TEAM CSSA E-NEWS | September 14, 2018
|
|
- As Liberals contemplate handgun ban, an urban-rural caucus divide emerges
- Do we need a handgun ban in Canada? Dennis R. Young Says "No"
- International small arms competition shows off impressive range of guns (PHOTOS)
- Conservatives tackle gun legislation at public meeting
- Firearms industry shoots down handgun ban
- Conservative MPs hold town hall to talk gun reform
- Use NoGunBanCanada.com to Send Form Letters to Ministers
- Will a gun ban work in Toronto? No
- It’s time for a ban on handguns
- There's A Way Trudeau Can Curb Gun Violence, And It's Not A Ban
- Some of the world’s most powerful banks push policies that circumvent U.S. Constitution and federal laws
- Shocking footage of wild bikie gunfight in suburban Canberra released
- Do “crime guns” come from PAL holders?
- Quebec Hunters Haven’t Registered 90% of Their Guns, Paper Says
- Letter: Bill C 71 will do nothing to fight gangs, curb gun violence
- NRA School Shield Awards More Than $600,000 in Grants To Fund School Security
- NP View: The latest story used to justify gun bans? It's not true
- Federal Court Strikes Down California Law That Bans Handgun Signs
|
|
COMMENTARY
Misleading Questions and Ignorance
Skew Opinion Poll Results
|
|
Facts matter, but they don’t win votes. They also don’t shape public policy or win elections for a government more concerned about re-election than public safety.
Governments, advocacy groups and media outlets use polls to mold public opinion and determine political direction.
The recent Nanos Research poll[i], feverishly embraced by our political foes, is a perfect example. Headlines across the nation were based on the results for this question.
“Handguns are currently restricted in Canada, would you support, somewhat support, somewhat oppose or oppose a total ban on handgun ownership by anyone other than police and other security professionals?”
The results, 48.2% and 19.8%, respectively “support” and “somewhat support” a national handgun ban.
For this question and its results to be called valid, two conditions must be met.
First, the poll respondent must be wholly ignorant of Canadian firearm laws.
Second, is the polling firm’s desire to skew results in a particular direction. Both conditions are met in this poll.
It’s not easy to legally own a handgun in Canada.
“Handguns are currently restricted in Canada,” is not explained.
The length, breadth and depth of those restrictions are not explained.
Absent is any mention of mandatory firearm safety training courses, the practical and theoretical test potential gun owners must pass, or the personal and RCMP criminal background checks one must pass.
Were the full truth given to participants in this poll, it would return a vastly different result.
This poll, like the national gun ban currently floated by our government, is not about public safety. It’s about influencing votes and shifting public opinion in a specific direction.
Sources:
|
|
Do you trust the results of polls used by governments and media outlets?
|
|
|
|
RESULTS FROM LAST WEEK'S QUESTION:
Do our political leaders know and care that they're reacting to a story with bad information?
YES: 26.3%
NO: 73.7%
|
|
DRIVE TACKS WITH EVERY SHOT!
|
|
.22 Long Rifle | 5 Shot Magazine | Fully adjustable peep sights | Savage AccuTrigger | 21" Heavy Carbon Steel Frame
|
|
Savage Arms delivers the first shipment of
Team CSSA SHOOTING RANGER Target rifles.
And number ONE can be yours!
|
|
They've arrived!
Raising the bar in .22 LR performance, the
TEAM CSSA SHOOTING RANGER Savage Arms
TM
Mark II FVT
offers user-adjustable AccuTrigger
TM
technology for crisp, customized trigger pulls. The 21-inch, heavy carbon steel barrel is button rifled and paired with a rugged, matte black synthetic stock. Weighing 6 pounds, the rifle has a 5-round detachable box magazine and peep sights.
The first-of-its-kind AccuTrigger system is easily adjustable by the shooter, offers a light, clean pull with no creep, and prevents the firearm from discharging if jarred or dropped.
These great rifles are now available from the CSSA, but you can win the first one. A simple donation of $20 will give you a chance to win one of these beauties. Fifty dollars will get you three chances, and $100 will get you seven chances and a free one-year membership in
CSSA TARGET
with unlimited target submissions.
Find out more about our terrific
CSSA TARGET
program
HERE
.
This beauty will find a new home on October 31, 2018.
Please send your donation to:
.22 Ranger
c/o CSSA (see address at the bottom of this email) or call 1-888-873-4339.
You can donate online
HERE.
Help us continue to defend your sport, your guns and your rights. We need all hands on deck in these trying times. Your donation helps us preserve your firearm rights. As always, your generosity is most appreciated!
Please note: the winner must have a valid Canadian firearms licence.
|
|
As Liberals contemplate handgun ban, an urban-rural caucus divide emerges
|
|
By John Paul Tasker | CBC News | September 12, 2018
|
|
'Is this actually going to prevent having bad guns in the hands of bad people?' rural Liberal MP asks
The Liberal government is contemplating a national handgun ban — a proposition that has opened up a divide between urban and rural MPs in the party, with some warning the rights of lawful gun holders must be considered when crafting new laws to curb gun crime in Canada.
The issue has rocketed up the federal government's priority list after a summer of gun violence in Canada's largest cities,
most notably in Toronto
, but also in smaller centres like Fredericton, where a gun-wielding man
claimed the lives of four people
. City councils in Toronto and
Montreal
have already passed resolutions demanding federal action on the file.
In response, the Liberals have tasked Bill Blair, the newly minted minister of border security and organized crime reduction, with studying a full ban on handguns and "assault weapons" in Canada.
Debate on a ban will begin in earnest at the Liberal caucus retreat in Saskatoon on Wednesday, with a number of MPs expected to raise the issue directly with Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and his cabinet.
Critics maintain new federal action will be nothing more than a symbolic sop for gun control advocates that will penalize lawful gun owners by burdening them with unreasonable regulations. Advocates say troubling crime stats demand action.
Blair told CBC News on Tuesday "there's an urgency" to the gun control issue and he is prepared to look at "any measure" to reduce violence. "We are absolutely resolved to do what is necessary to keep communities safe," he said.
I'm tired of stepping over blood in my riding.
- Liberal MP Adam Vaughan
But, speaking to CBC News on the sidelines of the retreat, one MP from rural Newfoundland said she's not sold on the usefulness of a ban on
restricted firearms
like handguns.
"Nobody wants anybody killed, we all know that, but is this actually going to prevent and stop, you know, having bad guns in the hands of bad people? Is that going to work? That's what I need to know," Gudie Hutchings said.
"Do we need to give more money to the police forces? Do we need to give more money for mental health issues? If you look at the cases going on with gun use and all the tragic, tragic crimes that are going on, it's not the legal gun owner, like you and I are, ... it's a person with [an illegal firearm] that is really doing the damage, so will it stop the crime?"
Hutchings said many people in her riding — a huge swath of western Newfoundland larger in size than Switzerland — enjoy using firearms recreationally, but they also rely on them to hunt for sustenance. "It's about education ... the protein that you get from hunting is the protein you get for the winter, it's not really a sport, people are doing for this for food use," she said.
And while Liberals who will face a rural electorate in 2019 might be skittish about an outright ban, Toronto MP Adam Vaughan said the government must act now to protect public safety. He supports a hand gun prohibition — at least in some areas.
