Crypto Question

[u/SuccessSeparate9014]

If the ccfr win the case. Will crypto owners need to legally register the crypto as a ar15 or would owners be in possession of a legally prohibited firearm as the frt came out after the ar15 2020 prohibition.

[u/Enough_Challenge7264]

I wholeheartedly disagree. The very question before the court is binary. "Is the OIC, arrived at and implemented in the way it has been, constitutionally legal?"

If the answer is yes, we lose. The Federal Liberals will have been operating within their authorities.

When the answer arrived at is no, the OIC, and it's several iterations, will be deemed unconstitutional, and a government overreach, where their authorities are concerned.

Taking into account Trudeau's tyrannically diseased mind at the time (forced vaccinations, implementation of the emergencies act, the strong arming of his own Minister of Justice and Attorney General, the pouring in of Indians (1.4 million of them)), he'll have no friends at the SCC. Law is about balance to achieve liberty, not the leveraging of it to impose the will of an individual, or a group of individuals (poly and Kebec Krew or miscreants).

@ the OP, when the SCC overrules the OIC insanity, everything will most likely revert to it's classification prior to the implementation. If the Crypto was NR..."what rifle officer?" is the answer. If the Crypto was restricted, it's already a registered AR.

All handgun restrictions are lifted...life will be like it was in 2015. Well, aside from Indians everywhere you look that is.

[u/Frank23682 → u/Enough_Challenge7264]

There are several aspects to the challenge. One of the possible scenarios is that the judge deems the OIC legal but finds the term "variants" intentionally vague in which case whilst explicit OIC ban list guns stay prohibited the Crypto or Modern Sporter would no longer be prohibited (at least until another OIC inevitably comes along in this scenario)

[u/Enough_Challenge7264 → u/Frank23682]

No. This is not before the court.

[u/Frank23682 → u/Enough_Challenge7264]

That's not true... Just take a look at the application for leave, paragraph 29-35 pretty much all revolve around the usage to the term "variants" and argument that it is unconstitutionally vague

[u/Enough_Challenge7264 → u/Frank23682]

This argument was part and parcel of the argument to get the SCC to hear the matter.

The SCC isn't being asked to determine whether the term variant is constitutional.

[u/Frank23682 → u/Enough_Challenge7264]

I'm really confused by what you're saying here. Are you saying you have insider information that this argument won't be brought up during the hearing by CCFR? Why would they not bring this up when it's central to the constitutional challenge? Or are you saying that there's no way the courts will render a decision on this argument and will just dance around it like the lower courts did?

[u/Enough_Challenge7264 → u/Frank23682]

No insider information, just an inkling as to how law works. The argument that the language in the OIC is ambiguous wherever it classifies a rifle as a variant will go nowhere. The Supremes would shrug shoulders and simply say to the government "clarify what is banned via the OIC." Done and done. If the CCFR's legal team is this retarded, we need a new team, now!

No. The reason the Supreme Court of Canada gave leave to hear the case is because there is something of interest to them from a Constitutional Law perspective, not a grammatical one.

OIC's have been in use since the very beginning of Canada. John A. MacDonald used the expansion of the Americans West as a reason to require Parliament to grant him leave to utilize the new order-in-council provisions so he could quickly ramp up investment for the rail line push to the Pacific. Land was expropriated, procedural corners were cut, but it got done, and, most importantly, via the sanction of Parliament. No Senate, no Royal Assent, it was the government asking the elected representatives of the house, if they would allow him to act without the Kings official blessings. Thousands if not tens of thousands of OIC's have been used since to implement sweeping legislative changes secretly and publically. It is the use, or rather the abuse of the OIC that the Supremes wish to look at through a Constitutional lens.

Never forget that our system of governance has the Judiciary as a separate body from the government. Checks and balances against tyrannical abuse of power. And I'm confident that when discussing the abuse of power, that little fajgot Trudeau ticks all the boxes.

Despite how OIC's are used, the Supremes will focus on their intended legislative tool use. Once that is established, they will view how Trudeau and his handlers (Trudeau lacks a moral compass, and is far too stupid to navigate Constitutional Law on his own), applied these several OIC's and they will look for consistency in application. Any deviation from normal and intended usage had better be for a very salient reason...I don't believe the incoherent wail of pup can banshee Provost will cut it. I'm almost sure the surreptitious recording of Gary Alphabet, the Minister for Public Safety, stating that the OIC's are nothing more than political pantomime, will be of more than a passing interest to them, and should certainly bear more evidentiary weight than the use and abuse of the word "variant".

Donate cash to the CCFR though. Without them, we'd be fuked.

[u/Frank23682 → u/Enough_Challenge7264]

Fair enough, to paraphrase if I understand correctly is that you are essentially saying that a ruling that only addresses the variant argument whilst dismissing the other arguments would be equivalent to a loss for us. In which case I agree with that and I did write in an earlier comment that this will inevitably lead to another OIC later down the line.

But I still think you are misunderstanding the arguments that CCFR and friends are making. The only part that revolves around constitutional law IS the the vagueness argument (the usage of the term "variants" or "modified versions" in the OICs.) The general argument against the OIC and GiC's actions being ultra vires is a reasonableness argument revolving around a subsection of the Criminal Code (subsection 117.15(2), reasonable for use in Canada for hunting or sporting purposes.) and NOT the Constitution.

So if your sense is that the SCC took the case because they have an interest from a Constitutional Law perspective then that means they are actually honing in on the constitutional vagueness argument, not the ultra vires argument.