|
|
Team CSSA E-News - December 16, 2016
|
|
|
COMMENTARY: GATHERING AMMO INFORMATION TO ATTACK OUR RANGES
|
|
Environment Canada (EC) has commissioned a company in Vancouver called "ToxEcology – Environmental Consulting Ltd" to gather data regarding lead ammunition.
This is the second time they have launched this initiative. The intent is to gather data to be used by EC to ban the sale of all lead ammunition in Canada, despite the mountains of scientific evidence that shows lead on shooting ranges is not a problem.
THIS IS SERIOUS. Fabricated evidence against the use of lead ammunition has already resulted in the closure of shooting ranges and lead ammunition use in some regions of the world. Most harshly, it affects shotgunners and indoor ranges, despite existing safeguards that work.
Make no mistake on where this is coming from: this is being spearheaded by anti-hunting and anti-firearm groups around the globe.
And in giving ToxEcology data, you are giving them the information they will torque and spin to justify a grave attack on our community. Need some proof? How about the letter sent from ToxEcology to all "Range Managers" in Canada? Ever see a listing of Range Managers? Nope, because there is no public listing. The confidential information comes from the government through the CFOs that regulate ranges.
As stated earlier, EC began this assault a few years ago and at that time, the Harper government recognized it for what it was - a thinly veiled anti-gun attack - and shut it down.
But it's back.
This "study" can only have one purpose: to ignore the vast data amassed that prove lead on ranges is of no concern and to fabricate evidence that will be used to make shooting more difficult and far more expensive.
Most American and Canadian manufacturers and distributors have soundly rejected cooperation with ToxEcology.
Say
NO to this request.
THE LETTER FROM TOXECOLOGY TO RANGE MANGERS ...
"Dear Range Manager,
I am conducting a study for the Canadian Federal Government on the uses of lead in ammunition in Canada – please see attached letter. In 2013, the Canadian Government released a study on all uses of lead in Canada. This ‘State of the Science’ report looked at all products containing lead and, although uses of lead in ammunition are expected to be small compared to other uses (e.g. such as lead acid batteries), it was noted that no recent data on total uses of lead in ammunition in Canada was available. The primary aim of my work is to gather current information on lead uses in ammunition in Canada in order to fill that data gap.
As part of this study we are contacting shooting ranges in Canada to determine how much lead ammunition is used in shooting ranges across Canada.
We are also interested in the non-lead alternatives and how much of the current ammunition market in Canada is lead vs non-lead ammunition.
All data collected will be treated as confidential business information.
I would be very grateful if you could provide me with the following information:
(1) Does your shooting range sell ammunition? If so, typically how many cartridges do you sell per year?
(2) What % of the ammunition you sell is lead ammunition?
(3) Over the last 5 years have your sales of lead ammunition been steady, or increased/decreased?
(4) Taking into account that users of your shooting range can bring their own ammunition – can you estimate the total number of cartridges used per year at your shooting range?
(5) If non-lead ammunition is sold or used at your range can you provide details on the type(s) used?
(6) What is your experience with non-lead ammunition in terms of cost, technical performance and availability etc.?
If you would like to discuss the study in more detail please feel free to call/email me.
If you can answer some, but not all the questions, I would be grateful for any input you feel able to provide. Given the timeframe for completion of the study I would greatly appreciate receiving a response before December 21st.
Many thanks in advance for your help.
Regards,
Pamela Campbell
P.M. Campbell Ph.D.
Principal
ToxEcology – Environmental Consulting Ltd "
|
|
|
Meeting the Leadership Candidates: Guns and Politics - Chris Alexander
|
|
|
By CJ Summers | Calibre Magazine | November 28, 2016
|
|
As many of you know – the Conservative Party of Canada (Parti conservateur du Canada) is slated to select its next leader on May 27th, 2017. Currently there are twelve candidates vying for this incredibly important position as not only leader of the CPC, but leader of the Official Opposition in Ottawa. We decided reach out to every single candidate to see where they stood on issues that were important to millions of Canadian firearm owners.
Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (2013-2015)
Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence (2011-2013)
Deputy Special Representative of the UN Assistance Mission in Afghanistan (2005-2009)
Ambassador to Afghanistan (2003-2005)
Eighteen year veteran of the Canadian Foreign Service
Do you think Canada’s existing gun laws need to be rewritten? I think our laws and regulations still have room for improvement to expunge the last residue of Bill C-68. We need to reduce the scope of arbitrary decisions. We would definitely need to rewrite the law to place responsibility for legislation and regulation of firearms acquisition, possession, and transport to a body outside of the RCMP. A fully accountable body. If we got it right, the cabinet that enacted this legislation could have much more confidence in the expert advice they were getting.
