in Gun Page

TEAM CSSA E-NEWS | June 29, 2018

Three Reasons to Fear an Early Election Call –

Parliament’s summer recess opens the door for the political rumour mill to run wild. This year those rumours include the prorogation of Parliament (same as last year) as well as the possibility of an early election. That part is new.

An early election is bad news for gun owners.

Justin Trudeau is riding high on his recent win. The Cannabis Act passed the Senate. This took priority over Bill C-71, presumably because he felt he could win more votes by legalizing pot than by angering gun owners. He kept his second-biggest political promise (after failing to keep his first on election reform).

First, an early election means Bill C-71 dies on the order paper. This may not be the good news gun owners may consider it to be. More on that in a moment.

Second, prior to introducing Bill C-71, Public Safety Minister Ralph Goodale held the first meeting of his freshly-minted Firearms Advisory Committee. The purpose of this meeting was not to seek advice, but to deliver news of what Bill C-71 contained.

Third, in May, the Minister of Public Safety held the second meeting of the Firearms Advisory Committee, this time to explain the rest of the plan to move the government’s anti-gun agenda forward.

“Canada’s Firearms Legislative Framework” is a Department of Justice PowerPoint presentation released under the Access to Information Act. That presentation, under the heading of Current Challenges, states:

“There are many loopholes and inconsistencies with the current firearms classification regime.”

“90% of all prescribed prohibited and restricted firearms are not explicitly listed in the regulations – captured as ‘variants’.

“Many firearms that would otherwise be prohibited are non-restricted because they are not listed and are not variant.”

This information was presented to the Firearms Advisory Committee in May. It’s a clear roadmap for the next round of gun bans.

While the Firearms Advisory Committee members, comprised primarily of “gun control” advocates who want to see guns banned completely, hate the AR-15, it’s safe to say they despise all semi-automatic firearms, regardless of make or model.

So why is the death of Bill C-71 a bad thing if an election is called this summer?

The replacement for Bill C-71, should the unthinkable re-election of Justin Trudeau’s Liberal Party happen, will almost certainly contain measures to ban everything on the RCMP’s wish list. The new legislation would make Bill C-71 look like a delicious ice cream cone topped with chocolate sprinkles.

With a second majority government, the Liberals would feel emboldened to do what Allan Rock could not – ban all semi-automatic firearms in Canada.

“Many firearms that would otherwise be prohibited are non-restricted because they are not listed and are not variant.”

Here is what we think you can expect from a revived Liberal gun control bill if the Trudeau government wins a second term. Everything contained in Bill C-71, plus:

All semi-automatic firearms will be prohibited, including
All “black rifles”
Authorizations to Transport (ATT) will be curtailed even further. The complaint from anti-gun groups is that Bill C-71 leaves 98% of all Authorizations to Transport intact.

Liberal MPs were campaigning hard before the summer recess. That is not by accident.

We urge every firearm enthusiast in Canada to contact your local opposition riding association and ask how you can help.

Justin Trudeau wants to win a second term. He also knows it will not be easy. If he waits until October 2019, the odds of victory drop like a stone. His best bet for re-election comes from calling the election now –– before Parliament resumes in September.

We cannot afford another four years with Justin Trudeau in charge.

Prepare. Get involved. Ask your local candidate how you can best assist him or her. The future of firearm ownership is at stake, as is the future of Canada.


398 page ATIP document courtesy of CGN user Gotrek


And you can take this beautiful Beretta A400 Xtreme Plus shotgun with you!

Designed to withstand the toughest waterfowl environments.

Engineered to be the softest-shooting, most reliable 3.5″ waterfowl shotgun out there. The A400 Xtreme Plus features Beretta’s exclusive Steelium Plus barrels, a first for hunting shotguns providing the best patterning possible from all hunting loads, along with further felt recoil mitigation.

You could be the proud new owner of this AMAZING SHOTGUN.

All you have to do to put this beautiful shotgun in your gun safe is to make a $10 donation to the CSSA, and we will give you a free chance to win this great gun. Better yet, we will give you THREE chances with a $20 donation, TEN for $50 and a $100 donation can get you TWENTY CHANCES.

