Category: Criminal

Posted on

Bill C-21: Firearms Bill Adding “Transborder Criminality” To IRPA

This Bill redefines replica firearms, and brings Red Flag and Yellow Flag Laws onto Canadian gun owners, regardless of how law abiding these people may be. It also makes changes to IRPA, the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

Immigration & Refugee Protection Act
Canada Criminal Code
Text Of Bill C-21

1. Gun Rights Are Essential, Need Protecting

The freedoms of a society can be gauged by the laws and attitudes they have towards firearms. Governments, and other groups can push around an unarmed population much easier than those who can defend themselves. It’s not conspiratorial to wonder about those pushing for gun control. In fact, healthy skepticism is needed for a society to function.

2. Canada Immigration & Refugee Protection Act

Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness
.
(2) The Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness is responsible for the administration of this Act as it relates to
(a) examinations at ports of entry;
(b) the enforcement of this Act, including arrest, detention and removal;
(c) the establishment of policies respecting the enforcement of this Act and inadmissibility on grounds of security, organized criminality or violating human or international rights; or
(d) declarations referred to in section 42.1.

Criminality
.
36(2) A foreign national is inadmissible on grounds of criminality for
.
(a) having been convicted in Canada of an offence under an Act of Parliament punishable by way of indictment, or of two offences under any Act of Parliament not arising out of a single occurrence;
.
(b) having been convicted outside Canada of an offence that, if committed in Canada, would constitute an indictable offence under an Act of Parliament, or of two offences not arising out of a single occurrence that, if committed in Canada, would constitute offences under an Act of Parliament;
.
(c) committing an act outside Canada that is an offence in the place where it was committed and that, if committed in Canada, would constitute an indictable offence under an Act of Parliament; or
.
(d) committing, on entering Canada, an offence under an Act of Parliament prescribed by regulations.

Bill C-21 would add Section 36(2.1) or “transborder criminality” onto this section. Presumably this refers to things like weapons smuggling, but a more precise definition would be appreciation

[SERIOUS CRIMINALITY]
36(3) The following provisions govern subsections (1) and (2):
.
(a) an offence that may be prosecuted either summarily or by way of indictment is deemed to be an indictable offence, even if it has been prosecuted summarily;
.
(b) inadmissibility under subsections (1) and (2) may not be based on a conviction in respect of which a record suspension has been ordered and has not been revoked or ceased to have effect under the Criminal Records Act, or in respect of which there has been a final determination of an acquittal;
.
(c) the matters referred to in paragraphs (1)(b) and (c) and (2)(b) and (c) do not constitute inadmissibility in respect of a permanent resident or foreign national who, after the prescribed period, satisfies the Minister that they have been rehabilitated or who is a member of a prescribed class that is deemed to have been rehabilitated;
.
(d) a determination of whether a permanent resident has committed an act described in paragraph (1)(c) must be based on a balance of probabilities; and
.
(e) inadmissibility under subsections (1) and (2) may not be based on an offence
.
(i) designated as a contravention under the Contraventions Act,
.
(ii) for which the permanent resident or foreign national is found guilty under the Young Offenders Act, chapter Y-1 of the Revised Statutes of Canada, 1985, or
.
(iii) for which the permanent resident or foreign national received a youth sentence under the Youth Criminal Justice Act.

36(3)(b) is changed to include transborder criminality in grounds, if a person has been pardoned, or acquitted finally. Similarly, 36(3)(e) brings transborder criminality into consideration for young offenders. These are just a few quotes from IRPA, the Immigration & Refugee Protection Act.

3. Changes Bill C-21 Would Make To IRPA

Immigration and Refugee Protection Act
44 Paragraph 4(2)‍(c) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act is replaced by the following:

(c) the establishment of policies respecting the enforcement of this Act and inadmissibility on grounds of security, organized criminality, violating human or international rights or transborder criminality; or

45 (1) Paragraphs 36(1)‍(a) to (c) of the French version of the Act are replaced by the following:

a) être déclaré coupable au Canada d’une infraction prévue sous le régime d’une loi fédérale punissable d’un emprisonnement maximal d’au moins dix ans ou d’une infraction prévue sous le régime d’une loi fédérale pour laquelle un emprisonnement de plus de six mois est infligé;
.
b) être déclaré coupable, à l’extérieur du Canada, d’une infraction qui, commise au Canada, constituerait une infraction sous le régime d’une loi fédérale punissable d’un emprisonnement maximal d’au moins dix ans;
.
c) commettre, à l’extérieur du Canada, une infraction qui, commise au Canada, constituerait une infraction sous le régime d’une loi fédérale punissable d’un emprisonnement maximal d’au moins dix ans.

