Langley Rod and Gun Club
"Serving Shooting Sports since 1946"

News

A brief discussion of current Firearms related issues!
  • 19 Apr 2016 8:20 AM | Anonymous member (Administrator)

    TEAM CSSA E-NEWS – April 16, 2016

     

    To subscribe or unsubscribe, contact us at: enews@cssa-cila.org

     

    ** Please share this with your friends **

     

     

    COMMENTARY – IS BILL S-223 A DANGEROUS "TROJAN HORSE?"

     

    She's baaaack. Just when you thought it was safe to go into the Senate of Canada, along comes Senator Céline Hervieux-Payette with the newest incarnation of her Draconian anti-gun bill, now called Bill S-223.

     

    This is the latest of several legislative introductions the honourable Senator has made to inflict a wicked piece of garbage on Canadians.

     

    The bill would change the "Restricted" category to "Circumscribed" (cutting off the flash hider of your AR-15?), prohibit all firearms except a VERY narrow range of hunting firearms and “localize” the prohibition of restricted firearms. In other words, that's centralized lock up of some of your guns and destruction of the rest.

     

    ALL SEMI-AUTOS OF ALL TYPES (except .22s) WOULD BE RESTRICTED/ PROHIBITED.

     

    As well, no one would be allowed to move circumscribed (restricted/prohibited) guns except approved “Transporters.” Of course, these would be made up of highly trained, untouchable and steely-eyed folks – like Canada Post, but even better.

     

    Guns would not be “registered” but “inscribed.” Says the good Senator: “You can appreciate that the terms ‘registration’ and ‘registered’ have been used so often that we simply thought that using the term ‘inscription’ would eliminate some anxiety. I think that using the term inscription does not evoke feelings of fear”"

     

    Yes, it's true, she really does think you are that stupid.

     

    Seemingly, she also thinks the media and the rest of Canadians are stupid enough to be fooled by this childish attempt at deceit.

     

    The Senator also states: “The firearm death rate in the United States, a country with very weak gun control laws, was 10.3 per 100,000 population in 2011. That amounts to 32,163 deaths in one year, according to the National Vital Statistic Reports from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. That would be the number of deaths if 20 towers, like those of the World Trade Center, were to collapse every year in the United States. There were 2,977 victims on September 11, 2001.”

     

    Apparently she failed arithmetic too.

     

    Twenty World Trade Center tragedies would total 59,540, not 32,163. She also quotes the U.S. example as proof that Canada is different because of our gun control while failing to recognize that as the numbers of U.S. firearms goes up, violent crime with firearms goes down. Apparently the Senator's facts only go in one direction and her prowess in deciphering and analyzing social trends and dangers is only dwarfed by her considerable mathematics skills.

     

    As the last pail of stupid gets thrown into the tub, all restricted/prohibited would be forbidden to transfer.

     

    There's a lot more too. Some 76 pages of legalese gobbledygook to decipher, but we are on it!

     

    The bill cannot receive second reading until the Liberals and the Conservatives speak to the bill. The Liberals are set to speak on April 19 and the Conservative are TBA, but we are watching this closely. Bill S-223 has had a HUGE amount of work put into its creation. It took a number of Department of Justice lawyers a few months of work to create this one – and that is very concerning.

     

    We will be listening to the Liberal's statement on the bill, anxious to hear if their promise to not create a gun registry meant that it was okay to create an “inscription registry.” If this bill passes second reading, we go to war!

     

    Stay tuned, polish your armour and sharpen your swords.

     

  • 13 Apr 2016 2:39 PM | Anonymous member (Administrator)




    FW: Safe City Project underway in Surrey



    x

     Subject: FW: Safe City Project underway in Surrey

    All info seen from police in the past indicated most weapons used in crimes are smuggled in from USA. Now it seems Bill Fordy has come up with a new statement. I know guys like you will have everything up to date but some people do not and will be shocked when police drop in and seize their weapons.

     From: Surrey RCMP [mailto:Surrey.communications@rcmp-grc.gc.ca]
    Sent: April-12-16 9:43 AM

     



     



     

    Share this Em











    Safe City Project underway in Surrey


    Release Date: April 11, 2016

    Surrey RCMP is undertaking a project dubbed as “Safe City”, which aims to educate firearms owners on current laws surrounding the registration requirements for restricted and prohibited firearms.