Do you think that self-defense is a legitimate reason for firearms possession? Yeah, I mean there are all kinds of reasons. I think the primary reason is going to be hunting, sport shooting, farming, and the motivations that are so common across this great country. There are other motivations as well and there are all kinds of lifestyles in this country. Self defense is recognized under the law; it’s a principle of our National Defence, it’s not going to go away. We want to have a country with safe communities and with a low crime rate. We want to have a country where neighbors help each other and know each other and are not suspicious of each other or hostile against each other – it does not always happen but I can tell you that it happens more in Canada than in most other countries in the world.
I grew up in a neighborhood in Toronto were most people see a chaotic place; I grew up in a house where the door was never locked. I know many people in Canada that can speak to this kind of story, which is a good story. I respect those who see self defense as a reason to be careful, at the same time – I think we have a very different culture than in the United States.
Further, anyone who has been a victim of a violent crime is going to have a different perspective on the issue of self defense. We have to respect that. We need to put their rights, their needs, and the perspective of victims at the center of our policy when we are thinking on how to regulate and legislate in these areas. I know a lot of veterans, my friends and colleagues, who were in Afghanistan for example, who will also have a different perspective just because of their experience of the world. We need to respect that too. I think Brad’s proposals, seeing off duty or retired police officers as an asset in terms of their potential role in public safety, are also important. We as a government tried to make it possible for innocents to do the right thing when they see a crime. I have members of my family that have made citizens arrests, now it’s clearer that they have the right to do that, and that is welcome. Our duty as citizens is to uphold the law, which means if you see a crime you phone 911 or you help the person being attacked, self defense is part of that. The public safety dimension of self defense, that we all value, is going to include firearms for some people.
Do you believe the AR-15 should remain restricted? No it should not. That is a case of perception trumping reality for the RCMP – we should be guided by facts, use, and reality.
Will you commit to removing sound suppressors from the prohibited devices list? Further to that, what are your thoughts around magazine size restrictions? Yes, I would commit to removing sound suppressors from the prohibited devices list. Further, magazine restrictions need to reviewed on the basis of common sense - by an independent professional body accountable to elected people, accountable to Canadians. Not the RCMP. The distinctions made in the past are totally arbitrary – if I were a daily sport shooter, it would have long ago driven me to despair.
Will you commit to ensuring that no existing non-restricted firearms, restricted firearms or devices would be classified as prohibited under your leadership? Absolutely, we have had trouble with this classification issue – the trend has been towards over classification. Under my leadership, under a renewed Conservative leadership – prohibited firearms would remain so, restricted would remain so, and non restricted would remain so. The only debate is for when completely new products came into the market. They would need to be evaluated on their own merits, not just given the same treatment as a previous one because they look like something else. Prohibitions and restrictions that we have, have not – in my view, contributed much to making Canada a safer place.
What we need is the full recognition that our firearms community is a very responsible one and that it’s their behavior that determines how these issues play out in Canada, and that behavior has been a model for the world. Our problem is not with legal firearms; our problem is with a few illegal weapons, that nobody has registered, that nobody will see until a crime happens because they belong to criminal groups. The solution there is police work; it is not more prohibitions and restrictions.
How do we protect property rights, especially when it pertains to firearms? (In reference to the 2013 Alberta Flood firearms seizure) This is another case of the RCMP, on almost an industrial scale, presuming guilt and presuming fault that simply is not there. This is a clear example of the firearms community being mistreated. Yes, saving lives and preventing explosions is a good thing in a public emergency, but seizing people’s property is not. I am not aware of a single case where the firearms in question were shown to have not been secure, so the RCMP, while a respected institution with a proud history – has overstepped its bounds in a very serious way in this case and we should ensure it does not happen again. Private property is private property; firearms for the millions of Canadians are a part of that private property and that needs to be respected. We all support police work where a crime has been committed or where there is reasonable cause. In the case of law abiding firearms owners, with their licenses – this just does not happen very often, even at all.
