News

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

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/

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.

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

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.

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

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

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.

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

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