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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #631  
Old 07-04-2020, 08:30 AM
32-40win 32-40win is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Near Drumheller
Posts: 6,733
Default

CCFR put up their videos done for Wild TV on You Tube, there are two parts to them;

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uSOz..._jnMG3W5M9LwB4
__________________
You should also be a member;
CCFR
CSSA
Reply With Quote
  #632  
Old 07-07-2020, 08:23 PM
32-40win 32-40win is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Near Drumheller
Posts: 6,733
Default

Was reading about people who'd ordered out of the US lately having long wait times, I guess this may answer some of those questions;

Wolverine Supplies
8 hrs · Shared with Public
This week we learned of an RCMP memo sent to the Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA). The letter advised “some AR-15 parts” are now prohibited based on the OIC, but the RCMP memo did not specify which ones.
The problem is the RCMP’s guidance to the CBSA on AR-15 parts – it’s intentionally vague and misleading.
Worse, Bill Blair refuses to correct the RCMP’s error.
As a result of this intentionally vague RCMP memo, the CBSA is now seizing all AR-15 gun parts at the border, even though they are perfectly legal to import.
The CBSA, after relying on bad advice from the RCMP and in the absence of correct information, are erring on the side of extreme caution.
The only AR-15 parts the Minister's putrid May 1st Order in Council banned are AR-15 upper receivers. Order in Council SOR/2020-96 reclassifies the following parts as Prohibited Devices:
• The Regulations also prescribe the upper receivers of M16, AR-10, AR-15 and M4 pattern firearms to be prohibited devices.[i]
Upper receivers.
Every other part of the AR-15 (with the obvious exception of the lower receiver) is an uncontrolled spare part, yet there are 48 cases ongoing because of this RCMP mis-directive.
Now individuals and businesses must fight with CBSA to obtain their legally-imported spare parts.
If Minister Blair actually cared about the rule of law (as he claims), he would order the RCMP to give the CBSA accurate information instead of forcing them to guess.
He would immediately order the CBSA to release all shipments of AR-15 spare parts, without penalty or storage charges (and with an apology letter for the illegal seizure).
This problem is 100% Minister Blair’s fault:
• He drafted the Order in Council.
• He is the Minister in charge of the RCMP.
• He is the Minister in charge of the CBSA.
• He refuses to order the RCMP to give CBSA accurate information.
Canadian individuals and businesses, 48 of them at last count, are suffering even more because of his ineptness and incompetence.
__________________
You should also be a member;
CCFR
CSSA
Reply With Quote
  #633  
Old 07-07-2020, 09:02 PM
32-40win 32-40win is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Near Drumheller
Posts: 6,733
Default

CSSA post for this week with donation links to two of the court cases they are helping with, and a blurb about the RCMP instructions to the CBSA as referenced in the previous post, and other odds and ends, one being a poll about what Blair will do about the CBSA;

http://web-extract.constantcontact.c...7RX9spi5kIl-So
__________________
You should also be a member;
CCFR
CSSA
Reply With Quote
  #634  
Old 07-07-2020, 09:42 PM
32-40win 32-40win is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Near Drumheller
Posts: 6,733
Default

Not a bad idea at all, get the MP's to take a firearms course.

https://petitions.ourcommons.ca/en/P...etition=e-2626

Only 225,811 on Michelle's petition;

https://petitions.ourcommons.ca/en/P...etition=e-2574

Tod Doherty's is only at 56,896

https://petitions.ourcommons.ca/en/P...etition=e-2576

Haven't even got to the level of all the RPAL holders, pretty sad state of affairs.
__________________
You should also be a member;
CCFR
CSSA
Reply With Quote
  #635  
Old 07-09-2020, 08:37 AM
32-40win 32-40win is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Near Drumheller
Posts: 6,733
Default

Turns out this post from GOC on 6/22 is exactly what is going on with the CBSA, CSAAA posted what is basically a confirmation on this today;



Quote:
Originally Posted by 32-40win View Post
Interesting post from GOC's page concerning importing parts from Brownell's or others when they are parts that may fit an AR;

1 hr · Shared with Public
So did some reading and turns out, DO NOT order parts for an AR from any company in the US! Parts are NOT prohibited BUT the CBSA is now claiming all parts for prohibited firearms must have an import certificate before you order.
Person ordered parts from Brownells BEFORE the ban and the parts were seized by the CBSA. On the CBSA website it states:


114. The importation of parts for prohibited firearms is controlled by the#Export and Import Permits Act. An import permit will thus be required for such goods. If a component or part is declared, but still falls within TI#9898.00.00 because the correct authorizations, licences, or permits are not available, then the parts are prohibited from entering Canada. More information on the import permit requirements for prohibited firearms parts may be obtained by contacting Global Affairs Canada."
CSAAA post from today;

https://www.csaaa.org/csaaa-special-...g4i7j3pINJJMLs
__________________
You should also be a member;
CCFR
CSSA
Reply With Quote
  #636  
Old 07-13-2020, 08:08 AM
32-40win 32-40win is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Near Drumheller
Posts: 6,733
Default

Not sure just what the Justice Center adds to the scene, but, it is another voice in the country against C71 and the liberals;

https://www.jccf.ca/justice-centre-t...4b5s950YhtA2ZA
__________________
You should also be a member;
CCFR
CSSA
Reply With Quote
  #637  
Old 07-14-2020, 09:26 PM
32-40win 32-40win is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Near Drumheller
Posts: 6,733
Default

I guess this now makes 7 cases filed against the Gov't on the OIC's/C71
There is some info on the other cases as to when they were filed and the case nbrs as well

https://thegunblog.ca/2020/07/14/chr...IQXgQQepM-UjS0

So, a bit further down in the feed is another Gun Blog article on the RCMP and the Derya Mk12, which he now wants 10.00/mo to read;

https://thegunblog.ca/2020/07/13/rcm...745wgnTAz3X0kc
__________________
You should also be a member;
CCFR
CSSA
Reply With Quote
  #638  
Old 07-16-2020, 11:20 PM
32-40win 32-40win is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Near Drumheller
Posts: 6,733
Default

NFA interviewing Cassandra Parker, litigant in the case against the OIC's.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s0MxfdIm3-M
__________________
You should also be a member;
CCFR
CSSA
Reply With Quote
  #639  
Old 07-18-2020, 04:21 PM
32-40win 32-40win is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Near Drumheller
Posts: 6,733
Default

A fella thought maybe he had received a restricted registration revocation letter from the RCMP, he asked about it and rec`d an answer from someone who actually had rec`d one, apparently his isn`t, but, people may start receiving these letters;


I have gone through this process of dealing with a Revocation of Registration Certificate a number of years ago. All owners of newly prohibited firearms due to the 1 May 2020 OIC and the follow-on RCMP reclassification, which is on-going, of other firearms after the announcement of the OIC will be receiving a letter that LOOKS LIKE a letter of Revocation.

That is not a revocation letter. It does have some similarities to a revocation letter as some of the detailed info in a revocation letter is in this RCMP letter. This is simply a letter from the RCMP giving you notice that your Firearms as listed in the letter are now prohibited due to the OIC and it states some of the current disposal options including the expiration date, 30 April 2022, of the amnesty. The way I see it, this is the RCMP and Liberals' "cunning" way of not triggering people filing a judicial review under Section 74 of the FA. Furthermore, if an appeal under Section 74 was possible with the use of this letter, I would not be initiating a Section 74 until the last days of the amnesty period. It will be interesting to see what information The CCFR will be posting regarding this letter and Section 74.

