TEAM CSSA E-NEWS | MARCH 26, 2018
|
|
- Liberals' claim of 'steady increase' in gun crime rests on a 'drastic' comparison to a low-crime year
- BTN Bites – Liberal gun control legislation not based in facts
- Canadian Government introduces new gun restrictions
- The OPP are undertaking a province–wide Gun Amnesty program
- COMMENTARY: Trudeau gets tough on gangs by hassling target shooters
- GUNTER: Rural communities under the gun
- Liberal firearms bill attacked by both gun owners and shooting victims
- Canada’s gun advisory committee is missing Indigenous voices
- MP wants more firearm screening
- Proposed bill a good thing, says gun shop owner
|
|
–– COMMENTARY ––
Liberal's "Solve" Gang Problem By Attacking
Law-Abiding Gun Owners –– Again
|
|
Canada has a gang problem –– not a gun problem –– an issue Bill C-71 fails to address. Its focus is entirely upon those who do
not
shoot up our inner cities –– law-abiding gun owners.
Gang murders, in sharp decline since 2008, rose in 2015 and spiked sharply in 2016,
[i]
almost doubling in just two years. This spike is almost entirely the result of gangs shooting each other for control of the drug trade.
Even anti-gun Toronto Mayor John Tory admits
[ii]
only
two percent of all Toronto homicides “have absolutely no connection” to gangs or drugs.
If federal Public Safety Minister Ralph Goodale’s goal was, as he claimed in his post-Guns and Gangs Summit, “to end the scourge of criminal gun and gang violence in our communities,”
[iii]
why not address the criminal misuse of guns and deal with it head-on?
Why introduce legislation dealing with transport regulations, tracking gun store sales and adding more stringent mental health checks on law-abiding citizens?
BILL C-71 TARGETS LAW-ABIDING FIREARM OWNERS, NOT CRIMINALS
Currently, a licenced firearm owner with an Authorization to Transport can, without additional bureaucratic hurdles, legally transport firearms purchased from gun stores to their home, and from their home to an approved shooting range, a licenced gunsmith, a gun show, and to a border crossing
[iv]
.
Anyone crossing the border with firearms
must
comply with firearms laws of
two nations
, plus the US Border Service. Under Bill C-71, our Liberal government believes rigorously law-abiding individuals pose the greatest threat to public safety.
This is ridiculous and absurd.
Increased bureaucratic hurdles for licenced gun owners does not affect violent criminals.
Bill C-71:
1.
Leaves violent criminals alone. (They shoot back.)
2.
Harasses law-abiding citizens instead. (They don’t shoot back.)
3.
Makes perfect sense… if you lack all capacity for rational thought and lack the ability to solve real problems.
RCMP BACKGROUND CHECK AND CONTINUOUS ELEGIBILITY SCREENING
Right now, before a person is granted permission to purchase and possess firearms, the RCMP completes an extensive background check. This background check examines past criminal history, mental health, addiction and domestic violence records. If, and only if, the individual passes this detailed background check, will the RCMP grant them a Possession and Acquisition Licence (PAL).
RCMP scrutiny does not stop there. The RCMP’s Continuous Eligibility Screening Program runs an automated background check on every single licenced firearm owner
daily
. This check searches police and court records and flags anyone it finds as a potential public safety risk and sparks a new investigation.
CANADIAN LAW CLASSIFIES FIREARMS BY APPEARANCE, NOT FUNCTION
If keeping fully-automatic firearms out of the hands of civilians is the goal, common sense dictates you address the problem with a law prohibiting any firearm with the ability to function in full-auto mode.
Canada does not do this. If the gun “
looks bad,
” it’s banned. If it looks okay, it’s not.
For example, the Mossberg Blaze
[v]
is a semi-automatic .22 rimfire rifle. It fires a single bullet with each press of the trigger and cannot be converted into a fully-automatic rifle. This rifle is classified as a Non-Restricted firearm in Canada, meaning you can shoot it at the range, or go hunting with it in the bush.
The Mossberg Blaze 47
[vi]
is a semi-automatic .22 rimfire rifle. It fires a single bullet with each press of the trigger and cannot be converted into a fully-automatic rifle. It is
identical
to the Mossberg Blaze in every way except one – its cosmetic stock makes it vaguely look like the AK-47. This rifle is classified as a Prohibited in Canada, meaning civilian ownership is denied.
They are the
same
rifle. The stock is the
only
difference. One is Non-Restricted, the other Prohibited. It doesn’t have to make sense – it’s government policy.
GOODALE’S “SENSIBLE, PRACTICAL PACKAGE”
"We believe we have a sensible, practical package that advances public safety, assists police in trying to keep people safe, and is respectful and fair in dealing with law-abiding firearms and owners and businesses."
[vii]
Sensible, in a government dedicated to evidence-based policy, dictates attacking the source of the problem –– criminal gangs and their violent drug-dealing members.
Sensible, in a
Liberal
government, dictates attacking everyone
except
the source of the problem, with measures that fail to address the violent criminal gangs shooting up our cities.
[i]
https://thegunblog.ca/2018/03/07/oops-liberals-show-gang-crime-surging-since-they-took-power/
[ii]
http://www.cbc.ca/news/ottawa-toronto-summit-guns-gangs-mayor-tory-blair-1.4566522
[iii]
https://www.canada.ca/en/public-safety-canada/news/2018/03/minister-goodale-urges-joint-action-to-combat-criminal-gun-and-gang-violence.html
[iv]
http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/cfp-pcaf/notice-avis-2015-09-eng.htm
[v]
http://www.mossberg.com/category/series/blaze-autoloading-rimfire-rifles/
[vi]
http://www.mossberg.com/category/series/blaze-47-autoloading-rimfire-rifles/
[vii]
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/liberals-firearms-bill-c71-1.4584074
|
|
|
Who do you think the Liberal government is targeting in Bill C-71?
|
|
|
|
Results from last week's question
:
Do you think unelected RCMP bureaucrats should have the power to reclassify firearms?
