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.
330
u/rastamasta45 12d ago
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