    Police officers from the Surrey RCMP, supported by the National Weapon Enforcement Support Team (NWEST) and Combined Forces Special Enforcement Unit (CFSEU – BC) have been and will be visiting the owners of restricted and prohibited firearms whose registrations have expired.

    The proactive undertaking was developed prior to the recent shootings that have occured in Surrey.

    “The objective of this project is to educate firearms owners on the current laws surrounding firearms, as some may not even realize that they are non-compliant,” said Assistant Commissioner Bill Fordy, the Officer in Charge of Surrey RCMP. “We are running this program to help gun owners with registering their expired, prohibited, and restricted firearms, or help facilitate relinquishment of unwanted firearms safely and effectively to police. Our aim is to reduce the number of illegally owned and unregistered firearms in Surrey, as well as enhance public and police officer safety.  The majority of gun related crimes in Canada are committed with guns that are domestically sourced.”

    Ridge-Meadows RCMP also successfully launched the program in November 2015 and announced their result after it is was done (see news release).

    If you have any unwanted firearms, please contact your local police department on their non-emergency line. Police will go to your residence to receive the firearms. For security reasons, please do not transport the firearms into police departments.

    For information on licensing, registration and general safekeeping of firearms, please visit the RCMP’s Canadian Firearms Program (CFP) website at www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/cfp-pcaf.

    Surrey RCMP commit to providing an update on the Safe City Project upon completion.

     


     

    Committed to serving the community


    Your Surrey RCMP is committed to providing a sensitive, responsive, professional policing service for all Surrey communities. For more information about Surrey RCMP Programs & Services, how to Protect Yourself, or our latest News Releases visit www.surrey.rcmp.ca.

    For media inquiries contact:
    Surrey RCMP Media Relations Unit
    604-599-7776
    surrey_media_relations@rcmp-grc.gc.ca


     















     



     

    Surrey RCMP Facebook


    Surrey RCMP Twitter


     


    Visit our Website

     



     



    City of Surrey on behalf of Surrey RCMP


    13450 104 Avenue, Surrey, BC V3E 0C6
    Manager of Marketing and Communications   |   604-591-4011
    Privacy Policy
      |   Unsubscribe from this mailing list   |   View Online


    To ensure you never miss an email from us, please add surrey.communications@rcmp-grc.gc.ca to your contacts.




     


    No virus found in this message.
    Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
    Version: 2015.0.6189 / Virus Database: 4545/12018 - Release Date: 04/12/16

     

    Avast logo

    This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
    www.avast.com

     

    Click here to Reply, Reply to all, or Forward

    5.23 GB (34%) of 15 GB used

    Manage

    Terms - Privacy

    Last account activity: 11 minutes ago

    Details
  • 13 Apr 2016 2:24 PM | Anonymous member (Administrator)

    Take a look at what the Liberals are up to - and be prepared to fight the obvious ignorance of the facts and detachment from reality. Clearly these people are not playing with a full deck?!

    http://eurekablog.ca/en/articles/politics/national/strenghtening-canadians-security-and-promoting-hunting-and-recreational-shooting/?fb_action_ids=10153413570062433&fb_action_types=og.comments

  • 15 Sep 2015 6:15 PM | Anonymous member (Administrator)

    Subject: Team CSSA E-NEWS – September 11, 2015

    POLS BECOME PALS AND AUTOMATIC ATTS BEGIN TODAY!
    (Staff | Calibre Magazine | September 2, 2015)

     

    As of today, two of C-42’s most-anticipated components come into effect: The transition of POLs (Possession Only Licenses) to PALs (Possession and Acquisition Licenses) and the inclusion of the “Automatic Authorization to Transport” on RPAL licenses. While outlined in the text of C-42, both of these matters have been the subject of much debate, as the exact manner in which they will be released has been anything but clear… but as of today, the RCMP Canadian Firearms Program has finally issued a document outlining the process by which these changes will (and did) occur.

    In the matter of the POL to PAL transition, it’s as simple as expected; if you possess a valid POL you now possess a valid PAL. There is no need to replace your card. You POL number is quite simply no registered as a PAL number in the firearms centre’s database so you may immediately proceed to your local gun shop and buy a new gun right now if you so desire. Obviously, when you renew your license, the newly-issued card will be labelled as a PAL but again that is not necessary until your card expires. If your POL has expired already, you must take the CFSC or CRFSC to obtain a PAL.

