▲ 15 ▼ Yukon gun owners say they're unimpressed with Ottawa's buyback program (www.cbc.ca) submitted 9 months ago by ohshit604@sh.itjust.works to c/yukon@lemmy.ca 7 comments fedilink hide all child comments
[–] JizzmasterD@lemmy.ca 3 points 9 months ago (4 children) I guess they can just not participate? permalink fedilink source hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] ohshit604@sh.itjust.works [S] 2 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (3 children) The problem is the criminal liability if the gov doesn’t roll back the OIC’s or extend the amnesty. If I recall correctly they legally can’t just unprohibit firearms, some clause in a bill from a previous administration, they need to revoke the OIC’s starting from 2020. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] JizzmasterD@lemmy.ca 2 points 9 months ago (2 children) So the real problem comes when those who chose not to participate face more strict consequences for not participating? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] ohshit604@sh.itjust.works [S] 2 points 9 months ago (1 child) Possession of a prohibited device can legally land you in a 10 year imprisonment however, we all know our prisons are not nearly big enough to hold ~300,000 new criminals so I suspect if people are caught with these prohibited firearms they’ll strip your PAL/RPAL and throw you on probation/house-arrest. Still, making thousands of people criminals from something they had legally purchased is not a good rep. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] JizzmasterD@lemmy.ca 2 points 9 months ago I’m with you. Different initial approaches aside, seems like a missed opportunity to not have a predetermined set of escalations. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] ohshit604@sh.itjust.works [S] 2 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (3 children) The problem is the criminal liability if the gov doesn’t roll back the OIC’s or extend the amnesty. If I recall correctly they legally can’t just unprohibit firearms, some clause in a bill from a previous administration, they need to revoke the OIC’s starting from 2020. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] JizzmasterD@lemmy.ca 2 points 9 months ago (2 children) So the real problem comes when those who chose not to participate face more strict consequences for not participating? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] ohshit604@sh.itjust.works [S] 2 points 9 months ago (1 child) Possession of a prohibited device can legally land you in a 10 year imprisonment however, we all know our prisons are not nearly big enough to hold ~300,000 new criminals so I suspect if people are caught with these prohibited firearms they’ll strip your PAL/RPAL and throw you on probation/house-arrest. Still, making thousands of people criminals from something they had legally purchased is not a good rep. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] JizzmasterD@lemmy.ca 2 points 9 months ago I’m with you. Different initial approaches aside, seems like a missed opportunity to not have a predetermined set of escalations. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] JizzmasterD@lemmy.ca 2 points 9 months ago (2 children) So the real problem comes when those who chose not to participate face more strict consequences for not participating? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] ohshit604@sh.itjust.works [S] 2 points 9 months ago (1 child) Possession of a prohibited device can legally land you in a 10 year imprisonment however, we all know our prisons are not nearly big enough to hold ~300,000 new criminals so I suspect if people are caught with these prohibited firearms they’ll strip your PAL/RPAL and throw you on probation/house-arrest. Still, making thousands of people criminals from something they had legally purchased is not a good rep. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] JizzmasterD@lemmy.ca 2 points 9 months ago I’m with you. Different initial approaches aside, seems like a missed opportunity to not have a predetermined set of escalations. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] ohshit604@sh.itjust.works [S] 2 points 9 months ago (1 child) Possession of a prohibited device can legally land you in a 10 year imprisonment however, we all know our prisons are not nearly big enough to hold ~300,000 new criminals so I suspect if people are caught with these prohibited firearms they’ll strip your PAL/RPAL and throw you on probation/house-arrest. Still, making thousands of people criminals from something they had legally purchased is not a good rep. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] JizzmasterD@lemmy.ca 2 points 9 months ago I’m with you. Different initial approaches aside, seems like a missed opportunity to not have a predetermined set of escalations. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] JizzmasterD@lemmy.ca 2 points 9 months ago I’m with you. Different initial approaches aside, seems like a missed opportunity to not have a predetermined set of escalations. permalink fedilink source parent