"Look, there is no rational reason to own a handgun in an urban setting. Period. You may like them, you may enjoy target shooting, you may have all kinds of emotional reactions to the presence of them in your life, but the reality is they're bloody dangerous," he said in an interview with CBC News.
|
|
"Rural Canada has a different relationship to guns. They're tools. They're not tools in urban Canada. They are weapons. When bullets fly in crowded areas, people get hit. I'm tired of stepping over blood in my riding."
When asked about the possibility of new government legislation on this issue in the fall, Vaughan said there is no question this is an "urgent" issue that should soon be addressed.
He said a handgun ban, or further action to crack down on the diversion of legally procured firearms, would not prevent the government from bolstering border resources to stop an influx of firearms from the United States. Gun rights advocates maintain the vast majority of crime guns come from south of the border.
"I've buried more kids in my riding than I have been to funerals in my own family. Let that sink in for a bit. When you sit at a funeral for a young kid that has been killed ... you've got memorials happening here, there and everywhere across the downtown core, at some point those lives have to mean something. I'm not going to sit by and bury more people."
Other Liberal MPs, like Ontario's Kim Rudd, who represents a riding in eastern Ontario that straddles urban and rural communities, said she has received a lot of correspondence from constituents since the handgun study was first floated.
Rudd said just because Blair has been tasked with studying a "full ban" doesn't mean the government has already decided on an outcome.
|
|
"We have farmers, sport shooters, hunters who legitimately have guns, and should, and are very responsible, and we have to make sure we keep their rights in tact. But on the other hand ... the question that came to me is, 'Tell me what people need handguns and assault rifles for,' and we haven't answered that question yet," she said.
The Liberal government has already had to contend with entrenched opposition from some circles to legislation it introduced earlier this year, Bill C-71, which, compared to the possibility of a handgun ban, is a relatively moderate bill that will tighten record-keeping around the sale of non-restricted firearms like shotguns.
Gun-rights advocates, who emerged as a political force after former prime minister Jean Chrétien introduced the now-defunct long-gun registry, have already signalled they are prepared to fight a ban tooth and nail.
Tony Bernardo, executive director of the Canadian Shooting Sports Association, said the mandate to study the handgun ban is "indicative of intent" to follow through.
"It's very disappointing that an elected government would turn on two million law-abiding citizens that haven't done anything wrong and start looking at punitive measures of taking their lawfully owned property," he said. "You don't expect that stuff in a democracy."
With a federal election just one year away, Bernardo said it would be "political suicide" for the Liberals to impose a gun ban. "If they think our community is going to meekly roll over and accept this, they're in for a real big shake."
|
|
DO WE NEED A HANDGUN BAN IN CANADA? DENNIS R. YOUNG SAYS "NO"
By Danielle Smith | Newstalk 770, Calgary | September 10, 2018
|
|
Danielle Smith interviews guest Dennis R.Young, Independent Firearms Researcher and Firearms Rights Advocate.
|
|
International small arms competition shows off impressive range of guns (PHOTOS)
|
|
By Chris Ever | guns.com | September 13, 2018
|
|
An event this month in Canada hosts military teams from across the globe and gives a peek at a wide array of both classic and modern firearms.
The Canadian Armed Forces Small Arms Concentration, in which some
300 shooters
from Canada’s military as well as teams from the United Kingdom, the Netherlands and the United States are competing, was first organized back in 1868.
Held from Sept. 10-22 at the Connaught Ranges and Primary Training Centre in Ottawa, the friendly but competitive shooting match has several stages and has lots of hardware on display.
See the story and photos
HERE
For more images from the Canadian Armed Forces Small Arms Concentration, set to run through next week,
visit their Facebook page
and enjoy.
|
|
Conservatives tackle gun legislation at public meeting
|
|
By Michael Lee | brandonsun.com | September 11, 2018
|
|
Larry Maguire, M.P.
Brandon-Souris (MB)
|
|
Blaine Calkins, M.P.
Red Deer-Lacombe (AB)
|
|
Conservative MPs gathered in Brandon on Monday night to denounce the federal government’s proposed firearms legislation and call for tougher measurers to be taken against those who use guns for the purposes of crime.
Brandon-Souris MP Larry Maguire hosted the town hall at the Valleyview Community Centre, where he stood alongside Alberta MP Blaine Calkins, who represents the riding of Red Deer-Lacombe.
Calkins called the bill a "backdoor" registry, a reference to the federal long-gun registry which was disbanded under former prime minister Stephen Harper, and stressed the need for government to target criminals, not law abiding gun owners.
Among the measures included in Bill C-71 are expanded background checks that cover a person’s e
ntire personal history — as opposed to five years — and require gun retailers to keep sales and inventory records for at least 20 years.
"We are the safest most-vetted community in this country," said Calkins, who himself owns firearms.
Approximately 130 people attended the tightly-packed town hall, with questions ranging from clarification around the application of Bill C-71, such as the effect on different firearm variants, to comments about defending one’s property in rural areas and the portrayal of gun owners in the media as "rednecks."
Calkins addressed the question of a handgun ban, saying he believes the Liberals will seek one.
In his mandate letter from Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, Border Security and Organized Crime Reduction Minister Bill Blair was asked to lead a study on the ban of handguns and assault weapons, "while not impeding the lawful use of firearms by Canadians."
Calkins pointed to the "emotional" push behind gun control efforts, despite statistics which show that firearm-related homicides in Canada have been on a downward trend for several decades.
Instead, Calkins said he would push for mandatory bans on those committed of firearm-related offences and going after those who bootleg guns to gangs.
He also pointed to the addition of specific sections in the bill regarding CZ rifles and SAN Swiss Arms, which he said should be governed under regulations and would require an act of parliament to reverse.
"There’s no facts, no statistics ... but that’s where we’re at unfortunately," he said.
Data released by Statistics Canada in June show that firearm-related crime has increased since 2013, but the numbers in 2016 are slightly lower than those reported by police in 2009.
More than half — 60 per cent — of firearm-related violence crimes involved handguns in 2016, followed by rifles or shotguns — 18 per cent — and other types of firearms — four per cent, including fully automatic firearms or sawed-off rifles or shotguns.
The remaining 18 per cent involved firearm-like weapons, such as pellet guns or flare guns.
Rates of firearm-related violent crime were also found to be similar between urban and rural areas.
Bill C-71 would also require gun owners get a permit to transport restricted and prohibited firearms, except when taking them to a shooting range or home from a store.
A valid licence would also be needed when transferring a firearm between two people.
Bill C-71 has yet to receive third reading.
|
|
Town Hall Discussion on Bill C-71: The Firearm Owners Harassment Act?
|
|
When: Saturday, September 15, 2018, at 2:00 p.m.
Where: Comfort Inn, 3020 Blanshard Street, Victoria, British Columbia
Bill C-71 does
NOTHING
to combat criminal gang activity or terrorism in Canada. Responsible firearm owner citizens must unite to ensure the preservation of our heritage, community and property rights.
Forum Agenda
1.
How Government is Misleading the Public on Firearms
-
Dr. Gary Mauser, Professor Emeritus, Simon Fraser University and BC Wildlife Federation Firearms Committee Chair
2.
What the Government Isn’t Telling You About the Recent Danforth Shooting in Toronto
- Tony Bernardo, Executive Director, Canadian Shooting Sports Association
3.
Why Bill C-71 is an Assault on Law Abiding Firearm Owners
- Tony Bernardo, Executive Director, Canadian Shooting Sports Association
4.
Why a Handgun Ban is Meaningless Posturing
- Dave Collyer, Field Officer, Canadian Coalition for Firearms Rights
5.