(2) Paragraphs 36(2)‍(a) to (c) of the French version of the Act are replaced by the following:

a) être déclaré coupable au Canada d’une infraction prévue sous le régime d’une loi fédérale punissable par mise en accusation ou de deux infractions prévues sous le régime de toute loi fédérale qui ne découlent pas des mêmes faits;
.
b) être déclaré coupable, à l’extérieur du Canada, d’une infraction qui, commise au Canada, constituerait une infraction sous le régime d’une loi fédérale punissable par mise en accusation ou de deux infractions qui ne découlent pas des mêmes faits et qui, commises au Canada, constitueraient des infractions sous le régime de toute loi fédérale;
.
c) commettre, à l’extérieur du Canada, une infraction qui, commise au Canada, constituerait une infraction sous le régime d’une loi fédérale punissable par mise en accusation;

(3) Subsection 36(2) of the Act is amended by adding “or” at the end of paragraph (b), by striking out “or” at the end of paragraph (c) and by repealing paragraph (d).

(4) Section 36 of the Act is amended by adding the following after subsection (2):

Transborder criminality
(2.‍1) A foreign national is inadmissible on grounds of transborder criminality for committing, on entering Canada, a prescribed offence under an Act of Parliament.

(5) The portion of subsection 36(3) of the Act before paragraph (a) is replaced by the following:
Application

(3) The following provisions govern subsections (1) to (2.‍1):

(6) Paragraph 36(3)‍(b) of the English version of the Act is replaced by the following:

(b) inadmissibility under subsections (1) to (2.‍1) may not be based on a conviction in respect of which a record suspension has been ordered and has not been revoked or ceased to have effect under the Criminal Records Act, or in respect of which there has been a final determination of an acquittal;

(7) The portion of paragraph 36(3)‍(e) of the English version of the Act before subparagraph (i) is replaced by the following:

(e) inadmissibility under subsections (1) to (2.‍1) may not be based on an offence

46 Paragraph 37(1)‍(a) of the French version of the Act is replaced by the following:

a) être membre d’une organisation dont il y a des motifs raisonnables de croire qu’elle se livre ou s’est livrée à des activités faisant partie d’un plan d’activités criminelles organisées par plusieurs personnes agissant de concert en vue de la perpétration d’une infraction prévue sous le régime d’une loi fédérale punissable par mise en accusation ou de la perpétration, hors du Canada, d’une infraction qui, commise au Canada, constituerait une telle infraction, ou se livrer à des activités faisant partie d’un tel plan;

47 Paragraph 55(3)‍(b) of the Act is replaced by the following:

(b) has reasonable grounds to suspect that the permanent resident or the foreign national is inadmissible on grounds of security, violating human or international rights, serious criminality, criminality, transborder criminality or organized criminality.

48 Paragraph 58(1)‍(c) of the Act is replaced by the following:

(c) the Minister is taking necessary steps to inquire into a reasonable suspicion that they are inadmissible on grounds of security, violating human or international rights, serious criminality, criminality, transborder criminality or organized criminality;

49 Subsection 68(4) of the Act is replaced by the following:

Termination and cancellation
(4) If the Immigration Appeal Division has stayed a removal order against a permanent resident or a foreign national who was found inadmissible on grounds of serious criminality, criminality or transborder criminality, and they are convicted of another offence referred to in subsection 36(1), the stay is cancelled by operation of law and the appeal is terminated.

50 Paragraph 100(2)‍(b) of the French version of the Act is replaced by the following:

b) il l’estime nécessaire, afin qu’il soit statué sur une accusation pour une infraction prévue sous le régime d’une loi fédérale punissable d’un emprisonnement maximal d’au moins dix ans.

51 Paragraphs 101(2)‍(a) and (b) of the French version of the Act are replaced by the following:

a) une déclaration de culpabilité au Canada pour une infraction prévue sous le régime d’une loi fédérale punissable d’un emprisonnement maximal d’au moins dix ans;
b) une déclaration de culpabilité à l’extérieur du Canada pour une infraction qui, commise au Canada, constituerait une infraction sous le régime d’une loi fédérale punissable d’un emprisonnement maximal d’au moins dix ans.

52 Paragraph 103(1)‍(b) of the French version of the Act is replaced by the following:

b) il l’estime nécessaire, afin qu’il soit statué sur une accusation pour une infraction prévue sous le régime d’une loi fédérale punissable d’un emprisonnement maximal d’au moins dix ans.

53 Subsection 105(1) of the French version of the Act is replaced by the following:

Sursis
105 (1) La Section de la protection des réfugiés ou la Section d’appel des réfugiés sursoit à l’étude de l’affaire si la personne est visée par un arrêté introductif d’instance pris au titre de l’article 15 de la Loi sur l’extradition pour une infraction prévue sous le régime d’une loi fédérale punissable d’un emprisonnement d’une durée maximale égale ou supérieure à dix ans tant qu’il n’a pas été statué en dernier ressort sur la demande d’extradition.

