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 fourteen 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.

• Personal liberty,
• Individual accountability,
• Family Support,
• Safety, and
• Tradition.

Canada’s strict gun control, including license requirements for gun ownership and complete bans on certain categories of firearms, proved impotent as a terrorist opened fire inside a Quebec mosque Sunday night.

Reuters reports that “six people were killed and eight wounded when [a gunman] opened fire … during Sunday night prayers.”

According to The University of Sydney’s GunPolicy.org, “only licensed gun owners may lawfully acquire, possess or transfer a firearm or ammunition [in Canada].” Those seeking a license to own a gun “must pass a background check which considers criminal, mental health, addiction and domestic violence records.” Additionally, applicants for a gun owner’s license must give “third party character references” and demonstrate “an understanding of firearm safety and the law.”

Those who are able to acquire a license “must re-apply and re-qualify for their firearm licence [sic] every five years,” which basically means the background check is ongoing. Also, the ownership of certain categories of firearms is prohibited and “records … of individual civilians licensed to acquire, possess, sell or transfer a firearm or ammunition” are maintained.

As law enforcement officials continue to divulge to journalists more information on the Quebec mosque attack, there is no indication gun laws had an effect in keeping the perpetrator from acquiring the weapons needed to conduct the shooting.

The attack was similar to those in other European countries with restrictive gun control laws. For example, twelve people were shot and killed on January 7, 2015, when terrorists opened fire on Charlie Hebdo headquarters in gun-controlled Paris. Just months later, on November 13, 2015, more terrorists in Paris opened fire and killed 130 innocents.

These transpired despite France’s ban on entire categories of weapons, and it requires the kind of expanded background checks that the Obama administration, Senators Chris Murphy (D-CT) and Joe Manchin (D-WV), and gun controller Gabby Giffords pushed as a way to make Americans safe.

More recently, on July 22, 2016, a firearm-based attack in Munich, Germany, was successfully executed despite similar background checks, gun bans on entire categories of weapons, and licensing requirements for gun ownership. Nine innocents were killed in the Munich attack.

Strict gun control failed to protect innocents in Paris and Munich, and it has now failed to protect them in Quebec.

AWR Hawkins is the Second Amendment columnist for Breitbart News and host of “Bullets with AWR Hawkins,” a Breitbart News podcast. He is also the political analyst for Armed American Radio. Follow him on Twitter: @AWRHawkins. Reach him directly at [email protected].

See the story: http://www.breitbart.com/2nd-amendment/2017/01/30/strict-gun-control-impotent-terrorist-opens-fire-quebec/

Kevin O'Leary's social media accounts posted a video of the Conservative leadership candidate shooting a handgun and several automatic weapons on the same afternoon a public funeral service was underway for three of the six victims of the Quebec City mosque attack.

Then shortly after 3 p.m. ET, he pulled the posts from his social media accounts, saying on Twitter that he did so "out of respect" for the funeral service.

The video had been posted to O'Leary's Facebook page with the caption "Still got my marksman chops from my days as a military cadet at Stanstead College. Getting up at 5am was hard but worth it!"

The caption on the video itself features a plug for one of his deals from the Shark Tank reality TV show.

The Facebook post went online at 12:45 p.m. ET. The public funeral for three of the six people shot to death on Sunday night in a mosque in the suburb of Ste-Foy began 15 minutes later.

While the funeral was underway, O'Leary's Twitter account linked to the same video. That tweet now appears to have been deleted.

The receptionist at the Lock & Load Miami: Machine Gun Experience & Shooting Range said she believed O'Leary's visit actually took place several months ago. 

The original video was posted to YouTube on March 21, 2016.

'Obviously crass, insensitive'

Previously, O'Leary posted condolences on his Facebook page to express sympathy for those killed.

The morning after the shooting he wrote in French and in English: "Praying for all affected by last night's senseless killings in Quebec City. There are no words to express the pain of a situation like this."

CBC News has reached out to several members of O'Leary's team for comment.

Public Safety Minister Ralph Goodale told reporters on Parliament Hill Thursday that he doesn't comment on the "strange and bizarre behaviour of Conservative leadership candidates."

