skeeter
<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote<font size=1 face='Verdana, Arial, Helvetica' id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>Maybe only in the odd family dispute would it amount to knowledge of use that a weapon is on the premises <hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face='Verdana, Arial, Helvetica' size=2 id=quote>
What police officer in his or her right mind would rely on information from the gun registry as to whether there was or there was not firearm(s)on a given premises.
That is the kind of rhetoric that proponents of this fiasco use to support their argument. It is pure crap. Supose a CPIC check showed the occupant had a rifle registered to him/her. In the first place the info may not be accurate, we all know the system is fraught with errors. Does it mean he/she has the rifle on premises? Maybe it's at his/her hunt camp or cottage or maybe it has been loaned to someone or maybe it's at the gunsmith for repairs. Suppose the CPIC check indicated the occupant has no firearms registered to his/her name, does that mean there are none on the premises? I don't think so. Think of the possibilities.
The registry serves no meaningful purpose. Except when the government decides to ban autoloaders, they'll know who owns them. And when they decide to ban pump shotguns (as is currently taking place in Germany) they'll know who owns them. Etc etc etc.
And I'm paricularly pissed off with myself right now because only last week I sent in my registration applications. I should have waited a bit longer. gg.
"When I was born I was so surprised I couldn't talk for a year and a half"