How do we as a society separate the negative term that is “weapon” from hunting and sport shooting? Canadians, those who live a long way from firearms, wilderness, wildlife, as much as those living in smaller communities, should grow up understanding the role of firearms. It is part of our heritage, it is part of our story, it is a proud part of that story, and that heritage needs to be told for what it is and not just lumped into some narrative you got from watching American TV or reading the news about some other countries with militias, conflict, and chaos. Canada is a big place with a deep history – we built it up to be the envy of the world in so many respects by hard work and by being responsible. The firearms story, the way firearms are used, the required skill and professionalism from the people that use them, the way they are stored, all the safety culture that we have here in Canada, is part of that. It kills me to hear people really misunderstand our history while also tarring a big group of their fellow citizens with a brush they do not deserve. I think things are getting a bit better, I think after 10 years of a Conservative government that actually put these issues on the table every day, we started to change the culture, but we still have a way to go. The crime rate went down in Canada – if you listen to any of these liberal “banshees of doom” about the gun registry, they said that if it was scrapped - crime would soar. We knew that wasn’t true, it turned out not be true. The other point is Afghanistan, people saw their fellow citizens in our army using firearms as weapons in a conflict, and doing it very responsibly. Being tough, being the best combat troops anywhere, at the same time showing restraint and protecting civilians – you start to understand the difference between firearms and weapons, which Canadians have always understood – but since we were arguably out of combat since Korea, we hadn’t seen our troops demonstrate what they could do. It reminded people why this technology is with us, why it is part of sports, hunting, shooting, and farm life in Canada to a very large extent. Further, why it is part of dealing with a difficult and dangerous world outside of our borders.
|
|
|
Canadian ‘Minister of Women’ Opposes Self Defense… Because It’s Sexist?!
|
|
|
By Team Crowder | Louder with Crowder | December 12, 2016
|
|
Here we have a story about women’s self defense and “sexism.” You probably think this story involves feminism, don’t you? Sexist. Turns out you’re right – in Canada, women are currently banned from carrying pepper spray for self defense. It’s a law that many want to see changed. But not feminists, apparently…
Since 1995, Canada has prohibited the use of mace and pepper spray—a law that Conservative MP Kellie Leitch, who is a candidate for party leadership, wants to change if she becomes prime minister. Allowing mace and pepper spray, Leitch said, would “give women a greater measure of protection against would-be attackers.”
But Leitch’s proposal met opposition from Patty Hajdu, the status of women minister, who claimed that letting women carry pepper spray would actually further gender inequality.
“Her misguided approach places the onus on women to defend themselves rather than focusing on addressing and preventing gender-based violence,” Hajdu said in a statement.
Her reasoning? If we just stop teaching bad people to be bad people, no women would have to defend themselves. And in other news, if there wasn’t an electoral college, Hillary would be President. Ah, the woes of a feminist living in a patriarchal world…
By now, feminism has shown its true colors as a steaming pile of wrong. Their claim about “empowering women”? It’s so clearly fraudulent that no one believes them anymore (see Comedy Legend Schools Idiot Lena Dunham: “I Don’t Believe in ‘Feminism'”). In this case, a feminist hag is literally attempting to steal tools of empowerment and independence from women.
These same feminists hypocrites who condemn “rape culture” want to strip women of any basic ability to defend themselves. Which, say, sounds a lot like rape culture…
Feminists claim to champion women’s rights… Just not when it comes to this issue. It would appear that social justice warriors give precisely zero turds about a woman’s right to defend herself.
“The great equalizer” isn’t a birth control pill. It’s a revolver in hand of an otherwise would be rape-victim. But to be fair, perhaps feminists are accustomed to not needing self defense. After all, who’s going to challenge a neon pink-armpitted behemoth with crazy eyes? Certainly not I.
See the story: http://louderwithcrowder.com/canadian-women-self-defense/
|
|
|
By Nathan S. | Thefirearmblog.com | December 2, 2016
|
|
While for many readers, giving the gift of a firearm is a welcome item, for many in our society, it is a verboten topic. Yes, the firearms community is working to become more “mainstream”, but it’s always interesting to look back and see where we have come from.
The Tribunist worked to collect and collate 19 classic advertisements for firearms prior to the current state of political correctness removed these ads from mainstream publications, which for a recent example, one needs to only look to Daniel Defense’s attempted ad placement in the Super Bowl.
