Go Back   Alberta Outdoorsmen Forum > Main Category > Guns & Ammo Discussion

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #31  
Old 11-30-2020, 05:38 PM
Twisted Canuck's Avatar
Twisted Canuck Twisted Canuck is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: GP AB
Posts: 16,211
Default

Big win today for all the applicants in Calgary! The Honorable Judge Fradsham ruled that he had jurisdiction to hear the Section 74 applicants and rule on the matter. He also ruled that, drum roll, the June 20 letter nullifying our certificates was in fact a revocation letter. Yeah. Mic drop, BOOM!

The ruling in its entirety is pure gold for us. The Judge "got it". I can't say how big my grin was when we heard he had dismissed the Crown's motion to dismiss on grounds of lack of jurisdiction. This is a major hurdle cleared for us (assuming the rest of us in Alberta can get the same result with a different judge. But I believe we will.)

Absolutely tickled. If anyone wants to read the 14 page decision, send me a PM and I can email the PDF file.

TC
__________________
'Once the monkeys learn they can vote themselves a banana, they'll never climb another tree.'. Robert Heinlein

'You can accomplish a lot more with a kind word and a gun, than with a kind word alone.' Al Capone

Last edited by Twisted Canuck; 11-30-2020 at 05:51 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 11-30-2020, 07:50 PM
32-40win 32-40win is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Near Drumheller
Posts: 6,733
Default

I can see where he is going with his line of thought, that will result in the Crown appealing for sure. Mike Loberg published some of it in CCFR page.
I will copy and paste;