This BERETTA A400 Xtreme will find a new home August 2, 2018.

Help us continue to defend your sport, your guns and your rights. We need all hands on deck in these trying times. Your donation helps us preserve your firearms rights. As always, your generosity is most appreciated!

Please send your donation to: Xtreme c/o CSSA (see address at the bottom of this email) or call 1-888-873-4339.

Donate online at

Conservative amendment aims to ensure new Liberal gun bill is not a registry
By Tim Naumetz | | June 26, 2018

The only Conservative amendment Liberal MPs supported as the government’s firearms bill went through Commons committee stages this month was one that underscores the new law is not a gun registry.

The amendment was included in bill C-71 as the Commons voted it into its final debate stage shortly before the House adjourned for the summer.

On the face of it, the clause appears to contradict the biggest complaint the Conservatives have had about the legislation since the government tabled it last March – that the bill resurrects a long gun registry, something the Trudeau Liberals have promised not to bring back.

“For greater certainty, nothing in this Act shall be construed so as to permit or require the registration of non-restricted firearms,” says the Conservative clause, adopted by all MPs on the Commons Public Safety and National Security Committee on June 5.

After the Liberals, Conservatives and NDP MP Mathieu Dube voted to accept the amendment on the bill’s first day of clause-by-clause voting, it was not mentioned in the committee again – until the Conservatives tried to use it to amend another clause in the bill.

That clause, establishing an RCMP Canadian Firearms Program system for validating gun licences for all sales of rifles and shotguns, is one of two measures in the legislation Conservatives and firearm lobbyists say are, in effect, registries in everything but the name.

The validation clause requires firearm vendors, individual or business, to contact the RCMP to confirm a buyer’s licence is valid before selling a non-restricted gun. The specific nature of licence information the buyer must provide the seller to pass on to the RCMP is to be set by regulation.

For a sale to go through, the bill requires the RCMP firearms registrar to issue a “reference number” to the vendor confirming licence validity and legal eligibility, but no details of the rifle or shotgun.

The reference number is the only record kept, along with the information the vendor has provided about the buyer’s licence.

Retailers and gun buyers would be required to go through the same reference number validation process for any subsequent purchase.

Another clause, also denounced as a “back-door” registry by gun owners and the Conservatives, requires retailers to maintain sales records, including names, licence numbers, serial numbers and descriptions of rifles or shotguns being sold.

When the Conservative amendment passed committee, Liberals and Conservatives alike supported it – but for different reasons.

“I very much welcome this amendment because I think it provides clarity that C-71 does not establish a long-gun registry,” said Liberal MP Peter Fragiskatos.

Conservative MP Arnold Viersen replied: “I’m happy to hear from my colleagues, and that was precisely our point with moving this amendment; that folks are worried about the fact that this bill is the reintroduction of the long-gun registry, I’m glad to hear that the Liberals are supporting this, for sure.”

The collegial mood quickly collapsed when the Conservatives argued their amendment meant the clause establishing the reference number to validate licences had to be struck down – because it contradicted the Conservative amendment.

The Liberal majority disagreed.

The head of the Canadian Coalition for Firearm Rights, who testified at the committee and argued the reference number system was at least a partial registry, says the Conservative change was puzzling.

“I don’t know how anybody finds that it can be construed as meaningful,” said CCFR president Rod Giltaca. “I don’t know what part of that is meaningful to the practical application of the law, it’s just a word game,” he said in an interview.

See the HERE

MP Bob Zimmer – Weekly Report – On Concerns About Bill C-71

By Bob Zimmer, M.P. | | June 25, 2018

During the last week before the House of Commons rose for the summer, I had the opportunity to speak out against Bill C-71, the new Liberal firearms legislation.

As you may know, shortly after this bill was introduced back in March, I held roundtables in both Prince George and Fort St. John to hear from residents about how they felt about Canada’s firearms laws. During those meetings many expressed concerns about how this new bill would affect law-abiding firearms owners.

It was those residents, and the thousands of Canadians who have contacted my office with similar concerns, that I had in mind when I spoke in the House of Commons.