    The matter of Automatic ATTs is a bit more nebulous. Basically, if you currently have an ATT to transport a firearm to a range or gun club, the following conditions have been automatically applied to your license:

     

    • ·        These license conditions authorize the transport of restricted and/or prohibited firearms registered to the license holder within their province of residence by the most direct route possible for the specific indicated purposes.
    • ·        Transportation of restricted firearms and/or prohibited handguns (12(6.1) of the Firearms Act) possessed for the purpose of target practice to and from all shooting clubs and ranges approved under section 29 of the  Firearms Act.
    • ·        Transportation of restricted firearms and/or prohibited firearms to and from any place a peace officer, firearms officer of Chief Firearms Officer (CFO) is located for verification, registration or disposal in accordance with the Firearms Act or Part III of the Criminal Code.
    • ·        Transportation of restricted firearms and/or prohibited firearms to and from a business that holds a license authorizing it to repair or appraise prohibited or restricted firearms.
    • ·        Transportation of restricted firearms and/or prohibited firearms to and from a gun show.
    • ·        Transportation of restricted firearms and/or prohibited firearms to a port of exit, in order to take them outside Canada and from a port of entry.
    • ·        Transportation of newly acquired restricted firearms and/or prohibited firearms from the place of acquisition to the license holder’s dwelling house or other place authorized by the CFO.

    If you do not currently hold an ATT for the purposes of taking a firearm to the range, the above conditions have not been automatically applied to your license, but will be applied when you:

    • acquire your first restricted firearm;
    • acquire additional restricted or prohibited firearms;
    • request a new ATT during valid period of license;
    • request a replacement ATT during valid period of license; or,
    • renew your firearms license with restricted and/or prohibited privileges.

    When any one of those above events occurs, the automatic ATT conditions will be applied to your license, and a new license card will be printed to reflect that special conditions are attached to the license. The card carrier (paper that accompanies the license) issued with the new license will have the usual standard conditions listed, while the new six automatic ATT conditions will be listed under “Special Conditions” on the carrier. Whether or not this carrier must be carried with the license remains unclear as two separate calls to the Canadian Firearms Centre for clarification obtained two different responses; one which claimed the Special Conditions must be carried and one which claimed the carrier should be carried but was not legally necessary as the conditions are applied to the license regardless of if you physically possess the paper saying so and that confirmation of the conditions is available to any law enforcement officer electronically.

    It should be noted as well that if the reason given for acquiring a new firearm is for the purposes of collecting firearms, only five automatic ATT conditions will be attached to your license, with the exclusion of the first condition. In other words if you have no ATT, and buy a new restricted or prohibited firearm for the purposes of collecting firearms, you will not get an automatic ATT allowing you take restricted/prohibited firearms to the range.

    Holders of existing ATTs will not automatically receive a new card reflecting the new conditions that have been attached to their license (just as existing POL holders will not receive a card reflecting their new status as PAL holders), but the Canadian Firearms Centre’s database will reflect the changes in conditions for all RPAL holders that meet the criteria; namely those with pre-existing ATTs, and those that complete any of the above steps. Also, while the new conditions will have been applied to any existing ATT holders, the existing ATT remains valid. In a call to the Canadian Firearms Centre, we were told that for this reason it would be prudent to retain any existing ATTs with the restricted firearms they pertain to as they remain valid documents, but the Firearms Centre was also unanimous in saying that travelling to the range with restricted firearms but without our existing ATT (or any new license carrier declaring the new Special Conditions) this morning would be legal due to the new conditions placed upon our licenses.

     

    For the full document from the RCMP go here: http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/cfp-pcaf/notice-avis-2015-09-eng.htm

    See the story: http://calibremag.ca/home/2015/09/pols-become-pals-and-automatic-atts-begin-today/

  • 08 Mar 2014 5:14 PM | Anonymous member (Administrator)
    This issue should be of concern to all Canadian firearms owners!

    At the end of February, the RCMP firearms lab quietly reclassified two firearms.

    The “Swiss Arms” brand of rifles and some versions of the CZ 858 rifle (both
    semi-autos) have been moved from the non-restricted category to the
    "prohibited" category, effectively making some 15,000 Canadian gun owners
    "criminals" by possessing a firearm they now don't have the appropriate
    license for.

