For roughly 36 hours following the tragic Orlando murders, the mainstream media screamed: “ We must ban the AR-15!” The media banshees wailed and screeched repeatedly until finally they could no longer hide from the facts. The FBI had identified the weapon used to kill 49 people at the Florida nightclub, and it was NOT the AR-15 they so desperately wanted banned.

But most media personalities continued to screech unabated, insisting that it didn’t matter that the AR-15 wasn’t used in THIS shooting; it is still evil and must be banned. This is typical nonsense from people more interested in manufacturing the news than reporting it.

Aside from being black and “ looking menacing” to the media idiots that know nothing about this subject matter, what is the real truth here? Is the AR-15 more dangerous than other guns? And why, here in Canada, is the AR-15 classed as a restricted firearm when most other semi-automatic firearms are not?

In a recent interview with TheRebel.media's Brian Lilley, Tony Bernardo, Executive Director of the CSSA, explained this perfectly: "The AR-15 is a restricted firearm (in Canada) because someone put it on a list. If it was a brand new gun coming into Canada today, it would be a non-restricted firearm because it doesn't meet the mechanical characteristics of a restricted gun."

What exactly are the “ mechanical characteristics” that identify non-restricted semi-automatic firearms in Canada?

Simply put, a non-restricted semi-automatic firearm has a barrel length of 470 mm (18.5 inches) or greater, cannot be fired when reduced to under 660 mm (26 inches) by folding or telescoping and whose action (the mechanism by which the firearm loads, locks, fires and extracts cartridges) is NOT fully-automatic.

It means that the AR-15, if imported today, would be classified as a non-restricted rifle. The list of “evil-looking” guns that look militaristic in style yet are classified as non-restricted is very long indeed. For a list of pictures of some of these guns, all non-restricted semi-automatic firearms, go to http://s3.amazonaws.com/CSSA/PDF/Why-is-the-AR-15-a-Restricted-Firearm.pdf

The Criminal Code in Section 84(1) defines the term “non-restricted firearm” as:

(a) a firearm that is neither a prohibited firearm nor a restricted firearm, or
(b) a firearm that is prescribed to be a non-restricted firearm;

And this is how the AR-15 became a restricted firearm – through the prescription mechanism. The AR-15 was specifically prescribed to be a restricted firearm DESPITE the fact it meets every criteria of a non-restricted firearm.

The RCMP website, under the heading of “How a firearm’s class is determined”, says this:

The class of a firearm is determined based on criteria set out in subsection 84(1) of the Criminal Code and corresponding regulations made by Orders in Council. (emphasis added)

So someone put the AR-15 on the restricted list. Why? It appears they didn’t like how it looked.

This is all predicated by the silly theory that there are “good” guns and “bad” guns. It’s a theory that lives on, sometimes even in the membership of our own gun clubs, despite its complete lack of factual basis. Guns are neither good nor bad. They are inanimate objects incapable of being anything other than hunks of metal.

The “good” or “bad” is based upon our actions as human beings. When someone helps a little old lady by carrying her groceries from the store to her car, it is “good”. When someone mugs the little old lady, it is “bad”.

It doesn’t matter what tool is used, it is the action that defines the deed.

This is something the Pink Pistols, an international LGBT self-defense organization, made crystal clear in the aftermath of the Florida tragedy. Gwendolyn Patton, First Speaker of the Pink Pistols, said in her press release:

“This is exactly the kind of heinous act that justifies our existence. At such a time of tragedy, let us not reach for the low-hanging fruit of blaming the killer’s guns. Let us stay focused on the fact that someone hated gay people so much they were ready to kill or injure so many. A human being did this. The human being’s tools are unimportant when compared to the bleakness of that person’s soul. I say again, GUNS did not do this. A human being did this, a dead human being. Our job now is not to demonize the man’s tools, but to condemn his acts and work to prevent such acts in the future.”