- Yes: 1.5%
- No: 97.7%
- Not sure: 0.8%
|
|
Roy Green Show | March 24, 2018
|
|
Tony Bernardo and Ed Burlew - Does Canada need its gun laws changed?
|
|
CSSA 2018
Annual General Meeting
and
"Stick to your Guns"
Dinner
|
|
Saturday, April 14, 2018 –– 10 a.m. to 12 p.m.
Holiday Inn & Suites, St. Catharines Conference Centre
327 Ontario Street, St. Catharines, ON L2R 5L3
The Canadian Shooting Sports 2018 Annual General Meeting (AGM) is scheduled for April 14, 2018, in St. Catharines, Ontario. Special rates are available at the host hotel so book soon.
To reserve rooms at the special CSSA rate, contact the Holiday Inn at the number above.
CSSA 2018 Annual General Meeting Events – April 14, 2018
10 a.m. –– 12 p.m.: CSSA Annual General Meeting
12 p.m. –– 2 p.m.: Lunch break (not provided)
2 p.m. –– 5 p.m.: Seminars (speakers to be announced)
“Stick to your Guns” Dinner
Cocktails at 6 p.m.; Dinner at 7 p.m.
Tens of thousands of dollars worth of awesome prizes.
The finest all-you-can-eat buffet dinner.
Lots of fun and some great guests.
Single ticket: $59.95 -–– Special club pricing –– Table of 8: $419.95
|
|
Don't forget to Vote –– Voting Procedures:
All CSSA members in good standing may vote in the 2018 Board of Directors election.
**NOTE: For CSSA Family Memberships, only the primary member may vote.
Click here to access the
CSSA AGM Electronic Ballot
. Voters MUST provide their surname, membership number and postal code for identification purposes.
|
|
Liberals' claim of 'steady increase' in gun crime rests on a 'drastic' comparison to a low-crime year
|
|
By Evan Dyer | CBC News | March 22, 2018
|
|
Experts say Trudeau government's choice of baseline year makes crime stats look worse than they really are
The year 2013 has been enjoying a bit of a renaissance lately in government talking points and statistics.
The alarming crime stats presented by Public Safety Minister Ralph Goodale at the guns and gangs summit earlier this month in Ottawa all took 2013 as their point of comparison. Goodale pointed to a
sharp increase in gang shootings
since that year.
That memorable year returned again as the Liberal government on Tuesday advanced its proposed firearms legislation, Bill C-71, making the case that the country had seen a sudden increase in firearms offences since … 2013.
"Gun homicides are up by two-thirds" since 2013, Goodale warned — citing what sounds like a shocking explosion of violence.
"Averages and relationships and trends and graphs are not always what they seem," Darrell Huff warned in his 1954 classic How to Lie With Statistics. "There may be more in them than meets the eye, and there may be a good deal less."
The average citizen, hearing how gun crime has soared since 2013, might well conclude that something alarming has been going on.
In fact, it's "a good deal less."
2013: The "most drastic" baseline
What appears to make 2013 attractive as a point of comparison is that any year in the past half century can be made to look alarming by comparing it to 2013.
|
|
That's because 2013 saw Canada's lowest rate of criminal homicides in 50 years, and the lowest rate of fatal shootings ever recorded by Statistics Canada.
In 2013, Canadians killed each other at the lowest rate since 1966 — 30 per cent below the average of the previous three decades. Statistics Canada's homicide report for 2013 clearly identifies it as a record-breaking year.
"To be worth much, a report based on sampling must use a representative sample," wrote Huff.
But 2013 does not represent any kind of Canadian norm. Choosing it as a baseline could be seen as an example of what statisticians call "selection bias."
"They obviously picked the one year where it was lowest, so as to maximize the impact, the one year to make the change look most drastic, essentially," said Pierre-Jérôme Bergeron, who teaches statistics at the Department of Mathematics and Statistics at the University of Ottawa.
The McGill-trained statistician, who authored a paper called How to Engage in Pseudoscience With Real Data, said it doesn't look like an honest mistake, either.
"Here, I'm pretty sure they saw 2013 at the bottom, and said, 'We're going to pick that,'" he said. "Just like climate change deniers will say, 'It hasn't warmed since 1998,' but they pick 1998 because it was so hot, one of the highest, and is actually an outlier."
Bergeron noted that while statisticians often look back at recent data in five-year blocks, the Trudeau government has oddly chosen to measure only four years (2013, 2014, 2015 and 2016). Taking the data set back to 2012 would be the more normal practice — but it wouldn't produce the same impression of rocketing gun violence.
University of Ottawa criminologist Holly Johnson specializes in methodologies of measurements of crime and has coordinated surveys of violence and crime for Statistics Canada and the UN.
"I don't know the motivation or reasoning behind it," she said, "but certainly choosing the lowest rate in decades of data would suggest there's a reason for that, trying to make a point of some sort.
"Statistics can be misused, and to take a high point or a low point to try to make a political point is something I think we should all watch for.
"Statistics for rates of population that are based on very rare events, such as firearms homicides, tend to fluctuate, quite a great deal, actually."
|
|
Johnson said an objective statistician, looking for a baseline for comparison, typically would look at how a particular year compares to the average of the 10 years preceding it, to gauge how one specific year stacks up against the norm.
"A few years does not a trend make."
Johnson adds: "Certainly I wouldn't call it a crime wave."
|
|
The crime wave that wasn't
We don't yet know how 2018 will turn out for homicides, but there's a good chance it will be worse than 2013 — because every year since 1966 has been worse than 2013.
But based on Canada's latest-known homicide rate (1.68 per 100,000 in 2016), it's also likely Canada's homicide rate in 2018 will be similar to or lower than it was 10 years before in 2008 (1.83 per 100,000) — or in 1998 (1.85 per 100,000), 1988 (2.15 per 100,000), 1978 (2.76 per 100,000) or, for that matter, 1968 (1.81 per 100,000).
Indeed, the rate today is not far from where it was in 1928 (1.55 per 100,000).
The Trudeau government points out that the sub-category of homicides with firearms has gone up, and this is true … if one takes 2013 as a starting point. Otherwise, not really.
CBC asked Goodale's office why he chose to use 2013 as a baseline.
"Crime rates generally in Canada have been on the decline for more than two decades," said spokesman Scott Bardsley in an email, "but offences involving firearms have become more prevalent, especially since 2013.
