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

News

A brief discussion of current Firearms related issues!
  • 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.


  • 12 Dec 2012 9:53 AM | Anonymous member (Administrator)
    NOTICE!

    Don has had a lengthy stay in hospitals due to his lung ailment and was constantly on a breathing apparatus. For those in the club that knew Don, and wish to attend his funeral, it will be held this coming Saturday, Dec. 15, from 11am to 2pm at the Northside Community Church @ 33507 Dewdney Trunk Rd., Mission, B.C. If you wish or require any further info regarding the event, please phone Karen Robinson, 604-540-6394
  • 07 Oct 2012 9:37 AM | Anonymous member (Administrator)
    Fall Hunters' Special
    Oct. 3rd, 2012

    Anyone who thinks the gun control debate in Canada is over is wrong by a long shot!
    With the ink barely dry on our Conservative government’s legislation to scrap the long-gun registry, our opponents in Parliament and their friends have been clogging the courts with nuisance legal action. I am pleased to provide this update about where things stand on a number of issues you told me were of concern.

    First, the Good News
    The nuisance law suit by the Barbra Schlifer Commemorative Clinic in Toronto for an emergency injunction to prevent the destruction of data from the federal long-gun registry in Ontario failed. The Ontario Superior Court called the appeal by the Toronto women's shelter "weak" and dismissed it.

    Justice D.M. Brown refused to place an injunction on the Federal Government's decision to destroy the information still being held in a computer database in Ottawa. The files include the names, addresses, phone numbers and registry numbers of all long-gun owners in Canada, dating back almost 20 years.

    More Good News for Hunters
    Unlike the Chretien government, which used the United Nations (UN) as an excuse to legislate more and more restrictions on Canadians, particularly when it came to property rights, and your right to enjoy your own personal, private property, our Government has worked hard to protect the rights of all Canadians. Based on your past experience, many worried firearms owners expressed concern about the most recent Arms Trade Treaty Negotiations at the UN, and whether the negotiations could be another back-door attempt to bring back the liberal long-gun registry. I am pleased to share Canada’s position and what it means to you.

    1) The Review Conference on the UN's Programme of Action (PoA) on illicit trafficking in small arms and light weapons was adopted by consensus. This is what it means to lawful firearms owners/vendors in Canada:

    • The Programme of Action (PoA) on Small Arms and Light Weapons (SALWs) is a UN-led set of voluntary measures to promote international cooperation to curtail the illicit global trafficking in SALWs.
    • Canada and its law enforcement agencies, including the RCMP, cooperate fully with international partners, including Interpol, in global efforts to curtail the illicit trafficking in SALWs that fuel international crime and terrorism.
    • Canada's involvement with the PoA is carried out in a manner consistent with all of its domestic laws, policies and regulations.
    • The PoA does not affect in any way the ability of Canadian firearms owners to possess firearms legally in a manner consistent with Canadian laws.


    2) The outcome of the ATT conference that was held earlier in the summer & what that means for lawful firearms owners/vendors in Canada:

    • The ATT is not intended to deal with arms transfers within national borders, nor would it regulate domestic gun ownership.
    • Canada believes that the goal of creating an instrument to impede the illicit flow of arms to criminals, terrorists and human rights abusers is an important one.
    • Canada stresses the importance of the principle of national discretion and that the ATT should recognize the legitimacy of lawful ownership of firearms by responsible citizens for their personal and recreational use, including sport shooting, hunting and collecting.
    • We stress that this should in no way result in any new burdens being placed on lawful firearms owners in Canada.


    There you have it!

    Now, other News
    The Quebec Superior Court recently upheld that province's injunction, saying the destruction of the data violated the Constitution and the spirit of federalism. The federal government will appeal the Quebec Superior Court decision.
    While the Quebec legal case only applies to Quebec residents, the NDP leader of the official opposition in Ottawa, pandering to his Quebec base, has publically vowed "I will work to register firearms.” With the majority of the MPs of his party from Quebec, expect him to kowtow to their every demand. Quebec has elected a very hostile separatist provincial government. Its first antagonistic act was to remove the Flag of Canada from its legislative chamber when its members were sworn in. This fight is not over!
    Now it is your turn. Let me know if we are on the right track by taking a quick poll at www.cherylgallant.com/your-voice/

    Please be assured that as your representative in Ottawa, I will oppose any attempt to bring back the long-gun registry.