54 Paragraph 112(3)‍(b) of the French version of the Act is replaced by the following:

b) il est interdit de territoire pour grande criminalité pour déclaration de culpabilité au Canada pour une infraction prévue sous le régime d’une loi fédérale punissable d’un emprisonnement maximal d’au moins dix ans ou pour toute déclaration de culpabilité à l’extérieur du Canada pour une infraction qui, commise au Canada, constituerait une infraction sous le régime d’une loi fédérale punissable d’un emprisonnement maximal d’au moins dix ans;

55 (1) Subparagraph 113(e)‍(i) of the Act is replaced by the following:

(i) an applicant who is determined to be inadmissible on grounds of serious criminality with respect to a conviction in Canada of an offence under an Act of Parliament punishable by a maximum term of imprisonment of at least 10 years for which a term of imprisonment of less than two years — or no term of imprisonment — was imposed, and

(2) Subparagraph 113(e)‍(ii) of the French version of the Act is replaced by the following:

(ii) celui qui est interdit de territoire pour grande criminalité pour déclaration de culpabilité à l’extérieur du Canada pour une infraction qui, commise au Canada, constituerait une infraction sous le régime d’une loi fédérale punissable d’un emprisonnement maximal d’au moins dix ans, sauf s’il a été conclu qu’il est visé à la section F de l’article premier de la Convention sur les réfugiés.

Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations
58 The portion of section 19 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations before paragraph (a) is replaced by the following:

Transborder crime
19 For the purposes of subsection 36(2.‍1) of the Act, indictable offences under the following Acts of Parliament are prescribed:

It says that certain indictable offences under the following Acts are prescribed, but then it doesn’t list them. Is there an oversight here?

59 Paragraph 229(1)‍(d) of the Regulations is replaced by the following:
(d) a deportation order, if they are inadmissible under paragraph 36(2)‍(b) or (c) of the Act on grounds of criminality or under subsection 36(2.‍1) of the Act on grounds of transborder criminality;
60 Paragraph 230(3)‍(c) of the Regulations is replaced by the following:
(c) is inadmissible under subsection 36(1) of the Act on grounds of serious criminality, under subsection 36(2) of the Act on grounds of criminality or under subsection 36(2.‍1) of the Act on grounds of transborder criminality;

This Bill would add “transborder criminality” as a reason to prevent someone from entering Canada, to imprison, or to deport. While this sounds fine, some clarity would be appreciated.

4. IRPA Also Lets Inadmissibles In Legally

Temporary resident permit
.
24 (1) A foreign national who, in the opinion of an officer, is inadmissible or does not meet the requirements of this Act becomes a temporary resident if an officer is of the opinion that it is justified in the circumstances and issues a temporary resident permit, which may be cancelled at any time.

Public policy considerations
.
25.2 (1) The Minister may, in examining the circumstances concerning a foreign national who is inadmissible or who does not meet the requirements of this Act, grant that person permanent resident status or an exemption from any applicable criteria or obligations of this Act if the foreign national complies with any conditions imposed by the Minister and the Minister is of the opinion that it is justified by public policy considerations.

As addressed here, here, here and here, there are at least 2 provisions in IRPA that allow people who are otherwise inadmissible to be LEGALLY let it. This happens daily.

5. Confusion Around Sentencing Range

Bill C-21 includes increasing the range of sentences for several gun crimes from a 10 year maximum, to a 14 year maximum. This is one of the truly reasonable sections of the legislation.

Replacement of “10” and “ten” with “14”
14 The Act is amended by replacing “10” and “ten” with “14” in the following provisions:
(a) paragraph 95(2)‍(a);
(b) paragraph 96(2)‍(a);
(c) the portion of subsection 99(2) before paragraph (a) and subsection 99(3);
(d) the portion of subsection 100(2) before paragraph (a) and subsection 100(3); and
(e) the portion of subsection 103(2) before paragraph (a) and subsection 103(2.‍1).

That being said, Bill C-22 (another piece before Parliament), seeks to eliminate the mandatory minimum sentences on many serious gun crimes. Overall, these are very strange, and somewhat conflicting portions.

Posted on

Bill C-21: Redefining Replica Firearms, Turning Them Into Prohibited Weapons

This Bill brings Red Flag and Yellow Flag Laws onto Canadian gun owners, regardless of how law abiding they may be. It also redefines what a “replica” is, and potentially causes more problems.

1. Gun Rights Are Essential, Need Protecting

The freedoms of a society can be gauged by the laws and attitudes they have towards firearms. Governments, and other groups can push around an unarmed population much easier than those who can defend themselves. It’s not conspiratorial to wonder about those pushing for gun control. In fact, healthy skepticism is needed for a society to function.