"Many communities across the country have been facing a steady increase in gun violence over the past five years. This trend is a break from overall declines in crime over recent decades.
"More broadly, our caucus has heard from Canadians across the country who are concerned about gun violence. Better is always possible."
'Steady increase'
But if, rather than picking the lowest year for comparison, one were to ask how 2016 compared with a decade before, one would find that the rate of firearms homicides remained boringly unchanged. It was 0.69 per 100,000 in 2005, and 0.59 in 2006, and 0.57 in 2007. It dipped during 2013 and was back at 0.62 per 100,000 in the supposedly alarming year of 2016.
The rate of homicides with handguns in Canada in 2016 was 0.36 per 100,000. Ten years ago, it was 0.38 per 100,000.
None of that constitutes a "steady increase."
One might also look back at the long-term trend, and note with satisfaction that the rate at which Canadians are being killed with firearms has seen a historic decline of more than 50 per cent from its high point of 1.26 per 100,000 in 1975.
The rate of killings and crimes committed with non-restricted long guns has declined by more than three-quarters since the 1980s. Robberies involving guns also have declined by more than 75 per cent during the same period.
That is what a statistician might reasonably call "a steady decrease."
So it's not accurate to say that "offences involving firearms have become more prevalent, especially since 2013." It would be more accurate to say offences involving firearms appear to have become more prevalent if we use the abnormal year of 2013 as a baseline.
And that's not hard to do because, as Mark Twain pointed out, "facts are stubborn things, but statistics are pliable."
|
|
BTN Bites – Liberal gun control legislation not based in facts
|
|
By Brian Lilley | On Your Side | March 25, 2018
|
|
They like to claim that their legislation and policy decisions are based on facts, on evidence and on science. But the gun legislation introduced by Justin Trudeau’s Liberals this week is based on emotions and obfuscation.
Veteran researcher Dennis Young has been asking the government for information on the evidence that their gun legislation would keep Canadians safer and found they had nothing.
I discussed problems with the legislation
here
and
here.
This legislation is mostly political theatre with a strong dose of hurting democracy thrown in. Read the articles to see what I mean.
But when if comes to backing up the claims that the gun legislation will make us safer, well that is where Young comes in.
He has filed several access to information requests asking for the evidence the government is using to back up the claims in their gun control reforms.
In this instance,
Young asked for evidence over the last several years and over two successive governments that the classification and reclassification of firearms had made Canadians safer. They found nothing.
Then he asked a series of questions seeking evidence for Canada’s firearms legislation working and making Canadians safer and
the department found no records
.
That should be shocking.
When government propose tax cuts they are asked for evidence that the cuts will work, the media demands to see it. Change the rules for millions of law abiding gun owners and do it while claiming that you are stopping gang violence and apparently you can get a pass.
Listen to my full interview with Dennis Young
HERE
.
|
|
A.A.C.C.A. Calgary Gun Show
March 30-31, 2018
Canada's largest and finest gun show
|
|
|
|
And the CSSA will be there! Drop by and say hello.
|
Location: BMO Centre, Calgary, AB
Hours of Operation:
Friday: 9:30 to 5 p.m. | Saturday: Until 9:30 p.m.
For Calgary show information only, please contact Josie @ 403-771-8348 or [email protected].
.
|
|
Canadian Government introduces new gun restrictions
|
|
By Marc Montgomery | Radio Canada International | March 21, 2018
|
|
Citing an increase in gangs and gun crime, yesterday the federal Liberal government introduced new restrictions and obligations for gun ownership in Canada, called Bill C-71.
|
|
- Listen to Tony's interview with RCI HERE.
With its proposed new legislation (Bill C-71) the federal government has insisted it would not, and has not re-introduced a so-called “long gun registry” (LGR) of rifles and shotguns, which has been highly controversial in the past.
While every legal owner of firearms is themselves registered” through the licence system, and while all guns listed as restricted are also registered, the majority of rifles and shotguns were not, until the implementation of the LGR.
The original LGR was instituted as a way to better track long guns and thus increase public safety. Thousands of gun owners, and many critics said it did nothing to increase public safety but was astronomically costly and potentially placed many law-abiding owners into a criminal situation for very minor mistakes. It was extremely controversial from the beginning and was cancelled by the previous Conservative government.
The federal Liberal Minister of Public Safety has strongly insisted that the new law does not constitute a renewal of the LGR.
However, many firearms owners and advocates say the Bill is simply the LGR through the backdoor. The Liberals have also helped the province of Quebec as it establishes its own LGR as a replacement to the federal one.
Bernardo also points out that the common use of the term “assault rifle” to describe modern sporting rifles is deliberately wrong. He says that although they may look similar to military rifles, they simply are not.
He also notes that the oft-repeated criticism that such rifles are no good for hunting and only good for killing people is also deliberately wrong. He notes that in the US and elsewhere they are widely used for hunting but aren’t good for hunting in Canada only because the government has decided they cannot be used for hunting.
Tony Bernardo says the proposed new laws once again pose difficulties and unnecessary restrictions on legal gun owners, and again will have virtually no effect on gang violence and illegal gun possession.
He and other gun owner advocacy groups say this will only serve to incite controversy in Canada once again.
|
|
The OPP are undertaking a province–wide Gun Amnesty program
|
|
By Ontario Provincial Police | March 21, 2018
|
|
The program is set to run April 1st-30th, 2018.
The goal of the program is to improve public safety by reducing the number of firearms in our communities and preventing weapons from being stolen and made available to the criminal element. The gun amnesty affords the public an easy opportunity for the safe disposal of unwanted, unlicensed and unregistered firearms, ammunition and other non-ordinance, without fear of penalty.
|
|
CHILLIWACK GUN SHOW | APRIL 15, 2018
|
|
|
|
GUNS | KNIVES | MILITARIA
|
Members FREE | Admission $5 | Kids FREE
Free Parking | Food Concession | Site Security
Evergreen Hall
9291 Corbould Street
Chilliwack
|
|
COMMENTARY: Trudeau gets tough on gangs by hassling target shooters
|
|
By Matt Gurney | Radio Host, Global News | March 21, 2018
|
|
The Justin Trudeau-led Liberal government has announced changes to Canada’s gun laws. The “good” news is, Canada’s large and thriving community of lawful gun owners probably expected it to be much more brutal than this. The bad news is, the laws aren’t really going to make anything better, and will probably make some things worse.
