Dutch Government Might Question Religion Before Giving Gun License
ï»¿What is a Mass Shooting? Depends on Who You Ask
LETTER: Canadian gun culture not comparable to US
Rural MPs Vote for Bill C-71 or Hide
â€“â€“ Mad Max a No Show
Mondayâ€™s vote on Bill C-71â€™s 3rd Reading went pretty much as expected. The bill passed easily and now moves to the Senate, where it must pass three readings and committee hearings before it can become law.
There were a few notable surprises, including MPs many believe are on our side.
Maxime Bernier, who courted gun owners relentlessly during his failed Conservative Party leadership bid a year ago, offered gun owners a glimpse of what they can expect from his fledgling political party of one.
He didnâ€™t even show up to vote.
Neither did Saskatchewan MP Erin Weir (Reginaâ€”Lewvan) who, after being ousted from the NDP caucus, claims affiliation with a political party that died in 1961. Independent MPs Darshan Singh Kang (Calgary Skyview) and Hunter Tootoo (Nunavut) also failed to make an appearance on behalf of their constituents.
The Prime Minister and eight cabinet ministers also missed the vote. Trudeau spoke to an auditorium of mostly empty seats at the United Nations according to published photos of the non-event. Chrystia Freelandâ€™s UN speech likely received a similar welcome. Why the remaining seven cabinet ministers failed to show up remains a mystery.
Members of those three parties who feared a backlash from voters hid from sight until the bill passed.
A vote against Bill C-71 practically guaranteed they could not run under their respective partyâ€™s banner in 2019. A vote in favour of this legislation all but guarantees they will incur the wrath of voters in the next federal election. Either way, they lose.
Thatâ€™s an issue for next year, but right now our battle moves to the Senate.
Now more than ever, it is critical to write every member of the Senate to express your views on Bill C-71. Always be polite, but express your opinion clearly.
We sent every Senator a paperback copy of The Bill C-71 Book earlier this year. In your letter, ask each Senator to read that book from cover to cover. If they do so, they will know more about this legislation that most MPs voted for.
Conservative Party MP absences: Kelly Block, Sylvie Boucher, Colin Carrie, Alupa Clarke, Ed Fast, Matt Jeneroux, Tom Kmiec, Mike Lake, Guy Lauzon, Ron Liepert, Alex Nutta, Pierre Paul-Hus, Lisa Raitt, Kevin Sorenson, Peter Van Loan, Karen Vecchio and Cathay Wagantall.
How It Hurts You, and 3 Easy Steps You Can Take Right Now to Block It
This book is the most comprehensive and easy-to-read overview of the governmentâ€™s first proposed firearms legislation in a generation, and it is a joint project of The Canadian Shooting Sports Association(CSSA), Canadaâ€™s leading gun-rights advocacy group, and TheGunBlog.ca, the countryâ€™s leading source of news on gun politics and the firearm industry.
The book is available as a FREE PDF DOWNLOAD from StopC71.com.
Will you contact Senators to express your concern about Bill C-71?
Raising the bar in .22 LR performance, theTEAM CSSA SHOOTING RANGER Savage ArmsTM Mark II FVToffers user-adjustable AccuTriggerTM technology for crisp, customized trigger pulls. The 21-inch, heavy carbon steel barrel is button rifled and paired with a rugged, matte black synthetic stock. Weighing 6 pounds, the rifle has a 5-round detachable box magazine and peep sights.
The first-of-its-kind AccuTrigger system is easily adjustable by the shooter, offers a light, clean pull with no creep, and prevents the firearm from discharging if jarred or dropped.
These great rifles are now available from the CSSA, but you can win the first one. A simple donation of $20 will give you a chance to win one of these beauties. Fifty dollars will get you three chances, and $100 will get you seven chances and a free one-year membership in CSSA TARGET with unlimited target submissions.
Find out more about our terrific CSSA TARGETprogramHERE.
This beauty will find a new home on October 31, 2018.
Team CSSA SHOOTING RANGER Target rifles.
Please send your donation to: .22 Ranger c/o CSSA (see address at the bottom of this email) or call 1-888-873-4339.
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 firearm rights. As always, your generosity is most appreciated!
Please note: the winner must have a valid Canadian firearms licence.
How Quiet Gun Owners Become Former Gun Owners
The Gun Blog | September 20, 2018
Gun owners believe keeping a low profile will guarantee our survival. Itâ€™s more likely to guarantee our extinction.
Keeping quiet makes sense for a lot of people in a lot of cases.
â€œMy guns are nobodyâ€™s business.â€
â€œI donâ€™t want to attract thieves.â€
â€œMy [girlfriend, spouse, boss, â€¦] hates guns and I donâ€™t want them to dump me.â€
â€œI donâ€™t want a potential attacker to know how I might respond.â€
Secrecy has consequences. If we donâ€™t share, our family, friends and colleagues wonâ€™t ask us to take them shooting. If they donâ€™t experience the reality of firearms and firearm culture, theyâ€™ll believe what they see in movies or on the news.
This is how we will lose our guns.
Clubs, Stores, Ranges, Trainers
Gun clubs, stores, ranges and instructors have told me why they lie low.
They wonâ€™t invite elected officials for a visit, a range day or a fundraiser. They refuse to answer questions from the media, or to invite the media to try shooting. They donâ€™t hold open houses for the community. They wonâ€™t even inform their members or clients that the government plans new restrictions or prohibitions.
â€œWe donâ€™t want to get political.â€
â€œWe donâ€™t want to get burned.â€
â€œWe donâ€™t want to get shut down.â€
â€œIf we keep quiet, maybe theyâ€™ll leave us alone.â€
Taking the Pulse: Nearly half of Sask. residents support status-quo gun laws
“The province is quite divided over this issue, but certainly there are more people who think that the status quo is fine.”
By Andrea Hill | Saskatoon StarPhoenix| Updated September 26, 2018
More than half of Saskatchewan residents believe laws covering the sale of guns in Canada should stay the way they are or be relaxed, new public opinion research suggests.
The data was collected by the University of Saskatchewanâ€™s Social Sciences Research Laboratories (SSRL) as part of the Taking the Pulse initiative, which involves SSRL researchers calling a representative sample of Saskatchewan residents four times a year and asking for their views on hot-button topics in the province. The results are published by Postmedia News.
Researchers randomly called 401 Saskatchewan residents this month and asked for their views on laws regulating the sale of guns. Nearly half â€” 47 per cent â€” said laws should stay the way they are; nine per cent said laws should become considerably or somewhat more lenient. Forty per cent of respondents said legislation should become considerably or somewhat more strict. The remaining respondents were unsure or refused to answer.
â€œThe province is quite divided over this issue, but certainly there are more people who think that the status quo is fine,â€ said Daniel Beland, a professor of public policy at the University of Saskatchewan.
There was no difference in responses between rural and urban residents.
Men were more likely to support more lenient laws than women (16 per cent of men supported relaxed laws versus three per cent of women).
Survey participants aged 55 and older were more likely to support stricter laws than those younger than 55 (56 per cent of older participants supported stricter laws, compared to 29 per cent of younger respondents).
Beland said he was interested to see that Saskatchewanâ€™s urban and rural residents had similar views on gun control.
â€œIn other jurisdictions â€” anywhere in Canada â€” in general thereâ€™s a lot of talk about the urban-rural divide; that people in rural areas are much less in favour of gun control than people in the cities,â€ Beland said. â€œBut it seems in Saskatchewan there is not this strong urban-rural divide.â€
Greg Illerbrun, firearms chair for the Saskatchewan Wildlife Federation, said he expects Saskatchewan is an outlier in Canada in that regard.
â€œEven us urban guys are usually only one or two generations from the farm,â€ he noted.
Illerbrun said he wasnâ€™t surprised by the public opinion results, but he believes more people would be in favour of relaxed gun laws if they understood what the existing legislative framework is.
