It won't end with killing the gun registry

I won't bother writing a long obituary on the coming death of the long gun registry; I've made all my arguments previously and the issues pro and con have been well-debated. I will say this, though: if you think the anti-gun control lobby is going to declare victory here and call it a day, you're sadly mistaken.

This is an important victory for them, and will only embolden to continue chipping away in favour of what they call "gun rights" in Canada, and what others call legitimate controls and restrictions on gun ownership.

What's next? While one of their frequent anti-registry arguments was "you already need a firearms license, so the registry is redundant" there are signs that, you guessed it, eliminating firearms licensing may be next on their hit list. The Canadian Taxpayers Federation seems in favour:

“The bill introduced today (Ending the Long-gun Registry Act) is long overdue,” said CTF Federal and Ontario Director Gregory Thomas. “Our supporters would have preferred that the government go further, and also eliminate licensing for non-restricted long-guns, but today’s legislation addresses the most wasteful and unnecessary parts of the program.”

And the editor of Outdoor Canada magazine is sounding the alarm about a growing anti-licensing movement:

Now that the Ending the Long-gun Registry Act, or Bill C-19, is before the House of Commons and all but certain to pass into law, should the shooting sports community take aim at also getting rid of non-restricted gun licences for individuals? The rumblings are out there, with the Canadian Taxpayers Federation making the most noise.

Emboldened by their victory on the gun registry, anti-gun control activists will be pushing the Conservatives to use their majority to weaken Canada's gun control systems, and bring it more into line with the much looser regimes we wee in the U.S. The NRA has already been spending in Canada. Gun control advocates will need to be vigilant and mobilize public opinion to beat back the coming next wave, whether it comes around licensing or other areas.

In related news, it seems the pro-gun lobby is increasingly less and less about hunting, farm protection and the rural way of life, an argument I can sympathize with, and more and more about young men wanting shiny bang bang toys they saw on video games:

The consumer tastes of Canadian gun owners are fast changing, as shooters eschew vintage hunting rifles in favour of the latest "tacti-cool" military-style weapons - many of which appear in movies and popular video games, such as Call of Duty.

As a new generation of young men become interested in shooting, but not hunting, retailers are trying to meet the growing demand for sleek firearms.

Canadian authorities, meanwhile, facing the repeal of the long-gun registry by the federal government, are worried about the trend.

Gun-lovers accuse them of trying to stall the sale of legal military technology to the public.

A worrying trend, and possibly the next front in the gun control battle as the pro-gun crowd try to remove restrictions on realistic military-style (by design) weapons that can too easily be converted to full automatic fire.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

The long gun registry lives, at least for now

With last night's nail-biter vote on a Liberal motion to end the Conservative bid to kill the gun registry passing 153 to 151, you can now be returned to your previously scheduled program of baseless election speculation. The registry will live to be a political prop for all for another day or three. But first, a look back at the vote and the way forward.

THE POLICY

It's important to say that the most important thing is that the registry remains in place as a valuable tool that police forces across the country insist they need to do their jobs and that everyone from doctors and nurses to victim's groups believe is an important (and symbolic) part of a wider gun control regime.

It doesn't end here. The anti-registry forces have promised to try and try again. The pro-registry forces can't rest here either. Both the Liberals and the NDP have similar proposals to reform the registry. The Liberals have said they'll implement there's when in government; the NDP promise a private member's bill as soon as possible. I believe there is much common ground here. I'd like to see the Liberals and NDP get together on registry reform legislation and push it through this Parliament.These reforms are needed, there's no need to wait, and it would put rural NDP and Liberal MPs in a much better position next election to be able to point to a reformed registry. I hope both parties can at least temporarily put aside the politics to work together on this one.

And I agree with Ian Capstick's point on Power and Politics last night: the gun control lobby shouldn't stop here. They should move the debate to new ground, such as exploring selective weapons bans. The same polling registry opponents like to point to in support of scrapping it also show that 44 per cent of Canadians would support a complete hand gun ban (the same number are opposed.) An earlier poll showed 45 per cent of Canadians felt owning firearms should be illegal altogether. I wouldn't go that far, but there definitely is appetite for stricter gun control.

THE POLITICS

The Conservatives like to say they were going to be a winner either way. Of course, they always say this. Prorogation was still a magnificent victory for the Prime Minister's genius. Anyway, time will tell. Bottom line: they wanted to kill the registry, and they failed. They took their best shot last night, using a private member's bill to make it seem a pseudo free vote, and nearly moved enough NDP votes to take it. But the registry lives.

And I ask you, are these the faces of happy people?