The AR-15 is a media-stereotyped “bad” gun because of how it looks, not because of how it functions. Contrary to the myth promoted by the media and anti-gun activists, it is not an “assault rifle”. The term “assault rifle” has a proper mechanical definition, one that the AR-15 simply does not meet.

Again, contrary to the myth promoted by the media and anti-gun activists, the “AR” in AR-15 does not mean “assault rifle” or “automatic rifle”. It simply refers to the name of the company that designed the rifle: ArmaLite. But the truth is so much less dramatic, isn’t it?

The National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF), a trade association whose mission is to promote, protect and preserve hunting and the shooting sports, wrote a detailed explanation of modern sporting rifles and references the AR-15 rifle specifically. The characteristics of the AR-15 they describe – specifically its semi-automatic action – are the same criteria used in Canada to define non-restricted firearms.

• AR-15-platform rifles are the most popular sporting firearms sold today. That they are modern in design and look does not make them any less of a sporting arm. One does not have to hunt and target shoot with a firearm designed in the 1800’s.
  
  
• The AR-15 isn't that modern. In fact, it was designed almost 60 years ago.  More importantly, it has been avaiable to the consumer market for well over 50 years. It has been involved in remarkably few crimes.
  
  
• AR-15-style rifles are NOT “assault weapons” or “assault rifles.” An assault rifle, by definition, has full-automatic capabilities such as a machine gun
  
  
• AR-15-style rifles look like military rifles, such as the M-16, but function like any other semi-automatic civilian sporting firearm, firing only one round with each pull of the trigger.
  
  
• Chamberings include .22, .223 (5.56 x 45 mm), 6.5 mm Grendel, 6.8 SPC, .300 Blackout, .450 Bushmaster and about a dozen others. Upper receivers for pistol calibers such as 9 mm, .40, and .45 are available. There are even .410 shotgun versions.
  
  
• AR-15-style rifles are no more powerful than other hunting rifles of the same caliber and, in most cases, are chambered in calibers less powerful than common big-game hunting cartridges like the 30-06 Springfield and .300 Win. Mag.

In short, the AR-15 is neither a “good” gun nor a “bad” gun. To quote CSSA’s Tony Bernardo once again: “it’s just a gun.”

Law abiding Canadians own them and use them - without incident - every day.

S-223 UPDATE

S-223, the ridiculous anti-gun legislation sposored by Senator Hervieux-Payette, simply refuses to die.  The Senator retired back in April and the bill entered a legislative limbo, where it had to be read into the record from the table for 15 sitting days of the Senate before dying on the Order Paper. Like the Pheonix, it recieved a last minute stay when Senator Fraser requested more time to study the bill before deciding if she would speak to it.  The bill will now stay on the Order Paper for another 15 days before being declared dead.

To the many people who have inquired, the bill has NOT been re-sponsored. 

We are at Day 1.

  Sometimes empathy is not enough. 

Various Representatives who either took part in the failed sit-in for gun control or supported it from afar say that action was just the tip of the iceberg, that “guerrilla tactics” for gun control will be forthcoming.

Breitbart News reported that Democrats launched the sit-in Wednesday to force Republican House Leadership to allow a vote on gun control. The sit-in was led by Representative John Lewis (D-GA-5), who demanded that Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wisc.) keep the House in session through its scheduled recess for the purposes of taking up gun control.

On Thursday the sit-in was cancelled without achieving a gun control vote.

Now Politico reports more “guerrilla tactics” for gun control are coming. And “rank-and-file Democrats, energized by nationwide publicity and praise they received for occupying the House floor over demands for a gun vote, are saying they’ll likely use the same strategy again.”

Speaking on the House floor, Democrat Caucus Vice Chairman Joe Crowley (D-NY-14) lauded his colleagues’ determination to use sit-ins and yet unknown “guerrilla tactics” to secure gun control. Crowley said, “It’s a new day in Washington; it’s a new way to fight,

AWR Hawkins is the Second Amendment columnist for Breitbart News and 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/2016/06/24/dem-reps-say-sit-tip-iceberg-guerilla-tactics-gun-control-coming/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social

Aboriginal leaders are unsure how provincial law on firearms will affect them, and “disappointed” they weren’t consulted before law was tabled.

