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

[32-40win]

NFA talk, with Tony Bernardo of the CSSA, and Christopher DiArmani who is taking over Dennis R Young's tasks and site.
If you don't know who Dennis R Young was, this will give you some sense of what he did for firearms owners;

https://dennisryoung.ca/2021/01/20/n...dz2oKtGip-nC-Y

[32-40win]

A note by CCFR legal counsel;


Michael Loberg
2d ·
A CCFR member asked this in a post: "Have to be honest. The court battle we're having with the gun ban is worrying me. How about you?"
I answered, and I think the answer is worthy of broader consideration than just the CCFR member's group, because this is about so much more than firearm rights.
Here's the answer:
"You should be worried. As a matter of fact all Canadians, gun owners or not, should be terrified.
First, we are literally doing everything there is to be done, sparing no expense and skipping no opportunities to fight, and we brought literally the best litigators money can buy. Rest assured there is nothing being left undone by the CCFR.
Second, despite what I just said we have a government that does not respect gun rights, property rights, or even the basic liberties a law-abiding free citizen should enjoy as a matter of basic human rights. Our society is turning towards a form of socialist dictatorship, and yes I mean that literally.
The fight that we are fighting here is about guns, but it's about so much more than guns. What kind of liberty we leave for the next generation, if they have any at all, is what we are fighting for.
We are a minority, and we are surrounded. The only mitigating factors are that this makes our enemies easy to find, and the fact that we get to stand with each other: the most vetted, best Canadians in the country.
But yeah, this is as serious as a heart attack, and if we lose we'll remember this as our final battle."

[32-40win]

Never thought this thread would last this long. Keep on taking snapshots of the discussions and moves and intricacies I guess, it'll be a record of what went on somewhere down the road.

This one is Sheldon Clare and Ian Runkle, discussing C75 and the Liberal DOJ activism issues, some of the results, various issues within the law and various rights under the law in Canada. It is a good conversation;

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SkOsirJjDn0

[32-40win]

Courts reject the CCFR's requested injunction against the OIC's;

https://thegunblog.ca/2021/02/09/fed...3XYKIVKc0N0fEU

[32-40win]

Looks like the gov't may offer the buyback or grandfather the OIC guns, but grandfathering means they stay in the safe. From the CCFR and CSSA today;


