Canada Plans to Ban Handgun Sales and Possession of Assault Weapons - The New York Times
By: Ian Austen and Vjosa Isai (nytimes)
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
"We have a responsibility to act to prevent more tragedies," Prime Minister Trudeau said as he proposed tightening the country's already stringent control of firearms.
By Ian Austen and Vjosa Isai
May 30, 2022
OTTAWA — Most owners of what Canada calls "military-style assault weapons" would be required to turn over their firearms to a government buyback program under legislation introduced on Monday, which would tighten the country's already stringent control of firearms.
The Canadian government also announced new regulations that will ban the sale, purchase, importation or transfer of handguns. "We are capping the number of handguns in this country," Prime Minister Justin Trudeau said on Monday.
The handgun sales ban and the proposed assault weapons law are the latest in a series of steps Mr. Trudeau has taken to restrict firearms since 22 people were killed in rural Nova Scotia by a gunman in 2020, in the deadliest rampage in the country's history. The legislation, which could apply to tens of thousands of firearms, is expected to pass.
"As a government, as a society, we have a responsibility to act to prevent more tragedies," Mr. Trudeau told reporters on Monday. He also said: "We need only look south of the border to know that if we do not take action, firmly and rapidly, it gets worse and worse and more difficult to counter."
The buyback proposal comes as another mass shooting in the United States has reignited an often searing debate on gun violence. Last week a gunman used a military-style rifle to kill 19 children and two teachers in the town of Uvalde, Tex. Only 10 days earlier, a teenage gunman entranced by a white supremacist ideology opened fire at a supermarket in Buffalo, N.Y., killing 10 people and injuring three more, almost all of them Black.
After 20 children and six adults were massacred in 2012 at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn., there were widespread calls in the United States for stronger controls on powerful firearms, but many Republicans aligned with the gun lobby refused to even allow a vote on any proposed legislation. American lawmakers have failed to restore restrictions on military-style semiautomatic weapons that expired in 2004.
Mr. Trudeau's program echoes a semiautomatic weapons ban and buyback program launched by New Zealand in 2019, after a lone gunman stormed two mosques, killing 51 people and injuring dozens of others in Christchurch. After a mass shooting in 1996 in which a gunman killed 35 people in the town of Port Arthur, Australia, the government there collected more than 650,000 semiautomatic rifles and many shotguns after they were banned under new legislation.
Marco Mendicino, Canada's public safety minister, said the buybacks should begin by the end of the year.
The Small Arms Survey, a nonprofit organization based in Switzerland, estimated in 2017 that there were 12.7 million legal and illegal guns in civilian hands in Canada, or 34.7 firearms per 100 people. In the United States, it estimates, there were more than 300 million guns in circulation, or 120.5 firearms per 100 people.
Soon after the deadly 2020 rampage in Nova Scotia, Mr. Trudeau used a cabinet order to announce it would ban more than 1,500 models of rifles, including the AR-15, a popular military-style semiautomatic rifle. But in the end, it allowed owners to keep their rifles, if they had a permit — but could no longer use them, trade them or sell them except, with permission, to buyers outside Canada.
The government followed that up in 2021 with a sweeping package of proposed changes to gun laws. That bill, which expired before making its way through Parliament, disappointed groups calling for tighter gun controls by making participation in the buyback program voluntary.
Automatic weapons have long been banned for civilians in Canada, and magazines for semiautomatic weapons are restricted: no gun may shoot more than five rounds without reloading.
The law introduced on Monday fulfills a pledge made by Mr. Trudeau last year to force owners of military-style rifles to turn them in for destruction. Mr. Trudeau's proposal will allow some exemptions, but those weapons must be modified by the government to make them permanently inoperable.
There is, though, no legal definition of a "military-style assault weapon." Mr. Trudeau said the government would seek to come up with one that could not be easily circumvented by gun makers.
Until then, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police will continue to evaluate weapons on a model-by-model basis to see if they belong on the ever expanding banned list introduced by Mr. Trudeau in 2020.
ImageA Canadian Coalition for Firearm Rights pro-gun march in September 2020, on Parliament Hill in Ottawa.Credit...Lars Hagberg/Agence France-Presse — Getty Images
Most rifles and shotguns in Canada, apart from automatic weapons and handguns, have been relatively loosely regulated. The previous Conservative government closed a registry for such weapons that was set up after a man killed 14 young women and injured 13 others in 1989 at the Ecole Polytechnique engineering school in Montreal.
The registry's database was plagued with technical problems, and it was deeply unpopular in rural areas. Mr. Trudeau has not heeded calls from gun control groups to renew it.
Compared with hunting rifles, there are relatively few legal handguns in Canada and their use has long been heavily restricted. Aside from members of the police, border agencies, the military and some private security guards, handgun users may fire their weapons only at shooting ranges, and the guns must otherwise be stored in locked containers at their homes.