As I have said before, I support legislation that will keep guns out of the hands of violent criminals. However, Bill C-71 does very little to make our communities safer. Instead, this bill targets law-abiding firearms owners by adding more red tape to lawful firearms ownership and to people buying non-restricted firearms in Canada. Most concerning to me is the fact that this legislation will also mean the return of the long-gun registry, despite promises and denials by the Liberal government.

I think it’s important when speaking about this legislation to quote its actual text, which says: The Commissioner of Firearms shall…provide the Quebec Minister with a copy of all records that were in the Canadian Firearms Registry on April 3, 2015 and that relate to firearms registered, as at that day, as non-restricted firearms, if the Quebec Minister provides the Commissioner with a written request to that effect before the end of the 120th day after the day on which the Commissioner sends written notice under subsection (2).

This establishes a front door registry because it allows for a copy of the long-gun registry, which was supposed to be destroyed, to be passed to the Province of Quebec. The only reason this information still exists is to fulfill an individual Canadian’s access to information request, not so that the Firearms Commissioner can hand it over to a provincial government.

In my speech I also touched on the fact that Bill C-71 will establish a backdoor registry by requiring individuals or businesses who transfer non-restricted firearms (i.e. a long-gun) to call the Registrar for a registration number. The business owner will then have to keep a record of that transfer for 20 years and include details like the reference number issued by the Registrar, the day the reference number was issued, the transferee’s licence number, and the firearm’s make, model, type and serial number if it has one. A registrar keeps registries and these requirements for non-restricted firearms sales and transfers are clearly an attempt to re-establish the long-gun registry.

I’ve heard from many law-abiding firearms owners from across the country since this legislation was introduced and they all share similar concerns. First, that the Liberals promised to not re-establish a long-gun registry, and then went back on that promise and second, that so little time has been given to debate or speak out against this bill.

Whether it’s limiting debate in the House of Commons, limiting the number of committee meetings to hear from witnesses, or refusing to travel to hear the concerns of Canadians, it is clear that the Liberal government does not want to hear from the outdoor community.

That’s unfortunate.

As a firearms owner myself, I will continue to stay focused on actions that keep Canadians safe and ensure that it is criminals who are punished, not firearms owners who follow the law.

See the story HERE

Rancher cleared of gun charges for all the wrong reasons
By Brian Lilley | | June 23, 2018

Eddie Muarice is no longer being prosecuted for doing what any man in his situation would do, protecting his family. While the Alberta rancher is cleared of charges of shooting at two burglars this past February, he is cleared for all the wrong reasons.

Maurice was home alone with his two young daughters in the early hours of February 24, 2018. He heard noises outside, saw people rummaging through his vehicles and fired warning shots.

All the wrong reasons.

Maurice isn’t now cleared of all charges because the Crown realized they were persecuting a man for no reason. Maurice is cleared because forensic evidence shows the bullet that hit Watson was from a ricochet and not a direct shot.

The ricochet is the only reason that Crown prosecutor Jim Sawa dropped charges on Friday.

“That information was compelling, to say the least, and it had a direct impact on the decision today to withdraw the charges,” Sawa said.

Maurice had been facing charges of aggravated assault, pointing a firearm and careless use of a firearm. All far more serious charges with more possible jail time for Maurice than Watson may have faced.

Police and prosecutors are on the wrong side.

It’s a perverse aspect of our criminal justice system. Those that protect themselves, their families or their property are put through the wringer by zealous police and prosecutors.

Even after the decision was announced that Maurice’s charges were dropped, the Crown and RCMP were giving warnings not to take matters into your own hands.

Yet this is clearly allowed under Canadian law.

We have always had the right to self-defence of hearth and home. Our laws and judicial interpretation of them may not be a strident as American “castle laws” or “stand your ground laws” but self-defence is clearly spelled out in the criminal code.

What the law actually says.

In 2012 Parliament even strengthened the language around this issue to send a message to those zealous Crowns and police. They amended the criminal code to clearly spell it out.