8h ·
IMPORTANT - CBC Radio Canada
Assault Weapons Redemption: Federal legislation imminent, but without obligation
Owners of prohibited weapons will be subject to strict requirements if they wish to keep them.
Radio-Canada has learned that the Trudeau government is expected to introduce legislation in the coming days that will establish the buy-back program for assault weapons that were blacklisted last spring. However, this program will not be mandatory.
Public Safety Minister Bill Blair has made a series of presentations to various Liberal caucuses over the week to inform them of the upcoming announcement.
According to our information, owners of banned military assault weapons (over 1500 models and variants) will not be required to return them to the government in exchange for compensation, but will be subject to strict requirements if they wish to keep them.
Among these requirements are that the targeted weapons must be stored securely and cannot be used.
The owners of the targeted weapons benefit from an amnesty until April 30, 2022.
Last year, Joel Lightbound, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety, pointed out that opposition parties may demand that the buy-back program be mandatory and that this should be taken into consideration by the government, which is in a minority position in the House of Commons.
In the eyes of the Bloc Québécois, the mandatory nature of the program is crucial. It completely misses the point if we don't make the buyback program mandatory," says MP Kristina Michaud. Not only are these weapons going to stay in homes, but people will be able to use them even if it is prohibited to do so. We know that there are people who are doing it," she added.
The example of New Zealand
Behind the scenes, some express doubts about the effectiveness of a mandatory program. Is this the best way to spend the public's money," wonders one source, citing the example of a similar initiative in New Zealand.
In 2019, after a shooting at two mosques in Christchurch that left 51 people dead and dozens injured, the government banned semi-automatic weapons and introduced a buy-back and amnesty program.
More than 56,000 weapons were taken out of circulation in return for $87 million in compensation. However, the Firearms Owners' Council estimated that there were 170,000 semi-automatic weapons in circulation, noting that the number of weapons collected was evidence that the program had failed.
Justin Trudeau's Liberal government wants a balanced solution that will allow it to keep its promise while limiting criticism. It wants to avoid comparisons with the now defunct and controversial long-gun registry, which was abolished by Stephen Harper's Conservatives in 2012.
Additional measures
The Liberals could take this opportunity to announce new measures to combat the proliferation of illegal weapons in Canada. These measures could be added by regulation and would not need to be included in the bill.
In fact, Parliamentary Secretary Joel Lightbound stated in writing this evening that the Government's plan will also include additional resources and introduce tougher penalties for police and border officials to help stop the flow of guns at our borders and to target the illegal trafficking of firearms through criminal detour.
It also indicates that tougher laws on safe storage will be introduced to prevent firearms theft.
The Government knows that there will not be unanimous support for this option, especially among groups calling for better gun control. It's not perfect, but that doesn't mean it won't pass," said one Liberal MP.
Ottawa hopes to calm the discontent by adding measures that would allow police to respond quickly to cases of violence or imminent threat where an assault weapon is suspected.
Lightbound says the proposed legislation will give communities, police, medical professionals, survivors of spousal violence and families the power to sound the alarm when someone may pose a danger to themselves, an identifiable group or a partner.
Montreal raises the pressure
Prime Minister Justin Trudeau met Wednesday with Montreal Mayor Valérie Plante virtually.
According to a report provided by the mayor's office, she asked him about gun violence in Montreal. She also told him that the government has a role to play in preventing violence and legislating the sale, importation and manufacture of weapons that end up on the streets.
Earlier in the day, before the City's Executive Committee, the Mayor spoke about the importance of banning handguns. Again, the message was directed to Ottawa.
Yes, assault weapons, we're glad the federal government has taken responsibility for that. But I ask that it be for handguns as well, because they are a scourge at the moment. And it doesn't make sense that it's only the cities that legislate one after the other. Because, of course, the guns are walking around, she said.
Montreal is still reeling from the death of 15-year-old Meriem Boundaoui, who was killed last weekend in a shootout in the borough of Saint-Léonard.

[Scott N]

The gun bans are moving far faster than I expected.

Part 1 - Semi-auto rifles (done)
Part 2 - Handguns (coming within a few months?)
Part 3 - Everything else. (coming after the Liberals get re-elected with their majority)

All through OIC. Even of the CPC gets elected (not going to happen), I have my doubts they'd reverse the OIC.

[32-40win]

Calibre Mag expalnation of the time frame buyback legislation would have to be done in. Probably become an election item by the look of things.

https://calibremag.ca/buyback-announ...jArzLEsDjrfcG4

[32-40win]

From the CCFR counsel, MIke Loberg;

Re: Election Stuff and Our Guns
Just to kickstart the discussion...
The OIC
The structure of the Canadian government is such that even a minority CPC government could reverse the OIC with the stroke of a pen on a new anti-OIC OIC, and that would be that. But will they?
Bill C-71
C-71 needs a Bill through both the House of Commons and the Senate to reverse it, but as a practical matter very little of it is in force so that's not necessarily a priority. It will be put in force (if it is) by another OIC, so the question is whether the Liberals get organized and put it in force before an election. If not it can stay this way for a while under a CPC government until they clean it up.
Handgun Ban
The handgun ban that's coming is another creature:
If it's a federal ban by reclassification they can do it by OIC (and get sued again) or by the proper "Bill through both the House of Commons and the Senate" process. With BQ and NDP backing, either is possible.
If it's a delegation to municipalities to do bans city-by-city, I'm not able to even guess what that constitutional abomination might look like; we'll have to wait and see.
As before, OICs can reverse OICs and Bills are needed to reverse Bills (absent court intervention of course). That's the technical stuff.
The CPC
We can't assume that the CPC will just do all of that if they get elected. It needs more. The keys to that are:
Get them elected;
Make them want to; and
Give them sufficient political cover so that they can.
As a practical matter the CPC needs a lot of help to take government, and they need the aforementioned political cover.
That's our job. That means every single gun owner needs to be mobilized and actively help, more than you've ever helped before.
It's us versus an unlimited printing press of "free money". Think that over.
It's not my place to tell people how to vote - I would never be that arrogant, but we do have some realities to face:
Split vote = CPC loses and we lose our guns.
Stay at home = CPC loses and we lose our guns.
PPC can't form government
Separatist parties won't be able to form government
Liberals, NDP and BQ want all our guns gone
That doesn't leave much room. We're in a hard place and this is for all the marbles.