Disclosure: I myself am a lawful gun owner. I’m also a supporter of reasonable and effective gun control measures. Some of what the Liberals are proposing this week is reasonable. Whether it’s effective, well, time will tell.
On the face of it, for instance, I don’t see any harm in enhancing background checks for would-be gun owners, or those seeking to renew their licences. And I certainly see nothing wrong with requiring even private sales of most rifles and shotguns (which are generally no longer registered in Canada) to include validation of the purchaser’s firearms licence. The government might still find a way to screw up the execution — the Liberals’ record on smoothly implementing gun control measures is, to put it mildly, bad — and I don’t really see how some of this is practically enforceable. But the notions are fine.
I’m more skeptical of the government’s plan to turn over the classification of guns to the RCMP. Guns in Canada fall into three classifications: non-restricted (most rifles and shotguns), restricted (most handguns and some rifles) and prohibited (certain handguns and rifles, typically those that would be commonly, if not quite accurately, called “assault rifles”). In theory, there are clear definitions for each of these categories, but certain guns have long been weirdly classified at a higher level than you’d expect on the whims of political office holders.
You’d think that putting it in the hands of the RCMP would allay those concerns. It doesn’t. Canada’s gun-owning community, to put this bluntly, does not trust the RCMP. There is a real sense among Canadian gun owners that police forces in general, and the RCMP in particular, would prefer to see all Canadians disarmed. Changing a bunch of gun classifications is a backdoor way to accomplish that, gun owners worry, and they fear the RCMP won’t hesitate to do exactly that.
If this sounds paranoid,
read up on what happened in High River, Alberta in 2013
. The Alberta town, evacuated during floods, was the scene of a methodical police operation, with officers going from house to house to “seize” guns — their word — including even legal, properly stored firearms. The RCMP’s oversight watchdog criticized this, and
millions in compensation was paid
to residents. The guns were eventually returned, but Canada’s gun owners remember this well.
Under the current rules, cabinet has some involvement in the process — which was good. Fear of public backlash after bad decisions is more a deterrent for a politician than a cop. The Tories had put together a panel that included political input, police and technical experts in firearms. That was better than the Liberals simply handing over responsibility to a police force that has issues with public accountability.
But the real problem with the proposed changes is that it repeats the primary sin of modern Canadian gun control: it imposes silly and ultimately pointless bureaucratic requirements on the people that aren’t the problem.
The Liberal government is responding to
a real rise in gun crime
in Canada. In 2015 and 2016,
gun crimes did jump
in Canada’s major cities. The problem isn’t mysterious.
Half of
gun murders in Canada are directly linked to gang violence. Of the remaining half, many are linked to drug-related activity. There’s no precise figure for that, but John Tory, mayor of the City of Toronto, recently noted that only two per cent of gun homicide victims in Toronto
had no connection to either gangs or drugs
. That’s not a typo. Only two per cent.
And yet, as expected, the Liberals are getting tough on … target shooters. They are reimposing a ridiculous paperwork requirement on those Canadians who own restricted guns, including most handguns and some rifles. Under the law, a properly licenced individual can own a handgun or certain restricted rifles, but can only transport them to specific locations and for a specific purpose. Transporting them, in a properly secured container, is permitted from home to a gun show, to a gunsmith’s shop for repairs, or to an approved shooting range for some target practice. The Liberals have decided to restore a former piece of paperwork that had been scrapped by the Conservatives, called the Authorization to Transport (ATT). An ATT will soon again be required to take a restricted gun to a gun show or gunsmith.
Why?
No, seriously. Why? If someone has a valid restricted firearms licence, and has properly registered his or her guns, and is transporting them in a properly secured container, to a gun show or repair shop … what is served by making them apply for a permit? Why are the valid licence and registration forms not enough? This is like having a valid driver’s licence and proper registration and insurance and still needing to apply for a specific form before taking your hatchback in for an oil change.
What possible purpose does this serve? What public safety goal is met or enhanced by having a bureaucrat issue these forms? What advantage does anyone gain from layering this requirement onto the existing licence and registration requirements?
You’ll never hear a good answer to this question, because there isn’t one.
The only purpose is political. The return of the ATT lets government claim, with a straight face, that it’s “
strengthening Canada’s gun laws
.” That’s true, but there will be no improvement on public safety. No drug dealer will be impacted, no gang member deterred, no domestic homicide prevented. Law-abiding folk will fill out the forms. That’s it.
It’s not the end of the world. But it’s a dead giveaway about how fundamentally unserious so much of Canada’s gun control is. I support gun control. I don’t support political theatre on the backs of my fellow hobbyists.
That’s what this is. And, again, the only good news is that it really could have been worse.
|
|
GUNTER: Rural communities under the gun
|
|
By Lorne Gunter | Toronto Sun | March 17, 2018
|
|
The federal Liberals’ upcoming gun control legislation and the recent spike in rural crime are closely related.
No, I don’t mean that if the Libs can just do something about getting guns under control, they will reduce the rural crime rate, which has risen by more than 20% in many rural parts of the country over the past five years.
Nope. From that aspect, past Liberal gun control measures have actually made rural crime worse.
Past gun controls — such as the firearms registry — have given criminals the impression there are fewer law-abiding citizens with guns out. And that has caused crime to rise because the bad guys have more confidence they will not meet armed civilians while out burglarizing innocent Canadians.
Whatever new controls the Trudeau government brings in, perhaps as early as this spring, are most likely only going to make rural crime worse.
Reports coming out of the Liberal caucus suggest the government wants to make it easier to ban all types of firearms and not pay compensation to owners who are forced to give them up. According to caucus sources, handguns (which are already severely controlled in Canada) and semi-automatic rifles will be particularly easy for cabinet, the RCMP or bureaucrats to ban without having to get permission from Parliament first.
The only people who will comply with such surrender and seizure orders will be law-abiding citizens.
Criminals will not hesitate to ignore the new controls. (The willingness to disobey laws is how they got to be criminals in the first place.)