â€œA lot of people that donâ€™t own guns donâ€™t really know what the laws are today, how restricted things are,â€ he said. â€œThereâ€™s a lot of hoops we have to jump through just to own a firearm.â€
The federal government is in the process of passing tougher firearms legislation, which it has touted as a series of â€œcommon senseâ€ measures to improve public safety. When passed, Bill C-71 will subject gun owners to more rigorous background checks, create more restrictions around transporting restricted and prohibited firearms and require more documentation around the gifting and selling of firearms.
Public Safety Minister and Regina MP Ralph Goodale said the SSRL data are â€œquite encouraging from the governmentâ€™s point of view.â€
Despite the high support the survey found for status quo gun laws, Goodale said the most â€œstriking numberâ€ he saw in the results was that just nine per cent of surveyed Saskatchewanians said they wanted gun laws relaxed.
He said it shows politicians arguing for more relaxed gun laws â€œare way offside.â€
â€œThat is clearly contrary to the views of 90 per cent of Saskatchewan people. Thatâ€™s the startling thing that comes out of these statistics,â€ he said.
Meanwhile, Conservative MP Glen Motz, who sits on the public safety committee, said the survey suggests to him that people are not in favour of legislation that will make it tougher to purchase firearms.
Like Illerbrun, he said he wonders if the 40 per cent of people who said they wanted stricter laws understand existing firearms legislation. He said most Canadians have a limited knowledge of existing gun control legislation and that this hasnâ€™t been helped by the months of debate around Bill C-71; Motz argues the government has portrayed existing gun laws as weaker than they are in order to garner support for the bill.
â€œ(The results) demonstrate to me that, really, the public isnâ€™t as fully informed as they could be,â€ he said.
Motzâ€™s biggest beef with C-71 is that it makes things more inconvenient for law-abiding gun owners while not doing enough to keep firearms out of the hands of criminals.
Goodale describes the bill as â€œpracticalâ€ and says it enhances public safety and assists law enforcement while â€œnot imposing any unreasonable burden on law-abiding firearm owners.â€
Bill C-71 is now before the Senate.
Each iteration of Taking the Pulse has an overall margin of error of plus or minus 4.9 per cent, 19 times out of 20, which means researchers expect their results to reflect the opinions of Saskatchewan adults to within 4.9 per cent 95 times out of 100.
What gun owners need to know about Ottawa’s new firearms bill
ï»¿Liberal government vows ‘modest’ reforms – but gun owners fear they’re being targeted
By John Paul Tasker | CBC News | September 22, 2018
The Liberal government is poised to pass new firearms legislation â€” changes to the country’s firearms regime that Ottawa says are “modest” but necessary reforms to reduce the frequency of violent gun crime.
In the last election, the Liberal Party vowed to reverse a decade’s worth of Conservative changes to gun rules they claim bolstered firearm-related crime. Bill C-71, introduced by Public Safety Minister Ralph Goodale, fulfils that commitment through an overhaul of the background check system, new record-keeping requirements for retailers and further restrictions on transporting a firearm.
“The provisions in Bill C-71 are modest and reasonable, and they do not entail a significant new cost,” Goodale said of the legislation, which is at third reading in the House of Commons.
“Bill C-71 [is] an important piece of legislation in support of public safety and the ability of law enforcement to investigate gun crimes, while at the same time being reasonable and respectful toward law-abiding firearms owners and businesses.”
The Conservatives have railed against the bill, claiming it will impose onerous regulations on lawful gun owners while doing little to crack down on gang-related crime largely carried out with illegal firearms sourced from the U.S. And at least 86,000 Canadians agree the bill should be killed, having signed one of the largest e-petitions in Parliament’s history.
The Liberal government, meanwhile, says a troubling spike in gun crime demands some sort of legislative response.
Here’s a look at the changes C-71 would bring about:
Enhanced background checks
The chief firearms officer in each province conducts a background check on anyone applying for a Possession and Acquisition License (PAL) â€” something all firearms owners must have before they can legally purchase a firearm in this country.
Under the proposed legislation, police would examine a person’s entire life history for potential red flags. Under the current standard, they only assess an applicant’s previous five years.
This review is designed to weed out people who shouldn’t have guns â€” those with a violent criminal past, for example, or a history of spousal abuse. Critics say the current five-year limitation is too arbitrary, allowing people who might be considered undesirable for a PAL to simply run out the clock.
Gun rights advocates, however, worry the background checks could become too invasive and extensive, resulting in many more prospective gun owners being disqualified.
“By making the required background check basically limitless, a new applicant with a 10-year old prescription to antidepressants may be put under additional scrutiny, or simply turned away,” Calibre, a firearm magazine, recently lamented in an article titled, ‘Bill C-71: A Wolf in Sheep’s Clothing.’
Following an amendment at the public safety committee, the chief firearms officer also would be able under the new legislation to review a person’s online history before granting a licence.
While the opposition Conservatives have said they can accept some changes to the background check system, they are very much opposed to the Liberal government’s plan to force retailers keep a record of all firearms sales and inventories.
Gun rights advocates maintain these log books â€” which retailers would have to maintain for 20 years â€” are akin to a revived long-gun registry, which the former Conservative government dismantled.
Gun owners complained about registering their non-restricted firearms, like shotguns, claiming the process was too onerous and the registry was ineffective in stopping gun crime. Many of the country’s police services thought otherwise. (Restricted and prohibited firearms, like handguns, must be still be registered.)
Under Bill C-71, a business must record dates, references and licence numbers and the firearm’s make, model, type and serial number â€” information Ottawa said it believes will help police trace guns used in crimes.
The Liberal government says it is disingenuous to call these new record-keeping practices a “back door gun registry” because they will be maintained by retailers â€” not government â€” and will only be available to police with a warrant.
Most major sports retailers, like Cabela’s and Canadian Tire, already record all sales as a matter of good business practice.
“It’s simply not a federal long gun registry, full stop, period,” Goodale said in a recent interview with CBC News. “The requirement for retailers to maintain their own private record is just that â€” they’re private records of the retailers, and they will not be accessible to government.
“They would be accessible to police when they are investigating gun crimes, with the proper basis of reasonable cause and judicial authorization through a warrant.”
Gun rights activists are skeptical and fearful those records, in the hands of the wrong people, could put lawful firearms owners at risk of being targeted for theft.
Many gun control advocates, meanwhile, say the Liberals haven’t gone far enough and that they should have restored the so-called “1977 provisions.”
That’s a reference to a firearms law that once forced gun retailers to record all firearms sales and to make those records easily available to police looking to trace non-restricted firearms â€” without a warrant.
The Liberals say C-71 brings Canada in line with the U.S., where federal law requires that records be kept on every gun sale through federally licensed firearms dealers.
The legislation also makes it an offence to sell a firearm to a person without first checking their licence and verifying that it is still valid. Again, most reputable retailers already follow this practice.
It is already illegal to sell a firearm to anyone who doesn’t possess the appropriate licence, but the Liberals say too many retailers are not actually checking the licence before completing a sale.
Authorization to transport
The Liberals are reversing another Harper-era change to the country’s firearms laws by tightening the rules on carrying firearms away from home.
A licensed gun owner must possess an authorization to transport (ATT) document if they want to travel with a restricted firearm like a handgun.
The Harper government tweaked the regime so that the ATT was attached to a person’s licence â€” some called it an “automatic ATT” â€” thus eliminating a layer of paperwork.
After the change, gun owners did not have to seek approvals from police each time they transported their firearm for certain routine activities, like target shooting, taking a firearm home after a transfer, or going to a gunsmith or a gun show.
While that change was praised by gun owners as a major time-saver that pared down some of the firearm bureaucracy, gun control advocates said it made the rules far too lax. The Canadian Association of Chiefs Police said the Harper ATT rules amounted to a licence to take a firearm anywhere.
“Because the ATT was automatic and applied to numerous different destinations, it became virtually impossible for police to detect the transportation of restricted or prohibited weapons for illegal purposes,” Goodale said in a recent speech in the Commons defending C-71.
