Gun Registry Super Thread (please thank your Liberal/NDP friends)

[32-40win]

You have to watch this to believe it. Editor for the Gun Blog asked Ont Prov court for a form to file an S74.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yjh0...Eqvju4kZBeJ7Ko

[32-40win]

Gary Mauser's affidavit to the court for the CCFR, 450pgs worth;

https://firearmrights.ca/wp-content/...38-2xD5450.pdf

[32-40win]

CSSA posing an interesting question on RCMP antics in the CFP;

COMMENTARY

Did RCMP Firearms Program Techs Violate the Firearms Act 340 Times?

Since the Liberal government’s May 1st gun ban by Order in Council was announced, computer techs at the RCMP Canadian Firearms Program have reclassified 340 specific firearms as Prohibited. [i]

This raises two issues.

First, the term variant is not defined in the Firearms Act , which means the RCMP Canadian Firearms Program can literally claim anything is a variant of an AR-15, for example, and there is no way to correct the RCMP’s mistake.

For example, the Adler B210, a bolt-action smoothbore shotgun, was reclassified by the RCMP Canadian Firearms Program as Prohibited because, in their bizarre view, this bolt-action shotgun is a variant of the AR-15. [ii]

In similarly idiotic fashion, they reclassified the Saiga 410C Semi-Automatic shotgun as a variant of the Soviet AK-47 rifle. [iii]

Not one part is shared by these two so-called variants and the AR-15 or AK-47. Not one.

Yet because the term is not defined in law and our current government doesn’t care about firearms owners, they get away with this nonsense.

Second, changing a firearm’s classification after one year is a violation of the Firearms Act, making every one of those 340 firearm reclassifications a separate offence.

The Firearms Records Regulations (Classification) state: [iv]

Keeping and amendment of records

Only the Registrar may keep or amend records of determinations made under the Firearms Act that firearms of a particular type, make and model are prohibited firearms, restricted firearms or neither prohibited firearms nor restricted firearms.
The Registrar must keep a record of every determination referred to in section 1 that he or she makes.
The records referred to in section 2 must not be amended more than one year after the day on which they are made and must not be destroyed.

Every time the RCMP Canadian Firearms Program unilaterally reclassified one of these 340 firearms, they blatantly and flagrantly violated the Firearms Act .

Every.

Single.

Time.

Our question for Public Safety Minister Blair is quite simple.

Minister Blair, when will you order the RCMP Canadian Firearms Program to abide by the Firearms Act ?

PS: We’re not holding our breath waiting for an answer.

Sources:
[i] https://www.Armalytics.ca
[ii] https://s3.amazonaws.com/CSSA/Images...PROHIBITED.jpg
[iii] https://s3.amazonaws.com/CSSA/Images...ic-Shotgun.png
[iv] https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/...98/page-1.html

[32-40win]

CSSA Supports Two Legal Challenges of SOR/2020-96

The CSSA examined in detail all of the possible actions and current legal actions available to us to determine which case or cases provide the greatest opportunity to set a favourable decision for our community. Using our considerable experience in firearms legislation and law, we have determined the two 117.15 actions below represent the best chance of timely success for our members and their hard-earned dollars.

Public Interest Litigants Judicial Review
[news release]
Cassandra Parker / K.K.S. Tactical Supplies Ltd. Judicial Review
[news story]
Toronto lawyer Arkadi Bouchelev represents a group of ten public interest litigants in their judicial review. The case is supported by the Ontario Landowners Association.

For those who remember the Peter Sedge case, Mr. Bouchelev is the attorney who successfully defended Mr. Sedge and negotiated a settlement between Mr. Sedge and the Toronto Police Service for their gross misconduct. Mr. Bouchelev has welcomed the CSSA’s considerable expertise and assistance.

Ottawa criminal defence lawyer Solomon Friedman represents Ms. Parker and K.K.S. Tactical in her action.

Both attorneys are well-known, talented and experienced in firearms law. In our opinion, these two judicial reviews provide our community with the best opportunity to strike down the May 1, 2020, Order in Council SOR/2020-96.

Please use the donation links below if you would like to financially support these cases as well.

