in E News

Team CSSA E-NEWS – December 24, 2014

Team CSSA E-NEWS – December 24, 2014
** Please share this with your friends ** Unsubscribe


2014 has been a very good year for the CSSA. Member numbers expanded throughout the year, from every region of Canada, and we are now at our highest levels ever!

We have welcomed Calibre magazine to our family. Daniel Fritter and his excellent publication will form a new pillar in CSSA communication.

Course deliveries are at an all-time high too. This year alone, CSSA trained over 80 members of the media and political establishments to receive their PALs. Nothing begets tolerance like understanding, and we learn understanding through education. Special thanks to our instructors for their tireless efforts to make it so, and a special thanks to Dave and Murray for their competent and steady hand at the wheel of our instructor’s program.

On another note, we wish to thank CSSA’s Dave Arrowsmith for another incredible accomplishment. In 2014, Dave donated $10,001 to the CSSA, raised another $10,000 is course fees and personally signed up over 80 new members. He also donated most of his weekends to the CSSA, teaching courses all over the map. Thank you, Dave! You are one heck of a member of Team CSSA, and all of us are grateful to you.

Sadly, we lost a precious member of our staff in September, Communications Director Brant Scott. We still feel the loss of his witty humour, keen intellect and vast experience. His professional communications legacy will continue to guide us for years to come.

Thank you to the members of our Board for their competent guidance. And a special thank you to Steve Torino, Diane Town, Terry Green and Mike Duynhoven for the unending hours of time they donated to the association.

Many of our Regional Directors have been active and often time their work below the public radar, but nonetheless, their efforts are critical to the operations of the association. Thank you folks.

2015 will be another banner year for the CSSA. Several projects will come to fruition and we will continue our progress, one foot in front of the other, shoulder to the wheel.

From all of the staff at CSSA: Heather, Brianna, Christopher, Elaine and of course, myself, we wish you a joyous holiday season!

Tony Bernardo



Ottawa police Sgt. Mike Saunders, attempting to explain the record-breaking year for shootings in the nation’s capital, said: “There’s just more guns in the city,” as if that magically answered all questions about a 50 percent rise in shootings from just one year ago.

It answered none of them.

The Ottawa Sun article that quoted Sgt. Saunders is remarkable not for what it says – but for what it avoids saying about the rash of shootings.

For example, there is no mention of what types of firearms were used in all these shootings.

Given the massive media coverage surrounding the anniversary of the horrific Polytechnique shooting each year, it is hard to believe a news editor wouldn’t take a free shot at the government if the issue was long guns.

The more pressing question is why is this the first time we’re hearing about all these shootings?

The top 50 Google search results for “shootings in Ottawa 2014” yield dozens of accounts of the Parliament Hill shooting that claimed the life of Cpl. Nathan Cirillo – but not a single word about any of these other shootings.

There is no mention of them in the press release section of the Ottawa Police website either. A search for the word “shooting” returned only 5 press releases, none of which listed a shooting event other than at Parliament Hill.

There are no news reports and no police press releases on 44 shootings in our nation’s capital in 2014.

Why not?

Could it be that both the police and the press deemed these shootings “not important enough” to write about? While it is possible police may not want to publicize shootings, it is the duty of news reporters and news editors to report the news. So why aren’t news reporters and news editors covering these other shootings in our nation’s capital?

Only they can answer that, but it appears they are unwilling to do so.

The Ottawa Sun article states:
“It’s kind of a mixed bag of different reasons,” said Ottawa police Sgt. Mike Saunders, of the shootings seen this year. “There’s just more guns in the city.”
It wasn’t a gang war that accounted for a spike in shootings across the city this year, said cops. In fact, police said there wasn’t really any common thread that can be attributed to the rise in gunplay.
Curiously, left out of this entire article is any mention of the type of firearms used in these shootings.

Given that almost every police chief in the country thinks that scrapping the long gun registry was a bad idea, if long guns had been used in these shootings we surely would have heard all about it – especially in early December. Could it be that we didn’t hear a peep about it because bad guys carry handguns, not long arms?

