Re - Licensing for individuals: Who is against it?

[sAnD.mAn]

This is not about licencing an individual and registering guns.

It is about the need to re-licence firearms already licensed.

Re licensing is an epic waste of time and money and does not really achieve a purpose. It places significant drain on already strained (on their own version) police resources with little to no impact on crime, other than perhaps creating new "criminals" who neglect to re licence in time.

I do not have a material difficulty with the renewal of competencies with some reservations.

The criminal record check can be quickly done in station with existing equipment like Morphotouch. Its good enough to deprive people of their liberty at roadblocks etc, it should be good enough for this purpose.

There should be no further need for interviews or other crap like that which has no value.

It also provides an easy opportunity for the DFO to verify address with the same documents that FICA requires.

In agreement 100%

[MTTSS]

Guys I think the OP needs to clarify, but what I read he is referring to the current license renewals, not licensing of individuals - very different concepts.

@MTTSS?

Correct Kola, referring to the neverending processes of license renewals after the initial license was granted.

"Licensing" the person makes so much more sense in any event.

But trying to keep a system of continuous re-licensing going is akin to re-introducing the FCA at every 2 / 5 / 10 year cycle as far as administrative workload goes.

And now they want to make the periods for re-licensing cycles even shorter???

[MTTSS]

No value in relicensing. If you are deemed fit to possess, then you are fit to possess.

Should circumstances change, e.g. being found guilty of a crime, standard police processes should take over to remove that person's firearm. Hoping for relicensing to catch this is ludicrous. It could be up to ten years before the firearm is relicensed! Talk about closing the stable door after the horse has bolted.

Sent from my SM-G920F using Tapatalk

I agree.

[MTTSS]

You don't think that asking that question here is a bit like asking the congregation if going to church is a good idea?

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk

At first that may seem obvious :), but I am interrested to hear some good arguments and also strive to create public awareness.

But now the thing is this: What is the position of the litigating parties on this issue at this point in time in the papers before the Constitutional Court for the hearing in February 2018?

[MTTSS]

If relicencing had the requirement that the firearm be inspected by the DFO as well then I could perhaps see the purpose.

At present the only purpose it serves is a meagre income, which is entirely overshadowed by administration costs.

I’m fully against the concept.

If the only actual reason can be that a very prudent state (ours is not one by any stretch of the imagination as far as their own corporate governance go and inability to look after themselves first of all) feels that it has the time and capacity and funds to do an audit on occasion / in cycles to see whose fireamrs may have been lost but not reported, then in another world we may not have been against such a process being thought out. But this would have been something much less than and also different to re-licensing in any event.

[Ds J]

An idea would be to follow the Norwegian example: I read in an article some years ago that the gun lobby dictates (at least helps in the process) who may/may not possess a firearm. Their tests were really strict. Maybe AKGunner can clarify this?

[Kola]

But trying to keep a system of continuous re-licensing going is akin to re-introducing the FCA at every 2 / 5 / 10 year cycle as far as administrative workload goes.

And now they want to make the periods for re-licensing cycles even shorter???

They should call it what it is, "Disarmament process of competent, law-abiding firearm owners"

All the laws and SOP's to disarm someone who is no longer competent/has become unfit are already in place.

[Zoo Keeper]

Renewals of licenses should be abolished. It is irrational and serves no purpose other than to cost the taxpayer excessive funds for no benefit.

If a person becomes a violent criminal during the course of his or her life, that criminal may have their licences revoked through the courts - but which must follow a rigorous process and not simply a fiat. So the FCA does nothing to add to that system whatsoever.

Just do the maths. For example, the CFR receives 100 000 apps a year for SD and 250 000 per year for S16 for 25 years. It should handle 350 000 apps per year, right?

My maths is terrible and I have probably underestimated this, but I work out that the CFR will begin life as an organisation handling 350 000 per year, but by year 25 will be handling 1 250 000 apps per year if the numbers stay constant. The longer it exists, the heavier the burden becomes until it will be unable to cope, which it probably already is.

Added to that, I have not heard a single crime being solved or prevented by the existence of the CFR. Certainly Canada's Long Gun registry has been abandoned as simply being a waste of money. We based our system on theirs. No surprises therefore the the results will be the same.

The Minister must state how many crimes were prevented or solved thanks to the CFR. But the CFR must have been central to the prevention or solution to the crime, not that it was used to check.

Personally I find the entire FCA and the registry deeply offensive, but it is what it is and even on its own self-appointed merits, its a complete failure.

[Zoo Keeper]

At first that may seem obvious :), but I am interrested to hear some good arguments and also strive to create public awareness.

But now the thing is this: What is the position of the litigating parties on this issue at this point in time in the papers before the Constitutional Court for the hearing in February 2018?

See the Canadian Long Gun Registry upon which we based our system.

[MTTSS]

Renewals of licenses should be abolished. It is irrational and serves no purpose other than to cost the taxpayer excessive funds for no benefit.

If a person becomes a violent criminal during the course of his or her life, that criminal may have their licences revoked through the courts - but which must follow a rigorous process and not simply a fiat. So the FCA does nothing to add to that system whatsoever.

Just do the maths. For example, the CFR receives 100 000 apps a year for SD and 250 000 per year for S16 for 25 years. It should handle 350 000 apps per year, right?

My maths is terrible and I have probably underestimated this, but I work out that the CFR will begin life as an organisation handling 350 000 per year, but by year 25 will be handling 1 250 000 apps per year if the numbers stay constant. The longer it exists, the heavier the burden becomes until it will be unable to cope, which it probably already is.

Added to that, I have not heard a single crime being solved or prevented by the existence of the CFR. Certainly Canada's Long Gun registry has been abandoned as simply being a waste of money. We based our system on theirs. No surprises therefore the the results will be the same.

The Minister must state how many crimes were prevented or solved thanks to the CFR. But the CFR must have been central to the prevention or solution to the crime, not that it was used to check.

Personally I find the entire FCA and the registry deeply offensive, but it is what it is and even on its own self-appointed merits, its a complete failure.