Donate ; https://cssa-cila.org/store/shop/pub...dicial-review/

Donate ; https://cssa-cila.org/store/shop/sup...dicial-review/

[32-40win]

And of course, the CSSA lawyer Ed Burlew, is also working on John Hipwell's case;

TheGunBlog.ca — The lawyer for John Hipwell, the founder of Wolverine Supplies Ltd., filed 2,358 pages of evidence today for their Federal Court fight to stop the Liberal Party of Canada’s attacks against hunters, farmers and sport shooters.

“This is a historic moment: the evidence serving,” Edward Burlew told TheGunBlog.ca in an exclusive interview as he pulled a briefcase with the files to the Department of Justice mailroom in downtown Toronto. “I’m ready to go to hearing.”

Burlew, who wore a face mask displaying “Team Hipwell,” said the Wolverine founder was the first to file affidavits among the teams challenging the Liberal mass firearm confiscations in Federal Court.

Six cases have been filed, including one this week.

Burlew submitted evidence from 16 people, including Hipwell, and has more than a thousand pages yet to file. The affidavits aren’t public.

Virden, Manitoba-based Wolverine is one of Canada’s largest independent gun retailers and distributors.

Private gun ownership is at the heart of Canadian heritage, culture and the economy.

More adults have a federal firearm licence than play hockey.
Millions of families and individuals own or use firearms for everything from protection, hunting and competition to recreation, collecting and education to investing and art.
Hunters and sport shooters contribute an estimated $8.5 billion to the national economy each year.
Support Hipwell Challenge

The editor of TheGunBlog.ca donated to several court challenges, including Hipwell’s. Donate via Hipwell’s GoFundMe; https://www.gofundme.com/?fbclid=IwA...oFb6lSnhjWqG2k

The Liberals, who prepared the confiscations in secret with the federal police, initiated their sudden and sweeping crackdown against honest citizens on May 1 through a so-called “Order in Council.”

Many people have pledged to opt out of the forced surrender that violates fundamental principles of ethics, justice, governance and law.

The affidavits “cover every paragraph of the OIC,” Burlew said.

‘Expedite a Hearing’

“I submitted evidence to the Crown in an effort to expedite a hearing of all applications,” Burlew told TheGunBlog.ca. “The applications are all going forward together, and the injunctions that are being asked for will not delay the meeting.”

The Liberals targeted rifle and shotgun owners on May 1, and are going after handgun owners next.

They are also preparing what they call their “evergreen framework for gun classifications” to “quickly” prohibit anyone’s gear anytime.

[32-40win]

Chinese want to get involved in small arms trade bans now. Wonder what their ulterior motive could possibly be?

https://www.globaltimes.cn/content/1...quaUKp_y9LxotU

[32-40win]

Interesting article on the NS shooter investigation, RCMP are not giving up info yet;

https://www.straight.com/news/nova-s...ei38MZEa6HoNAs

[32-40win]

Billy being chastised in the NY Times over the G8 summit settlement;

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/17/w...wl0q4jbVrGWjis

[32-40win]

Appears another group has joined the fray, Burlington Rifle & Revolver Club, Montreal Firearms Rec Ctr, O'Dell engineering and 3 individuals, guess that would be #8 on the list.

https://supremeadvocacy.ca/wp-conten...pplication.pdf

[32-40win]

NFA update with Solomon Friedman and an explanation of what the status is, of the case he is running, at the moment, Covid is the gov't excuse for delays in providing the evidence, of the reasoning behind the OIC's. Essentially waiting on office workers in the gov't. If nothing else, some interesting explanation of the procedures they need to go thru. Also quite a discussion of some of the consequences of Bill C75 and the removal of rights included in it which affected firearms owners and others.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d74yO8F8kHw

[32-40win]

Just so people understand where C71 & the OIC's came from, a paper by Wendy that she wrote for Project Ploughshares on military style guns. As much as I cringe reading this stuff, you have to know your enemy.

https://ploughshares.ca/wp-content/u...7B66f1eb-ihNLY

[32-40win]

An update on the Danforth shooter, are the feds suppressing info the same way they were in the NS case, seems like a distinct possibility

https://thenationaltelegraph.com/nat...1_4XqmiARJIwhA

[32-40win]

Ian Runkle on inspections laws.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bqaj...AP1YNCzRKd9MaQ

[32-40win]

See an E-mail thet the Cdn Taxpayers Federation is applying to intervene in Cassasndra Parker's case and the CCFR case, they don't like the idea of the OIC's and C71 either;


Dear Supporter,

We’ve filed our documents.