35 (1) A person is not guilty of an offence if
(a) they either believe on reasonable grounds that they are in peaceable possession of property or are acting under the authority of, or lawfully assisting, a person whom they believe on reasonable grounds is in peaceable possession of property;
(b) they believe on reasonable grounds that another person
(i) is about to enter, is entering or has entered the property without being entitled by law to do so,
(ii) is about to take the property, is doing so or has just done so, or
(iii) is about to damage or destroy the property, or make it inoperative, or is doing so;
(c) the act that constitutes the offence is committed for the purpose of
(i) preventing the other person from entering the property, or removing that person from the property, or
(ii) preventing the other person from taking, damaging or destroying the property or from making it inoperative, or retaking the property from that person; and
(d) the act committed is reasonable in the circumstances.

Watson wasn’t killed in this incident, he got a nick from a bullet. He’s lucky quite frankly.

In my view Maurice never should have faced charges. Ask what you would do in his situation?

For all the urbanites saying they would call 9-11, good luck.

The police are not always around the corner.

As Nick Cornea, the young man behind the Facebook group Farmers Against Rural Crime told me a few months ago, you can’t expect the police in 15 minutes in the country side.

“Anywhere from 45 min to 3 hours depending on the severity of what that person is doing,” Cornea says when asked how long it would take for police to arrive at his farm if he called in with an active complaint.

Rural Canada is facing a crime problem, especially in places like Okotoks where Maurice lives.

Calgary Hearld columnist Licia Corbella has described it as a “meth-fueled epidemic.” While Maurice didn’t get injured in the raid on his property, others have as Corbella describes in her column.

Would you want meth-fueled addicts going through your property while your two little girls slept? The police are too far away and you are the only thing to protect them.

What do you do?

I know what I would have done if I was in Eddie Maurice’s shoes. I would have done what the law allows and shot at the burglars.

That may shock some with delicate sensibilities and more empathy for criminals than a man protecting his family but it is the truth.

The real shame in this situation is that Maurice was charged and faced jail time at all.

Time for Crowns and police to use some common sense, oh, and read the criminal code again.

See the story HERE

Liberals Targeting Hunters, Farmers and Northern Canadians

By Ted Falk, M.P. | | June 24, 2018

Bill C-71 – An Act to amend certain Acts and Regulations in relation to firearms – was introduced in March of this year. In his speech arguing in favour of this bill, the Minister of Public Safety called it “important legislation that prioritizes public safety and effective police work, while treating law-abiding firearms owners and businesses fairly and reasonably.” He went on to add that this bill upheld the Liberal Party’s commitment “not to reinstate a federal long gun registry.”

I take issue with both of these claims.

Let’s begin with the claim that law-abiding firearms owners are treated fairly by this Liberal government. I think all Canadians believe in ensuring that we treat firearms responsibly. We understand that in the interest of public safety there are sensible measures that can be taken. My Conservatives colleagues and I recognize that the safety of Canadians must be the number one priority of any government and we will support common sense legislation related to firearms that will help keep Canadians safe. But here’s the problem: Bill C-71 doesn’t do that.

C-71 has no measures to combat the increasing rates of gun related homicide, domestic violence, gang violence, or to address the increasing rates of rural crime either in Provencher or across the country. All this bill does is add greater costs and regulatory burdens to law-abiding firearms owners.

Our previous Conservative government understood that we could be tough on crime while respecting those who own firearms legally and operate them safely. The criminal element behind firearms violence was always where we focused our attention. Yet with Bill C-71, the Liberals have entirely neglected to address the criminals who use guns to commit violent crimes while treating law-abiding firearms owners like criminals.

Why would they do this?

As is the case on most occasions with the Liberals, they are more interested in being seen to be taking action rather than actually taking action. It is difficult to address gun and gang violence. It is quite easy, however, to increase red tape and place new restrictions on those who are already following the rules. For the Liberals, they get the benefit of being seen to be taking action even though the impact of their proposals will do nothing for the serious gun and gang violence Canadians want to see gone from our streets.

Secondly, the Liberals claim that Bill C-71 somehow does not re-introduce a gun registry. Somebody needs to explain to the Prime Minister, that when the federal government is using a federal registrar to keep records on law-abiding firearm owners – that’s a gun registry. Registrars keep registries. In fact, the bill uses the words “registrar” or “reference number” 28 times. The words “gang” or “criminal organization” are mentioned zero times.