2. What Criminal Code Currently Says

replica firearm means any device that is designed or intended to exactly resemble, or to resemble with near precision, a firearm, and that itself is not a firearm, but does not include any such device that is designed or intended to exactly resemble, or to resemble with near precision, an antique firearm; (réplique)

The Criminal Code, under Section 84(1), already has a definition for a replica firearm, and it’s a pretty clear one. However, this would make changes to it regarding energy of the discharge, and speed.

3. Changes Bill C-21 Would Make To Code

1 (1) The definition replica firearm in subsection 84(1) of the Criminal Code is replaced by the following:

replica firearm means any device that is designed or intended to exactly resemble, or to resemble with near precision, a firearm that is designed or adapted to discharge a shot, bullet or other projectile at a muzzle velocity exceeding 152.‍4 m per second and at a muzzle energy exceeding 5.‍7 Joules, and that itself is not a firearm, but does not include any such device that is designed or intended to exactly resemble, or to resemble with near precision, an antique firearm; (réplique)

(2) Section 84 of the Act is amended by adding the following after subsection (3.‍1):

Certain firearms deemed to be prohibited devices
(3.‍2) For the purposes of sections 99 to 101, 103 to 107 and 117.‍03, a firearm is deemed to be a prohibited device if
(a) it is proved that the firearm is not designed or adapted to discharge a shot, bullet or other projectile at a muzzle velocity exceeding 152.‍4 m per second or at a muzzle energy exceeding 5.‍7 Joules; and
(b) the firearm is designed or intended to exactly resemble, or to resemble with near precision, a firearm, other than an antique firearm, that is designed or adapted to discharge a shot, bullet or other projectile at a muzzle velocity exceeding 152.‍4 m per second and at a muzzle energy exceeding 5.‍7 Joules.

From this new definition, could air guns, airsoft guns, paintball guns and pellet guns now be considered prohibited weapons? After all, many do “resemble” regular firearms.

By this new definition, many of those guns available for purchase by the general public might qualify. They aren’t designed for the same capacity as real ones. But “exactly resembling, or resembling with near precision” could be very subjective. It also raises the question of what kind of due diligence a person should do to ensure that their gun is not resembling (exactly, or with near precision), a prohibited weapon.

Since these aren’t standard firearms there’s no way to get a license to own them, unless that’s coming next. Is this a way to ban other types of “guns”, or is this just poor wording?

Posted on

Conservatives Whine About Sexual Assault During Quarantine, Not The Forced Quarantines Themselves

This is a new level of moral relativity. Apparently, authorities detaining people for 14 days under the false pretense of public safety is okay. The forcible confinement is not the issue. Nor is the nasal rape that comes in the form of PCR tests. However, the entire experience is suddenly a human rights violation if a sexual assault is committed during that time.

1. Rempel Supports House Arrest In Principle

https://twitter.com/GregMcLeanYYC/status/1358115105683066881

This is from February 6, 2021. At the 28 second mark, Michelle Rempel-Garner explicitly states that everyone (presuming her party included), supports the idea of forcing people into their homes for 14 days at a time.

In her usual “Canada last” ways, she does ask for exemptions for Temporary Foreign Workers from quarantine, at a time when unemployment in Canada is still extremely high.

To reiterate, the “Official Opposition” doesn’t have a problem with imprisoning people. Their complaints are limited to some of the details of implementing such policies.

2. Fake Outrage Over Assault In Quarantine

https://twitter.com/MichelleRempel/status/1365032919866118147

On February 25, Rempel pretended to be outraged that people coming into Canada were being forced into quarantine against their will, and not knowing where they are going. Keep in mind, on February 6, she was okay with this, according to her own statement.

Does any of this mean that Conservatives now have a problem with this sort of confinement? Keep in mind, it would be illegal in any other circumstances. No. Instead, all that is asked is for a review, and to do a better job of vetting the guards holding them prisoner.

“The Liberal government must take action now. We call for the Liberals to suspend the hotel quarantine requirement until they have put measures in place to ensure the safety of Canadians and institute a system for verifying at-home quarantine that doesn’t involve security agents who have not been properly vetted. During this necessary pause, the federal government should continue with on-arrival testing and the 14-day at-home quarantine for all international travelers to protect the public health of Canadians.”

Even in her statement, there is no principled objection to the quarantine camps themselves (or internment camps). There is no objection to forcing people into house arrest. In fact, they seem content to re-establish these detention centers once better screening methods are in place.

The National Post mentioned that there was a call to suspend the program, which is not the same thing as cancelling it altogether.