They lost the battle, but they'll tell you it was a Pyhrric victory for the opposition and the war will still be their's. It's nearly entirely spin, but it's pretty good spin.

Certainly, the registry is useful to the Conservative Party as a fundraising tool. I have no doubt they wasted no time getting an e-mail solicitation out to the faithful after the vote, and I'm sure when this quarter's financials are in, it will show the faithful opened their wallets. The registry is also a useful way of keeping their rural base energized and onside: as long as it lives, they need to vote Conservative to get it killed. If it's gone, maybe another ballot issue comes up that changes the equation. And if they really wanted it killed, they'd put it on a money bill and make it a confidence matter. It's more useful as a wedge.

The party has their eye on potential pick-ups from Liberal and NDP pro-registry voters in rural Canada. As I've said before I'm doubtful they'll find gains; I think the registry has already been factored into rural voting patterns. If it's a ballot issue for you, you're probably voting Conservative already. You're nearly definitely not voting Liberal. Time will tell, of course, but I'd be surprised.

More interesting for me, and continually ignored by the so-called liberal media, is the impact for the Conservatives in urban Canada and Quebec, where the registry is popular. Many urban and Quebec MPs are offside from their constituents on this issue. And it's also in these registry-supportive areas where the Conservatives need gains to earn a majority.

Will the registry be a ballot issue in urban Canada and Quebec? It remains to be seen. It could be. Certainly, it hasn't been in the past, nor has it generated the raw emotion it has in rural Canada. Two things on that, though.

One, the registry is the status quo, it's accepted as a fait accompli in urban Canada, so there's been no need to get too worked up over it. And two, the Conservatives haven't elevated the issue before. Sure, it was in the platform. But it wasn't in the brochures and stump speeches of urban Conservative MPs and candidates, and in government Harper didn't show any eagerness to kill the registry until now. With Candice Hoepner's bill, the issue is now national news, and you can count on the opposition reminding urban and Quebec voters in the next campaign that the Conservatives very nearly killed the registry, and have promised to not rest until they succeed.

This could well become a ballot issue for those educated urban women that helped flip a number of urban ridings to Harper in the last election, and if it does it could mean Conservative trouble.

For the Liberals, there is risk but also potential for growth. Deciding to "whip the vote" was a risky gambit for Michael Ignatieff, but one worth making and a little less risky then it seems on the surface. Remember, months back the Liberal caucus came together, urban and rural, and hashed-out a compromise that they could all agree on, that balanced the legitimate concerns of rural Canadians while keeping the registry alive. With that compromise agreed to the caucus was united and onside. So was it really necessary to call a formal whip?

Perhaps not, but I'd argue it was still a good call. For one thing, it made clear the Liberal Party was united on the issue and it shifted the public and media pressure to the NDP. It ended months of possible "how will x, how will y" vote stories immediately. Liberal MPs could go right to work explaining the compromise position. And for a leader who has been criticized for a lack of strength, I think the show of "whipping" the vote even though the compromise was reached was useful to portray Ignatieff as a strong, decisive leader. You can also make an argument for the consensus-leadership approach that Jack Layton took on the issue, but Ignatieff and Layton have different leadership perceptions and challenges to overcome. Ignatieff had to show a firmer hand to the public than Layton did.

What will it mean electorally? Well, there certainly is risk in rural Canada, both for sitting Liberal MPs and for growth potential. But as I argued above, I think that the pool of voters for whom the registry is a ballot issue are lost to us no matter what we do on the issue. There were a lot of tight-margin ridings both ways last time. Could this issue move some votes there? Potentially. Enough to swing seats LPC to CPC? I'm doubtful. Remember, the LPC ran a very weak campaign last time and turned in one of its worst showings in history. I'll make a bold prediction: at worst, we'll suck slightly less next time. So I don't see enough Liberal vote being in play here to be difference-making.

What about urban Canada? Again, I think that's more interesting. I went over many of the reasons above why this could be troubling for the Conservatives in urban Canada and Quebec. I'd suspect the Liberals will put this issue front and centre in those ridings in the next election. There is the potential for pick-ups in a number of ridings across the country for the Liberals here. If there are rural loses they'd, at worse, be balanced by urban gains, with a net positive being more likely. It would have been a bigger mover had the Conservatives succeeded in killing the registry, but it could still be a ballot issue.

For the NDP, they're getting positive reviews for Layton's handling of the issue. My bias is obvious here and my awareness of that fact can't negate it (although I shall try), but I have to disagree with those positive reviews. I think he fumbled his way through this, and was lucky to pull it off. But in the end, I think he probably did the best he could with a bad situation.