In Canada, 93% of gun crimes that result in death are committed with illegal guns, by people who should not have them. Unfortunately, the Liberals are ignoring gangs and targeting hunters, farmers and northern Canadians instead.

I serve a rural riding. A lot of good, law-abiding people own firearms. And I can tell you that nobody knows better than hunters and farmers the importance of gun safety and the social responsibility that comes with owning a firearm. That is why it is deeply insulting to have the Liberals consistently impugn not only their ability to be responsible citizens but the kind of moral equivalency we see the Liberals trying to draw between violent gang members – criminals – and law-abiding firearms owners.

This bill makes the same mistake the Liberals always make on this issue; targeting law abiding firearms owners instead of criminals.

Conservatives know there are still very real issues out there with respect to gun and gang violence, but the Liberals have shown they are not serious about addressing those difficult challenges. When they want to tackle serious crime, Conservatives will be the first to stand with them. However, we will not join their crusade to make life more difficult for law-abiding Canadians.

Ted Falk is the Conservative Member of Parliament for Provencher (Manitoba).

See the story HERE


Canada’s New Gun Control Bill Won’t Prevent Future Gun Deaths, Here’s Why
By Genelle Levy | | June 26, 2018

The Canadian government is in talks regarding gun violence

This past week Toronto experienced four gun murders in under 24 hours, and the surge in violence has everyone including politicians concerned. Last week the Canadian government reviewed a new gun control bill, C-71 in the hopes of curbing the current gun violence. But some gun advocates and Canadian MPs are saying that the bill is not strict enough citing unaddressed loopholes that won’t help prevent gun deaths.

Bill C-71 is a new bill proposing stricter rules around gun background checks and ownership. Under the new bill, a person’s entire life history would have to be reviewed for red flags, whereas under the current law only the past five years of a person’s life is reviewed prior to a gun purchase. The bill would also force retailers to maintain more accurate records of all gun inventories and purchases.

And although these changes are a good start, politicians and gun reform advocates are saying that they are not enough.

Wendy Cukier, president of the Coalition For Gun Control expressed her concerns regarding the new bill to The Toronto Star saying that the new law “[left] significant loopholes in the legislation…failing to deliver on Liberal election promises.”

One big loophole that advocates and MPs say the bill failed to address was monitoring the exchange and transportation of handguns and assault weapons between people. This means that there is currently no way to prevent a gun from ending up in the hands of a mentally ill or criminal person.

Under the new bill, a licensed gun owner is allowed to carry a firearm at all times even if they are not open about their purpose and intent for carrying the gun, which means that someone could carry a gun into a public crowded space and there would be no way to prevent it.

Mario Harel, president of the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police said in a presentation last month to the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security that the trend in gun violence is very disturbing.

“Troubling is the fact that about 50 per cent of all handguns used in crime, that we have been able to trace, have been diverted from legal Canadian firearm owners,” Harel said.

So if police are not able to trace guns which may be illegally exchanged under loopholes in the new bill then the public should not expect to see a decrease in gun incidents. The Senate is expected to review Bill C-71 in fall of this year before it is officially passed into law.

See the story HERE


Smith & Wesson parent company warns investors that gun control activism could hurt the bottom line


By Jim Kinney | | June 26, 2018

SPRINGFIELD — Smith & Wesson parent American Outdoor Brands Corp. is warning shareholders that “actions of social activists” could cost the company by bringing stockholder proposals up for votes or by pressuring banks not to do business with the gun maker.

The warning was in AOBC’s most recent annual report. The warning was not in the 2017 annual report.

“Such activities may adversely affect our business in a number of ways, since responding to such inquiries or proposals could be costly, time consuming, disruptive to our operations, and could meaningfully divert the attention of our resources, including those of our management team and our employees,” the company said.

The warning comes at the same time American Outdoor Brands announced some bad news about its performance in the most recent fiscal year. Sales were down 33 percent last year, according to a disappointing earnings report issued after the close of the stock market Wednesday.