“Bill C-71 seeks to narrow and clarify the scope of the ATT rules.”
An automatic ATT would be extended to those taking a firearm to a certified shooting range; in other circumstances, a separate ATT would be required. The government maintains that 95 per cent of all gun transportation is to and from a gun range, so the impact on most owners would be minimal.
Gun rights advocates say this is strictly a political move designed to punish legal owners because no criminal has ever applied for an ATT to carry out a gun crime. Gun control advocates, on the other hand, argue that strong controls over legal guns reduce the chance that they’ll fall into the wrong hands.
Classification of firearms
While definitions of the three classes of firearms â€” non-restricted, restricted and prohibited â€” will continue to be set by Parliament, the Liberal government is giving the RCMP the power to decide how individual firearms are classified.
“After the definitions have been set in law by Parliament, it should be firearms experts who make the technical determination as to which firearm fits into which category. That is a factual, technical function, and it should not be politicized. Bill C-71 makes that point very clear,” Goodale said.
The Liberals say that, under Harper, cabinet was able to “contradict the experts” and assign a lower category to a particular firearm. Those opposed to C-71 say the government is abdicating its legislative responsibilities by allowing police to make these choices without political approval.
C-71 also reclassifies two types of firearms â€” most models of the Ceska zbrojovka CZ-858 rifle and certain Swiss Arms firearms â€” as “prohibited”, which means owners will have to apply to have their rifles “grandfathered” or face dispossession.
Liberal MP Karen Ludwig sets sights on selling gun reforms
McAdam gun dealer says law-abiding owners are easy target, but Bill C-71 will miss the mark
By CBC News – New Brunswick | September 28, 2018
When she was elected to the House of Commons, Karen Ludwig probably never imagined the job would require her to sling a rifle and hit the firing range.
The MP for New Brunswick Southwest has been going to extreme measures to try to sell the Trudeau government’s new gun-control legislation to her consitutents.
Bill C-71 passed in the Commons this week and now heads to the Senate for further study.
The changes have been a hot topic in Ludwig’s mainly rural riding, which takes in all of Charlotte and parts of the counties of York, Sunbury, Queens, Kings and Saint John.
It has one of the largest gun dealers in Canada, about 30 gun clubs, and some Olympic-level sports shooters.
“I know that an issue such as this sometimes can be polarizing,” Ludwig said. “And I will confess I knew so little about guns.”
She brought in the parliamentary secretary for public safety to explain the changes directly to gun club presidents and hear their concerns, she took the Canadian Firearms Safety Course, and she earned her gun possession and acquisition licence.
Making law ‘tighter’
“And that to me was a real eye-opener,” said Ludwig.
“It gave me confidence that the rules and regulations that we have now are good. The legislation is only to make it tighter and stronger.”
Background checks will span a person’s entire lifetime, instead of the previous five years, to flag anyone with a history of violence. For example, someone who has been abusive of their spouse, physically or otherwise, won’t be able to buy a gun.
And that will include someone who has made serious threats of violence on social media, said Ludwig.
Even a person who wants to sell a gun privately will have to make sure the buyer has a licence, she said.
Many stores are already doing this, said Ludwig, and some are upgrading their computer systems now.
At the Gun Dealer in McAdam, owner Ross Faulkner estimated it’s going to cost him $50,000 to $60,000 to meet the new regulations for record keeping.
“This is a tremendous cost on private business â€¦ I am absolutely, totally appalled,” Faulkner said.
He said background checks are already tough enough, and he is convinced Bill C-71 will accomplish nothing.
A ‘backdoor’ to registry
“There is no way this is going to address crime at all,” he said.
“They’re not changing anything. They’re just basically bringing in a backdoor registry on the backs of legal firearms owners. We’re easy targets.”
Faulkner said his sales have increased since the registry was abolished. He now has a staff of 18.
He’s worried sales will slow and he’ll have to lay people off once this legislation is enacted.
“And if I make a mistake, then they’ll put me in jail because my records weren’t accurate,” Faulkner said.
“They tried it for 15 years and couldn’t get it right.”
Toronto town hall on potential handgun ban marked by vocal opponents
By Ann Hui | The Globe and Mail | September 23, 2018
A Toronto town hall that saw repeated angry outbursts and interruptions from an unruly audience offered the Liberal government its first glimpse of the road ahead in its work on a possible ban on handguns.
In advance of formal public consultations, Toronto-area Liberal MPs Julie Dabrusin and Nathaniel Erskine-Smith hosted a public event Sunday to discuss gun violence, an issue the government has vowed to crack down on ahead of next yearâ€™s election. But despite support for a ban from some of Canadaâ€™s largest cities, the meeting, which saw repeated interjections from a small but determined number of pro-gun audience members, highlighted just how divisive the issue may still prove to be.
â€œI know there is a great diversity of opinion. There are some people with very strong feelings on this issue,â€ Bill Blair said afterward. Mr. Blair is the newly appointed Minister of Border Security and Organized Crime Reduction.
Mr. Blair, a former Toronto Police chief who spoke at Sundayâ€™s event, has been tasked with stick-handling the handgun issue. He said that moving forward, “evidenceâ€ will help guide him. But at the town hall, even the evidence proved contentious.
As he sat onstage speaking, Mr. Blair cited Toronto Police figures indicating that an increasing proportion of guns used in crime are coming from domestic sources (as opposed to illegally through the border) â€“ at least of those guns that police are able to track. That comment drew loud booing, with some shouting that the minister was misrepresenting the data.
Sundayâ€™s town hall took place just minutes away from Danforth Avenue, the site of a mass shooting in late July that saw a lone gunman kill an 18-year-old woman and a 10-year-old girl. That shooting and the outrage that followed touched off a national debate about gun crime in Canada, and sparked a flurry of activity in Ottawa surrounding the issue.
Immediately following the Danforth shooting, Torontoâ€™s city council called on the federal government to ban handguns in the city. Soon after, Montrealâ€™s city council followed suit. In response, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau spoke publicly about the possibility of a handgun ban, and just last week the government said it would launch nation-wide consultations on the idea.
Mr. Blair was joined onstage Sunday by Scot Wortley, an associate professor of criminology at the University of Toronto; Louis March, founder of the group Zero Gun Violence; and emergency physician Atul Kapur.
Throughout the two-hour discussion, the presenters agreed on many issues, including the need to approach gun crime not simply as a criminal matter. The presenters spoke repeatedly of the need to address root causes of violence, including poverty, education, mental health, public housing and economic opportunity.
But much of the disagreement came instead from the crowd. While some audience members appeared supportive of a ban, the most vocal were those who opposed it.
Even before the meeting began, there were signs of a divide.
Ahead of the meeting, a pro-firearm group posted on social media urging supporters to â€œfloodâ€ the event.”
“We need our voice to be heard!â€ a group called On Target Canada wrote on Twitter.
Standing in the lobby before the meeting, Don Lindsay, speaking on behalf of the Canadian Firearms Network, told The Globe and Mail that he considered Mr. Trudeau and Mr. Blair “cowardsâ€ for targeting gun owners. He said that the majority of gun owners are law-abiding, and that those who use them to commit crimes arenâ€™t likely to be swayed by a ban. Mr. Lindsay said heâ€™d driven nearly two hours down from Wasaga Beach for the Toronto session.
Throughout the meeting, like-minded audience members made their views known. In one pointed exchange, Prof. Wortley remarked onstage that many of the young men heâ€™s spoken with in his research have said theyâ€™d acquired their guns through legal owners.
The comment drew jeers from the crowd.
â€œI donâ€™t know why they would have a reason to lie about it,â€ the professor responded, visibly frustrated.
And as Mr. Erskine-Smith wrapped up the town hall, another outburst.
â€œStop using gun owners as a scapegoat!â€ shouted a man from the audience. The comment elicited a burst of applause.
Afterward, Mr. Blair said he welcomed all perspectives. “There are some who feel very very strongly about their personal ownership of firearms. There are some who feel equally strong about the safety of their communities,â€ he said.