So the police aren’t talking about handguns and reporters aren’t pressing the issue. That is a failure of our press, pure and simple.

Why are no reporters digging into why handgun crime in our nation’s capital rose 50 percent over last year? Isn’t that news?

Lastly we must question the comment made by Ottawa police Sgt. Mike Saunders: “There’s just more guns in the city.”


If that is true, confirming it is very easy. Simply query the Canadian Firearms Program and ask how many restricted firearms (handguns) are registered in the Ottawa area. Then ask how many there were a year ago. Simple math tells that story. Law-abiding Ottawa area gun owners probably didn’t buy a shocking number of handguns last year though.

It seems the same cannot be said for Ottawa area criminals. If there are “more guns in the city” – as Sgt. Saunders claims – they are in the hands of criminals, not law-abiding gun owners.

This atrocious lack of reporting does raise many more questions, though, doesn’t it? Questions like:

Where did all these handguns come from?

Why are gangs and other criminals able to obtain illegal handguns so easily?

Why can’t we stop the flow of illegal handguns?

Why do we insist on blaming Canada’s most law-abiding citizens, licensed firearm owners, for the crimes committed by criminals?

Think we’ll get answers to these significant questions? Guess again.


“Allan Rock said he came to Ottawa with the belief that only the police and military should have firearms. I believe that firearms ownership is a right, but a right that comes with responsibilities.” – The Honourable Steven Blaney, Minister of Public Safety





In the interest of meeting the changing administrative demands of a growing membership, the current Board of Directors feels that a mechanism must be in place to allow the number of members of the Board to be altered as circumstances dictate.

Currently, the Constitution reads thus:

“C6-2 The Board of Directors shall consist of thirteen (13) members of the CSSA, in good standing, and shall be elected at each Annual General Meeting by the members present in person or by mailed ballot.”

The Board of Directors recommends that this be changed to read thus:

“C6-2 The Board of Directors shall consist of such number of members of the CSSA as are deemed necessary by the President, but no less than twelve (12), all of whom shall be CSSA members in good standing, and shall be elected in accordance with our Constitution and Bylaws at each Annual General Meeting by the members present in person or by mailed ballot. In the event of a change in the size of the Board, the rationale for this shall be provided to the membership for ratification at the next AGM.”
This proposed change will be presented to the membership for consideration at the CSSA’s 2015 AGM.



I read the story in The Weekend Telegram about the 1989 Montreal shootings (“Woman shot in 1989 Montreal Massacre remembers confronting killer,” Dec. 6). I find it interesting that the anti-gun lobby feels the need to lie and fear monger in order to pull people to their cause.

Jim Edward (brother of one of the 1989 victims) says that the rifle used by Justin Bourque to kill three RCMP officers in New Brunswick would not be used by hunters.

But a semi-auto .308 is a very popular rifle with many hunters in Canada. In fact, I know a number of hunters who use that exact same model, a Norinco M305.

Bill C42 will do nothing to loosen the absurd gun laws in Canada. It will merely lessen the paperwork a bit.

More untruth. Heidi Rathjen (a survivor of the 1989 Polytechnique shootings) makes it sound as if some new super weapons have become available since 1989 and have somehow not been subject to regulation.

While some new models of firearms have been made available in recent years, the calibres of ammunition that these rifles shoot have been readily available for years in other rifles, in some cases for 60 or 70 years.

All firearms today are subject to regulation in Canada with fully automatic firearms being banned since 1978 and with very limited magazine capacities for rifles and handguns since the 1990s.

Also, with regard to the gun registry, there was not one life saved because of it, but billions of dollars were wasted. Think of how many lives would have been saved if that wasted money had been put into health care instead.

Lies and fear mongering are the essential tools of the anti-gun lobby because they know in their hearts that their arguments have no substance. If the intent to kill or harm is in a person, they will find a way to reach their objective, gun or no gun.

The anti-gun lobby uses this tragedy and others each year to further their cause. They are, in reality, dancing on the graves of murdered individuals just to further their cause.