And Layton did have a very difficult challenge here. His party was much more divided on this issue than the Liberals were. When the Liberals unified around their compromise position, the NDP was left without cover. Layton didn't want it to be NDP votes that killed the registry, but he has a large rural caucus that doesn't support the registry and feel their constituents don't either. Somehow, he had to bridge those two sides.

The compromise was there, and he found it. I was genuinely surprised that it took him as long as it did though. What followed seemed a strange kabuki play as a parade of NDP MPs came forward to change their votes on the issue. In the end, their least-vulnerable MPs took one for the team, and those most at risk were given cover and allowed to vote with the government. And I give full credit to all those that made the difficult decision to support the registry, and wrestled with this issue mightily.

Will Layton and the NDP get a bump from being seen as allowing this to be a free-vote, despite the intense lobbying behind the scenes? Perhaps. I think it would be negligible, though. I think the question, though, is can the NDP have their cake and eat it too on this one? Can they support the registry in the cities and oppose it in rural Canada at the same time? I think that's a tough sell that would hurt them on both sides. If they can successfully move reforms to bridge that urban-rural divide, however, it over-rides that problem.

Electorally, I don't see this hurting the NDP in rural Canada, particularly if the registry is reformed. Their most at-risk MPs voted to scrap, and the others have sufficient margins to overcome any blow-back on this issue. In urban Canada (and Quebec), if the registry had died with NDP rural votes they'd have been in serious trouble. Recent polling makes that abundantly clear. With the registry saved, I think they're probably fine. You could make an "you can't trust the NDP to support the registry when the chips are down" argument, but I don't think it would resonate.

For the BQ, nearly the entire Conservative caucus in Quebec is offside with their constituents on this issue, where the registry is very popular. With the BQ as the second-choice in most of those seats. you can be sure Gilles Duceppe will be reminding them of this next election.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Canadian views are hardening on gun control, & away from the Conservative line

Angus Reid released survey data today with a lot of questions on gun control and gun registry-related issues. I’m sure you’ll hear many of the usual c/Conservative suspects grab a few of the figures to support their talking-points. Indeed, they already are. But looking more closely at the numbers, and more importantly at the trend lines, show some interesting findings they’ll chose to ignore.

They don’t provide the trendlines directly, but if you pull-up the last gun study Angus Reid did in 2009 and compare the findings (the bulk of the questions are identical) some very interesting trends emerge showing the views of Canadians are trending toward greater measures on gun control. You also see some of the funny inherent contradictions that come with public opinion measurement.

For example, Canadians by and large agree gun violence is becoming less of a serious problem. Just 28 per cent called it serious, down by six points, while 42 per cent called it moderately serious, down by four points. Some 23 per cent said it was not too serious, a rise of eight points.

You’d think with that trend, people wouldn’t favour stricter gun control measures. But they do. When asked if they’d favour a complete ban on handguns in Canada, nearly half, 49 per cent, said yes it would be justified, while 39 per cent said it would not be justified. Again, besides the near majority, the interesting thing here is the trends: support for a ban was up three points, and more strikingly opposition to a handgun ban was down by seven points.

Which brings us to the infamous gun registry. One question you’re seeing be latched-onto is if the registry has been successful or not fighting crime. Just 13 per cent said it was (up two) while 43 per cent said it wasn’t (down four) and 20 per cent said it had no effect (down three). Those are interesting results, particularly when compared to the complete ban results. Do they mean many want the government to go further because the registry hasn’t been effective enough, or scrap it all together because it’s ineffective? Probably both, but it’s impossible to say with the available data.

On support/oppose scrapping the long gun registry, the figure you’ll hear most is that 44 per cent support scrapping it, while 35 per cent oppose it. That those numbers aren’t more wide given the opinion on its effectiveness shows that some simply want a more effective registry. And again, here, the trend is telling. Support for scrapping the registry has dropped by seven points since last November, while opposition is up by one point. Which means some former registry opponents are on the fence, and support for scrapping the registry is on the decline.

Finally, going further than just a handgun ban, Angus Reid also asked if it should be legal or illegal for ordinary Canadians to own firearms all together. In a reversal from last year, a plurality of Canadian (45 per cent) said it should be illegal, and 40 per cent said it should stay legal. Illegal was up by six points, while keep it legal declined by seven.

So, look at the numbers and the trends in totality and what can we take away? Canadians are increasingly favouring stricter gun control, not looser. Support for scrapping the registry is declining, and support shouldn’t be taken as a condemnation of gun control.