You remember Cassandra Parker because she’s taking the Trudeau government to court to fight the federal gun ban and buyback. She owns a business in Prince George, B.C., that’s hit hard by the ban. And the Canadian Taxpayers Federation just filed documents to intervene in the case to oppose a policy that will cost taxpayers a lot of money, but won’t make anyone safer.

If you want to hear from Cassandra herself, check out her interview with our B.C. Director Kris Sims – just click this LINK.

Now we’re taking this a step further. The Canadian Taxpayers Federation is applying to intervene in a second court challenge against the gun ban and buyback led by the Canadian Coalition for Firearm Rights. The two cases are slightly different, but they give us twice as many shots at taking down this expensive and unfair law.

If you’re interested in reading the legal documents, you can find our motion record for Cassandra’s case here and our motion record for the CCFR case here.

Because we are seeking to join these cases as interveners, we will now need to wait to hear if the court decides to grant us permission, and we’ll be sure to keep you updated when we get a decision.

Thank you again for your support!
Aaron, Todd, Shannon and the entire CTF team

PS: We’re proud to be 100% funded by voluntary donations supporters like you. Any amount you can contribute helps! https://www.taxpayer.com/donate/

PPS: We’re digging into the Trudeau government’s gun ban and buyback on the Canadian Taxpayers Podcast. There’s an overview of the flawed policy in Episode #4. There’s an interview with the head of the New Zealand Taxpayers’ Union that talks about problems with that country’s policy in Episode #8. And if you want a preview of our legal arguments, check out Episode #12. Better yet, subscribe to the Canadian Taxpayers Podcast for free on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Google Podcast, Stitcher and many other providers.



Share this message on:


Like us on Facebook | Follow us on Twitter | Forward to a friend

Know someone who would like to be on our email list? Copy and send them this link to join now: https://taxpayer.com//join/join-us/

Did you get this email forwarded to you from a friend? Start getting these emails directly in your inbox. Sign-up for free at: www.taxpayer.com/join/join-us/

Copyright © 2020 Canadian Taxpayers Federation, All rights reserved


Our mailing address is:
Canadian Taxpayers Federation
501 - 2201 11 Ave
Regina, SK S4P 0J8
Canada

Add us to your address book

[32-40win]

Another vid from Ian Runkle, about concealed carry, if you were not confused before, you will be now. This is essentially the courts making law.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jdLZ...uyYVfNLMD2peoo

[32-40win]

Billy and the RCMP are on a roll, 11 new additions to the prohibs, mostly AR style shotguns and bigbore bolt actions

https://www.armalytics.ca/?size=n_10...%5Btype%5D=any

[32-40win]

This is one of those kinds of info that is irritating to say the least. All from Mike Loberg, CCFR counsel;

I worked really hard to try to get the parties suing the government over the OIC to work together, because it’s important that we all provide consistent, non-contradictory evidence, and mutually supportive arguments.
Unfortunately one lawyer has decided that they won’t voluntarily let the other groups see the evidence they have served, but instead say they won’t cooperate with the other groups unless ordered to do so by a Federal Court judge. So much for cooperation on the pro-gun side.
I can’t force them to cooperate, that is unless I bring a court application against them to make them work with the other litigant groups, and I might do that, but it is worthy of note that there is one lawyer who just won’t cooperate.
You have to wonder whose side these people are on...