They should have more respect. I really hope you publish this, as both sides need to be represented, not just the anti-gun side. (By Scott Manning, Torbay | Letters | The Telegram (St. John’s) | December 18, 2014)



“Everyone is entitled to his own opinion but not his own facts.” — Daniel Patrick Moynihan

In March 2012, the Conservative government scrapped the controversial long-gun registry, arguing that registering normal rifles and shotguns was wasteful and ineffective. The Prime Minister, Stephen Harper, vowed to change gun laws to focus on criminals rather than normal citizens like farmers and hunters. This decision reversed decades of increasing restrictions on civilian firearms. Since Confederation, governments have only rarely decided to ratchet back regulations on firearms. Even without the long-gun registry, firearms remain strictly regulated in Canada: gun owners are still required to be licensed, handgun registration continues, large numbers of firearms remain prohibited, and all firearms including long guns must be stored under lock and key when not in use.

Allan Gregg, the pollster, told a Carleton University audience during the first week of classes this year that Conservative policies, including prison reform, fly “in the face of a mountain of evidence” and represent an “assault against reason.” Despite such claims, it is important to closely inspect the arguments made in support of the gun registry. For example, do ordinary citizens who own firearms seriously threaten public safety? To what extent is registration an effective approach to controlling firearms misuse? Is the long-gun registry useful to police?

Terminating the registry was intensely acrimonious. Only two opposition NDP members voted to abolish it, which resulted in immediate punishment by their caucus leader.(1) Ending the registry was just one of a number of policy changes that should be considered in historical context and evaluated against the empirical evidence.

The current Canadian legislation is the 1995 Firearms Act (Bill C-68), which mandates universal firearm registration and owner licensing. Prior to its enactment, provincial hunting regulations covered long guns (rifles and shotguns) while federal legislation had controlled handguns since the 1890s. Since 1934, the RCMP has been responsible for registering handguns. In 1977 prospective gun purchasers required a criminal record check. A multiple-victim shooting in 1989 by Gamil Gharbi, known as the “Montreal massacre” of fourteen women, inspired two thoroughgoing revisions of firearms laws — first in 1991 by the Mulroney Conservatives and again in 1995 by the Chrétien Liberals.

The gun laws of the 1990s are not unique but belong to a larger pattern. Gun laws tend to be passed during periods of fear or instability, and are only occasionally reversed afterwards. Despite the demonstrated inability of such laws to reduce violent crime, politicians have periodically called for still more gun laws and the bureaucracy surrounding them continues to grow. In 1878, Canada introduced gun laws in response to violent Orange Day rioting in Montreal, blamed on Irish-Canadians. In 1885, the North-West Rebellion prompted the federal government to place limits on the firearms owned by Aboriginals, Métis and “disloyal” white settlers in the Territories. Additional restrictions on firearms were included in section 105 of Canada’s first criminal code, enacted in 1892.

The fear of immigrants prompted the federal government’s first serious handgun legislation in 1913, requiring civilians to obtain a police-issued permit to acquire or carry handguns or other “offensive weapons.” It was difficult for non-British immigrants to get such permits because people had to present themselves before the local authorities.

During the 1930s the government feared labour unrest as well as American rum-runners. In 1934 it passed firearm legislation that mandated handgun registration, with separate permits for British subjects and aliens. Before 1947, few Orientals or blacks enjoyed the full rights of British subjects even if born in Canada. The Second World War introduced additional gun control laws, including general registration of long guns. In 1941, concerned about possible Japanese sabotage, the government prohibited all Orientals (including Chinese) from owning firearms and confiscated them. This lack of discrimination is difficult to understand because China was a wartime ally of the British Commonwealth.

Terrorism in Quebec dominated Canadian concerns during the late 1960s and the early 1970s. In 1969, another firearm law created the categories of “restricted weapons” and “prohibited weapons” for the first time. Prohibited weapons were illegal to purchase or sell, and the RCMP was given the authority to attach any “reasonable conditions” to the possession or use of either prohibited or restricted firearms. Restrictions were increased for restricted weapons (mostly handguns), including requiring a specific purpose for use and that that separate permits be obtained each time handguns were taken to gunsmiths, gun shows or target ranges. Permits for “protection” were limited to a handful of people, such as retired police and prospectors. Citizens were allowed to purchase a restricted weapon only if the police judged them to be suitable owners.