American Outdoor Brands said its full-year net sales for the fiscal year completed April 30 were $606.9 million, compared with $903.2 million a year ago. Fourth-quarter net sales were $172 million, compared with $229.2 million for the fourth quarter last year, a decrease of 24.9 percent.

Full-year net income was $20.1 million, or 37 cents per share, compared with $127.9 million, or $2.25 per share, last year. Fourth-quarter net income was $7.7 million, or 14 cents per share, compared with $27.7 million, or 50 cents a share, for the comparable quarter last year.

The gun business is cyclical. Often sales increase when Democrats are in power in Washington and gun enthusiasts fear more regulation. Then sales slump with a Republican in the White House because gun buyers are less apprehensive.

American Outdoor Brands’ concerns are not coming out of the blue. In April, Bank of America said it would no longer finance makers of military-style firearms for the civilian marketplace.

In March, Citigroup told its business partners to stop firearm sales to customers under age 21 and not to sell high-capacity ammunition magazines and bump stock devices that make semiautomatic guns fire like automatics.

Amalgamated Bank said it would work with industry peers to regulate gun sales.

In May at Smith & Wesson competitor Sturm Ruger, a group of nuns and other faith-based investors won a shareholder vote telling management to prepare a report detailing financial and reputational risks associated with making guns.

Asset manger BlackRock, Ruger’s largest shareholder through its index funds, voted in favor of the report, according to accounts at the time. In index funds, entities like the Dow Jones Industrial Average pick the stocks, not managers like BlackRock.

This activism followed the Feb. 17 mass shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida. A gunman is accused of killing 17 people. He used a rifle made by Smith & Wesson.
Since the Parkland shooting, protesters have regularly picketed outside Smith & Wesson. Management never meets with protesters.

See the story HERE

Ten Years after Heller decision, gun rights continue trend toward more freedom, not more gun control

By Frank Miniter | | June 26, 2018


The cornerstone gun-rights decision, Heller v. D.C., the case in which the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment of the U.S. Bill of Rights is indeed an individual right, has reached its 10th anniversary.

Over the last decade this decision has helped to propel a cultural shift on how guns are viewed in America. Its ramifications have boosted freedom in too many states and in too many ways to list. Nevertheless, its affects are misunderstood.

Given the way that much of the media treats issues related to guns, and given that Heller and the subsequent McDonald decisions were 5-4 votes by the high court (a divide the court likely still holds today), it might seem like common sense to think America is closely divided on this issue.

This is the view CNN, The Washington Post and more are pushing. The left sees the public’s acceptance of gun bans and other gun controls as slow but inevitable social change. They think it will follow the same type of public opinion shift that the gay-marriage issue went through.

They are wrong because in this case they are doing the illiberal thing; they are trying to reduce rights and to undo long-held American freedom.

If the left was right about even some of their talking points on guns and violence they might have a chance of deceiving a majority of Americans into voting away their freedom, but they aren’t.

The number of homicides in the U.S. has fallen precipitously in America over the last half century as the number of firearms in civilian hands has risen. Most murders today occur in the areas with the strictest gun-control laws.

The left has also gone way off the factual rails in its quest to ban so-called “assault weapons.” (I say so-called because there is no definition for “assault weapon” outside of how a particular law defines them.)

As they demonize “scary looking” semiautomatic rifles they miss the basic fact that year after year the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reporting finds that rifles of all types are used in less than 3 percent of murders.

The anti-gun left also avoids addressing the basic fact that AR-15-type rifles have been sold to U.S. citizens since 1963, the same year the U.S. military adopted the M16. Meanwhile, “mainstream news” reporters don’t know or they won’t report the fact that semiautomatic rifles have been sold to sportsmen and more since the very early 20thcentury by companies like Remington and Winchester.

Clearly the problem that a few terrorists and some mentally ill people are attempting, and at times succeeding, to accomplish mass murder isn’t the fault of rifles—or of vans and trucks for that matter—but is a more complex problem we need to focus in on to solve as best we can.

The left isn’t even right about the so-called “gun lobby.”