3. Vaccine Agenda: They’re All In It Together

(See 1:30 mark in this, or original video). Trudeau claims that “normalcy will not return without a vaccine that is widely available, and that could be a very long way off”.

https://twitter.com/erinotoole/status/1356966419934683138

This is Erin O’Toole, the leader of the so-called “Conservative” Party of Canada, which claims to be the main opposition to Trudeau. Problem is: they don’t actually oppose anything ideologically. They whine about vaccines and tests not arriving fast enough, but don’t object on moral or ethical grounds.

There’s no way to describe this other than as a dog and pony show. These “leaders” are just going through the motions.

Posted on

Bill C-238: Increase To Sentences For Gun Possession Obtained During Crime (Defeated)

This was meant to be covered a while back, but was missed. A Private Member’s Bill, C-238, was defeated. It would have increased the mandatory minimum sentences for guns obtained during the commission of an offence.

1. Gun Rights Are Essential, Need Protecting

The freedoms of a society can be gauged by the laws and attitudes they have towards firearms. Governments, and other groups can push around an unarmed population much easier than those who can defend themselves. It’s not conspiratorial to wonder about those pushing for gun control. In fact, healthy skepticism is needed for a society to function.

2. Fabianist Approach On Gun Rights

Order In Council 2020-0298, Banning 1,500 Gun Types
Bill C-71: Backdoor Long Gun Registry
Bill C-21: Red Flag Law To Seize Guns In Canada
Bill C-22: Reducing Penalties For Gun Crimes

3. Guns Obtained In Crime, Gun Trafficking

Possession of weapon obtained by commission of offence
.
96 (1) Subject to subsection (3), every person commits an offence who possesses a firearm, a prohibited weapon, a restricted weapon, a prohibited device or any prohibited ammunition that the person knows was obtained by the commission in Canada of an offence or by an act or omission anywhere that, if it had occurred in Canada, would have constituted an offence.

Marginal note: Punishment
.
(2) Every person who commits an offence under subsection (1)
(a) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of one year; or
(b) is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.

Importing or exporting knowing it is unauthorized
.
103 (1) Every person commits an offence who imports or exports
(a) a prohibited firearm, a restricted firearm, a non-restricted firearm, a prohibited weapon, a restricted weapon, a prohibited device or any prohibited ammunition, or
(b) any component or part designed exclusively for use in the manufacture of or assembly into an automatic firearm,
.
knowing that the person is not authorized to do so under the Firearms Act or any other Act of Parliament or any regulations made under an Act of Parliament.
.
Punishment — other cases
.
(2.1) In any other case, a person who commits an offence under subsection (1) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 10 years and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of one year.

Both Section 96 (weapons obtained in commission of a crime) and Section 103 (illegal import/export), would have been changed so that the mandatory minimum of 1 year in prison would be replaced by:

(a) in the case of a first offence, three years; and
(b) in the case of a second or subsequent offence, five years.

This was a relatively modest change to the Criminal Code of Canada. It was voted down, largely because of the Liberals. Credit where credit is due: this was a tiny, but worthwhile Bill.

Posted on

Bill C-22: Scrapping Mandatory Minimum Prison Sentences For Certain Gun Crimes

The other day, Bill C-21 was introduced, which would bring “red-flag” laws into Canada, and make it easier to seize guns. Now, we have Bill C-22, which reduces the penalties in the Criminal Code for crimes committed with guns. Keep in mind, last May we had an Order In Council which immediately banned some 1,500 guns.

Who gets targeted? Legal gun owners.
Who gets a break? Criminals who use guns.

1. Gun Rights Are Essential, Need Protecting

The freedoms of a society can be gauged by the laws and attitudes they have towards firearms. Governments, and other groups can push around an unarmed population much easier than those who can defend themselves. It’s not conspiratorial to wonder about those pushing for gun control. In fact, healthy skepticism is needed for a society to function.

2. JT Cut Penalties For Terrorists/Pedos

In 2018, Bill C-75 was addressed. It cut the penalties for terrorism offences. The media didn’t seem to cover that it also lowered the penalties for child sex offences as well. Tt has also been proposed to decriminalize non-disclosure of HIV status for sexual partners. Now, we get to Bill C-22, scrapping mandatory minimum sentences for people committing crimes with guns.

3. Section 85: Firearm Use Offences

85 (1) Every person commits an offence who uses a firearm, whether or not the person causes or means to cause bodily harm to any person as a result of using the firearm,
.
(a) while committing an indictable offence, other than an offence under section 220 (criminal negligence causing death), 236 (manslaughter), 239 (attempted murder), 244 (discharging firearm with intent), 244.2 (discharging firearm — recklessness), 272 (sexual assault with a weapon) or 273 (aggravated sexual assault), subsection 279(1) (kidnapping) or section 279.1 (hostage taking), 344 (robbery) or 346 (extortion);
(b) while attempting to commit an indictable offence; or
(c) during flight after committing or attempting to commit an indictable offence.