MONTREAL—The Quebec government needs to explain how its new long-gun registry law will affect aboriginal people, says a prominent native leader.

First Nations communities across the province weren’t consulted before the law was tabled, said Konrad Sioui, grand chief of the Wendake Huron community near Quebec City.

He added that leaders aren’t sure how a provincial law on firearms will affect existing treaties or be enforced on their territories.

Members of the Assembly of the First Nations of Quebec and Labrador are holding a conference in Quebec City this week and Sioui said leaders are expecting answers from Public Security Minister Martin Coiteux at a scheduled meeting Thursday.

Quebec’s national assembly passed legislation last week creating a provincial long-gun registry, which forces owners of shotguns and rifles to register their weapon with the government.

Sioui said he wasn’t surprised but was “disappointed” Quebec acted unilaterally.

“Even the Supreme Court of Canada was extremely clear — in at least two cases — that federal and provincial governments need to do their best to consult with First Nations and to ensure that the application of laws (affecting us) is acceptable,” he said. “All that was left out.”

Restricted and prohibited weapons in Canada must be registered with the RCMP under the Firearms Act. Nonrestricted guns, known as long guns, are not required to be registered with the abolition of the federal registry in 2012.

Quebec fought the former Conservative government all the way to the Supreme Court to obtain the data related to gun owners in the province but lost. The province then decided to create its own database, which the government says will cost $17 million to set up and another $5 million a year to maintain.

Sioui said the federal database was a failure for aboriginal people because most of them didn’t register and were criminalized as a result.

He said hunting rifles move around often on reserves, between family members and friends, and the federal law wasn’t adapted to the realities and lifestyles of Canada’s natives.

Moreover, Sioui says the regulation of firearms is a federal jurisdiction and Coiteux needs to explain to community leaders how Quebec’s new law relates to Aboriginal Peoples across the country.

Sebastien Grammond, a University of Ottawa law professor and an expert on aboriginal legal issues, said provinces and the federal government have the legal right to legislate for the control of firearms.

“There is no doubt a province can create its own registry,” he said.

Sioui maintains a better approach would have been to grant First Nations communities the power to create their own registry — an idea the provincial government rejected.

See the story: https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2016/06/15/first-nations-left-out-of-quebecs-new-long-gun-registry.html

For the average American alive today the odds of being murdered have never been lower — even though Americans possess millions more firearms.

Most Americans believe America is submerged beneath a tidal wave of gun violence. A Pew Research poll in 2013 found that 56 percent of Americans thought gun violence had risen in the last 20 years, 26 percent thought it had remained the same, and only 12 percent thought it had fallen. You might be surprised to learn the 12 percent were right.

The gulf between the facts about guns and the public’s perception is immense, and was created deliberately. Anti-gun advocates invent new terms (“assault weapon”) and politicians lie to win over a skeptical public. Too often these myths are swallowed by journalists and celebrities who don’t bother to check the data and don’t know how modern firearms actually work.

The myth that rising sales of semi-automatic rifles have led to rising levels of gun homicides is pervasive. “The United States has been pummeled by gun violence since the assault weapons ban expired in 2004,” read The Boston Globe’s June 16 editorial in a typically misleading statement of alarm. Although a Globe reader would reasonably conclude that the country is suffering a spike in homicides, the opposite is true. All violence, including gun violence, in America has declined dramatically for more than two decades.

Gun Ownership Up; Gun Crime Down

Using federal government data, University of Michigan and American Enterprise Institute economist Mark Perry last year measured the gun homicide rate against the number of guns per person from 1993-2013. As the number of guns per person rose from 0.94 to 1.45, the gun homicide rate fell by 49 percent, from 7 to 3.6 per 100,000 people.