Re: S. 74 "Nullification" Decision (Alberta) - NEW DECISION
Our very good friend and lawyer Greg Dunn, criminal defence lawyer extraordinaire (Dunn & Associates, Calgary) has taken a really nice victory in the s. 74 "nullification" battle in the Alberta courts today!
Judge A.A. Fradsham (a long-sitting Provincial Court Judge and author of the "Alberta Rules of Court Annotated" publications - i.e. a judicial heavy-hitter) made some great findings in favour of the firearms community and you're that you're going to like them!
As an aside, there's a big "I told you so" buried in there - I was right - these letters were improper, defective revocations of the reg certs, but they were revocations - but let's read on.
You all know the kind of facts we have (we all got the letters), so I'm skipping that part. Here we go with some excerpts:
-----
"...[2] The Attorney-General for Canada filed an application (the jurisdiction application) for an order striking out Mr. Stark's review application. The Attorney-General took the position that the letter from the Registrar of Firearms did not constitute a notice of revocation, and therefore the Provincial Court of Alberta did not have jurisdiction to hear the review application.
...
[52] The Attorney-General submitted that it was the Governor-in-Council, through SOR2020-96, and not the Registrar of Firearms, who "invalidated" the registration certificates in relation to the now prohibited firearms of Mr. Stark. I agree that it was the Governor-in-Council who reclassified Mr. Stark's firearms with attendant consequences (somewhat ameliorated by SOR2020-97) in relation to the ability to possess those firearms. However, the Governor-in-Council did not cause those registration certificates to cease to exist in law. They could only cease to exist in law, absent new legislation eliminating them, by way of revocation, expiry, or surrender. For example, if the Governor-in-Council had by a new Order in Council made on May 2, 2020, simply rescinded SOR2020-96 in its entirety, there is nothing that was stated in SOR2020-96 which would suggest that previously issued registration certificates (for the firearms affected) no longer existed in law, and would have to be reissued.
[53] The Attorney-General, relying on the reasoning set out in Canada (Registrar of Firearms) v. Whitmore 2008 ONCJ 166, also submitted that section 74 is not available to Mr. Stark because the Registrar of Firearms did not make any decision in relation to Mr. Stark's firearms. The Attorney-General submitted that "revocation requires the exercise of judgment or discretion in light of particular facts" (quoting from paragraph 35 of Whitmore) , and that the Registrar of Firearms was not engaged in that function when he or she sent out the letter of July 20, 2020.
[54] I respectfully disagree. When the Registrar of Firearms sent the letter dated July 20, 2020, to Mr. Stark, the Registrar had decided that SOR2020-96 applied to the three specific firearms and registration certificates listed in the letter. The Registrar considered the particular information available to him or her, and concluded that the firearms noted on registration certificates ** **5063.0001; ****0310.0001; and ****6505.0001 were firearms that were included in the hundreds of firearms listed in SOR2020-096. Their inclusion in the firearms listed is not evident simply by reading the list. The Registrar made an individualized decision in specific reference to Mr. Stark's firearms. ..."
-----
And that's the ball game!!! This was a revocation!
But there's there's other parts that I like, because it sounded a lot like what I was saying from the beginning:
-----
"...[66] Nothing in the Firearms Act says that the Registrar can "nullify" a registration certificate or declare it to be "no longer valid". However, the Firearms Act does empower the Registrar of Firearms to revoke a registration certificate for any good and sufficient reason [section 71 (1 )(a)].
[67] The term "revoke" is not defined in the Firearms Act or the Criminal Code. The Canadian O~ford Dictionary (Don Mills, Ontario: Oxford University Press, 2001), at page 1235, defines "revoke" as follows: "rescind, withdraw, or cancel (a licence, decision, promise, etc.)."
[68] The same dictionary, at page 998, defines "nullify" as follows: " 1. Make legally null and void; annul; invalidate. 2. Make of no value or use; cancel out, neutralize."
[69] The only power available to the Registrar the exercise of which would render the registration certificates "nullified" and "no longer valid" is the power of revocation. Indeed, the terms "revoke" and "nullify" and "invalidate" share the same denotation and the same
connotation.
[70] Consequently, one must conclude that the act of the Registrar which "nullified" and made "no longer valid" the registration certificates listed in the July 20, 2020 letter was the revocation of those registration certificates by the Registrar. I find that the Registrar of Firearms did revoke the registration certificates listed in the July 20, 2020 letter directed to Mr. Stark.
[71] The July 20, 2020 letter from the Registrar told Mr. Stark the reason for the revocation (the reclassification of the firearms specified in the letter brought about by the amendment to the Classification Regulations). The letter also informed Mr. Stark what he could do with the reclassified firearms, and that he would have until April 30, 2022 under an Amnesty Order to dispose of the firearms. In my respectful view, the July 20, 2020 letter from the Registrar of Firearms to Mr. Stark gave notice to Mr. Stark "ofthe decision ofthe ... Registrar" [section 74(2)] to "revoke" [section 74(1 )(a)] the registration certificates listed in the letter.
[72] As previously noted, I am mindful that the July 20, 2020 letter was not ""in the prescribed form" for a section 72(1) notice, and that it was not accompanied by a copy of sections 74 to 81. However, in all other respects it complied with the notice provisions of the Firearms Act, and the deficiencies noted do not change the character (a notice of revocation) of the document..."
--------
WELL DONE GREG DUNN!!!!

CAUTION: Now just to be clear, this fight isn't over, not even close, and this s. 74 decision, or any part of that fight, can't fix our main problem of the OIC or the "ban by FRT". We're handling that in Federal Court, and this s. 74 stuff won't fix that... but for people who wanted to take a round out of the government for these revocations, Alberta says your case is arguable, in fact probably right.
__________________
You should also be a member;
CCFR
CSSA

Last edited by 32-40win; 11-30-2020 at 08:05 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 11-30-2020, 08:40 PM
Twisted Canuck's Avatar
Twisted Canuck Twisted Canuck is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: GP AB
Posts: 16,211
Default

This just means we will (probably) have our day in court. That was my goal.

I'm pretty chuffed though.

But did you notice I didn't tell ctd 'told you so'? Because I'm bigger then that.

__________________
'Once the monkeys learn they can vote themselves a banana, they'll never climb another tree.'. Robert Heinlein

'You can accomplish a lot more with a kind word and a gun, than with a kind word alone.' Al Capone

Last edited by Twisted Canuck; 11-30-2020 at 08:53 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 11-30-2020, 09:04 PM
tranq78 tranq78 is offline
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Edmonton & Hinton
Posts: 504
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Twisted Canuck View Post
Big win today for all the applicants in Calgary! The Honorable Judge Fradsham ruled that he had jurisdiction to hear the Section 74 applicants and rule on the matter. He also ruled that, drum roll, the June 20 letter nullifying our certificates was in fact a revocation letter. Yeah. Mic drop, BOOM!