[32-40win]

Ian Runkle on the rejection of the OIC injunction application;

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BdFi...1OW4IlwlhJAiK8

[32-40win]

Well, the show ( or scam) goes on, seems as though the Libs are bound and determined to confiscate and restrict and rob gun owners, this is Bill C21, just a continuation of Bill C71, enacting a few of the things that they talked about a couple of years ago;

https://parl.ca/DocumentViewer/en/43.../first-reading

Also announced their thoughts on the buyback, but, no actual mention of the details of the legislation on that yet.

[32-40win]

Ian Runkle's first look at C21, it ain't very nice at all;

Okay, so this gun bill is bad enough that it's going to be a series of videos rather than just one.
Let's cover some of the issues...
1. A virtual ban over airsoft in Canada. This would make Canada's airsoft laws stricter than those in nearly any country.
2. New offence for altering a cartridge magazine to hold more rounds than legal. Of course, this was already impossible to do without breaking the law, so this is more of a show piece.
3. Allowing for _anyone_ to apply for an ex parte (ie, in court, but only one side is present--you as a firearm owner would not be present) to apply for an order banning someone from having firearms. So, the court is going to hear one side of the story and make a decision based on that. If this is granted, the court will issue a 30 day ban, followed by giving you a court date where you can appear to challenge it. However, in the interim period, this will come with a search and seizure order, and those searches of your home will usually be happening without a warrant. So, your angry (whoever) can basically use this section to SWAT you--legally. Previously police had similar powers, but now this cuts out the middle man.
4. Eliminates the grandfathering provisions in s. 12(8) and 12(9)--that the Liberal Party of Canada implemented. Replaces them with a new grandfathering provision for storage only.
5. Putting a condition on every licence requiring you to follow bylaw rules on storage and transport. This is a constitutional nightmare. It also includes an exception for people who need their handguns a prescribed sporting competition. Do not expect IPSC/IDPA to make that list of "prescribed" sporting competitions. Nor Cowboy Action shooting, or... I'd expect pretty much anything other than Olympic shooting.
6. A clause that causes your licence to be suspended when the CFO feels like it, for 30 days. There's some restrictions on when they should use this, but there is no review/challenge process, which means that if they abuse it, you're not going to have any convenient means to challenge it. For most gun owners, it'd have to be challenged in federal court--and good luck getting that heard before it expires. Or for under $10k. Also, there's nothing stopping them from suspending you again after it expires. Course, the CFO was doing this anyway, so this is basically a tacit acknowledgement that their actions weren't... y'know... legal.
7. Challenging a refusal to issue/revocation now requires you to turn your guns in to the police for the duration. This basically turns every refusal into an instant ban, whereas before this was the major distinction between the 'refusal' process and the 'immediate search/seizure' process.
8. A ban on advertising firearms in a way that depicts using them on people. That would include discussion of a firearm's suitability for home or personal self defence.
There's some other BS in there, and I'm going to be going through this with a fine-toothed comb, but this is _some_ of the crap here.

[32-40win]

I'm a bit surprised the first one out of the gate is Vancouver, but, why shud I be, Montreal, Ottawa, Tor and the GTA will do it, unless Ford blocks it in Ont.

https://globalnews.ca/news/7643787/v...WQkAG0wWEgjOwo

[32-40win]

Few samples of today's reactions. Lot of polls in various media outlets yesterday about banning handguns or municipal bans, we won all the ones I saw. O'Toole did not say anything about repeals today, but did make a statement of sorts, nothing we haven't heard before.

