Canada allows hunting with semi-auto rifles and shotguns. However, there are magazine restrictions of five and three rounds respectively. Bringing Firearms to Canada Canada’s current government has loosened firearms laws, but these regulations are still much tighter than those of the United States. To begin with, Canada’s Firearms Act classifies firearms into one of three categories: non-restricted, restricted, and prohibited. Ordinary shotguns and rifles typically used by hunters generally fall into the non-restricted category (center fire semi-automatic long guns can not have magazines that hold more than five cartridges). Hunting regulations also restrict shotgun magazine capacities to no more three shells when plugged, just as in the US. https://gothunts.com/bringing-firearms-canada/
This is going back about 20 years, but I sent a good friend, lived in Calgary, a 50 cal Hawkins, muzzle loader. It took 3 months to clear customs. Unless they've changed a bunch, Canadian gun laws are crazy.
Those are great regulations. I don't see any problem with adopting them in the U.S. The second Amendment does not give you the right to kill people with your semiautomatic. You can show it off in your collection (which is owning it) and you can use it at your gun club's target range (which is 'bearing' it.) What more could you want. The next thing we know you'll want to go rabbit hunting with a submachine gun and claim we are violating your 2nd Amendment rights if we say you can't. Thank you for that correction. I read again and it is apparently only semiautomatics with a barrel length less than 18" (470 mm) .
TomB corrected me on semiautomatics. It is only semiautomatics with a barrel length less then 18" that are restricted. So you can hunt to your hearts content with a semiautomatic rifle, but according to TomB the magazine or clip size is limited. I really do like canada's very sensible gun laws. We should go with them, but the U.S. needs more thorough background checks than in Canada, it seems. There are ways to do this without undue invasion of privacy. But seriously, why hunt with a semiautomatic. What's the point? I don't think it is sporting to do so. But I'll defend your right to own and use it so long as it is not modified to be automatic and is restricted to a reasonable number of shots before reloading. If we would all stop screaming and go at this calmly, most of us can agree on sensible regulation and control. Of course there are lunatics. We can't allow ourselves to be distracted by them. I'm convinced that the vast majority of the population, gun owners or not , can agree on sensible measures. Sorry gun lobby. The rest of America is about to move forward without you.
Of course you don't see any problem because you're misrepresenting Canadian law just like you're misrepresenting the Constitution, just like you misrepresented Heller. The Second Amendment has nothing whatsoever to do with hunting and everything to do with self-defense, which Canadian law clearly limits as I pointed out.
As I have said before, when all of the hyper-theorizing about what the Court is going to do is said and done, some of the lefties here would be better off spending their time making sure that Ruth Ginsberg gets her daily shot of Tahitian Noni Juice to keep her there for the long haul. And of course, Ruthie is not the only justice who will serve his/her country by leaving the Court in the next three years. This could be Ruthie if she got her Noni Juice every day.
Ive never owned a gun never shot a gun, hell i dont even think ive touched a gun. Generally i have tended to come down on the side of less regulation, but its more based on philisophical ideals than the 2nd amendment. People like me (I should throw in a disclaimer im canadian) but people like me are the ones the left are trying to sway........ i was somewhat sympathetic to the cause before tonight, but then i see this shameless display from CNN, where they invite people from the right into a townhall just to get booed, and the morons on the left dont even let them get their point out. If the left really wants to make significant changes out of this they should avoid trying to turn it into shit like this, I found myself feeling sorry for Dana Loesch and Lil' Marco, and i find both of them reprehensible. This was such an organised hatchet job from CNN there is no thinking individual who would look at the lynch mob they formed and change their mind. Atleast when Oprah did her piece for 60 minutes, she got a balanced panel, shit like this designed to sway opinion does nothing but dig peoples heels in. When i see where the debate is going there is little doubt in my mind that both Canada and the United States will not exist as we know them, 100 years from now.......It will end up breaking into dozens of self governed states/provinces/countries that are independent of one another. I cant think of any time in history where the 2 sides were this diametrically opposed. When you look at what goes on from both sides, the differences are irreconcilable thx to the internet and the news "Ratings" Oh and btw for the people who are feigning outrage at the thought that these kids are being coached by the left to behave like this...... Take a look at the only times in this video where the girl looks down to read her question, theres 2 times she does it, its the only 2 times she looks down to read something, both times its a written question, when she gets off the dialogue she has a pleasant conversation, but she comes back to the same scripted questions twice. Watch the video at 0:33 and 4:01 both times she pulls up a fucking cue card to determine her question when outside of that it seemed like a decent conversation. Sorry but there is no one that unknowledgeable about a subjec who would ask a questions that specific twice, and they sure as hell wouldnt use the exact same size cheat sheet both times, thats news people passing the buck...... If you are that "passionate" about the question why would you need to read it twice in order to repeat it twice? Ive made speeches at a couple weddings, and unfortunately a couple funerals, there isnt a single time i needed a cue card, i sure as hell didnt need one for the main point of my argument. I can tell you my answer on both questions. I think Bumpstocks should be banned, and i think magazine size should be limited. Why is it that this girl just so happens to read exactly the question that has been rolling on the Chyron for 2 weeks, and she needed a Cue card to do it? Bottom line, it doesnt matter what i think, half of the population will watch that video, and think that its a huge mainstream movement, the other half will think its bullshit, and neither side will agree.
By itself, it's not. When in the company of a lot of other illegally acquired firearms, it implies an intent to commit an unsavory act of some kind.