Hear from Federal Party Representatives
– Moderator: Lisa Nichols, President, Victoria Fish and Game Protective Association
6.
Open Discussion / Call for Action
- Vic Skaarup, Recreational Sports Shooting Chair, BC Wildlife Federation
|
|
Firearms industry shoots down handgun ban
|
|
By Kevin Connor | torontosun.com | September 10, 2018
|
|
A handgun ban isn’t the answer to curb shootings and will only put jobs at risk, warms Canada’s firearms industry.
There are 4,500 sporting arms business owners in Canada that employ 25,000 workers, according the Canadian Sporting Arms and Ammunition Association.
Handguns represent 35% of their business.
“It’s essential that our business owners be included in the current and future conversations about firearms in Canada to ensure the effectiveness of proposed regulations, to facilitate communication to end users — our customers — and to minimize unnecessary negative impact on our small business owners,” said Wes Winkel, president of the CSAAA.
Mayor John Tory has recently called for a handgun ban in Toronto. Winkel says his organization has the expertise of offer government and law enforcement agencies which will help eliminate illegal firearm transactions.
“Recently we have offered to meet with the Minister of Public Safety Office to provide our expertise in dealing with the issue of straw purchasing and firearms marking and are optimistic the minister will be open to our input,” Winkel said.
“While we don’t represent firearms owners, we have reviewed the elements of Bill C-71 that will directly impact out business owners and hope to have an opportunity to consult the government on those elements.”
C-71 would see increased background checks and improvements to record keeping.
|
|
Conservative MPs hold town hall to talk gun reform
|
|
By CTV News Saskatoon | September 9, 2018
|
|
Kevin Waugh, M.P.
Saskatoon-Grasswood
|
|
Glen Motz, M.P.
Medicine Hat-Carston-Warner (AB)
|
|
The Liberal government is looking to tighten Canada's gun laws with the recently tabled Bill C-71, but the Conservative Party says the legislation targets law-abiding citizens instead of criminals.
On Sunday, Conservative MP Kevin Waugh hosted a town hall to listen to what locals have to say about Bill C-71.
The new law would see increased background checks, improvements to the license verification process and proper record keeping.
“This bill, C-71, does not solve the problem we have right now in Canada,” Kevin Waugh said, “And that's criminals getting a hold of guns.”
“We have issues in this country. We have issues with illegal firearms getting into the hands of people who shouldn’t have firearms. We should be dealing with that,” said Glen Motz, MP for Medicine Hat-Cardston-Warner. “Let’s develop legislation that deals with that and not legislation that deals with those Canadians - the hunters, the fishermen, and the farmers, sport shooters, trappers - who are not the problem in the country. Let’s target those individuals that are.”
And he says while the legislation makes it tougher for people to get a gun, he says criminals don't go through the legal process to get one
“Criminals don’t follow any of the laws that we have in place already. So developing more laws that impact law-abiding Canadians who follow the rules, doesn’t take guns off the street.”
Bill C-71 has not been passed and is still making its way through the legislative process.
|
|
HAVE YOUR VOICE HEARD IN OTTAWA ––
Use
NoGunBanCanada.com
to Send Form Letters to Ministers
|
|
September 6, 2018
TheGunBlog.ca — A new website went live last night to help Canadians oppose the firearm seizures being studied by the federal government:
NoGunBanCanada.com.
You can use the letter-writing platform developed by Bulls Eye London to print and send pre-written letters to key ministers and officials.
The platform joins
TheGunBlog.ca
and
OneClearVoice.ca
in offering tools to challenge government plans to take away more guns from hunters and sport shooters with a federal firearm licence.
Scott Patience, the owner of Bulls Eye London, decided to create the website last week after the prime minister ordered an examination of a “
full ban
on handguns and assault weapons.”
“This is the critical moment, right now,” Patience told TheGunBlog.ca today by telephone. “Start sending the letters today.”
Hundreds of thousands of gun seizures are already underway because of laws passed by the prime minister’s political party in 1995.
More are in the works under
Bill C-71
, a law he proposed in March.
“You need to be part of the discussion, part of the input process,” Patience said. “Not only what is proposed, but what isn’t proposed.”
Bulls Eye London
is a gun store based in London, Ontario, about 185 km southwest of Toronto. Patience, who shared a
message
on CanadianGunNutz, said he’s aiming for 100,000 downloads. He got 1,380 in the first 14 hours.
He developed the website with John Fitzgerald, the president of the
Crumlin Sportsmen’s Association
near London, after consulting with the
Canadian Shooting Sports Association
.
NoGunBanCanada.com
doesn’t mention the prime minister, doesn’t mention any political party and doesn’t include any corporate branding. It doesn’t collect or track any personal information. Anyone can use the templates whether they own guns or not.
“We want to propagate this as wide as possible,” Patience said. “It’s completely non-partisan. It doesn’t even mention us.”
How it worked when I tried today:
- Go to NoGunBanCanada.com. (It redirects to the .ca domain.).
- Click the link to download the form letters, and open the PDF file.
- Enter your name and address on first PDF form. The other letters will be filled in automatically.
- Print, fold, tape the edges, and post. No envelope or stamp necessary.
The website says the letters will change in a few weeks. For now they are addressed to the prime minister, the leader of the opposition, and four ministers with responsibilities related to hunting, heritage and sport, and firearm licensing, registration and confiscation.
“When politicians are talking about something, they start to give it momentum within their own party and within government caucus,” said Patience. “It’s hard to walk things back. We want them to have a physical manifestation of our displeasure over any potential legislation so that it will affect their thought process as they think about it.”
|
|
OPINION ––
Will a gun ban work in Toronto? No
|
|
By Christian Leuprecht, David B. Skillicorn | the star.com | September 11, 2018
|
|
The GTA has recorded more shootings and victims so far this year as for all of 2016 and 2017. They have been attributed to everything from dysfunctional families with a history of domestic violence to the proliferating drug trade. While these problems are equally prevalent in Canada’s two other large cities, Montreal and Vancouver, a comparable surge in gun violence is not.
The distribution of all kinds of crimes is strongly non-uniform. Provided Toronto follows the pattern of U.S. cities — and there’s no reason to suppose that it does not — criminals are about 30 times more likely to get shot than ordinary people.
Relatives and friends in the social network of criminals are still about 15 times more likely to get shot than “ordinary” people because they tend to be present when shootings happen. So-called “stray bullets” or domestic shootings are unusual, except for terrorism: 2 per cent of the population are the targets of 98 per cent of the shootings and this 2 per cent are targeted mostly because of their own criminal activity.
Earlier this summer a now discredited story by The Canadian Press spawned talk of making it harder to own handguns. This suggestion, however, is largely irrelevant. Canada borders the largest weapons market in the world.
It is no surprise, then, that two-thirds of the firearms seized and traced by Toronto Police have come across the border. In fact, you may have been an inadvertent mule yourself: smugglers seek out Canadian license plates in parking lots near the border, attach guns in a box with a GPS tracker under your car, and retrieve the guns from your driveway during the night.
A minority of guns used in crimes are “domestically sourced”; most are obtained lawfully by gang associates with clean records, only to disappear during “break-ins.”
For legal guns that disappear, placing the onus of responsibility for the loss of the gun on the owner would help: a reverse burden-of-proof provision would make any owner of a handgun an accessory to a crime in which their stolen firearm is used, unless the owner can demonstrate full compliance with all requirements of their Possession and Acquisitions Licence (PAL).
