Firearms control in Canada: Bill-C-68 and its amendments to the forfeiture of firearms and weapons provisions in the Criminal Code
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This thesis presents a history of firearms control in Canada in an effort to provide an understanding of the views held by opponents of increasingly stringent firearms control legislation. It examines the most common arguments forwarded by the opponents and concludes that the Canadian courts have not followed their reasoning. Attempting to provide a more fruitful means of protecting the fundamental rights of lawful owners of firearms, the author focuses on the post-Bill C-68 mandatory forfeiture provisions in s. 491 of the Criminal Code of Canada. The author demonstrates that the mandatory forfeiture provisions infringe upon the s. 8 Charter right to be secure against unreasonable searches and seizures. The author then engages in a s. 1 Charter analysis and concludes that the limit on the s. 8 Charter right is not reasonable and demonstrably justified, and proposes that the provision be declared unconstitutional under s. 52(1) of the Charter.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".