Absolutely. I can see the changes that have been made to the site since the time that you brought up this matter. But even in the original text, although it didn't state “proposed legislation” every step of the way—I guess those are the amendments that they made—in the general information section it did still list it as proposed legislation. It also indicated that the order would “provide protection from criminal prosecution for possession of these firearms until February 28, 2021”, which is many years out, while the government implements measures to address continued possession and use.
There was an amnesty within that, and it would be a long time before any kinds of criminal prosecutions would take effect. That was listed right at the outset of what was online.
The reason I'm bringing this up is that it's going back to the issue of intent. What was the intent, and was it malicious? Was this done in order to scare people? Was this done from above to below, or was it an error that was made down below and then corrected?
What is your feeling on that? They included that right in the general information section. I think they could have done a little better, but do you think, as my colleague suggested, that their intent was some kind of conspiracy from above? Do you think their intent was to make people feel that they were going to be prosecuted under a law that hadn't been enacted at that point?