Finally, a few things are often overlooked by the pundits and the media around this issue. They paint it as a rural/urban thing, which is fair enough. But while they spend much time on how this could impact rural voting, they ignore how it could impact urban voting. We have the registry now, and I’d argue this issue has largely been factored into rural voting patterns. Urban, though, is a different story. How many swing urban soccer mom votes who have gone Conservative during Harper’s sweater vest era (and moved seats) would flip if he succeeds in killing the registry and is seen as soft on gun control? Those are swing seats at risk, while the votes they’d gain are in rural ridings they probably already hold.

Also, look at the regionals and you’ll see opinions in Quebec are quite staunchly anti-gun. Some 76 per cent of Quebecers view gun violence as very or moderately serious, 54 per cent support a handgun ban, 54 per cent would make gun ownership illegal, and 51 per cent oppose scrapping the gun registry.

A: Urban Canada. Quebec.

Q: What are two places the Conservatives can’t afford to lose support if they’re going to ever get a majority?

Were I an NDPer representing a riding like Outremont I’d be a little concerned here too.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Taking a few bullets from the Conservative rifle on the registry

As a Liberal who grew up in a rural riding I’ve never been a big fan of the long gun registry, and not just for political reasons. It was an issue that spoke to the ongoing urban/rural divide in the Liberal Party, a well-intentioned piece of legislation that didn’t consider the legitimate concerns of rural Canadians – most likely because their perspective just wasn’t present at the table when it was drafted.

If anything, for rural Liberals, it exposed a chicken and egg paradox – are Liberal policies not considerate of rural Canadians because we don’t have many rural Liberal MPs to offer input, or do we not have many Liberal rural MPs to offer input because our policies aren’t considerate of rural Canadians?

So I wasn’t optimistic when I read that Michael Ignatieff was offering some proposals on the gun registry he hoped would appeal to rural Canadians, or at least to those eight Liberals that voted to scrap the registry on second reading of Conservative MP Candice Hoeppner’s (not really) private members bill. But after hearing that all the caucus is apparently on board with the changes and will now vote against the Hoeppner bill, I took a look.

Essentially, the proposed Liberal reforms are as follows:

*First-time failures to register firearms would be treated as a simple, non-criminal, ticketing offence, instead of a criminal offence as they are currently;

*Fees for new licenses, renewals and upgrades would be permanently eliminated; and

*The registration process – especially the forms – would be streamlined to make registration as easy as possible.

I wasn’t optimistic at first, but I actually like these changes. When you talk to anti-registry folks they have a lot of arguments against it, some legitimate and some not. I think these reforms address nearly all of the legitimate concerns I’ve heard against the registry, or at least those I’m inclined to agree with.

Their big argument was criminality: why should I be a criminal if I forget to register Great-Grandpa’s old rifle from the Boer War? OK, it’s now a non-criminal, ticket offence. Another argument was I have a large rifle collection, you’re going to gouge me with fees? OK, no more fees. And all that paperwork? There’ll still be some, but we’ll streamline it.

The arguments that are left tend to lose steam:

Why should I have to register my gun? Well, why not? You register your car and your dog.

Criminals won’t obey the law and register! Criminals by definition don’t obey laws. Does that mean we shouldn’t have any?

It's too expensive? Yes, building it went over budget but that money is spent, the operating costs are actually low. If a house went over budget during construction, do you tear it down once built?

The police don’t use it! Tell that to the deputy commissioner of the RCMP and scores of police chiefs and officers across the country who say otherwise. Not all police support it, true, but many do. So if even half find it to be a useful tool, should we take it away for ideological reasons?

From there we descend into the conspiracy theories, about gun registration being the first step toward the government rounding up all the gun and marching us off to socialist work camps or something. I actually think that’s only if Obama gets a second mandate, actually.

The politics in Parliament

So with these proposed reforms, I understand that the entire Liberal caucus is now supposedly onside against Hoeppner’s bill. Reportedly Ignatieff will whip the vote, and I’m sure OLO wouldn’t whip it if they didn’t have them all onside. Well, one would like to think so, at least. It would be a pretty dumb move otherwise.

Even if all Liberal MPs are whipped, present and accounted for, and the BQ again votes no, it’s not enough to defeat the legislation though. Some 12 NDP MPs broke ranks and voted to kill the registry on second reading, mainly from rural ridings. The NDP says while it supports the registry, but it allows its MPs to vote their conscience on private members bills. Joe Comartin told Power and Politics Monday that while they’re trying to convince the 12, leader Jack Layton isn’t likely to whip the vote. Unless he changes his mind or convinces his 12 MPs to change theirs, the NDP will let the registry be killed. Indeed, they’ll help kill it.