The CCFR case involves every aspect and angle we can deploy, without exception, and that includes literally hundreds of Access to Information Act requests. We expected to receive resistance to some requests, but this answer is, in technical legal terms, complete horse****.
Request: "On behalf of the Canadian Coalition for Firearm Rights and Rodney Giltaca we request access to information related to Order in Council P.C. 2020-298, May 1, 2020 (the “Order in Council"), making the Regulations Amending the Regulations Prescribing Certain Firearms and Other Weapons, Components and Parts of Weapons, Accessories, Cartridge Magazines, Ammunition and Projectiles as Prohibited, Restricted or Non-Restricted on May 1, 2020 (the “Regulations"), and P.C. 2020-299, May 1, 2020, making the Order Declaring an Amnesty Period (2020) (the “Amnesty Order"). In particular, we request that you provide us with electronic copies of the records below as they may be held by or otherwise available to the RCMP, including the Canadian Firearms Program, the Specialized Support Services Unit and the Commissioner of Firearms (collectively the “RCMP"): 1. All records, including but in no way limited to research, analysis, policy papers, briefing reports, studies, proposals, presentations, reports, memos, letters, emails and any other communications related to the use, and the effects of the use of handguns and assault-style firearms in Canada. The timeframe for this request is 2000 to present."
Note this is aimed at the RCMP, who run the Canadian Firearms Program, the Firearms Lab, and includes the Commissioner of Firearms....
...we asked for ALL electronic records "...including but in no way limited to research, analysis, policy papers, briefing reports, studies, proposals, presentations, reports, memos, letters, emails and any other communications related to the use, and the effects of the use of handguns and assault-style firearms in Canada".
That's for "...the use of handguns and assault-style firearms in Canada...".
...which is their job...
And their answer is...
...wait for it...
Response: "...Unfortunately, we were unable to locate records which respond to your request."

CCFR v Canada: RCMP Cover-up #2
Request: "On behalf of the Canadian Coalition for Firearm Rights and Rodney Giltaca we request access to information related to Order in Council P.C. 2020-298, May 1, 2020 (the “Order in Council"), making the Regulations Amending the Regulations Prescribing Certain Firearms and Other Weapons, Components and Parts of Weapons, Accessories, Cartridge Magazines, Ammunition and Projectiles as Prohibited, Restricted or Non-Restricted on May 1, 2020 (the “Regulations"), and P.C. 2020-299, May 1, 2020, making the Order Declaring an Amnesty Period (2020) (the “Amnesty Order"). In particular, we request that you provide us with electronic copies of the records below as they may be held by or otherwise available to the RCMP, including the Canadian Firearms Program, the Specialized Support Services Unit and the Commissioner of Firearms (collectively the “RCMP???): 1. All records, including but in no way limited to research, analysis, results, discussion, policy papers, briefing reports, studies, proposals, presentations, reports, memos, letters, emails and any other communications related to the roundtables held in Vancouver, Montreal, Toronto, and Moncton, and any other Canadian municipalities, as referenced on page 59 of the Order in Council. The start date for this request cannot be identified as it is specifically directed at the statement in the Order in Council. The end date is May 1, 2020."
So this is for everything "...related to the roundtables held in Vancouver, Montreal, Toronto, and Moncton, and any other Canadian municipalities, as referenced on page 59 of the Order in Council."
The so-called firearm consultations...
Response: "...Unfortunately, we were unable to locate records which respond to your request."

CCFR v Canada: Department of Justice
Here's another Access to Information Act request and reply. This one tells you what the government of Canada is actually up to. Get ready to be really ****ed off...
This one is to the Department of Justice, the legal advisors to the government, Cabinet, and the Governor General...
Request: "Request access to information related to Order in Council P.C. 2020-298, May 1, 2020 (the “Order in Council”), making the Regulations Amending the Regulations Prescribing Certain Firearms and Other Weapons, Components and Parts of Weapons, Accessories, Cartridge Magazines, Ammunition and Projectiles as Prohibited, Restricted or Non-Restricted on May 1, 2020 (the “Regulations”), and P.C. 2020-299, May 1, 2020, making the Order Declaring an Amnesty Period (2020) (the “Amnesty Order”). In particular, we request that you provide us with electronic copies of the records below as they may be held by or otherwise available to the Department of Justice, including the Minister of Justice (the "DOJ"): 1. All records, including but in no way limited to research, analysis, policy papers, briefing reports, studies, proposals, presentations, reports, memos, letters, emails and any other communications related to the recommendations of the Minister of Justice to the Governor in Council, as referenced on pages 1 and 67 of the Order in Council."
So this is for their research ".. related to the recommendations of the Minister of Justice to the Governor in Council, as referenced on pages 1 and 67 of the Order in Council..."
Get ready...
Reply: "...Pursuant to paragraphs 9(1)(a) and 9(1)(b) of the Access to Information Act, I hereby notify you that an additional 2,920 days are required to comply with your request. The extended period of time is required because the request necessitates a search through a large number of records and meeting the original time limit would unreasonably interfere with the operations of the Department...."
So their answer is "we'll get back to you in 8 years".