But when pressed to comment on the timing of the video post, he said "it's obviously crass, insensitive and exceedingly dumb."

When shown the video, International Trade Minister François-Philippe Champagne said in French that he was speechless.

'Not a Conservative'

O'Leary's stance on guns had recently been criticized by another leadership candidate.

The day before the mosque shooting, Erin O'Toole put out a news release questioning O'Leary's Conservative credentials and accusing O'Leary of an  "attack on firearms owners."

O'Toole's statement said that his rival held "Liberal views" on most issues and "Kevin O'Leary is not a Conservative."

O'Toole pointed to comments O'Leary had made about the AR-15 rifle in a radio interview last summer, describing it as "a weapon that shoots 700 rounds in a minute" and sprays bullets "like a water gun."

During that same interview, which took place in the wake of the Orlando night club shootings last June, O'Leary also said "That is a weapon that is just used to kill everybody in the room you're in. Who should have that? Nobody!"

See the story: https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/canada/kevin-oleary-pulls-gun-range-video-out-of-respect-for-shooting-victims-funeral/ar-AAmyATU

After $30m in campaign ad buys and months of unflinching support for Donald Trump, the National Rifle Association has what it wanted: a supreme court nominee it views as a strong defender of gun rights.

See the story: https://www.theguardian.com/law/2017/feb/01/neil-gorsuch-gun-rights-nra

Premier, addressing comments in Manitoba for the first time, says he has no reason to apologize

Manitoba Premier Brian Pallister says his "race war" comments about night hunting constituted a poor choice of words but insists there is no reason for him to apologize.

Speaking in Virden on Jan. 16, Pallister told politicians at a Progressive Conservative Party luncheon that tensions over night hunting between Indigenous and other Manitobans are "becoming a race war."

By the time those comments were published, on Jan. 19 by CJ103 reporter Heather Reimer, the premier was on his way to his vacation property near Tamarindo, Costa Rica.

Speaking to reporters in Winnipeg for the first time since his return from Central America, Pallister said his comments in Virden were impassioned but not worthy of an apology.

"I regret the turn it's taken in terms of those comments but I don't regret raising the issue," Pallister said Tuesday at Winnipeg's Grand Mosque, where the premier expressed solidarity with Muslim community leaders shaken by Sunday's shootings in Quebec City.

"I think I used the wrong choice of words."

Pallister said his "race war" comments came out of conversations he had with rural Manitobans and concerns he had about violence erupting in response to night hunting. 

"There's been nothing done and so people are frustrated and some are threatening vigilantism," he said, adding he wants to bring people together to find solutions to night hunting.

The issue has been ignored for too long, he said, noting two people have died in connection with night hunting and there have been other close calls. 

Asked to explain what me meant by the term "race war," Pallister said people in Virden raised the potential of "taking action" against hunters who come on to their land. He said his words were intended to quell emotions and make sure "they didn't do that."

The province will be undertaking "co-operative strategies" with the Indigenous community to address night hunting, he said.

"It's critical that if you want to effect better outcomes you work together and not separately," he said.

Asked several times whether he believed Indigenous Manitobans are primarily responsible for night hunting, the premier declined to answer, though he did assert the rights of Indigenous Manitobans to hunt at night.

The premier also was asked repeatedly whether he would apologize for his comments, which have been condemned by Indigenous leaders. Pallister said he has no reason to apologize. 

NDP Justice critic Andrew Swan said the premier can still change his mind and apologize.

Premier offended by quote in Maclean's

The premier also denied  telling Maclean's magazine associate editor Nancy Macdonald that night hunters are Indigenous criminals.

In an article published Thursday, Macdonald quoted Pallister as saying, "Young Indigenous men — a preponderance of them are offenders, with criminal records — are going off shooting guns in the middle of the night. It doesn't make sense." 

​"That statement was not my statement and when I read the statement I was immediately offended by it and I think people should be offended by that statement," he said. 

Macdonald told CBC News she did not make an audio recording of the conversation, but said she took notes and the premier saw her doing so. 

Pallister claimed she misquoted him and implored reporters to treat his decades-long record of working with Indigenous women as proof he would not make those comments.