Mr. Trudeau's earlier legislative attempt would have allowed provinces to ban all handguns within their borders, an idea that swiftly led to concerns from gun control groups about the development of a patchwork system nationally. On Monday he acknowledged those criticisms.
"We decided to take a new route, something that would tackle this issue at a national level," he said.
While Mr. Trudeau's Liberal Party does not hold a voting majority in the House of Commons, the left-leaning New Democratic Party has long pushed for tighter gun controls and is expected to support the new measure, allowing it to overcome any potential opposition from the Conservatives.
Handguns account for close to 60 percent of firearms-related crimes in Canada, according to a report released last week by Statistics Canada, the census agency. Rates of death linked to gun violence are far lower in Canada than in the United States.
The agency is pushing for more comprehensive collection of data on guns. While the police have long held that most illegal firearms, particularly handguns, are smuggled in from the United States, not much is known about the origins of guns used in crimes.
The shooter in Nova Scotia used two weapons that are now banned; both were smuggled in from the United States.
Other measures in the sweeping bill, which amends several pieces of legislation, include making it a crime to modify a rifle to increase its capacity; increasing the penalties for gun smuggling; and giving police power to seize guns from people whom a judge has determined to be at risk of hurting themselves or others.
When America becomes a gun death dystopia (relatively soon), maybe we will flood Canada with immigrants. Wouldn't that be ironic?
Not only ironic but great if lots the liberals moved to the north as so many promised they would do in 2016
I'd get them free limo service.
No thanks, you already supply a free limo service to illegal guns.
That wouldn't include you. You're already up there.
[deleted]
This was done in Australia following the Port Arthur massacre back in 1996. 100% success,
No thank you John, we don't want any. Maybe it's time to build a wall (and get the US to pay for it (j/k))
I don't think law abiding Canadians will go along with that,
Along with fentanyl, illegals bring guns across our Southern border.
Assuming that you mean the intended restrictions , speaking as a law abiding Canadian, I will with both thumps up, and believe most Canadians will gladly go along with that.
Since I've never felt the need to have a gun, it's kind of a moot point to me
A crime with a rifle in another country causes Canada to ban handguns.
The successful examples proven by the UK, Australia and New Zealand, and the unmitigated extensive and increasing proliferation of gun violence in the USA is a reason why any nation that values the lives and safety of its citizens could cause that.
Thanks. Nice list of places people can move to if they don't like it here.
What a government plan. Ignore the vast majority who do not break the law, we must remove all guns because we don't trust anybody. It's the same bullshit line we've heard on this board, "they are all legal gun owners until they're not".
Why does anyone need a high speed , large magazine, gun?
Canada says no, you dont need it . Is Canada wrong?
What is "high speed"?
Why do you fucking care?
Are we a country that can only buy what we can justify we need?
Canada might be right for Canada (remember it is not a done deal). Just because it may be right for Canada does that mean it is right for here?
dead and mutilated kids.
Do you believe the government has your best interests at heart when they come out and talk about what you need? Do you need a car that can drive faster than 60 MPH? Do you need a TV that can get over 100 channels? Do you need more than one TV in a house? IMO anytime the government comes out to talk about what we need, it means to me they are trying to become a more fascist organization.
I wish you would not be so dishonest with your commentary. By merging the two above (a high speed gun with a large magazine) you allow yourself wriggle room against discussion. A semi-automatic gun still only fires one bullet per pull of the trigger so it will only fire as fast as you can pull the trigger.
Interesting question. Are Canadians that different from Americans?
Yes and no. Canada grew up under a different set of laws, they were a colony of the English Commonwealth until 1982 and they have a much lower population density (4 per square kilometer vs the US at 36 per square kilometer). So there are differences there that contribute to how they as a nation think and operate. There are similarities of course also.
All countries are different from each other, with different customs, government styles, histories, location, etc.
Then look up my background checks. YOU don't need to know a damn thing about why I have certain weapons. It's none of your business that I have any weapons.
A meaningless statistic. 70% of Canadians live south of the 49th in an area about the size of Texas.
Their clocks are different, they write dates wrong, and that constitution thingy is at odds.
??????? Just because the US changes, doesn't mean everyone else is "wrong".
Of course not, RDtC, America is absolutely free to continue and even increase the mass shootings of innocent people and children. I wasn't aware it was so necessary to reduce the American population. A really good reduction might even reduce the inflation - you know, less demand.
A fact unfortunately ignored by nations who try to impose THEIR values elsewhere than on their own nation, unless to prevent other nations from forcing THEIR values on other nations.
That's usually what you get from certain posters. Meaningless statistics and comparisons.
Gee, liberals told us it was only about assault rifles!
Didn't you hear Biden yesterday after he got back to the WH from his weekend in Delaware?