The ruling in its entirety is pure gold for us. The Judge "got it". I can't say how big my grin was when we heard he had dismissed the Crown's motion to dismiss on grounds of lack of jurisdiction. This is a major hurdle cleared for us (assuming the rest of us in Alberta can get the same result with a different judge. But I believe we will.)

Absolutely tickled. If anyone wants to read the 14 page decision, send me a PM and I can email the PDF file.

TC
Paragraph 70, he comes right out and says it is a revocation. Excellent.

I just finishing read through the decision. The judge covered all his bases to ensure there is a low chance of appeal by the government. He also disagreed with the recent Newfoundland Sec74 ruling and the refusal of New Brunswick's courts to even allow a Sec74 challenge to be filed.

Did anyone notice paragraphs 81-86? The judge states the government has the ability to grandfather us, but only if we have a valid certificate. So the people who challenge the June 20 letter and win will be the only ones that still have valid certificates and are eligible for grandfathering.

Just taking this line of thought to a logical conclusion, the government can fix its mess by simply grandfathering the 200 of us who filed a challenge and declare victory over the other 69,800 who didn't, a 99.7% success rate. They can do this by using another OIC, easy as pie. There is no playing fair with this government so anyone who hasn't filed a Sec74 challenge had best do so ASAP.
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 11-30-2020, 09:09 PM
Twisted Canuck's Avatar
Twisted Canuck Twisted Canuck is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: GP AB
Posts: 16,211
Default

Yes, I noticed he clearly outlined the path for grandfathering and the need to hold a continuously valid certificate. Whether or not the government offers a grandfather/prohib status license to us, who knows? Baby steps. Today the judge gave a ruling on jurisdiction. Will look forward to his ruling after the actual hearing.

I think AGC has to be feeling just a bit uncomfortable right about now.
__________________
'Once the monkeys learn they can vote themselves a banana, they'll never climb another tree.'. Robert Heinlein

'You can accomplish a lot more with a kind word and a gun, than with a kind word alone.' Al Capone
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 11-30-2020, 09:17 PM
Twisted Canuck's Avatar
Twisted Canuck Twisted Canuck is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: GP AB
Posts: 16,211
Default

And yes, now that we have this ruling and judge clearly states this is a revocation, anyone who thought about filing before, but was confused by all the naysayers, I would strongly suggest you do go ahead and file. They would probably still allow it based on the deliberate confusion caused by the Nullify Letter, and we have this ruling to support filing for s74 review. But if you are going to file, don't diddle about.

Contact me for Form F-12, and any help you need with it. They are very simple, and free to do.
__________________
'Once the monkeys learn they can vote themselves a banana, they'll never climb another tree.'. Robert Heinlein

'You can accomplish a lot more with a kind word and a gun, than with a kind word alone.' Al Capone
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 11-30-2020, 10:11 PM
ctd ctd is offline
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 2,378
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Twisted Canuck View Post
Big win today for all the applicants in Calgary! The Honorable Judge Fradsham ruled that he had jurisdiction to hear the Section 74 applicants and rule on the matter. He also ruled that, drum roll, the June 20 letter nullifying our certificates was in fact a revocation letter. Yeah. Mic drop, BOOM!

The ruling in its entirety is pure gold for us. The Judge "got it". I can't say how big my grin was when we heard he had dismissed the Crown's motion to dismiss on grounds of lack of jurisdiction. This is a major hurdle cleared for us (assuming the rest of us in Alberta can get the same result with a different judge. But I believe we will.)

Absolutely tickled. If anyone wants to read the 14 page decision, send me a PM and I can email the PDF file.