[32-40win]

Ian Runkle again, some notes about reasons for not letting your PAL expire while getting a divorce, and the consequences of it;

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-f_25z1Z6SU

[32-40win]

I really like what Runkle is doing with his YT channel, this one is on the shotgun 20mm definitions. What I do wonder about with this, is there anywhere else where the process of machining a bore and then the secondary cuts such as the chamber and the choke threads, or some similar secondary cut, has been accepted by a court as the definition that is actually present in case law already?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mBtn...92yC4-GN1VBA_M

[32-40win]

CCFR is having their protest in Ottawa today, Looks like a fair number of people showed up, no idea how many yet, too early. Ian Runkle also put out a vid yesterday, about a week or two late in my opinion, as to why you should not take a firearm to a protest meeting, the case even occurred in AB. They guy that got charged was badly mistaken in his methods, but, it sets a precedent;

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hd_b...bo-MqiLQwo8KDs

[Scott N]

I'm reading that 5000+ showed up in Ottawa today.

[32-40win]

People are complaining about the the 800 or so numbers that CBC & CTV are promoting, CCFR will have to have an aerial count to prove or disprove that, only way it can be verified.

NFA interview with the Michaela Glasgo, Alberta MLA, who is the head of the Alberta Firearms Advisory Council. Discussion about the provincial goals and the pros and cons of a provincially appointed CFO and a few other things;

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ttWV...QcNmx4t-HwHaTU

[32-40win]

CCFR update on what they are doing, ad campaigns, Loberg will be giving an update of some form on next podcast, they are mounting some form of political campaign as well. Also a vid from Ian Runkle on the Liberal's yapping about municipal gun bns in the throne speech.

Word is, also, that the gov't has stopped the bidding process of hiring someone to manage a gun buyback, who knows what that may be about. Sure it will eventually come out.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lGQv...WBksFzD64zroKg

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K6W_E9O_bp0

[32-40win]

Ian Runkle is just doing wonders in taking the time to explain stuff about the firearms laws in Canada, definitely deserves support for his efforts. This one is about a court case that "sort of" defines safe storage at home, but is still not law as per se;

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6low...3UXvD6t3O8sld4

[32-40win]

Latest CSSA Newsletter, regarding the cancellation on the bid process on the gun buyback, apparently nobody bid on it. And a poll regarding the odds of a buyback happening.

https://web-extract.constantcontact....nOSmB1sCnT1E2A

[32-40win]

Provincial court in NB says it has no jurisdiction on a Section 74 hearing, documents incl;

https://thegunblog.ca/2020/09/30/new...ANU2K31xUrFa_M

[32-40win]

From the head of our legal team, CCFR General Counsel Michael Loberg;



CCFR et al v Canada Update
I owe you an update, and here it is. The CCFR legal team has been incredibly busy and very productive. On the other hand, the Government of Canada has been obstructive and generally “less than completely genuine”.
The members of the CCFR and our supporters have quite rightly expressed concern about the amnesty period clocking out before our case is heard (and this case is massive, so that’s a real issue).
Attached is our Injunction Application as served, to show you what we’re doing about that. We’ll be providing a more fulsome report to follow, with the details that we are able to disclose at this time.
Also, our evidence served for this injunction application will follow. While the case for getting an injunction against presumptively valid regulations is very, very difficult (so have realistic expectations), we’ve left nothing out… not one thing. Personally, I know this is the best shot this could get.
Here is a comprehensive listing of the affidavits of our team:
Affidavit of Caillin Langmann (00047566xD5450)
Affidavit of Eugene Beaulieu (00047567xD5450)
Affidavit of Gary Mauser (00047568-2xD5450)
Affidavit of Laurence Knowles (R) (00047727xD5450)
Affidavit of Matthew Overton (00047572xD5450)
Affidavit of Philip O’Dell (00047573xD5450)
Affidavit of Rick Timmins (00047574xD5450)
Affidavit of Ron Leblanc (00047575xD5450)
Affidavit of Ryan Steacy (R) (00047728xD5450)
Affidavit of Wyatt Singer (00047577xD5450)
As an aside, you may have heard me say in “Broken Trust” that this is the largest, most expensive and most comprehensive case the Canadian firearm community has ever had advanced on its behalf, and that’s unquestionably true. The CCFR v Canada case is a monster. The legal team you have is exceptional, and larger that has ever been deployed in this fight in the history of ever. It’s a privilege to be involved in it on your behalf, and an honour to have your support for it.
Here we go… enjoy the read. CCFR Notice of Motion-Injunction CCFR v Canada. Notice of Motion – Injunction (00047724xD5450) (1)
Also, as you know, the CCFR filed a series of ATIP’s for the information used by the Liberal government in their decision to implement this gun ban. What evidence did they use to determine the ban is not only necessary, but a priority.
Here is the response from the DOJ, who state that all that evidence is not relevant to the court case – you know, the federal court challenge to the gun ban itself? Letter to FC re 318 Objection with attachments (00047726xD5450)
It’s obvious to everyone that the evidence likely doesn’t support the government’s decision to ban hundreds of thousands of guns from legal gun owners.
In any event – we push forward and will circle back with you all once we receive a decision in our injunction application.
You can help us with this fight, as the legal bills continue to mount by donating directly to our legal fund.
Let’s STOP the gun ban!!

