (including the deferral of powers/the Firearms Reference Table) and property rights as a whole.I won't lie, yesterday's session was a total clusterfuck. The anti-gunner side lied their asses off and the justices were basically making their arguments for them (all wrong).Notable lines from the justices were things like stating that these guns were dangerous because of bump stocks and large capacity magazines (both of which are banned) and, in response to an anti-gunner stating that these guns were banned because they don't overheat when fired rapidly, that overheating guns DON'T fire (when in reality they COOK OFF rounds).Keep your expectations low for sanity during this stream.If you missed the first day, Runkle will be posting a video covering both sessions sometime in the next couple days.
>>545979873Soon in Poland, despite we are almost no-gunners
>>545979873>these guns were banned because they don't overheat when fired rapidly?Is it a legal requirement that guns overheat when fired at a particular rate?
>>545979965Canada, despite the memes to the contrary, is one of the most heavily armed countries on Earth.This gun ban effectively criminalizes ~2.5 million people.One of the banned "wEaPoNs Of WaR" is this pink .22 plinker.
>>545980068No, this was made-up whole cloth during the proceedings as some sort of made-up reason to ban them.
The last thing the anti-gunners said during yesterday's session was to say that they "should" win and that, if they don't, that the SCC "should" give them a 12 month deferral to the decision so that the government (which now has a majority) to push through laws to "fix" it.They will never stop trying to disarm us.
Remember kids, guns are NOT toys.
>>545980147That thing should be banned for being so goddamn tacky and made up to look like it's a toy.But thots and prayers that Canada can be redeemed.
>>545980615It's a plinker. Being a toy is basically the point. You COULD use it for rabbits or something, but that's not really the point. It's specifically for sport shooting.
>>545980178How was that defended? IDK Canadian legal procedure and frankly IDK American legal procedure much better but don't you usually need some precedent or at least citation for something like that?
>>545980742There was no cross examination. The only ones allowed to ask questions are the justices themselves.
Borrow this bingo card
Today's session is basically just intervenors (People not actually part of the court case but want to get a word in edgewise).
>>545979873I don't know why they don't just treat it like a motorcycle license type scheme where effort and demonstrating responsibility can eventually get you almost anything you want.Model bans seem easily circumventible.
>>545980849>Model bans seem easily circumventible.Not in Canada. They ban by name, but include "all variants" in the ban and it being extremely vague is weaponized.Even in the named bans, the examples they use of "variants" are stupid. A blowback .22 plinker and the Dragunov are both listed as "variants" of the AK47, for instance.
Ontario intervenor speaking now, going after the vagueness of the ban.
>>545980702I get the point of these guns but even plinkers are dangerous. Real guns shouldn't look like nerf guns, they are not toys.
>>545981038Ironically enough, a toy made to look like a real model of firearm that does NOT fire a projectile is a prohibited device. Airshit exists in a legal gray area.
>>545980776Seems a little strange but I'm pretty ignorant about procedure.You said>Keep your expectations low So what does that ultimately mean for Canadian gun freedoms?
>>545981179It's not good for guns, but it doesn't stop there.As I alluded to in the OP, this court case will affect property rights in general. A loss would cement the government's power to confiscate whatever they want from anyone in Canada. If they don't like your internal combustion engine powered vehicle, they could just TAKE IT through Order In Council (think: Executive Order). No vote in Parliament, no criminality on your part. Just straight-up tyranny.
Saskatchewan intervenor now speaking. He's saying that there was NO balancing of interests, which is stated as a requirement in the law.
>Justice says that .50 BMG rifles aren't reasonable for Canadians to have because it would blow up a wolfThose are used for precision rifle shooting sports...
>>545981667I was wondering about that. Was there a broader point that I missed?
>>545981748The balancing of interests being talked about is between public safety and the suitability for use in hunting and sports shooting. The government is cherry-picking which sports it considers "valid" and thus wiping out entire shooting sports.Alberta intervenor now speaking. He's going specifically after what is "reasonable" for hunting/sports shooting.
Alberta intervenor is asking if there is ANY firearm that the Governor In Council (GIC) CANNOT ban based on how this is being handled. He uses a single shot firearm as an example.Ironically, multiple single shot firearms HAVE already been banned, including the Ruger No. 1 rifle.
Canadian Constitution Foundation's turn.
>>545982070I seem to distinctly remember a Canadian boomer on YouTube showing off his Ruger No. 1 in multiple videos.Unfortunately I can't find them now but maybe they were deleted.
>>545982276CCF lawyer is going after the criminal consequences of the ban and that it wasn't actually implemented as a law, rather simply and OIC.
>>545982447Multiple calibers that the Ruger No. 1 comes in exceed the 10k joules limit imposed by Justin Trudeau. Many of the .50 BMG rifles that were banned are also single shot firearms.
Canadian Shooting Sports Association (misspelled as Shootong on stream, lol) is up and he's... not exactly helping. He's going on about MUH SPOOKY GHOST GUNS.
>>545982525Well IDK about joules but I seem to remember that these were quite powerful rounds which you'd probably expect from that model. I swear this guy was real and he was Canadian but I'm really struggling to find any videos.
>>545982525Anything capable of damaging a robot is forbidden. Did you notice that?
>>545982654You can check the legality of specific models on armalytics.ca10k joules = ~7376 ft-lbsSo the .460 Weatherby Magnum model, for instance, is prohibited.
>>545980147>This gun ban effectively criminalizes ~2.5 million people.
IPSC Canada up now.
>>545979873>The court is going to rule the governing party can ban/outlaw objects previously legal without parliamentary approval or compensation for those affectedThis country has genuinely slid so bad, or maybe it was always like this and the economic conditions papered over these shortcomings within out system.
>>545982825Mostly went over sporting purposes and such.Canadian Coalition for Gun Control up now. Starting by saying that public safety is the ONLY consideration...
>>545983074Surprisingly, one of the most anti-gun justices jumped on this, stating that she's ignoring the hunting and sporting purposes.
>Giving Canada all my energy to beat the gun grabblers
>>545983230If this goes sideways, you may have to give fire support...
>>545982778I think it may have been this guy I was thinking of:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jMwEsSR9rdQIDK if his guns were illegal 6 years ago.
>>545979873Wake up Hoser, we have a Horton's to burn, aye?
>>545983290.45-120 Sharps is below the 10k joules limit.
>>545983440Actual Canadians no longer eat at Tim Hortons. It's just the 3rd world imports who don't care how Mr Singh handles hygiene.
BC Civil Liberties Association talking about abuse of sweeping executive powers.
Ontario Rifle Association up next.
>>545983594They're also going after the "reasonableness" of use for shooting sports.
Canadian National Firearms Association up next.
>>545983662Arguing for or against? Sometime I see what looks like a pro gun group cucking out for clout
>>545983860For. He was pointing out that guns used for decades in these sports have been banned, including the F class precision shooting sport which STARTED in Canada.
CNFA going after much the same as prior intervenors. Delegation, deference, limits of powers.
Court is adjourned after a handful of lawyers bring specific points about previous testimony.Now we wait.
>>545984511How many judges lean one way or the other on the issue? Why not hand the decision over to the population to vote on?
>>545984963Hard to tell. The ones that did speak up were clearly leaning against, but that was only like 3 of them.