TC
The Judge ruled the letters were a revocation. So what was the end result? Did he reinstate the registrations?
How much did this cost you, whens your next court date?
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 11-30-2020, 10:15 PM
Twisted Canuck's Avatar
Twisted Canuck Twisted Canuck is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: GP AB
Posts: 16,211
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ctd View Post
The Judge ruled the letters were a revocation. So what was the end result? Did he reinstate the registrations?
How much did this cost you, whens your next court date?
Sour grapes? It hasn't cost me anything but some time, paper, and printer cartridge.

This gets us a hearing. Mine is in February. Do you want to file now, because I would be willing to help you? Or just keep being a moral support, like you have been.

You realize we are not the enemy, right? The threat is from the government. We are standing up to them. Why would you be so hostile to that?
__________________
'Once the monkeys learn they can vote themselves a banana, they'll never climb another tree.'. Robert Heinlein

'You can accomplish a lot more with a kind word and a gun, than with a kind word alone.' Al Capone
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 11-30-2020, 10:15 PM
32-40win 32-40win is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Near Drumheller
Posts: 6,733
Default

It is a start, Jeff Young put out a warning to watch what the libs are doing tomorrow about the classifications, no idea what that is about yet.
Also a notice given by the AB CFO to ATRS to shut down their business today.
I'll put that in the C71 thread, copy of the notice.
__________________
You should also be a member;
CCFR
CSSA
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 11-30-2020, 10:31 PM
slopeshunter's Avatar
slopeshunter slopeshunter is offline
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 2,210
Default

So if you are grandfathered would you be able to use those weapons, or just own them?
Reply With Quote
  #41  
Old 11-30-2020, 11:33 PM
SnipeHunter SnipeHunter is offline
 
Join Date: Sep 2018
Location: Calgary
Posts: 227
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Twisted Canuck View Post
Big win today for all the applicants in Calgary! The Honorable Judge Fradsham ruled that he had jurisdiction to hear the Section 74 applicants and rule on the matter. He also ruled that, drum roll, the June 20 letter nullifying our certificates was in fact a revocation letter. Yeah. Mic drop, BOOM!

The ruling in its entirety is pure gold for us. The Judge "got it". I can't say how big my grin was when we heard he had dismissed the Crown's motion to dismiss on grounds of lack of jurisdiction. This is a major hurdle cleared for us (assuming the rest of us in Alberta can get the same result with a different judge. But I believe we will.)

Absolutely tickled. If anyone wants to read the 14 page decision, send me a PM and I can email the PDF file.

TC
https://youtu.be/5zPBqh71dmc

Ian Runkle weighed in.

Those that did not submit their Section 74 appeal should still be able to do so. The registrar will also likely need to do the mailout again the right way to restart the 30 day clock.

Small win but a win.
Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old 11-30-2020, 11:56 PM
32-40win 32-40win is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Near Drumheller
Posts: 6,733
Default

Mr Runkle definitely explains things nicely in there, make it obvious what the gov't is trying to do, rule by decree, to the population and the courts. Nice to have a judge that said nope, not happening here, you are not getting away with this krap without being exposed. Create the proper law or do your job properly, otherwise, this will not fly. I think I like that judge he did his job, properly.
__________________
You should also be a member;
CCFR
CSSA
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old 12-01-2020, 12:20 AM
ctd ctd is offline
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 2,378
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Twisted Canuck View Post
Sour grapes? It hasn't cost me anything but some time, paper, and printer cartridge.

This gets us a hearing. Mine is in February. Do you want to file now, because I would be willing to help you? Or just keep being a moral support, like you have been.

You realize we are not the enemy, right? The threat is from the government. We are standing up to them. Why would you be so hostile to that?
never once said you were the enemy.
Reply With Quote
  #44  
Old 12-01-2020, 05:59 AM
Trochu's Avatar
Trochu Trochu is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 7,595
Default

Can/Should everyone do this or do you need a restricted firearm, one on the list....?

Last edited by Trochu; 12-01-2020 at 06:19 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #45  
Old 12-01-2020, 07:51 AM
Dick284's Avatar
Dick284 Dick284 is offline
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Dreadful Valley
Posts: 14,586
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Trochu View Post
Can/Should everyone do this or do you need a restricted firearm, one on the list....?
I’d think you’d need a restricted firearm and an effected registration certificate to proceed with a S.74 hearing.