I did. He could actually get something done, but he or his handlers are doing it again - they are shooting for the sky.
I actually wish them well on this one.
You are conflating Canadian liberals with American liberals.
Good morning.
What's the difference?
We don't wait for fear to push us in the right direction.
Explain how it is not fear driving this plan ...
Let me rephrase, we don't wait for fear to consume us.
Fair enough .. but from my spot on the fence it would seem that 'consumed by fear' of the unknown defines Trudeau current stand on firearms.
Has the US let fear consume it? I honestly do not know, every time firearms are center stage in the US there is an outcry to a government that is beyond dysfunctional to somehow save the day .. it is a head shaker to me. My opinion however is not popular, so I will leave it at that...
Take care and have a nice day ... : )
Let's inch by inch to reality, fear of becoming a mirror image of America defines his stand.
Indeed!
So reality is that Canada is afraid of becoming like the US, but not consumed by fear of it happening ... simply taking preemptive measures to avoid said mirror image.. Got it...
Hallux, I have no issue with what any other country deems necessary to secure their utopia .. I really only care about the US - yes, yes an evil nationalist I am. Yet still embarrassed at the same time for the role the US is playing around the world.. Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria come to mind.
Hopefully Canada teaches their young people conflict resolution skills - here in the US everyone gets a ribbon, everyone makes the team .. then reality happens and they get bit in the ass not knowing how to deal with and resolve issues .. etc etc etc... and yes firearms are too accessible to too many that do not have the training necessary to ensure gun safety [mental health is an issue as well - I am not going there].. I have never and will never deny there is a problem - but do not take my firearms based on the ignorance of others!
End of speech
Yes, because Canada is so vulnerable to American influence, I would say that Canada IS afraid of becoming the mass murder shooting gallery that America has become, and that is IMO a damned good reason to pass the intended restrictions.
Oh horror, then Canada might actually be able to defend itself from an outside threat; instead of relying on the US to do it.
If you read Canada's military history, you would not spout such nonsense.
We have tried yet republicans/alleged conservatives block every decent effort
That wouldn't make any difference.
All some have is spouting nonsense.
Biden suggested the 9mm is a high caliber weapon showing how out of touch he is. He has gone from AR "style" rifles to ammunition only used in hand guns (and I understand the most popular ammunition for home protection). It will be interesting to see if the White House "clarifies" his comments or just lets it sit our there.
I've always wondered, what is AR "style"? Is that a new fashion design?
I think that is one of the gun control crowds biggest issues. Lack of definition as to what exactly they want to ban or do in general. The use of bumper sticker slogans will only get you so far when trying to promote an idea.
And that's the problem. These bumper stickers and slogans don't mean what they think they mean.
Honestly I don't think the majority of them know what they mean, ergo some people talking about high speed. Personally I would like the left and the right to get together and actually try to define things so there can at least be a conversation about gun deaths. Stop with the bumper stickers "mental illness", "red flag laws", "military style", "AR style", "high capacity", "automatic" and many others. Once these things can at least be defined at a conversation can begin.
But that would mean they would actually have to do something.
Blows the lungs right out of the body...
They won't walk anything back. Liberals have long been able to utter complete bullshit, without any recourse or questioning.
If that is the way they feel, banning 9mm and larger or only allowing 22 caliber guns we may as well stop the conversation right now. Americans, even those willing to entertain some gun control changes, will never buy into that.
But he only mentioned the 9mm.. ignored the .357 and the 45ACP... oy...
Just another example of Clueless Joe Biden(not to be confused with shoeless Joe Jackson).. He better not go after the Smith & Wesson Model 29 . 44-cal. Magnum revolver—"the most powerful handgun in the world." There will be a revolution with Clint leading the charge.
That AR15 they are so fearful of is a .22. It's evident they are completely clueless.
It's the way they feel, and the conversation should have been stopped a long time ago. The only thing the liberals are sincere about, is their zest for banning all private ownership of firearms.
Not this so called Liberal. I am just trying to be realistic.
In all honesty, I think it should come down to different areas having different needs.
Had several long conversations about this with Bruce. (I kinda miss him)
I think that’s because the police offer a multitude of spray and pray anecdotes.
Good. Then you are a dying breed. My nutty sibling has been posting off the rocker nonsense on FB, expressing the the desire to ban all firearms, and a point of view that we see here too often. "Guns are evil incarnate, and all who possess one will eventually be consumed by the evil..." The hypocrisy is dripping wet, behind the lies that they would never 1) have a gun in the house, 2) let their kids hold a gun, much less fire one, 3) associate with anyone who has or shoots guns.