But the most effective way to contain gun violence is intelligence-led policing. When police concentrate on “hot spots” it has a disproportionate effect on reducing crime. Hot spots might be physical locations where many crimes happen, but there are also social hot spots.
Policing social hot spots is much more difficult. Criminals are homophilous — they prefer to work with others who are like them, often ethnic or family kin. However, this makes it difficult to disentangle a sensible law enforcement focus on particular groups from (claims of) racism.
Until 2017, carding (questioning individuals when no offence is being investigated) as part of the Toronto Anti-Violence Intervention Strategy (TAVIS) allowed GTA police to collect intelligence from suspected and known criminal gang members. When a shooting happened, police had better domain awareness to cross-reference aliases with names to determine the probable culprit.
THE BIG DEBATE: For more opposing view columns from Toronto Star contributors,
click here
.
In 2017, the previous Ontario government disbanded TAVIS, concerned about perceptions of racism and profiling; and the federal government had already done away with mandatory minimum sentences for gun violence. These political decisions come at a cost — since almost all shootings involve people connected in the criminal social network, not knowing the structure of this network slows down investigations and may reduce the rate at which incidents are cleared by police.
Bringing back carding and TAVIS may not be a solution per se: police services everywhere are struggling with a steep learning curve to leverage intelligence-led policing; to that effect, there is a pressing need for skill development and improved hiring practices.
Police chiefs and associations foretold the spike in gun violence; only Ontario’s unsuspecting public was caught by surprise. The guns used in GTA shootings are already illegal; making currently legal handguns illegal may make voters feel better, but will do little to change the pattern of gun violence.
|
|
OPINION ––
It’s time for a ban on handguns
|
|
By Star Editorial Board | thestar.com | September 12,, 2018
|
|
Liberal MPs are meeting in Saskatoon this week to map out their plans for the fall. When they return to Ottawa they should send their government a strong message: It’s time to stop talking and take action to ban handguns.
This has been a horrible year so far for gun violence in Toronto and across the country. Not surprisingly, calls to ban handguns and assault rifles have increased as well, and they’re not coming only from the usual suspects — gun control activists and shooting victims.
Politicians, who usually duck this hot-button issue, are starting to speak out. Indeed, councillors in Canada’s two largest cities, Toronto and Montreal, passed resolutions this summer calling on the federal government to impose a ban on handguns and assault weapons. As Mayor John Tory sensibly asked: “Why does anyone in this city need to have a gun at all?”
Banning handguns, in particular, would be a controversial move and meet with determined opposition from gun enthusiasts. Already there’s an urban-rural divide in the Liberal caucus, with those from rural areas sensitive to the concerns of people who use rifles and shotguns for hunting and pest control.
But the time has come for the federal government to seize the moment and introduce stricter controls on firearms.
After all, if not now, when? After another mass shooting like the one on the Danforth in Toronto this summer that killed two and injured 13? Or the shooting of four people in Fredericton, including two police officers, in August? Or after another gang-related shooting that saw three young girls injured on a playground in Toronto?
Sadly, these incidents are far from isolated. From 2013 to 2016, criminal incidents involving firearms in Canada were up 30 per cent and gun homicides increased by a shocking 60 per cent. As of Sept. 8, in Toronto alone this year, there were 291 shootings that left 38 people dead. That’s up 46 per cent over this time last year.
The traditional view is that there’s little point on cracking down on handguns in Canada because most are smuggled across the border from the United States. But there’s new evidence from police that many more crimes are being committed using guns acquired legally in this country. A Canadian ban would be more effective than long thought.
Happily, the Trudeau government has signalled that it is taking the issue seriously.
Public Safety Minister Ralph Goodale told a conference on policing in mid-August that the government was considering a ban on handguns and assault rifles within “certain locations,” such as cities and urban municipalities. Fully 69 per cent of Canadians support that, according to an Ekos poll last December.
Prime Minister Justin Trudeau upped the ante by asking Bill Blair, his minister of border security and
organized crime reduction, to study a full “ban on handguns and assault weapons in Canada, while not impeding the lawful use of firearms by Canadians.”
Trudeau’s direction to Blair is the right move. As the Star has argued before, to be effective a handgun ban would have to be Canada-wide.
And why not? It is hard to believe farmers need handguns to kill predators stalking their cattle.
Nor is anyone proposing a ban on long guns for rural residents. “Rural Canada has a different relationship to guns,” Toronto Liberal MP Adam Vaughan acknowledges. “They’re tools. They’re not tools in urban Canada. They are weapons.”
Still, the government would have a fight on its hands if it brings in a new ban. It would be up against a determined gun lobby; indeed, Tony Bernardo, executive director of the Canadian Shooting Sports Association, warned the Liberals this week it would be “political suicide” to impose a ban.
At the same time, federal Conservatives relish the idea of turning any gun legislation into a rerun of the battle over the controversial long-gun registry that was set up by the Liberals and scrapped by the Harper government.
No one is saying passing a ban on handguns and assault weapons would be easy. It would just be right. It’s time for the Liberals to take it on.
|
|
THE BLOG ––
There's A Way Trudeau Can Curb Gun Violence, And It's Not A Ban
|
|
By Frank Smalec | Huffingtonpost.ca | September 10, 2018
|
|
Bringing back registries of who buys and sells firearms would create meaningful results without punishing law-abiding gun owners.
As someone familiar with Canada's gun laws and firearms licensing framework, I find it incredibly disappointing that the Liberal Party and the mayors of Toronto and Montreal
would consider a ban on handguns
.
That the government would go after legal gun owners (instead of criminals) is disingenuous. There are better ways to strengthen our nation's gun laws that don't require
millions of licensed, law-abiding Canadians
to forfeit their guns or be treated like would-be criminals.
To understand what is currently wrong with the Canada's gun laws, and how we can fix them, you first need to consider a very brief history of how we got to where we are now.
Starting in
1934
, all handguns (restricted guns) in Canada had to be registered with the government/RCMP.
After
1977
, when firearm acquisition certificates were introduced, Canadian gun retailers had to document who they were selling "long guns" (non-restricted rifles and shotguns) to, including the names of the purchasers and the serial numbers of the firearms. This data was recorded in the "green books" kept by the gun retailers, and could be requested by the police.
Following the
mass shooting at Ecole Polytechnique
,
the Liberals under Prime Minister Chretien introduced the Canadian Firearms Registry in 1995 for long guns. The long-gun registry spelled the end of the old "green books" for non-restricted gun sales.
"From 2012 until October 2015, when the Harper Conservatives were voted out, there was no recordkeeping."
The Reform Party (later the Conservative Party) was vehemently opposed to the Canadian Firearms Registry for long guns. When Prime Minister Stephen Harper had an opportunity to
dismantle the long-gun registry and destroy its records in 2012
, he did so (in all provinces except Quebec).
After the long-gun registry was dissolved, Harper's government made no effort to legislate back the "green books" used for tracking non-restricted firearms.
So from 2012 until October 2015, when the Harper Conservatives were voted out, there was no recordkeeping. Any Canadian with a possession and acquisition license (PAL) had been able to go to a gun retailer and purchase a non-restricted rifle or shotgun, with
no record being made of
:
- Who they were
- How many non-restricted rifle(s) or shotgun(s) they were purchasing
- What the serial number(s) were
This situation
allowed "straw buyers" to purchase
non-restricted (unregistered) guns for others who were not permitted to own a gun. No registration meant no tracing a firearm back to anyone who was reselling it illegally, and therefore, no accountability.