Also using federal government data, the Pew Research Center reported last year that non-fatal gun victimizations have fallen from 725.3 to 174.8 per 100,000 people from 1993-2014. So all gun-related crime is falling, not just gun homicides.

The United States seems to be recovering a large chunk of the civility obliterated in the tumult of the 1960s and ’70s, suggesting (as do global historical data) that human-on-human violence is predominantly a product of culture, not technology. The U.S. homicide rate more than doubled from 1963-1973 and remained high for the next 20 years. In 1973, the rate was 9.4 per 100,000 people; in 1993 it was 9.5. Although we will need more time before we can know for sure, this spike in homicides appears to have been an historical aberration. Since 1993, the homicide rate has collapsed and it now hovers around its 1962-63 level.

In 2014, the homicide rate was 4.5 per 100,000 people, less than half the rate in 1995. The last time it was that low was 1963, when the rate was 4.6. The median age in the United States is 37, so for the average American alive today the odds of being murdered have never been lower — even though Americans possess millions more firearms than they did two decades ago when homicide rates were higher.

The Same for Rifles (‘Assault Weapons’)

What about so-called “assault weapons?” The FBI divides firearms into handguns and rifles, with the rifles category covering everything from the little .22-caliber rifles kids shoot at summer camps to the dreaded AR-15. In last year’s “Uniform Crime Report,” the FBI listed the number of homicides committed with rifles since 2010. (A few thousand homicides each year are committed with firearms of undetermined type — most likely handguns. These are numbers for confirmed rifle deaths.) The numbers are: 367 in 2010; 332 in 2011; 298 in 2012; 285 in 2013; and 248 in 2014.

This decline in confirmed homicides by rifle coincided with a massive increase in the number of “assault rifles” Americans own. From 2010-2014, sales of semi-automatic rifles like the AR-15 rose 28 percent  per year, the Los Angeles Times reported on June 13. So while the number of rifles in circulation was increasing dramatically, the number of confirmed murders committed by someone using a rifle fell by almost one-third. During the same time, the number of homicides committed with handguns fell by 9 percent.

The data produce one inescapable conclusion: The entire premise for a new “assault weapons” ban — that the proliferation of “assault weapons” has led to unprecedented carnage — is completely untrue. Yes, the United States is a particularly violent Western country. But blaming this on America’s love of guns is simplistic and wrong. The homicide rate in the United States does not track neatly with the gun ownership rate.

When searching for ways to reduce homicides in the United States, it would be more helpful to discuss America’s macho culture or America’s violent culture than America’s “gun culture.” That is, if your goal really is to make America a more peaceful place. If your goal is simply to win elections by scaring the public, then you would be talking like Sens. Harry Reid and Chris Murphy.

Andrew Cline is a writer and communications consultant in Bedford, New Hampshire. His Twitter handle is @Drewhampshire.

See the story: http://thefederalist.com/2016/06/22/america-is-awash-in-guns-and-crime-is-at-record-lows/

Report: Non-military federal agencies spend $1.48 billion on guns and ammo since 2006

There are now more non-military government employees who carry guns than there are U.S. Marines, according to a new report.

Open the Books, a taxpayer watchdog group, released a study Wednesday that finds domestic government agencies continue to grow their stockpiles of military-style weapons, as Democrats sat on the House floor calling for more restrictions on what guns American citizens can buy.

The “Militarization of America” report found civilian agencies spent $1.48 billion on guns, ammunition, and military-style equipment between 2006 and 2014. Examples include IRS agents with AR-15s, and EPA bureaucrats wearing camouflage.

“Regulatory enforcement within administrative agencies now carries the might of military-style equipment and weapons,” Open the Books said. “For example, the Food and Drug Administration includes 183 armed ‘special agents,’ a 50 percent increase over the ten years from 1998-2008. At Health and Human Services (HHS), ‘Special Office of Inspector General Agents’ are now trained with sophisticated weaponry by the same contractors who train our military special forces troops.”

Open the Books found there are now over 200,000 non-military federal officers with arrest and firearm authority, surpassing the 182,100 personnel who are actively serving in the U.S. Marines Corps.

The IRS spent nearly $11 million on guns, ammunition, and military-style equipment for its 2,316 special agents. The tax collecting agency has billed taxpayers for pump-action and semi-automatic shotguns, semi-automatic Smith & Wesson M&P15s, and Heckler & Koch H&K 416 rifles, which can be loaded with 30-round magazines.

The EPA spent $3.1 million on guns, ammo, and equipment, including drones, night vision, “camouflage and other deceptive equipment,” and body armor.

When asked about the spending, and EPA spokesman said the report “cherry picks information and falsely misrepresents the work of two administrations whose job is to protect public health.”

“Many purchases were mischaracterized or blown out of proportion in the report,” said spokesman Nick Conger. “EPA’s criminal enforcement program has not purchased unmanned aircraft, and the assertions that military-grade weapons are part of its work are false.”

“EPA’s criminal enforcement program investigates and prosecutes the most egregious violators of our nation’s environmental laws, and EPA criminal enforcement agents are law enforcement professionals who have undergone the same rigorous training as other federal agents,” Conger continued.

Other administration agencies that have purchased guns and ammo include the Small Business Administration, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the Department of Education, and the National Institute of Standards and Technology.

The report also highlighted that the Department of Health and Human Services has “special agents” with “sophisticated military-style weapons.” Open the Books also found $42 million in gun and ammunition purchases that were incorrectly coded.

“Some purchases were actually for ping-pong balls, gym equipment, bread, copiers, cotton balls, or cable television including a line item from the Coast Guard entered as ‘Cable Dude,’” the report said.

Open the Books appealed to both liberals like Bernie Sanders—who has called for demilitarizing local police departments—and conservatives in its report.

“Conservatives argue that it is hypocritical for political leaders to undermine the Second Amendment while simultaneously equipping non-military agencies with hollow-point bullets and military style equipment,” Open the Books said. “One could argue the federal government itself has become a gun show that never adjourns with dozens of agencies continually shopping for new firearms.”

_
Update June 23, 10:15 a.m.: Following publication of this article, Adam Andrzejewski, the CEO of Open the Books who wrote the report, pushed back against the EPA’s statement, and provided contract data to back up his claims.

“How can the EPA spokesperson deny hard facts from their own checkbook?” he said. “Alongside our oversight report, OpenTheBooks.com also released a PDF of all raw data. This line-by-line transactional record from the EPA’s own checkbook on page 113 clearly shows that in 2013 and 2014 the EPA purchased tens of thousands of dollars of ‘Unmanned Aircraft’ from Bergen RC Helicopters Inc which on a net basis amounted to approximately $34,000.”

“All of the assertions in our oversight report are the quantification of actual spending records produced and reported to us by the federal agencies themselves,” Andrzejewski said.

See the story: http://freebeacon.com/issues/now-bureaucrats-guns-u-s-marines/

Arizona – (Ammoland.com) 11 years ago in Scotland, in 2005, a drug addict murdered a 2 year old boy with an air rifle.  Killing someone with the power limited air rifles in the UK is extremely rare. Anti-gun activists used this event to impose licensing of even the underpowered airguns allowed in the UK.  The licensing will only apply in Scotland. In the rest of the UK, air rifles will continue to be available over the counter.

An  amnesty was scheduled to allow people to turn in airguns to be destroyed.  No compensation was given. Over 12,000 were turned in to be destroyed. There is no reason to destroy the airguns except as a propaganda message that airguns are bad and should be turned in to the police.  The airguns turned in are likely worth upwards of a million dollars.

People who wish to license their airguns will have six months, starting 1 July to license them or turn them in. From dailymail.uk:

This will make it a criminal offence to have an air weapon without a licence or a permit.

Anyone found guilty of the new offence could be fined or face up to two years in prison.

The Scottish Government had pledged to introduce the scheme following the death of Glasgow toddler Andrew Morton, who was killed by an airgun in 2005.