Looking over the ads, its hard to not become nostalgic… for the pricing! In one particular advertisement, a R.B. Mark 1 Anti-Tank Rifle goes for sub $100. In another, Marlin rifles are available from $10 to $13.25. Today, we are lucky to find toy rifles for that pricing.
Of course, there is also no getting around the ye olde surplus ads post World Wars, which had various service rifles selling for $9.95. Even Johnson semi-autos went for only $59…
Hit the link here to be taken down memory lane and a tour through the history of advertisement. The Tribunist’s collection covers quite a few different decades, including direct older print too closely associated activities throughout the early to mid part of last century.
See the story: http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2016/12/02/classic-firearms-ads-lost-political-correctness/
|
|
|
CANADA IN THE ROUGH
- Covered Up With Maritime Moose -
|
Airing December 17, 2016
Paul Beasley was drawn for a coveted New Brunswick moose tag.
With only a 5-day season and the moose rut in lockdown phase, he had to use somunconventional tactics to get it done.
Canada in the Rough
can be found on OLN, WILD TV, and CHEX. For a full schedule, visit:
http://www.canadaintherough.com/schedules/
|
|
|
|
|
Gallup poll: Crime victims more likely to own guns
|
|
|
By Allen Cone | United Press International, Inc. | December 12, 2016
|
|
Crime victims report higher rates of gun ownership than those without weapons, according to findings from Gallup crime surveys.
Thirty-three percent of recent victims of assault, theft and property crime in the United States reported that they own a gun, compared to 28 percent of adults who haven't been recent crime victims, according to Gallup.
During its annual crime survey, Gallup asks Americans if in the past 12 months they personally have been the victim of a number of crimes. In most years the survey has also asked Americans whether they personally own a gun.
The analysis is based on a combined 11,165 interviews from surveys conducted in 2000, 2005, 2007-11 and 2013-16. Overall, an average of 17 percent of Americans reported being the victim of at least one of the crimes in those polls.
The survey did not reveal whether the reported crime prompted them to buy a gun or whether they already owned one.
Men are far more likely than women to own a gun.
Among men, 48 percent who have experienced a recent personal or property crime own a gun compared with 43 percent of men who haven't. Among women, 19 percent of crime victims own a gun, compared with 14 percent for those who haven't been recent crime victims.
Gun ownership also is higher among those living in towns or rural areas (39 percent) than in suburbs (28 percent) and cities (22 percent).
Suburban and rural crime victims show higher gun ownership rates than their non-victim counterparts, but this is not true among urban residents. For the suburbs, it's 39 percent (victims) vs. 28 percent (non-victims) and for rural areas, it's 47 (victims) vs. 38 percent (non-victims). Among city dwellers, the crime victims were 22 percent and the non-victims were 23 percent.
When fear is considered -- self-reporting of being afraid to walk alone at night near where they live -- crime victims are more likely to own guns than non-victims.
But the percentages are roughly the same.
For those who are fearful, gun ownership is 6 percentage points higher among crime victims (27 percent) than non-victims (21 percent). And among those not fearful, gun ownership is 8 points higher among victims than non-victims, 40 percent to 32 percent.
The analysis is based on a random sample of 11,165 adults, aged 18 and older, living in all 50 U.S. states and the District of Columbia. The margin of error is 1 percentage point for the total sample and non-crime victims, and 3 percentage points for victims of crime.
The FBI's "Crime in the United States, 2015" reveals a 3.1 percent increase in the estimated number of violent crimes and a 3.4 percent decrease in the estimated number of property crimes last year when compared with 2014 data.
See the story: http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2016/12/12/Gallup-poll-Crime-victims-more-likely-to-own-guns/4291481554506/
|
|
|
Looking for upcoming gun shows and matches?
Visit our website
|
|
|
Courtenay man's missing guns used in shooting, home invasions
|
|
|
By Kim Bolan | Vancouver Sun | December 9, 2016
|
|
Guns purchased by a Courtenay man sentenced last month on firearms charges have turned up in several criminal cases, including a shooting and two home invasions.
B.C. Supreme Court Justice Robin Baird handed Bryce McDonald a 40-month sentence Nov. 7 for storing restricted firearms in an unauthorized place and in a careless manner.
But McDonald was never charged with the fact that more than 30 restricted firearms he purchased went missing — something Baird said earlier was “probably sinister.”
Now more details about where some of the guns ended up have been released in the judge’s written reasons for sentencing.