Justin Trudeau's Liberals were elected back in 2015. Since then, the government has not made any moves to close this registration loophole and bring back the green books. From 2015 up until now, retailers have not been required to document non-restricted firearm sales.
Today, a person with a PAL can buy a tactical shotgun or non-restricted assault rifle (or 25 of them) and
no one is keeping track of serial numbers, models or the names of the buyers
.
Toronto Mayor John Tory asked Ottawa to consider a nationwide ban on handguns.
In addition, neither the Conservatives nor Liberals have attempted to replace the dissolved long-gun registry with anything. Trudeau in fact has made it clear that his government
won't be bringing back the long-gun registry
.
The question then is, why not at least bring back the green books? Without this, what prevents non-restricted firearms from being resold/diverted? Where is the accountability? Where are the safety measures?
Our politicians refuse to bring back the registry because they are opposed to it, or they feel that they will lose votes as the old registry was perceived as a billion-dollar boondoggle.
Instead, they want to ban all handguns and semi-automatics. Why? The answer is because it makes it look like they are finally doing something, where for the
last six or seven years, they have done nothing
except allow hundreds of thousands of non-restricted guns to be sold without records.
"It's much easier to go after the duck hunter or target shooter than to concede that government has had a huge role in creating this problem."
Talk about an off-target, knee jerk reaction. It isn't as if the Trudeau government has exhausted all of the other possibilities and has come to this conclusion: that only a handgun ban will work. They simply haven't done anything. That Liberals are calling this a wedge issue is laughable.
It's much easier to go after the duck hunter or target shooter (the licensed, legal shooters) than to concede that government has had a huge role in creating this problem.
In his
recent HuffPost Canada blog
, Vahan Kololian of the Mosaic Institute states that: "In 2016, [Canadian] police forces and other authorities seized 25,123 firearms, out of which nearly 20,000 were non-restricted."
What Kololian's research implies to me is that if nearly 80 per cent of the guns being seized in Canada are non-restricted, then going after the other 20 per cent (handgun owners who have had to register their restricted weapons all along) is not going to fix the problem.
Even if the government were to ban all of the restricted (registered) handguns it knows about, there are
hundreds of thousands of unregistered (non-restricted) guns
it has no records of (that it has allowed to slip into criminals' hands over the past four years).
If the Trudeau government wants to get tough on gangs and gun crimes, as well as gun-related suicides, there are concrete ways to do that.
- Close the registration loopholes around non-restricted rifles and shotguns. Bring back the green books that Canada had since 1977, and make the records available to police.
- Impose tougher sentences for Canadians who sell guns to people that do not have a PAL (to people who are criminals, or have a history of violence and are prohibited from owning a gun).
- Provide Canada Border Security Agents with the technology and resources needed to detect and intercept guns being smuggled into Canada from the United States, and impose tougher sentences on gun smugglers.
- Require all would-be gun owners to have a letter from their family physician (who knows them, and can attest to their mental state and overall health) as part of the process for obtaining and/or renewing a PAL. This will cut down on the suicides and the incidents related to mental illness.
- Require the RCMP to call at least one reference out of the three listed references on each PAL application. Many would-be PAL applicants never have their references contacted.
- Require that our politicians have at least a basic understanding of Canada's gun laws.
Legal gun owners have that understanding. Straw buyers and criminals are very familiar with Canadian gun laws, and with all the loopholes. So why shouldn't we demand that our politicians to be equally knowledgeable, in order to be able to protect Canadians, including law-abiding gun owners?
In conclusion, if the primary source of gun violence is the availability of guns, our elected officials have done a terrible job of enforcing controls around non-restricted firearms. The straw buyers and criminals have been stampeding out of the gun stores for the better part of the last 10 years with their non-restricted guns.
|
|
The
Bill C-71
Book,
How It Hurts You, and 3 Easy Steps You Can Take Right Now to Block It
This book is the most comprehensive and easy-to-read overview of the government’s first proposed firearms legislation in a generation, and it is a joint project of
The Canadian Shooting Sports Association
(CSSA), Canada’s leading gun-rights advocacy group, and
TheGunBlog.ca
, the country’s leading source of news on gun politics and the firearm industry.
The book is available as a FREE PDF DOWNLOAD from
StopC71.com
.
|
|
Some of the world’s most powerful banks push policies that circumvent U.S. Constitution and federal laws
|
|
By Stephen P. Halbrook | canadafreepress.com | September 13, 2018
|
|
OAKLAND, California —The ancient Greek philosopher Aristotle warned of the dangers of oligarchy: the rule of the few.
In America today a new oligarchy, independent of any democratic control, has arisen. It seeks to install its ideology through economic coercion, outside of any legal process.
Some of the world’s most powerful banks have set themselves up as an unelected legislature. They impose their decrees with no relation to the laws passed by Congress and the States.
A blatant example is the attempt to ban legal guns by cutting off banking services to the firearms industry.
Frustrated that democratically elected legislatures have rejected the demands of their favored interest groups, certain banks have decreed they will no longer do business with firearm manufacturers and dealers or allow others to do so.
The policy of financial intimidation was instigated by the Obama Administration, frustrated that Congress wouldn’t further criminalize gun ownership.
Known as Operation Choke Point, the Department of Justice-led effort pressured banks not to do business with gun retailers. That ended with Donald Trump’s election.
Then came the Parkland school shooting: seventeen students murdered, due largely to the inaction of government at every level.
The FBI did nothing after being advised of the planned attack. The sheriff failed to act on the perpetrator’s clear threats. A deputy stood idle outside the school during the killing spree.
Yet when the smoke cleared, it was time to blame law-abiding gun owners, the National Rifle Association and even the Second Amendment constitutional right to keep and bear arms, which needed to be repealed, the critics claimed.
Congress also was blamed because it hadn’t legislated a gun-free world where everyone was nice.
Into the gap stepped the financial oligarchy.
Citibank made the first move in March. Lamenting that “our nation” has not adopted “common-sense measures” on firearms, the bank announced that it would require its retail sector clients to adhere to certain policies. No firearm could be sold to anyone under 21 years old, even though the law allows 18-year-olds to buy rifles and shotguns.
No undefined “high-capacity” magazines could be sold, even though most States recognize no such restriction. Other demands followed the anti-gun playbook.
The Bank of America upped the ante, announcing it would refuse to provide financial services to manufacturers that make “military-style” firearms for civilian use.
But that term is meaningless. Military rifles shoot automatically as long as the trigger is pulled. Civilian firearms require a separate trigger pull for each shot.
Bank of America CEO Brian Moynihan, who makes over $20 million per year, has zero qualifications as a firearm expert. No one elected him to issue diktats regarding how Americans exercise their Second Amendment rights.
While other financial institutions such as JPMorgan Chase have fallen into line to deny banking services to the gun industry, many have not. Wells Fargo announced it would not get involved in political posturing and would do business with lawful companies.
New York’s Democratic Gov. Andrew Cuomo would like to change such neutrality by blackmail. His Department of Financial Services sent “guidance letters” to banks and insurance companies advising against “dealings with the NRA or similar gun promotion organizations.” It imposed millions of dollars in fines on two firms and banned the sale of insurance products endorsed by the NRA.
Receiving back-channel threats, financial and insurance providers canceled business relationships with the NRA.
The NRA has sued Cuomo for violation of its First Amendment rights and using state agencies to interfere with lawful business relations.
The ACLU filed a friend-of-the-court brief arguing that Cuomo’s policies “would set a dangerous precedent for advocacy groups across the political spectrum.”