No criminal — rural or urban — is going to say: “I may be prepared to rob, beat and murder you, but if Justin Trudeau says I should turn in my guns, I’ll do it!”
So the bad guys will keep their guns and more of the good guys will lose theirs, which means the firearms imbalance will only worsen and rural crime will rise as a result.
But that’s not the only way in which impending gun controls and rural crime are related. Both are also products of the same mentality.
Rural property owners who believe they must use force to defend themselves, their families or their property are frequently forced to defend their actions in court. More often than not, they are charged, occasionally even with more serious crimes than their alleged attackers.
Alleged criminals are often treated by police, prosecutors, judges and politicians with more respect and compassion than self-defending landowners. (And don’t think criminals haven’t sensed that, too, and increased their criminal activities as a result.)
The other connection is that the mentality of our criminal justice system and the false hope that controls on law-abiding gun ownership will reduce crime, come from the same place: A misbelief that the authorities — the government — and not the people, are the masters in a democracy.
I have written before that I will never fully trust a government that doesn’t trust me to own a gun – or a whole bunch of guns, if I choose.
I don’t own guns. Never have. I’ve never even fired a gun.
Farmers and ranchers own guns to control vermin, such as coyotes. Hunters own them as instruments of recreation; collectors as sources of fascination and history.
None of these uses of firearms as “tools” interests me in the least.
But you can tell a lot about individual freedom in a country or society by how a government treats private firearms ownership.
And, increasingly, I think you can tell a lot about the idea of individual sovereignty by how a government respects the right to self-defence, even of property.The federal Liberals’ upcoming gun control legislation and the recent spike in rural crime are closely related.
No, I don’t mean that if the Libs can just do something about getting guns under control, they will reduce the rural crime rate, which has risen by more than 20% in many rural parts of the country over the past five years.
Nope. From that aspect, past Liberal gun control measures have actually made rural crime worse.
Past gun controls — such as the firearms registry — have given criminals the impression there are fewer law-abiding citizens with guns out. And that has caused crime to rise because the bad guys have more confidence they will not meet armed civilians while out burglarizing innocent Canadians.
Whatever new controls the Trudeau government brings in, perhaps as early as this spring, are most likely only going to make rural crime worse.
Reports coming out of the Liberal caucus suggest the government wants to make it easier to ban all types of firearms and not pay compensation to owners who are forced to give them up. According to caucus sources, handguns (which are already severely controlled in Canada) and semi-automatic rifles will be particularly easy for cabinet, the RCMP or bureaucrats to ban without having to get permission from Parliament first.
The only people who will comply with such surrender and seizure orders will be law-abiding citizens.
Criminals will not hesitate to ignore the new controls. (The willingness to disobey laws is how they got to be criminals in the first place.)
No criminal — rural or urban — is going to say: “I may be prepared to rob, beat and murder you, but if Justin Trudeau says I should turn in my guns, I’ll do it!”
So the bad guys will keep their guns and more of the good guys will lose theirs, which means the firearms imbalance will only worsen and rural crime will rise as a result.
But that’s not the only way in which impending gun controls and rural crime are related. Both are also products of the same mentality.
Rural property owners who believe they must use force to defend themselves, their families or their property are frequently forced to defend their actions in court. More often than not, they are charged, occasionally even with more serious crimes than their alleged attackers.
Alleged criminals are often treated by police, prosecutors, judges and politicians with more respect and compassion than self-defending landowners. (And don’t think criminals haven’t sensed that, too, and increased their criminal activities as a result.)
The other connection is that the mentality of our criminal justice system and the false hope that controls on law-abiding gun ownership will reduce crime, come from the same place: A misbelief that the authorities — the government — and not the people, are the masters in a democracy.
I have written before that I will never fully trust a government that doesn’t trust me to own a gun – or a whole bunch of guns, if I choose.
I don’t own guns. Never have. I’ve never even fired a gun.
Farmers and ranchers own guns to control vermin, such as coyotes. Hunters own them as instruments of recreation; collectors as sources of fascination and history.
None of these uses of firearms as “tools” interests me in the least.
But you can tell a lot about individual freedom in a country or society by how a government treats private firearms ownership.
And, increasingly, I think you can tell a lot about the idea of individual sovereignty by how a government respects the right to self-defence, even of property.
|
|
Liberal firearms bill attacked by both gun owners and shooting victims
|
|
By Jim Bronskill | The Canadian Press | March 20, 2018
|
|
OTTAWA — The federal government tabled a proposed new bill Tuesday to tighten the sale and tracking of firearms, only to find itself under attack from both sides: gun owners wary of burdensome regulation and shooting victims who say the bill doesn't go far enough.
Gun retailers would be required to keep records of firearms inventory and sales for at least 20 years under the legislation introduced in the House of Commons. The proposed measure is intended to assist police in investigating gun trafficking and other crimes.
The legislation would also require the purchaser of a hunting rifle or shotgun to present a firearms licence, while the seller would have to ensure its validity.
"What's the point of having a licence if no one ever checks it out?" said Public Safety Minister Ralph Goodale. "The process for doing so will be efficient and straightforward."
In addition, the bill would expand the scope of background checks on those who want to acquire a gun. Instead of just the five years immediately preceding a licence application, personal history questions would cover a person's entire lifetime.
While crime rates in Canada have generally been declining for more than two decades, offences involving firearms have become more prevalent, especially since 2013, the government noted. "Gun-related homicides, domestic and gender-based violence involving guns, criminal gang activity and gun thefts are all up significantly."
Goodale has already devoted more than $327 million over five years, with $100 million a year thereafter, to address criminal gun and gang activities.
The government says the new legislative proposals emphasize public safety and effective police work, while respecting law-abiding firearms owners.
The move to require commercial retailers to keep sales records would reinstate a measure that existed from the late 1970s until 1995, when a previous Liberal government ushered in universal registration of firearms — essentially replacing the store ledgers.
The Conservative government dismantled the controversial long-gun registry, which had come to symbolize wasteful inefficiency for many firearms owners.
The National Firearms Association accused the government of trying to revive the registry through the proposed record-keeping provisions.
"This is a return to universal registration," said association vice-president Blair Hagen.