"I don't have any way to prove what I said or didn't say," said Pallister. "I am telling you on my honour that those are not words I would ever say, nor did I say them then."

The premier also suggested Macdonald misled him about the basis for the interview.

Speaking to CBC News on Monday, Macdonald said Pallister is trying to discredit her rather than apologize to people he's hurt.

"If I'd been misquoted or someone said something wrong about me, I would immediately correct the record. I would have expected his office to do that immediately on Thursday. Instead, they waited five days," the former Winnipegger said in an interview from Vancouver.

"Rather than going out and speaking with the people who he's hurt, he's just going to deny this ever happened. It's not something I would do, but this is what he's chosen to do."

Asked why he did not issue a statement immediately to correct the record, Pallister said he does not like to get into public spats with reporters.

Costa Rica absence queried

The premier was also asked whether he would reconsider spending so much time in Costa Rica, given his unavailability to respond to his "race war" comments and the one-day delay in meeting Muslim leaders in Winnipeg.

Pallister said while he regretted the latter delay, he said his family time remains important to him and he will continue to spend 90 per cent of his time in Winnipeg.

He also said he was on his way back to Manitoba quickly once he heard the news about Quebec City.

See the story: http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/pallister-speech-costa-rica-1.3960216

About the movie ... Because your right to bear arms is as Canadian as maple syrup. 

Canadians are passionately attached to their rights. Free speech, freedom of association, free and fair elections … and the right to bear arms.

Lately that last one has been portrayed as somehow unCanadian, even sneered at as distinctly American. But actually it’s a fundamental part of our heritage.

When Canadians fought for self-government in the 1830s they were following a tradition dating back not just to Britain’s Glorious Revolution but to Magna Carta and even the end of Roman Britain.

The Canadians who fought for liberty in two world wars handled guns as familiar objects, tools deserving of respect but part of the natural inheritance of free-spirited, independent people.

In A Right to Arms we examine this Canadian tradition, the reasons for it, its history, contemporary challenges and arguments against gun ownership and why it is these arguments, not guns, that are unCanadian.

The Right to Bear Arms tells the distinctly Canadian story of a people who have carried weapons in self-defence, including defence against tyranny, since time out of mind. It confronts the arguments against gun ownership today, on grounds of public safety or cultural inheritance, and shows that gun ownership is as Canadian as maple syrup or free speech.

Synopsis:Act 1: Opening

The documentary will begin by discussing the fundamental question of what kind of people Canadians are and their relationship to the state.

Our ancient right of self-defence is based on our strongly self-reliant character and attachment to our inherent rights including, most fundamentally, the right to life that we are entitled to protect when necessary with means suitable to the occasion.

It will also explain how a fairly recent feeling that all tradition is harmful, contaminated by racism, sexism and general intolerance, has undermined our attachment to our traditions, including leaving us essentially deprived of all the tools necessary to protect ourselves, pepper spray and pointed sticks as well as guns. But it will argue that current laws do not make us safer, do bring the law itself into disrepute, and are unjust, since no one has the right to tell us that, if the police are not on hand, we may not effectively resist whatever indignity, injury or death predatory animals or people seek to inflict on us.

Canadians have at the moment no legally enforceable right to bear arms. But we used to, and we should get it back, because it is common sense and a natural right.

Act 2: Our heritage

This section will begin by explaining that enjoying the natural right to bear arms in practice has been the mark of a free person since the Romans left Britain. It was expressly part of the ceremony for freeing a slave in late Saxon and early Norman times to give them weapons. The English did not trust their government, hence Magna Carta, but it trusted them, hence the requirement that able-bodied men learn to use a longbow in the 14th century. This section will also will trace how the English policed themselves in every sense from politics to criminal law, and refused to allow the state to maintain a standing army because it was not necessary for defence or public order and was a threat to freedom. Only defeated peoples were disarmed, including Highland Scots after Culloden, in the Britain from which the United States and Canada sprang.

In Canada, from the first settlements, aboriginal and European, and late as Confederation, Canadians carried weapons without it arousing controversy: bows, swords, pikes, knives, guns and anything we thought suitable. The continent could not have been tamed any other way. We also inherited at Confederation a Constitution similar in principle to that of the United Kingdom, including the right to bear arms in the 1688 British Bill of Rights (for Protestants, in Britain at the time). And figures from Sir John A. Macdonald to William Lyon Mackenzie to Louis Riel insisted that Canadians had the right to bear arms for self-protection including against tyrannical governments.

As for the state, it generally not only permitted but actively encouraged gun ownership and proficiency. The exceptions prove the rule; there were measures temporarily or permanently to disarm aboriginals, rebellious Quebecers, Irish workers and others unjustly denied full membership in the political community, and especially in the case of aboriginals with clear intent to deprive them of other rights once they could not resist effectively.

Act 3: Canada today

From time to time the government made tentative efforts to take away Canadians’ weapons, supposedly as part of some novel and enlightened progressive departure. But really it was the continuation of an impulse rightly resisted through many centuries. As the state became more administratively capable and socially ambitious in the 20th century, it exploited political panics and bigotry, from anti-Irish and anti-East European sentiment to a post-World War I Red Scare and Depression-era anti-worker feelings, to try at least to register guns. And it also restricted various other weapons on the grounds that immigrants prone to intoxication and random violence would slaughter one another if allowed to carry brass knuckles or switchblades.

For all that, it was not until the late 1970s that the state really began to succeed in treating citizens generally rather than particular unpopular as untrustworthy, both hapless and reckless, incapable of judging and managing dangerous situations for themselves, and persuading them to take that view of one another. The Trudeau Sr. administration made the first real attempt to treat law-abiding gun owners as an inherent menace to themselves and others. And this approach continued under subsequent regimes, which exploited the shooting of 14 women in Montreal in 1986 to implement aggressive measures including the infamous long gun registry under Minister of Justice Allan Rock who frankly said in his view only agents of the state should have guns.

It was a sentiment alien to our heritage. And while C-68 and similar measures had no discernible positive impact on public safety, and caused a deep rift between the state and many citizens.

It’s not just western gun owners who despise and often ignore the law on weapons. How many Canadian women carry something in their purse or handbag for protection against creeps in dark places? Yet virtually all of them are criminals in the view of the police and prosecutors. As are any number of Canadians who use legally owned objects to protect their property or loved ones from criminal intruders.

By now Canadians are for all practical purposes prohibited from carrying any effective weapon for self-protection when abroad except against wild animals in wild places. And they are increasingly prohibited from having arms, not just firearms but all sorts of weapons, even in their homes, let alone their businesses, for self-defence. We are distrusted by the state, routinely treated as unable to control either ourselves or weapons, prevented from self-harm or mayhem to others only by vigilant state measures to keep us from owning dangerous things.

The documentary will examine the most common argument against guns, namely high levels of gun violence in the United States. It will show that Americans are more prone to murder one another with guns than other people, but by no means unusually likely to murder one another at all. In terms of murders per capita, they are in the lower half of all countries. It will also note that within Canada, levels of violence vary dramatically for cultural rather than hardware reasons. Despite all the restrictions on ownership and especially use of weapons, Canadians are among the most heavily armed people in the world, including ranking around 12th globally in firearm ownership. Yet we do not slaughter one another over the Sunday roast or during arguments.

This section will also note the extent to which, around the world, people do arm themselves against danger regardless of the rules, including increasingly in Europe recently, with results that depend on culture rather than technology or opportunity. And it will discuss failed efforts to reduce criminal violence by taking weapons away from people only the government imagines are likely to engage in it, while leaving lawbreakers and thugs in possession of dangerous arms because criminals are by definition not respectful of the law. 

Act 4: Looking Forward

The conclusion will argue that Canadians are neither fools nor maniacs, and that they are more trustworthy than the state when it comes to judging when and how they need something more than an empty hand to protect themselves. In the end it comes down to what kind of people we are, and whether our natural as well as constitutionally guaranteed “right to life, liberty and security of the person” should include the tools we need to protect ourselves in emergencies. The documentary will argue that we always did, and still should.

See the story: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLp36zHoYSKW5k0Pz0twCe5qECShI5e3Jq&mc_cid=03234fb8f2&mc_eid=c5266934d0