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
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.
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.
147
u/Cock_ball_dickin 12d ago
I’m not gonna lie I’m incredibly nervous. How do you all think it will go?