🚀 go-pugleaf

"Steve" <tokata@nrtco.net> wrote in message
news:XU3U9.9145$Yr2.1428719@news20.bellglobal.com...
> BULLSHIT
>
> The police cannot just show up at your door and demand to inspect your
> firearms or how they are stored. Those of us that have a collectors handle
> tagged on to us had to agree that we would allow PERIODIC inspection of
our
> storage facility but even then the police had to give notice and make an
> appointment to enter the domicile. The ONLY time that a police office can
> enter your home without a warrant is if they have proof that a crime has
> been committed or is about to be committed and because of time limitations
> it would take to long to obtain a warrant  HOWEVER the police must prove
at
> the earliest time afterwards to a magistrate that they had proof prior to
> beginning the search. Go to the CFC site and read the regulations that
> pertain to search's and possible seizure of firearms before rendering your
> opinion. We do still have some rights in this country.

Those rights you claim to have are pretty vague. They are, contrary to
popular belief, not absolute.
Ann McClellan herself made that statement as justice minister.
As long as your cherished Charter of Rights and Freedoms has such clauses as
"The Notwithstanding Clause" For The Common Good Clause" and the real winner
"Reasonable Infringement Clause" It is basically worthless.
Quebec used the Notwithstanding clause in order to continue it's racist
language policies. Ironically Quebec never even ratified the patriated
constitution but still can get away with invoking the Notwithstanding
Clause. (Only in Canada eh? ) :-)
The RIDE program was also declared illegal by the Supreme Court of Canada as
an infringement of a citizens rights of Freedom of Movement. However the
Supremes considered it to be a "Reasonable Infringement" and the law was
allowed to stand.
The same thinking applied to the law on prostitution. Prostitution per se is
not illegal in Canada. The law says "communication for the purposes of
prostitution" is illegal. This was challenged in the courts as an
infringement on the citizens rights of "Freedom of Speech"
Once again the Supreme Court of Canada agreed, indeed it was an
infringement. However, they also declared that they considered it to be "For
the common good" so therefore the law will stand.

It does not take much of a stretch to believe that these judges who owe
their jobs to the Prime Minister who appointed them, will not bob and weave
to come up with a ruling that is beneficial to the ruling party.

I watched some of the proceedings in the case brought by the Provinces of
Alberta and Ontario against the Feds regarding the gun registry. The
hostility and bias that was shown by the Supreme Court judges against the
lawyers representing the Provinces was palpable. It was so obvious that the
fix was in.

As for your contention that the police have to make an appointment to
inspect your storage facilities and therefore don't require a warrant. How
long do you think it would be before your door was kicked down and your home
ravaged if you refused to allow an "inspection" All it needs is any cop to
say he has a snitch who gave him information that he had heard a rumour that
you had an unregistered restricted firearm in your possession.

Plus don't you recognise the fact that any entry into your home by a state
official without a warrant, that you cannot ultimately refuse constitutes an
infringement of your right (In a truly free society) of sanctity of your
domicile?

By the way "PERIODIC means just that. Technically they can come and inspect
every hour if they wish. Any amount of time be it long or short constitutes
a "period."

--
Cheers.
Alex C.
There are 12,000,000 sheep in Ontario.
Problem is 9,000,000 of them think they are people.