Prohibited weapons included fully automatic firearms, switchblades, and rifles and shotguns shorter than twenty-six inches (66 cm). People who happened to own a prohibited weapon prior to the introduction of the legislation were allowed to keep it and sell it amongst themselves but not to take it to a shooting range. The government also gave itself the authority, by Order-in-Council (a cabinet decision that is not subject to parliamentary review), to restrict or prohibit any firearm “not commonly used in Canada for hunting or sporting purposes.”

In 1977 firearms legislation was again amended to require a permit, the Firearms Acquisition Certificate (FAC), to obtain ordinary rifles and shotguns. A new crime was introduced regarding “unsafe storage of firearms,” although no definition was provided. Fully automatic firearms were prohibited (although present owners were “grandfathered,” allowed to retain guns they already possessed). The protection of property was eliminated as a suitable reason for acquiring a restricted firearm, and owners could no longer register handguns at their business address. The police began to refuse an FAC to anyone who indicated a desire to acquire a firearm for self-protection. This was shocking given that in a typical year tens of thousands of Canadians use firearms to protect themselves or their families from violence.(2)

In 1989, Gamil Gharbi took a Ruger Mini-14 rifle to the École Polytechnique in Montreal and murdered 14 female engineering students. Gharbi (who had earlier changed his name to Marc Lépine, taking his mother’s surname) was the son of a wife-beating Algerian immigrant who, after his father abandoned his mother, blamed women for his problems — “the feminists,” as he wrote in his suicide note, “who have always ruined my life.” Police incompetence allowed Gharbi the time to kill at leisure. Before opening fire, Gharbi ordered males to leave the room, and, after they complied, shot the women. Despite his stopping to change magazines during the carnage, nobody attempted to intervene. The police arrived after Gharbi had committed suicide. Some called for stricter gun controls to protect women.(3)

Immediately after the shootings, the Mulroney government introduced tighter controls on gun owners with Bill C-17, adding to the list of prohibited weapons a large number of semiautomatic military-style rifles and shotguns, though not the Mini-14. (A semiautomatic firearm requires a separate press of the trigger for each shot.) No empirical studies had been conducted to determine which, if any, types of firearms posed a threat to public security. Military-style firearms were restricted primarily because of their appearance. Also included were new Criminal Code offences, new regulations for firearm dealers, and detailed regulations for safe storage, handling, and transportation. Also prohibited were high-capacity cartridge magazines for automatic and semiautomatic firearms.

FAC applicants were required to provide a photograph and two references and submit to more thorough screening by police. Police say that vetting typically involves telephone checks with neighbours and spouses, even ex-spouses. Bill C-17’s requirement for FAC applicants to show knowledge of the safe handling of firearms came into effect in 1994. To demonstrate such knowledge, applicants must pass a test or a firearm safety course approved by a provincial attorney general, or a firearm officer had to certify that the applicant was competent in handling firearms safely.

In 1993 the Liberals handily won a majority in Parliament, soon introducing radical changes to Canada’s already strict gun laws and in 1995 passed Bill C-68. In 1993, the Auditor General of Canada found that no evaluation of the effectiveness of the 1991 firearm legislation had ever been undertaken. Nevertheless over half of all registered handguns in Canada (smaller handguns that could more easily be carried concealed) were immediately prohibited and plans were initiated to confiscate them. No evidence was provided that these handguns had been misused.

The main provisions began to be phased in when owner licensing and long-gun registration began in 1998. Licensing became mandatory in 2001 and all long guns were required to be registered by 2003. Any person allowing a licence to expire was subject to arrest and having their firearms confiscated.

But the keystone of the 1995 Firearms Act was licensing: henceforth, owning a firearm, even an ordinary rifle or shotgun, was a criminal offence without holding a valid licence. For the first time since the Second World War, long guns had to be registered. To coincide with the “National Day of Remembrance and Action on Violence against Women” (a memorial to Lepine-Gharbi’s victims), the Firearms Act became law on December 5, 1995. But because of the complexity of the regulations it took until 1998 for the newly-established Canadian Firearms Centre to begin issuing licences and requiring buyers to register long guns. In 2001, all gun owners were required to have a licence and, by 2003, to register all of their rifles and shotguns.