It is a tricky situation, trying to bridge those cleavages within a caucus. We’ve been there. But hiding behind the “it’s a private members bill so it’s a free vote” line is a cop-out. The Conservatives are pushing this legislation; they did it as a pseudo private members bill PRECISESLY BECAUSE they wanted to peel off enough Liberal and NDP votes to pass it, because they knew they couldn’t pass it as a government bill. This is what the Conservatives want.

And if you believe the Conservatives aren’t whipping this vote on the down low, you’re hopelessly naïve. Not one Conservative MP from an urban riding (there are a few) or Quebec supports the registry? Well, all-righty then.

If the NDP really supports the registry, they need to either work with the Liberals and BQ on reforms that can get their caucus onside, or bite the bullet (to use a metaphor) and whip the vote. But it’s hard to have it both ways.

And the politics in Canada

Interesting to consider how this will play outside the Queensway. Let’s start with rural Canada. Will the Liberal reforms be enough to appease registry opponents? Not all of them. But some of them. There are those who will accept nothing less than abolition. They’re not likely to vote for Liberal for a boatload of reasons no matter what. But I think for many rural voters, the reforms address enough of their concerns to take this issue off the table for them. Getting them to vote Liberal will take a lot more, but it removes a roadblock and is a step in the right direction.

In urban Canada there’s probably no change as they support the registry and don’t think it should go anywhere, and I don’t think they’ll see the reforms as diminishing the effectiveness of the registry.

Now, what if the registry is killed by the Conservatives, with NDP support? Well, in rural Canada I’d see it as status quo. Could our rural MPs that voted to save it in vain be punished for trying to save the registry? Maybe. I’m sure the rabid registry haters would try to whip up some anger just out of spite. But given that they’d have won – the registry is dead – it’s likely most people who wanted it killed would be glad it’s gone and would cast their ballots on other issues.

In the cities, though, where support for the registry is strong, it’s another story. If the Liberal caucus unites in favour of the registry and the NDP splits to let it die, I wouldn’t want to be campaigning for the NDP in many urban ridings next election. What will they say in Surrey and Burnaby, in Vancouver-East, in Trinity-Spadina, and even Toronto-Danforth. Heck, how about Outremont?

And what about the Conservatives? We hear a lot of spin about how the Liberals are out of touch with rural voters on the registry. Well, aren’t the Conservatives then out of touch with urban voters on the registry? Hasn’t hurt them to date as they’ve taken no high-profile steps to kill it. Pass Hoeppner’s bill though and it’s another story, and I don’t think the “it’s a private members bill” line will fly with many urban voters. The Conservatives need to gain urban seats to move forward. This would make that dammed hard.

Were I a conspiracy theorist, I'd posit that the Conservatives want the NDP to defeat this bill. That lets them say to their base "we tried our best" while not pissing off the urban voters they need for growth purposes. And it lets them keep the registry alive as a red-meat issue, which has been their modus-operandi on justice issues from day one -- favouring politics and the appearance of progress over actual action.

So we’ll see how this all plays out. Right now, the ball is in the court of Layton and the NDP. Were I a betting man, I’d wager they find a way to get their caucus onside with some amendments. With the Liberals no longer to give them cover, being seen killing the registry would be unthinkable.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

(Video) What we need is bullet control

And on the lighter side, maybe Chris Rock had it right after all..

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Adult conversation on the gun registry?

On the eve of the vote on second reading to end the long-gun registry that will be a free vote for Liberal and NDP MPs, Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff is sending signals he’ll propose policy that would seek to continue the registry while trying to address the concerns of rural Canadians, and indeed, rural Liberals:

Ignatieff said his caucus supports the "principle of gun control," and he personally believes it should include long guns. But he said the issue has divided urban and rural Canadians, and faces "resistance" in rural Canada.

He said his caucus is working on proposals to bridge that gap. In French, he suggested it could include "decriminalizing" the registration system for long guns.

It was a Liberal government that enacted the legal requirements to register firearms, including long-barrelled hunting rifles or shotguns, under the Criminal Code of Canada. The federal Conservatives have brought in successive "amnesties" since 2006 that were meant to encourage compliance by otherwise law-abiding and licensed long-gun owners.

"The fundamental issue is to make sure we get a system of gun control which works both for rural Canada and for urban Canada," Ignatieff said.

"We want to listen to victims groups, sports hunters, legitimate gun owners to find a way to rebuild legitimacy for the gun registry in rural Canada. That's not a thing you can do overnight."

Ignatieff said changes would start with a "simple principle: we are for a firearms registration system that includes all firearms, but there is a problem of resistance in rural areas. It could be possible to decriminalize but to maintain a firearms registration system for long guns."