https://www.cbc.ca/player/play/18626...-ga92mKoBYDlyY

https://thenationaltelegraph.com/opi...3ophLktWVv4Km4

https://www.youtube.com/watch?fbclid...ature=youtu.be

https://torontosun.com/opinion/edito...ja1yv-snFcvvNM

https://web-extract.constantcontact....%2F%2Fmlsvc01-


https://globalnews.ca/news/7646510/n...QsaMqLfBx5MUSE

CCFR Radio
2h ·
Episode 86
Everything you need to know about the Liberal Government's Bill C-21.
Share this episode of the CCFR Radio Podcast!
Danielle Smith Interview: https://omny.fm/.../federal-government-unveils-the...
Contribute the CCFR legal fund
Online: https://www.firearmrights.ca​​​
By EMT: finance@firearmrights.ca
By mail:
Canadian Coalition for Firearm Rights
P.O. Box 91572 RPO Mer Bleu
Orleans, Ontario K1W 0A6
Or donate via our homepage: https://www.firearmrights.ca
---------------------------------------------------------------


Canadian Coalition for Firearm Rights
1d ·
Issues in the New Bill C-21
Here are some preliminary points that we have under review, all of which are subject to ongoing consideration as we compare them to existing legislation and other provisions of the proposed Bill C-21.
Let's start out by stating the obvious:
None of this is going to reduce crime.
None of this is going to increase public safety.
All this is, is electioneering and vote buying through exploiting irrational fear.
None of it will work, other than to hurt us.
Red Flag Law:
The Criminal Code will be amended to allow anyone to apply to a judge, without notice to the firearm-owner, for an order to immediately remove firearms from an individual who may pose a danger to themselves or others, or from a third party who could provide firearms to such an individual, based on information provided from a complainant. This can be done without a warrant, where the information provided by the complainant suggests there isn’t time to get a warrant.
This creates obvious constitutional issues regarding warrantless searches, in addition to the obvious risks of abuse by, for example, vindictive former romantic partners.
Yellow Flag Law:
A new provision in the Firearms Act will allow a Chief Firearms Officer (CFO) to temporarily suspend an individual’s firearms licence if the CFO receives information calling into question their licence eligibility. This runs up against the prohibition against being found guilty until proven innocent.
S. 74 “Turn In Your Guns”:
A new provision requires the surrender of firearms during a legal challenge of licence revocation under section 74, and allows for their destruction if required. Affected owners will no longer retain their firearms while appealing a revocation.
Replica Firearms
This creates a prohibition on importation, exportation and sale applies to all non-regulated airguns that look like modern firearms.
Deletion and Replacement of Grandfathering (s. 12.01):
The grandfathering provisions of s. 12(8) and s. 12(9) (the “Mystery Class”) are being deleted in favour of another grandfathering provision (s. 12.01), one that only allows for storage of the OIC guns without use.
This effectively destroys the value of hundreds of thousands of firearms that are caught by the recent May 1, 2020 OIC, and future bans as well, turning them into worthless "safe queens".
Note that no buyback has been implemented so as to compensate the owners of these firearms for their destroyed value.
It is not clear what dated they are going to use (the "prescribed date") for the possession of the gun or the possession or application of certs. They have messed that up before.
There will be no further acquisitions under this license. A corollary of this is that there will be no market for you to sell your affected guns. They will now be worthless.
Municipal Firearm Bans:
The proposed creation of s. 58.01 allows for municipalities to create bylaws that in turn creates the criminal offence of the prohibition of the possession of a handgun other than at a licensed firearm storage facility (a range).
Transporting a handgun through such a municipality will also be criminal, other than for limited purposes such as leaving the country or going to the CFO's office. This moves dangerously close to allowing municipalities to create criminal law, and will unquestionably be subject to a constitutional review.
Ammunition (s. 37):
Individuals without a licence cannot obtain ammunition from abroad.
De Facto Long Gun Registry:
Because of the requirement to register all of the newly prohibited guns, and all such guns that may be prohibited in the future, this creates a long gun registry for the new prohibs.
This also creates new requirements for continuous reporting as to where the guns are and how they are stored.
Cartridge Capacity:
This provides a new penalty of up to 5 years for unpinning a magazine. Of course possessing a prohibited magazine is already illegal.
Mail Order Transfers of Firearms (s. 32):
There will be new prescribed conditions to be complied with, in addition to the previous requirements.
Centralizing Authorization to Carry Power (s. 54):
Where you want an authorization to carry to protect life, your local CFO will no longer be able to provide it. That must be requested from the central "Commissioner". Only the Commissioner will be able to provide ATCs.
This is clearly an anti-provincial-CFO maneuver.
No good will come of any of this.
Michael A. Loberg
General Counsel
Canadian Coalition for Firearm Rights
|General Counsel’s Office
1000 Bankers Hall West
888 - 3 Street SW
Calgary AB T2P 5C5
----------------------------------------------------------------