Aristotle warned that tyranny derives from an oligarch’s “mistrust of the people; hence they deprive them of arms …” Methods change but basic principles don’t.
|
|
Shocking footage of wild bikie gunfight in suburban Canberra released
|
|
By Michael Inman | The Sydney Morning Herald | September 7, 2018
|
|
Shocking footage has emerged of a wild bikie gunfight and arson in suburban south Canberra.
ACT Policing released the footage on Friday with a call for community assistance to help identify the offenders.
The footage shows three men – two armed with a handgun and shotgun – scaling the rear fence of the Calwell home of a rival gang member about 10.45pm on June 28.
The men open a roller door, allowing a fourth man to enter, before pouring petrol on three vehicles.
A firefight then breaks out when the armed men spot the rival - former Comanchero ACT president Peter Zdravkovic - inside the home.
Police allege Mr Zdravkovic armed himself with a rifle and returned fire, but was wounded – later losing a finger – in the ensuing shootout.
Police said an innocent neighbour was almost injured when a stray bullet passed through an exterior wall and into an adjacent home, just missing a sleeping resident.
The attackers flee in a stolen vehicle after setting three cars ablaze - one attacker's shoes catch fire during his escape - but stop down the right to pump three bullets into a second house linked to the target.
Police have charged two men in relation to the incident, but hope the public can help identify the others involved.
Canberra Comanchero Axel Sidaros, 24, has pleaded not guilty in the ACT Magistrates Court to attempted murder over the incident.
Police allege Mr Sidaros is the attacker armed with the Adler lever-action shotgun.
The alleged target, former Comanchero ACT president, Peter Zdravkovic, 36, has pleaded not guilty to firearm and drug charges.
Police allege the shootout is part of an internal Comanchero Outlaw Motorcycle Gang war.
Police say the Canberra chapter of the gang split into two blocs earlier this year, with a faction loyal to Mr Zdravkovic then cutting ties with the Comanchero and
patching over to the Finks
.
However, Mr Zdravkovic denies he is a Fink.
The split sparked tit-for-tat violence between the warring groups, including a number of shootings, arsons, and a daytime public brawl in July.
Detective Superintendent Scott Moller said the Calwell footage was "absolutely shocking", and said he would like to tell the offenders that police would not stop until they were all before the courts.
"[It is] outrageous to think that in our capital city, this type of criminal behaviour is ongoing, but certainly, it's here and it's real," Detective Superintendent Moller said.
"From an ACT Policing perspective, this is our highest priority and we are committing all of our available resources to solving this crime."
Detective Superintendent Moller said the risk bikie-related violence posed to innocent people was unacceptable.
"To have multiple shots discharged in this incident and to have one bullet narrowly miss an innocent person only highlights the grave risk these offenders pose to our community," Superintendent Moller said.
"We are urging anyone with information relating to this incident, or who may be able to identify the offenders to come forward."
Police are urging anyone who may have any information that could assist police to contact Crime Stoppers on 1800 333 000, or via the Crime Stoppers ACT website.
Please quote reference 6281610. Information can be provided anonymously.
|
|
Do “crime guns” come from PAL holders?
|
|
By Gary Mauser | justiceforgunowners.ca | September 9, 2018
|
|
Do “crime guns” come from PAL holders? TPS statistics undermine the claim that law-abiding gun owners are the source of Toronto “crime guns.”
No more than 12% – 14% of “crime guns” were seized from PAL holders, while at least 25% were smuggled from the US, according to the
Toronto Police Service tables
that TPS gave to Dennis Young in response to his ATI request on 24 August 2018.
There are serious deficiencies in the Toronto Police Service response, “Crime guns and firearms – 2000-2017,” their ATI response. First, the TPS relies upon poor definitions of the key terms, “crime gun” and “domestically sourced crime gun.” These definitions are over-inclusive — mixing paper crimes with violent crimes — even including sticks and bananas as “domestically sourced” guns if used to threaten victims. These poor statistics hinder analysis and understanding of firearms use in violent crime.
The TPS reports that 23% of “crime guns” were “domestically sourced,” but TPS also reports that 30% of “crime guns” weren’t actual firearms.
In this brief blog, I will report the TPS definitions, identify the problems, and do my best to make sense out of what I find:
1. The TPS definition of ‘crime gun’ is over-inclusive:
There four conditions in classifying a gun as a “crime gun,” but only the first is reasonable.
• Any firearm that has been used or suspected to have been used in a criminal offence;
• Any firearm that is obtained, possessed, or intended to be used to facilitate criminal activity;
• Any firearm that has had a serial number removed, altered or obliterated;
• Any weapon that has been adapted for use as a firearm
My comments: The first point in the TPS definition of “crime gun” accords with the classic international definition of “crime gun,” but adding the other points in the definition includes things that are not even guns as well as paper crimes.
More specifically:
• Point 2: “Any firearm that is obtained, possessed, or intended to be used to facilitate criminal activity;” Comment: This would include the “criminal activity” of not having a PAL or unsafe storage; these are non-violent acts, paper crimes;
Point 3: “Any firearm that has had a serial number removed, altered or obliterated.” Comment: This would also include weapons captured during previous wars, brought home as souvenirs, and kept peacefully at home until seized by police if the owner violates a paper crime such as unsafe storage.
• Point 4: “Any weapon that has been adapted for use as a firearm;” Comment: This would include fingers, bananas, or sticks hidden inside a pocket if used to threaten a victim. Legally, threatening someone with any hidden object is considered to be a “dangerous weapon,” but such objects should not be considered “crime guns.” Obviously, fingers or sticks inside pockets are “domestically sourced.”
2. The TPS definition of ‘domestically sourced crime gun’ also has multiple conditions and is over-inclusive:
The TPS definition of “domestically sourced crime gun,” is “Any gun that is registered in Canada, has been reported stolen, was made in Canada, or was legally imported into Canada. Non-regulated items (e.g., air guns), firearms with no serial numbers, and firearms that are too old are unable to be sourced.”
My comments: The first point is legitimate, but it is difficult to understand why “non-regulated items” – objects that are not even firearms — are automatically called ‘crime guns” or “domestically sourced.”
It is not reasonable to categorize firearms considered to be too old or unable to be sourced to be “domestically sourced.” This means that military heirlooms — guns brought back after WW I or the Boer War — are “domestically sourced.”
A critique of the tabular data:
1. Just 70% of “crime guns” reported by TPS from 2007 through 2017 are in fact actual firearms [5,424/7,764].
By comparing the totals of the three categories of actual firearms reported in Q#13 [Total “crime guns” seized that were Prohibited, Restricted, or Non-restricted] with Q#6 [total “crime guns” seized], we find that 30% of “crime guns” reported seized aren’t actual firearms.
Given the low quality of these definitions, it is virtually impossible to answer the question if legal firearms owners pose a threat to public safety.
2. How many of the “crime guns” are “domestically sourced”?
Comparing Q#13 with Q#6, we find that 23% [1,787/7,764] are reported as “domestically sourced.” But an unknown number of these “crime guns” aren’t even guns.
3. What proportion of “crime guns” were smuggled?
This is impossible to know because the TPS fails to report how many “crime guns” were traced.
The TPS reports how many “crime guns” were traced to the US, but they don’t say what proportion were submitted for tracing. It is extremely doubtful that the TPS traced all “crime guns,” but what fraction was traced, is not reported.