Interesting. For those Liberals who have been saying it’s time for Ignatieff to have adult conversations with Canadians, here’s a litmus-test for ourselves: can we have an adult conversation on this issue within our own party?

For too long we’ve been playing politics on this issue too, pandering to our urban base while ignoring the rural perspective. Part of the problem has been we haven’t had rural voices at the policy-making table to add perspective. And part of the problem was the calculus was made better to secure the urban even if it means punting the rural.

Whatever happens with the private member’s bill, it appears we’re going to get a chance here within Liberal-land to try this one again, to try to find common policy ground on gun control that can address the concerns of both urban and rural Liberals. The question is, will it be actual debate? Online thus far, the tone has been largely support the registry no matter what or you’re a bad Liberal and a bad person. That reeks of the arrogance the Conservatives always accuse Liberals of having, and it’s insulting to the rural Liberals who have every right to their view.

This issue isn’t a make or break for rural Liberals by a long-shot, at least not for me. But it is symbolic. If you send the message that their views aren’t welcome, that there won’t be actual debate, that the urban way will always carry the day, then you’re just reaffirming the Conservative talking point about this being a Toronto party. Is that really what we want to do?

So can we put ideology aside to accept that each side has legitimate concerns, and try to find common ground? I hope so. Because if Liberals can’t even have adult conversations with ourselves, we’ll never be able to have them with Canadians.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Conservatives expanding the gun registry, but it still totally sucks, promise

If you're one of those value for money people, or an ideological conservative, you really want to wonder about the news the Conservative are poised to spend millions expanding the gun registry processing centre Miramichi, New Brunswick:

You always hear rumours the gun registry is to be closed down, but how often do you hear it's going to actually get bigger?

But growth may be in store for the registry, said a spokesman for the RCMP last week.

"At this time, the anticipated in-service date for the new accommodation is summer 2011," RCMP Sgt. Greg Cox said by e-mail from Ottawa.

Cox said the RCMP is in talks with Public Works and Government Services Canada (PWGSC) to arrange appropriate space for the gun registry, and are awaiting approval for such a project. He hoped it would come in the fall of this year, after which it will be easier to tell how things will go from there, including when tenders will be issued.

They're not adding staff, but apparently the current space is to smaller, so they need a bigger one.

For ideological conservatives, the annoyance is that the Conservatives since first elected three years ago have failed to take any meaningful, serious action to attempt to abolish the gun registry, despite such a policy having been a core policy principle for years. Indeed, they're pumping more money into it.

Second, for those who just favour sensible fiscal management, its puzzling as well. While the Conservatives have promised not one job will be cut from the Mirimachi centre and they're investing tax dollars in its expansion, at the same time they've been continually taking steps to weaken the effectiveness and viability of the registry by issuing amnesties so owners don't need to register their rifles and shotguns. Does it really make sense to be spending more money on a program you're actively working to undermine and supposedly desperate to kill?

Assume they do eventually kill the registry for rifles and shotguns, leaving it for just handguns and what not. If they were serious about doing that, why expand the centre when the bulk of its workload would then be taken away?

Statistics from the Canadian Firearms Program's most recent report, however, shows that the long-gun registry makes up the vast majority of guns registered across the country and, therefore, the bulk of the work for Miramichi employees.

The figures show that of the 7,313,247 firearms registered across Canada as of December 2008, 6,652,208 are of the non-restricted or, long-gun variety, which includes hunting rifles and unmodified shotguns.

With restricted and prohibited firearms, meanwhile -- including handguns, semi-automatic and automatic weapons -- only about 660,000 are registered nationally.

They really seem to want to hold onto Tilly O'Neill-Gordon's seat.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

A billion here, a billion there...

Let's all hope and pray that Garry Breitkreuz never winds up anywhere near a portfolio where he controls any kind of spending:

The $2-billion figure often cited as the cost of the gun registry is a Saskatchewan MP's "fabrication" that took on a life of its own as Conservative MPs and the media repeated it for years, says a new study.

In late 2002, a report by auditor general Sheila Fraser said the cost of the federal gun registry tallied nearly $1 billion from 1996-2006.

Her figure became political ammunition in the hands of Saskatchewan backbench MP Garry Breitkreuz, an opponent of gun control who was in the Reform Party, then the Canadian Alliance, and is now a Conservative.

He began calling the gun registry a "$1-billion boondoggle."

But within four months his language had escalated into "a $2-billion boondoggle."

The study says Breitkreuz "strategically created" that catch phrase. The study calls it his "fabrication."

Here's my favourite part of the story, from the fabricator himself:

Breitkreuz said in an interview Wednesday that at one level, the study's authors are "disingenuous" for "quibbling over $1 billion or $2-billion."