Blaine Calkins
1d ·
Today, the Liberals tabled a bill that will set up a program to buy back the firearms they banned this past May; prohibiting the use, sale and importation of more than 1,500 makes and models of legally purchased, lawfully owned firearms.
While the proposed buy-back program is voluntary, owners of the over 1,500 models and variants listed will be required to comply with strict requirements beginning on April 30, 2022, including agreeing to cease all use and store the firearms indefinitely.
The reality is, the vast majority of gun crimes are committed with illegally obtained firearms.
Law-abiding firearms owners in Canada are among the most vetted people in our country. Instead of targeting law-abiding Canadians and firearms retailers, perhaps the government should be investing in police anti-gang and gun units and the CBSA to provide law enforcement with the resources they need to stop illegal smuggling operations and get dangerous criminals and gangs off our streets.
Make no mistake about it, Justin Trudeau is focused on his own re-election and advancing the Liberals hug-a-thug agenda instead of focusing on helping Canadians get vaccines and restarting our economy.
Canadians deserve better.

[32-40win]

CCFR airsoft vid from today;

https://www.youtube.com/watch?fbclid...ature=youtu.be

Ian Runkle's first vid on C21;

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ltjl...9eTHQr8MN_EqeI

[32-40win]

The way this is presented, it seems like the reduced sentences are something new from the Libs, it was the Supreme Court who recommened it to the gov't in a case that happened 2-4mos ago, so, they are now actually addressing it

https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/libe...rPihCUHX3sY-GQ

[32-40win]

Ian Runkle did the airsoft section of C21 today, bit bone chilling.

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opin...pGUfBwiQwMDsaU

https://www.youtube.com/

[scottt]

can u post globe article? not member

[32-40win]

Globe & Mail article by Robyn Urback

Ottawa’s municipal handgun ban is a proud continuation of its gun control theatre

For a federal government that will fall over itself in deference to provincial jurisdiction when questioned on, say, a law that bans people from working certain public-sector jobs because of what they wear, it is noteworthy that Ottawa apparently has no qualms venturing into provincial jurisdiction to allow municipalities to ban handguns within their city limits. Systemic discrimination is a provincial matter, but municipal governance is … a federal one? Have I got that right?

Perhaps my error here is in trying to make sense of this government’s enduringly nonsensical and ideologically driven approach to gun control. In May, Ottawa enacted what it called a ban on “military-style assault rifles,” an invented descriptor, which it misleadingly sold as a total prohibition on the deadliest of firearms. In fact, the Order in Council merely and rather arbitrarily expanded the list of prohibited weapons in Canada, while leaving plenty of similar semi-automatic weapons perfectly legal (the deadliest guns – fully automatic firearms – have been prohibited in Canada for decades). The move was made in the wake of the horrific massacre in Nova Scotia in April, although the firearms used by the shooter in that deadly attack were obtained illegally.

The federal government’s pending move to allow municipalities to ban handguns is at least more targeted to the types of firearms most often used in violent crimes. Indeed, since 2009, Statistics Canada data show that around six in 10 firearms-related violent crimes in Canada involved handguns, and more than two-thirds in urban areas involved handguns. But that’s about where the evidence backing this sort of measure ends.

Ottawa has promoted plans for a municipal handgun ban as a way to empower cities to make urban spaces safer. But any civilian walking around a city carrying a handgun, which is classified as a restricted weapon, is already breaking the law in Canada. Our gun laws are such that handguns may only be transported unloaded, outfitted with a trigger lock, in an opaque case and with an Authorization to Transport (ATT) between certain locations such as an owner’s home and a registered shooting range. Anything else is already against the law in Canada, even if the handgun was legally purchased and carried by someone with a Restricted Possession and Acquisition Licence (RPAL).