Not everyone complied. My best estimate is that 65% of firearms owners registered at least one rifle or shotgun, and no more than half of all long guns ended up in the registry.(4) (By Gary Mauser | The Dorchester Review | December 20, 2012)

Read the rest:



Under the NY “Safe Act” New York State can confiscate guns without any notice or appeal process, according to this article.


They then file a report, which in Jefferson County is sent to county Community Services.

“We review it, confirm that the license is indeed appropriate and that the case meets the criteria of the SAFE Act,” said Director of Jefferson County Community Services Roger Ambrose.

Once they’ve verified the report, it’s sent to Albany.

From there, State Police find out if the person identified has a gun permit.

If he or she does, police present their findings to the local county court judge.

The judge decides whether or not to suspend or revoke the permit and has local law enforcement confiscate the guns.”

What important thing that is left out of this bureaucratic process? The victim of it all. Pure bureaucratic fiat. Where is the chance for the citizen to contest facts or file an appeal? Suddenly, without warning, police show up at his residence demanding that he turn over his guns and his Constitutional rights.

The State decided that he or she should no longer posses guns. They knew who to target because of gun registration, but the victim of the process never had a chance to contest what might be a frivolous statement, one taken out of context, or one maliciously filed for personal or political reasons.

The police just show up, and demand that you turn over your guns and constitutional rights. No hearing, no notice, no due process.

New York is living up to its title of “The Empire State”. (By Dean Weingarten | | December 11, 2014)

Read the article:



Fed up with the passage of an 18½-page incoherent, rambling, unconstitutional gun control initiative that was bankrolled by billionaires, gun owners across Washington state held the largest felony civil disobedience rally in the nation’s history, brazenly titled “I Will Not Comply.” No one was hurt and no stores were looted. Between 1,000 and 3,000 lawful gun owners showed up openly armed at the state capitol in Olympia, Wash., on Saturday to defy the newly passed gun control law, I-594.

Organizer Gavin Seim made the extraordinary nature of the rally very clear, “This isn’t just a protest. We are here to openly violate the law.” Attendees publicly transferred their guns to each other in violation of I-591’s background check provisions, and some even bought and sold guns just a few feet away from law enforcement. A fire pit blazed throughout the rally, and at the conclusion, gun owners lined up to burn their concealed weapons permits. A petition was circulated affirming gun owners’ refusal to follow I-594, which ended with, “We pledge our blood. We will not comply.”

As the RSVPs in advance of the rally grew to over 6,000, the police – most who probably detest I-594 – decided not to enforce the law. The Washington State Patrol announced there would be no arrests for exchanging guns – not even for selling guns. Seim refused to obtain a permit to hold the rally, citing the right of people to peaceably assemble.

The rally could not be dismissed as fringe elements. Several lawmakers and lawmen spoke, including former Graham County Sheriff Richard Mack of Arizona, Washington State Rep. Elizabeth Scott (R-Monroe) and Rep. Graham Hunt (R-Orting), who sported an AR-15 during his speech. Mack advised gun owners engaging in civil disobedience to “put your sheriff next to you to keep it peaceful.” Scott defiantly explained in her speech, “I will not comply with I-594 because it is unconstitutional, unenforceable and unjust. It is impossible to enforce this law unless there is a police officer on every back porch and in every living room. So it will be enforced selectively.” She noted that Founding Father Alexander Hamilton said any law that violates the Constitution is not valid, and there is a moral obligation to disobey unjust laws.

Seim, a political activist and congressional candidate, wrote on his website, “Today I become an OUTLAW! Arrest me! I will NOT comply.” He led the rally peacefully, and at one point asked everyone attending to kneel with him in prayer. As he led the crowd in the Pledge of Allegiance, he stressed, “I am not pledging obedience to the government, it is to the Republic. We don’t ask for our rights, and we don’t negotiate for our rights. We will take America back.”