Mark Bonini was sentenced to life in prison after being found guilty of murdering the two-year-old, who died after being struck in the head by an air gun pellet.

So far the force and the Scottish Government have hailed the scheme a success, with thousands of potentially deadly weapons now off the streets.

The emotional posturing and opposition to anything remotely to do with guns, even airguns, is similar no matter what the power of the gun.  We see the same lack of any rationality in legislation aimed at firearms in the United States.  It is clear the animus is directed at the mere idea of a gun, and at anyone who engages in the shooting sports, or who uses any kind of gun for any purpose.

There are more fatal incidents with 5 gallon buckets in the UK than there are with air rifles.  A report on 5 gallon bucket drownings in the UK 1982-1996 showed that they averaged about 1.2 per year.

In 1998 a Journal of Clinical Pathology report claimed that there was about one death by airgun per year in the UK.  Of the 5 cases examined, 2 were suicides.  The report notes that air rifles do not have enough energy to penetrate adult skulls, unless they enter the eye socket or temple.

It is likly that fatalities with airguns have fallen significantly since 1998.  Airgun crime peaked in 2006-2007.  From BASC Scotland:

Dr Colin Shedden, director of BASC Scotland, said: “Offences involving air weapons in Scotland have fallen by 75% in recent years. In 2006-07 there was a ten-year-peak of 683 air weapon offences. In 2012-13, after six years of steady decline, there were 171 offences. In addition, all firearms offences are now at the lowest level since records began. Airguns are already extensively regulated by law, with more than thirty offences on the statute books. Bringing in this legislation will not deter those who are already determined to break the law.”

Since 2005, I have found 3 more airgun fatalities in the UK. The latest 3 were all ruled accidents, one in 2007, one in 2009, and one in 2016.  That is consistent with a 75% drop in fatallities for the last 11 years. Such numbers are so small as to be statistically insignificant.

There are about 60,000 firearms licenses in Scotland.  It is estimated that there are several hundred thousand airguns.  Licenses will be “may issue”.  Good cause will be required.  The cost alone will be prohibitive to many, at 72 pounds ($103) initially, and 48 pounds ($68) for renewal every five years.  The licensing scheme seems designed to reduce the number of people who have airguns.

Airguns in the UK are limited to 12 foot pounds or less.  Any airgun with a higher energy level requires a firearms license.  As a comparison, a .22 short propels a 29 grain projectile at 1050 feet per second, producing 71 foot pounds of energy, approximately six times as much as the most powerful unregulated UK airgun.

This is the continuation of the slippery slope that started in the UK in India after the mutiny of 1837.  The British rulers determined to disarm the Indian population.  They did so by enacting a “may issue” permit system for firearms.

After WWI, the system was imported to the home islands, because of fear of revolution.  The slippery slope brought about the elimination of permits for the purpose of self defense, gradual tightening of requirements to obtain a permit, requiring a permit for shotguns, eliminating the possibility of a permit for handguns, pump action shotguns, and semi-automatic rifles.

None of these actions had any measurable effect on the crime rate.

Now Scotland is requiring the same permits for air guns as required for firearms.  Airgun use is already regulated by 30 different laws.

The slippery slope may be a considerable ways from the bottom.  There have been serious proposals to ban knives that have a point.

I understand that the long bow is still allowed, but carrying one in public may result in your arrest for carrying an “offensive” weapon.

©2016 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice is included.

About Dean Weingarten;
Dean Weingarten has been a peace officer, a military officer, was on the University of Wisconsin Pistol Team for four years, and was first certified to teach firearms safety in 1973. He taught the Arizona concealed carry course for fifteen years until the goal of constitutional carry was attained. He has degrees in meteorology and mining engineering, and recently retired from the Department of Defense after a 30 year career in Army Research, Development, Testing, and Evaluation.

See the story: http://www.ammoland.com/tags/dean-weingarten/#axzz4ChhN7OR6