    These rifles were initially inspected by the RCMP firearms lab and approved
    for sale as non-restricted in Canada a dozen years ago.

    There have been no documented cases of either of these firearms being used
    in a crime or of one ever being converted from “semi” to “full auto”, which
    of course would be a crime.

    This action appears to be a “gun grab” rather than a “public safety” issue,
    initiated by the unelected bureaucrats at the RCMP who seem to be making up
    laws without any political over-site or consultation…most likely to “test
    the waters” before moving forward with a much broader and far reaching list
    of firearms prohibitions, mostly aimed at semi auto rifles (for now).

    Since the last 3 days in February when these prohibitions were revealed
    there has been a massive response from Canadian gun owners and firearms
    organizations (NFA and CSSA) indicating their extreme displeasure and
    concerns over these prohibitions and the actions of the RCMP.

    The Federal government has acted quickly, announcing a 5 year “amnesty” for
    all owners of these now “prohibited” firearms. Whether this means the owners
    get to continue using them as “non-restricted” rifles, or that they become
    expensive paper-weights that cannot leave the house (Swiss Arms rifles cost
    around $3500) is yet to be determined.

    If the government eventually decides on a “buy back” program for these
    rifles, the Canadian taxpayer would be on the hook for over 15 million
    dollars!

    Here is the “good news”…Canadian gun owners (for the time being) are front
    and center in the concerns of the current government…an election is
    coming…the time to act is now.

    Meaningful changes to the Canadian Firearms Act are possible if enough
    concerned citizens are heard…changes that punish criminals rather than law
    abiding firearms owners.

    Whether you own a semi-automatic rifle or not, the time to act for “common
    sense” firearms laws in Canada has never been better.

    There are countless articles etc available online if you’re interested in
    researching this issue further.

  • 08 Mar 2014 5:07 PM | Anonymous member (Administrator)
    Last week, without Parliamentary input, the RCMP unilaterally reclassified two types of rifles. All Swiss Arms and most models of the CZ858 are now prohibited. This affects approximately 12,000 members in the firearms community and represents anywhere between 10 and 15 million dollars of private property.

    If you are not familiar with the issue, please take a quick read of the briefing below:

    Swiss-Arms-and-CZ-858-Relassification-A-brief-explanation-of-the-gun-ban

    For more in-depth discussion, pending legal actions and writing resources:

    Swiss-Arms-and-CZ-858-Reclassification-Forum

    We urge you to act on this immediately. Please contact your Member of Parliament, the Minister of Public Safety, the Minister of Justice and the Prime Minister of Canada Stephen Harper. Tell them the reclassification by the RCMP is unacceptable. The current Firearms Act is biased against responsible Canadian Sportsmen and should be replaced.

    Source: Canadiangunnutz
  • 24 Jan 2014 11:05 AM | Anonymous member (Administrator)
    Public Safety Minister takes firearms course


    http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/sunnews/politics/archives/2014/01/20140117-170350.html

    On Wednesday, Minister of Public Safety Steven Blaney posted to Facebook a picture of himself attending a Canadian Firearms Safety Course.

    Blaney can now apply for a Possession and Acquisition License (PAL), which will allow him to purchase firearms and ammunition - presuming the high-ranking Cabinet minister passes mandatory security checks. Blaney's office indicated that the Minister completed both the non-restricted and restricted course, meaning he can apply for a license allowing the purchase of both long-guns and handguns.

    Blaney's director of communications, Jean-Christophe de Le Rue, said Blaney was "pleased" to take the course and "looks forward to many years of participating in this sport that is a part of our Canadian heritage."

    De Le Rue would not say whether or not Blaney intends to purchase firearms once licensed.

    Qualified instructors of the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters (OFAH) administered the course to Blaney and a number of his staff.

    Greg Farrant, Manager of Government Affairs and Policy at OFAH, said his organization was happy to provide the course: "Firearms owners in this country are safe and trained. It's good to have a firsthand experience. We're very pleased the minister did that."

    "Given the fact that he's responsible for firearms safety, [Minister Blaney] felt it important that he experience the same course as everyone else," explained Farrant.

    The Minister's portfolio includes both the Canadian Firearms Program and the RCMP.

    According to the RCMP, there were 1.9 million individuals legally licensed to own firearms in Canada as of September 2013.