Bill Blair to conclude handgun consultations by end of 2018
By Daniel LeBlanc | The Globe and Mail | September 25, 2018
Bill Blair is giving himself until the end of the year to consult Canadians and experts on the need for a handgun ban, saying he wants to stop gang members from getting their hands on firearms that were initially purchased legally.
The Minister of Border Security and Organized Crime Reduction told a parliamentary committee on Tuesday that he will hold roundtables with experts around the country, seek input from the public through an online portal and get data from other jurisdictions before determining the best way to deal with handguns in Canada.
Mr. Blair said he wants the consultations to be completed by the end of the year, which means that any legislation to ban handguns could only be introduced next year. The issue could be a hot topic in next yearâ€™s fall election campaign, given the House of Commons would only have a few months to debate a ban before rising next June.
The proposed measure is being vigorously opposed by the Conservative Party of Canada, but a number of Liberal MPs, as well as the city councils of Toronto and Montreal, are calling for a ban in response to recent shootings in Canada. Pressure has been growing on the federal government to enact tougher gun laws after a mass shooting along Torontoâ€™s Danforth Avenue on July 22 and a deadly attack against a mosque in Quebec City last year.
Mr. Blair said illegal handguns are either smuggled into Canada from other countries, especially the United States, or â€œdivertedâ€ from legal domestic sources by criminals.
â€œWe have got to look responsibly at both [streams] and take all the measures that can be effective in reducing the movement of guns from both the United States and the domestic market into the hands of criminals,â€ the former chief of the Toronto Police Service told reporters. â€œThere is a diversion from the domestic market that needs to be addressed.â€
He added that any solution proposed by the government will be based on evidence from Canada and around the world. â€œWe will go and get the best available data. I want to be informed by the best [information] we can find,â€ Mr. Blair said.
Conservative MP Glen Motz, a former police officer with the Medicine Hat Police Service, said the federal government is playing politics by contemplating a handgun ban. He said he is particularly concerned that the government will change firearms laws without a guarantee that the measure will reduce crime.
â€œA handgun ban is not going to stop those who already have access to illegal firearms,” he said. â€œHaving a handgun ban consultation is in no way speaking to the issue.â€
Appointed to cabinet in July, Mr. Blair is in charge of a series of complex files, including the legalization of recreational cannabis and the flow of asylum seekers entering the country from the United States. At the meeting of the public safety committee on Tuesday, Conservative MPs tried and failed to get Mr. Blair to state that he wants to put an end to all border crossings at unauthorized points of entry.
â€œMy understanding now is that you do not have a mandate to stop people from illegally crossing the border from safe spaces like upstate New York and claiming asylum in Canada,â€ Tory MP Michelle Rempel said.
Mr. Blair responded that his goal is to get all asylum seekers to seek entry at authorized border crossings, but he needs to discuss the matter further with U.S. officials.
â€œMy responsibility is to ensure that Canadian law is upheld and Canadian humanitarian principles are adhered to,â€ he said.
NP View: The Liberals’ ‘consultation’ with Canadians about banning handguns is pointless pretending
National Post View | NationalPost.com | September 21, 2018
There’s no need for a major overhaul of our gun laws, and there are far less draconian and faster ways to tackle any concern over lawful guns being sold onto the black market
The federal Liberals are set to launch on another showy but useless endeavour: a public consultation on a possible ban on handguns.
Handguns, and other â€œrestrictedâ€ firearms (as defined by the Criminal Code), are already tightly regulated in Canada. And as noted in this space several weeks ago, the recent news reports suggesting that there has been a measurable surge in the number of so-called â€œcrime gunsâ€ originating from lawful Canadian purchasers have been exposed as wrong. Not only is there no evidence to support that claim, there is at least some evidence showing that it is false.
There has been an apparent surge in the number of shootings in major Canadian cities, which police believe is linked to gang violence. That is indeed a problem. But is that evidence that a major overhaul of our gun laws is needed? Even the Liberals didnâ€™t think so as recently as six months ago. Thatâ€™s when the federal Liberal government introduced Bill C-71, which provided a series of relatively minor tweaks to Canadian gun-control laws. Some of their ideas were good, some were bad. None of them involved a handgun ban, because it was clear that none was needed.
Nothing has changed since then, except for the Liberalsâ€™ political calculus. After some high-profile shootings (none of which would have been prevented by the handgun bans now being proposed by advocates), they perceive a need to be seen doing something. So poor Bill Blair, the former cop and now federal minister in charge of organized crime reduction, will be sent across the country to talk to Canadians as part of yet another grand consultation process. Itâ€™s simply theatre, designed to buy the Liberals some time. Nothing more.
And itâ€™s all too typical of this government. The reality is this: thereâ€™s no need for a major overhaul of our gun laws, and there are far less draconian and faster ways to tackle any concern over lawful guns being sold onto the black market. Pouring resources into anti-gang initiatives would be better still. Even so, if the government really wanted to ban handguns, it would consult experts, not town halls. Do the Liberals still bother even paying lip service to â€œevidence-based policyâ€ anymore?
Because there are plenty of experts and evidence at hand. The government can access every scholar with expertise on the subject, international partners, allied police forces, industry leaders, our law enforcement agencies, and reams of data collected by police forces and StatCan, often going back decades.
All the information the government actually needs is there, ready to be acted on, or not. This consultation with the public is for show, a vanity exercise on a national scale. Itâ€™s worse than pointless.
So, naturally, itâ€™s now the preferred course of a government hooked on hollow symbolism.
Why Australia’s famed gun control laws probably wouldn’t reduce shooting deaths in America
By Karen Kaplan | The Baltimore Sun | September 26, 2018
On a spring day in the Tasmanian town of Port Arthur, a lone gunman shot an elderly couple at the inn they owned, 22 diners lunching at a nearby tourist spot, two tour bus drivers and several of their passengers, four occupants of a BMW, and two customers at a gas station.
By the time the bullets stopped flying on April 28, 1996, 35 people were dead and another 23 were wounded. It was the worst mass shooting Australia had ever seen.
In a matter of months, Australia rolled out the National Firearms Agreement, which banned the possession of automatic and semiautomatic firearms in all but â€œexceptional circumstances.â€ About 640,000 guns were surrendered through a gun buyback program and another 60,000 were turned in to authorities for free in 1996 and 1997.
Australia has not seen a shooting like the Port Arthur massacre since, and the National Firearms Agreement is widely credited for this success. Gun control advocates in the United States â€” including former President Obama â€” have spoken admiringly of the law and suggest it should be a model for reducing gun deaths here.
That wouldnâ€™t do any good, according to the authors of a new study.
Mass shootings get the most attention, but they account for a tiny fraction of total gun deaths in the U.S., data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention show. Among the nationâ€™s 36,252 firearms-related fatalities in 2015, 61% were suicides and most of the rest were ordinary homicides.
Neither of those kinds of deaths actually fell in Australia as a result of the National Firearms Agreement, researchers reported Tuesday in the American Journal of Public Health.
â€œMany claims have been made about the NFAâ€™s far-reaching effects and its potential benefits if implemented in the United States,â€ wrote Stuart Gilmour, a statistician at St. Lukeâ€™s International University in Tokyo, and his coauthors from the University of Tokyo. â€œHowever, more detailed analysis of the law shows that it likely had a negligible effect on firearm suicides and homicides in Australia and may not have as large an effect in the United States as some gun control advocates expect.â€
Previous studies have said otherwise. A 2010 report in the American Law and Economics Review concluded that â€œthe buyback led to a drop in the firearm suicide rates of almost 80%â€ and had a similar effect on gun-related homicides. But that study ignored the fact that gun deaths were already falling when the program went into effect.
A 2016 study in the Journal of the American Medical Assn. acknowledged that a decline in gun-related suicides and homicides was indeed underway but said these mortality rates dropped more sharply in the aftermath of the NFA. However, the JAMA study failed to consider deaths that had nothing to do with guns. That means they might have given the gun control law credit for something that would have happened anyway.
