Truthfully there is serious merit to the case, because the argument isn’t really about guns it’s about the governments ability to declare criminal law via OIC and the seizure of property.
Theoretically if the government wins, it sets a highly dangerous precedent in that any government, minority or majority can rule via OIC and criminalize and seize property. So in effect a government could say “your gas cars are now a threat to the environment, via oic they are banned and only 5% of you will get compensation”
They could OIC new speech laws and hate speech and then straight criminalize their opponents. So this isn’t a shoe in for the government.
On the flip side, the LPC might want to drop the battle, because the Supreme Court could neuter the power of OIC’s and I don’t think they want that either
Agreed. There 100% is merit, but ahhh. I’m just scared man lol. Because either way, I know for 100% they’ll just shove a bill through parliament banning all kinds of shit.
Also you think the people who are like “supporting” the case (I don’t know how it works) that the CCFR have been posting about will shift things at all?
I do think it shifts because they aren’t “supporting” they’re in the case. While the CCFR started it I believe the provinces are going to end it. The attorney general of 3 provinces are now directly arguing they are against it.
This creates multiple constitutional battles that the federal government has to tread carefully. Private property is provincial full stop….firearms are property full stop.
So the Supreme Court has to weight “can the federal government overrule all private property and criminalize the citizens of these provinces via OIC alone” this is legitimately a serious question, if answered wrong…well the tac teams will be busy in this country….maybe even the military
I think people are not seeing the serious ramifications of this case. This goes beyond guns. Yea the liberals would most likely make new legislation if the SCC rules against them. However it’s hella concerning if the CCFR does not win. As you said it means that any government with just the most amount of seats can OIC anything they want. I think even the courts realize or should realize that sets a dangerous precedence. On occasion I have hope for the courts. Sometimes they just make you go through a humiliation ritual that is the court system to prove you are right. The government dragged a man’s name through the mud and that’s how we got the Oakes Test. Mister Oakes being claimed as a drug trafficker for just having a certain amount of drugs to many. No other evidence required. It’s messed up but sometimes that the case. They must punish you before they let you have the bone.
Also I think calibre mag was also discussing how the gov went about determining the firearms were appropriate for sporting and hunting purposes. Most of the firearms banned were for legitimate purposes and they did not clearly define what made them inappropriate. The fact that the prohibitions have been in place based on extremely vague and inconsistent rationale doesn’t look good for the government either.
If they're going that route, I'd like to see it argued back to the pre-2020 original prohib list too (which I think would be within the possible scope of what the SC can do here?). The whole thing collapses if a challenge based on "suitable for sporting and hunting purposes" is considered valid...as long as it doesn't go the other way and end up as a total semiauto ban.
I’m not sure - there was something mentioned about bringing evidence that wasn’t previously submitted. Arguments largely surround the OIC’s and associated legislative context.
It certainly won’t lead to a semi-auto ban. Unless the gov is truly ban hungry I think even they want to be done with this whole farce
If the SC invalidated the OICs from 2020 onward, there would be no consistent reason for it to not automatically invalidate the OICs from the 90s as well
If the SC invalidated the OICs from 2020 onward, there would be no consistent reason for it to not that automatically invalidate the OICs from the 90s
People who have been charged for marijuana possession(not quantities large enough to suggest intent to distribute) have had their corresponding criminal convictions completely revoked & were released from prison back when it was decriminalized, so it would in a legal sense have to be that way due to precedent law because otherwise what the fuck are we even doing as a country.
Precedent law regarding this is also another reason why the liberals are fucking goddamn stupid shitheads with the firearms bans, because there is a very real possibility that criminally convicted offenders who earned their firearms offense charges could have their charges revoked & be released from prison early with how the LPC structured the entire boondoggle if the SCC rules in CCFR's favour and ends up reversing all the related OIC's. But honestly the liberals have made that bed & now they get to lie in it whether they like it or not.
I'd also say the fact if I remember right the government has claimed in every other level of court they would provide fair compensation to all affected owners and clearly haven't done that and there is amble evidence that they haven't even attempted to do so really doesn't help them.
Yeah I think this is part of why the granted leave to hear the appeal. The federal court supposedly dismissed the appeal with the excuse that fair compensation would be given - which is very misleading and I think they’re being downright dishonest
I honestly don't know why that angle isn't talked about more like in Canada and a fair few nations we already have what is practically legal government theft expect they have to pay for the shit last I checked and often times prove they need to do this. Like to me it seems to be this biggest thing that is already proven in law that if you take something you got to pay for it.
Unfortunately, the issue of property and firearms is already settled at law. That is not going to change in this case. Reference re: The Firearms Act is the case that Parliament's jurisdiction over firearms very clear.
Listen just in case you're feeling a little blackpilled (I get it, i had a tough work week too), they're not getting these guns back ever. they know this. Every single province is against it. They literally had to scramble to even make any attempt at looking like they didn't screw up preparing any form of collection. I think Trudeau had way more gumption to actually "Attempt" to do this buyback then Carney and he spent 6 years paying off Liberal buddies and not even one firearm was bought back.
147
u/Cock_ball_dickin 12d ago
I’m not gonna lie I’m incredibly nervous. How do you all think it will go?