A municipal ban on handguns, therefore, would only serve to make the limited activities permissible for those with RPALs (which is essentially just owning handguns and shooting at approved ranges) against the law, as well as prohibit their sale within city limits. But it would not affect the behaviour of those using handguns in violent crimes – or even just walking down the street with a handgun – since both are already illegal in Canada.

The goal here might be to reduce the overall supply of handguns in Canada, which may theoretically be possible with actual comprehensive gun-control measures: a national handgun ban to prevent legally purchased guns from ending up in the wrong hands, combined with massively enhanced border control measures to stem the flow of guns from the United States, for example. Yet this government has no plans for a national ban, since, according to a spokesperson for Public Safety Minister Bill Blair, “communities across Canada do not all experience gun violence in a single unified manner.”

A patchwork of municipal bans, however, is merely gun-control theatre: Enforcement would be nearly impossible, especially in cities without their own police forces, and the move would likely just move legal gun activities to neighbouring municipalities (that is, if municipalities decide to adopt a ban at all; mayors of cities including Toronto, St. John’s and Mississauga have expressed skepticism about the idea, and Ontario, Alberta and Saskatchewan have outright rejected it) Existing RPAL owners would have to be grandfathered in to the new regulatory scheme, and those using handguns illegally would continue just as they always have: ignoring the law.

The reality is that without a massive investment in shoring up border controls, domestic efforts to control gun crime in Canada will be futile. The government has committed $51.5-million over five years to prevent smuggling of firearms into Canada, but considering border agents seized just 753 firearms last year (Toronto police seized more handguns alone in 2018), and considering that Statscan is only now starting to compile national data on the origins of guns used in crimes (in 2018, Toronto police tied 70 per cent of guns for which origins could be traced back to the U.S.), a municipal handgun ban looks like a totally irrelevant “solution” to a problem it doesn’t materially address.

This is, of course, par for the course for a government whose approach to gun control is invariably more about perception than reality. Having already banned an invented category of deadly weapons, Ottawa will now allow cities to create invisible borders for prohibited weapons, mostly to render already illegal activities ... extra-illegal. Do you feel safer yet?

Keep your Opinions sharp and informed. Get the Opinion newsletter. Sign up today.

[32-40win]

Another Globe & Mail article;

A.J. Somerset is the author of Arms: the Culture and Credo of the Gun.

In a Throne Speech mostly devoted to far more important matters, the Liberals committed to pressing ahead with the least rational and most disposable of their election promises on guns: their promise to empower cities to ban handguns.

Gun control organizations tell us this is a dumb plan: Any gun laws we make must be uniform across the country, lest we follow the United States in creating an ineffective patchwork of laws and loopholes. Canada’s gun lobby is also adamant that it is a dumb plan, for the same reasons. Minister of Public Safety Bill Blair deserves congratulations: He has achieved the impossible, crafting a gun control proposal on which both sides agree.

The Liberals can take comfort in that favourite refuge of politicians, the middle-ground fallacy. If everyone is dissatisfied, you must have arrived at a fair and reasonable balance. Alas, it’s also possible that you have come up with a bad plan.

Municipal handgun bans are an innovation 45 years behind the times. In 1975, Washington banned handguns. Chicago followed suit a few years later in 1982. And although the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2008 decision in District of Columbia vs. Heller ultimately overturned both, the intervening decades showed that for a city to declare itself an island was essentially meaningless. A municipal boundary is a line on a map, and drawing a line on a map will not prevent violence.

Crime guns migrate. The handgun used in the Danforth shooting found its way to Toronto from a Saskatchewan gun shop break-in. The American experience is plain: In a patchwork of differing state laws, guns flow wherever demand takes them. Chicago’s strict gun laws are undone by a simple road trip. Guns still flow across our porous border with the United States. What deterrent are the fearsomely defended crosswalks of Steeles Avenue, which divide Toronto and the neighbouring York Region?

It’s not even clear how cities can ban handguns. No such ban in Toronto, Montreal or Vancouver can succeed without provincial co-operation. But the provinces have joined other stakeholders in the consensus that this is not a wise plan. Doug Ford and Jason Kenney have voiced public opposition to any ban on handguns, and the Saskatchewan government has even made a law to stop its cities from regulating firearms.