Marginal note: Using imitation firearm in commission of offence
(2) Every person commits an offence who uses an imitation firearm
(a) while committing an indictable offence,
(b) while attempting to commit an indictable offence, or
(c) during flight after committing or attempting to commit an indictable offence,
.
whether or not the person causes or means to cause bodily harm to any person as a result of using the imitation firearm.

Marginal note: Punishment
.
(3) Every person who commits an offence under subsection (1) or (2) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable
(a) in the case of a first offence, except as provided in paragraph (b), to imprisonment for a term not exceeding fourteen years and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of one year; and
(b) in the case of a second or subsequent offence, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 14 years and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of three years.
(c) [Repealed, 2008, c. 6, s. 3]

Bill C-22 would change 85(3) to this:
“Punishment
(3) Every person who commits an offence under subsection (1) or (2) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than 14 years.”

No more mandatory minimum prison sentences for the above offences. While a Judge would “likely” still impose one, it’s not required if this Bill passes as is.

4. Section 92: Unauthorized Possession

Possession of firearm knowing its possession is unauthorized
.
92 (1) Subject to subsection (4), every person commits an offence who possesses a prohibited firearm, a restricted firearm or a non-restricted firearm knowing that the person is not the holder of
.
(a) a licence under which the person may possess it; and
(b) in the case of a prohibited firearm or a restricted firearm, a registration certificate for it.

Marginal note: Possession of prohibited weapon, device or ammunition knowing its possession is unauthorized
.
(2) Subject to subsection (4), every person commits an offence who possesses a prohibited weapon, a restricted weapon, a prohibited device, other than a replica firearm, or any prohibited ammunition knowing that the person is not the holder of a licence under which the person may possess it.

Marginal note: Punishment
.
(3) Every person who commits an offence under subsection (1) or (2) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable
(a) in the case of a first offence, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years;
(b) in the case of a second offence, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of one year; and
(c) in the case of a third or subsequent offence, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of two years less a day.

Bill C-22 would change 92(3) to this:
Punishment
(3) Every person who commits an offence under subsection (1) or (2) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than 10 years.
No more minimum sentences.

5. Section 95: More Illegal Possession

Possession of prohibited or restricted firearm with ammunition
.
95 (1) Subject to subsection (3), every person commits an offence who, in any place, possesses a loaded prohibited firearm or restricted firearm, or an unloaded prohibited firearm or restricted firearm together with readily accessible ammunition that is capable of being discharged in the firearm, without being the holder of
(a) an authorization or a licence under which the person may possess the firearm in that place; and
(b) the registration certificate for the firearm.

Marginal note: Punishment
.
(2) Every person who commits an offence under subsection (1)
(a) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 10 years and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of
(i) in the case of a first offence, three years, and
(ii) in the case of a second or subsequent offence, five years; or
(b) is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.

Bill C-22 would change 95(2)(a) to this:
“(a) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than 10 years; or”
Once again, mandatory minimum sentences would disappear.

6. Section 96: Firearms Used In Crime

Possession of weapon obtained by commission of offence
.
96 (1) Subject to subsection (3), every person commits an offence who possesses a firearm, a prohibited weapon, a restricted weapon, a prohibited device or any prohibited ammunition that the person knows was obtained by the commission in Canada of an offence or by an act or omission anywhere that, if it had occurred in Canada, would have constituted an offence.

Marginal note: Punishment
.
(2) Every person who commits an offence under subsection (1)
(a) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of one year; or
(b) is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.

Bill C-22 would change 96(2)(a) to:
“(a) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than 10 years; or”
No more mandatory minimum jail sentences.

7. Section 99: Trafficking Guns/Weapons

Weapons trafficking
.
99 (1) Every person commits an offence who
(a) manufactures or transfers, whether or not for consideration, or
(b) offers to do anything referred to in paragraph (a) in respect of
.
a prohibited firearm, a restricted firearm, a non-restricted firearm, a prohibited weapon, a restricted weapon, a prohibited device, any ammunition or any prohibited ammunition knowing that the person is not authorized to do so under the Firearms Act or any other Act of Parliament or any regulations made under any Act of Parliament.

Marginal note:Punishment — firearm
.
(2) Every person who commits an offence under subsection (1) when the object in question is a prohibited firearm, a restricted firearm, a non-restricted firearm, a prohibited device, any ammunition or any prohibited ammunition is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 10 years and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of
(a) in the case of a first offence, three years; and
(b) in the case of a second or subsequent offence, five years.

Marginal note: Punishment — other cases
.
(3) In any other case, a person who commits an offence under subsection (1) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 10 years and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of one year.

