Un-serialed LB Mk I

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Peter Laidler

For the benefit of us foreigners, what is the Canadian long gun registry that uis the subject of so much dispute? Or is it toooooooo political for the forum.....

---

Peter:

Essentially, the long gun registry is a database set up to track all firearms classed as 'non-restricted' in Canada. A non-restricted firearm's basic legal definition is one which is not restricted or prohibited; you can find the RCMP's interpretation of the regulations at List of Restricted and Prohibited Firearms.

All non-restricted firearms have been required to be registered since 2003, although there has been an amnesty in place to the present date.

The basic complaints with it are:
1. It's ineffective. Estimates are that less than 40% of the non-restricted firearms in Canada are registered.
2. It's costly. So far, about $2.5billion has been spent on the program. It was sold to the public as costing at most $2million. That would be a 1000X cost overrun.
3. It's insecure. A report came out a few years showing that the database has had many unauthorized accesses over the years, and there are rumors that copies are floating around.
4. It's inaccurate. People routinely find firearms registered to them that they have never heard of, or sold and transferred away years previous. Note that these people would be criminally liable to produce these firearms if demanded by police.
5. It doesn't apply to criminals. Since they don't register their firearms anyways. In fact, it only applies to firearms owners who are the statistically safest and most law abiding demographic in Canadian society.
6. It's useless for police anyways. After all, with all the above, if the registry says there are no guns in a house, do you believe it? Or if the registry says there are 6 guns in the house, can you trust all 6 are there, and no more? Or that all 6 entries are legitimate and correct? One officer (Daniel Tessier) already died because he believed the registry when it said there were no guns in a house.

That's just skimming the surface of the issues surrounding the long gun registry. The biggest injustice is that it's pushed forward by the left wing anti-gun establishment as fixing a variety of ills from women's rights, to suicide prevention, to lowering crime rates, despite there being absolutely no scientific / statistical evidence to prove that it's had a measurable effect on any of these statistics.

Our current conservative government has committed to scrapping the long gun registry, and has a bill to do so in progress, hopefully to be passed this spring. In the meantime, the beaurocracy (RCMP and Canadian Firearms Program) is working hard to reclassify as many non-restricted firearms as possible to restricted and prohibited status while they still have a convenient list of owners. And these owners of reclassified firearms are getting notices that they must turn in their firearms for destruction if they do not have the appropriate license class.

That's the really short version that covers some of the major issues; for more details, you can join the Canadian Gun Nutz forum, and quickly hear more about the issue than you would ever care to know!

Not trying to be political here but I think one aspect needs to be exposed. The legislation has driven a wide gap between legitimate firearms owners and the police. This is undisputed by most and whether the distrust will ever be repaired is doubtful.

I honestly am not trying to be political, just pointing out something that has occured with a law that is unjust and should never have been introduced. There have been too many "witch hunts" by the police on honest citizens who have made minor mistakes in ownership. Prime examples are elderly owners some in their 80's who were unaware their license to posess expired and have had their firearms seized. Some of these people were Military Veterans and have not and would not every be a problem in Canada.

If this is too political I apologize and hope Badger will remove my post.

It's pretty much been succinctly said, the Long Gun Registry was created in an effort to combat gun crime. However the execution of getting the criminal element to register their (illegal?!)firearms was never really thought out....

A good example, as presented by Law Enforcement would be; When responding to a domestic disturbance call, they could cross check the registry and know if there were (registered) firearms at the call address, thus giving them more intel to accurately assess the situation....

Now this is only one example, but one oft repeated. It is so filled with flaws.....
It's only really political on a broader Gun/No-Gun debate level. Lawful gun owners don't really have a problem with their firearms being documented, why would they?! But this registry as it stands, is monolithic, blind, undefined and open to abuse...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bullseye4mkI*

Lawful gun owners don't really have a problem with their firearms being documented, why would they?!

---

I realize this is going O/T fast, but I wanted to address the above really briefly.

I'm not a fan of the 'why do you need privacy if you have nothing to hide?' line of thought, which the above is an extension of. I mean, if you have nothing to hide, would you object to cameras throughout your house so police could monitor you as a firearms owner? I realize that is an extreme example, but it's along the same logic. Once again, legal firearms owners are the safest demographic in Canadian society. However, we are essentially persecuted for having a hobby against which a segment of the population has a emotionally charged misunderstanding and phobia of based in very little fact.