Gilmour and his coauthors attempted to solve these problems by using a statistical method known as â€œdifference-in-difference.â€ This approach turns real-life events into scientific experiments in which one group is subjected to an intervention and another group serves as a control.
In this case, the intervention was the National Firearms Agreement. It could have affected Australians who were inclined to use a gun to commit a suicide or homicide. But Gilmourâ€™s team assumed it would have no effect on suicides and homicides that did not involve a gun. This was their control group.
Their difference-in-difference analysis revealed that although the rate of gun-related suicides fell steadily after the NFA went into effect in 1997, that decline was part of a larger trend that began in the late 1980s â€” and wasnâ€™t altered by the new law.
Likewise, homicides in Australia were already dropping when the National Firearms Agreement went into effect. The rate of gun-related homicides fell in the wake of the NFA, but the law had no effect â€œover and above a broad declineâ€ in homicides involving all kinds of weapons, the study authors wrote.
To test the strength of their results, the researchers repeated their analysis using 1998 (not 1997) as the first year of the NFA era.
They also tried using earlier start dates for their pre-NFA period, in case their initial choice happened to skew the results. The findings were â€œmostly unaffectedâ€ by these changes.
Itâ€™s not that the National Firearms Agreement was a bad idea. Itâ€™s that other things going on in Australia must have made a bigger difference â€” one that swamped any help the NFA might have offered.
The researchers canâ€™t say for sure what those other things were, but they have some ideas. They noted that Australia implemented a nationwide youth suicide prevention program in 1995 and one for adults in 2001. Either or both programs could have helped reduce suicides, including suicides carried out with a gun.
In addition, the Australian Institute of Criminology developed gun control policies that were adopted in 1991 â€” five years before the NFA.
â€œIt is likely that these more comprehensive and detailed 1991 changes played a greater role in reducing firearms-related suicide and homicide than did the NFA, which was implemented solely for the purpose of eliminating mass shootings,â€ Gilmour and his colleagues wrote.
If that is indeed the case, trying to pass an American version of the National Firearms Agreement could be counterproductive, they added.
â€œIt is imperative that this political moment â€¦ not be squandered on a law that will have limited impact,â€ they wrote. â€œTo achieve real, sustained reductions in the majority of causes of firearm-related mortality, the United States needs a broader, more comprehensive range of gun control measures than those in the NFA.â€
MAKUCH: Require gun owners to buy liability insurance
By Josh Makuch | Toronto Sun | September 26, 2018
With gun violence a serious problem in Toronto, city councilâ€™s July resolution calling for community programming, a handgun ban, and funding to hire more police was an encouraging start to attack a complex problem from multiple angles.
So, too, is the federal governmentâ€™s pledge to examine a nation-wide handgun and assault rifle ban. In both instances, we need to deliver what has been promised on paper.
But we also need to do more.
Law-abiding gun owners often complain that they are disproportionately targeted by new gun-control measures. They are unlikely, however, to draw attention to regulatory blind spots from which they benefit.
But when such an oversight offers an opportunity to mitigate inherent risks associated with gun ownership, it behoves all of us to shine some light on the subject. Firearm liability insurance is one such oversight and I believe that should be mandatory â€“ not optional â€“ for gun owners and sellers.
A gun shop owners selling of a handgun and an individualâ€™s decision to buy one creates social and economic risks. Legally-obtained guns used in a crime, deaths by suicide, and the increased rate of homicide associated with higher levels of gun availability are but a few examples of how those risks translate into costs on society. For those looking for a dollar figure, a 2012 study put the economic cost of gun crime in Canada at approximately $3.1-billion annually.
Guns have few social benefits, few users, and carry great risk to everyone. They are a necessary tool for some â€“ police services, the military, rural workers and families who need to protect themselves from dangerous wildlife â€“ and a recreational tool for hunters and sport shooters. Given that private gun ownership creates risks to society with little social utility, it is only fair that gun sellers and owners bear the costs.
If the idea of mandatory gun liability insurance sounds radical, thatâ€™s because itâ€™s new to us. It is a common sense measure with demonstrable results elsewhere on the globe. Germany requires liability insurance for gun owners, and has significantly lower per capita gun deaths than Canada, while maintaining very similar levels of firearms ownership.
Such an insurance regime would also end the paradox that responsible gun owners find themselves in where they are often painted with the same brush as their irresponsible counterparts. By empowering the insurance industry to assess the risk and assign a premium to each individual gun owner, good behaviour and practices will be incentivized while those deemed unfit to insure at a reasonable cost will be priced out of the market.
Canadians often look down on our American neighbours and the seemingly endless cycle of gun violence that plagues the country and its major cities. But outside the U.S., we have some of the highest levels of homicide deaths caused by firearms in the developed world.
Gun control advocates south of our border have been calling for similar insurance reform for years as a practical, market-based solution. Itâ€™s unfair to criticize our neighbours for not solving their firearms problem if we arenâ€™t prepared to consider the full range of solutions at home.
Itâ€™s been two months since a mass shooting in the east end and #DanforthStrong that followed. Iâ€™m proud of how my neighbours responded to the tragedy. Ours is a resilient city. It must also be resolute in dealing with the causes of crime and gun violence.
Insurance isnâ€™t going to solve the problem of crime in our city. As part of the response, however, itâ€™ll mitigate a significant risk factor.
Itâ€™s an option that deserves serious consideration.
â€” Josh Makuch is a candidate for Toronto City Council in Beaches-East York, a former Infantry Officer in the Canadian Armed Forces, and a combat veteran of the war in Afghanistan. @joshuamakuch
ï»¿OCOP: Wanstalls owner turns hobby into business
Jones said there is room to relax firearms restrictions
By Neil Corbett | Maple Ridge News | September 26, 2018
Shooting is fun for Craig Jones, and for a lot of people, asserts the owner of Wanstalls.
He is unapologetic about his passion for shooting sports, and for his opinions that Canada should consider relaxing some of its gun laws, instead of contemplating bans on handguns and assault-style rifles.
Jones was that little boy who turned every banana and stick into a gun. He became a cadet in North Delta, where he grew up, and looked forward to his time on the shooting range, firing military rifles.
He wasnâ€™t a crack shot.
â€œI was okay. But every time I was on the range, I had a good time.â€
Later, he went into the army reserves, an infantryman with the Seaforth Highlanders in the late 1980s, and the lifestyle fed into this love of camping and the outdoors. Hunting was a natural progression.
â€œI also like to eat,â€ he smiles. â€œItâ€™s camping, and youâ€™re bringing something home. Hopefully.â€
He has always enjoyed buying, selling and trading guns as a hobbyist.
Jones began a career working at Riverview Hospital in Coquitlam, but the mental health facility had its services scaled back and then ultimately closed.
Losing his career in health care, Jones started to look for opportunities, and that led him to Wanstalls. Tony Wanstall had taken over a sporting good store known as E&D Sports in 1973. There was lots of fishing and camping gear, and it was a Boy Scouts depot, with sashes, badges and other paraphernalia of the Scouting movement.
Sadly lacking, from Jonesâ€™ perspective, were the guns, and he purchased the store in 2007.
â€œI think we had 17 firearms in inventory,â€ he recalled.
He had a licence to pursue his hobbies as a business. The trick was to make enough to support a wife and two young children. He was 39 when he bought it.
â€œIt was scary, it was exciting and it was awesome,â€ he remembered. â€œYouâ€™re leaving a government job, and security, and a pension, and taking a leap of faith into the unknown.â€
Buying and selling guns â€“ new, used or on consignment â€“ became a huge part of the business. People would approach him to buy a rusty rifle they found in a grandpaâ€™s basement, or to use his networks to sell collectables, such as a pair of mirror image Cabot Colt 1911.
They went for $36,000, and were the most expensive guns in the store.