Bill C-22 would change 99(3) to this:
“In any other case, a person who commits an offence under subsection (1) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than 10 years.”

Section 100(3), weapons trafficking, would also be changed such that the required minimum jail sentence would be removed. The Court could still issue them though, but would have discretion.

8. Section 244: Discharging A Firearm W/Intent

Discharging firearm with intent
.
244 (1) Every person commits an offence who discharges a firearm at a person with intent to wound, maim or disfigure, to endanger the life of or to prevent the arrest or detention of any person — whether or not that person is the one at whom the firearm is discharged.

Marginal note: Punishment
.
(2) Every person who commits an offence under subsection (1) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable
(a) if a restricted firearm or prohibited firearm is used in the commission of the offence or if the offence is committed for the benefit of, at the direction of, or in association with, a criminal organization, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 14 years and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of
(i) in the case of a first offence, five years, and
(ii) in the case of a second or subsequent offence, seven years; and
(b) in any other case, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 14 years and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of four years.

Subsequent offences
.
(3) In determining, for the purpose of paragraph (2)(a), whether a convicted person has committed a second or subsequent offence, if the person was earlier convicted of any of the following offences, that offence is to be considered as an earlier offence:
(a) an offence under this section;
(b) an offence under subsection 85(1) or (2) or section 244.2; or
(c) an offence under section 220, 236, 239, 272 or 273, subsection 279(1) or section 279.1, 344 or 346 if a firearm was used in the commission of the offence.
.
However, an earlier offence shall not be taken into account if 10 years have elapsed between the day on which the person was convicted of the earlier offence and the day on which the person was convicted of the offence for which sentence is being imposed, not taking into account any time in custody.

If passed, 244(2)(b) and 244(3)(b) will now each read:
“in any other case, to imprisonment for a term of not more than 14 years.”

Section 344(1)(a.1) and 346(1)(1.a) are also repealed, which would have called for 4 year minimum sentences in some robbery cases and extortion where firearms were not used.

It’s not enough that legal gun owners can be targeted under proposed red flag laws, or that their guns can be outlawed. Now, the Government sees fit to reduce the penalties for those committing crimes with guns.

This isn’t stupidity or ignorance.
It’s war against the Canadian public.

Posted on

Gamil Gharbi’s Crimes Okay To Gaslight Gun Owners, Men — But Don’t Use His Name

Apparently, using the birth name of a mass murder is wrong. But using his crimes to push agendas against men, and legal gun owners gets downplayed.

1. Gun Rights Are Essential, Need Protecting

The freedoms of a society can be gauged by the laws and attitudes they have towards firearms. Governments, and other groups can push around an unarmed population much easier than those who can defend themselves. It’s not conspiratorial to wonder about those pushing for gun control. In fact, healthy skepticism is needed for a society to function.

2. Quotes From The Article

This also now occurs when the Montréal Massacre is discussed. Mainstream media frequently avoid naming Marc Lépine, the legal gun owner who used his Ruger Mini-14 semi-automatic rifle to kill 14 women in 1989.

Some opponents of gun control, however, still name the shooter. But they often employ Lépine’s birth name: Gamil Gharbi. In doing so, these members of the firearms community seek to “other” the gunman — to distinguish him from other gun owners, and to intimate that he was not a “real” Canadian firearms owner.

Invoking his birth name raises the spectre of stereotypes associated with “foreigners,” especially Muslims — themselves the victims of a mass shooting in Québec four years ago this month.

For anyone who has followed this at all, the massacre by Lépine/Gharbi “has” been used for political agendas. Specifically, it has been used to push gun control measures, mandatory minimum jail sentences for gun crimes, and to narrative of women being the victims of male violence.

The author makes no mention whatsoever of the gun control legislation being advanced as a result of Gharbi’s crimes. There is also just passing mention of the anti-male narrative that has resulted.

Instead, the outrage seems limited to one point: that Marc Lépine’s birth name, Ghamil Gharbi is frequently used. That name is (supposedly) used to point out his Muslim heritage.

Lépine was born in Montréal. His mother was a French-Canadian nurse; his father was an Algerian businessman. Lépine’s parents split up when he was a child, and his mother returned to work to support the family. At 14, his name was legally changed and he took on his mother’s pre-marital surname.

Groups representing firearm owners frequently seek to define gun violence as mostly a problem of criminal gangs. They argue that the licensed firearms community is responsible for few of the illicit drug-related shootings that grab headlines in Canadian newspapers.

That’s true, though those same groups are reluctant to discuss other kinds of gun violence, including domestic homicide and suicides, which often involve legal firearm owners.

The fact that the Montréal Massacre shooter had acquired a licence to purchase his rifle (then called a Firearms Acquisition Certificate) is problematic for the gun community.