Prime Minister Justin Trudeau bristled at such a suggestion.
"We committed to not restore a long-gun registry and we're not restoring a long-gun registry," Trudeau said. "It's that simple."
Federal officials pointed out that most retailers already keep sales records for liability and insurance purposes, and to inform customers of product recalls.
"Their records would be private, not accessible to governments, but police would be able to gain access, given reasonable grounds and with judicial authorization as appropriate," Goodale said.
The bill would repeal some measures passed by the previous Conservative government.
For instance, it would roll back some automatic authorizations to transport restricted and prohibited firearms, such as handguns and assault weapons. Under the bill, owners would need a permit to transport such guns, except when taking them to a shooting range or home from a store.
The bill also proposes restoring the authority of RCMP experts to classify firearms without political influence, repealing cabinet's authority to overrule Mountie determinations.
The Conservatives said the bill does nothing to fight gang and gun violence in places like Toronto and Surrey, B.C.
"Liberals cannot be trusted when it comes to firearms legislation because they fail to tackle criminals who use guns to commit violent crime; meanwhile, they treat law-abiding firearms owners as criminals," Conservative House leader Candice Bergen and party public safety critic Pierre Paul-Hus said in a joint statement.
"Conservatives will adamantly oppose any attempt by the Liberals to create a new long-gun registry."
Coalition for Gun Control founder Wendy Cukier called the bill "an important first step" that responds to the desire of most Canadians for strict measures. "While much of the focus has been on handguns, a rifle or a shotgun in the hands of angry or disturbed individuals can also have tragic consequences."
Survivors and families of three mass shootings in Quebec said the bill includes the bare minimum to technically fulfil only some of the Liberal election promises on firearms.
Meaghan Hennegan, who survived a deadly shooting at Montreal's Dawson College in 2006, said the group was especially disappointed with the failure to address the legal availability of assault rifles.
"The weapon that was used to shoot me and many other of my classmates is more easily accessible today. This is totally messed up."
Goodale highlighted four additional ideas for further discussion:
— Tougher after-hours storage rules for commercial outlets, after two dozen guns were stolen in Saskatchewan by snipping a cable;
— The appropriateness of manufacturers' advertisements that glorify violence and simulate warfare;
— Whether provinces should consider requiring medical professionals to advise authorities of people with diagnosed conditions, including mental illnesses, that are likely to put the lives of others in danger;
— A possible means to identify large and unusual gun transactions that could point to gang activity or trafficking.
Toronto Mayor John Tory welcomed the notion of "further strengthening the rules to keep guns off our streets."
"It is long past time to take bold action to fight domestic gun trafficking," he said.
|
|
Canada’s gun advisory committee is missing Indigenous voices
|
|
By A
ndru McCracken | therockymountaingoat.com | March 20, 2018
|
|
Critics are asking why a committee helping to craft firearm legislation doesn’t include those disproportionately affected by gun violence
Ten people sit on the Canadian Firearms Advisory Committee. A farmer makes one; an emergency room physician makes two; a public health expert makes three; a tourism lodge president, women and girl’s advocate, sport shooter/conservationist, survivor of the 1989 École Polytechnique massacre, former police chief, former Supreme Court of Canada justice (the chair), and second-generation competitive pistol shooter make up the rest. None are Indigenous.
“We have various people from across Canada — different experiences, different walks of life,” says Chris Murphy, lawyer for the family of Colten Boushie, the 22-year-old Cree man from Red Pheasant First Nation in Saskatchewan whose death sparked national outrage. “It seems as though Indigenous representation is conspicuously absent.”
On Mar. 19, the Boushie case reaches its next stage when Gerald Stanley is scheduled to appear in Saskatchewan provincial court on charges of unsafe storage of firearms. RCMP investigators found 10 firearms on Stanley’s cattle farm, the CBC reported, including the semi-automatic Russian-made handgun used in the fatal shooting of Boushie in August, 2016. When Stanley was tried for second-degree murder this winter, a jury found him not guilty.
Critics immediately protested that there was no Indigenous person on the jury and declared the verdict racist. Four days after the verdict, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau told the House of Commons, “we understand there are systematic problems in our criminal justice system that we must address.”
But just as there was no Indigenous juror in Stanley’s trial, neither is there an Indigenous voice on the committee of citizens appointed by Public Safety Minister Ralph Goodale to advise him on gun laws and regulations. The Canadian Firearms Advisory Committee was created in 2006, and the current cohort has met to make recommendations to Goodale in advance of a new firearms bill the Liberals are expected to table soon. The committee has diversified since the Stephen Harper era, but as Stanley returns to court and a bill goes to debate, critics say the minister is addressing semi-automatic weapons with a semi-democratic committee.
“It’s impossible to believe that new firearms laws are going to be passed in Canada that are not going to have significant impact on Indigenous people,” says Murphy.
In 2016, 142 Indigenous people died from homicide, making up 24 per cent of homicide victims in Canada, and more than one-third of homicides nationwide were committed with guns, according to Statistics Canada. In some Inuit communities, the suicide rate is 11 times higher than that of the non-Indigenous population, says the Canadian Institute for Health Research, and Stats Can shows that, between 2000 and 2009, 16 per cent of suicides in Canada involved guns.
“Committee members represent a broad range of interests because decisions about firearms affect all Canadians,” writes a spokesperson for Goodale’s office in an email. “Notably Chief Clive Weighill has extensive experience with on (sic) Indigenous issues.”
Chief Clive Weighill is a police veteran known for advocating for Indigenous people while he served as chief of the Saskatoon Police Service, having retired last year, but he is not Indigenous. “You have to have that voice,” says Kathleen Makela, a program coordinator at the University of Saskatchewan’s Native Law Centre, who is Métis. “It shouldn’t be just one position [on the committee]. Probably even three.” (Weighill couldn’t be immediately reached for comment. Federal Justice Minister Jody Wilson-Raybould declined to comment).
Guns also uniquely affect Indigenous communities due to adapted provisions of the Canadian Firearms Act. For the type of gun that killed Boushie, most adult Canadian citizens can get a license if they complete a minimum of 12 hours firearms safety classes, pass two tests and pass a background check by the RCMP. For Indigenous people who do traditional hunting, upon recommendation from an elder or other adult, they can get a firearms license without taking the federal firearms safety course. Minors under 12 can also get licenses if they engage in traditional hunting.