There is no hurry to do anything. Note that the standard 30 day period to file a Section 74 appeal is not mentioned in the RCMP but only the expiration date of the amnesty. My Revocation letter had the 30 day period for filing clearly indicated in my letter that I received some 9 years ago. My firearm sits on my bookshelf deactivated to remain me of the injustice done to me by the Canadian Firearms Program / RCMP. Hope this helps.

I have decided to post my Revocation Letter of 9 years ago for educational / information purposes. I am sure that a Revocation Letter today, 2020, will be near identical. A Revocation Letter will be sent Registered Mail as it is the only way that the RCMP / CFP can ensure that you have received the letter or that the attempt to deliver the letter took place. Furthermore, as the Revocation Letter is time sensitive due to the 30 days that the owner has to file for a judicial review under Section 74 of the Firearms Act, Registered Mail is a requirement. The letter will also be sign by the National Firearms Registrar. I have posted pictures of all that was included in the envelope.

As I have already stated, no one should be in any hurry to do anything due to receiving this letter. Unfortunately, I have no doubt that many uninformed people will act on this letter and dispose of their firearms sooner than later. I am sure that this was one of the objectives of sending this letter to all affected firearms owners. You will only get a letter from the RCMP / CFP for those firearms that were registered meaning they were restricted firearms already and now they are newly prohibited firearms due to the OIC and follow-on RCMP reclassification of other firearms. The RCMP / CFP can only send this "individualized" letter to firearm owners who have restricted firearms (which are now newly prohibited).

I hope this post is informative. If you think that you have a pit in your stomach after reading your letter, wait for the feeling when you actually have to take action to exercise one of your options of how to deal with the firearm. For some of you, it will not be an option to deactivate your firearm as you need / want whatever money may be part of the "Confiscation Buy Back Program". For me, I will be adding to my wall, reminders of the injustice that the RCMP / CFP and the Liberal Government have done to me as a legally licenced law abiding firearms owner and citizen.

I will look at those deactivated firearms everyday to remind me WHY I will always fight for legal firearm ownership and my rights to own private property. As well, it reminds me why I am a member of The CCFR and CSSA, why I donate to these organizations and to the current court challenges. This is the time for all firearms owners to support these court challenges, support these organization and others, must vote out the Liberals and must support each other no matter what shooting sports we partake in. There couldn't be a more critical time than now to get involved. Everything you do counts: letters, emails, signing Parliamentary e-petitions, CCFR / CSSA membership, donation to all of the court challenges, talking to friends and neighbours about the current issues at hand with the OIC, and support your Conservative MP (volunteer to help them win, donate to their campaign, etc). GET INVOLVED BEFORE IT'S TOO LATE. IT STILL ISN'T TOO LATE.
__________________
You should also be a member;
CCFR
CSSA

Last edited by 32-40win; 07-18-2020 at 04:39 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #640  
Old 07-18-2020, 04:32 PM
32-40win 32-40win is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Near Drumheller
Posts: 6,733
Default

This is the notice being sent out, followed by the real thing.
Attached Images
File Type: jpg current registration notice.jpg (31.0 KB, 18 views)
File Type: jpg revocation letter.jpg (37.8 KB, 21 views)
File Type: jpg revocation pg 2.jpg (26.8 KB, 19 views)
__________________
You should also be a member;
CCFR
CSSA
Reply With Quote
  #641  
Old 07-18-2020, 04:38 PM
32-40win 32-40win is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Near Drumheller
Posts: 6,733
Default

And if you were wondering about a section 35 human rights discrimination complaint---fuhget it;

Got this email today from the CHRC. What a bunch of bum lickers with no spine.

Dear Keith:

This is further to your complaint (“complaint”) to the Canadian Human Rights Commission (Commission). You allege that the Government of Canada’s (federal government) provisions in an Amnesty Order1 for prohibited firearms result in adverse differential treatment based on the grounds of race and national or ethnic origin, contrary to the Canadian Human Rights Act (the Act). To date the Commission has received many similar complaints.

Under s. 40(1) of the Act, an individual may file a complaint with the Commission if they have reasonable grounds “for believing that a person is engaging or has engaged in a discriminatory practice”. The term “discriminatory practice” generally means to adversely differentiate "on a prohibited ground" under the Act.

The threshold to show reasonable grounds in a complaint is low. However, the Commission is satisfied that in this case, the complaint does not demonstrate reasonable grounds that the federal government is engaging in a discriminatory practice.

The Amnesty Order provides a period of time to allow people to safely dispose of firearms newly-prohibited under the Criminal Code2. The Amnesty Order also permits people who already possess a prohibited firearm, to hunt in the following limited circumstances until they can obtain another firearm3 :

“in the exercise of a right recognized and affirmed by section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982”, which recognizes and affirms the existing aboriginal and treaty rights of Aboriginal people in Canada; or,
“to sustain [a] person or their family”. This exception for sustenance hunting is available to any individual, irrespective of their race or national or ethnic origin.
The Amnesty Order expires on April 30, 20224. After it expires, the prohibition on firearms will apply to all persons, although the federal government has indicated it will engage with Indigenous communities to assess whether the new regulations have a continued impact on their constitutionally-protected rights5.

The crux of your complaint is that the exception in the Amnesty Order applicable to Indigenous persons exercising a s. 35 hunting right discriminates against people who are not Indigenous. This allegation does not constitute “reasonable grounds” under s. 40(1) of the Act because differentiation based on rights in s. 35 of the Constitution Act, 19826 does not result in discrimination under the Canadian Human Rights Act. The Constitution is the supreme law of Canada. It takes precedence over all other Canadian laws.

Moreover, the rights guaranteed in s. 35 to Indigenous persons are unique and “flow from both their historical and cultural origins as well as their status as constitutional rights.”7 The Supreme Court of Canada has stressed that s. 35 rights are held only by Indigenous members of Canadian society8. The allegation that the temporary amnesty for Indigenous persons based on their constitutional rights results in discrimination to non-Indigenous persons does not constitute reasonable grounds to file a complaint of discrimination under the Act. Therefore, the Commission is unable to accept your complaint.
__________________
You should also be a member;
CCFR
CSSA
Reply With Quote
  #642  
Old 07-18-2020, 04:48 PM
32-40win 32-40win is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Near Drumheller
Posts: 6,733
Default

note from Michael Loberg, CCFR lawyer;

Jay Cameron, Litigation Manager at the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms, talks on the Danielle Smith Show about their intervening in the CCFR v Canada case.