Any attempt to work around the provinces can only lead to the Supreme Court. If nothing else, it’s a laudable job creation plan – someone has to keep the nation’s hungry lawyers in buttons, bows and BMWs.

About the only people outside the Liberal cabinet who want municipal politicians to have this power are municipal politicians themselves. Shootings put mayors and councillors under pressure to do something – anything – to make people feel safe. But gang violence, arising out of poverty and drug profits, defies easy solutions. Policing it is an endless game of Whac-A-Mole. Conservative politicians promise to win with more police, tougher laws and a bigger hammer – although Black Lives Matter and calls to defund police have made that approach much less fashionable recently. Doing something about guns themselves is a convenient alternative.

Symbolic moves against guns are nothing new. In the aftermath of the Danforth shooting, Toronto City Council passed a long list of useless resolutions, including a decision to thoroughly audit the operations of the Toronto Revolver Club in the apparent hope of finding some punishable transgression. In 2008, to attack its own vague notion of “the culture of guns in this city,” Toronto essentially evicted the Toronto Sportsmen’s Show from the CNE. Three years later, the Sportsmen’s Show was forgiven, after rancorous debate. Councillor Josh Colle said the symbolism merely made “downtown … white people feel better that they’ve done something.”

We don’t think about guns; we feel about guns. Guns are symbols for violence as much as they are instruments for doing it. For most Canadians – including those gun owners demanding “facts and logic” – the conclusions go before the evidence. The majority of Canadians are entirely comfortable with a handgun ban, and are uncomfortable with guns in cities. The future is already written.

So the Liberals will throw cities a bone. If mayors later petition for a countrywide ban, the feds can just shrug and say, “We gave you the tools you need.” If the provinces won’t play ball, the heat will be on the premiers. Surely the Liberals hope that Erin O’Toole, who has already aligned himself firmly with the gun lobby, will dig in: When your opponent has been bathing in gasoline, why not hand him a match? And gang violence will continue, and Canadians will continue to die, but we will all rest assured that we have done something.

[32-40win]

Not sure who US Airsoft is, but, they posted a reaction;

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9yrIuG0hJYg

A Canadian reaction;

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VWdEG75aMl8

[32-40win]

Ian Runkle on Red flag laws involved in C21

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

Also his Airsoft vid;

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q2oIWs_h3Vc&t=743s

[32-40win]

Rod Giltaca on CTV

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kKu7nakRKgQ&t=1s

Matt Gurney's opinion;

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UTG2fTRI6BI

And, have to have the liar in charge on the CBC;

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8rnN8jKNyAE

[32-40win]

One more from the CBC, just to fleshout what is being talked about right off the bat, and what is being left out.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZU1h7aRiw8c

[ctd]

Anyone interested in Raising some funds as Alberta Firearm Owners to take truduea and Blair to court over their OIC/ bills?

[32-40win]

Few of today's new bits, Runkle is hard at 'er with the vids, did the Red Flag stuff today and the advertising sections, Mike Loberg had a post on C21 today;

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GCyVYLlRAwo&t=123s

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iaGVbBWu1Us

From Mike LOberg, CCFR counsel ;
You are a gun owner. Someone thinks you should not have guns. We know, as a fact, that lots of people think no one should have guns, so this applies to you regardless of whether you have irritated anyone in your life, but that’s an aside.
With a simple trip to the courthouse, no police or independent parties needed, anyone can tell a story to a judge as to why you should not have guns, and a Court may grant an Order that you be prohibited from having them.
You are not invited. You are not given a chance to defend yourself, or tell your side of the story at the time the Order is made.
Literally the first you hear of any of this is when you are face down in the grass outside your house, in handcuffs, with a rifle aimed at the back of your head, as the police toss your house looking for and taking your guns.
You are immediately prohibited from possessing guns for likely 30 days. Your guns are gone, and your house has been ransacked.
It could happen to you. It could happen to me.
As Ian Runkle describes here, this is the weaponization of the Court sytem against gun owners with none of the safety valves or filters that exist in the current system.
It is, as Ian describes, also a perfect weapon against the police, the military, or anyone who works with a firearm. If that’s you, this is aimed right at you. Your ability to work, serve or deploy can be stopped without notice to you. That is until you’re face down in the grass with a gun to your head.
Do you have a friend who, unbeknownst to you, has a firearms prohibition? If so, then you too could be face down in the grass with a gun to your head.
If you only watch one of Ian’s videos on this travesty of a Bill, make it this one.
But you should really watch them all.
When you do, don’t forget to give Ian’s videos a “like”, and subscribe to his channel for more information like this. It’s really worth it.
More importantly, write your MPs about this travesty. Tell them how far wrong this goes.
And come the next election, under no circumstances should you support or vote for that goat rodeo of failure that is the Liberal Party of Canada.
The "Red Flag" Gun Ban Provisions In Bill C-21 Are Ripe For Abuse - A Lawyer Explains