    De La Rue touted the Conservatives elimination of the much-maligned long-gun registry, noting that they will "always stand up for law-abiding hunters from every region." He also indicated that further reforms might be on the way, saying they will "continue to take action to reduce needless red tape" for law-abiding firearms owners.

    Blaney was first elected in January 2006 and is the MP for the Quebec riding of Lévis-Bellechasse, just south of Quebec City. He was named the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness in July 2013.

  • 26 Feb 2013 9:53 AM | Anonymous member (Administrator)

    22 February 2013

    The Right Honourable Stephen Harper
    Prime Minister of Canada
    Office of the Prime Minister
    80 Wellington St.
    Ottawa, ON K1A 0A2

    Dear Mr. Harper,

    RE: Chief Firearms Officers

    The BC Wildlife Federation (BCWF) is concerned about Chief Firearms Officers
    (CFO) arbitrarily imposing new and onerous interpretations of firearms
    regulations for legal, law abiding firearms owners. I am writing to you on
    behalf of BCWF members to object to the seemingly arbitrary expansion of
    power behind closed doors. A few examples are troubling. In BC, the CFO,
    without announcing any justification, changed the conditions of the
    Authorization to Transport (ATT) to restrict transportation to only one
    club; the Ontario CFO arbitrarily imposed an onerous new requirement on
    firearms owners.

    BCWF members are concerned that CFOs can arbitrarily impose additional
    paperwork. Are there no limits? Does anything go as long as a government
    official asserts "public safety?" Can CFOs unilaterally impose whatever
    paperwork they dream up, however unnecessary or burdensome? Who in Ottawa is
    responsible for setting policy for the country's CFOs?

    It is unacceptable that CFOs can impose these new requirements and have done
    so with no prior notice or even adequate justification. The new requirements
    are unnecessary and are not mandated in the Firearms Act. Neither the BC nor
    the Ontario CFO cited a public safety problem with the previous regulations.
    Previously, an Authorization to Transport (ATT) allowed law-abiding permit
    holders to transport a prohibited or restricted firearm to any qualifying
    shooting range for the purpose of recreational sport shooting or to a
    gunsmith.

    The new conditions in Ontario require target shooters who visit a range that
    is not their home club to obtain a personal letter of invitation from that
    range before being allowed to transport their firearm. To my knowledge, BC
    has not yet specified the necessary conditions to visit other ranges than
    their home range. The new paperwork is of course in addition to the ATT they
    already have and will increase the amount of paperwork necessary for
    shooting ranges. Most ranges are largely staffed by volunteers, who will
    have now to process more paper for shooting competitions. Competitions are
    the life's blood of the shooting sports. This is another burdensome
    requirement on law-abiding sport shooters and is yet another blow to a
    traditional Canadian activity.

    In a letter to shooting ranges and clubs dated January 28, 2013, the Ontario
    Chief Firearms Officer outlines the new changes, without providing any
    rationale for the change. The letter refers to the vested interest that
    clubs and their members have in ensuring that shooting sports are pursued
    safely and in accordance with the law. In fact, these same clubs and members
    have been conducting their activities for decades under the previous rules,
    and doing so in a safe and responsible manner. What is missing from the
    equation is any justification of why the changes are necessary.

    Every trained and licenced firearms owner who uses firearms for recreational
    shooting at ranges is already subject to a stringent set of rules governing
    the use and transportation of their firearms. Authorizations to Transport
    (ATTs) have been in place since 1978 and are already more than sufficient to
    monitor law-abiding citizens. There has not been a problem with ATT holders
    committing crimes, and even if they had been, these rule changes would not
    in themselves deter anyone with criminal intent.

    To conclude, I am writing you on behalf of BCWF members who hold restricted
    weapons to request that you urge the CFOs to withdraw these arbitrary new
    ATT requirements. Indeed, given that the police already vet holders of
    restricted weapons, it is not obvious what legitimate public safety concerns
    the ATT itself serves.
    Instead of wasting scarce resources on increasing the paper burden on
    law-abiding citizens perhaps public safety would be better protected by
    targeting criminals. If you are looking for ways to reduce bureaucracy, we
    respectfully request that budgets for the CFOs should be considered.

    Thank you for considering my requests and I look forward to your reply.