Committee member Ron Bonnett, a farmer in Bruce Mines, Ont. and president of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, says he got a call from the Department of Public Safety in summer 2016, asking him to join the committee. Bonnett agreed. He uses guns to protect his cows from predators. “Wolves, coyotes,” he specifies, “and then we have problems with ravens, believe it or not, attacking young calves, especially when they’re asleep. They’ll come and damage their eyes.” (His wife, Cathy, also uses the guns: “If there’s something out there interfering with my livestock, it’s not going to be interfering with it very long.”)
Bonnett opposed the registry of all firearms introduced under Prime Minister Jean Chrétien in 1995. “All of a sudden it came with renewal fees,” says Bonnett. “I think the frustration was, it just seemed on the bureaucratic side … I was one of the ones who was upset, too.” Regarding the current government’s choice of committee members, Bonnett says, “I think they’ve been reaching out to the Indigenous community. It likely would bring another perspective to it.”
A spokesperson for the department did not say if Goodale tried to include Indigenous people on the committee, but writes in an email, “the government is committed to reconciliation with Indigenous peoples and recognizes that there is still more work to do. We will continue to advance policies that act on the priorities of Indigenous communities.”
The committee became highly controversial under Stephen Harper’s government, as pro-gun members recommended wide-sweeping changes to make prohibited firearms – such as automatic guns – more easily available, according to documents retrieved in 2012 by the Coalition for Gun Control. The Harper government ended up removing three members.
The Liberal Party’s 2015 campaign platform promised to modify the committee “to include knowledgeable law enforcement officers, public health advocates, representatives from women’s groups and members of the legal community.” Its platform includes promises to repeal changes made to Bill C-42, which allowed free transportation of restricted and prohibited firearms without a permit, and give an annual $100 million to police forces to tackle gun and gang violence. Goodale’s office says, “to be clear, we have said all along that we will not recreate a federal long-gun registry, and we won’t.”
“There seems to have been essentially a war on gun control waged over the last 10 years,” says Wendy Cukier, president of the Coalition for Gun Control, who argues that a vocal minority of pro-gun lobbyists pressured the Harper government to relax gun laws. She hopes lobby efforts won’t prevent the current government from introducing effective legislation, but she notes that the Liberals are focusing attention on urban gangs rather than issues such as domestic violence toward women. “It’s nowhere to be found on Mr. Public Safety’s website.”
Goodale’s office acknowledges lobby efforts by the Canadian Coalition for Firearms Rights: “the Minister’s office does speak with them and they had a member attend the Summit [on Gun and Gang Violence],” writes a spokesperson for the department in an email. But the department says it listens to “all perspectives” and that the summit in March included experts from Indigenous organizations.
The advisory committee can include up to 15 people, but Goodale’s department has no plans to fill the five vacancies. If Stanley goes to trial on his remaining charges, Murphy expects the case will be decided by a judge, not jury. And as there is only one declared First Nations judge in Saskatchewan’s provincial court (Judge Gerald Morin in Prince Albert), it will almost certainly be a non-Indigenous person deciding if Stanley unlawfully stored his firearms.
|
|
Looking for more upcoming gun shows and matches? Visit our
WEBSITE
|
|
Proposed bill a good thing, says gun shop owner
|
|
By Tim Meeks | Belleville Intelligencer | March 21, 2018
|
|
The federal government is dodging bullets when it comes to pleasing everyone on gun control.
A proposed new bill tabled in the House of Commons Tuesday to tighten the sale and tracking of firearms has the Liberals under attack from both sides: gun owners wary of burdensome regulation and shooting victims who say the bill doesn’t go far enough.
However, one Belleville gun shop owner has “no issues” with the proposed bill.
Ben Harvey, co-owner of High Falls Outfitters, admits, “There’s a lot of moving parts in the proposed bill, but there’s not been a real big change on the actual aspect of logging the customer’s information and keeping on record what they’ve purchased. We already do it with ammunition, now they’re just asking us to do it with guns. By doing it with guns we’re going to give the police and the community the tool to begin to track where guns are purchased, how they’re being trafficked and how they’re being used, so that’s not a bad thing.”
Gun retailers would be required to keep records of firearms inventory and sales for at least 20 years under the legislation. The proposed measure is intended to assist police in investigating gun trafficking and other crimes. It would also require the purchaser of a hunting rifle or shotgun to present a firearms licence, while the seller would have to ensure its validity.
“What’s the point of having a licence if no one ever checks it out?” said Public Safety Minister Ralph Goodale on Tuesday. “The process for doing so will be efficient and straightforward.”
In addition, the bill would expand the scope of background checks on those who want to acquire a gun. Instead of just the five years immediately preceding a licence application, personal history questions would cover a person’s entire lifetime.
“The (long gun) registry was bad because it was an invasion of privacy, where guns are kept, the home, the addresses, all these different things,” Harvey said. “All they are asking for now is for store owners to keep records of who bought the gun, and under what PAL (Possession Acquisition Licence). It just gives the police a starting point when they have to investigate a crime.
A PAL is a mandatory course and licence that you must apply for before you can purchase a firearm legally.
“You take the course, I think it’s $170 just for the firearms course, you go through an extensive background check that checks personal references, and in the case of a restricted firearm it checks with your spouse to make sure there is no spousal abuse or anything like that and then you’re granted a licence to buy a firearm,” Harvey said.
“It’s a good thing and it’s surprising because they talk about increased background checks, but when we do it right now they look at your medical history, your criminal history, they contact your references. They’re already going through a pretty substantial check.
“I think the only place they could be better is every five years you have to have your firearms licence renewed. I don’t believe right now, although they say they do a good job of checking your criminal record, your mental illness, your medical records, all that stuff, I think they just re-up you every five years and update your picture.
“I think what they’re maybe getting at is they’re going to do a better job every five years on your renewal they’re going through the proper check, or when you’re buying as restricted handgun going through checks to make sure that you can have that, you have no violent crimes, that you’re not charged with anything at the current point in time and double checking on that stuff, so that’s all a good thing,” Harvey said.