Either figure "is horrific. It's wasted money that would have been much better spent going after organized crime and other serious things."

Because hey, it's only 100% inflation.

But you know, a billion here, a billion there, pretty soon we're talking real money...

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Conservatives talking out of both sides of their mouths on gun control

While the Conservatives insist they’re totally serious about killing the gun registry, despite introducing the bill to do so in the undemocratic, unelected, illegitimate Senate, they’re also insisting killing the registry won’t mean a single job loss for the central processing facility for the registry in Miramichi, New Brunswick:

(Conservative MP Tilly) O'Neill-Gordon said that as the frontline processing site for the Canadian Firearms Program, she's been told that there's much more that goes on behind the tinted windows of the heavily-secured building than simple long-gun registration.

"I have been assured by our prime minister that there will be no loss of jobs, and I have also spoken to the CEO at the gun registry, and he felt there was enough work to keep everybody there," she said.

Despite wanting to kill the registry (although not really trying that hard to do so since getting elected), the Conservatives are very keen on protecting those 200 gun registry jobs in Miramichi, and it’s all about politics. O'Neill-Gordon unseated long-time Liberal MP Charles Hubbard in the last election by just 1450 votes. It was a rare Conservative pick-up in the region, and recent polling shows the Conservatives in deep trouble in Atlantic Canada. The loss of those jobs would likely seal O'Neill-Gordon’s fate in the next election.

Unfortunately though, it would appear her rationale for keeping a gun registry processing centre open after killing the gun registry holds little water:

Statistics from the Canadian Firearms Program's most recent report, however, shows that the long-gun registry makes up the vast majority of guns registered across the country and, therefore, the bulk of the work for Miramichi employees.

The figures show that of the 7,313,247 firearms registered across Canada as of December 2008, 6,652,208 are of the non-restricted or, long-gun variety, which includes hunting rifles and unmodified shotguns.

With restricted and prohibited firearms, meanwhile -- including handguns, semi-automatic and automatic weapons -- only about 660,000 are registered nationally.

What else do they do at the processing centre, anyways? Bizarrely, it seems to be a secret…

…she's been told that there's much more that goes on behind the tinted windows of the heavily-secured building than simple long-gun registration…

The rookie MP was one of only a select few who have been given a tour of the centre, and she said it's an impressive operation.

Odd.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

See Harper speak, win a rifle

It seems to be the new normal: come see a Conservative speak and you could go home with a gun.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper is courting controversy by giving a speech this weekend at a fishing and hunting conference where organizers are auctioning off a hunting rifle.

The prime minister will deliver the keynote address tonight in Mississauga, Ont., at the annual conference of the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters. The organization is holding a silent auction at the conference for a "hunting package" that includes a rifle.

Harper's appearance comes only days after Conservative MP Garry Breitkreuz faced an uproar over plans to address a dinner where the organizers, the Canadian Shooting Sports Association, will give away a Beretta semi-automatic handgun as a raffle prize.

"Is there going to be a weapon auctioned off at every event they speak at?" said Liberal MP Mark Holland. "The optics are terrible, and when you mix it with everything else the government is doing to undermine gun control, it's disturbing."

As long as the winner is licensed and registers it, I have no problem with the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters raffling off a rifle as part of their annual conference today. Rifles and handguns are two different things. And they are hunters, so it's kinda logical.

What I do question, here, is Stephen Harper's political judgment. Usually he probably could have gotten away from this with minimal fuss. But coming just days after the Garry Breitkreuz handgun controversy, the optics of this are just ridiculous and it will not play well at all in the communities that are dealing with gang violence, communities where he has been trying to gain ground with his supposedly tough on crime legislation.

Forget the merits of the long-guns vs. hand guns debate, the fact is this raffle in conjunction with the Breitkreuz thing sends an awful message to Canadians at a time when crime is an important issue on their minds. The Conservatives should have known better, and nipped this one in the bud.

The best I can say is that maybe this is a sop to their base, a way to send a message that "forget than handgun thing, or that we haven't abolished the gun registry after three years, see, screw them liberals, we love our rifles too" and play the culture game. Maybe so, but I think the bite they're going to take on the other side outweighs the benefit of tossing a bone to the base.

It is the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters. Couldn't they just auction off a dammed fishing rod and tackle box?
_____
**Help send a BCer to BC for the Liberal convention. Any support is greatly appreciated.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Hello, Conservative base? It's me, Stephen

Last week, Stephen Harper hinted a debate would soon begin on scrapping the gun registry. More developments today on the re-connecting with a Conservative base annoyed with all the crazy spending front:

Prime Minister Stephen Harper will give the keynote address at the 81st annual general meeting of the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters next month.