His own firearms interests have been cyclical. He will go from using ultra-precise rifles that make shots at extreme ranges, to shooting indoors with a tactical rifle, to antique muzzleloaders and then to handguns.
Since he took over the business, he has seen an evolution in the interest of shooters.
â€œThere has definitely been a change,â€ he said. â€œPeople are spending more on their hobby than they used to, and thereâ€™s a trend to handguns and the black guns [tactical rifles].
He does not call them assault rifles, even though thatâ€™s what many of them appear to be, because those sold in Canada cannot fire on full automatic, and can only have a magazine limit of five cartridges.
He hears people say â€œwe donâ€™t want to become â€˜The States,â€™â€ but Jones said Canada has far more restrictions.
â€œOur laws are universal, coast to coast, where they have 50 different sets of laws [for each state].â€
In the U.S., there are laws that allow concealed carry, fully automatic weapons and high capacity magazines, depending on the state. There are also varying laws about background checks, and most states do not require them for purchase at gun shows from private individuals.
In Canada, purchasers must pass the Canadian Firearms Safety Course and mail away for a Possession and Acquisition Licence. To buy a handgun or restricted firearm, there is an additional safety course. Licencing involves background checks, and the RCMP requires a minimum of 45 days to process the application.
So everyone must pass a safety exam, and everyone is vetted, he said.
â€œIn a free society, the onus is on you to say why it should be restricted.â€
In fact, he said, there are good reasons for Canadians to look at relaxing some gun laws. For example, a wilderness carry law would allow approved gun owners working in the backcountry to protect themselves from predators.
Silencers should be considered for recreational shooters, so he wouldnâ€™t have to yell around some customers.
â€œA lot of people come in here with hearing loss.â€
He knows there are a lot of people in Maple Ridge who share his viewpoints. This is a good community to own a gun store in.
â€œThereâ€™s still a rural, close-knit feel to the town, and a lot of people are still enjoying the things they did when they were young â€“ hunting and shooting.â€
Buying A Gun Online In Canada Is Easier Than You Think
The process gets murky when it comes to online sales, at least when it comes to certain weapons.
By Liz Haq | huffingtonpost.ca | September 25, 2018
Canadians tend to believe that their government tightly legislates the buying and selling of firearms. Everyone needs a Possession and Acquisition Licence (PAL) to purchase a gun â€” whether it’s classified as restricted or non-restricted â€” and a would-be gun buyer needs that licence at the point of sale, both in-person and online.
That’s all true, in theory. The system works fairly well when you are dealing with guns bought and sold at licensed businesses. It breaks down, however, when it comes to private deals.
When a private owner buys, sells or trades a non-restricted firearm to another private citizen, there is no legal requirement for a seller to verify a buyer’s gun licence. Things get especially murky when it comes to online sales: guns can be transferred between buyers and sellers on opposite sides of the country, and a seller simply has the option to verify a buyer’s licence if he or she suspects wrongdoing.
This is the case even when it comes to non-restricted firearms that are considered by some to be functionally equivalent to the AR-15 â€” the semi-automatic rifle used in severalmass shootingsstatesidethat is classified as restricted in Canada. Some examples include the Swiss Arms 556, the H&K SL8 and the Robinson XCR.
While authorities have not specified the type of gun used by Matthew Vincent Raymond to allegedly kill two civilians and two officers in Fredericton on Aug. 10, they have confirmed that it was classified as non-restricted.
“Gun owners are checked and re-checked endless times. Pedophiles don’t have that much scrutiny.”
–Tony Bernardo, Canadian Shooting Sports Association
Buying non-restricted guns online
Private sellers take great pains to verify every buyer for fear of legal repercussions, according to one lifelong gun enthusiast.
“The gun community in Canada is extremely self-policing,” Andre Perreault of Lethbridge, Alta. told HuffPost Canada by phone. “We’re extra careful about following the rules because when a PAL holder commits a crime, politicians use that to implement even tighter restrictions on law-abiding gun owners. So, by and large, we’re a self-regulating community.”
Perreault is the founder and owner of GunPost.ca, an online forum for private citizens to buy, sell and trade firearms. He started the website four years ago as a way to conveniently sell guns from the comfort of his home.
While popular online marketplaces like Facebook, Craigslist and Kijiji have banned the advertisement and sale of firearms, privately owned websites can still facilitate transactions between individuals.
Restricted firearms, like non-prohibited handguns and some semi-automatic rifles, are registered to each individual owner. Ownership transfers can take days, sometimes weeks, to approve. But the majority of firearms available to buy on GunPost.ca are non-restricted, according to Perreault.
Here’s what the RCMP website says about those types of guns:
“Transfers of non-restricted firearms can be conducted without contacting the CFP [Canadian Firearms Program], as registration is no longer required for this class of firearm. The transferor may verify that the transferee has a valid PAL by calling the CFP toll-free number (1-800-731-4000) before making a sale.”
“May” is the operative word: a seller may call the RCMP to verify that a PAL card is authentic, not flagged for any suspicious activity or reported as stolen. That means that while you must have a licence, you are not required to show it.
Police document shows entire Canadian political class lied about Toronto mass shooter
By Ezra Levant | therebel.media | September 24, 2018
Last month a Muslim man named Faisal Hussain walked down Torontoâ€™s Greektown neighbourhood, down the popular Danforth Avenue, shooting everyone he met. He murdered two women â€” an 18 year old named Rees Fallon, and a ten year old girl named Juliana Kozis, and wounded a dozen more.
Now, I just said Faisal Hussain walked down the street shooting everyone he met. Thatâ€™s not accurate. He ran into a man named Jaspal Singh, a Sikh. And he told that Sikh man, who obviously has brown skin, and could appear to be Muslim, I suppose, â€œDonâ€™t worry, Iâ€™m not going to shoot you.â€
But Hussain â€œstood on top of a woman and shot her four times.â€
How does that make sense?
The quotes I just showed you were from a legal document called an â€œinformation to obtain the warrant to search,” or ITO. In other words, itâ€™s the facts that police put to a judge, on July 24, the day after the shooting, to get a search warrant for the murdererâ€™s house and belongings. It has just been made public.
It proves that the official alibis served up the family, the media and the federal government were all lies. They were lying about the shooter, and they knew it, but they lied anyway.
Faisal Hussain lived with his parents. He was 29 years old. Let me tell you about his bedroom at his parents home:
â€œThe [police] dog then hit on a sleigh bed that had two drawers under it. The dog indicated on the left drawer. When the drawer was opened the following was located…â€
And then the copy was blacked out.
But it was done using a black pen, but I can clearly make out the words that were covered up:
Two AK-47 magazines, fully loaded with ammunition; two 9 mm handgun magazines, fully loaded with ammunition; a variety of handgun and shotgun ammunition.
Look at whatâ€™s unreacted: “A white powdery substance.” “An Islamic head dress.”
Here are police interviewing his twin brother:
He advised that, in the past, Faisal has robbed a store with a gun, called the police to say he wanted to kill himself and has been on anti-depressants.
Thatâ€™s armed robbery. Thatâ€™s the stuff that ought to put you away for a decade
Letâ€™s move down to the dad, who was interviewed by cops. His dad:
…took Faisal to Islamabad, Pakistan, about 2-3 years ago to visit family. Faisal was happy on the trip and did not want to return because people left him alone there.
But in this same IOC, the mom says Faisal “has never left Canada.â€
Paragraph 35 refers to a PR statement, issued by the family, although it wasn’t signed. It was written in perfect English.
But of course we learned that the statement was not actually written by the family, but by a Muslim activist who knew he had a job to do â€” de-Islamify this. De-criminalize it. Say it was just â€œmental illness.â€
And the Media Party ran with it â€” because it said what they all wanted to hear.
TONIGHT I’ll go into this ITO document in great detail, and raise more questions.
What I do know is that the official story we were told here is a pack of lies.
We know that Ralph Goodale and Bill Blair, Trudeauâ€™s cabinet ministers, immediately swooped in to say there was no terrorist connection. How could they have said so, so quickly?