If you want to skip into it, go to the podcast "Justice Centre to apply to intervene to stop Trudeau’s firearm confiscation", where Jay comes on at about 5:00 and hits the firearms issue at 7:15. It's well worth the listen.

https://omny.fm/shows/danielle-smith...JHvjcHTQKJsB6o
__________________
You should also be a member;
CCFR
CSSA
Reply With Quote
  #643  
Old 07-20-2020, 08:37 AM
32-40win 32-40win is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Near Drumheller
Posts: 6,733
Default

CCFR's announcement about the restricted/prohib revocation letters being sent out;

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NvlM...mX3-d0_aMiN5IY
__________________
You should also be a member;
CCFR
CSSA
Reply With Quote
  #644  
Old 07-21-2020, 10:17 PM
32-40win 32-40win is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Near Drumheller
Posts: 6,733
Default

The response to the E2341 petition sponsored by Glen Motz, has been posted by the Gov't, you can tell Billy and his cohorts wrote this;

https://petitions.ourcommons.ca/en/P...5XwEfe3rZO1E5Q
__________________
You should also be a member;
CCFR
CSSA
Reply With Quote
  #645  
Old 07-21-2020, 10:39 PM
32-40win 32-40win is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Near Drumheller
Posts: 6,733
Default

CSSA's response to the revocation letters;

http://web-extract.constantcontact.c...0Ln5WC5v7IODJE
__________________
You should also be a member;
CCFR
CSSA
Reply With Quote
  #646  
Old 07-24-2020, 08:23 PM
32-40win 32-40win is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Near Drumheller
Posts: 6,733
Default

Ian Runkle explaining the revocation letters and the pros and cons of filing a section 74 claim;

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Al90...yLkpKEVe4eIAAM
__________________
You should also be a member;
CCFR
CSSA
Reply With Quote
  #647  
Old 07-28-2020, 09:53 PM
32-40win 32-40win is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Near Drumheller
Posts: 6,733
Default

Court Cases that have been filed regarding the OIC's, up to 7 now, likely all there will be.

Court case update: There are currently five Federal cases and at least one provincial case filed. Each case involves multiple applicants and may have numerous interveners, so it can be difficult to figure out which is which. Here's a summary including the court file number, lead applicant, lead lawyer and link to where you can donate to that case.

Court Number: T-569-20 (Parker et al v AGC et al)
Notice of application: https://efiling.fct-cf.gc.ca/…/gmXXe...ndv80gD5AXQ3E…
Lead lawyer: Soloman Friedman
Donate: https://www.taxpayer.com/don…/scrap-...n-and-buy-back

Court Number: T-577-20 (CCFR et al v ACG et al)
Notice of application: https://firearmrights.ca/…/Notice-of...on-Certified-…
Lead lawyer: Michael Loberg
Donate: https://firearmrights.ca/en/legal-challenge/

Court Number: T-581-20 (Hipwell v AGC et al)
Information: https://thegunblog.ca/…/hipwell-hire...eeks-100000-…/
Lead lawyer: Edward Burlew
Donate: https://www.gofundme.com/f/judicial-...nge-john-hipw…

Court Number: T-677-20 (Doherty et al v ACG et al)
Notice of application: https://gofile.io/d/WDWHO3
Lead lawyer: Arkadi Bouchelev
Donate: https://www.gofundme.com/f/gun-ban-c...enge-judicial…

Court Number: T-735-20 (Generoux et al v ACG et al)
Notice of application: https://thegunblog.ca/…/overturn-the...utional-goc-g…
Lead lawyer: Christine Generoux
Donate: https://www.gofundme.com/f/overturn-...titutional-go…

There is also an action in the Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta, James Cox et al v ACG, in 2001-06832.
Notice of application: https://thegunblog.ca/…/trudeau-gun-...ons-violate-…/
Lawyers: Greg Dunn and Caitlin Taylor, Dunn & Associates (Calgary) and Brendan Miller, Walsh LLP (Calgary)
Donate: https://www.gofundme.com/f/jumaq-fight-the-oic-in-court

Alberta Tactical Rifle Supply Class Action:
Donate: https://www.gofundme.com/f/class-act...erse-illegal-…
__________________
You should also be a member;
CCFR
CSSA
Reply With Quote
  #648  
Old 07-28-2020, 09:56 PM
32-40win 32-40win is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Near Drumheller
Posts: 6,733
Default

Have to come back and revisit this to see how it is working out in a year or so.

From the CSSA;

From the Government of Saskatchewan –

Next Chief Firearms Officer Selected By
Provincial Government

July 28, 2020

After an exhaustive and competitive process of reviewing numerous qualified applicants, Robert Freberg has been selected as Saskatchewan’s next Chief Firearms Officer (CFO).

“We were very happy with the response we received to the job posting for this position,” Corrections and Policing Minister Christine Tell said. “Ultimately, we felt that based on his experience, Mr. Freberg was best suited to serve in this position and to represent the interests of the Saskatchewan firearms community.”

Freberg is the past CEO of Brigadier Security Systems and Elite Security Systems, serving in the position for 34 years. He has been a board member and volunteer with the Saskatoon Wildlife Federation for more than 40 years and served as President for five years. He was a former elected member of the National Board of Directors for the Canadian Shooting Sports Association.

In 2018, he received the Canadian Shooting Sports National Recognition Award for outstanding contributions to the Canadian Firearms Community. He is a firearms instructor for the PAL and RPAL programs and also has close ties to both urban and rural Saskatchewan.

While Saskatchewan’s CFOs have previously been chosen by the federal government, the province made the decision earlier this year to select its own. CFOs are responsible for administering the federal Firearms Act in the provinces, and have jurisdiction over the licensing, transporting and carrying of firearms. The CFO also licenses instructors to deliver firearms safety courses in the province.

“We have many concerns about the decisions the federal government is making that affect law-abiding Saskatchewan firearms owners,” Tell said. “A provincially-selected Chief Firearms Officer is an important step in ensuring that Saskatchewan and its firearms community have a strong voice on this issue.”

The province is currently working with the federal government to ensure a seamless transition from the federally-selected CFO to one that is provincially selected. During this transition phase, the new CFO will work on getting the provincial office established, while the current CFO will continue their duties in the interim, ensuring that services for law-abiding firearms owners are not interrupted.
__________________
You should also be a member;
CCFR
CSSA
Reply With Quote
  #649  
Old 07-29-2020, 08:54 PM
32-40win 32-40win is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Near Drumheller
Posts: 6,733
Default

Another vid from Ian Runkle, how to file a section 74 challenge;

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qJKE...YfKr1wyVoQuaT0
__________________
You should also be a member;
CCFR
CSSA
Reply With Quote
  #650  
Old 07-31-2020, 11:03 PM
32-40win 32-40win is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Near Drumheller
Posts: 6,733
Default

And now the RCMP are admitting that the "revocation letter" , was BS;

http://web-extract.constantcontact.c...aynHGkEk0MJHIc

RCMP Confirms CSSA is Correct

The RCMP finally managed to spit out the truth and, in doing so, confirmed the CSSA’s assessment of their recent letter to gun owners.

“[T]he letter is not a Firearm Registration Certificate Revocation Notice.” i

The CSSA said ii the recent RCMP letter is not a Firearm Registration Certificate Revocation Letter. Our assessment was confirmed by the legal opinion of Toronto Lawyer Arkadi Bouchelev. iii

“To put it simply, if the Registrar wants to revoke your registration certificate, he must give the holder of the certificate notice, in proper form, including a reproduction of the sections of the Firearms Act that explain how to appeal the decision. The Revocation letters clearly do not follow this required format.”

