Recurring Canadaguns Politics and Debate Thread

[u/AutoModerator]

Please post all your Gun Politics or Ban-related ideas, questions, initiatives, comments, suggestions, news articles, and recommendations in this thread. This thread recurs every 14 days.

First and foremost, this is a Canadian Gun subreddit, so keep it at least decently related to both of those things.

This thread is not for general politics, there are plenty other subs that are meant for that. Off-topic threads may be removed, especially if they are leading to personal attacks, flame wars, etc.

To prevent the main sub being flooded with dozens of similar threads, text posts complaining about/asking about/chatting about gun politics will be sent here.

We understand that politics is a touchy subject, and at times things can get heated. A reminder of the subreddit rules, when commenting, where subreddit users are expected to abide.

Keep this Canadian gun politics related and polite. Off-topic stuff, flame wars, negative generalizations against groups, personal attacks and gate-keeping will be removed. Please flag any comments to bring to the attention of mods otherwise exercise your upvoting and downvoting ability.

[u/Dill_Pickle_Tears]

Anxiously awaiting what November and beyond brings…I’m really interested in the latest intervenor - the CTF - and their arguments relating to the variant language.

I wonder how helpful - for one side or the other - intervenors have been historically for SCC cases.

[u/FunkyFrunkle → u/Dill_Pickle_Tears]

It’ll certainly give much more weight to the case when you have three Attorneys Generals from three of Canadas largest provinces throwing their hat into the ring with you, not to mention civil liberties groups and other organizations.

The CCFR has ten intervenors.

The government only has one intervenor on its behalf and that’s the Canadian Coalition for Gun Control.

It by no means sets anything in stone, but it certainly adds legitimacy and weight to the case. While I admit that there is some ambient anxiety for me concerning the potential outcomes, what I can tell you is that I’d be feeling much more anxious if, say, the government had 10 intervenors on it’s behalf and we only had one.

There are some serious questions being asked about the limits of executive power, provincial jurisdiction over property rights and resources (amongst other things) which are all very much legitimate issues the Supreme Court is keen to weigh in on.

As for being anxious, nothing is moving until the Supreme Court renders its decision. The government has explicitly extended the amnesty to expire 90 days after the court renders its decision so it’s unlikely we’ll hear anything about guns in the meantime.

Until then the program exists in stasis as a largely unworkable, unenforceable and unpopular policy not to mention financially draining.

[u/MapleDesperado → u/FunkyFrunkle]

You’ve touched on some key issues that are of interest to the court. One of the things that often gets lost on observers - most of whom are very interested in the specific case - is that the SCC is often looking at broader themes. It doesn’t have an interest in the specific case as much as how that case fits in and advances the law. The outcome of the case is often just the mechanical consequence of turning the cogs after the Court has decided on all the issues.