We also know is that our news media stops being reporters, and started being anti-reporters, spin-doctors.
And I can promise you that no matter what names the Media Party calls us, weâ€™re going to continue to tell you the truth about the Danforth mass shootings â€” because thatâ€™s our job, even if the rest of the media has forgotten theirs…
It’s once again that time of year to attend the BEST networking event (that happens to be a fundraiser) of the year!
Friday, October 19, 2018 | 5 p.m. to 11 p.m.
The Shooting Edge
7600 Blackfoot Trail SE
(Next to the Calgary Farmers’ Market)
Wellâ€¦ why not? Some great networking and, of course, we get to raise some much needed funds to further the goals of Valour Canada, a not-for-profit organization that focuses on educating Canadians about our shared military heritage. They do this by developing and providing learning opportunities for youth and for the public, that are designed to foster a deeper understanding of who we are as individuals, citizens, and as a nation.
If you have additional questions, feel free to call Jude (403-720-4867) for more information.
ï»¿It’s better to have a firearm and not need it; than to need it and not have it.
ï»¿The Best Gun Control Argument I’ve Heard in Years
By Andrew G. Benjamin | canadafreepress.com | September 24, 2018
Gun control advocates have been saying, in addition to:
â€œLetâ€™s have an intelligent conversation about gun violenceâ€ – arguably an impossibility when unreasonable solutions or illogical proposals are proposedâ€¦
Apparently for those who voice such concerns, it never occurred that guns have never committed violence of any sort. Perhaps with the advent of AI and robotics being developed to a sufficient level, guns will commit violence, adultery, theft, and even sexual predation by groping women with no guns.
They find no hypocrisy using their First Amendment rights to infringe on your Second Amendment rights.
For example: â€œLetâ€™s have â€˜reasonable gun controlâ€ – the argument meaning whatever they think is â€˜reasonableâ€™ is good enough for them to take your guns, your freedom, your physical safety, and your propertyâ€¦
To proposing that: â€œIf we can save one life by prohibiting firearmsâ€ itâ€™s worth it.
It never occurred to them that over 2 million lives each year are SAVED with the presence – if not even the use – of firearms.
In other words, one life saved because a gun was available is not quite as significant as one life saved where there was no threat of violence, and consequently, no need to use a firearm.
Logic is whatever the Left who want to take your guns so they can take your lives would like it to be.
Save a life: Your own or that of your families.
Itâ€™s better to have a firearm and not need it; than to need it and not have it.
Editorial: This nation must talk about a handgun ban
Opinion | Hamilton Spectator | September 24, 2018
It’s time for Canadians to sit down and have an intelligent, adult conversation about handguns â€” and handgun bans.
The strict, legal controls on these weapons that were so effective in earlier generations increasingly seem weak and ineffective.
Year after year, the toll of deaths and injuries caused by handguns continues to climb higher. Year after year, despite the pain, anguish and tears caused by handgun crimes, our politicians, police and courts seem powerless to turn back the rising tide of bloodshed.
That’s why the federal government has taken the wise, if controversial, step of launching nationwide consultations on whether Canada should ban the private ownership of handguns.
Regrettably, the political battle lines are already drawn. Federal Conservative Leader Andrew Scheer flat out rejects any notion of a ban, claiming it would be “completely ineffective.”
He’s certain to have support from at least some handgun owners who will understandably argue they’ve followed all the rules, obeyed all the laws and hurt no one.
Law-abiding citizens defending a freedom, even a qualified freedom, they have long enjoyed should not be thoughtlessly dismissed. Better that they be engaged.
At the very least, fair-minded people should be able to agree that handgun violence has become a crisis in some parts of Canada and that the nation should consider every tool, every remedy that might protect and save lives.
To be sure, Toronto is currently the epicentre of this handgun storm. Citizens there pleaded for help after a mass shooting along the city’s Danforth Avenue on July 22 left two people dead and 12 wounded. A month earlier two sisters, ages five and nine, were shot and seriously injured as they played in a park.
As much as Toronto authorities insist their community is safe, the criminal abuse of handguns now occurs almost daily in Canada’s biggest city, a stark change from just a few years ago. Nor is the handgun threat confined to Toronto.
A recent Statistics Canada report identified an increase in firearms violence that was part of a rising crime rate across the country for the third year in a row.
Tellingly, six out of 10 firearms-related crimes involved handguns.
Though the consultations on a ban have yet to begin, the old arguments against tougher gun controls are already being rolled out.
Critics insist that a ban would be useless, punishing responsible handgun owners while doing nothing to stop criminals from buying weapons illegally brought into Canada from the United States.
But if many handguns are imported illegally from the U.S., police say they are increasingly sourced in Canada, either purchased or stolen from Canadians who have a legal right to possess them.
Other jurisdictions, such as Japan and the United Kingdom, which have banned the private ownership of handguns, experience far less gun violence than Canada does.
And compromises are always possible. Even if Canada did proceed with a ban, the government is open to allowing target shooters to continue to use handguns at tightly regulated commercial facilities.
Perhaps we’ve gotten ahead of ourselves. The public consultations haven’t begun. Any new law would come months, possibly longer, after those discussions.
We don’t need to reach any conclusions before we’ve started to talk. But we do need to open our eyes and see what’s happening around us.
When little children and innocent bystanders are being hit by stray bullets, something has gone badly wrong in Canada.
Can’t we put partisan politics aside for a while? Can’t we just talk about how to set things right?
Use NoGunBanCanada.com to Send Form Letters to Ministers
September 6, 2018
ï»¿TheGunBlog.ca â€” A new website went live last night to help Canadians oppose the firearm seizures being studied by the federal government: NoGunBanCanada.com.
You can use the letter-writing platform developed by Bulls Eye London to print and send pre-written letters to key ministers and officials.
The platform joins TheGunBlog.ca and OneClearVoice.ca in offering tools to challenge government plans to take away more guns from hunters and sport shooters with a federal firearm licence.
Scott Patience, the owner of Bulls Eye London, decided to create the website last week after the prime minister ordered an examination of a â€œfull ban on handguns and assault weapons.â€
â€œThis is the critical moment, right now,â€ Patience told TheGunBlog.ca today by telephone. â€œStart sending the letters today.â€
Hundreds of thousands of gun seizures are already underway because of laws passed by the prime ministerâ€™s political party in 1995.
More are in the works under Bill C-71, a law he proposed in March.
â€œYou need to be part of the discussion, part of the input process,â€ Patience said. â€œNot only what is proposed, but what isnâ€™t proposed.â€
Bulls Eye London is a gun store based in London, Ontario, about 185 km southwest of Toronto. Patience, who shared a message on CanadianGunNutz, said heâ€™s aiming for 100,000 downloads. He got 1,380 in the first 14 hours.
He developed the website with John Fitzgerald, the president of the Crumlin Sportsmenâ€™s Association near London, after consulting with the Canadian Shooting Sports Association.
NoGunBanCanada.com doesnâ€™t mention the prime minister, doesnâ€™t mention any political party and doesnâ€™t include any corporate branding. It doesnâ€™t collect or track any personal information. Anyone can use the templates whether they own guns or not.
â€œWe want to propagate this as wide as possible,â€ Patience said. â€œItâ€™s completely non-partisan. It doesnâ€™t even mention us.â€
Click the link to download the form letters, and open the PDF file.
Enter your name and address on first PDF form. The other letters will be filled in automatically.
Print, fold, tape the edges, and post. No envelope or stamp necessary.
The website says the letters will change in a few weeks. For now they are addressed to the prime minister, the leader of the opposition, and four ministers with responsibilities related to hunting, heritage and sport, and firearm licensing, registration and confiscation.
â€œWhen politicians are talking about something, they start to give it momentum within their own party and within government caucus,â€ said Patience. â€œItâ€™s hard to walk things back. We want them to have a physical manifestation of our displeasure over any potential legislation so that it will affect their thought process as they think about it.â€
By Alex Lindquist | Swift Current Online | September 23, 2018
The federal Conservatives are calling the Liberal government’s Bill C-71 “nothing but another gun registry,” but Public Safety Minister and Regina-Wascana MP Ralph Goodale said that allegation, which has been bandied about for months, is “ludicrous.”