[32-40win]

This article describes what is happening between the Gov't and the cases filed against the OIC's regarding getting info from the gov't;

https://ipolitics.ca/2020/10/02/lawy...tcahnfzsFs4qIw

This is the filing the CCFR put in, to see if the courts will force the issue with the gov't, or not;

https://firearmrights.ca/wp-content/...07-2xD5450.pdf

[32-40win]

Some "facts" about the origin of the term "assault rifle" and "assault weapons" and etc from a site called Just Facts;

“Assault Weapons”
* “Assault weapons,” a term often used by journalists and politicians,[139] [140] [141] are semi-automatic rifles, pistols, and shotguns that share some characteristics with military firearms. These differ from military weapons in that they can only fire one bullet for each pull of the trigger,[142] [143] while U.S. soldiers carry fully automatic arms that can fire multiple bullets with a single pull of the trigger.[144] [145] [146]

* Supporters of gun rights generally object to describing semi-automatic firearms as “assault weapons.” Instead, they call them “modern sporting rifles” or by their styles and models, such as “AR-15.”[147]

* AR-15s, which are often deemed “assault weapons,”[148] [149] [150] are a class of semi-automatic rifles that can be legally purchased in most states. Per the U.S. Army:

America’s most popular rifle—the AR-15—is often portrayed as being something it is not. Probably one of the more popular myths is that the “AR” stands for “assault rifle” or “automatic rifle.” It actually stands for “Armalite Rifle,” after the company that developed it in the 1950s.[151] [152]

* Compared with older firearm designs, “assault weapons” or “modern sporting rifles” have features that sometimes include, but are not limited to:

detachable magazines, which allow for greater ammunition capacity and quicker reloading.[153] [154] [155]
low recoil, which enhances steadiness and accuracy while shooting.[156] [157]
elevated sights, which reduce neck-strain by allowing the shooter’s head to be upright while taking aim.[158]
flash suppressors, which eliminate harsh light that appears at the tip of the barrel from exploding gunpowder. (Such light can obstruct the shooter’s line of sight when firing or expose his location in the dark.)[159] [160] [161] [162] [163]
a pistol grip, which makes the gun “comfortable and adaptable” to most hand sizes.[164] [165] [166]
a folding or telescoping stock, which makes the weapon more concealable and transportable by allowing its length to be adjusted.[167] [168] [169] [170]
Folding Stock

Folding Stock
[171]

* Some journalists and politicians have claimed that “assault weapons” or “modern sporting rifles” are not used for hunting or self-defense.[172] [173] With regard to this:

A 2011 article in Outdoor Life reports that “autoloaders and AR-style rifles are becoming more common in [hunting] camps and virtually every major manufacturer is producing these guns in calibers heavy enough to drop deer, hogs and bears.”[174]
Interviews with eight firearm experts for a 2015 article in the magazine Tactical Life found that three of them use an AR-style rifle for home defense.[175]
An AR-15 was used by a former NRA instructor to stop a 2017 church shooting in Sutherland Springs, Texas.[176] When reporting on this event:
CNN, USA Today, NPR, Business Insider, CBS Chicago, and the New York Times published articles that described the protector’s AR-15 merely as a gun or rifle.[177] [178] [179] [180] [181] [182]
The same media outlets described the killer’s AR-15 as a “military-style rifle.”[183] [184] [185] [186] [187] [188] (Hat tip: Carl Arbogast[189])
* In 1988, Josh Sugarmann, the founder of a prominent gun control organization, wrote the following about the “new topic” of “assault weapons:”[190] [191]