The National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF), the trade association for firearms manufacturers (full disclosure: I’ve done some contract work for the NSSF), spends a lot of time and resources advocating for gun-safety programs. (I’m not using the term “gun safety” as loosely as gun-control proponents do today, as they use it as a synonym for “gun control”; instead, I am using it as the dictionary defines the terms.)

The NSSF has joined the National Safety Council’s designation of June as “National Safety Month,” for example, by promoting its “Project Childsafe,” its “Own It? Respect it. Secure it.” program and other initiatives to try to further reduce accidents and other deaths related to firearms. Such efforts have been working, as the number of accidental deaths is a fraction of what it once was.

People have noticed all this and vote accordingly.

In 2000 Al Gore found he miscalculated when he made gun control a central plank in his push for the presidency. It was a position that arguably cost him his home state and with it the election. Hillary Clinton made the same mistake, which cost her blue collar votes in Pennsylvania and the Upper Midwest.

Now a decade after the Heller decision pro-gun laws have swept through many states. A dozen states now even have “constitutional” or “permitless” carry for handguns. There are over 100 million gun owners in America and more than 16 million people have permits to carry concealed handguns (up from about 1 million in the mid-1980s). A recent United Nations’ Small Arms Survey found that American civilians now have 393 million firearms (46 percent of all of the guns in civilian hands in the world).

Clearly more and more Americans are taking their Second Amendment rights into their own hands.

So no, the cultural shift isn’t toward gun control. It is clearly moving toward greater freedom.

See the story HERE


The Summer 2018 edition of North American Deer Hunter is here!

This digital magazine is created for and dedicated to North America’s Deer hunting community.

Subscribe for FREE HERE today!

The Latest: California justices toss bullet stamping suit

By the Associated Press | | June 28, 2018

The California Supreme Court says state laws cannot be invalidated on the grounds that complying with them is impossible.

The unanimous ruling on Thursday rejected a lawsuit by gun rights groups that sought to throw out a California law that requires new models of semi-automatic handguns to stamp identifying information on bullet casings. The groups argued that technology did not exist to meet the stamping requirements, and a law can’t mandate something that’s not possible.

The court said impossibility can sometimes lead courts to excuse a failure to comply with a law. But it said it can’t be the basis for invalidating a law.

A call to a spokesman for one of the plaintiffs, the National Shooting Sports Foundation, was not immediately returned.

The California Supreme Court will decide whether state laws can be challenged in court on the grounds that complying with them is impossible.

The court will issue an opinion on that question Thursday in a lawsuit over a California law that requires new models of semi-automatic handguns to stamp identifying information on bullet casings.

Supporters of the law signed by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger in 2007 say it will help police solve gun crimes by allowing them to link bullet casings to guns. Gun manufacturers argue that the technology does not exist to meet the stamping requirements.

They say a law can’t mandate something that’s not possible.


Attorneys for the state say lawmakers often enact laws to force industries to innovate. They warned a ruling in favour of gun makers could take away that power.

See the story HERE


Looking for upcoming gun shows and matches? Visit our WEBSITE
Dick’s shareholder grills CEO over gun rules

By Matthew Rocco | | June 13, 2018

A conservative shareholder pressed Dick’s Sporting Goods CEO Edward Stack over the retailer’s decision to tighten rules for gun purchases in its stores.

David Almasi, vice president of the National Center for Public Policy Research, questioned whether the company was “willfully giving up money” with its new policies, he said in remarks during Dick’s annual shareholder meeting. Almasi attending the meeting representing the conservative think-tank’s Free Enterprise Project, which focuses on free-market investor activism.

Dick’s “has damaged its reputation by lending its voice and its resources to those who want to abolish the Second Amendment, even while the vast majority of Americans support the Second Amendment,” Almasi argued. “Thirty percent of American adults own guns, and another 11% live with someone who does. You’ve now alienated them.”

“We did not alienate every gun owner. We did alienate some gun owners. We had a number of people who are gun owners, myself included, who sent us notes saying that, ‘We applaud what you did,’” Stack said, according to a recording of the exchange posted online.

“We think this was in the best interest of our shareholders long term. Did we alienate some customers? Yes, we did. We felt it was the best decision for the long-term aspect of our shareholders. You can see, from our announcement, our stock is actually up double-digits.”