It’s all about the revocation of the registration or as the crap hats at the Gubberment put it “nullification“ and “invalidity“.
__________________


There are no absolutes
Reply With Quote
  #46  
Old 12-01-2020, 08:28 AM
Dubious Dubious is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Calgary
Posts: 1,521
Default

What about all the people that had non restricted rifles and with a stroke of the pen they went from non restricted to prohib with no certificate to revoke? Seems like they dont have any course of action.
Reply With Quote
  #47  
Old 12-01-2020, 08:42 AM
catnthehat's Avatar
catnthehat catnthehat is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Ft. McMurray
Posts: 38,530
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dubious View Post
What about all the people that had non restricted rifles and with a stroke of the pen they went from non restricted to prohib with no certificate to revoke? Seems like they dont have any course of action.
I would think if those people were sent a letter then they could go through the process as well.
Cat
__________________
Anytime I figure I've got this long range thing figured out, I just strap into the sling and irons and remind myself that I don't!
Reply With Quote
  #48  
Old 12-01-2020, 08:56 AM
Twisted Canuck's Avatar
Twisted Canuck Twisted Canuck is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: GP AB
Posts: 16,211
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dubious View Post
What about all the people that had non restricted rifles and with a stroke of the pen they went from non restricted to prohib with no certificate to revoke? Seems like they dont have any course of action.
Those people didn't receive a letter, as there was no certificate attached to non-restricted firearms, so they can't file for a review. I would suggest people in that situation keep very quiet about it and don't draw attention.

If they want to surrender their rifles for buyback later, that is their business.
__________________
'Once the monkeys learn they can vote themselves a banana, they'll never climb another tree.'. Robert Heinlein

'You can accomplish a lot more with a kind word and a gun, than with a kind word alone.' Al Capone
Reply With Quote
  #49  
Old 12-01-2020, 09:03 AM
CaberTosser's Avatar
CaberTosser CaberTosser is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Calgary
Posts: 19,417
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by slopeshunter View Post
So if you are grandfathered would you be able to use those weapons, or just own them?
They would be paperweights that you can’t use. Just as they have done with older firearms in the 12.6 category, but worse as they say you can’t even sell them. At least 12.6 holders could still engage in buying and selling. The thing is, being that they don’t issue those licenses anymore, all of those firearms become lower and lower in value as the pool of buyers shrinks as they die off. This week I saw an HK91 (prohib 12.5j listed on consignment and the price was only $1500, they go for twice that in the USA, in US dollars.

Bans are a financial attack on Canada’s statistically most law-abiding citizens by groups and political parties that have run prejudicial misinformation & hate campaigns against us. It’s that simple, we are a targeted group, some probably due to not being in their voting block, but certainly due to them not understanding the concept of personal responsibility.
__________________
"The trouble with people idiot-proofing things, is the resulting evolution of the idiot." Me
Reply With Quote
  #50  
Old 12-01-2020, 09:59 AM
ctd ctd is offline
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 2,378
Default

The whole point of a section 74 is that a citizen can dispute a revocation of a change in their registration certificate for no good reason from the Firearms register.

So who went to this initial court proceeding . Was it a professional Lawyer who spoke to the court and won the small victory?

I think this is a great move forward. This win is more then a simple case of you won..
The average person who may file under section 74 may not be able to articulate as well as the people who attended this case did. They may not get a Judge that is as impartial or support the issue on our side. That can be disastrous for them.

We can see a couple.of different rulings across the country on the same issues.that is the concerns

I guess the question is how much money will it cost to get the same level of representation as you guys did. Approximately how much do you figure going forward in February.

Or if no Lawyer was involved are you willing assist those who may not be able to represent themselves.
Reply With Quote
  #51  
Old 12-01-2020, 10:09 AM
Twisted Canuck's Avatar
Twisted Canuck Twisted Canuck is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: GP AB
Posts: 16,211
Default

Of the 12 cases heard so far, 9 were self represented I believe, including most in Calgary. I don't know all the particulars at this time.