The conference of the Peterborough-based federation will be held in Mississauga, Ont., from March 19 to 21.

Harper will deliver his remarks on the conference's final day.

The conference includes speakers on a number of topics including the moose program review, hydro power and the demographics of anglers and hunters.

Oh, and speaking of the gun registry (h/t Warren):

On Monday February 9th an elated Greg Rickford, MP for Kenora, stood proudly in the House of Commons to support Saskatchewan M.P. Garry Breitkreuz as he introduced a Private Members’ Bill to scrap the decade-old Canadian long-gun registry -- Bill C-301. “Gary has been working on this issue for a long time and I’m very pleased to see he is getting the chance see it through and get the long-gun registry dismantled once and for all.” Mr. Breitkreuz is near the top of the list for introducing a Private Members’ Bill which is typically difficult to pass through the house. “This Private Members’ Bill is special and may be different” said a hopeful Rickford.

Elated, that's cute. Interesting though that this isn't a government bill. Rather, it's a private member's bill sponsored by a backbench MP. Which has to make one question the Harper government's seriousness on the issue. It seems to my biased eyes like the Conservatives are making a rather half-assed attempt to assuage their base. Action if necessary, but not necessarily action.

The Conservatives have made no effort in three years to scrap or seriously modify the gun registry, despite it being supposedly an important party policy. Now, with their base upset over the budget, we get some vague promises of a future debate from Harper and a private member's bill from a backbench MP.

Will this half-hearted action mollify anyone in their party? I can't say but if I were them, I'd be asking why not a government bill? Are you serious or not? Maybe a more serious push will come. We'll see. But in the mean time, it seems like the Conservative strategy is more likely to just piss everyone off: their base will be annoyed with a lack of seriousness, and the left will be annoyed with an attack on gun control.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Conservatives to revive gun registry debate?

While they vehemently campaigned against the gun registry in opposition, in government the Conservatives have done nothing to attempt to eliminate it. Hints now that may be about to change (from CP):

Harper told reporters during a whirlwind visit to Miramichi that local gun registry jobs are safe, despite his goal of eliminating the program.

More than 200 people work at the Miramichi firearms registry where the main processing centre is located.

Harper said a debate on the registry will happen in the near future, but jobs will not be lost.

``The Conservative party for a long time now has been committed to the abolition of the long gun registry, we are very clear about that,'' Harper said while visiting a hockey rink.

Can't find the CP coverage online yet, but the CBC has a report on the event that makes the plan to revive the debate seem more hypothetical.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

They're firing wildly, hoping to hit something

From the "sentences that taken out of context sound much worse than they are" department:

The Conservatives are hoping to enlist gun enthusiasts in the fight against the coalition that is threatening their government.

Actually, add the context and it's still pretty bad. And not for nothing, but the Conservatives have made no attempt to end the registry in, what, three years in office?

BTW, if the PMO speech-writing staff is reading, I'll donate $50 to the NRA if Harper says in his speech to the nation tonight that "the Liberals, socialists and separatist will pry the levers of power from my cold, dead hands!" Hand to god.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Don't shoot me please, I'm Canadian!

From the Canadians are from Mars, Americans are from Venus files comes this story from Atlanta. It seems gun rights advocates are upset they aren’t allowed to carry concealed handguns…at the airport!

In the pre-security area mind you, but still! It boggles the mind. It seems a new state law may give concealed carry permit holders the right to carry their weapons pre-security at the airport. To their credit, the airport authority and the city say screw that, this is an airport, bring your gun here you’re getting arrested.

Guns were the issue. But words and federal lawsuits became the weapons of choice Tuesday as Atlanta officials declared Hartsfield-Jackson International Airport a "gun-free zone," and gun advocates immediately retaliated by suing them.

A Rambo-channeling state representative had planned to bring his gun to the airport while picking up friends in a bid to get arrested and fight the airport on it, bit appears (relatively) saner heads have prevailed, and it will be fought in the courts instead.

Bearden, a former policeman who authored the new law, said Monday he would come to the airport on Tuesday to pick up relatives and would be carrying a permitted concealed weapon. DeCosta vowed to have him arrested if he did. By Tuesday, Bearden had decided to let the courts decide the issue.

"That showdown will take place in the courts instead of an airport parking lot," said Bearden, who still planned to go to the airport, but without a gun.

Guns at the airport, really?! You can convince me on the need for rural residents to have long guns for wildlife control, and on hunting, but you lose me when it comes to carrying a concealed weapon in an airport.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers