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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #481  
Old 01-22-2020, 01:33 PM
32-40win 32-40win is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Calgary
Posts: 4,895
Default

I've seen this article before, but, it has now managed to be published by the Fraser Institute, which may help give it some legitimacy in non gun owners eyes. Written by Gary Mauser.

https://www.fraserinstitute.org/blog...rfkMDjtYrHjt1w
__________________
You should also be a member;
CCFR
CSSA
Reply With Quote
  #482  
Old 01-22-2020, 02:21 PM
guysmiley guysmiley is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 318
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 32-40win View Post
I've seen this article before, but, it has now managed to be published by the Fraser Institute, which may help give it some legitimacy in non gun owners eyes. Written by Gary Mauser.

https://www.fraserinstitute.org/blog...rfkMDjtYrHjt1w
Great article, I've been saying since this idiocy was mentioned that there is no way it is going to cost 600 million. Try quadrupling that....
Reply With Quote
  #483  
Old 01-23-2020, 02:51 PM
32-40win 32-40win is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Calgary
Posts: 4,895
Default

Very good vid from Yukon Strong, to illustrate the issues with the proposals by the Liberals to go after the LAGO withe their legislation;

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mOhp...-NwW0J4Y5IIink
__________________
You should also be a member;
CCFR
CSSA
Reply With Quote
  #484  
Old 01-29-2020, 03:45 AM
32-40win 32-40win is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Calgary
Posts: 4,895
Default

Well, E2341 has broken the petition record as of today, was 127,100 when I looked at it at about 10;00am 1/28, by the time I got home at midnite, it had surpassed the record of 130,452. 3;40 am 1/29, it is at 131,465. That is quite a jump in less than a day

Just for reference, these are the top 5 til today;

https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/thes...ment-1.4532602
__________________
You should also be a member;
CCFR
CSSA
Reply With Quote
  #485  
Old 01-30-2020, 01:32 PM
32-40win 32-40win is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Calgary
Posts: 4,895
Default

Tony Bernardo on the Roy Green radio show;

https://omny.fm/shows/roy-green-show...e7fMgyz3MrRVUU
__________________
You should also be a member;
CCFR
CSSA
Reply With Quote
  #486  
Old 02-01-2020, 03:13 AM
32-40win 32-40win is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Calgary
Posts: 4,895
Default

Mr Young points out there is no mechanism to track people convicted under the firearms act, sentenced with prohibitions to owning a firearm. Good one to share with people who need some inspiration;

https://dennisryoung.ca/2020/01/25/f...jq8S7v_5ZMgScc
__________________
You should also be a member;
CCFR
CSSA
Reply With Quote
  #487  
Old 02-03-2020, 10:45 PM
32-40win 32-40win is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Calgary
Posts: 4,895
Default

They're still handing freebees to Wendy and Heidi, I can hardly wait to see how this can be screwed up;

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/poli...rYaD0l1p8J7B_k
__________________
You should also be a member;
CCFR
CSSA
Reply With Quote
  #488  
Old 02-06-2020, 02:33 AM
32-40win 32-40win is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Calgary
Posts: 4,895
Default

Interesting stuff this week; Ducks Unlimited Canada had a post promoting E2341 on FB, they withdrew it and issued a statement that they would not get involved in gun politics. Delta Waterfowl posted E2341 and said they back it, CWTF came out supporting E2341 today.

Air BnB donated 300,000.00 to Doctors against Guns today apparently, announced it via Twitter.

Glen Motz sort of got shut down in parliament today by the Speaker. MP Bob Benzen had asked about the proposed Red Flag laws, Trudope answered that the police had no power to take firearms from various situations, Motz got up and mentioned the exact parts of the Firearms act that gave them those powers already. What the Libs want to do, is give doctors and lawyers the ability, or perhaps even require, to report to the police that someone shud have their guns taken away. Ian Runkle issued a statement on it today also;

So, let's talk about the Liberal Party's proposed "red flag" laws.

So, right now, if you're convicted of a variety of crimes (including just about every violent crime), there is either a mandatory gun ban at the end, or the court will have to consider whether to ban you from guns.

Additionally, the CFO can revoke a firearms licence if they feel that you don't meet the criteria any more, including over public safety/similar concerns.

The police can bring an application to ban you from having guns, if they have information to suggest that this is necessary/desirable.

If it's more of an emergency, they can get a warrant and come seize all of your guns, and then bring an application afterwards to keep them and ban you from having guns.

If it's even more of an emergency than that, they can go ahead without a warrant, so long as they can justify it after the fact.

In short, there's a wealth of options available for how they can take guns away from people who are a danger to themselves or others.

The only thing that's really 'new' here is the proposal to have doctors and lawyers--who are normally bound by confidentiality and/or privilege--able to bring these applications.

This is a terrible idea. These are both professions that rely on a high degree of trust between the professional and their client. A bill that puts the doctor/lawyer in an effective law enforcement role destroys that trust and reduces people's ability to seek help.

We need to break down barriers that prevent people from seeking help, not cover them with razor wire.
__________________
You should also be a member;
CCFR
CSSA
Reply With Quote
  #489  
Old 02-07-2020, 02:41 AM
32-40win 32-40win is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Calgary
Posts: 4,895
Default

Today's FB statement from DU about not publishing support for e-2341, they are three answers given on a post on their FB page, they took a shellacking there today, and on a number of other pages;

Ducks Unlimited Canada óitís not what we stand to gain, but rather what we cannot jeopardize. We have legal advice that: pursuant to Canada Revenue Agency guidelines, DUC can only engage in political activities that further our charitable purpose of wetland conservation. Taking a position would represent the first step of policy engagement outside our mission.
It's true that guns are used in fundraising. We celebrate the outdoors and our hunting heritage, and as such, this has been a natural fit. However, the debate around firearm legislation is a different matter. It involves advocacy and expertise that fall outside of our stated mission of wetland conservation.

Appreciate the thoughts. This is specifically tied to political advocacy on firearms legislation. Our charitable purpose is habitat conservation. Hunters are some of the strongest conservation supporters. But with professional legal advice on what the CRA guidelines mean for us, itís clear how and when itís acceptable for us to engage in political advocacy (namely, on habitat policy).
Our neutral position hasnít hampered the results of this petition. From the start, weíve encouraged supporters to exercise their individual rights as they see fit.

Many hunters recognize the benefits they enjoy from our work to conserve wildlife habitat. There are important reasons for us to stay on mission and keep our political activity specific to our mission.
DUC has always been upfront about receiving federal funding for conservation, regardless of who is leading the government.
The board volunteer you refer to (not DUC's current president) participates in the committee as an individual, not on behalf of DUC.



And a note from DU sent out to JR @ TSE which he posted to CGN today;

I was forwarded this today... just thought I'd post it here for discussions.

JR


Dear DUC Volunteer,

Following our recent communication regarding Ducks Unlimited Canadaís (DUC) position on the firearms e-petition, weíve heard from a number of volunteers who are looking for more details.

Let us begin by saying that DUC proudly supports the countryís hunting community. Waterfowl hunting is an integral part of our heritageóand our future. DUC continues to support hunting as a way to connect with nature and develop an appreciation for wetlands and the need to conserve them.

DUCís position to remain neutral on the firearms e-petition is rooted in the responsibility we have to our missionóthe conservation of wetlands. Itís a position weíve taken for decades. All our policy activities must be directly related to wetland conservation. This focus allows us to deliver the critical habitat that supports hunting traditions and all outdoor lifestyles. In addition, Canada Revenue Agency guidelines stipulate that DUC can only engage in political activities that further our charitable purpose of wetland conservation.

Within Canadaís conservation community, DUCís role is clear. We conserve and restore habitat. Other organizations, including provincial wildlife associations and hunting groups, address issues related to firearms. This partnership serves us well and has led to incredible conservation achievements across the country, including the 6.4 million acres of habitat under DUCís care across the country.

DUC Volunteer, when it comes to the e-petition, we encourage you, and all our supporters, to exercise your individual rights as you see fit.

To help provide some additional background about DUCís position, here are a few answers to questions weíve received:

Q: Does DUC support hunting?
A: Yes. DUC supports hunting, when conducted in a legal and sustainable manner, as a legitimate and acceptable use of a renewable resource. Hunters are among the most devoted conservationists. They spend a lot of time outdoors and appreciate how nature provides for their life and lifestyle. They support conservation through the purchase of their hunting licenses and are often leaders in creating conservation policies and regulations.

Q: Why is DUC neutral on the firearms e-petition?
A: Our position to remain neutral on the current firearms e-petition is solely based on the obligation to keep all of our policy activities focused on our mission of habitat conservation. Pursuant to Canada Revenue Agency guidelines, DUC can only engage in political activities that further our charitable purpose. This is part of our responsibility to all supporters who entrust us with delivering habitat gains on the landscape. Other groups such as provincial wildlife associations, firearms groups and others are much better equipped to address firearm issues.

Q: Why does DUC hold a seat on the Canadian Firearms Advisory Committee but remains neutral on the firearms e-petition?
A: DUC does not hold a seat on this committee. Jim Couch is a DUC volunteer who accepted the invitation to join the committee as an individual, not as a representative of DUC. He does not act or report on behalf of DUC in this capacity. His qualifications for the committee (as outlined in his biography) include being a former executive at Potash Corp., a competitive curler, gun club member, retriever club member and DUC volunteer.

Q: Why do you use firearms in your fundraising activities but do not support the firearms
e-petition?
A: We recognize the value of waterfowl hunters in the establishment and ongoing success of DUC. Firearms are often used as part of DUC fundraising activities as a way to celebrate and recognize the hunting and conservation lifestyle. However, the debate around firearm legislation is a different matter. It involves decisions and expertise that fall outside of our stated mission of wetland conservation.

Q: Why wonít you share the firearms e-petition with DUC supporters?
A: Pursuant to Canada Revenue Agency guidelines, DUC can only engage in political activities that further our charitable purpose of wetland conservation. While sharing the e-petition may seem like a harmless request, doing so would represent the first step of policy engagement outside our mission.

Q: Why should I support DUC when you donít support firearm owners?
A: The critical element to the future and livelihood of the hunting community is habitat. Without habitat there would be no wildlife. Supporting DUC remains one of the most effective ways of ensuring this habitat remains for hunters and all Canadians to enjoy.

Q: Why must DUC maintain its neutral position on the e-petition?
A: This is not a new position for DUC. As a charitable conservation organization, we have for decades remained neutral on all policy issues that fall outside of our habitat conservation mission. This approach reflects our responsibility to deliver wetland habitat and wildlife that benefit hunters and all Canadians.

Our position on the firearms e-petition is posted on our website.

DUC Volunteer, thank you for everything you do as a DUC volunteer.

Tim Binch
National Manager Volunteer Fundraising
Ducks Unlimited Canada
__________________
You should also be a member;
CCFR
CSSA

Last edited by 32-40win; 02-07-2020 at 02:53 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #490  
Old 02-07-2020, 02:48 AM
32-40win 32-40win is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Calgary
Posts: 4,895
Default

Blair got up in a response to Glen Motz, who was asking for an apology over Trudope's remarks from yesterday.
Motz said today, if Blair or Trudope had taken a PAL course, they would know the red flag laws already exist.
Blair got up and admitted he has not done a PAL course, and had used the existing laws, but they were not broad enough in scope, and PALs could not be revoked easily enough.
__________________
You should also be a member;
CCFR
CSSA
Reply With Quote
  #491  
Old 02-09-2020, 01:40 AM
32-40win 32-40win is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Calgary
Posts: 4,895
Default

Just adding to the reading references, Dennis Young posted a bunch of articles to the Cdn Firearms Digest, lot of reading here;

https://dennisryoung.ca/2020/02/08/t...rms-digest-36/
__________________
You should also be a member;
CCFR
CSSA
Reply With Quote
  #492  
Old 02-14-2020, 02:43 AM
32-40win 32-40win is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Calgary
Posts: 4,895
Default

First part of this is Rod Giltaca answering questions from the reporter, second part is Dr. Alan Drummond about what the Doctors group want Blair to do with the existing red flag laws.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iJOs...91icT47oONwWAM
__________________
You should also be a member;
CCFR
CSSA
Reply With Quote
  #493  
Old 02-15-2020, 01:21 PM
32-40win 32-40win is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Calgary
Posts: 4,895
Default

And to add a piece of history to this, the E-2341 petition is over and done.
174,810 plus what is said to be 40,000 plus unconfirmed signatures. It has made history as the largest gov't sponsored one of the works so far.

https://petitions.ourcommons.ca/en/P...etition=e-2341
__________________
You should also be a member;
CCFR
CSSA
Reply With Quote
  #494  
Old 02-19-2020, 02:58 PM
32-40win 32-40win is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Calgary
Posts: 4,895
Default

Sad situation all around, but, it does tell a story on the admin protocols between the street cop and the CFO and Miramichi, and the training regimen, or lack thereof. Certainly points out the law is already in place to do what is needed, that the LIbs say we need new laws for;

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-...jRA_AqGFh2GQ2I
__________________
You should also be a member;
CCFR
CSSA
Reply With Quote
  #495  
Old 02-23-2020, 06:33 PM
32-40win 32-40win is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Calgary
Posts: 4,895
Default

Well, appears Jackboot Jacinda didn't accomplish what she set out to do, who would have thunk it wouldn't work??

https://www.newstalkzb.co.nz/news/po...ANL7iA0ZxOAIgc
__________________
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 -7. The time now is 11:35 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.5
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.