SoVote

Decentralized Democracy

House Bill

Bill C-376

44th Parl. 1st Sess.
February 13, 2024
An Act to amend the Criminal Code (orders prohibiting the possession of weapons)
  • This is a bill called C-376 that is being introduced in the Canadian Parliament. It proposes to amend the Criminal Code to require a court to make an order prohibiting an individual from possessing a weapon for a certain period of time if they are convicted of a serious crime involving violence against another person. The bill is currently in its first reading stage and can be found on the House of Commons website.
  • H1
  • H2
  • H3
  • S1
  • S2
  • S3
  • RA
  • Yea
  • Nay
  • star_border

SteelmanSpren in Favour

  • A steelman argument in favor of Bill C-376, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (orders prohibiting the possession of weapons), could be as follows: The primary purpose of this bill is to enhance public safety by preventing individuals who have committed violent offences from possessing weapons. By requiring a court to make an order prohibiting the possession of weapons for a specified period following a conviction for an indictable offence involving violence against a person, the bill aims to reduce the risk of further harm to individuals and communities. One of the key benefits of this legislation is that it focuses on the specific act of violence committed by an individual, rather than solely considering the length of their prison sentence. This approach recognizes that even if an offender receives a relatively short prison term, they may still pose a significant risk to public safety if they have demonstrated a propensity for violence. By imposing a prohibition on weapon possession, the bill ensures that individuals who have shown a willingness to use violence are not able to easily access weapons that could be used to cause harm. Furthermore, this legislation provides a clear and consistent framework for courts to follow when determining whether to impose a prohibition on weapon possession. By specifying that the order should be made if violence against a person was used, threatened, or attempted in the commission of the offence, the bill establishes a clear threshold for when such an order should be imposed. This clarity helps to ensure that the decision-making process is fair and transparent, reducing the potential for arbitrary or inconsistent outcomes. In addition to enhancing public safety, this bill also aligns with the principle of proportionality in criminal sentencing. By targeting individuals who have committed violent offences, the legislation focuses on the specific harm caused by their actions and tailors the response accordingly. This approach recognizes that the possession of weapons by individuals who have demonstrated a propensity for violence poses a heightened risk to public safety, and therefore justifies the imposition of a prohibition on weapon possession. Overall, Bill C-376 represents a reasonable and necessary measure to enhance public safety by preventing individuals who have committed violent offences from possessing weapons. By focusing on the specific act of violence committed and providing a clear framework for decision-making, the legislation strikes an appropriate balance between protecting the rights of individuals and safeguarding the well-being of communities.

SteelmanSpren Against

  • Steelman Argument Opposing Bill C-376: While the intention behind Bill C-376 may be to enhance public safety, there are several concerns that arise from this proposed amendment to the Criminal Code. This argument aims to highlight some of these concerns from a right-wing anti-government perspective. 1. Infringement on Individual Rights: The proposed amendment would allow the court to prohibit an individual from possessing a weapon for a specified period, even if the individual has not been convicted of a weapons-related offense. This encroachment on individual rights raises concerns about the erosion of personal freedoms and the potential for government overreach. 2. Disproportionate Punishment: The amendment does not take into account the severity of the offense committed. By mandating a prohibition on weapon possession for any indictable offense involving violence, regardless of the length of the sentence, the legislation fails to consider the principle of proportionality in punishment. This one-size-fits-all approach may result in individuals being subjected to excessive restrictions without due consideration of the specific circumstances of their case. 3. Lack of Rehabilitation Focus: Instead of focusing solely on punitive measures, it is crucial to prioritize rehabilitation and reintegration into society. By imposing a blanket prohibition on weapon possession, the amendment overlooks the potential for individuals to reform and reintegrate into society as law-abiding citizens. This approach undermines the possibility of rehabilitation and may perpetuate a cycle of criminal behavior. 4. Potential for Discrimination: The amendment does not provide clear guidelines for determining the duration of the prohibition on weapon possession. This lack of clarity opens the door for potential bias and discrimination in the application of the law. Without proper safeguards, there is a risk that certain individuals or communities may be disproportionately targeted and subjected to prolonged restrictions on their rights. 5. Insufficient Focus on Root Causes: Rather than addressing the underlying causes of violence, such as socioeconomic factors, mental health issues, or systemic failures, the amendment focuses solely on restricting weapon possession. This narrow approach fails to address the root causes of violence and may not effectively contribute to long-term crime prevention. In conclusion, while the objective of enhancing public safety is commendable, Bill C-376 raises concerns from a right-wing anti-government perspective. The potential infringement on individual rights, disproportionate punishment, lack of rehabilitation focus, potential for discrimination, and insufficient focus on root causes all warrant a reevaluation of this proposed amendment to the Criminal Code.

House Debates

44th Parl. 1st Sess.
April 10, 2024
House Second Reading
  • Feb. 12, 2024, 11 a.m.
  • In Progress
  • Read
House First Reading
  • Feb. 12, 2024, 11 a.m.
  • Passed