Obviously, because silencers help people get away with it.

If the CPC can win the west by just voting for C-391 on second reading, and stop there before frightening off voters in Ontario and Quebec, they will do just that.

I’d recommend that people who want to dump the registry write Harper or their MP [or both] to ask [politely] that they to honour their campaign promise to dump the registry. Voting on second reading is not enough, we want it passed into law.

I personally offer my apologies to Mr. Chen for the actions of the seemly “bumbling bureaucratic buffoons” that are in charge of our legal system.

Our justice system requires a complete overhaul!

Here’s a pretty good summary of US State law from http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Soft+body+armor:+the+legal+issues-a016984614:
The statutes of 10 States criminalize only the wearing of body armor, whereas 3 States adopted statutes that criminalize both the wearing and use of body armor. Most State statutes, however, stipulate that an additional act is necessary.

For example, in Oklahoma, Massachusetts, and Wisconsin, a defendant must be committing or attempting to commit a felony while wearing body armor, although the Massachusetts statute also criminalizes the use of body armor, not just the wearing of it. A defendant in Michigan violates the body armor statute while committing violent acts or threatening to commit violent acts, even if the offenses are not felonies.

California’s statute requires the defendant to be wearing body armor while committing or attempting to commit a violent offense, as defined in the California Penal Code. The body armor statutes in Florida, Louisiana, and New Jersey list specific offenses that a suspect must have committed or be attempting to commit while wearing body armor to violate the statute. Conversely, New Hampshire New Hampshire, one of the New England states of the NE United States. It is bordered by Massachusetts (S), Vermont, with the Connecticut R. forming the boundary (W), the Canadian province of Quebec (NW), and Maine and a short strip of the Atlantic Ocean (E). employs a sweeping provision that prohibits the use or wearing of body armor and expands the required additional act to include the commission of any misdemeanor or felony.

Three States require that a defendant, in addition to wearing or using body armor, possess a weapon before a violation of the body armor statute can occur. The Illinois statute requires that an offender knowingly wear body armor, possess a dangerous weapon, and commit or attempt to commit any offense. New York’s statute stipulates that a person is guilty of unlawful wearing of body armor while committing a violent felony and possessing a firearm. In Virginia, the defendant must be in possession of either a firearm or a knife while wearing body armor and be committing a crime of violence to violate the statute.

Penalties

Just as the additional conditions required by the statutes vary, so do the penalties. In Illinois, the penalty is a misdemeanor for the first offense and a felony for subsequent offenses. Delaware’s statute defines the offense of wearing body armor as a felony, imposes a minimum sentence of 3 years, and mandates that violators over the age of 16 be tried as adults. Some States designate the offense as a felony of a specific degree, e.g., third degree in Florida, class B in New Hampshire, class E in New Jersey, and class 4 in Virginia.

Three States specify the punishment without specifically characterizing the offense as a felony. For example, Louisiana’s statute calls for a fine of not more than $2,000 or imprisonment.
In those states where the penitentiary system has been adopted, convicts who are to be imprisoned, as part of their punishment, are sentenced to perform hard labor. for no more than 2 years. In Massachusetts, the sentence is a minimum of 30 months and a maximum of 5 years in a State prison, or imprisonment of no less than 12 months and no more than 30 months in a jail or house of correction . Oklahoma requires imprisonment in a penitentiary penitentiary: see prison. for no more than 10 years for the first offense and not more than 20 years for subsequent offenses.

Probation and Parole

Two States even addressed parole and probation in their substantive criminal statutes. Delaware not only imposes a minimum sentence of 3 years but also mandates that “no person convicted for a violation of this section shall be eligible for parole or probation during such 3 years.” New Hampshire prohibits any part of the sentence for violating the body armor criminal statute from being served concurrently with any other prison term.

Statutes Enhancing Sentencing

California and Wisconsin approached the issue from a different perspective. The statutes in these States do not create a separate substantive criminal offense. Rather, they impose additional or enhanced sentences on defendants convicted of committing or attempting to commit other substantive crimes while wearing body armor.

California’s statute prescribes an additional sentence “upon conviction of that [underlying] felony” to a term of either 1, 2, or 3 years. The statute requires that a 2-year term be imposed, unless the court finds or mitigating factors, and that the additional sentence run consecutively to the sentence for the underlying felony.

In Wisconsin, the statute authorizes, but interestingly does not require, a sentence of an additional 5 years. No mention is made, however, as to whether the sentence should run concurrently or consecutively.

The way society is these days and I believe in large part caused by the actions of these very same politicians I don’t blame any law abiding citizen wanting to wear body armor in some neighborhoods and the people who are supposed to listen to you are trying to turn you into a criminal – what’s that all about? The USA sa quoted by the writer has got it right – if you commit a crime wearing BA then you get the ban – why the hell should everyone else suffer just because you’re a criminal and got caught?

In the UK stab crime is rife, especially among teenagers. Parents buy stab vest for their kids to wear at school. Stupid legislation thought up by overpaid politicians who really don’t care about you and me and really don’t listen to what the people say and who are only interested in keeping their cushy jobs will make more criminals out of people who just want to protect themselves from harm – people do get caught in crossfires, innocent people do die in these circumstances so who the hell do the politicians think they are by preventing the ordinary citizen from protecting themselves. Ah but wait, a licence means a fee and a fee means money – goddam, another tax – a tax on protecting yourself!

What is even more interesting is to compare the Canadian homicide rate trend with the that in the US: the US rates have dropped more than ours have over the same time period.

Gun control — either restrictive like ours or more permissive like the US — has marginal — if real — effects. At the least, it is clear that the ’shall issue’ concealed carry laws have not increased homicide rates. Lott has shown with high level econometrics that they have decreased the homicide rate.

But the driving forces of criminal violence are sociological — and economic, mostly due to drugs. Laws pale in comparison.