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/eekay233]

Feds asking the courts to strike down litigation from an activist groups lawsuit on the govs climate goals stating that courts have no right to make or direct climate policy.

Wondering how this might bode for the upcoming court challenge. Replace climate with firearms.

This may be something different as I'm not savvy on the tiers of the court system, but I'll share it. Perhaps some of the bigger brain folks on the sub can weigh in.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/climate-federal-court-lawsuit-motion-to-strike-9.7324601

[u/FunkyFrunkle → u/eekay233]

A few thoughts.

The climate lawsuit is going to the Federal Court. It also makes sense that the government doesn’t really want to be constrained by a Trudeau-era climate policy, which forces them into a straight jacket because the governments focus seems to be on completing infrastructure projects to stimulate and expand the economy.

Canada is a resource extraction nation, and has the potential to get some major dick-sway on the world stage with critical minerals, but those minerals don’t mean anything if they stay in the ground. This means mines, which means increasing grid output and capacity which means more hydroelectric and nuclear plants.

This climate policy threatens to slow or even outright kill these projects which is something we can no longer afford to see come to pass.

Speaking strictly of global economics, not global warming, the world in which these policies manifested no longer exists and things have changed drastically. The world is becoming more hostile and insular, which means Canada needs to develop the infrastructure to not only look out for itself, but to be a stable partner in minerals and energy.

Our court case is heading to the Supreme Court and has nothing really to do with whether or not the government can ban guns, more than it does how the government went about banning them, and can an OIC even be used to make broad, sweeping changes to the law.

Instead of making a public plea for the Supreme Court to kill our case, they extended the amnesty and haven’t really said anything else about it.

If the government was going to try and do something like this, they would have done so by now, but the Governor General didn’t even deny any of our intervenors from participating in the case.