In a release Thursday, Cypress Hills-Grasslands Conservative MP David Anderson said “Bill C-71 is nothing but another gun registry. It targets law-abiding gun owners demonstrating that the Justin Trudeau has given up on gangs and is ganging up on Canadians and the residents of Cypress Hills-Grasslands.”
Goodale explained what this looks like from a Liberal standpoint.
“It’s completely false, it’s ludicrous. There is nothing in this legislation that in any way recreates a federal long gun registry. That was very clear in the testimony before the House of Commons Standing Committee on Public Safety that examined the legislation,” Goodale continued. “They proposed an amendment that would specifically say ‘nothing in this registration will ever be interpreted as the recreation of the federal long-gun registry.’ That amendment was adopted unanimously in the committee and it’s now a part of the law. So the allegation that there’s anything like a registry here is just completely and utterly false.”
Bill C-71 would bring about some new things, including enhanced background checks, mandatory record keeping, authorization to transport, and the classifications of firearms.
Regarding the enhanced background checks, in each province, the chief of firearms officer would be conducting a background on anyone applying for their PAL (Possession and Aquisition License). Anyone wanting to own a firearm would need their PAL before they could legally purchase a firearm. The police would have to examine the person’s entire life looking for potential problems, whereas right now they only have to look back at the persons previous five years.
With the mandatory record keeping, it’s as simple as it’s put. The Liberal government’s plan is to have firearm retailers keep a record of all the firearms sales and inventories.
The Liberal government is also hoping to tighten up on the rules revolving around carrying firearms away from home. Licensed gun owners now must possess an authorization to transport (ATT) if they are wanting to travel with any restricted firearms.
Grande Estate Auctions, 2-7965 Venture Place, Chilliwack, B.C.
Live viewing available Friday, October 26 from 11 a.m. to 7 p.m. Some of our features include 30+ firearms, original vintage signs, die cast vehicles, gas pumps, oil and gas collectibles and much more!
For more information, visit Grande Estate Auctions HERE.
Dutch Government Might Question Religion Before Giving Gun License
Sputnik International | September 27, 2018
The Dutch government intends to introduce amendments to legislation requiring those requesting arms licenses to provide information about their religion, ethnic origin, political views and philosophical convictions, the Volkskrant newspaper reports with reference to the House of Representatives of Parliament and its own sources.
According to the publication, the amendments will be submit for consideration next month. The changes are related to a new EU directive on obtaining the right to own weapons, which was proposed after the terrorist attacks in Paris in 2015.
Proponents of the bill in the Netherlands believe that information is necessary to understand “risk factors” when issuing licenses. However, some parties, in particular, the Christian Democratic Appeal (CDA) and the Democrats 66 (D66), have declared that stricter requirements violate the right to privacy and are not necessary.
“According to the minimum requirements of the European Directive, this is not necessary. We do not promote discrimination and ethnic profiling,” MP Monique den Bur said.
According to the newspaper, the Dutch police provides about 70,000 weapon licenses per year.
ï»¿What is a Mass Shooting? Depends on Who You Ask
By Harold Hutchison | Ammoland.com | September 26, 2018
U.S.A. â€“(AmmoLand.com)- Two years ago, a study by University of Alabama professor Adam Lankford was released. The claim was very shocking: More guns led to more mass shooting taking place. As you might imagine, this study was picked up and run with by the likes of Michael Bloomberg and other anti-Second Amendment types.
Among the media outlets that reported on this study were Newsweek, the Los Angeles Times, Think Progress, Mother Jones, and Salon. The gist of the study was that the United States of America accounted for 31 percent of the mass shootings that take place around the world. Naturally, many who support gun bans, gun rationing schemes, and â€œuniversal background checksâ€ touted the study.
No surprise there. The rare times that major semi-auto bans get rammed through occur when there is a very strong anti-gun majority and even then, they only can get the bill through when there has been a mass shooting, usually when people are overwhelmed with grief and shock in the immediate aftermath. When people have the time to rationally consider facts, they tend to reject gun control schemes.
As you might imagine, supporters of semi-auto bans (and other restrictions) have been trying to get some factual/scientific basis behind their agenda. Itâ€™s hard â€“ in 2016, rifles of all types, not just the AR-15 that Bloombergâ€™s stooges want to ban, killed 374 people according to Justice Department statistics. That total is lower than those for knives, fists and feet (what the DOJ calls â€œpersonal weaponsâ€), and clubs.
Recently, though, the First of all, Lankfordâ€™s study has been questioned by John Lott. But when the Washington Post took a look at Lottâ€™s study, something else emerged: There was no clear definition of what constitutes a â€œmass shooting.â€ The Postâ€™s fact-check on Lott and Lankford this year mentioned that some federal agencies defined an â€œactive shooterâ€ incident as one in which three or more people were shot.
According to a 2015 Congressional Research Service report, Congress issued a post-Newtown definition that involved at least three people being killed in the incident. But that report notes that the FBI has used a different definition over the years â€“ saying that a mass killing involved four or more people killed in the same event, but it allowed for different locations in â€œclose proximity.â€ Did you catch that little addition? So, the Congressional Research Service decided to define a mass shooting as â€œa multiple homicide incident in which four or more victims are murdered with firearms, within one event, and in one or more locations in close proximity.â€ They then also create the sub-category of â€œmass public shootingâ€ by saying itâ€™s a mass shooting that takes place in â€œone or more public locations, such as, a workplace, school, restaurant, house of worship, neighborhood, or other public setting.â€
But even those definitions may not be complete. The Washington Post noted the 1998 school shooting at a high school near Springfield, Oregon (stopped by a NRA memberâ€™s sons, incidentally) had only two dead, but 25 wounded, but still felt like a mass shooting. And this now leads to something else that should be kept in mind when anti-Second Amendment types cite the Lankford study â€“ something the Washington Post touched on.
The Post, while praising Lottâ€™s transparency with his data set, did ask him to remove terrorist incidents from his list of 1,491 mass shootings. He did, and the results changed. The Post also noted that a third critic, who disputed Lottâ€™s total of 43 incidents in the United States, claiming there were actually 188, used a different definition than Lott. Lankford, though, has never released his data, so we donâ€™t know what shootings he has picked.
If we canâ€™t agree on a definition of mass shooting, then we canâ€™t really accurately say for sure how many take place. The best we can ask for, until we get a single standard to define these tragic occasions, is for researchers to be transparent. If you want to read Professor Lottâ€™s study, go here. A total of 451 pages of backup data are here if you want to see the data for yourself.
Looking for upcoming gun shows and matches? Visit our WEBSITE
ï»¿LETTER: Canadian gun culture not comparable to US
By Marc Leduc | Saanich News | September 28, 2018
The recreational shooting community here in Canada is simply not comparable to the gun culture in the USA which is bolstered by their constitutional right to bear arms. Itâ€™s a completely different outlook and philosophy on guns and their purpose. In Canada they are a hobby and owned for sport, not for protection from a individual or a tyrannical government.
Here in Canada, handguns are already banned from civilian ownership, with the exception of those who are vetted by the RCMP. Those who do own them are only allowed to take them from secure storage at home to a licenced range to shoot.
Unfortunately, the politicians have successfully diverted the publicâ€™s attention from the real issues of gangs with illegal guns and holes in our mental health system, both of which require a substantial increase in funding and resources to battle. Taking legal guns out of their locked safes will do nothing to keep illegal guns from getting across the unlocked border.
HOW CAN GUN OWNERS PROTECT THEMSELVES FROM UNFAIR CHARGES? … WITH FIREARM LEGAL DEFENCE INSURANCE.
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 â€“ click on â€œBuy Nowâ€ 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, expertsâ€™ 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.