While crime rates in Canada have generally been declining for more than two decades, offences involving firearms have become more prevalent, especially since 2013, the government noted.
“Gun-related homicides, domestic and gender-based violence involving guns, criminal gang activity and gun thefts are all up significantly,” said Goodale.
Goodale has already devoted more than $327 million over five years, with $100 million a year thereafter, to address criminal gun and gang activities.
The government says the new legislative proposals emphasize public safety and effective police work, while respecting law-abiding firearms owners.
“We in Canada already have a pretty good grasp on what it takes to let people enjoy their firearms,” said Harvey. “We have a good, common sense gun law and we have checks and balances in place to make sure the wrong people don’t get them. What’s happening in the U.S. I think has scared everybody a little bit, but our own Prime Minister didn’t know that you require a licence to purchase a firearm in Canada as of right now, and that is from business to personal and personal to personal. You have to have a valid PAL to purchase a firearm and to get that valid PAL you have to take safety courses and have all of your background checked into.
One tweet sent out Wednesday morning by the Prime Minister didn’t sit well with Harvey.
“We’re also introducing stronger and more rigorous background checks on gun sales. And if you want to buy a gun, by law you’ll have to show a license at the point of purchase. Right now that’s not a requirement,” Trudeau tweeted.
“For Prime Minister Justin Trudeau to come out and make a tweet like that, stating that it is currently not a law or regulation to have a licence to purchase a firearm in Canada is almost fear mongering,” Harvey said. “It’s taking people who are uneducated about the topic and making them believe something to gain more support behind his bill. It was either he’s ignorant and doesn’t know enough about the topic or he deliberately did it to sway public opinion with people who aren’t up to speed on the topic. Either way, that was a really bad move.
“There’s more in that legislation that people haven’t picked up on and seen yet, but for the most part this new legislation is only adding on to what we’re already doing a little bit at the store level. On the consumer level nothing has changed. We’re just going to up our game on background checks and making sure that the right people, who are law-abiding citizens, get those guns without a bunch of issues,” Harvey said.
The National Firearms Association accused the government of trying to revive the registry through the proposed record-keeping provisions.
“This is a return to universal registration,” said association vice-president Blair Hagen.
“I don’t see how any law-abiding firearm enthusiast or any sports shooters, or any hunters could take issue with the government making sure that it is only those good citizens that have firearms. I don’t think when you sit down and talk to any of them that anyone of them would be concerned with that, or should be concerned with that,” Harvey said.
|
|
Who is Many To One?
Many To One is a registered Canadian charity whose goals include developing a centralized online website of PTSD resources, promoting PTSD awareness in the community and working with established organizations to support our heroes in the military, police, fire and EMS sectors.
Awareness, education and training are the main tools used to combat and prevent PTSD. Our mandate is to build a PTSD website to guide those who have PTSD and supporting family members to treatment options and to develop training tools which can be utilized by front line workers in at-risk occupations.
How did Many To One start?
M2O started with a simple idea of doing online auctions to help raise money for existing charities that support our heroes in times of need. For two years, with the support of major corporations both in Canada and United States, we were able to raise funds and awareness for key organizations.
We quickly realized that PTSD was a significant issue which needed more focused attention. Through research and reaching out to the mental health community, it was evident that there were a great number of existing programs which served the needs of our military and first responders.
Our Mission
To become an online conduit of PTSD resources world-wide, connecting people to the help they need.
Many To One is committed to simplifying the process of finding PTSD resources. It can be a challenge at the best of times to find information on the internet, but when you are already battling PTSD or you are struggling to support a loved one, this challenge can seem overwhelming.
Many To One is dedicated to creating an online directory of PTSD resources, thus providing a centralized base of information and educational tools. We recognized that the programs already existed globally but we needed to make it easier for individuals and family members to find these resources both quickly and easily.
This challenge requires the collective support of corporations and the communities it will serve. Just as no war is won alone, PTSD cannot be addressed by a single organization. It is through the united efforts of many that we are able to provide a wide variety of resources to individuals and their support structures.
We need your support to build and maintain this resource for our heroes, both locally and abroad.
For information about the Charity Online Auction or how you can donate, please visit their website at
ManyToOne
or FaceBook page at
ManyToOne
.
|
|
CSSA Home and Auto Insurance
|
|
Team CSSA has partnered with our long-time broker, ThinkInsure Ltd., to offer you Group Automobile and Homeowners insurance through Novex.
You can save 12% off your automobile insurance premiums and 10% off your property insurance premiums.
Please contact Cathy Wanvig at 905-415-8800, ext.176 or
[email protected]
to start saving now!
|
|
HOW CAN GUN OWNERS PROTECT THEMSELVES FROM UNFAIR CHARGES? ... WITH FIREARM LEGAL DEFENCE INSURANCE.
We pay legal fees, court costs and time off work to attend court; up to $150,000 per occurrence (recently increased 50% for no additional cost!) and $500,000 total per policy year. Plus get unlimited legal advice through our toll-free Legal Advice Helpline.
What price for peace of mind?
The price is just $95 per year and
CSSA members are eligible for a $10 discount – click on “Buy Now” and enter the following exclusive club code to access your savings: CSSA001.
You are not required to disclose any information about firearms in your possession.
Firearm Legal Defence
insurance covers:
- Defence from prosecution should you be charged with an offence arising out of the use, storage, display, transportation or handling of a firearm;
- cases where a firearm is used in self defence, the defence of a person under your protection or the defence of your property;
- appealing an event where a licensing, regulatory or judicial authority refuses to renew, suspends, revokes, cancels or alters the terms of your firearms license. Note that this provision does not apply to new license applications.
It will pay for:
- The cost of retaining a lawyer or other appointed representative, including court fees, experts’ fees, police reports and medical reports;
- costs awarded by the court to opponents in civil cases if the insured person has been ordered to pay them, or pays them with the agreement of the insurance company;
- lost salary or wages for the time the insured is off work to attend court or any other hearing at the request of the appointed representative, up to a maximum of $500 per day, and $10,000 in total.
NOTE - FirearmLegalDefence is not a CSSA product but is highly recommended by the association and is used by our staff and directors. - Tony B.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