I would have no problem with my firearms being registered if it was provable that the benefits provided outweigh the cost paid, both in monetary and societal terms and in terms of my personal privacy. However, for all the money paid and abuse of the registry, there has been no provable benefits. The only end goal I see of the registry is it provides a starting list for eventual confiscation, though that line of thought leads into a political discussion of the policies of future governments.

Any solution to address firearms in crime need to revolve around criminals. Not the law abiding.

Anyways, I will leave it at that. As a relatively new user, I don't want to get myself banned after my third post for talking politics where it is discouraged.

I've seen quite a few "lunch box" rifles and pistols over the years. I still have a Savage here that has a mysterious serial number stamped on "after the fact". I've had several of the late build C No.7Mk.1* rifles with linished serial numbers too . My favorite is an Inglis No.2Mk.1* pistol. It's absolutely brand new, proofed and never numbered. I don't think these type firearms from the WWII era are as uncommon as some may think. I'm with Peter. If there's no documentation, it's more or less just a common firearm that managed to escape the factory by whatever method.

Agree with you, Brian. An unserialed number is an oddity, but not special in and of itself. Without some proof of where it came from, it is just another gun. I bought mine (the one which started this thread) because I have only rarely seen Mk I's, and the ones I have seen have been through rebuilds or whatever. This makes them perhaps more collectible, because they've "been there" but I just love this one. It's in awesome condition, complete and original. While the story with it was interesting, I definitely bought the gun. If it had been a 1943 Mk I*, I wouldn't have bothered and certainly wouldn't pay a premium for it. I think the inherent value in this rifle is that it is what it is.

As for the registry, the rationale behind it was to register ALL firearms in Canada, to reduce crime, violence, etc etc. It was brought in despite a wealth of data, some from groups like the Ontario Provincial Police, showing that the vast vst majority of "gun" crime in Canada is committed using firearms smuggled in from the US, often in exchange for Canadian grown Marijhuana. The OPP's Operation Gun Runner showed that quite nicely. The debate has largely pitted urban firearm-o-phobes against rural folks, and has effectively lumped legitimate firearms owners into the same category as gang-bangers. The politicians, ever in quest of cheap votes, have touted it as a crime reduction process and sold it to people in large centres like Toronto where the bulk of the countries voters live and where gang crime is rampant. The line police officers do not support it, but the Association of Police Chiefs (a bunch of largely political appointees) supports it, as it is seen to be "doing something" about crime. It has resulted in the creation of a large number of government jobs and a massive bureaucracy, much like the war on drugs in the US has created the monolithic DEA. However, several massive mis-steps, a lack of reduction in crime, and massive cost overruns have soured a lot of the public on it, and it is probably on its way out. There have also been at least two, and possibly three, mainframe failures resulting in the loss of large numbers of records. The security and the accuracty of the information has been very questionable. I have recently been asked by the Registry to account for three pistols which I have not owned for 15 years now, and it turns out were reported as stolen subsequent to my ownership. I also used to be involved in a museum in Saskatoon, and was recently contacted about a number of firearms which teh Registry wished to account for. One has been owned by my brother since 1990, and is still registered to him and in his basement. Yet the Registry lists the firearm as unaccounted for..............

Ed

I agree with you Brian, I was guilty of simplifying things.
But I was trying to point out like you said, it's just a runaway vehicle for the
overall gun debate, and if lawful gun owners did everything the government requested even to the
absurd point of in-home surveillance, the underlying issue of gun crime is still not being addressed.

Seeing as we are a little off topic... Here is a scenario that my brother-in-law (Sniper, Tactical Team Municipal Police) and I have discussed. Police are called to a domestic incident and check the registry to see if there is a firearm in the house. Comes back negative so no worries...here is the problem, if the person in the house has a PAL he/she can have a firearm that legally belongs to someone else which he/she has been loaned. Perfectly legal, however as he has said numerous time "Anyone who uses the registry as gospel is a IDIOT and should not be in law enforcement", I agree..

The registry is so full of fail it is to the point of being completely usless.

When they physically moved the office they lost the records of IIRC over 350,000 (It might have been 450,000) registered firearms, I have a friend who was selling a Sharps Rifle and when he went to transfer it he was told he didn't have any firearms registered. He was holding the registration form in his hand, along with the others he owned. Just said thanks, hung up and sold the gun.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by boltaction

https://www.milsurps.com/attachment....2&d=1327985368

---

strange that it would have a 1956 dated barrel when everything else is early

Ed,

Awesome...and well done ! Thank you.