Another speaker explained what was happening this way, “We no longer consent nor comply.” Mike Vanderboegh, whose Three Percenter movement is modeled after the three percent of the colonists who fought in the American War of Independence, said that those at the rally are the resistance behind enemy lines. The resistance is also taking place in a handful of other states with strict gun control laws, where patriots are now smuggling in weapons illegally. Vanderboegh told attendees, “This is the tyranny the Founding Fathers warned us about. Tyranny can be voted into existence by a majority. We will not fire the first shot, but if need be, we will fire the last.”

Gun control zealots have finally gone too far. Gun owners are now discovering that the police in New York are using gun control laws to confiscate guns from family members within days after their owners pass away. Hundreds of thousands of gun owners in Connecticut and New York who failed to register their AR-15s earlier this year are now felons. Requiring the registration of guns or requiring background checks, as I-594 does, allows the government to compile a list of gun owners, which can be used later for confiscation.

If guns cause crime, then why wasn’t there a single mishap, considering there were 1,000 or so guns present and hundreds of violations of felony law taking place? Tellingly, Washington State Trooper Guy Gill predicted beforehand, “”Most of these folks are responsible gun owners. We probably will not have an issue.” The truth is, the state capitol was probably the safest place in the state last Saturday.

Patriots have had enough. The Second Amendment is gradually being eroded, state by state, and gun owners are not going to lie down and give up their arms.

A handful of billionaires and elitists in blue cities like Seattle do not respect the Constitution nor represent the vast majority of Americans. Another rally in Olympia is planned for January 15, and another one in Spokane on December 20. The Second Amendment Foundation, headquartered in Bellevue, intends to sue the state over I-594, and will be lobbying the legislature to get the law changed or repealed. Washington state is now ground zero for patriotic gun owners resisting tyranny, which is at a tipping point since law enforcement does not intend to enforce I-594. What happens next? (By Rachel Alexander | | December 15, 2014)

Read the article:–in-front-of-police-n1931759



This week, Canada in the Rough’s Paul Beasley heads into the mountains of British Columbia with friends Chad Westbrook and Steve James. They have moose and caribou tags to fill and 10 days to do it in. They encounter some of the most breath-taking scenery and mountain wildlife that British Columbia has to offer.

See the teaser at:



Arizona – The Beloit Police Chief asked members of his community to volunteer to have their homes searched for guns. Yes, he is serious. But it is hard to take him seriously when he says that guns should be treated like the Ebola virus.


Police Chief Norm Jacobs said he doesn’t expect the phone to be ringing off the hook with requests for police to search their homes. He nevertheless hopes the program will encourage people to think about gun violence as an infectious disease like Ebola, and a home inspection like a vaccine to help build up the city’s immune system.

Of course, the “health workers” will be carrying their own, special viruses with them, and they will not give them up. Rather blows the whole “virus” analogy out of the water, doesn’t it? I have not even mentioned that the places with really high concentrations of the “virus”, like rural, small town, and suburban Wisconsin, also have some of the lowest levels of the “disease”.

The Chief later admits that he might have another motive in mind:

Jacobs said he hopes some searches will result in the discovery of guns they didn’t know were in their own homes. He said that there’s also a chance they’ll find guns linked to crimes.

“That’s really what we’re looking for,” he said. “Maybe we’ll find a toy gun that’s been altered by a youngster in the house — and we know the tragedies that can occur there on occasion.”

So residents are to volunteer to have their homes searched in the hope that weapons can be found that are linked to crimes… but they are not given any immunity to prosecution. Oh… and the other big thing that the Chief hopes to find are toys that do not have the right colored tips.

Yes, that sounds like a real good use of police resources.

Sometimes the political correctness gets so deep, it is hard not to laugh at it.