An affidavit filed by the Crown at McDonald’s sentencing hearing said police found six of the missing guns while investigating other crimes, including a June 21, 2014 shooting at Brentwood Mall that injured a man.
“In July 2014, a suspect turned himself in claiming responsibility for this shooting. He surrendered the gun that he had used. It was a 9mm Luger registered to Mr. McDonald,” Baird noted.
The Combined Forces Special Enforcement Unit raided McDonald’s house and storage locker in December 2013 and found just 19 firearms, both restricted and unrestricted, even though records showed McDonald had purchased 49 restricted guns since getting his licence in 2009.
That led to a dozen charges against McDonald, a Hells Angels associate.
CFSEU Staff Sgt. Lindsey Houghton said Friday that the investigation into McDonald was closed, despite the fact that some of his missing guns have turned up in other criminal cases.
“That investigation into McDonald … concluded,” Houghton said. “But, like in any case, (there could be) a re-examination or new investigation should new information come to our attention.”
Other guns owned by McDonald were found:
- on June 16, 2014 when Mounties responded to a complaint of a home invasion in progress on Canada Way in Burnaby. Police found a loaded Storm Ruger handgun registered to McDonald in the suspect’s vehicle.
- on January 26, 2015, when a man was arrested in Vancouver for shoplifting. Police found three Glock firearms concealed on him, two of which were registered to McDonald.
- on June 8, 2015, a man was arrested in Vancouver in a stolen vehicle. The suspect’s house was later searched and a Beretta handgun registered to McDonald was found.
- on February 25, 2016, the Calgary Police investigated a home invasion in which five masked persons armed with knives, a bat, and a gun entered a residence, tied up two people and assaulted them. Police later found the suspects and searched a vehicle they had stolen, finding a loaded .40‑calibre Glock handgun registered to McDonald, an over‑capacity magazine containing ammunition and a balaclava.
Baird said the fact the other guns were used in criminal activity was an aggravating factor in sentencing McDonald.
“I remind myself that Mr. McDonald was not charged with and has not been convicted of firearms trafficking. The Crown makes no such allegation. But the issue of the missing guns is surely an aggravating factor on the present convictions which focus upon Mr. McDonald’s flagrant misconduct as a licensed gun owner and the scope of his unlawful behaviour in managing his gun collection,” he said.
Baird said McDonald had lied when asked what happened to the missing guns.
“Mr. McDonald knows perfectly well where these guns have gone, but he has refused to tell the truth about it,” Baird said. “Instead, he has brazenly and repeatedly lied to me about this issue, and his dishonesty has persisted down to the present moment.”
See the story: http://vancouversun.com/news/crime/courtenay-mans-missing-guns-used-in-shooting-home-invasions
|
|
|
CLASS ACTION 10/22 + 10
WHAT YOU NEED TO KNOW
|
|
|
UPDATE: The preparation and filing of legal documents and technical reports are in progress. We will keep you posted as developments occur.
|
|
|
Individuals are advised not to use, transfer, dispose of, alter or modify, or transport these magazines at this time.
At this time, due to the controversy, importers, dealers and individual owners are advised to stop sales and transfers of all 10/22 high capacity (over 10 rounds) rifle magazines. Businesses are cautioned not to attempt to “pin” magazines unless their licenses specifically authorize work on prohibited magazines.
We are advising against businesses or their customers surrendering or returning these magazines to anyone at this time.
If you are the consumer owner of one of these magazines, your participation in the action is very much desired.
THERE IS NO FEE FOR YOUR PARTICIPATION, BUT DONATIONS TO THE ACTION ARE WELCOME.
DONATIONS CAN BE CALLED IN AT 1-888-873-4339 OR MADE AT THE CSSA WEB STORE:
10/22 +10 Class Action Donation
We also accept donations by Electronic Money Transfer (EMT) to [email protected]
From consumer owners we need:
- A communication informing us of your willingness to participate in a class action lawsuit. Please include all contact information;
- Brands and models of 10/22 +10 round capacity magazines currently in inventory and the value of the inventory if possible;
- Digital copies of product packaging, manufacturers’ or distributors’ product sales information, product press releases if possible;
- Any information, actions or comments by your Chief Firearms Officer, Inspectors, RCMP or any other law enforcement agency if possible.
Consumer owners interested in joining the class action are asked to email the above information to the CSSA at
[email protected]
.
For more information, please call the CSSA at 905.720.3142
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