Stack added that Dick’s and its board stands by the decision. “We will not be changing our position,” he said.

Almasi responded by urging Stack to reconsider, suggesting that Dick’s sales could suffer if the NRA and other pro-Second Amendment organizations lead boycotts of the retailer.

Dick’s didn’t immediately respond to a request for further comment.

The Pittsburgh-based sporting goods retailer announced in February that it would raise the minimum age for all gun purchases to 21. Federal law prohibits rifle purchases to anyone under 18 years old. The federal minimum age for handgun purchases is 21.

Dick’s also said it would stop selling “high-capacity magazines,” and it pulled AR-15 rifles from Field & Stream stores. The company previously ceased offering AR-15 rifles in its namesake stores following the Sandy Hook shooting in 2012.

Dick’s was among the first major retailers to restrict gun sales following the school shooting in Parkland, Florida, where 17 people were killed. Walmart and Kroger also set a minimum age of 21 for all gun purchases.

Dick’s has faced pushback from the gun industry. The National Shooting Sports Foundation, a trade group representing retailers and firearm manufacturers, expelled Dick’s from the organization. O.F. Mossberg & Sons, a manufacturer of rifles and shotguns, said it would not accept future orders from Dick’s or Field & Stream stores, noting that the retailer had reportedly hired lobbyists to promote gun-control measures in Congress.

After Dick’s announced its new gun policies, Stack warned analysts in March that some customers unhappy with the decision might abandon its stores. But last month, Dick’s reported quarterly earnings that beat Wall Street’s expectations, as total sales grew 4.6% to $1.91 billion. Demand in other parts of the store offset weakness in the hunting category.

Stack acknowledged during an earnings call that Dick’s doesn’t have a strong relationship with firearms manufacturers, adding that the company’s hunting and firearms business would remain under pressure through the end of the year.

Over the past month, Dick’s stock has surged more than 13%.

See the full story HERE


We pay legal fees, court costs and time off work to attend court; up to $150,000 per occurrence (recently increased 50% for no additional cost!) and $500,000 total per policy year. Plus get unlimited legal advice through our toll-free Legal Advice Helpline.

What price for peace of mind?

The price is just $95 per year and CSSA members are eligible for a $10 discount – click on “Buy Now” and enter the following exclusive club code to access your savings: CSSA001.

You are not required to disclose any information about firearms in your possession.

Firearm Legal Defence insurance covers:

  • Defence from prosecution should you be charged with an offence arising out of the use, storage, display, transportation or handling of a firearm;
  • cases where a firearm is used in self defence, the defence of a person under your protection or the defence of your property;
  • appealing an event where a licensing, regulatory or judicial authority refuses to renew, suspends, revokes, cancels or alters the terms of your firearms license. Note that this provision does not apply to new license applications.

It will pay for:

  • The cost of retaining a lawyer or other appointed representative, including court fees, experts’ fees, police reports and medical reports;
  • costs awarded by the court to opponents in civil cases if the insured person has been ordered to pay them, or pays them with the agreement of the insurance company;
  • lost salary or wages for the time the insured is off work to attend court or any other hearing at the request of the appointed representative, up to a maximum of $500 per day, and $10,000 in total.

For details, visit HERE

NOTE – FirearmLegalDefence is not a CSSA product but is highly recommended by the association and is used by our staff and directors. – Tony B.


CSSA Home and Auto Insurance

Team CSSA has partnered with our long-time broker, ThinkInsure Ltd., to offer you Group Automobile and Homeowners insurance through Novex.

You can save 12% off your automobile insurance premiums and 10% off your property insurance premiums.

Please contact Cathy Wanvig at 905-415-8800, ext.176 or [email protected] to start saving now!

Website | About Us | Membership | Store | Rights | Events
Toll Free: 1.888.873.4339     Fax: 905.720.3497     [email protected]
Canadian Shooting Sports Association | 204-1143 Wentworth Street West, Oshawa, ON L1J 8P7 Canada
Unsubscribe [email protected]
Update Profile | About our service provider
Sent by [email protected] in collaboration with
Try it free today

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