All we know is that at most 25% of crime guns [1923/7764] were traced to the US. But since the bulk of crime guns couldn’t have been traced, this percentage is far too small. Previously, the police have reported three-quarters to 90% of guns used in violent crime to have been smuggled into Canada.
4. How many “crime guns” came from PAL holders?
To answer this question we can either compare the ratio of Q#11 [“crime guns” legally registered] or Q#7 [the number of “crime guns” seized from PAL holders], with the totals with Q#6 [total “crime guns” seized].
12% of “crime guns” were legally registered [927/7764].
Comparing Q#11 [“crime guns” legally registered] with Q#6 [total “crime guns” seized].
14% of “crime guns” were seized from PAL holders.
Comparing Q#7 “crime guns” seized from PAL holders with Q#6 [total “crime guns” seized]
To conclude: A conservative estimate would be that at least twice as many “crime guns” (as defined by the TPS) are smuggled from the US as are seized from law-abiding Canadian firearms owners.
|
|
IN CASE YOU MISSED IT ––
Quebec Hunters Haven’t Registered 90% of Their Guns, Paper Says
|
|
By thegunblog.ca | September 7, 2018
|
|
TheGunBlog.ca — Gun owners in Quebec haven’t registered more than 90 percent of their so-called “Non-restricted” rifles and shotguns as a January deadline approaches, Courrier de Portneuf newspaper reported this week, citing the province’s Firearms Registration Service.
Owners had registered 156,210 of an estimated 1.6 million “Non-restricted” firearms in Quebec as of Aug. 26, the paper
reported
Sept. 4, quoting the provincial registration service, known by its French acronym
SIAF
.
Quebec is the only province in Canada that requires federally licensed hunters and sport shooters to register their “Non-restricted” firearms with the government. Many gun owners eschew registration to protect themselves from confiscations such as the ones proposed in the federal government’s
Bill C-71
.
The province’s Firearms Registration Act came into force last January and owners have until Jan. 29 to submit their application to register, the SIAF website says.
Failing to comply can lead to a fine of $500 to $5,000, Courrier de Portneuf said.
SIAF records the brand, model, barrel length, operating mechanism, type, calibre, serial number and where the firearm is kept.
The information is valuable for police when they are executing prohibition orders and want to seize someone’s firearms, Clement Robitaille, the head of the SIAF, was quoted as telling Courrier de Portneuf.
|
|
Letter: Bill C 71 will do nothing to fight gangs, curb gun violence
‘Firearms are strictly enforced in Canada.’
|
|
By David Vernon | mapleridgenews.com | September 11, 2018
|
|
Editor, The News:
In response to Barry Billas’s letter. The danger of emotional, knee-jerk cries for “more gun control” goes beyond just Wanstall’s livelihood.
The bigger issue is when [people] … shoot off their mouths off about a subject about which they know nothing about – resulting in ineffectual actions being taken that only adversely affect the most law-abiding citizens while leaving the real criminals alone.
Mr. Billas obviously knows nothing about firearms and how incredibly strictly they are enforced in Canada. This is immediately evident in his misuse of the term “assault rifle” when describing the AR 15 sporting rifle. As he says, “calling it something different doesn’t change what it is.”
Demonizing objects and people they don’t like or agree with has long been a tactic of the rabid anti-gun lobby. By the accepted definition of “assault rifle,” they are already all prohibited and cannot be purchased legally by anyone except for the few collectors who owned a machine gun prior to 1978.
The definition of an “assault rifle” is one that is smaller than a battle rifle, fires intermediate-sized ammunition, feeds from a high-capacity magazine and is capable of select fire (full auto). Full autos are prohibited in Canada. High-capacity magazines are prohibited in Canada.
Just in the past few days, the head of the Toronto police union stated that more regulations will do absolutely nothing to prevent crime. The oft-quoted figure that 50 per cent of crime guns in Toronto were “domestically-sourced” has since proven to be a blatant lie.
Mr. Billas says Glocks are not target pistols? What does he think a target pistol looks like? Sure, Glocks are good target pistols. All my handguns are used for target shooting (the only legal usage allowed).
No one needs a motorcycle that goes 150 km/h. No one needs to smoke or drink. Any one of these activities kills way more Canadians than guns (in the hands of criminals or irresponsible people) do. This is a slippery slope toward giving up completely to a “nanny state”
The proposed Bill (C 71) will do nothing to fight gangs and curb gun violence in Canada.
As tragic as the recent shootings in Toronto and Fredericton were, they are still rare in this country. Gun homicides have remained low and steady for over 40 years.
Most gun deaths in Canada are suicides. The bulk of homicides are the result of drug gang warfare. Why don’t we crack down on drug gangs instead of the meticulously screened and vetted legal gun owners?
David Vernon
Maple Ridge
|
|
NRA School Shield Awards More Than $600,000 in Grants To Fund School Security
|
|
By ammoland.com | September 10, 2018
|
|
FAIRFAX, Va.
-(Ammoland.com)-
NRA School Shield
, in partnership with
The NRA Foundation
, has awarded more than $600,000 in grants to support vital school security projects and activities across the nation.
A total of 54 grants were recommended to schools in 23 states, including both public and private K-12 educational institutions. Grants were awarded to eligible applicants for proposals that aimed to make our nation’s schools more secure by addressing known vulnerabilities through the implementation of industry best practices in security infrastructure, technology, personnel, training, and policy.
“The NRA is proud to be at a forefront of providing meaningful solutions to safeguard our nation’s schools,” said NRA President Oliver North.
“Protecting our most precious resource – our children – with substantive measures that work should be the top priority for all Americans. Thanks to the generous support of NRA members, many schools will now have the necessary funding to enhance their security.”
John Perren, Senior Advisor to the NRA Executive Vice President, added “funding is a persistent challenge in most communities. By working closely with our dedicated field staff, we were able to initiate this first national grant cycle and look forward to growing this critical element of the program for many years to come.”
Grant-funded activities include but are not limited to infrastructure enhancements and renovations, access control and visitor management systems, improved communications systems, emergency medicals kits, and perimeter fencing repairs and installation, as well as investments in life-saving training.
“Our grant program is a critical piece of the puzzle when it comes to making our schools more secure and protecting our children,” said Sheila Brantley, Director of the NRA School Shield program. “We have made significant investments in helping stakeholders learn more about common vulnerabilities and best practices in terms of school security – even working with law enforcement and school leaders to standardize the process for conducting school vulnerability assessments through our Security Assessor Training program. With our grant program, schools in need have access to the funding necessary to make meaningful improvements.”
|
|
Bracebridge Fall Gun, Hunting and Fishing Show
September 23, 2018
|
|
Where ––
Bracebridge Fairgrounds
330 Fraserburg Road
Bracebridge, ON
When ––
7:30 a.m. to 1 p.m.
|
Admission ––
Still only $6 (under 14 free with an adult).
New/Used/Collectible ––
Antique & Modern Firearms | Fishing Items | Knives | Military Items | Gun Parts |
Archery | Ammunition
New Vendors Wanted
Tables Available $30
For more information, please contact Jeff at 905-623-1778.
|
|
Kevin Beasley is hunting in North Western Ontario with John Ward of Camillus Knives at 'Boundary Waters Guide Service', as they both are hoping to harvest a Canadian black bear with their crossbows.
