Bill C-10A · 37th Parliament · Jean Chrétien
An Act to amend the Criminal Code (firearms) and the Firearms Act
Government bill. Became law.
- IntroducedDone
- Debated in principleDone
- Studied by a committeeDone
- Passed its first chamberDone
- Passed the second chamberDec. 2, 2002
- Became lawMay 12, 2003
Leading supporters
Ranked by the part each played: who is responsible for the bill, who carried it, and who spoke for it most.
- Jean ChrétienPrime Minister
Who carries this bill
Arrows run from the person responsible to those who answer to them on this bill. The critic leads the Senate’s scrutiny and answers to no one on it.
Where members stand
Votes and debate for this bill have not been read yet.
How it changed on the way
The texts have not been compared yet.
How precisely it is written
mostly preciseChallenging the law: ModerateDisputing a charge: Moderate
The bill uses many exact numbers, dates, listed offences and defined terms to set clear rules on licences, transfers and possession. A few approval steps still turn on officials' judgments about relevance, necessity or appropriateness.
Open to argument
“any information, in addition to that included in the application, that may reasonably be regarded as relevant”
Open-ended standard invites argument over what counts as relevant.“conduct any investigation of the applicant that the Registrar considers necessary”
Broad discretion based on the Registrar's own view of necessity.
Clear-cut
“a muzzle velocity exceeding 152.4 m per second or at a muzzle energy exceeding 5.7 Joules”
Exact numerical thresholds replace vague descriptions.“on December 1, 1998 the particular individual (i) held a registration certificate under the former Act”
Specific calendar date and documentary test create a bright-line grandfathering rule.“a barrel equal to or less than 105 mm in length or that is designed or adapted to discharge a 25 or 32 calibre cartridge”
Measurable physical criteria fix which handguns fall inside the exception.
Discretion. Chief firearms officers, the Registrar and the Governor in Council retain wide power to decide eligibility, conduct investigations, set forms by regulation and appoint officials.
Challenging the law itself. Sections using 'appropriate', 'reasonably be regarded as relevant' and 'considers necessary' could be attacked for vagueness under Charter s. 7 liberty interests.
Disputing a charge under it. While numerical and date-based rules are hard to dispute, the subjective approval standards allow factual arguments over whether an official's judgment was properly exercised.
Read by a language model from the royal assent text; every quoted phrase appears in the bill. A reading of the drafting, not legal advice.
Did it work?
no evaluation found
Who lobbied on it
No lobbying registration naming this bill is loaded.
Stages and dates from LEGISinfo.