So, I follow those hypocritical posts with pictures and video of my nieces and nephews, at my house, with mom and dad cheering them on, blowing up tannerite with one of my ARs. And I wonder...are all liberals as full of shit as the ones in my family? Because the ones in my family are busting. (I'm sure they say the same about me...but I'm the same on FB, here, work, name it)
You are a federalist...? Or, at least you have some federalist inclinations? I'd like to say this is workable on a state by state basis, and I'd be happy if they left it to the states and people, much like they should with a ton of other issues they like to gin up angst about. But, they would never get there. Guns, abortion, same sex marriage, you name it, neither side really wants the other to just roll over on the issue. Too much money and power in it for DC elites. If we'd all quit funding these fuckers, we'd probably see real change, reasonable change, sensible change. Until then, war pays.
I could say the same about some people, only the opposite. Some will not be happy unless they can walk into town and stroll through Walmart with a rifle strapped on their back.
Not really. Not as simple as that. I think if a business does not want people walking into their place with a gun, they have the right to refuse them. I don't think it should necessarily be up to the state. Certain areas in states have different needs.
Contrary to popular belief, back in the old west days, there were towns that made people surrender their weapons before going into town.
I am saying a rural farmer has a need that someone living in NYC does not.
As much as the farmer can have a weapon, in a big city, they should have options available to them as well. They don't need people with guns walking around town or on the subway.
What people don't want to understand is it can be both ways. Instead we have people with an all or nothing approach.
Agreed, and I believe that is the way it is already in most states.
Again, agreed. That's why a "one size fits all" approach, on a federal level, doesn't work for the US. That's why each state is represented by 2 senators. As much of a disparity as there may be between folks in rural and suburban New York, there is more of a difference between folks in South Dakota and New York.
That's right. And, that's why state and local governments maintain authority over various issues.
I'm not accusing you of being John Jay or James Madison. But, most of the stuff you wrote...you gotta admit, at a minimum, gives a nod to the idea of federalism.
I guess I do have some Federalist tendencies. Haha
Even when it comes to towns or cities, they have different needs. Take my state or city, a city that is built on tourism and on the Gulf. We have a lot of different needs than a city up in the delta.
I agree that a one size approach does not work on something like this.
What bothers me is now I bet the SC comes back with a verdict taking away choice from a state.
So we have people that want guns freely around and we have people that want all guns taken away.
I am not for either of those options. Problem being, if a state or a city wants to impose their own rules and regulations, a powerful gun lobby jumps in and sues the city/state in order to get any regulation overturned.
Imo that is why some people are saying enough is enough.
Someone asked a rhetorical, and smart-assed, question somewhere else on NT. "Would we have the same slow response to a pyromaniac?" The sad reality? We would.
There is no money in it, for the bastards in DC, if a reasonable and timely solution/resolution/etc. is had. Extremism keeps the controversy alive, and ensures that the dollars will keep coming in. Doesn't matter what the issue is.
As an aside, Mcveigh killed almost 170 people, without a gun. And that's the real issue. Where there is a will, there is a way. Banning all firearms wouldn't address the issue, it would simply (assuming it would be possible to remove 100% of firearms...an impossibility) remove a potential device from the plethora of choices these lunatics have. Crazy bitch in Stillwater didn't need a gun. Marathon bombers didn't need a gun. The above was a rhetorical question, but, if we did, in fact, successfully remove all firearms from the hands of citizens...we'd be having this debate over; vehicles, fire, knives...because it keeps the pockets of the politicians lined, and both sides of the aisle play the game.
The now NC Lieutenant Gov said it perfectly 4 years ago.
Dems don’t have a clue how to attack a Black conservative.
That's what makes this even better. He's not the NC Lieutenant Governor and killing it.
Well, I found one way and the gov looks stupid.
"North Carolina Gov. Roy Cooper called out Lt. Gov. Mark Robinson on Tuesday morning on social media for a speech that Robinson gave saying he owns AR-15s in case “the government gets too big for its britches.” “This is dangerous and not who we are as patriotic North Carolinians,” Cooper, a Democrat, tweeted, tagging Robinson, a Republican. Cooper said Robinson’s words shame the state. He called Robinson’s speech “advocating violent overthrow of our [government].”
He seems to be one of those leaders out front.
Cooper's a blithering fucking idiot. Cooper forgets that there are 5 active duty military installations in NC. With that comes a very high number of veterans who reside here. Dumbass thinks that a veteran won't be armed and will just capitulate to what every dumb fucking idea crosses his non-functioning brain.
Amen to that brother
Yeah brother! Praise Jebus!
You guys neighbors? I'll have to steer clear of that neighborhood.
Good. I don't think you could gain access to my neighborhood. You actually have to have a valid reason to be here.
Is that speech impediment from birth?
I wouldn't go anywhere you would be so no worries. I avoid agnorance everywhere possible.
Cletus’ brother.
”agnorance“
WTF’s that?
So how do you self exist?