    Sincerely,
    Cheryl Gallant, M.P.
    Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke

  • 05 Oct 2012 9:47 PM | Anonymous member (Administrator)
    Guys, Wendy may not be able to stand her ground on an open forum on the internet, but she and her supporters have found a niche over on Twitter, which, in case you have been hiding under a rock, is a "microblogging" service where you can post "Tweets" with a maximum length of 140 characters, and "ReTweet" Tweets that you like. You can do searches for "hashtags", i.e. words that are preceded by a #. The one everybody is using for the C-19 debate is #gunregistry.

    Wendy's on there as @CGCguncontrol. Right now she and her followers are spreading this morning's TorStar scare piece far and wide.

    Setting up an account is dirt easy and takes a couple of minutes, and composing Tweets is even easier.

    You can also "follow" people, which, if you follow a bunch of pro-gun Twitterers, gives you plenty of Tweets to reTweet, upping the volume on our signal.

    CGNers out there to follow and ReTweet include

    @jamiesonforbes
    @CDNLiberalist
    @ShooterOnTheRoc
    @feasrclave
    @ProGunCanada
    @Prousinator69
    @maxqtime
    @MitchRivest
    @Getprepped
    @firearmslaw

    People, please take a few minutes of time, get a Twitter account, and check it occasionally during the run-up to the registry's demise. Fire off a few pro-gun, pro-C-19, anti-anti-BS Tweets, and ReTweet the good ones to pump up the volume. It's easy, and will help us counter Wendy's lies in a popular part of the internet.

    C/O Canadiangunnutz
  • 25 Sep 2012 11:14 AM | Anonymous
    OTTAWA Canada’s public safety minister is applauding an Ontario Superior Court’s rejection of a bid to preserve long gun-registry data.

    Vic Toews called the ruling an “absolute victory for the rule of law.”

    The Toronto court had heard a motion from the Barbra Schlifer Commemorative Clinic for an emergency injunction that would have prevented the federal government from destroying long-gun data in a federal registry that’s been abolished.

    Justice D.M. Brown declined to grant the injunction, rejecting arguments that the destruction would be a violation of the Charter of Rights.

    The City of Toronto had supported the motion, though the province did not.

    The ruling follows a successful court application by the Quebec government to preserve long-gun registry data in that province.

    Last week, Superior Court Judge Marc-Andre Blanchard voided two sections of the Conservative government’s legislation to scrap the long-gun registry.

    The judge ordered Ottawa to surrender all records on Quebec-owned rifles and shotguns in the registry to the province within 30 days.

    Minister of State Maxime Bernier told the House of Commons on Monday the government will appeal the Quebec court decision.

    The Conservative government has said that any province wanting its own long-gun registry is welcome to create one from scratch.

    “We were very pleased that the Ontario Superior Court has ruled in favour of law-abiding hunters, farmers and sport shooters,” Toews said in a statement Friday.

    “The will of Parliament and Canadians has been clear. We do not want any form of a wasteful and ineffective long-gun registry.”

    An outspoken proponent of the registry said the fight will continue.

    “This decision is a setback but we will continue to fight for sensible controls on rifles and shotguns,” Wendy Cukier of the Coalition for Gun Control said in a statement.

    “Information about who owns what guns is essential to reducing the diversion of guns to illegal markets and the registry has been shown to be useful in solving crimes.”
  • 18 Sep 2012 3:57 PM | Anonymous
    The Harper government will appeal the judgment of the Superior Court which gives Quebec the right to get the data from the national registry of gun that was abolished last spring.

    The announcement was made Monday by Conservative cabinet minister Maxime Bernier.

    In a judgment of 42 pages made ​​on September 11, Judge Marc-André Blanchard of Quebec Superior Court declared inoperative Article 29 of the Act to abolish the gun registry, which ordered the destruction of all data that have been collected over time.

    Ottawa must send the data to the Government of Quebec, told the magistrate.

    Justice Blanchard said in its judgment that the registry could not be implemented without the cooperation of the provinces and Ottawa a "lack of respect for the jurisdiction of Quebec" by ordering the destruction of data on citizens province.

    C/O Radio Canada 2012/09/17
  • 31 Aug 2012 5:26 PM | Anonymous
    Canadians shuffled 3844 firearms since August 30, 2012.
    C/O CSSA
  Copyright © 2015 Langley Rod and Gun Club                                          

 

Powered by Wild Apricot Membership Software