If Police Jacobs really wants to be helpful, how about giving concealed carry courses for the Wisconsin concealed carry permit, and encouraging residents to protect themselves against criminals, like Sheriff Clarke of Milwaukee County does, or Police Chief Craig of Detroit. (By Dean Weingarten | | December 8, 2014)

See the article:



DALLAS – A bill filed today in the Texas legislature proposes constitutional protections for hunting and fishing. Rep. Trent Ashby of Lufkin, Texas, authored the measure, HJR 61, with support and encouragement from DSC. “We applaud Rep. Ashby for introducing this important bill,” said Ben Carter, DSC executive director. “Our club was proud to help with the development of the language, and we’re anxious to do everything we can to help it move forward. This is a measure to help ensure the future of Texas’ rich sporting traditions, outdoor heritage and effective fish and wildlife conservation.” Ashby said, “I was pleased to work with DSC and other stakeholders on this important piece of legislation. Hunting and fishing is a fundamental right which Texans hold dear, and ensuring our future generations of Texans access to this tradition is essential.” Several other sporting organizations also were involved from the start, and more are expected to pledge support in coming days, said Carter. The text of HJR 61, as introduced, reads as follows: A JOINT RESOLUTION Proposing a constitutional amendment relating to the right to hunt, fish, and harvest wildlife.

BE IT RESOLVED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF TEXAS: SECTION 1. Article I, Texas Constitution, is amended by adding Section 34 to read as follows:

Sec. 34. (a) The people have the right to hunt, fish, and harvest wildlife, including by the use of traditional methods, subject to laws or regulations to conserve and manage wildlife and preserve the future of hunting and fishing. (b) Hunting and fishing are preferred methods of managing and controlling wildlife. (c) This section does not affect any provision of law relating to trespass, property rights, or eminent domain.
SECTION 2. This proposed constitutional amendment shall be submitted to the voters at an election to be held November 3, 2015. The ballot shall be printed to permit voting for or against the proposition: “The constitutional amendment recognizing the right of the people to hunt, fish, and harvest wildlife subject to laws that promote wildlife conservation.” Carter said, “This amendment has been a priority for our organization for quite some time and our DSC-Austin representatives Walt Smith and Milam Mabry have continued to work with Rep. Ashby’s office on this legislation since his initial introduction of a similar measure last session. As this legislation proves, Rep. Ashby is a champion of Texas hunters and anglers and we look forward to helping him get this measure in front of Texas voters.”

About DSCDesert bighorns on an unbroken landscape, stalking Cape buffalo in heavy brush, students discovering conservation. DSC works to guarantee a future for all these and much more. An independent nonprofit organization since 1982, DSC has become an international leader in conserving wildlife and wilderness lands, educating youth and the general public, and promoting and protecting the rights and interests of hunters worldwide. Get involved at (For more information, contact Steve Wagner| Blue Heron Communications | 800-654-3766 or [email protected] | December 17, 2014)



• July 5-7, 2015 – Small Bore (22 rifle)
• July 8-11, 2015 – High Power (center fire rifle)

Hosted by the Prince George Rod and Gun Club.
For more information, please contact Don Reeves at 1-250-562-0151.



On Thursday December 11th, Peruvian Congress in a landslide vote approved the new gun bill which became a landmark for grassroots organizations in the region, as it is the first time a firearms civil rights association is able to revert completely a gun control situation in a country.

J.Thomas Saldias, Regional Representative for SCI and Executive Director of CALL (Latin American Coalition for Legal Firearms) led the efforts in Peru. “With the initial assistance of SCI and the World Forum on Shooting Activities (WFSA) we arrived in Lima in May 2013 organizing a coalition of forces and began a legal and civil protest strategy that finally paid off. We have little funding and we did our best. When we arrived in Lima the government has issued a decree forbidding all handguns in 9mmPB – which is the same caliber used by National Police and Army Forces -. Civilians were required to give up their guns without compensation. In that scenario, we gather all grassroots organizations and established a unified front of action.

Taking the government pre-published gun bill we worked out our own gun bill that was introduced in Congress by Congressman Juan Carlos Eguren in March 2014. By August, the Executive Government sent its own gun bill to Congress; which had priority over other proposals.

After weeks of debate within the Defense Committee in which J.Thomas Saldias had direct access to participate, the Committee approved a favorable opinion which was finally debated and approved by the Peruvian Congress on Dec 11th.