    Respectfully yours,


    Bill Bosch
    President BC Wildlife Federation

    CC: Honourable Vic Toews, Minister of Public Safety Canada
    Public Safety Canada

    Candice Bergen, MP
    Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety

    Gary Mauser, Ph D
    Professor Emeritus
    Simon Fraser University

  • 05 Jan 2013 6:44 PM | Anonymous member (Administrator)

    OTTAWA - An Ontario man who says he has been cleared of charges stemming from an attack on his home says he is proud of the precedent the case sets with regards to Canadians’ right to armed self defence.

    Ian Thomson says a judge in Welland acquitted him on Thursday of firearms-related charges in connection from a 2010 incident in which he fired three warning shots at a group of men who set his Ontario home ablaze with firebombs.

    Some experts say the ruling by Justice Tory Colvin could have wide-ranging implications for self defence law in Canada.

    Thomson described the two-and-a-half-year legal battle as a “horrible ordeal.”

    “I firmly believe they wanted to make an example of me, and to put the fear into every Canadian firearm owner that you are not allowed to defend yourself with a firearm,” he said.

    In August 2010, 54-year-old Thomson was sleeping in his Port Colborne, Ont., home when he awoke to the sound of Molotov cocktails exploding. Looking outside he saw part of his house and his porch ablaze, and four masked men outside. A former firearms instructor, he quickly unlocked his gun safe, loaded a .38 calibre revolver and stepped outside.

    Thomson fired three warning shots, which caused the men to flee, before dousing the flames with a garden hose and calling 911.

    When police arrived he was taken into custody, and his collection of firearms – assorted handguns worth over $10,000 – and ammunition were seized and impounded.

    Soon thereafter, Crown attorneys charged Thomson with careless use of a firearm. These charges were later dropped, and he was charged with two counts of unsafe storage.

    Canada’s leading firearms lawyer Ed Burlew represented Thomson, and said the decision is a significant victory for Canadian gun owners.

    “We all have a fundamental right to protect out property and our families,” he said. “You’ve got to be able to defend yourself without fear of prosecution, and I think that’s well established now.”

    Crown prosecutors argued Thomson had fallen afoul of safe storage regulations because, on the night of the incident, Thomson had a box of .38 Special ammunition in his bedside table. The judge ruled this was irrelevant, Burlew said, since Thomson’s guns were all securely locked away in a gun safe.

    The four men who attacked Thomson were all sentenced to between two and four years incarceration.

    Unless the Crown decides to appeal the case, Thomson’s collection of guns must be returned to him within 30 days.

    Thomson said he came under intense pressure from police to enter a plea and accept a weapons prohibition, but refused due to his belief he was innocent.

    “I would not cut a deal because I did not break the law,” he said. “And – to use a pun – I stuck to my guns.”

    Thomson said he racked up about $60,000 in legal costs during the trial, but said much of that was donated by members of the National Firearms Association, the Canadian Sports Shooting Association (CSSA) and readers of the popular pro-firearms online message board CanadianGunNutz.com.

    Many messages of support for Thomson were posted on the internet by gun owners following the decision.

    “This case is extremely significant and Mr. Thomson's victory is a victory for common sense and freedom for all Canadians,” the CSSA said in a statement.

    OTTAWA - An Ontario man who says he has been cleared of charges stemming from an attack on his home says he is proud of the precedent the case sets with regards to Canadians’ right to armed self defence.

    Ian Thomson says a judge in Welland acquitted him on Thursday of firearms-related charges in connection from a 2010 incident in which he fired three warning shots at a group of men who set his Ontario home ablaze with firebombs.

    Some experts say the ruling by Justice Tory Colvin could have wide-ranging implications for self defence law in Canada.

    Thomson described the two-and-a-half-year legal battle as a “horrible ordeal.”

    “I firmly believe they wanted to make an example of me, and to put the fear into every Canadian firearm owner that you are not allowed to defend yourself with a firearm,” he said.

    In August 2010, 54-year-old Thomson was sleeping in his Port Colborne, Ont., home when he awoke to the sound of Molotov cocktails exploding. Looking outside he saw part of his house and his porch ablaze, and four masked men outside. A former firearms instructor, he quickly unlocked his gun safe, loaded a .38 calibre revolver and stepped outside.

    Thomson fired three warning shots, which caused the men to flee, before dousing the flames with a garden hose and calling 911.

    When police arrived he was taken into custody, and his collection of firearms – assorted handguns worth over $10,000 – and ammunition were seized and impounded.