The weapons’ menacing looks, coupled with the public’s confusion over fully automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons—anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun—can only increase the chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons.[192]

* A famous George Orwell essay titled “Politics and the English Language” states the following about words that have “no agreed definition:”

Words of this kind are often used in a consciously dishonest way. That is, the person who uses them has his own private definition, but allows his hearer to think he means something quite different.[193] [194]

* Prior to the publication of Sugermann’s 1988 booklet about “assault weapons,” Google Book’s library of books and other publications reveals none that use this term to describe a semi-automatic gun.[195] During the ten years after Sugermann’s booklet was published:

Google Book shows over 25 results that use the term “assault weapon” to describe a semi-automatic gun, including several state and local laws that ban them.[196] [197] [198] [199] [200]
Democratic Congressmen Howard Metzenbaum sponsored a bill named the “Assault Weapon Control Act of 1989” that sought to ban certain semi-automatic weapons but did not pass.[201]
Democratic Congressmen Charles Schumer sponsored a 1994 federal bill—which passed into law—banning certain semi-automatic weapons for ten years.[202] [203]
* A 2013 New York Times article claims “it was the gun industry” that first adopted the term “assault weapon” to increase civilian rifle sales.[204] As evidence of this, the Times cites the cover of a 1981 edition of Guns & Ammo magazine with a headline that reads, “The New Breed of Assault Rifle.”[205] With regard to this:

the magazine repeatedly distinguishes these new weapons from assault rifles by using phrases like “military look-alikes,” “semi-auto sporters,” and “military-type semi-automatic sporting rifles.”
the magazine never uses the term “assault weapon.”[206]
the New York Public Library Writer’s Guide to Style and Usage and several other journalism guidebooks instruct reporters to “use jargon only when necessary and define it carefully” when writing for the general public.[207] [208] [209] [210]
Guns & Ammo is a magazine for gun enthusiasts and professionals, not the general public.[211]
* To further support its claim that the gun industry adopted the term “assault weapon,” the Times quotes:

a snippet from a 1984 advertisement promoting a new magazine named GA Assault Firearms that would be “full of the hottest hardware available today.”[212] The portion of the ad not quoted by the Times states that the magazine will cover “battle rifles, shotguns and assault rifles from the armies of the world.” It adds: “And if you are interested in survival tactics and personal defense, we’ll give you a look at the newest civilianized versions of the semi-auto submachine gun.”[213] [214]
an Indiana gun dealer who wrote a 2008 book that he titled the Gun Digest Buyer’s Guide to Assault Weapons, over the objections of his publisher.[215]
* The 2011 Associated Press Stylebook and Briefing on Media Law defined an “assault weapon” as “a semi-automatic firearm similar in appearance to a fully automatic firearm or military weapon. Not synonymous with assault rifle, which can be used in fully automatic mode.”[216] [217] [218] The 2015 update of the same stylebook treats “assault weapons” and “assault rifles” as synonyms.[219]

* The following people have described semi-automatic “assault weapons” or “modern sporting rifles” as:

“a fully automatic weapon.”
– President Barack Obama, 2013.[220] [221] [222]

“weapons of war.”
– Presidential Candidate Hillary Clinton, 2016.[223] [224] [225] [226]
“weapons of war” and “assault rifles.”
– John Earnest, President Obama’s Press Secretary, 2016.[227] [228] [229]
“military-style assault rifles.”
– Will Drabold, Time, 2016.[230] [231] [232]
“assault rifles” that have “widespread availability” in the U.S.
– Christopher Ingraham, Washington Post, 2016.[233] [234] [235]
“an assault rifle.”
– Evan Perez of CNN, 2016.[236] [237] [238]
“weapons of war.”
– Nick Wing, Huffington Post, 2016.[239] [240] [241]

[32-40win]

So, Doctors for protection against Guns are calling for a rally in Tor again. And they are all over the place trying to get support, and, someone came up with an excellent response to their posts;

The call for support;

https://twitter.com/Docs4GunControl/...mWhRYw6-oYa9DQ

The response;

https://citizensforprotectionagainst...mWhRYw6-oYa9DQ