The RCMP issued their clarification late on Friday afternoon of a long weekend, when all embarrassing government news is released.

The RCMP, with the full blessing of Public Safety Minister Bill Blair, are using sleazy and deceitful tactics to deny firearm owners their rightful day in court.

That our national police force, under the guidance and direction of the Minister of Public Safety, choose to play spin games while utterly ignoring the very real problem of smuggled guns and drug and gang-related violence confirms, yet again, what we’ve said all along.

This has absolutely nothing to do with public safety and everything to do with confiscating legally-owned firearms.

So, Canadian gun owners, don’t be surprised when they come for your 12-gauge shotguns or bolt-action rifles.

Despite the RCMP’s web page and Minister Bill Blair’s Twitter post, neither of which have the force of law, SOR/2020-96 does not exempt shotguns or hunting rifles from the 20mm bore diameter or the 10,000 joules of energy restrictions.

Their underhanded tactics notwithstanding, the CSSA thanks the RCMP for confirming two truths we already knew.

The letter is not a Firearm Registration Certificate Revocation Notice.
You can't trust the RCMP brass or Bill Blair as far as you can spit a rat.

The full RCMP web page announcement is below:

As a result of the May 1, 2020 Order in Council (OIC) amending the Regulations Prescribing Certain Firearms and other Weapons, Components, and Parts of Weapons, Accessories, Cartridge Magazines, Ammunition and Projectiles as Prohibited or Restricted ("Regulation") under the Criminal Code, a letter was recently sent out to individuals/businesses to inform them that their previously registered restricted firearms are now prohibited and their registration certificates became nullified.

This nullification is the result of the legislative change to the Criminal Code Regulations and not the result of any decision by the Registrar to revoke the registration certificates under the Firearms Act.

Accordingly, the letter is not a Firearm Registration Certificate Revocation Notice.


Sources:
i https://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/en/firear...ms-and-devices
ii https://cssa-cila.org/the-rcmps-not-...cation-letter/ Arkadi Bouchelev
iii https://cssa-cila.org/bill-blair-so-...r-yes-or-no-2/


__________________
You should also be a member;
CCFR
CSSA
Reply With Quote
  #651  
Old 08-01-2020, 07:40 PM
32-40win 32-40win is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Near Drumheller
Posts: 6,733
Default

Ian Runkle again, on terminology from a call to the Firearms centre about moving and getting an ATT to do it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RmRQA370po4
__________________
You should also be a member;
CCFR
CSSA
Reply With Quote
  #652  
Old 08-02-2020, 10:55 AM
32-40win 32-40win is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Near Drumheller
Posts: 6,733
Default

Runkle's advice on filing section 74 claim, the written version;

How To File A s. 74 Challenge

Note: This is intended as a rough how-to guide, but it is not a substitute for talking to a lawyer. This will include information about the law and the process, but an evaluation of your case requires talking to a qualified lawyer and providing them with your particular circumstances. Also, please note the date of this document—laws and court practices change over time, and it will be your responsibility to be aware of those changes and to comply with them.
This Information applies to Section 74 reference hearings. If you are dealing with a hearing initiated through another process (e.g. a firearm prohibition application by the CFO or Crown), then much or all of it may not apply to you.
Section 74 of the Firearms Act is the section that allows you to challenge revocations of and refusals to issue licences, authorizations to transport, registration certificates, and some other documents. It is a process that you initiate. In most cases, it will be initiated after you get a letter advising you of the decision and of your right to file a challenge.

Preparation:

1: Talk to a lawyer. Even if you can’t afford to hire a lawyer for the full case, it is worth speaking to a lawyer who can give you advice, and tell you whether you have a case. A lawyer is a tremendous advantage in a hearing like this. The Chief Firearms Officer will be represented by counsel—and they will be represented by counsel with experience in matters like these. Going into court without a lawyer is like going into a gunfight without a gun. It usually ends badly.
2: Read the notice of revocation or other correspondence clearly and carefully. If you have a lawyer, they can help you with this. You may want to have a neutral friend read over this—ideally someone who is able to give you an honest (even if unflattering) assessment, and ideally someone who is not a “gunnie”, but someone coming at things from outside the community. The reason for this is to get a better understanding of the allegations against you. One danger of representing yourself is that will be likely to see your own file through rose-coloured glasses. Having a sober second look from a disinterested party can be invaluable. Sometimes a revocation, refusal, etc is justified, and sometimes it makes more sense to take the time to improve your situation rather than taking the matter to court.
3: If you’re represented by a lawyer, they’ll be handling your paperwork. If not, that’s on you. Remember that you have 30 days from the date you get the letter to file your reference. If you take longer than that, the court can decide to hear your case anyway—but they start from the position that your case is dead in the water, and you have to argue out of that hole. Note that the letter of refusal or revocation may specify a shorter period in terms of time to dispose of your firearms. If they do, you will want to file your reference sooner rather than later. Also, give yourself time for the possibility that your filing may be rejected and need to be corrected and re-filed.

Start by getting your materials together. You will want a copy of any letter the Chief Firearms Officer sent you. Make a copy, because you will likely have to attach this copy to the court filing, and you want to keep your original to possibly give the court later. Bring a copy of your firearms licence and any relevant registration certificates, if you have them. You may need your licence # and certificate numbers.
Go to your local provincial court webpage, and find the “forms” section. See if they have a form posted for s. 74 references. If they do, download it and fill it out ahead of time, it’ll make your life easier. If not, phone the local courthouse and ask if they have a form—if they do, they may be willing to email you a copy, but more likely you will have to go in and pick one up. If they do not, you are going to have
to make your own form. I know this sounds bizarre, but I’ve had to do it several times in legal practice. This is a link to British Columbia’s standard form, which you could use as a template, replacing the provinces as needed. https://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/la...ce/courthouse- services/court-files-records/court- forms/criminal/pcr886.pdf?fbclid=IwAR21FirkUhg3KM6cAkog168ZIGusiS iuigeNzrOQAFPyQaU5VgPpLXB- SHs

Remember that deadlines are very important in the legal field. You can have a winning case one day, and absolutely no case the next day. Make sure you file things in time.
4: Once you have a filed reference, you may need to have it served on the Chief Firearms Officer. Ask the Provincial Court if they will serve it, because in at least some jurisdictions the court will ensure that the CFO is notified of the proceedings on your behalf. If not, then that will be your responsibility, and you should ensure that a filed copy of the reference makes it to the CFO.
5: As part of filing the reference, you will get a court date. You should ask the court whether this is a docket appearance (in other words, an appearance to set a date for the full hearing), or the hearing itself. You do not want to show up for your hearing prepared only for a docket appearance.
6: Once you have a hearing date set, you need to gather your evidence. This includes:
· Subpoenaing your witnesses. If you need a witness, you should subpoena them to attend. If you have not subpoenaed them and they do not show up, the court is unlikely to grant you an adjournment to get them there. A filed and served subpoena compels the witness to attend— whether they are friendly to you or opposed in interest. Any witness that you need to hear from should be subpoenaed. You can also ask the opposing counsel if they will subpoena individuals like the Chief Firearms Officer. They will likely agree, but if they do not, that is your responsibility.
· Prepare any documents you need. In a s. 74 hearing, you are entitled to rely on hearsay, which makes this easier.
· Make copies of anything you intend to rely on in court. You should have three copies. One copy is for the court. One copy is for the other side. One copy is for yourself. Remember that any document or physical evidence will be likely to be required to be entered as an exhibit, which means that the court will retain it. That means, for example, that if you are relying on an audio recording or video recording on your phone, you should transfer it to a medium that you would be fine with leaving with the court. Most people would not be thrilled to lose their $500 phone,

and if you enter your phone into the court you may inadvertently be giving up way more privacy than you’d prefer. Transfer the file to a USB drive first, and give that to the court and other side instead.
7: Remember to bring evidence that is relevant—it should speak to your suitability to own, possess, and use firearms. You should also bring any evidence you have that is relevant to the CFOs stated reasons for denying you a licence, registration certificate, ATT, etc. In other words, you should be prepared to show that you have the responsibility and discipline the law requires of gun owners. This is a high standard.
8: Be aware that you bear the burden of proof, also known as the “onus”. That means that you have to show that the Firearms Officer made the wrong decision. Different provinces have applied different “standards of review” to this decision—which refers to how wrong the decision has to be before the court will interfere to change it. Be aware that there is a presumption that the Firearms Officer is right, and you need to overcome that.
9: Review the law. You will be held to the law, even if you don’t know it. You will probably be relying on services like Canlii, but you should see as well if your local library or law library (which may be at the courthouse) offers access to Westlaw or Quicklaw. Note that the law libraries in larger centers tend to be better equipped and better resourced. The librarians (if present) at these libraries may be able to help you, but you should be prepared to do the bulk of the work yourself. Canadian case law relies on precedents: Cases that came before yours that decide legal issues, and which the courts will be likely to follow in future. Be aware of precedential value: The Supreme Court of Canada is binding on all courts other than itself. Beyond that, courts are binding on lesser courts in their jurisdiction, and can be persuasive outside of the jurisdiction. “Binding” in this context means that the lower court must follow the decision of the higher court. Binding decisions thus form part of the “rules of the game”. If you
haven’t done your research, you go in not knowing the rules, which means you are likely to lose.
10: Remember that the relevant time period for the hearing is the date of the hearing itself. That means that things that happen in between the original refusal/revocation/etc and the hearing that affect it—positively or negatively. As you are in control of your own actions, this is a tremendous asset to you, so long as you use it wisely. Seeking treatment/counselling if relevant will be helpful, especially if the results are favourable. By contrast, be sure that you are on your best behaviour. If the CFO finds out about bad behaviour, they can use that against you—and it will be all the more devastating if you have been engaging in concerning behaviour even knowing that you have a case like this before the courts.

On the day of the hearing:

1: Dress appropriately. My usual advice is to dress like you would for a job interview. That will vary depending on what you do for a living, your financial situation, and so forth. A suit is helpful if you own one, but not necessarily required—and you will look better in a button down shirt and a clean pair of pants that fits you and you’re comfortable in than a borrowed suit that doesn’t fit and that makes you feel like a stranger. Do not wear revealing clothing, T-shirts, or anything with printed slogans or images.

Especially do not wear anything that hints at illegal activity, drug use, violence, or the like. Do not wear clothing that is strange or outlandish. Some examples of things I have seen that I recommend against:
· “Sons of Anarchy” clothing: Your judge may not realize it is not actually motorcycle club gear.
· Motorcycle Club gear: Your MC may not be a 1% club. Your judge may not know that there are non-criminal motorcycle clubs.
· Wings: Yes, I have seen people wearing wings to court on multiple occasions (though none for
firearm hearings). This would fall into the ‘strange or outlandish’ category.
· “Crooks and Castles” gear: Skip the references to illegal activity.
· “Cocaine and Caviar”: References drug use, illegal activity.
· Marijuana leaf imagery, Jamaican flag imagery: References drug use. Even if it doesn’t, the judge
may think it does.
Remember that your judge may not be up on pop culture references, and thus may mistake innocuous things (like the Sons of Anarchy shirts) for offensive. Also remember that they might be very, very up on pop culture and/or criminal references, so do not assume that a subtle reference will go unnoticed. It is best to avoid anything with text or images that could be interpreted or misinterpreted in ways unfavourable to you.
2: Remain calm, remain polite. Remember that you are being judged by various participants in the process, including the Chief Firearms Officer and the judge themselves. Remember also that the clerk gets to talk to the judge outside the court room. Be respectful to everyone in the process. Remember
that although it may feel personal to you, it is almost certainly not to the others present. Don’t give
them a reason to take an interest in your file beyond just taking care of business.
Expect that when you get on the stand, the other lawyer may well try to make you angry. They may be insulting, they may be flippant. DO NOT LET THEM MAKE YOU ANGRY. If you become angry, you will look like you are unsuitable to have firearms. Remain calm. Remain polite. You do tremendous damage to your case if you lose your temper. By contrast, you do yourself a tremendous favour if you are able to remain calm and polite and dignified in the face of a hostile cross-examination.
3: Do not lie. A lie is blood in the water, and a good lawyer will use it to destroy you. It is highly unlikely that a judge will rule in your favour if he finds you to be a liar, or not worthy of belief. The best way to not be caught in a lie is not to tell any. I can guarantee that the opposing lawyer will have reviewed their file in detail, and will be watching like a hawk for any little lie. If you find that you have made a mistake, correct it as soon as you notice.
4: Do not attack the other side’s lawyer—attack their arguments. The court will take a very dim view of insults directed towards counsel. They will also take a dim view of insults thrown their way. Under no circumstances should you direct any personal attacks towards the clerk, for the same reason that you wouldn’t throw rocks at a bear cub. Keep to the issues.
5: The “three copies” rule about your evidence also applies to any cases you want to refer to. The court may have already head of them and be familiar with them. They may not. You should ensure you have three printed copies of any case you plan to rely on—one for you, one for the other side, one for the court.

6: Understand the difference between “examination in chief” and “cross examination”. If you are calling a witness, then it is an “examination in chief”. After that is done, the other side gets an opportunity to cross-examine. You then have the option (but not the requirement) to ‘re-direct’. Some further discussion of each:
· Examination In Chief: During this, you may not ask ‘leading’ questions. Leading questions are questions which suggest an answer. So, for example, “What happened next?” is an acceptable examination in chief question. “And that’s when he hit you?” is not.
· Cross-Examination: At this stage, leading questions are allowed. So, you can ask questions like “And you didn’t ask anyone else?”, or the like. You can also suggest things to a witness on cross- examination, like, “Isn’t it the case that Joe broke the window?”
· Re-Direct: This is used to give the person calling a witness a chance to revisit issues that were raised in cross-examination. It is best used sparingly—typically where cross-examination has elicited an answer that is misleading. As an example, on cross examination, they may have established that one of your key witnesses was seen running around late at night, screaming, but not provided any context. If you knew that the reason for this incident was because they had accidentally disturbed a wasp’s nest and they were in a panic because of that, you would want to ask some additional questions to allow the witness to provide that context.
7: If you are clearly losing, remember that you have the options of appeals. Appeals will be
contested on the “record”, which is the material tendered and heard at the original trial. It is very difficult to get new evidence in at an appeal. That means you need to consider the record if there is a chance you may appeal. Make sure you get your evidence out there, even if it’s clear from reading the room that you will not prevail this time.

Other Considerations:

1: Make sure you check your local rules of court so that you are aware of what you may need to do.
2: Also, check your rules of court about whether they allow costs at a provincial court appearance. Costs are fees paid from the loser to the winner. Check if they are mandatory or discretionary. Basically, know how much skin you have in the game.
3: Consider also the potential consequences to others if you run this hearing and lose. You may generate precedent unfavourable to other gun owners.
refusal or revocation that provides you with a copy of the Firearms Act sections 74-81, you will almost certainly need a lawyer to prevail.
You will have additional hurdles and challenges.

Again, you should absolutely prefer to have a lawyer represent you in these hearings. While this contains good information as of the time of writing, it may become obsolete slowly or all at once. There is simply no substitute for legal counsel there in your corner.
Also, the usual disclaimers apply here: I am a lawyer, but I am not your lawyer. This is not in any way a substitute for legal advice tailored to your specific circumstances.
__________________
You should also be a member;
CCFR
CSSA
Reply With Quote
  #653  
Old 08-05-2020, 07:41 PM
32-40win 32-40win is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Near Drumheller
Posts: 6,733
Default

CCFR has now come out, saying they will run a march in Ottawa on Sept 12th.
I expect they are pitching it as a rights rally more so than a gun owners rights rally, and how the gov't chooses to govern subjects rather than citizens;

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JxpB...cskrtifvVKeWII
__________________
You should also be a member;
CCFR
CSSA
Reply With Quote
  #654  
Old 08-08-2020, 08:28 AM
32-40win 32-40win is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Near Drumheller
Posts: 6,733
Default

Ian Runkle again; self defence will be going to the Supreme Court again over jury instructions, interesting listen;

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D36bh1CmZVc
__________________
You should also be a member;
CCFR
CSSA
Reply With Quote
  #655  
Old 08-08-2020, 03:15 PM
32-40win 32-40win is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Near Drumheller
Posts: 6,733
Default

Wendy Cukier's application as an intervenor to the case filed by the CCFR ( and also filed against every other case )

Court File No. T-577-20

FEDERAL COURT

BETWEEN:


CANADIAN COALITION FOR FIREARM RIGHTS, RODNEY GILTACA, LAURENCE KNOWLES, RYAN STEACY, MACCABEE DEFENSE INC., WOLVERINE SUPPLIES LTD., AND MAGNUM MACHINE LTD.

Applicants

– and –

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA and CANADA (ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED
POLICE)

Respondents




MOTION RECORD – LEAVE TO INTERVENE BY

COALITION FOR GUN CONTROL






June 29, 2020





OSLER, HOSKIN & HARCOURT LLP

Suite 2500, TransCanada Tower
450-1st S.W.
Calgary, AB T2P 5H1


Colin Feasby/Thomas Gelbman/ Carla Breadon Tel: 403-260-7067/403-260-7073/416-862-5904 Fax: 403-260-7024


Solicitors for the Moving Party

Coalition for Gun Control

TO: Laura Warner
Solicitor for the Applicants

Jensen Shawa Solomon Duguid Hawkes LLP
800, 304 – 8th Avenue SW
Calgary, AB T2P 1C2
Phone: 403-571-1052
Fax: 403-571-1528
Email: warnerl@jssbarristers.ca

AND TO: Michael A. Loberg

Solicitor for the Applicants

Loberg Law
1000 Bankers Hall West
888 - 3rd Street SW
Calgary, AB T2P 5C5
Phone: 403-668-6561
Fax: 403-668-6505
Email: mloberg@loberg-law.com

AND TO: Bruce Hughson
Jennifer Lee
Jordan Milne
Solicitors for the Respondents

Department of Justice Canada
Prairie Region
National Litigation Sector
300, 10423 - 101 Street NW
Edmonton, AB T5H OE7
Phone: 780-495-2035
Fax: 780-495-8491
Email: bruce.hughson@justice.gc.ca/ jennifer.lee@justice.gc.ca/ jordan.milne@justice.gc.ca

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TAB PAGE NO.

1. Notice of Motion dated June 29, 2020 1

2. Affidavit of Dr. Wendy Cukier dated June 29, 2020 5

Exhibit A 12

3. Draft Order 23

4. Written Submissions dated June 29, 2020 26

Statutes and Regulations

Federal Courts Rules, SOR/98-106, Rules 3 and 109 Tab A

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, SOR/2020-96, C Gaz II Tab B

Case Law

Canada (Attorney General) v Pictou Landing First Nation, 2014 FCA 21 Tab C

Canadian Pacific Railway Company v Boutique Jacob Inc., 2006 FCA 426 Tab D

Globalive Wireless Management Corp. v. Public Mobile Inc., 2011 FCA Tab E

Papaschase Indian Band (Descendants of) v. Canada (Attorney General),
2005 ABCA 320 Tab F

Prophet River First Nation v. Canada (Attorney General), 2016 FCA 120 Tab G

Rothmans, Benson & Hedges Inc. v Canada (Attorney General), [1990]
1 FC 74 (TD) Tab H

Rothmans, Benson & Hedges Inc. v Canada (Attorney General), [1990]
1 FC 90 (CA) Tab I

Sport Maska Inc. v Bauer Hockey Corp., 2016 FCA 44 Tab J

1



Court File No. T-577-20

FEDERAL COURT

BETWEEN:


CANADIAN COALITION FOR FIREARM RIGHTS, RODNEY GILTACA, LAURENCE KNOWLES, RYAN STEACY, MACCABEE DEFENSE INC., WOLVERINE SUPPLIES LTD., AND MAGNUM MACHINE LTD.

Applicants

– and –

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA and CANADA (ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED
POLICE)

Respondents




NOTICE OF MOTION




TAKE NOTICE THAT that the proposed intervener, Coalition for Gun Control (the “Coalition”), will make a motion to the Court in writing under Rules 109 and 369 of the Federal Courts Rules, SOR/98-106 (“Rules”).

THE MOTION IS FOR an Order: (i) granting the Coalition leave to intervene in this application pursuant to Rule 109 of the Rules; (ii) permitting the Coalition to file an affidavit providing relevant evidence to support its argument; (iii) permitting the Coalition to file a memorandum of fact and law not exceeding 15 pages; (iv) permitting the Coalition to make oral submissions of up to 30 minutes at the hearing of this application, (v) awarding no costs against the Coalition, and (vi) such further and other Orders this Honourable Court may deem just in the circumstances.

2



THE GROUNDS FOR THE MOTION ARE:


The Coalition is the leading voice on firearm control in Canada. It is a globally recognized non-profit organization that has worked to reduce firearm violence for over thirty years. Its address is P.O. Box 90062, 1488 Queen Street West, Toronto, Ontario M6K 3K3;

This application considers the administrative and constitutional validity of regulations made by the Governor in Council designating certain assault-style firearms, and other firearms that exceed safe civilian use in Canada, as prohibited under the Criminal Code (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, SOR/2020-96);

The Coalition seeks leave to intervene to present its perspective on the matters at issue, as an experienced advocate on firearm violence prevention with the support of 200 organizations representing diverse interests in Canada, particularly victims and groups that are disproportionately affected by firearm violence;

The Coalition has a genuine interest in the outcome of this proceeding;

There is a justiciable issue and a veritable public interest;

There is a lack of other reasonable or efficient means for the Coalition to submit the question to the Court;

The Coalition’s position is not adequately defended by one of the parties to the case;

The interests of justice are better served by the Coalition’s intervention;

The Court should not hear and decide the case on its merits without the Coalition’s intervention; and

3



such further and other grounds as counsel may advise and this Honourable Court permit.

THE FOLLOWING DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE will be relied on:

affidavit of Dr. Wendy Cukier dated June 29, 2020; and

such further and other materials as counsel may advise and this Honourable Court permit.




Dated: June 29, 2020 OSLER, HOSKIN & HARCOURT LLP
Suite 2500, TC Energy Tower
450 – 1st Street SW
Calgary, AB T2P 5H1
Colin Feasby
Tel: 403.260.7067
Email: cfeasby@osler.com
Thomas Gelbman
Tel: 403.968.9908
Email: tgelbman@osler.com
Carla Breadon
Tel: 416.862.5904
Email: cbreadon@osler.com
Fax: 403.260.7024
Lawyers for the Coalition for Gun Control


TO:


Laura Warner
Solicitor for the Applicants

Jensen Shawa Solomon Duguid Hawkes LLP

800, 304 – 8th Avenue SW
Calgary, AB T2P 1C2


Phone: 403-571-1052
Fax: 403-571-1528
Email: warnerl@jssbarristers.ca

4




AND TO:




Michael A. Loberg
Solicitor for the Applicants

Loberg Law
1000 Bankers Hall West
888 - 3rd Street SW
Calgary, AB T2P 5C5


Phone: 403-668-6561
Fax: 403-668-6505
Email: mloberg@loberg-law.com


AND TO:


Bruce Hughson
Jennifer Lee
Jordan Milne
Solicitors for the Respondents

Department of Justice Canada
Prairie Region
National Litigation Sector
300, 10423 - 101 Street NW
Edmonton, AB T5H OE7


Phone: 780-495-2035
Fax: 780-495-8491
Email: bruce.hughson@justice.gc.ca/

jennifer.lee@justice.gc.ca/
jordan.milne@justice.gc.ca

5



Court File No. T-577-20

FEDERAL COURT

BETWEEN:


CANADIAN COALITION FOR FIREARM RIGHTS, RODNEY GILTACA, LAURENCE KNOWLES, RYAN STEACY, MACCABEE DEFENSE INC., WOLVERINE SUPPLIES LTD., AND MAGNUM MACHINE LTD.

Applicants

and

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA and CANADA (ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE)

Respondents

AFFIDAVIT OF DR. WENDY CUKIER

(June 29, 2020)

L Dr. Wendy Cukier, of Toronto, Ontario. MAKE OATH AND SAY:


I am the President and Co-Founder of the Coalition for Gun Control (the "Coalition"). I have coordinated the Coalition's activities since it was founded in 1991. As such, I have personal knowledge of the matters referred to in this affidavit.

This affidavit is filed in support of the Coalition's motion for leave to intervene in the within proceeding.

OVERVIEW

The within proceeding concerns the validity of 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: SOR/2020-96 (the "Regulation"), made by the Governor in Council under section 117.15 of the Criminal Code.
The Regulation represents a significnat development to firearm control in Canada.

It designates approximately 1,500 models of firearms, weapons, components, accessories, cartridge magazines, ammunition and projectiles exceeding safe civilian use, as prohibited under the Criminal Code.

The Court will consider the administrative and constitutional validity of the Regulation, which was made for the stated purposes of reducing (i) the number and availability of such firearms, and (ii) the possibility of their diversion to the illicit market.

As a globally recognized leader in combating firearm violence and illicit trafficking, the Coalition seeks leave to contribute its perspective on the matters at issue in the proceeding.

If granted leave to intervene, the Coalition will not seek to become a party. It will argue that the Regulation is valid submission and make on the following:


The relationship between the prohibitions in the Regulation and its stated purposes;


The social impacts of the Regulation from the perspective of experts in violence prevention and groups disproportionately affected by firearm violence; and

The Charter implications of the arguments advanced by the applicants, and in particular how they affect the individuals and groups the Regulation serves to protect.


The Coalition also seeks leave to intervene in similar challenges to the Regulation in Federal Court file nos. T-581-20 and T-569-20.

THE COALITION FOR GUN CONTROL

The Coalition is the leading voice on firearm control in Canada. It is a globally recognized non-profit organization that has worked to reduce firearm death, injury and crime for almost thirty years.


I am one of the co-founders of the Coalition, which was formed in the wake of the 1989 Ecole Pol)1echnique massacre in Montreal. Surviving students and family members of victims of the Polytechnique massacre remain involved in the work of the Coalition.

The Coalition's address is P.O. Box 90062, 1488 Queen Street West, Toronto, Ontario, M6K3K3.

The Coalition is supported by over 200 organizations that represent diverse interests, including: victims, women, physicians, law-yers, religious communities, universities, municipal governments, and law enforcement. Many of these organizations have expertise in the prevention of violence and suicide, and represent groups that are disproportionately affected by firearm violence and hate crimes.

Each Coalition supporter has passed a formal resolution endorsing the Coalition's position that military assault weapons and large capacity magazines should be banned.

The Coalition supports the Regulation as an essential step towards reducing firearm violence in Canada.

The Coalition has continued involvement in legislative initiatives, legal proceedings, research projects, education programs and community actions related to firearm safety and violence prevention, in Canada and internationally. As further discussed below, the Coalition has participated in other proceedings pertaining to firearm control in Canada, including as an intervener in two pivotal Supreme Court cases.

THE COALITION'S INTEREST IN THIS APPLICATION

The Coalition has advocated for a ban on military assault weapons and large capacity magazines and supported strategies to reduce firearm death, injury and crime since its inception in 1991. The Coalition's position is that easy access to firearms increases the risk that firearms will

be used in gang violence, domestic violence, hate crimes and suicide,undermines community safety. These risks are more pronounced in the context of military assault weapons, which are designed to inflict mass casualties in a short period of time and are not needed for hunting or other civilian purposes. Most industrialized countries prohibit civilian access to these firearms. Military assault weapons have been used to commit hate crimes against women and minority groups in Canada. Accordingly, the Regulation has advanced a key pillar of the Coalition's mandate.

More generally, the outcome of this proceeding will have an impact on the Coalition's work to prevent firearm violence, and that of the members of the numerous organizations that support the Coalition's work to that end.

THE COALITION'S EXPERTISE AND CONTRIBUTIONS IN CANADA AND INTERNATIONALLY

The Coalition has a unique perspective and considerable expertise on firearm violence, and the development and implementation of strategies to reduce and prevent it.

The Coalition has been granted intervener status in the two seminal Supreme Court cases on firearm control in Canada:

Reference re Firearms Act, 2000 SCC 31, where the Court addressed Parliament's constitutional authority to require holders of all firearms to obtain licences and register their firearms. The Coalition was granted intervener status and made submissions at both stages of application
Quebec (Attorney General) v. Canada (Attorney General), 2015 SCC 14, where the Coalition made submissions on the public safety implications of destroying data following the repeal of the long-gun registry.

As the President of the Coalition, I have also made submissions before the courts in other capacities:

Barbra Schli(er Commemorative Clinic v. Canada, 2014 ONSC 5140, where I gave expert evidence on the gendered impact of firearm violence. The case involved the constitutionality of the legislation that eliminated the long-gun registry.

R. v. Husbands, 2019 ONSC 6824, where I co-drafted and filed a joint "Community Victim Impact" statement in the sentencing proceedings of the individual convicted of a mass shooting at the Eaton Centre. The statement focused on the community impact of shootings in public places, and was received and considered by the judge in his reasons for sentence.

The Coalition has been involved in the development of modem firearm control legislation~\ in Canada for almost thirty years. The Coalition has filed briefs and made submissions before Parliamentary and Senate committees regarding firearms legislation, including Bill C-80 (introduced in 1990), Bill C-17 (introduced in 1991), Bill C-68 (which introduced the Firearms Act in 1995), and subsequent acts to amend the Firearms Act, including, most recently, Bill C-71,

An Act to amend certain Acts and Regulations in relation to flrearms.


The Coalition has participated in consultation processes related to firearm control at the federal, provincial and municipal level, including the consultation process referred to in the Regulation. The Coalition attended a roundtable and bilateral Ministerial meeting convened by the federal government, and the Coalition's involvement is referred to in the Government of Canada's recently published report "Reducing Violent Crime: A Dialogue on Handguns and Assault Weapons".

The Coalition has participated in a number of Canadian government advisory councils including the Advisory Council on Crime Prevention, the Firearms Advisory Committee, and the Small Arms Advisory Committee.

The Coalition has also made significant contributions to global efforts to combat firearm violence. The Coalition is the founding member of the International Action Network on Small Arms, a group with partner organizations in 23 countries across the world. Representatives of the Coalition have made submissions at several United Nations meetings, including sessions of the Commission on the Status of Women and the Programme of Action on Small Arms. The Coalition has also advised foreign governments on strategies for reducing firearm violence, including the development and implementation of firearm control legislation in South Africa and Sir Thomas Thorp's review of firearms legislation in New Zealand.

A detailed list of the Coalition's work is attached as Exhibit A to this affidavit.

E.THE COALITION'S PROPOSED SUBMISSIONS

The Coalition seeks leave to (i) file an affidavit providing relevant evidence to support its argument, (ii) file written submissions of no more than] 5 pages and (iii) make oral submissions of no more than 30 minutes at the hearing of the application.

The Coalition undertakes to (i) coordinate with the respondents' counsel to ensure that there is no duplication in oral argument, and (ii) refrain from raising any new issues.

The Coalition will not seek costs and asks that it not be held liable for the costs of any other party or intervener as it seeks to contribute to the development of this important area of Canadian law.


SWORN I AFFIRMED BEFORE ME over video teleconference this 29th day of June, 2020. The affiant was located in Toronto, Ontario and the Commissioner was located in the Toronto, Ontario. The affidavit was commissioned remotely as a result of COVID-19.
__________________
You should also be a member;
CCFR
CSSA
Reply With Quote
  #656  
Old 08-11-2020, 02:54 PM
32-40win 32-40win is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Near Drumheller
Posts: 6,733
Default

I guess we needed a reminder? From the CSSA today, they are right though. Been a lot of older stuff dredged up in the last while;


Can a .410 Shotgun be a “Variant”
of an AK-47?

Canada really needs a legal definition of the word “variant” as it applies to firearms.

In addition to the list of 12-gauge shotguns [i] banned through Bill Blair’s Order In Council, we discovered the RCMP Canadian Firearms Program (CFP) is continuing to operate under a very Liberal interpretation of the term “variant”.

Prohibited Weapons Order No. 13 classified the AK-47 as a Prohibited firearm. The specific language reads:

“ The firearm of the design commonly known as the AK-47 rifle, and any variant or modified version of it …”

On May 14th, the CFP reclassified the Saiga 410C Semi-Automatic Shotgun as a Prohibited firearm because its plastic stock vaguely resembles the infamous Soviet rifle. [ii]

This kind of nonsense shows why this term must be defined in law as long as law continues to use these kinds of descriptives.

In 2016, (retired) Conservative MP Larry Miller introduced Private Member’s Bill C-230 [iii] , An Act to amend the Criminal Code ( firearm — definition of variant ), specifically to prevent this sort of abuse of Canada’s firearm classification system.

Bill C-230 defined variant as:

variant , in respect of a firearm, means a firearm that has the unmodified frame or receiver of another firearm.

In other words, unless a gun could accept parts from a Prohibited firearm, it could not be defined as a variant of that firearm.

For example, a shotgun with a stock designed to resemble an AK-47 (the Saiga 410C, for example) would not make it a “variant” of the AK-47.

Any rational definition of “variant” – when applied to firearms - would mean a firearm must share common parts with a Prohibited firearm. By the RCMP’s current definition, every car on the road would be a variant of a Ford Model T.

The RCMP Canadian Firearms Program lost sight of common sense and rationality decades ago and, under Minister Bill Blair’s dubious leadership, the CFP is torquing language to mean whatever their boss wants it to mean.

The operation of RCMP Specialized Support Services (firearms lab) needs an overhaul in the biggest way. When this tiresome Liberal government changes, we hope a significant re-vamp is in the tea leaves for the new government.

Sources:

[i] https://cssa-cila.org/billblairlied/
[ii] https://s3.amazonaws.com/CSSA/Images...ic-Shotgun.png
[iii] https://www.parl.ca/DocumentViewer/e.../first-reading
__________________
You should also be a member;
CCFR
CSSA
Reply With Quote
  #657  
Old 08-11-2020, 03:06 PM
32-40win 32-40win is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Near Drumheller
Posts: 6,733
Default

Article in I Politics, writer almost seems to be offended by Genoroux' s statements in her application. I suppose the truth hurts ;

https://ipolitics.ca/2020/08/07/fina...jbPf3EQOSJJb-c

And there is also the possibility they are right on this ;

https://ipolitics.ca/2020/07/17/four...control-group/
__________________
You should also be a member;
CCFR
CSSA
Reply With Quote
  #658  
Old 08-11-2020, 03:14 PM
32-40win 32-40win is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Near Drumheller
Posts: 6,733
Default

Apparently, this article inspired someone to check with the leader of the SECU committee, and they are not exploring anything to do with any program suggested here, and it has not been mentioned by anyone in caucus.

https://www.toronto.com/news-story/1...vzkDo.facebook
__________________
You should also be a member;
CCFR
CSSA
Reply With Quote
  #659  
Old 08-11-2020, 03:47 PM
Scott N's Avatar
Scott N Scott N is offline
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Calgary
Posts: 7,506
Default

Bill Blair is a perfect example of what is wrong with politics.
Reply With Quote
  #660  
Old 08-12-2020, 10:25 PM
32-40win 32-40win is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Near Drumheller
Posts: 6,733
Default

Libs have put out the tender notice for the buyback program;

https://buyandsell.gc.ca/procurement...PW-20-00923212
__________________
You should also be a member;
CCFR
CSSA
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 07:26 AM.


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