    Soon thereafter, Crown attorneys charged Thomson with careless use of a firearm. These charges were later dropped, and he was charged with two counts of unsafe storage.

    Canada’s leading firearms lawyer Ed Burlew represented Thomson, and said the decision is a significant victory for Canadian gun owners.

    “We all have a fundamental right to protect out property and our families,” he said. “You’ve got to be able to defend yourself without fear of prosecution, and I think that’s well established now.”

    Crown prosecutors argued Thomson had fallen afoul of safe storage regulations because, on the night of the incident, Thomson had a box of .38 Special ammunition in his bedside table. The judge ruled this was irrelevant, Burlew said, since Thomson’s guns were all securely locked away in a gun safe.

    The four men who attacked Thomson were all sentenced to between two and four years incarceration.

    Unless the Crown decides to appeal the case, Thomson’s collection of guns must be returned to him within 30 days.

    Thomson said he came under intense pressure from police to enter a plea and accept a weapons prohibition, but refused due to his belief he was innocent.

    “I would not cut a deal because I did not break the law,” he said. “And – to use a pun – I stuck to my guns.”

    Thomson said he racked up about $60,000 in legal costs during the trial, but said much of that was donated by members of the National Firearms Association, the Canadian Sports Shooting Association (CSSA) and readers of the popular pro-firearms online message board CanadianGunNutz.com.

    Many messages of support for Thomson were posted on the internet by gun owners following the decision.

    “This case is extremely significant and Mr. Thomson's victory is a victory for common sense and freedom for all Canadians,” the CSSA said in a statement.

    By Jeff Davis, The Canadian Press January 5, 2013 6:40 PM
    Read more: http://www.thestarphoenix.com/news/acquitted+charges+home+attack+hopes+self+defence/7779851/story.html#ixzz2H9zoOxG8

  • 27 Dec 2012 3:26 PM | Anonymous member (Administrator)
    When you argue for a living, you can tell how an argument is going for you. The evidence and my gut both tell me that the liberals have lost control of the gun control narrative.

    Not for lack of trying – it was almost as if they were poised to leap into action across the political, media and cultural spectrum the second the next semi-human creep shot up another “gun free zone.” This was their big opening to shift the debate and now it’s closing. They’ve lost, and they are going nuts.

    The evidence is all around that this is not going to be the moment where America begins a slide into disarmed submission through an endless series of ever-harsher “reasonable restrictions” on our fundamental rights. You just have to look past the shrieking media harpies to see what’s really happening.

    Let’s start with the most obvious omen that this tsunami has peaked. President Obama thrilled his base by grandstanding at the memorial, and then promptly washed his hands of it by handing it over to a “blue ribbon commission.” Making Joe Biden its chairman was like staking a vampire through the heart, then hosing him down with holy water before burying his body beneath the Gilroy Garlic Festival.

    Why does Obama want this gun thing buried? While intensely popular with metrosexual pundits, coastal liberals, and cultural bigots slobbering at the opportunity to stick it to those banjo –strummin’, God-believers out in the hinterlands, gun control remains poison to Red State Democrats.

    Joe Manchin of West Virginia couldn’t resist some sanctimonious posturing, but clearly he heard enough from his constituents to sprint-back his heresy with a WaPo op-ed explaining how awesome the NRA is and how groovy gun owners are. He will never take sides against the family again.

    We didn’t see the Red State Democrats up for re-election in two years out dumping on their constituents to please the media. Call it “the Fredo Effect,” and 2014 is the rowboat. We won’t hear from the likes of Senators Landrieu, Pryor and Begich until they vote “No.”

    Sure, Senator Feinstein will submit her gun ban wish list to Harry Reid, who will look at it sagely, nod politely, and let it die. He’s more Tom Hagen than Fredo. He is going to retain the NRA “A” rating his website proudly showcases regardless of what Chuck Schumer thinks. What gets you hosannas in Manhattan gets you unemployed in Searchlight.

    So, the politicians’ actions have spoken louder than their words, but what of the media? We lawyers always say that when your case is strong, pound on the law and the evidence, and when your case is weak, pound on the table. The furniture is splintering in Liberalland.

    Their post-Newtown strategy was always to prevent an effective response from the pro-gun freedom side by both rapid action and by demonization. But the holidays and the kabuki theater that is the fiscal cliff drama meant that legislative action, their Holy Grail, would have to wait. That gave people time to think and the gun freedom side the time to react.