Gary Mauser article in the Fraser Institute Blog;

https://www.fraserinstitute.org/blog...L00x0ta74ngTxI

Gunter in the Sun;

https://torontosun.com/opinion/colum...VYmidtQ5nFezak

If you are on FB, there is now a group posting firearms polls in media, and you can post as you spot them;


https://www.facebook.com/groups/CanadianFirearmPolls/

[32-40win]

Likely worth a look for businesses with Cdn subsidiaries, these all support gun control;

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/bethba...flaFEUcCdNFDtk

Be sure to check Ian Runkle's You Tube page for new vids on C21 as well.

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCUV...1a76V1-KnF3heA

[32-40win]

The perfect example of why giving municipalities the power to regulate gun ownership is a bad idea on its best day, this is a provincial law proposal that spells out a bunch of krap that is the same , but, different than federal law, and still hasn't actually been twisted and modified by a municipality yet. Covers pellet guns, paintball, toys, you name it. Un-freaking believable. BC has always benn a bit off the wall, NDP now has the opportunity to screw things up in spades.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UBs0IHtGTnA

[32-40win]

Nathalie Provost vs Rod Giltaca, not in the same studio, of course;

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GRAhpB4Jh-I

[32-40win]

And the gong show from the NFA continues, this nis from Mike loberg, CCFR council . It would be nice to get rid of licencing, nobody will disagree with that, but, the stance is a false hope at best, even if we had nothing but gun owners in the CPC caucus, and a heavy presence in the HOC and Senate;

Re: The Gun Community Attacking Itself
There is a contest in a certain riding to pick a CPC candidate to run against the Liberals. There are at present 2 options for that CPC candidate:
1. A senior citizen golfer who appears to know nothing about guns; and
2. An articulate, well-educated woman with a proven, long-term dedication to the firearm community. She's a sport shooter, a college professor, she has a 48 year history of firearm ownership and use, and she's a very active advocate for the community.
You'd think the choice would be clear.
But there's a problem: the one with 48 years of firearm ownership is active with the CCFR, the CCFR is not actively fight licencing right now, and that's apparently a really big problem for Sheldon Clare.
You see, the CCFR recognizes that the current gun licencing system is deeply flawed, but we also recognize that we're fighting a defensive battle against an array of committed enemies of private firearm ownership, and launching a fight against the licencing system at this time will be both ineffective and counterproductive. In fact, fighting for the removal of the licencing system now would almost certainly alienate the centrist voters and uninformed moderates, lose support in our fight, and unquestionably it will fail.
Let's say that again: it will fail.
Sheldon Clare doesn't care. He wants to attack the firearms advocate because of licencing. Her work with the CCFR probably doesn't help either. You can tell he's getting ready because he's pre-setting the stage for the attack, which you will see below.
This is not helpful, and it needs to stop.
Our community doesn't need the golf lady in the House of Commons. I can't understand why Mr. Clare is pushing in a direction that increases the odds of that result.

[Twisted Canuck]

Yep, Sheldon Clare is the reason I didn't renew my membership years ago. I finally did this year, again, and donated for their OIC challenge, but once again I'm not impressed.

At the end of the day, I think Clare is pro-NFA and pro-Sheldon, more then he is about a united firearms community. It's always the same, the divided and hostile orgs and gun owners do most of the work for the antis. It's a damn shame.