The small numbers of us who did file, have been actively collaborating across Canada, and those with legal experience and background have been carrying the heavy load for those of us without that background. They have been freely sharing all their resources and information, because ultimately it is all our interests to contest the revocations. So yes, there is help available for those who want to file.

As we have success, a lot of this will end up as PDF files that can be shared, essentially plug and play submissions and arguments that have been successful. Submit, stand in court and read. Do lots of homework, so if the judge asks you questions, you can answer without looking stupid. I have a file on my desk about 2" thick that I have read and re-read, and that I'm adding to almost daily.

It can be done, self representing, when you have strength in numbers.
__________________
'Once the monkeys learn they can vote themselves a banana, they'll never climb another tree.'. Robert Heinlein

'You can accomplish a lot more with a kind word and a gun, than with a kind word alone.' Al Capone
Reply With Quote
  #52  
Old 12-01-2020, 11:04 AM
ctd ctd is offline
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 2,378
Default

This is why i asked the question of self representation or if a Lawyer was present. The information about the case so far is that
"Our very good friend and lawyer Greg Dunn, criminal defence lawyer extraordinaire (Dunn & Associates, Calgary)" won this victory.

If i file in Red Deer on my own, things can go completely different. That is why i am wondering if it was oneself or represented by a professional. Since the article information posted states it was a Law Firm that won the day in court.

Does anyone know how much Mr Dunn charged for this day in court. Is he willing to represent numerous members to file.
What is the predicted cost to go through with the section 74 filing.

I have been estimated anywhere from 10to 30 thousand to follow through with legal representation on this matter, it could go upwards of 50 thousand depends on the gov and how they want to fight this themselves. I dont know many with 10g in their back pocket let alone 50g to fight something like this. Thats why it is important to know before people move forward.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Twisted Canuck View Post
Of the 12 cases heard so far, 9 were self represented I believe, including most in Calgary. I don't know all the particulars at this time.

The small numbers of us who did file, have been actively collaborating across Canada, and those with legal experience and background have been carrying the heavy load for those of us without that background. They have been freely sharing all their resources and information, because ultimately it is all our interests to contest the revocations. So yes, there is help available for those who want to file.

As we have success, a lot of this will end up as PDF files that can be shared, essentially plug and play submissions and arguments that have been successful. Submit, stand in court and read. Do lots of homework, so if the judge asks you questions, you can answer without looking stupid. I have a file on my desk about 2" thick that I have read and re-read, and that I'm adding to almost daily.

It can be done, self representing, when you have strength in numbers.
Reply With Quote
  #53  
Old 12-01-2020, 11:23 AM
huntinstuff's Avatar
huntinstuff huntinstuff is offline
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Edmonton Alberta
Posts: 9,586
Default

Keep at it TC

Nice work
__________________
When you are born, you get a ticket to the Freak Show.
If you are born in Canada, you get a front row seat.
Reply With Quote
  #54  
Old 12-01-2020, 11:27 AM
Twisted Canuck's Avatar
Twisted Canuck Twisted Canuck is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: GP AB
Posts: 16,211
Default

Yes, Dunn was involved in one of the Calgary cases (Stark?). I don't know for sure. As for the cost, there is a group of 5 or 6 in Edmonton who have representation, and I was told it was going to be in the $3000 range, split between them. If you really feel like you need a lawyer, I'd suggest you look into it, but it won't be as much as you say unless it is going to involve appeals and higher courts.