    Demonizing those who support gun freedom was always intended as a weapon to silence them. It was also critical that we, law-abiding gun owners, become the Other. By dehumanizing us and painting us as evil, it is that much easier to strip us of our rights.

    But gun freedom advocates fought back. Using the mainstream media, conservative media and especially social media – we need to understand its huge significance here – gun freedom advocates countered liberals’ bogus “facts.” Media reports about “automatic” weapons were corrected, clownish statements about “high caliber magazines” and “large capacity round” were mocked. The struggle raged over millions of Facebook posts. The average citizen saw gun banners ask “When will America control access to weapons?” and then saw several experts among his or her friends post about the significant hurdles one needs to get over to get a gun. Truth bypassed the mainstream media and became a weapon for the side of fundamental rights.

    The banners overplayed their hand, losing credibility with every distortion, evasion and smear. The cries of “Blood is on your hands!” failed to resonate – reasonable Americans just did not blame the actions of a single sociopath on millions of their fellow neighbors. And it did not help when third-string celebrities and wizened literary has-beens took to hoping gun rights advocates would be shot for daring to oppose disarmament.

    The gun banners also counted on a narrative that portrayed a respect for the Second Amendment. They sought only “reasonable restrictions” – why, no one wants to ban or confiscate your guns! The problem was one of memo distribution – not everybody got that memo. Mayor Bloomberg was putting out that what few guns he might graciously deign to leave in the hands of the unworthy would be starved of bullets, while Governor Cuomo acknowledged that confiscation was one of the options.

    Oops. “Gun control” is a process that is designed and intended to lead to a total gun ban, and the banners are counting on people not realizing it.

    Their credibility and motives already in question, the gun banners became vulnerable to a shift in the paradigm from depriving law-abiding citizens of effective defensive weapons to the idea of protecting kids with armed personnel in schools.

    Suddenly, the gun banners had to argue two ridiculous positions. The first was that allowing trained educators or police having weapons in schools is a danger. The problem is that people generally like and trust teachers and cops. The second position was even worse, that armed personnel or police are somehow utterly useless against untrained, amateur creeps who seek to confront six-year olds. All over America, millions of parents noted how none of the wealthy gun banners were disbanding their personal security teams and thought, “You know, I think I’d like having a cop around my kid too.”

    Frustration at the fact that their argument had not been unquestioningly accepted morphed into faux moral outrage that their opponents had dared offer any alternative proposal at all. E.J. Dionne of the WaPo was a prime example. He had to “grope for words to describe the National Rifle Association’s proposal,” yet he managed to find some: “Absurd, unbelievable, tragic, obscene,” as well as “insane.”

    Note that Dionne’s righteous fury does not apply to the armed guards at the Post’s front door, surrounding President Obama, or to anywhere else other than in the vicinity of regular people’s children.

    Particularly amusing are the liberals who transform into green eyeshades misers with the public purse when it comes to cops in schools. The folks who can’t spend enough dough on fudge-smeared, patriarchy-challenging performance artists suddenly become thrifty Scotsmen when it comes to doling out a few shillings to put a cop on campus.

    They have been unable to articulate any coherent argument opposing putting cops in schools because there is no coherent argument against putting cops in schools. But more than anything, the mommies at the affluent Los Angeles-area school my kids attend have convinced me that the narrative has escaped the gun grabbers.

    Knowing our reputations as proud conservatives – we represent diversity for our liberal friends – a pal of my wife remarked, out of the blue, that “I think my husband and I need to buy guns.” Whoa.

    And as third graders sang holiday songs at their pageant while I surveyed the packed, vulnerable room, I blurted out to another mommy that I wished I could legally carry a weapon to protect those kids. And she told me that she wished that I could too. Whoa.

    Gun banners, you lost the President, the senators, the social media, and now you’ve lost liberal LA mommies. You’ve lost everything. Again.

    By: Kurt Schlichter

    Kurt Schlichter's freelance work has been published in nationally recognized publications like the New York Post, Washington Examiner, Los Angeles Times, the Boston Globe, the Washington Times, the Army Times, and the San Francisco Examiner.


  Copyright © 2015 Langley Rod and Gun Club                                          

 

Powered by Wild Apricot Membership Software