This new law is very favorable to the legal user and will change the control model the Authority had in place up to today. In short, a few benefits of the new gun bill:

• Switching from the current system in which each firearm has a license, the system will issue a single property card (with no expiration) per firearm and one single license per user.

• People will be allow to have up to 3 handguns for self-defense with no limitation on caliber (prior, .380 was the maximum caliber allowed).

• There is no limit on caliber or number of firearms a sport hunter, sport shooter or collector may possess.

• Suppressors will be allowed for sport hunting.

• There is a new and modern legislation on collections which will allow maintaining a fully operational firearm and authorizing educational or exhibition demonstrations.

• Restriction on the use of ammunition considered as military as armor piercing, iron nuclei, tracers, and explosives or incendiary. Any other ammunition as hydra shock is finally allowed.

• Firearms in the hands of army forces personnel or National Police – for private use – needs to be registered with the national authority.

“This is the first time a grassroots organization is able to revert the disarming efforts of a government in the region; however, this is a strike of luck. We have to fight well-funded and staffed anti-gun organization that work closely with our governments. The industry needs to realize that this is also their fight because we are fighting to keep our property and our guns legal; and will benefit the industry to support and assist groups as ours” said Saldias.

The gun bill is awaiting signature by President Ollanta Humala.



Arizona – In April, a clerk at a Shell station in Houston was shot.


HOUSTON – Police say armed robbers held up a gas station in northwest Houston overnight. They got away, but not before shooting the clerk. Now we learn that the clerk was paralyzed.


According to his co-workers, the shooting left that clerk paralyzed. No one was arrested.

Back at the Shell station, Thursday night, 4 December, 2014. This time things proceeded in a different fashion.


Police said the clerk pointed his gun at the robbers and ordered them to leave. One of the crooks opened fire and the store clerk shot back, hitting one of the suspects in the leg, officers said.


The clerk was not hurt in the gunfight and the robbers did not get away with anything, according to police.

What a difference a gun can make. It turns a cat and mouse game into a cat and watchdog game, even if the watchdog is ordinarily a friendly sheepdog.

Statistically, guns probably decrease crime a small amount, and they do not appear to increase crime at all; but if you are one of the statistics, they can make an enormous difference in your life. (By Dean Weingarten | | December 11, 2014)

Read the article: – axzz3M6fwCjvM



Year: Average Wait Time (seconds)
2010 = 43
2011 = 49
2012 = 77
2013 = 176
2014 = 273 (4.5 minutes)
Up to September 30, 2014

For more facts:



Washington DC – In the wake of the December 15 2014 hostage situation in which an armed man held unarmed Australians at gunpoint for hours, former Sydney Deputy Mayor Nick Adams is calling for a gun ban to be lifted so Australians can defend themselves.

Adams said he believes if there was ever a time Australians wanted to have a gun, it was December 15 2014.

He told Fox News that he thinks gun laws will soon be revisited–that “Australians are now beginning to realize what it is for the bad guys to have guns and for the good people not to.” He said a lot of Australians woke up when the crisis was over and thought about how different things “could have been if someone did have a gun on them to stop this terrible, awful ordeal.”

“Why should we give advantage to the bad guys, whether they’re criminals … [or] they’re terrorists?” he asked.

Adams said the hostage situation helped Australians realize that gun control is “enabling the bad people to carry out their agenda a lot more easily, a lot more freely than they may otherwise have.” (By AWR Hawkins | | December 17, 2014)

See the article: –


The CSSA is the voice of the sport shooter and firearms enthusiast in Canada. Our national membership supports and promotes Canada’s firearms heritage, traditional target shooting competition, modern action shooting sports, hunting, and archery. We support and sponsor competitions and youth programs that promote these Canadian heritage activities.

To join or donate to the CSSA, visit:
Subscribe /Unsubscribe to the CSSA-CILA E-NEWS on our website.

To subscribe send an email to: [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to: [email protected]
116 Galaxy Boulevard, Etobicoke ON M9W 4Y6
Phone: 416-679-9959 | Fax: 416-679-9910
Toll Free: 1-888-873-4339
E-Mail: [email protected]

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,