The author admits that one of the main defenses is true: that legal gun owners are not responsible for bulk of the gang and drug related deaths which are rampant in cities like Toronto.

No mention of the bulk of the guns used being illegally obtained, and many smuggled in from the United States.

Law-abiding gun owners are rightfully upset when the horrific crimes of a few people are used as justification to crack down on their rights.

How is it a problem? Yes, he did have a license at a time. And to get it, a person would have to undergo a police background check. And a license can be suspended or revoked for many reasons. By contrast, people who want to commit serious crimes with a gun won’t be deterred by an illegal firearm possession.

The solution therefore for some Canadian firearms owners is to distinguish Lépine from other gun users by referring to him as Gamil Gharbi.

Politicians and gun control advocates try to lump them in with people like Gharbi, and get new laws passed. So, distinguishing themselves is important. They differentiate from Gharbi by pointing out that the vast majority of them are not committing crimes.

As a side note: why would using his name be bad? After all, aren’t all cultures and religions equally valid when it comes to respecting the rights of women?

As historian Karen Dubinsky correctly noted in 2009:
.
“Right-wing Canadian males seem eager to name Lépine as Gharbi, because to them this means he was a product of North African, not North American, culture … this proves the foreignness of Lépine/Gharbi’s misogyny and tells us everything we need to know about Algerians, Muslims and the rightness of the War on Terror.”

Gun control advocates love to tie Gharbi to the community that owns and uses guns — LEGALLY — but feign outrage when the community pushes back. No decent person wants anything to do with him, or his violent ways.

It’s interesting to bring up the War on Terror. In reality, this is a series of wars America will fight in order to obtain regional hegemony for another country. PNAC, (the Project for a New American Century), is something Neocons support, but actual right wing Canadians and Americans don’t.

Some gun owners have been particularly keen to refer to Lépine as Gharbi.
.
For example, an organization called Justice for Gun Owners wrote in 2017 that “radical feminists like to portray Gamil Gharbi as a typical Canadian male, but this is very far from the truth.” He was, rather, “the son of an Algerian wife beater.”

In 2018, the National Firearms Association published a letter in its official journal that connected several mass shootings to immigrants or people of colour.

The writer admitted that he might be “stepping onto a slippery slope,” but said he could not understand why the media still used the name Lépine when “in point of fact, his actual name is Gamil Gharbi and he was born the son of a reportedly abusive Muslim immigrant from Algeria.” He asked how the home life of Lépine differed “from the average law-abiding Canadian gun owner?”

Since the Canadian Government is hesitant to release statistics on race and crime, let’s use F.B.I. Crime Statistics. In 2019, there was one group, which makes up about 13% of the population, but consisted 51.2% of all murders, 52.7% of all robberies, and 41.8% of weapons related arrests. These numbers are pretty consistent year after year.

Does it mean all people from a certain group are bad? Of course not, but just disparities cannot be ignored.

Gharbi is used as an example to shame and humiliate men, or legal gun owners, and it’s no problem. But mention his Algerian ancestry, and suddenly it’s a big deal.

Blaming immigrants or people of colour for gun violence is not new in Canada. Historically, Canadians have often ascribed a tendency towards violence to people of some races or ethnic origin.

Today, however, invoking the birth name of the Montréal Massacre shooter is an attempt by some gun owners to avoid taking any responsibility for violence in Canada, and to instead distract by pointing fingers at immigrants and people of colour.

It’s part of an effort to say that law-abiding gun owners (or LAGOs, as some call themselves) are never the problem.

There’s just one problem with this argument. Lépine was a licensed gun owner. That troubling historical fact should not be forgotten.

Nice strawman. It’s disingenuous to claim that licensed gun owners say they are never the problem. Some have committed serious crimes. However, people who who do follow the law do not want to be involved with those who do.

No one is blaming all immigrants or all people of colour for all violence. Individual people should be held responsible for the actions they are engage in.

That being said, certain groups do commit very disproportionate levels of violent crime. Taking a look at Toronto’s most wanted, does that look like it’s old-stock Canadians committing them?

It’s entirely possible that the author has little knowledge about the politics that Gharbi helped advance (intentionally or not). However, the tone and content comes across as condescending, and as gaslighting.

3. Selective Outrage Over Gharbi Shooting

The content of this article reflects almost perfectly how partial and selective people can be over this. Either he is completely unaware, or just makes an argument in bad faith. There’s no discussion that this mass murder helped advance the gun control agenda. Not a word about the harsher prison sentences that were made law because of this. It’s briefly mentioned — but not condemned — that feminist groups use this event to criticize men in general.

But don’t use his birth name: Gamil Gharbi.
Don’t mention his Algerian heritage.
Don’t refer to him as a Muslim.