FIND THE CITR SCHEDULE
HERE
|
|
BOUNDARY WATERS BEARS
Airing on CITYTV September 16, 2018
|
|
IN CASE YOU MISSED IT ––
NP View: The latest story used to justify gun bans? It's not true
|
|
By National Post Review | nationalist.ca | September 7, 2018
|
|
The Toronto police's own data do not show a surge in guns being linked to domestic sources
So much for the theory of a “surge” in guns being sold by licensed Canadian owners into the black market. A widely cited news story — one that has contributed directly to the ongoing debate over gun control in Canada amid calls for new draconian laws — has been undone by an unlikely source: the Toronto Police Service.
The story, published by the Canadian Press in July and widely reprinted elsewhere (including by this newspaper), quoted a Toronto police detective saying that the supply of guns being used for crime in Canada was increasingly being met by Canadian suppliers exploiting our existing gun laws. “They go get their licence for the purpose of becoming a firearms trafficker,” Detective Rob di Danieli told the CP. “A lot of people are so ready to blame the big bad Americans, but we had our own little problem here.”
The CP story also notes, “The number of guns obtained legally in Canada but are then sold to people who use them for criminal purposes has surged dramatically in recent years compared to firearms smuggled from the United States, Toronto police say. In recent years, (police) say, investigators have noticed a stark shift in where guns used to commit crimes are coming from.”
Evidently that’s not true. Last month, the Toronto police released 11 years of detailed statistics to an Alberta-based researcher who filed a Freedom of Information request. The statistics were published to his website, and were
then highlighted by Global News this week
. The report revealed how the stats released by the Toronto police to the researcher directly contradict the claims made in the CP interview.
The Toronto police’s own data do not show a surge in guns being linked to domestic sources. In fact, that trend is generally down. The five most recent years are also the five years with the fewest crime guns traced back to Canadians.
Perhaps there’s an innocent explanation for this. Perhaps it’s a matter of definitions or data organization? The Canadian Press and the Toronto police apparently did not respond to Global’s request for comment; maybe they will, and all will be explained.
The story, published by the Canadian Press in July and widely reprinted elsewhere (including by this newspaper), quoted a Toronto police detective saying that the supply of guns being used for crime in Canada was increasingly being met by Canadian suppliers exploiting our existing gun laws. “They go get their licence for the purpose of becoming a firearms trafficker,” Detective Rob di Danieli told the CP. “A lot of people are so ready to blame the big bad Americans, but we had our own little problem here.” The CP story also notes, “The number of guns obtained legally in Canada but are then sold to people who use them for criminal purposes has surged dramatically in recent years compared to firearms smuggled from the United States, Toronto police say. In recent years, (police) say, investigators have noticed a stark shift in where guns used to commit crimes are coming from.”
Evidently that’s not true. Last month, the Toronto police released 11 years of detailed statistics to an Alberta-based researcher who filed a Freedom of Information request. The statistics were published to his website, and were
then highlighted by Global News this week
. The report revealed how the stats released by the Toronto police to the researcher directly contradict the claims made in the CP interview. The Toronto police’s own data do not show a surge in guns being linked to domestic sources. In fact, that trend is generally down. The five most recent years are also the five years with the fewest crime guns traced back to Canadians.
Perhaps there’s an innocent explanation for this. Perhaps it’s a matter of definitions or data organization? The Canadian Press and the Toronto police apparently did not respond to Global’s request for comment; maybe they will, and all will be explained.
But it probably won’t.
|
|
Firearms, Nostalgia, Antiques & Collectibles Auction!
Chilliwack, B.C. | October 27, 2018
|
|
When ––
Saturday, October 27, 2018, 11 a.m. to 5 p.m.
Where ––
Grande Estate Auctions, 2-7965 Venture Place, Chilliwack, B.C.
|
Live viewing available Friday, October 26 from 11 a.m. to 7 p.m. Some of our features include 30+ firearms, original vintage signs, die cast vehicles, gas pumps, oil and gas collectibles and much more!
|
|
For more information, visit Grande Estate Auctions
HERE
.
|
|
Federal Court Strikes Down California Law That Bans Handgun Signs
|
|
By Duncan Johnson | ammoland.com | September 11, 2018
|
|
SACRAMENTO, CA –
-(Ammoland.com)-
Today, federal Judge Troy Nunley ruled that a California law banning licensed gun dealers from displaying handgun-related signs or advertising is unconstitutional and violates their First Amendment rights. The lawsuit, Tracy Rifle and Pistol v. Becerra, is supported by Second Amendment civil rights groups The Calguns Foundation (CGF) and Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) as well as industry association California Association of Federal Firearms Licensees (CAL-FFL).
California Penal Code section 26820, first enacted in 1923, banned gun stores from putting up signs advertising the sale of handguns — but not shotguns or rifles. “But,” the court held today, quoting from the late Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia’s landmark Second Amendment 2008 opinion in D.C. v. Heller, “the enshrinement of constitutional rights necessarily takes certain policy choices off the table.”
While the law completely banned handgun-related signs, the “Plaintiffs could display a large neon sign reading ‘GUNS GUNS GUNS’ or a 15-foot depiction of a modern sporting rifle, and this would be permissible,” Judge Nunley explained in his order, highlighting how unreasonable and under-inclusive the law was. And even after four years of litigation, “the Government has not demonstrated that § 26820 would have any effect on handgun suicide or violence.”
The government defended the law on the theory that it “inhibits people with ‘impulsive personality traits’ from purchasing a handgun,” but Judge Nunley held that this cannot justify restricting free speech rights: “[T]he Supreme Court has rejected this highly paternalistic approach to limiting speech, holding that the Government may not ‘achieve its policy objectives through the indirect means of restraining certain speech by certain speakers.’” “California may not accomplish its goals by violating the First Amendment. . . . § 26820 is unconstitutional on its face,” Judge Nunley concluded.
“This is an important victory for our clients and for the First Amendment,” said lead counsel Brad Benbrook. “Judge Nunley decided that the State could not justify its censorship of our clients, and we are delighted with the opinion. As the Court explained today, the government cannot censor commercial speech in a paternalistic effort to keep citizens from making unpopular choices – or choices the government doesn’t approve – if they are told the truth.”
“Under the First Amendment, the government may not restrict speech on the theory that it will supposedly lead a few listeners to do bad things, or even to commit crimes,” explained Eugene Volokh, a UCLA law professor who has written and taught extensively about the First and Second Amendments. “The Supreme Court has held this in the past, and has indeed often struck down restrictions on supposedly dangerous commercial advertising—including advertising for products that some people abuse, such as alcohol. It’s good to see the district court recognizing that the First Amendment has no gun advertising exception.”
“Today, the Court correctly ruled that the First Amendment protects truthful, non-misleading speech about handguns protected under the Second Amendment,” commented CGF Executive Director Brandon Combs. “People have a fundamental, individual right to buy handguns and licensed dealers have a right to tell people where they can lawfully acquire those handguns. Today’s ruling means that the government cannot prevent people, or gun dealers, from talking about constitutionally protected instruments and conduct.”
“This decision will serve as a reminder that firearms dealers have First Amendment rights as well as Second Amendment rights, even in California,” SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb said. “The bottom line is that a state cannot legislate political correctness at the expense of a fundamental, constitutionally-enumerated right. We are delighted to offer financial support of this case.”
The plaintiffs are represented by Benbrook and Stephen Duvernay of the Sacramento-based Benbrook Law Group as well as Professor Volokh. They expect that today’s order in the long-running lawsuit, which was filed in 2014, will be appealed by Attorney General Becerra to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco.
|
|
Looking for upcoming gun shows and matches?
Visit our
WEBSITE
|
|
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.
|
|
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!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|