I will self represent, and use the resources at my disposal. Thanks Randy!
__________________
'Once the monkeys learn they can vote themselves a banana, they'll never climb another tree.'. Robert Heinlein

'You can accomplish a lot more with a kind word and a gun, than with a kind word alone.' Al Capone
Reply With Quote
  #55  
Old 12-01-2020, 05:31 PM
Twisted Canuck's Avatar
Twisted Canuck Twisted Canuck is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: GP AB
Posts: 16,211
Default

The story is getting some coverage.

https://thegunblog.ca/2020/12/01/cou...ation-notices/
__________________
'Once the monkeys learn they can vote themselves a banana, they'll never climb another tree.'. Robert Heinlein

'You can accomplish a lot more with a kind word and a gun, than with a kind word alone.' Al Capone
Reply With Quote
  #56  
Old 12-01-2020, 07:25 PM
32-40win 32-40win is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Near Drumheller
Posts: 6,733
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Twisted Canuck View Post
Those people didn't receive a letter, as there was no certificate attached to non-restricted firearms, so they can't file for a review. I would suggest people in that situation keep very quiet about it and don't draw attention.

If they want to surrender their rifles for buyback later, that is their business.
All I can say is--- I got the letter, never had an RPAL, but, those who don't have an RPAL and don't own a registered firearm, won't qualify under S74 to apply, as they don't have anything that has been "revoked". As I understand it anyway. May be worth inquiring as to how it may affect a PAL, but, if they don't have it registered, the only way for them to know you have it, is to check store records. 2013 to now, should be, no record of what got sold to you. Even if they called to check your PAL, there should be, no record of what you bought except on the sale receipt from the store, which would tie to their inventory only. Private sale would be 100% no record, except on the PAL check, which would not say what you bought, just that you MAY have bought something.

Anyway; A Q&A with the lawyer that won that case yesterday, MR Dunn;

https://thegunblog.ca/2020/12/01/gre...XXQG6McqCirfSM
__________________
You should also be a member;
CCFR
CSSA
Reply With Quote
  #57  
Old 12-01-2020, 08:02 PM
Savage Bacon's Avatar
Savage Bacon Savage Bacon is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2017
Location: Calgary-Red Deer area
Posts: 3,205
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Twisted Canuck View Post
Big win today for all the applicants in Calgary! The Honorable Judge Fradsham ruled that he had jurisdiction to hear the Section 74 applicants and rule on the matter. He also ruled that, drum roll, the June 20 letter nullifying our certificates was in fact a revocation letter. Yeah. Mic drop, BOOM!

The ruling in its entirety is pure gold for us. The Judge "got it". I can't say how big my grin was when we heard he had dismissed the Crown's motion to dismiss on grounds of lack of jurisdiction. This is a major hurdle cleared for us (assuming the rest of us in Alberta can get the same result with a different judge. But I believe we will.)

Absolutely tickled. If anyone wants to read the 14 page decision, send me a PM and I can email the PDF file.

TC
That's great!
__________________
I'm not really a licensed bodyman or heavy duty mechanic. I just play one at work.
Reply With Quote
  #58  
Old 12-02-2020, 08:54 AM
darren32's Avatar
darren32 darren32 is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Edmonton
Posts: 1,015
Default

Very nice work TC

https://calibremag.ca/alberta-court-...-74-challenge/
Reply With Quote
  #59  
Old 12-02-2020, 09:10 AM
Twisted Canuck's Avatar
Twisted Canuck Twisted Canuck is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: GP AB
Posts: 16,211
Default

Thank you. At this point I almost feel like I'm just along for the ride. That's a good article too, explains it nicely. The only part I would challenge is when they say 'many' owners of AR15s filed an S74 challenge. In reality it's something like 0.2% of affected owners. That is pretty dismal actually. It would be amazing if now, that we have a favorable decision regarding jurisdiction, if many more would get off their asses and file as well. The more that file, the more havoc it creates for the registrar, AGC, and government. It's a challenge and protest that can actually have an great effect. I wish gun owners would be more active, instead of just yapping and arguing with each other.
__________________
'Once the monkeys learn they can vote themselves a banana, they'll never climb another tree.'. Robert Heinlein

'You can accomplish a lot more with a kind word and a gun, than with a kind word alone.' Al Capone
Reply With Quote
  #60  
Old 12-02-2020, 10:15 AM
darren32's Avatar
darren32 darren32 is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Edmonton
Posts: 1,015
Default

I agree with you TC. I am really happy you filed and appreciate the effort. I just could not get onboard with bogging down our already dysfunctional court system.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 04:34 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.5
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.